Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Armor: Do you use it? If so, how much?

Azael

Magister
Joined
Dec 6, 2002
Messages
4,405
Location
Multikult Central South
Wasteland 2
Saint_Proverbius said:
Ugh.. I've always hated the cliche about magic people and armor. I'd much rather have the system flexible than impose limits like that on it.

Think about a warrior class with Flame that just uses magic to haste himself. A system of magical failure or hinderance would ruin that type of character. In fact, it might even hurt the acolyte background people since they're Flame/Dagger people by design.

If a warrior with Flame also has a low intelligence, a magic penalty would severely mess him up just because he'll raise skills more slowly.

I might be mistaken, but I imagine that what he meant with penalties is that they will get more of the speed penalties because they won't get hit as often, thus their Armor skill won't rise as fast.
 

thathmew

Zero Sum Software
Developer
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
194
Location
Austin, TX
I might be mistaken, but I imagine that what he meant with penalties is that they will get more of the speed penalties because they won't get hit as often, thus their Armor skill won't rise as fast.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I don't believe in armor/magic penalties unless there's a solid reason for them that's well integrated into the game world and system, and most armor-magic penalties are just arbitrary if you ask me.

<shrug>
-mat
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
11,478
Location
Behind you.
thathmew said:
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I don't believe in armor/magic penalties unless there's a solid reason for them that's well integrated into the game world and system, and most armor-magic penalties are just arbitrary if you ask me.

<shrug>

Oh, thank goodness.

That's one of the things I've always felt about armor restrictions on magic using classes, it's just arbitary. It seems more like they're trying to get wizards to "look" traditional than have a good explanation for why they can't wear it.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Agree, if a fellow can cast a spell, I see no reason why he should not be able to do so in "style" :)
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
11,478
Location
Behind you.
Well, the part about it that gets me is that wizards have all kinds of powerful magics which can change and distort matter, bend reality, give life to constructs, and so forth...

YET THEY CAN'T MAKE AN ARMOR THEY CAN WEAR!

I always thought D&D's excuse was really funny, wizards have to be able to freely move their arms and hands to cast a spell. Then why can't they wear breastplates? Why isn't there a dexterity requirement for them?

Really, it's much better to find other ways of restricting it, like through the use of skills for armor, than to just say, "Okay, mages! Listen up! No armor for you, ever!"
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom