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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JoeGKushner" data-source="post: 5046323" data-attributes="member: 1129">Sorry, I try not to follow the flame wars.As long as you play the game you enjoy.  And in previous editions, yeah, it does create a problem.Okay...Depends on the character. If your game, in the city, the mountains, or other locations, pits the characters who rely on armor at a disadvantage in terms of how easy they are hit or suffer damage, then you will have a party that does not rely on armor. This is a game mechanic issue. If the Game Master wants to 'ambush' the players in town, if he wants them to not have arms and armor, then they will make characters whose innate abilities do not rely on arms and armor. Note that this is not only monks, but also characters like mages and sorcerers. Not at all. I'm stating that if you punish the people wearing armor by putting them at a disadvantage, the players will make characters that do not rely on it. And miss out on these exciting conversations? Heaven forbid!How do those 'physics' handle falling? How do those 'physics' handle disease? It's a game first and foremost and when you put the players, who are NOT standard inhabitants of the game setting into situations where they are punished for wearing armor, they will take classes that do not rely on it. This is true for every edition. 1st ed still had monks and wizards and illusionist. If you as a GM put the players at situations where they are punished for not being able to wear armor, the next characters are not going to rely on it. And in terms of denizens shunning armor... don't the vast majority of 'normal' denizens do that already? The players, NOT standard inhabitants, have funds, training, and other advantages that the normal denizens do not have access to.</blockquote>

Verification