A rant on ASF

[Lord Pendragon]

I hope the armor restrictions are removed from magic, or at least relaxed, in 4th edition. To balance that out I'd dole out armor proficiency a little slower than Light, Medium, Heavy, and Shields all at first level for many full fighting classes.

So to balance out giving wizards free use of armor, you'd reduce the effectiveness of armor for the fighting classes?

 

[Zandel]

Originally posted by Sukael
Not necessarily true--racial hit dice always give base attack bonus, even above 20th (for example, 39-HD great wyrm dragons).

Very true. I was assuming base race wizard.

 

[fuindordm]

And the wizard gets access to all the best of these domain spells for a little coin.

How many domains do your clerics usually have?

You are missing the big picture. Encounter reshaping magic works best in combination. When the Wizard or Sorceror makes the entire party Invisible or Flying or both(!), there are lots of tough challenges that become cakewalks.

(shrug)

Sure, I'll concede that there are still some nice combos that only a sorcerer/wizard can pull off, but I don't agree that this makes their magic so much more powerful that ASF is required to balance them against the other classes.

The main point of the rant, is that even with no ASF an arcane PC still needs to make a significant enough investment for proficiencies, strength, and lost spell levels that wearing armor is self-balancing.

Ben

 

[fuindordm]

This might start a slippery slope, though. If mages can cast in armor, why can't a monk throw a punch in armor? Why can't my ranger use a bow in (heavy) armor? Then... the gloves are off, why wouldn't everyone walk around in full plate armor? Why can't my barbarian fast move in heavy armor?

It's partially a game balance issue, in that the advantage of the fighter and the paladin and the cleric is that they can suit up in the cheap, heavy, powerful armor that no other classes (beyond some suppliment classes) get.

This is the most cogent point that I've seen so far. Indeed, it makes sense that barbarians should be able to fast move in heavy armor, provided that they are still only lightly encumbered. Put the onus on weight carried, not on the armor.

And the ranger fighting styles being limited to light armor never sat well with me either. I know it's to encourage the genre and all that, but the pseudo-feat mechanic is rather clunky. I'd rather they got 2 real feats than 3 pseudo-feats. The fact that so many of their skills are Dex-based should be enough to encourage them towards lighter armors, don't you think? And if someone wants to play a ranger who has wilderness knowledge but no desire to invest in scouting skills, and tricks himself out in heavy armor, is that really so terrible?

Ben

 

[fuindordm]

If the somatic component for Bards and clerics is really different than that of Wizards and Sorcerers, this should be reflected in the rules--they should, in fact, be two different components altogether. Call them G (for trivial gesture used only to direct the spell) and C (for the horrible Contortion of the arm and hand that is so unnatural, armor--and only armor--will prevent the correct range of motion altogether.)

But that's the whole point, there IS a distinction, which is why its called "ARCANE spell failure" (meaning that divine casting is uneffected) and why there is a specific rule stating that bards can cast in light armor without penalty.

Yes, there is a distinction but it's applied inconsistently across the rules. Let's say that 4th edition D&D did make this clear and give two separate components... then spells with the G component should be easier or even almost trivial to cast when a concentration check due to restricted movement is called for, too. But this is not the case--the two kinds of somatic gestures are treated identically for purposes of concentration checks, but differently for armor, even when the armor couldn't possibly restrict the motion of one's arm enough to make the gestures difficult.

Ben

 

[Merlion]

That is a very superficial analysis.

I recognize that the cleric now has a good mix of spells including many options in combat that it previously lacked. However, the wizard still completely dominates in spells that "rewrite the rules". Low level spells like Invisibility, Spider Climb, Disguise, Alter Self, and Fly potentially eliminate obstacles in a way that spells on the standard cleric list cannot hold a candle to. Look at higher level spells and we see Polymorph, Dimension Door, Teleport, Wall of Force, and Disintegrate.

The Cleric (and Druid) spells are competitive in fair fight. The Wizard holds the cards that make the fight unfair.

Yes, the Wizard can do things the Cleric cant, and the Cleric can do things the Wizard cant. My point is, the whole concept of "arcane" spell failure (along with the fact that Clerics are given so many other benefits such as double the hit points of a Wizard, full armor profciency, medium BAB and good Fort saves) is based on the idea that Wizard type magic is vastly more powerful and useful than Cleric type magic. And once, this was somewhat true. Now, it isnt. Clerics have 9 levels of spells just like Wizards, and they are capable of effective offense, defense, and support, just like a Wizard. A Wizard can cast Fly and Polymorph and Wall of Force, but a Cleric can cast Find the Path, Commune, Spell Resistance, Heal, Harm etc etc.

Going off topic for a moment, the big thing as far as class balance that makes the Cleric the strongest class in the game is the fact that while they dont have some of the interesting options a Wizard has in terms of playing with reality, the Cleric between their AC and HP, there spells such as Death Ward, Freedom of Movement, Spell Resistance and the energy resistance spells, coupled finally with their incredibly Will and Fort saves have basically no weaknesses once they hit a certain level, and they still have enough offense/removal options to make good use of it.

Again...there are different in there strengths and weaknesses, but overall roughly equal...especially since, again, even though theres a case to be made for a wizard having somewhat broader options, thats compensated for even just in terms of spellcasting by the fact that they can cast more spells than a Wizard, and they automatically have access to every spell on their list, for free.


The big point as far as the topic of this thread is, Wizard magic is not by any means superior enough to Cleric magic to warrant one being able to wear armor freely and the other not. Especially considering that the Wizard is going to have to expend resources to even be able to use the armor properly anyway.

So "arcane" spell failure should either be removed, or it should be made simply "spell failure"

 

[Merlion]

Yes, there is a distinction but it's applied inconsistently across the rules. Let's say that 4th edition D&D did make this clear and give two separate components... then spells with the G component should be easier or even almost trivial to cast when a concentration check due to restricted movement is called for, too. But this is not the case--the two kinds of somatic gestures are treated identically for purposes of concentration checks, but differently for armor, even when the armor couldn't possibly restrict the motion of one's arm enough to make the gestures difficult.

Ben

I also agree with this wholeheardly, and I would mention as an aside that most of the things dealing with "arcane" and "divine" magic have similiar inconsistencies in application.

 

[sukael]

This sort of thing is part of why I think that in 4E (if/when it comes out), arcane and divine magic should run on two separate systems (sort of like the difference between D&D magic and psionics, or the new "Magic of Incarnum" system that will be coming out sooner or later).

 

[Merlion]

This sort of thing is part of why I think that in 4E (if/when it comes out), arcane and divine magic should run on two separate systems (sort of like the difference between D&D magic and psionics, or the new "Magic of Incarnum" system that will be coming out sooner or later).

Or, easier yet just do away with the distinction and let magic be magic, with each individual class having its own form of/aproach to magic, with no big monolythic groupings in the background

 

[Mokona]

So to balance out giving wizards free use of armor, you'd reduce the effectiveness of armor for the fighting classes?

I suspect you're confused because I was too brief and not clear.

There are penalties associated with wearing armor without proficiency. For a wizard to wear armor usefully they should need proficiency with said armor. Most wizards get armor proficiency by taking one, and only one, level of fighter. Fighters get light, medium, heavy, and shield proficiencies all at first level.

Few, if any, fighters can even afford heavy armor at first level. In order to decrease cherry-picking tons of free abilities, with only one level of fighter, why not delay heavy armor proficiency until 2nd level?

Another problem is that armors aren't well balanced with each. Only the price you pay for armors balances the benefits you get but armor is so cheap that after 3rd level the price of armor is marginal between worse and better armors. Why ever wear Chainmail when a Breastplate is better in every way; oh, 50 gold, but that price difference is meaningless to characters for most of their life.