Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Olgar Shiverstone" data-source="post: 6269866" data-attributes="member: 5868">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.</blockquote>