| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Gaelforcwynd03-04-07, 01:47 PM | Does the spell Mage Armour stack with regular, non-magical armour? |
| pedr03-04-07, 02:06 PM | No. It gives an 'armour bonus' which doesn't stack with other armour bonuses (such as from armour or from bracers of armour) |
| kenobi6503-04-07, 02:54 PM | The one thing that mage armor provides that regular armor doesn't is that it is effective against incorporeal attacks (which would bypass "normal" armor). So, if, for some reason, you had both going, no, they wouldn't stack, but you'd be able to apply the +4 bonus from the mage armor on an attack from a shadow, for example. |
| Gallaway03-05-07, 02:18 AM | In addition I do believe that mage armor stacks with enhancement bonuses. Hence if you wear padded leather +2 and have mage armor you would get the highest of the two armor bonuses (in this case the mage armor for +4) and add the +2 enhancement bonus to get a total of +6. |
| King Kashue03-05-07, 02:27 AM | In addition I do believe that mage armor stacks with enhancement bonuses. Hence if you wear padded leather +2 and have mage armor you would get the highest of the two armor bonuses (in this case the mage armor for +4) and add the +2 enhancement bonus to get a total of +6. Nope (and you're the first person I've ever run into who's even suggested that) The Enhancement bonus is to the armor itself, not to your character. I.e., you don't have a enhancement bonus that stacks with whatever armor bonuses you have available. You have an enhancement bonus that stacks with the specific armor enchanted with it. |
| pedr03-05-07, 06:57 AM | Nope (and you're the first person I've ever run into who's even suggested that) The Enhancement bonus is to the armor itself, not to your character. I.e., you don't have a enhancement bonus that stacks with whatever armor bonuses you have available. You have an enhancement bonus that stacks with the specific armor enchanted with it.Which is how you want it to work, otherwise wearing Full Plate +2 and a Heavy Shield +2 would only give you a bonus to AC of 12 not 14 (as from the other interpretation the two enhancement bonuses of +2 wouldn't stack). This way you have an armour bonus of +10 and a shield bonus of +4 - the two +2s enhancing the bonus provided by the item they are added to. |
| Gallaway03-06-07, 09:03 PM | Which is how you want it to work, otherwise wearing Full Plate +2 and a Heavy Shield +2 would only give you a bonus to AC of 12 not 14 (as from the other interpretation the two enhancement bonuses of +2 wouldn't stack). This way you have an armour bonus of +10 and a shield bonus of +4 - the two +2s enhancing the bonus provided by the item they are added to. Well no .. the rules specifically state that the magic enhancement bonuses from armor and shield stack with each other. 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. I personally see no reason, by the rules, why mage armor doesnt stack with the enhancement bonus from an armor or shield .. but if a GM wanted to rule otherwise I would not argue about it. It is not that big an issue really. |
| ShinAkuma203-06-07, 09:53 PM | I personally see no reason, by the rules, why mage armor doesnt stack with the enhancement bonus from an armor or shield .. but if a GM wanted to rule otherwise I would not argue about it. It is not that big an issue really. It's not an enhancement bonus to your AC. It's an enhancement bonus to the AC provided by the item. A +2 Chain Shirt provides a +6 Armor bonus to AC, not +4 Armor and +2 enhancement. The +2 adds to the armor. The armor does not stack with any other armor bonus, including the Mage Armor spell. |
| Paul H03-09-07, 10:26 AM | Hi Of course - Mage Armour does stack with Natural Armour, Deflection bonuses, shields, dex & the like. ;) Poster might want to look at Argent Savant (is it LG legal)? 2nd lvl of this Prc grants 'Force Armour', an additional +2 to any force spell granting shield or armour bonus. EG Gtr Mage Armour & Shield spells running together +14 AC. Only problem is prereqs. (Minimum 9th lvl character - but worth the wait)! Cheers Paul H |
| Gaelforcwynd03-10-07, 01:38 PM | Hi Of course - Mage Armour does stack with Natural Armour, Deflection bonuses, shields, dex & the like. ;) Poster might want to look at Argent Savant (is it LG legal)? 2nd lvl of this Prc grants 'Force Armour', an additional +2 to any force spell granting shield or armour bonus. EG Gtr Mage Armour & Shield spells running together +14 AC. Only problem is prereqs. (Minimum 9th lvl character - but worth the wait)! Cheers Paul H In 2nd Edition D&D it didn't stack. I haven't seen anything that says in wouldn't stack in 3.5 Edition. Can someone direct me to the literature which says it doesn't? |
| Timlagor03-10-07, 03:21 PM | It's in the PHB Mage Armour grants an Armour Bonus to AC Bonuses of the same type do not stack unless they are Dodge or Circumstance Bonuses or explicitly state that they stack. Armour also grants and Armour Bonus to AC (if you're still asking the original question; if it has something to do with the quote I think you need to reread the quote and clarify you're question -specify what you are referring to in "it didn't stack") |
| Paul H03-13-07, 11:39 AM | Hi PHB Pg 136 is good start, as is 'Barkskin' spell description. Only AC bonus type that stacks with itself, though is 'Dodge'. (Eg, Dwarf with Dodge feat vs Giant gets +5 Dodge to AC). Example Oskar Thorinson (My main) has AC 21 Mithril Chain Shirt +1 (Lt Fort) [Armour Bonus] Light Steel Shield +1 [Shield Bonus] Dex 14 (Inc Gauntlets Dex +2) [Dex Bonus] Amulet Natural Armour +1 [Nat Armour Bonus] Ring Protection +1 [Deflection Bonus] (With PFE up AC improves to AC 22 - not AC 23) Note: Gains extra +4 Dodge Bonus vs Giant subtype as Dwarf One thing I used to forget when 3.0 first came out is that Rings of protection grant deflection bonus, so does NOT stack with protection from Evil etc. You take better of..... (Likewise the Resistance bonus to spells from PFE & Vests of resistance). Hope this helps Paul H |
| Gallaway03-13-07, 06:48 PM | Hi PHB Pg 136 is good start, as is 'Barkskin' spell description. Only AC bonus type that stacks with itself, though is 'Dodge'. (Eg, Dwarf with Dodge feat vs Giant gets +5 Dodge to AC). Example Oskar Thorinson (My main) has AC 21 Mithril Chain Shirt +1 (Lt Fort) [Armour Bonus] Light Steel Shield +1 [Shield Bonus] Dex 14 (Inc Gauntlets Dex +2) [Dex Bonus] Amulet Natural Armour +1 [Nat Armour Bonus] Ring Protection +1 [Deflection Bonus] (With PFE up AC improves to AC 22 - not AC 23) Note: Gains extra +4 Dodge Bonus vs Giant subtype as Dwarf One thing I used to forget when 3.0 first came out is that Rings of protection grant deflection bonus, so does NOT stack with protection from Evil etc. You take better of..... (Likewise the Resistance bonus to spells from PFE & Vests of resistance). Hope this helps Paul H in terms of spells another confusing one is .. - shield gives a shield bonus - divine shield gives a deflection bonus |
| Eric Anondson03-14-07, 12:38 AM | in terms of spells another confusing one is .. - shield gives a shield bonus - divine shield gives a deflection bonusI don't know where the divine shield spell is, however, for more confusion the Divine Shield feat (CW) grants a sacred bonus to the shield's AC value. |
| clannagh03-14-07, 01:25 AM | I don't know where the divine shield spell is, however, for more confusion the Divine Shield feat (CW) grants a sacred bonus to the shield's AC value. i think "shield of faith" is the deflection one |
| Gaelforcwynd03-14-07, 08:29 AM | How it SHOULD work is this. Mage Armour should add an enchantment bonus to any armour up to the same enchantment level that the spell would confer. It shouldn't stack with the enchantment bonuses of enchanted armour, but whichever is higher would be prevalent, like having two spells cast on you simultaneously. |
| pedr03-14-07, 09:19 AM | Um, isn't that what Magic Vestment does? So there's already a spell for it - albeit a cleric one, and giving significantly less benefit. |
| Jay_Ibero_91103-14-07, 02:06 PM | How it SHOULD work is this. Mage Armour should add an enchantment bonus to any armour up to the same enchantment level that the spell would confer. It shouldn't stack with the enchantment bonuses of enchanted armour, but whichever is higher would be prevalent, like having two spells cast on you simultaneously. Asside from that being what the Magic Vestment spell does...that would require the mage to wear armor to be enhanced and therefore suffer arcane spell failure, completely negating the point of the spell. |
| Gaelforcwynd03-16-07, 08:15 AM | Asside from that being what the Magic Vestment spell does...that would require the mage to wear armor to be enhanced and therefore suffer arcane spell failure, completely negating the point of the spell. Well Magic Vestment is a bit of a weak spell, designed for classes who normally can wear armour anyway. There are also feats for allowing Arcane casters to negate penalties for wearing light armour, but I do concede that having Mage Armour stack with regular armour would make it too powerful for a 1st level spell, even if it's designed for classes who normally cannot wear armour without taking penalties. :cool: |
| Paul H03-16-07, 11:46 AM | Hi Actually - I disagree. Magic Vestment adds an enhancement bonus to shields, armour, or set of clothes. It does NOT of itself prevent Arcane casting, nor indeed does any armour. Armour & Shields normally have an Arcane Spell Failure chance, but a suit of normal clothes doesn't. Since this is an 'enhancement' bonus, not armour itself, it could be argued that it stacked with Mage Armour. (But I would ask for 'higher' clarification on that point). After all, Mage Armour stacks with a shield. Cheers Paul H |
| kenobi6503-16-07, 11:55 AM | Magic Vestment adds an enhancement bonus to shields, armour, or set of clothes. It does NOT of itself prevent Arcane casting, nor indeed does any armour. Armour & Shields normally have an Arcane Spell Failure chance, but a suit of normal clothes doesn't. Since this is an 'enhancement' bonus, not armour itself, it could be argued that it stacked with Mage Armour. (But I would ask for 'higher' clarification on that point). After all, Mage Armour stacks with a shield. Not at my table, you don't. Here's the description of magic vestment: You 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. If you cast magic vestment on a suit of clothing, you're treating it as armor that has a starting AC bonus of +0 (and then receives an enhancement bonus to the armor bonus from the spell). So, no, it wouldn't stack with mage armor. Of course mage armor stacks with a shield! The former provides an armor bonus to AC; the latter provides a shield bonus to AC. I swear, you guys are trying to make this more complicated than it needs to be. |
| Alpha_Nerd03-16-07, 12:13 PM | Can you cast Magic Vestments on Mage Armor? :D Think about it, it's a Conjuration (Creation) spell with no SR. You're creating non-magical force armor, so why not buff it up? |
| Jay_Ibero_91103-16-07, 12:27 PM | Can you cast Magic Vestments on Mage Armor? :D Think about it, it's a Conjuration (Creation) spell with no SR. You're creating non-magical force armor, so why not buff it up? Now THAT is a good question....if yes...A 13th level Wiz/Argent Savant with Arcane Disciple (Stength/War) could cast greater mage armor for +8 AC, then magic vestment to give it a +3 enhancement.... |
| kenobi6503-16-07, 12:36 PM | Can you cast Magic Vestments on Mage Armor? :D Nope. Target of magic vestment: "armor or shield touched" (and, in the text of the spell, it then indicates that clothing can count as "armor") Effect of mage armor: "An invisible but tangible field of force". Because mage armor isn't an object, but a field of force, it isn't a legal target for magic vestment. If mage armor brought into being actual, physical armor, it'd be different. |
| Jay_Ibero_91103-16-07, 12:49 PM | Nope. Target of magic vestment: "armor or shield touched" (and, in the text of the spell, it then indicates that clothing can count as "armor") Effect of mage armor: "An invisible but tangible field of force". Because mage armor isn't an object, but a field of force, it isn't a legal target for magic vestment. If mage armor brought into being actual, physical armor, it'd be different. That is a decent argument against it, but on the other hand, you still "wear" mage armor, which means it could be considered clothing at least, which would make it a valid target. |
| Eric Anondson03-16-07, 01:00 PM | That is a decent argument against it, but on the other hand, you still "wear" mage armor, which means it could be considered clothing at least, which would make it a valid target.I don't know if a target wears it so much as the field of force simply surrounds the target. *shrug* |
| kenobi6503-16-07, 01:02 PM | That is a decent argument against it, but on the other hand, you still "wear" mage armor, which means it could be considered clothing at least, which would make it a valid target. No, no, no. Here is the entire text of mage armor. Mage Armor Conjuration (Creation) [Force] Level: Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action 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. Focus: A piece of cured leather. Nowhere in that text does the word "wear" appear, nor does anything even suggest that it acts, or can be treated, in any way, like clothing. It's a force field. |
| Jay_Ibero_91103-16-07, 01:08 PM | No, no, no. Here is the entire text of mage armor. Nowhere in that text does the word "wear" appear, nor does anything even suggest that it acts, or can be treated, in any way, like clothing. It's a force field. Does it matter what it is? It could be a field of cotton candy. It still surrounds you, apparently at the level equivalent to a chain shirt. And it is tangible, so you can physically touch it. It's just invisible. Sounds like you are wearing it to me. How is it any different than wearing anything else except for the fact mage armor is weightless? |
| kenobi6503-16-07, 01:26 PM | Does it matter what it is? It could be a field of cotton candy. It still surrounds you, apparently at the level equivalent to a chain shirt. And it is tangible, so you can physically touch it. It's just invisible. Sounds like you are wearing it to me. How is it any different than wearing anything else except for the fact mage armor is weightless? A "field" is not clothing. It does not fill a body slot. If it's clothing or "armor", it would say in the spell description that it fills the armor/robe slot, or the vest/vestment/shirt slot, which it doesn't. You can wear a suit of armor while having a mage armor spell active on you -- it's just that the effects won't stack. And, the description of magic vestment is very clear on what it will and won't target. You're not "wearing" it any more than you're "wearing" any other spell effect that targets you. Are you "wearing" your protection from evil? Your bull's strength? I think you're seriously reaching on this one. I'd say "expect table variation", but that'd be suggesting that a significant number of DMs would buy your argument. |
| trollbill03-16-07, 01:29 PM | Obviously, Jay subscribes to the "Emporer's New Clothing" philosophy when it comes to Mage Armor. ;) |
| Eric Anondson03-16-07, 01:41 PM | You're not "wearing" it any more than you're "wearing" any other spell effect that targets you. Are you "wearing" your protection from evil? Your bull's strength?Well my fire shield sure keeps me warm like clothing. :P |
| Jay_Ibero_91103-16-07, 01:45 PM | A "field" is not clothing. It does not fill a body slot. If it's clothing or "armor", it would say in the spell description that it fills the armor/robe slot, or the vest/vestment/shirt slot. It doesn't. You can wear both a suit of armor and have a mage armor spell active on you -- it's just that the effects won't stack. And, the description of magic vestment is very clear on what it will and won't target. You're not "wearing" it any more than you're "wearing" any other spell effect that targets you. Are you "wearing" your protection from evil? Your bull's strength? I think you're seriously reaching on this one. I'd say "expect table variation", but that'd be suggesting that a significant number of DMs would buy your argument. Something doesn't have to take up a slot to be worn. Also, the difference between Mage Armor and protection from evil or bull's strength is that the latter two do not create any tangible effect, being an abjuration and a transmutation. Mage Armor is a conjuration(creation) effect creating a physical result for the duration of the spell. It doesn't prevent you from wearing other things because it overlaps everything else. Also, armor is not actually a term defined in the game. There are examples of specific types of armor, but no definition by which all armor can be identified. Looking at the description of Mage Armor, we see that it is indeed refferred to as armor. Mage Armor Conjuration (Creation) [Force] Level: Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action 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. Focus: A piece of cured leather. The first part merely describes what mage armor consists of. It does not deny the fact that mage armor is indeed armor. All of the armors in the PHB and other books include descriptions as well. In fact, there is nothing in the mage armor spell to indicate it is not armor, and the text itself in fact confirms that it IS a type of armor, if indirectly. It states "incorporeal creatures can't bypass it the way they do normal armor." Which implies that Mage Armor is armor that is not normal. Magic Vestment only states "armor", not requiring any specific type. Therefore Mage Armor is a valid target for Magic Vestment. Or at least that's how one argument goes... |
| kenobi6503-16-07, 01:53 PM | Or at least that's how one argument goes... You're having to make a lot of inferrences to get there, Jay. If the description of mage armor said, "it brings into being a suit of armor made of force", then I'd be agreeing with you. But, it doesn't. Nothing in the description of the spell says "this is armor". It says that it provides an armor bonus to AC, and it compares it to "normal armor", but it never says "this is armor." Armor is, indeed, defined in the game, from the standpoint that there is a category of equipment called "armor", and a body slot that is filled with "a suit of armor or a robe." |
| kenobi6503-16-07, 01:57 PM | One other thought. Here's the description of bracers of armor, which are, fundamentally, permanent mage armor: 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. Moderate conjuration; CL 7th; Craft Wondrous Item, mage armor, creator’s caster level must be at least two times that of the bonus placed in the bracers; Price 1,000 gp (+1), 4,000 gp (+2), 9,000 gp (+3), 16,000 gp (+4), 25,000 gp (+5), 36,000 gp (+6), 49,000 gp (+7), 64,000 gp (+8);Weight 1 lb. Note the description "invisible but tangible field of force" -- sound familiar? But, then read the end of the sentence: "just as though he were wearing armor." And, I don't think magic vestment would work on bracers of armor, either. |
| Jay_Ibero_91103-16-07, 02:00 PM | You're having to make a lot of inferrences to get there, Jay. If the description of mage armor said, "it brings into being a suit of armor made of force", then I'd be agreeing with you. But, it doesn't. Nothing in the description of the spell says "this is armor". It says that it provides an armor bonus to AC, and it compares it to "normal armor", but it never says "this is armor." Armor is, indeed, defined in the game, from the standpoint that there is a category of equipment called "armor", and a body slot that is filled with "a suit of armor or a robe." Niether of those are a definition. They are both qualities of armor, but not a definition that can be used to identify all other armor. There is indeed a category of items called armor, but the game does not define what falls into that category. It only provides examples of items that do. Not all items that fill the armor or robe slot are armor, so it does not help. Mage Armor could be considered armor by name alone. Does the fact that it is made up of force instead of plates of metal mean that mage armor is not actually armor? In that case, does the definition of armor include some limit as to what materials it must be made of? |
| Alpha_Nerd03-16-07, 02:03 PM | Mage 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. " I would say anything that grants an Armor Bonus and is compared to mundane armor is armor. I would say you can Magic Vestment Mage armor until we get a definite ruling saying no. |
| Eric Anondson03-16-07, 02:03 PM | Bolding the name of the spell doesn't mean it is functional armor. It would be like casting the shield spell and expecting to get an extra benefit from the Shield Specialization feat. And to justify it I point out the spell is called "shield", so therefore it must work. |
| Alpha_Nerd03-16-07, 02:09 PM | You're not wielding the shield spell, but you're wearing the Mage Armor spell. |
| Jay_Ibero_91103-16-07, 02:21 PM | Bolding the name of the spell doesn't mean it is functional armor. It would be like casting the shield spell and expecting to get an extra benefit from the Shield Specialization feat. And to justify it I point out the spell is called "shield", so therefore it must work. Well actually, beyond the name of the spell, the effect it creates is specifically called a shield in the spell description. Shield Abjuration [Force] Level: Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 min./level (D) Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. Unlike with a normal tower shield, you can’t use the shield spell for cover. Notice it doesn't say "a shield spell" it says "the shield" referring to the effect the spell creates. Of course, it would most likely be a wast of resources to cast Magic Vestment on a shield spell, because of the much shorter duration. |
| kenobi6503-16-07, 02:23 PM | You're not wielding the shield spell, but you're wearing the Mage Armor spell. Not in my POV, you're not, for the reasons I've already noted. I posted the question to WotC Customer Service, though we all know how variable (and, non-binding to LG) those responses can be. |
| Jay_Ibero_91103-16-07, 02:30 PM | Not in my POV, you're not, for the reasons I've already noted. I posted the question to WotC Customer Service, though we all know how variable (and, non-binding to LG) those responses can be. I'd bet that they are gonna say no, since that's what the instinctual response to this question seems to be. And also, I do see it as silly if it became RAW that they do work together, I'm merely showing how, with the information available, it's possible for it to be the case. Also, I'm curious as to the exact question you presented them with. |
| Eric Anondson03-16-07, 02:31 PM | Notice it doesn't say "a shield spell" it says "the shield" referring to the effect the spell creates. Of course, it would most likely be a wast of resources to cast Magic Vestment on a shield spell, because of the much shorter duration.You need to not look at the SRD because it seems to not be keeping the italics of the formating. Look in your PHB where the important formating is intact proving that they indeed refer to it as shield, not shield. Same with mage armor, the PHB keeps the italicized formating intact again proving it is a spell. |
| kenobi6503-16-07, 02:37 PM | Also, I'm curious as to the exact question you presented them with. Exact wording (because, yes, I'm aware of some people's tendency to try to slant their CustServ questions): Does the Mage Armor spell qualify as "a suit of armor" for purposes of the Magic Vestment spell? In other words, can Magic Vestment be used to enhance the effect of Mage Armor? |
| Jay_Ibero_91103-16-07, 02:39 PM | You need to not look at the SRD because it seems to not be keeping the italics of the formating. Look in your PHB where the important formating is intact proving that they indeed refer to it as shield, not shield. Same with mage armor, the PHB keeps the italicized formating intact again proving it is a spell. Stupid SRD...ok...that does weaken the argument...but that puts us right back to needing a definition of armor and shields to determine whether or not Mage Armor and Shield are armor and a shield by the game's definition. |
| Eric Anondson03-16-07, 02:44 PM | ...but that puts us right back to needing a definition of armor and shields to determine whether or not Mage Armor and Shield are armor and a shield by the game's definition.With that, I agree. :) |
| kenobi6503-16-07, 03:00 PM | Well, CustServ was suprisingly quick on this one. Again, here is the exact question I posed: Does the Mage Armor spell qualify as "a suit of armor" for purposes of the Magic Vestment spell? In other words, can Magic Vestment be used to enhance the effect of Mage Armor? And, here is their complete answer: Thank you for contacting us. Unfortunately no, it certainly does not. You could not use magic vestment in this manner. |
| Gaelforcwynd03-16-07, 03:03 PM | You could be surrounded by a magnetic field powerful enough to deflect iron weapons to the point where it would be hard to hit you, but you wouldn't be 'wearing' the magnetic field. Mage Armour isn't corporeal. |
| Jay_Ibero_91103-16-07, 03:06 PM | You could be surrounded by a magnetic field powerful enough to deflect iron weapons to the point where it would be hard to hit you, but you wouldn't be 'wearing' the magnetic field. Mage Armour isn't corporeal. Ah, but you are wrong on that point. It is quite corporeal. It is a physical obstruction...that just happens to be made of force. You can touch mage armor. It's there. But apparently fullfilling a specific defensive function isn't enough to be considered armor. |
| Gaelforcwynd03-16-07, 03:16 PM | Ah, but you are wrong on that point. It is quite corporeal. It is a physical obstruction...that just happens to be made of force. You can touch mage armor. It's there. But apparently fullfilling a specific defensive function isn't enough to be considered armor. In that case, assuming atoms and molecules exist in the D&D universe, anything that can exert a force with affects you is corporeal, because any interaction between two objects is ultimately one cloud of electrons repelling another. |
| Paul H03-17-07, 10:13 PM | Hi Just a quick thought - if Mage Armour was 'worn', then what's the point? Wizards aren't proficient with any form of armour, and some other classes (eg Monks) would also lose abilities. The same goes for the Shield spell. The fact that there's no associated penalty, (IMO), is irrelevant. Personally, I consider Mage Armour as a 'field of force' surrounding the target as a'globe', since it even covers attacks starting from underground. (Purple Worm, etc). Cheers Paul H |
| King Kashue03-18-07, 10:17 PM | In that case, assuming atoms and molecules exist in the D&D universe, anything that can exert a force with affects you is corporeal, because any interaction between two objects is ultimately one cloud of electrons repelling another. Um, No...that isn't the only sort of force in the physical universe, and not all interaction is merely electromagnetic between electrons... |
| Dempster03-19-07, 11:42 AM | Exactly how is this post still going? The question is about mage armor. It's one of the simplest spells in the game. Any day now I am expecting to see a 300 post thread about the intricacies of of the light spell. The question is answered. Mage armor provides an armor bonus and armor bonuses of the same type don't stack. |
| kenobi6503-19-07, 12:00 PM | Exactly how is this post still going? If you read the whole thread, you'll see that a good chunk of it (mostly from last Friday) was a tangent to the original question, about whether mage armor was considered actual armor, for purposes of the armor-enhancing spell magic vestment. |
| King Kashue03-19-07, 08:34 PM | If you read the whole thread Why would anyone do that? If we did that, our posts might actually become topical and not redundant! Think of all the free time we would have if we didn't post less nuanced, less thorough, and less supported redactions of earlier posts! :eek: What would we do with ourselves?!? |
| JJeff03-19-07, 09:03 PM | Well, personally, I feel it is not armour as if it was, the spell would fial if the person you are casting it on was already wearing armour since you can only have 1 armour on at any one time (slot thing). But having Mage armour not being an armour would allow peopel to cast the Mage armour on a person with armour already on to allow him to have defences against incorporal attacks (yes, the armour bonus doesn't stack, but the mage armour would still provide the bonus against incorp since the normal armour would be providing +0) |
| kenobi6503-19-07, 10:36 PM | But having Mage armour not being an armour would allow peopel to cast the Mage armour on a person with armour already on to allow him to have defences against incorporal attacks (yes, the armour bonus doesn't stack, but the mage armour would still provide the bonus against incorp since the normal armour would be providing +0) And, yes, this was pointed out earlier in the thread. :D |
| King Kashue03-19-07, 11:10 PM | And, yes, this was pointed out earlier in the thread. :D I'm a prophet baby! :D |
| kenobi6503-19-07, 11:36 PM | I'm a prophet baby! :D Strong in the Force are you... ;) |
| Gaelforcwynd03-20-07, 09:10 AM | Um, No...that isn't the only sort of force in the physical universe, and not all interaction is merely electromagnetic between electrons... In the D&D world, the Prime Material Plane is corporeal right? Corporeal means it has substance doesn't it? If it has substance, then mustn't it have mass? Then is Mage Armour a field of force, that interacts with the corporeal world, but it doesn't have substance? Or is it a physical(corporeal), invisible barrier, which is made of matter? So what other forces are there that it could be? Gravitational, Strong and Weak forces? Which one is Mage Armour meant to represent if not Electromagnetic? |
| Alpha_Nerd03-20-07, 10:16 AM | In the D&D world, the Prime Material Plane is corporeal right? Corporeal means it has substance doesn't it? If it has substance, then mustn't it have mass? Then is Mage Armour a field of force, that interacts with the corporeal world, but it doesn't have substance? Or is it a physical(corporeal), invisible barrier, which is made of matter? So what other forces are there that it could be? Gravitational, Strong and Weak forces? Which one is Mage Armour meant to represent if not Electromagnetic? MAGIC |
| kenobi6503-20-07, 10:19 AM | MAGIC Ayup. Attempts to apply real-world physics to D&D almost always end in tears... |
| Gaelforcwynd03-20-07, 10:22 AM | Ayup. Attempts to apply real-world physics to D&D almost always end in tears... Let's leave religious examples out of the forums please It must be great to be ignorant, yet always have an answer for everything. How smug would you feel? It's the best of both worlds really. |
| Jay_Ibero_91103-20-07, 10:23 AM | In the D&D world, the Prime Material Plane is corporeal right? Corporeal means it has substance doesn't it? If it has substance, then mustn't it have mass? Then is Mage Armour a field of force, that interacts with the corporeal world, but it doesn't have substance? Or is it a physical(corporeal), invisible barrier, which is made of matter? So what other forces are there that it could be? Gravitational, Strong and Weak forces? Which one is Mage Armour meant to represent if not Electromagnetic? You are thinking way too scientifically about it. There are only the 2 possible states in D&D, corporeal and incorporeal. Mage armor is obviously not incorporeal because it protects you against all attacks that armor works against. If it was incorporeal, non-magical attack forms would ignore mage armor, because of the definition of incorporeality: INCORPOREALITY Spectres, wraiths, and a few other creatures lack physical bodies. Such creatures are insubstantial and can’t be touched by nonmagical matter or energy. Likewise, they cannot manipulate objects or exert physical force on objects. However, incorporeal beings have a tangible presence that sometimes seems like a physical attack against a corporeal creature. Non-magical matter and energy can touch mage armor, therefore it must be corporeal. |
| Eric Anondson03-20-07, 11:39 AM | In the D&D world, ... If it has substance, then mustn't it have mass?Not in a world with magic. Besides, he was responding to your assertion that, "...any interaction between two objects is ultimately one cloud of electrons repelling another." And if you think it is electron clouds/electron degeneracy that hold up a neutron star, there is an intro Astronomy course somewhere with a seat for you. Applying real world cosmology to a fantasy world should cease when you start out thinking or saying, "In the D&D world...". |
| bitznarf03-20-07, 01:06 PM | And then the Wizards on high (or at least on the coast) did speak to those who would listen. And they did say "These are the rules of the world of Greyhawk. Go forth and propagate, using all splat books as they are published, even if they do not make sense." And thus those righteous in the eyes of the Wizards did go forth and multiply, slaying mighty dragons and wreaking great evils upon the world due to bad editing. And thus errata was born... |
| clannagh03-20-07, 09:17 PM | Not in a world with magic. Besides, he was responding to your assertion that, "...any interaction between two objects is ultimately one cloud of electrons repelling another." And if you think it is electron clouds/electron degeneracy that hold up a neutron star, there is an intro Astronomy course somewhere with a seat for you. Applying real world cosmology to a fantasy world should cease when you start out thinking or saying, "In the D&D world...". Personally I am a rebel and believing the entire Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum Formalism is a Fascist conspiracy. Down with Shrodinger and his temporally confused feline animal companion. no more will we stand for heisenberg and his corrupted indeterminancies. |
| Lupo03-20-07, 09:40 PM | Personally I am a rebel and believing the entire Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum Formalism is a Fascist conspiracy. Down with Shrodinger and his temporally confused feline animal companion. no more will we stand for heisenberg and his corrupted indeterminancies. yea, me to is more in favour for the alchemistical explanation of the world and all matter. air, earth, fire and water nothing more - that is purity :) dreaded moralists added positive and negative energy :mad: ciao martin m. join the crusade to overthrow all "deities" and "gods", let the prime elements rule the world . . . . . . . visit our local representative in the temple of elemental evil :schemes: |
| cycloptic_squirrel03-20-07, 10:44 PM | Exactly how is this post still going? The question is about mage armor. It's one of the simplest spells in the game. Any day now I am expecting to see a 300 post thread about the intricacies of of the light spell. The question is answered. Mage armor provides an armor bonus and armor bonuses of the same type don't stack. Now that you mention it... Already up to 17. 283 to go. Anything can be questioned. Usually it is some sort of missunderstanding or lack of comprehension, but other times it can lead to quite insightful progressions. "Light's a wave, right? It has to have some substance to propagate through." "Of course, when we invade mainland Europe, we'll have to capture a port. There's simply no other way to unload all supplies and heavy support vehicles." "A wizard? With a sword? That's not allowed." Working with an artificial world with artificial rules makes change easier and harder. On one hand, it's easy to stick to the old tagline of 'that's what the rules say, so that's how it works'. On the other hand, a simple editing or ruling can change everything at the stroke of a pen. |
| cycloptic_squirrel03-20-07, 10:59 PM | SNIP It must be great to be ignorant, yet always have an answer for everything. How smug would you feel? It's the best of both worlds really. OK. Wow. I'm all for a discussion of current scientific theories and their relation to personal religious beliefs. I'm up for hashing out the strong and weak points in pretty much any system of belief or individual ideas contained therein. PM me or start a new thread about the general public's acceptance of theories well established in the scientific community; I'll dive right in. But tossing in a controversial subject that has little relation to the topic at hand, just so you can make a few broad generalizations and tasteless insults? Not cool. |
| Gaelforcwynd03-21-07, 05:05 AM | Let's leave religious examples out of the forums please Hehehe. |
| Gaelforcwynd03-22-07, 09:35 AM | Not in a world with magic. DISCLAIMER Before I go any further, I concede that applying the laws of physics to an imaginary magical world is outside the spirit of the game it was intended to facilitate. Anything further I have to say is purely in regard to the real world. Besides, he was responding to your assertion that, "...any interaction between two objects is ultimately one cloud of electrons repelling another." I'm going to use the word 'object' again. When I use this word, I am not referring to the extreme's of universe, where the laws of physics start to break down, such as sub-atomic particles, neutron stars or black holes. Nor am I referring to magnetism, gravity or other forces which interact over a long distance. I am referring to objects in the layman's sense, such as an apple, a weapon, suit of armour or a person. Something made of atoms and molecules, which can be clearly defined from its surroundings. NOTE TO SEMANTICS LAWYERS: If you have trouble getting past this, please let me know and I can perhaps further simplify it for you, however outside the spirit of this discussion that would be. :rolleyes: Getting back to the point. When two objects are 'interacting', the negative electric charge generated by electrons in the atoms on the surface of one object are repelling the negative charge of the electron clouds of the surface atoms of the other, in which case it is generally accept that they are touching. Gravity would be another way for them to interact, but that's a more obscure concept and doesn't play significant part in the mundane interactions of small objects like weapons and creatures. Magnetism is another, but neither can be defined as 'objects'. And if you think it is electron clouds/electron degeneracy that hold up a neutron star, there is an intro Astronomy course somewhere with a seat for you. Applying real world cosmology to a fantasy world should cease when you start out thinking or saying, "In the D&D world...". Well a neutron star is pushing the boundaries for a 'normal' interaction between objects. So what does hold up a neutron star? Centrifugal force? Heat? Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with my original assertion. I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong however. |
| Gaelforcwynd03-22-07, 09:46 AM | OK. Wow. I'm all for a discussion of current scientific theories and their relation to personal religious beliefs. I'm up for hashing out the strong and weak points in pretty much any system of belief or individual ideas contained therein. PM me or start a new thread about the general public's acceptance of theories well established in the scientific community; I'll dive right in. But tossing in a controversial subject that has little relation to the topic at hand, just so you can make a few broad generalizations and tasteless insults? Not cool. I honestly didn't intend to insult Christians with that comment, it was totally innocent. What's with all this PC stuff anyway. Are we that sensitive? I know it's the moderator's job to be PC. I'd like to say more, but this is your domain, so I'll respect that. :) Anyway, my point was, I prefer an healthy, open discussion where the merits of an idea can be questioned than a closed one, ultimately defined by a throw-away answer such as "It is so, because X made it so.." Those kind of answers frustrate me, that's all. |
| trollbill03-22-07, 10:45 AM | I honestly didn't intend to insult Christians with that comment, it was totally innocent. What's with all this PC stuff anyway. Are we that sensitive? I know it's the moderator's job to be PC. I'd like to say more, but this is your domain, so I'll respect that. :) To be accurate, it is the moderator's job to prevent flame wars and other discussions that are disruptive/detrimental to the community, i.e. people come here to talk about D&D, not to have their own personal religious, political or morale beliefs put on trial or attacked. Experience has demonstrated that most flame wars tend to start with otherwise innocuous comments that bring in controversial hot topics like religion. And while it is possible that such conversations remain innocuous, the number that usually escalate is too high to take a chance on. Especially when we consider that such discussions are not really germaine to this forum. |
| bitznarf03-22-07, 01:55 PM | Oooh, can we start a topic on appropriate topics?:P |
| King Kashue03-22-07, 03:22 PM | Getting back to the point. When two objects are 'interacting', the negative electric charge generated by electrons in the atoms on the surface of one object are repelling the negative charge of the electron clouds of the surface atoms of the other, in which case it is generally accept that they are touching. Gravity would be another way for them to interact, but that's a more obscure concept and doesn't play significant part in the mundane interactions of small objects like weapons and creatures. Magnetism is another, but neither can be defined as 'objects'. Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with my original assertion. I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong however. You've got two issues. One, magnetism and electron interaction are the same thing, they're both electromagnetic force. Why do you think electrons repel? It's not because of their mass, it's because of their charge. You note this. That's one force. However, in addition to somehow defining magnetism separate from that, you're forgetting two of the other four fundamental interactions. You've mentioned Gravity and Electromagnetism, but you've forgotten the Weak and Strong Forces. To ignore them in general is okay, since we don't need to try to work out unified field theory on the WotC boards :D But, if you're going to try to explain D&D physics (an inherently doomed proposition outside the explicit limits of the rules structure), you can't oversimplify things to inaccurate descriptions of electromagnetic interaction and then expect the argument to be terribly convincing. |
| trollbill03-22-07, 03:49 PM | So how many Mage Armors can dance on the head of a needle? |
| bitznarf03-22-07, 04:00 PM | So how many Mage Armors can dance on the head of a needle? 42. Or pehaps 63. |
| kenobi6503-22-07, 04:19 PM | So, let's see. We've gotten sidetracked into religion, and we've had attempts at real-world physics arguments. All this thread lacks is a Hitler reference, before it can officially be declared dead. :D |
| King Kashue03-22-07, 04:28 PM | So, let's see. We've gotten sidetracked into religion, and we've had attempts at real-world physics arguments. All this thread lacks is a Hitler reference, before it can officially be declared dead. :D Done and done... (http://www.randomimage.us/22986.html) :D |
| cycloptic_squirrel03-22-07, 04:48 PM | I honestly didn't intend to insult Christians with that comment, it was totally innocent. What's with all this PC stuff anyway. Are we that sensitive? I know it's the moderator's job to be PC. I'd like to say more, but this is your domain, so I'll respect that. :) Anyway, my point was, I prefer an healthy, open discussion where the merits of an idea can be questioned than a closed one, ultimately defined by a throw-away answer such as "It is so, because X made it so.." Those kind of answers frustrate me, that's all. OK, I came off a bit strong. It wasn't so much the example as the implication that you were somehow superior for your system of beliefs. I'm actually one of those Christians who subscribe to evolution, but tend to get very frustrated with people who outright condemn others for holding different beliefs. Especially when pushed to the edge, past all the theories, explanations, and parables, pretty much any system of belief forced to explain the why things are the way they are will usually fall back on some variation of 'that's just the way it works'. (Why do electrons repel each other? etc.) I'm always up for discussion, on pretty much anything. And, yes, it also frustrates me when someone brings out and vehemently sticks to a discussion killer like the one you mentioned, regardless of the topic. |
| cycloptic_squirrel03-22-07, 05:00 PM | All this thread lacks is a Hitler reference, before it can officially be declared dead. :D 1) Does simply mentioning Hitler count? If so wouldn't your post be kinda self fuffiling. 2) K. Kashue, um, words fail me :uh-huh: 3) Wasn't there some general internet rule that the first person to mention or reference Hitler automatically lost the argument? |
| King Kashue03-22-07, 05:06 PM | 1) Does simply mentioning Hitler count? If so wouldn't your post be kinda self fuffiling. 2) K. Kashue, um, words fail me :uh-huh: 3) Wasn't there some general internet rule that the first person to mention or reference Hitler automatically lost the argument? In reverse order: 3) It's called Godwin's Law. 2) It's Dali, he was messed up :D 1) Quirk's Exception to Godwin's Law (You can't intentionally introduce a Hitler reference with the motive of ending a thread, such introductions fail to invoke Godwin's law) |
| bitznarf03-22-07, 05:08 PM | I can't say I have heard of Godwin's Law before |
| Alpha_Nerd03-22-07, 05:10 PM | the limit of f(t) as t approaches infinity equals 1 where t = time and f(t) = the probability of hitler being mentioned in an arguement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law |
| bitznarf03-22-07, 05:18 PM | /me idly wonders how long until Hitler makes an appearance in a Pun-pun related thread.. |
| Timlagor03-23-07, 07:55 AM | So how many Mage Armors can dance on the head of a needle? Needles don't have heads and Mage Armours only have perform(sing) |
| Gaelforcwynd03-23-07, 08:12 AM | You've got two issues. One, magnetism and electron interaction are the same thing, they're both electromagnetic force. Why do you think electrons repel? It's not because of their mass, it's because of their charge. You note this. That's one force. However, in addition to somehow defining magnetism separate from that, you're forgetting two of the other four fundamental interactions. Nor am I referring to magnetism, gravity or other forces which interact over a long distance. I am referring to objects in the layman's sense, such as an apple, a weapon, suit of armour or a person. Something made of atoms and molecules, which can be clearly defined from its surroundings... Gravity would be another way for them to interact, but that's a more obscure concept and doesn't play significant part in the mundane interactions of small objects like weapons and creatures. Magnetism is another, but neither can be defined as 'objects'. You've mentioned Gravity and Electromagnetism, but you've forgotten the Weak and Strong Forces. To ignore them in general is okay, since we don't need to try to work out unified field theory on the WotC boards :D Then is Mage Armour a field of force, that interacts with the corporeal world, but it doesn't have substance? Or is it a physical(corporeal), invisible barrier, which is made of matter? So what other forces are there that it could be? Gravitational, Strong and Weak forces? Which one is Mage Armour meant to represent if not Electromagnetic? But, if you're going to try to explain D&D physics (an inherently doomed proposition outside the explicit limits of the rules structure), you can't oversimplify things to inaccurate descriptions of electromagnetic interaction and then expect the argument to be terribly convincing. DISCLAIMER Before I go any further, I concede that applying the laws of physics to an imaginary magical world is outside the spirit of the game it was intended to facilitate. Anything further I have to say is purely in regard to the real world. :cool: |
| King Kashue03-23-07, 12:29 PM | :cool: Eh, You said "I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong"...:D Really, you didn't expect an issue with saying "I know this doesn't work in the game world" then proceeding to talk about real world physics in the game world? At the very least "I know this isn't relevant, but I'll say it anyway" is an odd rhetorical technique ;) And you still described electrons interacting and magnetism as two separate forces...The fact you mentioned them both, doesn't mean you described them correctly :P |
| Istaran03-23-07, 04:54 PM | Magnetism as commonly understood behaves differently than magnetism in the case of electron cloud interactions in "touching" as Gaelforcwynd was trying to suggest. While the force is the same, in the case of macroscopic effects most objects are magnetically neutral overall and have neglible magnetic effects until the distance between two objects becomes very small (i.e. they are "touching") at which point the difference in location between the protons and electrons in the same atom/molecule are sufficient that electrons will tend to produce a statistically more significant magnetic force effect than the protons they are bound to. This is because while the electrons are sometimes closer and sometimes farther away, the force effect decays according to the square of the distance between the particles in question. The consequence, in short, is that the increase in force from the electron while it is on the near side of the molecule is greater in absolute magnitude than the decrease in force from the electron while it is on the far side of the molecule, offset by an equal distance. The final result is that a typical neutral molecule is effectively negatively charged when concidered at very close range and as an average over time. As for the random mentions of the Strong and Weak force: I have no idea how those forces work despite my AS in physics; I only know that the forces decay very quickly over distance and are generally concidered irrelevant to macroscopic interactions, being more involved with the inner workings of atoms and molecules. If anyone would care to discuss how the strong and/or weak force apply to the matter of the phenomenon of objects touching (and the related matters of the relative difficulties of interpenetration of objects) then by all means, this seems to be the forum to do so. And to add more D&D specific tangents to this thread: would mage armor work against caltrops? I say no. Discuss. |
| kenobi6503-23-07, 05:21 PM | And to add more D&D specific tangents to this thread: would mage armor work against caltrops? I say no. Discuss. I don't think so. Here's the relevant text on how caltrops work: The caltrops make an attack roll (base attack bonus +0) against the creature. For this attack, the creature’s shield, armor, and deflection bonuses do not count. If the creature is wearing shoes or other footwear, it gets a +2 armor bonus to AC. - Mage armor provides an armor bonus to AC, a bonus type that is specifically described as not counting. - "Shoes or other footwear" do provide a +2 bonus to AC, but as mage armor doesn't specifically say it acts as footwear (note: neither does "mundane" armor, apparently; the text here would seem to suggest that you could wear full plate and still be barefoot), there's no reason to believe the spell alone would provide that bonus, either. |
| Timlagor03-25-07, 01:11 PM | In general it's safe to assume that people are wearing boots -not wearing footwear in combat is clearly goign to be the exception. |
| kenobi6503-25-07, 01:28 PM | In general it's safe to assume that people are wearing boots -not wearing footwear in combat is clearly goign to be the exception. Generally, yes; even halflings wear shoes nowadays. :eek: But, other creatures, such as horses, centaurs, many monsters, etc., are likely assumed to *not* be wearing boots. |
| clannagh03-25-07, 09:34 PM | So, let's see. We've gotten sidetracked into religion, and we've had attempts at real-world physics arguments. All this thread lacks is a Hitler reference, before it can officially be declared dead. :D No .. not real world physics .. some sort of simplified high school level quasi newtonian physics that incorporates electrons as probability fields but excludes the rest of the 20th century. As for the Hitler reference .. will this link suffice ?? http://dodashitler.ytmnd.com/ |
| Gaelforcwynd03-26-07, 08:33 AM | No .. not real world physics .. some sort of simplified high school level quasi newtonian physics that incorporates electrons as probability fields but excludes the rest of the 20th century. Please, educate me.. |
| kenobi6503-26-07, 10:15 AM | Please, educate me.. And, please, off-list... :P |
| boolean03-26-07, 11:39 AM | Needles don't have heads and Mage Armours only have perform(sing) But perform (dance) can be used untrained! Ha! |