I have a character who is looking to use the Benevolent Armor enhancement in combination with the Bodyguard feat to improve the AC of his allies. I'll add the relevant text in the spoilers below.
Unfortunately I've run into a bit of a wrinkle. My GM is arguing that the AC bonus provided by the Benevolent armor is typed as enhancement rather than untyped. Because the bonus is typed, it would not stack with any magical armor the Bodyguard target is already wearing.
I believe that the reference to an enhancement bonus is simply to note down the bonus the Benevolent armor grants, and the total Aid Another bonus to AC would still be untyped.
Does anyone have any input? :)
Edit: Just noticed the Benevolent weapon enchantment uses similar language. I'll include the relevant text in a spoiler below.
When the wielder of a benevolent weapon uses the aid another action to grant an ally a bonus on attack rolls, he increases the aid another bonus by the enhancement bonus of the weapon.
I could argue this either way. The RAW is unclear. Which means ultimately it's up the GM.
But I have two arguments in your favor that I would use, if I were your GM:
First, this combination of bodyguard feat AND benevolent armor has cost your character quite a bit. You could have taken a better feat or acquired better armor, and you have to give up at least an AoO each time you use it. For that cost, you should get the larger benefit.
Second, if you think about what a magical "enhancement" bonus is, it is the magic enhancing the user's ability. A sword's enhancement bonus improves your ability to swing it, armor's enhancement bonus improves your ability to defend, etc. Taking your GM's ruling, the assumption now is that YOU are wearing the armor but when you use Aid Another on an ally, the magic transfers to him. I don't think that's how magic works - the "enhancement" bonus enhances whatever YOU are doing, not whatever your target is doing. Therefore, I would assume the enhancement bonus should enhance your Aid Another, not enhance your ally's armor.
If those two arguments don't sway him then I doubt that anything will.
Ultimately, I hope all GMs make rulings in favor of letting players use their abilities effectively, but I know they all don't. I hope your GM rules in your favor.
It would not work. While it doesn't explicitly state how it is added, bonuses don't change types in translation.
Secondly, looking at the cost of the Benevolent ability, I would say it's definitely intended to stay as an enhancement bonus, and is more intended to be used on party members that do not wear armor when they're about to take a hit.
It stays untyped.
There is another version of benevolent that is placed on weapons and affect aid another offensively. Under the OPs GM interpretation, This would make no sense as it does the same thing as allying property; They would both use enhancement bonus to add an enhancement bonus...
Therefore the bonus from benevolent is to the aid action, not to enhancement.
|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Ok, aid another is +2. The text says you add the enhancement bonus to the aid another bonus which to me suggests that its an enhancement bonus to the +2, not to your AC. Furthermore, its an untyped bonus in the first place, so the fact that its an enhancement bonus is not really important. Your barkskin +2 enhancement bouns to nat armor doesnt prevent your +5 armor from working. So to summarize, aid another gives an untyped bonus to their ac, and you apply the enhancement bonus to that, not to their armor bonus like their +3 blessed greased grey dragon scale mail (if you dont get the reference im sad but its ok).
Based on feedback our group has reached an agreement on how Benevolent Armor works. Thanks! :)
Always glad to be of help, it's the reason I come to the rules forums!
We are here to (ostensibly) help. Sometimes to argue, but mostly to help. Good to know we (again ostensibly) did that.
Haha I concur!