why can a wizard cast spells in heavy armor that they have gained through multi-classign and whatnot and a barbarian cannot rage in the same?
— Shambridge Cramalinica (@FractallyWeird) June 26, 2018
A spellcaster of any sort can cast spells in armor with which they're proficient. That's a general rule for all spellcasting.
The rules for Rage, Unarmored Defense, and other non-spellcasting features have nothing to do with the rules on spellcasting. #DnD https://t.co/qX57ZSARLc
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) June 26, 2018
Yes, Jeremy – we’re all well aware that these are two separate rules.
That established, they seem like highly comparable things.
We know that for spellcasting, it’s the bulk of the armor that interferes with gesturing, and therefore precludes spellcasting. We also know that if a character gains proficiency in a given kind of armor, they can compensate for that bulk and gesture despite it, successfully casing spells in the process.
The question then arises – what is it about heavy armor that precludes a barbarian from successfully raging? And why does proficiency in a given kind of armor not, then, allow them to compensate for that unknown factor?
It doesn’t seem like the bulk of the armor would be the issue. Rage makes a Barbarian stronger, as well as more durable and untroubled by pain or discomfort. If the bulk of your armor was the issue, raging should logically only help to alleviate that problem – your enhanced strength and ability to ignore discomfort would allow you to muscle through the bulk and awkwardness of even the heaviest armor.
So what, then, precludes raging in heavy armor? And why does proficiency not help alleviate the problem?
It’s a balance issue. Rage already makes a Barbarian ridiculously hard to kill. If they could get Heavy Armor Pro, they could dump Dex. Then they could use those stats for other things, including taking more feats.
yes, it would make the barbarian less archetypical. and if you really wanted to do it there is always the bear totem loophole.