D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Thomas Shey]

As does D&D. I mean, in any edition a MU can put on plate mail if she wants to; she just can't cast spells in it.

I consider that pretty absolute. If it just applied a failure change I think you'd have an argument. Far as that goes, I think you're wrong about OD&D; mages and thieves flat out weren't allowed to wear anything (mages) or anything but leather (thieves).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I consider that pretty absolute. If it just applied a failure change I think you'd have an argument. Far as that goes, I think you're wrong about OD&D; mages and thieves flat out weren't allowed to wear anything (mages) or anything but leather (thieves).

It absolutely should apply a failure chance. I kinda love this!

 

[Thomas Shey]

It absolutely should apply a failure chance. I kinda love this!

That's a lot more reasonable than the all-or-nothing thing that's usually been done. I think AGE applies an additional mana point cost for armor (and any untrained user has a defense penalty, since armor in that game reduces damage rather than modifying to-hit).

 

[kermit4karate]

I consider that pretty absolute. If it just applied a failure change I think you'd have an argument. Far as that goes, I think you're wrong about OD&D; mages and thieves flat out weren't allowed to wear anything (mages) or anything but leather (thieves).

I believe people have been "house ruling" this for decades. I remember in campaigns that some DMs would allow mages to attempt to cast spells wearing armor while imposing a saving throw. A failed save resulted in something unexpected, like how ShadowDark does it but while wearing armor.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I believe people have been "house ruling" this for decades. I remember in campaigns that some DMs would allow mages to attempt to cast spells wearing armor while imposing a saving throw. A failed save resulted in something unexpected, like how ShadowDark does it but while wearing armor.

Oh, there were all kinds of variations, but in general, there was always this sense that "mages shouldn't wear armor" (which as is typical with D&D, especially the earlier editions, showed a very selective reading of the source works mixed with some pretty specific game balance assumptions) and that tended to be expressed either as an absolute, or such a punishing penalty that it might as well have been.

 

[Lanefan]

In the same way that overland travel, time spend socialising and so on do not happen in initiative order, we just recognise that the combat engine does not handle all scenarios. Some things just don't need to be handled mechanically via the combat engine and can be handled purely through fictional position.

Perhaps, but if the combat engine could cover all of this, that's better - right?

Joran gets shredded by their cat and it informs their roleplaying (they may dress the wounds, seek healing, complain about the discomfort and so on) but is below the abstraction layer for combat. In much the same way as a paper cut doesn't need to do hit point damage.

If it's to the point where you're seeking healing for it then IMO it's well within the abstraction layer for combat, never mind that we're looking to reflect more than just combat here.

Right, and being hit in the arm by an axe in a way that's potentially life threatening should affect your hammer wielding prowess for even longer, but it never has in D&D.

Fair, and that's IMO a bit of a failing D&D has always had: other than outright limb loss it has no provision for handling specific injuries, or when hit-point damage all goes to one part of the body because that's what the fiction dictates.

An example of the latter: last session my Mage-type was hiding behind a thick door, with possible level-draining enemies behind said door. She has a wand of lightning, so she stuck it around the end of the door and fired; she rolled awful for aiming and the bolt rebounded and hit her. Only thing was, the only exposed part of her was the hand holding the wand; she made her save, but all the damage she took went into her hand...at least, that's what the fiction wants. D&D just assigns damage, however, and stops there.

 

[Lanefan]

I consider that pretty absolute. If it just applied a failure change I think you'd have an argument.

It is absolute. That's why mages "can't wear armour"; they actually can, but it kills their main class ability dead.

Far as that goes, I think you're wrong about OD&D; mages and thieves flat out weren't allowed to wear anything (mages) or anything but leather (thieves).

If a commoner can wear it, anyone should be able to wear it.

Note, however, that wearing it and being able to function in it as your class expects are different things entirely. A Thief in plate should have every thieving skill reduced to 0%. Mages flat-out can't cast anything. Etc.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, there were all kinds of variations, but in general, there was always this sense that "mages shouldn't wear armor" (which as is typical with D&D, especially the earlier editions, showed a very selective reading of the source works mixed with some pretty specific game balance assumptions) and that tended to be expressed either as an absolute, or such a punishing penalty that it might as well have been.

We added in an armour enchantment - I call it "Arcane Aid" - that allows mages to cast while wearing it. Mithril armour (a.k.a. Elven Chain, Drow Chain) comes with this feature built in, but such armour is extremely rare.

Needless to say, even the most basic armour with Arcane Aid is stupendously expensive. Most parties can't afford to keep it, if-when they find any and assuming they divide their treasure fairly by value.

 

[James Gasik]

Maybe I'm misremembering, but couldn't 1e Fighter/Mages wear armor? Or was that Elves wearing Elven Chain only?

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe I'm misremembering, but couldn't 1e Fighter/Mages wear armor? Or was that Elves wearing Elven Chain only?

By RAW they could.

I've never seen it played that way, though; IME usually the most restrictive armour option takes precedence (in contrast with weapons, where the most permissive takes precedence).

Same rationale as Fighter-Thieves not being able to do any useful Thieving while in heavy armour.