Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxim Machinery" data-source="post: 4400531" data-attributes="member: 74579">Wow. I honestly feel less intelligent for having read this debate. The idea that wearing magical bracers somehow invalidates the usefulness of my non-magical hunk-o'-steel is, well, absurd. I have to wonder if this confusion arises due to use of the word 'slot' and the associated parallels to computer RPGs, where one's paper-doll avatar can only hold so much, regardless of real-world physics. RAW: Nowhere does it state that you cannot wear clothes under your full-plate (protip: clothes are mechanically referred to a 'cloth armour') - in fact, wearing heavy plates of steel without some padding underneath is not reccomended. Nor does it specifically state that you can't wear two helmets, if one will fit inside the other. It doesn't specifically state that you can't wield two weapons in one hand either, but it doesn't have to; that's just (gasp) common sense. Yes, common sense applies in pen & paper RPGs. If that offends your sensibilities, then perhaps you would enjoy World of Warcraft or Magic: the Gathering more. Regardless of your personal preferences, however, DMs (GMs, storytellers, adjudicators, judges, mayors etc.) have, for time immemorial (well, OK, about 40 years) enforced the rules of common sense onto the games they oversee, and shall continue to do so for countless years to come. There is NO RULE saying I cannot wield fourty-two greatswords in my left hand, while scratching my nose with my right - it's implied. This brings me to: RAI: There is no inherent reason i can't wear and benefit from 10 magical rings at the same time (a-la The Mandarin). The magical item slot rules are purely a game-balance mechanic. It has always been the case that D&D has had some exceptionally powerful magic items, and that, in the high levels of play, these items have been somewhat defining with regard to your character's statistics. Thus, there has (since the humble days of Basic D&D) been a need to limit the number of usable magic items, in the name of game balance. The classical example of this is the 'two ring' rule - I can wear two rings total, no matter where I decide to adorn myself with them. Ergo, it can be srumised that the part of the rules concerning magic item slots, is referring to magical items you can benefit from and not some strange physical property of the universe that my arms can only statistically benefit from one thing at a time (even though I can quite clearly wear gloves, bracers, bangles, a sleeved shirt and cufflinks, while wielding a shield and hanging a handbag from my crooked elbow - to say nothing of tattoos!). In a more succinct format: I think your arguments are grasping at obscure wording to justify your ethical concerns about 'game balance' (note that I have not bothered to address wether your concerns are correct - nor will I) and that any sane GM would throw your interpretation aside for a slightly more realistic vision of what a person can reasonably 'use.' If, on the other hand, you are said GM, I think your players will have differing opinions, and will likely argue with you. If not, feel free to continue using your interpretation - it certainly doesn't bother me what you do in your free time, so long as you keep your absurd notions to yourself in polite company or, at the very least, refrain from presenting your point of view as though it is absolutely correct and is the only possible interpretation, when others are quite clearly flabbergasted at the notion that a reasonable individual could support such a veiwpoint (I am aware of the hypocracy). TL;DR: L2P And I hope any moderators reading this will realise that my veiled ad-homonim attcks were meant in jest. Mostly. >.></blockquote>

Verification