Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Harmor 02-29-04, 08:53 AM	Mage Armor and Shield do not help you against melee or ranged touch attacks, but they do against incorporeal attacks? Correct?
d_nychus 02-29-04, 09:05 AM	Yep. I really wish WotC would stop using the term incorporeal TOUCH attacks. The touch part just adds to confusion. The only reason that the "touch" is in there is to remind you that normal armor does not get added into AC with incorporeal attacks. But since some forms of armor bonuses do (i.e. Mage Armor), it leads to some confusion.
Ginyu549 02-29-04, 04:00 PM	mage armor wouldn't help beacuse it gives an armor bonus and armor bonuses do not apply to a touch attack, but I thought shield would, because it is a deflection bonus, lemme check real quick...... .....yep, I was right, shield spell counts against a touch attack, but remember it doesn't stack with rings of prot. or any other deflection bonus (Prot frm evil). The reason mage armor helps against incorporeal attacks is because it is made of force, wich is the only energy type incorporeal creatures do not ignore.
jaxpur 03-01-04, 01:25 AM	Originally posted by Ginyu549 mage armor wouldn't help beacuse it gives an armor bonus and armor bonuses do not apply to a touch attack, but I thought shield would, because it is a deflection bonus, lemme check real quick...... .....yep, I was right, shield spell counts against a touch attack In 3.5 the wizard's spell Shield gives a Shield Bonus to AC, which does not apply to touch attacks. Maybe you are thinking of the cleric's Shield of Faith spell which does give a Deflection Bonus.
Ginyu549 03-01-04, 04:00 AM	hmmm... yeah, I didn't even check that, I just assumed that they hadn't changed that. interesting.... changes so it stacks with rings, but doesn't count against touch anymore..... Doh! :nonono:
Thosar Lueque 03-14-04, 11:43 PM	Lame, lame, lame! So a shield spell is selective in the type of magic it negates? Lame. I realize that to keep magic users from being horribly overpowered they had to give mage armor and shield a type of bonus but it's really lame to give them one that doesn't work against touch attacks. That's my beef.
Nom 03-15-04, 01:13 AM	In 3.5, shield provides a shield bonus and mage armour provides an amour bonus. Unlike their non-force equivalents, these both protect against "incorpreal touch attacks". Like armour, shield and natural armour bonuses, they provide no protection against regular touch attacks (melee or ranged). If you were wearing a breastplate (+5 armour) and mage armour (+4 armour), you would gain +5 against normal attacks (from the breastplate), +4 against a wraith (from the mage armour), and +0 against scorching ray.
bitnine 03-15-04, 01:20 AM	Really, I don't know why they don't call them incorporeal slam attacks, because that's what they are.
Thosar Lueque 03-18-04, 01:04 PM	I'm not sure if you were addresing me directly but I'm clear on which types of touch attacks they are efective against my beef is I think it's ridiculous for a scorching ray to be able to affect me if I have shield cast because it's not touching me. The whole point behind touch attacks and the logic of why they affect somebody wearing armor/shield is because that armor/shield is touching the person's body. The description of shield specifically states that it's not touching me ("an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you") so why would scorching ray affect me at all? The description of mage armor could be interpreted differently; the "An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject" could mean that it is actually touching the person's body and thus should be susceptible to touch attack (or spells or whatever). Does that make more sense?
Tony Vargas 03-18-04, 01:12 PM	Originally posted by Thosar Lueque The description of shield specifically states that it's not touching me ("an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you") so why would scorching ray affect me at all? Well, it could be that the magic of the Shield spell doesn't recognize the ray as tangible threat and doesn't move to intercept it - or it could even be that the ray passes through the shield (maybe it's a shield of physical force, and doesn't interact with energy). Of course, if it still gave a cover bonus, it'd be different.... ;)
tarkin 03-18-04, 02:47 PM	This has been discussed in the FAQ and byt he Sage in Dragon. Both Mage Armor and SHield are force effects that stop incorporeal Touch attacks. (They are a misnomer, they really should be called Incorporeal attacks, no touch involved). Neither Mage Armor and nor Shield stop regular touch effects. It should also be noted that Mage Armor provides a Force Armor bonus, it does not provide an Enhancement to your Armor, as one of you stated.
Dunbar 03-18-04, 03:02 PM	Well, an animated shield doesn't protect you from touch attacks either. And it isn't touching you. Basically, the shield spell provides you with an animated shield that gives a +4 shield bonus but has no ASF or ACP. Of course, the fact that the user of an animated shield still suffers from ASF and ACP is a little odd... But the upshot of all of this is that WotC decided that shield bonuses to AC would never apply against touch attacks, even if it sometimes seems silly (as with the shield spell and animated shields). If you don't like it, feel free to houserule it.
UZI 03-18-04, 04:58 PM	Originally posted by tarkin It should also be noted that Mage Armor provides a Force Armor bonus, it does not provide an Enhancement to your Armor, as one of you stated. That is important to note, as Mage Armor provides the armor equivalent of Studded Leather +1 (without a max dex penalty, or weight), so it won't stack with other worn armor (though it will overlap when it comes to incorporeal attacks).
cwslyclgh 03-18-04, 05:12 PM	It should also be noted that Mage Armor provides a Force Armor bonus, it does not provide an Enhancement to your Armor, as one of you stated. while undeniably true, I do not see where anybody stated this above.