D&D 5E Mage Armor

[DogBackward]

Wizards aren't combatants. That's why their spells are only creatively used for combat. They should be avoiding fights as a general rule.

Of course they're combatants. They go on adventures, don't they? Why the hell wouldn't mages, who by nature possess high Intelligence, make sure to be able to defend themselves? An adventuring mage without a reliable method of defense doesn't survive for long.

If they actually had rules for the field, visibility, shape, and wearing of the Mage Armor, it would not have needed to be errata'd in the first place to requiring armor proficiency.

What? Mage Armor doesn't require armor proficiency. Which PDF are you reading here?

This is just like a +1 sword. It's ignoring the magic side of the equation for a bland numerical bonus.

So? Armor is a "bland numerical bonus". A Monk's Wisdom bonus to AC is a "bland numerical bonus". Clerical healing is bland... all it does is get you back your hit points. That's not very "special". You have to have baseline mechanical abilities in the game to make things work properly. And again, this isn't removing all those great, flavorful defense spells. Mage Armor is just to get the Wizard to the base level that PC's need to be at to survive, just like armor does for other classes. That's it. Unless you want to remove everybody's baseline abilities.

Of course anyone can simply drop or redesign the Mage Armor spell, but it is indicative of long standing design issues with the game.

No, the "long standing design issue" is that Wizards are automatically seen as frail, wimpy guys who can't wear armor. There's no legitimate reason to keep Wizard's from wearing armor... they say that it "interferes with arcane gestures", which is just plain bull. It wouldn't interfere with movements any more than it would interfere with a normal attack roll, and you don't see Fighters unable to attack while wearing armor. If they got rid of this ridiculous notion that armor just somehow dampens magic, then they wouldn't have needed Mage Armor in the first place.

As it is, Mage Armor is a perfectly flavorful way of having a Wizard that is able to adventure competently.

 

[the Jester]

That is likely why spells are boring now. Instead of blur, displacement, blinking, and whirling illusions we get the "Defense" spell that's even less flavorful than actual armor in the game, but with none of the drawbacks, bonuses, or things that make it interesting.

I thought they fixed this after 2e screwed it up.

Uh... have you read the new packet?

 

[the Jester]

The Mage Armor spell, not to mention a good few others, from 2E were simply badly designed and conceived in a disconnected manner. They didn't think out the consequences of their spell designs and simply wanted to make one class into another.

Are you aware that mage armor (called armor at the time, or phantom armor if you were an illusionist with the inferior version) comes from 1e?

I'm curious as to what the other 2e spells that you put into this category are, especially since most of the spells in 2e, at least until a lot of later expansions started coming out (e.g. Tome of Magic), were from 1e anyhow...

 

[howandwhy99]

Are you aware that mage armor (called armor at the time, or phantom armor if you were an illusionist with the inferior version) comes from 1e?

I'm curious as to what the other 2e spells that you put into this category are, especially since most of the spells in 2e, at least until a lot of later expansions started coming out (e.g. Tome of Magic), were from 1e anyhow...

Yeah, I think some folks have bought into the lie that D&D is somehow a skirmish battle game with nothing else much going for it. I'd disagree. Combat is largely unnecessary, if desired. The spells you mention are from Unearthed Arcana. There are more than just problems with the spell designs in that book. As far as 2e spells, I was thinking of Divine Favor & Divine Favor, which more or less turn a Cleric into a Fighter for a time. They could just as well be from 3e though. Either way, I don't see how their designers were thinking about the functioning of the magic involved for creating said effects. It's blatant robbing of niche protection if nothing else, but that's hardly the issue at hand.

 

[billd91]

Are you aware that mage armor (called armor at the time, or phantom armor if you were an illusionist with the inferior version) comes from 1e?

Well, from 1e if you had Unearthed Arcana, which not everyone did.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I'd rather just have Mage Armor allow a wizard to add Int to his AC instead of Dex, probably as a class feature.

This - prevents stacking, thematic, perfect.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Yep -- [MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION] ' suggestion is the best so far.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Wizards aren't combatants. That's why their spells are only creatively used for combat. They should be avoiding fights as a general rule.

I thought this was sarcasm on first reading. Because Wizards have never had iconic spells including Fireball, Burning Hands, Colour Spray, Magic Missile, and Sleep. Spells that are only creatively used for combat. Right.

"People like me" are just like you. We want the game to improve and not get stuck in poor designs. Of course anyone can simply drop or redesign the Mage Armor spell, but it is indicative of long standing design issues with the game.

You mean design issues that were (a) present in 1e and (b) fixed in 4e?

Yeah, I think some folks have bought into the lie that D&D is somehow a skirmish battle game with nothing else much going for it.

No. Merely the idea that D&D grew out of tabletop wargaming. The wizard was originally a battlefield artillery spell - and the cleric as conceived was a vampire hunter. The oD&D rules were more or less wargaming rules - and that it was rulings not rules outside combat - as the OSR continues to praise.

As far as 2e spells, I was thinking of Divine Favor & Divine Favor, which more or less turn a Cleric into a Fighter for a time.

The only thing preventing a cleric functioning more or less as a fighter is the lack of weapon specialisation - rules that were introduced in ... Unearthed Arcana. Other than that the Cleric has a decent number of hit points and heavy armour - meaning that they were at about -1 to hit against the fighter at low level which wasn't a huge difference (the hit points were more than outweighed by healing). Indeed if we look at the oD&D rules, clerics didn't have any spells at first level, but did have heavy armour meaning that for all practical purposes they were fighters.

 

[howandwhy99]

Oops. That should be Divine Favor & Divine Power.

You know, it would be nice if we could have a game with a Clerical system and one with a Magic system as well as a broad Combat system (just not skirmish level). Of course, that's far from the only possible design. I'm simply advocating that D&D would be better off not designing an exclusively combat + combat + combat game. Also, clerics aren't really about exploring magic and the arcane secrets of the universe or about engaging in combat, though they can more or less lean into one of those areas based upon their beliefs. The important point with them is they have their own sphere of mastery and it's no simple exercise either. It's simply been absent, forgotten, or glossed over for awhile.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This - prevents stacking, thematic, perfect.

I agree a class feature that lets then add INT to AC instead of DEX, then I would make a battle mage tradtion that allowes a class feature called true strike... INt to hit instead of Str.