Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8574602" data-attributes="member: 6877472">I found this on Dragonsfoot, still trying to track down the exact issue:Q. Would a ring of free action negate thieving penalties for wearing heavy armour? Would it allow a wizard to cast spells while wearing armour? Would it allow an armoured character to move at full (12) rate? Can the wearer swim?A. A ring of free action protects its wearer from magical effects that hinder or immobilize, and allows the wearer to function underwater without hindrance due to water resistance. It does not negate encumbrance penalties, nor does it allow characters to ignore armour restrictions due to character class (not even thieves). It is important to note that magic in the AD&amp;D game is specific and specialised; collateral effects, even those suggested by logic, usually do not occur. While a character wearing a ring of free action can ignore the effects of an entangle spell, the wearer is not granted the ability to freely move through underbrush as can a druid. Likewise, there is no reason to assume that the wearer cannot float or swim in water. (On the other hand, individual DMs might rule that this is the case, and thus give the character a new problem to think about while adventuring in or near the water.) The wearer of a ring of free action would be immune to attacks from a rope of entanglement, but could be physically restrained and bound with any normal rope. Note that the ring also does not empower the wearer to ignore barriers such as normal walls or a force cage spell.EDIT: Dragon Issue 166.SECOND EDIT: this isn't quite the debate I recall, but it's been a long time, so I may have conflated it with another discussion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8574602, member: 6877472"] I found this on Dragonsfoot, still trying to track down the exact issue: Q. Would a [I]ring of free action[/I] negate thieving penalties for wearing heavy armour? Would it allow a wizard to cast spells while wearing armour? Would it allow an armoured character to move at full (12) rate? Can the wearer swim? A. A [I]ring of free action[/I] protects its wearer from magical effects that hinder or immobilize, and allows the wearer to function underwater without hindrance due to water resistance. It does not negate encumbrance penalties, nor does it allow characters to ignore armour restrictions due to character class (not even thieves). It is important to note that magic in the AD&D game is specific and specialised; collateral effects, even those suggested by logic, usually do not occur. While a character wearing a [I]ring of free action[/I] can ignore the effects of an [I]entangle[/I] spell, the wearer is not granted the ability to freely move through underbrush as can a druid. Likewise, there is no reason to assume that the wearer cannot float or swim in water. (On the other hand, individual DMs might rule that this is the case, and thus give the character a new problem to think about while adventuring in or near the water.) The wearer of a ring of free action would be immune to attacks from a [I]rope of entanglement[/I], but could be physically restrained and bound with any normal rope. Note that the ring also does not empower the wearer to ignore barriers such as normal walls or a [I]force cage[/I] spell. EDIT: Dragon Issue 166. SECOND EDIT: this isn't quite the debate I recall, but it's been a long time, so I may have conflated it with another discussion. [/QUOTE]

Verification