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

[Fanaelialae]

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.

The difference is pretty significant. It's the difference between Cone of Cold (good damage) and Mass Suggestion (if it works, you can avoid the fight completely; that's not even touching upon uses out of combat). I would say a 5th level spell plus a sword swing is definitely not the equivalent of a 6th level spell (plus, you can't do both in the same round unless you use Action Surge, which is once per encounter).

The price of giving up spellcasting ability is not to be underestimated. Just because a Mage knows how to swing a sword, doesn't mean he'll be great at it. He won't get Extra Attacks like a Fighter would, or any of the other great fighter abilities. Additionally, he'll be green with envy when his non-dippy Mage buddies are slinging powerful spells that he'll have to wait another level or two to acquire.

You're effectively trading supreme, cosmic power for a bit more survivability. Given that arcane magic has some great ways for a mage to stay out of harms way (Invisibility, Fly) I don't think it's an easy trade at all. Except for dwarves, but even though D&D doesn't have a tradition of armored dwarven mages (heck, even the tradition of dwarven mages is a relatively recent one) I feel like it's appropriate.

 

[steeldragons]

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?

I could suggest it til the cows come home. It'd never happen.

That solves your issue with armored spellcasting by that rationale.

I...don't see how it does.

(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.)

Yes. I know. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If a character is multiclassed, then sure, wear armor. My issue is an alleged "mage" character that is allowed to cast in armor, just because they take some proficiency/feat [or just happen to be a dwarf? Yeah, that makes sense.].

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.

So noted. I wasn't "searching for [any] sort of rationale." Nor making any argument. I don't like it [single-classed mage characters taking a feat or class-dipping to justify armor]. Don't want it. Won't have it in my games. It's bad for flavor. It's bad for/contributes to PC homogenization [a.k.a. the illusion of "balance"], i.e. everyone has to be good at/have access to everything. It's completely unnecessary (and thus bad) for the game, imnsho. Simple as that.

But for future reference I'll be sure to support my preferences and opinions with rationales you find justifiable.

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?

Well, there's some logical consistency, right there. Clerics, by definition, since the beginning of the D&D cosmos, wear armor...and divine magic works. [non-MC] Mages...no. Like it or not, that's how the game we call D&D works.

Multi-classed mages, yes. fine. That's part of the reason (or used to be) to multi-class. Class-"dipping" is not multiclassing. A Mage taking an "armor proficiency" feat is not multiclassing.

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.

So we are in some/partial/general agreement.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Multi-classed mages, yes. fine. That's part of the reason (or used to be) to multi-class. Class-"dipping" is not multiclassing. A Mage taking an "armor proficiency" feat is not multiclassing.

So we are in some/partial/general agreement.

Yep, I think we're in general agreement there.

 

[DMZ2112]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't D&D3 the only version of the game that includes arcane spell failure chance for armor? AD&D just says "no armor for magic-users," right? And subsequent editions include proficiency feats?

To me, what that looks like is armor proficiency being the logical evolution of outright exclusion, in a system with greater customizability, and arcane spell failure as a one-off.

I'm a big fan of cutting redundancy. I think you only need one rule. If proficiency requirement is considered enough to bar clerics and rogues from using certain weapons, then it ought to be considered enough to bar mages from wearing certain armors. If a mage wants to train to use armor instead of doing something more in line with their studies, more power to them. A plate-armored mage is a neat concept -- I want to know more about that guy.

 

[Shadowsoul]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't D&D3 the only version of the game that includes arcane spell failure chance for armor? AD&D just says "no armor for magic-users," right? And subsequent editions include proficiency feats?

To me, what that looks like is armor proficiency being the logical evolution of outright exclusion, in a system with greater customizability, and arcane spell failure as a one-off.

I'm a big fan of cutting redundancy. I think you only need one rule. If proficiency requirement is considered enough to bar clerics and rogues from using certain weapons, then it ought to be considered enough to bar mages from wearing certain armors. If a mage wants to train to use armor instead of doing something more in line with their studies, more power to them. A plate-armored mage is a neat concept -- I want to know more about that guy.

In Ad&d, only elven chain allowed you to cast spells in armour. That armour was highly sought after by fighter/mages.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A feat or a class level or two or three is not a small investment! Especially given the opportunity cost -- being better at casting spells, which is ostensibly yer job. Fix your low AC problem with magic, or you might as well stop being a wizard, man. Tacitly admitting that pieces of metal do a better job than your cunning and control of the laws of physics!

That cost sounds about right to me.

Anyone who wants to limit it further can do so fairly easily (no feats, re-instating ASF, just forbidding it), too, so if you'd like that divide to be sharper, it's pretty simple to do.

 

[DMZ2112]

In Ad&d, only elven chain allowed you to cast spells in armour. That armour was highly sought after by fighter/mages.

Perhaps elven chain could be usable in D&D5 without any proficiency? As I recall, elven chain also had dramatically reduced impact on thieves' abilities, as well.

 

[Kyle Ropp]

I say give the nerd his +x to ac, but give fighters more mobility in armor at level 7 or 10 or something

theres more to being a tank than an ac score

3.x has proven that

 

[Shadowsoul]

Perhaps elven chain could be usable in D&D5 without any proficiency? As I recall, elven chain also had dramatically reduced impact on thieves' abilities, as well.

You're right it did. I think they also came out with elven plate that allowed you to cast spells.

Elven chain was the go to armour back then.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

In Ad&d, only elven chain allowed you to cast spells in armour. That armour was highly sought after by fighter/mages.

That's 2E AD&D. In 1E AD&D fighter/magic-user multi-classes could cast spells in any armor. Likewise with the Elf class in B/X and BECMI.