Enhancement Bonus and Mage Armor

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Sing Sing wrote:

fretgod99 wrote:

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.

What on Earth are you drivelling about?

In the nicest possible way, none of this post makes any sense, and it is filled with inaccuracies.

[Starglim]

Sing Sing wrote:

Bracer of Armor don't "require" the use of Mage Armor.

Wondrous Items wrote:

Bracers of Armor

Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, mage armor...

Sing Sing wrote:

Unlike bracers of armor, mage armor can be cast on somebody wearing armor, like Quilted Cloth

A creature wearing quilted cloth can wear bracers of armor and they will work, unless the quilted cloth is enhanced to a higher armor bonus than the bracers.

Sing Sing wrote:

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.

It certainly doesn't. The text calls the bonus an armor bonus.

[BigDTBone]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Sing Sing wrote:

fretgod99 wrote:

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.

What on Earth are you drivelling about?

In the nicest possible way, none of this post makes any sense, and it is filled with inaccuracies.

He is clearly drunk and binge posting.

[The Gorgon]

I came to this thread with the assumption that the Mage Armor spell does not create armor. After reading this thread, I am 100% certain that I was wrong. I was swayed by two factors: one that was repeatedly pointed out in this thread and another that was never explicitly stated.

1. Implication: As Remy astutely pointed out, the Mage Armor spell description strongly implies that mage armor is armor by contrasting it with mundane armor. A careful wording of the spell would have instead contrasted the Mage Armor effect with 'actual' (rather than 'mundane') armor.

2. Explication: The spell description explicitly refers to the Mage Armor effect as mage armor (e.g., "Since mage armor is made of force'). Note that there is an important distinction between the spell name and the spell effect. As Malachi accurately pointed out, "The spell name has no mechanical function." If the spell was named "4th Level Spell", that would not make it a 4th level spell. However, the spell description clearly refers to the effect of the Mage Armor spell as "mage armor". Note the lack of capitalization of "mage armor" - it is not being used as a name (a proper noun), it is a description. So, the spell description explicitly tells us that the Mage Armor force field is armor. Now, the fact that it is armor does not mean it is the same kind of armor as other armors. A toilet bowl is a very different kind of bowl than a cereal bowl. But both are unquestionably bowls.

It may be worth adding that "armor" is not a game-specific term (like "hit points" or "saving throws"). I am aware of no rule that says, 'for game-purposes the only things that count as "armor" are these X things'. Without such a rule, we have to rely on the rules of English to determine what is and is not armor. So, if the spell description says that it creates red armor, blue armor, cold armor, hot armor, steel armor, wind armor, mundane armor, or mage armor - then the rules of English tell us that the spell's effect is, in fact, armor.

And yes, this argument also reveals that natural armor is armor.

The real problem is with the Magical Vestment spell description. If it was not intended to work on mage armor, it should have specified mundane or enchanted armor, shield, or clothing as valid targets. By simply identifying "armor or shield" as a the spell target, that includes all armors, including mage armor (and natural armor). I admit, the "suit of armor" part of the spell description does give me pause. There is no basis for claiming that mage armor is a suit of armor. But there is also no basis (that I'm aware of) for saying that a chain shirt is a suit of armor. And the fact that an outfit of clothing counts as armor (and not a "suit of armor") for the purpose of this spell, I think the "suit" descriptor just has to be ignored.

[AwesomenessDog]

Way over complicating it bud on a 7 year old necro. Can't have more than 1 "armor" bonus to AC, and both regular armor (magically enchanted or no) and mage armor both are. Full stop.

[Trokarr]

Here’s a link to a thread that delves into this topic and says everything I think needs to be said on it. https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43fan&page=1?Monk-AC-Ice-Armor

[Trokarr]

Sorry the link doesn’t work I am posting from my phone doesn’t do that well but still goes to the right thread if u copy/paste.

[Derklord]

AwesomenessDog wrote:

Way over complicating it bud on a 7 year old necro. Can't have more than 1 "armor" bonus to AC, and both regular armor (magically enchanted or no) and mage armor both are. Full stop.

It's also based on a false assumption - the game doesn't use capitalization to denote spell names, it uses italization. E.g. "You can cast air walk on a specially trained mount so it can be ridden through the air." CRB pg. 240

The Gorgon also bases part of their argument on a false dichotomy - just because "armor" isn't a game-specific term, that does not mean we automatically use the common English definition, because it can still be a game term. And indeed, there's a whole section in the book titled "armor", using that as a base certainly makes more sense than pulling a definition out of thin air.

Trokarr wrote:

Here’s a link to a thread that delves into this topic and says everything I think needs to be said on it. https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43fan&page=1?Monk-AC-Ice-Armor

Linkified.