Arcane Spell Failure on Shields? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Arcane Spell Failure on Shields? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Etiquette_Gnome
09-29-06, 03:02 PM I'm really confused as to why there's an ASF associated with shields. You hold them with your hand, which is obviously a bit hindered because of its use; yet you see wizards casting spells while holding a 6' stick with all sorts of bulky things protruding from it. Heck, if the wizard took Two-Weapon Defense, he could even get a shield bonus from his staff and not suffer any ASF.

I'm just not understanding why they give such a penalty to shields, particularly a 15% one for the heavy shields (tower shields, I can understand an ASF).
Mort_Q
09-29-06, 03:10 PM Not everything in D&D is logical, some rules exist more for balance than for flavour or logic. That said, when a caster is holding their two-handed staff while casting, they're not able to actually use the staff, they're just not dropping it.

A shield is strapped on to the arm and gets in your way. If you want to rule that it's not in the way, that's cool, but I'd say that you can't count the shields bonus to your AC until the beginning of your next round.

If you want to drop it to cast the spell, that counts as a move action, and so does strapping it back on.
Pandaemoni
09-29-06, 03:14 PM Well, the answer they would have you believe is: because shields are strapped to the arm (worn), and not just held (like a weapon).

The real reason is that it is a balancing factor. Mages are not supposed to have as many options for improving their armor class as fighters. In 1st edition the rules simply said that "magic-users" could not use armor or shields, a complete prohibition.
Etiquette_Gnome
09-29-06, 03:29 PM That's the thing though, I don't see how a shield is unbalancing for a wizard to wield. If he's wearing a shield, he won't be able to wield a weapon at the same time without creating some level of hassle so he can have a hand free to cast a somatic spell. And to top it off, the base wizard doesn't have proficiency with shields, so he'll have that inherent penalty to all attacks.

Considering the inherent penalties a wizard is facing wearing a shield, I don't really see the point in kicking them while they're down for something as small as a +1/+2 AC when we look at the other penalties.

Oh yeah, and I really, really don't see how an animated large shield continues to give that ASF; especially since a minimum of 9,000gp was spent for it.
Mort_Q
09-29-06, 03:34 PM Oh yeah, and I really, really don't see how an animated large shield continues to give that ASF; especially since a minimum of 9,000gp was spent for it.

I agree. That makes no sense.

Then again, I don't allow Animated Shields in my game.

Make the PCs make a real choice between Shields, Tw-Handed weapons, or TWF... and stick with it.
Grimsword
09-29-06, 04:59 PM The unbalancing factor of giving wizards shield use is that they are already one of the most powerful classes in the game. To allow them to have shields as well giving them a potential of an extra +7 or so to AC is too good. Wizards should have some penalty for having almost broken spellcasting abilities. Not using sheilds is a small price to pay for ultimate power.
Etiquette_Gnome
09-29-06, 06:22 PM That doesn't really make sense though. A wizard is most definitely not the top contender in power until the mid-to-high levels, and by that point, a mithral completely negates the ASF for small shields. The argument that a wizard would be too good with a potential extra +7 AC doesn't hold water when a RAW wizard can very easily give himself a +6 already.
Tony Vargas
09-29-06, 07:22 PM I'm really confused as to why there's an ASF associated with shields. You hold them with your hand, which is obviously a bit hindered because of its use; ASF harkens back to the days when magic-users couldn't wear armor or use sheilds /at all/. Couldn't even pick 'em up, according to some DMs. ASF is an improvement over that, in that it gives the option, just at a price (risk of spell failure). So, it may seem a little wierd, but it's better than it used to be.

yet you see wizards casting spells while holding a 6' stick with all sorts of bulky things protruding from it.You could aply ASF for things like that, too, if you wanted.

Heck, if the wizard took Two-Weapon Defense, he could even get a shield bonus from his staff and not suffer any ASF.In a sense. You have to be wielding the staff to get the shield bonus from TWD, and that takes both hands - leaving none for casting. So, you couldn't, at the same time, cast a spell with somatic components - and spells without somatic components don't take AMF to begin with.
Magetastic
09-29-06, 10:00 PM becuase wizards look realy stupid when weilding sheilds the arcane spell failure comes from the figher laughing at you becuase robes, Hoods and/or pointy hats look awful with a metal block stapped to your arm.:P
Neutronium_Dragon
09-29-06, 11:50 PM Arcane Spell Failure was really only included in 3E as a legacy issue. It could (and probably should) have been dumped entirely, but the 3.0E designers were afraid to slaughter too many sacred cows, so they kept that one but toned it down to a failure chance rather than an outright "you can't".
igotsmeakabob!!
09-30-06, 04:26 AM Arcane Spell Failure was really only included in 3E as a legacy issue. It could (and probably should) have been dumped entirely, but the 3.0E designers were afraid to slaughter too many sacred cows, so they kept that one but toned it down to a failure chance rather than an outright "you can't".

I disagree with this.

Say one of the somatic components requires you to hold your hand horizontally against your chest? What if it required you to end with your hand grasping the back of your head? Theres alot of crazy magic somatic components, and a shield is heavy (can throw off gestures that requre your hand to be in a specific place, whoops my shield made my arm move a little too far) and gets in the way (ouch dammit, how am I supposed to do this with this big-ass thing on my arm?). Thats why.

Also, see everyone else's balance reasons.
Neutronium_Dragon
09-30-06, 04:58 AM Which is why you need a free hand. Having a shield on your other arm, which isn't being used for the casting, wouldn't cause those problems.

Somatic components aren't generally specified, either.

Balance-wise, no. Over on Monte Cook's boards we've seen designer comments in the past that you can freely toss Arcane Spell Failure from the game without any significant balance impact, just like you can toss the paladin/monk multiclass restrictions, or the druid armor limitations (and in 3.0E, the druid weapon limitations).

Since it was written into the core, the official material has to assume that it's a standard part of the game and build more mechanics around it, but balance wasn't really a concern (or at least it isn't with the PHB classes) when it was written in.
makeshiftwings
09-30-06, 05:09 AM I think arcane spell failure in general is not so much about game balance as it is about flavor. The same with armor check penalties and heavy armor. The "flavor" of the game is supposed to be wizards in robes with pointy hats and staves, rogues in leather armor with knives, and knights in full plate with swords. They created the game mechanics and balance purposely to enforce that stereotype, not the other way around.
Mort_Q
09-30-06, 10:08 AM The whole game is flavor.

Remove the flavor and all we have to do is take turns rolling a d20, and whomever rolls highest, wins.
Maraxus
09-30-06, 10:35 AM -Professor Maraxus?
-Yes, Timmy?
-Why is there arcane spell failure on shields?
-Because they are bulky and hinder your movement when strapped to the arm. You have to know, that the mystical arcane gestures are very complex and need unhindered movement.
-Professor, can a man with 1 arm cast spells? Or what if I want to hold a wizard's staff or a scroll in one hand.
-Yes, Timmy. You only need one free hand for components and gestures. Even if a poor man's arm is ripped of, he can use the other arm for this.
-But, if you don't need the arm at all for casing, why does it matter, if something is strapped to it?
-Well, ... I don't really know ... Maybe ... if you have two arms, the gestures are suddenly diffrent, in a way that you need both arms ... but not both hands ... right, if you have two arms, you need to shake your Elbows, it's in the spell description, yes it is.
-Yes, that's bad Professor. What if I brought myself one of these flying shields. All the cool guys have it. If my shield was not strapped at my arm but flying around me, I could use my arm however i want.
-No, Timmy. That's ... another thing. You can't do that, because ... damn, it's magic. Logic does not work. It's simply not possible, stupid brat!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Etiquette_Gnome 09-29-06, 03:02 PM	I'm really confused as to why there's an ASF associated with shields. You hold them with your hand, which is obviously a bit hindered because of its use; yet you see wizards casting spells while holding a 6' stick with all sorts of bulky things protruding from it. Heck, if the wizard took Two-Weapon Defense, he could even get a shield bonus from his staff and not suffer any ASF. I'm just not understanding why they give such a penalty to shields, particularly a 15% one for the heavy shields (tower shields, I can understand an ASF).
Mort_Q 09-29-06, 03:10 PM	Not everything in D&D is logical, some rules exist more for balance than for flavour or logic. That said, when a caster is holding their two-handed staff while casting, they're not able to actually use the staff, they're just not dropping it. A shield is strapped on to the arm and gets in your way. If you want to rule that it's not in the way, that's cool, but I'd say that you can't count the shields bonus to your AC until the beginning of your next round. If you want to drop it to cast the spell, that counts as a move action, and so does strapping it back on.
Pandaemoni 09-29-06, 03:14 PM	Well, the answer they would have you believe is: because shields are strapped to the arm (worn), and not just held (like a weapon). The real reason is that it is a balancing factor. Mages are not supposed to have as many options for improving their armor class as fighters. In 1st edition the rules simply said that "magic-users" could not use armor or shields, a complete prohibition.
Etiquette_Gnome 09-29-06, 03:29 PM	That's the thing though, I don't see how a shield is unbalancing for a wizard to wield. If he's wearing a shield, he won't be able to wield a weapon at the same time without creating some level of hassle so he can have a hand free to cast a somatic spell. And to top it off, the base wizard doesn't have proficiency with shields, so he'll have that inherent penalty to all attacks. Considering the inherent penalties a wizard is facing wearing a shield, I don't really see the point in kicking them while they're down for something as small as a +1/+2 AC when we look at the other penalties. Oh yeah, and I really, really don't see how an animated large shield continues to give that ASF; especially since a minimum of 9,000gp was spent for it.
Mort_Q 09-29-06, 03:34 PM	Oh yeah, and I really, really don't see how an animated large shield continues to give that ASF; especially since a minimum of 9,000gp was spent for it. I agree. That makes no sense. Then again, I don't allow Animated Shields in my game. Make the PCs make a real choice between Shields, Tw-Handed weapons, or TWF... and stick with it.
Grimsword 09-29-06, 04:59 PM	The unbalancing factor of giving wizards shield use is that they are already one of the most powerful classes in the game. To allow them to have shields as well giving them a potential of an extra +7 or so to AC is too good. Wizards should have some penalty for having almost broken spellcasting abilities. Not using sheilds is a small price to pay for ultimate power.
Etiquette_Gnome 09-29-06, 06:22 PM	That doesn't really make sense though. A wizard is most definitely not the top contender in power until the mid-to-high levels, and by that point, a mithral completely negates the ASF for small shields. The argument that a wizard would be too good with a potential extra +7 AC doesn't hold water when a RAW wizard can very easily give himself a +6 already.
Tony Vargas 09-29-06, 07:22 PM	I'm really confused as to why there's an ASF associated with shields. You hold them with your hand, which is obviously a bit hindered because of its use; ASF harkens back to the days when magic-users couldn't wear armor or use sheilds /at all/. Couldn't even pick 'em up, according to some DMs. ASF is an improvement over that, in that it gives the option, just at a price (risk of spell failure). So, it may seem a little wierd, but it's better than it used to be. yet you see wizards casting spells while holding a 6' stick with all sorts of bulky things protruding from it.You could aply ASF for things like that, too, if you wanted. Heck, if the wizard took Two-Weapon Defense, he could even get a shield bonus from his staff and not suffer any ASF.In a sense. You have to be wielding the staff to get the shield bonus from TWD, and that takes both hands - leaving none for casting. So, you couldn't, at the same time, cast a spell with somatic components - and spells without somatic components don't take AMF to begin with.
Magetastic 09-29-06, 10:00 PM	becuase wizards look realy stupid when weilding sheilds the arcane spell failure comes from the figher laughing at you becuase robes, Hoods and/or pointy hats look awful with a metal block stapped to your arm.:P
Neutronium_Dragon 09-29-06, 11:50 PM	Arcane Spell Failure was really only included in 3E as a legacy issue. It could (and probably should) have been dumped entirely, but the 3.0E designers were afraid to slaughter too many sacred cows, so they kept that one but toned it down to a failure chance rather than an outright "you can't".
igotsmeakabob!! 09-30-06, 04:26 AM	Arcane Spell Failure was really only included in 3E as a legacy issue. It could (and probably should) have been dumped entirely, but the 3.0E designers were afraid to slaughter too many sacred cows, so they kept that one but toned it down to a failure chance rather than an outright "you can't". I disagree with this. Say one of the somatic components requires you to hold your hand horizontally against your chest? What if it required you to end with your hand grasping the back of your head? Theres alot of crazy magic somatic components, and a shield is heavy (can throw off gestures that requre your hand to be in a specific place, whoops my shield made my arm move a little too far) and gets in the way (ouch dammit, how am I supposed to do this with this big-ass thing on my arm?). Thats why. Also, see everyone else's balance reasons.
Neutronium_Dragon 09-30-06, 04:58 AM	Which is why you need a free hand. Having a shield on your other arm, which isn't being used for the casting, wouldn't cause those problems. Somatic components aren't generally specified, either. Balance-wise, no. Over on Monte Cook's boards we've seen designer comments in the past that you can freely toss Arcane Spell Failure from the game without any significant balance impact, just like you can toss the paladin/monk multiclass restrictions, or the druid armor limitations (and in 3.0E, the druid weapon limitations). Since it was written into the core, the official material has to assume that it's a standard part of the game and build more mechanics around it, but balance wasn't really a concern (or at least it isn't with the PHB classes) when it was written in.
makeshiftwings 09-30-06, 05:09 AM	I think arcane spell failure in general is not so much about game balance as it is about flavor. The same with armor check penalties and heavy armor. The "flavor" of the game is supposed to be wizards in robes with pointy hats and staves, rogues in leather armor with knives, and knights in full plate with swords. They created the game mechanics and balance purposely to enforce that stereotype, not the other way around.
Mort_Q 09-30-06, 10:08 AM	The whole game is flavor. Remove the flavor and all we have to do is take turns rolling a d20, and whomever rolls highest, wins.
Maraxus 09-30-06, 10:35 AM	-Professor Maraxus? -Yes, Timmy? -Why is there arcane spell failure on shields? -Because they are bulky and hinder your movement when strapped to the arm. You have to know, that the mystical arcane gestures are very complex and need unhindered movement. -Professor, can a man with 1 arm cast spells? Or what if I want to hold a wizard's staff or a scroll in one hand. -Yes, Timmy. You only need one free hand for components and gestures. Even if a poor man's arm is ripped of, he can use the other arm for this. -But, if you don't need the arm at all for casing, why does it matter, if something is strapped to it? -Well, ... I don't really know ... Maybe ... if you have two arms, the gestures are suddenly diffrent, in a way that you need both arms ... but not both hands ... right, if you have two arms, you need to shake your Elbows, it's in the spell description, yes it is. -Yes, that's bad Professor. What if I brought myself one of these flying shields. All the cool guys have it. If my shield was not strapped at my arm but flying around me, I could use my arm however i want. -No, Timmy. That's ... another thing. You can't do that, because ... damn, it's magic. Logic does not work. It's simply not possible, stupid brat!