Traditional Stuff

[SnowWolf]

Is PS going to keep the old RPG \"rule\" that magic users have to avoid wearing lots of metal armor because it hinders their casting? Just wondering :]

If this hasn\'t been brought up before (I did a search and didn\'t find anything) what do you guys think should be done? Comments?

[seperot]

thats a realy good question snowwolf that always got me annoyed on bg2 when i couldent have armor and had to pause every 5 seconds just so i chould heal up then last another 5 seconds

[Xalthar]

I think you should be able to wear any kind of armor, and not get any penalties to your magical abilities.. I mean, if you are willing to put points in strength (in order to wear armor) why shouldn\'t you be able to wear it??

in other words, let the magic-users wear armor without any penalties to their magical abilities.

[Kiva]

Actually, that rule is because in BG, BG2 and all the other BI games, the magic is channelled from the casters body, but is not able to get out, if the caster wears any kind of metal armor. I just think it\'s silly you can\'t wear any metal armor at all, when you\'re the Mage/Cleric class. But if that kind of rule is used in PS, you just won\'t be able to cast spells, if you\'re wearing an armor. PS does not use classes. We must remember that.

[Caldazar]

And another reason that casters arent allowed to wear armor is that they would simply be overpowered, or so I think. Imagine a wizard, hurling giant fireballs, whilst creaturs are attacking him, doin very little damage, since he has the same armorlevel as a tank (warrior).
Alas, since PS doenst have any classes, I\'m pretty sure that you can cast, as long as you have the proper strength

[Grakrim]

Well, one of the most popular reasonings is that heavy armor simply lowers the caster\'s range of movement.  If casting a spell is as simple as reciting an incantation or something else that doesn\'t require movement, then I\'d say its silly for armor to penalize.  However, if a spell has a physical element, I think heavy armor really should penalize.  Thusly, difficult spells may require the caster to wear less armour (although the more difficult spells would likely be more powerful, making up for the lack of armour).  In such a system, it should be difficult to change armor in the midst of combat.

Well, just a thought.

[zaphar]

Another rationalization is that any caster of merit would have put most of their charcters attribute points spell casting areas and not strength so they simply couldn\'t wear the armor cause it was too heavy

[Grakrim]

Originally posted by zaphar
Another rationalization is that any caster of merit would have put most of their charcters attribute points spell casting areas and not strength so they simply couldn\'t wear the armor cause it was too heavy

Indeed, that\'s the beauty of a skill-based system, your character is completely up to your imagination.  However, most skill-based systems rely only partially on stats, due to their (usually) static nature, which conflicts with the somewhat more dynamic nature of skills.  Its quite a conundrum, as its not logical that a skill would allow you to wear armor more effectively (other than a shield or buckler).  I just hope that they don\'t go the way of SWG and allow players to \"migrate\" their stats during the course of the game.

[Drilixer]

and you could always add a skill that allows mages to cast magicks while armored... I\'m sure many mages would be interested in such a skill, spell, or enchantment

[Wedge]

Errr I don\'t see the issue here.  Better armour requires higher strength, and a spell-caster that works on their strength obviously isn\'t going to be as strong at spell-casting.  Pretty much what Zaphar said.  There\'s no reason to not allow it.  You could also balance the two and be a Battlemage character like that.  It would be more to your advantage though to just learn an armour spell or two, so you don\'t have to work on your strength.

[derwoodly]

Wearing armor is not really what you want.  

You want your mage to be able to be able to block or absorb damage like your \"armor\" wearing warriors.  If you had a mages cloak of protection that had the same stats on it as some Mithral plate mail you would not need armor.  

It has to be ballanced.  People who put all there skill points into sword and armor abilities want it too mean something.  I agree with Caldazar,  a mage that can tank like a warrior would be too powerfull.  Why would anyone play a warrior?

[SnowWolf]

This has going way off the original topic - by means of mis-information of course, but off topic nevertheless.

In my original post I was not asking whether a mage should be able to wear armor or if it would be tactically correct, I was asking whether PS was going to keep with the lore that says magic users cannot use armor because it hinders their casting. Not because it\'s a handicap, or because they aren\'t strong enough, because if they put metal on, especially iron, the metal counteracts or blocks in their magic. Metal is the anti magic in otherwords - like bullet proof glass, metal is magic proof.

Or at least that\'s how it is in other games, I was just asking if PS was going to keep that scrap of lore.

[Drilixer]

Originally posted by SnowWolf
This has going way off the original topic - by means of mis-information of course, but off topic nevertheless.

In my original post I was not asking whether a mage should be able to wear armor or if it would be tactically correct, I was asking whether PS was going to keep with the lore that says magic users cannot use armor because it hinders their casting. Not because it\'s a handicap, or because they aren\'t strong enough, because if they put metal on, especially iron, the metal counteracts or blocks in their magic. Metal is the anti magic in otherwords - like bullet proof glass, metal is magic proof.

Or at least that\'s how it is in other games, I was just asking if PS was going to keep that scrap of lore.

well that depends completely on how the magic system is designed... and I don\'t think any of the devs are free to give that kind of information lest we hold them to it...