Wizards Armor Spell?

[Demonsong]

Warriors can wear armor almost continuously. All they need is to spend a few points to buy off any DEX and DVC penalties (if any) and have a high enough strength that encumbrance is not an issue.

 

It stands to reason the wizards should be able to have some sort of always on protection as well.

 

It is recommended in the HUGE Fantasy Hero book that GMs do not allow any magical spells/effect that doesn’t run on endurance. It’s obviously a balance issue and I can see there point. However I already ignore this rule on a fell small spells such as Light Spells.

So I guess I need to ignore it for this effect as well.

 

So I am thinking something like this:

 

Wizards Armor

Armor PDr 8 EDr 8

-1/2 Non Persistent

-1/4 Noisy

-1/4 Easy to Dispelled

 

Active cost 24pts

Real cost 12pts

 

Reasoning:

- I used armor instead of force filed with +1/2 END = 0 for a few reasons. 1) The spell is representing armor, and has the same armor value as Plate mail. 2) Armor is (arguably) inherently invisible, where force fields are not.

 

-Non Persistent because if the spell requires a small part of the mages concentration and if he is KOed, stunned or he goes to sleep the spell goes down.

 

-Noisy because any magical active character with LOS to the user would automatically know it was a spell and what its general purpose is.

 

-Easy to dispel because any spell that can be on for such a long period is going to be designed to use the lease amount of power possible and there for should be vulnerable to such attacks.

 

-No Skill Roll to active because it would interfere with the effect I am trying to create and a for a mage to be able to cast and hold a spell on for a long period of time the spell would have to be relatively simple to use.

 

Well what do you think?

 

It is simple but achieves the desired effect. Can any one find fault with it? Or better yet can any one improve on it?

 

Thanks

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Wizards Armor Spell?

 

Force Field +8/+8, Trigger (+1/4; when attacked) 20 AP. Make it 0 END and it's 28 AP, but since you'll only pay END once it comes up and you need to decide whether to maintain it then, it's not as crucial.. If you want it easily dispelled and noisy, there's -1/2 in limitations for you, but incantations, gestures, skill rolls, extra time, etc. generally covers off enough limits that another -1/2 is pretty useless.

 

Plus, if it's noisy and known to be easy to dispel, guess what the wizard and warrior will do every time?

 

Warrior: "Delay"

 

Wizard: "Dispel"

 

Warrior: "Demolish"

 

28 AP isn't a lot to begin with.

[Blue Jogger]

Re: Wizards Armor Spell?

 

I'd slap another limitation, Activation, just so that wizard can't be sure that it would work even if there aren't any dispelling enemy wizards around. If you want to be nice, put it only on about half of the spell so he at least gets a 4 DEF when it fails.

 

An arrow comes straight for the mage.

Mage throws up his force field which stops most of the force.

"Why do I have to be in front?" the fighter complains.

"Because, your armor is just a tad more reliable than this spell."

[Markdoc]

Re: Wizards Armor Spell?

 

There are lots of ways of doing armour - this looks fine, but I'd be inclined to drop easy to dispel, otherwise your mages will end up in combat in their undies far too often.

 

cheers, Mark

[Tech]

Re: Wizards Armor Spell?

 

Depending on how a Mage is treated in your game, the armor issue varies. If your mage is treated as the 'spend all your time reading tomes so I can use magic but can't fight worth spit' type, then perhaps it's best that the mage have some sort of armor but not as much as the warrior. The mage will be blasting away in the back while the warrior keeps the front busy.

 

If the mage is more like Gandalf and is every bit as capable a fighter as he is casting magic, then he's going to be in combat a lot more so armor becomes important. Out of curiousity, can't your mage create some sort of 'mage clothes' that doesn't look any difference from regular clothes but is hard to cut, hence Armor? If you could pay for that, you wouldn't need a 'Armor' spell.

[Outsider]

Re: Wizards Armor Spell?

 

Ah, yes.

 

The old "Armor = Force Field with +1 3/4 power advantages built in, but only costs half again as much per DEF provided... therefore it is a far more efficient to take an effect that -should- use Force Field, but make it using Armor that has a bunch of power disadvantages that make it act like a forcefield instead."

 

To make an 8/8 Force Field that acts like armor, 16 base points need :

(+1/2) 0 END

(+1/2) Persistent

(+3/4) Invisible Power Effects (visible only to an obscure detect, but not sight or hearing)

turning them into 44 active (and real, if no disads are applied) points.

 

But to make 8/8 Armor that is functionally equivalent, one only needs to spend the base 24 points, with no advantages, meaning 24 active (and real) points.

 

To make an 8/8 "forcefield" based on the Armor power, though, one takes 24 base points and gets to apply

(-1/2) Takes End

(-1/2) Not Persistent

(-1/4 to -1/2) "Obvious"

ending up as 24 active, and only 10 real points. (instead of the 16 real points the same effect actually bought as forcefield would take)

 

 

 

Normally, when I GM, armor is not available as a castable magical effect. If a spellcaster wants defence, he buys Forcefield, he uses Aid to increase the Def of whatever he is wearing, or he construct a power (possibly Armor) that is tied to a focus. If Armor is the base power for the focus, the focus must be one that largely covers the caster's body, otherwise he must use Forcefield once again.

 

 

But that's just me. If you are the GM, or your GM allows it, there is nothing -technically- wrong with the power as presented. As long as you're going for point efficiency so hard, though, you should drop the Easy to Dispell, and add (at the very least) "Extra Time to Start, 5 minutes" (-1), "Gestures to start" (-1/4), "Incatation to start" (-1/4), "Concentrate 0 DCV to start" (-1/2)

 

This will bring your limitation total to (-2 3/4), making your armor spell only cost you 24/3.75 = 6 real points. Unless your GM allows the warriors in your party to sleep in their armor, you will be no worse off than they are if your group is ambused in the night, and you can cast this spell in the morning when they are putting on their armor.

[Markdoc]

Re: Wizards Armor Spell?

 

Just as matter of interest, don't your mages ever consider just wearing armour?

 

cheers, Mark

[Demonsong]

Re: Wizards Armor Spell?

 

Just as matter of interest, don't your mages ever consider just wearing armour?

 

cheers, Mark

 

It’s all a matter of style.

 

A war wizard that carries a great sword and wears chain mail is one way to go.

 

The humble looking Warlock dressed in robes that carries only his walking staff is another style.

 

I just want to even things out a bit. A warrior can spend 10 pts and wear a suit of chain mail all day, taking it off only and night to sleep. I just want a way for mages to do basically the same thing for about the same points, but with a magical effect.

[Demonsong]

Re: Wizards Armor Spell?

 

Ah, yes.

 

The old "Armor = Force Field with +1 3/4 power advantages built in, but only costs half again as much per DEF provided... therefore it is a far more efficient to take an effect that -should- use Force Field, but make it using Armor that has a bunch of power disadvantages that make it act like a forcefield instead."

 

 

If you don’t like it don’t allow it in your game. That’s perfectly reasonable.

 

On the other side of that I don’t find it resemble to make players pay and vastly inflated price for some thing all in the name of special effects. To me that’s just silly. (This is wear I go off on my linger advantage cost too much rant. But alas this is not the place)

 

And I have found that if you do such things character just change there special effect.

 

“You don’t like it fine. I will change it to create an actual suit of visible magical armor that is weightless and noiseless.â€

 

To each his own.

[Nightmask]

Re: Wizards Armor Spell?

 

Here is my two cents... Add Only Costs END to Cast -1/4 (since Costs END -1/2) and Uncontroled (up to eight hours) +1/2. Just a thought for what its worth. Oh yeah, its worth two cents.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Wizards Armor Spell?

 

Using my alternate encumbrance rules, a guy wearing 8 DEF armor (40 kg) spends a minimum of 1 END per Phase, every Phase, regardless of his STR (based on a heroic standard of 1 END per 5 STR). Out of combat he can reduce his SPD to 2 voluntarily, but when he's using his full SPD that can add up quickly.

 

Personally, I am a great fan of allowing wizards to have spells that are more powerful than the "free" stuff a warrior gets, because the wizard pays points for all of it. But that's just me.

 

I once built a wizard who had 8 DEF "Wizard Armor" which was basically clothing enchanted to have a high DEF, with none of the Real Armor or Mass penalties. It was Independent (back when I liked that Limitation) and I paid all of the points for it.

[Outsider]

Re: Wizards Armor Spell?

 

A major advantage of the spell you have created over real armor accompanied by sufficient strength/skill levels to offset any END/DCV/DEX penalties, is that your spell is not tied to a focus, like the plate armor is. It can't be taken away, and can be easily taken with you, inobviously and undetectably (so long as it is not actually ON), anyplace you go.

 

A warrior who is captured and stripped of his gear will be 0 DEF when he escapes. Your Wizard will have 8 DEF.

 

A warrior who is invited to the royal ball, where showing up in Full Plate would be a major faux pas, will be 0 DEF when the forces of evil make an attempt on the life of the King. Your Wizard will have 8 DEF.

 

A warrior who's camp is attacked in the night will awake, and have to fight at, you guessed it, 0 DEF, since there is no time to put his plate armor on. Your Wizard will have 8 DEF.

 

Also, any power that normally uses END is visible, as I understand it. Ones that dont normally use END are not neccessarily so. Plate Armor is visible not because it is Armor, but because it is an Obvious Inaccessible Focus.

 

And what is so inflated about an 8/8 forcefield bought to 0 END? That is 24 active points, just like 8/8 armor. If you want it cheaper, take Gestures, Incantation, Concentration and/or Extra Time (only to start) and maybe a Skill Roll. Easy to dispell (-1/4) is still applicable, if you so choose, also.