Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dyntheos" data-source="post: 1519904" data-attributes="member: 18529">How does that then compare with me using a longsword and casting a quickened spell in the same round? I use the longsword and cast a spell yet the longsword doesn't interfere with spell casting. Whilst essentially a viable argument it does not hold water. There are no rules that stipulate that if I cast a spell I lose the ability to utilise a weapon I may be holding in my other hand. This is particularly evident for flanking and AoO in combat. In both cases I am actively using my weapon should an AoO come by, or if I am positioned in combat to flank, then I am using my weapon again, not merely holding it. In both cases I am free to cast without being impeded by the fact that I am actively using the sword.The rule about casting does not state you must be standing still and not performing other actions, having ones other hand strapped to ones side. If the "holding" and "using" case were to hold water, then why differing values of arcane spell failure for the various shields? Why not a flat penalty? I would assume that the blocking motion to halt an overhead swing from a sword would be the same for a light shield as it would be for a heavy shield, the difference in shields being somewhat bigger and therefore able to cover you better should the swing go wide. However the mechanics of the block would be quite similar, so why the difference?The "Force Shield Ring" (page 232 of the DMG) produces a wall of force that "can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy Shield... (it) has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure since it is weightless and encumberance free."According to your statement the wielder of this ring could not "use" it without incurring a spell failure chance, yet clearly it states you can. It also goes on to state that the chance of arcane failure is directly related to weight and encumberance, not whether you are using it or not.Common sense tells me that the Arcane spell failure for shields is a continuance of the original AD&D where wizards could not wear armor, for whatever esoteric reasons Mr Gygax had at the time. It has since filtered down through the ages to it's current state of the rule being "arcane spell failure", yet the reasons for "why" it's there at all are never clearly stated.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.</blockquote>

Verification