|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
When an arcane caster such as a wizard or sorcerer wears armor, subtract the AC bonus from the Difficulty Class of the spells they cast and include it as a penalty on caster checks.
For example: A sorcerer with an 18 CHA wearing scale mail casts fireball. Add the sorcerer's CHA bonus (+4) to the spell's level (+3) as normal to figure the DC of the spell, then subtract the armor bonus (5). The DC for the spell is now Reflex 12.
Using this mechanic, an arcane caster never needs to worry or roll to see if they lost a spell. Their spells are just easier to resist due to the armor hindrance.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
i like how each %5 is converted into a -1 (ie -%5) by consolidating the two rolls (arcane failure chance and opponent's saving throw) into one. this will save time.
ray/touch spells will be affected only if the caster is not proficient with the armor.
no-save spells (like buffs, healing) will be unaffected.
also, it goes with out being said that feats that reduce arcane spell failure chance covert to at a %5-to-1 ratio of reduction.
overall i think i really like this suggestion.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Is it really that hard to roll a set of %-ile dice?
I'm not sure I follow. If your sorcerer is wearing scale mail (AC bonus 5) as in your example, he loses 5 DC, but if he's wearing +3 scale mail (AC bonus 8) he loses 8?
I think linking such a thing to the AC penalty would make more sense, to indicate that masterwork or mithril armors aren't as restrictive. This also doesn't take into account other materials that don't alter an item's AC bonus but instead lower spell failure chance.
This method also doesn't take into account the numerous spells that can be cast which don't require saving throws. Normally an arcane spell caster would have an equal chance of failing and losing a fireball as he would shield or bull's strength. With this method he would never lose a spell and could just magic missile or acid arrow or ray of X at no penalty or risk since the spells allow no saves regardless of DC penalties.
I think that would be an interesting dichotomy. Aside from specific control-oriented spells (walls come to mind), many of the most useful spells still give saves.
Maybe we could see more battle sorcerers this way, instead of just leaving the heavily-armored archetype to the clerics.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Arcanemuses wrote: When an arcane caster such as a wizard or sorcerer wears armor, subtract the AC bonus from the Difficulty Class of the spells they cast and include it as a penalty on caster checks.
For example: A sorcerer with an 18 CHA wearing scale mail casts fireball. Add the sorcerer's CHA bonus (+4) to the spell's level (+3) as normal to figure the DC of the spell, then subtract the armor bonus (5). The DC for the spell is now Reflex 12.
Using this mechanic, an arcane caster never needs to worry or roll to see if they lost a spell. Their spells are just easier to resist due to the armor hindrance.
It is too selective in picking spells to penalize, so fireball is hampered but evard's black tentacles isn't ?
If it reduces actual caster level, thus also concentration checks it would be a little more fair across the range of spells.
I'm absolutely fine if arcane armor mastery feats reduce that by 3 each feat instead without use of swift actions.
I think there are some great ideas in this thread so far, as well as good debate. Let's keep it coming :D
Honestly I really am not a fan of spell failure at all (I assume its a balance thing and thus I've generally left it alone in my houserules). You can wear heavy thick mittens in an artic environment and cast spells fine but those light gloves of X to go with your chainmail armour suddenly makes you fail casting 1 spell in five? unless you take still spell in which case all your casting is more difficult but you can go onto that battlefiled in full field plate and not rely on magical protections that can be dispelled leaving you vulnerable to that wave of arrows.
As for the ideas here a spell failure chance means the spell either goes off or it doesn't and with certain things (mithril, celestial armour, numerous light armours) its still worth the protection till you can get your hands on bracers or AC. However if the armour penalizes saves, caster level or the like well I for one would never touch it. Its already hard enough to affect monsters fully (finding a spell to target a weak save, compesenting for a level loss if you try to go into eldritch knight at least 2 levels of caster gone which would be when you actually need to worry about it).
I mean take the reducing caster level you loose 1 presumably going into fighter to get the heavy armour feat then you wear full plate and suddenly your caster level 11 (-1 for fighter, -8 for armour) which means most of your spells will be pitifully easy to save against and the effects will also be far below what they should be for your level. Same if you subtract the AC from the spell DC although at least here your not losing several die of damage or extra effects.
Its very late so I may be misunderstanding but from what I see it turns a "I'll take a 10-20% spell failure chance to have better protection and if I take still spell I can then cast spells 100% of the time in my full plate" to "Hmmm -8 DC or -8 caster level even when I get the spells off . . . not worth it.
Liam Warner wrote: Honestly I really am not a fan of spell failure at all (I assume its a balance thing and thus I've generally left it alone in my houserules). You can wear heavy thick mittens in an artic environment and cast spells fine but those light gloves of X to go with your chainmail armour suddenly makes you fail casting 1 spell in five? unless you take still spell in which case all your casting is more difficult but you can go onto that battlefiled in full field plate and not rely on magical protections that can be dispelled leaving you vulnerable to that wave of arrows.
As for the ideas here a spell failure chance means the spell either goes off or it doesn't and with certain things (mithril, celestial armour, numerous light armours) its still worth the protection till you can get your hands on bracers or AC. However if the armour penalizes saves, caster level or the like well I for one would never touch it. Its already hard enough to affect monsters fully (finding a spell to target a weak save, compesenting for a level loss if you try to go into eldritch knight at least 2 levels of caster gone which would be when you actually need to worry about it).
I mean take the reducing caster level you loose 1 presumably going into fighter to get the heavy armour feat then you wear full plate and suddenly your caster level 11 (-1 for fighter, -8 for armour) which means most of your spells will be pitifully easy to save against and the effects will also be far below what they should be for your level. Same if you subtract the AC from the spell DC although at least here your not losing several die of damage or extra effects.
Its very late so I may be misunderstanding but from what I see it turns a "I'll take a 10-20% spell failure chance to have better protection and if I take still spell I can then cast spells 100% of the time in my full plate" to "Hmmm -8 DC or -8 caster level even when I get the spells off . . . not worth it.
Yes I agree. I have never liked the spell failure, nor thought it necessary for balance. There is a wonderful old quote from a letter to Dragon magazine way back in 1st edition times. Unfortunately, I cannot give credit where due, but to paraphrase from memory: "a magic-user could be wearing +5 plate mail and wielding a light saber, and he still has no business being in melee."
I also think reduction of caster level and especially DCs, as proposed, is very unnecessarily harsh. If you like the idea in general, perhaps reducing them by ACP is a good middle ground.
As far as retaining the spell failure rule while trying to improve it, I have long thought that it should be a concentration check. Or rather, wearing armor forces a concentration check to cast somatic spells, with the appropriate ACP to the roll. DCs could run the gamut from easy to challenging, depending on ones views of the validity of the spell failure rule. Those who favor more armor options for spell casters while retaining the rule might call for the concentration check only when wearing armor in which the caster is not proficient.
Raise Thread: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (19) + 5 = 24
Having ACP inflict a penalty to Concentration checks, and having to roll a Concentration check vs. a DC of 10 + Armor/Shield bonus to AC + Spell level seems to be a way to absolve players of the Arcane Spell Failure mechanic.
Again, however--we face the issue of 'Why Arcane Only?'. An easy houserule is to grant all divine casters the ability to ignore Spell Failure, but the rationale behind its existence still mystifies me.
I do like the idea of abstracting arcane spell failure as a penalty to concentration checks and that casting in armor forces a concentration check. However, that does mean high level wizards can get away with casting in armor, but the risk would probably still encourage them not to wear armor. Arrius wrote: Again, however--we face the issue of 'Why Arcane Only?'. An easy houserule is to grant all divine casters the ability to ignore Spell Failure, but the rationale behind its existence still mystifies me. There's many reasons arcane spell failure exists and doesn't apply to divine casters.
1) Flavor. Arcane spells require more precise movements than divine spells because divine spells are supported by a deity.
2) Arcane spells are much more powerful than divine spells. Arcane spell failure creates a drawback for that.
3) Every divine spellcaster can fight. The divine spell list has mostly combat buffs and out-of-combat utility -- not really enough active abilities to make for a dedicated spellcaster. As a result, every divine spellcaster has at least a 3/4 BAB. Unlike MMOs, clerics in D&D are more like battle priests than white mages. As a result, divine spellcasters can cast in armor. Some arcane spellcasters are fighters, too, but they're the exception.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Cyrad wrote: I do like the idea of abstracting arcane spell failure as a penalty to concentration checks and that casting in armor forces a concentration check. However, that does mean high level wizards can get away with casting in armor, but the risk would probably still encourage them not to wear armor. The fact that Concentration scales so badly, and that the DC increases scale on about the same level, it is entirely reasonable for a character to cast lower-level spells and pass the check, while preferring to remove armor entirely for high-intensity combat.
There is this, and there is another percentile way of standardizing arcane failure.
Method 2:
5% per total ACP (minimum 10%). That way, it creates a connection to existing rule and respects precedent, all the while allowing for improvements to exist with respect to character abilities.
If anything, introducing this rule allows for ACP to be called 'Check Penalty', and may be considered a more flexible mechanic. A spell-breaker feat could be introduced, which inflicts a check penalty with regards to spells that scales with Strength, Base Attack Bonus, or another skill variable to close the martial-caster gap.
Of course, if we advocate this, we run into the above issue again: Why Arcane?
Quote: 1) Flavor. Arcane spells require more precise movements than divine spells because divine spells are supported by a deity. Flavor should not dictate mechanics, nor the other way around. The disconnect exists for a reason.
Besides--what does it really mean for 'precise movements'? Dancing and jumping I understand, but a hand-waive is obstructed by breastplate?
Under the description for Somatic components, it mentions one criteria; a free hand. Then again--the spellcasting mechanic is a carryover, something that is noticed when people come on forums asking what the DC for a Verbal component is, and can it be hid.
(Personal ruling; the DC is 0, but like any vocal effect, the DC can be lowered to -5 (shouting) to 15 (whispering). If anything, Silence can inflict a 100% ASF, and being deafened may inflict a 20%, while the lower the voice, the higher the percentage of failure.)
Besides--there are divine casters that do not rely on deities, so that is out of the question.
If the above mechanic is applied, we can easily waive CP for martial casters with armor proficiency. There must be a mechanic to discourage a dip into Fighter to cast in full armor--but that comes later.
I am moving more and more towards Harry Potter style casting now.
The preparation stores the energy for release later with a simple wrist flick and a word of power (praying for a spell means the deity sends the energy to the supplicant and stores it within them). The exact word and flick is up to the caster but most choose the same words for simple ease of memorisation and expediency and because thats what they have been taught.
The wrist flick is the material component. The word of power is the verbal component. Armour can disrupt both and so all casters suffer spell failure but in the form of armour check penalty.
Of course i dont intend for clerics and druids to run around with wands firing spells (but they could if they wanted to), so druids can use staffs in much the same way as Mad Eye Moody did with his staff, and clerics use their holy symbols but grip them in certain ways to unleash the spell (i would imagine you can get a lot of variation out of 5 digits and hand placement on a symbol, enough to cast a few hundred different spells.)
At least thats how i envisage spellcasting now. After all a round is only about 6 seconds long, and a standard action probably takes up somewhere between 2 and 6 of those seconds - how much hand waiving and magical uttering can you realistically perform in that timespan. Best to keep it limited to single words and a single gesture.
Interesting take.
If anything, I would say that wands are an Arcane focus in the potterverse, with a metamagic feat 'Wandless'.
Funny you should mention the word Arcane Focus. That is exactly how i refer to them. All wands, staffs, and holy symbols have the magical property of Spellcasting Focus that enables them to be used to cast spells with.
I also allow other items to be imbued with the property so that casters who wish to use a sword or a spear to cast with can do so.
Bump-alicious.
With Method 2 (1 point of Armor Check Penalty = 5% Arcane Spell Failure), one can justify several abilities better: Arcane casters who gain proficiency and ignore ASF from specified weapons may just gain a blanket +20% to cast Arcane spells in all armors.
This bonus would not stack with shields, which will be a nerf, but it will remove the need to gain 'arcane armor' proficiency feats for already-starved builds, and allow Arcane Spell Failure to scale better with already popular ideas like armors of special materials.
The implications should be studied, but there is existing (however clunky) synergy with the rules. Arcane Spell Failure stacks already, and the end result of applying this would relieve armor lists from an unneeded column that is too static and abstract.
While on the point--what criteria do designers fall back to when determining ASF? Fiat?
Arg. Can't list this thread. :/
Dazzlerdal wrote: Funny you should mention the word Arcane Focus. That is exactly how i refer to them. All wands, staffs, and holy symbols have the magical property of Spellcasting Focus that enables them to be used to cast spells with.
I also allow other items to be imbued with the property so that casters who wish to use a sword or a spear to cast with can do so.
I myself would classify that as a feat or class feature. Bards would be able to substitute their Somatic Components by playing (removing references to explicit instruments), and Magi (and other arcane combatants) would have Somatic Weapon--tracing the Somatic Component with their weapons instead of their hands.
Of course, (S) only requires a free hand, and it is a free action to shift grip from 2/handed to 1/handed and back, but it also helps for any Eldritch Knights who take shields or two weapons.
Well i'm making my own rules based on pathfinder that work differently but yes it could easily work as a class feature or feat.
I also chose to make it a magic property because i like people to feel invested in their gear (and my rules no longer make increasingly powerful magic gear mandatory to maintain effectiveness), so when they find something really useful they will want to keep it.
By making it a class feature they can freely discard their +1 weapon as soon as they find a +2 weapon (i would rather it be a difficult choice as to whether they discard their precious +1 weapon that allows them to cast spells through it in favour of a +2 weapon that doesnt).
To each their own i suppose. I like magic and magic items to be rare so finding one is a significant event.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
