Wizards and Armor

[BobTheNob]

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]

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]

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]

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]

So, staves would be banned, as well?

 

[SkidAce]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)