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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Houserules are always an option (unless you're chained to organized play), and thus always matter. I've pretty much never not used them or had them on the table.

 

[kermit4karate]

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.

How's it meaningless? The DM just creates a little table exactly like the one that you or someone else creates for a different game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Houserules are always an option (unless you're chained to organized play), and thus always matter. I've pretty much never not used them or had them on the table.

Its still meaningless when talking about a given game. You can houserule anything into any game whatsoever, but when talking about what "Game X does" that's meaningless. Its like all the people who talked about how AD&D played when it turns out almost none of the played the game as was actually written; you're effectively talking about different games.

 

[Thomas Shey]

How's it meaningless? The DM just creates a little table exactly like the one that you or someone else creates for a different game.

That's the point. At that point comparing two games is meaningless and critiquing a game is meaningless, because houserules become the all-purpose trump card in discussion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Its still meaningless when talking about a given game. You can houserule anything into any game whatsoever, but when talking about what "Game X does" that's meaningless. Its like all the people who talked about how AD&D played when it turns out almost none of the played the game as was actually written; you're effectively talking about different games.

They don't see it that way, and personally I believe how you play at your table, including what rules you use and don't use, matters far more than some Platonic ideal of perfect, 100% within the printed rules play, both for discussion and any other purpose.

But you and I have disagreed on this before.

 

[kermit4karate]

Its still meaningless when talking about a given game. You can houserule anything into any game whatsoever, but when talking about what "Game X does" that's meaningless. Its like all the people who talked about how AD&D played when it turns out almost none of the played the game as was actually written; you're effectively talking about different games.

Larger question: why are we always questioning what "Game X does"?

You're exactly correct about when people talk about how older versions played. No one played them strictly by the book. Does that still need to be clearly stated and clarified in every thread?

 

[clearstream]

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?)

In 5e, a rogue starts with light armor training and (unless they invest a feat) would have disadvantage picking locks. So a penalty not a negation.

Sorcerers and wizards start with no armor training, warlocks start with light. Clerics have light and medium and some have heavy. Druids have light. Training in the armor worn is needed to cast spells. So a negation not a penalty.

D&D counts AC into class balance. I think the Lightly and Moderately Armored "half-feats" are fairly costed. Other games balance it in other ways. Daggerheart is an interesting example: some classes effectively benefit more than others from armor and mind less its intrinsic penalties.