"Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but the vegetarian chooses not to.
A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign."
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
It circles around because it is really up to your table, i.e., between the DM and the druid. You can use whatever justification either way. People (really on both sides) tend to read the text Jeremy Crawford wrote however they want. You can choose to focus on some parts of that statement that crzyhawk quoted and ignore others, as they did, or you can choose to focus on the advice from that statement: "If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."
It really is up to you and your DM at your table, just like any change you may want to make to the game. You can also be a paladin that breaks his oath without becoming an oathbraker. It's up to your DM.
if you would direct your attention to the rule section of this website under druid proficiencies it states clearly and planely that they dont wear metal armor and in an adventurer's league game that would be inforced as well as any DM can chose to include or ignore this.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Indeed, and by RAW if a druid wears metal armor or uses a metal shield they don't lose any of their class abilities. The most likely repercussion, if the DM really wants to impose some kind of penalty, would be something like negative reactions from other druids.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There has long been a debate over the druid's use of armor. Is it a written rule? Is it flavor? Is it a DM decision? So here's my two cents....
Studded leather armor is leather armor that is reinforced somehow for better protection. Simple so far. Maybe it's done with rivets, or small plates, or whatever. Well, metal isn't the only thing that can be used to reinforce armor. So maybe a rogue wears studded leather armor that's reinforced with metal rivets and metal plates. And maybe a druid wears studded leather armor that's reinforced with bone, or stone, or petrified wood. Whatever. There are plenty of ways to work around the confusion.
I honestly can't understand why this is still such a hot button topic of arguments after so many years. Yes, druids can wear studded leather armor. But it's up to each player (and consultation with their DM) to decide exactly HOW that armor is reinforced, whether it's metal or whether it's some other completely natural but non-metallic stuff.
Exactly. That's why we use "Can't Walk" signs at cross walks.
I’ve never heard them referred to as “can’t walk” signs—they are “don’t walk” signs. Either way, surely you recognize that people cross the street against the light without repercussion all the time?
I homebrew rare skin leather armour in place of studded leather so as to retain the 13lb and 12 AC parameters.
I mainly do this because D&D's studded leather is a BS misinterpretation of Brigandine armour which can present an unrepresentative outer appearance of leather with studs.
The simple rule is that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" (unless you bribe your DM with treats).
Without such conditions being met, it's NOT a player choice.
I homebrew rare skin leather armour in place of studded leather so as to retain the 13lb and 12 AC parameters.
I mainly do this because D&D's studded leather is a BS misinterpretation of Brigandine armour which can present an unrepresentative outer appearance of leather with studs.
The simple rule is that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" (unless you bribe your DM with treats).
Without such conditions being met, it's NOT a player choice.
It is and isn't. Prior editions had both studded leather and brigandine armor as options. When it comes to 5E, I mash them together because that's what WHFRP2 did. Technically, it was "reinforced" light armor, but leather was interchangeable with a gambeson and an arms and equipment guide specifically uses studded leather and brigandine as examples of reinforced light armor.
D&D 3.5 limited druids to padded, leather, and hide, so if you really want to be a stickler then even studded leather isn't allowed unless it's made of "exotic" materials which are no longer detailed. But there were exceptions, like the druids of Mielikki. They had no such prohibition. And there are non-metallic versions of normally metallic medium armor in 5E. Storm King's Thunder has breastplates made of stone.
The PHB is a starting point, not the end point. You're only limited by your imagination.
Exactly. That's why we use "Can't Walk" signs at cross walks.
I’ve never heard them referred to as “can’t walk” signs—they are “don’t walk” signs. Either way, surely you recognize that people cross the street against the light without repercussion all the time?
Ah see, you're doing that thing that has been done so many times in this thread already: confusing the rule for the punishment.
You can cross a street without doing so at a crosswalk or waiting for the lights to be any given color, if present. There may or may not be a consequence for doing so, but you can.
A Druid can wear metal plate armor. While doing so, if they're not proficient in the armor, they can't cast spells. That same Druid won't choose to wear metal plate armor, just as, as a general rule, most Paladins won't choose to break their oaths and most Clerics won't choose to deliberately act against their deity. There may be consequences for the Druid wearing metal armor, but it's physically doable.
Exactly. That's why we use "Can't Walk" signs at cross walks.
I’ve never heard them referred to as “can’t walk” signs—they are “don’t walk” signs. Either way, surely you recognize that people cross the street against the light without repercussion all the time?
Ah see, you're doing that thing that has been done so many times in this thread already: confusing the rule for the punishment.
Nah, you just made a terrible analogy. Quindraco has the gist of why it's terrible in post #97. We are told "do not" walk by the street signs but it's still physically possible to do so.
Anyway, I've got no skin in this game and would never wear metal armour on a druid for legacy reasons (been playing since BECMI); I just took exception to your analogy.
Nah, my analogy is fine. You are told not to do something (whether because you can't, won't, or just don't). Whether you break that rule is irrespective of whether you are punished for it.
Nah, my analogy is fine. You are told not to do something (whether because you can't, won't, or just don't). Whether you break that rule is irrespective of whether you are punished for it.
So, without consequence, what is the difference between breaking the rule and following the rule? Nothing. In practicality, meaningful consequence is what separates obedience from intransigence. All you have to show for obedience when there is no consequence for breaking a rule is the moral high ground.
Nah, my analogy is fine. You are told not to do something (whether because you can't, won't, or just don't). Whether you break that rule is irrespective of whether you are punished for it.
So, without consequence, what is the difference between breaking the rule and following the rule? Nothing. In practicality, meaningful consequence is what separates obedience from intransigence. All you have to show for obedience when there is no consequence for breaking a rule is the moral high ground.
Is there any consequence listed for breaking most rules? What is the consequence for taking 4 actions on your turn?
Nah, my analogy is fine. You are told not to do something (whether because you can't, won't, or just don't). Whether you break that rule is irrespective of whether you are punished for it.
So, without consequence, what is the difference between breaking the rule and following the rule? Nothing. In practicality, meaningful consequence is what separates obedience from intransigence. All you have to show for obedience when there is no consequence for breaking a rule is the moral high ground.
Is there any consequence listed for breaking most rules? What is the consequence for taking 4 actions on your turn?
This is another terrible comparison. The rules are permissive so this doesn't even make sense. Do the rules state players will not take 4 actions on their turn or do they state what the player can do on their turn? English is a pretty ambiguous language but cannot and will not are different concepts, as many others have tried to explain. Good day.
This whole thread seems to be circling round and round the same few points over and over. Just saying.
That's because some people confuse fluff with mechanics. JC has said that there's no mechanical reason that a druid cannot wear metal armor.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016
"Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but the vegetarian chooses not to.
A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign."
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
It circles around because it is really up to your table, i.e., between the DM and the druid. You can use whatever justification either way. People (really on both sides) tend to read the text Jeremy Crawford wrote however they want. You can choose to focus on some parts of that statement that crzyhawk quoted and ignore others, as they did, or you can choose to focus on the advice from that statement: "If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."
It really is up to you and your DM at your table, just like any change you may want to make to the game. You can also be a paladin that breaks his oath without becoming an oathbraker. It's up to your DM.
if you would direct your attention to the rule section of this website under druid proficiencies it states clearly and planely that they dont wear metal armor and in an adventurer's league game that would be inforced as well as any DM can chose to include or ignore this.
Don't does not mean can't.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Indeed, and by RAW if a druid wears metal armor or uses a metal shield they don't lose any of their class abilities. The most likely repercussion, if the DM really wants to impose some kind of penalty, would be something like negative reactions from other druids.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There has long been a debate over the druid's use of armor. Is it a written rule? Is it flavor? Is it a DM decision? So here's my two cents....
Studded leather armor is leather armor that is reinforced somehow for better protection. Simple so far. Maybe it's done with rivets, or small plates, or whatever. Well, metal isn't the only thing that can be used to reinforce armor. So maybe a rogue wears studded leather armor that's reinforced with metal rivets and metal plates. And maybe a druid wears studded leather armor that's reinforced with bone, or stone, or petrified wood. Whatever. There are plenty of ways to work around the confusion.
I honestly can't understand why this is still such a hot button topic of arguments after so many years. Yes, druids can wear studded leather armor. But it's up to each player (and consultation with their DM) to decide exactly HOW that armor is reinforced, whether it's metal or whether it's some other completely natural but non-metallic stuff.
Simple enough?
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Tayn of Darkwood. Human Life Cleric. Lvl 10.
Exactly. That's why we use "Can't Walk" signs at cross walks.
I’ve never heard them referred to as “can’t walk” signs—they are “don’t walk” signs. Either way, surely you recognize that people cross the street against the light without repercussion all the time?
I homebrew rare skin leather armour in place of studded leather so as to retain the 13lb and 12 AC parameters.
I mainly do this because D&D's studded leather is a BS misinterpretation of Brigandine armour which can present an unrepresentative outer appearance of leather with studs.
The simple rule is that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" (unless you bribe your DM with treats).
Without such conditions being met, it's NOT a player choice.
It is and isn't. Prior editions had both studded leather and brigandine armor as options. When it comes to 5E, I mash them together because that's what WHFRP2 did. Technically, it was "reinforced" light armor, but leather was interchangeable with a gambeson and an arms and equipment guide specifically uses studded leather and brigandine as examples of reinforced light armor.
D&D 3.5 limited druids to padded, leather, and hide, so if you really want to be a stickler then even studded leather isn't allowed unless it's made of "exotic" materials which are no longer detailed. But there were exceptions, like the druids of Mielikki. They had no such prohibition. And there are non-metallic versions of normally metallic medium armor in 5E. Storm King's Thunder has breastplates made of stone.
The PHB is a starting point, not the end point. You're only limited by your imagination.
Cool, but I suspect that a form of:
that only had 30% more weight (due to an added metal content which also added perferations) would be generally, pretty poor.
I agree that, as a DM,
As a player, you're limited by the rules.
Ah see, you're doing that thing that has been done so many times in this thread already: confusing the rule for the punishment.
You can cross a street without doing so at a crosswalk or waiting for the lights to be any given color, if present. There may or may not be a consequence for doing so, but you can.
A Druid can wear metal plate armor. While doing so, if they're not proficient in the armor, they can't cast spells. That same Druid won't choose to wear metal plate armor, just as, as a general rule, most Paladins won't choose to break their oaths and most Clerics won't choose to deliberately act against their deity. There may be consequences for the Druid wearing metal armor, but it's physically doable.
Nah, you just made a terrible analogy. Quindraco has the gist of why it's terrible in post #97. We are told "do not" walk by the street signs but it's still physically possible to do so.
Anyway, I've got no skin in this game and would never wear metal armour on a druid for legacy reasons (been playing since BECMI); I just took exception to your analogy.
Nah, my analogy is fine. You are told not to do something (whether because you can't, won't, or just don't). Whether you break that rule is irrespective of whether you are punished for it.
So, without consequence, what is the difference between breaking the rule and following the rule? Nothing. In practicality, meaningful consequence is what separates obedience from intransigence. All you have to show for obedience when there is no consequence for breaking a rule is the moral high ground.
Are you essentially daring the DM to do something?
Is there any consequence listed for breaking most rules? What is the consequence for taking 4 actions on your turn?
This is another terrible comparison. The rules are permissive so this doesn't even make sense. Do the rules state players will not take 4 actions on their turn or do they state what the player can do on their turn? English is a pretty ambiguous language but cannot and will not are different concepts, as many others have tried to explain. Good day.