Topic: Magic Shield Vs Steel Skin

[Exluso]

Hello all,

since this is my first post on the forum let me thank ICE for feeding me with good RPGs for so long. Although I am a player of old times, I am quite new to HARP, so I will probably bother you with few questions. Hopefully on different topics not to mix up things.

My first question is about the two Warrior Mage Spell:
Magic Shield and Steel Skin.
Under which condition the former is more convenient than the latter?
Magic shield is more expensive, has less duration and gives a lesser bonus and only against one enemy.
Steel skin is a full round armour.

I suspect that Steel Skin should not be usable when the caster is wearing a real armour, but that's not mentioned in the description.

Am I missing something?

Thanks for the help!

[Exluso]

Guess I've found my answe on pag 94, "Armor terminology".
Use only the best armor in each loacation

That fixes my lack of confidence in my understanding

[Zhaleskra]

While I'm not sure it's the intention, my interpretation of the hits by location and armor rule is that it refers to physical armor in crits that result in "armor destroyed" text. I see no logical reason why a warrior mage wearing actual armor would prevent them from using spell armor, other than the difficulty incurred by casting penalties.

[Exluso]

Hi Zhaleskra,
Thanks for jumping in.

I create confusion in the opening post. Well I was confused too.

Now I think wearing an armor does not prevent to cast the spell, is just that the two armors bonus do not stack.
It would be a case of armour overlap, since the one from the spell works "as" leather armor (or any scaled version).

As I see this is a sort of: if the blow is strong enough to affect  the stronger armor, then the lesser has no chance.
Also works a great balance against the Magic Shield spell imho.

Basically this spell is to give the Warrior Mage an armour without impeding the casting... at least this is my understanding so far ( I am still just reading the rulebook)
So any redirection is welcome.

[Zhaleskra]

That's not my interpretation, i.e., there's a reason for the "Other" part of the DB calculation and to me that's Combat Actions, FX (Chi, Magic, Psionics), and Talents. I feel it's worth noting what that note about armor is about, which is the reason for my original interpretation.

At the same time, I feel a character with good skill in any of the armor spells would eventually just stop wearing physical armor, except that taking away the actual armor would give away a character's confidence in their abilities.

[Exluso]

Hi again,

I agree that there are "other" factors that adds up to the DB. But I think you lost me here.
Let's to back to the main topic.
Here's my questions (and my own answer according to my intepretation):
1. Would you allow a Warrior mage in full armor to cast Steel Skin?
- Me: Yes, as long as he pays in PP...

2. Would you allow the above Warrior mage in full armor to benefit from both the DB of the mundane armor and the Steel Skin spell?
Me: No (but this is the core of the problem here). Steel skin provides a protection as a "Soft Leather" (or scaled value). And wearing two kinds of armor on the same location does not make their bonus stack (i.e. if the attack pass the stronger armor the weaker is not able to prevent damage as well).
I also see the point of making them stack, especially from a narrative point of view, is the "skin" after all, and definitely can fit under the armor, but I prefer to go the Not-stacking way.

3. If, on the other hand, you grant the Warrior Mage both bonuses from the mundane and the magical armor, how do you balance Steel Skin against Magic Shield?
This is both a spell design question since Magic Shield looks way less efficient, but also affects the setting.
Why, having both spell available, a mage warrior would learn and invest (or teach even) a spell like Magic Shield?


Now all of this is just for the sake of talking and sharing thought about a game I am very excited about.
But of course each campaign, or better each group can bend the rules as they fit the best (but please don't tell my players).

sorry for late answer, and thanks!

[Zhaleskra]

My interpretation of the note is that it talking solely about physical armor, such as that a pauldron overlaps with a bracer, so that if you take a hit to the elbow if it's high it affects the pauldron, if it's low it affects the bracer. You're not stacking armor with armor, you're stacking armor with magic. So yes, I would allow a warrior mage (or anyone else) wearing soft leather armor to benefit from any of the armor spells in addition.

Put simply: physical armor is armor, FX is FX.

[Exluso]

Hi

got your interpretation of Steel Skin.

Can you also tell me why a Warrior mage should develop the Magic Shield spell then?
Or more generally, in which way Magic Shield is a valid alternative to Steel Skin since it costs more and gives a similar but lesser benefit.

That's my doubt that your interpretation does not solve.

thx!

[craig]

2. Would you allow the above Warrior mage in full armor to benefit from both the DB of the mundane armor and the Steel Skin spell?

Yes.  Steel Skin is magical armor and stacks with non-magical armor.  It doesn't stack with itself or the other variations of the same spell with different names (Stone Skin, Tree Skin, Mage Armor, etc), same as physical armor doesn't stack with other actual armor.

Similarly, it stacks with taking cover behind a wall or something.

It also stacks with different spells that increase DB in different ways (e.g. Magic Shield, Mantlet, Blur, Bladeturn, Deflections, Boost Qu, and Boost Ag with the Swashbuckler talent, etc).

Wearing mundane armor causes all spells (incl. Steel Skin) to cost more PP  and incurs a casting penalty.  A minimum of +2 PP per spell and -10 to casting rolls (for a suit of Soft Leather) unless you carefully optimise Armor By The Piece (and that will leave certain locations unprotected if you're using hit locations)

Also, the extra +2 PP will often make a spell take an extra round to cast - casting time is 1 round per 5 PP.

3. If, on the other hand, you grant the Warrior Mage both bonuses from the mundane and the magical armor, how do you balance Steel Skin against Magic Shield?

The same way you "balance" wearing real armor and carrying a real shield.  i.e. there's no need to do anything, it already has a built-in cost.

A real shield is more weight/encumbrance and ties up an arm/hand (i.e. no two-handed weapons with a shield. It's hard to climb or do lots of other things one-handed too).  Magic Shield costs PP and time to cast.   Casting both Steel Skin and Magic Shield on yourself wastes the first round or two (or more) of Steel Skin while you're casting Magic Shield....an unlucky Crit could kill you in that time.

Why, having both spell available, a mage warrior would learn and invest (or teach even) a spell like Magic Shield?

For the same reason a Fighter might choose to wear full Plate and carry a shield, and wield a 1H Sword or Mace, with maybe a backup Main Gauche in case their shield gets broken.

Some other fighter might opt for the same armor with a 2H Sword or Battle Axe and the Blade Barrier skill instead of a shield.

And another might choose a Bastard sword, and switch between 2H and 1H styles, with optional parrying dagger and maybe a Battle Rune of Magic Shield or Bladeturn.


Every option has a cost (even if it's only the opportunity cost of not doing something else) and players will make their own choices as to whether that cost is worth paying in the current circumstances.

[Exluso]

Hi Craig, thanks for the long answer.

You actually triggered another question on something that I was probably missing.
The Magic Shield does not require to be held, is it so?

"I interpreted the move on its own" as if it was something magic but I assumed it was still tied to the Mage Warrior arm ("is treated as a normal shield in all other respects").

The only facts I was able to see so far were:
Magic Shield costs 6 PP to get a +15DB for 2 rnd/rank
Steel Skin costs 4 PP to get a +20DB for 5 rnd/rank.
(I skip the scaling option, since I found them similar)

Nonetheless... Even if the floating shields floats around it still seems a bit unworthy.
It's not just a matter of maths and looking for the "best" option or build, this is easily fixed.
It's more like that in one generation of Mage Warrior (so to say) they should all drop the less convenient tool(spell in this case) in favour of the better one.

Of course having both Steel armor and the Magic Shield is better than having only one, and yes there is a meaning in having Magic Shield on top of Steel Armor, but let's say I can choose to have only one the two spells, they don't look very balanced to me.

Still thank to make me realize that Magic Shield can be just a BD power up on top of Steel Skin. It has a sense in this way, even in the cost.

Thanks!

PS of course If I am still missing soemthing, I am all ears. I am still a newbie here.

[Zhaleskra]

A HARP combat round is only 2 seconds long. While it would be ideal to always use "the best" option, that's not how things happen. Beside some combat actions depending on having your action declared before you get initiative, fighting is by its nature very chaotic and you often have to do what you think will work rather than what you planned on.

From another angle, it depends on how many opponents the character is fighting. Duel between two people? You can probably get by with Magic Shield as everyone else around is merely watching. Multiple opponents? You probably want to go with an armor spell.

[Exluso]

It's not about the heat of the fight, I was more concerned about which spell a good mentor would teach to his pupil.

And to be honest, even in a fight between 2 people I don't see a reason to use a Magic Shield.
Steel Skin gives me more protection (20 instead of 15) against all attacks (instead of 1 possible parry of the shield), leaves my 2nd arm free, costs me less PP (4 instead of 6) and I can cast it in less time. Scaling suggests similar performances.

But again, if I am missing something tell me please.
So far the only reason to use Magic Shield (in place of Steel Skin) that I can see is to have a Shield based combat Style.
 
For the record I am going through HARP, ML and CM manuals only (for now).

Thanks!

[Ynglaur]

I'm more familiar with Rolemaster than HARP, but in the former you can parry with a shield but not with armor.

[Zhaleskra]

Ynglaur's got it, you can still do Shield-based things with Magic Shield, and even do things that would otherwise be impossible like do a shield bash and still attack with two weapons. Yes, you'd still lose the DB to the shield if you did, but you could do it.

[craig]

The Magic Shield does not require to be held, is it so?

I don't think so.  I've always seen it as an animated shield of magical force that moves around to protect the caster.

IMO you can't parry with it and you can't use it in a sword + shield fighting style or do a Shield Bash with it.  It's just a magical shield that moves around on its own to protect you.

A good mentor would teach both, because they're both useful in different situations.

Of course having both Steel armor and the Magic Shield is better than having only one, and yes there is a meaning in having Magic Shield on top of Steel Armor, but let's say I can choose to have only one the two spells, they don't look very balanced to me.

It's not about balance.  It's about the aspect & attribute costs.  Costs for spells in the HARP core book have  never been published AFAIK, but my guess is that Magic Shield requires both the Create (30) and Animate (at least 10 for simple Animate) Action aspects, as well as Force (10) and Bonus x3 (15) Object aspects, plus the Attribute costs (for range, duration, etc).   This easily adds up to 6PP base cost

Mage Armor / Steel Skin / etc are significantly cheaper - they only need Instil (15) (or maybe Enhance, with the same cost) as the Action Aspect, and Bonus x4 (20) + Force (10) as the Object Aspects.   That is why it can have better protection AND a longer duration than Magic Shield while still having a lower base cost.


BTW, in the 2004 version of HARP, Magic Shield cost only 3 PP to cast, not 6.  I guess they fixed that up in the 2013 update.  In the 2004 version, the HARP core spells weren't made according to the same formulae published in College Of Magic....IIRC, they were based on a earlier draft of the CoM system and then hand-tweaked until the spell's author felt the cost was "right".

It should have been at least 7 PP by the CoM 2004 rules as that version required doubling of each aspect cost after the first Action and first Object aspect (and the first aspect for both had to be the cheapest, so 10 for Animate plus 2x30=60 for Create).  CoM2013 doesn't do that.

[Zhaleskra]

I'm paraphrasing here, but "in all other ways is treated as a normal shield".