Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ohmyn" data-source="post: 7623552" data-attributes="member: 6999115">Well in AD&amp;D it was just a dungeon crawl, but even then they always gave reasons, despite how poorly defined the edition was for anything outside of combat. For example, they didn't actually have &quot;Wizard&quot;, but had &quot;Magic-User&quot;. It specified, &quot;they can wear no armor and have few weapons they can use, for martial training is so foreign to magic-use as to make the two almost mutually exclusive.&quot; It at least made mention that they can't wear it because they possess no training in it. It could be worn though, because if you multiclassed into any martial class, you gained the ability to wear any armor they were proficient in, so a Fighter/Wizard could wear armor proficiently, but anything above leather prevented them from casting magic.Dwarves in original AD&amp;D did not use spells, but it specifically said that's because they were nonmagical creatures, so they could not wield magic. Even the Druid class in original AD&amp;D specifies &quot;druids are unable to use any armor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallic armor spoils their magical powers).&quot; So if your AD&amp;D Druid wielded a magic shield, they lost their ability to cast spells.Even AD&amp;D is pretty clear about &quot;cannot&quot; and &quot;unable&quot;, while giving reasons why that is the case. 5E does not do that for the Druid. 5E says they &quot;won't&quot; wear metal armor without any explanation given, and then the Sage Advice says it's a story restriction and not a mechanical one, but gives no explanation as to how it's a story restriction. Since it's a &quot;won't&quot;, and not a &quot;can't&quot;, player agency plays a part, as it does in all other class stories, because there's nothing in their class that ultimately penalizes the player for taking that action.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ohmyn, post: 7623552, member: 6999115"] Well in AD&D it was just a dungeon crawl, but even then they always gave reasons, despite how poorly defined the edition was for anything outside of combat. For example, they didn't actually have "Wizard", but had "Magic-User". It specified, "they can wear no armor and have few weapons they can use, for martial training is so foreign to magic-use as to make the two almost mutually exclusive." It at least made mention that they can't wear it because they possess no training in it. It could be worn though, because if you multiclassed into any martial class, you gained the ability to wear any armor they were proficient in, so a Fighter/Wizard could wear armor proficiently, but anything above leather prevented them from casting magic. Dwarves in original AD&D did not use spells, but it specifically said that's because they were nonmagical creatures, so they could not wield magic. Even the Druid class in original AD&D specifies "druids are unable to use any armor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallic armor spoils their magical powers)." So if your AD&D Druid wielded a magic shield, they lost their ability to cast spells. Even AD&D is pretty clear about "cannot" and "unable", while giving reasons why that is the case. 5E does not do that for the Druid. 5E says they "won't" wear metal armor without any explanation given, and then the Sage Advice says it's a story restriction and not a mechanical one, but gives no explanation as to how it's a story restriction. Since it's a "won't", and not a "can't", player agency plays a part, as it does in all other class stories, because there's nothing in their class that ultimately penalizes the player for taking that action. [/QUOTE]

Verification