Two little questions

[Hypersmurf]

From Bard Weapon and Armor Prof.: "A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance."

And that's why one of the possible interpretations I noted in my first post is that an assassin can cast bard spells in light armor with no ASF, but not assassin spells.

... assuming he has any ability to cast bard spells, of course

-Hyp.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm really torn on this one.

The argument that the only reason to specify "bard" instead of "sorceror" is to add the "no arcane spell failure chance while in light armor" is very compelling to me. Assassins also have light armor proficiency, which is something the bard has and the sorceror does not. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to give the class proficiency in light armor and then make their spells harder to cast because of it.

However, the argument that the other bard rules for casting a spell, with it's focus on verbal componants, is also compelling. You shouldn't be able to pick and choose which elements of bardic casting you carry over, if the class is going to be unspecific on the subject.

I suspect this needs errata. The errata should specify that they can cast spells spontaneously, and suffer no arcane spell failure chance while wearing armor.

 

[Infiniti2000]

And that's why one of the possible interpretations I noted in my first post is that an assassin can cast bard spells in light armor with no ASF, but not assassin spells.

I honestly missed that subtle point in your post.

But the above have nothing to do with casting bard spells.

Sure they do. How does the verbal component not impact casting the spell? How does not allowing Silent spell not impact casting the spell?

Since there are published assassin spells that do not have verbal components, we know this general rule concerning spell components does not apply to assassin spells.

No, what we know then is that there's a conflict. Selectively pulling the verbal component rule deals with the conflict, but it's not the only way.

The second is a rule concerning use of the Silent Spell feat. There is no reason to assume it has anything to do with bard or assassin spellcasting in general.

That quite honestly makes no sense. If you've found a way to use the Silent Spell feat without casting a spell, please let us know.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I suspect this needs errata. The errata should specify that they can cast spells spontaneously, and suffer no arcane spell failure chance while wearing armor.

I find that a perfectly acceptable solution, as I'm sure does a vast majority of people here.

 

[Deset Gled]

Now that is a rule that addresses spellcasting.

Actually, that's a rule that addresses armor proficiency.

 

[Particle_Man]

But think about this angle;

Bard spells obviously are far more dependant on the verbal component; thus lessening the need for the somantic component; and thus there really is an equal exchange (perhaps not mechanicly in the game but certainly conceptually).

I would think that the last thing an assassin spell would have would be more of a verbal component; as assassins try to be quiet. If anything perhaps even more of a somatic component that other spells on other spell lists of the same name.

Hexblades also cast spells in light armor with no ASF %. Hexblades are not particularly known for singing.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

That quite honestly makes no sense. If you've found a way to use the Silent Spell feat without casting a spell, please let us know.

What I'm saying is that the rule is a limitation on the use of Silent Spell, not bardic spellcasting in general. Just like the special rule for Empowered and Maximized spells is a limitation on those two feats, not on stacking metamagic feats in general.

In other words, this rule pertains to how bards (don't) use Silent Spell, rather than how they cast spells, period.

For the record, I think a clarification in the FAQ would be helpful. Errata would be even better. But I don't think either one is necessary. The intent is (or should be) clear.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Actually, that's a rule that addresses armor proficiency.

No, proficiency is irrelevant. The rule addresses casting spells in armor.

 

[Infiniti2000]

In other words, this rule pertains to how bards (don't) use Silent Spell, rather than how they cast spells, period.

Right. Bards don't use Silent Spell when spellcasting, ever. As implied, neither would assassins. Right?

 

[Deset Gled]

No, proficiency is irrelevant. The rule addresses casting spells in armor.

Proficiency is not only relevant, its what governs the rule. Bards are not casting spells in a special way to avoid ASF, but they are proficient in light armor with the special caveat that they are so proficient in it that they can cast spells while wearing it. Take away a bards armor proficiency (and even give it back from another source), and you also take away his ability to ignore ASF.