|
Hey All-
I'm hearing some different feedback on things and wanted to get a general response from the community.
When does a your typical wizard/witch/sorc/whatever start to need Mage Armor?
Suppose 20 point builds, your 'typcial' Adventure Path, but that you're only going to be casting it upon yourself (no monks/eidolons/whatever or whatever with whom you'll be sharing).
How much do most of you sweat AC at level 1 or 2 when you play a Wiz/Sorc/Witch?
As a witch/wizard, I've been reluctant to 'waste' a slot into an hour buff when I could be ending combats quicker and use my intelligent positioning to keep me 'safe'.
As a low level Sorc, do you really want to 'waste' a precious spell slot on Mage Armor?
I like knowing the spell, but don't consider it mandatory. I might pick up a wand when I can afford it or a scroll down the line...
I wonder and ponder.
What do youse guys think?
Thanks all.
-Pain
|
As a wizard, I learn it as a starting spell and make a few scrolls so I don't have to spend a spell slot on it. You get the Scribe Scroll feat for free, may as well use it.
As a sorcerer, I'll wait a couple levels, but I'll probably retrain something to mage armor at 4th level if I don't already have it.
Sorcerers/wizards don't have many hit points and "intelligent positioning" doesn't protect you from ranged attacks. I have had some sorcerers who wore a chain shirt (mithril as soon as possible) so they didn't have to choose mage armor, but those were generally multiclass characters with better than average hit points and not totally dependent on spells to contribute to the party.
@ Pain.
I might (empahsis on might) agree with you on the sorcerer with his two spells, but it seems foolish not to have the option as a wizard. In any case, mage armor--even at first level--will last one or more encounters versus the hope of your one other spell being useful.
Especially at low levels with the 6-9 hit points the spellcasters have, they can be taken down by any lucky shot from a random 1/2 CR monster with a crossbow. I'll take the almost 50% reduction (AC 16 vs. AC 12 assuming a dex of 14) in the chance of getting hit so I can contribute the whole time and not burden the cleric who is probably doubling as a fighter at early levels.
Depends on who's playing the fighter. If its the roll player , I'll hold off on it. If its the role player i get mage armor right off the bat and use it before watering the bushes.
as a rule it's one of my first spells. At first level casters have the potential for a 15 min work day, so I rely mostly on bows and what not or class features like the various 3+int/cha times per day things for offense.
|
I throw away mage armor until later because I never waste time casting it on myself and instead focus more on battlefield control and buff spells for the rest of the party. The only reason I do grab it is to cast on others in cast we fight something nasty incorporeal that I know about ahead of time.
It's honestly just a trap spell, especially after like level 8-10 where nothing cares your AC is 17 instead of 13. :/
|
I throw away mage armor until later because I never waste time casting it on myself and instead focus more on battlefield control and buff spells for the rest of the party. The only reason I do grab it is to cast on others in cast we fight something nasty incorporeal that I know about ahead of time.
It's honestly just a trap spell, especially after like level 8-10 where nothing cares your AC is 17 instead of 13. :/
I am inclined to disagree. At level ten, you have either a +4 AC (that also works against incorporeal, as has been pointed out) with no ASF for 10 hours for the cost of a 1st level spell slot, or all that for 20 hours for the cost of a 2nd level spell slot and a feat (or rod). Have a wand of shield ready and now you've bumped your ac up for +8, plus immunity to magic missile (which is still used on occasion at this level).
Regardless, that +4 AC and potential +8 AC stacks with your ring of protection/amulet of natural armor that you purchased instead of purchasing your bracers of armor. And it always helps keep minions at bay while you put the hurt on the BBEG
I throw away mage armor until later because I never waste time casting it on myself and instead focus more on battlefield control and buff spells for the rest of the party. The only reason I do grab it is to cast on others in cast we fight something nasty incorporeal that I know about ahead of time.
It's honestly just a trap spell, especially after like level 8-10 where nothing cares your AC is 17 instead of 13. :/
While it's true for the big baddies and the like, it holds out a little longer when it comes to generic mooks. A CR6 monster (which there could be a bunch of) has an average high attack of +12, so it's a differece between 5% chance to avoid and 20% chance to avoid. Not azum, but since you can keep it up all day, not too bad either.
I'll pretty much ignore it at the very low levels (e.g., the ones in which my 1st level spells are still serious combat spells) and typically start to use it around something like level 4-5.
At some point later everything hits me on a 2 anyway and I'll reclaim the slot at that point.
I may get it earlier (especially as a sorcerer) if one or more other PCs can really benefit from it, e.g. monk.
|
Painlord, I am playing my first arcane caster in Pathfinder [PFS] a Magus. I have Mage Armor in my spell book but have not memorized it as of yet as Magnus wears a Masterwork chainshirt that has hte same ac bonus as Mage Armor. I have bought a Wand of shield for 2 PA a much
better use of resources than useing a slot that I could use a shcocking grasp for.
If I play a wizard, I almost always take mage armor at level 1, or buy it quite soon.
It is one of those few spells, which is being used from lvl 1 to lvl 20, going from 'significant AC bump' to 'Why not, it is only a lvl spell'.
But in my experience, it doesn't get much use at levels 1 and 2. The duration isn't long enough compared to the limited amounts of spells per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mage Armor is most useful at level 1.
The duration measuring in hours is a huge benefit at low levels.
It stops being useful when Bracers of Armor +4 or higher are available.
My Sorcerer swapped it out for Shield later in the game.
My Witch is 5th level, using a +1 Adamantine Haramaki (yay crafters!). I no longer prepare Mage Armor. Generally, I don't feel particularly hampered by the choice. That said, the level 1 Witch spell list is a little thin by comparison and I think I opted into a casting of Beguiling Gift in my spell list.
Generally, the Haramaki (assuming Eastern Armors are in your game) replaces Bracers of Armor and is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper. Once you have access to it, it more or less replaces Mage Armor, especially once you can afford to dump a +1 enchant on it.
I honestly think mage armor is waaaay more useful for non-fullcasters than for wizards, witches, and sorcerers.
For monks or Kensai? GREAT spell. Get it on a wand or from a friendly Wizard.
For a wizard? Spend the slot on Color Spray or something and incapacitate the fool who thought to try and attack you. Or cast Mirror Image later on and laugh at the people who are trying to use an attack value system which isn't to your advantage.
Lotsa great advice in here.
Mage armor is awesome. It is not, I feel, for sorcerers. I would buy scrolls from wizards who memorize and cast it all the time.
Mage Armor isn't really worth it. Just wear a Chain Shirt. Get it in Mitheral by 2nd level as it's +1000 GP you should be able to manage that. Then at 3rd pick up Arcan Armor Training. Who needs mage armor then? Once mage armor last for 8 hours then use it for a better touch AC. By then you Mitheral Chain shirt.
I've found 1 in 5 spell failure chance doesn't pop up much at 1st since you cast so few spells. By the time you hit 3rd you have mitigated spell failure entirely. As well you get +1 AC over bracers in the long run. 4 base AC with +5 enhancement vs bracers AC 8 and it saves you 12,000 GP to boot.
So yeah Mage armor at low levels not so useful.
|
|
When does a your typical wizard/witch/sorc/whatever start to need Mage Armor?
When he realises that nobody in the party created a frontline melee guy?
It's a weird one, really. As you and others have mentioned, most of the time it's much more helpful as something to cast on otherwise armourless melee types (Monks, Kensai, Animal Companions, Eidolons, Savage Barbarians, etc.) than it is to cast on your full-arcane caster himself. Also as others have said, later on it does become a 'cast it with breakfast' / 'why not?' spell when you have level 1 spell slots to waste.
On the other hand, if the rest of your party isn't designed to keep the bad guys away from you (or are just bad at doing so) then it may well be more essential to your continued survival. This, of course, also depends on the DM. If he's keen to 'metagame' the bad guys into always going after the squishies, then you'll have a target on you from minute one, and will need all the protective magic you can get.
Remember, though, +4 AC on its own just isn't that good. If you're bothering to cast mage armour in the first place, then you'll need to already be rocking a decent AC (via Dex, Feats, whatever else you can get your hands on) or the spell isn't going to really make much difference. If the bad guys are still hitting you on an average roll, then mage armour probably wasn't the way to go. For example, your basic gnoll or goblin starts with a +3 to hit you, a basic orc starts with a +4. If your mage armour is only bumping you to AC 14, then they're all hitting you on average rolls anyway...
Yep. To generalize, when the enemy is currently hitting you on an X+, assuming 20/x2 crit and X<=16, the application of a +4 to AC is going to reduce their DPR against you by (400/(22-X))%. So an enemy hitting you on an 11+ does 36% less damage; an enemy hitting you on a 16+ does 67% less damage.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I played an abjurer who started at 1st level casting mage armor as soon as it seemed likely that there would be combat in the next hour, then followed it up with shield on round 1 of a tough fight. He went around at low levels with the best AC in the party, and was able to be "magically invincible" against groups of weak foes. It's true that as you gain levels, that strategy doesn't work so well, but by then he had lots of additional options.
Even at mid to high levels though, it still remains a nice buff, since while the +4 to AC isn't going to stop too many attacks, by then you have the duration to last all day of adventuring, and have enough spells availible that a single first level slot isn't a big loss for what you can do on the battlefield. Even if it causes a single attack per day to miss, at those levels, that single attack could pack quite a punch. Plus, as has been mentioned, against incorporeal, it can still put the caster as the highest AC in the party.
Since Painlord and I started this debate, I'm interested in the outcome but not keeping an exact score. It sounds like the masses are split. However, it also seems people are basing their expectations on a PFS type world where there is a steady stream of gold, readily available magic items of your choice, and only an expectation to last four gaming hours. In these cases, I'd definitely support the buy it or borrow it mentality.
However, things can be a lot different in an ongoing campaign where you might not have a wand available for several levels, there is no gold to buy items or no shop to buy them from, and the techincal rules of scribing are one spell per day and it uses the spell up for the day. In this case I still believe the wizard should have it on the spell list and be ready to cast it and the sorcerer should possibly have it depending on the party make up.
|
|
ProfPotts wrote:
For example, your basic gnoll or goblin starts with a +3 to hit you, a basic orc starts with a +4. If your mage armour is only bumping you to AC 14, then they're all hitting you on average rolls anyway...Faulty premise. Goblins deal 1d4 damage per hit, which averages to 2.5. With a 10 AC, goblins will, on average, deal 1.70625 damage per melee attack. With a 14 AC, goblins will deal 1.30625 average damage per melee attack. That's a 30% reduction in damage taken.
How is my premise that on an average ('average' being 10-11 in this case) D20 roll these beasties will hit you if your AC is 11 or 14 faulty in any way?
My premise, such as it is, has nothing to do with DPR calculations, on the grounds that they're not much good when applied to stuff like the question of whether it's worth a low level arcane caster blowing one of his valuable level 1 spells per day on casting mage armour.
For what it's worth, your own DPR maths shows that whether your AC is 10 or 14 the goblins will be averaging 1 Hit Point of damage per attack - 'cos fractions are rounded down. The point being that low level combats rarely last long enough for DPR averages to come into effect. 30% damage reduction sounds like a lot, but there's little chance that a low-level caster is about to face 100 or so goblin attacks in one low level adventure. Or even 10 attacks over which, by your calculations, the mage armour will have saved the caster 4 Hit Points worth of pain. If your caster is taking 10 goblin attacks in one encounter at low level, then something has already gone hideously wrong...
To be worth blowing a spell on, at low level, mage armour needs to be making you darned near impossible to hit by the types of critters you face - in which case you can wade into the fray with impunity (as in JoelF847's example); but on the whole, chances are you, as a caster, aren't going to be the target of many hits anyway. Obviously, the more attacks you do come under, the more valuable any AC bonus is going to be - that much is obvious. But low level casters, in anything like an 'average' PC party (whatever that means) generally stand behind the guys with big pointy sticks. Maybe you're the target of one attack per encounter - so maybe 4 or 5 attacks total in your adventuring day. Is saving yourself from 1 or 2 Hit Points worth of damage a good investment for a level 1 spell slot, when level 1 spells slots are all you've got?
DPR calculations have their place as guidelines, but trying to apply them to every situation as the be-all and end-all is a poor policy, IMHO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mage Armor isn't really worth it. Just wear a Chain Shirt. Get it in Mitheral by 2nd level as it's +1000 GP you should be able to manage that. Then at 3rd pick up Arcan Armor Training.
Man I'm so not burning a feat on that, especially one that's incompatible with Quicken Spell. I need those swift actions for killing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I need those swift actions for killing.
Which ironically, is a huge reduction in incoming damage!
Go you!
|
|
Thanks for everyone's opinion on the matter.
I think I agree with the person who referred to the spell as a "skill tester". That's how I see it right now. If you're a (low-level) mage/sorce and you're 'wasting' spells (very scarce resources) on personal protection rather than using your limited spell/slots to 'win' fights, I don't think you're being as effective as you could be.
Lots of people in that post missed the main point of the thread which was the "low level" part of things. It's crucial to the discussion.
One yahoo pointed out getting taken out by a lucky ranged attack. Pfft. That can happen even with Mage Armor up, but the chances of such are a bit less. If they're that worried, it takes a free action (renewable) to get +4 AC vs. ranged. It's called going prone (from which you can still cast).
I think it's this (AT LOW LEVELS):
1) As a wizard/witch with high high Intelligence (lots of spells known at first level), I would take it but rarely memorize it for personal use. The tradeoff between it's value and a useful combat/utility spell weighs heavily for the combat spell.
2) As a sorcerer, I couldn't argue for 'wasting' a spell known on it. At levels 1&2, you get 2 spells known...and the spell's value isn't worth the what you could be casting. The tradeoff between the chances that you'll die for want of an extra +4 AC against what a good combat spell will help you win in combat makes it clear that it's a bad choice.
As time goes on, then investing in scrolls/wands makes the spell better and cheaper against what useful stuff you could be doing.
In general, you should be saving your slots (both memorized and spontanously cast) for your spells that have both powerful effects and force saving throws.
* * *
Skill-Tester (loose, random definition--of course there are valid character and roleplaying reasons for nearly all things, those are excluded for the points of my discussion):
A class, power, spell, or ability that seems amazing at first but, in actual gameplay, is less good, less useful, or less powerful than other options that the character could have chosen. It's something that new players might be attracted to, but that more experienced players realize isn't all that hot.
The Magic Missle spell is one of them. If someone is taking that a level one or two, they have probably failed the identify spells that will be the most useful in combat when compared to other options.
Mage Armor is another.
One yahoo pointed out getting taken out by a lucky ranged attack. Pfft. That can happen even with Mage Armor up, but the chances of such are a bit less. If they're that worried, it takes a free action (renewable) to get +4 AC vs. ranged. It's called going prone (from which you can still cast).
Until that +4 turns into a -4 when some flunky runs up and stabs you as lie there on the ground.
----
Ultimately, like most things, it's very dependent on the type of campaign, the party makeup, the availability or resources, yada, yada, yada.... but it has been a good discussion.
I have to go now. I have a hobgoblin that needs to run his sword through a witch without mage armor on.
I think I agree with the person who referred to the spell as a "skill tester". That's how I see it right now. If you're a (low-level) mage/sorce and you're 'wasting' spells (very scarce resources) on personal protection rather than using your limited spell/slots to 'win' fights, I don't think you're being as effective as you could be.
This is basically where I am on it.
If I'm a low level mage, my #1 job in the party isn't to not get hit. It's to use my spells (and to a lesser degree, skills) so the party "wins" encounters, be they combat or otherwise; if I can't do that, it's to use my spells to keep the party from losing encounters/members/etc. Preventing injury specifically to myself is way, way, down my list of priorities (even if it does, yes, show up somewhere.)
I'll pretty much ignore it at the very low levels (e.g., the ones in which my 1st level spells are still serious combat spells) and typically start to use it around something like level 4-5.
This sounds about right; I would start using it at the point when I can afford to waste a level 1 slot.
At some point later everything hits me on a 2 anyway and I'll reclaim the slot at that point.
I might still cast it; it's harmless, and it might even do some good (e.g. keeping peons away). I don't think I would ever shell out 16,000 gp for Bracers of Armor +4.
I may get it earlier (especially as a sorcerer) if one or more other PCs can really benefit from it, e.g. monk.
Also agreed.
I play a lot of wizards, and I always pick Mage Armor at creation. And I make scrolls of mage armor as soon as I can. That, and shield.
I have never played a straight sorcerer, as I generally mutliclass with fighter, so Mage Armor was usually one of my initial spell choices anyway.
Anecdotally, mage armor has served my low level casters well. My PFS wizard had his life saved because I had mage armor up when a new enemy appeared behind the fighters during his first (And so far only) scenario.
Ive had a frontliner elf wizard who pulled a high dex, mage armor and shield and became a flanker for the fighter due to having the best AC in play.
My current Gish sorcerer has mage armor as a bonus spell, and used a rod of extend instead of buying armor. The other carges are used on other spells, and the Mage armor is cast in the morning, and lasts most of the day (10 hours with extend currently) but it is really better for wizards until you have exhausted the usefulness of Sleep, then it makes a decent switch.
So it is good if you aren't confidant in your blockers, or don't want to hide so much. Id recommend it as a first level wizard, even if you decide not to prepare it, you can scribe it. but not immediately as a sorc.
As an aside, once you can get it to last 8 hours you can cast it before bed and not have it count against the next days spells. allowing you to effectively sleep in a chain shirt without endurance.
|
|
I am inclined to disagree. At level ten, you have either a +4 AC (that also works against incorporeal, as has been pointed out) with no ASF for 10 hours for the cost of a 1st level spell slot, or all that for 20 hours for the cost of a 2nd level spell slot and a feat (or rod). Have a wand of shield ready and now you've bumped your ac up for +8, plus immunity to magic missile (which is still used on occasion at this level).
Regardless, that +4 AC and potential +8 AC stacks with your ring of protection/amulet of natural armor that you purchased instead of purchasing your bracers of armor. And it always helps keep minions at bay while you put the hurt on the BBEG
I accept that you disagree but I don't see purchases like bracers of armor, or rings of protection or an amulet of natural armor as anything I'd buy for my arcane spell casters.
It's hard to say what the best solution for a specific situation is, but in the end in my opinion playing the AC race just isn't something I feel is worth the investment to actually win at. Sure there are mooks and things, but after like 3rd or 4th level you've usually got a not insignificant amount of hit points to take a couple of swings if need be, and there are multiple solutions on how to protect yourself and help your allies.
Burning spell slots on myself just to try and keep up to the rest of the party AC wise doesn't sound as good as just tossing on an Armored Coat that I can toss off as a move action. :/
|
As a wizard (and other prepared arcane), I see little reason not to have mage armor in your spellbook by level 2. Either you get it for free or spend a small amount of gold to scribe it manually.
Maybe around level 3 or 4 I might memorize it since I now have 2nd level spells to cast in combat. But most likely still rely on self crafted scrolls. For the most part after I get craft wand, then it is a low priority memorized spell.
For sorcerers (and other spont casters) I decide early on in my creation if I am going to care at all about AC and work on getting to the mid 20s. Or just forget about AC and leave it at 10+Dex.