Is it unbalancing to let arcane spellcasters cast in armor?

[Stalker0]

I say any arcane class that picks up proficiency in th armor should be able to cast in it.

If a wizard wants to blow 3 feats to cast in full plate let them.

If they want to take a level of fighter, and forever lose a caster level and at every other level say "I could have X level spells if I hadn't taken that fighter level"...let them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Lina is totally a sorcerer with metamagic feats, though!

Can you imagine what would happen if the core rules made female sorcerers loose power for a day or three each month? Hahahahhaha...

No, anime magic is cool, but D&D reflects the science/faith devide we have here in the west when it comes to approaching the Unseen World. One group studies it, one group worships it, and the two can get along, and sometimes conflict. Studying it can reveal principles that can be applied in different ways. Worshipping it gives a direct pipeline to the power. And academics are rarely the best warriors themselves, while a zealous crusader often can be.

Thus, we have two different archetypes with two different ways to hang the design on them.

Such a dichotomy rarely exists in anime magic, effectively making magic just something that can be added to any character on an ad-hoc basis and not something you have to dedicate a life to studying or worshipping (though you can, and can thus acquire some remarkable diversity and power).

 

[AE020704]

I haven't voted, but I have to say that I can understand the disparity between Arcane & Divine casting.

The Arcane casters (bless 'em!) need to wiggle their digits and wave their arms, hence the spell failure. A Divine caster, however, is more a case of raising their hands to the heavens and shouting a lot. It's prayer versus...uh...Arcane wiggling. Heh. :\

 

[an_idol_mind]

My house rules enable casting in armor, provided the character has the appropriate armor proficiency. I can't say exactly how well it works, because so far no mage has wanted to cast in plate mail -- that would cost three feats that can be better used elsewhere. The closest I have in my game so far is a sorcerer/thief who casts in padded armor. That character is also the main reason for my house rule; I realized that I forget to have the player roll for spell failure most times anyway.

 

[irdeggman]

I meant to vote Yes but I think it registered No.

The problem here is that the poll makes it seem like arcane casters (come on lets just call them wizards) can't cast in armor. My answere would be actually be that the present system is balanced fairly well.

In 3.5 they can, they do however suffer Arcane Spell Failure - so there is a chance that the spell will not go off.

In 2nd ed that option didn't exist at all, with the exception of some "special" suits of armor (elven mail comes to mind).


There is a balance issue here.

The major weaknesses a wizard has are his low hit points and relatively low AC (due to no armor normally).

Where a wizard can do more damage than a fighter can from a distance to more targets. A 10 HD fireball can ruin a lot of characters at a range that only an archer can manage and then they only can hit a limited number of targets.

The armor penalty keeps the wizard from casting those large damaging spells at close range without some risk.

 

[pawsplay]

I haven't voted, but I have to say that I can understand the disparity between Arcane & Divine casting.

The Arcane casters (bless 'em!) need to wiggle their digits and wave their arms, hence the spell failure. A Divine caster, however, is more a case of raising their hands to the heavens and shouting a lot. It's prayer versus...uh...Arcane wiggling. Heh. :\

Yeah... Napoleon Dynamite the wizard, versus Moses, basically.

 

[Felon]

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.

Having a meat shield between you and the enemies is not providing the margin of safety you're implying, since those foes aren't magnetically attracted to the tank.

Let's do a quick recap here. Initially, you remarked to the effect that it seemed postively bizarre that a fragile wizard should even be concerned with AC, since the wizard shouldn't put himself in melee. Wicket and I both pointed out that AC is essentially reactive in nature, and there are plenty of circumstances where a character is the target of attack rolls despite all efforts to avoid melee.

To avoid admitting the validity of that counter-arguement, the response you've come up with is to suggest all these other actions a wizard can undertake to defend himself that render AC moot, which is an abrupt change of lanes since your original contention was that the wizard need not concern himself with damage avoidance as long as he stays away from the enemy. When it's pointed out that those actions aren't as foolproof as you're presenting them to be, you come back with the retort "well, nothing's foolproof, and no class gets everything it needs", which further belies your original position that AC is not something a wizard needs if he's canny.

Bottom line, the question being addressed was: "why would a wizard *need* armor, except to go into melee, which is something they are going to be vastly inferior in anyway?" It's been answered more than adequately.

 

[Felon]

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."

This is a grossly disingenuous sampling, backed up by highly specious numbers.

The "mage" is apparently casting fireball to get that +3.5/level output, which means it could only be a wizard, and only casting it a couple of times per day, and for some reason no saving throw is assumed.

The rogue would have +3d6 on his "backstab", so that alone blows away the stated figure for his damage per level, and that's not taking the weapon itself into account.

The fighter doesn't even have damage per level listed, which conveniently omits what kind of pain the fighter can routinely dish out with a weapon-specced greatsword.

And then there's the cleric. Lose the xbow. Properly self-buffed, he's a melee nightmare.

 

[Papewaio of The Org]

This is a grossly disingenuous sampling, backed up by highly specious numbers.

It was a joke, much like the priceless series...

So I'll bite back:

The "mage" is apparently casting fireball to get that +3.5/level output, which means it could only be a wizard, and only casting it a couple of times per day, and for some reason no saving throw is assumed.

True a mage at 5th level could innately only cast a single fireball or lightning bolt per day. I'm not looking at how much damage is taken, I might as well list out all damage reductions and resistances known bar sonic.

But, maybe, perhaps, there might be a tiny, small chance that a mage might just have on the off chance a wand or a scroll and it might even be a wand of fireballs, or lightning or wonder or a scroll of sarcasm rolled into a pointy bit dipped in lemon and then stabbed into ones eye. Thus allowing the mage to wail a bit more then once a day, that and I did say right at the start level 5+, they could be 6th, tenth maybe even twentith.

The rogue would have +3d6 on his "backstab", so that alone blows away the stated figure for his damage per level, and that's not taking the weapon itself into account.

That little bit that was obfuscated by cunninglingly putting it hidden at the start of the title, in bold... Level 5+, that and on average overall a rogue gets d6 per two levels so it averages +1.75.

The fighter doesn't even have damage per level listed, which conveniently omits what kind of pain the fighter can routinely dish out with a weapon-specced greatsword.

a) Neither does the rogue, mage or cleric have damage listed for the weapon.
b) All the damages listed are in addition to mundane weapons.
c) Pointing out how very mundance the feat of specialisation is that it is not a per level damage it begins and ends at +2. While say certain 2nd level spells will give that bonus in damage and to hit as well while not even taking up a feat.

And then there's the cleric. Lose the xbow. Properly self-buffed, he's a melee nightmare.

Thankyou for proving that point c) above that specilisation is the poor mans feat compared with all the other options that do more damage and/or ignore armour and/or ignore touch armour and/or give bounses to hit.

Why bother with armour when so much will bypass it. Even in full plate +5 it won't help you dodge a fireball so having the great armour won't allow mages to cast fireballs at their feet. Spells on the other hand will allow that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Bottom line, the question being addressed was: "why would a wizard *need* armor, except to go into melee, which is something they are going to be vastly inferior in anyway?" It's been answered more than adequately.

The answer, if it is "for protection against ranged attacks," is not a sufficient answer, because wizards often have extremely adequate protection against ranged attacks.

And if you're playing something that doesn't fit that mold, and you need a higher AC for any reason, you shouldn't just be *given* it.

Hope that helps.