Wizards and Armor

[Falling Icicle]

In older editions, wizards couldn't wear armor and cast spells, with rare exceptions like elven chain.

In 3.x, they added arcane spell failure, which gave a % chance to miscast spells while wearing armor. Lighter armors, like leather, had a much smaller spell failure chance than heavier armors. This allowed wizards to wear armor, but at a risk.

4e did away with armor restrictions for spells entirely. Wizards could cast spells in plate mail just fine, they just weren't proficient in any armor and would have to spend several feats and meet steep ability requirements to wear it.

In the 5e playtest, we've gone back to the old edition rules. Wizards can't wear armor and cast spells - period. I'm interested to know how people feel about this.

 

[Raith5]

I am fine with as long as there is theme or another class (maybe warlock/maybe MC) that enables my Elric/Witcher/Melf/Gilthanus dreams to come to being. The fighter - mage archetype has struggled to work in most editions of D&D IMO.

 

[Lanefan]

Voted "other".

I don't think wizard types should be able to cast in armour at all

BUT

I don't mind the idea of "Arcane Aid" being an extremely expensive enchantment that can be put on armour to allow one to cast while wearing it. (this is what makes Elven Chain so costly, it comes with this feature built in; and do NOT allow PCs to create this themselves - assume the enchanting process takes years)

Too lazy to look it up but I think I have it in my game that Arcane Aid adds about 30,000 g.p. to the value of any armour, over and above whatever it would already cost.

Lanefan

 

[Herremann the Wise]

It all comes down to flavour for me. Does the metal armour interfere with the wizard's arcane power? Does the bulkier armour interfere with the somatic gestures required for casting? These have always felt a little weak to me as a way of getting the wizard out of armour. [The ability restrictions of 4e seem a better way of going about this]. I think this is well related to another thread regarding the question "what is magic?" If you can nail down what magic is, then you can also nail down a satisfactory way of restricting it.

This is just an absolute of 5e (wizards cannot wear armor, a dwarf cannot be poisoned, elves cannot be charmed, reapers cannot "miss") that annoys me on one level Without a clear understanding of how magic "works", it is hard to nail down a good reason why it does not work (or even if we still don't want it to work).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Mengu]

I don't see what's wrong with a wizard in armor. It's fine if they don't start with proficiency. But if they want to pick it up through feats, themes, backgrounds, multiclassing, or whatever else method is available, let them.

 

[Dausuul]

I agree with Herremann, the rationales put forward for arcane spell failure have always felt contrived; it's clear that the designers just want to make sure the wizard in robes isn't universally replaced by the wizard in full plate and shield.

I think wizards should be able to cast in armor if they want to. However, a wizard's AC should be mediocre even in plate, and they should have access to a spell like mage armor that comes close to the same level of protection. So you can be a wizard with AC 17*, and spend a ton of money on plate, and strain your probably-not-very-high encumbrance limit; or you can have AC 15 or 16 and not have to deal with any of that.

If the designers balance it right, we should see most wizards in robes and protective spells as usual, but wizards in armor will be playable for those who want to go that way.

[size=-2]*Or whatever.[/size]

 

[Li Shenron]

I prefer ASF over a blunt "cannot cast", but I can take the latter as long as there exists some option (albeit expensive) to make it at least possible. I also thought that 3ed should have a core option (e.g. feat) to mitigate ASF anyway.

But overall it's a D&D sacred cow, so it should stay in / come back to the game.

 

[Falling Icicle]

The armor restriction on spells has always seemed contrived to me. The explanations given for it, such as the idea that it interferes with the somatic gestures required by most spells, are nonsensical. In order for something like chainmail or even plate armor (which don't really inhibit the movement of one's limbs, or else it would be difficult to sword fight while wearing them), the somatic components of spells would have to be so ardous that one would have to be a contortionist to perform them. Yet most of the time when somatic components of spells have been described they have been quite simple, such as holding one's hands out together with one's thumbs touching and fingers spread for the burning hands spell. Why would wearing chainmail or even full plate interfere with that gesture?

Of course, we all know the real reasons that the armor restriction exists. First, there's niche protection. The image of the long-bearded wizard in a robe is quite iconic. Second, there's the game balance side of it, where this was just one of many punishments meted out on wizards in an attempt to balance the power of their spellcasting against other classes. I don't think either of these is really valid anymore. The typical Gandalf-like wizard is just one of the many wizard archetypes, and I don't think it's right to force people to conform to that mold, especially not in a system that is supposed to be a big tent and be all modular and have lots of options.

As for game balance, I don't see why a wizard in armor is overpowered at all, especially if he has to invest alot of character resources, such as feats, in order to get it. Wizards have always had other means of getting a good AC anyway, whether it was by spells like mage armor and shield, or things like bracers of armor or robes of the magi.

So in the end, I would prefer that there not be any artifical restrictions against casting spells in armor, but I wouldn't give wizards proficiency in any type of armor by default. If they want it, I'd make them multiclass, take armor proficiency feats, etc. And if they go to all that trouble, well hey, good for them. The other wizard in a robe spent all of his feats on being better at casting spells. Both types of character should be a viable option, IMHO.

 

[MarkB]

I've voted for "armour shouldn't restrict spellcasting at all", but I'll add a touch of "other":

I think a good way to provide niche protection is the method implemented in certain computer RPGs: When designing wearable magic items, place effects that enhance arcane spellcasting capabilities on low-armour or non-armour items like robes, hats and gloves, and place effects that enhance martial capabilities on armour, helms, gauntlets etc.

That way, if you're building a pure spellcaster you'll naturally gravitate to the robes-and-staff look, whereas if you're building something more like a fighter/mage you'll go for a few armour items.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I don't like either ASF or a hard restriction, but I think armor should penalize magic unless you have some ability that makes it easier.

Like, you have disadvantage on your casting roll (casting rolls should be a thing) if you're casting in armor, unless you have a class or a theme or something that allows you to cast in armor.