I have always understood that a Wizard can cast Mage Armor on the Monk and for it not to affect his WIS to AC bonus.
What about the Oracle Wave Revelation - Ice Armor?
You can conjure armor of ice that grants you a +4 armor bonus. At 7th level, and every four levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +2. At 13th level, this armor grants you DR 5/piercing. In cold conditions, the armor bonus (and DR bonus) increases by 2; in very hot conditions it decreases by 2. You can use this armor for 1 hour per day per oracle level. This duration does not need to be consecutive, but it must be spent in 1-hour increments.
Yes, normally these would stack; Ice Armor provides an Armor Bonus to AC, while the Monk's AC bonus is an Untyped bonus.
But the answer is actually No, because "When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD.", so while your Monk is wearing armor, he doesn't get his Wis to AC/CMD.
It's kinda weird that this wouldn't work, but mage armor does. This revelation just lack some descriptions. It's an armor bonus and is described as an ''armor of ice'' but outside of that it acts nothing like a regular armor would;
- It has no weight
- no maximum dex bonus
- No Armor check penalty
- No armor categorie
Even mage armor at least specifies that the armor is not really an armor.
I think Ryze is right as well and monk mentions:
When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every four monk levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load.
Imo, it should stacks, it's nothing too powerful and nothing that mage armor can't already take care of while actually being better at it before 7th level.
Yeah, Mage Armor provides an Armor Bonus but isn't actual armor, so the monk's untyped bonus to AC isn't negated, and the Armor Bonus + Untyped bonus stack normally.
"Unarmored" is appearantly not defined in the CRB. IMO it refers to not using armor - armor as in the item section, from light to heavy. There is no mention of Ice Armor being light armor or worse, or specifically being treated as a breastplate or something.
RAI seems to be more clear: It's a thematic version of Mage Armor, and I'd treat it as such. It has no armor check penalty, no Dex cap (as Algarik already pointed out) - like clothing. And what's allowed for monks and doesn't restrict them? Clothing.
Finally: While the description uses the word "armor", this could as well be fluff text in the first half of the sentence.
|
This hearkens back to the Advanced Players Guide and the varying ways the oracle revelations are worded:
Armor of Bones (Su): You can conjure armor made of bones that grants you a +4 armor bonus.
Coat of Many Stars (Su): You conjure a coat of starry radiance that grants you a +4 armor bonus.
Ice Armor (Su): You can conjure armor of ice that grants you a +4 armor bonus.
Air Barrier (Ex): You can create an invisible shell of air that grants you a +4 armor bonus.
One is a coat. Two specifically say they are armor. One is a shell of air. So monk AC would stack with heavens and wind but not bones or waves? I don't think we ever got an answer on that.
"Unarmored" is appearantly not defined in the CRB. IMO it refers to not using armor - armor as in the item section, from light to heavy. There is no mention of Ice Armor being light armor or worse, or specifically being treated as a breastplate or something.
This, basically.
Armor is a specific game term, and if used as such, has specific interactions and limitations dictated by the rules. In order to have these interacitons and limitations, each armor comes with a bunch of attributes - type (light/medium/heavy), AC bonus, max dex, ACP, spell failure chance. Some of these statistics are absolutely mandatory for mechanical interactions, and no armor can be without them. The ability says it conjures an "armor", but apart from the AC bonus, it gives none of those vital statistics. Therefore, the ice armor cannot be treated as armor for mechanical interactions.
This is one of the many instances where the game mixes ruletext with non-ruletext. The easiest way to recognize those is to ask oneself "barring unusual interactions (e.g. from multiclassing), does this text actually do anything?" - just like Vital Strike's "make one attack at your highest base attack bonus" doesn't do anythign because the attack action that's required already dictates that it's a single attack at full BAB, does the ice armor ability's words "conjure armor of ice" not have any mechanical effect (as it doesn't check for proficiency, or limit the dex bonus, for example).
Note: This is pure RAW. Because RAW means "rules as written", and not "flavortext as written".
Belafon pretty much nails it.
There are armor types (haramaki, silken ceremonial) that have no max. Dex, arcane spell failure, etc., but still count as light armor (and prevent a monk from benefiting from their class feature AC bonus), so the lack of this information in the RAW text from some revelations is not necessarily a definitive indication. As Derklord states, don't "disable common sense" when considering the text describing the effect of the revelation, even if there are no mechanical penalties stated. And no, the description is not just "flavor text."
Basically if an oracle revelation (or other effect) grants an armor bonus from "armor" made of some solid physical material like bones, ice, wood (i.e., Wood Armor from the Wood mystery), etc., then the monk's unarmored AC bonus would not apply. Technically the "armor" of physical material can also count as an object and be a valid target of a magic vestment spell (although if you dismiss the "armor" and call it back, you would need to cast magic vestment on the "new" protection). It can also technically be targeted by effects that affect that substance (such as warp wood for Wood Armor).
A revelation (or other effect) granting a non-solid material type of protection (Air Barrier, Cloak of Darkness, Coat of Many Stars, etc.) with an armor bonus can be treated like the mage armor spell: it counts as "unarmored" for the monk's AC bonus, doesn't count as an object (and can't be targeted with magic vestment), etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dragonchess, I guess I didn’t convey my viewpoint very well. I think it’s silly to treat those four revelations (which function identically other than the 13th level bonus) differently based on how they are described to be in the mystery’s theme. Now, which should it be? Are they armor for monks or not? I don’t know, but they should all be the same.
The revelation simply uses the word armor as a descriptive term for the effect, but mechanically it is no different than mage armor as far as “being armored or unarmored” is concerned… if it were the Ice Armor spell on the otherhand then it would infact be considered a suit of armor for all intents and purposes.
There are armor types (haramaki, silken ceremonial) that have no max. Dex, arcane spell failure, etc., but still count as light armor (and prevent a monk from benefiting from their class feature AC bonus), so the lack of this information in the RAW text from some revelations is not necessarily a definitive indication.
This actually is an argument against what the rest of your post says. Every single armor in the game, even those with no max dex et al., must invariably have a type (light/medium/heavy). WHich means that if something doesn't have an armor type, it cann't be consindered armor by the game's mechanics.
As Derklord states, don't "disable common sense" when considering the text describing the effect of the revelation, even if there are no mechanical penalties stated. And no, the description is not just "flavor text."
You're claiming that Ice Armor, a revelation that works identical to a coupe others for a pure Oracle, uses the word "armor" specifically to address muticlasses Oracle/Monk characters? Because if not, than it is flavor text. Those two are thee alternatives, either it's flavor text, or deliberately made to interact with class features that check for armor. But the second options produces problems, because Monk's is not the only such class feature - what if the multiclass is not with a Monk, but with a Fighter with Armored Confidence? What does the armor count as? It's not stated to be any of the three types! What if it's with a Rogue? "Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor." Ice Armor is not stated to be light armor, and if using it doesn't count as "no armor", it disables evasion, despite having no max dex, no ACP, no SFC, and no weight.
This is ridiculous. You come up with in interpretation that requires only selectively enforcing interaction with other class features, and makes it behave light less-than-light armor for some things, but medium+ armor for other things. And then you have the gall to apply my comment about not disabling common sense to that? Seriously?
You know what the difference between us is? I gave a detailed reason why I consider it flavor text. You just say "no it isn't" without anything to support that statement.
Rules text is rules text. Just because the the RAW text doesn't specify armor mechanics modifiers doesn't make it meaningless from a rules perspective.
The wording of the revelations that create solid physical material is different than the ones that don't. Ignoring the word armor in the description ("You can conjure armor made of bones..."; "You can conjure armor of ice..."; "You can conjure wooden armor...") simply because there is no redundant statement of "this counts as armor" is a pretty flimsy argument on your side. The wording is "you can conjure armor" (and it is made of solid material), not "you create a magical effect that looks like armor but is really something else."
If the oracle abilities count as armor then one of the most commonly used magic items for monks would also cause them to lose their monk AC. Bracers of Armor are a piece of armor(yes a bracer is an actual piece of armor that covers the forearm) that has armor in the actual title of the object and it also provides an armor bonus as well as having a weight equal to a haramaki. I have never seen a GM at a PFS game tell a player with a monk that their magic item makes their monk AC stop functioning.
There is also nothing stopping someone from enchanting regular old clothing to provide an enhancement bonus to armor, but the difference there is that the "armor" itself has an AC bonus of +0, just like Bracers of Armor, and unlike the oracle ability which has a scaling, flat armor bonus. Bracers of armor, enchanted clothes, and a couple wonderous items only have enhancement bonuses to armor, not actual armor bonuses in of themselves. To me, this is the more clear distinction between "wearing armor" and wearing not armor, as there is no inherent armor bonus.
To use the example of a harimaki, its just clothing, "a simple silken sash" that has been further "lined with chainmail or articulated metal plates", the metal plates and chain around the waist being the weak armoring at that provides +1, thus making it armor over an unmodified sash. But even if you enchant that unmodified sash to provide AC, essentially toughening its natural fibers, it still has nothing in the sash that makes it become armor even though it's providing enhancement bonus to AC.
While the ice armor doesn't specify an ACP, max dex, or weight, it is still quite physically ice that would block and get in the way and be considered armor, and has a non-enhancement bonus armor value.
Then by that qualification mage armor also prevents a monk from gaining their AC bonus ad well as it states that it is a tangible (and therefore solid) field of force that provides an Armor bonus and not an enhancement bonus to AC.
There is also nothing stopping someone from enchanting regular old clothing to provide an enhancement bonus to armor
Sure there is, namely that there are no rules for that.
Bracers of armor, enchanted clothes, and a couple wonderous items only have enhancement bonuses to armor, not actual armor bonuses in of themselves. To me, this is the more clear distinction between "wearing armor" and wearing not armor, as there is no inherent armor bonus.
Objectively false: "Bracers of armor 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." Likewise for some wondrous items, e.g. Snakeskin Tunic which says "it grants a +1 armor bonus to AC".
There're dozens stat blocks of creatures with monk levels that wear Bracers of Armor, and they all list Flurry of Blows, which they couldn't do if the bracers would count as armor for monk abilities. Here is an example.
While the ice armor doesn't specify an ACP, max dex, or weight, it is still quite physically ice that would block and get in the way
Armor blocking movement is represented by weight, max dex, ACP, SFC, and a reduced movement speed. The rules have five ways to represent restricted movement. The ability uses none of them.
You haven't adressed my point of the interaction with other class features, either. Does Ice Armor prevent using Evasion, despite having objectively much less movement restriction than e.g. a leather lamellar armor?
Just because the the RAW text doesn't specify armor mechanics modifiers doesn't make it meaningless from a rules perspective.
*Sigh* And you just continue to make unfounded statements with zero rule support, while not answering any of my question or addressing any of my points.
You're showing a staggering amount of intellectual dishonesty.
If you actually had the rules on your side, you shouldn't have any problems disproving my arguments. I have given evidence that the word "armor" can't have be used as rule text. Unless you can show evidence to the contrary, my statement must be considered true.
Ignoring the word armor in the description ("You can conjure armor made of bones..."; "You can conjure armor of ice..."; "You can conjure wooden armor...") simply because there is no redundant statement of "this counts as armor" is a pretty flimsy argument on your side.
And now you resort to outright lying. I didn't ignore the word armor, I explained why it must be non-rule-text. This is a pathatic attempt to construct a strawman - you might as well have admitted that you can't beat my actual argument!
There is also nothing stopping someone from enchanting regular old clothing to provide an enhancement bonus to armorSure there is, namely that there are no rules for that.
There are also no rules distinguishing clothing from armor, but...
Bracers of armor, enchanted clothes, and a couple wonderous items only have enhancement bonuses to armor, not actual armor bonuses in of themselves. To me, this is the more clear distinction between "wearing armor" and wearing not armor, as there is no inherent armor bonus.Objectively false: "Bracers of armor 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." Likewise for some wondrous items, e.g. Snakeskin Tunic which says "it grants a +1 armor bonus to AC".
There're dozens stat blocks of creatures with monk levels that wear Bracers of Armor, and they all list Flurry of Blows, which they couldn't do if the bracers would count as armor for monk abilities. Here is an example.
An intangible field of force around you is not the same as something with unspecified but very real mass like ice. The strength of that field is determined by the strength of the BoA, but it is quite clearly not an armor worn, an is effectively just an enhancement bonus of +X. That same "field of force" may also be what makes a real enchantment bonus on clothes/armor, because the game never specifies or explains, but it is certainly not just it being of simple better make/design.
For Snakeskin Tunic, I'd argue that the armor bonus is a real armor bonus, as its not called out at all as special, the material its made from is snake leather (like leather armor but without the full reinforcement), and judging by the price of 8k, I doubt the remaining 2.5k after 4k from +2 enhancement and the 1.5k hypothetical force armor equivalent cost accounts for the +2 vs poison. So the ST is not some exception that invalidates BoA as a non-armor (nor did I ever claim it wasn't for that matter), and it would fall, imo, into the category of just a special armor or chest slot when a better armor is already equipped.
While the ice armor doesn't specify an ACP, max dex, or weight, it is still quite physically ice that would block and get in the wayArmor blocking movement is represented by weight, max dex, ACP, SFC, and a reduced movement speed. The rules have five ways to represent restricted movement. The ability uses none of them.
You haven't adressed my point of the interaction with other class features, either. Does Ice Armor prevent using Evasion, despite having objectively much less movement restriction than e.g. a leather lamellar armor?
Regular clothing also has weight, but isn't considered armor (lest every monk be running around naked with just some bracelets), which invalidates your litmus test. Short of any other ideas, I am sticking with "only items with armor bonus(es) that cannot be explained away as an enhancement bonus or force effect is an armor." This makes ice armor (and similar oracle mystery armors), silken ceremonial armor, harumaki, Snakeskin Tunic, etc. all count as armor while enchanted clothing (e.g. Robes of the Archmagi as just enchanted wizard robes), BoA, Mage Armor spells, etc. all not count as armor; thus the former group may interact with and nullify certain class features (granted we have no idea what the Ice Armor should be, but given its lack of ACP and max Dex, maybe it can be treated as light) while the latter does not.
if your criterion is use of the word “armor”, then Mage Armor should turn off Monk AC. If your criterion is the presence of solid, physical material from the effect, instant Armor should allow Monk AC (when it clearly does not).Rules text is rules text. Just because the the RAW text doesn't specify armor mechanics modifiers doesn't make it meaningless from a rules perspective.
The wording of the revelations that create solid physical material is different than the ones that don't. Ignoring the word armor in the description ("You can conjure armor made of bones..."; "You can conjure armor of ice..."; "You can conjure wooden armor...") simply because there is no redundant statement of "this counts as armor" is a pretty flimsy argument on your side. The wording is "you can conjure armor" (and it is made of solid material), not "you create a magical effect that looks like armor but is really something else."
Again, ignoring the wording. Mage armor: "An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC." Instant armor: "Instant armor acts in all ways as armor typical of its type (armor bonus, maximum Dexterity bonus, arcane spell failure chance, and so on)."
I think the view that it counts as ‘wearing armor’ if it uses/invokes armor rules and mechanics is the most straightforward approach. If i wanted to go hyper raw, i would focus on the word “wear” instead of only “armor”, where things that are ‘worn’ can prevent monk AC, but things that are ‘magically suspended around you in a manner that inhibits attacks but does not cause any limit to your motion’ do not prevent Monk AC.
Opinion, not RAW.
Just because the the RAW text doesn't specify armor mechanics modifiers doesn't make it meaningless from a rules perspective.*Sigh* And you just continue to make unfounded statements with zero rule support, while not answering any of my question or addressing any of my points.
You're showing a staggering amount of intellectual dishonesty.
If you actually had the rules on your side, you shouldn't have any problems disproving my arguments. I have given evidence that the word "armor" can't have be used as rule text. Unless you can show evidence to the contrary, my statement must be considered true.
Ignoring the word armor in the description ("You can conjure armor made of bones..."; "You can conjure armor of ice..."; "You can conjure wooden armor...") simply because there is no redundant statement of "this counts as armor" is a pretty flimsy argument on your side.And now you resort to outright lying. I didn't ignore the word armor, I explained why it must be non-rule-text. This is a pathatic attempt to construct a strawman - you might as well have admitted that you can't beat my actual argument!
Rules text is only what you decide it to be, then? A clear description of what the effect of a revelation is isn't enough, and you demand that Paizo add something like "We said it was armor and we really mean that it is armor, so treat it as armor" before you accept it?
Whatever. That's not a strawman. That's what the actual description of the revelation states.
If you refuse to accept the actual text as RAW, that's your problem.
Opinion, not RAW.
Your stance is just as much opinion and not RAW as the rest of ours.
Something that isn’t opinion however and can be found within RAW for how armor functions is that armor is a worn item that occupies the armor slot.
This is something that you can see reflected in the instant armor spell as well as the ice armor spell, that they both create a tangible physical suit of armor that must be worn and incurs all the benefits and penalties of such armor. Mage armor and the Ice armor Oracle revelation (and it’s variants) make no such distinction. The “armor” they conjure is not described as a suit nor is it stated to be worn, for all we know the “armor” from the revelations could be a swirling mass of the material it is comprised of that floats around the Oracle intercepting attacks as effectively as actual armor would. It doesn’t impede their movement or actions in any way because it is NOT actual armor. This is a perfectly valid conclusion we can draw from the RAW for how armor works as well as the RAW for how the ability works and the RAW for a similar ability that is infact specifically called out as actual armor works.
if your criterion is use of the word “armor”, then Mage Armor should turn off Monk AC. If your criterion is the presence of solid, physical material from the effect, instant Armor should allow Monk AC (when it clearly does not).Rules text is rules text. Just because the the RAW text doesn't specify armor mechanics modifiers doesn't make it meaningless from a rules perspective.
The wording of the revelations that create solid physical material is different than the ones that don't. Ignoring the word armor in the description ("You can conjure armor made of bones..."; "You can conjure armor of ice..."; "You can conjure wooden armor...") simply because there is no redundant statement of "this counts as armor" is a pretty flimsy argument on your side. The wording is "you can conjure armor" (and it is made of solid material), not "you create a magical effect that looks like armor but is really something else."
Again, ignoring the wording. Mage armor: "An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC." Instant armor: "Instant armor acts in all ways as armor typical of its type (armor bonus, maximum Dexterity bonus, arcane spell failure chance, and so on)."
.ignoring what wording?
My statement is “use the wording: treat Instant Armor as Armor because it says to treat it as armor; don’t treat Mage Armor or Ice Armor as Armor as Armor because they don’t say they should be treated as armor (or even give you enough rules support to be able to treat them as armor).”
You are saying “don’t treat Mage Armor as Armor for Monk purposes, because it says “field of force” which is meaningful because I made up a rule that says so”.
Ignoring the wording of the specific effect/revelation in question. Don't conflate it with a different effect/revelation.
Opinion, not RAW.Your stance is just as much opinion and not RAW as the rest of ours.
When I am quoting actual text?
Something that isn’t opinion however and can be found within RAW for how armor functions is that armor is a worn item that occupies the armor slot.
This is something that you can see reflected in the instant armor spell as well as the ice armor spell, that they both create a tangible physical suit of armor that must be worn and incurs all the benefits and penalties of such armor. Mage armor and the Ice armor Oracle revelation (and it’s variants) make no such distinction. The “armor” they conjure is not described as a suit nor is it stated to be worn, for all we know the “armor” from the revelations could be a swirling mass of the material it is comprised of that floats around the Oracle intercepting attacks as effectively as actual armor would. It doesn’t impede their movement or actions in any way because it is NOT actual armor. This is a perfectly valid conclusion we can draw from the RAW for how armor works as well as the RAW for how the ability works and the RAW for a similar ability that is infact specifically called out as actual armor works.
The instant armor spell is a specific exception to how force effects work.
My entire argument is the text describing each revelation should be used to determine how that particular revelation works.
If the particular revelation states that it conjures armor that provides a given armor bonus, then it conjures armor. If the particular revelation states that it generates a non-armor effect that provides a given armor bonus, then it is not armor.
Trying to apply some overarching "all these revelations provide the same armor bonus, therefore they are all exactly the same effect" is proving too much or faulty generalization. Similar to the argument "apple, cherry, dogwood, and oak are all trees, therefore they are the same trees."
Remember this is the internet and you are never able to change people's mind, and because you can't seem to speak nicely, I highly suggest everyone quit.
|
|
Before putting too much emphasis on parsing every word that exists (or does not exist) in an ability description and boldly declaring "that's RAW," everyone should take the time to read Sean K. Reynolds' post about why rules elements that work the same way are sometimes worded differently. And then read it again, and make sure you understand what he's trying to say. Of particular note in the discussion of the oracle revelations published in the APG:
Part is because we don't want similar chunks of text near each other to be identical, because that's an awkward read and is boring.Note that the descriptions for flaming and frost aren't exactly identical, even though they work basically the same way.
Paizo could have prevented (and still could stop) a lot of these arguments by issuing more FAQs. Can a monk still get his AC bonus while under one of those oracle revelations? Should be a pretty easy FAQ. But for a variety of reasons - some good, many frustrating - Paizo was not very responsive on FAQs. In my opinion the Design Team was overly concerned about making sure any FAQs they issued were rules complete. (Would apply to any current or future situation and not have to be revisited when related discrepancies popped up.) That's good for keeping the size of the FAQ down but left a ton of unique cases hanging unanswered.
So it's going to be a GM decision as to whether or not Ice Armor can work with monk AC. Just be consistent across the revelations and your players will be fine with it.
My entire argument is the text describing each revelation should be used to determine how that particular revelation works.
If the particular revelation states that it conjures armor that provides a given armor bonus, then it conjures armor. If the particular revelation states that it generates a non-armor effect that provides a given armor bonus, then it is not armor.
Trying to apply some overarching "all these revelations provide the same armor bonus, therefore they are all exactly the same effect" is proving too much or faulty generalization. Similar to the argument "apple, cherry, dogwood, and oak are all trees, therefore they are the same trees."
If your going to sit there claiming everyone’s argument is just a fallacy instead of actually giving counter arguments, then how about we take a look at your own fallacies shall we? Appeal to ignorance, Fallacy of composition, Definist fallacy, Referentialism… and let’s not forget the biggest one here… Argument from fallacy. Just because you see a perceived fallacy in an argument does NOT mean it is invalid, that belief in and of itself is a fallacy.
When I am quoting actual text?Opinion, not RAW.Your stance is just as much opinion and not RAW as the rest of ours.
Where? Your only rules quotes are two snippets from mage armor and instant armor, and neither of them hold any solid relevancy or proof for either side of the argument. The conclusion you drew from them is equally valid and plausible as the opposite conclusion I drew from the same set of rules.
FWIW, I think the Ice Armor and Mage Armor spells are the closest spells to the function of Ice Armor in the Oracle Mystery. The Ice Armor spell says it offers the same protection as a breastplate, while the Ice Armor from the Oracle Mystery makes no distinction.
Ice Armor
School transmutation [cold, water]; Level cleric/oracle 1, druid 1
CASTING
Casting Time 1 minute
Components V, S, F (5 gallons of water)EFFECT
Range 0 ft.; see text
Effect a suit of armor made of ice
Duration 1 hour/level or until destroyed
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance noDESCRIPTION
You create a suit of armor made of ice. While cold to the touch, it does not harm the wearer, especially if worn over normal clothing (though it can hasten the effects of exposure in cold environments). It offers the same protection as a breastplate, except it has hardness 0 and 30 hit points. If the intended wearer is immersed in water when you cast this spell, you may form the armor around the wearer (who may be you); otherwise the wearer must don the armor normally. Attacks against the wearer that create heat or fire degrade the armor, reducing its armor bonus by 1 for every 5 points of fire damage the wearer takes; when the armor’s bonus to AC reaches 0, the armor is destroyed and the spell ends. Because the ice is slightly buoyant, the wearer gains a +2 circumstance bonus on Swim checks, except when swimming downward. Druids can wear ice armor without penalty.
Ice Armor (Su): You can conjure armor of ice that grants you a +4 armor bonus. At 7th level, and every four levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +2. At 13th level, this armor grants you DR 5/piercing. In cold conditions, the armor bonus (and DR bonus) increases by 2; in very hot conditions it decreases by 2. You can use this armor for 1 hour per day per oracle level. This duration does not need to be consecutive, but it must be spent in 1-hour increments.
@OP, Personally, when I hear the words "conjure armor of ice", I think of a physical barrier of ice, and I would call that actual armor. But the Ice Armor from the Oracle Mystery doesn't have hardness or hit points, and becomes stronger in cold conditions while becoming weaker in hot conditions, but heat and fire cannot destroy it like they can with the spell; and all of this would suggest that the Oracle Mystery Ice Armor isn't armor at all, but rather it's like a "rime/frost barrier" that surrounds you like a "tangible field of force" from Mage Armor spell. So I think it's interpretable both ways. Before this discussion, I would've probably ruled this as actual armor, but after seeing everyone's thoughts on this, I think I would call it a "rime/frost barrier", i.e. not actual armor. So, I would simply have your table make the decision as to whether the Ice Armor in the Oracle Mystery is either armor or not armor, and press on.
Given the little information in the text of the ice armor revelation the armor could be a molecule thick sheen of frost on your body as easily as a quarter inch thick breastplate. There simply isn’t enough information in the description to give you a definitive answer here. As Ryze said your group should come to a consensus and leave it at that.
People pick the strangest hills to die on, I swear, some of the things people get super entrenched and stubborn about are so freaking stupid... just completely not worth arguing about.
Nothing says, or even implies, that every Revelation works the same, so they probably don't... seems like a silly thing to try argue about. Do I, personally, agree that there should at least be some shred of consistency? Yes. Would I ever plant my flag and argue on the internet about it? No. What's the point? Nobody gives a $#!+ if I think Oracle Revelations should be consistent.
Does something that says it manifests armor made of ice actually create armor made of ice that counts as armor made of ice for the purposes of wearing armor made of ice? I would say yes. If you are conjuring armor made of bone or ice or wood, that probably counts as armor made out bone or ice or wood. But, without stats for the given armor, it is hard to argue my point as valid. So I won't, and wouldn't. I would simply tell the Monk that this trick is not valid at my table, as the GM I can be mean like that without having to explain myself or back it up with RAW.
The rules arena is always such a $#!+show, anyways, it's hilarious that anyone takes anything in here serious enough to get worked up over. Like, what are you going to do... change their mind? You really think so? And even if you did change their mind, who gives a $#!+? You, me, anyone, literally everyone... nobody cares if you are now, or ever were, right or wrong... arguing on the internet is so freaking dumb...
So I was hoping to find somewhere what talked about what armor is in any of the books.
There is an armor slot but that is specifically for magic items, non-magical armor would still be armor and so I don't really think this is relevant. There are not other wearable (non-magical) slots in the game.
I went to the equipment section to look at armor and there is not a specific definition of armor to rely on. The closest I could find in this section was:
Emphasis mine. "Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to AC"
However, if that is true than anything that provides an armor bonus would turn off the monks AC bonus, including mage armor (which was not my understanding either). Do we know where the actual ruling for the monk armor bonus stacking with Mage Armor came from? Is this just something that continued over from 3.5?
Honestly, this is as closed to a RAW as I have seen so far. The argument against it would that it is just describing the parts of the armor table that are coming up after it... but it includes other rules texts in these sections too (sleeping in armor, non-proficiency in armor, etc.).
EDIT:
I feel like the two options here are:
- Armor is anything that provides an armor bonus to AC: It is consistent with text found in the CRB and is an elegant and simple solution. It also flies in the face of a thousand Paizo stat blocks and the general knowledge of the community prior to this... which is not a good thing.
- Armor is anything that has an armor type (light, medium, heavy). This would keep things as we have known them and open up things like these Oracle class features for a multiclass character. It retains the simplicity. I like it best for all of those reasons, but that isn't the same as it is the rule... I don't see a rule saying that.
So who is it dropped the ball on this one?
Either Paizo's design team just didn't find it necessary to define armor, or later designers flat out ignored the definition, assuming it was established in the first place.
It literally doesn't matter if there were no ways to get an armor bonus without wearing armor... armor, as an item, as a concept, and as a thing that interacts with everything else in the rules... it should have been defined without room for question.
As Voltaire once said, first we must define our terms...
I don't think anyone dropped the ball to be honest. PF1e is written using the natural language with multiple authors. Stuff like this was bond to happen. I feel like people obsess over RAW on forum, and while i enjoy raw debate for the thought excercise, i've never seen it matter in any game i attended. (Granted this is annecdoctical.)
Imo, Pathfinder 1e is wonky has hell if you stop at pure RAW. There's time where you need to interpret otherwise it just stops making sense. I haven't read much of 2e, but it looks like they decided to appease the RAW crowd has everything seems to be better organized with keywords and references.
The tough thing in this case is that both interpretation seems to hold some merit. I personally think that allowing it sounds cool and doesn't imbalance the game by doing so, but others might think that an ice armor would prevent a monk from moving well enough to get their bonus AC.
Sure, but when someone like Paizo takes on the burden of producing a game completely intended to be played by an international audience of strangers from the start... simple things should really be defined.
Action economy was, and never has been, completely defined... there are still massive grey (gray?) areas leading to countless debates on basic action economy... like standard action attacks or attacking as a standard action, for just one quick example.
There are still debates on natural attacks and unarmed strikes... literally attacking without weapons... combat in its simplest form, was never ironed out in concrete defined terms? Must have missed that one and jumped straight to giving us excellent grappling rules. Lol.
Nobody once decided to sit the design team down and get to the bottom of any of that? Other authors were allowed to contribute before there was a literal chassis, or glossary defining the very foundation(s) upon which possible other authors' content might be contributing to?
Who was designing combat feats for Pathfinder before combat was defined? Or literally any other content before they knew how action economy or anything else was going to possibly operate?
Someone had an idea, and they should have written it down. Then made definitions for everything they wrote down previously. Then you start asking for reviews, opinions, critics, and proofreading for grammar/spelling/ability to be translated into other languages clearly/etc...
Then, after you have your original idea complete, and only after that point, do you start accepting additions to your original idea. How do other people know what to contribute to before you know what they are contributing to? I understand how things expand from the original concept, but that is absolutely no excuse for never ironing out the very basics/foundation of the game, itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyways, upon a second reading, I find a certain elegance in the simplicity of Sean Mahoney's stated solution...
I feel like the two options here are:
- Armor is anything that provides an armor bonus to AC: It is consistent with text found in the CRB and is an elegant and simple solution. It also flies in the face of a thousand Paizo stat blocks and the general knowledge of the community prior to this... which is not a good thing.
- Armor is anything that has an armor type (light, medium, heavy). This would keep things as we have known them and open up things like these Oracle class features for a multiclass character. It retains the simplicity. I like it best for all of those reasons, but that isn't the same as it is the rule... I don't see a rule saying that.
Therefore, I recant my previous statement... as a GM, I would now allow the Revelations to not interfere with a Monk's AC Bonus. I like the way the 2nd option is both simple, and doesn't go against years of, well, everything. Monks and Mage Armor has always been a thing in PF1. Same with Bracers of Armor.
It is actually easier to treat all the Revelations (and similar abilities) the same as Mage Armor, and just roll with it...
Thank you, Sean Mahoney... I like the 2nd option, and will use that if this ever happens to happen at my table.
Anyways, upon a second reading, I find a certain elegance in the simplicity of Sean Mahoney's stated solution...
I feel like the two options here are:- Armor is anything that provides an armor bonus to AC: It is consistent with text found in the CRB and is an elegant and simple solution. It also flies in the face of a thousand Paizo stat blocks and the general knowledge of the community prior to this... which is not a good thing.
- Armor is anything that has an armor type (light, medium, heavy). This would keep things as we have known them and open up things like these Oracle class features for a multiclass character. It retains the simplicity. I like it best for all of those reasons, but that isn't the same as it is the rule... I don't see a rule saying that.
Therefore, I recant my previous statement... as a GM, I would now allow the Revelations to not interfere with a Monk's AC Bonus. I like the way the 2nd option is both simple, and doesn't go against years of, well, everything. Monks and Mage Armor has always been a thing in PF1. Same with Bracers of Armor.
It is actually easier to treat all the Revelations (and similar abilities) the same as Mage Armor, and just roll with it...
Thank you, Sean Mahoney... I like the 2nd option, and will use that if this ever happens to happen at my table.
Or, it's simply anything that provides a physical armor bonus, not enchantment or force, which might require a little mental gymnastics for special wonderous items but means when you are conjuring armor made of ice, therefore real and physical, you are in fact wearing armor. It still doesn't stop you from enchanting regular clothes, doesn't impeded BoA or Mage Armor, and accounts for other strange and esoteric armor bonuses where this or that special item gives armor or shield on top of some other more important, main ability.
The early rules that were copied from 3.5 weren’t written with RAW in mind. You were expected to read between the lines.
This goes back to how duckish something is. In this case the armor abilities quack like a duck, but they don’t look like a duck or walk like a duck. So it’s probably not a duck.
Thank you, Sean Mahoney... I like the 2nd option, and will use that if this ever happens to happen at my table.
I think I will use the same for my table. I like solutions that are simple and straight forward as possible while still being broadly applicable.
If I were making this game from scratch I would have likely defined armor as anything that gives an armor bonus to AC. Monks would not have been able to use these various ways of getting an armor bonus but that would have been baked in from the beginning.
But I am not making this game from scratch, nor did even the Pathfinder 1e designers who were essentially just updating 3.5, itself an update from 3.0.
If someone can find an actual definition of armor in the rules it would make me quite happy.
In the meantime, I think the best answer is that if it has an armor type (light, medium, heavy) it is armor, if not, it isn't armor.
Or, it's simply anything that provides a physical armor bonus, not enchantment or force, which might require a little mental gymnastics for special wonderous items but means when you are conjuring armor made of ice, therefore real and physical, you are in fact wearing armor. It still doesn't stop you from enchanting regular clothes, doesn't impeded BoA or Mage Armor, and accounts for other strange and esoteric armor bonuses where this or that special item gives armor or shield on top of some other more important, main ability.
But as 'physical' armor bonus is not defined that doesn't really clear much up. Force effects, for example, are very physical.
Mage Armor: An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject
Tangible means you can touch and feel it.
A wall of force certainly is very physical as well, even having hardness and HP assigned to it.
We kind of just break down into arguments over how people imagine the spells to be manifesting. Would mage armor be more like a bubble of force that is a foot or so away? Would it be like an actual suit of armor and fit just as closely and only show when struck? One of those sounds like 'armor' and one doesn't... but either works with the description.
Likewise, is the armor created by ice armor hugging the body like platemail that is made of frozen water or is floating hunks of ice that rotate around the user and get in the way of strikes? Again, both work.
What I like about defining it as armor type is that it leaves people's imaginations free to describe the effects however they want.
I don't think regular clothes can be enchanted with armor enchants by the rules... since armor enchants go on armor. I have introduced a houserule where masterwork clothes can be enchanted as I like this solution myself, but it isn't in the base game.
Then if you need to change the exact wording to be more clear, it means the item itself has an armor bonus. Mage Armor/BoA isn't an object, its force, clothing is an object but it has no base armor value, Ice Armor has is an object (with minimal representation) and has a scaling base armor value.
Likewise, is the armor created by ice armor hugging the body like platemail that is made of frozen water or is floating hunks of ice that rotate around the user and get in the way of strikes? Again, both work.
What I like about defining it as armor type is that it leaves people's imaginations free to describe the effects however they want.
Even if you style it to be the latter where you aren't "wearing" it, its still a physical object getting in the way just like a dancing shield would, and therefore a monk wouldn't benefit from either.
I don't think regular clothes can be enchanted with armor enchants by the rules... since armor enchants go on armor. I have introduced a houserule where masterwork clothes can be enchanted as I like this solution myself, but it isn't in the base game.
The only part of magic armor that specifies needing armor, is just in reference to needing the thing to be enchanted. Sure, it can be implied it is saying the item needs to be armor before it can be enchanted as armor, but it is at a much more basic level saying "crafting magic things does not conjure the object out of this air and it can't be cheap junk."
So what stops a master silkweaver, who is already good enough to just keep layering cloth until it counts as padded armor, from making "masterwork clothing" treating it as an armor bonus of +0 (because the armor list isn't an exhaustive list of all armor designs that could ever exist), and enchanting it from there?
Mage Armor/BoA isn't an object, its force,
Ice Armor has is an object (with minimal representation)
This is where you are losing me. Why is Mage Armor NOT an object despite being tangible, but Ice Armor IS an object? I am not seeing what is leading you to make this distinction.
Even if you style it to be the latter where you aren't "wearing" it, its still a physical object getting in the way just like a dancing shield would, and therefore a monk wouldn't benefit from either.
Again, Mage Armor is tangible. It can be touched. It can get in the way. But we all agree it isn't armor. I am not seeing why you are making this distinction.
The only part of magic armor that specifies needing armor, is just in reference to needing the thing to be enchanted. Sure, it can be implied it is saying the item needs to be armor before it can be enchanted as armor, but it is at a much more basic level saying "crafting magic things does not conjure the object out of this air and it can't be cheap junk."
If it was just the later interpretation would you rule that I can start putting armor enchants onto my weapons? How about a masterwork fork enchanted with fortification?
There is the line: "All magic armor is also masterwork armor" which would just bring us right back around to the definition of armor as discussed earlier in the thread.
All that said, like I said, I like there being enchantable clothes and I have a house rule that allows for masterwork clothes to be enchanted as if they were armor. But... they aren't actually armor by the rules of the game, right? If they were, then monks wearing clothes would lose their AC bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Emphasis mine. "Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to AC"
However, if that is true than anything that provides an armor bonus would turn off the monks AC bonus, including mage armor (which was not my understanding either).
"Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to AC" does not mean "everything that grants an armor bonus to AC is a type of armor". It's like saying "all dogs are animals", which does not equal "all animals are dogs". Indeed, the rule you quoted explicitly says "The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn’t stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus". The way the sentence is constructed, these "other effects or items that grant an armor bonus" must not be considered "suit[s] of armor".
What your quote does show, incidentally, is that there is no such thing as a +0 AC armor.
There actually some really weird oddities that occur when one would use your 'first option':
• Caltrops say "If the creature is wearing shoes or other footwear, it gets a +2 armor bonus to AC." CRB pg. 155 A Monk could wear shoes just fine... but against caltrops (and only against caltrops) would doing that turn off their AC Bonus against them. Guess when Monk's encounter caltrops, the right thing for them to do is to take off their shoes!
• The Robe of the Archmagi grants a "+5 armor bonus to AC" - but only for arcane spellcasters. A pure Monk could wear the robe just fine, but when they multiclass into Wizard, it would turn off their class features, despite being the exact same item.
Do we know where the actual ruling for the monk armor bonus stacking with Mage Armor came from? Is this just something that continued over from 3.5?
That it stacks is in the stacking rules, but that's not the contention. I've looked through the 3.5 FAQs, and the only thing it adresses is Bracers of Armor.
There're also plenty of stat blocks of Monk NPCs using potions (or the like) of Mage Armor. Stat blocks are never hard proof, but they can be an indication.
I like it best for all of those reasons, but that isn't the same as it is the rule... I don't see a rule saying that.
Well, there is no rule that says that you need a second level spell slot to cast a second level spell, they just assume everyone is intelligent enough to understand that. There isn't a rule that says that you don't get second level spells until 3rd (or whatever) level, they just show it on the class table. Hell, the rules don't even say that you take a penalty on iterative attacks*, we only know that to be the case because every class table includes the iterative attacks at accumulating -5 penalties.
Those things aren't written down because they don't need to be written down (well, the iterative penalty should, but the stuff about spells doesn't). Looking at the table and trying to understand it (instead of trying to look for confirmation of an already made up opinion) is enough.
If the book has a section called "armor", saying that all armors are in that section, and that what isn't in that section isn't armor, shouldn't be controversial. Similarly, if the magic item slot rules differentiate between armor slot and chest slot, and the magic item type rules differentiate between magic armor and wondrous items, I don't see how anyone can justify saying that a wondrous item taking the chest slot was considered armor by the rules. If you have a category, putting something not into that category means it's not in the category!
*) Seriously! "When a creature’s base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack in combat when he takes a full-attack action (which is one type of full-round action—see Chapter 8)." CRB pg. 11
If I were making this game from scratch I would have likely defined armor as anything that gives an armor bonus to AC.
To be honest, that Monks lose their abilites when wearing armor that doesn't restrict them (Haramaki/Silken Ceremonial Armor) doesn't make any sense. I'm have no idea whether 3.X hat any armor like that, but I'm rather sure the writers didn't consider such things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is where you are losing me. Why is Mage Armor NOT an object despite being tangible, but Ice Armor IS an object? I am not seeing what is leading you to make this distinction.
You haven't yet figured out that every single thing he posts is just so that he does't have to admit having been wrong? He said "Bracers of armor, enchanted clothes, and a couple wonderous items only have enhancement bonuses to armor, not actual armor bonuses in of themselves. To me, this is the more clear distinction between "wearing armor" and wearing not armor, as there is no inherent armor bonus." When Trokarr and I pointed out that BoA do provide an armor bonus and not an enchancement bonus, thus showing that the argument is objectively and indubiously wrong, did he admit that? Of course not! He tried to move the goalposts (with the "tangibility vs. real mass" thing, which completely ignores that the Ice Armor discoery doesn't give a weight, and the 'armor' thus doesn't actually have mass), and said that the armor bonus "is effectively just an enhancement bonus of +X." He literally tried to tell us that the item description does something differently than it does, just to not having to admit being wrong!
His insistence on making the distinction between armor and non-armor based on something not written down, instead of what is written down (the existing light/medium/heavy classification) is for just the same reason. That he continues with his "clothing can be enchanted as armor" insistence after being proven wrong is yet another example.
Here is something of relevance for this discussion “ Mock armor
Source Ultimate Equipment pg. 57
Price 90 gp; Weight 10 lbs.
Category Adventuring Gear
Description
When an arcane caster needs a disguise, she might don a suit of mock armor. Made from leather or thin wood such as balsa or bamboo and painted to look like metal, a suit of mock armor passes as full plate under all but the closest scrutiny. A character inspecting someone in mock armor must succeed at a DC 20 Perception check to identify it as fake. Mock armor gives you no Armor Class bonus, doesn’t affect your maximum Dexterity bonus, and has no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction. It cannot be given magical armor abilities, whether enhancement bonuses or properties like fortification or ghost touch. When wearing mock armor, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks to conceal your identity or allegiance as a spellcaster (for example, in cities where arcane spellcasting is illegal). The Craft (carpentry) or Craft (leather) DC to create mock armor is 25.”
Here we have an item that LOOKS like full plate and weighs 10 POUNDS and by RAW a monk can wear this and still retain their monk AC because it is NOT armor. It is made of leather or WOOD (just like the Wood Armor Oracle revelation) and is very real and very tangible and I would imagine rather restrictive of movement like full plate armor yet STILL the monk does not loose his AC bonus because it is NOT armor. The fact that it may not be enchanted as armor also suggests that mere clothes should also not be able to be enchanted as they are NOT armor. It also points out the glaring ridiculousness of denying monks haramakis as mock armor would be far more restrictive and weighs 10 times as much.
So do Bracers of Armor and the Mock Armor I just quoted and it is quite clear neither of them count as armor in regards to monk AC bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mock armor is such a weird item too, it's basically a leather fullplate that weight has much as a padded armor, but give no actual armor bonus. Doesn't it constitute at least some form of minor protection? I guess not lol
RAW: Mage Armor counts as armor because it has "Armor" in the name.
/s
I know you're being sarcastic and that's totally fine, but one could argue that mage armor constitute armor because i does mention ''unlike mundane armor'' which could only mean mage armor is indeed an armor.
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.
Pure RAW, mage armor might actually stop monks from getting their bonus AC. As PF1e is written using natural language and being ''armored'' means wearing an armor.
Now does i think it's silly? Yes. Pure RAW pathfinder is full of bugs or weird interaction. As the foundation of the game wasn't built to withstand such scrutiny we're stuck with having to interpret what the developpers actually meant.
IMO, a good house rule for Monk is that any armor bonus that inflicts armor check penalty and/or has a maximum dex bonus attached to it is too restrictive for the monk, the rest is fine. Monks are already kinda weak they don't need to be crippled even more.