[3.5] Light Armor Proficiency on Sorcerer - Yes\No

[bendking]

Question lies in the title, ladies and gents.
I do realize some people might think I'm trolling, I am in fact not.
That +3 AC from Studded Leather armor is pretty good.

[Troacctid]

The main drawback to nonproficiency is a penalty to attack rolls. If you're not using rays or touch spells, you could just suck it up and wear the armor without being proficient--it's not that big a penalty. And if your armor doesn't have an armor check penalty, it doesn't even matter whether you're proficient.

[weckar]

If you will mostly be using Vocal-only spells, you might even fit yourself snugly into a suit of heavy armour.

[Gildedragon]

also mage armor eternal wand is cheap and gives you a better AC.

[Pan151]

There already is a battle sorcerer variant. Can wear light armor with no arcane spell failure, knows and can cast fewer spells.

Although, if you really want some armor, why not just use the mage armor spell?

[weckar]

Or go with a variant sorcerer? (warmage, beguiler and I think Dread necro all get light armor at the least)

[Gildedragon]

Or into Runesmith prc

If ASF isn't a worry just put on the heaviest gear you can and trundle along.

[137beth]

No:
a)Mage armor is better and requires no feats.
b)ASF is a much bigger deal that a small AC boost.
c)Against many monsters the AC boost won't matter at all, since they'll still hit on a natural two.
d)If for some reason you still want to wear physical armor, the attack roll penalty from being nonproficient won't actually hurt you.

[nedz]

Offence > Defence and Spells > Mundane
+3 AC from Studded Leather armor is pretty poor actually.
FWIW There is a feat which will allow you to wear Medium Armour, but there's still the ASF.

Mage Armour lasts 1 hour / level and grants +4 AC — I don't usually bother with this even.
Mirror Image is better, but having more offensive options is better still.
I'd sooner have more BC spells so that the opponents can't even get to or see me.

Now the rules change if you are building a Gish

[Tohsaka Rin]

Just be a Psion.

Really. Just as good as a Sorcerer, no arcane spell failure, because psionics.

Wear whatever armor you wish, just like a Cleric.

[ericgrau]

It has some uses for level 1-3. When foes have a +1 to hit, if you have a decent dex too you're preventing around 30% of hits (rolling a 12-20 => rolling a 15-20 = 33% of hits prevented) at levels when you're deathy afraid of death. All in exchange for only 15% spell failure. And as pointed out you don't need proficiency to try it, as long as you don't use attack rolls. At level 4 or so mage armor is much better. Even at level 1-3 if you can surround yourself with 3-4 tough allies front and back to prevent attacks then it may not be worth it.

[Andezzar]

There already is a battle sorcerer variant. Can wear light armor with no arcane spell failure, knows and can cast fewer spells.You can also buy Armor without ACP and ASF, So non-proficiency is irrelevant. +1 Twilight Mithral Chainshirt does the trick. I'm pretty sure you can get something similar even cheaper than 5100 gp.

So no, wasting a Feat on Light Armor Proficiency is not worth it.

For wizards that is an even more resounding no, since they can cast (Greater) Lumious Armor and buy an Eternal Wand of Lesser Restoration.

[Val666]

Dip one level of spellthief, get the Master spellthief feat. Now you can wear light armor without ASF

[Agincourt]

For wizards that is an even more resounding no, since they can cast (Greater) Lumious Armor and buy an Eternal Wand of Lesser Restoration.
That is DM dependent on allowing some sort of shenanigan since neither Luminous Armor nor Greater Luminous Armor are on the Wiz/Sor spell list. He would also have a problem buying an Eternal Wand of Lesser Restoration since eternal wands must be an arcane spell.

[Starmage21]

That is DM dependent on allowing some sort of shenanigan since neither Luminous Armor nor Greater Luminous Armor are on the Wiz/Sor spell list. He would also have a problem buying an Eternal Wand of Lesser Restoration since eternal wands must be an arcane spell.

Do Eternal Wands specifically state that it must be an arcane spell? IIRC theyre just a different way to do wand charges.

[Agincourt]

Do Eternal Wands specifically state that it must be an arcane spell? IIRC theyre just a different way to do wand charges.

Yes, from their description in Magic Item Compendium (159), "An eternal wand holds a single arcane spell of 3rd level or lower..."

[Andezzar]

That is DM dependent on allowing some sort of shenanigan since neither Luminous Armor nor Greater Luminous Armor are on the Wiz/Sor spell list. He would also have a problem buying an Eternal Wand of Lesser Restoration since eternal wands must be an arcane spell.There are no shenanigans here, just application of the rules:
Sanctified spells are specific to no character class. They are neither inherently arcane nor divine spells. A divine caster casting a sanctified spell casts it as a divine spell, while an arcane caster casts it as an arcane spell.
While wizards, druids, rangers, and paladins can all prepare sanctified spells, clerics have a special advantage: they can spontaneously cast any sanctified spell, just as they can spontaneously cast cure wounds spells.

Spellcasting: Knights of the Weave cast arcane spells like a sorcerer (you use your Charisma score to determine bonus spells per day, save DCs, and so on).

Knights of the Weave choose their spells from the following
list.
1st Level—bless, bless weapon, charm person, command, comprehend languages, cure light wounds, divine favor, lesser restoration, mage armor, magic missile, magic weapon, read magic, shield.
So unless those two books are not used at the table the combination requires no extra permission by the DM. the DM could make the Eternal Wand unavailable, but I think there are much more broken things. If all fails, buy a wand for your divine caster buddy.

For sake of completeness, this "trick" does not work well for Sorceres because they cannot cast sanctified spells, except from scrolls:
Spellcasters prepare sanctified spells just as they do regular spells, and casters who do not prepare spells
(including sorcerers and bards) cannot make use of them except from a scroll.

[Grod_The_Giant]

No. ASF is not worth it. Not at low levels, when spells/day is an actual limit, and not at high levels, when you've got better options.

[Telonius]

Well, you could eat a spellcasting level, take a level or two of Prestige Bard, and cast in light armor without spell failure.

[Jeff the Green]

Just be a Psion.

Really. Just as good as a Sorcerer, no arcane spell failure, because psionics.

Wear whatever armor you wish, just like a Cleric.

Of course, you'll get a massive penalty to attack rolls and initiative for non-proficiency.

Really, if you want to make an armored arcanist, use one of the fixed-list casters, Master Spellthief, or Duskblade.

[jedipilot24]

Question lies in the title, ladies and gents.
I do realize some people might think I'm trolling, I am in fact not.
That +3 AC from Studded Leather armor is pretty good.

If you don't mind only using non-Somatic spells or burning a feat on Still Spell, you could get the armor masterwork or better and eliminate the non-proficiency penalty.
In the long run, though, it's better to save up for a Lesser Rod of Extend Spell to use on Mage Armor.

[ArcaneGlyph]

Twilight (PHB 2) Mithral Chain Mail (DMG) would come in handy here.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Of course, you'll get a massive penalty to attack rolls and initiative for non-proficiency.

True, but rarely does one have to worry about to-hit rolls when you're dropping AoE or Save-or-Suck powers on people's heads. Touch spells take away the pain, as well.

Besides that, if you're a caster, you should already be using spells to know where, and when, threats are going to be coming at you.