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.

[Cantriped]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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

[Dale A. Ward]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

Galdalf had a sword' date=' that should be more of a rules judgement than anything... however he chose not to wear armor. Why?[/quote']

 

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.

[Hermit]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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

 

 

So basically Gandalf was a mystic pot head

[Labrat]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

As a matter of interest' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Wizards are already overly powerful

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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.

 

 

Keith "Oh, yeah" Curtis

[Markdoc]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

At the end of the day' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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.

[Cantriped]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

Hmm' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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' date=' I've got a 10/10 FF spell that doesn't weight anything, I'll stick with that thanks")[/quote']

 

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' date=' increased END cost for casting in armor, limit how much STR they can purchase, etc).[/quote']

 

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.

[Cantriped]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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]

Re: TA: Wizards and Armor

 

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