The other issue, IMO, is that you'd think that wizard garb would tend to have more or better enchantments cast upon them, while fighters' armor would have less. Why not be able to have a wizard's robe w/ some kind of strong defensive enchantment, and a restriction or greater difficulty in finding apiece of fighters' armor that has a similar thing.
You'd also think that even a trained fighter would have some problem moving around in full plate all the time.
woah woah woah lets not drag armor stat and benefits into this discussion. one of the nice balance parts of transmuting is that it is just the looks and not stats. stats are done in a way to provide balance and challenge lets not bring any of the stats up xD
0
bioshrikeMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,729Arc User
woah woah woah lets not drag armor stat and benefits into this discussion. one of the nice balance parts of transmuting is that it is just the looks and not stats. stats are done in a way to provide balance and challenge lets not bring any of the stats up xD
I was more talking about the armor outside of transmutations. But that's why I'd like to be able to equip chest armor as a fashion item...
<::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> "Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
0
ravisanaMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited August 2013
no talky stats or weapons xD
transmuting should be for pretty pretty vainy vainy
not doom sparkles or stabby stabby
Can someone explain me what is transmutation and how it works? A link would be ok too ^_^
I saw "transmutated" sunite hats on the Auction House which (I suppose) looks different, and want to know how are they get :-)
Nevermind, I found out :-)
0
peacockbladeMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited September 2013
I understand the reasons to limit transmuting of equipment to in-class only. It makes things so much simpler for game designers. So, the smart designers figure out a way to justify it in the game's lore.
So, why don't you see wizards running around in armor in D&D? At your table, it's because you'd have to take 3 feats to become proficient & avoid casting penalties. It's far too expensive in lost abilities. And, even better, you could get most magical properties on your robes if you wish. The AC increase isn't worth the weight either - remember you're a wizard, so you're attacking at range & probably aren't terribly strong.
In Neverwinter, you've got other issues. Fewer feats to choose from, and less overall flexibility, due to being a real-time computer game. The work required to implement the armor proficiency feats isn't deemed worthwhile. Add in trying to get the animations reasonably correct, and you're talking a noticeable time & resource sink. In the terms of the lore of Neverwinter, the problem is that everyone is confusing how transmuting actually works.
You start with 2 magic items. 1 will be destroyed, to provide magical energy & residuum, while the other will physically survive but be magically altered. So if your wizard wants the properties of a set of robes to be 'on' a set of plate armor, the robes would end up being consumed in the process. You're left with a set of heavy armor with the desired magical properties. Now your wizard has to be proficient with heavy armor, or face some serious penalties while wearing it. So if you implemented this in Neverwinter, you'd be left with armor you couldn't use.
And casting a permanent illusion on your robes so they just looked like armor? At the table, it's purely in the hands of the DM, as 4th Edition doesn't have any mechanic spelled out for such a thing. I suspect it'd be fairly expensive, and any mechanical benefits or penalties would again be DM decisions.
0
reagenlionel1Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I understand the reasons to limit transmuting of equipment to in-class only. It makes things so much simpler for game designers. So, the smart designers figure out a way to justify it in the game's lore.
So, why don't you see wizards running around in armor in D&D? At your table, it's because you'd have to take 3 feats to become proficient & avoid casting penalties. It's far too expensive in lost abilities. And, even better, you could get most magical properties on your robes if you wish. The AC increase isn't worth the weight either - remember you're a wizard, so you're attacking at range & probably aren't terribly strong.
In Neverwinter, you've got other issues. Fewer feats to choose from, and less overall flexibility, due to being a real-time computer game. The work required to implement the armor proficiency feats isn't deemed worthwhile. Add in trying to get the animations reasonably correct, and you're talking a noticeable time & resource sink. In the terms of the lore of Neverwinter, the problem is that everyone is confusing how transmuting actually works.
You start with 2 magic items. 1 will be destroyed, to provide magical energy & residuum, while the other will physically survive but be magically altered. So if your wizard wants the properties of a set of robes to be 'on' a set of plate armor, the robes would end up being consumed in the process. You're left with a set of heavy armor with the desired magical properties. Now your wizard has to be proficient with heavy armor, or face some serious penalties while wearing it. So if you implemented this in Neverwinter, you'd be left with armor you couldn't use.
And casting a permanent illusion on your robes so they just looked like armor? At the table, it's purely in the hands of the DM, as 4th Edition doesn't have any mechanic spelled out for such a thing. I suspect it'd be fairly expensive, and any mechanical benefits or penalties would again be DM decisions.
Thats actually false in terms of game designer perspective. Simply because it already exists. You can preview the item on you regardless of class. But you cant equip them. theres no model complications or anything. It already exists, it just has a code that prevents anything that is not your class from being transmuted.
As for the second part, an illusion doesnt maintain the properties of the sacrified item, only its appearance. Simply because it is a passive item. A peice of heavy armor consumed to maintain an illusion on cloth robes, wont suddenly become heavy for the person to wear. Its an illusion. All previous properties of the pre-existing heavy armor has been sacrificed to imbue on the robes. Its still robes, but it maintains the illusion of the heavy armor its imbued to.
The wizard doesnt have to be prociefient in anything, cause its still robes. Its only the illusion of heavy armor, and any weight, properties the armor possessed was gone the moment it was consumed to transmute its appearance.
If the wizard had to be proficient in the heavy armor upon transmuting. Then its not transmuting. He's just better off putting on the heavy armor.(which they cant anyway in the game). If the item maintained any properties before it was transmuted, then that defeats the purpose of transmuting in the first place.
Though, this is where I would agree with you in saying, to transmute armor that is not of your class would/should have an increased AD price. I would say about as much the AD prices is now. And all regular transmutation prices are reduced to about 40% at the least.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited September 2013
The only reason there are no mechanical issues for equipping items that are not good for your class, such as metal armor on a wizard, is because the developers have outright barred you from equipping it to begin with.
The fact the limitations weren't translated because the developers forced the restrictions isn't a grounds to remove the restrictions.
ravisanaMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited September 2013
I think stomping your foot and saying plain and simple is just a closed minded easy way out.
you, personally, think that wizards shouldn't wear armor. real armor. fake armor. illusions of armor on cloth armor. ok we've noticed how you feel about it.
but it isn't just about wizards. its about customization, its about rouges and clerics and fighters and tanks. It is a great way to add customization and to make players happy and to add something to spend astral diamonds or gold on without the developers having to design new items.
I think it is worth the developers' time to reconsider the restrictions, since the reason classes can't share armor are armor feats, and feats for armor are not in the game.
ps. I heard someone say they could preview items and would love to know what they mean. All I've been able to do is drag wizard items into the transmute slot and see, but I thought that only worked for items in your bag that are the right type.
Wizards can use longswords. Not well but they can use them.
If this followed third edition it'd be easy, peasy. But it follows fourth and as the "basic attacks" are "At-Will" powers in Neverwinter it doesn't translate well at all. Look at Mako, though, who uses a sword as an implement dueing the trailer. It's possible and probably will come along but not by means of cross-class transmutation.
Don't forget about the wizard of the spiral tower paragon path allowing wizards to use longswords as an implement.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
Nope. It's about the rules.
It's about black and white text written directly in the rule books.
Yes, wizards can cast illusions to seem like something else. That's fine and dandy...
Except that you now tread into a confusing fit of a world where people who look like fighters in full plate are casting spells and people rolling and jumping around in full platemail.
Take a step back from the 'I want to be like the one all powerful wizard in such-and-such series' and just think about that.
I don't need to explain how important it is in PvP to know what you are dealing with just based on appearance. So I'll skip that and label it as self explanatory.
But now, take a moment to consider...you're a cleric in a dungeon. You have to keep track of people in the party and make sure they are doing alright.
If you have to question whether the Guardian Fighter is the Guardian Fighter, Wizard or Rogue do you not see what kind of dilemma this can cause? If I see a GF at half health I am not overly worried but a rogue or wizard at half health is pretty serious. And it works the other way around as well.
First, the rules are the rules. You can't wear armor and the 'but they didn't add those penalties' isn't an excuse for the simple reason that the mechanics have no reason to exist since you are locked into wearing gear designed for your class.
You don't have the option to destroy your spell casting or lower your defense to begin with. The devs could, in theory, allow you to wear armor for other classes and apply all sorts of penalties but that would be complicated and serve on one purpose: allow people to make themselves function worse.
As for the "illusion" argument, no. It'd cause nothing but headaches.
ps. I heard someone say they could preview items and would love to know what they mean. All I've been able to do is drag wizard items into the transmute slot and see, but I thought that only worked for items in your bag that are the right type.
That is more than likely what they meant by preview.
It not about the rules it just you don't like it that all long with two hand weapon idea. I want hold two two hand weapons(swords axes hammers ) and look like a good dang mega but be a rouge with rouge skills(or some other kind class). It a bloody game for cry out .
I think stomping your foot and saying plain and simple is just a closed minded easy way out.
you, personally, think that wizards shouldn't wear armor. real armor. fake armor. illusions of armor on cloth armor. ok we've noticed how you feel about it.
but it isn't just about wizards. its about customization, its about rouges and clerics and fighters and tanks. It is a great way to add customization and to make players happy and to add something to spend astral diamonds or gold on without the developers having to design new items.
I think it is worth the developers' time to reconsider the restrictions, since the reason classes can't share armor are armor feats, and feats for armor are not in the game.
ps. I heard someone say they could preview items and would love to know what they mean. All I've been able to do is drag wizard items into the transmute slot and see, but I thought that only worked for items in your bag that are the right type.
This person summed it up perfectly.
its about customization. Even if a wizard cannot gain the actual function of the armor. The illusion of such gives it the customization option.
The weapons, its understandable.
The armor, thats easily justified. Just because the fact Ambisinister doesnt like the idea, doesnt mean its not viable. Because it very well is.
And yes you can preview the appearance of any item in your inventory by going to change appearance, regardless of what class it is for.
Though I have to saw in response to Fallenhawk.
The idea of dual wielding greatswords is kind of really outlandish in this idea. Its very very unlikely that will happen.
But the idea of wearing pretty much anything you want through transmutation, though it would cost a bit more. Is a much more feasible idea. Its a game, but that kind of thing will push it away from what its set to be.
its about customization. Even if a wizard cannot gain the actual function of the armor. The illusion of such gives it the customization option.
The weapons, its understandable.
The armor, thats easily justified. Just because the fact Ambisinister doesnt like the idea, doesnt mean its not viable. Because it very well is.
And yes you can preview the appearance of any item in your inventory by going to change appearance, regardless of what class it is for.
Though I have to saw in response to Fallenhawk.
The idea of dual wielding greatswords is kind of really outlandish in this idea. Its very very unlikely that will happen.
But the idea of wearing pretty much anything you want through transmutation, though it would cost a bit more. Is a much more feasible idea. Its a game, but that kind of thing will push it away from what its set to be.
The problem is as Abiminster said that we need to be able to quickly identify who's who in combat, part of the differences in armour style is to allow us to do this.
The problem is as Abiminster said that we need to be able to quickly identify who's who in combat, part of the differences in armour style is to allow us to do this.
I have to remind you some people wear CS costumes. And with out my idea you can tell most people by their weapons they hold or just push the "X" button on your keyboard.
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited September 2013
The difference is that the costumes don't turn people into other classes.
Does it make things more confusing, certainly, but it isn't making a Wizard look like a Guardian Fighter.
There's a massive difference there. Might not seem like it but feel free to contact an expert on perception and ask what such differences could cause to the reaction time.
The difference is that the costumes don't turn people into other classes.
Does it make things more confusing, certainly, but it isn't making a Wizard look like a Guardian Fighter.
There's a massive difference there. Might not seem like it but feel free to contact an expert on perception and ask what such differences could cause to the reaction time.
It same thing you just don't want admitted to it. It simple to find what class they playing as just look at the icons they won't change and even the skills just how they look.
The existence of magic and mystical creatures doesn't negate the physical laws that are directly described in D&D lore, novels and rulebooks.
That argument is one step short of trolling in all honesty
I made my point in good faith. I have a rule zero at my table. If your argument about the rules includes anything about "realism", it's automatically invalid.
Can you wield two greatswords, one in each hand, in real life? NO.
Can you wield two greatswords, one in each hand, in D&D? YES.
Why? Magic!
"Meanwhile in the moderator's lounge..."
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
I made my point in good faith. I have a rule zero at my table. If your argument about the rules includes anything about "realism", it's automatically invalid.
Can you wield two greatswords, one in each hand, in real life? NO.
Can you wield two greatswords, one in each hand, in D&D? YES.
Why? Magic!
Except you can't.
Why? The rules!
Why? Because the rules are realistic rules unless magic interferes.
The martial abilities are no different in the real world as the fake world. Sped up, sure, but they still follow the exact same laws of physics.
The only way you can equip a one handed weapon with one hand is with Monkey Grip. Monkey Grip is not in 4E but also specifically states that you may not equip a large weapon in your offhand.
First of all a greatsword is a two handed weapon. Can you swing a greatsword IRL in each hand?
Thought not.
The same rules of physics apply in D&D unless magic interferes.
Secondly, please do take a look at the rules. Most/all of the Trickster Rogue abilities require you to use a "Small" weapon. Daggers, Shortswords, Sickles and such. Even one greatsword would be strictly prohibited.
This isn't Final Fantasy.
What the hell are you talking about. This a fantasy game what type of rules you talking about. This game DOESNT follow D&D rules either. The Lore for D&D is used but thats pretty much it. And since for bring up changing appearance in D&D you can they are called illusions or magic items change appearance. Plus in D&D if your a mage you could wear armor and use whatever weapon with negative penaty but you could.
Just because the effect is only visual doesn't mean the same rules don't apply.
Wizards can't wear plate armor so transmuting into plate armor is a no-no-no never.
Reason: They're not supposed to wear armor!
If they wanted wizard to wear plate armor the rules wouldn't exist to begin with.
The penalties/resistances don't exist for a number of reasons. First of all it separates the player bases. If there was a boss who was weak to fire it could hurt the chances of players getting into groups if they don't have fire enchants or fire spells. Also, as you can guess, it allows easier transmutations. Hence why you can turn a GF's weapon from a slashing weapon (longsword) to a bludgeoning weapon (hammer) to a piecing weapon (spear). The class is the class.
However the class as it is definied by D&D still exists. Wizards can't use armor. Rogues can't use metal armor. Clerics can't use platemail (this one is a bit gray since they can with appropriate feats).
You could say the Wizard wearing plate is an illusion, thus skirting the "spellcasters can't wear plate" thing.
You make a good point with Rogue though. Not sure how you'd work around that one. Unless perhaps the armor itself is just enchanted to look that way...
The difference is that the costumes don't turn people into other classes.
Does it make things more confusing, certainly, but it isn't making a Wizard look like a Guardian Fighter.
There's a massive difference there. Might not seem like it but feel free to contact an expert on perception and ask what such differences could cause to the reaction time.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that they should. The OP simply stated that it would be a fun little fakeout, at least for a short amount of time.
0
bioshrikeMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,729Arc User
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that they should. The OP simply stated that it would be a fun little fakeout, at least for a short amount of time.
Indeed! In fact, illusions are a staple in D&D, so all the more reason for being able to walk around with the APPEARANCE of wearing full plate, when in fact you're just wearing cloth robes.
<::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> "Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
Why? The rules!
Why? Because the rules are realistic rules unless magic interferes.
The martial abilities are no different in the real world as the fake world. Sped up, sure, but they still follow the exact same laws of physics.
The only way you can equip a one handed weapon with one hand is with Monkey Grip. Monkey Grip is not in 4E but also specifically states that you may not equip a large weapon in your offhand.
Haven't played tabletop DnD for years, but I believe there was a version at one time where you could wield 2handers with one hand if you had a 18/00 strength or better...
0
ravisanaMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited September 2013
Is there a single rule from the actual tabletop game that the online game uses?
0
bioshrikeMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,729Arc User
Is there a single rule from the actual tabletop game that the online game uses?
Well you have to name your character... they have that in common. :rolleyes:
<::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> "Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
Haven't played tabletop DnD for years, but I believe there was a version at one time where you could wield 2handers with one hand if you had a 18/00 strength or better...
Monkey Grip, Not in Fourth Edition to the best of my knowledge and strictly prohibited the use of a large weapon in an offhand.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that they should. The OP simply stated that it would be a fun little fakeout, at least for a short amount of time.
Read the posts which spawned that comment.
I have already said how stupidly confusing it would be to have to question whether the person in plate mail is truly a tankier class or a wizard pretending to be. That would be cleric hell and shouldn't be incorporated.
Comments
even if a player character cant craft or cast illusions there could be npcs that could so it shouldn't be a can of worms at all.
woah woah woah lets not drag armor stat and benefits into this discussion. one of the nice balance parts of transmuting is that it is just the looks and not stats. stats are done in a way to provide balance and challenge lets not bring any of the stats up xD
I was more talking about the armor outside of transmutations. But that's why I'd like to be able to equip chest armor as a fashion item...
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
transmuting should be for pretty pretty vainy vainy
not doom sparkles or stabby stabby
I saw "transmutated" sunite hats on the Auction House which (I suppose) looks different, and want to know how are they get :-)
yeah what ^ said.
leave weapons and stats out of it. That just wont happen.
However the class restriction of transmuted armor needs to be abolished. Its no real substantial reason for that to really be in place.
Nevermind, I found out :-)
So, why don't you see wizards running around in armor in D&D? At your table, it's because you'd have to take 3 feats to become proficient & avoid casting penalties. It's far too expensive in lost abilities. And, even better, you could get most magical properties on your robes if you wish. The AC increase isn't worth the weight either - remember you're a wizard, so you're attacking at range & probably aren't terribly strong.
In Neverwinter, you've got other issues. Fewer feats to choose from, and less overall flexibility, due to being a real-time computer game. The work required to implement the armor proficiency feats isn't deemed worthwhile. Add in trying to get the animations reasonably correct, and you're talking a noticeable time & resource sink. In the terms of the lore of Neverwinter, the problem is that everyone is confusing how transmuting actually works.
You start with 2 magic items. 1 will be destroyed, to provide magical energy & residuum, while the other will physically survive but be magically altered. So if your wizard wants the properties of a set of robes to be 'on' a set of plate armor, the robes would end up being consumed in the process. You're left with a set of heavy armor with the desired magical properties. Now your wizard has to be proficient with heavy armor, or face some serious penalties while wearing it. So if you implemented this in Neverwinter, you'd be left with armor you couldn't use.
And casting a permanent illusion on your robes so they just looked like armor? At the table, it's purely in the hands of the DM, as 4th Edition doesn't have any mechanic spelled out for such a thing. I suspect it'd be fairly expensive, and any mechanical benefits or penalties would again be DM decisions.
Thats actually false in terms of game designer perspective. Simply because it already exists. You can preview the item on you regardless of class. But you cant equip them. theres no model complications or anything. It already exists, it just has a code that prevents anything that is not your class from being transmuted.
As for the second part, an illusion doesnt maintain the properties of the sacrified item, only its appearance. Simply because it is a passive item. A peice of heavy armor consumed to maintain an illusion on cloth robes, wont suddenly become heavy for the person to wear. Its an illusion. All previous properties of the pre-existing heavy armor has been sacrificed to imbue on the robes. Its still robes, but it maintains the illusion of the heavy armor its imbued to.
The wizard doesnt have to be prociefient in anything, cause its still robes. Its only the illusion of heavy armor, and any weight, properties the armor possessed was gone the moment it was consumed to transmute its appearance.
If the wizard had to be proficient in the heavy armor upon transmuting. Then its not transmuting. He's just better off putting on the heavy armor.(which they cant anyway in the game). If the item maintained any properties before it was transmuted, then that defeats the purpose of transmuting in the first place.
Though, this is where I would agree with you in saying, to transmute armor that is not of your class would/should have an increased AD price. I would say about as much the AD prices is now. And all regular transmutation prices are reduced to about 40% at the least.
The fact the limitations weren't translated because the developers forced the restrictions isn't a grounds to remove the restrictions.
Plain and simple.
Wizards can't wear armor.
you, personally, think that wizards shouldn't wear armor. real armor. fake armor. illusions of armor on cloth armor. ok we've noticed how you feel about it.
but it isn't just about wizards. its about customization, its about rouges and clerics and fighters and tanks. It is a great way to add customization and to make players happy and to add something to spend astral diamonds or gold on without the developers having to design new items.
I think it is worth the developers' time to reconsider the restrictions, since the reason classes can't share armor are armor feats, and feats for armor are not in the game.
ps. I heard someone say they could preview items and would love to know what they mean. All I've been able to do is drag wizard items into the transmute slot and see, but I thought that only worked for items in your bag that are the right type.
Don't forget about the wizard of the spiral tower paragon path allowing wizards to use longswords as an implement.
Nope. It's about the rules.
It's about black and white text written directly in the rule books.
Yes, wizards can cast illusions to seem like something else. That's fine and dandy...
Except that you now tread into a confusing fit of a world where people who look like fighters in full plate are casting spells and people rolling and jumping around in full platemail.
Take a step back from the 'I want to be like the one all powerful wizard in such-and-such series' and just think about that.
I don't need to explain how important it is in PvP to know what you are dealing with just based on appearance. So I'll skip that and label it as self explanatory.
But now, take a moment to consider...you're a cleric in a dungeon. You have to keep track of people in the party and make sure they are doing alright.
If you have to question whether the Guardian Fighter is the Guardian Fighter, Wizard or Rogue do you not see what kind of dilemma this can cause? If I see a GF at half health I am not overly worried but a rogue or wizard at half health is pretty serious. And it works the other way around as well.
First, the rules are the rules. You can't wear armor and the 'but they didn't add those penalties' isn't an excuse for the simple reason that the mechanics have no reason to exist since you are locked into wearing gear designed for your class.
You don't have the option to destroy your spell casting or lower your defense to begin with. The devs could, in theory, allow you to wear armor for other classes and apply all sorts of penalties but that would be complicated and serve on one purpose: allow people to make themselves function worse.
As for the "illusion" argument, no. It'd cause nothing but headaches.
That is more than likely what they meant by preview.
I can still move.
I can still fight.
I will never give up!
This person summed it up perfectly.
its about customization. Even if a wizard cannot gain the actual function of the armor. The illusion of such gives it the customization option.
The weapons, its understandable.
The armor, thats easily justified. Just because the fact Ambisinister doesnt like the idea, doesnt mean its not viable. Because it very well is.
And yes you can preview the appearance of any item in your inventory by going to change appearance, regardless of what class it is for.
Though I have to saw in response to Fallenhawk.
The idea of dual wielding greatswords is kind of really outlandish in this idea. Its very very unlikely that will happen.
But the idea of wearing pretty much anything you want through transmutation, though it would cost a bit more. Is a much more feasible idea. Its a game, but that kind of thing will push it away from what its set to be.
The problem is as Abiminster said that we need to be able to quickly identify who's who in combat, part of the differences in armour style is to allow us to do this.
I can still move.
I can still fight.
I will never give up!
Does it make things more confusing, certainly, but it isn't making a Wizard look like a Guardian Fighter.
There's a massive difference there. Might not seem like it but feel free to contact an expert on perception and ask what such differences could cause to the reaction time.
I can still move.
I can still fight.
I will never give up!
I made my point in good faith. I have a rule zero at my table. If your argument about the rules includes anything about "realism", it's automatically invalid.
Can you wield two greatswords, one in each hand, in real life? NO.
Can you wield two greatswords, one in each hand, in D&D? YES.
Why? Magic!
Except you can't.
Why? The rules!
Why? Because the rules are realistic rules unless magic interferes.
The martial abilities are no different in the real world as the fake world. Sped up, sure, but they still follow the exact same laws of physics.
The only way you can equip a one handed weapon with one hand is with Monkey Grip. Monkey Grip is not in 4E but also specifically states that you may not equip a large weapon in your offhand.
What the hell are you talking about. This a fantasy game what type of rules you talking about. This game DOESNT follow D&D rules either. The Lore for D&D is used but thats pretty much it. And since for bring up changing appearance in D&D you can they are called illusions or magic items change appearance. Plus in D&D if your a mage you could wear armor and use whatever weapon with negative penaty but you could.
You could say the Wizard wearing plate is an illusion, thus skirting the "spellcasters can't wear plate" thing.
You make a good point with Rogue though. Not sure how you'd work around that one. Unless perhaps the armor itself is just enchanted to look that way...
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that they should. The OP simply stated that it would be a fun little fakeout, at least for a short amount of time.
Indeed! In fact, illusions are a staple in D&D, so all the more reason for being able to walk around with the APPEARANCE of wearing full plate, when in fact you're just wearing cloth robes.
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
Haven't played tabletop DnD for years, but I believe there was a version at one time where you could wield 2handers with one hand if you had a 18/00 strength or better...
Well you have to name your character... they have that in common. :rolleyes:
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
Str/Con/Int/Wis/Dex/Cha...
Monkey Grip, Not in Fourth Edition to the best of my knowledge and strictly prohibited the use of a large weapon in an offhand.
Read the posts which spawned that comment.
I have already said how stupidly confusing it would be to have to question whether the person in plate mail is truly a tankier class or a wizard pretending to be. That would be cleric hell and shouldn't be incorporated.
Then again this thread is already in circles.