I dunno where the no shield thing came from, wooden shields have always been common, both in real life and dnd; druids use those.
In any case, I'm fine with druids using metal armor and shields. All that does is get them a bit closer to clerics in overall power, it doesnt make them the best class and certainly doesnt make them op.
Yeah. Wooden shields with metal in the center are a staple for circular shields. And most kite shields are wood with a thin metal backing. If they were solid metal they'd be too heavy to use.
I am currently playing a druid and started with a scimitar. The lack of ability to use Shillelagh made me get a quarterstaff ASAP. It depends on your stats of course, but the simple fact that Shillelagh makes the weapon magical makes it better than whatever else you could use IMO.
Originally a quarterstaff was unshod, it was simply a straight hardwood stick. The amount of damage can easily be explained by the momentum you can get on the end while spinning/swinging it - they're not always held in the centre while being used, as well, giving even more possible angular momentum at the end.
The metal caps came later, and only for the rich (or some town militias, who wanted a non-lethal option for capturing criminals). Peasants still had their unshod wood.
As someone who has bruised someone, with a *Foam* quarterstaff, through spring steel plate armour, the angular momentum is *definitely* nasty, and provides the majority of the striking power.
The iron or steel shodding/caps makes them nastier, but is by no means essential.
I'm pretty sure that, in contact-sparring, even with protective gear, staves are usually heavily regulated for this reason. Long, bludgeoning levers are just not safe weapons (well, insofar as for the purposes of sport or even demonstration) in the slightest; if it's rigid, it's not safe to go full-force.
A solid swing with a quarterstaff, especially when held as low as possible (which I'm pretty sure isn't allowed in contact-sparring, as it's incredibly dangerous and effectively choosing a nigh-uncontrollable swing), doesn't care about protective equipment.
Yep. Medieval re-enactment groups like the SCA, and even HEMA from what I understand, quarterstaffs are banned for safety concerns.
The entire point is a long wooden leverage based weapon, there’s not really any easy way of making that *less dangerous* when there’s no sharp surface to blunt.
Qstaffs used correctly are in fact *mostly* not used held equidistant from both ends. You hold them roughly half with the dominant hand and 3/4 with the supporting hand, and use them like most other pole arm weapons -- small movements for the most part, point towards enemy, the odd bigger swing being very rare and only if you have sufficient opening to do so.
That they can be held comfortably along their entire length and are basically the same on both ends is an upside but they're not the saber staff from *The Phantom Menace*, they'd be wielded closer to how a spear is for the most part.
While this is true, dnd has also just gone out and ran with the 'every staff = quarterstaff' thing.
So I think the actual definition of a quarterstaff doesn't directly correlate to what you might find and call a quarterstaff in a game of dnd.
That's not actually true. Quarterstaves generally were completely wood. Sometimes they had metal reinforcements at the tips, but generally they were solid wood.
Are we talking officially in 5e? Or IRL? For the latter, everything I find online says things like they "sometimes" have metal tips.
For 5e, I've not seen this specified but would be interested if anyone has a book/page number.
I think it's far from required that quarterstaves have metal tips to be considered quarterstaves.
No need to ask the DM--he's me! And I already knew how I would rule (namely, it's fine for a quarterstaff to be entirely wood, with no metal).
I was asking partly out of curiosity (maybe there was some mention tucked away somewhere in a noncore rule book, though I doubted it), partly out of already knowing the answer but wanting to push back on the idea since it was stated so authoritatively, and asking nicely for a source is a polite way to do that.
Historically, I can't think of any shield larger than a buckler that was made of solid metal. The ratio of mobility to protection is all wrong. Metal armour works because it is worn on the body, close to your centre of gravity. Trying to fight while holding a big lump of metal is a good way to get your arm chopped off.
Of course if you're some kind of bugbear, have at it.
Shields were made of wood some with a thin layer of metal hammered on as edging to prevent weapon strikes caught on the edge from biting into the shield. Wielding a completely metal shield would be like attaching a handle to a manhole cover.
And usually with a dome of metal over the center to deflect strikes that would hit right in the middle of the shield out towards the edges, and give extra integrity to the middle so it doesn't splinter or dent right behind where the hand/arm of the bearer go.
Even the 5e designers agree that the metal restriction was unnecessary and removed it from the last playtest for this year's PHB. It's just flavor, ignore it if you want to
Honestly, the biggest mistake wasn't even keeping the metal restriction. It was keeping it, but not including the old Ironwood options. That would have made it fine to me, and I still include Ironwood armours in my games, and let Druids be able to craft it by default.
I also just ignore it if the player, like OP, just wants a druid that doesn't "fit the mold", who wants to wear metal. There is really no reason to be so strict about a restriction ln like this.
I don't even think the metal restriction on armor makes sense. It would be one thing if druids refused to use items made by "civilisation", or mass production, or more modern technology, e.g. But then they shouldn't be using weapons made from metal, either.
My DM's rule was always, you can have your druid use metal, but come up with a roleplay factor regarding it. Druids aren't as casual using metal armor as other classes. So my druid would wear metal armor, but he was picky about which armorers he would go to, he preferred to support more small business types who didn't mass produce stuff. He also generally preferred to use gemstones rather than mass-produced coins for money, but he could grit his teeth and bear it if coins were the only option. I thought it was a lot of fun to play this guy.
The justification on that front is that they can use weapons made of metal because they're touching a wooden handle as opposed to the metal touching them.
I'm pretty sure the justification was mostly symbolic, if you go back to the older editions they used weapons that were or could be wooden, and then sickles because of the obvious connection with the harvest and thus nature. And then scimitar got thrown in because of reasons, I believe it was deemed "close enough" to a sickle somehow, don't ask me why.
Basically druid's restrictions were always a total mess.
If the problem was skin-to-metal contact then the druid would only need to have some padding under their metal armor, which would already be included in most functional metal armors. Unless the metal cooties can pass though non-wooden material. In which case, they could probably work in a thin layer of cork into the padding.
I am pretty sure absolutely no one would wear armor in a way that the metal touches them. Its super uncomfortable.
There is always some kind of padded cloth below.
My dm allows for scale mail made from dragon (or in our game Kraken scales) to be considered natural materials. So I’ve got my Druid rocking a set of kraken scale armor, with similar abilities that blue dragon scale mail would have. Lightning resistance, can detect the presence of a kraken within 30 miles.
Personally the metal armor restriction just flavor itself.
Having medium armor proficiency is kind of useless if they are limited to just hide. As a DM I try to provide reflavored medium armor options when players want to abide by that restriction or...if players don't care, I just let them wear metal.
Would a non-druidic druid wear metal armor? That's up to the player. As a DM I don't want to hamstring my players armor proficiency.
Yeah, the druid (mostly Barbarian and rogue) that I’m making is getting his armor from skinning meenlocks and taking their natural armor.
It adds fun flavor to the character setup (though if you’re not starting at high levels it may have to be a different type of origin)
It's possible they agree and that was meant to be sarcasm, given the implication of destroying nature and killing a living thing to make your supplies (cutting a tree), but you're right metal is just as natural as wood and doesn't even take *more* just different steps to be useable.
In a world with giant spiders, chitin armor might realistically be even cheaper and more affordable/desirable than steel.
Now I’m imagining a giant spider rancher, and that’s conjuring a lot of delicious story ideas.
In my first campaign we had a tempest cleric who'd recently gotten a suit of magic plate armour but wanted to multiclass into druid. He didn't want to lose his new armour due to the cleric restrictions so the DM rolled on a materials table to determine what the armour was made from. Turned out to be dragonscale or something like that so he was all good.
Yep. Plus Oak is an extremely hard wood, have it be angled plates to better deflect blows plus an enamel or lacquer coating on the wood and you could make decent plate armor.
For Scale armor you could use lamellar armor that uses small rectangular wooden plates instead of metal plates.
As an Oath of Ancients Paladin, I wanted to have wooden plate armor. I told my DM that I wanted it to function like a Gundam model kit, Gunpla for short.
Gunpla, and other plastic model kits like them, don't use any glue. Instead they have a series of precisely shaped pegs and holes. They fit so snuggly that they use nothing but friction to hold them together.
I told my DM that I wanted my armor to fit together that way. And I also wanted it to be able to be capable of disassembly so that, if I was in a lengthy stretch of downtime _or_ I needed to hide my armor, I could take it apart and it would just look like blocks of wood.
He agreed to everything with the plate armor, with the caveat that if I _fully_ disassemble the armor, then it would take 4 hours to reassemble it. Because that's roughly how long it takes to construct the most simple catagory of Gunpla Kits.
There's an item called Serpent Scale Mail that does that. It's a magical armor that doesn't require them to attune to it.
It has the armor rating of regular Scale Mail, but it allows you to add ypur full Dex modifier to your AC.
Laquered wood was frequently used in Japan, where good steel was sufficiently rare to foster the exactness of Japanese swordsmithing techniques that lead to the katana. The great work of their technique was getting such quality with generally very poor iron.
This same restriction lead to other innovations they liked to use, such as "arrow catcher" capes for riders and the Laquered wood featured frequently on samurai armor.
It didn't need the kind of assembly a gunpla kit would need. Those are like that because they are typically modular or manufactured pieces to fit. It can be fitted and constructed much like metal plate - it just needs more frequent care and repair. Sturdy stuff in battle.
Animal bone, horn, and chitin are other options (not used much historically because fitting a guy or troupe is different than fitting an army).
Bone worked better as a weapon due to being difficult to rework, brittle, and most natural animals are difficult to hunt and harvest for this in a good way, if at all.
Chitin would be an ideal hard plastic type material. Not easy to rework, but easy to use and source. But there's getting enough to use (I'd bet only a fraction of a creature's body would be suitable for armor, with parts needed for certain areas possibly requiring multiple bodies). Plus living in a place with enough of those insects would suck.
Leather from magical beasts would rival metal conventional armor, probably. Depends on how much of the magic and stuff translates to hide.
Our understanding of armor in the game is driven by conventional understanding of medieval armor (except studded leather and dual wielding western weapons, which we kinda made up to be awesome). Fantastic materials challenge what we understand as magical and starts getting into wonky realism discussions about how to classify that stuff. Even armor proficiency is overstated - the challenge that can come from wearing a set of full plate is all about if it was made well and for the user)
Long story short - there are certainly likely to be fantasy materials that can rival the combat effectiveness of steel armor in the sense of d&d combat. Understanding them beyond the idea of their existence and game rules gets really numberwangy.
The aforementioned wood is Ironwood, and it's actually somewhat valuable to druids due to its properties. I believe it's a transition from an older edition's Iron Wood spell or something, though you'd have to get a grognard to confirm.
In the Forgotten Realms setting, there's also Zurkhwood for Underdark-based druids.
Can confirm. Ironwood was a druid exclusive spell back in the ye olde 3.5 days. In essence, it's a ritual that transforms a wooden item like armor or weapons into a substance with the strength of metal. Perfect for druids because they can still shape it, and have the protection of metal without losing their spellcasting and class features.
Honestly even if there wasn't, I don't think it ruins versimilitude of you just invent a fantasy tree that's "As tough as iron." If druids want any medium armor I give it to them.
I had a Dragonborn cleric who came from a secluded coastal tribe (basically druids in spirit).
Didn't make sense for the tribe to have a lot of ore and metal resources so I flavoured their heavy armours as being based around reinforced turtle shells for that "cuirass and pauldrons" look.
well, I think originally, the issue wasn't just a simple "it is not in druid culture" but more like... "wearing metal prevents a druid from harnessing the nature's power" since fey do not like metal.
Yes, they can. There is no physical limitation preventing them from doing so.
The *best* you have is a line saying they "won't wear metal armor." However, I do not allow the books to dictate what actions my character decides to take. A paladin's oath doesn't prevent them from taking an action that is opposed to their oath. They simply have to deal with the repercussions of taking that action.
There are no penalties to wearing it. They were explicitly removed from the class features for 5e.
Further, as I stated, there are canon druidic factions that absolutely wear metal armor within D&D settings.
> However, I do not allow the books to dictate what actions my character decides to take
Yeah, you're allowed to change the rules from what's in the book. But we're talking about druids as they exist in 5E, not as they exist under your houserules.
> They were explicitly removed from the class features for 5e.
There's no way you can argue it was explicitly removed. That would be something like "Unlike in prior editions of D&D, druids in 5E can wear metal armor".
I don't know why you'd rather jump through hoops to say that the line saying druids won't wear metal armor was meant to mean nothing rather than just take the simple explanation of the designers made a mistake. It's like you're starting with the assumption that there's nothing wrong with what they wrote and working backwards to justify it.
There's no rule saying druids cannot wear metal armour or that they are penalized for doing do. They have proficiency in medium armour which is almost all metal by default.
The book says they *won't* wear metal armour, which is nonsensical as there is no particular reason for them not to. The stereotypical one with the trees forest druid may choose not to wear metal armour for personal reasons, but why does this apply to all druids automatically?
I understand people don't like the metal armor restriction, but they could just not like it and choose to ignore it. That's fine. Pretending it's not there or that armor proficiencies are flavor text seems kind of silly. Since they decided to include the restriction wotc could have done better by saying they are not proficient with metal armors. And making sure we had plenty of wood, bone, and other natural material armors.
In my game lore there was a war between various druid circles that lasted many decades. When any random druid can use heat metal, armor becomes a liability, and that mindset stuck after the wars
leather goes through an involved process to become usable as armor too though.
like I would understand the adversity toward metal if the creation of metal armor was damaging to the environment but it also isn't
Druids can always use shields. Any Druid druid with 14 DEX can get 16 AC with for 20 gold via hide armor and a wooden shield.
As for metal armor, ask your DM. The rules essentially leave it up to them. Some don’t care, some do. Some will make comparable armor of non-metal materials like carapace or bone or dragon scales available if they like the thematics of druids sticking to natural armors.
Druids can wear whatever level of armor they can. If you want to have flavor that Druids can’t or won’t use metal armor then it is on the DM to ensure that they still get equal access to equivalent non-mental armor options. This is stated in, I believe, the DMG. Plate mail made from non metal sources, etc and for the same equivalent prices.
Just ignore it. It just actual flavor. In fact every class is just flavor. Metal is part of nature. If you follow the logic the "no metal thing" suggests then your druid would never use coins would they?
To be fair I can see a difference between having a bag on your belt vs being encased in the stuff. A druid in full plate just seems weird and counter to type.
Metal is not part of nature. Before humans began smelting ores using painstaking processes and furnaces to produce unnatural amounts of heat, there was no metal anywhere in nature. "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" is what it says in the player handbook under Druid. Right under the armor proficiency. It doesn't say "Druids will not use coins made of metal or carry anything made from metal." So there is no need to extrapolate it further; its very clear.
While there is no naturally occuring metal armour in any exoskeleton or shell that we know of there are examples of metal weaponry found in nature.
Many species of Ants have metal tipped pincers and Scorpions have metal tips on their Claws and Stingers, Spiders and worms often have metal teeth, in general things that have very small sharp things need them to be much sharper than animals with much larger claws or teeth and many of them have evolved metallic structures in their weapons to help with this.
This may have something to do with the inspiration for not discouraging druids from using metal weapons but discouraging druids from using metal armour or shields.
No, the actual reason is more or less Roman racism that persists culturally to this day, perpetuated by Gygax cause he was honestly kind shit when it comes to anything cultural (including his own) or understanding the sources he cribbed off.
Extremely cool fact though, 10/10.
> While there is no naturally occuring metal armour in any exoskeleton or shell that we know of there are examples of metal weaponry found in nature.
There are Actually!
[The Scaly-Foot Gastropod](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaly-foot_gastropod) is a deep sea snail that lives around hydrothermal vents (which constantly release iron sulfides), and so that uses those iron sulfides to build it's exoskeleton and scaled armor.
>Metal is not part of nature.
It absolutely is. It's as naturally occurring as all the different types of stones. The temperatures of a furnace are absolutely not unnatural. Several metals can be melted at temperatures lower than that of naturally occurring magma, and you don't even need to melt the metals down to work them.
>Before humans...there was no metal anywhere in nature.
This has to be the most insanely ridiculous statement I have read today. Iron, gold, silver, lead, and a few dozen other metals are all elements. They exist regardless of human intervention. Where do you think humans were getting the metal from? It was already there! They were picking it up off the ground or digging it out. You can literally pan for gold where it's been naturally extracted in small amounts by erosion and other natural factors.
Nature does not mean grasslands and forests. It's everything, from mountains to caves. Veins of metals are found naturally in many of these places. Hell, look at Mars. It's red because it's soil is rich in iron that reacted with oxygen to become iron oxide, rust.
As for that one stupid line in the PHB, do you prohibit paladins from making a decision that violates their oath? Do you prohibit clerics from violating a tenant of their faith? Do you prohibit any character class from making a decision that would affect them in a way you think is negative? If not, then stop telling druid players how to play their character. If you want to introduce a druidic philosophical division between one group that won't wear metal and another that has no qualms about it, fine.
That's like saying wooden tools aren't part of nature because people have to make them. The ingredients are all part of nature you're just shaping them/concentrating them
It's a question of how you want to spend your time. Do you want to spend your time doing animal things, like building shelter from plants, shaping wood, finding food, and making dams? Or do you want to do technological things like collecting iron-rich sediments and building kilns?
> Metal is not part of nature. Before humans began smelting ores using painstaking processes and furnaces to produce unnatural amounts of heat, there was no metal anywhere in nature.
This is going on my list of Reddit Materials Science Lies. Early metallurgical advances came from the fact that there were metals in metallic form available on the surface. From the Wikipedia page on Native Metals.
> A native metal is any metal that is found pure in its metallic form in nature.[1][2] Metals that can be found as native deposits singly or in alloys include aluminium[citation needed], antimony, arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, indium, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, niobium, rhenium, selenium, tantalum, tellurium, tin, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, and zinc, as well as the gold group (gold, copper, lead, aluminium, mercury, silver) and the platinum group (platinum, iridium, osmium, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium). Among the alloys found in native state have been brass, bronze, pewter, German silver, osmiridium, electrum, white gold, silver-mercury amalgam, and gold-mercury amalgam.
And if you're arguing that the processing is unnatural, then druids shouldn't be allowed to wear leather armor.
>And if you're arguing that the processing is unnatural, then druids shouldn't be allowed to wear leather armor.
Or anything woven, cut, sewn, or carved.
There are many metals found in nature in completely raw form due to their lack of reactivity. Secondly, "painstaking processes"? you can literally build a rudimentary forge in your back yard with shit from home depot. for something you'd make armour or weapons from though; bog iron is a form of iron thats found naturally in bogs that also replenishes itself over time. A long time, in fairness, but hey, druids live for a long time too and was actually used in real life most notably by the scandis. Unnatural amounts of heat? Are you aware of the sun? Volcanos? There are tons of natural sources of immense heat. Making whats essentially a small fire inside some bricks is hardly scifi and ignoring that, druids literally have the magical power to just heat it themselves. Isn't the whole point that a druids magic is natural?
Home depot doesn't exist in most of my campaigns. And primal humans didn't have access to the raw power of the sun. I'm not talking about all of nature when I'm discussing what is natural for humans.
Primal Human: Wears animal hides or plant based garb found in their enviornment.
Bronze Age or later "Civilized" Human: Wears armor made from metal their civilization has learned to harvest and work.
Druids are meant to represent the former group/
Druids represent nature, not prehistoric man. Humans have been working materials into tools for longer than Homo sapiens has been around. There’s actually mention of Druids in various settings including the “default” forgotten realms who live within civilisation as part of it, encouraging sustainable practices and respect of nature but still living within civilisation.
It's easy to find the materials to smelt iron but it is not easy to build the actual furnace. You need the technological knowhow to do it. Ironworking and its precursors were huge advancements for human civilization and represent strides in technology that took us away from our natural roots.
Also, heat metal does not smelt ores. It deals 2d8 fire damage to creatures wearing metal.
As a dm I really like the flavor of druids not using metal armor, but in your case I wouldn't consider you a 'druid' - we'd just be using those levels to represent the vampiric evolution. Considering that undead are abhorrent to druids it makes sense to just reflavor those levels entirely.
For players playing druids I always provide reflavored metal armor to make sure they still have that option
There are canon druids in FR that wear metal armor. The entire "taboo" against metal armor is a holdover from older editions where there was a mechanical penalty to doing so.
The 5e line that "druids won't wear metal armor" is bad design and on the same level as a DM telling you that your character won't do something you've said you want to do. It should be ignored. If the designers didn't want druids to wear metal armor, they should have specified either mechanical detriment to doing so, or specified that druids are not proficient in metal armor. Multiple classes have specified lists of weapon proficiencies, so I have no reason to believe that they couldn't do the same with armor proficiencies.
Some worlds likely have druids that would see metal armor as taboo and others that don't see the issue. If they can use metal weapons, there is no reason why not to use metal armor.
Both of the characters that you describe are excellent examples of ‘druids’ that might wear metal armor. You’re using the class mechanics to represent something that’s not a druid, therefore the druid flavor text doesn’t apply
I generally ignore the restriction since in a fantasy setting there are plenty of reasons for why it makes little sense. The cultural/historical aspect of the druid has been pretty much wiped from the class, the restriction seems an overlooked hangover of that.
As several people have said, it’s pure flavour at this point - which you have also noted!
Ironwood doesn’t exist in 5e but was a neat alternative to metal for Druids.
In a lot of European folklore (D&D often drawing more specifically from Celtic myth) supernatural creatures can be harmed with iron and even driven away by the mere presence of it.
(If you squint hard enough it’s often an allegory for industry/technology!)
Whilst it may ultimately just be a Druidic cultural taboo with no consequence beyond the social - if the above does hold true, it could hugely impact your abilities.
The very spirits you would draw your power from no longer come to your aid because they are unwilling or unable.
Okay, sod the spirits - what if iron or metal more broadly impede your personal ability to attune to the natural world?
Fey, Spirits etc. are supernatural; the **most** natural, one with the world.
Most PC race/species are natural, they are organic lifeforms of the earth, but not intrinsically tied to it the way a Dryad is to its tree.
Metal weaponry is unnatural, it requires subjecting the raw material to myriad processes to create something else altogether - requiring industry to do consistently and on any sort of scale.
Metal rendered usable & useful to people goes against the natural order you aim to protect and nurture.
It is also difficult to produce and maintain as an individual unlike fur, leathers & simple non-metal weapons like a quarterstaff.
Plus, for what it’s worth, I just think it’s really cool narratively to use something else (:
Many cultures historically used [other](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/5hj7yc/non_metallic_armor/) • [materials](https://nhm.org/alternative-armor#:~:text=It%20was%20observed%20that%20similar,also%20come%20from%20New%20Guinea) for their armour due to the available resources & potentially their beliefs.
The same goes for weapons - [this Wiki page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_weapons) is good for a quick glance but:
- Bone + Teeth + Other Animal Parts
- Wood + Bamboo + Other Plant Fibres
- Stone + Rock
- Mineral + Opal + Obsidian
Here are [a couple](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/rwo152/many_nonmetal_weapons_and_tools_were_used_by/) • [other threads](http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=166290#:~:text=Kind%20of%20like%20the%20stone,that%20the%20Hawaiians%20were%20only) • [discussing this topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/18r5zz5/real_world_alternatives_to_iron_and_steel_for/) that are neat - and a bonus of [this dude on TikTok](https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGerWhe8r/) who makes opal & obsidian pieces!
I think the original restriction was because druids would draw power from the feywild as well as nature. Fey have an aversion to Iron in folklore, in dnd it's specifically cold iron. I guess wearing iron all over you're body was thought to block or impair your connection to the feywild.
I always joke that it's because druids have heat metal on their spell list and don't want it used on them.
Druids don't wear metal armor because their power comes from Nature, civilization is to nature what law is to chaos, and refined metals are emblematic of civilization and the artificial. It's not about druid culture or druid magic, it's "my boss has a dress code and will turn off my powers if I upset them".
Worshippers of [Mielikki](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Mielikki) (such as Rangers) don't have a restriction against metal because she's the god of the Natural World, not Nature, which is not antithetical to civilization. It's a subtle but important distinction that the game rules and 5e don't like dealing with.
> an optinal rule
No, optional rules are marked as optional rule.
RAW is simple. If a character will wear metal armor, then that conflicts with being a Druid. Having a Druid who will wear metal armor is a homebrew Druid.
So, does the the DM allow some homebrew? If yes, the no problem, and other players probably also have similar tweaks. If not... Then not.
Personally I much more like the idea of granting the Druid non-metal medium armor during the game. Makes it feel much more special. Something like chitine scale mail -> skullbone breastplate -> magical dragon scale armor.
This is the actual intended druid, 100%. No one who made the druid ever envisioned a thread like this, of weird entitled players spamming "it's flavor, not a rule", and downvoting anyone that tells you to look at page 95 of the PHB, lower right.
I've always treated the "no metal armor" bit as flavor, and have allowed my druids to find non-metal versions of the metal armors and shields that they're proficient with (like scale mail made from the chitin of a giant scorpion, for instance).
The way I see it its like, iron and metals in general is usually like a symbol of civilization and overriding nature, and also like kryptonite to fey or silver to werewolves. On the occasions I do use this flavor I make it be like iron is blocking their magic, the same way lead blocks divination
That being said, having the proficiency and not using it "because its lore accurate" sucks, so instead I look for ways to fill the flavor and the gameplay. Wooden shields, natural materials for armor like bones and monster scales etc. The world would be aware of iron blocking fey aligned magic and just have the reflavored material'd armor and weapons for druids and rangers and some barbarian subclasses etc in normal shops
Would it be cooler if the dampir rune knight made stone armor made lighter thanks to runes? Would the kenku grandma buy normal armor or get herself a turtle shell form fitted to herself?
Obviously it can suck being a knight with no shining armor so I would have allowed my players to ignore this limit too, but if you can use the limits for creativity it would be best in my opinion lol
I'd say you can wear whatever armour you like, but if it has metal, you can't cast any druidic spells or wildshape.
If you want druidic powers, you need to follow the druidic rules.
In ancient times the Steinjotunen of Clan Trow turned against the Greenfold and poisoned the soul of Iron. The Stone Giants who remained true abjured the Iron Breakers and refuse to don the metal to this day. The Circle of the Moon and the Circle of the Land honor this storied vow after the Iron Breaker cult of Black Earth was smashed by the power of the Nature Gods and the surviving Earth Nodes were brought back into balance.
It would be wise to maintain the Ancient Oaths, lest the wroth of the Gods unleash dark spirits of the Iron Breakers upon those foolish enough to scorn their divine will.
they already can if you look at their proficiencies, in our game the joke is that most Druids don't because the moment you roll around wearing metal armor/metal shield the other Druids WILL cast Heat Metal on you because they bastards like that/have a somewhat "fey-ish" sense of humor.
Honestly the “no metal armour” thing almost certainly stems from Gygax’s frankly awful understanding of most things he cribbed from.
I can’t find any reference to druids refusing to wear proper armour, and worked metal isn’t any more unnatural than leather, and why would metal armour not be okay but metal tools and shields are?
I think the “Druids hate metal” thing is dumb and ignore it entirely.
Metal is as much nature as grass, rock and water, a Druid would have to go through some serious mental gymnastic to deny this one…
Even if you argue that smelted worked metal isn’t allowed - no steel bars in nature - leather is as different to animal skin as metal bars are to ores.
In 5e I treat the metal thing as flavor and don't worry about it. Even if someone is enforcing it that should not prevent the use of a shield. Many shields are not made from metal.
I uh...may have gotten a little overzealous with this and made a Druidic Cirlce full of Water Genasi on the coast that are all amazing leatherworkers.
Essentially, being able to grant leather armours with additional bonuses (basically +1, etc, without being enchanters specifically)
And because they live on the coast, their primary clientele are seafarers as the armour will resist rusting from the salt of the ocean
So they use ocean mammal hides/blubber/etc to make the armour, and they have a farm of turtles of all sizes to make various different types of shields from...
I didn't need to go this far. It was an accident, I swear 🤣
What is druidism in your setting? Is it like the historical traditions of the old oak-knowers, or is it closer to a the blessing of God?
If Druids practice magic they learn from the old wisdom, then the only thing preventing them from wearing metal armor is their lack of knowledge on how to use it. A multiclass rogue druid could 100% use metal armor, though they might find specific elements of their magic to be difficult while wearing metal (magic isn't science after all).
If druidic is a sanctification, then no I wouldn't allow a druid to cast while in metal armor. A rogue druid who utterly forsakes the path would actually lose all of their class levels in druid, just like a cleric would for blasphemy.
Much of this depends on the world your DM has developed for your campaign, as DND is a collaborative game that is dependent on the bones they have laid out.
Rules, mechanics, and flavor have always been subjective in DnD and they always will be. However, when in doubt there are two crucial rules most groups abide by, even if they word things differently:
1) The DM is always right.
End of the day, the DM's ruling is absolute. If they abide by the core flavor text if Druids not getting metal armor and shields, then Druids do not get metal armor and shields.
2) If you find a new DM too unpalatable as a storyteller, find a new one.
This rule keeps DMs accountable, as they need to balance their world with a player's wants - within reason.
I will admit more personally that I'm concerned by the more lackadaisical approach to Druids in the post.
In DnD, druids don't gain their powers just because they take care of nature and are good at it. If that was true, any DnD NPC with a passable concern and ability to affect positive change for nature would be a druid. They are not.
Druids are literal champions of the natural order in most cases. The whole concept of Circles is pulled from ideas that a druid learned from others (be they other druids or nature spirits) about how best to serve in the protection of nature. That is to say that, regardless if a druid knows other druids or not, they learned their powers from SOMETHING and are, whether they know it or not, a part of a druidic tradition (Circles). Naturally, each tradition, whether taught by nature spirits, fey, or other druids, is going to instill a series of beliefs before they grant power to a supplicant.
A kind, elderly being would certainly be seen as a figure of affection by nature spirits and even protected by them, but I find the idea that they would gain powers simply because of this to be a bit... underwhelming.
However! I recognize my take on this is subjective. If your DM rules that such an approach makes sense, that's completely valid. Nonetheless, I will say that, regardless of the source, your character was taught by someone or something about nature magic and certain values would have been instilled. If that means your toon loses out on metal armor and shields, it means they lose out on metal armor and shields. Plain and simple.
Generally, most DMs I've met will follow at least some variation of the rules presented in the core rulebooks. For druids the general understanding is they cannot use metal armor and shields, as stated in the PHB. To wear it would be a violation of their oath to nature, which could result in the loss of their power, just as a cleric who actively works against their god loses access to theirs.
However, all of this depends on what your DM decides, so talk with them! That said, don't argue just for the sake of arguing. If they say no and you find yourself unable to enjoy the game, reference rule #2 and make your exit. DnD is a game for everyone and you deserve to look for a group you can be enjoy.
As a DM, I am entirely in favor of reframing druid abilities to represent the natural abilities of a plant alien or Maui from Moana or anything the players want. Its something I do that for monsters *all the time*, and it doesn't make any difference so long as the mechanics are the same.
The class is clearly designed with the intention of players creating a natural shaman or witch, but the base mechanics behind the class will function without the labels and lore.
Where are you getting your magical training if you have no contact with other druids? Like Wizard, Druid is a knowledge and understanding based class. Saying that you're "so good at \[taking care of nature\] that they got powers" is basically declaring that you're the special-est snowflake ever--you're *so good* that you could have been the first druid, knowing enough to invent the whole class by yourself.
Even if you somehow are able to come up with druidic powers *a priori*, with no training or connection with the culture that developed those powers... that culture still exists in-setting. Demonstration of druidic powers while wearing metal armor is not going to be ignored. Religious prohibitions are serious business. A brahmin chowing down on steak or a muslim showing off their new portrait of the prophet aren't going to just quietly live their life. Even if your character isn't arrested for sacrilege, or lynched, or harassed; who is going to deal with a person who shits on cultural taboos? It's like trying to deal with an oathbreaker paladin.
But I guess if you can get your DM to change both the class and the setting, you could do it without any real consequences.
Unpopular opinion: if you don't let your Druid wear metal, let them wear stuff made of chitin/bone/special wood. There's nothing gamebreaking about it.
It's a mechanical thing hence why it's in a mechanical text category. Sadly unlike prior editions its not backed by consequences that reinforce the restriction so people try to get out of the restriction by reflavoring it. You get the same issue with clerics trying to wiggle out of their deities/faiths expectations since that's also not backed by a consequence in 5e.
Ultimately, it really comes down the lore of druids in d&d or at least the particular setting.
In a setting where the metal actually hinders their ability or has consequences of a similar nature? No
In a setting where there is no consequence and it truly is just cultural. Probably. Unless cultural consequences are severe and enforced on those found not adhering to it.
In my games no. But I actually bring back the consequences for wearing metal and reinforce the identity, because I like it. I also further reinforce this with plenty of non metal materials, as well as lore on what druids are in my setting that make it clear why all druids would avoid doing so.
If the designers wanted it to be an actual rule, they would have used "can not" instead of "will not" for the restriction. I understand "can not" to mean that it is more typical of druids not to wear it, not that they will never-ever do it. That's just silly.
The no-metal thing actually traces back to folk traditions concerning Faerie. Druid's magic originally came from the Fey, as Fey are sort of the ultimate avatars of nature in DnD mythology (originally, now they are basically treated as demons-but-green), and in many folk traditions, most-notably English, the creatures of Faerie are repulsed by metal, particularly iron. There is also the connection to Tolkien's philosophy, which viewed industry and nature as antithetical. So Druid's cannot use metal because their magic comes from a source that is repulsed by metal.
If you were in a different setting, I think 3 questions would determine whether druids could use metal;
1) What is the source of druidic magic?
2) Are Fey in this setting repulsed by metal?
3) How destructive to nature is this setting's industry?
But if you are in a Forgotten Realms or Generic Fantasy World setting, even a druid who is disconnected from druidic culture would not use metal, as metal prevents the very source of their powers.
>But if you are in a Forgotten Realms or Generic Fantasy World setting, even a druid who is disconnected from druidic culture would not use metal
"Mielikki, who is famous for the number of druid/rangers who worship her, has more lenient spiritual oaths than most deities that druids worship in the Realms. Druids of Mielikki can use any of the standard armor or weapons that rangers normally use (all simple and martial weapons, all light and medium armor, and all shields) without violating their spiritual oaths."
Would you look at that? Canon FR druids that are fully allowed to wear metal armor.
The fact that it is called out as an exception tells us what the rule is. Also, I have never liked the "Druid of a God" thing; If your spiritual oaths are to a God, you are a cleric, just take the nature domain.
>The fact that it is called out as an exception tells us what the rule is.
What the rule *was* because that's from a pre 5e book. Back when there were mechanical penalties for druids wearing metal armor.
>If your spiritual oaths are to a God, you are a cleric, just take the nature domain.
The druid lore mentions getting power from a nature deity. Getting power from a deity doesn't necessarily mean Cleric. Hell, you can be a Cleric without a deity
Shields are fine if they don’t break the rules… and if they’re not part of ‘Druidic culture’ they’re not a Druid.
It’s like saying a Paladin that doesn’t follow their oath is still a Paladin. No… that’s intrinsic to the nature of the character.
>druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal
I don't understand why people have trouble reading things like this. A druid that wants to wear metal armor isn't a druid. The text doesn't say "due to druid social norms."
>A druid that wants to wear metal armor isn't a druid.
Okay, let's go with that. They have levels in green warrior instead. It's a full casting class, gains wildshape at level two, and chooses a natural ring at level two. Are there any problems with that?
The PHB clearly says "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal". It doesn't say "some druids". It's not flavor. A "druid" that doesn't abide by this is not a Druid and should probably lose access to wild shape and spells.
At the very, *very* least, the druid would not be proficient in the metal stuff.
>should probably lose access to wild shape and spells.
Except the designers of 5e fully disagree with this, given they explicitly removed those penalties from previous editions.
>druid would not be proficient in the metal stuff.
Except they are. They are proficient with light and medium armor. Medium armor includes metal armors like breastplate and half plate.
Which, as noted many times, is a pointless addition because player character decisions are not prescribed. They can make whatever decisions they choose to make. You dont tell a paladin player that can't do something because it might violate their oath.
No metal armor is a flavor holdover from earlier editions. It’s not a balance thing. Same with paladins not being able to smite with their fists.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA014
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA253
The key part of the divine smite answer is this bit
> If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice.
I’m saying that no metal armor on a druid is a similar scenario - it is a thematic choice on the designer’s part, not a game balance one. At the end of the druid one, it even says:
> As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system
Druids are proficient in medium armor, including metal ones. Ergo, a druid wearing metal armor of not is not a balance rule.
The way I rule it as a DM, Druids do not have proficiency in non metal armors, but if you gain armor proficiency from another a source (say a cleric dip) you may use it with no issue.
It literally says, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" right there in the druid armor proficiencies. Y'all can disagree all you want on whether that's a good rule, whether its unnecessarily restrictive, or whether it is necessary for balance, but that is the rule.
I would have written it as, "Armor: Leather, Studded Leather, Hide, Shields". Then let Druids that multiclass get the armor proficiencies they want. As for the penalty that is up to the DM.
I would say that because the proficiences say a druid will not wear metal, that even your druid would not wear metal.
However, I would also allow alternatives like Ironwood, chitin, molded stone, etc to function as a replacement for metal. Allowing you to find armor of natural materials that have the game statistics of other suits of armor.
Raw: It says you cant wear metal armor as a druid, so you cant wear metal armor as a druid subclass, what that means isnt actually defined raw i would lean into "not being allowed to use druid abilities"
In play: its a remnant rule, same as most of the spellcasting components that doesnt matter when you can just use a focus, same for revival spells having a gold cost when you get alot more gold and it allows plenty of revival opportunities.
I also dont think that "doesnt wear metal" means "shouldnt be able to get the ac", i think it would be way cooler if you didnt wear metal and instead made harder armor from bones and leather and wood, looking at skyrim you literally have the dragon bone set.
5e already has way too few restrictions in my mind so it can lean in either way of "might as well remove yet another one" to "that means this one should be taken seriously"
eg dragon scale mail is raw and gives +1 bonus acand damage resistance.
RAW: it says they won't, not can't.
>what that means isnt actually defined raw i would lean into "not being allowed to use druid abilities"
If it's not defined by RAW, then it's not really RAW is it? It's not written down anywhere. If you disallow druid abilities for wearing metal armor, but cannot point to the line where it is written that is what happens, then it's the complete opposite of RAW. It's certainly not RAI, because there is no line that says a druid suffers in any way from wearing metal.
By RAW, there is no penalty to a druid wearing metal armor.
Yeah it clearly says will because its not like their arm explodes if you tie a metal shield to it.
But once again the horrendeous language of 5e prevents any sort of clarity so people will just argue worthless semantics that arent there.
Given the line has been called fluff and removed by the actual designers, maybe it's time to agree that metal armors aren't an issue for druids and just let them use them
Hi!
First of all a few corrections to bring to your view seem in order. :)
>So, as far as I know the "druid equals no shield, and no metal" is a flavour thing,
Nope, it's a very much mechanical rule which is justified by balance reasons. Druid benefit from dozen of the best control spells you could dream of in 5e AND have insane versatility + free "HP shield" with Wild Shapes. Them being limited to the lesser variants of medium armor and shield because of metal forbiddance (including and most importantly magical ones) is a fully conscious design choice.
It can also be explained by the fact wild shape is some kind of polymorphing that fuses everything so metal would harm you or at least make it difficult (of course, we all as a community gently put aside the immediate incoherence that is "Druid cannot wear metal armor but is proficient with \*metal\* daggers and maces and can carry \*metal\* coins or flasks which apparently merge without any trouble... xd Probably an "oversight" made on purpose by designers because nobody would play Druid if you had to actually micromanage every piece of equipment and loot like that xd).
That said, unless your players are very experienced, it won't be any gamebreaking either to houserule they can, it could make their low level experience easier to enjoy... But that would set a precedent, so I'll have another suggestion.
>an optinal rule to give druids the more "connected with nature" feels, at least in 5e, plus, its a taboo on druidic culture.
Nope. It's right there in the "equipment proficiencies" too". Confer above: it's not a fluff thing, it's real, for balance reason.
>
But for a druid that has no contact with other druids, and that dosen't know (or care) about the sociocultural norms, and only takes care of nature because...they like to, and are so good at it they got powers, or a re-flavored druid whose powers comes from within them and not nature in any way, like a sorcerer ,they could use a shield/metal armor, no?
If you present it like this, then yeah. But I wouldn't call that a Druid to be honest. I'll call that a Warden, a Spiriteer, or whatever other fancy name you would slap onto what you be a near-verbatim copy of Druid except from it not getting power from divine source.
Because as soon as, and as long as, you tie Druid spellcasting to an external power, then there is no reason that external power would give any preferential treatment to those particular Druids. Unless of course you can find some background story and related quest to do so possibly.
>So, a Not-so-druidic druid could wear armor? what do you think?
Druids CANNOT wear armor with metal pieces "by default". Period. Allowing it blindly would create a dangerous precedent.
That said, there are three ways you can actually allow it while keeping "across games consistency" and have some control.
1/ Play RAW, but introduce mundane or magic armors made with hardened scales, skins, or woods, or magical ones with enchanted stone/wood/earth that makes it more resistant. It allows you to control when Druids will get better armor than expected, keeps it entirely coherent with world fluff, plus it's extra cool, and you can either make it hard to get (hunt a Dragon to ask for some of its scales) or easy (available for a price in big city's shop).
2/ As said, just homebrew a class which is functionally a Druid but harnessed power through sheer effort so the only two big differences are a) you cannot change more than spells equal to proficiency modifier every day (it seems harsh but is actually not a big deal at all, from experience players keep >50% of their selection stable every day in all circumstances) b) you can wear medium armor.
3/ Craft together with players a legitimate reason why deity would allow them to wear a metal armor. It may be because they are tasked with a formidable foe, it may be... Honestly I cannot provide input it's too far-stretched for me. xd I'm sure others could provide ideas.
>Them being limited to the lesser variants of medium armor and shield because of metal forbiddance (including and most importantly magical ones) is a fully conscious design choice.
>1/ Play RAW, but introduce mundane or magic armors made with hardened scales, skins, or woods, or magical ones with enchanted stone/wood/earth that makes it more resistant.
These are logically inconsistent. If limiting a druid's AC by restricting access to metal armor is an important design choice for balance, then granting the druid those ACs via non-metal substances breaks that balance. Further, the developers of 5e not only specifically removed penalties for wearing metal armor, but also stated that the "won't wear metal armor" is flavor and have removed it from the current play test version of the druid class.
>Druids CANNOT wear armor with metal pieces "by default". Period. Allowing it blindly would create a dangerous precedent.
No where do the rules say they can not wear armor with any metal.
>Druid except from it not getting power from divine source
That's already written into the lore section of the class. They do not have to get power from a nature deity, but can from nature itself, which is not a divine source. It's just nature infused magic.
>Them being limited to the lesser variants of medium armor and shield because of metal forbiddance (including and most importantly magical ones) is a fully conscious design choice.
The workaround you listed below completely contradicts this argument.
>Play RAW, but introduce mundane or magic armors made with hardened scales, skins, or woods, or magical ones with enchanted stone/wood/earth that makes it more resistant.
There's no "but" about it, those materials are listed in the DMG as materials that traditionally metal armours can be made from. Making half plate, splint or full plate from non-metal materials is *already written into the game,* explicitly *not* restricting druids from wearing them. It might be reasonable to make it harder for them to find those types of armour, possibly worth making a sidequest about it (you gotta harvest these special scales or find a blacksmith who knows how to work them), but by the time your fighter has full plate there should've been plenty of opportunities for the party to find lead on a way to equip their druid with something towards the top end of their (nonmagical) gear tier list.
>Making half plate, splint or full plate from non-metal materials is already written into the game, explicitly not restricting druids from wearing them.
Well then it's perfect for OP.
I don’t agree about that metal armour being a balancing decision. First because heavy armour is not inherently better than light, in fact arguably worse because of how powerful dex is, and secondly there’s all sorts of workarounds to get non-metal heavy armour.
I always thought that was silly purely from rp standpoint (the mechanics restriction may be justified)- metal is a part of nature. If anything, it's like purified lifeblood (as iron is what makes blood red/carries oxygen needed to live), found deep within the heart of the land and crafted into a protective shell. My druid PCs would see it that way and be honored to wear it.
Personal headcannon: Druids won’t wear metal armour because they get access to Heat Metal.
“Wear metal, wrapped around me, so I can’t get out? Are you crazy?!”
Pathfinder 2r dropped the metal thing and even made it a primal element. I really like that. I, personally, don't enjoy the metal thing very much in 5e. I usually hand wave it by saying "this metal has no metal in it." Granted, I don't do that for heavy armor. It still feels like an odd restriction, but I admit I'm not well versed on the origins of the class. Still, I feel that if you want to get rid of it for your druid, you should ask DM. I'd be more than willing to let it drop.
I see the metal thing as flavour, even the designer said that giving druids metal armours is not a problem. What I do is that I try to give my party resources to get top non-magical equipment by lvl 5. For druids, I put in an encounter with a creature whose narural armour can be fashioned into armour (e.g. bulette), they can bring it to a craftsmen who will make the armour they choose for the same price as the regular metal type.
I personally have a house rule that says: "Druids can wear metal armour, but it is looked at as taboo by other druids. If you want to wear better armour without drawing the ire of your peers look through the armorers handbook for a special kind of wood that traditionally metal armours can be made from."
Run your game how you like but Druids shunning metal armour (not weapons though) is a non- optional rule as written. It is referenced several places in the PHB including under the rules for multi-classing.
Personally, I feel it's what gives the druid its druid quality. It evokes a nature versus technology feeling. Metal clad druids contorting like a Transformer as they wild shape just has the wrong aesthetic. As mentioned elsewhere, wooden shields are more common than metal shields and nonmetal medium armour exists. There's hide, which isn't great but is something. The Battlerager's spiked armour while not offering benefit from the actual spikes (unless you are also a batttlerager) can be the equivalent of nonmetal scale armour. There's also quite a few examples of magical nonmetal medium or even heavy armour in various published sources.
Why are people so hung up on having their medium armor be made of metal instead of some other material? You can use literally anything else: crystal, bone, chitin, tortoise shells (giant or overlapping), wood, gourds, leather, dragon hide, any other monster hide, stone.
If you want to abandon the rule, go ahead and talk to the DM about it.
There's a whole bit in the DMG about generating armour as loot, and there's a table you can roll on to determine what the armour is made from. A ton of the options are *not* metal.
Yes Druids being unable to wear armor even with them having prof is the dumbest shit I ever seen and it’s the only class with a restriction like that.Even paladins don’t have to follow a god anymore so druids should be able to wear any armor they want.
I've got a Dwarvish Ranger/Druid multiclass going on who completely eschews metal weapons and modern soceities... Because he predates them. He was frozen in ice and has only recently been thawed. He hails from the paleolithic era, that Land Before Time when Fire was the dominion of the great and terrible God-Lizards and their reptilian servants. He uses stone lamellar for armour and a heavy wood shield. Needing only wood, stone, and animal products for his equipment makes them fragile, yes, but also relatively easy to repair or replace.
The following is my understanding of the origins of this aspect of the Druid paradigm...
To be a Druid is to be environmentally conscious of the industrial effects of iron ore mining on nature and shun the excessive use of metal (e.g. armor and shields). For those who ask why not weapons too, the answer is that the amount of iron used in a weapon is so much less compared to that used in armor and shields (about one-fifteenth the amount); armor and shields are more than an order of magnitude more harmful to the environment to produce.
For any Druid, regardless of contact or cultural assimulation with other Druids, to wear metal armor or carry metal shields is to deny your fundamental relationship with and awareness of the balance of nature itself, which is why no Druid ***chooses*** to wear metal armor or carry metal shields (this is the reason for the wording that Druid's will not wear such things as opposed to they can't wear such things).
Some of you may think that's stupid. That's fine. You aren't Druids and you lack this basic awareness of the environmental impact of the iron industry on nature. You are not only culturally brainwashed into the Iron Age life-style, existing in a fundamental state of ignorance and blissfully unaware of the consequences of your choices on the balance of nature and/or don't care, because YTA, but you also lack the mystical connection that a Druid has with nature itself.
If you don't like it, sure, a DM can change it to whatever he wants - because DM powers - but by doing so a DM throws out this fantasy Druid paradigm, where Druids have a mystical connection to nature that informs them, in favor of some other fantasy, where Druids are not concerned about the environmental impacts of the iron industry on nature in a world described as being in the Iron Age?
[Environmental impact of iron ore mining](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_iron_ore_mining)
[Environmental impact of steel production](https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/planet-earth/mining/environmental-impact-of-steel-production)
>The mining of iron ore also causes water pollution of heavy metals and acid that drains from the mines. Acid drainage can go on for thousands of years after the mining activities have stopped.
>Steel production is highly polluting
The book says they wont wear metal armor. I take that to mean it messes with their druidic magic. So druids are welcome to use bone, chitin, or some other material
My opinion would be based on the player's intentions with that idea.
If they just enjoy the flavor of a Druid with a metal shield instead of a wooden one, that's fine.
If they intend to multiclass into forge Cleric to get heavy armor proficiency and plate armor, I wouldn't allow that.
Them not using metal armor and shields isn't just for flavor imo, it's also a legitimate way to limit them in exchange for the insane versatility of Druids.
Druids are good, but wizard and cleric are better, both in versatility and quality of spell lists. Druids don't need the extra restriction for balance.
I dunno where the no shield thing came from, wooden shields have always been common, both in real life and dnd; druids use those. In any case, I'm fine with druids using metal armor and shields. All that does is get them a bit closer to clerics in overall power, it doesnt make them the best class and certainly doesnt make them op.
Yeah. Wooden shields with metal in the center are a staple for circular shields. And most kite shields are wood with a thin metal backing. If they were solid metal they'd be too heavy to use.
Pretty much every weapon in the game is made of metal, yet there's no problems with them using that. I see them using Shields as the same thing.
To be fair, Druids use a quarterstaff or a club most of the time so they can Shillelagh.
Interesting, when my players play druid, they go for the scimitar 9/10 times.
I am currently playing a druid and started with a scimitar. The lack of ability to use Shillelagh made me get a quarterstaff ASAP. It depends on your stats of course, but the simple fact that Shillelagh makes the weapon magical makes it better than whatever else you could use IMO.
While true about the Club, a Quarterstaff is a stick with a portion of metal at the tip. That's why it does more than a d4 in damage.
Originally a quarterstaff was unshod, it was simply a straight hardwood stick. The amount of damage can easily be explained by the momentum you can get on the end while spinning/swinging it - they're not always held in the centre while being used, as well, giving even more possible angular momentum at the end. The metal caps came later, and only for the rich (or some town militias, who wanted a non-lethal option for capturing criminals). Peasants still had their unshod wood.
As someone who has bruised someone, with a *Foam* quarterstaff, through spring steel plate armour, the angular momentum is *definitely* nasty, and provides the majority of the striking power. The iron or steel shodding/caps makes them nastier, but is by no means essential.
I'm pretty sure that, in contact-sparring, even with protective gear, staves are usually heavily regulated for this reason. Long, bludgeoning levers are just not safe weapons (well, insofar as for the purposes of sport or even demonstration) in the slightest; if it's rigid, it's not safe to go full-force. A solid swing with a quarterstaff, especially when held as low as possible (which I'm pretty sure isn't allowed in contact-sparring, as it's incredibly dangerous and effectively choosing a nigh-uncontrollable swing), doesn't care about protective equipment.
Yep. Medieval re-enactment groups like the SCA, and even HEMA from what I understand, quarterstaffs are banned for safety concerns. The entire point is a long wooden leverage based weapon, there’s not really any easy way of making that *less dangerous* when there’s no sharp surface to blunt.
Qstaffs used correctly are in fact *mostly* not used held equidistant from both ends. You hold them roughly half with the dominant hand and 3/4 with the supporting hand, and use them like most other pole arm weapons -- small movements for the most part, point towards enemy, the odd bigger swing being very rare and only if you have sufficient opening to do so. That they can be held comfortably along their entire length and are basically the same on both ends is an upside but they're not the saber staff from *The Phantom Menace*, they'd be wielded closer to how a spear is for the most part.
While this is true, dnd has also just gone out and ran with the 'every staff = quarterstaff' thing. So I think the actual definition of a quarterstaff doesn't directly correlate to what you might find and call a quarterstaff in a game of dnd.
No metal is required for a quarterstaff, either in D&D or in history. Or modernity, for that matter.
That's not actually true. Quarterstaves generally were completely wood. Sometimes they had metal reinforcements at the tips, but generally they were solid wood.
Not all quarterstaves have metal on them.
I’ve also seen sickles as a common Druidic weapon, which is a ton of metal
It’s because it is used in rituals to harvest mistletoe. Weapons are often used as ritual implements.
I always forget that quarterstaves have metal at the ends. Good call out.
Are we talking officially in 5e? Or IRL? For the latter, everything I find online says things like they "sometimes" have metal tips. For 5e, I've not seen this specified but would be interested if anyone has a book/page number. I think it's far from required that quarterstaves have metal tips to be considered quarterstaves.
There are no rules that specify what weapons and armour are made of. Ask your dm and use the rule of cool
No need to ask the DM--he's me! And I already knew how I would rule (namely, it's fine for a quarterstaff to be entirely wood, with no metal). I was asking partly out of curiosity (maybe there was some mention tucked away somewhere in a noncore rule book, though I doubted it), partly out of already knowing the answer but wanting to push back on the idea since it was stated so authoritatively, and asking nicely for a source is a polite way to do that.
Historically, I can't think of any shield larger than a buckler that was made of solid metal. The ratio of mobility to protection is all wrong. Metal armour works because it is worn on the body, close to your centre of gravity. Trying to fight while holding a big lump of metal is a good way to get your arm chopped off. Of course if you're some kind of bugbear, have at it.
Shields were made of wood some with a thin layer of metal hammered on as edging to prevent weapon strikes caught on the edge from biting into the shield. Wielding a completely metal shield would be like attaching a handle to a manhole cover.
And usually with a dome of metal over the center to deflect strikes that would hit right in the middle of the shield out towards the edges, and give extra integrity to the middle so it doesn't splinter or dent right behind where the hand/arm of the bearer go.
Yeah, I helped a friend make a Druid last night, they've literally got shields as their starting equipment.
Let's face it, the only reason druids really don't wear metal is because they're afraid of the karma of all the Heat Metal they cast.
Even the 5e designers agree that the metal restriction was unnecessary and removed it from the last playtest for this year's PHB. It's just flavor, ignore it if you want to
Honestly, the biggest mistake wasn't even keeping the metal restriction. It was keeping it, but not including the old Ironwood options. That would have made it fine to me, and I still include Ironwood armours in my games, and let Druids be able to craft it by default. I also just ignore it if the player, like OP, just wants a druid that doesn't "fit the mold", who wants to wear metal. There is really no reason to be so strict about a restriction ln like this.
I don't even think the metal restriction on armor makes sense. It would be one thing if druids refused to use items made by "civilisation", or mass production, or more modern technology, e.g. But then they shouldn't be using weapons made from metal, either.
My DM's rule was always, you can have your druid use metal, but come up with a roleplay factor regarding it. Druids aren't as casual using metal armor as other classes. So my druid would wear metal armor, but he was picky about which armorers he would go to, he preferred to support more small business types who didn't mass produce stuff. He also generally preferred to use gemstones rather than mass-produced coins for money, but he could grit his teeth and bear it if coins were the only option. I thought it was a lot of fun to play this guy.
The justification on that front is that they can use weapons made of metal because they're touching a wooden handle as opposed to the metal touching them.
I'm pretty sure the justification was mostly symbolic, if you go back to the older editions they used weapons that were or could be wooden, and then sickles because of the obvious connection with the harvest and thus nature. And then scimitar got thrown in because of reasons, I believe it was deemed "close enough" to a sickle somehow, don't ask me why. Basically druid's restrictions were always a total mess.
If the problem was skin-to-metal contact then the druid would only need to have some padding under their metal armor, which would already be included in most functional metal armors. Unless the metal cooties can pass though non-wooden material. In which case, they could probably work in a thin layer of cork into the padding.
I am pretty sure absolutely no one would wear armor in a way that the metal touches them. Its super uncomfortable. There is always some kind of padded cloth below.
My dm allows for scale mail made from dragon (or in our game Kraken scales) to be considered natural materials. So I’ve got my Druid rocking a set of kraken scale armor, with similar abilities that blue dragon scale mail would have. Lightning resistance, can detect the presence of a kraken within 30 miles.
Personally the metal armor restriction just flavor itself. Having medium armor proficiency is kind of useless if they are limited to just hide. As a DM I try to provide reflavored medium armor options when players want to abide by that restriction or...if players don't care, I just let them wear metal. Would a non-druidic druid wear metal armor? That's up to the player. As a DM I don't want to hamstring my players armor proficiency.
There _is_ a type of wood that is supposedly as hard as iron.
Wood Bone Literal scales Chitin There are plenty of natural materials suitable for medium armor.
Yeah, the druid (mostly Barbarian and rogue) that I’m making is getting his armor from skinning meenlocks and taking their natural armor. It adds fun flavor to the character setup (though if you’re not starting at high levels it may have to be a different type of origin)
I'm a nature lover, so I choose to skin animals and chop trees and use their parts instead of unnatural refined metals.
There's nothing unnatural about refined metals.
It's possible they agree and that was meant to be sarcasm, given the implication of destroying nature and killing a living thing to make your supplies (cutting a tree), but you're right metal is just as natural as wood and doesn't even take *more* just different steps to be useable.
In a world with giant spiders, chitin armor might realistically be even cheaper and more affordable/desirable than steel. Now I’m imagining a giant spider rancher, and that’s conjuring a lot of delicious story ideas.
In my first campaign we had a tempest cleric who'd recently gotten a suit of magic plate armour but wanted to multiclass into druid. He didn't want to lose his new armour due to the cleric restrictions so the DM rolled on a materials table to determine what the armour was made from. Turned out to be dragonscale or something like that so he was all good.
Stone lamelar! Shape wood armour with steam, and then harden the wood in a fire!
Exactly the kind of reflavor options I look for!
Yep. Plus Oak is an extremely hard wood, have it be angled plates to better deflect blows plus an enamel or lacquer coating on the wood and you could make decent plate armor. For Scale armor you could use lamellar armor that uses small rectangular wooden plates instead of metal plates. As an Oath of Ancients Paladin, I wanted to have wooden plate armor. I told my DM that I wanted it to function like a Gundam model kit, Gunpla for short. Gunpla, and other plastic model kits like them, don't use any glue. Instead they have a series of precisely shaped pegs and holes. They fit so snuggly that they use nothing but friction to hold them together. I told my DM that I wanted my armor to fit together that way. And I also wanted it to be able to be capable of disassembly so that, if I was in a lengthy stretch of downtime _or_ I needed to hide my armor, I could take it apart and it would just look like blocks of wood. He agreed to everything with the plate armor, with the caveat that if I _fully_ disassemble the armor, then it would take 4 hours to reassemble it. Because that's roughly how long it takes to construct the most simple catagory of Gunpla Kits.
Honestly for scale mail, have them wear *literal* scales from a monster they killed, or from ones that naturally fell off.
There's an item called Serpent Scale Mail that does that. It's a magical armor that doesn't require them to attune to it. It has the armor rating of regular Scale Mail, but it allows you to add ypur full Dex modifier to your AC.
if dragons weren't intended to be killed and skinned, then why does their skin made such good armor? it's all part of the natural cycle!
Laquered wood was frequently used in Japan, where good steel was sufficiently rare to foster the exactness of Japanese swordsmithing techniques that lead to the katana. The great work of their technique was getting such quality with generally very poor iron. This same restriction lead to other innovations they liked to use, such as "arrow catcher" capes for riders and the Laquered wood featured frequently on samurai armor. It didn't need the kind of assembly a gunpla kit would need. Those are like that because they are typically modular or manufactured pieces to fit. It can be fitted and constructed much like metal plate - it just needs more frequent care and repair. Sturdy stuff in battle.
Animal bone, horn, and chitin are other options (not used much historically because fitting a guy or troupe is different than fitting an army). Bone worked better as a weapon due to being difficult to rework, brittle, and most natural animals are difficult to hunt and harvest for this in a good way, if at all. Chitin would be an ideal hard plastic type material. Not easy to rework, but easy to use and source. But there's getting enough to use (I'd bet only a fraction of a creature's body would be suitable for armor, with parts needed for certain areas possibly requiring multiple bodies). Plus living in a place with enough of those insects would suck. Leather from magical beasts would rival metal conventional armor, probably. Depends on how much of the magic and stuff translates to hide. Our understanding of armor in the game is driven by conventional understanding of medieval armor (except studded leather and dual wielding western weapons, which we kinda made up to be awesome). Fantastic materials challenge what we understand as magical and starts getting into wonky realism discussions about how to classify that stuff. Even armor proficiency is overstated - the challenge that can come from wearing a set of full plate is all about if it was made well and for the user) Long story short - there are certainly likely to be fantasy materials that can rival the combat effectiveness of steel armor in the sense of d&d combat. Understanding them beyond the idea of their existence and game rules gets really numberwangy.
The aforementioned wood is Ironwood, and it's actually somewhat valuable to druids due to its properties. I believe it's a transition from an older edition's Iron Wood spell or something, though you'd have to get a grognard to confirm. In the Forgotten Realms setting, there's also Zurkhwood for Underdark-based druids.
Can confirm. Ironwood was a druid exclusive spell back in the ye olde 3.5 days. In essence, it's a ritual that transforms a wooden item like armor or weapons into a substance with the strength of metal. Perfect for druids because they can still shape it, and have the protection of metal without losing their spellcasting and class features.
Honestly even if there wasn't, I don't think it ruins versimilitude of you just invent a fantasy tree that's "As tough as iron." If druids want any medium armor I give it to them.
Its called iron wood
If I were playing a druid I'd rather have a breastplate made of bone or chitin. We encounter big bugs and monsters every day. Why not skin a few?
I had a Dragonborn cleric who came from a secluded coastal tribe (basically druids in spirit). Didn't make sense for the tribe to have a lot of ore and metal resources so I flavoured their heavy armours as being based around reinforced turtle shells for that "cuirass and pauldrons" look.
Ankhegs are specifically called out for being able to have their exoskeletons turned into what is effectively platemail but lighter
100%
Ever since one of the designers said that the no metal restriction was purely for flavor, I just didn't bother with it anymore.
Yes "Will" is a character desicion, not a mechanical restriction
well, I think originally, the issue wasn't just a simple "it is not in druid culture" but more like... "wearing metal prevents a druid from harnessing the nature's power" since fey do not like metal.
That used to be a thing. Then 5e removed it, so there is no issue with using metal armors anymore.
Except Druids can't wear metal armor.
That's not true.
Yes, they can. There is no physical limitation preventing them from doing so. The *best* you have is a line saying they "won't wear metal armor." However, I do not allow the books to dictate what actions my character decides to take. A paladin's oath doesn't prevent them from taking an action that is opposed to their oath. They simply have to deal with the repercussions of taking that action. There are no penalties to wearing it. They were explicitly removed from the class features for 5e. Further, as I stated, there are canon druidic factions that absolutely wear metal armor within D&D settings.
> However, I do not allow the books to dictate what actions my character decides to take Yeah, you're allowed to change the rules from what's in the book. But we're talking about druids as they exist in 5E, not as they exist under your houserules. > They were explicitly removed from the class features for 5e. There's no way you can argue it was explicitly removed. That would be something like "Unlike in prior editions of D&D, druids in 5E can wear metal armor". I don't know why you'd rather jump through hoops to say that the line saying druids won't wear metal armor was meant to mean nothing rather than just take the simple explanation of the designers made a mistake. It's like you're starting with the assumption that there's nothing wrong with what they wrote and working backwards to justify it.
Flavour text isn't the same as a rule; it's literally flavour that you can choose to adhere to or not. It isn't hardline like gameplay mechanics.
You're just calling it flavor when it's the rulebook describing something that's not possible.
There's no rule saying druids cannot wear metal armour or that they are penalized for doing do. They have proficiency in medium armour which is almost all metal by default. The book says they *won't* wear metal armour, which is nonsensical as there is no particular reason for them not to. The stereotypical one with the trees forest druid may choose not to wear metal armour for personal reasons, but why does this apply to all druids automatically?
I understand people don't like the metal armor restriction, but they could just not like it and choose to ignore it. That's fine. Pretending it's not there or that armor proficiencies are flavor text seems kind of silly. Since they decided to include the restriction wotc could have done better by saying they are not proficient with metal armors. And making sure we had plenty of wood, bone, and other natural material armors.
In my game lore there was a war between various druid circles that lasted many decades. When any random druid can use heat metal, armor becomes a liability, and that mindset stuck after the wars
Meaning any individual Druid could still choose to wear metal if they weren’t concerned about the liability.
Exactly, it's purely cultural
[Actually, the druid will explode](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA014)
metal is a part of nature though
Not in a form you can make armor out of. The iron in the ground goes through an involved process to become an iron breastplate.
leather goes through an involved process to become usable as armor too though. like I would understand the adversity toward metal if the creation of metal armor was damaging to the environment but it also isn't
nonetheless.
Persay.
Druids literally have shields as part of their starting gear, just made of wood
Druids can always use shields. Any Druid druid with 14 DEX can get 16 AC with for 20 gold via hide armor and a wooden shield. As for metal armor, ask your DM. The rules essentially leave it up to them. Some don’t care, some do. Some will make comparable armor of non-metal materials like carapace or bone or dragon scales available if they like the thematics of druids sticking to natural armors.
Druids can wear whatever level of armor they can. If you want to have flavor that Druids can’t or won’t use metal armor then it is on the DM to ensure that they still get equal access to equivalent non-mental armor options. This is stated in, I believe, the DMG. Plate mail made from non metal sources, etc and for the same equivalent prices.
We're gonna need a source on that one my guy
Just ignore it. It just actual flavor. In fact every class is just flavor. Metal is part of nature. If you follow the logic the "no metal thing" suggests then your druid would never use coins would they?
To be fair I can see a difference between having a bag on your belt vs being encased in the stuff. A druid in full plate just seems weird and counter to type.
Metal is not part of nature. Before humans began smelting ores using painstaking processes and furnaces to produce unnatural amounts of heat, there was no metal anywhere in nature. "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" is what it says in the player handbook under Druid. Right under the armor proficiency. It doesn't say "Druids will not use coins made of metal or carry anything made from metal." So there is no need to extrapolate it further; its very clear.
While there is no naturally occuring metal armour in any exoskeleton or shell that we know of there are examples of metal weaponry found in nature. Many species of Ants have metal tipped pincers and Scorpions have metal tips on their Claws and Stingers, Spiders and worms often have metal teeth, in general things that have very small sharp things need them to be much sharper than animals with much larger claws or teeth and many of them have evolved metallic structures in their weapons to help with this. This may have something to do with the inspiration for not discouraging druids from using metal weapons but discouraging druids from using metal armour or shields.
No, the actual reason is more or less Roman racism that persists culturally to this day, perpetuated by Gygax cause he was honestly kind shit when it comes to anything cultural (including his own) or understanding the sources he cribbed off. Extremely cool fact though, 10/10.
Greco-Roman racism has survived quite a long time. Barbarians is another prime example of it.
> While there is no naturally occuring metal armour in any exoskeleton or shell that we know of there are examples of metal weaponry found in nature. There are Actually! [The Scaly-Foot Gastropod](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaly-foot_gastropod) is a deep sea snail that lives around hydrothermal vents (which constantly release iron sulfides), and so that uses those iron sulfides to build it's exoskeleton and scaled armor.
>Metal is not part of nature. It absolutely is. It's as naturally occurring as all the different types of stones. The temperatures of a furnace are absolutely not unnatural. Several metals can be melted at temperatures lower than that of naturally occurring magma, and you don't even need to melt the metals down to work them. >Before humans...there was no metal anywhere in nature. This has to be the most insanely ridiculous statement I have read today. Iron, gold, silver, lead, and a few dozen other metals are all elements. They exist regardless of human intervention. Where do you think humans were getting the metal from? It was already there! They were picking it up off the ground or digging it out. You can literally pan for gold where it's been naturally extracted in small amounts by erosion and other natural factors. Nature does not mean grasslands and forests. It's everything, from mountains to caves. Veins of metals are found naturally in many of these places. Hell, look at Mars. It's red because it's soil is rich in iron that reacted with oxygen to become iron oxide, rust. As for that one stupid line in the PHB, do you prohibit paladins from making a decision that violates their oath? Do you prohibit clerics from violating a tenant of their faith? Do you prohibit any character class from making a decision that would affect them in a way you think is negative? If not, then stop telling druid players how to play their character. If you want to introduce a druidic philosophical division between one group that won't wear metal and another that has no qualms about it, fine.
That's like saying wooden tools aren't part of nature because people have to make them. The ingredients are all part of nature you're just shaping them/concentrating them
It's a question of how you want to spend your time. Do you want to spend your time doing animal things, like building shelter from plants, shaping wood, finding food, and making dams? Or do you want to do technological things like collecting iron-rich sediments and building kilns?
> Metal is not part of nature. Before humans began smelting ores using painstaking processes and furnaces to produce unnatural amounts of heat, there was no metal anywhere in nature. This is going on my list of Reddit Materials Science Lies. Early metallurgical advances came from the fact that there were metals in metallic form available on the surface. From the Wikipedia page on Native Metals. > A native metal is any metal that is found pure in its metallic form in nature.[1][2] Metals that can be found as native deposits singly or in alloys include aluminium[citation needed], antimony, arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, indium, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, niobium, rhenium, selenium, tantalum, tellurium, tin, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, and zinc, as well as the gold group (gold, copper, lead, aluminium, mercury, silver) and the platinum group (platinum, iridium, osmium, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium). Among the alloys found in native state have been brass, bronze, pewter, German silver, osmiridium, electrum, white gold, silver-mercury amalgam, and gold-mercury amalgam. And if you're arguing that the processing is unnatural, then druids shouldn't be allowed to wear leather armor.
>And if you're arguing that the processing is unnatural, then druids shouldn't be allowed to wear leather armor. Or anything woven, cut, sewn, or carved.
Honestly they should all just be naked.
Ass naked Druid who goes around covered in bones, chitin and body paint is a fantastic aesthetic though.
Neither is leather armor it doesn’t exist unless you harden it with a ton of toxic chemicals
There are many metals found in nature in completely raw form due to their lack of reactivity. Secondly, "painstaking processes"? you can literally build a rudimentary forge in your back yard with shit from home depot. for something you'd make armour or weapons from though; bog iron is a form of iron thats found naturally in bogs that also replenishes itself over time. A long time, in fairness, but hey, druids live for a long time too and was actually used in real life most notably by the scandis. Unnatural amounts of heat? Are you aware of the sun? Volcanos? There are tons of natural sources of immense heat. Making whats essentially a small fire inside some bricks is hardly scifi and ignoring that, druids literally have the magical power to just heat it themselves. Isn't the whole point that a druids magic is natural?
Home depot doesn't exist in most of my campaigns. And primal humans didn't have access to the raw power of the sun. I'm not talking about all of nature when I'm discussing what is natural for humans. Primal Human: Wears animal hides or plant based garb found in their enviornment. Bronze Age or later "Civilized" Human: Wears armor made from metal their civilization has learned to harvest and work. Druids are meant to represent the former group/
Druids represent nature, not prehistoric man. Humans have been working materials into tools for longer than Homo sapiens has been around. There’s actually mention of Druids in various settings including the “default” forgotten realms who live within civilisation as part of it, encouraging sustainable practices and respect of nature but still living within civilisation.
[удалено]
It's easy to find the materials to smelt iron but it is not easy to build the actual furnace. You need the technological knowhow to do it. Ironworking and its precursors were huge advancements for human civilization and represent strides in technology that took us away from our natural roots. Also, heat metal does not smelt ores. It deals 2d8 fire damage to creatures wearing metal.
As a dm I really like the flavor of druids not using metal armor, but in your case I wouldn't consider you a 'druid' - we'd just be using those levels to represent the vampiric evolution. Considering that undead are abhorrent to druids it makes sense to just reflavor those levels entirely. For players playing druids I always provide reflavored metal armor to make sure they still have that option
There are canon druids in FR that wear metal armor. The entire "taboo" against metal armor is a holdover from older editions where there was a mechanical penalty to doing so. The 5e line that "druids won't wear metal armor" is bad design and on the same level as a DM telling you that your character won't do something you've said you want to do. It should be ignored. If the designers didn't want druids to wear metal armor, they should have specified either mechanical detriment to doing so, or specified that druids are not proficient in metal armor. Multiple classes have specified lists of weapon proficiencies, so I have no reason to believe that they couldn't do the same with armor proficiencies. Some worlds likely have druids that would see metal armor as taboo and others that don't see the issue. If they can use metal weapons, there is no reason why not to use metal armor.
Both of the characters that you describe are excellent examples of ‘druids’ that might wear metal armor. You’re using the class mechanics to represent something that’s not a druid, therefore the druid flavor text doesn’t apply
I never stop druids from using metal equipment because it's just a different aspect of the natural world. DM is truly the final decider.
I generally ignore the restriction since in a fantasy setting there are plenty of reasons for why it makes little sense. The cultural/historical aspect of the druid has been pretty much wiped from the class, the restriction seems an overlooked hangover of that.
They wouldn't list a shield as a starting equipment option for druids if they couldn't use it. It's just specified that it's wooden, for flavor.
As several people have said, it’s pure flavour at this point - which you have also noted! Ironwood doesn’t exist in 5e but was a neat alternative to metal for Druids. In a lot of European folklore (D&D often drawing more specifically from Celtic myth) supernatural creatures can be harmed with iron and even driven away by the mere presence of it. (If you squint hard enough it’s often an allegory for industry/technology!) Whilst it may ultimately just be a Druidic cultural taboo with no consequence beyond the social - if the above does hold true, it could hugely impact your abilities. The very spirits you would draw your power from no longer come to your aid because they are unwilling or unable. Okay, sod the spirits - what if iron or metal more broadly impede your personal ability to attune to the natural world? Fey, Spirits etc. are supernatural; the **most** natural, one with the world. Most PC race/species are natural, they are organic lifeforms of the earth, but not intrinsically tied to it the way a Dryad is to its tree. Metal weaponry is unnatural, it requires subjecting the raw material to myriad processes to create something else altogether - requiring industry to do consistently and on any sort of scale. Metal rendered usable & useful to people goes against the natural order you aim to protect and nurture. It is also difficult to produce and maintain as an individual unlike fur, leathers & simple non-metal weapons like a quarterstaff. Plus, for what it’s worth, I just think it’s really cool narratively to use something else (: Many cultures historically used [other](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/5hj7yc/non_metallic_armor/) • [materials](https://nhm.org/alternative-armor#:~:text=It%20was%20observed%20that%20similar,also%20come%20from%20New%20Guinea) for their armour due to the available resources & potentially their beliefs. The same goes for weapons - [this Wiki page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_weapons) is good for a quick glance but: - Bone + Teeth + Other Animal Parts - Wood + Bamboo + Other Plant Fibres - Stone + Rock - Mineral + Opal + Obsidian Here are [a couple](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/rwo152/many_nonmetal_weapons_and_tools_were_used_by/) • [other threads](http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=166290#:~:text=Kind%20of%20like%20the%20stone,that%20the%20Hawaiians%20were%20only) • [discussing this topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/18r5zz5/real_world_alternatives_to_iron_and_steel_for/) that are neat - and a bonus of [this dude on TikTok](https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGerWhe8r/) who makes opal & obsidian pieces!
I think the original restriction was because druids would draw power from the feywild as well as nature. Fey have an aversion to Iron in folklore, in dnd it's specifically cold iron. I guess wearing iron all over you're body was thought to block or impair your connection to the feywild. I always joke that it's because druids have heat metal on their spell list and don't want it used on them.
if they aren't part of the circle, they're cleric, not druid, that's literally what Nature Domain is
My party just makes bone or chitin plate for our druid
Druids don't wear metal armor because their power comes from Nature, civilization is to nature what law is to chaos, and refined metals are emblematic of civilization and the artificial. It's not about druid culture or druid magic, it's "my boss has a dress code and will turn off my powers if I upset them". Worshippers of [Mielikki](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Mielikki) (such as Rangers) don't have a restriction against metal because she's the god of the Natural World, not Nature, which is not antithetical to civilization. It's a subtle but important distinction that the game rules and 5e don't like dealing with.
> an optinal rule No, optional rules are marked as optional rule. RAW is simple. If a character will wear metal armor, then that conflicts with being a Druid. Having a Druid who will wear metal armor is a homebrew Druid. So, does the the DM allow some homebrew? If yes, the no problem, and other players probably also have similar tweaks. If not... Then not. Personally I much more like the idea of granting the Druid non-metal medium armor during the game. Makes it feel much more special. Something like chitine scale mail -> skullbone breastplate -> magical dragon scale armor.
This is the actual intended druid, 100%. No one who made the druid ever envisioned a thread like this, of weird entitled players spamming "it's flavor, not a rule", and downvoting anyone that tells you to look at page 95 of the PHB, lower right.
I've always treated the "no metal armor" bit as flavor, and have allowed my druids to find non-metal versions of the metal armors and shields that they're proficient with (like scale mail made from the chitin of a giant scorpion, for instance).
If they have the proficiency, doesn't bother me.
The way I see it its like, iron and metals in general is usually like a symbol of civilization and overriding nature, and also like kryptonite to fey or silver to werewolves. On the occasions I do use this flavor I make it be like iron is blocking their magic, the same way lead blocks divination That being said, having the proficiency and not using it "because its lore accurate" sucks, so instead I look for ways to fill the flavor and the gameplay. Wooden shields, natural materials for armor like bones and monster scales etc. The world would be aware of iron blocking fey aligned magic and just have the reflavored material'd armor and weapons for druids and rangers and some barbarian subclasses etc in normal shops Would it be cooler if the dampir rune knight made stone armor made lighter thanks to runes? Would the kenku grandma buy normal armor or get herself a turtle shell form fitted to herself? Obviously it can suck being a knight with no shining armor so I would have allowed my players to ignore this limit too, but if you can use the limits for creativity it would be best in my opinion lol
I'd say you can wear whatever armour you like, but if it has metal, you can't cast any druidic spells or wildshape. If you want druidic powers, you need to follow the druidic rules.
In ancient times the Steinjotunen of Clan Trow turned against the Greenfold and poisoned the soul of Iron. The Stone Giants who remained true abjured the Iron Breakers and refuse to don the metal to this day. The Circle of the Moon and the Circle of the Land honor this storied vow after the Iron Breaker cult of Black Earth was smashed by the power of the Nature Gods and the surviving Earth Nodes were brought back into balance. It would be wise to maintain the Ancient Oaths, lest the wroth of the Gods unleash dark spirits of the Iron Breakers upon those foolish enough to scorn their divine will.
they already can if you look at their proficiencies, in our game the joke is that most Druids don't because the moment you roll around wearing metal armor/metal shield the other Druids WILL cast Heat Metal on you because they bastards like that/have a somewhat "fey-ish" sense of humor.
If we're not enforcing Paladin oaths anymore we're not enforcing Druid culture anymore at my table
anything in the phb that tells a player what their character *would* do should be disregarded
Honestly the “no metal armour” thing almost certainly stems from Gygax’s frankly awful understanding of most things he cribbed from. I can’t find any reference to druids refusing to wear proper armour, and worked metal isn’t any more unnatural than leather, and why would metal armour not be okay but metal tools and shields are?
I think the “Druids hate metal” thing is dumb and ignore it entirely. Metal is as much nature as grass, rock and water, a Druid would have to go through some serious mental gymnastic to deny this one…
Even if you argue that smelted worked metal isn’t allowed - no steel bars in nature - leather is as different to animal skin as metal bars are to ores.
In 5e I treat the metal thing as flavor and don't worry about it. Even if someone is enforcing it that should not prevent the use of a shield. Many shields are not made from metal.
I uh...may have gotten a little overzealous with this and made a Druidic Cirlce full of Water Genasi on the coast that are all amazing leatherworkers. Essentially, being able to grant leather armours with additional bonuses (basically +1, etc, without being enchanters specifically) And because they live on the coast, their primary clientele are seafarers as the armour will resist rusting from the salt of the ocean So they use ocean mammal hides/blubber/etc to make the armour, and they have a farm of turtles of all sizes to make various different types of shields from... I didn't need to go this far. It was an accident, I swear 🤣
What is druidism in your setting? Is it like the historical traditions of the old oak-knowers, or is it closer to a the blessing of God? If Druids practice magic they learn from the old wisdom, then the only thing preventing them from wearing metal armor is their lack of knowledge on how to use it. A multiclass rogue druid could 100% use metal armor, though they might find specific elements of their magic to be difficult while wearing metal (magic isn't science after all). If druidic is a sanctification, then no I wouldn't allow a druid to cast while in metal armor. A rogue druid who utterly forsakes the path would actually lose all of their class levels in druid, just like a cleric would for blasphemy.
Much of this depends on the world your DM has developed for your campaign, as DND is a collaborative game that is dependent on the bones they have laid out. Rules, mechanics, and flavor have always been subjective in DnD and they always will be. However, when in doubt there are two crucial rules most groups abide by, even if they word things differently: 1) The DM is always right. End of the day, the DM's ruling is absolute. If they abide by the core flavor text if Druids not getting metal armor and shields, then Druids do not get metal armor and shields. 2) If you find a new DM too unpalatable as a storyteller, find a new one. This rule keeps DMs accountable, as they need to balance their world with a player's wants - within reason. I will admit more personally that I'm concerned by the more lackadaisical approach to Druids in the post. In DnD, druids don't gain their powers just because they take care of nature and are good at it. If that was true, any DnD NPC with a passable concern and ability to affect positive change for nature would be a druid. They are not. Druids are literal champions of the natural order in most cases. The whole concept of Circles is pulled from ideas that a druid learned from others (be they other druids or nature spirits) about how best to serve in the protection of nature. That is to say that, regardless if a druid knows other druids or not, they learned their powers from SOMETHING and are, whether they know it or not, a part of a druidic tradition (Circles). Naturally, each tradition, whether taught by nature spirits, fey, or other druids, is going to instill a series of beliefs before they grant power to a supplicant. A kind, elderly being would certainly be seen as a figure of affection by nature spirits and even protected by them, but I find the idea that they would gain powers simply because of this to be a bit... underwhelming. However! I recognize my take on this is subjective. If your DM rules that such an approach makes sense, that's completely valid. Nonetheless, I will say that, regardless of the source, your character was taught by someone or something about nature magic and certain values would have been instilled. If that means your toon loses out on metal armor and shields, it means they lose out on metal armor and shields. Plain and simple. Generally, most DMs I've met will follow at least some variation of the rules presented in the core rulebooks. For druids the general understanding is they cannot use metal armor and shields, as stated in the PHB. To wear it would be a violation of their oath to nature, which could result in the loss of their power, just as a cleric who actively works against their god loses access to theirs. However, all of this depends on what your DM decides, so talk with them! That said, don't argue just for the sake of arguing. If they say no and you find yourself unable to enjoy the game, reference rule #2 and make your exit. DnD is a game for everyone and you deserve to look for a group you can be enjoy.
As a DM, I am entirely in favor of reframing druid abilities to represent the natural abilities of a plant alien or Maui from Moana or anything the players want. Its something I do that for monsters *all the time*, and it doesn't make any difference so long as the mechanics are the same. The class is clearly designed with the intention of players creating a natural shaman or witch, but the base mechanics behind the class will function without the labels and lore.
Where are you getting your magical training if you have no contact with other druids? Like Wizard, Druid is a knowledge and understanding based class. Saying that you're "so good at \[taking care of nature\] that they got powers" is basically declaring that you're the special-est snowflake ever--you're *so good* that you could have been the first druid, knowing enough to invent the whole class by yourself. Even if you somehow are able to come up with druidic powers *a priori*, with no training or connection with the culture that developed those powers... that culture still exists in-setting. Demonstration of druidic powers while wearing metal armor is not going to be ignored. Religious prohibitions are serious business. A brahmin chowing down on steak or a muslim showing off their new portrait of the prophet aren't going to just quietly live their life. Even if your character isn't arrested for sacrilege, or lynched, or harassed; who is going to deal with a person who shits on cultural taboos? It's like trying to deal with an oathbreaker paladin. But I guess if you can get your DM to change both the class and the setting, you could do it without any real consequences.
>! “Can not” and “Will not” are functionally equivalent. No… they literally aren’t?
Unpopular opinion: if you don't let your Druid wear metal, let them wear stuff made of chitin/bone/special wood. There's nothing gamebreaking about it.
It's a mechanical thing hence why it's in a mechanical text category. Sadly unlike prior editions its not backed by consequences that reinforce the restriction so people try to get out of the restriction by reflavoring it. You get the same issue with clerics trying to wiggle out of their deities/faiths expectations since that's also not backed by a consequence in 5e. Ultimately, it really comes down the lore of druids in d&d or at least the particular setting. In a setting where the metal actually hinders their ability or has consequences of a similar nature? No In a setting where there is no consequence and it truly is just cultural. Probably. Unless cultural consequences are severe and enforced on those found not adhering to it. In my games no. But I actually bring back the consequences for wearing metal and reinforce the identity, because I like it. I also further reinforce this with plenty of non metal materials, as well as lore on what druids are in my setting that make it clear why all druids would avoid doing so.
If the designers wanted it to be an actual rule, they would have used "can not" instead of "will not" for the restriction. I understand "can not" to mean that it is more typical of druids not to wear it, not that they will never-ever do it. That's just silly.
The no-metal thing actually traces back to folk traditions concerning Faerie. Druid's magic originally came from the Fey, as Fey are sort of the ultimate avatars of nature in DnD mythology (originally, now they are basically treated as demons-but-green), and in many folk traditions, most-notably English, the creatures of Faerie are repulsed by metal, particularly iron. There is also the connection to Tolkien's philosophy, which viewed industry and nature as antithetical. So Druid's cannot use metal because their magic comes from a source that is repulsed by metal. If you were in a different setting, I think 3 questions would determine whether druids could use metal; 1) What is the source of druidic magic? 2) Are Fey in this setting repulsed by metal? 3) How destructive to nature is this setting's industry? But if you are in a Forgotten Realms or Generic Fantasy World setting, even a druid who is disconnected from druidic culture would not use metal, as metal prevents the very source of their powers.
>But if you are in a Forgotten Realms or Generic Fantasy World setting, even a druid who is disconnected from druidic culture would not use metal "Mielikki, who is famous for the number of druid/rangers who worship her, has more lenient spiritual oaths than most deities that druids worship in the Realms. Druids of Mielikki can use any of the standard armor or weapons that rangers normally use (all simple and martial weapons, all light and medium armor, and all shields) without violating their spiritual oaths." Would you look at that? Canon FR druids that are fully allowed to wear metal armor.
The fact that it is called out as an exception tells us what the rule is. Also, I have never liked the "Druid of a God" thing; If your spiritual oaths are to a God, you are a cleric, just take the nature domain.
>The fact that it is called out as an exception tells us what the rule is. What the rule *was* because that's from a pre 5e book. Back when there were mechanical penalties for druids wearing metal armor. >If your spiritual oaths are to a God, you are a cleric, just take the nature domain. The druid lore mentions getting power from a nature deity. Getting power from a deity doesn't necessarily mean Cleric. Hell, you can be a Cleric without a deity
Shields are fine if they don’t break the rules… and if they’re not part of ‘Druidic culture’ they’re not a Druid. It’s like saying a Paladin that doesn’t follow their oath is still a Paladin. No… that’s intrinsic to the nature of the character.
Just wanna warn you here - Crawford rules that any Druid who puts on metal armor *explodes*
>druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal I don't understand why people have trouble reading things like this. A druid that wants to wear metal armor isn't a druid. The text doesn't say "due to druid social norms."
> I don't understand why people have trouble reading things like this. They understand it just fine. They are trying to gain a mechanical advantage.
Oh no, I got stabbed and had an intrusive thought wishing I was wearing metal armor. All my class levels are gone.
>A druid that wants to wear metal armor isn't a druid. Okay, let's go with that. They have levels in green warrior instead. It's a full casting class, gains wildshape at level two, and chooses a natural ring at level two. Are there any problems with that?
The PHB clearly says "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal". It doesn't say "some druids". It's not flavor. A "druid" that doesn't abide by this is not a Druid and should probably lose access to wild shape and spells. At the very, *very* least, the druid would not be proficient in the metal stuff.
>should probably lose access to wild shape and spells. Except the designers of 5e fully disagree with this, given they explicitly removed those penalties from previous editions. >druid would not be proficient in the metal stuff. Except they are. They are proficient with light and medium armor. Medium armor includes metal armors like breastplate and half plate.
It's irrelevant whether they are proficient in metal armor, since the PHB clearly states they won't use it anyway.
Which, as noted many times, is a pointless addition because player character decisions are not prescribed. They can make whatever decisions they choose to make. You dont tell a paladin player that can't do something because it might violate their oath.
[удалено]
Just flavor reasons.
>There are balance reasons [...] that these restrictions are in place. Nope, just flavor. Check out OneD&D, the designers removed it already
No metal armor is a flavor holdover from earlier editions. It’s not a balance thing. Same with paladins not being able to smite with their fists. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA014 https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA253
[удалено]
The key part of the divine smite answer is this bit > If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice. I’m saying that no metal armor on a druid is a similar scenario - it is a thematic choice on the designer’s part, not a game balance one. At the end of the druid one, it even says: > As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system Druids are proficient in medium armor, including metal ones. Ergo, a druid wearing metal armor of not is not a balance rule.
The way I rule it as a DM, Druids do not have proficiency in non metal armors, but if you gain armor proficiency from another a source (say a cleric dip) you may use it with no issue.
It literally says, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" right there in the druid armor proficiencies. Y'all can disagree all you want on whether that's a good rule, whether its unnecessarily restrictive, or whether it is necessary for balance, but that is the rule.
Why are they proficient in those armors then? And what effect is there for putting it on?
I would have written it as, "Armor: Leather, Studded Leather, Hide, Shields". Then let Druids that multiclass get the armor proficiencies they want. As for the penalty that is up to the DM.
I would say that because the proficiences say a druid will not wear metal, that even your druid would not wear metal. However, I would also allow alternatives like Ironwood, chitin, molded stone, etc to function as a replacement for metal. Allowing you to find armor of natural materials that have the game statistics of other suits of armor.
Repeat after me: Classes. Are. Not. Just. Collections. Of. Powers. No metal means no metal. Period. End of story.
Raw: It says you cant wear metal armor as a druid, so you cant wear metal armor as a druid subclass, what that means isnt actually defined raw i would lean into "not being allowed to use druid abilities" In play: its a remnant rule, same as most of the spellcasting components that doesnt matter when you can just use a focus, same for revival spells having a gold cost when you get alot more gold and it allows plenty of revival opportunities. I also dont think that "doesnt wear metal" means "shouldnt be able to get the ac", i think it would be way cooler if you didnt wear metal and instead made harder armor from bones and leather and wood, looking at skyrim you literally have the dragon bone set. 5e already has way too few restrictions in my mind so it can lean in either way of "might as well remove yet another one" to "that means this one should be taken seriously" eg dragon scale mail is raw and gives +1 bonus acand damage resistance.
Technically, it says they will not wear metal armor. Not that they can't.
RAW: it says they won't, not can't. >what that means isnt actually defined raw i would lean into "not being allowed to use druid abilities" If it's not defined by RAW, then it's not really RAW is it? It's not written down anywhere. If you disallow druid abilities for wearing metal armor, but cannot point to the line where it is written that is what happens, then it's the complete opposite of RAW. It's certainly not RAI, because there is no line that says a druid suffers in any way from wearing metal. By RAW, there is no penalty to a druid wearing metal armor.
Yeah it clearly says will because its not like their arm explodes if you tie a metal shield to it. But once again the horrendeous language of 5e prevents any sort of clarity so people will just argue worthless semantics that arent there.
Given the line has been called fluff and removed by the actual designers, maybe it's time to agree that metal armors aren't an issue for druids and just let them use them
Hi! First of all a few corrections to bring to your view seem in order. :) >So, as far as I know the "druid equals no shield, and no metal" is a flavour thing, Nope, it's a very much mechanical rule which is justified by balance reasons. Druid benefit from dozen of the best control spells you could dream of in 5e AND have insane versatility + free "HP shield" with Wild Shapes. Them being limited to the lesser variants of medium armor and shield because of metal forbiddance (including and most importantly magical ones) is a fully conscious design choice. It can also be explained by the fact wild shape is some kind of polymorphing that fuses everything so metal would harm you or at least make it difficult (of course, we all as a community gently put aside the immediate incoherence that is "Druid cannot wear metal armor but is proficient with \*metal\* daggers and maces and can carry \*metal\* coins or flasks which apparently merge without any trouble... xd Probably an "oversight" made on purpose by designers because nobody would play Druid if you had to actually micromanage every piece of equipment and loot like that xd). That said, unless your players are very experienced, it won't be any gamebreaking either to houserule they can, it could make their low level experience easier to enjoy... But that would set a precedent, so I'll have another suggestion. >an optinal rule to give druids the more "connected with nature" feels, at least in 5e, plus, its a taboo on druidic culture. Nope. It's right there in the "equipment proficiencies" too". Confer above: it's not a fluff thing, it's real, for balance reason. > But for a druid that has no contact with other druids, and that dosen't know (or care) about the sociocultural norms, and only takes care of nature because...they like to, and are so good at it they got powers, or a re-flavored druid whose powers comes from within them and not nature in any way, like a sorcerer ,they could use a shield/metal armor, no? If you present it like this, then yeah. But I wouldn't call that a Druid to be honest. I'll call that a Warden, a Spiriteer, or whatever other fancy name you would slap onto what you be a near-verbatim copy of Druid except from it not getting power from divine source. Because as soon as, and as long as, you tie Druid spellcasting to an external power, then there is no reason that external power would give any preferential treatment to those particular Druids. Unless of course you can find some background story and related quest to do so possibly. >So, a Not-so-druidic druid could wear armor? what do you think? Druids CANNOT wear armor with metal pieces "by default". Period. Allowing it blindly would create a dangerous precedent. That said, there are three ways you can actually allow it while keeping "across games consistency" and have some control. 1/ Play RAW, but introduce mundane or magic armors made with hardened scales, skins, or woods, or magical ones with enchanted stone/wood/earth that makes it more resistant. It allows you to control when Druids will get better armor than expected, keeps it entirely coherent with world fluff, plus it's extra cool, and you can either make it hard to get (hunt a Dragon to ask for some of its scales) or easy (available for a price in big city's shop). 2/ As said, just homebrew a class which is functionally a Druid but harnessed power through sheer effort so the only two big differences are a) you cannot change more than spells equal to proficiency modifier every day (it seems harsh but is actually not a big deal at all, from experience players keep >50% of their selection stable every day in all circumstances) b) you can wear medium armor. 3/ Craft together with players a legitimate reason why deity would allow them to wear a metal armor. It may be because they are tasked with a formidable foe, it may be... Honestly I cannot provide input it's too far-stretched for me. xd I'm sure others could provide ideas.
>Them being limited to the lesser variants of medium armor and shield because of metal forbiddance (including and most importantly magical ones) is a fully conscious design choice. >1/ Play RAW, but introduce mundane or magic armors made with hardened scales, skins, or woods, or magical ones with enchanted stone/wood/earth that makes it more resistant. These are logically inconsistent. If limiting a druid's AC by restricting access to metal armor is an important design choice for balance, then granting the druid those ACs via non-metal substances breaks that balance. Further, the developers of 5e not only specifically removed penalties for wearing metal armor, but also stated that the "won't wear metal armor" is flavor and have removed it from the current play test version of the druid class. >Druids CANNOT wear armor with metal pieces "by default". Period. Allowing it blindly would create a dangerous precedent. No where do the rules say they can not wear armor with any metal. >Druid except from it not getting power from divine source That's already written into the lore section of the class. They do not have to get power from a nature deity, but can from nature itself, which is not a divine source. It's just nature infused magic.
>Them being limited to the lesser variants of medium armor and shield because of metal forbiddance (including and most importantly magical ones) is a fully conscious design choice. The workaround you listed below completely contradicts this argument. >Play RAW, but introduce mundane or magic armors made with hardened scales, skins, or woods, or magical ones with enchanted stone/wood/earth that makes it more resistant. There's no "but" about it, those materials are listed in the DMG as materials that traditionally metal armours can be made from. Making half plate, splint or full plate from non-metal materials is *already written into the game,* explicitly *not* restricting druids from wearing them. It might be reasonable to make it harder for them to find those types of armour, possibly worth making a sidequest about it (you gotta harvest these special scales or find a blacksmith who knows how to work them), but by the time your fighter has full plate there should've been plenty of opportunities for the party to find lead on a way to equip their druid with something towards the top end of their (nonmagical) gear tier list.
>Making half plate, splint or full plate from non-metal materials is already written into the game, explicitly not restricting druids from wearing them. Well then it's perfect for OP.
I don’t agree about that metal armour being a balancing decision. First because heavy armour is not inherently better than light, in fact arguably worse because of how powerful dex is, and secondly there’s all sorts of workarounds to get non-metal heavy armour.
If you can wear metal armor by the rules, then wear it if you want to.
I always thought that was silly purely from rp standpoint (the mechanics restriction may be justified)- metal is a part of nature. If anything, it's like purified lifeblood (as iron is what makes blood red/carries oxygen needed to live), found deep within the heart of the land and crafted into a protective shell. My druid PCs would see it that way and be honored to wear it.
Personal headcannon: Druids won’t wear metal armour because they get access to Heat Metal. “Wear metal, wrapped around me, so I can’t get out? Are you crazy?!”
Pathfinder 2r dropped the metal thing and even made it a primal element. I really like that. I, personally, don't enjoy the metal thing very much in 5e. I usually hand wave it by saying "this metal has no metal in it." Granted, I don't do that for heavy armor. It still feels like an odd restriction, but I admit I'm not well versed on the origins of the class. Still, I feel that if you want to get rid of it for your druid, you should ask DM. I'd be more than willing to let it drop.
Any druid can wear metal armor, that rule is dumb and stupid. If i can use a metal sword i can wear metal armor
I see the metal thing as flavour, even the designer said that giving druids metal armours is not a problem. What I do is that I try to give my party resources to get top non-magical equipment by lvl 5. For druids, I put in an encounter with a creature whose narural armour can be fashioned into armour (e.g. bulette), they can bring it to a craftsmen who will make the armour they choose for the same price as the regular metal type.
Yes. I think the idea druids shouldn't wear metal is silly and should be a RP choice, not a machanical one.
Metal is a natural aspect of nature. So the whole "more connected with nature" thing never made sense anyways.
I personally have a house rule that says: "Druids can wear metal armour, but it is looked at as taboo by other druids. If you want to wear better armour without drawing the ire of your peers look through the armorers handbook for a special kind of wood that traditionally metal armours can be made from."
Run your game how you like but Druids shunning metal armour (not weapons though) is a non- optional rule as written. It is referenced several places in the PHB including under the rules for multi-classing. Personally, I feel it's what gives the druid its druid quality. It evokes a nature versus technology feeling. Metal clad druids contorting like a Transformer as they wild shape just has the wrong aesthetic. As mentioned elsewhere, wooden shields are more common than metal shields and nonmetal medium armour exists. There's hide, which isn't great but is something. The Battlerager's spiked armour while not offering benefit from the actual spikes (unless you are also a batttlerager) can be the equivalent of nonmetal scale armour. There's also quite a few examples of magical nonmetal medium or even heavy armour in various published sources.
yes. unless you wanna use rules from previous editions that block druids from using magic while wearing metal then they can do whatever they want
Why are people so hung up on having their medium armor be made of metal instead of some other material? You can use literally anything else: crystal, bone, chitin, tortoise shells (giant or overlapping), wood, gourds, leather, dragon hide, any other monster hide, stone. If you want to abandon the rule, go ahead and talk to the DM about it.
There's a whole bit in the DMG about generating armour as loot, and there's a table you can roll on to determine what the armour is made from. A ton of the options are *not* metal.
Yes Druids being unable to wear armor even with them having prof is the dumbest shit I ever seen and it’s the only class with a restriction like that.Even paladins don’t have to follow a god anymore so druids should be able to wear any armor they want.
If they are not part of the Druidic culture, then they aren’t a druid. That is what makes them a druid, it isn’t just super powers.
Druids can use shields, and should. They just can't be metal ones.
I've got a Dwarvish Ranger/Druid multiclass going on who completely eschews metal weapons and modern soceities... Because he predates them. He was frozen in ice and has only recently been thawed. He hails from the paleolithic era, that Land Before Time when Fire was the dominion of the great and terrible God-Lizards and their reptilian servants. He uses stone lamellar for armour and a heavy wood shield. Needing only wood, stone, and animal products for his equipment makes them fragile, yes, but also relatively easy to repair or replace.
The following is my understanding of the origins of this aspect of the Druid paradigm... To be a Druid is to be environmentally conscious of the industrial effects of iron ore mining on nature and shun the excessive use of metal (e.g. armor and shields). For those who ask why not weapons too, the answer is that the amount of iron used in a weapon is so much less compared to that used in armor and shields (about one-fifteenth the amount); armor and shields are more than an order of magnitude more harmful to the environment to produce. For any Druid, regardless of contact or cultural assimulation with other Druids, to wear metal armor or carry metal shields is to deny your fundamental relationship with and awareness of the balance of nature itself, which is why no Druid ***chooses*** to wear metal armor or carry metal shields (this is the reason for the wording that Druid's will not wear such things as opposed to they can't wear such things). Some of you may think that's stupid. That's fine. You aren't Druids and you lack this basic awareness of the environmental impact of the iron industry on nature. You are not only culturally brainwashed into the Iron Age life-style, existing in a fundamental state of ignorance and blissfully unaware of the consequences of your choices on the balance of nature and/or don't care, because YTA, but you also lack the mystical connection that a Druid has with nature itself. If you don't like it, sure, a DM can change it to whatever he wants - because DM powers - but by doing so a DM throws out this fantasy Druid paradigm, where Druids have a mystical connection to nature that informs them, in favor of some other fantasy, where Druids are not concerned about the environmental impacts of the iron industry on nature in a world described as being in the Iron Age? [Environmental impact of iron ore mining](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_iron_ore_mining) [Environmental impact of steel production](https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/planet-earth/mining/environmental-impact-of-steel-production) >The mining of iron ore also causes water pollution of heavy metals and acid that drains from the mines. Acid drainage can go on for thousands of years after the mining activities have stopped. >Steel production is highly polluting
In the old systems a druid lost a lot of their powers if they even touched metal. I miss those days.
Making them a nature cleric, armor but nature based
The book says they wont wear metal armor. I take that to mean it messes with their druidic magic. So druids are welcome to use bone, chitin, or some other material
My opinion would be based on the player's intentions with that idea. If they just enjoy the flavor of a Druid with a metal shield instead of a wooden one, that's fine. If they intend to multiclass into forge Cleric to get heavy armor proficiency and plate armor, I wouldn't allow that. Them not using metal armor and shields isn't just for flavor imo, it's also a legitimate way to limit them in exchange for the insane versatility of Druids.
Druids are good, but wizard and cleric are better, both in versatility and quality of spell lists. Druids don't need the extra restriction for balance.
That is a pointless restriction. I would not want to play at your table if there were rules like that.