Should future expansions allow wizards to wear armor?

[MistakeNot]

I wasn't around for early DnD so I honestly don't see why this restriction has to be enforced. If you can fight with swords while wearing plate you can cast spells, unless said spells require advanced gymnastics. In which case all those old dudes would be unsuitable for wizarding..

[Azzabat]

It's not just a D&D thing. Throughout history and literature Wizards, Shaman, Priests, whatever you want to call them have not worn armour. Old School armour actually takes a great deal of practice to be able to make, maintain and just wear, let alone fight in, so given the choice between learning to fight in plate, or learning a spell, I'm sure most Magic users would choose spell craft over armour craft.

Bearing in mind that Wizards are 'mythical' creatures, their magic is conjured up using intricate hand gestures and movements which would be hampered by armour. Also throughout history and legends, iron has been the anathema of magic, neutralising it or killing it stone dead. That's why Magic armour is rare, yet magic 'trinkets' which can be made out of non ferrous metals are more common.

Plus by not being able to wear armour, Wizards become Glass Cannons. Sort of the Heavy Artillery of the battlefield. Who wants a Wiz that can stroll round dishing out death with a glance and has an invulnerable armour save? If I did ... I'd go play 40K.   

[Iamafish]

just use a Shield spell. Instant +2 armour and 25 xp , whats not to like ?

No mage worth his staff will clunk around in all that metal when a spell will do it just as well.

[Ravendas]

It's not just a D&D thing. Throughout history and literature Wizards, Shaman, Priests, whatever you want to call them have not worn armour. Old School armour actually takes a great deal of practice to be able to make, maintain and just wear, let alone fight in, so given the choice between learning to fight in plate, or learning a spell, I'm sure most Magic users would choose spell craft over armour craft.

Bearing in mind that Wizards are 'mythical' creatures, their magic is conjured up using intricate hand gestures and movements which would be hampered by armour. Also throughout history and legends, iron has been the anathema of magic, neutralising it or killing it stone dead. That's why Magic armour is rare, yet magic 'trinkets' which can be made out of non ferrous metals are more common.

Plus by not being able to wear armour, Wizards become Glass Cannons. Sort of the Heavy Artillery of the battlefield. Who wants a Wiz that can stroll round dishing out death with a glance and has an invulnerable armour save? If I did ... I'd go play 40K.   

Yep, historically Iron was the opposite of Magic. Magic was done by fae creatures, mystical beings and whatnot that were aligned with nature. Iron represents mankind's technological advances and the taming of nature. That's why lots of RPG's include 'cold iron' vulnerabilities to fae types, and iron/armor impeding casting. It's from the old stories where even touching iron is painful to fairies and other fae creatures.

I'm perfectly fine with wizards not being able to wear armor.

[zellak]

I am also in the "no armour for wizards camp ".... they should use magic items or spells only.

[Braz]

I like the idea of wizards with armour, however with appropriate penalties: no shields, casting penalties depending on the armour, certain spells can't be cast.  Maybe a hybrid class: warrior-mage?

[Philhelm]

just use a Shield spell. Instant +2 armour and 25 xp , whats not to like ?

No mage worth his staff will clunk around in all that metal when a spell will do it just as well.

My Thaumaturge wields a mace.   

The actual mechanics of the defense bonus isn't really the point of this thread, although it would have to be considered for balancing purposes.  The main question was whether armor should ever be allowed (probably with conditions, penalties, etc.) in order to better represent archetypes from other fantasy settings.  For example, the D&D cleric is able to cast divine spells (healing, defense, buffs, limited offense, etc.) and wear armor.  Similarly, a D&D Bard can also wear armor, but can only cast mage spells if equipped with Elven chain, or other armor that explicitly allows spell casting.

I think it would definitely be too much to allow a wizard to outright wield mail armor and a shield (especially if +1 magical armor), but I could see something similar to the Bard's Elven chain being used as a magical item that explicitly allows wizards.  In fact, wizards are already able to get +2 defense from the ring and amulet of defense; one of those items could have been replaced with magical light armor that allows spell casting, with no change to the current balance.  I suppose those items could be used as a "counts as" armor, but that isn't as satisfying from a What You See Is What You Get perspective.

In my head canon, wizards rarely wear armor, but I would love to be able to fully represent a D&D style cleric by having a Thaumaturge with some sort of armor.  I think it would be possible to introduce some sort of armor without trashing the game balance, but I wouldn't want to see every wizard wearing armor, so some sort of penalties, conditions, or limitations would be necessary so that armor isn't an auto-include for a wizard.

[Philhelm]

I like the idea of wizards with armour, however with appropriate penalties: no shields, casting penalties depending on the armour, certain spells can't be cast.  Maybe a hybrid class: warrior-mage?

From the thread, it seems like the idea isn't all that popular, but it is still fun to think about.

I think that a hybrid class could work.  Perhaps you start the game with a Wizard or, say, a Warlock (I realize that a warlock is a male witch, but "Wizards and Warlocks" probably sounds better than "Wizards and Warrior Spellblade Mages.").  Or maybe you could choose between a Wizard or a Priest, but I'll stick with Warlock for now.

WARLOCK

A Warlock is similar to a Wizard, but gains his magical powers from innate ability or divine favor, as opposed to study of the craft.  As such, the Warlock is able to invest more time in martial training.

Just a rough brainstorm of ideas:

-May wear armor (maybe not a shield, and/or perhaps with a casting penalty).
-May not use a magical staff, since they are unable to tap into its power.
-May not empower spells (perhaps no miscasting either).
-Maybe empower melee attacks with magical power for, say, -2 Health per +1 Fight.
-May cast while in combat, but at a large casting penalty (-5?).
-Maximum stats as compared to the Wizard: +1 Fight, +1 Shoot, -2 Will, +2 Health, or maybe just -2 Will,+2 Health.
-Cannot learn spells from opposed school, or perhaps can only learn spells from the schools chosen during character creation.
-May not have an Apprentice (probably too harsh if the Warlock dies).
-One extra item slot.

[Ravendas]

Might need to rename that. A warlock is a male name for a witch.

Edit: That's what I get for skimming posts. \/\/

[Darkson71]

Might need to rename that. A warlock is a male name for a witch.

Yeah, I think he knows that.

a Warlock (I realize that a warlock is a male witch, but "Wizards and Warlocks" probably sounds better than "Wizards and Warrior Spellblade Mages.").  Or maybe you could choose between a Wizard or a Priest, but I'll stick with Warlock for now.

[Darkson71]

I suppose those items could be used as a "counts as" armor, but that isn't as satisfying from a What You See Is What You Get perspective.

There's nothing to stop you giving your wizard a "Ring of Protection" but calling it "Mithral Armour" or "Elven Chain" or whatever on your roster sheet if you're using an armoured model.

[Azzabat]

Might need to rename that. A warlock is a male name for a witch.

Witches, Wizards and Warlocks

All those who practice Witchcraft are called Witches regardless of their sex. Witches can be both male and female and are traditionally Good/White Witches who are part of a Coven. Witches are born with, or inherit their gift.

Warlock means "Oath Breaker" or "Liar" and is the term used for Evil/Dark witches (both male and female) who have been expelled, left, or betrayed the trust of, their Coven.

Wizard is originally from the Anglo Saxon "Wysard" which means Wise One or Lore Master and was generally not used when referring to Witches. Today it is generally used when referring to a Senior or high level Witch.

Witches, Wizards and Warlock all derive their power from Gods, Goddesses and other deities through the use of rituals, spells, incantations and summoning. A modern day Witch is called a Wiccan.

Sorcerers / Sorceressess are not born with the gift of Witchcraft but learn it thru the use of potions, powders and reagents. They generally work alone.

(Studying history can lead you to know some pretty weird thing.)    

[Philhelm]

(Studying history can lead you to know some pretty weird thing.)    

Malleus Maleficarum?

[Azzabat]

Malleus Maleficarum?

I've never read Malleus Maleficarum but i know it. It's a very important book. Basically it's instructions for finding and trying witches. It was largely responsible for the mass hysteria of Witch accusations and trials that followed. Kramer has a lot to answer for.

[Philhelm]

I've never read Malleus Maleficarum but i know it. It's a very important book. Basically it's instructions for finding and trying witches. It was largely responsible for the mass hysteria of Witch accusations and trials that followed. Kramer has a lot to answer for.

He was obviously a Soothsayer, and he alone had the awareness and will power to reveal the secrets of the vile Witch covens.  But could he wear armor?