after the last few Pathfinder games saw our group back-handed by the incorporeal undead, I was daydreaming about the problem, and then came upon the following thought.
Can Mage Armor be used to hurt incorporeal creatures?
I don't have a book near me, but does the spell make a particular suit of armor in its creation? So if then yes, does it come with gloves? If yes again, can I then punch the ghostly suckers with my force gauntlets and damage them without a incorporeal miss chance?
If not gloves, then how about boots? I assume you'd get the mage armor bonus against attacks like caltrops, so that would lead me to believe it comes with footwear, so could I kick them?
if no to these, how about a good ole'fashioned bodyslam? Off the low branch of a tree for a flying elbow?
Seriously though, could Mage Armor be used offensively, especially against Incorporeal opponents?
Sure even if yes, you'd be doing your 1d3 +Str, but its better than nothing when the shades start pouring out of the stone and you have maybe one magic weapon to split amongst you.
The more entertaining question is... can you use it to grapple them? :-p
I'm 99.999999% the answer is no to all of the above, but they're fun to ask!
got anything more than an opinion on that? It stops a physical blow with a field of force. Why can't that be used to smash someone with it? Unless they've drastically changed the wording with it since I read it last, there is nothing saying it springs to life only to deflect a blow. What I remember from memory so paraphrasing; it creates an invisible suit of force armor that provieds a +4 bonus to Armor Class.
if it has indeed created a suit, shouldn't it follow all the other rules of a suit, specifically in the case of gauntlets and making unarmed attacks with them?
Also, its useless against 99% of incorporeal opponents anyways as they have incorporeal TOUCH attacks, that ignore the armor bonus to AC anyways.
after the last few Pathfinder games saw our group back-handed by the incorporeal undead, I was daydreaming about the problem, and then came upon the following thought.
Can Mage Armor be used to hurt incorporeal creatures?
No
I don't have a book near me, but does the spell make a particular suit of armor in its creation?
No
So if then yes, does it come with gloves?
No
If yes again, can I then punch the ghostly suckers with my force gauntlets and damage them without a incorporeal miss chance?
No
If not gloves, then how about boots?
No
I assume you'd get the mage armor bonus against attacks like caltrops, so that would lead me to believe it comes with footwear, so could I kick them?
No
if no to these, how about a good ole'fashioned bodyslam? Off the low branch of a tree for a flying elbow?
No
Seriously though, could Mage Armor be used offensively, especially against Incorporeal opponents?
Seriously No
In fact Magic Armor such as your +5 Mithril Full Plate can not be used to damage a ghost either.
Sure even if yes, you'd be doing your 1d3 +Str, but its better than nothing when the shades start pouring out of the stone and you have maybe one magic weapon to split amongst you.
a concise and enlightening response :P
but addressing the only non-one word response, +5 Mithral Full Plate won't effect a ghost because its not ghost touch or a Force effect. Mage Armor is a Force effect.
it is like using mage hand to rip out an eyeball, or creating water in a opponents mouth or brain or body. it is a good idea but a stretch
Edit: i once called the hospital to find out how much pounds of pressure it take to rip out an eyeball luckily i never got through.
got anything more than an opinion on that? It stops a physical blow with a field of force. Why can't that be used to smash someone with it? Unless they've drastically changed the wording with it since I read it last, there is nothing saying it springs to life only to deflect a blow. What I remember from memory so paraphrasing; it creates an invisible suit of force armor that provieds a +4 bonus to Armor Class.
That's correct. However, since no other benefit is listed, no other benefit is granted or implied.
Also, its useless against 99% of incorporeal opponents anyways as they have incorporeal TOUCH attacks, that ignore the armor bonus to AC anyways.
The description for the mage armor spell specifically states incorporeal creatures can't bypass it.
Also, the spell doesn't say anything about creating a suit of force armor. It creates a tangible field of force.
|
If you read the information on the incorporeal subtype, it says that it can only be affected by ghost touch weapons. The mage armor spell description doesn't say anything about granting the subject the ghost touch ability, so I would be inclined to rule "no."
Even if you did say that mage armor grants a de facto ghost touch-like effect, the incorporeal creature would still get it's 50% miss chance. And if it's undead, it would be immune to the non-lethal damage of your unarmed strikes (unless your strikes dealt normal damage because of some other ability or effect).
-Skeld
Also, its useless against 99% of incorporeal opponents anyways as they have incorporeal TOUCH attacks, that ignore the armor bonus to AC anyways.The description for the mage armor spell specifically states incorporeal creatures can't bypass it.
the important part of the incorporeal touch attack ignoring the effects of mage armor, isn't the "incorporeal" part, its the "touch" part that ignores the +4 ARMOR bonus to AC. Off the top of my head, I can only remember one incorporeal creature that doesn't attack with a touch attack, I think it was the Ghost Brute from 3.x Libris Mortis that had an Incorporeal Bite. Every other creature, and especially the most dangerous ones are all incorporeal touch attacks.
Also, the spell doesn't say anything about creating a suit of force armor. It creates a tangible field of force.
question still stands then, can I use my tangible field of force to effect/damage an incorporeal creature?
Also, its useless against 99% of incorporeal opponents anyways as they have incorporeal TOUCH attacks, that ignore the armor bonus to AC anyways.The description for the mage armor spell specifically states incorporeal creatures can't bypass it.the important part of the incorporeal touch attack ignoring the effects of mage armor, isn't the "incorporeal" part, its the "touch" part that ignores the +4 ARMOR bonus to AC. Off the top of my head, I can only remember one incorporeal creature that doesn't attack with a touch attack, I think it was the Ghost Brute from 3.x Libris Mortis that had an Incorporeal Bite. Every other creature, and especially the most dangerous ones are all incorporeal touch attacks.
Also, the spell doesn't say anything about creating a suit of force armor. It creates a tangible field of force.
question still stands then, can I use my tangible field of force to effect/damage an incorporeal creature?
no you cant. in 3.5 they had ghost touch oil it could be rubbed on your weapon to bypass that effect
If you read the information on the incorporeal subtype, it says that it can only be affected by ghost touch weapons. The mage armor spell description doesn't say anything about granting the subject the ghost touch ability, so I would be inclined to rule "no."
and Force effects, again, which Mage Armor is, otherwise Magic Missile wouldn't work on them.
Even if you did say that mage armor grants a de facto ghost touch-like effect, the incorporeal creature would still get it's 50% miss chance. And if it's undead, it would be immune to the non-lethal damage of your unarmed strikes (unless your strikes dealt normal damage because of some other ability or effect).
-Skeld
just an FYI, but Incorporeal creatures no longer have a miss chance, they just take half-damage from magical non-ghost touch weapons, but full damamge from ghost touch and force effects. My group was pretty surprised by this change as well, and it may have kept our first party from dying due to crappy % rolls, if instead we'd be doing half-damage to the sucker.
no you cant.Also, its useless against 99% of incorporeal opponents anyways as they have incorporeal TOUCH attacks, that ignore the armor bonus to AC anyways.The description for the mage armor spell specifically states incorporeal creatures can't bypass it.the important part of the incorporeal touch attack ignoring the effects of mage armor, isn't the "incorporeal" part, its the "touch" part that ignores the +4 ARMOR bonus to AC. Off the top of my head, I can only remember one incorporeal creature that doesn't attack with a touch attack, I think it was the Ghost Brute from 3.x Libris Mortis that had an Incorporeal Bite. Every other creature, and especially the most dangerous ones are all incorporeal touch attacks.
Also, the spell doesn't say anything about creating a suit of force armor. It creates a tangible field of force.
question still stands then, can I use my tangible field of force to effect/damage an incorporeal creature?
again anything other than an opinion? So far only one person has answered with something clost to a fact, and that was that the spell doesn't say it gets any additional effects, so it doesn't. Which I can jive with, but this is more a creative thought exercise, besides which the writers can't implicitly state every effect or lack there of for a spell and keep the page count out of the low 50K
in 3.5 they had ghost touch oil it could be rubbed on your weapon to bypass that effect
they also had a reserve feat that placed a force effect around your weapon and stated that it could be used to harm incorporeal creatures.
it is like saying just because there is not a sign on my router that says "don't use in the bathtub" it still wont work underwater. even if there is no sign. then you get all mad at the company saying it didnt say use under water.
An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.
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.
Force spells and effects, such
as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature
normally.
Since Mage Armor is a (Creation[Force]) spell, and Incorporeals can be affected by force effects, then they could be struck, but as Ghosts are undead and unaffected by non-lethal damage, unless the Mage Armored character has Improved Unarmed Strike, the point is moot.
If the spell doesn't say you get a particular bonus, you don't get that bonus. That is not an opinion, that is fact.
except that in this case it does, as Mage Armor has the [Force] descriptor.
the non-lethal damage is a excellent point though, so a Monk would be hell-on-wheels against a Shade if he had Mage Armor on.
it is like saying just because there is not a sign on my router that says "don't use in the bathtub" it still wont work underwater. even if there is no sign. then you get all mad at the company saying it didnt say use under water
yes an excellent point...for some other conversation. I'm not sure how that one is progressing, but be sure to keep us posted.
Seriously, this isn't as if I bought Mage Armor and cast it on my Fighter and then threw him into a river and he drowned and then I called Piazo and complained about my waterlogged dwarf. This is using a spell for something other than its standardly stated application, but using complimentary rules (such as Force effects and their effect on incorporeals) to stretch the boundaries of that spell and/or effect. Come with me outside the box and enjoy the fresh air.
|
Just to make something clear, an incorporeal touch attack is different from a normal touch attack.
To quote the Core Rulebook:
Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.
Just to make something clear, an incorporeal touch attack is different from a normal touch attack.
To quote the Core Rulebook:
Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.
ewww, neat. I did not know that changed. Thanks!
that's a very clunky way of doing it though, it would have been a lot easier to just call them incorporeal attacks, so then they would just ignore non-force armor effects. But still that's pretty cool.
No is no. Everybody except jeff has said no and you still insist on your reading and even jeff's answer is sort of no.
If you perfer your reading of the rules, go for it if you are the Dm.
If you are not the Dm and your DM says OK. Go for it.
If you can't take no for an answer I don't see the point going any further with the thread.
As Edgar pointed out:
- If the spell doesn't say you get a particular bonus, you don't get that bonus. That is not an opinion, that is fact.
|
|
ewww, neat. I did not know that changed. Thanks!
It didn't change. It was that way in 3.5, too.
An armor bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks, except for armor bonuses granted by force effects (such as the mage armor spell) which apply against incorporeal touch attacks, such as that of a shadow.
No is no. Everybody except jeff has said no and you still insist on your reading and even jeff's answer is sort of no.
If you perfer your reading of the rules, go for it if you are the Dm.
If you are not the Dm and your DM says OK. Go for it.
If you can't take no for an answer I don't see the point going any further with the thread.As Edgar pointed out:
- If the spell doesn't say you get a particular bonus, you don't get that bonus. That is not an opinion, that is fact.
yes and I said that is the closest we've got to a fact, everyone else has been very quick to say no, and in one memorable instance of remarkable insight, that is all they said.
that is the best ruliing I've gotten in this thread, and if my DM gave me that answer, I'd be happy with it. The post I've been most happy with is those that said it could be done, due to the rules on force effects, but that since its non-lethal damage, it be moot.
and not to continue to be argumentative, but do you have a FAQ or some developer quote on the "spell doesn't say you get a particular bonus, you don't get the bonus" is a fact? I'm sure I could dig up several instances that would test that if pressed, otherwise
and not to continue to be argumentative, but do you have a FAQ or some developer quote on the "spell doesn't say you get a particular bonus, you don't get the bonus" is a fact? I'm sure I could dig up several instances that would test that if pressed, otherwise
It would be nonsensical otherwise.
The rules don't say that my kilt-wearing barbarian, Bravefart, can't shot lighting bolts out his arse as a free action. Therefore, he must be able to do so.
Reductio ad absurdum.
and not to continue to be argumentative, but do you have a FAQ or some developer quote on the "spell doesn't say you get a particular bonus, you don't get the bonus" is a fact? I'm sure I could dig up several instances that would test that if pressed, otherwiseIt would be nonsensical otherwise.
The rules don't say that my kilt-wearing barbarian, Bravefart, can't shot lighting bolts out his arse as a free action. Therefore, he must be able to do so.
Reductio ad absurdum.
facepalm
yes because of course that is exactly the same thing. We're not adding; Mage Armor allows you to make tasty pastries to delight and surprise your friends.
we are taking an aspect of the spell, the fact that it is a force effect, and asking a question based off that merit. I know this may be s strange land for some, a place where the cold hard written word isn't king and one must use reason to figure out whether something is plausible based on logic and supporting rules. Why this is so hard for some is a mystery to me, as that would seem to be the entire point of a Rules Forum, to solve such disputes.
Was I mistaken in my hope to get something more than a "no" on a ruling? It would seem so, as No is No, as if that solved anything. What would have happened I wonder if the first response had been yes, or maybe, or hell, even Taco...we may never know.
|
Spells do what they say they do. They don't do things that they don't say they do. This is a fundamental concept of the game. If OP wants rule support: "This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works." Some spells can be used creatively. Even those that cannot be used creatively inherently might be able to be used creatively in a given group based upon the style of play. For matters of style, get your GM's opinion. Given that this is a rules discussion board, the focus is on the rules, not a given game's style of play.
OP's premise is that if mage armor acts as a given suit of armor, it is usable as if that sort of armor. The spell gives a bonus to AC. It doesn't act as a specific armor; if it did, it would say so. By the rules, the spell does what it says and all other uses are a matter of play style.
If choosing to say that it does act as a given armor, to be able to use the armor to make an attack would require that the armor have gauntlets. At AC4, the core armors that it emulates are chain shirt (light armor) and hide armor (medium armor). Only medium and heavy armor come with gauntlets. Medium and heavy armors a cost associated with them in terms of movement speed and with respect to ACP and Max Dex. If chosing to go with this, the effect of gauntlets is to make unarmed attacks give lethal damage. These unarmed attacks still provoke AoO unless the user has an ability to prevent that, such as Improved Unarmed Strike.
For a GM to rule in OP's favor based on the rules he needs to address and answer in OP's favor:
1) Does the spell act as a specific armor?
2) Is that specific armor, or can it be, medium armor?
3) Can the gauntlet's from the specific medium armor be used in an attack?
4) Can the spell itself be used to make a force attack in addition to merely providing the stated armor bonus?
I applaud OP's creativity, but suggest that, rather than seeking rules support for this, that he post on one of the other forums for input on the balance issues associated with using 1st level spells for purposes outside the scope of their description, particularly when using those spells for combat purposes that have the potential to give them extensive utility beyond the intended power of spells at this level; if nothing else, think duration in comparison to other low level force effects such as spiritual weapon or magic missile.
Spells do what they say they do. They don't do things that they don't say they do. This is a fundamental concept of the game. If OP wants rule support: "This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works." Some spells can be used creatively. Even those that cannot be used creatively inherently might be able to be used creatively in a given group based upon the style of play. For matters of style, get your GM's opinion. Given that this is a rules discussion board, the focus is on the rules, not a given game's style of play.
OP's premise is that if mage armor acts as a given suit of armor, it is usable as if that sort of armor. The spell gives a bonus to AC. It doesn't act as a specific armor; if it did, it would say so. By the rules, the spell does what it says and all other uses are a matter of play style.
If choosing to say that it does act as a given armor, to be able to use the armor to make an attack would require that the armor have gauntlets. At AC4, the core armors that it emulates are chain shirt (light armor) and hide armor (medium armor). Only medium and heavy armor come with gauntlets. Medium and heavy armors a cost associated with them in terms of movement speed and with respect to ACP and Max Dex. If chosing to go with this, the effect of gauntlets is to make unarmed attacks give lethal damage. These unarmed attacks still provoke AoO unless the user has an ability to prevent that, such as Improved Unarmed Strike.
For a GM to rule in OP's favor based on the rules he needs to address and answer in OP's favor:
1) Does the spell act as a specific armor?
2) Is that specific armor, or can it be, medium armor?
3) Can the gauntlet's from the specific medium armor be used in an attack?
4) Can the spell itself be used to make a force attack in addition to merely providing the stated armor bonus?I applaud OP's creativity, but suggest that, rather than seeking rules support for this, that he post on one of the other forums for input on the balance issues...
thank you sir.
not really seeking rules support, as the GM, I'd let it happen, and I'd be okay with a GM that wouldn't. Was mostly an interesting thought based on force effects and unintended consequences.
If you were not seeking rules support, it should have gone in a section other than the Rules Questions area.
why? It's a rules question. I don't need support for it because I'm more than capable of making my own decisions. Others might not be so liberated though, and I thought it an interesting RULES question, that I've never seen brought up before.
Yukongil, I think you misunderstand the purpose of this particular forum. Here, if you ask a rules question, you get a rules answer, backed by the rules. Answers here are sought for the specific purpose of getting a rules support answer. If you ask a rules question (which you have) and then do not like the answers you get, which have been supported, that's fine, but that's what this forum is for. Other forums are better suited for things like a hypothetical expansion of the mage armor spell.
Force effects work fully against incorporeal creatures and their touch attacks. Thus mage armor, shield and bracers of armor are fully effective against them. Since the spell does not provide an actual suit of armor, it does not provide the gauntlets you're looking for.
This is the reason I usually include an "incorporeal touch AC" in my stat blocks when it's there. Spectral Hand spells are incorporeal touch attacks too ...
And if the target of mage armor is able to treat the spell as actual armor, using its "gauntlets" to make attacks against incorporeal creatures, then everyone else should be able to use it as armor as well.
That means that it can be sundered as normal armor, but how many HP does it have? How much hardness? Do we treat it as a force wall? Can mage armor gain the broken condition?
Ultimately, though, it's right there in the spell description. It does not create a suit of armor made of force, but "a field of force [that] surrounds the subject." A field isn't a suit of armor, and can't be treated as such.
okay so the "gauntlets" have been ruled out, as is the notiion of the Mage Armor creating anything resembling armor, but it is still a field of tangible force surrounding your body. Given the rules that Force effects can interact with Incorporeal creatures, whats stops me from applying the tangible field of force created by Mage Armor against said incorporeal opponent?
Sure its been noted, and rightly so, that you'd be doing non-lethal damage, which undead are immune to, but still no valid reason why the Force descriptor of Mage Armor functions differently against an Incorporeal opponent.
So I guess a better phrasing of the question might be; Can one use an object created by a spell with the Force descriptor be used to attack an Incorporeal creature?
Why?
Why not?
|
okay so the "gauntlets" have been ruled out, as is the notiion of the Mage Armor creating anything resembling armor, but it is still a field of tangible force surrounding your body. Given the rules that Force effects can interact with Incorporeal creatures, whats stops me from applying the tangible field of force created by Mage Armor against said incorporeal opponent?
I think of MA as feeling like a layer of hardened air. It slows down the attack coming for you, but once you push through it on your attack (once your arm is more than 1/2 extended away from your body, for instance) it stays protecting your body, and doesn't move with your hand to attack your target.
Consider Mage Armor as less an invisible suit of armor and more like a semi-permeable sphere of force-energy around the target. It's made up of tens of thousands of particles of Force energy, enough to deflect and absorb the kinetic energy of most physical attacks to a limited extent, and as a happy side-effect, also creates interference with the incorporeal due to the way that Force energy interacts with both the Astral and Ethereal Planes. The spell provides enough Force energy to potentially do to a Ghost or Shadow what Mage Armor normally does to arrows, swords and the occasional Goblin launched from a catapult.
Think of Mage Armor as 'Pliable' Armor. It's there, provides an AC bonus, but it's not a 'hard' form of armor. At the same point, it's not a 'Soft' form of armor like a deflection or dodge bonus. It's more ... the way I am describing it is a little difficult to put into words. Think of it like a rubber suit. Yes it provides limited protection against whoever is belting the crap out of you, but it's not exactly going to provide any additional force to any attacks you make in turn.
Think of it like a very, very, very, very, very, very, very weak form of Wall of Force, as rather than being a solid plane of Force energy, you have a field of Force energy particles surrounding the target in whatever configuration the particulars of the spell and the caster decide, such as a shimmering globe or a second skin or even a halo! There's enough power there to grant as much protection as a Chain Shirt, but the presence of anything that could possibly disrupt the field, such as Armor, throws off these particles to the extent the spell fails and the Force energy particles dissipate without any effect.
It's interfering with the Ghost/Shadow's attack, but not enough to stop the Incorporeal Undead cold. Likewise, that same spell cannot grant the target it was cast upon the ability to 'touch' the Incorporeal. The spell simply lacks the power to provide both a localised Force energy particle field and the cohesion of those same Force energy particles into a tight enough field to be able to offensively affect incorporeal targets.
yukongil, I like the creative thought going into your idea but I would say that your interpretation is equivalent to attempting to apply real physics to fall damage. For ease of use in both cases, the rules have been simplified, with MA being a wholy defensive effect. Having said that, there is nothing to stop you from homebrewing something here, though still the spell description lends itself more towards the slam or bullrushing of the ghost than any other type of attack. Alternatively, create a new spell that is a refinement of MA into something that functions for both offense and defense, almost like a modified force version of fire shield.
In a related question (this got me thinking)
Could a 3rd level monk (who does not yet have the Ki stike to be considered "magic") with combat reflexes, bodyguard, and "in harms way" block the attacks of an incorporeal creature by using mage armor?
Yes, since you're intercepting the attack, and Mage Armor prevents incorporeal attacks from hitting you, that would work.
Side note:
If MA is as stated "an invisible but tangible field of force" that "surrounds the subject" why, other than it being specifically labeled an armor bonus, wouldn't it stack with regular armor?
So I guess a better phrasing of the question might be; Can one use an object created by a spell with the Force descriptor be used to attack an Incorporeal creature?
Well, there's a spell that specifically creates an object of force; spiritual weapon
In the spell description we can read this line: It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon
I think it's clear that a SW would indeed damage an incorporeal creature yet it does it as a spell effect, not as an object. Just like magic missile, another force effect.
So apparently the answer to your question as it is phrased would be no.
EDIT: ...unless we start hurling incorporeal creatures via telekinesis against walls of force? ;)
okay so the "gauntlets" have been ruled out, as is the notiion of the Mage Armor creating anything resembling armor, but it is still a field of tangible force surrounding your body. Given the rules that Force effects can interact with Incorporeal creatures, whats stops me from applying the tangible field of force created by Mage Armor against said incorporeal opponent?
Sure its been noted, and rightly so, that you'd be doing non-lethal damage, which undead are immune to, but still no valid reason why the Force descriptor of Mage Armor functions differently against an Incorporeal opponent.
So I guess a better phrasing of the question might be; Can one use an object created by a spell with the Force descriptor be used to attack an Incorporeal creature?
Why?
Why not?
If the spell says it can then yes. As an example spiritual weapon creates a weapon made of force, and it can be used to attack because the spell specifically says so. A spell can only do what it says it can do. There is no general rule of a spell with the force descriptor can do X, Y, and Z. I could not cast spiritual weapon 1000 times to create a wall of force even if real weapons could be used to create a barrier.
I can't take one of the bars from the forcecage spell and use it as a weapon.
Side note:
If MA is as stated "an invisible but tangible field of force" that "surrounds the subject" why, other than it being specifically labeled an armor bonus, wouldn't it stack with regular armor?
It was given the armor bonus type to ensure it does not stack, and bonus types determine what does and does not stack. It does not matter what the source of the bonus is.
|
You can attack the incorporeal creature. After an hour of looking at this I find the rules actually do support that. The secret lies in this being a conjuration. Abjurations that create a field (i.e. Prot vs Evil, Shield) will disappear if you push them against an opponent. Other schools of magic do not have that feature.
The problem is that you will cause no damage. Every force effect spell lists damage if it causes it. Mage armor does not list damage cause therefore it can cause no damage. With spells you can only apply the damage or effect that is specifically listed in the spell. Some spells provide effects that themselves cause or help with damage (magic weapon) but the specific benefit is directly delineated in the spell (+1 to attack and damage).
Another similar example is Tiny Hut. It creates an hemisphere of force. Hey a 2/hour per level force field against incoporeal creatures. But no matter how much you try you cannot use tiny hut to cause damage.
It was given the armor bonus type to ensure it does not stack, and bonus types determine what does and does not stack. It does not matter what the source of the bonus is.
Yeah, I understand that which is why i specified that "being specifically labeled as an armor bonus". The real question was more of a as per description why would that be, of course the real question was also just a side note.
Yeah, I understand that which is why i specified that "being specifically labeled as an armor bonus". The real question was more of a as per description why would that be, of course the real question was also just a side note.
It was given the armor bonus type to ensure it does not stack, and bonus types determine what does and does not stack. It does not matter what the source of the bonus is.
Out of character reason? It is supposed to be for mages. If it wasn't an armor bonus, then every melee character would be harassing their friendly wizard for this ALL THE TIME as it would be an all-day +4AC buff that stacks with all their other stuff.
In world reason? I liked the one above about force particles. Let's call the midichlorians! Honestly, though? There is no definitive answer. Just flavor it however you like.
This is allot like trying to pick a lock with a tiny halberd the rules don't specifically say you can't. but it is implied by common sense
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is allot like trying to pick a lock with a tiny halberd the rules don't specifically say you can't. but it is implied by common sense
Actually, that would be improvised tools (-2 to your skill).