Can human arcane spellcasters wear armour?

[JDJblatherings]

In most of D&D (throughout the editions) anyone can wear whatever armor and use whatever weapon they want to but- they aren't always going to be good at it, they aren't always going to be able to enjoy all their class features and they might not get many exp while doing so.

 

[OldGreybeard]

As i see it, Wizards can wear armour within the confines of the rules of the game in which it is set. Players shouldn`t be able to change the rules of the game to get what they want. So in 3/3.5 Ed. A Wizard can wear armour, if he has the feat allowing that specific type.

At this point he has a 35% Arcane Spell Failure, why because it says so in the rules. You might feel the rules suck but you agreed to play the game and the game says this is so.

At this point the player is moving at 20` not 30` as his armour is heavy and bulky and everyone but dwarves are hindered in this way(standard races anyway).

Its therefore upto the player to investigate ways in which he can lower the ASF, through adventure time, its not for the DM to hand the reasons to the player.

At this point we get to the point in any game when the DM begins to allow supplements and rule variants into the game, such as Illithid Wrought Armour, Still Spell Armour, Mithril Based armours etc. These armours lower the bulkieness and ASF somewhat, and it all stays within the confines of the rules.

Almost Lastly: for NerfedWizard and supporters of the yes vote with no question.
In principle i agree Wizards can wear armour if they are proficient and take the ASF, but remember while trailing through the wilderness you will be faced with all manner of natural obstacles, from streams and rivers, to uneven ground, marshes, bogs, travelling on at the best rough game trails instead of cindered walkways,clambering over rockfalls and scree runs, climbing up small cliffs and squeezing through narrow passages, this is what that proficiency allows, without it the wizards is like an armoured statue in a museum. This is probably the real reason Wizards dont wear armour while out adventuring.

Lastly and most importantly: Its upto each DM at the beginning of every game what he will and will not allow and no cajoling will change that. Simple as that.

 

[OldGreybeard]

With regard to the poll what does BECMI mean????

And the poll reiterates my point exactly, Yes wizards should be allowed to wear armour but should suffer some penalty for doing so, all the Yes Buts added together....

 

[Jack Daniel]

JD that's a very modified BECMI!!!

LOL, you don't know the half of it.

With regard to the poll what does BECMI mean????

Basic - Expert - Companion - Masters - Immortals

 

[GreatLemur]

I think archetype enforcement is generally pretty lame, so I've got no problem with wizards in plate mail. Also, the "armor inferferes with magical gestures" explanation always sounded pretty lame to me. Surely that should only apply to gauntlets, then, right? And would extend to divine spells with somatic components, right?

...But, if there's some compelling game balance reason why the guy with terrible hitpoints and no melee combat ability should be encouraged to run around without protective clothing, then I can buy the idea that heavier clothing interrupts the flow of mana between the world and the mage's body, or something like that.

 

[CleverNickName]

Since you asked about flavor and not game balance, I went with the "No" option. I've always thought the concept of wizards wearing full plate was a bit over-the-top. I'm not saying it is badwrongfun; it's just not the flavor I care for.

In my mind, a wizard (or any spell-user, for that matter) would turn his nose up at swords, shields, armor, and other such "barbaric" implements of war. He would tend to view these things as tools of the weak-minded, things that only the dumb brutes of the world use because they don't know how to do anything else. He would view magic as the only real power...unlimited, indescribeable power that no sword could match and no armor could resist.

 

[The Green Adam]

In ars that can be got round with some Muto Terram or Muto Corpus quite simply. The finesse/targetting for having a great helm (full armour) is just a little more tricky to get round.

True I suppose but again, its simple, it makes sense, it lets you design and equip your character how you want to. That's why I love that game.

I would have a Fae-Blooded Magi (House Merinita) be uncomfortable or even a tad ill around weapons and armor of Cold Iron make or components. I'd check to make sure it was indeed Cold Iron and not Wrought or Worked Iron or Steel. It adds atmosphere.

AD

 

[The Green Adam]

In my mind, a wizard (or any spell-user, for that matter) would turn his nose up at swords, shields, armor, and other such "barbaric" implements of war. He would tend to view these things as tools of the weak-minded, things that only the dumb brutes of the world use because they don't know how to do anything else. He would view magic as the only real power...unlimited, indescribeable power that no sword could match and no armor could resist.

This is the best and most logical argument against armored wizards I have heard thus far. I can see it.

The wizards, all drinking port and smoking pipes of various things meet in the hollowed halls of their Wizard College and scoff at the commoner and King alike for their dependancey on material items to save their short lives. The Fools! Had they spent more time putting their eyes to books and pen to paper they would realize the true nature of the world and perhaps begin to fathom the simplest elements of time and space that Wizards know all to well. Your tin-plated soldiers swinging their sharpened sticks are nothing but flotsum and jetsom to those truley learned who grasp the power of magic.

Oh yeah. I wanna run Ars Magica now, lol

AD

 

[The Green Adam]

LOL, you don't know the half of it.

Basic - Expert - Companion - Masters - Immortals

Ya know...while I know that it just occured to me...I don't remember Companion one bit. I mean, I know there was a Companion but I don't think I ever read, used or even looked at it. I know I didn't own it. What was in Companion?

AD

 

[Mallus]

In principle i agree Wizards can wear armour if they are proficient and take the ASF, but remember while trailing through the wilderness you will be faced with all manner of natural obstacles, from streams and rivers, to uneven ground, marshes, bogs, travelling on at the best rough game trails instead of cindered walkways,clambering over rockfalls and scree runs, climbing up small cliffs and squeezing through narrow passages, this is what that proficiency allows, without it the wizards is like an armoured statue in a museum.

This is a persuasive argument against anyone using plate mail armor while adventuring (I assume the above applies to fighters, too).

This is probably the real reason Wizards dont wear armour while out adventuring.

In this context "real" reasons don't exist.

Its upto each DM at the beginning of every game what he will and will not allow and no cajoling will change that. Simple as that.

Sure. But a lot of smart DM's work with their players and seek a reasonable compromise. There are plenty of ways to balance (and rationalize) armored wizards. I think the DM needs to ask him/herself how their campaign is made any better by not seeking such a reasonable compromise.

(says a guy who spends most of his time DM'ing)