From: covin@tartarus.uchicago.edu (David Covin)
Subject: Re: spellcasting in Armour!!!! Indeed!
Organization: University of Chicago Computer Science
	<1992Nov18.155915.21009@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:32:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.155915.21009@Princeton.EDU> tao@ginger.princeton.edu (Terry Tao) writes:

>No, it's not just smoke and mirrors.

Yes, it is.  (No, it's not!  Yes, it is!)

>It takes experience and painful practice to learn how to wear armor without
> chafing and restricting your movements.  I suppose a mage could take
the time to
> learn how to do it, but at the expense of his magical studies. 

I find this argument hard to swallow.  Whenever this topic comes up,
we see posts from SCA people saying that they can do backflips in
armor, and that properly-constructed armor shouldn't hinder movement
much at all.  Further, if it did hinder movement, it could be
re-designed for the mages' benefit (mages tend to be wealthy, or to be
able to become wealthy), so you'd get "mages' armor" that might not be
quite as protective but which allowed spellcasting.

Further, you notice that no one brings up these arguments about
thieves, many of whose functions do require as much flexibility and
general freedom of movement as they can get (climbing, for instance);
except to distinguish in their case between leather and heavier
armors.  I think that those arguments are similarly bogus; but even if
they aren't: why can't mages wear leather armor, then?  Do they need
even *more* freedom of movement than thieves(rogues) do?  And if so,
then why isn't Dexterity also a prime requisite for mages?

Finally, if it "takes time to learn to wear armor," why can't mages
take that time as well as anyone else?  Let them wear it around the
tower while they're studying their dusty tomes.  Constant use should
teach them to move in it as effectively as anyone else.

Oh, and while we're at it-- what about spells with no somatic
components?  Can I cast "Power Word, Kill" while wearing platemail?
Clearly, it doesn't require elaborate hand gestures, or even
scrabbling for material components.

>Game balance is another rationale, of course, but it tends to come naturally.
>  There's almost always a reasonable explanation too.

No.  Game balance is the only reason.  Anything else is
rationalization, added after the fact.

IMHO, game balance is a sufficient reason for the restrictions;
however, I would prefer to have my world work by consistent rules,
even if the rules themselves are established for game balance reasons.
Thus, in my AD&D world, large amounts of iron or steel (over a kilo)
on a spellcaster's person interfere with spellcasting.  The elven
fighter/magi of legend got around this by wearing mithril armor and
wielding mithril weapons-- but then, the elves were a wealthy and
prosperous race.  In modern days, magic items are not nearly so
common.  Also, a certain amount of public stigma exists-- if a mage
has to wear armor and use a sword, he or she can't be very good as a
mage; otherwise the equipment would be unnecessary, right?  In truth,
of course, 1st-level PCs *aren't* very good mages; but they're likely
to get a lot more mileage, at least in civilized areas, out of
dressing as a mysterious and no doubt powerful wizard, than as a thug
with a sword.

I prefer to take the "soft" approach to class restrictions, as
Shadowrun does: you can mix class functions and equiment if you really
want, but it will make you less effective at all of those classes than
if you'd specialized.  This tends to result in "classed" characters
without beating the players over the head and saying "you must
specialize"; and those who really can't bear to specialize can pursue
their jack-of-all-trades path with an understanding of the
consequences.

--
David Covin                           covin@despair.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd