Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2010 18:58:34 GMT -6
Cross-Posted at RPG.net forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?p=11863377#post11863377I am playing a game of Swords and Wizardry/OD&D and I am looking for an in-setting explanation for why Wizards basically can't use armor and decent weapons. I am playing a homebrewed version of Greyhawk, so the explanation should fit generally with the Greyhawk mileu but it can really be anything. The reason I bring it up is this: Okay, so your 1st level wizard isn't trained in the use of weapons or armor. He's been sitting in his shop all day reading books. Got it. But, seriously, an 8th level wizard hasn't had time to learn how to use a bastard sword even though his best buddy and 9 of his henchmen are elite fighting-men? The same goes for armor (granted, you might not be able to cast spells in armor - but that doesn't explain why he can't learn to wear it, especially since half the time he may be out of spells and it's easy enough to pop a suit of chain into his pocket-of-holding). The 'proficiency' explanation just doesn't cut it for me beyond the first couple of levels. I want to retain the restrictions (at least largely), but I was wondering if anyone had ever come up with a good reason why. As a secondary note (not necessarily a criticism), it is also kind of a weird D&D-specific thing. Most of the powerful wizardy-types I can think of - Gandalf, Grey Mouser, not to mention Elric - were pretty handy with the blades. You can always say they were multiclassing, but it's worth noting that even so they had no problem casting spells while wearing boatloads of armor and wielding massive blades. Anyways, I like D&D wizards how they are, I've just always found this kind of a strange thing to justify even using internal D&D logic. |
|
EdOWar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 315
|
Post by EdOWar on Mar 18, 2010 19:32:03 GMT -6
Some rationalizations for wizard armor restrictions I've read before include:
1) The metal in the armor interferes with arcane magic (though apparently not divine magic since clerics can wear plate mail). This doesn't explain why Elves can cast spells while wearing metal armor, however (in certain versions of D&D).
2) Heavy armor hinders the various hand and arm movements required to properly cast a spell (this is my preferred rationalization).
3) Lack of training
For weapons I think the most common rationalization is that wizards spend their time reading musty tomes instead of training to use swords and halberds. Those weapons are not easy to use, at least not safely and effectively, without training and constant practice.
True, Gandalf used a sword, but he was no mere man, having lived many centuries. He was more like a supernatural being.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Mar 18, 2010 19:48:16 GMT -6
In a word: Pride.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 18, 2010 20:20:11 GMT -6
OD&D is a game in which a group of characters of diverse and unique strengths and weaknesses must act in concert to achieve their goals. This keeps the game essentially cooperative rather than competitive. AD&D emphasizes these differences even more strongly. d20 shifts the focus to the individual “build” of a character; you simply must shed that mindset when approaching OD&D.
I wouldn’t invent an in-world reason why all Magic-Users can’t use most weapons and armor. Dragonlance attempts to do this by basically stating that “because the gods say so” which is just an in-character way of saying “game balance”.
Instead, I would explain to the player the whole meta-game aspect of it, and then encourage him or her to come up with a unique reason why his or her PC refuses to wear armor or wield most weapons, as if this does not necessarily apply to all other Magic-Users. This can include some of the typical reasons: armor robs me of the flexibility I need for my spell-casting gestures; I’m physically too weak to bend a bow, but I want to stay in the back and throw ranged attacks, so darts and throwing daggers are fine; I know Fladnag wore a sword, but he was a fifth-level hack and just wore that expensive sword to show off...
Finally, if a player really wants to create a sword-wielding Magic-User, there is that option, as someone else pointed out: make an Elf! (This is proof that it is not some universal law of nature that causes your Magic-User PC to restrict his weapon and armor choices.) Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by billhooks on Mar 18, 2010 20:44:11 GMT -6
I like the "ritual taboo" concept that it offends the rather neurotic and finicky spirits and gods responsible for powering magic. I have an experimental house rules document where I wrote this:
"Violating class weapon/armor taboos makes the spellcaster ritually unclean, and they may no longer cast spells until purified. Purification costs (current XP/5) gold pieces and may only be done in a friendly settled area."
Doing it this way raises some interesting possibilities, such as a magic-user who's explicitly a part-timer, and prefers to run around in full armor until such time as he really needs magic to accomplish his goals. Not sure how well that would work in D&D, but it's just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 18, 2010 21:13:57 GMT -6
I agree completely with the other replies. It may also be worth bearing in mind that it's your game. If something doesn't sit right with you, you could search for a satisfactory explanation, or your could just change it. Another possible explanation might be cost. Armour (decent armour, anyway) should cost a small fortune. If a wizard had just enough money to complete research on a new spell OR commission a suit of plate armour, which would a wizard go for? On the other hand, why not allow Men to operate as fighters and magic-users in the same manner as Elves? Why not allow magic-users to carry swords Gandalf or Elric style -- perhaps using the lesser of two damage die to account for lack of combat expertise? Just a few ideas...  |
|
capheind
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 236
|
Post by capheind on Mar 19, 2010 8:23:47 GMT -6
Couple of reasons
Ego, I am a man who can bend the laws of nature, what would I need your pathetic little mortal armor for? Even a first level spell would seem like overwhelming power.
Health, Training in magic and preparing ones mind to receive spells is tiring, risky work that leaves the Magic user seeming old before his time and a bit week. He's not exactly vomiting blood but the realities of wearing authentic middle ages style armor is just too much, and trying to swing most weapons is awkward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2010 9:41:07 GMT -6
Some rationalizations for wizard armor restrictions I've read before include: 1) The metal in the armor interferes with arcane magic... 2) Heavy armor hinders the various hand and arm movements required to properly cast a spell I consider both of those fine, and I think it is easy enough to explain why he can't cast spells while wearing armor. But the question for me was, why not wear armor when he doesn't care/expect to cast spells? 3) Lack of training This is feasible at low levels, but given wizardly intelligence and the fact that not a few of them have decent physical attributes it doesn't seem like it's a viable persistent reason. I'm an office clerk/economics nerd and I'm decent with a short sword and really any idiot can wield a mace or spear with reasonable proficiency - goblins and peasants (in fantasy and historical terms) were the majority users of such weapons, and they were so because the weapons were so easy to use. Armor actually requires a lot more getting used to than these weapons do. "Violating class weapon/armor taboos makes the spellcaster ritually unclean, and they may no longer cast spells until purified. Purification costs (current XP/5) gold pieces and may only be done in a friendly settled area." I like this, it jives well with the Greyhawk deities, too. |
|
|
|
Post by codeman123 on Mar 19, 2010 17:40:53 GMT -6
Really it is just a play balance issue to me. Though i see no reason why one could not house rule it the other way around. One approach i have seen is to just give a penalty for wearing armor or using weapons such as a -4 or more and i would probably give a spell failure using armor. As for the actual explanation i would say as usual that they are just not trained in it's usage and thus they could use armor and weapons but really do not gain any benefit to using them, training is also limited when you consider all the characters training was done outside of him being an adventurer and future training is solely based on him working on his specific class skills and that is basically assumed he really does not have much down time outside of adventures. So another suggestion might to be to gain usage of weapons and armor that character would have to forfeit some spell slots or hit dice maybe when he levels to say he is training in swords for example or armor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Kilgore on Mar 19, 2010 17:53:22 GMT -6
What self-respecting magic-user would stoop so low as to don armor or pick up a sword. Tools of the thick-headed.
|
|
|
|
Post by codeman123 on Mar 19, 2010 18:09:27 GMT -6
lol yeah well... thats what i think too but you know..
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 19, 2010 19:54:17 GMT -6
Some rationalizations for wizard armor restrictions I've read before include: 1) The metal in the armor interferes with arcane magic... 2) Heavy armor hinders the various hand and arm movements required to properly cast a spell I consider both of those fine, and I think it is easy enough to explain why he can't cast spells while wearing armor. But the question for me was, why not wear armor when he doesn't care/expect to cast spells? 3) Lack of training This is feasible at low levels, but given wizardly intelligence and the fact that not a few of them have decent physical attributes it doesn't seem like it's a viable persistent reason. I'm an office clerk/economics nerd and I'm decent with a short sword and really any idiot can wield a mace or spear with reasonable proficiency - goblins and peasants (in fantasy and historical terms) were the majority users of such weapons, and they were so because the weapons were so easy to use. Armor actually requires a lot more getting used to than these weapons do. Trouble with the "lack of training" argument is that it was imagined by good suburban folks who really had no idea about armor. Truth is, there is no such thing as "armor training". Any idiot who can wear clothes can wear armor and get its defensive benefit. Indeed. armor is just metal clothes, of a sort. Full plate or the equivalent might be a little tricky to get on but, then again even a Knight would have a squire or somebody help him buckle up. |
|
|
|
Post by codeman123 on Mar 19, 2010 20:56:50 GMT -6
Granted good point on the armor training but still even then one whom is not used to wearing armor is going to be very awkward wearing it. One could also assume that it might be a strength issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 20, 2010 6:06:00 GMT -6
Granted good point on the armor training but still even then one whom is not used to wearing armor is going to be very awkward wearing it. One could also assume that it might be a strength issue. Strength issue it could be, but that would be true of any low strenght character. But as to it being awkward, in general, I disagree. I've never worn full plate or segmented, but I've had occaison to throw on several types of chain and leather. Really, its like putting on a jacket. Sure its a little heavy, but then, so is a good leather jacket. putting it on doesn't suddenly turn you into a clutz. A full suit of plate might, or might not take a little getting used to - like maybe 2 turns or somehting? In fact I would say throwing on a backpack of any size - which many adventurers routinly do - would throw off your balance and agility a heck of a lot more than armor does. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2010 14:41:11 GMT -6
Granted good point on the armor training but still even then one whom is not used to wearing armor is going to be very awkward wearing it. One could also assume that it might be a strength issue. Strength issue it could be, but that would be true of any low strenght character. But as to it being awkward, in general, I disagree. I've never worn full plate or segmented, but I've had occaison to throw on several types of chain and leather. Really, its like putting on a jacket. Sure its a little heavy, but then, so is a good leather jacket. putting it on doesn't suddenly turn you into a clutz. A full suit of plate might, or might not take a little getting used to - like maybe 2 turns or somehting? In fact I would say throwing on a backpack of any size - which many adventurers routinly do - would throw off your balance and agility a heck of a lot more than armor does. Learning to fight efficiently with all that weight (and its particular distribution) is a bit harder than just wearing it. But you are correct in that just wearing a suit of chainmail is not going to make you stumble around like an idiot; the real strain from wearing it comes from the weight resting on your shoulders for hours; in the short term it just slows you down a bit. Plate armor is actually much more comfortable and ergonomic, it is totally possible to do carthweels in properly fitted full plate. |
|
|
|
Post by codeman123 on Mar 22, 2010 16:29:40 GMT -6
Good points all
|
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Mar 22, 2010 20:11:05 GMT -6
Anyways, I like D&D wizards how they are, I've just always found this kind of a strange thing to justify even using internal D&D logic. The "real reason" is game balance, as others have said, so there is no "internal logic" that would be convincing for all campaigns. Magic can be whatever you want it to be, and look at the Elf as an example of magic-users wearing armor. Just make something up for your campaign. Or let PCs wear armor when they aren't casting spells. I mean, really, what's the harm? Most of the time they won't want to wear armor anyway, since an M-U without spells is a pretty useless git. Treating magic as being "trapped" by armor because of the metal or encumbrance isn't ideal IME because players will find a way around it. They'll get enchanted spider-silk armor that weighs nothing and isn't made of metal, or whatever. Your attempts to curb this behavior must eventually be heavy-handed and obviously obstructionist, taking some of the fun out of the game. My favorite explanation is Dragonlance's (Because the Gods forbid it!), precisely because there's nothing the PCs can do to argue around it (which is a good thing, for rules required by game balance). |
|
|
|
Post by longcoat000 on Apr 9, 2010 12:25:36 GMT -6
I'd call it pride and misdirection. Common townsfolk believe that even the lowliest magic user is able to bend the laws of mortal men and conjure eldrich energies, manipulate the mind, turn men into toads, and regularly summon fiends from the lower planes of hell to do their bidding. This is why magic users tend to get better service and (in later editions) are thought of as low nobility, even if they're of common birth.
So why would a mighty being like this have need of mortal arms and protection? If a magic user wore a sword on their hip, wouldn't it only serve as advertisement that their magical abilities weren't "up to snuff"? Doesn't being armed seem to encourage low men to challenge others of their ilk to see if they can "really use that pig-sticker"?
Encasing yourself in a tin pot only lets others know that you expect to be hurt by a man with a knife and a grudge. Armor and weapons are the stuff of soldiers and men-at-arms. A true master of the art can walk the darkest streets at the witching hour with nothing but his his staff and a baleful gaze, confident that footpads who prowl the night will readily pass over a man who is truely dangerous for easier prey.
|
|
