>>why can't every profession have full body protection without fear of spell failure?

Are you interested in the answer to this question from a game design perspective? Or was it intended to be more rhetorical in nature?

I sometimes have trouble distinguishing between the avid interest of understanding and the shut up and do it my way attitude on the boards. . .

Doug

this could be an interesting discussion. looking at it from an ability aspect, there is no reason some code could not be changed to allow this. However, in doing so you would be opening up a big can of worms on many aspects. Balance is one of them. Magic users are designed to not be able to wear heavier armors as they become very powerful as they mature, simply put, there is no reason for a magic user to need to wear heavier armors as their spells eventually provide adaquate defense and offensive powers. If a spell caster wishes to use heavier armors it is only fit that they receive a chance at spell failure otherwise they would be way too uber.

The second issue, which is one near and dear to my heart as a spell caster, is the societal norms as well as perceptions that have generated throughout the years. For example, in the beginning days of D&D this rule was established and has since become the norm for roleplay games. I could not conceptualize my cleric wearing heavy armor because it just does not seem right.

The third and last issue in my opinion is the why bother aspect. By this I mean if spell casters can wear any armor they wished with no chance of spell failure....why not allow warriors, rogues, heck, everyone easily train to use spells? Thus eliminating the class system all together. It would eliminate the class system because once that happens, than everyone will want to be able to bless, lockpick, berserk, heal others ect.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To clarify a bit more.
I am speaking purely for the lighter armors meaning double leathers and below. Clerics and Empaths can already wear those without any hindrance, but wizards, sorcerers, bards and monks are another matter. Of course the heavier armors should have spell hindrance. I see it as if anything it would bring the game more in balance considering Clerics and Empaths have the potential to have higher DS than a Wizard or Sorcerer and yet they have access to hindrance free double leathers. I just fail to see how removing the small hindrance in place on double and reinforced armors for those who use mental and elemental spheres of magic would unbalance the game in any way.

Well, wizards have more destructive power than clerics or empaths so they need to be more vulnerable for balance ... oh wait, that's not true anymore. Never mind ...

"So, what does that green line on the graph represent?"
"Oh, that's the projection of a hypothetical offspring from a union between Sauron and Cruella de Ville; we use that as a baseline for determining character alignment."

<<The elements are harder to draw upon through materials other than robes. The spirits answer pleas or prayers, and are not subject to the same difficulties, although encasing oneself in metal does start to inhibit the channeling of power. Mental powers come wholly from within, but when the mind is so occupied it becomes increasingly difficult to deal with physical distractions.>>

This reasoning would seem to suggest that clerics and empaths should be able to go all the way up to brig with no hindrance.

Starchitin

A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.

An alternate answer, which is quite without insight I admit, is just because that's how it's always been. There's not a small amount of light, full, and reinforced leathers out there which would plummet in value if this was changed.

I basically agree with the idea that all the pures could be in the same type of armor under a fair system. Then again, you can imagine about how much I care since my main character is still in robes.

---

>Kayse scrambles to avoid being sucked into the void!

>>Maybe an alternative would be to allow those with mental, elemental and hybrid spell circles to fully train off hindrance for everything up to double leathers, that way if people want to do it, it would cost them extra TPs as a trade off..

This is no different than just removing the hindrance.

What I want to know is why. Why is removing hindrance a discussion / priority?

Doug

Thanks.

It does stink. This is intended to be a decision with consequences. Heavier armors or completing partial armors affect all professions to a greater degree than lighter armors, not just spell casters. Deciding to get the benefits of heavier armors comes with the trade-offs that such a decision requires.

Doing away with spell hindrance essentially negates any need to deal with consequences. There's no 'discrimination'. But a free ride? I'm not thinking that's much better.

IF we support the concept that our decisions should have consequences (by the way, this is one of the game's differentiators) - what would it make sense to offer in place of spell hindrance? Something that could be traded away as a 'replacement' consequence.

Doug

>>You are extrapolating doubles to plate again? Talk about straw-man arguments. I'm just asking if there's a good reason for elementals to be second class citizens in regards to hindrance. All we're asking for is for doubles to have a TRAINABLE minimum of 0% hindrance. The trade-off would be the TPs cost, obviously.

Um, I am? No - I'd say that the extrapolation is happening elsewhere. I'm not talking about plate at all. I did talk about heavier armors.

>>When this was initially designed there were no enhancive greaves and possibly not even crit-padded ones (I'm not sure when that started tbh). But these qualities have increased the penalty on elemental users disproportionately.

No, the decision to wear them results in the penalty - and it's no more disproportionate than it is for any spell user who has been wearing full AG based armors. This is called consequence - often mis-termed 'inconvenience' by those who don't understand 'why' something happens.

>>Btw those consequences you describe for non-casters... casters get those penalties as well. (ie: maneuver penalties to dodging boils, etc)

This is quite nearly correct - and I would really enjoy hearing discussion about over-training in armor for spell-casters as well. I'm not exactly sure I'd focus on hindrance out of the gate, though. And don't you just hate that elven spell casters can't even get into their preferred armor - chain? What's up with that?!

>>Is doubles for empaths a "free-ride"?

Better question would be is the spirit circle a free ride, don't you think? In either case, the answer's no because spirit spells can't hold a candle to elemental spells. AmIRite?!

Or, is this back to the - my convenience my way - argument style that is pervading the boards of late? Because if that's all we're headed towards, that is as reasonable in this genre as magic is. No logic to it.

Doug

>>>Better question would be is the spirit circle a free ride, don't you think? In either case, the answer's no because spirit spells can't hold a candle to elemental spells. AmIRite?!

Are you right? If that is a balancing factor used in the spells, that would be an answer I would accept! Better that than "that's the way it's been, so too bad". (Btw when I left during gs3, wizards could wear doubles)


If rogues were getting extra maneuver penalties compared to warriors, wearing the same armor with the same training, I'm sure they'd also wonder why.

A wizard currently needs 15 ranks in Armor Use to get hindrance DOWN to 4%. Vs the spirit-users that can train to 8 ranks and stop there. I'm just saying there should be an OPTION to keep training to get that hindrance down, I don't think it's beyond the realm of reasonableness.

>>>>No, the decision to wear them results in the penalty - and it's no more disproportionate than it is for any spell user who has been wearing full AG based armors. This is called consequence - often mis-termed 'inconvenience' by those who don't understand 'why' something happens.

If, tomorrow, all helmets were given +20 crit padding. You don't understand how that changes the balance between a class that has no penalty to wearing them an one that does?

>>Why does it feel like this thread is getting trolled...

Perhaps because there's no acknowledgement of the position, nor any attempt to answer serious questions? I'd call that a facet of trolling - a much more significant one than simply calling it out first, or falling back to failed high school debate logic terms. Of course, YMWV.

>>You are most definately wrong about this, have you played a Cleric or Empath lately?

Um, yes and yes? Lately and for many a year.

>>Or even a Paladin vs Bard?

Um, no and yes? Lately and for many a year. No paladin, though - in case that gets overlooked in the rush. I am working on a couple rangers - if that can qualify?

>>Try it then come back and say this.

Try it? And then 'come back'? Dismissive much, AmIRite?

As the 'AmIRite' should indicate, my point was slightly tongue in cheek (both times). But each remains no less a point, for all its failed humor. (Both times.)

>>If that is a balancing factor used in the spells, that would be an answer I would accept!

Without going to far afield, I think this is the case. But it's the case because of a number of tied-together facets of the game. For a very limited view, highest damage factor for a weapon? What's its speed? Can it be trained down to 'zero'? How about bolt? Which magic sphere has the highest general damage factor for bolt spells? Which magic sphere has the less powerful bolt spells? What is bolt / spell speed? Should it be trained down to 'zero'? What other limitations exist to help level damage factors?

In other words, I feel it is a significant mistake to play a cleric, then play a wizard (or, as in my case vice versa) and then say "wow! Wizards have it a lot harder than clerics in casting spells in double leather!" without recognizing all the ways wizards have it much better than clerics. And even then, for game balance (not character convenience), you can't change willy-nilly without considering warriors (who do cast spells), rogues, etc.

In fact, there's two things I don't think fit here in these lands - game design by player convenience, and game design by player committee. So why am I asking my serious question (and expecting an answer)? Because I don't pretend to know everything - and so I watch for new ideas to shape my thinking. So far, not one answer to the serious question.

>>(Btw when I left during gs3, wizards could wear doubles)

And plate (and chain! Dammit!) Spell rolls were resolved totally differently, then - and heavier armors did cause some penalties, but were not resolved like today. Believe me - it's a good thing that we don't have wizards rolling around in plate (or chain, unless they're elves, dammit!)

I'm very confused about what the crit padded helmet point is, here, so I'm going to pass on it unless you can amplify it a bit.

>>A wizard currently needs 15 ranks in Armor Use to get hindrance DOWN to 4%. Vs the spirit-users that can train to 8 ranks and stop there. I'm just saying there should be an OPTION to keep training to get that hindrance down, I don't think it's beyond the realm of reasonableness.

I don't think it's beyond the realm of reasonableness either. What I'm trying to say is that's not consequence - that's training. What consequence could replace it? This entire game is based on giving players myriad choices to make, with pros and cons. And where we are today, the choice of deferring a skill rank until 10 or 20 levels later is no consequence at all. Ultimately, those skills come.

So I ask the really serious question - if each profession is supposed to have some difficult choices to make, and for the wizard one of those choices is protection versus efficiently casting spells - what would we offer as an offsetting consequence? What would take the place of 'efficiently casting spells' above?

The 'honoring of the game's past' -- the way things used ta was done -- from my view has nothing to do with hindrance and everything to do with consequence.

And in the time honored tradition of the lands, I'm simply asking what would be slotted to exchange the consequence of hindrance?

Because just dropping it ain't.

Doug

P.S. The serious question that isn't getting acknowledged is -- what consequence would replace the consequence of hindrance?

P.P.S. The time-honored answer to this query is generally 'don't like the hindrance, play a spirit caster' (choice / consequence) - but you'll note I'm not offering that as a reply, because I truly want to see what we can come up with as a replacement consequence. Also, because if you're a moderately long-lived player, you'll already have a spirit user or two that you're working on - which makes it pointless to suggest someone 'try a profession' as a recourse.

>Or make the paladin anti-hindrance armor thing work better on other casters maybe? Paladins could certainly use more utility, and a competitor for armor support wouldn't be terrible for the game.

>>Better question would be is the spirit circle a free ride, don't you think? In either case, the answer's no because spirit spells can't hold a candle to elemental spells. AmIRite?!<<

>You are most definately wrong about this, have you played a Cleric or Empath lately? Or even a Paladin vs Bard? Try it then come back and say this.

Figured I'd at least get in here as a serious paladin player. You don't want to bring Paladins into this discussion. They are a class explicitly designed to cast well in heavy armor; that's a class-specific feature they were designed with. If you go that route, you'll get immediately shot down.

But um, Paladins really have basically one powerful spell (you can call 1615 and 1630 two different spells if you really want to), and it's mostly a setup spell that sometimes gets a death crit. There are a couple other Paladin warding spells, but exactly none of those other ones have any chance to kill anything.

Don't get me wrong. The Paladin Base is a great circle, and I like it. I'll freely admit this isn't exactly a spirit vs. non-spirit case, but um...it is also not the case that you want to mention the word "paladin" again in this thread, IMO.

---

>Kayse scrambles to avoid being sucked into the void!

Just for the record, I use 1212 from scrolls on a sorcerer.

I'm not sure if that makes a difference for your points, but I'm just saying.

Even without Iron Skin (since I haven't charged those scrolls in awhile) I do pretty fine with 6x Robes that have some ensorcelling.

---

>Kayse scrambles to avoid being sucked into the void!

>>A generally available crit padded helm that could be used by every other class without penalty, but which would inflict a penalty on bards wizards and sorcerers if they used it, isn't in the same league as what has happened to monks over the past three years, but its the same sort of thing.

Ahh, I see. So, even though the penalty is from the choice of wearing a certain armor sub group, and even though the impact of that choice stems from the profession choice of elemental magic - we'd prefer to blame the tool rather than our choice.

Because, there's no penalty for wearing that helmet. There's a penalty for casting spells in certain armor sub groups in the magic sphere chosen. And, lest we forget two very important things - a global change like this would be balanced before release with every creature getting exceptional weighting on their aimed head shots, and; it won't happen as a result of the treasure (snort!) system, and it still requires the element of choice.

Thanks, Rath - I appreciate you walking me down the monk path with that explanation. Always good to stay on point.

>>Just for the record, I use [1202] from scrolls on a sorcerer.

Yep, robes are the new black, no doubt about it - Iron Skin or no. I suspect Iron Skin will surpass Heroism in terms of scroll value, as the word gets out. Especially those who hate spell hindrance but want to have the protections of heavier armors.

Doug

Another alternative would be to change the coverage of robes to be full body.
Let's be real here has anyone ever seen robes irl or in a game that covered just your chest and stomach(besides GS)?
I haven't. Most times I see robes the go down to your feet and down to your hands and many have hoods.
I'd probably be more inclined to go with robes on my pure casters if they actually were robes rather than a glorified wife beater.

Or the benefits of padding, fusion, resistance, scripts, etc.

It's basically an armor with the same divisor as skin - so it doesn't really matter if it covers or not.

And, unless I'm very mistaken (like insanely so), it allows all professions to wear armor accessories that also have these benefits, with zero hindrance.

Yep, kickin' (or punchin', if you're a Jeet Koon Do follower).

Doug

>>And, unless I'm very mistaken (like insanely so), it allows all professions to wear armor accessories that also have these benefits, with zero hindrance.

As Rath had pointed out though it sucks to hunt places like the rift and Nelemar without having warrior resistance put on your armor and you can't put those fittings on robes. I guess one could put them on accessory pieces but that still leaves one vulnerable in the torso area and also weighs you down a bit more if you had accessories for that reason alone.

The topic of fittings with robes is certainly a new one for me. I've not hunted in the capped areas.

I know we've somewhat derailed from the OP discussion, but is there a problem to advocate that fittings should be able to work on robes? My guess is the reason they don't work is exactly because robes aren't actually armor? But as to being a platform to enhance our defensive capabilities, I don't see a major issue allowing this change. But, it's not a topic I've ever really thought about.

How much does that change help monks? I recall there was also the problem of Iron Skin that it doesn't give the CvA bonus of heavier armor classes (which ensorcell helps with a little, but not a whole lot), which is another issue entirely. Is there a major concern for game balance allowing such fittings on robes? When fittings and warrior resistances were designed, how thoroughly was this point evaluated, and what were the reasons to not allow it?

---

>Kayse scrambles to avoid being sucked into the void!

Rathboner...

I couldn't really follow your last post. I say that admitting that I don't know much about robes.

Could you lay it out for dummies? I'd really appreciate it!

(This is an honest request with zero mockery etc)

---

>Kayse scrambles to avoid being sucked into the void!

>>Plane 4: CvA manageable in robes, but slash fittings required. Fitting availability in robes makes 1202 viable.

It has been about 2 years since I hunted plane 4 with any regularity but at the time I was dying as a plate wearing paladin. I purchased a hcp aventail and added slash fittings to that armor accessory and I don't think I died a single time after to a burrow. I agree with having fittings available to robes, it comes across as an oversight rather than intentional exclusion.

*Reason for using fittings on aventail was that it was padded and my armor was not, in addition since I only needed the resistance on my neck vs the burrow I used up my resistance less quickly as finding a warrior with the required armor training wasn't always quick.