Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rutrow424 06-12-07, 04:56 PM	I don't have my books available - are the use of heritage feats, like Infernal sorcerer howl or celestial lance, subject to arcane spell failure? You expend a spell slot, but you are not actually casting a spell, so I would think not. Is there an official answer for this?
ShinAkuma2 06-12-07, 07:11 PM	You said it yourself. You're not casting a spell, so there's no ASF.
JohnduBois 06-12-07, 08:15 PM	Supernatural and extraordinary abilities are not subject to ASF, but spell-like abilities are.
jstorrie 06-12-07, 09:18 PM	If you select your sorceror spells well, you could feasibly take a set of non-somatic or at least Stilled utility spells–which aren't wrecked as badly by the Still +1 adjustment–and rely on Infernal Sorceror Howl as your 'blast.' Limits you, but if you want to be a Sorceror 15 clacking around in fullplate, you can!
King Kashue 06-13-07, 12:55 AM	Supernatural and extraordinary abilities are not subject to ASF, but spell-like abilities are. No they're not. Only spells with somatic components are subject to ASF. Spell-like abilities explicitly have no somatic components (PHB p. 180).
Dr.Cornelius 06-13-07, 05:16 AM	Note that you will need to burn a feat or pick up a level of Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin/Warmage/etc. to get Armor Proficiency.
KarmaInferno 06-13-07, 06:58 AM	Speaking of Armor Proficiency, anyone notice how bad Battle Caster is for single classed Warmages/Bards/Beguilers/etc? It grants one step better armor to ignore ASF with, but does not actually grant proficiency with the heavier armor. With the non-proficiency penalties of heavier armors, the only way Battle Caster is really useful is if you either burn a precious second feat for proficiency, or lose casting levels to dip into a proficient class, both of which can be suboptimal choices. -karma
Timlagor 06-13-07, 01:04 PM	You only need to be proficient with your armour if you evener intend to make an attack roll.
KarmaInferno 06-13-07, 01:46 PM	Unfortunately that includes ranged touch attacks. Not so good if you're like, a warmage. -karma
Dr.Cornelius 06-13-07, 03:22 PM	Speaking of Armor Proficiency, anyone notice how bad Battle Caster is for single classed Warmages/Bards/Beguilers/etc? It grants one step better armor to ignore ASF with, but does not actually grant proficiency with the heavier armor. With the non-proficiency penalties of heavier armors, the only way Battle Caster is really useful is if you either burn a precious second feat for proficiency, or lose casting levels to dip into a proficient class, both of which can be suboptimal choices.One has to believe that this is an oversight. Otherwise Battle Caster is, as you say, practically useless. Yet another thing for WotC to clean up in 3.75 or 4E.
King Kashue 06-13-07, 03:28 PM	One has to believe that this is an oversight. Otherwise Battle Caster is, as you say, practically useless. Why does one "have to believe" this is an oversight? I always assumed it was for gish casters. And armored casting is such a nice deal that, who knows, maybe they intended it to be a two feat gig.
Dr.Cornelius 06-13-07, 04:11 PM	Why does one "have to believe" this is an oversight? I always assumed it was for gish casters. And armored casting is such a nice deal that, who knows, maybe they intended it to be a two feat gig.I see your point, but at first glance Battle Caster seems to be aimed at base classes like Bard/Warmage/Beguiler and not just for the Spellsword or Rage Mage PrC. This is another case where a feat/spell/item does not fully spell out its implications and the player/GM has to have relatively deep knowledge of the rules to determine the practical effect. Not everyone who plays is a rules guru that knows all the technicalities. If only the writers would make the feats a little more clear. For example, they could have added a Note: this feat does not confer armor proficiency. In the absence of a specific indication, it is easy for me to believe that it was an oversight. You also said that Armored Casting is such a nice deal. I disagree - spellcasters have plenty of options to get a decent but not great armor class. In a thread over on the Character Classes main board in a discussion of Hexblade vs Duskblade, the Duskblade author indicated that the Hexblade ended up being underpowered because the developers overvalued Armored Casting early in 3.5E. As a practical matter the primary benefit of armored casting is to reduce the bookkeeping required to maintain Mage Armor at lower levels. Around 5th level or so the caster can upgrade to Greater Mage Armor (open access) and the duration is enough to stay up all day without too much work.
awroe 06-13-07, 06:26 PM	You only need to be proficient with your armour if you evener intend to make an attack roll. It also applies to "all Strength-based and Dexterity-based ability and skill checks". Whether this overlaps with the standard ACP penalty is unclear to me, but it definitely applies to the Str/Dex skills that are not normally subject to ACP (e.g. Open Lock, normal Ride checks and Use Rope).
awroe 06-13-07, 06:28 PM	One has to believe that this is an oversight. Otherwise Battle Caster is, as you say, practically useless. Yet another thing for WotC to clean up in 3.75 or 4E. I would assume the complete opposite - if it were intended to give proficiency as well it would become superior to just taking the proficiency, something which tends to be avoided. However, taken in combination with an Exotic Armour proficiency could let you cast in armour that even fighters need a feat for.