TA: Wizards and Armor

[jml]

Hello,

Are there any restrictions in the Turakian Age setting book to do with wizards and armor?

I've been looking, but I can't find anything.

[katal3]

There is nothing specificly mentioned about armor conflicting with spellcasting, but some GMs choose to include skill roll penalties as a side effect of the Real Armor limitation.

[GamePhil]

I've also seen using the penalty from Encumberance as a penalty to magic skills.

[Dale A. Ward]

The only restrictions, of any kind, that exist in HERO are those you want to have. The restriction that you refer to is a D&Dism that I think is ridiculous.

[Labrat]

I agree with Dale, that it is kind of left over from DnD, however wasn't the wizard-armor restriction spawned from a more or less literary tradtion of iron's influence on magic? That's where the wizard's quarterstaff vs. a sword came from too, didn't it (although IIRC wizards were allowed to use daggers...). Galdalf had a sword, that should be more of a rules judgement than anything... however he chose not to wear armor. Why?

A quick go-around for that is to have an Armor Familiarity just like Weapon Familiarity where using Armor without the proper AF would reflect in something equivalent to a -3 OCV (-3 DCV seems a bit overbearing, but can be displaced with proper DCV levels.

Anyway that's some ponderings. Myself, I would allow any character to use any armor but place proper restrictions when it comes to elaborate semantics (Gestures, like GamePhil may have been more or less alluding to), etc.

[OddHat]

A Source Priest, Color Mage, Stone of Power Holder, Witch, Knight of the Spirit or Nadir Shaman in a David Gemmell based fantasy world would have no more trouble wearing armor than any other character, assuming it was available. Decide on your source material and go from there.

[Dale A. Ward]

Galdalf had a sword, that should be more of a rules judgement than anything... however he chose not to wear armor. Why?

Two words...

*BAD* *A$$*

That's right, folks... Gandalf was too cool for school. So bad, he was good... so good, he was bad. Too hot t' handle... too cold t' hold!

Word. :cool:

[Hermit]

Yet his love of the halfling leaf had dulled his wit...


So basically Gandalf was a mystic pot head ;)

[Labrat]

Yet his love of the halfling leaf had dulled his wit...


So basically Gandalf was a mystic pot head ;)

Ahhhh... so the wacky tobaccy just made him feel invulnerable. Finally, I understand! I think it would take something more powerful (cough... PCP... cough) to shrug off a crossbow bolt though.

(just trying to getthe thread back onto the armor track)

[Curufea]

As an immortal angel, Gandalf had a right to feel cocky :)
How wounded did Gandalf ever get? He got a bit tired from lots of running and hiking - he was overpowered by Saruman off screen (we don't know how) and he was killed by a Balrog. Never wounded as far as I can recall.

[OddHat]

Talking about Gandalf in a thread asking a question about the HERO System Turakien Age is fairly pointless. TA may be D&D inspired and indirectly related to Tolkien, but it's only a nodding acquaintence. In HERO, there's no built in restriction against spell casters in armor.

Heck, even D&D largely gimped that restriction years ago.

[CrosshairCollie]

The theory behind armor messing with spellcasting is that it's difficult to make the precise, intricate arcane gestures when you have twenty pounds of metal tightly strapped onto your torso.

(In D&D, spells cast with the Still Spell feat do not invoke Arcane Spell Failure, for instance.)

[OddHat]

The theory behind armor messing with spellcasting is that it's difficult to make the precise, intricate arcane gestures when you have twenty pounds of metal tightly strapped onto your torso.

(In D&D, spells cast with the Still Spell feat do not invoke Arcane Spell Failure, for instance.)

A theory used in D&D and related games and fiction to explain a feature introduced as an early attempt at balancing character classes. HERO has its own balance tools, and allows the GM to work out more for his campaign.

There's no particular reason to use the no armor rule unless you, as GM, happen to like it.

[Hugh Neilson]

A theory used in D&D and related games and fiction to explain a feature introduced as an early attempt at balancing character classes. HERO has its own balance tools, and allows the GM to work out more for his campaign.

There's no particular reason to use the no armor rule unless you, as GM, happen to like it.

Many Hero wizards will simply choose to wear no armor anyway. Why?

- they may not have the STR to lug heavy armor around. Their points went elsewhere.

- a force field spell serves the same purpose without the hassles.

- they don't ENVISION their wizard wearing armor because many of the archetyal wizards don't wear armor (Gandalf and Merlin, to name two)

- money better spent on spell-related purchases

- if you're sheathed in armor and carrying a sword, the group expects you to get up there and fight

[Markdoc]

Many Hero wizards will simply choose to wear no armor anyway. Why?

As a matter of interest, have you GM'ed a lot of Fantasy Hero? My experience (with multiple groups) has been even those who start off with "armour is not in concept" rapidly change gears the first time they get an arrow through the chest. A force field usually can't be up all the time. As regards money and other things - few purchases are as cost efficient as decent armour.

If you want unarmoured wizards, you need to give them in-game incentives to be unarmoured. That's quite possible - in my current game, we are 6 months in and even the fighters are unarmoured or lightly armoured. I'm just sayin' is all.

Personally, I have nothing against armoured wizards - but I am also pretty restrictive at the roleplaying level about when armour is or is not appropriate.

cheers, Mark

[OddHat]

Many Hero wizards will simply choose to wear no armor anyway. Why?


Their call. In a Wuxia campaign, only soldiers wear armor, and not all of them. Showing up fully armored if it's not part of your uniform has social consequences, and dungeoun delving is extremely rare. None of that changes the fact that the "No Armor for Wizards" trope is not built into the HERO system rules.

If the GM wishes to re-introduce it, he is free to do so.

[Hugh Neilson]

As a matter of interest, have you GM'ed a lot of Fantasy Hero? My experience (with multiple groups) has been even those who start off with "armour is not in concept" rapidly change gears the first time they get an arrow through the chest. A force field usually can't be up all the time. As regards money and other things - few purchases are as cost efficient as decent armour.

I more commonly play than GM Fantasy hero, and our player group is pretty stable, and pretty focused on RP and concept. That limits the number of players I've seen with this approach. We've never experienced the "everybody buys STR up" phenomenon that many other groups describe, and we do deal with the weight of equipment, so that contributes to the belief that a force field may be superior for the Wizard.

As a result, I've seen more characters add "trigger" to a force field spell than decide to buy armor.


If you want unarmoured wizards, you need to give them in-game incentives to be unarmoured. That's quite possible - in my current game, we are 6 months in and even the fighters are unarmoured or lightly armoured. I'm just sayin' is all.

Incentives? We've always tracked encumberance and enforced the penalties, so that's a good reason for weaker characters to minimize armor usage. We've also been open to allowing the spellcasters to obtain defense in some fashion, be it a combat luck variant or a defensive spell with a Trigger (not so much an incentive to be unarmored as removal of some of the disincentive).

At the end of the day, if the game is structured so that characters who don't wear heavy armor spend most of their time healing up from heavy wounds, the players will clearly gravitate to characters who wear heavy armor. GM's who don't want all the characters lumbering around in heavy armor need to run a game that permits lightly armored characters to be successful in the campaign.

[CourtFool]

There are no restrictions in the Turakian Age setting book to do with wizards and armor. There are options for providing restrictions in Fantasy Hero.

[keithcurtis]

Two words...

*BAD* *A$$*

That's right, folks... Gandalf was too cool for school. So bad, he was good... so good, he was bad. Too hot t' handle... too cold t' hold!

Word. :cool:

http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/leveling.jpg

Keith "Oh, yeah" Curtis

[Markdoc]

At the end of the day, if the game is structured so that characters who don't wear heavy armor spend most of their time healing up from heavy wounds, the players will clearly gravitate to characters who wear heavy armor. GM's who don't want all the characters lumbering around in heavy armor need to run a game that permits lightly armored characters to be successful in the campaign.

That's my point. I traditionally run games where I keep armour under control by social and practical means*. The players don't run around in armour the whole time because it's not practical (Strength and encumbrance help here). However my experience has been that "concept" is not enough - there need to be specific in-game consequences to armour if you want wizards to dial their armour back.

cheers, Mark

*of course, this means that wizards are no less armoured than anyone else :D

[Hugh Neilson]

That's my point. I traditionally run games where I keep armour under control by social and practical means*. The players don't run around in armour the whole time because it's not practical (Strength and encumbrance help here). However my experience has been that "concept" is not enough - there need to be specific in-game consequences to armour if you want wizards to dial their armour back.

It depends on the players to some extent, but if the game allows you to access 8 rDEF armor, wear it constantly and suffer no ill effects, then the game effectively penalizes anyone who decides not to wear such armor.

Penalize the concept and players will generally find another concept. Few players want to play the wimpy sidekick.

From that perspective, I agree with you that concept alone won't make it happen.

[katal3]

Hmm, I've played a mage in TA, and I can say I didn't wear armor, though one of our party members did and he was a warrior mage. Right up til I took an arrow to the chest and two the the left theigh (out of the 7 fired at me that phase), then I quickly decided my next mage would have a lot more defencive capability then a wimpy "shield"-esk forcefield.
Overall the I think if you want to have unarmored mages your options are to either make magical defences more effective then mundane defences. ("Full plate? Bah, I've got a 10/10 FF spell that doesn't weight anything, I'll stick with that thanks"), or somehow penalize mages over and above warrior types for wearing armor. (penalties to skill rolls, increased END cost for casting in armor, limit how much STR they can purchase, etc).
Of course if you want to remove some of the incentive for armor period then you would imporve weapons in such a way to make armor Less effective in specific cases.
For example Bludgeoning attacks would automatically get a level of penetrating, only vs. "real armor"
and attacks which historicly penetrated armor rather well, such as military picks, crossbows, early firearms, etc. would get AP, only vs. Real armor.

Of course in "traditional" combat armor retains some usefulness, but against opponents armed with mauls and crossbows, that armor isn't nearly as effective as the good sense to duck

[Hugh Neilson]

Hmm, I've played a mage in TA, and I can say I didn't wear armor, though one of our party members did and he was a warrior mage. Right up til I took an arrow to the chest and two the the left theigh (out of the 7 fired at me that phase), then I quickly decided my next mage would have a lot more defencive capability then a wimpy "shield"-esk forcefield.

This becomes an arm's race fairly easily. "Well, if he can have a 6/6 Force Field and wear plate mail, my character with Plate Mail wants to buy a Magic Force Field Amulet. I'll pay the points, and I get the same defenses he's got, so whats the problem?"

Alternatively, my wizard may want to shell out a few extra points to allow his force field to be Usable by Others and share it with his teammates.


Overall the I think if you want to have unarmored mages your options are to either make magical defences more effective then mundane defences. ("Full plate? Bah, I've got a 10/10 FF spell that doesn't weight anything, I'll stick with that thanks")

I don't think it's any more fair that the Wizard can have higher defenses than that the warrior can.


or somehow penalize mages over and above warrior types for wearing armor. (penalties to skill rolls, increased END cost for casting in armor, limit how much STR they can purchase, etc).

Why should the wizard be penalized in this fashion, but not the rogue who has Combat Luck?

One approach for leveling the playing field would be a ruling that the "real armor" limitation means that the armor does not stack with magical force fields and the like. If you get the greater of the two, but they don't combine, the benefits of using both dissipate pretty quickly.

If the mage spends more points on strength, that's less points to spend on magic. As long as the extra points spent on magic are generating an equivalent benefit, the characters should be balanced.

Of course, if characters have enough wealth to purchase anything they want, so the guy who doesn't buy plate mail can't do anything else that's productive with his money, he'll logically buy the plate mail. Assuming the wizard doesn't buy armor, what can he spend his loot on instead? Similarly, if there's nothing else I can buy with my extra points than the extra STR to lug that armor around, I guess I'll buy the STR.

[katal3]

Why should the wizard be penalized in this fashion, but not the rogue who has Combat Luck?

One approach for leveling the playing field would be a ruling that the "real armor" limitation means that the armor does not stack with magical force fields and the like. If you get the greater of the two, but they don't combine, the benefits of using both dissipate pretty quickly.

If the mage spends more points on strength, that's less points to spend on magic. As long as the extra points spent on magic are generating an equivalent benefit, the characters should be balanced.

Of course, if characters have enough wealth to purchase anything they want, so the guy who doesn't buy plate mail can't do anything else that's productive with his money, he'll logically buy the plate mail. Assuming the wizard doesn't buy armor, what can he spend his loot on instead? Similarly, if there's nothing else I can buy with my extra points than the extra STR to lug that armor around, I guess I'll buy the STR.
Well I was talking more about penalties to the magic skill roll then anything else, and likely only with powers using gestures. or increased END cost due to some sort of buffering effect armor has on magic, etc.
Why do you say that given an effectivly unlimited amount of wealth, the only thing a character could do with that money is purchase armor? that seems to make no sense what so ever. Same with STR, both of these hypothetical situations are so specific that the only way they would come up is if the DM purposly wanted the character to upgrade his mundane defenses, rendering the points made moot as the assumption made in my above examples were to find ways for the GM to discourage Armor Use.
However your point about opportunity cost is valid, but not from the perspective I was taking, the whole point was to encourage spellcasters not to wear armor, as such there would need to be an effective "unbalance" where casters do not gain as much benefit for purchasing armor as a warrior would.

[Kristopher]

At least in 4th Ed Fantasy Hero, good DCV and lighter armor was far more effective than heavy armor.

[Bismark]

All the spellcasters in my campaign wear armour, and they all have an absolute minimum of 13 STR as well (the most recent spellcasters in the latest 'round' of my campaign - which are all 200pt characters - all have 20 STR ).

The STR thing is just an idiosyncrasy of mine - I stat up all the characters for the players - and the players have grown to appreciate the extra STUN the STR provides, plus, as mages they lack the combat skill levels and Martial Arts that my fighters have [owing to a finite number of points to buy everything with], so when things go wrong and they end up in melee,every blow has to count and they have to be able to absorb punishment. The high STR also makes wearing serious armour a real 'goer' as it were.

I use DCV (and DEX roll penalties where applicable) penalties for armour (typically -1 to -3 depending on the type), but allow a Manoeuvre in Armour skill (basically Penalty Skill Levels to offset the penalty), but with a limit on the number of those levels that can be bought (heavy armour like 'Plate + Chain' and reinforced mail will always have a minimum of -1 penalty to DCV, for example).

The Long Term END rules are also used to prevent people wearing heavy armour all the time.

The cost of spells and spell skills also prevents the mages from sparing points to buy down the END cost of their STR like ALL the serious fighters in my party do :D .

Of course, when dealing with 'real armour', you can dial the 'realism' level to include such things as the construction of the armour (for example, it is much easier to do cartwheels in full plate than reinforced mail - the rigidity of the armour plates is actually an advantage in this case as it will not 'flop' everywhere). [Good] Plate is also severely underrated by giving it a straight 8 DEF - it is massively superior defensively even to reinforced mail [7 DEF in the rules as written].

As for stacking armour and force fields - that depends on the limits the GM puts on; for example, I made the force field Wizardry spell an 'advanced' one (meaning that you need to buy a certain number of points in Wizardry spells before you can access it). Given the fact that most of the party are not primarily Wizards, the extra point investment required (on top of the required Wizardry skill) is usually a disincentive.

Necromancers have the easiest time as they can use Osseous Armour without having to go outside their chosen speciality (but that is OK as the only Necro in the party is a player who does not abuse the rules, and it makes the 'bad guy' Necros so much more scary).

Despite some of the statements above, my 200pt characters are not totally OTT with fighting or magic as they usually have stacks of non-combat skills (I am always looking at published characters and go - 'why does he/she not have THAT skill when the concept means that he/she should really have it') and points disappear pretty quicky once you start stacking up the AK, CuK and other assorted Knowledge skills. Try doing a Steppe Nomad warrior sometime and count the skills that are required - scary.

If players want to start off with magical armour to get around all the 'real armour' disadvantages, charge them points for it as if they were superheroes - that should make them think twice :eg: .

Just a few ideas to mull over...

[Markdoc]

This becomes an arm's race fairly easily. "Well, if he can have a 6/6 Force Field and wear plate mail, my character with Plate Mail wants to buy a Magic Force Field Amulet. I'll pay the points, and I get the same defenses he's got, so whats the problem?"

And THAT is why I emphasise that you need to design your games with this kind of problem in mind (unless you want a very high magic/high DEF sort of game, of course).

One of the things that some GMs complain about is that combat in fantasy hero often ends with lots of unconscious foes, rather than dead and dying ones. My reaction is always "that's because you are a poor GM: you gave your players and their foes access to lots of armour and now are complaining that they have lots of armour. What did you expect?"

(I occasionally have the opposite problem of keeping rash players alive, but I guess that falls under "natural selection" :D)

I get around this problem with the following rules.

1. I make magic dificult to do in combat, with required limitations like concentration, skill roll, enforcing encumbrance penalties, etc. I have many, many different schools of magic, but this applies to *all* of them. That means mages can wear armour to their heart's content, but in the front line, because they spent magic on spells and skills, they will never match up to a dedicated fighter type. That makes heavy armour slightly less important, simply because HTH combat is regarded as a possibility for that character, not the main point. This also applies to other skills such as stealth and concealment, for example.

2. Powers and free equipment do not stack. The mage does not get to buy a 10 PD forcefield and add it to 8 DEF plate. That also makes heavier armour less attractive or flat-out redundant (of course it may mean the mage skips buying FF, but there are times when armour is not available, so then it's nice to have). Either way, the mage gets no combat advantage. Of course this applies evenly to all characters, so the light fighter gets combat luck *or* armour, but not both and the fighter does not get to buy Deadly Blow and add it to a freebie sword, but that's a useful impediment to the arms race anyway.

3. I enforce social and "realistic" rules for armour. It's hot, it's heavy, it chafes and no, you can't wear it when you are walking around town, without getting into trouble. That also diminishes the problem and encourages mages to be less concerned about armour.

In other words, I never tell anyone "You can't have armor". I just make the game so that they can choose to rely on it or not and each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages. What's nice is that this approach leads the players to naturally behave rationally. When they are expecting a big fight, warriors pile on the heaviest armour they can get. If they are raiding the thieves' guild at night, they tend to ditch heavy armour in favour of stealth and speed - *without* me saying anything.

cheers, Mark

[Rapier]

One of the things that some GMs complain about is that combat in fantasy hero often ends with lots of unconscious foes, rather than dead and dying ones. My reaction is always "that's because you are a poor GM: you gave your players and their foes access to lots of armour and now are complaining that they have lots of armour. What did you expect?"

(I occasionally have the opposite problem of keeping rash players alive, but I guess that falls under "natural selection" :D)

That was the problem I kept running into. What? ANOTHER Deader?