So the Gnome Wizard 8/ Fighter 1/ Eldritch Knight 2 in my CotCT campaign picked up permanency and decided that being tiny sized at all times would be fun. (He has the magical knack trait to make him an 11th level caster.)
The question that has arisen is whether or not being tiny sized reduces the armor bonus on mage armor to +2 or if it remains at +4. As soon as the player mentioned the idea, I informed him that I was under the impression that the armor bonus from mage armor should only be +2. He disagreed, so as a fair ruling for the session, I had him flip a coin and it fell on +2 bonus from mage armor.
Here's a copy paste of the relevant text so you can help me determine if my ruling is correct:
Size: Tiny or smaller, divide armor bonus by 2. Armor and shields for unusually big creatures, unusually little creatures, and nonhumanoid creatures (such as horses) have different costs and weights from those given on Table: Armor and Shields. Refer to the appropriate line on Table: Armor for Unusual Creatures and apply the multipliers to cost and weight for the armor type in question.
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.
The two arguments that came up at the table were as follows:
The general rule is that armors provide the specified armor bonus and mage armor says nothing to contradict that. Since the piece about unusually sized armors is under the "equipment" section, that applies only to manufactured armors of tiny or smaller size. The arguments in this camp also cited that mage armor is a force effect and therefore different.
vs
The general rule is that armors of size Tiny or smaller provide half the armor bonus and since mage armor does not contradict this and provides an armor bonus (meaning it is an armor), it suffers this same reduction when placed onto a tiny creature.
Personally, I fall into the second camp. My argument is that Mage armor specifically states the parts of the spell that make it different from armor: no armor check penalty, no spell fail, no speed reduction, and since it's a force effect, it's more effective against incorporeal creatures. For all other purposes, it follows the rules of normal armors - it doesn't stack with other armor bonuses, applies to your flat footed, but not touch armor class, etc.
This said, I do consider myself to be a pretty rules strict DM. I look at this as the best way to be fair, though I admittedly probably worry about rules too much sometimes. I should also say that as a wizard who wants to focus on making ranged touch attack and potentially utilizing a crossbow, being tiny is probably a good choice for him, regardless of whether it increases his armor (+4 mage armor = +2 ac) or simply nets him a zero armor difference (as a +2 mage armor would do). As such, I don't expect the ruling on this to change his mind about being tiny sized but I'm sure that he looked at the +2 armor class as a welcome boon.
So I ask you, forum goers, which ruling is correct?
Armor bonuses are applies as they are irregardless of size. Size is it's own separate modifier to armor class. For similar reasons, Mage Armor applied to a Colossal Dragon still only gives a +4 bonus.
As a Tiny character however he has no reach, does rubbish damage with weapons, and gods help him if he ever has to face a CMB attack.
I think that you didn't read the whole post. I know it's a long one, but I believe you missed the real question.
Straight from the core rulebook: Equipment - Armor - Armor for Unusual Creatures - Size: Tiny or smaller, divide armor bonus by 2.
Does that apply to the Mage Armor spell? That's the question.
Yeah, Mage Armor is not equipment, it is magic. It provides an Armor bonus, but is not the same thing as armor.
Mage Armor provides a +4 Armor bonus no matter what size creature it is cast on.
Spells have the same effect regardless of size. A "tiny blue creature three apples high" gets the same benefit from Mage Armor as a Titan does.
Tiny and smaller armor only granting half its normal benefit is for suits of armor only. It has no effect on anything else that grants an armor bonus. Thats why it is only ever mentioned in the Armor section of the core rulebook, as opposed to the Combat chapter where it talks about AC, or the Magic section.
Edit: Really? Apparently, saying "Smurf" in a post changes your avatar to a smurf. But only for that particular post...
Equipment is not Spells.
So does a phantom steed not follow the rules of a horse with the exception of the differences noted in the text of the spell?
Doesn't the spell flame blade not act like a scimitar, with the specific exceptions listed on the spell?
Yeah, Mage Armor is not equipment, it is magic. It provides an Armor bonus, but is not the same thing as armor.
Mage Armor provides a +4 Armor bonus no matter what size creature it is cast on.
I suppose it never actually says "Mage armor is the same thing as normal armor", so you've got a point here. However, the Mage Armor spell does say "Unlike Mundane armor..." and then lists ways in which it is different. I read the intention of that as "Mage armor acts like armor, with the following exceptions." That may not be exactly the way the rule is written, but it looks like the obvious intention to me.
If mage armor isn't treated like normal armor, then the spell would have to define a lot of other things, like whether if works on touch ac, flatfooted ac, etc. As it's currently written, it doesn't mention either of these, does this mean that mage armor doesn't apply to your touch ac, but mundane armor does? In my mind, you can't have it both ways, either it acts like normal armor, or it doesn't.
Spells have the same effect regardless of size. A "tiny blue creature three apples high" gets the same benefit from Mage Armor as a Titan does.
Tiny and smaller armor only granting half its normal benefit is for suits of armor only. It has no effect on anything else that grants an armor bonus. Thats why it is only ever mentioned in the Armor section of the core rulebook, as opposed to the Combat chapter where it talks about AC, or the Magic section.
I think it's only mentioned in the armor section because that's the most logical place to mention it. Maybe it would have made sense to mention it in the combat section also, but we've already heard the guys at Paizo say that they had to cut as much as possible before going to print, so mentioning an obscure rule that rarely comes up in two different places in the book just may not have been doable.
Edit: Really? Apparently, saying "Smurf" in a post changes your avatar to a smurf. But only for that particular post...
ABSOLUTELY AWESOME, hahaha. I like it. Now let's see if quoting the word smurf also changes your avatar for the post.
I see your logic but I think you're floggy a dead horse here. The rules you have quoted are for material objects. Tiny armour is sooo small it can't grant the "normal" benefit.
Mage Armour on the other hand is a magical effect and doesn't care what its target is and would therefore still grant a +4.
That's my take on it and how I would rule it in my games.
Obviously you can rule how you like in your games.
I think asking people to produce concrete RAW to support their opinions is pointless as no such RAW exists. That doesn't mean it isn't the case however! There are many quirky things like this in PF.
I see your logic but I think you're floggy a dead horse here. The rules you have quoted are for material objects. Tiny armour is sooo small it can't grant the "normal" benefit.
Mage Armour on the other hand is a magical effect and doesn't care what its target is and would therefore still grant a +4.That's my take on it and how I would rule it in my games.
Obviously you can rule how you like in your games.
I think asking people to produce concrete RAW to support their opinions is pointless as no such RAW exists. That doesn't mean it isn't the case however! There are many quirky things like this in PF.
Wouldn't mage armor surrounding a tiny creature also be so small it couldn't grant the "normal" benefit...?
As for the point about RAW, I completely agree. Yes, Pathfinder is a bit quirky sometimes because it's a very complex system and that's why it requires a DM to interpret the rules as intended.
In any event, thanks for your opinion. I'd like your opinion on one more quick question that I just asked in an edit - If mage armor isn't treated like normal armor, then the spell would have to define a lot of other things, like whether if works on touch ac, flatfooted ac, etc. As it's currently written, it doesn't mention either of these, does this mean that mage armor doesn't apply to your touch armor class, but mundane armor does?
Edit: Also, it's been established long ago by my friends that I'm VERY GOOD at flogging dead horses, so thanks for noticing. =) I personally blame it on being an engineer, which leads me to one of my favorite quotes: "Arguing with an engineer is a lot like mud wresting with a pig... After a while, you realize they're enjoying it a lot more than you are."
So does a phantom steed not follow the rules of a horse with the exception of the differences noted in the text of the spell?
Doesn't the spell flame blade not act like a scimitar, with the specific exceptions listed on the spell?
Those function as other things. Mage Armor does not function as armor, it simply provides an armor bonus. Not the same thing.
I suppose it never actually says "Mage armor is the same thing as normal armor", so you've got a point here. However, the Mage Armor spell does say "Unlike Mundane armor..." and then lists ways in which it is different. I read the intention of that as "Mage armor acts like armor, with the following exceptions." That may not be exactly the way the rule is written, but it looks like the obvious intention to me.
No, the intention is that Mage Armor provides an armor bonus and that's it. The only thing it has in common with actual armor is the type of AC bonus it provides.
If mage armor isn't treated like normal armor, then the spell would have to define a lot of other things, like whether if works on touch ac, flatfooted ac, etc.
No, those things are a function of the type of bonus (i.e. Armor Bonus). Armor bonuses apply to Flatfooted AC, but do not apply to Touch AC.
It's no different than Shield, which provides a Shield bonus to AC. It also does not specify because a "shield bonus" has specific rules.
As it's currently written, it doesn't mention either of these, does this mean that mage armor doesn't apply to your touch ac, but mundane armor does?
Neither apply to Touch AC because both provide an Armor bonus and Armor bonuses do not add to Touch AC.
Edit: I think the confusion is coming because you are conflating the game term "Armor bonus" with actual Armor. Anything can grant an "Armor bonus." Theoretically, some feat can grant an Armor bonus. It's just that actual armor (the equipment) is the most common source. The mechanical relevance of the term "Armor Bonus" is that it does not stack with other things noted as an "Armor Bonus" and it does not apply to Touch AC (though it does apply to Flat Footed AC).
And note that since Mage Armor is a force effect, it does apply to Incorporeal Touch attacks, despite not applying to normal Touch attacks.
|
Should it apply to your touch AC?
Against incorporeal attacks it does. This is different that a chain shirt.
Should it apply to your flat footed AC?
Yes. This is the same as a chain shirt.
I fall into the "+4" camp.
I applaud you allowing a coin flip to settle the question for that session and moving on. Alternatively, you could have assigned the bonus to be +3 until the matter was settled. This is overall a zero sum change to the PC's AC. This might still be a reasonable approach if you and your player fail to reach an accord on this issue.
Fox I applaud your use of accord.
Captain Barbosa would be proud.
I applaud you allowing a coin flip to settle the question for that session and moving on. Alternatively, you could have assigned the bonus to be +3 until the matter was settled. This is overall a zero sum change to the PC's AC. This might still be a reasonable approach if you and your player fail to reach an accord on this issue.
Yeah, coin flips are the fairest way to handle things during a session - keeps the game moving. I may consider the +3 idea - that had come to my mind, thanks.
Edit: I think the confusion is coming because you are conflating the game term "Armor bonus" with actual Armor. Anything can grant an "Armor bonus." Theoretically, some feat can grant an Armor bonus. It's just that actual armor (the equipment) is the most common source. The mechanical relevance...
Hmm, I think you may be correct mplindustries. I did some quick checking around the combat section and it does indeed indicate when to apply shield bonuses and armor bonuses, etc, so that answers those questions.
I guess I'm leaning the other direction now. As written, Mage armor should still give +4 since it provides an armor bonus, and the "armor bonus" is defined in itself. Mundane (or magical) armors are simply the most common way of receiving an armor bonus, and mundane armors of tiny size or smaller are reduced as noted in the equipment section.
It still leaves me with the question of why a tiny sized chain shirt's armor bonus is reduced, but a tiny sized mage armor's armor bonus is not. It just doesn't make much sense to me since they're both the same size and provide the same armor bonus when worn by creatures of small or lager size, which is at least 95% of the cases. I feel like this is a bit silly...
It still leaves me with the question of why a tiny sized chain shirt's armor bonus is reduced, but a tiny sized mage armor's armor bonus is not. It just doesn't make much sense to me since they're both the same size and provide the same armor bonus when worn by creatures of small or lager size, which is at least 95% of the cases. I feel like this is a bit silly...
Tiny armor would be thinner than small/medium armor. Since the armor bonus granted by armor is at least in part due to its thickness, dropping to Tiny reduces the effectiveness of the armor. If you kept it just as thick, after all, it would impede the wearer significantly.
However, Mage Armor is just magical force. There's no reason it can't remain exactly as thick no matter what size person it covers--it's not like it creatures a certain volume or force or something.
|
I applaud you allowing a coin flip to settle the question for that session and moving on. Alternatively, you could have assigned the bonus to be +3 until the matter was settled. This is overall a zero sum change to the PC's AC. This might still be a reasonable approach if you and your player fail to reach an accord on this issue.Yeah, coin flips are the fairest way to handle things during a session - keeps the game moving. I may consider the +3 idea - that had come to my mind, thanks.
Edit: I think the confusion is coming because you are conflating the game term "Armor bonus" with actual Armor. Anything can grant an "Armor bonus." Theoretically, some feat can grant an Armor bonus. It's just that actual armor (the equipment) is the most common source. The mechanical relevance...Hmm, I think you may be correct mplindustries. I did some quick checking around the combat section and it does indeed indicate when to apply shield bonuses and armor bonuses, etc, so that answers those questions.
I guess I'm leaning the other direction now. As written, Mage armor should still give +4 since it provides an armor bonus, and the "armor bonus" is defined in itself. Mundane (or magical) armors are simply the most common way of receiving an armor bonus, and mundane armors of tiny size or smaller are reduced as noted in the equipment section.
It still leaves me with the question of why a tiny sized chain shirt's armor bonus is reduced, but a tiny sized mage armor's armor bonus is not. It just doesn't make much sense to me since they're both the same size and provide the same armor bonus when worn by creatures of small or lager size, which is at least 95% of the cases. I feel like this is a bit silly...
My take on why Mage armor gives its full bonus while regular armor does not on a tiny creature is that when the material is manufactures for a character so small it would have to be made much thinner to accommodate for the size of said creature. Materials such as metal and leather are weaker the thinner they are where as a magical force effect doesn't care how big you are, it will cover you in a thin layer of force regardless. This is why walls made of metal have HP depending on how thick they are and a wall of force doesn't care how thick it is in regards to how much HP it has, it only factors in how powerful the caster who cast it was.
Edit: ninja'd
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course metal and wood and leather get weaker as they get thinner, but I guess I was transferring those constraints to a force effect, which after examining the wall of force spell for a bit, is not fair to do.
Conclusion: Mage armor provides a +4 armor bonus to all creatures, regardless of size.
Thanks for the clarification everyone who contributed.
I have to add that I think the size bonus for Tiny creature is far too small [no pun intended]. Armour bonuses aside, it would be incredible difficult to hit something tiny but that's a whole different kettle of lobsters.