The PHB states
in the Red Dog Casino class entries that wizards and sorcerers do not start the game with armor proficiencies.
On page 144 it says this "if you wear armor that you lack proficiency in . . . You can't cast spells"
But p 20 for mountain dwarf states that they have proficiency in light and medium armor.
Can I run a mountain dwarf wizard with breast plate (medium armor) and not suffer any penalty to spell casting? Am I missing something?
Yes, you can.
And when this first became apparent, there were about a thousand posts on Enworld and RPGnet screaming that the whole game was broken because of it.
All I can say is that none of my players were interested in playing a dwarf wizard so I can't give you input one way or the other.
I thought the whole "Can't cast spells in armor" thing was stupid anyway.
Having a potential to be able to wear armor and cast spells makes things interesting.
There's always a trade off anyway, whatever gains you can get.
Armor isn't the be all and end all.
I don't see that as broken. Just interesting. I also noticed that high elfregardless of class does not have any armor restrictions to cast that cantrip.
Mage armor gives you 13 AC + unlimited Dex bonus for 8 hours w/o concentration. Combine that with long rests and you'll be covered a lot. Especially since magic armor seems to be more rare by default.
Quote from: Saplatt;804985Yes, you can.
And when this first became apparent, there were about a thousand posts on Enworld and RPGnet screaming that the whole game was broken because of it.
All I can say is that none of my players were interested in playing a dwarf wizard so I can't give you input one way or the other.
yep. Much rage ensued. And when actual play happened and it was no big deal? People moved on. Mostly to complain about legendary resistance
You know I am quite happy that normal equipment now plays a higher note than magical items. I love the fact I can complete a adventure with normal weapons and armor even at high level. At 3rd, 4th, and Pathfinder it would be laughable to bring in a mastery crafted sword into a battle pass level 5.
im the opposite i think the toning down of magic items is one of the worst aspects of 5e (not the worst though that honer goes to clerics now being chosen by there gods instead of just any person who trains for it thats the favoured souls job (which to be fair i never liked so im biased)
And with one feat taken you could have a dwarven wizard in full plate. Except you'd have given up all the standard optimization stuff to get there. Or take three feats from any other race I can think of to do the same.
I have a mountain dwarf warlock in my campaign. He can wear medium armor and cast spells, and wields a war hammer.
He isn't breaking anything or overshadowing the other players. Most of the group is level 4 now and I don't see any problems from this arising in the future.
Quote from: MrHurst;805037And with one feat taken you could have a dwarven wizard in full plate. Except you'd have given up all the standard optimization stuff to get there. Or take three feats from any other race I can think of to do the same.
I quite like the idea of a dwarven wizard in full plate - probably a Transmuter, with the Guild Artisan: Alchemist background. It would be quite fun.
He'd have no beard or eyebrows, and a penchant for blowing things up. When asked why he wears so much armour, his response would be "potion miscibility" or "blowback" or "exothermic reactions" or something similar.
Spellcasters wearing armor doesn't bother me. My friends and I have been running combats in 5th to see how it is. I've been using a warlock that I've been toying with the idea of multiclassing to get an armor proficiency.
The group I am DMing for has a dwarven wizard and hes up to plate now I believe without dragging out the notes. If he is not, he will be eventually I suspect if he opts to blow a feat on upgrading his armour range.
As for myself. My current warlock with shield is sticking to medium armour and I do not have any plans to upgrade further as it does not fit how I envisioned the character going.
Quote from: MrHurst;805037And with one feat taken you could have a dwarven wizard in full plate. Except you'd have given up all the standard optimization stuff to get there. Or take three feats from any other race I can think of to do the same.
Yeah there are all sorts of possible combinations anything from multiclassing into one of the martial classes for a level or two to just going with an Eldritch Knight or Bard with a feat to the obvious (Mountain Dwarf) or even get elven chain somehow.
Either way it's appropriate for a Mountain Dwarf to be able to cast spells in heavy armor. Also with the way they have split the paladin into three awesome subclasses you can't go wrong there either. It might be interesting to mix a paladin with a warlock or sorcerer if you don't mind that it won't be all that optimal.
Quote from: danskmacabre;804987I thought the whole "Can't cast spells in armor" thing was stupid anyway.
Its "can't cast spells in armour
that the caster is not proficient in". Any Wizard PC can take a feat to be able to wear armour whilst casting spells.
Quote from: Skywalker;805103Its "can't cast spells in armour that the caster is not proficient in". Any Wizard PC can take a feat to be able to wear armour whilst casting spells.
Yes 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.
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.
Yeah, there's something to be said for a strongly anti-magical PC race.