Can human arcane spellcasters wear armour?

[StreamOfTheSky]

I didn't vote, it really depends on the setting and such. I don't really understand the big deal about metal armor, though. I've only been playing a decade, is this some really old sacred cow?

I'm quite happy to play an unarmoured wizard - I just think that D&D has always made them very, very much underpowered at low to mid levels - and most campaigns that I've played end before wizards even come into their own.

That's a fair assessment. I think that's one of the reasons many games tend towards the "sweet spot" of a given edition -- the fuzzy level range where arcanists aren't weak little puppies, but have yet to gain access to "I win" spells. In 3E, 5-8 is usually the narrow definition, I think 3-10 is perfectly good. Beyond that either direction, there can be issues.

AD&D 3rd ed:- suddenly whoosh clerics are deliberately 20% more powerful than any other class, and at least double the power of wizards - so I would be happy to play a 3rd ed wizard but only if you give me +2 free levels at all times

Clerics are only more powerful than wizards at the levels wizards are weaker than everyone else as well. By the upper mid levels, the Wizard's spells often make the difference in BAB (touch AC is as hard to hit at level 15 as it is at level 5), hp (overstated as wizards can afford a higher con modifier), and armor (twilight mithral chainshirt, mithral buckler, and oh hey! look at all these shiny spells that give me a miss chance or make me invisible/ethereal/flying!) meaningless. Clerics do have an advantage in healing by far, but many consider in-combat healing a waste of an action. Wizards do have a better spell list, and it does make a difference. Sure, clerics get all their spells known automatically, but if quantity mattered over quality, Druids would be crazy not to trade in Natural Spell for four Toughness feats. /rant, but I'm really sick of this incorrect assertion.

So basically the bottom line is in 3rd edition I would play a wizard quite happily if I knew he had a +2 levels bonus for determining what spells he can cast, at all times. Or if he had cleric hitpoints, weaponry and armour. That's where I see the game-balance lying.

You fail at game balance.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I voted "all armor, all the time" - but i meant that the wizard should be proficient in armor use.
From the game-balance side, i find the "restricting armor to other classes rule" about as charming and intelligent than demihuman level limits.
It´s a matter of style, really. Does the armor look good with your robe? When the answer is yes, go for it.