PDA

View Full Version : Armoured Spellcasters: Why Can't Mages have Everything?



Mr. Mask
2015-06-26, 04:34 PM
Since DnD penalized it, and some other notable works included unarmoured wizards against armoured heroes (namely Conan [unlike the comics and illustrations, he liked his armour in the books]), it raises the question of why wizards can't have everything. Cool swords and armour, and spellslinging. Gandalf is notable for having the sword, though no armour.

This isn't an argument that wizards should have everything, but a question for reasons they would not have everything. DnD goes with the idea that armour is distracting when you're performing the hand gestures and saying the secret words associated with spells.

Other possibilities include:


Wizards don't need it. At a certain level of magical power, armour and swords seem pointless, unless they're magically empowered armour and swords.

Wizards are lazy. Armour is heavy, learning to fight with swords is tiring and takes too long.

Wizards just do it anyway, but aren't as good. Kind of like bards.

Wizards are literally forbidden by the gods from using weapons and armour. This can lead to creative licence. (http://www.goblinscomic.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Tempts_Page8c.jpg) "Stupid rules stopping me from being Gandalf...."

Wizards think armour and swords are demeaning, so they don't use them so the other wizards won't laugh at them.

Armour acts as an actual Faraday cage for magic, it literally reduces their magical output by the amount of skin it covers.

There's no actual reason, but the wizards are pretending there is so they don't have to fight at the front lines.

Wizards are primarily light infantry, to such an extent they forego many weapons entirely.



There's a bunch of ideas on the matter. What reasons would you go with? Or would you just let wizards use armour and weapons? If so, how would you "balance" it with non-wizards?

Elbeyon
2015-06-26, 04:40 PM
5e allows armored mages. I'm playing one right now.

Karl Aegis
2015-06-26, 04:44 PM
Trying to be the best at absolutely everything erodes your sanity.

Flickerdart
2015-06-26, 04:47 PM
In fiction, wizards are often physically weak, whereas swords and armour are heavy. They also tend to be cowardly, and swords are only useful when you're on the front lines.

Ultimately, it boils down to this: training to fight with sword, shield, and armour is time that could have been spent reading spellbooks.

Vitruviansquid
2015-06-26, 05:00 PM
I suspect the paradigm came into being as an early form of game balance, and the explanation came into being when it was still common for people to think armor was extremely encumbering.

Keltest
2015-06-26, 05:00 PM
In fiction, wizards are often physically weak, whereas swords and armour are heavy. They also tend to be cowardly, and swords are only useful when you're on the front lines.

Ultimately, it boils down to this: training to fight with sword, shield, and armour is time that could have been spent reading spellbooks.

More to the point, time spent reading spellbooks is time they cant spend doing anything else. Wizards need to study a crap ton to get any measurable degree of power, at least in D&D.

Grinner
2015-06-26, 05:04 PM
The warmage is armored, yes?

Elbeyon
2015-06-26, 05:05 PM
The warmage is armored, yes?My wizard is armored.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-26, 05:09 PM
In my setting magicians don't use swords for the same reason bandits don't use firearms: they are expensive. Magic is also illegal in the Empire the players start in, but the beginning province has enough believers in old religions that a sleight of hand check, some light armour (cloth or leather), and an axe or spear that people will just assume you're praying to nature deities and receiving divine aid. Church knights mix armour, blades, and magic (specific type depends on order) freely, under the assumption that you can learn to gesture in a gauntlet.

So the reasons most mages don't wear armour? It weighs and draws attention when they generally want to be beneath the radar.

Flickerdart
2015-06-26, 05:11 PM
More to the point, time spent reading spellbooks is time they cant spend doing anything else. Wizards need to study a crap ton to get any measurable degree of power, at least in D&D.
That used to be the case in older editions (when preparing a high level spell loadout could take days) but from 3E onward wizards haven't had to do all that much reading.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-26, 05:21 PM
I always thought it had to do with the idea that cold iron was antithetical to magic. In folklore it burned fairie folk and kept spirits and witches away.

Arbane
2015-06-26, 05:26 PM
I suspect the paradigm came into being as an early form of game balance, and the explanation came into being when it was still common for people to think armor was extremely encumbering.

Yep. Back in the days of Chainmail, wizards were the artillery units - able to wipe out huge numbers of enemies in one shot, but useless in close combat. D&D has kept that ever since. There's plenty of other RPGs that do allow spellcasters to wear armor.

Keltest
2015-06-26, 05:28 PM
That used to be the case in older editions (when preparing a high level spell loadout could take days) but from 3E onward wizards haven't had to do all that much reading.

Theoretically, the class has the fluff of a lot of study to prepare their minds to handle their spells at all. So theyre like, going over their history or something in combat instead of actually learning from their victory.

Grinner
2015-06-26, 05:34 PM
My wizard is armored.

I was speaking with the 3.5 wizard and warmage classes in mind. Not having played 5e, I can't really speak to it.

The Evil DM
2015-06-26, 05:35 PM
In my own homebrew materials I have worked hard to eliminate what I call arbitrary rules. If I cannot trace a rule back to something logical in terms of both fluff and system then I replace it. This is one such rule.

My replacement for this is to require minimum strength and constitution (health for non D&D type systems) to wear various types of armor. I also require minimum ability scores for higher level magic.

The result - the heavily armored warriors are selected from the strongest and healthiest of a population and the wizards, sorcerors and clerics are selected from the most intelligent, wise and charismatic.

However, there is room for overlap between the two and a character (PC or NPC) who has relatively level but above average ability scores may be one who is wearing chainmail and casting 2nd or 3rd level spells)

Even the powerful wizards of the realm might have a strength high enough to have a thin layer of chain hidden under their robes.

Everything consistently ties to the ability scores.

TheThan
2015-06-26, 05:40 PM
In dnd 3.5 they actually can wear armor. There’s nothing stopping them aside from not getting free proficiency. They suffer arcane spell failure for doing so but they can do it.

Bards, druids, clerics, rangers, paladins, beguilers, duskblades, spellthieves, Warlocks, warmages , favored souls, Shugenja, spirit shamen, and hexblades all can wear armor of some sort and not suffer penalties for spellcasting. It’s ONLY wizards and sorcerers or their equivalences that are hindered by armor (magically speaking).

Even then they have spells that make up for it. Mage Armor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mageArmor.htm) grants a +4 armor bonus to AC, and Shield (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shield.htm) grants a +4 armor bonus to AC and stops magic missile spells cold. So yeah they can rock +8 AC by spending 2 1st level spells. Pick up spell mastery and they can prepare both of them without their spell book and still have some defense. That’s the equivalent of wearing full plate…. No actually it’s better than full plate; you get your full Dexterity modifier to your AC as well. Full plate has a max dex bonus of +1 (meaning you only get +1 dexterity bonus from your dex modifier to your AC); and you won’t bomb all your athletics related checks (swimming, climbing, etc) since you won’t have a armor check penalty.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-26, 06:09 PM
In my own homebrew materials I have worked hard to eliminate what I call arbitrary rules. If I cannot trace a rule back to something logical in terms of both fluff and system then I replace it. This is one such rule.

My replacement for this is to require minimum strength and constitution (health for non D&D type systems) to wear various types of armor. I also require minimum ability scores for higher level magic.

The result - the heavily armored warriors are selected from the strongest and healthiest of a population and the wizards, sorcerors and clerics are selected from the most intelligent, wise and charismatic.

However, there is room for overlap between the two and a character (PC or NPC) who has relatively level but above average ability scores may be one who is wearing chainmail and casting 2nd or 3rd level spells)

Even the powerful wizards of the realm might have a strength high enough to have a thin layer of chain hidden under their robes.

Everything consistently ties to the ability scores.

Might steal this for my GURPS setting, it'll help explain why most military officers wear cloth armour (there isn't a need to raise your strength higher than needed for a musket), and make the plate casters truly special. It does make warriors TAD instead of DAD, but magicians have to sink points into several very hard skills, and buy a 10 point unusual background for every path of magic they know just to cast legally.

TheCountAlucard
2015-06-26, 09:02 PM
Exalted allows for armored spellcasters - in fact, it encourages it.

Elbeyon
2015-06-26, 09:11 PM
In pathfinder all my characters use armor. The cheapest one is 1 gold and has no penalties at all.

Honest Tiefling
2015-06-26, 09:16 PM
I'm not terribly fond of the idea that mages cannot wear armor, usually, through some sort of penalty to wearing full plate without a huge strength score does make quite a bit of sense to me. Are the hand gestures really that complex that leather armor messes them up? Doesn't seem very dignified over all.

Lord Raziere
2015-06-26, 09:46 PM
Exalted allows for armored spellcasters - in fact, it encourages it.

more like armored ritualists to be exact.

there is also Anima: Beyond Fantasy, which has Warlocks who are warrior-magi, AND can actually cast their spells in combat without overriding the effectiveness of pure fighters.

or the Space Marine Librarians. They walk around in huge armor, wield force weapons, are just as badass as the rest of the marines around them while using psykic powers....

and why not include the Death Knights and Shamans from WoW as well? They cast magic while wearing armor an WoW DOES a tabletop RPG based on it.

and you can make mage-warriors in any universal system you want like Fate, Strands of Fate, M&M, just need to put down the right powers and the fluff you need for them.

Eclipse Phase allows for armored spellcasters. just take the Psi level 2 trait, then purchase a good amount of Blades skill, a nano-molecular edged sword, then put yourself in some power armor. its all easy to purchase.

you can also be a Mageblade in Radiance RPG.

in WR&M rpg, Warrior Rogue and mage are actually the characters three basic attributes. you can just put Warrior and Mage as your two big ones and let Rogue slide for your armored spellcaster.

Zaydos
2015-06-26, 10:21 PM
There are plenty of exceptions in RPGs, largely coming from people asking this same question.

However:


In fiction, wizards are often physically weak, whereas swords and armour are heavy. They also tend to be cowardly, and swords are only useful when you're on the front lines.

Ultimately, it boils down to this: training to fight with sword, shield, and armour is time that could have been spent reading spellbooks.

This tends to be the main one in fiction where it is not called out to be a sort of magical faraday cage (which they did in MERP iirc). At least combined with stark faced arrogance.


I always thought it had to do with the idea that cold iron was antithetical to magic. In folklore it burned fairie folk and kept spirits and witches away.

This comes up on occasion as well (in fact it showed up in a Kull story by Robert E. Howard, though that was a sword being used to resist harmful magic, the concept was mentioned that iron on your body protected you from magic and prevented its channeling).

Knaight
2015-06-27, 12:09 AM
Something that hasn't been mentioned is that armor takes training. Strength aside, it causes you to move differently to some extent, there's maintenance, there's how fighting effectively in armor often involves doing things that wouldn't work so well when not armored (like being perfectly willing to get hit with relatively glancing blows if it means you can get a strike through). Between that and the cost, a lot of mage archetypes wouldn't be expected to have it or know how to use it effectively.

TheCountAlucard
2015-06-27, 12:10 AM
more like armored ritualists to be exact.There's as much "ritual" to Magic Missile as there is to Death of Obsidian Butterflies. Iron Body and Invulnerable Skin of Bronze are both spells, not "rituals." Sure, the casting time for most spells in Ex2 is two rounds, as opposed to D&D 3.5's one round/one standard action, but there are reflexive spells in Exalted (the Countermagic line, Flight of Separation), and there are hours-or-days-to-cast ritualistic spells in D&D (Genesis, for instance).

This thing you do, where you try and call something that you don't like by another name just because you don't like it, when the first name suits it fine, I don't find it amusing at all. :smallsigh:

Lord Raziere
2015-06-27, 12:22 AM
There's as much "ritual" to Magic Missile as there is to Death of Obsidian Butterflies. Iron Body and Invulnerable Skin of Bronze are both spells, not "rituals." Sure, the casting time for most spells in Ex2 is two rounds, as opposed to D&D 3.5's one round/one standard action, but there are reflexive spells in Exalted (the Countermagic line, Flight of Separation), and there are hours-or-days-to-cast ritualistic spells in D&D (Genesis, for instance).

This thing you do, where you try and call something that you don't like by another name just because you don't like it, when the first name suits it fine, I don't find it amusing at all. :smallsigh:

yeah but that is not the intent of the spells, if the Exalted fandom is any indication, "blaster casters" are not meant to be an Exalted thing. sure I like the idea of blaster casters, but I nevertheless have to correct an inaccuracy when I see it. My preferences for blaster casters existing have nothing to do with the fact that the setting is not supposed to have them and are supposed to be anything but DnD style casters, I may not like it but I have to respect what the setting is intended to be anyways.

sure your say the mechanics do actually support me, but those are bad mechanics are not a good model of what they're supposed to do, therefore I can't accept them.

don't get me wrong, I would like to like Exalted Sorcery as it is, but its not an accurate model of its fluff, how its supposed to be, because its from a bad edition, I'd rather wait and see the real Sorcery in 3e that will be far better. I'm not disliking it, its just more accurate as to Exalted's intention. if Exalted was intended to have blaster casters who are supposed to do what you say they do in mechanics, I'd agree with you, but since they're not, this has nothing to do with my preferences, because my preferences would actually agree with you.

TheCountAlucard
2015-06-27, 01:18 AM
A non-blaster spellcaster isn't a "ritualist." It's a spellcaster. Were we only talking about blaster builds? No. No need to go 'round calling rabbits Smeerps, either.

Lord Raziere
2015-06-27, 04:10 AM
A non-blaster spellcaster isn't a "ritualist." It's a spellcaster. Were we only talking about blaster builds? No. No need to go 'round calling rabbits Smeerps, either.

Fine they're spellcasters.

but I must remark that your viewpoint on Exalted is very odd compared to much of the fandom I've read online. at least, to my point of view.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-27, 04:29 AM
more like armored ritualists to be exact.

First off, ritualists are good, I might change my magic system slightly to include them (spells take at least 10 minutes to cast, except for anti magic, but you can do most of a ritual beforehand fwith a -4 penalty when you complete it). It separates magic from combat and has it compete with mundane skills, especially 'do we have the time' being a decider.

goto124
2015-06-27, 07:41 AM
Is there a game system that encourages mages to wear no clothing at all?

noob
2015-06-27, 07:56 AM
In dnd 3.5 mages can have enchanted armor who does no profane failing(with some enchants which are pretty costly) but in fact since armors enchanted with such enchants are more costly than rings providing an equal amount of non stacking armor and that those rings gives no malus it is better to use the ring(or spells).

Lurkmoar
2015-06-27, 07:56 AM
Is there a game system that encourages mages to wear no clothing at all?

I'm sure the-game-that-must-not-be-named has something about naked wizards. I just bleached my eyes before I got very far.

Marlowe
2015-06-27, 07:58 AM
In fiction, wizards are often physically weak, whereas swords and armour are heavy. They also tend to be cowardly, and swords are only useful when you're on the front lines.

Disputing this. In D&D and D&D-based fiction, wizards are often physically weak. In fiction, wizards are often as strong as anyone else if not more so. It's even a implied in some settings that working magic is extremely physically demanding.

Mentioning Gandalf and Saruman would be cheating, even they're both immortal outsiders, but most of Conan's sorcerous adversaries were big, intimidating men when they weren't scheming seductresses. Anra Devadoris, from the Grey Mouser/Fafyrd stories, nearly beat the Mouser down in a straight-up duel. Gorice XII, from the Worm Ouroboros, is the tallest guy in a novel full of big guys.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-27, 08:05 AM
Is there a game system that encourages mages to wear no clothing at all?

Probably a Japanese one. It is a funny idea, I can imagine a mage deciding this by accident when playing with fire spells. Hair as well.

Marlowe
2015-06-27, 08:15 AM
Probably a Japanese one. It is a funny idea, I can imagine a mage deciding this by accident when playing with fire spells. Hair as well.

You could always make it one of your Wu-Jen taboos.

For bonus obnoxiousness, make the others "Never bathe", "always eat any food available until utterly gorged", "Never refer to other people by name"...:smalleek:

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-27, 09:14 AM
I'm sure the-game-that-must-not-be-named has something about naked wizards. I just bleached my eyes before I got very far.

I think wizards wear armour there, so that when the warrior has finally pinned them with a wrestling roll they take penalties on their 'wrestling' roll per set of clothing or suit of armour in the way. Seriously.


You could always make it one of your Wu-Jen taboos.

I may do this next time I play D&D, or take it as part of a pact limitation in GURPS. Vow (may not wear clothes made out of plant matter) is currently planned for a character, so I'll just change it slightly.


For bonus obnoxiousness, make the others "Never bathe", "always eat any food available until utterly gorged", "Never refer to other people by name"...:smalleek:

Is this meant to be a Wu-Jen or the guy playing it?

TheCountAlucard
2015-06-27, 10:53 AM
In fiction, wizards are often as strong as anyone else if not more so. It's even a implied in some settings that working magic is extremely physically demanding.

…most of Conan's sorcerous adversaries were big, intimidating men when they weren't scheming seductresses.The Phoenix on the Sword featured the terrible sorcerer Thoth-Amon, described as a "dusky giant," who flings aside the corpse of a fat man as you might discard a used paper towel.

The People of the Black Circle featured Khemsa, a sorcerous baddie who could break a fighting-man's spine "like a rotten twig," by touching him on the neck.

Khosatral Khel, the titular devil of The Devil in Iron is also a neck-breaker, snapping a fisherman's spine for having the temerity to wake him up. His strength was great enough that he could stove in a bolted steel door with his bare hands (though a distraction stops him from actually breaking the door down - it "merely" has been blasted loose of its hinges, and looks like men had assailed it with a battering ram). To be fair, he also very much falls into "is not human" territory, being a primordial thing wearing man's shape but cast in iron.

The Hour of the Dragon's Xaltotun is another big huge guy, but he doesn't particularly demonstrate it.

Vortalism
2015-06-27, 11:20 AM
Firstly, in some settings (such as my own), magi may see the use of mundane weapons and armour as barbaric, distasteful or "un-magely" since they accomplish everything to a greater extent through the use of their magic.

Secondly, from a more gamey perspective, there's really nothing stopping you from running a couple sessions with some houserules for spellcasters in armour. Test it a couple of times, see what happens, and if you're happy with the results then go for it. This doesn't have to a problem if you don't want it to be. This is D&D after all.

Strangely enough, I find the fact that whenever somebody brings up this whole armoured spellcaster thing, it's always about mages in heavy armour. Shouldn't magic be something that should solve problems without even having to go through a direct confrontation? Like summoners or illusionists. That's what makes it magical imho. So the whole premise seems to just be an overly elaborate justification for the existence of spellswords or warmages and such.

Honest Tiefling
2015-06-27, 12:03 PM
Strangely enough, I find the fact that whenever somebody brings up this whole armoured spellcaster thing, it's always about mages in heavy armour. Shouldn't magic be something that should solve problems without even having to go through a direct confrontation? Like summoners or illusionists. That's what makes it magical imho. So the whole premise seems to just be an overly elaborate justification for the existence of spellswords or warmages and such.

No plan survives an encounter with the enemy. I would imagine smarter mages would flip the bird to established cultural norms and decide that not dying is a far superior course of action. I mean, archers probably feel the same way about arrows, yet they too wear armor just in case.

dream
2015-06-27, 12:38 PM
In fiction, wizards are often physically weak, whereas swords and armour are heavy. They also tend to be cowardly, and swords are only useful when you're on the front lines.

Ultimately, it boils down to this: training to fight with sword, shield, and armour is time that could have been spent reading spellbooks.


Theoretically, the class has the fluff of a lot of study to prepare their minds to handle their spells at all. So theyre like, going over their history or something in combat instead of actually learning from their victory.


Something that hasn't been mentioned is that armor takes training. Strength aside, it causes you to move differently to some extent, there's maintenance, there's how fighting effectively in armor often involves doing things that wouldn't work so well when not armored (like being perfectly willing to get hit with relatively glancing blows if it means you can get a strike through). Between that and the cost, a lot of mage archetypes wouldn't be expected to have it or know how to use it effectively.
Great points.

The main reason for restrictions on spellcasters & races was if you could have the best of both worlds, why would you play anything else? By limiting wizards, you make playing a Fighter or Rogue a worthwhile option. If Wizards can do everything Fighters can, then the latter class is now limited due to their lack of spellcasting. The old-school class level restrictions on non-human races was also for that exact reason; if Elves & Dwarves can level like Humans can, plus their extra capabilities, why play a human?

Class-based & racial restrictions forced players to weigh their options in relation to the type of PC they wanted to play. Over the decades, D&D has relaxed those restrictions and it's no coincidence that, at least on this site's gaming forum, the majority of classes I've seen selected are those offering a strong balance of spellcasting & swordcraft (and while those choices make sense, they also poopoo the notion of playing a simple Fighter or Rogue).

Because I began with OD&D, I still enjoy playing those classes, which makes me the old grog driving a '77 Chrysler Lebaron in a world of M3s & GT-Rs. And I'm cool with that.

Besides, Fighters charge the line & face the enemy toe-to-toe. Wizards hang back & cast spells from a distance; they don't need armor because they face less danger from heavy weapons like swords & axes. Arrows? Meh. :smallsigh:

Incanur
2015-06-27, 01:53 PM
Realistically, any sort of discomfort/emcumberance-based armor prohibition only makes sense if you assume rather impressive physical weakness for the mage or extremely involved spellcasting motions. A light brigandine, a light helmet, and mail sleeves might only weigh 15-20lbs. The same for a light mail shirt. 80lb fourteen-year-olds seem to get by with backpacks that weigh as much or more, so the wizard could probably handle the weight unless they were downright feeble or perhaps walking extended distances on foot each day. Such armors are quite flexible, so I don't see how they'd interfere with spellcasting motions much if at all. While far from a full white harness, these armors would still offer considerable protection against various weapons.

spineyrequiem
2015-06-27, 05:30 PM
Depending on the magic, it might be that they're generally so far from the action that they don't need it. After all, if you're wearing armour, that means you expect to get hit. If you're an archer (or wizard), you getting hit means something's gone terribly wrong. Having armour on could actually be a problem, as it stops you running away properly. Even riding away's tricky, as you need particular breeds of horses to carry a man in armour at speed. And even then, that speed won't be too great.

Plus, armour's really uncomfortable. I wore head-to-toe maille without a helmet (except when I was actually fighting) all day, only fighting twice for relatively brief periods, and I was exhausted at the end, with horrible aches in my shoulders and hips. This was when I was literally just sitting around the camp and occasionally flouncing about looking shiny and talking to the adoring public. After I went home, I had 'knight swagger' for the rest of the evening, purely as a result of the weight and design of the mail. If you could avoid that, I imagine you would, especially given how expensive armour is. Wizards have a load of other stuff to spend their money on, why the heck would they add half their weight in metal to their expenses when they'll barely even need to use it?

Mind you, in most of my settings I give mages armour. After all, a guy in full plate chucking fireballs around looks awesome, and I won't brook any disagreement.

Cluedrew
2015-06-27, 06:51 PM
Is there a game system that encourages mages to wear no clothing at all?

Not that I know of but I know a book series (I have forgotten the name) where mages absorbed magic from nature and so there was some magic tradition where mages would go into battle near naked to absorb energy from the sun.

The answer to the main question is simply game balance. Wizards and other spell casters are usually glass cannons and so armouring them gives them too much. Now there are other trade offs you could make but "squishy" is the most common.

Also, why not give the swords men spells? Why can Fighters have Everything? No seriously why is adding marshal skills to casters more popular than adding caster skills to marshals? Any ideas?

Elbeyon
2015-06-27, 07:03 PM
Also, why not give the swords men spells? Why can Fighters have Everything? No seriously why is adding marshal skills to casters more popular than adding caster skills to marshals? Any ideas?I often observe people think something like this: A mage with armor and sword is still a mage. A fighter with magical powers isn't a fighter anymore.

Cluedrew
2015-06-27, 07:14 PM
A fighter with magical powers isn't a fighter anymore.

But she still fights...

Dark Souls had magic users that still felt like fighters because their spells were rarely enough to win a fight, so they had to have a sword or pole arm anyways. Also what front line combatant wouldn't want to know the basic healing spells (so you can risk being more than three steps from the healer) and they would have ample opportunity to use spells with a range of touch on enemies, far more than the wizard.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-27, 07:25 PM
But she still fights...

Dark Souls had magic users that still felt like fighters because their spells were rarely enough to win a fight, so they had to have a sword or pole arm anyways. Also what front line combatant wouldn't want to know the basic healing spells (so you can risk being more than three steps from the healer) and they would have ample opportunity to use spells with a range of touch on enemies, far more than the wizard.

Some possible reasons:
1) only gods can heal.
2) because they don't exist.
3) spells take the better part of an hour to cast.
4) misfires are common.

With 3, which is my preferred reason, they likely do know them, but as long as a mage is there don't need to cast them.

Ralanr
2015-06-27, 07:28 PM
As has been pointed out before, all that time required to use armor effectively is spent studying magic. Time is a precious resource that you can't get back and is always being drained. We mortal beings have basic needs that must take up some of this resource (eating, sleeping, bathroom) and we have social needs (which vary from person to person) that take it up. Studying the ways of magic should be a very difficult task. If it wasn't, then a bunch of other problems are raised.

Increasing the number of magic users increases the possibility for high level magic users. High level magic users often have access to reality altering magic, something that really shouldn't be in mortal hands (or divine hands. But someone has it). More people with access to this, the more likely the world goes to hell at some point in time. All it takes is one casting of wish to ruin a lifetime.

In fantasy in general, if magic was easy then it wouldn't be seen as important or valuable as it already is. Mages become less important to political power as they are easily replaced, a child with an anger problem starts throwing fireballs at people, and maybe people make a necromancy cleaning service at one point.

Magic becomes mundane, it becomes trivial, and worst of all it becomes boring.

Sacrifices are made to gain something, that's how experience works. So mages sacrifice heavy armor for the ability to ignore the laws of physics for a while. Honestly I feel they should be sacrificing more, but being socially inept shouldn't be a class feature (plus they are magic schools and stuff. Social activity!)

Other reason: Gauntlets probably aren't very dexterous around the fingers and magic doesn't take "close enough" when doing the casting (It seems to be the one thing that magic in all settings has in common. You want a particular spell? Get one thing wrong and it will not work. It's like m-it's math). On that topic, could a wizard not were mittens when casting? What about those fat winter gloves that have wide fingers for clumsiness?

goto124
2015-06-27, 08:23 PM
Also what front line combatant wouldn't want to know the basic healing spells (so you can risk being more than three steps from the healer) and they would have ample opportunity to use spells with a range of touch on enemies, far more than the wizard.

... I thought paladins did this.

Cluedrew
2015-06-27, 08:32 PM
... I thought paladins did this.

I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just wondering why the approach usually seems to be adding marshal abilities to casters and not the other way around. Also, I'm not sure if the fact the paladin has a divine power source instead of being an arcane caster is important here, it does effect the times spent studying argument.

Maybe it is that most existing hybrids are mostly fighters and less wizards? Are 3/4 Caster+1/4 Marshal classes/archetypes/whatevers common?

Honest Tiefling
2015-06-27, 08:50 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but I for one would not like to try to face a freaking army in just a bathrobe and a stick even if I did have phenomenal cosmic power. So I imagine the reason to add martial abilities to casters is because casters usually fight in combat, and...Most groups I have seen tend to be on the lower side of the TO spectrum, so in those games trying to don armor seems like a reasonable tactic to try to do if the system allows. Fewer people try getting the weapon side of martial ability, mostly focusing on the defensive.

And I think the reason no one tries to slap on castery stuff onto a fighter is because then it is a caster, so people who want fighters don't tend to care about the class from my experience.

Cluedrew
2015-06-27, 09:04 PM
Sorry TO? Talk it Out is my best guess.

Also that is another vote for magic overriding the concept of a fighter. That might be part of the problem, but in my personal works (all unpublished) the line between marshals and casters tends to be very blurry so it seems really odd to me.

TheCountAlucard
2015-06-27, 09:08 PM
TO is "theoretical optimization," such as Pun-Pun, the Jumplomancer, et cetera.

Also, the word you're looking for is "martial." A marshal is something different. :smalltongue:

GorinichSerpant
2015-06-27, 09:26 PM
Is there a game system that encourages mages to wear no clothing at all?

You could probably whip up a magick school in Unknown Armies which would get charges from running around naked.

Cealocanth
2015-06-27, 10:09 PM
I always thought it had to do with the idea that cold iron was antithetical to magic. In folklore it burned fairie folk and kept spirits and witches away.

I am a fan of the idea that iron acts as a conduit of magic, but it requires a certain dichotomy to work. Iron both has to suppress magic and enhance it in order to work properly (as it is believed to do so in some religions). Armor is supposed to 'leak' magic, making the mage less strong when casting spells, but for some reason, specially enchanted iron objects such as orbs, daggers, swords, etc, can actually conduct spells and hold their own magical abilities. Blood is an easy and readily available magical conduit due to it's high iron levels. In order for this to work, it needs a lot of mysticism and 'because the gods say so' explanations. A lot of things work like this in the real world, though, so it's not beyond comprehension.
Electricity, for example. Copper wire allows electrical charge to travel, but if you were to put a copper rod up to a source of power, it will discharge it.
However on the subject of specifically cold iron, it was believed to keep demons, witches, fairies, and sometimes spirits away. Cold iron didn't refer to iron that had been chilled in the times when these legends were created, though. It referred to how the object was forged. In this case, 'cold iron' means iron that had been forged cold - as in not heated in a forge (although campfire temperatures are okay in some denominations) - but simply hammered and hammered and ground and hammered until it made the right shape. As you may assume, this is extremely difficult and time consuming, which makes this object worth quite a lot and supposedly have magical abilities. The cold forging method is a lot easier with softer metals like gold or silver.

Flickerdart
2015-06-28, 01:56 PM
Disputing this. In D&D and D&D-based fiction, wizards are often physically weak. In fiction, wizards are often as strong as anyone else if not more so. It's even a implied in some settings that working magic is extremely physically demanding.

The thing about "often" is that it mostly depends on the books one reads. Conanesque buff dudes casting spells are a relatively new development; in older storytelling traditions wizards and other occultists are depicted as less than normal men because of their reliance on dark arts - hunched, twisted, often old and decrepit.

Marlowe
2015-06-28, 02:24 PM
The thing about "often" is that it mostly depends on the books one reads. Conanesque buff dudes casting spells are a relatively new development; in older storytelling traditions wizards and other occultists are depicted as less than normal men because of their reliance on dark arts - hunched, twisted, often old and decrepit.

Orpheus? Vainamoinen? Circe? Medea? Cadmus? Old and decrepit?:smalleek:

Honest Tiefling
2015-06-28, 02:47 PM
Circe wasn't exactly a normal man, OR woman, given that she is sometimes a nymph or even goddess. I have to wonder if the less then normal people rule really applies to ancient depictions of mages, given that many aren't exactly human. Merlin, for instance is often a cambion, through I do not know how medieval people statted those up.

Keltest
2015-06-28, 02:50 PM
I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just wondering why the approach usually seems to be adding marshal abilities to casters and not the other way around. Also, I'm not sure if the fact the paladin has a divine power source instead of being an arcane caster is important here, it does effect the times spent studying argument.

Maybe it is that most existing hybrids are mostly fighters and less wizards? Are 3/4 Caster+1/4 Marshal classes/archetypes/whatevers common?

In general, the closer towards caster on the spectrum you get, the less valuable the martial skills become.

Look at D&D wizards, for example. If the fighters are doing their jobs right, what do they need armor or weapons for? A round swinging your sword is a round not casing a significantly more impactful spell. Armor is somewhat more useful, but compared to fighters they are more than capable of going without, especially with a frontline of dedicated fighters.

That's probably also why a wizard with martial skills is still a wizard, but a fighter who learns to cast spells... is also a wizard. Wizardry is just generally a better use of your time than sword swinging unless youre in a setting where spells in general are hard to cast on the fly.

TheCountAlucard
2015-06-28, 04:02 PM
In general, the closer towards caster on the spectrum you get, the less valuable the martial skills become… A round swinging your sword is a round not casing a significantly more impactful spell.In games where spells are inherently more impactful than mundane skill. That's not true of a few systems.

Arbane
2015-06-28, 06:25 PM
Besides, Fighters charge the line & face the enemy toe-to-toe. Wizards hang back & cast spells from a distance; they don't need armor because they face less danger from heavy weapons like swords & axes. Arrows? Meh. :smallsigh:

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist-"

Oh, another game with armored spellcasters: RuneQuest. Practically everyone in that system has at last a little magic, it's perfectly usable with armored, and wearing armor is pretty much essential for surviving fights.

Keltest
2015-06-28, 06:43 PM
Oh, something nobody has brought up yet is that plate mail doesn't have pockets. When you need lots of spell components, having lots of pockets for quick access is important.

GorinichSerpant
2015-06-28, 07:41 PM
Oh, something nobody has brought up yet is that plate mail doesn't have pockets. When you need lots of spell components, having lots of pockets for quick access is important.

There is nothing preventing a Tailor from making sort of bag that goes over your plate mail to allow you to store spell components. Or come up with some other solution. plate mail didn't have pockets because it couldn't but because that wasn't really necessary in combat.

Milo v3
2015-06-28, 09:52 PM
In one of my games I had it that iron sealed magic, and wearing it will grant you some protection from magic. So some think that if you put a mage in iron it'll stop them from doing magic, but instead it just stops them from doing magic outside of their body, so they can still turn their bodies into stone and give themselves super strength, etc. in full plate.

As for magic warriors that are still warriors; there is the aegis, bloodrager, harbinger, paladin, ranger and soulknife classes which are both still martials rather than wizards in my eyes despite being supernatural.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-29, 02:42 AM
Oh, something nobody has brought up yet is that plate mail doesn't have pockets. When you need lots of spell components, having lots of pockets for quick access is important.

This is half the reason I want to make Cloth armour at least as effective as leather. That, and it's a good few layers of padding, you'll expend energy punching through that.

Ralanr
2015-06-29, 06:19 AM
Is no one else curious about the effectiveness of spell casting in mittens?

Cluedrew
2015-06-29, 08:13 PM
I tried running some tests on spells in mittens but... let us just say they were inconclusive.

Also it occurred to me that armour really is the last thing mages don't have in D&D 3.5. Plus or minus some odds and ends and the things they can replicate with spells.

And yes they can replicate armour with spells, but unlike lock picking or an attack roll, is really something you want to be continuous.

In addition I would say that a wizard that fight, sneaks and talks well as well as casting spells is not a wizard, just a generic adventure in a world were magic is the most powerful option. That holds true if magic is not the most powerful option as it is in some games.

Often, it is what a character can't do that makes them interesting.

Ralanr
2015-06-30, 12:22 AM
Often, it is what a character can't do that makes them interesting.


Which, no disrespect intended to all who love magic users, is probably why I don't like playing magic users.


"I have a solution for almost every problem in advanced! No need to me to do quick thinking or improvise!"

I know that's not all magic users, but when I look at a spell list all I can think of is, "I need to pick the right ones!" which just gets stressful.

Hawkstar
2015-06-30, 11:49 AM
Oh, something nobody has brought up yet is that plate mail doesn't have pockets. When you need lots of spell components, having lots of pockets for quick access is important.

Belts, sashes, and bandoliers are a thing.


I know that's not all magic users, but when I look at a spell list all I can think of is, "I need to pick the right ones!" which just gets stressful.
This is one of my problems when I play Spellcasters. I see the list of spells and don't think "Look at all the stuff I can do!" but, instead, "Oh wow... this is a lot of stuff I must be able to do!" (Or else I won't be able to fulfill my role in the party dynamic!)

Straybow
2015-07-01, 02:13 AM
My replacement for this is to require minimum strength and constitution (health for non D&D type systems) to wear various types of armor. I also require minimum ability scores for higher level magic. Armor doesn't really weigh that much. It doesn't require much strength, but it does eat into your encumbrance allowance.


I'm not terribly fond of the idea that mages cannot wear armor, usually, through some sort of penalty to wearing full plate without a huge strength score does make quite a bit of sense to me. Are the hand gestures really that complex that leather armor messes them up? Doesn't seem very dignified over all. Full plate, including padding, is really well distributed on the body. An average guy can do cartwheels in it. Look it up on youtube.


Something that hasn't been mentioned is that armor takes training. Strength aside, it causes you to move differently to some extent, there's maintenance, there's how fighting effectively in armor often involves doing things that wouldn't work so well when not armored (like being perfectly willing to get hit with relatively glancing blows if it means you can get a strike through). Between that and the cost, a lot of mage archetypes wouldn't be expected to have it or know how to use it effectively. Armor "proficiency" is nonsensical, a feat tax. You get accustomed to armor in about a week, wearing it all day. You get used to shrugging off the "I just got hit!" reaction in a short while, too. The wiz doesn't have to fight effectively, just wear it to keep from becoming a shishkabob.

Knaight
2015-07-01, 12:38 PM
Armor "proficiency" is nonsensical, a feat tax. You get accustomed to armor in about a week, wearing it all day. You get used to shrugging off the "I just got hit!" reaction in a short while, too. The wiz doesn't have to fight effectively, just wear it to keep from becoming a shishkabob.

You get accustomed to some of it pretty quickly. Later period armors were routinely worn over a long period for people to get used to it. This was particularly true of plate, where there are some minor differences to range of motion (though it's by no means clunky, and it was pretty common for some of the range limitation to limit things like having your arm bent too far backwards by an assailant that's grabbed you more than limiting motions you actually want to make). There's adaptation to heat, which is a far bigger problem than weight ever is, there's getting used to maintaining awareness in certain helmets, so on and so forth.

Requiring an actual feat in a system like D&D is pretty ridiculous, but it's not like there isn't some degree of training. Generally it was worth it, and as a rule people went around in just about as much armor as was feasible for them (though some degree of skimping to keep weight off the legs for infantry was still common, and archers generally didn't armor their hands to any real degree even when heavily armored). Spellcasters then routinely need things like accurate views of wide areas for medium distance precise area effects, which trims down on helmet options. They routinely need some degree of gesturing, which trims down on hand armor options. Given that those restrictions are already there, just not putting in the time to get used to at least heavier armors makes a lot of sense.

Keltest
2015-07-01, 12:44 PM
You get accustomed to some of it pretty quickly. Later period armors were routinely worn over a long period for people to get used to it. This was particularly true of plate, where there are some minor differences to range of motion (though it's by no means clunky, and it was pretty common for some of the range limitation to limit things like having your arm bent too far backwards by an assailant that's grabbed you more than limiting motions you actually want to make). There's adaptation to heat, which is a far bigger problem than weight ever is, there's getting used to maintaining awareness in certain helmets, so on and so forth.

Requiring an actual feat in a system like D&D is pretty ridiculous, but it's not like there isn't some degree of training. Generally it was worth it, and as a rule people went around in just about as much armor as was feasible for them (though some degree of skimping to keep weight off the legs for infantry was still common, and archers generally didn't armor their hands to any real degree even when heavily armored). Spellcasters then routinely need things like accurate views of wide areas for medium distance precise area effects, which trims down on helmet options. They routinely need some degree of gesturing, which trims down on hand armor options. Given that those restrictions are already there, just not putting in the time to get used to at least heavier armors makes a lot of sense.

I mean, this is the same system where you need a feat to learn how to hit harder without worrying about aim so much.

Hiro
2015-07-01, 02:45 PM
Personally, I give SORCERERS light armor proficiency for one type of armor for free.

Why? Cuz their magic is innate and they don't have to study books to get it. They'r emore likely to be out there blasting **** ti their hearts content and most probably would have some form of close range combat ability too.

Nerd-o-rama
2015-07-02, 12:17 PM
David Eddings and his Belgariad and Malloreon series have nothing physically against armored spellcasters. However, out of all the many sorcerers and magicians in the books, only one (the main character, Garion) wears armor. Why? Because wearing armor is tiring and spellcasting is exhausting, since it takes about the same amount of effort to do something with your Will as it does with your muscles, you just get to do stuff you normally couldn't do with real physics like teleport or rearrange yourself into a falcon. Carrying around 40 or 50 pounds of iron is only worth it if you're going to get into serious scuffles and kill people with swords instead of your brain - it's actually less effort for older, more experienced sorcerers to deflect arrows with their Will or turn into a wolf and sneak attack people or, if you're the oldest and wisest of sorcerers, not get into fighting range in the first place. In other words, armor's more trouble than it's worth unless you're a twentysomething sorcerer-king with a magic sword as tall as you are and more magical power than magical training.

EDIT: You would think the demon summoners would strap on something for insurance, but I guess most of them are illiterate nomads anyway.

ShadowFighter15
2015-07-17, 06:58 PM
Exalted allows for armored spellcasters - in fact, it encourages it.

There's a few others that are shifting to armoured mages. Pillars of Eternity allows spellcasters to wear whatever armour they like and the only hindrance they cause is the same one armour causes every class (longer cooldown time between actions). The Iron Kingdoms also has armoured spellcasters who can also be good with swords - the IK RPG has a dual-career system, so you pick two classes and get access to all of their skills and abilities. Hell; my first PC for Iron Kingdoms was a Duelist/Storm Sorcerer and he fights more like a high-speed, melee assassin* than a spellcaster (although he does know Chain Lightning for those times when you have to go Palpatine on someone :smallamused: ) and combining a tanky melee class like Knight or Man-At-Arms with Stone Sorcerer makes for a nigh-unkillable monster (particularly if you use Man-At-Arms and pick a Trollkin for your race; they're easily the hardiest race in the game and combining Stone Sorcerer with heavy armour just makes them moreso).


*Duelists have Parry, meaning they can't be targeted by the system's version of AoOs as long as they have a one-handed melee weapon in hand, and Storm Sorcerer includes an inherent Speed buff as well as a spell that can be taken in character creation that acts as a 30' teleport which, if they took the Quick Caster archetype benefit, leaves him with his normal combat action ready to go. Enemy gang leader directing his goons and giving them a mechanical benefit? Duelist can move past the goons in front, teleport over to the leader and stab him. Enemy controlling a steamjack? Same deal. Sniper pinning the team down? Okay, that one's a bit more reliant on existing terrain, but it opens up a lot of options.

Cluedrew
2015-07-18, 05:37 PM
Iron Kingdoms also has armoured spellcasters who can also be good with swords.I know when this thread first came up I thought of the Warcasters (the similarly powerful warlocks are less likely to be armoured). The literally have the best spell casting (with warlocks) the most health (next the "tanks") and they get a host of special abilities on top of that. The reason I didn't mention that is that it isn't really a fair comparison, War Machine is a tactical game and although you could have warcaster like PCs the other PCs would not be the soldiers that make up the rest of your force in War Machine.

In RPGs you tend to want to have the main cast (the PCs) to be different from each other, so if there is the one guy who's thing is "has everything" everyone else's concept will be some variation of "has less than everything". Everyone should have about the same amount of cool stuff and if everyone has everything things will really start to blur together and team interdependence is harder to pull off, which is a goal of some games.

So really it is a matter of if you have an armoured spellcaster, what don't they do?

An answer of "nothing" is valid but it does lead to those other problems.

Keltest
2015-07-18, 07:45 PM
While I would have to check to be sure, I believe 5th edition will allow a wizard to cast competently in armor that they are proficient in, though they still lack any armor proficiencies by default. So you could have a wizard running around in full plate swinging their dagger and casting magic missile at people if you built your character right.

ShadowFighter15
2015-07-18, 08:17 PM
I know when this thread first came up I thought of the Warcasters (the similarly powerful warlocks are less likely to be armoured). The literally have the best spell casting (with warlocks) the most health (next the "tanks") and they get a host of special abilities on top of that. The reason I didn't mention that is that it isn't really a fair comparison, War Machine is a tactical game and although you could have warcaster like PCs the other PCs would not be the soldiers that make up the rest of your force in War Machine.
I was talking about the Iron Kingdoms RPG, the newer version from 2012 has warcaster as one of the available careers and has to be taken in character creation if you want to use it, but with a number of restrictions to their power (ie; they need to take the Bond ability for each 'jack or piece of mechanika they want to augment with their Focus - so for most that would be one for their armour, one for their main weapon and one for each 'jack they want to use - they also start with a lower Arcane stat than non-warcaster mages; Arcanists, sorcerers, priests, gun mages, etc all start with an ARC of 3, warcasters start with an ARC of 2, meaning they only get two Focus points a turn unless they used some of the three stat points in character creation to boost it). But as I said; even ignoring warcasters and warlocks (some of whom do have heavier armour; look at some of the Skorne warlocks), normal mages in the setting can use spells just fine. Hell; the Tactical Arcanist Corps (http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/gallery/mercenaries/units/tactical-arcanist-corps) is basically a trio of dwarven fire sorcerers in either heavy plate or power armour.


In RPGs you tend to want to have the main cast (the PCs) to be different from each other, so if there is the one guy who's thing is "has everything" everyone else's concept will be some variation of "has less than everything". Everyone should have about the same amount of cool stuff and if everyone has everything things will really start to blur together and team interdependence is harder to pull off, which is a goal of some games.You still get some of that with the IK RPG - the Duelist/Storm Sorcerer I mentioned has to rely on his magic for ranged combat. He has some skill with a pistol, but nothing impressive (not enough for him to go buy one, anyway). What's more, neither of those careers have access to much in the way of social skills and their non-combat skills as a whole are kind of limited. Even warcasters feel underwhelming when fresh out of character creation, even weaker than some other career combinations. At character creation; a warcaster has either a suit of light or medium warcaster armour, or a mechanikal hand weapon with the Bond rune (which just means they can use their focus to augment the weapon) or a mechanikal hand cannon with the same rune and ten rounds of ammo. Only one of those three options and none of them are steamjacks. You also get access to starting gear from your other career, but only one - the Field Mechanik - actually starts with a 'jack and if you do that then you have no money for things like ammo or even coal to run the 'jack (which is only a Forager light labourjack fitted with about 200gp worth of weapons - so at most you've got a budget Talon with pathetic MAT and armour that was never really meant to stand up to gunshots and the like).


So really it is a matter of if you have an armoured spellcaster, what don't they do?
An answer of "nothing" is valid but it does lead to those other problems.
Can also be affected by what spells they have access to or how the system uses its attribute points or determines the accuracy of spells and weapon attacks. To keep with the IKRPG; each race starts with a pre-defined stat lineup. You then get three points to spend on any of those attributes you like, up to the maximum for Hero-grade characters (which is what a PC is until they've earned more than 50 XP, in a system where you're likely to only get 2-4 XP a session) and attack accuracy is drawn from three different ones - melee attacks use Prowess and the relevant Weapon Skill for the character's MAT (Melee Attack), ranged weapons use Poise and the weapon skill for their RAT (Ranged Attack) and spell accuracy is purely off their Arcane stat (which, as I mentioned before, starts at 2 for warcasters and 3 for every other spellcaster). And magic in the Iron Kingdoms is far less utilitarian than it is in a lot of other fantasy settings - it's a blunt hammer; the sort of spells you see models in Warmachine and Hordes using are pretty much the extent of player-available spells.

Essentially; the Iron Kingdoms RPG is designed so that while you can be a jack of all trades, you won't be a master of all of them. If you're building a character to fill a particular party niche, you don't go by careers or whether they're a mage or not - you go by what they can do. The Duelist/Storm Sorcerer I mentioned? I would never consider him to be a 'mage character'; he's a swordsman who knows a few magical tricks. I'd no more call him a mage than I would Geralt of Rivia. At the end of the day; both stab bad guys with pointy metal objects, they just go about it in different ways.

Mechalich
2015-07-19, 01:20 AM
In terms of armor being a physical hindrance, I suspect gauntlets are actually a big part of it.

Gauntlets are incredibly important to armor, to the point that it's kind of pointless to even bother wearing heavy armor is you aren't covering up your hands, because you will get knocked there by errant blows and you will drop your weapon, and then you will get skewered.

Gauntlets can absolutely hinder spellcasting motions. If we assume that Somatic components are roughly equivalent to writing in complexity, well, try writing with just winter gloves on, never mind thick leather, chain, or plates. And unlike say, mittens, which can be yanked off pretty quickly (unless they're soaking wet - which might make for an interesting situation-based hazard in an arctic campaign), gauntlets are generally strapped on.

Now, maybe spellcasters should be allowed to wear gloveless armor purely for the missile weapon protection, but that's perhaps an unnecessary level of complexity in game terms.

Ralanr
2015-07-19, 01:27 AM
In terms of armor being a physical hindrance, I suspect gauntlets are actually a big part of it.

Gauntlets are incredibly important to armor, to the point that it's kind of pointless to even bother wearing heavy armor is you aren't covering up your hands, because you will get knocked there by errant blows and you will drop your weapon, and then you will get skewered.

Gauntlets can absolutely hinder spellcasting motions. If we assume that Somatic components are roughly equivalent to writing in complexity, well, try writing with just winter gloves on, never mind thick leather, chain, or plates. And unlike say, mittens, which can be yanked off pretty quickly (unless they're soaking wet - which might make for an interesting situation-based hazard in an arctic campaign), gauntlets are generally strapped on.

Now, maybe spellcasters should be allowed to wear gloveless armor purely for the missile weapon protection, but that's perhaps an unnecessary level of complexity in game terms.

This is why I don't think they could cast spells in mittens.

Just put bags over a casters hands and you got em (more or less)

Mr. Mask
2015-07-19, 01:37 AM
Gauntlets were very rarely worn if you take most of history into account. Even when gauntlets were available, soldiers still managed without them in many cases. Gauntlets were very useful, even when soldiers were dropping their leg armour or half the leg armour and going to three quarter harness, gauntlets were considered important--but often armoured archers never wore gauntlets but did wear armour, and there was no reason to forego armour for the sake of gauntlets.