Armor of Righteousness (From "Breeding Pits" - Thanks Joe!)

[Philhelm]

I haven't gotten around to purchasing "Into the Breeding Pits" yet, but I flipped through some pages at my local hobby store and stumbled on something that I dreamed of:  The Armor of Righteousness.

The Armor of Righteousness is for Thaumaturges only, confers +2 Armor, but prevents the wizard from casting Necromancer, Summoner, or Elementalist spells.

I was engaged in a conversation about armor months ago, and wanted a way to better represent alternative casters, such as the D&D Cleric.  I like the armor, and while the penalty seems steep (especially losing out on Elementalist spells), it provides a nice way to theme the Wizard.

What do you think of the armor?  With the ring, amulet, and Shield Spell, the wizard would have 16 Armor, but would be restricted from using the above-mentioned spells.  Do you think it is a balanced item, too powerful, or perhaps not worth the sacrifice?

[Bishop Cockthrottle]

I think the balance looks about right but we will see when it comes into play - if you have to buy it then 600gc is pretty expensive - if you get it as a treasure roll then you deserve it. The same goes for rings and amulets etc and it cuts down on what else you can carry. Casting defensive spells means you use that Action instead of doing something to the opponent or buffing a member of your own warband.

My regular opponent and I tend not to try and murder each others casters unless they become targets of opportunity. I call this The Colonial Approach - let the natives do the fighting. So it may not be that useful for some games.

High Armour is the thing to have I think and I like to buff my warband as much as possible - even that +1 saves lives ;-)

[Azzabat]

With armour 16 you're going to be virtually immortal. If you got hit by a natural 20 every turn it would take 5 turns to kill you (if you're not using the double damage rules).

Personally I don't like armour on wizards, even for the trade off in spells. It just doesn't fit with my flowing robe, long haired, staff wielding image of what a Wizard should be, but each to his own. I'd be interested to see how this pans out, and if you felt the trade off of spells was worth the armour protection?

[Philhelm]

With armour 16 you're going to be virtually immortal. If you got hit by a natural 20 every turn it would take 5 turns to kill you (if you're not using the double damage rules).

Personally I don't like armour on wizards, even for the trade off in spells. It just doesn't fit with my flowing robe, long haired, staff wielding image of what a Wizard should be, but each to his own. I'd be interested to see how this pans out, and if you felt the trade off of spells was worth the armour protection?

I agree that we shouldn't have most of the wizards running around in armor.  However, I was hoping that there would be at least some opportunity for armor of some sort, specifically since I love the D&D cleric class, which casts divine spells and can wear armor.  In fact, I already imagine my Thaumaturge to be a cleric, and will give him a mace when I complete the model.  It's no coincidence that the Armor of Righteousness is only for Thaumaturges; Joe certainly had the cleric in mind.

Regarding the balance, I think the loss of three schools of magic is a steep penalty.  Fortunately, when (more like if) I can get a full-fledged campaign going, I wasn't going to take Necromancy/Summoner spells.  However, the loss of Elemental spells is a big loss, particularly because of Elemental Bolt which is probably the best basic offensive spell.  In addition, the Wizard would need to use three items slots in order to reach Armor 16 in conjunction with the Shield spell.  This would leave one slot open for a weapon and one other item.  He would be a defensive beast but would lack the versatility of other Wizards.  In addition, it would take fewer than five hits with a roll of 20 to kill him, since that does not take into account Fight/Damage bonuses.  Even a Fight 2 opponent would inflict 6 damage on the roll of a 20.

Finally, while I love the Thaumaturge school, it's spells aren't really that impressive, so it might not be too unfair that only they can have bona fide armor.  Heal is good, since it can help mitigate miscasts, but the wizard can't cast it while in combat or cast it at range to assist the soldiers.  Dispel is good but entirely situational.  The two anti-demon spells are very powerful but too situational.  Shield is a nice spell to cast when there isn't something better to do, but ultimately +2 Armor probably won't have as much effect on the game as an offensive or movement spell.  Revive isn't as good as it sounds, since it has a high casting roll and cannot be used to save the Wizard; it's best use would be to save a Captain with experience, but otherwise it is just a way to save money for a fallen Apprentice or Soldier.  The regeneration spell is really nice to have for a campaign, but isn't used in game.  The blinding light spell seems strategically decent, but I'd rather cast Elemental Bolt.

All in all, I'm really glad that the armor exists, but it is probably not worth it, and is better for people like me who want to have a wizard with a cleric flavor.  I could be wrong though, and would love to hear all of your thoughts.

[Philhelm]

I think the balance looks about right but we will see when it comes into play - if you have to buy it then 600gc is pretty expensive - if you get it as a treasure roll then you deserve it.

Can the item be purchased, or is it rolled for like some of the Thaw of the Lich Lord special items?  Also, does it reduce movement?

(I really wish that I purchased the book then, since it seems that there isn't a PDF version available at Osprey).)

[Azzabat]

All good points, and a comment well made. As I say it's just my opinion (other opinions are available  ) and I'd be genuinely interested to see how it actually works out.

That's why I love this Forum, such a great exchange of ideas and views. Do keep us posted on this.

C J.  = )

[Timeshadow]

Just a side note, could a possessor of this armor cast/summon a demon out of game with a summoning circle or summon a zombie out of game?

[Philhelm]

Just a side note, could a possessor of this armor cast/summon a demon out of game with a summoning circle or summon a zombie out of game?

That's an astute question.  Off the top of my head, I don't know if there are specific rules regarding the removal and reequipping of items between games.  I would be inclined to houserule it as a "no" since it would break the spirit of the rules in my opinion.  If the Thaumaturge were to remove the item, cast the spell, and not reequip the item, then that should be fine.  The point is that the Thaumaturge isn't supposed to be using "unholy" or overtly offensive magic.

[joe5mc]

I listen...

By the rules, you could wear the armour, go home, take it off, summon a demon, put it back on and go adventuring. It's worth remember that 'demons' are not all 'evil'.

That said, I don't see this being a common tactic, or one that causes much of an imbalance. Remember if you bring a demon, and someone else controls it, you won't be able to try and control it back...

[Plus Four]

I think I'd prefer to play it that the wizard "forgets" spells from the forbidden schools whilst in possession of the armour!

This prevents gaming the situation given that I can't find anywhere in the rules that allows a wizard the strip and then redress themselves during the pre-game phase!!

[Philhelm]

I listen...

By the rules, you could wear the armour, go home, take it off, summon a demon, put it back on and go adventuring. It's worth remember that 'demons' are not all 'evil'.

That said, I don't see this being a common tactic, or one that causes much of an imbalance. Remember if you bring a demon, and someone else controls it, you won't be able to try and control it back...

Thank you for your input, and for the item.  While I share the sentiment of not having most wizards running around in armor, I've hoped for at least some form of armor so I could better represent a Cleric, and was thrilled to see the Armor of Righteousness, even with its steep cost in terms of spellcasting diversity.

I can definitely envision non-demonic, or non-evil summoned creatures, such as angelic beings, etc.  Obviously you're the authority here, but I assumed your intent for the Armor of Righteousness, in conjunction with the Thaumaturge's Banish and Circle of Protection spells, was to enforce some fluffiness as part of the item's tradeoff by disallowing the Thaumaturge to create undead or summon demons, broadly speaking.  Fortunately, I was not planning on taking spells from either school, since in my imagined setting Summoners will be evil to the core.  I will miss Elemental Bolt though (or holy sunbeam, as I'd like to think of it), but there needs to be some tradeoff, and it will hopefully encourage me to play more defensively in order to keep the theme.

P.S.  Is there any chance that the Thaumaturge might get some anti-undead spells in the future, in a similar vein as Banish and Circle of Protection? 

Regarding "unholy" spells, I assume that the Thaumaturge is intended to be (broadly speaking) anti-undead (