Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BanditoJoe 02-06-08, 12:14 PM	Hi Guys! I have a problem with one of my players. I'm a new DM and I am running Expedition to Undermountain. I have 5 players and each of them are playing spellcasters. They have a Human Cleric, a Human Dread Necromancer, A Halfling Warmage, an Elf Duskblade, and an elf Wizard. The Dread Necromancer and the Wizard are both veteran players and the rest are pretty new to D&D. Anyway, the wizard player has decided to try to use Still Spell in order to eliminate the Somatic components of his spell casting, thus allowing him to cast in armor. I have read everything he has shown me according to the PHB and it seems he is right, but I do not feel it is far to allow the wizard to cast in armor. With the exception of the Cleric, everyone else has specialized in a school of magic. That is why it is fair to allow them to cast in light armor. But the wizard has a huge variety of spells and it hardly seems fair to take away his weakness. I was wondering if there was any errata about Still Spell that might help me. If I am wrong, and he is able to cast in armor with that feat, then so be it. But if he is wrong, I'd love to know about it. Normally, I would call it a DM house rule, but he has said that he will leave if I don't allow him to take it. I'm asking because I don't want to seem unfair. If you guys have any suggestions or advice, I would sure appreciate it. Thanks a lot.
Roac 02-06-08, 12:22 PM	If your referring to still spell the metamagic feat from the PHB then I'd let him. If I remember correctly doesn't it add 2 or 3 spell levels onto each affected spell? That is in NO WAY worth it if your a wizard. "Hmm I could take fireball with my 3rd level spell slot, or I could wear armor and cast magic missile as a still spell of the same level." Not to mention that if he wants heavy armor he'll either have to multiclass fighter or something similar to begin with or waste a number of feats simply to gain the proficiency. Is this his thinking or is he explaining it as something else?
rimble 02-06-08, 12:26 PM	I think that's a great idea. Will gimp him pretty badly though, I think. He'll have to waste Feats or a Level on getting armor proficiencies, and then every spell is prepared in a one-level-higher slot (don't let him reduce that to 0 through any cheesy means). That's a serious sacrifice in arcane power for not much gain. Mirror Image, Blur, and Displacement are much better defenses.
Mysteria 02-06-08, 12:26 PM	I don't know if there is really nothing that says he can't do this, but did you consider that he needs to use a higher level spell slot for almost every spell he casts so he's rather crippling himself in spell power ... So, is it still a problem? 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. ninja'd ...
BanditoJoe 02-06-08, 12:28 PM	If your referring to still spell the metamagic feat from the PHB then I'd let him. If I remember correctly doesn't it add 2 or 3 spell levels onto each affected spell? That is in NO WAY worth it if your a wizard. "Hmm I could take fireball with my 3rd level spell slot, or I could wear armor and cast magic missile as a still spell of the same level." Not to mention that if he wants heavy armor he'll either have to multiclass fighter or something similar to begin with or waste a number of feats simply to gain the proficiency. Is this his thinking or is he explaining it as something else? Actually, it only adds one level to affected spells. If it were more, then we wouldn't be having this thread discussion.
TazendrasGhost 02-06-08, 12:29 PM	There are much better ways to cast in armor than to take Still Spell, so I don't see why you have a problem with it. He's gimping himself pretty badly. Your other spellcasters will be casting spells a full level higher than he will be if he does this.
Arcane-surge 02-06-08, 12:31 PM	It's pretty balanced, to the point of being sucky, so long as you remember a few things. 1: Still Spell adds +1 to the spell level, so if he's level 5, and wants to cast every spell stilled, he can kiss 3rd level spells goodbye unless he takes his armor off. 2: He's not proficient with said armor, being a wizard. That means he takes the armor check penalty as a penalty to all attack rolls (Including those for touch and ranged touch spells). Also, consider that getting an armor bonus isn't that hard to begin with, which is why most wizards don't bother even trying to cast in armor. Mage Armor is a +4 that lasts 1/hour per level, and is easy enough to extend. Greater Mage Armor, from Spell Compendium, is +6 for the same duration. Mix in a class like Paragnostic Apostle (Complete Champion), or Abjurant Champion (Complete Mage) with the spell Greater Luminous Armor (Book of Exalted Deeds), and it starts to get absurd (My guess for the total AC provided by all three would be a +15 armor bonus, but I'm AFB). In short, it's not broken, just keep track of his spell adjustments.
Roac 02-06-08, 12:33 PM	I'm just saying that its a huge sacrifice with only a temporary gain, at higher levels AC boosting items and at every level spells alone more than make up for what he's trying to do just to avoid getting hit, especially with this party. It seems like a large waste since he's the only versatile arcane caster. Is he planning something along the lines of the Eldritch Theurge prestige class?
BanditoJoe 02-06-08, 12:41 PM	I'm just saying that its a huge sacrifice with only a temporary gain, at higher levels AC boosting items and at every level spells alone more than make up for what he's trying to do just to avoid getting hit, especially with this party. It seems like a large waste since he's the only versatile arcane caster. Is he planning something along the lines of the Eldritch Theurge prestige class? I do believe so. It seems to me that everything he plans is in an attempt to break his character and power game the hell out of my campaign. I am a fairly generous DM, maybe to a fault, but I refuse to allow him to out class the rest of the group. I've tried several times to point out the Spell Sword PrC in Complete Warrior, and I fear that he will simply use a level in fighter to cover all of his proficiency problems.
Father Dale 02-06-08, 01:01 PM	heh, if this is his idea of power-gaming he really should try to find a new game... There are dozens of ways to get armored-casting. They way he is looking at doing it is the absolute worst way to do it. Basically he is foregoing his highest level spells so he can cast metamagic versions of all his spells. This will really hurt when he wants to use additional metamagic spells; for instance, that empowered fireball now takes a 6th lvl slot to make it stilled. A regular wizard could just cast Chain Lightning... If he wants to take a lvl of fighter to gain proficiencies...fine. Hes just lost a caster level, further slowing down his spell casting. And if he turns this fighter/wizard into a Spellsword, then so what? Thats exactly how you get into the class and its far from over powered. Casting in Armor is vastly over rated. A wizard should have dozens of ways to have a better AC or to protect himself better than what plain old armor can provide. What he wants to do is perfectly legitimate rule wise (See Neverwinter nights) and it is about as ass-backwards as a wizard can be. You have absolutely nothing to worry about here...
Count Arioch the 28th 02-06-08, 01:10 PM	I'd fight a man over telling me to take Spellsword levels. Spellsword is one of the worst PrCs ever written. If you don't want anyone overpowering anyone else in the game, then what you really need to to is ban all spellcasters. Spellcasters win D&D and make everyone else small in the pants. It's not the fact that he's casting spells in armor that's the balance problem, it's the fact that he's casting spells at all that's outclassing the rest of the group. All he is doing is slowing himself down, casting inferior spells, and giving him a couple more points AC. That is not unbalanced. If he was really trying to overpower your game, he'd be a cleric, which can already cast in armor, but he has better saves, BaB, and hit dice, In short, he is using an inferior choice than being just a "normal" wizard, so you're overreacting. He's not more powerful by stilling every spell and wearing armor, he is less powerful.
Merestil Haye 02-06-08, 01:39 PM	Still Spell, by wording and intent, does allow a wizard to cast any spell in armour without suffering from ASF. This is absolutely not overpowered. Firstly, by doing so he lowers the level of almost every spell he casts by 1. This affects many things, including the DC of any saving throw, the ability to penetrate Globe of Invulnerability and so on. Secondly, if he's wearing medium or heavy armour, his speed is reduced. Hi smost important defence is being able to move out of harms way, and he has just voluntarily reduced his capacity to do so. And while I'm on the subject of movement, just what is his Strength? (Taking all bonuses into account.) And how much does all his gear weigh? Make him inventory it, and check it regularly. Impose the Max Dex and check penalties for load if he goes so much as one pound over an encumbrance threshold. Armour check penalties are not only applicable to attack rolls, but also to every Str- based and Dex- based ability check. Initiative is a Dex check, and ACP applies to that. If he wants to spend a level getting armour proficiency? Let him. He's just dropped a level behind in casting progression, and that's far more important for a pure caster. If he's powergaming he will avoid Spellsword like the plague. It costs him half his spellcasting levels, and that's far more important than any benefit he gains. In this sort of situation I'd be aiming for Abjurant Champion, not Spellsword. Finally remember that armour does nothing to protect you from touch attacks or incorporeal touch attacks. In summary, he's paying some high prices (in terms of lost spellcasting levels and reduced spell effectiveness) for being able to do something which imposes severe penalties to a typical wizard.
Fireclave 02-06-08, 01:42 PM	I do believe so. It seems to me that everything he plans is in an attempt to break his character and power game the hell out of my campaign. I am a fairly generous DM, maybe to a fault, but I refuse to allow him to out class the rest of the group. I've tried several times to point out the Spell Sword PrC in Complete Warrior, and I fear that he will simply use a level in fighter to cover all of his proficiency problems. If he's trying to power game the hell out of your game, he's doing it wrong. Really, what he's doing isn't that much of a big deal power wise. First, as already noted, if he's casting all of his spells as stilled spells, he'll be a whole level behind in spell casting. Wizards ARE they're spells, so this is a significant trade. Second, his AC still won't be a huge deal even if he goes full tilter with his AC, even to the point of picking up full plate (and he'll have to if he wants this strategy to remain viable at higher levels). And unless he prestige classes out of wizard, he'll still have crap HP. And at higher levels, with with the best armor, all characters still get hit pretty often since attack rolls scale faster than AC. Not to mention that armor will likely slow him down and induce armor check penalties. Third, armor won't help him avoid AoE's, grapple, trip attempts, touch attacks, ect. So he is still fairly vulnerable. Fourth, if he's is going for classes like mystic thurge, eldritch thurge, or eldritch knight, he will be trading away more of his spell casting power and/or waiting much longer to reap the benefits of the class. Fifth, between spells and magic items, there are much more efficient ways for a wizard to avoid getting hit and still have access to his top tier spells. In short, your player is investing some significant resources into a shtick with likely only moderate returns. If he's merely trying to keep up with the rest of his armored, spellcasting compatriots and avoid being a burden (read: obvious target) when following them into the fray. If he's trying to beat even the cleric in AC, again let him. He'll be investing quite a bit of gp into doing so and still be a spell level behind. I've tried several times to point out the Spell Sword PrC in Complete Warrior, and I fear that he will simply use a level in fighter to cover all of his proficiency problems. A level in Fighter would put him a caster level behind, which is not good for casters. And the Spell Sword class honestly is not worth more than a few levels dip at best.
Sinis 02-07-08, 02:03 AM	Hi Guys! Anyway, the wizard player has decided to try to use Still Spell in order to eliminate the Somatic components of his spell casting, thus allowing him to cast in armor. I have read everything he has shown me according to the PHB and it seems he is right, but I do not feel it is far to allow the wizard to cast in armor. With the exception of the Cleric, everyone else has specialized in a school of magic. That is why it is fair to allow them to cast in light armor. But the wizard has a huge variety of spells and it hardly seems fair to take away his weakness. I was wondering if there was any errata about Still Spell that might help me. If I am wrong, and he is able to cast in armor with that feat, then so be it. But if he is wrong, I'd love to know about it. Well, it's very important to note that most arcane spellcasters are not proficient with armour, and that there are penalties associated with non-proficiency. It's also important to note that mundane armour does not stack with Mage Armour (the spell). The second thing to note is that a spell prepared (or spontaneously cast) with still spell takes a spell slot of one higher than normal without altering the DC (if a save is allowed), as others have noted. So a still Scorching Ray would be a 3rd level spell. A still fireball would be a 4th level spell. I'm sure you get the picture, and this is a harsher penalty than it appears to be on the face of it. If they actually want to do this, I say let 'em. It's really not an optimal way to play (unless you're specifically doing some sort of fighter-mage RP schtick) and mundane armour is typically not a whole lot better than mage armour. It's seriously just easier to cast a first level spell in the morning instead of altering 90% of your spells up one spell level.
Father Dale 02-07-08, 12:15 PM	It's seriously just easier to cast a first level spell in the morning instead of altering 90% of your spells up one spell level. Too true. And so is your sig line...
Edymnion 02-07-08, 12:35 PM	Don't let him see a Twilight Thistledown Mithril Breastplate of Nimbleness. Breastplate with 0 ACP, 0% ASF.
StevenO 02-07-08, 01:56 PM	As everyone is pointing out there is no problem with Still Spell. Granted a straight wizard should never be wearing armor to begin with there are a number of spells that could be cast without ASF even without appling Still Spell to them. Truestrike and Blur can be cast by someone in Heavy Armor without worring about ASF because they don't have a somatic component to begin with. I don't recall which spells don't have an (S) component but I seem to remember finding at least one of each level without needing to go too far from my PHB (I don't have the Spell Compendium). Given the most common use of Still Spell is to avoid ASF I'd even consider adding a general feat that expands on that specifically to avoid ASF: Armored Casting: Prereqs: Still Spell, Armor Proficiency (I debate on whether or not to add Combat Casting) Benefit: You ignore ASF when casting spells in proficient armor. Normal: You can apply Still Spell to a spell removing its (S) component and thus any chance of ASF along with some other benefits. This feat represents practice with that feat that allows you to simplify your spells so that armor you are familiar (proficient) with doesn't hinder your spellcasting much like a cleric casting spells. You do not gain any of the other benefits of Still Spell such as casting in a grapple or when bound however.
PenderGrass 02-07-08, 03:46 PM	If a wizard finds himself in a situation where he needs to wear real armor, he is already dead... Wizard [in plate]: "What are you doing?" NPC Fighter: "What am I doing? I am taking this empty suit of armor." <starts removing plate armor from wizard> Wizard: "I don't understand." NPC Fighter: "'Cause there is a dead wizard inside this EDIT suit. " :dragon: *****
toucanbuzz 02-07-08, 03:56 PM	If a wizard finds himself in a situation where he needs to wear real armor, he is already dead... Probably quite true. But, if he wants to cast in armor, still spell will allow him to do so without fear of spell failure. He'll catch on eventually that it's not a great tradeoff. (Now, if you're trying to fake out the enemy spellcaster into thinking he's just a mundane fighter with a poor will save, then we've got some real trickery and roleplaying going!)
Father Dale 02-07-08, 08:00 PM	If a wizard finds himself in a situation where he needs to wear real armor, he is already dead... Wizard [in plate]: "What are you doing?" NPC Fighter: "What am I doing? I am taking this empty suit of armor." <starts removing plate armor from wizard> Wizard: "I don't understand." NPC Fighter: "'Cause there is a dead wizard inside this EDIT suit. " :dragon: ***** Wizard: "I could get killed if I take off this armor!" NPC Fighter: "You could get killed walking your doggie!"
Andrew 02-07-08, 08:23 PM	I do believe so. It seems to me that everything he plans is in an attempt to break his character and power game the hell out of my campaign. I am a fairly generous DM, maybe to a fault, but I refuse to allow him to out class the rest of the group. I've tried several times to point out the Spell Sword PrC in Complete Warrior, and I fear that he will simply use a level in fighter to cover all of his proficiency problems. You are way out of line. Your "feared" scenario will effectively put his spell progression three levels behind every other wizard. I'd walk, too, if I'd decided on such a horrifically wasteful and senseless approach and my DM banned it. If he wanted to, he could spend 5,100 gp for a +1 twilight mithral shirt and have armor he can wear and cast in with no cost in feats, levels, or effective spell levels.
Someone 02-08-08, 10:52 AM	Wizard: "I could get killed if I take off this armor!" NPC Fighter: "You could get killed walking your doggie!"Wizard: "But that's my familiar!" Everyone: "You took a riding dog as your familiar?!?"
Edymnion 02-08-08, 12:34 PM	Granted a straight wizard should never be wearing armor to begin withThis is simply not true. Every wizard should be wearing Padded Armor. No check penalty, and only 5% ASF. Thats rolling a natural 1 on a d20, and it will save you thousands on BoA. Or if your DM allows the Twilight enchantment, a Twilight Mithril Shirt for 0 ACP and 0% ASF.
Tedronai 02-08-08, 01:20 PM	This is simply not true. Every wizard should be wearing Padded Armor. No check penalty, and only 5% ASF. Thats rolling a natural 1 on a d20, and it will save you thousands on BoA. Or if your DM allows the Twilight enchantment, a Twilight Mithril Shirt for 0 ACP and 0% ASF. If you can't get the Twilight Mithril Shirt, go for Thistledown Padded Armour. 0% arcane spell failure, for a mere ~600gp (total armour cost 750, including masterwork)
Sinis 02-08-08, 03:00 PM	This is simply not true. Every wizard should be wearing Padded Armor. No check penalty, and only 5% ASF. Thats rolling a natural 1 on a d20, and it will save you thousands on BoA. Or if your DM allows the Twilight enchantment, a Twilight Mithril Shirt for 0 ACP and 0% ASF. Arg. I wouldn't want that 5% to come up when I really needed it. I don't think that 1 AC is really worth that 5% chance. At the extreme end, padded armour can only give you an armour bonus of 6, while Bracers can go up to 8. Honestly, I'm sure you could haggle with your DM about wearing a robe that has 0 AC, and 0% ASF, and enchant that. There's precedent with Robe of the Archmagi (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#robeoftheArchmagi).
Salla 02-08-08, 03:48 PM	Arg. I wouldn't want that 5% to come up when I really needed it. I don't think that 1 AC is really worth that 5% chance. At the extreme end, padded armour can only give you an armour bonus of 6, while Bracers can go up to 8. At a fraction of the cost, meaning you can get it sooner, increasing the odds of your d4 HD butt surviving long enough for it to matter. Then you just sell the enchanted padded to get the Mithral Chain Shirt of Twilight, then the Thistle-whatever Breastplate of I can't remember all the modifiers.
Eightbitmage 02-08-08, 03:53 PM	Still spell is not even remotely broken. If you give us the PC's levels and the type of armor the wizard is wearing we can show you just how badly he is being played by elevating all his spells one level so he can wear armor. Also mage armor: not hard to cast, not hard to extend either with metamagic or rod of metamagic (extend) and once you get to about level 4 it isn't hard to have up all day long (all night long past 6th).
Nephlite 02-08-08, 03:56 PM	It's pretty balanced, to the point of being sucky, so long as you remember a few things. 1: Still Spell adds +1 to the spell level, so if he's level 5, and wants to cast every spell stilled, he can kiss 3rd level spells goodbye unless he takes his armor off. 2: He's not proficient with said armor, being a wizard. That means he takes the armor check penalty as a penalty to all attack rolls (Including those for touch and ranged touch spells). Also, consider that getting an armor bonus isn't that hard to begin with, which is why most wizards don't bother even trying to cast in armor. Mage Armor is a +4 that lasts 1/hour per level, and is easy enough to extend. Greater Mage Armor, from Spell Compendium, is +6 for the same duration. Mix in a class like Paragnostic Apostle (Complete Champion), or Abjurant Champion (Complete Mage) with the spell Greater Luminous Armor (Book of Exalted Deeds), and it starts to get absurd (My guess for the total AC provided by all three would be a +15 armor bonus, but I'm AFB). In short, it's not broken, just keep track of his spell adjustments. One unstated benefit is grapples. He can now cast any spell in grapples (that is still). Usually, you can't cast Somatic ones.
Arcane-surge 02-08-08, 05:30 PM	One unstated benefit is grapples. He can now cast any spell in grapples (that is still). Usually, you can't cast Somatic ones. Very true, depending on what books you're using. I'm a big fan of using Benign Transposition (Which is verbal only) to escape grapples. I should've been more specific though. Still Spell for the paranoiac is reasonably good. Still Spell for the purposes of wearing armor? Not so good.
PenderGrass 02-08-08, 06:55 PM	If he wanted to, he could spend 5,100 gp for a +1 twilight mithral shirt and have armor he can wear and cast in with no cost in feats, levels, or effective spell levels. It still amazes me that people think just because it has a price, that they are automatically entitled to buy it. Especially, when it is the player saying this type of stuff. :dragon: *****
Sinis 02-09-08, 11:25 AM	At a fraction of the cost, meaning you can get it sooner, increasing the odds of your d4 HD butt surviving long enough for it to matter. Then you just sell the enchanted padded to get the Mithral Chain Shirt of Twilight, then the Thistle-whatever Breastplate of I can't remember all the modifiers.It still amazes me that people think just because it has a price, that they are automatically entitled to buy it. Especially, when it is the player saying this type of stuff. I'm forced to agree with PenderGrass. There are lots of things I expect my DMs to forbid, and lots of things I would never allow my players to use as a DM. Really, it's a bit absurd...
Nephlite 02-09-08, 11:30 AM	I'm forced to agree with PenderGrass. There are lots of things I expect my DMs to forbid, and lots of things I would never allow my players to use as a DM. Really, it's a bit absurd... Why? Why can't the players buy it? It is not broken. Why deny its possibility. I understand banning broken stuff like wraithstrike or Disjunction though.
Salla 02-09-08, 02:18 PM	Why? Why can't the players buy it? It is not broken. Why deny its possibility. I understand banning broken stuff like wraithstrike or Disjunction though. No kidding. Every time some wizard/sorcerer/etc mentions needing bracers, I tell them about the Mithral Chain Shirt of Twilight (or 'Wizard's Shirt' as I've dubbed it).
Andrew 02-09-08, 03:15 PM	It still amazes me that people think just because it has a price, that they are automatically entitled to buy it. Especially, when it is the player saying this type of stuff. I'm going to have to rise to that. It is not the player's fault for wanting to buy the gear that the game as-written with the value that the game as-written assumes them to have to perform appropriately for their level. It is not the player's fault when later supplements are written with a wildly different set of assumptions about what it should cost for a given effect (such as the investment needed to take 1 level of Spellsword versus picking up cheap thistledown padding). It is also definitely not the player's fault when the mechanics that are meant to simulate the game world do not match with what we assume of those mechanics. The lion's share of nonproficiency issues for armor and shields is put on the armor check penalty, which is trivial to eliminate. The reality these rules describe is one where anyone or anything, from wizard to commoner to family dog, can strap on a masterwork buckler and defend themselves with it as well as a seasoned warrior. Take it out on the rules, not the player.
Merestil Haye 02-09-08, 03:26 PM	No kidding. Every time some wizard/sorcerer/etc mentions needing bracers, I tell them about the Mithral Chain Shirt of Twilight (or 'Wizard's Shirt' as I've dubbed it).For the same level of protection, the armour costs more (the difference being the cost of the armour). You have to decide whether the lesser price is worth the reduced protection, something which will vary from campaign to campaign.
Andrew 02-09-08, 05:04 PM	For the same level of protection, the armour costs more (the difference being the cost of the armour). You have to decide whether the lesser price is worth the reduced protection, something which will vary from campaign to campaign. +5 bracers: 25,000 +1 (total +5) on the above armor: 5,100 +6 bracers: 36,000 +2 for the armor: 10,100 +7 bracers: 49,000 +3 for the armor: 17,100 +8 bracers: 64,000 +4 for the armor: 29,100 In retrospect, this may be a case where the "price on effect instead of formula" rule should apply, but the armor-pricing formulas are usually thought to be a lot more resilient than the spell-effect magic item formulas. In that case the armor should still be a +1 equivalent less than the bracers, due to the lack of the ghost touch-equivalent effect due to the nature of [force] effects.
BowenSilverclaw1986 02-09-08, 05:15 PM	Don't forget that the Bracers of Armor provide a force effect and therefore also work against incorporeal touch attacks, something the "Wizard's Shirt" as Salla dubbed it, no matter how much I like it, doesn't provide :) Also, half of the armor bonus provided by the "Shirt" is non-magical in nature whereas the Bracers are items that don't naturally provide an armor bonus, only due to magic. ~Bowen
Nathreet 02-09-08, 05:15 PM	Nah, still spell isn't broken. Even 1 level added to spells is enough to really hurt a caster. Let him have it. I've considered that route and it's not all that special. There are plenty of other items that provide AC at a high price. Paying more for AC is better than giving up a spell level. Especially if he's hiding in the back anyway and doesn't need as much AC. He seems to be a whiner wanting to leave like that, but there's no reason to worry about it. And, btw, AC is useful even at high levels. If you get a mix of items instead of one strong piece then you can easily get 1 AC per level (on top of a high AC at 1st level). I meticulously optimized a fighter and AC was equally important throughout all levels.
Edymnion 02-09-08, 05:37 PM	It still amazes me that people think just because it has a price, that they are automatically entitled to buy it.Ahem, Craft Arms & Armors. Yes, you can "buy" anything you want, by making it. You don't have to find all of your gear at magicmart or at the bottom of a hole. You can make your own and customize it just the way you want.
Salla 02-09-08, 05:43 PM	+5 bracers: 25,000 +1 (total +5) on the above armor: 5,100 +6 bracers: 36,000 +2 for the armor: 10,100 +7 bracers: 49,000 +3 for the armor: 17,100 +8 bracers: 64,000 +4 for the armor: 29,100 In retrospect, this may be a case where the "price on effect instead of formula" rule should apply, but the armor-pricing formulas are usually thought to be a lot more resilient than the spell-effect magic item formulas. In that case the armor should still be a +1 equivalent less than the bracers, due to the lack of the ghost touch-equivalent effect due to the nature of [force] effects. These days, I think of the Bracers as being for people whose class abilities say that they can't wear armor and use them, like Monks or Ninjas. Wizards and Sorcerers are better off with the various armors discussed in this thread. :)
Merestil Haye 02-09-08, 05:55 PM	+5 bracers: 25,000 +1 (total +5) on the above armor: 5,100[ +6 bracers: 36,000 +2 for the armor: 10,100 +7 bracers: 49,000 +3 for the armor: 17,100 +8 bracers: 64,000 +4 for the armor: 29,100I said "For the same level of protection." The armour you describe does not offer the same level of protection as Bracers do. Armour protects all the time, against regular attacks. Bracers of Armour protect all the time, against regular attacks and incorporeal touch attacks. In order for armour to protect against incorporeal touch attacks, it has to be given the Ghost Touch property, which is a +3 bonus. The result of this is that the enhancements required for the armour cost exactly the same as bracers that give the same level of protection as the armour. For example, Bracers +6 cost 36k. A +2 Twilight Ghost Touch Mithral Chain Shirt is a +6 equivalent armour and costs 37,100; the difference being the cost of the armour. Hence my comment that you need to decide whether the cost savings are worth the reduced protection. (And we also need to consider the weight, as a weakling wizard might well have issues with it.)
Salla 02-09-08, 06:03 PM	I said "For the same level of protection." The armour you describe does not offer the same level of protection as Bracers do. Armour protects all the time, against regular attacks. Bracers of Armour protect all the time, against regular attacks and incorporeal touch attacks. In order for armour to protect against incorporeal touch attacks, it has to be given the Ghost Touch property, which is a +3 bonus. The result of this is that the enhancements required for the armour cost exactly the same as bracers that give the same level of protection as the armour. For example, Bracers +6 cost 36k. A +2 Twilight Ghost Touch Mithral Chain Shirt is a +6 equivalent armour and costs 37,100; the difference being the cost of the armour. Hence my comment that you need to decide whether the cost savings are worth the reduced protection. (And we also need to consider the weight, as a weakling wizard might well have issues with it.) As rare as incorporeal touches are, I have found that the answer to that is 'the armor is better'. :)
Andrew 02-09-08, 06:19 PM	In order for armour to protect against incorporeal touch attacks, it has to be given the Ghost Touch property, which is a +3 bonus. My bad, I was thinking that ghost touch for armor was the same bonus equivalent as ghost touch for weapons, +1. You're absolutely right, from that side the cost works out to better for the bracers if you include that aspect - but it looks like ghost touch armor is waay too expensive for what it does.
Father Dale 02-09-08, 08:59 PM	Actually its pretty easy to have a scroll or two of Ghost Touch Armor (clr 2, sor/wiz 2, SC) available for the few times that you might need it, assuming you are wearing armor to begin with. But generally the bracers are a bit better, but you are paying a huge premium for them compared to no armor check/no ASF type armors. Then again, theres the tradeoff with wearing armor of not being able to wear magical robes. The body slot usually has more to offer the wizard then the bracer slot, so thats something else to consider.
Sinis 02-09-08, 09:00 PM	Why? Why can't the players buy it? It is not broken. Why deny its possibility. I understand banning broken stuff like wraithstrike or Disjunction though. Because it seems kind of silly (to me, at least). Wizards (IMO) are not supposed to wear armour for flavour reasons. It feels more like it's a complete circumvention of the rules so a spellcaster can have this armour that has absolutely no ASF. It just doesn't make much sense, that this armour is as loose/constricting as a robe or other plain non-protective clothes, but provides the bonus of a suit of armour. I realise a lot of D&D doesn't make much sense, and that's why I'm framing it with my opinion on flavour. I guess I'm saying that it's either not roleplaying, or a stretch, and offends my preferences. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Salla 02-10-08, 03:38 AM	Because it seems kind of silly (to me, at least). Wizards (IMO) are not supposed to wear armour for flavour reasons. It feels more like it's a complete circumvention of the rules so a spellcaster can have this armour that has absolutely no ASF. It just doesn't make much sense, that this armour is as loose/constricting as a robe or other plain non-protective clothes, but provides the bonus of a suit of armour. I realise a lot of D&D doesn't make much sense, and that's why I'm framing it with my opinion on flavour. I guess I'm saying that it's either not roleplaying, or a stretch, and offends my preferences. Your mileage may vary, of course. Fair enough. I'm not as enamored of the whole Gandalf (who wasn't a wizard, he was an outsider)/Merlin robe-and-pointy-hat image. It doesn't offend me in the slightest to take these tired old tropes, cliches, and stereotypes, beat them with a club, and whiz on their boring unconscious bodies. :) If the player prefers the flavor of an armored wizard, I say let him. The fact that ASF is, from all indications, a thing of the past in 4e is one of the things that's making me look forward to it.
Merestil Haye 02-10-08, 06:26 AM	As rare as incorporeal touches are, I have found that the answer to that is 'the armor is better'. :)They may be rare; they are also extremely dangerous to a wizard. Risk assessments should take into account the likelihood of Bad Things Happening, how bad the consequences of the Bad Thing Happening is and how much the item helps protect against or ameliorate the effect of the Bad Thing. For a wizard. getting hit by incorporeal undead is a Bad Thing indeed. So how prevalent are undead in your campaign world? And do you need the extra protection against their attacks more than you need the money? While I don't agree that the armour is better - the Bracers are better - most of the time, the armour is good enough. There may be a small issue over whether Twilight is available, but where it is, the armour is probably good enough. Assuming the character has sufficient strength not to be encumbered by the stuff, of course. (The weight of a Mithral chain shirt is just under ½ the Light encumbrance limit of a character with 8 Str).
Count Arioch the 28th 02-10-08, 10:11 AM	Personally, the whole "Wizards can't wear armor" idea is purely a D&D one. Sure, Gandalf didn't wear armor. Neither did anyone else in the fellowship except for Boromir, Gimli, and Frodo. (And Frodo doesn't count because in LotR, the hobbits weren't the PCs, they were NPCs the actual PCs had to protect. Gandalf, Legolas, Aragorn, Gimli, and Boromir were the PCs of the group.) I have no problem with anyone being able to wear any armor they've been trained with. That being said, I wish the penalties for wearing armor you weren't trained in the use of was a bit more severe. As mentioned earlier in the thread, it's all based on Armor Check, which is too easy to reduce. If I was going to design the game, I'd first remove Arcane Spell Failure entirely, then I'd write the rules so that it's an extremely bad idea to wear armor you haven't been trained in the use of. I don't care if a fighter/wizard runs around inf full plate and casts spells, it's literally not a big deal.
Sinis 02-10-08, 11:17 AM	Personally, the whole "Wizards can't wear armor" idea is purely a D&D one. Well, that's certainly possible, yes. I happen to find something appealing about arcane gestures being so intricate or outrageous that there's a chance to fail in most varieties of armour. Though, I suppose my real objection to this (particularly bizarre armour) is that it's a circumvention (of rules) whose means are most specific. I guess I can't see a wizard buying a mithril chain shirt, either pre-enchanted or enchanting it himself, with the express thought that it would be as unconstraining as a robe or other simple garment. Maybe it's just me.
Edymnion 02-10-08, 05:56 PM	Well, that's certainly possible, yes. I happen to find something appealing about arcane gestures being so intricate or outrageous that there's a chance to fail in most varieties of armour.And yet, you can preform all of them in heavy steel mittens (aka gauntlets). Those gestures must be freaky crazy, considering a breastplate interrupts them, and that only covers your torso and upper legs. Your arms, shoulders, etc are still typically left bare. So, apparently spellcasting is more about hip thrusting than it is finger waggling... :eek:
Sinis 02-10-08, 06:11 PM	And yet, you can preform all of them in heavy steel mittens (aka gauntlets). Those gestures must be freaky crazy, considering a breastplate interrupts them, and that only covers your torso and upper legs. Your arms, shoulders, etc are still typically left bare. So, apparently spellcasting is more about hip thrusting than it is finger waggling... :eek: Well, sure, by the RAW you can cast spells unimpeded by typical gauntlets. But there are a lot of inconsistencies within the rules. Gauntlets are something I might be willing to overlook, or not pay attention to (why are they wearing gauntlets but not armour again?).
PenderGrass 02-11-08, 01:07 AM	Why? Why can't the players buy it? It is not broken. Why deny its possibility. I understand banning broken stuff like wraithstrike or Disjunction though. Broken or not, it is a horrible player that just assumes you can buy something. Especially an item that is composed of mithril. In some campaigns, mine included, mithril is rare. Just because you may have the gold that equals the book cost doesn't mean you can walk down to the local 24-hour corner store and pick up a mithril shirt. Heck, even in standard RAW campaigns (where mithril is about as rare as air), you may find obstacles to gaining this type of an item. Say, you are in a small town where the maximum value item is 50gp. Do you think they have a mithril shirt? No. They have cow manure for your field. They have a wheelbarrow for your gear. They may even have a mule and nice house cat for sell. Mithril? Bah. Never even seen a mithril hoe. Who cares whether you have 5 billion gold, they don't have it. Therefore, you can't have it either. The assumption that you, as a player can just buy (or build) anything you want because you have gold and you think it isn't "broken" doesn't mean you can. Not even RAW allows you to do this. Player assumptions in 3.x has gone rampant and it is pitiful that so many of them are on these boards - whining about how their DM didn't let them buy a mithril shirt - who cares whether the DM has a reason (maybe even a RAW reason) to deny the purchase of a shirt. Who cares? Very few. The majority rally around the cry of "unfair DM" and start tossing rocks. Shame. Shame on each and every one of you rock-tossing posters. :dragon: *****
PenderGrass 02-11-08, 01:18 AM	Ahem, Craft Arms & Armors. Yes, you can "buy" anything you want, by making it. You don't have to find all of your gear at magicmart or at the bottom of a hole. You can make your own and customize it just the way you want. First, just assuming that you have access to raw mithril to build such a shirt is still just as bad as assuming you have access to the completed shirt itself. Second, and as a side note, most crafting feats are restricted in my game - so a player making this assumption in my game would be even more "wrong" than normal. Finally, do you really hand your PCs 10 thousand gold and they just show back at the next game with whatever they want? DM: "The ogre hits you." Player: "No." DM: "I have you down as AC18, I rolled a 19 - that's a hit, right?" Player: "No, you gave us 10 thousand gold each and I built my own armor plus I have a cloak of displacement and a ring of mirror image going." DM: "But, you were in the middle of the nowhere at the end of last game. You barely made it into town at the start of this game." Player: "Hey, the PHB has craft feats, you gave us the gold, are you denying me my WotC given rights? You unfair DM." DM: :uh-huh: :dragon: *****
Andrew 02-11-08, 01:33 AM	Shame.Chill. Nobody (but you) is suggesting doing away with GP limits, nor doing away with supply and demand. With RAW population densities, 30% of settlements would have a basic mithral shirt. 15% would have the fancied-up magic version. Your world is allowed to be different. RAW, mithral is ten times more expensive than gold. That would be rare. If you feel that is not rare enough for your campaign, certainly change it - but change it right. Change the market price and go off of the appropriate GP limits, don't just say, "No. I decree you may not have it." Now, there are plenty of things that's right to do with, but core raw materials ought not be one of them. Also, in response to the giant-wad-of-cash garbage, the majority of wealth will typically be in other magic items. That generally means that they'll have to go to a town of the above sizes anyways to sell them.
PenderGrass 02-11-08, 01:54 AM	Chill. Nobody (but you) is suggesting doing away with GP limits, nor doing away with supply and demand. Chill? I wasn't even remotely suggesting people were wanting to do away with GP limits. I am pointing out people - especially players - are saying "if it's in the book and I have the gold at the ready, my character should be able to buy it - so why should I consult my DM?" If he wanted to, he could spend 5,100 gp for a +1 twilight mithral shirt and have armor he can wear and cast in with no cost in feats, levels, or effective spell levels. Note the lack of any DM consultation by "he." Note my response that players are getting pretty dang presumptuous in the last couple editions of D&D. Note the replies that essentially say - "well it does say it in RAW so the players should buy/make/get anything that has a price tag." So, I suggest you either go back and re-read everything again (since it sounds like you haven't) or at least try to get the points straight. :dragon: *****
Andrew 02-11-08, 02:32 AM	Note my response that players are getting pretty dang presumptuous in the last couple editions of D&D. Based on your tone, I think they have a long way to go before they catch up with DM's. As above, if you have a town big enough to sell something worth 5,000 gp, you would also be in a town big enough to buy something worth 5,000 gp. The problem is not in there being bad players. The problem is that it's a lot easier to learn to be a good player than it is to be a good DM - being pessimistic and grumpy is not enough.
PenderGrass 02-11-08, 02:38 AM	...being pessimistic and grumpy is not enough. Now you're just trying to butter me up. :dragon: *****
Cthulhu_Dreams 02-17-08, 07:27 AM	Someone who wants to take still spell to allow them to cast in armour isn't a power gamer, they are a retard. Look, a wizards biggest class feature is that he can cast spells right. If he applies still spell to all his spells he casts spells of 1 spell level lower. This is (pretty much) the same as giving away 2 character levels to cast spells in armour. (okay you lose 2d4 hitpoints as well. Say we are ninth level, thats the same as dropping two character levels for 'able to cast in armour' and '+2 con') What the hell? That tactic is the suck compared to crossing out the 'wizard' line on your character sheet and writing 'cleric' or 'druid' in its place - people who both get the ability to cast in armour AND get a bunch of other awesome abilities. And its not like their spell selection is particularly worse either. So yeah, let him do it. Who gives a toss as he is actively making himself worse.
Edymnion 02-22-08, 12:52 PM	First, just assuming that you have access to raw mithril to build such a shirt is still just as bad as assuming you have access to the completed shirt itself.So, you're telling me that, in the entire career of a character, they will never find anything made out of mithril, and they will never find anyone that can get it for them? If I take crafting feats, and have the character wealth for it, yes, I expect to be able to find the single most common fantasy metal in the game.Second, and as a side note, most crafting feats are restricted in my game - so a player making this assumption in my game would be even more "wrong" than normal.Ah, here we go. The problem is that you houserule that players can't take creation feats. Although, normal crafting covers making a mithril shirt, so you can't really limit that unless you just flat out say the players can't make anything.Finally, do you really hand your PCs 10 thousand gold and they just show back at the next game with whatever they want?Depends. If they finish an adventure, get a load of loot, and I already had planned that they would get a few months of downtime? Yes, I would. I still get oversight and veto on what they get, but if they have the resources in game, I see no reason not to let them actually use their skills and class abilities.DM: "The ogre hits you." Player: "No." DM: "I have you down as AC18, I rolled a 19 - that's a hit, right?" Player: "No, you gave us 10 thousand gold each and I built my own armor plus I have a cloak of displacement and a ring of mirror image going." DM: "But, you were in the middle of the nowhere at the end of last game. You barely made it into town at the start of this game." Player: "Hey, the PHB has craft feats, you gave us the gold, are you denying me my WotC given rights? You unfair DM." DM: :uh-huh: 1) The copy of the character sheet the DM has is always right. Just because a player takes his copy home and writes "18" down for every stat doesn't mean he has all 18s. 2) They still require crafting time and a magical lab to create items in. So no, they couldn't just craft something in the middle of nowhere overnight. 3) Isn't that exactly what you just said you do though? The craft feats are in the PHB, and any PC can pawn/trade stuff off to get the components they need, and you're the one telling them that they can't do something that the core rules assume they can do. I mean, its one thing to houserule it in your own game to where its very hard to custom build something, but you can't just go around giving advice that it can't be done, when the basic rules say otherwise. You gotta stick a "In my game" qualifier on there. I know that if I'm playing an Artificer from lvl 1, get up to where I can craft my own armor, and then you pull that "You can't craft your own stuff", I'm going to be :censored:ed. Odds are, if you didn't change your mind, I'd simply walk out of your game and never come back.
McJarvis 02-22-08, 01:03 PM	Of course, he could just buy a lesser metamagic rod of extend[DMG, 3k] & extend castings of mage armor. Add on a Pearl of Power(1st level) [DMG, 1k] & you can, by level 4, practically have mage armor all day long. You can then proceed to use that lesser rod of extend on any other 3rd level or lower spell you need extended. Or if he's on a budget he could take the extend spell feat & do the same trick- effectively only having to increase _one_ first level spell a spell-slot in order to get armored casting. -- All other considerations aside- I strongly believe that a caster in full armor is not more scary than a caster in a tunic. The extra +10(~ish eventually. At first it'll just be +4-8 or so, depending on choices) to non-touch AC isn't that threatening. If I were to grind an axe against a PC Wizard, it wouldn't be about his feeble attempts to wear armor. Don't worry about his armored casting. [I know from experience- just because a player _thinks_ he is optimizing & has an over-powered character, doesn't mean he _does_. Just let him think that- it makes him happy.]
PenderGrass 02-27-08, 08:06 PM	I know that if I'm playing an Artificer from lvl 1, get up to where I can craft my own armor, and then you pull that "You can't craft your own stuff", I'm going to be :censored:ed. Odds are, if you didn't change your mind, I'd simply walk out of your game and never come back. I doubt being an artificer in my game would even be an option, so your point is a non-point. :dragon: *****
Phrennzy 02-27-08, 08:34 PM	First, just assuming that you have access to raw mithril to build such a shirt is still just as bad as assuming you have access to the completed shirt itself. Second, and as a side note, most crafting feats are restricted in my game - so a player making this assumption in my game would be even more "wrong" than normal. Finally, do you really hand your PCs 10 thousand gold and they just show back at the next game with whatever they want? DM: "The ogre hits you." Player: "No." DM: "I have you down as AC18, I rolled a 19 - that's a hit, right?" Player: "No, you gave us 10 thousand gold each and I built my own armor plus I have a cloak of displacement and a ring of mirror image going." DM: "But, you were in the middle of the nowhere at the end of last game. You barely made it into town at the start of this game." Player: "Hey, the PHB has craft feats, you gave us the gold, are you denying me my WotC given rights? You unfair DM." DM: :uh-huh: :dragon: ***** I can agree with the first point - mithril is rare, and outside of hunting it down in a large city or through spellcasting, you won't find it. The second point is your choice. Limiting feats - especially the crafting ones - just seems to take so much fun out of the game. I know, I've tried it. The crafing feats add to the game - its lets the players express themselves. But the third point is just an empty argument.
White_Wizard 02-29-08, 07:44 AM	Hi Guys! I have a problem with one of my players. I'm a new DM and I am running Expedition to Undermountain. I have 5 players and each of them are playing spellcasters. They have a Human Cleric, a Human Dread Necromancer, A Halfling Warmage, an Elf Duskblade, and an elf Wizard. The Dread Necromancer and the Wizard are both veteran players and the rest are pretty new to D&D. Anyway, the wizard player has decided to try to use Still Spell in order to eliminate the Somatic components of his spell casting, thus allowing him to cast in armor. I have read everything he has shown me according to the PHB and it seems he is right, but I do not feel it is far to allow the wizard to cast in armor. With the exception of the Cleric, everyone else has specialized in a school of magic. That is why it is fair to allow them to cast in light armor. But the wizard has a huge variety of spells and it hardly seems fair to take away his weakness. I was wondering if there was any errata about Still Spell that might help me. If I am wrong, and he is able to cast in armor with that feat, then so be it. But if he is wrong, I'd love to know about it. Normally, I would call it a DM house rule, but he has said that he will leave if I don't allow him to take it. I'm asking because I don't want to seem unfair. If you guys have any suggestions or advice, I would sure appreciate it. Thanks a lot. He can do it, since arcane failure dos not apply to spells without Somatic components, but a wizard has to pick the appropriate feat to wear armor (and there's a feat tree to follow: light armor > medium armor > heavy armor; shields > tower shields), and then Still Spell require the spell to use a slot higher than normal so he is going to sacrifice power equivalent to what he gains. He is simply going to be slightly more shielded during a fight, but he'll eventually loose firepower and at least a feat slot (for light armor). Unless he picks up magic enhanced armors, the spells mage armor + shield are way better (total +8 AC, he doesn't have to sacrifice many slots in Still Spell). In Unapproachable East there's a spell (3rd lvl I believe) called imporved mage armor that gives even greater bonus to AC than normal mage armor (well, that was obvious from the improved part :P ). If he knows those spells he may want to scribe some scrolls just to have a stack of protection available without using many spell slots or, if he can Create Wands, he could even have a wand for each spell, at his caster level, ready to be used. This unless he wishes to give his wizard a "war-wizard" flavor: in that case, armor is more characterizing.
Merestil Haye 02-29-08, 08:19 AM	He can do it, since arcane failure dos not apply to spells without Somatic components, but a wizard has to pick the appropriate feat to wear armor (and there's a feat tree to follow: light armor > medium armor > heavy armor; shields > tower shields), and then Still Spell require the spell to use a slot higher than normal so he is going to sacrifice power equivalent to what he gains.You seem to think that a character must be proficient in armour in order to wear it. This is not true. The character can put on a suit of heavy armour and pick up a tower shield, even if he has no proficiency in any armour or any shield. The only issues he faces are whether he is strong enough to handle the encumbrance and whether he wants to accept the wider range of penalties. I don't really fancy a -16 to initiative, personally. But a suit of light armour with no ACP imposes no extra penalties on nonproficient users.
White_Wizard 02-29-08, 12:33 PM	You seem to think that a character must be proficient in armour in order to wear it. You may be surprised, but no, I don't think that and I know how armor proficiency works, thank you very much ;) . I was just under the impression that a player would at least like to avoid a penalty to his attack rolls due to the fact of being non-proficient with the armor he is wearing. His only options for avoid the "extended" check penalty and still not having to pick up the feat are, sticking to PHB options (but every other I know off - and they'r a good deal, suffer from more or less the same limitations, which I'll show in a while), quilted, leather and studded leather (but just if it is at least mwk or magical). Let's see his options: Mage armor spell: +4 AC, duration measured in hours and it is a force effect, so it's protection is active even against ethereal attacks (which normal armors attain only via the ghost touch ability, at the costly price of a +3 bonus). Quilted/leather/studded leather armor: very poor choice, even if magical (to match a mage armor spell they've got to have a magic bonus, imagine another +3 for ghost touch: that's a whole lot of gold that goes wasted for nothing) Chain shirt: another poor choice, because it has to be mithral to avoid armor check penalty and without magic mage armor is still better (we're speaking of giving at least a total bonus of +4: +1 enhancement and +3 ghost touch). Any other option (say mithral breastplate or mithral chain mail) involves armor check penalty, and that's where having the feat comes in handy (and that's the reason I was assuming he would like to pick at least the light armor proficiency or even the medium in addition to that - costly, very costly: in fact I was discouraging that). Edit: I did not mention encumbrance issues because he is going to face them, no matter the proficiency, but that's a good point and a player wanting to having an armor-wearing wizard should be careful to give him at least a good Str score.
Salla 03-01-08, 06:19 AM	You may be surprised, but no, I don't think that and I know how armor proficiency works, thank you very much ;) . I was just under the impression that a player would at least like to avoid a penalty to his attack rolls due to the fact of being non-proficient with the armor he is wearing. Most of the best Wizard (or any spells, for that matter) don't require attack rolls, it's just save-or-lose.
White_Wizard 03-02-08, 09:28 AM	Most of the best Wizard (or any spells, for that matter) don't require attack rolls, it's just save-or-lose. One: I've never said that attack roll is important for most wizard spells, so I really do not understand the reason of this reply. Two: that doesn't mean that a wizard doesn't need an attack bonus: even a Fireball may need to be aimed (in fact aiming a fireball to hit a precise spot requires a ranged touch attack). Also many of the deadliest spells (disintegrate for instance) require ranged touch attack. Melf's acid arrow requires an attack roll. So does scorching ray, so does vampiric touch, so does polar ray (or any other "ray" spell).