That actually sounds like a good way to resolve the "should magic-users be allowed to wear armor?" dispute. Try this rule on for size:
Magic-Users can wear armor, although it is always treated as mundane unless they are also Fighters. When casting a spell, however, they are treated as wearing no armor, since they are too busy focusing on the spell to dodge or otherwise defend effectively. If they choose to use any defense against an attack, the spell is automatically interrupted and lost.That's a little easier to remember and handle than the spell failure house rule I was using before. Note that I am keeping the rule that magic armor is only magic for Fighters and Clerics.
How about treating it as an attack from the rear instead? No new rules and thieves would get backstab bonuses.
ReplyDeleteI've been mulling over how to reply to this. If treating attacks on an armored spell caster as an attack from the rear counts as "not adding new rules", then so does treating them as attacks on unarmored targets. It's the same rule, but with "AC 9" replacing "-4 to AC". And I'd rather pick the option that involves no math, to make it easy to use.
DeleteBackstab -- or rather, surprise attack -- would work the same in either case.
Although I like your version better, Talysman, technically it is a new rule, as opposed to Hedgehobbit's; there is no other case where one's armour counts as AC X for some purposes and as AC Y for others, whereas one can simply add an extra condition determining when surprise attack applies.
DeleteWriting this post I just realised it may say otherwise in the core rules; it is my house rule that everyone gets +4 to-hit on surprise attacks (Thieves also gain damage bonus) and this makes the separate "attack from the rear" bonus obsolete (and it is against abstraction, as well).
So it turns out each of yours is a new rule...
This is interesting, and I like the style of the rule, but I'm not sure it provides much real trade-off. It seems like a magic-user has the following choices:
ReplyDelete1. Be AC 9 all the time (no armor)
2. Be AC 9 when casting spells and AC 2 (or whatever) all other times (with armor)
The choice seems obvious. If using this rule, I think one would need to be extremely strict about other armor downsides (movement rate, drowning, etc) or end up with all magic-users wearing armor (maybe not a terrible thing, but it would greatly change the risk dynamics of running a magic-user, especially at low levels).
Add to this that most low-level magic users will only be able to cast one or two spells per session, and the downside to wearing armor becomes even less salient (the low-level magic users in my Pahvelorn OD&D game not infrequently go entire sessions without actually casting a spell).