Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hautamaki" data-source="post: 5945105" data-attributes="member: 42219">It's very hard to say.Armour SHOULD be a powerful and important option.&nbsp; It should be one of the things that separates melee characters from casters.&nbsp; If mages can wear the same armour as fighters and it doesn't throw off the game balance, that tells me that armour is too weak in the system and needs to be buffed up (imo of course).&nbsp; So if mages are allowed to wear armour, it should make a big difference and thus have big attendant drawbacks to keep the balance.However, I didn't like arcane spell failure because it added a bit of mechanical fiddlyness where before there was none, which influenced your choice.&nbsp; Mages would not wear armour less because of its gameworld pros and cons than because the player didn't want to be bothered with more fiddlyness.&nbsp; When you're making critical in-game decisions based on non-gameworld factors it takes me out of the game a bit and bothers me.For my own houserules I require mages to take a level of fighter before they can wear armour at all, and armour makes spells harder to cast.&nbsp; But there is a casting check regardless of whether you wear armour in my system--there is always a chance that spells will fail though of course the chances of that happening are largely under a player's control.&nbsp; The decision of whether or not to wear armour is of course part of that.But I suspect that D&amp;D will not have a chance at spell failure as part of its core.&nbsp; Therefore armour needs some other way to be a drawback--but what?&nbsp; Again, introducing spell failure for armour-wearing mages only is an inelegant solution.&nbsp; I have no idea what I want WoTC to do about mages who wear armour.&nbsp; My own solution relies on an assumption that does not exist in the wider D&amp;D market.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hautamaki, post: 5945105, member: 42219"] It's very hard to say. Armour SHOULD be a powerful and important option. It should be one of the things that separates melee characters from casters. If mages can wear the same armour as fighters and it doesn't throw off the game balance, that tells me that armour is too weak in the system and needs to be buffed up (imo of course). So if mages are allowed to wear armour, it should make a big difference and thus have big attendant drawbacks to keep the balance. However, I didn't like arcane spell failure because it added a bit of mechanical fiddlyness where before there was none, which influenced your choice. Mages would not wear armour less because of its gameworld pros and cons than because the player didn't want to be bothered with more fiddlyness. When you're making critical in-game decisions based on non-gameworld factors it takes me out of the game a bit and bothers me. For my own houserules I require mages to take a level of fighter before they can wear armour at all, and armour makes spells harder to cast. But there is a casting check regardless of whether you wear armour in my system--there is always a chance that spells will fail though of course the chances of that happening are largely under a player's control. The decision of whether or not to wear armour is of course part of that. But I suspect that D&D will not have a chance at spell failure as part of its core. Therefore armour needs some other way to be a drawback--but what? Again, introducing spell failure for armour-wearing mages only is an inelegant solution. I have no idea what I want WoTC to do about mages who wear armour. My own solution relies on an assumption that does not exist in the wider D&D market. [/QUOTE]

Verification