Any Clever Ideas for Wizards in Armor?

Gunslinger · August 28, 2007, 04:24:35 PM

Make their magical abilities tied to the armor. The limitation is that once the spell is etched on the armor, it's permenately holds the spell slot at that level. A spellcraft check would allow opposing spellcasters to know what spells are in your inventory. They could use that information to tailor fit their memorized spells to counter the armored wizard while the armored wizard is stuck with the spells on their armor. I use this idea for my RC campaign where I turned elfs into a human class called the Symbaal.

Thanatos02 · August 28, 2007, 07:07:23 PM

Quote from: One Horse TownWell, perhaps the easiest way to do it would be to have wearing armour affect the wizards caster level. Each point of AC of the armour worn lowers his caster level by 1 when he casts spells. This means that he can still cast spells, but their effectiveness is reduced and only the more powerful can actually swallow the penalty of heavy armour (although their spells will be less effective). A 9th level wizard in plate is a 1st level caster for spell effects. Ooh, a 1d6 fireball, a single magic missile, haste for 1 round 1st level for overcoming magic resistance.

That might be a bit more harsh than you want, but requires no extra rolls or book-keeping.

You can do that, or, if you're not looking to be quite as harsh, simply make the penalty based on spell failure where each 5% is -1 spell level. Or do the same with armor check penalty. That way, less encumbering armor isn't as bad for your wizard. It makes more sense to me, that way, anyhow.

Blackleaf · August 28, 2007, 07:24:15 PM

Here's the simplest way of dealing with Wizards in armour, and it's very old school by-the-books.

They can wear any armour they like, and use any weapons they like.

But...

They don't get anymore AC bonus or use any greater dice to roll damage than they would for what's normally available to their class. Stumbling about in platemail in combat, more protected but equally more likely to be hit... ineffective lurching swings with a two-handed sword for 1d4 damage. Lower base movement rate too...

Given the choice, most Wizards will choose to have no armour and carry a dagger -- although it's nice to give them the option of swinging a sword around like Gandalf.

J Arcane · August 28, 2007, 07:37:45 PM

Yanno, there's feats to nullify the spell failure from armor, and even an entire class built around it . . .

Thanatos02 · August 29, 2007, 02:58:17 PM

Quote from: J ArcaneYanno, there's feats to nullify the spell failure from armor, and even an entire class built around it . . .

That's not really the point, though.

J Arcane · August 29, 2007, 03:05:03 PM

Quote from: Thanatos02That's not really the point, though.

OK, I'm just saying, there's already tools to get around the wizards in armor problem. And even without them, a simple feat chain that follows the light/medium/heavy disctinctions and lets you shake of spell failure from each is a fairly obvious plug-in to me. Maybe make them applicable as wizard bonus feats.

If you want to make it easier, you could simply house rule that for casters, taking profienciency with a given category of armor also allows you to ignore spell failure from that category.

Me, I always just play clerics if I wanna play an armored caster . . .

Thanatos02 · August 29, 2007, 04:56:36 PM

I've seen scads of materials designed to knock penalties off spellcasting in armor. I played in one game where it was called 'thaumiam' and another, I designed, and called it orichalcum (which acted as if it were brass, otherwise).

Playing a Fighter/Wizard in the first, the penalty was small enough that I just ate the 5% and cast in armor. It never did go ill for me, but it came close from time to time.

EDIT: changing the % failure to a flat penalty to caster level might actually hurt multiclass casters even more, in D&D, simply because they're already working at a negative.

LeSquide · August 29, 2007, 05:07:45 PM

Quote from: Thanatos02I've seen scads of materials designed to knock penalties off spellcasting in armor. I played in one game where it was called 'thaumiam' and another, I designed, and called it orichalcum (which acted as if it were brass, otherwise).

Playing a Fighter/Wizard in the first, the penalty was small enough that I just ate the 5% and cast in armor. It never did go ill for me, but it came close from time to time.

EDIT: changing the % failure to a flat penalty to caster level might actually hurt multiclass casters even more, in D&D, simply because they're already working at a negative.

Being a big fan of the Myth series, I've always had no conceptual problem with armored spellslingers. That being said;
I think a reduction in their spell power (IE, save DC) can work well, especially for fix that doesn't require any extra rolling. I also remember one GM who just made critical failures worse, as magical energy that got bound up in the armor suddenly broke free...

dar · August 29, 2007, 11:31:48 PM

If spell casting is a skill or skills, then armor penalties to skills affect the casting of spells.

Allowing a caster to 'boost' the energy, or some other component at some kind of expense, can be done to avoid or counter the penalty.

And spell failure, essentially a failure in the skill, is always a threat with some interesting potential side affects.

Sacrificial Lamb · August 30, 2007, 12:14:58 PM

You could just give armored magi a penalty to their spellcasting check (if it's a skill). If rolling a d20 (for example), leather armor provides a -3 skill penalty (to spellcasting), chain is -6, and plate is -9 to the roll. If that seems too much, you can lower it a bit.

If you have light armor proficiency, your skill penalty is reduced by 2, medium armor proficiency = reduced by 4, heavy armor proficiency = reduced by 6. And maybe you could have an armored casting feat that reduces that spellcasting skill penalty by 3.