Hey, first time poster. Loving ACK.
Looking to build my own content and it occurred to me: elves seem to get the whole arcane spellcasting in ANY armor for free. Is this the case? It's a humungous advantage although looking at their base XP I'm assuming it's worked in there somewhere.
Thoughts?
>>ReaperWolf
Arcane spellcasting is not actually limited by armor in ACKS.
It’s just that the Mage class is not proficient in any armor. The chain of rules goes; you do not benefit from any of your class features while wearing armor you are not proficient in, spellcasting is a class feature, therefore, Mages cannot cast spells while wearing armor.
Any class that is both proficient in armor and able to cast arcane spells can combine the two abilities without needing to pay anything extra for it. (In the core book, the only classes that have both those qualifications happen to be elves.)
(PS - I am not an Autarch, and though I don’t have the page refs or links handy at the moment like I normally would, I remain confident in this being the RAW.)
technically there ARE proficiencies that grant the ability to user heavier armor, but as the proficiencies you can take are determined by your class, and none of the especially mage-y classes have access to it, the result is consistent.
There’s a proficiency that gives heavier armor?
I only remember Martial Training for weapons, I don’t remember any that give access to better armor. (Though it would certainly be a simple matter to write one using the tradeoff rules and Martial Training as a basis.)
THe players companion gives rules for how much armor a class can wear. Elves are just picked with heavy armor allowed in that system.
[quote="Aryxymaraki"]
There's a proficiency that gives heavier armor? I only remember Martial Training for weapons, I don't remember any that give access to better armor. (Though it would certainly be a simple matter to write one using the tradeoff rules and Martial Training as a basis.) [/quote]
Barbarians and Dwarven machinists have "Armor Training", which is described in the player's companion.
Right. Glad I could help.
[quote="Alex"]
Right. Glad I could help.
[/quote]
rules lawyer for a man, and he can play a single session. teach a man to rules lawyer, and he can play for countless campaigns
So they do!
Armor Training calls out that it does not allow spellcasting in the improved armor, though (specifically it says it does not “grant the ability to cast spells in armor”), which I find confusing if there’s no general rule against it (which there does not seem to be)!
Alex, clarification? If I had a class that was proficient in leather and could cast arcane spells, and I put Armor Training on proficiency list (and then a character took Armor Training) would they be able to cast spells in
A) No armor at all
B) Leather armor or lighter
C) Leather + 2 AC or lighter
(My gut is that it would be B, because they could do that without Armor Training involved at all, and Armor Training specifically mentions no bonus spellcasting in armor provided. But that would definitely make the proficiency handicapped for spellcasters in a way that Martial Training is not, so as a Judge in my own campaign, my inclination would be to rule C, and I just would never give Armor Training to a class that wasn’t at least proficient in leather.)
As I understand it, if the class already has armor available, even restricted, then it is assumed he or she can still cast spells in whatever armor (assuming spent proficiencies). However, without fighter 1a. or b. minimum, armor is not possible no matter the class.
[quote="Aryxymaraki"]
which I find confusing if there's no general rule against it (which there does not seem to be)! [/quote]
That said, there is some precedent in assassins being proficient in plate, but unable to use some of their class features in it.
That's a good point. The assassin rule (can't mide, move silently, or backstab in heavier than leather) is theoretically a callback to what you can do when encumbered at some base level. If one takes the "One-Eye flailing wildly" view of casting spells, that could very well apply.
Quiet Magic is perhaps a partial way around that then?
That also may open a question about the encumberance of magical armor, however.
I just wrote the Armor Training proficiency conservatively for fear that I might accidentally break something by allowing armored casters in circumvention of the class creation system.
[quote="Alex"]
I just wrote the Armor Training proficiency conservatively for fear that I might accidentally break something by allowing armored casters in circumvention of the class creation system.
[/quote]
We don't believe you. There's a spreadsheet and a ream of marginally related kinesthetic studies behind that. One just doesn't ACKS by the seats of one's pantaloons, good sir.