Aracane spell failure and Divine stomatic components... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Aracane spell failure and Divine stomatic components... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
AbaddonXIII
10-23-05, 12:22 AM Whats the deal with devine stomatic components are they affected by the % aracane spell failure from armor, if they do then why (seeing as how it never mentions divine spellcasters as a target for this in the 3.0 players handbook)
Zherog
10-23-05, 12:36 AM Nope. It's called arcane spell failure, not divine spell failure.
SALDAR
10-23-05, 12:40 AM It is called Arcane Spell Failure because arcane spellcasters are mostly affected. Divine spellcasters are not affected. This is simply due to the fact that these spellcasters are proficient with certain types of armor and are trained in casting spells while wearing such armor.
runestar
10-23-05, 12:44 AM Actually, its because divine somatic components aren't as complex as arcane spell somatic components. A cleric may simply have to flash his holy symbol while a mage may have to gesture some complex hand gestures which will likely be obstructed by armour.
Dragonsblood
10-23-05, 01:05 AM Actually it's because clerics aren't as popular of a choice as arcane casters, so WotC has to buff them to keep player interest. Same reason why they get all of the spells on their spell list, have a decent BAB and HP, and the 2 best saves at full.
:pbbbtt:
cwslyclgh
10-23-05, 06:02 AM Actually it's because clerics aren't as popular of a choice as arcane casters, so WotC has to buff them to keep player interest. Same reason why they get all of the spells on their spell list, have a decent BAB and HP, and the 2 best saves at full.
:pbbbtt:

it is not just WotC, across all editions clerics have gotten decent combat advancement, access to all of the spells on thier list, and the ability to cast in any armor, d8 HD (well in basic D&D they got d6, but fighters only got d8 there) and a fiarly good set of saving throws... and guess what... it has never realy made them more popular with players then arcane spell casters.
runestar
10-23-05, 08:36 AM In 2ed, clerical spells were nowhere near the firepower they have now in 3.0/3.5. Most of their spells were geared towards healing/restoration with the occasional undead blasting spell. Now, clerics can arguably hold their own against mages when it comes to spell damage, and they can do so in armour too.... :rolleyes:
Marix
10-23-05, 01:21 PM And to add insult to injury, all clerical somatic gestures are either presentation (holding out the holy symbol while speaking a prayer) or gesticulation (holding out the arms in a "why me?" gesture while offering a prayer of supplication, pointing at the heathen with hellfire and brimstone in your eye while shouting out a prayer of retribution, or the laying of hands for a holy roller prayer of benefice). None of which asks you to do the arcane equivalent of sign language (raising the left pinkie finger in the Sign of Left-Eye Lopez while tracing the rune of the Artist Formerly Known as Prince with your right middle finger, ending with the right middle finger flying the bird with the left pinkie finger going crossways while belting out the words to the song "Neutron Dance" by the Pointer Sisters and doing the James Brown shuffle to make your target boogie down like Michael Jackson with the spell Otto's Irresistable Dance). As for the attraction of arcane casters vs divine, it must be because of a spiritual conflict of not wanting religion in our lives because we all don't want to be tortured Catholics like Jon Bon Jovi! :D But, I'll take the reason that clerics are trained to be able to cast spells in armor is a good reason. :)
Marix
10-23-05, 01:53 PM Uh... got a correction... Otto's Irresistable Dance spell is verbal only, but you get my point with the examples I left on my last post. :embarrass
Seeker95
10-23-05, 02:12 PM Noone else comments on the stomatic component?

sto·mat·ic adj.
Of or relating to the mouth.

so·mat·ic adj.
Of or relating to the portion of the vertebrate nervous system that regulates voluntary movement.

Ahhh, the difference a 't' makes.
cwslyclgh
10-23-05, 04:41 PM In 2ed, clerical spells were nowhere near the firepower they have now in 3.0/3.5. Most of their spells were geared towards healing/restoration with the occasional undead blasting spell. Now, clerics can arguably hold their own against mages when it comes to spell damage, and they can do so in armour too.... :rolleyes:

wrong... infact all of the spells that clerics commonly use to attack with the exception of searing light, and the alignment spells were in existance in 2e (Well the mass inflict wounds spells were not either, but that is only because the mass healing spells were not.) Firestorm, Harm, Blade Barrier, Flame Strike, Earth Quake, Slay Living, Destruction, even Implosion (albeit as a "Quest spell" that was only granted in special circumstances). truthfully a lot of clerical attack spells were more effective in previous editions then they are now... Hold Person for instance had a longer duration and could affect up to 3 people (and none of the 3.5 save each round stuff either)... Command was limited by your imagination and knowledge of verbs, the 2e cause disease was much more brutal then the 3e contagion, etc.
Shatteredtower
10-23-05, 05:27 PM And let's not forget that, on average, clerics in 1st and 2nd Ed progressed in level faster and tended to have more spells available to them. The latter still holds true unless you factor in specialist wizards.
AbaddonXIII
10-23-05, 07:00 PM Actually it's because clerics aren't as popular of a choice as arcane casters, so WotC has to buff them to keep player interest. Same reason why they get all of the spells on their spell list, have a decent BAB and HP, and the 2 best saves at full.
:pbbbtt:
i love the cleric class it dosent automaticly make you the healer of the group... i mean i play evil clarics and with a host of Uber evil spell from my trusty Book of Vial darkness i do some mean... erh ... well ... everything...
AbaddonXIII
10-23-05, 07:01 PM Noone else comments on the stomatic component?

sto·mat·ic adj.
Of or relating to the mouth.

so·mat·ic adj.
Of or relating to the portion of the vertebrate nervous system that regulates voluntary movement.

Ahhh, the difference a 't' makes.
sory that would be my bad... i messed up...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
AbaddonXIII 10-23-05, 12:22 AM	Whats the deal with devine stomatic components are they affected by the % aracane spell failure from armor, if they do then why (seeing as how it never mentions divine spellcasters as a target for this in the 3.0 players handbook)
Zherog 10-23-05, 12:36 AM	Nope. It's called arcane spell failure, not divine spell failure.
SALDAR 10-23-05, 12:40 AM	It is called Arcane Spell Failure because arcane spellcasters are mostly affected. Divine spellcasters are not affected. This is simply due to the fact that these spellcasters are proficient with certain types of armor and are trained in casting spells while wearing such armor.
runestar 10-23-05, 12:44 AM	Actually, its because divine somatic components aren't as complex as arcane spell somatic components. A cleric may simply have to flash his holy symbol while a mage may have to gesture some complex hand gestures which will likely be obstructed by armour.
Dragonsblood 10-23-05, 01:05 AM	Actually it's because clerics aren't as popular of a choice as arcane casters, so WotC has to buff them to keep player interest. Same reason why they get all of the spells on their spell list, have a decent BAB and HP, and the 2 best saves at full. :pbbbtt:
cwslyclgh 10-23-05, 06:02 AM	Actually it's because clerics aren't as popular of a choice as arcane casters, so WotC has to buff them to keep player interest. Same reason why they get all of the spells on their spell list, have a decent BAB and HP, and the 2 best saves at full. :pbbbtt: it is not just WotC, across all editions clerics have gotten decent combat advancement, access to all of the spells on thier list, and the ability to cast in any armor, d8 HD (well in basic D&D they got d6, but fighters only got d8 there) and a fiarly good set of saving throws... and guess what... it has never realy made them more popular with players then arcane spell casters.
runestar 10-23-05, 08:36 AM	In 2ed, clerical spells were nowhere near the firepower they have now in 3.0/3.5. Most of their spells were geared towards healing/restoration with the occasional undead blasting spell. Now, clerics can arguably hold their own against mages when it comes to spell damage, and they can do so in armour too.... :rolleyes:
Marix 10-23-05, 01:21 PM	And to add insult to injury, all clerical somatic gestures are either presentation (holding out the holy symbol while speaking a prayer) or gesticulation (holding out the arms in a "why me?" gesture while offering a prayer of supplication, pointing at the heathen with hellfire and brimstone in your eye while shouting out a prayer of retribution, or the laying of hands for a holy roller prayer of benefice). None of which asks you to do the arcane equivalent of sign language (raising the left pinkie finger in the Sign of Left-Eye Lopez while tracing the rune of the Artist Formerly Known as Prince with your right middle finger, ending with the right middle finger flying the bird with the left pinkie finger going crossways while belting out the words to the song "Neutron Dance" by the Pointer Sisters and doing the James Brown shuffle to make your target boogie down like Michael Jackson with the spell Otto's Irresistable Dance). As for the attraction of arcane casters vs divine, it must be because of a spiritual conflict of not wanting religion in our lives because we all don't want to be tortured Catholics like Jon Bon Jovi! :D But, I'll take the reason that clerics are trained to be able to cast spells in armor is a good reason. :)
Marix 10-23-05, 01:53 PM	Uh... got a correction... Otto's Irresistable Dance spell is verbal only, but you get my point with the examples I left on my last post. :embarrass
Seeker95 10-23-05, 02:12 PM	Noone else comments on the stomatic component? sto·mat·ic adj. Of or relating to the mouth. so·mat·ic adj. Of or relating to the portion of the vertebrate nervous system that regulates voluntary movement. Ahhh, the difference a 't' makes.
cwslyclgh 10-23-05, 04:41 PM	In 2ed, clerical spells were nowhere near the firepower they have now in 3.0/3.5. Most of their spells were geared towards healing/restoration with the occasional undead blasting spell. Now, clerics can arguably hold their own against mages when it comes to spell damage, and they can do so in armour too.... :rolleyes: wrong... infact all of the spells that clerics commonly use to attack with the exception of searing light, and the alignment spells were in existance in 2e (Well the mass inflict wounds spells were not either, but that is only because the mass healing spells were not.) Firestorm, Harm, Blade Barrier, Flame Strike, Earth Quake, Slay Living, Destruction, even Implosion (albeit as a "Quest spell" that was only granted in special circumstances). truthfully a lot of clerical attack spells were more effective in previous editions then they are now... Hold Person for instance had a longer duration and could affect up to 3 people (and none of the 3.5 save each round stuff either)... Command was limited by your imagination and knowledge of verbs, the 2e cause disease was much more brutal then the 3e contagion, etc.
Shatteredtower 10-23-05, 05:27 PM	And let's not forget that, on average, clerics in 1st and 2nd Ed progressed in level faster and tended to have more spells available to them. The latter still holds true unless you factor in specialist wizards.
AbaddonXIII 10-23-05, 07:00 PM	Actually it's because clerics aren't as popular of a choice as arcane casters, so WotC has to buff them to keep player interest. Same reason why they get all of the spells on their spell list, have a decent BAB and HP, and the 2 best saves at full. :pbbbtt: i love the cleric class it dosent automaticly make you the healer of the group... i mean i play evil clarics and with a host of Uber evil spell from my trusty Book of Vial darkness i do some mean... erh ... well ... everything...
AbaddonXIII 10-23-05, 07:01 PM	Noone else comments on the stomatic component? sto·mat·ic adj. Of or relating to the mouth. so·mat·ic adj. Of or relating to the portion of the vertebrate nervous system that regulates voluntary movement. Ahhh, the difference a 't' makes. sory that would be my bad... i messed up...