That is the basic reason that druids are not allowed to wear metal armors. Is it a social restriction from their circle? Or is it the anti magic aura of "cold metal"? If last - why do arcfey warlocks don't have any problems with that? Or multiclassed wizards or sorceror?
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 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.
So that's a self-imposed way of life, yes? The barbarian as well as the monk have limitations which one can justify with their required mobility (for rage as well as for the spiritual powers of the monk), even if one has learned to wear them. But if it can be compared with the self-imposed renunciation of certain foods (as with the aforementioned vegetarian), it is really only a "matter of the mind" that the master should answer in the end.
It is self-imposed and has no mechanical impact if broken. No druid powers are lost by wearing metal.
A DM might, however, apply roleplay impacts for the choice. If other druids learned of this unseemly disregard for traditions, they may shun the offending Druid or even react with hostility.
It is self-imposed and has no mechanical impact if broken. No druid powers are lost by wearing metal.
A DM might, however, apply roleplay impacts for the choice. If other druids learned of this unseemly disregard for traditions, they may shun the offending Druid or even react with hostility.
A DM could also impose a mechanical detriment if they want to. The RAI is pretty clear from the text I quoted, but if a DM wants to override that, they have the right. Same with clerics/warlocks angering their deity/patron, or paladins violating their oath, there is a "built-in" story aspect of the class that DMs can shape to fit the world they are providing.
Now, as a DM, if I was to break from RAI to add a mechanical disadvantage, I'd make sure that it was communicated to the player when they attempted to put on said armor...something like "you feel a natural revulsion as you don the shield, like your arm is rejecting the metal. You feel your connection to nature dimming..." even if the mechanical impact (maybe reduced wildshaping abilities or a nature ability check to cast leveled spells) is not immediately apparent.
I would probably just change druid armor proficiencies to "light armor, non-metallic medium armor", and if you get medium or heavy armor proficiency from elsewhere it has no restrictions.
The constraint on druids not wearing metal armor has been a part of D&D since the beginning and if not the very beginning then very close to it. More than 40 years.
DMs have ALWAYS had the ability to make changes in how things work in their games so it is ultimately the DM of your game you need to ask. However, as written, the PHB says that druids will not wear metal armor and a DM can easily say that if you do wear metal armor then your spells don't work, you lose touch with nature or the armor is treated as non-proficient, whatever they like. It is entirely up to the DM. As a player, a person can not enter the game saying "well, my druid is enlightened so he doesn't mind wearing metal armor" since that is not a player decision - it is up to the DM given the way the text of the PHB is worded. Druids will not wear metal armor - which can be interpreted as removing player choice regarding that specific decision for their druid unless the DM decides otherwise.
Whenever this question pops up, I never understand why people get so hung up on wearing metal instead of just finding equivalent armor in strange materials (a minor property of magic items that could work on mundane items too). Each takes DM rulings/intervention, and only one of those solutions requires you to throw part of your class away in order to use.
In 5e, it is a custom rather than an actual prohibition.
In 5e, it's an example of 'we tried to be evocative rather than prescriptive and as a result achieved incomprehensible'. The reality is, wearing hide is just a bad choice if you have access to better armor, so if there's no mechanical weight behind the tradition it's pretty much wasted verbiage -- they should either have left the sentence out entirely, or they should have given a clear mechanical reason to follow the rule.
Not wanting to get into discussions of specifics (for the rather obvious reason that questioning RL cultures is neither productive here, nor likely allowed under forum rules) but a lack of any significant actual need in the modern world does not prevent real people from sticking to tradition.
Tradition only lasts for weapons as long as the weapons aren't actually needed.
Whenever this question pops up, I never understand why people get so hung up on wearing metal instead of just finding equivalent armor in strange materials (a minor property of magic items that could work on mundane items too). Each takes DM rulings/intervention, and only one of those solutions requires you to throw part of your class away in order to use.
That requires finding the strange materials (which also requires DM support) and getting them made into equivalent gear (also requires DM support). When it is mechanically the same, what does it really add?
Yes, as I noted, I know that both require DM support. What does it add? Something unique to your character that adds to the flavor of the restriction in the first place. Not only that, it prevents the need to remove something that the authors added to the game.
Whenever this question pops up, I never understand why people get so hung up on wearing metal instead of just finding equivalent armor in strange materials (a minor property of magic items that could work on mundane items too). Each takes DM rulings/intervention, and only one of those solutions requires you to throw part of your class away in order to use.
That requires finding the strange materials (which also requires DM support) and getting them made into equivalent gear (also requires DM support). When it is mechanically the same, what does it really add?
Yes, as I noted, I know that both require DM support. What does it add? Something unique to your character that adds to the flavor of the restriction in the first place. Not only that, it prevents the need to remove something that the authors added to the game.
Please read the Sage Advice. In 5e, the restriction is there only for legacy purposes. Meanwhile, your preferred solution is to add something the authors did not add to the game.
Personally I do not see how such a solution is any less of a change.
Please read the Sage Advice. It doesn't say that it isn't in the book, or that you should ignore it. Please don't be a forum troll.
Please also read my reply. It explains that adding to the game is generally favorable to removing from it, especially for flavorful areas of interaction.
Whenever this question pops up, I never understand why people get so hung up on wearing metal instead of just finding equivalent armor in strange materials (a minor property of magic items that could work on mundane items too). Each takes DM rulings/intervention, and only one of those solutions requires you to throw part of your class away in order to use.
That requires finding the strange materials (which also requires DM support) and getting them made into equivalent gear (also requires DM support). When it is mechanically the same, what does it really add?
Yes, as I noted, I know that both require DM support. What does it add? Something unique to your character that adds to the flavor of the restriction in the first place. Not only that, it prevents the need to remove something that the authors added to the game.
Please read the Sage Advice. In 5e, the restriction is there only for legacy purposes. Meanwhile, your preferred solution is to add something the authors did not add to the game.
Personally I do not see how such a solution is any less of a change.
Please read the Sage Advice. It doesn't say that it isn't in the book, or that you should ignore it. Please don't be a forum troll.
Please also read my reply. It explains that adding to the game is generally favorable to removing from it, especially for flavorful areas of interaction.
I did not claim they said anything about it not being in the book. The phrase "the restriction is there only for legacy purposes" includes 'the restriction is there.'
No, it does not say you SHOULD ignore it, nor did I claim they said that. I claimed (and stand by) that they say that it is ok if you do ignore it, that it will not break the game and that the druid will not 'explode.'
We disagree. That does NOT mean either of us is trolling.
Yes, but you are not being respectful. I have read the Sage Advice several times, probably closer than most people who have posted in these threads whenever they pop up. In fact, you might notice that my advice of alternate materials is a suggestion that also appears in Sage Advice.
Don’t get all bent out of shape. You asked. I was just defending my position against your (argumentative) questions and comments. I’ve made my point and engaging with this discussion will gain nothing.
Adding to the game is more fun for me and the players that I play with than detracting from it.
That is the basic reason that druids are not allowed to wear metal armors. Is it a social restriction from their circle? Or is it the anti magic aura of "cold metal"? If last - why do arcfey warlocks don't have any problems with that? Or multiclassed wizards or sorceror?
What happens if a druid wears metal armor?
The druid explodes.
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 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.
So that's a self-imposed way of life, yes? The barbarian as well as the monk have limitations which one can justify with their required mobility (for rage as well as for the spiritual powers of the monk), even if one has learned to wear them. But if it can be compared with the self-imposed renunciation of certain foods (as with the aforementioned vegetarian), it is really only a "matter of the mind" that the master should answer in the end.
It is self-imposed and has no mechanical impact if broken. No druid powers are lost by wearing metal.
A DM might, however, apply roleplay impacts for the choice. If other druids learned of this unseemly disregard for traditions, they may shun the offending Druid or even react with hostility.
A DM could also impose a mechanical detriment if they want to. The RAI is pretty clear from the text I quoted, but if a DM wants to override that, they have the right. Same with clerics/warlocks angering their deity/patron, or paladins violating their oath, there is a "built-in" story aspect of the class that DMs can shape to fit the world they are providing.
Now, as a DM, if I was to break from RAI to add a mechanical disadvantage, I'd make sure that it was communicated to the player when they attempted to put on said armor...something like "you feel a natural revulsion as you don the shield, like your arm is rejecting the metal. You feel your connection to nature dimming..." even if the mechanical impact (maybe reduced wildshaping abilities or a nature ability check to cast leveled spells) is not immediately apparent.
I would probably just change druid armor proficiencies to "light armor, non-metallic medium armor", and if you get medium or heavy armor proficiency from elsewhere it has no restrictions.
Druid. Metal Armor.
Paladin. Deity.
Cleric. Deity.
Warlock. Patron.
Everyone. Alignment.
I would say all of this is DM dependent. Something that can either be important or not to the DM, player, character, or group.
The constraint on druids not wearing metal armor has been a part of D&D since the beginning and if not the very beginning then very close to it. More than 40 years.
DMs have ALWAYS had the ability to make changes in how things work in their games so it is ultimately the DM of your game you need to ask. However, as written, the PHB says that druids will not wear metal armor and a DM can easily say that if you do wear metal armor then your spells don't work, you lose touch with nature or the armor is treated as non-proficient, whatever they like. It is entirely up to the DM. As a player, a person can not enter the game saying "well, my druid is enlightened so he doesn't mind wearing metal armor" since that is not a player decision - it is up to the DM given the way the text of the PHB is worded. Druids will not wear metal armor - which can be interpreted as removing player choice regarding that specific decision for their druid unless the DM decides otherwise.
Whenever this question pops up, I never understand why people get so hung up on wearing metal instead of just finding equivalent armor in strange materials (a minor property of magic items that could work on mundane items too). Each takes DM rulings/intervention, and only one of those solutions requires you to throw part of your class away in order to use.
In 5e, it's an example of 'we tried to be evocative rather than prescriptive and as a result achieved incomprehensible'. The reality is, wearing hide is just a bad choice if you have access to better armor, so if there's no mechanical weight behind the tradition it's pretty much wasted verbiage -- they should either have left the sentence out entirely, or they should have given a clear mechanical reason to follow the rule.
Tradition only lasts for weapons as long as the weapons aren't actually needed.
Yes, as I noted, I know that both require DM support. What does it add? Something unique to your character that adds to the flavor of the restriction in the first place. Not only that, it prevents the need to remove something that the authors added to the game.
Please read the Sage Advice. It doesn't say that it isn't in the book, or that you should ignore it. Please don't be a forum troll.
Please also read my reply. It explains that adding to the game is generally favorable to removing from it, especially for flavorful areas of interaction.
Yes, but you are not being respectful. I have read the Sage Advice several times, probably closer than most people who have posted in these threads whenever they pop up. In fact, you might notice that my advice of alternate materials is a suggestion that also appears in Sage Advice.
Don’t get all bent out of shape. You asked. I was just defending my position against your (argumentative) questions and comments. I’ve made my point and engaging with this discussion will gain nothing.
Adding to the game is more fun for me and the players that I play with than detracting from it.