I agree it's terribly underwhelming. Especially when as an Archmage you can just get endless power and cast shield forever, only needing to pump the mythic point into it when you need to or want to get rid of crits/sneaks. Probably should be buffed slightly.
And even if it was buffed, Magi or Eldritch Knights would never take it. They'd just take Dual Path and select this once or twice.
Then with Mithral Breastplate they can hit +11 armor or +14 with Mithral Full Plate and a second selection. Then they don't have waste any spells for considerably better ac. Granted, that's for potentially 2 path selections and a mythic feat; but for Gish's that'll be nasty.
Completely agree that this ability is utterly underwhelming. Every spellcaster in my group took one look at it and laughed.
Good point about the Armor Master approach, though it does have a fairly steep cost.
Agreed, but even for only 1 path and a mythic feat you see an upswing of up to +5 AC; or evenm more if you weild a buckler/shield too.
Plus if you're a gish, you probably want some of the other Champion path abilities too so it's cost may not be so steep of a cost depending on the build.
I think its important to note that Enduring Armor says "armor of force". Depending on how literally you're supposed to read this, it would make Enduring Armor much better because it would keep incorporeal/ethereal creatures at bay.
I think its important to note that Enduring Armor says "armor of force". Depending on how literally you're supposed to read this, it would make Enduring Armor much better because it would keep incorporeal/ethereal creatures at bay.
It would still be underwhelming. You have to devote a 6th level spell slot and a mythic tier ability to get more out of this power than you receive from a 1st level spell (mage armor).
That's ridiculous.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, Enduring Armor is a great ability, and underztanding why is the difference between designing characters and designing games so other people can design characters. When designing a game, you have to create different paths to similar affects to allow players to customize builds. The game can't be designed around a few peoples' ideas on optimization. Someone will want to do something different and if they can't they won't buy the game.
Mythic Mage Armor is an mythic feat and/or a mythic spell - you only get five of those. Maybe a player more likes his armor from one of ten choices than one of five.
Maybe in a highly magical, dispel heavy campaign, renewable force armor is badass.
Maybe a character doesn't have mage armor on his known spell list.
Suppose as a sorcerer keeps enduring armor and builds around force effects. Then he takes an ability where anyone that takes damage from his force spells might be knocked prone, using his caster level + Cha for his CMD. Note spell level doesn't figure in, so magic missile becomes his goto mythic spell instead of mage armor. Now he knocks enemies prone from a distance ( up to los) and in combat his fighter buddies takes AoOs every time they try to stand. His armor is renewable, capable and expendable if he stays at range.
Best to look for how an ability can be useful than to look at how it's "laughable" from one perspective.
I think its important to note that Enduring Armor says "armor of force". Depending on how literally you're supposed to read this, it would make Enduring Armor much better because it would keep incorporeal/ethereal creatures at bay.It would still be underwhelming. You have to devote a 6th level spell slot and a mythic tier ability to get more out of this power than you receive from a 1st level spell (mage armor).
That's ridiculous.
I don't think ridiculous is the right word... But I agree it's not very good. Especially when, as I said, mythic mage armor(Added bonus of negating crits and sneaks) & endless power makes it all a moot point for staying power and effectiveness.
Actually, Enduring Armor is a great ability, and underztanding why is the difference between designing characters and designing games so other people can design characters. When designing a game, you have to create different paths to similar affects to allow players to customize builds. The game can't be designed around a few peoples' ideas on optimization. Someone will want to do something different and if they can't they won't buy the game.
I completely agree that you cannot design around one person's view of optimization, nor can you design the game to work around optimizers. That isn't my point at all.
Mythic Mage Armor is an mythic feat and/or a mythic spell - you only get five of those. Maybe a player more likes his armor from one of ten choices than one of five.
1. You don't only receive 5 mythic spells. You can take one feat to increase that number to 15. You can take that same feat 5 times - for up to 55 mythic spells. Please do your homework before commenting.
2. My point is not that Enduring Armor is bad compared to Mythic Mage Armor. My point is that Enduring Armor is bad compared to Mage Armor. We're talking about a mythic path ability and a 6th level spell slot to exceed the benefit of a 1st level spell. No matter how dispel happy your world is I have trouble seeing that as a reasonable measure of meaningfulness.Maybe in a highly magical, dispel heavy campaign, renewable force armor is badass.
Sure, in a highly specific case it could be better. The problem is in every other example it falls flat, and even in that dispel heavy world it is a marginal ability. A very small armor bonus is not meaningful to a character who already has the worst AC in the party.
If you are going to leave this as an option - and I have no problem with it remaining an option relative to mythic mage armor - it needs to at least be better than Mage Armor. For starters, I think the bonus could be 4 (or 5) + 1/2 spell level, which would mean from the beginning it is better than mage armor.
Maybe a character doesn't have mage armor on his known spell list.
Maybe he doesn't - and that's a rarity - but even if he doesn't the ability which costs 1 of 10 mythic ability slots should still be better than a 1st level spell.
Suppose as a sorcerer keeps enduring armor and builds around force effects. Then he takes an ability where anyone that takes damage from his force spells might be knocked prone, using his caster level + Cha for his CMD. Note spell level doesn't figure in, so magic missile becomes his goto mythic spell instead of mage armor. Now he knocks enemies prone from a distance ( up to los) and in combat his fighter buddies takes AoOs every time they try to stand. His armor is renewable, capable and expendable if he stays at range.
Huh? I don't have any idea what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting the sorcerer needs to save his 1st level slots for magic missile based on a theoretical ability and tactic, and using that hypothetical to support the idea that this ability is not under-powered? Please clarify for me.
Let's also keep bracers of armor in mind - which are also likely a better investment than this ability - especially when you compare the cost of a bracer of armor vs. pearls of power to make up for the high level spell slot you are sacrificing to power this ability (along with an archmage ability).
There is no way you can spin this ability to make it look good numerically, and while absolute balance is a lost cause, we can at least aim for some parity.
Best to look for how an ability can be useful than to look at how it's "laughable" from one perspective.
Right, and I'm telling you it doesn't look particularly useful. The only time I could conceive of using it is at very low levels (1-5) - and then as a poor stand in for mage armor. That doesn't seem very mythic to me. I don't understand the process that went into deciding on 3 + 1/2 spell level as the bonus. Were the designers honestly afraid this ability might be overpowered?
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"do your homework before you post"
Well crap, dude. I don't know why Paizo bothered with this whole playtest thing. They should just ask you. Anyone who disagrees is wrong and hasn't done their homework.
Since you missed it - again - I'll try one more time. If I don't want to spend mythic feats on mythic spells, or plan more mythic spells besides mage armor, I might like the other choice. If I don't want to approach it your way, I might like having another option. If anyone that doesn't do it the way you would is wrong, you're a bad designer. Which is why they dezign the game and we play it.
You don't need to respond, man. The thread isn't served by you showing of f or me ignoring you, which I'm doing
...now.
There are a lot of spells and feats that are "purely fluff". Some people like to build around a concept vs. building around a combat. The term "valid" is purely subjective use in that response. What is valid for some are not valid for others.
Having said that, Jason is already going to take a look at it. What more really needs to be discussed?
There are a lot of spells and feats that are "purely fluff". Some people like to build around a concept vs. building around a combat. The term "valid" is purely subjective use in that response. What is valid for some are not valid for others.
Come on now. We aren't talking about some interesting fluff based ability, or some obscure spell that has an obscure nitch. We are talking about something that provides very little other than a simple numerical bonus to a core statistic.
Lets not turn this into a discussion of how building towards fluff instead of towards absolute power is valid or invalid.
There is one reason I would consider this to be equivalent or better than Mage Armor. Specifically, for players that were already planning on leaving a spell slot open to prep situational spells later in the day, this is really a good thing to have prior to Endless Power. So, basically, it's good from Tiers 1-5, then bad afterwards when you inevitably select Endless Power.
|
Everyone, let's not forget that not all spellcaster have Mage armor. For some magus, Enduring Armor can be quite usefull!
And please, stop insulting each others. We are here to help in the development of new rules, not to shout at everyone.
Every opinion is interesting, and can give you a new point of view, we are not the one to judge which opinions/ideas are better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And please, stop insulting each others. We are here to help in the development of new rules, not to shout at everyone.
This is excellent advice.
Peter Stewart, you are correct that Enduring Armor is substantially inferior to Mage Armor as an option. You are also evincing a bad attitude about it, or at least you come off that way in your posts. If you mean good advice, that's fine and, in fact good. The problem here, I think, is the tone that you're using (intentionally or not) comes off as arrogant, dismissive, and unpleasant, and that's going to generate a lot of hostile reaction as a result.
My suggestion is to keep on making your (good) suggestions, but to tone the apparent hostility down a notch or two. It'll likely make things easier on everyone. :)
Tacticslion - You'll note my hostility began when someone responded that not only was the ability a great ability (opinions vary) but that understanding why it was a great ability was a mark of a designer, while an apparent failure to do so was the (implied) mark of someone not qualified to design. They then went on to cite highly specified examples of when such an ability might be used that relied on baselines far outside of the assumed norm.
Don't tell me I'm not qualified to pass judgment and wrong - especially not after the designer himself just popped in and admitted that the ability needed a tweak.