Scholars are hilariously powerful

[Majestic7]

If you want to keep some kind of penalty on spellcasting from armor, the easiest way would be to use armor check penalty. Simply make it apply to magic attack too. Not being proficient with armor doubles the armor check penalty. Much easier than cooking up a new system.

Two sorcerers in my campaign tend to wear armor without any penalty on their spellcasting and I haven't found it to be overpowering. They've still been biting the dust or close to death many times.

 

[reoiv]

I kind of like the idea of scholars not wearing armor, as in every story about wizards etc they usually aren't armored up at all and are quite easy to kill if you can get through their minions, defenses, traps etc.

That said in the original Conan movie it shows Tulsa Doom get off his horse, entrance Conan's mother and then kill her while wearing armor.

I'd be very wary of allowing armored spell casters in any game or they quickly become ridiculously overpowered even more than they usually are.

Clerics in DnD spring to mind.

 

[Jotenbjorn]

I don't mind scholars being extremely powerful, that's the way they were represented in Howard's work. At the same time, I wish there were more drawbacks to being a wizard. Sorcerers should have power, but it shouldn't be easy power.

 

[Majestic7]

I agree. I guess you could work within existing framwork - apprentices and cult sorcerers should be constantly pestered by their masters, while the demonic sorcerers have obvious problems. I think the main problem are independent scholars. After a while, the Knowledge (Arcana) checks succeed automatically, making independent research just vastly superior source of magic to everything else.

Anyway, in my campaign I've ruled that the sorcerous nature attracts sorcerous attention so, for example, if the characters are attacked by a demon, in absence of other orders, it goes firsts at the sorcerers.

 

[superc0ntra]

So it's possible to do it. So what? If the players start abusing flaws in the system I just kill them.

 

[reoiv]

So it's possible to do it. So what? If the players start abusing flaws in the system I just kill them.

As a GM the best you can do is just kill your players?

Do you kill the players if they don't take your adventure hooks?

Do you kill them if they find inventive ways around your story lines and plot holes?

As a GM you literally can do anything you want and you just kill players?

Come on and use your imagination. There is soooo much more you can do that just flat out kill players.

 

[superc0ntra]

So it's possible to do it. So what? If the players start abusing flaws in the system I just kill them.

As a GM the best you can do is just kill your players?

Do you kill the players if they don't take your adventure hooks?

Do you kill them if they find inventive ways around your story lines and plot holes?

As a GM you literally can do anything you want and you just kill players?

Come on and use your imagination. There is soooo much more you can do that just flat out kill players.

No,No and No.
I'm talking about when one player abuses the system and takes the fun out of playing from the rest

 

[reoiv]

No,No and No.
I'm talking about when one player abuses the system and takes the fun out of playing from the rest

:roll: So logically you kill off people half ass playing their character and just socializing when everyone else is really playing and giving it their all?

 

[Supplement Four]

Still thinking of a reply, busy with PbEM in this site, just so we not lose this article to page 2, as Supplement Four is going to have Page 1 to himself any minute now

Damn you, Nialldubh! Damn you to hell! I was almost there!!

(Completely in jest, of course )