Armored Mage

[BranMan]

Since a spellcaster can cast spells with no impediment when they wear armor they are proficient with, would it make sense to have a mage class take medium or heavy armor feats? Arcane Spell Failure chance is no longer a thing, so they would simply be armored mages with no penalty. Would the spell mage armor still give a bonus?

[Socko525]

It seems like a pretty popular choice is to pick a mountain dwarf as your race, as it gives you proficiency with both light and medium armor as a racial trait. You also get the the +2 Con, the +2 Str is sort of a bust, but an armored caster and it saves you a feat

[da_chicken]

Since a spellcaster can cast spells with no impediment when they wear armor they are proficient with, would it make sense to have a mage class take medium or heavy armor feats? Arcane Spell Failure chance is no longer a thing, so they would simply be armored mages with no penalty. Would the spell mage armor still give a bonus?

Read Mage Armor again. Like regular armor the spell doesn't grand a bonus to AC. It gives a fixed AC: 13 + Dex.

An armored arcane caster is certainly possible, but it does require investment. Feats is almost certainly untenable, as you have to spend an Ability Score Increase for every tier. You can be a Dwarf and begin play with Medium proficiency, but you'll give up any racial Int or Cha modifier. You can also multiclass to Cleric (Life) or Cleric (War) to go all the way to Heavy Armor. You'll be one level behind for spells known and spells prepared, but your casting will be the same and you'll get Heavy armor. The only investment is Wis 13.

[Lokiare]

Why do you need armor?

Mage Armor + Dex mod + Shield when you are hit = More AC than a fighter in plate with a shield.

To add insult to injury just throw a mirror image on top of it and either Blur or Stone Skin.

Physical armor is for LF's.

[Arzanyos]

Only if your Dex is 16 or higher, and only on rounds you can cast shield.

[Lokiare]

Only if your Dex is 16 or higher, and only on rounds you can cast shield.

Shield is a 1st level reaction spell that you cast after the DM declares a hit. Its going to come into play most rounds. At low levels you may only two, but by mid levels you can pop that thing off as many times as you need to. At high levels you can use it for free without expending a slot. It'll get rarer and rarer to use it if you use spells like Mirror Image and Blur with it.

[Arzanyos]

"At mid levels, you can pop that thing off as many times as you need to" With what? Your 4 level one slots? Or are you using some of your higher level slots on shield?

[Lokiare]

"At mid levels, you can pop that thing off as many times as you need to" With what? Your 4 level one slots? Or are you using some of your higher level slots on shield?

Well lets say a creature has a +8 to hit (close to average for levels 8-12 monsters in the DM PDF) and they attack the caster:

Dex 16 (+3)
AC 13 + 3 = 16.
Blur causes disadvantage on attacks meaning they only hit the caster 42.25% of the time. 6 combats of 5 round each means 30 rounds. Only 12.675 rounds will have a hit. Of those hits Shield is only useful for those that roll under 21 which is 6 of them. So yep, the wizards use of shield will work even at mid levels since they will so rarely use it. It will work better at lower levels since creatures will be hitting less often because they have a lower attack bonus. Keep in mind wizards can recover used spells with a short rest using Arcane Recovery.

A CR 1 creature has around a +4 attack bonus meaning they will only hit the caster 20.25% of the time or 6 times. With only 4 or 5 being viable for the shield spell to block. So at 1st level the Wizard might take a hit or two.

The math never lies.

[Arzanyos]

Well, math doesn't run hot and cold like the dice do. 40% chance to hit? I just got to make a 12 then. 12's ain't that hard, on a good day.

[Lokiare]

Well, math doesn't run hot and cold like the dice do. 40% chance to hit? I just got to make a 12 then. 12's ain't that hard, on a good day.

What?!?!

Ok, let me try to explain this. We aren't talking about a single fight or encounter. We are talking about the trend that will happen at thousands of peoples tables where they will see that this particular build is doing better than the fighter. lol. I roll 20's far too often and my players hate that, but I don't build these mathematical models around hitting 20's too often. That would be silly. :smallsmile:

[Arzanyos]

Well then, I think I see the problem here. I don't play builds, I play characters. I guess 5e does too.

[Bubzors]

Well then, I think I see the problem here. I don't play builds, I play characters. I guess 5e does too.

If this was Facebook, I'd so like this ****

[Lokiare]

Well then, I think I see the problem here. I don't play builds, I play characters. I guess 5e does too.


If this was Facebook, I'd so like this ****

Actually you play a build whether you think you do or not. The mechanics aren't informed by your role playing. They are what they are no matter which funny voice you talk in character in or how much you finagle the DM. You are still constrained by the rules, unless the DM uses rule 0, at which point you are playing a different game than everyone else that is playing 5E and there's not much point in having a discussion about your personal house rules.

So now that you know you are playing a build, that should shed some light on what we are talking about.