A rant on ASF

Dryfus

First Post
fuindordm said:
But as you say, it's every DM's choice. I just started this thread to complain about a small segment of the rules that I find poorly motivated and internally inconsistent. And perhaps to evangilize a little...

Cheers,
Ben

Ok, I'll give you that. :D But I still think it was initionally(sp?) put in for game balance, and it is a hold-over from that.


Besides, why would a mage want to wear armor, even without the ASF, there are spells that protect better than armor. a fighter/wizard yes, but straight wizard...nah i just don't see it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ridley's Cohort

First Post
Dryfus said:
Besides, why would a mage want to wear armor, even without the ASF, there are spells that protect better than armor. a fighter/wizard yes, but straight wizard...nah i just don't see it.

You are not looking at how this scales.

At low levels, Mage Armor is a precious spell slot.

At higher levels, this just means higher ACs for wizards. Leather +4 gives +6 AC for 16155gp. Bracers of Armor +6 cost 36000gp. That is a big price difference (but beware of incorporeal undead). Or I could have Mithril Chain Shirt +2 (+6 AC) for ~6000gp.

It is certainly true that a buffed out Wizard is hard to hit at any level. But those buffs are a significant drain in low level spell slots and actions. If a wizard does not have to cast these on himself, that is a lot of buffing that could be spread around the party. It adds up.

I agree that there is a balance issue. The wizard is supposed to be kept weak in one area so that he is somewhat dependent on fellow party members.
 

Dryfus

First Post
Ridley's Cohort said:
You are not looking at how this scales.

At low levels, Mage Armor is a precious spell slot.

At higher levels, this just means higher ACs for wizards. Leather +4 gives +6 AC for 16155gp. Bracers of Armor +6 cost 36000gp. That is a big price difference (but beware of incorporeal undead). Or I could have Mithril Chain Shirt +2 (+6 AC) for ~6000gp.

It is certainly true that a buffed out Wizard is hard to hit at any level. But those buffs are a significant drain in low level spell slots and actions. If a wizard does not have to cast these on himself, that is a lot of buffing that could be spread around the party. It adds up.

I agree that there is a balance issue. The wizard is supposed to be kept weak in one area so that he is somewhat dependent on fellow party members.

Yes, all true and relevant. I guess i'm just looking at it from my POV. When i play a wizard, I rely on my other PC's to "protect" me from harm. After all, if I wanted to fight in melee I would have been a fighter.;)
 

Ridley's Cohort

First Post
Dryfus said:
Yes, all true and relevant. I guess i'm just looking at it from my POV. When i play a wizard, I rely on my other PC's to "protect" me from harm. After all, if I wanted to fight in melee I would have been a fighter.;)

I agree with the sentiment. I think the balance issue is to make it costly in resources for the wizard to have the best "effective AC" in party. There are certainly many ways for a Wizard to boost his effective AC (Mirror Image, Blink, Displacement, Fire Shield, etc.) on top of the regular tricks of standard methods of boosting normal AC (Mage Armor, Shield, Protection from Evil, etc.).

If the Wizard can wear leather or a chain shirt without ASF, it makes the task rather easy.
 

Viktyr Gehrig

First Post
Does a Mithril Chain Shirt even have ASF?

Worst-case scenario, Spellsword isn't too difficult to qualify for (even without losing precious caster levels), and you only need one level of it for most Light armor.
 


fuindordm

Adventurer
Ridley's Cohort said:
I agree with the sentiment. I think the balance issue is to make it costly in resources for the wizard to have the best "effective AC" in party. There are certainly many ways for a Wizard to boost his effective AC (Mirror Image, Blink, Displacement, Fire Shield, etc.) on top of the regular tricks of standard methods of boosting normal AC (Mage Armor, Shield, Protection from Evil, etc.).

If the Wizard can wear leather or a chain shirt without ASF, it makes the task rather easy.

Sure, for the straight wizard. But D&D is a multiclassing game now, and the old fighter/cleric/MU/thief party hardly exists anymore. It still encourages specialization and niche protection, but it also encourages (supposedly) players who want to be generalists by making multiclassing easy.

If a straight wizard invests in a single feat to get light armor proficiency, that's not too much of a sacrifice to get a nice mithril chain shirt or magic leather armor, I'll concede. I don't agree that it's a big deal for them to be wearing that armor though. Does it help the fighters? A really tricked out fighter can avoid getting hit most of the time by CR-appropriate creatures, if they focus on AC... but generally, it's just a question of getting hit 30% of the time instead of 60% of the time in combat and they rely on their high HP to stay in the game long enough to finish the fight.

If a wizard is wearing that armor and getting close enough to the enemy for it to come into play, then their HP won't keep them in the game for very long. It might help against the cannon fodder and the ranged attacks a bit, but it will still be inferior to other defensive options they have from spells. I'll concede that it frees up a spell slot or two for other things, but for a straight-up wizard I think wearing armor is a zero-sum game even if there were no arcane spell failure. The main thing it gives the player is a false sense of security.

For a multiclassed character, who is already investing class levels in other things and taking a big hit to their spellcasting power, then arcane spell failure is a grievous insult.

Ben
 

fuindordm

Adventurer
Korimyr the Rat said:
Does a Mithril Chain Shirt even have ASF?

Worst-case scenario, Spellsword isn't too difficult to qualify for (even without losing precious caster levels), and you only need one level of it for most Light armor.

Then why not make it a feat, if it's not too difficult? Then low-level characters can have fun with the archetype too. :)

Ben
 

Merlion

First Post
Raven Crowking said:
To my recollection, the 1st Ed Deities & Demigods made it quite clear that clerical& druid spells were granted by the gods, that the gods could interfere with spell choice if they so desired, and that they could deny spells altogether.

Playing 3.X "straight" removes all of these hinderences, and thus, imho at least, reduces the "arcane" and "divine" magic divide.


RC



....huh? Those hinderances are still in place. Clerics and Druids still gain their spells from outside sources, and still have the fear of losing them or having them restricted should they misbehave. In 3.x Clerics can serve an abstract rather than a personal deity, and Druids can gain their power directly from nature, but they still both must follow the tenets of their faith/class/alignment whatever or risk losing their powers.


In 1st edition, there were no monolithic distinctions of types of magic. Each class had its own way and form of magic. Some have always had certain similarities, but it was not such that each class had to be shoehorned into one of two groups that even the designers dont seem able to make up their mind as to eaxactly what the differences are or should be.
 

Merlion

First Post
You dont thnk that Arcane magic is more powerful??


Well technically as defined in the rules the only actual differnces between "arcane" and "divine magic are: Divine magic isnt subject to spell failure, Divine spellcasters gain full access to every spell on their list as determined by their level and (this being purely a roleplaying thing) Divine magic comes from outside sources rather than being learned or internal, as oposed to how Arcane magic is subject to spell failure, and Arcane spellcasters must learn their spells rather than getting them all for free (in other words, Divine spellcasters have at least one automatic advantage over Arcane, and Arcane spellcasters have an automatic disadvantage over Divine)


The specifics of what sorts of spells a class has access to is based on the class, not wether the caster is "arcane" or "divine". Supposedly. Of course in practice when people say "arcane" magic what they mean is "wizard magic" and when they say "divine magic" they mean "cleric magic", and so we will go from that standpoint for purposes of discussion.

Its interesting tho that the Druid has just about as much in common with the Wizard as with the Cleric, magically.


What mass killing spells do clerics have??what one or two, maybe three(I don't have my books in front of me)??


Whats that got to do with anything? "power" and "mass killing" arent automatically the same thing. A casting classes magical power isnt determined solely by how many mass-target attack spells they have.


Take a 10th level mage and tenth level cleric alone in an encounter with 25 base orcs,


A solo encounter with a small mass of vastly inferior oponents isnt an especially good yardstick either.



However to pause and address what seems to be your overall point...yes, wizards/sorcerers/"arcane magic" in the way its generaly thought of are/is better at dealing damage, and especially at dealing damage to multiple enemies. However, as I said above...so what? Thats just one area. Druids who are "divine" spellcasters are in fact almost as good at that.
And Clerics are no slouches at magical offense either, especially from the level range you've mentioned onward. Slay Living, Destruction, Implosion, Harm, Energy Drain, Holy Word etc, Holy Smite etc, and even damage wise Flame Strike, Fire Storm, Searing Light. And then if you count the spells that augment their already decent combat ability and turn them into melee machines...Divine Power, Righteous Might etc etc.
Yes, Wizards have access to more save-or-die type spells, and attack spells in general, but also many of them are more or less redundant. Some may have specific situational advantages over others but some are basically just different versions of the same things. The Cleric has less, but still pretty much covers the bases.
Also as fuin has pointed out, the Cleric can gain limited access to many more wizard type spells via Domains. And if you bring in non core, theres a feat the name of which escapes me, in Complete Divine, that gives them full access to the spells of a domain.



Also, the mage has many spells in with he can become immune to or very resistant to attacks. Stone skin, mage armor, shield, protection from normal missile, and invis come to mind.


And so does the Cleric. In fact as far as protecting from magical attacks, the Cleric is equal or really in my opinion superior. They get all the anti-energy spells plus Spell Resistance, Freedom of Movement (which also makes you immune to being grappled) Death Ward, Spell Immunity, Greater Spell Immunity...



Also they can buff themselves or the other PC's at a lower level than a cleric can.


I'm not sure what you mean about lower level, but yes in terms of buffing combat types other than themselves, a Wizard is actually superior especially as of 3.5 with Haste, Heroism and the like. Really the Bard is probably the king of party melee buffing.

However the Cleric from low mid level on can buff themselves into a combat monster as mentioned above.



The only real advantage that clerics have is they get access to all the spells of the level they can cast, immidiatly(sp?).


Yep, thats one enormous advantage. If you compare the wizard to the Cleric the Wizard is better at dealing damage, especially to multiple oponents, and a little better at overall offense, maybe. Their also better at general utility, especially as far as travel. As far as defense, I'd say their at best tied. The Wizard is probably better at spells that defend against physical attack, but the Cleric is far better at defending from magical and special attacks. The Wizard cannot heal or affect alignment at all. In Divination, again a tie at best, or advantage Cleric considering that they can actually fortell the future, and the have Commune which is safer and more effective than Contact Other Plane. They also have things like Find the Path and Speak with Dead that wizards do not.

And of course on top of this, the Cleric gets full armor prof and the ability to cast in it, twice the HP of the Wizard, good Fort saves, medium BAB, more spell slots and the ability to turn undead (and in terms of non core, thereby gaining access to various powerful "divine" feats)

And this isnt even factoring in the Druid, mainly because they Druid is actually a bit below the other primary casters in magical ability, and gets other things to compensate (as it should be with Cleric but isnt) and also Druids dont really use armor that much, making them less relevent to this discussion.


Point being that overall, "arcane magic" as personfied by the classes in the PH, is not really more powerful than "divine magic" defined the same way. Definitely not enough to warrant the ASF thing.

I agree with those who say its mostly there to maintain the stereotype. I say remove it, or make it apply to every PH class.

I would say do as Monte did in AU and have it be class by class (I especially favor this since to me logically Bards shouldnt have it at all, since 90% of their spells or more should be verbal only) but if this was done the Cleric should have Spell Failure, if used as is. In AU Greenbonds dont suffer spell failure and Magisters do, but Greenbonds are actually noticeably inferior casters to Magisters, whereas in D&D the same is not true between Cleric and Wizard.
 

Remove ads

Top