I know the real reason: game balance. It'd be messed up if arcane spellcasters had full plate, and they look cooler in robes anyway. However, realistically it makes absolutely no sense.
The given reason is that armor restricts movement, preventing arcane gestures. However, I cannot think of any gestures you'd use to cast spells that armor, even full plate, would hamper. In real life, armor isn't actually all that restrictive. It's heavy, but it has a good range of movement. It needs to so people can fight. There is very little it would prevent doing. So, what motions could possibly be required to cast spells that armor would prevent?
In older editions of D&D, it was because of the iron in armor. Iron was a magic dampener. Flavours change, rules less so.
I know the real reason: game balance. It'd be messed up if arcane spellcasters had full plate, and they look cooler in robes anyway. However, realistically it makes absolutely no sense.
The given reason is that armor restricts movement, preventing arcane gestures. However, I cannot think of any gestures you'd use to cast spells that armor, even full plate, would hamper. In real life, armor isn't actually all that restrictive. It's heavy, but it has a good range of movement. It needs to so people can fight. There is very little it would prevent doing. So, what motions could possibly be required to cast spells that armor would prevent?
Because Gygax said that any armor totally prevented arcane spellcasting (not a chance for failure, it used to be automatic failure). Probably to preserve the iconic image of robe and pointy hat. Unless you were an elf.
Because obviously, somatic components involve break-dancing.
(I've removed all arcane spell failure in my games. Wizards already have better options for defense. Miss chances are better then a few points of armor anyway.)
It was because moving in armor was (falsely) considered harder than it is, and stopped you from getting your hand in the exact right spot including moving your arm in just the correct direction at just the right angle, with your palm turned just so.
Spells were considered a lot more rigid in how they were cast and anything could mess up you casting a spell.
Because they need to have some sort of cheesecake art with side-boob in it, and that means spellcasters in outfits held up with no visible means of support.
Or you could play other RPG engines where the attempts to balance magic aren't quite so arbitrary.
If you have to move your arms in mathematically precise arcs, any restriction of your range of movement can cause you to make an error.
If you have to move your arm in mathematically precise arcs, you are not casting spells in combat.
it's all about the game balance.
You could have a DEX of 1 and still cast spells all day without any chance of blowing it as long as you were the combat equivalent of buck nekkid. (post 3.0 anyway. previous to that you could only be a cleric with a dex that low)
|
If you have to move your arms in mathematically precise arcs, any restriction of your range of movement can cause you to make an error.If you have to move your arm in mathematically precise arcs, you are not casting spells in combat.
You didn't ask why spellcasters can cast in combat. You asked why armor interferes with it.
Game balance also so you do not get as good defense from armor and still be good at casting spells. And to make the characters work together so you do not want the wizard in front.
I wonder if it's still a needed rule for game balance, since now there are arcane casters (not full casters, true) that actually can wear armor and cast spells.
IMHO, feats and class-granted armor proficiency are enough for balance. Honestly, even taking into consideration the extra feats received in PF, with d6 as HD and BAB equal to half your level, which full arcane caster would consider taking armor proficiency, since there are many options of feats for your strong point (spells)?
This is one of the things I think 4e got right.
You want to cast spells in Leather? Get Light Armor Proficiency.
I wonder if it's still a needed rule for game balance, since now there are arcane casters (not full casters, true) that actually can wear armor and cast spells.
IMHO, feats and class-granted armor proficiency are enough for balance. Honestly, even taking into consideration the extra feats received in PF, with d6 as HD and BAB equal to half your level, which full arcane caster would consider taking armor proficiency, since there are many options of feats for your strong point (spells)?
Yes, game balance is the reason, and it's still needed.
Not being proficient does not mean you can't wear it. You take some penalties on attack rolls and some other stuff.
And there are so many spells that don't require an attack roll, that a wizard could turn themselves into a walking tank, probably with a tower shield too, and just cast save or suck spells.
No ASF chance is still needed.
Those casters that cast in armor have seperate spell lists, and if you check them, you'll notice that most of them can only wear light otherwise they incure ASF as normal. And beimg limited to level 6 spells at level 20 is also limiting their power.
Ricardo Pennacchia wrote:
IMHO, feats and class-granted armor proficiency are enough for balance. Honestly, even taking into consideration the extra feats received in PF, with d6 as HD and BAB equal to half your level, which full arcane caster would consider taking armor proficiency, since there are many options of feats for your strong point (spells)?Your kidding right. If you aren't regularly attacking the penalty for being non-proficient in the armor you are wearing is joke. -ACP to attack rolls and Str/Dex skill checks. Those are rarely things casters care much about. And a mithril breastplate is only a -1 at that for an incredibly cheap +6 AC. Or just wear mithril chainshirt/mithril kikko armor and suffer absolutely no penalty what so ever for being non proficient.
Actually, no, i'm not kidding. But it would make much more sense if you apply check penalty to Concentration checks while not proficient with armor. And about the items you mentioned, considering the WBL chart, at which level you would really get one of those? Anyway, why would you even bother about taking any of those items, since you, as a full arcane caster with d6 as HD and BAB equal to half level, will just be quite worthless in the frontline?
I can see your concern, but let's face it, armor proficiency is far from an optimal choice for full arcane casters (with the possible exception of Light Armor Proficiency).
Why does armor interfere with arcane spells? Because you didn't take Light Armor Proficiency, Arcane Armor Training, and Arcane Armor Mastery. Seriously though. Lack of armor doesn't make Wizard/Sorcerer any less potent. It'd be pretty broken if they could wear armor like everyone else also. As far as the restricted movement, I'd say that most armor with any decent weight and arm covering would at least slow down your movements. It would make it harder at least to do your precise hand movements and get your pinch of sand at the proper time.
Of course armor proficiency feats are a subotimal choice (to say it politely) for arcane casters.
The problem is if you take ASF away, they're still suboptimal choices, because not having the feats and just wearing full plate would be a far better choice.
Applying it to concentration checks only helps if you're actively getting attacked at the time and being forced to make those checks, otherwise the wizard just stands in the back and casts away.
If you want to wear armor and cast spells, get the Still Spell metamagic. Sure +1 spelllevel now, but no somatic components, aka no arcane spell failure.
I can see your concern, but let's face it, armor proficiency is far from an optimal choice for full arcane casters (with the possible exception of Light Armor Proficiency).
For a caster, armor proficiency is IRRELEVANT, if you choose spells that do not rely on attack rolls (there's a boatload of good spells that don't, and few good that do).
Even a regular full plate would be nice if you're on a low point buy so you don't have that high a dex. 1500 gp isn't much by level 4, and it provides an astounding +9 to AC at the only cost of reducing speed to 20ft. Yes, the weight is an issue - but easily countered with ant haul.
It's +9 AC. That's frakkin' huge. And arcane casters are already top of the chart when it comes to armor.
But I agree that the ASF system is clumsy - I don't like percentile rolls, for example. A caster level check would be preferable in my opinion.
You could do something where the players always make a concentration check in combat or stressful situations (much lower then normal check) and grant a penalty equal to the armor check penalty. Either double it if non proficient or grant arcane spell failure equal to the armor check penalty x5%. Non-combat, only grant a check and the penalty if the wizard is non proficient.
I agree that armor isn't hard to move in, but it does hamper precise movement. (Try drawing a picture of a flower while wearing football pads in the middle of a football game.) Wearing metal gauntlets might not hamper your ability to move but I'd argue that doing finger shadow puppets is a little more tricky then normal.
Well, since gauntlets are weapons, i see why you cannot cast arcane spells while using it: you must have free hands for gesturing (at least one, as far as i know).
But, to be honest, i disagree with the concept of gesturing = tap-dancing/ballet-dancing/foxtroting while drawing the Sistine chapel in the air.
The real reason: Tradition.
The story/RP reason: it "restricts your movements", which doesn't matter if you are a divine caster. Or a bard. For some reason.
The mechanical reason: excellent offensive spells require a "vulnerable" producer so that you create a battlefield dynamic where that character gets targeted as a high risk. The caster's defenses are usually other spells (mirror image) which require a little "wind-up" so it is supposedly best to have a "bodyguard" like a fighter to fill out the party. How much this actually describes the party dynamic is a huge debate that has something to do with "agro", but we'll call that what is is: a debate.
I know the real reason: game balance. It'd be messed up if arcane spellcasters had full plate, and they look cooler in robes anyway. However, realistically it makes absolutely no sense.
The given reason is that armor restricts movement, preventing arcane gestures. However, I cannot think of any gestures you'd use to cast spells that armor, even full plate, would hamper. In real life, armor isn't actually all that restrictive. It's heavy, but it has a good range of movement. It needs to so people can fight. There is very little it would prevent doing. So, what motions could possibly be required to cast spells that armor would prevent?
The fact of the matter is that it's a holdover from a time long ago when magic was a lot harder to use. There was no Concentration checks or anything like that. Prick your finger while casting and forget you were casting sort of stuff. Honestly, it's questionable anyway.
However, contrary to what people are suggesting about game balance, mages in armor isn't really that impressive. Wizards don't really get much out of prancing around in armor, other than limiting their mobility and suffering penalties for encumbrance. This has been tested a long time ago on the WotC character optimization boards, and honestly, it's not that great.
It's really just a legacy thing.
They are just going to wear armor. Mithril Shirts and Bucklers start seeing play about 3rd level. Mithril Breastplate/Kikko Armor come in about 6th. Or just get plain Full Plate at 3rdish and buy boots of striding and springing to cover for the lost speed.
Why would they buy the items? Because AC is far and away the most target defense in the game.
Because Shields/Armor AC bonus the cheapest way to raise you AC. Lets see bracers of armor +5, 25,000gp for a +5 Armor Bonus. Or Mithril Kikko Armor for +5 Armor bonus to AC for 4,180 gp. Or perhaps the better comparison is against the +4 Mithril Kikko Armor, for the +9 Armor Bonus to AC for 20,180 to the bracers of armor +5 at 25k. Which one is the better deal?
This is entirely true. My wizards are always decked out in mithral gear. +5 Kikko Armor and +5 mithral buckler. That's +15 AC without armor proficiencies, spell failure, or loss of hands for spellcasting. For the record, that's only 6 points (30%) less AC than if they were prancing about in +5 full plate with a +5 heavy steel shield.
I know the real reason: game balance. It'd be messed up if arcane spellcasters had full plate, and they look cooler in robes anyway. However, realistically it makes absolutely no sense.
The given reason is that armor restricts movement, preventing arcane gestures. However, I cannot think of any gestures you'd use to cast spells that armor, even full plate, would hamper. In real life, armor isn't actually all that restrictive. It's heavy, but it has a good range of movement. It needs to so people can fight. There is very little it would prevent doing. So, what motions could possibly be required to cast spells that armor would prevent?
The fact of the matter is that it's a holdover from a time long ago when magic was a lot harder to use. There was no Concentration checks or anything like that. Prick your finger while casting and forget you were casting sort of stuff. Honestly, it's questionable anyway.
However, contrary to what people are suggesting about game balance, mages in armor isn't really that impressive. Wizards don't really get much out of prancing around in armor, other than limiting their mobility and suffering penalties for encumbrance. This has been tested a long time ago on the WotC character optimization boards, and honestly, it's not that great.
It's really just a legacy thing.
So, if I pull arcane spell failure chances, game balance won't be screwed?
Considering people have been finding ways to never suffer it at all, I think balance will be retained just fine. :)
Haramaki to the rescue, amirite?
Best armor ever.
So, if I pull arcane spell failure chances, game balance won't be screwed?
It (shouldn't) change much of anything. Wizards primary defenses are things that negate attacks or make them impossible anyway, a higher AC won't change much. (Wind wall negates most ranged attacks, flying or Repulsion negates melee attacks, invisibility forces you to choose a certain square and even if you get it right you have a 50% miss chance, etc.)
As it is, wizards only really miss out on the AC bonuses of the base armor anyway. Rings of Protection and Amulets of Natural Armor apply to everyone, and Bracers of Armor can be enchanted just like they were magic armor. Its easy to get a shield with 0 ASF and 0 ACP. So really, the only thing wizards don't or can't have compared to others as it is right now is the +1 to +9 granted from mundane armor.
|
Removing caster fail chance may not change balance much at the high end of the game, but I suspect you'll see a big difference in the lower strata.
If your wizard starts pulling out AC in the same ranges as your front line fighters, then there's little risk for him getting into combat and casting any more. Missing cos your not hitting AC isn't the same as a miss chance, particularly when iterative attacks come in to play. Caster AC is usually low enough that most iterative attacks still stand a good chance of hitting. That is why miss chance spells are there. Even with a 50 % miss chance, one iterative is likely to hit you, and since they all tend to do big damage, that's an issue for arcane casters.
If you now combine the ability to wear armor and cast those spells, then you have changed balance significantly.
Of course it's your game, feel free to take what liberties you want with it.
Cheers
Removing caster fail chance may not change balance much at the high end of the game, but I suspect you'll see a big difference in the lower strata.
If your wizard starts pulling out AC in the same ranges as your front line fighters, then there's little risk for him getting into combat and casting any more. Missing cos your not hitting AC isn't the same as a miss chance, particularly when iterative attacks come in to play. Caster AC is usually low enough that most iterative attacks still stand a good chance of hitting. That is why miss chance spells are there. Even with a 50 % miss chance, one iterative is likely to hit you, and since they all tend to do big damage, that's an issue for arcane casters.
If you now combine the ability to wear armor and cast those spells, then you have changed balance significantly.
Of course it's your game, feel free to take what liberties you want with it.
Cheers
These are valid points, but you still have to make the concentration roll to get the spell off in melee (or take an aoo, which is equally bad and risk having to make a concentration check after getting hit, an equally bad choice). And that is still much harder to do at lower levels unless you focus heavily on that aspect, hurting yourself in others. Removing the chance of spell failure from armor really wouldn't effect much as AC generally only matters in melee, and if you're in melee, you still have to make a roll to get the spell off anyway.
I know the real reason: game balance. It'd be messed up if arcane spellcasters had full plate, and they look cooler in robes anyway. However, realistically it makes absolutely no sense.
I think the real reason is thematic more than about balance. As it was mentioned, Gygax imagined wizards unarmored and you mention them looking 'cooler' in robes. Originally, it was one of the traits that help the different classes distinguish themselves from each others.
I don't think there's more to it than making the wizard player feeling rather vulnerable against melee opponent, which I think would still be the case even if arcane caster could cast in armor. If lack of freedom of movement was really an issue, I'd expect encumbrance would have an effect on spellcasting.
'findel
The original way didn't make the magic-user vulnerable to melee opponents, but to missile-wielding opponents. The melee combatants were stopped by your party members, henchmen, and hirelings, while the guy with the bow was a real threat to interrupt spell casting.
Nowadays, of course, your wizard will only get hit with an arrow when casting if the guy with the bow specifically held his action, and you didn't cast a 2nd-level spell (instead of 3rd level, plus you've got bonus spells anyway) with a duration in hours (instead of minutes). So if armor is further reducing the chances of getting hit? Well, it's not like you were getting interrupted in casting very often anyway, right?
This is entirely true. My wizards are always decked out in mithral gear. +5 Kikko Armor and +5 mithral buckler. That's +15 AC without armor proficiencies, spell failure, or loss of hands for spellcasting. For the record, that's only 6 points (30%) less AC than if they were prancing about in +5 full plate with a +5 heavy steel shield.They are just going to wear armor. Mithril Shirts and Bucklers start seeing play about 3rd level. Mithril Breastplate/Kikko Armor come in about 6th. Or just get plain Full Plate at 3rdish and buy boots of striding and springing to cover for the lost speed.
Why would they buy the items? Because AC is far and away the most target defense in the game.
Because Shields/Armor AC bonus the cheapest way to raise you AC. Lets see bracers of armor +5, 25,000gp for a +5 Armor Bonus. Or Mithril Kikko Armor for +5 Armor bonus to AC for 4,180 gp. Or perhaps the better comparison is against the +4 Mithril Kikko Armor, for the +9 Armor Bonus to AC for 20,180 to the bracers of armor +5 at 25k. Which one is the better deal?
Kikko armor lists 20% spell failure chance, mithril reduces it to 10%, how are you gettiung around the last 10%?
