Spell Confusion

[Mattachine]

Of course, if armor weight/encumbrance/movement and carrying capacity were done a lot better, this wouldn't be much of an issue. Few wizards would have the strength/con to wear armor all day.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

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.

For the same reason that an adventuring wizard gets a base attack bonus and increased hit points. If you're going to go adventuring where combat is likely, you learn to wear armor. It isn't specialist training. A fighter can learn to use heavy armor as part of a training camp. The wizard spends many years learning the basics of magic. When they meet, the wizard would simply have the fighter teach armor use. It won't take long, and much of the training comes simply from wearing the armor. In truth, armor proficiency doesn't seem like it's reasonably worth the cost of a feat.

No, the only reason a wizard wouldn't wear armor in combat is if he or she can't.

 

[Steely_Dan]

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.

"Tradition is the illusion of permanence."

-Woody Allen

 

[Steely_Dan]

It only mentions not being able to cast spells in armour for the Sorcerer and Wizard, not the spell casting rules (clerics etc).

To cast a spell you need one hand free, and be able to speak (so much for mute wizards, or wizards with their tongue cutout), unless exception.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If you're going to go adventuring where combat is likely, you learn to wear armor.

... unless you've got more important things to learn and therefore do not spend your feats / skill points / build points / whatever you've got on armor proficiency.

Or, maybe, you learn to wear light armor effectively. Congrats, you now have the mundane equivalent of the Mage Armor spell / Bracers of Armor that you were going to have anyway (except, not being a [force] effect, it's not as powerful; saves a 1st-level spell slot each day, though, so ... woo?).

In short, why doesn't your argument apply equally well to weapons? If you're an adventuring wizard, you should learn to defend yourself, and therefore you should spend a couple minutes with the fighter each night before bed and learn how to use all martial weapons. So, the wizard class should have every weapon proficiency, too.

 

[Mattachine]

No, the only reason a wizard wouldn't wear armor in combat is if he or she can't.

Most wizards can't wear armor in combat because they aren't strong enough (strength/constitution combination) to wear it all day, and won't have the time to don armor right before a combat.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

... unless you've got more important things to learn and therefore do not spend your feats / skill points / build points / whatever you've got on armor proficiency.

Or, maybe, you learn to wear light armor effectively. Congrats, you now have the mundane equivalent of the Mage Armor spell / Bracers of Armor that you were going to have anyway (except, not being a [force] effect, it's not as powerful; saves a 1st-level spell slot each day, though, so ... woo?).

In short, why doesn't your argument apply equally well to weapons? If you're an adventuring wizard, you should learn to defend yourself, and therefore you should spend a couple minutes with the fighter each night before bed and learn how to use all martial weapons. So, the wizard class should have every weapon proficiency, too.

Not every weapon, but a handful, and the wizard does train enough to get some base attack bonus. Even so, weapon mastery is a far more significant skill than learning to wear armor.

Most wizards can't wear armor in combat because they aren't strong enough (strength/constitution combination) to wear it all day, and won't have the time to don armor right before a combat.

That is a plausible route to go, if we're willing to give armor prerequisites.

 

[triqui]

Most wizards can't wear armor in combat because they aren't strong enough (strength/constitution combination) to wear it all day, and won't have the time to don armor right before a combat.

I can make a STR 8 and DEX 18 fighter that wears a heavy armor and use a finesse weapon, so that's a moot point.

Plus Wizards can wear armor in combat, just like everyone else. They can't cast spells while wearing armor, but that's a different matter. There's nothing that forbid a wizard to put a Plate, take a two handed sword, and go to fight all the day. What they can't, is casting spells meanwhile.

 

[Steely_Dan]

There's nothing that forbid a wizard to put a Plate, take a two handed sword, and go to fight all the day.

True, they will just have Disadvantage on attacks and saves.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Not every weapon, but a handful,

So wizards can freely pick their weapon proficiencies, now?

Even so, weapon mastery is a far more significant skill than learning to wear armor.

Prove it.