Seriously. Why *do* Clerics get to wear armour?

[med stud]

Ah, I see where you're coming from there. But also, it was painfully obvious to me that when Gygax designed the initial Cleric, the whole business about "he can only use blunt weapons as his religion is against the drawing of blood" thing was CLEARLY an effort to balance the class in order to avoid the *fighter/magic-user* all-in-one deal. However, this point has since been refudiated and struck down with arguments like "well, MY diety is the God of Ballistas, so MY Cleric automatically comes with a ballista and four lackeys ready to tote it around as per the whims of the religion". All of a sudden, the Cleric now can wear any armour, use any weapon, and cast a plethora of spells. I'm thinking wearing armor should be a no-no for them, but as compensation, perhaps as many spells as the Sorcerer gets? Yeah, that's my proposal. Less armour, more spells. Got 4th Edition?

The thing about blunt weapons for not shedding blood is derived from history. It was a way of circumventing the passage in the bible that says that you shouldnt shed blood. Silly as it sounds, it was actually grown up people who came up with this idea and they were serious about it. People believe what they want to believe, etc.

And I think it is pretty obvious that it was for balance reasons that it worked out like that. I dont think that your arguments about weapons hold true, though; OK, you worship the ballista god; take the war domain and the ballista is your, but only the ballista. This goes for all weapons. If you as a DM thinks that this is over powered, just hold back on magic weapons of that type and that ability is really no problems any more.

Finally, it seems like you just found out a way to house rule the cleric to your liking. Personally I think that would be the most boring class in the game to play; running around behind the lines casting cure light wounds at early levels and being the dullest sorcerer-wannabe in the multiverse at high levels. I am not alone in that opinion (yes you can role play etc, but since combat takes up a lot of time in playing it is important to have an interresting character in combat. If you dont think so, you can play a commoner and role play all you want and the class balance is of no importance).

Some variety of the cleric has to be in the core rules and now it is this one that a lot of people supports. Tough if you dont like it, but thats life.

 

[Tuzenbach]

I dislike the fact that Clerics get to wear armor and Wizards/Sorcerers don't. And I would certainly not boost their already insane spellcasting ability as compensation for taking it away.

But just to show the stupidity in Arcane Spell Failure, let me bring a few things to your attention.

Arcane Spell Failure supposedly exists because "The armor restricts the complicated gestures that they must make while castign any spell that has a somatic component." PHB v3.5 p. 56

Hmm, ok. "Complicated" as pointing at someone? "Complicated" as using sign language? I mean, seriously, people. How "complicated" can it be? What are these Wizards doing to cast spells? Cartwheels? Contorting their body in horrific ways that make the Kama Sutra look easy (shudder)? On the contrary, most of the time it has to do with gestures about as complex as sign language and giving someone the finger.

"A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand." PHB v3.5, p. 174

Okay. So how does armor interfere with this? Really, I find it hard to imagine how wearing chainmail prevents you from properly performing such a gesture. If it inhibited your ability to use your arms and hands that much, how do people perform complex sword maneuvers and whirlwind attacks in armor?

And what's more interesting is that this only applies to arcane spellcasters. Forgive me, but don't divine spells with somatic components not also use such "precise movements of the hand?" That quote from above desacribes the somatic components of ALL spells, not just arcane spells.

And there is also only one spellcraft skill. A spell is identified by its components. This means that a spell has the same components no matter who uses it. A cleric performing a spell uses the exact same components (save possibly a divine focus) as a Wizard casting the same spell.

So, if a Cleric spell has just as "complicated" of gestures as an arcane spell, then why do users of arcane magic suffer from arcane spell failure from armor and not divine casters?

The answer is simple. It in actuality has absolutely nothing to do with the "restricted moevemnts" of the armor (or whatever other excuse they have come up with in the past). The designers of D&D have a strict mental image of a Wizard as a robed, staff carrying, pointy hat wearing, book worm (remind you of anyone?). This absurd rule is merely there to enforce that stereotype.

It's funny, I never thought of preists going around weilding a mace and wearing plate mail either. A holy knight (A Paladin) who fights for his church? Sure. But not an actual priest! I always see them wearing robes and maybe some incense. Being a student of history, I can tell you that from Christianity to Buddhism to ancient Egyptians, this has almost always been the case.

And what is so wrong with a Wizard wearing armor anyway? I've seen plenty of fantasy games, novels, etc where there are armored Wizards and it's just fine. And don't give me the "It would be unbalanced if Wizards could wear armor" speech. The Cleric gets more spells per day than the Wizard (plus domain spells, plus domain poowers, plus turning undead), yet he can wear any armor he wants. He has two good saving throws, D8 HPs per level, the second best attack bonus, and is every bit as powerful a spellcaster as a Wizard. If there is a balance problem, it is with the Cleric, not the Wizard. And even in the Lord of the Rings (upon which D&D was copied, err I mean inspired), the mighty Wizard Gandalf weilded a Sword with the best of them.

So Wizards don't train much with weapons or armor? Fine. Don't give them those proficiencies then. That makes sense to me. But if a Wizard is willing to get such training (by taking the proper feats or multiclassing), why not let him wear armor and cast spells? His Hps and attack bonus are still abysmal. It's not like you'll see any Wizards making successful tanks. If anything, he went to all that trouble just so he won't have to cast Mage Armor on himself all day.

Well, at lest we can take comfort in the fact that progress is being made. In 2nd edition Wizards couldn't cast spells in armor at all. At least now they can wear it (they just get heavily penalized for doing so). But, if it were my game (which it is not) I would either make it fair and have spell failure apply to ALL spellcasters, or I would simply get rid of a tired, obsolite, and asinine rule.

And that's my two cents.

Amen to that!

I've been mentally constructing some variant rules for ALL spellcasters regarding armour. Nothing's carved in stone, but at this point I'm thinking that both arcane spells AND divine spells are affected the same regarding armour. However, the ways around this are the "Arcane Armour" feat, and the "Divine Armour" feat.

Basically (and I really should be posting all of this in the House Rules forum, but oh well), when a Cleric selects the "Divine Armour" feat, for every level he has he gains a 2% reduction to the penalty for casting spells in armour. Thus, at 10th level, a Cleric can wear Half Plate but instead of taking the 40% spell failure chance, it goes down to 20% (as his level is 10 and he gets a 2% penalty reduction per level, so 10 x 2% =20% ). I'm not too sure of the prereqs for the feat.

Once the Wizard selects the "Arcane Armour" feat, that gives him a 1% per level penalty reduction to spell failure rate while casting in armour. So, at 10th level, his chance of failure for casting in Half Plate becomes 30% instead of 40%. However, it goes to 20% at 20th level, and merely 10% at 30th level and so on.

The reason for the above discrepency is explained as "well, the Diety recognizes the Cleric's endeavor to spread his faith, so this aids in the penalty reduction" or some such nonsense (which actually makes sense). "However, there are no dieties sympathetic to the Wizard's cause to help him with his own armour familiarity needs".

Also, the following restrictions will apply to the "Arcane Armour" feat:
1. The penalty for casting spells while clad in light armour never falls below 1%. Basically, it doesn't matter if the Wizard is 100th level. If he's wearing padded armour or some such, there's always a 1% chance of failure.
2. The same thing can be said for medium armour, though the penalty is 3%.
3. As above with heavy armour, but the penalty is 5%.

The above restrictions do not hamper the Cleric, again, do to "Divine Intervention" or grace or whatever.



In regards to spell failure, I offer the following feat: "Salvage Spell". Basically, if this feat is taken, it allows a spellcaster to "salvage" a failed spell. Simply put, the spellcaster's round happened, the spell failed, but because this feat is possessed by the caster, he has the option to still use that spell later on. That is, it failed, but was not lost. The feat can be selected numerous times. The number of times this feat is taken equals the number of spells per day the spellcaster can salvage a failed spell.


Again, a lot of details to work out and don't ask me about the Druids, Sorcerers, Rangers, Bards, or Paladins. I've strained my brain enough today as it is!

 

[Parlan]

Once the Wizard selects the "Arcane Armour" feat, that gives him a 1% per level penalty reduction to spell failure rate while casting in armour. So, at 10th level, his chance of failure for casting in Half Plate becomes 30% instead of 40%. However, it goes to 20% at 20th level, and merely 10% at 30th level and so on.

I concur with the previous poster, for my tastes, there are enough PrCs and variant classes which cover the armor-less cleric or the armored wizard archetypes already. But hey, its your game.

Without going too far off topic, don t be surprised if few PCs decide to use your ideas. Having a 20% spell failure stinks at any level. Even if you could get this down to 10% with mithril and different armors, its still a major handicap. Murphy s Law of spell casting, you will ALWAYS fail the spell failure check at the most critical moment. Your spell recovery feat would rectify this somewhat, but most clerics/wizzies don t get a lot of extra feats to spare, and besides, casting the same spell a round later might be a round too late. Although admittedly this will be less of a problem for all those 30th level casters.

Anyway, just some thoughts you might want to keep in mind while you re working it up

 

[Scion]

I also feel that clerics should not get heavy armor, and maybe not even medium for that matter. But definately not heavy.

Also, I prefer the fix of, 'everyone has arcane spell failure for all spells they cast. However, if you are proficient in the armor type you are wearing you do not suffer arcane spell failure for it.' ie if you are trained in the armor you use then you dont suffer penalties for not being able to figure out which part your hand sticks out of. Easy

That, along with taking away heavy armor from clerics and possibly medium, would fix quite a few problems in my eyes!

hmm.. maybe I should run for game designer.. I can make 4.0 my set of houserules..lol

 

[Darklone]

I would rather see clerics with medium AP only. I never saw it as logical to have people automatically proficient with light armour as soon as they're able to run around the whole day in full plate mail.

 

[jasper]

If you want a non-militant priest, there's one in Unearthed Arcana… better yet role play one.

The 'balance' reason is that 'people don't want to play the healer role'.,… balance smallance. I been playing the cleric since 79 or 80 first as the party medic then I started enjoying the class. We all didn’t need balance in AD&D

Thex class should be bumped up somehow. Not because it isn't balanced with the other core classes, it really is, but because it is the class that people avoid playing because of the walking x role they fill.. Where x is group containing the know parts ( thief, paladin, cleric, druid, wizard, illusionist, bard, ranger, assassin, monk) IN other words depending on the group, dm, flavor, people will avoid certain classes. I known people who get upset when someone brings a second thief to the table.

Various rules and flavor complains. Lordao ,tuzenbach, other. Gee anytime you microscope the rules to any game it makes no logical sense. After all why does a queen get to move is all those directions in chess where in history the queens didn’t battle much etc. Wait a minute historically the older versions of chess had totally different moves than today.

LordAo very good microscoping of flavor text, rules text, text text. However go down this road leads to first edition monks taking NO damage if they make a saving throw. A Eric grandmother no prize to the person who post the page number and text to support the no damage monk.

Bishop ODO. A pope or two in armour. Which priest of the temple gave us the saying ‘kill them all let God sort them out’ ?

So, I humbly invite everyone (including me) to get off the soapboxes, and just enjoy the game. Try it, you might like it…Jasper knocks Trainz off his soapbox. Pops a fizz in his mouth so he can foam. But bitching about the game is so much fun.

 

[Silverglass]

I dislike the fact that Clerics get to wear armor and Wizards/Sorcerers don't. And I would certainly not boost their already insane spellcasting ability as compensation for taking it away.

But just to show the stupidity in Arcane Spell Failure, let me bring a few things to your attention.

Arcane Spell Failure supposedly exists because "The armor restricts the complicated gestures that they must make while castign any spell that has a somatic component." PHB v3.5 p. 56

Hmm, ok. "Complicated" as pointing at someone? "Complicated" as using sign language? I mean, seriously, people. How "complicated" can it be? What are these Wizards doing to cast spells? Cartwheels? Contorting their body in horrific ways that make the Kama Sutra look easy (shudder)? On the contrary, most of the time it has to do with gestures about as complex as sign language and giving someone the finger.

"A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand." PHB v3.5, p. 174

Okay. So how does armor interfere with this? Really, I find it hard to imagine how wearing chainmail prevents you from properly performing such a gesture. If it inhibited your ability to use your arms and hands that much, how do people perform complex sword maneuvers and whirlwind attacks in armor?

And what's more interesting is that this only applies to arcane spellcasters. Forgive me, but don't divine spells with somatic components not also use such "precise movements of the hand?" That quote from above desacribes the somatic components of ALL spells, not just arcane spells.

Your personal interpretation is that a Somatic Component is "pointing" at someone or that they are as complex as sign language is not born out by the rules. Pointing at someone is not a precise or measured movement.

Somatic components are defined as complicated, precise and measured movements with the hand, this specifically excludes cartwheels. But what it does mean is that the Somatic component of an Arcane spell is complicated, precise and measured enough that it is more difficult to do if you have pounds of metal hanging of your arm or stiff armour binding the joints rather than soft cloth.

Whirlwhind attack etc are gross body movement, Somatic components are small precise body movements (because thats what the rules say). The general principle is that armour restricts movement to varying degrees (which is what the armour check penalty implements) so it is entirely plausible that it also restricts delicate movements to some degree. And there you have ASF.

Divine spellcasting is not affected by ASF. Why this is can be artionalised in 2 (circular) ways. 1) because the rules say its not that implies that the movements made are not affected at the same level as for arcane somatic components. If the movements are simpler they are less effected. 2) Nowhere does it state that the Somatic components for a spell are identical for both the arcane and divine versions. Infact the reverse is implied by it only being ASF.

And there is also only one spellcraft skill. A spell is identified by its components. This means that a spell has the same components no matter who uses it. A cleric performing a spell uses the exact same components (save possibly a divine focus) as a Wizard casting the same spell..

Untrue, if you look at any number of spells that exist in both arcane and divine forms you will see "Arcane Material Component: ...." or "Divine Material Component:... ". As an example consider Protection from Evil, as an arcane spell it needs " A little powdered silver with which you trace a 3-foot -diameter circle on the floor (or ground) around the creature to be warded." as a Divine spell there is no material component just the need for a Divine Focus. If the material components differ why not the form of the Somatic or Verbal components.

So, if a Cleric spell has just as "complicated" of gestures as an arcane spell, then why do users of arcane magic suffer from arcane spell failure from armor and not divine casters?

The answer is simple. It in actuality has absolutely nothing to do with the "restricted moevemnts" of the armor (or whatever other excuse they have come up with in the past). The designers of D&D have a strict mental image of a Wizard as a robed, staff carrying, pointy hat wearing, book worm (remind you of anyone?). This absurd rule is merely there to enforce that stereotype.

It's funny, I never thought of preists going around weilding a mace and wearing plate mail either. A holy knight (A Paladin) who fights for his church? Sure. But not an actual priest! I always see them wearing robes and maybe some incense. Being a student of history, I can tell you that from Christianity to Buddhism to ancient Egyptians, this has almost always been the case.

And what is so wrong with a Wizard wearing armor anyway? I've seen plenty of fantasy games, novels, etc where there are armored Wizards and it's just fine. And don't give me the "It would be unbalanced if Wizards could wear armor" speech. The Cleric gets more spells per day than the Wizard (plus domain spells, plus domain poowers, plus turning undead), yet he can wear any armor he wants. He has two good saving throws, D8 HPs per level, the second best attack bonus, and is every bit as powerful a spellcaster as a Wizard. If there is a balance problem, it is with the Cleric, not the Wizard. And even in the Lord of the Rings (upon which D&D was copied, err I mean inspired), the mighty Wizard Gandalf weilded a Sword with the best of them.

So Wizards don't train much with weapons or armor? Fine. Don't give them those proficiencies then. That makes sense to me. But if a Wizard is willing to get such training (by taking the proper feats or multiclassing), why not let him wear armor and cast spells? His Hps and attack bonus are still abysmal. It's not like you'll see any Wizards making successful tanks. If anything, he went to all that trouble just so he won't have to cast Mage Armor on himself all day.

Well, at lest we can take comfort in the fact that progress is being made. In 2nd edition Wizards couldn't cast spells in armor at all. At least now they can wear it (they just get heavily penalized for doing so). But, if it were my game (which it is not) I would either make it fair and have spell failure apply to ALL spellcasters, or I would simply get rid of a tired, obsolite, and asinine rule.

And that's my two cents.

Your argument relies on the single assumption that the somatic components are identical for arcane and divine casters, this leads to a conflict with the rules. However if the rules are taken to be correct then this implies that somatic components are not identical and the whole things holds together.

The fact that you are ignoring is that all Arcane casters can wear armour, any arcane caster is able to cast spells without any ASF problems if wielding a mithril buckler or small shield for example. To utilise armour fully they must expend feats to do so and either spend money (mithril and splat book enchantments) or sacrifice casting ability (by a class such as Spellsword or by using the Still Spell feat). The ability to ignore ASF is a published ability for D&D (core Bards have it after all) so there is no blanket restriction any more, its just more difficult for Wizards and Sorcerors to cast spells in armour than it is for Clerics or Druids.

So there you are, all Arcane casters CAN wear armour without worrying about ASF, and they can do it a number of ways but they all involve a cost of some sort. Your complaint that D&D arcane casters are some erroneous archetype of a robed caster just isn't born out any more.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Anyway...

My big problem with the fighting-cleric class in 3e is that, since 3e multiclassing enables clerics to pick up a point of BAB, all weapon and armor proficiencies, a fighter feat, and a larger HD by taking a single level of fighter, it seems that the cleric's combat ability should be powered down to allow for a less combat-heavy default cleric. After all, while it is true that priesthoods have been involved in military conflict in a variety of cultures, it's also true that the individuals actually doing the fighting tend to be members of specific knightly orders attached to the church, or priests from military backgrounds (family, former service, etc.), or zealots with specialized combat training. OTOH, there are many (most?) examples of semi- or non-combatant priests, even in religious traditions with a heavy involvement in warfare (12th c. Christianity, 8th c. Islam, etc.). It seems to me that all these concepts of "priest" or "cleric" would best be handled by a less combat-oriented base class that nonetheless has the option of pursuing more combat-oriented routes through PrCs or light multiclassing. For instance, a level of fighter or paladin doesn't really delay spellcasting progression much, and some more militant PrCs (warpriest, for instance) actually add caster levels.

 

[The Souljourner]

You want a cleric with no armor? Then play one. The class itself needs no change for this.

I played a monk1/cleric 9 who did very well indeed. His armor class was good, and his touch AC was very good indeed.

No need to change the class at all, though variants are out there if you want them.

WHY they are allowed to wear armor has been explained. No one says they MUST wear armor, though.

Thanks so much for that character idea! I love the thought of a cleric walking into battle protected only by her god (we'll ignore the fact that it's actually tons of skill from her monk level). Plus, since you'll be pumping wisdom a lot, your AC will just get better.

I'm starting a new campaign pretty soon and I just switched my idea over to monk 1/cleric x. Thanks!

-The Souljourner

 

[DarkMaster]

Arcane Spell Failure supposedly exists because "The armor restricts the complicated gestures that they must make while castign any spell that has a somatic component." PHB v3.5 p. 56

QUOTE]

In previous edition they were saying that the metal armor was blocking the positive and negative energy preventing it from being used by the caster.

Divine spell were not affected but I can't remember why, maybe because the divine energy wasn't block by the metal.

Don't remember which edition.