Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
OK! Whoelse other than me feels a mage should be able to wear "REAL" Armor
Xani
Member Posts: 3
Ok, i wanted to start this thread cause i have recently been unable to stomach the fact that one of the most powerful DDs or DPS dealers in a RPG the mage can only walk around in freakin cloth. WHY? we all know the moment a mage sends a giant fireball or whatever at a mob the lil bugger runs right at you and leaves the tank alone. Unless,however, the tank is doing an excellent job of taunting.
I wanna know everyones opinion why wouldnt a mage wanna wear at least some leather armor? I mean it isnt constrictive to a rogue, why would it hinder the mental clarity of a mage? I can understand to a degree not wearing metal as it may be conductive to electricty and make them the targets for lightning, but come on. If im sending a fireball the size of texas at a monster the size of alaska my ass knows hes coming after why wouldnt i be prepared with some kinda defense other than my magic?
Just wondering if anyone shares my views...
thanks
Comments
Sorcerers and Wizards in Dungeons and Dragons can, in fact, wear any type of armor they want- as long as they have the proper feat. However, wearing armor can cause spells to fail and the heavier the armor, the greater chance a spell has to fail.
The D&D 3.5 rules are incredibly flexible, but they also do a good job of preserving balance. If a mage could do everything on his own, what would be the point to bringing anyone else along for an adventure?
Amaranth
Mages shouldnt wear anything heavier and more powerful than cloth. first off, they are weaker than other classes, and thus it would make the mage harder to dodge and move.
plus from a balancing point, if a mage can wear plate armor just like a warrior, whats the point of playing a warrior? just like amaranth said, no one would bring anyone else along if they could just have 3 mages in plate running around doing more damage than 40 warriors combined.
Not to beat a dead horse but I agree with the previous posts. If a mage could cast spells while wearing full plate armor he would be almost unstopable. He would be heavily overpowered and would throw the balance of the game way off.
If the wizard or sorcerer wants to spend the feats to take heavy armour--LET THEM... If that is what they choose rather than taking spell penetration-or whatever, then let them because they will just have an armor check penalty... just my 2 cents...
As others have said, in DnD mages can wear armour and as DDO has muli-classing it safe to assume they'll have the spell failure system in place rather than not allowing a mage cast spells while wearing armour.
I remember in Icewind Dale 2 the was the 3 ranks of Armored Arcana feat, each rank reducing spell failure from armor by 5%. Maybe DDO will have a similar feat.
as a alternative solution they could creat a "robe" armor which is still a bit of armor but not really. it is always hard to balance the game and all the tanks will be annoyed if the mage can also wear an armor and still does deal more damage overall to the mob. on the other hand i really like games where you have a lot of ways to go with your mage. I really like the idea of a half mage half warrior type. he buffs himself with buffs as faster attackspeed, different types of shields etc... and fights with a sword and can do elemental strikes etc. i really havent found a game yet which offers such a class. unfortunately
Final Fantasy XI's Red Mage, at first is such a class.
However, at higher levels where specialization becomes much more important, they become nearly useless as fighters.
And here's the problem with basing an MMORPG on an existing game. If you don't make it almost an exact match of the real thing, people are going to bitch.
If I see any mages wearing plate, I'll either quit or never have played. The original mage COULD NOT wear ANY armor. Just like warriors CANNOT cast spells. I grew up on DnD PnP. The original, not ADnD.
I think it's best if I just skip this game. They're going to screw it up. I can tell.
Oh, and it seems from this interview that most of the game is going to be instanced. So it's not an MMORPG at all. It's just an ORPG.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setview/features/loadFeature/43/gameID/163/
nethervoid - Est. '97
[UO|EQ|SB|SWG|PS|HZ|EVE|NWN|WoW|VG|DF|AQW|DN|SWTOR|Dofus|SotA|BDO|AO|NW|LA] - Currently Playing EQ1
20k+ subs YouTube Gaming channel
Easy to answer Xani.
IT WOULD UNBALACE THE GAME.
Simple as that. A mage is very powerfull and can make use of a lot of resources. To weight that up he (or she) needs huge amounts of money to fund her research & spellbook and is very vunurable on the battlefield.
'till swords meet again!
V.
A Wizard level 20 is the best tank in D&D if he set his spell rights.
I have no problem with them to sticking with the rulebook. Wearing armor have casting failure issues. There are ways around those issues, but they require a LOT of work. There are way also to get good armor without wearing any.
A wizard 20 should always be the strongest character, simply because a wizard 1 is the weakest. The progression of the wizard table have always been that way. With 2 spells at level 1, you will find the dungeons to be long and hard and you will be happy to have others toons to hang out with.
A fighter is on the other end of the spectrum, they are the strongest level 1 character, and the weakest level 20(well, actually barbarian are stronger at level 1, and weaker at level 20, but those differences are smalls).
I will be playing a fighter myself, and prolly a wizard/sorcerer later on if I really like this version of D&D.
Someone that complain that a wizard 20 is outmatching everyone else is simply not a D&D fan. If a wizard 20 cant solo something(I dont say that every wizard need to be able to, some need, depending on the spells and players skills), then nobody should be able to kill it either, no group, no raid, no nothing(unless it is an anti-wizard mob, then about any class can solo those usually). This is D&D.
D&D balance is in the progression chart, not on the lame everyone is equal to everyone...this is not the case and hopefully never will be.
Verdelis, you never meet a level 20 wizard on the battlefield to think they are vulnerables. They are not. Yet, if you find a flaw or they mess up, they died fast...usually, even then, I hope the spell clone will have a usefull twist and many other powerfull spells. And I start as a fighter...so this is not preaching for my side...
Balance in D&D is not as you understand it...the weakest become the strongest if they do stuff right...and the strongest will become the weakest.
The only exception to this rule is the thief, who is not on the same chart for battle, since they are not a class that is focused on battle, they are working on others aspect of the game, and they can be quite interesting to play. No real thief ever complain to be unable to be equal to the other class in fights(at low level they are stronger then wizard, but they will drop below everyone and they never bypass any class starting ahead of them, which is fine because of their use edges outside of battles).
Just play the class you prefer, I will be happy to play the warrior. I start stronger then anyone else...and I will always have the highest RAW melee damage of the game, of course a wizard can outmatch me on any topic he care and work on, but if he tank well, odds are he wont be able to ditch that much damage for a long time...yet, he can still ditch more damage for sometimes and tank better then anyone else...with the right spells...yet...he can use many of those spells on me....
Balance is just fine in D&D, it dont need the online evil balance concept...away with it.
A wizard level 1 is about the strenght of a kobold with 2 spells...it is extremely weak.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I grew up on DnD PnP. The original, not ADnD.
Which era TSR or when WOTC took over?
I agree with those who say "let them". DD3.5 provides for that. If a mage wants to spend his feats on armor prof. thats fine... as long as they understand that they need to put up with the spell failiure chance! And lets face it, if that stoneskin fails to go off when needed, a mage can be a in a hell of a lot of trouble.
t.
TLXS
You may want to reread the Mithril magical armors.
You may want to check for the feats and power that reduce the spell casting failure while wearing armor.
No, it is not a waste to go on that road...however, others roads lead for more power for a wizard or sorcerer. I dont even know if a mage(NPC only? Or is that a shorten abbrev for a prestigious class I didnt recognize?) can even wear armor in an efficient way.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
so it is the best or a mage to wear robe=,=
This is probably the worst place ever to ask that question. You are gonna get torn up in a DnD forum, heheh.
Anyways, even as a fighter/mage (which i usually was when i was a kid and played DnD on paper back in the late 80s) u have to wear cloth armor to cast your spells with any kind of consistency. Since the beginning of time mages are always portrayed by the old, long bearded, robe wearing magic man. It's the way it is, and the way it always should be.
But the major reason why this is almost ALWAYS the case is this: Mages have a tendency to have super high DPS, much higher than most melee. Melee classes sacrifice some of this super-high DPS to have the ability to take damage better.
If mages could wear armor, what would be the point of playing anything else? Sorry i couldn't respond to the OP better, but I'm still trying to figure out why someone would even ask this...It's like asking why the sky is blue.
Joined 2004 - I can't believe I've been a MMORPG.com member for 20 years! Get off my lawn!
mages need to have the option of wearing plate, it will take a mage 3 feats to wear it.