|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jun 8, 2009 20:03:56 GMT -6
This doesn't work in low attribute bonus games, but if you're playing later AD&D, hackmaster, 3e, etc., you can have unarmored characters add their charisma bonus to AC. So if you're hot you can fight in the buff effectively and be that Frazetta idol, but if you look more like the rest of us you'd better keep that chain shirt buttoned. Alternatively, perhaps Clerics could add their Wisdom bonus to AC as some kind of 'armor of faith' type of deal. Perhaps wizards could add their Intelligence bonus to AC as some kind of... Jedi force deflection? |
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Jun 9, 2009 2:41:27 GMT -6
It depend on what system or house rules you're runnin', but I just allow the Dex bonus to AC to be doubled when not wearing armor. Done.
There may be occasions when a character has no "reason" to choose such-and-such an armor, but who cares? 1) It's a game. 2) It's a fantasy game. 3) The Dex mod doesn't matter at all in terms of missle attacks or other situations, like being dragged along rocky ground or something, so the guy that choose the armor even though it doesn't 'benefit' him, still indeed benefits.
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jun 9, 2009 4:13:38 GMT -6
There's at least two questions here:
- technically, are od&d wizards too feeble at start (a question which link to the debates on hit points, on rituals, and even on the alterrnative variants for AC...)
- philosophicaly, does the "wizard in armor' fit the literacy roots of od&d (which links in some way to the 'what classe was Elric' kind of questions)
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 9, 2009 16:04:27 GMT -6
This doesn't work in low attribute bonus games, but if you're playing later AD&D, hackmaster, 3e, etc., you can have unarmored characters add their charisma bonus to AC. So if you're hot you can fight in the buff effectively and be that Frazetta idol, but if you look more like the rest of us you'd better keep that chain shirt buttoned. Nice! OD&D and AD&D don't have standard attribute modifiers, so you can and should construct a table for it if you want to do something like that. But, I do it differently. With regard to women, I take the perspective that all women in a fantasy universe are totally hot by definition. So charisma really is just about ability to lead henchmen and such. I also rule that chainmail bikini functions as normal chainmail on such females. Gygax himself said on his mailing list: Gary Gygax hath spoken! |
|
|
|
Post by chgowiz on Jun 11, 2009 8:19:22 GMT -6
In my Ultima game, wizards are allowed cloth armor (AC 8[11]) and, of course, any dex bonuses.
I've thought about doing the same for mages robes in OD&D/S&W.
They can also use all those cool protection spells and the shield spell as well. Scrolls, anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by geordieracer on Jun 24, 2009 18:30:02 GMT -6
wizards in armour: why not?
The answer's simple - EGO - look at Vance's wizards, they're sooo self-centred and vain.
No self-respecting wizard has spent all those years hunched over a spellbook just so he can be mistaken for a common fighter. Wearing armour would be like admitting he couldn't protect himself. Other wizards would think he was a joke.
Four guys walk into a tavern, three have armour and are walking weapon racks, the fourth is LESS OBVIOUS, he's all robes and floppy hat, he's the brains of the operation, THE MAN OF MYSTERY.
Even if he's only got one spell to hand he's going to front it so Johnny Peasant is in fear and awe of him.
As Gandalf said, "Fear not the Balrog young Frodo, my pimp hand is strong!'
|
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Sept 8, 2009 17:03:54 GMT -6
Sauron wore armor.
|
|
Arminath
Level 4 Theurgist
WoO:CR
Posts: 150
|
Post by Arminath on Sept 9, 2009 13:32:47 GMT -6
Yeah, but he wasn't a mortal spellcaster...
In my S&W: Onn games I allow Padded armor to Magic-users and Illusionists providing an AC of 8[+1].
|
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Sept 9, 2009 13:44:29 GMT -6
Iouconu sort of wore armor too (the scales of the overworld being Sadlark).
Maybe heavy armor is more of an ultimate-evil wizard thing. Only chaotic magic-users wear full armor, and only if they are really powerful.
*edit*
Dr. Doom wore armor, and he was a magic-user.
|
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Sept 9, 2009 14:22:52 GMT -6
You're really reachin' there. Besides, all those guys are NPCs. NPCs can do whatever the heck they want.  |
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Sept 9, 2009 14:49:09 GMT -6
True... true...
...but here's another point:
Merlin, specifically from the movie Excalibur. He wore a shiny helmet. You could see the camera man's reflection in it and everything.
Now, maybe a wizard won't walk around in full-plate or chainmail, but couldn't a wizard at least wear a helmet?
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Sept 9, 2009 14:56:00 GMT -6
Doctor Doom was multi-classed; Magic-User/Technomancer.
Merlin's shiny hat wasn't armor, it was vanity: "I may be bald but you're all like 'Oooh, shiny!'"
I have to agree with Geordieracer, above: It's pure ego.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2009 14:57:11 GMT -6
True... true... ...but here's another point: Merlin, specifically from the movie Excalibur. He wore a shiny helmet. You could see the camera man's reflection in it and everything. Now, maybe a wizard won't walk around in full-plate or chainmail, but couldn't a wizard at least wear a helmet? In OD&D (since that is the specific rules we're speaking of) there were magical helms that were not protective, that is, they weren't considered "armor". |
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Sept 9, 2009 15:00:36 GMT -6
In OD&D (since that is the specific rules we're speaking of) there were magical helms that were not protective, that is, they weren't considered "armor". Really? Let me look at... ...huh. Helmets don't raise AC? Well, I'm out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2009 15:12:10 GMT -6
In OD&D (since that is the specific rules we're speaking of) there were magical helms that were not protective, that is, they weren't considered "armor". Really? Let me look at... ...huh. Helmets don't raise AC? Well, I'm out. That's not entirely accurate. Helmets do contribute to armor as a general rule. There a specific magic helmets that do not, as per their descriptions. |
|
zendog
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 125
|
Post by zendog on Sept 9, 2009 20:02:31 GMT -6
Don't want to veer wildly off topic, well off game really, but I love the neat way this is handled in Tunnels & Trolls where a Wizards spells are powered via his Strength and different weapons and armour have a Str required score. So a Wizard can kit himself out in full plate, battle axe and tower shield if he's got the Strength but once he starts casting spells he'll soon be too feeble to move or fight without suffering the effects of fatigue. A nice bit of genre emulation via rules. Anyway enough heresy back on topic.
In D&D I always figured MU's just thought all that strapping yourself into iron waving swords about, sweating, and bleeding was somehow below them. The ego thing that geordieracer mentioned fits what I've read of Vance, which is fitting for Vancian magic users. They really are a different 'class' if you like.
|
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Sept 10, 2009 3:01:46 GMT -6
Don't want to veer wildly off topic, well off game really, but I love the neat way this is handled in Tunnels & Trolls where a Wizards spells are powered via his Strength and different weapons and armour have a Str required score. So a Wizard can kit himself out in full plate, battle axe and tower shield if he's got the Strength but once he starts casting spells he'll soon be too feeble to move or fight without suffering the effects of fatigue. A nice bit of genre emulation via rules. Well, not quite. Wizards are restricted to weapons of 2 dice or less, so no broadswords or battle axes. However, one could easily rule that they could use them, and the game effect would be just as you describe. In fact, one could (in addition to allowing them any weapon) bring back the rule of first through fourth editions of T&T that Wizards have no combat adds at all to help balance it a little more. (sorry, T&T being my favorite game, I can never resist, even if it's off-topic ;D ) |
|
zendog
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 125
|
Post by zendog on Sept 10, 2009 6:38:08 GMT -6
Well, not quite. Wizards are restricted to weapons of 2 dice or less, shirt can't believe I forgot that. T&T was my first (and still one of my fav) Games. I will resign my post as T&T Fanboy and commit Seppeku henforth. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Sept 23, 2009 9:44:49 GMT -6
Wizards in armor? Yeah, why not. I'd probably allow them to wear armor and wield weapons if they wanted to. They still have sucky HD and to-hit, so they'd be fools to get involved in melee - particularly if they have any spells handy.
I'm ignoring thematic/world-design issues, since that's going to be different for everyone.
|
|
palmer
Level 3 Conjurer
Foolish Rules Lawyer! Your disingenuous dissembling means nothing to Doom!
Posts: 81
|
Post by palmer on Sept 23, 2009 13:36:21 GMT -6
Iouconu sort of wore armor too (the scales of the overworld being Sadlark). Maybe heavy armor is more of an ultimate-evil wizard thing. Only chaotic magic-users wear full armor, and only if they are really powerful. *edit* Dr. Doom wore armor, and he was a magic-user. None are equal to Doom! He is a master of all arts, arcane and technological! |
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Sept 25, 2009 14:55:09 GMT -6
None are equal to Doom! He is a master of all arts, arcane and technological! No argument there. I'm just saying that I want to be able to play as Dr. Doom at higher levels of play, because sometimes it's just good to be bad! I don't know about any of the weird classes that came out in Dragon (duelist?), I just know the big three and the ones in Greyhawk in Blackmoor. Out of all of those, I think that an armored magic-user that can craft machines would be the best fit for a Dr. Doom type of character. |
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Sept 25, 2009 16:57:09 GMT -6
I'm all for the 'do whatcha want, it's your game' attitude, but I dunno. What you're attempting to do is show evidence from things far outside the scope of both the inspirations for D&D and the types of genres that D&D is for play. Outside of mechanics and balance and all that jazz... why can't magic-users wear armor? Because D&D isn't a game wherein magic-users wear armor, that's why. In a skill-based system, this sort of stuff is all sorta self-balanced. But messing with the classes..taking another class' benefit or skill and giving it to another is missing the point, IMO. Hmm. I mean...sorta like a square peg into a round hole situation. Plus, you're throwing off the pros and cons of the strong archetypes. Do that, and what's the point of a class system? I mean, are you going to allow thieves to Turn Undead? Fighters to cast at least Light or Web or Sleep. It's no big deal, right? Those are only first level spells. What's the harm? I don't mean my post to sound rude, so don't take it personally. Honestly, as mentioned earlier, you may want to take a look at T&T, since Wizards can and do wear armor in the game. (of course, I'm biased, as I think T&T is the greatest game ever created and I pimp it any reasonable chance I get ;D) |
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Sept 25, 2009 17:11:14 GMT -6
I don't mean my post to sound rude, so don't take it personally. It's not rude at all. It's a good question. An armored magic-user in OD&D would probably be best handled as a subclass much like the paladin or the monk. Paladins are fighters that can 'lay on hands' and cast some cleric spells. This is balanced by the requirements for the class. You have to have very high charisma to become a paladin and you have to be lawful to remain a paladin. It stands to reason then that armored magic-users based on the likes of Dr. Doom, Darth Vader, or Sauron should have an alignment restriction and some kind of ability requirement. These types of characters are always bad guys so chaotic alignment should be required, and they tend to have lots of followers so perhaps they should require high charisma like a paladin? |
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Sept 29, 2009 12:24:37 GMT -6
I'm all for the 'do whatcha want, it's your game' attitude, but I dunno. What you're attempting to do is show evidence from things far outside the scope of both the inspirations for D&D and the types of genres that D&D is for play. Elric of Melnibone? Gandalf had a sword, didn't he? And besides, the genre argument is weak sauce. Fantasy comes in so many flavors, so mutable and creative, I really hate it when anyone tries to stomp on some else's ideas because Robert E. Howard didn't write a story to cover that. We write our own stories here. Outside of mechanics and balance and all that jazz... why can't magic-users wear armor? Because D&D isn't a game wherein magic-users wear armor, that's why. I guess all other house rules are right out then too? Or is this rule somehow immutable when the rules you disfavor are perfectly ripe for changing? Plus, you're throwing off the pros and cons of the strong archetypes. Do that, and what's the point of a class system? If Paladins and Clerics (and Clerics and Druids) are sufficiently different to exist within the class system, I think spellcasters in armor won't harm anything. I mean, are you going to allow thieves to Turn Undead? Fighters to cast at least Light or Web or Sleep. It's no big deal, right? Those are only first level spells. What's the harm? Do any of these changes serve a purpose? Do they allow the player to play the PC they really want to play? What's wrong with saying "My priest-guy was never trained in heavy weapons and armor, but he learned all sorts of sneaky things hiding from the Inquisition in the Imperial Capital. I see him as sort of a Thief that can Turn Undead"? If I can make that work as a class for a player (without being unfairly munchkin), I'm all for it. |
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Sept 30, 2009 3:47:05 GMT -6
Elric of Melnibone? Gandalf had a sword, didn't he? I'll grant ya Elric, but Gandalf was a different case, being not merely some human spell-slinger. (though, yes, in The Hobbit, taking it completely by itself, that is indeed all he is) And besides, the genre argument is weak sauce. Fantasy comes in so many flavors, so mutable and creative, I really hate it when anyone tries to stomp on some else's ideas because Robert E. Howard didn't write a story to cover that. We write our own stories here. I wasn't "stomping" on someone else's idea. I'm sorry you saw it that way. I was offering an opposing viewpoint in a debate. Nothing more sinister than that. I guess all other house rules are right out then too? Or is this rule somehow immutable when the rules you disfavor are perfectly ripe for changing? Yes. Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. All house rules are out. House rules are anathema to D&D. See, I play Tunnels & Trolls more than anything... and I never house rule. Oh, no. Nope. Not me. No house rules.  Seriously. Where did I say that? However, this is something that will undermine another class. There are such things as house rules that can potentially screw things up. House rules aren't great just by virtue of being house rules. If Paladins and Clerics (and Clerics and Druids) are sufficiently different to exist within the class system, I think spellcasters in armor won't harm anything. To be totally honest, I don't really think so either. But it's worth taking note if a benefit of one class is gutted if it may throw things off or make one class too powerful or at least make one class less than desirable. Unless, of course, that's precisely what you want. I mean, are you going to allow thieves to Turn Undead? Fighters to cast at least Light or Web or Sleep. It's no big deal, right? Those are only first level spells. What's the harm? Do any of these changes serve a purpose? Do they allow the player to play the PC they really want to play? What's wrong with saying "My priest-guy was never trained in heavy weapons and armor, but he learned all sorts of sneaky things hiding from the Inquisition in the Imperial Capital. I see him as sort of a Thief that can Turn Undead"? If I can make that work as a class for a player (without being unfairly munchkin), I'm all for it. I can dig it, but then, what's the point of a class system? If class abilities can be arbitrarily taken and used to full effect by another class... there aren't classes anymore. There's just... The Player Character Class. Sorry, but I think such things are better served by a skill-based game. |
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Sept 30, 2009 7:48:23 GMT -6
I can dig it, but then, what's the point of a class system? If class abilities can be arbitrarily taken and used to full effect by another class... there aren't classes anymore. There's just... The Player Character Class. Sorry, but I think such things are better served by a skill-based game. As I see it the class system is about embodying an archetype, and knowing from level 1 to X how your character is going to advance. The Fighter, Cleric and the Magic-User are just a few of the archetypes that can be embodied. Seriously though, I think it's odd I have to explain this. Everyone's been making custom classes basically since the game began. Do you read Grognardia? James just unearthed some great '75 era essays from EGG where he described the Pyrologist and Dwarven Crafter classes (neither of which made it into the official rules obviously, but clearly work within the game). Plus all the classes written for Dragon and various fan zines. Does the Illusionist defeat the point of playing a Magic-User just because both can cast spells? Clearly not. Similarly, the fact that the Paladin, Ranger and Cleric can wear armor never made the Fighter "pointless." I really, honestly don't see how this can be a bright line issue. |
|
|
|
Post by ragnorakk on Sept 30, 2009 10:57:29 GMT -6
It isn't really much of an issue. Play by-the-book, wizards get no armor - House rule that they can, and they will - Design a warrior-mage class that can cast spells and wear armor, and players will look upon it and say "Oooooh!" T&T and the Fantasy Trip both allowed wizards to wear armor, it can be done in Rolemaster, etc, etc...
In Saberhagen's 'Shattered Earth' stories, iron inhibits magic - even being in the presence of drawn swords can create an environment inhospitable for spell casting. Some weird physick/magick interaction - this is how I explain it in my D&D games, and how the magic users crave protective bracers, rings, and cloaks!
In the end, logic and the way you want to play over-rides everything in the books. You can certainly allow wizards to bear arms and armor, fighting men to learn spells, etc... and if it's good at your table then all's the better for it. Some people want to do this, and others prefer to play closer to the bones of the game - nobody is trying to quash anyone else's ideas or style here.
|
|
|
|
Post by billhooks on Oct 2, 2009 16:43:36 GMT -6
I came with an angle based on the idea that the trappings of the fighting class are simply taboo and ritually defile the magic-user if he puts them on -- the spirits who grant sorcerous power are simply repulsed by implements of war and won't cooperate with a magician who has their "scent" on him. They're not fooled by dodges like "But I'm wearing BRONZE armor!" or "It's an axe for TREES!", but apparently they're flexible enough to bend on the subject of daggers. If the magician uses weapons and armor, he loses his powers until he performs a purification ritual requiring a full day and with materials costing an amount in gold pieces equal to 10% of his current XP total. Or even less, if you like the idea of magic-users who regularly gear up and fight with everybody else, and only have to get vulnerable when they're getting ready to do their magic thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Oct 2, 2009 18:36:36 GMT -6
They're not fooled by dodges like "But I'm wearing BRONZE armor!" or "It's an axe for TREES!", but apparently they're flexible enough to bend on the subject of daggers. Well sure. You can't easily make blood sacrifices to them without daggers. Virgins' hearts don't just cut themselves out you know. /// I would like to distinguish between "game design reasons" and "game flavor reasons." Billhooks' reason above is a "flavor" reason, because the argument is made within the context of the unique metaphysics of a particular campaign. For that reason though they're rarely helpful to others, since everyone's campaign has it's own flavor. A "game design reason" would "MUs shouldn't wear armor because it makes them too powerful a class." Or "because the class system would break down." |
|
capheind
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 236
|
Post by capheind on Jan 21, 2010 19:38:15 GMT -6
Why not simply give the Magic user an extra die when rolling for starting cash with the assumption that he'll hire a shield-bearer? A shield bearer character could also be useful if you have a younger/less experienced/less reliable player.
Shield bearers were the common protector of archers and spear men in ancient times, and considering the educational investment in even a first level Magic-user it would seem prudent for whoever is footing the bills to pay a dwarf kid to carry a shield...
As for why Magic users can't wear armor... Because it would look silly under the robes and pointy hat!
|
|
