Wizards Hate Iron
 

I guess the idea that magical creatures and/or magicians are fouled up by iron goes way back. But I'm curious if everyone follows that rule and how many ignore it.

Aside from theme, is the only reason for the rule to make wizards have to pay a lot more for their gear? Is this to offset their abilities? Or just to make it less likely they are fighter-wizard hybrids?

In the campaign I'm organizing, all the basic gear (weapons and tools) will be provided by an employer. With the economic impact lost, I'm figuring to just drop the prohibition against iron. Anything I'm missing here? Any unforeseen consequences to my flagrant irreverence? Please gimme your two cents!

Re: Wizards Hate Iron
 

While I can see where the predominant factor might be economic, there are other knock-on aspects to iron's antipathy towards magic. I would say it depends on how much roleplaying and science you use in your campaign. Also, there are some tactical ramifications. For example, a wizard who drops or breaks his silver broadsword can't just scoop up an iron one off a dead fighter without a penalty, if the iron rule is in place. And adventurers who defeat a fighter-mage don't get a nice pricey item as part of their reward if said mage can wield iron.

Personally it's an integral part of the game world for me, not just mechanically but in terms of "flavour". As the GM you could of course house-rule around it and allow iron for everyone, just as you could decree that gunpowder works reliably (or, a la the Amber novels, doesn't work at all). In your particular case where the players don't even need to pay for their equipment, it does seem like an unnecessary expedience, however.

Re: Wizards Hate Iron
 

Part of the fantasy RPG zeitgeist of the time was that wizards couldn't wear armor (or use weapons). It was literally impossible per D&D 1e rules, not just a bad idea, leading to any number of jokes about wizards being unable to pick up swords or chop down doors with axes. The rule was really about enforcing class behavior and niche protection, of course. But a common justification was that metal in any quantity interfered with magic. Hence the pointy hats and wizard robes and staves rather than chainmail and spellswords.

IMO, opportunity cost for learning to use weapons and armor is generally enough for balance. Spending all your talent points to pick up fighting talents is going to hurt wizarding, and you'll wind up with a mediocre fighter and mediocre mage. But maybe that's okay.

If you like the flavor, keep it. If not, feel free to try a few games without that rule, and see what happens.

Oh, it works. You just have to know where to get it. And it's not called "gunpowder", or used for weapons at the source :)

Re: Wizards Hate Iron
 

I emphatically second this... how magic works in TFT is a core assumption of the game's design and ignoring key elements like the iron restriction could have numerous unforeseen consequences. I personally have no desire for full-plate wizards running around in my campaign, but it's your world.

TBH, though, I think that providing characters with an unlimited equipment resource with no investment on their part is a bigger issue.

Re: Wizards Hate Iron
 

I've almost always used the penalty. I like it both thematically and for some of its effects on available tactics and behavior.

It's mostly because I find it likable and interesting. I like that if you see a fighter who seems to have no metal on them, or only silvered metal, that it implies strongly they may be a wizard or know combat spells.

But there are also "balance" reasons that are also style preferences. I like warrior characters. I like games where most or even all the player party are warriors, and where that's not a quirky sub-optimal thing. And I don't like it to be common, or an easy and arguably better warrior design to learn and use spells in combat.

So when people suggest dropping the iron penalty, and/or letting all characters learn spells for 1 memory point, and/or the Legacy Edition change where non-wizards no longer have a -4 penalty to cast spells, I don't do those things because they open up lots of warrior/wizard tactics in ways that make them seem too easy and too powerful for my tastes.

I.e. I don't want to feel dumb making a fighter character that doesn't have a spell, and I will if there are no significant reasons not to. I think the 3-point learning cost and the cold iron penalty are my minimum level of obstacle I'd want, and I'd prefer the original casting penalty still be there too.

Because otherwise, lots of warriors should probably stick to leather armor so they can cast a fight-winning Thrown spell instead of fighting a dangerous foe. Or Aid themselves for +6 DX and then take an easy head shot or sweeping blow. Or Speed Movement themselves and do crazy unexpected rear attacks. Etc.

The cold iron penalty though is I think the least important of those barriers. I'd rather lose the cold iron penalty than to have lost the -4 non-wizard casting penalty.

Though, without the cold iron penalty or something to replace it, it can be even harder than RAW to safely keep a wizard in custody from casting spells...

Oh, and as for a patrol meaning costs don't matter... I don't think that'd tend to be the case unless the employer is quite wealthy AND the PCs are good enough compared to all his other employees that he chooses to give the PCs silver equipment. A silver dagger, sure. Maybe a silver weapon, but it's still going to impact his budget choices in a non-zero way which will impact the players in some way.

Oh, and there is also the issue of magic items that may not be made out of silver, so that there's a potentially interesting effect that it messes up wizards who carry it but not warriors.

Re: Wizards Hate Iron
 

I like the iron interferes with magic trope. It makes it possible, but still very dangerous, to send a bunch of mooks to capture a wizard without killing him. Purely for situational gameplay purposes, not so much as a mechanical limitation.

Re: Wizards Hate Iron
 

Yeah, Anaraxes, I think you're totally right that this rule came with the territory at the time. So TFT was likely to include it even if it wasn't necessary for balance the way it may have been with D&D. Also, there's the default assumption that adventurers will find scads of gold and need stuff to spend it on.

Shadekeep, I do like the resource management issue when a no-iron wizard finds themselves with a broken weapon. That's a good point. And so is using other wizard's silver stuff as treasure, except that locks me into providing this auto treasure dump any time they fight another wizard. I can see how both aspects would work really well in some campaigns though.

Similarly, I really like Skarg's point that characters can try to spot the npc wizards based on visible iron. Would they use magic to make their silver look like iron even? I definitely like the idea of there being at least some potential clues to "spot the wizard," but I probably don't want it to be too easy.

Re: Wizards Hate Iron
 

Ha! Yeah, they're trust-funder adventurers! Nope, it's not an unlimited resource, and it's more like the equipment is being invested in them in hopes they'll do some good with it. Hey, even the shittiest job will pay for your name tag! But this is part of why I'd like to ignore the iron=nomagic rule. If their benefactor can provide a silver dagger or sword then why not some magic items as well?

Also, I'm probably with Skarg on the -4 non-wizard casting penalty. I'll be starting with a small, inexperienced group (both players and characters) and intend to run them just as fighters for the first few meets. Later on, they'll be given an option for one or two of them to learn magic. At that point I've gotta know for sure how I want to rule re iron and the non-wizard casting penalty.

Re: Wizards Hate Iron
 

I'd forgotten until I ran across the rule again recently, but wizards are permitted to use bronze and copper versions of any weapon without having to deal with the DX penalty for carrying iron.

Under the RAW, bronze and copper weapons cost and weigh the same as their iron and steel counterparts and do only 1 hit less damage.

A (2-1) broadsword for example doesn't sound like such a bad weapon.

Re: Wizards Hate Iron
 

Yes indeed, I'm familiar with that inventive solution of Corwin's. A bit of a "plague in paradise" solution, though, opening a Pandora's box. ^_^

Re: Wizards Hate Iron
 

Remember that you can't have fine bronze weapons or a bronze staff.

Very fine bronze dagger w/Staff IV(1d/1d) $200 0.2#
Get a spare and run around with dual weapon parry occult zap.
Buy a mule with your remaining cash.

Re: Wizards Hate Iron
 

That went from such a simple solution to a such a complicated one pretty fast! :)

I'll stick with a plain old bronze broadsword, thanks. It sits in my scabbard for emergencies while I clear the field with a few well-aimed lightening bolts, none fired at -4 DX. My needs are simple.

Re: Wizards Hate Iron
 

I include bronze in the metals allowed to wizards as well, but I impose a -1 to damage for the same weight, plus they are easier to break if that comes up, which hasn't so far. They are also 50% of the cost of the same quality of weapon, but again, they are uncommon as not everyone knows how to cast and temper bronze to make it an effective weapon.

Also, bronze is really beautiful.

Re: Wizards Hate Iron
 

Historically the switch from bronze to iron saw a sharp reduction in weapons cost as you no longer had to trade with mines hundreds of miles away to gather all the different metals to alloy.

So I'd say:

Copper is the same price as iron weapons/armor but is one point less effective. Every time you attack or defend with a copper weapon or shield roll one die and on a six it breaks.

Bronze has the same effect as standard iron (no fine or very fine), cost is five times as much as iron and the item weighs 25% more (10% for material density, the rest for having to build a bulkier item.)

Re: Wizards Hate Iron
 

Skarg hit on the best of points. I'm also a fan of returning the -4 to cast for non-wizards.

Steve & Kevin had good points, I like having materials diversity in weapons & armor.
It's really a game balance thing, so whatever you decide as far as advantages/disadvantages just make sure it's playable in a potentially diverse geographical party mix.

I like Copper being a "cheap but suitable" option for beginning characters with a weapon or even an armor option, it just needs to be DIFFERENT than Bronze.
Copper: -1 to damage for the same weight weapon, & easier to break (1 in 6 is a bit rough, but playable), 50% of the cost of the same quality of weapon.
As armor maybe the durability factor should play in, like last 1/2 as long etc... but also be cheaper.

Bronze is a step up from copper, I think making it more expensive than Iron is not necessary. I'm good with it being equivalent to iron in all ways except the -1 to damage. (It's logically not as durable, but that may not come up in a playable way like that of copper) That Reduced Damage factor alone will curtail it's over abundant use, and of course the NO FINE weapon option, will keep it as a minority.
As far as it being an armor, I think it's playable to be equivalent to iron, even enchantable. I look forward to seeing the first suit of 1/2 plate in bronze.