Is it unbalancing to let arcane spellcasters cast in armor?

[Felon]

3 sentences to say what everyone has known for the past 6 years: Sorcery is stronger than swordery. The way I see it the last thing that is necessary is giving the strongest type of class almost by default even more power. Give away freebies to the sword swingers and bow shooters of the world before you go and make arguably the strongest core classes even stronger.

I think that the 3.0/3.5 rules are fairly balancing. Remember, the basic fighting classes don't really have access to the kind of firepower that a wizard/sorcerer does.

If we're talking about raw damage output, I've sent my share of evidence to the contrary. Basic fighting classes can hit quite hard. And remember, even with armor, arcanists still have lousy hit points.

 

[Imagicka]

I think the only real reason is a sacred flavor Cow.

Mmm... Holy Beef...

Yeah, G.R. pretty much laid it all out here. You can get by with up to light or medium armor, to cast spells with little or no spell failure.

However, to me there shouldn't really be a reason why someone who is a dedicated wizard would have to wear armour. But logically, I don't see a lot of reason why wizards and sorcerers should be nerfed. I think wizards are nerfed enough as it is because they can't cast like a sorcerer, and have to prepare spells. -- I much more like the idea that wizards should be allowed to cast anything from their repertoire, and then giving sorcerers a little something extra as well.

Personally, in my game, arcane spell failure is more a product of interference with metal, namely iron. Somatic interference does play a part (in the case of padded and leather), as well as all the other types of armour. Then 3.0 came out. When I read the Still Spell feat, it gave me pause.

But tell me this... what is it that a Bard learns so that he doesn't have any arcane spell failure, that the wizard cannot learn? Why should you have to become a bard? Why not just learn that one thing hat bards learn that allows someone to be able to cast in light armour without having a chance of failure?

I don't know why no one ever created feats address this problem. Perhaps a chain of feats that allows someone to cast is light, then medium, and eventually heavy armour.

Heavy armor is too powerful when facing kobolds and many other low level monsters that can't hit worth a @#$@#.

That's what my players thought, until I pulled out all the stops on what I thought kobolds should be. I've never read Tucker's Kobolds, but I imagine that my kommando kobolds are pretty similar. -- But I also think that shield ACs aren't high enough either.

D&D is based on larger-than-life notions of heroism, not the harsh level of reality presented in games like GURPS.

But there needs to be a certain amount of 'realism' in any game system. If there wasn't, how do you determine what happens when someone falls from a great height? How do you judicate fights? How can you even describe the fantastic/fantasy?

From Fafhrd & Grey Mouser to Hercules & Xena, there are plenty of fantasy heroes who wore little to nothing in terms of armor.

Ahh, but we are talking about TV and literature. Where the most important aspect of either (especially TV and movies) is to make it visually appealing. Sure, you can argue that you don't need realism in a roleplaying game or fantasy fiction... Because you NEED those chainmail bikinis. But if you throw out the baseline of 'normal and common', the fantasy and the heroic are treated as being common and normal. This becomes your new baseline. Without that harsh level of reality you cannot begin to define where the fantastic lies.

 

[Klaus]

Well, I tend to think that ideally there should be mechanics to allow many types of characters to function without wearing armor.

D&D is based on larger-than-life notions of heroism, not the harsh level of reality presented in games like GURPS. Ffrom Fafhrd & Grey Mouser to Hercules & Xena, there are plenty of fantasy heroes who wore little to nothing in terms of armor. Heck, I believe Conan's been reduced to a loincloth on a few occasions. In fiction, armor seems to function as a uniform; it makes mooks like alike (be they good-guy mooks or bad-guy mooks). A lack of armor makes the protagonists distinctive.

But there is. In Unearthed Arcana, anyway (Class-Based AC bonus, it doesn't stack with armor).

The LotR RPG had a Trait (read: feat) called Luck of Heroes, which basically gave a hero a luck bonus to AC if he went unarmored.

 

[I'm A Banana]

. . . But clerics can already cast in armor.

Clerics are (in part) a melee-centric class, however. Good BAB, good HD, good armor, and spells that can make their baseline medicore abilities off the charts with a few rounds.

Clerics can get up into melee. Wizards, however, cannot. Even WITH armor, they're better off staying the heck away from anything that can swing a sword with some confidence.

I mean, why would a wizard *need* armor, except to go into melee, which is something they are going to be vastly inferior in anyway? Even multiclassed they're not going to be very good unless they've taken a PrC to address some of those "I can't hit a barn, and a strong breeze can kill me" issues. The best Wizards spells are ranged and either auto-hit or touch-attack at least partially because Wizards *can't hit jack* and *die from a bad trip*.

Clerics and wizards support two different archetypes and two different ways of playing and the what's good for one isn't what's good for the other.

I mean, consider the possible mechanical outgrowth of allowing wizards to wear armor:

Wizards can wear armor -> Wizards with high, fighter-like AC's (as wizards tend to focus on Dexterity a high amount, for touch spells and the like) -> Wizards who get into melee more often (which violates a lot of archetype) -> Wizards who get hit and critted more often (since the opposition rolls more dice than the players, even with immense AC's, it's not an issue of "if" they're going to get hit, it's "when.") -> More Dead Wizards.

If you were going to give Wizards some armor, you'd have to up their HD, give them a better BAB, and then take something away (like blast spells) to compensate, and you wind up with...uhm....the Bard. Or the Cleric. And since those already exist, I don't see why Wizards need more armor than they get.

 

[Warbringer]

A spellcaster than cast cast without penalty in armor is too powerful (ala, oh cleric).

Serioulsy, we do this in our game, granted True20/D+D blend. A wizard can wear armor, but is a penalty to the spellcraft check. Can take feats to reduce penalty, but as you have to burn feats to gain "spell power" casters tend to stay away from from those feats.

Point is, the system can be built easily to allow the choice to naturally evolve.

As to prestige classes, etc. Any feats that allow you to navigate spell failure are just add ons, not part of the system

Do you think at some point the archmage would have approached the lowly bard and said something along the lines...

"So, this whole armor thing. How do you it? Eh. Me, cast a spell, no idea whether it'll work or not. Never a good idea when gating in a demon, or such and such. Come to think of it, in all my "20" levels, that random chance have never seemed to change much. But enough of me, let's talk about you and your lovely armor."

 

[Fishbone]

They wouldn't say that, they'd both be in Twilight Mithril Breastplate with mithril bracers.
"So, how about that 'Armor Spell Failure!', Jordek!"
"I'm so glad we hocked all of those bracers of armor we looted early on in our career for these wicked awesome end runs."
"Hah Hah! I'm flawlessly Gating in a Demon in 25 pounds of armor!"

 

[Klaus]

If you were going to give Wizards some armor, you'd have to up their HD, give them a better BAB, and then take something away (like blast spells) to compensate, and you wind up with...uhm....the Bard. Or the Cleric. And since those already exist, I don't see why Wizards need more armor than they get.

Or you'll end up with Unearthed Arcana's Battle Sorcerer: d8 HD, Medium BAB, proficient with simple weapons and one light or one-handed melee weapon, can cast spells in light armor, trades Bluff for Intimidate. In exchange, loses 1 spell per day and 1 spell known per spell level.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Notice the "light" armor qualification.

And the Battle Sorcerer nice like a Bard is nice -- a good 5th member, but I'd be nervous if he were my main spllcaster ("Hey, I'm even less versatile than a regular sorcerer, everybody! I can do three things!")

 

[pawsplay]

I once house-ruled (for a game that didn't take off) that Concentraton checks for arcane casters were subject to armor check penalities if the spell had somantic components.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

D&D is based on larger-than-life notions of heroism, not the harsh level of reality presented in games like GURPS.

And even in GURPS, you can cast spells in armor, though the extra encumberance makes you go through FP quicker.