Wizards, Armour and the Collective Consciousness

[pawsplay]

Whether some wizards can cast in armor is pretty irrelevant to whether a particular wizard should be allowed to wear armor in a particular campaign.

 

[RFisher]

OK, won`t try to lecture you cos your a smart lawyer type with a quick response in mind for such sneak attacks.

When we play D&D and i am the DM my word is law, its not open to discussion or debate, the DM`s word is final. You don`t have to like it, just live with it and play the game. Its a game with set rules so why do you insist on trying to change them, if thats what you want to do you DM the D&D 3/3.5 Edition games, simple as that, mate.

I don’t care whether anyone things this is a useful point of view to express. I think it is.

I agree.

If a friend says he wants to run a campaign and starts telling me about it, I start figuring out how I can fit into what he wants to run. If he says paladins can’t wear armor and wizards can’t be over four feet tall, I say, “Interesting.” I make any suggestions that I think can help him get closer to his vision. I accept if he chooses to ignore my suggestions.

I save up my own preferences to include in the campaigns I choose to run.

Although for my own campaigns I do try to consider the preferences of the players and may modify things to that end, I don’t expect anyone else to do that for me.

At the risk of declaring badwrongfun, this just seems like common courtesy to me.

All modulated by the fact that the actual people involved here are friends and this looks like it really is just a friendly debate.

 

[NerfedWizard]

I have to say I disagree about not giving the DM your opinions about a game world where the group haven't even begun play yet - and in this particular case, OGB ASKED me for my feedback - so he can't really complain when he gets it!! Anyway I think the ref DOES have to consider player preferences - he has to at least offer the players a world that they can believe in, characters that they can believe in, characters that they can get excited about playing. Otherwise they either won't play, or will play but won't enjoy it - neither of which can possibly be a desired outcome. No-one has the God-given right to be the group's DM / ref / GM - especially in a group with 3+ potential refs.

And as for powerplaying, I really don't mind being the weakest member of the party, as long as I'm not totally eclipsed - basically I want to be able to make a special, valued and occasionally impressive contribution, but I'm perfectly happy for others to be doing that too, and more often than I am, just as long as I get my occasional stint. A cleric gets as many spells as a wizard, and many of the most useful wizard spells are also cleric spells of the same level, leaving the wizard with nothing to contribute - this may not be true at high levels, or in thoughtful, roleplay-heavy games - but those are not the sorts of games that I have seen OGB DM! OGB loves wizard blasting spells, but the maths just isn't in their favour - they often do less damage than melee attacks, and they are very costly in terms of spell slots as compared to buffs or summoning spells which last.

Anyway this is seriously off-topic, if anyone has any more literature references please let's have them!

 

[pawsplay]

I have to say I disagree about not giving the DM your opinions about a game world where the group haven't even begun play yet - and in this particular case, OGB ASKED me for my feedback - so he can't really complain when he gets it!! Anyway I think the ref DOES have to consider player preferences - he has to at least offer the players a world that they can believe in, characters that they can believe in, characters that they can get excited about playing. Otherwise they either won't play, or will play but won't enjoy it - neither of which can possibly be a desired outcome. No-one has the God-given right to be the group's DM / ref / GM - especially in a group with 3+ potential refs.

Fair enough. But there are two basic points here.

1) Wizards deserve armor. This is a balance issue and while we can offer some opinions here, this is basically all OGB's decision.

2) Wizards should be able to wear armor. This is a world building question. Most people seem to agree this is generally true, but not everyone thinks so, and I think just about everyone agrees that in some scenarios, wizards would not be able to wear armor. I think there is a very good argument for saying somatic components = you can't wear armor is sort of implausible. But if that is the case, you still have to at least consider any balance problems. And by "you" I mean, "Basically, the GM with some input from the players."

Let's say you win argument 2) but lose argument 1). It's within your GM's purview to come up another explanation, whether it's the conductivity of materials (Rolemaster), magic generating heat (Scarred Lands), or special vows (Krynn).

As a veteran Talislanta player, I can say that allowing full plate for wizards is not usually a problem. In D&D, you are looking at a reduced movement rate, plus either thee feats or one level of fighter or cleric just to get proficiency, which you need to eliminate attack roll penalties (which, by the way, would include rays and touch spells). Even if it were totally allowed, as a player, I would be looking at bracers, which a a side benefit protect against incorporeal attacks and certain touch attacks. Also, casting mage armor and carrying around scrolls of magic missile works out to be a fairly cheap option in the long run compared to mithril chain shirts and the like.

 

[Dausuul]

I have to say I disagree about not giving the DM your opinions about a game world where the group haven't even begun play yet - and in this particular case, OGB ASKED me for my feedback - so he can't really complain when he gets it!!

I'm gonna have to agree with those who say this is getting ridiculous.

Obviously you're entitled to voice your opinion, particularly when asked. Obviously too, OGB has the final word since he's DMing. If this is a deal-breaker for you, your option is to refuse to play. I think this thread has pretty well debunked the idea that there is some kind of general rule in fantasy settings about wizards and armor, but OGB seems to have given up that line of attack and is now arguing on balance grounds, where he has a decent case.

As pawsplay says, you've essentially won your original argument (that there is no general prohibition in fantasy against wizards in armor), but you lose the debate over whether wizards should be allowed armor in OGB's game, since it's OGB's game and he has made his position clear.

A cleric gets as many spells as a wizard, and many of the most useful wizard spells are also cleric spells of the same level, leaving the wizard with nothing to contribute - this may not be true at high levels, or in thoughtful, roleplay-heavy games - but those are not the sorts of games that I have seen OGB DM! OGB loves wizard blasting spells, but the maths just isn't in their favour.

From a combat perspective, the best 1st-level spells available to a 3.X wizard are sleep and color spray. Clerics don't get access to either one. Wizard offense can be murderously effective even at low levels, but you do have to realize that direct-damage spells are worthless*; save-or-lose spells are where it's at. (Fireball isn't combat magic, it's a utility spell allowing the wizard to commit arson at long range.)

[SIZE=-2]*The exception to this rule is when dealing with undead, which are immune to most save-or-lose spells; but if you expect to equal a cleric when fighting undead, you might as well go home.[/SIZE]

 

[OldGreybeard]

The main reason i asked NerfedWizard for his opinion is that he has designed his own fantasy based game called Omnifray and i know his views on D&D as he mentions it every session or every game type(funny but true, ask him), so i wanted to create a happy medium in which he would want to play. Unfortunately his replies were not in the interest of game balance so when i declined his suggestions he opened this debate, so in my mind he has gone to big brother to garner support for his argument.

Hey i have broad shoulders and i am willing to listen(wish he would, 9th level spell and he still resists it)!!! I totally agree, Wizards can wear armour but to maintain a balance, need some penalty in 3e thats ASF(arcane spell failure).

I have e:mailed him a second suggestion for a new campaign with Clerics of Azuth as the prime religion(like 2e cannot wear armour and use wizard weapons, set in a city state ruled by a magocracy, three players would play Wizard, Cleric and Rogue in a plot heavy game, when the party need warriors they hire mercs or henchmen and play them as secondary characters.

Now i think thats a fair and interesting scenario with each character bringing some unique skills and abilities to the table. It puts less emphasis on combat and the need to wear heavy armour, still waiting for a response.

Here is some light humour to end. For a mili-second i nearly caved in then thought if i let him play a wizard able to wear full armour and suffer no penalties then to maintain a game balance i would have to let every intelligent monster or NPC have a pet Rust Monster just to counter this new threat. Hahahahaha

 

[Raven Crowking]

So far as I can tell, the OP has a problem that the DM of the game wishes to limit arcane spellcasters from wearing armour in the game that he is running.

Regardless of the reasoning, the DM is allowed to set the parameters of the game he runs.


RC

 

[pawsplay]

So no Abyssal Exalted Glitter Boys.

 

[NerfedWizard]

The DM can set the parameters of the game he proposes to run, but it is his responsiblity to ensure the players enjoy the game. Anyway the Magocracy
game sounds like a possibility, but the devil is in the detail as they say.

Right, apologies to everyone for the intensity of this debate; doubtless there
will be more and similar in the future, and I shall have to remember to mark some of my posts RRRRRAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTT

PS ASF is horrendous in the D&D 3.5 context

 

[Raven Crowking]

The DM can set the parameters of the game he proposes to run, but it is his responsiblity to ensure the players enjoy the game.

As a point of fact, the DM can set the parameters of the game he proposes to run, and it is then the responsibility of everyone at the table to ensure that all players -- DM included -- enjoy the game within those parameters.

If you cannot do that, you should not be at that table.


RC