Wizards in armor: why not?

[Deleted]

Jan 21, 2010 19:38:15 GMT -6 capheind said:

As for why Magic users can't wear armor... Because it would look silly under the robes and pointy hat!

I like this one!

[badger2305]

Jan 21, 2010 20:11:08 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Jan 21, 2010 19:38:15 GMT -6 capheind said:

As for why Magic users can't wear armor... Because it would look silly under the robes and pointy hat!

I like this one!

I put on my robe and wizard hat.

;D

[delta]

In my game I just let people multi-class as fighter/wizards if they want that. No need to invent new classes.

[capheind]

Jan 21, 2010 20:11:08 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Jan 21, 2010 19:38:15 GMT -6 capheind said:

As for why Magic users can't wear armor... Because it would look silly under the robes and pointy hat!

I like this one!

I'm also thinking of banning helmets for Clerics and requiring they wear silly hats like all those saints in stained glass windows.

[Red Baron]

Jan 21, 2010 19:38:15 GMT -6 capheind said:

As for why Magic users can't wear armor... Because it would look silly under the robes and pointy hat!

Magic users choose not to wear armor because it makes them look weak. He will be under attack by every wizard he meets, as when they see him, they'll assume "This guy needs armor? He must not be very skilled with spells." 

A magic user without armor looks like a wizard, and when he starts chanting those orcs are going to run for their lives. A magic user with armor looks like a regular fighting man, and orcs will attack him on sight.

[Red Baron]

-Magic users can use all weapons and armor.

-Magic users do not get better at fighting as they level up.

This makes wizards more survivable at lower levels, where they are essentially almost as effective as fighting men and they have a spell.

At higher levels, however, they become less and less reliant on weapons and armor and more reliant on spells. A wizard fighting a man or orc with a sword has a good hance of doing some damage, while the orc would have be as hard put to hit the wizard as he would be to hit a fighting man. A wizard trying to fight powerful monster with his sword would be almost unable to hit it, while it would be able to hit him.

This gives you very vancian wizards where turjan, with only three spells, still relys on his sword some of the time, but mazirian, who can hold six in his head, is beyond the need for such base and degrading martial equiptment as he can solve his problems with magic.

[jacar]

My "Late to the party" answer to the original post

The reason for no armor is balance. Why give one of the most powerful characters in the game yet another advantage? Casters have armor in the form of protection spells. They can still wear rings, cloaks and robes which often give them protection. Why make it even easier for them to survive?

[sepulchre]

redbaron wrote:

Magic users can use all weapons and armor.
Magic users do not get better at fighting as they level up.
his makes wizards more survivable at lower levels, where they are essentially almost as effective as fighting men and they have a spell. At higher levels, however, they become less and less reliant on weapons and armor and more reliant on spells

The 'bureaucrat' NPC in Dragon Magazine advanced in lvl while remaining 0-lvl on the combat tables.

Your take on this is quite clever - I like it.

The armor though...problematic:
a. Inherint danger of being a spell caster: AC 10 when casting any spell - armor irrevocably changes this.
This begins in Chainmail, "in order to cast and maintain any spell, a wizard must be both
stationary and undisturbed by attack upon his person" (32 Chnml).

b. Being struck at all (failure to hit may mean a physical hit), disrupts a spell.

Solution: allow armor, if roll 'to hit' is equal/greater than # 'to hit' AC 10, casting is disrupted.
...which fits with the rules as written.


Jacar wrote:

Casters have armor in the form of protection spells

As redbaron notes, the magic user is basically defenseless at low levels (even with the ability to cast spells), and while engaged in combat as I noted dexterity adjustments are inapplicable.

They can still wear rings, cloaks and robes which often give them protection.

At low-lvls they are unlikely to have or acquire them before being killed.

Moreover, they are still at a very strong disadvantage, because if they are struck AC 10 (as I note above) their spell casting is disrupted.

[Red Baron]

A good player is never defenseless. A low level wizard has guards, and other members of his party as cannon fodder, while he alone is protected. He's also valuable enough that he can probably convince his enemies to keep him rather than kill him, if he falls into their hands.

Also, the way abstract combat works, its assumed a magic user is dodging, ducking under tables, weaving his way behind other fighters for cover, using little cantraps and wards for protection, and jabbing his assailant in the face with his staff when he is attacked. Otherwise he wouldn't have an ac of 9, he'd just get automatically hit. If someone even attempts to attack a wizard in melee its going to be impossible for him to cast any spells, regardless of wether the attack "hits". Armor doesn't matter in that case.

Maybe the only reason that wizards in literature don't wear armor is because they have magic rings, robes, and spells to protect them. High levels wizards don't wear armor because a reliance on such mundane protections is a sign of weakness. Until they aquire those though, they are going to want a sturdy suit of chainmail and a sword. 

[jacar]

Moreover, they are still at a very strong disadvantage, because if they are struck AC 10 (as I note above) their spell casting is disrupted.

It is the price to pay to become the strongest character in the game at high levels.

Regardless of how you may or may not view OD&D, it is a team game where every character has its strengths and weaknesses. As redbarron notes, the wizard has his party to act as blockers like a quarterback has his offensive line.

[saveforhalf]

If the goal is to give magic-users more survivability at low levels, but keep from unbalancing the game at higher levels then how about this:

First and second level magic-user spells can be cast in leather. Third and higher level spells are prohibited.
First level magic-user spells can be cast in chain. Second and higher level spels cannot.
No magic-user spells may be cast in plate.

[Red Baron]

Jan 14, 2014 19:23:38 GMT -6 saveforhalf said:

If the goal is to give magic-users more survivability at low levels, but keep from unbalancing the game at higher levels.

Magic users are already strong enough, even at first level, and they are already unbalanced at high levels. So pushing them into overpowered territory isn't so much the concern as just keeping them from being even stronger.

The question is how to:

1. Get rid of pointless armor restrictions without making the magic user stronger.
2. Stay as true to the source literature as possible.

The problem with your solution is that is still has the problem of "why can't a second level magic user use armor if he could at first level". Its the same deal as "why can't magic users use armor" in the first place. 

At first level magic users are basically adventurers. Like all adventurers they wear armor because they could get hit by a stray arrow and killed. After they've leveled up some and are powerful wizards they don't need this protection and stop wearing it because its uncomfortable, unnecessary, and makes them look like a girl thingy. So let the guy playing the wizard stop wearing armor of his own volition, don't place rules on him.

[sepulchre]

redbaron wrote:

A good player is never defenseless. A low level wizard has guards, and other members of his party as cannon fodder, while he alone is protected.

Goes without saying, just trying to lend your case some support. On his own, should he be engaged in melee, the magic user is a liability to himself.

He's also valuable enough that he can probably convince his enemies to keep him rather than kill him, if he falls into their hands.

I doubt it. He's too much of a risk. In many of TSR's modules magic users are the first to be slain if captured.

If someone even attempts to attack a wizard in melee its going to be impossible for him to cast any spells, regardless of wether the attack "hits". Armor doesn't matter in that case.

That was my point above. Armor, however, allows for what would have otherwise been a telling blow to become just the loss of a spell.

So let the guy playing the wizard stop wearing armor of his own volition, don't place rules on him.

Well said.

[Red Baron]

Jan 14, 2014 21:19:01 GMT -6 sepulchre said:

I doubt it. He's too much of a risk. In many of TSR's modules magic users are the first to be slain if captured.

My impression was that it wasn't an uncommon practice in greyhawk for players to take on captured magic users as henchman. I'll ask Mr. Mornard his question thread.

Jan 14, 2014 21:19:01 GMT -6 sepulchre said:

That was my point above. Armor, however, allows for what would have otherwise been a telling blow to become just the loss of a spell.

Ah. 

[sepulchre]

redbaron wrote:

an uncommon practice in greyhawk to take on captured magic users as henchman.

Hmmm...interesting. I hadn't thought about that from the vantage of a rival party of NPC's per se - if that is what you are driving at. I was thinking of humanoids, and slave lords.

[Red Baron]

No, I was also talking about humanoids and slavers. I was thinking of the players themselves taking wizards from the dungeon captive and assumed the bad guys would do the same.

[Lorgalis]

Ok not great but why not in armor the caster must make a save/spell check roll of the spell fails. Light armor has a lower penalty than medium which in turn has a lower penalty to heavy.

No armor - no issue.

Can they wear - yep
Does it help - yep
Are they trained in it's use - nope
It is bulky and hard to move in - can be
Is It hard to cast in - it's easier when not wearing armor

In Melee/Wizard weapons had a required Strength to use effectively. Was this in D&D at all. Regardless, I would think player X would need Strength Y to use armors effectively. This would prevent low strength MUs from wearing certain armors.

[saveforhalf]

Jan 14, 2014 20:51:46 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

Jan 14, 2014 19:23:38 GMT -6 saveforhalf said:

If the goal is to give magic-users more survivability at low levels, but keep from unbalancing the game at higher levels.

Magic users are already strong enough, even at first level, and they are already unbalanced at high levels. So pushing them into overpowered territory isn't so much the concern as just keeping them from being even stronger.

The question is how to:

1. Get rid of pointless armor restrictions without making the magic user stronger.
2. Stay as true to the source literature as possible.

The problem with your solution is that is still has the problem of "why can't a second level magic user use armor if he could at first level". Its the same deal as "why can't magic users use armor" in the first place. 

At first level magic users are basically adventurers. Like all adventurers they wear armor because they could get hit by a stray arrow and killed. After they've leveled up some and are powerful wizards they don't need this protection and stop wearing it because its uncomfortable, unnecessary, and makes them look like a girl thingy. So let the guy playing the wizard stop wearing armor of his own volition, don't place rules on him.

I'm not sure I was clear when proposing this houserule. I was suggesting that first level spells were simple enough that any magic-user, regardless of level, could cast them even in leather or chain. Second level spells are somewhat more involved, so they can be cast in leather, but not chain. Third level and higher spells are so difficult that they are impossible to cast if the magic-user is wearing any armor at all. Casting any magic-user spell is impossible in plate.

Any magic-user can cast a Light spell or Detect Magic in chain mail, cast Knock or Invisibility in leather armor, but can only cast a Fire Ball or Lightning Bolt if he isn't wearing any armor at all.

The effect of this houserule is that any magic-user can wear any armor at any time. However, it's unlikely that high-level magic-users will want to wear any armor since it will prevent them from casting their high-level spells. Low level magic-users would be more willing to wear some armor since they have no high-level spells to cast.

[jacar]

Lets turn this argument on it's head.

Why limit magic users to staves, daggers and such? Why not all weapons. Lets face it. If a caster is in real trouble and needs armor, that extra armor class is only going to prolong the inevitable.

lets take it a step further. Thieves can have pretty bad AC as well. Lets face it. Most characters will not have a Dex bonus and limiting the thief to just leather types of armor makes them weak, especially at low levels. That's just one example. Why not just remove the restrictions for all classes? It certainly would make it so they would more easily survive? While we are at it, how about some casting abilities for the fighter?

The point is, you could make a similar argument for every class of character in the game.

[premmy]

Jacar, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, so here's the thing:

YES. You COULD do all that. Give M.U.-s the ability to use all weapons. Give thieves better armour. You could.

And it would not break the game.

Even with a two-handed sword and in plate armour, the M.U. would be the crappiest fighter out there, because he still has the lowest HP total, the worst chance to hit, probably the lowest Strength modifier, and a high opportunity cost (i.e., every round he spends being an ineffective combatant is a round when he could have done something much more useful like casting a spell or pouring out oil for a fire trap but didn't). Even in chainmail (say, allowed with the stipulation that it incurs a penalty on thief skills by limiting mobility) the Thief would be an inferior combatant to the Fighter or the Cleric by having lower HD, a worse chance to hit and a really high opportunity cost (every round in a straight-up fight is a wasted round spent NOT sneaking, climbing, backstabbing or grabbing the McGuffin).

[jacar]

Jan 15, 2014 15:56:41 GMT -6 premmy said:

Jacar, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, so here's the thing:

YES. You COULD do all that. Give M.U.-s the ability to use all weapons. Give thieves better armour. You could.

And it would not break the game.

Even with a two-handed sword and in plate armour, the M.U. would be the crappiest fighter out there, because he still has the lowest HP total, the worst chance to hit, probably the lowest Strength modifier, and a high opportunity cost (i.e., every round he spends being an ineffective combatant is a round when he could have done something much more useful like casting a spell or pouring out oil for a fire trap but didn't). Even in chainmail (say, allowed with the stipulation that it incurs a penalty on thief skills by limiting mobility) the Thief would be an inferior combatant to the Fighter or the Cleric by having lower HD, a worse chance to hit and a really high opportunity cost (every round in a straight-up fight is a wasted round spent NOT sneaking, climbing, backstabbing or grabbing the McGuffin).

Sarcastic to prove a point. The game has been played that the Wizard gets no armor by millions of people for nearly 40 years. This particular version is literally 40 years old. Why make the change? It has not been changed in any version up through AD&D v2...probably the last version that resembled the whitebox edition. So, if TSR saw no need to make the change and kept Wizards basic abilities the same through 2-3 versions of D&D and at least 2 versions of AD&D AND folks still regard it as one of the most powerful classes (if not the most powerful class) in the game, it probably does not need armor.

D&D does support jack of all trades type classes in the form of multi-classing. If someone really wants to make a hybrid class, there are game systems that do that too. GURPS or TFT comes to mind.

Now don't get me wrong, I've always been a proponent of tinkering and it is your game to play with as you see fit of course, but the OP asked why or why not? I am clearly on the nay-saying side of the fence.

John

[Deleted]

Jan 15, 2014 17:12:54 GMT -6 jacar said:

Why make the change?

Fewer restrictions means the game in simpler and more flexible. A more flexible game can be used in a wider variety of gameworlds and settings. More variety == more fun.

There's a reason why TSR released a spy game, a wild west game, and (at least) two sci-fi games yet none of them used the D&D game rules. The armor and weapon restrictions of magic-users and clerics are a genre-enforcement rule. As such, they belong in the setting material, not the core rules.

[Deleted]

It's to make the d**n players cooperate.

The way you keep the magic user from getting killed in melee is protect him.

Obviously, this is too difficult and esoteric a concept for most people, so there has been pressure to put armor on the magic user and give him heavier weapons since day 1.

The real answer is, "Learn 2 play n00b."

[sepulchre]

Gronanofsimmerya wrote:

The real answer is, "Learn 2 play n00b."

Real answer is go back and read redbaron's posts and the exchange he and I shared - it's rather obvious that you did not.

[Deleted]

Jan 15, 2014 22:37:25 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

It's to make the d**n players cooperate.

I have never noticed a difference in the amount of player cooperation between games where wizards couldn't cast in armor and those (Runequest, Stormbringer, Bushido, WFRP, et al.) that do allow it. Perhaps I've just been lucky.

I will admit that wizards without armor does create a tactical concern which could lead to more interesting fights.

[jacar]

Jan 16, 2014 9:46:39 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

I will admit that wizards without armor does create a tactical concern which could lead to more interesting fights.

Interesting fights! Now there is an idea!

[busman]

Making sure the game is balanced for all players at all levels is the path to the darkside, it's how you get D&D4 and such. It's important in video games where PVP is a usual component, but in D&D, it isn't, so there's no real thing as imbalanced. Characters with fatal flaws makes for more interesting gaming. It's why actually sticking to 3D6 is better than all of the other methods, IMO. All of our best characters were flawed, the guys who played with all 15+ and 18/00 were boring and uninspiring, and ultimately, no one was impressed that they wrote bigger numbers on their character sheet. My 2c.

[Red Baron]

I'll take another shot at this:

Wizards can wear any armor and shields they want, it just doesn't improve their AC at all.

[sepulchre]

redbaron wrote:

Wizards can wear any armor and shields they want, it just doesn't improve their AC at all.

Very cheeky...

[Malcadon]

Yeah, that rule about Magic-Users barred form armor-use never made sense to me ether. Hell, why should Fighters wear armor? Have you guys seen pictures of heroes fighting whole armies and powerful monsters with next to nothing on?

Dose this badass look like he needs armor to crush this mob?



What about her?



Don't worry, those scratches will buff right out!

In a game were nameless, faceless troops can die form a paper-cut, were powerful Heroes can take damage that can kill normal men twenty times over, and characters can lift super-heavy loads like ants because most players are to d**n lazy to deal with time-consuming encumbrance rules, even heroic characters should be able to throw-on a metal codpiece or bikini and call it "armor" in the name of Heroic Fantasy and the Rule of Cool. So yeah, metal body-condoms are for sissy little Elves, as real heroes know the best spots to protect!