Spell Confusion

[Steely_Dan]

I would say as you get those cantrips from a feat, and not the actual wizard class, you're okay in armour, that seems a key aspect of the feat, I can once again have my magic-missile slinging ranger again!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The reason wizards can't cast in armor is because wizards wear robes. Robes don't do a good job of stopping a sword, so no wizard would wear them if they could cast spells in armor.

I haven't played a wizard in robes* in years, so the force of this argument is lost of me.

* Except for formal state occasions, of course.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I haven't played a wizard in robes* in years, so the force of this argument is lost of me.

* Except for formal state occasions, of course.

That's fair.

It's a matter of what we want the archetypical D&D wizard to wear. I've played a mage-tank before, but I still have a soft spot for the armorless wizard, and I really do think it should be the default assumption.

But to make that happen, there has to be some disadvantage to wearing armor or an advantage to not doing so. The former is traditional, and tradition is important.

 

[Mattachine]

I like the "must be proficient rule" for casting in armor.
As for multiclassing to get armor proficiency . . . sounds good to me. A player wants some type of gish or warwizard, or something, and has to make a choice/sacrifice (multiclassing).

 

[Li Shenron]

The reason wizards can't cast in armor is because wizards wear robes. Robes don't do a good job of stopping a sword, so no wizard would wear them if they could cast spells in armor.

Don't forget the pointy hat!

 

[pemerton]

Technically cantrips are still arcane spells, as are rituals, so if the rule remained as is now, from a FAQ article I would expect that the official ruling would be that you still cannot cast them in armor. This would also be consistent with 30+ years of previous editions.

In classic D&D multi-class MUs can cast in armour (gnome fighter/illusionists are limited to leather armour); I believe once we get to 2nd ed AD&D this is true only for Elfin Chain.

And in 3E there is no general prohibition, is there? - just a %failure chance.

 

[pemerton]

But to make that happen, there has to be some disadvantage to wearing armor or an advantage to not doing so.

Isn't the advantage that you don't have to spend build resources on armour proficiency (be that feat slots, minimum stats, or whatever else might be required).

 

[triqui]

They really should just get rid of the wizard's armor restrictions, IMO. They lack proficiency in any type of armor, and that comes with enough penalties of its own.

They could even have a general rule about casting spells in armor you're not proficient with instead of it being a specific part of the wizard class. That way, the answer to whether or not your character (regardless of class) can cast spells in armor would be as simple as "are you proficient in it?"

AC is going to be heavily bounded to gear, it seems. I'm not sure about the balance issues that might arise if you have wizards going around in maximun armor. Specially if wizards, as a whole, are designed as a squishy glass cannon class, fragile but powerful.

I'm not saying you can't have this, but it needs to be carefully playtested.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Isn't the advantage that you don't have to spend build resources on armour proficiency (be that feat slots, minimum stats, or whatever else might be required).

From a game perspective, sure. But not so much from a world-building perspective.

 

[pemerton]

From a game perspective, sure. But not so much from a world-building perspective.

My first thought is that, from the world building perspective, you can say that wizards simply don't have time to learn to use armour because they're too busing being scholars of magic. (Mechanical translation: they don't have the build resources - whatever excatly those might be - to get armour proficiency).

Is there a reason that wouldn't work that I'm missing? The question is genuine, because in my 4e game the wizard and sorcerer didn't wear armour precisely because they had better ways to spend their feats. So the mechanical story and the ingame story mirrored one another in the way I've just suggested, and at the moment I'm not seeing why my experience wouldn't generalise.