Wizards and Armor

[Crazy Jerome]

If we're going with #2, then adding restrictions and ways to get around those restrictions is a Rube Goldberg solution to a problem that can be addressed much more simply. Armored wizards have higher AC than unarmored, but have to carry a lot more weight and spend money on armor. Find a way to get that tradeoff into balance--where it's not a foregone conclusion that you want to do one or the other--and the problem is solved.

Putting restrictions on casting armor is a way to get those tradeoffs into balance. And not a bad thing to at least explore, either, given the historically laughable balance capabilities of encumbrance and gold.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Want to make Elven Chain awesome? Make it's property be that it requires no proficiency to use effectively. It isn't like Bilbo or Frodo were ever trained in using armor anyway.

Yeah, but wearing that was like wearing a negligee.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Shouldn't be a theme, but should be a part of several appropriate themes (e.g. spellsword). It is too narrow for a theme, but it is not too narrow as one feat mixed in with several other related abilities in a theme.

Yes, that I could agree with. Themes end up as collections of meaningful feats and I could see several themes which could have armour wearing as a part of them.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If we're going with #2, then adding restrictions and ways to get around those restrictions is a Rube Goldberg solution to a problem that can be addressed much more simply. Armored wizards have higher AC than unarmored, but have to carry a lot more weight and spend money on armor. Find a way to get that tradeoff into balance--where it's not a foregone conclusion that you want to do one or the other--and the problem is solved.

If what you mean here is that Wizards are simply avoiding armor because of a general manifest inconvenience of the stuff: N-O.

That tradeoff is not supposed to be in balance. Armor is good. More armor is better. And more armor is money well spent approximately all of the time. That is the fundamental reality the basic mechanics should model at the getgo.

Anything else is gimping heavy fighters as a desperate means to keep wizards from reaching the stratosphere on a lark. Wizards need to not want to wear armor because it is specifically inconvenient for them.

That said, I do think we want to open space for gish characters. I think tuxgeo's suggestions (see page 1) are a good place to start.

 

[Steely_Dan]

See; it's this whole gimme culture, right now: "...hand full of gimee and a mouth full of much obliged..."

 

[Lanefan]

The answer, of course, is wild magic surges.

Try to cast in armour? Chances are all you'll do is generate a surge with completely unpredictable and quite likely dangerous results. Keep it up, and nobody will want to adventure with you as you are just too dangerous to hang around with.

Great for Wild Mages. Kinda pointless for everyone else.

More seriously, I have very little sympathy for those who are looking to make a Fighter-Mage (or "gish") class viable, as it always strikes me as an "I want the best of both worlds" kind of thing.

If you want to play a Fighter and a Wizard, do just that. Two characters, one class each.

Lan-"a glass cannon in armour is no longer made of glass"-efan

 

[kinem]

Im after narrative style play (which I think you call "anti-simulationist") and absoultes work well for that : easy decisions keep play fast and let the story roll forward.

It isnt as well suited to the "Diablo" style play, where character growth is the purpose for playing (as opposed to being a single aspect) ...your right, Pathfinders is your best option for that!!

No, the "Diablo" style as you call it is gamist, not simulationist.

You appear to be unaware of the gamist / narrativist / simulationist (GNS) trichotomy. See GNS Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html

 

[Hussar]

This did get answered, but, I'd like to take another stab at it.

Despite the very good points in this thread, I am still not convinced...

I guess I just don't like seeing wizards running around casting spells in heavy armor.

Those who have no problem with that, I suppose also would not mind seeing monks throwing flying kicks in heavy armor

The reason monks don't wear heavy armor is not a contrived one though. It's based on pretty solid realism. You don't jump six feet off the ground in plate mail. Period.

, rogues sneaking and disabling traps/locks in heavy armor,

Again, grounded in solid realism. Heavy armor is noisy. We don't let people sneak around while banging coconuts together either. But, I don't see why you couldn't disable a trap in heavy armor. Lock? Well, you'd probably have to take your gloves off first, but, that's not a big deal.

druids walking their pets in the bush in heavy armor,

Now this one is actually closer to the MU restrictions. Druids were wonky in that they could only use "natural" armor and weapons, but, they could still use scimitars, daggers and sickles. They kept the "no metal armor" thing in later editions, but, the question in my mind is, is it necessary? What's wrong with a druid in plate mail? We have no problems with a cleric in plate, and a druid is just a funky kind of cleric, so, where's the problem?

Now, from a practical point of view, it does make a bit more sense since most of a druid's skills would be seriously penalized by wearing heavy armor, at least in 3e. But, is it really necessary to strictly limit the druid this way?

rangers tracking foes in the wild in heavy armor, etc...?

I'd point out that this was a 2e and later addition to the ranger. The original ranger had no such restrictions. You could wear full plate as a ranger with no problems. So, I have no real issues with a ranger in full armor. Again, skill penalties would likely apply, but, if the ranger is going into a battle, and he knows that he isn't going to need that mobility so much, then why not?

I mean, is this really a bad image for a high level ranger:

 

[BobTheNob]

No, the "Diablo" style as you call it is gamist, not simulationist.

You appear to be unaware of the gamist / narrativist / simulationist (GNS) trichotomy. See GNS Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also The Chapel Perilous - Logic in RPGs

Thanks for pointing out the links, it appears I had my terminology wrong. Doesnt actually change the point of my post, but its good to know.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Now this one is actually closer to the MU restrictions. Druids were wonky in that they could only use "natural" armor and weapons, but, they could still use scimitars, daggers and sickles. They kept the "no metal armor" thing in later editions, but, the question in my mind is, is it necessary? What's wrong with a druid in plate mail? We have no problems with a cleric in plate, and a druid is just a funky kind of cleric, so, where's the problem?

I believe the roots D) of the druid weapon list is based on the same kind of mindset as the wizard "cold iron" business. The druid would use various special blades not made of iron (bronze?) to harvest mistletoe and other plants. Only in this case, I believe the idea was that iron contaminated the plants before they could be used, and thus messed up the magic indirectly. The dagger would have been slightly curved, too. I'm not sure where the scimitar came from, unless someone thought, "Hey, a sickle is curved. Let's give him a bigger version of that."

Since technically a druid is really a wizard ("wise man")/cleric ("priest") hybrid (in both its source material and early game implementation), it made sense that it would get a hybrid mix of their restrictions.