Class and a half wizard/illusionist armor restrictions

[Kayolan]

The rules on the matter:

Wizard or illusionist supported by an armor proficient class may cast
spells while armored, however, any spells which allow a save are granted a
bonus to the save equal to the base AC bonus of the spell-caster’s armor.
This principal also applies to druids who wear metal armor.

Wizard or illusionist supporting an armor proficient class cannot cast
spells which directly cause damage, or allow a save, while wearing armor.
This principal applies to druids wearing metal armor.

---

If we have say... an illusionist with supporting class of rogue, that would
mean that the character can cast any spells while wearing leather but any
that allow a save would get a bonus of +2 to their rolls.

Now if we have a rogue with supporting class of illusionist, that would
mean that the character cannot cast any spells while wearing leather that
directly cause damage or allow a save.

So, the illusionist is better at being a spell caster while wearing armor than
a rogue is?

Anyone else find this rule a bit odd?

Thoughts?

[Rigon]

I ignore those rules completely for my own casting in armor rules. Mainly because, mine are more simple.

R-

[Quertas]

well the case of armor while arcan spell casting has to deal with somatic components of a spell and armor is supoosed to make it harder. harder to move around ina rmor compared to others. so taking your time to cast a spell, which would increase the casting time of spells, may be a way to go

rather spells with verbal and material spell components would not be affected by armor...
maybe verbal might be affected by helmets.

i do like the idea of the targets ac and saves are increased, but i cant see the logic of it, just a rule

i do not like the idea of % failure chance of spells while wearing armor.

as far as druids and metal armor goes.. im not sure. nope nothing coems to mind on how to work them.

the idea of having a big frightning wizard in platemail, appears to show some form of intimidation and makes them scary.
not scary as rule wize, but the other.

could be the lighter the armor the easier it is to cast spells. esier to move around in such armor.

[slimykuotoan]

I think that saying that HOW you combine two of the same classes affects whether you can cast spells or not just plain silly, and is rules for rules sake, without any real justification behind it.

A wizard/rogue combo is a wizard/ rogue combo imo.

As to restricting armour for multi classes in general, I believe wizards can't wear armour because their training focuses upon study, not martial war. Multi classing means they do train with armour, so they advance their wizard studies advance more slowly.

I think 2nd Ed. d&d did a great job murdering multi classing with this ridiculous 'multi class fighters need to cast spells only in their underwear' business, which I think came from that horrible 'everything must balance' movement that hit d&d years back, and culminated in 4E.

I think if you take the XP hit to get two classes, you should get two classes. And I don't see what the big deal is anyway, because you take the XP hit.

[Captain_K]

I like to flip the multi or class and a half limits to their least restrictive option no matter the order. There is then some penalty not a restriction and it seems kind of fair.