|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Jan 24, 2015 8:13:00 GMT -6
Having played it both ways, there is nothing unbalancing about putting wizards in armor. If you are concerned about niche protection, just make them hire a porter to carry it until after they're done casting, or say that you need special training to properly wear Plate. But honestly, if you are a wizard and you are wearing armor, you're probably losing (or have already lost). Some of the great things about playing a wizard is that you have all this extra carrying capacity; you have your hand free for a torch; you can legitimately hide behind other PCs and expect them to protect you. Wearing armor and carrying a real weapon neutralizes these advantages.
Clerics are able to cast and wear armor- but they rarely do both at the same time. It's almost the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jan 26, 2015 9:04:23 GMT -6
Do you let magic-users cast spells while holding a torch?
Unless they're holding a staff, (or a sword if they're an elf), do you allow anything to be held?
I mostly play ad&d, I'm used to just checking for a somatic component to see if the magic-user can be holding anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by achijusan on Apr 21, 2015 11:18:08 GMT -6
Clerics are able to cast and wear armor- but they rarely do both at the same time. It's almost the same thing. interesting. In the many, many games I have played in, and run.... clerics are very nearly ALWAYS wearing armor when they cast spells. Just as elves (once they gain magic armor) do. But human magic users? Never, ever. Not even once. Because that's NOT a house rule at all, you see... Its called CHEATING. Try and bring your armor wearing human magic user into a convention game, or join someones game at a friendly neighborhood game store... and see what happens 99+% of the time. sure - at your table (or any DM that allows it) - its all good. Dwarf Magic Users, halfling clerics, and Elf Paladins are great too.... in the <1% of the OD&D tables they are allowed at. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Apr 21, 2015 23:32:38 GMT -6
House rules are cheating?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2015 9:42:53 GMT -6
Because that's NOT a house rule at all, you see... Its called CHEATING. Try and bring your armor wearing human magic user into a convention game, or join someones game at a friendly neighborhood game store... and see what happens 99+% of the time. The solution is simple. Just scratch out "Platemail" on your equipment list and write in "Bracers of AC 3", and you're good to go. Because wearing real armor breaks the game but having a magic item that does the same thing is perfectly fine. Oh, and it looks like I'm finally a 1%-er!!! |
|
|
|
Post by achijusan on Apr 29, 2015 10:06:39 GMT -6
Because that's NOT a house rule at all, you see... Its called CHEATING. Try and bring your armor wearing human magic user into a convention game, or join someones game at a friendly neighborhood game store... and see what happens 99+% of the time. The solution is simple. Just scratch out "Platemail" on your equipment list and write in "Bracers of AC 3", and you're good to go. Because wearing real armor breaks the game but having a magic item that does the same thing is perfectly fine. Oh, and it looks like I'm finally a 1%-er!!! No need to get upset about it. You are always free to allow whatever you want in your game, as is everyone else. Truth is - I'm sorry that you mislike the fact that if you brought a human plate mail wearing magic user into someone else's game; that 99% of DMs (as well as the fellow players at the table) would in fact consider it cheating. Seriously - try doing it a few times to do statistical analysis if you like. I'm sure they would be most accommodating if you explained the discrepancy by asking "What is the issue? My last DM let me do it with no problems!!" |
|
|
|
Post by achijusan on Apr 29, 2015 10:18:05 GMT -6
House rules are cheating? Stop being obtuse. I already said IN HIS game if that's how he wants to roll - plate mail wearing magic users are just peachy. In fact in ANY DMs game that's just peachy - at their own table. But... people that allow plate mail wearing magic users in THEIR game really shouldnt cry too hard when 99% of other DMs (and the other players at the table) call foul. You are deluding yourself if you think most wouldn't. Just as they would 99% of the time if someone showed up for a convention game or a game store pick-up game with a Dwarf Magic User, a Halfling Paladin, or a Vorpal mace. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 12:21:23 GMT -6
No need to get upset about it. You are always free to allow whatever you want in your game, as is everyone else. Truth is - I'm sorry that you mislike the fact that if you brought a human plate mail wearing magic user into someone else's game; that 99% of DMs (as well as the fellow players at the table) would in fact consider it cheating. I'm pretty sure that 99% of DMs are running either Pathfinder or 5e, both of which allow magic users to cast spells while wearing armor. In any case, I wouldn't ever decide what rules to use in my campaign by polling other DMs. I want my game to be different. As to the portability aspect, my game set in an ancient world rather than a medieval one and it includes ogres, fairies, goblins, and robots as playable races so my players are screwed regardless. I'm still not clear on this cheating thing. So, if a player joined your game and had a character that was created under his previous DM's house rules (that don't match yours presumably), you would consider him a cheater? |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Apr 30, 2015 20:28:38 GMT -6
If a player joined my game and wanted to play a character created under his previous referee's house rules I'd check it out before making the call. Maybe it's a good house rule. If I don't like it, it gets taken out. Not sure how he or she could cheat as such, because if the character tried to do something weird under house rules I don't know about it wouldn't happen. The only ways I can envisage cheating at the table would be things like fudging rolls, not deducting hit points, etc. It's only cheating if you get away with it, I think I might notice things like magic-users wearing armour if I didn't allow it.
|
|
|
|
Post by delverinthedark on Nov 2, 2015 17:58:32 GMT -6
This is perhaps a different take on magic-users not wearing armor, and is perhaps very specific to how I like to handle magic-users. However they appear, I prefer magic to operate, at least in part, on a "spirit-based" model; that is, magic is performed by binding spirits and constraining them/bargaining with them to make them do one's bidding. If we understand magic to be dependent upon ritual,then the robes of the wizard become an armor of a different sort: not proof against blades, but proof against the resistance of spirits. Or, perhaps, it's an emblem of authority to spirits, part of the sympathetic arrangement of charms that calls spirits forth and keeps them there, or so forth. It is because of the ritual and magical nature of the magic-user's garb that the magic user cannot wear any sort of armor.
I suppose, though, that this is different from magic-users not being able to use armor. It simply means that wearing armor will prevent a magic-user from casting spells at all...or worse yet, may call down the terrible wrath of no-longer-bound entities that are sick of doing the magic-user's bidding!
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Nov 2, 2015 21:07:08 GMT -6
delverinthedark:
Though no spell casters have donned armor in our campaign, I have no reservations about allowing it as noted above. Likewise, our campaign runs on a "spirit-based" model, at least in the abstract, essentially spells are spirits. I particularly like your characterization of garments as "part of the sympathetic arrangement of charms", that is very well put. One way to circumvent this propitiation of the spirits and don armor might be to bind them, the spells that is, within a rod, staff or wand...
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Nov 3, 2015 1:09:49 GMT -6
This is perhaps a different take on magic-users not wearing armor, and is perhaps very specific to how I like to handle magic-users. However they appear, I prefer magic to operate, at least in part, on a "spirit-based" model; that is, magic is performed by binding spirits and constraining them/bargaining with them to make them do one's bidding. If we understand magic to be dependent upon ritual,then the robes of the wizard become an armor of a different sort: not proof against blades, but proof against the resistance of spirits. Or, perhaps, it's an emblem of authority to spirits, part of the sympathetic arrangement of charms that calls spirits forth and keeps them there, or so forth. It is because of the ritual and magical nature of the magic-user's garb that the magic user cannot wear any sort of armor. I suppose, though, that this is different from magic-users not being able to use armor. It simply means that wearing armor will prevent a magic-user from casting spells at all...or worse yet, may call down the terrible wrath of no-longer-bound entities that are sick of doing the magic-user's bidding! Interestingly, this recent post from Roger S. is saying the same thing. rolesrules.blogspot.fr/2015/10/wizardry-demands-cosplay.html |
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Nov 3, 2015 13:40:17 GMT -6
This has been a very interesting read, and I am glad it got necro'd. It makes me think about my own Irish-Celtic themed campaign, where most fighting men and professional warriors consider the addition of a helmet to their usually equipped sword and shield as being well armored. Actual body armor is usually reserved for the nobility, as much by availability as by cost. Plate mail and full plate is simply unknown.
I kept the armor and weapon restrictions when we created the mage character. But, given that the most fierce warriors in our setting wear nothing but warpaint and tattoos when going into combat, maybe magic is better protection than armor anyway :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by delverinthedark on Nov 3, 2015 15:02:02 GMT -6
He seems to be making a point very similar to my own, particularly in the reference to the hermetic tradition of magic. I like my magic to have a hermetic flavor to it, and so I feel that explanation makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Nov 3, 2015 15:15:24 GMT -6
Weird, I could have sworn that I'd added my two cents in this thread back when it was first active, but I guess all I did was joke about Merlin's helmet.
I change my mind from time to time about mages in armor, but my general feeling now is that it should be allowed, but with a serious downside. My go-to physical downside these days is fatigue. In U&WA, there's a brief mention of getting exhausted after running, doubling the amount of rest required, which means that the characters must rest two turns that hour instead of just one. I would extend that to double the rest required for every hour of armored physical activity, for M-Us and thieves. Failure to rest means exhaustion (unable to run, all attacks at zero level, system shock roll after any strenuous action like combat to avoid collapsing.) So, armored thieves and M-Us slow the party down.
In addition, I rule that casting spells or performing other actions that require concentration (like picking locks) means that you aren't actively defending yourself, so an attacker can target your vulnerable areas. That means effective AC 9 when concentrating, regardless of actual armor worn. If an armored M-U is attacked, the player can either take their full armor value and start over with spell casting or try to finish casting but lose all armor benefits.
Looking at devilinthedark's idea of robes providing protection against spirits, I'm almost tempted to add ceremonial robes (same price as plate.) If casting spells when not wearing the robes, roll 1d6: if the roll is lower than the spell level, an angry spirit is summoned.
(EDIT: I originally wrote "higher than the spell level", which is clearly wrong, since that would make higher level spells safer to cast. This way, 1st level spells are safe, 2nd level spells have a 1 in 6 chance of summoning angry spirits, and so on.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jul 3, 2018 17:19:10 GMT -6
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." In Alarums & Excursions #1, June 1975, Lee Gold wrote, "Limited Armor. Magic-users may wear only leather armor, as cold steel (found in both chainmail and plate) tends to degauss spells. Unless their dexterity is 13+, they may not wear a shield and also throw spells every melee round. In order to keep them from getting short-changed too much, suits of +I and +2 leather armor may be found at times in dungeons." Empire of the Petal Throne, while not OD&D, but based on OD&D, allows magic-users to wear leather. No, that is not correct.BTPBD: Allows MUs to wear leather. While it does not explicitly say they can, there are rules for handling MUs in metal armor, which obviously are moot for someone in leather, "Magic-Users are warned about the dangers of trying to cast a spell while wearing metal armor and/or helms. Because of effects of "cold iron" on magic, a Magic-User dressed in plate mail will be unable to have a spell of any kind or level be successful, although it will cost him a spell for that 24 period." It then goes on to talk about chances of failure based on armor type. Edit: My bad, having been down the rabbit hole on BTPBD and EPT, I confused the two. SaveSave |
|
