| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just hit FAQ and move on. It's pretty clear people are entrenched in their views and nobody's going to change their mind.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Just hit FAQ and move on. It's pretty clear people are entrenched in their views and nobody's going to change their mind.
+1
There isn't any words anyone could say that makes me thing Mage Armor makes armor as opposed to an armor bonus. The "it is armor" camp need a developer posting that they didn't make it clear and will look into publishing errata to change my mind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does Ablative Barrier create armor? What happens when Ablative Barrier or Mage Armor is cast on an Eidolon? What happens if an Eidolon wears Bracers of Armor? What happens when a Monk is the target of Mage Armor or Ablative Barrier or puts on Bracers of Armor?
As for Magic Vestment working on clothes, it ordinarily wouldn't. Clothes had to be specifically called out to work with that particular spell. That Magical Vestment works on clothes, because the spell specifically says clothes count as armor for the purposes of the spell, does not mean that clothes are "armor" in the more general sense (and in fact this type of mechanic generally implies the opposite).
After all, if clothes were ordinarily armor, Monks couldn't wear any clothes.
As for Magic Vestment working on clothes, it ordinarily wouldn't. Clothes had to be specifically called out to work with that particular spell. That Magical Vestment works on clothes, because the spell specifically says clothes count as armor for the purposes of the spell, does not mean that clothes are "armor" in the more general sense (and in fact this type of mechanic generally implies the opposite.
It doesn't say that about clothes...
It says clothes count as armor that grants no AC bonus.
I'm starting to think that line means that Magic Vestment doesn't work on clothes at all.
Well, unless none plus one equals one. But, yall seem insistent that it doesn't.
Does Ablative Barrier create armor? What happens when Ablative Barrier or Mage Armor is cast on an Eidolon? What happens if an Eidolon wears Bracers of Armor? What happens when a Monk is the target of Mage Armor or Ablative Barrier or puts on Bracers of Armor?
Yeah, looks like it. Note the material component. The fact it creates layers of protection. That it gives an armor bonus.
The eidolon's AC probably goes up.
The eidolon's AC probably goes up.
The monk's AC probably goes up.
Since none of the listed armors are ever 'worn', they do not impose penalties to things that would incur penalties for wearing armor.
(And no, bracers of armor don't give an armor bonus, they create the armor which gives the bonus, per their description)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for Magic Vestment working on clothes, it ordinarily wouldn't. Clothes had to be specifically called out to work with that particular spell. That Magical Vestment works on clothes, because the spell specifically says clothes count as armor for the purposes of the spell, does not mean that clothes are "armor" in the more general sense (and in fact this type of mechanic generally implies the opposite.It doesn't say that about clothes...
It says clothes count as armor that grants no AC bonus.
I'm starting to think that line means that Magic Vestment doesn't work on clothes at all.
Well, unless none plus one equals one. But, yall seem insistent that it doesn't.
And the functional difference is what? The important part of that line isn't "grants no AC bonus". The important part of the line is "for the purposes of this spell".
If clothes aren't ordinarily considered armor (which they aren't), it's unsurprising that they don't grant an AC bonus; this is unremarkable.
Clothes - No impact on AC. N/A armor bonus. Not armor. Not enhanceable as armor.
Clothes for Magic Vestments - +0 armor bonus. Armor for the purpose of the spell. Enhanceable as armor.
Clothes work fine for this spell because the spell says cloths work fine for it. I'm not sure what the confusion is about here. You can't use Magic Vestment on a book, even if you're using that book as a shield. Why? Because a book isn't a shield. It doesn't provide any Shield bonus to AC (not even +0, just N/A). However, if the spell had a line saying, "For the purposes of this spell, a book counts as a shield with no bonus to AC", then you could enchant a book with MV and use it as a shield.
This doesn't change the fact that a book is not a shield. Likewise, clothing is not armor - it just counts as armor for the limited purpose of being enchanted by Magic Vestment.
And the functional difference is what? The important part of that line isn't "grants no AC bonus". The important part of the line is "for the purposes of this spell".
If clothes aren't ordinarily considered armor (which they aren't), it's unsurprising that they don't grant an AC bonus; this is unremarkable.
Clothes - No impact on AC. N/A armor bonus. Not armor. Not enhanceable as armor.
Clothes for Magic Vestments - +0 armor bonus. Armor for the purpose of the spell. Enhanceable as armor.
Clothes work fine for this spell because the spell says cloths work fine for it. I'm not sure what the confusion is about here. You can't use Magic Vestment on a book, even if you're using that book as a shield. Why? Because a book isn't a shield. It doesn't provide any Shield bonus to AC (not even +0, just N/A). However, if the spell had a line saying, "For the purposes of this spell, a book counts as a shield with no bonus to AC", then you could enchant a book with MV and use it as a shield.
This doesn't change the fact that a book is not a shield. Likewise, clothing is not armor - it just counts as armor for the limited purpose of being enchanted by Magic Vestment.
You're stuck on arguing something that everyone already agrees on, and not hearing what is being said.
We all know a book isn't a shield, and that clothes aren't armor.
But the 'no armor bonus' is important, because if you cannot modify a - then a 'no armor bonus' cannot be increased with an enhancement bonus, whether it is considered armor or not.
Nothing about being armor or not being armor changes the difference between a zero and a none entry.
If none plus one is none, and zero plus one is one... then the spell treats clothes as if they have 'none' ac, and a none plus one equals none. Meaning you could enchant them, but it would still provide none ac.
Unless that rule isn't universal after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does Ablative Barrier create armor? What happens when Ablative Barrier or Mage Armor is cast on an Eidolon? What happens if an Eidolon wears Bracers of Armor? What happens when a Monk is the target of Mage Armor or Ablative Barrier or puts on Bracers of Armor?Yeah, looks like it. Note the material component. The fact it creates layers of protection. That it gives an armor bonus.
See, now we're moving the goalposts. It was said that Mage Armor counts as armor because armor is in the very name of the spell. Plus, it grants an armor bonus.
But Ablative Barrier uses metal from a shield, so shouldn't it count as a shield and not armor then? Mage Armor just uses cured leather, so how does that alter how this plays out?
Also, since Mage Hand has hand in the name, does that mean if I cast it I have a third hand available to TWF with Armor Spikes and a Longspear? Or would it only count as a hand if the material component was like a finger or something?
Does Bullet Shield count as a shield? Shield is in the name, but it grants a deflection bonus. What about Shield of Faith? Are either of these spells enhanceable with Magic Vestment?
Or can we agree that perhaps the name and material components aren't sufficient to make that determination. In fact, if we rely on things like names of a spell, it actually leads to somewhat contradictory results. So we're left with the effect.
Certainly Mage Armor provides an armor bonus. But then we have to figure out if simply having an armor bonus makes something "armor". I'm not sure the rules say anywhere that "if something provides an armor bonus, it is armor" anymore than they say that "if something provides a shield bonus, it is a shield". After all, an Eidolon isn't a shield, even though it can provide a shield bonus. A PC isn't a valid target for Magic Vestment just because the PC is utilizing Snapping Turtle Style. So why is something that provides an armor bonus necessarily armor?
And the functional difference is what? The important part of that line isn't "grants no AC bonus". The important part of the line is "for the purposes of this spell".
If clothes aren't ordinarily considered armor (which they aren't), it's unsurprising that they don't grant an AC bonus; this is unremarkable.
Clothes - No impact on AC. N/A armor bonus. Not armor. Not enhanceable as armor.
Clothes for Magic Vestments - +0 armor bonus. Armor for the purpose of the spell. Enhanceable as armor.
Clothes work fine for this spell because the spell says cloths work fine for it. I'm not sure what the confusion is about here. You can't use Magic Vestment on a book, even if you're using that book as a shield. Why? Because a book isn't a shield. It doesn't provide any Shield bonus to AC (not even +0, just N/A). However, if the spell had a line saying, "For the purposes of this spell, a book counts as a shield with no bonus to AC", then you could enchant a book with MV and use it as a shield.
This doesn't change the fact that a book is not a shield. Likewise, clothing is not armor - it just counts as armor for the limited purpose of being enchanted by Magic Vestment.
You're stuck on arguing something that everyone already agrees on, and not hearing what is being said.
We all know a book isn't a shield, and that clothes aren't armor.
But the 'no armor bonus' is important, because if you cannot modify a - then a 'no armor bonus' cannot be increased with an enhancement bonus, whether it is considered armor or not.
Nothing about being armor or not being armor changes the difference between a zero and a none entry.
If none plus one is none, and zero plus one is one... then the spell treats clothes as if they have 'none' ac, and a none plus one equals none. Meaning you could enchant them, but it would still provide none ac.
Unless that rule isn't universal after all.
It's a terminology issue. None/Zero is different than - or N/A. Clothing is ordinarily - or N/A. This spell let's you treat it as None/Zero.
And I'm still not sure how you're convinced you don't "wear" Mage Armor or the effect of Bracers of Armor.
Snapping Turtle Style is proving the shield bonus, and a style isn't physical, so isn't a valid target of a touch spell.
Shield Ally, like all things dealing with the summoner, is dumb. There is no listed source for the bonus. Shield Ally, the ability itself must be the source, then. And an ability isn't physical, and again thus isn't a valid target of a touch spell.
Even weirder, Greater Shield Ally is SU and Shield Ally is Ex. What is the deal with that? >.>
As to whether or not all things that provide armor bonus are armor... depends on what this line means to you:
Armor Bonus
An armor bonus applies to Armor Class and is granted by armor or by a spell or magical effect that mimics armor.
Snapping Turtle Style is proving the shield bonus, and a style isn't physical, so isn't a valid target of a touch spell.
Shield Ally, like all things dealing with the summoner, is dumb. There is no listed source for the bonus. Shield Ally, the ability itself must be the source, then. And an ability isn't physical, and again thus isn't a valid target of a touch spell.
Even weirder, Greater Shield Ally is SU and Shield Ally is Ex. What is the deal with that? >.>
As to whether or not all things that provide armor bonus are armor... depends on what this line means to you:
Armor Bonus
An armor bonus applies to Armor Class and is granted by armor or by a spell or magical effect that mimics armor.
I am a physical thing and I am providing the shield bonus by using STS. Or maybe it's my free hand that is applying the shield bonus, which seems more likely. Just like my Eidolon is providing the shield bonus simply by being near me - but the Eidolon is the thing providing the shield bonus as is implied by the wording of the ability.
As for that quotation, what it says to me is that things that provide armor bonuses are either 1. armor or 2. things that mimic armor, even though they are not armor. If spells that mimic armor were actually armor, the second category wouldn't need to exist. Plus, we've never determined which category of armor Mage Armor would fall under.
This is interesting, because it appears that the spell counts as ghost touch, but the bracers don't, even though they specify the same "invisible but tangible field of force".
Actually they do. It's just not listed in the description for bracers of armor, but rather in the combat chapter instead - but it does cover ALL force effects in a catch all.
Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor blah blah blah. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.
|
I'm note sold on the idea that: "Unlike mundane armor, mage armor entails no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction." translates to ACP: -, ASF: -, or Speed: 20ft/15ft, (rather than ACP 0, ASF: 0, Speed: 30ft/20ft).
Under Undead, it says "No Constitution score. Undead use their Charisma score in place of their Constitution score when calculating hit points, Fortitude saves, and any special ability that relies on Constitution (such as when calculating a breath weapon’s DC)."
Now compare it to "Arcane Spell Failure Chance: Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component. Arcane spellcasters face the possibility of arcane spell failure if they’re wearing armor. Bards can wear light armor and use shields without incurring any arcane spell failure chance for their bard spells."
Clearly the Light Armor still has an ASF, it just doesn't affect the Bard while casting Bard Spells.
Now lets look at Barkskin: "Barkskin toughens a creature’s skin. The effect grants a +2 enhancement bonus to the creature’s existing natural armor bonus. This enhancement bonus increases by 1 for every three caster levels above 3rd, to a maximum of +5 at 12th level. The enhancement bonus provided by barkskin stacks with the target’s natural armor bonus, but not with other enhancement bonuses to natural armor. A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0."
It could really go either way, and there is no default "correct" way so far.
|
|
Plus, we've never determined which category of armor Mage Armor would fall under.
Do we really need to? It doesn't affect your sleep or reduce your speed. It can not be made out of other materials like Mithral. Based on the first two alone, it can not be Medium or Heavy Armor, and it is also not a Shield. If it needs to be an category, there is only one it can possibly fit into, Light Armor. It's weightless. It makes no mention of gauntlets, but only specific armors grant gauntlets.
Not having an ACP (0 or -) means there is no penalty at all for non-proficiency.
Fighter Armor Training would not change anything.
I'm sure there are some off Feat or Trait that it might matter, but even then, it's pretty clearly Light of the 3.
Armor is something that use the armor slot. Same with shield. Anything else is just a lookalike
The argument was never that Mage Armor is armor just because of the name. The reason it is armor is because in its own definition it is being defined as a type of armor.
If I am going to contrast an apple with an orange, I might begin by saying this apple is not like other kinds of fruit. In that statement right there, I just identified the apple as a fruit. If I was contrasting a screwdriver with an orange, I would probably say something more like how the screwdriver is not like a fruit. Using "not like other kinds of fruit" indicates I am talking about different fruit. Using "not like a fruit" indicates I am talking about a fruit and a non-fruit.
In the same vein, the description of Mage Armor tells us:
"Unlike mundane armor, mage armor entails no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction."
Now look carefully because we have two very interesting points here.
First it is contrasting Mage Armor with Mundane Armor. Why use the word "mundane"? Why not just say "Armor"? Because as in the case between the Apple and the Orange, we are talking about similar things. Fruit there, armor here.
Second, if Mage Armor isn't armor, then why waste the text and space telling us that it doesn't carry an ACP rating, an ASF rating, and a speed reduction? Non-armor doesn't have those things. If this was Non-armor, then the lack of these things is obvious. So why waste the time pointing that out? That's like saying, "Oh by the way, Longswords don't carry any ACP or ASF ratings". Yeah, we know this because Longswords are not armor. There's no reason to note the obvious.
But the text DOES take the time to point this out; indicating that we are comparing two different kinds of armor; Mage Armor and Mundane Armor. Both armor.
Was this intended by the writer? I have no idea. But it is what we are given.
But the text DOES take the time to point this out; indicating that we are comparing two different kinds of armor; Mage Armor and Mundane Armor. Both armor.
Was this intended by the writer? I have no idea. But it is what we are given.
Or the text is pointing out that we're comparing two things: armor and a spell effect that behaves like armor, but is not actually armor?
If the spell is supposed to behave like armor, how much is it supposed to behave like armor? Armor has ACP and ASF and potentially reduces speed, so it would make sense to address those issues when introducing an armor-like effect, whether it actually is armor or not. That those things are mentioned does not mean that the effect is therefore armor.
And I never said the name issue was the only argument (in fact I demonstrated quite the opposite in my post). But it was being used as additional justification, so I felt it necessary to address.
The only real question is whether providing an armor bonus makes the thing providing that bonus "armor". I do not think you can make that assumption, particularly since the same analysis does not work for shield bonuses.
Looks like I need to get someone to cast Magic Vestment on my Ironbeard. And the good news is that it will stack w/ all other armor.
Have them cast it on your Ironbeard and on your regular armor for double the fun!
I am a physical thing and I am providing the shield bonus by using STS. Or maybe it's my free hand that is applying the shield bonus, which seems more likely. Just like my Eidolon is providing the shield bonus simply by being near me - but the Eidolon is the thing providing the shield bonus as is implied by the wording of the ability.
As for that quotation, what it says to me is that things that provide armor bonuses are either 1. armor or 2. things that mimic armor, even though they are not armor. If spells that mimic armor were actually armor, the second category wouldn't need to exist. Plus, we've never determined which category of armor Mage Armor would fall under.
Nope. The style is providing the shield bonus. You are incorrect.
While you are using the Snapping Turtle Style feat, the shield bonus the style grants to your AC increases to +2, and your enemies take a –4 penalty on critical confirmation rolls against you.
Try again.
Just as nothing in Shield Ally tells us the source, thus the ability itself must be the source.
I am a physical thing and I am providing the shield bonus by using STS. Or maybe it's my free hand that is applying the shield bonus, which seems more likely. Just like my Eidolon is providing the shield bonus simply by being near me - but the Eidolon is the thing providing the shield bonus as is implied by the wording of the ability.
As for that quotation, what it says to me is that things that provide armor bonuses are either 1. armor or 2. things that mimic armor, even though they are not armor. If spells that mimic armor were actually armor, the second category wouldn't need to exist. Plus, we've never determined which category of armor Mage Armor would fall under.
Nope. The style is providing the shield bonus. You are incorrect.
While you are using the Snapping Turtle Style feat, the shield bonus the style grants to your AC increases to +2, and your enemies take a –4 penalty on critical confirmation rolls against you.Try again.
Just as nothing in Shield Ally tells us the source, thus the ability itself must be the source.
You know, I could keep up the charade and continue to be obstinate for the sake of being obstinate, but that's not my particular style and I honestly don't really care that much. It's an ancillary point in an already ridiculous thread. OP's already been addressed. You can continue to play things however you want. If you would like to treat Mage Armor like armor, feel free to. It won't ever work that way in any game I run and I'm pretty positive it won't run that way in any game I'm ever a player in, either.
So cheers and happy gaming!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, essentially, Remy Balster believes that if one is wearing +5 leather armor and bracers of armor +5, that the +5 enhancement to the leather armor should stack with the bracers?
I mean, this is essentially the same scenario as what was in the OP. Or have we moved beyond the original question?
|
Mage Armor has no spell resistance, so a spell targeting a physical phenomenon should not be so hard to grasp. I think we have addressed the not actual ("armor") by the fact that it is a conjuration spell that creates actual things, like acid and snow.
Maybe the supernatural CAN create mundane things. The other armor spell creates a physical armor that is 100% exact replica of an "actual" in game armor! that is just as crappy as a real everything armor, oh wait... but it is made of force? What? Why? Imagination? Illusion?Actual? Still? What is reality in a dream? What happens when you wake up?
Everybody knows that leather and rosewood is 2 and a haramaki is 1. Leaf Armor is made of leafs? That's not real/actual armor, everybody knows that, but look it wasn't created by a spell or should I say augmented? So what can you augment with a spell, unless you payed your 1000G to have it enchanted/enhanced permanently/legally? All legal permanency spells are there actual or not. Just because Mage armor does not have a cost other than a 1st level spell and a pearl of power for 18/24 hours at CL 9 and runs out while you sleep for 6 hours, doesn't mean that it isn't fairly permanent at CL 12(13).
Which means that a spell targeting a spell is not something new and works the way that you'd expect. The only thing left now is to be willing to see clothes/armor and "tangible" fields of force as the same thing. It is just a will save, unless you find it non-harmless. It can be cast on anyone and grants protection that does not stack with other armor, just can't be increased in any way the way "normal" armor is meant to be increased.
Is 5 AC Mage Armor overpowered at the cost of a 1st level spell and a 3rd level spell. 6 at CL 8 and 7 at CL 12? IDK it feels more expensive than the permanency of a level 3 spell. But what happens is that people don't want to see a "wizard" doing that. Sure, I know that if you see it happen, 1 extra DC against attacks would not be too much difference other than the value of that 5% decrease in the opponents accuracy. I am only guessing that the bonus to attack on enemies goes up as well as CL.
But if you want to RAW it out, I don't see how you can live in a magical universe in any way where magic is better than brawn, because hey why should the wizard/monk get extra armor, not fair. I think that having to target "real/actual" armor/clothing should be met with "Can you please tell me what mage armor actually/really is?" just so I see it your way.
I would consider Mage Armor to be Armor, but not because of any RAW wording, or RAI interpretation. I would deem it actual armor because the spell itself is Conjuration (Creation) [Force]. That means it actually creates something (invisible armor made of force energy). If it was simply manipulating the force energy around the target, it would be an Evocation [Force] spell. If you want, you can treat the conjured item as the following 4 AC armor with Ghost Touch:
Conjured Mage Armor
Ghost Touch, Light Armor
Armor Bonus: 4
Maximum Dex Bonus: --
Armor Check Penalty: --
Arcane Spell Failure Chance: --
Weight: 0
In which case, the Magic Vestment would transmute that conjured armor into:
Ghost Touch, Light Armor
Armor Bonus: 4 (+1 to +5 Enhancement)
Maximum Dex Bonus: --
Armor Check Penalty: --
Arcane Spell Failure Chance: --
Weight: 0
Alternatively, if you consider the Conjured Mage Armor as such:
Ghost Touch, Light Armor
Armor Bonus: 0 (+4 Enhancement)
Maximum Dex Bonus: --
Armor Check Penalty: --
Arcane Spell Failure Chance: --
Weight: 0
Then Magic Vestment would make it:
Ghost Touch, Light Armor
Armor Bonus: 0 (+5 (max) Enhancement)
Maximum Dex Bonus: --
Armor Check Penalty: --
Arcane Spell Failure Chance: --
Weight: 0
|
|
Can you sunder Mage Armor? If not, I do not believe it can count as armor.
Can you see mage armor? And if you can, all the rules can apply to the material you "hit" with the sunder attempt. Sunder is a CMD stat based CM. It has no connection to the type of armor. So YES, you can. You just have to know it is there before any other rational choices, like sundering armor can be made, and then, fields of force may self repair or have incredible hardness. It is up to the design team to decide what the hardness of the force "material" is and the HP per whatever. We all know what happens to destroyed magical/wondrous items.
|
|
If something mimics armour, then it isn't armour!
Actual armour doesn't need to mimic armour: because it is armour.
How good does a mimic have to be to be considered what it mimics. The last difference mimicked may create a copy on an object made by different materials, but if all the effects are still there, and all the logic that follows as well, who is to say that the mimic is not now a kind of thing the mimicked thing is. Unless a mimic by definition cannot ever be the thing it mimics. Then you won your argument by making it as it is kind of circular.
IF you mimic an argument, you are not making one, for if only you didn't mimic one, you'd be making one. lol JK|
|
No, because armors are listed on the equipment table under "armor," that's how we know they are armor. If it isn't on the table under "armor" then in order to count as armor it needs to explicitly state, "this effect counts as armor."
If I call something armor, doesn't that explicitly mean what you need to see. There is no mundane armor list, but you can put 2 and 2 together and say what they mean.
|
|
Bracers of Armor require the use of Mage Armor, so this should pretty well resolve the issue. Wearing Bracers gives you an armor bonus just as though you were wearing armor, but you're not. Just like with Mage Armor.
Bracers of Armor do not stack with ordinary armore. Just like Mage Armor.
Whichever armor bonus value is higher is the armor that functions. Just like Mage Armor.
Monks also don't get punished for wearing Bracers of Armor, but those are things that you "wear". There's no issue because Bracers of Armor aren't "armor". Just like Mage Armor.
No, Mage Armor is not actually "armor". It's a force effect that provides an armor bonus. Magic Vestment requires that you enchant a "suit" of armor, which Mage Armor is not.
Bracer of Armor don't "require" the use of Mage Armor.
Unlike bracers of armor, mage armor can be cast on somebody wearing armor, like Quilted Cloth. Although 2 AC Bracers of Armor would remove all benefits from Quilted Cloth armor, Mage Armor would not.Bracers of armor allow you to pretty much enchant the 0 AC you get naturally, clothed or not. The effect created is similar. Mage Armor and Bracers of armor compete for the same "space" but do 2 different things. The effect created seems a legal target for Magic Vestment, but I am naturally drawn to seeing the Armor bonus from BOA as an enhancement bonus itself, even though the text never calls the bonus enhancement. I wouldn't mind seeing an enhancement bonus on the effect of the bracers, just because of the heavy cost of the armor. The text also says "as though he were wearing armor" which also says "which he isn't" referring to the words "armor" or "wearing" or both.