Aermas wrote...
D&D, which all great games are based on, Mages can't wear armor because it hinders spellcasting. This is how the mechanically balance the mage, with low HP & AC, the mage should not be anywhere close to combat, but in DA your mages have to be very close because of the proximity of the targets. To off set this in your face threat, & the cloth trope they let you have "enchanted" gear.
This does not mean we should apply this to Rogues just because we don't want to see them in armor. Just give them light armor that slowly upgrades & give the Warrior Heavy armor that slowly upgrades.
Why do you keep calling Isabela a battle hardened fighter one minute & argue that she isn't a "soldier" the next, Carver isn't a soldier, Warrior Hawke won't be a soldier. Training in a role does not go hand in hand with armor preference. Contrary to popular opinion armor has no "proficiency". You don't lose protection just cause you don't know about armor. The very first time I wore plate I had no clue how to put it on, but it did not hamper my fighting once it was on. Leather armor even less so.
You really don't want to end the discussion yet, do you
. Very well, I'll indulge you.
Let me begin with saying that D&D is probably the least realistic rpg combat system in the world, and far from all great games are based on it. But it can be quite enjoyable for those that do play it (I don't, other than in cRPGs. I prefer other systems) and if that's what they prefer then I support them playing it.
But yes, they did solve it by making armour hinder spell casting (by claiming that it prevents the finesse required for the somatic (which is to say movement) components of the casting itself <_<, just like with the penalties to move silently, acrobatics and stuff like that. You know as well as I do how ridiculous that is). I have yet to see this mentioned in the Dragon age setting thus far though.
But I also think the statement that mages and similar faces less threat than others is plain ridiclous. If we accept the fact that a sin gle hit is enough to kill (which we do if we claim that armour is necessary), then a single hit to a mage is also lethal. Fights take place in small areas of a 100 square meters at the most, often with archers involved. Conceptually, it's very probable that opponents would beeline towards and/or try to shoot the mage. Which thus puts them in just as much risk as the warriors or rogues.
Noone is safer than anyone else. Regardless of role in combat.
My counter to the put rogues in light armour thing. Okay, we've established that they should wear armour for safety. Fair enough. But why are we stopping at light armours? The group clearly affords light armours. Heavy armours do not hinder you (much). So why do we put the rogues in light armour? Why not go for heavy then?
Why is it so wrong to allow them to be unarmoured when we're not putting them in the heavier, but more protective, metal armours?
Why must there be a cloth - light - heavy dictomy (trictomy?) between the classes?
I know there is no armour profiency. But there are styles based on the fact that you won't wear it. These styles rely on the fact that you won't be wearing several kg and/or thick and volumous bolts of cloth of metal on your body. They are faster, more exertive and a whole lot more aggresive than "normal" styles. I'm proposing that Isabela would have several years of experience (which you know, is more important than any armour) with one of those. Why does these not work with armour? Usually because you become exhausted much quicker. The arms become heavy due to lactic acid and so on. It's not something ever intended for the battlefield but for short and hectic fights with few opponents. But it certainly exists, and it is not a bad style.
The reason I am stressing that she's not a soldier is because I think it is a very crucial point. Like the one I made about the baker. It relates to the scholar thing. Mages are conceptually considered to be scholars. Which is why they often are excused from armour (and given excuses). The archetypical one being Merlin, the very first robe-wearing mage. The robe sort of tagged along but originally it was sort of a important indication: These people do not fight. Now mages sort of wear robes out of tradition, even if they do fight. Often given various excuses that allows them to do so. But the point is still there.
These are people that spend much of their lives in academic study. They don't practise combat skills and lead a rather calm life. Their social position in Thedas symbolised by the robe. Much like the priests of the chantry, who also lead a calm and non-violent life.
Soldiers do not lead a non-violent life and train every day for the fact. Their social station symbolised by the armour and the sword. They are not calm academics, but active men of violence. Hence the need for armour.
Now come the point where it all muddles. The game is combat centric so we need people in combat. The soldier-types are easy. The mages are given a free pass due to their roots as a non-combatant.
My argument is thus this: Isabela, sailor and duelist, is also, to an extent, a non-combatant. As is Varric. They have just as much "right" as a mage does to not wear armour. They become combatants in the game because combat is the primary challange presented not because it fits their character. Hypothetically if combat was rare in the game, you would not demand them to wear armour. Would you?
The core of my argument is that they should not have to wear armour because, even if good at fighting, not combatants, at the root concept, just like mages are.
Now of course, if we make the claim that mages should wear armour then the basis of that argument is of course not valid. But then all characters should wear plate (if available), because why not? It does, as you say, not hinder anything.
Retour en haut
inconsequential. So long as clothing can be enchanted, and there is no reason it can't be enchanted to be functionally equivalent to armour, there is no reason to treat it differently from armour.
