Let's Hear it for Wizard in Armor!

[Nebulous]

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.

Yes, that's exactly the kind of implementation they would need.

 

[Epic Meepo]

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).

Thank you! I'm glad someone remembers that the original fighter/magic-users of D&D could cast arcane spells in full plate armor. In fact, armor-wearing elven spellcasters appear in the Rules Cyclopedia published as late as 1991. That's a fifteen-year stretch in which D&D already admitted that arcane spellcasting could be accomplished in full plate.

Also, you can play a wizard in full plate in 3.X very easily. There are enough spells without somatic components these days that you can take the armor proficiency feats and still have plenty of arcane spells to cast in full plate without arcane spell failure. And if you're willing to lose one effective spell level, you can apply Still Spell to every spell you cast and cast any arcane spell in full plate without a chance of failure.

I don't see how having 4e incorporate a variation on either of the above themes is going to cause any sort of problem. Letting wizards who take the appropriate feats wear heavy armor not only makes perfect sense, but fits character concepts that have existed in D&D for over thirty years.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I've always got the impression there wouldn't be "Arcane Spell Failure" attached to armour anymore, but that instead the Armour Check Penalty will now also apply to spellcasting rolls, like they do balance, tumble, move silently and the like already do.

But I'm all right with a wizard investing the right feats, being able to cast in armour. If a pure single class fighter can take a feat called "wizard training" to be able to use a couple of spells, a wizard could invest in a feat called "fighter training" to do some fighterish things.

And I've just thought of an idea of a Wizard-General leading an army, well it's probably a Wizard/Warlord, but the idea of leading armies while controlling the battlefield is a neat one.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Shadowrun had this going on all the time, and it worked. The combat mage was decked out in a ballistic long coat, maybe using a glowing dagger, staff or sword, as well as modern weapons.
They were things to be feared, because there was little a mundane could do against them but full auto-fire and hope a few rounds got through the mystic armor and ballistic plate.

 

[Gloombunny]

Hooray for armored mages!

In my ideal game, a mage's choice between light armor or mage armor-like defensive magic would be largely cosmetic, and wearing heavier armor would be an option that provides better defense at the cost of other abilities.

 

[WSmith]

You know, if they want to make it possible for wizards to wear armor, for the few who think it's an iconic image, all it would take is one sentence in the PHB: "If you want your wizard to look like an idiot, stumbling around in armor, your dm is free to allow it if he wishes."

Reminds me of the wizard in Conan the Barbarian.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Thank you! I'm glad someone remembers that the original fighter/magic-users of D&D could cast arcane spells in full plate armor. In fact, armor-wearing elven spellcasters appear in the Rules Cyclopedia published as late as 1991. That's a fifteen-year stretch in which D&D already admitted that arcane spellcasting could be accomplished in full plate.

I thought the subject was magic users in armor, not F/MUs? The magic user in AD&D has never been able to don armor and cast spells, not even a dual classed one. The fighter/magic user is a different archetype alltogether. It's not the mechanics of a wizard wearing armor that I object to, it's the flavor. I have no problem with a multiclassed fighter/wizard wearing plate, as long as he doesn't sneak in one level of fighter to do it. But a straight up wizard should avoid armor like the plague. There need be no rationalization for it. Just a passage in the PHB. "Wizards may not wear armor."

 

[mmadsen]

I thought the subject was magic users in armor, not F/MUs?

There no such thing as a fighter/magic-user who can really cast spells in armor in 3E. A lot of people would like to see that option opened up again.

I think people object to the notion that armor somehow stops wizard spells, not to the notion that wizards are scholars who would shun hot, heavy, uncomfortable armor.

 

[Mistwell]

There no such thing as a fighter/magic-user who can really cast spells in armor in 3E.

Excuse me?

Of course there is. There are numerous builds that allow such.

 

[DM_Blake]

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.

Hmmmm, maybe.

But I think, aside from all that, the real main reason for it is that they don't need the restriction to balance the classes anymore.

In previous editions, mages were the uberclass. They could do anything. A spell for every need. Played well, the mage is the destroyer of enemies, divinier of riddles, opener of portals, gateway to the planes, and solver of every problem.

To balance that out, he's imminently killable. Very low HP and very low AC means that he needs a party to protect him. Combine that wil few limited uses of his magic, and he really needs a party of protectors.

Let's face it, if wizards in 3.5e got the HP and BAB and armor/weapon selection of, say, a cleric, who would play any other class? Or more specifically, which powergamers would play any other class? And, even for those of us who roleplay our characters and pick classes based on what would be fun to play, wouldn't we all feel really worthless compared to the armored, fighting, spellslinging mage with the AC, BAB, and HP to take on all challenges and the spells to make him a demigod?

Now, with 4e, all the other classes are gaining uses of abilities that enable them to do some of the things mages used to. And mages are losing some of their versatility.

Since the classes are becoming more balanced, and since the mage is no longer the solution to all problems, there is now no need to balance them by making them so killable.

So why not remove a restriction from them that was originally just a game mechanic to try to balance them, especially since they're much more balancexd now without it.