Added: Spellcasting in armour...

[SimDing0]

You've done thieving skills in heavy armour, and that's great. However, why should other stuff like spellcasting also be disabled in armour? It'd be better to allow spellcasting, but either with a % chance spellcasting failure or an increase in casting time. Elven chain should remain the same.

 

Come to think of it, if you're allowing thieving and spellcasting, maybe pure thieves and mages should be allowed to use armour? And helms. And... other items. Hmm, I'm getting ahead of myself now, but AoE's universal weapons concept is rather a nice idea.

 

Well... hopefully you get vaguely what I mean.

[Andyr]

I don't think that Universal Armour is a good idea...

 

... but I do think that allowing multiclass arcane characters (or bards) to wear armour and cast with penalties is a good idea. So such characters aren't restricted to Elven Chain when available. I mean, bards have to be armourless for all of BG1 really, they can't even use Mage Robes.

 

I don't think it'd be that hard to code - the Disable Spell Casting effect used by the armours could be patched to be replaced by a Casting failure modifier with different values depending on armour types.

 

Though I don't know if arcane casting can have a penalty applied without affecting innate or Clerical spells too?

 

Anyhow, I have the 3E armour failure percentages in my books at home if anyone's interested.

 

I'd rather go for casting failure like 3E than increase in casting time.

[SimDing0]

I don't think that Universal Armour is a good idea...

Why not?

 

I'd rather go for casting failure like 3E than increase in casting time.

I suggested increased casting time because it's likely to be less frustrating than a random chance of your spell going balls-up. It's also not unbalancing because the most you can get to contradict it is a decrease of 1 by the Amulet of Power.

[Andyr]

I see armour restrictions as being generally a good thing because of the power balance of the game (though admittedly the concept of balance is often argued about). As we're discussing in chat, a mage-thief or sorceror walking around in full plate and a shield is going to pretty much walk through the game without a scratch.

 

The game's RP reasons against it - mostly various classes not being trained to wear it, or it interfering with the delicate movements mages need to make to cast, I think make sense. Though as you say, there's no reason that they can't physically wear it, which is what the BG2 game says. So for me I guess it's largely some desire for balance in an already - unbalanced game.

 

I like the way 3E does it - you can learn to wear armour effectively or use shields (like weapon proficiencies, you get proficiency with light/medium/heavy armour and shields) by taking feats.

 

As for time/failure, well, I think the frustration is better!

[CamDawg]

I admit I do like this idea, and the idea of spell failure would likely be enough of a trade-off for most magic-users. The problem is that I don't think you can apply a miscast/casting failure or casting time penalty for arcane magic only, which would penalize divine magic users with no compensation.

 

Interesting idea, though, maybe I'll play around and see if it can be implemented.

[Andyr]

Think we can make it selectively hinder arcane spells, using this effect:

#60 (0x3c) Stat: Miscast Magic [60]

    Parameter #1: Percent Chance

    Parameter #2: Type

    Description:

    The targetted creature(s) will fail to cast the type of spell

    specified by the 'Type' field, 'Percent Chance' percent

    of the time.

   

    Known values for 'Type' are:

    0 Mage Spells

    1 Cleric Spells

    2 Innate

    3 Mage Spells

    4 Cleric Spells

    5 Innate

   

    'Type' values of 0,1 or 2 display a message -'Spell Failed:

    casting failure'

    'Type' values of 3,4 or 5 display a message -'Spell failed

    due to dead magic'

   

    The Dice values act as a level range. The Dice Throw value

    sets the maximum level creature to be affected. The Dice

    Side value sets the minimum level creature to be affected

    - eg. a value of 4d2 will target any creature with a level

    of 4, 3 or 2. If the dice throws and size are both set to

    zero, the effect targets all levels.

[CamDawg]

Cool, thanks. If it works, then it should be fairly easy (knock on wood) to implement.

[CamDawg]

And it does indeed affect arcane without messing with divine/innate.The casting time penalties don't look like they can be focused this way. Andyr, how 'bout those penalty tables then?

 

I hadn't thought about allowing pure thieves and mages to go ahead and use heavy armor directly, but it does make sense given the changes re: spellcasting and thieving being made.

[Andyr]

I'll get the tables soon - Wednesday night is when I'm back home, unless someone else wants to post first?

 

Regarding direct use of heavy armour, if you want to do it then could I suggest it as another separate component? This is largely for power reasons. What would you do to kits like the Stalker, though, and classes like the Bard?

[CamDawg]

It'll definitely be a separate component. If we go whole hog and make a Universal Armor ™ component, it would probably be better split into its own mod.

 

As for usability changes, I guess it comes down to whether you believe (for example) that thieves are restricted from armor heavier than leather because they can not actually do thiefy stuff in it. If so, then implementing penalties rather than disabling thieving negates the need for such a restriction already, as the penalties are supposed to address this point in a less hard-line fashion.

 

This is my preliminary line of thought, though I'd love to hear arguments on it yay or nay. If we're going to give mages and sorcies access to armor and shields, then opening it up to bards would also make sense.

 

Kits require more care--for example, giving Stalkers access to plate negates the sole disadvantage of the class.

[SimDing0]

It'll definitely be a separate component. If we go whole hog and make a Universal Armor component, it would probably be better split into its own mod.

If you're making Universal Armour in its own mod, it might be worth including other item types too. There's not much reason my mage can't pick up a shield or put something on his head, really.

[Andyr]

I think base usability should be left as is - lack of heavy armour for thieves is, for example, one of the disadvantages of the class. The skill penalties I see as more of a compensation for multiclass characters.

[CamDawg]

I think for now I'll stay away from messing with usability and file it away under my 'nifty ideas' folder. After thinking about it for a bit, I remembered IWD2 has spellcasting penalties. It uses the following:

 

5% - Buckler, Small Shield*

10% - Leather Armor

15% - Large Shield, Medium Shield, Studded Leather

20% - Hide Armor*

25% - Scale Mail

30% - Chain Mail, Elven Chain Mail

35% - Full Plate

40% - Plate Mail, Splint Mail

50% - Tower Shield

 

* Some small shields are listed with 5% penalties, other as 15% and Hide Armor ranges from 10 - 20%. The figures used above are 3e, I believe.

 

I'm rather surprised that elven chain mail has casting penalties--I'm not really inclined to add one when I code this up.

[Andyr]

I think in pnp Elven Chain has a reduced penalty. But I'd go for no penalties, as it is now.

 

Those numbers look similar to how I recall 3E rules to be.

[SimDing0]

It looks to me as if you put your shield away when you start casting.