Magic-users & armour/weapons

[Deleted]

I've recently been pondering the idea of starting an OD&D play-by-post game sometime over the course of the upcoming year, so that I can air out a few ideas I've picked up on the site. The first big house rule would be to get rid of the cleric class, and instead allow magic-users to cast from both lists, use all weapons and wear all armour.

However, I'm not yet sure how to manage the weapons & armour part. Any advice?

Here's what I came up with:
In the 1983 Original Warhammer rules wizards can wear any armour, but doing so hinders their ability to cast spells successfully. Whenever wizards attempt to cast spells they have to roll a 12 or lower on 2D6: this means that under normal conditions they always succeed (and don't have to roll), but taking wounds or wearing armour will add to the 2D6 roll, making a miscast increasingly possible, causing the spell to fizzle or even go terribly wrong.

I like the idea, but my instinct is that keeping track of the various casting modifiers would prove more cumbersome in OD&D than they are in Original Warhammer. My initial inclination would be to try this:

If a magic-user is wearing any armour or shield that isn't normally allowed to them, they are considered 'armoured'. Armoured magic-users who attempt to cast a spell must roll 2D6 ≤ their current AC; if successful the spell goes off normally, otherwise it fizzles and must be attempted again another round.

The problem is that I run OD&D with somewhat simplified Chainmail combat, that actually doesn't use AC, just weapon vs armour type. I could convert over to the D20 combat matrix and have the magic-user 'attack' his own AC to cast a spell, but I'd like to avoid that complexity if possible.


As for weapons, since I'm using the all-weapons-do-D6-damage standard, the only real significance with letting magic-users use all weapons is that they have access to magical weapons, but personally I like the idea of letting magicians use magic weapons (especially since there wouldn't be any clerics to fill the magic/melee gap). I would give them normal restrictions at start, but a basic investment of [some amount of gold] x [current level] would allow a magic-user to train in the use of all weapons.

[The Red Baron]

I don't like the idea that armor interferes with magic.

I think the ideal solutions are:

A. Magic-users simply gain no AC benefit by wearing armor. So why would they wan't to reduce their movement speed and encumber themselves by wearing armor?

B. The Carcosa approach: magic-users are basically fighting-men with no spell ability; therefore wearing armor is a non-issue.

C. "Don't be silly, have you ever seen a magic-user in armor? That's a ridiculous question, magic-users just don't wear armor and that's that".

[todd]

If you get rid of the armor interdiction, I think you need to look at the wizard's power progression because they'll be a lot less squishy, particularly at low levels.

The 2d6 roll is a pretty good idea (though I haven't looked into the probabilities) but, for myself, I'd be a bit more hardcore-- if it fails, that spell slot is lost, no do-overs.

[hedgehobbit]

I know it's not going to be popular but I really don't see any reason to punish magic-users for wearing armor. It doesn't actually make them better at magic and their low hit dice means they won't be taking over the fighters spot (like Clerics do). My solution, therefore, is to add spells to the spell list that give the caster long lasting armor-like protection. So a first level spell that protect the caster like leather for 8 hours or so*. Chain as a second level spell and Plate as a third or fourth level spell. This way the magic-user can gain protection without the usual restrictions (weight and cost) but will lose a spell to do so, and thus will be less effective spell casters.


*I don't actually have durations for spells. Most last forever but you can't use the spell slot as long as the spell is still active.

[Deleted]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of allowing magic-users to enhance AC with 'always on' protection spells, thus trading spell slots for better AC.

Aug 19, 2015 10:57:40 GMT -5 The Red Baron said:

I don't like the idea that armor interferes with magic.

I think the ideal solutions are:

A. Magic-users simply gain no AC benefit by wearing armor. So why would they wan't to reduce their movement speed and encumber themselves by wearing armor?

B. The Carcosa approach: magic-users are basically fighting-men with no spell ability; therefore wearing armor is a non-issue.

C. "Don't be silly, have you ever seen a magic-user in armor? That's a ridiculous question, magic-users just don't wear armor and that's that".

I never really cared for the idea of armour interfering with magic, either. Since I began running D&D I took my own option:

D. All class characteristics—including class names, the concepts of 'levels of power' and 'experience', equipment restrictions, etc.—are real and written into the laws of the universe. Thus, magic-users cannot wear armour because to do so would cause the gods to chastize the magic-user, likely revoking their gift of allowing him an adventuring class.

That said, I'm looking for a temporary change, and something between the Carcosa approach and hedgehobbit's approach seems a good start for me. I'd like to see some classic warrior-magicians in the game, especially being without clerics. However, I'm wondering if their poor combat progression would still bar magic-users from replacing clerics as assistant fighters, even if they wore armour. If so, there might as well not be any restrictions to casting in armour at all. They'd be trading speed for AC, but still only fighting as a last resort as usual.

[ivanmike]

I'm fond of a failure chance based upon encumbrance/armor. In simplified terms chain = 30% fail, plate = 60% fail, plate + carrying the kitchen sink = 90% fail. Or, as I tend to run it a move of 6" is 30%, 3" is 60%, and 1" is 90%. (I am toying with the idea that a move 9" = 10%, but that seems awfully nasty).

At some point i was influenced by a story (wizard's first rule?) that anything a wizard wore or carried acted as a partial insulator between him and the source of magic. As such, I have toyed with the idea of making spells more powerful if cast in the nude/when carrying nothing save clothes.

[Admin Pete]

I changed the "to Hit" table numbers to make Magic-Users much weaker fighters to offset giving them armor and I give out a limited number of spells and they have to find and transfer from a scroll or trade something of value to an NPC using the reaction rolls to determine if a trade is even possible for the remaining spells. So far it is working as intended but we will see how it works as they go up in levels.

[Deleted]

Making magic-users even weaker in the combat tables is a good trade off, I think. Will you be handing out free spells as they gain levels, or will all spells after creation need to be found in-game somehow? I'm leaning toward this method, and populating the adventuring area with a small handful of wizarding guilds they can join, each with its own library and membership requirements. Copying spells from the guild's library would still take time and money, but not nearly as much as trading spells on the open market, especially if the PC is willing to hand new spells and magic items over to the guild.


Speaking of spell failure chances, after peeking through Chainmail again I think I've decided to use the Chainmail spell rolls as a basic system for casting spells 'under pressure'. If a magic-user is encumbered (with armour OR equipment), attempting a spell higher than his level, or casting while under physical duress then a spell roll is required, with the possibility of the spell effect being delayed or negated. If the roll is low enough then I'll doctor up an OD&D version of the Original Warhammer spell failure table, which will include the possibility that the spell is accidentally cast on the caster or a random target, the spell is accidentally cast in some 'reverse' form, or a random spell from the list is cast instead.

[aldarron]

Aug 26, 2015 8:59:42 GMT -5 ivanmike said:

I'm fond of a failure chance based upon encumbrance/armor. In simplified terms chain = 30% fail, plate = 60% fail, plate + carrying the kitchen sink = 90% fail. Or, as I tend to run it a move of 6" is 30%, 3" is 60%, and 1" is 90%. (I am toying with the idea that a move 9" = 10%, but that seems awfully nasty).

At some point i was influenced by a story (wizard's first rule?) that anything a wizard wore or carried acted as a partial insulator between him and the source of magic. As such, I have toyed with the idea of making spells more powerful if cast in the nude/when carrying nothing save clothes.

Actually I think the 2D6 ≤ their current AC idea is pretty clever, and I don't get why anybody would dislike the idea of armor interfering with spell casting.  As Ivanmike says above, it makes perfect sense that restrictive/worn items act as insulators holding back the spell energy.  That's precisely why a MU would want to wear loose robes.  Indeed, its traditional for magic types like witches to go completely naked when spell casting. <shrug>  Along these lines I would go a step further and rule that any spell failure due to armor inflicts 1 HP of damage per level of the spell.     It can really hurt to cast spells when wearing armor - your choice. 

[Deleted]

I guess a lot of it depends on whether we conceptualize spellcasting as being primarily psychic or a physical performance. If it's a psychic power then armour restrictions would seem unnecessary.

Taking damage per spell level is a good addition. My first instinct is to apply it to failed casts of spells that are too high in level. I like the idea of letting spellcasters attempt to memorize and use spells that are too powerful for them, like Cugel spending a month attempting to memorize Iucounu's Spell of Forlorn Encystment in Eyes of the Overworld. In that case, I would allow any known spell to be put into a spell slot, but then it would require a roll to cast based on how much higher the spell level is to the caster's level, with hits taken for failure.

[aldarron]

Mar 26, 2017 10:00:06 GMT -5 @starbeard said:

I guess a lot of it depends on whether we conceptualize spellcasting as being primarily psychic or a physical performance. If it's a psychic power then armour restrictions would seem unnecessary.....


I don't really see it that way.  I see spells as being mostly a psychic phenomenon, the release of which causes tremendous energy as it manifests the spell effect, emanating from the body/mind of the user.  It is the moment of transference from psychic to physical where the danger lies in "insulating" clothing.  IMC the damage dealt by armor on a spell casting mage is treated as burn damage.  None of my player have ever opted to take the risk though, so I've never had to employ the rule.

[Stormcrow]

Why are you spending so much time on this issue when you still haven't explained how dragons fly even though their wings don't generate enough lift?

[Deleted]

Ah! but who says I haven't? 

Of course, nobody's thought about it as much as GURPS Gulliver, though (not for the faint of heart; as internal gas bags are depleted using fire breath, the flight model must be corrected using the buoyancy provided by the remaining volume of gas)! 

To be fair, though, I'm not particularly interested in the rationalities, just the mechanics. In my experience rationales can be extrapolated out of any given mechanic ad nauseam; in themselves they are unimportant, but many house rules for magic come about organically through them—for example, rulings on magic scrolls, scribing spells and so on usually come from some intuited reasoning that tries to remain consistent with the spirit of how magic-users access magic.

[Deleted]

Learn to play. If your magic users are being meleed either your magic users or your fighters are blitheringly incompetent.

See also, "combined arms."

[Deleted]

I'm not saying that merely to be snarky. The vulnerability of magic users in melee is a deliberate choice on Gary and Dave's part. Yes, it's usually talked about in terms of "game balance," but another VERY real reason was that the players need to learn to play together and coordinate as a team to be successful.

Any resemblence between the fighter and cleric, the thief, and the magic user to Napoleonic-era infantry, cavalry, and artillery is entirely non-coincidental.

Remember, "written by wargamers for wargamers."

[Deleted]

I completely agree. I've never thought too much about the connection between the core D&D classes and Napoleonic troops, but it makes perfect sense now that you mention it.

My players tend to learn very quickly to do whatever they can to keep the magic-users and even thieves out of front line melee. My reasoning usually goes: 'Alright, pretend you guys are the party of goblins. You see a group of adventurers and warriors rush into the room. One of them isn't wearing armour, and has a pointy hat: whom do you attack first?'

What I was hoping to do with this rule, though, isn't really to make things more balanced for magic-users, but simply to add armoured wizards because I think it'd be a fun change of pace, at least for awhile. Unfortunately, I still haven't had the chance to play out an OD&D campaign that uses it, so I have no idea how well it would pan out.

Looking back over it, I still think it misses a bit of something: what I'd like to see is two classes, Fighting-Men and Magic-Users; and I'd also like to see some Magic-Users armoured up as Wizard-Warriors, and some stick to the classic Merlin role, and a few others occupy the space somewhere in between, like thieves and clerics. Maybe I'm asking for too much with just two classes.

[Admin Pete]

Aug 27, 2015 12:10:17 GMT -5 @starbeard said:

Making magic-users even weaker in the combat tables is a good trade off, I think. Will you be handing out free spells as they gain levels, or will all spells after creation need to be found in-game somehow? I'm leaning toward this method, and populating the adventuring area with a small handful of wizarding guilds they can join, each with its own library and membership requirements. Copying spells from the guild's library would still take time and money, but not nearly as much as trading spells on the open market, especially if the PC is willing to hand new spells and magic items over to the guild.

When they gain a new level of spells, I am giving them three or four spells total for the new spell level and all other spells for that new level (for all spell levels) have to be found/obtained in game.