Topic: Why should armor limit casting?

[Arioch]

I know that the penalties to casting given by wearing an armor are made to balance the game, but what if I wanted to create a setting were armor/metal does not hinder magic at all? 
Would you limit casting in some other way? How?

[ironmaul]

You could try ritual magic, like using components, or even increase the casting costs.

[Marc R]

Foci, like magic wands or holy symbols.

Longer time to cast.

More PP to cast.

Boost RRs.

Base casting penalty (Like say -10 or -20 to all casting rolls).

Cull down the more powerful lists.

Side effects (Like each spell costs 5 hits for each PP)

Hunted Casters (Like, if any average person sees you cast, they call the inquisition.)

[Fullerton]

I know that the penalties to casting given by wearing an armor are made to balance the game,

I'm not sure casting penalties really balance the game.

Those rules were created a long time ago, when the ideas about balance were not nearly as mature as they are today. Or rather, there are a lot of poorly balanced (by modern standards) rules and concepts in rpgs that were designed in the 80s. As such, I find it hard to really stand behind the notion that for spellcasting to be balanced, spellcasters ought not be able to wear armor and still have strong chances of success.

Personally, I think the no armor and/or casting failure rules have more to do with flavor than balance.

but what if I wanted to create a setting were armor/metal does not hinder magic at all? 
Would you limit casting in some other way? How?

I wouldn't add any limitations to start with. Then I'd playtest the setting at a variety of character levels and actually *find out* whether any tweaks are necessary.

[Marc R]

Mentalism barely has any casting restrictions at all, but there's definitely bias between the overt power levels of mentalism lists compared to say essence lists. I'd not actually go so far as to call the realms and restrictions perfectly balanced, but there is quite a bit of balancing actually built into them.

[magritte@shaw.ca]

I suspect it's both balance and flavor.  As Lord Miller stated, there are lots of ways you could balance it--simply increasing the development point costs for skills or spell lists would be one way.  But in most fictional worlds, spell casters do not typically wear armour. I think the idea is that spell casters tend to focus most of their energy on learning their craft and therefore are not inclined to spend so much time training weapon and armor skills.  Or maybe they just rely on their spells to protect them.  One thing I like about RM is that it gives a reasonable in-context rationale for the class armor restrictions, and there are optional rules for their effects on casting if you ignore them.

[markc]

 IMO the reason for the penalties for casting spells in armor make sense. Or at least they made them make sense.

 In a game with no penaltes for casting spells in armor, I would think that spell users would be feared and highly sought after. Attakers would try and kill the caster first, sometimes with no care about thier person. ie the band of brothers mentality. I will jump on the gernade so it does not affect my treammates. Also IMO magic knowledge would be keeped hidden and secreted away from everyday eyes.
 In the perspective of a player, all would want to be able to cast spell well. This would be easier in RMSS/FRP than in  RM2 as RM2 you cannot cast spells if you are a pure arms unless you use a magic item. [I could be wrong here and please correct me if I am].

MDC   

[Balhirath]

I know that the penalties to casting given by wearing an armor are made to balance the game, but what if I wanted to create a setting were armor/metal does not hinder magic at all? 
Would you limit casting in some other way? How?

Nope. You just need to be aware of the fact that it will make most players chose spell users.  

[Fullerton]

In a game with no penaltes for casting spells in armor, I would think that spell users would be feared and highly sought after. Attakers would try and kill the caster first, sometimes with no care about thier person.

I don't follow this logic.

How does a spell user suddenly become more dangerous in the short term (thus necessitating quick neutralization) by receiving a boost to his defenses?

Isn't a spell caster without armor just as dangerous in the short term as a spell caster in armor?

[markc]

 IMO, no as a person with armor can aviod damage more easily. Also common way to determine a spell caster is thier lack of material armor and thier location in a body of men. ie spellcasters IMO are sort of like heavy weapons in todays military. They need support of other units to be the most effective in todays and yesterdays battlefield.
 Yes thier are spell casting professions that allow them to cast armor easier but in general spell casters use thier spells for protection. Also in RM it takes a little bit of knowledge to yse armor so spell casters have to devote time and energy to learn this skill (DP's). But is this worth it to the spell caster in the long run? Or is it better for the caster to learn more spells or improve thier chance to cast spells? This is the problem of the semi-casters face. One of walking that fine line and balncing martial and magical skill aquization.

MDC

[Fullerton]

IMO, no as a person with armor can aviod damage more easily.

I don't think I made my point clearly enough, sorry.

You said that in a game where spellcasters could wear armor, attackers would try to kill the spellcaster first.

In the context of your whole response, that implies that attackers don't try to kill spellcasters first if those spellcasters can't wear armor. And *that* is the logic that doesn't make sense to me.

The way I see it, all other things being equal, spellcasters don't suddenly become more worthy of your first attack simply because they are allowed to wear armor. In fact, I'd assert that that opposite might even be true.

[Marc R]

Some of the balance issues relate to DB generating spells, which would not be affected by the QU penalty of armor. . .

AT 1 with bonus DB balances to armor.

AT 20 with bonus DB becomes rather nasty, few characters have much non parry DB in AT20.

I beleive the hyperbole filled reference I've seen tossed around is:

"I don't want to see an AT20 wearing, invisible, silent, flying caster blasting people with lightningbolts."

Which actually can be a lot of fun in a high end game, but usually that kind of thing is a bad sign.

I suspect it's a bad sign mostly because it's an archetype issue, strong archetypes force specialization of strengths and weaknesses, which prompts association and party formation. . .games that stress archetypes tend to have stronger party concepts, games where 1 character can do everything well tend to have weak party concepts. . .any group can form a party on a roleplay basis, but people tend to find reasons to get along when they need each other, and find reasons not to get along if they don't need each other. . .how many games on all systems crash on the rock of that one all around mighty character who no longer needs the others (or think they don't)?

Strong archetypes are not necissary, just helpful to keep the game moving, some groups can get by without them, some groups need them to prompt party co-dependant behavior. Mostly this sort of thing matters as to what style of game you want to run.

[markc]

IMO, no as a person with armor can aviod damage more easily.

I don't think I made my point clearly enough, sorry.

You said that in a game where spellcasters could wear armor, attackers would try to kill the spellcaster first.

In the context of your whole response, that implies that attackers don't try to kill spellcasters first if those spellcasters can't wear armor. And *that* is the logic that doesn't make sense to me.

The way I see it, all other things being equal, spellcasters don't suddenly become more worthy of your first attack simply because they are allowed to wear armor. In fact, I'd assert that that opposite might even be true.

 What I ment to say was in a game where spell caters do not wear armor they can be more easly spotted at attacked. In a game where everyone is wearing armor then it is much harder to spot the caster untill they cast a spell.

MDC

[Arioch]

Thank you all for the ideas!

Foci, like magic wands or holy symbols.

I like it, something like the Catalyst casters from the EC, but maybe with more severe modifiers...

Hmmm... probably in a world like this semi-users would be the most favoured professions, as they can develop both armor and spell lists for a moderate price. Probably pure users will still not wear armor beyond leather because of the cost of the skill, at least until higher levels.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I know that the penalties to casting given by wearing an armor are made to balance the game, but what if I wanted to create a setting were armor/metal does not hinder magic at all? 
Would you limit casting in some other way? How?

Short answer -- yes. Quite simply, allowing magic wielding characters free access to armor with no detriment is asking for trouble.

Take a look at how HARP handles it as a possibility -- In HARP, magic users can wear whatever armor they want, but doing so raises the PP cost of the spell, and that, in turn, supplies a negative modifier to the spell (based on the # of PP over the base cost of the spell that are used).

Power Points are a reflection of how much mana a character may handle in a given period. Mana is just another form of energy. And armor works to ground out that energy. The better the armor the larger the grounding effect, and the more power that must be used to overcome it.

Hm... if there is interest, perhaps I should write up those HARP rules on armor as an option for the next Express Additions... 

[smug]

I guess that you could emphasise the difficulty of performing spellcasting in armour which would drive armoured casters to devote more time to learning how to do it which would leave them with less time/DPs for learning spells. That's pretty easy if spellcasting requires a whole lot of somatic gestures, but it's not entirely clear to me why it even should (one would have to have a particular model of how spellcasting happens).

[dutch206]

It really is a question of game balance for me.  Magicians get area of attack spells but are unable to wear armor.  Fighters can wear any armor they want to, but can't make area attacks.  This makes members of the two professions rely on each other to accomplish a given task. 

If a wizard could use any weapon and wear plate-mail, why would anyone play a warrior?

[mocking bird]

Short answer -- yes. Quite simply, allowing magic wielding characters free access to armor with no detriment is asking for trouble.

Take a look at how HARP handles it as a possibility -- In HARP, magic users can wear whatever armor they want, but doing so raises the PP cost of the spell, and that, in turn, supplies a negative modifier to the spell (based on the # of PP over the base cost of the spell that are used).

HARP also has several ways of countering that penalty - holy symbol or magestaff for example.  There are also some pretty powerful defensive spells - mage armor - that you don't have in RM.

Hm... if there is interest, perhaps I should write up those HARP rules on armor as an option for the next Express Additions...   

This could affect the game balance as increasing PP cost isnt' that much depending on how common PP multipliers are.  Adding spells, essentially item creation spells that could be done in the off hours when the caster wouldn't be wearing armor, that reduce armor penalties would seem to be less 'intrusive'.

[Fullerton]

It really is a question of game balance for me.  Magicians get area of attack spells but are unable to wear armor.  Fighters can wear any armor they want to, but can't make area attacks.  This makes members of the two professions rely on each other to accomplish a given task.

I get what you're saying in concept, but it breaks down pretty quickly.

It's true that fighter-types generally attack via different offensive vectors than magicians. However, so do archers vs. melee types, and I don't think anyone would suggest that archers should be unable to wear armor simply by virtue of using a different offensive vector.

In fact, even siege warfare specialists could be thought of as using area effects (think: catapult firers), and I don't think anyone would suggest that they should be unable to wear armor. You can extend this principle to things like flasks of flaming oil, or magic items that essentially allow anybody to throw (literally) something akin to a fire ball.

Yes, there is merit to having some artificial divisions between classes in order to promote team play and cooperation among the characters. However, depriving a mage of armor (or other defenses) doesn't actually promote team play *unless* the fighter has built-in ways to keep enemies focused on him instead of the mage. And in RM, the fighter has no such built-in mechanism.


And I'd also like to echo what mocking bird says. RM doesn't (or *didn't*, at least when I played last) have a lot of defensive spells that only apply to mages. From a quick skim, most of those defensive spells can be either cast onto an allied fighter, and/or imbued in an item that can be consumed/used by the fighter.

[Marc R]

Actually, the system does do that. There's no melee OB penalty, but there is a missile OB penalty column on the armor table.

Archers in AT20 would likely suck.

If you keep track of DB spells, who they get cast on, I suspect you'll find that the caster usually cast them on themselves. Potions and such are another matter, if DB generating magic is common in item form, then that's a seperate issue relating to what magic is commonly available in a game.

If letting casters brick up weakens the reasons to have fighters around, having plentiful potions, runes and items weakens the reasons for having casters around.