Wizards, Armour and the Collective Consciousness

[OldGreybeard]

OK, won`t try to lecture you cos your a smart lawyer type with a quick response in mind for such sneak attacks.

When we play D&D and i am the DM my word is law, its not open to discussion or debate, the DM`s word is final. You don`t have to like it, just live with it and play the game. Its a game with set rules so why do you insist on trying to change them, if thats what you want to do you DM the D&D 3/3.5 Edition games, simple as that, mate.

 

[Intrope]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ASF gone in 4e? I was under the impression wizards could cast in anything they can wear anyway.

True, but not really where I was going with this. Mostly, I was saying that (from a 4e-mindset) Elric would actually be better mechanically modelled as a Martial character with Ritual Casting; he never uses on the fly magical effects that I can recall, and spends quite a lot of time in armor whacking people with a sword! As such, he's not a really good argument for Wizards in armor, since he wouldn't be a wizard by this line of thinking.

If you come from a 3e mindset, he'd have to be casting spells from a variant list with long casting times, which would making him a Wizard in Armor example.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Probably pointless, but mages in the Malazan Books of the Fallen (S Erickson) sometimes wear armor. The squad mages wear some sort of padded or leather armor, since they're usually in the thick of the fight. Anomander Rake wears chain armor. Memory is failing me a bit at this moment for other examples...

AR

 

[NerfedWizard]

OGB, there is no point clogging up the forum with a discussion about our personal gaming habits (this thread is about the general debate about wizards in armour, which is relevant to all readers), but for the record we are talking about you asking for my feedback on game design - so for these purposes you are NOT the DM, you are the game-designer asking for feedback, and you have a vested interest in listening to feedback! Can we keep the forum-based discussion restricted to whether wizards should be able to wear armour as a matter of flavour and logic. If it's game-balance you want to achieve, you can always achieve it by tweaking the power of their spellcasting - that's a different question entirely.

 

[OldGreybeard]

OK, i`ll put designer head back on and try to calm down Oh Irritating One.

If Wizards wear armour in my opinion it destroys the game balance by making Wizards uber characters. There is no reason why you cannot play a wizard who wears plate armour, if you have the heavy armour feat and are willing to roleplay the 35% arcane spell failure chance, hey it might actually be fun.

I suppose there is an argument that magical armour might reduce the penalty, because it is lighter in some instances, illithid armour might work as it can be made super light like Heavy becomes Medium etc. You could use all your wealth to get a suit of light armour made with a +5 bonus, to give an AC equal to full plate, so reducing the arcane spell failure chance, the options are their for you to find and use mate.

 

[WayneLigon]

NW: if you want an armored wizard, look at the supplemental books, if OGB allows them. There are several armored wizard variants in there that learn higher armor use and don't take arcane spell failure chances at the expense of giving up some spell slots.

 

[OldGreybeard]

NerfWizard(my player), doesn`t want to lose any spellslots, or read any supplements, he just wants WotC or D20 to change the rules with a big magic wand so all wizards can cast spells, wear heavy armour, use Greatswords and suffer no ill effects.

Telling him this destroys game balance does no good, he just quotes others games that have no bearing on the game we are playing.

Signed: An Exasperated DM.....

 

[Engilbrand]

Wow. This went in a different direction. While I agree in principal with NerfedWizard, he seems to have left some things out.
Does it make sense that Wizards CAN'T use armor? No. It's silly. In 4e, they aren't trained in its use, but they can get the training. That makes perfect sense to me.
That's not how he really set this up, though. He set it up as as if Gray Beard was just being crazy and irrational. He wasn't. He's just using 3.5 rules.
Are there a ton of things that get rid of ASF in 3.5? Yeah. Most of them aren't core, though. Should the restrictions be removed? No. It actually is a balance thing in this case. Not that the 3.5 Wizard is balanced, but this is part of it.
In the end, I'm going to side with Gray Beard. It's a 3.5 game that he's running. As such, the Wizard is hosed for armor unless supplements are allowed.
Then again, are you guys really going to get along in game with something like this going on? You guys don't seem to get along. Is it worth sitting at the table together?

 

[NerfedWizard]

OGB if you are willing to concede that it is purely a question of game balance, then I have won this argument. We then move on to an entirely separate debate, which is:- would a wizard in heavy armour with full spells be overpowered in a D&D 3.5 variant?

Right, veering off topic totally now...

The answer is:- compare them to clerics, who can wear full armour and use full spells. Plainly, compared to the cleric, the wizard is NOT overpowered!

Now, suppose we delete or at least massively de-power clerics as the monstrous abominable and horrific game design mistake that they were. And druids, for good measure.

Where does that leave wizards/sorcerers?

They have an important slot to fill, no doubt about it, once clerics and druids are thoroughly nerfed. But is a 35% spellcasting penalty EVER worth the benefit of increased AC? I have to say that I doubt it ever can be - because getting your spell to work at that critical juncture is life or death to the party, and a 35% failure chance is NEVER acceptable.

A 5% failure chance perhaps, or a 5% chance of something going seriously wrong.

But if it's just game-balance you want, why not go with the armoured wizards with reduced spell slots option instead. And 0% failure chance.

BUT the reason I would NOT play an armoured wizard with reduced spell slots in D&D 3.5 is that clerics are already super-powered compared to wizards. If you reduce wizards' spell slots and all you give them in return is a benefit that clerics already have (armour), wizards have NOTHING unique to offer the party.

Do you see where this leaves me? I do not generally like playing mundane characters - fighters, rangers, rogues. Bards can be a bit freaky. Paladins are OK from time to time but they're not exactly ME. Druids, likewise. Positive plane-aligned clerics I hate with a passion. Wizards and sorcerers I am sick to death of playing under D&D 3.5 rules because clerics are so BLATANTLY better than them. Which means that the only class I can play is a negative plane-aligned cleric. And then the party criticises me for following my faith and not healing them - AND THE DM JOINS IN!!! So, I am left with no options. The splat books do not help because armoured wizards are vastly underpowered compared to clerics. So that leaves NOTHING in D&D 3.5 for me to play. Not a single character class. Well, paladins and druids maybe, but their novelty value for me wears off very quickly.

 

[OldGreybeard]

He has stated he isn`t keen on playing my D&D 3.5 edition games in the future, he won`t even consider pre-written WoTC/D20 Scenarios, as in his opinion D&D is Pants. Hence we are both playing 1st Edition the G`s at the moment. And he is playing a Paladin and thats the first time he hasn`t played a Spellcaster, shocked us all he did.

You are right he hasn`t included everything in the original discussion, thats why i joined this forum, to answer the scurrolous comments and put the record straight. Mind you i will have to thank him cos its quite good fun and really interesting reading others opinions, but i need to go and buy a punch bag to vent my frustrations out on, Hahahaha