Nonproficency with armor attack penalty

[Hannibal Barca]

If a mage wearing armor with which he has no proficiency casts a stilled Melf's Acid Arrow spell does he still incur an attack penalty on the ranged touch attack?

 

[Hypersmurf]

"... suffers the armor check penalty on attack rolls..."

Yes.

-Hyp.

 

[Hannibal Barca]

That makes no sense.

 

[kreynolds]

That makes no sense.

I'm confused. Why did you ask the question if you had already decided that only one of the two possible answers made sense?

Besides, it makes perfect sense. Moving around in armor is a pain, and if you don't know how to do it, its even worse.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wear Bracers. Or get the feat.

-Hyp.

 

[kreynolds]

If your DM allows the supplemental rules for bracers from the Arms & Equipment Guide, bracers start to totally rock. There ain't nothin' cooler than a pair of bracers with silent moves and heavy fortification man!

Ok, well, maybe there is, but you get the idea.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There ain't nothin' cooler than a pair of bracers with silent moves and heavy fortification man!

Hey, for that price, you could get, what, nearly five hundred Quaal's Feather Token: Trees!

-Hyp.

 

[CRGreathouse]

That makes no sense.

Sure it makes sense. He'd get the same penalty for throwing a dagger or firing a crossbow.

Stilling the spell avoids the spell fail, but not the attack penalty.

 

[Hannibal Barca]

"I'm confused. Why did you ask the question if you had already decided that only one of the two possible answers made sense?"

For a number of reasons. I wanted a coherent argument explaining why this is. Note I am not committed to one of the two answers, just curious why the rule applies to this circumstance. If a silent, stilled, componentless spell with a ranged touch attack was cast by a paralyzed unarmored mage, would this be less inhibiting to his attack roll than if a mage was armored? As we know there are no shortage of minor oversights, errata, reinterpretations, etc in 3rd edition in no short part because of unforeseen circumstances. It would be easy to quote the relevant passage and say "because it is written as such", but I wanted to foster a more searching inquiry into the question.

Does the aim suffer because of the effect of the unfamiliar weight on the body? Or perhaps its the cumbersome nature of the armor throwing off timing? If so, why are spells devoid of somatic components unaffected by spell failure? Surely the careful precise patterns of hand gestures would be more prone to disruption than looking at a target and willing an effect toward it?

I thank you for any input you may have to clarify this issue.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Wear leather armor - it has no armor check penalty.