Spell Failure

The observant members of the congregation will notice I have entitled this section of the site "Spell Failure" and not "Arcane Spell Failure". That very distinction should be enough to send shivers down the spine of every right-minded player of bards, clerics, rangers and paladins.... Yes, the rules for spell failure have changed - and not for the benefit of those classes. Where once spell failure only applied to arcane casters now it applies universally to everyone. The following text explains why this is the case, and justifies my decision. It also points you in the direction of all the cunning ways your characters can get around this.

What is Spell Failure?

Armour interferes with the complicated gestures that are required to cast any spell with a somatic component. If a character attempts to cast a spell while wearing armour or carrying a shield, there is a percentage chance that the spell simply fails. The bulkier the armour the greater the chance of spell failure. For example, someone wearing full plate armour and carrying a tower shield would have an 85% chance of their spell failing.

In the standard rules (PHB pages 80 and 122), only arcane casters can suffer from spell failure and therefore these rules only applied to wizards, sorcerers, bards and their ilk. In the House Rules, the rules for spell failure apply universally to any spell-caster who casts a spell that requires a somatic component. If the spell doesn't have a somatic component then there is no chance of spell failure. For this reason (and only this reason), there is no chance of spell failure when manifesting psionic powers.

Why Change the Rules?

For one simple reason: they didn't make any sense. On p80 of the PHB it states that one of the reasons that arcane casters suffer the chance of spell failure is because they don't know how to use armour properly. It also says that the reason why bards do not suffer a chance of spell failure in light armour is because they are proficient in its use. Well, if that is the case - and it is all a matter of skill - then logically, taking an Armour Proficiency feat will eliminate the penalty. Of course, it doesn't work that way making the listed justifications all rather pointless.

So, if it is nothing to do with proficiency in the armour then it must be do with the gestures. This beggars the obvious question: why do the somatic gestures of wizards incur a chance of spell failure, but the somatic gestures of clerics do not? Are wizards and sorcerers just more flambuoyant than their ecclesiastical counterparts? I don't think so. If somatic gestures are the only thing that leads to spell failure then the rules should apply equally to all classes that use them. I was left with two choices: apply spell failure universally, or remove spell failure from the rules altogether.

I was sorely tempted by the latter as it would have been much easier. However, Spell Failure (and circumventing it) is a feature of several feats and prestige classes. To remove spell failure would be to take them out of the game. And seeing one of those classes, the Spellsword, had been taken by one of the players of my Wednesday night game that wasn't an option.

Avoiding Spell Failure

So you have read the above rules and suddenly you have realised that your cleric or paladin seems fundamentally shafted in the spell-casting department. You are disconsolate and considering finding yourself a less evil and vindictive GM. Never fear, there are various recourses to avoiding the dreaded spell failure roll. Here are a few of them, but I'm sure you will think of others.

Still Spell

The feat Still Spell (PHB p101) eliminates the need to make somatic gestures while casting a spell. Without the gestures there is no need to make a spell failure roll so a wizard in full plate could cast any number of spells. The disadvantage of this is that it costs one of your feats and the spell is cast at +1 level which not only costs you an extra spell point but also slows your progression somewhat.

Special Armour

I rule that Masterwork armour reduces the chance of spell failure by 5%. This is in addition to its other main property of reducing the armour check penalty by 1 point. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that certain types of magical armour might lessen or eliminate the the spell failure chance altogether.

Divine Intervention

Particularly martial priesthoods (such as those that follow the god of war) may gain granted powers that eliminates some or all of the penalties associated with Spell Failure. Other religions may give bonus feats that do much the same job.

New Feats

I have devised five new feats that can elminate the spell failure penalty for certain categories of armour and shields. Many of the core classes receive these feats as bonus feats at certain levels. Other classes (such as sorcerers and wizards) would have to select them normally. There is a Base Attack Bonus prerequisite for all these feats that succeeds in delaying the level certain arcanists can select them. This is happily in keeping with the general D&D ethos that wizards don't wear armour. The feats are:

• Ignore Spell Failure (Light Armour)
• Ignore Spell Failure (Medium Armour)
• Ignore Spell Failure (Heavy Armour)
• Ignore Spell Failure (Shields)
• Ignore Spell Failure (Tower Shields)

Multiclass

By multiclassing into certain core or prestige classes, characters can avoid the need to make certain Spell Failure rolls. Most core classes that cast non-arcane magic gain some of the feats above as bonus feats. Certain prestige classes such as the Spellsword and the Bladesinger also gain the advantages of these feats. However, multiclassing will dilute your character's powers as a spellcaster.