HYPERBOREA / Magical Armor and Class Abilities

**Posted by Handy Haversack** 4/17/2014 12:12 pm

Vol. 5, p. 123 wrote:
Magical armour is also about 50% lighter than comparable non-magical armour. Thus, heavy armour becomes medium; medium armour becomes light; and light armour becomes as unencumbering as normal clothing. This benefit, however, does not relax armour restrictions associated with character class.

I'm trying to figure out how to apply this bolded sentence. Partly because I'm not sure what "restrictions associated with character class" would be *other* than something based on armor weight.

I guess my question boils down to this: Does the "restriction" apply only to "Arnour Allowed" (e.g., fighter: any, magician: none; cleric: any; thief: light), or does it apply also to class abilities that have armor notes?

So, first e.g., the thief: It seems to follow that a thief cannot wear chain +1 because s/he is only *allowed* light armor.

But second e.g., the ranger's "Hide: When outdoors, if lightly armoured or unarmoured, able to hide as a thief of equal level"; could a ranger hide if wearing scale +1? The class is allowed any armor, but the ability can be performed "lightly armored," chain +1 would be.

Yes? Have I lost myself trying to find west again?

**Posted by DMPrata** 4/17/2014 12:59 pm

I'm only the editor, but I agree with your assessment: A ranger can hide in magical medium armour, but a thief can't even wear it.

**Posted by Handy Haversack** 4/17/2014 1:11 pm

DMPrata wrote:
I'm only the editor

We don't like that kind of talk around here!

Thanks, DMP!

Two of my players already have their spell casters hauling around splint mail since they're first level and only get a spell or two per day. Can't wait until they start asking questions like this . . .

**Posted by Yora** 4/17/2014 1:47 pm

At the beginning of the class descriptions it says:
"Armour Allowed: The armour types usable without compromising class abilities."

And in the spellcasting rules, there's a paragraph on page 101 saying "A sorcerer can wear prohibited armour if he is willing to risk spell failure."

Since sorcerers can wear prohibited armor, thieves would be able to do it too.

It should probably mean that the the armor enchantment reduces the weight category to calculate movement rate, but nothing else.

Last edited by Yora (4/17/2014 1:55 pm)

**Posted by Blackadder23** 4/17/2014 1:50 pm

I take a stringent view of the bolded sentence: magic armor doesn't relax any of the armor restrictions associated with class. So rangers still can't hide, barbarians still can't make mighty leaps, thieves still can't use most of their abilities, and spell-casters still risk spell failure if they violate the armor restrictions. The only advantage I give to magic armor, besides the defensive bonus, is lesser weight.

I would be curious to hear how Jeff intended it to work; I've occasionally been accused of being too strict (and sometimes less polite things).

Last edited by Blackadder23 (4/17/2014 1:51 pm)

**Posted by Ghul** 4/17/2014 1:52 pm

The intent was to lessen the encumbrance hit, but not allow for class-prohibited armour types (without penalties). Yora's assumption is correct.

**Posted by Blackadder23** 4/17/2014 1:53 pm

How about individual class abilities - i.e., can a barbarian make mighty leaps in magic banded armor or not?

**Posted by Handy Haversack** 4/17/2014 2:12 pm

Blackadder23 wrote:
How about individual class abilities - i.e., can a barbarian make mighty leaps in magic banded armor or not?

Actually, for that one, all the book says is that they have to be "unencumbered"; nothing about armor.

Ghul, do you mean that the penalty that applies to thievery should be carried over on to all class-based abilities when wearing magical armor of a type normally too heavy for that ability? Or that the ability should simply not be possible in that armor type, magic or not?

**Posted by mabon5127** 4/17/2014 2:21 pm

Blackadder23 wrote:
How about individual class abilities - i.e., can a barbarian make mighty leaps in magic banded armor or not?

The restriction on mighty leap is unencumbered. His armor would not matter as long as his weight carried fell in the unencumbered category.

**Posted by mabon5127** 4/17/2014 2:30 pm

Handy was just ahead of me. Didn't mean to gang post!

**Posted by Ghul** 4/17/2014 3:18 pm

Blackadder23 wrote:
How about individual class abilities - i.e., can a barbarian make mighty leaps in magic banded armor or not?

Since all armour types are allowed to the barbarian, and since the only leap restriction is encumbrance related, then yes, the barbarian can make the leap in any armour type -- so long as he is unencumbered.

**Posted by Ghul** 4/17/2014 3:25 pm

Handy Haversack wrote:
Blackadder23 wrote:
How about individual class abilities - i.e., can a barbarian make mighty leaps in magic banded armor or not?
Actually, for that one, all the book says is that they have to be "unencumbered"; nothing about armor.

Ghul, do you mean that the penalty that applies to thievery should be carried over on to all class-based abilities when wearing magical armor of a type normally too heavy for that ability? Or that the ability should simply not be possible in that armor type, magic or not?

If the armour type is allowed by the class, and if the ability is not expressed to have armour restrictions (e.g., unarmoured or lightly armoured only), then the ability(ies) in question are allowed and without penalty. For example, a bard may wear medium armour (as allowed by the class) and perform all his thiefly skills with impunity. For "game logic" one could say that he's been trained to deal with heavier armour than the average thief, and has learned to compensate for any inconvenience imposed by the heavier (in this case medium) armour types. Of course, it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: Do it however you like, fellows -- you are the masters of your own campaigns.

**Posted by Ghul** 4/17/2014 3:26 pm

mabon5127 wrote:
Handy was just ahead of me. Didn't mean to gang post!

And so I complete the trifecta, stating for a third time what's already been stated. Egads.

**Posted by mabon5127** 4/17/2014 3:37 pm

Ghul wrote:
mabon5127 wrote:
Handy was just ahead of me. Didn't mean to gang post!
And so I complete the trifecta, stating for a third time what's already been stated. Egads.

Hahaha! Sorry man.

**Posted by Blackadder23** 4/17/2014 4:25 pm

Sorry, I got confused because the berserker in my campaign couldn't jump in his plate mail (which made it really hard to get out of a green slime pit). But I guess it was because of encumbrance, rather than the armor type.

Ghul wrote:
Handy Haversack wrote:
Actually, for that one, all the book says is that they have to be "unencumbered"; nothing about armor.

Ghul, do you mean that the penalty that applies to thievery should be carried over on to all class-based abilities when wearing magical armor of a type normally too heavy for that ability? Or that the ability should simply not be possible in that armor type, magic or not?
If the armour type is allowed by the class, and if the ability is not expressed to have armour restrictions (e.g., unarmoured or lightly armoured only), then the ability(ies) in question are allowed and without penalty.

Not to harp on this point, but does that therefore mean that, for example, a ranger can't hide or move silently - abilities normally limited to light armor - while wearing magical chainmail?

I know we as referees can do whatever we want, but I'm curious as to the intent of the rule. Frankly I could see handling it either way, especially since it's hard to make a sensible argument about the "realism" of what can be done in magical armor.

**Posted by Ghul** 4/17/2014 7:13 pm

Not harping at all, BA23. It is true that the ranger is limited to light armour when attempting to hide or move silently, so even if the mail is magical, he is not adept at wearing it and employing those abilities.

**Posted by Yora** 4/18/2014 3:05 am

Edit: Sorry, missed a critical line in the rules, that makes the point I was making moot.

It still suprises me that rangers can only move silently in light armor, but is able to wear medium armor, while a thief can do it in medium armor with a -4 penalty, with which isn't among his allowed armor.

Last edited by Yora (4/18/2014 3:10 am)

**Posted by Ghul** 4/18/2014 6:29 am

Yora, I would probably allow the ranger the same -4 penalty as the thief. The most important thing to remember is that the ranger uses this skill in the outdoors only; the thief can do it anywhere.

I am open to tweaking some of these rules for the next printing, if warranted. Ideally, how would you see it done?

**Posted by Handy Haversack** 4/18/2014 7:40 am

Ghul wrote:
Yora, I would probably allow the ranger the same -4 penalty as the thief. The most important thing to remember is that the ranger uses this skill in the outdoors only; the thief can do it anywhere.

I am open to tweaking some of these rules for the next printing, if warranted. Ideally, how would you see it done?

Ghul, if I had my druthers, I think I would tweak to match the interpretation that DMPrata and I had. That is, that magical armor must always adhere to the class restrictions but not necessarily class-ability restrictions. A thief in magic chain operates at a penalty because the class is allowed only light armor. A ranger in magic chain can operate as if in light armor because the class is allowed any armor.

That gives magic armor a real benefit to the fighting subclasses and preserves the spirt of the thief and sorcerers and their subclasses.

Also, at least in my game, it's not like magic armor is going to be so common that this is going to come up a lot!

That said, I'd rather play the way the books say just do I don't have to keep too many things straight. I have enough trouble remembering the combat sequence!

**Posted by mabon5127** 4/18/2014 8:09 am

Handy Haversack wrote:
Ghul wrote:
Yora, I would probably allow the ranger the same -4 penalty as the thief. The most important thing to remember is that the ranger uses this skill in the outdoors only; the thief can do it anywhere.

I am open to tweaking some of these rules for the next printing, if warranted. Ideally, how would you see it done?
Ghul, if I had my druthers, I think I would tweak to match the interpretation that DMPrata and I had. That is, that magical armor must always adhere to the class restrictions but not necessarily class-ability restrictions. A thief in magic chain operates at a penalty because the class is allowed only light armor. A ranger in magic chain can operate as if in light armor because the class is allowed any armor.

That gives magic armor a real benefit to the fighting subclasses and preserves the spirt of the thief and sorcerers and their subclasses.

Also, at least in my game, it's not like magic armor is going to be so common that this is going to come up a lot!

That said, I'd rather play the way the books say just do I don't have to keep too many things straight. I have enough trouble remembering the combat sequence!

Me too. The magic makes the armor lighter but doesn't remove the bulk / flexibility issues. I agree with the spirit of the thieves / sorcerers thing. Too many exceptions make my brain hurt.