A rant on ASF

[fuindordm]

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????

No, it wouldn't really help. Substituting a Concentration check for ASF complicates things; the only advantage is unifying ASF into an existing mechanic for added consistency. From a character-building standpoint, this will only force characters who are interested in the armored spellcaster archetype to invest in a feat (Skill Focus: Concentration), and that won't even be enough to guarantee success with their highest-level spells.

So, if you believe that ASF is a necessary balancing factor (because arcane magic is more powerful) or want to keep it to enforce the wizard stereotype, it would be cleaner from a character-building perspective to allow a feat or series of feats to negate ASF.

I, however, believe that the mechanic is completely unnecessary--because I don't want to enforce the stereotype, and because I don't believe that arcane magic is more powerful than divine magic in 3rd edition.

Ben

 

[fuindordm]

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.

Or only the most powerful ones. I like this approach myself; it makes magic feel more broad and complicated if all beginning wizards are forced to specialize because they haven't had time to master all the techniques.

Check out the Iron Heroes thread for the Arcanist--they start out with one primary and one secondary school, and don't gain access to all schools until higher levels. Their spellcasting ability with the other schools will never reach that of their initial specialization, either.

In D&D terms, I think this would translate to something like this:

At 1st level, choose a primary school; you get +2 caster levels to spell effects with that school. Also choose a secondary school, for which your caster level is normal.
At 3rd level, choose a tertiary school, you get -2 caster levels to spell effects with that school.
At 6th level, you get access to all other schools, but all spells count as one level higher for you from these schools.

Toss in the special abilities from UA for free, and I think you'd have a pretty cool variant.

Ben

 

[Dryfus]

I, however, believe that the mechanic is completely unnecessary--because I don't want to enforce the stereotype, and because I don't believe that arcane magic is more powerful than divine magic in 3rd edition.

Ben

You dont thnk that Arcane magic is more powerful?? What mass killing spells do clerics have??what one or two, maybe three(I don't have my books in front of me)?? Take a 10th level mage and tenth level cleric alone in an encounter with 25 base orcs, which one do you think will have to deal with the orcs in melee?? I'd say the cleric, b/c I can't think of one mass killing spell a cleric would have at that level(of course I am newer to 3.5 than I'd care to admit). The mage has a couple of spells, fire ball, ice storm, and wall of fire come to mind(without my books). 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. Also they can buff themselves or the other PC's at a lower level than a cleric can.

The only real advantage that clerics have is they get access to all the spells of the level they can cast, immidiatly(sp?). But they still have to prepare them(other than heal spells).

I have recently been going though the books and reading the rules and trying to decice if this rule or that rule is approriate or if it's there for some reason. I haven't looked real hard at ASF(untill now), but I'm thinking it's there for some type of play balance. I haven't figured out why yet, but I think that why. Besides, if you want to eleiminate it, go right ahead, we would't care(even if I played in you game I wouldn't care), after all you are the DM, and can change things any way you want. I agree though, a progression of feats would be better than requiring a concentration check. Do like an armored spellcaster feat cuts the chace for ASF by 50%, and an advanced armored spellcaster that get rid of it all-together. Just my oppinion though.

 

[fuindordm]

You dont thnk that Arcane magic is more powerful?? What mass killing spells do clerics have??what one or two, maybe three(I don't have my books in front of me)?? Take a 10th level mage and tenth level cleric alone in an encounter with 25 base orcs, which one do you think will have to deal with the orcs in melee?? I'd say the cleric, b/c I can't think of one mass killing spell a cleric would have at that level(of course I am newer to 3.5 than I'd care to admit). The mage has a couple of spells, fire ball, ice storm, and wall of fire come to mind(without my books). 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. Also they can buff themselves or the other PC's at a lower level than a cleric can.

First, because I'm not defining 'more powerful' as simply damage output. It's true that the wizard still has the edge in damage dealing, especially if they prepare ahead of time for that sort of thing.

But many, many of the best wizard spells (offensive, defensive, and utility) are now part of domains. Check it out:

Air: chain lightning, whirlwind
Destruction: disintegrate, implosion
Earth: stoneskin, iron body
Fire: Fire shield, wall of fire, firestorm
Knowledge: detect thoughts, legend lore, discern location
Strength: stoneskin, Bigby's hand spells
Travel: fly, dimension door, teleport
Trickery: invisibility
War; power words
Water: ice storm, cone of cold, horrid wilting, acid cloud...

Add to that the Summon Monster spells (now good for clerics as well as wizards), inflict wounds/harm, flame strike, divine favor/divine power, and so on... I think it's easier to make a cleric that is an effective spellcaster in combat than a wizard, because there are so many spells they can take that are always good for something.

Yes, the cleric will be going into melee more because they have more hp, BAB, and armor. But a cleric who just casts spells can be just as effective as a wizard who just casts spells in combat. It's not because the cleric has more buffs and the wizard has more choices in dealing damage that the wizard is more powerful.

Clerics also have the edge, I find, in making magic items. The full spell list access really helps there, if you like that sort of thing.

Finally, I really believe that the rule was added to preserve the stereotype only, not for any sort of game balance... all the reasons are given in the rant, and I'm not going to repeat them.

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

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, you're right. I assume these reasons for it because I too can't remember a fantasy novel ever explaining the lack of armor in a way that had something to do with the nature of magic in the world. The only reasons left to me then are common-sense reasons that don't have anything to do with the nature of magic in the world, but you're right that I have to invent those myself.

There are many fantasy novels that never explain exactly how their magic system works, though. Not only does Gandalf not explain why he doesn't wear armor, but he doesn't explain what components are necessary for spells, how many spells he can cast per day, where he draws the power from, or even if he has to study to "learn" spells.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, I've also never understood or liked the "arcane" and "divine" magic divide. And indeed, untill 3rd edition there was no such divide, presented in that way...even less so in 1st edition.

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

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Despite the above posts, I should add that I do like this system, and will probably steal it for use in my own game.


RC

 

[jcfiala]

No, it wouldn't really help. Substituting a Concentration check for ASF complicates things; the only advantage is unifying ASF into an existing mechanic for added consistency. From a character-building standpoint, this will only force characters who are interested in the armored spellcaster archetype to invest in a feat (Skill Focus: Concentration), and that won't even be enough to guarantee success with their highest-level spells.

It wouldn't?

Well, let's see. 1st level wizard, takes 4 ranks in Concentration, takes a 12 for Con (required for any wizard, I think), and Skill Focus: Concentration. That's a +8 to make a DC 11 - Only a 10% chance of failing to start with. If they're wearing light armor, say with a -2 penalty, then that's a +6 to make a DC 11, and they're fine.

Then, at 10th level, they have 13 ranks in concentration, same feat, same con. That's now a +17 to make a check for a 5th level spell - DC 15. That doesn't seem hard at all, even with a -2 armor check penalty.

Concentration grows by level, spell level grows by every other level. At higher levels Concentration checks are darn near automatic.

Another possibility to take with the 'Casting in armor uses Concentration' rules is to allow a wizard to take extra time to cast a spell and gain a bonus to their concentration check. If a spell usually takes an action, and the wizard uses his full round, why not give him a +2 or +3 on the roll, representing him taking his time to cast the spell correctly?

Just ideas...

 

[fuindordm]

I was using a DC of 15+spell level, and imposing the armor check penalty to the roll; running some numbers showed it to be difficult to pull off reliably without the Skill Focus. 10+spell level would make things much more reliably, and probably allow light armor use for everyone with max ranks in Concentration.

Ben

 

[jcfiala]

I was using a DC of 15+spell level, and imposing the armor check penalty to the roll; running some numbers showed it to be difficult to pull off reliably without the Skill Focus. 10+spell level would make things much more reliably, and probably allow light armor use for everyone with max ranks in Concentration.

Ah, 15? That would be difficult. I thought of 10 because it represents the base DC for when you're wounded while casting a spell - the DC there is 10+damage taken. I agree, 15 would be too high.