I like just about everything about my D&D game. I've got most of the rules where I want them. Which is where I can justify them to help add realism to what happens in the game.
The one thing I can't seem to grasp is arcane spell failure.
Having just recently worn a steel breastplate and chain link gloves (man college is fun) I can attest that they are uncomfortable, but not neccesarily in the manual dexterity area (the gloves were an amazingly good fit). I find it annoying that most mages find it more difficult to cast while wearing a chain shirt than while on a galloping horse.
Just how game breaking would it be to remove it?
How was the shoulder/arm movement? That has a factor in somatic components as well.
You could institute a "sliding scale" of spell failure chance, based on casting time or spell level.
It'd be mostly flavor breaking. If you don't mind your Mages going around in armor, then it isn't too bad... you might give it to wizards in exchange for their bonus metamagic feats. Or, if the player wants it, just allow them to take the Armored Caster feats.
If you're just shopping for a different explanation, perhaps the iron interferes with magical energies, the patterns worked into the steel disrupt the magical patterns a mage must create, or whatever appeals as a justification.
In the campaign Im in I put all of my character creation points in to Int, and the remainder I put in to Dex, Con, and Cha. My wizard has an 8 strength so he cant even wear armor. :[
|
The one thing I can't seem to grasp is arcane spell failure.
Having just recently worn a steel breastplate and chain link gloves (man college is fun) I can attest that they are uncomfortable, but not neccesarily in the manual dexterity area (the gloves were an amazingly good fit). I find it annoying that most mages find it more difficult to cast while wearing a chain shirt than while on a galloping horse.
Just how game breaking would it be to remove it?
Think about it this way -- How exact does the somantic component need to be? Try and pick up a toothpick or a needle off of a flat surface wearing chain gloves, leather gloves, and/or winter gloves (or without gloves). Do you think that you would be successful 100% of the time? 10% of the time? Part of the success and/or failure in the above cases may have more to do with how the gloves were made than successful Dexterity checks, but I think you get the idea I am trying to get across. If the somantic component needs to be EXACT, how difficult will it be to get it EXACT if you are wearing something as uncomfortable as armor?
As far as how game breaking it would be to remove it -- It depends on your game. I think that at lower levels, it would be more game breaking. If Bracers of Armor +8 are easy enough to find, then it probably wouldn't be that game breaking at high levels.
At least these are my thoughts off the top of my head.
There's no good explaination for ASF: even if armor makes somatic spells difficult, why does the check still apply when you apply Still Spell?
Personally I think it would be unbalancing to remove ASF without removing some other mage benefits. Removing a wizard's bonus feats would work, but I can't think of a reasonable way to balance the sorcerer. You could take away the familiar but I don't think that would be an equivalent trade.
From the SRD:
Casting an Arcane Spell in Armor
A character who casts an arcane spell while wearing armor must usually make an arcane spell failure roll. The number in the Arcane Spell Failure Chance column on Table: Armor and Shields is the chance that the spell fails and is ruined. If the spell lacks a somatic component, however, it can be cast with no chance of arcane spell failure.
Emphasis mine. :)
Allowing the Sorcerer and Wizard to pick up Armored Mage as a feat would probably work just fine, if you weren't worried about it conflicting with the general "flavor" of the spellcaster, and it would help to make the Eldritch Knight a more attractive class.
I think it wouldn't even be unreasonable flavor-wise if you went with the traditional "Light Armor only" allowance. Light armor is portrayed in D&D as being basically a protective jacket and maybe a pair of pants, without even gloves. Heck, the Chain Shirt doesn't even have sleeves in the PHB's illustration. Making smooth gestures in a really stiff jacket would be difficult, but you could probably do it with practice.
Allowing the Sorcerer and Wizard to pick up Armored Mage as a feat would probably work just fine, if you weren't worried about it conflicting with the general "flavor" of the spellcaster, and it would help to make the Eldritch Knight a more attractive class.
I think it wouldn't even be unreasonable flavor-wise if you went with the traditional "Light Armor only" allowance. Light armor is portrayed in D&D as being basically a protective jacket and maybe a pair of pants, without even gloves. Heck, the Chain Shirt doesn't even have sleeves in the PHB's illustration. Making smooth gestures in a really stiff jacket would be difficult, but you could probably do it with practice.
I agree. The elven high mage Araevin from the Last Mythal trilogy (most excellent!) wore a mithral chain shirt. It seems innocent enough, but then again, one of the warmage's main benefits is casting in armor w/o penalty. How do you adjudicate the impact on other classes by allowing wizards and sorcerors unfettered access to armor?
How do you adjudicate the impact on other classes by allowing wizards and sorcerors unfettered access to armor?
Right on. The "no armor" is a game mechanics issue, not a physics one. Already, at high levels wizards pretty much run roughshod over all the other lesser mortals (if played intelligently, that is). If you gave them easy access to armor at low levels to keep them from getting knocked off so often, the world would be infested with them.
That said, if your players still want to live with the loss of one or more feats (for armor proficiency) and a spell failure chance, then they can have armor right now. You might even allow "splat-book" feats reducing the failure chance. Wholescale nerfing of the rules to remove the spell failure chance, on the other hand, throws out of whack all the intra-class mechanics involved in the game design, as AU pointed out. Realistic? Maybe not. Necessary for balance? Quite probably.
Also, the reasoning presented in the book makes enough sense for someone never having worn any armor. Though you may now have, Sexi Golem (oh, how I envy you!), post people continue to never have done so, and for them, the explanation is quite sound.
I agree with Moff- the gestures have to be exacting. I imagine the somatic components as basically tracing runes in the air, and as we all know, the runes have to be drawn perfectly or... else!
Also, the reasoning presented in the book makes enough sense for someone never having worn any armor. Though you may now have, Sexi Golem (oh, how I envy you!), post people continue to never have done so, and for them, the explanation is quite sound.
I'd like to point out that most people wear armor to Renn faires and SCA events taking place during the summer months. As many heat-stroke victims can attest, modern North America is considerably warmer than Medieval Europe. My point? Wearing armor isn't all it's cracked up to be, just ask any cop or Iraqi war veteran. The 'cool' factor wears off very quickly. You aren't missing anything...
|
MOPP gear sucks bigtime. You essentially wear standard Army bdu's, helmet, gas mask, then a light coat and pants over that, and rubber wraps over your boots, and baste in a sheen of your own juices for an hour or two.
I only ever wore it in Georgia during training; I was in the National Guard and never did any real deployments.
But it's hot. And at the time, I was USED to working out-of-doors in Florida.
And MOPP gear isn't even armor, it's just something you wear to keep chemical agents off of you.
But a ray of frost spell would've been nice to cast right then and there.
From the SRD:
Emphasis mine. :)
Casting an Arcane Spell in Armor
A character who casts an arcane spell while wearing armor must usually make an arcane spell failure roll. The number in the Arcane Spell Failure Chance column on Table: Armor and Shields is the chance that the spell fails and is ruined. If the spell lacks a somatic component, however, it can be cast with no chance of arcane spell failure.
Holy sheist! Is this new? Why is this rule only mentioned under the bard description?! Well whatever.
|
|
I agree with Moff- the gestures have to be exacting. I imagine the somatic components as basically tracing runes in the air, and as we all know, the runes have to be drawn perfectly or... else!
Another thing to consider (that I think that many of us forget at times) is that most combat spells are standard actions -- 6 seconds long. That really isn't a long time to focus on being exact. Taking my example above -- now try and pick up a needle off of a flat surface in less than 6 seconds with almost any kind of gloves on. Once you are able to accomplish that, try and do it EXACTLY the same way again.
That I did. :)
I agree with Moff- the gestures have to be exacting. I imagine the somatic components as basically tracing runes in the air, and as we all know, the runes have to be drawn perfectly or... else!Another thing to consider (that I think that many of us forget at times) is that most combat spells are standard actions -- 6 seconds long. That really isn't a long time to focus on being exact. Taking my example above -- now try and pick up a needle off of a flat surface in less than 6 seconds with almost any kind of gloves on. Once you are able to accomplish that, try and do it EXACTLY the same way again.
But thats not armor. That's just gloves. Giving a wizard a glove of storing doesn't give him spell failure.
I'm not saying armor is not restricting. It is. But when a wizard is restricted in movement in any other way they are forced to make concentration checks. With armor it's just an insurmountable % chance.
If you take away the arcane spell failure (maybe replace it with a double armor check penalty for concentration checks to cast spells) what would happen?
Would every wizard waste valuable feats to gain profeciency? I doubt I would and I don't expect a big flavor break from most full casters. What I would expect is an increase in survivability of low level fighter/mage types. Otherwise players will just run to one of the many classes or prestige classes that allow them to bypass this anyway (warmage, duskblade, spell sword, blade singer) all of which seem really cookie cutter and boring (aside from the gross power they all seem to weild) compared to the versatility of the traditional Fighter/Mage combo.
I don't see to many issues arising that aren't already nerfed by commonly accepted suppliments.
So what would happen?
For clarification, when I talked to Sexi last weekend about this issue, what he's thinking of is removing arcane spell failure from armors. If you are nonproficient with a type of armor, you have to make Concentration checks somewhere around 10 + double the armor check penalty to cast spells in it, OR adding double the armor check penalty to any concentration checks otherwise forced (from damage, trying to do defensive casting, etc.).
If someone gained proficiency with a type of armor, that armor no longer presents any hinderance at all to their spellcasting in it.
The thing I see about this is that the fighter/mage combo automatically gives fighter/mages the ability to wear and easily cast in any and all types of armor, and to some extent, that lack of ability to wear armor is a balancing factor for the class combo. Otherwise, I don't see many wizards and sorcerers burning the required feats to wear full plate, and many probably wouldn't take the time to get light armor, even.
Or, have you changed you thinking on this issue since I last spoke with you, Sexi?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think the restriction on armor is as much, if not more, about flavor and legacy as it is about game balance. Every wizard worth his salt gets maxed out bracers of armor at some point. I suppose I would note the following:
1. Limit casting to light armor or medium armor. This isn't because of balance issues per se, but because there are a number of other classes (ranger, barbarian, swashbuckler) that have abilities that restrict them to using light/medium armor. It seems unfair (and somewhat out of flavor) to impose restrictions on these character abilities in armor and not on arcane spellcasters.
2. Enforce encumbrance. Arcane casters tend to use Strength as a dump stat. Armor is heavy, and if you enforce encumbrance rules you make the caster generally choose between a good Dex or a good Str in order to maximize defense.
3. Dial back the cleric. The cleric is already at the higher end of the power level, and if you're feeling is that armor should not restrict spellcasting, I would apply that logic to almost all classes (I would give the paladin a pass because full armor fits the class so well). If you allow spellcasting in any type of armor so long as the wearer has proficiency, make it clear that divine casters suffer from spell failure without that proficiency. If you limit spellcasting in armor to light and medium armor, take away the cleric's ability to cast in heavy armor.
4. Make divine follow the same rules. This is sort of already said above, but one thing that bugs me is that when a cleric casts time stop as a domain spell, he doesn't suffer spell failure, but when a wizard casts it, he does. Theoretically, it's the same spell and there shouldn't be a difference in how it is cast.
Edit: Come to think of it, there is one important difference between braces of armor and regular armor - cost. So, on the one hand, you're giving the wizard/sorcerer extra treasure by letting them wear armor. Again, I'm not sure if this issue is that bad because those classes tend to blow a lot of money on one shot items already. I think it will facilitate that sort of spending, which tends to help the party out as a whole and increase the effectiveness of the caster without really increasing the power of the caster all that much (scrolls are not as good offensively as the caster's own spells due to the lower saves, they are generally used for utility/defensive spells).
2. Enforce encumbrance. Arcane casters tend to use Strength as a dump stat. Armor is heavy, and if you enforce encumbrance rules you make the caster generally choose between a good Dex or a good Str in order to maximize defense.
3. Dial back the cleric. The cleric is already at the higher end of the power level, and if you're feeling is that armor should not restrict spellcasting, I would apply that logic to almost all classes (I would give the paladin a pass because full armor fits the class so well). If you allow spellcasting in any type of armor so long as the wearer has proficiency, make it clear that divine casters suffer from spell failure without that proficiency. If you limit spellcasting in armor to light and medium armor, take away the cleric's ability to cast in heavy armor.
Theoretically, it's the same spell and there shouldn't be a difference in how it is cast.
2. Yes another reason most casters other than fighter/mages would not use armor
3.Huh? Spell failure does not apply to divine casters. And why would I limit the cleric because I made another class MORE powerful? I honestly don't know what you meant there.
Spells aren't cast the same way. Even two wizards cast spells differently. Thats not a theory or personal opinion either it's the reason why spellcraft is needed to identify spells.
Oh and Saern yeah thats stil the plan. Maybe It wasn't as clear as I thought.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
3.Huh? Spell failure does not apply to divine casters. And why would I limit the cleric because I made another class MORE powerful? I honestly don't know what you meant there.Spells aren't cast the same way. Even two wizards cast spells differently. Thats not a theory or personal opinion either it's the reason why spellcraft is needed to identify spells.
Oh and Saern yeah thats stil the plan. Maybe It wasn't as clear as I thought.
No need to get pissy.
I realize that not all casters cast exactly the same way. However, it's always struck me as weird that divine spells and arcane spells both require somatic components, and yet arcane spells can't be cast in armor without risk of spell failure and divine spells can. I interpreted your post to mean that you thought arcane spells should not suffer spell failure in armor. The next logical step is to say that if both arcane and divine spells can be cast in armor, they should follow the same set of rules. I then recommended that you consider applying your armor proficiency rules to divine casters and also proposed an alternate set of rules (let them cast in medium or light armor with proficiency) to take into account other class features that are hindered by armor.
I suppose you could say that divine spellcasters have a substantially different set of somatic components than arcane spellcasters even under this system, and that divine spellcasters can cast unhindered in armor w/o proficiency. My understanding was that you wanted a consistent and logical system. If somehow you find arcane spell failure illogical and yet find it logical that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of somatic components between arcane and divine casters (particularly when casting the same spell), more power to you.
Edit: And I would be interested in the explanation reconciling this argument re: somatic components and spell failure with the limitations imposed on rangers regarding armor. Why is it that a fighter can take two weapon fighting or the various archery feats that a ranger gets for free and yet gets to use them in heavy armor? And if a fighter has sufficient mobility to dual weild in heavy armor, and a wizard has sufficient mobility to cast spells with somatic components in heavy armor (with proficiency), why can't a ranger duel weild in heavy armor (with proficiency)?
Hi All,
I just wanted to say that regarding many of the character based abilities dependant on the wearing or not wearing of the armor, I think that the majority were just left over “sacred cows” when the rules system was carried over from 2nd to 3.X. I also think several class abilities were designed to maintain a certain image that had evolved over time (i.e. the lightly armored ranger with two weapons, the heavily armored paladin on a warhorse, the wizard with no armor, etc.). Basically, I think the restrictions were put into place to maintain a tradition rather than any serious “logic” or “game balance” issues. Still for the most part the system does seem to provide the gaming experience it offers quite well and my players seem to have a lot of fun when we get together.
All that said, I agree that if the tenets of the game are to be changed regarding magic and the rules that govern it, that those tenets need to be looked at as a holistic whole and not necessarily a class at a time. Likewise, if armor restrictions vs. class abilities are going to be revised, a comprehensive look at those abilities and their related feats will also be needed. This I think will prove to be somewhat difficult with the number of sources now available for character classes and character options (i.e. feats, spells, magic items, etc).
Finally, in regards to handling spell failure in general, True Sorcery by Green Ronin offers a mechanic that might be useable even with the standard magic system in 3.5 and follows along the lines of what has already be proposed using the Concentration skill. Namely, the system requires a Spellcraft roll to perform magic. If the caster is wearing armor, then you apply a double armor check penalty to a Spellcraft roll to successfully cast a spell. If the caster has the Armored Caster feat, the penalty to the Spellcraft roll is equal to the armor check penalty.
Now admittedly True Sorcery is a variant magic system and the Spellcraft skill plays an important role in it. However, if we take the mechanic and say all spell casters must perform a Spellcrafting check equal to 10 or 15 + the level of the spell (depending on how restrictive we want to make casting in general) to successfully cast a spell, then we have easily standardized the casting between arcane and divine magic. Now, all that would remain is to decide what do you do regarding the classes and their feats.
My recommendation would be to add the Armored Caster feat to those classes that can cast spells from the start while in armor (i.e. bard, cleric, druid). Then add the Light Armor Proficiency to those spell casting classes that do not have currently have it (i.e. sorcerer, wizard, etc). From this point, you have to look at the additional core and prestige classes and determine which offer Armored Caster as a free feat, which classes now require it as a prerequisite, and which classes do not require it at all. Like I said earlier, revising the way spell casting is handled requires some research and work.
I hope that the above is of some use. For those groups that are going to play test their proposed variants on handling spell casting and armor, I wish you good luck and I look forward to hearing how the changes work out for the groups involved.
Good gaming,
Mark
No need to get pissy.
Sorry, I wrote that post in a hurry. Didn't mean for it to sound so aggitated.
Either way I've always accepted that Arcane and Divine spells acted and were cast as different as night and day. Including components. A Sorcerer needs precise rune like movements while all the druid does is extend his arms to the sky. Even when the spells are the same.
I don't want to change anything at all concerning other classes. In fact I don't even want to change the arcane classes. Just the way armor does.
And just to clarify I firmly believe that armor is a hindrance. And casters should face difficulties while wearing it. But their are a lot of things that hinder Casters in similar ways. Like a tanglefoot bag or a web spell. These are handled differently than armor though and typically are easier to overcome with concentration checks.
I don't like using supplimental feats, equipment, or classes. Because I always end up having issues with one out of every three things in them, maybe I'm just picky like that, and I noticed a suggestion of using Armored Mage, and super mythril. This reinforces what I stated before, their are a lot of options a player can run to if they really wanted an iron clad arcanist.
So if suppliments were just going to allow ways around something that already didn't feel right, then why keep it in the first place.
The only reason I would keep it in place is to maintain game balance. But I still don't see wizards throwing money and feats away to clunk around in full plate when a high AC still probably wont save them from a lvl appropriate melee opponent with their terrible Hp. And If a Wizard wants to wear a mithril chain shirt under his robes I wouldn't mind at all.
So I already have the "why" justified as much as I need it (though further discussion is always welcome) and ask for some response to this question.
What problems would arise if the arcane spell failure was removed. And in its place adding a rule where an arcane caster making ANY conentration check to cast a spell takes a penalty to the check equal to twice his armor check penalty.
Sexi Golem 01,
Personally, I do not think that there would be too much of a “balance” problem going this route. The only issue I could foresee would be slowing down the game with adding the extra dice mechanic.
In addition, since you seem partial to using Concentration as the skill (which 3.5 does default to for maintaining spell casting in stressful situations), you will need to determine what the DC of the concentration checks are that the armor check penalties are going to apply against. Are they like casting on the defensive, DC15 + Spell Level? Are they easier, say DC10 + Spell Level? Does the experience/talent of the spell caster make any difference (i.e. can they add their class level to the check)? Does Combat Casting apply to the Concentration check regardless of the situation (i.e. casting a spell outside of combat but not out of the armor)? What is the effect of failing the check? Is it per the rules as applied now against the Arcane Spell Failure percentage or is the spell lost? If a character successfully makes the check to cast of the defensive, do they automatically get the spell off, or is another check still required? Does the armor check penalty now apply to casting on the defensive if the rolls are all inclusive (i.e. one roll covers it all)? In regards to the various prestige classes and new core classes, you will need to determine if their special abilities regarding Arcane Spell Failure can now be applied to the armor check penalties instead with little impact (most likely this will be easily determined based on the class descriptions). Just some things to think about when you go to play test the change.
Also, keep in mind that by instituting the Concentration skill check when casting in armor, you by default raise the importance of the skill. Therefore an arcane class or an arcane multiclass combo that has few skill points will be less likely to spread those points to other facets of the character in order to maximize the likely hood of making those casting checks when needed. That’s one reason why you may wish to make the governing skill Spellcraft instead, since the skill has applications outside of combat unlike Concentration. In addition, you could keep the rules now regarding casting on the defensive and merely have to determine when the Spellcraft roll gets made in the sequence of events.
As I said before, I look forward to hearing how the change works out for you and wish you all possible success.
Good Gaming,
Mark
They would not have to roll for each spell. The penalty would apply just like an armor check penalty for all other skills. For instance a caster concentrating for defensive casting would roll normally for whatever the DC is, but if he were wearing studded leather (armor check penalty 1) he would suffer a -2 penalty. The armor is uniquely restrictive to his casting and makes stressful spellcasting that much more difficult.
As far as checking the new classes I'm not worried. I don't use them. Well I used them to help explain my reasoning but I refrain from actually using them in games if at all possible.
The thread is at -9 hp and then- Cure Moderate Thread! :)
Just to throw the option out there, instead of expanding concentration, why not get rid of it? The ultimate goal here is to develop a unified system to resolve spellcasting attempts under poor conditions, correct? Why not expand Arcane Spell Failure?
Instead of tanjglefoot bags requiring a Concentration check, why not make it a flat percentage based roll? The same thing for casting on the deck of a ship in a storm at sea.
You can just set a percentage rate, or try and calculate "typical" spellcraft modifiers in some type of formula and compare those to the Concentration check DC of various effects, with the positive difference in numbers time 5 being the percentage chance of spell failure.
...
Okay, screw that second option, way too much work involved there. But, seriously, you could just expand the use of unmodified die rolls and reduce Concentration's use to defensive casting and the obscure abilities of other classes. Thus, Concentration looses value to any but battle-mage types who plan on getting into the thick of things. This can let caster have more freedom with skill points they might otherwise put into Concentraion.
Just a thought. Probably a lot harder than converting ASF to Concentration checks, but I wanted to throw it out there anyway.
Oh, and Concentration is hardly necessary in the RAW. I've played more than my fair share of wizards, and I never really needed the Concentration checks, no matter the level I was playing at. The only real time I had trouble casting was during a grapple, and Concentration doesn't help there.
The only real time I had trouble casting was during a grapple, and Concentration doesn't help there.
Ahhh purple worms in the giant underground library devoted to scientific engineering guarded by the 500 year old gnome monk.
Good times man, good times.
AND the quartet of gricks, AND the giant praying mantis... surely there were more? It seems like my characters always had a sign over their heads saying "Grab me!"
Hi all just wanted to throw in my 2 copper...
Anyway comeing from a 2nd Ed backround i had it explained to me like this "Iron interfears with magical energys so any armor with iron in it would cause your spellcasting to become a problem" well the example of other metals came up and the answer was sure why not. if you read alot of Arcane spells you will notice that alot of them have problem getting through Lead and Iron when taken into account that those materials are what most of the armor in game is made of it makes sense. lets say your mage could have any armor he wanted so you give him full plate i would personaly be allmost unhitable at low end i expect mages off most types to have a AC of about 12-14 ( in 3.X that is ) and for a level 1 adventure that is fine.. your mage should be protected at all times from direct attacks anyway ( monsters with a 1-5 Int should not be able to pick and choose targets anyway )
anyway i personaly thing with all the power mages end up with they have no need for armor in the normal sense ( magic items being what they are in 3.X ) giveing them armor just seems like killing a rat with a bozoka to me and in all honesty there has never been and never will be true game balance, its a illusion that is protected by ECL's and hidden by "Epic feats" and what not. but i say do what ever allows you to have the most fun, i allways made Renfored Robes of differing strengths that were low end armor for casters.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Anyway comeing from a 2nd Ed backround i had it explained to me like this "Iron interfears with magical energys so any armor with iron in it would cause your spellcasting to become a problem" well the example of other metals came up and the answer was sure why not. if you read alot of Arcane spells you will notice that alot of them have problem getting through Lead and Iron when taken into account that those materials are what most of the armor in game is made of it makes sense. lets say your mage could have any armor he wanted so you give him full plate i would personaly be allmost unhitable at low end i expect mages off most types to have a AC of about 12-14 ( in 3.X that is ) and for a level 1 adventure that is fine.. your mage should be protected at all times from direct attacks anyway ( monsters with a 1-5 Int should not be able to pick and choose targets anyway )
The problem with that explanation is that it no longer matches up to the rules. If it is the metal that interferes with the casting, then still spell shouldn't negate arcane spell failure.
Game balance exists, can be sought, and is worth seeking.
Sorry should have posted that the house rule here is that the spell failure is to any arcane spellcasting movement or not, the reason was two fold one i like the mage being a glass cannon and two i do not use Spells per day like normal i gave my casters Spell Points and a system to go with it that allows a bit more power,
as to game balance, yes it can be maintained... at the cost of fun and realisum at least IMO, i threw out the ECL system because it made no sense to me but i gave alot more to my basic races too. *shrug*
if you read alot of Arcane spells you will notice that alot of them have problem getting through Lead and Iron when taken into account that those materials are what most of the armor in game is made of it makes sense. lets say your mage could have any armor he wanted so you give him full plate i would personaly be allmost unhitable at low end i expect... anyway i personaly thing with all the power mages end up with they have no need for armor in the normal sense ( magic items being what they are in 3.X ) giveing them armor just seems like killing a rat with a bozoka to me and in all honesty there has never been and never will be true game balance, its a illusion that is protected by ECL's and hidden by "Epic feats" and what not. but i say do what ever allows you to have the most fun, i allways made Renfored Robes of differing strengths that were low end armor for casters
Huh? Is this e-speak? I apologize for sounding like an old fart here, but I need a translator. Honestly, I have no idea what you're saying, which is a shame, because it seems to have a good point.
Huh? Is this e-speak? I apologize for sounding like an old fart here, but I need a translator. Honestly, I have no idea what you're saying
I sincerely do apologize for sounding like an English teacher or something. I meant to ask for clarification, not to offend anyone.
AND the quartet of gricks, AND the giant praying mantis... surely there were more? It seems like my characters always had a sign over their heads saying "Grab me!"
Hey! they were going to stop grabbing you just as soon as it stopped being funny.
Oh, and when was that going to be?!
Oh, and when was that going to be?!
With the combination of your characters reaction to being grabbed and ability to be saved from death at the last possible instant.... definately no end in the forseeable future.