Arcane Casters in Armor: The End of the World?

[Arbane]

How much will it break D&D3.5/Pathfinder if the full arcane casters (wizards, sorcerers, etc) are allowed to wear heavy armor without worrying about the Arcane Spell Failure chance?

(Yes, I know they're already stupidly powerful, the whole "NO ARMOR!" thing just seems silly to me.)

[Keld Denar]

Considering there are a dozen different ways to do it in the game already, and it doesn't make much difference, I'm gonna go with "not at all".

[Fouredged Sword]

And the number of spells that grant armor all day, and that the most powerful casters can wear armor anyway (druids and clerics).

I would think simply lacking proficency would be enough of a deterent requireing ether a feat or level tax for useing heavier armors.

Some classes like duskblade may feel slighted though, so give them something nice in return like a bonus to concentration checks while in armor or something.

[tyckspoon]

Not much, especially in 3.5; it's already possible (and relatively low-cost) to either get 0% ASF in heavy armor or take a class that ignores ASF in armor, and doing it for lighter armor grades is nearly trivial. In Pathfinder-only it would be more significant, just because it doesn't have the resources for ASF reduction that are in the 3.5 canon (and the ones that are there kinda suck- spend a feat, get to use your swift actions all day erryday for partial reduction? I'll stick with no armor, thanks.)

That said, it'd still feel weird to just say 'ASF no longer exists, have fun and don't forget to dip/take a feat for the proficiency.' Not terribly unbalanced, but weird.

[Andreaz]

It'll spare them a spell slot at early levels. Or the hundred or so G worth of scrolls they'd use over time.

To an extent, this is already true without any effort on the character's class and feats: Mithral Buckler + Twilight Mithral shirt = armored and casting.


At higher levels it won't even do that. With the right feat or two a wiz can prepare all spells stilled without adjusting level or costing caster levels.

So... yes, they'd gain some power, but it wouldn't really change the way the casters compare to other classes in power. Kinda like adding a drop of blood into the ocean, you know?

[Fouredged Sword]

What if you included a extra feat tax - something like armored mage specialisation. Requires armor prof light medium or heavy armor and allows you to ignore the ASF for all armor you are proficent in.

It would work well in an armor as DR/- setting if you wanted everyone to benifit from the same rules.

Then again, melee can't have nice things and spellcasters seem to get the few that they DO get.

Then back to the other hand - Clerics.

[sreservoir]

the armor thing isn't actually a balancing point; it's mostly just flavor.

[Fouredged Sword]

It would come into play at lower levels, but by high level anything attacking without a touch attack has a silly high to hit anyway that a +8 armor bonus won't do enough.

[Hazzardevil]

The person who wrote the Hexblade said he thought a caster in armour would be broken, he said they weren't, but they are, but casters without armour also break the game. Whether or not a caster wears armour, they will break the game.

[Yuki Akuma]

Pretty sure mages not being able to wear armour is also a Jack Vance thing - the metal interferes with their magic, or something.

So yeah it's just flavour. Just like Druids being unable to wear metal armour or Priests pre third edition not being allowed to use edged weapons.

[Morty]

It's definetly going to help low-level wizards and sorcerers more than the mid-to-high level ones. On low levels, a few more points of Armor Class will go a long way to keep their d4/level hit points above 0; on high levels they have more than enough ways to protect themselves without armor or negate ASF.

[darksolitaire]

So yeah it's just flavour. Just like Druids being unable to wear metal armour or Priests pre third edition not being allowed to use edged weapons.

The part about priest not using edged weapons has basis in real world. I remember reading somewhere that Christian priests marching along crusader armies would participate in fighting against Islamic armies, but it was inappropriate for them to shed blood. Therefore they only used blunt weapons.

[Yuki Akuma]

Yes. It's also entirely flavour and has no real mechanical bearing at all, which was my point.

[sreservoir]

keeping low-level casters alive isn't a bad thing, you know.

[NNescio]

The part about priest not using edged weapons has basis in real world. I remember reading somewhere that Christian priests marching along crusader armies would participate in fighting against Islamic armies, but it was inappropriate for them to shed blood. Therefore they only used blunt weapons.

That's a freaking myth. It mostly stemmed from the Bayeaux Tapestry depicting Bishop Odo wielding a club, but medieval illustrations are also rife with examples of clergy using pointed or edged weapons, like the Vita Karoli Magni (a person with a mitre is shown wielding a spear), and the Chanson de Roland in particular (Conrad the Priest, Archbishop Turpin).

[/pet peeve]

[Fouredged Sword]

The sword was at times considered holy becuse it was the shape of a cross if held point down.

Cultures have put restrictions on priests in combat on and off for years and all of them make little sense. Sometimes priests from difrent areas had difrent restictions they placed apon themselves in the same time period and from the same culture.

Cristianity has a diverse and complecated history of rules that various groups followed throughout it's history.

[Drachasor]

That's a freaking myth. It mostly stemmed from the Bayeaux Tapestry depicting Bishop Odo wielding a club, but medieval illustrations are also rife with examples of clergy using pointed or edged weapons, like the Vita Karoli Magni (a person with a mitre is shown wielding a spear), and the Chanson de Roland in particular (Conrad the Priest, Archbishop Turpin).

Also, it is very silly to propose that blunt weapon is magically not going to shed any blood.

[Frosty]

It's not really the end of the world, but there ought to be some tradeoffs. For example, you should homebrew 3 feats that allow casters to, as a Swift action, ignore ASF for Light, Medium, and Heavy armor respectively, and those feats require the appropriate armor proficiencies.

It's a tradeoff because you need a LOT of feats, and you can't cast quickened spells (or use a host of other swift-action abilities).

[Cog]

Also, it is very silly to propose that blunt weapon is magically not going to shed any blood.
I imagine the intent is to not "shed blood" in a very literal sense. It's not supposed to be less lethal, merely, uh, "differently lethal". Concussions and broken bones seem less likely to be bloody injuries than being stabbed full of holes or having an appendage sliced (half) off; I don't know enough in this area to declare that it's certainly the case, but it doesn't seem particularly silly, either.

As for the original topic, I find it to be a lot like saying "half BAB doesn't really hold the casters back, so we should really just give everybody full BAB anyway".

[Drachasor]

I imagine the intent is to not "shed blood" in a very literal sense. It's not supposed to be less lethal, merely, uh, "differently lethal". Concussions and broken bones seem less likely to be bloody injuries than being stabbed full of holes or having an appendage sliced (half) off; I don't know enough in this area to declare that it's certainly the case, but it doesn't seem particularly silly, either.

It's still pretty darn silly. Blunt force trauma is still quite nasty.


As for the original topic, I find it to be a lot like saying "half BAB doesn't really hold the casters back, so we should really just give everybody full BAB anyway".

You could give everyone full BAB with very little effect on game balance. I don't think it is a particular bad idea to do this combined with fixing what's actually broken. One thing I appreciate about 4th is that everyone is on the same BAB track and they use that for different things.

[faceroll]

A low level halfling wizard with the shield spell and mage armor cast has an AC comparable to a fighter in full plate.

A wizard blowing 1500 in cash to boost his AC at those levels seems a little expensive, and he won't have proficiency. When 1500 gp becomes trivial, the wizard is using greater mirror image and flying and other cool stuff to avoid damage, as opposed to another +4 ac from being in plate.

[Cog]

Blunt force trauma is still quite nasty.
Still quite possibly not the point. Blood often has significant connotations, if you're taking a more metaphysical approach to things (I don't, but presumably those backing this interpretation of history do); it's that particular act that is considered undesirable.

A Game of Thrones, in the first book and in the TV show, handled this topic at one point.


You could give everyone full BAB with very little effect on game balance. I don't think it is a particular bad idea to do this combined with fixing what's actually broken.
This is pretty much my thought on it, too. Obviously, though, it's that second part that's the bigger investment. So, my reaction to something like this is, "Okay, if you're going to do that for those classes, what are you doing for the ones that really need help?"


A low level halfling wizard with the shield spell and mage armor cast has an AC comparable to a fighter in full plate.
A low-level wizard spending more than one first-level spell slots per fight on AC is doing a whole lot of avoiding actual encounter resolution.

[Mikka]

How much will it break D&D3.5/Pathfinder if the full martial classes (Fighters, barbarians, etc) are allowed to have full casting progression without worrying about the taking any actual level in caster classes? Why not just give fighters divine and arcane spells with Ur-Priest progression?

[Drachasor]

Still quite possibly not the point. Blood often has significant connotations, if you're taking a more metaphysical approach to things (I don't, but presumably those backing this interpretation of history do); it's that particular act that is considered undesirable.

A Game of Thrones, in the first book and in the TV show, handled this topic at one point.

Hmm, can't remember what they said in the book. Anyhow, my point was that blunt weapons of war will cause bleeding. Not as much as something sharp, but it isn't like trying to kill someone with a baseball bat isn't going to be a bloody affair.


This is pretty much my thought on it, too. Obviously, though, it's that second part that's the bigger investment. So, my reaction to something like this is, "Okay, if you're going to do that for those classes, what are you doing for the ones that really need help?"

Yarp.

[faceroll]

A low-level wizard spending more than one first-level spell slots per fight on AC is doing a whole lot of avoiding actual encounter resolution.

Mage Armor, by level 5, virtually lasts all day. When it's not up, you're getting attacked in your sleep or something equally lame, and the real issue is being helpless and unconscious and out of spells.

So that only leaves you spending one spell per combat on AC (shield). You can scroll that, wand that, or just chump cast it if you're using shenanigans for lots of intelligence.

If the wizard only faces one encounter a day, he is spending 2 spells on AC per combat. If he faces 100 encounters per day, then he is only spending 1.01 spells on AC per day.

[Coidzor]

Not at all, as the designers themselves actually began to realize this as they went on in 3.5

[faceroll]

Not at all, as the designers themselves actually began to realize this as they went on in 3.5

Yeah, once you're over T4, the mundane stuff isn't that big of a deal.

[ericgrau]

Crazy as it may seem, assume for a moment you are playing in a gaming group where casters are not all powerful and invulnerable with or without armor. Then squishy clothies are a bit of a staple. You can get around it with a drawback using still spell if you really want. Never in my entire life have I seen an in-person gaming group where arcane casters weren't challenged and afraid of dying like everyone else, and it's uncommon to hear about such, but everyone on the internet seems to act like the opposite is the norm.

I have seen the ways to do it with spells before, and it amounted to hey look for 30 minutes a day I can have more AC than the melee, arcane casters can do everything better. Except it took most of the arcane caster's spells to do it and there's not much left to do anything actually useful. And once he gets higher level spells that much AC is below par.

[Coidzor]

Crazy as it may seem, assume for a moment you are playing in a gaming group where casters are not all powerful and invulnerable with or without armor.

I already play in a group like that and I still hold the view that ASF is, ultimately meaningless.

[ericgrau]

Meh, then call it stupid conceptually, but at least accept that the arcane casters should remain just as vulnerable in your group.

Or is the confusion from not knowing the four cheap +5 magic items and/or misc. sources to get 20 or more AC over 20 levels and keep AC relevant?

[Coidzor]

Meh, then call it stupid conceptually, but at least accept that the arcane casters should remain just as vulnerable in your group.

No. I see no reason for it. Something that's a serious threat is not going to be noticeably slowed down, even if a wizard was wearing full-plate, the same as the fighter's AC is not going to be relevant unless he takes special pains and dumps a huge amount of his wealth into it.

And, well, mooks are mooks. I don't really care for them in most cases and I see no reason why one would want mooks to be a credible threat to anyone if they're going to be mooks.

[Hazzardevil]

Hmm, can't remember what they said in the book. Anyhow, my point was that blunt weapons of war will cause bleeding. Not as much as something sharp, but it isn't like trying to kill someone with a baseball bat isn't going to be a bloody affair.
I thinkit would mostly be the battle clergy (As they were called) would usually
not kill much and would more often give wounds were the enemy wouldn't gety up again and have someone else finish them off afterwards.
The whole priests using blunt weapons was because it was written a priest shall not spill blood. That was widely interpreted as they shouldn't kill. But someone interpreted that as they litterally shouldn't spill someones blood on the floor.
I'm pretty sure it started rules debates like on this forum.

[molten_dragon]

Letting wizards/sorcerers wear armor isn't going to have that much of an effect on the game overall. Melee is still going to be a bad place for an arcane spellcaster to be, and wizards/sorcerers have much better ways of protecting themselves from nasty melee critters than AC.

[Groverfield]

A low level halfling wizard with the shield spell and mage armor cast has an AC comparable to a fighter in full plate.

A wizard blowing 1500 in cash to boost his AC at those levels seems a little expensive, and he won't have proficiency. When 1500 gp becomes trivial, the wizard is using greater mirror image and flying and other cool stuff to avoid damage, as opposed to another +4 ac from being in plate.


it's +3... +5 Full plate is 13 AC to armor... mages probably have Bracers with +10, and a permanent (or persisted) shield for +14 if they get picked on in combat a lot... so it's more of a -1 for Fighters, who likely don't use that shield bonus to AC because rare is it a DM actually rolls or gives out a no-hands shield.

[faceroll]

it's +3... +5 Full plate is 13 AC to armor... mages probably have Bracers with +10, and a permanent (or persisted) shield for +14 if they get picked on in combat a lot... so it's more of a -1 for Fighters, who likely don't use that shield bonus to AC because rare is it a DM actually rolls or gives out a no-hands shield.

Actually, +5 full plate is 5 enhancement armor bonus and 8 armor bonus. I was assuming getting +5 enhancement bonus from Magic Vestment from the party cleric, who prepared it for himself, and the level 3 pearl of of power you purchased let him reprepare it and cast it for you.

The armor bonus could be replicated with either mage armor, greater mage armor, luminous armor, or greater luminous armor.

Luminous Armor pretty much makes any mundane armor a mage would want to wear rather trivial. No ASF, ACP, max dex bonus, and a tasty -4 penalty on melee attackers. Makes you glow like the sun, though.

[Groverfield]

Actually, +5 full plate is 5 enhancement armor bonus and 8 armor bonus. I was assuming getting +5 enhancement bonus from Magic Vestment from the party cleric, who prepared it for himself, and the level 3 pearl of of power you purchased let him reprepare it and cast it for you.

The armor bonus could be replicated with either mage armor, greater mage armor, luminous armor, or greater luminous armor.

Luminous Armor pretty much makes any mundane armor a mage would want to wear rather trivial. No ASF, ACP, max dex bonus, and a tasty -4 penalty on melee attackers. Makes you glow like the sun, though.

Enhancement bonuses do not stack. +5 full plate gives the same amount of AC, which is 13 (8 Armor +5 enhancement to armor) as +1 full plate with magic vestment (8 Armor +5 enhancement to armor) reads as "13 Armor" on the character sheet.

It's like having an 18 INT and a headband of INT +6. You have 24 INT, even though it's not your permanent score.

I'm not sure what Luminous is from, but I think it's BoED, which decided to not be balanced in exchange that the player be "extra good..." and most players/DMs I've been around don't allow that pair of books.

[faceroll]

Enhancement bonuses do not stack. +5 full plate gives the same amount of AC, which is 13 (8 Armor +5 enhancement to armor) as +1 full plate with magic vestment (8 Armor +5 enhancement to armor) reads as "13 Armor" on the character sheet.

It's like having an 18 INT and a headband of INT +6. You have 24 INT, even though it's not your permanent score.

You're not getting it bro. I don't need to be wearing armor to get that +5 armor enhancement bonus that you might foolishly put on your plate. You just need a friend with access to 3rd level cleric spells and a 9,000gp item.

I cast mage armor. That is +4 armor. Cleric puts magic vestments on my robes. That's +9 armor. I have used 1 spell slot and a 9,000 gp. Fighter has full plate and a pearl of power as well. That is +13 AC. As you can see, a +4 AC difference if you're doing things the smart way.

We can narrow that to a +2 difference if the wizard wants to use greater mage armor (3rd level slot).


I'm not sure what Luminous is from, but I think it's BoED, which decided to not be balanced in exchange that the player be "extra good..." and most players/DMs I've been around don't allow that pair of books.

You just have to be good to get the spells (TBH, I actually don't think that's a rule in the book). You definitely have to be a good creature to be the recipient of luminous armor, though.

Any other caveats you want to keep introducing or house rules you forgot to mention that we're all playing by?

[Groverfield]

You're not getting it bro. I don't need to be wearing armor to get that +5 armor enhancement bonus that you might foolishly put on your plate. You just need a friend with access to 3rd level cleric spells and a 9,000gp item.

I cast mage armor. That is +4 armor. Cleric puts magic vestments on my robes. That's +9 armor. I have used 1 spell slot and a 9,000 gp. Fighter has full plate and a pearl of power as well. That is +13 AC. As you can see, a +4 AC difference if you're doing things the smart way.

We can narrow that to a +2 difference if the wizard wants to use greater mage armor (3rd level slot).

You're right, the way you worded it made it seem like you were casting Magic Vestments on the full plate.



You just have to be good to get the spells (TBH, I actually don't think that's a rule in the book). You definitely have to be a good creature to be the recipient of luminous armor, though.

Any other caveats you want to keep introducing or house rules you forgot to mention that we're all playing by?

I thought it was limited to 3.5/PF sources, as well as the short time I spent in these forums, I kinda got the same impression from most of the posters was to not bring up 3e sources unless the thread specifically mentioned it... and considering post #1 said "a 3.5 or pathfinder game"...

[Xtomjames]

How much will it break D&D3.5/Pathfinder if the full arcane casters (wizards, sorcerers, etc) are allowed to wear heavy armor without worrying about the Arcane Spell Failure chance?

(Yes, I know they're already stupidly powerful, the whole "NO ARMOR!" thing just seems silly to me.)

I'm in agreement with Keld (second post in the thread) and will say not at all. Spellcasters tend to use Mage Armor which offers better protections usually in comparison to normal mundane armor without; any loss to dex, arcane spell failure, or armor check penalty.

In fact allowing full on normal armor without arcane spellfailure would actually balance the game out a bit by causing them to have to take the armor check penalty to their physical skills.

[TwylyghT]

I thought it was limited to 3.5/PF sources, as well as the short time I spent in these forums, I kinda got the same impression from most of the posters was to not bring up 3e sources unless the thread specifically mentioned it... and considering post #1 said "a 3.5 or pathfinder game"...

For what it's worth, BoED *is* counted as 3.5 going to press 3 months after the 3.5 PHB hit shelves. Pretty certain it was the first 3.5 book released that wasn't part of the core 3.

[Groverfield]

For what it's worth, BoED *is* counted as 3.5 going to press 3 months after the 3.5 PHB hit shelves. Pretty certain it was the first 3.5 book released that wasn't part of the core 3.

Huh, apparently this is true, though the book uses 3.0 edition rules and framework... I guess this gets an NBC "The more you know" flying star type deal.

Edit: or maybe just framework, I can't seem to find the DR 10/+2 that I could've sworn was in the book... everything seems to be DR/evil.

[TwylyghT]

It does have that caught between feel to it like they had it half way done when the memo came down for 3.5 and didn't bother starting over and just gave it a once over and missed a lot.

[Yuki Akuma]

The Book of Exalted Deeds (and, so a greater extent, the Book of Vile Darkness) is this weird mish-mash of 3.5 and 3e. It's totally compatible with 3.5, though, as (for instance) none of the monsters have 3e-style DR and such.

[Wings of Peace]

I would actually say that in a higher-op game wearing armor is a detriment since (short of some absurd epic armor) the armor bonus granted by your armor will never be as great as what your spells can give you and the two sources won't stack.

[TwylyghT]

Well if you already have the feats/class abilities/house rule to cast without being hindered, nothing really stops you from wearing armor AND using the superior spell protections. They wont stack, but it is still there if your spells get bypassed/dispelled. Even if it only means they miss you on a 3 or less instead of only a 1, that triples your chances at being missed lol.

[Gnaeus]

Mage Armor, by level 5, virtually lasts all day. When it's not up, you're getting attacked in your sleep or something equally lame, and the real issue is being helpless and unconscious and out of spells.


Masterwork studded leather is only 1 point of AC less. The 15% spell failure chance means that a first level focused specialist with 20 int has a 45% chance of not losing a spell for that day if he casts all 5 of his first level spells. Maybe less if he picks any of the spells like identify or benign transposition which have no somatic components or are cast out of combat. Has the side benefit of working against unexpected attacks, or even nighttime ambushes.

[Fox Box Socks]

My experience (which seems to mirror WotC's later additions to the game) is that arcane casters in heavy armor is the kind of thing that's more overpowered in theory than it is in practice.

[Dsurion]

Eh, giving casters armor doesn't really do anything for or against the game. However, I'm firmly of the opinion that casters don't need more Nice Things.

[tyckspoon]

I would actually say that in a higher-op game wearing armor is a detriment since (short of some absurd epic armor) the armor bonus granted by your armor will never be as great as what your spells can give you and the two sources won't stack.

AC isn't really the point of armor in a higher-level/higher-op game anyway; loading armor special abilities on there is. Your armor can be your source of Freedom of Movement/Energy Drain Immunity/huge save bonuses/DR/tactical teleportation/lots of other stuff. The main benefit of skipping ASF for casters is that they don't have to pay the entry tax of Mithral/Twilight/Thistledown Padding before they can start using those enhancements.

[Coidzor]

Or just gettin' 'em on dastana.

yay, dastana.
The Book of Exalted Deeds (and, so a greater extent, the Book of Vile Darkness) is this weird mish-mash of 3.5 and 3e. It's totally compatible with 3.5, though, as (for instance) none of the monsters have 3e-style DR and such.

IIRC, BoVD has the Corpse and Bone creatures which have old, 3e style half damage from certain attacks like zomblebees and skeletons. But, yeah, other than a 3 minute tweak on those two templates...