Wizards and Armor

[Li Shenron]

Like fighters doing whirlwind attacks and other fancy sword maneuvers in heavy armor?

Not the same thing...

 

[Lwaxy]

I don't prohibit arcane magic users in my campaigns from wearing armor. If they have the background for it.

Usually, the background of a mage comes from his or her place of training. No wizard's college worth the name would want their students in heavy armor, colorful robes are usually a status symbol. The mages wearing more than a leather vest or a mithril shirt would usually be the nobles who had training in armor and arms. And those are not in abundance.

So yeah, I do have sword wielding, armor wearing mages in my campaigns. A whole of 7 over all the years And they were never excelling at both.

 

[Balesir]

I wonder if the trick might not be to take an idea from Star Wars Saga Edition and make it so that armor using classes got additional bonuses in armor as they leveled? Then make armor not stack with a lot of other protective options.

At high levels armor is very important to the warrior types (who have incredible instincts as to how to use it effectively) but is just one choice (and maybe not a great one) to the average wizard.

This is the sort of thing I would much prefer to see: a system that explains why the world is (usually) a certain way, rather than dictating that the world is a certain way.

 

[Dausuul]

Despite the very good points in this thread, I am still not convinced...

I guess I just don't like seeing wizards running around casting spells in heavy armor.

Those who have no problem with that, I suppose also would not mind seeing monks throwing flying kicks in heavy armor, rogues sneaking and disabling traps/locks in heavy armor, druids walking their pets in the bush in heavy armor, rangers tracking foes in the wild in heavy armor, etc...?

Monks throwing flying kicks: This is an activity requiring jumping high and a lot of physical action. You shouldn't be able to do it carrying a large amount of weight. That includes armor. It also includes a big backpack.
Rogues sneaking: Moderate penalty perhaps.
Rogues disabling traps/locks: This is fine. I don't see why you think it wouldn't be.
Druids walking pets in the bush: Heavy armor is hot and uncomfortable and, well, heavy. It's not everyday clothing. I don't see why you'd wear it to walk your pet. However, if you want to, go for it.
Rangers tracking foes: This is fine. I don't see why you think it wouldn't be.

 

[jadrax]

I don't think its unreasonable to prohibit other class features besides Arcane Casting from working in armour, and Monks I think would be the core contenders for that kind of restriction.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Maybe they should just continue to make heavy armor suck compared to the lighter options, mechanically, and then no one will want to wear it?

 

[LordArchaon]

Voted "Other" and surprised of not seeing the option I would have voted, which follows.

- Don't allow armored spellcasting for wizard, but have backgrounds and/or themes and/or the equivalent of prestige classes partially or eventually completely override the limitation.

 

[Klaus]

Voted "Other" and surprised of not seeing the option I would have voted, which follows.

- Don't allow armored spellcasting for wizard, but have backgrounds and/or themes and/or the equivalent of prestige classes partially or eventually completely override the limitation.

That's precisely what I'm against: setting up a restriction and then having to come up with ways to bypass it. I don't want to be forced into taking the Spellsword PrClass just cast spells in armor, or something to that effect. I'd prefer it if simple proficiency in the armor was enough to allow for armored spellcasting. The game won't be ruined if a wizard is wearing leather armor instead of casting Mage Armor upon himself.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That's precisely what I'm against: setting up a restriction and then having to come up with ways to bypass it. I don't want to be forced into taking the Spellsword PrClass just cast spells in armor, or something to that effect. I'd prefer it if simple proficiency in the armor was enough to allow for armored spellcasting. The game won't be ruined if a wizard is wearing leather armor instead of casting Mage Armor upon himself.

With themes allowing the casting in armor, and then the custom themes allowing mix and match, you could have exactly what LordArchoen said, and still satisfy your criteria:

Normally, an arcane caster can't cast in armor. However, take one of these themes, and you can. Don't want to take one of those themes, make your own theme, using whatever feat from an existing theme that gives you the casting in armor ability you wanted.

 

[Klaus]

With themes allowing the casting in armor, and then the custom themes allowing mix and match, you could have exactly what LordArchoen said, and still satisfy your criteria:

Normally, an arcane caster can't cast in armor. However, take one of these themes, and you can. Don't want to take one of those themes, make your own theme, using whatever feat from an existing theme that gives you the casting in armor ability you wanted.

It depends on where the armor proficiency will land. For instance, if proficiency comes from background (say, "Soldier"), I'd prefer if I only have to take the appropriate background to be able to cast spells in armor, no additional investment required.