No, you would gain either the bonus from the Haramaki or the bonus of the Mage Armor. Not both.
|
Is it possible to add an enhancement bonus to mage armor?
Not that I know of, but I await details.
Can you enchant a haramaki with a +1 and cast mage armor for 5 Armor Bonus instead of 2 or 4?
No, it's an enhancement to the haramaki, not to the spell effect, so you have a +2 armor bonus and a +4 armor bonus. Only the higher bonus of the same type applies.
Does Magic Vestment offer a way to add the Enhancement bonus to the armor bonus of Mage Armor?
I don't believe the spell effect is a valid target for magic vestment. Others have disagreed.
|
The target for magic vestment is 'Armour or shield touched', and the text of the spell allows 'an outfit of regular clothing' to count as armour for the purposes of this spell.
So a mage armour spell is not a valid target.
Keep in mind that an enhancement bonus to the armour bonus merely makes that armour bonus into a larger, single, armour bonus. If you wear a +2 breastplate then your AC line will say (armour +8). It will not say (armour +6, enhancement +2).
The target for magic vestment is 'Armour or shield touched', and the text of the spell allows 'an outfit of regular clothing' to count as armour for the purposes of this spell.
So a mage armour spell is not a valid target.
I don't know that I agree with this. I don't know for sure that I disagree, either, but I don't think it's crazy to say that mage armor qualifies as armor. The spell doesn't say something like target: "manufactured armor touched" or "light, medium, or heavy armor touched." The text of the mage armor spell gives several indications that it could be considered a form of armor.
|
|
I don't know that I agree with this. I don't know for sure that I disagree, either, but I don't think it's crazy to say that mage armor qualifies as armor. The spell doesn't say something like target: "manufactured armor touched" or "light, medium, or heavy armor touched." The text of the mage armor spell gives several indications that it could be considered a form of armor.The target for magic vestment is 'Armour or shield touched', and the text of the spell allows 'an outfit of regular clothing' to count as armour for the purposes of this spell.
So a mage armour spell is not a valid target.
If a spell conjures a suit of armour, then you can enhance it (if it exists long enough), and would be a valid target for magic vestment.
So, what does mage armour do? Does it conjure a suit of armour, or not?
An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject...
Ah! So it's a force field.
Not a suit of armour.
An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.
Tangible.
"1.able to be touched: able to be touched or perceived through the sense of touch"
Note also that Mage Armor is called Mage Armor. It also provides an armor bonus.
Range touch
Target armor or shield touchedYou imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5 at 20th level).
An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.
We can touch it, as we have already determined. It seems to be armor… let’s see if there is more corroboration to the notion that it can be treated as armor for the purpose of Magic Vestment.
To start with, even regular clothing counts for the purpose of this spell. That seems a strong indication that it’ll affect more than regular mundane normal chainmail n such.
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.
Unlike mundane armor...
That indicates strongly that we are to treat Mage Armor as non-mundane armor.
...the way they do normal armor.
Again, a strong indication we treat Mage Armor as non-normal armor.
In both cases, it is directly contrasted with other armors. Or aspects of other armors. Why tell us it has no ACP, Speed reduction, or arcane spell failure? Probably because armor has these mechanics, and the armor from mage armor simply is so easily moved it that the penalties are zero. Why tell us that incorporeal creatures cannot bypass it? It is a force effect, we already knew that... oh, but they normally do bypass armor!, just, not this armor. Tack on that in its very name Mage Armor is called armor, and that Mage Armor provides an armor bonus… it is kind of hard to imagine that it wouldn’t be a valid target for Magic Vestment.
Question to folk who say Mage Armor isn't armor... why isn't it?
Providing an armor bonus does not make it armor. Tangibility is irrelevant. You cannot enhance mage armor for the same reason that a monk is not penalized for using it--it isn't actually armor.
Providing an armor bonus does not make it armor.
Odd, that seems like exactly the method for determining if something is armor.
Tangibility is irrelevant.
Eh, no... not yet. I just wanted to head off that argument before it even cropped up.
You cannot enhance mage armor for the same reason that a monk is not penalized for using it--it isn't actually armor.
No, a monk doesn't get penalized because Mage Armor isn't something that you wear.
Providing an armor bonus does not make it armor.Odd, that seems like exactly the method for determining if something is armor.
...
You cannot enhance mage armor for the same reason that a monk is not penalized for using it--it isn't actually armor.No, a monk doesn't get penalized because Mage Armor isn't something that you wear.
Well, if we determine if something is armor by whether it provides an armor bonus, shouldn't we also determine whether armor is being worn by whether you are receiving the armor bonus it provides? Because that seems like exactly the method for determining if someone is wearing armor... So, monks should be penalized for wearing their mage armor. Either that or we can just be less pedantic and say that mage armor is not armor, nor is it a valid target for magic vestment
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These items appear to be wrist or arm guards. They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor. Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective.
Bracers of armor cannot have a modified bonus (armor bonus plus armor special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +8. Bracers of armor must have at least a +1 armor bonus to grant an armor special ability... Bracers of armor and ordinary armor do not stack. If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, mage armor
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.
These items appear to be wrist or arm guards. They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor. Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective.
Bracers of armor cannot have a modified bonus (armor bonus plus armor special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +8. Bracers of armor must have at least a +1 armor bonus to grant an armor special ability... Bracers of armor and ordinary armor do not stack. If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, mage armorBracers 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.
Even with the bracers of armor, the bracers are worn, but they're not the armor, and the armor isn't actually worn, it surounds you. Worn bracer =/= worn armor. Not-worn armor =/= worn armor.
Monks cannot wear armor, and with bracers of armor, they're not wearing it. Though they do have armor.
And Magic Vestment doesn't really require that you enchant a 'suit' of anything. The 'target' entry tells you what is an applicable target.
Armor.
And, check this out..."An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell."
If it had to have a suit of armor, then it wouldn't be able to modify regular cloths... since they don't say they count as a 'suit' of armor, just as armor.
And then you get into other weird questions, does a chain shirt count as a 'suit'? Probably not, it is only a shirt after all. If all you're wearing is a shirt, and you walk into the corner store, you're gunna get arrested, no matter how often you object that you are fully clothed in your 'suit'.
The problem is, there isn't a RAW method of determining if something is de facto 'armor' or not. Yall are trying to make distinctions where there aren't any needed.
If even regular clothes can be modified by this spell... Hrm.
The biggest challenge to this whole "Mage Armor isn't Armor" thing... aside from being called mage armor is...
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.
Why, pray tell, does the spell give this information if mage armor isn't armor? And why phrase it in a way that makes it clear that Mage armor is Armor? It is just special magical force armor.
While Magic Vestment does say "You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus ...", I don't see anything too crazy or overpowered to allow it. MV is a 3rd level spell, and if you really want to use it on Mage Armor, I just don't see the harm.
Would seem so, but is not actually the case. For example:Providing an armor bonus does not make it armor.Odd, that seems like exactly the method for determining if something is armor.Prone: The character is lying on the ground. A prone attacker has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A prone defender gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.You get an armour bonus when lying prone to ranged attacks, yet I don't think you can consider lying prone to be any form of armour.
That isn't an armor bonus, it is an untyped bonus to armor class.
The thing is, a +enhancement bonus to armor increases your bonus from armor by +X. From the PRD.
In general, magic armor protects the wearer to a greater extent than nonmagical armor. Magic armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses (and with shield and magic shield enhancement bonuses). All magic armor is also masterwork armor, reducing armor check penalties by 1.
In essence, it's a hard sell to suggest that an amulet of natural armor stacks with natural armor bonuses (it does by the way because it's an enhancement bonus to your existing natural armor bonus) but that enhancement bonuses to your armor doesn't stack with armor bonuses.
As written, whether intended or not, the enhancement bonus stacks with normal armor bonuses (notice that the text quoted above does not say the armor's bonus or something similar, but armor bonuses).
As a result, if you have a +5 silken ceremonial robe (a +1 armor bonus item that grants a +5 enhancement to armor) and cast mage armor (a +4 armor bonus) the armor bonuses do not stack but the enhancement bonus stacks with armor bonuses, so the net AC adjustment is 4 (mage armor) + 5 (enhancement to armor bonuses) = +9 AC.
This is effectively the same way that natural armor bonuses work. If you cast a spell that grants +3 natural armor, and another that grants +4, you only have +4. But if you have an enhancement bonus to natural armor, it stacks with your highest.
The thing is, a +enhancement bonus to armor increases your bonus from armor by +X. From the PRD.
In general, magic armor protects the wearer to a greater extent than nonmagical armor. Magic armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses (and with shield and magic shield enhancement bonuses). All magic armor is also masterwork armor, reducing armor check penalties by 1.In essence, it's a hard sell to suggest that an amulet of natural armor stacks with natural armor bonuses (it does by the way because it's an enhancement bonus to your existing natural armor bonus) but that enhancement bonuses to your armor doesn't stack with armor bonuses.
As written, whether intended or not, the enhancement bonus stacks with normal armor bonuses (notice that the text quoted above does not say the armor's bonus or something similar, but armor bonuses).
As a result, if you have a +5 silken ceremonial robe (a +1 armor bonus item that grants a +5 enhancement to armor) and cast mage armor (a +4 armor bonus) the armor bonuses do not stack but the enhancement bonus stacks with armor bonuses, so the net AC adjustment is 4 (mage armor) + 5 (enhancement to armor bonuses) = +9 AC.
This is effectively the same way that natural armor bonuses work. If you cast a spell that grants +3 natural armor, and another that grants +4, you only have +4. But if you have an enhancement bonus to natural armor, it stacks with your highest.
Actually, enhancement bonus to natural armor augments and modifies the natural armor it enhances. So you've got a nice tough scaly hide worth +4 natural armor and a +5 barkskin. The barkskin increases those scales to a +9 (and for humans with our weak pink skin, it increases our +0 to +5). In the same way, when you enhance an armor to +5, it applies that enhancement bonus to that particular suit of armor, not to the wearer. So the +5 enhancement bonus makes a Haramaki into a +6 armor. The character then has a +6 "Armor" bonus (not a +1 Armor bonus and a +5 enhancement bonus) listed on their sheet, which is important for rules text that cares about the exact type of your bonus. It's also important because that +5 modifies the Haramaki, not the character, so it does not apply to mage armor.
Hope that helps!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say yes, you can. I can see the argument against I, sort of, but it seems it does seem like it takes a lot to get there.
Like Wraithstrike said, if It doesn't say it, that it doesn't happen. Nothing in Mage Armor indicates that it's not real armor, (not defined). What it does say is that it creates a touchable, physical layer of protection, though invisible. Because it's made of Force, it is weightless, and unlike other armors, it does not reduce your speed for wearing it, carry an Arcane Spell Failure chance for wearing it as armor. It also does not have an Armor Check Penalty, (and thus a -0 to all Str & Dex skills for Non-Proficiency.
Armor Check Penalty: Any armor heavier than leather, as well as any shield, hurts a character's ability to use Dexterity- and Strength-based skills. An armor check penalty applies to all Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks. A character's encumbrance may also incur an armor check penalty.
-
Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity- and Strength-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.
-
Sleeping in Armor: A character who sleeps in medium or heavy armor is automatically fatigued the next day. He takes a –2 penalty on Strength and Dexterity and can't charge or run. Sleeping in light armor does not cause fatigue.
-
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.
|
|
Yeah, an enhancement bonus to an armour bonus makes that a bigger armour bonus. It's not a separate bonus.
When written in a stat block, for example, a +2 breastplate is not written as (armour +6, enhancement +2).
It's written (armour+8).
The creature doesn't have a floating enhancement bonus that applies to the highest armour bonus that creature has. The enhancement bonus applies to whatever armour was enhanced, and that single total is compared to any other armour bonus, and then only the biggest bonus applies.
Hard to believe this is even being argued. No, mage armor isn't armor.
What it does say is that it creates a touchable, physical layer of protection
No. It's a "touchable" force field. *Not* a physical layer of protection. That's why it affects incorporeal touch attacks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hard to believe this is even being argued.
I agree, it's hard to believe this is even being argued, coming from the other side.
No, mage armor isn't armor.
Why, cause you say so? If you have some sort of rules to back up that opinion, please share. I've showed above that it does correspond to all of the things that what we can define as "armor" within the game, and it's also been shown that the spell itself classifies it as armor as well as includes lines like "Unlike mundane armor. . ." and "the way they do normal armor".
What it does say is that it creates a touchable, physical layer of protection
No. It's a "touchable" force field. *Not* a physical layer of protection. That's why it affects incorporeal touch attacks.
It does not say it's a force field. It says it's a field (as in an mathematically distinguishable area) of Force (which in the game is a defined thing that specifically applies against Incorporeal). It's obviously a layer and it obviously provides protection, so not clear on what you where trying to say here other than calling it a force field (which it does not say it is) implies that it's less "armor"?
Does compairing it to other similar things change your viws?
And, check this out..."An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell."
If it had to have a suit of armor, then it wouldn't be able to modify regular cloths... since they don't say they count as a 'suit' of armor, just as armor.
Interesting. Did you ever pause to consider that they specifically including clothing, something that is ordinarily not considered to be armor, for the express purpose that it wouldn't otherwise qualify if they didn't?
If it just said "suit of armor", then nobody would allow it to work on clothing, because clothing isn't armor.
So let's look at the language used in the spell: "An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell."
Clothing is not armor. The spell only works on armor. But, they wanted this spell to be able to be used on clothing so they added language which would allow it to work, but only for this spell.
Specific > General rears its ugly head again. Mage Armor isn't armor, it just provides an armor bonus.
Can you apply Magic Weapon to Spiritual Weapon or Flame Blade?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And then you get into other weird questions, does a chain shirt count as a 'suit'? Probably not, it is only a shirt after all. If all you're wearing is a shirt, and you walk into the corner store, you're gunna get arrested, no matter how often you object that you are fully clothed in your 'suit'.
There are no pants in Pathfinder.
|
|
That isn't an armor bonus, it is an untyped bonus to armor class.Huh, I should read better, sorry.
Different example: Caltrops:If the creature is wearing shoes or other footwear, it gets a +2 armor bonus to AC.Don't think shoes qualify as armour.
Shoes are armor. All clothing is armor. You will be surprised how many scratches your clothes prevent, and worse things get reduced in danger.
Since you can touch mage armor, you can enchant it. It's magic enchanting magic. And we all know magic is bs, but not in pathfinder, where you have to use your imagination. If you wanna talk about how things are worded and all that, try explain what d6 in damage feels like, or what it equates to in anatomical "reconstruction", or the blood on your weapon that has no real significance to all the numbers in the game (cause raw didn't tell you how that works).
I just have to imagine the people writing/describing magical effects. I wonder what they go through before putting some of their imagination on paper. Explain to me what an "enhancement" bonus is to armor and how it works? How exactly does it get applied to your armor and why the armor is better?
The best you are gonna come up with is some guy says something and touches it and it is magically better. Pull out your calculators. I see no reason why a force field cannot be enchanted in the same way. Obviously, logically speaking, if we consider only RAW, Mage Armor is a conjuration spell that creates a magical effect. This magical effect adds numbers the way a mundane item would. It is described as a different type of armor, but not as light, medium, or heavy.
I would rather agree that MA IS armor that has no weight (therefore is one step below light) that moves with the "wearer" magically rather than just some numbers that affect the success/failure ratios of encounters/attempts.
At the end of the day, the side you pick has to do more with your imagination or balance issues or with the ease that looking simply at RAW provides. If your imagination allows it, ok. If you think it is unbalanced, ok. But if you wanna just say that Mage Armor is not the same kind of armor as the type of armor that you know you can enchant, because RAW is not explicitly explicit about the interaction of these two spells or that mage armor is armor, then there really is no argument that will add the RAW you don't see, other than an FAQ answer. And this issue is too small for that kind of thing.
I really for the life of me, cannot see how mage armor is not armor. I get the balance issue that armor bonuses don't stack, or the math would be too much, mage armor everywhere. I can even see that enchanting mage armor can have a balance issue. But flat out RAW didn't say that mage armor is armor is just a horrible argument. I would rather get something like "the magical essence of mage armor does not allow further magical manipulation."
Again, the whole idea of enhancement bonus to items is just "pay" to get better things if we are not trying to enter a magical/mythical world where RAW provides the backbone to what we give flesh.
|
|
None of those effects are suits of armor either. They are all effects of spells and abilities. Just like Shield of Faith isn't a literal shield, Mage Armor is not literal armor. There is not going to be a rule that spefically calls it out as not armor, Pathfinder rules are inclusive, not exclusive. The only way said effects would count as a suit of armor is if they explicitly said "This counts as a suit of armor"....
Breastplate: Covering only the torso, a breastplate is made up of a single piece of sculpted metal.
Chain Shirt: Covering the torso, this shirt is made up of thousands of interlocking metal rings.
Chainmail: Unlike a chain shirt, chainmail covers the legs and arms of the wearer. The suit includes gauntlets.
Full Plate: This metal suit includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath the armor. Each suit of full plate must be individually fitted to its owner by a master armorsmith, although a captured suit can be resized to fit a new owner at a cost of 200 to 800 (2d4 × 100) gold pieces.
Half-Plate: Combining elements of full plate and chainmail, half-plate includes gauntlets and a helm.
Hide: Hide armor is made up of the tanned and preserved skin of any thick-hided beast.
Leather: Leather armor is made up of pieces of hard boiled leather carefully sewn together.
Padded: Little more than heavy, quilted cloth, this armor provides only the most basic protection.
Scale Mail: Scale mail is made up of dozens of small overlapping metal plates. The suit includes gauntlets.
Splint Mail: Splint mail is made up of metal strips, like banded mail. The suit includes gauntlets.
Studded Leather: Similar to leather armor, this suit is reinforced with small metal studs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, a monk doesn't get penalized because Mage Armor isn't something that you wear.
And armor is something that is worn.
And you're doing the usual mistake of trying to argue the rules backwards.
It's irrelevant as to what else doesn't "count as a suit of armor" by your convoluted argument.
No, it's entirely relevant. It's called precedent. It's an important tool in language. Our language, and even our legal systems - undeniably the pinnacle of where the specifics of wording matters - all operate under the concept of precedent.
He has pointed out that less than half of the armor listed in the core rules are specifically referred to as "suits of armor". This establishes a precedent - not everything that is "armor" is going to be called out specifically as a "suit of armor".
You are attempting to hold Mage Armor to a higher standard than the armor entries in the CRB simply because you do not want it to work that way.
I'll add, by using your standard then, it does apply to the shield spell, correct? That is specifically called out as being a "shield of force".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you're doing the usual mistake of trying to argue the rules backwards.
It's irrelevant as to what else doesn't "count as a suit of armor" by your convoluted argument.
No, it's entirely relevant. It's called precedent. It's an important tool in language. Our language, and even our legal systems - undeniably the pinnacle of where the specifics of wording matters - all operate under the concept of precedent.
He has pointed out that less than half of the armor listed in the core rules are specifically referred to as "suits of armor". This establishes a precedent - not everything that is "armor" is going to be called out specifically as a "suit of armor".
You are attempting to hold Mage Armor to a higher standard than the armor entries in the CRB simply because you do not want it to work that way.
I'll add, by using your standard then, it does apply to the shield spell, correct? That is specifically called out as being a "shield of force".
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."
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."
...
Clown pants aren't listed on the clothing table as clothing, either. Are you prepared to argue that wearing clown pants doesn't count as wearing clothing for purposes of the spell?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Entertainer's Outfit: This set of flashy—perhaps even gaudy—clothes is for entertaining. While the outfit looks whimsical, its practical design lets you tumble, dance, walk a tightrope, or just run (if the audience turns ugly).
I'm prepared to argue that clown pants are on the table under "Clothing."
Entertainer's Outfit: This set of flashy—perhaps even gaudy—clothes is for entertaining. While the outfit looks whimsical, its practical design lets you tumble, dance, walk a tightrope, or just run (if the audience turns ugly).I'm prepared to argue that clown pants are on the table under "Clothing."
I could easily come up with a thousand instances of things that aren't, but I'm trying to keep it family friendly here. Use your imagination, pretend I said something outlandish or crude instead.
Entertainer's Outfit: This set of flashy—perhaps even gaudy—clothes is for entertaining. While the outfit looks whimsical, its practical design lets you tumble, dance, walk a tightrope, or just run (if the audience turns ugly).I'm prepared to argue that clown pants are on the table under "Clothing."I could easily come up with a thousand instances of things that aren't, but I'm trying to keep it family friendly here.
Well, if for some reason you need to wear something that doesn't fit into one of the outfit descriptions (particularly if they don't qualify as family friendly) then I would be fine with magic vestment not working on them either.
|
|
The name of a spell doesn't define it. The shield spell doesn't create an actual shield, it just shields (protects) you from harm.
They could have left the spell totally as it is and re-named it not the face!
The mage armour spell could have been called Findal's fabulous force field. Would it be armour then?
It provides an armour bonus to AC. Does that make it armour?
If it had provided a dodge bonus to AC, would that have made it a Dodge? You could get in it and drive away!
If you want to know what armour is, go to the equipment chapter. Check out the craft skill to see how you make it.
It is certainly possible for a spell to conjure actual armour made of force. Check out the 2nd lvl Instant armour spell where it does just this, and tells you what armour type you created (chainmail, half-plate, etc). But mage armour, despite its name, just conjures a force field.
Unless you think that a 'field of force' is not a 'force field', as an earlier poster tried to argue(!).