Let's Hear it for Wizard in Armor!

[Li Shenron]

I think it's a quite good change after all. I think I know how it happened:

1) wizards cannot use armor, but... see 2
2) wizards compensate with Mage Armor or similar spells
3) Mage Armor becomes a must, the majority of 3e wizard have it
4) if nearly everyone has it... 4e turns Mage Armor into a feat
5) now the feat is a must, so why not just let them wear armor? the effect is the same, so let's just make it so that the feat allows you to not bother about buying armors

 

[Gort]

I like it in that the difference between a wizard and an armored wizard will probably be the equivalent of that between a cloistered cleric and a cleric. As the Warmage shows, armor won't make that miuch of a difference- +4 AC is the equivalent of a 1st. level spell, after all.

The Warmage in my campaign was running around in +5 mithril full plate, for a nice +13 to his AC. That's a pretty big step from +4 for mage armour.

 

[Wulfram]

I worry it will reflect the removal of much of the wizards offensive power. They need to be balanced, but they shouldn't become mundane.

So long as the unarmoured wizard is still workable, it's a reasonable change in and of itself though.

 

[JoelF]

D&D essentially invented "armor interferes with magic"---which is not the least of its sins.

I welcome this long overdue correction.

I dissagree with this. D&D may have explicitly stated that armoer interferes with magic, but I'd say that it was based on the fact that in myth and literature, wizards were never in armor - so D&D invented a reason. Looking at the "streotype" wizard, I can see that it's more a matter of lack of strength and training than and all out ban. I just hope that while 4E may allow wizards in armor, if you want to be the best wizards you can be, you'll take some serious hits to your magical power by instead boosting your strength and taking feats on armor instead of cool magical stuff.

Based on my other hopes for 4E, I have my doubts that there will be any significant costs to wizards in armor however - seems that the designers ARE taking my desires into account, and doing the opposite!

 

[KoshPWNZYou]

The Warmage in my campaign was running around in +5 mithril full plate, for a nice +13 to his AC. That's a pretty big step from +4 for mage armour.

Could be that -all- the spells that turn a wizard into a fortress are going to be nixed. Stoneskin for another one. That way a wizard is focusing less of his attention and resources on protecting himself (using the same array of spells after every rest) and more on controlling monsters and battlefields. Ties into the same arguments about the cleric being too much of a heal-bot. If the spells can just be implied in the use of armor, it makes sense to allow it.

Boy, WoTC is killing Gygax's Magic-User and taking -none- of its stuff.

 

[Emirikol]

It should have gone the other way. I never understood why magic wasn't just magic and why druids and clerics could cast IN armor.

We're left with just another edition of 42 different types of magic. Speaking of unnecessary complexity

jh

 

[Grimstaff]

I dissagree with this. D&D may have explicitly stated that armoer interferes with magic, but I'd say that it was based on the fact that in myth and literature, wizards were never in armor - so D&D invented a reason.

My problem with the armor ban for wizards was that it *wasn't* representing the wizards in my favorite fantasy literature, such as the one in Moorcock's Elric books or Glen Cook's Black Company stuff, both of which often featured powerful wizards wearing ornate armor and swinging blades when necessary.

 

[mmadsen]

D&D may have explicitly stated that armoer interferes with magic, but I'd say that it was based on the fact that in myth and literature, wizards were never in armor - so D&D invented a reason. Looking at the "streotype" wizard, I can see that it's more a matter of lack of strength and training than and all out ban.

Certainly the iconic wizard is an old scholar, who wouldn't have much reason to be in armor or to be hardened by long time on campaign. That's reason enough for a typical wizard not to be wearing armor.

D&D definitely went overboard with the restrictions though. One of Charlemagne's Paladins, if I recall correctly, was a wizard -- not a D&D paladin or cleric -- who wore armor. Also, Gandalf, while he didn't wear armor, clearly wielded a sword.

And that's before we get into more modern, less well-know fantasy.

I would love to see armor treated as fairly easy to wear for short stretches but unbearable for longer stretches, except by trained soldiers -- which would reflect real life while maintaining game balance.

 

[Imaro]

My problem with the armor ban for wizards was that it *wasn't* representing the wizards in my favorite fantasy literature, such as the one in Moorcock's Elric books or Glen Cook's Black Company stuff, both of which often featured powerful wizards wearing ornate armor and swinging blades when necessary.

Not sure about the Black Company...but to be fair, Elric has way more in common with the 3.5 Cleric or a wizard/fighter (heavy emphasis on fighter) than he does with the wizard (if anything Yrkoon is more a wizard or sorcerer in the stories than Elric is.). He basically gains some power through his pacts and bargains with gods, but most of his power comes from his weapon, Stormbringer. He actually doesn't do much sorcery (in the D&D sense) at all.

 

[Zander]

Allowing wizards to wear armour is quite possibly the worst 4E idea so far and the one most likely to kill D&D. There are two reasons for this:

1. D&D depends on iconic fantasy which itself draws on a shared aesthetic. The definition of "iconic fantasy" is being discussed in another thread so I won't dwell on it here except to say that more people are familiar with the image of a wizard in robes than one in full plate, and the game should encourage familiar images because generally that's what people like.

There used to be an RPG called Talislanta that sought to completely redefine fantasy. There was nothing mechanically wrong with the game but very few people play it nowadays. Why? Because people like that with which they're familiar. Attempts by game designers to redefine fantasy are pretty much doomed to fail.

2. D&D has always relied on mutual dependence between characters to maintain party unity and hence the co-operative nature of the game. For this reason, each class had its own strengths and weaknesses. When you blur the class roles, you undermine the glue that binds parties together. Mix class roles enough and you get each character as a largely self-sufficient 'vanilla' superman without the need for anyone else. The game shouldn't promote that way of thinking unless WotC are hoping to turn D&D into a game of one DM and one player.