Fluff vs. Mechanics

[JNAProductions]

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

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

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

[stoutstien]

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

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

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

[diplomancer]

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

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

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

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

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

[JNAProductions]

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

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

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

[diplomancer]

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

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

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

[JNAProductions]

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

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

[Xetheral]

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

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

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

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

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

How are you defining the terms?

Just to clarify.

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

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

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

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

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

[diplomancer]

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

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

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

[JNAProductions]

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

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

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

[stoutstien]

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



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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

I meant, according to the rules of the game, what happens when a Druid puts on metal armor?

They will not wear metal armor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How are you defining the terms?

I'm not. I don't see the need to divide the rules that way.

[diplomancer]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tvtyrant]

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

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

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

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

[Valmark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Is there no way to ask the designers about this?

[stoutstien]

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



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

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

[Xetheral]

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

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

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

If instead they had written: "Druids won't wear metal armor because it interferes with their powers. A Druid cannot wildshape or cast spells while wearing metal armor." then the first sentence would be easily-changable fluff and the second sentence would be mechanics that specify how to model druids in metal armor. Despite the similarity of saying "Druids won't wear metal armor", if they'd used this wording I don't think anyone would be claiming that making a Druid character that wears metal armor is "against the rules" any more than they would say that making a Barbarian whose never been outside a city is "against the rules". (Which, admittedly, some posters say.)

So ultimately I think they tried and failed to write a mechanic generally adhered to. But they instead wrote something that, when parsed, sounds like the fluff descriptions they put at the start of every class.

I'm not. I don't see the need to divide the rules that way.

So, you're arguing that there is no meaningful distinction between fluff and mechanics in 5e, but you aren't defining the terms? I mean, I guess that follows--arguably every undefined term has exactly the same meaning as every other undefined term. :)

[Tvtyrant]

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

Clearly they won't put it on. Problem solved. Even if you use mind control on them, the rules say they won't so they don't.

[stoutstien]

Clearly they won't put it on. Problem solved. Even if you use mind control on them, the rules say they won't so they don't.

Sounds like we have grounds to start a generator fueled by the perpetual repulsion that druids have to metal Shields.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't see the need to divide the rules that way.

Nor do I, and I think that answers the OP's core question / concern. (well, from a particular approach to this edition of the game)

Aside: This whole druid/metal armor thing looks like a different face on that lump of polished coal that is alignment debates. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

[Valmark]

Clearly they won't put it on. Problem solved. Even if you use mind control on them, the rules say they won't so they don't.

...I can't understand if it's sarcasm or not. Everything tells me it is but I like the idea to use metal to break mind control on druids.

Bad Guy: Attack them.
Fighter: *Throws shield made of metal*
Druid: FOR THE LOVE OF BUNNIES NO

[NichG]

Fluff is a statement of the premise of the game, and the job of mechanics is to support the premise where they could potentially interact. But not all elements of the premise need to be supported mechanically. If I say 'the premise of the game is that there are three kingdoms locked into constant warfare that has been going on for generations', its not necessary for e.g. some ancient monster to be released if the PCs arrange an armistice. If the fluff says 'druids swear a sacred oath not to wear metal armor, and so they won't do so' then that's sufficient to inform a variety of ways that a druid might react if forced to wear metal armor. They don't need to lose their spells or class levels or explode on the spot or create a repulsion field that sends the armor flying. If someone isn't denying the premise, then they just have to accept 'my character cared about this oath, and someone forced them to violate it' as something that actually happened, and then react as they would have their character react to such an occurrence.

But if a player specifically designs a character to both be a serious druid but conveniently not give a fig about that oath, I think its reasonable to call into question whether that player is actually accepting the premise of the game. It's better not to have to run a game where everything about the setting and world has to be enforced with divine punishment, but being able to do so requires buy-in. If the player doesn't actually buy in, I'd rather they say that and we discuss changing the setting and game world (e.g. by removing that oath from druidism) than for them to basically lie about having bought into the setting when they really intend to only obey things imposed directly by hard mechanical penalties.

I'd rather run a game where if a paladin kills a bunch of innocents due to feeling forced by circumstance, I can trust the players to take the event seriously and integrate it into their roleplay without there being any mechanical punishment or consequence than a game in which the only reason its a big deal to the character is because they've lost their powers. In that sense I'd prefer more 'druids won't wear metal armor (but nothing mechanical happens if they do)' and less 'paladins fall and lose their powers if they commit a willful evil act' in my systems.

[Addaran]

Just saying that the "druid will not wear it" is a cop-out to answering what will happen if the druid wears it. And no, it's not necessarily the DM who will mind-control a druid to put it on. Another player could easily do it ( nothing in the rules prevent a player from casting a spell on another).

I've posted already how that one rule is the single anomaly that doesn't follow any convention compared to all the other classes in multiple ways. And as stoutstien mentionned, which armor as too much metal isn't even specified. Some think studded leather is okay, others don't. Even a wooden shield will have metal pieces.

[micahaphone]

Now I'm picturing the bbeg's forces invading the forest, armed with catapults that launch snap-on breastplates and pikes with helmets on the end. You don't try to stab the druids, you slap armor onto them, then you stab them. Much easier when they're freaking out, can't turn into bears or cast or have barkskin or whatever.

[NichG]

Just saying that the "druid will not wear it" is a cop-out to answering what will happen if the druid wears it. And no, it's not necessarily the DM who will mind-control a druid to put it on. Another player could easily do it ( nothing in the rules prevent a player from casting a spell on another).

I've posted already how that one rule is the single anomaly that doesn't follow any convention compared to all the other classes in multiple ways. And as stoutstien mentionned, which armor as too much metal isn't even specified. Some think studded leather is okay, others don't. Even a wooden shield will have metal pieces.

Nothing mechanical happens when a druid wears metal armor. But if you take that to be a reason why your druid shouldn't care about wearing metal armor, you're denying the premise at the same level as if you said 'I'm still going to take actions when the rules say my character is dead'. It's not that its impermissible to do so in some kind of absolute sense, but its deceptive to claim to be accepting the premise while taking actions that deny it.

There doesn't have to be a mechanical penalty to explain every behavior that the fluff establishes. If the fluff says 'King George is petty and vindictive', he doesn't need to suffer a negative level whenever he behaves in a generous way. Rather, the fluff is instructing whomever is depicting King George that he should be played a certain way. If the DM has King George be nice and friendly all the time, we can simply observe the situation and say 'the DM is rejecting the premise of King George's character as established by the setting materials and is doing something else' without feeling as though we need to resolve whether inevitables will show up and force King George to behave correctly or some other kind of heavy-handed intervention.

[Deadfire182]

Nothing mechanical happens when a druid wears metal armor. But if you take that to be a reason why your druid shouldn't care about wearing metal armor, you're denying the premise at the same level as if you said 'I'm still going to take actions when the rules say my character is dead'. It's not that its impermissible to do so in some kind of absolute sense, but its deceptive to claim to be accepting the premise while taking actions that deny it.

There doesn't have to be a mechanical penalty to explain every behavior that the fluff establishes. If the fluff says 'King George is petty and vindictive', he doesn't need to suffer a negative level whenever he behaves in a generous way. Rather, the fluff is instructing whomever is depicting King George that he should be played a certain way. If the DM has King George be nice and friendly all the time, we can simply observe the situation and say 'the DM is rejecting the premise of King George's character as established by the setting materials and is doing something else' without feeling as though we need to resolve whether inevitables will show up and force King George to behave correctly or some other kind of heavy-handed intervention.

This form of roleplay restriction was mostly omitted in 5e, with classes no longer having to have a certain alignment to play. The idea of Druids not wearing metal armor is also a similar roleplay-restricting feature that made it's way through, though now it doesn't give a detriment. The ruling is so ambiguous at this point, what with the arguments of what constitutes as metal armor or the fact that druids can still wear metal clothing and use metal weapons, that I think it's safe to say we either reject the rule entirely and let druids have 1 or 2 extra AC (which you'd really only have to worry about for minmaxers (some people just like druids wearing metal armor)) or, the more sensible version, just give druids proficiency in specific types of armor/say that they lose spellcasting and/or wildshape while wearing it.

In any case, shallow internet arguments aren't really going to affect anything at all. If you want your Druid to wear metal and the DM approves, go ahead. If they say no, talk it out if it's important or just say okay.

[NichG]

This form of roleplay restriction was mostly omitted in 5e, with classes no longer having to have a certain alignment to play. The idea of Druids not wearing metal armor is also a similar roleplay-restricting feature that made it's way through, though now it doesn't give a detriment. The ruling is so ambiguous at this point, what with the arguments of what constitutes as metal armor or the fact that druids can still wear metal clothing and use metal weapons, that I think it's safe to say we either reject the rule entirely and let druids have 1 or 2 extra AC (which you'd really only have to worry about for minmaxers (some people just like druids wearing metal armor)) or, the more sensible version, just give druids proficiency in specific types of armor/say that they lose spellcasting and/or wildshape while wearing it.

Putting an explicit mechanical penalty on something like that makes it a subject of optimization - that is, the druid in character would always want metal armor if they could get away with it, but because there's a cost they may decide to pay the cost to have metal armor, or avoid the cost by avoiding the armor. That establishes a different kind of world than one where 'druids have a mentality that rejects the use of metal armor as a desirable thing'. In the former, druids are mercenaries who only do the things they do in order to trick nature into giving them powers, while in the latter they're true believers in some ideological elements and, as part of their practice, learn to gain powers.

People can do as they like at individual tables, but I'd argue at least that (in terms of mediating in general any tensions between fluff and crunch) it's useful to understand that there's a difference between behaviour you do because you will be punished otherwise, and behaviour you do because it's what you want to do. Making mechanics that enforce the former when the intent of the fiction is the latter will create dissonance, and risks trying to use in-character interventions to resolve what are really OOC misunderstandings.

[eftexar]

I honestly don't understand why so many are stuck on the idea that the "mechanical effects of wearing armor" (i.e. the AC Bonus) is why people are offended about their Druids not being allowed Metal Armor (and not a deeper reasoning). That being said, and more importantly :

Please don't tell people WHY they are not agreeing with you. Unless you are secretely an Illithid, I highly doubt you possess the Psionics capable of reading their mind. This is offensive and insulting.
^{Edit : Just remembered Red tends to be Markup by Mods. Sorry if I stepped on any toes with this, but I thought the statement is a really important point. I can change it if asked. Or the Mod can, of course, I wouldn't be offended.}

If someone says that's NOT why, then GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. If you can't come up with anything other than "Your Lying!," and, "It has everything to do with you wanting AC, even though you said otherwise!," you come of as, even if it's not your intention, petty, condescending, and self-righteous. Even worse, it seems as if your explanation is "Because I Said So!."

The moral implications of answering questions this way makes me shudder. Please, please, don't read this Spoiler if you are easily offended or automatically assume anything bad said about the way you react(ed) to a specific situation is a personal attack. This is not necessarily how you are acting, but how you can appear to some people :

Spoiler: Rant

Show

"Because I Said So!" is what parents who don't want to explain their reasoning say to kids. And the only reason you tell a kid that, is because you think they won't understand your reasoning or are incapable of it. Problem is, some kids are really really smart and that kind of thinking tends to leave others out in the cold (especially those who behave outside the norm). I spent my school years bullied and ostrasized by other kids, because I was smarter than them and had terrible social skills (Autism, thank you very much ).

When adults told me "Because!," it was to explain why they punished me for yelling at someone who harrassed me (or hit me even). Or "They didn't see it." Nevermind the occasional (obvious) bruise or the fact I cried in front of them (we're talking legitimate sobbing, snot out of my nose; pre-teens aren't Actors of that calibre). The whole anti-bullying campaign that really took off in recent decades has actually increased bullying and prevented teachers from doing their jobs (or perverted their understanding of child psychology). It comes from an old-school form of thinking before the period of enlightenment : When people just assumed things about people, based upon their own experiences, instead of listening to them or empathizing. And others threw out baseless accusations. Witch-hunts anyone?

That didn't fly with me as a kid and it doesn't as an adult. Just because something "IS," doesn't mean it's "right." When you can't explain something, it fundamentally disturbs some people on a psychological level. And I can see why. The argument that "You can't because the Rules say so!" or "Your lying and just want the AC Bonus" sufficiently seem to reak of the ideals behind the likes of dictatorships (who assume people act and think a certain way and impose their beliefs upon them without facts, context, or circumstance or any logical "reason"). Now this might not have anything to do with you or your way of thinking, and it probably doesn't, but it's the way you appear to be responding that offends people. And even if they don't think that, you are offending their "right to be them."

In short, "Because I Said So!" is a terrible answer. I wouldn't jump off a bridge, because the President told me to. And if I was a soldier sent into the middle of a (mideival) war and a SUPERIOR told me "don't wear armor," I wouldn't listen to him unless I thought I would get thrown in the dungeon or killed for doing so. But even then, I 'could' wear Armor. I might have to pay consequences for doing so. However, I could wear the Armor. And telling me "but, it's tradition," I would be like, "What!, they have arrows and they are pointy. See, that guy over there is bleeding. Someone took out his kneecap! How's he supposed to keep adventuring now?!"

Likewise, explicit restrictions with no penalties don't work for roleplaying. Especially when phrased as "won't" rather than "can't". The example of a Dwarven Druid is exactly spot on, in my honest opinion, despite people hand-waving it away so easily. Dwarves live underground and work metal. They could feasibly see it as a natural part of the world. You could argue, "the Druids wouldn't teach their secrets to them then," but whose to say that Dwarves don't have their own Druidic traditions? They are one of the older Races, yes? You could go with the God or "nature of the World" or "nature of Magic," but not only are these Deus Ex Machina, what about a Dwarven God of Nature? The reality of D&D is thought to have numerous Material Planes. Surely one of them has a Dwarven God of Nature whose domain is Metalworking?

And why couldn't a Rogue steal some of their teachings? We've seen precedent in previous editions (so even arguing Tradition is wobbly). There were Ur-Priests in 3.5e that could STEAL divine power from the Gods themselves (ignoring the need for Faith or Prayer)! Truenamers could literally change the rules of reality if they gathered in sufficient number, wealth, and studies. What if my Dwarf was raised by a Truenamer who changed his Personal Truename, so that he could "Always be able to wear Metal Armor without Penalty" or "I am a Druid that wears Metal Armor?" There, an exception to the whole "Character won't wear Armor." There were classes that even specifically overcame such "in stone" Traditions!

And for those that say, but that was 3.5e!, I'm preempting that arguement. I saw alot of arguments for Tradition, indirect as some of them were. You can't argue tradition for one thing and conveniently ignore it for another. Besides my Dwarf's Granpappy was a 3.5e Dwarf. He won't stop complaining about how his power is no longer over 9000 and 5e nerfed him so bad! 4th wall aside . . .

Saying "won't" in a game meant to be built from our imagination lacks of creativity and enforces limited thinking.

Spoiler: tldr?; continued explanation

Show

When I play a Video Game, I could accept the whole "Druids won't wear Armor," but that's only because the game can't recode itself to give a different experience and I can dream up whatever lore I want to justify it. Or perhaps the story will tell me later. A DM, however, can add or make up new lore as the game goes on. And the game could go on as long as the DM and it's Players are still capable of playing!

When I play D&D I play it "Because" it is so adaptable. It's not like a "normal" game, where most Player's simply seek to "compete" against the other Players, the DM, or, more abstractly, "the game". It's not Football, where there is a clear winner. It's not a Race, where there is a clear end. D&D is about telling a Story. And not just the DMs Story, but the Players' Story as well. D&D is an interactive Narrative with Game elements (Or a Game with interactive Narrative elements). The Rules are as much a framework for writing a Story as they are for playing a game.

Worse is when you apply "Your HEADCANON" and ignore "someone elses HEADCANNON." Everybody sees the game differently. And by definitively stating "This is so, because I said so," or "Because they said so," is dictating someone elses Story. And D&D isn't just one Story! But, your's, as the DM, and each of the Player's as well. Each are telling their own story from their own point of view. PCs are supposed to be exceptional and unusual, they are our special snowflakes, so even if ALL other Druid's won't wear Metal Armor and your Player wants to, then agree on a penalty or have them integrate a backstory that allows. This gives you more material as a DM to work with.

And Stories need Consistency to be told! Even if the Consistency is internal. e.g.

Spoiler: RL Example of a Story

Show

No rule, or fluff, suggested Harry Potter ever learned or was capable of Casting an Unforgivable. And, yet he cast one on Bellatrix. Not very well, granted, but he did. Ostensibly it was completely out of Character, but he had just lost his Godfather. Everyone has a breaking point. To assume there is no reason a Druid would wear Metal Armor, without any Rules as to why, would be like Harry Potter waking up one day and Crucioing Luna Lovegood because she looked at him funny. He could do it, but he won't. He just won't. He has no reason to. Luna looks at everyone funny.

No doubt this seems to support your Druid supposition at first, of they "Won't wear Metal Armor"; Full Stop. Harry was established as a character that won't torture people, and, yet, he did so (or attempted to do so and the Spell obviously did something). The answer : CONTEXT. The Context of the Story determined "He won't Crucio" and then gave a situation where "Oh no, My Godfather! Crucio on you, you deranged lady!" The Context allowed an exception. Without Context, you can't give a reasonable explanation to why Druids "won't" wear Armor.

In this, D&D has no Context. Tradition, or "I Said So!," are not Context. They don't explain why Druids won't wear Metal Armor in 5e. And they don't impose penalties, so we, as DMs and Players, can fill in the gaps of why they are there. This shatters the "Suspension of Disbelief." Most story readers expect a story to carry "internal consistency." If it has not been established there is Magic, and I'm reading a Historical Fiction book, and, at the end of the book, the character suddenly pulls out fireballs and suplexing his Foes, when he's been a parapalegic the whole story, I would get angry and feel cheated out of my story and time. Even if, technically, there was no rule saying he couldn't.

[Deadfire182]

Putting an explicit mechanical penalty on something like that makes it a subject of optimization - that is, the druid in character would always want metal armor if they could get away with it, but because there's a cost they may decide to pay the cost to have metal armor, or avoid the cost by avoiding the armor. That establishes a different kind of world than one where 'druids have a mentality that rejects the use of metal armor as a desirable thing'. In the former, druids are mercenaries who only do the things they do in order to trick nature into giving them powers, while in the latter they're true believers in some ideological elements and, as part of their practice, learn to gain powers.

Firstly, adding a mechanical penalty doesn't automatically make a druid just hold nature hostage for powers. You may play a character that way, but that doesn't define literally all dnd druids to exist as nature-thieves, that's just a real stretch.

Second, cool? If you don't like that way of thinking, then don't go with that. I also said you can just not have a restriction (it's a stupid one in the first place but whatever), what about that?

[micahaphone]

"Remember, young acolyte, we use the metals of the earth to maim, kill, dismember and destroy, be it a dagger, scimitar, sickle or spear, but metal is only for killing. Never use metal for defense".

[Tectorman]

I'm not going to quote Eftexar's whole post just to show support for the whole thing with a sentence or two, but please take this as a thank you for expressing that so eloquently.

Even worse, it seems as if your explanation is "Because I Said So!."

I am, however, going to add this: "Because I Said So!" is essentially all the backing "Druids will not wear metal armor" has, and it's insufficient, nay, unacceptable there for the same reasons. If anything, that's the PHB acting in bad faith and without respect, and long before any posters in this thread or other threads on the same topic were accusing each other (rightly or wrongly) of being intentionally obtuse.