Why is arcane spell failure a thing?

[OmniMage]

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Arcane spell failure seems to be something that exists to solely trouble arcane spell casters. Not just any arcane spell casters; Bards can wear light armor and shields without the penalty. Arcane spell failure seems to exist to trouble Wizards and Sorcerers. Arcane spell failure doesn't bother divine spell casters at all.

Why is arcane spell failure a thing? Do Wizards and Sorcerers have to be glass cannons?

[Val'bryn2]

Because in classic literature, wizards don't wear armor. The reasons varied, from being untrained, to it restricting the movement needed to weave a spell. It's existed since the earliest editions of D&D, so got passed down the line. And no, wizards don't need to be glass cannons. It's actually rather easy to give them great defenses, but they don't go around wearing full plate

Of course divine casters don't worry about it, it's ARCANE spell failure. As for bards, they justify learning to mitigate ASF by referring to the elaborate costumes they may have to train in.

[Ryan Freire]

Divine casters have a less versatile spell list than arcane casters, arcane casters can already rival or exceed the defenses of heavy armor wearers, to allow them to put on heavy armor without significant resource investment on top of the layered magical defenses they could have would lead to an "arcane warrior from dragon age" type of game.

[Meirril]

Mainly 'arcane spell failure' is there to keep the aesthetic of 'a wizard is a guy that wears robes'. That is also the reason why there is a designation between simple and martial weapons. Because martial weapons are only suppose to be used by 'dedicated warriors' and not casual fighters. Nevermind that its easier to use a sword than a quarterstaff, mace or a dagger.

In Pathfinder (and 3.5 D&D before it) there are ways around arcane spell failure if you want to dedicate yourself to being an armored mage. It just isn't free or easy. If you want that, go play a Magus.

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

It’s because Gandalf and Merlin don’t wear armour.

Basically.

[TriOmegaZero]

If there is no penalty, all your wizards will be wearing full plate. If that is the kind of game you want, go for it.

[Klorox]

well, they'll still need to dip to get the heavy armor proficiency.

[Pink Dragon]

Wizards have feats to spare for getting heavy armor proficiency without dipping.

[LordKailas]

Pink Dragon wrote:

Wizards have feats to spare for getting heavy armor proficiency without dipping.

spend 3 feats or take 1 level in a class and get a free feat. Yeah, I think I can see why any build involving an arcane caster in heavy armor will opt for the class dip.

[TriOmegaZero]

Cardinal Rule: Never Give Up Caster Levels.

No feat is worth the price of delayed spell progression.

[Dave Justus]

Once upon a time the only spell casters were wizards and clerics. Wizards were arcane, and didn't wear armor, Clerics were divine and modeled a bit like crusading knights. There were many differences between the two.

Over time, the differences between the two kinds of magic have faded. We more classes that cast, some of those classes combine things that traditionally belongs to just one type of magic with things that used to belong to the other. Even then numbers of levels of spells (9) is now the same, where once it wasn't.

About the only thing left that really separates Arcane from Divine is Arcane spell failure.

I don't know if this is a necessary or useful aspect of the game anymore, but I will say that I would expect if it went away you would see quite a few Wizards in platemail, and many wouldn't bother to take any feats to get proficiency. As long as you avoid spells with attack rolls (easy enough to do) not having proficiency won't hurt much at all.

[Taudis]

In 3.5 any caster could use a Twilight Mithral Chain shirt, which only had 1 less total effective AC (max Dex + actual Armor bonus) than 3.5's Mithral Full Plate. Even in Pathfinder, you can wear Haramaki or Bracers of Armor and get pretty high AC - depending on your Dex bonus, you might actually have a better AC than a twohanded fighter because you can use a Mithral Buckler without penalty. Mechanically, arcane casters having AC is fine and all but explicitly allowed.

Arcane Spell Failure Chance is all about enforcing that Wizard in robes aesthetic.

[Able Elish]

"A true arcanist needs nothing but power to defend themselves. But not all can be scions of THE ANCIENT AND NOBLE EFREETI, and must contend with lesser defenses."

[blahpers]

OmniMage wrote:

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Arcane spell failure seems to be something that exists to solely trouble arcane spell casters. Not just any arcane spell casters; Bards can wear light armor and shields without the penalty. Arcane spell failure seems to exist to trouble Wizards and Sorcerers. Arcane spell failure doesn't bother divine spell casters at all.

Why is arcane spell failure a thing? Do Wizards and Sorcerers have to be glass cannons?

Answer found in question.

[OmniMage]

Thanks for the replies. I figured I would ask since Pathfinder 2nd edition seems to have got rid of arcane spell failure.

[Yqatuba]

Real reason: Wizards wearing full plate would be too powerful.

In-universe reason: Well, none really, there's been some attempts to explain but they don't really make sense and fall apart when you examine them.

[doomman47]

Eldritch knight is literally wizard in full plate but cant actually cast spells because they didn't give them the ability to cast in armor which imo is really dumb.

[Yqatuba]

If that's true im pretty sure its a mistake

[TriOmegaZero]

Of course they can cast them. They have a good chance of failing without Arcane Armor Mastery or mithral, but they can still make the attempt.

Mithral full plate and Arcane Armor Mastery means 5% chance of failure. And if the spell is verbal only, it doesn’t apply. You have to use your swift action to do so, but that is only when actually casting. The rest of the time, you can use it for whatever else you need it for.

[doomman47]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Of course they can cast them. They have a good chance of failing without Arcane Armor Mastery or mithral, but they can still make the attempt.

Mithral full plate and Arcane Armor Mastery means 5% chance of failure. And if the spell is verbal only, it doesn’t apply. You have to use your swift action to do so, but that is only when actually casting. The rest of the time, you can use it for whatever else you need it for.

I'm talking about things like this that the magus gets but the eldritch knight doesn't for some reason.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency
A magus is proficient with all simple and martial weapons. A magus is also proficient with light armor. He can cast magus spells while wearing light armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spellcaster, a magus wearing medium armor, heavy armor, or a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component.

Medium Armor (Ex)
At 7th level, a magus gains proficiency with medium armor. A magus can cast magus spells while wearing medium armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spellcaster, a magus wearing heavy armor or using a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component.

Heavy Armor (Ex)
At 13th level, a magus gains proficiency with heavy armor. A magus can cast magus spells while wearing heavy armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spellcaster, a magus using a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component.

[Rysky]

The Magus came out way after the Eldritch Knight.

[TriOmegaZero]

Yeah, that would be nice, but it’s not necessary to cast spells.

[blahpers]

Magi aren't as good at general spellcasting, either. They aren't a replacement for eldritch knight; they're an alternative.

[Kayerloth]

And for your typical wizard or sorcerer (especially at lower levels) there's also the fact that your Strength score needs to up a bit if you expect to move anywhere near 'normal' speeds while hauling around an extra 30 to 50 lbs (Breastplate and Full Plate respectively) in addition to your usual load (and not including a shield). Even 12 Strength starts to look insufficient. Can a wiz/sor+ deal with it, sure. But it is time, effort (self buffs in particular) and coin spent on something other than new spells, spellbooks, crafting. So even with ASF removed ...

[OmniMage]

I was wondering about weight. I was doing some of my own math.

Some basic equipment. A wizard's kit is 21 lbs, spell book is 3, light crossbow is 4, quarterstaff is 4, and 10 crossbow bolts is 1. The total is 33 pounds. This a is a light load for a str 10 character.

The lightest armor is padded, which is 10 lbs. Adding this would increase the min str to 12.

Using full plate instead, it increases the load by 50 lbs, which would increase the load to 83. You need str 17 for a light load. Heavy load for a str 12 character.

[blahpers]

My druid burns an ant haul every day to get around this and wear dragonhide armor anyway. Even then it gets dicey when wild shaped into something smaller since carrying capacity goes down with size even with not counting any Strength reduction. I may have to work muleback cords into my cloak.

[Dragonborn3]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Of course they can cast them. They have a good chance of failing without Arcane Armor Mastery or mithral, but they can still make the attempt.

Mithral full plate and Arcane Armor Mastery means 5% chance of failure. And if the spell is verbal only, it doesn’t apply. You have to use your swift action to do so, but that is only when actually casting. The rest of the time, you can use it for whatever else you need it for.

Still spell also works.

[deuxhero]

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

It’s because Gandalf and Merlin don’t wear armour.

Basically.

Really all that was needed to solve this is just make them start non-proficient, but give them no penalties if they do become so and wear it. There's a few systems that allow this.

[KahnyaGnorc]

Play Psions and Wilders . . . no Arcane Spell Failure! (far more limited casting than wizards for psions and sorcerers for wilders, but no ASF!)

[OmniMage]

Whoops. I forgot to factor in the weight of the explorer's outfit. 33 lbs + 8 lbs = 41 lbs. Now the minimum Str score for a light load is 12. The wizard may need settle for medium loads or find some alternative.

Does clothing you wear count towards your carry limit? I want to be sure.

When wearing armor, do you wear clothing as well? For example, if you have leather armor and an explorer's outfit, do you wear both?

deuxhero wrote:

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

It’s because Gandalf and Merlin don’t wear armour.

Basically.

Really all that was needed to solve this is just make them start non-proficient, but give them no penalties if they do become so and wear it. There's a few systems that allow this.

I'm thinking that this might have been enough. Wearing armor you aren't proficient in adds their armor check penalty to attack rolls. Wizards with their pitiful attack rolls would do well to hold off on getting full plate (-6) until they are proficient. Otherwise, they are going to have extra trouble hitting with their touch attacks and rays.

I've been looking into magic items, such as scrolls and staves, and there is no mention of ASF. Does mean that a Wizard in full plate can be fully loaded on scrolls, wands, and staves and suffer no trouble using those items?

[shaventalz]

OmniMage wrote:

Whoops. I forgot to factor in the weight of the explorer's outfit. 33 lbs + 8 lbs = 41 lbs. Now the minimum Str score for a light load is 12. The wizard may need settle for medium loads or find some alternative.

Does clothing you wear count towards your carry limit? I want to be sure.

When wearing armor, do you wear clothing as well? For example, if you have leather armor and an explorer's outfit, do you wear both?

Clothing seems to count. For carrying capacity, you "total the weight of all the character’s items, including armor, weapons, and gear." Clothing would seem to be an item or gear. I think 3.5 had a line somewhere (maybe errata?) giving you a pass on one set of clothing, but I can't find that anywhere. I also can't find anything like that exception in Pathfinder. So, by RAW... looks like.

As for wearing it with armor - please do. Not even getting into the chafing, but can you imagine someone wearing nothing but a breastplate?

OmniMage wrote:

I'm thinking that this might have been enough. Wearing armor you aren't proficient in adds their armor check penalty to attack rolls. Wizards with their pitiful attack rolls would do well to hold off on getting full plate (-6) until they are proficient. Otherwise, they are going to have extra trouble hitting with their touch attacks and rays.

That's why the armored battlemages use save-based spells instead. Can't aim? Don't care.

OmniMage wrote:

I've been looking into magic items, such as scrolls and staves, and there is no mention of ASF. Does mean that a Wizard in full plate can be fully loaded on scrolls, wands, and staves and suffer no trouble using those items?

Wands and staves use the Spell Trigger method - there's not even enough movement in that to provoke.

For scrolls, the answer is "maybe". The base rules for scrolls say that "using a scroll is like casting a spell for purposes of arcane spell failure chance." However, Pathfinder Society has a specific FAQ that reverses this ruling at PFS tables.

[Asmodeus' Advocate]

shaventalz wrote:

That's why the armored battlemages use save-based spells instead. Can't aim? Don't care.

I once played a psychic resplendent in scale mail and tower shield. They never made it past level one, sadly.

[OmniMage]

I reread the sections and it outright says that scrolls count as spells for ASF. Its kinda hard to find so I put it in bold.

Quote:

Activate the Spell: Activating a scroll requires reading the

spell from the scroll. The character must be able to see
and read the writing on the scroll. Activating a scroll spell
requires no material components or focus. (The creator of
the scroll provided these when scribing the scroll.) Note that
some spells are effective only when cast on an item or items.
In such a case, the scroll user must provide the item when
activating the spell. Activating a scroll spell is subject to
disruption just as casting a normally prepared spell would
be. Using a scroll is like casting a spell for purposes of arcane
spell failure chance.

[Klorox]

THAT is something I could put in the "RAW you never see in use" thread... most DMs I've seen, including myself, seem to regard a scroll as a V component only spellcasting device, ergo, not hampered by stuff that meddle with somatic components.

[doomman47]

Personally I rule that all the components needed for the spell are done when they put it in the scroll same as how material components are added so to get the scroll to work they don't need the verbal, somatic or material components at the time of using the spell since they were already provided, I do however require them to still have a command word for the scroll but I allow it to be whispered so if some one wants to invest in making scrolls to have an added layer of discreet casting they can.

[Theconiel]

It's better now than it was back in AD&D. A magic-user could not cast spells at all while wearing armor. Granted, a multi-classed character like a fighter-MU could cast spells while wearing armor, but only certsin non-human races could be a fighter-MU, and they had severe limit resrructions.

[Erpa]

Pure aesthetics with rational (design) intent.

Think to college; the research lab student may have an athletic side to him, but he's not comfortable in full football pads, or say, even monthly ROTC gear and duties. And walking around in the lab, knocking over microscopes and equipment practicing wearing the football great isn't really practical either.

So, out adventuring, yeah, the wizard has no practical ability to wear armor; it would be a bit exhausting, and frankly, trivial to their pursuits and goals. So, to me, I just rationalize it as making sense.

[MageHunter]

Erpa wrote:

Pure aesthetics with rational (design) intent.

Think to college; the research lab student may have an athletic side to him, but he's not comfortable in full football pads, or say, even monthly ROTC gear and duties. And walking around in the lab, knocking over microscopes and equipment practicing wearing the football great isn't really practical either.

So, out adventuring, yeah, the wizard has no practical ability to wear armor; it would be a bit exhausting, and frankly, trivial to their pursuits and goals. So, to me, I just rationalize it as making sense.

Heh. It's been a while since I've gone to church but I might attend to see a priest do sermons in football gear.

[Ryan Freire]

doomman47 wrote:

Eldritch knight is literally wizard in full plate but cant actually cast spells because they didn't give them the ability to cast in armor which imo is really dumb.

Spell failure only affects spells with somatic components, Still spell + spells without somatics don't care if you're in full plate.

[Erpa]

MageHunter wrote:

Erpa wrote:

Pure aesthetics with rational (design) intent.

Think to college; the research lab student may have an athletic side to him, but he's not comfortable in full football pads, or say, even monthly ROTC gear and duties. And walking around in the lab, knocking over microscopes and equipment practicing wearing the football great isn't really practical either.

So, out adventuring, yeah, the wizard has no practical ability to wear armor; it would be a bit exhausting, and frankly, trivial to their pursuits and goals. So, to me, I just rationalize it as making sense.

Heh. It's been a while since I've gone to church but I might attend to see a priest do sermons in football gear.

My pastor is actually a former Marine chaplain, and he was geared up like the rest during his active tours.

But again, rationalize it how you like within your own games. Make it your own.

[ShroudedInLight]

My question is why does Arcane Armor Training require your swift action every round?

Like I'd be cool with Wizards sacrificing their precious feats for being able to wear up to Chain without an issue.

[MageHunter]

Interestingly it typically doesn't conflict with Arcane Strike, as you're generally making an attack OR casting a spell.

No quickened action though

[doomman47]

MageHunter wrote:

Interestingly it typically doesn't conflict with Arcane Strike, as you're generally making an attack OR casting a spell.

No quickened action though

Unless you are a magus or some other class that can cast and attack at the same time.