Is it unbalancing to let arcane spellcasters cast in armor?

[diaglo]

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

qft.

arcane casters in armor. what is that?

magic users didn't wear armor.

and elves were either magic user or fighting men for the adventure session. so they either wore armor to fight as fighting men or they wore no armor to cast spells as magic users.

but that doesn't mean that you couldn't make up rules to work for your campaign. that's what we did and still do.

 

[Klaus]

Arcanists already can cast spells in armor. They just need proficiency in the armor in question, and a little feat called Still Spell. Sure, they'll lag behind in spellcasting power (casting fireball at level 7 instead of 5), but they'll be able to do it in full plate armor and carrying a heavy shield.

 

[Fishbone]

Not to mention abilities and materials that take away armor check penalties, ASF, and lighten the material down like Twilight, mithril, etc. If they really want to a caster can find enough magical and material end runs around proficiency, ASF, and weight. This wouldn't really give the savvy caster who doesn't want to get hit all that much, he's already spell buffed out from wands and pearls of power and he probably Polymorphs himself into something ridiculous as well as throwing on buffs like Greater Blink, Improved Invisibility, Stoneskin, what have you. Its pretty sad, but as it stands arcane casters fight better than fighters. Don't mean to derail, just thought it strange that this rather obvious point wasn't raised.

 

[airwalkrr]

Arcane spells are not intrinsically more vital to the game, but they are naturally more versatile and can definitely shape the face of the battlefield more drastically. For that reason, arcane magic is more powerful and keeping arcane casters out of armor is a good way to balance that aspect of the game. It also helps protect the archetype by providing an explanation for why more spellcasters don't wear armor (although I realize that isn't the point of the thread).

 

[Fishbone]

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.

 

[RangerWickett]

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.

. . . But clerics can already cast in armor.

 

[DragonLancer]

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

Same here. Wizards don't traditionally go around wearing armour so it suits me fine.

 

[Ghendar]

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

I have to agree, and at the risk of opening a huge can o worms, not everything from previous editions should be done away with, imo.

 

[kirinke]

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. And it's also easy enough to save up for a set of elvish chainmail which allows wizards to cast spells and since it's masterwork to begin with, be able to magick it to their liking. Me personally, I basically don't have a problem with limiting spell-casters on armour choices.

 

[Felon]

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.