Wizards with shields?

[LokiDR]

I have abused animated tower shields, and yes, it is a stupid rule exploit. That is why it was changed. Mages should have portable arrow slits with no penalty.

With 3.5 revised tower shields, it might be better, but I don't think so. The enhancement of the shield now stacks with the shield bonus, so ACs can get better.

What I want to know: can a wizard with a wand in each hand cast a spell with somatic components? How about a cleric with sword-n-board?

 

[Sejs]

What I want to know: can a wizard with a wand in each hand cast a spell with somatic components? How about a cleric with sword-n-board?

Wizard with 2 wands - nope, both hands are occupied.

Cleric w/ Sword and Shield - if the shield is a buckler or small shield (or light, or whatever the heck they're called now) as they specify that the shield hand is free to do other things. If it's a larger shield, then no as they specify that the hand is occupied.


Heh, IMC one of the PCs developed a Floating enhancement (+1, req mage hand) for weapons that let you release a weapon as a free action and it'll stay floating within arms reach of you. So for the weapon and shield casters.. just let go of the weapon, cast your spell as a standard action, then re-ready as a move equavelant (or free action if you have quick draw).

 

[LokiDR]

Wizard with 2 wands - nope, both hands are occupied.

Cleric w/ Sword and Shield - if the shield is a buckler or small shield (or light, or whatever the heck they're called now) as they specify that the shield hand is free to do other things. If it's a larger shield, then no as they specify that the hand is occupied.

I don't think I have ever seen that spelled out before, and I have seen bad example that counter that with clerics. Live, learn, play more D&D

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I have abused animated tower shields, and yes, it is a stupid rule exploit. That is why it was changed. Mages should have portable arrow slits with no penalty.

With 3.5 revised tower shields, it might be better, but I don't think so. The enhancement of the shield now stacks with the shield bonus, so ACs can get better.

What I want to know: can a wizard with a wand in each hand cast a spell with somatic components? How about a cleric with sword-n-board?

Your right it was stupid rules exploit, a smart rules exploit would be to strap a tower shield to a tensers floating and save some money.

seriosuly it wasn't anymore stupid than a two handed fighter getting a shield or the two wepaon style guys getting a shield. And also a silly mithral bucker dodges it anyway(which now works with mage armor) so you only lose out on a couple AC, but its much cheaper and allows you to afford a more important fortification ability sooner.

Also I'd like to point out the really high ACs, wizards got in 3e may be a thing of the past. Shield is now a shield bonus and down to +4, haste gives a +1 I think, cats grace is a sucky min a level. Wizard acs will be some of the lightest in the game, because you know having d4 hp wasn't enough of a penalty.

What am I missing in this build
bracers ac8 dex 18(hey hey bought some gloves), ring protection +5, natural armor +5, bucler +5, haste +1.

ac 39.

in 3e
bracers 8, shield spell +7, haste +4, ring +5, natural armor+5 dex 18. ac 43.

The big difference isn't at these levels but the lower levels. where its more bracers ac2-4, ring +1, haste, shield spell before ac 24-26 without dex.

Now ac 17-19 without dex.

and with the hour long durations it was much more ocnceivable to have a cats grace up in 3e.

 

[LokiDR]

seriosuly it wasn't anymore stupid than a two handed fighter getting a shield or the two wepaon style guys getting a shield. And also a silly mithral bucker dodges it anyway(which now works with mage armor) so you only lose out on a couple AC, but its much cheaper and allows you to afford a more important fortification ability sooner.

The loss of armor for mages doesn't mean anything when you can get +7 cover all the time, +6 from your magic vestmented mirthral buckler, and any armor enhancement you want. The fighter are basically just get a few points of AC. The mages skip arcane failure chance. Big difference.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

The loss of armor for mages doesn't mean anything when you can get +7 cover all the time, +6 from your magic vestmented mirthral buckler, and any armor enhancement you want. The fighter are basically just get a few points of AC. The mages skip arcane failure chance. Big difference.

The mages were getting the same "few points of AC" that the fighters were. Why is it okay for a fighter, but terrible for a mage? And how, exactly, is the mage managing to cast Magic Vestment on his mithril buckler? Last I checked, it wasn't on the sor/wiz spell list.

 

[LokiDR]

The mages were getting the same "few points of AC" that the fighters were. Why is it okay for a fighter, but terrible for a mage? And how, exactly, is the mage managing to cast Magic Vestment on his mithril buckler? Last I checked, it wasn't on the sor/wiz spell list.

You have misunderstood, probably because I was half asleep when I wrote that. The two-handed fighter gets a shield. That is only a few more points of AC as far as he is concerned. He can have special abilities on the armor he normally wears. That isn't overpowered, considering the cost of the animated shield.

Now, the wizard on the other hand, gets the same AC boost, but they skip the arcane spell failure chance and get armor special abilities they wouldn't have otherwise have access to. That is why mirthral bucklers and animated tower shields were powergaming for mages in 3e. They were too good, now they have gotten toned down.

As for magic vestment, it is common in muchkin-style games (at least around here) to chain (possibly with a lesser rod) a magic vestment to everything in the party that the PCs were going to use. Under 3e, that is +5 at 15th level. I am assuming the mage is traveling in a balanced party.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

The fighter gets a ton of AC out of this, a mage gets a smidge. Why, because the fihgter would have no shield without an animated shield, the mage just goes to his mithral bucker and looses what 3 ac. woopedydo, I loose 3ac but my bucker has fortification on it instead of animated. The fighter looses out on the whole AC tower+4, and whatver the + is up to 5. So mage looses 3 ac fighter can loose up to 9. Of course the fighter probably will go with a large shield anyways over the bucker since he wouldn't want the -2 to hit penalty. So a mage looses what 1 or 2 ac haven't checked the 3.5 stats, and the fighter losses 7-8 ac.

This was just flat out a dumb decision.
1. it doesn't make much sense since the dang thing is floating a few feet away from you.
2. it doesn't really solve some balance problem, so its a useless change.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

by the way if anything the upgraded mithral shields for mages in this edition. as a shield bonus it now stacks with mage armor.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

by the way if anything the upgraded mithral shields for mages in this edition. as a shield bonus it now stacks with mage armor.

Well, with -3 from the new Haste and -3 from the new Shield and -1 or 2 from the new, nearly worthless Cat's Grace, perhaps they figured mages were getting screwed enough as is.

Originally posted by LokiDR
As for magic vestment, it is common in muchkin-style games (at least around here) to chain (possibly with a lesser rod) a magic vestment to everything in the party that the PCs were going to use. Under 3e, that is +5 at 15th level. I am assuming the mage is traveling in a balanced party.

Huh. I've never seen that. So basically, they changed the Animated Shield because of munchkins? *sigh* That seems like the motto of 3.5: there were munchkins, so we nerfed everything!