|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
ok, so I have a player in my game that brought up the question first of all as, "with Magical Vestment, can you use it on something like simple robes or clothes?" I assume yes and the existing robes would just count as an item with an armor bonus of +0.
Then he asked, "now if I cast Mage Armor on myself, would the two bonuses stack together? as one is an enhancement bonus to armor class and the other is an armor bonus?" to this I think no because I am under the impression enhancement just adds to a existing number.
In this current stacking example say we're using Magical Vestment CL 12, I see it as cast on robes (+0) becomes an (enhanced)armor bonus of +3, then Mage Armor is cast and being an armor bonus of +4 simply overrides the +3 because of being the same bonus type.
Anyone know for sure which way it works?
I would say the do not stack.
Mage Armor provides a +4 AC Bonus.
Magic Vestment adds a +X encnhancement bonus to AC - so your enchanted piece of cloths at the end provides a AC bonus of (0 + X) to AC.
It is like Barkskin enhancing natual armor, but at the end you add the natural armor bonus to AC and not the enhancement bonus from barkskin.
In summary you would add up AC bonus from different sources. So you have to pick the higher one.
|
|
I would say the do not stack.
Mage Armor provides a +4 AC Bonus.
Magic Vestment adds a +X encnhancement bonus to AC - so your enchanted piece of cloths at the end provides a AC bonus of (0 + X) to AC.
It is like Barkskin enhancing natual armor, but at the end you add the natural armor bonus to AC and not the enhancement bonus from barkskin.In summary you would add up AC bonus from different sources. So you have to pick the higher one.
yeah thats basically what I thought, if anyone else has any additional input I'd be glad to hear it, as is though without anyone saying otherwise I plan to run in this way in my game.
Magical vestment gives an enhancement bonus on the armor bonus provided by whatever armor or clothing you wear, the enhancement bonus is not a separate bonus to armor class.
It would be possible to cast on a (mithral)buckler to grant a shield bonus, ofcourse this will not stack with the shield spell.
Bonuses of the same type apart from Dodge do not stack.
Mage Armor gives a +4 Armor Bonus
Magical Vestment gives a +2(or better) Enhancement Bonus
I would say they stack to give a +6 to AC
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bonuses of the same type apart from Dodge do not stack.
Mage Armor gives a +4 Armor Bonus
Magical Vestment gives a +2(or better) Enhancement BonusI would say they stack to give a +6 to AC
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.
a magical vestment essentially creates a + 2 armor, the armor say a studded leather gives a + 5 armor bonus to the character. It does not give an enhancement bonus to the character, the enhancement bonus is applied to the armor itself. Armor bonuses do not stack you just pick the best one.
a magical vestment essentially creates a + 2 armor, the armor say a studded leather gives a + 5 armor bonus to the character. It does not give an enhancement bonus to the character, the enhancement bonus is applied to the armor itself. Armor bonuses do not stack you just pick the best one.Bonuses of the same type apart from Dodge do not stack.
Mage Armor gives a +4 Armor Bonus
Magical Vestment gives a +2(or better) Enhancement BonusI would say they stack to give a +6 to AC
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.
Ah well, I guess I'm too nice to my players. Although they wouldn't say that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players never say that, I think we need a international DM-day, give the DM some love and cookies ^^
I'd say they don't stack. Mage armor isn't a physical object; it's a spell effect. Magic vestment specifically affects armor or shields with an additional note about clothing. Mage armor isn't a suit of armor, a shield, or clothing, so I'd you can't throw magic vestment on it and therefore they can't stack, RAW.
In terms of what I'd permit in a game, I'd have no problem with them stacking.
For references:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/magicVestment.html#magic-vestment
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/mageArmor.html#mage-armor
Lesson 1 and only:
There is no such thing as an enhancement bonus to armor bonus. There are enhancements to an armor bonus but they are simply a composite Armor Bonus.
Thus since they provide the same bonus the two spells do not stack.
Mage armor however can be cast on a naked monk, Magic vestment can not.
Another good reason to wear shorts, always
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lesson 1 and only:
There is no such thing as an enhancement bonus to armor bonus. There are enhancements to an armor bonus but they are simply a composite Armor Bonus.
Thus since they provide the same bonus the two spells do not stack.
Mage armor however can be cast on a naked monk, Magic vestment can not.
I think your a bit confussed, (and it looks like my above reply got eaten). There is an Enhancement bonus to Armor, to A.C., to Shield, to Weapons, etc . . . heck even to Natural Armor. An Enhancement Bonus is a bonus type, like Sacred, Alchemical, Resistance, or whatever. Armor itself, grants an Armor Bonus to A.C., meaning if what you say is true, the only way to get an Enhancment bonus is if you did not have an Armor Bonus already, because they wouldn't stack.
Mage Armor is a conjuration [Creation] spell, which means that it literally creates "armor" from nothing. Magic Vestment grants a piece of Armor or a Shield (as in a single source) an Enhancement Bonus to it's existing Armor or Shield Bonus.
Think of it like this. Greater Magical Weapon grants an Enhancement Bonus to a weapon. You can cast it on a rock to throw at someone like a weapon. But it isn't on the weapons chart (I don't think :) ). Does that disqualify it from being Greater-Magic-Weaponed up? At the same time, though, if you don't like it in your game, Ok. That is cool, too. We are talking about 2 spells for a pretty minor boost.
Also note, that the Magic vestment is not a Force effect like Mage Armor is, so if they stack or not in your game, the Enhancement Bonus does not help against a Ghost or the like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that they wouldn't stack for the armor bonus, but mage armor effect of not allowing incorperal touch attacks would still benefit any character.
I'd say they do stack. At first glance I thought they didn't and I was about to write my reasoning for thinking they didn't only to find I convinced myself they do stack.
Here's why I think that. Mage armor is armor. It not different that wearing a chain shirt but it's made of magic force and has no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction.
Magic Vestment you imbue you current armor with +1 per 4 caster levels.
So in the case of Mage Armor that is your current armor that you are imbuing with +1 per 4 caster levels.
Just think of it like this. Does Magical vestment work on Chain Shirts or Hide armor. If so it work on Mage Armor as well.
|
|
Yes, Enhancement is a bonus type. Unless PF specifically changed that and I didn't see it. On page 21 of the 3.5 DMG, it is listed as a Type (right there with Sacred, Deflection, Resistance, and all the others). Also spells like Magic Vestment use words like "grants a +1 Enhancement Bonus to . . .". I'll check around the PF Core, to make sure it hasn't changed, but that is how it was in 3E.
I'm confused too now.
A chain shirt gives you a +4 Armor bonus to AC.
Magic Vestment gives you a +x (let's say +1) enhancement bonus to AC.
The resulting AC should be +5. Enhancement bonuses enhance armor bonuses, makes sense.
Now should the chain shirt be a +2 chain shirt (+4 AC bonus + 2 enh. bonus = +6 AC bonus), that +1 Magic Vestment spell would not be of any use since the spell grants yet another enhancement bonus, which does not stack with other enhancement bonuses. Still, both bonuses are applied, so should Magic Vestment grant a +3 enhancement bonus to AC, the +2 chain shirt would now grant a +7 armor bonus to AC for the duration of the spell.
Mage Armor give you a +4 armor bonus to AC (like a chain shirt). Is there a reason as to why Magic Vestment would not work? (other than cheesiness).
One could argue that the field of force is NOT considered worn by the user for the purpose of granting an enhancement bonus to a worn armor of vestment. Actually, that'd be my ruling. As it has been previously said, both spell would still be active simultaneously, so a +5 Magic Vestment would still be better than the +4 Mage Armor for the duration of the spell. Still the Mage Armor effect could be usefull in certain situations (touch AC and immaterial attacks as it has been stated above).
Yes, Enhancement is a bonus type. Unless PF specifically changed that and I didn't see it. On page 21 of the 3.5 DMG, it is listed as a Type (right there with Sacred, Deflection, Resistance, and all the others). Also spells like Magic Vestment use words like "grants a +1 Enhancement Bonus to . . .". I'll check around the PF Core, to make sure it hasn't changed, but that is how it was in 3E.
And we come back to bonus types don't stack except dodge.
I can see both sides of the debate for and against Magic Vestment stacking with Mage Armor.As a nice kind DM I would allow it based on the "different bonus types stack" line, its not like its going to ruin a game.
You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5 at 20th level).
An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.
[emphasis mine]
By RAW, it comes down to whether or not the Mage Armor's effect qualifies as a "suit of armor". Otherwise by my understanding of RAW, if should stack.
'findel
You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5 at 20th level).
An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.
[emphasis mine]
By RAW, it comes down to whether or not the Mage Armor's effect qualifies as a "suit of armor". Otherwise by my understanding of RAW, if should stack.
'findel
Good catch!
And another thing to confuse matters!The only hint that it doesn't qualify as a suit of armor is that the spell is generally used and originates from a class which armor is anathema to them. Therefore let us assume that *they* invented the Mage Armor spell so it could interact.
But then again its an armor bonus...
|
|
That is my understanding. Yes the spell calls out a "suite of armor" but then go right into the next line with "cloths" and disqualifies that as any kind of indicator.
The problem is, if you are getting that technical and in to the exact rules, "Suit of armor" is not defined. However, under the armor discription, it follows all but one of the apects of armor, (armor type/ Proficiency).
That was the point I was trying to make with the rock and Greater Magic Weapon above. A rock is not on the Weapons List, but it could be used as a weapon. If your saying that Mage Armor is not "armor" (because it isn't listed basically), then one also couldn't magic up a rock as a weapon.
Magic Vestment also does not specify it is something worn. You could cast it on an empty suit of full plate hanging on a wall if you wanted. :) Or a shield you might want to use later.
That is my understanding. Yes the spell calls out a "suite of armor" but then go right into the next line with "cloths" and disqualifies that as any kind of indicator.
The problem is, if you are getting that technical and in to the exact rules, "Suit of armor" is not defined. However, under the armor discription, it follows all but one of the apects of armor, (armor type/ Proficiency).
That was the point I was trying to make with the rock and Greater Magic Weapon above. A rock is not on the Weapons List, but it could be used as a weapon. If your saying that Mage Armor is not "armor" (because it isn't listed basically), then one also couldn't magic up a rock as a weapon.
Magic Vestment also does not specify it is something worn. You could cast it on an empty suit of full plate hanging on a wall if you wanted. :) Or a shield you might want to use later.
Personally, I see your rock analogy closer to the clause that boxer shorts may be considered as an armor with an AC bonus of 0 for the purpose of the Magic Vestment spell, even though we could agree that boxer shorts offer no protection (in the physical sense of the term anyways).
I see the point of your argument however. 'Suit of Armor' is indeed undefined by RAW.
I would allow the two to stack, assuming the player didn't word it poorly. This is my understanding of how it should be done to make it rules-legal.
Mage Armor- Creates a "field of force" (clearly not actual armor) that grants a +4 armor bonus to AC.
Magic Vestment- Imbues armor, shield, or regular clothing (treated as armor with AC 0) with +1 enhancement per 4 caster levels.
Typed bonuses of different types stack. Typed bonuses of the same type, you choose only the better bonus. So if you ask me, it'd work this way.
Mage Armor: +4 armor, +0 enh
Clothing with Magic Vestment: +0 armor, +X enh
==============================================
+4 armor bonus, +X enhancement bonus
I suppose the real question here is if you choose to treat an "enhancement bonus" as directly and only applying to the AC of the item it's cast on or if you treat at as a magical enhancement to the character's defenses.
I must be missing something here:
MV gives an enhancement bonus to Armor. That last part is important, because multiple enhancement bonuses that affect AC CAN stack.
Magic armor and shield, for instance. Both enhancement bonuses, but one to armor and one to shield.
Mage Armor grants armor bonus of +4. Magic Vestment gives an enhancement bonus to Armor. I do not think that Mage Armor's "invisible but tangible field of force" counts as a suit of armor or clothing for the MV spell, thus one cannot be cast upon the other.
Now, where clothes are concerned, the MV spell grants the enhancement bonus. Do enhancement bonuses stack with MA, or overlap? How would you rule if someone had Leather Armor +5 and said the +5 stacks with Mage Armor?
I think it's pretty clear that AC from similar sources (here, and Armor Bonus, whether through enhancement or otherwise) overlap, not stack. Thus, MV and MA do not stack.
Is there another part of the discussion that I am not reading?
I agree. Magic Vestment enhances a suit of armor, a shield, or clothing. Mage Armor is none of these, it's a field of force.
Now, if Magic Vestment had said it enhanced an armor bonus (provided by anything) to AC, that's different. It doesn't say that, however.
|
|
I agree. Magic Vestment enhances a suit of armor, a shield, or clothing. Mage Armor is none of these, it's a field of force.Now, if Magic Vestment had said it enhanced an armor bonus (provided by anything) to AC, that's different. It doesn't say that, however.
But what says that Mage Armor doesn't count as armor? It fulfills all the functions of Armor except the Type/Proficiency part, which would just be a waste of printed space in this case. It has an Armor Check Penulty* (0), has a armor Movement penulty* (0), a cost (Caster Level x Spell Level + Component + availability [purchased Spellcasting]), etc. . .
* = taken directly from the spell discription.Also, don't forget to highlight the sections that speak against your arguement, :)
". . . Unlike mundane armor, mage armor entails no armor check
penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction. Since mage
armor is made of force, incorporeal creatures can’t bypass it the way
they do normal armor."
It saying "Unlike mundane armor" implies it is armor, just not mundane.
Not trying to change your minds, or prove you wrong. It's your game. I just think that there is more arguement for than against it, and also that a player should be rewarded for thinking of cool and interesting combinations like this rather than called "cheesey".
"You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus
of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5 at 20th level).
An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC
bonus for the purpose of this spell."
It seems pretty clear to me that magic vestment can not be cast on mage armor, if it summoned an actual suit of armor I'd agree, mage armor is just a magical effect that gives an armor bonus.
I do reward player for thinking of cool and interesting combinations, I do not consider this one of them.
But what says that Mage Armor doesn't count as armor? It fulfills all the functions of Armor except the Type/Proficiency part, which would just be a waste of printed space in this case. It has an Armor Check Penulty* (0), has a armor Movement penulty* (0), a cost (Caster Level x Spell Level + Component + availability [purchased Spellcasting]), etc. . .
* = taken directly from the spell discription.Also, don't forget to highlight the sections that speak against your arguement, :)
". . . Unlike mundane armor, mage armor entails no armor check
penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction. Since mage
armor is made of force, incorporeal creatures can’t bypass it the way
they do normal armor."It saying "Unlike mundane armor" implies it is armor, just not mundane.
Not trying to change your minds, or prove you wrong. It's your game. I just think that there is more arguement for than against it, and also that a player should be rewarded for thinking of cool and interesting combinations like this rather than called "cheesey".
So you are highlighting the ways it differs from armor to suggest that it's the same as armor. Interesting.
'Unlike mundane armor' is saying what it is not, not defining what it is. You could use that phrase to describe how a shield or ring of protection operates.
|
|
You could if it said "unlike a shield", yes. I means something different to say "Unlike a [u]mundane[/u] shield". That tells me that it is either (1) a shield but not a common or typical one, or (2) works like a shield in some major way, even if it is not. By the rest of the connected ideas, though, it would be the first one.
That is to say it is more correct to assume "unlike a typical armor, Mage armor has no arcane spell failure chance" than to assume "unlike common armor, Mage Armor is not mundane armor, but still has a spell failure chance of 0, . . ."
Keep in mind though that Armor is not defined, and both Magic Vestment and Mage Armor are not clear enough to have a factual answer. It can not be proven either way 100% by what rules we do have. So I respect your opinion(s), I just don't agree with it.
|
Mage Armor should not count as armor. It provides an armor bonus to to ac, but that doesn't make it armor. It's a bubble of force around the caster. The argument of casting magical vestment on mage armor would be equivalent to casting Magic Weapon on Flame Blade...( which I would be totally against, just for the record ).
By the same token, why stop with Mage Armor? There's Shield, Shield of Faith, and Shield of Law to enhance as well. They're certainly unlike mundane shields....
|
|
There is a difference between:
"Unlike mundane armor..."
and
"Unlike mundane armor..."
Yes, but the rest of the sentences seem to focus on "Unlike mundane armor (easier to see difference this way)".
And that difference will make all the difference. As I said, I do not think "invisible but tangible field of force" qualifies as "suit of armor or a shield" or "an outfit of regular clothing". IMO.
:) yet a visible and tangible field of steel does? I think your too focused on Mage Armor being a big bubble when the spell doesn't really say that. Would it make a difference to you if Mage Armor made a Chain Shirt made of force?
And once again, what is armor, BY THE RULES? The only thing we have to go one for sure are items that you wear that have the following features:
Armor Bonus to A.C.
Armor Check Penulty
Possible Speed Reduction
Arcane Spell Failure Chance
Armor Type (Light, Medium, Heavy, Exotic, and other)
Mage Armor qualifies for almost all of them.
The single one it does not qualify for is Armor Type. However, is it is specifically intended for a class that can not use mundane armor without large penulties, and do not have any Armor Proficiencies, it would mean they would need to put in a large disclaimer to explane that a Wizard/Sorcerer/Monk/other does not need proficiency and any other rules that might apply.
Per RAW they certainly do not stack if Magic Vestment is cast on a set of clothes, and a Mage Armor spell certainly is not a valid target for a Magic Vestment spell. So there is no way to get these two bonuses to stack.
Because neither of those actually create a shield-like effect. They are both more like personal wards like Magic Circle against Evil.
But Shield should be okay, right?
|
|
Because neither of those actually create a shield-like effect. They are both more like personal wards like Magic Circle against Evil.But Shield should be okay, right?
Honestly, I can't really see how people believe it was the intention of the game designers to have magical vestment cast upon mage armor.
if we are going to be all word rules lawery about this: I don't see any mention in the spell description that says that mage armor counts as armor. I see a lot of references to how it isn't like mundane/normal armor, but I see no references stating that mage armor is armor.
Secondly, if you did decide for some reason that mage armor counted as armor you would need to touch the armor. if the caster is the one effected by mage armor I don't think they can touch the force effect. it moves with their body to prevent any loss of mobility. I could also start ruling that when you are unconscious with mage armor on, your friends can't feed you potions or perform first aid upon you. You can't eat or drink food that wasn't on your person when you cast the spell.
A further argument: Mage armor is an invisible, but tangible field of force that surrounds the body.... Well, that description sounds like a force field. Would we really be having this discussion if the spell was called force field instead of mage armor? If not, then we shouldn't be having this discussion now.
EDIT: Note that this in no way represents an opinion of whether or not the magical vestment bonus should stack with mage armor. That is a separate issue then whether or not mage armor counts as armor for the purposes of magic vestment.
Honestly, I can't really see how people believe it was the intention of the game designers to have magical vestment cast upon mage armor.
if we are going to be all word rules lawery about this: I don't see any mention in the spell description that says that mage armor counts as armor. I see a lot of references to how it isn't like mundane/normal armor, but I see no references stating that mage armor is armor.
Secondly, if you did decide for some reason that mage armor counted as armor you would need to touch the armor. if the caster is the one effected by mage armor I don't think they can touch the force effect. it moves with their body to prevent any loss of mobility. I could also start ruling that when you are unconscious with mage armor on, your friends can't feed you potions or perform first aid upon you. You can't eat or drink food that wasn't on your person when you cast the spell.
A further argument: Mage armor is an invisible, but tangible field of force that surrounds the body.... Well, that description sounds like a force field. Would we really be having this discussion if the spell was called force field instead of mage armor? If not, then we shouldn't be having this discussion now.
It is Beckett's contention that 'unlike mundane armor' translates into, except for the exceptions listed after that turn of phrase, otherwise identical to armor in all other ways. It's quite an extensive attribution for such an innocuous phrase.
|
|
As a side note, I have not problem with magical vestment and mage armor stacking( though by raw they wouldn't as magic vestment does not directly enhance your ac, but rather enhances the Armor bonus of the item it is cast upon ). I can think of a lot better spells to use my 3rd lvl cleric spells on than magic vestment. It only gives you a +1 bonus per 4 levels. If you want to stack it by raw use a shield. A mithril buckler gives you no penalties for lack of proficiency( or spell failure chance ). A mithril heavy shield gives you no penalty for lack of proficiency and only a 5% spell failure chance.
The effect of Mage Armor is clearly defined: it is an invisible but tangible field of force.
It is not armor.
The effect of a Mage Armor spell is not a proper target for Magic Vestment, any more than a Wall of Force effect would be.
Mage Armor provides an armor bonus to AC of the target. This does not stack with other armor bonuses, whether from mundane armor or other magical armor bonuses.
Magic Vestment provides an enhancement bonus to a suit or armor or a shield touched. Clothing counts as armor with a +0 armor bonus.
An enhancement bonus to AC increases the base AC armor bonus of the target. Thus a chain shirt given a +2 enhancement provides a net armor bonus to AC of +6. This is not broken down to being a +4 armor bonus and a +2 enhancement bonus. Enhancement bonuses to armor or shields only affect the targeted armor or shield; they cannot be mixed and matched among different pieces or armor or different shields.
Consider the following examples:
1. A fighter wields a Mwk tower shield in one hand and a +2 light wooden shield in the other. His total shield bonus to AC is +4 from the tower shield. The +2 enhancement bonus to the light shield does not stack with the shield bonus provided by the tower shield.
2. A cleric wearing a +1 chain shirt casts Magic Vestment on his pants, providing a +2 enhancement bonus to the pants. The enhancement bonus to the pants does not stack with the armor bonus provided by the chain shirt. The clerics total armor bonus to AC is +5 from the chain shirt. He does not get an additional +1 bonus to AC from casting Magic Vestment on his pants.
3. A wizard with the Light Armor proficiency feat is wearing a +1 leather armor. He casts Mage Armor on himself. His armor bonus to AC is +4 from the Mage Armor. He cannot take the +1 enhancement bonus to the leather armor and apply it to the armor bonus from Mage Armor to get a +5 armor bonus to AC.
4. A wizard wearing robes casts Magic Vestment on his robes, granting a +2 enhancement bonus. His armor bonus to AC is +2. He casts Mage Armor on himself. Like in 3 above, the enhancement bonus to his pants does not stack with Mage Armor, so his total armor bonus to AC is +4 from Mage Armor.
To say that Mage Armor stacks with enhancement bonuses to armor implies that any magic armor would provide a bonus on top of the Mage Armor spell. If it were otherwise, then a barbarian wearing +4 leather armor who then received a Mage Armor spell would then have a +8 armor bonus to AC. It would also imply that wearing different armors with different enhancement bonuses would be effective: thus, if this is supposed to work consistently, wearing +5 padded armor underneath +1 plate mail should grant a total of +14 to AC.
Nothing in the rules even suggests this is a possibility, and everything in the rules concerning this subject suggests that it is not possible.
:) yet a visible and tangible field of steel does? I think your too focused on Mage Armor being a big bubble when the spell doesn't really say that. Would it make a difference to you if Mage Armor made a Chain Shirt made of force?Not in the least. Any spell that did not create a tangible physical object would not benefit from MV. And, as a force effect, MA does not count. How can I tell? Incorporeal effects cannot bypass it. What about Ghost Touch? Now you are saying that MA, a 1st level spell with a 1hr/lvl duration, effectively creates armor at +4 AC with no penalties AND is magically enchanted with Ghost Touch, an effective +3 bonus. To create armor of similar quality (ignoring the lack of penalties and just going with straight armor) you would need Studded Leather +1 Ghost Touch, a total +4 magic item, an equivelant 16K gp item.
This interpretation of the MA spell is way out of line with the actual spell level, effects, and duration. Occam's Razor, the spell must be just an "invisible but tangible field of force", not armor suitable for additional enchantment via spells. If the spell was intended otherwise, I believe it would state so.
Your interpretation of Mage Armor is exactly what it does. Now I'm not saying it's counts as physical armor here, that a different argument. The effects of Mage Armor do exactly the same thing as physical suit of +1 Leather Armor of Ghost Touch. Only draw back is it last a limited time and by the time you get it to last a full day you probably have something better anyways.
I see no problem stacking these two spells. It takes a 1st level spell from arcane caster and 3rd level spell from divine caster. It's not like this would unbalancing at the level when this would appear.
My biggest issue is I find I can make a valid argument both for and against this. I find the as soon as I build my argument against I punch holes in my own argument convincing me it should work. Then if I build the argument that it should work I punch holes convincing me it shouldn't. So I decided not so much to look at if the rules allow it but what the effect would be on the game. Since I see no problems I'd rule that they do stack. If it made wizards overly powerful with just 1st level spell I'd rule against it.
|
|
:) yet a visible and tangible field of steel does? I think your too focused on Mage Armor being a big bubble when the spell doesn't really say that. Would it make a difference to you if Mage Armor made a Chain Shirt made of force?Not in the least. Any spell that did not create a tangible physical object would not benefit from MV. And, as a force effect, MA does not count. How can I tell? Incorporeal effects cannot bypass it. What about Ghost Touch? Now you are saying that MA, a 1st level spell with a 1hr/lvl duration, effectively creates armor at +4 AC with no penalties AND is magically enchanted with Ghost Touch, an effective +3 bonus. To create armor of similar quality (ignoring the lack of penalties and just going with straight armor) you would need Studded Leather +1 Ghost Touch, a total +4 magic item, an equivelant 16K gp item.
This interpretation of the MA spell is way out of line with the actual spell level, effects, and duration. Occam's Razor, the spell must be just an "invisible but tangible field of force", not armor suitable for additional enchantment via spells. If the spell was intended otherwise, I believe it would state so.
I've said multiple times that the effects of Magic Vestment do no add to the "ghost touch" part, only the straight Armor Bonus to AC.
Mage Armor is a Conjuration [Creation] spell, so it does in fact create a tangible, physical object. The Force part is less important outside that it means incorporial creature can not go right through it. For example, Wall of Force and Wall of Stone are both still walls. You can build a house with Walls of Force, if you are so inclined. How is that? Because you can cast Permanency on them, making them last forever, which does show that Force Effects can be targeted by other spells.
:)
(PS "unlike a mundane wall", a Wall of Force . . .).
:)
|
|
"Conjuration
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools.
Conjurations transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling); create objects or effects on the spot (creation); heal (healing); bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or forms of energy to you (summoning); or transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation). Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear f loating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
The creature or object must appear within the spell’s range, but it does not have to remain within the range."
"Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates. If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence."
|
|
There is no contention that Mage Armor produces something tangible.
Actually, there was.
However it is not a valid target for the Magic Vestment spelll which is SPECIFICALLY cast able on either armor or clothing. the Mage Armor spell effect is neither of these. . .
I understand that arguement, read above. It is more that I do not agree with it because of the above reasons.
Also, MV can affect shields, (off topic).
All the against arguemnts seem to come back to either Mage Armor is not "armor", (an undefined term that it might easily qualify as) or "I can't think of Mage armor as anything but a forcefield".
However, there are a lot o arguements for it, that no one is showing wrong.
I personally wouldn't let MV stack with MA, and as RAW it is a bit murky, but it does raise another question.
What if you cast MV on a pair of Bracers of armor?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no contention that Mage Armor produces something tangible.Actually, there was.
However it is not a valid target for the Magic Vestment spelll which is SPECIFICALLY cast able on either armor or clothing. the Mage Armor spell effect is neither of these. . .I understand that arguement, read above. It is more that I do not agree with it because of the above reasons.
Also, MV can affect shields, (off topic).
All the against arguemnts seem to come back to either Mage Armor is not "armor", (an undefined term that it might easily qualify as) or "I can't think of Mage armor as anything but a forcefield".
However, there are a lot o arguements for it, that no one is showing wrong.
A lot of arguments for it? The only one I see is "Armor is not defined. Therefore, Mage Armor might be Armor." And I don't think thats a very strong one. If it was meant to be armor why wouldn't they just say that in the spell? Would be pretty easy: "An invisible suit of armor made of force..."
I'd also note that unlike every other Conjuration spell that actually creates something, there is an Effect entry in the spell description saying what it creates (i.e. stone wall whose area is...). There is no such entry for Mage Armor.
Lets assume it is armor. Can it be taken off? Why or why not? If not, what happens if the wizard has to do a number 1 or *shudder* number 2? Can the wizard take off or put on other clothing items while wearing his force armor? If it can be taken off, can someone else put it on? How long does it take to take off? How long to put it back on? Can you cast the spell on someone whose already wearing armor, thereby making them wear two suits of armor? If you can, what happens then? Would it effect how they move if they are already wearing say full plate? Can the spell be used offensively in that manner then? Which armor provides a bonus...only one could of course since you can't benefit from two items in the same body slot. Would mage armor suppress any already existing armor? What if that armor is better or provides bonuses other than AC? Can Mage Armor be enhanced with the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat? A skilled wizard could give it a +1 enhancement bonus in as little as 4 hours. Why would or why wouldn't this work?
Seems to me there would be a lot of unresolved issues with it being actual armor, as opposed to taking the much simpler route of considering it as just a field of force, you know, just like the spell says.