On armor and spellcasters:

Remove all ads!

Actually, the elves call magic and swordplay the Twin Arts. Many clerics, druids, and arcane casters were fighters before delving into a magical realm. Besides, multi/dual classes are rare, and only to be undertaken by someone who meets both classes prime reqs. Thus if you have a mage that works out whenever he isn't studying, and is as buff as he is smart, why shouldn't he be able to do both?

JMTC.

Amon-Ra

 

Well, if I can thow in another 2 cents worth. Please remember that the whole D&D legacy is a game. When they first made the game, they could have done anything in the world they wanted. Mages could have been armored out the @$$ and that would have been that and we would not be having this discusion. There is nor should be a justification for it. Take it for what it is-a restriction for a class. Balance was the key when they wrote that part of the manual, and it still is in the game(except to a lesser degree now ). Anyway, my point is, this argument is stupid and all of you... Just kidding. My real point is D&D is someones overactive imagination. The origional guys who dreamed it up could have made it anything, but they made it what it is. Enjoy it for what it is(I STILL NEED MAGE ARMOR!!!!). Cheers
Oh, and if you want to see weak armor choices for mages, try the Dark Sun Games. I don't think those designers ever heard of mage robes

 

I am not quite sure if this was stated above, but you must also remember what mages can do to make up for armor. A friend of mine brought up an interesting point about mage robes the other day. That is, you must remember in p&p powerful mages could scribe protective runes on their robes that protect them from certain attacks. It is funny this way because you could actually kill a mage using other means, than say weapons, and still not be able to get close to him because the runes (or wards) on his/her robe were so powerful, even after they are dead.

I guess to sum up what I am trying to say: Mage robes can actually be better than armor, especially if you look at certain instances in gaming worlds or books. One example is Raistlin Majere in Krynn. I don't remember reading too much about Elminster's robes, but then again I haven't read too many stories just about him. I am certain his robes are powerful though.....

(Finally 200 posts, time to retire the name and start anew)

[This message has been edited by EternalPaladin (edited January 06, 2001).]

 

as far as i remember elminster mentions that magical rings and the likes are only for people who are too weak to defend themselves.he gives the impression that after you have reached a certain level of power you don't need the help of magical items.so his robes could be plain normal robes.
(IF i am correct it can be read in the book spellfire)

 

Even more advanced dungeons&dragons.
That is what we need.

 

True elven chainmails are cool for dualclassed or multiclassed mages, but you get them too slow.

Perhaps there should be some character like a Battlemage, able to cast spells whoil wearing the full plate +2. It would be fun to play.
Perhaps he should be able to memorize spells like a sorcerer and I guess he should be restricted in his abilities like a conventional fighter-mage. To prevent creating a steamroller, he should level up more slowly than a usual fighter-mage, perhaps just like a mage.

At least I would like the option to combine classes for sorcerers.
However, you have to live with BG-2 how it is and it´s still a lot of fun to play.

 

A lot of the stuff that's beign talked about here is in the PnP world, not BG...I guess that's fine, but then we have certain instances where you can't have a ring of protection on while you're also wearing a cloak of protection, etc....argh.

My primary reason for griping about this is because I tend to play multiclassed characters or dul-classed characters. I could go on about dual classes as well, about how moronic I think it is that you can't use ANY of your skills from the first class until your second class surpasses it...that's ridiculous to me; I dual class a theif to a fighter and now I don't know how to pick a lock, even though I was at or near 100% in lockpicking before? But that's another story.
Now, when you say that the originators of the game (E.G.Gygaax?) could have done anything and they decided to make it this way, so live with it....they also pretty much left things open to change by each DM. DMs, if they want to, can easily allow mages to wear armor with a casting time penalty if it isn't Elven Chain, for example, or they could say that they have to have armor specially made that is sleeveless or something, compromising some protection for the sake of ease of movement. It's only something of a hard rule as a universal rules system, and even that is changing with the 3rd edition; maybe enough feedback on previous editions told the makers that DMs were doing this sort of thing anyway, so maybe they should incorporate it...? Anyway, the restrictions in BG are less a result of AD&D rules than it is a result of the compromise we have to take when AD&D is translated into the computer world. We get stunning graphics and we don't have to worry about losing our dice under the table, and in return we have a hard and fast set of rules that we have to follow and a fairly linear game. Oh well...until the better parts of both worlds come together (Morrowind, or Neverwinter Nights, I hope!) we'll just have to make do with what we have...

 

Snowlock, you made a good point in your post. The 3rd thing ya said, about how even experienced soldiers, like a general, would die from a dagger that supposedly does 1d4 damage. I have been thinking about this as well. It has led me to develope a new idea for my PnP campaign. When I role a hit for an enemy of the players, I'll say they barely manage to get their sword in the way to turn the blow aside, but I'll still take hp away. Then, when they finally get hit, they'll know they're in trouble. I think that is more realistic. Anyone else got any suggestions about how I could make it better?

 

Elrawyn, one thing that I always thought would make D&D combat more realistic is area-specific damage; let's say you're fighting a humanoid creature like an orc, and you have a fighter with a longsword proficiency; now, when he swings that sword, he has to make his to hit whatever AC roll first, then there's the damage roll if he hits. What if you introduce a variable using the percentage die for a crippling hit? What I mean by that is not just more damage, but maybe he hits the orc's thigh and greatly reduces the orc's mobility and AC (he's holding his leg in pain, he's not putting all of his effort into the fight anymore), or maybe he hits the orc's arm, and now Mr. orc loses a round of attacks because he has to switch weapon hands since his arm is so badly hurt...and when an opponent reaches a failry low HP count, they should not be getting full damage on their hits and they should have a significant to hit penalty; after all, they're mostly dead by that point; their attacks and defenses are going to be pretty weak by then.

 

also attacking someone who is sleeping or being held(magic etc.).someone who does not defend himself.so you can go up to him and put your weapon into any vital area you want to(e.g.throat,heart,eye,...foot ).well what i mean is a one-hit-kill if your enemy is defenceless

 

Cuckoo & Snowlock: I agree to both of you, that would be far more realistic, just like in P&P. I would also like to see something else aerea-specific incorporated, depending where you´re fighting:
If you´re fighting in a close environment like a dungeon, a fighter wielding a two handed sword should get some mali on his throws for he simply hasn´t enough space to move as needed.
So it is just like the malus you get, when you´re using a bow and are attacked in melee.

 

I'm no D&D expert, but I think that the whole hit point issue is a bit misleading. What I mean is that maybe the misconception is that when you are level one you have 6 hps, when you are level eight you have 40 hps, you may be asking yourself - how is it that you can withstand several more sword thrusts at a higher level. I read the post about a general dying from a 1d4 knife wound as easily as anyone else.

I think your hp level is really a measure of your defensive expertise, and your damage avoidance. Lets look at an arrow fired at a character that causes 6 hp damage. A first level fighter might not know that if he only kept his head moving, an arrow wouldn't lodge in his eye, killing him instantly. The eighth level fight would have much better technique, and the arrow would only graze his cheek causing a small percentage of total hit point damage.

Another way to look at it is that a low level character may have a lower pain/damage threshold. A sword thrust to the shoulder, while maybe not fatal, would definately cause more physical and mental damage to an inexperienced person. Just look at boxing, one shot in the nose and I'm either down for the count, or crying for my mom - I'm a low level boxer. Trained boxers can take shots to the head for half the day, then walk away.

Just my thoughts.

 

What then of the damaging effects of poison, which should not be dependent on experience?

 

Hmmm, poison. How does one develop an immunity to poison? If you look at a monk, they eventually become totally immune to poison. Perhaps other characters can become immmune to a certain extent with repeated exposure. One must also look at the method with which one becomes poisoned. A common method is a spider bite. Well the arguments I made earlier could still apply.
The rules of D&D are developed to give some sort of cause and effect to the playing world. All items of chance are controlled by the dice roll. How does one explain a saving throw from something like a fireball spell? Do you fall to the floor and avoid most of the blast?
I define hitpoints as my character's ability to both avoid, and absorb physical damage. I think that as my experience grows, so to should my resilience to any sort of injuries, including poison.
That's the fun thing about D&D; the rules are laid out, but the explanation is often left to the imagination.
Like I said earlier, I'm no D&D expert, I'm only an expert at making my own opinions.

 

I can't really agree to interpreting hp's as defensive qualities. Thats what AC is for and it also goes down with rising levels, so defensive qualities (in the sense of avoiding hits) are well accounted for.

What hps could stand for is:
- more muscle, wich prevent some hits from penetrating directly to your guts
- a natural toughening of your skin (should reflect negativley on charisma though: good bye to your smooth ivory skin)

Personally I don't think there is any real excuse for increased hp's apart from enabeling powergaming cowards to play recklessly (mindless meelee attacks) against strong enemies instead of using spells and arrows as any sane person will do .

[This message has been edited by Sorl (edited January 10, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Sorl (edited January 11, 2001).]

 

Heh....good points there about AC being the reflection of defensive capabilities. Also, constitution affects the HP gain as well, while dexterity gives the AC bonus. Interesting point about the gain being to give melee fighters more leeway. See, the problem is this; a low HP count on lower level characters keeps your inexperienced party from just going out and declaring open season on dragons or whatnot; you have enough HP to make fighting orcs be somewhat challenging at lower levels, but not enough to make it to easy either. As you advance in levels, running into orcs becomes no big deal (kind of a reward for higher levels, I guess) but you are faced with increasingly powerful enemies as well. Now you can go back and try to take out that dragon that your party peed their pants and ran away from earlier, and you can actually do more than cloudkill it now But if we had a relatively stable amount of HP from the beginning, we'd have to find some other way to balance things out...and maybe AC is the way to go...it makes more sense for AC to improve wiht experience rather than HP anyway.

 

Lord Moe did you ever read Frank Herberts 'Dune'. Its SF but pretty DnD like:
- Bronce age settings
- magic stuff
- melee fighting (all cowards)
- a Sardaukar race with super stats
- a Fremen race with even better stats
- sandworms with mega stats
- puny humans
- a guild of women (their job is wierd little galaxy wide breeding program) who have perfected their body control to the point that they can interfere at molecular level and so detect & destroy any poison in vivo. (For details read the books 6*1000 pages should last for a weekend).


[This message has been edited by Sorl (edited January 10, 2001).]

 

i must confess that i was thinking about hp as defencive abilities too but as was said before it doesn't make much sense.what else is a critical hit but a hit that was so good it couldn't be avoided AND hit a vital area(only double damage?!)!

 

Not anymore. In P&P 3rd edition, most big, brutal weapons have either a higher threshold for criticals (19-20, 18-20, etc) or are 3x, 4x damage. I always thought of a dagger attack that deals 1d4 damage as a light cut. Maybe a slice across the shoulder or on the arm. Something like stabbing someone in the guts is a major critical that would leave the person Wounded (taking 1 damage or more every round due to blood loss, depending on the severity of the wound).

Amon-Ra

[This message has been edited by Amon-Ra (edited January 13, 2001).]