Fluff vs. Mechanics

[sithlordnergal]

I'm curious, how important is fluff to all you players and DMs out there? And by fluff, I mean things that are stated but have no mechanical detriment or benefit, they're just things assumed by a given book.

A good example would be the "Druids won't wear metal armor due to it being taboo." There are no mechanical detriments for a Druid that chooses to wear metal armor like in 3.e. By RAW, the Druid loses nothing, and as such it is on the DM's head to make a penalty.

Personally, I see fluff as a guideline that can be tossed out without any real concerns. That Demon over there? Could be a lawful good Paladin. The Druid in metal armor? A few druids might give them the stink eye, but they're fine. Some broad assumption about a race? Feel free to break it.

My only rule as a DM is find a way to justify it. You're a Dwarven Druid that served in the Dwarven Army? Go ahead and wear metal armor. Dwarf Druids will have no issue with it, but other Druids might.

EDIT: So, in order to clarify things more, the Druid thing is just an example. Other examples could be height and weight. Does it matter to you, as a player or DM, if a person brings an 8 foot tall Dwarf. There's no mechanical benefit, you're still a Medium creature, you're just a Dwarf that's as tall as a Goliath. Or how about a peaceful Barbarian, one that prefers peaceful solutions and never does lethal damage? It goes against the fluff of being a Barbarian, but there's nothing stopping a player from doing so.

As a person who frequents the forums, I have seen a few DMs who would balk at the idea of an 8 foot tall Dwarf, because it goes against the established norm. So, how important is that sort of thing to you?

[Lupine]

I tend to agree. I think that the a lot of the purpose of role-playing games is to free yourself from the bonds of reality, and do something interesting. When the fluff without mechanical purpose gets in the way of that, I think we've started to bring our own rules into the game designed to let us break them. Fluff is a nice start, especially if you want to build a character idea, but it should NEVER get in the way of building one.

Also, on a note about the druid armor thing, druids are naturalists. Why would leather armor be any better? I personally think that druids shouldn't get any armor proficiency. (except for things like shields, and other armor of wood.)

[sithlordnergal]

Also, on a note about the druid armor thing, druids are naturalists. Why would leather armor be any better? I personally think that druids shouldn't get any armor proficiency. (except for things like shields, and other armor of wood.)

Ohhh, I kinda like that idea. Maybe give them Unarmored Defense keyed off Wisdom, like a Monk, that way they have something they can use for AC.

[Lupine]

Ohhh, I kinda like that idea. Maybe give them Unarmored Defense keyed off Wisdom, like a Monk, that way they have something they can use for AC.

Kind of like barbarian unarmored, but weaker. Or, if you want to stop int dumps, base it on intelligence.:smalltongue:

[diplomancer]

The problem of giving druids unarmored defense is the VERY significant boost to wildshape.

You could say "this ability does not work in wildshape", but this is clunky and would raise the question of "but why does 1 level in monk or barbarian work for wildshapes"?

[Greywander]

My problem with druids and metal armor is that it states they won't wear metal armor. Not that they can't, but won't. I'll be the one to decide what my character does or doesn't do, thank you very much. Personally, I would have just given them proficiency with non-metal armors, so if you multiclass to get full armor proficiency then metal armor ceases to be an issue.

I do think people often underestimate the power of fluff. Strict mechanics often deals with combat, but fluff can provide a lot of utility for out of combat. For example, tieflings apparently have prehensile tails that are about 5 feet long. Use it to grab stuff, hang from stuff, slap the butt of the person next to you to create a distraction, etc. Fluff tends to get brushed off, probably because the "benefits" aren't immediately spelled out. If you like to find creative solutions to problems, or engage in Combat as War, then fluff can be quite powerful.

While mechanics need to be restricted to preserve balance, often there's no such restriction on fluff. Part of this is that the DM does have the final say on whether you can or can't do something, so simply having the fluff to support it isn't always enough. Fluff can be a nice way to reward players who put extra effort into their character creation, but the DM also shouldn't let it get out of hand (see Old Man Henderson for a glorious example). To get the most out of fluff, you have to stop treating D&D like a video game and start treating it like a medieval fantasy simulation.

[Genoin]

In fact, leather armor should be more detestable to druids because it usually requires killing an animal. Unless you force your druid players to use only leather armor that they know was made from an animal that died of natural causes.

[Greywander]

Not all druids are hippies. I'll bet some of them would be very into stalking, killing, and then devouring their prey. By which I mean cannibalism. No reason to think a druid would automatically have a problem with killing animals, eating meat, or wearing leather.

[ad_hoc]

Despite its label as 'fluff' it is not just the most important part of the game, it is its backbone.

Without it the game is just a very complicated, messy, and tedious abstract.

You're doing yourself a disservice by throwing it out.

[Genoin]

Not all druids are hippies. I'll bet some of them would be very into stalking, killing, and then devouring their prey. By which I mean cannibalism. No reason to think a druid would automatically have a problem with killing animals, eating meat, or wearing leather.

Just like they shouldn't have any problem wearing metal. Even though it is nonliving, it is just as much a part of the natural world as anything else.

[Greywander]

I could understand a specific druidic circle that had tenets against wearing worked metal armor, but that would likely apply to using any worked metal object. Unworked metal would still be in its natural state, and therefore should be fine. But that's the thing: it would be one specific druidic circle, not all of them. Just like some clerical or paladin orders have their own tenets. Don't like those tenets? Join a different order.

The thing about metal, specifically, is that it has a close connection to technology and civilization. Fire, and subsequently, metal working, are among the greatest technological advancements of humanity. Without metal working, much of the rest of our technology wouldn't exist. Now, it's not strictly needed for civilization, as there are a number of stone age civilizations that thrived; really, farming would be the major technological advancement required for establishing a civilization. But metal working was major game changer and allowed civilizations to advance much further than they ever could with stone age tech.

What I'm saying is, I can understand there being a thematic connection between metal and civilization. Where I have a problem is that I have no reason not to use metal, except the book telling me what my own character will do. It would be one thing if metal armor blocked druidic spellcasting, or, as I suggested, you simply didn't have proficiency with metal armor. Then I would have a reason to choose not to wear metal armor. But as it stands, there is no reason. I can choose to make that part of my character, but I don't like it being forced on me.

[Rafaelfras]

For me is THE most important thing and have to be backed up by the rules.
Druids wont wear metal armor because of their spiritual oaths, so in my table druids wont use it, (they simply wont, the mere idea does not go through their head) if you want to use metal armor dont play a druid, simple as that.
I like the game because of the fluff, its Mystcism and lore. I try to put emphasis on it at my table. You wont find a LG demon, ever, because the moment a demon ceases to be evil he will become something else.
I play in Forgotten Realms and follow the fluff and lore of the setting as close as I can. Those stuff make D&D for me and not just a generic game

[Deadfire182]

Not to be rude, but I'd like if this thread didn't devolve into the "Can Druids wear metal armor?" debate. Lord knows we have enough of those threads scattered about anyways.

Personally, I love the concept of fluff in character creation, and every other facet of the game really. It helps so much to establish a unique and memorable experience for all at the table, and can really get people engaged into the world that's being set up. Stuff like people jeering at Tieflings for being "Devil-Spawn", or the Dwarven homes having lowered entryways/smaller furniture, or a quaint description of a village square and all the hustle and bustle though it always brings a smile to my face, as the world the DM has so carefully crafted is filled with unnecessary but life-bringing details. Immersion is very important (to me) in a roleplaying game, and fluff is a great way to implement that relatively without a hitch.

[Addaran]

I like fluff and think it's important to the world in general. But i don't think it should be super strict, especialy with players.

If it was as clear cut as Rafaelfras mentionned :
Druids wont wear metal armor because of their spiritual oaths, so in my table druids wont use it, (they simply wont, the mere idea does not go through their head) if you want to use metal armor dont play a druid, simple as that.

There wouldn't be The Hobbit, cause Hobbits don't adventure. There wouldn't be Drizz't or Elistraee, seems Drows are always evil. There wouldn't be that albinos red dragon in that module, because red dragons are always red.

I also think that you can often let the player pick a mechanic but change the fluff if he wants it. Eldritch Knight with a spell book for his known spell (not being able to exceed the max) cause he learned from a wizard. Human that made a pack with devils but instead of getting eldritch blast and spells, he gets a super strong body ( Orc ) and amazing fighting prowess ( barbarian). Evil druid that stole the secrets from a Circle through torture and dominate nature to his will instead of protecting it.

[ezekielraiden]

I'm curious, how important is fluff to all you players and DMs out there? And by fluff, I mean things that are stated but have no mechanical detriment or benefit, they're just things assumed by a given book.

A good example would be the "Druids won't wear metal armor due to it being taboo." There are no mechanical detriments for a Druid that chooses to wear metal armor like in 3.e. By RAW, the Druid loses nothing, and as such it is on the DM's head to make a penalty.

Personally, I see fluff as a guideline that can be tossed out without any real concerns. That Demon over there? Could be a lawful good Paladin. The Druid in metal armor? A few druids might give them the stink eye, but they're fine. Some broad assumption about a race? Feel free to break it.

My only rule as a DM is find a way to justify it. You're a Dwarven Druid that served in the Dwarven Army? Go ahead and wear metal armor. Dwarf Druids will have no issue with it, but other Druids might.

I value fluff as a way to distinguish one world from another. Consider, for example, the discussion about the 4e version of Dark Sun, and fitting dragonborn into it (http://athas.org/articles/dark-sun-dragonborn). They didn't deviate from the core ideas of dragonborn per se. Rather, they decided to switch the levels and directions of emphasis: sorcerous as opposed to martial, greedy (leaning into their dragon-ness) as opposed to noble, social as opposed to relative loners.

These are fluff things. As you say, they can be "discarded," but I dislike that term for how I do it. Instead, I'd say that they invite circumlocution: it's not that you ignore them, but rather that they are true things which your individual character doesn't exhibit/express, and that leads to or follows from their unique behavior, perspective, and story.

[firelistener]

I like fluff and think it's important to the world in general. But i don't think it should be super strict, especialy with players.

If it was as clear cut as Rafaelfras mentionned :

There wouldn't be The Hobbit, cause Hobbits don't adventure. There wouldn't be Drizz't or Elistraee, seems Drows are always evil. There wouldn't be that albinos red dragon in that module, because red dragons are always red.

I also think that you can often let the player pick a mechanic but change the fluff if he wants it. Eldritch Knight with a spell book for his known spell (not being able to exceed the max) cause he learned from a wizard. Human that made a pack with devils but instead of getting eldritch blast and spells, he gets a super strong body ( Orc ) and amazing fighting prowess ( barbarian). Evil druid that stole the secrets from a Circle through torture and dominate nature to his will instead of protecting it.

That's a good point. My general opinion on conflicting with fluff is: If your character/world/monster doesn't match with the pre-established official fluff, give a reason.
Your druid wears metal? Sounds good, now tell me a line or two about the Mountain Circle dwarf druids that run an eco-friendly mine (or whatever it is that explains your character's deviation from the norm). Anything like that is good enough for me as DM.

[Addaran]

That's a good point. My general opinion on conflicting with fluff is: If your character/world/monster doesn't match with the pre-established official fluff, give a reason.
Your druid wears metal? Sounds good, now tell me a line or two about the Mountain Circle dwarf druids that run an eco-friendly mine (or whatever it is that explains your character's deviation from the norm). Anything like that is good enough for me as DM.

Yeah, if it deviates, you need a reason that's not just silly. It will even help the GM get a better feel of your character and it might lead to fun interaction with players and NPCs after.
Dwarven druid convincing the septical druid circle that minerals are just as part of nature as faune and flora, and that crafting something out of it is just as good.

[Kane0]

Fluff is really important for establishing context and consistency, even within the mechanics. As a recent example, the question 'what is the identity of the ranger' required both fluff and mechanics to fully answer to people's satisfaction.

[redwizard007]

Put me strongly in the fluff rocks category. In fact, I can run an entirely fluffy campaign where the most complex mechanic is a coin toss. Shoot, its what I do with my family on long car rides.

That's not to say that fluff is ever written in stone. Even within D&D the fluff mutates between editions and settings. Gnomes, Vecna take them all, are a great example. Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance and Dark Sun have radically different gnomes. Halflings are another one. Sometimes they are not-Hobbits, other times Kender, sometimes primative cannibals, other times boat people or gypsies. In some games the crunch is changed to reflect these changes in the character of a race, but other times it is purely window dressing.

What bothers me is when the fluff is used as a balancing mechanic in an edition, or is based on a specific real world example and is then carried into the next edition without any regard to why, or how it affects interactions with other rules changes. *Looking at you no metal armor for druids.* Retarding change because of sacred cows is one of the biggest hurdles D&D has been unable to shake. Putting those bits into fluff exclusively allows DMs and players to more easily ignore the bits that don't work for them.

[Tanarii]

This is a false dichotomy for RPGs in general, but especially for 5e. The book is the rules. Some things are more defined in a mathy way, some are less, but there is no "fluff vs mechanics".

There are some exceptions in the RPG world, such as some things written by Heinsoo. Like D&D 4e or 13th age, where descriptions are explicitly descriptive and rules are explicitly not descriptive.

But 5e isn't like that. It's all rules. Just different kinds of rules. For example, there are roleplaying rules, there are how to resolve things rules, there are how to build things rules, there are what it looks like rules. Among a variety of rules. Some are designed to be more flexible and DM or even player tuned. Others less so.

[Rafaelfras]

I like fluff and think it's important to the world in general. But i don't think it should be super strict, especialy with players.

If it was as clear cut as Rafaelfras mentionned :

There wouldn't be The Hobbit, cause Hobbits don't adventure. There wouldn't be Drizz't or Elistraee, seems Drows are always evil. There wouldn't be that albinos red dragon in that module, because red dragons are always red.

Different things for different situations, the hobbit is a story about a hobbit that left his home for an adventure, Elistraee is part of the lore, as drows not being allways evil. Albino is just a condition, the dragon is still red. Druids on metal armor is just power grab.



I also think that you can often let the player pick a mechanic but change the fluff if he wants it. Eldritch Knight with a spell book for his known spell (not being able to exceed the max) cause he learned from a wizard. Human that made a pack with devils but instead of getting eldritch blast and spells, he gets a super strong body ( Orc ) and amazing fighting prowess ( barbarian). Evil druid that stole the secrets from a Circle through torture and dominate nature to his will instead of protecting it.

Sure, i have nothing against some of it. If they dont break fundamental rules of the setting I am using. For example the druid one wouldn't fly on my table because on Forgotten realms druids get their powers from the nature gods so his method wouldn't work (same as you cant get sorcerers powers by torturing sorcerers)


This is a false dichotomy for RPGs in general, but especially for 5e. The book is the rules. Some things are more defined in a mathy way, some are less, but there is no "fluff vs mechanics".

There are some exceptions in the RPG world, such as some things written by Heinsoo. Like D&D 4e or 13th age, where descriptions are explicitly descriptive and rules are explicitly not descriptive.

But 5e isn't like that. It's all rules. Just different kinds of rules. For example, there are roleplaying rules, there are how to resolve things rules, there are how to build things rules, there are what it looks like rules. Among a variety of rules. Some are designed to be more flexible and DM or even player tuned. Others less so.

Fully agree.

[mythmonster2]

I've always been hard on the side that the fluff the players and DM make is automatically ranked over the default fluff. You want your Rage to instead be a stance of perfect calm, where you carefully analyze your opponents to find their weak spots? Sure. Your "monk" is a rowdy pit fighter who throws wild haymakers? Great. Your wizard is actually throwing out a self-propelled bomb that explodes for 8d6 damage? Go for it. I'll usually talk it over with the person beforehand, of course, and there's probably some lines that'd go too far for me (if your wizard is pulling their robe down and farting instead of casting stinking cloud, that's probably not happening), but for the most part, I want my players to be able to make the characters they want. The system is just a tool for them to use.

[Addaran]

Different things for different situations, the hobbit is a story about a hobbit that left his home for an adventure, Elistraee is part of the lore, as drows not being allways evil. Albino is just a condition, the dragon is still red. Druids on metal armor is just power grab.

From what i've read, Elistraee wasn't part of the lore until 14 years after drows were introduced. Probably because Salvatore invented Drizz't. So you can always make new stuff part of the lore.



Sure, i have nothing against some of it. If they dont break fundamental rules of the setting I am using. For example the druid one wouldn't fly on my table because on Forgotten realms druids get their powers from the nature gods so his method wouldn't work (same as you cant get sorcerers powers by torturing sorcerers)


Didn't remember that part for FR. I was thinking the more basic D&D version where they are often godless and just get powers from nature. I guess Druidic language would work better for FR then.

Haha, yeah, torturing sorcerer wouldn't give you powers. Though now that i think of it, some mad scientist replacing his blood with that of a dragon sorcerer....that would be a cool villain.

[Drascin]

Far as I'm concerned, Fluff is:

a) Significantly more important than the mechanics.
b) Highly mutable before coming into view.

By this I mean, you as a player get to set the fluff, and I as GM set the fluff, and what the book says has comparatively little value compared to what the players want and what my setting says, in that order. And then the fluff you have created will be the reality in the world, and I will expect you to adhere to it.

[KorvinStarmast]

In 4e there was an explicit split between the two.
In 5e there is not.

It is thus worthwhile for the table as a whole to work out where such distinctions matter or don't. I've seen it vary quite a bit from table to table. The old
'What you get out of it depends on what you put into it' seems to apply.

[diplomancer]

Both mechanics and fluff are not Holy Writ, and can be changed by the DM, or by the players, with DM approval.
But if it has mechanical implications (like Druids and armor, or, yes, even burning hands gestures), it should not be called fluff, and specially not be called fluff in order to dismiss them. You want to dismiss them, just do it.

[Rafaelfras]

Haha, yeah, torturing sorcerer wouldn't give you powers. Though now that i think of it, some mad scientist replacing his blood with that of a dragon sorcerer....that would be a cool villain.

Indeed, and you could do a lot of unintended consequences from his experimentes including but not limited a very gore explosion upon death :D

[Misterwhisper]

blah, blah, "I want my druid to wear metal armor.." blah blah

Same old argument, "It is just fluff, and fluff doesn't matter"

Moving on.

[stoutstien]

I consider anything of zero consequence fluff. If a rogue wants to call his daggers small axes or chakrams that's fluff. A player wants a guinea pig familiar and uses the rat or weasel stat block is fluffy.

The whole druid and metal armor problem could be solved if they listed alternative armor materials in a core book instead of one campaign print.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Fully agree.

Also agree, as a general principle.

Druids not wearing metal armour is an assumed world fact, just as it's an assumed world fact that Shadow Geezers learn to manipulate grimdarkness [and this is represented and resolved mechanically thus and so]. Of course, the people who say "my druid is entitled to wear metal armour because there's no mechanical drawback stated" would never expect anyone to question that in this game world, too, their Shadow Geezers in fact learn to manipulate grimdarkness [and it does 1d2 damage to pigs at level 12 etc.].

World facts are of course open to negotiation, but people throwing them out due to the seeming lack of mechanical representation are getting the causality wrong.

[Keravath]

I divide fluff and mechanics based on game impact. Fluff changes descriptions and role playing without changing balance or affecting mechanics. Players can usually make fluff changes on their own but need to check with the DM as to whether they fit with the game world. The DM chooses to make mechanical changes, even minor ones.

Fluff is the stuff that you can change without having any mechanical impact.

Reskinning descriptions of anything? Go for it. Mechanically they operate the same. If a wood elf rogue wants to describe their rapier as a long sword, so what, it is still d8 and can still use either strength or dex to attack with and it isn't versatile.

The same goes for any other mechanic. If it functions the same then the balance is not affected, all that changes is how the player describes the character. It is role playing.

Anything else falls into the category of mechanics. The DM has full discretion over what they want to allow for mechanics. If a description or rule has any mechanical impact then it isn't fluff, it is a mechanical rule. The DM has full discretion to change it but the player on their own does not.

Druids not wearing metal armor is mechanics. It affects the AC reachable by a druid unless they can find equivalent non-metal armor. If a player decides to run a druid character this is part of the mechanics, like spellcasting, spell recovery, or wildshape. The player doesn't get to ignore the hit dice or movement limitations of the wildshapes they can choose, they don't get to ignore the metal armor restriction ... unless the DM decides otherwise ... it is always up to the DM in the end.

Similarly, some DMs would decide that the hand gestures described in the burning hands spell are mechanics ... others might decide to ignore it (turning it into fluff).

Some DMs decide that specific material components aren't important mechanically, turning them into fluff, while other DMs might ask a wizard to track every newt eye and bat dropping in their pouch. Mechanics or Fluff? Would a DM allow a player to decide that they will just ignore material requirements for spells? Not usually, it is a DM decision as to what is important, how materials are treated is mechanics and not fluff until the DM decides otherwise.

Anyway, whether mechanics gets in the way of a character concept is a DM call. If someone has a druid character concept that really wants to wear metal armor then the DM can decide whether to allow it in their game world or not. What if the metal armor was plate rather than half-plate? Druids aren't usually proficient with heavy armor. However, the DM can decide that this druid could wear heavy metal armor if they want to - DMs can change mechanics as they want to. However, the player can't decide that their druid will be proficient in heavy armor and wear plate - that is a DM call. Similarly, the player can't decide the character would wear metal half-plate for the same reason - it's a rule and the DM decides on any and all mechanical exceptions.

[Hail Tempus]

blah, blah, "I want my druid to wear metal armor.." blah blah

Same old argument, "It is just fluff, and fluff doesn't matter"

Moving on. Hmmm... You never seem to see players using fluff as a reason to decrease their character's effectiveness. It's always "my druid has different beliefs from other druids, that's why he should be allowed to wear half plate. No, of course it's not because I want to potentially have a 20 AC".

[Willie the Duck]

I agree with those who have stated that this whole fluff vs. crunch dichotomy is an artificial distinction and not specifically part of 5e and not really that helpful. Also as others have said, all rules, fluff or crunch are equally modifiable at a given game table.


I'll be the one to decide what my character does or doesn't do, thank you very much.
I agree that the way it was handled leads to this sense of having one's autonomy of character action violated. It was probably not the best choice.


The whole druid and metal armor problem could be solved if they listed alternative armor materials in a core book instead of one campaign print.
Or simply chosen a different explanation, possibly with a canonical answer for the question, 'okay, but what if they do?' Personally, I like reverting it to 'druids cannot cast in armor in which they are not proficient' (a truth for all spell casting) and just make their base armor proficiencies be the non-metallic ones. They want to wear other armor? Great, pay the feats or multiclass or be a mountain dwarf.

The only argument that I really don't buy is (and not saying anyone here has said it) "well, that's just fluff, so a druid should be able to wear metal armor." No, if you don't like the fluff, negate the fluff, but then that leaves what the situation should be as an open question, so now you have to make a case for any specific outcome (metal or otherwise).

[sithlordnergal]

Both mechanics and fluff are not Holy Writ, and can be changed by the DM, or by the players, with DM approval.
But if it has mechanical implications (like Druids and armor, or, yes, even burning hands gestures), it should not be called fluff, and specially not be called fluff in order to dismiss them. You want to dismiss them, just do it.

Well, its more then just the Druid thing. Its fluff in general. How important is it to you that a Dwarf acts like a regular Dwarf. By PHB terms, Dwarves are determined, loyal, and tend to hold onto grudges. How about height? Do people have an issue with, say, a 7 foot tall Dwarf? Even though there are no mechanical benefits to being that tall.

[Misterwhisper]

Hmmm... You never seem to see players using fluff as a reason to decrease their character's effectiveness. It's always "my druid has different beliefs from other druids, that's why he should be allowed to wear half plate. No, of course it's not because I want to potentially have a 20 AC".

I actually have had the problem in reverse.

I was building a noble fencer type of character, the snooty, and arrogant kind of guy that was not that great with people but he did bring up good points and you ended up agreeing with him even though he was a d-bag. (Not a great charisma but did have training and expertise in persuasion.)

I was playing a fighter 1 / swashbuckler X, took fighter just so I could get the dueling fighting style.

I played it as a noble gentleman duelist and even though I had proficiency, I did not use a shield, I kept my off hand empty.

This greatly angered some of the other players as they were all like, "use a shield, it will be +2 or more ac" I asked the DM if I could use my scabbard for my rapier as a shield kind of like deflecting and things, to which he said "no, because you can just pick up and drop a scabbard, not wear it like a shield." made sense to me so I didn't use one.

[Hail Tempus]

Well, its more then just the Druid thing. Its fluff in general. How important is it to you that a Dwarf acts like a regular Dwarf. By PHB terms, Dwarves are determined, loyal, and tend to hold onto grudges. How about height? Do people have an issue with, say, a 7 foot tall Dwarf? Even though there are no mechanical benefits to being that tall. Regarding personality, PCs are weirdos, by most standards. I don't see anything problematic about a dwarf who has an uncharacteristically sunny disposition and doesn't drink alcohol. His un-dwarven personality might be why he's out in the world adventuring.

The 7' tall dwarf would be an odd ask from a player. I think that sort of breaks verisimilitude. If a player wants a grim, mountain-dwelling race that's also very tall, goliath is a better option.

D&D embodies certain tropes, especially in a setting like FR. Players should buy into that setting when they sign up for a campaign.


I actually have had the problem in reverse.

I was building a noble fencer type of character, the snooty, and arrogant kind of guy that was not that great with people but he did bring up good points and you ended up agreeing with him even though he was a d-bag. (Not a great charisma but did have training and expertise in persuasion.)

I was playing a fighter 1 / swashbuckler X, took fighter just so I could get the dueling fighting style.

I played it as a noble gentleman duelist and even though I had proficiency, I did not use a shield, I kept my off hand empty.

This greatly angered some of the other players as they were all like, "use a shield, it will be +2 or more ac" I asked the DM if I could use my scabbard for my rapier as a shield kind of like deflecting and things, to which he said "no, because you can just pick up and drop a scabbard, not wear it like a shield." made sense to me so I didn't use one. I see that scenario as being different. Deciding to play your character less than ideally is a choice any player can make, and it doesn't require any bending of the rules.

[diplomancer]

The "fluff" solution for the Druid who wants to wear metal armor (if the DM wants to accomodate the fluff but does not want to mess with mechanics) is to allow him to do so... with the exact same stats and mechanics as studded leather armor.

Like the rapier that looks like a long sword, this is studded leather armor that looks like a breastplate.

Alas, I've never seen proponents of the "druids will not wear metal armor is just fluff" theory to be happy with that fluff solution.

[Kane0]

Just make the exact same armor out of something else, like bone or ironwood. They're still proficient. But that's for druids & metal armor specifically, the fluff is still important for other purposes.

[GlenSmash!]

I think "descriptive text is rules" has some idiosyncrasies that keep me from fully embracing it as a paradigm.

For example the Barbarian class description says "Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds" should I tell my Barbarian play "You are uncomfortable" when the party walks into Waterdeep or do I let the player decide whether or not their Barbarian is uncomfortable.

That broaches a line with how I DM that I prefer not to cross namely letting the Player decide how their character thinks and acts.

But here is the real kicker, what if the Barbarian in question has a background that specifically would make them comfortable in walls and crowds like the Urchin, or City Watch? is Background more specific that class text? Or does it not matter because of my DM style. Am I houseruling or rule of cooling by deciding this does not matter?

On the whole I think fluff is for the most part meant to be descriptive not restrictive and I try to lean that way.

[Tanarii]

That broaches a line with how I DM that I prefer not to cross namely letting the Player decide how their character thinks and acts.I think you've got an overly narrow definition of rules, of how binding they are, and who gets to modify them..

But that aside, if we actually assumed it was a binding statement, its actually the rulebook telling the player how yheir character thinks and acts. Most RPG games do this, and D&D is no exception.

[stoutstien]

Hmmm... You never seem to see players using fluff as a reason to decrease their character's effectiveness. It's always "my druid has different beliefs from other druids, that's why he should be allowed to wear half plate. No, of course it's not because I want to potentially have a 20 AC".

Half plate is max 17(15+max Dex of 2) +2 for a potential shield and that has a trade off of disadvantage on stealth checks.
It's a good thing wizards can't get full plate and shield proficiency with a single level dip into a class with full casting, good skills, useful spell.....

[GlenSmash!]

I think you've got an overly narrow definition of rules, of how binding they are, and who gets to modify them..

Quite possible true. This is the very purpose of my frequenting forums. To improve my games based on how other people play the game. Or in other words to open my mind.

[diplomancer]

Half plate is max 17(15+max Dex of 2) +2 for a potential shield and that has a trade off of disadvantage on stealth checks.
It's a good thing wizards can't get full plate and shield proficiency with a single level dip into a class with full casting, good skills, useful spell.....

Get a feat and you have AC 20 without stealth penalty.

And this "single level dip" for the wizard is a significant trade-off. What's the Druid's trade-off?

[stoutstien]

Get a feat and you have AC 20 without stealth penalty.

And this "single level dip" for the wizard is a significant trade-off. What's the Druid's trade-off?

A feat apparently and a 16 in Dex, the same as clerics or anyone else wanting to max out medium armor.

[diplomancer]

A feat apparently and a 16 in Dex, the same as clerics or anyone else wanting to max out medium armor.

A feat is far less of a cost than delaying your class features (including spell level) and having 13 Wis (and 15 str, if you don't want to have a movement penalty or be a dwarf).

16 dex is not a drawback. Most druids try to have it. You know, since they will not wear metal armor. (If their dex is 14, allowing them to wear metal armor is an even greater buff, either plus 2 or plus 3 AC depending on whether you care about the stealth penalty or not).

But, as I said, I'm flexible with fluff. Any Druid who wants to wear metal armor in my game may do so, unless there is something that wouldn't make it work in the setting. As long as it is mechanically exactly like studded leather.

[stoutstien]

A feat is far less of a cost than delaying your class features (including spell level) and having 13 Wis (and 15 str, if you don't want to have a movement penalty or be a dwarf).

16 dex is not a drawback. Most druids try to have it. You know, since they will not wear metal armor. (If their dex is 14, allowing them to wear metal armor is an even greater buff, either plus 2 or plus 3 AC depending on whether you care about the stealth penalty or not).

But, as I said, I'm flexible with fluff. Any Druid who wants to wear metal armor in my game may do so, unless there is something that wouldn't make it work in the setting. As long as it is mechanically exactly like studded leather.

What happens when druid multiclass into another class say a druid 2 / barbarian X? Seems like bunch of pencil work for one particular class over a few AC that won't even be an issue.
Which brings up a new question: can warforged be druids?

[Hail Tempus]

Half plate is max 17(15+max Dex of 2) +2 for a potential shield and that has a trade off of disadvantage on stealth checks.
It's a good thing wizards can't get full plate and shield proficiency with a single level dip into a class with full casting, good skills, useful spell.....Multi-classing comes with a cost, as well as benefits.

What the cost when a Druid gets to ignore the rule preventing them from wearing metal armor?

[stoutstien]

Multi-classing comes with a cost, as well as benefits.

What the cost when a Druid gets to ignore the rule preventing them from wearing metal armor?

Disadvantage on stealth the same for everyone. I can't see any mechanical reason for the barring of metal for druids. Fluff wise sure but all and all they get similar AC to clerics.

[JNAProductions]

Multi-classing comes with a cost, as well as benefits.

What the cost when a Druid gets to ignore the rule preventing them from wearing metal armor?

What's the mechanical reason for Druids not getting metal armor? If there's not a mechanical reason (as-in, it's purely a fluff or traditional limitation) then I see no reason to impose a mechanical cost to it.

Not to mention a feat and 16 Dex to get AC 20... Yeah, that's a not-so insignificant cost. If we assume the Druid is a Wood Elf (typical Druid race) who starts with a 16 in Dex and Wis, they either have to give up maxing Wisdom early on or they don't get AC 20 till level 12. It's certainly better than a lower AC, but it's not breaking a damn thing at that level.

[Tanarii]

Quite possible true. This is the very purpose of my frequenting forums. To improve my games based on how other people play the game. Or in other words to open my mind.Rereading my statement, it reads harsher than what I intended. Thanks for being cool, and sorry about that.

Not directly for a response to you, but rambling off into more thoughts on the subject ...

Usually when people try to divide things into fluff and mechanics, the reason is a player trying to divide it into "things I can change at will without my DMs permission" and "things I need a DM house rule to change". Sometimes it's a DM trying to predefine those for their players.

My position is rules are rules, and they have a sliding scale of flexibility to be changed by either DM or player. I'm just as prone to arguing RAW (as in literal words on the page) vs developer intent vs plain English reading vs what makes sense to me as the next guy on the forums. More sometimes. But for game time, I've become cool with "work out what works best for you and your players".

As I said upthread, there are some developers that have embraced clearly defining which are which, of which Heinsoo is the one I know best, as do many of us because of 4e. It has its advantages.

But the 5e developers have been fairly clear they're not interested in that. They're interested in mixing up resolution and character motivational and (personal /gag) story elements.

[Misterwhisper]

What's the mechanical reason for Druids not getting metal armor? If there's not a mechanical reason (as-in, it's purely a fluff or traditional limitation) then I see no reason to impose a mechanical cost to it.

Not to mention a feat and 16 Dex to get AC 20... Yeah, that's a not-so insignificant cost. If we assume the Druid is a Wood Elf (typical Druid race) who starts with a 16 in Dex and Wis, they either have to give up maxing Wisdom early on or they don't get AC 20 till level 12. It's certainly better than a lower AC, but it's not breaking a damn thing at that level.

The same reason a barbarian can’t rage in heavy armor.
Because the designers said so.

No special materials or other rp around it either.
A druid can wear medium armor if it is made of chitin or scales or something, or even heavy if they want.
Barbarians simply can’t rage in heavy armor.
Same as monks and shields.

[sithlordnergal]

The same reason a barbarian can’t rage in heavy armor.
Because the designers said so.

No special materials or other rp around it either.
A druid can wear medium armor if it is made of chitin or scales or something, or even heavy if they want.
Barbarians simply can’t rage in heavy armor.
Same as monks and shields.

Actually, I'd like to correct you on two things:

First, no Raging in heavy armor is a mechanical effect, outlined within Rage itself. It isn't fluff, like the Druid's "They refuse to wear metal armor" bit.

Second, a Monk can absolutely wear armor. All they lose is Martial Arts, Unarmored Defense, and half of Unarmored Movement. Take a close look at their class abilities, they can still use all of their Ki abilities, Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall, Stunning Strike, use Evasion, gain the benefits of their Subclasses, and they even retain the ability to walk on water and move across vertical surfaces, cause those two abilites aren't dependent on having higher move speed. Meaning, technically, you can make a Lizardfolk Fighter/Monk that wears Heavy Armor and uses their d6 Bite Attack for their Flurry of Blows, and gain pretty much all the benefits of being a Monk.

Either way, both of those examples have mechanical detriments to wearing Armor that they are banned from. The Druid doesn't, they don't lose anything. All they are told is that "Druids refuse to wear metal armor because it is seen as taboo".

[Valmark]

I feel like fluff is "irrelevant", meaning that you can freely change it as long as that change is consistent (I mean, you want your dwarf to be 8' tall? Then all dwarves all 8' tall unless there's some strange reason like a curse, an ilness etc.) and is accepted by the DM. Plus, assuming I'm not the DM, whatever the others want to change I'm cool with it if it doesn't contradict my character somehow (taking the tall dwarf example, if I want my dwarf to be of "normal" height then his cannot be a general thing, but it must be specific to his subrace or character)

Of course, if said fluff would then influens mechanics it's no longer fluff and I as a DM would probably NOT allow it, because I'm kind of scared to alter the rules and risk introducting some unbalancing, unless the party actually wants said change. No sense in keeping a rule no one likes then.
For example, if one person asks me to have druids in metal armor (since that example has been used in the thread) I'm going to say no since the mechanical rules say that they won't use them. Homewever if everyone in the party's fine with it then sure, by all means take it, we can always revert later if it's too much of a problem.



What I'm absolutely NOT ok with is damaging a character in a significant way for the sake of the story.
I'll clear it up. There was this story on youtube about a DM who setted up a "False Hydra" as an enemy, a monster that erases all the memories about its prey when it eats them from the other's minds.
Among other things he did he killed the ranger's animal companion without a save or anything and made it disappear.
I'm not sure that this is relevant to the topic, but just in case, I find something like this to be terribly wrong, even more so from a roleplaying point of view.

[Tvtyrant]

Personally I always thought the Druid aversion to metal was their connection to Fey. Druids tap into the same wild magic Fey do, and neither can stand contact with metal because Fey magic itself detests it.

Personally I think you are free to change whatever about fluff or mechanics you don't like. There is no moral imperative to keep the game as is.

[Greywander]

Hmmm... You never seem to see players using fluff as a reason to decrease their character's effectiveness. It's always "my druid has different beliefs from other druids, that's why he should be allowed to wear half plate. No, of course it's not because I want to potentially have a 20 AC".
No, it's not about powergaming or minmaxing. It has nothing to do with exploiting mechanics. I already posted several mechanical solutions that would fix the issue and actually make druids weaker.

One of the major problems, as Willie the Duck pointed out, is one of autonomy. The rules are telling me what my character will do. I mean, if other people are going to dictate the actions of my character, why am I even there? Just turn my character into an NPC and I'll go play a game where I can actually have fun. Fluff should be descriptive, not prescriptive. It would have been infinitely better if it had said that druids can't wear metal armor. That would solve the autonomy issue, but leads us into the second issue.

The second problem is that fluff needs to make sense. It needs enough justification so as not to break the suspension of disbelief. Here, there is no justification. It begs the question of, "What if I put on metal armor anyway?" or, "What if I'm forced into metal armor?" So... what actually does happen? Because it doesn't say. There isn't actually a reason for me not to wear metal armor. What if we capture a druid and put them in metal armor? What happens then? The lack of explanation leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I want to understand why things are the way they are.

Another thing, not being able to wear metal armor is not fluff. It's mechanics. Not liking vegetables is fluff. There's no mechanical impact should my character refuse to eat vegetables, nor is there one if he is forced to eat them. That's fluff. What armor I can or can't wear is not fluff. It's mechanics. So it needs a mechanical justification. The simplest one is to simply say that druids aren't proficient with metal armor. Bam, done. That explains and justifies everything.

Now, let's consider an example that's a bit inverted from druids and metal armor: winged PC races.

If one were to think about the fluff of being a winged humanoid, then it would certainly have some restrictions and downsides:

Normal clothing and armor won't fit you, it needs to be specially tailored.
You can't use backpacks. Look into using waistpacks instead.
Likewise, squeezing through tight spaces will be much more difficult.
Flying takes a lot of energy. You'll need to eat a lot more, especially food high in sugar and fat.
You'll be able to carry a lot less weight while flying.
And then there's wingspan. A "realistic" winged humanoid would need something like a 30 foot wingspan (similar to a hang glider) in order to plausibly fly.

And yet, almost nothing is mentioned when it comes to restrictions or downsides. Aarakocra can't fly while wearing medium or heavy armor, but that's about it. Winged tieflings don't even have that restriction. A winged tiefling, mechanically speaking, has always on flight with no downsides. They can fly in a 5 foot cube, while wearing heavy armor and maxing out their carrying capacity, with a backpack, and still squeeze through tight spaces. Mechanically speaking.

I'm actually going to be rolling a winged tiefling in an upcoming game, and because I do care about verisimilitude, even though I know there aren't any mechanical downsides, I wanted to try and figure out how to make my wings work. I'm refluffing a backpack to be one or more waistpacks that collectively have similar capacity to a backpack. I thought a lot about my character's clothing. Even though mechanically she can still squeeze through tight spaces, I will RP her as being more uncomfortable while doing so. I will also consider wingspan and available space when flying, though probably not a 30 foot wingspan.

The difference between wings and druids with metal armor is that there's nothing in the rules that say I can't fly in a 5 foot wide hallway, but I would totally understand if the DM told me it was too narrow.

[Tanarii]

Nothing wrong with roleplaying rules. Sometimes they're just telling you what your character might do. Sometimes they tell you what your character will or not do. Sometimes they have an attached mechanic for resolving them. Other times they don't.

Exalted, PbtA, and torchbearer all have extensive roleplaying rules, many with an attached mechanic for resolution, some purely depending on the player cooperating. D&D 5e has a mix, some like Tenets or Pacts or Necromancy or Deities or Alignment/Personalities depending on DM and player cooperation. Others like Charmed or Frightened having an attached mechanic.

[Misterwhisper]

Actually, I'd like to correct you on two things:

First, no Raging in heavy armor is a mechanical effect, outlined within Rage itself. It isn't fluff, like the Druid's "They refuse to wear metal armor" bit.

Second, a Monk can absolutely wear armor. All they lose is Martial Arts, Unarmored Defense, and half of Unarmored Movement. Take a close look at their class abilities, they can still use all of their Ki abilities, Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall, Stunning Strike, use Evasion, gain the benefits of their Subclasses, and they even retain the ability to walk on water and move across vertical surfaces, cause those two abilites aren't dependent on having higher move speed. Meaning, technically, you can make a Lizardfolk Fighter/Monk that wears Heavy Armor and uses their d6 Bite Attack for their Flurry of Blows, and gain pretty much all the benefits of being a Monk.

Either way, both of those examples have mechanical detriments to wearing Armor that they are banned from. The Druid doesn't, they don't lose anything. All they are told is that "Druids refuse to wear metal armor because it is seen as taboo".

It does not matter what the reason is, the book says they don’t wear it, same as rage no happening in heavy armor.

Does it make sense, not in the least, I can very easily see many dwarves druids seeing metal as of the earth and just as much nature as a tree or animal, same as a barbarian releasing their rage and power in spiked full plate.

However it doesn’t matter, that is what the designers said.

[Addaran]

I think there's a big difference between will not and cannot. DnD isn't shy of making exception or going outside of the categories ( rogue/monk weapons). If they wanted only non-metalic armor, they could have said light + hide. For stuff like dragon scales armor, they are basically magic items, so you can put it there that druids can use them.

As mentionned but others, barbarian and monk gives exactly what happpen when they do wear (heavy) armors. Feels they would do the same for druide. Even paladin, who have a more "fluff" restriction ( philosophical instead of physical restriction) does say they could lose their powers or even become an oath-breaker.

Regarding barbarians, they can't rage in heavy armor because that would make them even more indestructible. Possibly 20 AC at lvl one and resistance to all damage except psychic....

Would druid really be too strong with medium armor? Closest class is cleric and they have medium ( or heavy but that's at the cost of some feature). Or if druid and sorcerer/wizard/warlock are balanced, would a druid dwarf suddently become more OP then a dwarf from one of the other class? If no metal armor is a mechanical balance for druid, then you should be able to get it from your race or feat.


Greywander, nice one about winged tiefling. I'd have to check but maybe the MM's general rule about winged creatures give some restriction?

sithlordnergal Armored lizard folk monk sounds really badass.

[Kane0]

Nothing wrong with roleplaying rules. Sometimes they're just telling you what your character might do. Sometimes they tell you what your character will or not do. Sometimes they have an attached mechanic for resolving them. Other times they don't.

I think D&D's problem is that this could be conveyed (and differentiated) more clearly.

[JNAProductions]

It does not matter what the reason is, the book says they don’t wear it, same as rage no happening in heavy armor.

Does it make sense, not in the least, I can very easily see many dwarves druids seeing metal as of the earth and just as much nature as a tree or animal, same as a barbarian releasing their rage and power in spiked full plate.

However it doesn’t matter, that is what the designers said.

No, that's NOT the same. Not at all.

The in-game mechanics of a Barbarian in Heavy Armor is that they lose benefits of Rage. (Yes, I'm aware that some benefits, usually the archetype ones, are not lost. But in general.)

If a Druid wears metal, what's the in-game mechanical penalty/limitation?

[mythmonster2]

One of the major problems, as Willie the Duck pointed out, is one of autonomy. The rules are telling me what my character will do. I mean, if other people are going to dictate the actions of my character, why am I even there? Just turn my character into an NPC and I'll go play a game where I can actually have fun. Fluff should be descriptive, not prescriptive. It would have been infinitely better if it had said that druids can't wear metal armor. That would solve the autonomy issue, but leads us into the second issue.


This pretty much sums it up for me. I've never considered making a barbarian or monk in heavy armor because that's mechanical. If the rules had been like in 3.5 and it just said "being in metal armor prevents you from spellcasting or wild shaping because it disrupts nature blah blah blah", I would never consider making a druid in metal armor, and I'd probably refuse it to any players without some kind of catch (special metal mined from the peak of a mountain under a full moon, that kind of stuff). It's the fact that the game is telling me that my dwarf, who trained for the first half of his life as a soldier, now doesn't want to wear metal armor that's the biggest problem.

[ad_hoc]

This pretty much sums it up for me. I've never considered making a barbarian or monk in heavy armor because that's mechanical. If the rules had been like in 3.5 and it just said "being in metal armor prevents you from spellcasting or wild shaping because it disrupts nature blah blah blah", I would never consider making a druid in metal armor, and I'd probably refuse it to any players without some kind of catch (special metal mined from the peak of a mountain under a full moon, that kind of stuff). It's the fact that the game is telling me that my dwarf, who trained for the first half of his life as a soldier, now doesn't want to wear metal armor that's the biggest problem.

If it is not in your character concept to be a druid, don't be a druid. If you want to gain divine power from nature and wear heavy armour, be a nature cleric.

Druids have specific identities. Part of that identity is that they don't wear metal armour. If you have a character who wants to wear metal armour, then they aren't a druid.

The rules aren't written to punish choices into oblivion. There isn't a rule that says a Druid who wears metal armour loses their spellcasting. Instead it says that they won't wear metal armour. This is because the rules are written narrative first. They are about who characters are. This is much more satisfying than coming up with some sort of mystical reason that Druidic magic fails when wearing metal armour. Instead, it is a chosen part of their identity as a religious order that they don't.

Why would you houserule this rule and not 'prevents you from spellcasting'? If you want to houserule then I empower you to do so. I just think you're missing out.

[Kane0]

Druids have specific identities. Part of that identity is that they don't wear metal armour. If you have a character who wants to wear metal armour, then they aren't a druid.


Erm, is a ranger in plate still a ranger?

[LordCdrMilitant]

I'm curious, how important is fluff to all you players and DMs out there? And by fluff, I mean things that are stated but have no mechanical detriment or benefit, they're just things assumed by a given book.

A good example would be the "Druids won't wear metal armor due to it being taboo." There are no mechanical detriments for a Druid that chooses to wear metal armor like in 3.e. By RAW, the Druid loses nothing, and as such it is on the DM's head to make a penalty.

Personally, I see fluff as a guideline that can be tossed out without any real concerns. That Demon over there? Could be a lawful good Paladin. The Druid in metal armor? A few druids might give them the stink eye, but they're fine. Some broad assumption about a race? Feel free to break it.

My only rule as a DM is find a way to justify it. You're a Dwarven Druid that served in the Dwarven Army? Go ahead and wear metal armor. Dwarf Druids will have no issue with it, but other Druids might.

EDIT: So, in order to clarify things more, the Druid thing is just an example. Other examples could be height and weight. Does it matter to you, as a player or DM, if a person brings an 8 foot tall Dwarf. There's no mechanical benefit, you're still a Medium creature, you're just a Dwarf that's as tall as a Goliath. Or how about a peaceful Barbarian, one that prefers peaceful solutions and never does lethal damage? It goes against the fluff of being a Barbarian, but there's nothing stopping a player from doing so.

As a person who frequents the forums, I have seen a few DMs who would balk at the idea of an 8 foot tall Dwarf, because it goes against the established norm. So, how important is that sort of thing to you?

I have no problem with a druid wearing metal armor or wielding metal weapons. I'm not even certain why there's a taboo listed in the first place.

As for being a peaceful barbarian, that's definitely okay because that's your character's demeanor, and the class has nothing to do with it.

On the 8' dwarf, that's a little bit beyond the normal height range for a dwarf. That said, there were humans with a genetic disorder that makes them very large, so that could be you as a dwarf, but the NPC's will react to it in the way I imagine people would have reacted to humans with gigantism.

[Greywander]

If it is not in your character concept to be a druid, don't be a druid. If you want to gain divine power from nature and wear heavy armour, be a nature cleric.

Druids have specific identities. Part of that identity is that they don't wear metal armour. If you have a character who wants to wear metal armour, then they aren't a druid.
It's not that I want to play a druid in metal armor. It's that I want a reason why I won't wear armor. Making druids not proficient with metal armor provides a reason for it. Druids just aren't trained with wearing and maintaining metal armor. If I choose to wear metal armor anyway, now I know what will happen: I won't be able to cast spell and I'll have disadvantage on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. That's a pretty good reason not to wear metal armor. Oh, and if I do want to play a druid who wears metal armor? I just need to get more general armor proficiencies, probably by multiclassing.

So by making druids not proficient with metal armor, we...:

Provide a clear reason why metal armor isn't worn, as well as consequences for doing so anyway.
Provide a method of subverting this general rule if we decide to buck the trend.

I'm really not understanding why it's such a problem to attach a mechanical reason to not wear metal armor. "It's part of their identity." It was part of the paladin's identity to always be Lawful Good, but the game developers recognized that there wasn't really a reason to artificially restrict players' alignment. Now you can have Lawful Evil Vengeance or Conquest paladins, or Chaotic Neutral Ancients paladins. And it's not like the LG paladins went anywhere, you can still play one of them, it's just that we have more options now. So why restrict the druid? And why in such a limply worded way? If the druid must be restricted, why not do so in a similar way to how barbarians and monks are restricted when it comes to armor?

The objections to this are just so bizarre to me, and I suspect these objections are coming from people who have a long history with D&D. They've so internalized that druids don't wear metal armor that it seems unfathomable to even suggest it. It's not that I object to the idea, I just want to understand why. I'm not willing to simply accept "because the book says so."

Fluff isn't about what my character will or will not do. That's up to me to decide. Fluff tells me how things work, or what things look like, or other descriptions. I can then use those descriptions to help me decide what I will do. Again, refer back to my comments on winged tieflings. By analyzing the fluff behind having wings, I've been able to determine that my character should have certain disadvantages in certain situations, even though the rules don't state this, and I intend to roleplay the limitations of having a huge honking pair of wings on my back, even if the rules don't say I have to.

[diplomancer]

"My wizard is a very good man who would like to heal others. Why can't he cast cure wounds and other healing spells with intelligence as his casting stat? Those designers are really mean to inflict that limitation on my character concept. The arcane-divine divide is only fluff with no real mechanical consequence!"

The phrase "druids can't wear metal armor", specially without stating a mechanical consequence, is obviously false.

[Greywander]

"My wizard is a very good man who would like to heal others. Why can't he cast cure wounds and other healing spells with intelligence as his casting stat? Those designers are really mean to inflict that limitation on my character concept. The arcane-divine divide is only fluff with no real mechanical consequence!"

The phrase "druids can't wear metal armor", specially without stating a mechanical consequence, is obviously false.
No. This isn't even remotely similar. Stop drawing false equivalencies.

Imagine that wizards have Cure Wounds on their spell list. Now imagine a single line in the book stating that wizards won't (not can't, they can, just just won't) cast healing spells. Yes, even if you multiclass into cleric, because you are a wizard your character won't cast any healing spells. Even though Cure Wounds is on your spell list.

Druids have proficiency with medium armor. This means that they trained with using breastplates and half plate and the like at some point. And then they just decided they're not going to wear those kinds of armor. The ones they've learned how to use as part of their druidic training. Even if you multiclass into another class that gets medium or heavy armor proficiency, because you are a druid you still won't wear metal armor. But you can. You just won't. And if you do so anyway? Nothing happens.

You might as well make up a rule that fighters won't use weapons on Tuesdays. Oh, they can, nothing is actually stopping them. But they'll just choose not. What's that? You want to play a fighter who does use weapons on Tuesdays? Clearly you're just a powergamer trying to exploit the rules, you don't care at all about the deep lore behind why fighters won't use weapons on Tuesdays. How dare you.

[LentilNinja]

To divert from Druid vs Metal Armour, I see fluff and mechanics as two workers for the same company in different roles: They both contribute to create a full product, but they should never try to do each other's work.

Too many times have I heard the likes of "If you're gonna play Paladin/Warlock/some multiclass, I'm not going to let you without good plot reasons." OK, but.. why? If I wanted to play a class that can have a simpler background such as Barbarian, Fighter, or even Barbarian/Fighter most DMs wouldn't be questioning. If you're not going to demand a story reason for every class, you shouldn't be demanding it for ANY class.

I get DMs like characters to have some backstory & not just be a race & class combo, and I'm happy to work with a DM to ensure my character fits in and makes sense, but fluff shouldn't be a gatekeeping tool to prevent people from having fun. The times I've witnessed this, it's mostly used to prevent players using classes or combos that DMs deem OP (Hexblade, Paladin 2/Caster X, Warlock 2/Anything X).

I'm also of the belief that, with little exception, the game and it's rules should take precedence over the DM. Some changes can be made here & there to make it more fitting for a campaign setting or more balanced (such as no CoffeeLock) but if we're just going to apply arbitrary rules like you can't follow a Deity & have a Patron or you can't wear Metal Armour as a Druid which detracts from a player's fun, why are we even playing this game? Why don't we just play something else?

[stoutstien]

"My wizard is a very good man who would like to heal others. Why can't he cast cure wounds and other healing spells with intelligence as his casting stat? Those designers are really mean to inflict that limitation on my character concept. The arcane-divine divide is only fluff with no real mechanical consequence!"

The phrase "druids can't wear metal armor", specially without stating a mechanical consequence, is obviously false.

Wait a few weeks and grab the dragonmark that adds healing spells to any spell list.

All and all druid should have been a cleric domain to began with.

[Valmark]

"My wizard is a very good man who would like to heal others. Why can't he cast cure wounds and other healing spells with intelligence as his casting stat? Those designers are really mean to inflict that limitation on my character concept. The arcane-divine divide is only fluff with no real mechanical consequence!"

The phrase "druids can't wear metal armor", specially without stating a mechanical consequence, is obviously false.

I don't get the point of this. The argument is that druid won't wear it, not that they can't.


It's not that I want to play a druid in metal armor. It's that I want a reason why I won't wear armor. Making druids not proficient with metal armor provides a reason for it. Druids just aren't trained with wearing and maintaining metal armor. If I choose to wear metal armor anyway, now I know what will happen: I won't be able to cast spell and I'll have disadvantage on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. That's a pretty good reason not to wear metal armor. Oh, and if I do want to play a druid who wears metal armor? I just need to get more general armor proficiencies, probably by multiclassing.

So by making druids not proficient with metal armor, we...:

Provide a clear reason why metal armor isn't worn, as well as consequences for doing so anyway.
Provide a method of subverting this general rule if we decide to buck the trend.

I'm really not understanding why it's such a problem to attach a mechanical reason to not wear metal armor. "It's part of their identity." It was part of the paladin's identity to always be Lawful Good, but the game developers recognized that there wasn't really a reason to artificially restrict players' alignment. Now you can have Lawful Evil Vengeance or Conquest paladins, or Chaotic Neutral Ancients paladins. And it's not like the LG paladins went anywhere, you can still play one of them, it's just that we have more options now. So why restrict the druid? And why in such a limply worded way? If the druid must be restricted, why not do so in a similar way to how barbarians and monks are restricted when it comes to armor?

The objections to this are just so bizarre to me, and I suspect these objections are coming from people who have a long history with D&D. They've so internalized that druids don't wear metal armor that it seems unfathomable to even suggest it. It's not that I object to the idea, I just want to understand why. I'm not willing to simply accept "because the book says so."

Fluff isn't about what my character will or will not do. That's up to me to decide. Fluff tells me how things work, or what things look like, or other descriptions. I can then use those descriptions to help me decide what I will do. Again, refer back to my comments on winged tieflings. By analyzing the fluff behind having wings, I've been able to determine that my character should have certain disadvantages in certain situations, even though the rules don't state this, and I intend to roleplay the limitations of having a huge honking pair of wings on my back, even if the rules don't say I have to.

Tbh the paladin one makes much less sense then druids and metal. It makes no sense that a church of some chaotic, evil, neutral god can't have paladins. Or even a Neutral Good God (although back in 3.5 you coulf be one step from your divinity, so it still worked)/a Chaotic Good God. Druids you can argue that they are tied to the elemental forces of nature and the organic nature, instead of dead rocks and metals (weak argument since they do use metal weapons but whatever)

Anyway, isn't the mechanical consequence the loss of powers? If a druid won't wear metal armor and he decides to do so he stops being a Druid, no? At least, that's the rule I'd enforce unless there's a really good reason the PC is doing it (or if we decided to ignore that ban)


Erm, is a ranger in plate still a ranger?

I'm not sure this makes sense as an objection. Druids are banned from metal armor, rangers don't have proficiency in heavy armor. It's completely different. The latter can just take the proficiency, the former... can't.

[Willie the Duck]

Nothing wrong with roleplaying rules. Sometimes they're just telling you what your character might do. Sometimes they tell you what your character will or not do. Sometimes they have an attached mechanic for resolving them. Other times they don't.

Exalted, PbtA, and torchbearer all have extensive roleplaying rules, many with an attached mechanic for resolution, some purely depending on the player cooperating. D&D 5e has a mix, some like Tenets or Pacts or Necromancy or Deities or Alignment/Personalities depending on DM and player cooperation. Others like Charmed or Frightened having an attached mechanic.

True, and oftentimes it comes down to a shared consensus about what kind of rules are 'acceptable' (there's certainly no codified 'rules about acceptable rules' or the like, that's no more a universally known thing than the fluff/crunch divide). That said, the Druid armor thing in 5e is notable in that it does deviate from a perceived norm within the edition. In most other cases, even places where there used to be RP restrictions in previous editions, they were removed. Druid armor actually took what was a restriction with mechanical consequences and moved it into the RP restriction zone without clear explanation as to why. I think that might be why it sticks in more than a few craws.

[diplomancer]

The best solution to the druid armor problem is to let them get alternative material medium armor around levels 6-8, which is when a dex-based warrior, and maybe even a str-based warrior would get
their best non-magical AC. Having your AC progression cut short so soon (around level 2, really, or even 1 for some builds) feels wrong to most people. The worst solution is to say "it's fluff, not mechanics, so I can just ignore it and see what the DM does about it".

As to the "no-consequence" argument: Consequence is whatever the DM wants it to be, from nothing to being shunned or hunted down by other druids, to having nature itself try to kill you (I believe there is a CR 25 Avatar of Nature somewhere), to losing your powers immediately, to losing them at the worst possible moment. Once you put on metal armor, you are entirely at the DM's mercy, in an even worse situation than the Paladin who regularly breaks his oath for no good reason.

What I would probably do as a DM is that for each day you wear the armor you become a Nature Cleric X/Druid Y-X, where X is the number of days and Y is your initial Druid level. Somewhat lenient interpretation, I know, so it would be irreversible without some sort of quest.

[JNAProductions]

The best solution to the druid armor problem is to let them get alternative material medium armor around levels 6-8, which is when a dex-based warrior, and maybe even a str-based warrior would get
their best non-magical AC. Having your AC progression cut short so soon (around level 2, really, or even 1 for some builds) feels wrong to most people. The worst solution is to say "it's fluff, not mechanics, so I can just ignore it and see what the DM does about it".

As to the "no-consequence" argument: Consequence is whatever the DM wants it to be, from nothing to being shunned or hunted down by other druids, to having nature itself try to kill you (I believe there is a CR 25 Avatar of Nature somewhere), to losing your powers immediately, to losing them at the worst possible moment. Once you put on metal armor, you are entirely at the DM's mercy, not unlike the Paladin who regularly breaks his oath for no good reason

If a DM shut off my powers for wearing metal armor without first making clear that they have a houserule about it, I'd be mad as hell.

Being shunned by other Druids is a fluff consequence for a fluff rule-okay, that's fine.
Being attacked b an avatar of Gaia is technically a fluff consequence-if you're sending a CR 25 monster after, say, a level eight Druid, you're a jerk, but it's still not mechanical.

But shutting off my powers, when mechanically there is no listed penalty? That's a houserule, and that is very much one I'd need to know ahead of time if I'm playing a Druid. If a DM did have a houserule such as "Druids who wear metal armor willingly cannot cast spells or use active Druid abilities until they remove it and complete a rest," that'd be fine. They're adding on a mechanical penalty, but that's a clear houserule that I know about and can plan around.

[diplomancer]

If a DM shut off my powers for wearing metal armor without first making clear that they have a houserule about it, I'd be mad as hell.

Being shunned by other Druids is a fluff consequence for a fluff rule-okay, that's fine.
Being attacked b an avatar of Gaia is technically a fluff consequence-if you're sending a CR 25 monster after, say, a level eight Druid, you're a jerk, but it's still not mechanical.

But shutting off my powers, when mechanically there is no listed penalty? That's a houserule, and that is very much one I'd need to know ahead of time if I'm playing a Druid. If a DM did have a houserule such as "Druids who wear metal armor willingly cannot cast spells or use active Druid abilities until they remove it and complete a rest," that'd be fine. They're adding on a mechanical penalty, but that's a clear houserule that I know about and can plan around.

You know what's also a houserule? Having a Druid that wears metal armor at all. The rulebook very clearly states that Druids will not wear metal armor. And if a player springs that on me as a DM without any previous conversation, imposing a houserule of his own on a campaign I run, there would also be hell to pay.

[JNAProductions]

You know what's also a houserule? Having a Druid that wears metal armor at all. And if a player springs that on me as a DM without any previous conversation, imposing a houserule of his own on a campaign I run, there would also be hell to pay.

Diplomancer, do you understand my and other's main complaint about this?

It's imposing a mechanical limitation with no penalties for breaking it. If there was a rule that stated something akin to the houserule I posted above, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. It'd be a rule I'd certainly be willing to lift for a player, or just in general, but it'd be a solid rule.

What it is now is controlling PC actions without applying any mechanical effects. Not "Druids cannot wear metal armor," and then go on to say because they lose powers. Just "Druids will not wear metal armor."

Moreover, let's assume you're running a game and a Druid PC says "I'm going to put on this Half-Plate." How would you respond?

[stoutstien]

You know what's also a houserule? Having a Druid that wears metal armor at all. The rulebook very clearly states that Druids will not wear metal armor. And if a player springs that on me as a DM without any previous conversation, imposing a houserule of his own on a campaign I run, there would also be hell to pay.

The question is which armors are considered metal? Obviously plate and maybe half plate but splint, breastplate, or scale? How much metal IS metal?
If a DM rules studded leather is metal due to them having close set spikes or rivets is that RAW or a cuff ruling? By mass they probably have a similar ratio to a breastplate.

I agree completely a simple green box on the armor page with variant material right next to equipment size would have saved alot of grief.

[patchyman]

No, that's NOT the same. Not at all.

The in-game mechanics of a Barbarian in Heavy Armor is that they lose benefits of Rage. (Yes, I'm aware that some benefits, usually the archetype ones, are not lost. But in general.)

If a Druid wears metal, what's the in-game mechanical penalty/limitation?

The in-game mechanic is up to the DM. That is used a lot in this edition, including in the paladin example you bring up. 3e said that as a paladin, you fall if you commit one Evil act, and you must atone if you commit a Chaotic act. This edition says that you *may* if you do not follow your tenets. Personally, I prefer the greater flexibility of the new edition.

Maybe your DM will decide that the in-game mechanic is a penalty to social checks with other druids. Maybe he will decide that the penalty is that your spellcasting will impacted. As always, ask your DM ahead of time.

Nothing in the above means that there is no in-game mechanic.

[JNAProductions]

The in-game mechanic is up to the DM. That is used a lot in this edition, including in the paladin example you bring up. 3e said that as a paladin, you fall if you commit one Evil act, and you must atone if you commit a Chaotic act. Personally, I prefer the greater flexibility of the new edition.

Maybe your DM will decide that the in-game mechanic is a penalty to social checks with other druids. Maybe he will decide that the penalty is that your spellcasting will impacted. As always, ask your DM ahead of time.

Nothing in the above means that there is no in-game mechanic.

Then why isn't it the same for a Barbarian who wears heavy armor? Or a Monk who wears armor at all?

[diplomancer]

Diplomancer, do you understand my and other's main complaint about this?

It's imposing a mechanical limitation with no penalties for breaking it. If there was a rule that stated something akin to the houserule I posted above, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. It'd be a rule I'd certainly be willing to lift for a player, or just in general, but it'd be a solid rule.

What it is now is controlling PC actions without applying any mechanical effects. Not "Druids cannot wear metal armor," and then go on to say because they lose powers. Just "Druids will not wear metal armor."

Moreover, let's assume you're running a game and a Druid PC says "I'm going to put on this Half-Plate." How would you respond?

He just springs it on me like that, which means I have to adjudicate the results of his actions? Probably what I suggested above, for every day he wears it he irrevocably loses a druid level and gains a nature cleric level. So, first day is "you feel the way you relate to nature is changing, are you sure you want to keep this?" (And explain to the player what that means mechanically. If he wants that, he wants that, if he doesn't, he won't wear the armor, since druids won't wear metal armor)

Or, if he really wants it for fluff and not mechanical reasons, let him have it as a reskinned studded leather armor.

If he says "I want the mechanical benefit of +3 AC without any mechanical drawback" I will answer "that is not an option", the same way I would answer any player that says "I want +3 AC, can I have it?"

[Misterwhisper]

He just springs it on me like that, which means I have to adjudicate the results of his actions? Probably what I suggested above, for every day he wears it he irrevocably loses a druid level and gains a nature cleric level. So, first day is "you feel the way you relate to nature is changing, are you sure you want to keep this?" (And explain to the player what that means mechanically. If he wants that, he wants that, if he doesn't, he won't wear the armor, since druids won't wear metal armor)

Or, if he really wants it for fluff and not mechanical reasons, let him have it as a reskinned studded leather armor.

If he says "I want the mechanical benefit of +3 AC without any mechanical drawback" I will answer "that is not an option".

This is where I don't see the problem.

If one of my players is playing a Druid, and they want say, a breastplate armor, the simple answer is, "sure, you can find some made of shell or chitin, just add 10% to the cost, or normal cost if you make it yourself."

The idea of making house rules on penalties for metal armor is much more of a hassle than it is to just make some normal metal armor out of other material.

It is not much of a stretch to see a breastplate, half-plate, and full plate out of non-metal, a little harder to figure out a chain shirt or chainmail.

I am not sure if it is in the Eberron book coming out soon but it used to have other non-metal armors in it, also the Scarred Lands book has multiple different armors and weapons.

[Hail Tempus]

Actually, I'd like to correct you on two things:

First, no Raging in heavy armor is a mechanical effect, outlined within Rage itself. It isn't fluff, like the Druid's "They refuse to wear metal armor" bit.

Second, a Monk can absolutely wear armor. All they lose is Martial Arts, Unarmored Defense, and half of Unarmored Movement. Take a close look at their class abilities, they can still use all of their Ki abilities, Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall, Stunning Strike, use Evasion, gain the benefits of their Subclasses, and they even retain the ability to walk on water and move across vertical surfaces, cause those two abilites aren't dependent on having higher move speed. Meaning, technically, you can make a Lizardfolk Fighter/Monk that wears Heavy Armor and uses their d6 Bite Attack for their Flurry of Blows, and gain pretty much all the benefits of being a Monk.

Either way, both of those examples have mechanical detriments to wearing Armor that they are banned from. The Druid doesn't, they don't lose anything. All they are told is that "Druids refuse to wear metal armor because it is seen as taboo". The restriction on the druid wearing metal armor is in the proficiency portion of the Druid section of the PHB. That's not a fluff restriction, that's a mechanical restriction. You might not like it, and you're free to houserule it away in your game, but the restriction is pretty clear in the PHB that druids are not allowed to wear metal armor.

I'm really not sure why this is such a big deal for so many people. Druids have a lot of things going for them. There's no real reason they need an AC boost.

[JNAProductions]

The restriction on the druid wearing metal armor is in the proficiency portion of the Druid section of the PHB. That's not a fluff restriction, that's a mechanical restriction. You might not like it, and you're free to houserule it away in your game, but the restriction is pretty clear in the PHB that druids are not allowed to wear metal armor.

I'm really not sure why this is such a big deal for so many people. Druids have a lot of things going for them. There's no real reason they need an AC boost.

Because it's not a mechanical issue. It's an issue of the game forcing certain behaviors and actions on a PC with no mechanical backing.

If the proficiencies section was "Druids are proficient with Padded, Leather, and Hide armor," that'd be a bit wonky, but fine.,
If there was a section that said "Druids who wear metallic armor cannot cast their spells or Wild Shape while in it," that'd be a bit annoying, but fine.

The issue is it just says "If you play a Druid, your character won't do this." When I'm a PC, I want to control my character's actions.

[Willie the Duck]

The restriction on the druid wearing metal armor is in the proficiency portion of the Druid section of the PHB. That's not a fluff restriction, that's a mechanical restriction. You might not like it, and you're free to houserule it away in your game, but the restriction is pretty clear in the PHB that druids are not allowed to wear metal armor.

I'm really not sure why this is such a big deal for so many people. Druids have a lot of things going for them. There's no real reason they need an AC boost.

As everyone in thread on that side has made repeatedly clear, it is not about the AC, but in the manner in which the rule is given. It isn't that druids are not allowed to wear metal armor, but instead that they won't (despite otherwise PC decisions usually being handed off to the players). That is the issue. The end result is the same, but some times and to some people, the distinction is meaningful. I personally have no strong opinions on the actual issue at hand, but I dislike misrepresenting other peoples' arguments or the issues that they have with something.

[diplomancer]

This is where I don't see the problem.

If one of my players is playing a Druid, and they want say, a breastplate armor, the simple answer is, "sure, you can find some made of shell or chitin, just add 10% to the cost, or normal cost if you make it yourself."

The idea of making house rules on penalties for metal armor is much more of a hassle than it is to just make some normal metal armor out of other material.

It is not much of a stretch to see a breastplate, half-plate, and full plate out of non-metal, a little harder to figure out a chain shirt or chainmail.

I am not sure if it is in the Eberron book coming out soon but it used to have other non-metal armors in it, also the Scarred Lands book has multiple different armors and weapons.

As I said, that's what I would probably do around levels 6-8. Druid will find some non-metal breastplate or half-plate. Player will be as happy as if he'd got a magical item, and his AC would progress accordingly, in tandem with other players. Everyone is happy, class balance and identity is preserved.


Because it's not a mechanical issue. It's an issue of the game forcing certain behaviors and actions on a PC with no mechanical backing.

If the proficiencies section was "Druids are proficient with Padded, Leather, and Hide armor," that'd be a bit wonky, but fine.,
If there was a section that said "Druids who wear metallic armor cannot cast their spells or Wild Shape while in it," that'd be a bit annoying, but fine.

The issue is it just says "If you play a Druid, your character won't do this." When I'm a PC, I want to control my character's actions.

So you would be ok if the DM lets you do it but just gives you the same AC as you would have with studded leather, since it's not a mechanical issue?

[Hail Tempus]

Because it's not a mechanical issue. It's an issue of the game forcing certain behaviors and actions on a PC with no mechanical backing. Then play something else if you don't like the restriction on Druids. I don't like the sorcerer's limited number of known spells, so I don't play one. Problem solved.


If the proficiencies section was "Druids are proficient with Padded, Leather, and Hide armor," that'd be a bit wonky, but fine.,
If there was a section that said "Druids who wear metallic armor cannot cast their spells or Wild Shape while in it," that'd be a bit annoying, but fine.

The issue is it just says "If you play a Druid, your character won't do this." When I'm a PC, I want to control my character's actions. As a player, you only get to control your PC within the boundaries of the rules. One of the rules is that a Druid won't wear metal armor. Again, if that restriction is too onerous for you, play some other character class.

The idea that you can play your character however you want without any restrictions is nonsense.

[JNAProductions]

As I said, that's what I would probably do around levels 6-8. Druid will find some non-metal breastplate or half-plate. Player will be as happy as if he'd got a magical item, and his AC would progress accordingly, in tandem with other players. Everyone is happy, class balance and identity is preserved.

So you would be ok if the DM lets you do it but just gives you the same AC as you would have with studded leather?

You appear to be missing the point. Willie the Duck's last point is pretty clear on the issue.


Then play something else if you don't like the restriction on Druids. I don't like the sorcerer's limited number of known spells, so I don't play one. Problem solved.

As a player, you only get to control your PC within the boundaries of the rules. One of the rules is that a Druid won't wear metal armor. Again, if that restriction is too onerous for you, play some other character class.

The idea that you can play your character however you want without any restrictions is nonsense.

The idea that I can just say "I kill all the bad guys and save the princess and live happily ever after" is nonsense, I agree.

But the idea that I can control what my PC chooses to do? Why is that nonsense? Why is it that a Sorcerer has an explicitly limited amount of spells known, but a Druid just "won't" wear metal armor? Why is a Barbarian perfectly capable of wearing heavy armor, they just suffer penalties/lose benefits from it, but a Druid just "won't" wear metal?

Moreover, if I'm a Barbarian, what if I say "My character takes a deep breath and calms down." That's against what Barbarians do! Surely I shouldn't be allowed to do that!

[Hail Tempus]

As everyone in thread on that side has made repeatedly clear, it is not about the AC, but in the manner in which the rule is given. It isn't that druids are not allowed to wear metal armor, but instead that they won't (despite otherwise PC decisions usually being handed off to the players). That is the issue. The end result is the same, but some times and to some people, the distinction is meaningful. I personally have no strong opinions on the actual issue at hand, but I dislike misrepresenting other peoples' arguments or the issues that they have with something. It's a distinction without a difference. Who cares how the rule is presented? The result is the same- no metal armor for Druids.

[diplomancer]

You appear to be missing the point. Willie the Duck's last point is pretty clear on the issue.

Is the answer to my last question yes? Would you be ok if the DM did that? Would you feel your character's free will isnot being restricted?

[JNAProductions]

It's a distinction without a difference. Who cares how the rule is presented? The result is the same- no metal armor for Druids.

It's really not. Even if you can make the argument that it's purely feeling, guess what? This is a game. How it makes you feel matters.


Is the answer to my last question yes? Would you be ok if the DM did that? Would you feel your character's actions are not being restricted?

What happens if someone else puts on the armor? Do they still only get studded leather stats?

What if I get my Barbarian friend's half-plate, which he no longer needs because his Unarmored Defense meets or exceeds his armored AC?

[stoutstien]

As I said, that's what I would probably do around levels 6-8. Druid will find some non-metal breastplate or half-plate. Player will be as happy as if he'd got a magical item, and his AC would progress accordingly, in tandem with other players. Everyone is happy, class balance and identity is preserved.

If you have a problem with the power level of druid, which is a fair concern if the player knows what they're doing, I don't think trying to hamstring them by restricting armor by arbitrarily deciding which armors are metal enough to impose some form of DM fiat is a logical course of action.
If anything it's going to hurt the land circles the most which are sitting at the bottom of popularity already. Moon could care less and it probably a wash for dream, Shep, and spore. Well spore wants better AC and if I wanted to player one i'd clear the air with the table on what armor i could use before I'd even consider it.

*if you really want to keep casters from getting too good of armor too easily just have proficiencies from multiclass round down and not up. So if a druid grabs a level of cleric they still have to wear medium armor to use druid spells and so on. Same for wizard/ cleric, paladin/sorcerer or warlock.

[diplomancer]

It's really not. Even if you can make the argument that it's purely feeling, guess what? This is a game. How it makes you feel matters.



What happens if someone else puts on the armor? Do they still only get studded leather stats?

What if I get my Barbarian friend's half-plate, which he no longer needs because his Unarmored Defense meets or exceeds his armored AC?

Half-plate works as half-plate for everyone except Druids. Because nature is just that powerful, and that's what She wills. You still get to look good though and not like some scrawny rogue, so there is that benefit (I'm assuming here, of course, that this is the reason you want to wear half-plate, and not just have +3 AC with no mechanical drawback)

[Valmark]

If a DM shut off my powers for wearing metal armor without first making clear that they have a houserule about it, I'd be mad as hell.

Being shunned by other Druids is a fluff consequence for a fluff rule-okay, that's fine.
Being attacked b an avatar of Gaia is technically a fluff consequence-if you're sending a CR 25 monster after, say, a level eight Druid, you're a jerk, but it's still not mechanical.

But shutting off my powers, when mechanically there is no listed penalty? That's a houserule, and that is very much one I'd need to know ahead of time if I'm playing a Druid. If a DM did have a houserule such as "Druids who wear metal armor willingly cannot cast spells or use active Druid abilities until they remove it and complete a rest," that'd be fine. They're adding on a mechanical penalty, but that's a clear houserule that I know about and can plan around.

Clarify, Do you mean a DM that tells you the consequences once you're already wearing it? Because that's a normal reaction (to get angry I mean) homewever if you go buy a metal armor and then say that you want to put it on you can't get angry if the DM stops you and tells you what happens, since there was no reason to say it before.

Though I don't think removing a Druid's abilities for wearing metal armor is really an house rule. After all, it says that a druid will not wear metal armor. You wear it? You're not a druid, following logic.



You know what's also a houserule? Having a Druid that wears metal armor at all. The rulebook very clearly states that Druids will not wear metal armor. And if a player springs that on me as a DM without any previous conversation, imposing a houserule of his own on a campaign I run, there would also be hell to pay.

Exactly. If you tell the DM before alright, but if you come up suddenly saying "I've got this on" then you should be ready for harsh consequences.



Diplomancer, do you understand my and other's main complaint about this?

It's imposing a mechanical limitation with no penalties for breaking it. If there was a rule that stated something akin to the houserule I posted above, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. It'd be a rule I'd certainly be willing to lift for a player, or just in general, but it'd be a solid rule.

What it is now is controlling PC actions without applying any mechanical effects. Not "Druids cannot wear metal armor," and then go on to say because they lose powers. Just "Druids will not wear metal armor."

Moreover, let's assume you're running a game and a Druid PC says "I'm going to put on this Half-Plate." How would you respond?

I'd respond "you'll lose your powers. You sure?" Like I would with any PC that's going to do a suicidal, non-sensical action (I'm assuming the druid doesn't have a reason beyond "I want a better AC, damn the rules and the DM"). Of course for other PCs the consequences are different.

Plus, if they got a reason like, say, "I need to camouflage as a guard to enter this place" I'd be ok with letting him wear it, only for the duration of the infiltration.


The question is which armors are considered metal? Obviously plate and maybe half plate but splint, breastplate, or scale? How much metal IS metal?
If a DM rules studded leather is metal due to them having close set spikes or rivets is that RAW or a cuff ruling? By mass they probably have a similar ratio to a breastplate.

I agree completely a simple green box on the armor page with variant material right next to equipment size would have saved alot of grief.

True for the green box thing, as for the metal question, I think anything that has metal counts. Wasn't it like that in previous editions?


Then why isn't it the same for a Barbarian who wears heavy armor? Or a Monk who wears armor at all?

Because they have other reasons for their abilities not working, different from a religious taboo. At least, I see them as not being able to activate certain abilities because of impairment or things like that.

[Hail Tempus]

It's really not. Even if you can make the argument that it's purely feeling, guess what? This is a game. How it makes you feel matters. The rule is pretty clear, and anyone who wants to play a Druid knows it's out there. "But I don't wannaaaaaa" isn't really an argument against following a rule.

[JNAProductions]

Half-plate works as half-plate for everyone except Druids. Because nature is just that powerful, and that's what She wills.

Then that's horse crap. I don't see Clerics of Pelor not being able to hang out in dark rooms.


To Valmark:

If my PC is a Dwarven Smith, one who's worked the forge for a century, and heeds the call of the earth, training in Druidic arts to eventually become one with the earth itself (Moon Druid's Elemental Wild Shape), why would I have a taboo against metal?

If my PC is a pragmatic con artist, who learned a few Druidic tricks from a lowly initiate of the circles, just enough to cast a few spells and wildshape, why would I have a taboo against metal?

In the second case, I can definitely see Druidic circles hating my PC for stealing their secrets, but why would I be able to have Druidic powers when I'm wholly against (or at least, not aligned at all with) them, but as soon as I wear metal, it's gone?

[stoutstien]

Clarify, Do you mean a DM that tells you the consequences once you're already wearing it? Because that's a normal reaction (to get angry I mean) homewever if you go buy a metal armor and then say that you want to put it on you can't get angry if the DM stops you and tells you what happens, since there was no reason to say it before.

Though I don't think removing a Druid's abilities for wearing metal armor is really an house rule. After all, it says that a druid will not wear metal armor. You wear it? You're not a druid, following logic.




Exactly. If you tell the DM before alright, but if you come up suddenly saying "I've got this on" then you should be ready for harsh consequences.




I'd respond "you'll lose your powers. You sure?" Like I would with any PC that's going to do a suicidal, non-sensical action (I'm assuming the druid doesn't have a reason beyond "I want a better AC, damn the rules and the DM"). Of course for other PCs the consequences are different.

Plus, if they got a reason like, say, "I need to camouflage as a guard to enter this place" I'd be ok with letting him wear it, only for the duration of the infiltration.



True for the green box thing, as for the metal question, I think anything that has metal counts. Wasn't it like that in previous editions?



Because they have other reasons for their abilities not working, different from a religious taboo. At least, I see them as not being able to activate certain abilities because of impairment or things like that.

Arguably all armor could have metal components(even quilted armor regularly have metal fasteners) so we have an issue from the get go of unquantified parameters for a class restriction that doesn't have parameters for what happens when you don't follow them. I think studded leather and scale mail are going to be the points of contention.

[diplomancer]

Then that's horse crap. I don't see Clerics of Pelor not being able to hang out in dark rooms

You want the mechanical benefit. Be loud and proud about it, don't just say "oh, my Druid may do whatever he can, even if the rules go to the trouble of stating that he won't".

Or be happy for the DM that allows you to fluff your studded leather as half-plate while you are wearing it.

[JNAProductions]

You want the mechanical benefit. Be loud and proud about it, don't just say "oh, my Druid may do whatever he can, even if the rules go to the trouble of stating that he won't".

Or be happy for the DM that allows you to fluff your studded leather as half-plate while you are wearing it.

I don't give a hoot about the AC! Druids are a top-notch class even if they didn't have any armor proficiencies at all!

Why are you just assuming I'm lying about what I've said?

[redwizard007]

Congratulations to the Druid w/ metal armor debate for pointing out, AGAIN, what a piss poor job Mearls and Crawford do at creating a RPG. Its really disappointing considering what a great concept 5e has over all, that the poorly written minutiae repeatedly become points of contention.

On to more productive topics.

What do the rest of you do when you need to replace fluff to make a concept work? A barbarian may be "uncomfortable in crowds," but what if I want to use the barbarian class to represent a back alley street brawler? What about a wizard that broke the divine code and casts healing spells, (actually a knowledge domain cleric.) Ooooooooo, how about a "barbarian" that is also a rogue built as a hunter. Now imagine a monk that lives in the wild and revered nature. Is there any reason he cant call himself a Druid? Class features do not equal a character concept. Fluff does.

The place where this gets particularly frustrating for me is when my <insert class here> can't multi class into something because the DM cant understand that the classes are simply toolboxes of abilities that one can use to build the character they want. Why is a pally/warlock build frowned upon? My relationship with my god changed, or perhaps my understanding of his teachings brought about a stronger relationship... Why can't my druid/cleric build blossom from a general nature worship to following a specific god? Why can't the sorcerer/wizard begin to learn structured magic to help control his natural powers? Why must my rogue/sorcerer or fighter/warlock justify gaining spell casting while the wizard/ranger doesn't need to justify learning about tracking?

I guess the druid/armor thing is relevant here too. If they listed a reason and consequences then I could incorporate the Druid chassis into more builds.

[diplomancer]

I don't give a hoot about the AC! Druids are a top-notch class even if they didn't have any armor proficiencies at all!

Why are you just assuming I'm lying about what I've said?

So why would you not be happy with that DM solution? It's allowing the druid to wear half-plate without the associated mechanical benefits or any mechanical drawbacks, he's just looking different.

[JNAProductions]

Congratulations to the Druid w/ metal armor debate for pointing out, AGAIN, what a piss poor job Mearls and Crawford do at creating a RPG. Its really disappointing considering what a great concept 5e has over all, that the poorly written minutiae repeatedly become points of contention.

On to more productive topics.

What do the rest of you do when you need to replace fluff to make a concept work? A barbarian may be "uncomfortable in crowds," but what if I want to use the barbarian class to represent a back alley street brawler? What about a wizard that broke the divine code and casts healing spells, (actually a knowledge domain cleric.) Ooooooooo, how about a "barbarian" that is also a rogue built as a hunter. Now imagine a monk that lives in the wild and revered nature. Is there any reason he cant call himself a Druid? Class features do not equal a character concept. Fluff does.

The place where this gets particularly frustrating for me is when my <insert class here> can't multi class into something because the DM cant understand that the classes are simply toolboxes of abilities that one can use to build the character they want. Why is a pally/warlock build frowned upon? My relationship with my god changed, or perhaps my understanding of his teachings brought about a stronger relationship... Why can't my druid/cleric build blossom from a general nature worship to following a specific god? Why can't the sorcerer/wizard begin to learn structured magic to help control his natural powers? Why must my rogue/sorcerer or fighter/warlock justify gaining spell casting while the wizard/ranger doesn't need to justify learning about tracking?

Yeah, I agree with this. While there's default fluff associated with each class, there's nothing really forcing you to stick to it.

I mean, take this example: You have a warrior of justice, from a long line of similar warriors, who sometimes goes too far in his crusade against evil.

You could be...

-A Paladin, possibly of Vengeance
-A Fighter with a strong moral code and anger issues
-A Barbarian, probably Ancestral Guardian

Or other classes too, those are just my initial thoughts on what fits best.


So why would you not be happy with that DM solution? It's allowing the druid to wear half-plate without the associated mechanical benefits or any mechanical drawbacks, he's just looking good.

Verisimilitude. When a Barbarian (who has the exact same armor proficiencies as a Druid) wears it, it's AC 15+Dex Mod (Max 2). When A Druid wears it, suddenly it works completely differently, giving AC 12+Dex Mod.

It's changing the way the world works for what is, to me, a pretty damn stupid reason. It's not even adhering to what YOU say is important-in the game world, the Druid is wearing metal armor. You are the one who's arguing purely on mechanics. Which is an odd reversal for me, because I'm usually a mechanics first guy.

[Willie the Duck]

It's a distinction without a difference. Who cares how the rule is presented? The result is the same- no metal armor for Druids.

Clearly plenty of people (although, to be fair, we have no idea how prevalent it is that this is a big deal for people no on forums like this. We aren't very representative, I feel). Regardless, if people come to a thread and keep complaining about how the rule is presented (and not the AC or overall druid balance compared to other classes, or something like that), that, and not something else (such as the actual armor class value) is what they are complaining about. We do not get to choose why other people like or dislike something.

[Valmark]

You appear to be missing the point. Willie the Duck's last point is pretty clear on the issue.



The idea that I can just say "I kill all the bad guys and save the princess and live happily ever after" is nonsense, I agree.

But the idea that I can control what my PC chooses to do? Why is that nonsense? Why is it that a Sorcerer has an explicitly limited amount of spells known, but a Druid just "won't" wear metal armor? Why is a Barbarian perfectly capable of wearing heavy armor, they just suffer penalties/lose benefits from it, but a Druid just "won't" wear metal?

Moreover, if I'm a Barbarian, what if I say "My character takes a deep breath and calms down." That's against what Barbarians do! Surely I shouldn't be allowed to do that!

I'm quoting only for the last bit, because the barbarian can actually do that. He can end the rage whenever he wants.


Then that's horse crap. I don't see Clerics of Pelor not being able to hang out in dark rooms.


To Valmark:

If my PC is a Dwarven Smith, one who's worked the forge for a century, and heeds the call of the earth, training in Druidic arts to eventually become one with the earth itself (Moon Druid's Elemental Wild Shape), why would I have a taboo against metal?

If my PC is a pragmatic con artist, who learned a few Druidic tricks from a lowly initiate of the circles, just enough to cast a few spells and wildshape, why would I have a taboo against metal?

In the second case, I can definitely see Druidic circles hating my PC for stealing their secrets, but why would I be able to have Druidic powers when I'm wholly against (or at least, not aligned at all with) them, but as soon as I wear metal, it's gone?

Because druids are against wearing metal. They can use it, for example on weapons, since they do need utensils, but they won't wear it because *insert how you justify it*. In my case I see it as druids only revering untouched nature or nature nurtured through strictly natural ways. By extension working the metal in a forge by beating and burning it is a violence on it. I'm unaware if there are other ways to work it in D&D 5e.
That's the answer to the Dwarven.

As for the con artist, because to learn them you need to be attuned and follow the precets of the druids. Otherwise even if they try to teach you you won't be able to put them in practice.
You later specify that you aren't aligned with said precets. To me it feels like this background eouldn't even justify said powers in the first place. It's not like you can just look at a druid do his magic and learn, just like with a cleric and so on.

All of this assuming I'm not houseruling it being possible. As said before, if the whole party's ok with it then by all means. If it reveals to be too unbalancing then we'll fix it up later (although I doubt it would be)


Arguably all armor could have metal components(even quilted armor regularly have metal fasteners) so we have an issue from the get go of unquantified parameters for a class restriction that doesn't have parameters for what happens when you don't follow them. I think studded leather and scale mail are going to be the points of contention.

Yeah, they are the most confusing armors. That's why I consider the armor's description: if it specifies metal, you don't wear it, for the sake of semplicity. I can just invent new materials as a DM

[diplomancer]

Verisimilitude. When a Barbarian (who has the exact same armor proficiencies as a Druid) wears it, it's AC 15+Dex Mod (Max 2). When A Druid wears it, suddenly it works completely differently, giving AC 12+Dex Mod.

It's changing the way the world works for what is, to me, a pretty damn stupid reason. It's not even adhering to what YOU say is important-in the game world, the Druid is wearing metal armor. You are the one who's arguing purely on mechanics. Which is an odd reversal for me, because I'm usually a mechanics first guy.

I don't believe I have stated that for me what is important in the game world is for druids to not wear metal armor. If I gave that impression, I retract that. Obviously, that varies from DM to DM, and from world to world. To me, what is important is that no character get a +3 to the AC intended to their class for no good reason. That's why I would either not give the +3 AC, or create a mechanical drawback in return.

(And pretty much nothing is capable of breaking verisimilitude for me in a world where halflings can go around carrying lionesses on their shoulders... nature magically changing what a suit of armor does as it suits Her is peanuts compared to that).

[Valmark]

You want the mechanical benefit. Be loud and proud about it, don't just say "oh, my Druid may do whatever he can, even if the rules go to the trouble of stating that he won't".

Or be happy for the DM that allows you to fluff your studded leather as half-plate while you are wearing it.

I think his point is that he doesn't want a limitation without a justification nor actual penalties for that limitation. It's simply being forced on him or anyone else who does a druid.


So why would you not be happy with that DM solution? It's allowing the druid to wear half-plate without the associated mechanical benefits or any mechanical drawbacks, he's just looking different.

The thing is that said rule that they are avoiding isn't explained, at least I think. Nor does it specify clearly a punishment.
At least I think that's what he and others who support the DruidxMetal ship mean, I'm a "no houserule" kind of guy so I can only interpret.

[Addaran]

I don't believe I have stated that for me what is important in the game world is for druids to not wear metal armor. If I gave that impression, I retract that. Obviously, that varies from DM to DM, and from world to world. To me, what is important is that no character get a +3 to the AC intended to their class for no good reason. That's why I would either not give the +3 AC, or create a mechanical drawback in return.


If you don't want druids to get +3 to the AC intended to their class, then why would you be opposed to a druid multiclassing or being the dwarf that gets medium armor as a race, or even as a feat? They are paying for the mechanical advantage. If it's balanced to go fighter then wizard (no armor normaly) and be in a full plate, i don't see why it's not balanced to go fighter then druid in full plate.



What do the rest of you do when you need to replace fluff to make a concept work? A barbarian may be "uncomfortable in crowds," but what if I want to use the barbarian class to represent a back alley street brawler? What about a wizard that broke the divine code and casts healing spells, (actually a knowledge domain cleric.) Ooooooooo, how about a "barbarian" that is also a rogue built as a hunter. Now imagine a monk that lives in the wild and revered nature. Is there any reason he cant call himself a Druid? Class features do not equal a character concept. Fluff does.

The place where this gets particularly frustrating for me is when my <insert class here> can't multi class into something because the DM cant understand that the classes are simply toolboxes of abilities that one can use to build the character they want. Why is a pally/warlock build frowned upon? My relationship with my god changed, or perhaps my understanding of his teachings brought about a stronger relationship... Why can't my druid/cleric build blossom from a general nature worship to following a specific god? Why can't the sorcerer/wizard begin to learn structured magic to help control his natural powers? Why must my rogue/sorcerer or fighter/warlock justify gaining spell casting while the wizard/ranger doesn't need to justify learning about tracking?

Totally aggree with you. Classes are mechanical tools and can often be refluffed. Barbarian that's a back alley brawler. Priest that's not a cleric but can officiate messes and weddings. Having your patron be a powerful dragon or playing a "warlock" that's a dragon sorcerer because you don't like the short rest mechanic.

Every member of a small native tribe can be barbarians, even the ones without class or the pacifist shaman.
You could be a member of the Druids without actually having the class. (range and nature cleric in particular, but even others).
You can be an assassin of any classes if it's your job.

Restriction on multiclass are so often stupidly justified. There's so many reason for pretty much any of them. Even the dreaded paly/warlock. I can understand the DM not letting someone be a oath of devotion/cleric of Lolth or an oath-breaker/cleric of pelor though.

[diplomancer]

If you don't want druids to get +3 to the AC intended to their class, then why would you be opposed to a druid multiclassing or being the dwarf that gets medium armor as a race, or even as a feat? They are paying for the mechanical advantage. If it's balanced to go fighter then wizard (no armor normaly) and be in a full plate, i don't see why it's not balanced to go fighter then druid in full plate.

I am not too happy about those, actually, but they are the rules of the game, and I don't feel comfortable taking away from players things the rules of the game give to them, in the same way that, as a player, I don't want the dm to give me mechanical benefits that the rules say I shouldn't have.

(Out of this forum, I've had many friends from different D&D backgrounds playing druids, some playing since the druids first appeared, some who started playing with 5e, and everything in between. When I tell them about this debate, their usual reaction is to laugh and say "hey, PHB says that druids don't wear metal armor, so it never occurred to me to put it on". And that's where the debate ends, they've never tried putting it on to see what the DM would do, they just accept what the rules state about their character)

[intregus]

I only read the first few posts and I think there’s basically 2 schools of thought

1. The game mechanics should be played as written and any deviation should be shut down. The rules exist for a reason so follow them to a T.

2. The game exists for us to have fun and tell stories. Use the mechanics as you see fit to create the character you want and if you can’t try and make up some homebrew that fits as long as the rest of YOUR TABLE is ok with it.

Here’s how I handle what the book says. First and foremost Crawford has always said that the PHB is there as a resource for you table to use…a resource not the end all be all. EVERY table uses house rules and they should. No one, not even the designers of the game play 5e RAW straight from the PHB. SO I take it the second school of thought is the more accurate one to go off of. If the designers aren't playing RAW why should you or I?

The mechanics described in the game are also a generalization. The entire idea of a “class” (and there mechanics) is a generalization to help you as a player easily pick what kind of character you want to play. Do you want to play a sneaky assassin, the place to look first is going to be in the rogue class and assassin subclass, do you HAVE TO play that class/subclass combo to role play a sneaky assassin? Of course not, you can easily play that same character by playing a paladin class, never casting your spells and only using them as “smites” that you refluff as hitting a vital area on the target you are trying to assassinate. The mechanics are there for you to create what you want to play.

That being said fluff is there to help you play the character you want within a given setting. Fluff will ALWAYS be dictated by a setting. So guess what you, can’t fluff a bow and arrow or the firbolt cantrip to be gun when playing in my fantasy setting because guns do not exist. You can take those exact same mechanics and fluff them as a gun in my sci-fantasy setting though. Now I am not opposed to a PC spending time and resources inventing a gun though and then fluffing either of those options into being a gun. The idea is does it make sense for the setting.

Do you want to play a druid that won’t wear metal armor, what does the setting say. In the PHB druids won’t were metal armor because the writers thought that fits the fluff for druids in settings they will be publishing. BUT narrative is what matters. You are playing a game where you are a hero, you aren’t the average person or average druid or average anything.

For example in the old star wars universe there was race of beings who were not force sensitive, in fact they couldn’t be force sensitive and in both the SWd20 and SWsaga edition TTRPG if you played this race you could never use the force. Makes sense, the fluff fits the setting. By the way in the SW lore there was ONE of these species that WAS force sensitive and could use the force……. Even though the TTRPG rules stated this race could never become force sensitive and use the force there is an in universe exception to the rule. If I want to play the very very rare force sensitive alien that shouldn’t be force sensitive why shouldn’t I be allowed to just because the TTRPG says so even though in the actual lore it is possible?

So that’s my take on fluff vs mechanics. Let your setting dictate the fluff and let the fluff dictate the mechanics if it makes sense. If you find yourself restricting your characters’ option because of fluff written in the PHB ask your DM what is appropriate for the setting and ask for the change. There’s plenty of examples as to why a druid WOULD wear metal armor. Plus it makes NO logical sense to not use metal armor but be ok with using metal ANYTHING ELSE.

[stoutstien]

I am not too happy about those, actually, but they are the rules of the game, and I don't feel comfortable taking away from players things the rules of the game give to them, in the same way that, as a player, I don't want the dm to give me mechanical benefits that the rules say I shouldn't have.

(Out of this forum, I've had many friends from different D&D backgrounds playing druids, some playing since the druids first appeared, some who started playing with 5e, and everything in between. When I tell them about this debate, their usual reaction is to laugh and say "hey, PHB says that druids don't wear metal armor, so it never occurred to me to put it on". And that's where the debate ends, they've never tried putting it on to see what the DM would do, they just accept what the rules state about their character)

So you allow totem barbarian to get full resistance will raging in plate? RAW says yes.
Trying to defend DM decisions behind following RAW will lead to inconsistent rulings because the rules themselves are inconsistent.

The only real question is if a druid in medium armor is unbalanced or not. Multiclassing and feats are both variant rules which should be handled separately due to the pile of other problems they bring to the game.

[Tectorman]

So, unless I'm playing a Dwarf (or some other that grants medium armor proficiencies), then being a 1st-level Whatever means that I learned all my armor proficiencies from however I became a Whatever. In the case of Druids, I learned it from Druid School (or possibly from Mother Nature herself, directly). So if they are so adamantly against wearing metal armor*,

THEN WHY DID THEY TEACH ME?!

As a 1st-level non-Dwarf, I don't gain my armor proficiencies from any other source. THEY instructed me in its use. THEY strapped me in a breastplate over and over and over. THEY took someone who was at disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks and so on, and THEY molded me into someone who could use that armor without those penalties (or, depending on the armor, only penalties on Stealth checks).

Why put forth that effort in the first place only to turn around later and essentially lobotomize me?

*Not against wearing metal, just metal armor. Deck your Druid out in all the magical and mundane metal clothing you can find. Metal belts, metal boots, metal headbands, metal socks, as long as the metal thing isn't doing anything to your AC, Druids can willingly wear it with nary a second thought.

Also, there's no such thing as "gaining +3 AC for nothing". You're paying for it the same as everyone else. It costs more, it weighs more, it requires the appropriate proficiency (that you have to, and indeed DID, pay for by being a 1st-level Druid), it may still impose disadvantage on Stealth and imposes a Dex cap on your AC (or a slightly higher Dex cap via a feat THAT YOU ALSO PAY FOR). You are the payingest paying dude who ever paid for anything; none of it was for free or got conjured up out of thin air.

[patchyman]

To Valmark:

If my PC is a Dwarven Smith, one who's worked the forge for a century, and heeds the call of the earth, training in Druidic arts to eventually become one with the earth itself (Moon Druid's Elemental Wild Shape), why would I have a taboo against metal?

If my PC is a pragmatic con artist, who learned a few Druidic tricks from a lowly initiate of the circles, just enough to cast a few spells and wildshape, why would I have a taboo against metal?

In the second case, I can definitely see Druidic circles hating my PC for stealing their secrets, but why would I be able to have Druidic powers when I'm wholly against (or at least, not aligned at all with) them, but as soon as I wear metal, it's gone?

Those are really interesting characters. You should run them by your DM and point out that the metal armor restriction doesn’t make sense for them. Maybe the DM will houserule that they can wear armor.

If I made a tiefling fiendlock but I went for a cambion feel, so that her power came from her infernal heritage instead of a Patron, I would definitely ask my DM’s OK before debuting it. The situation you described seems comparable.

[diplomancer]

So you allow totem barbarian to get full resistance will raging in plate? RAW says yes.
Trying to defend DM decisions behind following RAW will lead to inconsistent rulings because the rules themselves are inconsistent.

Yes I would, and it's definitely not unbalanced. Getting 1 level in fighter (or a feat), giving up all your grappling advantages (and others) and your rage damage bonus for 1 AC point, all of that considering that it actually costs less to buy +1 half-plate than normal full-plate? Knock yourself out.

The only RAW exploit that I ban is, if it got to that level, the Wish+Simulacrum chain, because that exploit has severe world building implications.

[patchyman]

Verisimilitude. When a Barbarian (who has the exact same armor proficiencies as a Druid) wears it, it's AC 15+Dex Mod (Max 2). When A Druid wears it, suddenly it works completely differently, giving AC 12+Dex Mod.


(Tongue firmly in cheek). Preserving verisimilitude is easy: the goliath’s half-plate is too big for the Dwarf druid. Problem fixed!

[patchyman]

Clearly plenty of people (although, to be fair, we have no idea how prevalent it is that this is a big deal for people no on forums like this. We aren't very representative, I feel). Regardless, if people come to a thread and keep complaining about how the rule is presented (and not the AC or overall druid balance compared to other classes, or something like that), that, and not something else (such as the actual armor class value) is what they are complaining about. We do not get to choose why other people like or dislike something.

To amend what you said, I think it would be more accurate to say “at least a few...”

[47Ace]

I don't believe I have stated that for me what is important in the game world is for druids to not wear metal armor. If I gave that impression, I retract that. Obviously, that varies from DM to DM, and from world to world. To me, what is important is that no character get a +3 to the AC intended to their class for no good reason. That's why I would either not give the +3 AC, or create a mechanical drawback in return.

(And pretty much nothing is capable of breaking verisimilitude for me in a world where halflings can go around carrying lionesses on their shoulders... nature magically changing what a suit of armor does as it suits Her is peanuts compared to that).

You are missing something important duids can wear half plate they just can't wear metal half-plate. Non metal half plate exist there is table of alternative materials in the treasure section of the DMG that includes non-metal options. There is even example of non metal medium armor in the magic items section. There is even a sage advice that clarifys that they have profiancy in all medium armor. https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016.
If they wanted druids to have nothing better then light armor they wouldn't have given them profiancy in it. Or they could have given them profiancy in light armor and hide. But, the didn't they gave them profiancy in all medium armor. A druid wearing non-metal half plate is getting exactly the AC there deserve not 3 extra.

[diplomancer]

You are missing something important duids can wear half plate they just can't wear metal half-plate. Non metal half plate exist there is table of alternative materials in the treasure section of the DMG that includes non-metal options. There is even example of non metal medium armor in the magic items section. There is even a sage advice that clarifys that they have profiancy in all medium armor. https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016.
If they wanted druids to have nothing better then light armor they wouldn't have given them profiancy in it. Or they could have given them profiancy in light armor and hide. But, the didn't they gave them profiancy in all medium armor. A druid wearing non-metal half plate is getting exactly the AC there deserve not 3 extra.

Which I already acknowledged, and even said that, in my estimation, druids should get that upgrade around levels 6-8, as a result of adventuring preferably, and that this solves all balance problems.

[Magicspook]

Hmmm... You never seem to see players using fluff as a reason to decrease their character's effectiveness. It's always "my druid has different beliefs from other druids, that's why he should be allowed to wear half plate. No, of course it's not because I want to potentially have a 20 AC".

My friends (both in my campaigns and as co-players) do this all the time. This is probably saying more about your players than about players in general?

[Hail Tempus]

My friends (both in my campaigns and as co-players) do this all the time. This is probably saying more about your players than about players in general? I've never actually heard a druid player in real life complain about this restriction. It seems to be an internet-only thing.

[patchyman]

To answer the thread topic, I also believe that the fluff/mechanic distinction is artificial. The Player’s Handbook is a compendium of default rules that you should feel free to customize to improve your setting or your game.

As a DM, if a player comes to me with a neat character idea, I will absolutely work with them to incorporate the character in the game, even if this involves changing rules.

As a player, I will try to develop a memorable and original character within the rules of the setting. If such a character relies on a weird rules interpretation or modification, I would absolutely run it by them beforehand.

To be honest, this also applies to character traits that are 100% consistent with both fluff and mechanics. A large part of the session 0 is each player presenting their character and the DM either suggesting ways to integrate the character to the setting or troubleshooting if something doesn’t fit.

[47Ace]

Which I already acknowledged, and even said that, in my estimation, druids should get that upgrade around levels 6-8, as a result of adventuring preferably, and that this solves all balance problems.

Oh sorry I missed that. That sounds about right.

On a mildly unrelated note given the variation between how different classes get AC upgrades (with bigger ability scores, bigger ability scores and a bit of money, or just money) I wish that the DMG included a table of when different classes were expected to get AC buffs and to what so DM's had a guideline if they want to change money gain or treasure distribution rates without having to guess when AC item should show up.

[Tvtyrant]

The rule is pretty clear, and anyone who wants to play a Druid knows it's out there. "But I don't wannaaaaaa" isn't really an argument against following a rule.

This is every reason not to follow a rule. Rules have no moral imperative, they are there to make the game fun. If it makes the game less fun it is a bad rule.

[Valmark]

So you allow totem barbarian to get full resistance will raging in plate? RAW says yes.
Trying to defend DM decisions behind following RAW will lead to inconsistent rulings because the rules themselves are inconsistent.

The only real question is if a druid in medium armor is unbalanced or not. Multiclassing and feats are both variant rules which should be handled separately due to the pile of other problems they bring to the game.

Honestly, the rules in this case aren't incosistent. It clearly states that the wolf (or was it the eagle?) feature can't be used in heavy armor so it stands to reason that the bear one is meant to work anyway. And it makes sense, since the toughness shouldn't be influenced by the armor (different from how much strenght you can exert or how nimble you can be)


I've never actually heard a druid player in real life complain about this restriction. It seems to be an internet-only thing.

Same here, though my circle is restricted so it can happen that no one complains.



I was sure to have quoted the guy who said it but anyway, I didn't know there were pre-made alternative materials. It makes more sense to give proficiency then.

[Valmark]

So, unless I'm playing a Dwarf (or some other that grants medium armor proficiencies), then being a 1st-level Whatever means that I learned all my armor proficiencies from however I became a Whatever. In the case of Druids, I learned it from Druid School (or possibly from Mother Nature herself, directly). So if they are so adamantly against wearing metal armor*,

THEN WHY DID THEY TEACH ME?!

As a 1st-level non-Dwarf, I don't gain my armor proficiencies from any other source. THEY instructed me in its use. THEY strapped me in a breastplate over and over and over. THEY took someone who was at disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks and so on, and THEY molded me into someone who could use that armor without those penalties (or, depending on the armor, only penalties on Stealth checks).

Why put forth that effort in the first place only to turn around later and essentially lobotomize me?

*Not against wearing metal, just metal armor. Deck your Druid out in all the magical and mundane metal clothing you can find. Metal belts, metal boots, metal headbands, metal socks, as long as the metal thing isn't doing anything to your AC, Druids can willingly wear it with nary a second thought.

Also, there's no such thing as "gaining +3 AC for nothing". You're paying for it the same as everyone else. It costs more, it weighs more, it requires the appropriate proficiency (that you have to, and indeed DID, pay for by being a 1st-level Druid), it may still impose disadvantage on Stealth and imposes a Dex cap on your AC (or a slightly higher Dex cap via a feat THAT YOU ALSO PAY FOR). You are the payingest paying dude who ever paid for anything; none of it was for free or got conjured up out of thin air.

Forgot to quote this. They teach him because there are medium armors without metal. Also, as another one said, you can make it with other materials.

As for the spoiler, yeah that makes little sense. They shouldn't have specified armor/shield (or not limit metal)

[micahaphone]

On a completely different previous point, I'd be delighted to have an 8ft tall dwarf at my table. Sounds like an interesting character! Do they have a mutation or a curse? Would they biologically be human/goliath, but were raised by dwarves, like how Captain Carrot is recognized as a dwarf? I'd have fun working with my player to mark biology vs culture and workshopping their backstory to fit in the curse or experimentation or other cool mystery.

[patchyman]

This is every reason not to follow a rule. Rules have no moral imperative, they are there to make the game fun. If it makes the game less fun it is a bad rule.

I agree subject to two important caveats: first, the fun of everyone around the table is important, including the DM, not just the fun of the player wishing to play the druid. Second, starting with “it’s not really a rule” feels like an excuse, not an explanation.

[JNAProductions]

I agree subject to two important caveats: first, the fun of everyone around the table is important, including the DM, not just the fun of the player wishing to play the druid. Second, starting with “it’s not really a rule” feels like an excuse, not an explanation.

The rules of a game are the ones with mechanical impact. At least, that's the definition I'd use.

Cure Wounds has a range of touch. That's mechanics-you cannot cast Cure Wounds from 10' away unless you have 10' reach, or use Metamagic.
Healing Words takes a bonus action to cast. You cannot cast it as an action (barring houserules) nor as a reaction.
Barbarian Rage loses pretty much all their bonuses if in heavy armor.
If you wear non-proficient armor, you have disadvantage on most things and cannot cast spells.

But there's no mechanics in place for a Druid who wears metal armor-by my definition, it's NOT a rule.

Edit: But everyone having fun is definitely the most important thing. DM and players alike.

[Tectorman]

Forgot to quote this. They teach him because there are medium armors without metal. Also, as another one said, you can make it with other materials.

As for the spoiler, yeah that makes little sense. They shouldn't have specified armor/shield (or not limit metal)

So either they commit the Druidic blasphemy of training their initiates with metal armor, just on the off-chance said initiate finally comes across a non-metal breastplate, or we need the assumption that non-metal breastplates et al are just as common as metal ones (as in, costing not so much as one single copper piece more than normal and requiring a "quest" to find that can be summarized as "Hey, Shopkeep, do you have this in non-metal?" "At the end of the aisle.")

[diplomancer]

So either they commit the Druidic blasphemy of training their initiates with metal armor, just on the off-chance said initiate finally comes across a non-metal breastplate, or we need the assumption that non-metal breastplates et al are just as common as metal ones (as in, costing not so much as one single copper piece more than normal and requiring a "quest" to find that can be summarized as "Hey, Shopkeep, do you have this in non-metal?" "At the end of the aisle.")

Or you could assume that, whatever this "training" means, if it works for hide, it works for the other medium armors. Notice that, unlike weapon proficiencies, there are (to my knowledge), no "specific" proficiency in any armor.

[micahaphone]

I agree that it's very poorly inplemented or explained in the rules, but maybe druid circles have their version of a "blacksmith" who trades for and works with nonmetal materials for creating armor. So you won't find it in a general village store, but if you know the right places to go you totally could pick up nonmetal armor.

[Valmark]

So either they commit the Druidic blasphemy of training their initiates with metal armor, just on the off-chance said initiate finally comes across a non-metal breastplate, or we need the assumption that non-metal breastplates et al are just as common as metal ones (as in, costing not so much as one single copper piece more than normal and requiring a "quest" to find that can be summarized as "Hey, Shopkeep, do you have this in non-metal?" "At the end of the aisle.")

Why would they train initiates in metal armor if they can use other kinds? Besides, they could just train them in hide.

A fighter knows from the start how to use a full plate, but I don't think most 1st level fighter have laid their hands on one of those armors.

Also, said different materials (which I'm going to search now because it's a bit to vague now that I think of it) might be easily findable depending on the place. It stands to reason that a druidic circle would have them.

EDIT: Only alternative materials I found were adamantine and mythral, so they need to be house-ruled. The hide thing and the fighter example still stand though

[KorvinStarmast]

So if they are so adamantly against wearing metal armor*,

THEN WHY DID THEY TEACH ME?! A number of reasons.
1. All dwarfs learn about medium armor; it's a dwarf thing.
2. Dwarfs who later want to be unusual and become druids then embrace the Druid thing. Specific Over General.
3. Not all dwarves who work in the mines wander about in breast plates.
4. There is at least one medium armor that is not medium: dragon hide. There may be other such armor. (Such as a breast plate made from a giant turtle or a dragon turtle's shell) that will either arise in a home brew campaign or may feature in some future adventure ... and the druid is good to wear that.

OK, I'll withdraw from this discussion now as the druid/medium armor thing seems to attract a lot irreconcilable differences types of feelings ...

EDIT: sorry, I missed a few posts and for some reason thought we were talking about a dwarf druid.

[micahaphone]

Bone/antler armor would be cool. It'd also clack and rattle, still giving you disadvantage on stealth checks

[Valmark]

A number of reasons.
1. All dwarfs learn about medium armor; it's a dwarf thing.
2. Dwarfs who later want to be unusual and become druids then embrace the Druid thing. Specific Over General.
3. Not all dwarves who work in the mines wander about in breast plates.
4. There is at least one medium armor that is not medium: dragon hide. There may be other such armor. (Such as a breast plate made from a giant turtle or a dragon turtle's shell) that will either arise in a home brew campaign or may feature in some future adventure ... and the druid is good to wear that.

OK, I'll withdraw from this discussion now as the druid/medium armor thing seems to attract a lot irreconcilable differences types of feelings ...

Actually in that example he was talking about non-dwarfs. Someone else talked about making a Dwarf Druid.

Where is dragon hide?


Bone/antler armor would be cool. It'd also clack and rattle, still giving you disadvantage on stealth checks

This sounds cool as hell

[KorvinStarmast]

Actually in that example he was talking about non-dwarfs. Someone else talked about making a Dwarf Druid.
Oops, sorry, I got all crossed up. my bad.


Where is dragon hide? This sounds cool as hell DMG. Also in the SRD page 219.

Dragon Scale Mail
Armor (scale mail), very rare (requires attunement)
Dragon scale mail is made of the scales of one kind of dragon. {snip} While wearing this armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC, you have advantage on saving throws against the Frightful Presence and breath weapons of dragons, and you have resistance to one damage type that is determined by the kind of dragon that provided the scales (see the table).

Additionally, you can focus your senses as an action to magically discern the distance and direction to the closest dragon within 30 miles of you that is of the same type as the armor. This special action can’t be used again until the next dawn.
Dragon Resistance
Black Acid
Blue Lightning
Bronze Lightning
Gold Fire
Green Poison
Brass Fire
Red Fire
Silver Cold
Copper Acid
White Cold

[Tvtyrant]

I agree subject to two important caveats: first, the fun of everyone around the table is important, including the DM, not just the fun of the player wishing to play the druid. Second, starting with “it’s not really a rule” feels like an excuse, not an explanation.

Unless the AC of the Druid would become untenable it really shouldn't effect the rest of the group's fun. I personally think the Druid has too narrow a fluff, there are lots of other reasons you would be a Druid rather then Hippy Jam Band Festival goer. Someone with a reverence for kill, survival of the fittest could easily be a metal wielding Druid (think Dehaka from SCII.)

It also assumes crunch is more immutable then fluff, like the deciding factor is that it isn't a real rule and not whether it is a good or bad rule.

[patchyman]

Bone/antler armor would be cool. It'd also clack and rattle, still giving you disadvantage on stealth checks

Not even a druid thing, but in my latest campaign, I sent the 1st level characters against an ankheg. After the fight, the ranger skinned the creature and to it to a leatherworker to transform it into a medium armor. Don’t remember what type exactly, but it boosted his AC by 1.

[ad_hoc]

Congratulations to the Druid w/ metal armor debate for pointing out, AGAIN, what a piss poor job Mearls and Crawford do at creating a RPG. Its really disappointing considering what a great concept 5e has over all, that the poorly written minutiae repeatedly become points of contention.

5e's popularity is unprecedented and 99% of people have no problem understanding that a druid won't wear metal armour.

The game is very well designed.

[Keravath]

Just to clarify.

Is the entire druid metal armor argument over the choice of the rules writer to use the word "won't" rather than "can't" in the armor proficiencies section of the class description?

Won't implies some sort of limitation on the character's role playing choices? Can't just means there is some mechanical reason (not detailed) preventing a druid from wearing metal armor?

People are objecting to the suggestion of a rule limiting their role playing choices but have no objection to the rule limiting their mechanical choices ... and ALL of this hinges on the choice of "won't" vs "can't" ??

[Kane0]

Just to clarify.

Is the entire druid metal armor argument over the choice of the rules writer to use the word "won't" rather than "can't" in the armor proficiencies section of the class description?

Won't implies some sort of limitation on the character's role playing choices? Can't just means there is some mechanical reason (not detailed) preventing a druid from wearing metal armor?

People are objecting to the suggestion of a rule limiting their role playing choices but have no objection to the rule limiting their mechanical choices ... and ALL of this hinges on the choice of "won't" vs "can't" ??

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Where is dragon hide?

Behind that barrel, you can see the tail sticking out

[diplomancer]

There is actually a very reasonable mechanical argument to restrict Druid's access to the better medium armor at early levels. Namely, their wildshape. Starting around level 4, and in many games even as early as level 2, there is very little downside to a Druid staying in wildshape all the time during exploration (biggest downside is no speech, and there are ways around that, like developing sign language with your companions).

Which means that they basically bypass the disadvantage scale mail imposes, and, at the cost of their bonus action in the first round of combat, can start the combat with 18 AC with no stealth penalty (or, if they are a moon druid, can be knocked out of their wildshape and have 18 AC with no stealth penalty). No other class has that ability at early levels, unless they roll exceptionally well for their dex or are dex based and have defense as their fighting style, assuming in the first place this is not point-buy or standard array.

At later levels (6 to 8 is my personal assessment, it may vary from game to game) things balance out among all the classes, so it's reasonable to let them have access to other types of medium armor

That's what I would tell my players if they ever questioned the clear rule in the PHB.

[Valmark]

Just to clarify.

Is the entire druid metal armor argument over the choice of the rules writer to use the word "won't" rather than "can't" in the armor proficiencies section of the class description?

Won't implies some sort of limitation on the character's role playing choices? Can't just means there is some mechanical reason (not detailed) preventing a druid from wearing metal armor?

People are objecting to the suggestion of a rule limiting their role playing choices but have no objection to the rule limiting their mechanical choices ... and ALL of this hinges on the choice of "won't" vs "can't" ??

Yup. That's why I'm having this much fun reading this topic


Behind that barrel, you can see the tail sticking out

I was brushing my teeth while in front of a mirror.
I couldn't see my reflection anymore, damn you xD


Oops, sorry, I got all crossed up. my bad.

DMG. Also in the SRD page 219.

Oh, cool. Kinda wished there were more things like this, possibly even mundane, but good to see it.


Not even a druid thing, but in my latest campaign, I sent the 1st level characters against an ankheg. After the fight, the ranger skinned the creature and to it to a leatherworker to transform it into a medium armor. Don’t remember what type exactly, but it boosted his AC by 1.

And THIS is the answer to everything. Especially the satisfaction to see the players act like this.
Too bad in the group irl we've been fighting so little skinnable monsters or other reusable soon-to-be corpses. To get my armor I had to undress the bloodied corpse of a mindless slave (while getting judged by the cleric)

[stoutstien]

There is actually a very reasonable mechanical argument to restrict Druid's access to the better medium armor at early levels. Namely, their wildshape. Starting around level 4, and in many games even as early as level 2, there is very little downside to a Druid staying in wildshape all the time during exploration (biggest downside is no speech, and there are ways around that, like developing sign language with your companions).

Which means that they basically bypass the disadvantage scale mail imposes, and, at the cost of their bonus action in the first round of combat, can start the combat with 18 AC with no stealth penalty (or, if they are a moon druid, can be knocked out of their wildshape and have 18 AC with no stealth penalty). No other class has that ability at early levels, unless they roll exceptionally well for their dex or are dex based and have defense as their fighting style, assuming in the first place this is not point-buy or standard array.

At later levels (6 to 8 is my personal assessment, it may vary from game to game) things balance out among all the classes, so it's reasonable to let them have access to other types of medium armor

That's what I would tell my players if they ever questioned the clear rule in the PHB.

so to address a problem that you have with druid's wild shapes you use armor limitations that has no impact on said feature? The player can be running around in a string bikini and it doesn't affect wild shapes.

[JNAProductions]

How do you get AC 18?

The best Medium Armor gives is 17, without MAM.

[Hail Tempus]

How do you get AC 18?

The best Medium Armor gives is 17, without MAM. Most Druids carry a shield as well, so an AC 18 would be pretty standard if a breastplate or scale mail was allowed.

[JNAProductions]

Except Breastplates don’t have Stealth penalties...

[Tectorman]

Just to clarify.

Is the entire druid metal armor argument over the choice of the rules writer to use the word "won't" rather than "can't" in the armor proficiencies section of the class description?

Won't implies some sort of limitation on the character's role playing choices? Can't just means there is some mechanical reason (not detailed) preventing a druid from wearing metal armor?

People are objecting to the suggestion of a rule limiting their role playing choices but have no objection to the rule limiting their mechanical choices ... and ALL of this hinges on the choice of "won't" vs "can't" ??

No. That's part of the objection, that "won't" infringes into player agency territory in a war that "can't" doesn't.

No matter why a player picks whichever class he does for his character, he pays those class features (either via the opportunity cost of not having another class's class features, or, if at higher level, via that opportunity cost PLUS the XP he paid). That's it. Transaction concluded. I've upheld my end.

Except that player-agency-violating language like "won't" turns the class features I paid for (just like if I were a Fighter or a Rogue) into the class features that I'm renting. Same cost, diminished return on my investment. In short, I just got fleeced, and that is not acceptable.

That's why I continue to hold the UA Oath of Treachery subclass for the Paladin as the best Oath of them all. Not for the subclass features that it has, but simply because it doesn't make demands it has no business making.

But it's not just a matter of "won't" versus "can't". "No reasons given" is "no reasons given" in both cases, and in both cases is insufficient.

"Barbarians cannot wear heavy armor, or they lose the use of Class Features Blah, Blah, and Blah" is fine. "Monks cannot wear armor of any kind, or they lose Class Features Blah, Blah, Blah, and Blah" is fine. "Monks can't wear armor (no idea what happens if they do)" is not. In like fashion, "Druids can't wear metal armor" is only marginally better than "Druids won't wear metal armor", and still not good enough.

[ezekielraiden]

No. That's part of the objection, that "won't" infringes into player agency territory in a war that "can't" doesn't.

No matter why a player picks whichever class he does for his character, he pays those class features (either via the opportunity cost of not having another class's class features, or, if at higher level, via that opportunity cost PLUS the XP he paid). That's it. Transaction concluded. I've upheld my end.

Except that player-agency-violating language like "won't" turns the class features I paid for (just like if I were a Fighter or a Rogue) into the class features that I'm renting. Same cost, diminished return on my investment. In short, I just got fleeced, and that is not acceptable.

That's why I continue to hold the UA Oath of Treachery subclass for the Paladin as the best Oath of them all. Not for the subclass features that it has, but simply because it doesn't make demands it has no business making.

But it's not just a matter of "won't" versus "can't". "No reasons given" is "no reasons given" in both cases, and in both cases is insufficient.

"Barbarians cannot wear heavy armor, or they lose the use of Class Features Blah, Blah, and Blah" is fine. "Monks cannot wear armor of any kind, or they lose Class Features Blah, Blah, Blah, and Blah" is fine. "Monks can't wear armor (no idea what happens if they do)" is not. In like fashion, "Druids can't wear metal armor" is only marginally better than "Druids won't wear metal armor", and still not good enough.

Just to confirm, here, your position is that this is fine:
"Druids cannot wear metal armor, because the sacred oaths they take as part of becoming a Druid forbid such equipment. If they do so, they cannot memorize or cast Druid spells until they remove the armor."

But this is not fine:
"Druids will not wear metal armor, because the sacred oaths they take as part of becoming a Druid forbid such equipment. If they do so, they cannot memorize or cast Druid spells until they remove the armor."

Literally the only difference is "cannot" vs. "will not." I just want to be certain you're saying that that's the difference you need.

[Greywander]

Just to confirm, here, your position is that this is fine:
"Druids cannot wear metal armor, because the sacred oaths they take as part of becoming a Druid forbid such equipment. If they do so, they cannot memorize or cast Druid spells until they remove the armor."

But this is not fine:
"Druids will not wear metal armor, because the sacred oaths they take as part of becoming a Druid forbid such equipment. If they do so, they cannot memorize or cast Druid spells until they remove the armor."

Literally the only difference is "cannot" vs. "will not." I just want to be certain you're saying that that's the difference you need.
Well, first of all, the rules say nothing about not being able to memorize or cast spells while wearing metal armor, so that by itself is already a difference with what's in the book. Part of the problem is that there is not given consequence for choosing to wear metal armor. By providing one, you solve half the problem that people like me have with this issue.

As for "won't" vs. "can't", yeah, pretty much. It's a bit awkwardly worded, though. The phrase "if they do" implies that they can, so to previously say that they "cannot" is a bit contradictory. I would instead word it something like this:

"The sacred oaths that druids take forbid wearing metal armor. While wearing metal armor, you are unable to memorize or cast druid spells until that armor is removed."

This eschews the "won't" vs. "can't" issue entirely. It gives the fluff justification (sacred oaths) and the mechanical justification (can't memorize or cast spells). This allows the player to make their own choices about what their character does, and defines the consequences of choosing to wear metal armor.

[Keravath]

Well, first of all, the rules say nothing about not being able to memorize or cast spells while wearing metal armor, so that by itself is already a difference with what's in the book. Part of the problem is that there is not given consequence for choosing to wear metal armor. By providing one, you solve half the problem that people like me have with this issue.

As for "won't" vs. "can't", yeah, pretty much. It's a bit awkwardly worded, though. The phrase "if they do" implies that they can, so to previously say that they "cannot" is a bit contradictory. I would instead word it something like this:

"The sacred oaths that druids take forbid wearing metal armor. While wearing metal armor, you are unable to memorize or cast druid spells until that armor is removed."

This eschews the "won't" vs. "can't" issue entirely. It gives the fluff justification (sacred oaths) and the mechanical justification (can't memorize or cast spells). This allows the player to make their own choices about what their character does, and defines the consequences of choosing to wear metal armor.

Whoever wrote it probably assumed that druids won't wear metal armor so consequences for doing so weren't needed since they wouldn't wear it.

"The sacred oaths of druids forsake the use of all metal armor. Druids won't wear metal armor." The implication being that a druid that chooses to wear metal armor is no longer a druid since if druids won't wear metal armor then a character that chooses to wear metal armor can not be a druid.

As for fluff justification, not wearing metal armor is as old as the druid class in D&D. You could check the reasons given in all the previous editions :)

[Addaran]

Just to clarify.

Is the entire druid metal armor argument over the choice of the rules writer to use the word "won't" rather than "can't" in the armor proficiencies section of the class description?

Won't implies some sort of limitation on the character's role playing choices? Can't just means there is some mechanical reason (not detailed) preventing a druid from wearing metal armor?

People are objecting to the suggestion of a rule limiting their role playing choices but have no objection to the rule limiting their mechanical choices ... and ALL of this hinges on the choice of "won't" vs "can't" ??

A bit, but there's more. Won't vs can't definitively is a big offender.

When it's based on morality, like in the paladin's case, they say what might happen when you don't follow the rule ( falling and losing your powers).

Mechanically, other classes ( barbarian, monk) will say what happen if you do wear (heavy) armor.

The game also already showed that they are okay going outside of the big categories ( monk and rogue with weapons). Could have done the same with armors. (light + hide). I don't remember if it's 5ed or previous edition, but i think mythral armor say you can cast spell without having proficiency? Could do the same for the dragon armors.

If it's balanced on druid not having too good AC, it doesn't make sense to also block it from other sources ( race, feat, multiclass). I don't think there's any other class that restrict what you can gain from a feat/race/multiclass (at most it's wasted cause you already have it and can use it)


There is actually a very reasonable mechanical argument to restrict Druid's access to the better medium armor at early levels. Namely, their wildshape. Starting around level 4, and in many games even as early as level 2, there is very little downside to a Druid staying in wildshape all the time during exploration (biggest downside is no speech, and there are ways around that, like developing sign language with your companions).

Which means that they basically bypass the disadvantage scale mail imposes, and, at the cost of their bonus action in the first round of combat, can start the combat with 18 AC with no stealth penalty (or, if they are a moon druid, can be knocked out of their wildshape and have 18 AC with no stealth penalty). No other class has that ability at early levels, unless they roll exceptionally well for their dex or are dex based and have defense as their fighting style, assuming in the first place this is not point-buy or standard array.

At later levels (6 to 8 is my personal assessment, it may vary from game to game) things balance out among all the classes, so it's reasonable to let them have access to other types of medium armor

That's what I would tell my players if they ever questioned the clear rule in the PHB.

That's actually the first balance argument i hear. Not sure if i agree, but it's a very valid reason.
I guess you could always say that a druid can't wildshape if he's wear a medium metal-armor (or just one that gives disadvantage) or that disadvantage from armors carry even in wildshape.

[Tectorman]

Just to confirm, here, your position is that this is fine:
"Druids cannot wear metal armor, because the sacred oaths they take as part of becoming a Druid forbid such equipment. If they do so, they cannot memorize or cast Druid spells until they remove the armor."

But this is not fine:
"Druids will not wear metal armor, because the sacred oaths they take as part of becoming a Druid forbid such equipment. If they do so, they cannot memorize or cast Druid spells until they remove the armor."

Literally the only difference is "cannot" vs. "will not." I just want to be certain you're saying that that's the difference you need.

No. Phrased like that, my position would be that this:


"Druids cannot wear metal armor, because the sacred oaths they take as part of becoming a Druid forbid such equipment. If they do so, they cannot memorize or cast Druid spells until they remove the armor."

is less unacceptable than this:


"Druids will not wear metal armor, because the sacred oaths they take as part of becoming a Druid forbid such equipment. If they do so, they cannot memorize or cast Druid spells until they remove the armor."

It would still be unacceptable in comparison to "Monks that wear armor or use shields do not gain the benefit of Class Features Blah, Blah, Blah, and Blah." Nothing about " Monks can't wear armor" or "Monks won't wear armor".

[Addaran]

Whoever wrote it probably assumed that druids won't wear metal armor so consequences for doing so weren't needed since they wouldn't wear it.


Might make sense... but that's not how they write stuff normal. I'd say it make more sense to assume a paladin won't murder innocent by-stander for fun then a druid wear metal armor. Yet they specifically mention it for paladin but not druid...

[diplomancer]

so to address a problem that you have with druid's wild shapes you use armor limitations that has no impact on said feature? The player can be running around in a string bikini and it doesn't affect wild shapes.

I have no problem at all with druid's wild shapes. Honestly, I have no idea where you got that from, since I did not criticize wildshape in any way. I think it's an awesome feature. But, when in wildshape, the scale mail stealth penalty does not apply, and that creates a balance issue, the moment the druid gets OUT of wildshape, the first round of combat, with no stealth penalty, with an 18 AC (if he's a moon druid, the moment he gets kicked out of his wildshape, his AC is immediately 18, and he also did not have stealth disadvantage before getting in combat).

With point-buy, the character that can do this at level 2 is the melee dex Fighter/Ranger/Paladin who took defense as his fighting style (not the most common or optimal style for dex characters, so they are paying for that. Druid gets that for free if they can wear metal armors)


Most Druids carry a shield as well, so an AC 18 would be pretty standard if a breastplate or scale mail was allowed.

I'm addressing specifically scale mail. Breastplate is already somewhat expensive, and won't be immediately available in most campaigns. By the time it is, half-plate is just around the corner, and the same reasoning applies, now for 1 AC higher.

But, around levels 6-8, dex characters start having the same AC without stealth disadvantage, and str characters have better AC with the disadvantage. It's a good moment to let Druids find alternative material armor.

[stoutstien]

I have no problem at all with druid's wild shapes. Honestly, I have no idea where you got that from, since I did not criticize wildshape in any way. I think it's an awesome feature. But, when in wildshape, the scale mail stealth penalty does not apply, and that creates a balance issue, the moment the druid gets OUT of wildshape, the first round of combat, with no stealth penalty, with an 18 AC (if he's a moon druid, the moment he gets kicked out of his wildshape, his AC is immediately 18, and he also did not have stealth disadvantage before getting in combat).

With point-buy, the character that can do this at level 2 is the melee dex Fighter/Ranger/Paladin who took defense as his fighting style (not the most common or optimal style for dex characters, so they are paying for that. Druid gets that for free if they can wear metal armors)



I'm addressing specifically scale mail. Breastplate is already somewhat expensive, and won't be immediately available in most campaigns. By the time it is, half-plate is just around the corner, and the same reasoning applies, now for 1 AC higher.

But, around levels 6-8, dex characters start having the same AC without stealth disadvantage, and str characters have better AC with the disadvantage. It's a good moment to let Druids find alternative material armor.

This makes no sense to me. either they're using wild shape to bypass the stealth penalty that limiting their ability to use a form that's better in combat but they also lose all the advantages of said armor because most of the sneaky beast have low AC AND blowing their first round action to come out of wild shapes.

Also, any level 1 character in starting heavy armor is going to have 18 AC without a fighting style and 19 with defense. The druid starts with leather armor so maybe they will have 16 max(assuming at least a 16 in Dex) until they can buy better armor.

[Willie the Duck]

As for fluff justification, not wearing metal armor is as old as the druid class in D&D. You could check the reasons given in all the previous editions :)

It's generally the same sacred oath/natural products kind of wibbly-wobbly that invites 'so why armor and not everything else?' questions. That actually kinda fits, given that real-world religious and cultural taboos are inconsistent as well. It's worth noting that previous editions had different ethea with regards to both rules consequences and player agency. In oD&D, for instance, magic users could not wear armor and only wield daggers and there wasn't explanation, justification, or consequence and that wasn't routinely noted as being particularly troublesome (although, to be fair, AD&D came out within a half-decade and did provide some solid explanations and rules for what happens if a magic user does anyways).

[CorporateSlave]

Didn't read all this shenanigans.

But the way I always took it was like they are, for example, vegetarians but would eat meat if it meant not starving. If they had to pick up a metal shield to block the ogre from killing them, they would. But they'd drop it again right after. Like in Star Wars Revenge of the Sith...Obi Wan loses his lightsaber and needs to shoot General Grievous? Ok fine, he'll do it. But then cast the blaster aside in disdain.

You want to play a druid who gets to min-max AC in metal armor and build some convoluted backstory to explain why your PC is somehow a Druid instead of a Cleric because you, the player, like the high AC but also the Wild Shape? Well, you're quite the Edgelord.

Then again, we live in a society where people go "camping" to commune with nature ... in a large, motorized apartment on wheels with Air Conditioning, a flushing toilet, a shower, kitchen, and TV/WiFi...

[diplomancer]

This makes no sense to me. either they're using wild shape to bypass the stealth penalty that limiting their ability to use a form that's better in combat but they also lose all the advantages of said armor because most of the sneaky beast have low AC AND blowing their first round action to come out of wild shapes.

Also, any level 1 character in starting heavy armor is going to have 18 AC without a fighting style and 19 with defense. The druid starts with leather armor so maybe they will have 16 max(assuming at least a 16 in Dex) until they can buy better armor.

Getting OUT of wildshape is a bonus action, for any Druid. A relatively small cost to completely bypass stealth penalties and have 18 AC at level 2. To achieve that, a character has to:
1- be a high-dex character
2-wear a shield
3-have defense as his fighting style.

Druids can do it with dex 14 and a bonus action (yes, and 45 gp to upgrade his leather armor, which is not hard to have by level 2)

[stoutstien]

Getting OUT of wildshape is a bonus action, for any Druid. A relatively small cost to completely bypass stealth penalties and have 18 AC at level 2.

Bonus action is 1/4 of the total action economy. the importance of that varies from player to player but saying that it's somehow a zero cost is nonsense.
Also, if they do not go first they are probably in a very low AC form so let's hope they aren't concentrating on anything important. Seems pretty risk/reward to me, trading AC and use of wild shapes for stealth and utility.

Where is the 18AC from? As I stated they only start at 16 and unless you are handling out 3x the relevant wealth per level they won't be able to buy that scale until lv 3. So if the druid has 18 from upgrades then the martial class has 20-21.

Level 2 is arguably the strongest point of the entire druid class and even then having a reasonable AC isn't anywhere near to being put on the list of issues the class has.

[Valmark]

Then again, we live in a society where people go "camping" to commune with nature ... in a large, motorized apartment on wheels with Air Conditioning, a flushing toilet, a shower, kitchen, and TV/WiFi...

I mean, it doesn't say anywhere that druids won't use metal caravans or wifi.
I love the idea of a Druid recharging himself by watching documentaries in tv

[Coffee_Dragon]

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video_thumb/DxzJmOHUwAgkQIq.jpg

Here we see a true druid preparing the materials for a wooden splint mail.

[diplomancer]

Bonus action is 1/4 of the total action economy. the importance of that varies from player to player but saying that it's somehow a zero cost is nonsense.
Also, if they do not go first they are probably in a very low AC form so let's hope they aren't concentrating on anything important. Seems pretty risk/reward to me, trading AC and use of wild shapes for stealth and utility.

Where is the 18AC from? As I stated they only start at 16 and unless you are handling out 3x the relevant wealth per level they won't be able to buy that scale until lv 3. So if the druid has 18 from upgrades then the martial class has 20-21.

Level 2 is arguably the strongest point of the entire druid class and even then having a reasonable AC isn't anywhere near to being put on the list of issues the class has.

In Xanathar's shared campaign rules(which I suppose is the best approximation we have of expected wealth by level) , gp reward for reaching level 2 is 75 gp. More than enough to buy scale mail. Dex characters are now getting their studded leather and reaching AC 17 if they are wearing a shield (many are ranged characters with no shields). Str characters are still at 18 (with stealth disadvantage).

With 2 short rests, a level 2 druid can remain in wildshape for 6 hours of the 8 hour day. Many campaigns work with shorter exploring hours.

And level 2 is the strongest relative point for Moon Druids, not so much for other druids. That is, unless you buff them by ignoring the rulebook and letting them wear metal scale mail. That might just enough to push all druids as the most powerful characters at level 2 (when bonus actions are still relatively unused, for what it's worth).

[JNAProductions]

So, what's the cut-off point for AC?

17 AC without disadvantage on Stealth is too much, what about 16? 15? What's the line?

[diplomancer]

So, what's the cut-off point for AC?

17 AC without disadvantage on Stealth is too much, what about 16? 15? What's the line?

Cut-off point is relative. It's whatever does not make the druid have the best AC without disadvantage. If you are running a high-powered campaign where characters start at level 1 with full plate and 20 Dex, it's ok to have druids wear metal armor (or buy alternative material armor) from level 1.

[stoutstien]

In Xanathar's shared campaign rules(which I suppose is the best approximation we have of expected wealth by level) , gp reward for reaching level 2 is 75 gp. More than enough to buy scale mail. Dex characters are now getting their studded leather and reaching AC 17 if they are wearing a shield (many are ranged characters with no shields). Str characters are still at 18 (with stealth disadvantage).

With 2 short rests, a level 2 druid can remain in wildshape for 6 hours of the 8 hour day. Many campaigns work with shorter exploring hours.

And level 2 is the strongest relative point for Moon Druids, not so much for other druids. That is, unless you buff them by ignoring the rulebook and letting them wear metal scale mail. That might just enough to push all druids as the most powerful characters at level 2 (when bonus actions are still relatively unused, for what it's worth).

The cost of heavy armor has be noted as being put of line for a long time. Not an issue with druid or medium armor. If anything they are probably double of what they should be.
I figured that 75 gold has to cover, living expenses, any tools/ healing kits(druid start with herbalism kit proficiency but not the kit it self), consumables, transportation fees, and who knows what else. A few bad rolls and maybe the party is pooling gold to revive a party member or a NPC they failed to protect. it's just fair if you're going to assume the druid has an upgrade than the pseudo heavy armor wearer should have splint.

Lv 2 is a strong point I druid because like wizards they get a subclass. Forget moon druid, shepherd is the king of lv 2.

you keep coming back to wild shapes is the issue but the armor will have zero effect on it. It's like if I think fireballs too powerful so I take away mage armor.

[JNAProductions]

Cut-off point is relative. It's whatever does not make the druid have the best AC without disadvantage. If you are running a high-powered campaign where characters start at level 1 with full plate and 20 Dex, it's ok to have druids wear metal armor (or buy alternative material armor) from level 1.

So, at level 2. Normal point buy, no special rules, just a simple, clean game.

Is 16 AC still too high? Is 15?

[MoiMagnus]

I'm curious, how important is fluff to all you players and DMs out there? And by fluff, I mean things that are stated but have no mechanical detriment or benefit, they're just things assumed by a given book.


Book/Official fluff? I don't care about it. If I DM, you're welcome to suggest any change to it. As a player, I don't like strict interpretation of the books.
In fact, even for mechanics, assuming I know you well enough to be sure you won't try to exploit whatever mechanical change you're asking for fluff reasons, I will accept.

Personal fluff? That's already much more strict. And you will need a very good explanation for me to change established fluff of the universe I build.

To take the "druids with metal armors" thing as an example, in most universe I build, I simply don't care about druid. In fact, if no player plays a druid, chances that I will just erase druids from the universe. But if a player want to play a druid with metal armor, no problems.
However, if I were to build a universe where the druidic circles are an important part of the lore, major NPCs are druids, and that there are actual reasons for which druids don't wear metal armors, then metal armors would be forbidden for player druids. Because the possibility of a druid wearing armor would have some significant impact on the universe.

Similarly, chances are that I didn't make a lore for a good half of the races when building a universe. Even basic races like elves and dwarves might not have an expansive lore yet. So if you come with one of them and want do go against standard medieval fantasy lore, like with "tall dwarves" or something similar, I will happily integrate it into the fluff of the universe. (Probably asking you more information about what you think about the culture of your race should be).

[diplomancer]

So, at level 2. Normal point buy, no special rules, just a simple, clean game.

Is 16 AC still too high? Is 15?

17 AC is the expected AC of a dex warrior at level 2 with studded leather and shield. It's also the expected AC of a cleric in a chain shirt with 14 dex and shield.

If druids are, as has been said, the best characters at level 2, surely something below that is reasonable, for balance reasons. So, 16 AC, or 17 if they make a significant investment in dex (which will go down in value as their levels go up and they have access to alternative material medium armor, so it's a reasonable trade-off). Anything above that is a no-no.


The cost of heavy armor has be noted as being put of line for a long time. Not an issue with druid or medium armor. If anything they are probably double of what they should be.
I figured that 75 gold has to cover, living expenses, any tools/ healing kits(druid start with herbalism kit proficiency but not the kit it self), consumables, transportation fees, and who knows what else.

It doesn't have to cover living expenses, including food, unless you want a better than modest lifestyle. A herbalism kit costs 5 gold, druids can buy that with their starting gold from background. Druids have less use of healing kits than most classes due to their high wisdom.

Transportation fees? Are you sending your 1st level characters on long sea voyages and having them pay for it, by any chance? Because they can get a place in a coach for a 100 miles with 3 gp, or in a ship for 10gp. In all my 30 years of playing D&D, I've never seen PCs paying transportation fees for anything at first level, any threat is either close enough to make it unnecessary, or their patron pays for their voyage in the rare case where the threat is too far, and the voyage itself is somehow bound up in the adventure.

Tldr, buying scale mail (or studded leather) at level 2 is expected, not some sort of monty haul campaign.

[Valmark]

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video_thumb/DxzJmOHUwAgkQIq.jpg

Here we see a true druid preparing the materials for a wooden splint mail.

I'm starting to love you

[stoutstien]

17 AC is the expected AC of a dex warrior at level 2 with studded leather and shield. It's also the expected AC of a cleric in a chain shirt with 14 dex and shield.

If druids are, as has been said, the best characters at level 2, surely something below that is reasonable, for balance reasons. So, 16 AC, or 17 if they make a significant investment in dex (which will go down in value as their levels go up and they have access to alternative material medium armor, so it's a reasonable trade-off). Anything above that is a no-no.



It doesn't have to cover living expenses, including food, unless you want a better than modest lifestyle. A herbalism kit costs 5 gold, druids can buy that with their starting gold from background. Druids have less use of healing kits than most classes due to their high wisdom.

Transportation fees? Are you sending your 1st level characters on long sea voyages and having them pay for it, by any chance? Because they can get a place in a coach for a 100 miles with 3 gp, or in a ship for 10gp. In all my 30 years of playing D&D, I've never seen PCs paying transportation fees for anything at first level, any threat is either close enough to make it unnecessary, or their patron pays for their voyage in the rare case where the threat is too far, and the voyage itself is somehow bound up in the adventure.

Tldr, buying scale mail (or studded leather) at level 2 is expected, not some sort of monty haul campaign.

But splint at lv 2 is obviously out of the question? Either gold matters/ a place to buy armor isn't available for the whole party or it's not. Trying to invent a bunch of hoops for druid to jump through over a single AC to try to rationalize a line of text is silly.
Their AC equals a cleric with similar stat investment or the cleric can get more for less by having a domain with heavy armor and eating the stealth penalty.

Druids fall in the same 16-18 AC range as all full casters who care to stay alive. Be it by armor or spells that is where they start and most stay where those who choose to can advance AC to the low 20s

[diplomancer]

But splint at lv 2 is obviously out of the question? Either gold matters/ a place to buy armor isn't available for the whole party or it's not. Trying to invent a bunch of hoops for druid to jump through over a single AC to try to rationalize a line of text is silly.
Their AC equals a cleric with similar stat investment or the cleric can get more for less by having a domain with heavy armor and eating the stealth penalty.

Druids fall in the same 16-18 AC range as all full casters who care to stay alive. Be it by armor or spells that is where they start and most stay where those who choose to can advance AC to the low 20s

Splint costs 200 gp. To get it by level 4 you have to save 90% of the money you start with. Doable, sure but at a cost.

Which full caster has AC 18 at 2nd level with no stealth penalty and just 14 dex?

[stoutstien]

Splint costs 200 gp. To get it by level 4 you have to save 90% of the money you start with. Doable, sure but at a cost.

Which full caster has AC 18 at 2nd level with no stealth penalty and just 14 dex?
The druid would have a stealth penalty the same time they had 18 AC but for argument sake.

Tortle + any caster that can use a shield will have 19 AC. The horror.

Wizard 1+ 1forge cleric or just forge cleric can get 19+.

2 i can think of without much effort.

[Misterwhisper]

The druid would have a stealth penalty the same time they had 18 AC but for argument sake.

Tortle + any caster that can use a shield will have 19 AC. The horror.

Wizard 1+ 1forge cleric or just forge cleric can get 19+.

2 i can think of without much effort.

And yet rogue and monk sit around wishing they could get any of that normally...

[stoutstien]

And yet rogue and monk sit around wishing they could get any of that normally...
Yea both of them suffer early game with low AC but get good mobility options at lv 2 so their survivability is still ok. Monks probably should start at 17-18 but hard to figure out how without a complete rewrite

[diplomancer]

The druid would have a stealth penalty the same time they had 18 AC but for argument sake.

Tortle + any caster that can use a shield will have 19 AC. The horror.

Wizard 1+ 1forge cleric or just forge cleric can get 19+.

2 i can think of without much effort.

The druid will not have a stealth penalty for most combats, as I have repeatedly explained why.

So your argument is, even though Druids peak at level 2, we should still give ALL of them, regardless of circle or race, a considerable AC boost at that particular level, since they can still be bested by one race that is not even in a book, not accepted by many DMs (those who have heard of it, that is), and one cleric domain (that has access to heavy armor, so choosing to be medium armor based comes at a cost, and whose domain ability gets less powerful as the campaign progresses, which is another cost)

Well, if that's how you feel, you might as well give free flight to druids, since aarakocra exist. I mean, you can always have even more boosts to druids at level 2-4, so why not.

[stoutstien]

The druid will not have a stealth penalty for most combats, as I have repeatedly explained why.

So your argument is, even though Druids peak at level 2, we should still give ALL of them, regardless of circle or race, a considerable AC boost at that particular level, since they can still be bested by one race that is not even in a book, not accepted by many DMs (those who have heard of it, that is), and one cleric domain (that has access to heavy armor, so choosing to be medium armor based comes at a cost, and whose domain ability gets less powerful as the campaign progresses, which is another cost)

Well, if that's how you feel, you might as well give free flight to druids, since aarakocra exist. I mean, you can always have even more boosts to druids at level 2-4, so why not.

Slippery slope huh? no you have not explained how the druid has both high AC and no stealth penalty simultaneously. They have one or the other. Unless we are discussing Schrodinger's druid who is using and not using wild shapes at one time.

Side note nothing is forcing a forge cleric to pick one armor and stick with it. They can go medium for a while if stealth is a factor or heavy otherwise. I did what you asked and named a few cases of full casters with decent AC? Are you going to keep running the goalpost off the back side of the field?
I think I proved beyond a reasonable doubt that druid in any medium armor are not breaking anything. assuming a reasonable item progression they are going to be about the same as any other moderately armored caster. Which is about half of them once we factor in Subclasses.

[Tvtyrant]

Personally I think metal not working with wildshape would be fine. "Metal can't be reshaped by the forces of nature." If you want an armored caster to boost the weaker Druid archetypes it becomes available while not buffing Moon Druids.

[diplomancer]

Slippery slope huh? no you have not explained how the druid has both high AC and no stealth penalty simultaneously. They have one or the other. Unless we are discussing Schrodinger's druid who is using and not using wild shapes at one time.

Side note nothing is forcing a forge cleric to pick one armor and stick with it. They can go medium for a while if stealth is a factor or heavy otherwise. I did what you asked and named a few cases of full casters with decent AC? Are you going to keep running the goalpost off the back side of the field?
I think I proved beyond a reasonable doubt that druid in any medium armor are not breaking anything. assuming a reasonable item progression

With the exception of rogues (and goblins), who get hide as a bonus action, stealth penalty in combat is very much irrelevant. In your houserule, all Druids, regardless of subclass, get to have no stealth penalty while in exploration mode, and 18 AC once combat starts, at the cost of 14 Dex, which pretty much they all will have at least, since they don't have heavy armor proficiency, and one bonus action.

So, it's not schrodinger's Druid, he just has no stealth penalty when it matters the most (during exploration) and 18 AC when it matters the most (during combat).

Wizards don't have that. Bards don't have that. Sorcerers don't have that. Non-Forge Clerics don't have that. Warlocks don't have that. Sorcerers don't have that. Paladins, Fighters and Rangers don't have that (unless they are dex-based -or at least invested a 14 in dex- and invested in the Defense style). Monks and rogues don't have that. Barbarians can have that if they sacrifice Str to start with 16 Dex and Con, which is a substantial cost for a Barbarian.

But you want Druids, the best class at level 2 according to you even without that advantage, to have it at the cost of one bonus action in the first round of combat (on a level where there are not that many uses for bonus actions), and you think that is balanced. We just have different ideas of what balance is. Mine at least is based in the rules of the PHB, while yours chooses to houserule it away.

[stoutstien]

With the exception of rogues (and goblins), who get hide as a bonus action, stealth penalty in combat is very much irrelevant. In your houserule, all Druids, regardless of subclass, get to have no stealth penalty while in exploration mode, and 18 AC once combat starts, at the cost of 14 Dex, which pretty much they all will have at least, since they don't have heavy armor proficiency, and one bonus action.

Wizards don't have that. Bards don't have that. Sorcerers don't have that. Non-Forge Clerics don't have that. Warlocks don't have that. Sorcerers don't have that. Paladins, Fighters and Rangers don't have that (unless they are dex-based and invested in the Defense style). Monks and rogues don't have that. Barbarians can have that if they sacrifice Str to start with 16 Dex and Con, which is a substantial cost for a Barbarian.

But you want Druids, the best class at level 2 according to you even without that advantage, to have it at the cost of one bonus action in the first round of combat (on a level where there are not that many uses for bonus actions), and you think that is balanced. We just have different ideas of what balance is. Mine at least is based in the rules of the PHB, while yours chooses to houserule it away.


Simple: I fixed wild shapes instead of trying to back door fix it through item restrictions. if you do the item restriction you're going to run into all kind of little issues. What if another character started with better medium armor made out of natural material and want to give it to the druid? does the materials suddenly morph to prevent this from happening?
As I stated earlier there's no consensus of what armors are considered metal in regard to this restriction.

If stealth is a priority to the party there so many different ways for them to get around the penalty. Druid wild shape is just probably one of the easiest but it has its flaws.


the metal armor restriction can go sit with alignment in the pile of things that need to just @$!? Or get off the pot. restrictions without consequences are like the sign in the movie theater that tells you not to bring food in.

[JNAProductions]

With the exception of rogues (and goblins), who get hide as a bonus action, stealth penalty in combat is very much irrelevant. In your houserule, all Druids, regardless of subclass, get to have no stealth penalty while in exploration mode, and 18 AC once combat starts, at the cost of 14 Dex, which pretty much they all will have at least, since they don't have heavy armor proficiency, and one bonus action.

So, it's not schrodinger's Druid, he just has no stealth penalty when it matters the most (during exploration) and 18 AC when it matters the most (during combat).

Wizards don't have that. Bards don't have that. Sorcerers don't have that. Non-Forge Clerics don't have that. Warlocks don't have that. Sorcerers don't have that. Paladins, Fighters and Rangers don't have that (unless they are dex-based -or at least invested a 14 in dex- and invested in the Defense style). Monks and rogues don't have that. Barbarians can have that if they sacrifice Str to start with 16 Dex and Con, which is a substantial cost for a Barbarian.

But you want Druids, the best class at level 2 according to you even without that advantage, to have it at the cost of one bonus action in the first round of combat (on a level where there are not that many uses for bonus actions), and you think that is balanced. We just have different ideas of what balance is. Mine at least is based in the rules of the PHB, while yours chooses to houserule it away.

So Wildshape is considered free? Moon Druids don't like to have Wildshape available in combat, other types of Druids never want to have a spare Wildshape on call to run away or hide if need be, that bonus action is never needed, and exploration happens in handy 1 or 2 hour increments with short rests in between?

Moreover, let's assume Druid is not just good at level 2, they're at the top! Let's assume that. Is restricting their AC to 16 (Hide Armor or Studded Leather) going to stop them from championing? Or is it that, while a Druid gets a nice power boost at level 2 with their archetype (like Clerics do at level 1, Wizards do at level 2, Fighters do at level 3, etc.) they aren't some obscenely powerful boogeyman that must be stopped and changing their AC from 17 to 16 is the only way to do it?

[diplomancer]

the metal armor restriction can go sit with alignment in the pile of things that need to just @$!? Or get off the pot. restrictions without consequences are like the sign in the movie theater that tells you not to bring food in.

If that's how you feel, houserule it away. It's your game, D&D police is not going to your house to arrest you. Boost (or nerf) druids (or any other class) to your (and your players') heart's desire. What I find odd is the insistence that allowing Druids to wear metal armor is not a houserule.

For me, druids are fine sitting around Dex 16 until around levels 6-8, where it's ok to give them a boost. It's just convenient (and probably not even intended by the designers) that the metal armor restriction rule in the PHB allows it to work like that just fine.

[JNAProductions]

If that's how you feel, houserule it away. It's your game, D&D police is not going to your house to arrest you. Boost (or nerf) druids (or any other class) to your (and your players') heart's desire. What I find odd is the insistence that allowing Druids to wear metal armor is not a houserule.

For me, druids are fine sitting around Dex 16 until around levels 6-8, where it's ok to give them a boost. It's just convenient (and probably not even intended by the designers) that the metal armor restriction rule in the PHB allows it to work like that just fine.

What's the mechanical impact of a Druid wearing metal armor? I assume you read my definition of a rule earlier-if you disagree with it, please provide your own.

[stoutstien]

If that's how you feel, houserule it away. It's your game, D&D police is not going to your house to arrest you. Boost (or nerf) druids (or any other class) to your (and your players') heart's desire. What I find odd is the insistence that allowing Druids to wear metal armor is not a houserule.

For me, druids are fine sitting around Dex 16 until around levels 6-8, where it's ok to give them a boost. It's just convenient (and probably not even intended by the designers) that the metal armor restriction rule in the PHB allows it to work like that just fine.

I insist that it's not a central ruling because there's no way of telling which armors are metal and there's no penalty for wearing it past DM ruling. In my mind that's not a rule it's not even a guideline. It's a suggestion on how they would suggest role playing a druid

[diplomancer]

What's the mechanical impact of a Druid wearing metal armor? I assume you read my definition of a rule earlier-if you disagree with it, please provide your own.

His AC improves (I would say, beyond what is designed for low level druids, but YMMV). Isn't that a mechanical enough impact for you?


I insist that it's not a central ruling because there's no way of telling which armors are metal and there's no penalty for wearing it past DM ruling. In my mind that's not a rule it's not even a guideline. It's a suggestion on how they would suggest role playing a druid

Go to the equipment chapter, read the armor descriptions, and tell me that you honestly don't know which armors are made of metal.

Can you show me any other example of a roleplaying guideline in the very mechanical proficiencies rules that each class gets? Isn't it odd to put a roleplaying guideline in that particular place of the class description?

[JNAProductions]

His AC improves (I would say, beyond what is designed for low level druids, but YMMV). Isn't that a mechanical enough impact for you?

That's not what I meant. I meant, according to the rules of the game, what happens when a Druid puts on metal armor? Can they no longer Wild Shape? Cast spells? Do they suffer disadvantage on ability checks? Are they subject to the Poisoned condition?

I feel you're being intentionally obtuse here, and I do not appreciate it.

[diplomancer]

That's not what I meant. I meant, according to the rules of the game, what happens when a Druid puts on metal armor? Can they no longer Wild Shape? Cast spells? Do they suffer disadvantage on ability checks? Are they subject to the Poisoned condition?

I feel you're being intentionally obtuse here, and I do not appreciate it.

The mechanical impact of the rule is to keep Druid's AC less than it would be if they wore metal armor. So, according to your definition of a rule (a rule is something that has a mechanical impact, right?), druids not wearing metal armor is a rule. The fact that there are no rules that describe the consequences of druids wearing metal armor is irrelevant, because there is a rule that says that they don't wear it.

[JNAProductions]

The mechanical impact of the rule is to keep Druid's AC less than it would be if they wore metal armor. So, according to your definition of a rule (a rule is something that has a mechanical impact, right?), druids not wearing metal armor is a rule. The fact that there are no rules that describe the consequences of druids wearing metal armor is irrelevant, because there is a rule that says that they won't wear it.

When a Monk wears armor, they lose access to Martial Arts and Unarmored Movement.
When a Barbarian wears heavy armor, they lose the benefits of their Rage.
When a Druid wears metal armor, they... What?

[Xetheral]

This is a false dichotomy for RPGs in general, but especially for 5e. The book is the rules. Some things are more defined in a mathy way, some are less, but there is no "fluff vs mechanics".

There are some exceptions in the RPG world, such as some things written by Heinsoo. Like D&D 4e or 13th age, where descriptions are explicitly descriptive and rules are explicitly not descriptive.

But 5e isn't like that. It's all rules. Just different kinds of rules. For example, there are roleplaying rules, there are how to resolve things rules, there are how to build things rules, there are what it looks like rules. Among a variety of rules. Some are designed to be more flexible and DM or even player tuned. Others less so.

I define "mechanics" as those rules pertaining to how the model of the game world functions. Conversely, I define "fluff" as those rules pertaining to the content of the game world itself. Under those definitions, the dichotomy between the two is inherent and unavoidable (although that doesn't mean the distinction is always clear cut).

So I agree with you that "mechanics" and "fluff" are both types of rules, but I can't agree that there is no distinction between them. There is an expectation that two tables playing the same RPG in different game worlds will model action resolution and character capabilities in a broadly similar manner, diverging where there are ambiguities in the system or houserules. By contrast, there is an expectation that two tables playing the same RPG in different game worlds will have (possibly wildly) different elements of those game worlds. Thus, using my definitions, there is an expectation that mechanics will be broadly consistent between tables playing the same game, whereas fluff is expected to vary considerably.

How are you defining the terms?


Just to clarify.

Is the entire druid metal armor argument over the choice of the rules writer to use the word "won't" rather than "can't" in the armor proficiencies section of the class description?

Won't implies some sort of limitation on the character's role playing choices? Can't just means there is some mechanical reason (not detailed) preventing a druid from wearing metal armor?

People are objecting to the suggestion of a rule limiting their role playing choices but have no objection to the rule limiting their mechanical choices ... and ALL of this hinges on the choice of "won't" vs "can't" ??

"Can't" and "Won't" are both problematic if they don't explain the underlying mechanism, because without the mechanism one can't resolve edge cases. For example, as written, the rule does not provide any guidance on edges cases such as a druid unknowingly choosing to wear metal armor (e.g. the metal is concealed or the armor is magically disguised) or wearing metal armor without ever making a choice to (e.g. unconscious or mind-controlled druid).

A great example of the problems with "can't" (and synonyns) without a listed mechanism can be found in the 3.5 spell Refusal which prevents spellcasters who fail their save from entering or passing through an area. The spell does not specify the mechanism, leading to fierce debates about whether or not the spell is load-bearing if a spellcaster who fails their save would otherwise fall into the warded area.

[diplomancer]

When a Monk wears armor, they lose access to Martial Arts and Unarmored Movement.
When a Barbarian wears heavy armor, they lose the benefits of their Rage.
When a Druid wears metal armor, they... What?

They don't. Druids do not wear metal armor. Wizards do not cast healing spells with their intelligence. Both of those restrictions are in the game. Because one is about magic and the other is not you are more accepting of the rules of magic of the game, because there is no magic outside of the game to compare it with. But Druids are as unreal as spells.

(These are the rules. As I said, as DM, I would probably houserule it differently, as explained previously)

[JNAProductions]

They don't. Druids do not wear metal armor. Wizards do not cast healing spells with their intelligence. Both of those restrictions are in the game. Because one is about magic and the other is not you are more accepting of the rules of magic of the game, because there is no magic outside of the game to compare it with.

Theurgy Wizards do. That's UA, though. For now.

And see above-what happens if a Druid puts on armor that they don't realize is metallic? What if they're mind-controlled into it? What if they're knocked out and placed in metal armor?

[stoutstien]

His AC improves (I would say, beyond what is designed for low level druids, but YMMV). Isn't that a mechanical enough impact for you?



Go to the equipment chapter, read the armor descriptions, and tell me that you honestly don't know which armors are made of metal.

Can you show me any other example of a roleplaying guideline in the very mechanical proficiencies rules that each class gets? Isn't it odd to put a roleplaying guideline in that particular place of the class description?

as I stated earlier it's perfectly reasonable to think that all armors contain some metal components so it comes down to a volume or ratio of metal. Past that studded leather and scale mail are questionable decisions.

there is nothing else in the entire 5th edition that comes close to the writing in the druid armor proficiency section. It's an anomaly. That's the point. every other class that has some form of restriction have very clear guidelines of what happened when they don't follow them. This is atabletop role-playing game, saying won't doesn't mean anything.

[Tanarii]

I meant, according to the rules of the game, what happens when a Druid puts on metal armor? They will not wear metal armor.


I feel you're being intentionally obtuse here, and I do not appreciate it.That's how I feel about people that insist on trying to frame a question that's already answered by the rules as if it hasn't been. (BTW if you want a question that's not answered, it's "what happens if a Druid is put into metal armor, and not able to remove it?")

Or insist that fluff vs mechanics is some kind of inherent division of the rules that must exist in RPGs. Personal definitions of it aside, in 5e, that division doesn't explicitly exist. (In 4e it did, and the rules defined exactly where the division lay. Same in 13th age.)

Those I feel are bing the most obtuse are those that insist that the things they've personally defined as fluff are not a rule.


I define "mechanics" as those rules pertaining to how the model of the game world functions. Conversely, I define "fluff" as those rules pertaining to the content of the game world itself. Under those definitions, the dichotomy between the two is inherent and unavoidable (although that doesn't mean the distinction is always clear cut).Thats an interesting division. I like it far better than most attempts to define the division between the two. And I like that you see there isn't always a clear cut distinction. Does that mean you acknowledge its possible for some rules to be some mix of the two, to a varying degree?


How are you defining the terms?I'm not. I don't see the need to divide the rules that way.

[diplomancer]

Theurgy Wizards do. That's UA, though. For now.

And see above-what happens if a Druid puts on armor that they don't realize is metallic? What if they're mind-controlled into it? What if they're knocked out and placed in metal armor?

1st case- that's a very obtuse druid, it's even interesting to imagine even how that would happen in a campaign without considerable DM buy-in
2nd and 3rd case- he will take it out as soon as he can (and again, if that happened in a campaign, it's because the DM wanted it to, so it's pretty much irrelevant)


as I stated earlier it's perfectly reasonable to think that all armors contain some metal components so it comes down to a volume or ratio of metal. Past that studded leather and scale mail are questionable decisions.

Did you actually stop to read the descriptions right now, as I suggested? Because I just did, and the only one that is not perfectly clear, oddly enough, is ring mail, which is a horrible armor anyway to which druids have no native access, so it's irrelevant.

[Tvtyrant]

If that's how you feel, houserule it away. It's your game, D&D police is not going to your house to arrest you. Boost (or nerf) druids (or any other class) to your (and your players') heart's desire. What I find odd is the insistence that allowing Druids to wear metal armor is not a houserule.

For me, druids are fine sitting around Dex 16 until around levels 6-8, where it's ok to give them a boost. It's just convenient (and probably not even intended by the designers) that the metal armor restriction rule in the PHB allows it to work like that just fine.

That seems like a fair AC point to me, Wildshape with higher AC trends towards too good.

All games are houserules, ie the rules at your house. I can also guarantee you every person on this forum is failing to follow some rule or following one wrong even where they aren't changing the rules intentionally. Houserules vs. RAW is a false dichotomy.

[Valmark]

I insist that it's not a central ruling because there's no way of telling which armors are metal and there's no penalty for wearing it past DM ruling. In my mind that's not a rule it's not even a guideline. It's a suggestion on how they would suggest role playing a druid

After checking the DM manual I think it's safe to say that all heavy armors and medium armors aside from hide are considered metal because they can be made out of Mythral or adamantine, but it's still an opinion and not a written specificarion


The mechanical impact of the rule is to keep Druid's AC less than it would be if they wore metal armor. So, according to your definition of a rule (a rule is something that has a mechanical impact, right?), druids not wearing metal armor is a rule. The fact that there are no rules that describe the consequences of druids wearing metal armor is irrelevant, because there is a rule that says that they don't wear it.

Actually I think that he's saying that if a rule on a character doesn't mention what happens when he breaks it it's forced. Like for example as he said you know what happens FOR SURE when a barbarian dons an armor, but you are left without a clear consequence for a druid.

I mean, I think the consequence is clear (druids will not wear metal armor, thus he loses all powers when he willingly wears it) but that's my interpretation, not official.


Theurgy Wizards do. That's UA, though. For now.

And see above-what happens if a Druid puts on armor that they don't realize is metallic? What if they're mind-controlled into it? What if they're knocked out and placed in metal armor?

If he didn't know or was forced I don't think it counts, it's not like they did it willingly.


Is there no way to ask the designers about this?

[stoutstien]

1st case- that's a very obtuse druid, it's even interesting to imagine even how that would happen in a campaign without considerable DM buy-in
2nd and 3rd case- he will take it out as soon as he can (and again, if that happened in a campaign, it's because the DM wanted it to, so it's pretty much irrelevant)



Did you actually stop to read the descriptions right now, as I suggested? Because I just did, and the only one that is not perfectly clear, oddly enough, is ring mail, which is a horrible armor anyway to which druids have no native access, so it's irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what the text describing armor says because, yourself included, anticipate the existence of alternative materials or design. the armor table is not the end-all of all of every available armor in the game it is just a guideline of comparing and providing mechanical guidelines for people playing the game.
Me saying all medium armor is unmetal enough for druids and you saying it's ok but only at lv 6ish is the same solution just I handle it at session zero.

[Xetheral]

Thats an interesting division. I like it far better than most attempts to define the division between the two. And I like that you see there isn't always a clear cut distinction. Does that mean you acknowledge its possible for some rules to be some mix of the two, to a varying degree?

Absolutely. Although I think it's usually possible in practice to subdivide a rule to figure out which parts are mechanics and which are fluff.

In this case I think the intent was to make the prohibition against metal armor to be a mechanic limiting Druids' armor choices. But I think the designers failed to include sufficient information to implement that intent. As-is, it seems to me the most natural (fully-formed) reading of the rule is "A druid will not willingly don armor that they know to be made of metal." But that makes it sound like a generalization of character preferences and thus an element of a game world, which by my definitions would make it easily-changable fluff. (I've also seen the reading "Anyone wearing metal armor is not a Druid", but that reading produces all kinds of problems.)

If instead they had written: "Druids won't wear metal armor because it interferes with their powers. A Druid cannot wildshape or cast spells while wearing metal armor." then the first sentence would be easily-changable fluff and the second sentence would be mechanics that specify how to model druids in metal armor. Despite the similarity of saying "Druids won't wear metal armor", if they'd used this wording I don't think anyone would be claiming that making a Druid character that wears metal armor is "against the rules" any more than they would say that making a Barbarian whose never been outside a city is "against the rules". (Which, admittedly, some posters say.)

So ultimately I think they tried and failed to write a mechanic generally adhered to. But they instead wrote something that, when parsed, sounds like the fluff descriptions they put at the start of every class.


I'm not. I don't see the need to divide the rules that way.

So, you're arguing that there is no meaningful distinction between fluff and mechanics in 5e, but you aren't defining the terms? I mean, I guess that follows--arguably every undefined term has exactly the same meaning as every other undefined term. :)

[Tvtyrant]

And see above-what happens if a Druid puts on armor that they don't realize is metallic? What if they're mind-controlled into it? What if they're knocked out and placed in metal armor?

Clearly they won't put it on. Problem solved. Even if you use mind control on them, the rules say they won't so they don't.

[stoutstien]

Clearly they won't put it on. Problem solved. Even if you use mind control on them, the rules say they won't so they don't.
Sounds like we have grounds to start a generator fueled by the perpetual repulsion that druids have to metal Shields.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't see the need to divide the rules that way. Nor do I, and I think that answers the OP's core question / concern. (well, from a particular approach to this edition of the game)

Aside: This whole druid/metal armor thing looks like a different face on that lump of polished coal that is alignment debates. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

[Valmark]

Clearly they won't put it on. Problem solved. Even if you use mind control on them, the rules say they won't so they don't.

...I can't understand if it's sarcasm or not. Everything tells me it is but I like the idea to use metal to break mind control on druids.

Bad Guy: Attack them.
Fighter: *Throws shield made of metal*
Druid: FOR THE LOVE OF BUNNIES NO

[NichG]

Fluff is a statement of the premise of the game, and the job of mechanics is to support the premise where they could potentially interact. But not all elements of the premise need to be supported mechanically. If I say 'the premise of the game is that there are three kingdoms locked into constant warfare that has been going on for generations', its not necessary for e.g. some ancient monster to be released if the PCs arrange an armistice. If the fluff says 'druids swear a sacred oath not to wear metal armor, and so they won't do so' then that's sufficient to inform a variety of ways that a druid might react if forced to wear metal armor. They don't need to lose their spells or class levels or explode on the spot or create a repulsion field that sends the armor flying. If someone isn't denying the premise, then they just have to accept 'my character cared about this oath, and someone forced them to violate it' as something that actually happened, and then react as they would have their character react to such an occurrence.

But if a player specifically designs a character to both be a serious druid but conveniently not give a fig about that oath, I think its reasonable to call into question whether that player is actually accepting the premise of the game. It's better not to have to run a game where everything about the setting and world has to be enforced with divine punishment, but being able to do so requires buy-in. If the player doesn't actually buy in, I'd rather they say that and we discuss changing the setting and game world (e.g. by removing that oath from druidism) than for them to basically lie about having bought into the setting when they really intend to only obey things imposed directly by hard mechanical penalties.

I'd rather run a game where if a paladin kills a bunch of innocents due to feeling forced by circumstance, I can trust the players to take the event seriously and integrate it into their roleplay without there being any mechanical punishment or consequence than a game in which the only reason its a big deal to the character is because they've lost their powers. In that sense I'd prefer more 'druids won't wear metal armor (but nothing mechanical happens if they do)' and less 'paladins fall and lose their powers if they commit a willful evil act' in my systems.

[Addaran]

Just saying that the "druid will not wear it" is a cop-out to answering what will happen if the druid wears it. And no, it's not necessarily the DM who will mind-control a druid to put it on. Another player could easily do it ( nothing in the rules prevent a player from casting a spell on another).

I've posted already how that one rule is the single anomaly that doesn't follow any convention compared to all the other classes in multiple ways. And as stoutstien mentionned, which armor as too much metal isn't even specified. Some think studded leather is okay, others don't. Even a wooden shield will have metal pieces.

[micahaphone]

Now I'm picturing the bbeg's forces invading the forest, armed with catapults that launch snap-on breastplates and pikes with helmets on the end. You don't try to stab the druids, you slap armor onto them, then you stab them. Much easier when they're freaking out, can't turn into bears or cast or have barkskin or whatever.

[NichG]

Just saying that the "druid will not wear it" is a cop-out to answering what will happen if the druid wears it. And no, it's not necessarily the DM who will mind-control a druid to put it on. Another player could easily do it ( nothing in the rules prevent a player from casting a spell on another).

I've posted already how that one rule is the single anomaly that doesn't follow any convention compared to all the other classes in multiple ways. And as stoutstien mentionned, which armor as too much metal isn't even specified. Some think studded leather is okay, others don't. Even a wooden shield will have metal pieces.

Nothing mechanical happens when a druid wears metal armor. But if you take that to be a reason why your druid shouldn't care about wearing metal armor, you're denying the premise at the same level as if you said 'I'm still going to take actions when the rules say my character is dead'. It's not that its impermissible to do so in some kind of absolute sense, but its deceptive to claim to be accepting the premise while taking actions that deny it.

There doesn't have to be a mechanical penalty to explain every behavior that the fluff establishes. If the fluff says 'King George is petty and vindictive', he doesn't need to suffer a negative level whenever he behaves in a generous way. Rather, the fluff is instructing whomever is depicting King George that he should be played a certain way. If the DM has King George be nice and friendly all the time, we can simply observe the situation and say 'the DM is rejecting the premise of King George's character as established by the setting materials and is doing something else' without feeling as though we need to resolve whether inevitables will show up and force King George to behave correctly or some other kind of heavy-handed intervention.

[Deadfire182]

Nothing mechanical happens when a druid wears metal armor. But if you take that to be a reason why your druid shouldn't care about wearing metal armor, you're denying the premise at the same level as if you said 'I'm still going to take actions when the rules say my character is dead'. It's not that its impermissible to do so in some kind of absolute sense, but its deceptive to claim to be accepting the premise while taking actions that deny it.

There doesn't have to be a mechanical penalty to explain every behavior that the fluff establishes. If the fluff says 'King George is petty and vindictive', he doesn't need to suffer a negative level whenever he behaves in a generous way. Rather, the fluff is instructing whomever is depicting King George that he should be played a certain way. If the DM has King George be nice and friendly all the time, we can simply observe the situation and say 'the DM is rejecting the premise of King George's character as established by the setting materials and is doing something else' without feeling as though we need to resolve whether inevitables will show up and force King George to behave correctly or some other kind of heavy-handed intervention.

This form of roleplay restriction was mostly omitted in 5e, with classes no longer having to have a certain alignment to play. The idea of Druids not wearing metal armor is also a similar roleplay-restricting feature that made it's way through, though now it doesn't give a detriment. The ruling is so ambiguous at this point, what with the arguments of what constitutes as metal armor or the fact that druids can still wear metal clothing and use metal weapons, that I think it's safe to say we either reject the rule entirely and let druids have 1 or 2 extra AC (which you'd really only have to worry about for minmaxers (some people just like druids wearing metal armor)) or, the more sensible version, just give druids proficiency in specific types of armor/say that they lose spellcasting and/or wildshape while wearing it.

In any case, shallow internet arguments aren't really going to affect anything at all. If you want your Druid to wear metal and the DM approves, go ahead. If they say no, talk it out if it's important or just say okay.

[NichG]

This form of roleplay restriction was mostly omitted in 5e, with classes no longer having to have a certain alignment to play. The idea of Druids not wearing metal armor is also a similar roleplay-restricting feature that made it's way through, though now it doesn't give a detriment. The ruling is so ambiguous at this point, what with the arguments of what constitutes as metal armor or the fact that druids can still wear metal clothing and use metal weapons, that I think it's safe to say we either reject the rule entirely and let druids have 1 or 2 extra AC (which you'd really only have to worry about for minmaxers (some people just like druids wearing metal armor)) or, the more sensible version, just give druids proficiency in specific types of armor/say that they lose spellcasting and/or wildshape while wearing it.

Putting an explicit mechanical penalty on something like that makes it a subject of optimization - that is, the druid in character would always want metal armor if they could get away with it, but because there's a cost they may decide to pay the cost to have metal armor, or avoid the cost by avoiding the armor. That establishes a different kind of world than one where 'druids have a mentality that rejects the use of metal armor as a desirable thing'. In the former, druids are mercenaries who only do the things they do in order to trick nature into giving them powers, while in the latter they're true believers in some ideological elements and, as part of their practice, learn to gain powers.

People can do as they like at individual tables, but I'd argue at least that (in terms of mediating in general any tensions between fluff and crunch) it's useful to understand that there's a difference between behaviour you do because you will be punished otherwise, and behaviour you do because it's what you want to do. Making mechanics that enforce the former when the intent of the fiction is the latter will create dissonance, and risks trying to use in-character interventions to resolve what are really OOC misunderstandings.

[eftexar]

I honestly don't understand why so many are stuck on the idea that the "mechanical effects of wearing armor" (i.e. the AC Bonus) is why people are offended about their Druids not being allowed Metal Armor (and not a deeper reasoning). That being said, and more importantly :

Please don't tell people WHY they are not agreeing with you. Unless you are secretely an Illithid, I highly doubt you possess the Psionics capable of reading their mind. This is offensive and insulting.
Edit : Just remembered Red tends to be Markup by Mods. Sorry if I stepped on any toes with this, but I thought the statement is a really important point. I can change it if asked. Or the Mod can, of course, I wouldn't be offended.

If someone says that's NOT why, then GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. If you can't come up with anything other than "Your Lying!," and, "It has everything to do with you wanting AC, even though you said otherwise!," you come of as, even if it's not your intention, petty, condescending, and self-righteous. Even worse, it seems as if your explanation is "Because I Said So!."

The moral implications of answering questions this way makes me shudder. Please, please, don't read this Spoiler if you are easily offended or automatically assume anything bad said about the way you react(ed) to a specific situation is a personal attack. This is not necessarily how you are acting, but how you can appear to some people :
"Because I Said So!" is what parents who don't want to explain their reasoning say to kids. And the only reason you tell a kid that, is because you think they won't understand your reasoning or are incapable of it. Problem is, some kids are really really smart and that kind of thinking tends to leave others out in the cold (especially those who behave outside the norm). I spent my school years bullied and ostrasized by other kids, because I was smarter than them and had terrible social skills (Autism, thank you very much :smallmad:).

When adults told me "Because!," it was to explain why they punished me for yelling at someone who harrassed me (or hit me even). Or "They didn't see it." Nevermind the occasional (obvious) bruise or the fact I cried in front of them (we're talking legitimate sobbing, snot out of my nose; pre-teens aren't Actors of that calibre). The whole anti-bullying campaign that really took off in recent decades has actually increased bullying and prevented teachers from doing their jobs (or perverted their understanding of child psychology). It comes from an old-school form of thinking before the period of enlightenment : When people just assumed things about people, based upon their own experiences, instead of listening to them or empathizing. And others threw out baseless accusations. Witch-hunts anyone?

That didn't fly with me as a kid and it doesn't as an adult. Just because something "IS," doesn't mean it's "right." When you can't explain something, it fundamentally disturbs some people on a psychological level. And I can see why. The argument that "You can't because the Rules say so!" or "Your lying and just want the AC Bonus" sufficiently seem to reak of the ideals behind the likes of dictatorships (who assume people act and think a certain way and impose their beliefs upon them without facts, context, or circumstance or any logical "reason"). Now this might not have anything to do with you or your way of thinking, and it probably doesn't, but it's the way you appear to be responding that offends people. And even if they don't think that, you are offending their "right to be them."

In short, "Because I Said So!" is a terrible answer. I wouldn't jump off a bridge, because the President told me to. And if I was a soldier sent into the middle of a (mideival) war and a SUPERIOR told me "don't wear armor," I wouldn't listen to him unless I thought I would get thrown in the dungeon or killed for doing so. But even then, I 'could' wear Armor. I might have to pay consequences for doing so. However, I could wear the Armor. And telling me "but, it's tradition," I would be like, "What!, they have arrows and they are pointy. See, that guy over there is bleeding. Someone took out his kneecap! How's he supposed to keep adventuring now?!"

Likewise, explicit restrictions with no penalties don't work for roleplaying. Especially when phrased as "won't" rather than "can't". The example of a Dwarven Druid is exactly spot on, in my honest opinion, despite people hand-waving it away so easily. Dwarves live underground and work metal. They could feasibly see it as a natural part of the world. You could argue, "the Druids wouldn't teach their secrets to them then," but whose to say that Dwarves don't have their own Druidic traditions? They are one of the older Races, yes? You could go with the God or "nature of the World" or "nature of Magic," but not only are these Deus Ex Machina, what about a Dwarven God of Nature? The reality of D&D is thought to have numerous Material Planes. Surely one of them has a Dwarven God of Nature whose domain is Metalworking?

And why couldn't a Rogue steal some of their teachings? We've seen precedent in previous editions (so even arguing Tradition is wobbly). There were Ur-Priests in 3.5e that could STEAL divine power from the Gods themselves (ignoring the need for Faith or Prayer)! Truenamers could literally change the rules of reality if they gathered in sufficient number, wealth, and studies. What if my Dwarf was raised by a Truenamer who changed his Personal Truename, so that he could "Always be able to wear Metal Armor without Penalty" or "I am a Druid that wears Metal Armor?" There, an exception to the whole "Character won't wear Armor." There were classes that even specifically overcame such "in stone" Traditions!

And for those that say, but that was 3.5e!, I'm preempting that arguement. I saw alot of arguments for Tradition, indirect as some of them were. You can't argue tradition for one thing and conveniently ignore it for another. Besides my Dwarf's Granpappy was a 3.5e Dwarf. He won't stop complaining about how his power is no longer over 9000 and 5e nerfed him so bad! 4th wall aside . . .

Saying "won't" in a game meant to be built from our imagination lacks of creativity and enforces limited thinking.

When I play a Video Game, I could accept the whole "Druids won't wear Armor," but that's only because the game can't recode itself to give a different experience and I can dream up whatever lore I want to justify it. Or perhaps the story will tell me later. A DM, however, can add or make up new lore as the game goes on. And the game could go on as long as the DM and it's Players are still capable of playing!

When I play D&D I play it "Because" it is so adaptable. It's not like a "normal" game, where most Player's simply seek to "compete" against the other Players, the DM, or, more abstractly, "the game". It's not Football, where there is a clear winner. It's not a Race, where there is a clear end. D&D is about telling a Story. And not just the DMs Story, but the Players' Story as well. D&D is an interactive Narrative with Game elements (Or a Game with interactive Narrative elements). The Rules are as much a framework for writing a Story as they are for playing a game.

Worse is when you apply "Your HEADCANON" and ignore "someone elses HEADCANNON." Everybody sees the game differently. And by definitively stating "This is so, because I said so," or "Because they said so," is dictating someone elses Story. And D&D isn't just one Story! But, your's, as the DM, and each of the Player's as well. Each are telling their own story from their own point of view. PCs are supposed to be exceptional and unusual, they are our special snowflakes, so even if ALL other Druid's won't wear Metal Armor and your Player wants to, then agree on a penalty or have them integrate a backstory that allows. This gives you more material as a DM to work with.

And Stories need Consistency to be told! Even if the Consistency is internal. e.g.
No rule, or fluff, suggested Harry Potter ever learned or was capable of Casting an Unforgivable. And, yet he cast one on Bellatrix. Not very well, granted, but he did. Ostensibly it was completely out of Character, but he had just lost his Godfather. Everyone has a breaking point. To assume there is no reason a Druid would wear Metal Armor, without any Rules as to why, would be like Harry Potter waking up one day and Crucioing Luna Lovegood because she looked at him funny. He could do it, but he won't. He just won't. He has no reason to. Luna looks at everyone funny.

No doubt this seems to support your Druid supposition at first, of they "Won't wear Metal Armor"; Full Stop. Harry was established as a character that won't torture people, and, yet, he did so (or attempted to do so and the Spell obviously did something). The answer : CONTEXT. The Context of the Story determined "He won't Crucio" and then gave a situation where "Oh no, My Godfather! Crucio on you, you deranged lady!" The Context allowed an exception. Without Context, you can't give a reasonable explanation to why Druids "won't" wear Armor.

In this, D&D has no Context. Tradition, or "I Said So!," are not Context. They don't explain why Druids won't wear Metal Armor in 5e. And they don't impose penalties, so we, as DMs and Players, can fill in the gaps of why they are there. This shatters the "Suspension of Disbelief." Most story readers expect a story to carry "internal consistency." If it has not been established there is Magic, and I'm reading a Historical Fiction book, and, at the end of the book, the character suddenly pulls out fireballs and suplexing his Foes, when he's been a parapalegic the whole story, I would get angry and feel cheated out of my story and time. Even if, technically, there was no rule saying he couldn't.

[Deadfire182]

Putting an explicit mechanical penalty on something like that makes it a subject of optimization - that is, the druid in character would always want metal armor if they could get away with it, but because there's a cost they may decide to pay the cost to have metal armor, or avoid the cost by avoiding the armor. That establishes a different kind of world than one where 'druids have a mentality that rejects the use of metal armor as a desirable thing'. In the former, druids are mercenaries who only do the things they do in order to trick nature into giving them powers, while in the latter they're true believers in some ideological elements and, as part of their practice, learn to gain powers.

Firstly, adding a mechanical penalty doesn't automatically make a druid just hold nature hostage for powers. You may play a character that way, but that doesn't define literally all dnd druids to exist as nature-thieves, that's just a real stretch.

Second, cool? If you don't like that way of thinking, then don't go with that. I also said you can just not have a restriction (it's a stupid one in the first place but whatever), what about that?

[micahaphone]

"Remember, young acolyte, we use the metals of the earth to maim, kill, dismember and destroy, be it a dagger, scimitar, sickle or spear, but metal is only for killing. Never use metal for defense".

[Tectorman]

I'm not going to quote Eftexar's whole post just to show support for the whole thing with a sentence or two, but please take this as a thank you for expressing that so eloquently.


Even worse, it seems as if your explanation is "Because I Said So!."

I am, however, going to add this: "Because I Said So!" is essentially all the backing "Druids will not wear metal armor" has, and it's insufficient, nay, unacceptable there for the same reasons. If anything, that's the PHB acting in bad faith and without respect, and long before any posters in this thread or other threads on the same topic were accusing each other (rightly or wrongly) of being intentionally obtuse.

[NichG]

Firstly, adding a mechanical penalty doesn't automatically make a druid just hold nature hostage for powers. You may play a character that way, but that doesn't define literally all dnd druids to exist as nature-thieves, that's just a real stretch.

Second, cool? If you don't like that way of thinking, then don't go with that. I also said you can just not have a restriction (it's a stupid one in the first place but whatever), what about that?

Yeah, that's fine, I'm not making an argument that people have to play the game a certain way at their tables. I'm making an argument that the elements of fluff that a table agrees should be part of the game are of equal importance as the elements of crunch that the table agrees should be part of the game. I'm fine with a table saying e.g. 'drown healing doesn't make sense to us, so it won't work', and a table saying 'druids not being able to wear metal armor doesn't make sense to us, so lets just say they can'. What I'm trying to establish is that both of these are equally important - its not a lesser matter to change the point about druids just because it doesn't come with a mechanical penalty.

Or to put it another way, if someone comes to my table and says 'I don't like this piece of fluff, can we change it?' then that's perfectly fine and it's a good conversation to have. If someone comes to my table and says 'because this is just fluff, we should automatically feel free to just ignore it, but because these are mechanical rules, we should automatically obey them' then I would challenge that assumption, because it implicitly relegates anything that isn't expressed in terms of mechanical objects to lesser status and that weakens the ability of people to trust the fluff and use it as the basis for reasoning about cause and effect in that setting.

An example of this might be something like the whole 'vampires drink blood' thing. Fluff-wise, vampires drink blood. Mechanically, there is no penalty for vampires not drinking blood. If players are of the mindset that the fluff indicates something which one can safely presume holds true in the setting, then its fine that there's no mechanical penalty - if they encounter a vampire, they have been told that it's safe to conclude that it is getting blood from somewhere, and if there are rumors of a vampire in the area and they see no evidence of blood being procured, that should be interpreted as an anomaly. But if players are of the mindset that only the things which are mechanically enforced hold true, they can misinterpret that evidence and lose the ability to reason about the setting, or may draw conclusions like 'I should become a vampire, there's no downside!' which aren't intended to hold true and which are inconsistent with the world being portrayed.

A table can decide e.g. 'vampires aren't about the whole drinking blood thing' and if that's a specific choice about the setting and game at that table, then it's all good. But its problematic if someone were to assume without having that conversation that vampires aren't going to be about blood drinking because there's no mechanic forcing them to do it on pain of penalty or death.

[Greywander]

I'm not going to quote Eftexar's whole post just to show support for the whole thing with a sentence or two, but please take this as a thank you for expressing that so eloquently.

I am, however, going to add this: "Because I Said So!" is essentially all the backing "Druids will not wear metal armor" has, and it's insufficient, nay, unacceptable there for the same reasons. If anything, that's the PHB acting in bad faith and without respect, and long before any posters in this thread or other threads on the same topic were accusing each other (rightly or wrongly) of being intentionally obtuse.
Indeed. Off the top of my head, there's three possible restrictions we could put on druids in metal armor that would incentivize players not to use it and to follow the lore:

Druids aren't proficient with metal armor. Wearing armor you're not proficient with introduces some pretty crippling penalties. This should be more than sufficient to convince a player to stick with the lore of not wearing metal. It also makes sense that if druids have a thing against wearing metal armor that they simply won't train new druids in how to use it. Another aspect about this that I like, however, is that it provides an easy way to circumvent it if you have a character concept that involves wearing metal armor: just get proficiency from somewhere else. Others might see this as a downside, but I don't. My only issue with this approach is that it doesn't explain why in-universe druids don't like metal armor; it's the consequence, not the cause, of druids not liking metal armor.

Metal armor prevents Wild Shape. Lore-wise, it makes sense that the nature magic of a druid isn't able to reshape metal armor when the druid tries to turn into an animal. One important aspect of going this route is that, even if you have/get proficiency with metal armor, this restriction would still apply. That said, Wild Shape, while an iconic druid ability, isn't so powerful that there aren't some builds that would prefer to eschew it in favor of metal armor. Using this restriction, I would expect to see some druid circles have a problem with metal armor, while others do not.

Metal armor prevents casting druid spells. A more heavy-handed version of the above. I think the major difference here is that there's not likely to be a lot of builds that would willingly give up spellcasting in order to wear metal armor. If, however, you truly wanted a druid in metal armor to "not be a druid anymore", then this would achieve that. Especially if combined with the above, you would effectively be locked out of most of your druid class features while wearing metal armor.

If I were to DM, and I didn't revoke the taboo against metal armor, I would probably use the first approach listed above (druids aren't proficient). That seems like a baseline way to handle this. I might also tack on the Wild Shape restriction, as it would help explain why druids in-universe don't like metal armor. I think the third option is too heavy handed for my taste, but I could see other tables using that approach, or even combining all three together.


As for fluff in general, I don't usually have a problem with people refluffing one thing as another as long as the mechanics don't change significantly. Want to use X racial traits, but say you're Y race? Probably fine, as long as those traits have plausible explanations (e.g. a halfling, being small, could be refluffed as a short human, or a child, but you'd have trouble justifying refluffing it as an 8 foot tall goliath). Want to give your character a tail? That's probably fine. Want your warforged wizard to shoot a disintegration ray when they use Chill Touch? Yeah, cool.

Where it starts becoming a problem is when the fluff change starts to have more than a cosmetic effect. Want to use your tail to grab something, or knock something over, or in some other way? Well, if you had a tail, I suppose you could do those things. Want to use your disintegration ray to cut a hole in the wall? Ehhh, that's not what Chill Touch does, I don't know...

Fluff isn't always just a cosmetic change, sometimes it can also allow you to do things you couldn't do before. This is why it's important to understand the potential ramifications of certain fluff before you allow a player to use it. I would say that if you've already allowed a particular fluff, stick with it for the lifetime of that character. If the player does something unexpected with it that you don't like, just make a note not to allow that fluff on any future characters. You might think allowing the urchin to speak to rats is cool, until he uses them as a spy network and even to carry out ratssassinations. Maybe don't allow that next time. Also, I now have an idea for a forest gnome urchin.

There's a lot of class or racial features that get written off as "ribbon" features. Essentially they are treated as if they were nothing but fluff, and to a degree they can be fluff. Thieves' Cant, for example, is very much a roleplay element, and a lot of tables are likely to never see it used. A permissive DM might allow non-rogues to learn Thieves' Cant, either using one of their languages or even for free. I think this does a slight disservice to rogues, though considering it is a minor feature I doubt most of them would mind. And there are times when something like Thieves' Cant could prove extremely useful, if the DM actually incorporates it or the player expressly invokes it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there can sometimes be overlap between fluff and ribbon features, and while I think it's okay to allow some fluff if it's justified, some thought should be given as to whether that fluff should be wrapped in a feat or class feature instead of given out for free.

[diplomancer]

All rules of the game are "because I said so". A 1st level bard knows 4 spells. He knows them, he just hasn't memorized, or asked his god for them, or whatever. Nevertheless, he can only cast 2 of them in a day (or 1 of them twice). Why? It makes no sense. Spellcasting is not described as a grueling experience that takes so much out of a person that a 1st level character can only do it for 12 seconds a day (if it was, it would raise other issues... see the current thread on subtle spells). Think well what kind of experiences in the real world are like that.

The only answer is "because I said so". Same thing for spell lists, and same thing for every other mechanical limitation in the game. You don't like it? Change it. But acknowledge you are changing it, be it the spell lists (the designers just did that after all), the class descriptions, the race descriptions, the armor descriptions, etc.

[Tanarii]

So, you're arguing that there is no meaningful distinction between fluff and mechanics in 5e, but you aren't defining the terms? I mean, I guess that follows--arguably every undefined term has exactly the same meaning as every other undefined term. :)No. There are meaningful distinctions between different kinds of rules in 5e. Some are more easily modifiable by the DMs and players and other less so, for a variety of reasons. Some have balance concerns, others world building concerns, and others roleplaying (i.e. player decision making during play) concerns. Many apply to some or all of hose things, as well as others.

What I'm stating is that the undefined terms "mechanical" and "fluff" are not something I feel a need to define personally, and that (generally) any given persons personal definitions of them don't necessarily apply to all of us, and that (specifically) the all too common attempt to define a rule as not-a-rule because it is either "fluff" or "not mechanical" is not a valid argument in many RPGs, including 5e.

The theory of "mechanics are rules, fluff is not rules" is neither universally true, nor is the line between the two typically clear or agreed upon by any two holders of that theory.



Aside: This whole druid/metal armor thing looks like a different face on that lump of polished coal that is alignment debates. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Agreed. Alignment is often another thing people try to feed into their hardline mechanics/fluff theory and unsurprisingly come out with a nonsense result like "banana".

[Greywander]

All rules of the game are "because I said so". A 1st level bard knows 4 spells. He knows them, he just hasn't memorized, or asked his god for them, or whatever. Nevertheless, he can only cast 2 of them in a day (or 1 of them twice). Why? It makes no sense. Spellcasting is not described as a grueling experience that takes so much out of a person that a 1st level character can only do it for 12 seconds a day. Think well what kind of experiences in the real world are like that.

The only answer is "because I said so". Same thing for spell lists, and same thing for every other mechanical limitation in the game. You don't like it? Change it. But acknowledge you are changing it, be it the spell lists (the designers just did that after all), the class descriptions, the race descriptions, the armor descriptions, etc.
Are you trying to convince me that "Because I said so" is adequate justification for a rule, or that Vancian spellcasting is an arbitrary game construct that makes no sense in-universe?

You're still missing the point, though, by a mile. The rules do not say, "A bard won't cast more than two spells." If they did, then it would logically lead to the question, "What if my bard casts more than two spells?" Instead, the rules say (more or less), "A bard can't cast more than two spells." Why? Well... I'm not really sure. I think the Vancian magic system works well as a balanced game construct, but I find it much too arbitrary to connect it to a plausible in-universe explanation. Although the part of me that craves verisimilitude chafes at it, I'm still willing to accept the Vancian magic system as the mechanics for it are clearly defined. It never tells you what you will or won't do, only what you can and can't do. And the consequences of your actions are clearly laid out.

A lot of the other mechanical limitations are the same way. A barbarian can only Rage twice per long rest. Why? Because that's what the designers determined was balanced. Why, in-universe? Maybe because you're just too tired to work yourself up into a rage again. There's a certain arbitrariness to such mechanics. Some are easier to justify in-universe than others. But all of them are very clear on the mechanical end.

"Druids won't wear metal armor" means absolutely nothing. This carries as much weight as a parent telling their child, "You will do your homework." If the child fails to do their homework, and there are no consequences, then is "Children will do homework," even really a rule? The rules clearly state that if you use up all your spell slots you will be unable to cast any more spells. There is no, "What if I cast more spells anyway?" You just can't. Druids can wear metal armor. Anyone can wear metal armor, and it would be absurd to suggest that druids are somehow incapable of doing so. They just choose not to. But they can. So why don't they? What happens if they do? It's not explained, there are no consequences given. We're told not to do something, but nothing actually prevents us from doing that thing, and there are no stated consequences for doing that thing. The burden is placed entirely on the DM to figure something out should a belligerent druid show up at their table in a chain shirt. The DM literally has to make up a consequence out of thin air in order to enforce this "rule". And that's no rule.

According to the rules, clerics of Pelor can cast Animate Dead. You might think that Pelor's clerics wouldn't be allowed to cast a spell that creates undead, but nothing in the rules actually prevents it. The onus is on the player to say, "Yes, this is part of my character that they won't cast Animate Dead." And that's as it should be. It should be up to the player to decide how their character behaves, and they will be more invested in character traits that they've decided on themselves rather than ones they've had thrust on them by the book. Don't like the idea of a necromancer cleric of Pelor? Refluff Pelor as a different god of light who's down with the undead. Or refluff the Animate Dead spell so that the undead it creates are more similar to archliches or baelnorns and other Good aligned undead.

So why is it that the rules allow me to get away with necromancer clerics of Pelor, but a druid wearing metal armor is too much of a stretch?

[eftexar]

Thanks Greywander and tectorman. I know it's probably too verbose, but sometimes it's needed for clarification. That, and I feel as if there are a lot of misunderstandings in this thread. Hopefully I don't come off as too aggressive with it. When dealing with game-related subjects and forums, I tend to use a slightly different "syntax" to describe things, often by bolding the first letter. I've actually had people complain about my grammar because of it, without realizing I've done it on purpose for a reason. That, and I think it actually makes it easier to read, especially for those who skim (they can jump to the important points or back to them more easily).


Ah, but that is not true at all Diplomancer. Besides the fact that you are being overly pedantic (to the point of being obtuse), the reason we follow those rules isn't "because I said so". Games are constructed with Rules for a reason. This construct, or framework, is there to assist us and make game play fair. The rules your are paraphrasing in this case "are necessary." Saying a "Druid won't wear Metal Armor" isn't necesssarily "neccessary."

See my explanation :
A major, Major, reason for this is the distinction between these two instances. You see, CONTEXT. Once again, you have completely ignored Context. D&D is both of two things : An RPG and a Story Telling System. Abstraction(s) must exist for the purpose of an RPG. It won't function otherwise. In this case, these Abstract Mechanics work, not because they aren't explained, but "because they can't be explained" or "don't need to be explained." They don't damage "Suspension of Disbelief."

As in, it is impossible to explain, since this Abstraction is based more on game theories and game construction than Story Telling. Further, these Rules can be accepted without much protest, since they aren't there to Limit Player's, but to provide a framework to Build from. In this case, the "Rules are Constructive." That Druids can't wear Armor is a "Rule that is Deconstructive." It removes options, where-as spellcasting adds them.

So, saying "a Rule isn't a Rule because it is Fluff", is no more accurate than saying "a Rule is a Rule because it is Mechanics." Why? Let met repeat myself, the answer here, is CONTEXT. Context, in an RPG with Story Telling, is the grey area between RAW and RAI.
Remember, "Only the Sith deal in Absolutes."

This grey area, between RAW and RAI, is difficult to define. Arguing against my point, using "because the Rules say so" "in all Contexts" is both an inaccurate assumption and assumes that either RAW or RAI, one or the other (that is), is the ONLY influence. In this case, RAW. This is a Fallacy most people, even I (myself) have for a time, assume(d) is true (and unequivocally so). We need to remember that RAW and RAI coexist, along with varying levels of DM-FIAT.

Think of it as a balancing act :
RAW > DM-FIAT (Balance Concerns) > RAI > DM-FIAT (Opinion). While one is, by necessity of greater importance than the next, each doesn't automatically overule the next. Instead, I think you have to work your way down :

RAW is clearly "contested," in that so many people are under the impression it works one way or another. >
DM-FIAT should uncover no real Balance Concerns. But if it does, it can be house-ruled to work for both the DM and the Players >


Technically, here, we could stop. RAW was "under contest", and Balance Concerns can be dealt with in a way to allow it (even though limitations are not indicated as per RAW). This is a good place to put in House Rules. A distinct fact to remember : House Rules are not Homebrew, unless they add Rules or take away Rules in a way that isn't specifically for repairing a percieved deficiency. It allows flexibility to deal with RAW, without delving further into the issue (because Players and DMs just want to Play at this point). But, let's continue our sliding scale to see where it keeps going :

At RAI, we need to think of "what was intended?" or even "what wasn't intended?" Much of this is somewhate Subjective, so we may have to refer to precedent here. That aside; Did the designers purposfully word it that way to exclude Revivify from Contingency? Perhaps nothing regarding this kind of issue occurred to them? What did it's closest Mechanical and Fluff predecessor, 3.5e, do to handle this? etc.?

I don't think, RAI, they ever intended to exclude or include the option. So, we can speculate - what do we think they would do? Precedent seems to have indicated, at least in my opinion, that Revivify can be used with Contingency. It has functioned this way previously in Mechanically similar games (particular another version of D&D).
The very last step would be the second part of DM-FIAT; does the Player doing this "harm" my game. Does it ruin immersion? This step should be more open to Player influence, since unless it interferes on the campaign or balance at an intermediate to a large level, why should the DM arbitrarily lay a limit (especially if all other Player's disagree (with the DM))?

You could say "Druids won't wear Armor" and still allow a PC Druid to do so (likey with some house ruled penalties to balance things (and fairly too; the option should be sub-optimal but not bad)). Here, you come up with a reason why. Or at least require the Player to come up with one that semi-believable, before allowing them to. My more detailed explanation for the Dwarf scenario (another poster has posted (sorry didn't keep track of the name), isn't entirely unbelievable. And, it can expand the Story Telling.

Let's brainstorm some Fluff for this : Perhaps they would get lots of odd looks and, let's also say Races tied to forest, like Elves or Treants, might not agree with them. Perhaps a few Druid Circles are even so Hostile, to the point of Attacking the Player's Character for their "blasphemous behavior." Here, penalties might not even be necessary, since "these Enemies are the Penalty." Especially if they have access to the Rust Spell.

This, this here, is how "Fluff as Mechanics" should actually be used. Not only is it "Constructive," rather than "Deconstructive," but we have a clear penalty here. It could cascade into so many story lines too! What if it ignited an arms race between different Druid Circles, with Player's caught in the middle, as they try to prove the superiority of their "lack of Metal Armor" or their "use of non-Metal Unobtanium Armor." Suddenly, you have a Cold War, Fantasy style! See where I'm going with this now . . .


Saying a Druid "won't" wear Metal Armor is Fluff with a Mechanical impact. Saying a Druid "can't" wear Armor is Mechanical with Fluff impact. Neither are proper. The first violates the "Rule of Free Will." And the second? It has "no explanation". It has no penalty. It is just a random blurb, that, as far as I can tell, is the way the designers "want" you to play. If I'm not mistaken, it is also the only 'rule' stated in such a way. Any other circumstance would indicated a Typo. Also think about it like this :

Vanacian Casting = Gravity; I can believe I'm not affected by gravity, but if I jump off a building I still go Splat! from the sudden stop at the end.

Druid won't wear Metal = Belief; A Soldier's Faith says he can't kill people, but, even though the Book seems to indicate RAW that doing so is "always evil", his God indicated it was "okay", not "good," but "okay," for his followers to do so to defend their people or to escape persecution because of their faith. Does he explicitly say this? I don't believe so, but it can RAI be considered true.

I have the utmost respect for people who defend their own (or others) from harm. And the Soldier in this instance would likely say "he won't kill someone" (when away from combat). In this case, his morals, faith, or perhaps just beliefs, would not allow him to do so. Perhaps, maybe, he doesn't consider "eliminating" an enemy combatant killing. Because D&D is as much about Story as it is about the Game, complex grey areas exist. The key is, to know when to apply real life examples and when not to. And to do so without being Arbitrary.

[diplomancer]

Are you trying to convince me that "Because I said so" is adequate justification for a rule, or that Vancian spellcasting is an arbitrary game construct that makes no sense in-universe?

You're still missing the point, though, by a mile. The rules do not say, "A bard won't cast more than two spells." If they did, then it would logically lead to the question, "What if my bard casts more than two spells?" Instead, the rules say (more or less), "A bard can't cast more than two spells." Why? Well... I'm not really sure. I think the Vancian magic system works well as a balanced game construct, but I find it much too arbitrary to connect it to a plausible in-universe explanation. Although the part of me that craves verisimilitude chafes at it, I'm still willing to accept the Vancian magic system as the mechanics for it are clearly defined. It never tells you what you will or won't do, only what you can and can't do. And the consequences of your actions are clearly laid out.

A lot of the other mechanical limitations are the same way. A barbarian can only Rage twice per long rest. Why? Because that's what the designers determined was balanced. Why, in-universe? Maybe because you're just too tired to work yourself up into a rage again. There's a certain arbitrariness to such mechanics. Some are easier to justify in-universe than others. But all of them are very clear on the mechanical end.

"Druids won't wear metal armor" means absolutely nothing. This carries as much weight as a parent telling their child, "You will do your homework." If the child fails to do their homework, and there are no consequences, then is "Children will do homework," even really a rule? The rules clearly state that if you use up all your spell slots you will be unable to cast any more spells. There is no, "What if I cast more spells anyway?" You just can't. Druids can wear metal armor. Anyone can wear metal armor, and it would be absurd to suggest that druids are somehow incapable of doing so. They just choose not to. But they can. So why don't they? What happens if they do? It's not explained, there are no consequences given. We're told not to do something, but nothing actually prevents us from doing that thing, and there are no stated consequences for doing that thing. The burden is placed entirely on the DM to figure something out should a belligerent druid show up at their table in a chain shirt. The DM literally has to make up a consequence out of thin air in order to enforce this "rule". And that's no rule.

According to the rules, clerics of Pelor can cast Animate Dead. You might think that Pelor's clerics wouldn't be allowed to cast a spell that creates undead, but nothing in the rules actually prevents it. The onus is on the player to say, "Yes, this is part of my character that they won't cast Animate Dead." And that's as it should be. It should be up to the player to decide how their character behaves, and they will be more invested in character traits that they've decided on themselves rather than ones they've had thrust on them by the book. Don't like the idea of a necromancer cleric of Pelor? Refluff Pelor as a different god of light who's down with the undead. Or refluff the Animate Dead spell so that the undead it creates are more similar to archliches or baelnorns and other Good aligned undead.

So why is it that the rules allow me to get away with necromancer clerics of Pelor, but a druid wearing metal armor is too much of a stretch?

You accept the game construct of Magic. You do not accept the game construct of Druid. They are both game constructs, and nothing but game constructs. That's fine. Change it.

DMs adjudicating the results of player actions is actually Rule 0, and not a defective rule. If doing so is a burden to you, never DM, you will have far greater difficulties than deciding what happens when a Druid puts on metal armor.

Conversely, the player who came to my table with the attitude of "I will parse the rules to my best mechanical advantage, and even contest your rulings and interpretations to do so, taking away your job of adjudicating the results of my actions" will, at best, get my job of DM, since he considers himself the final ruling authority of the game.

[eftexar]

Diplomancer, you are still missing the point entirely. This is not Mortal Kombat. You are viewing it as Player vs DM. You are assigning absolute control, arbitrarily, in a Game that isn't designed to do that. Regardless of whether a DM or Player leans more towards the Game or the Story, it is NOT the Player vs the DM. It is the Player vs the Game or the Story. The DM doesn't = Game or Story, because it couldn't be Played without : PARTICIPATION.

The DM is, using America, as an example, both the Executive and Legislative Branch. Players are the Judiciary Branch. Sure, the Executive-DM can overule everything the Player says, with his Veto, and then the Leglislative-DM can fillibuster with the Legislative Branch, but then he's just being possessive and allowing his own conflict(s) of interest to influence the game.

Using this Precept (of Player vs DM), you are arguing that "everything about the Game is a construct" and "that the Player is trying to seize control." It's not. And it's not. And by claiming anyone who disagrees with the DM is attempting to seize control . . .


A dangerous route to follow that is, for once you go down it, forever will it dominate your destiny. The path of the dictator, it is.

Your issue here doesn't seem to be that "Player Druids want to wear Metal Armor," so much as "They are not playing by my Rules. I don't want to share my Toy with them now." or "They are not Playing by my Rules. I'm always right and the Rules say what I think KNOW they say." It appears that you aren't allowing for other interpretations not because "you think that they are wrong", but because "you think you are right".


The fact that you propose impose DMing only works the way you indicated is the most dar-ning (can we cuss here, can't remember?, meh . . .) piece of evidence here. Every argument you have presented has been about CONTROL. By declaring "everything about the Game is a construct," you have implied given the DM (has) permission to alter the Rules as he sees fit and the Players can do nothing about it, no matter how much "rocks fall and everyone dies (without a Save)" is thrown around like candy. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

It also allows you to make this thread's argument from any point of view, because at this point your argument is based on a construct you have argued for. This, is circular thinking at it's worst. When it's done in such a subtle way the person talking doesn't realize they are doing it. This kind of thinking can't be argued against, not because it's "right," but because the Rules become "whatever I want them to be, so your opinion doesn't matter." And these Rules can change to support any argument you make, without anyone else knowing them.

[diplomancer]

I would say the attitude of player vs dm is far more illustrated by the player who says "I will wear metal armor and be unhappy about any mechanical consequence the DM imposes on me for doing it" than by the DM who says "if you wear metal armor there will be mechanical consequences", or even the DM who answers "I put on the metal armor" with "you don't. Druids don't wear metal armor", the same way he answers the 1st Level Bard who tries to cast his 3rd spell in the day "you don't. First level bards don't cast 3 spells in one day". Both of these rules are arbitrary (and, ultimately, nonsensical) limitations about the actions a character takes.

[eftexar]

You are still stuck on Player vs DM. As the Cook might say "a tomato is a tamato, except when it's not." It's a fruit in the world of Botany and a vegetable in the world of Culinary. The Vanacian Casting System and the "Druid won't wear Armor" are within completely different CONTEXT(s). That argument doesn't work.

And, you are still painting the "Player as the Adversary" and the "DM as the victim". Nobody here has complained about "there being mechanical consequences," but rather "there are no consequences defined" in the book and "you seek unreasonable punishment to stop, not dissuade players, from taking an option" rather than "making it reasonably sub-optimal, but still able to function (and alerting the Player to this before they make their decision)." You are using Rule 0, to adjucate the lack of a Rule, heavy handidly to FORCE Players to do as you wish.

I don't believe any, or at least many, here have said or meant, anything you claim they have; Quoting you :

"I will wear metal armor and be unhappy about any mechanical consequence the DM imposes on me for doing it"
Numerous people have pointed out that a (reasonable, mind you) penalty could be applied. And the Player would have to have some justification to do so. This isn't a problem with having consequences and penalties. This is a problem with how you want to DM. You want Players to flex around you, rather than you flex around them. There is a reason responsive gaming with multiple pathways is so popular now. People want choice.

"if you wear metal armor there will be mechanical consequences",
Is perfectly fine.

or even the DM who answers "I put on the metal armor" with "you don't. Druids don't wear metal armor"
Is terrible. This is far worse. You are dictating what the Player themselves is doing. You aren't just controlling their Character, you are vicariously DICTATING that they behave a certain way in real life as well. This isn't a Video Game where, "sorry, I don't have the code to do that Dave." Ironically, you are metagaming the Player in a way I didn't think was possible before. You are metagaming the Player instead of the Player's Character.

[diplomancer]

You are still stuck on Player vs DM. As the Cook might say "a tomato is a tamato, except when it's not." It's a fruit in the world of Botany and a vegetable in the world of Culinary. The Vanacian Casting System and the "Druid won't wear Armor" are within completely different CONTEXT(s). That argument doesn't work.

And, you are still painting the "Player as the Adversary" and the "DM as the victim". Nobody here has complained about "there being mechanical consequences," but rather "there are no consequences defined" in the book and "you seek unreasonable punishment to stop, not dissuade players, from taking an option" rather than "making it reasonably sub-optimal, but still able to function (and alerting the Player to this before they make their decision)." You are using Rule 0, to adjucate the lack of a Rule, heavy handidly to FORCE Players to do as you wish.

I don't believe any, or at least many, here have said or meant, anything you claim they have; Quoting you :

"I will wear metal armor and be unhappy about any mechanical consequence the DM imposes on me for doing it"
Numerous people have pointed out that a (reasonable, mind you) penalty could be applied. And the Player would have to have some justification to do so. This isn't a problem with having consequences and penalties. This is a problem with how you want to DM. You want Players to flex around you, rather than you flex around them. There is a reason responsive gaming with multiple pathways is so popular now. People want choice.

"if you wear metal armor there will be mechanical consequences",
Is perfectly fine.

or even the DM who answers "I put on the metal armor" with "you don't. Druids don't wear metal armor"
Is terrible. This is far worse. You are dictating what the Player themselves is doing. You aren't just controlling their Character, you are vicariously DICTATING that they behave a certain way in real life as well. This isn't a Video Game where, "sorry, I don't have the code to do that Dave." Ironically, you are metagaming the Player in a way I didn't think was possible before. You are metagaming the Player instead of the Player's Character.

Am I FORCING the player to act as I will when I tell him that he does not cast his 3rd spell of the day? He can run a freaking marathon, he knows the spell, he moves his hands and says the appropriate words, but somehow he does not cast it, in the same way the druid does not wear the metal armor. You accept the first arbitrariness, but not the second.

The game has rules. It doesn't have "real rules" and "fake rules". Deciding to ignore them is up to the DM, not to the player. This is true of pure fluff rules without any mechanical impact (though most DMs will always be willing to work with the player's suggestions on those, it makes their world building job a lot easier). It's even more true of rules with mechanical impact, like the wearing of armor.

Once you are not following the rules anymore (as in, the DM allows the Druid to put on metal armor) it's up to the DM to decide what are the mechanical consequences of that, be it "you lose your druidic powers", "nothing happens", "as you put on the armor, you feel it change. By the time you are finished, you realize it's now a studded leather armor", or whatever else the DM wants (in the same way a DM could allow a 1st level player to cast a 3rd spell at the cost of being stunned for the rest of the day, for instance).

Edit: The traditional Vancian casting at least had an explanation: you forget the spell after you cast it. There is no such explanation now. It is entirely arbitrary.

[stoutstien]

Am I FORCING the player to act as I will when I tell him that he does not cast his 3rd spell of the day? He can run a freaking marathon, he knows the spell, he moves his hands and says the appropriate words, but somehow he does not cast it, in the same way the druid does not wear the metal armor. You accept the first arbitrariness, but not the second.

The game has rules. It doesn't have "real rules" and "fake rules". Deciding to ignore them is up to the DM, not to the player. This is true of pure fluff rules without any mechanical impact (though most DMs will always be willing to work with the player's suggestions on those, it makes their world building job a lot easier). It's even more true of rules with mechanical impact, like the wearing of armor.

Once you are not following the rules anymore (as in, the DM allows the Druid to put on metal armor) it's up to the DM to decide what are the mechanical consequences of that, be it "you lose your druidic powers", "nothing happens", "as you put on the armor, you feel it change. By the time you are finished, you realize it's now a studded leather armor", or whatever else the DM wants (in the same way a DM could allow a 1st level player to cast a 3rd spell at the cost of being stunned for the rest of the day, for instance).

I've always wanted to play one of these mystical strictly rules as written games. It probably be about on par is using a magic 8 Ball as a DM.

[KorvinStarmast]

"Remember, young acolyte, we use the metals of the earth to maim, kill, dismember and destroy, be it a dagger, scimitar, sickle or spear, but metal is only for killing. Never use metal for defense". That's awesome.

I am, however, going to add this: "Because I Said So!" is essentially all the backing "Druids will not wear metal armor" has, and it's insufficient, nay, unacceptable there for the same reasons. If anything, that's the PHB acting in bad faith and without respect, The rules in this edition do not make a distinction between the so called "fluff" and "crunch" - that distinction is being brought into the rules reading by people. As to asserting that the PHB is acting in bad faith ... you lost me. It's a book. (And yes, some of the writing in it makes me scratch my head). One of the best bits of advice I got for this edition, as I stumbled through how it was different than some previous editions, I got right here at GiTP: first, purge everything you know about D&D, then, get into this game edition as if it is its own thing. It was really helpful to me in being annoyed a lot less by some of the little things that made me go "what??" from time to time. (And I still do not like what they do with saving throws in this edition, but I have learned to live with it)
You accept the game construct of Magic. You do not accept the game construct of Druid. They are both game constructs, and nothing but game constructs. And the other game constructs are creature types. :smallbiggrin:

[diplomancer]

I've always wanted to play one of these mystical strictly rules as written games. It probably be about on par is using a magic 8 Ball as a DM.

I wouldn't, neither as a DM nor as a player. I prefer some more freedom, with 2 provisos:
1- The DM is the ultimate adjudicator of the rules
2- The DM should try to make the game fun for every one, including himself.
And one corollary: unless every one on the table is a lawyer who enjoys lawyering, rules discussions are not fun. Avoid them (see proviso number 1)

[stoutstien]

I wouldn't, neither as a DM nor as a player. I prefer some more freedom, with 2 provisos:
1- The DM is the ultimate adjudicator of the rules
2- The DM should try to make the game fun for every one, including himself.
And one corollary: unless every one on the table is a lawyer who enjoys lawyering, rules discussions are not fun. Avoid them (see proviso number 1)
Which is why I think handling the whole druid metal problem before a single die is rolled is the best policy. Saying you won't wear metal armor is asking for game stoppage and probably at a good thematic point.
"The druid rushes over to their fallen warrior comrade just in time for the giant boar too turns around and begins to charge. The druid grabs the shield off the ground....
Hey Mark is your shield made of mostly metal?
.."

[diplomancer]

Which is why I think handling the whole druid metal problem before a single die is rolled is the best policy. Saying you won't wear metal armor is asking for game stoppage and probably at a good thematic point.
"The druid rushes over to their fallen warrior comrade just in time for the giant boar too turns around and begins to charge. The druid grabs the shield off the ground....
Hey Mark is your shield made of mostly metal?
.."

This is something we can agree on. The moment a player says "I'm playing a Druid" is the time for the DM to tell him how he deals with the subject (and, in my experience, my players are even surprised. Their reaction is usually "well, obviously I won't wear metal armor, why are you even telling me that?")

[Addaran]

Thank you eftexar, stoutstien and Greywander. You give good explanations for your points and actually answer the opposing side's questions instead of just saying "that's how it is".


https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016 " 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."
According to wizards, it's not unbalanced to have druids wear any armor from their proficiencies. So any medium armor.

From Forgotten Realms, druids of Mielikki can wear metal armors. Exemple being Pikel, who wears a metal pot as an helmet. That is metal armor right there.

[LentilNinja]

Druids don't wear metal armor", the same way he answers the 1st Level Bard who tries to cast his 3rd spell in the day "you don't. First level bards don't cast 3 spells in one day". Both of these rules are arbitrary (and, ultimately, nonsensical) limitations about the actions a character takes.

This is a false equivalency. The Bard example regards what a Bard cannot do, the Druid example regards what a Druid shouldn't do.

The Bard's spellcasting determine how many spells a Bard can cast before a long rest. There is no question of whether a Bard will or will not cast a third spell; they are completely unable to do so. That's in the rules.

The Druid's armor proficiencies state that they will not wear heavy armor. The question of will or will not implies it is possible to do, otherwise the question cannot be asked. How can I decide whether I will or will not have chicken for dinner, when at the store all the chicken is out of stock? It is not a question that can be asked, as there is no option.

Also, I know Sage Advice shouldn't be taken as gospel but they did release an article here answering Druids vs Metal Armor. To summarise:



"Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it."
This backs the opinion that Druids have the choice to wear metal armor, which certifies they can 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."
Explaining the 'restriction' (using term loosely) for Druids wearing metal armor is storywise rather than by the actual rules.



"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."
i.e. Druids wearing metal armor is not going to grant them any undeserving advantages mechanically. If as the DM a Druid wearing metal armor isn't compatible with your story/world, that's up to you. But again, going by the actual rules this is not an issue.


In short, as per the wording of the Druid's proficiencies as well as the opinion of Sage Advice, there is no reason to prohibit Druids from wearing metal armor nor does it grant any mechanical advantage the class should not already have access to.

[Tanarii]

You are viewing it as Player vs DM.A player insisting that a rule is just fluff and not a rule are the ones trying to impose their will on the DM. They're the ones being adversarial here.

[stoutstien]

This is something we can agree on. The moment a player says "I'm playing a Druid" it's the time for the DM to tell him how he deals with the subject (and, in my experience, my players are even surprised. Their reaction is usually "well, obviously I won't wear metal armor, why are you even telling me that?")

With the vast number and diversity of the 5e players core coming in from past editions and new the genre the impact of rules is going to be all over the board.

We have a new DM I our area who's experience of DnD is only from video games. She has a solid grasp of the spirit of the rules but trips up on edge cases, which is to be expected. Last night it was the casting under water question(s).
I think it hard for anyone who has a solid baseline of 5e to see the game with true unbiased eyes.

[diplomancer]

"Not breaking the game system" is in no way, shape, or form, the same thing as "not giving them a mechanical advantage that they would not have otherwise". The game system is robust enough to give Druids that mechanical advantage, true (heck, it's robust enough to give free flying at level 1, of course it's robust enough for a few points of AC to a class that already gets very little for being in melee in the first place).

But no, the designers have never stated that letting druids wear metal armor is not giving them a mechanical advantage that they wouldn't have if you don't let them (obviously it does), just that this mechanical advantage does not break the game (which no one has claimed it does).

They are simply letting DMs, who might want to do it but are afraid of the game consequences, know: "if you want to do it, do it. It won't break your game". It's fully in the "empowering DMs" view of 5e. Notice that they say "if you feel strongly... talk with your DM" not "if you feel strongly... do it and let the DM come up with the consequences". The decision is still entirely at the DM's hands, because it's a house rule (not that there is anything wrong with that)

[stoutstien]

"Not breaking the game system" is in no way, shape, or form, the same thing as "not giving them a mechanical advantage that they would not have otherwise". The game system is robust enough to give Druids that mechanical advantage, true (heck, it's robust enough to give free flying at level 1, of course it's robust enough for a few points of AC to a class that already gets very little for being in melee in the first place).

But no, the designers have never stated that letting druids wear metal armor is not giving them a mechanical advantage that they wouldn't have if you don't let them (obviously it does), just that this mechanical advantage does not break the game (which no one has claimed it does).

I think the problem is the term mechanical advantage. Advantage in comparison to what? Obviously more AC us better than not but is it better than similar builds/ classes? I have to use cleric because they are basically the same class and I can't see anything out of line.

[micahaphone]

I've only played a smidge of pathfinder, and plenty of 5E. Did druids in previous editions have restrictions against metal weapons too, or has it always been only armor?

A wiki claims that in BECMI D&D, druids were a level 10 prestige class for clerics, and "This presented them with a bunch of new character restrictions, mandating that they live in the wilderness and forbidding them from using metal weapons or armor"

I found this site that appears to be a copy of the AD&D rules:

Their spells are more powerful as attacks than clerics, and they can use a greater variety of weapons (the restriction against drawing blood does not apply), but they may not use any metallic armor or shield. Since such metallic protections would prevent the druid from being able to perform his magic, he may only wear leather or padded armor or none, and may carry only wood shields.

So druid was an offshoot of cleric, but now could use any weapons but no metal armor, and using metal armor stops you from spellcasting.

As much as I distrust the dandwiki.com, they claim this is 3E SRD:


Druids are proficient with the following weapons: club, dagger, dart, halfspear, longspear, quarterstaff, scimitar, sickle, shortspear, and sling. Their spiritual oaths prohibit them from using weapons other than these. They are proficient with light and medium armors but are prohibited from wearing metal armor (thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor). They are skilled with shields but must use only wooden ones.

A druid who wears prohibited armor or wields a prohibited weapon is unable to use any of her magical powers while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter. (Note: A druid can use wooden items that have been altered by the ironwood spell so that they function as though they were steel.)

similar rules, and here's where we get the specific weapons list, but no explicit ban to metal weapons. I could see a knapped stone dagger or spear(s), but I'd be pressed to think of a scimitar or sickle that's not made of metal.


Just grabbing from a wiki, it looks like 4E gave armor proficiency in "Cloth, leather, hide", and simple weapons. Maybe I just don't know enough aobut 4E, but I'm not finding any mention of metal in this wiki.


-----------------------------------------------

So way back in BECMI d&d, druids had to eschew all signs of civilization, living in nature and not using any metal. AD&D is mum about weapons, keeps the armor restriction, and 3E mentions explicit weapons that a druid will use.
I'm curious as to the lore/reasoning of these choices. I can understand the 1st ed "no civilization, no metal at all" for a nature caster, and 3E really puts a sacred emphasis on the weapons and armor. Why are those weapons okay with druids? A sickle has a harvest theme, spears and daggers are feasibly made primal technology with stone knapping, but scimitars?

[redwizard007]

I'm not going to quote Eftexar's whole post just to show support for the whole thing with a sentence or two, but please take this as a thank you for expressing that so eloquently.



I am, however, going to add this: "Because I Said So!" is essentially all the backing "Druids will not wear metal armor" has, and it's insufficient, nay, unacceptable there for the same reasons. If anything, that's the PHB acting in bad faith and without respect, and long before any posters in this thread or other threads on the same topic were accusing each other (rightly or wrongly) of being intentionally obtuse.

I think you guys are splitting hairs. The issue is not "druids can't/won't wear metal armor because I told you so." The problem is the lack of LISTED repercussions and reasoning behind it. That's just poor design and editing.

Is there a good reason for druids not to wear armor? Maybe, I dont know, (and yes that bothers me too.) Is it the couple points of "free" AC? Seems unlikely. Is it an issue with wildshape? It could be, but poorly written rules didn't spell that out. Purely thematic? Most likely, but no more so than barbarians' armor restrictions.

The truth is, allowing druids to use metal armor is a really minor tweak and can be easily worked into the lore just as easily as rules could be instituted to create actual drawbacks and limits on druid abilities when wearing metal armor. Neither is wrong. Just different approaches to solving the same problem.

[Misterwhisper]

I've only played a smidge of pathfinder, and plenty of 5E. Did druids in previous editions have restrictions against metal weapons too, or has it always been only armor?

A wiki claims that in BECMI D&D, druids were a level 10 prestige class for clerics, and "This presented them with a bunch of new character restrictions, mandating that they live in the wilderness and forbidding them from using metal weapons or armor"

I found this site that appears to be a copy of the AD&D rules:


So druid was an offshoot of cleric, but now could use any weapons but no metal armor, and using metal armor stops you from spellcasting.

As much as I distrust the dandwiki.com, they claim this is 3E SRD:



similar rules, and here's where we get the specific weapons list, but no explicit ban to metal weapons. I could see a knapped stone dagger or spear(s), but I'd be pressed to think of a scimitar or sickle that's not made of metal.


Just grabbing from a wiki, it looks like 4E gave armor proficiency in "Cloth, leather, hide", and simple weapons. Maybe I just don't know enough aobut 4E, but I'm not finding any mention of metal in this wiki.


-----------------------------------------------

So way back in BECMI d&d, druids had to eschew all signs of civilization, living in nature and not using any metal. AD&D is mum about weapons, keeps the armor restriction, and 3E mentions explicit weapons that a druid will use.
I'm curious as to the lore/reasoning of these choices. I can understand the 1st ed "no civilization, no metal at all" for a nature caster, and 3E really puts a sacred emphasis on the weapons and armor. Why are those weapons okay with druids? A sickle has a harvest theme, spears and daggers are feasibly made primal technology with stone knapping, but scimitars?

Yeah, scimitars made no sense to me either. The others are all very native and natural weapons one could make on their own in the wild, but a scimitar is completely different than all of those.

Spears: Sure, stick with a pointy rock maybe even obsidian.
Sickle: Yeah, it is a farming tool.
Club: Well it is just a big stick or whittled log, so sure.
Sling: Does not get much more old school than that.
Dart: Tiny little spear
Dagger: Simple work tool and survival tool.
Scimitar: Requires training as a blacksmith and not just simple weapon either, it is a sharp curved weapon that takes some work.

No bows because that is a hunter's weapon.
Crossbows are just more advances bows.
Other weapons are implements of war, not nature other than certain hammers or maybe a pick.

[stoutstien]

Yeah, scimitars made no sense to me either. The others are all very native and natural weapons one could make on their own in the wild, but a scimitar is completely different than all of those.

Spears: Sure, stick with a pointy rock maybe even obsidian.
Sickle: Yeah, it is a farming tool.
Club: Well it is just a big stick or whittled log, so sure.
Sling: Does not get much more old school than that.
Dart: Tiny little spear
Dagger: Simple work tool and survival tool.
Scimitar: Requires training as a blacksmith and not just simple weapon either, it is a sharp curved weapon that takes some work.

No bows because that is a hunter's weapon.
Crossbows are just more advances bows.
Other weapons are implements of war, not nature other than certain hammers or maybe a pick.

I think scimitar is just to cover all curved blades. Shotels are just big sickles.

It's a problem with druids being both a very vague yet very specific RP niche.

[NNescio]

So way back in BECMI d&d, druids had to eschew all signs of civilization, living in nature and not using any metal. AD&D is mum about weapons, keeps the armor restriction, and 3E mentions explicit weapons that a druid will use.
I'm curious as to the lore/reasoning of these choices. I can understand the 1st ed "no civilization, no metal at all" for a nature caster, and 3E really puts a sacred emphasis on the weapons and armor. Why are those weapons okay with druids? A sickle has a harvest theme, spears and daggers are feasibly made primal technology with stone knapping, but scimitars?


Yeah, scimitars made no sense to me either. The others are all very native and natural weapons one could make on their own in the wild, but a scimitar is completely different than all of those.

Spears: Sure, stick with a pointy rock maybe even obsidian.
Sickle: Yeah, it is a farming tool.
Club: Well it is just a big stick or whittled log, so sure.
Sling: Does not get much more old school than that.
Dart: Tiny little spear
Dagger: Simple work tool and survival tool.
Scimitar: Requires training as a blacksmith and not just simple weapon either, it is a sharp curved weapon that takes some work.

It's supposed to approximate an Iberian falcata, or one of those (nameless) Celtic curved swords that might have inspired the falcata. Either of those fits the time period and region where real-life druids used to operate. Though admittedly there were no documented evidence of druids using actual weapons, and druids were 'priests', not warriors anyway, so they wouldn't be expected to wield a weapon of war, but eh... acceptable liberties (like giving the Cleric weapon proficiencies).

Calling it falcata would make people go "huh", and "Celtic curved sword" isn't exactly... marketable, so that's probably why they picked the nearest equivalent sword that most people would be aware of and called it a "scimitar".

[KorvinStarmast]

I think scimitar is just to cover all curved blades. Shotels are just big sickles.

It's a problem with druids being both a very vague yet very specific RP niche. And very little is actually known about them, as they kept few records of their own.

I go into some detail here. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/70528/22566)

A few points:
a. I first played a druid in D&D in 1976; OD&D, Eldritch Wizardry Druid. Metal armor forbidden, and the only weapons and armor allowed were:

Druids are able to employ the following sorts of weapons: Daggers, sickle or crescent-shaped swords, spears, slings, and oil. They may wear armor of leather, and use wooden shields. They may not use metallic armor. Druids may use those magical items not otherwise proscribed to them which are usable by "all classes" and all those items normally usable by clerics, excluding all clerical items of a written nature (scrolls, books, etc.).

b. As to records from a Roman contemporary to historical druids ...
Pliny recorded the use of using golden sickles to harvest mistletoe. Book 16: The Natural History of the Forest Trees. The Druids--for that is the name they give to their magicians -- held nothing more sacred than the mistletoe and the tree that bears it, supposing always that tree to be the robur. The mistletoe ... when found, is gathered ... fifth day of the moon ... Clad in a white robe ... cuts the mistletoe with a golden sickle.

c. From the dragonsfoot web site (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?22566-Q-amp-A-with-Gary-Gygax/page680&p=3357010#post3357010), a discussion with EGG.
Question:

Just a question that stretches back down the eons to 1e.: why do druids use scimitars? It just seems curious with the Celtic connection.

Answer


It is because the scimitar is as close a sword weapon I could come up with to match the druids' mistletoe-harvesting sickle. Cheers, Gary

Link (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?22566-Q-amp-A-with-Gary-Gygax/page680&p=3357010#post3357010)

[intregus]

What makes a druid a druid? Can I mechanically be a level 1 character and a level 1 ranger and call myself a druid?

Can I play a rogue class and call myself a fighter? Can I play a druid class and call myself a wizard?

Whether or not druids wear metal armor is a lore thing not a mechanics thing. Seeing as how wotc creates content I'm sure they were not thinking that allowing a druid to where a breast plate was OP and something they shouldn't be allowed to do.

[Misterwhisper]

What makes a druid a druid? Can I mechanically be a level 1 character and a level 1 ranger and call myself a druid?

You can call yourself whatever your want.

I have seen multiple Paladins call themselves, templars, priests, crusaders, or whatever.

Your character could call himself by whatever name fits their personality.

[KorvinStarmast]

What makes a druid a druid? Can I mechanically be a level 1 character and a level 1 ranger and call myself a druid? Ask your DM. That isn't an answer someone beyond your table can give you. I can call myself a brain surgeon, but that doesn't make me one.

Role Playing Wise ... if real druids find out that your Ranger is fraud who is passing yourself off as a druid, this Ranger may find that they don't take kindly to that and may take actions against this fraud. They may also just point and laugh.

That's up to the DM to orchestrate.

(Full disclosure: I am not a brain surgeon)

[intregus]

Ask your DM. That isn't an answer someone beyond your table can give you. I can call myself a brain surgeon, but that doesn't make me one.

Role Playing Wise ... if real druids find out that your Ranger is fraud who is passing yourself off as a druid, this Ranger may find that they don't take kindly to that and may take actions against this fraud. They may also just point and laugh.

That's up to the DM to orchestrate.

(Full disclosure: I am not a brain surgeon)

I agree, its a setting thing. Its not a mechanics thing. It can't be a mechanics thing if there's no mechanical buff or penalty.

[KorvinStarmast]

I agree, its a setting thing. Its not a mechanics thing. It can't be a mechanics thing if there's no mechanical buff or penalty.
I have a friend who plays a unique kind of paladin / holy warrior in 5e.
He takes 1 level in Fighter.
He takes the rest in Cleric.
He calls himself a Paladin, or a Holy Warrior, but he can't smite.
But he manages to do alright. :smallcool:
The key seems to be to have fun, rather than to fight the rules as presented. I understand the attraction some people have to trope breaking and reskinning: it's part of the fun. I just don't find a need to do it in 5e. There is enough variety, to include Xanathar's, to fit most niches.

(An old friend of mine played an Evil Fighter(Dex Based) who operated as an assassin. Criminal background. Sharp Shooter. Used poison on arrows and bolts ... he was quite lethal).

[Deadfire182]

Ask your DM. That isn't an answer someone beyond your table can give you. I can call myself a brain surgeon, but that doesn't make me one.

Role Playing Wise ... if real druids find out that your Ranger is fraud who is passing yourself off as a druid, this Ranger may find that they don't take kindly to that and may take actions against this fraud. They may also just point and laugh.

That's up to the DM to orchestrate.

(Full disclosure: I am not a brain surgeon)

What do you mean “passing themselves off as a Druid?” Druid is just a title, kinda like “Paladin” or “Priest” or “Sorcerer”. I might be playing with a Ranger chassis, sure, but there’s no label on my head in game that says I’m a ranger. Maybe I’m a Druid who just likes to use less magic and more weapons than other druids. Same holds true for Cleric/Paladin distinctions. Maybe I’m just a Paladin who’s more into spell casting. What about a Zealot Barbarian, he’s just a really angry Paladin. Nothing says he has to say he’s a “Barbarian” in game. Or what about Doctor Strange? He’s called the “Sorcerer Supreme” but he acts much more like a Wizard than a Sorcerer, seeing as how he has to learn and study his spells and wasn’t born with them (bit of an outside example, but I think it fits)

I guess what I’m trying to say is there’s no such thing as a “class” in the in-game world of D&D. The class is only a frame for your character, and exists outside just to clarify make it easier too understand what abilities the chassis comes with.

(Sidenote, not trying to offend or call you out, I just think there’s distinctions to be had)

[Tectorman]

I think you guys are splitting hairs. The issue is not "druids can't/won't wear metal armor because I told you so." The problem is the lack of LISTED repercussions and reasoning behind it. That's just poor design and editing.

Is there a good reason for druids not to wear armor? Maybe, I dont know, (and yes that bothers me too.) Is it the couple points of "free" AC? Seems unlikely. Is it an issue with wildshape? It could be, but poorly written rules didn't spell that out. Purely thematic? Most likely, but no more so than barbarians' armor restrictions.

The truth is, allowing druids to use metal armor is a really minor tweak and can be easily worked into the lore just as easily as rules could be instituted to create actual drawbacks and limits on druid abilities when wearing metal armor. Neither is wrong. Just different approaches to solving the same problem.

Huh? The "lack of LISTED repercussions and reasoning behind it" IS what "because I said so" means. If it had repercussions and/or reasoning, it wouldn't BE "because I said so". It doesn't, ergo it is. That's not splitting hairs, it's the Planck unit of hairs.

[LentilNinja]

"Not breaking the game system" is in no way, shape, or form, the same thing as "not giving them a mechanical advantage that they would not have otherwise".

You're kidding.


As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system

The fact they preface this talking about proficiencies, it should be evident they mean break the system in terms of the game's rules i.e. you're not letting them be proficient in Heavy Armor. They're saying it doesn't impact the game, and it's because it doesn't change the rules.


But no, the designers have never stated that letting druids wear metal armor is not giving them a mechanical advantage that they wouldn't have if you don't let them (obviously it does), just that this mechanical advantage does not break the game (which no one has claimed it does).

Nor did they state it does give them a boost they shouldn't have, whether you think so or not.


Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but the vegetarian chooses not to.

They've literally compared this to a choice the Druid can make, meaning it is entirely possible for a Druid to wear it if they choose.

Does a Vegetarian lose anything by eating meat? People will doubt / outright refuse to call them a Vegetarian, but they can still choose to identify as one. There's plenty of "I'm Vegetarian but I eat chicken" people that live a lifestyle that's predominantly Vegetarian, just like how there can be a Druid in metal armor who still uses their Druid abilities to get by.

As I said before, by RAW through the literal meaning of the words 'will not' and the Sage Advice linked earlier, there is nothing preventing a Druid from wearing metal armor & there is no downside for them doing so mechanically. As a DM if you want to shun them IG for it? Go ahead. If you want to houserule they suffer a detriment? Up to you. You'd rather just ban them from doing it? It's your game.

But if we are going strictly by the Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition system? It's legal, and it's fine.

[Tanarii]

But if we are going strictly by the Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition system? It's legal, and it's fine.Not sure what the "it" is you're claiming is "legal", but Druids will not wear metal armor. Going strictly by the rules of Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition system.

[Misterwhisper]

So we are up to 9 pages now of the exact same old arguments about druids in metal armor.

It would be much more efficient to just label the thread: "I don't care what it says, I will do it anyway"
Or, "Whining about druid armor thread number 18."

[stoutstien]

If anything I now have an idea for a legal battle within a game I have involving a druid and a metal shield. I have a player who is a traveling legal counsel of sort.

[eftexar]

* sigh * Let's try this again :


A. Indicating "a Druid will not wear Metal Armor" is a PREFERENCE.

B. Indicating "a Druid can't wear Metal Armor" is a RULE.

C. Indicating "a Druid will not wear Metal Armor, because it limits their Wildshape by . . ." is CONFUSING. This mixes a RULE and a PREFERENCE. It lacks CLARITY.

D. Indicating "a Druid will not usually wear Metal Armor, because it limits their Wildshape by . . ." is a RULE, with FLUFF that can OPTIONALLY be used as a PREFERENCE.

I really don't understand what is so difficult to understand about this. It has nothing to do with 'whining.' Or even the AC Bonus. And accusing EVERYONE with a different opinion, by MUDSLINGING, does not an argument make. And neither does twisting someone else's point to fit your world view and then invalidating it based off of what you decided was true. Equating Vanacian Casting Rules to the Druid Armor 'Rules' is an example. They are not the same thing. You sound more like rules politicians than rules lawyers to me when you do this.

The issue here is just a bit wider than just the subject at hand. When arguing against Metal Druid Armor in the way many of you have, you have oversimplified the issue and then used overly complicated, or overly simple, precepts to support your viewpoint. Again : WON'T doesn't = CAN'T; WON'T is a PREFERENCE and CAN'T is a RULE.

Furthermore, most of the Rules in D&D are CONSTRUCTIVE rather than DECONSTRUCTIVE in their use. The Druid doesn't follow pattern or precedent in this regard :


A. Indicating "a Druid will not wear Metal Armor" is DECONSTRUCTIVE. It removes an option, without enhancing storytelling, and does so in a way that DICTATES to the Player how they may behave (and not just as a Character, but in Real Life as well).

B. Indicating "a Druid can't wear Metal Armor" is neither CONSTRUCTIVE or DECONSTRUCTIVE. It does remove an option, but it doesn't prevent the DM and Players from coming up with a 'WHY.' Sub-optimal, but acceptable. Many accepted Rules fit this out of neccessity.

C. Indicating "a Druid will not wear Metal Armor, because it limits their Wildshape by . . ." is just plain CONFUSING. What if I don't care about Wildshape?

D. Indicating "a Druid will not usually wear Metal Armor, because it limits their Wildshape by . . ." is CONSTRUCTIVE. It doesn't remove an option, but instead makes it sub-optimal to use. This way, a Player can buck the trend, but has to pay some Mechanical consequence to do so. And it enhances storytelling, likely requiring the Player to come up with a legitimate reason as for 'WHY' or adding to the DMs Narrative details.

Then you have denied all other points of view with "Because I Said So," "It is What it Is," "That Is What it Said," "the Rules are the Rules" or, worse, by dictating what other people are thinking (since you can apparently read minds and the Players are apparently always lying munchkins). The qouted statements here are technically correct, but they lack CONTEXT and can't be evenly applied to all situations. You've even denied that the possibility of misinterpretation exists or implied that any misinterpretation is a moot point anyway!

It's hard to believe, at this point, that you aren't just being obtuse.


It's gotten really hard to believe you aren't just being obtuse. I mean LentilNinja's example / metaphor / whatever of Vegetarians = Druids is a great one.

When, Tanarii, you say :
Not sure what the "it" is you're claiming is "legal", but Druids will not wear metal armor. Going strictly by the rules of Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition system. I believe he is saying : that since WON'T is a PREFERENCE and NOT a RULE, there is no reason why a Druid CAN'T wear Metal Armor. The Druid Class, bizarrely, has what clearly doesn't appear to be a Rule where Rules are. I don't take the descriptions or examples before each Class as gospel. If you read the text there, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We might have had the opposite if, within the descriptive text, it said in a seemingly definitive way, "Druid's can't wear Metal Armor." Here it could be argued it's not part of the Rules.

The Fact of the matter is, this debate clearly shows that the 'Rule,' 'Opinion,' or whatever is under contest. The wording and placement is confusing and doesn't fit any established CONTEXT lain forth by the game. Once a 'Rule,' if it is one at all, has become this confusing, that 'Rule' has lost any, and all, inherant value it might have had. This itself should at least get you to question your own conclusions, if only for a moment.

And, if you aren't being obtuse, and just honestly don't see it, you should be aware you are arguing an argument no one on the other side is. That is, you are having a completely different conversation going by "what you THINK they mean" as the basis rather than "what they ACTUALLY mean".


Lets line up some phrases here and logic them out, here :


A. If I CAN'T do something, then I WON'T.

B. If I WON'T do something, then I CAN'T.

The first, choice A, follows logic :


A. If I CAN'T ignore the law of Gravity, then I WON'T ignore Gravity.

The second, B, doesn't :


B. If I WON'T ignore the law of Gravity, then I CAN'T ignore Gravity.

The precept of A is ALWAYS TRUE. It shows that I WON'T ignore Gravity because it simply isn't possible. The precept of B is constructed upon a FALLACY. It indicates that I CAN'T ignore Gravity, not because I ACTUALLY CAN'T (or am UNABLE TO), but because I don't want to (that is, I WON'T). In A, the CAN'T must follow the WON'T. In B, the WON'T being true doesn't automatically make the CAN'T true.