Wizards in armor: why not?

[Deleted]

Well, if you actually READ the Conan books instead of just looking at pictures, Conan liked to wear a mail shirt, helmet, and shield. Greaves if he could get them.

[bestialwarlust]

Feb 28, 2014 13:31:01 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Well, if you actually READ the Conan books instead of just looking at pictures, Conan liked to wear a mail shirt, helmet, and shield. Greaves if he could get them.

But the pictures have all the boobies?!!



Crom laughs at and crushes your puny words!!!!

[Porphyre]

Actually, I envision the the fights you depict like the CHAINMAIL Fantasy Combat tables: if not magical, armor does count less that yout actual rank: Hero, Superhero, Wizard.

[ritt]

House Rule: If a magic-user attempts to cast a spell while wearing armor, he must make a "To-hit" roll against himself (No strength or weapon modifiers). If he misses, the casting fails and the spell is lost (Better armor= worse chances to cast. Higher the MU level= better chances to cast).

[Azafuse]

I've often granted armours to MUs, but with heavy limitations:
- granting the same AC of a leather armour
- highly themed and expensive
- hard to maintain

A cold web robe (used in frost-themed setting) melts under a strong spring or summer sun (or after taking just 1 point of fire damage).
A steel leaf robe (used by wood elves) burns easily with just 1 point of fire damage.
A deepsea robe (used by merfolk or coast elves) dries and crumbles if not treated with 1 liter of water daily.

[Necropraxis]

The way I have been doing this is that every class has an "armor capability" rating which specifies the level of armor that can be worn without penalty. Wearing armor beyond that rating imposes a penalty to all physical actions equal to the differential between the capability and the armor worn. So a magic-user wearing plate takes -3 to all attack rolls, physical saving throws, and so forth, but can still use magic without any issue.

• Armor category: heavy (plate) = 3, medium (chain) = 2, light (leather) = 1
• Armor skill: fighter = 3, cleric = 3, thief = 1, magic-user = 0
• Armor penalty = armor category – armor skill, minimum 0

I find this more pleasing than something like a chance of arcane spell failure when wearing armor (as done in Third Edition) or a strict prohibition (which interferes with tactical infinity).

It also has the following benefits:

1. The default no-penalty state simplifies to the traditional assumptions.
2. In other schemes that allow magic-users to wear armor but somehow penalize casting spells while doing so, it often makes sense for the magic-user to suit up once all spells are used. This approach does not encourage that.

(Really, I think the cleric should have armor capability of 2 rather than 3, and thus be the chain armor class, but to follow tradition I listed it as 3 above.)

[Deleted]

Been looking closely at the FCT in order to make sense of the Dungeon! combat system. One thing I noticed is that in Chainmail, against melee type opponents (heroes, superheroes, ogres & giants), a wizard is as hard or harder to hit than a Superhero. At some point between Chainmail and OD&D the wizard went from being the hardest to hit to the easiest. This confirms an earlier opinion of mine that there is a serious lack of protection type spells in OD&D.

[jdjarvis]

If a Wizard want's to wear armor, let him he's just not casting spells, using wands, or earning exp while being non-wizardly.

Want to play a character that casts spells and fights well in armor? Play a cleric or a fighter/magic-user.

Elric wasn't just a wizard he was a noble trained in combat and sorcery i.e. he was a Fighter/MU. (Don't forget he wasn't human).

[Porphyre]

To me, the Elves fill the same role as the Melniboneans as wielders of both sword and spells.

[Red Baron]

Mar 27, 2014 14:12:09 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

To me, the Elves fill the same role as the Melniboneans as wielders of both sword and spells.

And as an ancient dying race from a distant land, who live many lifetimes.

[Porphyre]

Indeed.

[simonw]

Yup

[Anathemata]

I go back and forth. The easiest thing to do is just say "screw it" and give them armor and weapons to boot. But sometimes I think that the easiest thing to do is just replace the cleric with a fighter/magic-user. Fewer spells, better combat. Just let "priest" be another qualifier like "thief" or "Viking"--purely circumstantial, based on how you play the character. Almost as common a debate in my head as whether or not to have a thief/expert class. I tend to find the "one day a fighter, one day a magic-user" to be a little too odd to completely get behind. But obviously, many others do not have that problem

[Hawklord]

I found an interesting quote by UK game designer Ian Livingstone on the subject.

It seems he allowed magic users to wear non-metal armor and that slipped into his 1982 book Dicing with Dragons: an Introduction to Role Playing Games. In the section describing the rules to D&D (the novice reader would assume these are BTB rules) he states, "The Magic User may wear only leather armour or no armour at all." Later, he discusses the restrictions of multi-class characters (his description focuses on AD&D) with the example, "A Fighter/Magic User may use weapons and cast spells, but wears only leather armour."

[sepulchre]

Hawklord wrote:

found an interesting quote by UK game designer Ian Livingstone on the subject...in his 1982 book Dicing with Dragons: an Introduction to Role Playing Games.

Ah synchronicity,came across a review of his book in White Dwarf Magazine yesterday, had never heard of it and am considering ordering a copy. How do you like it?

Anathemata wrote:

Just let "priest" be another qualifier like "thief" or "Viking"--purely circumstantial, based on how you play the character...I tend to find the "one day a fighter, one day a magic-user" to be a little too odd to completely get behind.

I err on the side of qualifiers, usually throwing in an ability that carries the essential character of that qualifier. Agreed 'one day a magic user, one day a fighter' is odd. I tend to allow any armor a mage so chooses, instead of loosing both their life and a chosen spell should they take damage during an encounter, they stand to lose just their spell. I also don't allow them to wield a weapon any better than a normal man.

porphyre77 wrote:

jdjarvis wrote:
Elric wasn't just a wizard he was a noble trained in combat and sorcery i.e. he was a Fighter/MU. (Don't forget he wasn't human).

the Elves fill the same role as the Melniboneans as wielders of both sword and spells.

I have always sensed that connection, but have never articulated it myself or heard it spelled out by another. In fact, I have run campaigns with Melniboneans and played them much like elves with a chaotic neutral bent. Very cool reading of elves porphyre77.

redbaron wrote:

And as an ancient dying race from a distant land, who live many lifetimes.

Nicely stated.

[Malcadon]

Only in my games (after much house-ruling, thanks to Barbarians of Lemuria) would the end goal would be the the ability for squishy spell-chuckers to wrap themselves in shinny body-condoms, while mighty warrior types jump into the thicket of battle with their hard-ass chests as bare as a drunken concert-goer.

That, or take a minimalist approach to armor coverage.

[Torreny]

I've personally been having fun with the Wizard as described in Chainmail. He fights as two heavy foot (or medium horse, if, you know...). With or without otherwise hasn't bothered me in the slightest, and usually the players are more concerned with the encumbrance that comes with wearing armour, the fear of drowning, sunstroke, that one corridor that glows orange with heated walls, etc.

[Hawklord]

Mar 31, 2014 19:35:18 GMT -6 sepulchre said:

Hawklord wrote:

found an interesting quote by UK game designer Ian Livingstone on the subject...in his 1982 book Dicing with Dragons: an Introduction to Role Playing Games.

Ah synchronicity,came across a review of his book in White Dwarf Magazine yesterday, had never heard of it and am considering ordering a copy. How do you like it?

It is invaluable to a fan of Russ Nicholson's art. His illustrations are littered throughout the book, including chapter heading illustrations that I've never seen elsewhere (a collection of RPG supplies (with White Dwarf magazine, of course), a group of LARPers, a smarmy guy running a gaming con registration desk with a motley crew of fantasy and s/f weirdos behind him).

Much of the book is occupied with a Fighting Fantasy-like solo gamebook adventure, "Eye of the Dragon." It was supposed to be the first in a new series of Fantasy Quest adventures, but I think only this one was ever published.

The rest of the book includes detailed overviews of the major RPGs of the day: D&D, RuneQuest, Traveller and Tunnels & Trolls. There is information on other RPGs, how to paint miniatures, GM advice and short chapters on LARPing and game conventions. It is not dissimilar to J. Eric Holmes' Fantasy Role Playing Games.

[sepulchre]

Hawklord, sorry for the late response, thanks for the take on Russ Nicholson and the review of Dicing with Dragons! I will give it a look.

[gallowglacht]

Feb 28, 2014 14:02:34 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

Feb 28, 2014 13:31:01 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Well, if you actually READ the Conan books instead of just looking at pictures, Conan liked to wear a mail shirt, helmet, and shield. Greaves if he could get them.

But the pictures have all the boobies?!!



Crom laughs at and crushes your puny words!!!!

Earth doesn't have 2 moons. That is Tan Hadron and Tavia on Barsoom, not Conan.

[Porphyre]

Well, I don't know about armor, but at least, Wizards are obviously allowed to wear helmets

[talysman]

Oct 4, 2014 0:24:06 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

Well, I don't know about armor, but at least, Wizards are obviously allowed to wear helmets

Some magic helms offer no protection. So, Helm of Telepathy, maybe?

[jdjarvis]

Oct 4, 2014 0:24:06 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

Well, I don't know about armor, but at least, Wizards are obviously allowed to wear helmets

About the only thing that helmet would work against is a pocket knife or straightrazor targetting the one of the least effective targets for those weapons in the first place.

[coffee]

For me, the reason Merlin wore that chromedome is the same as the basic answer to why wizards don't wear armor:

"Style, friend. Style."

[shanes]

Oct 4, 2014 20:00:53 GMT -6 jdjarvis said:

Oct 4, 2014 0:24:06 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

Well, I don't know about armor, but at least, Wizards are obviously allowed to wear helmets

About the only thing that helmet would work against is a pocket knife or straightrazor targetting the one of the least effective targets for those weapons in the first place.

That looks like the perfect helmet vs. the orbital mind control lasers.

[ty]

Oct 4, 2014 0:24:06 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

Well, I don't know about armor, but at least, Wizards are obviously allowed to wear helmets

Merlin taking "just let it shine" to a 'whole nutha level'

[achijusan]

Magic Users cannot wear armor because Gary says they cannot.
No "metagame" reason....
Gary Fiat.
You play the mans game.... you play by his rules.
Suuuuuuuure..... you can let magic users wear armor and cast spells while doing so without restriction at YOUR table all you like....


but do try not to be TOO surprised when 99% of other DMs disallow your armored magic user in THEIR game....

[sepulchre]

Meh, if the game in itself were just Gary's, there would be very little to talk about other than clarifying what he wrote at one point and said at another, or rather which author actually penned this or that idea. There's just a lot more going on across the forum than "Gary's" game. Of course, to engage in the spirit of the game, one must endeavor to understand what Gary and others might have been thinking to begin with, be it from the words of his own mouth, his publications, his house rules, the testimony of others who worked and/or played with him, and from the work others wrote on the game's behalf. I have yet to meet anyone who plays Gary's game, though there are many who respect his genius enough to desire to understand his reasoning.

[achijusan]

Meh, yourself.

Burn your rulebook then.

There is a BIG difference between "house rules" that add rules where there are none, clarify obscure rules... or add some flavor to the game without radically upsetting game balance or core precepts of the game...and "house rules" that willfully discard clear, logical, and well understood rules that form one of the clear foundational precepts of D&D's class system.

Magic Users that wear armor are called Elves and Half Elves in OD&D.

No one has any authority over whether you allow unrestricted armor and weapon use by any class in your game...

But like I said earlier - try not to weep too hard when your Mary Sue "armored human magic user" isn't allowed to cast spells while wearing armor in 99+% of other DMs games.

[Deleted]

Dec 17, 2014 7:40:55 GMT -6 achijusan said:

There is a BIG difference between "house rules" that add rules where there are none, clarify obscure rules... or add some flavor to the game without radically upsetting game balance or core precepts of the game...and "house rules" that willfully discard clear, logical, and well understood rules that form one of the clear foundational precepts of D&D's class system.

A house rule is a house rule, it doesn't matter why a rule is changed. Allowing wizard to cast spells in armor is a minor rule change with minimal impact on game balance.

But still, Dave created the game and Gary expanded and clarified it. Therefore, every rule Gary wrote is a house rule for his particular campaign. Gary actively (at least at first) encouraged DM's to modify the rules for their particular campaign, going so far as to offer up multiple methods of combat resolution including one that makes Wizards as hard or harder to hit than heavily armored Heroes or Superheroes.