Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RangerWickett" data-source="post: 3192185" data-attributes="member: 63">See, to me this is like asking, "Why would anyone who is in good health want life insurance?"Sometimes bad things happen. It's good to have a few pounds of metal between you and the teeth of that dragon when they do. That's AllState's stand. Are you in good hands?I'm playing a game where I'm an ardent in full plate and a heavy shield. I dimension hop amid my foes, then set off one or two Energy Bursts, enduring them wailing on me in the meanwhile.In another game where the DM doesn't allow psionics, I wanted a battlefield teleporter, who would aid the party's mobility. I would inherently need to be in the thick of combat. I ended up, yes, having to be a fighter 1/wizard 5/spellsword 1/eldritch knight x, in twilight mithril armor. Yes, I was able to make an armored mage, but it required two prestige classes and a magical armor enhancement from a third book. I think either such options should be in the core rulebook or, preferably, they come up with a better reason for the "wizards in robes" archetype other than the implausible idea that armor makes it harder to make the proper movements to cast your spells, whereas carrying a heavy load, or having a couple of mortal wounds, does not. It's interesting to see people's thoughts on the topic, though. Maybe I should try a more straightforward poll:Would you let a player take a feat that said, "You do not suffer arcane spell failure chance"?1. Yes.2. Yes if it had a hefty prerequisite.3. Yes if it only worked in light armor.4. Yes if it had a hefty prereq and only worked in light armor.5. No.6. I think Diaglo's beard is dreamy.</blockquote>

Verification