Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tauaru 11-29-07, 03:28 AM	First off, I apologize for asking this question that I know I saw the answer to at least once but can no longer figure out how I found it...anyway. I believe there is a feat out there that allows armored spellcasters to half the arcane spell failure chance if they take the proficiency in that armor. Please tell me where this feat is...Thanks.
dman11235 11-29-07, 04:07 AM	I know Armored Mage lets you ignore ASF of certain levels, but requires another method of obtaining armored mage (bards, warmages, etc.). Check crystal keep or the consolidated lists.
risner 11-29-07, 09:17 AM	First off, I apologize for asking this question that I know I saw the answer to at least once but can no longer figure out how I found it...anyway. I believe there is a feat out there that allows armored spellcasters to half the arcane spell failure chance if they take the proficiency in that armor. Please tell me where this feat is...Thanks. Did you try to search at all?
Sinfire Titan 11-29-07, 10:18 AM	There is Reduce Spell Failure, from the Mastercraft Anthology book. It's also a 3rd edition, OGL book. Prerequisite: Dex 13+, Armor Proficiency with chosen armor type. Benefit: Choose a type of armor you are proficient with. Reduce the Arcane Spell Failure chance of that type of armor by 10%. Special: You may take this feat multiple times, it's benefit applies to a different type of armor (Light, Medium, Heavy) each type it is taken. This feat was printed under the Open Game License.
sir_argenon 11-29-07, 02:40 PM	Did you try to search at all? why make such an obnoxious response? the guy start the post off by saying " First off, I apologize for asking this question that I know I saw the answer to at least once but can no longer figure out how I found it." which clearly means that he TRIED to search, and couldnt find anything. ANYWAY, to try to help the OP, i know there is a feat Battlecaster, i believe, that allows you to cast in 1 trype of armor better than you can cast normally, for example, if you are a warlock and can cast in LIGHT armor, the feat will allow you to cast in MED armor, without penalty. there is also the mithral armor that reduces asf by 10%, the armor template feycraft that reduces 5% ASF penalty, and the twilight enhancement which is a +1 enhancement (i think) that reduces asf by 10%.. thats all i know of. hope this was of some help to you.
Scion of Coldshard 11-29-07, 06:23 PM	A dm can pretty much just say arcane spell failure doesnt exist in their games and have no big balance issues as is. I know it doesnt help the original question but the list of who has to deal with it as is tends to be pretty short, just ask the dm if it can be ignored for the game ;)
dman11235 11-29-07, 06:26 PM	No balance issues?!?! That wizard can now go through with an AC higher than the fighter (spent more money on AC than the fighter). I've witnessed it firsthand with psions. And that's not as bad as wizards. Also, it looks wierd.
Scion of Coldshard 11-29-07, 06:35 PM	If they are spending more money to get the higher AC where is the problem exactly? It also doesnt look any odder than any other character out there really, some wizards might do it, others wont.. much like some clerics wear heavy armors while others dont. Lack of proficiency is still a huge hit as well. No, getting rid of ASF has pretty much no big balance issues.
LSMFT 11-30-07, 11:11 AM	Wizards are one of the weakest classes in the game. They should probably be allowed to have the same AC as a fighter for the same cost. Really. :rofl:
NoldorForce 11-30-07, 11:37 AM	The basic idea is this: -At low levels, armor may be cheap, but so are alternate ways (a few of them spells) to increase it comparably. And as noted above, the divine casters get to use the stuff without penalty already. -At high levels, armor becomes more and more useless when people get higher Dexterity scores, considering that all armor has a maximum Dexterity bonus to AC. Unless someone uses the 3rd-party Grace property (removes that entire mechanic) on something like a Definitive Harness (+12 to AC and less cumbersome than full plate).Wizards are one of the weakest classes in the game. They should probably be allowed to have the same AC as a fighter for the same cost. Really.You're joking, right?
LSMFT 11-30-07, 01:09 PM	You're joking, right? Yes. For fear that the absurdity of the statement wouldn’t be sufficient to convey that, I included a little laughing smiley. The basic idea is this: -At low levels, armor may be cheap, but so are alternate ways (a few of them spells) to increase it comparably.At low levels, wizards can easily have a pretty good AC relative to the rest of the party. Mage Armor is +4 AC, same as a chain shirt. Really good. But it requires the use of a spell. Replace it with a chain shirt, and basically, you're getting bonus slots. So, are wizards in need of a boost like that? I think they are powerful enough already. -At high levels, armor becomes more and more useless when people get higher Dexterity scores, considering that all armor has a maximum Dexterity bonus to AC. Unless someone uses the 3rd-party Grace property (removes that entire mechanic) on something like a Definitive Harness (+12 to AC and less cumbersome than full plate).At high levels, in my experience, it starts to become a waste of resources for arcane casters to even invest in AC. +8 bracers cost 64,000 gp, more than the cost of +5 mithral full plate [/i]and[/i] a +5 shield combined. If you ignore ASF, this is what wizards will do. It becomes feasible to invest the money in AC boosting armor, and they will. A wizard, starting with a great Dex of 15 and boosting it to 26 with 5 wishes and gloves of dexterity will have a +8 dex mod. If you don't count ASF, he's still better off investing 26,100 gp in a +5 mithral chain shirt than 64,000 in +8 Bracers of Armor. (+8 armor +8 dex is only +1 better than +9 armor +6 dex at 2.5 times the cost.) So, are wizards in need of a boost like that? I think they are powerful enough already. And as noted above, the divine casters get to use the stuff without penalty already.So, wizards are only like the third-most powerful class, after Druids and clerics, so they need to be more powerful?
Dog_O_War 11-30-07, 01:13 PM	If they are spending more money to get the higher AC where is the problem exactly? It also doesnt look any odder than any other character out there really, some wizards might do it, others wont.. much like some clerics wear heavy armors while others dont. Lack of proficiency is still a huge hit as well. No, getting rid of ASF has pretty much no big balance issues. Yeah, except at 3rd level when they have enough cash, that wizard with a 10 dex has a 27 AC. That is without even a shred of optimizing. It is just fullplate (non-proficient), tower shield (non-proficient), and the shield spell, because the armour check penalty never mattered for the wizard anyway. He could just sit back and fire off two auto-hit attacks every round (magic missile), contributing as much damage as a falchion-wielding fighter. An ogre would have a tough time hitting this guy. Spell-failure matters.
Scion of Coldshard 11-30-07, 01:50 PM	At high levels, in my experience, it starts to become a waste of resources for arcane casters to even invest in AC. +8 bracers cost 64,000 gp, more than the cost of +5 mithral full plate [/i]and[/i] a +5 shield combined. If you ignore ASF, this is what wizards will do. It becomes feasible to invest the money in AC boosting armor, and they will. Bracers of armor are way too expensive first of all. Next up, every wizard is going to want to reduce their movement rate, weigh themselves down with 30+lbs of armor and shield, and take a -3 or higher penalty to attack rolls, str and dex based skills, and str and dex based checks? With a 10 str that is pretty much looking at medium load at least, which means a humans movement would be reduced to 15' and have a -6 penalty to the list above. That seems pretty unlikely overall.. In any event though, taking away the arcane spell failure doesnt really make those few who might actually suffer from it any more powerful, it simply allows for more character builds and options. Being able to use a chain shirt instead of having to use mage armor isnt really a step up in power, it comes with its own set of limitations after all. The easiest limitation to see is simple weight.
Scion of Coldshard 11-30-07, 02:05 PM	Yeah, except at 3rd level when they have enough cash, that wizard with a 10 dex has a 27 AC. That is without even a shred of optimizing. It is just fullplate (non-proficient), tower shield (non-proficient), and the shield spell, because the armour check penalty never mattered for the wizard anyway. He could just sit back and fire off two auto-hit attacks every round (magic missile), contributing as much damage as a falchion-wielding fighter. An ogre would have a tough time hitting this guy. Well, I suppose first up a 3rd level character should have about 2700 gp worth of stuff.. with a general guideline of no more than half of the normal amount of money put into any single item that leaves fullplate out.. but lets assume that they are have been 3rd for a little while so are gearing up for 4th. At this point you are talking about 95lbs before looking at other gear. The armor check penalty is -16 plus the penalty from whatever the weight load is. You are also talking about a short duration buff spell being cast that doesnt even stack with the equipment you already have in place. Assuming a 12+ dex, a str of 10, and ignoring the shield spell the wizard is looking at an AC of 23, armor check penalty of -22, an extra -2 to any attack rolls, moves at 15' (if he started with 30'), and after 6 more lbs is basically unable to move. A 3rd level specialist wizard will likely have about 4 1st level spells and 3 2nd level spells that could matter during a fight. Once those are depleted this guy is essentially useless at everything, he likely needs a natural 20 to even use the 'aid another' action effectively, assuming he can even carry a weapon with his remaining weight capacity. Spell-failure matters. Do you have an example that actually shows that it matters? The one given above doesnt really seem to... ;) The ogre cited above would stomp this guy so hard it'd be silly.
Dog_O_War 11-30-07, 02:28 PM	Well, I suppose first up a 3rd level character should have about 2700 gp worth of stuff.. with a general guideline of no more than half of the normal amount of money put into any single item that leaves fullplate out.. but lets assume that they are have been 3rd for a little while so are gearing up for 4th. At this point you are talking about 95lbs before looking at other gear. The armor check penalty is -16 plus the penalty from whatever the weight load is. You are also talking about a short duration buff spell being cast that doesnt even stack with the equipment you already have in place. Assuming a 12+ dex, a str of 10, and ignoring the shield spell the wizard is looking at an AC of 23, armor check penalty of -22, an extra -2 to any attack rolls, moves at 15' (if he started with 30'), and after 6 more lbs is basically unable to move. A 3rd level specialist wizard will likely have about 4 1st level spells and 3 2nd level spells that could matter during a fight. Once those are depleted this guy is essentially useless at everything, he likely needs a natural 20 to even use the 'aid another' action effectively, assuming he can even carry a weapon with his remaining weight capacity. So replace full with halfplate, an have an AC of 26 instead of 27:embarrass . Rarely does a wizard have to use skills that ACP applies; often he won't succeed at them even without an ACP, so the armour check penalty doesn't matter. As for the spell; so it doesn't stack (damn the srd and 3.0 rules). this drops Mr. wizard's AC to 22(23FP) instead of 26(27FP). He then has MORE attack spells (magic missile) to use. He is average wizard, with no dex. bonus, a 12 str (to carry his crap with) and a 15 int. Against average fighter (who has a MW weapon and weapon focus, as well as a 15 str) who has a +7 to hit at third, so he's got MAYBE a 25-30% chance to even hit. the wizard has a 100% chance with magic missile. Guess who will win because of rules disregarding? This is even worse if said caster is a sorcerer, or takes just ONE level in fighter. Do you have an example that actually shows that it matters? The one given above doesnt really seem to... ;) The ogre cited above would stomp this guy so hard it'd be silly. With is 30-35% chance to hit? What if the wizard was a gnome or dwarf? Then it's 10-15%. As noted above, the exemple I just gave was without even a shred of optimization. Hell, with a points-buy, you could have a high str, con, and int, have a FF AC that makes up for every suprise round yer caught in, never miss because all you have is auto-hit/save or effect spells, etc... Spell-failure is there for a reason, not because the creators thought that "it was cool".
Scion of Coldshard 11-30-07, 02:41 PM	Changing to halfplate will make the AC go from 23 to 21, the weight will not change, and the armor check penalty will get worse. What does this wizard do once he has used his 3 magic missiles? Each of those magic missiles averages to 7 points of damage. A 3rd level fighter with a 10 con and no feats to buff hp has an average of 20hp. So, on average, after expending the majority of the spells for the day this wizard might be able to knock an equal level fighter with a 10 con unconscious. Againt the ogre mentioned earlier 4 magic missiles average out to leaving it conscious. I am still not seeing how this example shows that arcane spell failure is somehow needed in the system. This wizard looks far from overpowered.. he looks a little far from powerful at all actually.
LSMFT 11-30-07, 02:41 PM	Next up, every wizard is going to want to reduce their movement rate, weigh themselves down with 30+lbs of armor and shield,Light armor will have little to no impact on a wizard's movement rate. Medium armor's reduction won't matter by the time I can afford it. Moreover, their typically low AC is largely the reason why they need to move so much. and take a -3 or higher penalty to attack rolls, str and dex based skills, and str and dex based checks?And what str and dex checks will I routinely be making as a wizard? The reduction is speed does not balance with the reduction in cost. In any event though, taking away the arcane spell failure doesnt really make those few who might actually suffer from it any more powerful, it simply allows for more character builds and options.No, it lets them achieve the same or better results (high AC) at significantly reduced cost. I'm not taking that money I saved and putting it into an IRA. I'm using it on other items to make myself more powerful. I'm using the spell slots I could have used for Mage Armor and Shield to cast other spells. That = more power. Giving a class-type more power is a balance issue. You aren't demonstrating that the issue isn't there. You just don't think anyone should care. Being able to use a chain shirt instead of having to use mage armor isnt really a step up in powerWould a 100 gp investment that let level-one wizards cast Persistent first-level spells be ok? Nay, permanent undispellable first-level spells? Isn't that what a chain shirt is? A permanent undispellable +4 armor bonus for 100 gp? You said it has no balance issues. Yes it does. That you are willing to accept those issues and deam them unimportant in your games doesn't mean they aren't there.
LSMFT 11-30-07, 02:49 PM	I am still not seeing how this example shows that arcane spell failure is somehow needed in the system. This wizard looks far from overpowered.. he looks a little far from powerful at all actually.A wizard in fullplate with a big shield and no ASF can cast all the same spells as a wizard in a game where such rules are followed. He just has a far better AC and more resources (i.e. more power) and moves marginally slower (except when he teleports.)
tauaru 11-30-07, 04:54 PM	I want to thank all of you that added to this post and vigorous discussion. Unfortunately, the search protocols for the boards are absolutely simple (in the literal usage of simple(see Merriam-Webster 4a) and assist only in finding random postings. I specifically wish to thank Sinfire Titan as that was the feat I was looking for and could not find. What I like as a DM is that I have told my players that they can use anything out of any book and they do not, this allows me to constantly surprise them with things they've never heard of...ahh lazy players, you are the DMs dream! Thanks again!
Scion of Coldshard 11-30-07, 10:34 PM	Light armor will have little to no impact on a wizard's movement rate. Medium armor's reduction won't matter by the time I can afford it. Either of these seem pretty likely to put the character into at least medium load after considering the typical low str and other gear. And what str and dex checks will I routinely be making as a wizard? You have to make them all of the time for them to be an issue? I know that wizards I have seen often make attack rolls however.. especially at low levels. The reduction is speed does not balance with the reduction in cost. What reduction in cost exactly? Different costs perhaps, but reduction? I'm using the spell slots I could have used for Mage Armor and Shield to cast other spells. Great! Maybe that low level wizard will actually be doing something then instead of hiding all of the time.. Would a 100 gp investment that let level-one wizards cast Persistent first-level spells be ok? I take it you dont like any classes wearing armor then? Do note that a persistant mage armor and a chain shirt are very, very, very different things as well. You said it has no balance issues. That isnt what I said.
Scion of Coldshard 11-30-07, 10:40 PM	A wizard in fullplate with a big shield and no ASF can cast all the same spells as a wizard in a game where such rules are followed. He just has a far better AC and more resources (i.e. more power) and moves marginally slower (except when he teleports.) Why are you ignoring the costs? Just because each cost is not exactly the same for each method doesnt mean that there are no costs associated with each of the choices. A wizard in full plate and a big shield is not going to make any attack rolls, they are going to fail at all str and dex based related activities, are going to have severly hampered mobility, and who knows what else.. at that much weight becoming fatigued or losing even a single point in str through anything means that they are out of the fight until someone comes along and fixes them. That doesnt seem 'powerful', that seems like a constant problem just waiting to be exploited by anyone and everyone that the wizard might face. Plus, pretty much everyone is now getting the ability to cast arcane spells in armor.. just about the only people left out in the cold are wizards and sorcs.. but each of those could prc into having the ability while not losing any/much casting. I just dont see anything here worth bothering over. If ASF goes away the game will barely even notice at this point.
Rustmonster 11-30-07, 11:01 PM	The reason, IMO, that ASF exists is as a counter to melee classes having an armour check penalty. I'm actually quite fin with that. It makes sense. What does not make sense, however, is that while a melee class will not take the penalty to their to-hit anymore when they are proficient with the armour, an arcane caster still takes the penalty if they are proficient in the armour. This is unfair, IMO, so it would make sense if an arcane caster takes no ASF with armour that they are proficient in. The Bard already does this, basiclly.
Scion of Coldshard 12-01-07, 01:01 AM	It isnt much of a counter.. very few casters are even subject to its effects in ways that matter.
LSMFT 12-01-07, 12:20 PM	Great! Maybe that low level wizard will actually be doing something then instead of hiding all of the time..??? When I said before that wizards were weak, I was joking. I think we can see where we have a difference of perspective. Nothing else you or I said really matters once this becomes clear. In mine, they’re among the most powerful classes in the game. They do most everything and anything, and don’t need a power-boost. In your experience, wizards do nothing and need to hide. (Hence, the need for a low ACP.) Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, but I think that you can at least admit that your proposal was one to increase the power of the wizard, and not, as you first claimed, one for which there are “no big balance issues.”
Dog_O_War 12-01-07, 12:32 PM	Y'know Scion, we really need you over in the debunking of overpowered casters thread - because you're just about the only one I've ever seen call a wizard weak and underpowered. To me they are balanced, but ASF from armour is one of those factors.
Scion of Coldshard 12-01-07, 01:54 PM	When I said before that wizards were weak, I was joking. I said low level wizards. At low level wizards have pretty much nothing for hp, they have few defenses, they have very few spells per day, and with a few notable exceptions the spells that they do have access to are pretty weak and very short in duration. I would consider low level clerics, druids, and bards to be simply more powerful in just about every way. None of those are effected by arcane spell failure in a meaningful way. Many new classes coming out simply declare themselves to be immune or partially immune to it right off the bat, if they happen to be arcane. Arcane spell failure doesnt really do much of anything. It makes it so that a class that is weak at low levels is not only in roughly one hit-one kill range but also can get a couple of extra points easily for fear of losing a spell.. and since they get so very few losing even one is a huge problem. A wizard with a few more points of AC isnt really a big deal. Especially since they are likely to be brushing up against medium to heavy load because of it, and they are unlikely to want to be in that range either.. There are already many limitations other than ASF which balance out the use of armor, the ASF is just a sacred cow carried along for no good reason. Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, but I think that you can at least admit that your proposal was one to increase the power of the wizard, and not, as you first claimed, one for which there are “no big balance issues.” There are no big balance issues. At least none that I have seen, and I got rid of it in my own games long ago. No one here has brought up any big balance issues either for that matter.
Merestil Haye 12-01-07, 04:00 PM	Just thought I'd answer one question that's been neglected.And what str and dex checks will I routinely be making as a wizard?Every PC makes one Dexterity check in every single combat. Unless they die in the surprise round.Initiative Checks At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check.Initiative is a Dexterity check, in the same way that turning is a Charisma check. Armour ACP applies to initiative for nonproficient wearers.
LSMFT 12-01-07, 04:13 PM	Scion of coldshard: I've really no doubt you were able to give the wizards more power in your games without anyone really noticing. I think they would in mine.
Scion of Coldshard 12-01-07, 04:34 PM	Do you not use encumberance in your games LSMFT? No initiative checks (thanks Merestil Haye!)? No balance checks? Wizards do not make attack rolls? Wizards do not need to walk around the battlefield (at 15' movement a wizard can use the run action and still not be out of charging range of many opponents)? They never need to climb, jump, move silently, hide, ride, or swim? At lower levels grapple checks are normally not completely insane either. A wizard rolling well vs an opponent rolling poorly means that they can still be ok. The more heavily armored the mage is the less likely they are to be able to resist during this fragile time, assuming that the dm has armor check penalties apply on grapple checks of course. It will make tripping even easier and bull rushes will go even further (odd in some ways, not so much in others.. interesting). I dont feel that the bonuses outweigh the penalties by the degree you do I suppose.
dman11235 12-01-07, 05:48 PM	Well, the only thing that has ever come up in the games I play is initiative. The wizard will find another way around the other obstacles. And I don't believe that ACP applies to initiative. Only certain skills. And if you're not proficient, you take it on attack rolls and strength/dex based skill checks and ability checks. Grappling is not an ability check.
Merestil Haye 12-01-07, 06:36 PM	Well, the only thing that has ever come up in the games I play is initiative. The wizard will find another way around the other obstacles. And I don't believe that ACP applies to initiative. Only certain skills. And if you're not proficient, you take it on attack rolls and strength/dex based skill checks and ability checks. Grappling is not an ability check.ACP applies to certain skills whether you are proficient or not. The only skill check where it matters whether you are proficient or not is the Ride skill. It is when you are not proficient that it extends to all Strength-based and Dexterity-based ability checks. A proficient armour wearer doesn't take a penalty to initiative; a non-proficient armour wearer does. I'm not sure whether the penalty extends to grapple checks. It clearly applies to bullrushing (a Str check), tripping (resisted with a Str or Dex check), sundering and disarming (both of which are opposed attack rolls, and nonproficiency applies to attack rolls). Grapple checks, however, aren't attack rolls or any form of ability check, so it's possible that the turtle-wizard won't be hampered by his gear as he tries to stave off the guy trying to grab him.
sapient 12-01-07, 06:40 PM	... And I don't believe that ACP applies to initiative. Only certain skills. And if you're not proficient, you take it on attack rolls and strength/dex based skill checks and ability checks. ... Hmm, interesting question. I checked SRD and found: Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he or she is not proficient takes the armor’s (and/or shield’s) armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all Strength-based and Dexterity-based ability and skill checks. Taken together with what Merestil Heye quoted earlier, you can -I think- interpret it any which way... Is the "Initiative check" a (Dexterity based) ability check or an Initiative check (nothing more, nothing less)? I've never thought about it before. Never had any reason to, I suppose. And had it not been because the issue was raised here, I also would instinctively have said that the initiative check was a category to itself, not a skill chek (obviously) and not an ability check. But curious as I became, I looked around in the rules. And in fact, it isn't clear. (There doesn't seem to be a defined practice for the terminology spelled out anywere I can find, that resolves the issue.) One thing that, to me, speaks for interpreting it as an ability check (only getting a name of its own because it is so common) is that it is not mentioned under the description of Dexterity as an ability, as is most other uses of Dex-modifiers EXCEPT for general ability checks, since that is too obvious... And if ACP applies to Initiative checks, for unproficient wearers, that IS important to remember... .
Scion of Coldshard 12-01-07, 07:19 PM	Taken together with what Merestil Heye quoted earlier, you can -I think- interpret it any which way... Is the "Initiative check" a (Dexterity based) ability check or an Initiative check (nothing more, nothing less)? I've never thought about it before. Never had any reason to, I suppose. And had it not been because the issue was raised here, I also would instinctively have said that the initiative check was a category to itself, not a skill chek (obviously) and not an ability check. But curious as I became, I looked around in the rules. And in fact, it isn't clear. (There doesn't seem to be a defined practice for the terminology spelled out anywere I can find, that resolves the issue.) One thing that, to me, speaks for interpreting it as an ability check (only getting a name of its own because it is so common) is that it is not mentioned under the description of Dexterity as an ability, as is most other uses of Dex-modifiers EXCEPT for general ability checks, since that is too obvious... And if ACP applies to Initiative checks, for unproficient wearers, that IS important to remember... . In the phb on page 135 under 'initiative' it is called a dex check and on page 136 under the Initiative header it is also called a dex check. I dont think the rules get more definitive than, 'An initiative check is a dexterity check' which both of those pages say ;)
dman11235 12-01-07, 07:49 PM	ACP applies to initiative if you are not proficient. However, you get what one of my friends did* and have someone take one level of fighter for the equivelent of six feats (light through heavy armor, shield/ tower shield, and one more, he took imp. init.). That's a one level loss for a whole lot of gain, not to mention the HP and fort save boost. Or just two feats, light and medium armor, wearing mithryl full plate. But that one level dip? Not much loss at all (you're on the sorcerer spell progression now) for a whole lot of gain. *He was a psion, so it's a little different, but we saw the same sorts of problems there as you will with this. Only not as bad.
sapient 12-01-07, 08:24 PM	In the phb on page 135 under 'initiative' it is called a dex check and on page 136 under the Initiative header it is also called a dex check. I dont think the rules get more definitive than, 'An initiative check is a dexterity check' which both of those pages say ;) Yes, but to be *perfectly* clear I'd like the word 'ability' in there somewere. :) I've never thought about it as an ability check before, and maybe that's just me being a bit stupid, but when I read "it is a dexterity check" I somehow picture a 'based' there - where it isn't, and shouldn't be... .
Merestil Haye 12-02-07, 06:00 AM	ACP applies to initiative if you are not proficient. However, you get what one of my friends did* and have someone take one level of fighter for the equivelent of six feats (light through heavy armor, shield/ tower shield, and one more, he took imp. init.). That's a one level loss for a whole lot of gain, not to mention the HP and fort save boost. Or just two feats, light and medium armor, wearing mithryl full plate. But that one level dip? Not much loss at all (you're on the sorcerer spell progression now) for a whole lot of gain. *He was a psion, so it's a little different, but we saw the same sorts of problems there as you will with this. Only not as bad.That's quite legit, and gets rid of the nonproficiency problems altogether. But that makes such a character not what this thread is about, because a wizard has paid a significant cost to get rid of the nonproficiency penalty, namely the loss of one level of spellcasting. (That is something of a penalty, no matter how you slice it). Of course it means he's now eligible for Eldritch Knight, should he want to go that route. Or Abjurant Champion. The game is all about choices and the consequences. Multiclassing is a legitimate strategy for dealing with perceived weaknesses, and a wizard who's spent money on armour isn't spending it on widening his spell selection, increasing his spellcasting ability or metamagic rods (to name but three things).