Mage armor is fine. its the bracers of armor that are underwhelming.
Agreed.
Of course in order to use those abilities you'd have to forgo the use of the Mage Armor spell.Bracers of armor are exactly the same as enchanting your normal clothes as magical armor -- it gives you any of the benefits of magical armor without actually having the underlying mundane armor.
If you have access to Mage Armor, then the benefit of the bracers would be to enchant them with armor special abilities.
I'm not sure that's actually true.
Edit: But now I'm sure since I looked it up. N'ermind. Nothing to see here. Move along.
And except for the fact that I have never known a player who ever bothered to think about casting it on anybody but himself. Seriously: off the top of my head I'm thinking of seven casters played by five different players over ten years, and I think it happened once.
Oooh, bad players. Of course, the spells don't help much, since too many of them (like True Strike) have a Target of "You". But I got yelled at while at the gaming table for my Paladin healing himself, rather than all the downed PCs as the battle dropped people. There's something about the obligation of "buff/heal others before you buff/heal yourself" in the game that I've never quite understood. Why can't I protect myself and heal myself first? If I fall unconscious, I don't see the others volunteering to drag me out of battle and heal me!
Mage Armor is great for:
1.) low-level players that can't afford the kind of armor that gives +4 to AC,
2.) players that can't wear armor because it penalizes them
3.) fighting Shadows
4.) going into places where armor is not allowed (i.e, the Royal ballroom)
|
I agree, along with having shields as a type of armor. That has caused confusion also.It's the type of bonus that matters. There are several different types of Armor bonuses.O.o
Ok... I knew about the 'no two rings of protections' or combining with Amulets of natural protection... but didn't realize that worked that way with spells...
Thanks... I may be VERY unpopular on Tuesday game night this week >.<
Slightly OT, but is it just me or was it stupid to name the Armor bonus to armor class "armor bonus"? It's confusing when you try to explain it to new players, and even here I often find myself having to write unnecessarily long sentences to make sure people understand that I'm talking to an armor bonus to armor class (not to talk about enhancement bonuses to armor bonuses to armor class...).
Though, honestly, I think when they made 3.0, they should've named armor class "protection class" or something like that instead, some kind of generic name that didn't insinuate it was just armor that affected it.
/rant
Well...the types also have secondary meanings.
Armor bonus doesn't apply to touch, where as deflection does.
It is why when you start with someone new, always start at first level where these things don't really come into play as much.
The only stuff that is going to miss because of a mage armor is going to be little enough to die from a lightning bolt. Ogres don't have that hard a time hitting AC 18, and unless you rolled stats and rolled them great, you probably aren't walking around with an 18 dex.
Can Mage Armor stack with stuff like Dragons Natural Armor? I've always allowed it but I've always thought it was pretty abusive.
Melee DPR vs AC 12 and 18 respectively for three ogres:
AC 12 - 3 * 16 * 0.8 + (16 * 0.8 * 0.05) = 40.32
AC 18 - 3 * 16 * 0.5 + (16 * 0.5 * 0.05) = 24.4That's a HUGE difference. And lightning bolt will on an average deal (17.5*.09)/30=52.% (assuming DC 19) of an ogres hit points - and that's against several lower-level foes which is the situation in which blasts are their strongest. The chance to take out an average-HP ogre with a CL5 lightning bolt is 1/8640 - if we assume that the "disabled" condition is enough to count it out of the fight. Hold person is a far better choice in that case, but will still only affect a single target, and will only be useful for that single fight - GMA lasts for five hours, which should be at least two or three encounters if you have a long adventuring day (and could in many cases be the WHOLE adventuring day, seeing to published adventure paths).
EDIT: That said, I wouldn't prepare GMA on a regular basis with a 5th level wizard, unless an animal companion or monk or the like is doing much of the fighting and we're in a lot of confined spaces where they can keep monsters away from me. When I've reached 9th or 10th level though, it would be very much a standard spell while hold person, lightning bolt, and many other spells would be long forgotten.
At fifth level, when the choice between the hypothetical mage armor and lightning bolt is available, a wizard is going to have HP = 6+3.5*4 +6 probably, for a total of 26. The ogres are still going to kill him.
I'll agree that mage armor sticks around for a long...
26>24.4. Especially since it's average damage and can vary. But wait what? 26 HP? A 5th level wizard should probably have at least 6+3.5*4 (base) + 5 (fav. class) + 10 (con) = 35 hit points (if on a really low point buy, I'd probably pick the toughness feat, but there's no way I'm going below 30 hp there). Regardless of the actual number of hit points he has, the chance to get killed drops SIGNIFICANTLY. Even if we assume they roll above average damage (say +20%), with your hit points you'd end up at -3 hp with GMA and dead without, with my hit points you'd end up at 6 hp with GMA and -13 without.
Regardless of whether one thinks this is too good of a spell (I think it's quite good, on par with the top spells for the level taking higher levels in account too, and that lightning bolt is a really lousy spell (though I'm not a blaster hater)), the simple fact of the math is that it makes a HUGE difference against attacks. Yes, you can die with it up and you can survive with it down, but it lowered the damage you receive from the ogres (which have higher-than-normal to hit) with 40%! That is VERY RELEVANT and far more effective than dealing half their hit points in damage, even if you manage to hit all of them with a single lightning bolt and even ignoring that GMA would be on for several more fights and can be cast at other targets.
And as said, it's not only on him this is relevant, but on anyone he can cast it.
If GMA was an option, I'd pick it over lightning bolt any day of the weak. Even if I knew I was going to fight lightning vulnerable enemies (are there even any core?). Would I pick it over Haste, Black Tentacles, Sleet Storm or Summon Monster III? Now, that's a different question. I would think GMA would be among those boys.
Lightning Bolt on the other hand, is balanced for about a second level spell. Yes, I think it's that bad, mainly due to having shorter range and being a ray compared to fireball, which is already a mediocre 3rd level spell.
EDIT: Removed snark.
Black tentacles is 4th level.
The best armor a wizard can own is a suit of full plate, complete with a 200 pound shield of meat to fill it.
The best armor a wizard can own is a suit of full plate, complete with a 200 pound shield of meat to fill it.
+5
O.o
Ok... I knew about the 'no two rings of protections' or combining with Amulets of natural protection... but didn't realize that worked that way with spells...
Thanks... I may be VERY unpopular on Tuesday game night this week >.<
Keep in mind that bracers of armor work the exact same way. They don't stack with armor either. I know lots of players who think they do.
String Burka, I hear where you are coming from. I just can't get behind it. Wasting one of your precious do somethings for greater protection when you can hide in the back behind your protection from arrows or mirror image is silly to me. To each there own I guess.
Oh, I agree that it isn't the best thing you can cast on yourself. First and foremost I propose it for animal companions, monks, and other lightly armored characters.
Sometimes you can hide at the back, but sometimes the attack comes from the back too, especially when you reach higher levels (doesn't even need that high... at level 7, I usually see a lot of enemies that are hard to block the path for). While you surely should keep away from enemies most of the time, sometimes stuff do get through and then you're very, very lucky to have AC 18 instead of AC 12. Enemy casters using Fly or summoning stuff in your back, for example.
As an example, I lately let my party meet with an 8th level wizard and a bunch of his CR 1-2 goons (they're 6th level with an extra feat, E6) and the first thing he did (when he made his appearance clear) was to cast a Silent (rod) Reach Summon Monster 3 to summon 3 (got lucky with the roll) wolves at the back of the party sorcerer. Hadn't he had basic mage armor up, he'd surely been tripped out of combat and with heavy damage and death in no time (vs his AC 13, they've got a 45% chance of hitting - AC 17, it drops to 25%). Now he took some damage but was lucky enough to avoid the trip.
It's a fairly specific scenario, but all flying, teleporting or summoning enemies or those with magical ranged attacks are going to make attack rolls against a wizard sooner or later, and at low-to-mid levels, AC is very, very relevant.
EDIT: At this point, I'm not arguing really, just putting my perspective out there xD
String Burka, I hear where you are coming from. I just can't get behind it. Wasting one of your precious do somethings for greater protection when you can hide in the back behind your protection from arrows or mirror image is silly to me. To each there own I guess.Oh, I agree that it isn't the best thing you can cast on yourself. First and foremost I propose it for animal companions, monks, and other lightly armored characters.
Sometimes you can hide at the back, but sometimes the attack comes from the back too, especially when you reach higher levels (doesn't even need that high... at level 7, I usually see a lot of enemies that are hard to block the path for). While you surely should keep away from enemies most of the time, sometimes stuff do get through and then you're very, very lucky to have AC 18 instead of AC 12. Enemy casters using Fly or summoning stuff in your back, for example.
As an example, I lately let my party meet with an 8th level wizard and a bunch of his CR 1-2 goons (they're 6th level with an extra feat, E6) and the first thing he did (when he made his appearance clear) was to cast a Silent (rod) Reach Summon Monster 3 to summon 3 (got lucky with the roll) wolves at the back of the party sorcerer. Hadn't he had basic mage armor up, he'd surely been tripped out of combat and with heavy damage and death in no time (vs his AC 13, they've got a 45% chance of hitting - AC 17, it drops to 25%). Now he took some damage but was lucky enough to avoid the trip.
It's a fairly specific scenario, but all flying, teleporting or summoning enemies or those with magical ranged attacks are going to make attack rolls against a wizard sooner or later, and at low-to-mid levels, AC is very, very relevant.EDIT: At this point, I'm not arguing really, just putting my perspective out there xD
An AC of 17 is not hard to hit at level 6.
6 BAB + 3 STR mod + 1 weapon focus +1 magic weapons.Even without buffs there is a 70% chance to hit. Even with a medium BAB character there is a 60% hit chance.
I think what I listed is minimum stuff. Some groups will have an item that boost strength by that time, and be buffed.
Barring the dice gods cursing your party the caster should have been dead for not summoning the monsters in front of him to buy time.
If you are running a low magic/power campaign then certain spells will be more powerful depending now how you run it.
is Mage armour over powered?
No
An AC of 17 is not hard to hit at level 6.
6 BAB + 3 STR mod + 1 weapon focus +1 magic weapons.
Even without buffs there is a 70% chance to hit. Even...
I know it's not hard to hit at level 6, never claimed it was. A PC (or even NPC) of 6th level will easily hit him and the difference between 13 and 17 AC won't make that much of a difference.
But not all attacks will be from a 6th level NPC or a CR6 monster. A lot of the attacks will be from a bunch of far weaker monsters - like the wolves in the example. The caster had goons between himself and the party, as I stated - his summon monster was to disturb the caster, which he knew might use crowd control on his goons.
On low point buys I am not sure you will see most mages with a 14 con. Depending on the GM style they may also find skill points more useful then HP.
So 6 + 3.5*4 could easily lead to a 20 hp wizard at 5th level.
On a point buy system I would LIKELY go with 12 con and 12 dex since that is cheaper then 14 in either stat. For me a 15 point wizard might look like str 10, Dex 12, Con 12, Int 16, Wis 10 Cha 10 (with one point left over for how I saw the character) prior to racial adjustments. But then I tend not to like Dumping stats also so am unlikely to be playing an 8 str 8 Cha character for extra points.
Look, I'm not saying "you're doing it wrong" or anything like that, but if you're playing in a skill-heavy campaign (so skill-heavy five to six skill points per level isn't enough) where you don't use dump stats, that's a fair bit from the norm. I'm not advocating dumping everything, but if you play in a 15pt. campaign you should probably drop at least either strength or cha to 7 - or drop wis to 8 and dex to 10. And put the favored class bonus into hit points.
Or at the very least, if you're doing such a suboptimal wizard (not saying it's WRONG; just that the game assumes you build a more effective one), get toughness.
It's a bit like Str 12 fighters - you might have a storyline that fits it, but the game isn't designed with that in mind and if you play it, you'll have to accept not being very effective unless house-ruling in stuff.
Merely pointing out that 14 con is not necesarily normal for a wizard in a 15 point game. Some prefer dex (iniative, AC and reflex) vs con (HP and Fortitude).
But it IS normal. You drop something else instead - or at the very least get hit points from feats/favored class to compensate. 20 hit points at 5th level is NOT normal. 30 hit points would be low, but I can see someone putting 12 con and the FC bonus, or 14 con and skipping the FC bonus. But that's the low end. A 20 hp wizard is dead meat, and comparable to a str 12 fighter. You might play that way, but it's not the norm.
Bracers of armor have always been highly prized in my games. Why? They provide a constant armor bonus for characters who otherwise require great stealth, have class limitations, or need to not be encumbered.
Mage armor? Great for the first couple levels of the wizard's life. Until he decides it isn't worth taking up space in his brain anymore. And except for the fact that I have never known a player who ever bothered to think about casting it on anybody but himself. Seriously: off the top of my head I'm thinking of seven casters played by five different players over ten years, and I think it happened once.
I suspect, since this was true of every single game/group I've played in, that this is pretty much true of most of the gaming groups out there. Making bracers quite valuable.
In the groups I've GMed for they tend to very cooperative and will cast mage armor on others. Monks don't appear often in our games but when they do mage armor is offered freely. In most case it gets cast on fighters going into melee with creatures that have a touch attack.
Yes, because you can cast it on a monk, and they then become overpowered by overcoming what is there only weakness at first level, IMO
Its called mage armour, not armour, so should be self only....i think it should scale (say +2 at 1st level), but last all day!!
|
|
Yes, because you can cast it on a monk, and they then become overpowered by overcoming what is there only weakness at first level, IMO
Its called mage armour, not armour, so should be self only....i think it should scale (say +2 at 1st level), but last all day!!
It is still only for an hour at 1st level. Sure it is nice for a monk to have, but not overpowered.
An AC of 17 is not hard to hit at level 6.
6 BAB + 3 STR mod + 1 weapon focus +1 magic weapons.
Even without buffs there is a 70% chance to hit. Even...I know it's not hard to hit at level 6, never claimed it was. A PC (or even NPC) of 6th level will easily hit him and the difference between 13 and 17 AC won't make that much of a difference.
But not all attacks will be from a 6th level NPC or a CR6 monster. A lot of the attacks will be from a bunch of far weaker monsters - like the wolves in the example. The caster had goons between himself and the party, as I stated - his summon monster was to disturb the caster, which he knew might use crowd control on his goons.
You quoted a 25% chance to hit. That means I am missing 75% of the time. In my book that is hard to hit.
edit: I misunderstood your post. I thought the 75% miss chance was referring to the enemy caster
As a player I think they should strive to get hit less than 50% of the time so that means the spell is doing its job. If the spell was not a significant factor then why bother casting it. Summons are also not a real threat to anyone that cares about AC even when augmented. If the caster has those odds against CR appropriate opponents as far as not getting hit due to AC, that would be different.
Even tigers and owl bears which are CR 4(2 below the party) are hitting better than 50% of the time on every attack against an AC of 17. Those summoned monsters are more like CR 1 or 2 if they were out there along, and they should be missing a lot.
As a player I think they should strive to get hit less than 50% of the time so that means the spell is doing its job. If the spell was not a significant factor then why bother casting it. Summons are also not a real threat to anyone that cares about AC even when augmented. If the caster has those odds against CR appropriate opponents as far as not getting hit due to AC, that would be different.
Even tigers and owl bears which are CR 4(2 below the party) are hitting better than 50% of the time on every attack against an AC of 17. Those summoned monsters are more like CR 1 or 2 if they were out there along, and they should be missing a lot.
I agree. That's basically my point - that mage armor is a useful spell. Look at what I was responding to (stuff in [] added by me, I hope quotation doesn't misrepresent him or the discussion):
Cranewings: "The only stuff that is going to miss because of a [greater] mage armor is going to be little enough to die from a lightning bolt. "Me: *Comparision showing ogres severely hindered by GMA* "If GMA was an option, I'd pick it over lightning bolt any day of the weak."
Cw: "Wasting one of your precious do somethings for greater protection when you can hide in the back behind your protection from arrows or mirror image is silly to me."
Me: "Sometimes you can hide at the back, but sometimes the attack comes from the back too." *Comes with an example of when (regular) mage armor worked very well at protecting wizard*
I'm not trying to say mage armor is overpowered, not at all. I dislike that it's not target: you, and would have preferred a more creative but more temporary effect (such as DR 5/magic, when you take damage the spell is broken, or whatever) but that's just because I think it's a bit boring. I'm supporting mage armor as it is, I think it's a well-balanced spell and think GMA would be too, if it had 10 minute/level duration and target: you. Without that it might be a little too strong for my taste but not "overpowered".
|
|
Mithril Buckler, 0 ASF.While I see several basic or prestige classes (both in 3.5 and pathfinder) that can use some armor and still cast arcane spells with little or no chance of failure I don't recall any class or feat that will remove or lessen the failure chance from shield.
+1 AC, 1015 gp.
I doubt there will be thousand of arcane spellcasters clamouring to use it.Playing hard and fast with the ROI and sticking to the RAW a wizard could use one one without training.
In reality it is the shield less suited to untrained use.
That aside, I still say that a shield bonus (like from the Shield spell) is stronger than a armor bonus(like from the Armor spell).
I dislike that it's not target: you, and would have preferred a more creative but more temporary effect (such as DR 5/magic, when you take damage the spell is broken, or whatever) but that's just because
I, as a player, would very much dislike that version. It could be too easily disrupted by a lucky hit (or a strong first level NPC).
i would dislike it even as a GM as it could (with luck or against weak opponents) protect from a lot of damage.
BTW it would create some serious problem with swarms: most of them will do nothing to people with any kind of damage reduction.
Yes, because you can cast it on a monk, and they then become overpowered by overcoming what is there only weakness at first level, IMO
Its called mage armour, not armour, so should be self only....i think it should scale (say +2 at 1st level), but last all day!!
Monks are not overpowered until you get to 3.5 splat, and what it can do for a class that hardly nobody plays hardly makes it broken.
What AC is broken to you?
A first level fighter can get an AC of at least 21 at first level.
Monk Assuming to be built for a high AC later on
dex 14 (5)
wis 14 (5)
con 14 (5)
+2 dex +2 wis +10=14<---Not impressive With mage armor it(AC) is an 18, and now they have to waste a feat on weapon finesse if they want to hit anything.
That gives a +2 to hit. A hobgoblin fighter has an AC of 16. They are now failing(hitting less than 50%) against APL=CR opponents.
Well the giant centipede has a 14 AC so that is a little better.
Even if they do hit their damage sucks because the build is dex based. If they go to a strength based build the AC drops.
Zombies which are very common low level opponents in most people's games have a DR 5/slashing. That means the monk can only do 1 point of damage assuming he rolls max damage(about a 16% chance) unless he has a weapon. The zombie has an AC of 12 so they(the monk) are missing half of the time anyway.
Okay, here's a funny thing about Bracers of Armor. It's cheesy enough that it makes me uncomfortable, but it would explain the crazy price of higher-level Bracers. The bonus to AC they provide is an Armor bonus, just like the bonus provided by a mundane suit of armor. The bonus provided to AC by the (+1) of (for example) a a suit of +1 Chainmail is an enhancement bonus... This means that in theory, you could combine Bracers of Armor with some sort of clothing enchanted with an enhancement bonus to AC, say a +2 Vest.
No. First off, there's no "+2 Vests", except in the specific case of MV; only armor can be permanently enchanted in that way. Secondly, it's an "enhancement to the armor bonus"; that is, the +1 bonus on a magical armor is not "+1 AC to you" but more like "+1 to the Armor bonus". Note that Amulet of Natural Armor is the same way: It's an enhancement bonus to natural armor bonus. AoNA stacks with magical armor despite both granting enhancement bonuses, because they aren't enhancement bonus to AC, they're enhancement bonuses to armor and natural armor respectively.
It's weird and confusing, but that's how it works.
|
|
Okay, here's a funny thing about Bracers of Armor. It's cheesy enough that it makes me uncomfortable, but it would explain the crazy price of higher-level Bracers. The bonus to AC they provide is an Armor bonus, just like the bonus provided by a mundane suit of armor. The bonus provided to AC by the (+1) of (for example) a a suit of +1 Chainmail is an enhancement bonus... This means that in theory, you could combine Bracers of Armor with some sort of clothing enchanted with an enhancement bonus to AC, say a +2 Vest. This is not entirely crazy; note the the description of the Cleric spell Magic Vestment describes exactly this process of applying an enhancement bonus to AC to a mundane garment.
Like I say above, this makes me feel sort of dirty (the bad kind of dirty), and I haven't actually ever done it. It does make the otherwise ludicrous price of Bracers of Armor +8 much more sensible, though.
-Kle.
Where would it be different from having a natural armor and using a amulet of natural armor?
The first is Natural armor, the second a Natural armor enhancement.
That said, the Bracers description seem not to allow that: "Bracers of armor and ordinary armor do not stack. If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of
armor ceases functioning."
In your situation the enchanted vest would be a +0 armor with a +x enhancement, so it would not work in conjunction with the bracers.
If somebody has already pointed this out, ignore it.
Bracers of armor and mage armor do not provide an enhancement bonus to armor, they provide an armor bonus.
I'd like to chime in that Bracers of Armor are woefully overpriced. Sorry, they're just never worth the amount of money for the AC bonus they provide. By the time you can afford them, they are underpowered. In fact, they are underpowered at 1st level; but it's not the fault of Mage Armor.
For the record, mithril studded leather is legal in Pathfinder. A mithril buckler is only about 1,000 gp. Wearing both is only around 2,000 gp, which is a +3 armor, +1 shield bonus that lasts all day; similar to a continuous Mage Armor on a magic item at 2,000 gp (price suggested).
Unlike a continual mage armor magic item, the armor and shield can be upgraded. You see, if you wanted to add special abilities to the "mage armor item" you'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to get more than a +4 AC. Meanwhile, your wizard can happily enchant his shield and armor to +1-5, granting up to +14 to his AC in the long run, while also enjoying special armor features such as ghost touch, fortification, and energy resistance.
Meanwhile, it costs 64,000 gp to get a +8 AC from Bracers of Armor? By the time that becomes viable as a legitimate consideration for a magic item, that +8 AC is pretty meaningless as a primary form of defense.
For about 20,000 gp, you could have your +3 mithral studded leather (+6 AC) and your +3 mithral buckler (+4 shield bonus) for a +10 AC. That leaves about 44,000 gp more to play with for other things for the same price. That way you could make your stuff ghost touch, and perhaps drop an amulet of natural armor and ring of protection, or grab a lesser cloak of displacement, and so forth.
Honestly, I've never in over the decade of gaming/GMing ever found the Bracers of Armor to be useful for anything for their price.
An item made from mithral weighs half as much as the same item made from other metals. In the case of weapons, this lighter weight does not change a weapon's size category or the ease with which it can be wielded (whether it is light, one-handed, or two-handed). Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral.
Emphasis mine. Studded leather armor is not made primarily out of metal, and thus does not receive any benefit from being made of mithral.
Bracers of Armor are a perfectly reasonable investment for characters who cannot wear armor. They function exactly as intended.
I'd like to chime in that Bracers of Armor are woefully overpriced. Sorry, they're just never worth the amount of money for the AC bonus they provide. By the time you can afford them, they are underpowered. In fact, they are underpowered at 1st level; but it's not the fault of Mage Armor.
For the record, mithril studded leather is legal in Pathfinder. A mithril buckler is only about 1,000 gp. Wearing both is only around 2,000 gp, which is a +3 armor, +1 shield bonus that lasts all day; similar to a continuous Mage Armor on a magic item at 2,000 gp (price suggested).
Unlike a continual mage armor magic item, the armor and shield can be upgraded. You see, if you wanted to add special abilities to the "mage armor item" you'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to get more than a +4 AC. Meanwhile, your wizard can happily enchant his shield and armor to +1-5, granting up to +14 to his AC in the long run, while also enjoying special armor features such as ghost touch, fortification, and energy resistance.
Meanwhile, it costs 64,000 gp to get a +8 AC from Bracers of Armor? By the time that becomes viable as a legitimate consideration for a magic item, that +8 AC is pretty meaningless as a primary form of defense.
For about 20,000 gp, you could have your +3 mithral studded leather (+6 AC) and your +3 mithral buckler (+4 shield bonus) for a +10 AC. That leaves about 44,000 gp more to play with for other things for the same price. That way you could make your stuff ghost touch, and perhaps drop an amulet of natural armor and ring of protection, or grab a lesser cloak of displacement, and so forth.
Honestly, I've never in over the decade of gaming/GMing ever found the Bracers of Armor to be useful for anything for their price.
I agree, and I do think they should be really expensive, but not so expensive that nobody buys them.
|
|
Where would it be different from having a natural armor and using a amulet of natural armor?
The having natural armor and still using an Amulet of Natural Armor thing comes from the description of Barkskin, which specifically states that they stack.
Natural armor and enhancements to natural armor always stacks, independently from the source of the first and the second.
That said, the Bracers description seem not to allow that: "Bracers of armor and ordinary armor do not stack. If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of
armor ceases functioning."In your situation the enchanted vest would be a +0 armor with a +x enhancement, so it would not work in conjunction with the bracers.
It wouldn't be a greater armor bonus, it would be an armor enhancement bonus.
-Kle.
You are missing the part "enchanted vest would be a +0 armor" combined with "If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning."
Unless I am misreading it the "other source of armor ceasing to function" include the enhancements on that armor.
So you the +1 bracers work but the +0 enchanted to +5 don't work.
If you rule that the enhancement on the vest work it will supersede the bracers and stop them from working.
It is a bit convoluted but it is there to avoid a guy with +1 bracers and +7 points in armor powers on the bracers donning a enchanted full plate and getting all the bonuses.
An item made from mithral weighs half as much as the same item made from other metals. In the case of weapons, this lighter weight does not change a weapon's size category or the ease with which it can be wielded (whether it is light, one-handed, or two-handed). Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral.Emphasis mine. Studded leather armor is not made primarily out of metal, and thus does not receive any benefit from being made of mithral.
Bracers of Armor are a perfectly reasonable investment for characters who cannot wear armor. They function exactly as intended.
I was pretty sure that they listed it as a legal armor in the adventurer's armory or some similar sourcebook; as it has been cited several times on the forums in similar discussions.
I would agree that studded leather probably shouldn't be mithral, but I've seen the quote for it somewhere; hence why I mentioned it.
It is a bit convoluted but it is there to avoid a guy with +1 bracers and +7 points in armor powers on the bracers donning a enchanted full plate and getting all the bonuses.
Considering how much that would cost, I don't really see the point in specifically designing the rules to avoid it. With that much gold, astronomical AC is the least my players could do to worry me :)
An invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor. Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective.
Alternatively, bracers of armor can be enchanted with armor special abilities. See Table: Armor Special Qualities for a list of abilities. Special abilities usually count as Additional bonuses for determining the market value of an item, but do not improve AC. Bracers of armor cannot have a modified bonus (armor bonus plus armor special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +8. Bracers of armor must have at least a +1 armor bonus to grant an armor special ability. Bracers of armor cannot have any armor special abilities that add a flat gp amount to their cost
Bracers of Armor benefits
1.Force effect, Ghost touch a +3 armor add-on Cost free with purchase
2.Enchanted with armor special abilities. Up to +8 combined bonuses.
+1 Bracers with Ghost touch +3 bonus1
Pick one to add for the low price of 16,000 gp
Invulnerability= DR5/ magic
Fortification, moderate 50%
Spell resistance (15)
+1 padded armor
Pick one to add for the low price of 16,150 gp
Invulnerability= DR5/ magic
Fortification, moderate 50%
Spell resistance (15)
Ghost touch cost extra [33,000] but Mr. Fishy will throw the padded armor in for free.
[ quote=Diego Rossi]
It is a bit convoluted but it is there to avoid a guy with +1 bracers and +7 points in armor powers on the bracers donning a enchanted full plate and getting all the bonuses.
DAMN THE FUZZ IS HERE!
>Mr. Fishy hides bag of bracers<
Act now while supplies last.
Merely pointing out that 14 con is not necesarily normal for a wizard in a 15 point game. Some prefer dex (iniative, AC and reflex) vs con (HP and Fortitude).
You have other options, sure. Maybe you want to be the high wisdom or high charisma wizard, instead.
... but that doesn't mean gunning for at least a 14 con isn't normal. It just means it's not what you'd pick.
you can enchant bracers of armor with armor enchantment add ons ? like fortification etc?
According to the book and the SRD if it has a plus cost [+1,+3] you can add it upto +8 with at a +1 armor bonus. See above post for quote and examples.
Others read the book Mr. Fishy glares at it until it gives him the info.
Works on guppies too.
|
|
It is a bit convoluted but it is there to avoid a guy with +1 bracers and +7 points in armor powers on the bracers donning a enchanted full plate and getting all the bonuses.
Considering how much that would cost, I don't really see the point in specifically designing the rules to avoid it. With that much gold, astronomical AC is the least my players could do to worry me :)
As Mr. Fishy pointed out the trick is that you can have (without the limitation) a +5 full plate and a set of +1 bracers with full fortification for 87.650 (51.650 armor, 36.000 bracers) instead of 100.000 and you will still have space of 5 points of increase with teh armor and 2 with the bracers.
The problem is not the "astronomical AC" alone, it is the astronomical AC plus 7 levels of special abilities in the bracers.
As Mr. Fishy pointed out the trick is that you can have (without the limitation) a +5 full plate and a set of +1 bracers with full fortification for 87.650 (51.650 armor, 36.000 bracers) instead of 100.000 and you will still have space of 5 points of increase with teh armor and 2 with the bracers.
The problem is not the "astronomical AC" alone, it is the astronomical AC plus 7 levels of special abilities in the bracers.
Yes, I know what the argument was. I still contend that that is the least problematic thing a player could do with that amount of money.
|
I think you tend to disregard the ruling of bracers of armor:
look at the end of the object description:
Bracers of armor and ordinary armor do not stack. If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.
so no full plate +10 (or even mage armor) and bracers of multi-protection...
also, imho, bypassing a class restriction (no armors allowed) should be pricey, so I don't find them useless.
|
|
I agree, and I do think they should be really expensive, but not so expensive that nobody buys them.I'd like to chime in that Bracers of Armor are woefully overpriced. Sorry, they're just never worth the amount of money for the AC bonus they provide. By the time you can afford them, they are underpowered. In fact, they are underpowered at 1st level; but it's not the fault of Mage Armor.
For the record, mithril studded leather is legal in Pathfinder. A mithril buckler is only about 1,000 gp. Wearing both is only around 2,000 gp, which is a +3 armor, +1 shield bonus that lasts all day; similar to a continuous Mage Armor on a magic item at 2,000 gp (price suggested).
Unlike a continual mage armor magic item, the armor and shield can be upgraded. You see, if you wanted to add special abilities to the "mage armor item" you'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to get more than a +4 AC. Meanwhile, your wizard can happily enchant his shield and armor to +1-5, granting up to +14 to his AC in the long run, while also enjoying special armor features such as ghost touch, fortification, and energy resistance.
Meanwhile, it costs 64,000 gp to get a +8 AC from Bracers of Armor? By the time that becomes viable as a legitimate consideration for a magic item, that +8 AC is pretty meaningless as a primary form of defense.
For about 20,000 gp, you could have your +3 mithral studded leather (+6 AC) and your +3 mithral buckler (+4 shield bonus) for a +10 AC. That leaves about 44,000 gp more to play with for other things for the same price. That way you could make your stuff ghost touch, and perhaps drop an amulet of natural armor and ring of protection, or grab a lesser cloak of displacement, and so forth.
Honestly, I've never in over the decade of gaming/GMing ever found the Bracers of Armor to be useful for anything for their price.
They cost the same as armor enhancements on regular armor.
Which is what they functionally are. They are armor enhancements to your unarmored body.
They cost the same as armor enhancements on regular armor.
Which is what they functionally are. They are armor enhancements to your unarmored body.
I know how they're priced, but they're not functionally armor enhancements without armor. For one, I'm not sure you can add special abilities to them (since they're not even a +0 AC shirt), and they can reach a +8 bonus, whereas the enhancement bonus to AC can only reach +5 without artifacts or epic level rules being applied; likewise being force effects (IIRC), that's an additional difference.
In either case, they are underwhelming for their benefit.