Wand use and armor, help me understand.

[mad_kalak]

By the rules, can a multi-class mage or a bard use a wand while wearing armor?

For that matter, if a fighter knows the command word, why can't he use a Wand of Fireballs? Are some wands only usable by mages and some usable by other classes? Where is this written, as the DMG descriptions usually don't say if a rod, stave, or wand's use are limited to a particular class, though some of them intuitively should be.

I'm just looking for some rationale here folks, other than going by common interpretations of 2e rules that I don't see explicitly spelled out. Other spell type effects from magic items can be used in armor, like a Horn of Blasting, or even spells themselves, say from rings of spell storing (I assume) can be used while armor is worn as the prohibition to wearing armor while casting spells is bypassed.

Thanks for replies!

[ExTSR]

By the rules, can a multi-class mage or a bard use a wand while wearing armor?

And a followup question: Where in any D&D or AD&D rulebooks does it place any restrictions at all on magic use (devices or castings) based on your attire (e.g. armor worn, baggy pants, shorts, types of shoes, etc)?

And if the answer to my question is "nowhere", where the heck do these misconceptions arise?

[Corathon]

By the rules, can a multi-class mage or a bard use a wand while wearing armor?

Why do you think that he can't?

For that matter, if a fighter knows the command word, why can't he use a Wand of Fireballs?

A fighter can use a wand of fireballs (from Unearthed Arcana) but not a wand of fire (from the DMG).

Are some wands only usable by mages and some usable by other classes?

Yes.

Where is this written, as the DMG descriptions usually don't say if a rod, stave, or wand's use are limited to a particular class, though some of them intuitively should be.

1E DMG, page 122, Table III.D. Wands with a (M) after the name are usable only by magic users, wands with a (C,M) are usable by clerics and magic users and no else, etc. This is explained under the table on the same page.

I'm just looking for some rationale here folks, other than going by common interpretations of 2e rules that I don't see explicitly spelled out. Other spell type effects from magic items can be used in armor, like a Horn of Blasting, or even spells themselves, say from rings of spell storing (I assume) can be used while armor is worn as the prohibition to wearing armor while casting spells is bypassed.

My answers are from a 1E perspective; maybe they changed things in 2E. It seems the more complex/powerful/versatile are restricted to MUs alone.

[oralpain]

In 2e the DMG states what wands and other items are usable by which classes. Some items do evidently require specialized knowledge to use, in addition to applicable command words.

I've never seen anything that suggests item use is restricted by armor worn, and I do not think 2e's prohibition on wizards casting spells in armor has anything to do with item use, because item use is not spell casting.

By the rules, can a multi-class mage or a bard use a wand while wearing armor?

And a followup question: Where in any D&D or AD&D rulebooks does it place any restrictions at all on magic use (devices or castings) based on your attire (e.g. armor worn, baggy pants, shorts, types of shoes, etc)?

No where I can recall in pre-2e material.

And if the answer to my question is "nowhere", where the heck do these misconceptions arise?

2nd edition.

Personally, I don't restrict spell casting based on armor worn. Fighter/mages in my 2e games can cast spells freely in full plate, just as they could in 1e.

[mad_kalak]

By the rules, can a multi-class mage or a bard use a wand while wearing armor?

And a followup question: Where in any D&D or AD&D rulebooks does it place any restrictions at all on magic use (devices or castings) based on your attire (e.g. armor worn, baggy pants, shorts, types of shoes, etc)?

And if the answer to my question is "nowhere", where the heck do these misconceptions arise?

Well, from a 2e perspective, which is what I play (though I have all the 1e books sitting around) the class description for a mage explicity prohibits armor being worn while casting spells, the justifications being that 1)they don't know how to wear it due to lack of training and 2) the armor limits the mobility which is necessary for casting spells and 3) there may be "interference" from the metals in armor on the magic, though likely not.

*pulls out 1e DMG looks at page 122* ah, thanks!

*pulls out 2e DMG, sees no such thing, but reviews class descriptions in PHB and has an 'ah, ha' moment.*

[oralpain]

*pulls out 2e DMG, sees no such thing*

It's there, just look at the item tables.

Pick a table. If it doesn't say anything next to the item listed, anyone can use it. If it has one or more classes in parentheses, you have to have that class to use the item.

[mad_kalak]

*pulls out 2e DMG, sees no such thing*

It's there, just look at the item tables.

Pick a table. If it doesn't say anything next to the item listed, anyone can use it. If it has one or more classes in parentheses, you have to have that class to use the item.

Ah, I see now. Thanks. I'm such a miser handing out treasure that I never look at those tables.

[ExTSR]

2nd edition.

Citation pls (book & page#)?

fyi, this gets my dander up ;> because when Gary and I worked closely together we noted this misconception many times.
We think it may have come from ungrounded fanzine speculations.
Somebody wanted a tighter rational in re why mages can't wear armor, and it escalated...
without a shred of supporting evidence in the 0e or 1e rules.

[oralpain]

I don't have any of my paper PHBs on hand but the class group description for wizard in chapter 2 says:

Wizards cannot wear any armor, for several reasons. Firstly, most spells require complicated gestures and odd posturings by the caster and armor restricts the wearer's ability to do these properly. Secondly, the wizard spent his youth (and will spend most of his life) learning arcane languages, poring through old books, and practicing his spells. This leaves no time for learning other things (like how to wear armor properly and use it effectively). If the wizard had spent his time learning about armor, he would not have even the meager skills and powers he begins with. There are even unfounded theories that claim the materials in most armors disrupt the delicate fabric of a spell as it gathers energy; the two cannot exist side by side in harmony. While this idea is popular with the common people, true wizards know this is simply not true. If it were, how would they ever be able to cast spells requiring iron braziers or metal bowls?

"Multi-class benefits and restrictions" (also chapter 2) says:

Wizard: A multi-classed wizard can freely combine the powers of the wizard with any other class allowed, although the wearing of armor is restricted. Elves wearing elven chain can cast spells in armor, as magic is part of the nature of elves. However, elven chain is extremely rare and can never be purchased. It must be given, found, or won.

And finally, "Dual-class benefits and restrictions" (same chapter) says:

Once these restrictions are lifted, the character must still abide by the restrictions of whichever class he is using at the moment. A dual-class fighter/mage, for example, cannot cast spells while wearing armor.

The implication that armor itself, even if one is trained in using it, will interfere with the casting of wizard spells, is very clear.

I think it's pretty arbitrary and contrived myself, and of limited utility even with regards to "balance", but it is the btb rule of 2E.

[ExTSR]

Well if it smells like it, and looks like it, don't step in it. :/

IMC there is no prohibition on multi- or dual-class mages being restricted in casting while armored. They're experienced professionals trained in both classes and all the paraphernalia thereof.

Glad to hear that the 2e desc explicitly sneers at the baseless 'metal interferes' rumor.

I presume, however, that there was no effort to detail the cost or AC penalty for specially constructed armor lacking tight arm bindings so as to permit casting by half-elven fighter/mages and/or dual-class mages. (Or do they cast with their legs in 2e?)

[Dangersaurus]

2nd edition.

Citation pls (book & page#)?

fyi, this gets my dander up ;> because when Gary and I worked closely together we noted this misconception many times.
We think it may have come from ungrounded fanzine speculations.
Somebody wanted a tighter rational in re why mages can't wear armor, and it escalated...
without a shred of supporting evidence in the 0e or 1e rules.

I've notice the idea popping up in early Dragon articles. No reference, but somewhere in the 20's or 30's.

[oralpain]

I presume, however, that there was no effort to detail the cost or AC penalty for specially constructed armor lacking tight arm bindings so as to permit casting by half-elven fighter/mages and/or dual-class mages. (Or do they cast with their legs in 2e?)

There are later 2e rules dealing with piecemeal armor, but the blanket prohibition against casting it was never revised, outside of some obscure optional abilities (that would work regardless of armor coverage).

I'm sure many 2e DMs would rule against one of my fighter/mages being able to cast while armored in any way, even if my character was naked except for a belt of spell components and plate boots.

[Dienekes]

By the rules, can a multi-class mage or a bard use a wand while wearing armor?

And a followup question: Where in any D&D or AD&D rulebooks does it place any restrictions at all on magic use (devices or castings) based on your attire (e.g. armor worn, baggy pants, shorts, types of shoes, etc)?

And if the answer to my question is "nowhere", where the heck do these misconceptions arise?

2nd paragraph on page 25 of the 1st edition Players Handbook states in regard to Magic-Users, "...they can wear no armor and have few weapons they can use,".

[oralpain]

Actually, it seems I was mistaken about there being no reference to armor prohibiting spell casting in 1e.

Page 34 in the 1e PHB states, with regard to dual-class use of armor:

Note that this does not allow spell use while armor clad, such as an elven fighter/magic user is able to do.

2nd paragraph on page 25 of the 1st edition Players Handbook states in regard to Magic-Users, "...they can wear no armor and have few weapons they can use,".

That's just the general class restriction and says nothing about armor interfering with spell casting.

[Dienekes]

2nd paragraph on page 25 of the 1st edition Players Handbook states in regard to Magic-Users, "...they can wear no armor and have few weapons they can use,".

I always thought spells would not function with armor on due to that quote. It is something interesting to think about. Obviously anyone can put some armor on, why does it state they can wear no armor? Spell casting is the only thing I can see.

I am never one to tell a pc no. In my case I feel that armor (for casters) in my campaign would be game breaking, however, I would probably give a 5% chance of success to a caster of they insisted on trying.

[Mock26]

In my campaign you can wear armor and use magic devices and read scrolls, if you are able to use those magic devices and read those scrolls to being with. So, a mage who puts on a suit of plate armor could use a wand of magic missiles or cast a fireball spell from a scroll upon which it was written. Those items, after all, do not require the user to channel magical energy or use any components. All of that is handled by the magic item in question. A mage could still not wear armor and cast spells from memory.

[bargle]

2nd paragraph on page 25 of the 1st edition Players Handbook states in regard to Magic-Users, "...they can wear no armor and have few weapons they can use and still be awarded XP for the adventure.

Is how I interpret it, no need for mumbo-jumbo about spells not working with armor, or blades falling off of sword hilts.

[garhkal]

On the armor use and mages.. F/Ms cannot cast when wearing armor (2e rules, unless elvin chain) but can still use items.. wands are items.
The chart info was already answered.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

And a followup question: Where in any D&D or AD&D rulebooks does it place any restrictions at all on magic use (devices or castings) based on your attire (e.g. armor worn, baggy pants, shorts, types of shoes, etc)?

A character with ability scores of 15 strength, 17 intelligence, 12 wisdom, 10 dexterity, 16 constitution, and 7 charisma is begun as a fighter. After attaining 6th level, the player switches the character to magic-user. This allows the character to retain six ten-sided hit dice, but in all other respects he or she must be a 1st level magic-user, wearing no armor, carrying those weapons usable by his or her new class, and using spells to combat opponents. When 7th level of experience is gained, however, thesustain at the new level. Furthermore, the character can now carry (but not wear) armor and weapons not normally usable by magic-users, and resort to their use if the need arises and not be penalized in respect to experience as a magic-user, for he or she has already surpassed in the new class the disciplines of the former. Thus, no harm accrues to his or her experience as a magic-user. Note that this does not allow spell use while armor clad, such as an elven fighter/magic user is able to-do.

I have underlined the relevant section.

[Mock26]

And a followup question: Where in any D&D or AD&D rulebooks does it place any restrictions at all on magic use (devices or castings) based on your attire (e.g. armor worn, baggy pants, shorts, types of shoes, etc)?

A character with ability scores of 15 strength, 17 intelligence, 12 wisdom, 10 dexterity, 16 constitution, and 7 charisma is begun as a fighter. After attaining 6th level, the player switches the character to magic-user. This allows the character to retain six ten-sided hit dice, but in all other respects he or she must be a 1st level magic-user, wearing no armor, carrying those weapons usable by his or her new class, and using spells to combat opponents. When 7th level of experience is gained, however, thesustain at the new level. Furthermore, the character can now carry (but not wear) armor and weapons not normally usable by magic-users, and resort to their use if the need arises and not be penalized in respect to experience as a magic-user, for he or she has already surpassed in the new class the disciplines of the former. Thus, no harm accrues to his or her experience as a magic-user. Note that this does not allow spell use while armor clad, such as an elven fighter/magic user is able to-do.

I have underlined the relevant section.

But spell use is not the same as using a magical device.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

But spell use is not the same as using a magical device.

I wasn't replying to the OP, I was replying to Frank... which is why I quoted Frank.

[ExTSR]

I have underlined the relevant section.

Yah, but I have yet to see any justification for DMs hosing half-elven FMU or FMUT types.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

I have underlined the relevant section.

Yah, but I have yet to see any justification for DMs hosing half-elven FMU or FMUT types.

I agree. In fact, the passage I quoted makes it quite clear that multiclass spellcasters are NOT required to live by the same restrictions. However, you did ask "Where in any D&D or AD&D rulebooks does it place any restrictions at all on magic use (devices or castings) based on your attire". That passage also makes quite clear that dual-classed humans do face restrictions on magic use (castings) based on their attire (i.e. they are unable to cast spells while wearing armor).

[garhkal]

Cause half elves are not full elves there fore do not enjoy the same benefit of getting to cast when in armor??

[Matthew-]

Well if it smells like it, and looks like it, don't step in it. :/

IMC there is no prohibition on multi- or dual-class mages being restricted in casting while armored. They're experienced professionals trained in both classes and all the paraphernalia thereof.

Glad to hear that the 2e desc explicitly sneers at the baseless 'metal interferes' rumor.

I presume, however, that there was no effort to detail the cost or AC penalty for specially constructed armor lacking tight arm bindings so as to permit casting by half-elven fighter/mages and/or dual-class mages. (Or do they cast with their legs in 2e?)

In second edition multi-class characters can still cast spells in elvish mail. There is a thread hereabouts where Gary said that was the case in his own campaign at one point, so I assume it is a carry over.

[mad_kalak]

Well if it smells like it, and looks like it, don't step in it. :/

IMC there is no prohibition on multi- or dual-class mages being restricted in casting while armored. They're experienced professionals trained in both classes and all the paraphernalia thereof.

Glad to hear that the 2e desc explicitly sneers at the baseless 'metal interferes' rumor.

I presume, however, that there was no effort to detail the cost or AC penalty for specially constructed armor lacking tight arm bindings so as to permit casting by half-elven fighter/mages and/or dual-class mages. (Or do they cast with their legs in 2e?)

In second edition multi-class characters can still cast spells in elvish mail. There is a thread hereabouts where Gary said that was the case in his own campaign at one point, so I assume it is a carry over.

Would that be true for elven bards?

[Matthew-]

Would that be true for elven bards?

Almost certainly, but there is no explicit exception made.

[talysman]

Clearly, the interpretation of the effects of armor on magic (and elves) changed over the editions.

Men & Magic (Vol. I) doesn't come out and say anything about mundane armor, but it implies some things:

The whole plethora of enchanted items lies at the magic-users beck and call, save the arms and armor of the fighters (see, however, Elves); Magic-Users may arm themselves with daggers only.

They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users.

The strict interpretation of the first quote means that magic armor isn't magical when worn by a magic-user, but there's no statement that they can't wear armor at all, even if Gary may have intended otherwise.

The strict interpretation of the second quote means that elves can't cast spells while wearing non-magical armor. Later editions changed that to make it a special ability of elves, but really it may be a side-effect of magic armor: because elves are also fighters, magic armor acts magical for them. This would imply that a human fighter who switches classes to magic-user later would be able function as an elf.

[garhkal]

In second edition multi-class characters can still cast spells in elvish mail. There is a thread hereabouts where Gary said that was the case in his own campaign at one point, so I assume it is a carry over.

Is that just elves though, or ANY multiclassed X mage...

[chris107]

There are no Elven Bards in the PHB.

Best

Chris