Enchanting Armour Pieces

[alex_greene]

I noticed, in Arms of Legend (p. 50), that armour pieces are available - greaves, trews, coats, cowls, pieces like that.

These articles of clothing, armour pieces, whatever you call them, cover one or more Hit Locations at a time. A coat covers the chest, arms and abdomen; pants cover both legs and the abdomen.

It occurred to me that if an enchanter were to impart the Armouring Enchantment on such an article of clothing, say to enchant a coat with 4 AP, that they would be enchanting the whole coat, just one enchantment that gives all areas protected by that one coat 4 AP, rather than three separate enchantments, one for each Hit Location - because, as I have said, each article is just one piece after all, even if it does cover multiple Hit Locations.

What do you think?

 

[soltakss]

I'd say that it enchanted the whole piece of armour, so you get more locations affected.

All you then need is a set of chainmail onesies and you are laughing.

 

[Old timer]

I would suppose this is the age old question of game balance. I dont actually have armaments of legend, i have the older RQ2 arms and equipment, and in there, it states that armour enchantment is per location, whether it be armour, clothes or an actual location on a person. This method makes any enchantment expensive in MP. The above suggestion would make it cheaper in MP cost to make enchanted armour, which may not be a bad thing at all.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I don't see anything wrong with what you are suggesting.

One thing I might do is have larger articles of clothing be either harder to armour up or cost more in some manner. Then you can keep a bit of game balance if you like.

Also, remember that whatever to decide to do, the bad guys can do it too!

 

[alex_greene]

Also, remember that whatever to decide to do, the bad guys can do it too!

I'm counting on the bad guys doing it first. Then when the player characters are offered the chance to get armoured clothing of their own, they'll be ready to go on whatever task their armourer sends them off on.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Page 142 of Arms of Legend says that:

If it is used on a living creature, it will increase armour points in only
one Hit Location – multiple enchantments must be used to cover the entire creature.
Likewise, if placed on a suit of armour, each Armouring Enchantment will protect only
one Hit Location.

Which suggests that for bigger pieces of armour you'll have to use several enchantments.

 

[alex_greene]

I still think we can go with my original recommendation. If you've got one pair of pants, you're not going to enchant the legs, the back bit, the gusset and the zip all separately - you're going to enchant the whole piece, all at once.

I'm imagining things like a tailor who knows how to enchant armour and who has the secret of "Elven silk" from Arms of Legend, p. 55, say, making an absolute killing when armoured clothing becomes high-end fashion among the local gentry - and hiring the Adventurers to procure more of the "Elven silk" for his business, even protecting his cargo convoys from brigands sent by his business rivals.

It may also lead to amusing situations - like the phrase "Take off his pants" floating across the gaming table ...

 

[Olaus Petrus]

I still think we can go with my original recommendation. If you've got one pair of pants, you're not going to enchant the legs, the back bit, the gusset and the zip all separately - you're going to enchant the whole piece, all at once.

I'm imagining things like a tailor who knows how to enchant armour and who has the secret of "Elven silk" from Arms of Legend, p. 55, say, making an absolute killing when armoured clothing becomes high-end fashion among the local gentry - and hiring the Adventurers to procure more of the "Elven silk" for his business, even protecting his cargo convoys from brigands sent by his business rivals.

It may also lead to amusing situations - like the phrase "Take off his pants" floating across the gaming table ...

Personally, even if I would count it as a single enchantment, I would still go with higher magic point cost for bigger pieces of armour i. e. helm (1 location) would have smaller MP cost per AP than enchanting entire coat (4 locations). But in the end it's GM's decision how common strong magical armours are in his setting.

 

[@stroval]

So Arms of Legend has the rules for creating magical items and Armour?

I noticed the rulebook was lacking in that department and wondered if it was a system thing...

 

[alex_greene]

So Arms of Legend has the rules for creating magical items and Armour?

I noticed the rulebook was lacking in that department and wondered if it was a system thing...

Both Arms of Legend and Arcana of Legend: Blood Magic have enchantment rules. They are both incompatible - Arcana of Legend: Blood Magic's system differs completely from Arms of Legend, and takes a whole different approach - you can choose one or the other, or even have both: two enchanters, even in the same setting, might make the same tools in different ways.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I still think we can go with my original recommendation. If you've got one pair of pants, you're not going to enchant the legs, the back bit, the gusset and the zip all separately - you're going to enchant the whole piece, all at once.

I'm imagining things like a tailor who knows how to enchant armour and who has the secret of "Elven silk" from Arms of Legend, p. 55, say, making an absolute killing when armoured clothing becomes high-end fashion among the local gentry - and hiring the Adventurers to procure more of the "Elven silk" for his business, even protecting his cargo convoys from brigands sent by his business rivals.

It may also lead to amusing situations - like the phrase "Take off his pants" floating across the gaming table ...

Personally, even if I would count it as a single enchantment, I would still go with higher magic point cost for bigger pieces of armour i. e. helm (1 location) would have smaller MP cost per AP than enchanting entire coat (4 locations). But in the end it's GM's decision how common strong magical armours are in his setting.

From the description it sounds like you could reasonably impose a surface area limit. So, to armour up a pair of pants would take three enchantments because of the surface area of the pants (each leg and one for the crotch-waist). Obviously the exact square meters is a bit fuzzy, but you can work with it pretty easily. Using a higher magnitude to represent larger areas also makes sense.

 

[Bifford]

Also, remember that whatever to decide to do, the bad guys can do it too!

I'm counting on the bad guys doing it first. Then when the player characters are offered the chance to get armoured clothing of their own, they'll be ready to go on whatever task their armourer sends them off on.

Forget that - kill one of them then steal their clothes.

I would also say that the magic wears thin over the garment the bigger it is, so for example:

A small item such as underwear costs 3MP to gain 3AP; (why should my codpiece or loincloth not have armour, or a womans' brassier or knickers?)
A medium item such as a short sleeves shirt costs 3MP+1MP (4MP) extra to gain 3AP;
A large item such as long sleeved shirt/trousers (pants to you darned Americans) costs 3MP+3MP (6MP)extra to gain 3AP;
A huge item such as a chain mail onesie costs 3MP+5MP (8MP) extra.

If you don't pump in the extra MP then the armour effect is spread thinner so the medium item drops to 2AP; the large item to 1AP and the huge item gains nothing.

 

[alex_greene]

Always, people talk about nerfing the player characters. Give them their victories and prizes, in full and undiluted by arbitrary rulings. The enemy can have the same. You wouldn't decide that a +25% sword was too big, being a Great Sword, and decide that the tip, the tang and the middle of the blade all required separate enchantment, would you?

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Always, people talk about nerfing the player characters. Give them their victories and prizes, in full and undiluted by arbitrary rulings. The enemy can have the same. You wouldn't decide that a +25% sword was too big, being a Great Sword, and decide that the tip, the tang and the middle of the blade all required separate enchantment, would you?

It's really dependent on what kind of setting you're hosting. Most GMs probably think that too much magic can ruin the game balance.

Personally I run a game where magical items are rare and owning the most powerful ones usually have some consequences (picking up and carrying around a huge weapon made of unknown black metal, which is inscribed with chaotic runes, might not be the best idea even if it doesn't have any magical side effects, especially if you want to keep a low profile and don't want to attract attention of every chaos hating cult in the region), so I usually think these questions from low magic/S&S/dark fantasy perspective.

But if there's a setting where every village has it's own demigod champions and gods walk among the men or where everyone has magical powers, then magical weapons and armour are probably very common and easy to create. So there wouldn't be any need to nerf players from creating those.

I don't see what's particularly arbitrary with the fact that (according to rules) you need separate enchantments for each armour location. Rules treat armour locations as always as separate even if you can buy armour pieces which cover several locations. And when it comes to enchanting the blades most spells affect to specific part of the sword, like common magic spell Bladesharp affects to blade and not to other parts of the sword.

 

[Fonso]

I noticed, in Arms of Legend (p. 50), that armour pieces are available - greaves, trews, coats, cowls, pieces like that.

These articles of clothing, armour pieces, whatever you call them, cover one or more Hit Locations at a time. A coat covers the chest, arms and abdomen; pants cover both legs and the abdomen.

It occurred to me that if an enchanter were to impart the Armouring Enchantment on such an article of clothing, say to enchant a coat with 4 AP, that they would be enchanting the whole coat, just one enchantment that gives all areas protected by that one coat 4 AP, rather than three separate enchantments, one for each Hit Location - because, as I have said, each article is just one piece after all, even if it does cover multiple Hit Locations.

What do you think?

Well, as I see it, you enchant objects, not individual locations.
An "enchanted armor" may be a hauberk (chest and abdomen) or a full plate armor (all locations). And both cost the same in MP or work time to enchant.
Usually I rule that, if you buy an armor by pieces, if you want to use it, you must put on all the pieces brought together. You can't buy ringmail pants (3 AP, abdomen and both legs) and use only its legs, for example. In a magic armor is the same.
As you can't wear multiple armor at the same time in the same location, there is no problem in game.
The problem would be if enchanting a helm, you want to apply the magic bonus in all your hit locations.

 

[JP42]

Always, people talk about nerfing the player characters. Give them their victories and prizes, in full and undiluted by arbitrary rulings. The enemy can have the same. You wouldn't decide that a +25% sword was too big, being a Great Sword, and decide that the tip, the tang and the middle of the blade all required separate enchantment, would you?

I feel like you're taking the mickey here...

If you continue to think of it as "separate enchantments" then of course you're going to be left with cognitive dissonance. If you think of it as "the enchantment is more powerful, to cover a larger garment" then you're back in the ballpark of magical realism.

 

[alex_greene]

magical realism.

Ahem.

 

[Prime_Evil]

magical realism.

Ahem.

Ummm....A lot of folks like a sense of naturalism associated with the experience of exploring a fictional world, and that requires internal consistency. It's not exactly the same thing as realism, but it's the closest equivalent in gaming - the sense of narrative coherence that makes the suspension of disbelief possible. It's necessary to maintain the sense of consistency to avoid jolting participants out of their immersion in the fictional setting.

 

[Bifford]

magical realism.

Ahem.

Ummm....A lot of folks like a sense of naturalism associated with the experience of exploring a fictional world, and that requires internal consistency. It's not exactly the same thing as realism, but it's the closest equivalent in gaming - the sense of narrative coherence that makes the suspension of disbelief possible. It's necessary to maintain the sense of consistency to avoid jolting participants out of their immersion in the fictional setting.

Or in layman's terms:

"Realism when assuming that magic is real and all around us"

(which it is) (we've just become un-tuned to it for the most part)

 

[Old timer]

Or in layman's terms:

"Realism when assuming that magic is real and all around us"

(which it is) (we've just become un-tuned to it for the most part)

:?: