Too Physically Hampered to Cast

[Easy_Lee]

So here's an interesting thought I had. In place of arcane spell failure for armor, we now have this little gem.

"Because of the mental focus and precise gestures required for spellcasting, you must be proficient with the armor you are wearing to cast a spell. You are otherwise too distracted and physically hampered by your armor for spellcasting."

I can understand being unable to provide somatic components, but what about verbal-only? What about subtle spells? This implies that one can physically hamper a caster to make him unable to cast spells at all, even though that seems silly. Putting a sorcerer in manacles, or heavy armor, ought not prevent that sorcerer from subtle-casting shatter.

Thoughts? I know that this unlikely to come up in play, but I thought it would make for a fun discussion.

[PhantomRenegade]

I don't really see it as unable to cast because of the physical consequences of wearing armor.

I see it more like it makes them too unconfortable to properly focus on making a spell, i guess its kinda wierd to think like that given that these guys are getting hit with maces in the face and still casting just fine but i find the mental image of a mage being all "Jeez, this full plate is so stuffy, i just cannot cast another spell." really entertaining and it works for me.

[Alerad]

I think Subtle spell should override this rule, it's kind of the whole idea behind it. Other than that, maybe the armor is hindering you. Most heavy armor comes with a helmet, so probably you are not used to the echo and mispronounce :)

[Ninja_Prawn]

I can understand being unable to provide somatic components, but what about verbal-only? What about subtle spells? This implies that one can physically hamper a caster to make him unable to cast spells at all, even though that seems silly. Putting a sorcerer in manacles...



I was thinking about this exact thing a little while ago. Misty Step is verbal-only, and I can't see why you would take manacles with you when you teleport, so...

[Ruslan]

I see it more like it makes them too unconfortable to properly focus on making a spell, i guess its kinda wierd to think like that given that these guys are getting hit with maces in the face and still casting just fine but i find the mental image of a mage being all "Jeez, this full plate is so stuffy, i just cannot cast another spell." really entertaining and it works for me.

Two words: it chafes

[rhouck]

Basically a return to the older edition idea that it's (1) too uncomfortable and distracts them, and (2) they never learned to wear and use it properly.

From the 2e PHB:


Wizards cannot wear any armor, for several reasons. Firstly, most spells require complicated gestures and odd posturing 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 armor 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 you would they ever be able to cast spells requiring iron braziers or metal bowls?

Personally, I like the idea you raise that it only prevents you from casting spells that have a Somatic component and/or a Material component (arguing that you cannot properly manipulate the component in armor). That leaves subtle and Verbal-only spells available. That's still a massive hindrance, as the caster most likely is suffering the speed penalty of the armor (due to low strength if heavy armor), and that only leaves a few spells (or having to burn spell points as a Sorcerer). It could come up in some scenarios (e.g., the party has to disguise themselves in plate armor to blend in with the castle guard, the enemy army, or something similar).

I'd also think it'd make sense that you only receive half the AC bonus (and no Dex bonus) for armor you are not proficient in, reflecting that you do not know how to move correctly in it. Donning and doffing should also take double the time.

[Ralanr]

So here's an interesting thought I had. In place of arcane spell failure for armor, we now have this little gem.

"Because of the mental focus and precise gestures required for spellcasting, you must be proficient with the armor you are wearing to cast a spell. You are otherwise too distracted and physically hampered by your armor for spellcasting."

I can understand being unable to provide somatic components, but what about verbal-only? What about subtle spells? This implies that one can physically hamper a caster to make him unable to cast spells at all, even though that seems silly. Putting a sorcerer in manacles, or heavy armor, ought not prevent that sorcerer from subtle-casting shatter.

Thoughts? I know that this unlikely to come up in play, but I thought it would make for a fun discussion.

Well...breaking/removing digits/hands/arms and/or breaking someones nose, removing their tongue, breaking their jaw, or similar things can probably do a lot to hamper spell casting.

But that never comes up.

Edit: May have went a little dark there in a fun thread. Sorry.

[Slipperychicken]

Two words: it chafes

If a wizard can cast a spell while getting eaten by piranhas, then he can deal with some chafing.

[1Forge]

If a wizard can cast a spell while getting eaten by piranhas, then he can deal with some chafing.

First could they cast while being eaten by pirahnas?

Also chafing is a serious issue threatening our generation, Wizards fear full plate like normal people fear death; they have to worry about moving properly and while doing it the pain from the very thing protecting them. I know it sounds silly, but dont underestimate chafing, It can cause 1d4 damage to any spellcaster within 10 yards. Help raise awareness about chafing today at your local hamlet.

[squab]

If a wizard can cast a spell while getting eaten by piranhas, then he can deal with some chafing.

What if the piranhas are chafing the wizard while eating him?

[Ruslan]

If a wizard can cast a spell while getting eaten by piranhas, then he can deal with some chafing.Obviously not. He can't cast in armor he's not proficient in. It's in the PHB, duh. Chafing is clearly labeled by the rules as an insurmountable obstacle.

[1Forge]

What if the piranhas are chafing the wizard while eating him?

The Horror....

[Slipperychicken]

First could they cast while being eaten by pirahnas?

Taking damage doesn't stop them from casting spells, unless they're in the process of casting a spell with a casting time exceeding one action (in which case they get a concentration check. DC = 10, or 1/2 the damage taken, whichever's higher). The rules for underwater combat on PHB 198 don't mention spellcasting, and the entry for verbal components doesn't mention water stopping it. If the DM rules that being submerged is a hindrance to casting, the wizard still gets a DC 10 concentration check by default. Naturally, the DM can rule that water would stop verbal components, but that's a houserule and beyond the scope of the original question.


tl;dr: Wizards can cast spells while taking damage, provided the damage doesn't interrupt a spell with casting time greater than 1 action. Even then they can make a concentration check to maintain it.

[tieren]

So if you wanted to make a prison for mages, you could tie them up and they could still cast verbal spells, but strap on a medium armor breastplate and they are rendered inert?

How much armor would it take do you think? Maybe just sticking a great helm on a captured enemy caster or strapping a shield to his forearm?

[1Forge]

for medium armoour i would house rule they have to make a concentration check with disadvantage, because a chain shirt wont kill a wizard realisticly. no matter how bad the chafing they will go on.

[Ralanr]

So if you wanted to make a prison for mages, you could tie them up and they could still cast verbal spells, but strap on a medium armor breastplate and they are rendered inert?

How much armor would it take do you think? Maybe just sticking a great helm on a captured enemy caster or strapping a shield to his forearm?

I think a good old iron mask will do the trick.

[Gwendol]

Could stealth-donning armor be the bane of enemy spellcaster? Deft hands FTW!

[Takewo]

And suddenly, a guy with mobility and a bag full of helmets becomes much more appealing as a spellcaster killer.

[goto124]

I think it's something called game balance.

That said, pirahnas.

[ChubbyRain]

So here's an interesting thought I had. In place of arcane spell failure for armor, we now have this little gem.

"Because of the mental focus and precise gestures required for spellcasting, you must be proficient with the armor you are wearing to cast a spell. You are otherwise too distracted and physically hampered by your armor for spellcasting."

I can understand being unable to provide somatic components, but what about verbal-only? What about subtle spells? This implies that one can physically hamper a caster to make him unable to cast spells at all, even though that seems silly. Putting a sorcerer in manacles, or heavy armor, ought not prevent that sorcerer from subtle-casting shatter.

Thoughts? I know that this unlikely to come up in play, but I thought it would make for a fun discussion.

Sadly this is but a ribbon. The fluff that goes along with the mechanics.

[Estrillian]

What if the piranhas are chafing the wizard while eating him?

Doesn't that only happen if they are covered in sandpaper or denim?

[Shining Wrath]

It's a game balance mechanic and fluff dating back to Disney cartoons (Sorcerer's Apprentice, Sword and the Stone) at a minimum.

So yes, you ought to be able to cast spells with no somatic components in full plate. That makes sense. I'm not going to rule that way because dammit Gandalf didn't wear armor.

However, I do have an interesting idea for a mage-keeper for use in prisons - a full helm with no visor, no eye holes, and you tighten up a gadget in the back that makes it impossible to remove, and then lock it in place. Just barely enough air to keep you alive gets in - so long as you don't exert yourself.

Claustrophobic wizards roll against loss of sanity with Disadvantage.

[Slipperychicken]

Maybe prisons in dnd keep spellcasters in check by having straightjackets which count as hide armor.

[ChubbyRain]

Maybe prisons in dnd keep spellcasters in check by having straightjackets which count as hide armor.

Or they don't throw you in prison, they go all Mulmaster on you.

http://dndadventurersleague.org/downloads/

Look at the "State of Mulmaster" and look into sentencing.... 1d20+Spell Level cast.

The nice ones involve hands being cut off and beaten until knocked out... Then banished.

Now I want to make a Wizard 1/Monk 19 who had their hands cut off...

[Vogonjeltz]

I was thinking about this exact thing a little while ago. Misty Step is verbal-only, and I can't see why you would take manacles with you when you teleport, so...

The spell doesn't say you don't bring your worn/carried equipment with you, so the manacles (being worn) would stay on.

[Easy_Lee]

The spell doesn't say you don't bring your worn/carried equipment with you, so the manacles (being worn) would stay on.

I wonder if they would count, since it's basically the same as having a really strong guy holding your wrists. I don't think that misty step should take his hands off.

[ChubbyRain]

I actually wished the spell Misty Step, or any other teleportation spell, failed if you would be held back by another creature, gave the grappling creature a save to resist the teleporation effect, or took the creature with you.

Perhaps a Con Save versus Spell DC, if the creature's Strength Score is higher than your Casting Score then they have advantage on the roll.

I don't like instant win spells anymore than I like instant fail spells.

[goto124]

I wonder if they would count, since it's basically the same as having a really strong guy holding your wrists. I don't think that misty step should take his hands off.

When I run a comedy one-shot, I'll use this houserule :smallsmirk:

[PhantomRenegade]

I actually wished the spell Misty Step, or any other teleportation spell, failed if you would be held back by another creature, gave the grappling creature a save to resist the teleporation effect, or took the creature with you.

Perhaps a Con Save versus Spell DC, if the creature's Strength Score is higher than your Casting Score then they have advantage on the roll.

I don't like instant win spells anymore than I like instant fail spells.Same, my DM loves to give his antagonists misty step-like abilities instead of movement, its super anoying.

"what's that? oh the super strong guy is suddenly next to the backline casters and there's nothing we could have done about it? oh ok."

[ChubbyRain]

Same, my DM loves to give his antagonists misty step-like abilities instead of movement, its super anoying.

"what's that? oh the super strong guy is suddenly next to the backline casters and there's nothing we could have done about it? oh ok."

I think I will houserule, partially for balance and partially for fluff, that all teleportation spells require you to move in some way. You create a doorway and you move through it to your destination. So if you are being restrained or grappled in some way, you would have to bring the thing that is grappling or restraining you too.

As long as you can move at least 5' you can teleport.

If you are handcuffed then you can teleport.

If you are tied to a rope, that has slack, that is then tied to a tree, you teleport and the ripe is cut off and you are still tied up (you used a spell slot to cut the rope essentially).

If you are grappled or hog tied, you can cast the spell but you are not able to move through the portal before the spell ends.

Freedom of Movement can stay in the game, but it just gives advantage on ability checks and saving throws against effects that attempt to grapple or restrain you.

Edit

This will allow the worlds of D&D to be able to arrest spell casters and have a way to keep the balance between casters and non casters at a more acceptable level (not one aided) once specific levels are obtained. I don't mean just PC v PC but Class and the World around them.

[1Forge]

Yeah chafing really dosent cut it (however muc hI would like it to)
I would probobly just go with the old stand by
(armour makes it to hard to touch the weave of the universe)

[Vogonjeltz]

I wonder if they would count, since it's basically the same as having a really strong guy holding your wrists. I don't think that misty step should take his hands off.

But that's not basically the same, one is an object/equipment and the other is a creature. Spells generally distinguish between the two, and the wording of the spell (it says "You", not "You and up to three of your closest acquaintances") makes it clear that it's just the caster who is affected in terms of creatures.

You might offer it as a benefit to let a player choose to leave behind worn things, but it doesn't really make sense that some things would be brought without thinking about them and some things would be left behind purely based on the casters attitude relative to them.

Does that mean if they get annoyed by a defect in their armor that it gets left behind too? It looks ridiculous to even write it out.

[1Forge]

Does that mean if they get annoyed by a defect in their armor that it gets left behind too? It looks ridiculous to even write it out.

Thats amazing!!! Wizard bros drycleaning, you really hate a stain *pop* theres no more stain. tada. You hate cancer *pop* you dont have cancer anymore. Genius.:smallbiggrin:

[Easy_Lee]

Thats amazing!!! Wizard bros drycleaning, you really hate a stain *pop* theres no more stain. tada. You hate cancer *pop* you dont have cancer anymore. Genius.:smallbiggrin:

Well, there's prestidigitation for that. It's ludicrous how useful that cantrip would be just for living in general.

Edit: I meant the cleaning thing, not curing cancer.

[1Forge]

presdigidaition cures CANCER?!?!?!?!?!?!? why didnt anyone tell me?