D&D 3E/3.5 (3.5) Spell Failure Conundrum

[orion90000]

Reading between the lines a bit here. A bard can cast his spells in light armor without spell failure. A warmage can cast his spells in light armor (later medium armor) without spell failure.

Would it be too much to imply that a sorcerer/wizard casting the spells on these lists to not incur spell failure while wearing light armor? The only argument that I can think of is that while they cast the same spells, their somatic gestures differ (but why?)

 

[psiphre]

I've seen it said on the official boards that one of the developers admitted there is no game design reason for arcane spell failure chance due to armor - it's purely fluff. i wasn't able to get a citation from anyone though.

i'm trying out abolishing ASF from armor in the game I'm currently running. I doubt it will make a huge difference, since all the rule does is tend to force arcane casters into wearing lighter armor than they would otherwise. at low levels they wouldn't be able to afford awesome armor anyway (too tapped out buying spells, crafting potions, scrolls, whatever) and at higher levels casters tend to have high ACs anyway.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

To cite the SRD: Sorcerers & Wizards :: d20srd.org

"Weapon and Armor Proficiency Sorcerers are proficient with all simple weapons. They are not proficient with any type of armor or shield. Armor of any type interferes with a sorcerer’s gestures, which can cause his spells with somatic components to fail."

"Wizards are proficient with the club, dagger, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, and quarterstaff, but not with any type of armor or shield. Armor of any type interferes with a wizard’s movements, which can cause her spells with somatic components to fail."

Spells with somatic components are subject to spell failure to a Wizard or Sorcerer as per RAW. Spells without somatic components are just dandy.

As to why? Dunno. If you as a DM want to abolish it to grant light armor, I personally don't see a huge problem with it.

If you allow Heavy armor, than if I was your player I'd wear Mountain Plate for the +10 AC and just hurl spells while standing in place.

 

[green slime]

So now sorcerers and wizards get unrestricted spellcasting in heavy armour as well?!

Sure sucks to be a normal melee character.

 

[Dandu]

The reason sorcerers and wizards can't cast in armor is because their classes are not trained to do so.

 

[Sekhmet]

Quite exactly what Dandu said. The same reason Rogues and Barbarians don't get Heavy Armor Proficiency, they just aren't trained to do so.
Warmages and Bards are trained to use their spells while armored. Wizards and Sorcerers are not.

 

[psiphre]

I've always thought the "they aren't trained to wear armor" argument was pretty ridiculous. I've had to wear armor, and I've had to do my daily tasks in armor, and the skill check penalty suffices.

 

[Grogg of the North]

Warmages are trained from the start of their career to learn how to cast in large bulky suits. All of which is supposed to familiarize their bodies with how armor limits their movements. So for warmages its all about training.

For your sorcerer/wizard there are plenty of ways to get regular armor. Twilight enhancements, mithril, prestige classes. Or cherry pick the arcane armor feats from Pathfinder.

What has always bugged me is that bards are proficient with shields but still suffer spell failure from them.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I've always thought the "they aren't trained to wear armor" argument was pretty ridiculous. I've had to wear armor, and I've had to do my daily tasks in armor, and the skill check penalty suffices.

Now if they wear the armor, untrained, and just operate with the penalties for not being proficient, then that makes sense.

 

[Dandu]

I've always thought the "they aren't trained to wear armor" argument was pretty ridiculous. I've had to wear armor, and I've had to do my daily tasks in armor, and the skill check penalty suffices.

Have you ever cast magic spells in armor?