A rant on ASF

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

I would disagree. In the hands of savvy players, Wizards do not die because they got burned by a Fireball or slammed by the Hill Giant. They die because they got hit by 2 random Orc spears and then burned by a Fireball or slammed by the Hill Giant. Keeping your HPs topped off is important because the Wizard has a smaller margin of error, and AC is a very reliable means of lowering the rate of HP attrition. You are correct that any Wizard that relies on AC alone would be a fool.

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.

I would agree with you there. Wizard multiclassing is far inferior to Cleric multiclassing. ASF is a signficant problem. Frontloaded domain benefits is another big factor.

 

[Sir Brennen]

With all the discussion on Concentration checks, let me throw another option out there I've been considering for my own game:

One thing I don't like about ASF is it's another roll required in combat. Same thing with just making in a Concentration check. (I also agree with the scalability problems - too hard at low levels, too easy at high.) I do, however, like the idea of armored mages, especially at higher levels.

Instead, what if instead armor simply reduced the effectiveness of Arcane magic? This could easily be represented by lowering caster level for the various armor types. Light is a -1 CL, Medium -2, Heavy -3. Add -1 if not proficient. Shields add their Armor Check Penalty to CL reduction.

Note that this would also affect checks to evercome SR, using Dispel Magic and the like. However, spells not overly reliant on CL become a bit more useful. Also, it might encourage casters to look at less common spells as they try to get around the reduced CL.

Special Materials such as mithral retain their relevance, since they lower the armor type by one category. Light armors made of mithral (not many metal light ones, I know) would have a caster level reduction of zero.

The 1st level caster obviously isn't going to get much benefit from this, but I don't see a wiz fresh from the academy having any experience with armor anyway. Wiz's donning armor is more something that one would see for adventuring spell casters, so they pick up the proficiency along the way (such as by multi-classing.)

Optionally, the CL penalty could be ruled to never lower the actual CL below 1 (if proficient). So if a first level wiz/sor burns a feat (or two) on Armor Proficiency, he actually has a little pay-off, though it will have a price as he goes up in levels.

Originally, I thought about making the CL reduction equal to the current ASF % divided by 5, so a Chain Shirt [20% ASF] would reduce CL by 4. A Mithral Chain Shirt [10% ASF] has a -2 CL reduction. I thought this was a little steep, but YMMV, especially those that want to get down to the specific types of armor.

Other variantions are possible on this idea, like basing the CL reduction on Armor Check Penalty instead, so wizards could wear leather armor no problem, and masterwork armor helps with the CL reduction. Each +1 of magic enhancement bonus might also reduce CL reduction by one.

Anyway, my 2 coppers.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

An interesting idea Sir Brennan. I afraid it would not work multiclass characters who already suffer from a painfully anemic caster level.

 

[Sir Brennen]

An interesting idea Sir Brennan. I afraid it would not work multiclass characters who already suffer from a painfully anemic caster level.

Which is a whole 'nuther issue, really. I address that in my campaign by allowing the Practiced Spellcaster feat from Complete Arcane (casters can add +4 to caster level, as long as it doesn't exceed character level.) I also let characters gain this feat with other means than just a feat slot (clerics, for example, can sacrifice a domain to gain the benefits.)

Also, re: the cleric vs. wizards power level, while I do think clerics are a little on the powerful side, remember, many of their spells end up getting converted into curing, reducing the number of offensive/utility magics they actually use in a session.

 

[Merlion]

Also, re: the cleric vs. wizards power level, while I do think clerics are a little on the powerful side, remember, many of their spells end up getting converted into curing, reducing the number of offensive/utility magics they actually use in a session.

Hmmm...well yes thats a consideration but 1) thats not always true, especially in terms of what goes on in combat 2) that is largely negated by the fact that a Cleric gets more spell slots than even a specialist wizard and 3) it doesnt really bear in a general discussion of the overall magical options and abilities of the class, and even less so of an overall comparison between "arcane" and "divine" magic. Though as I mentioned above the latter sort of discussion is rather a peculiar animal anyway.

 

[Merlion]

I would disagree. In the hands of savvy players, Wizards do not die because they got burned by a Fireball or slammed by the Hill Giant. They die because they got hit by 2 random Orc spears and then burned by a Fireball or slammed by the Hill Giant. Keeping your HPs topped off is important because the Wizard has a smaller margin of error, and AC is a very reliable means of lowering the rate of HP attrition. You are correct that any Wizard that relies on AC alone would be a fool.

I think the point here is more that most wizards just arent going to put themselves in situations where non-touch AC is very relevent to begin with. Physical armor only helps protect you from physical attacks...like orc spears and giant clubs. And generally wizards are going to keep themselves completely away from these types of attacks, since they rarely have need or reason to enter melee range and have several spells that aid them in this (fly especially springs to mind). So that leaves ranged touch attacks and targeted spells, which armor doesnt protect against anyway, and ranged physical attacks (which a wizard could gain surer protection from with one 2nd level spell)


Your right about AC and HP atrition, but the AC gained from armor just isnt going to apply all that frequently to the HP atrition experienced by most wizards. And 1) as fuin says, its still not going to do anything about the wizards almost non existant hit points and 2) especially at mid and high levels anything with a decent BAB is almost never going to miss anyway regardless of AC if you get close enough for it to attempt an attack

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Your right about AC and HP atrition, but the AC gained from armor just isnt going to apply all that frequently to the HP atrition experienced by most wizards. And 1) as fuin says, its still not going to do anything about the wizards almost non existant hit points and 2) especially at mid and high levels anything with a decent BAB is almost never going to miss anyway regardless of AC if you get close enough for it to attempt an attack

Unless you powergame AC, the "real" threats will always have sufficient net "to hit" and a savvy Wizard will depend on Mirror Images, concealment, meatshields or all of the above for protection. I think we agree on that.

However those extra 2 or 4 points of AC can make a very big difference with respect to the mooks. And the smart mooks throw spears or ready actions against casting.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would be interested in knowing who comes into this as a DM, and who comes into this as a player. I DM over 90% of the games I play.

While I like fuindordm's system in relation to the way other parts of the game work (and base DC is scaleable, so making the check "too easy" should not be a problem), I can certainly see how allowing arcane spell casters to ignore ASF would remove something from the fighter class as the rules are currently written. Also, I am not of the camp that says "there should be no restrictions." IMHO, restrictions are part of what gives a campaign its flavour, and make choice meaningful.

How would we feel if this was a "let's get around the fighter's spellcasting restriction" thread?


RC

 

[fuindordm]

I would be interested in knowing who comes into this as a DM, and who comes into this as a player. I DM over 90% of the games I play.

While I like fuindordm's system in relation to the way other parts of the game work (and base DC is scaleable, so making the check "too easy" should not be a problem), I can certainly see how allowing arcane spell casters to ignore ASF would remove something from the fighter class as the rules are currently written. Also, I am not of the camp that says "there should be no restrictions." IMHO, restrictions are part of what gives a campaign its flavour, and make choice meaningful.

How would we feel if this was a "let's get around the fighter's spellcasting restriction" thread?


RC

I come into it as a DM, and just to be clear--the system I would prefer, if I believed that more sacrifice was necessary on the spellcaster's part to cast in armor, would be a single 'armored casting' feat. But I admit that I haven't playtested it; I've removed ASF from my own game, but no one has taken advantage of it yet. It's an Eberron game, and the only spellcasters in the party are an artificer and a warforged cleric. We just had a kalashtar wizard join, and I mentioned the option to the player, but he turned up his nose at it.

I'm not sure what you mean by that last comment. Unearthed Arcana has the concept of a 'base magic bonus' that would give multiclassers a higher caster level even for fighter levels, and the Practiced Spellcaster feat can also be considered a way around this sort of thing. I'm OK with both of these systems, personally.

On the other hand, a fighter can take a feat to make Use Magic Device a class skill, then invest skill points in it to read from scrolls pretty reliably. Isn't that OK?

As a DM, I'd rather enable interesting PC ideas than place poorly founded restrictions in the name of 'flavor'. I think flavor should come from the setting you play in, not from the game mechanics--although you can never really get away from the latter.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Blacksmithking]

Wizards can already load up with mithral bucklers +5, twilight mithral chain shirts +5, and +6 dex items without suffering ASF. Psions, psychic rogues, warmages, bards, clerics, druids, warlocks, psychic warriors, and favoured souls, among others, can cast spells while wearning armor, in some cases the same spells as a wizard.

Why do we need ASF, again?