Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaculata" data-source="post: 8181972" data-attributes="member: 6801286">I still play a lot of 3E/3.5, and I've always seen arcane spell failure as a deterrent; a rule that discourages certain spellcasters from wearing heavy armor, and encourages them to rely on spells for protection instead. It forms the basis for precasting spells, and makes classes that CAN wear armor (such as clerics) an interesting alternative.In essence, it forces variety in gameplay. It is a good rule though? I'm not sure. I think there are a lot of rules regarding spellcasting in 3E that make it needlessly complicated. Spell components and spell failure chief among them.I use a different in-universe reason for why certain spell casters don't wear armor. In my setting, magic is like a current that can be very dangerous to the caster if he/she is not properly shielded from it. Thus wizards wear light clothing of special layers of fabric, to isolate the caster from any run away magic, and prevent magical mishaps. The magic they wield is volatile and difficult to control. A caster could just as easily blow up their own hand if they are not careful. This is why wizards wield wands and staves to get the magic some safe distance away from their own body before unleashing it. Wands and staves are fitted with magic-conductive cores to assist in controlling the flow of magic.I did not change the rules in regards to spell failure in line with this fictional explanation, although that might be interesting to brainstorm.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaculata, post: 8181972, member: 6801286"] I still play a lot of 3E/3.5, and I've always seen arcane spell failure as a deterrent; a rule that discourages certain spellcasters from wearing heavy armor, and encourages them to rely on spells for protection instead. It forms the basis for precasting spells, and makes classes that CAN wear armor (such as clerics) an interesting alternative. In essence, it forces variety in gameplay. It is a good rule though? I'm not sure. I think there are a lot of rules regarding spellcasting in 3E that make it needlessly complicated. Spell components and spell failure chief among them. I use a different in-universe reason for why certain spell casters don't wear armor. In my setting, magic is like a current that can be very dangerous to the caster if he/she is not properly shielded from it. Thus wizards wear light clothing of special layers of fabric, to isolate the caster from any run away magic, and prevent magical mishaps. The magic they wield is volatile and difficult to control. A caster could just as easily blow up their own hand if they are not careful. This is why wizards wield wands and staves to get the magic some safe distance away from their own body before unleashing it. Wands and staves are fitted with magic-conductive cores to assist in controlling the flow of magic. I did not change the rules in regards to spell failure in line with this fictional explanation, although that might be interesting to brainstorm. [/QUOTE]

Verification