Wizards and Armor

[Crazy Jerome]

Rather than retype what I have to say about some of the, err, arguments advanced here, I'll simply link: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...ing-magic-back-school-long-2.html#post5943250. If it is unclear, see the last paragraph two posts below that one.

 

[Blood & Bones]

If we want to play the "you can't cast in armor because realistically you wouldn't have proper training and your movement would be hampered" card, then I want to play the "okay, when I hit you with a fireball I want your flesh to melt as you incinerate within your tin can" and the "you literally explode within your tin can as the force of one billion volts of electricity slam into you from my lightning bolt" cards.

If we wanted that level of realism, we'd be playing "Business & Bosses."

I'm so tired of seeing people try to find ways to make wizards undesirable to play. If you don't want magic users in your game, disallow the classes at your table.

It's not about trying to make wizards undesirable to play; it's about making them balanced & keeping true to D&D's roots. Really. In OD&D 1st, and 2nd, wizards did not wear armor at all. It's only in 3rd edition that they were given an Arcane Spell Fail chance, and in 4th edition that they did away with the armor rule.

Now, I don't know you from Adam, but based on your response, I can guess that you are either a 3rd or 4th edition player. If you talk to OD&D, 1st, and 2nd edition players about what the most powerful core class was, the majority of them would say it was the wizard. And even though wizards sucked at low levels, there were plenty of players who chomped at the bit to play a Magic-User.

When you really consider it, no amount of training makes it reasonable to perform the types of maneuvers a D&D fighter would perform wearing plate mail either.

The only reason for the whole "no casting/hampered casting" in D&D is the desire of those who hate magic users to turn them into boring characters. Again, if you don't want magic users in your campaign, ban the classes from your table. Don't make the rest of us feel like crap simply to make your "I hit it with my sword" boring fighters feel like super heroes.

True on the first part, incorrect on the second part. I don't think anyone wants Wizards to be boring... or any other class for that matter. And there is nothing wrong with wanting Wizards to be exciting characters - but they also need to leave room for other characters to shine as well.

 

[BobTheNob]

I'm so tired of seeing people try to find ways to make wizards undesirable to play. If you don't want magic users in your game, disallow the classes at your table.

I dont think anyone is trying to do that. Why would we? We all love the game and the wizard is an integral part of it.

Give your fellow posters some credit.

 

[Vael]

I still think 4e's approach was the best, Wizards aren't naturally proficient in armour, but they don't have any problems with spells once they are.

I like the idea of part of your AC is determined by your class, so a fighter in Plate is still going to have superior AC to a wizard in Plate.

 

[Hussar]

This is one of those issues with tons of legacy baggage. The reason Magic Users couldn't use armor was pretty much a game balance one. MU's were artillery - they aren't supposed to get up into the fight. Clerics were, so, they got armor. The primary focus was pretty much entirely gamist and then all sorts of flavour reasons were piled on top to make it more interesting.

The question to me is, are those game balance underpinnings still valid? Why is the wizard being limited this way? What is he getting in return for lowered survival chances. In AD&D, he got fantastic cosmic powers at higher levels. In 3e, the same thing mostly applies as well. A high level wizard is one of the most powerful classes in the game.

But, do we want to keep this style of balance - balance over the long term where you have weak-->strong character classes? If not, then the main justification for no armor goes away. If a wizard is (more or less) on par with every other class at every point in the game, then this limitation isn't really doing anything.

 

[kinem]

It's a shame if you let a few odd mechanics turn you off the entire game. The game is never going to be a perfect fit for me but for over 30 years playing D&D, I've coped. And hey, if enough people don't like this sort of stuff, the designers will most likely change or adapt it.

It's not just a few odd mechanics. If the designers are already putting in absolutes like the ones I quoted (wizards can't cast in armor, dwarves immune to poison, etc.) that speaks volumes about how dumbed-down and anti-simulationist the game is going to be. It's true that even 3.5 contained absolutes such as a few rare monsters and characters being immune to poison; it's also true that that's one of the reasons we needed a new edition - to fix that junk!

You've coped with the bits you don't like; so have I, of course. But then, you had to accept it, if you wanted to keep playing D&D. That is no longer the case: We have alternatives now, particularly Pathfinder.

 

[BobTheNob]

It's not just a few odd mechanics. If the designers are already putting in absolutes like the ones I quoted (wizards can't cast in armor, dwarves immune to poison, etc.) that speaks volumes about how dumbed-down and anti-simulationist the game is going to be. It's true that even 3.5 contained absolutes such as a few rare monsters and characters being immune to poison; it's also true that that's one of the reasons we needed a new edition - to fix that junk!

You've coped with the bits you don't like; so have I, of course. But then, you had to accept it, if you wanted to keep playing D&D. That is no longer the case: We have alternatives now, particularly Pathfinder.

You call it junk, I dont.

On some levels, I actually like the approach. Im after narrative style play (which I think you call "anti-simulationist") and absoultes work well for that : easy decisions keep play fast and let the story roll forward.

It isnt as well suited to the "Diablo" style play, where character growth is the purpose for playing (as opposed to being a single aspect) ...your right, Pathfinders is your best option for that!! But its not what Im looking for. Been there, done it, over it.

I find it enlightening, because I now realize that the very things I desire the game to be are at odds with what you want it to be, which would go a long way to explaining your ire. Im stoked by just about everything Im hearing about 5e.

Perhaps your right...Pathfinder is the game for you.

 

[BASHMAN]

I think armored casting should just be a theme. Seems especially appropriate for elves.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

You call it junk, I dont.

On some levels, I actually like the approach. Im after narrative style play (which I think you call "anti-simulationist") and absoultes work well for that : easy decisions keep play fast and let the story roll forward.

It isnt as well suited to the "Diablo" style play, where character growth is the purpose for playing (as opposed to being a single aspect) ...your right, Pathfinders is your best option for that!! But its not what Im looking for. Been there, done it, over it.

I'm not too sure based on this you're quite understanding kinem's point of view. I imagine (and could be quite wrong) that "Diablo" style play is way down on kinem's list (and would also suggest that 4e would be as equally an optimum D&D ruleset for such a style). [I'm a subscriber to basically every line Paizo produces as well as a DDI subscriber since it started in case such matters.]

However, what my complaint (that kinem focused on) was all about was the believability of the rule mechanics and from a design perspective, the issue of absolutes being terrible design for that believability. It is a level of simplification that feels quite uncomfortable when you are looking for the mechanics to support a believable world. For example, why can't wizards cast spells when wearing armour? Metal interferes? Compromises somatic casting? Some other contrived reason? Does this mean wizards have to be naked, or robed, or not wear leather robes, or leather robes with metallic buttons, or leather robes with ornamental metal strips, or... you get the idea. It creates a ridiculous situation where a line in the sand is drawn that makes little to no sense.

I think from this thread, such simplification while fine for some players is the complete antithesis of what a different group of players want from their D&D. This different group is looking for a finer grade of granularity when it comes to the mechanics producing a believable world. Having dwarves immune to all poison is perhaps the worst from my perspective as it simply does not mesh. Why not just give dwarves advantage to checks against poison? Just as simple, supports one of the big 5e mechanics, and better represents a Dwarf's resistance rather than immunity to poison.

In terms of armour, it seems that most people are fine with wizards attempting to cast spells regardless of what they are wearing. However, as long as there are incentives to have the traditional robed wizard, as well as options to have different armoured archetypes of arcane caster then everyone will be happy, or at least in a position to houserule out the parts they do not like. Left as is, you have these absolute design elements sticking out that are not very rewarding if you prefer a more believable play style.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[slobo777]

The one thing I *do* remember about wearing armour (from LARP, but I borrowed some re-enactor's full chain, and sometimes ran around in this heavy armour, and sometimes in lighter leather armour) is that you can seriously overheat. I was glad of the rain during the big battle.