RPGWW

Now, while there are no rules in PS prohibiting mages from slinging spells while wearing full plate armor, I was wondering how the other GMs out there deal with it. Do you have any rules of your own that you use, or is it simply a non-issue?

Don't armors have a strength requirement?

Thus, an armored Mage is going to need fairly high strength, which is going to cut into the spellzoring a tad. <p>
-------------------------------------
NebbieQ: After all, nothing says romance like fighting the forces of Cobra and Druggies with a Rocket Launcher of 80s Justice.</p>

there's also DnD's take on it: Some spells require somatic components (that is, spells that require free movement of the mage to perform them), and if an agi test is failed for these, the spells fizzle. This effects things like dance magic, in the same way that say, a gas mask would hinder a singer. <p>

---

Jeridan: Holder of the "Tastes like Chicken" Award.

"IM: ....my brother is a baby drinker." ~Ara</p>

My own take on it was to add up the AT/PA penalty of the armor and apply it to the character's Matk. It means that offensive casting is hindered by armor, while stuff like healing and enchantment magic (which doesn't need a Matk roll, since the target is willing) can be performed.

But...why? Unless there's a major somatic component to the spell, which would likely be mentioned in the spell description, then why would armour hinder the spell at all?

You've got me there. I keep thinking of D&D when it comes to magic and armor. However, if I remember correctly, if you use armor above you strength requirment the standard penalty is a loss to AT/PA. For a mage, however, this isn't a problem. Although a character with 0 Str couldn't march around in plate armor, someone with +1 Str could wear chainmail and recieve a damage reistance of 10, while his spellcasting is unaffected.

Perhaps wearing armor when you're not strong enough should incur a spell casting penalty? Although I'm at a loss for an IC reason for that.

Perhaps because one can't easily do all the concentrating and perhaps gesturing needed for magic, due to straining under more weight than what is comfortable? <p>
-------------------------------------
NebbieQ: After all, nothing says romance like fighting the forces of Cobra and Druggies with a Rocket Launcher of 80s Justice.</p>

Well, the Dungeons and Dragons reasoning behind limiting arcane spellcasting in armor has to do with preventing mages from flinging themselves into melee combat, which they aren't supposed to do. Effectively, anyway. The D&D logic can't apply here, though, since D&D and Philsys have different points and outcomes. If there were rules governing the use of penalties for magic in armor, here, then they would have to work along the lines of some of the following.

1) It should affect ALL magic, NOT just attack magic. There is a reason why clerics don't lose healing spells, but since there are many, many people who sling both offensive and defensive magic here, then I don't think there should be a double standard.

2) If armor provides any protection against magic, and I mean any at all, then it should also hinder magic to a similar degree. One would think that the magic hindrance would be a disruption of the mana flows that allow for magic to happen, and it ought to work both ways.

3) Combining 1) and 2), healing magic should be as adversely affected as attack magic. The armor, being not necessarily part of your body, doesn't drop its resistance to your own actions just because you're wearing the armor. You might not be trying to shrug off the spell, but your armor doesn't know the difference due to it being inanimate. I can foresee enchantments that can make armor recognize the casters's spells as such, and a whole new branch of rules building on that, but let's take things as they come, eh?

One thing I'm trying to forestall here is the "I'm a big mofo with a big sword in full plate mail with knowledge of only one school of magic, and that's healing, biatch!" character who effectively has hundreds of hit points so long as they can heal themselves... at level 1.
Plus, I don't think there are enough penalties behind armor as it is right now. The At/Pa loss is a substantial penalty, I know, but armor should be enough of a hindrance that using it is an active choice trading some good for an equal amount of bad and not just an amendment to your character that makes them essentially better for a token loss.
Then again, I've never liked armor much in the first place. <p>"There is great disorder under Heaven, and the situation is excellent."
-Mao Tse-Tung</p>

Considering how rarely I see truly heavy armour used, the AT/PA loss seems fairly deterring. I see no reason to up the physical drawbacks of using armour, personally.

As for the thing about hindering Mana-flow and reducing the effectiveness of healing spells: I would say one or the other. If you make it harder to heal people, it can effectively impact and entire party. Anyone whose wearing armour, mage or not, is punished because you're using magic instead of potions.

However, reduced mana flow (+d6 to spell cost maybe?) on a mage using a heavier armour might be reasonable. Although, really, if you're trying to metagame a mage together anyway, chances are you've giving yourself a very high Int, Wis and Mag. You spend 6 on each of those, and you have 3 extra points to play with, until you start minusing things. That's another place GMs should consider having fun: That -2 Cha or more can be hella fun when your level 4, 7 foot tall Kumajin NPC is reacting to the upstart mage. <p>

---

Jeridan: Holder of the "Tastes like Chicken" Award.

"IM: ....my brother is a baby drinker." ~Ara</p>

Well, using potions= costing money. Using magic= costing... not money? MP is a bit more automatically replenishable than cash, innit? Besides, I don't see why you can have your armor avoid the bad and yet miraculously acknowledge the good. It's not exacty a living, thinking being... usually. <p>"There is great disorder under Heaven, and the situation is excellent."
-Mao Tse-Tung</p>

Problem about Money in Gaera: We have no economic system, so within reason you can BS most anything you like. There's a mechnical dragon for sale in Doma somwhere, or at one point there was, and I could poetentially have a character buy that if I so wished.

So, it could be argued that in an RP setting, Money is in fact MORE replenishable than MP. Anyway!

There are many possible ways to suggest that the armour could create problems for direct healing spells. It's just that I personally don't see cause for it. However, I can't offer anything else in place of it, really. Therefore, if other people agreed with Nevareh, I'd go with it. <p>

---

Jeridan: Holder of the "Tastes like Chicken" Award.

"IM: ....my brother is a baby drinker." ~Ara</p>

<_<

>_>

^_^;; Hi! Remember me? I used to mess with PS a lot.

SO! Armor and magic. I've heard a lot of different reasons for why armor and magic shouldn't mix (IC type explainations, the obvious OOC reason is system balance.) In DnD, armor hinders magic because it interferes with movements necessary to cast arcane magic. Healing/divine magic is unaffected because it requires no hand movements, only the invocation of some diety.

THE DND REASONING DOES NOT APPLY TO PHILSYS. Why? Because motions and ect are not necessary to cast a spell in PS. Spellcasting is essentially force of will, in all its forms.

That said, there are methods already in place to prevent mages from going too gung-ho with armor. Bes has already mentioned the statistical reasons. There are also the AT/PA penalties. Mages may wear armor, but they're generally lousy dodgers, and the PA penalties armor inflicts just make their chances of evading a hit even worse. The armor may reduce damage, but its better to take none at all, so most players tend to favor no armor at all, so they have a better chance of dodging.

Finally, should armor inflict a penalty on spellcasting, and if so, what should it be, and why should it happen? In answer to the first question, I would say no. The limits already in place on armor are quite enough, if a mage really wants armor, let him have it, with all the accompanying disadvantages. That part of the system seems balanced to me. But if there MUST be a penalty, I believe it should be done in DnD style. If a piece of armor has a STR requirement, a spellcaster must first roll above that STR requirement on 1d20 (straight roll) or the spell fails because the armor distracts the caster. Roll for each piece of armor with a STR requirement.

And that's my 2 cents on the issue. <p>

---

"Crazy is good." - Luffy, One Piece
</p>

Anyone who has heavy armor and high level magics should theoretically have an explaination for such.

Besides; armor is terrible for 'adventuring' in; it's heavy and slows one down considerably. Not made for walking.

Not to mention platemail took hours to get on/off. With assistance.

Zero also raises points of excellence. A GM should demand reasons for why a mage with high magic and armor are mixed. And all that armor... the chaffing. >_< <p>

---

"Crazy is good." - Luffy, One Piece
</p>