Arcane Spell Failure


Advice


So, serious question. The rules for arcane spell failure while wearing armor are quite clear, but they assume that you are a humanoid with no more than two arms capable of somatic gesturing. But what if you are a psionic character, perhaps an Aegis, or a synthesist summoner, capable of generating additional limbs at will? Can't you simply designate a set of arms for spell casting and be done with it? I've been looking for clarification for a bit, and if anyone knows if this issue has been addressed anywhere I'd be infinitely grateful!

Thanks!
Vattic


Psionic characters don't have to worry about Arcane spell failure, since they aren't, y'know, arcane.

As the rules sit, no, having extra limbs does not let you bypass arcane spell failure. It's supposedly the weight of the armor on the body, or something, rather than just stuff on the arms.

It's basically just an old relic of previous editions.


Sorry, I should have clarified. I'm looking into playing a gestalt game. I would go wizard on one side, and either Aegis or Synthesist summoner on the other.

I understand that your take on the question is that the weight on the body prevents the somatic gestures from taking place hence the spell failure chance, but if I could respectfully direct your attention to this bit of text:

"Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component."

So.. I'm wearing armor, but on top of that the Aegis grows two additional arms to cast using customization points, or the summoner grows two with evolution points, and it would seem to circumvent that little bit of Raw, right?

The text doesn't mention anything about the weight or whatever, just that it interferes with "gestures." So to me, that suggests that arms unburdened with armor and free to gesture should be able to negate spell failure chances regardless of the body being covered with armor.

I understand this is definitely a GM call, and YMMV etc.. etc.., I guess I'm just looking for well reasoned Raw based arguments for and against.

Thanks for responding man!


If your body is covered with armor, where do your additional arms grow from?

That particular issue aside.. Since crafting armor from a lighter material (such as mithral armor, or celestial armor) reduces the ASF, it seems that the gesture-interference is primarily weight-related and not so much arm-covering-related.

Further, some types of armor don't even cover the arms (breastplate, for instance, only covers the torso), but still have ASF.


Are wrote:

If your body is covered with armor, where do your additional arms grow from?

That particular issue aside.. Since crafting armor from a lighter material (such as mithral armor, or celestial armor) reduces the ASF, it seems that the gesture-interference is primarily weight-related and not so much arm-covering-related.

Further, some types of armor don't even cover the arms (breastplate, for instance, only covers the torso), but still have ASF.

I think that's a two sides issue. From one side, weight surely encumber you to some degree. Any movement is a bit slowed. In addition the shoulders are covered in all the type of armors that come in my mind. Try to make some precise gesture with a straight jacket. .. It seems to be the same: some degree of disturbance from a somewhat limited mobility of at least the shoulders could really diminish your precision.


ASF can be a bit odd. For example, a wizard needs only one free hand for somatic components. Yet, as soon as he straps a buckler to an arm (presumably his other, non-spellcasting arm), he has to deal with a 5% ASF. Based on that, the extra arms probably won't negate the failure chance.

Silver Crusade

Vattic wrote:

So, serious question. The rules for arcane spell failure while wearing armor are quite clear, but they assume that you are a humanoid with no more than two arms capable of somatic gesturing. But what if you are a psionic character, perhaps an Aegis, or a synthesist summoner, capable of generating additional limbs at will? Can't you simply designate a set of arms for spell casting and be done with it? I've been looking for clarification for a bit, and if anyone knows if this issue has been addressed anywhere I'd be infinitely grateful!

Thanks!
Vattic

It's not just about the arms. In the end, if you want to reduce Arcane Spell Failure, pick up Magus levels. Otherwise use armor that does not provide spell failure % or a combination of traits and special materials might offer some relief.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Marius Castille wrote:
ASF can be a bit odd. For example, a wizard needs only one free hand for somatic components. Yet, as soon as he straps a buckler to an arm (presumably his other, non-spellcasting arm), he has to deal with a 5% ASF. Based on that, the extra arms probably won't negate the failure chance.

It could be lot worse. Try spellcasting in Saberhagen's Books of Swords world. Just the mere presence of swords being raised in the general area is enough to make spellcasting a problematic exercise.


Vattic wrote:


I understand this is definitely a GM call

Not really ... the rules are crystal clear. If you're wearing armor, you suffer from ASF, barring specific instances that explicitly state you do not (bard/magus class abilities, Still Spell).


crystal clear, yes, but they do not address other possibilities. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. they do say literally that armor inhibits the somatic gestures. but.. as thinking rational creatures, we can imagine situations where one can use magic to create arms unburdened by armor. you mention instances where the rules are bent and i would argue that the specific incidence i have mentioned has not been adequately addressed.

To Are's point: the arms would be psionic or just plain super natural in nature (based on whether or not i went aegis or synthesist) thus they could grow out of the base form of whatever i could imagine. they wouldn't necessarily have to be armored in and of themselves. both of those classes can increase ac by simply spending customization points (or evolution points) and using whatever fluff floats your boat.


That's not how it works in PF rules.

Unless an exception is explicitly called out, it operates by standard procedure.

Nowhere in the rules does it say multiple arms can bypass ASF, so they do not.

If your group wants to houserule, knock yourself out, of course.

Shadow Lodge

I think if a Helmet can infer an Arcane Spell Failure chance, then its probably safe to assume growing new arms won't let you ignore ASF.


oh, and for those unfamiliar with the aegis, he creates the armor he wears psionically, not sure how much that bears on the discussion, but i thought i'd point it out for those not in the know.

in fact, here's some links:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/aegis

and

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner/archetypes/paizo---su mmoner-archetypes/synthesist


Zhayne wrote:

That's not how it works in PF rules.

Unless an exception is explicitly called out, it operates by standard procedure.

Nowhere in the rules does it say multiple arms can bypass ASF, so they do not.

If your group wants to houserule, knock yourself out, of course.

fair enough. good to know your stance. i'm wondering though, because technically the synthesist IS NOT WEARING ARMOR but the aegis is, though it happens to be psionic. so the solution would seem to be go synthesist because the rules are silly.

Shadow Lodge

Keep in mind, if the Armour you are wearing has no Arcane Spell Failure chance [see Haramaki and Silken Ceremonial], then it does not matter if you are a wizard casting a wizard spell, because if you roll the d%, you won't roll a 0, just 1-100.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:

That's not how it works in PF rules.

Unless an exception is explicitly called out, it operates by standard procedure.

Nowhere in the rules does it say multiple arms can bypass ASF, so they do not.

If your group wants to houserule, knock yourself out, of course.

His repeated use of the word "psionic" knocks it out of the park, into homerule territory anyway.


so it sounds like everyone is cool with a synthesist boosting their NA through the roof and not incurring spell failure (never mind size increases etc..) but is against the aegis psionically creating "armor" and being able to cast?

Shadow Lodge

Does the aegis's "armour" have a listed Arcane Spell Failure chance?


EvilPaladin wrote:
Does the aegis's "armour" have a listed Arcane Spell Failure chance?

not really, no. this is the section that mentions specifics on astral suits. i admit, i might be too dense to see the info right in front of my face, this is why i turn to you fine folks!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vattic wrote:
so it sounds like everyone is cool with a synthesist boosting their NA through the roof and not incurring spell failure (never mind size increases etc..) but is against the aegis psionically creating "armor" and being able to cast?

Put me in the IDGAF category. I don't have to deal with synthesists in PFS play, nor do I have to allow them in my home gaimes.

And again, if you want to talk about psionics, take this to either Dreamscarred's forums or the homebrew section. Psionics is not, and most likely never will be a part of Pathfinder. (Psychic Magic however, is another story.)

Silver Crusade

Vattic wrote:
crystal clear, yes, but they do not address other possibilities. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. they do say literally that armor inhibits the somatic gestures. but.. as thinking rational creatures, we can imagine situations where one can use magic to create arms unburdened by armor. you mention instances where the rules are bent and i would argue that the specific incidence i have mentioned has not been adequately addressed.

You're missing the point.

So I'll try again: It's not just about the arms.

I know, all the literature supports your claim. Somatic Components clearly says you only need one hand free. Arcane Spell Failure says that armor interferes with your gestures. The problem is, a lot of armor doesn't cover your hands at all. All of it still provides %Spell Failure. Growing arms doesn't change that because the premise is bunk to begin with.

The rule itself is not silly. Arcane Spell Failure prevents an arcane caster from being level 1 with: 24 AC(12 Dex + Full Plate + Tower Shield) and Color Spray. You should be on your knees thanking the Dev's for keeping that out of your game.

I do feel the language used to explain the rule is flawed, and does not hold up to scrutiny.

Shadow Lodge

Vattic wrote:
EvilPaladin wrote:
Does the aegis's "armour" have a listed Arcane Spell Failure chance?
not really, no. this is the section that mentions specifics on astral suits. i admit, i might be too dense to see the info right in front of my face, this is why i turn to you fine folks!

Well, then it doesn't incur a chance of failing arcane spells. Done. No problems with it. Now, if it said "This functions as Full Plate armour", it would have full plate's ASF, check penalty, etc. But I don't think it has that at all. I am unfamiliar with Psionic rules, and can't seem to find the stuff on the Aegis about his "armour", so I am not certain.

Silver Crusade

EvilPaladin wrote:
Vattic wrote:
EvilPaladin wrote:
Does the aegis's "armour" have a listed Arcane Spell Failure chance?
not really, no. this is the section that mentions specifics on astral suits. i admit, i might be too dense to see the info right in front of my face, this is why i turn to you fine folks!
Well, then it doesn't incur a chance of failing arcane spells. Done. No problems with it. Now, if it said "This functions as Full Plate armour", it would have full plate's ASF, check penalty, etc. But I don't think it has that at all. I am unfamiliar with Psionic rules, and can't seem to find the stuff on the Aegis about his "armour", so I am not certain.

Vattic is mistaken.

Astral Suits wrote:

When formed into astral armor, an astral suit resembles masterwork chainmail and is treated as such for all mechanical purposes

...
When formed into astral juggernaut, an astral suit resembles masterwork half-plate and is treated as such for all mechanical purposes.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ErrantPursuit wrote:


The rule itself is not silly. Arcane Spell Failure prevents an arcane caster from being level 1 with: 24 AC(12 Dex + Full Plate + Tower Shield) and Color Spray. You should be on your knees thanking the Dev's for keeping that out of your game.

He's obviously the player who wants to put it into his DM's game.

Liberty's Edge

According to the Aegis description, the armor it creates specifically says it functions mechanically just like a particular set of armor (Masterwork Chainmail or Half Plate, depending), so it is indeed armor... no need for quotations.

The Synthesist is not armor, but a form that the Summoner merges into. And as you said, it has natural armor, which doesn't cause spell failure.

They both work fine with their respective classes because they don't interfere. You seem to be looking for someone to justify circumventing the rules so that you can make use of a spell casting Gestalt combo and now are petulantly complaining that the one you seem to want to use (The Aegis, presumably for the extra powers and better BAB, saves and skills) will hinder being a Wizard according to the rules. As was explained by others the Arcane Spell Failure is enforced on all casters unless specific circumstances apply. Your desire for a work around or dislike of the rules is not one of those circumstances.

So yes, those who are not outright opposed to the Synthesist in general, are cool with it working according to the rules in regards to Arcane spell failure.

Shadow Lodge

ErrantPursuit wrote:
EvilPaladin wrote:
Vattic wrote:
EvilPaladin wrote:
Does the aegis's "armour" have a listed Arcane Spell Failure chance?
not really, no. this is the section that mentions specifics on astral suits. i admit, i might be too dense to see the info right in front of my face, this is why i turn to you fine folks!
Well, then it doesn't incur a chance of failing arcane spells. Done. No problems with it. Now, if it said "This functions as Full Plate armour", it would have full plate's ASF, check penalty, etc. But I don't think it has that at all. I am unfamiliar with Psionic rules, and can't seem to find the stuff on the Aegis about his "armour", so I am not certain.

Vattic is mistaken.

Astral Suits wrote:

When formed into astral armor, an astral suit resembles masterwork chainmail and is treated as such for all mechanical purposes

...
When formed into astral juggernaut, an astral suit resembles masterwork half-plate and is treated as such for all mechanical purposes.

Ah, then an Astral Suit has chainmail's ASF and an Astral Juggernaut has half-plate's ASF.


Vattic wrote:
fair enough. good to know your stance. i'm wondering though, because technically the synthesist IS NOT WEARING ARMOR but the aegis is, though it happens to be psionic. so the solution would seem to be go synthesist because the rules are silly.

this would not be a problem at all if you went with the synthesist idea instead of that 3rd party junk like psionics.

I bring this up because synthesists can't even really use armor. Sure there is the few times when you are not fused where it might be an issue... but otherwise you will never have to deal with this.

This is because eidolons cannot wear armor (and by extension, neither can synthesists, since "In all other cases, this ability functions as the summoner’s normal eidolon ability" and the armor they were wearing beforehand doesn't work while it is fused into the body). That is why they get all those abilities that grant natural armor and give scaling bonuses to that NA. Admittedly, all those bonuses could be split between armor and natural armor as you please, in case you just want to make the eidolon a metal encased behemoth, but that would be more of a part of their body than a separate item as far as the rules are concerned. So essentially, it would not be a problem since it would be just about the same as NA.

So unless you just have an itch to deal with all those points and such found with psionics, is there a particular reason to not go with the synthesist?


i'm not exactly sure why i'm being described as petulant for asking people for rules clarifications and opinions on such, but so be it. at this point i'm reasonably certain that RAW doesn't address these issues 100% so that's why i'm turning to the community for well thought out arguments, for and against.

some people seem to assume that i am a bad player for seeking rules clarifications in order to make optimal decisions about classes and so forth, but with all due respect, you folks don't know me, the GM or my game so i would appreciate keeping the sniping and character assassination to a minimum.

i thank all of those who took the time to post, to those copping an attitude, that's great, have fun, not sure why you are choosing to be this way but that's on you.

to ErrantPursuit, i am listening to you, thanks for your comments. i think you make an interesting argument. i think that we can both agree that there is a strange no-man's land area between armors in PF and their spell failure chance compared to their interaction with the text about somatic components. the language is unclear, and like you, i support the premise that casters shouldn't have all of the awesome spellcasting + amazing ac on top of it right out of the box. but since i'm contemplating a gestalt class, considerations must be altered somewhat, right? the point is to shore up weaknesses, build on strengths, etc.

as far as my intentions go i've been very forthright that i am planning on playing a gestalt character and that i'm comparing the benefit of rolling either a synthesist (pathfinder specific) or an aegis on one side, wizard on the other. if one class limits spell casting through arcane spell failure chance and the other does not, then that's a pretty strong argument for not taking that class, is it not?

the silliness that i was referring to stems from the fact that synthesist is, in my humble opinion, a far better mechanical choice because you are getting all sorts of things in addition to an increased armor class (extra hp, summon monster as a sla, and replaced ability scores for starters). in light of this, making the aegis weaker by invoking spell failure seems a bit silly to me.


lemeres wrote:

So unless you just have an itch to deal with all those points and such found with psionics, is there a particular reason to not go with the synthesist?

i honestly just like the fluff better :)


Vattic wrote:
some people seem to assume that i am a bad player for seeking rules clarifications in order to make optimal decisions about classes and so forth, but with all due respect, you folks don't know me, the GM or my game so i would appreciate keeping the sniping and character assassination to a minimum.

Well, I think you are a bad forum goer to be asking rules questions in the advice board (those are separate).

Of course, that is hardly appropriate either, since again, psionics are a 3rd party thing, so asking for rules clarification might be hard there too, since all this material was not entirely meant to be combined like all this. So damned if you do, damned if you don't, I suppose.

I mean, since this is a home gestalt game, you are more than invited to either just houserule the problems away or switch around flavoring as you please so synthesists are basically aegis. Glossing over such problems is between you, your party, and your GM.


lemeres wrote:
Well, I think you are a bad forum goer to be asking rules questions in the advice board (those are separate).

i'm looking for advice on some rules questions that i had :p

seriously though, what is advice meant for? relationship issues? legal matters? maybe i should ask for the thread to be moved in that case.


Vattic wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Well, I think you are a bad forum goer to be asking rules questions in the advice board (those are separate).

i'm looking for advice on some rules questions that i had :p

seriously though, what is advice meant for? relationship issues? legal matters? maybe i should ask for the thread to be moved in that case.

My understanding on such matters is hardly formal, but it mostly seems to be build and GM advice for pathfinders, with a certain focus towards PFS it seems. But I might be somewhat incorrect on that. This is mostly from my experience around here for the last couple of months.

I do know for a fact that there is a section called Compatible Products from Other Publishers that is a subforum for pathfinder RPG. I am not entirely sure whether that is the right place (it is rather hard to navigate this forum when it comes to stuff like that), but it seems a good place to ask when it comes to the specific rules for the Aegis (I at least saw a thread or two with Dreamscarr press in the title).

And heck, again, I am not entire sure whether the advice isn't the right place to ask these questions in the first place. You hardly have to go with my nonexistent authority and knowledge on these matters. I would love confirmation/correction by a more experienced forum goer though.


Vattic wrote:

i'm not exactly sure why i'm being described as petulant for asking people for rules clarifications and opinions on such, but so be it. at this point i'm reasonably certain that RAW doesn't address these issues 100% so that's why i'm turning to the community for well thought out arguments, for and against.

some people seem to assume that i am a bad player for seeking rules clarifications in order to make optimal decisions about classes and so forth, but with all due respect, you folks don't know me, the GM or my game so i would appreciate keeping the sniping and character assassination to a minimum.

i thank all of those who took the time to post, to those copping an attitude, that's great, have fun, not sure why you are choosing to be this way but that's on you.

to ErrantPursuit, i am listening to you, thanks for your comments. i think you make an interesting argument. i think that we can both agree that there is a strange no-man's land area between armors in PF and their spell failure chance compared to their interaction with the text about somatic components. the language is unclear, and like you, i support the premise that casters shouldn't have all of the awesome spellcasting + amazing ac on top of it right out of the box. but since i'm contemplating a gestalt class, considerations must be altered somewhat, right? the point is to shore up weaknesses, build on strengths, etc.

as far as my intentions go i've been very forthright that i am planning on playing a gestalt character and that i'm comparing the benefit of rolling either a synthesist (pathfinder specific) or an aegis on one side, wizard on the other. if one class limits spell casting through arcane spell failure chance and the other does not, then that's a pretty strong argument for not taking that class, is it not?

the silliness that i was referring to stems from the fact that synthesist is, in my humble opinion, a far better mechanical choice because you are getting all sorts of things in addition to an increased armor class...

We're being this way because this is the Internet.

I don't think that armor limitations are a good criteria for choosing: Arcane Spell Failure is not that hardtop work around. Alchemist don't have ASF at all, Magi can wear light armor with no ASF, and that includes Mithril Chainmail.

Darkleaf cloth armor is not strictly "light" where it's leather counterpart is "heavy," but it reduces the Arcane spell Failure by 10%. A single feat, Arcane Armor Training, reduces it by another 10%, and the ASF is gone to 0. With that single feat, a Wizard can wear Mithril Kikko armor, too, and get +5 armor bonus to AC and still keep a 0% ASF rate.

Silver Crusade

Vattic wrote:
i think that we can both agree that there is a strange no-man's land area between armors in PF and their spell failure chance compared to their interaction with the text about somatic components.

I don't really feel there is a no-man's land, no. It's a straight-up disconnect. The descriptions are incorrect compared to the mechanic in play. This is the only real part of your argument I agree with, but I think it's important to acknowledge you have a legitimate reason to have questions.

Vattic wrote:
the language is unclear, and like you, i support the premise that casters shouldn't have all of the awesome spellcasting + amazing ac on top of it right out of the box. but since i'm contemplating a gestalt class, considerations must be altered somewhat, right?

No. You synergize your gestalt with your ideas about your character and the rules that bring that idea to life. Before the Magus, the only way to be an armored caster was to be an Eldritch Knight, and even then it wasn't the same. The only true armored caster is the Magus, and that class must invest 13 levels to get the ability.

Vattic wrote:
the point is to shore up weaknesses, build on strengths, etc.

Of course. Optimization is a desire for every player. Every single person wants the character they play to be good at something. You have to do this within the rules, which clearly is why you're here trying to find options.

Vattic wrote:
as far as my intentions go...

Let me stop you here for a moment. Nobody in this thread is confused about why you came here. What's getting tempers agitated is that you reply to very astute feedback as if it were an opinion or point of view.

A perfect example is this post. Prior to that point, many individuals had tried to explain with greater and lesser comprehensiveness that growing extra arms wouldn't work.

Refusing to hear a message that you agree is in line with the rules as you read them as in this post is frustrating to people trying to help you. 6 people had taken time out of their life to answer your question when you wrote that. I'm sorry if this catches you a little off, but at this point I, and others I believe, are unsure what was unclear about the answer to your question regarding Spell Failure. I only bring this up because you indicated you were confused as to why the very people who stopped by to help you were getting frustrated at you.


ErrantPursuit wrote:


Vattic wrote:
the language is unclear, and like you, i support the premise that casters shouldn't have all of the awesome spellcasting + amazing ac on top of it right out of the box. but since i'm contemplating a gestalt class, considerations must be altered somewhat, right?
No. You synergize your gestalt with your ideas about your character and the rules that bring that idea to life. Before the Magus, the only way to be an armored caster was to be an Eldritch Knight, and even then it wasn't the same. The only true armored caster is the Magus, and that class must invest 13 levels to get the ability.

Well, besides any divine caster (Except druids, I suppose, but I think they can technically wear stoneplate)

Anyway, thinking about it, have you considered arcane armor training? It is not exactly an optimal choice (you can't use quickened spells to double dip the most versatile ability in the game... oh noez!!!111) but it could reduce your arcane spell failure by...a bit. It would work better in mythic play since the mythic version reduces it by more and takes no action.


ErrantPursuit wrote:


Vattic wrote:
as far as my intentions go...

Let me stop you here for a moment. Nobody in this thread is confused about why you came here. What's getting tempers agitated is that you reply to very astute feedback as if it were an opinion or point of view.

A perfect example is this post. Prior to that point, many individuals had tried to explain with greater and lesser comprehensiveness that growing extra arms...

yes, but as you admit, there is a disconnect in the rules as written. i see no reason for tempers to get agitated here. the astute feedback that you mention is opinion masquerading as fact, after all. i'm very grateful for people taking time out of their busy day to respond, but i'm interested in their arguments, not their dogma. people were just saying "no" without getting into their reasoning other than (and forgive me for summarizing) "well if it's not specifically called out or addressed then it can't happen." i'm sorry, but to me that's unsatisfactory.

can you imagine what a life unexamined would look like?

well, gee, my medical textbook doesn't discuss this particular interaction of chemicals in the brain so i guess i'll just stop trying to find underlying causes of depression, ptsd, addiction, etc..

this map doesn't mention or show any islands off the coast, so i guess they don't exist.. etc.. etc..

i think any fan of gaming needs a certain degree of flexibility where rules are concerned. in cases like these where i have questions i like to hear what other people think so i can judge if i'm being to loose with the rules or not.

and for some reason you and a few others deliberately choose to put on airs and get hostile because you assume incorrectly that i'm the type of player who wants what they want and is trying to force others to agree with them. Well, i'm not, and you are, quite frankly, over reacting and jumping at shadows.

it's silly and not necessary. if you are going to continue with this distracting style of posting, i politely submit that you don't need to bother.


lemeres wrote:
Anyway, thinking about it, have you considered arcane armor training? It is not exactly an optimal choice (you can't use quickened spells to double dip the most versatile ability in the game... oh noez!!!111) but it could reduce your arcane spell failure by...a bit. It would work better in mythic play since the mythic version reduces it by more and takes no action.

yup, i've definitely considered it. it does seem like my best option moving forward is to simply gestalt with synthesist summoner. otherwise i would suffer a lot of spell failure chance and no one digs that. it's too bad, because the only thing that i want from that side of the gestalt is the ability to customize my own "armor" whether it's an eidolon or psionically created. the myriad of other abilities that summoner offers (although mechanically very strong) don't appeal to me very much, i felt like the aegis was much closer to the concept i was trying to go for. it's much more focused on the armor.

anyway, thanks guys! i think all of my questions were answered pretty well.


If it's a homespun campaign, it is worth talking to the DM about Aegis. Pathfinder Society campaigns do not allow any 3rd Party published work.

The thing I find sexiest about Aegis is those 4 arms. Ask if your DM will allow a 3.5 Feat called Oversize 2 handed Weapon. That will allow you to use 1 handed weapons in your off hands as if they were light weapons. If he says, "no," to get the effect, you have to take 11 levels in 2 weapon fighter and get that as a class ability. Be a Dwarf and get Dwarven War Hammer as a bonus feat, or take Thunder and Fang and use 4 Earthbreaker Hammers!

A better Pathfinder option is to be a Tiefling or Catgirl and use Claws. Then ask your DM if you use the extra arms granted by the Aegis armor, if those extra arms have claws, too. If so, then plunge ahead and take 4 levels in Monk, take Monastic Legacy and Feral Combat Training. You'll claw attacks will do d10 damage by the time you reach level 12. If you take 2 levels in Ranger, you can take the Natural Weapons Fighting Style and take Improved Natural Attack. Your damage/round will jump up 2 sizes, from 1d10 to 3d8 per claw! If your Monk Levels are in Master of Many Styles, you can take Snake Fang and Combat Reflexes. You will get an AoO every time someone attacks you and misses. Take 3 levels in Inquisitor and take Broken Wing Gambit: you'll get an AoO whether they hit or miss! Take 2 more levels in Inquisitor and your claws will gain the Bane enchantment: and extra 2d6/claw. You'l make the Monktopus look like a pregen.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What in the Nine Hells is Aegis?

Oh... never mind. Has the OP considered that he can get around his problem by taking ...

Spells that don't use somatic components.

The Still Spell feat.

Silver Crusade

lemeres wrote:
Well, besides any divine caster (Except druids, I suppose, but I think they can technically wear stoneplate)

Yeah, those guys have been breaking the game since the 80's.

Vattic wrote:

and for some reason you and a few others deliberately choose to put on airs and get hostile because you assume incorrectly that i'm the type of player who wants what they want and is trying to force others to agree with them. Well, i'm not, and you are, quite frankly, over reacting and jumping at shadows.

it's silly and not necessary. if you are going to continue with this distracting style of posting, i politely submit that you don't need to bother.

-facepalm-

You asked

Vattic wrote:
i'm not exactly sure why i'm being described as petulant for asking people for rules clarifications and opinions on such, but so be it.

I just answered your question, dude. I'm sorry you didn't want to hear it.


Lazar, an Aegis is 3rd party, psionic class. They make psychic armor and wrap it around themselves. Vatic insightfully likens them to Synthesist Summoners

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Arcane Spell Failure All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.