Why is Arcane Spell Failure a "Sacred Cow".

[The Sigil]

Thanks...

With a feat like Armored Casting that reduces ASF by 10% or gives +2 to a d20 check, it gives you an option:

1) Still Spell: Cast in ANY armor with no chance of failure but all spells (with somatic components) are cast as if they are one level higher.

-or-

2) Take a feat and reduce ASF so that you can cast in light armor without ASF, but it is still there(although reduced) for heavier armors. Take the feat 2 or 3 times and it reduces it further.

Like Sigil said...it should have a cost. Using just a feat (and no modified d20 check) a cost for casting in armor is guarunteed. Seems fair to me...

P.S. The craftwand thing is good, but that makes it cost a feat, XP and gold and still doesn't differentiate between various types of armor.

If you want simplicity while retaining the "it should be easier to overcome light armor's penalties than heavier armor's penalties," Armored Casting is definitely a Feat to be added to your campaign. It is certainly the simplest solution that satisfies your need to reflect different types of armor.

--The Sigil

 

[jollyninja]

here is what i did, i made up a new armor enchantment. basically for the cost of adding +1 to your current armor, you subtract 5% from the arcane spell failure. so to wear plate mail with no arcane spell failure % would have to pay for the costly +9 enchantment. lighter armor costs less and is much easyer to do, or find someone to do it for you. personally i like to work within the system rather then inventing new mechanics for stuff that may or may not have any basis within the rule system.

i also toyed with a concentration check dc 5 + half the spell failure % rounded down. this makes the light armors fairly easy to wear and the heavy ones near impossible at low levels.

 

[Xarlen]

Hey, Sigil, just so you know, Wand spells can only go up to 4th level. No 5th level wands.

 

[Uller]

Re: Thanks...

If you want simplicity while retaining the "it should be easier to overcome light armor's penalties than heavier armor's penalties," Armored Casting is definitely a Feat to be added to your campaign. It is certainly the simplest solution that satisfies your need to reflect different types of armor.

--The Sigil

Agreed. Thanks for the input.

So what does this mean in regard to your previous points(I mean from a non-rules perspective). Now there would be wizards and sorcerers who are able to defy the logic you outlined earlier. How? Why?

I guess they somehow learned some "tricks" that allow them to overcome the problems associated with armor.

 

[der_kluge]

I've had two 3e GMs so far, and both of them have included armor that negated ASF. So, it seems fairly common. We don't see it as a huge deal (mostly because we are role-players, not power gamers).

The first game we played, I had a gnome cleric/illusionist, and he wore a chain shirt. The DM ended up giving me a magical chain shirt that had no ASF. Mostly because I always kept forgetting to roll the 15% (or whatever it was) chance for ASF.

But, the first DM also toyed around with implementing a rule that stated that the RANKS in concentration would negate an equivalent amount of ASF for the armor you wore.

In other words, if you had 10 ranks in Concentration, you could wear armor that had a 10% ASF and suffer no ill effects from it. If you wore armor with a 15% ASF, you'd have a 5% chance of ASF.

I agree with the earlier comment that leather armor having an ASF doesn't make any sense. In my game, I'm going to house rule leather armor as having a 0% ASF. I mean, what's a +2 armor bonus, anyway? A 1st level mage sure can benefit from that. Mage armor is still better, but at least he gets some protection when his spell is down.

Studded leather might be 5%.
Hide would be 10%.

 

[Uller]

i also toyed with a concentration check dc 5 + half the spell failure % rounded down. this makes the light armors fairly easy to wear and the heavy ones near impossible at low levels.

Yeah and at higher levels, it makes it relatively easy to eventually overcome the ASF of heavier armors and it uses a skill(edit) that a combat oriented arcane spell caster would likely be taking anyway. For that reason, I've rejected concentration based ASF rules.

 

[Lord Ravinous]

I don't see a reason to change one of the most game balancing rulings out there. If you have access to Tome and Blood, the Spell Sword is mostly what your looking for. But what helps keep it balanced is the lowered spell progression. At least give this class a try before you decide to butcher Arcane magiks

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I agree with the earlier comment that leather armor having an ASF doesn't make any sense. In my game, I'm going to house rule leather armor as having a 0% ASF. I mean, what's a +2 armor bonus, anyway? A 1st level mage sure can benefit from that. Mage armor is still better, but at least he gets some protection when his spell is down.

Give a dame an inch and the next thing you know the germans are marching into Paris! --Sam Diamonds, Murder by Death

The big advantages of leather is it opens up an item slot and even a +2 makes bracers of armor relatively expensive.

Not a huge deal, but a nice little boost to the power and flexibility of a Wiz/Sor.

I would like to point out that a 10% arcane failure chance is not a bad deal compared to the upside, especially for someone who likes to mix it up. Soft leather or mithirl shirt is a reasonable strategic choice for a wizard with the rules as is.

 

[Voadam]

This gets into the nature of arcane vs. divine magic. I would suggest to you that there IS a difference... that they are not "different sides of the same coin" but that they are two fundamentally different animals.

The explanation that the PHB uses... that armor interferes with one's ability to cast arcane spells with somatic components... is okay with me. Why? Because arcane spellcasters rely on focusing and channelling ambient magical energy; part of the process by which it can be focused is gesture and positioning. The reason a spell cast with Still Spell takes up a higher spell slot is that it takes more effort to achieve the same effect without the positioning and gestures. IOW, the spell's efficacy comes from the character properly harnessing the ambient energy... and if done improperly, the spell doesn't work. Since part of the process of harnessing the energy may include somatic components, these are an important ingredient of arcane spells and doing them improperly results in improper focusing and therefore no effect.

OTOH, divine evergy does not rely on the character focusing ambient magical energy; rather, it is power granted to a character because of his faith. The somatic gestures in a divine spell are largely ceremonial - the power behind the spell is the character's deity rather than ambient magical energy. In other words, the spell's efficacy is derived from an investiture from deity rather than a channelling of outside energy. Since the process of spellcasting does not require harnessing some outside force but is rather motivated by a character's inner convictions, the somatic components are mostly for show.

When a mage casts a spell, he is channelling a neutral force of nature - ambient magical energy. When a divine caster casts a spell, he is calling upon the power of his god to be made manifest, rather than attempting to draw upon neutral ambient magical energy. That is the key difference... one reaches outward to the world around him (arcane) while the other reaches inward to his faith and convictions (divine).

That the effects are sometimes similar to arcane spells is coincidental; you can get roughly the same results using multiple methods - a blast of fire could come from arcane magic (fireball), divine magic (flame strike), alchemy (a really big batch of alchemist's fire) or "technology" (a flamethrower). While the results are nearly the same and have similar game effects, the motivating power is completely different.


--The Sigil

I always looked at the D&D paradigm as there is a source of divine energy (whether from primal forces, the outer planes, or specific gods or spirits) that flows into a cleric. He then has to cast the spell and follow spell rules when doing so. If the cleric has his arms bound he can not cast his flame strike. The god provides the power, but the cleric then uses that power that has been poured into him previously to cast the spell. So anything that interferes with the cleric's spellcasting interferes with the spell.

So yes the source of the power is different for a cleric and wizard, but the mechanisms for casting are pretty similar. In yours sigil, can a cleric cast while shackled?

I have played in games where there is a stricter division between divine, arcane, mysteries (druid magic), and psionics and there were even different detect magic spells for each type of magic that only detected that type. That can work fine, but in default 3e this doesn't seem supported as much.

However, if you do divide them up I recommend the rolemaster spell law books _of essence_, _of mentalism_, and _of channeling_ for arcane, psionic and divine spell ideas and mechanisms. Each type has restrictions on what can be worn when the spells are cast (mentalism your head must be uncovered, etc.)

I've used them as alternative domains in my campaign and they are quite focused and flavorful as well as easily convertible.

 

[Uller]

I don't see a reason to change one of the most game balancing rulings out there. If you have access to Tome and Blood, the Spell Sword is mostly what your looking for. But what helps keep it balanced is the lowered spell progression. At least give this class a try before you decide to butcher Arcane magiks

Maybe. But I'm not going to by a splatbook just for this. Our group hasn't introduced any yet and I don't think we will just for a PrC.

We rarely use any house rules, even. So far, we have maybe 5 house rules and most of those don't come up very often.

"Butcher" is probably a strong word(and in my mind affirms my suspiscion about the whole Sacred Cow thing...). We have a limitation that all(most) of us agree is a balance issue. Giving a PC an option to get around or reduce a limitation by "paying" some cost(like a feat or a skill or whatever) through a house rule seems right in line with the spirit of 3e. Am I wrong?

In my case, I'm unhappy with the available options in the core rules for the reasons I've outlined and Sigil's solution seems to me to maintain the balance of the rules and even the "sacredness" of arcane spell casters not being able to wear armor. After all, a pure Wizard is not proficient in armor. If he is not interested in multiclassing, he is unlikely to spend TWO feats just to be able to wear light armor when he could just cast Mage armor and get an AC equal to what he would ge from Chain Shirt(and even with two feats...light armor prof and 1 Armored Casting...he'd still have a 10% failure rate w/ Chain Shirt!)