You surround yourself with a shroud of water, ice, or both that protects you from harm. The shroud can either cover your body, functioning as armor, or float around you and block attacks, functioning as a shield.
1) Is the shroud a persistent physical creation; and if so, would it be affected by Magic Vestment in the same manner as the Oracle's various physical armor creating Revelations (assuming that mess ever gets FAQ'd)?
2) When floating around you, would the shield bonus apply to touch attacks? Theoretically I should think it would, since touching the Shroud would not equal touching the Kineticist.
2- no. The same could be said of a shield or bulky clothing like a swarm suit. Shield bonuses don't apply to touch AC.
1 no idea.
2 no shield bonuses do not apply to touch AC.
2- no. The same could be said of a shield or bulky clothing like a swarm suit. Shield bonuses don't apply to touch AC.
The difference being that unlike an actual shield or bulky clothing, the shroud is literally not in contact with any part of you.
On the other hand, the Shield spell functions in the same way as the shield form of Shroud, and it only works against incorporeal touch attacks due to being a force effect.
Sense. This makes none.
1) I would say yes. The target of magic vestment is "armor or shield touched", and the shroud functions as armor or a shield. If all else fails, just know that there are rules for creating armor and weapons made of ice and there is no reason you can't cast magic vestment on those. My understanding is thus: just because something has been temporarily created by magic doesn't mean it can't be targeted by other spells.
2) As QuidEst and Sir Eldon's Head say, shield bonuses do not apply to touch attacks. If they did, then the animated enchantment would say so. Perhaps the logic is that it's magically connected to you, so anything that touches it is also touching you regardless of the lack of physical contact. Either way, shield bonuses do not apply to touch AC under any circumstances.
1) I would say yes. The target of magic vestment is "armor or shield touched", and the shroud functions as armor or a shield. If all else fails, just know that there are rules for creating armor and weapons made of ice and there is no reason you can't cast magic vestment on those. My understanding is thus: just because something has been temporarily created by magic doesn't mean it can't be targeted by other spells.
Thanks; this is how I thought it would work as well.
2) As QuidEst and Sir Eldon's Head say, shield bonuses do not apply to touch attacks. If they did, then the animated enchantment would say so. Perhaps the logic is that it's magically connected to you, so anything that touches it is also touching you regardless of the lack of physical contact. Either way, shield bonuses do not apply to touch AC under any circumstances.
I understand the reasoning for shield bonuses to not apply, but this just feels kinda... stupid.
I think stupid is a harsh way to put it, because it's mostly there for balance reasons. Sometimes balance has to rule over common sense, or things like the gunslinger and necromancer would completely own the world at level 5.
I think stupid is a harsh way to put it, because it's mostly there for balance reasons. Sometimes balance has to rule over common sense, or things like the gunslinger and necromancer would completely own the world at level 5.
Sorry, it's just that there are a number of things in the game that give numerical bonuses to AC, and even though these things are not in physical contact with their user they are still considered connected for the purpose of touch AC; and "Because balance" does not feel like a valid reason for this.
Well if you don't like "because balance" your DM can always say "because magic". Yes, balance has to rule above common sense sometimes, because at the end of the day this is a game and you don't want certain builds running rampant. If you're unhappy about it, run your own game and houserule it otherwise. But as far as RAW goes, it does not help with touch AC.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) I would say yes. The target of magic vestment is "armor or shield touched", and the shroud functions as armor or a shield. If all else fails, just know that there are rules for creating armor and weapons made of ice and there is no reason you can't cast magic vestment on those. My understanding is thus: just because something has been temporarily created by magic doesn't mean it can't be targeted by other spells.
Just generally curious: if you consider it as armor for the purpose of Magic Vestment, would you also consider it "wearing armor" in regards to interacting with a Monk's AC Bonus? I feel like it was (at least somewhat) concluded that it wouldn't interfere with the Monk's ability in a separate thread and I'm thinking people are ruling it inconsistently to have their cake and eat it too. I feel if you rule it as armor for the sake of being a target for spells then you also need to rule it as armor (and therefore wearing armor) for all other reasons.
Personally, since it doesn't have the stats or anything that a piece of armor needs to be armor (light, medium, heavy? Skill penalty? etc) then I don't think it's actually armor in terms of game rules and therefore is not a valid target for Magic Vestment.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Expect table variance.
Generally, in my view, if the thing doesn't call out the restrictions (light/medium/heavy armor, list an ACP, list an ASF) then I don't consider it armor.
If I consider it armor, you can't wear it with Monk AC Bonus. You apply Arcane Spell Failure and Armor Check Penalty based on the type of armor it is.
If I don't consider it armor, you can't apply Magic Vestment to it (but may still apply to your clothing) and you can't treat it as armor for an effect that helps armor.
Since this comes up seemingly all the time, expect table variance. I can't count the threads using Magic Vestment on Mage Armor. Plenty of other awkward things utilizing spells and abilities that call out themselves "as armor" in various ways but never list details armor has innately.
With my ruling as counting it as armor, that is correct that it would take away monk abilities. I don't know of any other thread talking about it. If it was just some other board member making that ruling, so be it. If it was a developer or some other form of authority on the game, I will reconsider my position. But for now you are correct, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Shroud of Water would be bad for monks.
Well if you don't like "because balance" your DM can always say "because magic". Yes, balance has to rule above common sense sometimes, because at the end of the day this is a game and you don't want certain builds running rampant. If you're unhappy about it, run your own game and houserule it otherwise. But as far as RAW goes, it does not help with touch AC.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just don't like it and therefore am SHAKING MY FIST AT THE GODS. It is not my intention to come off as rude or obtuse about the issue, and I apologize if I have; I'm just feeling curmudgeonly at the moment and this is the bone I can't stop worrying at.
|
|
With my ruling as counting it as armor, that is correct that it would take away monk abilities. I don't know of any other thread talking about it. If it was just some other board member making that ruling, so be it. If it was a developer or some other form of authority on the game, I will reconsider my position. But for now you are correct, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Shroud of Water would be bad for monks.
It was indeed just from other board members so feel free to run it in whichever way you choose. They figured the wording of the shroud was closer to Mage Armor than an actual suit of armor for the reasons that James Risner above gave. Personally in my mind it falls into the Mage Armor spectrum. It's just some general effect giving an armor bonus to AC that is given general flavor with the term "armor".