|
Post by friartook on Jun 12, 2015 20:30:45 GMT
If a Fighter decides to multiclass and take levels of Warlock, can they still wear heavy armor and use all of their Warlock abilities? Or is their armor requirement now restricted to those a Warlock would be proficient in?
|
|
|
Post by DMC on Jun 12, 2015 22:27:58 GMT
PHB Page #144 Says:
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.
So unless I've missed something (which admittedly could be the case since I haven't dealt with 5E MC characters much), if you have a level of armor proficiency from a previous class, I'd say you can rock it.
That's if you have classes of Fighter first. It's worth mentioning that the reverse is not 100% true. If you start as a Warlock, and take levels of Fighter, you don't gain everything a starting Fighter would get. This is on PHB #164. You would get Light/Med Prof., just not Heavy.
|
|
|
Post by frohtastic on Jun 12, 2015 23:52:37 GMT
well since you dont LOSE proficency then you can still cast spells. I reckon the player is aiming for pact of the blade?
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Jun 13, 2015 0:02:04 GMT
As I understood things early on, so it could be wrong, I would agree with the sentiments posted here already. I remember thinking that with the right proficiencies (aka take one level of fighter to start) a mage could be in full plate and still cast all of their spells with no drawbacks during casting. Granted you have taken a level to get there, and you need a high strength to wear some of the heavier armors, but no spell failure. Looks like they are good to go to me!
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Jun 15, 2015 14:02:13 GMT
Thanks for the feedback all. I'm thinking I'll let him keep the heavy armor he has and still use all of his abilities.
If he were a wizard, we may have more of an issue. I've always understood the Wizard armor restrictions to be based on more than just proficiency. I'm thinking of spells with a Somatic component. Wizards and (to a lesser degree in my interpretation) Sorcerers need to be able to move through the motions of their spell fluidly, and armor restricts some of those motions. With a Sorcerer or Warlock, they gain their magic through their patron or inherent magic essence, so the components of the spell aren't as important (again, my interpretation). Wizards on the other hand, are hackers of reality. Just as a piece of computer code won't work if it has a single element wrong, so a Wizard must have all the components of their spell exact in order for the spell to work. They loosened this with the "spell focus" mechanic in 5e, but I like that. Physical components that one had to buy and make sure they carried struck me as a cumbersome mechanic.
|
|
|
Post by frohtastic on Jun 15, 2015 23:33:33 GMT
Thanks for the feedback all. I'm thinking I'll let him keep the heavy armor he has and still use all of his abilities. If he were a wizard, we may have more of an issue. I've always understood the Wizard armor restrictions to be based on more than just proficiency. I'm thinking of spells with a Somatic component. Wizards and (to a lesser degree in my interpretation) Sorcerers need to be able to move through the motions of their spell fluidly, and armor restricts some of those motions. With a Sorcerer or Warlock, they gain their magic through their patron or inherent magic essence, so the components of the spell aren't as important (again, my interpretation). Wizards on the other hand, are hackers of reality. Just as a piece of computer code won't work if it has a single element wrong, so a Wizard must have all the components of their spell exact in order for the spell to work. They loosened this with the "spell focus" mechanic in 5e, but I like that. Physical components that one had to buy and make sure they carried struck me as a cumbersome mechanic. well didnt they technically implement the foci in 3.5 / 4e ? As long as the material component doesnt get consumed you should be able to use the foci (if the foci is strong enough, aka need to be over this and this money value (see spell costs and cost of magical item) at least thats how I run it :q think that as long as the wizard is proficient with the armor then they can cast spells in it with no problem, as proficency means they are used to using it at least. Worst case scenario, he takes the feat WarCaster.
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Jun 16, 2015 4:06:00 GMT
I don't think I've ever heard of a proficiency being revoked so I'm inclined to go with the logic above. If it were me I'd probably let him run with it unless it created a balance or gameplay issue.
|
|
Jourfrend
Commoner
Posts: 3
Favorite D&D Class: Bard
Favorite D&D Race: Human
|
Post by Jourfrend on Jun 25, 2015 7:16:46 GMT
While it goes against the "flavor" of arcane caster to wear heavy armor, as previously stated 5E does indeed allow a spell caster proficient in Light, Medium or Heavy armor to cast spells in said armor. So, to the OP: "Yes, your Fighter turned Warlock could indeed wear heavy armor and cast spells, or at least there are no hard rule against it."
As always,
Jourfrend
|
|