Arcane Spell Failure - Is It Silly?

[Hardhead]

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.

This is exactly right. Clerical somatic components are broad, sweeping gestures that armor doesn't significantly hamper. Wizards have very intricate, easily disrupted gestures.

Still spell totally negates ASF, so obviuosly the reason is that armor interferes with gestures.

Oh, and negating ASF if you have armor prof will cause a lot of people to take one level in a class with heavy armor prof. If you want to be a armor caster, take the Still Spell feat for the Spellsword PrC.

 

[Terath Ninir]

It's a silly artifact of D&D, an unslain sacred cow. I will grant it is better than the completely arbitrary system of old, but it's still arbitrary.

 

[Hardhead]

It's a silly artifact of D&D, an unslain sacred cow. I will grant it is better than the completely arbitrary system of old, but it's still arbitrary.

No, it's archtype-enforcing. In most fantasy, wizards don't run around in full plate armor. That's not to say it should be impossible for wizards to run around in full plate armor. D&D let's you do that if you take Still Spell. But it certainly shouldn't be the default.

That's even leaving out the argument that wizards would be too powerful if they could wear full plate and carry a shield. I submit they would be.

 

[Altalazar]

No, it's archtype-enforcing. In most fantasy, wizards don't run around in full plate armor. That's not to say it should be impossible for wizards to run around in full plate armor. D&D let's you do that if you take Still Spell. But it certainly shouldn't be the default.

That's even leaving out the argument that wizards would be too powerful if they could wear full plate and carry a shield. I submit they would be.

Who said anything about carrying a shield? Hands free is a given. Armor spell failure is not - that is an artifact. Given how screwed fighter/wizards are in terms of balance in the weak direction, I think it is a good thing to allow that armor proficiency to eliminate spell failure.

As I indicated above, wizards do NOT want to be on the front lines - d4 hit points, OA, possibility of grapple - plus if you start slinging spells, you can't do anything else anyway.

It serves no purpose - it is not a necessary game balance item, because it naturally balances out due to the inferior fighting capabilities of wizards - and if you throw in multi-class to fighter, that weakens spell casters considerably. If you don't, then it costs precious feats, something a wizard does NOT have in abundant supply.

Face it - it is a rules artifact, has nothing to do with balance, and really makes no sense outside of nostalgia.

 

[fuindordm]

Asf

This is exactly right. Clerical somatic components are broad, sweeping gestures that armor doesn't significantly hamper. Wizards have very intricate, easily disrupted gestures.

Still spell totally negates ASF, so obviuosly the reason is that armor interferes with gestures.

Oh, and negating ASF if you have armor prof will cause a lot of people to take one level in a class with heavy armor prof. If you want to be a armor caster, take the Still Spell feat for the Spellsword PrC.

Well, the rules say that somatic components require you to "be able to gesture freely with one arm" or some such. So logically speaking, a breastplate with the arm protection completely removed (such as the musketeers wore) ought to offer some AC bonus but not incur ASF, right?

You can find another inconsistency in the rules: a spellcaster with excellent Concentration skill can cast spells while grappling, hanging onto a ship's rope ladder in stormy weather, etc. and can reduce the chance of failure from such things to 5% in theory. Put on a bit of armor, though, and suddenly that precise wrist flick has a higher chance of going wrong regardless of your skill.

Personally, I think it's a non-issue. The spellcaster will have to invest in a high Str to get protection better than a 1st-level spell can provide, which means they're probably hurting for AC (Dex) or HP (Con), the two normal mainstays of wizard-types. And they have to spend a lot of feats or be a level behind in spellcasting...

I can't really see how this sort of character could be considered overpowered.

--Ben

 

[Hardhead]

D&D is full of inconsistencies. I'm not arguing that ASF is perfect, just that it's not arbitrary. It enforces the fantasy archtypes we all know and love (or hate). It's no more arbitrary than the fact that Full Plate slows you down just as much as a breastplate. Does that make any sense? No. It's just the way the rules work because the rules are a rough aproximation of "reality."

And you only need one hand free to cast a spell, so they *could* us a shield (preferably a spiked one, so they still threatened the area around them).

I can't really see how this sort of character could be considered overpowered.

Besides the big AC boost? Would it break the game? No. Would it make wizards, already one of the best classes at high levels, even more powerful? Yes. While we're at it, we should change thier names to "Arcane Clerics."

 

[fuindordm]

Asf

D&D is full of inconsistencies. I'm not arguing that ASF is perfect, just that it's not arbitrary. It enforces the fantasy archtypes we all know and love (or hate). It's no more arbitrary than the fact that Full Plate slows you down just as much as a breastplate. Does that make any sense? No. It's just the way the rules work because the rules are a rough aproximation of "reality."

And you only need one hand free to cast a spell, so they *could* us a shield (preferably a spiked one, so they still threatened the area around them).

I don't argue that it helps reinforce the archetype. That image is a matter of personal taste. I've always had a fondness, personally, for the Dr. Doom style armored warlock and the mage-smith archetypes.

How about those shields? Use a shield in one hand, gesture freely with the other, and you still have an ASF chance by the book.

Besides the big AC boost? Would it break the game? No. Would it make wizards, already one of the best classes at high levels, even more powerful? Yes. While we're at it, we should change thier names to "Arcane Clerics."

Heh. I like that phrase, especially since I've thought that clerics have grown into "Divine Wizards" with the looting of wizard spell lists to fill out domains. Truly, the distinctions have blurred.

The AC boost is not that huge--bracers of armor or some equivalent magic item are de rigeur for high-level wizards anyway. True you can get some nifty abilities on the armor as well, but none that can't be duplicated by you spells. And the armor keeps you from wearing robes, that likely have abilities more synergistic with your primary class.

And if you're really tanked up in that fortified adamantium full plate armor--well, then most likely you've invested a high score and some stat gains in strength rather than Int. You're just not going to be as good at magic (lower DCs, fewer bonus spells) as your more focused fellows.

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that it's a style issue, not a power issue. If your campaign strongly favors the robed wizard archetype then better to go back to the "metal shells interfere with the flow of mystical energies" model.

cheers,
Ben

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Of course there would.

It would make the fighter/wizard one level behind his brother wizards when learning spells, so when they get fireball he is still messing around with scorching ray. For the sorcerer it is even worse. The fighter/sorcerer is effectively 2 levels behind a wizard in spell casting, he needs to reach character level 7 before he gets to cast fireballs and is guaranteed to be a whole spellcasting level behind the true caster at all times.

That is a heck of a good reason for many arcane casters to not take that route.

 

[Plane Sailing]

No, it's archtype-enforcing. In most fantasy, wizards don't run around in full plate armor.

I'd actually argue that in most fantasy NOBODY runs around in plate armour! I can't think of any pre-1980's fantasy where the hero wore plate (unless you include Authurian, I suppose).

 

[Plane Sailing]

How about those shields? Use a shield in one hand, gesture freely with the other, and you still have an ASF chance by the book.

I think that is why mithril bucklers look so good - being mithril it reduces the ASF to 0% and can still be enchanted with lots of other goodies (e.g. fortification)