My question is: If I have a higher Touch AC than my normal AC, would I use my Touch AC vs all (non flat foot) attacks or would I use my lower normal AC over my touch.
Example:
I am a 6th level Barbarian. My relevant stats are Dex 13 (+1 Normal and Touch AC) a Chain shirt +1 (5 points normal AC) and a Armored Kilt (+1 Normal AC, make me effectively in Medium armor) for a total of:
Touch 11
AC: 17
Well, I take off my chain shirt to show off my bizillon ab muscules (or am showering, or insert other reason why I'm not wearing it) but I do have my armored Kilt on.
So now I'd be
Touch 11
AC 12
I get into a fight. Grr! I rage. Both my Touch and AC drops by 2 (per normal)
Touch 9
AC 10
But wait, I have the Ghost Rager Rage power. Beyond letting me smite incorporeal things, it also adds my Supersitition bonus (We'll say it's the base +3, not using the Human favored class option to raise it) to my Touch AC.
So that would make my new numbers
Touch 12
AC 10
So Roguey McDrunkenStien tries to shank me and gets an end attack roll number of 11. That hits my AC, but misses my touch. Did I just get shanked?
Yes you actually did, as he is attacking your regular AC.
But this is a very wierd situation, where the rules dosnt really make sense.
I know! It's pretty hard to create a scenerio where Touch is greater, and I agree that he is attacking my normal ac, not touch so I would rule the same.
But it's kinda a head scratcher when you think of AC as 'Difficulty class to solidly connect and do damage' where touch 'They barely touch you with no appreciable force'
Although this is a strange scenario, you only target someone's touch AC if you're targeting touch AC. Just because the most-targeted AC is usually the highest AC doesn't mean that you always target the highest AC. Does that make sense?
Imagine if your flat footed were higher for some reason.
"I'll just dodge outta the-ACK! Man I shoulda just stood there."
Funny enough, I can't imagine how you would even portray such a scenario for the example of higher touch.
|
Funny enough, I can't imagine how you would even portray such a scenario for the example of higher touch.
You could say that while your touch AC is higher, the armor/shield/etc
you have is allowing your opponent to damage you easier than if he was just making a touch attack. As in, using your equipment against you.
I am not familiar with the ghost rager power from the top of my head but it is likely that it was not meant to improve beyond your regular AC, though I can imagine in specific cases it could happen, +3 on touch AC versus incorporeal undead could represent some kind of spirit protection for example.
Anything that raises your touch AC naturally raises you normal AC by the same amount.
... except for the ability in question, which is clearly and unambiguously providing special protection against touch attacks, specifically.
Otherwise, it would be worded as an AC bonus.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I think thenobledrake has the essence of it here.
The bonus to your Touch AC is a morale bonus, based of the fact that you are 'superstitious'. You fear and distrust magic, moreso than mundane wounds or even death.
When you see a ghost or something reaching for you with a Touch attack, you recognize that it's trying to do something magical to you (steal years off your life, or turn you into a newt, whathaveyou) and you have an intense emotional reaction. Essentially your adrenaline kicks in, giving you the edge you need to dodge the ghost's spectral touch.
When it's just a rogue trying to stab you, you don't have the same reaction. Hell, you've probably been stabbed before, never did you no real harm. You don't fear the blade the same way you fear the ghost's touch, so you don't react with as much urgency.
The real answer is that the Ghost Rager ability should include verbiage to cap your Touch AC at your normal AC. Many old abilities in 3.5 that added to your Touch or Flatfooted AC would include such a clause.
If your normal AC is 10, Ghost Rager should add to your Touch AC up to 10 and no more. If your normal AC is 30, then it should work up to 30. Generally, these abilities are supposed to make up for what is lost, not to actually gain something new or different.
Why am I even entertaining this? I am done. Do what you want in your dungeons. In my dungeons, if the touch AC rises, the normal AC rises. Simple math. Simple logic.
And thats perfectly fine. However, as this is in the Rules section of the board, the RAW is what counts. Even if it does lead to some strange situations. By RAW, things that boost Touch AC only boost Touch AC, not your normal or flat-footed AC.
Anything that raises your touch AC naturally raises you normal AC by the same amount.... except for the ability in question, which is clearly and unambiguously providing special protection against touch attacks, specifically.
Otherwise, it would be worded as an AC bonus.
No, it would not say it raises you AC bonus because then the readers would not know that it raises their touch AC.
Touch AC + Armor, Shield, NA, ect... = Normal AC. If you raise your touch AC you automatically raise your normal AC. They should not have to state the obvious.
Not true. The closest we have to an official definition of Touch AC comes under the rules describing Touch Attacks:
When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally.
Regular ol' AC meanwhile is just:
Your AC is equal to the following:
10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + other modifiers
AC is the default. Touch and Flatfooted AC are just convenient derived values that come up a lot, and technically aren't actually defined as specific named terms anywhere in the CRB. The Ghost Rager power is the only place I can think of where "Touch AC" is ever mentioned outside of stat blocks (which incidentally still calculate "flatfooted" AC without the dex bonus for things that don't lose their dex bonus when flatfooted because, again, these aren't really official terms, just handy numbers to have on hand for quick reference).
It would be just as reasonable for them to say something like "Every character normally has a base armor class of 10. Additionally, characters have a Mobility bonus to AC equal to A B and C which is ignored when characters are flatfooted, and a Gear bonus to AC equal to E F and G, which is ignored by touch attacks," but they didn't. Using Touch AC as the baseline would be kind of a weird thing to do, since it's a situation when you get about half your bonuses, as opposed to all or none.
On top of that, the rules usually go out of their way to remind you when ever you get a bonus to AC when it applies, for the sake of convenience and extra clarity:
These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load.
You gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC. A condition that makes you lose your Dex bonus to AC also makes you lose the benefits of this feat.
The Ghost Rager power doesn't particularly conform to the usual style guidelines, in that it doesn't say "a bonus to AC against touch attacks" as the rules usually do, but if they meant "a bonus to AC, which applies against touch attacks, but not under conditions that cause you to lose your Dex bonus to AC" they would either write all that out, or, if they were in a hurry, they would just say "a Dodge Bonus to AC" if they really wanted to save space. Because that's specifically what a dodge bonus is, and dodge bonuses from multiple sources stack. No reason not to word it like that unless you specifically want a bonus that only applies against touch attacks.
Which, again, is clearly the intent here, coming from an ability chain that's specifically about resisting magical effects.
If you know of any other abilities that specifically mention giving a bonus to Touch AC, I'd be interested in seeing how they're written.
|
|
Driver have you read the ghost rager rage power?
Ghost Rager (Su): While raging, the barbarian deals normal damage to incorporeal creatures even when using nonmagical weapons. She also gains a morale bonus to touch AC equal to her saving throw bonus from her superstition rage power. A barbarian must have the superstition rage power and be at least 6th level before selecting this rage power
RAW it only applies to touch. You are making an assumption that AC always include touch. It does not. Yes in most situations it does, but ghost rager only applies to touch.
EDIT: Removed a rude comment I made.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Touch AC = Normal AC - (armor bonus + sheild bonus + natural armor), then Normal AC = Touch AC + Armor Bonus + Shield Bonus + NA.
Accordingly, you can not raise your Touch AC without raising your Normal AC.
While math does indeed state that if A=B-C then B=A+C, your flawed premise is that there are no abilities which change the equation in certain situations.
Just as there are modifiers that can apply only to normal AC but not to touch, there are modifiers that can apply only to touch AC but not to normal.
Bob's wearing scale mail. Dex 10, no shield, etc. His normal AC is 15. (10 base + 5 armor)
He's under the effects of mage armor for some reason. Hey, a ghost just tried to attack him with an incorporeal touch attack. It rolled an 11. Did it hit? Nope. His AC against that attack is 14.
14+5 does not equal 15. This proves that you can't always determine normal AC by adding touch AC to armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + other modifiers.
In most cases, your normal AC will equal your touch AC plus your miscellaneous modifiers. However, since there are rules that take precedence over this formula and only apply in certain situations, this makes it fully possible for your normal AC to not equal your touch AC plus your miscellaneous modifiers.
You only get the armor of the larger armor bonus. Not both, nor additive.
That's true for Bracers of Armor, not for the Mage Armor spell. (Despite mage armor being used in the creation of bracers of armor)
|
Does Driver_325yards interpretation mean that an armor master gets a possible double bonus from this ability:
Deflective Shield (Ex): At 2nd level, an armor master specializes in using his shield to deflect attacks. He gains a +1 bonus to his touch AC, and this bonus increases for every four levels beyond 2nd (to a maximum of +6 at 20th level); however, this bonus cannot exceed the sum of the armor and enhancement bonus to AC provided by the shield that the armor master is currently carrying. This ability replaces bravery.
After all, @ level 20 with a +4 heavy shield, they would get +6 shield and +6 touch bonuses.
You only get the armor of the larger armor bonus. Not both, nor additive.That's true for Bracers of Armor, not for the Mage Armor spell. (Despite mage armor being used in the creation of bracers of armor)
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn't have a type stacks with any bonus.
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths,
As you can see, it applies to Mage Armor as well. The mage armor continues to be there, but you gain no benefits from it unless your base armor ceases to work for some reason (such as against an incoporeal creature, in which case then the mage armor can be effective). Same as the bracers and regular armor.
Believe it or not. We are agreeing. You are just stating what I have stated in a slightly different way. You are saying his touch AC is 14 and his normal AC is 15 and that mage's armor and regular AC are duplicative. Look again at what I wrote. I think you are hung up on the fact that I left (1) for the regular armor and added that to 4 for the mage's armor. You are saying you just count the 5 from the regular armor. Either way, you come up with 15 AC normal and 14 AC touch
I disagree that we are saying the same exact thing. Here's the difference, with your method, things that are stopped by force energy would not affect Bob ever, because he has the bracers and the base armor at all times. However, that is NOT the case, the bracers ONLY give effect if the base armor does not provide AC bonus. If it does provide AC bonus, then the bracers cease to function.
I don't know if it made it into PF or not, but in 3.5 (don't remember the spells) there were a couple of spells related to Magic Missile that could not harm you if you had a force effect in play, but otherwise required an attack roll. Thus, in that situation, Bob would take the damage, since his bracers do not function against attacks that the armor works against. It's a corner case, but it is something to keep in mind.
As you can see, it applies to Mage Armor as well.
Er, no, bracers are a special case.
+1 Heavy Fortification leather armor and mage armor means you a total of +4 armor bonus to AC (because the armor bonuses don't stack), but you still get the fortification, because that's not a bonus that isn't stacking.
+4 bracers of armor, however, shut down the armor completely.
No, you don't get the fortification. The magical effect of the armor is negated by the Mage Armor, see it right up there in the quotes I gave you? Only the greater of the two apply. Sheesh, it's plain english. You can't gain the Fortification without the +1 enhancement from the leather armor, which is not in effect and therefore the fortification is not in effect. Sheesh.
I think mdt's got the right interpretation.
Alternatively, bracers of armor can be enchanted with armor special abilities... 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.
No, Bracers of Armor shut off if you're not getting their armor bonus. Regular magic armor does not.
If you have +1 Leather armor of Fortification and Mage Armor, you get +4 armor bonus from the Mage Armor and Fortification from the leather armor.
If you have +1 Bracers of Armor of Fortification and Mage Armor, you get +4 armor bonus from the Mage Armor and nothing from the Bracers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, how to respond to all of the above. First, dodge bonuses are not the only bonuses that apply to touch attacks. So the last comment is confusing at best.
A dodge bonus is a special flavor of bonus which always stacks with other bonuses of the same type, and provides a bonus to your Armor Class under regular, everything applies conditions, as well as when subject to touch attacks, but does not apply when you are denied your dex bonus to AC.
This special type of bonus is defined because there are many many places in the rules where bonuses that apply under that particular set of conditions crop up, and it's a major space saving measure to be able to convey all that with just "a +X Dodge Bonus."
If your interpretation of this power was correct, and "+X Touch AC" meant a bonus that applies to both your regular and touch AC but not while flatfooted, there would be absolutely no reason to define a Dodge Bonus.
Second, touch AC is an official term. Who plays Pathfinder without knowing what touch AC is? In fact, the comment above the second to last comment explains exactly what touch ac is. Let me restate what was stated.
"When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally."
That's not a definition of a term though. Armor Class has a clear cut nice happy definition which is mostly defined right there in the combat rules. Quoting again...
Your AC is equal to the following:
10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + other modifiers
... Plus, of course, the large footnote about when Dexterity doesn't apply.
Phrasing that a little more clearly, your regular AC at any given time can always be determined by adding together 10 + your current armor bonus + your current shield bonus + a conditionally applicable bonus derived from your dexterity, armor, and encumbrance + any other bonuses other sections of the rules mention which state they apply under current conditions.
Note that nowhere in that definition is "Touch AC" mentioned.
The closest we have to a definition of "Touch AC" spelled out in the rules is a special note, in the description of touch attacks, explaining that when you are the target of a touch attack, your effective AC is modified, in that it does not include your Armor Bonus, Shield Bonus, or Natural Armor. This gives us a nice number to use for our "touch AC," but you'll notice we're always officially deriving it from our normal AC. It isn't an independently defined term. This is further clarified by explaining that "all other modifiers [to AC when you are the target of a touch attack] ... apply normally." In other words, any miscellaneous AC bonuses mentioned in the rest of the rules (spell descriptions, feat descriptions, the next term definition on the page, etc.) which would be applied to a regular attack under current conditions (i.e. I have a temporary size penalty because the spell enlarge person is currently affecting me) also apply against touch attacks, unless otherwise stated.
Oddly enough, this comment was exactly what I said upfront, only in a different way. Let's think about it. If Touch AC = Normal AC - (armor bonus + sheild bonus + natural armor), then Normal AC = Touch AC + Armor Bonus + Shield Bonus + NA.
Sure, if that were a valid definition of "Touch AC." It isn't though. You're assuming a constant fixed value for "other modifiers" where "other modifiers" is actually a placeholder for a large set of potential additional variables which may or may not be added in under the current operating conditions. Whether we are dealing with a touch attack is one of those conditions, as others have pointed out.
@ mpl: Whoops, I see. I thought this little side topic was actually discussing Bracers giving the Fortification in that scenario.
Don't mind me then.
|
TLDR
There are several instances where your touch AC may be increased w/o your regular AC increasing. Ghost Rager is one of them. Anyone who reads the feat would understand why, too. The Barb is using his superstition as a supernatural defense against incorporeal beings. Not believing in a dagger isn't going to help protect you against its reality.
No, Bracers of Armor shut off if you're not getting their armor bonus. Regular magic armor does not.
If you have +1 Leather armor of Fortification and Mage Armor, you get +4 armor bonus from the Mage Armor and Fortification from the leather armor.
If you have +1 Bracers of Armor of Fortification and Mage Armor, you get +4 armor bonus from the Mage Armor and nothing from the Bracers.
Point 1) Fortification requires that it be put on a piece of armor with a +1 enhancement bonus. Yes?
Point 2) Bonuses of the same type from different sources do not stack, only the highest bonus applies. Yes?
If I have +1 Leather Armor of Fortification, then I have armor that has a +3 Armor bonus. If I have Mage Armor cast on me, then I have Mage Armor for a +4 Armor Bonus. Only the +4 applies.. The fortification can't apply because it is on a piece of equipment I do not gain the benefit of because it's armor bonus is not high enough.
Your interpretation pretty much guts the whole purpose of the limitation on Bracers of Armor, as you could buy them with +5 Bonus, and then turn around and put a +1 leather armor on that had +6 worth of armor enchantments, then put on a buckler on each arm, one with a +4 AC enhancement, and the other with a +1 AC enhancement and +4 worth of armor enchantments, and have them all stack. That's not how the game is intended to work, nor is it how the rules are written. If you want the armor enchantments, you need to have them on the piece of armor that has the highest enhancement, thus keeping the +10 max in play.
Point 1) Fortification requires that it be put on a piece of armor with a +1 enhancement bonus. Yes?
Point 2) Bonuses of the same type from different sources do not stack, only the highest bonus applies. Yes?
Correct. But Fortification is not a bonus type. It stacks regardless.
If I have +1 Leather Armor of Fortification, then I have armor that has a +3 Armor bonus. If I have Mage Armor cast on me, then I have Mage Armor for a +4 Armor Bonus. Only the +4 applies.. The fortification can't apply because it is on a piece of equipment I do not gain the benefit of because it's armor bonus is not high enough.
No, that is not how it works. It may be a better system, but it is not the current one. The armor bonuses do not stack, but the special abilities do--the sole exception are Bracers of Armor.
Your interpretation pretty much guts the whole purpose of the limitation on Bracers of Armor, as you could buy them with +5 Bonus, and then turn around and put a +1 leather armor on that had +6 worth of armor enchantments,
No, Bracers of Armor specifically don't allow that to happen--they are sole case in which it does not work, however.
That's not how the game is intended to work, nor is it how the rules are written.
It is how the rules are written. They may not be great rules, but they are there.
Temper Temper. So your answer after I prove my point beyond all doubt is that math does not work in Pathfinder.
Oh, and would you please provide us with just a few of the MANY examples where the book explicitly states that the touch AC of a character rises without affecting the person normal AC.
Nowhere, I say NOWHERE in the book does it say that touch AC goes up without normal AC going up. It is a construct that you have somehow put into your own head and convinced yourself that it is rule.
Apparently nothing that anyone says, math or otherwise, can convince you that your construct is untrue. So, I won't try anymore.
"A man convinced against his will is of the same conviction still."
You are so ridiculously wrong, but somehow have managed to twist your perceptions such that you are the one true voice of reason here and I don't know how you could have possibly convinced yourself of this..
Touch AC is not based on normal AC. It's a different kind of AC calculated with different bonuses. I don't like that it can be higher than regular AC, but it can. Ghost Rager adds only to Touch AC and does nothing for normal AC. It doesn't make sense, but it doesn't have to in order to be a rule.
If I have +1 Leather Armor of Fortification, then I have armor that has a +3 Armor bonus. If I have Mage Armor cast on me, then I have Mage Armor for a +4 Armor Bonus. Only the +4 applies.. The fortification can't apply because it is on a piece of equipment I do not gain the benefit of because it's armor bonus is not high enough.
You are correct that the armor bonus does not stack.
Fortification is not an armor bonus.
Your interpretation pretty much guts the whole purpose of the limitation on Bracers of Armor, as you could buy them with +5 Bonus, and then turn around and put a +1 leather armor on that had +6 worth of armor enchantments, then put on a buckler on each arm, one with a +4 AC enhancement, and the other with a +1 AC enhancement and +4 worth of armor enchantments, and have them all stack.
No, because the bracers of armor explicitly state that they either stop working, or they prevent any other item with an armor bonus from working. So remove the bracers of armor from your example.
You're left with magic armor and 2 magic shields. Since there's only one Shield slot on Magic Items on the Body, you only benefit from one of them. So remove a shield from your example.
You're left with a guy wearing magic armor, and wearing a magic shield. No problem.
That's not how the game is intended to work, nor is it how the rules are written.
That is how it's written. Bracers of Armor shut down items with lower AC value because they specifically say so. Other items don't, because they don't say so, nothing says so, and it doesn't really make any sense.
Armor: "The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn't stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus."
A +1 energy resistance buckler still grants its energy resistance when you have the shield spell active.
A Flaming Amulet of Mighty Fists still makes your claws firey even when someone casts Greater Magic Fang on you.
A Belt of Physical Might (+2 Str/+2 Con) doesn't stop functioning when you cast Bull's Strength.
Bonuses that don't stack, don't stack. That doesn't prevent the rest of the item/spell/effect from working.
With the exception of Bracers of Armor, because they specifically say so.
Why couldn't someone benefit from the special properties (not the enhancement or shield bonuses) of two magical shields?
Why couldn't someone benefit from the special properties (not the enhancement or shield bonuses) of two magical shields?
Because you only have one Shield magic item slot.
Magic Items on the Body: "Of course, a character may carry or possess as many items of the same type as he wishes. However, additional items beyond those in the slots listed above have no effect."
You can wield two shields, but only get the magic from one of them.
Just like you can't wear two magical armors and get the otherwise-stackable bonuses from both. (+1 slick Energy resistance ceremonial robe over your +3 full plate)
stuff which is absolutely incorrect, rudely.
When you believe the "truth," and everyone else is insane, take a quick look around and reevaluate.
Why couldn't someone benefit from the special properties (not the enhancement or shield bonuses) of two magical shields?Because you only have one Shield magic item slot.
Magic Items on the Body: "Of course, a character may carry or possess as many items of the same type as he wishes. However, additional items beyond those in the slots listed above have no effect."
You can wield two shields, but only get the magic from one of them.
Just like you can't wear two magical armors and get the otherwise-stackable bonuses from both. (+1 slick Energy resistance ceremonial robe over your +3 full plate)
Huh? I don't recall shields being a body slot. Oh well. You can still enchant one as a weapon. Weapons don't have slots (thank God).
Huh? I don't recall shields being a body slot. Oh well. You can still enchant one as a weapon. Weapons don't have slots (thank God).
Yeah, thats one of Pathfinders little changes. Shields are a body slot now. In 3.5, they weren't, and you could get the benefits of two shields. (The shield bonus still didn't stack, of course, but the magical abilities did.)
Prost, I blame you for the time of my life spent reading this post =)