Is it unbalancing to let arcane spellcasters cast in armor?

[pawsplay]

I think, basically, the issues is this: ordinarily, wizards, who are not trained in armor, would not be inclined to use it (excepting, of course, those who do). However, in D&D, armor is so good, that everyone wants about as much as they can get, even if it means some minor penalities. Therefore, the penalties for wizards wearing armor must be substantial. Since the penalties cannot reasonably be substantial, they must therefore be arbitrary.

I, for one, would like to be the first to welcome our new cleric overlords.

 

[RangerWickett]

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?

See, to me this is like asking, "Why would anyone who is in good health want life insurance?"

Sometimes bad things happen. It's good to have a few pounds of metal between you and the teeth of that dragon when they do. That's AllState's stand. Are you in good hands?

I'm playing a game where I'm an ardent in full plate and a heavy shield. I dimension hop amid my foes, then set off one or two Energy Bursts, enduring them wailing on me in the meanwhile.

In another game where the DM doesn't allow psionics, I wanted a battlefield teleporter, who would aid the party's mobility. I would inherently need to be in the thick of combat. I ended up, yes, having to be a fighter 1/wizard 5/spellsword 1/eldritch knight x, in twilight mithril armor. Yes, I was able to make an armored mage, but it required two prestige classes and a magical armor enhancement from a third book.

I think either such options should be in the core rulebook or, preferably, they come up with a better reason for the "wizards in robes" archetype other than the implausible idea that armor makes it harder to make the proper movements to cast your spells, whereas carrying a heavy load, or having a couple of mortal wounds, does not.

It's interesting to see people's thoughts on the topic, though. Maybe I should try a more straightforward poll:

Would you let a player take a feat that said, "You do not suffer arcane spell failure chance"?

1. Yes.
2. Yes if it had a hefty prerequisite.
3. Yes if it only worked in light armor.
4. Yes if it had a hefty prereq and only worked in light armor.
5. No.
6. I think Diaglo's beard is dreamy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

See, to me this is like asking, "Why would anyone who is in good health want life insurance?"

Sometimes bad things happen. It's good to have a few pounds of metal between you and the teeth of that dragon when they do. That's AllState's stand. Are you in good hands?

Sometimes rogues need Fort saves. Sometimes monks need to overcome DR. Sometimes monsters have immunity to an energy. Sometimes Fighters could use Fireball. I don't think it's a good idea to give everyone what they might need.

In another game where the DM doesn't allow psionics, I wanted a battlefield teleporter, who would aid the party's mobility. I would inherently need to be in the thick of combat. I ended up, yes, having to be a fighter 1/wizard 5/spellsword 1/eldritch knight x, in twilight mithril armor. Yes, I was able to make an armored mage, but it required two prestige classes and a magical armor enhancement from a third book.

That's one option. IMO, you kind of went a circuitous route if what you wanted was a battlefield teleporter.

You could have been a cleric with the Magic and Travel domains. Or you could have given yourself a high Wisdom and Dex and taken a level of Monk. Or you could pick up a cape of the mountebank. Or you could have developed new spells for fast teleporting at a distance for bards. Or a new invocation for Warlocks. Or you could have invested in a lot of Con and some HP-boosting feats and just taken the punches. Or you could suck up a one-in-twenty chance to occasionally misfire a spell with a low ASF%. Or you could take Still Spell (or one of the variant metamagic Still Spells so that it's not as harsh as two spell levels).

Like getting a Rogue with a good Fort save, it should take some work. Like getting a fighter who can cast 3rd level spells. It's an unusual character design, and such a niche is a small, small pigeonhole that is already addressed in a variety of ways (one of the best is a single feat that gets rid of all ASF% at the cost of a mere 2 spell levels, and not even that in many campaigns with variant metamagic).

So what could they do to address that problem? I think making some variant metamagic rules core would be the only step needed, and the simple solution is usually the best.

Would you let a player take a feat that said, "You do not suffer arcane spell failure chance"?

1. Yes.
2. Yes if it had a hefty prerequisite.
3. Yes if it only worked in light armor.
4. Yes if it had a hefty prereq and only worked in light armor.
5. No.
6. I think Diaglo's beard is dreamy.

There *is* a feat like that, called Still Spell, which doesn't have a very hefy prereq and works in all armor. Though the spell level cost can be a lot, I'd definately be in favor of variant metamagic in general, so simply making it a 3x/day use, or requiring some readily available but expensive component.

Does that not do the trick for some reason?

 

[Unkabear]

Then there is the Runesmith Prc in RoS which gives the caster a d6 hd for all five levels of the Prc full caster progression and the ability to cast in full plate armor without a check penalty though the prereq race Dwarf and the requirement of already being proficient with Full plate means you have to dip into fighter or blow a few feats.

It does have a Dwarf Flavor to it, but does allow for a full plated mage to be running the field. I would probably not allow one in a campaign unless we were running an all Dwarf or similar campaign.

 

[Felon]

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.

There's a nice little section in Complete Mage about arcanists serving in the role of warrior, and it details some key elements in making a melee mage. Many spells toughen them up, and give them temporary HP. Heck, properly investing in false life can easily be as good as a d8 hit die.

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?

Don't need armor except to go into melee??? Ranged attacks roll against AC too, and arcanists have a way of drawing fire. Let us not forget those little buggers readying an action to disrupt their spells. Also, many spells require a mage to be within pretty close range to the target; you're not getting that scorching ray or lesser orb spell off from a safe distance, I'll tell you that from personal experience.

 

[Fishbone]

Whatever. Give the Wizards some more things. The strongest class in the core game gets it so the second strongest class in the core game should get it, too. Its funny how giving even more to the haves is viewed so dispassionately, even favorably, yet feats, equipment, and prestige classes that make melee worth something are bashed for being broken.
And casters can still pull out the special armor material and enchantment cheese and cast in armor.

 

[RangerWickett]

Sometimes rogues need Fort saves. Sometimes monks need to overcome DR. Sometimes monsters have immunity to an energy. Sometimes Fighters could use Fireball. I don't think it's a good idea to give everyone what they might need.

To make your comparison apt, though, you would need to allow these characters those options, and then have them just not work at random some percentage of the time for an arbitrary reason.

A rogue might take a level of fighter and great fortitude. He gets to keep his Fort save bonus. It doesn't randomly vanish 20% of the time because he decided to do something different.

A monk can pick up a silver, cold iron, or variously-enchanted weapon when he needs to pierce DR, and the weapon doesn't suddenly stop working.

So why should you randomly screw up spells while you're wearing armor? In order to be proficient in armor you've got to multiclass. Why is that not cost enough?

For this particular post, I'm not arguing balance. I'm arguing reason. It doesn't make sense as is.

 

[Nifft]

qft.

QFT is the one true reply. All others are a pale imitation of the real thing.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

*chuckles at the thought of a 1st level wizard wearing plate armor*

He CAN'T run, but he CAN hide!

 

[I'm A Banana]

To make your comparison apt, though, you would need to allow these characters those options, and then have them just not work at random some percentage of the time for an arbitrary reason.

If your complaint is about the % chance mechanically, then you can gripe about concealment, too. And I believe they largely exist for the same reasons: so that even at high level, they are still very relevant.

If you're saying that arcanists get hosed because they just have a random failure chance instead of something like a non-proficiency penalty, regardless of what feats they pick up, I'll point you back at the reasons that they likely did that: the robed wizard archetype, the fact that most wizards shouldn't really need armor anyway, and the fact that wizards represent the design extreme of a Paper Tiger, so they must be very powerful in one area and weak in most others.

So why should you randomly screw up spells while you're wearing armor? In order to be proficient in armor you've got to multiclass. Why is that not cost enough?

For this particular post, I'm not arguing balance. I'm arguing reason. It doesn't make sense as is.

Well, in-character, the explanation is "detailed, expansive, complex somatic gestures that are required for arcane spells that are not required for divine spells." Complete Mage has a few in-character theories for why this might be, such as divine spells are entrusted by a force, but arcane spells must be pulled from reality by the caster herself.

Out-of-character, it's an archetype thing, a balance thing, and a need thing. Merlin didn't need mortal metal, and Gandalf never wielded a shield. Wizards and Sorcerers are supposed to be "soft" targets for most effects. And melee is usually a sub-optimal choice.

As for the ranged attacks...

Don't need armor except to go into melee??? Ranged attacks roll against AC too, and arcanists have a way of drawing fire. Let us not forget those little buggers readying an action to disrupt their spells. Also, many spells require a mage to be within pretty close range to the target; you're not getting that scorching ray or lesser orb spell off from a safe distance, I'll tell you that from personal experience.

For ranged attacks, wizards have access to things like invisibility, entropic shield, and even taking mundane cover or "soft cover" behind the fighters. And unless something has 20' reach, you can get off those rays and orbs from a pretty "safe" distance, at least as far as putting a meat shield between you and your target is concerned. You don't always have a fighter between you and the enemy, but usually you will, and it is a tactical descision that is really encouraged.

It makes sense from those three perspectives alone. There's no disconnect in allowing Clerics to cast in armor, but not allowing Wizards, Bards, Sorcerers, and the like. I'm willing to bet the *strongest* reason is archetype. Wizards rarely get their own hands dirty. They hire adventurers for that.