Blood Armor spell from Class Guide

[ShiroK]

Well they have gone and done something with this spell that was probably not intended. It has always been clarified that "Armor Enhancement bonus" increased the "Armor Bonus" to AC, and that "Shield Enhancement bonus" increased "Shield AC bonus"

This spell however

"your armor gains a + 1 enhancement bonus to
your AC. An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor
that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell. This
enhancement bonus stacks with itself to a maximum
enhancement bonus of + 5."

So we now have an Enhancement bonus directly to AC...provided by armor. That probably still hits the +5 enhancement bonus cap...maybe?

So i guess the questions are,

1)Does this stack with magical "Armor Enhancement bonus"

2)Does this hit the armor +5 enhancement bonus max if combined with magic armor

3)Does this add a new "type" of bonus available to AC

Thanks

[Ipslore the Red]

1. Yes, up to 2.

2. Yes.

3. No.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Ipslore is correct.

Blood Armor is basically this spell, except is for nearly all arcane casters, and is 2nd level.

[ShiroK]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Ipslore is correct.

Blood Armor is basically this spell, except is for nearly all arcane casters, and is 2nd level.

Err except it isn't that spell at all. Since that spell increases the armor value of your armor. This one DIRECTLY increases your AC very different mechanics. Technically it would for instance stack with Mage armor the way it is worded where Magic Vestment will not as they are both providing ARMOR BONUS to AC. This is providing ENHANCEMENT to AC ...Mage Armor is providing ARMOR BONUS to AC.

I know the spell is MEANT to work the same but it expressly does NOT. Much like Enhancement bonus to Natural Armor and just Natural Armor bonus are different.

I suppose this could have been fixed by the line being "to it's AC" or using the basic text of "Magic Vestment" where it doesn't actually say where the enhancement bonus is going making it the same as any permanent armor enhancement bonus.

[Calth]

You are reading way too much into the spell. The line is: Your[b]armor[\b] gains a +1 enhancement bonus to your AC. That's exactly the same as any other armor enhancement bonus.

[ShiroK]

Calth wrote:

You are reading way too much into the spell. The line is: Your[b]armor[\b] gains a +1 enhancement bonus to your AC. That's exactly the same as any other armor enhancement bonus.

You know looking at some Unique magic items the text has been said to give Enhancement to AC before even though that isn't what it actually does. Rhino Hide armor for instance says "In addition to granting a +2 enhancement bonus to AC" while Page 179 of the CRB states

"Enhancement Bonuses: Enhancement bonuses apply to
your armor to increase the armor bonus it provides."

So while this spell is not the first to incorrectly state what it provides a bonus to it either breaks the general rules and stacks since it doesn't enhance armor bonus it enhances AC. Or they need to come up with a consistent usage. This can be especially important if you take into account the other abilities provided by Enhancement bonus. While it may seem minor armor Enhancement is also providing the armor +2 hardness and 10 extra hp (potentially causing the item to be destroyed when a spell ends, great memory of a cleric that used magic vestment, and had their full plate with +7 worth of special abilities crumble one night when they didn't recast it in the evening)

It has also happened with weapon bonuses, the demon sub-domain for instance "Fury of the Abyss" provides you, not a weapon an enhancement bonus

If i am dual wielding does this affect both weapons?
A weapon Enhancement bonus certainly does not because it enhances the weapon not the user. It does not grant the user + to hit and damage it grants the WEAPON + hit and damage.

Am i supposed to read that and go ..."Well most Enhancement bonuses that involve attacking work this way, so i should probably assume they meant i can Enhance one weapon?" Where as other abilities that imbue weapons state specifically what they affect? Or should i assume when they say "You" they meant "you?"

Similarly an AoMF should grant it's full bonus to casters using touch spells since they are "armed" unarmed attacks" according to the combat section.

While sure in a home game you can always just decide something and go with it, it is much better if they publish with a consistent use of language specifically when they state something does something it specifically does not, at least not directly. Especially when it is around core components, including stacking of sub-stats.