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

[Kobold Stew]

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.

This is a good point, but it is also solved trivially if the designers see it as a problem:

Somatic components. All spells with a casting time of 1 action or longer have somatic components, which require an empty hand capable of making necessary magical gestures. If the player wishes to use the spell casting bonus, the other hand must be holding the magical focus.


(I'll add I like this rule because it requires players to make a choice (defence or offence via an improved DC), and it makes sense of the bard's focus of a musical instrument.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This is a good point, but it is also solved trivially if the designers see it as a problem

Not that easy, unfortunately. A mage could still multi-class either paladin or war-priest, and both of those classes can essentially use the shield as the spellcasting focus. You wouldn't be able to prevent a mage from abusing a shield unless you also prevented a cleric or paladin from using sword+shield while casting spells.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I do not see this as a substantial objection.

As written, the paladin or war-priest can use a shield when casting cleric or paladin spells (not mage spells), but it's a different spell focus (and a different casting stat) for mage spells.

I have suggested in the past that attaching a holy symbol to a shield should *not* count as wielding it (I would rather players had to choose, so that instead of it being an automatic bonus, it becomes a design and play choice.) Even without that, though, I think my point stands.

What's more, without my suggested rule, something needs to be done for the bard's focus to maintain the concept of them actually playing most instruments.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As written, the paladin or war-priest can use a shield when casting cleric or paladin spells (not mage spells), but it's a different spell focus (and a different casting stat) for mage spells.

As written, it is vague. You could easily argue it either way. I think it's kind of odd that they didn't specify that you can't use a holy symbol as spell focus for your mage spells - the cleric class ability just says that you can use a holy symbol to improve the DC of your spells.

It's kind of like how they don't force a distinction between arcane and divine spells anymore. If you can use something, then you can use it equally with all of your classes, seems to be their line of thought. As strange as that may seem.

 

[Kobold Stew]

That's not a straightforward reading of the relevant passages on the spell casting bonus.

from the Classes document:
Bard (p. 6): "If you are holding a musical instrument…"
Cleric (p. 11): "If you present your holy symbol…"
Druid (p. 17): "If you are holding a magic focus -- a rod, staff,or wand of wood -- …"
Mage (p. 30): "If you are holding a magic focus -- a component pouch, orb, rod, staff, wand, or your spell book -- …"
Paladin (p. 42): "If you present your holy symbol…"

I suppose you could argue that the same focus works for Cleric and Paladin or (in some cases only?) for Druid and Mage, but it seems pretty clear that they are explicit that there are specific foci for each type of spell: a paladin cannot use a musical instrument or a wand of wood, unless that happened to be their holy symbol too). The multi classing rules were written after the Class rules, in any case (well, they were released to us after), which suggests to me that some smoothing is still to come. It might be they choose to go your way.

As you admit, your take is counter-intuitive. It's also not what seems to be suggested in the rules. If that's what they want, though, again it could be stated clearly ("If you are holding a magic focus of any type…" in all of the above examples) and all ambiguity would be removed.

My point is that the objection to the shield-using mage is still overcome trivially: a single clarifying sentence or two (one way or the other) removes the ambiguity.

 

[smetzger]

So let me get this right.
With the rule we know so far for 5e... A Dwarf Wizard can cast Arcane spells while wearing armor but an Elf Wizard cannot (or at least without penalties).

I am all for allowing the Fighter/Wizard combo, but this just seems wrong.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So let me get this right.
With the rule we know so far for 5e... A Dwarf Wizard can cast Arcane spells while wearing armor but an Elf Wizard cannot (or at least without penalties).

I am all for allowing the Fighter/Wizard combo, but this just seems wrong.

Why does that seem weird to you? Dwarves are all about wearing armor, all the time. It's kind of their thing. A dwarf mage is still a dwarf, is it not?

Elves are not all about the armor, but they are all about the magic. They invented elven chain, which you can wear as though you were proficient. Then, much later, they invented the mage armor spell, to replicate all of the effects of elven chain without costing 100 lbs of gold.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's not a straightforward reading of the relevant passages on the spell casting bonus.

At first, I was just thinking that proficiency with a magical focus should let you add your proficiency bonus, because that's simple and this game is simple. It's the same logic for why a mage can cast in armor in the first place.

Then I was thinking like you suggest, and like all of the previous editions implied - that mage spells are inherently different from cleric spells, are powered by different stats, and nothing translates between them.

On third thought, though, I think the first idea makes more sense. Consider it like mage spells and cleric spells are two ways of tapping into the same type of thing. Whether you use a rod or a holy symbol, you're doing the same things with it. Why else would a cleric 1 / mage 19 be able to cast cure wounds IX ? It must be the case that most spellcasting experience translates easily between different classes.

If you take it that way, then you can use any magical focus that you know how to use, in order to cast any spell you know from any class (using your universal spell slots). If you read the part about save DCs, in that light, then you can use any one of your ability scores from any of your casting classes in order to determine your save DCs. Kind of like how a multi-class monk / barbarian can use either Con or Wisdom in determining AC.

It may not make a lot of sense from the way any of the previous editions did things, but it fits in pretty well with the way 5E has been presenting itself.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I understand what you are saying, and it may be that the final game supports your preference. The rules should be the same however for all casters, on three variables:

1. whether all foci are interchangeable (as you wish);
2. whether foci need to be "wielded" (i.e. in the hand, and not just worn or attached to a shield)
3. whether somatic components need to be performed when casting a spell using a focus.

Since drawing and sheathing objects is not a full action, the impact of the decision on 1. is relatively minor.

The answer to 2. is currently different for different casters: that is where I would like consistency, and if I had my choice, I would choose the requirement to wield a holy symbol for an enhanced DC, meaning that it is a situational choice and different decisions get made in play in different conflicts; the alternative is a simple flat bonus; the bard can strap his lute to his shield and achieve the bonus while holding a hammer, etc. I don't like the inconsistency, and I do't like the stories that emerge.

the answer to 2. and 3. affects the question being discussed, on the use of shields by casters.

Again, a sentence or two will remove ambiguity one way or the other.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

I have never seen the logic in having armor interfere with all forms of magic, or with limiting the weapons that wizards, clerics, or any other class use. It feels too much like an arbitrary, artificial limitation.