D&D 5E Armored Mages

[Li Shenron]

Can mage characters cast in armor now if they somehow gain proficiency?

IIRC it's been allowed with no penalty since early playtest packets, and there has never be any rumour that it was going to change.

I suppose that nothing bad came out from playtesting, however IMHO this is a case where if there is any issues, they will come up rather on the long term.

 

[Uller]

...Like your concept too

thanks. It's actually recycled from a 1e character I played when I was young. somewhat inspired by the Gray Mouser. He started of as an apprentice mage only to have his master assassinated by a rival so he had to survive on the streets combining his magic and street smarts to survive. The last time I played him was right before I left home for the army. In that game he betrayed the party, I handed his sheet to the DM and he became an NPC...

 

[Uller]

I sure hope not, or not without a very significant chance of failure and-or wild surge.

I used to agree. But over the years I've seen a few armored casters and have never noticed them throwing the game off. In the current incarnation of the rules how many ways can a mage gain armor proficiency? Multiclass (give up his highest level spells) or select a race that has proficiency. I guess if we see tons of Mountain Dwarf mages we'll know it is broken.

 

[TerraDave]

I sure hope not, or not without a very significant chance of failure and-or wild surge.

And does that mean armour proficiencies a la 3e are still in? Sigh...I far prefer the simplicity of class x can use up to armour y, as in:

All Warrior classes: any
Clerics: any unless forbidden by deity
Druids: leather, hide, or lighter*; use of any metal armour blocks spellcasting and restricts or cancels other abilities
All Rogue classes, Bards, and Monks: leather or lighter*; use of heavier severely restricts or cancels many class abilities
All Wizard classes: none*; use of any armour severely restricts or blocks spellcasting


* - occasionally, very rare and extremely expensive armour may be found that has been enchanted so as to bypass these restrictions.

Lan-"keep it simple"-efan

Seems pretty obvious for a optional, or house rule.

What about multi-classed..elves...say?

 

[am181d]

I sure hope not, or not without a very significant chance of failure and-or wild surge.

And does that mean armour proficiencies a la 3e are still in? Sigh...I far prefer the simplicity of class x can use up to armour y, as in:

All Warrior classes: any
Clerics: any unless forbidden by deity
Druids: leather, hide, or lighter*; use of any metal armour blocks spellcasting and restricts or cancels other abilities
All Rogue classes, Bards, and Monks: leather or lighter*; use of heavier severely restricts or cancels many class abilities
All Wizard classes: none*; use of any armour severely restricts or blocks spellcasting


* - occasionally, very rare and extremely expensive armour may be found that has been enchanted so as to bypass these restrictions.

Lan-"keep it simple"-efan

I don't understand how this is simpler. It's the same list that's in the playtest, but with more caveats around spellcasting. That seems (to me at least) to be more complicated by definition.

 

[Lanefan]

Seems pretty obvious for a optional, or house rule.

What about multi-classed..elves...say?

I treat elves just like anyone else, in that if they wanna cast they'd better stay out of armour.

Lan-"in case it isn't obvious already, I'm not big on multi-classing"-efan

 

[Tyranthraxus]

I built a Mountain Dwarf Enchanter with a high AC for 5e. Just wanted to see how it could be done.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I really like 5e's armored casting rule. By default, wizards don't wear armor, but they have the option if they're willing to get the armor proficiency. It's nice and simple and avoids clunky and annoying rules like arcane spell failure %.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I don't really care for the idea of armored wizards. I like the tactical depth added by a glass cannon. Yes your wiz can flambe the big-bad, but only if you can keep the enemy melee off him.

 

[ccooke]

I don't really care for the idea of armored wizards. I like the tactical depth added by a glass cannon. Yes your wiz can flambe the big-bad, but only if you can keep the enemy melee off him.

And the default in 5e is to have unarmoured wizards. It's just possible, if you spend some resources, to overcome this. It's been possible in every previous edition, too, just a lot harder and more fiddly. The resource costs are quite nice, too - I like the idea of dwarven mages wearing some armour, and even they will have to wait until 4th level before they could actually start wearing heavy. If you want to wear it earlier, you have to multiclass which slows down your spell progression.

The choices are meaningful - a dwarven mage might wear medium armour, but will have low hit points to be a front-line fighter. With more investment, they can get the Tough feat (+2 to HP per level means that a Mage with Tough will average the same HP as a Fighter). Another feat will get you heavy armour, or some Fighter manoeuvres... But at this point you've sunk three or four options into being a Mage who can be a front-line fighter - you *should* be good at it, even if you won't be as good as a Fighter would be (and you get spells, after all).

Or you can just be a Mage and wear robes. You'll be able to focus your choices into being a more powerful Mage, instead.