It made sense in context. Pre-WOTC mages tended to be more flamboyant with the gestures and armour is a bit restrictive there. On the balancing side they had a few good defensive spells to offset.

I'm not bothered at all by the easy access to armor for magic-users in 5e. Mage Armor is only one low-level spell-slot away (and lasts for 8 hours), and compared to the byzantine rulings that were necessary for Battle Sorcerers and similar combination classes in 3.x I enjoy the simplicity.

Quote from: danskmacabre;805124Yes I know. And I think that being able to take a feat to cast in armor is a good thing.
I was referring to earlier editions of DnD and casters not being able to wear armor.

I'm still in favor of no armor for magic users in early TSR rule set games. That and weapons restrictions meant a whole lot more with the limited array of character abilities than it does now.

An OD&D magic user able to wear plate would be a bit overpowered. A fighting man only got 1d6+1 hit points at level 1. A magic user got 1d6. All characters used the same attack matrix from levels 1-3 so the magic user has no disadvantage starting out on hitting in combat.

If the magic user could wear plate armor there wouldn't be much reason to play the fighter. The magic user (at lower levels) would be almost as good as the fighter in combat AND would have spells to use.

Different games- different rules are needed.

I would think that if any race's wizards SHOULD get to cast in armor, it would be the Dwarves.  Of course, that is if you want to allow Dwarf Wizards at all.

Dwarf wizards, wizards in armor... My how times have changed. Is this a new development? What edition started these trends? (I only have OD&D, Basic/Expert and 1st AD&D.) Sounds like there are some gonzo combos out there.

Quote from: RPGPundit;805956Of course, that is if you want to allow Dwarf Wizards at all.

I am always confused by the animus towards Dwarf wizards.  A lot of the source material (e.g. the Volsung saga or Tolkien's "dwarves of old wove mighty spells while hammers fell like ringing bells") has dwarves as magical being and crafters.  I am not sure where the stereotype of non-magical Dwarves comes from, and it might be sensible for some settings, but I am happy to see fun options for Dwarf characters.

Quote from: Matt;805958Dwarf wizards, wizards in armor... My how times have changed. Is this a new development? What edition started these trends? (I only have OD&D, Basic/Expert and 1st AD&D.) Sounds like there are some gonzo combos out there.

Dwarf Wizards started in 3e. Wizards in armor dates back to AD&D 1e, when an Elf or Half-Elf Fighter/Magic-User could cast spells in armor... and again in 3e, when they introduced Arcane Spell Failure, a limited chance that spells would fail if the caster wore prohibited armor... that they then bent over backwards finding ways to let some casters do it anyway.

As for "gonzo"? Meh. I'd prefer to have racial lists of allowed classes than the current "any race plus any class" paradigm, but even the free-for-all is better than the old-school "every race can be Fighter, Cleric or Thief" with its very rare exceptions. Especially given Votan's comments about Dwarf Wizards, above.

I could never figure out the racial allowed class lists, unless there is some in setting reason it just seemed like a weird rule.

I mean, why exactly should a smart dwarf not be able to study arcane magic?

Earthdawn also let casters wear armor since it's first edition.* Also had a hybrid 'at-will'/memorized spell system. It works fine In fact, I've always wanted a troupe of dwarf apprentices with 'Dragon's Breath' runes inscribed on the inside of their shields (painted as various bestial faces) running around somewhere.

*(I'm currently of the opinion that ED was a reaction to AD&D 2e, and tries to pull a lot of the previous material together for inspiration.)

I personally cheered, aloud, when I read that rule. It made the reason magic in armour didn't work properly finally have some sense attached to it. And if a wizard wants some armour, cool. Find a way to get a Proficiency, and you can wear armour. Game moves on.

I've never seen how making a wizard a little harder to injure makes them unstoppable. It also means I can remove dozens of irritating "armour in a ring" items from the game.

I agree with a previous poster that, in earlier editions of D&D, this was a necessary control feature for game balance. As well, it would be very easy to introduce a mechanic for spell failure with heavier armours, making spellcasters lean to light and medium armours, if the idea of full plate wizards irritates.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;806063I could never figure out the racial allowed class lists, unless there is some in setting reason it just seemed like a weird rule.

I mean, why exactly should a smart dwarf not be able to study arcane magic?

In AD&D it just was not their nature to study arcane magic. In some settings it went as far as that they were inherintly non-magical and had no wizards (or clerics.) That changed later. First clerics were opened up.

Different settings have had different takes on it. Some jettisoned the limit totally.

5e opens wide the gates for any class to wear full plate if they want to sacrifice some feats to get it. Example my shield using warlock. Or the dwarf wizard I am DMing for currently. If he isnt in full plate allready he will be soon.

Well, in some worlds Dwarf Wizards are totally fine.  I allow them in my DCC game, for example.  

In others, there may be any number of reasons not to have them; you could say that about any race, really (I could see a world where humans are not allowed to have magic, for example).  Its just that there's a longer D&D-tradition of Dwarves not being magic-users (or, at least, not wizards).

Recall that dwarfs were originally quite limited in level even as fighters. One consideration is the usual game balance, a tradeoff for advantages such as better saves. As the original weakness of hobbits clearly suggests, though, another consideration was the 'flavor' of the mix of character types.

That originally no doubt owed something to selected literary inspiration, and one thing to bear in mind is the old distinction between codified limitations on player-characters vs. the ref's freedom simply to state by fiat what capabilities non-player figures possessed.

As time went on,  assumptions gained the weight of tradition and became in a sense definitive of the 'world' of D&D (and other games as well). Then people came along with different assumptions - green orcs, for a trivial example - and the 'official' material associated with the brand changed.

Quote from: Phillip;806548Recall that dwarfs were originally quite limited in level even as fighters. One consideration is the usual game balance, a tradeoff for advantages such as better saves.

Yeah, this was also a product of a system that originally had a built-in assumption of lower level-ranges of play.

Dwarves also used to have a hefty bonus to saving throws against spells. It sort of made sense that a race that inherently resistant to magic wasn't able to use magic.

I seem to remember some old rules that even gave dwarves problems with using magic items...even a potion or a +1 sword might not function magically in a dwarf's hands.