AD&D: Magic Armor, Spellcasting and Movement Rates

There are many rules in the 1st edition AD&D books that contradict themselves, or make no sense. This is one of the main reasons why the initiative section and other parts of combat are such a mess. It seems that the rules were written over such a long period of time that impressions of how those rules should work changed during the writing. None of these contradictions are more glaring than when it comes to magical armor and how much or how little it affects movement rate and/or spellcasting.

In order to understand some of the problems with this rule, one has to first appreciate how Encumbrance was explained to the players. On page 101 of the PLAYERS HANDBOOK, we have a short section on encumbrance and what it means for the player character overloaded with armor, weapons, and adventuring gear. However, nowhere in this section does it differentiate between man-sized characters (humans, elves, half-elves, and half-orcs) and smaller-than-man-sized characters (dwarves, gnomes, and halflings). It is assumed by reading this section that all characters move at the same base movement rate of 12" and can carry the same amount of equipment (which, of course, is patently absurd). Imagine a 3' tall gnome carrying around the same weight of gear as a 6' tall human and being able to move at full speed! Now, remember, that 12" is a scale movement -- it does not mean that the character only moves 12 inches in a turn, but rather moves 120 feet (as 1 "scale inch" = 10 feet on the map). This means a character only moves at 120 feet in 10 minutes of exploration, or 120 feet in one round of combat. This is pathetically slow and has been criticized over the years as being "unrealistic." Compare it with the movement rate of 3rd edition which had characters moving at 30' per 6 second round. However, using this slow, methodical rate allows for all the precautions that most adventurers are known for: checking for traps, watching all directions, careful mapping, etc. It also allows tall folk and smaller folk to move at roughly the same rate! However, I would state that this should not be the case, since if the smaller folk are also moving at a reduced rate, then they should be scaled with the humans accordingly. (Also note that Gygax only uses this slow rate for exploring unknown areas - when moving through mapped or known routes, the rate is 5x faster!)

One must remember that the better the armor, the slower the movement rate. A character in leather armor (non-bulky) is not restricted in movement rate, but one in chain mail (fairly bulky) is moving slower (9" base speed), and one in plate mail (bulky) is slowed even more (6" base speed). Human base speed is set at 12"; I've stated over the years that the smaller humanoids are shown to have a base speed of 9" while giants are shown to have a base speed of 15" or greater depending on size. Therefore, if a suit of armor reduces 12" to 9" or 6", this is a reduction of one or two 3" increments (one could argue for 3/4 or half instead). Since the armor chart in the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE (page 27) only deals with 3" increments, let's assume that this is the correct usage of movement reductions for armor. So, a halfling in plate mail is not moving at 4½" but rather at 3" (base speed of 9" reduced by two 3" increments). A human in plate mail is moving at 6", and this seems to make sense. It is not written into the rules anywhere, but still makes sense.

Now, let's take a look at page 28 in the DMG. Near the top of the page is a little section about magic armor. It reads as follows:

When magic armor is worn, assume that its properties allow movement at the next higher base rate and that weight is cut by 50%. There is no magical elfin chain mail.

This seems to work well with the base rate rules I've listed above! Accordingly, that halfling in magical plate mail can now move at the same rate as a human in normal plate mail, i.e. 6" base movement which is one 3" increment better than normal. Magic shields, on the other hand, have no bearing on movement and don't really cut weight, but are considered non-bulky.

Now here is where it gets confusing and contradictory. Normally, when the rules contradict themselves, it's because they were written at different times in different books (and possibly by different authors). However, this contradiction occurs within the confines of the same book and is likely written by the same author (dear old Mr. Gygax). If you look on page 164 of the DMG, under the section describing magic Armor and Shields (2nd paragraph), you find this little gem of a rule:

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.

So, in the span of about 135 pages we've gone from "use the next higher movement rate" to "all magic armor is weightless." I really don't buy this - after all, players would argue that if their armor is weightless, they can go swimming in magic plate mail (which, I can assure you, is not the case according to any water-filled pit traps I've ever seen in any modules ever written). Why would the rule be changed so drastically from the beginning of the book to the end of the book? It's just one of those mysteries of the AD&D rules...

Now, in my campaign, this rule reared its ugly head and I had to address it head on. I opted to use the former rule regarding one 3" increment better, and the players agreed that it made more sense. Weightless armor should be reserved for elfin chain mail only, since this is the reason why elves are able to be fighter/magic-users and still wear armor (according to the original D&D rules, with a nod towards Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series). Now, do all fighter/magic-user elves have elfin chain? Probably not. So, should elven fighter/magic-users be able to cast spells in magical chain mail or plate mail? Again, probably not, but the multi-class rules seem to support this. On the other hand, if you are one of those DMs that removes the level limits for demi-human races, then perhaps you should consider enforcing a "no armor" policy for fighter/magic-users to make them less powerful. After all, if elves can run around casting spells in plate mail, you really can't expect the human magic-users not to be up in arms about not being able to wear some form of armor... 

Later editions of D&D (notably 3rd and later) made it possible to wear armor and cast spells, but with a spell failure chance unless they were proficient in the armor that they wore (and there were three levels of armor proficiency - light, medium, and heavy). Perhaps, if spellcasters gave up a weapon proficiency slot to learn an armor spellcasting "proficiency" (say non-bulky, fairly bulky, and bulky) with a prerequisite of having the previous lighter proficiency before a heavier proficiency can be learned, this would allow fighter/magic-users to wear heavier armor and still cast spells without unbalancing the system (there must be a cost that limits the characters in some way). This would prevent low level magic-users from learning more than non-bulky armor proficiency OR a weapon, not both. It would also mean that 1st/1st level fighter/magic-user elves who want to wear plate mail can do so, but at the cost of 3 of their 4 starting proficiencies, leaving them proficient in only one weapon (or they can opt to spend 2 slots to get as high as casting in fairly bulky armor, and have 2 weapon proficiencies). I see this as more fair and provides more choice at the cost of reduced effectiveness. If a human magic-user wanted to wear armor using this system, he would have no weapon proficiencies at all, but could wear plate mail by the time he was 13th level, and would be able to learn his first weapon at 19th level! Not really a good idea for a magic-user with only 1 slot and additional slots every 6 levels! besides, one must determine if it's worth being armored if you have to fight when out of spells with nothing but a non-proficient weapon at -5 to hit! I would also require that characters have a minimum Strength score to wear such armor (say minimum of 9 Strength, same as for fighters).

Rangers, who also cast magic-user spells at higher levels, are not restricted in the armor that they can wear. But at 9th level, they are assumed to be wearing magic armor of some sort. Should they too be required to spend proficiency slots on spellcasting in armor? Perhaps casting in armor is not the issue, but instead casting in magic armor! If this was the direction that Gygax was leaning towards, it's possible that he really meant for all magic armor to be weightless after all! But why then restrict magic-users to wearing no armor, while allowing all other magic-user multi-classed characters to wear whatever armor they want? There doesn't seem to be an equitable answer. All thief multi-classed characters are restricted to wearing only leather armor while performing their thieving functions; why not restrict all arcane spellcasters to no armor if they intend to cast spells? There just doesn't seem to be a good reason for it!

Trying to Understand the Forgotten Realms

Since the end of 1st edition AD&D I have been at a loss to understand the basic concepts behind the Forgotten Realms and what makes that setting so popular. Unlike the campaign settings of Blackmoor and Greyhawk that came before it, the Realms seemed to be nothing more than a mishmash of discarded or "forgotten" religions, cultures, and concepts from Earth's history - the Egyptian, Celtic, and Norse influences on the Realms are undeniable. The later inclusions of anything that TSR could dream up were obviously not of Ed Greenwood's design, so I won't fault him for that. However, the very things that made his campaign setting so inviting to others seem to be completely unrelated to the campaign that he ran for his original players and were, instead, the creation of other authors using his world setting as their play thing.

My disdain for the "one good dark elf ranger" aside, it seems to me that the Realms have no true identity. They are simply a conglomeration of various ideas that seemed interesting to their creator at the time. It may astonish some to know that some of the "original" deities of the Forgotten Realms had names of Earth deities like Tyche (later changed to Tymora) or Tyr (which was curiously left alone). The various locations of The North seem to be vignettes in a sea of wilderness without any real connecting threads. Now, I've read some of the novels written by others in the Realms (Douglas Niles, R. A. Salvatore, Elaine Cunningham, Jeff Grubb, James Lowder, etc.), but it seems that each takes a portion of the Realms to make their own personal playground and never step on the toes of the other authors. This makes the Realms feel even more disjointed, since there is little to tie all the novels together other than a brand name. In fact, it feels like the branding of the Forgotten Realms as the default campaign setting for 2nd edition AD&D was more of a corporate decision instead of any sort of actual, thought-out plan on the part of TSR, Inc. It seems that Ed Greenwood lost control of his creation from the start, and definitely after the popularity of the various new characters took off.

Now, I've read Ed Greenwood's material in Dragon Magazine for years before the Realms were ever produced. Even then, it seemed that the world he developed was more of a crazy quilt of cultures randomly woven together into some bizarre fantasy setting. Elminster was more of a "narrator" telling the story of the Realms (and I see him as Greenwood's alter ego in the Realms). When that character became more prominent in later books, his mysterious narrator role (where you weren't quite sure he wasn't a god in disguise) fell away and he became as trite and mismatched as the rest of his world. The inclusion of Kara-Tur, Chult, Maztica, and the Hordelands cemented my belief that TSR was going to take every form of fantasy campaign and set them all in one world. I was surprised that they didn't include Ravenloft and Dark Sun in the mix as well!

It wasn't all bad. I actually liked Ed Greenwood's novels about Cormyr, and the ones about the Knights of Myth Drannor weren't terrible. But these were rehashes of places he had developed fully. The Cormyr novels were about the fall of King Azoun and the politics of the kingdom. The Knights series was a retelling of the adventures of his first group in Cormyr, exploring the Haunted Halls and running afoul of the Zhentarim. The concepts in these stories are connected and make sense - if only the rest of the Realms were as cohesive...

So, in my attempt to understand the Realms better, I went back to the source material. I started re-reading the original boxed set developed under 1st edition rules. It was more cohesive than later campaign sets, but covered much less area. The original modules written in the Realms by Ed Greenwood were also enlightening to a degree, but I also saw a side of the Realms that turned me off completely. I am referring to three adventures written by Ed Greenwood in particular - Into the Forgotten Realms which was the first ever published tournament module set in the Realms (Dragon Magazine #95), the Haunted Halls of Eveningstar (his original campaign dungeon published much later at the height of 2nd edition AD&D), and Irongard published in Dungeon Magazine #18.

The first was written for mid-level characters in the Dalelands, and featured a nasty surprise waiting for the characters in the middle of the dungeon they were sent to explore. Lots of background information on the Dalelands was supplied as adventure background, but nothing could prepare the adventurers for the deadly foe that waited within. Now, I'm not going to spoil the surprise here, but let's just say that the characters really have no chance of survival. On the other hand, it was a tournament module from Gen Con 1984, and elimination is really the name of the game for tourney modules. This adventure shows the cruel side of the author in making his characters face a deadly threat that they really have no chance of overcoming without using tact and guile, and relying on good dice rolls. Exciting? Perhaps to some.

The second was the original campaign dungeon for his first players in the Realms. Set in the Kingdom of Cormyr, the adventurers set their home base in Eveningstar, a lovely little town on the northern borders of the kingdom in the Stonelands. The module is not very well executed and seems to be "padded" to increase the page count (and thus the profit). Half the module is fluff about the town and the NPCs therein. This is all very interesting material as backstory, but few adventurers would learn most of the material unless they lived in the town for a long period of time. And that won't happen if they enter the nearby dungeon... of course they have to FIND it first! And, like all old-school dungeons, everything is well hidden and requires a very competent group to locate the entrance to the place.  Once inside, the lack of monsters and preponderance of deadly traps which test the adventurers' courage as well as their knowledge of the rules led my D&D group to abandon the place out of sheer boredom and lack of treasure. It's hard to rationalize a dungeon that kills everyone that dares face its challenges as 1st-level characters in the first encounter. You have to ease players into the game, not kill them all off before they even get a chance to do anything.

The final straw was while reading Irongard. The whole premise of the module is infuriating. As the DM, you have to select one character (a wizard) to be the recipient of a horrible curse that basically makes that character useless for the entire adventure. It's bad enough when playing a wizard to survive past 1st level, but taking away their only ability (casting spells) at the START of the adventure is just plain cruel. "Here, your character is a mage and knows how to cast one spell for the day. Are you ready to play? Great. I curse you and now you can't cast your spell anymore. That was your only useful spell? Gee, that's too bad." The rest of the module then pits the party against a number of magical phenomena in a small dungeon that can only be overcome by trial and error, or BY CASTING SPELLS. Yeah, dick move there Greenwood....

Now, I've heard rumors about the deadliness of Castle Greyhawk or the deaths incurred in other campaigns, but it seems that Ed Greenwood just didn't want any new characters to survive his world or accomplish anything. All the original modules seemed to do was discourage play or piss off players. Not a very good introduction to the Realms, if you ask me. It didn't help that all the NPCs in the world were also of godlike power and seemed to roam every byroad and highway in the Realms! I've played in the Realms myself - under a very good DM who loved the Realms - but we made the place our own and avoided the major NPCs if possible (even though we were based in Shadowdale). I remember playing through N5 Under Illefarn (or at least part of that module) and being very impressed with the adventures we had. Of course, that might have been due to the DM and not the setting itself. It also helped that we were still using 1st edition rules at the time. When we switched over to 2nd edition, the campaign lagged a bit before finally ending with our party being captured and imprisoned in some gods-forsaken castle inhabited by humanoids and devils (Hellgate Keep or Dragonspear?).

Despite playing in the Realms, and exploring some of its secrets, I still don't understand why people love this campaign setting so much. It lacks cohesion and verisimilitude to me. It's cohesive only within the context of a module or novel, not across them. The events in the Realms change so fast, and so many stories were published about them, that I don't believe it's humanly possible to maintain all that information in one brain, no less write a cohesive adventure about the place. The more information there is on a place, the less mysterious and interesting it becomes. The Gazetteer series for Basic/Expert D&D suffered from this. Once those locations were all detailed, you couldn't really see a place to set a dungeon adventure or a bandit kingdom. All the hexes were pretty much detailed and "explored."

The original Forgotten Realms setting left one land completely undesigned for use by the DM to make it his or her own (Sembia?). One small nation on the map of a world would never be developed by TSR and was smack in the middle of the maps. I'm not sure if this was such a good idea for them to do. It would render that one nation trivial, since most adventurers would likely come from that place and then adventure elsewhere to explore the other, cooler regions of the world that the players read about in all the novels. Is that a good design idea? Did it ever really work for anyone's campaign?

In 5th edition, the Forgotten Realms is once more the "default" D&D campaign world. All these years later, and I'm still trying to understand why people love this setting so much. Guess it's just a mystery for the ages. I just don't get it...