D&D General Wearing a lantern on your belt?

[Distracted DM]

From what I can tell, folks who are opposed to this idea fall into two camps.

One camp rejects it for practical or simulationist reasons: it's a fire hazard, it's not very reliable, your own body will block half the light, etc. Lanterns on the belt are a bad idea because you'd burn yourself all the time, possibly seriously, and for little benefit. (This is my camp.)

The other camp rejects it for gameist reasons: darkness is an environmental hazard that the character(s) must overcome, and overcoming it should carry a cost, and that cost is usually a free hand or a cantrip. Lanterns on the belt are a bad idea because they allow you to acquire a light source without paying the game's "cost."

Is that about the shape of it?

Yup, though I think plenty of folk appreciate both ideas, not just simulationist OR gameist.

For me it's a gameist thing, but I appreciate having the simulationist reasonings.

 

[Stormonu]

Military had hands-free flashlights for quite a few decades.

One from WW2
1943 WWII GITS Military Flashlight -122- Tested & Working - Original WW2 Army | eBay

Oh, I remember these things - my dad got a couple from a military surpus store in the 80's and we kids used them for taking out the trash (and keeping our hands free).

As for the belt lantern, D&D has quite a few existing alternatives, mostly all magic - drift globes, sword +1 (ala Sting from the hobbit), faerie fire, continual light, darkvision, etc. For standard D&D, balking about using a belt lantern seems pretty pendantic and just a middle finger to those who don't have access to magic or to purchase "Common" rarity magical items. However, if your campaign has a different standard from typical - more Conansque, low-magic or strongly historical (though in the latter, I'd question why you're playing a game called Dungeons & Dragons), I can see why one wouldn't allow it. Heck, even ascetics might be cause to disallow it (just like I'll never allow a "combat wheelchair" into one of my games).

But I don't think anyone should come down on you can't - just more of "I wouldn't in my game".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yup, though I think plenty of folk appreciate both ideas, not just simulationist OR gameist.

For me it's a gameist thing, but I appreciate having the simulationist reasonings.

I appreciate and would implement the simulationist reasons, but I don't think it would be completely worthless or that such issues couldn't possibly be worked around, so I say go for it! PCs can do what they want (to the limits of their own abilities) in my games anyway.

 

[Distracted DM]

I appreciate and would implement the simulationist reasons, but I don't think it would be completely worthless or that such issues couldn't possibly be worked around, so I say go for it! PCs can do what they want (to the limits of their own abilities) in my games anyway.

Yeah, but there's only a certain amount of rules overhead that I can handle... I gave the example in the OP of making a ruling "you CAN wear it on your belt, but if you get critted then you make a save vs getting set on fire by your lamp oil..." but who has to remember that if it's to be enforced? Should be the player, but it'll end up being me the GM, and a possible negative like that will result in the player saying "nevermind then, not worth it" anyway... I guess that's one reason that I come at it from a gameist approach first.

I already can't remember the armor-fragility rules for A5E anyway, where light armor and some medium gets damaged/broken by crits from piercing attacks in the middle of a session they're totally forgotten.