So keep in mind that a Shield spell won't stack with the shield bonus offered by a shield, and likewise, Mage Armor won't stack with worn armor.
I hope this doesn't confuse you more than you might be already, but if you are wearing leather armor (+2 AC) and cast Mage Armor you can add the difference between the two to your AC. That means you get the +2 from the Leather Armor and a +2 from Mage Armor. A similar effect happens with a physical shield and the spell Shield. Say you have a Lt Steel Shield (+1) and cast Shield you would apply the difference to your AC (+3). The benefit of casting Shield is that it stops Magic Missile spells from hitting you.
At least that is the way I understand it and the way we use it in our gaming group. Your GM may have a different idea so go with his interpretation.
Just my 2 cp.
I hope this doesn't confuse you more than you might be already, but if you are wearing leather armor (+2 AC) and cast Mage Armor you can add the difference between the two to your AC. That means you get the +2 from the Leather Armor and a +2 from Mage Armor. A similar effect happens with a physical shield and the spell Shield. Say you have a Lt Steel Shield (+1) and cast Shield you would apply the difference to your AC (+3). The benefit of casting Shield is that it stops Magic Missile spells from hitting you.
At least that is the way I understand it and the way we use it in our gaming group. Your GM may have a different idea so go with his interpretation.
Just my 2 cp.
So if a wraith attacks you, you're only going to count Mage Armor as +2 against that incorporeal touch attack? You're only hurting yourself with this approach, these effects overlap.
Did you not read my last sentence? There are many variations of ideas of how things work in Pathfinder and quite a bit of it depends on how the GM thinks things should go.
So if a wraith attacks you, you're only going to count Mage Armor as +2 against that incorporeal touch attack? You're only hurting yourself with this approach, these effects overlap.
No. The Mage Armour counts as a +4 armour bonus. So it will increase your base AC by a amaximum of four for armour. Think of it this way, you only use the highest of your same-type bonuses. Hence if you are wearing leather armour and you have Mage Armour cast on you, you only get the better of either +2 (leather) or +4 (Mage Armour). So the mage armour counts fully against the wraith.
Now if you were wearing chain mail (+5) then casting Mage Armpour on you would have no effect to your normal AC (the chainmail has the better bonus), but against the wraith would still count fully (+4) as this is better than the chain mail's bonus against incorporeal touch attacks (+0).
Did you not read my last sentence? There are many variations of ideas of how things work in Pathfinder and quite a bit of it depends on how the GM thinks things should go.
Did they change the rules for this in Pathfinder as well? From what I recall from 3.5, the highest applicable bonus overrides all lower applicable bonuses of the same type. Hence your game's house rules are rather limiting. Though if anyone is stupid enough to wear lower level armor in a game with those rules, they deserve whatever they get coming to them.
|
Dabbler is correct. You always take the highest applicable bonus.
For example:
You're wearing full a suit of Chainmail giving you a +5 bonus to AC. Somebody casts Mage Armor on you.
If you get hit by a barbarian with his axe, you get the +5 bonus to your AC.
If you get hit by a shadow and his incorporeal touch attack you get the +4 bonus to your AC.
Conversely, if you were wearing a suit of studded leather for a +3 bonus to AC and somebody cast Mage Armor on you, your AC would ALWAYS be +4 regardless to whether the attack is normal or incorporeal (as the Mage Armor is the highest of the bonuses).
This applies to all bonuses (if you're holding a light shield and somebody casts shield spell on you, you get the +4 bonus from the shield spell, not the +1 bonus from your regular shield).
So if a wraith attacks you, you're only going to count Mage Armor as +2 against that incorporeal touch attack? You're only hurting yourself with this approach, these effects overlap.No. The Mage Armour counts as a +4 armour bonus. So it will increase your base AC by a amaximum of four for armour. Think of it this way, you only use the highest of your same-type bonuses. Hence if you are wearing leather armour and you have Mage Armour cast on you, you only get the better of either +2 (leather) or +4 (Mage Armour). So the mage armour counts fully against the wraith.
Now if you were wearing chain mail (+5) then casting Mage Armpour on you would have no effect to your normal AC (the chainmail has the better bonus), but against the wraith would still count fully (+4) as this is better than the chain mail's bonus against incorporeal touch attacks (+0).
Just curious Dabbler, but what part of my post did you take objection to?
The bit where mage armour only counts for +2 to AC if you are attacked by a wraith. It's +4 to your touch AC vs the wraith, but only a two point increase over your armour value if you are attacked physically. Sorry if I didn't make that clear!
The bit where mage armour only counts for +2 to AC if you are attacked by a wraith. It's +4 to your touch AC vs the wraith, but only a two point increase over your armour value if you are attacked physically. Sorry if I didn't make that clear!
Context. I was responding to Silverhair's campaign specific treatment that I quoted and illustrating the potential diminishment in that scenario. I even phrased it in the form of a question directed to Silverhair. At no point were you and I in disagreement concerning these rules.
Dabbler wrote:
The bit where mage armour only counts for +2 to AC if you are attacked by a wraith. It's +4 to your touch AC vs the wraith, but only a two point increase over your armour value if you are attacked physically. Sorry if I didn't make that clear!
Context. I was responding to Silverhair's campaign specific treatment that I quoted and illustrating the potential diminishment in that scenario. I even phrased it in the form of a question directed to Silverhair. At no point were you and I in disagreement concerning these rules.
And in answer to your question, I took the OP's request to reference physical attacks vs AC. There are many specific examples where that does not apply but he/she did not specify what they were asking. I agree with what you and Dabbler said about attacks from incorporeal creatures. I did not see the need to seemingly come off as argumentative. RAW will always be adjusted according to the desires of the GM and his specific campaign. After all, aren't the rules just guidelines for play?
I am amazed that a question like this gets a thirteen posts thread. ^^
Because we are all human and make mistakes in our attempts to communicate, and because we are all courteous people, we attempt to iron out all our disagreements and resolve differences without taking offence.
Though it should be noted that a Shield spell only protects your front 180 degrees, but not your back - thats how it works in 3.5 and works the same way here. Much in the same way carrying a mundane shield doesnt help if your attacked in the back, the only difference here is that the Shield spell doesnt require using any hands.
Shield
Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers infront of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The Shield has bo armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance
It functions more or less like a hovering magical shield that protects your front 180 degrees, if your attacked from the rear you get no benefit from the spell other than the magic missile absorbption effect.
And as for Armor Bonuses, if someone had leather armor and had Mage Armor cast upon them they would only benefit from the higher bonus while the spell was in effect.
Answering the main question of the thread...yes, you get a +8 bonus to AC but only in the front 180 degrees that the shield protects - your back is otherwise exposed (therefore your back recieves only the AC bonus of the Mage Armor spell)
Of course "facing" is a non-standard game rule.
Though it should be noted that a Shield spell only protects your front 180 degrees, but not your back - thats how it works in 3.5 and works the same way here. Much in the same way carrying a mundane shield doesnt help if your attacked in the back, the only difference here is that the Shield spell doesnt require using any hands.
Any rules that you use for facing are house rules. The "hovers in front of you" text is purely fluff, describing the appearance of the spell.
By RAW, even if you're completely surrounded, you get your shield bonus to your AC vs. all opponents. They get their flanking bonus of course, but you don't adjust your AC on a per-opponent basis.
Then it may be just how it works in Pathfinder but back in 3.5, a character weilding a shield cannot bring it to bear against an opponent at his rear and a Shield spell worked the same way, it hovered in a fixed point infront of you, while the text may look like fluff it functions more or less the same, the wording doesnt mention anything about it interposing itself between you and an attack (because this would have implications for attacks your not aware of, such as a sneak attack, it would make the Shield spell something of a compass to show you where the attack comes from).
A Shield spell doesnt require any hands, but it sits in a fixed point infront of you. Someone using a handheld shield cant effectively protect their backs likewise, but attacks from the front or sides definately. Theres NO mention of how [shield] bonuses work in Pathfinder so I'd be inclined to go with the 3.5 ruling on it until there is clarification.
Then it may be just how it works in Pathfinder but back in 3.5, a character weilding a shield cannot bring it to bear against an opponent at his rear and a Shield spell worked the same way, it hovered in a fixed point infront of you, while the text may look like fluff it functions more or less the same, the wording doesnt mention anything about it interposing itself between you and an attack (because this would have implications for attacks your not aware of, such as a sneak attack, it would make the Shield spell something of a compass to show you where the attack comes from).
A Shield spell doesnt require any hands, but it sits in a fixed point infront of you. Someone using a handheld shield cant effectively protect their backs likewise, but attacks from the front or sides definately. Theres NO mention of how [shield] bonuses work in Pathfinder so I'd be inclined to go with the 3.5 ruling on it until there is clarification.
Can you give a page reference or copy/paste from the SRD? As far as I'm aware, there has never been any facing rules in the d20 system. This is not new to Pathfinder.
Then it may be just how it works in Pathfinder but back in 3.5, a character weilding a shield cannot bring it to bear against an opponent at his rear and a Shield spell worked the same way, it hovered in a fixed point infront of you, while the text may look like fluff it functions more or less the same, the wording doesnt mention anything about it interposing itself between you and an attack (because this would have implications for attacks your not aware of, such as a sneak attack, it would make the Shield spell something of a compass to show you where the attack comes from).
A Shield spell doesnt require any hands, but it sits in a fixed point infront of you. Someone using a handheld shield cant effectively protect their backs likewise, but attacks from the front or sides definately. Theres NO mention of how [shield] bonuses work in Pathfinder so I'd be inclined to go with the 3.5 ruling on it until there is clarification.
Those rules may exist, but if they do, they predate 3.5. There are no rules in 3.5 that say a shield bonus do not apply when flanked - flanked being the only condition where facing is remotely recognized officially in the standard rules.
I assume he refers to this
Shields (Optional)
If you’re particularly keen on facing, you can add another layer of realism by modeling how shields only protect against attacks from some directions. This “variant to a variant” system introduces a shieldless AC for a character who is attacked from a direction where he can’t interpose the shield between himself and the threat. Shieldless AC is easy to figure: Just subtract the AC bonus the shield provides (including its enhancement bonus if it’s a magic shield) from the character’s normal AC.
A character holding a shield must indicate whether he’s wielding it to the left or right. The shield only adds to the character’s AC against attacks coming from his front area and the flank area on the shield’s side, plus any squares that lie beyond those areas.
The shield spell provides a bonus to AC against attacks from the front area only.
Which is a VARIANT to rules that are ALREADY variant rules.
I concur. Facing rules were abandoned in 3.5, and I never saw anything in Pathfinder to supercede that. Shield spells are presumed to create a disc of force that interposes itself at a thought between you and foes, it makes no definition of where that is, or how it has to interpose itself. I can't think of a fluff reason that you couldn't cast a shield spell to cover your back, for example, and there is no indicator that it is that visible, either.
|
|
I concur. Facing rules were abandoned in 3.5, and I never saw anything in Pathfinder to supercede that. Shield spells are presumed to create a disc of force that interposes itself at a thought between you and foes, it makes no definition of where that is, or how it has to interpose itself. I can't think of a fluff reason that you couldn't cast a shield spell to cover your back, for example, and there is no indicator that it is that visible, either.
Again what Dabbler said. The original 3.0 rules for Shield had it extending to only one facing, this was abandoned in 3.5 and not carried through to Pathfinder.
Think of it this way. If I'm holding a shield strapped to my arm it too only really functions if it's facing towards where the pointy object is, yet the rules don't discount physical shields if you're surrounded (though there are such things in that scenario as flanking bonuses, flatfoodedness, etc.). The shield spell shield basically functions in the same way.
So what bonuses are there aside from shield and armor? Is natural armor different? If this is spelled out in the rulebook feel free to give me a page number and I'll look it up but I can't seem to come across anything that looks like a list.
So what bonuses are there aside from shield and armor? Is natural armor different? If this is spelled out in the rulebook feel free to give me a page number and I'll look it up but I can't seem to come across anything that looks like a list.
As far as numerical bonuses to armor class there is Armor, Shield, Dexterity and Dodge, Deflection, Natural Armor, and Luck. At least that are common, you can theoretically add any other bonus type as well, Divine, Profane, Circumstance, Cover yadda yadda.
Shield
Armour
Natural Armour
Deflection
Dodge
Dexterity
Competance
Insight
... and others, I'm sure. The main ones are Shield, Armour, Natural Armour, Deflection, Dexterity and Dodge. Monks also get a bonus from Wisdom.
ah okay. so Bracers of Armor don't stack with, say, a suit of chain mail but an Amulet of Natural Armor does because it's a different bonus type?
|
|
So what bonuses are there aside from shield and armor? Is natural armor different? If this is spelled out in the rulebook feel free to give me a page number and I'll look it up but I can't seem to come across anything that looks like a list.
This is what you're looking for, under "Bonus"
Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
From d20srd.orgList of Bonus Types
Note: The following descriptions of bonuses was taken from d20srd.org, the definitive SRD site for the 3.5 ruleset. The information has been modified where necessary to apply to Pathfinder.
Alchemical
An alchemical bonus is granted by the use of a non-magical, alchemical substance such as antitoxin.
Armor
An armor bonus applies to Armor Class and is granted by armor or by a spell or magical effect that mimics armor. Armor bonuses stack with all other bonuses to Armor Class (even with natural armor bonuses) except other armor bonuses. An armor bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks, except for armor bonuses granted by force effects (such as the mage armor spell) which apply against incorporeal touch attacks, such as that of a shadow.
Circumstance
A circumstance bonus (or penalty) arises from specific conditional factors impacting the success of the task at hand. Circumstance bonuses stack with all other bonuses, including other circumstance bonuses, unless they arise from essentially the same source.
Competence
A competence bonus (or penalty) affects a character's performance of a particular task, as in the case of the bardic ability to inspire competence. Such a bonus may apply on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, caster level checks, or any other checks to which a bonus relating to level or skill ranks would normally apply. It does not apply on ability checks, damage rolls, initiative checks, or other rolls that aren't related to a character's level or skill ranks. Multiple competence bonuses don't stack; only the highest bonus applies.
Deflection
A deflection bonus affects Armor Class and is granted by a spell or magic effect that makes attacks veer off harmlessly. Deflection bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except other deflection bonuses. A deflection bonus applies against touch attacks.
Dodge
A dodge bonus improves Armor Class (and sometimes Reflex saves) resulting from physical skill at avoiding blows and other ill effects. Dodge bonuses are never granted by spells or magic items. Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any dodge bonuses the character may have. Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC, even other dodge bonuses. Dodge bonuses apply against touch attacks.
Enhancement
An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks.
Insight
An insight bonus improves performance of a given activity by granting the character an almost precognitive knowledge of what might occur. Multiple insight bonuses on the same character or object do not stack. Only the highest insight bonus applies.
Luck
A luck modifier represents good (or bad) fortune. Multiple luck bonuses on the same character or object do not stack. Only the highest luck bonus applies.
Morale
A morale bonus represents the effects of greater hope, courage, and determination (or hopelessness, cowardice, and despair in the case of a morale penalty). Multiple morale bonuses on the same character do not stack. Only the highest morale bonus applies. Non-intelligent creatures (creatures with an Intelligence of 0 or no Intelligence at all) cannot benefit from morale bonuses.
Natural Armor
A natural armor bonus improves Armor Class resulting from a creature's naturally tough hide. Natural armor bonuses stack with all other bonuses to Armor Class (even with armor bonuses) except other natural armor bonuses. Some magical effects (such as the barkskin spell) grant an enhancement bonus to the creature's existing natural armor bonus, which has the effect of increasing the natural armor's overall bonus to Armor Class. A natural armor bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks.
Profane
A profane bonus (or penalty) stems from the power of evil. Multiple profane bonuses on the same character or object do not stack. Only the highest profane bonus applies.
Racial
A bonus granted because of the culture a particular creature was brought up in or because of innate characteristics of that type of creature. If a creature's race changes (for instance, if it dies and is reincarnated), it loses all racial bonuses it had in its previous form.
Resistance
A resistance bonus affects saving throws, providing extra protection against harm. Multiple resistance bonuses on the same character or object do not stack. Only the highest resistance bonus applies.
Sacred
A sacred bonus (or penalty) stems from the power of good. Multiple sacred bonuses on the same character or object do not stack. Only the highest sacred bonus applies.
Shield
A shield bonus improves Armor Class and is granted by a shield or by a spell or magic effect that mimics a shield. Shield bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except other shield bonuses. A magic shield typically grants an enhancement bonus to the shield's shield bonus, which has the effect of increasing the shield's overall bonus to AC. A shield bonus granted by a spell or magic item typically takes the form of an invisible, tangible field of force that protects the recipient. A shield bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks.
Size
A size bonus or penalty is derived from a creature's size category. Size modifiers of different kinds apply to Armor Class, attack rolls, Stealth checks, combat maneuver checks, and various other checks.
ah okay. so Bracers of Armor don't stack with, say, a suit of chain mail but an Amulet of Natural Armor does because it's a different bonus type?
Yep
Edit: Damn ninjas...
So what bonuses are there aside from shield and armor? Is natural armor different? If this is spelled out in the rulebook feel free to give me a page number and I'll look it up but I can't seem to come across anything that looks like a list.As far as numerical bonuses to armor class there is Armor, Shield, Dexterity and Dodge, Deflection, Natural Armor, and Luck. At least that are common, you can theoretically add any other bonus type as well, Divine, Profane, Circumstance, Cover yadda yadda.
just to add to that: Dodge bonuses are the only ones that stack with boni of the same type.
If you have (for whatever reason) 3 armor boni, 2 shield boni and 4 dodge boni, you take the best of the armor and shield boni and all 4 dodge boni (if they aren't from the same source that is).
just to add to that: Dodge bonuses are the only ones that stack with boni of the same type.
If you have (for whatever reason) 3 armor boni, 2 shield boni and 4 dodge boni, you take the best of the armor and shield boni and all 4 dodge boni (if they aren't from the same source that is).
Admit it, you just like using the word boni. :P
Boni is actually incorrect anyway, the correct pluralization of Bonus is bonuses.
thanks! I'll figure out this game one of these days. I'm glad there are resources like that on the net.
Frankly, the core rulebook does an awful job at explaining the game. I never played 3rd edition and I think the book assumes that you have. I've come close to ditching PF and playing 4.0 several times because it was so hard to understand.
Boni is actually incorrect anyway, the correct pluralization of Bonus is bonuses.
I'm defeated!
(Though for my defense: English isn't my first language.)
I've removed a few posts. Folks, this is a forum for rules questions, not for yet another 4e debate. Cool it.
|
Then it may be just how it works in Pathfinder but back in 3.5, a character weilding a shield cannot bring it to bear against an opponent at his rear and a Shield spell worked the same way, it hovered in a fixed point infront of you, while the text may look like fluff it functions more or less the same, the wording doesnt mention anything about it interposing itself between you and an attack (because this would have implications for attacks your not aware of, such as a sneak attack, it would make the Shield spell something of a compass to show you where the attack comes from).
A Shield spell doesnt require any hands, but it sits in a fixed point infront of you. Someone using a handheld shield cant effectively protect their backs likewise, but attacks from the front or sides definately. Theres NO mention of how [shield] bonuses work in Pathfinder so I'd be inclined to go with the 3.5 ruling on it until there is clarification.
And there was no facing in 3.5 either. Nor rules stating a shield spell had or used facing. Nor facing for carried shields. Repeat after me - There is no facing in Pathfinder or 3.5 for that matter. Anyone stating otherwise is wrong. Now you can house rule anything you like but please don't come here and spout non existent rules.
And there was no facing in 3.5 either. Nor rules stating a shield spell had or used facing. Nor facing for carried shields. Repeat after me - There is no facing in Pathfinder or 3.5 for that matter. Anyone stating otherwise is wrong. Now you can house rule anything you like but please don't come here and spout non existent rules.Then it may be just how it works in Pathfinder but back in 3.5, a character weilding a shield cannot bring it to bear against an opponent at his rear and a Shield spell worked the same way, it hovered in a fixed point infront of you, while the text may look like fluff it functions more or less the same, the wording doesnt mention anything about it interposing itself between you and an attack (because this would have implications for attacks your not aware of, such as a sneak attack, it would make the Shield spell something of a compass to show you where the attack comes from).
A Shield spell doesnt require any hands, but it sits in a fixed point infront of you. Someone using a handheld shield cant effectively protect their backs likewise, but attacks from the front or sides definately. Theres NO mention of how [shield] bonuses work in Pathfinder so I'd be inclined to go with the 3.5 ruling on it until there is clarification.
I believe PoC is thinking of how shield worked in 3.0 where it basically created an invisible tower shield for you, providing cover from one direction (and you could change the orientation during your turn).