Spell Confusion

[john112364]

This is needlessly complicated, I feel. I'd be fine with excluding heavy armour, but measuring spell failure takes away the fun. It's really better not to allow it at all. (But that's not what I want!).

Yeah, you're probably right. It was just off the cuff. I need to follow the KISS principle "Keep It Simpe Stupid".

 

[The Shadow]

The best argument against it would develop only once we see how multiclassing works (because then there is a reason for a 1-level dip into fighter, e.g.).

You beat me to it. Indeed, other than tradition, I think this is the only viable argument against it.

I don't want to see a bunch of Wizard X/Fighter 1's running around in plate.

In any case, I see no problem with casting cantrips in armor.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually I would just stop right here and don´t add wizard traditions etc to the wizard at first level. Characters are getting too complex at first level.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I, for one, liked arcane spell failure in 3E. It's a mechanic that only mattered for arcane casters when they decided to wear armor. Everyone else ignored it. It well represented the difficulty of performing somatic components in armor while not preventing the caster from trying.

 

[ComradeGnull]

Maybe even something as simple as "each +1 to AC gained by armor gives you a 10% chance of spell failure". Maybe light armor proficiency reduces it by 20%, medium by 40%, and heavy by 60%. Hey if a wizard wants to burn 3feats to wear chain mail, why not.

Can't XP you right now, but I like this idea. Has a very old-school feel to it, introduces a little unpredictability, and would permit magic users to employ armor if they thought it was going to be really necessary, but with a substantial drawback. It also solves the Wizard 18/Fighter 1 problem- you might be proficient in an armor, but you can't reduce spell failure chance just by burning a single feat or grabbing a single level of a heavy armor class.

This is needlessly complicated, I feel. I'd be fine with excluding heavy armour, but measuring spell failure takes away the fun. It's really better not to allow it at all. (But that's not what I want!).

Doesn't feel that complicated to me- each armor type would have a fixed casting failure rating. PF has this already- doesn't seem to impact play too much. How does it take away the fun?

I, for one, liked arcane spell failure in 3E. It's a mechanic that only mattered for arcane casters when they decided to wear armor. Everyone else ignored it. It well represented the difficulty of performing somatic components in armor while not preventing the caster from trying.

Pretty well sums up my feelings on it. Also, for things like a Rogue Magic-User using Mage Hands to pick a lock, I would be totally fine with using the spell failure rating for his armor if he wants to cast while wearing it. That provides the Rogue with an interesting choice- dump his armor for a guaranteed spell success, but risk being ambushed while in his skivvies, or keep the armor on and chance spell failure. There are times when you could prefer either.

 

[r0gershrubber]

They really should just get rid of the wizard's armor restrictions, IMO. They lack proficiency in any type of armor, and that comes with enough penalties of its own.

They could even have a general rule about casting spells in armor you're not proficient with instead of it being a specific part of the wizard class. That way, the answer to whether or not your character (regardless of class) can cast spells in armor would be as simple as "are you proficient in it?"

I'm OK with Wizards being able to work their way to casting in armor, but it shouldn't be as trivial as taking a level in Fighter. Unarmored magic users have been around a long time, and they're the standard in basically every D&D setting.

As to the OP, I think by RAW the cantrips that aren't from the Wizard levels can be cast, but that's probably an oversight, and it's cumbersome to track the source of the cantrip. I would like to see Somatic/Verbal/Material/etc and Arcane Spell Failure make a return in 5E at least as a module.

 

[Li Shenron]

Technically cantrips are still arcane spells, as are rituals, so if the rule remained as is now, from a FAQ article I would expect that the official ruling would be that you still cannot cast them in armor. This would also be consistent with 30+ years of previous editions.

But... considering the following:

- for a single-class Wizard it makes no difference: she is not going to wear armor anyway because armor prevents her from casting her regular daily spells
- cantrips are already "officially" easier to cast than regular arcane spells because they don't need to be recorded in a spellbook; fluff text already talks about the caster knowing them very well
- the cantrips granted by races or feats don't make much difference on a Wizard of such race or specialty, but they make a nice difference to a non-Wizard... not being castable in armor kind of defies the whole point of taking the feat or granting the racial benefit (maybe not the whole point, since you could pick non-combat cantrips and still find them useful during downtime, but let's say not being able to use them while in action would make the feat severely less attractive)
- rituals always require enough time so that they cannot be cast in the middle of action; if you disallow rituals in armor what do you achieve? That the caster always takes off the armor, cast the ritual, and puts the armor back on... 99% of the times if she has time to cast the rituals she also has a few extra minutes to remove the armor and put it back

Because of the above, I think it's much more reasonable to allow both cantrips and rituals in armor, including those granted by the Wizard class itself.

I'd like to see bigger buckets for spells. If you're a wizard/sorcerer, and you learned burning hands as a 1st-level wizard, you just know burning hands. You can prepare it in your spell slots, or you can cast it with your willpower points. You wouldn't have to worry about which spells are from which sources; you just have a list of spells that you know. (Maybe separate buckets for arcane and divine, but that's it.)

Then you can have a general ASF rule, and anyone who has a level of dragon sorcerer can be immune to ASF.

In this case, I'm not with you. The explanation on the source of magic for those two classes is already strongly defined and strongly different, and I don't think it should be automatic to shift spells from one to the other "daily pool". Perhaps I might accept it with cantrips, but it's a moot point because cantrips are already at-will anyway.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Honestly, arcane casters being unable to cast in armor always bothered me.

If spellcasting in armor, at all, isn't beyond the pale (and the cleric, druid, paladin, bard, etc. say that it isn't), then why is arcane casting in armor so hideously unbalanced that it needs all these special rules and restrictions?

Especially when, nigh-immediately, you turn around and break all those restrictions? No, wizards can't cast in armor; but they can if they're Elven F/MUs. Or 3E Bards. Or take a specific combination of feats and PrCs.

If I had my way, you could cast in any armor in which you were proficient, and wizards just wouldn't start with any armor proficiencies.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Honestly, arcane casters being unable to cast in armor always bothered me.

If spellcasting in armor, at all, isn't beyond the pale (and the cleric, druid, paladin, bard, etc. say that it isn't), then why is arcane casting in armor so hideously unbalanced that it needs all these special rules and restrictions.

The reason wizards can't cast in armor is because wizards wear robes. Robes don't do a good job of stopping a sword, so no wizard would wear them if they could cast spells in armor.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Doesn't feel that complicated to me- each armor type would have a fixed casting failure rating. PF has this already- doesn't seem to impact play too much. How does it take away the fun?

Leaving aside producing consistent narratives (which is always possible), it takes away the fun (IME, YMMV) two ways:

1. either the Wizard tries to wear some armour, casts big conflict-solving fireball, and then (3 times in 10) has it fizzle to nothingness, spoiling her best spell for the day, or
2. the Wizard is obliged to build up magical non-armor defences (perhaps through a combination of magical cloaks and rings), replicating the feel of armour (and in game terms indistiguishable from it), except inasmuch as they don't risk spell failure.

The first is anticlimactic; the second is legalism. Neither are fun (for me). This leads to a third problem, limited variation between characters (also less fun).

I have not seen wizards risk (1) ever, really -- though I have played less PF than you. Only multiclass characters with a level or two in spell casting. What I have seen are convoluted solutions to (2), providing a solution to an unneeded problem.

Making it harder to get proficiency in armour is the best solution IMO, though it requires a smart multiclassing system (assuming multiclassing is possible). That, of course, is still to come, and so no point guessing what they have in mind.