Let's Hear it for Wizard in Armor!

[Li Shenron]

Ok, a mage or cleric has the ability to warp reality or request miracles and they 'need' to strap on some hunk of metal?? Please, they should be able to protect themselves with their magic or faith.

They will compensate by allowing fighters to warp reality and request miracles too

 

[EATherrian]

I agree. Just because something wears armor doesn't make it a tank.


In other news, I always found the fact that Clerics and Druids could use armor to be absolutely appalling.

This one is taken directly from history. In fact one of William the Conquerors companions was a Bishop who acted like a knight in full armor except he had to use a mace since clergy weren't allowed to draw blood. Since I'm a bit of a Medievalist myself, I like the way the Clerics are presented in D&D. Mages though, since there are no historic analong, we have to make up as we go along. I prefer the armorless ones and I'll just enforce that in my own games.

 

[EATherrian]

But he did shout "Blood and souls for my lord Arioch!" a lot. Perhaps he's more a 4e warlock than wizard?

I always thought of the Melniboneans as sort of Elvish, which means that they can already cast spells in armor (if we go back to OD&D Elves at least).

 

[wordsmithpdx]

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

I welcome this long overdue correction.

For that matter, D&D invented "armor is how you avoid getting hit in a fantasy world." Notice how armor is pretty inconsequential in Conan, the LotR films, etc., minus shields and a few plot points like Frodo's mithril shirt. The reason that Gandalf doesn't wear armor in the movies isn't because he CAN'T, it's because no one else wears much, either!

I'm bummed that DR isn't incorporated as part of armor; if it were, then just "not getting hit" would be a fine defense, instead of wearing lots of metal. You wouldn't need to limit what armor folks can wear, because it would come with enough drawbacks and have minimal benefit when there's big scary monsters that can crunch right through it. DR is the best way I know of to combine the two styles of defense: not getting hit vs. getting hit but being able to soak it. I can see the designers' POV on keeping it out because it's an added step, and because it's harder to math out, but MAN does it make it easier to describe the events in a flavorful way.

At least there's now some kind of "active defense" (in the form of Reflex saves against touch attacks, or something?) that reflects the division.

 

[Yair]

I am not thrilled about the image of a mage casting spells in armor. Just doesn't jibe right. If it's kept as an option that's possible with the right feats, that's better - at least now most will not use armor.

I do prefer mages cast mage armor on themselves at will. Protecting themselves with their arcane powers rather than physical means is, indeed, far more magical and appropriate, and leaves the image of the robe-clothed wizard intact, as it should be.

 

[vagabundo]

I have no problem with mages casting in armour, seems iconic enough to me. Sometimes you need a little extra to avoid that dagger in the back.

It was a bad mechanic anyway and the justification that armour interfered with spellcasting was hard to push as the cleric was blasting things left, right and centre.

I'm all for 4e "options not restrictions" mantra...

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

The point is: It should be a viable alternative to the robe-wearing wizard, simply because some like the concept of fighter-mage or a more martial mage (Gandalf comes to my mind), these guys will need more armour - if they give something up in return, I'm fine with it. Additionally, it makes a wizard/whatever-multiclass easier... and more options are always fine, as long as one option doesn't outshine all other options.

If wizards in armour don't give something up (like feats, because they need to burn them on armour) and the armour-wearing wizard becomes the "best" wizard (i.e. a no-brainer), well then I'd also be very discontent.

Cheers, LT.

I'd tend to agree with this - so long as they've checked and double-checked that the wizard-in-armour isn't the best choice, then I'm happy that the fighter/wizard fans will be able to have the characters they've wanted.

 

[Wormwood]

Given that there will be bonuses to spell-casting ("+4 Wands"), there will probably be penalties as well. I wonder if wearing armor could be one of the things which impose them (-4 when wearing chain, for example).

You no longer run the risk of your spell not going off, but the spells you do cast are reduced in effectiveness. Feats would be available to offset these penalties, of course.

My point is, arcane spell failure may be gone, but I'm guessing there are still consequences for wearing armor.

 

[Aristotle]

I think this is a great change. The fact that some basic "sacrifice" (a feat or multiclassing) has to be made to do so will mean that not every wizard does so (or at least not right away), but that any wizard can. Works for me.

 

[Nebulous]

I've always hated the "A wizard wouldn't want to wear armor excuse" some people gave for the restriction. This sounds like an overall good move, though the ability should come at a enough of a cost. Every wizard tanking around in full plate would seem kind of screwey to me.

This is something not represented well by D&D, it would bog the game down i guess:

but wielding weapons, shields and armor for any length of time takes great strength and endurance. I don't mind a wizard being trained in using armor, it makes sense. But traipsing around in full plate while casting lightning bolt seems silly. If 4e can introduce a good system for checks and balances then i'm all for it.