Everyone,
Just bought the 5e PHB and there were some subtle changes (many of which are discussed elsewhere). However, there is one IMO significant change I haven't seen anyone discuss and I'd like to know how to handle this as a DM.
In the playtest versions, Druids were proficient in a list of armors that did not have metal. How that interacted with other classes and races (and even hypothetical multiclassing) that granted other armor proficiencies was clear.
In the 5e PHB, that has changed. Now in the 5e PHB, we get the following rules for Druid on page 65:
"PROFICIENCIES:
Armor: Light Armor, Medium Armor, Shields (Druids will not wear armor or shields made of metal)"
This raises several questions for me as the DM:
1. Are Druids proficient in armor and shields made of metal or aren't they? Based on the wording I am inclinded to say that they are.
2. If a Druid does wear armor or don a shield made of metal, what happenes? I see absolutely negative consequence in the PHB for the Druid wearing metal armor or shields other than they won't do it. What happens if they do?
3. What happens if the PC has a source of armor proficiencies outside of being a druid (such as a level of fighter for example)? Can the PC wear metal armor using proficiencies gained by non-druid levels? If so what happenes?
Finally as a pure RP note, who says Druids don't wear metal armor? It seems to me that there are wide variety of Druidic type cultures and dieties, and many types of natural world and natural settings. Heck I could even envisage a "Druid of the Underdark". Who says they all wouldn't wear metal armor?
-Polaris
1. It doesn't say Druids are not proficient with metal armors and shields, so they are.
2. A Druid will not wear armor or shields made of metal. If forced to wear them unwillingly, i presume he'd refuse to use them. I'd treat as if unproficient.
3. A Druid will not wear armor or shields made of metal.
I'd ignore it. Due to the magical power of magic, the druid is able to acquire armor that has the protective capabilities of medium armor but made with material other than metal:
- Chain shirt made from bone or teeth
- Scale armor made from actual scales
- Breastplate made from a turtle shell
- Half plate made a giant beetle carapace
This is very strange wording, to be honest. It doesn't say you can't wear metal armor, only that Druids won't wear metal armor. It's not a case of a class restricting your options, but one of a class restricting your roleplaying choices... which seems very odd to me. I would be far more comfortable with an actual rule that states that Druids aren't allowed to wear metal armor, maybe even stating outright that it blocks their connection to nature or something... which is pretty silly in the first place (metal is perfectly natural... unless they're refering to worked metal specifically as being unnatural, in which case they should also be barred from using other man-made items), but at least it has some tradition to it.
As it stands, there is no actual rule against Druids wearing metal armor, only what seems to be an incredibly strongly worded roleplaying suggestion. Personally, I would rule against a class telling a player what their character will or won't do from a roleplaying standpoint without actually expressly forbidding them from doing that in the rules, so I would allow a druid to wear metal armor.
Honestly, it sounds to me like the rules are saying that Druids won't use armor made of metal, meaning ... they won't use armor made of metal. It's not about role playing. It's not a role playing limitation. You are playing a Druid? You won't be wearing metal armor. Period.
The idea behind it is the same reason why Jedi refuse to use bionics or wear a bunch of metal armor: it interferes with their connection to the Force (or Nature, in the case of the Druid.)
Funny how people can take one line of the rules (Druids will not wear armor or shields made of metal), and twist it to come to the exact opposite conclusion. Are they physically able to wear metal armor? Of course they are. But they just won't do it. Is a Cleric able to be deny the existence of his god(s)? Of course he is able. Will he do it? Of course not. Allowing a Druid to wear metal armor is like allowing a Cleric to be an atheist and still be granted Divine powers.
The only thing I think is strange about the Druid is that the starting equipment has them start with leather armor when they are proficient with hide armor and the price for both is the same.
My guess is that it is worded this way so that, in the future, if there is a supplement released with additional medium armors in it, the druid will be able to use them, should they not be made of metal.
They couldn't give an explicit list of armors and allow the druid to gain proficiency in new ones without errata. The also couldn't say "A druid CAN'T wear armor..." as that sounds even stranger
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Timmee wrote:
I think the only time this would be confusing would be strange corner cases: armor that the druid doesn't know is metal, or someone holds the druid down and puts metal armor on him. Those would be confusing.
But otherwise, I guess just play it straight. If a druid wants to wear metal armor, just tell him he can't.
jaelis wrote:
Like I said, there are are special cases where you'd really like to know what happens if the druid does. We don't have an answer for that. But how often will the come up, really?
But if it's scale mail or nothing, then the druid chooses nothing. He won't wear metal armor.
Why is that the rule? Don't ask me, I didn't write it. But I imagine they phrased it as they did for the reason kanageddaamen said.
(edit: If I were writing it, I might have said druids were proficient with non-metallic light and medium armors. If it matters, that's probably how I'd play it.)
jaelis wrote:
Polaris wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Druid Player: Well that stinks. OK, better to live now and beg forgiveness later. I put on that suit of scale mail. What abilities do I lose?
DM: Sorry, you can't do that, you're a druid.
Doesn't bother me because it's exactly the same in the end as "Well, you could do that but you'll lose all your druid abilities." But if it bothers you, I am happy to affirm your right to be bothered 
I don't think you will find a solution beyond houseruling though.
Yes it's an RP restriction because of the nature of the druid class. Just as a cleric could be proficient (via multiclassing) with weapons their deity prohibits means mechanically they can use it but RP-wise they will refuse (DM could choose to impose other penalties depending on how involved they make the gods).
They worded it the way they did because there's no mechanical penalty for wearing metal armor, and the material doesn't affect the ability to wear a particular style of armor (scale mail is scale mail as far as proficiency goes, whether it's made of steel or bone. The note is there because the concept of the druid is that they have a "moral" opposition to metal armor.
If one chose to wear it that's fine but the DM can choose to impose penalties like losing access to spells and other class features until they do a cleansing ritual. There's no specific built-in mechanics penalty since it's an RP issue and the DM should decide how much RP they impose on the players.
You act like this line is some rules-imposed RP enforcement when it's more an RP guideline. Do you also have problems with the descriptions of gnomes saying that they are cheerful and rarely get upset? Isn't that the same as the druid metal armor notation? All the races have entire paragraphs that describe personality, culture, and even a list of names. These, like the druid notation, are RP guidelines and the DM is free to change them. I'd hate to play in a game where the DM told me I had to pick only from the names listed in the racial sections because if you go strictly RAW those are the only names available.
Personally I'd allow a PC druid to wear metal armor in a pinch (like the jailor example) with minimal impact, but if they chose to keep wearing it when it was no longer required then the penalties would come in because they're violating a tenet of their class's built-in lore (RP restrictions).
I guess, in a role playing game, I'm happy with the DM telling me what I cannot do, but I take pretty strong umbridge with the DM telling me what I will and won't do. It's my character, I get to decide to RP him how I want.
Are there any other examples in the rules where the DM tells the player how his character thinks and feels? I didn't notice any.
Sounds as if the rules are presenting an opportunity to flesh out your game.
What does happen if a druid wears metal armor? You decide!
I'm in the "doesn't bother me" camp. I don't anticipate the question of what happens when a druid wears metal armor coming up in my game because any self-respecting druid wouldn't put it on to begin with.
mrpopstar wrote:
IMO metal armor would block a druids ability to use natures powers. (cold iron eh) Also shapeshifting in leather might be a bit of a beatch but shapeshifting in metal armor could be fatal.
RCanine wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Does the player want to wear metal armor? Or are you just worried it might come up?
Of course, you aren't telling anyone how to RP, the book is
RCanine wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
With luck, some much needed eratta will come out. If they change "won't" to "can't" then that will eliminate their RP controlling thuggery.
I was much more disturbed by the rogue being forced to have Thieves Cant as a major feature. Why is my rogue REQUIRED to have some kind of criminal background which makes me have to communicate secretly with the scum of the earth. Talk about railroading my RP choices.
That's because metal armor isn't an oath for druids, it's just something that the druid class won't do. Honestly it's no more a restriction than saying "rogues get proficiency in light armor". Why can't a rogue wear heavy armor? It's an RP reason: rogues are assumed to want to stealth and never bothered to learn how to effectively wear heavy armor because it's bulky. The rules don't give this reasoning but most people grasp that without being told. The druid is a special case when it comes to metal armor and there was no way to reflect that without noting it. As has been pointed out the typically metal armors CAN be made with alternate materials and there could be new light and medium armors released later on. To accomodate this they just gave them the standard armor proficiencies then noted that druids won't wear metal armor/shields. They did miss out on the chance to explain that restriction in the opening section of the druid but may have missed it because the druid has always had that restriction.
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Grazel wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Seems the most logical thing to do is to look at this from a practical point of view. If a druid never wears metal armor, they would naturally lose any proficiency in it, even if they were assumed to have once trained in it. It seems that the RAW wording of Proficiency in Light or Medium Armor with this given restriction would mean most closely to RAI as no longer Proficiency in metal versions of said armor. As someone mentioned, the druid could find non-metal versions of such armor (like someone mentioned, dragon hide, turtle shell, shart teeth, iron wood, etc) if their DM wanted to allow it, and you could assume they retain proficiency in that version of it.
As a DM, I would decide, does game balance for a druid require them to have the AC granted by Light or Medium armor with metal? If it does, then I would be willing to say that a druid can use some kind of Role-Play ritual (perhaps it takes x days to complete) to take a non-metal suit of Leather or Hide and harden it in some magical way so it provides the equivalent protection of Studded leather (for Leather) with all the associated stats of studded leather, or for Hide, the equivalent protection of any type of Medium armor the druid desires (again with the Hardened hide now taking on all the stats of the chosen armor type, weight, steath penalties, etc). Or perhaps let the druid add on shark teeth turtle shells and the like for the same effect. I would say the cost of this would be the difference between the cost of the base suit they started with and that of a new suit of "metal" armor of the version they wanted. The time could be 1 day for Leather and perhaps 3 days for Hide. Just how I would look into house ruling it.
Larry
Overpromises wrote:
I guess part of the confusion I see is why is this really a big deal.
Under RAW interpretations a druid CAN"T wear metal armor because of that text. There's no need for a penalty because well they can't.
Under RAI it's up to the DM to decide the penalty. If you see it as an oath break (pure RP) create a penalty. If you see it as a "not proficient" then use the spellcasting rule that spells can't be cast when wearing armor the caster isn't proficient in.
The default material for armors are assumed but there's nothing to stipulate that those are the only options. Elven societies or others are very likely to have non-metal variants of most "traditionally" metal armors and I wouldn't be surprised if the DMG (like in previous editions) has information on alternate materials and any cost adjustments.
As with all things in D&D the DM has the final say on it and the books are guidelines that can be adjusted as seen fit. They didn't want to exclude certain light and medium armors just because they are most often created using metals, otherwise a druid couldn't use the non-metal variants. Yes this creates an edge case with a class that's not built-in to other classes and that's partially due to the established fluff of the druid through all editions of the game. I don't recall any other edition putting any mechanical penalty (beyond generally restricting their overall AC) on druids because it was always just a given that druids didn't wear metal armor or use metal shields. it's always just "come with the territory" as a built-in roleplaying restriction much like older editions "clerics won't use bladed weapons" (even if they multiclass into a class that allows them) and "monks can only be a lawful alignment" and "paladins have to be Lawful Good". These were all roleplay-induced restrictions and had no real mechanical penalties other than for paladin alignment.
Grazel wrote:
Polaris wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
"The clothes make the man"
Therefore, the armor must make the character... which is proven by the Mage who wears no armor other than Mage armor. So if a character can't wear the armor s/he wants, then they can't play the character they want. It seems incontrovertible that armor choice is THE most important RP choice available to our characters. Armor is the new Alignment.
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Hugin wrote:
Well, if Druids WON'T wear metal armors, then a character that puts on metal armor is NOT a druid. What does that imply to you?
DnD leaves a lot of control to the DM, so he/she can pretty much decide whatever they want. The rules don't have to spell out every single problem or scenario that everyone who wants to exploit the system can think of. No one is standing over your group Big Brother style telling you how you have to play the game. If you want to play by the rules they have given you, fine; Druids just don't wear metalic armor. If you want to make your own rules, fine; Druids can wear metal armor, cast wizard spells and get an extra attack at fifth level, etc...
The point of the game is to have fun; so have fun; or play a different game if the rules don't make it fun for you; or even better, create your own game that fits everything you want in a game that makes it fun.
Polaris wrote:
dysaber wrote:
Valheru_Blade wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Polaris wrote:
"Hi. I'm a super-enviro-nature-worshipping zealot. I have dedicated my life to protecting the wilderness and it's inhabitants. Now, if you'll excuse me I must don this armor made from the skins of slaughtered animals and go and protect nature!"
Druids lol
Mechanically I would rule that since the statement on druid not wearing metal armor shows up on what profeciencies the class gets that they don't get to add their profeciency bonus, along with the inability to cast spells or shapeshift. For the period of time that they are wearing the armor they have forfeited their status as a druid.
I really like the idea of medium armor made out of bone, scales, and carapaces. The lower demand and higher craftsmanship required would make it more expensive and harder to find, but if it's easier to shapeshift or cast in ther exists a market for them.
smacintush wrote:
Cerius wrote:
Except a druid'd concept of nature isn't PETA's concept of a DIsney-esque nature. Druid's are in support of balance, and that includes animals (including the "intelligent races") killing other animals for needed things. In their minds there is no issue with killing an animal for food and clothing. They'd just treat it the way most American Native tribes did: use as much of the animal as possible and respect the spirit of the animal for the gift it gave. Druid's are keepers of the balance and thanks to man's actions in the US would be on a genocidal cleansing of some animals in the US that are invasive and upset the balance of the ecosystems here (sparrows, kudzu, squirrels, lawn grass, etc.)
smacintush wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Polaris wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
I agree, "wouldn't" was a poor choice of words.
However, the book is printed, it does not have the power to control you or your game, and we're two pages deep with approaches to a solution.
No amount of beating the horse in this thread is going to edit all of the books already out there circulating among the masses.
What's done is done, and this conversation is threatening to get circular.
Let's move on.
I'm...actually surprised anyone is disagreeing with Polaris here. I'm a fairly traditional player, but this is the sort of stuff they got rid of (and rightly so) when 3e came out. If you as DM have to decide what happens if a druid does wear metal armor (whether than means they just aren't proficient, or means they lose all druid abilities, or whatever you rule), they have failed in the class design. No other class has an equipment based restriction without specified mechanical consequences.
This sounds like AD&D arguments over what happened if a character used a non-proficient weapon. The PHB didn't say. You just can only use certain weapons depending on your class. "What happens if my wizard picks up a sword and..." Nope, you can't. Put it down. "No, but I do! I renounce my wizardly pride, I reach down and..." Your arms won't move. You can't pick up the sword. You might be eaten by a grue.
Really?
I seriously see this as a more clear design flaw than anything that has created paladin aligment debates. Mechanical consequences, role-playing consequences, any sort of specified consequences, with or without reasons given, are appropriate game design--but simply saying "your character won't do this" with nothing other than that is highly inappropriate and downright archaic.
Most people are probably just disagreeing because they are bored and the topic was there.
Grazel wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
Polaris: no one gives them that right. They were evil bastards for ever considering to write "will not" there. They will burn in RPG hell.
If you feel that it breaks the game so that you cannot play it, then you'll have to pass on the game. If not, you'll just have to get over it.
jaelis wrote:
It is only gentle fun because I understand your point. Maybe not everyone on the internet does, but I think a lot of people do.
But it is just a small thing that is easy to deal with, one way or another. It is a mistake, but one with no significant impact on anything practical.
Polaris wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Seems pretty cut and dry.
The Druid is proficent in those types of armor, However, The Druid can ONLY use those types of armor NOT made out of metal.
The wording is fine... Some just chose to read between the lines and think "Well it doesn't say we can't"
I once had to stand in line at a subway for 10 minutes while some fool tried to use 2 buy one get one free coupons for 2 subs .. His arguement was with the wording, which was perfectly clear but the fool chose not to see it that was and was eventually ejected much to the joy of those waiting behind him.
How does putting in a mechanical penalty make it better though? They're still telling the player how to play their druid under your reasoning, they're just now penalizing them for not playing it the way the games lore says druids are supposed to act.
The paladin has to follow their oath or face penalties. That's still tellling the player how to play their paladin.
The only difference is the paladin has a predefined mechanicl penalty for "not roleplaying right" while the druid doesn't. They both still have a RP restriction imposed by their class.
In some older editions clerics couldn't use bladed weapons (5e doesn't restrict them). There never was a mechanical penalty for using them it was just assumed they WOULDN'T use them because their gods forbid it. This is sort of how the druid restriction works. It's outside the flavor of the class to wear metal armors. They are physically capable of doing so (hence will not instead of can not) as they have the requisite proficiencies or could with feats or multiclassing. This is why they specified the restriction rather than just created a custom list of armor proficiencies that no other class has (they all use the simplified light, medium, heavy, shields proficiencies rather than individual ones for each type of armor). The way the restriction is worded it covers those who multiclass (into or out of druid) and those who may pick up a feat that gives more armor proficiencies. Any druid (pure or multiclassed) will not wear metal armors even though they are physically capable of this.
Do you have a problem with a cleric of Pelor being told they have to hate undead? It's a "forced RP" if they choose to worship Pelor after all. Now if the player chooses to befriend a lich there's an issue the DM has to handle because how does a cleric of Pelor reconcile their god's hatred and commandment to destroy undead with having one of the nastiest types of undead as a friend? There's no reason for them to write a mechanical penalty into the restriction, as it's a choice by the player to go against the roleplay restrictions they chose by making a cleric of Pelor. These types of situations need to be handled by the DM.
They chose to give mechanical penalties to the paladin because the entire class focuses on their oaths and are likely to be an issue during the game. The metal armor wearing druid or lich befriending cleric of Pelor are edge cases that aren't likely to come up so it's left to the DM to deal with. The druids entire concept isn't based around wearing non-metal armor, it's just another feature of the class, and not likely to cause a problem because it's stated in the class description and a player who makes a druid is presumed to know and accept that restriction.
Honestly, the restriction against metal armor never made sense to me. A preference for more "natural" armor (which is kind of a bad term, since leather is processed from its natural form, as well) is one thing. But an outright ban makes no sense. Especially since that same druid could use scimitars and sickles.
I imagine that this is more a preference thing. It's similar to how I don't like wearing suits because they are confining and hot and just uncomfortable in general. Metal armor is confining. It restricts movement. It's loud and scares off the fuzzy little animals. It makes them feel less connected to nature. Druids won't wear metal armor in the same way that I won't wear a suit. I can, and sometimes I might have to. But I don't want to. I really don't want to.
I think if a druid can use a scimitar as a weapon, then he should be able to use metal armor if the need arises, even if he's complaining about it the entire time.
thewok wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Honestly, it seems the book doesn't list any penalty for it. So, as the DM, the penalty is up to you. Personally I'd say that a Druid that wears metal armor finds themselves unable to cast spells or use any of their class abilities.
However, I think the restriction is pretty awkward. Metal comes from nature. Yes, it's worked by people, but so is leather. And on top of that, each time they've said "Druids can't wear metal!" they've then provided alternatives that are made of other materials but work the exact same because they do everything but admit that it's a stupid restriction.
Then, to make things even MORE stupid, the druid weapon list is FILLED with weapons that are made of metal. Apparently, you can use a scimitar, but not a metal shield? It makes zero sense.
Call me crazy but it seems to me that it might just be left a bit vague to allow for setting differences, including homebrew choices.
Also lets be honest its a legacy choice, in D&D druids have always been barred from wearing armour.
That this has warranted a three page discussion is mind boggling and why we can't have nice things.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
DLfan wrote:
RCanine wrote:
They can wear metal armour.
The don't because of their affinity with nature, because nature doesn't use metal for weaponry or armour - there is no other logical explanation.
In a world where you draw upon a power with any kind of 'principles' and you ignore those principles, it maybe warns you and then withdraws it's power from you until you come to heal.
This is GM territory, and parallels in terms of logic, such question as;
Can a Cleric use the Holy Symbol of another diety as their magic focus and still receive the power of their God?
If a Warlock gives his Patron 'the bird', is he able to access the same powers as usual from the now pissed off Patron?
I would rule that they can wear the armour, but nature is now irritated and won't allow at least things ike shapeshfiting and spellcasting while the situation persists.
The solution to this is to create a new subclass where the wearing of such armor makes sense.
Dwarven Druids who favor armors made out of natural metals and instead of shapechanging into animals perhaps something elemental?
Simple house rule I'd do, Druids can wear metal armor, but shapeshifting causes metal armors to drop to the ground...
Spell casting druids are fine in it, but shapeshifting ones (who are getting new sets of HP that can't use their armor all the time anyway) would probably find it a pain not being able to reequip their armor in combat.
Grazel wrote:
There is also the possibility that it's written this way to allow for a future Druid variant that DOES wear metal armor...
RCanine wrote:
aljergensen wrote:
I am guessing they are treating it like alignments, where the DM is free to choose whether it is a restriction or not. So the class can use metal armor, but the DM has an avenue to deny it.
Maybe this whole thread could have been avoided had they included the sentence that was in the 3.5 Druid entry "Though a druid could learn to wear full plate, putting it on would violate her oath and suppress her druidic powers." Silly writers assumed that simply saying that they will not wear armor or use shield made of metal was clear enough.
aljergensen wrote:
aljergensen wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Honestly, anybody playing a druid who will wear metal armor despite the rules clearly saying that a druid will not wear metal armor annoys me more than the developers.
Some of the poor wording by the developers makes it a close race, though.
Grazel wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Just to be clear, there really isn't a rules question here anymore, right? Just people who are either okay with or not okay with the rule that druids will not wear metal armor ( as listed in their proficiency section )?
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
I gotta say, I feel sorry for people that write rule books if something as simple (and in my opinion so obvious) as this causes this much grief ... they can't win.
They seem to be trying to write a system where they don't have to write down every single not-picky detail so that there's some room for creativity and room to ... play.
That may not work for everyone. And having played pretty much every version of D&D that there is, I'm pretty impressed with the end product.
Now, if you want to talk about something. That needs clarity we should talk about mounted combat!
aljergensen wrote:
I'm with Polaris, they shouldn't have used "won't."
LIke some others have posted, they should have done something like "Druids traditionally don't wear metal armor. If a Druid does wear metal armor, these bad things happen."
Having the rules tell me what my character won't do goes against one of the reason why I play tabletop RPG's in the first place. I decide what my character does, not the limits of the computer game or some other restriction. The game is entirely within it's rights to determine consequences for my characters actions (take damage if you jump off a building, etc). The issue for me isn't that my druid isn't supposed to wear metal armor. I couldn't care less whether druids wear metal armor, armor made from animals, or refluffed versions of metal armor.
The issue is that the game is telling me what my character will or won't do. That's not for the rules to decide; that's my choice.
Edit: Please leave your reductio ad absurdum counter-arguments of "Well, then I decide my character gets to attack 1,000 times in a round or can run faster than the speed of light. It's my choice, after all, derp!" at the entrance to the thread.
The_Absorbing_Man wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Polaris wrote:
DLfan wrote:
The_Absorbing_Man wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I'm going to stick by my rationale that, since the restriction is specifically in the armor proficiencies section (and not in some rule or sidebar) it works as medium armor proficiency with an asterisk:
- The generic rule applies first: druids are proficient with all light and medium armors
- The specific rule overrides this: druids are not proficient with armors that are made with metal (studded leather, chain shirt, scale mail breastplate, half plate).
- If the druid acquires medium armor proficiency from another source, it grants access to chain shirt, scale mail breastplate, half plate, similarly, gaining proficiency with light armors via another source grants access to studded leather
- Since the druid is proficient with medium armor (albeit with an asterisk), the druid qualifies for feats that require medium armor proficiency (e.g. Heavily Armored)
Would anyone disagree that is a reasonable and balanced means of interpreting the rules?
JRutterbush wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Polaris wrote:
This whole thread makes me wonder what would happen if there was a line at the start of the PHB about how PC's won't stab themselves in the heart.
"How dare you tell me how to RP my suicidal dwarven rogue!"
*knife in the heart*
"Hah! I sure showed you WotC!!"
RCanine wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Valheru_Blade wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
After pondering it a little more, I think I'm going to go with Rcanine's interpretation that it is strictly a proficiency based restriction. If you look at page 45 of the PHB the proficiencies for Druid state "...light and medium armor(nonmetal, shields (nonmetal)...". I'll probably allow Mountain Dwarf Druids, and multiclassed Druids to wear metal armor as this apparent rule only seems to be mentioned under proficiency. Pure Druids will be considered not proficient.
Page 45 under Armor and Weapon Proficiencies
Page 65 under Proficiencies
Page 164 under Proficiencies gained
reddaemon wrote:
Polaris wrote:
A druid "won't" wear metal armour because their particular faith tells them they "can't".
Out of curiousity, what would people do as a DM in earlier editions when a cleric's player asked, "What would happen when my cleric decides to use an edged or pointed weapon when the class info says 'No edged or pointed weapons'?"
OoftaMeg wrote:
Hugin wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Hugin wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Hugin wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Hugin wrote:
Polaris wrote:
I don't have a problem with druids being restricted from wearing metal armor. If the text was druids who wear metal armor lose all druid class abilities, I'd be fine with that. What I have a problem with is it takes away a chance for players to make decisions. If a player needs to pick up the Pelta of Hades to step through the deathwinds in order to stop Varaz the Vile then I want them to have the choice.
Choice A) Keep their druid abilites. Hopefully come up with some other solution.
Choice B) Suck it up and be a big damn hero with no druid powers.
Not hear from the DM, sorry the Pelta is Adamantite and you won't wear that.
Is it ultimately a big deal? Probably not, but it does bother me.
Bonus Round!:
An illusionist changes the hide armor a druid is wearing to appear/feel/smell/sound/etc like chain mail. What does the druid do?
Methinks this has less to do with the Druid, and more to do with an inherent belief that the Devs shouldn't dictate how the game is played. Personally, I believe that that is not only the job of the developers... I think they've probably earned the right to make some creative decisions by virtue of making it to the developer level.
Everything in the rule book dictates RP choices, even the artwork that goes into it.
BatFett wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
I agree, the wording is wonky, and feels like it's intruding on player choice. It also could be helpful on suggesting what could happen otherwise, whether it's a straight mechanical change or in-game RP consequences.
Like, it would be one thing to say, "Pointy hats are required for Wizards to cast cantrips. If a wizard goes a day without wearing a pointy hat, they are unable to cast cantrips until they complete a long rest while wearing a pointy hat." And it's entirely another to say, "All wizards wear pointy hats."
The_Absorbing_Man wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
But the rules state that all elves use bows by creating a broad and generalizing proficiency for ALL elves... its not even solely a wood elf thing. Even the drow are proficient in long bow, by this standard, and would need a special class or feat to be proficient in the hand crossbow, which is a classic drow weapon.
The developers have also created a rule system which flat out states that you WON'T play a Gunslinger, because there are no guns or gunslinger classes. I have played in a 3.5 D&D game, where one player used a d20 modern character... a CIA Operative, who fell through a wormhole but believed she was going through some sort of elaborate AI/drug-induced training simulation back at Langley. These rules won't allow for that, because they weren't written to include it... there's another batch of RP choices excluded by the Devs...
... and what's with all these pictures of bearded dwarves? Why does my dwarf have to have a beard? In order to be accepted by dwarven society he's gotta have one (according to the Devs), or he's just an extra-stout halfling.
-------------------------------------
The devs feel druids won't wear armor. Deal with it, or make a druid that does wear meatl armor... kinda like you say to make a elf that doesn't have bow proficiency. Since there are non-metal versions of metal armor available, there is no added mechanical benefit to just using metal armor... which is probably why the devs didn't bother coming up with rules to mechanically penalize something that doesn't create a mechanical imbalance.
If you're bothered by the system making your RP choices, then choose a system that doesn't. I've never found a system that did that, which is why I find myself playing different systems, whenever I'm in the mood for different RP experiences.
Polaris wrote:
Sorxores wrote:
Polaris wrote:
So lets say you're a dev on the team writing the PHB. You're writing up the druid class and you want it to feel a lot like the classic druid from pre-4E editions of D&D (nothing against 4E, but it was a different game and changed the rules on Druids). Druids have been limited to non-metal armor since their introduction as a class.
Goal: Druids can wear light or medium non-metal armor but the class is restricted to non metal armor.
However, your have a couple of rules:
Rule 1: This isn't just a proficiency restriction. Even if a druid gets proficiency to metal armor they don't wear it.
Rule 2: Don't dictate the mythology of worlds, the origins of the druid or why they don't wear metal armor. That kind of thing should be up to the developer of the world.
So you have a few options for how to word this.
Option 1: Druids are proficient in light and medium armors that are not made of metal.
Violates Rule 1.
Option 2: Druids are proficient in light and medium armor but can't wear metal armor.
This will just spawn arguments about why they can't.
- Are their antler's too big?
- Are they simply not proficient?
- Not linguistically correct. Kind of like my sister asking me "Can you pass me the butter?" to which I would respond "I could. I won't, but I am physically capable of passing you the butter. I just choose not to."
- Not very clear and doesn't enforce Rule 1 very well.
- Would spawn just as many arguments as the current wording.
Option 3: Druids are proficient in light and medium armor but won't because of X. If they do wear metal armor Y happens.
Violates Rule 2. The author of the campaign world may have some cool ideas on why druids don't wear metal armor such as:
- Metal armor acts like a mystical faraday cage and prevents the druid from using their powers (similar to the 3.5 fluff).
- If a druid willingly puts on metal armor it violates an ancient oath made by the primordial druid and breaks a pact that was made with the Lord of Mechanus and leads to a modron invasion.
- Metal armor would cause a resonance cascade and a druid casting a spell in metal armor explodes in a 10d6 fireball.
Option 4: Druids are proficient in light and medium armor but will not wear metal armor.
Supports Rule 1 and makes it clear that it is not just a proficiency restriction. Supports Rule 2 and lets the designer of the campaign fill in the creative stuff and do world building.
Maybe some people have a different definition of role playing than I do, but this is not a role playing restriction. It's a simple, efficient way of enforcing a class restriction that has been part of the D&D druid design since they were introduced.
Or to put it another way it's not that I couldn't agree that this is a heinous RP restriction, but I will not.
Except your "Rule 1" is in error. It can simple be a proficiency restriction. If you want it to apply even after feats/multiclassing/whatnot, make it a negative proficiency: "Druids lose proficiency with armor and shields made of metal."
There. But no, instead they choose to impose restrictions on how we're allowed to role-play. And no "they impose it on everything else" isn't a valid arguement. Mechanics of a world are mechanics, even Paladins having a negative for breaking oaths. *Interacting* with those mechanics (and each other) is role-play.
It was not worded well -- it almost seems intentionally ambiguous, like they want each table to come up with their own interpretation of "won't" that works for them.
I don't think it's a huge deal, though. In the position of being DM, I'd probably decide what it meant for my table, and then inform the players of my decision if/when they ask. (One nice point to the otherwise-imperfect wording is that it's pretty strongly against -- so, if a player doesn't ask, that probably means they're not going to try and be a metal-wearing druid, so the effect of being a metal-wearing druid doesn't matter.)
For how I'd do it -- I'd probably ignore the restriction entirely. Worked metal is as natural as cured hide, imo. If a player wanted to voluntarily follow the restriction to their own mechanical detriment, I'd give 'em inspiration now and then whenever it came up, I imagine, but otherwise I wouldn't penalize the metal-wearers.
Interesting, like I said before, I'd go with #1, Druids aren't proficient in metal armor/shields unless they get the proficiency somewhere else (mtn dwarf, fighter, feat, etc). I guess it's the wording that really, really rubs me the wrong way.
-Polaris
BatFett wrote:
If druids don't use metal armor because it's made of 'unnatural' metal, why are they ok with using sickles or scimitars that are made out of the same such metal?
Hugin wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Well Polaris I suggest that your Druid reports to his Archdruid to the A.C.L.U.
Polaris wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
I find myself agreeing that it was a poor choice of phrase for the Devs. A sidebar that basically said "Your DM will determine the why and penalties of druis wearing metal armor" would have fixed this immediately and still left us the freedom to create things as we wish. Having it simply be an assumption, and having no clear rules on why druids won't is a little harder to swallow, especially since I probably wouldn't have thought of "alternate" metal armors without this thread, and that should also have been in the sidebar that never was. Overall, a small thing, but very disappointing
Chaosmancer wrote:
Some medium armors can be made of non metal materials. Dragon Scale is a classic D&D example. This will mean that armors that count as medium can be acquired through play and there is no problem however treasure taken from some villains will simply not be available to the druid and this will be a case by case basis adjudicated by the DM. The paladin of Bane probably didnt wear his nature pants today so no loot for the druid but the Paladin of the Oath of Nature may very likely be wearing a shield of laquered wood and a breastplate made from the shell of a Bullette.
Dark Sun is an entire campaign world where non metal armors are prevalent.
If a cleric in a campaign constantly curses his deity, commits every sin of his religion, and burns down his own deity's temples, I guess nothing happens to him because there's not a sidebar in a rulebook on it.
The rules are just enough mechanics to get through common problems. Do what you want with the rest.
Druids are only proficient in non-metal armor and non-metal shields; look at the chart on p. 45 it is clear as day.
Edit: Would they wear it if they multiclass into, say, ranger? I hate to say this, but, technically, the rule is "druids won't wear armor made of metal" and technically, I am now a ranger/druid...so chainmail here I come?
Why don't we just refluff the medium armor to be something other than metal, and go from there? I don't see what the big deal is over what amounts to class fluff.
UnknownMourner wrote:
Except with regards to Druid armour that becomes:
1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The developer describes what they will do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
Mephi1234 wrote:
they have proficiency in Medium Armor yet will not wear Metal armor. If you read the descriptions of all medium armors you will see that 4 of the 5 types are specifically described as being made of metal. The one non metal armor listed is Hide. Therefore druids can wear light armors and the one nonmetal medium armor (hide) if they choose. If later your campaign introduces Medium armor types that are not made of metal they would also qualify for those but as default Hide is the only option.
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
Druids are perfectly capable of wearing and operating in metal armour, they just won't do it. This is an ancient memory hangover from the third convocation of Druids, who were the first to demonstrate Druidic power over the weather, and mastery of Call Lightning. Sadly they chose to do so in a rainstorm while wearing rather fine wet copper armour.
The fourth convocation of Druids immediately decided henceforth that metal armour was, on the whole, A Bad Thing.
(if it comes to it, I'm happy for any druids in my game to wear metal armour, with the caveat that Nature likes a druid, and hey, might choose to say hello. Nature is like that.)
The way I see it, the problem here is we have a player who wants to be micromanaged by the rules.
I mean no offense, Polaris. It's just that your complaint appears to be based on the idea that the rules are incomplete because they do not go into the results of a Druid making the decision to don metal armor. In a way, you're right, they don't go into that... But where people disagree is on whether that's necessarily a problem.
This is Dungeons & Dragons, my friend. A game with a completely open ended design which is intended for maximum flexibility. That means there can't possibly be a rule for every situation, and there shouldn't be. Highly complex roleplaying games aren't fun. If you don't believe that, just try playing 2E Twilight:2000 sometime.
Some have suggested the universal rule: Let the DM decide. That rule exists for a reason. Namely, for cases that the printed rules don't cover. Yes, that means different DMs will handle it differently and a player crossing from one campaign to another under a different DM may have to make some adjustments to conform to the new DM's way of doing things. This is only a serious problem if you MAKE it a serious problem. It doesn't have to be.
In my campaign, I'd probably rule that a Druid who is wearing metal armor is unable to do Druidy things like cast spells and use special abilities until he takes it off. I don't need the rule book to hold my hand and tell me this. I just go with what makes sense. You, as a DM, might decide on a different approach and that's perfectly fine. Neither of us is wrong.
This is a game of imagination. Release your imaginatino to fly free and stop expecting the game developers to do all your thinking for you, my friend. I know you want consistency, so make up a rule yourself as DM that's consistent with other cases in the book.
- Perhaps a Druid who wears metal armor would suddenly collapse to the floor in a world of pain because his body is connected to the world of nature and the metal is a barrier.
- Perhaps a Druid in metal armor would suffer no game penalties, but if caught doing so by another Druid, he'd be answerable, and possibly tried as a crimial among Druids.
- Maybe Druids just feel that the use of metal is an abomination - gutting the body of the natural world and if forced to wear it, would have to make saving throws to keep from vomiting at the thought
- Maybe a Druid who wears metal armor can still attempt to cast spells, but finds the metallic shell reflects it back into himself.
YOU decide, unless and until an FAQ or Errata comes out, and even if it does, if you like your own solution better, stick with it!
That's all there is to say about it, from where I sit. If you want to continue complaining that the rules don't give you what you want on this, then take it up with the game developers directly.
drGrep wrote:
I think everyone swooping in here and thinking this is a simple question is missing a ton of context. Think of the case where a 10th-level fighter wants to multiclass into druid. One of the armor proficiencies he would gain is "Light Armor, Medium armor (druids won't wear armor made of metal)". Does that mean the fighter loses access to his full plate by virtue of gaining an armor proficiency? Armor proficiencies don't work that way.
The only interpretation that makes sense is that it simply limits the proficiencies of the wearer, and if you gain profciency by other means, you're fine.
There's no missed context here, my friend. D&D is a roleplaying game, not a wargame. The rules are just there to provide structure and facilitate the roleplay. If a Fighter multiclasses into a Druid he doesn't forget how to wear metal armor nor does he lose the proficiency, but from a roleplaying standpoint, he will discontinue its use because having embraced Druidic beliefs, he would eschew his old armor.
But again, a DM has every right to call it in whatever way fits the campaign world best.
To reiterate: It's simply impossible to provide a rule for every single scenario, and that's why the DM has broad authority to make these kinds of calls.
The PHB states clearly on page 45 that the druid's proficiencies are specifically in nonmetal light and medium armor and nonmetal shields. RAW is thus to treat as not proficient if using metal.
My house rule is that traditionally metalic armors are potentially be available in nonmetalic (chitin, bone, scale, etc.) versions.
This isn't (IMO) a game designer telling you how a character thinks any more than they do at any other time when explaining a specidfic character class or race. It is a game designer writing up the rule in a way that you don't like. Druids aren't proficient with metal armor and shields. That should have been made clearer.
(What the current text does make clear is that druids are adverse to metal armor and shields.)
Making metal armor not able to be melded upon wildshape would be a good compromise.
UnknownMourner wrote:
Yeah. If that was a rule, then a player opting to have to go back and pick up his stuff or just not do much shapechanging wouldn't bug me as a DM.
Polaris wrote:
Actually, as written, although they can, they won't.
The DM won't have to make up effects because Wizard, in all their wisdom (musta rolled a 1), decided that being a druid will abritrarily decide what your character will do in certain circumstances. Not influence, decide.
Yunru wrote:
No, by arbitrary I mean the bit where it simply says "druids will not wear metal armour or use metal shields" (or words to that effect). In fact, no lore is mentioned or referenced. So yeah, get off your high horse. And don't feed horses weed.
It's not "they won't because lore", it's "they won't because they're not allowed to choose to". Which is stupid. And lazy on their behalf. If we litterally can't choose to they don't have to deal with "well what if they do?"
This is my entire houserule from the latest version of my campaign packet:
Druids are unwilling to utilize metal armor (and shields) as contact with large quantities of worked metal interferes with their connection with nature and the elements. Any armor which is predominantly metal (studded leather is the limit of metal to hide/leather tolerable, thus making all light armor plus hide and wooden shields the defacto armor options for druids) is one which they will avoid donning, even if they happen to be a multiclassed character. Armor traditionally made from metal which is crafted from an alternative material (chitin, bone, shell, scale, etc.) is identical to metal armor mechanically in terms of AC, stealth disadvantage, strength requirements, etc.—but potentially not a match in terms of price, availability, weight, or even durability. Alternatives to metal armor are subject to adjudication on a case by case basis in the event that they are sought out. Druids who, for whatever reason, are strapped into armor or tightly encased within a large amount of worked metal (such as being bound by thick bands of iron) suffer the following penalties: they cannot wild shape, must make a Con save to cast, and make all spell attack rolls at disadvantage.
I think this sets out a "why" for what is missing from the PHB, and offers up penalties, as well as sketching out limits and alternatives. After all, a multiclassed fighter/druid wearing chitin plate doesn't really bother me as a concept, nor do I find it overly unbalanced given how flat AC is in 5e.
Yunru wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
This entire thread is possibly the daftest thing I've seen in ages.
Druids won't wear metal armour
- because it violates oaths to their gods/ethos, luckily they made no such promises about weapons...phew
- metal won't meld into their animal forms
- It prevents them from drawing the earthpower needed to cast spells, use their abilities.
- Their allergic and prolonged exposure will give them blisters
The designers aren't restricting your roleplay any more than they are if your playing a Warlock, you have to get your powers through a pact with another entity.
Your choosing to play a druid, a character class that as part of it's flavour/make up eschews the wearing of metal armour for reasons that are left vague admittedly but not unimaginable. If for whatever reason you simply must wear metal armour to play the druid of your dreams then just do it. I doubt Mike Mearls is going to ban you from playing D&D...although he possibly should!
Forgive me if this has already been asked, but...
What exactly are you trying to achieve here, Polaris? As I understand it, this is the forum where answers are supposed to hew as close to RAW as possible, even if that makes them sound kind of daft.
You already know there is no RAW for what happens if the druid violates the no-metal-armor stricture, because that's what you're complaining about.
Were you actually hoping there was something in the book you hadn't noticed, or did you just want to vent about the designers' poor choice of phrasing and failure to follow through?
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Grand_Theft_Otto wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Grand_Theft_Otto wrote:
Grand_Theft_Otto wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
RCanine wrote:
This is why I miss 2e.
The character isn't going to magically lose the ability to wear or use metal armour because he's multi-classed into druid. depending on your reason for druids not using metal armour he's simply not going to wear it.
In the old editions this was a matter of faith and the vows he has sworn.
To my mind and I'm coming at the class from a Basic to 2e perspective so maybe this has been lost the druid is a priest. Not a nature wizard. His faith proscribes the use of metal armour, he's not just going to drop that belief because things get tough,we're talking about someone who's belief in something is so strong he can literally do miracles.
The problem here is people are approaching this as a rule problem but there is no rule that stops the wearing of armour by anyone proficient or not. This is a matter of roleplay, you can play a man(woman) whose faith can summon lightning and reshape flesh but forbids him metal armour or you choose a different character...unless it's just about your cool powers.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Grand_Theft_Otto wrote:
It's like the old edition strictures against sharp weapons for clerics. They simply wouldn't use a sword. Not couldn't, but wouldn't. Matter of faith. Bashing skulls in was holy, but hacking limbs off was not.
The metal armor thing can be handled as each DM wishes. Mechanically, druids in 5e RAW will not put on any armor heavier than hide, multiclass or not.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Grand_Theft_Otto wrote:
Grazel wrote:
The point of the rules being so streamlined is because the pedantics do not matter.
The DM is the ultimate arbiter of what happens in this situation.
If you are the DM, you could choose to ignore statement and let a druid wear metal armor.
You could encourace roleplay and reward inspiration if the druid player ultimately refuses to wear armor thats superios to his own (but metal)
You could strip his proficiencies while in metal armor.
You could take it further and strip his proficiencies when surrounded by metal (like on a ship or a vault).
If my players brought this to me and argued about it? I would force the armor on the druid, and the moment he donned it, a ROC would see the shiny, pick him up and fly away never to be seen again. Now roll a god damned fighter or something that can wear metal :P
Polaris wrote:
Semicidal wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Chameleon-X wrote:
The rules do not tell you what your character will or will not do (barring some sort of temporary condition/status effect). Since the rules do not dictate what in game choices you can or can not make, the statement in question must necessarilly be a simple generalization.
Meaning:
Druids (generally speaking) will not wear metal armor.
Much the same as the statement:
Americans (generally speaking) will eat too many Bic Macs.
Or:
Vegans will not eat meat.
In each of these cases, we are making a generalized statement about a large group of people. Clearly this generalization isn't a dictate unto each and every member of the group in question. A druid could wear metal armor if they wanted too, but nearly all of them refuse to anyway. An American could avoid the Bic Macs if they desired it, but you know that in all likelyhood they'll just stuff it into their gaping maw anyway. And, sure... Vegans are even defined by not eating meat... but I've know a weak willed vegan to buckle into their cravings when they smell the enticing aroma of cooking bacon. A lil Nom Nom Nom from time to time doesn't mean you can't still be a Vegan.
I don't see a restriction here. Not by RAW or whatever... just a generalization.
PS. They're also proficient in all light and medium armor.... I'm not sure how all yall think people become proficient in things, but in my experience... the only way to get proficient in something is to try doing it first. How do you gain proficiency in breastplate? You practice wearing some until you get decent at it. So... I mean... where these druids getting all these proficiencies for things they never ever did, nor will ever do? Don't make no sense yo.