Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chris_Nightwing" data-source="post: 5945119" data-attributes="member: 882">I don't see a problem with Wizards who choose to become proficient with particular armour casting spells in said armour, especially if there are three tiers and it is therefore a significant investment to wear platemail. Obviously if you multiclass into Fighter you probably shouldn't get instant proficiency with all armour either (SWSE handled this well).The trouble is when you can spend just 1 feat to get light armour, which can give you as much as 5 or 6 AC with ease - it becomes a no-brainer and goes against the spirit of wizards in robes. There needs to be some reason to wear simple cloth, and so far this has been done by heavy restriction (you can't cast in armour), minor penalties (spell failure) and poor trade-off (1 feat giving you just leather, which isn't a large AC increase).Instead, let's offer wizards a tangible benefit for not wearing armour - perhaps robes could become the new implements, a class feature could offer magical cloth that holds one enchantment (which could increase AC, or resistance to the elements, or provide a saving throw bonus, or a bonus to a skill or initiative etc.) and reflect the wizard uniquely. Then the feat cost of obtaining armour proficiency would be offset by the loss of some neat little bonus.(Edit: with spell schools back in I could see awesome specialist robes being available - a bit like the early robes in Baldur's Gate - evokers resist a bit of fire and increase the DC of their evocations by 1, abjurers improve their AC and defences last longer, enchanters look so stylish that they get a +1 on charisma checks etc.)</blockquote>

Verification