Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9353921" data-attributes="member: 7026594">One could certainly invent more restrictions, sure.  There is of course (as far as I'm aware; open to a text reference if I'm missing some ruling in Dragon or UA) no rule saying that you have to move your arms around to gain the defensive protection of magical bracers, just as there is no such rule with rings, cloaks, or worn armor.  Every table I have played at has seen all such magical protective devices as giving a passive defensive bonus akin to a minor force field.  The enchantment makes it a bit harder to hit the target, deflecting some (but not all) blows.  Much like defensive spells which grant an AC bonus, such as Protection from Evil.  You misunderstand, I assume unintentionally.  With the AD&D DMG including items such as Bracers of Defence AC 2, Cloaks of Protection up to +5, and Rings of Protection up to +6, it's obviously possible for a character not wearing armor to get quite a good AC.  What's cruddy IMO is making a character's core functions dependent on finding particular magic items (AND getting them in the treasure division).  A Fighter or Cleric or Thief or M-U gets to do their shtick regardless of what items they find. Obviously they get better when they find items.  An F-MU gets to do their shtick (fight wearing armor and cast spells) right from the start as well, under the OE and 1E rules, without being dependent on magic items.  In 2E that changed.  And obviously in your table's house rules. Yes, obviously. I'm talking about the topic we're discussing.  Other multiclass combos aren't subject to the same issue.  The issue we're discussing is casting MU spells in armor and whether it's a game balance problem. This issue only applies to MU multiclass combos (and Gnome multi-classed Illusionists as an edge case, sure), because the other spellcasting classes (Cleric and Druid) can cast in armor in the first place.  This sounds again like you're inadvertently applying table/house rules.  Per 1E AD&D xp from treasure is divided however the players choose to divide the treasure, and xp from monsters (usually much smaller than treasure xp) is divided evenly between "all surviving characters who took part (no matter how insignificantly) in slaying the monsters" (DMG p85).  "No matter how insignificantly" meant you just had to be present, because if you're there for the encounter you share in the risk. Maybe your table ruled differently back in the day. I know some tables had house rules requiring characters to deal damage to get XP for a monster (or even to deal the killing blow!, leading to "kill-stealing"), but by the 80s these were widely considered to be bad rules because they screw over support characters.  Per 2E AD&D all xp is divided evenly between all surviving characters, and optionally including ones raised from the dead (DMG p47).  With the exception of Individual Experience Awards (an optional rule, see p48).Of course giving humans racial benefits is fine.  Your preference to keep them "a zero baseline against which everything is compared" is purely a subjective preference, and it's one which led to human characters being rare at most tables unless humans were given other goodies (like the incredibly generous ability generation Method V from Unearthed Arcana, designed to let humans reliably qualify for the more powerful classes like Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, and Cavalier).  In OE and 1E as designed humans WERE given racial benefits. They were allowed unlimited level advancement, access to all character classes, and the least costly/restrictive means of being raised from the dead.  Of course the problem with this was that most of these racial bonuses weren't actually very useful or were negated by house rules, because they didn't apply at low and mid levels where everyone played, only at higher levels which not all campaigns would reach.  And by the time a game DID reach high levels, as you know, DMs would be reluctant to impose level limits and resurrection restrictions on demihuman characters players had been playing usually for years by that point.  It was just bad design.  It usually resulted in those higher-level downsides to demihumans being ignored or reduced, and thus the human racial benefits never materialized.  Except for class access, which was restricted by high ability score requirements for the really badass classes, hence Gary giving us Method V in UA to make humans more powerful and make sure they could qualify for their desired class.  While of course a lot of tables ignored Method V, finding it over the top powerful, every table I ever played AD&D with DID use more generous ability rolling methods than the ones in the DMG.In the WotC editions the various groups I've been in have had A LOT more human characters.  Folks like playing them, and they feel better playing them when they don't have to handicap themselves to do so.Even with a mix of ability score bonuses AND penalties, separate race & class is always one of the most basic game elements enabling and encouraging min-maxing.   Sure, it can be.  But just taking away one of the two MAIN things in the rules that can be min-maxed is certainly effective. If you do race as class and remove "arrange to taste" in ability score generation, that get rid of 90%+ of all AD&D min-maxing.  I reiterate, this is NOT the rule in 1E.  A multiclassed F/MU in OE and 1E is able to wear normal armor and cast.  It is designed to do both, just as is the simplified Elf class in B/X and BECMI.  The restriction on a multiclassed character casting MU spells in armor did not exist for the first 15 years of the game, until 2nd ed imposed it.  The multiclassed MU  (F/MU, MU/T, F/MU/T, F/MU/C) is not dependent on finding the right magic items to be able to fight and cast.  Sure, and this is all well and good and fun.  But it normally doesn't apply to core functions of the class.  The two exceptions per the rules are multiclassed thieves (who are restricted to Thief armor options "while operating as thieves"), and dual-classed humans of any class combination.</blockquote>

Verification