Wizards and Armor

[Blackwarder]

I kind of feel like that you should be able to cast in armor if you're proficient in it, ie if you invested some resource in something you should be able to do it. Mostly I`m thinking multiclass characters should be able to use their class features, for instance a fighter/mage ought be able to wear armor and cast spells, I mean they are giving something up to be able to do that.

And then every wizard will take a level in fighter just to get the ability to cast spells in armor...
No thanks, I'd much rather not have the obscene five-class-characters in the game.

Warder

 

[Oni]

And then every wizard will take a level in fighter just to get the ability to cast spells in armor...
No thanks, I'd much rather not have the obscene five-class-characters in the game.

Warder

Traditionally giving up even a tiny portion of your spellcastimg has been a huge opportunity class.

 

[Mircoles]

I've no problem with a wizard in armor, though I think that it reflects poorly on him. A wizard should protect himself with magic, not with the mundane.

Regardless of what the real reasons are for wearing the armor, a wizard wearing armor is showing that he isn't powerful enough magically to protect himself and must turn to mundane non-magical means for protection.

 

[slobo777]

And then every wizard will take a level in fighter just to get the ability to cast spells in armor...
No thanks, I'd much rather not have the obscene five-class-characters in the game.

Warder

In 3.5, those PCs were only obscene (well, to me) due to the loading of saves and some of the class features onto the first level. And this was in part due to the multi-class rules in 3E. Saves were a particular problem.

Reverse problem was that mixing caster levels (even with other casters, or even in a very minor way) had a huge impact on the power level of the character.

Let's wait and see how D&D Next approaches multi-classing . . . with themes it may even not be necessary (or in fact multi-classing could be accessed as a theme).

 

[I'm A Banana]

For me, spell failure was always a massive hassle: one more die roll on a wizard's turn. So I'm glad to see it bite the dust.

I'd like to have the default assumption be "you can't cast spells in armor that you are not proficient in." Then, a wizard who learns to use full plate can cast in it, but your bog-standard staff-stroker doesn't know its hauberk from its halter.

 

[Yora]

I've no problem with a wizard in armor, though I think that it reflects poorly on him. A wizard should protect himself with magic, not with the mundane.

Depends on the fluff. In a high magic world, I certainly agree with that.

But take for example a science fiction setting where you have a bunch of space marines accompanied by a telepath. That telepath would also at least wear a breathing mask and bulletproof vest just in case he is not able to make every enemy they encounter aim at points next to him. If you can project an impenetrable force field around you all day with your magic, than armor is silly. If not, added layers of protection are a nice addition. Just have a low-level D&D game in which there are many encounters with few rests, and a wizard may very well find himself in such a situation, even if you are simply playing "generic D&D stuff".

 

[DonAdam]

The two obvious options are:

1) You can cast in armor you're proficient in.

This allows flexibility. The downside is that it's very easy for the counter-archetypal character to become the norm. That is legitimate cost to be concerned with; classic archetypes should be well supported.

It's possible that the high opportunity cost of feats/themes or multiclassing will still make the classic archetype viable. Two cantrips is a lot to give up for armor.

2) There's a theme that allows for arcane casters in armor.

I like this one better for a few reasons. First, DM's that want a more classic feel can ban one (or a class of) theme(s). That's less clunky than reworking the armor proficiency rules for a narrow case.

Second, the theme can be made to "patch" the problems with multiclass wizard/X's, so you can have a ready made and easy to apply solution for gish's, arcane archers, etc.

 

[Klaus]

I voted for "No Interferance".

As soon as you put up the restriction or spell failure, you'll inevitably end up with half-a-dozen ways to bypass it. Usually contrived stuff like "elves can cast in elven chain", or "this PrClass diminishes Arcane Spell Failure" or "these spells have no somatic components".

I want to be able to have a wizard with, the Soldier background, who wore at least leather armor around the battlefield as he served as a one-man artillery. I want to be able to make an Arcane Knight in full plate, wielding sword and flinging fireballs. These are no less D&D than the robed wizard.

 

[Sadras]

As others have said the reasons provided by older editions for Wizards not wearing armour have felt contrived.

First we need to define the penalties associated with a Non Proficient character wearing armour:
Reduced speed/movement, Disadvantage on checks, attacks, initiative, saves, perhaps after a while become fatigued/weakened/exhausted...etc

We need to also define the benefits gained by a single class fighter in armour as he rises in level - perhaps he gains DR as well as the raised AC.

So for a Wizard/Multi-class Wizard must spend the necessary Feats/Themes to gain Armour Proficiency, even then, there is Light, Medium, Heavy Armour. The Wizard will have to give up normal Wizardly Feats/Themes to gain Armour Proficiency. There could be a scaling cost that increases dramatically due to split fields of study. Perhaps his DR will never match the single-class Fighter's or if it matches and he is more Fighter based his arcana ablity would take a knock.

Perhaps there should even be a minimum ability requirement (even if it is low, given the flatter math) for the wearing of medium/heavy armour. (Constitution/Strength)

Other than that I don't see the problem. If the player is prepared to pay the cost for wearing armour then let it happen, just ensure such cost is sufficient and can be easily explained.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I like the "glass cannon" feel of a wizard, both as a player and DM. Instead of relying on AC, you rely on magic to keep you out of trouble, either through Mirror Image, Shield, Invisibility, Flying or through tactics like trying to keep your distance.