Wizards and Armor

[Votan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Jinete]

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]

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]

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]

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