Shields

[Infiniti2000]

Don't forget to rewrite the section on armor check penalties, too. By the same reasoning on arcane spell failure, if a shield imposes an armor check penalty, then a weapon ought to do so as well.

 

[werk]

One could make the argument it doesn't have so much to do with game balance as flavor.

Go ahead...

 

[Notmousse]

I was surprised that arcane failure didn't state something along the lines of 'An arcane magic user must have freedom of movement in order to create the complex gestures included in their magic spells, thus equipment makes it harder to cast.'

 

[Destil]

I don't rememember where, but one of the 3E designers has mentioned in the past that there are no balance issues with letting arcane casters wear armor. Arcane spell failure is purely a sacred cow and a flavor thing.

 

[Aaron L]

I don't rememember where, but one of the 3E designers has mentioned in the past that there are no balance issues with letting arcane casters wear armor. Arcane spell failure is purely a sacred cow and a flavor thing.

I definitely remember one of the designers saying that.

Divine spellcasters can freely cast in armor, and psionicists can freely manifest in armor. Arcane magic isn't more powerful than either of those and doesn't require a balancing factor.

 

[delericho]

You're not just holding a shield in your off-hand. You're actively using the shield to defend yourself - that's why you get the AC bonus.

Careful, precise movements with one hand are significantly harder when the other hand is busy making movements to keep the body defended.

 

[delericho]

I don't rememember where, but one of the 3E designers has mentioned in the past that there are no balance issues with letting arcane casters wear armor. Arcane spell failure is purely a sacred cow and a flavor thing.

I'm not sure that's correct, though. My concern is not with the attack and utility spells, but rather a suspicion that the defensive spells maybe stack a little too well with 'real' armour. (Which, consequently, isn't an issue with the Warmage, Beguiler or Dread Necromancer, since they don't get those spells.)

That said, I haven't run through any scenarios to test this.

Incidentally, I would be inclined to drop the ASF mechanics in favour of applying the Armour Check Penalty to Concentration checks*, and require a check when casting spells in armour. (Or, when casting spells in armour with which the caster is not proficient if the sacred cow is to be butchered.)

* Possibly only for this purpose, but that might be too complicated for too little gain.

 

[Wraith-Hunter]

You're not just holding a shield in your off-hand. You're actively using the shield to defend yourself - that's why you get the AC bonus.

Careful, precise movements with one hand are significantly harder when the other hand is busy making movements to keep the body defended.

There is no distinction between actively defending your self with the shield or just having it there.[ETA: Historicaly some shields were not straped on merely held.] Both have the AFC. It is an arbitrary rule held over from previous editions for flavor purposes. There is no 'logic' behind it. Clerics through that out the window.

A cleric casting the same spell as a wizard (domain list) can do it in full plate with no problem. Wizard gets the AFC. Same spell different rules. It is just a D&D thing.

If you expand beyond the core only there are a ton of ways to get around this. Lots of PrC's and some feats out there that let you do it. If you are the DM and you don't like the rule just drop it.

I dropped it in a 3.0 campaign I ran. Guess what? Had 3 wizards 3 diff players and with the exception of Std Leather on one none of them wore any armor or used shields. They just didn't need them.

 

[delericho]

There is no distinction between actively defending your self with the shield or just having it there. Both have the AFC. It is an arbitrary rule held over from previous editions for flavor purposes. There is no 'logic' behind it. Clerics through that out the window.

At some level, all rules are arbitrary. The question asked was why having a shield in the non-casting hand was different from having a sword in the non-casting hand, and so that was the question I answered - that shield isn't just in the other hand, it's being actively used to defend.

There appears to be a hole in the rules, allowing a caster to stop using his shield for spell-casting purposes, and thus not have the ASF to deal with. Otherwise, just as a shield that the caster is carrying on his back doesn't cause ASF (or give an AC bonus), so too would a shield in the non-casting hand that is just there but not actually being used.

That said, as switching a bastard sword from one-handed to two-handed grip is a move action (I believe that's in the FAQ; if not, it was addressed by the Sage), so too should re-using the shield be. Stopping using it should, of course, be a free action.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm not sure that's correct, though. My concern is not with the attack and utility spells, but rather a suspicion that the defensive spells maybe stack a little too well with 'real' armour. (Which, consequently, isn't an issue with the Warmage, Beguiler or Dread Necromancer, since they don't get those spells.)

Which arcane defensive spells do you think would be a problem?