Seriously. Why *do* Clerics get to wear armour?

[Trainz]

That's great, but:

1. Gygax's word isn't law.

Fair enough, but when someone questions why clerics wear armor, he's a pretty darn good reference.

If you don't want clerics to wear armor, then don't let them.

2. The historic Templars & Hospitalers probably (if not definitely) did wear armor. HOWEVER, they definitely DID NOT cast spells!

Right. So...

Historical alchemists and sages did cast spells ? I have no idea where you're going with that statement.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Urgh

 

[Shadowdweller]

Double Urgh

 

[Shadowdweller]

2. The historic Templars & Hospitalers probably (if not definitely) did wear armor. HOWEVER, they definitely DID NOT cast spells!

Actually, in many cases miracles were ascribed to those of such orders or others strong in faith. That's the basis of clerics casting spells. As we all know, in the particular case of the Knights Templars, a reputation for mysticism formed the basis of the pope's argument to excommunicate them and seize their holdings.

 

[Tuzenbach]

Right. So...

Historical alchemists and sages did cast spells ? I have no idea where you're going with that statement.

Huh? What I'm saying is that Gygax was in the right to cast clerics as armour-wearing characters *assuming* clerics are based ENTIRELY UPON historic models. However, they're not. AFAIK, no historic cleric ever cast any spells. In that Gygax wanted the clerics in his game to have spell-casting abilities (not historic in the least), why then did he insist they they could wear armour (completely historic)? It just makes little sense to me, that's all.

Couple this with the "divine spells can be cast while wearing armour BECAUSE they're divine, but arcane spells CANNOT be cast in armour because they're arcane" and we're left with some nonsensical rules that we use based upon nothing more than a tradition handed down to us from over a quarter century ago.

 

[Camarath]

Huh? What I'm saying is that Gygax was in the right to cast clerics as armour-wearing characters *assuming* clerics are based ENTIRELY UPON historic models. However, they're not. AFAIK, no historic cleric ever cast any spells. In that Gygax wanted the clerics in his game to have spell-casting abilities (not historic in the least), why then did he insist they they could wear armour (completely historic)? It just makes little sense to me, that's all.

Couple this with the "divine spells can be cast while wearing armour BECAUSE they're divine, but arcane spells CANNOT be cast in armour because they're arcane" and we're left with some nonsensical rules that we use based upon nothing more than a tradition handed down to us from over a quarter century ago.

Wow a quarter century tradition, I have seen a lot crazier stuff based on a lot less. So he combined the historic with the fantastic, I see nothing wrong with that. Isn't that what a lot of roleplaying is about? If you don't like the way he made the game then just change it.

 

[Tuzenbach]

Actually, in many cases miracles were ascribed to those of such orders or others strong in faith. That's the basis of clerics casting spells. As we all know, in the particular case of the Knights Templars, a reputation for mysticism formed the basis of the pope's argument to excommunicate them and seize their holdings.

Ah, I see where you're coming from there. But also, it was painfully obvious to me that when Gygax designed the initial Cleric, the whole business about "he can only use blunt weapons as his religion is against the drawing of blood" thing was CLEARLY an effort to balance the class in order to avoid the *fighter/magic-user* all-in-one deal. However, this point has since been refudiated and struck down with arguments like "well, MY diety is the God of Ballistas, so MY Cleric automatically comes with a ballista and four lackeys ready to tote it around as per the whims of the religion". All of a sudden, the Cleric now can wear any armour, use any weapon, and cast a plethora of spells. I'm thinking wearing armor should be a no-no for them, but as compensation, perhaps as many spells as the Sorcerer gets? Yeah, that's my proposal. Less armour, more spells. Got 4th Edition?

 

[LordAO]

I dislike the fact that Clerics get to wear armor and Wizards/Sorcerers don't. And I would certainly not boost their already insane spellcasting ability as compensation for taking it away.

But just to show the stupidity in Arcane Spell Failure, let me bring a few things to your attention.

Arcane Spell Failure supposedly exists because "The armor restricts the complicated gestures that they must make while castign any spell that has a somatic component." PHB v3.5 p. 56

Hmm, ok. "Complicated" as pointing at someone? "Complicated" as using sign language? I mean, seriously, people. How "complicated" can it be? What are these Wizards doing to cast spells? Cartwheels? Contorting their body in horrific ways that make the Kama Sutra look easy (shudder)? On the contrary, most of the time it has to do with gestures about as complex as sign language and giving someone the finger.

"A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand." PHB v3.5, p. 174

Okay. So how does armor interfere with this? Really, I find it hard to imagine how wearing chainmail prevents you from properly performing such a gesture. If it inhibited your ability to use your arms and hands that much, how do people perform complex sword maneuvers and whirlwind attacks in armor?

And what's more interesting is that this only applies to arcane spellcasters. Forgive me, but don't divine spells with somatic components not also use such "precise movements of the hand?" That quote from above desacribes the somatic components of ALL spells, not just arcane spells.

And there is also only one spellcraft skill. A spell is identified by its components. This means that a spell has the same components no matter who uses it. A cleric performing a spell uses the exact same components (save possibly a divine focus) as a Wizard casting the same spell.

So, if a Cleric spell has just as "complicated" of gestures as an arcane spell, then why do users of arcane magic suffer from arcane spell failure from armor and not divine casters?

The answer is simple. It in actuality has absolutely nothing to do with the "restricted moevemnts" of the armor (or whatever other excuse they have come up with in the past). The designers of D&D have a strict mental image of a Wizard as a robed, staff carrying, pointy hat wearing, book worm (remind you of anyone?). This absurd rule is merely there to enforce that stereotype.

It's funny, I never thought of preists going around weilding a mace and wearing plate mail either. A holy knight (A Paladin) who fights for his church? Sure. But not an actual priest! I always see them wearing robes and maybe some incense. Being a student of history, I can tell you that from Christianity to Buddhism to ancient Egyptians, this has almost always been the case.

And what is so wrong with a Wizard wearing armor anyway? I've seen plenty of fantasy games, novels, etc where there are armored Wizards and it's just fine. And don't give me the "It would be unbalanced if Wizards could wear armor" speech. The Cleric gets more spells per day than the Wizard (plus domain spells, plus domain poowers, plus turning undead), yet he can wear any armor he wants. He has two good saving throws, D8 HPs per level, the second best attack bonus, and is every bit as powerful a spellcaster as a Wizard. If there is a balance problem, it is with the Cleric, not the Wizard. And even in the Lord of the Rings (upon which D&D was copied, err I mean inspired), the mighty Wizard Gandalf weilded a Sword with the best of them.

So Wizards don't train much with weapons or armor? Fine. Don't give them those proficiencies then. That makes sense to me. But if a Wizard is willing to get such training (by taking the proper feats or multiclassing), why not let him wear armor and cast spells? His Hps and attack bonus are still abysmal. It's not like you'll see any Wizards making successful tanks. If anything, he went to all that trouble just so he won't have to cast Mage Armor on himself all day.

Well, at lest we can take comfort in the fact that progress is being made. In 2nd edition Wizards couldn't cast spells in armor at all. At least now they can wear it (they just get heavily penalized for doing so). But, if it were my game (which it is not) I would either make it fair and have spell failure apply to ALL spellcasters, or I would simply get rid of a tired, obsolite, and asinine rule.

And that's my two cents.

 

[Trainz]

Listen guys, you have to get back to the source of D&D to understand. Please note that I'm not saying these concepts shouldn't be toyed with, just to make you understand the foundations:

Why do wizards can't wear armor ?

Because the standard Heroic-Fantasy wizard doesn't have any.

Why do clerics wear armor ?

Because they're based on templars, hospitaliers, and such "priests" wore armor.

That's all there is to it.

"Ah ! But are we mindless SHEEP, that MUST follow in the very steps of those who brought us D&D ? Are we pre-programmed DRONES, that are totally deprived of initiative, that we MUST stay in the very mire that is annihilating our god blessed CREATIVITY ? IS THERE NO END TO THE STUPIDITY OF SHEEPDOM ? ? ?"

Well, there's the Battle Sorcerer in UA that wears light armor with no penalty, and there's the Cloistered Cleric in UA that is a combat-light scholarly priest. Great classes.

So, I humbly invite everyone (including me) to get off the soapboxes, and just enjoy the game. Try it, you might like it.

 

[Parlan]

It's funny, I never thought of preists going around weilding a mace and wearing plate mail either. A holy knight (A Paladin) who fights for his church? Sure. But not an actual priest! I always see them wearing robes and maybe some incense. Being a student of history, I can tell you that from Christianity to Buddhism to ancient Egyptians, this has almost always been the case.

Priests are always robe-wearing incense-wielders? What kind of history were you studying exactly? Primary documents (Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks) frequently mention bishops and even popes massing and leading large armies. And for secular purposes too.

For a Buddhist example, in the mid- 16th century, the Oda Nobunaga had go to war against several temples because he considered them to be such a serious military threat. (Hiei-zan, the Ikko-ikki) Maybe these priests wore robes and swung incense, but they certainly knew how to fight as well.

If you don t want this kind of cleric in your game that s fine of course, but there is certainly plenty of historical support for the archetype.

OTOH, I have trouble with clerics going around as heavily armored as front-line fighters. I d probably also consider a house rule where clerics only get light and medium armor profs. Heck, SOMEBODY has to wear medium armor...