RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
This is more my curiosity behind the balance and reasoning of these feats.
Why do the feats give only a reduction in the percentage and not something like, "No arcane spell failure with light armor?"
Why the need of the swift action? How does this requirement to use the feat balance it?
I think I understand the need for the requirement of armor proficiencies. The two feats are meant for more Eldric Knight or Magnus characters, both of which would be closer to melee then normal arcane spell casters. Am I right in that line of reasoning?
How does all of this tie together to become "balanced?"
I am not looking for reasons to tear down the feats, this is more about my personal quest to understand the finer points of game design and rule balance.
I would appreciate any mention of the developer's comments on this topic being linked or referenced so that I can go and read them myself.
I would also hope a developer or two would take a little time to comment here on this topic. I know they are bust building awesome stuff, so I won't take it for granted.
Why do the feats give only a reduction in the percentage and not something like, "No arcane spell failure with light armor?"
Why the need of the swift action? How does this requirement to use the feat balance it?
I think I understand the need for the requirement of armor proficiencies. The two feats are meant for more Eldric Knight or Magnus characters, both of which would be closer to melee then normal arcane spell casters. Am I right in that line of reasoning?
How does all of this tie together to become "balanced?"
I'm not sure that a feat which gave no arcane spell failure in light armor would necessarily be unbalanced, but equivalent feats for medium and heavy armor probably would be unbalanced, or at least more difficult to balance properly in terms of feat/level prerequisites.
The flat % also actually allows a little bit more flexibility for PCs who take the armor training feats. By not tying the feats directly to a class of armor you allow players to also offset the fail chance of using a shield rather than armor, or if a player is willing to take the risk, wear heavy armor and still suffer some chance of arcane spell failure without suffering the full failure chance.
The swift action acts as a limit in a couple of ways.
The biggest is that it forces an armored caster who wants to use a Quickened spell to risk Arcane Spell Failure.
The other big thing to remember is that it means you have to choose whether you turn on your Arcane Armor Mastery or your Arcane Strike as a fighter/wizard hybrid. While you will usually only turn on your Arcane Strike when you choose to make melee attacks, it does mean that on rounds when you spell cast your attacks of opportunity are at a reduced damage compared to if Arcane Strike is on.
The two of these also combine and mean you can't Quickened Spell a buff and then Arcane Strike for another damage buff in the same turn.
There are also a few class abilities that rely on swift actions to activate and so force you to deal with your full Arcane Spell Failure on occasion. There aren't too many of these that are reasonable combinations though. Oracle 4/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge X is probably the most reasonable that I can come up with which would have both armor proficiencies and a decent number of good swift action abilities. Even then you still probably come out a slightly weaker both melee combatant and spell caster than a straight Oracle of Battle (Although having both spontaneous Divine and prepared Arcane casting would make you very versatile).
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Similar enough questions to just ask here in this thread.
Is there any reading material I can access that discusses arcane spell failure as a game mechanic and rule, why it was created, and why it has lasted as a game rule for so many editions?
If not, can someone explain why arcane spell failure as a rule is needed in the game? How does it help balance arcane spell casters? Why has the system been almost unchanged for so long?
My personal thoughts (just so I can have someone tell me if I am right or wrong,) is that Arcane Spell Failure is needed to help keep the arcane spell casters and the warriors far away from each other in terms of play style and ability. The three big things a fighter has that a wizard doesn't is his ability to wear heavy armor, his wide range of weapon choices, and his ability to use the weapons and armor (either because of BAB or feats on a fighter can take.) A wizard on the other hand has spells, and lots of them. These spells are so wide ranged in their ability that, like how a fighter has many options for combat styles, a wizard has many options on how to utilize the spells.
Arcane spell failure helps keep the wizard from stepping into fighter territory and standing in dangerous places while he casts spells. I can also see the rule being there to help balance the wizard as he has access to many protective spells that he can cast on himself. Shield is a great example. The spell grants a shield bonus, but unlike a mundane shield it doesn't take up a slot on the arm or give an armor check penalty. A fighter can't benefit from that spell, or plenty of other really neat spells, as the target is "you."
As for the unchanged nature of it, the system works well enough for the intended purposes it was created for. It is also one of the more visible stats, and helps any arcane caster think hard about using any type of armor.
Am I right on track?
The real question for me is: How many Splatbooks will it take for Arcane Armor Training to become moot?
As soon as more Wizard spells that grant bonuses to AC appear the perceived need for those feats will dry up.
Greater Mage Armor? You have to figure that's coming at some point. I mean, it makes no sense to me that Mage Armor is a first level wizard spell.....and yet no higher level version. You're telling me no wizard has made a higher level version that manages a higher armor bonus? Almost seems illogical.
Seems like Magus could really use a few spells that grant some better AC as well, so I think we may see that in Ultimate Magic...though they could always go the route of making those spells Magus only (which would maintain some balance to the game, but also limit the book's universal appeal (if they do that with too many spells), thus reducing potential profits.
Similar enough questions to just ask here in this thread.
Is there any reading material I can access that discusses arcane spell failure as a game mechanic and rule, why it was created, and why it has lasted as a game rule for so many editions?
It's needed because otherwise, all arcane casters would wear the heaviest armor they can. He doesn't usually need the proficiency, unless he plans to use rays - it does no harm for a 3rd level wizard to have a -9 to attack rolls if he never makes one.
It's kind of like an armor check penalty for casting. While it COULD have been refitted to a concentration check, the issue with that is that in 3.0/3.5, concentration was a skill and could get to ridiculous heights in no time for the optimizer while remaining quite low for the common player - so either you'd have a DC that made padded armor a 100% failure for the common players, or one that meant optimizers would always wear full plate.
Now in PF, concentration checks are bound to character level more than anything else, and thus it could be refitted to replace arcane spell failure. If you WANT to go that route, I'd say put the DC of casting a spell in armor to 5 + 4 * spell level, and cause armor check penalty to affect concentration checks (ALL concentration checks to cast arcane spells, not just for casting in armor). Casting 1st level spell in leather at level 1? DC 9, probably with a modifier of +5 or so (20% chance of failure). Casting 5th level spell by 9th level wizard in mithril full plate? DC 25, with a modifier of +15-3 (60% chance to fail). Casting a 3rd level spell instead, only 20% chance to fail.
Thus, casting the highest spell levels while wearing armor becomes hard, but you can severely increase the odds of success by casting lower-level spells.
If I have to spend 3 feats to cast in heavy armors without arcane spell failure (one feat for each armor type) AND I have to spend three feats to gain armor proficiency in said armor, than by golly I think that's balanced! Even a little on the weak side. For four feats, my area effect spell can deal damage on par with a high level fighter (empower, maximize, quicken, spell perfection).
The spell does exist. However it's closed content WOTC IP.
Greater Mage Armor? You have to figure that's coming at some point.
Right, I know. Even the words of power has more powerful forms of mage armor though. Heck, PF could call the same spell "Improved Mage Armor" or even "Greater Force Armor" and be fine. I'm just saying that eventually spells like that will come to Pathfinder.
Trust me, I built about 15 gish characters for 3.5.....the amount of AC boosting you could do was fantastic. Way better than fighters ever got (which is why they need to be super-careful with those spells).
I think the mage armor spell is a poor spell to balance improved spells on, basically because it, like the shield spell is intentially stronger to compensate for the wizards class weakness, to the extend that it is really overpowered for a 1st level spell.
The typical way to balance this with higher level spells is not to just add to it, but to make it more powerful and diverse yet shorter in duration or limit it to a personal spell.
3rd level improved mage armor would give a +6 armor bonus, but would be personal, give DR 5/magic and a duration of 10 minutes per level.
5th level Power Armor would give +8 armor, give a +4 enhancement to strength, DR 10/magic and 20 lightning resist along with a power slam attack for 1 minute per level.
Still would be useful spells, certainly too powerful for 1st level, but dont just give an armor bonus all day long.
EDIT: I am afraid something like Words of Power try to make a mechanically challenged system work within logical parameters and forget that balancing spells is more art than logical science.
I like the feasts Arcane Armor Trraining and Arcane Armor Mastery, except for the requirement to use a swift action. I'd even like to see a third feat in the series, to let bards work in heavy armor if they're willing to spend a couple feats.
I think that a wizard or sorcerer spending two feats to wear light armor (Light Armor Proficiency, Arcane Armor Training), or four feats to wear medium armor (Medium Armor Proficiency, Arcane Armor Mastery), is just about the perfect cost to benefit ratio.
Sadly, requiring a swift action is crippling.
I like the feasts Arcane Armor Trraining and Arcane Armor Mastery, except for the requirement to use a swift action. I'd even like to see a third feat in the series, to let bards work in heavy armor if they're willing to spend a couple feats.
I think that a wizard or sorcerer spending two feats to wear light armor (Light Armor Proficiency, Arcane Armor Training), or four feats to wear medium armor (Medium Armor Proficiency, Arcane Armor Mastery), is just about the perfect cost to benefit ratio.
Sadly, requiring a swift action is crippling.
+1 the swift action thing is very very bad.
I think the mage armor spell is a poor spell to balance improved spells on, basically because it, like the shield spell is intentially stronger to compensate for the wizards class weakness, to the extend that it is really overpowered for a 1st level spell.
The typical way to balance this with higher level spells is not to just add to it, but to make it more powerful and diverse yet shorter in duration or limit it to a personal spell.
3rd level improved mage armor would give a +6 armor bonus, but would be personal, give DR 5/magic and a duration of 10 minutes per level.
5th level Power Armor would give +8 armor, give a +4 enhancement to strength, DR 10/magic and 20 lightning resist along with a power slam attack for 1 minute per level.
Still would be useful spells, certainly too powerful for 1st level, but dont just give an armor bonus all day long.
EDIT: I am afraid something like Words of Power try to make a mechanically challenged system work within logical parameters and forget that balancing spells is more art than logical science.
I like where your head's at on this one. Kind of like Heroism ---> Greater Heroism. I'd like to see spells like you've just described, as there is very little for "gish" characters beyond 3rd level spells.
|
If I have to spend 3 feats to cast in heavy armors without arcane spell failure (one feat for each armor type) AND I have to spend three feats to gain armor proficiency in said armor, than by golly I think that's balanced! Even a little on the weak side. For four feats, my area effect spell can deal damage on par with a high level fighter (empower, maximize, quicken, spell perfection).
Wow can't believe this...I agree with RD :P . Yeah I think a 6 feat tax will pretty much negate the every wizard in full plate armor bit.
If I have to spend 3 feats to cast in heavy armors without arcane spell failure (one feat for each armor type) AND I have to spend three feats to gain armor proficiency in said armor, than by golly I think that's balanced! Even a little on the weak side. For four feats, my area effect spell can deal damage on par with a high level fighter (empower, maximize, quicken, spell perfection).Wow can't believe this...I agree with RD :P . Yeah I think a 6 feat tax will pretty much negate the every wizard in full plate armor bit.
*Hands Cold Napalm a bar of soul soap with which to clean the taint*
It will cost a bit more GP wise, but a wizard can have an AV to rival a fighter, +5 defending gauntlet, Bracers of Armor +8, Ring of Force Shield, it adds up, and being a wizard you can easily make it for half price. Personally, I would not waste the feats on the arcane armor feats.
If I have to spend 3 feats to cast in heavy armors without arcane spell failure (one feat for each armor type) AND I have to spend three feats to gain armor proficiency in said armor, than by golly I think that's balanced! Even a little on the weak side. For four feats, my area effect spell can deal damage on par with a high level fighter (empower, maximize, quicken, spell perfection).Wow can't believe this...I agree with RD :P . Yeah I think a 6 feat tax will pretty much negate the every wizard in full plate armor bit.
Well, a one level dip into Fighter will cut the feat cost in half, get you a bonus combat feat in return (which could probably be one of the ASF feats mentioned), it's more like a 1 level dip and 2 feats. With a side order of Martial Weapon Proficiencies thrown in.
At least it might clear out the STR 7 Wizards. :-)
|
|
If I have to spend 3 feats to cast in heavy armors without arcane spell failure (one feat for each armor type) AND I have to spend three feats to gain armor proficiency in said armor, than by golly I think that's balanced! Even a little on the weak side. For four feats, my area effect spell can deal damage on par with a high level fighter (empower, maximize, quicken, spell perfection).Wow can't believe this...I agree with RD :P . Yeah I think a 6 feat tax will pretty much negate the every wizard in full plate armor bit.Well, a one level dip into Fighter will cut the feat cost in half, get you a bonus combat feat in return (which could probably be one of the ASF feats mentioned), it's more like a 1 level dip and 2 feats. With a side order of Martial Weapon Proficiencies thrown in.
At least it might clear out the STR 7 Wizards. :-)
Because you know, losing a caster level is a pretty small deal for a pure caster character...right? Honestly, the character that will benefit from such would be the EK builds...and that is exactly why the arcane armor feats are the way they are. I mean devs have a very heavy bias against the fighter arcane. Honestly they have had 3 erratas and they STILL haven't fixed the EK's capstone to work with AAT and AS?!? Really?!?
|
|
*Hands Cold Napalm a bar of soul soap with which to clean the taint*If I have to spend 3 feats to cast in heavy armors without arcane spell failure (one feat for each armor type) AND I have to spend three feats to gain armor proficiency in said armor, than by golly I think that's balanced! Even a little on the weak side. For four feats, my area effect spell can deal damage on par with a high level fighter (empower, maximize, quicken, spell perfection).Wow can't believe this...I agree with RD :P . Yeah I think a 6 feat tax will pretty much negate the every wizard in full plate armor bit.
Hehe..it's not the taint I'm worried about, I can deal with that...but this maybe one of the seals of the apcolyse cracking :P .
Honestly they have had 3 erratas and they STILL haven't fixed the EK's capstone to work with AAT and AS?!? Really?!?
What does AAT and AS means?
What does AAT and AS means?
Honestly they have had 3 erratas and they STILL haven't fixed the EK's capstone to work with AAT and AS?!? Really?!?
Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Strike
Arcane Armor Training and Arcane StrikeWhat does AAT and AS means?
Honestly they have had 3 erratas and they STILL haven't fixed the EK's capstone to work with AAT and AS?!? Really?!?
Oh yes i was pretty bummed myself when i saw that spell critical is a swift action and not a free one or at least that it can specifically work with arcane strike and arcane armor training.
The spell does exist. However it's closed content WOTC IP.
Greater Mage Armor? You have to figure that's coming at some point.
Pfft. I see the spell mage armour. I decide that I want a higher-level version of it. I see the game usually uses ",greater" to make stuff like that.
I come up with a spell mage armour, greater and put it in my book.
They could try arguing that they have the right to it but it would not stick.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The spell does exist. However it's closed content WOTC IP.
Greater Mage Armor? You have to figure that's coming at some point.
Pfft. I see the spell mage armour. I decide that I want a higher-level version of it. I see the game usually uses ",greater" to make stuff like that.
I come up with a spell mage armour, greater and put it in my book.
They could try arguing that they have the right to it but it would not stick.
Improved and Master versions work as well.
There already exist classes that can cast in armor as a class feature. Simply making that feature available to any caster for the price of a feat seriously devalues the ability as a class feature. It would be akin to making Channel Energy a two feat chain, or or a feat to find and disable magic traps. It really steals their thunder.
It's not that casting in armor is overpowered, but that PF is a class based system and certain things are reserved only for certain classes. If you choose not to play one of those classes, you are stuck with the watered down feat version of the ability.
Because you know, losing a caster level is a pretty small deal for a pure caster character...right? Honestly, the character that will benefit from such would be the EK builds...and that is exactly why the arcane armor feats are the way they are. I mean devs have a very heavy bias against the fighter arcane. Honestly they have had 3 erratas and they STILL haven't fixed the EK's capstone to work with AAT and AS?!? Really?!?If I have to spend 3 feats to cast in heavy armors without arcane spell failure (one feat for each armor type) AND I have to spend three feats to gain armor proficiency in said armor, than by golly I think that's balanced! Even a little on the weak side. For four feats, my area effect spell can deal damage on par with a high level fighter (empower, maximize, quicken, spell perfection).Wow can't believe this...I agree with RD :P . Yeah I think a 6 feat tax will pretty much negate the every wizard in full plate armor bit.Well, a one level dip into Fighter will cut the feat cost in half, get you a bonus combat feat in return (which could probably be one of the ASF feats mentioned), it's more like a 1 level dip and 2 feats. With a side order of Martial Weapon Proficiencies thrown in.
At least it might clear out the STR 7 Wizards. :-)
Well, one can hope that they will do something about it in ultimate magic, but with the focus on the magus, I wouldn't keep my hopes up for it (much as I would like to see it myself).
Because you know, losing a caster level is a pretty small deal for a pure caster character...right?
Hey, if a 'pure caster' wants to wear armor, and if it will take 6 feats to get to freely casting in Heavy Armor, a one level dip looks a lot more attractive. Most pure casters aren't exactly rolling in feats, let alone combat feats (or general purpose feats).
What is the 6th feat for casting in heavy armor? I can only think of Arcane Armor Training, Arcane Armor Mastery, and the three armor proficiencies.
|
|
Because you know, losing a caster level is a pretty small deal for a pure caster character...right? Honestly, the character that will benefit from such would be the EK builds...and that is exactly why the arcane armor feats are the way they are. I mean devs have a very heavy bias against the fighter arcane. Honestly they have had 3 erratas and they STILL haven't fixed the EK's capstone to work with AAT and AS?!? Really?!?
Maybe it's because they don't share your view as something that's fatally nonfunctional that needs to be fixed. EK's are very different from the magus, they are dilletantes that alternate between being fighting men and wizard and have found limited means to meet the two. The Magus is a true blending of sword and spell at the sacrifice of prime ability in either. You don't want the EK encroaching that much further in what is essentially the Magus schtick. Conversely, the Magus is constrained in the amount of magical utility outside of combat by being restricted in spell list, spell slots, and spell levels.
Really, you don't think a class needing 2 swifts in a round (which is impossible) to use a capstone is fatally nonfunctional?!? What do you consider fatally nonfunctionaly then? Something along the lines of say the word casters of 3.5 that just had missing ruleset maybe? I mean does something have to get THAT fubared before it needs an errata?
Thread necro...
There can't be a spell of Greater Mage Armor. If there was, nobody would buy/make Bracers of Armor.
Thread necro...
There can't be a spell of Greater Mage Armor. If there was, nobody would buy/make Bracers of Armor.
Allow me to introduce you to Monkior Monkius of Monklehem, Monkster of the Monkey-style Monktial Arts Style.