Can human arcane spellcasters wear armour?

[NerfedWizard]

This is a poll to support the debate in my recent thread about Wizards, Armour and the Collective Consciousness. The question is simple:- can human arcane spellcasters wear armour?

I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT GAME-BALANCE HERE. This is just about flavour and what "feels" authentic / right.

 

[Ximenes088]

Given how vanishingly little attention is paid to armor in most books, I'm not sure this question can be divorced from ideas of game balance. It's like asking whether or not it's well-flavored for wizards to eat pie. Most authors writing books that aren't based on dessert-eating simulators just don't find it worth asking the question, let alone answering it.

But in my opinion, if a given normal human activity requires a special world rule to explain why wizards can't do it, then it is pretty clearly not an integral taboo of wizardom.

 

[NerfedWizard]

Those who have answered "Other" - please list your particular preferences here. What should the rules be about wizards wearing armour - or do you just mean "no fixed opinion"?

 

[Chainsaw]

I selected "Other," because I think it depends entirely on what campaign style and setting the DM and players have mutually agreed to use. As the Wizards, Armour and the Collective Consciousness thread discussion has shown, there seems to be literary precedent to support whatever style one wants. I can easily envision having fun in a traditional AD&D 1E campaign, where most magic-users don't wear armor, or in a totally different campaign, where every magic-user wears armor.

If I may be so bold, I might also add that I don't think that any fictional literary example will necessarily settle the dispute between you and your DM because it sounds like you're really disagreeing about what sort of campaign flavor you want - he wants a traditional D&D type wizard, you don't. Perhaps a solution might be to use one set of magic/armor rules for this campaign and a different set for the next one or, if you have the time and energy, to run two separate campaigns.

 

[NerfedWizard]

I don't think ANYTHING will settle this long-running dispute, but obviously, I'm trying!

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.

In summary:-

BECMI / AD&D 1st ed:- wizards were rubbish by comparison to elven fighter/magic-users, but eventually they hit their level limit and wizards began to come into their own - clerics had slightly weaker spells than wizards, so wizards did OK

AD&D 2nd ed:- I can't exactly remember, but I think the cleric power-creep had started by 2nd edition - probably because someone realised that people don't like playing healers because it's boring, and wanted to compensate for that

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

4e:- suddenly everyone is exactly the same as everyone else, all pretence of roleplaying has been jettisoned and we have a very curious tactical battlegame ;-) [OK that's a bit of a wind-up, f4nboys pls don't take it personally]

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.

 

[Starbuck_II]

This is a poll to support the debate in my recent thread about Wizards, Armour and the Collective Consciousness. The question is simple:- can human arcane spellcasters wear armour?

I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT GAME-BALANCE HERE. This is just about flavour and what "feels" authentic / right.

Since I've never heard of a mage in any fantasy besides D&D that fits my image of a mage but Psionics and they can wear armor: yes.

Really, Arcane is just Flavor anyway since you said ignore balance discussion.

 

[NerfedWizard]

This question is ENTIRELY about flavour.

Basically, my view is:- unless DICTATED by flavour/simulationism,
game-design choices should reflect game-balance, interpreted to
mean broad balance across the whole roleplaying experience, not
just in combat. And obviously, you cannot exactly balance two
different characters - all you can do is make sure that each advantage
has a corresponding disadvantage, so that no character class can have
a significant advantage over all the others without some corresponding
significant disadvantage. Every bonus has a drawback, and they should
ROUGHLY match. You can't expect perfection.

This, by the way (if I haven't said it enough), is part of the philosophy behind
my game Omnifray (Omnifray RPG - Home)

 

[John Quixote]

I can't answer this poll, because you don't have an option that says, "Yes - BECMI rules, dammit!"

Seriously. I play BECMI, but I've always let wizards (thieves, monks, whatever) wear any armor and carry any weapons they want. It fits the whole fantasy paradigm better, to have a sword-swinging Gandalf or a plate-mailed Eragon sort of wizard.

*Especially* in BECMI, where there's no multiclassing for humans, and the only way to make a fighter/mage is to play a mage and equip the character with good weapons and armor.

 

[Mallus]

Depending on the setting, sure.

 

[delericho]

Since we're not talking game balance, then my preference is very strongly that pure Wizards not wear armour, Fighter/Wizards were light to medium armour, and that the heaviest armours be reserved for pure warriors.

Likewise, pure Wizards should use light to no weapons and no shields, Fighter/Wizards light to medium weapons and no shields, with shields and heavy weapons reserved for pure warriors.