Topic: Why should armor limit casting?

[Fullerton]

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

Yes, you are correct; I apologize for the misinformation. (I might have been thinking of MERP, which I don't believe has a missile OB penalty.)

The casting penalties for armor are generally more significant (double, by a quick estimation) than the archery penalties. (But I'm not sure if this is a wash due to the different result structure of the casting table vs. the missile attack tables.)


As more fuel for the fire, other major game systems don't give penalties to ranged attacks for using armor. And in the most major of those, arrows do pretty equivalent amounts of damage to melee weapons *and* bows don't suffer from reload speed issues.

I guess what I'm getting at is that other systems have shown that you don't implicitly need to have rules that implicitly preclude a character from being able to use defensive vector X if he has offensive vector Y.

If you want that sort of thing for flavor reasons, that's fine. But I think any supposed balance reasons are probably overstated.

[Marc R]

The balance issues are most in making one archetype level with the others. . .the idea that archetypes exist at all is why each profession has a "Hole" of things it cannot do well (or at least cheaply.)

The armor restrictions exist to promote archetype professions. All of the professions are biased in one degree or another to be good at some things and bad at others.

The issue of balance comes later, to make sure the archetype professions balance against each other. I don't think the armor restrictions exist because of a balance issue, I think they are one of the elements used to balance a variety of professions against each other.

The Armor limits in terms of the difference between the three realms is an instance of the armor restrictions being used as a balance tool.

Each game system is different, some are non archetype or weak archetype systems. . .and even among archetype games, different methods are used to make them work.

[Fullerton]

The issue of balance comes later, to make sure the archetype professions balance against each other. I don't think the armor restrictions exist because of a balance issue, I think they are one of the elements used to balance a variety of professions against each other.

So even if this is true, I still stand by what I said before:

Try allowing mages to wear any armor (without taking anything else away from them) and *see* whether it really makes them "too good" before imposing any sort of other sanction.

And remember that armor already has built-in drawback completely irrespective of spell casting: You have to buy ranks to use it optimally, and even then it probably still reduces your QU bonus, your MM bonuses, slows you down, etc.

[Marc R]

shrug, if you just drop the ESF penalties for armor, most casters would still face impossability with them. . .you only get X/* costs at 7 or less. . .a magician would be paying 11 per rank for MIA plate. . .and a cost of 7/* isn't exactly peachy.

I do in that respect agree with you, in that there's really no need for both, but the system has two layers of anti-armor logic for essence and channeling, first the casting/ESF penalty, then the really high costs. .

You'd need to do more than just dump the casting/ESF penalties to make armored casters a workable concept, you'd need to re-jigger the MIA costs to make them more palatable, at which point I'd say you're definitely treading into tampering with basic game elements involving balance. . .if you give magicians low armor costs, you make them better, unles you think they're currently underpowered, that will shift balance in their favor. . .

As to "Try it and see". . .Some of us have. . .RM2 RoCo2 and trancend armor. . .the Paladin and Warrior Mage professions come to mind. . .both have taken a considerable beating for being game unbalancing in their RM2 incarnations.

Not to say I haven't played both, and had a lot of fun. . .there's nothing wrong with them, but the whole "round" character concept those fall into, who fight and cast (and perhaps even sneak) well, works better in high powered, high end games. . .I'm not arguing against it, just saying that in result it tends to be overpowering. . .when you make the casters more armslike, you tend to need to beef up the arms PCs to balance the party out, and end up with a party of high end heros. . .and a high end campaign.

[Fidoric]

Some years ago I GMed a campaign where armor did not interfer with spell casting. One of The PC was a member of a special knightly order wearing chain mail, wielding a bastard scord one-handed and firing firebolt off-hand. We spent a great time back then.
It was under RMSS rules but modified. Spells were divided in categories and skills like most other RMSS skills.
Thinking on it now, maybe a way to limit armor-wearing spellcasters is simply to apply armor MMP to SCSM (ESF ?). That way you could encourage spellcasters to learn different casting ways. (gestures are hindered by armor, but singing is not so something along the lines of Harp casting style can be interesting to introduce here).

[markc]

 IMO thier is another factor in combat if you use RMSS Martial Arts Comp. (MAC). As now fighting/weaopn arts can be listed in the Combat Maneuvers Cat, which very few purecasters have at a good DP cost, not to mention their generally poor skill costs in weapon and armor cat's.

 I do like to play semi spell caster's for the express reason of having armor and spells but thier are a few spell lists that really make casting in armor easier. The spell list in the new Combact Companion for instance. If as a GM you let other professions have access to that list the # of casters in armor are going to increase dramaticly. But they still will not be as affective as a fighter in some areas of combat. ie what happens when the casters PP run out in the middle of a harry situation? Does he say we rest here and lay down, in the middle of battle?

MDC

[Arioch]

Again, thank you all!

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

I'm not saying that I want to allow magic users to wear armor and cast without any detriment. I just thought that the limitation to casting are, after all, a matter of setting. In some worlds mages could wear armor and cast with no problems. I think it would be cool to have other, optional ways to limit spellcasters, thus allowing to use RM spell system in any possible setting... 

As more fuel for the fire, other major game systems don't give penalties to ranged attacks for using armor. And in the most major of those, arrows do pretty equivalent amounts of damage to melee weapons *and* bows don't suffer from reload speed issues.

Yes, and in the major of those a dart from an x-bow could have problems in killing a rat... Penalties from armor to ranged attacks make sense IMHO: try to shot an arrow wearing steel bracers and see if they don't hinder your aim!

shrug, if you just drop the ESF penalties for armor, most casters would still face impossability with them. . .you only get X/* costs at 7 or less. . .a magician would be paying 11 per rank for MIA plate. . .and a cost of 7/* isn't exactly peachy.

Yes, that's why I think that the armor penalties removal would not influence too much mages, but would really "boost up" semi users, who can develop both spells and armor at resonable prices.
Maybe, requiring hand weaving, complex gestures and holding a focus in your hands to cast (giving high penalties or even precluding casting if one doesn't do it) could "balance" things, as none could hold a weapon and cast at the same time?

Another solution could be simply removing non spell using profession from the game... but that's not really a solution! 

[Marc R]

In terms of dumping the non casters:

The "No Profession" game is actually a pretty good way to settle out archetype issues for a broad high magic game where everyone can be a caster if they want to be.

I had a point system set up for each "No profession" to select base lists. . .after that you just play it out from there. . .you tend to get variety just based on player direction rather than archetypes, and since everyone has the same costs, things tend to remain in balance.

I'll admit I didn't drop the realm limitations in that game, so that would be a bit more of an x-factor on top of the rest, but likely it would work, it would just make certain lists more attractive.

If you wanted a really high magic concept, you could just dump the realms, call everything arcane, allow the selection of any mix-n-match base lists within the points pattern. . .and just define the world's "One magic" concept as fitting the mentalism concept. (You could dump the only mentalism limit of "No helm" if you wanted unlimited armor.)

[Arioch]

Well, I has a squirrel once survive a blast from my shotgun.  Hit him broadside with a birdshot load and send him tumbling about 15 feet.  Little bugger jumped up and scooted into the brush and up a tree.  I watched it in the trees and could see the blood on its side.  It was very much alive let me tell you.  I felt very bad, so I loaed a buchshot round and blew it away...litterally almost in half.  I felt pretty bad to waste a squirrel like that for no good reason, and I never hunted them again, but it sure did surprise me to see it survive that broadside.

A shotgun blast is not a xbow bolt. A shotgun sprays many tiny pieces, while an xbow shots one bolt...
OTOH I agree with you on HPs, I have thought a couple of times of removing them from RM and using only crits description... but I cannot think a simple way to do it! 

Back on topic, reading all comments I think that what is needed is simply a "balance" factor for casters. In RM core it's armor, but other things could be used instead.
Inspired by Lordmiller comments I've come up with this:

Focus: to cast a spell you need to concentrate on something while gathering the magical energy and drawing the "spell pattern". A focus is a special object prepared to help you doing this task.
A focus is a very personal object, a caster must take some time to "attune" himself to it before using the focus properly. It's possible to cast without using a focus, but's extremely hard, only true archmages are able to do it without risk.
Casting Mods:
- No Focus: -60
- Improvised Focus (using an object that could be a focus, but has not been prepared to become one):-40
- Someone else's Focus (using a complete focus, without attunement): -25
- Own Focus: +0 (special focuses may give bonus to spellcasting)

Use of Voice and Hands: To cast a spell you have to chant complex formulas, while weaving special mantras with you hands. This makes very easy to detect someone who's casting.
Casting Mods:
Hands:
- No free hand: -40
- Only one hand free: -20
- Both hands free: +0
Use of Voice:
- None: -50
- Whisper: -30
- Normal: -15
- Loud incantation: +0


Do you think that that's enough to balance it out?

[mocking bird]

Arioch - I am not following.  Would the focus limitatins be in addition to armor restrictions or would those be negated?  What type of balance are you trying ot acheive?

If the latter, no armor penalties, all the focus requirements would do is make casting with a shield or weapon in hand more risky and not allowing the caster to make such items their focus.

[Marc R]

I think he means dumping all armor/gear penalties and using these in their place.

Only think I'd add to the focus rule, in rulebook/lawyer mindset is:

"A hand with a focus in it is considered a "Free" hand in terms of spellcasting restrictions."

That text was added to many of the Combat Companion spells, which involve foci or spell targets in hand, to avoid creating a situation where using a necissary object ended up causing an auto penalty by occupying a hand.

[Warl]

Arioch

just as a suggestion/alternative to removing the Armor penalties to casters. There was/is a skill in one of the old RM2 companions Called "Transcend Armor" That when developed by a caster allowed them to overcome part or All of the Penalties for a particular armour type. I think it becomes a better way to go as it represents the Semi Spell users has trained to overcome the Armours Detriment. and balances becuase the character had t spend DP on it.

[Arioch]

I think he means dumping all armor/gear penalties and using these in their place.

Yes, sorry I forgot to state that! I meant to drop armor penalties and using the ones listed above instead.

Only think I'd add to the focus rule, in rulebook/lawyer mindset is:

"A hand with a focus in it is considered a "Free" hand in terms of spellcasting restrictions."

True, good idea!

Arioch

just as a suggestion/alternative to removing the Armor penalties to casters. There was/is a skill in one of the old RM2 companions Called "Transcend Armor" That when developed by a caster allowed them to overcome part or All of the Penalties for a particular armour type. I think it becomes a better way to go as it represents the Semi Spell users has trained to overcome the Armours Detriment. and balances becuase the character had t spend DP on it.

That would be a way to do it, but it's only a way to circumvent the problem without solving it. What I would like to have is a way to adapt RM spell casting system to any possible setting. This could also be an idea to have a blueprint to create new Realms/ Casting styles...