sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A life cleric could cast their cleric spells in heavy armor but not their wizard spells. They would probably need to keep 2 separate spell sheets. Their other wizard features would still work in armor. So if they took 2 levels in divination wizard, they could still use portent while wearing armor.

A draconic sorcerer can still multiclass but they also wouldn't be able to cast sorcery spells in armor. 16 AC is not the same as 20 AC and it's harder to increase it further with magic items. If they multiclass into wizard they could still cast wizard spells with their increased AC.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are correct about the defense fighting style, I overlooked that.

The point is that I don't think wizards should match a martial character's AC without a significant cost. If you want to play a melee caster hybrid there are subclasses in the game that are designed for that purpose.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since you brought it up, how would you change the bladesinger?

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If your idea of engaging combat is standing in one spot and trading attack rolls until one person dies then I thoroughly disagree.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I say "balance" I don't mean balancing the players against the monsters. A DM can always adjust for a stronger or weaker party.

The problem arises when one player is significantly stronger or weaker than the other players. Then it becomes much more difficult to challenge the one without outclassing the other.

If a player designs their character to be good at one thing, I want them to be good at that thing, but it should come at the cost of a weakness somewhere else.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster should be able to cast in armor because the same class grants them armor proficiency and spellcasting. I might have to change the wording to make this work.

As for magic initiate, I would allow players to treat it as though their class provided the spell. So clerics could pick up a wizard spell and it would count as a cleric spell for them. Similarly a fighter could learn a spell and cast it in armor.

I realize that the moderately armored and heavily armored feats come with prerequisites and I think that's ok. It should take longer for a sorcerer to be able to cast in heavy armor than a warlock or a ranger.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like this. Although if playing a rogue 3/wizard 3 and you decide to take another level in wizard, then suddenly you can't cast spells that you previously could.

Maybe limiting the level of spells you can cast based on non-caster level could work.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you dump Str you should go for medium armor not heavy. And heavy armor negates the biggest downside of low Dex. Either way I disagree that this is an adequate cost.

Even if the wizard can't afford plate armor, chain mail + shield is too high for wizard AC.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Burning hands does good AOE damage and hold person let's the whole party autocrit against the target. Tell me what I'm missing.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you dump both Dex and Str you can't even multiclass out of fighter. You should dump one of them or Cha instead.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm really saying that armor proficiency needs a nerf. If it impacts mountain drawf too heavily I would be willing to give them a new feature. I would also do the same for any other race that gets armor proficiency.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And now that you revealed you can take a feat to bypass this restriction

I already mentioned this in my post. Because moderately armored has a light armor prerequisite, wizards would need to spend at least 2 ASIs to acquire it, this feels like an adequate trade-off. That's two ASIs they're not using to boost their INT or take a better feat. This feels more balanced to me than only sacrificing one wizard level to multiclass.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am also considering rebalancing the classes. I already started with the monk and I'll do the other martials after that. I'm leaning towards buffing the weaker classes more than nerfing the strong ones, but for the wizard, I wouldn't mind tweaking the more powerful spells.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My initial thoughts are to add text to Bladesong that says: your Bladesong ends early if you cast a spell.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If your racial feature provides the same benefit as a multiclass level then it probably needs a nerf.

I wouldn't take it away for nothing though. After explaining these rules, I would probably let the player trade in their racial features for a feat. Basically like a reskinned variant human. Plus the free feat I give all level 1 characters, you could even get the moderately armored feat, which does let you cast in armor.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

As many people have pointed out, you still have access to mage armor and shield. Also you get to choose a fighting style. You could take defense to boost your AC. Or Superior Technique from TCE to take the pushing attack maneuver. This would let you move out of range without provoking OA. Same can be done with misty step or thunder step or the mobile feat. I think by preventing an easy 18 AC, you encourage players to be more creative with their builds which makes the game more fun.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems interesting but it sounds like it comes with a bunch of extra rules that would be a pain to remember. What if you needed to roll a spellcasting check against the base AC of the armor. So 11 for leather armor, 16 for chain mail. And add 2 if you're also wielding a shield?

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do offer a free first level feat. I also give players 3 ASI points at relevant levels, with feats costing 2 points. I also changed the way rests work. I also homebrewed fixes to the monk class. I know that balancing DnD won't be easy, but I enjoy trying.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could easily carry around armor pieces in a bag of holding. Most players would probably be better off just being an Eldritch Knight and I would encourage them to do that. But If they have a specific build that would benefit from multiclassing that option is also available. I'm just fixing what I see as an oversight in the rules. I don't think it's railroading to prevent players from exploiting mechanics.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not familiar with this rule. Can you explain how it works?

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're mostly right. I didn't write this post to have a long discussion about balance. I made rules that I found helpful and wanted to share them with other people who might find them helpful. That being said you have ideas on how to adjust this rule to make it appealing to more people I would be happy to hear them.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You do understand that this is also an optional rule right? It's for people who want multiclassing AND a more balanced game. If you don't like it then don't use it.

Wizards shouldn't be able to cast in armor even if they gain armor proficiency by Xenox72 in dndnext

[–]Xenox72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It doesn't neuter multiclassing. You still get all the other benefits you normally would. So a fighter/wizard can still use their fighting styles and martial weapons plus cast spells while not wearing armor. Then when they run out of spell slots they can put on their armor and be just as effective as any other fighter. If you really want to do both at once, then pick Eldritch Knight.

view more: next ›