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

[kermit4karate]

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.

Well, it has and does in my D&D games. The core rule books even encourage -- not just tolerate, but encourage -- house rules to fit the table.

There is nothing stopping a DM from assigning damage effects to different parts of the body in D&D.

 

[Faolyn]

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).

Casting spells while nude seems dangerous.

 

[James Gasik]

Casting spells while nude seems dangerous.

Have you seen the average female spellcaster?

Their outfits tend to leave very little to the imagination.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Have you seen the average female spellcaster?

View attachment 416293

Their outfits tend to leave very little to the imagination.

Jennifer Kale.

 

[James Gasik]

Jennifer Kale.

Correct answer, you win a No-Prize!

 

[Aldarc]

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!

IMHO, part of the problem is that D&D has a long tradition of creating and finding ways to circumvent restrictions, particularly through magic items. So these sort of restrictions for spellcasters are generally only short-term problems.

Casting spells while nude seems dangerous.

Remember to "swish and flick."

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

And I think that's bad design generally.

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

You'd think so, but there's no exception made there.

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.

And I don't think either of those should be true. Penalties yes; absolute negation no. That's kneejerk simple in the second case and ridiculous in the first (a thief can't wear a chain shirt and pick locks? Really?)

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

There might have been some specific exception for elves in OD&D. I can't speak of AD&D.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, it has and does in my D&D games. The core rule books even encourage -- not just tolerate, but encourage -- house rules to fit the table.

There is nothing stopping a DM from assigning damage effects to different parts of the body in D&D.

That's pretty meaningless though; you can houserule any game in any fashion, but that doesn't say anything about what the game actually supports.

 

[Thomas Shey]

IMHO, part of the problem is that D&D has a long tradition of creating and finding ways to circumvent restrictions, particularly through magic items. So these sort of restrictions for spellcasters are generally only short-term problems.

Wasn't any harder to just define magic armor that didn't impair mages. Absolutes are no more difficult to overcome with custom items than penalties.