While agree that making it constant and a non-action would make it simple, and something that will likely get worked into some form of house rule in my games... there are ways to avoid the 'what if I forget to announce it ever turn" gotcha that some antagonistic DMs like to do.
For example, simply stipulate that by default, whenever your character casts a non-swift spell he use AAT. There are many other similar situations through the rules structure where players can simply state at the start of session, or in general for the campaign, what their characters typical default actions are in a given situation. It both saves time and allows provides the DM with some practicably to player actions when planning encounters.
You might be right.
I can't be sure without the book actually being out, though.
Wait a few days, and I'll get back to you.
But, what if you,
what to use another swift mage action, AND because, you did not,
use AAT, you fail because, of Arcane Spell chance failure?
That is a game design issue. The way it is structure, it is intentionally setup that casting, for example, a Quickened Fireball will suffer ASF because you cannot use AAT. That is a trade off you have to make.
I assume these questions are related to Eldritch Knight and the ability to cast any spell as a swift action on a critical hit. We will need to wait for the final book to see if that ability ignores ASF as well.
|
Actually I think the idea of you having to take a swift action to be able to ignore your spell failure is a good mechanic for balancing out the fact your now in armor.
Keeps things from getting too out of hand. If you need to use your swift/immediate action for something, then you just have to deal with arcane spell failure for a round.
Fergie here:
I wish spell failure had gotten a little attention, and even dropped the percent system. I think it would have been much more elegant to simply have a feat that lets you automatically cast with bucklers and light armor, then another feat that lets you cast with light shields and medium armor (although you still need a free hand). If it seems too powerful, have defensive casting or still spell or something as a prereq.
Spell failure is an annoying mechanic because it is almost always a "don't roll a 1 or 2" situation, and usually ends up getting ignored.
Having played the hell out of an EK, I can say that armor is a major weak point. Even if you had the best magical elven chain you can afford, your armor class is still not going to be that impressive. Also, now that mithril breastplate is medium armor, I can't see a way to abuse this.
"I cast disintegrate"
Defensive casting roll
Spell failure
Concealment
to hit roll
Spell resistance
Saving throw
Damage
"I cast disintegrate"Defensive casting roll
Spell failure
Concealment
to hit roll
Spell resistance
Saving throw
Damage
You are not wrong, but that is a worst-case scenario.
|
Actually I think the idea of you having to take a swift action to be able to ignore your spell failure is a good mechanic for balancing out the fact your now in armor.
Keeps things from getting too out of hand. If you need to use your swift/immediate action for something, then you just have to deal with arcane spell failure for a round.
Agree 100%, it's called balance. Compared to an arcane caster who forgoes armor this is a non-issue gripe.
One feat shouldn't make an uber character and make conventional casters worthless, get over it.|
|
It's called a class trade-off. Do you think wizards should also get d10 hp so they can stand toe-toe with beef? I don't.
Each class has their own pitfalls and difficulties, part of choosing a class an hopefully rounding out a party.
What you are gripping about, in effect, is the fact that a an armored mage has to use a swift action to cast a spell to avoid the arcane failure chance, swift being something not even listed in the original core rules (it was a fill-in addition action). So what are you losing for the round?
If he wants to cast a quickened spell on top of another spell while in armor, then yeah - having to make an arcane check is more than fair an generous. Sorry if I am short on sympathy, mages are by far the most powerful class in the game so one that wants to wear armor while having full casting ability because of one feat is not going to make me feel bad for imposed limitations.
You could always rule that if they want to cast a full round spell, or a quickened spell that they are denied all other actions -even a 5 ft step. I wouldn't for my game, but it could be a fix.
Why wouldn't mithral be available, it is in the SRD and was listed as having the same abilities in the beta as it did in 3.5?
In our group we have always treated mithril armor the way Paizo is treating it in the PFRPG,our reasoning was that it still requires the the appropriate proficiency to wear, it just happens to be a bit less bulky and half the weight, so we made it Encumber as the next step down, thus a mithril breastplate is meduim armor but allows speed of 30' and x4 on the run speed, mithril full plate is still heavy armor but encumbers for movement like medium, thus 20' and x4 run instead of x3. To stop the naysayers we also allow the mithril chain shirt to be worn under clothing...ala Frodo
I'm pretty sure that the best options for light armor would be elven chain, which is light by description the same way celestial plate is medium armor. Not 100% sure this will be true in the final rules. But those are the "best" armors.
While those "best" armors, may seem sweet (even over powered), remember that getting armor proficiency requires at least another feat or two or at least one level in a class that won't increase the characters caster level. And caster level is key. If something doesn't increase caster level, it sure isn't the most powerful option!
Also, all those armors weigh a lot. What caster has much more then a 10 or 12 strength? And armor won't work with the Form of and Beastshape spells.
Finally, armors and shields are pretty low on the list of a casters purchases, and in almost all adventuring parties there will be a few others in line before the mage. I think this is most likely to affect EKs (which need a little help in the AC area) and NPC villains such as gish and drow.
|
Doesn't mithril as a composition material automatically make it one class lighter plus masterwork? Thus a mithril breastplate would count as light armor, yes or no?
Also, now that mithril breastplate is medium armor, I can't see a way to abuse this.
No, in Pathfinder the type of armor is what governs the classification,
ie, chain suit is light, breastplate is medium. plate is heavy, no
matter what the material is. While, this was not in the Beta, Jason,
has said, I am told, is the way it will be, in the Core Book.
They nerfed mithral too? That sucks.
Anyway, I agree with the OP. Though my DM never really payed much attetion to after I told him I could.
|
When your adventure in game last a full day, a hour is not long.uh, mage armor lasts 1 hour per level...not a short while...
it's shortfall is the current limit of +4 AC.
Shield is the short duration spell.
per level... 2 hours at second level...4 hours at 4th level...
your cleric isn't going to be able to keep the fighter up for 4 straight hours of combat...
|
|
Doesn't mithril as a composition material automatically make it one class lighter plus masterwork? Thus a mithril breastplate would count as light armor, yes or no?
Also, now that mithril breastplate is medium armor, I can't see a way to abuse this.
No, in Pathfinder the type of armor is what governs the classification,
ie, chain suit is light, breastplate is medium. plate is heavy, no
matter what the material is. While, this was not in the Beta, Jason,
has said, I am told, is the way it will be, in the Core Book.They nerfed mithral too? That sucks.
Anyway, I agree with the OP. Though my DM never really payed much attetion to after I told him I could.
Yes, it's part of making medium armor actually used, instead of barbarians in mithral full plate...
|
|
Ummm, okay are you all forgetting all of the other spells that Wizards have to make it so they can't get hit? Mirror Image, [/i]Invisibility, Greater Invisibility, Blink, etc?
Or how about the AC buffs? Shield, Mage Armor, Protection from Evil, Cat's Grace, etc.
Wizards have a huge assortment of spells that can keep them safe from harm. That's not even including spells like Dimension Door, Expeditious Retreat or Fly that can take them out of most combats easily.
Most arcane spell casters already have a huge list of abilities that can raise their AC, make them almost untouchable and then spirit them away from the battle field. Not only that but they can share a lot of those spells with their companions as well. You can't just keep stacking on more and more bonuses on top of all that as well.
Then you get things like Bracers of Armor or Rings of Protection....
I don't see what possible reason you could have for lugging around a big heavy suit of armor over a small pouch of components. Personally I don't even think we should have these feats at all. If you want to wear armor, don't be a wizard. Easy enough.
I like the mechanic of a swift action to cast a spell without ASF. Swift actions serve the purpose of something that is almost as fast as a free action, but it takes enough thought and time to have a limit of one per round. In the case of AAT you have to slow down the casting of your spell a small amount as you cast around your armor limitations. If you do not have the time (a free swift action) then you have to rush the casting as normal and risk the armor screwing up your spell.
One item I would like to ask is can you substitute a longer round segment for a shorter one? For example you can use a move action and then a standard action for another move action right? So what is to prevent you from using your standard action, then a swift action, and then use your move action for another swift action?
As an example. You activate your swift action to turn on AAT for the round. You then cast a spell (or single attack) as a standard action. Then with your move action you cast a quickened spell. This gets two spells off a round with no spell failure chance.
Morgan - I think you are absolutely right. However, there are some characters that really need a little armor boost to aviod sucking. Eldritch Knights and other Fighter/Magic-user types need a little AC help in order to stay viable once shield and mage armor have fallen far behind. Not anything that gives them a great AC, but something... Spells are best at first, but starting every combat with three rounds of buffing just to get a moderater AC isn't a fun way to have to be a fighter/mage. Finally there are situations where the illusion spells don't work, or may not be available and the mage is left almost unprotected at higher levels.
Arcane Armor training is a nice step, but just doesn't need the whole swift action limiting factor, and could be less restrictive in other areas as well.
And you could always use the still spell feat to avoid the whole issue if you wanted to go that route.
I don't think it is unbalanced, because there are clearly more powerful ways to build a character and better feats. This would just be a different option.
I agree this should have been a flat bonus!
Every EK and their uncle getting is likely to get this feat as it is part of their flavor of play! Then all of a sudden this feat they have had for 16 levels becomes useless, they end up buying the most expensive armor AC around (bracers of armor), just because they can't use their key class ability. So not only do they lose the feat, but they end up losing a lot of money as they end up re-selling their stuff.
The same could be said even more for arcane strike too. So I guess I wouldn't mind Arcane Armor being a swift action, if the EK's capstone ability was a free or non action.
A purposed fix though, make the feat grant 5% bonus if they don't use their swift action, and 10% for the improved version.
I never liked the idea of feats taking up actions unless they did something spectacular. I can understand needing to meet circumstances like leap attack requiring as part of a charge and making a jump action, but it didn't take a swift action to use.
Yes, it's part of making medium armor actually used, instead of barbarians in mithral full plate...They nerfed mithral too? That sucks.
Anyway, I agree with the OP. Though my DM never really payed much attetion to after I told him I could.
They did not nerf mithril.
All they did was make the armor still count as it's regular type for purposes of *proficiency*. Mithril breastplate is still light armor, but if you don't have medium armor proficiency, you'll take a -1 to attack rolls and such.
Yes, it's part of making medium armor actually used, instead of barbarians in mithral full plate...They nerfed mithral too? That sucks.
Anyway, I agree with the OP. Though my DM never really payed much attetion to after I told him I could.
They did not nerf mithril.
All they did was make the armor still count as it's regular type for purposes of *proficiency*. Mithril breastplate is still light armor, but if you don't have medium armor proficiency, you'll take a -1 to attack rolls and such.
Yes it was a nerf. You didn't need the proficiency before hand, now you do. Go pull the other leg, I am sorry. They no longer have an ability that they once had.
It also made perfect sense from a point of view as you make things differently depending on the material used, so mithral allowed full plate to be put on more similarly to a breastplate in style.
In the old rules mithril breastplate still required medium armor proficiency to wear at par. Standard restrictions applied for wearing armor you were not profiicient in no matter what material it was made out of.
All they did was make the armor still count as it's regular type for purposes of *proficiency*. Mithril breastplate is still light armor, but if you don't have medium armor proficiency, you'll take a -1 to attack rolls and such.
I am sorry, maybe I am not understanding you here. Mithral did make the armor required a lesser proficiency, check the Magic Item Compendium as this is further clarified.
|
|
In the old rules mithril breastplate still required medium armor proficiency to wear at par. Standard restrictions applied for wearing armor you were not profiicient in no matter what material it was made out of.
All they did was make the armor still count as it's regular type for purposes of *proficiency*. Mithril breastplate is still light armor, but if you don't have medium armor proficiency, you'll take a -1 to attack rolls and such.
This is a common misconception about mithril under 3.5 rules. Actually, according to the official 3.5 faq, it changed the armor to a lesser type, even for the purpose of proficiencies. Thus a barbarian could wear mithril full plate as it was a medium armor, and a bard could wear mithril breastplate with no arcane spell failure chance.
I think you can still get the pdf file to confirm.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
AAT: One of the halmarks of SRD is economy of actions. Anyone who's played a (closed content) Duskblade or a (closed content) Abjurant Champion, runs into that economy quickly. Psions and psychic warriors can as well.
Indeed, one advantage of familiars (and to a lesser extent, intelligent items) is the ability to work around that economy. If you've a lot of ranks in UMD, giving that monkey a wand of x gets around it. Same thing goes for intelligent items and buffing. Every spell your 8 int sword casts for you, is one less you have to hit the mage up for.
That you have to consider what to do with your swift action when you want to do multiple things at once is a perk, not a drawback. Mithral shirt +4 Ghost Touch (50,100 GP) is cheaper than Bracers of Armour (64,000 GP) +8 but they give equivelant AC bonuses and effects. Essentially you're spending a feat (and a swift action)to save roughly 14K GP. Or for two feats and a swift action you get celestial armour, and save 41600 GP for a better armor bonus (but no ghost touch) with celestial armour.
Mithral: I understand people going to the 3.5 faq and pointing out how it reads. However, the SRD never was clear, thus the need to clarify in the FAQ. The FAQ isn't part of the SRD though. (One thing I will give WotC grudging credit for... they're finally updating the DDI with errata in a timely fashion. Something they promised but never followed through with 3.5) So the Faq addressed the ambigious nature of mithral one way, Pathfinder does another. Personally I prefer the Pathfinder method, but that's my preference.
|
|
Yes, it's part of making medium armor actually used, instead of barbarians in mithral full plate...They nerfed mithral too? That sucks.
Anyway, I agree with the OP. Though my DM never really payed much attetion to after I told him I could.
They did not nerf mithril.
All they did was make the armor still count as it's regular type for purposes of *proficiency*. Mithril breastplate is still light armor, but if you don't have medium armor proficiency, you'll take a -1 to attack rolls and such.
I see. Guess I read that wrong.
I am sorry, maybe I am not understanding you here. Mithral did make the armor required a lesser proficiency, check the Magic Item Compendium as this is further clarified.From the SRD:
Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations.
There is nothing in there that suggests changing the material to mithral alters the armor's essential type. While your plate armor might weigh half as much, it's still the same thing in form, the nature of it's joints and balance. It's not something you attain mastery of because you can managed to learn to wear medium armor.
That depends on your definition of limitations, and this was clarified in the MiC .
That depends on your definition of limitations, and this was clarified in the MiC .
I am sorry, maybe I am not understanding you here. Mithral did make the armor required a lesser proficiency, check the Magic Item Compendium as this is further clarified.From the SRD:
Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations.
There is nothing in there that suggests changing the material to mithral alters the armor's essential type. While your plate armor might weigh half as much, it's still the same thing in form, the nature of it's joints and balance. It's not something you attain mastery of because you can managed to learn to wear medium armor.
MiC is no longer specifically relevant to Pathfinder - the PRPG Core Rules are what is relevant for my table at least.
Heavy armor is still heavy armor proficiency wise - you have to know what you're doing, in game terms, before being able to get the full benefit of that banded mail/half-plate/full plate/other heavy armor.
One thing that has been pointed out earlier, but seemingly glossed over, is that one can spend, say, one's move action in trade for a second swift action other than a quickened spell (which has a specific restriction built into it as I recall). So, the umpteenth level character who is a 10th level Eldritch Knight can, presuming they didn't have to do anything other than a 5 foot step, crit, swift to reduce ASF and move = swift to channel that spell. Problem solved (I hope). :)
MiC is no longer specifically relevant to Pathfinder - the PRPG Core Rules are what is relevant for my table at least.Heavy armor is still heavy armor proficiency wise - you have to know what you're doing, in game terms, before being able to get the full benefit of that banded mail/half-plate/full plate/other heavy armor.
You are right as it is no longer relevant in pathfinder, as these things have been set as rules. Other than that it was highly debated, and I believe it was in the FAQ.
"Is a character proficient with light armor, such as a
rogue, considered to be proficient with mithral breastplate?
What about a character proficient with medium armor,
such as a barbarian—is he considered proficient with
mithral full plate armor?
The description of mithral on page 284 of the DMG is less
precise than it could be in defining how it interacts with armor
proficiency rules. The simplest answer—and the one that the
Sage expects most players and DMs use—is that mithral armor
is treated as one category lighter for all purposes, including
proficiency. This isn’t exactly what the DMG says, but it’s a
reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rule (and it’s
supported by a number of precedents, including the
descriptions of various specific mithral armors described on
page 220 of the DMG and a variety of NPC stat blocks).
Thus, a ranger or rogue could wear a mithral breastplate
without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as
light armor), and each could use any ability dependent on
wearing light or no armor (such as evasion or the ranger’s
combat style). A barbarian could wear mithral full plate armor
without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as
medium armor), and he could use any ability dependent on
wearing medium or lighter armor (such as fast movement).
The same would be true of any other special material that
uses the same or similar language as mithral (such as darkleaf,
on page 120 of the ECS)."
But as I said this is mood point for the actual PRPG game, and there is also that GMs have rule.
One thing that has been pointed out earlier, but seemingly glossed over, is that one can spend, say, one's move action in trade for a second swift action other than a quickened spell (which has a specific restriction built into it as I recall). So, the umpteenth level character who is a 10th level Eldritch Knight can, presuming they didn't have to do anything other than a 5 foot step, crit, swift to reduce ASF and move = swift to channel that spell. Problem solved (I hope). :)
That was apparently in Star Wars Saga system, but I have yet to see any official rules for or against this.
That is a good question to ask though.