A funny realization...

[Rurik]

No where does it say that the armor penalty applies to Divine Spellcasting or Sorcery.

So while full plate may not be practical for a fighter (-42%), it doesn't hamper a Wizard at all. He can just stand there in his tank armor and cast away. Fighters on the other hand, are often better off wearing little to no armor.

And people were accusing Mongoose of trying to make the game more like D&D. Sheesh.

 

[Adept]

Amusing

That said, I've never run my games so that armour would hinder magic. It seems like a pure game balance rule, and not something that arises from a gameworlds internal mechanics.

On the other hand armour is heavy, uncomfortable and expensive. If a magician doesn't need armour, he/she won't be wearing it. Even soldiers, historically, have always hated armour. Imagine marching about day in and day out with 10 kg of leather and metal on you. It's no picknik.

A 16 hour live RPG is quite an education. A light (6kg) maille shirt, boffer sword, shield and crossbow will really start to weigh on you after a while.

On the other hand, it's really neat that a magician can wear armour without penalty. A high magic campaign I game in (set in Shadow World) is generally so dangerous that my characters wife, who is an archmage, goes about in a full set of über tough set of plate armour, with a sword at her hip.

 

[Rurik]

Actually, I kinda assume that the armor penalty is supposed to apply to all spellcasting - as it does apply to runecasting. Since Sorcery and Divine Magic are not in the core rules, I think this was an ommission when the Companion came out.

I have never been a fan of the artificial armor limitations on classes. Or weapons for that matter. (Why can't I use that sword again?).

I just found it amusing that many Combat orientated characters will opt to stay away from heavy armor until their skills are very high, while in the RAW there is no such penalty on (non-runcasting) spellcasters. Kind of the Anti-D&D approach.

 

[gamesmeister]

Actually, I kinda assume that the armor penalty is supposed to apply to all spellcasting - as it does apply to runecasting. Since Sorcery and Divine Magic are not in the core rules, I think this was an ommission when the Companion came out.

Not sure about that, because the core rulebook gives specific mention to both Sorcery and Divine Magic as being in the Companion, so they were obviously being worked on simultaneously. You would assume they considered all three when writing the AP penalty rules.

I just found it amusing that many Combat orientated characters will opt to stay away from heavy armor until their skills are very high, while in the RAW there is no such penalty on (non-runcasting) spellcasters. Kind of the Anti-D&D approach.

I wouldn't have even noticed Runecasting is supposed to suffer from the AP penalty if you hadn't pointed it out - very odd indeed. I tended to assume that it's just DEX based skills that suffer - obviously not.

No idea why Runecasting should be penalised though - you only have to wave your hands a couple of times - Spirit Magic is more likely to be effected with all that cavorting around summoning spirits, but there's no mention of that in CoG2.

I won't penalise my players for Runecasting.

 

[Malakor]

In Leshan, I didn't want casters wearing armor at all, after all they can easily learn armoring spells, and I shudder at the thought of 'tank mages.' (Of course, by the same virtue, we also did away with all the "flash bang boom" spells in our personal campaign, so the Mages have to think a bit, rather than just being mobile artillery.

The following is the solution as I printed it in my player handout for character generation. Bear in mind that we also made some modifications to armor and weapons, so the ap for the armors listed may not jive with those in the mongoose book, but it should give you the idea. . .


Spellweavers and Armor

Spellweavers require freedom of movement in order to weave the magical energies, and armor tends to interfere with that freedom of movement.

Non-metallic armors, if worn by a spellweaver, impart a penalty of –5% to all Spellweaving attempts per AP of the armor, and adds 1 combat action to all casting times.

This penalty is cumulative for every piece of armor worn.

Example: Pietor the Chicken Hearted decides that he should be wearing armor when he accompanies his friend Alexander the Mighty on an adventure.

Against his friends and tutors advice, Pietor outfits himself with a heavy leather helmet (AP2), a Cuirboulli Cuirass (AP2) and a pair of Cuirboulli Greaves (AP2).

These four pieces of armor (yes FOUR, each leg counts) give Pietor a penalty of –40% to all his Spellweaving Tests and every spell will take 4 combat actions longer to weave.

Metallic armors actually inhibit the flow of magical energies when attempting to weave a spell. Should metal armor be worn by a spellweaver, he gains the same penalties as listed for non-metallic armors, and, in addition, the cost of each spell is multiplied by the
highest AP of any metallic armor he is wearing.

Example: Pietor the Chicken Hearted, having barely survived an encounter with followers of the Bandit King, agrees to accompany the now recovered Alexander the Mighty in an attempt to recover Alexander’s favorite
horse, Pookums, whom he had to leave behind as he and Pietor beat a strategic retreat from the bandits after Pietor’s spells kept failing.

Deciding he needed more protection than he had before, Pietor borrows a scale hauberk (AP 4) a full Helm (AP 6) and a pair of Plate Greaves (AP 6). Pietor would now suffer a –110% penalty to his Spellweaving attempts, and every spell would take 4 combat actions longer and would cost
SIX times the normal POW to cast.

However, Pietor is spared from the embarrassment of such an attempt,
because Alexander took pity upon him and slew Pietor as soon as he waddled out of his house wearing the ridiculous outfit and decided to just go buy a new horse.


(Disclaimer: Your mileage may vary )

 

[Magistus]

I always wonderd in what way does the helmet limit the casters freedom of movement and restrict his ability to cast magic?

 

[Halfbat]

No where does it say that the armor penalty applies to Divine Spellcasting or Sorcery.

Armour affects all Divine spellcasting - see the bottom of p11 and p24 in the Companion matched with p38 in the Core rulebook wrt Armour Penalty for both Sorcery and Divine Magic.

 

[frogspawner]

I use a houserule that armour gives an increased chance of fumbling spell-casting (with scary magic fumbles), rather than decreasing cast chance. This gets around the "why does it restrict me?" objection - maybe it is just the reputed anti-magic properties of armour that spoils the caster's concentration, just subtly...

 

[The King]

Some materials are known to block energy (i.e. lead) and in some ancient societies, some metals, especially iron, were seen as harmful (spiritually speaking).
There is some great information in "The Forge and the Crucible: The Origins and Structures of Alchemy" (by Mircea Eliade). This author also wrote many interesting books on myths and religions.

 

[gamesmeister]

No where does it say that the armor penalty applies to Divine Spellcasting or Sorcery.

Armour affects all Divine spellcasting - see the bottom of p11 and p24 in the Companion matched with p38 in the Core rulebook wrt Armour Penalty for both Sorcery and Divine Magic.

Both those sections are referring to the Situational Modifiers table on p66 of the main rulebook (they even quote that page).

 

[Halfbat]

No where does it say that the armor penalty applies to Divine Spellcasting or Sorcery.

Armour affects all Divine spellcasting - see the bottom of p11 and p24 in the Companion matched with p38 in the Core rulebook wrt Armour Penalty for both Sorcery and Divine Magic.

Both those sections are referring to the Situational Modifiers table on p66 of the main rulebook (they even quote that page).

They mention p66, but do not wipe out the armour modifier - the table on page 66 lists only the specific _situational_ modifiers and not the generic modifiers or armour modifiers also applicable. They specifically say "Divine Magic spellcasting tests apply the same modifiers as Rune Magic". And armour penalties are applied to Rune Magic.

Otherwise one might just as well argue that there is no Armour Penalty for Rune Magic as it is not listed on p66.

Look at the top of p11 (Companion) "the caster must be able to gesture..." which matches that required for Runecasting and p 38 (base) "Armour restricts as much as it protects".

Armour Penalty applies to Rune Magic, Divine Magic and Sorcery. ::shrugs:: Unless you want to houserule differently.

 

[gamesmeister]

To quote the full sentence:

"Divine Magic spellcasting tests apply the same modifiers as Rune Magic spellcasting tests (see Runequest, page 66)"

To me, that's pretty clear that it's referring to those situational modifiers on page 66.

Otherwise one might just as well argue that there is no Armour Penalty for Rune Magic as it is not listed on p66.

Not really, because Runecasting is specifically included in the list of skills impacted by the AP penalty on page 38 of the core rules.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that Divine Magic and Sorcery should be treated differently, I'm just saying the rules don't say they are. Personally, I don't think any of them should penalised by armour, but maybe that's just me.

 

[simonh]

To quote the full sentence:

"Divine Magic spellcasting tests apply the same modifiers as Rune Magic spellcasting tests (see Runequest, page 66)"

To me, that's pretty clear that it's referring to those situational modifiers on page 66.

Either all the modifiers that affect rune magic also affect divine magic, or they don't. It doesn't say that armour modifiers are an exception there, and it doesn't say so on page 66, which I would only interpret as a reference for the convenience of the reader.

You're conjuring an exception out of thin air.

 

[gamesmeister]

You're conjuring an exception out of thin air.

Yeah, probably :?

Interestingly, I couldn't see anything in the Spirit Magic chapter of CoG2 that suggests the same modifiers apply. The only penalty listed is -1% per point of ENC (which IMO makes more sense than the AP penalty in any case). There aren't even any situational modifiers mentioned, though it's a fair assumption that the standard modifiers for Rune Magic apply.

 

[telsor]

Hmmm..Didn't realise runecasting had the penalty...It's tough enough that the benefits were outweighed by the training cost even without the extra penalties !

As for wearing armour. In a 1 on 1 fight, not wearing armour is arguably a reasonable option. The prospects of multiple opponents, or missile fire makes armour a necessary evil.

 

[Rurik]

I had read the bit about the situational modifiers, and looked to page 66, and saw nothing about armor there. The Armor penalty is given it's own bit in the equipment section and an explicit list of skills affected is given. I do not see the Armor penalty as a situational modifier per se.

That all being said I stated way back at the beginning of the thread that I assumed it was intended to modify all spellcasting. I intend to apply it. But I did believe, that in a rules lawyerish way it technically did not apply.

None of the books to come out after the core ever mention which skills introduced in that book the armor penalty applies to (at least in my experience - I don't have Arms and Equipment or Legendary Heroes). It is pretty much left up to GM discretion. For example I assume the Draconic Dances suffer from the armor penalty.

And I found the imagery of the Heavily Armored Wizard while the warriors are running around naked very amusing. The intent of my post was not to criticise (I have a whole other thread for that right now).

Gamemeister is right though - Spirit Magic does explicitly state that ENC is a penalty to the casting chance. That would seem to imply the Armor penalty does not apply, as that would be a double whammy. Though, shamans are usually depicted pretty close to naked, so maybe both do apply...

 

[Adept]

For Glorantha, unenchanted iron has traditionally caused problems with magic.

The way I've always run it, is that this effect is also tied to the troll & elf slaying properties of iron.

Unenchanted iron has the properties of bronze, so it's quite ok as material for weapons anyway. Every enc point (kg) of iron gives a 5% chanse of failure in casting magic, and the same chanse that an incoming spell fails to take effect. It also "burns" elves and trolls, so that weapons do double damage (after armour is subtracted, of course).

Enchanted iron (or steel) is very strong, doesn't effect magic, and doesn't deal additional damage to elves or trolls. They are still uncomfortable around enchanted iron.

//

Aside from that, I wouldn't have metal cause penalties for magic use. Ceremonial magic that requires long dances, is another matter, as are other exceptions like that.

 

[Licheking]

The biggest problem i'm seeing on these boards is that you all want the rules written in stone and then every eventuallity completely thought out and explained in detail. The roleplaying equivalant of putting a nut warning about this product containing nuts on a packet of nuts. Have some common sense we are all pretty intelligent people surly we can make our own minds up.

 

[Trifletraxor]

The biggest problem i'm seeing on these boards is that you all want the rules written in stone and then every eventuallity completely thought out and explained in detail. The roleplaying equivalant of putting a nut warning about this product containing nuts on a packet of nuts. Have some common sense we are all pretty intelligent people surly we can make our own minds up.

Actually, we just want the rules to reflect common sense...

SGL.

 

[Quire]

we are all pretty intelligent people surly we can make our own minds up.

Some of us are actually quite jolly, you know.

- Q