ZarathustraDK

How about some verbalized throwback to the old days? It IS a nostalgic re-envisioning after all. "Eternal Memories" "The Things We Lost" Stuff like that.

Hmm, "We"? May I ask what exactly is the point of having that possibility? Am I correct to think that what you are saying is "We" don't want any restrictions whatsoever, not even INT ones... *but* minimum STR would still be required to put on a specific piece of armour? Well, isn't that a restriction? 99yo wizard with high strength (brawny wizards, sexy) wearing full plate? Why would "we" want that? Technically speaking one can eat soup with a fork, that's certainly an option, but is it really useful? Another natural step after lifting all restrictions on armour/weapon use would be to make one - universal - character class, some kind of multiclass fighter/mage/assassin, who would be able to use any weapon or piece of armour. What I meant, basically, was that requirements for wearing armor should be attainable for every class, even if it makes no sense to wear a given armor for a particular class. Reason for this being that it's possible IRL if a person has the strength to put it on. Having a wizardrobe go "Oh, you're a warrior/fighter so you're not able to wear me" is stupid IMHO.

Very interesting discussion going on, lots of good info has been laid out. Here are a couple of my observations on the subject: 1. We don't want the +1 mode of progression concerning gear, that seems to be a universal opinion. 2. We want any character to be able to wear any piece of armor, because you would be able to do that IRL. How you perform in that armor depends on other stuff, but putting it on should be possible, even with the lowest of low INT. 3. There's an inherent problem in integrating armor from different time-periods since some/a lot of the newer armor outclasses their predecessors in every aspect. This could be remedied by a tiered system where a piece of armor is graded by it's age (historically old leather-armor=low-quality leather-armor, historically young leather-armor = higher quality leather-armor). "But what about different armor-TYPES?" you say, well read on... 5. (proposal) DON'T USE armor-types. The classic leather, chain-mail, scale-mail, plate-mail etc. mechanics/types were brought into AD&D and BG because it was used as a nifty way of shaping which general armor-types COULD be worn by the different archtypes of classes; it was (simplified) made to specifically prevent mages from using plate and shoehorn them into the classic Gandalf-image of mages as old people with robes and wizard-hats.. Well, we've already stated in 2 that we want mages to be able to wear plate even if it does them no good, so we don't need different armor-types. What to do then? How do we restrict armor in regards to the player so they don't just make a full plate-mail-*whatever class* by deafult? I'd say the answer to that question would be attribute-requirements. It takes a certain amount of strength to wield full plate mail compared to cloth, so of course it should be part determinant for it. You could also use different attributes like DEX or INT as a determinant for special pieces of armor (how about a magical piece of armor that refuses to stay on if you're too stupid?). Basically what I'm saying is: Yeah you can wear this full plate mail if you're a mage, and you'll be able to move in it if you're strong enough, however that STR is gonna come out of something, and your other stats may suffer if you decide to spend the points in STR. The above makes sense, without having the armor somehow refuse to stay on your body because it telepathically can sense your education-record. 6. How to avoid making chain-mail/studded leather obsolete? As have already been pointed out, different armor-types are useful for different things. Full plate is bulky but good against some types of weapon, chainmail is flexible and good against other types of weapons, leather-ware maybe confer worse protection than the previous two but it's much lighter so you can move faster, cloth is even lighter but offers relatively little protection. So mix and match, but make sure the buffs/debuffs conferred are %'s of something, don't go "Oh, you're wearing plate so you can't cast mage-spells" or "Oh, you're wearing plate, so you can't attempt a pickpocket", just make the casting time longer and increase the failure-rate of pickpocket respectively (or something else that does not exclude classes entirely from doing what they're trying). Basically what I'm saying is: There's a reason why I wear cloth to work, "leather/chain" to the paintball-field, and kevlar to war; it's because it confers an advantage on me for the given task. Identify the advantage of a given armor, buff that particular armor (and/or nerf the remaining armors) accordingly. Final notes I think a lot of these headaches are derived from the fact that we want different classes, but yet we want them to be able to do everything. We want to have our cake and eat it too. Classes necessitate restrictions on what is possible for them to do, and that affects armor too because it can impact our impression of what a class is supposed to be/look like. I say scrap the cast-iron classes and armor-types and just call it "a character" and "armor" respectively. Let physical attributes determine what a character can wear, and let his/her path (xp-gain, "soul", spells allowed by INT, perks, etc. determined/chosen/expanded upon throughout the game) prod the player into determining which suit of armor suits his/her situation the best.