I was thinking about something a friend said at a game the other day and realized he might be right. so I pose this question is Mage armour over powered? or is are armor enhancement bonuses not attached to actual armor over priced?
I'n our current game my lvl 9 monk found beavers of armor +3 were almost lvl 10 and this item forms all of my wbl gained for this level. yet I realized the item rarely ever comes into play as my friend has his lvl 10 witch cast Mage armor that lasts 10 hours.
pretty sure if we were not I'n the middle of nowhere I'd just sell them and get 2000 gold after splitting it with party members.
sure Mage armor can be dispelled but I've never seen ot happen. so with Mage armor I'n the game why are the graders worth so much?
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. If all you're looking for is AC, the Mage Armor spell is a much cheaper option until you get to +5 bracers.
Primarily because having a permanent bonus that requires no resources to be spent beyond gold is very useful. The mage armor spell is also very useful, of course, but (especially at lower levels) having an item that provides the bonus all the time instead of just a few hours per day is worth a lot.
Even your 10th level witch will have to cast the spell twice per day per person to cover the majority of the day. When you need the AC and you don't have it because the duration has run out, you'll wish you still had those bracers.
Also, some times the spellcaster might like to use his/her spells on something else, and some times you may be in different locations.
Mage armor is fine. its the bracers of armor that are underwhelming.
beavers of armor +3
Best autocorrect ever.
I agree that mage armor is fine but the bracers seem a bit overpriced.
I've had sorcerers and wizards with bracers +2 who used them as backup when their mage armor wore out. So I've found both to be useful.
But then again, I've had low level wizards and sorcerers who wore leather armor and just ate the spell failure chance.
I'm just about to start playing a witch, and since there seems to be no armor penalty to hexing, I may well have the witch wearing armor too. I haven't decided yet. And since he is starting with almost no cash, I'll have to wait until we find some or get some treasure before I have to decide...
Greater Mage Armor in 3.5 was a third level spell. +6 AC, and there was a way to get it up to +11.
Mage armor is not that overpowering. If cast on self as a caster, I always find my self, not being targeted anyway, either due to be tactical with other spells or locations, or the attack roll blowing way over my AC anyway. Still it's a nice spell to have up and running anyway, just in case. It's kind of like insurance, seems like a ways of effort, but when it does come into play, your gonna be happy you cast it.
I'm just about to start playing a witch, and since there seems to be no armor penalty to hexing, I may well have the witch wearing armor too. I haven't decided yet. And since he is starting with almost no cash, I'll have to wait until we find some or get some treasure before I have to decide...
I've been playing a witch for a play by post. Only fought in 3-4 battles, but besides mage armor, never cast a single spell. I felt rather dissapointed with their spell list actually. To me it seemed that the spell list was just not up to par with what the hexes can already do. That could just be me though.
I'm just about to start playing a witch, and since there seems to be no armor penalty to hexing, I may well have the witch wearing armor too. I haven't decided yet. And since he is starting with almost no cash, I'll have to wait until we find some or get some treasure before I have to decide...I've been playing a witch for a play by post. Only fought in 3-4 battles, but besides mage armor, never cast a single spell. I felt rather dissapointed with their spell list actually. To me it seemed that the spell list was just not up to par with what the hexes can already do. That could just be me though.
The hexes are what my player used more often than not also.
They are good at debuffs, but not a whole lot else. They are definitely not a class for a beginner, IMHO.
The hexes are what my player used more often than not also.
They are good at debuffs, but not a whole lot else. They are definitely not a class for a beginner, IMHO.
Yeah, It's a bit lackluster for my style of play. I like buffing and battlefield control more.
Mage armor is beyond what a 1st level spell should do in my opinion, it is compensating for the wizard's lack of armor, the spell would be better if it was personal only, or had a shorter duration cast on anyone else besides your familiar. Some spells are just too good for their level, mage armor is one of them, not a big deal, just not a good spell to compare other spells and effects to when estimating powerlevel.
Mage armor is beyond what a 1st level spell should do in my opinion, it is compensating for the wizard's lack of armor, the spell would be better if it was personal only, or had a shorter duration cast on anyone else besides your familiar. Some spells are just too good for their level, mage armor is one of them, not a big deal, just not a good spell to compare other spells and effects to when estimating powerlevel.DEFINATLY NOT.
its about where it needs to be. Do you think the "fighter" starting out is NOT going to buy armor so the mage can "cast it".. When does MAGE ARMOR ever out perform any of the armors out there??
it doesn't.
It just works well with monk... and if a monk wants it that bad he can just take one level of wizard... There are plenty of boards here that say monks are under powered anywayz.
So how is it "to good' for first level???? when does it actually out perform any of the other armors available to anyone?
It's ghost touch?
Monk, alot of monsters, summoned / called creatures, constructs, some casters mostly. It lasts all day, has no ACP, no Arcane Spellfailure and it is a force effect. When it works it gives a straight -20% chance of any attack hitting, this will usually come down to halving the damage a creature receives. The spell is deliberately stronger than other 1st level spells to patch a perceived weakness, on the wizard it works out fine, the spell gets much more powerful when cast on someone else that benefits.
I have to agree that casting it on a fighter is usually a stupid thing to do, I advise against it.
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.
My ultimate buffing wizard in 3.5 counted it among his group buffs in conjunction with chain spell, would upgrade to greater mage armor when s/he could though
well I didn't see them as so valuable as I already had better ac from the spell. the 50 gp potions do wonders.
so done previously said ro compare the spell ro a chain shirt. but if thatcwere the case the magic item creation rules wouldn't compare it to bracers +4 would they? admittedly I may be seeing this wrong.
Ummmmm....
I'll admit, I'm an old school 2nd edition player and still getting used to the rules of the new game here... as is our whole group...
But Why would you compare mage armor against Chain mail? Looking at the Mage armor spell description, I'm not seeing anything in the rules that says you can't have BOTH.
In fact the wizard in our group rarely casts it on himself... he casts it on the main warrior types in leather or chain and they run in with ACs that are pretty respectable...
There were a few times I thought the +4 bonus a bit much for that long a time... but as I'm still getting used to things... Balance is a bit questionable to me.
Are we doing something wrong??
The best bonus I could see to having bracers that do the same as Mage armor... is you can use that spell slot for something else...
Ummmmm....
I'll admit, I'm an old school 2nd edition player and still getting used to the rules of the new game here... as is our whole group...
But Why would you compare mage armor against Chain mail? Looking at the Mage armor spell description, I'm not seeing anything in the rules that says you can't have BOTH.
In fact the wizard in our group rarely casts it on himself... he casts it on the main warrior types in leather or chain and they run in with ACs that are pretty respectable...
There were a few times I thought the +4 bonus a bit much for that long a time... but as I'm still getting used to things... Balance is a bit questionable to me.
Are we doing something wrong??
The best bonus I could see to having bracers that do the same as Mage armor... is you can use that spell slot for something else...
Multiple armor bonuses cannot stack, you take the higher one.
EDIT: (see page 149; Armor/shield bonus)
Ummmmm....
I'll admit, I'm an old school 2nd edition player and still getting used to the rules of the new game here... as is our whole group...
But Why would you compare mage armor against Chain mail? Looking at the Mage armor spell description, I'm not seeing anything in the rules that says you can't have BOTH.
In fact the wizard in our group rarely casts it on himself... he casts it on the main warrior types in leather or chain and they run in with ACs that are pretty respectable...
There were a few times I thought the +4 bonus a bit much for that long a time... but as I'm still getting used to things... Balance is a bit questionable to me.
Are we doing something wrong??
The best bonus I could see to having bracers that do the same as Mage armor... is you can use that spell slot for something else...
Yes, armor bonus does not stack with another armor bonus.
So a chainmail +5 armor, does not stack with mage armor +4 armor to make +9 armor, you use the best of the two. Though it is still somewhat useful to ward against attacks of incorporeal creatures, since it is a force effect.
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 >.<
|
beavers of armor +3Best autocorrect ever.
I agree that mage armor is fine but the bracers seem a bit overpriced.
It is nothing after you have seen mesopause corrected to menopause in every page of a student homework on the atmosphere (and him missing the correction).
It's ghost touch?
Yes, it count against incorporeal attack, but from the description that should be valid for the bracers too "They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force," even if not explicitly stated as in the spell.
Mage armor give a "+4 armor bonus to AC" but that is not the same as "a straight -20% chance of any attack hitting".
If the bonus of the attacker is high enough or low enough it cold make 0 difference (for a dragon with +45 attack bonus if the wizard has 20 AC or 24 AC it will make no difference, he will still hit unless he roll a 1; for the commoner with a club and +0 attack bonus it will make no difference if the target has 20 or 24 AC, he will still hit only with a natural 20).
The spell is good but not overwhelming good.
Compare it with Shield:
minus:
it last less (1min/level vs 1 hour level)
it can be cast only on the caster
no difference
+ 4 AC
360° cover
plus
it stops magic missiles
it can be stacked with armor bonus and armor effects while with the Mage armor spell you get either the armor effect or the mage armor effect
The last plus is the most important as it allow Shield to be stacked with several other spells and effects that have trouble stacking with Mage Armor.
So Mage armor is better a lower level as the long duration allow you to have it active for several encounters, but with time shield become much more useful as it will allow you an higher AC.
Bracers:
the bracers are only a decent item when they provide a low AC (+1/+3) but when they give higher AC or even better they have armor special abilities that will free item slots for the user they become very good for classes that value mobility or can't use armor.
|
|
I'll admit, I'm an old school 2nd edition player and still getting used to the rules of the new game here... as is our whole group...But Why would you compare mage armor against Chain mail? Looking at the Mage armor spell description, I'm not seeing anything in the rules that says you can't have BOTH.
I know that problem. You should carefully look what bonus a item or spell or feat give. In almost all instances you can't add 2 bonus of the same kind.
In this specific situation you get only the higher armor bonus between the armor spell and the AC value of the physical armor.
There are 2 grey area there:
- the enhancement bonus of a magical armor (as that is a separate bonus from the armor AC bonus of the armor), but I would rule that the total bonus of the armor (armor bonus plus enhancement bonus) count;
and
- the protection against incorporeal attacks. A armor without the ghost touch special ability don't count against incorporeal attacks.
So in that specific situation the +4 of the mage armor would be applied instead of the 0 bonus of a full plate even if it has any level of enhancement .
But this is really a borderline case and subject to the GM ruling.
|
|
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 >.<
Eeehm
Not completely right.
2 ring of deflection give a deflection bonus and they don't stack
a amulet of Natural armor "toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet".
That is not a natural armor bonus thus it stack with natural armor, with the Mage Armor spell, with creatures natural armor and so on.
It will not stack only with enhancement bonus to natural armor.
The definition and stacking of the bonus can be tricky when you come from 2 edition.
Read them carefully.
beavers of armor +3Best autocorrect ever.
Dunno, it sounds like some kind of chastity device
As for the basic question, all magic items are expensive. Even those with the same effect as some spell like physical stat belt/mental stat headbands. They are permanent and you don´t have to know/memorize the spell. I don´t see any problem.
The ghost touch reference was made in response to the comparison of actual armor, not the bracers, but you are right it works in a similar way.
The -20% chance to hit works in most cases, sure if you got a creature that hits you either way on a 2.. but lets assume a CR appropriate foe within 5 CR shall we, comparing it to a pathtically weak or overpowered creature doesnt add anything to the discussion.
On the shield spell :
- it stacks with armor bonus, on the other hand it does not stack with a shield bonus.
- It is a personal effect, which is just about the major reason why I think Mage Armor is overpowered for it's level, also it means it can not be stashed into a potion.
- It lasts WAY shorter, Mage Armor is practically an all day use spell, shield can only be cast when you know trouble is coming and wont last through more than a few encounters in rapid succesion at best.
- ok it does absorb magic missiles, which is a nice addition, but also very specific.
I feel mage armor is a bit too much for a 1st lvl spell, since it is compensating the mage for not being able to wear armor, it's buffing potential is just a bit too much imo, like I said it is not going to give huge problems so I am fine with it. Not knowing better nobody would feel it is a weak spell if it was personal though.
|
|
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.
So, to me, a shield bonus seem inherently stronger than a armor bonus.
The "not really a 20% difference" start as soon as you hit with 0 or less or 17+.
Rarely standard arcane spellcasters have a very high AC and often enough "boss" monsters/NPC acceptable for the player level were capable of hitting them with 0 after some common buff. Teh trick fot the spellcaster is to stay avay from them, not to get a high AC.
Similarly I have seen plenty of situations were otherwise though monsters had a very low AC or mob scenes where the enemies have very low attack bonus and will hit only on a natural 20.
Mage armor is fine. its the bracers of armor that are underwhelming.
=True
Bracers of Armor +8 grant a +8 to AC, plus any DEX mod the wearer has.
For the same 64k gold, +5 Mithral Full Plate grants +14 to AC, plus up to three from DEX (more for Fighters) *AND* 28,350 gold to purchase other goodies (such as Moderate Fortification...)
Clearly there is a disparity for the cost/benefits ratios. This is even more apparent with the voices expressing DEX build (Finesse Rogues, Monks etc) being inherently weaker than STR builds (even in the same classes (Rogue, Monk) that would benefit most from high DEX.
Another proof is the Rogue in a a Mithral Chain Shirt; If his DEX is 26, he nets +10 to AC, the cost is a mere 1,250 gold. For the same 26 DEX in bracers, he has to shell out 16k gold to net the same +10 to AC. For just over half the cost of the bracers, the Mithy Chain Shirt Rogue gets +3 to his AC, above and beyond what the Bracers Rogue can afford.
in any event, I strongly agree: Bracers are way less Bang for the buck than other Armor Bonuses, if only because they start at Zero and then add a bonus.
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.
So, to me, a shield bonus seem inherently stronger than a armor bonus.
I agree to a certain point, armor bonus is less valuable, in part because there is a mage armor spell you can use instead of armor to last the day, so giving a Prc or basic class the ability to use armor is hardly a big deal, close to useless the first levels.
Note that anyone with some cash can also carry a mithral shield with no spell failure chance and would lose just 1 ac from not being able to use a heavy shield without spell failure, so in part the ability to cast with shields would be redundant.What I get from comparing shield and mage armor is basically, shield AC bonus is slightly superior, it wards of magic missiles, but Mage Armor lasts a very long time and can be easily cast before trouble comes, the +4 AC on other creatures can make a load of difference, on the mage not so much.
Bracers might be a bit underwhelming, but they are basically a base armor +0 with enhancements added on top of that, with the added benefit of being a force effect. Otherwise they are much like cloth armor, so yea it is not for every class, but some can benefit from them.
.
..
...
....
.....
...and it's easier to swim/sleep/climb/disguise with them!
Greater Mage Armor in 3.5 was a third level spell. +6 AC, and there was a way to get it up to +11.
I think (could be wrong) that you're referring to Abjurant Champion. Just in case you're still using that class in your games (or anyone else is) I felt the need to point out that the Abjurant Champion's class abilities DON'T apply to Mage Armor or Greater Mage Armor. It's a conjuration spell (oddly enough), and even though they use it in their example...the book itself is wrong and another example of the end of 3.5 being poorly quality controlled before hitting shelves.
EDIT: Argent Savant PrC second level ability allowed +2 more AC from Mage Armor and Greater Mage Armor...so I can see +8 from Mage Armor (or +13 if you houserule that Abjurant Champion's ability was meant to apply to Mage Armor spells).
Mage armor is fine. its the bracers of armor that are underwhelming.=True
Bracers of Armor +8 grant a +8 to AC, plus any DEX mod the wearer has.
For the same 64k gold, +5 Mithral Full Plate grants +14 to AC, plus up to three from DEX (more for Fighters) *AND* 28,350 gold to purchase other goodies (such as Moderate Fortification...)
Clearly there is a disparity for the cost/benefits ratios. This is even more apparent with the voices expressing DEX build (Finesse Rogues, Monks etc) being inherently weaker than STR builds (even in the same classes (Rogue, Monk) that would benefit most from high DEX.
Another proof is the Rogue in a a Mithral Chain Shirt; If his DEX is 26, he nets +10 to AC, the cost is a mere 1,250 gold. For the same 26 DEX in bracers, he has to shell out 16k gold to net the same +10 to AC. For just over half the cost of the bracers, the Mithy Chain Shirt Rogue gets +3 to his AC, above and beyond what the Bracers Rogue can afford.
in any event, I strongly agree: Bracers are way less Bang for the buck than other Armor Bonuses, if only because they start at Zero and then add a bonus.
I think that is by design. As in not being able to wearing armor is a penalty...a balancing factor. If Bracers were just as good as magic armors than there would not be much of a point to that restriction.
for our game Mage armor is the difference between minion monsters hitting me and needing a nat 20 to do so. it's been a really big deal. with it the BBEG were currently fighting needs a 10 to hit me and a 6 likely without Mage armor. at least for the monk the spell is easily as good as bracers.
about the only time I can see bracers nattering is a nighttime ambush... and that only matters til I drink a 50 gp potion of.... Mage armour.
I think it would be less of an issue if the bracers cost the same as what an equivalent armor bonus would. but I think the spell really diminishes Tyne bracers value.
on a side note after that beavers of armor bit earlier I'll need to double-check the auto corrects more.
for our game Mage armor is the difference between minion monsters hitting me and needing a nat 20 to do so. it's been a really big deal. with it the BBEG were currently fighting needs a 10 to hit me and a 6 likely without Mage armor. at least for the monk the spell is easily as good as bracers.
about the only time I can see bracers nattering is a nighttime ambush... and that only matters til I drink a 50 gp potion of.... Mage armour.
I think it would be less of an issue if the bracers cost the same as what an equivalent armor bonus would. but I think the spell really diminishes Tyne bracers value.
on a side note after that beavers of armor bit earlier I'll need to double-check the auto corrects more.
Don't the bracers cost as much as an equivalent armor bonus ? Assuming your base armor is +0 that is.
Though it is expensive to increase your AC more you could keep the bracers and have them enhanced to +5 when it is affordable to do so, I guess, either way I do not really see a point in selling them.
If a spellcaster in the party can improve them it would cost 8,000 gold for that additional +1 in armor with the added bonus that it can not be dispelled, an NPC will likely charge 16,000 gold for the 'favor'.
Very expensive at the moment, but at a later point it might be a reasonable price to pay for that +1 AC.
I guess I don't see the point. If some crappy wizard wants to blow one of his 3 third level spells to cast a +6 mage armor instead of Lightning Bolt or Haste, be my guest.Ummmmm....
I'll admit, I'm an old school 2nd edition player and still getting used to the rules of the new game here... as is our whole group...
But Why would you compare mage armor against Chain mail? Looking at the Mage armor spell description, I'm not seeing anything in the rules that says you can't have BOTH.
You're going to find that both 3.X and Pathfinder are much more completely new games than they are similar to the one you left behind.
You can have both, but since they give the exact same bonus, the benefits won't stack. So there really wouldn't be a point.
As to why there aren't more advanced versions of mage armor? It's simple, they don't want wizards and sorcerers scaling armor protection the way armored characters do. The idea is that after a certain point you're not relying on armor to save you but you either keep from getting hit by not being in the thick of melee or you're using spells that give miss chances like displacement.
The point is Lightning bolt and haste don't make it harder to hit you. Well, OK, haste gives you a +1, but that is no where near the +6.
Being dead from lightning bolt or hold person make it harder to hit the wizard to.
Can you kill a creature with one lightning bolt? Unlikely. And what about the rest of the encounters? Mage armor (or greater) lasts 1 hour per caster level, in other words, multiple battles.
Being dead from lightning bolt or hold person make it harder to hit the wizard to.
Yes, but a monk/animal companion/whatever gulping a potion of lightning bolt won't be as happy.
And when you've zapped 2 ogres with a lightning bolt or held one of them, the rest are still left to shred you to pieces.
I'm more or less in the camp that don't like the design of mage armor very much, and it's because of not being target: you and having too long duration.
I would much have preferred if casting in light armor was easier for those wishing to do so, and making mage armor work in some other way.
For example, a +6 bonus that ends the first time someone misses you with 6 or less, or DR 5/magic that ends as soon as you take physical damage or something.
It's powerful at level 1 as a prepared spell, and is powerful as a wand, and generally... It's simply very useful compared to most other 1st level spells. That said, I don't think it's overpowered or broken or anything like that. It's a strong spell, among the strongest of that level when reaching higher levels where wands and slots make them expendable, but I don't think it's really broken.
It's boring, however, and in many cases make bracers unneeded.
|
|
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 >.<
It's the type of bonus that matters. There are several different types of Armor bonuses.
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
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
I agree, along with having shields as a type of armor. That has caused confusion also.
Being dead from lightning bolt or hold person make it harder to hit the wizard to.Yes, but a monk/animal companion/whatever gulping a potion of lightning bolt won't be as happy.
And when you've zapped 2 ogres with a lightning bolt or held one of them, the rest are still left to shred you to pieces.
I'm more or less in the camp that don't like the design of mage armor very much, and it's because of not being target: you and having too long duration.
I would much have preferred if casting in light armor was easier for those wishing to do so, and making mage armor work in some other way.
For example, a +6 bonus that ends the first time someone misses you with 6 or less, or DR 5/magic that ends as soon as you take physical damage or something.
It's powerful at level 1 as a prepared spell, and is powerful as a wand, and generally... It's simply very useful compared to most other 1st level spells. That said, I don't think it's overpowered or broken or anything like that. It's a strong spell, among the strongest of that level when reaching higher levels where wands and slots make them expendable, but I don't think it's really broken.
It's boring, however, and in many cases make bracers unneeded.
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.
Mage Armor and nat armor stacking is 100% RAW. You could have Mage Armor, Shield, and Barkskin all up for a big +13 while running around au naturale.
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) = 40.32AC 18 - 3 * 16 * 0.5 + (16 * 0.5 * 0.05) = 24.4
That'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.