PDA

View Full Version : Battlecaster



Dhavaer
2007-04-01, 03:55 AM
When is it worth getting? For what classes, for which builds and at what levels?

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-01, 05:23 AM
Duskblade is a decent choice for it. Beguiler perhaps a little less so. Note that it stacks in a slightly odd way with Spellsword. Spellsword 2 grants you the ability to ignore up to 10% of ASF, which is sort of enough to qualify for Battlecaster. However, since you can't actually normally wear any armour while casting, Battlecaster gives you the ability to wear Light armour without ASF the first time you take it. The Spellsword's anti-ASF however, allows you to use a shield in conjunction with armour, with the Ignore Spell Failure ability applying to the shield, and the Battlecaster applying to the armour you wear.

Hope that info helped.

Edit: Also works decently for Warlock and Hexblade. It's so-so for the Bard, since they tend to have higher Dexterity than the Warlock or Hex/Duskblades.

Zincorium
2007-04-01, 05:33 AM
I'd say battle sorceror and warmage are the only two that really come to mind. Dexterity isn't really a prime stat for either, they'll benefit more by being able to wear mithril plate mail than they will by trying to pump dex up to 22 to be able to use mithril chain shirts or bracers of armor to best effect.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-01, 05:46 AM
Atomic, Battle Caster doesn't work with Spellsword. "Ignore X % spell failure" doesn't qualify you for it.

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-01, 05:48 AM
Atomic, Battle Caster doesn't work with Spellsword. "Ignore X % spell failure" doesn't qualify you for it.

All it says for Battlecaster is "Ability to ignore arcane spell failure chance from armour." I'd say Spellsword2+ qualifies.

Dhavaer
2007-04-01, 05:49 AM
I don't think 'reduce' counts as ignore. I'll go check the description...

Huh. It's called 'Ignore Spell Failure' and says 'he ignores a portion...'.

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-01, 05:52 AM
Here's the relevant part. Under Ignore Spell Failure (Ex):


As an extraordinary ability, he ignores a portion of the arcane spell failure chance associated with using armour.

Relevant portions bolded by me.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-04-01, 11:41 AM
A Spellsword or Duskblade may be able to technically satisfy the feat's prerequisite, but the feat won't do anything for them, since their spell failure ability is not based on the weight category of the armor.

See also a slightly tangential but nonetheless relevant Sage Advice Online: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070329a

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-01, 12:32 PM
A Spellsword or Duskblade may be able to technically satisfy the feat's prerequisite, but the feat won't do anything for them, since their spell failure ability is not based on the weight category of the armor.

See also a slightly tangential but nonetheless relevant Sage Advice Online: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070329a

One category heavier than "normal" as in "no armour"=light armour. I thought the Duskblade fully qualified. The way I see it, Spellsword allows those who would not normally be able to qualify(Wizards, Sorcs) to take the Feat. They're still going to have to burn some proficiencies(at least to get into the class. Fighter-type class automatically qualifies them of course), and 1-2(depending on whether they needed to multiclass to gain proficiencies) levels of spellcasting progression. The Spellsword's Ignore Spell Failure ability qualifies them for the Battlecaster, then they can direct the % reduction towards the shield.

Regarding the Sage Advice, the above should work for anything with Armoured Mage as well(at least, the directing % towards shield part. Only the Duskblade doesn't benefit from Spellsword, IMO, since they get casting with both shields and light-medium armour). That's just the way I read it anyways.

Fax Celestis
2007-04-01, 12:41 PM
Spellthieves, Beguilers, and Bards ignore ASF in light armor. For the purposes of battlecaster, though:

If you're a Beguiler and you need it, you're in trouble or playing a strange character. For Spellthieves and Bards, however, it really depends on your build.

If you go, say, Spellthief/Sorceror/Spellwarp Sniper (with Master Spellthief, of course), then it could have some use. Stab your opponent, steal a spell, and blast him with it next round. If it's an AoE, now you can zap him with it as a ray, potentially getting Sneak Attack or Sudden Raystrike to sacrifice to steal another spell.

Arceliar
2007-04-01, 01:15 PM
A warlock in mithral full plate certainly look cool, both on paper and in the mind's eye.

A bard in mithral full plate would probably be hilarious.

Behold_the_Void
2007-04-01, 01:26 PM
A warlock in mithral full plate certainly look cool, both on paper and in the mind's eye.

A bard in mithral full plate would probably be hilarious.

I could make a bard like that. Make him a strength-based warrior-type, maybe have him sword-and-board or two-hand a longsword or get an even more intimidating weapon. Have him charge into battle shouting inspiration to his companions and wading into the carnage while supporting people with his limited magical abilities.

Not all bards are fops, after all ^_^

Fizban
2007-04-01, 10:17 PM
Of course, it doesn't negate the armor check penalty, so you'll still need proficiency with the next level of armor (if it's not already required for the feat, I'm not sure).