Arcane Spell failure for shields..

[Starsinger]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

One simple solution to all this...still spell.

[Jacob Orlove]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yes, especially a mage that doesn't have proficiency with the shield.

[Necromas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.