Heavy Armor isn't preventing magic?

[RaustBlackDragon]

So I'm playing a file with a paladin type character who uses a sword and shield as well as priest magic, but I've discovered that I seem to have somehow broken that restriction without any points in swordmage, because I have on equipment in excess of -40% to-hit penalty with all hit bonus equipment removed, and I can STILL cast spells. Does anybody know of any reason why this might have happened? Is there a known cause of this sort of thing?

[Lilith]

Armour only impedes mage spells, not priest spells.

[RaustBlackDragon]

...Oh. Is there any particular reason for that from a balance perspective?

[Lilith]

I'm sure I could invent possible reasons for it, but in reality it's pretty much just a holdover from D&D. Clerics wear armour, wizards wear robes.

[Rowen]

I believe it comes from the original design of the game (Exile) that was based on D&D. In D&D priests could use heavy armor, while magi could not. I could be remembering wrong too.

 

 

[RaustBlackDragon]

Well then, I'm glad I chose my light-armor archer-mage to be the mage spell user

[Alorael at Large]

I think the balance perspective was initially that mage spells did damage and priest spells did not. In order to be combatants, priests needed another way to deal damage, and that was usually melee. To survive melee, the characters needed armor.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't know if this reasoning was ever actually used, in D&D or by Spiderweb, but it justifies it decently. At least until you consider how effective priests have been at killing things with magic, anyway.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: This space intentionally garbled

I think the balance perspective was initially that mage spells did damage and priest spells did not. In order to be combatants, priests needed another way to deal damage, and that was usually melee. To survive melee, the characters needed armor.

—Alorael, who doesn't know if this reasoning was ever actually used, in D&D or by Spiderweb, but it justifies it decently. At least until you consider how effective priests have been at killing things with magic, anyway.

If I had to bet money on it, I'd say the explanation is simply that the mediaeval warrior-priests that the D&D cleric was (loosely and partially) based on, like Odo of Bayeux, wore armour, so the cleric was given the ability to do so too. A lot of the early D&D character classes came from people saying "I want to play a guy like this" and Gygax or Arneson working out how to stat out a guy like that. Class balance wasn't really a thing in the very early days of D&D: differential level-up rates were a kind of ad-hoc attempt to balance out classes after the fact, but never worked all that well. The original thief, for example, had d4 hit dice, so-so combat skills and couldn't use many of its unique abilities in armour. The thief was the class you took when you rolled terrible stats and hoped to either get lucky enough to gain some fast levels or die trying and make a new character.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

The thief was the class you took when you rolled terrible stats and hoped to either get lucky enough to gain some fast levels or die trying and make a new character.

Since the thief was the point man in dugeons openning locked doors and looking for traps, he had a short lifespan anyway.

"You detect no traps" - means you missed your roll
"You hear nothing on the other side of the door" - means the monsters heard your party and are waiting quietly for the door to open.

[Lilith]

also if you go around listening at every door you're liable to get attacked by an ear seeker

[Alorael at Large]

Because D&D is the game in which everything in the room, including floor, ceiling, walls, doors, furniture, and empty space can all be monsters that want to kill you.

 

—Alorael, who thinks the idea of D&D as extreme Darwinian dystopia is underused. Of course everyone can go from helpless farmer to unstoppable killing machine in a few short adventures. There's huge selection pressure against not gaining levels!

[Aleric]

I always assumed it was due to movement. Mage spells involve intricate movement and hand gestures that are cumbersome in heavy armor. Priest spells are mainly prayers and powers channeled through a holy symbol that don't need a lot of movement to accomplish.

[Alorael at Large]

Yes, but why? Why aren't mage spells just arcane chants? Why do priests just shout prayers at their gods? Real-world religions include plenty of gestures that priests make.

 

—Alorael, who appreciated the D&D 3rd edition change where only some spells required movements, or sounds, or the various other parts of spellcasting. It also makes for Order of the Stick jokes.

[Randomizer]

AD&D 1st edition specified whether spells required verbal, somatic (gestures), and ingredients. This always sent the mage players checking through the spell list to find spells that didn't need verbal components when trapped in a silence 15 foot radius.

[Aleric]

Very true. I'd completely forgotten about the spell requirements from earlier editions! I've been stuck in 4th ed too long.