Wizards with shields?

[BaldHero]

I dont know if this has ever been addressed before, but i was looking for a rational explanation of it in the PHB (3.0 and 3.5) and cant find one.
The shields in D&D are assigned arcane spell chance failure numbers, as is armor, which represents the way it hampers movement and somantic components during spell casting. Rules for casting say that as long as the caster has at least one hand free, they can cast spells with somantic components. Having only one hand free does not as near as i can find, prevent or penalize any spellcsating, so why would using a shield in one invoke a penalty. The regular penalty for not having the right shield feats would still apply. Does anyone know where i might get clarification on this, and does anybody have an opinion as to how that might affect game play if i were to revoke the spell failure chance on shields?

 

[Xarls Taunzund]

There are actually a couple of ways around this in the rules. First off, try a mithral buckler, the mithral gets rid of both arcane spell failure chance and armor check penalty, a wizard or sorcerer, though not proficient, can use it with no penalty. Second, try getting an animated shield, yes, it is a bit costly, but consider haveing a +1 animated tower shield. Thats an extra +5 shield bonus to armor right there and you never have to actually carry the shield.

 

[Jhyrryl]

Beware the Shield Snatchers

Originally posted by Xarls Taunzund
Second, try getting an animated shield, yes, it is a bit costly, but consider haveing a +1 animated tower shield. Thats an extra +5 shield bonus to armor right there and you never have to actually carry the shield.

Except through town...

 

[James McMurray]

Good suggestions folks. Of course, he isn't asking for an ingame way to avoid ASF for shields, he's asking about the repercussions of removing the rule altogether.

My opinion: Spellcasters can get pretty powerful, and their ACs can rapidly skyrocket. Allowing them to add +7 or more on top of that could be unbalancing. Perhaps make it so they have to actually have proficiency in the shield for it to work? Or perhaps create a feat that they can get that has proficiency as a prereq and lets them ignore up to 10% of ASF from a shield?

I believe the rational for the ASF is that a shield, while still leaving one hand free, is a bit too bulky to allow the intricate movements that are sometimes required for casting spells. For instance, if you have to sweep your arm across your chest and touch both knees (silly example), its going to be much harder to do it with accuracy and speed when there's a 5 pound chunk of metal strapped to the other arm.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Second, try getting an animated shield, yes, it is a bit costly, but consider haveing a +1 animated tower shield. Thats an extra +5 shield bonus to armor right there and you never have to actually carry the shield.

Doesn't work in 3.5, by the way! Explicit in the Animated description according to the 3.5 SRD: "A character with an animated shield still takes any penalties associated with shield use, such as armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, and nonproficiency."

Here's the link if you wanna see for yourself:

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MagicItemsII.rtf

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Doesn't work in 3.5, by the way! Explicit in the Animated description according to the 3.5 SRD: "A character with an animated shield still takes any penalties associated with shield use, such as armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, and nonproficiency."

Here's the link if you wanna see for yourself:

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MagicItemsII.rtf

A friend pointed this out as an example of a silly change, and I agree that it is. Now, the Animated Shield is useful only for fighter-types, and provides nothing save the ability to wield a two-handed weapon and shield at the same time.

I can totally see requiring the wizzie to have Shield Proficiency, but if the wizzie pays his dues (which means either spending a feat or a level to gain Shield Proficiency, and forking over the cash for a +3 shield,) he should be able to make use out of the Animated Shield. It wasn't overpowered in the least, and made for some interesting atypical wizardly imagery.

Now, it merely adds to the supremacy of the two-handed weapon fighting style.

 

[Darklone]

Take into account that the shield spell now gives a shield bonus to AC...

 

[Mike Sullivan]

A friend pointed this out as an example of a silly change, and I agree that it is.

I'm kinda 50-50 on it. It doesn't make much sense to me that you'd get ASF from a floating shield. On the other hand, I thought that everyone and their mother getting animated shields was a silly rule exploit in the first place.

Now, it merely adds to the supremacy of the two-handed weapon fighting style.

Or TWF, or the mage sucks it up and gets a Mithril animated shield...

 

[Lord Pendragon]

On the other hand, I thought that everyone and their mother getting animated shields was a silly rule exploit in the first place.

Did you actually have this problem in your game? If so, I'll add it to my list of "other people have had a problem with it, so it got 'fixed'" stuff. I've never seen the animated shield abused, to be honest.

But then, I find myself saying that a lot about the various "necessary" changes to 3.0. Maybe I need to find some more munchkiny players to show me why it was all needed.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Did you actually have this problem in your game?

No -- I played lower-level games than that. I was referring to the frequency it comes up in builds here and on other sites.

It was a pretty attractive concept, though.