But that's not what the rules state.
I then direct your attention to PHB p. 19:
Class Tale II: Armor and Weapons Permitted
Monks can't use oil, for example. Can you identify the negative impact for it if you don't follow it? Nope? Thought so.
Yes, I can. The DMG has rules about what happens when a player displays behavior that goes against the character of their class. Monks can't use oil, so a Monk that chooses to do so anyway will be punished for their deviation from their expected gameplay. Even in the example that I was "corrected" on earlier in this thread, Clerics
can be unfaithful to their deity, and that's actually another explicit example listed in that section of the DMG. Being unfaithful to a deity in AD&D does NOT automatically remove their spellcasting, as I was also "corrected" on. They prepare all level 1-4 spells without the need of a deity, as the magic comes from personal prayer and meditation. It's only 5th level and higher spells that the Cleric need to request from their deity, and that's still on a case by case basis. There's no rule that says a single deviation from the deity automatically cuts off the Cleric from their magic forever. Say the Fighter is tied up and the Cleric is the only person who can free him. The only sharp item nearby is a dagger, which was obtained from the bounty hunter that nabbed the Fighter. Does the Cleric stare blindly at the dagger, or can they at least pick it up and cut a rope? If you argue that the Cleric
can't pick up the dagger because their deity says no pokey things, then you're not reading the rules properly.
Maybe the high level Cleric does something the deity doesn't like, and the deity considers it so egregious that they deny them spells of higher than 4th level forever (much like a Paladin knowingly performing an evil action). Maybe it's something minor, or a lesser of two evils situation so the deity can understand the Cleric's choice, so they offer them the ability to seek penance. Either way, the point is that these things are written into the game system, so to say it can't be done, simply because the word "can't" appears once, despite the fact that the book lists examples and penalties that can be incurred for these actions, then you are not taking in the whole context.
Druids are allowed leather armor and a wooden shield.
That's it. Leather, wooden shield.
That's what you get as a druid. Can a thief use a pole arm? No. Can a druid use a long bow? No. (See also the argument re: proficiencies, which you also got incorrect).
And you're still reading it like a board game and not an RPG game. They're only allowed to wear leather and wood. Why? Because they lose their magic if they put on metal. What happens if they put on metal? They lose access to their magic. Simple. Being not allowed to do something does not mean you can't do it, it just means there are consequences for the behavior. The problem with old players is they read it as a board game, and like Max said before, they simply stopped reading at "can't", and ignored everything else, both where it says what happens when it's done, as well as when it explains the penalties for doing so. That's not how the rules were written, that's just how they were read.
If your Rogue is at a gambling table with a Fighter, and that Fighter catches the Rogue cheating, is that Fighter unable to flip the table on him because "he's not proficient in tables"? If that's how you rule it, you don't know how the game works.
There are all sorts of examples of rules in AD&D that just ... are. I want to play a CN Assassin. Can I? No. What happens if I do? Well, you don't.
That's literally not true. They explain the Assassin alignment restriction in detail. "Assassins are evil in alignment (perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for thepurpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal)." If you weren't killing intelligent creatures for profit then you weren't an assassin. If you were killing intelligent creatures for profit, then you were not good. If you made an Assassin but acted good, including a refusal to kill people for profit, which you could do, the DMG had a table for punishing you for either acting outside of your class or acting outside of your alignment (in this case, both).
So, you are hanging everything on the following:
PHB, p. 21-
"The more powerful druidic spells, as well as their widerrange of weaponry, make up for the fact that druids are unable to use anyarmor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallicarmor spoils their magical powers)."
Contrast that with the MU (PHB p. 25) -
"Furthermore, they can wear noarmor and have few weapons they can use, for martial training is soforeign to magic-use as to make the two almost mutually exclusive."
The parenthtical afterthought in the Druid. Like many Gygax-isms, it doesn't help, does it? So Druids can't wear metal armor for REASONS, and Magic Users can't wear metal armor for REASONS, and the two reasons are completely made-up and different, and yet, they are both CLASS RESTRICTIONS.
Does a magic user explode if they wear plate mail?
The parenthesis is not an afterthought, it's an explanation, and yes, it does help. It helps just as much as the mention as to why Magic Users can't use armor.
Simplifying the sentence, "Druids can't wear metal because it spoils their magic." What does this mean? It means Druids are prohibited from wearing metal, because if they do so, it spoils their magic. What happens if the Druid chooses to wear it anyway? That's right, it spoils their magic.
Simplifying the sentence about Magic Users: "Magic users can't wear armor because they lack the martial training necessary." What does this mean? No benefits from armor under any circumstance because they lack the training to utilize it. Armor still has rules such as encumbrance, and even if they multiclass to gain training in armor, it's then listed that they can't use their spells in anything heavier than leather. Also, because they don't use armor due to lack of training, if they decided to impede their arm with a shield they can't even properly utilize, again, there's rules in the DMG for behavior outside of their class.
If I say I can't use the restroom because I'm not a paying customer, that just means I have to buy something and I can use the restroom. Alternatively, I could sneak into the restroom. As a Paladin I'd be punished, as I intentionally committed a chaotic act, but as a Thief I'd be right in my element. These class rules did not define the laws of the universe; they defined the positives and negatives of the actions players performed. What stopped a Paladin from performing evil acts was not that the book said they can't do anything evil, but that the book said they would irrevocably lose all of their abilities if they performed an evil act. What stopped a Thief from using a polearm was lack of proficiency, and out-of-class penalization.
I now direct your attention to p. 33, PHB, "The Character with Two Classes"-
"The character may mix functions freely and still gain experience, although restrictions regarding armor, shield, and/or weapon apply with regard to operations particular to one or both classes."
Then look at the example-
"Furthermore, the character can now carry (but not wear) armor and weapons not normally usable by magic-users, and resort to their use if the need arises and not be penalized in respect to experience as a magic-user, for he or she has already surpassed in the new class the disciplines of the former."
So, let's be clear, here. The reason given for the MU restriction is that martial training is foreign.
However, and this is great, if the player multiclasses into, say, a fighter, and learns those martial abilities, then when they cast spells, those restrictions apply.
You clearly didn't read your quote properly. You do realize it says "
and not be penalized in respect to experience as a magic user", right? You know what that means? It means that if they performed that action without being multiclassed, they would be penalized in respect to experience as a Magic User. This literally states that it's not impossible for them to do so either way, it's just that now they won't be penalized for it. You aren't literally gaining the capacity to do something, you're gaining the ability to do it
without penalty. I don't get how this is so difficult to understand, especially when the books repeat time and time and time again that you can perform behaviors outside of what's outlined in your class, there will just likely be consequences.
In short, you keep trying to REASON your way around rules that exist .... without actually understanding the rules aren't BECAUSE OF COMMON SENSE.
I swear, it's like you've never read these books.
Seriously, though, the reason the OP is complaining that the rule is poorly implemented is because it resembles the way rules used to be implemented. Which required a little more comity, and a little less rules lawyering.
No, the issue is not that we haven't read the books, it's that you aren't reading the books properly, because you can't see the entire context of a statement. You learned to treat tabletop RPGs as a board game and not as an expansive universe where the players perform options, and then may be penalized or rewarded based on the mechanics of the system.