A rant on ASF

[Pickaxe]

A softer option:

15+spell level gives a DC range 15-24
Full concentration ranks + combat casting +1 Con - armor check penalty of 4 (breastplate) = a bonus of 4+level to the roll. This is still pretty tricky at low levels, and without yet more investment such as taking the skill focus feat, remains so even to the mid levels. At 10th level you get +14, compared to a DC of 20 for your highest level spell; at 15th level you're at +19, compared to a DC of 23. So you get better and better, but you still have a non-negligible failure rate.

What this amounts to is saying to the armored spellcaster, if you want to wear something better than Mage Armor all the time, you need a high Str, max ranks in Con, and Skill Focus (Concentration) to beat your failure rate down to the 5-10% range. Mithril armor will help a lot, of course, but at a DC of 15+spell level you're making it highly likely that they'll take the feat to wear armor.

In which case, you might as well just use an Armored Casting feat.

A DC of 10+spell level, on the other hand, renders the check trivial once you hit mid-levels; you'll see mithril-breastplated spellcasters much more commonly. If you think a mithril breastplate with no spell failure is more valuable to the spellcaster than one level of lost spellcasting, then 10+spell level is
probably not enough.

Ben

What I'm suggesting is abandoning the Concentration (or any other skill-based) mechanic. Otherwise, you are dealing with a check that goes up every level against a DC that goes up every other level (and only for the highest level spell). So, either you make the DC extremely high so that high level wizards are still discouraged from casting in armor, and at the same time discourage anyone from playing a low-level cleric or druid (because of significant chance of spell failure). Or, you make the DC low enough for armored divine casters to cast spells easily, but make it extremely easy for high level wizards to cast in armor. (Why, by the way, would a wizard necessarily take a level of fighter for the armor? As long as they are willing to take on the check penalty to attacks, they don't need the proficiency.)

I appreciate the discussion and the points of view regarding internal consistency, etc., but ASF, IMHO, does its job: it preserves the image, sacred cow or not, of the unarmored Gandalf or Merlin as the iconic wizard. If the "correction" involves a more complex mechanic, it does not seem worthwhile.

--Axe

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'm veering into House Rules territory with this one, but allowing armored Wizards isn't too difficult-- remove the prerequisite on Battle Caster (from Complete Arcane) and then allow it to be taken multiple times.

Then, a Wizard can either pay two feats for each level of armor-- steep for any but Light armor-- or he can take his level of Fighter, get his armor proficiencies, and then spend a feat for every level of armor he intends to cast spells in.

I prefer the distinction between Arcane and Divine magic, and wish it were a little deeper, instead of a single limitation on arcane casters. I'm still looking for satisfactory mechanical differences between the two-- like the differences between either type of magic, the magic of Artificers, and psionics.

As far as Wizard school specialization goes, I am strongly considering adapting the Psion approach-- every Wizard choose a school to specialize in, and gains the bonus spell from it. What I would remove, however, would be the forbidden schools. Wizards have access to all Wizard spells, but they're better at casting the ones they're specialized in.

 

[Merlion]

I prefer the distinction between Arcane and Divine magic, and wish it were a little deeper, instead of a single limitation on arcane casters. I'm still looking for satisfactory mechanical differences between the two-- like the differences between either type of magic, the magic of Artificers, and psionics.

As long as its monolithic distinctions, thats going to be a problem. Heck, the classes within each designation dont even fit very well half the time (the Druid doesnt really fit a lot of the "divine" sterotypes, and it gets even worse if you go into other things, like the Shugenja in OA), let alone coming up with satisfactory distinctions between the two that still work with the actual classes in question.


Which is why it needs to be totally class by class (as it was in 1st edition) with no big monolith of "oh your a divine caster so your supposed to blah blah blah" or "oh your an arcane caster so you cant blah blah blah" in the background.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sorry- been gone for a while because Verizon cut my line while doing an upgrade to the infrastructure in my area... I don't know if this has become resolved or not, but I couldn't let it slide.

In Medieveal times, especially in the areas D&D is most strongly tied to, there was nothing like the concept of "arcane" and "divine" magic. Especially not "divine" magic. Priest didnt cast spells, or even claim to. It was believed that a few saints were able to perform miracles, but only a ~very~ few, and only to a very limited degree, and it was not thought of as "magic" not even as "divine magic". It was God working a miracle through a person. And then as you say magic or witchcraft was condemed as evil. But so would have been a person who claimed that ~they~ were working miracles at will. It was only if God was simply using you to do it that it was acceptable.

While technically true, several Clerical/Druidic spells through the various edition of D&D were obviously inspired by Biblical passages and from other religious texts.

1stEd AD&D's 4th level Clerical/5th lvl Druid spell "Sticks to Snakes" (Moses vs Pharoah's priests) springs immediately to mind, as do things like Insect Plague/Creeping Doom (Plague of locusts- Moses again), Part Water (More Moses), Flame Strike (Sodom & Gamorrah), Fire Storm/Wall of Fire (Moses), Raise Dead (Jesus!), Tongues (Miracle of the Pentacaust- the Holy Spirit), Create Food and Water (Parable of the Loaves and Fishes- Jesus), and most of the healing and curing spells (various prophets).

Obviously what happened is that the rare "miracle" of religious texts became transformed into the clerical spells of early D&D...which eventually became termed "divine" magic. This transformed the and the rare "saint" became the Cleric.

Similarly, the Paladin is based squarely on stories of Saints real and fictional (Jean D'arc, Lancelot) and crusaders of noted prowess. While also rare, they became more common for purposes of inclusion into the game. Once again- their powers in legend were sourced from God, but that simply didn't fit the D&D game mechanic, so it was altered slightly.

As for my point that players play chainmail over breastplates for roleplay or availability reasons:

Unfortunately, neither of those reasons for wearing chainmail instead of a breastplate are supported by the rules or the Player's Handbook. Because roleplaying restrictions (DM or self-imposed) and availability aren't written down anywhere they can't provide rules balance. Many games will differ wildly on the presence or absence of those factors.

Once again, true, but it doesn't invalidate my assertion. I'm just saying that those are the only 2 reasons I've ever seen that REALLY make a difference in the ultimate equipment decisions players make for their PCs.

After all, since a 2 handed weapon with the appropriate feat tree is the best way for a warrior to do damage, why don't all players take that option? Or use the best Longbow or Hvy Crossbow? Instead, you see things like Whip Specialists who use 2 weapon style and PCs with Throwing daggers as their ranged weapon of choice.

 

[Dryfus]

If you change ASF to a concentration check, aren't you still giving a chance that you cant cast a spell in armor, so isn't it the same thing??

Also, there are some very nifty magic items that give Mages AC bonuses like the robe of the arch-magi. and bracers of armor. wich is usable by any class, but you get the idea. I dont have the time to go through the DMG and pull out all the magic items that give an AC bonus for mages.

 

[Dryfus]

If you change ASF to a concentration check, aren't you still giving a chance that you cant cast a spell in armor, so isn't it the same thing??

I hate to quote myself, but I thought of something else, not only are you making it a switch for one roll to another, if a mage takes the ligh tarmor prof and uses leather(5% ASF) then by changing it to something akin to a concetration check with a DC higher than one your raising the chance of spell failure. B/c every one on a d20 is 5%. and if you do it "accross the board" and do it to ALL spell casters, they go from 0% spell failure to (with a DC of 15) 75% chance of spell failure. And what PC would want that?? I havent seen a VIABLE fix for this in this thread. b/c at lower level your hosing the mages and any other class you do any of the changes to.

For instance if you change it to a conentration check DC = 10 + spell level. At first level a mage wearing leather DC 11(first level spell) - concentration 7 (int of 16 + max concetration skill) = 4 or 20% chance to lose that spell. where now it's just 5% (or a roll of 1 on a d20). would that be any fairer than having the ASF. and having it apply to ALL spell casters????

 

[babomb]

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.

Actually, the distractions that cause Concentraction checks aren't intended to impede your gestures. They impede your...concentration. I can prove it. Look at the Concentration section on p. 151 of the 3.0 PHB or p. 170 of the 3.5 PHB. Notice that it doesn't say the check applies only to spells with somatic components. In fact, the Grappling or Pinned subsection explicitly refutes this: "The only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a Concentration check (DC 20 + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell."

I've never been very happy with specialization in any edition, but it hasn't bothered me enough to make major changes to the system. Do you have ideas here?

Someone on ENWorld recently suggested making specialist wizards prestige classes. (I think I prefer the term "advanced class" like d20 modern.) This sounds like a great idea to me, and I wonder why it hasn't come up before.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Someone on ENWorld recently suggested making specialist wizards prestige classes. (I think I prefer the term "advanced class" like d20 modern.) This sounds like a great idea to me, and I wonder why it hasn't come up before.

Actually, I have gone in a different direction. I have started eliminating the base Wizard class in my campaigns: the Specialist Mage is the base mage in my latest campaigns. It works. No single mage can have the answer to every situation that arises.

 

[Merlion]

While technically true, several Clerical/Druidic spells through the various edition of D&D were obviously inspired by Biblical passages and from other religious texts.

Yes...but thats really got little to do with what I'm talking about. Some spells in DnD are basically taken right out of the Bible, yes. However, the concept of "arcane" and "divine" magic, as it is in D&D, is in no way a concept that actually existed in medieveal thought, and (in the sense of how it is in D&D) is also mostly alien to fantasy literature and the like.


The underlying point is, "arcane" magic is not suffciently stronger mechanically than "divine" magic to warant it having the restriction of spell failure in armor when "divine" magic does not.

 

[Merlion]

Actually, I have gone in a different direction. I have started eliminating the base Wizard class in my campaigns: the Specialist Mage is the base mage in my latest campaigns.

If it worked the same as regular specialization, where you have to give up schools, I would really really dislike this. I want to be able to play a general mage who can pick from all the schools.


If you still got full school access, it would be a little better, although D&D already tends to be a little specialization-obssesed. Spellcasting prestige classes, for instance, generally tend to involve basically specializing in or focusing on a narrow type of spells or whatever.

No single mage can have the answer to every situation that arises.

With the standard Wizard spell list, no one wizard is going to at all have the answer to every situation that arises, especially as far as combat, and especially with regard to defense.

Now generalist wizards tend to be able to deal with a lot of different non combat situations, especially those related to movement and travel.

But if you need damage healed, or a physical status condition like disease or poison removed, or if you need say a good defense against death magic, or a good blanket defense against magic in general, or to move underwater normally, or to have immunity to a specific spell, or an attack that will affect evil creatures but not good creatures, or to detect the presence of a particular alignment, or heck if you need to see a little ways into the future or get the answer to a question, a Wizard isnt going to be any help. But of course a Cleric will be.