Wizards and Armor

[Klaus]

Wizards and not casting in armor wasn't totally contrived, if I remember correctly.

Stories and myths (not so much modern novels) used to have all that iron and steel disrupting the "flow" of magic. Cold iron, metal shavings kept away faeries, etc.

Now if I could remember some literary examples, my point would carry more weight...

And right next to "armor-messes-with-my-magic" wizard is the "armor-doesn't-mess-with-my-magic" cleric.

"Spells can't be cast in armor" negates the possibility of, say, a Fighter that picks up the Magic-User theme and continues to wear his chainmail.

I'm on the camp of "no arcane failure in armor you're proficient in".

 

[Crazy Jerome]

For me, this is another one of those cases where the "arcane failure" causes you to lose the spell was too much, but the Next playtest Con check is perfect. Take damage, try to cast a spell next round, must make a Con check, or the spell does not go off, but is not lost.

So say that an arcane caster wearing armor with which he is not proficient is treated as if he had taken damage every round, for purposes of spell casting. If such a caster actually takes damage the prior round, he gets disadvantage on the Con check.

Then turn around and give armor a Str and Con requirement (though not so out of hand that you bar other concepts--keep the requirements somewhat low). Now, a straight wizard that wants to wear heavy armor will have to make a committment to Str and Con to make this plausible. If you have a bit of Str and Con, you can slap on a chain shirt in a pinch, but it will cost the guy rounds of casting in a fight. He won't do it much.

Meanwhile, the fighter/wizard multiclass character--who isn't going to necessarily cast every round in combat anyway, is quite happy with the restrictions, since he needs some Str and Con for the warrior side. If he starts going for a ton of combat/blaster magic (AKA stepping on the wizard's toes), he'll still lose some rounds because of having to make that Con check all the time.

That "does not go off this round" Con check is a handy thing to anchor some mechanics around. It's modeling things that interfere with casting, without being draconian about it. So if something conceptually interferes with casting, you have a place to tie to.

Edit: Also note that there is no reason why everything I said can't be in a module, with the current playtest blanket ban as the default in the Core. Many wizards are going to have an 8 to 10 Str, and a lot more are going to avoid armor by flavor. But mainly, the Core is already supporting the "hook" for such a module, with the Con check for damage, as is. Likewise, you could also have a few themes designed for armorered arcane casters that do not require the Con check. These guys have specficially trained in armor while casting--so no interference for them--at the opportunity cost of whatever other theme they could have taken.

 

[Ratskinner]

I've always thought/played that the restrictions were based on two issues:

a) armor interferes with the "magical energies"
b) wearing armor is hot and generally unpleasant, requiring training to wear effectively....typical wizard doesn't have those.

I prefer wizards to be more glass-cannonish. However, I could certainly see that some special (read very expensive) custom armors might be available that allow for arcane spellcasting. I've often thought that D&D has more room for "masterwork" items that aren't necessarily magical, but that overcome some restrictions like that.

All in all, too small an issue to worry about at this point in playtesting.

edit/afterthought:
Of course, one could have enchanted cloth armor, or something, I guess.

 

[Kavon]

The votes seem to be evenly spread.. This says to me: Depends on your table.

If the DM doesn't want arcane magic to be possible in armor, then it's not.

If the DM wants it to be possible with proficiency, than it is.

If the DM wants to put in spell failure %, then that's how it works.

There really is no wrong answer here.. It's purely up to your own preference.


I'd prefer to be able to make a war wizard (who logically wears armor).
Makes no sense to go into the battlefield, where everyone is armored up for protection, to not be protected yourself. Same logic as archers wearing armor, really (*exactly* the same situation, if you ask me).
That is, unless there is some reliable spell that protects you instead, of course.

 

[Minigiant]

I am liking [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] idea that armor imposes a Con check every round.


A wizard must have a Strength Score at least 10 higher than the armor bonus or theymust make a Constitution save and risk spell failure on a failed save.

The way you can play a high Con or Str wizard of a Str or Con race make up for the lack of a Int bonus with higher AC.

Half Orc fighter/wizards in chainmail.

 

[am181d]

There should just be a minimum Strength requirement for competently wearing armor, and if you don't meet that requirement, you're slow and clumsy in it. Something like:

Light Armor requires STR 11.
Medium Armor requires STR 13.
Heavy Armor requires STR 15.

If you do not meet the requirement, you suffer the following penalties (above and beyond those applied for proficient use):
* -2 to AC and Dex checks
* -5 ft. to speed
* automatically fatigued after 1 hour until next extended rest (disadvantage on all rolls)

Note that the last penalty only kicks in after an hour, giving the wizard some minor incentive to suit up for isolated combats (e.g. when Gandalf straps on the armor for the big battle scene).

This approach has a couple of advantages: One, it simulates what's really happening in fantasy fiction. (Guys avoid armor because it's big and bulky and they're not strong enough.) Two, it nicely aligns typical strength ranges for particular classes with the armors they tend to wear. (Wizard 10, Rogue 12, Cleric 14, Fighter 16.)

This could be further tinkered with. (Might make sense to drop everything down by 2 pts. so that the Paladin with a Strength of 13 can wear plate mail without penalty...)

 

[OnlineDM]

Wow... I have never seen such an evenly divided poll! As of this writing, it's 38 votes for "no spells while in armor", 40 votes for "arcane spell failure chance" and 41 votes for "cast freely in armor".

If the broader gamer population is so evenly divided on this question, it will be tricky for WotC to make these rules appeal to everyone.

 

[Dausuul]

If you do not meet the [Strength] requirement, you suffer the following penalties (above and beyond those applied for proficient use):
* -2 to AC and Dex checks
* -5 ft. to speed
* automatically fatigued after 1 hour until next extended rest (disadvantage on all rolls)

[snip]

This approach has a couple of advantages: One, it simulates what's really happening in fantasy fiction. (Guys avoid armor because it's big and bulky and they're not strong enough.)

This is a horribly bad simulation.

We already have encumbrance rules that assess penalties for carrying a given weight of gear. Wearing that weight in the form of armor--evenly distributed across your body, carefully engineered to hinder movement as little as possible--should make it less cumbersome, not more. With this system, a suit of plate armor is a major hindrance if you're wearing it, yet you can take the very same armor, bundle it up, and strap it to your back and it's all good. This is preposterous.

I think it's good to take a step back and ask what we're trying to accomplish here. It's got nothing to do with simulation. Simulation requires no penalties for armor beyond regular encumbrance, and we should in fact expect less penalty for armor than we'd get for the same weight in a backpack.

From what I can tell, the real goal is, and has always been, to support the "wizard in robes" archetype and to ensure the wizard remains squishy. There are better ways of doing that than fumbling for reasons why wizards just can't, can't wear that nasty plate armor. For instance, if the wizard can achieve comparable AC through the use of magic, that solves the "wizard in robes" problem. Give wizards a crappy base AC, reflecting their lack of close combat training, and that ensures wizards remain suitably squishy. And now you can have both armored and unarmored wizards adventuring together without trouble.

 

[Gorgoroth]

so many good answers here

lots of good ideas. I concur with Dassul, above, that there should be mechanical reasons why wizards, through opportunity costs, would not willingly bother wearing plate or even chain. Leather I don't see the problem with. If they multiclass or spend the feats for armor (if they can get rid of armor feats entirely, that would be ultimate...not require VERY tricky balance to push people subtly or less-so towards classic archetypes due to their optimality for their role)

An optimal wizard should be in robes, because maybe his spellbook on his back is heavy enough, and they need Con to cast spells of a certain spell level. If they need strength and dex too, things get tricky. My AD&D evoker had str 10, dex 15, con 16 (required), int 17, and cha 13. We made checks in every single stat (well, except str). There would be no way to wear anything more than leather.

Gish characters should wear armor, because it makes sense if you are on the front lines to wear armor. If you are a pure wizard, you should avoid spending feats on chain and plate because those feats are MUCH better spent on other things. Leather should be recommended to wizards, as in 4e.

4e's system sucks because they allowed Int to contribute to AC, to be "fair" i.e. awww, no more squishy smart guy who can't lift a spoon or dodge a charging granny. No, no, no. If you got the Str to wear armor, you should be able to wear it.

HOWEVER, I don't agree that carrying weight / encumbrance accurately reflects battle stamina drain from wearing armor. Wizards are just not trained to fight in melee, it's exausting, you are afraid, shaking, you lose energy like mad. I'm serious. Try boxing THREE rounds against someone who's trained at it, if you even THINK for one second you are able to do that wearing leather armor, or chain, or plate, without an insane amount of training, while still pulling off complex spells requiring concentration and mental focus, ahhhh...no.

Seriously, I did kickboxing for a few years and it's insane how quickly you are drained of every ounce of strength you have. And that's not a life-threatening situation (though it certainly feels like it). Without training, against someone who has some, in full-contact or even sport-contact type sports like boxing, you are DOOMED.

So someone trying to fight without a decent strength and con in armor, is going to have disadvantage on all their attacks. If you meet the pre-requ. and have the training, go ahead. But just how many wizards do you think have good strength, good con, AND good int? Dex is a far more optimal way to boost your AC, and instead of spending one or two feats to acquire proficiency, you'd be better off taking other defensive fears or themes or spells. A gish or multiclass fighter/mage should be viable, and I see a theme could bypass disadvantage in heavy armor.

fighting is risky, life-threatening, and distracting. Fighting and casting in armor, dodging blows, in melee...should give disadvantage. That's a VERY good reason why wizards wouldn't bother. Make it a natural, emergent extension of the rules, instead of kludgy added on exceptions for certain classes.

A cost of three feats, 15 str, 13 con, should be enough to keep wizards out of plate. and if multiclassed into fighter for the feats, and you got the stats...why not. Maybe add a theme that allows you to bypass the disadvantage to casting spells (even WITH proficiency) in heavy armor.

Maybe the "armored arcane caster" theme starts you off with removing disadvantage at level 1 in light armor, at level 5 in medium, and level 9 heavy armor. A cleric with medium armor theme could do the same but one step faster, and be in plate by level 5 instead.

The opportunity cost of not taking a wizard blasty theme should be enough to keep most wizards in their robes.

 

[Abstruse]

On one hand, I do believe there should be something preventing wizards from running around in armor since they're typically the most versatile character in the party and sometimes the most powerful as well. On the other hand, I would like the chance to play a wizard in heavy armor if it fits the story. At judging by the complete split on this poll, it looks like there's a lot of that sentiment across the entire community.

I think that if a wizard wants to wear armor, he or she should have to work for it. Even if multiclassed. Light armor shouldn't be a problem. I had my punk rock and goth phases and I never felt my movement was hindered by my leather jacket covered in metal studs or leather bracers or any of the other odd stuff I used to wear (yeah..."used to"...believe that and I've got a bridge for you). But plate armor or chainmail? Yeah, that's going to cause problems if you have to make precise gestures.

Spell failure works, but there should be some way to mitigate it - a feat or theme. I spend a lot of time and practice learning exactly how I can move in a certain type of armor to the exclusion of other things I could be learning, that makes both story and mechanical sense. This should be separate from simple proficiency, though. You take a level of fighter and get heavy armor proficiency, you still haven't trained in how to move in that armor while casting. But it also shouldn't take two feats to cast spells in armor either.

Hopefully, the designers will be able to come up with a simple and elegant solution like they seem to be good at doing so far with the game.