Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9120882" data-attributes="member: 29398">Any rule or law that justifies itself only with &quot;you can't because I say you can't&quot; is a bad rule, whether in D&amp;D or real life; and if no further justification can be presented then that rule should be roundly ignored.With Druids, a justification that the constriction of metal armour interferes with their connection to nature is more than good enough.&nbsp; Rule stays as per armour interfering with class abilities.&nbsp; But even then, there's no justification whatsoever for banning a druid from temporarily suppressing her abilities (voluntarily or not) by donning a suit of plate mail, nor for outright banning a Magic-User from picking up a chair and trying to hit someone with it just because &quot;chair&quot; ain't on his allowed-weapons list.&nbsp; Those rules go bye-bye and won't be missed.Further, the expectation is that the consequence will make a modicum of sense; and it ain't just WotC-era players (and DMs) who think this way, we've taken roughly this approach since the early 1980s.&nbsp; With the Magic-User and the longsword, the consequence is that he's at a mighty to-hit penalty (and in our games all of that penalty counts toward his chance of fumbling, making him a risk to anyone nearby!).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 9120882, member: 29398"] Any rule or law that justifies itself only with "you can't because I say you can't" is a bad rule, whether in D&D or real life; and if no further justification can be presented then that rule should be roundly ignored. With Druids, a justification that the constriction of metal armour interferes with their connection to nature is more than good enough. Rule stays as per armour interfering with class abilities. But even then, there's no justification whatsoever for banning a druid from temporarily suppressing her abilities (voluntarily or not) by donning a suit of plate mail, nor for outright banning a Magic-User from picking up a chair and trying to hit someone with it just because "chair" ain't on his allowed-weapons list. Those rules go bye-bye and won't be missed. Further, the expectation is that the consequence will make a modicum of sense; and it ain't just WotC-era players (and DMs) who think this way, we've taken roughly this approach since the early 1980s. With the Magic-User and the longsword, the consequence is that he's at a mighty to-hit penalty (and in our games all of that penalty counts toward his chance of fumbling, making him a risk to anyone nearby!). [/QUOTE]

Verification