Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ohmyn" data-source="post: 7625744" data-attributes="member: 6999115">Because they didn't know how to read the rules and use common sense, hence why they just tossed their arms up and said &quot;That's just the way it is.&quot; If you read &quot;Druids can't wear metal armor because it spoils their magic&quot; as saying &quot;It's physically impossible for a Druid to ever put on metal&quot;, as opposed to saying that if they put on metal they lose access to their magic, then you're not using very good reading comprehension. This is fine, as tabletop games were new, and people didn't have easy access to large communities or the developers to try and discuss what these things actually meant, so a large percentage of people simply got it wrong. But personally, when I read that passage on Druid, I'm reading that they can wear metal armor but it has penalties. Likewise, when I read that Magic Users can't use armor because they lack the martial training, I don't assume it's physically impossible for them to put it on, but rather they gain no benefit if they do, because they lack the martial training to utilize it.Likewise, when a class had a taboo, or an action that was forbidden to it, without giving a detailed explanation as to what happened if they did it, I'd assume that the table with penalties for actions outside of the class restrictions would apply, and not that the DM would say &quot;Nope, that's impossible, because your class says so.&quot; If there's penalties for performing forbidden actions, then that simply further clarifies that the action can be performed. Just because many people played at tables where they could not piece this together does not mean that's not how it was written.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ohmyn, post: 7625744, member: 6999115"] Because they didn't know how to read the rules and use common sense, hence why they just tossed their arms up and said "That's just the way it is." If you read "Druids can't wear metal armor because it spoils their magic" as saying "It's physically impossible for a Druid to ever put on metal", as opposed to saying that if they put on metal they lose access to their magic, then you're not using very good reading comprehension. This is fine, as tabletop games were new, and people didn't have easy access to large communities or the developers to try and discuss what these things actually meant, so a large percentage of people simply got it wrong. But personally, when I read that passage on Druid, I'm reading that they can wear metal armor but it has penalties. Likewise, when I read that Magic Users can't use armor because they lack the martial training, I don't assume it's physically impossible for them to put it on, but rather they gain no benefit if they do, because they lack the martial training to utilize it. Likewise, when a class had a taboo, or an action that was forbidden to it, without giving a detailed explanation as to what happened if they did it, I'd assume that the table with penalties for actions outside of the class restrictions would apply, and not that the DM would say "Nope, that's impossible, because your class says so." If there's penalties for performing forbidden actions, then that simply further clarifies that the action can be performed. Just because many people played at tables where they could not piece this together does not mean that's not how it was written. [/QUOTE]

Verification