D&D 5E Casting spells in armour: Do you think the final game will change this?

[Shadowsoul]

As of right now, it is my understanding that you can freely cast spells in armour. I'm not really happy about this amd I would like for there to be some restrictions. I remember when elven chain had the special property of allowing someone to cast spells while wearing it and I see that as something flavourful.

What do you think?

 

[am181d]

As of right now, it is my understanding that you can freely cast spells in armour. I'm not really happy about this amd I would like for there to be some restrictions. I remember when elven chain had the special property of allowing someone to cast spells while wearing it and I see that as something flavourful.

What do you think?

Well, there's some penalty for wearing armor you're not proficient with, right? You get disadvantage on something or other? I don't know that the penalty needs to specifically relate to spellcasting.

I have never been thrilled with the arcane spell failure rules. There are two many archetypes where spellcasters (particularly the gishy ones) are expected to wear light armor.

 

[Johnny Champion]

Our D&D Next campaign doesn't allow armor or shields for Mages and thought the rules stated as such. It doesn't directly say it can't be worn but I assume that the playtest page space may be reason why it is wasn't prohibited outright. But Mages are not proficient in any form of armor or shields; I guess a Mage could take a feat to become proficient with light armor.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's a tricky subject, because if you totally ban spellcasting in armor, some character concepts are unsupported. If you allow it, you have to carefully design its cost, so that it won't be a no-brainer.

Right now, the cost is one (or more) feat or one level in your spellcasting class (if you get the armor proficiency via multiclassing).

We also have to keep in mind that the main (obvious) advantage of armor is the AC, and Wizards have spells and magic items (but the latter should not be assumed anymore in 5e) to get a higher AC without using armor, thus the advantage of proficiency can vary a lot.

In 3e I used to think that "Casting in Armor" could be a feat that worked for armors you were already proficient with, thus getting a Wizard actually cast in Full Plate would require 4 feats. That's more expensive than in 5e, considering that a 5e feat is worth 2-3 times an old 3e feat. Maybe the current idea is not wrong at all, but honestly I can't tell.

 

[Li Shenron]

Our D&D Next campaign doesn't allow armor or shields for Mages and thought the rules stated as such. It doesn't directly say it can't be worn but I assume that the playtest page space may be reason why it is wasn't prohibited outright. But Mages are not proficient in any form of armor or shields; I guess a Mage could take a feat to become proficient with light armor.

If you are using the latest playtest packet, you should check "How to Play", somewhere in the "Magic" section!

Everyone (yes, Clerics and Druids also!) cannot cast spells while wearing an armor, unless they are proficient. They can wear armor or hold a shield without proficiency, and get the full AC benefit, but then they get disadvantage on a lot of rolls (IIRC, all Str- and Dex- based roll).

There are already feats which grant armor proficiencies.

 

[Mistwell]

It's a tricky subject, because if you totally ban spellcasting in armor, some character concepts are unsupported. If you allow it, you have to carefully design its cost, so that it won't be a no-brainer.

Right now, the cost is one (or more) feat or one level in your spellcasting class (if you get the armor proficiency via multiclassing).

Or a race. A dwarven mage can cast in armor from day one, while wielding a warhammer in the other hand.

 

[Dausuul]

As of right now, it is my understanding that you can freely cast spells in armour. I'm not really happy about this amd I would like for there to be some restrictions. I remember when elven chain had the special property of allowing someone to cast spells while wearing it and I see that as something flavourful.

What do you think?

You have to be proficient with the armor in order to cast spells in it. Since mages don't get any armor proficiencies, you'd have to pick up a level in fighter, or else invest multiple feats Edit: or be a dwarf. (In the playtest, the only feat that grants heavy armor proficiency is Heavy Armor Master, which has medium armor proficiency as a prereq. If the full game has similar feats for medium and light armor, it'd cost three feats for a single-classed mage to cast in plate.)

That seems like a fair trade to me. I like the idea of wizards who adventure in robes or ordinary clothing, but I also like the idea that some wizards wear armor. The proficiency requirement ensures that both are viable options. It also means no need to have separate rules for clerics; clerics are already proficient with medium armor, so they can cast in it.

If you want an outright ban on armored arcane casting, you can always house-rule it out, as Johnny Champion's group has done. It dings fighter/mages, but the single-classed wizard won't suffer for it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Or a race. A dwarven mage can cast in armor from day one, while wielding a warhammer in the other hand.

True! Thus race is at least another potential source of armor proficiencies. No backgrounds so far IIRC. The limit is clearly that you have to plan it in advance

 

[Shadowsoul]

You have to be proficient with the armor in order to cast spells in it. Since mages don't get any armor proficiencies, you'd have to pick up a level in fighter, or else invest multiple feats Edit: or be a dwarf. (In the playtest, the only feat that grants heavy armor proficiency is Heavy Armor Master, which has medium armor proficiency as a prereq. If the full game has similar feats for medium and light armor, it'd cost three feats for a single-classed mage to cast in plate.)

That seems like a fair trade to me. I like the idea of wizards who adventure in robes or ordinary clothing, but I also like the idea that some wizards wear armor. The proficiency requirement ensures that both are viable options. It also means no need to have separate rules for clerics; clerics are already proficient with medium armor, so they can cast in it.

If you want an outright ban on armored arcane casting, you can always house-rule it out, as Johnny Champion's group has done. It dings fighter/mages, but the single-classed wizard won't suffer for it.

I like the idea of casting spells in armour but I don't want it to be as simple as a fighter dip.

 

[Dausuul]

I like the idea of casting spells in armour but I don't want it to be as simple as a fighter dip.

Dipping fighter stings! You don't get a lot of levels and every one of them is valuable. As a wizard player, the big source of excitement for me in leveling up is NEW SPELLS NEW SPELLS NEW SPELLS! If I spend a level on fighter, that's one level's worth of spells I miss out on. If I'm playing a wizard 8/fighter 1, I'm going to be constantly aware that I could be casting 5th-level spells right now if I hadn't taken that stupid fighter dip just so I could wear armor.

Good balance means players should have to make tough choices. With the exception of "play a dwarf," I'd say the price for being an armored wizard right now is plenty high. In fact, I would have trouble justifying either the dip or the feat investment to myself. What do I need armor for, that's worth sacrificing either six points of stats or access to NEW SPELLS? I'll just put the armor on the party fighter and stand her in front of me. If the fighter goes down, I've got levitate and dimension door.