Okay, back in the day a wizard couldn't use very many weapons and couldn't wear armor. The armor thing was because it was too restrictive. Enough people pointed out the fallacy with this and so it became "the metal interferes with the magic". Someone pointed out that many metals are used as spell components, and many spells require metal tools such as cauldrons and braziers. Okay, so then it became "Well, a magic-user has to spend so much time studying that they don't have time to study such things as proper armor wearing and sword play.
It was hard to argue with that.
Now, I'm not too familiar with all of the nuances of 3e (I know a wizard can burn a Feat choice on armor and such), and I won't even go into 4e, but in 5e, the wizard is still considered to have spent his youth and early adulthood perfecting the magic craft so he could cast his spells right. Ergo, he still has no time to practice armor and swords. However, the Ranger, who must spend time surviving off the land, gets spells right off the bat and can wear studded leather armor without having to take an option for it. Similarly, the Druid should also be concerned with survival, but since he's more about living in harmony with nature as opposed to hunting it down and eating it, we can assume the nature spirits just like him and feed him the spells. While you could probably stretch a little and dismiss the Ranger in the same manner, what about the Fighter and Rogue, who, in the flash of time it takes to advance from level 2 to level 3, have mastered what it's taken a wizard, sorceror, or warlock his whole life to master? (Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster).
You can't dismiss this as "dabbling", as some like to do, because the very act of casting a single first level magic spell apparently takes a minimum of 18 years. Does 18 years pass between Ftr 2 and Ftr3 or Rog2 and Rog3? To me, "dabbling" should only get them one or two cantrips at best. The mastery of a full-on spell should require a lot more downtime between levels (a couple of decades or thereabouts), otherise the whole "The wizard has to study and study and study and study and study etc., so he doesn't have time to even figure out which end of a sword to hold onto or what part of the anatomy a codpiece covers. ("Um, does this go on the nose or something?")
Soooo, now how are they justifying that a wizard doesn't have time to learn the basics of swordplay, but a Fighter or Rogue can suddenly do what it's taken the wizard a lifetime to learn? 
Because you think Bigby's Pimp Hand cantrip is waaay cooler than some dumb sword.
Bigby's Pimp Hand
Ranged attack against a target within 30 feet.
Does 1d6 bludgeoning damage (rising to 2d6, 3d6, and eventually 4d6), and compels the target to give you money.
DrunkenMage wrote:
That's one reason I don't allow multiclassing because in past editions the starting age for wizards was in there mid 30s and they started training young.
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Technically, a Mountain Dwarf can be a Wizard (And still use Heavy Armor), yet in most Sword & Sorcery, Dwarves have almost no aptitude for the Weave other than endowing magic into weapons. It's called Change in the Forgotten Realms.
Same way they explained moving from 1e to 2e, Time of Troubles. 3.x to 4e, SpellPlague. 4e to 5e, Sundering.
)Ok is your issue that mages can't wear armor (which they can if they invest in learning) or that they don't start with armor or what? Because I don't see what your beef is here. Different classes have different wepaon and armor proficiency.
The answer is simple - arcane tricksters and eldritch knights don't "suddenly" learn to cast spells in the space of one level, but are assumed to have been practicing for however long and just now actually beginning to perfect their magical abilities to the point of casting 1st level spells well enough to consider them a useable class feature...
(In a class-based system with character levels, there's just not any particularly good way to model this without it getting hopelessly complicated)
Their limited amount of magical training and time spent studying magic only provides them an equally limited amount of magical ability - less spells known, less cast per day and/or much smaller spell lists. This also explains the ranger, as they have only been trained to use a limited number of spells that are useful to them as rangers.
Plus, the wizard's "lifelong training" includes not only their ability to cast spells, but also...
1) Their ability to learn more spells, learn higher level] spells, and to cast more per day than the other partial-casting class/archetypes or folks who multi-classed into wizard for a few levels
2) all their other class features
3) the skills they have available on their class list
It's not that the wizard's ability to cast spells somehow prevented him from learning to wear armor, he just chose to spend the time that others took learning to wear armor and fight with weapons studying the advanced techniques that make him a wizard rather than some other class.
Most wizards think that spells are cool and armour is just for grunts. Except for a few wizards who have issues. This works for me.
MechaPilot wrote:
Here's something to think about: Armor Feats. A 1st level human mage can grab a feat in armor. He levels up and BAM does it again. Where's the time need spent in that? At some point you can forgive the lack of a story that makes sense or just make some shiznit up. Why not make a troop of Mages in your world who are all 1st level humans with armor? The Cast in Armor rule in the PHB on page 201 says, "Because of the mental focus and precise gestures required for spellcasting, you must be proficient with the armor you are wearing to cast a spell. You are otherwise too distracted and physically hampered by your armor for spellcasting." So even in that description it has nothing to do with "years spent" doing A instead of B. To me, this is sufficient.
So you want your wizard to wear armour and wield a sword. Hey add 6 months to his age and say he spent sometime studying in the temple light......now he can cast cure wounds as well
Class system. Class roles and sort of balance
If a fighter or rogue go into a subclass that gets spells, it's because they were training toward that for 18 years previously.
Yes, the player may have decided only yesterday to go into that subclass. But their choice retroactively determines the characters training for the fictional 18 years.
If you need the players to say what subclass they will go into at char gen so that 18 years seems utterly dedicated to learning some spells as well, then you could propose to your players that's a requirement if they want you to GM.
/topic
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
I expect the reason why you can't cast spells is because just having disadvantage on dice would mean much less for casters than, say, rogues. A rogue who can't attack quite right is going to have a devil of a time in combat, but a caster can just take Sacred Flames or Poison Spray, and they don't care about disadvantage at all.
Seems like just giving a -5 penalty to their spell save DC would be roughly equivalent (or give advantage to the enemy's save), then you wouldn't have to disallow casting altogether.
Sands666 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
DrunkenMage wrote:
No. That's not right at all. Multiclassing into fighter does not grant heavy armor proficiency. Nor any "fighter" style skill proficiencies.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Multiclassing into FIghter gives you LIght Armour, Medium Armour, Shields, Simple Weapons, and Martial Weapons.
BoldItalic wrote:
Sands666 wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
I prefer to look first at how the rules fit into the game world/story. It's immersion.
You may believe your wizard should wear armor but would your character in that world really feel the same? It's the same idea as to why druids don't wear metal armor. It's a part of who they are and maybe a little bit of religion. See Dragonlance for some real flavor to the classes. True wizards devoted their life and soul to the Art, and by tradition didn't carry weapons. It was an affront to the gods of magic who taught mortals the words and gestures to manipulate creation itself to then eschew the Gift in favor of a mundane blade, or to garb one's self in man-made armors rather than magic. Dabblers who were content with apprentice spells could do such, but those who wanted more had to give more.
Clerics who multi-classed could never advance in the old class because they were expected to devote themselves to the service of their deity day in and out, being a conduit of power. Want to be a follower, fine. Want to carry the power of the gods? You'd best be all-in. Other classes traditionally saw magic as a negative, providing a natural disincentive to "dip" classes. Yes, mechanically we as players seek advantage to create ultimate killing machines, but thematically, our characters do things because they grow up in a world that shapes them.
So does it make sense? If we're playing the game with an immersion-first attitude we'll only take those steps if it makes sense in the game world, and we'll do our best to work with the DM and other players in making it fit the theme and setting. Maybe for "multiclass" one is an elf who has trained in magic like he's required to do but has spent his early life in the militia. Only later does he begin to study under that elite group of elves who form the feared warrior-wizards, a secretive practice that the elves have tried to keep among themselves but whose knowledge has somehow leaked into another setting.
Apparently my 2e 120 year old elven fighter / mage in elven chain can cast spells without restriction.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Another "I imagine it working one way, so the way the D&D designers imagined it working is imagining it wrong" thread?
Noon wrote:
I would think if you're not trained to do something, you may not do it well. If you're not trained to wear armor and cast spells, while an Orc is trying to hack your head off with a greataxe, you may not perform well and may not perform precisely as needed to wield magic.The somatic movements are imprecise, the concentration not complete and focused. You can take that time to train to perform under pressure, by training to be a fighter, or taking a feat, and thus, there really isn't an old school outright prohibition. I happen to like the mechanical balance, but not absolutely verboten, 5e take on armor and arcane magic.
Gwaithador wrote:
Still, it does not explain why you can't cast spells that lack a somatic component...
A plausible - though by no means definitive - reason:
Regardless of whether you are making gestures or not, armour is uncomfortable and irritating if you aren't used to it. If you don't have long practice in blocking out the discomfort - which is one of the things "proficiency" encompasses - it distracts your mind just enough that you can't achieve whatever zen-mindset is required to cast a spell.
transcendantviewer wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Noon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Why doesn't Tony Stark just build armor for his buddy Captain america. Why doesn't Batman use all the weapons of the enemies he defeats. That's the reason Wizards aren't allowed to wear armor. It's why Thieves don't use shields. It's a RP thematic limitation.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
CCS wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
My god comic books have changed alot since I was a teen. Are you guys telling me that Captain America and Spiderman now wear armor created by Tony Stark?
CCS wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
CCS wrote:
It depends how you want magic to work in your campaign. Many people are accustomed to no armor for wizards, but you could always change that.
DrunkenMage wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
DrunkenMage wrote:
I see it the other way around. Just because you learn how to fire a rifle doesn't mean you can learn, say, brain surgery easier because of it. In fact, I think it would be easier for a brain surgeon to learn how to fire a rifle with good accuracy than for a champion shooter to learn even the basics of brain surgery. The memorization of formulae, including what components are used, how they are used, what words to use and the way to say them, etc., seems to me that those would be significantly more difficult than many combat skills.
If magic was that easy to learn after mastering another set of skills, anybody with a skilled profession would have access to spellcasting abilities. What tailor, for example, wouldn't take advantage of that? A little spell here and there to help sewing tunics and gowns or to change them to the perfect color for a client, etc. What butcher wouldn't use magic to enhance the flavor of the meat? These people have skills that they have had to master, so why wouldn't they grab a little magic (even less than the eldritch knight or arcane trickster gets) to boost sales? Granting it so easily, in my opinion, cheapens magic. The very fact that a person can cast magic should have more of a "wow factor".
Since it is my game, I don't allow the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster unless there's a good story to go along with it. Fantasy magic is not parlor magic that you pick up by purchasing a magic kit at a store. However, my game does have a culture where the people are expected to learn a little physical prowess, a little intellectual prowess, and a little artistic talent. Which one they develop the strongest is up to the player. While this is one route to take in my game, I'm open to others. It's on a case-by-case basis, though.
is "I've been studying magic, but I'm only now just confident enough to use it in life or death situations" a good enough story to allow me to play an eldritch knight?
arnwolf666 wrote:
RE: the example of multi-classing: In 5e, if multi-classing is being used, you do not get all the same perks for taking the first level of a new class as you would have for taking it as your first level. That, presumably, explains the different time spent 'learning' the class.
Greenstone.Walker wrote: