Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Development => Design => Topic started by: Aukustus on January 13, 2014, 03:53:44 PM
-
What are your opinions on class restrictions? I mean like should sorcerer be able to use two-handed sword and plate mail or fighter be able to cast spells?
I'm designing three classes, fighter, rogue and sorcerer in my project and I'm not sure about how I would decide restrictions. My main influences are Diablo 1 and AD&D games and those two handle class restrictions opposite ways. I have strength, dexterity and intelligence as attributes. Strength adds 1 point to melee damage, dexterity adds 1 point to ranged damage and intelligence adds 1 point to spell damage.
I have three scenarios in my mind regarding class restrictions and their pros and cons:
1. No restrictions: Spells, armors and weapons are free for all. Spell casting classes would have more mana.
-Pros: More playing styles for classes
-Cons: For example fighter would be imbalanced while specialised in melee and laying destruction from far away with spells and then killing everything in melee that survived.
2. Some restrictions: Weapons, spells and armors have attribute requirements
-Pros: Same as 1. but more balanced, fighter specialising in intelligence would be less good in melee because of the missing points in strength.
-Cons: None came to mind.
3. Full restrictions: Fighter can use all weapons and armors, no spells. Rogue unable to use heaviest armors and weapons, no spells. Sorcerer unable to wear armor and weapons other than staff, all spells.
-Pros: makes each class wholly unique.
-Cons: less diverse playing styles for classes.
-
Well there are a million ways to do it. It seems the highly restrictive class methods are harder to balance the game, but then you can just tell people that, for example, playing the Rogue is hard mode and the Wizard is easy, etc...
I've always been interested in a system where the character classes have no special skills, but are differentiated entirely by what items they can use. All can drink potions but only the fighter can use heavy weapons and armor, only the wizard can read scrolls, only the cleric can use holy relics, the Rogue can use the lock picks, cloaks and daggers, etc...
But then you run into the issue of junk items. If you are building a game where grinding gear is part of it then use restricted classes end up with lots of junk gear. In Diablo you can sell the gear. So that's one solution to that issue.
If you end up using classes that give only small bonuses for certain things then you risk ending up with 'samey' type classes. Having classes is supposed to increase variety and replay value. To combat this you'd have to make the bonuses pretty hefty. For example every class can use daggers, but the Thief does double damage. The wizard reads scrolls at 2x proficiency, the fighter adds 2x his strength to his armor class when using a shield, etc...
-
If you end up using classes that give only small bonuses for certain things then you risk ending up with 'samey' type classes. Having classes is supposed to increase variety and replay value. To combat this you'd have to make the bonuses pretty hefty. For example every class can use daggers, but the Thief does double damage. The wizard reads scrolls at 2x proficiency, the fighter adds 2x his strength to his armor class when using a shield, etc...
That's an interesting way of doing it. Every class can use any tactic, but they get innate bonuses for certain things and will always be better at them than other classes will. I guess the problem with that would be making sure it was balanced, but that one would get my vote.
-
Classes are just tool designers use to achieve certain goals. There isn't one right way to handle them so much as there are different methods that are better for different designs.
Think about why you're using classes in the first place. What purpose they are they supposed to serve? Once you have a clear goal in mind, the rest shouldn't be too hard.
-
Well TY Rickton. Your game Possession blows my skirt up from a design standpoint so I appreciate your comment.
-
Each of my classes has 3 unique skills. I like the idea of every class being unique with restrictions but I was thinking about replayability. But if I had stat requirements there's this problem that melee rogue wouldn't differ much from melee fighter nor ranged fighter wouldn't differ from ranged rogue.
I guess the best way would be AD&D 2nd edition style. That's what I really like most. I updated today my shop system to allow selling items so junk items won't be problem.
-
Junk can be a big problem when there's too much of it, and being able to sell junk can make the problem worse. Do you want players to use the items they find, or run a transport service for stranded items?
-
If the main goal behind your class system is replayability, you should do everything you can to emphasize that. Every class needs to approach their problems differently. If a wizards are about casting flame touch for 2d5 damage and fighters are about bumping monsters for 1d10 damage, you have failed. If rogues, wizards, and fighters are all good in tight hallways but bad in open rooms, you have failed. Be bold! Don't be bound by convention!
Also, letting shops buy from the player is a bad move. In well-designed systems the most fun ways to play are the most effective and the most rewarding activities are the riskiest. You break both of those rules when you give out cash for dragging junk around. Make every item useful for every class. Or don't spawn items the player's class can't use. Or just accept that useless items will exist. Anything's better than playing dungeon janitor.
-
Well that's one thing I didn't take into account. However the only merchant I have at the moment sells only food rations, scrolls of recall, healing potions, mana potions, cure poison potions and light source. I guess I won't implement any equipment vendors then to address this issue. I'm not sure if janitoring the dungeon and exchanging junk for money for food is too big issue. Just need to balance prices so that I won't meet end boss with tens of potions. However taking the risk of going deeper into the dungeon in search of food can be rewarding. I'm not sure how to balance things since I wish to have shop system with money changing hands both ways.
-
You break both of those rules when you give out cash for dragging junk around.
This can be balanced as well. The shopkeeper can buy only items of real value and/or give back only fraction of money (like in real life!). Also, you can limit the size of inventory, because it's a part of the problem clearly. Being able to carry items like a tank makes it much easier to get everything and sell it in shops.
Class restrictions itself are ok if you plan the game to be class based in the first place. It's one way to handle it, but there are others. Still, I think it's useless to think bad features of a class based system if you are going to use one! Just go with it bravely.
-
There is option 4:
scale equipment/spells/skills effect with main attribute of class to which this item/spell/skill belongs.
Heavy weapon should deal damage based on str, light weapon based on dex, spells based on int.
Heavy armor protects better if you are strong, in light armor more dexterious are more evasive, robes might improve spelcasting.
As for junk... In Wizard's Quest there are altars of recycling. You put all the junk on altar, activate it and get some potions in return. Quality of potions depends on quality of items :)
-
Also, letting shops buy from the player is a bad move.
I think this depends on how abstract your game world is going to be too, though. It would probably seem like kind of an arbitrary restriction in ADOM if you couldn't sell (or sacrifice, for that matter) items that you didn't want.
Sometimes it is okay to include things in your game just because players might expect them or like them. Letting people sell items isn't going to wreck the game.
You break both of those rules when you give out cash for dragging junk around. Make every item useful for every class.
What about just having a somewhat realistic carrying capacity? It seems like making the player choose between carrying an item that is intrinsically useful to them and one that is beneficial only because it can be sold does still involve management of risk versus reward.
If they don't have a fairly limited carrying capacity, players will still carry a ton of stuff around, whether they can sell it or not. So, I think what we are getting into here is fundamentally an issue of prioritization, whether you can pawn your items or not. By limiting inventory, you bring that type of prioritization to the forefront.
Or don't spawn items the player's class can't use.
How would you determine this? If you had a really flexible system, wizards might be able to use swords and warriors might be able to do some spellcasting. How do you know that the items you are choosing not to spawn aren't things the player might want or need?
It's easier to balance a game where the player has a lot of restrictions on how they can play their character, I agree, but I like the idea of giving the player options.
-
If you have a small carrying capacity then it just means you have to make more trips to get everything. It's pretty harmless if you can't backtrack or if the payout is trivial, but there isn't really any benefit either.
Why bother with realistic elements that work to the game's mechanical detriment when there are so many ways realism can lead to genuinely better games? Like Brogue's fire and gas systems that behave very intuitively and add depth to the game. Push for that kind of thing instead.
Anyway it isn't implausible at all to think that a shopkeeper might not want your excess murderloot for a number of reasons.
How would you determine this? If you had a really flexible system, wizards might be able to use swords and warriors might be able to do some spellcasting.
They might! And if they do then you'd better spawn swords and spellbooks for everyone. But they also might not in which case nothing of value is lost by hiding swords from wizards. Honestly I don't think this is a big problem. As long as you don't have Angband quantities of trash to sift through, who cares if there's a little bit of junk lying around?
-
I think I'll go with the most restrictive way and maybe add some classes later, for example spellsword which could use heavier equipment than rogue and use sorcerer equipment while being worse in melee than fighter and worse in magic than sorcerer.
With armor progression 'leather armor' -> 'studded leather armor' -> 'chainmail' -> 'splint mail' -> 'plate mail' the rogue cannot wear heavier armor than studded leather so spellsword could maybe use upto chainmail and then couldn't cast the best spells the sorcerer can.
At this point a short sword sells for 7gp and one scroll of recall costs 80gp. With a maximum of 26 inventory slots of which about a maximum of 7 goes to worn equipment. So there's 19 slots for other stuff. Potions and other necessary general stuff take about 5 slots. So 14 slots of junk doesn't give much money at this point. Sometimes there might be only a few items per level.
-
Cardinal Quest allows you to either equip or take the gold value for an item immediately. It's very 'gamey' and not that simulationist but it saves on the running back and forth.
Also depending on how gamey you are making it, you can sell stuff in between levels, sort of have an interim screen like Pacman did (Pacman's interim screens were about story, but there's no reason that can't be a "sell your stuff" screen).
Super Mario Brothers II had an interim screen where you played the slots.
-
There is option 4:
scale equipment/spells/skills effect with main attribute of class to which this item/spell/skill belongs.
Heavy weapon should deal damage based on str, light weapon based on dex, spells based on int.
Heavy armor protects better if you are strong, in light armor more dexterious are more evasive, robes might improve spelcasting.
I like this idea a lot, although in my game I go with more or less standard AD&D class restrictions.
-
If you have a small carrying capacity then it just means you have to make more trips to get everything
It must be a trade off between food clock and the turns spent on those trips. Anything that makes it more difficult and not just something that takes time only. If there is no cost then some people are picking up and selling everything.
-
At this point a short sword sells for 7gp and one scroll of recall costs 80gp. With a maximum of 26 inventory slots of which about a maximum of 7 goes to worn equipment. So there's 19 slots for other stuff. Potions and other necessary general stuff take about 5 slots. So 14 slots of junk doesn't give much money at this point. Sometimes there might be only a few items per level.
I think that's really sound logic. I like that solution.
I think Krice is right that if there are hunger/corruption clocks are present they will probably make players think twice about picking up everything and taking it back to town, unlike in a game like diablo. For example, ADOM doesn't even have town portal scrolls, so you don't want to spend a lot of time backtracking to a shop and increasing the PC's exposure to background corruption unless you have a good reason.
So, I think backtracking should be possible, but I think there probably should be an associated cost (just like there should be a cost associated with pretty much everything the PC does).
I have wondered before if maybe each item the PC picks up, even small ones, should slow them down a little bit, rather than having a threshold carrying capacity where they are "encumbered." This way it is no longer a no brainer to pick up junk, even if you can sell it for a little bit of profit.
-
Strength adds 1 point to melee damage, dexterity adds 1 point to ranged damage and intelligence adds 1 point to spell damage.
I think that's a really good idea. It's extremely easy to understand and has a kind of symmetry.
I do have some questions, though. Would dexterity have no effect on the warrior's fighting abilities and would strength have no effect on the rogue's? I just feel kind of weird about having a hulking warrior who doesn't get any damage bonus when using a dagger. Or saying that a super coordinated rogue [edit]wouldn't[edit] be good with a broadsword.
-
Or saying that a super coordinated rogue [edit]wouldn't[edit] be good with a broadsword.
Yes because in this case the rogue is only super coordinated when it comes to using bows of some kind. Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence could always be renamed to Fighting, Archery, and Magic if it made you feel better.
-
Or saying that a super coordinated rogue [edit]wouldn't[edit] be good with a broadsword.
Yes because in this case the rogue is only super coordinated when it comes to using bows of some kind. Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence could always be renamed to Fighting, Archery, and Magic if it made you feel better.
This does limit the ability of those attributes to be applied to other situations, though. You wouldn't say that a rogue was able to use his archery to pick a lock, or that a warrior's fighting could be used to carry more weight.
There's a reason terms like "strength" or "dexterity" keep coming up in these types of discussions. People aren't just thinking of some sort of abstract quantity of "warriorishness" or "roguishness", they're imagining a warrior as being strong and a rogue as being dexterous, respectively. Those are the qualities that a lot of people associate with those professions.
Every concept in a game isn't completely abstract and arbitrarily defined. You can't just say "call these quantities whatever you want", because the names we give them have an entrenched meaning that makes them understandable and familiar.
Anyway, I don't think it would be terrible if you gave +1 to damage with all melee weapons per 2 points of dexerity, so that even if a PC wasn't very strong, being agile was still somewhat of an advantage. Although it still wouldn't be as effective as brute force, in this case. Bows might also have strength requirements, since draw weights could be very high, as far as I know. I admit my knowledge about medieval weapons is very limited, though, so I could be wrong.
Anyway, Aukustus, I do think you've got some really solid ideas, I was just curious what you thought about my question.
-
I'm not sure if I got the question correct but at this point every melee weapon uses strength bonus and only strength bonus. Strength adds even to unarmed combat for every class. Sorcerer having 5 points in strength does +5 dmg with staff and so on.
However since my fighter cannot use bows and spells picking int and dex has no effect at all. Maybe dexterity could give +1 armor class and intelligence +5% magic resistance so that every point in any stat would give some bonus for all classes.
At the moment every 5 armor class points count since I divide armor class by five because combat is counted using d20, not percent based. 5 points in dex would then be +1AC in d20.
I have to think about the penalties when backtracking. Hunger clock which is in my game is good and two-way trips with scrolls of recall cost quite much but I think there should be something else too.
-
This does limit the ability of those attributes to be applied to other situations, though. You wouldn't say that a rogue was able to use his archery to pick a lock, or that a warrior's fighting could be used to carry more weight.
Why is it necessary or desirable for your ability to operate a crossbow to have anything to do with your ability to bypass a lock? There are already literally thousands of games with the same set of stats that do the same kinds of things. Let's try out some different concepts.
-
Or saying that a super coordinated rogue [edit]wouldn't[edit] be good with a broadsword.
Yes because in this case the rogue is only super coordinated when it comes to using bows of some kind. Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence could always be renamed to Fighting, Archery, and Magic if it made you feel better.
This does limit the ability of those attributes to be applied to other situations, though. You wouldn't say that a rogue was able to use his archery to pick a lock, or that a warrior's fighting could be used to carry more weight.
There's a reason terms like "strength" or "dexterity" keep coming up in these types of discussions. People aren't just thinking of some sort of abstract quantity of "warriorishness" or "roguishness", they're imagining a warrior as being strong and a rogue as being dexterous, respectively. Those are the qualities that a lot of people associate with those professions.
Every concept in a game isn't completely abstract and arbitrarily defined. You can't just say "call these quantities whatever you want", because the names we give them have an entrenched meaning that makes them understandable and familiar.
Anyway, I don't think it would be terrible if you gave +1 to damage with all melee weapons per 2 points of dexerity, so that even if a PC wasn't very strong, being agile was still somewhat of an advantage. Although it still wouldn't be as effective as brute force, in this case. Bows might also have strength requirements, since draw weights could be very high, as far as I know. I admit my knowledge about medieval weapons is very limited, though, so I could be wrong.
Anyway, Aukustus, I do think you've got some really solid ideas, I was just curious what you thought about my question.
I always found it kind of silly that manual dexterity and footwork seem to be the same stat. I saw a tabletop RPG once that had Mind, Arms, Feet, Body, Eye etc...those were the stats. So Arms affected hitting with swords, Eye with bows and other ranged stuff, Feet/Legs was dodge, Mind was magic and what not, Body ended up being the HP stat.
-
I always found it kind of silly that manual dexterity and footwork seem to be the same stat. I saw a tabletop RPG once that had Mind, Arms, Feet, Body, Eye etc...those were the stats. So Arms affected hitting with swords, Eye with bows and other ranged stuff, Feet/Legs was dodge, Mind was magic and what not, Body ended up being the HP stat.
I like Sil's method where mosts stat are their own thing instead of an arbitrary combination of traits. If you want to be better at hitting things, you raise the fighting skill and if you want to be sneakier you raise the stealth skill. That way you can make your character just the way you want them instead of the usual systems where being good with light weapons means you're also good at picking locks or whatever.
-
Why is it necessary or desirable for your ability to operate a crossbow to have anything to do with your ability to bypass a lock? There are already literally thousands of games with the same set of stats that do the same kinds of things. Let's try out some different concepts.
My suggestions were given based on the system that I thought Aukustus was planning to use. In his original post, Aukustus only mentioned 3 attributes. He did not make any reference to skills or other modifiers (except equipment). So, I made the assumption that he wanted all PC abilities to be derived only from those 3 attributes and equips. Maybe that assumption was incorrect, but based on the context that he gave, I think it was a fairly rational one.
How were you planning to determine the PC's ability to perform actions like lock picking, Aukustus?
-
I always found it kind of silly that manual dexterity and footwork seem to be the same stat. I saw a tabletop RPG once that had Mind, Arms, Feet, Body, Eye etc...those were the stats. So Arms affected hitting with swords, Eye with bows and other ranged stuff, Feet/Legs was dodge, Mind was magic and what not, Body ended up being the HP stat.
That's a cool idea, and it fits well with a system for localized damage. I have thought about using a setup like that before, but for some reason decided that I didn't like it. Maybe I was being too picky.
-
Why is it necessary or desirable for your ability to operate a crossbow to have anything to do with your ability to bypass a lock? There are already literally thousands of games with the same set of stats that do the same kinds of things. Let's try out some different concepts.
My suggestions were given based on the system that I thought Aukustus was planning to use. In his original post, Aukustus only mentioned 3 attributes. He did not make any reference to skills or other modifiers (except equipment). So, I made the assumption that he wanted all PC abilities to be derived only from those 3 attributes and equips. Maybe that assumption was incorrect, but based on the context that he gave, I think it was a fairly rational one.
How were you planning to determine the PC's ability to perform actions like lock picking, Aukustus?
Three attributes is all I want at the moment. I'm not sure about if I ever implement skills such as lock picking because I don't even have doors in my dungeon, it depends how large this game grows. I wish to keep it fairly straight forward and simple.
-
My suggestions were given based on the system that I thought Aukustus was planning to use. In his original post, Aukustus only mentioned 3 attributes. He did not make any reference to skills or other modifiers (except equipment). So, I made the assumption that he wanted all PC abilities to be derived only from those 3 attributes and equips. Maybe that assumption was incorrect, but based on the context that he gave, I think it was a fairly rational one.
I see. But in a system where classes have a main stat it doesn't make sense to give one of them a special benefit the others don't get. If the rogue is strong in combat and can pick locks while fighters and wizards are strong in combat and can't pick locks, why be anything other than a rogue? On the other hand, if fighters can break chests and wizards can cast unlock, everyone can get pasts locks and the whole locking mechanic is just a waste of time.
-
Well now I have doors that are opened by moving to that tile.
Lockpicking could also be implemented as lockpicks sold in shop and every time a locked door is bumped one is used. So it isn't a skill but a money sink instead for every class with 100% succeed rate.
-
Aren't lockpicks normally reusable?
-
Aren't lockpicks normally reusable?
Depends on the game. Not always. Sometimes they are destroyed on use, sometimes when lockpicking fails.
-
Aren't lockpicks normally reusable?
I'm assuming you're asking about real life, in which case the answer is yes. Though I suppose they can break.
-
I see. But in a system where classes have a main stat it doesn't make sense to give one of them a special benefit the others don't get. If the rogue is strong in combat and can pick locks while fighters and wizards are strong in combat and can't pick locks, why be anything other than a rogue? On the other hand, if fighters can break chests and wizards can cast unlock, everyone can get pasts locks and the whole locking mechanic is just a waste of time.
So, are you saying that lock picking and other non-combat application of PC abilities should be removed entirely? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I just don't understand what you are getting at here.
-
So, are you saying that lock picking and other non-combat application of PC abilities should be removed entirely? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I just don't understand what you are getting at here.
Non-combat abilities are fine. All I said was that introducing a dexterity-based abilities favors dexterity classes. You could always assign a different ability to each stat to make up for it. Even then I'd rather see abilities that change how you play and introduce new possibilities. Like, if the lockpicking skill meant that rogues can open any locked door in a single turn and automatically lock any door they close, that could go a long way towards making them a tricky class with a lot of escape options that feels different from the others.
I don't think standard RPG lockpicking is a good match for roguelikes. It can used in some cool ways in static and story-focused games. The developer can hand-place some really nice items behind a high level lock and give you a goal to work for. They can put some hidden information in a locked area and maybe you can use that to change something that happens in the story later on. In a randomized game it doesn't work as well. Characters with lockpicking don't know if those skill points will ever pay off. Characters without lockpicking just see a bunch of items they can't have. It isn't very satisfying either way.
A good way to do lockpicking would be to make the lockpicking skill a big investment that sacrifices lots of potential combat ability and put good treasure behind locks to compensate. It should be much better than what an equivalent combat-oriented character would obtain. That way you could make lockpicking a skill for growth-based characters that suffer an early disadvantage for big rewards early on. You may or may not want to allow that kind of build, but at least it makes the lockpicking skill an interesting choice.
-
It might be neat if classes were able to take advantage of the special traits of each type of item.
For example, we'll go with the classic 4 here:
Fighter: takes advantage of shields and heavy weapons (2 handers) and heavy armor
Thief: takes advantage of lock picks and daggers and cloaks
Cleric: takes advantage of shields and holy symbols and maces
Magic User: scrolls, staves and wands.
Shields: +1 defense, adv: add strength to defense
Heavy Wpns/2 hands: double damage, adv: use with one hand.
Heavy Armor: +4 armor class but 1/2 speed, adv: no speed reduction
lock pick: open chests no problem, adv: open doors too
daggers: +1 melee attack and throw attack, adv: double damage on unaware enemies
cloaks: +1 stealth, adv: +5 stealth while no moving
holy symbols: +1 defense against demons and undead, adv: repel undead and demons
maces: just a solid melee weapon, adv: stun enemies
scrolls: read and execute spell, adv: scroll does not disappear (or scroll can be memorized a used twice)
staves: A good melee weapon, adv: You shall not pass, lock a door or passage.
wands: A good ranged weapon but with limited charges, adv: unlimited charges, or double charges.
So again there are no restricted items, but the special abilities are pretty significant.
-
That could be cool.
-
Jo, OMG that is an awesome idea!
Everybody can use everything, but only certain classes can REALLY take advantage of certain items. Brilliant! The simplicity of class based systems with the freedom of skill based. Definitely adding this to my list of Things That Make the Perfect CRPG.
And not to go off-topic, but earlier some people were railing against "trash loot". That there had to be some kind of "penalty" if you will for having it. Well isn't it obvious that the main penalty to cashing in trash loot is the time involved? If people REALLY want to spend the time hauling all that crap back to town and taking the time to sell it, shouldn't they be rewarded for it?
I'm completely against, in fact I despise systems where if you're for example a Wizard you don't even SEE sword drops. Or the game actually turns all drops into something usable by your class. Bleh! Talk about dumbing down the gameplay. It's like every drop has to be a lollipop, or a rainbow filled balloon to brighten your day. I don't want every group of monsters in a dungeon to have catered items. That so breaks immersion for me, the Fantasy Hero invading enemy territory to cleanse the evil therein.
But yeah, classes are awesome if you can still use every item. Which is why Jo's suggestion so appeals to me!
Great thread. Interesting discussion!
Take care.
-
And not to go off-topic, but earlier some people were railing against "trash loot". That there had to be some kind of "penalty" if you will for having it. Well isn't it obvious that the main penalty to cashing in trash loot is the time involved?
The argument against is rather that, if you give an advantage to players who grind for trash, you in effect punish those who don't. in good RLs, your character typically lives or dies by narrow margins, so many people will feel compelled to do whatever it takes to get a slight edge. Ideally, it should be as fun as possible to play "perfectly". This doesn't necessarily invalidate your point, though, it all boils down to what kind of game you're making. And there are optional solutions, such as allowing grinding, but also rewarding swift advancement in some way.
As always,
Minotauros
-
The perfect solution is one that makes grinding or diving to be a tough strategic decision. Maybe grinding takes time, which requires food, but can make you stronger...Save the frog by turn 1000 or lose the game? Lava is rising and you must outdistance it...lots and lots of ways to make it an interesting decision. Grind to get stronger but you lose time.
Also I'm glad you liked the 'use' advantage idea. I hate finding a badass sword and not being able to use it. There are various stat heavy systems you can use, but I like the clear granularity of a class system sometimes.
BTW:
Pirate: sword, pistol, pet (parrot!), maybe trinkets?
Alchemist: Potions and scrolls and goggles.
Barbarian: 2 handers, helmet, lots of str. duel wield.
Ranger: Bows, pets.
Monk: Scrolls, any not edged weapon.
Ninja: Disguises, thrown weapons (daggers, ninja stars)
Samurai: sword, Bow, can duel wield.
Geisha: Disguises, trinkets, daggers
Sword - Good all around weapon. Adv: Adds to defense (parry/fencing).
Helmet - Plus defense. Adv: Resist stun.
Potion - Has magical effect. Adv: Drink twice and/or automatic identification.
Pistol - Ranged weapon, slow reload. Adv: Carry 2 at once, so you can fire every turn.
Bow - Ranged, lower damage than pistol. Adv: Bank shots? Always recover arrows?
Pet - Kinda random like the dog in nethack. Adv: Attacks and fetches on command.
Disguise - Treated as the disguise, except by directly adjacent enemies. Adv: Even adjacent enemies fooled.
Trinkets - Rings and amulets and such. Adv: No limit to how many you can wear.
Thrown - Recoverable ranged weapon. Adv: No need to equip it, can throw it from belt anytime no problem.
Goggles - Resist blindness. Adv: See in the dark (yep!)
You can further refine classes by giving them different starting equipment, different base stats. Like the barbarian will have higher base attack and HP or some such. The Geisha will start with the 'dress' disguise, which fools all intelligent creatures until she attacks!
You can also let a player choose their own advantages, a sort of 'make a class'.
-
I'm necromancing this thread for some ideas since I'm having second thoughts about my D&D like restrictions in my The Temple of Torment. Some feedback would be nice.
My new ideas for stat based restrictions with 10 points max per attribute:
Strength and weapons (swords in examples)
- At str 0 daggers
- At str 3 shortswords
- At str 6 long swords
- At str 9 two-handed swords
Strength and armors
- At str 0 robes
- At str 1 leather
- At str 2 studded
- At str 3 chainmail
- At str 5 splint
- At str 7 plate
- At str 9 full plate
Dexterity and weapons
- At dex 0 slings
- At dex 3 shortbows
- At dex 6 longbows
- At dex 9 crossbows
Spells with armors
- 5% failure rate per armor level: Leather 5%, Studded leather 10%, Chainmail 15%, Splint 20%, Plate 25 and Full plate 30%
Miss chance for ranged weapons increased by 5% per armor level after studded leather
Clerical spells have Wisdom requirement
Mage spells have Intelligence requirement
-
That's pretty standard.
-
Here's an idea: if your strength is higher than an armor set's requirements by a certain amount, you negate the accuracy and casting penalties. That way strength and armor are useful for non-fighters while still ensuring that fighters benefit the most from heavy armor.
What you've got right now discourages build diversification. Fighters should raise str, archers should raise dex, and wizards should raise int. Why bother with stats at all if it's gonna be like that? Just say you need to be a level 9 fighter to use two handed swords and the results are the same.
-
Here's an idea: if your strength is higher than an armor set's requirements by a certain amount, you negate the accuracy and casting penalties. That way strength and armor are useful for non-fighters while still ensuring that fighters benefit the most from heavy armor.
That's a good idea.
I don't like attribute requirements, so I didn't include them in Veins, but when phrased like that, they go on my TO-THINK and TO-DO list :P
-
What you've got right now discourages build diversification. Fighters should raise str, archers should raise dex, and wizards should raise int.
Characters receive enough points to add into multiple stats. Max level is 10 and there's 2 points per level-up plus one stat gain from quest. Characters begin with 3 points in their main stat. Possible stats for maxed level characters are for example 10 points in strength and 10 in dexterity since 10 is maximum points per stat without equipment with bonuses.
-
That's pretty standard.
Sometimes it works and you don't need to invent new things just to escape standards.
-
Agreed.
Diablo had this type of use restriction. You needed a certain strength to use the awesome swords, a certain dexterity for other weapons, etc...
I built a Necromancer with armies of skeletons and TONS of dexterity. The skeletons would tank and my Necro would attack with a tricked out bow. It was awesome.
-
Sometimes it works and you don't need to invent new things just to escape standards.
Sure but it's just as bad to follow the standards without understanding how they work or thinking about how they affect your systems.
-
I believe DCSS did away with equipment with racial bonuses because the racial bonuses were minor but led players to believe there was no point in using the stuff if you were the wrong race. It was misleading.
The thing with class penalties is you are either giving players the opportunity to make awful decisions or else leading them to believe some options are bad when they're actually okay-ish, and unless they crunch the numbers they may not really know which one. Or so it seems to me.
-
The thing with class penalties is you are either giving players the opportunity to make awful decisions or else leading them to believe some options are bad when they're actually okay-ish, and unless they crunch the numbers they may not really know which one.
Perhaps the same could be said of all character specialization.
The ideal solution is to pre-crunch your numbers like Sil. It's stupid of the DCSS team to hide their numbers and then get surprised when people have a hard time gauging what's good and what's bad.
-
Aukustus, I'm not really fond of stat requirements on items. Immersion breaker, fo' sho'. I mean, even if I'm a 100 pound shrimp I should be able to pick up a 20 pound greatsword and swing it around. Just like I'm 185 pounds, can only bench 150 but I can pick up a 40 pound dumbell and knock the crap out of you with it. Heh. Can I "knock the crap out of you with it" as easily as someone my weight who can bench 400?
Of course not. But imposing artificial limits like only certain classes can use certain weapons/armor, or you can only use certain weapons/armor when your physical abilities reach a certain level? I don't think it has any business in an RPG, where the very nature of the game is supposed to encourage diversity of action(s).
You know what DOES make sense though? Imposing spell restrictions based on intelligence. Mental abilities (or lack thereof) would realistically restrict acquiring certain knowledge, or levels of knowledge. You're just not intelligent enough to comprehend the required methodology. Well, it makes more sense than restrictions based on physical stats at least. :P
I'd recommend going with an open approach. A wizard with 0 points in strength can strap himself into a suit of full plate if he wants, but he's going to move as slow as a snail and/or exhaust himself doing it. Likewise, a warrior with 0 points in intelligence could learn any spell he wants but it's going to take him 10x as long as someone with 10 intelligence and/or way more time/mana to cast. Same with dexterity. Anybody can stick a bolt in a bow/crossbow and pull/wind back the string, but those with high dexterity can reload/shoot faster and/or with more accuracy.
Take care!
-
Does it really matter? Do you really care that a game won't let you use a greatsword instead of letting you use one at a -99% damage penalty? Would it be better if the game printed a message that says you try to wield the weapon, but realize it will do more harm than good, and put it away?
-
Aukustus, I'm not really fond of stat requirements on items. Immersion breaker, fo' sho'. I mean, even if I'm a 100 pound shrimp I should be able to pick up a 20 pound greatsword and swing it around. Just like I'm 185 pounds, can only bench 150 but I can pick up a 40 pound dumbell and knock the crap out of you with it. Heh. Can I "knock the crap out of you with it" as easily as someone my weight who can bench 400?
Of course not. But imposing artificial limits like only certain classes can use certain weapons/armor, or you can only use certain weapons/armor when your physical abilities reach a certain level? I don't think it has any business in an RPG, where the very nature of the game is supposed to encourage diversity of action(s).
You know what DOES make sense though? Imposing spell restrictions based on intelligence. Mental abilities (or lack thereof) would realistically restrict acquiring certain knowledge, or levels of knowledge. You're just not intelligent enough to comprehend the required methodology. Well, it makes more sense than restrictions based on physical stats at least. :P
I'd recommend going with an open approach. A wizard with 0 points in strength can strap himself into a suit of full plate if he wants, but he's going to move as slow as a snail and/or exhaust himself doing it. Likewise, a warrior with 0 points in intelligence could learn any spell he wants but it's going to take him 10x as long as someone with 10 intelligence and/or way more time/mana to cast. Same with dexterity. Anybody can stick a bolt in a bow/crossbow and pull/wind back the string, but those with high dexterity can reload/shoot faster and/or with more accuracy.
Take care!
I think that stat requirement could be thinked also being ability to use it effectively instead of just being able to wield, wear or cast it. Like Vanguard said about realizing it would be best to not wear it.
I also think it doesn't make any difference having 10x longer casting time or not being able to cast at all. Players would still raise intelligence if they wanted to cast the spell.
-
Here's an idea: if your strength is higher than an armor set's requirements by a certain amount, you negate the accuracy and casting penalties.
But I think that no matter how strong you are, full plate armor still limits your movement somehow. Your concentration is still not that good and your arms do not move as needed to fire a bow.
-
If that's a problem for you, don't let people get past the penalties in full plate armor. If the stat requirement for unhindered casting were 2x the requirement for wearing the armor, then splint is the heaviest armor in which the player can reach a 100% casting success rate.
-
If that's a problem for you, don't let people get past the penalties in full plate armor. If the stat requirement for unhindered casting were 2x the requirement for wearing the armor, then splint is the heaviest armor in which the player can reach a 100% casting success rate.
Yeah I've been thinking that there could be a 5% reduction to the spell casting failure chance for every 3 points in strength (in my game stats give bonus to something for every third point). Basically having 9 strength would negate 15% spell failure which comes from chainmail which requires 3 strength. Having 12 points in str which is only attainable by items with strength bonuses would negate splint mail's casting failure. I have to also make sure that a sorcerer wearing heavy armor will not become too powerful.
What's on my mind is a general Armor Penalty stat. 5% for every armor tier and negated by 5% for every 3 points in strength. This would apply to rolls related to spellcasting, stealth and ranged combat.
Edit: Messed up some parts
-
Aukustus, I'm not really fond of stat requirements on items. Immersion breaker, fo' sho'. I mean, even if I'm a 100 pound shrimp I should be able to pick up a 20 pound greatsword and swing it around. Just like I'm 185 pounds, can only bench 150 but I can pick up a 40 pound dumbell and knock the crap out of you with it. Heh. Can I "knock the crap out of you with it" as easily as someone my weight who can bench 400?
Of course not. But imposing artificial limits like only certain classes can use certain weapons/armor, or you can only use certain weapons/armor when your physical abilities reach a certain level? I don't think it has any business in an RPG, where the very nature of the game is supposed to encourage diversity of action(s).
You know what DOES make sense though? Imposing spell restrictions based on intelligence. Mental abilities (or lack thereof) would realistically restrict acquiring certain knowledge, or levels of knowledge. You're just not intelligent enough to comprehend the required methodology. Well, it makes more sense than restrictions based on physical stats at least. :P
I'd recommend going with an open approach. A wizard with 0 points in strength can strap himself into a suit of full plate if he wants, but he's going to move as slow as a snail and/or exhaust himself doing it. Likewise, a warrior with 0 points in intelligence could learn any spell he wants but it's going to take him 10x as long as someone with 10 intelligence and/or way more time/mana to cast. Same with dexterity. Anybody can stick a bolt in a bow/crossbow and pull/wind back the string, but those with high dexterity can reload/shoot faster and/or with more accuracy.
Take care!
Completely agreed with the exception of the fact that people DON'T get snail-slow by using heavy armor, sure it affects movement speed to some degree but what really stands out is how quickly they get tired by wearing it.
It is time to treat armors as they are and not how games want us to believe they should be. I really don't give a damn if mechanics is the excuse - this is just an ancient concept with strong roots in D&D's absurd yet unrealistic mechanics and it should be replaced with something "new" and far more accurate. This is what avoiding the standards should be all about. I don’t mind at all playing a game with traditional and unrealistic armor management but I would definitely prefer having a game applying realistic armor behavior.
"A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weight around 15-25 kg(33-55 pounds).[2] The wearer remained highly agile and could jump, run and otherwise move freely as the weight of the armor was spread evenly throughout the body." - Wikipedia
I've carried around nearly 20kg of weight in my huge backpack for hours. I'm talking about a weight similar to a complete full plate armor set, concentrated just on my shoulders, not evenly distributed throughout my whole body as it would happen if wearing a medieval full plate armor. Nowadays soldiers actually carry way more weight into battle than those in medieval ages. In some cases a modern soldier can carry more than 50kg of gear. Wearing a heavy armor in medieval ages was NOT that hard as people seem to believe nor how games want us to believe, in fact back on medieval times everything people did require more effort making them physically stronger just for carrying out their daily tasks. This implies that people back then were better prepared to wear heavy armors than we are today.
The armor’s major negative side effect is indeed affecting the rate at which you get exhausted plus having closed helmets penalizing your sight’s field of view quite harshly. Any man having no physical disabilities can wear a chainmail or a even a full plate armor while remaining quite agile, assuming we are talking about well-made, full articulated armors. Yeah, wizards would be able to move their arms freely to cast spells, assuming they actually need to perform silly choreographies to cast anything.
Stop treating rogues and wizards as debilitated beings. Let them use a full plate armor as good as a regular person would. Make endurance / stamina the one requirement to properly handle them. The trick to use heavy armors is mainly habituation which will exercise both your endurance and strength. Sure having strength helps out but if one doesn't have endurance to handle it HE WILL run out of breath quite quickly, so endurance should be looked definitely as more important than strength. The fighter is actually the one class that would suffer most from a wearing a heavy armor as it relies more on physical effort, fortunately he does train endurance and strength to counter this.
Another funny thing about armor in games is having chain mail often being classified as light armor while in reality some could actually be heavier than a full plate armor. Full plate armors had in fact their weight way better distributed throughout the user's whole body than the unbalanced weight present in chain mails making chain mails harder to bear. Of course this is quite related to the chain mail ring's thickness and diameter but for any chain mail offering decent protection alone a considerable ring size and thickness was used; light chain mail was mostly used as a complement to plate armors.
Mechanics wise, exchange the wizards carrying capacity for carrying out his heavy armor. Train its endurance and a little bit of strength instead of intelligence or any other wizard related attributes / skills so he can better handle his armor; penalize the character's evade chance based on carrying capacity (armor + inventory); decrease the characters' sneaking ability for wearing heavy and / or noisy armors; penalize mobility speed related to the armor's total weight. Yeah, these are obvious mechanics, however, everything should take both endurance and strength into account but not in a way that would make a particular armor type feel incompatible with a particular class, unless we are talking about extreme armors and character classes - common sense should still be applied.
For the rest of item types, it is pretty much like as Morcrist stated, let attributes and skills restrain their usage and performance instead having character classes "forbidding" item usage types.
PS: Sometimes I spend a full week just collecting information regarding a certain subject. It happens that the armor's topic has been already one of the subjects that I heavily studied before setting it up in my ongoing project.
-
Just for the sake of my previous post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz7naZ08Jd4
-
It is time to treat armors as they are and not how games want us to believe they should be. I really don't give a damn if mechanics is the excuse - this is just an ancient concept with strong roots in D&D's absurd yet unrealistic mechanics and it should be replaced with something "new" and far more accurate.
You're the type of person who complains that the queen is stronger than a knight in chess, aren't you?
-
You're the type of person who complains that the queen is stronger than a knight in chess, aren't you?
Honestly, I've never complained about any of chess rules nor its game play mechanics, though I find the concept of turning a peon into a queen unsettling. So I guess your assumption is wrong (who'd have known). But thanks to let me know there is a type of person that complains about that; I actually find such complain retarded quite frankly, because from that perspective the queen should be weaker than any other military piece, peons included.
But what was your point with your question again?
-
Completely agreed with the exception of the fact that people DON'T get snail-slow by using heavy armor, sure it affects movement speed to some degree but what really stands out is how quickly they get tired by wearing it.
I've heard from somewhere that medieval battles were about who got tired first, lost the battle since armors blocked attacks.
-
I've heard from somewhere that medieval battles were about who got tired first, lost the battle since armors blocked attacks.
It was CRUCIAL to have fully rested troops before a battle. One of the common tactics would involve attacking the invaders immediately after their arrival, before they could rest. Of course this would work best against invasions made on foot.
Many factors contributed to wining and loosing battles like terrain type, weather, unit types and tactics. Take the Aljubarrota battle for instance: 7300 Portuguese against 28500 Spanish and the Portuguese still beat the Spanish army due to heavy tactics but mainly because of the chosen terrain where the battle unfolded. It was a narrow vale where wooden obstacles and pits were placed by the defending side (the Portuguese) this forced the Spanish cavalry to break formation in order to advance up the vale. 1000 Portuguese died in this battle but the Spanish loss was far greater. The Spanish lost 2100 Spanish footmen and their whole Calvary composed by 2000 french horsemen was completely decimated. Once the Spanish army lost their Calvary they become hopeless and sounded for retreat.
PS: I'm playing your game right now (22:11 GMT +0)
-
Honestly, I've never complained about any of chess rules nor its game play mechanics, though I find the concept of turning a peon into a queen unsettling. So I guess your assumption is wrong (who'd have known).
It sounds like I was exactly right.
-
But what was your point with your question again?
I should have answered this in my last post.
Video games are in no way, shape, or form real life, and if they were they wouldn't be fun. Realism is, in many cases, a wonderful tool for achieving the ends of a better game, but it is not a worthwhile goal unto itself if it doesn't result in a better game.
I mentioned Chess because it's a perfect game that would be worse if anything were added or taken away and because unlike, say, Go, it has a real-world theme. The rules of Chess don't always do what would be realistic for its theme, and if they did it would be an infinitely worse game.
I am accusing you of being the type of person who would make a game much worse than it could be in the name of realism. That was the point of my question.
-
It sounds like I was exactly right.
Yeah, feeling unsettling about a peon turning into a queen is exactly the same thing as complaining that the queen is stronger than the knight. Feeling unsettling vs complaining. I guess we just see things the way we want them to be. I originally had the word "hilarious" but the concept of cutting off the peon's penis and turn its remains into a vagina had the world "unsettling" feeling more appropriated.
-
I should have answered this in my last post.
Video games are in no way, shape, or form real life, and if they were they wouldn't be fun. Realism is, in many cases, a wonderful tool for achieving the ends of a better game, but it is not a worthwhile goal unto itself if it doesn't result in a better game.
I mentioned Chess because it's a perfect game that would be worse if anything were added or taken away and because unlike, say, Go, it has a real-world theme. The rules of Chess don't always do what would be realistic for its theme, and if they did it would be an infinitely worse game.
I am accusing you of being the type of person who would make a game much worse than it could be in the name of realism. That was the point of my question.
I'm not implying that games should be incredibly realistic where characters should use 10 rings in total because we know as a fact that each hand has 5 fingers. I actually have been playing games since the 80's so I know quite well what realism and mechanics is all about and how one can intervene in another. I just want and will have armors as they were, with mechanics closer to reality. When I say armors I actually mean all sorts of items. This is something possible to do and it only takes a small portion of brain cells to implement it without compromising the game's final quality, assuming you know what you are doing. You know quite well that any mechanics can fail if not properly done, regardless of their level of realism.
And it seems already that you know what I mean: "Realism is, in many cases, a wonderful tool for achieving the ends of a better game, but it is not a worthwhile goal unto itself if it doesn't result in a better game".. Unfortunately, in practical terms you don't seem take this into consideration as you seem to reject the idea behind my realistic armor behavior without explaining it.
I'm definitely using the "tool" realism to recreate realistic mechanics as I see fit and I'm really glad I like to experiment new concepts and ideas instead of being stuck with old mechanics, you know the "standards" you sometimes criticize. So in sum, what did your argument added about this whole subject, nothing at all with the exception of judging the type of person I might be.
-
I'm not implying that games should be incredibly realistic where characters should use 10 rings in total because we know as a fact that each hand has 5 fingers.
I believe that has been addressed at least in D&D. Having magical rings too close to each other cancels each others effect.
-
I'm not implying that games should be incredibly realistic where characters should use 10 rings in total because we know as a fact that each hand has 5 fingers.
I believe that has been addressed at least in D&D. Having magical rings too close to each other cancels each others effect.
Really!? That also happens to be the explanation I have in my game. 8)
-
I'm not implying that games should be incredibly realistic where characters should use 10 rings in total because we know as a fact that each hand has 5 fingers.
I believe that has been addressed at least in D&D. Having magical rings too close to each other cancels each others effect.
Really!? That also happens to be the explanation I have in my game. 8)
Apparently rings have some small magical aura which cannot overlap with other ring's aura.
-
And it seems already that you know what I mean: "Realism is, in many cases, a wonderful tool for achieving the ends of a better game, but it is not a worthwhile goal unto itself if it doesn't result in a better game".. Unfortunately, in practical terms you don't seem take this into consideration as you seem to reject the idea behind my realistic armor behavior without explaining it.
That's because your post about realistic armor says literally nothing about how it could lead to better gameplay. I bet there are tons of really clever and fun mechanics a designer could make based on armor that drains your stamina. There are also good mechanics based on the common, less realistic system. But your post doesn't mention that at all. All you talk about is how important it is to be realistic.
The choice between more magic power and more strength so you can wear heavier armor is interesting. We should only replace it with a choice that is equally or more interesting.
-
That's because your post about realistic armor says literally nothing about how it could lead to better gameplay. I bet there are tons of really clever and fun mechanics a designer could make based on armor that drains your stamina. There are also good mechanics based on the common, less realistic system. But your post doesn't mention that at all. All you talk about is how important it is to be realistic.
The choice between more magic power and more strength so you can wear heavier armor is interesting. We should only replace it with a choice that is equally or more interesting.
My post was not about making games look worst or better game play wise but letting people know that mechanics can be done differently and closer to reality; mainly because the restrictions that exist in most games regarding armors is simply retarded. Games really make people believe that a full plate armor doesn't let you move your arms freely. It is against this nonsense I made such post. If you need to penalize a Mage for wearing heavy armor make it through stamina requirements. If you think that making realistic armor mechanics will be a bad thing then don't do it, just don't tell me that I have a problem with queens and knights in chess for posting against general nonsense present in games and for trying to lecture people in the subject.
[EDIT]
The problem is that these terribly inaccurate armor restrictions games usually have are believed to be realistic restrictions (which they aren't). So players of these games who become game developers will assume them as facts and build mechanics around these flawed restrictions.
-
just don't tell me that I have a problem with queens and knights in chess for posting against general nonsense present in games and for trying to lecture people in the subject.
Ok but you have a problem with promotion for equally silly reasons and that's every bit as bad.
-
just don't tell me that I have a problem with queens and knights in chess for posting against general nonsense present in games and for trying to lecture people in the subject.
Ok but you have a problem with promotion for equally silly reasons and that's every bit as bad.
I don't have a problem with promotions in chess, I thought I had explained it really well in my last post referring to this. The reason to why I feel unsettling about having a pawn turning into a queen is a general feeling among chess players, at least with those I usually play with, we treat this issue as a parody. The pawn having a sex exchange in medieval times; it's humor; a joke... Substitute the word "unsettling" with hilarious or awesome if it helps you viewing my point.
Anyway, I'm really not sure what you mean with equally silly reasons but something tells me that once you explain it, I will repeat myself with an answer for your explanation, so never mind that. If you actually believe that all the factual information that I presented here to be silly, then simply ignore all of it and keep treating your wizard class with physical disabilities, exactly as games taught you they should be. I just presented a new concept and I don't expect everyone or anyone to follow it just because I comply with it, though I really wish people would.
-
Substitute the word "unsettling" with hilarious or awesome if it helps you viewing my point.
If that's all it is, then I misunderstood. Sorry.
-
If that's all it is, then I misunderstood. Sorry.
No worries. I can't say my English is that great to start with and sometimes I don't choose the right words in my sentences. I guess "unsettling" wasn't the best choice for this particular case.
Just out of pure curiosity, why the nick change? I kinda liked Vanguard.
-
I guess my whole point here is that there are tons of solid games that are unrealistic but have good mechanics. No amount of realism can save a game from bad mechanics.
Just out of pure curiosity, why the nick change? I kinda liked Vanguard.
Because Van sounds more like an actual name and because Vanguard is kind of generic. I might change it back later if I decide I liked it better before.
-
I guess my whole point here is that there are tons of solid games that are unrealistic but have good mechanics. No amount of realism can save a game from bad mechanics.
No arguing there. Most of my favorite games happen to have extremely unrealistic mechanics. I'm just fighting for having good mechanics that also happen to be closer to reality. My project is taking this extremely seriously. Lets see how it turns out.
-
I figured out in my game that strength allows wearing and constitution negates the penalties to some point. This makes also the constitution stat useful aside damage reduction.
-
I figured out in my game that strength allows wearing and constitution negates the penalties to some point. This makes also the constitution stat useful aside damage reduction.
I'm really happy to know you are implementing alternative mechanics closer to reality. YAY! ;D
-
I'm going with 'hard' classes in neohack. Every class has some ability that other classes don't.
For the first version I'm trying to implement fighters, magicians, and thieves.
I will be using very few class/item restrictions as such, but each class has important, survival-level abilities that they will be unable to use if they kit out with items that mess those abilities up.
Magicians won't want gear that's made of iron or steel, because those metals are anti-magic; prolonged contact with any iron or steel will drain their mana to zero. This means that effectively all the 'heavy' armor and weapons in the game are unusable to any character that wants to use spells. If you're a wizard, you'll kit out with an obsidian or silver dagger, a staff or bow, and probably leather or padded armor. Or you can give up spellcasting, which leaves you with few advantages.
Likewise, thieves have stealth as a special ability (everybody can have some stealth, but thieves have lots of it if they try) and devastating attacks from stealth. This makes them much more survivable as characters; so they want to avoid noisy gear, which category, at least in my ruling, includes most heavy armors because those armors impose caps on their stealth. So, like the wizard, they either give up something central to their survival, or they avoid the gear that restricts that activity. The noise constraint does not rule out nearly as much of the best gear as the 'iron' thing, but it's still significant.
And finally, there are fighters. Yes, they use all that heavy gear. They have little stealth and no spell-casting ability in the first place, so it's a non-issue. The fighter is awesome in combat because he gets a special ability to move and hit on the same turn - meaning he can't be pillardanced, can't be maneuvered into giving enemies a free attack due to turn-taking because he has to move to them, and has the options of taking free attacks while retreating and free attacks while maneuvering. At high levels, he even gets a "knights move" option which is a jump exactly like a chess knight makes, making him damn near impossible to surround or cut off from escape. So fighters, if they don't get too hurt, can dominate meelee scenarios like no other class. And what do they need to not get too hurt? Heavy armor, that's what. Iron or steel is great because it even gives them some extra protection against magic. For exactly the same reason the magicians don't want to use it.