Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 6269911" data-attributes="member: 78752">Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't D&amp;D3 the only version of the game that includes arcane spell failure chance for armor?&nbsp; AD&amp;D just says &quot;no armor for magic-users,&quot; right?&nbsp; And subsequent editions include proficiency feats?To me, what that looks like is armor proficiency being the logical evolution of outright exclusion, in a system with greater customizability, and arcane spell failure as a one-off.I'm a big fan of cutting redundancy.&nbsp; I think you only need one rule.&nbsp; If proficiency requirement is considered enough to bar clerics and rogues from using certain weapons, then it ought to be considered enough to bar mages from wearing certain armors.&nbsp; If a mage wants to train to use armor instead of doing something more in line with their studies, more power to them.&nbsp; A plate-armored mage is a neat concept -- I want to know more about that guy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DMZ2112, post: 6269911, member: 78752"] Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't D&D3 the only version of the game that includes arcane spell failure chance for armor? AD&D just says "no armor for magic-users," right? And subsequent editions include proficiency feats? To me, what that looks like is armor proficiency being the logical evolution of outright exclusion, in a system with greater customizability, and arcane spell failure as a one-off. I'm a big fan of cutting redundancy. I think you only need one rule. If proficiency requirement is considered enough to bar clerics and rogues from using certain weapons, then it ought to be considered enough to bar mages from wearing certain armors. If a mage wants to train to use armor instead of doing something more in line with their studies, more power to them. A plate-armored mage is a neat concept -- I want to know more about that guy. [/QUOTE]

Verification