Wizards and Armor

[Remathilis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

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.

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.)

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.

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]

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."

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

"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.