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

[Fanaelialae]

I dont mind it for a 'gish' doing a self-buff like mirror image.

However a Mage10/Fighter2 using it to cast a level 5 and a level 4 spell in round 1?
Dirty.

Eh, it's not so bad when you consider that a Mage 12 could open that same fight with a level 6 spell in round 1. (And that the M10/F2 just used will run out of spells more quickly than the M12 in doing so - though that does open up possible 5MWD concerns for the gish.)

 

[Obryn]

I dont mind it for a 'gish' doing a self-buff like mirror image.

However a Mage10/Fighter2 using it to cast a level 5 and a level 4 spell in round 1?
Dirty.

What about a 2-level dip into Wizard to pick up the Enchanter's "disadvantage on all attacks against me" perk?

 

[Ichneumon]

I dont mind it for a 'gish' doing a self-buff like mirror image.

However a Mage10/Fighter2 using it to cast a level 5 and a level 4 spell in round 1?
Dirty.

I'd say much of the post-public playtest will have involved cleaning up features that can be abused like that.

 

[Ruzak]

To me the fine point seems to be restricting the wizard in armor, but allowing the fighter-mage. For aesthetic reasons I don't like the thought of a full spellcaster wearing armor, but I am fine with the warrior who knows a few spells. Some sort of spreading out of the armor proficiencies for multi classers would work for me.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I count 4 editions with no armored casting.

And 2.5 more with armored casting as a trap option (3 feats, or suffer Arcane failure), I think Next is the outlier here and this particular rules adds nothing to supporting previous styles.

I don't see 5E as the outlier. B/X, BECMI, and 1E all allowed armored casting via the Elf class or multiclassing. 2E did prohibit it outright, but 3/3.5E had it albeit with ASF (but later means of avoiding said ASF). That sets aside clerics who have always been able to cast in armor ...

So I think there's plenty of history of arcane armored casting in D&D. The question is how to present it in a balanced manner that doesn't make it the default option, so that robe-wearing wizards are still a reasonable choice.

I prefer the approach I took in Mages & Monsters to the 5E approach, frankly -- proficiency is required; class drives armor proficiency with no way to gain additional proficiency (no feats) and the mage class gets no armor proficiency but there are classes with both armor proficiency and spellcasting (e.g. swordmage). All the archetypes can be covered.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't see 5E as the outlier. B/X, BECMI, and 1E all allowed armored casting via the Elf class or multiclassing...

I never realized 1e allowed armoured arcane casting in any form except by somene wearing elven chain until now. But it seems an Elf F-MU multiclass can do it by RAW.

My group had changed that rule before I started playing (so, pre-1982) to ban arcane casting in armour by anyone unless it was (very rare and exceedingly expensive) elven chain.

Lanefan

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'm all for character options - but a wizard dipping Fighter1 to increase his AC by 6 points seems frontloaded and sleazy.

I couldn't disagree more. Having played a sorcerer in 3.0/3.5/PF more than once, I can attest that having to wait an extra level to gain access to higher level spells is painful. Not only do I think dipping a level of fighter is totally not sleazy, I don't even think it's worth it. Wizards can already get a really good AC on their own.

 

[steeldragons]

Casting Spells in Armor:

No. Just no.

Yes, elves could in passed editions. Why? Cuz they're elves! Inherently magical beings. They could do (along with bunches of other stuff) things the other races couldn't.

If you had elfin chain...again, elves made it, inherently "ok with magic beings making armor that's ok for casting...for themselves." Makes sense. You couldn't buy it. You had to find it. It was supposed to be extremely rare...even if you were an elf!

How this becomes "Well, elves could, so everyone should be able to" is just so much more of the entitlement crowd wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

A dwarf in plate mail with a hammer in their one hand...using arcane magic? I don't know what that is...but it's not a D&D mage. A human in scale mail, carrying a shield and casting arcane spells? Again, dunno what it is...maybe a Final Fantasy something or a WoW bastardization...not a D&D magic-user/mage/wizard...or even sorcerer or warlock.

Back in 1e & 2e days, we also had multi-classed fighter/mages (or cleric/mages or thief/mages) who could cast arcane spells if they were wearing magic armor...the armor itself infused with magical energies so they didn't disrupt spellcasting. Made sense. Still does. Now, if that was actually in a manual somewhere or we just houseruled that way, I can't quite recall at the moment.

I'd also like someone to clarify for me alllll of these so many character concepts that should be permitted to cast arcane spells in armor?

There's the guy who's in-your-face-with-a-sword combatant who also knows some arcane magic...annnnd? That's it. There's the concept. Call it a "spellsword", "bladesinger", "eldritch knight" or a hundred other things...the archetype is the same: a hybrid/multi-classed "Fighter-Mage." Soooo...who're all of these other oh so integral character concepts that the game simply must allow armored arcane spellcasting?

Do you think the final game will change this?

Sadly, no. I do not. Those that think a dwarf in plate armor with a war hammer or a chain-clad halfling with a shield is a necessary arcane spellcaster character concept for the game to accommodate will be able to have their armored cake and eat their spells too.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some grass to yell at to get offa my lawn. Then think I'll lament the blueness of the sky.

 

[Shadowsoul]

This is a very tricky topic and I believe the designers need to tread carefully. Someone mentioned it in an earlier post about making a robe wearing mage viable. I think this is an important issue because if there is no reason for a mage to walk around without armour, then every mage build we see will be armoured.

Someone above also mentioned "well you can cast a 6th level spell". Well to be honest, what is the power difference between a 5th and 6th level spell? Think about casting that 5th level spell "and" attacking with your sword. Would that maybe equal the casting of a single 6th level spell?

I wouldn't want to be in the designer's shoes at the moment because I believe they have a lot of clean up work to do.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Casting Spells in Armor:
Yes, elves could in passed editions. Why? Cuz they're elves! Inherently magical beings. They could do (along with bunches of other stuff) things the other races couldn't.

Elves and half-elves were also the only races then that could be magic-users besides humans. Would you suggest then that in 5E dwarves and halflings should not be able to be mages? That solves your issue with armored spellcasting by that rationale.

(And if you'll check, you'll find armored spellcasting wasn't only elves and half-elves ... gnomes could as well, albeit as multi-classed illusionists.)

If you are searching for some sort of rationale based in consistency to support your argument, I suggest you give up and find another approach. There just isn't that sort of logical consistency across multiple editions of D&D; the only edition that barred armored spellcasting outright was 2E, but then it allowed the exception back in via elven chain.

And really, why all the hate for armored arcane casting when armored divine casting is all over the place already?

Don't get me wrong -- I don't want to see the armored mage a become the default solution, I like the robe-wearing mage archetype. But I don't think it should be banned; it just needs to be a reasonably balanced option that takes some sacrifice to achieve. ASF was a way in 3E, albeit an awkward mechanical solution. I think a proficiency limitation is fine provided additional proficiency is hard to achieve, which will be challenging if "free multiclassing" allows for front-loaded proficiencies.