Quote from: Axiomatic;485322Thing is, why DON'T wizards wear armor?

They do wear armor in RuneQuest, Stormbringer, Tunnels & Trolls, Fantasy Hero and GURPS.

Quote from: Axiomatic;485322Dead wizards cast no spells!

Liches?

The purpose a mage could not wear armor in old D&Ds was more related to "gamey" reasons than setting ones, no? if so, I think trying to come up with explanations will only make things lamer.

Quote from: silva;485334The purpose a mage could not wear armor in old D&Ds was more related to "gamey" reasons than setting ones, no? if so, I think trying to come up with explanations will only make things lamer.

I dunno... I think it's equal parts gamey and image. Merlin, for example, was depicted in robes, not the plate armor of the knights of the round. Many conventional fantasy images of wizards seem more appropriate to a college setting than a combat setting. This sort of ignores the fact that D&D mages are combat mages and some armor would make sense. So why wouldn't a wizard wear armor becomes and immediate question.

Quote from: Spinachcat;485333They do wear armor in RuneQuest, Stormbringer, Tunnels & Trolls, Fantasy Hero and GURPS.

Yep, another of the many reasons that MY favorite flavor of rules-lite is based on BRP. Want your wizard to be a decent swordsman? Sure... but while he practices fencing he'll be neglecting his magical studies.
Want your barbarian warrior to learn some spells, OK, but his buddies might stop asking him to go out carousing with them... and forget to mention that raid they're planning for next Wednesday.
You can still have the niche-protection stuff if you want it... but it comes just as easily (and less annoyingly) from setting norms and customs and limitations on resources.

Quote from: Simlasa;485343Yep, another of the many reasons that MY favorite flavor of rules-lite is based on BRP. Want your wizard to be a decent swordsman? Sure... but while he practices fencing he'll be neglecting his magical studies.

Sure. And in Fantasy Craft, wizards can wear armor, but unless they spend feats picking up additional training in armor, they are going to suffer penalties. Sure, you could do it (and some do), but there's a tradeoff.

This seems to have wandered a little bit from the thread topic, but it illustrates to me the actuality about how liberating rules light really is. In reality, it's a trade off. You make rules to give a game form, but then you quickly begin to see places where some people want to try something different that aren't accommodated by the rules. And sure, the GM could house rule things, but some GMs want their rules to handle most such situations without having to hack it.

Here was my thinking with dealing with armor.

1. If you're not proficient with armor, you can't wear it period.
2. If you're not proficient with armor, you have to track penalties for wearing it (which guarantees that no one who isn't proficient will wear armor).
3. Everyone can wear any armor.

#2 produces a bunch of extra rules and #3 isn't how D&D works, so I figured #1 was the easier way to handle it.

I wouldn't have thought armour proficiency penalties were that complicated. If anything its just that 3.5 overcomplicates the idea immensely with its separate armour check penalty, % spell failure, then rules to modify the amount of the penalty for being masterwork etc.

If you were trying to do it simply:
1) Non-proficient characters take a penalty to all Dexterity-based rolls equal to their armour's AC bonus.
2) Wizards wearing armour must make a Concentration (or whatever) check, including their armour penalty.

If you want everyone to be able to use armor in D&D, here's a system I came up with in the late 1970s for OD&D and AD&D and posted to my blog in 2009. It should be easy to adapt to B/X, BECMI/RC and 2e. Probably not much harder to adapt to 3e (but it might make hash of some feats). A version of this is included in Microlite74 Companion 1: Optional Rules, so it really is fairly easy to adapt.

QuoteArmor for All Classes in OD&D

One thing that really seems to sit wrong with some players in older versions of D&D are the armor and weapons limitations on classes. Some players really want their magic-users to wield swords and wear armor. While I've never felt this way, I did come up with a system back in the late 1970s that allows any character class to wear any type of armor while doing a fair job of maintaining the "balance" of each class.

Base Armor Class: Each class has a base armor class that is in effect anytime the character is conscious and not tied up to the point they can't move at all. This base armor class takes into account the character's combat training which allows him to dodge and parry blows.

Fighting Man -- Base AC of 5
Paladin/Ranger/Monk -- Base AC of 6
Cleric/Druid/Bard -- Base AC of 7
Thief/Assassin -- Base AC of 8
Magic-User/Illusionist -- Base AC of 9

Any character who is unconscious or heavily restrained has a Base AC of 9. Other classes should be slotted in on the level of the character that makes the most sense. ONLY the fighting man should get a Base AC of 5, however. Other fighter classes/subclasses should come in on the Paladin/Ranger/Monk line at best. The Monk is a special case, the AC by levels given in the monk class chart simply need to be replaced, starting with AC 6 instead of AC 9.

Armor: Armor adds to the character's Base AC when worn. Armor may have side effects for some classes. (Remember that a plus to AC in older versions of D&D reduced one's AC.)

Leather Armor: +1 to AC. Magic-Users and Illusionists cannot cast their highest level of spells known while wearing Leather Armor.

Chainmail Armor: +2 to AC. Magic-Users and Illusionists cannot cast their two highest levels of spells known while wearing Chainmail. Thief abilities are halved while wearing Chainmail.

Plate Armor: +3 to AC. Magic-Users and Illusionists cannot cast their three highest levels of spells known while wearing Plate Armor. Thief abilities are unusable while wearing Plate Armor.

Shield: +1 to AC, only when character is concious and mobile. Magic-Users and Illusionists cannot cast their highest level of spells known using a shield -- if they are using a shield and armor tthe shield adds 1 to the levels of spells they cannot use.

Examples: An unarmored OD&D fighting man is AC 5. The same fighting man in plate armor and using a shield would be AC 1.

An unarmored 10th level (OD&D) wizard would be AC 9 and could cast spells normally. If that tenth level wizard wears chainmail, she would be AC 7 but would not be able to cast any of her 4th or 5th level spells. A 1st through 4th level magic user wearing chainmail would not be able to cast any spells at all.

This system was playtested with OD&D and AD&D 1e rules (reduce base AC by 1 as the worst AC in AD&D is 10 instead of 9) in the late 1970s and worked well. I did not use this much back then and probably would not use it today, but a number of groups in South Texas were using these rules back in the day as they were published in a local gaming club newsletter.

Quote from: kryyst;485226The strength of rules light to me has always been about less rules providing for way more options.   I just don't see the point in rules light because options are locked down.

I think its fair to say that system lightness/simplicity is not always related to flexibility or free-formness.

Quote from: RandallS;485364If you want everyone to be able to use armor in D&D, here's a system I came up with in the late 1970s for OD&D and AD&D and posted to my blog in 2009. It should be easy to adapt to B/X, BECMI/RC and 2e. Probably not much harder to adapt to 3e (but it might make hash of some feats). A version of this is included in Microlite74 Companion 1: Optional Rules, so it really is fairly easy to adapt.

Randall, those are pretty nifty ideas...how do you feel about class lvl. bonuses to those starting #'s, maybe for the fighter/sub-types but none for the others (or maybe costing xp or something)?

Quote from: B.T.;485223To be fair, I should probably add that my idea of "rules light" is significantly crunchier than most other gamers' ideas.  I'm using a lot of 3e-isms in the game (such as attacks of opportunity, Fort/Ref/Will savings throws, and a slew of classes), but I'm drastically paring everything down to the bone (all saving throws and skill checks are DC 15, for instance, and races are classes).

How does the DC 15 thing work out exactly in your hack? I had a similar idea (even right down to the DC 15) at while ago and noodled about it for a bit and would like some other ideas...

Quote from: Spinachcat;485333They do wear armor in RuneQuest, Stormbringer, Tunnels & Trolls, Fantasy Hero and GURPS.

In GURPS your encumbrance level subtracts off your spell rolls thus mages have good reasons not to wear armor. Particularly in GURPS 4e where it is your Health that grants fatigue not Strength.

Roll d20 + modifiers vs. DC 15.  15+ = success.  14 or less = failure.

Skill checks work similarly, though there are no skill ranks.  You are either trained in a skill or untrained.  If you are trained in a skill, you can use the skill and most of the time you don't have to worry about skill checks.  For instance, the thief and fighter don't have to make climb checks to scale a wall; they are assumed to be trained well enough that they can easily do so.  (In contrast, the wizard is considered incapable of scaling the wall without their assistance.)

When a situation comes up when there's a reasonable chance of failure, you make a skill check vs. DC 15.  For characters trained in a skill, your skill check is equal to 1d20 + your relevant stat modifier + 3 + half your level.  Characters untrained in a skill have the same formula but lose the +3 bonus.  (That makes it sound more complicated than it really is.)  Easy checks give you a +5 bonus, moderately difficult checks give you a +0 bonus, and hard checks give you a -5 penalty.

In some situations, the DM might allow an untrained skill check.  Going back to the earlier wall example, if the fighter and thief lower down a knotted rope to let the wizard climb up after them, so the DM lets the wizard attempt to climb it.  The wizard makes an untrained skill check (1d20 + his Strength modifier + half his level) against DC 15.  If he succeeds, he manages to pull himself up the rope.  If he fails, he can't climb the rope and will have to find another way over the wall.

I'm still doing a little tinkering with how this all works in regard to opposed checks (mostly hiding/sneaking and being noticed) but the basic system is in place.

Ah, if you get bonus or penalties to your roll then it's basically a hybrid of 4ed and C&C. What I was thinking of was the DC always being 15 (no situational penalties or bonuses), not bothering to roll for the easy stuff and then the DM rolls some dice to see if there is some nasty side-effect for nastier tests (ie you jump across the chasm and make the DC 15 check BUT you're holding on for dear life to the edge of the chasm on the other side). Just some random thinking, nothing more developed than that.

Quote from: estar;485394In GURPS your encumbrance level subtracts off your spell rolls thus mages have good reasons not to wear armor. Particularly in GURPS 4e where it is your Health that grants fatigue not Strength.

But then you can have a mage with good health/endurance that can wear armor and cast spells normally, right ?