From update #29:

 

We would like our armor system to accomplish the following goals:

 

... disassociate armor value from class type in favor of different build types. E.g. a wizard can wear heavy armor and be a different type of wizard instead of just "a wizard who is bad".

 

So, that is a definite statement for the game mechanics (as it was announced earlier several times). For me its a essential one as it produces imho the biggest armor problem - how to combine wizards and armor?

 

I feel that the best solution for this system is to have different armor types result in different

bonusses.

 

That also corresponds with the real choice goal. I assume they are Padded, Leather, Studded Leather, Hide, Scale, Chain, Splint, Plate (Tier 2), Field Plate (Tier 3), Full Plate (Tier 4) (also mentioned in update #29)

 

The bonusses could be ... almost everything! So please write and comment what you think about this idea. Below are some possible boni for the armor types in the game.

 

So here comes the bonus section:

 

Padded (10-20%) resistance vs. blunt weapons.

(20-40%) resistance vs. cold or electricity

 

Leather / Studded Leather gives (20-40%) bonus to hide in shadows

improves charisma (10-20%)

 

Hide gives bonusses corresponding to animal origin of the hide:

wolf: (10-20%) faster attack speed

bear: (20-20%) higher strength/damage

tiger: (10-30%) higher movement speed

...

 

Scale (10-30)% chance to miss when attacked by daggers / swords

and arrows

 

Chain (10-20)% damage resistance vs. all weapons

 

Split (15-40)% damage resistance vs. missile weapons

 

Plate (20-30)% damage resistance vs. melee weapons

BUT decreases agility by (5-10 %)

 

Field Plate (30-40)% damage resistance vs. melee weapons

BUT decreases agility by (15-20 %)

 

Full Plate (30-40)% damage resistance vs. all weapons

BUT decreases agility by (5-10 %)

HIGH STRENGTH NEEDED

Select any armor I want? M1A2 Abrams tank.

Select any armor I want? M1A2 Abrams tank.

I imagine the penalties for boresighting to target your spells from inside the tank are going to be huge.

 

 

I don't really care what the bonus for a specific armor is. Be it +50% damage resistance, +6 to sheer badassery or +25 anti-meta-spell-penetration-resilience, as long as armored spell-caster builds are going to be viable and competitive I'll be fine with it.

Edited November 1, 201213 yr by Heresiarch

I honestly can't see anything in here that's worth having an opinion on, but if it matters--I'm the wizard that wears the gear that works for the way I want to play. Hopefully in reasonably subdued and matching colors.

Select any armor I want? M1A2 Abrams tank.

I imagine the penalties for boresighting to target your spells from inside the tank are going to be huge.

Dodging will be a bit of a problem as well. At least for the other guy...

 

If it's pre-mechanized armor you want, then I'd probably go for chest plate armor, which would protect my vitals from bullets while leaving my limbs to waggle about and weave spells. For an advantage, I'd like the armor to be as light as a feather.

 

Will that do it?

Edited November 1, 201213 yr by rjshae

I'm replaying DAO because I want to check out Arcane Warrior.

This is not going to be an AD&D game..

 

...throw out all your preconceptions.

 

This is a new game, with a new system, with a new lore etc etc

 

The fact that a Wizard can wear Plate seems odd but only in the context of previous games.

 

Think you need to look at what reasons a wizard could or could not wear armor.. and why that is so. Is it because of movement restrictions? why is that a concern for a wizard?? Is it because the metal somehow inhibits the wearer? why would it do that? It's not electricity or anything like that.. it's magic.

 

Re-evaluate your assumptions and think about it all over again from the very beginning.. why should it be this way or that way at all? Don't just take the easy way of "that's how it's always been" and leave it at that.. think about it objectively.

This is not going to be an AD&D game..

 

...throw out all your preconceptions.

 

This is a new game, with a new system, with a new lore etc etc

 

The fact that a Wizard can wear Plate seems odd but only in the context of previous games.

 

Think you need to look at what reasons a wizard could or could not wear armor.. and why that is so. Is it because of movement restrictions? why is that a concern for a wizard?? Is it because the metal somehow inhibits the wearer? why would it do that? It's not electricity or anything like that.. it's magic.

 

Re-evaluate your assumptions and think about it all over again from the very beginning.. why should it be this way or that way at all? Don't just take the easy way of "that's how it's always been" and leave it at that.. think about it objectively.

 

Thinking about it objectively, the restriction exists for balance reasons, and I have never seen a system that removes this restriction that doesn't become extremely degenerate.

 

The armor restriction exists so that the Mage's comparitively large power is balanced by his relative frailty. Sure, he can cause devestation from a distance, but if you close with him, his weakness is exposed.

 

Giving Mages the benefit of armor means they cease to be relatively frail. Your only options at this point to restore the balance is either to disable his spells (Which reimplements the class restriction), or make his spells comparable in damage to the fighter (Which makes him a fighter with a different name).

 

You cannot remove the checks and balances without creating a massive imbalance, which means you either nerf the class or reimplement the balance in another form.

 

If a mage has massive power and the same defenses as the fighter, the mage is strictly better than the fighter at all times. Since you're committed to the same defense, your only option is to alter his power. Which ultimately makes the mage rather boring at best.

That was a very convoluted poll. It should have been two options

 

A: Wizards should be able to wear armor (such as plate mail) and cast their spells as normal.

 

B: Wizards should use magic for defense (armor spell, magical robes/bracers, etc), magic should be hindered by mundane armor.

 

I would have voted for option B.

It ultimately comes down to a logical question: why clerics can cast spells wearing a mail and mages can't?

That was a very convoluted poll. It should have been two options

 

A: Wizards should be able to wear armor (such as plate mail) and cast their spells as normal.

 

B: Wizards should use magic for defense (armor spell, magical robes/bracers, etc), magic should be hindered by mundane armor.

 

I would have voted for option B.

C. Wizards have some manner of penalty when wearing armour, but it is not so punitive that armoured mages aren't viable options.

I play a Spellsword-type character in every single RPG I can manage to. What I can say, in D+D terms (while acknowledging that this isn't a D+D game) is this about balancing spell use/armor proficiency. A fighter and mage could both feasibly wear heavy armor and still be distinct without breaking the system in half. It's tricky to pull off, but here is how I look at it.

 

A fighter wearing full plate has high armor (which could be either damage resistance or chance to hit, depending) AND high Hp, meaning that even without the armor they can take a volley of hits with no problem. The fighter is also meant, from the start, to be engaged in melee and so has weapon proficiencies in addition to a shield (which melee mages generally can't use in order to keep a casting hand free) to be effective in melee and "tank".

 

A mage wearing full plate has high armor but low hp. This means the mage isn't giving up his frail nature entirely, but he is making this obvious weakness less vulnerable. However, the mage, without spells appropriate for melee combat, cannot perform well in close quarters for long, since their hp just isn't enough to withstand more than a few decent hits.

 

Now, this is where multiclassing/hybrid potential comes in.

 

In D+D, a multiclassed Fighter/Wizard would be great with spells and great with melee ability, but not as good as a Fighter in his realm or a Wizard in his own. The key is that, on the battlefield, the Spellsword has versatility. The Spellsword's weakness, though, is in having lower hp than a fighter and, often times, less of a selection of spells available for raw spell-slinging since some of the Spellsword's spells, appropriately, have to be geared towards close combat- otherwise the mage is hobbling their spellcasting prowess somewhat for little benefit.

 

IN SHORT: A Spellsword character is excellent for relatively brief periods on the front lines, then falling back to cast a few ranged spells to finish enemies off (or do the same thing in the opposite order). A Spellsword generally cannot tank like a fighter could without serious magical help, and even then, as soon as the spells in question run out of juice, the Spellsword switches to a support role.

 

If Obsidian can pull this off, I would be ecstatic. But it is definitely possible.

Think you need to look at what reasons a wizard could or could not wear armor.. and why that is so. Is it because of movement restrictions? why is that a concern for a wizard?? Is it because the metal somehow inhibits the wearer? why would it do that? It's not electricity or anything like that.. it's magic.

 

In a word: Balance.

 

Heavy armor had restrictions that made it unappealing for anyone who wasn't a brute strength fighter to give the brute strength fighter an edge. Because let's face it, being a "guy with a sword" isn't nearly as cool as being an uber-talented rogue, a holy warrior with divine powers granted by the gods, or an all-powerful wizard with the power of the universe at his fingertips. In D&D, arcane spell failure and armor check penalties were there specifically to provide balance. The in-game flavor that they used to justify it made sense in their world, and was fine. (The heavier armor you wore, the more material separating you from the energies of the world around you, and it makes the very precise somatic gestures necessary to control magic more difficult).

 

Now, I'm not opposed to loosening up those restrictions at all. I like the idea of customizaion, and having the full-plate wizard and non-armored wizard both being legitimate builds, so long as they are just that. I don't want to be pigeonholed by the system into choosing to wear plate because that is far superior. I want the option to wear it because it fits with the vision I have for the character. Also, as always, balance needs to be considered. I am all for vast options, but I also don't want to see any classes shoved into the "bad" category due to uneven balancing.

Drawbacks yay - restrictions nay! Mages should be able to don armor but with mali on casting. Thing is I hate fail chance on casting, I'd rather have reduced maximum cast level or increased cast time. Specials feats to be able to use medium or heavy armor in the first place would also be okay for me.

 

I'd like to play a heavily armored warlock that may not be able to cast high level spells, but hands out magic missiles like candy.

Increased cast time makes the most sense as there will be no rounds. If they make it such that offensive spells take longer to cast, increasing as armor gets heavier (and spells get more powerful)

and combine that with a prohibition on spells like haste (or that haste doesn't reduce casting time), that could provide plenty of penalty.

You didn't include padded or layered cloth. I long for the days when gambesons and padded jacks are acknowledged as both better armour than leather and cooler too.

I don't see why a wizzard/sorcerer/mage CAN'T wear plate. Most lore requires casters to concentrate to be able to use spells. Why can't they concentrate in in heavy armour? I'm pretty sure Fighters concentrate to swing and block blows...

 

But still, I'd love to see battelmages again, heavy armour, throwing spells, deflecting arrows and then getting slammed to the floor by a Barbarian with a giant hammer....

I really don't want to see a fully plate mail dude flinging light bolts across the battle field. This is not supposed to be like Fable. I liked that wizards had some restrictive things it brought balance and kept them from being op. If a wizard can wear full plate and wield a sword then what's the point of a fighter?

Wizards in plate are protected from certain degrees of damage, A fighter gets up close and personal then they don't stand a chance once there shield is gone (if they had one).

The poll is biased, incomplete, grammatically incorrect and most importantly, I think it's irrelevant. Obsidian has already stated (and you quoted it) that they are dealing with this issue, so:

 

Imagine you are a wizard and you can select any armor you whant. Which armor would you select?

I'd select the armor best fitting the type of wizard I would be playing.

 

So your not just picking in armor because of the look but also because of its advantages. Which advantage would you like most if given from an armor?

No, I'm, in fact, picking armor 50% because of its looks. The other 50% is how it fits with the rest of my equipment with its bonuses and stuff.

 

In the last point you just named several simple examples of types of wizards that might be implemented by Obsidian.

 

Damn, I feel mean this morning.

When every class in the game has magic, so I don't see why one class should have special restrictions what to wear so that it can cast spells.

 

And removing equipment restrictions don't make wizard as fighter, because even if you can wield sword, it don't mean that you know how to use it. And wearing heavy armour don't make you immortal even if you are wizard.

 

And those who say that wiards should not have armours, because of their protective magic, you should probably read what Josh said about that in his update. Wizards magic is not effective against bullets, which is reason why some wizards in PE's world wear plate armour.

 

And in melee wizard with plate armour will probably lose to fighter who has more skill with sword and can magically enchant his speed and strength. And rogue who can make him or her self to be invisible and insubstantial has great advantage against wizard who focus more to combat than his or her spells.

 

So removing equipment restrictions don't destroy balance between classes when classes are different from what you have seen in D&D.

I remember in BG2 that most multiclassed wizards could wear armor, but this affected their spellcrafting abilities. Perhaps something in that vein would help with those against plate mail wizards. Nothing that is so severe, but perhaps some sort of drawback like:

 

- decreased concentration - more likely for spells to fail

- slower casting time

- certain schools locked out

- increased cost of casting

- decreasd accuracy of casting

 

Each of these might have a place. Perhaps a class perk could be to remove this drawback at higher-levels allowing wizards to cast spells in plate armor, making the decision have more consequence.

 

Perhaps there could also be certain spells crafted against wizards who wear certain types of armor. In would seem to me that since this world has mages who wear heavy armor, other mages (who do not wear this armor) have developed and researched spells that combat this: perhaps spells that bend metal or make it brittle (more likely to break that plate armor). Something to that effect would also be an interesting twist.

 

 

----------------------

 

 

In a completely different line of thought, I have noticed that the main issue most people are having with mages wearing plate isn't that mages shouldn't wear it: it's that fighters and those classes become particularly useless in battle because one of their defining traits has been taken away from them. Thus, in reality the problem isn't wizards per se: it's the fighters lack of versatility. Therefore, it seems to me that fighters here are the problem. Fighters should not be described as "swords + plate mail + full tank of HP" but rather a group of people who are masters in the art of combat. If this means that fighters have certain in-combat abilities (cleave, bash, coup degrace, stun, etc) that NO other class has access to - and to allow these abilities to begin from level 1, then fighters continue to have a deeper role to play in combat.

 

Thoughts?

Edited November 1, 201213 yr by Hormalakh

 

Thinking about it objectively, the restriction exists for balance reasons, and I have never seen a system that removes this restriction that doesn't become extremely degenerate.

 

Casters can wear armor in Dungeons and Dragons Online without degeneracy. There are *numerous* ways to reduce or even eliminate spell failure. Most don't, though, because almost all of the really good caster items are robes anyway, and the difference eventually comes down to "do I wear this bitchin robe with +9 armor or this suit of leather that's . . . +11 armor." That, and a lot of casters just don't care about their AC, anyway. Actually, since the AC changeover the only people who really care about AC are . . . tanks. And even then, it's become a lesser concern because the very best you can do defense-wise is about a 70% miss rate on trash.

 

Then again, in DDO you have sorcerers running around with 900 hp. They don't NEED 900 hp, they just . . . like to have them.

Easy solution, make armor use skill dependant, and make it an expensive skill. Make the spell casting schools expensive skills as well. But that would probably make the game much more skill oriented than is intended now.

I picked other in the second poll as I couldn't decide between the melds or missile damage reduction options. In BG my main issue was with the concept that my mags could cast all his spells and then stand around uselessly until he got slaughtered or I could hang on to the spell invade I needed them and he could stand around waiting to be slaughtered... I want a mage to be able to contribute to a battle without resorting to slings if they are not using magic. Martial arts mages anyone?