Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DogBackward" data-source="post: 6063111" data-attributes="member: 50642">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.What? Mage Armor doesn't require armor proficiency. Which PDF are you reading here?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.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.</blockquote>

Verification