PDA

View Full Version : Arcane Spell failure for shields..



Starsinger
2007-04-19, 07:23 AM
Since I don't have my PHB on me, I'm having to rely on the SRD for this. If an arcane spell caster wants to wear a shield, is there arcane spell failure if you don't wear armor? The SRD is leading me to believe that I can wear a shield as long as I'm unarmored, and not suffer spell failure.


Arcane Spell Failure

Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component. Arcane spellcasters face the possibility of arcane spell failure if they’re wearing armor. Bards can wear light armor without incurring any arcane spell failure chance for their bard spells.
Casting an Arcane Spell in Armor

A character who casts an arcane spell while wearing armor must usually make an arcane spell failure roll. The number in the Arcane Spell Failure Chance column on Table: Armor and Shields is the chance that the spell fails and is ruined. If the spell lacks a somatic component, however, it can be cast with no chance of arcane spell failure.

Shields
If a character is wearing armor and using a shield, add the two numbers together to get a single arcane spell failure chance.

So am I reading this right?

Necromas
2007-04-19, 07:32 AM
Just because you add them together does not imply that they don't still effect you when you only have spell failure from one source.

You will always get spell failure from a shield regardless of your other equipment unless of course the shield has no spell failure chance or you have an ability to avoid it.

If you do want a shield though, a mithral buckler costs 1015gp, has no armor check penalty, and no arcane spell failure. It also leaves your hand free to cast spells. There's pretty much no reason an arcane caster wouldn't want to have a mithral buckler unless they were an abjurant champion and could cast a supped up shield spell as a swift action, but even then it could still be advantageous for the special abilities one can put on a shield.

P.S. Since the armor check penalty becomes zero, there is no penalty for wearing a mithral buckler without shield proficiency.

Dhavaer
2007-04-19, 07:53 AM
Just because you add them together does not imply that they don't still effect you when you only have spell failure from one source.

The fact that all previous mentions refer specifically to armour, on the other hand, does.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-04-19, 07:59 AM
Question:
You only need one hand free to cast spells with a somatic component. If using a heavy shield, you cannot use you hand shield for anything else. Therefore, you have to use your other hand to cast the spells. So an arcane spellcaster with a heavy shield in his left hand casts a spell with his right hand—how is it the shield messes up the somatic components of his right hand to such an extent it inflicts 15% spell failure?

Starsinger
2007-04-19, 08:07 AM
The fact that all previous mentions refer specifically to armour, on the other hand, does.

That was my thinking, Dhavaer, that shields only hinder spell casting if you have armor on.


You only need one hand free to cast spells with a somatic component. If using a heavy shield, you cannot use you hand shield for anything else. Therefore, you have to use your other hand to cast the spells. So an arcane spellcaster with a heavy shield in his left hand casts a spell with his right hand—how is it the shield messes up the somatic components of his right hand to such an extent it inflicts 15% spell failure?

Which, if I had been convinced that shields add their arcane spell failure chance regardless of armor, would have been my next question, could I wear a shield in my off hand, keep my main hand empty, and cast unimpeded? It would be the same as if I had a weapon in one hand right?

The White Knight
2007-04-19, 08:08 AM
Shhalahr: Probably the distraction of the weight on his other arm. Although with justification like that, we're cutting into the domain of the Concentration skill.

EDIT: bloody ninjas...

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-04-19, 08:22 AM
Shhalahr: Probably the distraction of the weight on his other arm. Although with justification like that, we're cutting into the domain of the Concentration skill.
More or less my thought.

Esepecially since there are a number of scenarios that could tie up one hand in a more distracting manner without affecting your ability to use your free hand for spellcasting. And even if they do cause trouble, it is usually uses the aforementioned Concentration skill rather than flat spell failure.

Person_Man
2007-04-19, 09:00 AM
You know, an animated shield specifically states that you still take the penalties associated with the shield, including spell failure, despite the fact that its floating in front of you. I'm in favor of this, since its already a cheesy item. But I really can't think of any fluff reason to support it.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-19, 11:20 AM
You aren't just *holding* the shield, you're actively using it to block stuff. That would get in the way of casting spells.

Jayabalard
2007-04-19, 02:37 PM
But I really can't think of any fluff reason to support it.It's distracting, and it bumps into your arms as you wave them around to cast a spell/move quietly, etc.

I'd guess that you're probably picturing it flying a goodly distance away, but I figure that it's more likely that it's at the same distance from you as if you were using it with a 3rd arm.

Beelzebub1111
2007-04-19, 02:39 PM
One simple solution to all this...still spell.

Jacob Orlove
2007-04-19, 03:33 PM
There's pretty much no reason an arcane caster wouldn't want to have a mithral buckler unless they were an abjurant champion and could cast a supped up shield spell as a swift action, but even then it could still be advantageous for the special abilities one can put on a shield.
Technically, using a Buckler precludes the use of a Monk's Belt. While a Buckler of Greater Fortification is a great deal at higher levels, some wizard builds are going to have a high enough Wisdom to make that belt worthwhile (especially if you're more concerned with touch AC than normal AC). In general, though, I agree; Mithril Bucklers are the optimized choice for wizards.

Indon
2007-04-19, 03:58 PM
You know, an animated shield specifically states that you still take the penalties associated with the shield, including spell failure, despite the fact that its floating in front of you. I'm in favor of this, since its already a cheesy item. But I really can't think of any fluff reason to support it.

Magic is heavy!

Personally, bucklers of fortification have never really made much sense to me. I mean, how does this disc of metal strapped to your arm protect your kidney from a dagger being shoved into it, or make that dagger hurt any less?

Cruiser1
2007-04-19, 04:21 PM
I mean, how does this disc of metal strapped to your arm protect your kidney from a dagger being shoved into it, or make that dagger hurt any less?For the same reason that a shield of Acid Resistance prevents damage to your feet when you step in a puddle of acid: It's magic. The item creates a magic aura that protects you from acid, or blunts the damage from a dagger when it's shoved into your kidney.

Concerning why you have arcane spell failure from a shield even when your other hand is free, and even from an animated shield that leaves both your hands free, let's consider why armor has arcane spell failure in the first place. It's not just due to limiting your movements. When you cast a spell, you draw arcane energies into yourself from the environment. A shield or armor interferes with those lines of power, and has a chance of cutting them off altogether, potentially making the spell fail. Still Spell or spells without somatic components allow you to draw that power in a more precise fashion that bypasses such obstructions.

Kantolin
2007-04-19, 07:31 PM
Shhalahr: Probably the distraction of the weight on his other arm.
Not to mention, a Buckler weighs in at an amazing 5lbs. Comparably, holding a small variety of weapons weighs more than 5lbs, not to mention they're likely a bit more unweildly. So a buckler distracts your spellcasting, but a longsword doesn't?

Either way, by a strict reading of that in particular, I think the only RAW defense is that it includes shields in the set of 'Armor' descriptions. That, and the fairly probable fact that they intended for Shield ACF to apply whether or not you wear armor, but hey. ^_^


Edit: It was stated:


When you cast a spell, you draw arcane energies into yourself from the environment. A shield or armor interferes with those lines of power, and has a chance of cutting them off altogether, potentially making the spell fail.

Which would make more sense if RAW didn't say:



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


Which pretty much suggests that the problem is armour restricts movement.

Starsinger
2007-04-19, 07:32 PM
Concerning why you have arcane spell failure from a shield even when your other hand is free, and even from an animated shield that leaves both your hands free, let's consider why armor has arcane spell failure in the first place. It's not just due to limiting your movements. When you cast a spell, you draw arcane energies into yourself from the environment. A shield or armor interferes with those lines of power, and has a chance of cutting them off altogether, potentially making the spell fail. Still Spell or spells without somatic components allow you to draw that power in a more precise fashion that bypasses such obstructions.

Fluff wise perhaps. However Still Spell doesn't say, "You've learned how to channel magic energies through your armor". It specifically says
Still Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit
A stilled spell can be cast with no somatic components.
Spells without somatic components are not affected. A stilled spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.

And somatic components are defined as
Somatic (S)
A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

And underneath Spellfailure in the SRD (maybe it explicitly says otherwise in the PHB, I'll check later, when I have mine back)
Spell Failure

If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is wasted.
Spells also fail if your concentration is broken and might fail if you’re wearing armor while casting a spell with somatic components.

Everything seems to point in the direction that shields only provide spell failure while wearing armor. I'm willing to assume that armor interferes with spellcasting due to maybe limiting how you can move your arm, or something.

But I really don't see why you can't wear a shield instead of a weapon, and be unimpeded, except possibly what Tor the Fallen said (forgive me I haven't figured out how to quote two different people and display their names)

You aren't just *holding* the shield, you're actively using it to block stuff. That would get in the way of casting spells But that honestly to me, sounds more like a Concentration check sort of spell failure, one that would probably effect Clerics and Druids too, since you're concentrating on not getting stabbed more than casting a spell.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-19, 07:33 PM
Magic is heavy!

Personally, bucklers of fortification have never really made much sense to me. I mean, how does this disc of metal strapped to your arm protect your kidney from a dagger being shoved into it, or make that dagger hurt any less?

Well, let's see:



Fortification

This suit of armor or shield produces a magical force that protects vital areas of the wearer more effectively.

It's magic. It covers your kidney in a forcefield.

nooblade
2007-04-19, 07:43 PM
But that honestly to me, sounds more like a Concentration check sort of spell failure, one that would probably effect Clerics and Druids too, since you're concentrating on not getting stabbed more than casting a spell.

Except that druids and clerics can wear armor freely since casting their spells is simpler as far as somatic components go. All the time you see pictures of clerics holding their shields and maces and still casting something, which doesn't go in with the rules exactly, but still kinda looks better than dropping something.

I don't see any problem with not using the shield's AC bonus for a round to cast a spell without spell failure though. But I don't think I'm ever going to make a wizard that goes against the norm like that. Do wizards standardly get the mithral buckler now? How lame is that.

Starsinger
2007-04-19, 07:54 PM
But whether or not a Cleric of Druid has to wave their hands in funny ways to cast spells, actively blocking with a shield seems like it should be a concentration check, since you're y'know, trying hard not to get stabbed. Maybe they aren't blocking as hard as they should be since they're armored?

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-19, 10:01 PM
5lbs is actually pretty sizeable.

A sack of rice about 24 inches high, 12 inches wide, and around 3 inches thick weighs about 10lbs(actually, it's 5 kg, so 11). If you were to take half a sack and strap it to your arm, I guarantee you will have trouble keeping it in front of your chest/face while performing some intricate task(like say tattooing someone), unless you practice a lot of weight-lifting(and even then, still gets in the way), which most Wizards don't.

Edit: Just tried swinging my 5 kg Dumbbell in both hands the way one would a two-bladed sword(10 lbs). Man, that was tiring. I could barely keep it up for 10 rounds, and I was only doing 2 attacks a round with it. :P

Matthew
2007-04-19, 10:11 PM
For most intents and purposes Shields are classed as Armour in D&D, they are primarily listed on the Armour Tables. They have an Armour Check Penalty, unlike Weapons, and an Arcane Spell Failure Chance. The text about the Armour Check Penalty is exactly as ambiguous. A strict reading will suggest the possibility that you don't have an Armour Check Penalty when using a Shield without wearing Armour, until, that is, you realise that 'Armour' has two meanings in D&D. The broadest meaning encompasses Shields, whilst the secondary meaning distinguishes 'Body Armour' from 'Shields'.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-19, 10:31 PM
5lbs is actually pretty sizeable.

A sack of rice about 24 inches high, 12 inches wide, and around 3 inches thick weighs about 10lbs(actually, it's 5 kg, so 11). If you were to take half a sack and strap it to your arm, I guarantee you will have trouble keeping it in front of your chest/face while performing some intricate task(like say tattooing someone), unless you practice a lot of weight-lifting(and even then, still gets in the way), which most Wizards don't.

Edit: Just tried swinging my 5 kg Dumbbell in both hands the way one would a two-bladed sword(10 lbs). Man, that was tiring. I could barely keep it up for 10 rounds, and I was only doing 2 attacks a round with it. :P

Well, to be fair (even though D&D has ridiculously heavy gear), your dumbbell is weighted wrong. You can't hold a dumbbell in such a manner as to balance the one end against the other, like you can with a sword's blade and its hilt.

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-19, 11:10 PM
Well, to be fair (even though D&D has ridiculously heavy gear), your dumbbell is weighted wrong. You can't hold a dumbbell in such a manner as to balance the one end against the other, like you can with a sword's blade and its hilt.

I was referring to the Darth Maul-esque double-sword, actually. Granted, it would be closer to a bamboo clothes-pole than a dumbbell, but the point still stands. If you had half a dumbbell strapped to your forearm, it would most definitely interfere with your sense of balance, and very likely any somatic gestures a mage could use.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-19, 11:14 PM
Yes, especially a mage that doesn't have proficiency with the shield.

Necromas
2007-04-19, 11:25 PM
For most intents and purposes Shields are classed as Armour in D&D, they are primarily listed on the Armour Tables. They have an Armour Check Penalty, unlike Weapons, and an Arcane Spell Failure Chance. The text about the Armour Check Penalty is exactly as ambiguous. A strict reading will suggest the possibility that you don't have an Armour Check Penalty when using a Shield without wearing Armour, until, that is, you realise that 'Armour' has two meanings in D&D. The broadest meaning encompasses Shields, whilst the secondary meaning distinguishes 'Body Armour' from 'Shields'.

Instead of flaming the other posts I'm just going to praise this one. Yay common sense!

Kantolin
2007-04-20, 02:35 AM
If you had half a dumbbell strapped to your forearm, it would most definitely interfere with your sense of balance, and very likely any somatic gestures a mage could use.
But it doesn't if you are weilding a 6lb battleaxe, 6lb heavy pick, 5lb flail, or 4lb longsword. Not even a little.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-20, 02:41 AM
But it doesn't if you are weilding a 6lb battleaxe, 6lb heavy pick, 5lb flail, or 4lb longsword. Not even a little.

Assumably, smashing someone with an axe requires less finesse than the intricate motions of magery.

That would also explain why only light weapons can be finessed.

Kantolin
2007-04-20, 02:47 AM
I will rephrase my statement.

A wizard who is holding a battleaxe in one hand does not suffer even the slightest of arcane spell failure, and a battleaxe is heavier than a shield.

Dhavaer
2007-04-20, 02:47 AM
Assumably, smashing someone with an axe requires less finesse than the intricate motions of magery.

No, he means that a heavy weapon doesn't interfere, while a heavy shield does.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-20, 02:49 AM
I will rephrase my statement.

A wizard who is holding a battleaxe in one hand does not suffer even the slightest of arcane spell failure, and a battleaxe is heavier than a shield.

Presumably because the wizard is not using the battleaxe to block anything.

Have you ever sparred? You don't just *hold* the shield, you have to hold it up, brace against the blows, move it to block, etc. In other words, the AC bonus you get from a shield isn't passive- you have to work for it.

Kantolin
2007-04-20, 02:52 AM
No, but the wizard is threatening squares in combat with said battleaxe, potentially to the point of providing flanking. The ability to threaten squares also requires one to work towards it - the PHB suggests this fairly clearly.

Starsinger
2007-04-20, 02:52 AM
Presumably because the wizard is not using the battleaxe to block anything.

Have you ever sparred? You don't just *hold* the shield, you have to hold it up, brace against the blows, move it to block, etc. In other words, the AC bonus you get from a shield isn't passive- you have to work for it.

Again that sounds more like a Concentration check due to violent motion than Arcane Spell Failure because you can't wave your hand.

Darkxarth
2007-04-20, 02:53 AM
I will rephrase my statement.

A wizard who is holding a battleaxe in one hand does not suffer even the slightest of arcane spell failure, and a battleaxe is heavier than a shield.

Yes, but a wizard can hold a weapon however is most comfortable while casting a spell (since he can't cast and fight in the same turn) but he must hold a shield up in the air and position it so that he can protect himself, and thus it interferes more than a weapon would.

EDIT: Anyway, while the text might not be as specific as some would like, the intent is that shields incur an arcane spell failure penalty even when used without armor.

Kantolin
2007-04-20, 02:55 AM
Yes, but a wizard can hold a weapon however is most comfortable while casting a spell (since he can't cast and fight in the same turn) but he must hold a shield up in the air and position it so that he can protect himself
Arguably. Either way, it's certainly not the weight nor distribution that is causing the problem, as the shield is if anything more balanced for the purpose of just holding it there than a weapon. Not to mention it's rather hard to hold a longsword in anything resembling casual relaxation.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-20, 02:55 AM
Again that sounds more like a Concentration check due to violent motion than Arcane Spell Failure because you can't wave your hand.

And intelligence is divided into two discrete categories, further binned into discrete units from 0 to infinity.

What's up with that?

And let's not even start on hit points....

Darkxarth
2007-04-20, 02:57 AM
Arguably. Either way, it's certainly not the weight nor distribution that is causing the problem, as the shield is if anything more balanced for the purpose of just holding it there than a weapon. Not to mention it's rather hard to hold a longsword in anything resembling casual relaxation.

Hold it at your side and let the tip rest on the ground, thereby relieving some weight.

But, of course, brings up the argument of how a Wizard holding a weapon in one hand can cast a spell and threaten squares at the same time.

Kantolin
2007-04-20, 02:59 AM
Hold it at your side and let the tip rest on the ground, thereby relieving some weight.

But then how -

...I see. ^_^ Heh, you covered it.

Meh. The hidden god of armour decreed that he would personally interfere with wizards a random amount of the time, for no applicable reason.

Wizard: ...I swear! The shield jumped or something!
Fighter: That's because you can't cast with it on your arm.
Wizard: O-o But... but why not? Like, it's not even all that heavy, and I have an 18 strength!
Fighter: Look, you're a wizard, get used to it.

Dhavaer
2007-04-20, 03:00 AM
Yes, but a wizard can hold a weapon however is most comfortable while casting a spell (since he can't cast and fight in the same turn) but he must hold a shield up in the air and position it so that he can protect himself, and thus it interferes more than a weapon would.

But he also has to hold the weapon ready to make an attack of opportunity if one is provoked.

Manir
2007-04-20, 04:08 AM
My theory is that WotC just decided to say, 'Wizards seem a bit too powerful. I know, lets give them a completely senses drawback!'
'Good idea! Let's make them incur a chance to fail while casting spells when holding shields!'

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-20, 04:48 AM
The main reason it's harder to use cast a spell while using a shield than while swinging a weapon, is that the shield needs a lot more active concentration with the arms, eyes, whole body, etc. in order to parry the incoming blows. The weapon just needs to hit.

Roderick_BR
2007-04-20, 06:53 AM
If you use a shield, you apply the spell lfailure chance. It's right there, in the armor/shields table. Even if you use it in one hand, and cast with the other, you still need both hands for some minimal movements, and it still unbalances you. Basically, it's your DM call, but I wouldn't allow it just because some player want to get smart with the rules :smallamused:

of course, if you stop using the shield, i.e., don't get any of the shield AC bonuses on that turn, you can ignore the spell failure.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-04-20, 08:37 AM
Everything seems to point in the direction that shields only provide spell failure while wearing armor. I'm willing to assume that armor interferes with spellcasting due to maybe limiting how you can move your arm, or something.
Exactly.

In previous editions, wizards were simply prevented from casting spells while wearing armor. No spell failure. They just couldn't even attempt it. There wasn't even any fluff reasons given. As such, it didn't even matter what components the spell had. Spells could not be cast in armor. Period.

In the abscence of clear rationale, many people suggested different reasons why armor would prevent the casting of Wizard spells (there's another change—spells were "Wizard" or "Cleric" instead of "Arcane" or "Divine"). Among these suggestions was the above suggestion that wearing armor prevents mystical chanelling of magical energy. Of course, that had it's own problems.

What property of armor prevented such arcane chanelling? One suggestion was that metal somehow interfered with the spellcasting process. This couldn't be the answer for several reasons. First, there was no other metal-based restriction on spellcasting. You could be covered in heavy gold jewelry, locked up in an iron box, and placed inside a copper mine so rich in ore that one literally trips over nuggets with every step they take, and you would still be able to cast spells, depsite the copious amount of metal surrounding you.

Second, not all armors are metal—padded, leather, and hide armors were all relatively metal-free, yet they also interfered with spellcasting. Eventually, it comes down to the fact that there were so many different types of armor, that there was really no universal property that could adequately explain why mystical energies would be so disrupted by every type of armor.

I believe some people made suggestions that the armor prevented spellcasting on account of restricted movement, which is the current rationale. But, unlike today, the rules made no provision for non-somatic spells. Even a verbal-only spell like teleport would be disrupted by armor. Fortunately, the current rules edition allows one to cast teleport without any problem, even while in plate mail and weilding a heavy steel shield.


But that honestly to me, sounds more like a Concentration check sort of spell failure, one that would probably effect Clerics and Druids too, since you're concentrating on not getting stabbed more than casting a spell.
Exactly. Far closer to what happens when one is casting defensively rather than when one's right arm motion is disrupted by the shoulder plate.

Matthew
2007-04-20, 09:27 AM
I always rationalised it in a slightly different way. Rather than Armour preventing Arcane Spell Casting, I prefer the idea that Wizards just don't need it. Armour? Pah!

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-04-20, 03:29 PM
I always rationalised it in a slightly different way. Rather than Armour preventing Arcane Spell Casting, I prefer the idea that Wizards just don't need it. Armour? Pah!
But that doesn't do anything to explain why the can't use it, even if they wanted to.

Indon
2007-04-20, 07:52 PM
Presumably because the wizard is not using the battleaxe to block anything.

Have you ever sparred? You don't just *hold* the shield, you have to hold it up, brace against the blows, move it to block, etc. In other words, the AC bonus you get from a shield isn't passive- you have to work for it.

Even under this rationale, it'd be a reasonable houserule to let a player say "I lower my shield and cast", and not benefit from shield AC against, say, any attacks of opportunity for that spell, in exchange for not incurring any penalty.

Matthew
2007-04-20, 09:11 PM
But that doesn't do anything to explain why the can't use it, even if they wanted to.
Oh, that's because they can... they just don't (that was how I looked at it before Spell Failure Modifiers).

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-04-20, 11:40 PM
Oh, that's because they can... they just don't (that was how I looked at it before Spell Failure Modifiers).
Well, the problem is that the rules said they can't. As opposed to "they don't."

Caduceus
2007-04-21, 12:14 AM
Okay, so you're ignoring the tidbit that shields fall under the wider category of armor. We can deal with that.


Arcane Spell Failure

Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component. Arcane spellcasters face the possibility of arcane spell failure if they’re wearing armor. Bards can wear light armor without incurring any arcane spell failure chance for their bard spells.

Casting an Arcane Spell in Armor

A character who casts an arcane spell while wearing armor must usually make an arcane spell failure roll. The number in the Arcane Spell Failure Chance column on Table: Armor and Shields is the chance that the spell fails and is ruined. If the spell lacks a somatic component, however, it can be cast with no chance of arcane spell failure.
Shields

If a character is wearing armor and using a shield, add the two numbers together to get a single arcane spell failure chance.


Okay, now, let's say you're wearing full plate and a light shield. Add the spell failure's together, now. 35 + 5 = 40%. Wow.

But what if you're not wearing the full plate? Let's see what happens then. Add the spell failure's together. 0 + 5 = 5%. Gee wiz! It can't possibly be anything other than zero, could it? Oh well, numbers don't lie. People just try to make them lie.

Starsinger
2007-04-21, 01:04 AM
Arcane Spell Failure

Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component. Arcane spellcasters face the possibility of arcane spell failure if they’re wearing armor. Bards can wear light armor without incurring any arcane spell failure chance for their bard spells.

Casting an Arcane Spell in Armor

A character who casts an arcane spell while wearing armor must usually make an arcane spell failure roll. The number in the Arcane Spell Failure Chance column on Table: Armor and Shields is the chance that the spell fails and is ruined. If the spell lacks a somatic component, however, it can be cast with no chance of arcane spell failure.
Shields

If a character is wearing armor and using a shield, add the two numbers together to get a single arcane spell failure chance.

I can bold too :) Notice the underline, the table is Armor and Shields, indicating that they're seperate, else it would just be the Armor table and have shields listed on it.

and while I'm thinking about it ...
Presumably because the wizard is not using the battleaxe to block anything.

Have you ever sparred? You don't just *hold* the shield, you have to hold it up, brace against the blows, move it to block, etc. In other words, the AC bonus you get from a shield isn't passive- you have to work for it.

Then why do Mithril bucklers not have ASF?

Caduceus
2007-04-21, 05:16 AM
I can bold too :)

It wasn't about the bold. That was just pointing to the rule I was talking about. Even if shields are separate, you still add them together with armor no matter what for ASF. Without the armor's contribution to ASF without armor is 0%. If you're going to completely ignore any opinions different from your own, then why make a topic asking for them?

kamikasei
2007-04-21, 07:16 AM
It wasn't about the bold. That was just pointing to the rule I was talking about. Even if shields are separate, you still add them together with armor no matter what for ASF. Without the armor's contribution to ASF without armor is 0%. If you're going to completely ignore any opinions different from your own, then why make a topic asking for them?

Your assumption seems to be that "if wearing armor and using a shield" can be interpreted as "if wearing <anything> and using a shield", where <anything>, if it isn't actually armor, is taken to have an ASF of 0%. However, clothing, robes etc. are not armor and don't have ASF, not even ASF of 0%, per RAW.

You're saying, "with no armor the ASF is 0%. Add a shield and you add the shield's ASF." I agree this makes sense. However the wording is that the shield's ASF is added if you are also wearing armor. Regardless of whether you regard an unarmored person as having ASF of 0% or of -, the fact remains that he's not wearing armor and that the reference for ASF of shields requires him to be wearing armor or it doesn't apply.

Talya
2007-04-21, 07:47 AM
Just because you add them together does not imply that they don't still effect you when you only have spell failure from one source.

You will always get spell failure from a shield regardless of your other equipment unless of course the shield has no spell failure chance or you have an ability to avoid it.

If you do want a shield though, a mithral buckler costs 1015gp, has no armor check penalty, and no arcane spell failure. It also leaves your hand free to cast spells. There's pretty much no reason an arcane caster wouldn't want to have a mithral buckler unless they were an abjurant champion and could cast a supped up shield spell as a swift action, but even then it could still be advantageous for the special abilities one can put on a shield.

P.S. Since the armor check penalty becomes zero, there is no penalty for wearing a mithral buckler without shield proficiency.


I love my ring of force shield.

Starsinger
2007-04-21, 07:54 AM
I love my ring of force shield.

But that's a precious ring slot, which before I got access to Magic Item Compendium, wasn't a big deal, but some of the new rings are nifty. Besides that, like a mithril buckler, is just not in the budget for a first level character.

TRM
2007-04-21, 08:31 AM
Your assumption seems to be that "if wearing armor and using a shield" can be interpreted as "if wearing <anything> and using a shield", where <anything>, if it isn't actually armor, is taken to have an ASF of 0%. However, clothing, robes etc. are not armor and don't have ASF, not even ASF of 0%, per RAW.

You're saying, "with no armor the ASF is 0%. Add a shield and you add the shield's ASF." I agree this makes sense. However the wording is that the shield's ASF is added if you are also wearing armor. Regardless of whether you regard an unarmored person as having ASF of 0% or of -, the fact remains that he's not wearing armor and that the reference for ASF of shields requires him to be wearing armor or it doesn't apply.

But of course why would you be more restricted by your shield if you were wearing armor than if you were wearing a robe and wielding a shield?
Do shields become more unwieldy when your arm movements are slightly restricted by armor?
If so, why doesn't this apply to other things such as check penalties, etc...?

kamikasei
2007-04-21, 08:46 AM
But of course why would you be more restricted by your shield if you were wearing armor than if you were wearing a robe and wielding a shield?
Do shields become more unwieldy when your arm movements are slightly restricted by armor?
If so, why doesn't this apply to other things such as check penalties, etc...?

You're applying common sense. Stop it immediately!

Seriously, the point is that the line describing ASF for shields mentions it only in combination with armor, not independently. Why should this be? It probably shouldn't, it seems clear that the intent is for shields to count as armor for this purpose. The rules are still sloppily phrased.

Even the common-sense approach is limited, here, for reasons already described. You only need one hand to supply a somatic component. If ASF (like ACP) is due to limitations imposed on your movement, then why does having a shield one one arm, and no armor, make it harder to move the other arm? Why is this the case, when you could hold something much heavier and/or more unwieldy in that hand instead of a shield, but take no penalty? The rules are poorly worded, and their implications are inconsistent.

edit: Hmm, looking at ACP, the same phrasing applies. "If a character is wearing armor and using a shield, both armor check penalties apply." So the same reasoning also applies: there's no statement that using a shield while not wearing armor applies an ACP.

The real issue is why, aside from balance issues, shields apply spell failure or check penalties? They're not armor. They don't go over a joint or bulk up your body so as to impede movement. They're just heavy and (for most of them) require a hand to use. Other things, like weapons, are also heavy and require a hand to use, but don't apply such penalties. There's no good in-game reason for this to be so that I can see.

Matthew
2007-04-21, 09:10 AM
Well, the problem is that the rules said they can't. As opposed to "they don't."
Here's a quote from the (A)D&D 2.x PHB:

Wizards cannot wear any armor, for several reasons. Firstly, most spells require complicated gestures and odd posturings by the caster and armor restricts the wearer's ability to do these properly. Secondly, the wizard spent his youth (and will spend most of his life) learning arcane languages, poring through old books, and practicing his spells. This leaves no time for learning other things (like how to wear armor properly and use it effectively). If the wizard had spent his time learning about armor, he would not have even the meager skills and powers he begins with. There are even unfounded theories that claim the materials in most armors disrupt the delicate fabric of a spell as it gathers energy; the two cannot exist side by side in harmony. While this idea is popular with the common people, true wizards know this is simply not true. If it were, how would they ever be able to cast spells requiring iron braziers or metal bowls?
Looks to me as though in (A)D&D the case is stronger for the idea that they do not, rather than they cannot (even though the text says cannot!), hence my previous conception. Supporting this interpretation is the Player's Option series, which gave Wizards the option of Casting Spells in Body Armour without penalty. Obviously, there are some problems with this interpretation, Fighter/Mages and Bards, for instance, who know how to wear Body Armour, but are prevented from Spell Casting whilst doing so, except when wearing 'Elven Armour'. Unsurprisingly, (A)D&D does not give consistant answers, but in the light of the Player's Option series, it seems reasonable to say that special training is required to be able to wear Body Armour and Cast Spells in combination (maybe that's what Clerics have!).
In short, D&D 3.x is responsible for its own confusion on this one.

Starsinger
2007-04-21, 09:15 AM
Secondly, the wizard spent his youth (and will spend most of his life) learning arcane languages, poring through old books, and practicing his spells. This leaves no time for learning other things (like how to wear armor properly and use it effectively). If the wizard had spent his time learning about armor, he would not have even the meager skills and powers he begins with.

Not to mention, I tend to play sorcerers, who notably have a lot more free time than wizards.