|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but spell failure from shields only applies to the hand handling the shield, doesn't it? Because the Locked Gauntlet specifies spell failure is N/A because that hand isn't free to cast spells... but you could cast spells with your other hand no problem. So, a wizard wearing a non-mithral Buckler would take 5% failure chance if trying to use the Buckler hand to cast a spell, but if his other hand is free it's a non-issue. Amiright?
You might be able to convince a GM of that, but expect table variation.
|
|
Maybe I am wrong (I do not have my books with me), but doesn't the "Shield spell" give a deflection bonus (so it would supersede a ring of protection of less than +5) not a shield bonus and, therefore, wouldn't it stack with a physical magic shield or other item that gives a shield bonus?
It's a Shield bonus, not deflection.
Maugerz, you're thinking of 'Shield of Faith', which provides a scaling Deflection bonus to AC.
Kazaan, as long as you're holding the shield, you have the % of Spell Failure. Handedness is not remarked on.
the Locked Gauntlet is noted because that hand is not available to spellcast, and you normally need one hand free. The Gauntleted hand is always 'in use'. So if you have a staff or shield or bubbling baby in the other hand, no casting even if your gauntleted hand isn't holding anything.
==Aelryinth
|
Then we shall agree to disagree. I'm not giving Shield and Mage Armor a free pass because they are cast spells instead of permanent items. Mage Armor is in all ways equal to Bracers of Armor +4, which explicitly get suppressed by competing armor.
YMMV. I see no exception for armor benefit from a cast spell being 'free' of the restriction of permanent items. If anything, I'd think it would be even more vulnerable.
==Aelryinth
You are welcome to house rule the Bracers of Armor rule to apply to all situations. That's fine. However, please realize that it is a house rule, good or not. There is enough confusion regarding what the rules intend.
I don't know why Paizo decided to add the text to the Bracers, but it may be worth trying to get a response added to the FAQ regarding the other effects and what happens when the armor bonus from worn armor is equal to the armor bonus from the Bracers.
|
|
If you're talking about two pieces of armor with enchantments you apply the piecemeal rules.
If it's Mage armor and real armor it should function just like bracers which are created by imbuing them with the Mage armor spell. They are one and the same except one has been made permanent.
The game is not intended to abuse loopholes that aren't covered when every other scenario is. There is nothing saying this is allowed and this game is designed around permissions not restrictions. It will tell you when you're allowed to do something.
The special case of the armored kilt is a poorly fleshed out special rule of the armored kilt and not part of piecemeal armor.
Why would Bracers of Armor govern how Mage Armor works? If anything, it would be the other way around.
Take an example of +1 light fortification leather armor (AC +3) combined with Mage Armor. My stance is that the armor bonuses do not stack leaving you with a +4 armor bonus to AC and the light fortification property.
Similarly, with a + 1 breastplate, casting mage armor gives you +7 AC, +4 of which applies versus incorporeal touch.
Can you support a counter argument using only the rules for magic and mundane armor, the rules for Mage Armor, and any generic rule, errata, and/or FAQ entry? The entry for Bracers of Armor and any specific magic item is off limits for this exercise.
The spell is not the same as the magic item or piecemeal armor and lacks the suppressing language. It's really that simple. You can have the armor bonus from Mage Armor and any enhancements from your actual armor. That's the rules. You are right Khrysaor only in that this is game of permissions and the game gives you permission to use both Mage Armor and magical armor at the same time. The game merely does not give you permission to stack the armor bonuses. There is no agree to disagree, you are merely free to houserule otherwise.
|
|
I don't know what more you want. An example of a magic item functioning with other armor is known. An example of armor pieces with other pieces is known. They both provide the same conclusion. Why would a spell coupled with armor be any different when it doesn't say it is? As I said the game works on permissions. It doesn't tell you it works like that so it probably doesn't work like that.
Can you cite any example that tells you this is how it works?
Of course.
In addition to an enhancement bonus, armor may have special abilities. Special abilities usually count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of an item, but do not improve AC. A suit of armor cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10. A suit of armor with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.
...
Activation: Usually a character benefits from magic armor and shields in exactly the way a character benefits from nonmagical armor and shields: by wearing them. If armor or a shield has a special ability that the user needs to activate, then the user usually needs to utter the command word (a standard action).
Okay, so I benefit from the properties of armor by wearing it and some properties require a standard action to activate them.
School conjuration (creation) [force]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F (a piece of cured leather)
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 hour/level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance no
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.
Okay, this spell gives me an armor bonus that's a force effect and does nothing else.
Armor/Shield Bonus: Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to AC, while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn't stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus. Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesn't stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus.
Okay, the armor bonuses from two sources (for example, worn armor and Mage Armor) do not stack. This rule does not reference, and thus does not affect, any other aspect of the armor. In fact, the rule does not do anything to the armor bonus itself, it just states that only the highest of the bonuses is included in the calculation. The lower bonus is still present.
Now, Khrysaor, or anyone else who wants to take up the challenge, it's your turn. Support your position that Mage Armor does anything to the special properties of Magic Armor, referencing only the rules for Mage Armor, Magic Armor, and generic Pathfinder Rules.
|
|
The spell is not the same as the magic item or piecemeal armor and lacks the suppressing language. It's really that simple. You can have the armor bonus from Mage Armor and any enhancements from your actual armor. That's the rules. You are right Khrysaor only in that this is game of permissions and the game gives you permission to use both Mage Armor and magical armor at the same time. The game merely does not give you permission to stack the armor bonuses. There is no agree to disagree, you are merely free to houserule otherwise.
To be fair, Paizo made a mess with the rules for, in my opinion, no good reason. It's just that the worst case scenario of magic Armored Coat + Haramaki + Armored Kilt + Bracers of Armor is unlikely to ever come up.
|
Where is the text that says you gain the bonuses from other armor while Mage armor is active?
Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to AC, while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn't stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus.
It doesn't stack, but it is still there.
|
|
Where is the text that says you gain the bonuses from other armor while Mage armor is active? That's how permissions work.
The rules I quoted shows that I am permitted the bonuses and special properties from my armor by wearing it. I quoted how am permitted an armor bonus from mage armor. I quoted how I am only permitted to add the highest armor bonus from all sources of an armor bonus to my AC.
Show me a quote that says that, despite the magic armor entry and mage armor rules, I am not permitted.
A parallel question:
How do you do this with hero-lab? To me it looks like you have to take a armor or shield profeciecy?
Thanks for all the interesting talk.
|
|
I guess, ultimately, it depends on whether +2 enhancement +light fortification is supposed to be (+2 fortification) or (+2) (fortification). In the first case, the fortification is "married" to the +2 so if you are, for whatever reason, denied the +2, you're also de facto denied the fortification. In the second case, they are divorced so the fortification can never be overridden except by bumping up against the +10 max equivalent bonus hard cap.
Except that you always have the +2. Since we are excluding a few special cases, the +2 armor bonus is still present, it just doesn't get added to AC if a larger armor bonus is present.
You can look at it as the armor bonus is married to the special properties or you can think of them as separate. It doesn't matter because the rules I quoted don't remove the armor bonus.
|
|
A parallel question:
How do you do this with hero-lab? To me it looks like you have to take a armor or shield profeciecy?
Thanks for all the interesting talk.
You only need armor proficiency to avoid a penalty to attack rolls equal to the ACP of the armor. If the penalty is 0 (or if you don't care about attack rolls, not uncommon for a wizard) then proficiency isn't needed.
You only need armor proficiency to avoid a penalty to attack rolls equal to the ACP of the armor. If the penalty is 0 (or if you don't care about attack rolls, not uncommon for a wizard) then proficiency isn't needed.A parallel question:
How do you do this with hero-lab? To me it looks like you have to take a armor or shield profeciecy?
Thanks for all the interesting talk.
THank you, that does make a lot of difference.
I guess, ultimately, it depends on whether +2 enhancement +light fortification is supposed to be (+2 fortification) or (+2) (fortification). In the first case, the fortification is "married" to the +2 so if you are, for whatever reason, denied the +2, you're also de facto denied the fortification. In the second case, they are divorced so the fortification can never be overridden except by bumping up against the +10 max equivalent bonus hard cap.Enchantments are always married to the enhancement bonus. The book tells you you can't have an enchantment without the enhancement. Wearing something that nullifies the enhancement effectively nullifies the enchantment.
Citation needed. For that matter, what state's marriage laws are we using? I'm pretty sure some states are still opposed to bonuses marrying as well.
|
|
It is important because if you take them as a married set, they may still be there, but they both don't function.
I don't see that rule listed, so I need a citation. And while I know HeroLab isn't a reputable source, for what it is worth I threw a +1 cold resistance leather armor together with mage armor and the cold resistance did not go away.
If we are talking about the piecemeal rules, it would not be the first time a non-existent rule was referenced when designing a new item. (e.g. potion sponge)
|
|
The spell is not the same as the magic item or piecemeal armor and lacks the suppressing language. It's really that simple. You can have the armor bonus from Mage Armor and any enhancements from your actual armor. That's the rules. You are right Khrysaor only in that this is game of permissions and the game gives you permission to use both Mage Armor and magical armor at the same time. The game merely does not give you permission to stack the armor bonuses. There is no agree to disagree, you are merely free to houserule otherwise.To be fair, Paizo made a mess with the rules for, in my opinion, no good reason. It's just that the worst case scenario of magic Armored Coat + Haramaki + Armored Kilt + Bracers of Armor is unlikely to ever come up.
I disagree. I think that Paizo did not make a mess of the rules and they did so for a VERY GOOD reason:
Paizo got creative with Bracers of Armor. Back in 3.5 bracers of armor had NO LANGUAGE about being able to add bells and whistles to your bracers.
Just to be clear "bells and whistles" refers to the bonuses you can add to armor that doesn't count as an enhancement bonus to AC. Things like energy resistance, spell storing etc.
Paizo did what gamers do: They tweeked the rules. They tweeked the rule on Bracer's of Armor to make it a more interesting magic item. NOW we can add bells and whistles to the item, and non-armor wearing characters get all the benefits of wearing armor using the bracers.
But Paizo ALSO did a very smart thing. They realized that Bracers of Brmor AND ONLY BRACERS OF ARMOR allow you to place those bells and whistles on an item slot OTHER than the armor item slot. This meant that a munchkin gamer could get bracers +1 and add a bunch of bells and whistles on them and ALSO wear armor and add a bunch of bells and whistles on that.
Clearly this would be a way of breaking the pricing limitations on the item crafting rules. It would be VERY easy (and pretty cheap) to exceed the "+10" cap on armor enhancements, simply by stacking these bracers with the armor.
The solution? Add a clause to the Bracers of Armor that nerfs this problem before it occurs.
This is why I think that Mage Armor WOULD stack with another set of armor with the bells and whisltes. The Mage Armor spell simply doesn't have the game balance problem that the bracers have.
|
|
The spell is not the same as the magic item or piecemeal armor and lacks the suppressing language. It's really that simple. You can have the armor bonus from Mage Armor and any enhancements from your actual armor. That's the rules. You are right Khrysaor only in that this is game of permissions and the game gives you permission to use both Mage Armor and magical armor at the same time. The game merely does not give you permission to stack the armor bonuses. There is no agree to disagree, you are merely free to houserule otherwise.To be fair, Paizo made a mess with the rules for, in my opinion, no good reason. It's just that the worst case scenario of magic Armored Coat + Haramaki + Armored Kilt + Bracers of Armor is unlikely to ever come up.I disagree. I think that Paizo did not make a mess of the rules and they did so for a VERY GOOD reason:
Paizo got creative with Bracers of Armor. Back in 3.5 bracers of armor had NO LANGUAGE about being able to add bells and whistles to your bracers.
I thought 3.5 did, but I guess I was mistaken. However, I was referring to the mess of trying to adjudicate combining armored coats, Haramaki, armored kilts, and bracers of armor. Not to mention that bracers of armor combines just fine with armor with the same armor bonus. It would have been more effective to say that special qualities from multiple sources are all disabled.
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but spell failure from shields only applies to the hand handling the shield, doesn't it? Because the Locked Gauntlet specifies spell failure is N/A because that hand isn't free to cast spells... but you could cast spells with your other hand no problem. So, a wizard wearing a non-mithral Buckler would take 5% failure chance if trying to use the Buckler hand to cast a spell, but if his other hand is free it's a non-issue. Amiright?There is nothing in text to support that interpretation. The rule for shields is just like armor, if you're wearing a shield you have a ACF if the spell has somatic components. The presumed justification is that wearing a shield impacts on your total body balance, not just the hand and arm it's attached to.
Which is b!#&@!%s, but that is the rule. I can tell you from experience, that holding a longspear one handed messes up you coordination far more than holding a buckler, but the longspear has no ASF % and the buckler does.
|
|
For some of the questions that came up regarding the interactions of various magical sources of armor bonuses, I created a thread in the Rules Questions forum.