Handy Haversack wrote:

Ghul wrote:

Yora, I would probably allow the ranger the same -4 penalty as the thief. The most important thing to remember is that the ranger uses this skill in the outdoors only; the thief can do it anywhere.

I am open to tweaking some of these rules for the next printing, if warranted. Ideally, how would you see it done?

Ghul, if I had my druthers, I think I would tweak to match the interpretation that DMPrata and I had. That is, that magical armor must always adhere to the class restrictions but not necessarily class-ability restrictions. A thief in magic chain operates at a penalty because the class is allowed only light armor. A ranger in magic chain can operate as if in light armor because the class is allowed any armor.

That gives magic armor a real benefit to the fighting subclasses and preserves the spirt of the thief and sorcerers and their subclasses.

Also, at least in my game, it's not like magic armor is going to be so common that this is going to come up a lot!

That said, I'd rather play the way the books say just do I don't have to keep too many things straight. I have enough trouble remembering the combat sequence!

Great points, Handy. I've noted your recommendation in my file of notes for the next printing.
 

Tough spoon!

I guess my argument would be that the ranger etc. aren't using thieving abilities--they're using ranger etc. abilities that happen to be rolled on the same table *as* as thief.

One could, I think, keep spiraling around in this rabbit hole. Azathoth might be behind this whole discussion! Who started this thread, anyway?

Blackadder23 wrote:

Handy Haversack wrote:

Tough spoon!

I guess my argument would be that the ranger etc. aren't using thieving abilities--they're using ranger etc. abilities that happen to be rolled on the same table *as* as thief.

Well, maybe.  "Nobody can move silently in metal armor" doesn't strike me as particularly draconian.  Again, just my opinion.

I personally don't care anything (or barely anything) about "realism" or "balance".  However, I'm a big non-fan of player entitlement and players wanting to eat their cake and have it too.  My feeling is: "The extra protection of metal armor or the ability to move silently, choose one."  Jeff already relaxed the AD&D weapon and armor rules to the point that they're barely guidelines, and players still want more?  Not on my watch.

I just sneaked past you while wearing +1 plate! How do you like me now!?

Well, it's tough but fair. I certainly am not one to overindulge the players. I really wanted it more for the NPCs!

Well, I've been thinking about this. And I was "wrong." The NPC ranger is going to trade that magical scale mail for training because it's the right thing to do and the AS&SH way to do it. Lesson learned.