Arcane Spell Failure and Shields

[Herpes Cineplex]

How does that then compare with me using a longsword and casting a quickened spell in the same round?

That would probably depend on whether or not your game considers a quickened spell to have any significant somatic components. (After all, a stilled spell is never subject to arcane spell failure, no matter what you're wearing or holding.) Then you'd have to consider whether you'd have a free hand to deal with whatever material components the spell requires. Finally, you run into the whole free action wall, since trying to figure out what it means when something's changed from a standard to a free action can be a real headache.

But you raise an interesting point. For any game I'd run, I'd probably say that it's okay for the wizard to carry and even use a shield without suffering from arcane spell failure, provided that his other hand is empty (free to gesture and play with bat guano and so on) or the spell he's casting has only a verbal component. The moment he pulls out a dagger with that other hand, the shield had better go away (or stop being used during rounds when he's casting, in the case of a strapped-on buckler), or the spell failure chance will come right back.


...Just as a strange anecdotal aside, while the monk in our Scarred Lands game has the best armor class, the wizard can pass him handily by casting two spells. And once those spells are cast, the wizard's AC is more than double that of our paladin's! Arcane casters just have so many stackable items and spells to boost their AC (and really good magical armor is so difficult to get) that the real previous-edition myth that seems to have carried forward into 3rd Edition isn't the idea that wizards shouldn't wear armor, but rather the idea that wizards would ever need to wear armor in the first place.

--
though admittedly, they're screwed if they don't get to cast those spells
ryan

 

[Liquidsabre]

"...(it) has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure since it is weightless and encumberance free."

You got it right here. Obviously a shield has weight and is NOT encumberance free (it notes that this is the exception to the heavy shield, so normally it must be). To gain the benefit (to use) a shield you have to hold it in front of yourself and actively looking for incoming hits to try and block them. I imagine that this could indeed interupt spells as the shield could interfered with the arcane caster's line of sight at a critical moment, or jostle a pointing finger, etc. As you said common sense, but perhaps not so common as we'd like to think.

Finally let me ask this. What is the big difference between a Cleric's Somatic gestures and the Somatic gestures of a Wizard? How does a shield provide no obstacle at all to your cleric casting "wind wall" and your mage casting the same spell?

Are the stereotypes of the wizened wizard in his robe (Hi Gandalf) that ingrained into us, that common sense has taken a back seat?

Arcane spell failure is based on weight and encumberance, so where are my weight tables for arcane spell failure?

The sacred cow is starting to smell rotten.

Wow, so is your attitude, no offense. It's obvious you're rather new to 3.x D&D, so definately welcome to the system! Cleric spells don't require the same complexity of hand-waving as arcane spells require, thus they can cast in armor.

 

[Dyntheos]

..and where does this state that cleric spells are less complex? All I have seen so far is conjecture on why the rule is there at all.

I continue to place up similar arguments regarding weapons, yet the people trying to counter this argument are only focusing on the shields themselves. Could a longsword attack not disrupt a finger movement? Could activating a staff not get in the way of casting a spell? Shields are not the only thing one can hold in your other hand and use in the same round, so why is it singled out?

No offense, but your last statement was offensive. As a bit of background I've been playing the game for over 20 years, transitioned to 3.x when it first came out, yadda yadda yadda. Patronising statements like yours do not add value to the discussion here. An answer to my question ( I don't think there is one ) is what I am looking for. So far I have yet to recieve one that is based on the rules presented in the game books.

Liquidsabre I think you are missing the reasons why I posted the part about the force shield.

The line you quoted and the tables referring to ASF for shield types state that ASF is based upon weight, and encumberance.

Li Shenron previously tried to make the argument that it was based upon usage. "If you use a shield you take the ASF hit", because it "gets in the way". Something which you appear to agree with when you posted.

The quote which you used to begin your post was placed by me to verify in black and white, that this is not the case at all. It clearly staes that actually using a shield has nothing to do with ASF. If it did, the description of shield usage, or spell casting would state that "if you use a shield you suffer an ASF chance". The force ring description backs this up by also not mentioning the percived requirement you advocate.

Your argument is also confusing because in your first paragraph you state that line of sight blocking a casters view at a critical moment could disrupt a spell, yet in your last sentence you state that clerics have less hand waving, but no mention of a line of sight requirement to cast. Do clerics too need to actually see what they are casting at for a spell to function. If this is the case then cleric could also have thier spells fail due to "waving it about". You also mentioned clerics casting in armor. This discussion is concerning shields specifically, not the ASF attributed to armor.

Also the argument of usage completely falls flat because it assumes the mage is actually in combat using the shield. What if a mage is merely holding the shield, not looking for incoming hits, not trying to actively block arrows or attackers, and is some several hundred feet away from a battle, with no one around him for several hundred feet, has nothing in his left hand which he uses for spell casting, thus fulfilling the requirement to cast a spell, yet still takes the ASF hit?

 

[DragonShadow]

It has an ASF value because the typical person does not go into combat holding only a shield and no weapon.

For light shields and bucklers, merely having it strapped to your arm and not holding anything in your other hand, such as a weapon, scroll, or wand, wouldn't invoke the ASF.

However, most don't do such things.


It would likely fall under house ruling, but it would only stand to reason that, if you aren't holding a weapon and are holding just a shield, you wouldn't suffer the spell failure.


One thing to note though is that the percentage for the shields is pretty low. In that case, it would just be the extra weight on your arm that makes it unwieldly, but not -too- difficult to cast spells.

 

[Dyntheos]

"most" is not enough to conclusively anwser the question. The rule has to apply to "all", not just typical situations.

If a shield makes it "not -too- difficult" to cast spells because of the "extra weight on your arm that makes it unwieldy", shouldn't all items that weigh 5 lb to 15 lb, also come with ASF when held in the other hand, even if the percentage was "pretty low"?

 

[DragonShadow]

"most" is not enough to conclusively anwser the question. The rule has to apply to "all", not just typical situations.

If a shield makes it "not -too- difficult" to cast spells because of the "extra weight on your arm that makes it unwieldy", shouldn't all items that weigh 5 lb to 15 lb, also come with ASF when held in the other hand, even if the percentage was "pretty low"?

No, because the weapons are also typically used by themselves, and they aren't strapped to your arm.

You can drop a weapon as a free action, and thusly gain the benefit of incurring no spell failure.

I have also yet to meet a mage that wields two weapons, unless the mage in question is an Eldritch Knight or some such.

 

[Dyntheos]

Why drop anything at all when you only need one hand to gesture. You start the argument by using the weight of the shield and then turn it into a freedom of movement issue. Spell casting requires one hand not two, so why drop the weapon at all?

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

"most" is not enough to conclusively anwser the question. The rule has to apply to "all", not just typical situations.

...and apparently it doesn't apply to "all." Or at least that seems to be the conclusion I can draw from the examples you're bringing up, and it seems to be the point you're trying to make.

So, um, good work. The rule doesn't make any sense. Bravo. How are you planning on fixing it? Isn't that how it's supposed to work, the guy who breaks it or has the bad luck to be holding it when we discover it's broken is responsible for replacing it?

(Me, I'm going to ignore it until it actually comes up in-game, and then I'll probably go with the quick-and-dirty house rule I suggested earlier about having a free hand and so on.)

--
because i'm lazy, obviously

 

[DragonShadow]

Why drop anything at all when you only need one hand to gesture. You start the argument by using the weight of the shield and then turn it into a freedom of movement issue. Spell casting requires one hand not two, so why drop the weapon at all?

Actually, I never started an arguement, you just decided to argue.

You're also not taking into regard that I was talking about dropping an off-hand weapon, since you seem hellbent on talking about off-hand weapons.

As I said, I've never seen any sort of mage using two-weapons at once, THUSLY, they have a free hand...unless they're using a god forsaken shield.

Stop and read, why don't you?

 

[Dyntheos]

Shields it would seem should not provide an arcane spell failure check at all, seeing as the rules regarding it are faily murky, as seems to proven by this thread. Which of course was it's purpose.

Forgive me if I seem hellbent to prove something is broken. Sometimes you have to push things till they appear to be so broken that it's painfully obvious. This thread was aimed at being a proof not really a solution, if a solution however did raise it's head all the better.

I do however think that if a fix were to applied I would use your suggestion Herpes Cineplex, that if a mage held nothing in his other hand then there would be no chance of arcane spell failure.

I would however add that you can only use a tower shield if you are proficient in it. Something not required for shields at this time. This limits a mage from lugging around a portable wall.

*unruffles all the feathers I may have ruffled along the way through this thread.