D&D 5E Casting spells in armour: Do you think the final game will change this?

[GravyFingerz]

I'm okay with wizards casting spells in armor according to the most current play test rules. I see no great reason to restrict them any longer, especially if they need to multiclass or to spend feats in order to get armor proficiency.

 

[Ichneumon]

It's a bit like clerics wielding edged weapons. For some, not the done thing. But others will say, why not?

While I admit to liking the innate beauty of wizards casting in flowing robes, I think we're past the era of Right and Proper ways to play. Wearing armor makes sense for a lot of warrior-mage concepts, and to me it makes little sense to weaken those due to intractibility. Giving wizards and sorcerers the chance to wear armor opens up possibilities for character creation, and we already know that future 'arcane' casting classes won't necessarily be armorless by default. The warlock, for one.

 

[Kobold Stew]

There are a number of ways to limit spell casting in armour (or at least to make it an interesting choice for the player) that seem not to have been explored.

For those for whom proficiency alone isn't enough ("but everyone will make mountain dwarf wizards"; "but everyone will take a 1-level dip in fighter"; etc.), it would be trivial to add a rule along the lines of

You lose the ability to add your spell casting bonus to DCs whenever a spell is cast in heavy armour.

(or heavy and medium armour if you prefer).

 

[Warskull]

I'm fine with armored casters as long as there is a sufficient cost to acquire the armor proficiency. Losing 1 level in Mage to gain heavy armor proficiency right now is too cheap. This seems to be more of a problem with the multiclassing rules than anything else. You gain to many proficiencies with one level of multiclass. The solution is to spread the proficiency gain out over a few levels.

 

[Uchawi]

I am fine with casters wearing armor as long as there is enough distinction to make martial characters excel in armor. One of the biggest deterrents is bounded accuracy, so I hope they make armor interesting using other aspects so a martial character wears armor like common clothes and a caster has to work really hard and give something up to get in the same ball park.

 

[Steely Dan]

A SWSE approach might help.

 

[Dausuul]

Question: If you're sacrificing one level of wizard (not just spellcasting--remember that you're also delaying access to your specialty benefits!) for a bonus to AC, how big should the bonus be?

Right now, a wizard with Dex 14 and mage armor has AC 15, while a wizard in plate with a shield and the Defense fighting style has AC 21. So that lost wizard level is buying you +6 AC, four hit points, a 1d6+1 Second Wind, and nothing else worth noting. Seems fair to me. If you need your AC often enough for this to be a big deal, then either a) you are in a party without front-line warriors, in which case you have troubles enough already, or b) your front-line warriors aren't doing their jobs.

Now, I agree the mountain dwarf wizard is getting off a bit too easy. You get +2 AC just for being a dwarf, and for the cost of a feat you get another +2 and DR equal to your Con modifier. The fact that you aren't having to give up any wizard levels puts this over the line for me.

Action Surge is a whole other issue. There's a separate balance concern there; you shouldn't be able to use Action Surge to cast spells.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Question: If you're sacrificing one level of wizard (not just spellcasting--remember that you're also delaying access to your specialty benefits!) for a bonus to AC, how big should the bonus be?

Right now, a wizard with Dex 14 and mage armor has AC 15, while a wizard in plate with a shield and the Defense fighting style has AC 21.

Of course, nobody will be able to afford plate for a few levels, and in the long run it is entirely feasible for a mage to boost Dex to compensate. The best starting armor, either medium or heavy, is going to be AC 16.

The real problem is that there's zero reason for a mage, upon gaining proficiency with shields, to ever not use a shield - it only takes one hand to use your focus. Shields give a huge boost, under Bounded Accuracy, because there's supposed to be some sort of trade-off, but you're not losing anything here. Then of course, there's also no reason to not take the +1 AC fighting style, since you probably won't be making weapon attacks anyway; again, it's an obvious choice with no trade-off involved. The third problem is that one level of mage is only a hindrance if it's an odd level, which makes it really hard to balance against any particular amount of AC.

(It's also weird and counter-intuitive, but it's possibly even more beneficial to add two levels of paladin instead of one level of fighter. Because of the crazy multi-class rules, it's the same hit to your effective caster level, but you get to add cure wounds to your spell list. )

 

[Dausuul]

The real problem is that there's zero reason for a mage, upon gaining proficiency with shields, to ever not use a shield - it only takes one hand to use your focus. Shields give a huge boost, under Bounded Accuracy, because there's supposed to be some sort of trade-off, but you're not losing anything here. Then of course, there's also no reason to not take the +1 AC fighting style, since you probably won't be making weapon attacks anyway; again, it's an obvious choice with no trade-off involved.

If you're playing a mage who dips 1 level of fighter to get armor proficiency (as opposed to a true fighter/mage who mixes sword and sorcery), then of course this is true. I don't see it as a problem. The "armored mage" is a niche concept, not a full-fledged class of its own. It doesn't need to support shield-bearing and non-shield-bearing variants.

The only question is, assuming you do indeed take the optimal choices here (shield and Defense fighting style), is the resulting +6 AC boost too small, too big, or about right, considering what you give up for it? I'd argue it's about right.

The third problem is that one level of mage is only a hindrance if it's an odd level, which makes it really hard to balance against any particular amount of AC.

This isn't true at all. There are no "dead levels" in Next. On the levels when you don't get access to a new spell level, you get a tradition feature or a feat, both of which are quite valuable.

(It's also weird and counter-intuitive, but it's possibly even more beneficial to add two levels of paladin instead of one level of fighter. Because of the crazy multi-class rules, it's the same hit to your effective caster level, but you get to add cure wounds to your spell list. )

True, but a) your access to the aforementioned feats and tradition features gets set back another level, and b) your top level of spells is limited to heightened versions of lower-level spells, not "native" spells of that level. I think the fighter dip is more promising, myself, especially since you can eventually drop another level in fighter and get Action Surge. (That combination really is too good, though, and I expect it will be disallowed in the final release, probably by adding a clause to Action Surge that you can't use it to cast a spell.)

 

[pemerton]

In Ad&d, only elven chain allowed you to cast spells in armour.

That's 2E AD&D. In 1E AD&D fighter/magic-user multi-classes could cast spells in any armor. Likewise with the Elf class in B/X and BECMI.

Just adding to what Olgar Shiverstone said: in 1st ed AD&D gnome fighter/illusionists are restricted to leather (from memory, this rule is stated under the gnome race description, not in the multi-classing section). I don't know what happened to fighter/illusionist armour options in 2nd ed.