Spell Confusion
- Thread starter GX.Sigma
- Start date
tlantl
First Post
Actually the entry for fighter/magic-user in the multiclassing section says "Obviously, this combination allows excellent armor protection..."
The class description has a single line referencing armor and the only other armor restriction is for multiclassed thieves wearing leather armor only.
I guess the restrictions on armor were either made more restrictive through house ruling and subsequent editions tightening the noose on spell casters.
The 2e player's hand book explicitly forbids multiclassed mages from using armor of any form, and this would apply to specialist wizards such as the Illusionist.
So judging from the preponderance of the rules, spell casting in armor should be allowed since two of three editions allow it if only in certain circumstances such as multiclassing, or by a spell failure determined by the armor.
Having come to this conclusion some of my own material needs to be updated.
Steely_Dan
First Post
You post this as if you're disagreeing with me, but my post was precisely pointing out that F/MUs in 1st ed AD&D can cast while wearing armour (as can Elves in B/X) - with the exception that Gnome F/I are limited to leather armour (this restriction is found in the gnome racial entry).
The prohibition on multi-class MUs wearing armour only comes about in 2nd ed AD&D.
tlantl
First Post
sorry it came across as it did I was in agreement just noting it specifically mentioned magic users too. Illusionist being a different class and all.
I don't have a problem with casting from armor, at least not any more. Something light and supple would be my preference but full plate wouldn't be too much if the guy wanted to chose a specialty that gave the armor proficiency. Especially now that there is another casting class that can already do this through their bloodline.
Ah, that makes more sense - in any event, no worries!
From memory I think you are not a 4e player - but for what it's worth, I've been GMing 4e for over 3 years now, and MUs in 4e have similar ACs to everyone else (because their INT adds to their AC). And this doesn't make them overpowered - the low hit points still make them very noticeably squishy in combat.
So as far as 5e is concerned, I would say that if wizards keep having low hit points, armour shouldn't be too big a deal, provided that the monsters and NPCs actually have attack bonuses high enough to have a noticeable chance of hitting.
