Why only spell failure % for arcane spells?

[Magic Missile]

Right, this has *always* bothered me. I know it's probably for game balance purposes, but it has never made any sense to me from a "fluff" standpoint.

Armour impedes spellcasting because it's bulky and makes it hard to pull off complicated somatic gestures. Fine. That makes sense. So why does this not apply to divine spellcasters? Most divine spells have somatic components; I don't see why they should get away with no failure chance...

It becomes even more odd when a divine and arcane spellcaster can cast *exactly the same spell* (something like Burning Hands, both a wizard and Fire domain spell), but the cleric in full plate has no chance of failure while the wizard in studded leather does... and anyway, how hard can it really be to put your hands in front of you with your thumbs together (the description for the somatic components of Burning Hands) while in armour?

Two things; one, has anyone else ever wondered about this, and had any ideas on how to explain it from a "fluff" point of view, and secondly, what would the implications be for giving spell failure % to divine casters as well...?

 

[andargor]

I've always rationalized it like this:

Arcane casters use a "scientific" method to cast spells. They use the energies around them, and combine them to achieve specific effects. Hence, they have to be very precise.

Divine casters use their faith and belief in their gods to call upon minor favors ("spells"), and the gestures are in a way a "ritual". So they do not have to be as precise.

My Turkish $0.02

Andargor

 

[BASHMAN]

wizards in armor

you are 100% right on this. In fact 90% of RPGs have no rule saying that wizards cannot use armor. The problem is that D&D, which is the biggest RPG does have that rule, apparently because it has always been that way. That is the only reason they still do it. Allowing wizards to wear armor if they buy the feats should not be a problem. If you want an RPG that does not pose that as a restriction, I suggest you try out gurps, palladium fantasy or epoch.

www.epoch-rpg.com you can download a free rpg

gurps also has gurps lite which is a free download (but most of the spell information is missing.)

 

[andargor]

Re: wizards in armor

you are 100% right on this. In fact 90% of RPGs have no rule saying that wizards cannot use armor. The problem is that D&D, which is the biggest RPG does have that rule, apparently because it has always been that way. That is the only reason they still do it. Allowing wizards to wear armor if they buy the feats should not be a problem. If you want an RPG that does not pose that as a restriction, I suggest you try out gurps, palladium fantasy or epoch.

www.epoch-rpg.com you can download a free rpg

gurps also has gurps lite which is a free download (but most of the spell information is missing.)

Cheap plug! (Just kidding)

Andargor

 

[karateka]

I too think that the armor restriction is there because it was always there, just like the dual wielding rangers.

 

[Ranger REG]

In my POV, wizards are those who like to manipulate the mystic energy, to break or bend the rules of "real-world" physics, not something mortals should be doing.

Clerics however, are ordained by their deities (i.e., higher beings) and granted near-limitless access to that mystic energy, to perform and exhibit the powers of the god to the worshipping mass. Basically a "shock and awe" marketing campaign to recruit worshippers. It is through their faith, that the divine powers come to them so easily.

Although I am sure there are other arguments.

 

[Magic Missile]

In my POV, wizards are those who like to manipulate the mystic energy, to break or bend the rules of "real-world" physics, not something mortals should be doing.

Clerics however, are ordained by their deities (i.e., higher beings) and granted near-limitless access to that mystic energy, to perform and exhibit the powers of the god to the worshipping mass. Basically a "shock and awe" marketing campaign to recruit worshippers. It is through their faith, that the divine powers come to them so easily.

Although I am sure there are other arguments.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I fail to see how this explains how a cleric can cast a spell in full plate effortlessly, whereas a wizard casting *exactly the same spell* will suffer a huge failure chance, even if he is proficient in the armour... if it's the same spell, surely no matter what the source, it should be equally as tricky to cast in armour for a wizard as a cleric?

Without verging too much into house rules here, would it totally destroy game balance if spell failure was somehow linked to proficiencies? So a cleric, who by default has full armour prof. gets no penalties, but a wizard has to burn feats on the prof's to negate the penalties...?

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I always try to remember that a cleric is performing miracles, whilst a wizard is casting spells.

Wizards would be impeded from the complicated arcane gestures they need to use (think big slow motion anime effects for my visualisation), plus wearing all that heavy armour would slow them down and just doesn't have that sense of style, you know? But that second bit is irrelevant...

However, a cleric prays to his god for a miracle to occour, the power of the miracle being determined by the clerics faith (or level, in game mechanics terms). So, there is no reason that praying or pointing dramatically should be restricted by armour.

 

[andargor]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I fail to see how this explains how a cleric can cast a spell in full plate effortlessly, whereas a wizard casting *exactly the same spell* will suffer a huge failure chance, even if he is proficient in the armour... if it's the same spell, surely no matter what the source, it should be equally as tricky to cast in armour for a wizard as a cleric?

It may not be the same spell, just a similar spell effect.

Nowhere does it say that the verbal and somatic components of a divine and an arcane spell are the same.

Heck, even arcane spells may have different components, depending on the wizard who casts them.

The precedent is the fact that you have to copy a spell from a foreign spellbook into your own before you can cast it.

This may mean that each wizard has a different way of describing a spell, and perhaps different gestures or words used to accomplish the same effect.

Andargor

 

[Ranger REG]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I fail to see how this explains how a cleric can cast a spell in full plate effortlessly, whereas a wizard casting *exactly the same spell* will suffer a huge failure chance, even if he is proficient in the armour... if it's the same spell, surely no matter what the source, it should be equally as tricky to cast in armour for a wizard as a cleric?

But that's the thing, it comes from different sources, or rather the cleric has better access for being subservient to a deity (which can be a good and bad things since deity can regulate the magic to their ordained servants), whereas a mortal wizards is accessing that same "godly" powers through a different means.

To a cleric, only gods can grant such powers to any mortal. To a wizard or a sorcerer, it is a resource that mortals can control and manipulate without having to be subservient to a higher being. So basically they have to work hard at manipulating this supernatural mystic energy.