Arcane Spell Failure - Is It Silly?

[Altalazar]

I see it mostly as an artifact.

A pure wizard would still have to spend those precious feats to get proficiency in armor to avoid the penalties.

Wizards tend to be weaker, so wearing heavy armor poses encumbrance problems.

Even with a good AC, the wizard is NOT going to want to be in melee range - who wants those AoO? And there is also the issue of d4 hit dice.

With the feat requirement for proficiency thrown in, I don't see that it really is even unbalancing to allow no spell failure. It just won't make that much of a difference - because to effecively wear armor requires a bit of an investment on the part of the wizard - in strength and in feats. And even with that, they will be slowed down.

As for multiclasses fighter/wizards, the wizards are already screwed on the lost spell casting levels, so the minor benefit of being able to wear armor doesn't unbalance anything. As was pointed out in another thread, such class combinations totally suck from a spell-casting point of view - especially as compared to 1st edition.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This is an interesting thread. On the basis of it I think I've changed my mind about ASF...

In the future I'll eliminate it if you have proficiency in the armour. Clerics have proficiency in heavy armour, thus they don't get SF. Wizards can use a feat for armour proficiency, in which case they don't get SF (trading some other feat they might take for a bit of extra defense). Wizards can multiclass with fighter etc. to get the proficiency (and then suffer the "level behind in spellcasting" syndrome).

At the moment I can't see any in-game reasons why I wouldn't want to nix ASF if proficiency is available. It explains the current classes that don't get it, it isn't a cost-free option for arcane casters, it explains why bards can cast in light armour (they have that armour proficiency) and it does something to encourage F/MU multiclasses, offsetting their obvious caster deficiencies.

It sounds like an all-good amendment to me!

Cheers

 

[Scion]

I definately agree with plane It fixes all sorts of little quandries here and there, and at the same time opens up new viable alternatives. So all in all it is a good way to go.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

But, it doesn't explain about Clerics.

The reason that clerics and druids do not suffer ASF in armor is that the only somatic component in divine spells is a strongly presented holy symbol, I.E. raising your arm. This is not an action that would be penalized by a slight reduction in manual dexterity, thus, no ASF. However, if a foe readies a disarm action...

 

[woodelf]

What about the robe wearing priest or holy man archetype?

What about it? I don't see it anywhere in D&D3E--the cleric is modeled much more on the Knights Templar than the holy man. Thus the high BAB and hps.

 

[woodelf]

Yes, it's a silly, outdated mechanic. It's not necessarily a bad idea overall; it, in theory, keeps the really powerful magic from being cast by walking tanks. It just brings up a few obvious questions (and ignores the increased power of 3E Clerics):

1> If armor impedes spellcasting by preventing you from performing gestures, then why don't Divine casters (who also have verbal and somatic components) suffer from the same sort of spell failure? Why does a Wizard casting spell X suffer from a 10% failure rate for wearing leather while a Cleric casting the same spell (domain spell?) in full plate has no penalty? And why does a 3.5E Bard have no problem with light armor but still has the full penalty in anything heavier?

2> If it represents a lack of training, then why doesn't it reduce as you increase in level? Many of the house rules for this have involved replacing it with Concentration check modifiers, to get around this. And why, as others have pointed out, does it not go away when you multiclass or take an Armor Proficiency feat?

3> Why are there no ASF-reducing Feats or armor enhancements in the WotC-produced books? All I've ever seen are Armored Caster (Netbook of Feats) and Monte's armor enhancements from BoEM.

I think you've identified the primary problem here: you're asking the rules for something the yjust don't have. There is no "reason" for arcane spell failure due to armor--it's a purely game-level construct. If it *had* been given an in-game reason, we wouldn't be having these questions, because it would produce results that are consistent when analyzed by the characters (as opposed to the players).

 

[Altalazar]

I think you've identified the primary problem here: you're asking the rules for something the yjust don't have. There is no "reason" for arcane spell failure due to armor--it's a purely game-level construct. If it *had* been given an in-game reason, we wouldn't be having these questions, because it would produce results that are consistent when analyzed by the characters (as opposed to the players).

Exactly, there is no explanation except that it is a rules-artifact - one that they couldn't quite bring themselves to eliminate from the game, so they just left it in with instead a chance of failure rather than an outright prohibition. But then it is just one baby-step away from eliminating it entirely - leaving it to be something that matters only if you aren't proficient in that type of armor. THAT makes sense and can be justified. I don't think it would alter balance one single iota to eliminate it that way - I think pure nostalgia is the only reason it stays in.

 

[knight_isa]

I think you've identified the primary problem here: you're asking the rules for something the yjust don't have. There is no "reason" for arcane spell failure due to armor--it's a purely game-level construct. If it *had* been given an in-game reason, we wouldn't be having these questions, because it would produce results that are consistent when analyzed by the characters (as opposed to the players).

IIRC, they did give it an in-game explanation in the Warcraft RPG. As I recall, divine casters have to go through the same sort of motions that arcane casters do, but since divine casters are granted their spells, the granter (god/power/whatever) helps guide the caster through the motions and just says "close enough" if the casting isn't quite perfect. Arcane casters, however, don't get the help or the leeway, since they're doing it themselves.

I think I'm in favor of making ASF be negated by armor proficiency, too, but for some strange reason I've wanted to make an armored wizard for a while, so I'm probably biased.

 

[woodelf]

Exactly, there is no explanation except that it is a rules-artifact - one that they couldn't quite bring themselves to eliminate from the game, so they just left it in with instead a chance of failure rather than an outright prohibition. But then it is just one baby-step away from eliminating it entirely - leaving it to be something that matters only if you aren't proficient in that type of armor. THAT makes sense and can be justified. I don't think it would alter balance one single iota to eliminate it that way - I think pure nostalgia is the only reason it stays in.

oh, it'd alter balance several iotas. Suddenly, there'd be no reason whatsoever for the fighter/wizard or, even more importantly, the fighter/sorcerer, not to wear armor all the time. I'm not sure this'd be a bad thing, but it *would* be a significant change--IME, wizard/[whatever]s rarely wear any armor, and almost never more than leather, precisely because of the spell failure chance.

Another possible solution would be to give all spellcasters spell failure, and then give divine casters, combatant/casters (paladin, etc.), and/or bards a class ability that decreases it with level. So a 1st level cleric might get "divine confidence", which reduces spell failure by X%, and this would increase every N levels. Sort of along the lines of the previous poster suggesting that the powers that be give clerics a bit of a boost.

Another possibility that i think would have good flavor would be something akin to the current Take 10 rules: under non-stressful situations, you can automatically succeed, but if you're stressed or in a hurry, you might fail. IOW, if you want to cast a spell in combat, you have to roll the armor check, but if you want to heal someone afterwards you don't. I'm particularly looking at paladins and rangers on this one, since they are clearly secondary spellcasters, and i wouldn't have any problem with them not really using their spells in combat, instead using them for preparation/buffing, healing, and other non-combat things.

 

[der_kluge]

Here is my house rule on ASF -

The number of ranks you have in Concentration directly on a 1:1 basis, cancel out any Arcane spell failure.

So, in a nutshell, if you wear armor that has an ASF of 10, and you have 10 ranks in Concentration (ranks, not total points), you have an ASF of 0%.

Mithral has a reduction in ASF, and masterwork Mithral even more so.

Lets spellcasters wear armor, they still have to pay for the feat to wear it, but they don't have to worry about ASF so much.