# Wizards and Armor



## Falling Icicle (Jun 12, 2012)

In older editions, wizards couldn't wear armor and cast spells, with rare exceptions like elven chain. 

In 3.x, they added arcane spell failure, which gave a % chance to miscast spells while wearing armor. Lighter armors, like leather, had a much smaller spell failure chance than heavier armors. This allowed wizards to wear armor, but at a risk. 

4e did away with armor restrictions for spells entirely. Wizards could cast spells in plate mail just fine, they just weren't proficient in any armor and would have to spend several feats and meet steep ability requirements to wear it.

In the 5e playtest, we've gone back to the old edition rules. Wizards can't wear armor and cast spells - period. I'm interested to know how people feel about this.


----------



## Raith5 (Jun 12, 2012)

I am fine with as long as there is theme or another class (maybe warlock/maybe MC) that enables my Elric/Witcher/Melf/Gilthanus dreams to come to being. The fighter - mage archetype has struggled to work in most editions of D&D IMO.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 12, 2012)

Voted "other".

I don't think wizard types should be able to cast in armour at all

BUT

I don't mind the idea of "Arcane Aid" being an *extremely* expensive enchantment that can be put on armour to allow one to cast while wearing it. (this is what makes Elven Chain so costly, it comes with this feature built in; and do NOT allow PCs to create this themselves - assume the enchanting process takes years)

Too lazy to look it up but I think I have it in my game that Arcane Aid adds about 30,000 g.p. to the value of any armour, over and above whatever it would already cost.

Lanefan


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jun 12, 2012)

It all comes down to flavour for me. Does the metal armour interfere with the wizard's arcane power? Does the bulkier armour interfere with the somatic gestures required for casting? These have always felt a little weak to me as a way of getting the wizard out of armour. [The ability restrictions of 4e seem a better way of going about this]. I think this is well related to another thread regarding the question "what is magic?" If you can nail down what magic is, then you can also nail down a satisfactory way of restricting it.

This is just an absolute of 5e (wizards cannot wear armor, a dwarf cannot be poisoned, elves cannot be charmed, reapers cannot "miss") that annoys me on one level Without a clear understanding of how magic "works", it is hard to nail down a good reason why it does not work (or even if we still don't want it to work).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Mengu (Jun 12, 2012)

I don't see what's wrong with a wizard in armor. It's fine if they don't start with proficiency. But if they want to pick it up through feats, themes, backgrounds, multiclassing, or whatever else method is available, let them.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 12, 2012)

I agree with Herremann, the rationales put forward for arcane spell failure have always felt contrived; it's clear that the designers just want to make sure the wizard in robes isn't universally replaced by the wizard in full plate and shield.

I think wizards should be able to cast in armor if they want to. However, a wizard's AC should be mediocre even in plate, and they should have access to a spell like _mage armor_ that comes close to the same level of protection. So you can be a wizard with AC 17*, and spend a ton of money on plate, and strain your probably-not-very-high encumbrance limit; or you can have AC 15 or 16 and not have to deal with any of that.

If the designers balance it right, we should see most wizards in robes and protective spells as usual, but wizards in armor will be playable for those who want to go that way.

[size=-2]*Or whatever.[/size]


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 12, 2012)

I prefer ASF over a blunt "cannot cast", but I can take the latter as long as there exists some option (albeit expensive) to make it at least possible. I also thought that 3ed should have a core option (e.g. feat) to mitigate ASF anyway.

But overall it's a D&D sacred cow, so it should stay in / come back to the game.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jun 12, 2012)

The armor restriction on spells has always seemed contrived to me. The explanations given for it, such as the idea that it interferes with the somatic gestures required by most spells, are nonsensical. In order for something like chainmail or even plate armor (which don't really inhibit the movement of one's limbs, or else it would be difficult to sword fight while wearing them), the somatic components of spells would have to be so ardous that one would have to be a contortionist to perform them. Yet most of the time when somatic components of spells have been described they have been quite simple, such as holding one's hands out together with one's thumbs touching and fingers spread for the burning hands spell. Why would wearing chainmail  or even full plate interfere with that gesture?

Of course, we all know the real reasons that the armor restriction exists. First, there's niche protection. The image of the long-bearded wizard in a robe is quite iconic. Second, there's the game balance side of it, where this was just one of many punishments meted out on wizards in an attempt to balance the power of their spellcasting against other classes. I don't think either of these is really valid anymore. The typical Gandalf-like wizard is just one of the many wizard archetypes, and I don't think it's right to force people to conform to that mold, especially not in a system that is supposed to be a big tent and be all modular and have lots of options.

As for game balance, I don't see why a wizard in armor is overpowered at all, especially if he has to invest alot of character resources, such as feats, in order to get it. Wizards have always had other means of getting a good AC anyway, whether it was by spells like mage armor and shield, or things like bracers of armor or robes of the magi.

So in the end, I would prefer that there not be any artifical restrictions against casting spells in armor, but I wouldn't give wizards proficiency in any type of armor by default. If they want it, I'd make them multiclass, take armor proficiency feats, etc. And if they go to all that trouble, well hey, good for them. The other wizard in a robe spent all of his feats on being better at casting spells. Both types of character should be a viable option, IMHO.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 12, 2012)

I've voted for "armour shouldn't restrict spellcasting at all", but I'll add a touch of "other":

I think a good way to provide niche protection is the method implemented in certain computer RPGs: When designing wearable magic items, place effects that enhance arcane spellcasting capabilities on low-armour or non-armour items like robes, hats and gloves, and place effects that enhance martial capabilities on armour, helms, gauntlets etc.

That way, if you're building a pure spellcaster you'll naturally gravitate to the robes-and-staff look, whereas if you're building something more like a fighter/mage you'll go for a few armour items.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 12, 2012)

I don't like either ASF or a hard restriction, but I think armor should penalize magic unless you have some ability that makes it easier.

Like, you have disadvantage on your casting roll (casting rolls should be a thing) if you're casting in armor, unless you have a class or a theme or something that allows you to cast in armor.


----------



## Votan (Jun 12, 2012)

The logic of the situation, for me, has always been an issue of training.  Wizards focus on learning how to cast spells.  Warriors focus on arms and armor.  If you let wizards acquire a major skill of warriors without detracting from magical focus then why can't warriors just pick up magic on the side?


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 12, 2012)

Wizards should just start with no armor prof.

With Bounded accuracy, the wizard's AC would start at ~10 and rarely change. Only spells and magic item could save them. Literal sitting ducks. 

So they should be able to spend themes or feats to gain prof. with armor. When a wizard wear armor they don't have prof. with they have disadvantage with magic attack rolls and the targets of their spells have advantage with saving throws.


----------



## Yora (Jun 12, 2012)

Armor for wizards should be cheap, because of low-magic games. In such games, wizards depend even more on any added protection they can get. If you can get a heavily enchanted suit of armor, you can also get rings and amulets of protection.
But if you're low level and money is scarce, there's even a greater need to be able to done at least leather armor so you're not completely unprotected when exploring caves and ruins.


----------



## DNH (Jun 12, 2012)

A little bit Devil's advocate here but we should bear in mind that the rules we have at the moment are minimal and basic. They should be looked upon as the core rules, on top of which any number of optional rules can be added. So the basic assumption by D&D Next is that wizards in armour are unable to cast spells, while one DM might adopt an ASF system and another might allow full and free use of armour for mages. All are fine. It's the beauty of a modular system.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm fine with Wizards casting in armor, though I do think that a spell failure chance is applicable for Medium and Heavy Armor.  I figure it's only fair that if a Wizard actually spends a Feat on Armor Proficiency (or chooses a Military/Soldier Background, etc.), then they've already used some of their resources that could have been spent on Wizard specific Feats and/or Backgrounds.  I don't see the need to penalize them twice.  Though I do think that spell failure chances for Medium and Heavy Armor are thematically appropriate.


----------



## Yora (Jun 12, 2012)

3rd Edition psions start with no armor proficiency and have no spell failure. Never seen any complaints about that.


----------



## Jinete (Jun 12, 2012)

I don't want wizards to be able to cast in armor. I want wizards to be squishy, with low AC and low hitpoints. 

I know that there were many ways for wizards to buff their AC in previous versions, but that was then, and I hope that 5e goes a different way.

Also, I think the above should be extended to shields as well, which AFAIK isn't mentioned in the playtest.


----------



## VannATLC (Jun 12, 2012)

I fully support wizards casting in armour, as long as they've taken the appropriate training, and meet the pre-requisites.

I like the idea of somatic components in casting, but not to the point where armour would restrict them.


----------



## Oni (Jun 12, 2012)

I kind of feel like that you should be able to cast in armor if you're proficient in it, ie if you invested some resource in something you should be able to do it.  Mostly I`m thinking multiclass characters should be able to use their class features, for instance a fighter/mage ought be able to wear armor and cast spells, I mean they are giving something up to be able to do that.

edit:  My vote is that armor shouldn't interfere with spellcasting, provided the wearer is proficient in its use.


----------



## Blackwarder (Jun 12, 2012)

I voted for no casting in armor, flavor it as you will.

That being said, I have no problem what's so ever with there being a theme that allow for casting spells while wearing some kinds of armor.

Warder


----------



## Blackwarder (Jun 12, 2012)

Oni said:


> I kind of feel like that you should be able to cast in armor if you're proficient in it, ie if you invested some resource in something you should be able to do it.  Mostly I`m thinking multiclass characters should be able to use their class features, for instance a fighter/mage ought be able to wear armor and cast spells, I mean they are giving something up to be able to do that.




And then every wizard will take a level in fighter just to get the ability to cast spells in armor... 
No thanks, I'd much rather not have the obscene five-class-characters in the game.

Warder


----------



## Oni (Jun 12, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> And then every wizard will take a level in fighter just to get the ability to cast spells in armor...
> No thanks, I'd much rather not have the obscene five-class-characters in the game.
> 
> Warder




Traditionally giving up even a tiny portion of your spellcastimg has been a huge opportunity class.


----------



## Mircoles (Jun 12, 2012)

I've no problem with a wizard in armor, though I think that it reflects poorly on him. A wizard should protect himself with magic, not with the mundane. 

Regardless of what the real reasons are for wearing the armor, a wizard wearing armor is showing that he isn't powerful enough magically to protect himself and must turn to mundane non-magical means for protection.


----------



## slobo777 (Jun 12, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> And then every wizard will take a level in fighter just to get the ability to cast spells in armor...
> No thanks, I'd much rather not have the obscene five-class-characters in the game.
> 
> Warder




In 3.5, those PCs were only obscene (well, to me) due to the loading of saves and some of the class features onto the first level. And this was in part due to the multi-class rules in 3E. Saves were a particular problem.

Reverse problem was that mixing caster levels (even with other casters, or even in a very minor way) had a huge impact on the power level of the character. 

Let's wait and see how D&D Next approaches multi-classing . . . with themes it may even not be necessary (or in fact multi-classing could be accessed as a theme).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 12, 2012)

For me, spell failure was always a massive hassle: one more die roll on a wizard's turn. So I'm glad to see it bite the dust.

I'd like to have the default assumption be "you can't cast spells in armor that you are not proficient in." Then, a wizard who learns to use full plate can cast in it, but your bog-standard staff-stroker doesn't know its hauberk from its halter.


----------



## Yora (Jun 12, 2012)

Mircoles said:


> I've no problem with a wizard in armor, though I think that it reflects poorly on him. A wizard should protect himself with magic, not with the mundane.



Depends on the fluff. In a high magic world, I certainly agree with that.

But take for example a science fiction setting where you have a bunch of space marines accompanied by a telepath. That telepath would also at least wear a breathing mask and bulletproof vest just in case he is not able to make every enemy they encounter aim at points next to him. If you can project an impenetrable force field around you all day with your magic, than armor is silly. If not, added layers of protection are a nice addition. Just have a low-level D&D game in which there are many encounters with few rests, and a wizard may very well find himself in such a situation, even if you are simply playing "generic D&D stuff".


----------



## DonAdam (Jun 12, 2012)

The two obvious options are:

1) You can cast in armor you're proficient in.

This allows flexibility. The downside is that it's very easy for the counter-archetypal character to become the norm. That _is_ legitimate cost to be concerned with; classic archetypes should be well supported.

It's possible that the high opportunity cost of feats/themes or multiclassing will still make the classic archetype viable. Two cantrips is a lot to give up for armor.

2) There's a theme that allows for arcane casters in armor.

I like this one better for a few reasons. First, DM's that want a more classic feel can ban one (or a class of) theme(s). That's less clunky than reworking the armor proficiency rules for a narrow case.

Second, the theme can be made to "patch" the problems with multiclass wizard/X's, so you can have a ready made and easy to apply solution for gish's, arcane archers, etc.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 12, 2012)

I voted for "No Interferance".

As soon as you put up the restriction or spell failure, you'll inevitably end up with half-a-dozen ways to bypass it. Usually contrived stuff like "elves can cast in elven chain", or "this PrClass diminishes Arcane Spell Failure" or "these spells have no somatic components".

I want to be able to have a wizard with, the Soldier background, who wore at least leather armor around the battlefield as he served as a one-man artillery. I want to be able to make an Arcane Knight in full plate, wielding sword and flinging fireballs. These are no less D&D than the robed wizard.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 12, 2012)

As others have said the reasons provided by older editions for Wizards not wearing armour have felt contrived. 

First we need to define the penalties associated with a Non Proficient character wearing armour:
Reduced speed/movement, Disadvantage on checks, attacks, initiative, saves, perhaps after a while become fatigued/weakened/exhausted...etc

We need to also define the benefits gained by a single class fighter in armour as he rises in level - perhaps he gains DR as well as the raised AC. 

So for a Wizard/Multi-class Wizard must spend the necessary Feats/Themes to gain Armour Proficiency, even then, there is Light, Medium, Heavy Armour. The Wizard will have to give up normal Wizardly Feats/Themes to gain Armour Proficiency. There could be a scaling cost that increases dramatically due to split fields of study. Perhaps his DR will never match the single-class Fighter's or if it matches and he is more Fighter based his arcana ablity would take a knock.

Perhaps there should even be a minimum ability requirement (even if it is low, given the flatter math) for the wearing of medium/heavy armour. (Constitution/Strength)

Other than that I don't see the problem. If the player is prepared to pay the cost for wearing armour then let it happen, just ensure such cost is sufficient and can be easily explained.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jun 12, 2012)

I like the "glass cannon" feel of a wizard, both as a player and DM. Instead of relying on AC, you rely on magic to keep you out of trouble, either through Mirror Image, Shield, Invisibility, Flying or through tactics like trying to keep your distance.


----------



## Balesir (Jun 12, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> And then every wizard will take a level in fighter just to get the ability to cast spells in armor...
> No thanks, I'd much rather not have the obscene five-class-characters in the game.



Yep, this is one reason I don't want "fudges" like "well, it's OK for fighter-mages but the general rule is you can't cast in armour".

The real question is "should spellcasters be able to get AC as good as a fighter's?" My answer is "yes, they should, but at a cost in character resources terms, whereas a fighter gets it as part of the class". Whether this AC is gained through heavy armour (bought with proficiency feats), magic equipment (e.g. bracers of defence) or "always on" spells (effectively spell slots spent to have Mage Armour up permanently), I really don't mind. Provided we don't get any lame "Mage Armour is a ritual that needs a 100 gp focus to cast and lasts 8 hours" (without using up any spell slots at all) it'll all be acceptably balancable, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 12, 2012)

I have to admit, I don't really have a problem with wizards in armor.  I mean, with their reduced hit points, it's still suicidal to get into the front rank anyway.  Sure, you get hit less, but, you can only take half as many hits as the fighter anyway.  You manage to survive four rounds instead of two.  Not a major deal.

Heck, let 'em use swords too.  I remember a Dragon article from WAAYYY back that talked about this and the basic gist of the article was, "Well, if they wanna play with the big boys, let 'em and see how long they survive."


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 12, 2012)

I like Magic-Users better off with armor in early levels and it being a magic item or spell cost in higher levels. Learning how to get around without being a brick wall on the battlefield and being a cannon instead is part of the class IMO. 

This is one very evenly split vote though. It'll be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## Salamandyr (Jun 12, 2012)

From what I can tell, armor proficiency comes from your class and sometimes theme (in the case of guardians for instance), which seems like the right way to go.   This seems like the way to go.  

The vanilla wizard will not be able to cast in armor, thus keeping the "wizard in robes" intact, but if you want to pick a nonstandard theme or take some multiclass levels, then you can wear whatever armor the theme or multiclass gives you.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 12, 2012)

Votan said:


> The logic of the situation, for me, has always been an issue of training.  Wizards focus on learning how to cast spells.  Warriors focus on arms and armor.  If you let wizards acquire a major skill of warriors without detracting from magical focus then why can't warriors just pick up magic on the side?




Pet peeve of mine, but since when is "wearing armor" a major skill?

Armor is designed to make it easy to move and fight. There is no special talent required to make it not fall off your body*. It just sits there. If you can carry a 50-pound backpack and suffer no penalty, it's ridiculous to give you a penalty for wearing 50 pounds of armor--the backpack is a much greater hindrance than the armor is. Just like arcane spell failure, armor proficiency is a kludge that has nothing to do with verisimilitude. Its sole purpose is to hoke up an excuse for why characters with plenty of cash and access to full plate should ever wear lesser armor.

I'm sure there are tricks and techniques to maximize the effectiveness of armor, but if you don't know those techniques, the only penalty should be that the armor isn't quite as good for your AC as it would otherwise be, maybe 1-2 points' worth. Full plate should still be miles better than mail or leather.

[SIZE=-2]*Putting the armor on and buckling all the straps correctly can be a pain, but nothing that can't be solved by the party fighter rolling her eyes and showing the wizard what goes where.[/SIZE]


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 12, 2012)

Wizards and not casting in armor wasn't totally contrived, if I remember correctly.

Stories and myths (not so much modern novels) used to have all that iron and steel disrupting the "flow" of magic.  Cold iron, metal shavings kept away faeries, etc.

Now if I could remember some literary examples, my point would carry more weight...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 12, 2012)

DonAdam said:


> The two obvious options are:
> 
> 1) You can cast in armor you're proficient in.
> 
> ...




Ah, but Option 1 and Option 2 might be the same thing: theme (or background, or both) might grant you weapon and armor proficiencies.

I don't think the wizard class should be able to use spells in armor unless they invest in some unusual character resources. Like Klaus's idea: if backgrounds grant proficiencies, and Soldier grants proficiency in, say, scale mail, then the PC wizard who starts with Soldier and can use spells in armor they are proficient in can use spells in scale mail. 

WHEEE!


----------



## RupertADnD (Jun 12, 2012)

I think 4E is the best solution. You can have armor as a wizard, but you need feats to aquire proficiency in it. Its simple, I like it simple.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 12, 2012)

Mages do not wear armor. Messes with their magic.

Period. Next topic.


----------



## tuxgeo (Jun 12, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Wizards should just start with no armor prof.
> 
> With Bounded accuracy, the wizard's AC would start at ~10 and rarely change. Only spells and magic item could save them. Literal sitting ducks.
> 
> So they should be able to spend themes or feats to gain prof. with armor. When a wizard wear armor they don't have prof. with they have disadvantage with magic attack rolls and the targets of their spells have advantage with saving throws.




If we also add STR and CON prerequisites to the armor proficiency feats, we'll get closer to an (IMHO) ideal system. 

I would also like to see a DC penalty included: wear Light Armor and take a -1 penalty to save DCs on your spells; wear Medium Armor and take a -2 penalty to save DCs on your spells; wear Heavy Armor and take a -3 penalty to save DCs on your spells. Take another -1 or -2 penalty for wearing a Light Shield or a Heavy Shield. 

The fighter-mage classes would have to specialize in spells that don't offer saves. . . .


----------



## Klaus (Jun 12, 2012)

SkidAce said:


> Wizards and not casting in armor wasn't totally contrived, if I remember correctly.
> 
> Stories and myths (not so much modern novels) used to have all that iron and steel disrupting the "flow" of magic.  Cold iron, metal shavings kept away faeries, etc.
> 
> Now if I could remember some literary examples, my point would carry more weight...



And right next to "armor-messes-with-my-magic" wizard is the "armor-doesn't-mess-with-my-magic" cleric.

"Spells can't be cast in armor" negates the possibility of, say, a Fighter that picks up the Magic-User theme and continues to wear his chainmail.

I'm on the camp of "no arcane failure in armor you're proficient in".


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 12, 2012)

For me, this is another one of those cases where the "arcane failure" causes you to lose the spell was too much, but the Next playtest Con check is perfect. Take damage, try to cast a spell next round, must make a Con check, or the spell does not go off, but is not lost.

So say that an arcane caster wearing armor with which he is not proficient is treated as if he had taken damage every round, for purposes of spell casting. If such a caster actually takes damage the prior round, he gets disadvantage on the Con check. 

Then turn around and give armor a Str and Con requirement (though not so out of hand that you bar other concepts--keep the requirements somewhat low). Now, a straight wizard that wants to wear heavy armor will have to make a committment to Str and Con to make this plausible. If you have a bit of Str and Con, you can slap on a chain shirt in a pinch, but it will cost the guy rounds of casting in a fight. He won't do it much.

Meanwhile, the fighter/wizard multiclass character--who isn't going to necessarily cast every round in combat anyway, is quite happy with the restrictions, since he needs some Str and Con for the warrior side. If he starts going for a ton of combat/blaster magic (AKA stepping on the wizard's toes), he'll still lose some rounds because of having to make that Con check all the time.

That "does not go off this round" Con check is a handy thing to anchor some mechanics around. It's modeling things that interfere with casting, without being draconian about it. So if something conceptually interferes with casting, you have a place to tie to.

Edit:  Also note that there is no reason why everything I said can't be in a module, with the current playtest blanket ban as the default in the Core.  Many wizards are going to have an 8 to 10 Str, and a lot more are going to avoid armor by flavor.  But mainly, the Core is already supporting the "hook" for such a module, with the Con check for damage, as is.  Likewise, you could also have a few themes designed for armorered arcane casters that do not require the Con check.  These guys have specficially trained in armor while casting--so no interference for them--at the opportunity cost of whatever other theme they could have taken.


----------



## Ratskinner (Jun 12, 2012)

I've always thought/played that the restrictions were based on two issues:

a) armor interferes with the "magical energies"
b) wearing armor is hot and generally unpleasant, requiring training to wear effectively....typical wizard doesn't have those.

I prefer wizards to be more glass-cannonish. However, I could certainly see that some special (read very expensive) custom armors might be available that allow for arcane spellcasting. I've often thought that D&D has more room for "masterwork" items that aren't necessarily magical, but that overcome some restrictions like that. 

All in all, too small an issue to worry about at this point in playtesting.

edit/afterthought:
Of course, one could have enchanted cloth armor, or something, I guess.


----------



## Kavon (Jun 12, 2012)

The votes seem to be evenly spread.. This says to me: Depends on your table.

If the DM doesn't want arcane magic to be possible in armor, then it's not.

If the DM wants it to be possible with proficiency, than it is.

If the DM wants to put in spell failure %, then that's how it works.

There really is no wrong answer here.. It's purely up to your own preference.


I'd prefer to be able to make a war wizard (who logically wears armor).
Makes no sense to go into the battlefield, where everyone is armored up for protection, to not be protected yourself. Same logic as archers wearing armor, really (*exactly* the same situation, if you ask me).
That is, unless there is some reliable spell that protects you instead, of course.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 12, 2012)

I am liking [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] idea that armor imposes a Con check every round. 


A wizard must have a Strength Score at least 10 higher than the armor bonus or theymust make a Constitution save and risk spell failure on a failed save.

The way you can play a high Con or Str wizard of a Str or Con race make up for the lack of a Int bonus with higher AC.

Half Orc fighter/wizards in chainmail.


----------



## am181d (Jun 12, 2012)

There should just be a minimum Strength requirement for competently wearing armor, and if you don't meet that requirement, you're slow and clumsy in it. Something like:

Light Armor requires STR 11.
Medium Armor requires STR 13.
Heavy Armor requires STR 15.

If you do not meet the requirement, you suffer the following penalties (above and beyond those applied for proficient use):
* -2 to AC and Dex checks
* -5 ft. to speed
* automatically fatigued after 1 hour until next extended rest (disadvantage on all rolls)

Note that the last penalty only kicks in after an hour, giving the wizard some minor incentive to suit up for isolated combats (e.g. when Gandalf straps on the armor for the big battle scene).

This approach has a couple of advantages: One, it simulates what's really happening in fantasy fiction. (Guys avoid armor because it's big and bulky and they're not strong enough.) Two, it nicely aligns typical strength ranges for particular classes with the armors they tend to wear. (Wizard 10, Rogue 12, Cleric 14, Fighter 16.) 

This could be further tinkered with. (Might make sense to drop everything down by 2 pts. so that the Paladin with a Strength of 13 can wear plate mail without penalty...)


----------



## OnlineDM (Jun 12, 2012)

Wow... I have never seen such an evenly divided poll! As of this writing, it's 38 votes for "no spells while in armor", 40 votes for "arcane spell failure chance" and 41 votes for "cast freely in armor".

If the broader gamer population is so evenly divided on this question, it will be tricky for WotC to make these rules appeal to everyone.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 12, 2012)

am181d said:


> If you do not meet the [Strength] requirement, you suffer the following penalties (above and beyond those applied for proficient use):
> * -2 to AC and Dex checks
> * -5 ft. to speed
> * automatically fatigued after 1 hour until next extended rest (disadvantage on all rolls)
> ...




This is a horribly bad simulation.

We already have encumbrance rules that assess penalties for carrying a given weight of gear. Wearing that weight in the form of armor--evenly distributed across your body, carefully engineered to hinder movement as little as possible--should make it _less_ cumbersome, not more. With this system, a suit of plate armor is a major hindrance if you're wearing it, yet you can take the very same armor, bundle it up, and strap it to your back and it's all good. This is preposterous.

I think it's good to take a step back and ask what we're trying to accomplish here. It's got nothing to do with simulation. Simulation requires no penalties for armor beyond regular encumbrance, and we should in fact expect _less_ penalty for armor than we'd get for the same weight in a backpack.

From what I can tell, the real goal is, and has always been, to support the "wizard in robes" archetype and to ensure the wizard remains squishy. There are better ways of doing that than fumbling for reasons why wizards just can't, can't wear that nasty plate armor. For instance, if the wizard can achieve comparable AC through the use of magic, that solves the "wizard in robes" problem. Give wizards a crappy base AC, reflecting their lack of close combat training, and that ensures wizards remain suitably squishy. And now you can have both armored and unarmored wizards adventuring together without trouble.


----------



## Gorgoroth (Jun 12, 2012)

*so many good answers here*

lots of good ideas. I concur with Dassul, above, that there should be mechanical reasons why wizards, through opportunity costs, would not willingly bother wearing plate or even chain. Leather I don't see the problem with. If they multiclass or spend the feats for armor (if they can get rid of armor feats entirely, that would be ultimate...not require VERY tricky balance to push people subtly or less-so towards classic archetypes due to their optimality for their role)

An optimal wizard should be in robes, because maybe his spellbook on his back is heavy enough, and they need Con to cast spells of a certain spell level. If they need strength and dex too, things get tricky. My AD&D evoker had str 10, dex 15, con 16 (required), int 17, and cha 13. We made checks in every single stat (well, except str). There would be no way to wear anything more than leather.

Gish characters should wear armor, because it makes sense if you are on the front lines to wear armor. If you are a pure wizard, you should avoid spending feats on chain and plate because those feats are MUCH better spent on other things. Leather should be recommended to wizards, as in 4e. 

4e's system sucks because they allowed Int to contribute to AC, to be "fair" i.e. awww, no more squishy smart guy who can't lift a spoon or dodge a charging granny. No, no, no. If you got the Str to wear armor, you should be able to wear it.

HOWEVER, I don't agree that carrying weight / encumbrance accurately reflects battle stamina drain from wearing armor. Wizards are just not trained to fight in melee, it's exausting, you are afraid, shaking, you lose energy like mad. I'm serious. Try boxing THREE rounds against someone who's trained at it, if you even THINK for one second you are able to do that wearing leather armor, or chain, or plate, without an insane amount of training, while still pulling off complex spells requiring concentration and mental focus, ahhhh...no.

Seriously, I did kickboxing for a few years and it's insane how quickly you are drained of every ounce of strength you have. And that's not a life-threatening situation (though it certainly feels like it). Without training, against someone who has some, in full-contact or even sport-contact type sports like boxing, you are DOOMED. 

So someone trying to fight without a decent strength and con in armor, is going to have disadvantage on all their attacks. If you meet the pre-requ. and have the training, go ahead. But just how many wizards do you think have good strength, good con, AND good int? Dex is a far more optimal way to boost your AC, and instead of spending one or two feats to acquire proficiency, you'd be better off taking other defensive fears or themes or spells. A gish or multiclass fighter/mage should be viable, and I see a theme could bypass disadvantage in heavy armor.

fighting is risky, life-threatening, and distracting. Fighting and casting in armor, dodging blows, in melee...should give disadvantage. That's a VERY good reason why wizards wouldn't bother. Make it a natural, emergent extension of the rules, instead of kludgy added on exceptions for certain classes.

A cost of three feats, 15 str, 13 con, should be enough to keep wizards out of plate. and if multiclassed into fighter for the feats, and you got the stats...why not. Maybe add a theme that allows you to bypass the disadvantage to casting spells (even WITH proficiency) in heavy armor. 

Maybe the "armored arcane caster" theme starts you off with removing disadvantage at level 1 in light armor, at level 5 in medium, and level 9 heavy armor. A cleric with medium armor theme could do the same but one step faster, and be in plate by level 5 instead. 

The opportunity cost of not taking a wizard blasty theme should be enough to keep most wizards in their robes.


----------



## Abstruse (Jun 12, 2012)

On one hand, I do believe there should be something preventing wizards from running around in armor since they're typically the most versatile character in the party and sometimes the most powerful as well. On the other hand, I would like the chance to play a wizard in heavy armor if it fits the story. At judging by the complete split on this poll, it looks like there's a lot of that sentiment across the entire community.

I think that if a wizard wants to wear armor, he or she should have to work for it. Even if multiclassed. Light armor shouldn't be a problem. I had my punk rock and goth phases and I never felt my movement was hindered by my leather jacket covered in metal studs or leather bracers or any of the other odd stuff I used to wear (yeah..."used to"...believe that and I've got a bridge for you). But plate armor or chainmail? Yeah, that's going to cause problems if you have to make precise gestures.

Spell failure works, but there should be some way to mitigate it - a feat or theme. I spend a lot of time and practice learning exactly how I can move in a certain type of armor to the exclusion of other things I could be learning, that makes both story and mechanical sense. This should be separate from simple proficiency, though. You take a level of fighter and get heavy armor proficiency, you still haven't trained in how to move in that armor while casting. But it also shouldn't take two feats to cast spells in armor either.

Hopefully, the designers will be able to come up with a simple and elegant solution like they seem to be good at doing so far with the game.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 12, 2012)

OnlineDM said:


> Wow... I have never seen such an evenly divided poll! As of this writing, it's 38 votes for "no spells while in armor", 40 votes for "arcane spell failure chance" and 41 votes for "cast freely in armor".
> 
> If the broader gamer population is so evenly divided on this question, it will be tricky for WotC to make these rules appeal to everyone.




Its sorta even. The result is skewed by the nature of the options. I put "no spells in armor" and "armor chance of fail" in the same conceptual category as it indicates no free ride for arcane casts with armor. 

The way I see it 58% (current number) of people dont want arcane casters to be unhindered in their ability to cast spells in armor, with 31% wanting it.


----------



## blalien (Jun 12, 2012)

I voted other.  Here is my ideal solution, erring on the side of simplicity:

Wizards cannot cast spells in armor.

Feat: Light Armored Wizard
You can wear and cast spells in light armor.

Feat: Medium Armored Wizard
Prerequisite: Light Armored Wizard, decent STR and CON
You can wear and cast spells in medium armor.

Feat: Heavy Armored Wizard
Prerequisite: Medium Armored Wizard, great STR and CON
You can wear and cast spells in heavy armor.

This is simple (no arcane spell failure or Concentration checks), and allows wizards to cast spells in armor, but they have to give up precious feats and ability distributions.  The exact STR and CON requirement is contingent on the amount abilities increase with level.  Shields would still be banned, since wizards need both hands to cast spells.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 12, 2012)

I do not understand why wizards in robes is cool, but other fluff based restrictions are wotc imposing their world on the rules. People complain all the time about how 4e imposed story items in the rules, and now people want story items to limit what armour a wizard can wear. What is the difference? 

Sent using Tapatalk 2


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 12, 2012)

Klaus said:


> And right next to "armor-messes-with-my-magic" wizard is the "armor-doesn't-mess-with-my-magic" cleric.
> 
> "Spells can't be cast in armor" negates the possibility of, say, a Fighter that picks up the Magic-User theme and continues to wear his chainmail.
> 
> I'm on the camp of "no arcane failure in armor you're proficient in".




Hey fair enough...

My opinions are influenced by how it was and how we rationalized it, I'm human.

As such, the cleric not suffering from the failure of magic while wrapped in pounds of steel was fine for us...because the source of their power was different. 

"Hey that guy just cast a spell while wearing plate....that's the dark cleric of Orcus we've been looking for...get him!"


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 12, 2012)

So, staves would be banned, as well?


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 12, 2012)

Klaus said:


> "Spells can't be cast in armor" negates the possibility of, say, a Fighter that picks up the Magic-User theme and continues to wear his chainmail.




Another strength of the system!  Want to do wizardly magic?  Forget heavy armor...stick to leather.


Like I said above (and I should have kept it in same reply) I know these feelings on this topic are rationalizations after the fact...to make the differences "make sense" internally.

I just wanted to make the point that it wasn't *totally* arbitrary from the beginning...like many folks implied upthread.  The reasons may have gotten lost in the edition changes, but they were there.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 12, 2012)

Armor and weapon restrictions were never a good balancing mechanism, and were a brute-force way of enforcing genre tropes, anyway.  I'd rather just see them go.  Much milder incentives to follow genre conventions (wizards in robes, knights in shining armor, and everything in between) would be fine.  But, "not being able to cast spells in armor" when you can conjure a field of force that's as protective as armor while being un-encumbering or turn into a monster with a +20 'natural' armor bonus, is just meaningless.


----------



## Thalain (Jun 12, 2012)

I've voted for the spell failure chance, but only as a baseline. I believe this should apply to the normal, run of the mill wizard wearing anything but the flimsiest and most expensive mithril.

However, I could well imagine variant themes that allow casting in any armor or forbid armor entirely if this is made up for by some other balancing aspect.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jun 12, 2012)

I've only read the first page, so if this has already been said, sorry. (I voted for armor making casting more difficult.)

I find the idea of armor proficiency being needed to wear armor and cast spells amusing. If _all_ you're doing is walking around in it and making gestures that you are intimately familiar with, why do you need AP? You only need that if you're going to be actively fighting in the stuff. IMO. (I find it amusing because most of the people calling for APs also argue that the fluff reason for armor interfering with casting doesn't make much sense, which I agree with. But there needs to be _something_ that makes wearing armor more 'difficult' for casters.)


----------



## am181d (Jun 12, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> This is a horribly bad simulation.
> 
> We already have encumbrance rules that assess penalties for carrying a given weight of gear. Wearing that weight in the form of armor--evenly distributed across your body, carefully engineered to hinder movement as little as possible--should make it _less_ cumbersome, not more. With this system, a suit of plate armor is a major hindrance if you're wearing it, yet you can take the very same armor, bundle it up, and strap it to your back and it's all good. This is preposterous.




Encumbrance has been handled poorly in just about every edition of D&D. There's a reason most people (<-- I may be making this part up?) don't use it. I'd much prefer it be replaced with some common sense restrictions on armor and equipment use.

On a related note: Why is everyone in D&D always fighting with his/her backpack on? I'm struggling to think of any story/comic/movie/anything where the heroes intentionally go into combat wearing backpacks. (I feel like there's a relevant scene in the Mines of Moria in Fellowship, but I'm blanking.)


----------



## Arctic Wolf (Jun 12, 2012)

am181d said:


> Encumbrance has been handled poorly in just about every edition of D&D. There's a reason most people (<-- I may be making this part up?) don't use it. I'd much prefer it be replaced with some common sense restrictions on armor and equipment use.
> 
> On a related note: Why is everyone in D&D always fighting with his/her backpack on? I'm struggling to think of any story/comic/movie/anything where the heroes intentionally go into combat wearing backpacks. (I feel like there's a relevant scene in the Mines of Moria in Fellowship, but I'm blanking.)




That is true. The way I deal with it which is kinda meh, is that the adventurers throw their bags to the side when combat starts. Usually everyone is my group keeps all their stuff in a pouch on their side if it is that important, like poisons, rope, and the like.


----------



## blalien (Jun 12, 2012)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> So, staves would be banned, as well?




By both hands, I meant the wizard needs one hand to hold an implement and another hand to wiggle his or her fingers around.  I guess a feat that allowed a wizard to use a shield would be okay.


----------



## kinem (Jun 12, 2012)

Herremann the Wise said:


> This is just an absolute of 5e (wizards cannot wear armor, a dwarf cannot be poisoned, elves cannot be charmed, reapers cannot "miss")




Sounds like I'll be skipping 5e


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS (Jun 12, 2012)

This wizard can´t cast in armor is another of "let the wizard be powerful but hard to play" thing that I dislike from older d&d. To me the 4e solution is perfect, they simply needs feats to use armor.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 12, 2012)

I voted other because I don't really care whether it is spell failure chance (or disadvantage?) if casting in armour, or can cast in any armour as long as you are proficient or *something*.

I really dislike the principle of wizards can't cast in armour 'just because'.

Clerics are happily casting away in armour, and as has already been pointed out - chain or even plate wouldn't prevent anything other than the most contortionistic somatic gestures!

There was one early d20 game which had magic use generating a lot of heat in the caster so they had to wear minimal clothing to prevent heat-stroke. That was one way of doing it  but I don't think the generic fantasy which is D&D (and yes, I think it is still pretty generic notwithstanding its own tropes) is a good place to introduce specific rules like that.

After all - if you have no magic casting in ANY ARMOUR AT ALL, I can't see many PCs taking the otherwise very interesting 'Magic User' theme which we've seen - which would be a shame. I think any class might benefit from having a couple of cantrips available to them 

Cheers


----------



## mlund (Jun 12, 2012)

Armor is not a magical force-field that's always providing the same level of protection no matter how you move around in it. Training in using armor effectively actually *is* important because every suit of armor has its strong and weak points. There are good angles to take a blow on and bad ones. The slope of layered plates or laminate is crucial if you know how to use it. Limited fields of vision is something heavy armor users have to train to compensate for. A character who is untrained with armor or just not strong enough to move freely in armor isn't going to get anywhere near the same protection.

I'd impose a -2 penalty to AC for untrained Medium Armor use.
I'd grant Advantage to attacks against untrained Heavy Armor users.
Casters in armor they aren't trained for are *disrupted* at all times.

Yes, you could game this at really low levels if you've burned all your 3-4 daily spells by throwing on a chain shirt or something and sticking to cantrips. It also makes the Dabbler option fine for other classes that have armor. "Armored Mage" as a theme would be pretty cool too. Feat-gain marks would unlock better and better armor - Level 1 Leather, Level 3 Studded, Level 6 Chain Shirt & Ring Mail, Level 9 Scale, Level 12 Splint + Chainmail, Level 15 Banded, Level 18 Plate.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 12, 2012)

I've never been satisfied with the fluff explanations for it, but at the same time it's a trope that I want to preserve-- I want Wizards to have a hard time with armor, but for Warmages and Magi and Fighter/Wizards to have varying degrees of ability to cast spells in armor.

I don't want it to be impossible, and I don't want it to be a terrible penalty. I just want it to cost a non-trivial amount of resources to accomplish. (Sacrificing one caster level for a Fighter dip is trivial.) I want Bards and Bladesingers to wear light armor as a matter of course, and for an Eldritch Knight in plate mail to be an automatic object of fear and awe for his mastery of the arms and the arcane.

And I want heavy armor to actually be worth putting that level of investment into.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 13, 2012)

"Difficult to cast" arcane spells in armor does not necessarily need to mean physical impediment.  Nor does it need to be explicitly spelled out (though a list of several different possible reasons would not hurt).  It's probably in the game for the classic "cold iron impedes magic" bit, with clerics immune because they are merely channelling power from their god.

In fact, the idea behind special materials negating the problem is building on those same "cold iron" sources.  This is also one of the sources for the weapon restrictions on wizard, albeit clouded.  They get to use quarterstaffs for obvious reasons, but get to use daggers without specifying that the dagger bit comes from a ceremonial caster dagger--you guessed it, made out of special materials and/or magically treated so that the cold iron doesn't interfere.

I'm for a generic drawback to casting in armor.  Make it generic enough but chosen well, and you can rationalize it many different ways, depending on how you want the campaign to go.


----------



## Abstruse (Jun 13, 2012)

Viktyr Korimir said:


> I've never been satisfied with the fluff explanations for it, but at the same time it's a trope that I want to preserve-- I want Wizards to have a hard time with armor, but for Warmages and Magi and Fighter/Wizards to have varying degrees of ability to cast spells in armor.



The fluff's always made perfect sense to me, especially in the editions that specify that it's only spells with somatic components. If you can't move freely to do the proper gestures, there's a chance that the restrictions of armor might cause problems properly making the gestures. Like I said, I had a punk phase and a goth phase where I wore a lot of armor-like accessories and while I rarely had problems moving around in a leather jacket with metal studs all over it or with leather bracers on, I also got used to it and I can easily see how it could screw up if you had to do anything precise. And I also never wore gloves either.

Metal screwing with the arcane energies? Yeah, never understood that one especially when "leather" and "hide" are choices for armor that have the same restrictions.

As far as cleric spells being different from arcane spells, never bothered me either because I guess I just always accepted it. Divine spells are supposed to be the cleric channeling the power of his/her deity so I guess I just automatically accepted that they'd work differently.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 13, 2012)

steeldragons said:


> Mages do not wear armor. Messes with their magic.
> 
> Period. Next topic.




What if the mages studied with elves?  They seemed to have figured it out.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm OK with either the 3E or 4E approach.  Spellcasting in armor should be possible if you sacrifice a bit for it (so you can be a BECMI Elf, or 1E F/MU, without being as overpowered as those classes were), but the default should encourage casting without armor, or achieving protection through magical means like _mage armor_.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jun 13, 2012)

kinem said:


> Sounds like I'll be skipping 5e



It's a shame if you let a few odd mechanics turn you off the entire game. The game is never going to be a perfect fit for me but for over 30 years playing D&D, I've coped. And hey, if enough people don't like this sort of stuff, the designers will most likely change or adapt it.

***

In terms of armour, I can see the following being used to both preserve the robed wizard yet allow other archetypes:
*You need to be both strong and hale to have proficiency with wearing armour (something the robed wizard may not likely be but the fightery type of wizard would). If a wizard is wearing armour they are not proficient with, then either they cannot cast spells, or suffer a %chance of losing/ miscasting the spell. [My preference however, is to have casting a spell be a check. In this case different armours would provide different penalties to that casting check with non-proficiency being a -4 penalty on top.
*You cannot cast spells while encumbered unless you have training (a feat). This again requires above average constitution and perhaps a pre-requisite feat or perhaps even an entire theme.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jun 13, 2012)

I'll vote the Joan Crawford "NO ARCANE MAGIC IN ARMOR EVER!!!!"

At least in the basic game, some mechanic can be added for the more complex versions.


----------



## Blood & Bones (Jun 13, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> Its sorta even. The result is skewed by the nature of the options. I put "no spells in armor" and "armor chance of fail" in the same conceptual category as it indicates no free ride for arcane casts with armor.
> 
> The way I see it 58% (current number) of people dont want arcane casters to be unhindered in their ability to cast spells in armor, with 31% wanting it.




Actually, you could make an argument that the poll indicates more people want spell casting in armor; ASF still gives a chance to cast in armor, after all...

It is a fairly divided poll. I suspect that the base rules will provide an "All of the Above" option in the form of modules. It's an unsatisfactory answer, but there you go.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 13, 2012)

am181d said:


> On a related note: Why is everyone in D&D always fighting with his/her backpack on? I'm struggling to think of any story/comic/movie/anything where the heroes intentionally go into combat wearing backpacks. (I feel like there's a relevant scene in the Mines of Moria in Fellowship, but I'm blanking.)




I've generally assumed that characters drop rucks on contact and recover them after the fight, or else stash them at the ORP before entering the dungeon.  It only becomes an issue if they decide to run away.

On the other hand, why expect fantasy to be too realistic?

< Break >

On the other hand, why not make clothing interfere with casting, as well?  I seem to vaguely recall a fantasy story along those lines -- the most powerful wizards ran around essentially naked.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jun 13, 2012)

Call me crazy, but I'd like to see both plate mail wearing wizards and unarmored Conan-esque fighters as viable character options in this edition, even if they're not the norm.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 13, 2012)

kinem said:


> Sounds like I'll be skipping 5e




Over 1 small detail?

These "do it my way or I wont buy your product" posts are great for other forums, there not-contributory here.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 13, 2012)

What I'm going with in the latest version of my Basic D&D hack helps with this problem somewhat. The base idea is that martial training level based on class is the most important factor to determine AC. DEX and armor will add to this but not so much of the AC has to come from this. 

For example ( if I were using ascending AC

Fighters base AC  14

Cleric base AC  13

Thief base AC  12

Wizard base AC  10 

ARMORS:
Light  +1
Medium +2
Heavy +3
Very Heavy +4 

SHIELDS:
Small  +1
Medium +2
Large +2 (+3 vs missiles) and and init. penalty. 

DEX bonuses would be phased out as the armor got heavier. The wizard can wear whatever armor he/she wishes but not being martially trained, will still not have the AC of the fighter. 

Thieves will still be encouraged to wear lighter armor because of their abilities, and clerics can go with whatever type of armor suits their style. 
Most importantly, fighters can be high DEX swashbucker style if they wish without being completely hosed on AC since training rather than armor is most important. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 13, 2012)

Blood & Bones said:


> Actually, you could make an argument that the poll indicates more people want spell casting in armor; ASF still gives a chance to cast in armor, after all...
> 
> It is a fairly divided poll. I suspect that the base rules will provide an "All of the Above" option in the form of modules. It's an unsatisfactory answer, but there you go.




Honestly, I think you could probably split the difference.  It's close enough either way.

And, yup, I hope we get an "All of the Above" option.  That's always the best answer.


----------



## AlioTheFool (Jun 13, 2012)

If we want to play the "you can't cast in armor because realistically you wouldn't have proper training and your movement would be hampered" card, then I want to play the "okay, when I hit you with a fireball I want your flesh to melt as you incinerate within your tin can" and the "you literally explode within your tin can as the force of one billion volts of electricity slam into you from my lightning bolt" cards. 

I'm so tired of seeing people try to find ways to make wizards undesirable to play. If you don't want magic users in your game, disallow the classes at your table. 

When you really consider it, no amount of training makes it reasonable to perform the types of maneuvers a D&D fighter would perform wearing plate mail either. 

The only reason for the whole "no casting/hampered casting" in D&D is the desire of those who hate magic users to turn them into boring characters. Again, if you don't want magic users in your campaign, ban the classes from your table. Don't make the rest of us feel like crap simply to make your "I hit it with my sword" boring fighters feel like super heroes.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 13, 2012)

Rather than retype what I have to say about some of the, err, arguments advanced here, I'll simply link:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...ing-magic-back-school-long-2.html#post5943250.  If it is unclear, see the last paragraph two posts below that one.


----------



## Blood & Bones (Jun 13, 2012)

AlioTheFool said:


> If we want to play the "you can't cast in armor because realistically you wouldn't have proper training and your movement would be hampered" card, then I want to play the "okay, when I hit you with a fireball I want your flesh to melt as you incinerate within your tin can" and the "you literally explode within your tin can as the force of one billion volts of electricity slam into you from my lightning bolt" cards.




If we wanted that level of realism, we'd be playing "Business & Bosses."



> I'm so tired of seeing people try to find ways to make wizards undesirable to play. If you don't want magic users in your game, disallow the classes at your table.






It's not about trying to make wizards undesirable to play; it's about making them balanced & keeping true to D&D's roots. Really. In OD&D 1st, and 2nd, wizards did not wear armor at all. It's only in 3rd edition that they were given an Arcane Spell Fail chance, and in 4th edition that they did away with the armor rule.

Now, I don't know you from Adam, but based on your response, I can guess that you are either a 3rd or 4th edition player. If you talk to OD&D, 1st, and 2nd edition players about what the most powerful core class was, the majority of them would say it was the wizard. And even though wizards sucked at low levels, there were plenty of players who chomped at the bit to play a Magic-User.



> When you really consider it, no amount of training makes it reasonable to perform the types of maneuvers a D&D fighter would perform wearing plate mail either.
> 
> The only reason for the whole "no casting/hampered casting" in D&D is the desire of those who hate magic users to turn them into boring characters. Again, if you don't want magic users in your campaign, ban the classes from your table. Don't make the rest of us feel like crap simply to make your "I hit it with my sword" boring fighters feel like super heroes.




True on the first part, incorrect on the second part. I don't think anyone wants Wizards to be boring... or any other class for that matter. And there is nothing wrong with wanting Wizards to be exciting characters - but they also need to leave room for other characters to shine as well.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 13, 2012)

AlioTheFool said:


> I'm so tired of seeing people try to find ways to make wizards undesirable to play. If you don't want magic users in your game, disallow the classes at your table.




I dont think anyone is trying to do that. Why would we? We all love the game and the wizard is an integral part of it.

Give your fellow posters some credit.


----------



## Vael (Jun 13, 2012)

I still think 4e's approach was the best, Wizards aren't naturally proficient in armour, but they don't have any problems with spells once they are.

I like the idea of part of your AC is determined by your class, so a fighter in Plate is still going to have superior AC to a wizard in Plate.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 13, 2012)

This is one of those issues with tons of legacy baggage.  The reason Magic Users couldn't use armor was pretty much a game balance one.  MU's were artillery - they aren't supposed to get up into the fight.  Clerics were, so, they got armor.  The primary focus was pretty much entirely gamist and then all sorts of flavour reasons were piled on top to make it more interesting.

The question to me is, are those game balance underpinnings still valid?  Why is the wizard being limited this way?  What is he getting in return for lowered survival chances.  In AD&D, he got fantastic cosmic powers at higher levels.  In 3e, the same thing mostly applies as well.  A high level wizard is one of the most powerful classes in the game.

But, do we want to keep this style of balance - balance over the long term where you have weak-->strong character classes?  If not, then the main justification for no armor goes away.  If a wizard is (more or less) on par with every other class at every point in the game, then this limitation isn't really doing anything.


----------



## kinem (Jun 13, 2012)

Herremann the Wise said:


> It's a shame if you let a few odd mechanics turn you off the entire game. The game is never going to be a perfect fit for me but for over 30 years playing D&D, I've coped. And hey, if enough people don't like this sort of stuff, the designers will most likely change or adapt it.




It's not just a few odd mechanics. If the designers are already putting in absolutes like the ones I quoted (wizards can't cast in armor, dwarves immune to poison, etc.) that speaks volumes about how dumbed-down and anti-simulationist the game is going to be. It's true that even 3.5 contained absolutes such as a few rare monsters and characters being immune to poison; it's also true that that's one of the reasons we needed a new edition - to fix that junk!

You've coped with the bits you don't like; so have I, of course. But then, you _had_ to accept it, if you wanted to keep playing D&D. That is no longer the case: We have alternatives now, particularly Pathfinder.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 13, 2012)

kinem said:


> It's not just a few odd mechanics. If the designers are already putting in absolutes like the ones I quoted (wizards can't cast in armor, dwarves immune to poison, etc.) that speaks volumes about how dumbed-down and anti-simulationist the game is going to be. It's true that even 3.5 contained absolutes such as a few rare monsters and characters being immune to poison; it's also true that that's one of the reasons we needed a new edition - to fix that junk!
> 
> You've coped with the bits you don't like; so have I, of course. But then, you _had_ to accept it, if you wanted to keep playing D&D. That is no longer the case: We have alternatives now, particularly Pathfinder.




You call it junk, I dont.

On some levels, I actually like the approach. Im after narrative style play (which I think you call "anti-simulationist") and absoultes work well for that : easy decisions keep play fast and let the story roll forward.

It isnt as well suited to the "Diablo" style play, where character growth is the purpose for playing (as opposed to being a single aspect) ...your right, Pathfinders is your best option for that!! But its not what Im looking for. Been there, done it, over it.

I find it enlightening, because I now realize that the very things I desire the game to be are at odds with what you want it to be, which would go a long way to explaining your ire. Im stoked by just about everything Im hearing about 5e.

Perhaps your right...Pathfinder is the game for you.


----------



## epochrpg (Jun 13, 2012)

I think armored casting should just be a theme.  Seems especially appropriate for elves.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jun 13, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> You call it junk, I dont.
> 
> On some levels, I actually like the approach. Im after narrative style play (which I think you call "anti-simulationist") and absoultes work well for that : easy decisions keep play fast and let the story roll forward.
> 
> It isnt as well suited to the "Diablo" style play, where character growth is the purpose for playing (as opposed to being a single aspect) ...your right, Pathfinders is your best option for that!! But its not what Im looking for. Been there, done it, over it.



I'm not too sure based on this you're quite understanding kinem's point of view. I imagine (and could be quite wrong) that "Diablo" style play is way down on kinem's list (and would also suggest that 4e would be as equally an optimum D&D ruleset for such a style). [I'm a subscriber to basically every line Paizo produces as well as a DDI subscriber since it started in case such matters.]

However, what my complaint (that kinem focused on) was all about was the believability of the rule mechanics and from a design perspective, the issue of absolutes being terrible design for that believability. It is a level of simplification that feels quite uncomfortable when you are looking for the mechanics to support a believable world. For example, why can't wizards cast spells when wearing armour? Metal interferes? Compromises somatic casting? Some other contrived reason? Does this mean wizards have to be naked, or robed, or not wear leather robes, or leather robes with metallic buttons, or leather robes with ornamental metal strips, or... you get the idea. It creates a ridiculous situation where a line in the sand is drawn that makes little to no sense.

I think from this thread, such simplification while fine for some players is the complete antithesis of what a different group of players want from their D&D. This different group is looking for a finer grade of granularity when it comes to the mechanics producing a believable world. Having dwarves immune to all poison is perhaps the worst from my perspective as it simply does not mesh. Why not just give dwarves advantage to checks against poison? Just as simple, supports one of the big 5e mechanics, and better represents a Dwarf's resistance rather than immunity to poison.

In terms of armour, it seems that most people are fine with wizards attempting to cast spells regardless of what they are wearing. However, as long as there are incentives to have the traditional robed wizard, as well as options to have different armoured archetypes of arcane caster then everyone will be happy, or at least in a position to houserule out the parts they do not like. Left as is, you have these absolute design elements sticking out that are not very rewarding if you prefer a more believable play style.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## slobo777 (Jun 13, 2012)

The one thing I *do* remember about wearing armour (from LARP, but I borrowed some re-enactor's full chain, and sometimes ran around in this heavy armour, and sometimes in lighter leather armour) is that you can seriously overheat. I was glad of the rain during the big battle.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 13, 2012)

Straight out of the box I do not think Wizards should be able to cast in armour (but as magical armour is in, if they can get magic robes or what-have-you to bump their AC, I think that could work).

Having said that, maybe down the line there could be a way to do it (kit, prestige class, paragon path, special theme etc).


----------



## MarkB (Jun 13, 2012)

am181d said:


> On a related note: Why is everyone in D&D always fighting with his/her backpack on?




Because unattended objects get individually targeted by fireballs, and mundane ones don't even get saves.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 13, 2012)

I seem to recall one game-- but not the name of it-- in which the reason Wizards didn't wear metal armor and often went as near to naked as they could afford was *because* of overheating. Magic generated a lot of heat, and a powerful mage could cook himself if he weren't careful.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 13, 2012)

AlioTheFool said:


> I'm so tired of seeing people try to find ways to make wizards undesirable to play.




If your not wearing robes, you are not actually a wizard, you are just some fighter/mage hybrid. 

If wearing Robes is an obviously sub-optimal choice for arcane casters, that would have the effect of almost completely removing wizards from the game.


----------



## Chalice (Jun 13, 2012)

Despite the fact that I'm happy running 3.5 for the time being, albeit with a few house rules, I feel quite strongly that arcane, divine and psionic character alike should NOT have any issues casting spells / using powers while wearing armour. After all, melee-focussed (or archery-focussed) characters do not have issues moving around a heck of a lot at speed - in full plate for example!

The system needs to be balanced in different ways. It's archaic, and doesn't work well with many a character/archetype that might appeal to a prospective player. Having to kludge it via cheesy magic items and arbitrary all-but-flavourless prestige classes (or some equivalent) is less than ideal, I would say. 

I would prefer that each kind of caster (including arcane specialists, which perhaps all of them should be...) be _far_ more limited, less god-like, more flavourful (distinct from every other kind).


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 13, 2012)

Despite the very good points in this thread, I am still not convinced...

I guess I just don't like seeing wizards running around casting spells in heavy armor.

Those who have no problem with that, I suppose also would not mind seeing monks throwing flying kicks in heavy armor, rogues sneaking and disabling traps/locks in heavy armor, druids walking their pets in the bush in heavy armor, rangers tracking foes in the wild in heavy armor, etc...?


----------



## Votan (Jun 13, 2012)

I wonder if the trick might not be to take an idea from Star Wars Saga Edition and make it so that armor using classes got additional bonuses in armor as they leveled?  Then make armor not stack with a lot of other protective options.  

At high levels armor is very important to the warrior types (who have incredible instincts as to how to use it effectively) but is just one choice (and maybe not a great one) to the average wizard.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 13, 2012)

Sabathius42 said:


> What if the mages studied with elves?  They seemed to have figured it out.




Tru dat.

But, to my mind, that's because of the magical nature of elves...has nothing really to do with the "being a mage" part. A human mage who studied with elves still can't where armor. The elves can't teach them to BE an elf.

And, if memory serves, I wouldn't let elves use higher/more than leather or elvin chain as a mage either.

Though, in all honesty, if a player had a character whose background they wanted to be "I was raised and studied magic with the elves" I'd probably work with that to give them some kinda bonus spells per day or bonuses to their use of enchantment magics (harder to save against) or something like that. I would not permit them though to wear armor asa human wizard.

But that's just the fluffy bits of my game world...not really something I need or want the system telling me is "ok."

--SD


----------



## Oni (Jun 13, 2012)

Viktyr Korimir said:


> I seem to recall one game-- but not the name of it-- in which the reason Wizards didn't wear metal armor and often went as near to naked as they could afford was *because* of overheating. Magic generated a lot of heat, and a powerful mage could cook himself if he weren't careful.




That's from the Scarred Lands setting.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jun 13, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> Those who have no problem with that, I suppose also would not mind seeing monks throwing flying kicks in heavy armor, rogues sneaking and disabling traps/locks in heavy armor, druids walking their pets in the bush in heavy armor, rangers tracking foes in the wild in heavy armor, etc...?




Like fighters doing whirlwind attacks and other fancy sword maneuvers in heavy armor?


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 13, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> Like fighters doing whirlwind attacks and other fancy sword maneuvers in heavy armor?




Not the same thing...


----------



## Lwaxy (Jun 13, 2012)

I don't prohibit arcane magic users in my campaigns from wearing armor. If they have the background for it. 

Usually, the background of a mage comes from his or her place of training. No wizard's college worth the name would want their students in heavy armor, colorful robes are usually a status symbol. The mages wearing more than a leather vest or a mithril shirt would usually be the nobles who had training in armor and arms. And those are not in abundance. 

So yeah, I do have sword wielding, armor wearing mages in my campaigns. A whole of 7 over all the years  And they were never excelling at both.


----------



## Balesir (Jun 13, 2012)

Votan said:


> I wonder if the trick might not be to take an idea from Star Wars Saga Edition and make it so that armor using classes got additional bonuses in armor as they leveled?  Then make armor not stack with a lot of other protective options.
> 
> At high levels armor is very important to the warrior types (who have incredible instincts as to how to use it effectively) but is just one choice (and maybe not a great one) to the average wizard.



This is the sort of thing I would much prefer to see: a system that explains _why_ the world is (usually) a certain way, rather than dictating that the world _is_ a certain way.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 13, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> Despite the very good points in this thread, I am still not convinced...
> 
> I guess I just don't like seeing wizards running around casting spells in heavy armor.
> 
> Those who have no problem with that, I suppose also would not mind seeing monks throwing flying kicks in heavy armor, rogues sneaking and disabling traps/locks in heavy armor, druids walking their pets in the bush in heavy armor, rangers tracking foes in the wild in heavy armor, etc...?




*Monks throwing flying kicks: *This is an activity requiring jumping high and a lot of physical action. You shouldn't be able to do it carrying a large amount of weight. That includes armor. It also includes a big backpack.
*Rogues sneaking:* Moderate penalty perhaps.
*Rogues disabling traps/locks: *This is fine. I don't see why you think it wouldn't be.
*Druids walking pets in the bush:* Heavy armor is hot and uncomfortable and, well, heavy. It's not everyday clothing. I don't see why you'd wear it to walk your pet. However, if you want to, go for it.
*Rangers tracking foes:* This is fine. I don't see why you think it wouldn't be.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 13, 2012)

I don't think its unreasonable to prohibit other class features besides Arcane Casting from working in armour, and Monks I think would be the core contenders for that kind of restriction.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 13, 2012)

Maybe they should just continue to make heavy armor suck compared to the lighter options, mechanically, and then no one will want to wear it?


----------



## LordArchaon (Jun 13, 2012)

Voted "Other" and surprised of not seeing the option I would have voted, which follows.

- Don't allow armored spellcasting for wizard, but have backgrounds and/or themes and/or the equivalent of prestige classes partially or eventually completely override the limitation.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 13, 2012)

LordArchaon said:


> Voted "Other" and surprised of not seeing the option I would have voted, which follows.
> 
> - Don't allow armored spellcasting for wizard, but have backgrounds and/or themes and/or the equivalent of prestige classes partially or eventually completely override the limitation.



That's precisely what I'm against: setting up a restriction and then having to come up with ways to bypass it. I don't want to be forced into taking the Spellsword PrClass just cast spells in armor, or something to that effect. I'd prefer it if simple proficiency in the armor was enough to allow for armored spellcasting. The game won't be ruined if a wizard is wearing leather armor instead of casting Mage Armor upon himself.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 13, 2012)

Klaus said:


> That's precisely what I'm against: setting up a restriction and then having to come up with ways to bypass it. I don't want to be forced into taking the Spellsword PrClass just cast spells in armor, or something to that effect. I'd prefer it if simple proficiency in the armor was enough to allow for armored spellcasting. The game won't be ruined if a wizard is wearing leather armor instead of casting Mage Armor upon himself.




With themes allowing the casting in armor, and then the custom themes allowing mix and match, you could have exactly what LordArchoen said, and still satisfy your criteria:

Normally, an arcane caster can't cast in armor. However, take one of these themes, and you can. Don't want to take one of those themes, make your own theme, using whatever feat from an existing theme that gives you the casting in armor ability you wanted.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 13, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> With themes allowing the casting in armor, and then the custom themes allowing mix and match, you could have exactly what LordArchoen said, and still satisfy your criteria:
> 
> Normally, an arcane caster can't cast in armor. However, take one of these themes, and you can. Don't want to take one of those themes, make your own theme, using whatever feat from an existing theme that gives you the casting in armor ability you wanted.



It depends on where the armor proficiency will land. For instance, if proficiency comes from background (say, "Soldier"), I'd prefer if I only have to take the appropriate background to be able to cast spells in armor, no additional investment required.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 13, 2012)

Option 1 or 2 with two being my preference for the default and one being for certain settings.  That stated, for option 2, I would want to see the following:
1. Wizards do not start with armor proficiency
2. The wizard must spend feats to gain proficiency in  armor
3. To avoid end running around #2 by dipping,  if armor and weapon proficiency come from classes,  the armor and weapon proficiency from classes only apply to starting characters and represents their training prior to level one. Multi-classing does not, automatically, grant any new proficiency in the armor and weapons of the new class.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 13, 2012)

epochrpg said:


> I think armored casting should just be a theme.  Seems especially appropriate for elves.




I think the problem with that idea is that it is too one-note for a theme, which will be a defining aspect of the character. It also knocks out other potentially interesting themes.

Not saying it couldn't be done, but I don't like the idea which is often suggested of many special-purpose themes.

Cheers


----------



## was (Jun 13, 2012)

I prefer the ASF rules, though I often adjust the percentages upwards a bit to make them less severe.  However, I think enforcing encumbrance might offer a better check against abuse. Since IME many casters use Strength as a dump stat, I can't see them running around casting in plate mail using those rules.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 13, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think the problem with that idea is that it is too one-note for a theme, which will be a defining aspect of the character. It also knocks out other potentially interesting themes.
> 
> Not saying it couldn't be done, but I don't like the idea which is often suggested of many special-purpose themes.




Shouldn't be a theme, but should be a part of several appropriate themes (e.g. spellsword).  It is too narrow for a theme, but it is not too narrow as one feat mixed in with several other related abilities in a theme.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 13, 2012)

I like the 4E system where wizards certainly can wear armor, but it's expensive to build a character to do so and you have to make other, heavy sacrifices to do so.


----------



## AlioTheFool (Jun 13, 2012)

Hussar said:


> This is one of those issues with tons of legacy baggage.  The reason Magic Users couldn't use armor was pretty much a game balance one.  MU's were artillery - they aren't supposed to get up into the fight.  Clerics were, so, they got armor.  The primary focus was pretty much entirely gamist and then all sorts of flavour reasons were piled on top to make it more interesting.
> 
> The question to me is, are those game balance underpinnings still valid?  Why is the wizard being limited this way?  What is he getting in return for lowered survival chances.  In AD&D, he got fantastic cosmic powers at higher levels.  In 3e, the same thing mostly applies as well.  A high level wizard is one of the most powerful classes in the game.
> 
> But, do we want to keep this style of balance - balance over the long term where you have weak-->strong character classes?  If not, then the main justification for no armor goes away.  If a wizard is (more or less) on par with every other class at every point in the game, then this limitation isn't really doing anything.




EXACTLY! I've always maintained that the 4e ideal of making everyone equal without making someone broken is the right way to go. There is no reason to cripple any class when you can just as easily make all classes just as strong as the supposed "strongest" one. 



jadrax said:


> If your not wearing robes, you are not actually a wizard, you are just some fighter/mage hybrid.
> 
> If wearing Robes is an obviously sub-optimal choice for arcane casters, that would have the effect of almost completely removing wizards from the game.




Maybe in *your* game that is true, but in *my* game that's not the case. Even if we say that it then *is* some fighter/mage hybrid, so what? There is a theme a fighter can take right now that would allow her to cast magic. So do we not see that as the same thing? Or is this another example of "get rid of the wizard so my sword and board are in the spotlight"?



Li Shenron said:


> Despite the very good points in this thread, I am still not convinced...
> 
> I guess I just don't like seeing wizards running around casting spells in heavy armor.
> 
> Those who have no problem with that, I suppose also would not mind seeing monks throwing flying kicks in heavy armor, rogues sneaking and disabling traps/locks in heavy armor, druids walking their pets in the bush in heavy armor, rangers tracking foes in the wild in heavy armor, etc...?




Those aren't any more unrealistic than a fighter in a suit of armor being able to do the things they do in D&D. We have all seen suits of real armor before, correct? They were hard to walk in, much less fight in. Yet we suspend disbelief for them. 

That's the great thing about fantasy, it's not meant to be even remotely real. 



Falling Icicle said:


> Like fighters doing whirlwind attacks and other fancy sword maneuvers in heavy armor?




BINGO.



Li Shenron said:


> Not the same thing...




I'm certainly willing to hear your argument why. Know, however, that it would take some pretty solid arguments, given what I've already written above, to convince me of your position.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm with Klaus. It's silly to set up the restriction and then add mechanics to bypass it. Basically, there are three positions to take here:

1. Armored wizards should either not exist, or be punished for existing (i.e., they are a severely sub-optimal choice).
2. Both armored and unarmored wizards should exist as viable options.
3. Unarmored wizards should either not exist, or be punished for existing (i.e., they are a severely sub-optimal choice).

If we're going with #1, let's just ban spellcasting by wizards in armor, period. No spell failure chance, no proficiency requirements, it simply can't be done. Don't put in trap options to sucker inexperienced players.

If we're going with #2, then adding restrictions and ways to get around those restrictions is a Rube Goldberg solution to a problem that can be addressed much more simply. Armored wizards have higher AC than unarmored, but have to carry a lot more weight and spend money on armor. Find a way to get that tradeoff into balance--where it's not a foregone conclusion that you want to do one or the other--and the problem is solved.

As I said above, I favor using a spell like _mage armor_ to bring the unarmored wizard's AC into the competitive range, but I could imagine other solutions too.

(#3 is the easiest of all, but I don't see anyone advocating for that.)


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 13, 2012)

AlioTheFool said:


> 1) We have all seen suits of real armor before, correct? They were hard to walk in, much less fight in. Yet we suspend disbelief for them.
> 
> 2) That's the great thing about fantasy, it's not meant to be even remotely real.





1) Not I, as armour was not as hard to walk or fight in as some would have you believe.

2) Again, not I, with no realism whatsoever, it has no grounding, and becomes silly, IMO.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 13, 2012)

AlioTheFool said:


> I'm certainly willing to hear your argument why. Know, however, that it would take some pretty solid arguments, given what I've already written above, to convince me of your position.




I'm not trying to convince you...  I just thought that Whirlwind Attack doesn't require precise movements, it's more like a huge swing around you a couple of turns, at least in my mental image. I think there are a bunch of combat feats in 3ed which don't work in heavy armor, _Spring Attack_ being one of them.


----------



## mlund (Jun 13, 2012)

I think the "Disrupted" rules are an easy-to-use model and we've already got rules about using armor untrained in the play-test. Put them together and you've got something working out of the box - untrained armor gives you penalties as already described and it also makes you perpetually Disrupted. Feats will exist to grant proficiency and some sort of armored mage theme is pretty much self-starting from there.

Meanwhile other arcane classes developed to use certain forms of armor can just come with the proficiency built in - like Bards, Warlocks, or Warmages.

Want to make Elven Chain awesome? Make it's property be that it requires no proficiency to use effectively. It isn't like Bilbo or Frodo were ever trained in using armor anyway.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 13, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> If we're going with #2, then adding restrictions and ways to get around those restrictions is a Rube Goldberg solution to a problem that can be addressed much more simply. Armored wizards have higher AC than unarmored, but have to carry a lot more weight and spend money on armor. Find a way to get that tradeoff into balance--where it's not a foregone conclusion that you want to do one or the other--and the problem is solved.




Putting restrictions on casting armor is a way to get those tradeoffs into balance.  And not a bad thing to at least explore, either, given the historically laughable balance capabilities of encumbrance and gold.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 13, 2012)

mlund said:


> Want to make Elven Chain awesome? Make it's property be that it requires no proficiency to use effectively. It isn't like Bilbo or Frodo were ever trained in using armor anyway.




Yeah, but wearing that was like wearing a negligee.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 13, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Shouldn't be a theme, but should be a part of several appropriate themes (e.g. spellsword).  It is too narrow for a theme, but it is not too narrow as one feat mixed in with several other related abilities in a theme.




Yes, that I could agree with. Themes end up as collections of meaningful feats and I could see several themes which could have armour wearing as a part of them.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 13, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> If we're going with #2, then adding restrictions and ways to get around those restrictions is a Rube Goldberg solution to a problem that can be addressed much more simply. Armored wizards have higher AC than unarmored, but have to carry a lot more weight and spend money on armor. Find a way to get that tradeoff into balance--where it's not a foregone conclusion that you want to do one or the other--and the problem is solved.




If what you mean here is that Wizards are simply avoiding armor because of a general manifest inconvenience of the stuff: N-O.

That tradeoff is not supposed to be in balance.  Armor is good.  More armor is better.  And more armor is money well spent approximately all of the time.  That is the fundamental reality the basic mechanics should model at the getgo.  

Anything else is gimping heavy fighters as a desperate means to keep wizards from reaching the stratosphere on a lark.  Wizards need to not want to wear armor because it is specifically inconvenient _for them_.

That said, I do think we want to open space for gish characters.  I think tuxgeo's suggestions (see page 1) are a good place to start.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 13, 2012)

See; it's this whole gimme culture, right now: "...hand full of gimee and a mouth full of much obliged..."


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 14, 2012)

The answer, of course, is wild magic surges.

Try to cast in armour?  Chances are all you'll do is generate a surge with completely unpredictable and quite likely dangerous results.  Keep it up, and nobody will want to adventure with you as you are just too dangerous to hang around with. 

Great for Wild Mages.  Kinda pointless for everyone else.

More seriously, I have very little sympathy for those who are looking to make a Fighter-Mage (or "gish") class viable, as it always strikes me as an "I want the best of both worlds" kind of thing.

If you want to play a Fighter and a Wizard, do just that.  Two characters, one class each. 

Lan-"a glass cannon in armour is no longer made of glass"-efan


----------



## kinem (Jun 14, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> Im after narrative style play (which I think you call "anti-simulationist") and absoultes work well for that : easy decisions keep play fast and let the story roll forward.
> 
> It isnt as well suited to the "Diablo" style play, where character growth is the purpose for playing (as opposed to being a single aspect) ...your right, Pathfinders is your best option for that!!




No, the "Diablo" style as you call it is gamist, not simulationist.

You appear to be unaware of the gamist / narrativist / simulationist (GNS) trichotomy. See GNS Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2012)

This did get answered, but, I'd like to take another stab at it.



Li Shenron said:


> Despite the very good points in this thread, I am still not convinced...
> 
> I guess I just don't like seeing wizards running around casting spells in heavy armor.
> 
> Those who have no problem with that, I suppose also would not mind seeing monks throwing flying kicks in heavy armor




The reason monks don't wear heavy armor is not a contrived one though.  It's based on pretty solid realism.  You don't jump six feet off the ground in plate mail.  Period.  



> , rogues sneaking and disabling traps/locks in heavy armor,



Again, grounded in solid realism.  Heavy armor is noisy.  We don't let people sneak around while banging coconuts together either.  But, I don't see why you couldn't disable a trap in heavy armor.  Lock?  Well, you'd probably have to take your gloves off first, but, that's not a big deal.



> druids walking their pets in the bush in heavy armor,




Now this one is actually closer to the MU restrictions.  Druids were wonky in that they could only use "natural" armor and weapons, but, they could still use scimitars, daggers and sickles.  They kept the "no metal armor" thing in later editions, but, the question in my mind is, is it necessary?  What's wrong with a druid in plate mail?  We have no problems with a cleric in plate, and a druid is just a funky kind of cleric, so, where's the problem?

Now, from a practical point of view, it does make a bit more sense since most of a druid's skills would be seriously penalized by wearing heavy armor, at least in 3e.  But, is it really necessary to strictly limit the druid this way?



> rangers tracking foes in the wild in heavy armor, etc...?




I'd point out that this was a 2e and later addition to the ranger.  The original ranger had no such restrictions.  You could wear full plate as a ranger with no problems.  So, I have no real issues with a ranger in full armor.  Again, skill penalties would likely apply, but, if the ranger is going into a battle, and he knows that he isn't going to need that mobility so much, then why not?

I mean, is this really a bad image for a high level ranger:


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 14, 2012)

kinem said:


> No, the "Diablo" style as you call it is gamist, not simulationist.
> 
> You appear to be unaware of the gamist / narrativist / simulationist (GNS) trichotomy. See GNS Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> See also The Chapel Perilous - Logic in RPGs




Thanks for pointing out the links, it appears I had my terminology wrong. Doesnt actually change the point of my post, but its good to know.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 14, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Now this one is actually closer to the MU restrictions. Druids were wonky in that they could only use "natural" armor and weapons, but, they could still use scimitars, daggers and sickles. They kept the "no metal armor" thing in later editions, but, the question in my mind is, is it necessary? What's wrong with a druid in plate mail? We have no problems with a cleric in plate, and a druid is just a funky kind of cleric, so, where's the problem?




I believe the roots D) of the druid weapon list is based on the same kind of mindset as the wizard "cold iron" business.  The druid would use various special blades not made of iron (bronze?) to harvest mistletoe and other plants.  Only in this case, I believe the idea was that iron contaminated the plants before they could be used, and thus messed up the magic indirectly.  The dagger would have been slightly curved, too.  I'm not sure where the scimitar came from, unless someone thought, "Hey, a sickle is curved.  Let's give him a bigger version of that." 

Since technically a druid is really a wizard ("wise man")/cleric ("priest") hybrid (in both its source material and early game implementation), it made sense that it would get a hybrid mix of their restrictions.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 14, 2012)

Not a hybrid.  In the days of only blunt weapons for clerics, the curved blades were simply a substitution/equivalent.  I believe the rationalization was that a blade in the shape of the moon could be properly blessed, and therefore not a hindrance to druidic magic in spite of being made of metal.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 14, 2012)

Hussar said:


> It's based on pretty solid realism.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




But I agree in fact with my own examples  When talking about magic it's near-impossible to make realism a valid argument, but I wanted to point out that the _image_ of the character is also important, and you very rarely see or read about a wizard in armor: whether this is because they hate it, they can't wear it, or they don't want to wear it, is up to an array of interpretations. 

I think the original reasons why wizard weren't allowed to wear armor is (a) traditional fantasy image and (b) balance since they were supposed to be weak at defense or to compensate with spells.

Overall I think balance shouldn't be a big issue as it might have been in very early editions... the wizard anyway in 3ed has spells granting AC and can get protective magic items. Maybe in a low-magic items campaign it would make more sense to allow the wizard to also wear armor. But I'd still want to preserve the image...

I'm not saying every single wizard should always be forbidden to cast in armor (in fact the first thing I wrote was that I wished there was a mean to reduce ASF in 3ed), but it should not be the default... it should be rare and it should be balanced by having an appropriate cost. If it has no cost then all rules-savvy players of wizards will use armor and I wouldn't like it, just like I didn't like when (for a while) too many PbP players wanted to play a fighter with spiked chain 




Hussar said:


> Again, skill penalties would likely apply, but, if the ranger is going into a battle, and he knows that he isn't going to need that mobility so much, then why not?
> 
> I mean, is this really a bad image for a high level ranger:




If he's not tracking (not in the mere sense of checking the ground for tracks once or twice, in the sense of a continuous activity i.e. following tracks in the wild and chasing the target at good speed) then he can wear all the armor he wants.

In fact, a wizard going to battle also can wear all the armor she wants. In 3ed you didn't even need the proficiency to get the AC benefit, because nothing could stop you from putting an armor on... she is just going to have troubles as soon as she casts spells tho.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 14, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I'm not sure where the scimitar came from, unless someone thought, "Hey, a sickle is curved.  Let's give him a bigger version of that."



I'm reasonably confident that this is the case.

In UA the druid gets the khopesh because it is an odd and archaic weapon that therefore seems a perfect fit for the druid.


----------



## Hautamaki (Jun 14, 2012)

It's very hard to say.

Armour SHOULD be a powerful and important option.  It should be one of the things that separates melee characters from casters.  If mages can wear the same armour as fighters and it doesn't throw off the game balance, that tells me that armour is too weak in the system and needs to be buffed up (imo of course).  So if mages are allowed to wear armour, it should make a big difference and thus have big attendant drawbacks to keep the balance.

However, I didn't like arcane spell failure because it added a bit of mechanical fiddlyness where before there was none, which influenced your choice.  Mages would not wear armour less because of its gameworld pros and cons than because the player didn't want to be bothered with more fiddlyness.  When you're making critical in-game decisions based on non-gameworld factors it takes me out of the game a bit and bothers me.

For my own houserules I require mages to take a level of fighter before they can wear armour at all, and armour makes spells harder to cast.  But there is a casting check regardless of whether you wear armour in my system--there is always a chance that spells will fail though of course the chances of that happening are largely under a player's control.  The decision of whether or not to wear armour is of course part of that.

But I suspect that D&D will not have a chance at spell failure as part of its core.  Therefore armour needs some other way to be a drawback--but what?  Again, introducing spell failure for armour-wearing mages only is an inelegant solution.  I have no idea what I want WoTC to do about mages who wear armour.  My own solution relies on an assumption that does not exist in the wider D&D market.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 14, 2012)

TBH, I could easily live with 'you may only cast spells when wearing armour in which you are proficient', especially if getting armour proficiency essentially meant either Multi-classing or playing a Swordmage or Bard.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Jun 14, 2012)

I don't see a problem with Wizards who choose to become proficient with particular armour casting spells in said armour, especially if there are three tiers and it is therefore a significant investment to wear platemail. Obviously if you multiclass into Fighter you probably shouldn't get instant proficiency with all armour either (SWSE handled this well).

The trouble is when you can spend just 1 feat to get light armour, which can give you as much as 5 or 6 AC with ease - it becomes a no-brainer and goes against the spirit of wizards in robes. There needs to be some reason to wear simple cloth, and so far this has been done by heavy restriction (you can't cast in armour), minor penalties (spell failure) and poor trade-off (1 feat giving you just leather, which isn't a large AC increase).

Instead, let's offer wizards a tangible benefit for not wearing armour - perhaps robes could become the new implements, a class feature could offer magical cloth that holds one enchantment (which could increase AC, or resistance to the elements, or provide a saving throw bonus, or a bonus to a skill or initiative etc.) and reflect the wizard uniquely. Then the feat cost of obtaining armour proficiency would be offset by the loss of some neat little bonus.

(Edit: with spell schools back in I could see awesome specialist robes being available - a bit like the early robes in Baldur's Gate - evokers resist a bit of fire and increase the DC of their evocations by 1, abjurers improve their AC and defences last longer, enchanters look so stylish that they get a +1 on charisma checks etc.)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 14, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> More seriously, I have very little sympathy for those who are looking to make a Fighter-Mage (or "gish") class viable, as it always strikes me as an "I want the best of both worlds" kind of thing.




I guess I have a problem with, "You want to mix-and-match a physical combatant, with armor and a weapon, with magic? That's overpowered / munchkin / badwrongfun," when the cleric is, like, totally sitting right there.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 14, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> The trouble is when you can spend just 1 feat to get light armour, which can give you as much as 5 or 6 AC with ease - it becomes a no-brainer and goes against the spirit of wizards in robes. There needs to be some reason to wear simple cloth, and so far this has been done by heavy restriction (you can't cast in armour), minor penalties (spell failure) and poor trade-off (1 feat giving you just leather, which isn't a large AC increase).




That is a big part of the problem right there.  Light armor is much too good, and then we "must" put this squeeze on the heavy fighter because there is no room left to excel.  That was already an issue before even bringing the Wizard into the discussion.

The problem will be approximately 1000X greater in a world of flat math.  If the elven wizard can toss on some light armor and a buff, and reach AC 21, then we either sabotage the heavy armor or hit the gish with the Nerfbat of the Titans.

An easy AC boost better than +3 should be a major magic item.  Chain shirt is a joke.  Mithral as a little add-on is a joke.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 14, 2012)

My preference is for wizards who can't wear armour, mostly for balance and partly for flavour.

From the point of view of the game-world's inhabitants I think wizards probably can wear armour, it's just that they don't, for whatever reason. Does there even have to be one?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 14, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> From the point of view of the game-world's inhabitants I think wizards probably can wear armour, it's just that they don't, for whatever reason. Does there even have to be one?




I can promise there will always be an elven fighter/wizard who will have good enough reason to try.  That is practically bovine.

Then what do you say to the minmaxed human fighter/wizard who wants some of that action?  Or the elven wizard?  Or the gnome illusionist?


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 14, 2012)

I voted hard no, but I'd like to cavaet it with a feat (or series of feats) that can allow armored casting. If you want to wear plate AND cast fireball, its going to cost you feats to do it...


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 14, 2012)

A couple of questions ...

1) How hard is it to be proficient in armor?  If there is a learning period, to what degree is it to build up the necessary muscles, and to what degree is it a particular athletic skill (I'm thinking, as an example, learning the Butterfly Stroke in swimming, which is a lot harder than other strokes, although, maybe it just requires a higher minimum strength and dexterity than I have).

2) Leaving aside wizards, would other classes necessarily have armor proficiency?  Could there not be fighters with a disdain for armor who concentrate entirely on acrobatics instead?  (Barbarians fit this theme, although, why should a Barbarian be particularly restricted, anyways?  I can see Barbarians have a problem becoming overheated, which should be a general problem anyways, but would be severe for the Barbarian.)

3) Comparing, say, a marine medic with a more generic marine (I don't know the particular specializations) in the actual army, how different are they in terms of how well they do in armor?  Do they have the same basic training, and the more generic marine is just beefier from spending extra hours running around in armor?  How much would does wearing armor interfere with a medic trying to handle a combat injury?

TomB


----------



## pemerton (Jun 15, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> My preference is for wizards who can't wear armour, mostly for balance and partly for flavour.
> 
> From the point of view of the game-world's inhabitants I think wizards probably can wear armour, it's just that they don't, for whatever reason. Does there even have to be one?



And I think this is probably how it worked in very early D&D. I think the overaly of (pseudo-)rationales from within the fiction - which then become mechanically expressed in 3E's spell failure rules - is a later thing.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 15, 2012)

tomBitonti said:


> 3) Comparing, say, a marine medic with a more generic marine (I don't know the particular specializations) in the actual army, how different are they in terms of how well they do in armor?  Do they have the same basic training, and the more generic marine is just beefier from spending extra hours running around in armor?  How much would does wearing armor interfere with a medic trying to handle a combat injury?




In the Army everyone wears the same body armor. The IBA (armor) and ACH (helmet) that we wear is damn light and doesn't restrict movement. Weapons training is a little different, but it's differentiated on a squad level. Generally, medics train on the M-16 and serve as riflemen in combat. Injuries are not treated in the middle of combat with the possible exception of a hasty tourniquet if the situation allows. That's a good way to turn one casualty into two. 

Note: This information is based on training received as part of a support unit (Air and Missile Defense). As a POG, I didn't serve any of my time in the Army down range.


----------



## AlioTheFool (Jun 15, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> 1) Not I, as armour was not as hard to walk or fight in as some would have you believe.
> 
> 2) Again, not I, with no realism whatsoever, it has no grounding, and becomes silly, IMO.




Whether it's as hard as some would have you believe I am certain it isn't easy, or even reasonable to do the kinds of maneuvers a D&D fighter would do in large/heavy suits of armor.

Sure, like you said, in your opinion. In my opinion, fantasy needs no reality. That's why I watch "Game of Thrones" not "Jersey Shore."



Li Shenron said:


> I'm not trying to convince you...  I just thought that Whirlwind Attack doesn't require precise movements, it's more like a huge swing around you a couple of turns, at least in my mental image. I think there are a bunch of combat feats in 3ed which don't work in heavy armor, _Spring Attack_ being one of them.




Any example that doesn't work ruins the argument. So while you might be able to justify Whirlwind Attack, as soon as you admit Spring Attack wouldn't be feasible, it means that we are willing to accept, in some form, a break from reality.

Drawing lines after that is based solely on personal preference. Hence my arguments that people are warring against magic users.



jadrax said:


> TBH, I could easily live with 'you may only cast spells when wearing armour in which you are proficient', especially if getting armour proficiency essentially meant either Multi-classing or playing a Swordmage or Bard.




I would add in Themes but otherwise I agree. That's the thing, I'm not saying a Wizard should be a Fighter _too_. I'm simply saying that given that a Fighter could take a Theme that would allow him or her to cast some magic, a Wizard should be able to take a Theme that allows him or her to protect him/herself.

Beyond that, part of my argument is based on something written in one of the D&D website articles earlier this week. According to Mike Mearls, people are feeding back that it's too easy for a Wizard to evade melee combat and want them to be unable to do so.

So the class with the least hit points, who can't wear armor, should also be unable to run away from an attack, even though if he or she gets hit, it then not only risks their life, but also makes them less apt to be effective on their next turn to act.

And people still want to reduce a Wizard's overall power _on top _of all of that!

Again, it's a war on magic. The far more simple answer is to build balance into all classes, raising "lesser" classes up to the assumed level of Wizards, then saying "Hey, if you don't like magic, ban it from your game, but don't demand that those who want to play with it be unable to enjoy doing so."

(FTR: This entire "answer" isn't necessarily directed at you specifically. It just lead me to my specific point.)



Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> I guess I have a problem with, "You want to mix-and-match a physical combatant, with armor and a weapon, with magic? That's overpowered / munchkin / badwrongfun," when the cleric is, like, totally sitting right there.




Very good point.



Doug McCrae said:


> My preference is for wizards who can't wear armour, mostly for balance and partly for flavour.
> 
> From the point of view of the game-world's inhabitants I think wizards probably can wear armour, it's just that they don't, for whatever reason. Does there even have to be one?




There does need to be a good reason if someone was telling _me _I was being crippled physically. If I were playing a Wizard I'd want a darned good reason for someone to tell me it wasn't in my best interest to wear as much protection as possible.

(FTR: I don't see myself ever playing a Wizard in plate or chain. I envision my Wizard, like he was in 4E, wearing leather armor. I'd still want that mobility, I'd just also want to protect myself. Or let my Mage Armor give me an AC effectively the same as plate, in which case it's a bit silly to say I can't wear armor, it simply means I need to waste a spell every day which just seems ridiculous when the alternative is much cleaner.)

--------------

Something else to keep in mind is that WotC has already said that they are going to support multi-classing. How do we reconcile a Fighter who later takes the Wizard class? Does he lose his ability to wear his armor while being effective? That breaks multi-classing. Perhaps you don't like multi-classing (which I've seen enough of) but not everyone does. So again, why should everyone who wants to play these things be unable to when you can simply say "that option is impermissible at my table"?

I think this is the intended point of modularity. You don't want that option? Don't include it. But if it isn't there you have no choice but to not include it.


----------



## Votan (Jun 15, 2012)

AlioTheFool said:


> Beyond that, part of my argument is based on something written in one of the D&D website articles earlier this week. According to Mike Mearls, people are feeding back that it's too easy for a Wizard to evade melee combat and want them to be unable to do so.
> 
> So the class with the least hit points, who can't wear armor, should also be unable to run away from an attack, even though if he or she gets hit, it then not only risks their life, but also makes them less apt to be effective on their next turn to act.
> 
> ...




What I think is happening is not a war on magic so much as an attempt to balance the classes.  Otherwise, you end up with Ars Magica when the guys who can fly, teleport, turn invisible, launch fireballs, read minds, and so forth are also difficult to hit.  If wizards can wear the best protection and cast protective spells, they can end up being tougher than the fighters (think even 3E era mirror image).  

This generally leads to one of these scenarios:

1) You give fighters awesome maneavers (4E) solution
2) You make magic very hard to cast in combat (AD&D solution)
3) Magic is much better than melee (Ars Magica) and mundanes are lackies

Pathfinder did a version of #1  by making high level fighters put out an insane amount of damage.  

The cleric works when when it has a small utility and support spell list.  When clerics can work disintegrate and fly into their spell list this issue appears and was hotly debated for years.  

So the goal here is to decide what makes sense as a balancing mechanism.  Armor is a complex one because Mages might also be the ones to craft magic armor and spell lists are complex (something might well stack in a way that is not ideal).

So I am sympathetic to the issues of mages in armor pose for game design.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jun 15, 2012)

I think there's 2 solutions to this:

-Have certain spells like Mage Armour be always on, lasting continuously but costing a spell slot or something similar.
-But allow wizards also to take armour proficiencies.  And it shouldn't be by tier, but much like 4e where it was by very general armour type leather>hide>chain>scale>plate.

So in both cases, a Wizard would get roughly the same result in protection, but it'll cost them differently.


----------



## steenan (Jun 15, 2012)

Of all the options discussed here I like spell failure the least. If spellcasting required a roll and armor gave a penalty to it, it would be OK - but adding a separate roll just to check if the spell is disrupted by armor is a bad idea.

All other approaches are fine for me - as long as they are well explained and it is clear why things work as they work in the setting. 

"Wizards cannot cast in armor" is completely metagame and explaining that armor disrupts the gestures is a poor handwave (the rogue has no problem with dodging and opening locks in his armor, after all). 

But what if it's contact with metal that disrupts spells (and spellcasters not only avoid metal armor, but also any kind of metal weapon or jewelery, and putting them in chains cuts off their magic)? This makes it completely understandable why most mages only wear robes or leather - and a rare, powerful one, uses dragon scales.

Or, one may use the Scarred Lands idea that magic generates a lot of heat as a side effect, so any kind of clothing that's heavy and hard to take off is a risk of dangerous overheat or burns. Wizards wear robes because it lets them cool easily.

The 4e approach, where proficiency in good armor is hard to get, but the armor itself does not interfere with spellcasting is also good. It's intuitive and does not leave any strange restrictions that must be explained somehow.


In short: Use any kind of simple mechanics for armor and spellcasting. Just make sure it makes sense in the setting.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 15, 2012)

Kobold Avenger said:


> I think there's 2 solutions to this:
> 
> -Have certain spells like Mage Armour be always on, lasting continuously but costing a spell slot or something similar.
> -But allow wizards also to take armour proficiencies.  And it shouldn't be by tier, but much like 4e where it was by very general armour type leather>hide>chain>scale>plate.
> ...



My idea would be to turn Mage Armor into an "add Int to AC" ability, reflecting the wizard's training and ease to put up magical force fields to defend him. This would, of course, not be cumulative with armor.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 16, 2012)

steenan said:


> "Wizards cannot cast in armor" is completely metagame and explaining that armor disrupts the gestures is a poor handwave (the rogue has no problem with dodging and opening locks in his armor, after all).




In 3e: "An armor check penalty number is the penalty that applies to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks by a character wearing a certain kind of armor. Double the normal armor check penalty is applied to Swim checks."

The penalties for light armor were zero or modest.  Rogues could easily take medium or heavier armors at a cost.

The price for the rogue was entirely organic, as the players understood that there was always the possibility of rolling badly and losing a skill contest.  More armor simply meant more bad luck in certain situations.

There is not an accepted similar penalty for the wizard.  Spell failure just does not float most people's boat.

I support the idea of some kind of penalty to the spell DCs for wearing armor.  That opens up the possibility of certain specialized wizards wearing armor all the time, other more normal wizards wearing armor on special occasions, and some wizards simply not bothering because they value maximum arcane flexibility.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jun 16, 2012)

steenan said:


> "Wizards cannot cast in armor" is completely metagame and explaining that armor disrupts the gestures is a poor handwave (the rogue has no problem with dodging and opening locks in his armor, after all).
> 
> But what if it's contact with metal that disrupts spells (and spellcasters not only avoid metal armor, but also any kind of metal weapon or jewelery, and putting them in chains cuts off their magic)? This makes it completely understandable why most mages only wear robes or leather - and a rare, powerful one, uses dragon scales.




The idea that metal interferes with magic is just as metagame and a poor handwave as the idea that it interferes with gestures. The 2e PHB actually addressed this idea. "There are even unfounded theories that claim the materials in most armors disrupt the delicate fabric of a spell as it gathers energy; the two cannot exist side by side in harmony. While this idea is popular with the common people, true wizards know this is simply not true. If it were, how would they ever be able to cast spells requiring iron braziers or metal bowls?" 2e PHB, p. 42



steenan said:


> Or, one may use the Scarred Lands idea that magic generates a lot of heat as a side effect, so any kind of clothing that's heavy and hard to take off is a risk of dangerous overheat or burns. Wizards wear robes because it lets them cool easily.




This one makes the most sense, at least until you try to envision a master of ice and cold spells overheating from using too many of her spells.



steenan said:


> "The 4e approach, where proficiency in good armor is hard to get, but the armor itself does not interfere with spellcasting is also good. It's intuitive and does not leave any strange restrictions that must be explained somehow.




I agree that armor shouldn't interfere with spellcasting, but I think that armor proficiencies should go. Instead, armor should have a minimum Strength requirement, and you suffer penalties for wearing it if your Strength is lower than that number. The idea that armor requires as much training to use as a weapon is a ridiculous. The hardest part about using armor is putting it on (at least in the case of things like plate mail), and knights had squires to help them do that.


----------



## WarlockLord (Jun 17, 2012)

If people want to play Golbez, let em.


----------

