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

[jodyjohnson]

I'd lean towards spacing out proficiencies so that you need more more than a 1 level dip to get All Armors, All weapons.

If 1-2 is an Apprentice tier I could see limiting the profieciencies you get based on what you'd be exposed to: a handful of weapons and only armors that cost 100gp or less.

Fighter 1:
Weapon proficiency: Choose 3
Armor: Light, Medium, Ring and Chain, shields

Fighter 3: your training is complete Jedi
Weapons: all
Armor: all

Same for the other classes that pass out more proficiencies than you can use at Level 1.

Although I'd get rid of the double penalty for Nonprof - no bonus, and disadvantage.

 

[Dausuul]

I'd lean towards spacing out proficiencies so that you need more more than a 1 level dip to get All Armors, All weapons.

If 1-2 is an Apprentice tier I could see limiting the profieciencies you get based on what you'd be exposed to: a handful of weapons and only armors that cost 100gp or less.

Fighter 1:
Weapon proficiency: Choose 3
Armor: Light, Medium, Ring and Chain, shields

Fighter 3: your training is complete Jedi
Weapons: all
Armor: all

Oh heck no. I had quite enough of "trap options," where the game pretends to support a concept but in fact it's comically underpowered, in 3E. And throwing away three wizard levels for a few points of AC is exactly that. The only people who would do it are newbie players who don't know any better, and hardcore concept players who don't care if the system arbitrarily punishes them for having an Unapproved Concept.

If you don't want armored casters in your game, there is a simple solution: Ban armored casters. The game will certainly support the "wizard in robes" archetype, so you'll still be able to have wizards. If armored wizards are allowed at all, however, the price for it should be reasonable.

As far as realism goes, you don't need three levels' worth of training to learn how to move in plate armor. You really don't even need one. It's not that hard. Plate armor is designed to let you move in it. A 50-pound backpack is far more of a hindrance to your movement than 50 pounds of plate armor will ever be, unless you're going swimming.

 

[Derren]

Oh heck no. I had quite enough of "trap options," where the game pretends to support a concept but in fact it's comically underpowered, in 3E

Trap option? Really? There is no trap in giving fighters heavy armor proficiency at level 3 instead of level 1.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I have no problems with casting in armour, assuming
1. the caster has proficiency, and
2. the caster has one hand free (two if using a scroll).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Trap option? Really? There is no trap in giving fighters heavy armor proficiency at level 3 instead of level 1.

The trap is, if you want to play a mage in plate, you would be tempted to put three levels into Fighter. Because of the way spells scaled in 3E, this would have been a terrible decision - losing out on higher level spells and caster level for your existing spells - that could have punished anyone not masterful enough to see what you were losing.

Due to the way Proficiency bonus scales evenly in Next, though, and coupled with the vastly reduced number of spell slots at high levels, it remains to be seen whether or not this would be a real trap or just a different/unexpected playstyle change.

 

[jodyjohnson]

If you don't want armored casters in your game, there is a simple solution: Ban armored casters.

If you want plate mail wearing casters in your game, there is a simple solution: Allow armored casters.

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.

DDN justs tries to add a new style.

The overarching issue goes back to multiclass dipping. too many proficiencies, too early is just going to be the source of another "problem" combo.

 

[Derren]

The trap is, if you want to play a mage in plate, you would be tempted to put three levels into Fighter.

This is no trap as it is pretty obvious that taking 3 level of fighter just to get heavy armor proficiency makes you weaker at spellcasting.

I really wish people would stop using the silly "trap option" entirely. Minmaxing fighting ability is not the default way of playing RPGs.

 

[Mistwell]

The trap is, if you want to play a mage in plate, you would be tempted to put three levels into Fighter. Because of the way spells scaled in 3E, this would have been a terrible decision - losing out on higher level spells and caster level for your existing spells - that could have punished anyone not masterful enough to see what you were losing.

Due to the way Proficiency bonus scales evenly in Next, though, and coupled with the vastly reduced number of spell slots at high levels, it remains to be seen whether or not this would be a real trap or just a different/unexpected playstyle change.

More importantly, with bounded accuracy a higher AC is far more useful, on a per-AC-point basis, than it was in any other edition of D&D. Loss of three levels of spellcasting might actually be worth it for that AC and hit points. It's a 20-21 AC for the Mage with armor, a shield, and the Defensive ability. That's a big boost. By way of comparison, I believe the final playtest document maxes out at AC 18 for the beastiary (it's going to go up, and I think it already has with the most recent module). A Balor demon, a level 18 monster, attacks at a +8 right now, which means they'd need a 12 or 13 to hit the mage. It's a pretty major benefit to the Mage's mortality rate.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I really wish people would stop using the silly "trap option" entirely. Minmaxing fighting ability is not the default way of playing RPGs.

No, but there is an expectation that whatever sort of character you make will be roughly as powerful in the various arenas as you intend them to be. A trap is just anytime something appears one way, but is actually something else. A player might think that trading in mage levels for fighter levels would make them better at fighting, and if it doesn't, then they were essentially tricked into doing something they didn't want.

 

[Obryn]

Is a low armor class really required for balance these days?