magical armor and movement

[jk7275]

On page 27 of the DMG it says
"When magic armor is worn, assume that its properties allow movement
ot the next higher base rate and that weight is cut by 50%. There is no
magical elfin chain moil."

On page 164 it says
"For game purposes all magical armor should be considered as being
virtually weightless - equal to normal clothing, let us assume. This gives
characters so clad a base movement speed equal to an unarmored man.
Magic shields, however, weigh the same as a normal shield of the same
size."

Which one is the correct one? I joined a group that wants to do a 1st edition campaign and I noticed this when reviewing the rules. The group just started and the DM asked me to help to review all the rules

[BigBadHarve]

On page 27 of the DMG it says
"When magic armor is worn, assume that its properties allow movement
ot the next higher base rate and that weight is cut by 50%. There is no
magical elfin chain moil."

On page 164 it says
"For game purposes all magical armor should be considered as being
virtually weightless - equal to normal clothing, let us assume. This gives
characters so clad a base movement speed equal to an unarmored man.
Magic shields, however, weigh the same as a normal shield of the same
size."

Which one is the correct one? I joined a group that wants to do a 1st edition campaign and I noticed this when reviewing the rules. The group just started and the DM asked me to help to review all the rules

Whichever one you decide is best for your game.

Personally, I run option A - 50% of normal encumbrance and 1 stage up for bulk/movement.

But I have diligent players who track encumbrance, and pay attention to details.

Option B is definitely less paperwork for those who aren't detail oriented.

[Yora]

I'd also go with the first option. Plate armor +1 being as light as a loincloth seems somewhat too excessively good to me.

[Jay R]

The crucial fact is that when the rules are unclear, the DM has to make the ruling. There's no canonical answer.

I agree with option A, by the way. Magical armor is already valuable enough. [Armor with option B would be especially valuable. It might be a cool high-level prize for a high level character.]

[viking vince]

When I DM, armor +1 and armor +2 gets the 50% reduction while armor +3 or better is weightless

[rredmond]

Whichever one you decide is best for your game.

Is the best old school answer! :)

But:

Personally, I run option A - 50% of normal encumbrance and 1 stage up for bulk/movement.

I do this, like most of the folks here do.

Though I like this idea a lot:

When I DM, armor +1 and armor +2 gets the 50% reduction while armor +3 or better is weightless

Be well,
--Ron--

[D+1]

Which one is the correct one? I joined a group that wants to do a 1st edition campaign and I noticed this when reviewing the rules. The group just started and the DM asked me to help to review all the rules

As noted already, the correct one is the one the DM chooses to be correct, or whatever the DM chooses to replace it with.

IMC, and in games for almost as long as I can remember, the answer is that magical armor weighs just as much and is just as cumbersome as non-magical armor of the same type. This stems from the first time a player woke up and realized that detect magic is unnecessary regarding armor if you can pick it up or put it on and instantly be able to differentiate it from non-magical armor for those reasons. That rule then went out the window so fast that half the character sheets in the room were also sucked out with it and characters had to be re-rolled. And it never came back again. The End.

[The Glyphstone]

As noted already, the correct one is the one the DM chooses to be correct, or whatever the DM chooses to replace it with.

IMC, and in games for almost as long as I can remember, the answer is that magical armor weighs just as much and is just as cumbersome as non-magical armor of the same type. This stems from the first time a player woke up and realized that detect magic is unnecessary regarding armor if you can pick it up or put it on and instantly be able to differentiate it from non-magical armor for those reasons. That rule then went out the window so fast that half the character sheets in the room were also sucked out with it and characters had to be re-rolled. And it never came back again. The End.

That seems like a great way to get your character eaten by a cursed suit of Full Plate of Strangulation or something equally nasty, of which 1E was jam-packed.

[thirdkingdom]

That seems like a great way to get your character eaten by a cursed suit of Full Plate of Strangulation or something equally nasty, of which 1E was jam-packed.

Yeah, I would never put on magical armor or wield a random magical weapon without having it IDed first. Doing otherwise is just asking for trouble.

[D+1]

Yeah, I would never put on magical armor or wield a random magical weapon without having it IDed first. Doing otherwise is just asking for trouble.

In a TRULY old-school 1E game there isn't always a choice. No NPC will ID something for you because they'd have to be insane to do so because: obviously curses. At best PC's would not be able to afford the outrageous danger fees that would be charged. The party MU isn't going to do it for you all the time for much the same reasons, unless the player has some sort of deathwish for his PC. He takes all the risks for no compensation. Identify requires that MU's handle items within 1 hour/lvl of first finding them if they are going to ever be Identified. The curse, if any, is going to fall upon the first person to put it on/use it. At best, the other PC's would then chip in taking turns in trying on/trying out potentially cursed items so that nobody in the party is taking on disproportionate risk before the MU identifies something. That means that fighters are going to be trying on armor. Since Identify is seriously borked anyway, especially at low levels, they will be determining the function of a LOT of items - including armor - the "old fashioned" way, by simply using it. MU's just won't have the time to identify it all.

Cursed items in 1E are a "Gotcha!" gimmick. The DM is meant to try to TRICK the PC's into getting themselves cursed. It may be effective, but it's seriously UN-clever of players to avoid curses by simply never having their PC's trying anything themselves and DM's would be finding ways around such efforts. Yet it's also a seriously unimaginative DM who simply has a constant quantity of cursed items that players naturally want to avoid by tedious and completely SAFE testing and spellcasting of absolutely everything they find. The DM should be finding CREATIVE ways to be able to get those "Gotcha!" moments with cursed items. If the players NEVER put on anything because they are simply crippled with paranoia about curses YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. :)

But that then leaves players with stupid-easy means of telling magical armor from non-magical armor - ergo, magic armor weighs and encumbers the same as no armor at all without even so much as a Detect Magic. Hardly sporting. :)

For example, the PC's fight an armored opponent and defeat him. He seemed harder to hit than usual. The armor he wore is already unlikely to have been cursed or the PC's would likely have seen it at work while fighting. So, it's already reasonably safe to assume that any curse has been used up or is tolerable or can be dealt with. So, a PC tries on the armor and immediately knows by weight and freedom of movement that it's magical. Hardly any reason to even cast Identify. Unless it did demonstrate possible additional powers the exact pluses will be revealed in time simply by wearing it in actual combat. That's fine if it doesn't matter to the DM that players get that break, but that, too, wasn't the original idea behind having all magic armor be easy-movement armor. It works much better if the ease-of-movement is actually the intended power of specific armors that may not even have magical pluses.

Also, in between, "PC's always eat the curses because they're stupid," and "PC's are never cursed because they're rabidly paranoid and tediously cautious," is the intended medium where supposedly PC's and DM's alike have occasional "fun" moments of, "Gotcha!"/"Yep! You got me!" And everyone laughs while a new PC is created... Personally, I don't hold much with cursed items because it ISN'T fun for anyone - certainly not on a regular basis. It's a pointless and annoying hoop that everyone at the table is then forced to jump through just to say they jumped through it. It just doesn't need to be there in the first place. Time and effort at the game table are just better spent in different ways than that. And that, too, leads to removing easy-movement as a default ability of all magical armor.

[Telok]

It should also be noted that curses weren't automatic death sentences either. Being purple or speaking in rhymes for a while isn't that big of a deal and can lead to some fun RP.

[rredmond]

It should also be noted that curses weren't automatic death sentences either. Being purple or speaking in rhymes for a while isn't that big of a deal and can lead to some fun RP.

QFT!

Minor inconveniences instead of save versus death.
Great point Telok!
--Ron--

[Jay R]

The DM is meant to try to TRICK the PC's into getting themselves cursed.

Exactly. For instance ...

If the players NEVER put on anything because they are simply crippled with paranoia about curses YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. :)

Agreed.

But that then leaves players with stupid-easy means of telling magical armor from non-magical armor - ergo, magic armor weighs and encumbers the same as no armor at all without even so much as a Detect Magic. Hardly sporting. :)

That shouldn't work. Magic armor that isn't being worn should weigh just as much as non-magical armor, for the same reason that a wand nobody's carrying isn't firing magic missiles - the magic isn't active. When you put it on, it just seems to fit better, and encumber you less. You can find out that it's magical that way, but the curse is now active.

For example, the PC's fight an armored opponent and defeat him. He seemed harder to hit than usual. The armor he wore is already unlikely to have been cursed or the PC's would likely have seen it at work while fighting. So, it's already reasonably safe to assume that any curse has been used up or is tolerable or can be dealt with.

The crucial phrase here is "... or is tolerable or can be dealt with." And even that is overstated. You only know that it is tolerable or can be dealt with while fighting you.

There are lots of curses that don't show up to the enemy in a single combat.
1. The armor won't let you carry any other magic items.
2. The armor has a quest.
3. The armor provides no AC against evil characters (or dragons, or undead, or any other subset that doesn't include your party).
4. The armor changes your alignment.
5. The armor is the equivalent of a girdle of Masculinity/Femininity.
6. The armor reduces your Will save by 3.
etc.

You know that it has no curse that prevented him from fighting you effectively, which is useful information. But as you said before, it shouldn't be that easy.

Also, in between, "PC's always eat the curses because they're stupid," and "PC's are never cursed because they're rabidly paranoid and tediously cautious," is the intended medium where supposedly PC's and DM's alike have occasional "fun" moments of, "Gotcha!"/"Yep! You got me!" And everyone laughs while a new PC is created...

Agreed in general. But I don't like the notion that a curse automatically leads to creating a new PC. That misses the primary point of curses - trying to adventure while minimizing the effect of the curse.

If the PC is replaced as soon as a curse appears, then it wasn't a curse, just another mere deadly threat. Yawn.

But I agree with your main point that if they always happen, or if they never happen, then a lot of the fun suspense has been thrown out.

Personally, I don't hold much with cursed items because it ISN'T fun for anyone - certainly not on a regular basis. It's a pointless and annoying hoop that everyone at the table is then forced to jump through just to say they jumped through it. It just doesn't need to be there in the first place. Time and effort at the game table are just better spent in different ways than that..

Again, it shouldn't be that simple. A curse can be fun for everybody.

If the curse is a quest, then that's a source of fun, suspense, and potential loot. Cursed armor you can't take off and that doesn't work against the Brotherhood of the Badoon can tell you something very important about a supposedly random encounter.

Playing with a curse should be temporary, possible, restrictive, sometimes dangerous, and an intriguing new part of the game.

[D+1]

That shouldn't work. Magic armor that isn't being worn should weigh just as much as non-magical armor, for the same reason that a wand nobody's carrying isn't firing magic missiles - the magic isn't active. When you put it on, it just seems to fit better, and encumber you less. You can find out that it's magical that way, but the curse is now active.

Which was the point I was making. Once you eliminate the question of, "Who eats the curse by putting it on first" you automatically get feedback telling you it's magical because of the lack of weight and restricted movement.

But I don't like the notion that a curse automatically leads to creating a new PC. That misses the primary point of curses - trying to adventure while minimizing the effect of the curse.

My overall point would be that 1E as-written doesn't deal at all in subtle curses that contribute to gameplay, but only in the most annoying and deadly curses that do their best to instead obstruct the flow of the game, purely for the dubious value of that "Gotcha!" moment.

[The BlindCleric]

All good points. As a DM, I really only use "encumbrance" as it relates to move base. With regard to magical armor, There is never a penalty. Imo, magical armor appears to be well made armor of the normal sort with no obvious difference in weight. Only once it is donned does the wearer notice the lightness, custom fit and freedom of movement offered by the new suit of armour. In fact, most characters (in character) would not really think of it as "magical", but simply well crafted from top to bottom (I'm referring only to +1, +2 etc ..affecting AC). With regard to curses (IMO), I suspect Mages would place a curse on an item at the request of the items owner in order to discourage others from using it. And since most Mages (in my world ) have an ironic sense of humor, curses tended toward the comedic. Good times.