Is it unbalancing to let arcane spellcasters cast in armor?

[Kaodi]

Well, RangerWickett, how about a feat called something like Somatic Mastery, with a prerequisite of Still Spell + Combat Casting. Wound that satisfy option 2?

 

[GreatLemur]

Setting aside the mechanics and discussing the flavor issue for a moment, is anybody honestly picturing their arcane casters running around in long, flowing Gandalf robes? I, for one, was really glad when game artwork left that trope behind.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Setting aside the mechanics and discussing the flavor issue for a moment, is anybody honestly picturing their arcane casters running around in long, flowing Gandalf robes? I, for one, was really glad when game artwork left that trope behind.

Depending on the setting, yeah. Flowing robes, a staff, sometimes even a pointed hat.

I mean, I like the new game artwork just fine, but I pretty much never picture my sorcerers in buckles instead of pants, and my female elf wizards haven't made their clothes out of randomly placed strips of leather, and my gnome illusionists don't wear goggles or have goatees, either.

I mean, I can do other stuff. In one later-medival style campaign, they dressed more like 18th Century Academics (complete with ponytailed wigs and big, furry jackets). In the tropical campaign, he might be just wearing a grass skirt and some piercings. But by default, robes, staff, and a hat are pretty standard for all my arcane spellcasters.

 

[RangerWickett]

I was inspired by the anime Slayers, so pants, shirt, maybe a vest, with a cloak and some long gloves is the standard for women. Men are similar, but might wear light armor. Cloaks, though, are key. Nobody wears robes.

 

[Turanil]

One point to consider: the encumbrance of heavier armor, and that wizards usually don't have a high strength score.

With the above in mind, I am in favor of letting wizards cast spells in any armor. However, require a Concentration check for doing so, adding the armor penatly to skill check be applied to that roll. Then, add a feat chain to first have this penalty halved, then entirely removed.

With that system, a single class wizard needs five feats to cast spells in full plate armor without hindrances, and he is still affected by the armor's encumbrance. Players would have the choice of having fully armored wizards, but few would do it anyway.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I think that it should be an option there for those who want to pursue it, but not a mandatory one.

I think all spell/power-using classes (arcane, divine, infusion, invocation, psionic, etc.) should NOT begin with the ability to use their abilities while wearing armor. Instead, they may go with the following options:

• Don't worry about armor at all, & rely on spells/powers (& magic items) for protection.
• Select Armor Proficiency feats, as well as feats allowing them to ignore spell failure chances from wearing armor.
• Select special feats that provides an AC bonus based on bonus from a mental stat (like Int or Wis), plus a level-based AC bonus while unarmored/unencumbered.

Some arcane spellcasters could be combat-oriented, and some divine spellcasters could be back-line support noncombatant-oriented.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I was inspired by the anime Slayers, so pants, shirt, maybe a vest, with a cloak and some long gloves is the standard for women. Men are similar, but might wear light armor. Cloaks, though, are key. Nobody wears robes.

Anime Magic has it's own rules. It is, after all, coming from a different cultural setting.

To emulate that in Final Fantasy Zero, for instance, I let people cast in heavy armor, if they want (and spend the feats). But I also encourage lighter armor by having it give you bonus MP (heavy armor gives you bonus HP). And some jobs stradle that line between melee fighting machine and arcane destructive force.

But there's ways to approach that archetype that don't mean "giving D&D wizards the power to wear full plate without penalty." And many of them already exist (still spell, warlocks/bards/warmages, feats, PrC's), so going any further steps can be rather pointless.

 

[GreatLemur]

I mean, I like the new game artwork just fine, but I pretty much never picture my sorcerers in buckles instead of pants, and my female elf wizards haven't made their clothes out of randomly placed strips of leather, and my gnome illusionists don't wear goggles or have goatees, either.

True, true. But, Hennet and Mialee's completely absurd outfits aside, I think it's nice that the so-called "dungeonpunk" art style has ended the days of the Merlin clones. I like my Wizards and Sorcerers to be able to wear pants. Your example was a good one, in fact: I'd rather see them dressed likes scholars than mystics.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Anime Magic has it's own rules. It is, after all, coming from a different cultural setting.

Lina is totally a sorcerer with metamagic feats, though!

 

[Papewaio of The Org]

5th Level+ Party of Archtypes

Cleric - "I can cast spells that are ranged for +1.75 per level that ignore armour, and wear full plate."
Fighter - "I can swing my sword with an extra +2 damage .period. for a target, and wear full plate."
Rogue -"I can cast spells, and backstab for +1.75 per level for one target which ignores dexterity bonuses, and wear armour."
Mage - "I can cast spells that do an average of +3.5 per level within an area of effect that ignore armour and touch AC to multiple targets, and armour is for my meatshields."