fuindordm
Adventurer
When 3e came out, arcane spell failure was touted as a hallmark of the new philosophy. "Choices and consequences, not restrictions!" The designers shouted, and it was good. The problems with ASF are twofold: first, they preserved a uniquely 2nd edition mechanic that they thought was a sacred cow of the system; and second, they did so in a way that was entirely inconsistent with the other rules of the game, and even itself.
First, some history: in Basic and AD&D 1st edition, there were no such restrictions. Wizards were, naturally, not proficient in armor, but nowhere in the rules did it say that it interfered with their magic. The wearing of armor was simply not one of their class features. If you wanted to play an armored wizard, you did so by multi-classing or dual-classing; and since elves and half-elves were the only race allowed to be a multiclass fighter/wizard (or rather, the only one for which the combination had reasonable level limits), the idea of an armored wizard in D&D came to be stereotyped as an elven thing. The human dual-classed fighter mage was a difficult path, and didn't reap immediate rewards like the elven path, so was seldom used.
EDIT: a more careful reading of the 1e PH reveals that dual-classers could not cast in armor, but any nonhuman multiclasser could--elves, half-elves and gnomes being the only available options. I don't know what the rationale was for this inconsistency, unless it was to give the level-limited demihumans some extra advantage.
Second edition revised this, stating explicitly that the wearing of armor inhibited spellcasting entirely. They made an exception for elven chain, in order to preserve the elven stereotype from 1st edition that was a coincidental artifact of the racial level limits. The multiclassing system hadn't changed dramatically, so the elven fighter/mage was still the only viable concept in this genre that you could play from the get-go, and the new rule didn't have a huge effect on the game. In first edition, however, you could be a human dual-classed armored fighter/mage; in second edition, this was no longer possible.
Then third edition came along, and said that it was possible. The new multiclassing system made any number of fighter/spellcaster combinations possible and playable from level 2 for the first time ever. But instead of opening up all these options, the designers decided that the unarmored wizard was such a sacred cow that they should impose a serious consequence on the wearing of armor. The introduction of ASF essentially vetoed all these new opportunities to any but the most fervent role-players willing to sacrifice a large portion of power for the sake of the concept. But the new multiclassing system already had the multiclass spellcaster sacrificing an enormous amount of power in the form of lost spellcasting levels. To a multiclass fighter/wizard, ASF is adding insult to injury.
And so it was that a coincidental confluence of 1st edition rules led to the sacred cow that wizards should not wear armor. Is the unarmored wizards supported by any gaming or literary stereotypes other than D&D? In literature, wizards don't wear armor because, (1) they never learned to do it, magic requiring intensive study and research, and/or (2) they are OLD and it is HEAVY. Point me to a non D&D-derived novel that implies that armor interferes with the magic itself, and I'll give you a cookie. And few fantasy RPGs outside the first crop of D&D imitators felt the need to borrow this restriction.
So why does armor not interfere with game balance? Simply because the wearing of armor effectively requires a significant investment on the part of the player. Number one on the list, is that they need a reasonably high strength to wear armor that is better than what simple spells can provide--probably their second-highest after Intelligence, which most wizards would prefer to use on their health (boosting feeble HP) or dexterity (boosting their chance to hit with spells and AC). Putting a high score in Str is already a suboptimal choice for wizards, since the wearing of armor doesn't increase their survivability by that much--in fact, it probably decreases it since they'll be more tempted to get into melee. In addition, games other than D&D require some more investment on the part of the player in the form of skills, talents, or other cross-training--resources which could also be spent on increasing the effectiveness of their magic.
So, I would argue that if the game system in question requires a significant investment on the part of the PC to wear armor (typically, in D&D, this will take the form of one lost spellcasting level so that the PC can multiclass a level in one of the fighting professions, in addition to the need for a higher-than-average Strength to avoid encumberance), then allowing spellcasters to wear armor is intrinsically balanced.
It might not be fully balanced if the benefit of the armor vastly outweighs the sacrifice. In the case of high-powered campaigns where characters typically have 3 or 4 very high ability scores, then putting a high score into Str might be a minimal sacrifice. At high levels, heavily enchanted heavy armor is significantly better than the AC that simple spells and a good Dex score can provide, so for the moment I'll concede that in D&D, especially in high-powered campaigns, something more might be required to balance the armored wizard option than the loss of a single spellcasting level.
Should that something be ASF?
Let's look at the rules. Spells with somatic components require that the caster "must be able to gesture freely with one arm". No more, no less. The claim, therefore, is that the uniform percentage chance of ASF represents the chance that the loss of flexibility due to the armor will cause your one-armed gesturing to go awry.
What about a breastplate, which leaves the arms uncovered? No--you still get ASF.
What about carrying a shield in one hand, and gesturing freely with the other? No--still ASF.
What about special-ordering a masterwork custom suit of armor that protects the vital areas but leaves arms and shoulders completely bare? No--still ASF?
What if I want to invest in special training, to reduce the chance of failure? You can't do it as a skill or a feat, but such training is so rare and precious that it is only available as a prestige class ability. Oh--and bards can do it, because their magic is special. Oh--and so can divine spellcasters, because their deities don't care if you screw up the somatic components.
Starting to sound fishy yet? Well, what else can impede those free, one-armed gestures?
Being grappled, riding a horse or a boat while you're spellcasting, distractions in the form of getting attacked, inclement weather, etc. (Strangely, being blinded did not make it onto the list...) Do these conditions impose ASF? No, they impose a concentration check. I guess the training to gesture freely even in the presence of factors limiting your range of motion isn't that rare or precious after all. Can anyone really say with a straight face that carrying a shield in the hand that is not spellcasting imposes a greater risk of failure than holding onto a rope for dear life on a boat in a storm? A high concentration skill can beat the latter down to 5% (or zero if taking ten is allowed), but the former is fixed in the range 5-15% depending on the shield. And if armor is the more difficult of the two, why can clerics ignore ASF but still have to make concentration checks in bad weather? Oh right... those lenient gods. But wait--the shouldn't they not have to make concentration checks either?
So the restriction that somatic components impose on spellcasting is applied inconsistently across the classes, and inconsistently across the game--there are two separate rules for disrupting spellcasting with the S component, and the ASF rule exists solely to maintain the unarmored wizard stereotype.
And face it, if unarmored spellcasters were really unbalanced, then the clerics wouldn't get to wear armor. These days their spells are as powerful as the wizards, what with their domains plundering the best of the wizard spell selection.
So, let's assume that you're running a high-powered campaign, and you feel that a wizard sacrificing a high score to Str and a level in some other class is too easy. Maybe you're running a game where everyone is making a 14th level from scratch using 40 pt-buy for characteristics, for example, and you fear the wizard trotting out with adamantine plate mail that grants fire immunity. (With only one fighter level, that wizard still won't be a melee-competent character relative to all the other twinked-out PCs; I still feel, personally, that this is perfectly balanced since they're also spending a large fraction of wealth that could otherwise be going into robes of the archmage or a staff of grievous injury...) Anyway, let's say that you as the DM feel that more cost is needed.
What would be fair and consistent in the D&D framework? The most consistent rule for ASF would simply to impose a concentration check for all spells, DC 10+spell level or 15+spell level, using the armor skill penalty as a modifier and not allowing the character to take 10. Run some numbers and you should find it reasonable. But maybe you feel this isn't enough of a sacrifice, since spellcasters typically max out Concentration ranks anyway.
Another fair and consistent way would be to have a feat chain allowing armored casting; I personally would limit it to one 'Armored Caster' feat, but given that a couple of classes have the ability to cast in light armor only, you could split into two: one to negate the penalty for light armor, and one for medium and heavy armors. From this perspective, clerics get two bonus feats, druids get one (since there are no medium or heavy non-metal armors worth wearing), bards get one.
The two methods could even be combined; make the concentration check mandatory unless you have the feat. That gives players two ways to get around the penalty for armor--one using skill points, the other using feats. Either way, it imposes an additional cost to the character. I personally would make the Combat Casting bonus apply to armor as well as casting on the defensive.
Here ends my rant.
Cheers!
Ben
First, some history: in Basic and AD&D 1st edition, there were no such restrictions. Wizards were, naturally, not proficient in armor, but nowhere in the rules did it say that it interfered with their magic. The wearing of armor was simply not one of their class features. If you wanted to play an armored wizard, you did so by multi-classing or dual-classing; and since elves and half-elves were the only race allowed to be a multiclass fighter/wizard (or rather, the only one for which the combination had reasonable level limits), the idea of an armored wizard in D&D came to be stereotyped as an elven thing. The human dual-classed fighter mage was a difficult path, and didn't reap immediate rewards like the elven path, so was seldom used.
EDIT: a more careful reading of the 1e PH reveals that dual-classers could not cast in armor, but any nonhuman multiclasser could--elves, half-elves and gnomes being the only available options. I don't know what the rationale was for this inconsistency, unless it was to give the level-limited demihumans some extra advantage.
Second edition revised this, stating explicitly that the wearing of armor inhibited spellcasting entirely. They made an exception for elven chain, in order to preserve the elven stereotype from 1st edition that was a coincidental artifact of the racial level limits. The multiclassing system hadn't changed dramatically, so the elven fighter/mage was still the only viable concept in this genre that you could play from the get-go, and the new rule didn't have a huge effect on the game. In first edition, however, you could be a human dual-classed armored fighter/mage; in second edition, this was no longer possible.
Then third edition came along, and said that it was possible. The new multiclassing system made any number of fighter/spellcaster combinations possible and playable from level 2 for the first time ever. But instead of opening up all these options, the designers decided that the unarmored wizard was such a sacred cow that they should impose a serious consequence on the wearing of armor. The introduction of ASF essentially vetoed all these new opportunities to any but the most fervent role-players willing to sacrifice a large portion of power for the sake of the concept. But the new multiclassing system already had the multiclass spellcaster sacrificing an enormous amount of power in the form of lost spellcasting levels. To a multiclass fighter/wizard, ASF is adding insult to injury.
And so it was that a coincidental confluence of 1st edition rules led to the sacred cow that wizards should not wear armor. Is the unarmored wizards supported by any gaming or literary stereotypes other than D&D? In literature, wizards don't wear armor because, (1) they never learned to do it, magic requiring intensive study and research, and/or (2) they are OLD and it is HEAVY. Point me to a non D&D-derived novel that implies that armor interferes with the magic itself, and I'll give you a cookie. And few fantasy RPGs outside the first crop of D&D imitators felt the need to borrow this restriction.
So why does armor not interfere with game balance? Simply because the wearing of armor effectively requires a significant investment on the part of the player. Number one on the list, is that they need a reasonably high strength to wear armor that is better than what simple spells can provide--probably their second-highest after Intelligence, which most wizards would prefer to use on their health (boosting feeble HP) or dexterity (boosting their chance to hit with spells and AC). Putting a high score in Str is already a suboptimal choice for wizards, since the wearing of armor doesn't increase their survivability by that much--in fact, it probably decreases it since they'll be more tempted to get into melee. In addition, games other than D&D require some more investment on the part of the player in the form of skills, talents, or other cross-training--resources which could also be spent on increasing the effectiveness of their magic.
So, I would argue that if the game system in question requires a significant investment on the part of the PC to wear armor (typically, in D&D, this will take the form of one lost spellcasting level so that the PC can multiclass a level in one of the fighting professions, in addition to the need for a higher-than-average Strength to avoid encumberance), then allowing spellcasters to wear armor is intrinsically balanced.
It might not be fully balanced if the benefit of the armor vastly outweighs the sacrifice. In the case of high-powered campaigns where characters typically have 3 or 4 very high ability scores, then putting a high score into Str might be a minimal sacrifice. At high levels, heavily enchanted heavy armor is significantly better than the AC that simple spells and a good Dex score can provide, so for the moment I'll concede that in D&D, especially in high-powered campaigns, something more might be required to balance the armored wizard option than the loss of a single spellcasting level.
Should that something be ASF?
Let's look at the rules. Spells with somatic components require that the caster "must be able to gesture freely with one arm". No more, no less. The claim, therefore, is that the uniform percentage chance of ASF represents the chance that the loss of flexibility due to the armor will cause your one-armed gesturing to go awry.
What about a breastplate, which leaves the arms uncovered? No--you still get ASF.
What about carrying a shield in one hand, and gesturing freely with the other? No--still ASF.
What about special-ordering a masterwork custom suit of armor that protects the vital areas but leaves arms and shoulders completely bare? No--still ASF?
What if I want to invest in special training, to reduce the chance of failure? You can't do it as a skill or a feat, but such training is so rare and precious that it is only available as a prestige class ability. Oh--and bards can do it, because their magic is special. Oh--and so can divine spellcasters, because their deities don't care if you screw up the somatic components.
Starting to sound fishy yet? Well, what else can impede those free, one-armed gestures?
Being grappled, riding a horse or a boat while you're spellcasting, distractions in the form of getting attacked, inclement weather, etc. (Strangely, being blinded did not make it onto the list...) Do these conditions impose ASF? No, they impose a concentration check. I guess the training to gesture freely even in the presence of factors limiting your range of motion isn't that rare or precious after all. Can anyone really say with a straight face that carrying a shield in the hand that is not spellcasting imposes a greater risk of failure than holding onto a rope for dear life on a boat in a storm? A high concentration skill can beat the latter down to 5% (or zero if taking ten is allowed), but the former is fixed in the range 5-15% depending on the shield. And if armor is the more difficult of the two, why can clerics ignore ASF but still have to make concentration checks in bad weather? Oh right... those lenient gods. But wait--the shouldn't they not have to make concentration checks either?
So the restriction that somatic components impose on spellcasting is applied inconsistently across the classes, and inconsistently across the game--there are two separate rules for disrupting spellcasting with the S component, and the ASF rule exists solely to maintain the unarmored wizard stereotype.
And face it, if unarmored spellcasters were really unbalanced, then the clerics wouldn't get to wear armor. These days their spells are as powerful as the wizards, what with their domains plundering the best of the wizard spell selection.
So, let's assume that you're running a high-powered campaign, and you feel that a wizard sacrificing a high score to Str and a level in some other class is too easy. Maybe you're running a game where everyone is making a 14th level from scratch using 40 pt-buy for characteristics, for example, and you fear the wizard trotting out with adamantine plate mail that grants fire immunity. (With only one fighter level, that wizard still won't be a melee-competent character relative to all the other twinked-out PCs; I still feel, personally, that this is perfectly balanced since they're also spending a large fraction of wealth that could otherwise be going into robes of the archmage or a staff of grievous injury...) Anyway, let's say that you as the DM feel that more cost is needed.
What would be fair and consistent in the D&D framework? The most consistent rule for ASF would simply to impose a concentration check for all spells, DC 10+spell level or 15+spell level, using the armor skill penalty as a modifier and not allowing the character to take 10. Run some numbers and you should find it reasonable. But maybe you feel this isn't enough of a sacrifice, since spellcasters typically max out Concentration ranks anyway.
Another fair and consistent way would be to have a feat chain allowing armored casting; I personally would limit it to one 'Armored Caster' feat, but given that a couple of classes have the ability to cast in light armor only, you could split into two: one to negate the penalty for light armor, and one for medium and heavy armors. From this perspective, clerics get two bonus feats, druids get one (since there are no medium or heavy non-metal armors worth wearing), bards get one.
The two methods could even be combined; make the concentration check mandatory unless you have the feat. That gives players two ways to get around the penalty for armor--one using skill points, the other using feats. Either way, it imposes an additional cost to the character. I personally would make the Combat Casting bonus apply to armor as well as casting on the defensive.
Here ends my rant.
Cheers!
Ben
Last edited:
