Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lastknightleft 07-10-07, 04:56 PM	OK I have no problem with a character building into being able to weild a sword and cast spells at higher levels or by taking prestige classes, but of late every spellcasting class that comes out include in its proficiency "able to wear light armor without incuring the spell failure penalties". And to be perfectly honest it bugs the crap out of me. I'm not some old school gamer either I learned to play with 3.5, the only class that could do it was the bard and even that bothered me. I think half the fighter sucks is because when spellcasters can wear armor the fighter looses a lot of it's firepower because now he doesn't need to defend the spellcaster anymore and breaks the feeling of we work as a team. And honestly it seems to drive from imitation. When I think of the classes it reminds me of diablo (heck they've even introduced set items from Diablo II) where from the begining you're combining spells and fighting. The problem is that in imitating videogames (and lets face it even with MMORPGs your still a loner) you loose the need for your teemates. loosing a fellow character (having a player draw up a new one) should always hurt the party a little because his niche that he's trained into specifically filled will now be changed. I'm not saying that it should destroy the party but it should hurt more than just loss of manpower. Anywho I want to take back that feeling I'm not allowing armored mage as an ability as a base class ability before level 5. now does anyone have suggestions as to how to work it in so that it fits my idea a little more?
Azezel 07-10-07, 05:24 PM	I agree. That's why the campaign setting I am designing does not allow such classes - with the exception of the Bard (It's core) and the Warlock (Which I just like, and which technically, doesn't use spells anyway). Long story short - arcanists should not wear armour, and if you want to be a gish, you should be prepared to work for it - that's what PrCs are for, not core classes.
Kobold Paladin 07-10-07, 05:31 PM	Well actually, being able to wear armor and cast spells is not influence from video games, its breaking influence from old P&P RPGs, who is to say that armor even really block spells because it lowers manipulation abilites (umm, dont wear the parts that restrict you) and it just for balance (the worst reason for any rule, make a system that doesnt need rules for balances sake, one that just works). PS: Azezel the core/Prc class system is grabbage and you should never have to work for a character concept at the cost of effectivness.
Dracomortis 07-10-07, 05:37 PM	I don't really see a problem. Sure, the mage can wear leather armor, but the fighter classes still have a monopoly on full plate (with the exception of C.o.D.zilla, but hey, they're broken for a reason).
Jagyr Ebonwood 07-10-07, 05:37 PM	PS: Azezel the core/Prc class system is grabbage and you should never have to work for a character concept at the cost of effectivness. Unless your "character concept" is more powerful than what a base class should grant.
Kobold Paladin 07-10-07, 05:40 PM	Unless your "character concept" is more powerful than what a base class should grant. Again its the problem with the base system, you shouldn't have a system that needs addtional abbitrary rules to balance it.
Azezel 07-10-07, 06:39 PM	The way I see it, a level one character, while pretty cool compared to the unstatted rabble, is still only a journeyman (Not an aprentice, he's more than that. He's not reached his full potential, not by a long chalk. A character concept is what the character is to become, not what he is to start as. By the time the character hits level 7 and gains a level of Eldritch Knight, he's made it. He's worked for it and by god he deserves it. Why? Well, the alternative is you rolling up at my game with a laundry list of cool powers and me having to grant you the lot of them because they are your character concept. As for the specific question of armour. Well, if your concept is 'wizard in armour', then by all means do it, you just wont be a very effective wizard. Thems the rules. As much as I don't like the 'love it or leave it' argument in general, in this case, I happen to really like the arcane spell failure rules, and if you really dont, there are other games out there.
Stardrake 07-10-07, 06:59 PM	All I can say is, it didn't start with video games--I was playing an armored spellcaster in RUNEQUEST back in the early 80's--when video games meant Atari 2600s or, if you were lucky, a ColecoVision (with Donkey Kong--oooohhhhh....) So while it's a change for D&D, it well predates video games.
MerlintheTuna 07-10-07, 07:13 PM	I'm not some old school gamer either I learned to play with 3.5, the only class that could do it was the bard and even that bothered me.That's true, unless you count the Cleric, Druid, Ranger, and Paladin. So yes, as long as you ignore over a third of the PHB classes, you're totally correct. *Cough* That's part of the issue - there always have been armored casters, full casters among them. And then there's the issue of somatic components - if Bull's Strength (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bullsStrength.htm) is a second level spell for almost everybody, why is it that the Wizard has a chance of screwing it up while holding a buckler but a Cleric can do it in full plate while holding a tower shield (which he isn't even proficient with) without worrying? Given the high degree of transparency between arcane and divine magic, this is a goofy looking and largely unnecessary sticking point. Shields in particular are a ridiculous in this case; somatic components require one hand... why does wearing a shield in my other hand screw it up? Then there's the matter of armored arcane casting not being a very useful ability anyway. Mike Mearls (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10585113&postcount=11) has mentioned this on the boards before, as have plenty of CharOppers. Relevant quote below.As R&D pushes the boundaries of the game, we learn that some things we thought were risky or potentially broken aren't. Other times, we learn things that look fine don't actually work in play. Armored mages fall into the first category. Them seem really powerful, but in the long run they aren't. Spells and magic items allow an unarmored mage to build great defenses. The spell mage armor is as good as medium armor, and its duration allows most mages to keep it active at all times.Mage Armor in particular bears mention because of its near-ubiquitous nature for unarmored mages. While it works fine with a preparative caster like the Wizard (who prepares one copy and no longer cares), Sorcerers are stuck cringing. Even at 20th level, they get only 5 1st level spells known -- do you really want every single one of them to have Mage Armor? They'll never cast it more than once per day past about 5th level thanks to its 1 hr/level duration, and it really reduces their overall versatility and their level of customization. Then when you figure in the fact that most arcanists dump strength anyway (and thus wouldn't want to be carrying around a set of full-plate on their shoulders in the first place), it becomes an increasingly pointless restriction. And finally, I'd say that this is absolutely not a change that's come around because of video games. Generally speaking, all mages in video games are stuck wearing robes or light armor -- including the healers. D&D on the other hand seems to think that it's completely fine to heal while tucked safely away inside a mountain of steel. So yeah, increasing the level of physical fortification present for casters is absolutely the opposite of most video games, and I'd argue that it isn't a problem at all. I'm still lost as to why having a P&P RPG draw elements from a video RPG is always addressed as some sort of apocalyptic event, though.
Millenia 07-10-07, 07:16 PM	.... It's probably also because divine casters can run around in full plate and toss out miracles willy-nilly without any concern for armor messing up their hand gestures. I mean, what, does a god(dess) grant her cleric the power to somehow magically not be messed up by armor, yet a wizard's screwed in that same regard? >>a Edit: The guy above me said it far better.
Chaos Theory 07-10-07, 07:18 PM	There is a little known or used rule from back in AD 1st that said multi-class Elven fighter mages could wear up to leather armor without penalty. But that was kept in check by the way multi-classing worked because it did not stack, and forced relatively even distribution of EXP to each class.
Manyfist 07-10-07, 07:20 PM	-edit- MerlintheTuna already said it better than what I posted.
Erato 07-10-07, 08:10 PM	Why is it that whenver someone is uncomfortable with a change in D&D, they blame video games :confused: In most video games I've tried, you're limited one way or another in the armor department when playing a spellcaster (any kind). On the other hand, no book I've ever read (apart from D&D ones) have mentioned this restriction. The only unique D&D trait that seems to be changed from 3.0 to 3.5, is the absolutely ridiculous: Arcane casters can't wear any form of armor, no matter which material is used and how light and flexible it is, while any divine caster can cover themselves in anything they want, as long as they have their mouth and a hand free, without being the least disturbed :rolleyes:
Erol_the_Dairy_Overlord 07-10-07, 08:30 PM	As long as its balanced to the other classes, I see no problem in it. I personally love the duskblade class, it has full BAB and spells up to lvl 6, but is one of those classes that doesnt do well unless you go straight through it without multiclass or prestige.
Archtyrant Terevoth 07-10-07, 08:38 PM	Armored primary casters have been around since the inception of D&D. They're called clerics.
TheCobra 07-10-07, 08:48 PM	Personally, I thinks spell failure from armor is rather silly. The only piece of armor I could see hindering somatic components is the gauntlet, and even that's debatable.
Prince_of_Murder_Kinghall 07-10-07, 09:05 PM	Its worse when something like this goes down. Guy playing wizard: hey can I make a cleric and just treat him as a wizard. DM: Sure! I was playing a fighter and after level five I fell asleep and the DM did not even notice. And that was the last time I played a high magic campaign.
StevenO 07-10-07, 09:46 PM	Given that the spell failure chance is already low I don't mind reducing the armor restrictions a little. At the very least it should a feat or two should have the power to reduce any caster's ASF penalty. One of my suggestions is a feat I call Simplified Casting; it allows a caster to avoid all ASF chance when casting in proficient armor and has Still Spell as a prereq. To me part of the problem with letting arcane spellcasters wear light armor freely is that it seems like everyone wants to wear light armor. If your DEX is high enough there is very little reason to wear armor that doesn't take full advantage of it. If the medium and heavy armors were better letting casters use light armor would be such a big deal.
DarkNick 07-10-07, 10:02 PM	I don't think allowing mages to wear armour changes much at all in the way of power. They still have crappy hp's, they would suffer more than a fighter from lack of manuverabilty (especially if you take account of low strength and encumerance penalties), but most of all a mages greatest defence is in their spell usage and armour is pitiful besides this.
Dial_Up_Dragon 07-10-07, 10:29 PM	Maybe somantic components require yoga/interpretive dance training. That would even explain how the shield gets in the way. DM: OK. You see the orc shaman hunker down into a crouch, then jump up, throwing his arms out wide. Player: Oh, no! He's casting a fireball! Hmm...that's material for a spoof campaign... Maybe the problem is that heavy armor doesn't do enough. You get better at swinging that big weapon without using up feats as a fighter, but you begin with your full capacity to wear armor. Maybe a system that incorporates getting better at all aspects of being a fighter should be considered? If you prefer not to wear armor as a warrior, that could be improved as well (ie the swashbuckler and monk). You can take feats to improve this a bit, but, even then, the BAB improves without the help...
Vaelan 07-10-07, 11:01 PM	I'm not some old school gamer either I learned to play with 3.5 I'd like to say I stopped reading here, since someone who learned to play with 3.5 has absolutely no business trying to tell us what the source of an idea is, but I wasn't smart enough to. Everything you said is wrong. Armored mages predate video games, set items predate video games, and giving (arcane) spellcasters armor doesn't destroy the team aspect of the game because spellcasters still have diddly-squat for hitpoints.
ItaraKoturo 07-11-07, 01:14 AM	Also, as others have said, a wizard is one 1st-level spell away from having medium armor all day long with no max dex bonus, no armor check penalty, and no arcane spell-failure chance. Or a 3rd-level spell away from heavy armor with the same lack of restrictions.
Polaris 07-11-07, 01:40 AM	There is a little known or used rule from back in AD 1st that said multi-class Elven fighter mages could wear up to leather armor without penalty. But that was kept in check by the way multi-classing worked because it did not stack, and forced relatively even distribution of EXP to each class. Nitpick. I believe that was second edition ADnD actually, and elves (and half-elves) were allowed to wear up to Elven Chain without incurring spell failure if they multiclassed. In first edition ADnD, mulitclassed (but not dual classed) fighter/mages were allowed to wear any armor and shield without penalty. This rule was dropped for 2nd edition. Also in first edition ADnD, a dual-classed Ranger/Magic-User was allowed to use all magic-user spells in armor without penalty. -Polaris
Tealgorthian 07-11-07, 02:04 AM	Most armored spellcasters are not as effective at their role as a Wizard or Sorcerer anyway. Go take a look at a Beguiler's spell list. No Teleport. It's a STAPLE for most groups.
Escef 07-11-07, 06:57 AM	Did you know that in 1e an elven fighter/magic-user could cast spells unhindered in elven chain? Did you know that this predates all but the earliest handful of video games? And what's the big deal about an armored caster? At low levels it allows the arcanist to save one of his valuable and limited spell slots for something else (like a divination or combat spell). At higher levels AC matters so little that armor on anyone is practically window dressing. (You're better off with Blur or Displacement effects that inflict a flat miss percentage.)
Sunic_Flames 07-11-07, 09:25 AM	My mithril twilight chain shirt is asking what is a light armor proficiency?
The Eye of Kyi 07-11-07, 09:44 AM	I see nobody has mentioned the D&D red box basic set Elf, which could cast spells and wear any armor. I think this set came out in like 1980. It is the set I learned to play on. Elves were essentially multiclassed fighter-magic users with the benefits of both classes, though if I recall correctly they rolled a d6 for hit points. An elf could wear any armor and still cast spells. The drawback to playing an elf was it took a long time to level up because you had to get about twice as many experience points. In that system each race (or class if you were playing a human) had its own experience point chart. Ever since then I have incorporated armored spell casters in some way shape or form in my games. As far as First Edition Elves being able to cast spells wearing any kind of armor... well I dont remember that at all. I think (and I will have to go look this up in my First Ed PH tonight), that if you played an elf wizard you were still bound by the rule of not wearing armor... but now you have me wondering... Same goes for second edition I dont have a problem with some new classes wearing armor andbeing arcanists as well. If you look at their spell lists they are greatly reduced from a normal wizards spell list and thus are less effective spell castsers. If the player wants to sacrifice spell casting ability simply to wear armor I say let them. In our group we have found that it is best to stick with the core classes anyway. a Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian or Paladin, a Sorcerer or Wizard, a Cleric and a Rogue. When we have a varied from that formulae the party ends up running into trouble. I think most of the new classes in the Complete Books really are 5th player classes. So to answer your quesiton. No armored magi are not the influence of video games.
Forfeit 07-11-07, 10:49 AM	I don't really see a problem. Sure, the mage can wear leather armor, but the fighter classes still have a monopoly on full plate (with the exception of C.o.D.zilla, but hey, they're broken for a reason). Yeah. But things change when your mage could get a +3, +4 or even +5 leather armor. Anyway, wizards have the bracelets already, why the need for armor. Just give them a robe with AC bonus.
Dracomortis 07-11-07, 12:16 PM	Yeah. But things change when your mage could get a +3, +4 or even +5 leather armor. They still don't compare in terms of armor bonus. You would need +7 padded armor or +6 leather armor to reach the +8 armor bonus of full plate, and armor can't have more than a +5 enhancement bonus prior to epic levels - a mage would need to find an epic-level crafter just to make a suit of armor that could keep up with the fighter's nonmagical armor. +5 studded leather armor or a +4 chain shirt can match full plate before epic levels, but you're still spending 25,000 gp or 16,000 gp to match a 1,500 gp set of full plate. I don't see anything wrong with that, considering a fighter could get +4 full plate at about the same time the mage picked up his +4 chain shirt.
Polaris 07-11-07, 12:17 PM	Did you know that in 1e an elven fighter/magic-user could cast spells unhindered in elven chain? Did you know that this predates all but the earliest handful of video games? In FIRST edition ADnD (1978 version), a multiclassed (but not dual-classed) fighter/magic-user could wear platemail (and so could a dual-classed ranger/magic-user) without losing spellcasting. The rule about elven chain is second edition. Also in the D&D rules as mentioned (Basic, Expert, etc) set, Elves could wear any armor and cast magic-user spells. And what's the big deal about an armored caster? At low levels it allows the arcanist to save one of his valuable and limited spell slots for something else (like a divination or combat spell). At higher levels AC matters so little that armor on anyone is practically window dressing. (You're better off with Blur or Displacement effects that inflict a flat miss percentage.) I've tried it. It's not a big deal. Heck, for the most part this option already exists: It's called the Psion. -Polaris
Tealgorthian 07-11-07, 12:19 PM	They still don't compare in terms of armor bonus. You would need +7 padded armor or +6 leather armor to reach the +8 armor bonus of full plate, and armor can't have more than a +5 enhancement bonus prior to epic levels - a mage would need to find an epic-level crafter just to make a suit of armor that could keep up with the fighter's nonmagical armor. +5 studded leather armor or a +4 chain shirt can match full plate before epic levels, but you're still spending 25,000 gp or 16,000 gp to match a 1,500 gp set of full plate. I don't see anything wrong with that, considering a fighter could get +4 full plate at about the same time the mage picked up his +4 chain shirt. I dunno if you are aware of this, but the bolded bit up there would require you to have an Epic level item. Normal magical items bonus to AC cannot be higher than +5. You can have +5 with another +5 worth of abilities. +5 Chain mail of Heavy Fortification is a normal magic item +6 Chain Mail is Epic. Just sayin'.
Dracomortis 07-11-07, 12:23 PM	I dunno if you are aware of this, but the bolded bit up there would require you to have an Epic level item. Normal magical items bonus to AC cannot be higher than +5. You can have +5 with another +5 worth of abilities. +5 Chain mail of Heavy Fortification is a normal magic item +6 Chain Mail is Epic. Just sayin'. Unless I'm mistaken, I mentioned that like ten words after the part you bolded :D
The White Sorcerer 07-11-07, 12:24 PM	I dunno if you are aware of this, but the bolded bit up there would require you to have an Epic level item. Read his post further. Yes, he's aware.
Tealgorthian 07-11-07, 12:28 PM	Unless I'm mistaken, I mentioned that like ten words after the part you bolded :D Ugh. Sorry. One of my dogs is in heat and the other kept my up all night trying to, uh, get to her. My bad.
BigJohn42 07-11-07, 12:30 PM	Nitpick. I believe that was second edition ADnD actually, and elves (and half-elves) were allowed to wear up to Elven Chain without incurring spell failure if they multiclassed. Nitpicking the Nitpick: 2nd Edition Elven Fighter/Mages (the only way you could multiclass F/M in 2ed) could cast spells in any magical armor, Elven Chain, or Elven Plate.
Polaris 07-11-07, 12:33 PM	Nitpicking the Nitpick: 2nd Edition Elven Fighter/Mages (the only way you could multiclass F/M in 2ed) could cast spells in any magical armor, Elven Chain, or Elven Plate. It's been years since I played 2E; I forgot that they got rid of half-elven fighter/mus. I also forgot about Elven Plate which IIRC was introduced rather late in 2E, but you're right in both cases. -Polaris
Kursk 07-11-07, 12:37 PM	OK I have no problem with a character building into being able to weild ... I just don't allow it in my game. Same as I don't allow a fighter to cast spells...
Polaris 07-11-07, 12:45 PM	I just don't allow it in my game. Same as I don't allow a fighter to cast spells... Well, to each their own, but I should point out (as WOTC Mearle did elsewhere) that this is really outdated reasoning. It used to be thought when DnD was first invented and well through the 1980s that because of balance armor and spellcasting shouldn't go together (or at least not easily) ignoring all the cases where it did [discussing the prevailing wisdom of the time]. Well, that notion has since been debunked. Armored casters really don't have much (if any) realistic advantage over unarmored casters (as even WOTC is now admitting). That's because at higher levels, it's more important to make attacks miss (miss chance) or ineffective (DR, immunities, or both) rather than not hit due to AC. Think of it this way: All characters sometime during their careers are going to be attacked. Not all characters will need to cast spells. [And besides, Paladins and Rangers are certainly fighter types and they DO cast spells.] -Polaris
Kursk 07-11-07, 12:48 PM	Well, to each their own, but I should point out (as WOTC Mearle did elsewhere) that this is really outdated reasoning. Hmm. According to the 3.5 PHB (CORE rules set) it is current reasoning.
Tealgorthian 07-11-07, 12:52 PM	Hmm. According to the 3.5 PHB (CORE rules set) it is current reasoning. Bard? They wear armor and cast Arcane spells. They even cast Cure spells as Arcane. They are Core. You ban Bards too?
Polaris 07-11-07, 12:54 PM	Hmm. According to the 3.5 PHB (CORE rules set) it is current reasoning. The 3.5 Core rules set doesn't reflect current reasoning. It reflects WOTC's reasoning as of 8-9 years ago now. I note even then, WOTC went away from a flat exclusion of arcane spells in armor (which was the norm in all prior editions baring the exceptions already noted on this thread) to an arcane spell failure chance. This was a fairly major step for DnD given that wizards were now allowed to wear armor. If you ask WOTC Mearle about the Hex blade, he flat out admits that WOTC got it wrong about armored casters and that's why the Hex Blade is such a weak class. Also recent supplements make it easier and easier to have a fully armored arcane caster. There is a reason for this. -Polaris
Kursk 07-11-07, 12:54 PM	Bard? They wear armor and cast Arcane spells. They even cast Cure spells as Arcane. They are Core. You ban Bards too? Nope. I ban Wizards doing the same. I don't allow Rouges to cast cleric spells either. Pretty simple.
Tealgorthian 07-11-07, 12:57 PM	Nope. I ban Wizards doing the same. I don't allow Rouges to cast cleric spells either. Pretty simple. Inconsistency for the lose. The Core classes are old, outdated, archetypes. If you want to hang on to preconceived notions (that aren't even consistent) but I am going to call you on it. Either it is possible to cast Arcane spells in armor, or it isn't.
Kursk 07-11-07, 12:59 PM	Inconsistency for the lose. The Core classes are old, outdated, archetypes. No, consistent with the game rules. Trying to argue that rules aren't rules, for the lose. ;)
Polaris 07-11-07, 01:01 PM	No, consistent with the game rules. Trying to argue that rules aren't rules, for the lose. ;) This would be a valid argument if we were talking about the rules. Instead we were talking about armored wizards and how they affected the game, and my point was that WOTC's reasoning had changed. It has. You can't point to the core rules as evidence to the contrary (which you attempted to do) because they DON'T reflect WOTC's current reasoning. -Polaris
Kursk 07-11-07, 01:06 PM	and my point was that WOTC's reasoning had changed. It has. You can't point to the core rules as evidence to the contrary (which you attempted to do) because they DON'T reflect WOTC's current reasoning. -Polaris And when they want that reflected in the CORE mechanics they will come out with new Core rules like they did from 3.0 to 3.5. There's your "evidence" of how they take action to change the base mechanics.
Forfeit 07-11-07, 01:11 PM	They still don't compare in terms of armor bonus. You would need +7 padded armor or +6 leather armor to reach the +8 armor bonus of full plate, and armor can't have more than a +5 enhancement bonus prior to epic levels - a mage would need to find an epic-level crafter just to make a suit of armor that could keep up with the fighter's nonmagical armor. +5 studded leather armor or a +4 chain shirt can match full plate before epic levels, but you're still spending 25,000 gp or 16,000 gp to match a 1,500 gp set of full plate. I don't see anything wrong with that, considering a fighter could get +4 full plate at about the same time the mage picked up his +4 chain shirt. Plus all the AC bonus wizard spells grant them. Usually the fighter only has bonus from magical items, armor and DEX, while the wizard can buff up with all kinds of spells that can enhance his AC.
Tealgorthian 07-11-07, 01:12 PM	No, consistent with the game rules. Trying to argue that rules aren't rules, for the lose. ;) Your insistence is that arcane spells cannot be cast in armor. You used the PHB as evidence. Wizards and Sorcerers lack the training (class feature) to cast in armor. Bards do not. Therefore, the Core rules fit in with the armored spellcaster archetype.
lastknightleft 07-11-07, 01:14 PM	Well ok I can conceed that it isn't the influence of video games, I was refrencing from my experience with games like diablo, I picked up d&d for something different. But here is the thing once again, I have no problem with arcanists wearing armor at higher levels where they've done the work for it taken the feats etc. Hell an 8th level wizard should be able to cast spells in armor if they've chosen feats for profieciency and feats to negate the spell failure % instead of metamagic or item creation feats, I just dislike it being thrown as a freebe to most new arcanist classes from the begining.
Salla 07-11-07, 01:14 PM	I interpret it more as WotC wising up and saying 'You know, just because no arcanists in Lord of the Rings wore armor doesn't mean our arcanists can't'.
Polaris 07-11-07, 01:23 PM	I interpret it more as WotC wising up and saying 'You know, just because no arcanists in Lord of the Rings wore armor doesn't mean our arcanists can't'. Exactly, and as I stated before, the reason you are seeing more and more classes with armored arcane casting AND options to make armored wizards easier is because WOTC's design philosophy has changed (fairly radically in fact) from just a few years ago. This is what WOTC Mearle had to say (with regard to the Hexblade): The hexblade suffers a little because he came on the scene relatively early in 3.5's life. As R&D pushes the boundaries of the game, we learn that some things we thought were risky or potentially broken aren't. Other times, we learn things that look fine don't actually work in play. Armored mages fall into the first category. Them seem really powerful, but in the long run they aren't. Spells and magic items allow an unarmored mage to build great defenses. The spell mage armor is as good as medium armor, and its duration allows most mages to keep it active at all times. If you compare the hexblade to the duskblade from PH 2, you can see how the thinking has changed. You will note that he explicitly states here what I've been saying all along. You have to look at the latest books to get what WOTC's thinking is NOW. As for Kursk's comments that new thinking will be reflected if and only if new core rules are published, I say "bunk". The new core rules (the infamous fourth edition) will be published when marketing (not the game developers) say it should and not a moment before. -Polaris
Kursk 07-11-07, 01:24 PM	Either it is possible to cast Arcane spells in armor, or it isn't. It's not possible for Wizards to cast such and Bards can as they cast differently. Same as Clerics when casting the same spell as a wizards. There's your "consistency".
Polaris 07-11-07, 01:29 PM	It's not possible for Wizards to cast such and Bards can as they cast differently. Same as Clerics when casting the same spell as a wizards. There's your "consistency". REALLY? A cleric can cast bull's strength in full plate with one hand occupied by a towershield with impunity, but a wizard with the SAME spell with the same somatic component (legal somatic components are defined in the spellcasting section in the PHB and aren't differentiated by divine or arcane) has a failure chance? A bard casts arcane spells. If an arcane spell is on the bard and wizard list, then a bard or wizard can use the scroll....yet a wizard wearing a chain shirt has a failure chance while a bard does not using the exact same scroll? There is no consistancy to it. It's a nod to outdated notions of game-balance, nothing more, and those notions have now changed. The only difference between Bard and Wizard arcane casting, RAW, is that all bard spells must have a verbal component. That's it. -Polaris
Dracomortis 07-11-07, 01:30 PM	It's not possible for Wizards to cast such and Bards can as they cast differently. Same as Clerics when casting the same spell as a wizards. There's your "consistency". No, a wizard can cast in armor. He simply suffers from arcane spell failure for doing so. I might point out that several armor materials exist that reduce the spell failure of the armor by as much as 20%, making it quite possible for a wizard to wear armor with no spell failure at all.
Kursk 07-11-07, 01:33 PM	No, a wizard can cast in armor. He simply suffers from arcane spell failure for doing so. Exactly, as he obviously casts differently from a Bard or Cleric.
Polaris 07-11-07, 01:36 PM	No, a wizard can cast in armor. He simply suffers from arcane spell failure for doing so. I might point out that several armor materials exist that reduce the spell failure of the armor by as much as 20%, making it quite possible for a wizard to wear armor with no spell failure at all. Quite right and (as I believe I pointed out earlier), this was a radical departure at the time from the perceived common wisdom from prior editions. In prior editions (unless you fell in certain exceptions), you couldn't cast arcane spells in armor at all, so already when 3.0 and 3.5 were published, WOTC was already moving towards the armored wizard. What WOTC R&D discovered was that putting armor on wizards didn't break the game. Try removing all ASF for a campaign as a houserule. You'll find that wizards tend to gravitate towards light chain shirts, but otherwise the game plays almost exactly the same with no noticable change in overall balance. -Polaris
Dracomortis 07-11-07, 01:38 PM	Exactly, as he obviously casts differently from a Bard or Cleric. A bard can only cast in light armor. Which means, for some reason, a bard casts spells differently in light armor, but as soon as he dons medium or heavy armor he starts casting them exactly like a wizard. You call that consistent?
Polaris 07-11-07, 01:39 PM	Exactly, as he obviously casts differently from a Bard or Cleric. Circular reasoning, Kursk. You still haven't shown us how or why other than it's a proud nail that even WOTC is getting away from. You can't say that because the rules are different, his casting is different if the entire discussion is questioning the reasoning why the casting is different. -Polaris
ravenshrike 07-11-07, 01:39 PM	Most armored spellcasters are not as effective at their role as a Wizard or Sorcerer anyway. Go take a look at a Beguiler's spell list. No Teleport. It's a STAPLE for most groups. The beguiler is meant as a replacement for the rogue, which past about level 3 it does extremely well. It would do better is imp. feint didn't have combat expertise as a prereq. But it does well enough. It's not meant in any way, shape, or form to be a replacement for a ****ing wizard.
Dracomortis 07-11-07, 01:44 PM	The beguiler is meant as a replacement for the rogue, which past about level 3 it does extremely well. It would do better is imp. feint didn't have combat expertise as a prereq. But it does well enough. It's not meant in any way, shape, or form to be a replacement for a ****ing wizard. Unless I'm mistaken, he's not saying a beguiler is a replacement for the wizard. I believe what he's saying is that spellcasting-type characters who wear armor generally aren't as good at casting spells as those who don't.
Kursk 07-11-07, 01:45 PM	Circular reasoning, Kursk. You still haven't shown us how or why other than it's a proud nail that even WOTC is getting away from. You can't say that because the rules are different, his casting is different if the entire discussion is questioning the reasoning why the casting is different. -Polaris Well, if they are indeed getting away from it as you say then we'll see it errata or a 3.6 version. You haven't shown they are getting away from it in the Core game mechanics. Until you can show that you can't have that as an argument, can you?
foxtail 07-11-07, 01:46 PM	A bard can only cast in light armor. Which means, for some reason, a bard cast spells differently in light armor, but as soon as he dons medium or heavy armor or starts casting them exactly like a wizard. You call that consistent? Take a look at the armor in each category (light, medium, and heavy), on both the equipment tables and the illustrations in the PHB. It's not a gradual change, going from a chain shirt to chain mail or breastplate; there's significantly more bulk, more pieces in the way. Medium armor is a whole new class of equipment than light, which is also why it requires its own proficiency feat. And as a side note, has anyone actually played an armored mage? I like to use them because it's a bit more novel to my imagination than the robe-and-staff caster, but frankly I haven't experienced any evidence to the overpowered claim.
Polaris 07-11-07, 01:51 PM	Well, if they are indeed getting away from it as you say then we'll see it errata or a 3.6 version. You haven't shown they are getting away from it in the Core game mechanics. Until you can show that you can't have that as an argument, can you? I just quoted one of WOTC's lead designers saying that they were going away from the armored mage exclusion. What more proof do you freaking want?!?! Errata is not there to change the rules.* Errata is there to fix mistakes in rules that are written (i.e. oops we meant this). As WOTC Mearle explained, you need to look at the recent books to see where WOTC R&D is at right now. As for changes in core rules, that doesn't happen when R&D says so. That happens when MARKETING says so. -Polaris *Edit: Errata does in fact change the printed rules, but the function of Errata is not to retcon the game. Errata is used to make mistakes and is only used to fix balance issue in extremis because said issue is threatening the underlying game itself (The polymorph chain being the only case in point that I can think of where errata has been used this way). Errata is not used to retcon games because no game company is going to pull official support from older campaigns without doing an entirely new edition.
Polaris 07-11-07, 02:00 PM	Take a look at the armor in each category (light, medium, and heavy), on both the equipment tables and the illustrations in the PHB. It's not a gradual change, going from a chain shirt to chain mail or breastplate; there's significantly more bulk, more pieces in the way. Medium armor is a whole new class of equipment than light, which is also why it requires its own proficiency feat. It's an interesting notion but unfortunately the rules don't really support this claim at least for ASF. Light Armors have an ASF range from 5% to 20%. Medium Armors have an ASF range from 20% to 30%. Heavy Armors have an ASF range from 35% to 40%. That looks like a pretty continous spectrum to me, and thus (at least w/r/t casting) it looks like a gradual change to me (and I'd take those illustrations with a heavy grain of salt....spiked chain...enough said). And as a side note, has anyone actually played an armored mage? I like to use them because it's a bit more novel to my imagination than the robe-and-staff caster, but frankly I haven't experienced any evidence to the overpowered claim. They're not. I've experiented with removing ASF from the game entirely. It doesn't unbalance anything and changes game play very little. -Polaris
Kursk 07-11-07, 02:17 PM	What more proof do you freaking want?!?! A change in the Core rules that backs up your assertions? Pretty basic. If you can't show that most basic proof then you argument is so much wishful thinking & hot air.
Polaris 07-11-07, 02:26 PM	A change in the Core rules that backs up your assertions? Pretty basic. If you can't show that most basic proof then you argument is so much wishful thinking & hot air. Kursk, Core game rules don't get changed until MARKETING says they do. What part of that did you miss? I already proved my point w/r/t WOTC R&D. You are just being stubborn at this point. Also Core rules don't generally reflect the current thinking of the game's designers (any game). They reflect the thinking of the designers at the time (which is often outdated quickly). Most game companies (certainly WOTC) uses supplemental material to reflect new ideas and new changes in thinking mainly because of the profit factor but also because it doesn't render existing games obsolescent (and thus tick off customers). In short, you are moving the goalposts to something completely unreasonable because you have a hatred for armored wizards. In short, you can not seem to accept that DnD is moving towards a concept that you dislike. -Polaris
Kursk 07-11-07, 02:28 PM	Kursk, Core game rules don't get changed until MARKETING etc, etc... Waiting for your evidence that core rules are changing. I'll answer you when you can post such. :waits:
Polaris 07-11-07, 02:32 PM	Waiting for your evidence that core rules are changing. I'll answer you when you can post such. :waits: 15 yard penalty. Moving the goalposts. The question was why the NEW MATERIAL had lots of armored wizards, and as a side discussion included what the balance implications of armored wizards are. Saying that core hasn't changed is irrelevant and is NOT evidence against what I said, i.e. that WOTC R&D has changed their mind. I have posted direct evidence (a direct quote from one of WOTC's lead designers, WOTC Mearle) that says that WOTC's stance has changed since the core rules were written. Until you can give me a counter quote or ANY evidence that backs your contention (that the assumptions have not changed), then it's useless talking to you. I am waiting for evidence....any evidence would be nice. :waits: -Polaris
Dracomortis 07-11-07, 02:54 PM	Take a look at the armor in each category (light, medium, and heavy), on both the equipment tables and the illustrations in the PHB. It's not a gradual change, going from a chain shirt to chain mail or breastplate; there's significantly more bulk, more pieces in the way. Medium armor is a whole new class of equipment than light, which is also why it requires its own proficiency feat. My point was that if a bard's somatic components are so simple that he can pull them off in light armor without a chance of failure, why is it that he once he equips medium or heavy armor he suddenly has just as much trouble using them as a wizard? If his gestures are simpler, that would imply a lesser spell failure chance all around, not just on one category of armor.
lastknightleft 07-11-07, 03:17 PM	Who turned this into a question of balance? I'm the OP and I never once said anything about the balance of said spellcasters I was talking about the FLAVOR of armored mage, so yes I am disagreeing with the current trend in D&D I don't like the new direction it's taking where every class has abilities from other classes, I like each class being distinct with its own flavor, but the new trend in D&D seems to be to hodgepodge every class so that classes aren't their own unique career but just a few levels to hit certain abilities and move on. What's funny is while the argument about it took off, the discussion on how to turn armored mage into something that progresses with level for every class instead of just a class ability gotten at level 1 has gotten 1 post.
foxtail 07-11-07, 03:24 PM	My point was that if a bard's somatic components are so simple that he can pull them off in light armor without a chance of failure, why is it that he once he equips medium or heavy armor he suddenly has just as much trouble using them as a wizard? If his gestures are simpler, that would imply a lesser spell failure chance all around, not just on one category of armor. His gestures aren't necessarily simpler; the fact he can use wizards' scrolls and the like suggests that they are in fact the same. My point is, the bard's training includes practice on getting around the problems of light armor, training which isnt necessarily applicable to medium armor (perhaps the same training that other spellcasting classes can opt for through variants, such as the battle sorceror). It's the same way with a ranger; he knows how to utilize his combat style in his familiar chain shirt, but is completely stymied when he switches to chain mail. The fact that there is a single proficiency feat for each class of armor could be indicative of particular shared traits within each grouping, traits that spellcasters have to overcome with specific training.
NoldorForce 07-11-07, 03:43 PM	Who turned this into a question of balance? I'm the OP and I never once said anything about the balance of said spellcasters I was talking about the FLAVOR of armored mage, so yes I am disagreeing with the current trend in D&D I don't like the new direction it's taking where every class has abilities from other classes, I like each class being distinct with its own flavor, but the new trend in D&D seems to be to hodgepodge every class so that classes aren't their own unique career but just a few levels to hit certain abilities and move on. What's funny is while the argument about it took off, the discussion on how to turn armored mage into something that progresses with level for every class instead of just a class ability gotten at level 1 has gotten 1 post.The thing was that the whole reason arcane casters generally DON'T wear armor is for legacy reasons (that is, a sacred cow). Said legacy reason was partly meant as a balancing factor...except that it doesn't do much. Besides, all of the new classes generally do have their own wacky and interesting flavor. I'm not seeing much in the way of collusion here. All of your concerns that stuff is popping up in D&D that used to be in video games? It's been in D&D too, and often earlier. Gishing? Since the githyanki (from which the term originated). Mages wearing armor? See above. (Plus, the fighter's problem is that his class abilities scale linearly, while most other classes scale quadratically at least.) And armor starts to become less and less useful very quickly; epic characters won't want it at all except under special circumstances (considering that Dexterity boosts can quickly outstrip the base bonuses from armor). Should every class fit a defined role, and not step outside it? That's actually one of the central assumptions of many video games I've seen. Look at WoW or most other MMORPGs - the class roles are clearly defined. Character role collusion (what D&D is tending towards) is relatively uncommon in multicharacter video games. Classes still manage to have different flavor due to the differing combinations of roles they fulfill or can fulfill; the difference here is that it's not just one class per role.
Mique 07-11-07, 03:54 PM	the best fix for this issue i can see is as follows. allow all casters to wear whatever armour they are profieciant with, from the starting rules of the charecter class. if this means burning a feat to gain light/med/hev armour then thats the players choice. remove arcane spell failure chances from all armour. they cast as divine spells, however, add in a spell failure based on weight carried. if a caster exceeds his light load, he cant cast spells at all. or something along those lines, (sort of like a monk / ranger loosing abilities when over weighted) keep in mind, this also limits uses of spells like mage armour and or shield, since they classify as armour / shield bonus and wont stack with normal armour. also, since most mages use str as a dump stat, most will be fairly low str, and as such the armour they wear might even put them over thier weight limit....and then making the caster useless. so, your charecter now has a choice. sacrifise skills, casting power, or number of spells to wear armour, or be limited in the type of armour chosen. not to mention that, most arcane casters dont even have light armour prof, so they have to burn feats to get armour. thereby loosing stuff like combat casting, eschew matterials...any other metamagic feats....and so on, that will hinder the power of the caster in comparison to one who forgoes armour and focuses on casting, and relying on his comrades to keep him safe from melee. in either case the end result should balence out, and allows a caster player to customize how he wants, without having to go into a prestige class.
Stormonu 07-11-07, 05:28 PM	I don't allow Rouges to cast cleric spells either. huh? How do you handle Use Magic Device for reading scrolls and such? And how do you handle multiclassers - Wizard/Fighters, Rogue/Clerics, Sorcerer/Paladins and the like? Exactly, as he obviously casts differently from a Bard or Cleric. Hmmm...just curious. Do you also extend that logic to the Sorcerer and Wizard? The Paladin and the Cleric? The Ranger and the Druid? <Edit> Anyone think that Arcane Failure should be instead changed to a Concentration penalty for casting spells - in that it is just rolled into Armor Penalty, or double Armor Penalty as is done for Swim?
Dracomortis 07-12-07, 12:44 PM	His gestures aren't necessarily simpler; the fact he can use wizards' scrolls and the like suggests that they are in fact the same. My point is, the bard's training includes practice on getting around the problems of light armor, training which isnt necessarily applicable to medium armor (perhaps the same training that other spellcasting classes can opt for through variants, such as the battle sorceror). It's the same way with a ranger; he knows how to utilize his combat style in his familiar chain shirt, but is completely stymied when he switches to chain mail. The fact that there is a single proficiency feat for each class of armor could be indicative of particular shared traits within each grouping, traits that spellcasters have to overcome with specific training. The description of the bard's weapon and armor proficiencies in the Player's Handbook specifically states that the gestures are simpler, allowing him to ignore the penalty for light armor. It states nothing about a bard undergoing special training to learn to deal with it. Thus where the inconsistency comes in: the bard casts exactly like a wizard in every aspect except when wearing light armor.
Polaris 07-12-07, 01:59 PM	The description of the bard's weapon and armor proficiencies in the Player's Handbook specifically states that the gestures are simpler, allowing him to ignore the penalty for light armor. It states nothing about a bard undergoing special training to learn to deal with it. Thus where the inconsistency comes in: the bard casts exactly like a wizard in every aspect except when wearing light armor. Right, and this inconsistancy is especially apparent when a wizard and bard try to use the same scroll (say a suggestion scroll just for example). The bard suffers no ASF when using this scroll and wearing a normal chain shirt, yet the wizard does. Why? Same scroll, same spell completetion....so what gives? -Polaris
lastknightleft 07-12-07, 02:12 PM	Right, and this inconsistancy is especially apparent when a wizard and bard try to use the same scroll (say a suggestion scroll just for example). The bard suffers no ASF when using this scroll and wearing a normal chain shirt, yet the wizard does. Why? Same scroll, same spell completetion....so what gives? -Polaris Which is the main complaint I have with armored mage to begin with the way they write it off for each class is just BS, with bards they say its because their gestures are simpler, with warmages it says they train really hard to cast while wearing armor, so why can't a wizard do the exact same thing without multiclassing. but don't get me started with the warmage oy gervault. Anywho that's why I want to turn it into something like a feat selection kinda thing where ASF% are reduced. Or something else anyone have ideas or suggestions?
Stormonu 07-12-07, 02:35 PM	Anywho that's why I want to turn it into something like a feat selection kinda thing where ASF% are reduced. This is what I use for my campaign, and don't allow the Warmage, Duskblade or other armor-casting arcane types. I've also changed it so ALL casters suffer ASF, with clerics and paladins getting these feats as part of their class over the span of their careers. (Clerics get Armor Casting at 1st, Improved Armor Casting at 5th and Perfect Armor Casting at 11th. Paladins get Armor Casting at 4th, Improved Casting at 8th and Perfect Armor Casting at 12th). Druids and Rangers (at 4th level) get Armor Casting, but none of the advanced feats automatically. Bards get Armor Casting at 1st level. I also have made a special masterwork property for armor and shields called Caster's. Instead of reducing the armor check penalty by -1, it lowers ASF by 10% but reduces the Armor Bonus by -1. It costs the same as the regular masterwork property (150 gp). Caster's Full Plate, for example, grants +7 AC, has a -6 check penalty but has 25% ASF and costs 1,650 gp. If you also had Perfect Armor Casting (Full Plate), you would had %0 ASF. Armor Casting You are skilled at casting spells in armor Prerequisite: Armor Proficiency Benefit: Choose an armor or shield type you have proficiency in when you choose this feat. While you wear the armor you have chosen, the Arcane Spell Failure chance is reduced by -10%. The chance of spell failure cannot be reduced below 0%. Armor Casting , Improved You can cast spells in medium armor better than most. Prerequisites: Medium Armor Proficiency, Armored Casting, Base attack bonus 4+ Benefit: When wearing armor, your Arcane Failure chance is reduced by –20%. This replaces, and does not stack with, Armor Casting. Armor Casting , Perfect You can cast spells even in heavy armor Prerequisite: Heavy Armor Proficiency, Armor Casting, Improved Armor Casting, Base attack bonus 8+ Benefit: When wearing armor, your Arcane Failure chance is reduced by –30%. This replaces, and does not stack with, the modifier from Armor Casting or Improved Armor Casting.
lastknightleft 07-12-07, 03:04 PM	Thanks I think I'll give them a try I was actually thinking something exactly along those lines. I would even allow duskblade and warmage with the proper revisions, but warmage needs more revisions than just the armored mage thing. Flavor wise the warmage makes the least :censored: sense ever.
Rustmonster 07-12-07, 03:20 PM	Interestisng fact: Did you know that the origonal Final Fantasy had Vancian spell casting? You had spell levels, and you only had X uses of that level per day (a "day" ending when you slept at an inn). Did you also know that in the same game, at the very start, you got to chose your own party of 4 classes? there were no main characters like say, Cloud Strife. They were who you wanted them to be. Can we not say then that videogames are influenced by D&D? Is this bad thing? No. FFI was an awsome game. Wonderful story, fun mechanics, challanging. I don't know why people say that RPG videogames are so evil, when for the most part they are influenced by D&D. Well, not so much anymore. I also don't understand why people think that D&D rips of "videogames", as if they were all the same fantasy-RPG. Does D&D have influences from GTA? Bomberman? Mortal Kombat? (Oh gods that would be sweet! "I don't Coup De Gras. I FATALITY!") I remember few RPGS where magic users got any "real" armour. They got stuff that might be concidered similar to bracers of armour (robes, cloaks, pendants, etc). They never wore full plate like the Fighter type guy got to. One of the only ones I remember with a spellcaster getting any kind of real armour was from Disgea, and that's just because they let anyone use anything. But even in that game, the Fighter types got special abilities to compensate (*cough feats *cough*) I don't think it would be good to give this option in D&D, because the mechanics are diffrent. One thing that might be the cause of people saying "caster with armour?! BLASPEMY!!!" is that one man, Mr.Tolkein. People seem to think that Tolkien is Core D&D rules, while videogames are an evil, corrupting force, trying to kill D&D. "But in LoTR, Gandolf never wore armour!". So? That's probably because he liked the freedom of movment. He could move around much more easily, just like how in D&D you move easier in lighter or no armour. If we put it in D&D terms, he didn't want speed penalties or armour check penalties. It's less likely that he thought he couldn't cast in armour. Why should MY character be restricted by YOUR Tolkein steriotype? Just like why should MY idea of a Bard/Monk be restricted by YOUR steriotype of a Bard/Monk? The reason? At the start of 3.5 (and before), you played a sterotype, an archtype. Armourless caster, armour clad fighter, stealthy theif, ADD ridden bard. It seems that WoTC is starting to see the light that these steriotype characters arn't all they are cracked up to be. And I like that.
foxtail 07-12-07, 03:36 PM	The description of the bard's weapon and armor proficiencies in the Player's Handbook specifically states that the gestures are simpler, allowing him to ignore the penalty for light armor. Weapon and Armor Proficiency A bard is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the longsword, rapier, sap, short sword, shortbow, and whip. Bards are proficient with light armor and shields (except tower shields). A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. However, like any other arcane spellcaster, a bard wearing medium or heavy armor or using a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component (most do). A multiclass bard still incurs the normal arcane spell failure chance for arcane spells received from other classes. I'm not seeing it. It states nothing about a bard undergoing special training to learn to deal with it. Well no, that's speculation on my part; it wouldn't be formal training anyhow, not with a bard. But neither do the rules state that a rogue receives special training for his evasion, even though it's entirely possible he did.
Dial_Up_Dragon 07-12-07, 03:43 PM	I interpret it more as WotC wising up and saying 'You know, just because no arcanists in Lord of the Rings wore armor doesn't mean our arcanists can't'. I'm glad they decided to avoid sticking to the LotR guns, otherwise arcanistist couldn't even be human (Gandalf's order were something akin to angels, Sauron was the opposite, and the Witch-King definitely was no longer human) and clerical magic would only be the purview of Aragorn (though, I think his subrace of humans might have been able to use that plant too) or elves. What's the harm in allowing some of the secondary spellcasters to wear light armor, though? It's odd, I'll agree, to in effect state they've trained with stuff like chain shirts, spears, and longbows, but, beyond that assumption, what's the harm? If it's a flavor issue, bake your own bread & add some house rules.
Rustmonster 07-12-07, 03:55 PM	I'm not seeing it. From the Players Handbook, page 28: Weapon and Armour Proficiency: *parragraph saying prficiencies* Because the somatic components required for bard spells are relativly simple, a bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armour without inccuring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Read the actual book, not the SRD. Well no, that's speculation on my part; it wouldn't be formal training anyhow, not with a bard. But neither do the rules state that a rogue receives special training for his evasion, even though it's entirely possible he did. Ah, I see. So just because it doesn't say it isn't true, it could be true? And by the same token, you assume that because it doesn't say it is not true, then what you think is Core, because it doesn't say otherwise? Well, then since it doesn't say if a rouges evasion is training, I can say that it is because little angels come along and pull him out of harms way? And since it doesn't say it's not like that, that means that it is Core for rouges to be pulled away by little angels when they use evasion! Okey, I was being a little mean there. But you can't use "they never said it WASN'T true" as an argument to justify your point of veiw, because by the same token, they never said that what you think IS true. Therefore, it is NOT Core, so it is not technicly true. It's not technicly false, but you can't use it as an argument.
Dracomortis 07-12-07, 04:08 PM	I'm not seeing it. That's the SRD's watered-down version. Check the Player's Handbook, page 28. It's the first sentence in the second paragraph under "Weapon and Armor Proficiencies". Is this bad thing? No. FFI was an awsome game. Wonderful story, fun mechanics, challanging. I don't know why people say that RPG videogames are so evil, when for the most part they are influenced by D&D. Well, not so much anymore. Actually, Final Fantasy still retains a lot of references to D&D (among many, many other games). Final Fantasy 12, for example, has a unique mark called a Mindflayer that looks exactly like an illithid, a giant serpent called a marilith, and, although not exactly D&D-specific, it also has a creature called a tarrasque. Up through FFIX, mimics were disguised as treasure chests (now they're little mechanical bugs, although they still disguise themselves as treasure "chests", which are actually vases); I should note that I don't know when mimics first started showing up in either game, so it could be D&D borrowed the idea from Final Fantasy. The game's species known as the coeurl have always struck me as very similar to displacer beasts, although they have only four legs and the tentacles come out of their face like whiskers.
foxtail 07-12-07, 04:15 PM	Okey, I was being a little mean there. But you can't use "they never said it WASN'T true" as an argument to justify your point of veiw, because by the same token, they never said that what you think IS true. Therefore, it is NOT Core, so it is not technicly true. It's not technicly false, but you can't use it as an argument. I'm not trying to argue games rules here; no need to get snippy. The fact I'm trying to get across is that there really is no standardized explanation within the core rules as to how the different classes of armor are so specifically affected by some class abilities; the ideas I've listed in this thread are meant to be possible plausible explanations, nothing more. Come to think of it, the fact that the "simpler somatic components" bit from the bard's description was left out of the SRD could very well mean that it's merely flavor added for the D&D setting, not a core rule. And as to the example of rougish evasion, it couldn't be little angels, because Evasion is an extraordinary ability, and angels would be supernatural. My point is that it could be *anything* extraordinary, such as special training, natural instinct, damn good luck, or a combination of the three. As long as it interacts the same with the RAW, you can make up whatever flavor you want for your class abilities, and the same goes for armored casting.
lastknightleft 07-12-07, 04:17 PM	I'm glad they decided to avoid sticking to the LotR guns, otherwise arcanistist couldn't even be human (Gandalf's order were something akin to angels, Sauron was the opposite, and the Witch-King definitely was no longer human) and clerical magic would only be the purview of Aragorn (though, I think his subrace of humans might have been able to use that plant too) or elves. is there some thing wrong where i think I type one thing and read it as what I read but everyone else sees something different. I don't take LotR as the core of the D&D environment god I didn't even like it that much, I didn't read them till after the dang movies came out and when I saw the movies I was playing D&D allready. My liking of ASF% and dislike of armoured mage has nothing to do with fricken tolkein. Yes I know that original D&D was loosely based off of tolkien but for gods sakes I'm not saying spellcasters shouldn't wear armour, I'm saying I dislike it being thrown in as a freebe first level or the class just saying they ignore it instead of it being something you build into, sorry for ranting and singleing you out, but I can never seem to talk about my prefrences on these boards without someone using that dang tolkein argument. *Accidentally deleted the next part of your quote that this response is in regards to* MY thing is that if you're spending all your time focusing on bending the laws of reality you really don't have enough time to put on a suit of armour and do it. Unless you work really hard at it. If it's a flavor issue, bake your own bread & add some house rules. Geez isn't that what I said I wanted to do from the friggin begining? I mean I thought I asked for advice and examples but I guess its that condition of mine acting up again.
lastknightleft 07-12-07, 04:23 PM	sorry for the snippyness of that last post, you bore the brunt of lots of my posts being highjacked into arguments about tolkien and the fact that a lot of times my questions get ignored for the debates that ensue, it happens because I'm a bit of a D&D traditionalist despite learning with the latest rules set I like some of those old rules that D&D seems to be moving away from.
Dial_Up_Dragon 07-12-07, 05:14 PM	I've got hateful ex-girlfriends, you don't bother me at all. :D Honestly, I agree with you. I can see the use of armor coming from multiclassing and feat choice, or even a character ability as you progress through levels, but to state that a warlock, or a beguiler, or even a cleric (I already hear the war drums...) has trained with armor, and so is as proficient as any other character proficient in its use, is really stretching the believeablity of the fantasy somewhat. Reasons have to be created in many cases (ie well...the cleric represents the martial side of his/her religion. But, he's a cleric of Boccob; what martial side? Do you want to play with us or not? If you disagree with us, our first reponse is to kick you out of the group. Shesh. OK. Boccob's got a martial side. That's cool). The Tolkien references were simply my attempt to curry favor with whoever read them and said "Wow. That's a dork! I wish I were that dorky!" I was going off Salla & furthering that point that everything should not be like LotR, or, for that matter, Diablo. If WotC stuck to Diablo's guns, there'd only be like 10 enemies and the color would detirmine how tough the are (oh, wait, dragons...hmm...). No offense taken or intended.
lastknightleft 07-13-07, 09:12 AM	good refrence with the dragons (isn't that just like diablo lol) I need to take a look at the SRD and find out what ASF% chain shirt has, I honestly dislike the chain shirt too, but that's a personal thing I just want if a first level mage takes the feat for light armor that they'll still have a penalty if they take the highest light armor, they need to still take the penalty, if it's like 20% then I'll just use the above posters feat system cause it seems to work pretty well.