Wizards and Armor

[Balesir]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Mages do not wear armor. Messes with their magic.

Period. Next topic.

 

[tuxgeo]

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. . . .