Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Spatzimaus" data-source="post: 1129885" data-attributes="member: 3051">Yes, it's a silly, outdated mechanic.&nbsp; It's not necessarily a bad idea overall; it, in theory, keeps the really powerful magic from being cast by walking tanks.&nbsp; It just brings up a few obvious questions (and ignores the increased power of 3E Clerics):1&gt; 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?&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; And why does a 3.5E Bard have no problem with light armor but still has the full penalty in anything heavier?2&gt; If it represents a lack of training, then why doesn't it reduce as you increase in level?&nbsp; Many of the house rules for this have involved replacing it with Concentration check modifiers, to get around this.&nbsp; And why, as others have pointed out, does it not go away when you multiclass or take an Armor Proficiency feat?3&gt; Why are there no ASF-reducing Feats or armor enhancements in the WotC-produced books?&nbsp; All I've ever seen are Armored Caster (Netbook of Feats) and Monte's armor enhancements from BoEM.But, since this is the House Rules forum, here's what we did once upon a time for a campaign of ours.&gt; Call ASF &quot;Spell Failure Rate&quot;.&nbsp; It applies to most casters, whether Arcane (Sorcerer, Bard), Divine (Cleric, Paladin), or Nature (Druid, Ranger).&nbsp; The only ones who don't suffer from it are the psionic types.&gt; Just because a spell lacks somatic components doesn't mean it has no chance of failure.&nbsp; The failure rate is due to the energy flow being impeded or disrupted by the heavy materials.&nbsp; A fireball can't flow through a wall, after all; magic is stopped by most materials.&gt; Divine casters get a bonus when in inorganic armors and a penalty in organics.&nbsp; This improves every 5 levels, so at high levels a Cleric can cast in plate without a problem.&gt; Nature casters are the reverse: they get a bonus in organic armors and a penalty in inorganics.&nbsp; In addition, Druids get a penalty when wielding anything inorganic at all, so if the inorganic armor penalty is 20% then using a metal sword gives the same 20% (this replaces their weapon/armor restriction).&gt; Multiclassing doesn't affect any of this.&nbsp; These bonuses/penalties only apply to spells from the appropriate types of classes, although mixing within a type (Druid/Ranger or Cleric/Paladin) lets you add the levels when determining the bonus.&gt; Add the &quot;Armored Caster&quot; feat (-10% spell failure), and two armor enhancements, &quot;Divine Focus&quot; and &quot;Nature Focus&quot;.Anyway, we gave Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers a bit of other stuff to compensate.&nbsp; It seemed to work pretty nicely; it was supposed to represent a world where magic was a bit more problematic than standard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Spatzimaus, post: 1129885, member: 3051"] 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. But, since this is the House Rules forum, here's what we did once upon a time for a campaign of ours. > Call ASF "Spell Failure Rate". It applies to most casters, whether Arcane (Sorcerer, Bard), Divine (Cleric, Paladin), or Nature (Druid, Ranger). The only ones who don't suffer from it are the psionic types. > Just because a spell lacks somatic components doesn't mean it has no chance of failure. The failure rate is due to the energy flow being impeded or disrupted by the heavy materials. A fireball can't flow through a wall, after all; magic is stopped by most materials. > Divine casters get a bonus when in inorganic armors and a penalty in organics. This improves every 5 levels, so at high levels a Cleric can cast in plate without a problem. > Nature casters are the reverse: they get a bonus in organic armors and a penalty in inorganics. In addition, Druids get a penalty when wielding anything inorganic at all, so if the inorganic armor penalty is 20% then using a metal sword gives the same 20% (this replaces their weapon/armor restriction). > Multiclassing doesn't affect any of this. These bonuses/penalties only apply to spells from the appropriate types of classes, although mixing within a type (Druid/Ranger or Cleric/Paladin) lets you add the levels when determining the bonus. > Add the "Armored Caster" feat (-10% spell failure), and two armor enhancements, "Divine Focus" and "Nature Focus". Anyway, we gave Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers a bit of other stuff to compensate. It seemed to work pretty nicely; it was supposed to represent a world where magic was a bit more problematic than standard. [/QUOTE]

Verification