Forget Kensai

Remove all ads!

What I meant was the Plate Mail that gave a bonus to Dexterity, which I now realize wasn't what you meant in the first place.

And I suppose the Mages of the realms simply love diving into the middle of melee weaing a gown or a full-length dress, either. Not to mention travelling in swampy areas, traversing the bowels of the city slums, climbing mountains...

 

You can expect a Kensai to be a swift fighter, quick and nimble, ready to dodge and duck. I can picture such a fighter as some sort of acrobat and martial artist, evading blows and so on...

A Mage wielding a staff or a dagger is not going to rely so much on speed and freedom of movement. Perhaps some basic moves with the weapon and nothing too fancy in the way of feints or avoiding blows.

IMO the Kensai being the ultimate DEX based fighter and all about finesse can only be hampered by wearing some sort of robe.

I was being sarcastic, nevertheless should a Mage get "into the middle of melee" he/she will most probably die (without mantle or protective magics on of course). Mages don't tank.

 

I still see the long flowing mage robes as a viable 'armor' for a kensai, being a simple and light cloth loosly bound to the body it wouldn't impede movement or manuverability.

Indeed wearing one would be a bonus to a kensai exaggerating their shape making it more difficult to be struck, also it would conceal their footwork and any sudden body movements making it harder for their opponents to predict any attacks and attempt to defend against them.

EDIT: Perhaps all mage robes should have some small ac bonus vs. piercing/missile for those reasons?

 

Mine does. You forgot Iron Golem/Ooze form.

Well unless there's a breeze the Mage will need to move around a lot to make sure this happens.
I think this can potentially hamper spellcasting, though.

 

Why don't two people just hop online with a Kensai/mage and a Berserker/Mage at the same level with exact same spells and close to the same equipment as possible (Minus Vecna Cheese) and see who wins??

 

Actually, I'm fairly certain that druidic weapon restrictions work the same as wizard or thief restrictions. For example, druids have no prohibitions against metal weapons (spear, dagger, scimitar). The BG2 F/D is just plain messed up. The F/D is supposed to be subject to Druidic armor restrictions (and would be unable to cast spells for days if he donned metal armor) but should be able to use any weapon. Druidic weapon restrictions, like wizard or thief restrictions, are not due to the Druid's ethos and should not be applied to Fighter/Druids. I'm sure Felinoid will be by soon to disagree with me, though.

 

According to the AD&D rules, both Armor and Weapons are restricted by the Druid's ethos, AFAIR (I don't own the books anymore).

The scimitar looks like a crescent moon, the spear and staff are natural, ect..

 

Actually, the PH stays mute on the subject. However, while it spells out negative repercussions for when a Cleric uses a forbidden weapon or a Druid wears forbidden armor, it says nothing at all about Druids wielding forbidden weapons.

 

This makes me so very glad I got the Complete Druids' Handbook recently. You're right that the PHB doesn't go into it, but the CDH has over a full page on the subject. Unfortunately, most of that is RPing consequences (dealing with the druidic Order and such).

Actually, no. There are no specified "negative repercussions" for improper weaponry, they just can't train in those weapons. A druid could always pick up a two-handed sword and, in a pinch, wave it around like an idiot hoping he'll hit something. Same goes for a single class wizard picking up a polearm. And a cleric can always pick up a sword and swing it around as well. Yes, it's bad RPing if the cleric is looking to actually 'spill blood', since that's why they only use blunt weapons, but there's really nothing preventing them from doing so, except perhaps as outlined below.

I also have not seen anything specifically regarding non-natural armors inflicting harm on druids' spell-casting abilities. It is not in any source book I have seen, and between the PHB, DMG, and CDH, I don't think there would be anything else out there. There is, however, a very vague mention of deities punishing behavior that is contrary to their ethos. This puts the decision of how to enforce it entirely up to the DM, and they may not even hold clerics to the "no bladed weapons" clause, so long as it's not a regular thing (it'd be stupid anyway, if you have to suffer through a non-proficiency penalty).

I could very easily see druids not being able to channel their powers through metal armor, not unlike how a sheet of lead blocks X-rays, but a fighter/druid may be ruled upon differently depending on the DM. After all, metal weapons are technically not unnatural, having come from the earth. If the human touch in shaping the metal is what the problem is, then leather armor should be out as well (cows aren't people-shaped, and don't tend to tan their own hides), and wooden weapons too. (Carving a tree? You monsters! For that matter, what did they fashion it with...)

 

Well, there are ways to justify it. For example, one might argue that a character with a DEX of 6 or so should not be virtually indistinguishable in his/her movements from a character with a DEX of 25 just because they are both wearing armor. Arguably, the stiffness and weight are already factored into the base AC offered by the armor.

The explanation offered by DMG1 was:

 

Felinoid's comments make sense, in that a pure Druid never got around to *training* in how to use swords, so are next to useless in wielding them. A Fighter / Druid on the other hand has scarificed some of his Druid training to spend time down at the gym with the personal swordplay trainer and is therefore able to use one without looking like an idiot.

 

He's also right that it's up to the DM to decide how it should go as well. In ToEE, for example, the repercussions for a Druid using weapons or armor against his ethos are dire indeed.

 

I've never been comfortable with the whole idea of ac defining how hard someone is to hit. Shouldn't dex and light armour give dodge/avoid bonuses instead of ac.

Logically speaking someone stomping around in full plate would be easier to hit than someone in a light leather jerkin.

Wouldn't ac be a better determiner in how difficult the person is to hurt than to be hit.

Lets say an archer was firing at the fighter in full plate and a thief in leather armour.
i) The thief would be better at avoiding being hit but when they were, the leather armour would offer virtually no protection and the arrow cause serious damage.
ii) The fighter in full plate would be struck more often but the arrows would likely deflect off the massive plate, even assuming one did manage to penetrate it would be stopped by the chainmail and quilting beneath.
iii) Likewise with a shield, you are still being struck but it stops you from being hurt.

...or am i thinking way off the mark here?

[ July 28, 2006, 12:26: Message edited by: Pseudospawn ]

 

@Pseudospawn: I do agree with the comments in your last post about light and heavy armours.

But I do have doubts about the idea that a Robe could conceal your "footwork" or give "some small ac bonus vs. piercing/missile".

I'm not sure someone could really dodge arrows either... Except in Kung Fu movies.

 

This is just to illustrate why you shouldn't try to rationalize BG rules in real world terms. I remember someone saying that Druids were true neutral because they believe in maintaining balance in the world. But what if a druid felt that there was far more evil in the world than good. Then, in accordence with his interpretation of his beliefs, he would turn into a chaotic good character. Kensai aren't supposed to be able to wear anything, its how the kit was designed and to give them the ability to wear robes is just a clear breach of the rules. Even if you could justify it in real world terms, which you can't robes are a hindrance in any fight as is (for that matter) all baggy clothing. If you've ever been in a fight while wearing a jacket or something like that you know how frustrating it is. Anyway, I digress, it just seems inconsistent that a kensai/mage can wear a robe, but a kensai/thief can't wear leather armor.

 

Ehh...I agree with the OP...Kensai's suck, and a Berserker/Mage hammers a Kensai/Mage into oblivion any given day of the week...

I could say why...but I don't have to. All my opinions have already been posted in this thread.

Cheers...

 

Remember those wimpy robes back in BG1? The ones your mages would wear before they could get their hands on a Robe of the Archmagi? Well, there was no piercing resistance, but between them the three (not counting the three elemental robes) did have bonuses against everything else.

Actually, no. Druids are not the kind of crusaders that Jaheira makes them look like. They don't rush off at every little thing, righting every wrong. "Druids tend to view all things as cyclic, and thus, the battles of good and evil are only the rising and falling tides of time. Only when the cycle and balance are disrupted does the druid become concerned."

Must...resist...arrrgh... *saving throw: critical failure*

UAI.

 

Lol Fel, you know he meant wearing an armour before getting UAI.

I agree completely with Gatsbygoon's digression.

 

He only gets penalized for using forbidden armours. There are no ethos restrictions for weapons in 3E.

@Felinoid: The PHB uses the word "forbidden" regarding druids and non-natural armours. It uses the word "limited" regarding weapons. Weapon restrictions for Clerics are classified under "ethos" and the PHB clearly implies that clerics who are against shedding blood are forbidden from using bladed weapons. In other words, a priest of a healing deity can't use a Claymore without consequences.

So, to recap: The verbiage for druidic armor restrictions is "forbidden" (clearly implying an ethos restriction) while the PHB merely spells out penalties for wearing any armor for a mage or armor heavier than studded leather for rogues.

The verbiage for weapon restrictions for mages, druids, and thieves is "limited"....which does not imply an ethos limitation at all.

Priestly weapon restrictions are placed under the "ethos" heading, so it's pretty clear where they fall.

 

"Robe" can arguably encompass a variety of clothing types. Kensais should be able to wear clothes, at the very least.

I don't know how it was implemented after 1E, but in 1E the principle was that magic armor was both lighter (even weightless) and less restrictive/bulky. So, while a normal robe might inhibit movement, a magical robe should be no different from normal clothing.

Leather armor is not like clothing -- it is hardened by boiling it in oil, so it's more restrictive (less so if it's magical).

That's already how it works.