Spellcasting in armor

[supergoji18]

Going over the rules of Magic in my Player's Handbook, I found a small note that said "you must be proficient in the type of armor you are wearing in order to cast spells." Simple enough, but I just have 2 questions about this:

Older rule sets had an arcane spell-failure chance for wearing armor. Does this still apply now, or does being proficient in the armor mean there is no chance of failure?
Does this limit on armor + spells include divine spells?

Thanks for your time to respond. :smallsmile:

[Jeraa]

There is no arcane spell failure percentage anymore.

Instead, you can not case spells in armor, unless you are proficient with that armor. This applies to everyone, even divine casters.


Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.

[MadGrady]

This is important to note, that if a caster uses their feats or multiclasses to gain heavy armor proficiencies, you can have a heavy armor wearing wizard

[SharkForce]

you can, but it's not necessarily a good idea. especially with feats... multiclassing can be pretty solid, but you do have to accept that your primary abilities will be falling behind if you do.

(imo, the sweet spot as far as spending feats on armour proficiencies is for medium armour + shield if you already have light armour proficiency, mostly for shields, and mostly only for classes that don't have a strong dexterity focus).

[supergoji18]

That... Is actually very good to know. I was for a moment wondering how on earth I would be able to use a badass Fighter/Sorcerer or Eldritch Knight if I couldn't cast spells in armor.

[odigity]

I've only played him at lvl 3 so far, so it doesn't prove anything, but I put together a Human Fighter 1 / Abjurer 2. I started with Fighter for the proficiencies, HP, and Con save, and took Heavy Armor Master as my feat for the damage reduction, and then plan to put the other 19 levels in Abjurer.

At level 3, he was quite fun to play. He's as good as an Abjurer 2, obviously, plus he's got HP, Second Wind, awesome AC (he can use a shield, too), and damage reduction. I felt pretty confidant being the front line guy (it was a party of two, and the other guy was also a wizard).

[Louro]

Just a bit of... history?

In 2nd edition it was impossible to cast spells in anything heavier than leather. And there was no way to be able to cast from a horse. AND to cast a spell from a cart/chariot in movement you needed two persons to hold you still while you were casting.

2nd ed wizardry was... tough.

[MeeposFire]

Just a bit of... history?

In 2nd edition it was impossible to cast spells in anything heavier than leather. And there was no way to be able to cast from a horse. AND to cast a spell from a cart/chariot in movement you needed two persons to hold you still while you were casting.

2nd ed wizardry was... tough.

You could cast in armor better than leather in 2e but it was either elven chain or required using something like the skills and powers book. Granted outside of that I can't think of what you are using to cast in leather as wizards could not normally do that.

[Tvtyrant]

Just a bit of... history?

In 2nd edition it was impossible to cast spells in anything heavier than leather. And there was no way to be able to cast from a horse. AND to cast a spell from a cart/chariot in movement you needed two persons to hold you still while you were casting.

2nd ed wizardry was... tough.

I always enjoyed the concept of wizard chariots careening across the battlefield. Although honestly they would cast Cloudship at higher levels.

[Louro]

Wow, even tougher than I remember.

Players Handbook (Revised), p. 42:
"Wizards cannot wear any armor, for several reasons....
A wizard...cannot use magical armor, because no armor is allowed."

I guess mirror image have saved countless lifes.

[Inevitability]

This is important to note, that if a caster uses their feats or multiclasses to gain heavy armor proficiencies, you can have a heavy armor wearing wizard

Or be a Mountain Dwarf. Heavy Armor wearing axe-swinging wizard!

[SharkForce]

Or be a Mountain Dwarf. Heavy Armor wearing axe-swinging wizard!

mountain dwarf only gets you medium, and no shield proficiency either.

it really isn't all that great. if (and admittedly, on a class that is likely to focus int and then con, this is a pretty big "if") you have a dexterity mod of +4 or better, mage armour (the spell) is equal or superior to the best medium armour anyways.

[Jeraa]

mountain dwarf only gets you medium, and no shield proficiency either.

it really isn't all that great. if (and admittedly, on a class that is likely to focus int and then con, this is a pretty big "if") you have a dexterity mod of +4 or better, mage armour (the spell) is equal or superior to the best medium armour anyways.

Dwarves don't need a certain strength to wear heavy armor effectively. And since mountain dwarves are already proficient with medium armor, you only need to spend a single feat for your wizard to wear heavy armor.

[SharkForce]

heavy armour isn't that much better than any other armour, unless your dex sucks.

considering how important initiative is, having awful dex is not recommended.