Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 5946574" data-attributes="member: 23240">Of all the options discussed here I like spell failure the least. If spellcasting required a roll and armor gave a penalty to it, it would be OK - but adding a separate roll just to check if the spell is disrupted by armor is a bad idea.All other approaches are fine for me - as long as they are well explained and it is clear why things work as they work in the setting. "Wizards cannot cast in armor" is completely metagame and explaining that armor disrupts the gestures is a poor handwave (the rogue has no problem with dodging and opening locks in his armor, after all). But what if it's contact with metal that disrupts spells (and spellcasters not only avoid metal armor, but also any kind of metal weapon or jewelery, and putting them in chains cuts off their magic)? This makes it completely understandable why most mages only wear robes or leather - and a rare, powerful one, uses dragon scales.Or, one may use the Scarred Lands idea that magic generates a lot of heat as a side effect, so any kind of clothing that's heavy and hard to take off is a risk of dangerous overheat or burns. Wizards wear robes because it lets them cool easily.The 4e approach, where proficiency in good armor is hard to get, but the armor itself does not interfere with spellcasting is also good. It's intuitive and does not leave any strange restrictions that must be explained somehow.In short: Use any kind of simple mechanics for armor and spellcasting. Just make sure it makes sense in the setting.</blockquote>

Verification