Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Joseph_Silver 10-15-06, 02:55 PM	http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061010a&page=1 Let's compare two builds. One uses the Armored Mage variant, while the other uses the normal fighter. 1. Armored Mage (fighter 6/wizard 6/eldritch knight 8) You can cast up to 7th-level spells without arcane spell failure if you wear light armor and wield a light shield. You have a caster level of 17 if you take Practiced Spellcaster, and your base attack bonus is +17. 2. Still Spell Mage (fighter 2/wizard 8/eldritch knight 10) You can cast up to 8th-level spells with no arcane spell failure in any type of armor wielding any kind of shield. You have a caster level of 20 if you take Practiced Spellcaster, and your base attack bonus is +16. Huh? Is it just me, or is this variant kind of useless?
MerlintheTuna 10-15-06, 04:21 PM	Like so many others, yes, yes it is.
InkBlot 10-15-06, 04:55 PM	It's kind of usefull if you don't want to spend a feat on Still Spell. Feat-intensive builds would benefit from it if you're playing from 1st level. If you start at a higher level, you could probably wedge Still Spell in there somewhere and not have to suffer through those levels before you got the feat.
WarDragon 10-15-06, 04:56 PM	In the second version, all your spells are one level higher than normal. I would call that a slight disadvantage. Still, no caster in his right mind is going to take that many Fighter levels, except in gestalt games.
Kadasbrass 10-15-06, 05:18 PM	Didn't see the part about it limiting the spells the ability work for. Don't think its to unbalancing to houserule it to ignore the limit.
Joseph_Silver 10-15-06, 07:02 PM	Um, the second build can actually cast up to 9th-level spells, but because of arcane spell failure, the Still Spell Mage has to apply Still Spell to each spell with a somatic component, reducing him to 8th-level spells. The Armored Mage doesn't need Still Spell, but he is limited to 7th-level spells. The Armored Mage loses Medium Armor Proficiency and Heavy Armor Proficiency in exchange for 0% spell Failure. That's a net loss of one feat. The Still Spell mage, on the other hand, gets to keep Medium Armor Proficiency and Heavy Armor Proficiency. He spends one feat on Still Spell, which results in a net gain of one feat over the Armored Mage. It gets even worse once you factor in how many books are required to build a decent Armored Mage or Still Spell Mage. The Still Spell Mage requires the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide. Complete Arcane is optional, because the Still Spell Mage's caster level is alright without it. That's two to three books. The Armored Mage requires all of the above and Complete Mage. Complete Arcane is not optional because the Armored Mage's caster level sucks without it. Complete Mage is a must because that's where the Armored Mage variant is found. That's a minimum of four books. The Armored Mage has virtually no advantage over the Still Spell Mage.
UnknownMourner 10-15-06, 08:11 PM	It's for dipping in one level. You make a Wizard 19/Fighter 1. Now your wizard can wear some armor and get a small hit point and FORT boost to survive the early levels, move and shoot in the back with longbows rather than immobilizing crossbows, and pack a decent melee weapon.
Kadasbrass 10-15-06, 08:16 PM	A Elf Wizard would get the benefit of a decent weapon early on. For the long term the benefits of a small bonus to fort saves, bab, and hit points from a one level dip just are not really worth it.
PhaedrusXY 10-15-06, 08:24 PM	Totally useless piece of garbage.
Joseph_Silver 10-16-06, 09:09 AM	It's for dipping in one level. You make a Wizard 19/Fighter 1. Now your wizard can wear some armor and get a small hit point and FORT boost to survive the early levels, move and shoot in the back with longbows rather than immobilizing crossbows, and pack a decent melee weapon. No, it doesn't work that way. You are limited to casting spells of a level equal to or less than your fighter level + 1. Thus, if you are a fighter 1/wizard 19, you can only cast up to 2nd-level spells without arcane spell failure. This variant basically forces you to take a lot of fighter levles.
runestar 10-16-06, 10:17 AM	Pretty useless, IMO. Early on, there's mage armour, and later on, bracers of armour or twillight mithril chain shirt(since no ASF in light armour pretty much restricts you to chain shirts), as well as mithril bucklers. It might be useful at low lvs or for NPC gishes who are unable to afford such "luxuries", though in a one-shot, they could just cast mage armour instead. Might be useful for the arcane guard(drow fighter2/wiz5) from MM4 or fighter1/wiz3 npc builds...:P
jstorrie 10-16-06, 05:48 PM	Very, very useless, because a myriad of classes including Spellsword exist that completely trump this.
StruckingFuggle 10-16-06, 05:58 PM	Of course, if it was unfettered, that'd be just awesome. Too awesome, though, probably.
ninjarabbit 10-16-06, 07:44 PM	Pretty much useless because it forces you to take lots of fighter levels. The still feat feat, the spellsword and knight phantom PrCs among others, and a mithral chain shirt with the twilight enchantment all let you cast in armor without worrying about ASF and without taking more than 1 level of fighter.
stsword 10-17-06, 01:45 AM	http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061010a&page=1 Let's compare two builds. One uses the Armored Mage variant, while the other uses the normal fighter. 1. Armored Mage (fighter 6/wizard 6/eldritch knight 8) You can cast up to 7th-level spells without arcane spell failure if you wear light armor and wield a light shield. You have a caster level of 17 if you take Practiced Spellcaster, and your base attack bonus is +17. 2. Still Spell Mage (fighter 2/wizard 8/eldritch knight 10) You can cast up to 8th-level spells with no arcane spell failure in any type of armor wielding any kind of shield. You have a caster level of 20 if you take Practiced Spellcaster, and your base attack bonus is +16. Huh? Is it just me, or is this variant kind of useless? Or 3) Mix the options to make a fighter 2/wizard 8/eldritch knight 10 with that alternate class feature who can cast more 1-3 level spells and with mithral and half weight armor isn't really loosing much in return.
Chimaera2000 10-17-06, 04:12 AM	Yes it's useless, and not only for the reasons suggested. It's also useless (as is Still Spell!) because of the twilight property from the Player's Handbook II. For a +1 enhancement bonus, you ignore 10% arcane spell failure from the armor ; apply it to a mithral chain shirt and even a full-casting, zero-proficiency wizard can use it without penalty. The only reason why some might wish to use Still Spell instead would be if they wanted to cast in heavy armor. For most mages, though, the mithral chain shirt of twilight should be enough.
Thane26425 10-17-06, 09:09 AM	Arcane casting failure also only applies to spells with a somatic component. There are a few that have only verbal components, like True Strike. By taking that level or few of fighter and focussing on ranged weapons, a wizard could wear medium armor and launch a very accurate shot every now and then. For that matter, ask the DM to allow you to drop the heavy armor feat in favor of another one, and waive its requirement for Eldritch Knight and Spellsword, and apply that feat however you like, drawing from the fighter group. You could also use the character rebuild system from PHB 2 to replace Still Spell at higher levels once the suitable armors are acquired.
da'Loharon 10-17-06, 12:16 PM	You Could Also just get a Suit of Runic Mithral Full Plate and have 5% spell failure or make it a lighter armor and have none Runic +3 Dex, -3 CP, -15 Spellfailure(to 0%), Armor drops one Catigory(heavy to medium): Light 4000gp, Medium 9000gp, Heavy 11000gp. Craft(alchemy) DC 20, Can be apllied to any finished Armor.
StruckingFuggle 10-17-06, 04:41 PM	You Could Also just get a Suit of Runic Mithral Full Plate and have 5% spell failure or make it a lighter armor and have none Runic +3 Dex, -3 CP, -15 Spellfailure(to 0%), Armor drops one Catigory(heavy to medium): Light 4000gp, Medium 9000gp, Heavy 11000gp. Craft(alchemy) DC 20, Can be apllied to any finished Armor. Source?
Joseph_Silver 10-17-06, 08:13 PM	Mage armor cast by a fighter 1/wizard 3 would last 4 hours with Practiced Spellcaster. To have armor virtually all day long, I can just prepare mage armor twice or an extended mage armor once. Not all adventures literally last all day long, so I should be okay. Also, I just realized something. For the first eight character levels (fighter 2/wizard 6), Armored Mage beats Still Spell. Not all campaigns reach level 20, let alone level 10, so you will get a lot of mileage out of this variant. And so we are faced with a dilemma. Instant or delayed gratification? Armored Mage or Still Spell? I plan on testing this variant as soon as I find a new playgroup.
UnknownMourner 10-17-06, 08:57 PM	No, it doesn't work that way. You are limited to casting spells of a level equal to or less than your fighter level + 1. Thus, if you are a fighter 1/wizard 19, you can only cast up to 2nd-level spells without arcane spell failure. Oh, my bad, sorry. Yeah, then it chokes on goat wang. Except for a DM maybe that is making elite units of an army, like a 40 elf unit of level 1/3 elven fighter/wizards or some such.
runestar 10-18-06, 01:33 PM	On second thought, I wonder if I have too hasty in my condemnation of the armoured mage variant. Most of the arguments against it seems to revolve around the existance of +1 twillight mithril chainshirts and/or 1lv dips in the spellsword prc. But surely there are other light armours around worth mentioning, especially if the mage cannot afford a 22dex...:P 2 notable examples are mithral breastplates and halfweight adamantine fullplate(treated as light armour because of the halfweight property). They still incur ASF, which would then be conveniently negated via armoured mage. Hmm...perhaps a trip to the CO boards might be in order...:cool:
Board_Rider 10-18-06, 02:43 PM	Eh...not entirely useless. Think about those DMs who run primarily core only games and tire from hearing so many players who can't play duskblades, warmages, battle sorcerers or hexblades in their games. This gives DMs a mechanic to fall to that is "WotC Approved". I am honestly suprised to see so much negativity towards this variant when I have read so much about how players can make a fighter/mage in core only games successfully. This variant actually allows you to keep something, armor wise, for playing a fighter.
Generic Poster 10-18-06, 03:23 PM	Well, if you compare what your giving up compared to what your gaining, I don't see how it can be claimed to be a useless ability. How many gishes use heavy armor anyway? I'm not an expert on gish builds, but I would think alot of fighter/wizards would use light armor, and only a small minority actually used medium or heavy armor. So since your probably not going to be using heavy or medium armor anyway, you lose absolutely nothing by taking this class feature, and gain something in the short-term until you can afford good enough armor so that you don't have to worry about ASF. I think it's shortsighted to think an ability sucks just because it's not useful at higher levels, especially when you lose nothing for having the ability. I don't see threads for example, talking about how the sleep spell sucks just because it's useless past 5th level, but somehow Armored mage is useless just because it can get supplanted later on.
Joseph_Silver 10-18-06, 04:43 PM	The sleep spell analogy is a very good one. I hadn't thought of that. From level 1 to 4, it's a save or die spell, and most campaigns start at level 1.
StruckingFuggle 10-18-06, 06:39 PM	Eh...not entirely useless. Think about those DMs who run primarily core only games and tire from hearing so many players who can't play duskblades, warmages, battle sorcerers or hexblades in their games. This gives DMs a mechanic to fall to that is "WotC Approved". Wait. Duskblades, Warmages, Battle Sorcerors, and Hexblades aren't 'WotC Approved', but this class variant is 'WotC Approved'? What's the logic there? I am honestly suprised to see so much negativity towards this variant when I have read so much about how players can make a fighter/mage in core only games successfully. This variant actually allows you to keep something, armor wise, for playing a fighter. The problem is, most people want higher level spellcasting without ASF, and Armored Mage only works for Light Armor (the only thing you'd be proficient in), and then only for spells of a level below your fighter level. So to cast, say, fifth level spells with no ASF from Armored Mage, you need five levels of fighter, which is more than most people want to put into such a build. Well, if you compare what your giving up compared to what your gaining, I don't see how it can be claimed to be a useless ability. How many gishes use heavy armor anyway? I'm not an expert on gish builds, but I would think alot of fighter/wizards would use light armor, and only a small minority actually used medium or heavy armor. Its not that you're giving up heavy armor or even medium armor, but that it only functions for as many levels of spells as you have level of fighter -so you need to take "too many levels of fighter" for it to work for most gishes (who wants 16+ BAB and 9th level spells by 20). So since your probably not going to be using heavy or medium armor anyway, you lose absolutely nothing by taking this class feature, and gain something in the short-term until you can afford good enough armor so that you don't have to worry about ASF. I think it's shortsighted to think an ability sucks just because it's not useful at higher levels, especially when you lose nothing for having the ability. You lose something at low-but-not-1 and mid levels in the form of opportunity cost for taking Fighter (sarcificing spellcasting advancement and caster levels) instead of taking either wizard or something like Spellsword, Dragonslayer, or Abjurant Champion that has some decent progression of both. And yes the PrCs start and mid levels, but even at lower levels, you're often shooting yourself in the foot - if at level six you're a Fighter 3 / Wizard 3, you're weaker than either a Fighter 5 / Wizard 1 (which is "..just, why?" anyway), or a Fighter 1 / Wizard 5. The point is as much about the cost in terms of how it forces you to level to get something OUT of it, as it is that it gets replaced later on.
darkestRose 10-18-06, 07:00 PM	so what would be a good build for a fighter/wizard strucking fuggle? i want to make one.. i tryed.. for a spellsword but got pwnd.. race/ feats/ lvls in each class etc..
ninjarabbit 10-18-06, 07:48 PM	Another thing is that wizards have so many defensive options as far as spells go like mage armor, alter self (lizardfolk for +5 natural armor), and mirror image that they don't need to be able to be able to cast in armor, it's a luxury.
Board_Rider 10-18-06, 07:59 PM	Wait. Duskblades, Warmages, Battle Sorcerors, and Hexblades aren't 'WotC Approved', but this class variant is 'WotC Approved'? What's the logic there? Wait. Before you quote me and ask me of my logic reread the quoted text............done? What I wrote was that the variation could work for those DMs that run primarily core games (or don't own the the PHB2 or Complete series) and have players that wish to play a fighter/wizard. This variation allows for that. Again, please reread the text before quoting. The problem is, most people want higher level spellcasting without ASF, and Armored Mage only works for Light Armor (the only thing you'd be proficient in), and then only for spells of a level below your fighter level. So to cast, say, fifth level spells with no ASF from Armored Mage, you need five levels of fighter, which is more than most people want to put into such a build. Maybe. But, again, this is where the argument of pro supplements comes from. Many players want to play a fighter who uses magic. Many DMs don't allow, or own, the books that I have mentioned above and just as many players (and many posters here) feel that a fighter/mage can be made within the core rules. This variant aides both the DM and Player in seeing that come to fruition. It may not be as optimal but it may help those players who are restricted to the Core ruleset. This variation would almost assuradely sit easy even with the tightest of DMs.
Generic Poster 10-18-06, 10:23 PM	Its not that you're giving up heavy armor or even medium armor, but that it only functions for as many levels of spells as you have level of fighter -so you need to take "too many levels of fighter" for it to work for most gishes (who wants 16+ BAB and 9th level spells by 20). I'm pointing out that the ability is useful for gishes as a stop gap measure until the character gains another way to wear light armor without penalty through either another feat/ability or the right equipment. Your not suppose to take any more levels in fighter just because this alternative class ability exists, but if your going to take fighter levels anyway with your gish, aren't planning on wearing medium or heavy armor and don't have an immediate way to get rid of ASF while wearing light armor, then there is no reason not to take this alternative class ability. Hopefully, by the time you can cast 3rd level spells, you have another method available to prevent ASF or you can do without light armor without any real drop in your AC. The only part of the ability that can be considered nearly useless is the scaling factor for spell level vs. fighter level. If they had just made the armored mage just get rid of ASF for 1st and 2nd level spells , it would still be just as useful as it's written now. Although who knows, maybe sometime in the future a sweet prc will appear that will require multiple levels of fighter as well as mage. Then everyone will be glad that the armored mage ability scales, but for now scaling makes no difference in power.
Zoberraz 01-06-07, 05:59 PM	In my case, I am quite glad they included such an alternative class feature. My DM never really liked the prestige classes since the community classically treats them as ways to increase the power of their characters rather than just for the flavor of having the class itself. He just tends to roll his eyes when he sees multiclass combinations going up to 4 or 5 class builds with more than one prestige class thrown in. So, at first, he was putting a limit of a maximum of 3 classes and a maximum of one prestige class for a character, but with the advent of the newer classes such as scouts, swashbucklers, dragon savants, knights, duskblades and warlocks; he just shrugged the prestige classes away. Acquisition of one in his setting was a rare event in any case and the luster of a prestige class like the bladesinger or the duelist plumetted down when a player could nearly instantly get a class with equivalent capabilities or theme in the duskblade and the swashbuckler. In my case, my character is actually my 2nd edition elf fighter/mage whom I translated to a Elf Paragon 3/Fighter 6/Sorcerer 7 (with the elf paragon bonus caster level being for sorcerer instead of wizard due to my subrace's favored class being sorcerer). She's a high dex archer mage sort of character whom never really got along with the arcane archer prestige class (I never saw much value in Imbue Arrow) nor had the prerequisites to fit into another prestige class other than the relatively bland Eldritch Knight. Still, I was a high dex archer and a light combattant whom had no reason to pick a swashbuckler to signify I was a light combatant. I wasn't a fighter/mage in the same fashion as the duskblade and I needed the fighter's feats to attain the level of expertise my 2nd edition archer kit high-rate of fire and ability with the bow. I never had a use for heavier armor, but in 2nd edition, I could wear my elven chain without a problem. In 3rd edition, not only did my caster level plummet down due to the way multiclass characters were being treated, but I also had to tangle with arcane spell failure with an armor type which was reputed to be able to channel magic through fine. The fact that elven chain had arcane spell failure I found appaling. This class variant allows me to wear light armors just fine. The spell levels it allows me to cast go way over my 4th-level spells. I also don't have to explain why my character's knows how to wear armor types she has no interest in even touching, much less wearing. Instead, I have training in wearing light armor and cast my spells without a hitch, which is just perfect for me.
Merryadocc 01-06-07, 11:22 PM	Ftr1/Wiz4/Knight Phantom1 taking the Battle Caster feat at 6th level can cast to his hearts content in medium or lighter armor. Without having to get mithral, twilight, or any other enchantment or material special properties. A couple of questions Runestar, where is the halfweight property? and da'Loharon, where is the Runic armor rules?
zae 01-07-07, 03:40 AM	If you have your heart set on taking a Fighter level for your caster, and have "Dragon Magic", then go for the Dragonscale Husk class feature. You lose your armour proficiencies, but instead gain a +6 to AC (this doesn't stack with feats, racial traits or other special abilities, but rings of protection should be okay). You can't enchant this, and it's Medium (so slow), but you can sleep in it and it doesn't have any ASF. So if you're already taking the fighter level and don't mind being slowed down, have +6 AC. (Note: The Max Dex is fairly low, so you either won't be gaining the full benefit of it when you make your Dex high (for ranged touch attacks) or you'll accept that touch attacks always hit anyway, and just put those points into Con/casting stat/an ability score you'd like to have high but usually can't afford to keep high.)
Zoberraz 01-07-07, 04:44 PM	I always interpreted the maximum dex bonus of an armor to reflect on the maximum dexterity bonus you could muster for all of a character's actions, including the modifier to AC, the modifier to ranged attacks (and melee with Weapon Finesse), the modifier for Saving Throws and finally modifiers for skills. Was I in error?
Dracomortis 01-07-07, 06:09 PM	There's a special armor material in Arms & Equipment Guide that reduces arcane spell failure by 20%. Add the twilight property to that and you can wear breastplate armor and use a heavy steel shield with no spell failure. If you're feeling risky, you could even go full plate and only have 5% spell failure.
Zoberraz 01-08-07, 12:59 PM	Yeah, but in the case of an archer, you probably want to have a high dex bonus which would make light armor look very desirable.The irony is, the best armor I've found for that purpose so far is the celestial armor. Not only is it a chain mail +3, but you get a once per day Fly spell out of it along with having it considered light armor and getting a +8 Dex bonus out of it with an arcane spell failure that's way better than elven chain. I'm telling you guys: elven chain is a pale comparison of what it once was ~_~
mittenninja 01-17-07, 02:56 AM	Now here's something i see that none of you have pointed out yet. All of these arguments are for/against a character build that involves primarily spellcasting levels. The variant is perfect for a mainly melee character that wants a small amount of spellcasting to buff his abilities in combat. Example: A fighter wearing mitrhil breastplate weilding a 2-handed weapon can now cast shield, bull's strength, bear's endurance, blur etc. All of these low level spells don't involve saving throws so the low CL is not a hinderance and they still retain their effectiveness at higher levels.
StruckingFuggle 01-17-07, 03:21 AM	But, who would want a gish that was primarily martial over magical, especially one with dominantly fighter levels, and why?
mittenninja 01-17-07, 03:24 AM	Since you are using low level spells (we will say 2nd level and lower) you would only need one level of fighter. Allowing you to take other levels in say, barbarian, rogue, ranger or whatever other class you feel like. If you really want to get tricky use the classes from ToB to mix melee, manuevers and magic successfully.
StruckingFuggle 01-17-07, 03:28 AM	Huh, I'll have to look back at CM. I thought it was a level of spells per level of fighter, so Ftr 2 for second level spells (personally, I'd want to go to third level spells, which would have to be Ftr 3 / Wiz 5, though ... though it gets you more Wraithstrike and some Displacement ...) ...hm.
mittenninja 01-17-07, 03:31 AM	the alternate feature states "This benefit applies only to spells of a level equal to or lower than your fighter class level +1" So 2 levels of fighter would allow you to cast 3rd level spells with no spell failure.
StruckingFuggle 01-17-07, 03:42 AM	Oooh. Okay then. I see.
Dracomortis 01-17-07, 05:02 PM	Hmm. The ability would be very useful in a gestalt build, but other than that I can only see it being used for a primarily melee-oriented build.
Zoberraz 01-20-07, 04:32 AM	My wild elf Paragon3/fighter 7/sorceress 8 works pretty well with the armored mage class feature. I don't really use big armors because I want to keep my dex bonus high since I'm a bow user (Melf's slumber arrow, weapons of energy and flame arrows are all spells which mesh pretty well with my archer/mage archetype), so, I have no use for big armors but being able to wear a Celestial Chain without having to worry about arcane spell failure is pretty nice. I'm not losing anything except proficiency in armors I wouldn't wear anyways. You guys are sadly underestimating this in low-powered campaign. I mean, we don't have access to prestige classes in my campaign. The best we can get is triple classed and our DM has draconian measures to make sure that you don't acquire additional classes easily ("you want to multiclass wizard? No problem - when you multiclass, it takes as many years as the minimum roll you make at character creation"). Read again: My character is a mixed ranged attacker/spellcaster-oriented build. (Practiced Spellcaster helps too)