Wizards can wear armor.

[Treebore]

4E is apparently going to allow wizards to wear armor with no penalties to spell casting.

I personally have no problem with this, with regards to light armors.

My problem with it is when wizards get to AC's above 24 at higher levels (about 10th level). That is when they become high fire power tanks because they actually have an good chance of being missed.

So I was thinking that restricting them to light armors only, and no higher than +3 enchantments, or 5 enchantments in total. The "logic" behind that would be that the high concentration of magic in their armor obstructs their ability to tap into "magic".

That way it really gets no worse than wizards with bracers and other items of protection adding to their AC. Especially since I don't allow normal armor types to add/stack with bracers and rings, etc...

So how many of you allow for wizards to wear armor, and what have been your rules for it?
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[James Maliszewski]

If I had a player who wanted his illusionist or wizard to wear armor heavier than robes and the like, I'd allow it. However, I'd require that he make an attribute check (perhaps Constitution?) for every spell he cast while wearing heavier armor. The challenge base would be 18 (maybe even if Constitution was one of his Primes?), because wearing heavy armor while casting isn't typically a skill taught to apprentice arcane spellcasters and so they'd have no experience with it. I'd modify the challenge base by 1 per level of the spell cast and probably by some amount derived from the category of the armor worn, with the heaviest armors adding a hefty amount to the final challenge class. If he could succeed at that check, great. If not, the spell fails and he loses it until re-memorized.

My attitude is to let players try almost anything if they want to, but to make it difficult to succeed when they try and move beyond their class's archetypal abilities. In general, they quickly learn it's not worth the effort to try and have their cake and eat it too.

[Julian Grimm]

I've been using the light armor idea for awhile with no ill effects. As a disclaimer I don't have a PC under me that is over 5th level either. I also have opened up the weapon list as well to include most weapons given to them in 3e. My main reasoning is if you look at fantasy literature outside of gaming related fiction you'll see that the 'Traditional' wizard as described in game terms is very rarely represented. And in legend there were wizards that did wear armor as well.

In the end I look at it like this: Gandalf left Rivendell equipped with Glamdrig, which was a sword.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[gideon_thorne]

As far as mages go, id let them expend the experience points to buy a spell like Mage Armour as a permanent ability. As per the method in the M&T under magic item creation, its costly. But one can have a lot of fun with the 'effect' of the spell.

The reaction of the opposition to a mage could be priceless as, poised to attack the adversaries see the mage suddenly snap his arms together and 'magical' armour flows over his form.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[serleran]

Yep, I'm all for the "pay for it" thing. Nothing comes "just because."

[Matthew]

I have experimented with giving everybody the same 'to hit' progression, but I never really saw the need with armour, as the Armour spell always seemed sufficient to me.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[slimykuotoan]

If it's used, I make sure it penalizes spellcasting.

[Omote]

In my C&C games we use a proficiency system so If an arcane spell caster is proficient with armor, and casts a spell while wearing armor, he must first make an INT check with a CL equal to the AC bonus. Additionally, increase the CL by an additional +1 if any helm is worn. If a shield is carried, the CL for this check is likewise increased by the AC bonus of the shield.

If an arcane spell caster is not proficient with armor, helms or shields, he cannot successfully cast spells while wearing any of this equipment. In this case, each time he attempts to cast a spell while wearing armor, helm or shield, and is not proficient with it the spell automatically fails and is wasted.

This has worked well for our games.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[CharlieRock]

We've been handing over the Rings of Protection +X and stuff to the spellcasters for so long ...

I know I'd want a new loot system. That's for sure.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Breakdaddy]

I wouldn't bother penalizing a Wizard player for wearing light armor while casting. Anything more would incur penalties. I might start at the armor's AC bonus as the CL for the Dexterity check I will have them make to successfully cast in that armor.

[Turanil]

All classes are allowed a certain number of weapons and armors (where fighters get all of them and wizard very few of them). However, when it comes to weapons, a character can still use a weapon his class doesn't get, albeit with a penalty to hit and damage. I would do the same with armors: one can wear any armor he wants, but if his class doesn't get it, it will be at a penalty. I would do: Half (rounded up) the AC bonus provided by the armor is a penalty to skill/ability checks, movement, (and also maybe to-hit-dmg rolls), plus a need to make a Dex check (at CL = that penalty value) for effectively casting a spell.
_________________
Homebrews Wiki a list of campaign settings on the web.

[Jonathan of White Haven]

Treebore wrote:
4E is apparently going to allow wizards to wear armor with no penalties to spell casting.

Good Bog, didn't they bollix up 3rd Edition enough?

Quote:
I personally have no problem with this, with regards to light armors.

My problem with it is when wizards get to AC's above 24 at higher levels (about 10th level). That is when they become high fire power tanks because they actually have an good chance of being missed.

So I was thinking that restricting them to light armors only, and no higher than +3 enchantments, or 5 enchantments in total. The "logic" behind that would be that the high concentration of magic in their armor obstructs their ability to tap into "magic".

This is beginning to look interesting and do-able.

Quote:
That way it really gets no worse than wizards with bracers and other items of protection adding to their AC. Especially since I don't allow normal armor types to add/stack with bracers and rings, etc...

Hear, hear! On those rare occasions when I've GMed, bracers, amulets, cloaks, and rings that gave bumps to AC were never allowed to stack with physical armor, though any ST bumps they had were still allowed.

Quote:
So how many of you allow for wizards to wear armor, and what have been your rules for it?

Ah, therein lies the rub. I'm working up a part-time, every-once-in-awhile campaign (so my regular CK can take a break and actually play.) I've shown around my proposed house rules (freely plagiarized from various sources), which include multi-class and dual-class PCs.

One of my possible players has already groused about the "best weapon/worst armor" rule for MC and DC characters, as well as the proposed dictum that arcane spellcasters, including MC and DC characters, may never wear physical armor.

("Best weapon/worst armor", for my proposed campaign, allows a multi-class FTR/ROG, for example, to use any weapon, but limits her to no better than Leather Armor, unless she's willing to suffer a negative modifier when performing ROG skills while wearing heavier armor.)

I'm not terribly worried about losing that particular player, but since our group has usually allowed MC and DC arcane spellcasters to wear armor (with no penalties, I might add--I regularly play a WIZ/CLE that wears +3 Leather Armor), I'm open to allowing some kind of compromise so long as it doesn't unbalance the campaign unduly.

What you suggested does seem to be reasonable, and I'm going to consider using it.

Where do you draw the line in determining what "light" armor is? Leather or Padded? And where might Elven Chain fit in?

Thanks!
_________________
"You don't understand, Beaufingle", said Lungwort cryptically. "You ARE dinner." -- M.M. Moamrath

[Treebore]

The armors are already categorized as light, medium, and heavy. I believe a chain shirt is the "heaviest" of the light armors.

Hmmm, after looking at the PH I realize they aren't categorized. I guess I would limit it to 20 pounds. Mithril can get chain shirts and other types under that weight, since one of the things mithril does, in my games, is cut the armors weight in half of what it typically is. So Mithril banded plate would be the best physical armor they can hope for, which is +5. With the max +3 enchantment bonus it would max out at +8, equal to Full plate.

Yeah, I think that would be acceptable.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[CharlieRock]

If your using the weapon mastery rules from becmi d&d then you could allow the players to spend a "slot" of weapon training for armor training.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Stuie]

They should let fighters cast spells, too. And pick locks.

Better yet, why have classes at all? Just have a bunch of sub-sub-races that have unique stuff. And start everyone at level 20 cause those first 19 levels suck. Or just do away with levels - everyone starts out as a god.

DM: You're a god. What do you want to do?

Player: Uh... kill things?

DM: Roll some dice.

(Player rolls some dice)

DM: Ok, "things" are dead. You totally killed them dude.

Player: We paid $100 for the core books just to do that? I can't wait for the 4E Stuff to do When You're a freakin' GOD book comes out.[/i]
_________________
Laudir Agus Mir

[serleran]

Some people don't like the archetypes. One reason I broke the class progressions down... to better create the exact PC my players wanted. Of course, I don't care one way or the other, but if someone asks me "can I play a guy who can fight, wear some armor, and hurl a few spells..." I'll say "sure, but let's look at what that's gonna cost you.... and, are you sure, now that you've seen the way it works?" Most times they say "umm, I think I'll just play a fighter, then, and hope to get something that lets me cast a little like some wands or rings or something."

[Nelzie]

I only allow wizards/illusionists to wear Leather Coats and Padded Armor.

Once they start gaining some levels, things start to rapidly change, they obtain magical items, spell scrolls, wands and such.

Plus, they still have the support of all of their companions.
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[CharlieRock]

Stuie wrote:
They should let fighters cast spells, too. And pick locks.

Well, I think AD&D allowed fighters to use defensive wands. If they could ever find one before the MUs did.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Tadhg]

Nelzie wrote:
I only allow wizards/illusionists to wear Leather Coats and Padded Armor.

Once they start gaining some levels, things start to rapidly change, they obtain magical items, spell scrolls, wands and such.

Plus, they still have the support of all of their companions.

I allow those armors as well and agree with your assessment of magic helping them protect themselves better as they progress.
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[Nelzie]

Rhuvein wrote:
I allow those armors as well and agree with your assessment of magic helping them protect themselves better as they progress.

Realistically, at the lowest of levels, this often translates into an AC of 11 to 14 (dependent upon Dex), which just makes a Wizard/Illusionist slightly less likely to be hit prior to obtaining "proper" magical defenses.
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[Jonathan of White Haven]

CharlieRock wrote:
Well, I think AD&D allowed fighters to use defensive wands. If they could ever find one before the MUs did.

I believe the only "wand" that 1E AD&D allowed fighters to use was the "Wand of Wonder".

Most of us would groan whenever a character would pull one of those out and activate it...
_________________
"You don't understand, Beaufingle", said Lungwort cryptically. "You ARE dinner." -- M.M. Moamrath

[CharlieRock]

Jonathan of White Haven wrote:
I believe the only "wand" that 1E AD&D allowed fighters to use was the "Wand of Wonder".

Most of us would groan whenever a character would pull one of those out and activate it...

Your right. It was "protection" scrolls (that's the way the book has it, with the quotation marks over protection like that) that fighters can use. It also says a few wands and one rod. But, you know what? I don't even remember anybody trying to have a fighter use anything like that in AD&D. I bet the fighters that tried were teased and called names by the other fighters.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[ChaosImp]

I remember that fighters were also allowed to use a wand of magic missiles but had to make a roll to hit and only one missile would fire instead of two if a mage used it. ( 1st ed AD&D).

IMP

[Fizz]

I use a spellcasting check system, so allowing armor is no big deal for me. It just applies a penalty to the spellcasting check, in the same way armor applies a penalty to thief skills.

-Fizz

[CharlieRock]

ChaosImp wrote:
I remember that fighters were also allowed to use a wand of magic missiles but had to make a roll to hit and only one missile would fire instead of two if a mage used it. ( 1st ed AD&D).

IMP

If I was a MU in a game where the fighter was using a wand of magic missles (and thus cutting the effectiveness in half) I would have to explain that it would do twice as much damage in my hands and he was wasting the charges.

Either that or I would charge up to melee something and if he noticed I'd go "what, you took my job there".
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Jonathan of White Haven]

CharlieRock wrote:
Your right. It was "protection" scrolls (that's the way the book has it, with the quotation marks over protection like that) that fighters can use. It also says a few wands and one rod. But, you know what? I don't even remember anybody trying to have a fighter use anything like that in AD&D. I bet the fighters that tried were teased and called names by the other fighters.

It seems that I misspoke. Just pulled out the hoary old 1E DMG (mine--I did manage to stumble across that one during my previous search for my AD&D materials; 1st edition, BTW), and found quite a number of "any class" rods and wands:

Rod of Cancellation

Rod of Rulership

Wand of Enemy Detection

Wand of Illumination

Wand of Magic Detection

Wand of Metal & Mineral Detection

Wand of Magic Missiles

Wand of Negation

Wand of Secrect Door & Trap Location

Wand of Wonder

The Unearthed Arcana added a spewload of other "any class" rods, staves, and wands. Blech.

As for Protection scrolls, any class could use them, so long as they were literate enough to be able to read.
_________________
"You don't understand, Beaufingle", said Lungwort cryptically. "You ARE dinner." -- M.M. Moamrath

[Jonathan of White Haven]

ChaosImp wrote:
I remember that fighters were also allowed to use a wand of magic missiles but had to make a roll to hit and only one missile would fire instead of two if a mage used it. ( 1st ed AD&D).

According to the 1E DMG, anyone other than an MU using a Wand of Magic Missiles had to roll "to hit" with the missile(s). It did not state that non-MU PCs only got one missile per charge, though.
_________________
"You don't understand, Beaufingle", said Lungwort cryptically. "You ARE dinner." -- M.M. Moamrath

[CharlieRock]

Jonathan of White Haven wrote:
According to the 1E DMG, anyone other than an MU using a Wand of Magic Missiles had to roll "to hit" with the missile(s). It did not state that non-MU PCs only got one missile per charge, though.

Still, unless the circumstances were dire why not let the bookworm use that kind of weapon. Those things only did like, what, 1d4 damage?

I bet it would be less work to make a becmi elf-type character class then a stack of houserules for who can lay their hands on what. Convert it straight over with no changes. I bet that would fit ... untill 12th level or whenever elves capd (but then we got those alphabetic levels they can advance on after that).
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Nelzie]

CharlieRock wrote:
Still, unless the circumstances were dire why not let the bookworm use that kind of weapon. Those things only did like, what, 1d4 damage?

I bet it would be less work to make a becmi elf-type character class then a stack of houserules for who can lay their hands on what. Convert it straight over with no changes. I bet that would fit ... untill 12th level or whenever elves capd (but then we got those alphabetic levels they can advance on after that).

Check out my website...
www.nelzie.net

Look under classes and take a gander at the Elven Arcane Blade, it is essentially the Elf Class, with a few tweaks, such as accessing spells one level later than a standard wizard/illusionist. It has ended up fairly well balanced in the party as well.
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[CharlieRock]

Thanks. I bookmarked it to show some of the other players and our CK.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!