Can human arcane spellcasters wear armour?

[NerfedWizard]

OGB let's not hijack this thread with the debate we already started elsewhere, but just briefly:-

BECMI = the red box-set, blue box-set etc. edition of basic D&D which was out when AD&D 1st ed was out - and the Companions set (for the person who asked) covered levels 16 to 24 or 25 if memory serves - actually it has just occurred to me that the progression was ALMOST based on square numbers (1-3, 4-15, 16-24/25, 25/26-36)

OGB your premise is "you agreed to play the game" - this debate arose between us in the context of your homebrew game which I have NOT yet agreed to play!! You're supposed to be coaxing and enticing me by making it interesting, not just sticking your foot down and saying "my word is law" - we haven't even started playing it yet!!!

Just so you are aware, I voted for the option YES - unless a magical pact/entity dictates otherwise (i.e. as per my game Omnifray:- Omnifray RPG - Home)

And the terrain difficulty etc. explanation logically applies LESS to wizards than others who can't FLY!!! - unless Fly only works for your own body weight + 20lb, I suppose, but that would be a pretty rubbish Fly spell.

 

[NerfedWizard]

PS as I see it as things currently stand a bare majority of people (about 51%) who have voted within the 1st 9 options of the poll (i.e. not "other") prefer either no restrictions on armour, or the Omnifray option of armour being allowed by default, unless a pact or entity says no. That gives me a majority as at the time when I worked that out (about 5 or 10 minutes ago). Of those who remain, over 20% of the total voting pool were in favour of being able to have armoured wizards with special training whose spellcasting is NOT IMPAIRED by armour, which suggests to me they have no spellcasting failure chance from armour and do not have to prepare their spells in a special way which reduces the number they get if the want to cast them wearing armour. However they might have reduced overall spellcasting capability due to specialising in wearing armour - but that would affect them whether they are in armour or not, and not necessarily involve any spellcasting failure chance.

 

[WayneLigon]

This is just about flavour and what "feels" authentic / right.

In that case, any number of things should interfere with magic.

The 'iron' thing should not only prevent them from wearing armor, it should prevent them from using things like swords. Or affecting large amounts of iron; in fact, this would be why knights wore heavy armor: the protect themselves from wizards. Wearing plate armor whould make you virtually immune to magic.

I've rather liked systems I've seen in books where magic could affect people or objects, but not both.

Another restriction I've seen in books that I've always wanted to try out in a game is: you can't kill with magic. To do so kills you in very short order. Another more prevelant idea I see in books a lot is that The Guild of Wizards will hunt you down like a dog if you use magic to harm a person.

So, if you want flavor restrictions -- there are many, many of them much worse than not being able to use some armor that - pretty soon - your spells are better at creating anyway.

 

[NerfedWizard]

In Labyrinthe LARP, wizards are allowed to carry two metal objects of dagger-size or less. Warlocks, who are basically fighter-magi who only use magic offensively (or sometimes also defensively, but not for general utility), are allowed to carry one double-handed sword's WORTH of metal. That could be studded leather plus dagger. However Warlocks can increase their metal resistance right up to wearing chainmail armour + weapons at very high level play. Also magic armour can be worn without penalty, but is very rare, although "power warriors" can empower their own armour magically while wearing it, and thus if multiclassed to warlock or wizard can wear armour and cast with a full range of magical pzazz (if single-classed their magic is somewhat limited). Unimportant things (in game terms) like belt buckles are disregarded. It's an interesting system.

 

[Nebulous]

Yes, there's no reason why a wizard shouldn't be able to wear armor. They might not wear it WELL, and it can hamper their spellcasting, but they should be able to wear it.

Conan the Barbarian (the first Arnold movie) had the wizard at the end decked out in plate i think (or some other heavy armor). He eschewed his magic for the safer, practical body armor for the big fight. Or maybe he just didn't have any Magic Missiles memorized that day.

I suppose it is a level of detail too deep for D&D, but i think armor and shields and maybe even weapons should have a minimum Str and Con requirments to successfully use them. That 10 Str wizard physically CAN'T wear chainmail more than a few minutes before he's exhausted.

I think that realistically if an untrained wizard were to walk into a dungeon in chainmail, he would move slow, get encumbered quickly, and get tired faster. All of those factor would impact his spellcasting ability, although his AC would be signifcantly higher. You don't need any artificial rules about "iron interfering with magic energy".

 

[NerfedWizard]

I would have about Strength 10 in game terms (5'7", 147lb) and I can wear 29lb of heavy chainmail, plus some solid metal greaves, for 8 hours at a time and still move quite easily in live action roleplaying. After those 8 hours, I'm knackered, but I can go the 8 hours. And I can fight quite intensely for several minutes at a time, which is certainly longer than a typical D&D fight (12 rounds = 72 seconds?). And I'm really unfit! Would wearing chainmail affect my ability to concentrate on something, or, say, to speak a foreign language? No, not significantly - maybe after 12 hours, yes, but I might get tired even without armour.

 

[Jack Daniel]

OGB let's not hijack this thread with the debate we already started elsewhere, but just briefly:-

BECMI = the red box-set, blue box-set etc. edition of basic D&D which was out when AD&D 1st ed was out - and the Companions set (for the person who asked) covered levels 16 to 24 or 25 if memory serves - actually it has just occurred to me that the progression was ALMOST based on square numbers (1-3, 4-15, 16-24/25, 25/26-36)

(Actually, it went 1-3, 4-14, 15-25, 26-36. Kind of like how 4th edition has three tiers of ten levels each, for heroic, paragon, and epic? Basic D&D had a little introductory band of 3 Basic levels, and then three tiers of eleven levels each for expert, companion, and masters play. The idea was that basic play involved clearing the first dungeon, expert play was adventuring in the wilderness between several dungeons, companion play was about building a kingdom and fighting wars, and master play was saving the world and questing for godhood. The companion set covered levels 15-25, which means that it introduced the game's first 7th to 9th level spells, and also the best rules ever to appear in D&D for mass combat and running castles and dominions.)

 

[El Mahdi]

Surely after a few weeks' solid adventuring in metal armour - even just trekking around the hills to reach your dungeon destination - will be plenty of time to get used to wearing the armour.

And in real life, I've worn heavy chain which weighed in at 29lb or so (hauberk + coif) - and plate greaves weigh almost nothing. Granted, modern manufacture might be slightly better - but basically wearing chainmail with leg greaves isn't too bad even for a whole day spent dungeoneering in a caves environment, occasionally hitting things with latex weapons. The effect on your fighting speed and stamina of the weight of actual metal weapons apparently eclipses the effect of the weight of armour, even heavy armour. I've never tried full plate, but really, I just don't buy the idea that you need to be a super-specialised hero to even move in heavy armour. I don't know about your kevlar vest which weighed 17lb - maybe it was particularly tight or constrictive? My chainmail weighs 29lb and is fine for an 8-hour day when I'm even semi-fit, and I'm not exactly a man mountain.

Taking a Feat in Armor is not specialization, it's proficiency. Anyone can wear armor, but being able to effectively do the things that adventureres do, without penalty, requires proficiency. Fighters get this for free as part of the martial training they have gotten prior to becoming 1st level. Wizards get spellcasting, and their associated skills, for free, as part of the arcane training they have gotten prior to becoming 1st level. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a wizard to have to take a feat in order to be proficient in accomplishing tasks while wearing armor. However, at the same time, I wouldn't use spell failure percent for wearing armor if the wizard is proficient. I know that's not RAW, but it's the way it works in my games.

 

[baradtgnome]

Of course its a house rule

I don't see the balance problem with wizards wearing armor. Works fine as a house rule for us. The cost to them is burning feats to be proficient and then the failure chance goes away. We added some multi-classing benefit limits so a wizard couldn't take a single level of cleric or fighter and just have the benefit of all three armor feats for free.

As was mentioned by some, most wizards would rather avoid the armor anyway. They find the feats more useful elsewhere and like the better mobility... and armor eats up their carrying capacity too because of their moderate to low strength. I think that is a pretty good indication that our HR isn't over powered.

Also agree it is a flavor thing. for our group, we don't see the flavor problem. YMMV. I think if some of our group objected strongly to the flavor bit, we wouldn't have house ruled it. Doesn't make a huge deal either way, just gives some folks an interesting choice; and the DM some additional NPC bad guy options.

I don't see what all the excitement is about.

 

[Dausuul]

The companion set covered levels 15-25, which means that it introduced the game's first 7th to 9th level spells, and also the best rules ever to appear in D&D for mass combat and running castles and dominions.)

Which is pretty sad, considering how sketchy those rules were.