From: rnmg1200@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (A Lady and her Walrus)
Subject: Re: Why are there level limits?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 12:03:34 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:

>In article <BtpLHs.6Kw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:

>OK, I'll take these one at a time.  I've run across most of them with
>my DM, but we felt that these aren't prohibiting armor, for the reasons
>below.

>>PHBv2, p. 30: " 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 most of his youth...learning arcane languages, poring
>>through old books, and practicing his spells.  This leaves no time for 
>>learning other things.... If the wizard had spent his time learning about
>>armor, he would not have even the meager skills and powers he begins with."

>While this may be fine for a pure wizard, multi-class wizards couldn't
>fall under this restriction.  If that were the case, you would also have to
>rule that they cannot use swords or other weapons, because the reasons
>wizards use daggers in the first place is because it's easy to learn and
>doesn't require lots of time.

>So if a multi-class wizard can learn to use a sword, why can't he learn to
>wear armor?

He can, it just won't do him much good if he can't cast spells.  Then he
just becomes a fighter with low hit points.

>While it's true that armor does prevent spellcasting, there's no reason a
>wizard can't use armor and NOT CAST SPELLS.

Agreed.

>>PHBv2, p. 45: "A multi-classed wizard can freely combine the powers of the
>>wizard with any other class allowed, although the wearing of armor is
>>restricted.

>This was our biggest stumbling block.  Did TSR mean restricted, or prohibited?
>If it's the former, restricted to what?

Restricted to elves and half-elves in elven chain, as it states elsewhere.
Simple, really, if you think about it.

>If they mean that the wearing of armor is *prohibited*, then why didn't they
>say that?

Because it's not *prohibited*, just restricted to elves/half-elves in elven
chain.

>>PHBv2, p. 45: "A dual-class fighter/mage, for example, cannot cast spells
>>while wearing armor."

>Given.  But that doesn't mean he can't wear the armor and not cast spells.

Agreed again.  I still don't see why he would _want_ to, but I see your point.

>>Complete Wizard's Handbook, p. 34: "In no case is a wizard allowed to
>>purchase armor."

>This is the only one I've never seen.  I went back and looked it up, and
>it's under the section of wizard "kits".  I don't know what a kit is, so
>I never read this before.  Anyone want to enlighten me?  Are kits just for
>single-class wizards, or can they be used for multi- or dual-classed
>wizards as well?  If they can't, then this wouldn't apply to multi-classed
>characters, so there's still no definite ruling.

Kits are for single- and dual- classed characters.  Apparently, priests can
also take kits while multi-classed (but only priest kits).  Just because
it's in the section marked "Kits" doesn't mean it refers only to mages with
kits.  The statement says that in NO case is a wizard allowed to purchase
armor.  This means kit or no kit.  Sorry, no cigar.  If it had read "In no
case is a wizard with a kit allowed to purchase armor" then you might have
gotten somewhere, but this is just a straw man.

>If they can, I still have a problem with their wording, just like "restricted."
>Why do they say a wizard can't PURCHASE armor?  Why not just say that in
>no case is a wizrd allowed to WEAR armor?

Because, if he can't wear it while casting spells, what smegging GOOD is he?
:) (sprinkled to taste)
Of course, I can see lots of instances where a mage would want to buy 
armor (for a friend, for a henchman, for a disguise, etc.) where the DM 
could use this rule against him.

>This is one subject where I think TSR really dropped the ball (hell, I'm
>starting to think they might have done it on purpose, because no where
>do they expressly FORBID wizards to wear armor).

No...only not to wear it and cast spells.  Kinda makes it unnecessary to
forbid armor, since no mage in his right mind would wear it when he 
couldn't cast spells in it.  Now, if he's doing it for roleplaying purposes,
that's another thing...

The Walrus