Action Economy and Why Magic-Users Don't Wear Armor

[Deset Gled]

I always note that the chance of spell failure increases dramatically with every pound of iron, steel, or bronze the MU is carrying, due to the conductive resonance of the metal.

Which is why the magic users wear leather or dragonscale armor. Anytime they need a non-metal solution for something, they just ask the druid what he normally uses.

I quite like the option used in Skyrim, where spellcasters can wear whatever they like, but the best bonuses to spellcasting are the enchantments woven into robes.

What's the explanation for why you can't wear the robe under (or over) the armor? A video game is slot based. But in a system where you've already removed armor proficiency rules, what's to prevent it?

 

[Crusadius]

Armor is heavy and requires higher strength to offset its penalties. Magic-users are not known for their prodigious might. So either fatigue and/or movement penalties. Or an armour-use skill/feat/talent to help offset penalties armor inflicts while worn, i.e. without training you cannot take full advantage of the armor you wear.

 

[MarkB]

What's the explanation for why you can't wear the robe under (or over) the armor? A video game is slot based. But in a system where you've already removed armor proficiency rules, what's to prevent it?

The flowing nature of the robes is part of how they operate, mediating the flow of magical energy into, out of and around the wearer. If they get bunched up around restrictive armour, they can't do their job.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Which is why the magic users wear leather or dragonscale armor. Anytime they need a non-metal solution for something, they just ask the druid what he normally uses.



What's the explanation for why you can't wear the robe under (or over) the armor? A video game is slot based. But in a system where you've already removed armor proficiency rules, what's to prevent it?

Leather, sure, without studs. No dragon scale available in my campaigns.

Or Druids.

You couldn't wear robes under armor, it simply won' fit. I don't know why anyone would wear robes outside a ceremonial situation. They provide endless hand-hold opportunities for the enemy, they catch on brush and branches, they are hot in summer and drafty in cold weather, and if they get wet you're hauling fifteen extra pounds.

Plus it is akin to hanging a big neon sign around your neck flashing 'KILL ME BEFORE I CAN CAST A SPELL'. The key to survival is to blend in with the group. Otherwise, you're archer-fodder.

 

[GMMichael]

Armor is heavy and requires higher strength to offset its penalties. . . So either fatigue and/or movement penalties. . .

Does magic-use have to be a physical thing? Is it just "psionics" otherwise? Some disciplines just require magic words. Movement-related magic has good precedent, largely in dance and street-magic.

Plus it is akin to hanging a big neon sign around yor neck flashing 'KILL ME BEFORE I CAN CAST A SPELL'. The key to survival is to blend in with the group. Otherwise, you're archer-fodder.

I like this point. Looking like a magic-user is a good way to get shot. So...wearing metal can be a good thing!?

How much prominence do magic items have in your world?

I quite like the option used in Skyrim, where spellcasters can wear whatever they like, but the best bonuses to spellcasting are the enchantments woven into robes.

I'm hoping to keep magic items to a minimum. But that's obviously on the GM.

The robe-bonus is ad hoc, but it makes great sense on one level. "Why wear only robes?" "Because heavier armors don't enhance my magic, and my mage armor doesn't work as well when I'm wearing armor."

But on another level: "why can't I make Dragon Plate of Destruction and Magicka Regeneration?" "Erm...because that's just how it works."

 

[Crusadius]

Does magic-use have to be a physical thing? Is it just "psionics" otherwise? Some disciplines just require magic words. Movement-related magic has good precedent, largely in dance and street-magic.

I meant in general as opposed to specifically targeting magic or magic-use. So a spell-caster wearing plate armor gets to walk slower than those with higher strength, and if you make use of fatigue points as mentioned above in spell casting, this resource also gets consumed by walking around carrying heavy loads that you are not physically able to for long periods of time (like walking around in a dungeon, sleeping with the armor on like every adventurer does) - so a magic-user needs to work out what they spend their fatigue points on - magic or wearing a fortress.

 

[Baron Opal II]

For me, proficiency with armor allows you to wear it effectively as well as maintain it too. Those without proficiency only gain half the bonus and there will be a cost to repair it after the adventure. This coupled with the higher weight and lower carrying capacity of low STR magicians makes anything beyond leather undesirable. Spending a feat to gain proficiency with increasing weights of armor is an option.

Furthermore, iron grounds out magic. If you carry more than a stone's worth of iron magic becomes... unpredictable. A few daggers are fine, belt buckles and clasps can be adjusted for, but actual armor is right out. Notably, medium and heavy armor grant +1 and +2 on saves vs. magic, respectively.

 

[Crusadius]

For me, proficiency with armor allows you to wear it effectively as well as maintain it too. Those without proficiency only gain half the bonus and there will be a cost to repair it after the adventure. This coupled with the higher weight and lower carrying capacity of low STR magicians makes anything beyond leather undesirable. Spending a feat to gain proficiency with increasing weights of armor is an option.

I agree about proficiency. If you take D&D as an example (and perhaps this applies more to the older editions but the baggage still remains haunting the newer editions) a Fighter can wear any armour whereas a Magic-User cannot. The rules probably hand wave a lot of the explanation but a Fighter would be trained in proper use of armour in battle whereas a Magic-User would have spent all their time learning magic, so a simple "cannot wear armour" rule would suffice.

It gets mucky when you start talking about dual-class or multi-class because then the assumption would be that a Fighter/Magic-User can wear armour properly (as an aside, I think the exception regarding Elven-Chain was so that Melf could actually be a Fighter/Magic-User with armour). But the rules, due to the lack of explanation/detail, then prevented a Fighter/Magic-User from wearing armour and being able to cast spells at the same time (barring the aforementioned Elven-Chain exception). No plate-armoured spell-casting walking fortress thank you very much! ... so you get explanations such as "armour restricts your arms so you can't cast spells" which doesn't explain how it affects spells with only verbal components and also should have meant spell-casters must have been performing mystic yoga to cast spells with somatic components (embarrassing themselves on the battlefield performing "Downward-Facing Dog" to get that fireball off) to explain why armour would prevent such spells from being cast.

But I digress. I think if your system doesn't go into the detail of spell-casting gestures and what does or doesn't work when wearing restrictive armour, then requiring a spell-caster to acquire proficiency in armour-use to get around not being able to cast spells while wearing armour should be enough, and warriors should automatically be given proficiency in armour-use.