I'm working on an armor balancing mod, and one of the properties I'm examining is the enchantment capacity for different armor pieces. In Morrowind, it seems that shields (inlcuding tower shields) and helmets have the best enchantment capacity (see the wiki page http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Enchantment_Values#Armor). I took a look at the info on Daggerfall enchanting, and once again it appears that helms and shields are able to hold more enchantment than other pieces of armor; notably, it appears that pauldrons usually have the least capacity for holding enchantments (see http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Daggerfall:Enchantment_Power#Armor. In Oblivion, the armor quality is not calculated when determining the magnitude of the enchantment (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Enchanting). But, since the enchantment system for TES IV was so nerfed, I'm willing to ignore it and pretend it never happened. ^_^

I examined the enchantment capacity for non-armor items, and rings and amulets have more enchantment points than most armor pieces (excluding Daedric Tower Shield).

So, I have a few questions for the lore experts out there:
- Is there any reason why a cuirass, which (in TES III) protects 40% of the body doesn't have the same enchantment capacity as the smaller helmet? The cuirass consists of more material, should that not corellate to how much magic can be stuffed into it?
- Why do small items, like rings and amulets, have a higher enchantment capacity than armors?
- Is there any documentation on what sorts of materials are more receptive to having magic stuffed onto them than other materials? Does craftsmanship factor into it?
- So, mainly: What affects how much enchantment an item can contain?

Well that is mostly gameplay and it's rather impractical to extract any meaning from it from three games that all did it different.

Though if you're looking for a rationale, amulets and rings have traditionally always been items that were enchanted and for everything else it seems that the material, quality and size influence how much something can hold.

Helmets and shields are also traditional fare for enchantment. Perseus got an enchanted helmet and shield (along with his sword... at least, in the Clash of the Titans version of that story). Reflecting shields are common. If something other than a sword is shooting a lazer beam in a cartoon series, it's probably a shield. I'm not sure I can think of a single instance of magical armor aside from the shield or helmet, and sometimes boots. Even the briastplate makes sense. Magic pauldrons just don't feel right, except as part of a set.

Another from the game mechanics side of view - rings, amulets and the like must be useable for enchantments so that unarmoured characters can have great magical artifacts too.

Daedric armor has a Daedric soul in it. So it's the best kind of -MAGIC CONDUCTOR-

along those lines

Nor greaves? "Feel my thighs of fury!" :nuke:

Though technically speaking those are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greave are actually shin guards, though they may extend to the thighs.

Well my theory is that since helmets touch your head and are near your brain, they can conduct majick better somhow. Rings touch your fingers, which are not only associated with launching spells, but are also very small, which might have something to do with it. Amulets are around your neck, which is also small, but also hangs by your heart. Boots are way down by your feet, kinda disconnected from the rest of yoiur body. Legs are also distant from your body, but they have the feminal artery so they can hold more than the boots. Cuirass's, while covering the body, typically doesnt make contact with the body and has space between the chest and the metal, giving it less majickal conductivity. Pauldrons are also distant from the rest of the body and therefore have less conductivity.

This is a perfect example of a long post about something completely irrelevent ^.^

personally, I'd chalk it up the developer bias. Amulets, Rings, Helmets, etc-- are all commonly enchanted in folklore, while briastplates and the like are not.


However, Belts are HEAVILY enchanted in Germanic folklore. (Very heavily.) I would love to see better enchantment points on belts.



I am still holding out for the enchantable undergarments though! I want my Neon Orange Man-Thong of Blinding! (Or a Bra of Bewliderment!)

The Paradigm of Vecna's Eye states that the more unpractical an item is, the more thoroughly it can maintain the powerful semiologic lattices essential to the mechanics of proper enchantment, and that, like any tool, the more it's used for a purpose deviating from its intended operation, the less effective it will be. This is nowhere better seen than in the case of the Prodigiously Absorbent Toilet Paper, whose enchanter found that upon infusing magicks upon such a mundane, transient object, was sore dissatisfied with a product, which, though absorbent, was found to be extraordinarily rough on his private parts, and flaky as parchment. He could not sit for a week. Purely decorative and pointless objects are thus the norm. Aforementioned enchanter then seized upon the idea The Thoroughly Absorbent Doyley, and has since been well pleased.

So, you are basically saying a Yo-Yo would make a fantastic "on strike" enchantment? Possibly even more powerful than Mehrune's razor?

(Giggle)

I know it'd be wielding the HELL outta that, if TES had yo-yos....

I'm quite sure sheogorath would be pleased to lend you a hand crafting such an item...

That's it - I am going to string together some polititians and become the final GOD!!!