Is it unbalancing to let arcane spellcasters cast in armor?

[RangerWickett]

It is unusual to me that the ability to cast spells in armor is so difficult to get if you're a wizard or sorcerer, but ridiculously easy if you're a cleric or druid (or any of the various psionic classes). I know that wizards who don't wear armor is a sacred cow (except that in 2e elf fighter/mages could wear elven chain), and I know that wizard spells are more offensively powerful than cleric spells (though about on par with psionics), but really, would it be unbalancing if wizards and sorcerers could cast in armor?

They would still have to dip into another class, or waste multiple feats. Also, there is the oddity of the rules that a wizard carrying a heavy load and has on a pair of gauntlets has no spell failure chance, but if that heavy load suddenly turns into armor, it becomes difficult for him to move properly.

What do you think? Is it unbalancing to let mages cast in armor? If it were allowed (in, say, 4th edition), how would you want the rules to work so that we could keep the classic concept of wizards in robes instead of full plate?

My suggestion? No class should get more than light armor proficiency at 1st level. Fighters should get light and shields at 1st, medium at 2nd, and heavy at 3rd. A 3-level dip is a hell of a lot harsher on mages than a 1-level one.

 

[Crothian]

OD&D (1974) is the only true game.

 

[Gold Roger]

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

The Mage armor Spell alone makes light armor for wizards obsolete, between improved mage armor and shield, wizards can get up a pretty good AC.

Various new wizard classes allow light armor from level one and medium with a feat. Warmage even goes up to heavy armor.

With the Complete Mage, It's quite easy for a fighter/mage to cast in light or even medium armor and wearing a shield.

Psions are pretty much equal to wizards and while they don't have armor proficiency, they can cast in armor.


So yeah, allowing wizards to cast in armor, but starting them without proficiency should be balanced.

 

[WhatGravitas]

After seeing psions manifesting without being bothered by armour, I've come to the conclusion that wizards shouldn't be bothered by it as well... or better the other way round:
All spellcasting is hindered by armour, not only arcane one - together with the option (for all spellcasters) to lower the failure chance by taking fighting classes: I.e. all melee classes should have a spell failure-lowering spread over the first three levels (1st level: -10%, 2nd level: -25%, 3rd level: no failure)...
This would make multiclassing a bit more attractive for mages - you know: If you want to stand melee, then you have to be trained in melee... additionally, this would make dipping in spellcasting classes a bit better if you're a single-classed melee character.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

TANSTAAFL

Your armor feat progression suggestion is a pretty good one.

Frankly, while I think casting without armor is a balancing factor, which has been upset with the expansion of the cleric spell list to include a much broader range of spells, I think it is more important to keep the flavor of wizards and class archetypes separate. Wizards have an awesome offense already, and pretty good defenses, so I don't think they need armor, too. Their niche is all about the magic -- cast mage armor and shield if you want armor.

That said, if you want casting in armor, why not have a progression of feats that offset arcane spell failure (say, 10% per feat) ... and I'd have divine spell failure for heavy armor (at least).

In BD&D, elves could cast spells in armor ... which is why they were the twinkiest class. Castign fireballs while wearing magic plate & shield just isn't fair to the other classes.

 

[Zaukrie]

I said it should be an option, though not optimal.

I also agree with your fighter/armor progression suggestion. Heavy armor is too powerful when facing kobolds and many other low level monsters that can't hit worth a @#$@#.

 

[delericho]

In general, I don't think it's a real issue. However, since the advent of the Warmage and Beguiler, I suspect just allowing Wizards armoured casting would be unbalanced.

For 4e, I think just not giving the armour proficiencies would be enough to maintain the Wizard in robes archetype for most cases - Wizards just don't get that much from wearing armour anyway. I would probably advocate replacing the %age with a Concentration check if we're maintaining ASF in any form.

As for the one-level dip into Fighter to get the feats... again I don't think that's a huge problem. However, if we're really concerned about it, I'd probably advocate another feat, Armoured Casting, that negates the ASF. Said feat should not be available as a Fighter bonus feat.

 

[Psion]

I think it's mainly a flavor thing, but not one I wish to see go away.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I would probably advocate replacing the %age with a Concentration check if we're maintaining ASF in any form.

Indeed... The current ASF mechanic is *very* archaic... Applying the the armour penalty to all Concentration checks and forcing concentration checks for armour would be far more d20-ish (with DC 10/15/20 for Light/Medium/Heavy Armour).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Another thought ... it used to be that you flat out couldn't cast arcane spells in armor. Now, you at least can, albeit with a chance of failure. Isn't that going far enough?