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

[jodyjohnson]

So tradition is bad, progression is good.

Noted.

Everyone has an AC 16, and d8 for HD. We're balanced.

 

[Obryn]

Dear goodness, people 'round these parts just love their slippery slopes and reductio ad absurdums.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I was thinking that exact thing earlier this afternoon.

It's fun Friday east of the International date line.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not a fan at all of arcane casters being able to cast while in armour. That said, if you want it to be possible it's pretty easy to have one of the (preferably rare and-or expensive)options for magic armour of any type be something like "arcane aid", which allows you to cast while wearing it. Elven chain comes with this built in, which is why it's so costly.

Lanefan

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

I don't think it's really a trap option although, personally, I think that 2 levels of fighter for all armor proficiencies would be more than sufficient. (Up to medium armor at Fighter 1, and Heavy at Figher 2.)

Admittedly, you lose out on spellcasting ability, which is painful. That's more or less necessary though to keep it from being a no-brainer. There ought to be some trade-off for going from easy-to-hit to hard-to-hit.

However, you gain Defensive Fighting Style (presumably) which makes you even harder to hit, Second Wind which might save your life some day, and the big one: Action Surge, which by RAW seems to give you the ability to double cast once per encounter. Honestly, I'd consider a two level dip into fighter just for Action Surge; the AC is icing.

In 3e, a dip into fighter meant exchanging great class abilities (Spellcasting!) for some proficiencies and a mostly meaningless Base Attack boost (and a fighter feat, but I can't recall many good uses a mage would have for that). It was a poor trade, especially since you couldn't effectively use your armor proficiencies due to arcane spell failure. In 5e, however, you actually get some nice abilities out of dipping into fighter, on top of the proficiencies. Possibly even worth being set back a full spell level.

 

[Wulfgar76]

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

Arcane spellcasting in heavy armor - impossible
Arcane spellcasting in light armor - sure
Arcane spellcasting in medium armor or holding a shield - murky

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think it's really a trap option although, personally, I think that 2 levels of fighter for all armor proficiencies would be more than sufficient. (Up to medium armor at Fighter 1, and Heavy at Figher 2.)

Admittedly, you lose out on spellcasting ability, which is painful. That's more or less necessary though to keep it from being a no-brainer. There ought to be some trade-off for going from easy-to-hit to hard-to-hit.

However, you gain Defensive Fighting Style (presumably) which makes you even harder to hit, Second Wind which might save your life some day, and the big one: Action Surge, which by RAW seems to give you the ability to double cast once per encounter. Honestly, I'd consider a two level dip into fighter just for Action Surge; the AC is icing.

In 3e, a dip into fighter meant exchanging great class abilities (Spellcasting!) for some proficiencies and a mostly meaningless Base Attack boost (and a fighter feat, but I can't recall many good uses a mage would have for that). It was a poor trade, especially since you couldn't effectively use your armor proficiencies due to arcane spell failure. In 5e, however, you actually get some nice abilities out of dipping into fighter, on top of the proficiencies. Possibly even worth being set back a full spell level.

Oh damn, I did not think about action surge for spells!

 

[Wulfgar76]

Oh damn, I did not think about action surge for spells!

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.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm completely fine with the current rules. Requiring a caster to be proficient in armor to cast in it seems like the simplest fix, and it's a very simple rule which is easy to remember while also covering the most cases and still allowing the widest amount of character concepts to be possible.

 

[Argyle King]

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

Arcane spellcasting in heavy armor - impossible
Arcane spellcasting in light armor - sure
Arcane spellcasting in medium armor or holding a shield - murky

No more sleezy than dipping monk or barbarian to be able to add a second stat to AC while unarmored; certainly nowhere near as sleezy as being a monk/barbarian and taking advantage of three different stats for AC.