Magic vestment and robes of the archmagi


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

As written, it appears they stack.

Also, I can't help but think less of people who try to assert their opinions on others and call it common sense. I'd sincerely appreciate it if we didn't do that. I'm sure it was common sense that the world was flat, since obviously we'd all fall off if it wasn't, right? Riiight?


Simply going by RAW they would stack, but by RAW it is also easy to make a strong case for the robe not to be a legal target for the spell. By RAW, it is not an armor despite providing an armor bonus, it is a wondrous item. And the exception to its target that Magic Vestment allows only covers a regular outfit of clothing, which the robe most certainly is not, since it is a magic item.

And LazarX has a point, too, as his interpretation is consistent with other cases similar to this one, for example how Magic Vestment treats regular clothing. I do not think that this can really be resolved, as there are several factors in play that are not really defined. This seems to be GM territory and/or FAQ material.

EDIT: forgot to add the ruling I would do as a GM ... I would allow the spell to be cast on the robe. Simply because robes acting just like armor for casters have been around for a long time and I remember them from ye olde days ... ;-)


Didn't we just run this discussion in another thread?

Mabven and Dunkerson are right. You can twiddle with the fluff text all you want: the crunch is that a Robe of the Archmagi provides an armour bonus, not an armour enhancement bonus. Despite Lazar's admirably long-running campaign to the contrary, there *is* such a thing as an enhancement bonus to armour, and it stacks with an armour bonus.

Argue RAI all you want. On a board like this, until we get errata otherwise, we have to go with RAW.


It's about the only reason anyone would care about these robes in the first place.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:

It's about the only reason anyone would care about these robes in the first place.

Yeah, all the other stuff, the prestige, the spell resistance, the resistance on saving throws, the enhancement to overcome spell resistance, the fact that it's essentially 5 magic items in one, that's just filler.


LazarX wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

It's about the only reason anyone would care about these robes in the first place.

Yeah, all the other stuff, the prestige, the spell resistance, the resistance on saving throws, the enhancement to overcome spell resistance, the fact that it's essentially 5 magic items in one, that's just filler.

Agreed completely. Since A) there is no prestige associated with the robes beyond the prestige associated with the wearer, B) the resistance bonus to saving throws is no better than a standard resistance item, C) the spell resistance sucks and SR is overpriced in general, D) the bonus to overcome SR is somewhat useful under the right circumstances but I wouldn't drop that much gold for it, and E) it's a lot of magic effects bundled into one magic item, which is just asking for it to be destroyed, plus you eat 3 negative levels if your alignment changes.


If we wanted to have a robe of the archmagi that was actually legitimately good and useful, it might look like this.

+2 Caster Level (60,000 gp)
+5 Resistance to saves (37,500 gp)
+5 Armor Bonus to AC (37,500 gp)
-30% for alignment restriction
Total Cost: 94,500 gp

EDIT: Lesser version might be like...

Robe of the Apprentice
+1 Caster Level (15,000 gp)
+2 Resistance to saves (6,000 gp)
+2 Armor Bonus to AC (6,000 gp)
-30% for alignment restriction
Total Cost: 18,900 gp

Robe of the Magi
+1 Caster Level (22,500 gp)
+4 Resistance to saves (16,000 gp)
+4 Armor Bonus to AC (24,000 gp)
-30% for alignment restriction
Total Cost: 43,750 gp


Personally, I'd like to see the Robes of the Archmagi be awesome. They were hands down the best mage equipment you could have in Baldur's Gate. Truly good stuff. In 3.x/PF however, they just aren't that big of a deal.


I actually think this was how they priced the robes of the archmagi, Ashiel. It certainly comes close to the listed price, a lot closer than figuring the Spell Resistance as a seperate property, and it appears that the +2 on caster level checks is worth only 10,000 gp, not 60,000 gp.

The +5 armor bonus and SR 18 are equal to a +9 armor property (81,000 gp).

The +4 resistance bonus is 16,000 gp, + 8,000 gp for secondary.

The +2 bonus on caster level checks is 10,000 gp (about the same as a feat in 3.5), +5,000 gp for secondary.

Final cost is 120,000 gp. You get a 30% reduction in the price of an item for either a specific class or a specific alignment. Which would be 80,000 gp. Book price is 75,000 gp, so I guess they just added that extra cut since the robes require a specific class (well, one of two specific classes) and a specific alignment!

Right?

Master Arminas


If the manner in which we priced it out on a previous thread is correct, then you could wind up with this:

+5 armor bonus is 25,000 gp.

+5 resistance bonus is 25,000 gp, +12,500 gp for secondary.

+2 bonus on caster level checks is 10,000 gp, +5,000 gp for secondary.

Final cost is 77,500 gp. With a 30% reduction for a specific class and a specific alignment, these robes would wind up with an adjusted cost of 54,250 gp, which I would round off to an even 55,000 gp.

Master Arminas


I think Ashiel put the + to caster level specifically as she meant it... not as a +2 to checks, but as a straight + to your level for casting spells while you were wearing the item.

Which would make it substantially more valuable and worthwhile.


master arminas wrote:

I actually think this was how they priced the robes of the archmagi, Ashiel. It certainly comes close to the listed price, a lot closer than figuring the Spell Resistance as a seperate property, and it appears that the +2 on caster level checks is worth only 10,000 gp, not 60,000 gp.

The +5 armor bonus and SR 18 are equal to a +9 armor property (81,000 gp).

The +4 resistance bonus is 16,000 gp, + 8,000 gp for secondary.

The +2 bonus on caster level checks is 10,000 gp (about the same as a feat in 3.5), +5,000 gp for secondary.

Final cost is 120,000 gp. You get a 30% reduction in the price of an item for either a specific class or a specific alignment. Which would be 80,000 gp. Book price is 75,000 gp, so I guess they just added that extra cut since the robes require a specific class (well, one of two specific classes) and a specific alignment!

Right?

Master Arminas

Actually, I wasn't trying to price the robe as-is. I was trying to price it as could have been. I've reverse engineered the price before and posted it on these very boards, some time a while back, to help someone who was trying to understand them or some such.

Instead, I was using something that would legitimately be appealing, including a +1 to +2 caster level, not just to overcome SR but actual caster level (so your spells are a bit harder to dispel, have a little more reach, last a little longer, etc), using the value of +1 caster level, which is 15,000 gp base (squared as is customary for higher modifiers).

A robe that granted a +5 armor bonus like actual armor (which could be enhanced futher), +5 resistance, and +2 caster level would be something I would consider worthwhile at the levels that this becomes feasible to create (I say create because finding one randomly or buying one is not very likely). The spell resistance is kind of lame because it doesn't scale with your level like a spell resistance spell does, and stays stuck at a 55% chance to overcome at 8th level, when it'll be out of your price range near that level. Waste of money against everything except minion-caster spamming, and there are simple spells you could have invested in that nerf minion overload (stuff like resist energy and death ward).

Ultimately the robes as-is are very underwhelming, and rather disappointing for being the mage equivalent of the holy avenger. The only thing they have going for them at the moment that really makes them stand out at all is the fact they grant an actual armor bonus instead of a deflection, natural, or enhancement bonus.


DreamAtelier wrote:

I think Ashiel put the + to caster level specifically as she meant it... not as a +2 to checks, but as a straight + to your level for casting spells while you were wearing the item.

Which would make it substantially more valuable and worthwhile.

That is correct Dream Atelier. You get a cookie! ^-^

Also, if anyone is curious, you can determine the value of +1 caster level by reverse engineering the ioun stone that gives +1 caster level (remembering to divide the cost in half, since ioun stones cost twice as much as a slotted item).

Using the standard method of squaring bonuses to determine values, it would be fair to assume the following costs for caster level bonuses.

+1 / 15,000 gp
+2 / 60,000 gp
+3 / 135,000 gp
+4 / 240,000 gp
+5 / 375,000 gp
+6 / 540,000 gp
+7 / 735,000 gp
+8 / 960,000 gp
+9 / 1,215,000 gp
+10 / 1,500,000 gp

Looks about right to me.


Hmm... While that seems about in line with the cost of a Moon Circlet (which provides a variable bonus depending on the phase of the moon, from +2 to -2), I wonder how it stacks up with the Prayer Bead of Karma?

We're told that it's worth 20,000 GP of the price of the prayer strand, and it provides a +4 bonus for a single 10 minute period each day. 240,000 as your guess, divided by 5 (for the once per day use) comes out at 48,000... class restriction of a divine caster would reduce that by 30%, to 34,600. So restricting it to a 10 minute duration would have to be considered worth another 14,600, to make the pricing fit.

Not sure if that's reasonable or not...


In my opinion, there is no such thing as enhancement bonus to AC. A +2 chain shirt give you +6 armor bonus, not +4 armor bonus and +2 enhancement. If you whear a +2 Studded leather and cast mage armor on yourself, you get only a +5 to you armor from the leather, not +4 for the spell and +2 for the enchant.


DreamAtelier wrote:

Hmm... While that seems about in line with the cost of a Moon Circlet (which provides a variable bonus depending on the phase of the moon, from +2 to -2), I wonder how it stacks up with the Prayer Bead of Karma?

We're told that it's worth 20,000 GP of the price of the prayer strand, and it provides a +4 bonus for a single 10 minute period each day. 240,000 as your guess, divided by 5 (for the once per day use) comes out at 48,000... class restriction of a divine caster would reduce that by 30%, to 34,600. So restricting it to a 10 minute duration would have to be considered worth another 14,600, to make the pricing fit.

Not sure if that's reasonable or not...

Prayer Beads are a bit odd. They don't emulate any spells, and have a duration and effect that's highly unusual. It is very likely that the prayer beads fall into the estimate based on value rather than mechanical consideration. For example, there is no mechanic that I've been able to deduce that determines the cost for a bag of holding, other than the designers looked at it, compared its general usefulness to other items and assigned an ad-hoc price.


Dekalinder wrote:
In my opinion, there is no such thing as enhancement bonus to AC. A +2 chain shirt give you +6 armor bonus, not +4 armor bonus and +2 enhancement. If you whear a +2 Studded leather and cast mage armor on yourself, you get only a +5 to you armor from the leather, not +4 for the spell and +2 for the enchant.

Enhancement bonuses raise other values. For example, the reason mage armor doesn't stack with a +2 leather armor is because the enhancement bonus increases the armor bonus of the leather armor to +4, but they are still armor bonuses. In this case you are getting an armor bonus from two different sources (item, spell). In the case of the robes, the robes themselves have an armor bonus. Then a spell (magic vestment) can be applied to increase the armor bonus from the robe, because magic vestment can be cast on clothing as well as normal armor.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Enhancement bonuses raise other values.

Do they? So the enhancement bonus on a magic sword is raising the '0 attack bonus' and '0 damage bonus' that most weapons otherwise have?

Again, this is one possible interpretation (which makes more sense for armor enhancements than it does for weapon enhancements), but not specifically so stated in the rules that I know of (or anyone has cited).


From Dictionary.com, reformatted with 2 definitions per line, so as to take up less space:

Regular wrote:


reg·u·lar
   [reg-yuh-ler] Show IPA
adjective
1. usual; normal; customary: to put something in its regular place. 2. evenly or uniformly arranged; symmetrical: regular teeth.
3. characterized by fixed principle, uniform procedure, etc.: regular income. 4. recurring at fixed times; periodic: regular bus departures; regular meals.
5. rhythmical: regular breathing. 6. occurring with normal frequency, as menses or bowel movements.
7. having regular menses or bowel movements. 8. adhering to a rule or procedure; methodical: regular habits; to be regular in one's diet.
9. observing fixed times or habits; habitual: a regular customer. 10. orderly; well-ordered: a regular life.
11. conforming to some accepted rule, discipline, etc. 12. carried out in accordance with an accepted principle or rule; formally correct: a regular session of the court.
13. qualified to engage in an occupation or profession; legitimate; proper: I suspected the man wasn't a regular doctor. 14. Informal .
a. real or genuine; down-to-earth; decent: a regular guy. b. absolute; thoroughgoing: a regular rascal.
15. (of a flower) having the members of each of its floral circles or whorls alike in form and size. 16. Grammar . conforming to the most prevalent pattern of formation, inflection, construction, etc.
17. Mathematics .
a. governed by one law throughout. b. (of a polygon) having all sides and angles equal.
c. (of a polyhedron) having all faces congruent regular polygons, and all solid angles congruent. d. (of a topological space) having the property that, corresponding to each point and a closed set not containing the point, there are two disjoint open sets, one containing the point, the other containing the closed set.
e. (of a function of a complex variable) analytic ( def. 5a ) .
18. Military . noting or belonging to the permanently organized, or standing, army of a state. 19. International Law . noting soldiers recognized as legitimate combatants in warfare.
20. Ecclesiastical . subject to a religious rule, or belonging to a religious or monastic order ( opposed to secular): regular clergy. 21. U.S. Politics . of, pertaining to, or selected by the recognized agents of a political party: the regular ticket.
22. (of coffee) containing an average amount of milk or cream.

Not one of the adjective definitions of regular means not special in any way, not magic, not expensive, or not imbued with multiple qualities. So, in what way is the robe of the archmagi excluded from the category of "regular" clothing?


CBDunkerson wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Enhancement bonuses raise other values.

Do they? So the enhancement bonus on a magic sword is raising the '0 attack bonus' and '0 damage bonus' that most weapons otherwise have?

Again, this is one possible interpretation (which makes more sense for armor enhancements than it does for weapon enhancements), but not specifically so stated in the rules that I know of (or anyone has cited).

Reductio ad absurdum

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Enhancement bonuses raise other values.

Do they? So the enhancement bonus on a magic sword is raising the '0 attack bonus' and '0 damage bonus' that most weapons otherwise have?

Remember that all magic weapons have two enhancement bonuses which are non stacking. An enhancement bonus to hit from being a masterwork weapon. And the enhancement bonus to hit and damage from the plus magic. The two enhancement bonuses to hit, overlap and do not stack as a result.

It does mean that if you swing your Holy Avenger inside an Anti-Magic field, you still have that +1 enhancement bonus to hit.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
So, in what way is the robe of the archmagi excluded from the category of "regular" clothing?

That is obviously open to interpretation and yours is as valid as any other, since the term regular is not specified in the rules. Quoting a dictionary does not prove your point, really. And that is without pointing out that the first definition in your list, which means the most pertinent, actually says "usual" or "normal". There might be worlds where a Robe of the Archmagi is part of the normal attire, or a usual piece of clothing; in most it will not be.

By the way, if you actually read the spell, you should notice it states:

D20PFSRD wrote:
An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

You cannot cast the spell on a piece of clothing by RAW. Only on an outfit of regular clothing. And while regular might not be defined, you will find outfits in the equipment section. But you will not find a Robe of the Archmagi there. Going strictly by RAW, the robe is probably not a legal target for the spell.

You can rule that the robe counts as an outfit of regular clothing. I would allow it. But anyone saying they would not are not necessarily wrong. As I said, GM territory and FAQ-worthy.


All I have to say at this point, that if you have a desire for the spell and the item to not stack, you are going to parse the descriptions of both in multiple erroneous ways to make it so. RAW says it works, the dictionary says it works, in PFS it works. It is in no way game breaking, (full caster level plus item results in a total armor bonus (base + enhancement) two greater than bracers of armor +8. I definitely do not think this is game breaking for a combination of a 75k gp wondrous item plus a 3rd level spell cast at 20th caster level. To achieve this combination without a full-caster level cleric/oracle's help, you would need to spend 3k for a single use potion of the spell. Thus, there is no reason to assume that RAI is out of sync with RAW on the issue.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Quite frankly Mabven, RAW doesn't say very much. RAW is just words on a page. My conclusions are just as much drawn from RAW as yours. I can quote RAW to support my conclusions as you have for yours. Quoting RAW does not give an automatic blessing to one's point for this reason. Interpretation will always be the sticky wicket.

I'm not going into the "it's not game-breaking" debate. The point is consistent application of rules. Both WOTC and Paizo went to great lengths to address bonus stacking and built items certain ways to address those concerns. If I see two possible ways of reading RAW, I will always go to the strict way when it comes to magic. That's why in my games, the martials are there in high level scenarios for reasons other than being the comedic sidekick to the all mighty mage. It's why I'm not plagued with things such as "15 minute adventuring days.

It's why you won't see Self Recharging Staves of Wishing, or Swords of Constant True Strike in my campaigns, although by "RAW" the mechanics for pricing them can clearly be worked out.

RAW is a resource. It can be used for good even-handed conduct of games in a variety of styles that gamers and GMs can live with. It can just as easily be horribly manipulated by bad examples of both.


Mabven,

How does PFS say that stacking these items works? PFS tops out at 12th level, with a character wealth of 108,000 gp, correct? The robes of the archmagi has a price of 75,000 gp; and you aren't supposed to spend more than 1/4 (25%) of your funds on a single item. So how does this even come up in PFS play?

Master Arminas

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum

If you're going to join the chorus of people advancing their case by insult rather than reason might I suggest that you at least look up what that phrase actually means... because you are using it incorrectly.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
LazarX wrote:
I can quote RAW to support my conclusions as you have for yours.

And yet... you HAVEN'T.

It may just be me, but when I see people making claims and then repeatedly side-stepping challenges to back them up with references... I do begin to suspect that maybe there aren't references to back those claims.

For instance, I'm pretty sure that your claim that Robes of the Archmagi provide an "enhancement" bonus to AC is incorrect.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I can quote RAW to support my conclusions as you have for yours.

And yet... you HAVEN'T.

It may just be me, but when I see people making claims and then repeatedly side-stepping challenges to back them up with references... I do begin to suspect that maybe there aren't references to back those claims.

For instance, I'm pretty sure that your claim that Robes of the Archmagi provide an "enhancement" bonus to AC is incorrect.

I"M NOT the one making that claim. What I have said is that the robes of the archmagi already have the equivalent of magic vestment enchanted on them, a magical enchantment which enhancing the armor bonus of the robes which would normally be of value zero. My argument is that since magic vestment is the equivalent to the enchantment already on the robes, it does not stack. Even though magic vestment is a divine spell as opposed to arcane there is no mention of any divine bonus being granted by said spell.

I have never and will never use the term enhancement bonus to AC. There is no such thing. The proper terms refer to enchantments which enhance an Armor (or other bonus) to AC thus yielding a total armor (or other bonus). I have never said that there was a distinct and separate type of bonus specifically called "enhancement bonus to AC". And I would challenge anyone to find that exact text in Paizo RAW.


I have already quoted the rulebook on this issue, I will quote it again:

Armor Class wrote:
Enhancement Bonuses: Enhancement bonuses apply to your armor to increase the armor bonus it provides.

You keep saying there is no enhancement bonus to AC. This is correct. There is enhancement bonus to armor bonus, which is a constituent of AC.


Lazar is correct. There is no ""enhancement bonus to AC". I covered that on page 1, IIRC.

The magic vestment spell provides an enhancement bonus to the armor or shield bonus. The issue with this situation is that by RAW the robe is qualifying as "regular clothing" is hard to call.

If I told people I wanted to charge them thousands of GP for a "regular robe" I don't think I would have many buyers.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
LazarX wrote:
I have never said that there was a distinct and separate type of bonus specifically called "enhancement bonus to AC". And I would challenge anyone to find that exact text in Paizo RAW.

I already cited it. Core rulebook, chapter 8, page 179;

"Your AC is equal to the following:
10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier +
other modifiers"

and

"Other Modifiers: Many other factors modify your AC.

Enhancement Bonuses: Enhancement bonuses apply to
your armor to increase the armor bonus it provides."

No doubt you will now say that this means it is just an additional armor bonus, but clearly there is a distinction between the "armor" in the equation and the "enhancement" under 'other modifiers'. Two enhancement bonuses do not stack. Two armor bonuses do not stack. An enhancement bonus and an armor bonus DO.


There is an enhancement bonus to armor, an enhancement bonus to natural armor, and an enhancement bonus to shields.

There is not a direct enhancement bonus to AC in the same manner in which there is a deflection bonus to AC or natural armor bonus to AC.

That is what Lazar is saying.

That is supported by:

Quote:
Enhancement Bonuses: Enhancement bonuses apply to your armor to increase the armor bonus it provides.

That quote is directly saying it increases the armor bonus, which is a specific bonus applied to AC.


"An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell."-magic vestment-

Depending upon how I read the sentence it seems to be either defining regular clothing or altering the clothing to yield no ac bonus. Either way from my perspective it doesn't look like it would work according to RAW.


Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:

"An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell."-magic vestment-

Depending upon how I read the sentence it seems to be either defining regular clothing or altering the clothing to yield no ac bonus. Either way from my perspective it doesn't look like it would work according to RAW.

This.

Even if Robes of the Acrhmagi counted as "Regular Clothing," then by RAW it would "count as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of [Magic Vestment]."

So, if a 12th level caster were to cat Magic vestment on a Robe of the Archmagi, the Robe would count as having a +0 armour bonus, which would be raised to +3 by Magic Vestment.
So the Robe would provide both a +5 armour bonus and a +3 armour bonus (an odd occurrence to be sure) that wouldn't stack.

Personally, I think that Robes of the Archmagi are not regular, usual, normal, or customary in the least. I think they are quite un-usual, and if I were to come across a village with every (or, in fact, any) peasant wearing a Robe of the Archmagi, I would find that rather ir-regular.


I would argue that since they provide an armor bonus, they would be treated as armor by magic vestment - and are thus a valid target. I think the alternative case would be arguing that magic vestment only applies to armors listed in the equipment section which has all kinds of issues when we talk about exotic armors from later books.

Honestly I'd come into this thread 99% certain that they didn't stack, but I can't see any real justification for that belief based on the RAW. I find it sort of interesting - and not game breaking. Robes of the archmagi suck anyway, might as well let them be good for something if your cleric friend will help you out.

Such a terrible and over priced item.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Peter Stewart wrote:

I would argue that since they provide an armor bonus, they would be treated as armor by magic vestment - and are thus a valid target. I think the alternative case would be arguing that magic vestment only applies to armors listed in the equipment section which has all kinds of issues when we talk about exotic armors from later books.

Everyday clothing applies an armor bonus.... an armor bonus of zero. Which is what the robes of the archmagi would give you if you walked into an Anti-Magic field. The magic vestment spell was specifically created so that you'd have clerics with some protection if they did not wear armor. It has a secondary use of providing an enchantment to nonmagical armor.

The Archmagi robe's ac value is due to a magical enchantment already applied to them, since magic vestment is the same kind of enchantment it would not stack.


Lazar they are not the same type. One provides an armor bonus. The other provides an enhancement bonus. I am on the fence about it not working, but it is not due to the types of bonus. If that were the only factor they would stack.

The issue is that a magical robe is not armor or a shield. It is also difficult to qualify it as regular clothing. Magic items basically duplicate the effect of the spell used to create them. The spell(mage armor) that helps create the robe provides an armor bonus and so the robes by RAW.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

Lazar they are not the same type. One provides an armor bonus. The other provides an enhancement bonus. I am on the fence about it not working, but it is not due to the types of bonus. If that were the only factor they would stack.

It's the exact same thing. Unlike what you keep mistakenly call it, what the robes enchantment and the mv spell provide are identical in form. An enhancement to the Armor bonus to Armor Class of the robes. Again, there is no such thing as direct, separate, enhancement bonus to Armor Class. And I challenge you to find the RAW that says otherwise.


Peter Stewart wrote:
I would argue that since they provide an armor bonus, they would be treated as armor by magic vestment - and are thus a valid target.

There are several things that provide an AC bonus without being armor. The spell Mage Armor, Bracers of Armor and so on. From that we can infer that providing an armor bonus does not necessarily make something armor. I believe that the robes are actually meant to work like that, based on gaming history, but their write-up does not really spell it out, and RAW does not support your point.

On a tangent, does regular clothing provide an armor bonus of 0? The only reference that I have found is in the text of Magic Vestment:

PF20SRD wrote:
An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

And it specifically says that it is only for the purpose of this spell. Did I miss a more general rule somewhere?


LazarX wrote:
Again, there is no such thing as direct, separate, enhancement bonus to Armor Class. And I challenge you to find the RAW that says otherwise.

Relax, wraithstrike is actually backing you on that issue (which is not that noteworthy because you are simply correct).

The difference lies in the perception of the robes. You believe:

Armor bonus to AC: 0 (inherent armor) + 5 (enhancement bonus)

Others believe:

Armor bonus to AC: 5 (inherent armor) (which would allow gaining an enhancement bonus)

Your interpretation is based on Magic Vestment, others just read the text for the robe which only states an armor bonus, not an enhancement bonus. If you just read the RAW, the robe just provides an armor bonus without any mention of an enhancement bonus. Of course, by RAW it is hard to justify the robe as a valid target for the spell, too.


LazarX wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Lazar they are not the same type. One provides an armor bonus. The other provides an enhancement bonus. I am on the fence about it not working, but it is not due to the types of bonus. If that were the only factor they would stack.

It's the exact same thing. Unlike what you keep mistakenly call it, what the robes enchantment and the mv spell provide are identical in form. An enhancement to the Armor bonus to Armor Class of the robes. Again, there is no such thing as direct, separate, enhancement bonus to Armor Class. And I challenge you to find the RAW that says otherwise.

An armor bonus to AC is not the same thing as enhancement bonus.

I never said there was "direct, separate, enhancement bonus to Armor Class".

My explanation is here.

In short the spell is designed to give an armor enhancement bonus or a shield enhancement bonus depending on what it is being applied to.


Ok, so let's say you have +1 breastplate. You have a +6 armor bonus, with a +1 enhancement bonus to your armor bonus, for a total of +7 armor bonus.

Let's say you get mage armor cast on you for some reason, like i dunno, you're fighting wraiths or something.

If you follow the same logic you're applying now, you would get the +4 armor bonus to AC from mage armor, and the +1 enhancement bonus to your regular armor, because the armor bonus from mage armor and the enhancement to armor bonus are the different bonuses and so stack. This is not the case, because the enhancement bonus is to the armor and not the mage armor, and certainly not directly to you. (I know it's already been corrected, but I can't help reiterating that there is no such thing as an enhancement bonus to AC, just to other things that factor into AC, i.e. shield, armor, nat. armor etc)

Assuming that, because mage armor is cited in the creation of the robe, the robe essentially has mage armor permanently affixed to it, it functions like mage armor. This is to say, it's a spell and not a piece of armor, so an enhancement bonus could not be applied to it. You could apply an enhancement bonus to the robe, but not to the magical field surrounding it.

To restate: if you had a permanent mage armor on you, you could not cast magic vestments on it, and I'm thinking that's how the robes function, especially since it's how bracers of armor work (not just because they're not clothing, but because the magical barrier and not the bracers themselves is what is imparting the armor bonus.)


That is quite a stretch based solely on the spell used to enchant the item. There are plenty of magic items which use a spell in item creation, yet do not behave identically to the spell.


Mabven is right. Another magic item, the Bracers of Armor actually have this included in their write-up. If the Robe of the Archmagi was written like that, the discussion would have been shorter ... ;-)


Not identically, sure, but it's also a bit of a stretch to say that the creation process would harden the robes to behave as regular armor instead of creating a magical barrier around the wearer like the spell used in creating the item. I'm more thinking in terms of RAI; as I said, I THINK this is what they had in mind, but it's ambiguous. It's hard to argue RAW since the write up for the Robe of the Archmagi doesn't clarify. This is just the conclusion that my logic has lead me to.

Also, since the bracers of armor function in this regard more closely to the robes than any other item, it makes sense to refer to them in terms of how it interacts with magic vestments.

Ultimately, I'd say if this is for society play, I'd play it safe and assume "no." If it's a home game, I'd ask my gm and make my case, and go with whatever they decide.


The robes say they provide a Armor bonus, not an enhancement bonus to armor. Magic Vestment give an enhancement bonus to armor. So technically they should stack no problem.

Magic Vestment says if applied to normal clothing the clothing provides no AC bonus. The robes are not normal clothing as they do provide a AC bonus bonus for armor. So I see no reason why you couldn't enhance that AC bonus with Magic Vestment.

I could see an argument against stacking based on the magic vestment only working with suits of armor, shield and normal clothing. Since the Robe of the Archmagi is not normal clothing the spell wouldn't work. That could be why Hero Lab doesn't stack Magic Vestment with Robe of Archmagi. That makes sense to me if you going by RAW.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
voska66 wrote:

The robes say they provide a Armor bonus, not an enhancement bonus to armor. Magic Vestment give an enhancement bonus to armor. So technically they should stack no problem.

Great logic... but the premise is flawed. Magic Vestment provides an enhancement to an Armor Class Bonus. Not some unique kind of enhancement that's distinct from an armor bonus to armor class.

And again there is no such thing as an enhancement bonus to armor class. What the magic and the spells both provide is an enhancement to an armor bonus to armor class. The distinction is the whole story.


LazarX, you can continue to state that there is no such thing as enhancement bonus to armor class, but that is a straw man. What we are talking about is an enhancement bonus to armor bonus, which certainly does exist, no matter how many times you repeat the straw man fallacy.


LazarX wrote:
What the magic and the spells both provide is an enhancement to an armor bonus to armor class.

You have yet to prove the robes are providing this. They specifically say armor bonus, and the spell used in their creation says armor bonus. You can keep repeating it, but until can prove that Paizo either used the wrong spell for the purpose of creating the robes or the robes just have a typo it wont matter.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
LazarX wrote:
What the magic and the spells both provide is an enhancement to an armor bonus to armor class.
You have yet to prove the robes are providing this. They specifically say armor bonus, and the spell used in their creation says armor bonus. You can keep repeating it, but until can prove that Paizo either used the wrong spell for the purpose of creating the robes or the robes just have a typo it wont matter.

Proving it is easy. If you hit the robes with a rod of cancellation or a disjunction what you have is normal clothes with an armor bonus of zero. The robes don't provide an armor bonus of 5 because of their physical construction. Ergo they are providing an armor bonus because of anunnamed magical effect that is like either a mage armor or a magic vestment effect. In either case, the magic vestment spell would not stack with either.

51 to 100 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Magic vestment and robes of the archmagi All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.