Casting Verbal spells in armour

[Springheel]

RAW says that wizards can't cast spells in armour they aren't proficient in. I can't figure out how to justify this when it comes to spells that have only Verbal components. How do you explain that a wizard who is tied to a chair with his hands behind his back can still cast Misty Step, but relaxing in chainmail you aren't proficient in is too "distracting and physically hampering" to allow the same?

Anyone see any obvious pitfalls to allowing V-only spells while in nonproficient armour?

 

[jasper]

Game balance. The Great GYnAX says you can't do it. All hail the great E.G.G, Death to those who want logical reasons on why magic rules work they way they do.
Now if you want spell casters running around in plate mail go ahead and home brew it.

 

[S'mon]

Historically there are many such restrictions on magic - eg Dido could not cast spell to charm Aeneas until she removed all knots from her clothing.

I'd say: the magico-magnetic field generated by metal armour impairs spellcasting. If you have proficiency you can focus your inherent energies sufficiently to negate this effect.

 

[jgsugden]

When in the course of role playing events it becomes necessary for a DM to dissolve the rules bands which have connected them with the PHB and to assume among the powers of the game, the separate and house ruled station to which the Laws of DM Perogative and of DM's Hat entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of sensibility requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the house rule.

And then do what makes sense to you.

 

[Dausuul]

It's probably fine. Non-somatic spells are few enough that it remains a pretty crippling restriction. For example, the only attack cantrips for wizards that lack somatic components require you to be in melee range to deal damage.

 

[Li Shenron]

RAW says that wizards can't cast spells in armour they aren't proficient in. I can't figure out how to justify this...

Then don't. Too much explaining only creates more problems.

 

[Oofta]

Considering that you are also at "disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity", and there are so few verbal only spells I can't imagine this actually coming up in a real game.

So in-game justification is that it's just not worth it and therefore the rules didn't bother explicitly calling it out. There are a lot more things in the rules that are quite arbitrary.

 

[BluejayJunior]

The physical weight of the armor that you haven't been trained to use doesn't allow you to focus your concentration appropriately or muster the magical strength necessary to cast spells as you have to focus so much on just holding yourself up in the armor.

 

[GlassJaw]

I'd allow it. Ain't no thang.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

RAW says that wizards can't cast spells in armour they aren't proficient in. I can't figure out how to justify this when it comes to spells that have only Verbal components. How do you explain that a wizard who is tied to a chair with his hands behind his back can still cast Misty Step, but relaxing in chainmail you aren't proficient in is too "distracting and physically hampering" to allow the same?

Anyone see any obvious pitfalls to allowing V-only spells while in nonproficient armour?

Hey, no problem. Since armor and a chair you are tied to is about the same, you can totally cast it in armor... but you leave the armor behind and arrive in just your underwear.

A little bit more serious: I don´t see, why you can´t houserule this. Seems appropriate. Though you should notice that the best armors come with a helmet. So maybe that could be seen as a hindrance if you are not proficient.