Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RangerWickett" data-source="post: 3188926" data-attributes="member: 63">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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RangerWickett, post: 3188926, member: 63"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification