Post/Author/DateTime	Post
forsaken1111 05-04-07, 07:58 AM	Why does Abjurant Champion specifically mention Mage Armor if it only works on abjuration spells? Seems a bit odd that the text in the special ability section would say that it works on abjuration spells and then say "Abjurant champions rely on spells like shield and armor". Is it an error, perhaps? Was the intent to work on mage armor? Are there any abjuration spells which grant an armor bonus to AC?
CantripN 05-04-07, 08:05 AM	Luminous Armor (and Greater) from BoED. If you can get spells from that book of cheese, take it.
Thane26425 05-04-07, 08:11 AM	Why does Abjurant Champion specifically mention Mage Armor if it only works on abjuration spells? Seems a bit odd that the text in the special ability section would say that it works on abjuration spells and then say "Abjurant champions rely on spells like shield and armor". Is it an error, perhaps? Was the intent to work on mage armor? Are there any abjuration spells which grant an armor bonus to AC? Just move it to Abjuration where it belongs. It is pretty much identical in effect to Shield, so I have no idea why they put it isn't there in the first place.
forsaken1111 05-04-07, 08:12 AM	Luminous Armor (and Greater) from BoED. If you can get spells from that book of cheese, take it. Unfortunatly those are both sanctified spells and my sorc/abjurant champion can't use them unless he's casting them from a scroll. If there are no abjuration spells which grant an armor bonus to AC then it seems like Abjurant Champion was meant to work with (Greater)Mage Armor. Perhaps the person writing the class didn't realize those spells were not abjurations. Just move it to Abjuration where it belongs. It is pretty much identical in effect to Shield, so I have no idea why they put it isn't there in the first place. I'm inclined to agree with you. Will see what my DM says.
CantripN 05-04-07, 08:14 AM	Actually, we have confirmation that it's not supposed to work on Mage Armor, regardless of the writer's intent.
forsaken1111 05-04-07, 08:15 AM	Actually, we have confirmation that it's not supposed to work on Mage Armor, regardless of the writer's intent. Confirmation from whom? Can you tell me what the class was intended to work with then, since I can't find a single non-sanctified abjuration which grants an armor bonus to AC?
CantripN 05-04-07, 08:20 AM	Confirmation from whom? Can you tell me what the class was intended to work with then, since I can't find a single non-sanctified abjuration which grants an armor bonus to AC? I'm not big on quotes. Needless to say, I've read that claim countless times.
forsaken1111 05-04-07, 08:22 AM	I'm not big on quotes. Needless to say, I've read that claim countless times. I'm curious who confirmed that though. Do you have a link to it? I'm not calling you a liar, just wondering.
CantripN 05-04-07, 08:31 AM	No, sorry. You could look for it, I suppose. Or ask in the CO boards, again. They know their stuff real good.
forsaken1111 05-04-07, 08:37 AM	No, sorry. You could look for it, I suppose. Or ask in the CO boards, again. They know their stuff real good. I guess I could research a spell which did that. I really believe mage armor belongs in abjuration anyway, but that's between me and my DM I guess.
forsaken1111 05-04-07, 08:46 AM	Okay, I'm leaning more towards it being a mistake. First, as I said... the text OF THE ABILITY references mage armor specifically as a spell abjurant champions rely on. Second, the example character for Abjurant champion has a +9 armor bonus, which is what he would get if mage armor were affected by the ability. He isn't wearing armor of any kind, and doesn't know the shield spell. (So its not just a typo where they intended it to be a shield bonus from the spell) Taking those two I'm 85% certain its an oversight on the writer's part, and it was intended to work with mage armor.
Merestil Haye 05-04-07, 09:50 AM	Okay, I'm leaning more towards it being a mistake. First, as I said... the text OF THE ABILITY references mage armor specifically as a spell abjurant champions rely on. Second, the example character for Abjurant champion has a +9 armor bonus, which is what he would get if mage armor were affected by the ability. He isn't wearing armor of any kind, and doesn't know the shield spell. (So its not just a typo where they intended it to be a shield bonus from the spell) Taking those two I'm 85% certain its an oversight on the writer's part, and it was intended to work with mage armor.It was indeed an oversight. The writer completely assumed that the spell was abjuration when it's not, and wrote the text accordingly. All the proofreaders and editors who looked at it made the same assumption. That does not make them correct. Mage Armour is Conjuration, and you cannot apply the benefits of Abjurant Champion to it. You will have to find another spell to apply that benefit to. Like Shield, for example.
Vegepygmy 05-04-07, 12:10 PM	I agree with Merestil. It's an obvious mistake, but that doesn't mean the class ability works on mage armor; it means they made a mistake.
CantripN 05-04-07, 12:14 PM	I agree with Merestil. It's an obvious mistake, but that doesn't mean the class ability works on mage armor; it means they made a mistake. Thirded.
forsaken1111 05-04-07, 12:18 PM	With it being a mistake, its up to the DM and players to decide which way the mistake should be corrected. I'm not saying either way is right, I'm only saying that the spirit of the class would seem to indicate that it should work with mage armor. If you disagree, well then play it your way. I'll see what my DM says about it later today when I present the facts to him, and if he rules against it helping mage armor then so be it. I'll just have to do some ingame research to make some abjuration versions of mage armor. I still don't get why mage armor is conjuration, but thats a different issue.
Nephlite 05-04-07, 12:33 PM	With it being a mistake, its up to the DM and players to decide which way the mistake should be corrected. I'm not saying either way is right, I'm only saying that the spirit of the class would seem to indicate that it should work with mage armor. If you disagree, well then play it your way. I'll see what my DM says about it later today when I present the facts to him, and if he rules against it helping mage armor then so be it. I'll just have to do some ingame research to make some abjuration versions of mage armor. I still don't get why mage armor is conjuration, but thats a different issue. Because your conjuring a force field to protect you (it says that). Shield is a tower shield sized disk made of force to protect you: Abjuration is creating physical or magical barriers (like the shield spell). Conjuration is manipulating matter to create an object with magic holding it together (if not instanous). Or summoning from somehere else. So Shield is created for a short while, but Mage Armor actually exist (somewhere) and you just call it forth on our body.
forsaken1111 05-04-07, 12:39 PM	Because your conjuring a force field to protect you (it says that). Shield is a tower shield sized disk made of force to protect you: Abjuration is creating physical or magical barriers (like the shield spell). Conjuration is manipulating matter to create an object with magic holding it together (if not instanous). Or summoning from somehere else. So Shield is created for a short while, but Mage Armor actually exist (somewhere) and you just call it forth on our body. Shield and Mage armor are both force effects. You're "Conjuring" both of them if you're conjuring either one. They both involve making protective force barriers. One is a tower shield sized disk made of force, the other is an armor-shaped field made of force. The only difference is that shield also protects you from magic missile. I don't understand your argument that one force effect is more 'existant' than the other.
Jaxgaret 05-04-07, 12:43 PM	Thirded. Fourthed. There are several Abjuration spells that this will work on; do the search for it on google.com. Just type in "search site:boards1.wizards.com" without the quotes, and replacing the word search with whatever you are searching for. For example, "abjurant armor spells site:boards1.wizards.com" or something similar. Alternatively, your mage could research (or know) a special abjuration version of Mage Armor, and you treat the conjuration and abjuration versions as two different spells. That's the most internally consistent houserule.
forsaken1111 05-04-07, 12:47 PM	Alternatively, your mage could research (or know) a special abjuration version of Mage Armor, and you treat the conjuration and abjuration versions as two different spells. That's the most internally consistent houserule. Probably what I'll end up doing.
wonlee76 05-04-07, 12:47 PM	Thirded. Fourthed. As an aside, there have been other examples of oversights or mistakes which bring forth the question of "intent" but unless you're the actual author of the feat, prestige class, spell or whatever, its pure speculation. It looks like a clear cut mistake but maybe its nota mistake and was intended as is after consideration and they simply forgot to make the corrections across the board (unlikely but possible). Melee/Range Weapon Master: Table and Text don't match up. We obviously know text trumps table but this does bring to question what was really intended. That monk/Cleric prestige class in Complete Divine: Table gives 8/10 caster progression. Text under spellcasting essentially says they get caster levels with no interruption.
forsaken1111 05-04-07, 01:17 PM	Fourthed. As an aside, there have been other examples of oversights or mistakes which bring forth the question of "intent" but unless you're the actual author of the feat, prestige class, spell or whatever, its pure speculation. It looks like a clear cut mistake but maybe its nota mistake and was intended as is after consideration and they simply forgot to make the corrections across the board (unlikely but possible). Melee/Range Weapon Master: Table and Text don't match up. We obviously know text trumps table but this does bring to question what was really intended. That monk/Cleric prestige class in Complete Divine: Table gives 8/10 caster progression. Text under spellcasting essentially says they get caster levels with no interruption. I agree that we cannot absolutly know the intent of a class without input from the author or other official source. Failing official input, we must interpret the intent based upon what's written in the book and submit the facts to our DM to approve or disapprove. I'm not saying that just because its a mistake it should be ruled in the most favorable way possible, I'm saying we must each decide how to treat the mistake for our own game until official errata comes out.
Vegepygmy 05-04-07, 02:14 PM	With it being a mistake, its up to the DM and players to decide which way the mistake should be corrected.It's always up to the DM and his players to decide how the game should be played. You don't need to find a mistake to "correct" the rules when you think they need it.
Drachasor 05-04-07, 04:07 PM	As an aside, there have been other examples of oversights or mistakes which bring forth the question of "intent" but unless you're the actual author of the feat, prestige class, spell or whatever, its pure speculation. It looks like a clear cut mistake but maybe its nota mistake and was intended as is after consideration and they simply forgot to make the corrections across the board (unlikely but possible). The author of the class did come on the boards and explicitly said the intent was for the ability to work with Mage Armor. -Drachasor
green_yawgmoth 05-04-07, 04:41 PM	That's the dumbest thing I've heard today, and I think less of everyone who blithely follows the letter of the rules while excluding common sense. This PrC is basically "mage armor becomes useful for gishes". It's the main ability of the PrC. And as has also been said, There aren't any abjuration spells that grant an armor bonus to AC! It would be like if there was a PrC based around the shadow descriptor, but the main ability, which everything else is based off of, says it only works on evocation spells with [shadow]. Any idiot would realize that it should have been illusion, especially when all the other abilities give boosts to illusions! I'll bet you guys would give an ambulance a ticket for speeding to the hospital. :rolleyes: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
wonlee76 05-04-07, 04:58 PM	The author of the class did come on the boards and explicitly said the intent was for the ability to work with Mage Armor. -Drachasor Its nice the author did this but it doesn't change the fact that WOTC is either too lazy or too pig headed to bother doing an Errata for the class ability. (Though Complete Mage only came out recently so there's still time to fix it). It wouldn't be the first time WOTC editors decide to change the original author's work. Example: Invisible Blade; Original author pretty much stated the original draft was a 10 level prestige class specializing in throwing daggers as well as using them in melee. Thus the strange pre-reqs for the feat. WOTC issues an errata for CW but no change to the pre-reqs. That's the dumbest thing I've heard today, and I think less of everyone who blithely follows the letter of the rules while excluding common sense. This PrC is basically "mage armor becomes useful for gishes". It's the main ability of the PrC. And as has also been said, There aren't any abjuration spells that grant an armor bonus to AC! It would be like if there was a PrC based around the shadow descriptor, but the main ability, which everything else is based off of, says it only works on evocation spells with [shadow]. Any idiot would realize that it should have been illusion, especially when all the other abilities give boosts to illusions! Well, there is one abjuration spell that I'm aware of that grants an armor bonus to AC. Ectoplasmic Armor. Unfortunately its an armor bonus to AC only against incorporeal touch attacks. There's also the Luminous Armor line of spells from BOED. My personal opinion is it appears to be a clear cut mistake but since I run games by RAW, I don't let the the abjurant champion's ability work with Mage Armor. PCs still take the prestige class for the freebie tower shield AC boost from the Shield spell and other beneficial class abilities despite me following the RAW on this. If they later change it via errata, so be it. Its easier to run a game for me without trying to be a mind reader as to someone else's (whether its an author's or editor's) intent as to how some new spell, prestige class ability or feat is supposed to work.
Nephlite 05-04-07, 04:59 PM	And as has also been said, There aren't any abjuration spells that grant an armor bonus to AC! I don't think that word means what you think it means. As there is a spell called Greater Luminous in Exlted Deeds book. Gives a abjuration armor bonus.
Vegepygmy 05-04-07, 05:00 PM	That's the dumbest thing I've heard today, and I think less of everyone who blithely follows the letter of the rules while excluding common sense.My common sense tells me the class is way overpowered even if mage armor doesn't get the boost. With that in mind, following the letter of the rules seems to me like the very least one should do.
Drachasor 05-04-07, 06:23 PM	My common sense tells me the class is way overpowered even if mage armor doesn't get the boost. With that in mind, following the letter of the rules seems to me like the very least one should do. Personally, I'd either modify it to a 10 level PrC (with appropriate changes to the gain rate of abilities (including AC bonus), or I'd make it so that you get the AC bonus only to one spell at a time. That way you can use it with Mage Armor if you want. The problem with only getting it with shield is that then their AC is pretty awful until they get shield up. There should probably be something in the PrC against wearing armor too, imho, so you don't encourage getting a little ASF ignoring property and wearing Plate Mail* with your super Shield spell. Anyhoo, the PrC has problems, but I'd sooner deny the bonus to shield spells than deny it to mage armor. If you are fighting between going with RAW or RAI, and neither one looks that good thematically, you should probably go with a house rule. IMHO. -Drachasor *Mithral Twilight Fullplate.
MaximumHavoc 05-04-07, 08:41 PM	WoTC was so wimpy as to take months (years?) to finally state in a sourcebook that favored souls should have had knowledge (religion). i am confident that the same annoyingly late outcome will occur regarding mage armor as abjuration versus conjuration. consequently, i would houserule it as applicable to abjurant champion until WoTC finally gets the backbone to do the right thing. 'nuff said.
forsaken1111 05-04-07, 08:54 PM	The author of the class did come on the boards and explicitly said the intent was for the ability to work with Mage Armor. -Drachasor Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a link to where this happened? It would make my case that much stronger. I don't think that word means what you think it means. As there is a spell called Greater Luminous in Exlted Deeds book. Gives a abjuration armor bonus. Unfortunatly Sanctified spells don't work well with sorcs. I am aware of these two spells though. As far as I know they are the only two abjuration spells, besides a shadowcaster mystery, which grant an armor bonus. The ectoplasmic armor doesn't count at all. My common sense tells me the class is way overpowered even if mage armor doesn't get the boost. With that in mind, following the letter of the rules seems to me like the very least one should do. I guess I can see where you're coming from. With 5 levels in AbC and 2 levels in Argent Savant I can cast greater mage armor and it grants a bonus equivalent to +5 platemail. That said, I cannot enchant said platemail with any other special ability. It essentially has ghost touch, but that is all. Relying on that spell also makes me more vulnerable than most to dispelling. If a fighter's +5 platemail is suppressed, he loses 5 of his AC. If mine is dispelled, I lose 13 points of AC. Granted too, I can recast it as a swift action on my turn, provided I have another spell slot. I honestly don't see it as terribly over- or underpowered.
green_yawgmoth 05-05-07, 12:00 AM	My common sense tells me the class is way overpowered even if mage armor doesn't get the boost. With that in mind, following the letter of the rules seems to me like the very least one should do. You probably also think that Foresight is overpowered too. Just because the CharOp boards can make pun-pun mark VI or whatever with it does not make it overpowered. This PrC just barely makes the grade with mage armor included; without it, it's nigh worthless. Nephlite: Don't be a stupid ass, you know what is intended. Here, I'll spell it out for you,be sure to read nice and slow: There are no spells that grant an armor bonus to AC against every attack that takes armor bonuses into account that a character who doesn't go through special RP crap can take. There are no spells that exist in core or in the book Abjurant champion is printed in that give a non-mitigated armor bonus to AC. Thus, mage armor should be allowed, as not only is it specifically referenced, but it is the only spell that grants a general armor bonus to AC in core. Is that good enough for your semantic worthlessness, or do you want an MSPaint venn diagram too? :rolleyes: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Nephlite 05-05-07, 12:33 AM	You probably also think that Foresight is overpowered too. Just because the CharOp boards can make pun-pun mark VI or whatever with it does not make it overpowered. This PrC just barely makes the grade with mage armor included; without it, it's nigh worthless. Nephlite: Don't be a stupid ass, you know what is intended. Here, I'll spell it out for you,be sure to read nice and slow: There are no spells that grant an armor bonus to AC against every attack that takes armor bonuses into account that a character who doesn't go through special RP crap can take. There are no spells that exist in core or in the book Abjurant champion is printed in that give a non-mitigated armor bonus to AC. Thus, mage armor should be allowed, as not only is it specifically referenced, but it is the only spell that grants a general armor bonus to AC in core. Is that good enough for your semantic worthlessness, or do you want an MSPaint venn diagram too? :rolleyes: You do know that calling someone that is probably against the CoC, right? You could have explained yourself without the remarks.
Vegepygmy 05-05-07, 01:09 AM	Just because the CharOp boards can make pun-pun mark VI or whatever with it does not make it overpowered.You're right. What makes it overpowered is the d10 HD plus full BAB progression plus full spellcaster progression plus free swift and extended abjurations plus Arcane Boost (a very nice ability) plus caster level no less than your BAB for the price of one suboptimal feat (Combat Casting) and having to find some way of gaining proficiency in a single martial weapon (like, say, being an elf). Abjurant Champion is an Eldritch Knight on steroids. Barry Bonds-grade steroids.
forsaken1111 05-05-07, 02:45 AM	You're right. What makes it overpowered is the d10 HD plus full BAB progression plus full spellcaster progression plus free swift and extended abjurations plus Arcane Boost (a very nice ability) plus caster level no less than your BAB for the price of one suboptimal feat (Combat Casting) and having to find some way of gaining proficiency in a single martial weapon (like, say, being an elf). Abjurant Champion is an Eldritch Knight on steroids. Barry Bonds-grade steroids. Nah, Eldritch Knight is just sorta bland. Besides, it makes a great class to take AFTER 5 levels of Abj. Champion and 2 levels of ardent savant.
penchant 05-05-07, 06:28 AM	Nah, Eldritch Knight is just sorta bland. Besides, it makes a great class to take AFTER 5 levels of Abj. Champion and 2 levels of ardent savant. 2nd that! I say compromise. They just came out with dual school spells... retrofit mage armor as a conjuration/abjuration spell. Everyone is happy (except the worhippers of RAW the LN god of everything).
forsaken1111 05-05-07, 12:41 PM	2nd that! I say compromise. They just came out with dual school spells... retrofit mage armor as a conjuration/abjuration spell. Everyone is happy (except the worhippers of RAW the LN god of everything). Well, its been settled, at least for me. I presented all the facts to my DM without bias, even showing him this and other linked threads. He's decided that Mage Armor is an abjuration spell. It does nothing different mechanically than shield besides the protection from magic missiles. So Abj. Champion does apply (in his game) and life is good. Thanks everyone for arguing your own side of the issue, he enjoyed reading the whole thing. :)
penchant 05-05-07, 02:36 PM	Yay! And there was much yelling and drinking.
forsaken1111 05-05-07, 02:42 PM	Hehe, yeah I'm relieved. His justification was: "Yeah, mage armor and shield do the same damn thing. There is no conjuration, its not like there's somewhere in the universe that has a big room filled with mage armor and you're summoning them. Its creating a protective barrier just like shield. Also, you're giving up the ability to ever enchant your armor by relying on the spells. Granted you could wear a robe, but you can't put armor enchantments in that either so you'll never be able to use some of the effects. I've always liked the idea of a prestige class which focuses on a signature spell or group of spells like this and the force missile mage. I don't know if the Dastana from the arms and equipment guide would work with mage armor. I believe it has a pretty specific list on what it stacks with, I'll double check." So there you have it folks. :D
Nephlite 05-05-07, 03:52 PM	Also, you're giving up the ability to ever enchant your armor by relying on the spells. Granted you could wear a robe, but you can't put armor enchantments in that either so you'll never be able to use some of the effects. I've always liked the idea of a prestige class which focuses on a signature spell or group of spells like this and the force missile mage. Wait, why won't you wear armor? +1 Twilight Mithral Chain shirt is only 6 K. After that yui can add stuff. Mage Armor provides more AC than 5 but you can add specfial abilities. I know I would (sadly us Wu Jen lack Mage armor).
forsaken1111 05-05-07, 10:41 PM	Wait, why won't you wear armor? +1 Twilight Mithral Chain shirt is only 6 K. After that yui can add stuff. Mage Armor provides more AC than 5 but you can add specfial abilities. I know I would (sadly us Wu Jen lack Mage armor). Honestly I'd probably be better off buying +1 bracers of armor. They can recieve armor enchantments just like any suit of armor. It would spoil the whole style of the character to wear armor after all that. :) I corrected him on this, and he said its fine since either way I'd be paying for armor I wasn't using.
Drachasor 05-06-07, 02:12 AM	Also, you're giving up the ability to ever enchant your armor by relying on the spells. Granted you could wear a robe, but you can't put armor enchantments in that either so you'll never be able to use some of the effects. I've always liked the idea of a prestige class which focuses on a signature spell or group of spells like this and the force missile mage. There's no reason why you can't put armor enchantments on a robe. Sure, you'd still have to make it a robe +1 first, but it is much the same overall. Of course the armor bonus from a robe and from mage armor would not stack. -Drachasor
forsaken1111 05-06-07, 02:47 AM	There's no reason why you can't put armor enchantments on a robe. Sure, you'd still have to make it a robe +1 first, but it is much the same overall. Of course the armor bonus from a robe and from mage armor would not stack. -Drachasor I didn't think a robe qualified as armor. In that case couldn't I put armor enchantments on a normal set of clothing?
CantripN 05-06-07, 03:01 AM	I didn't think a robe qualified as armor. In that case couldn't I put armor enchantments on a normal set of clothing? Yes, you could make a +1 T-Shirt of Heavy Fortification.
Merestil Haye 05-06-07, 06:26 AM	I didn't think a robe qualified as armor. In that case couldn't I put armor enchantments on a normal set of clothing?A robe as such is not armour; it has "-" (not even 0) for the stats that make armour armour. (Magic Vestment works because it says it works). However, there's nothing stopping a character from devising a Robe of Armour which works exactly the same way as Bracers of Armour do. The MIC lists armour bonus to AC as a common effect for a robe slot. I'd also allow it in the torso (vest) slot but that's just me.
forsaken1111 05-06-07, 07:53 AM	Yes, you could make a +1 T-Shirt of Heavy Fortification. I thought shirts were a different slot. : P But yes, I see your point.
ArcTan 05-06-07, 02:21 PM	You're right. What makes it overpowered is the d10 HD plus full BAB progression plus full spellcaster progression plus free swift and extended abjurations plus Arcane Boost (a very nice ability) plus caster level no less than your BAB for the price of one suboptimal feat (Combat Casting) and having to find some way of gaining proficiency in a single martial weapon (like, say, being an elf). Abjurant Champion is an Eldritch Knight on steroids. Barry Bonds-grade steroids. That's like saying any normal athlete is like Steve Urkel on steroids.
forsaken1111 05-07-07, 01:03 AM	Yes, you could make a +1 T-Shirt of Heavy Fortification. Actually I thought about this again. I do not think you could make a +1 suit of clothing the normal way you'd enhance armor. The "+1" represents an enhancement bonus to the armor's existing armor bonus but clothing HAS no existing armor qualities to enhance. Thus you'd need to pay full price for adding an armor bonus as if you were making a robe/bracer of armor which is a bit more expensive. That's like saying any normal athlete is like Steve Urkel on steroids. I agree completely. Eldritch Knight is a very bland, flavorless class which I MIGHT take if there were no other classes available. It grants absolutly no special abilities, It is not unique in granting full BAB progression, and it doesn't even grant full caster progression as many other Prestige classes do. Honestly compared to what else is available, its a bad choice to take unless you just don't want the other classes out there for flavor/roleplay reasons. I personally am taking Jade Phoenix Mage instead of EK. It doesn't give full caster level progression either, but gives several very nice special abilities which modify the way in which you combine magic and combat. It also gives full BAB progression, and my BAB = my effective caster level. : )
CantripN 05-07-07, 01:36 AM	Actually I thought about this again. I do not think you could make a +1 suit of clothing the normal way you'd enhance armor. The "+1" represents an enhancement bonus to the armor's existing armor bonus but clothing HAS no existing armor qualities to enhance. Thus you'd need to pay full price for adding an armor bonus as if you were making a robe/bracer of armor which is a bit more expensive. Well, I'm going with the text of Magic Vestment and broadening it... "An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell."
Vegepygmy 05-07-07, 02:14 AM	Eldritch Knight is a very bland, flavorless class which I MIGHT take if there were no other classes available.It's not supposed to be a "flavorful" class. It's supposed to be a mechanically balanced class for gish-types. (And I think it does a very good job of it. You're free to disagree, of course; I won't even call you a munchkin if you do.) It grants absolutly no special abilities, It is not unique in granting full BAB progression, and it doesn't even grant full caster progression as many other Prestige classes do.My point exactly. Honestly compared to what else is available, its a bad choice to take unless you just don't want the other classes out there for flavor/roleplay reasons.Or, you know, you have a sense of shame.
forsaken1111 05-07-07, 02:39 AM	Or, you know, you have a sense of shame. Have a sense of shame for not picking a boring class? Sorry, I play the game for fun, and a 10 level prestige class that grants no special powers doesn't feel much fun. I'd much rather take a flavorful class with some special abilities, even if it has a slower spellcasting progression like the JPM. It gives you that 'wow' factor when you pull off a cool combo, and helps you be more useful in combat despite less spells/day. It also keeps you interested in the character which is a problem for someone like me with a short attention span. :) If you feel somehow compelled to grab a bland class out of some sense of shame, thats fine... but don't expect me to.
Merestil Haye 05-07-07, 06:54 AM	Well, I'm going with the text of Magic Vestment and broadening it... "An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell."If you make clothing into armour, you'll have to answer the following questions for every single piece of clothing. What armour bonus does it grant? What is the Armour Check Penalty? What is the Arcane Spell Failure chance? What is the Max Dex bonus to AC? Does the clothing count as Medium or Heavy armour for the purposes of encumbrance and movement? You then have to explain why Monks and all arcane casters actually ever wear any clothing at all. And how you make clothing "masterwork" (there's no way to do that) before it can be enchanted. It's a lot easier to use Bracers of Armour as the model. A lot easier.
Vegepygmy 05-07-07, 12:31 PM	Have a sense of shame for not picking a boring class?There are no boring classes. There are only boring players.
CantripN 05-07-07, 12:57 PM	There are no boring classes. There are only boring players. Indeed, as witnessed by the Commoner Campaign... Which can be found here:http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=763260 There ARE weak classes, but no truly boring ones, unless you get bored with being naturally weak. Of course, a smart player can make just about any class work...
Drachasor 05-07-07, 01:38 PM	There are no boring classes. There are only boring players. Wrong. There ARE boring classes. There are also boring players. There are also boring characters. Now a player can use boring classes to make an interesting character, but that's no surprise. A character is more than the sum of his game mechanical parts. -Drachasor
penchant 05-08-07, 12:54 AM	If you make clothing into armour, you'll have to answer the following questions for every single piece of clothing. What armour bonus does it grant? What is the Armour Check Penalty? What is the Arcane Spell Failure chance? What is the Max Dex bonus to AC? Does the clothing count as Medium or Heavy armour for the purposes of encumbrance and movement? You then have to explain why Monks and all arcane casters actually ever wear any clothing at all. And how you make clothing "masterwork" (there's no way to do that) before it can be enchanted. It's a lot easier to use Bracers of Armour as the model. A lot easier. Armor bonus=0 Armor Check Penalty=0 Arcane Spell Failure = 0% Max Dex to AC = Unlimited Does not count as armor for encumberance or movement beyond its weight Master work clothing for enchantment cost... come on, how do you get magic robes then? Magic shirt? Magic vest? Magic Boots? You are really trying to make this harder than this is.
forsaken1111 05-08-07, 01:13 AM	Armor bonus=0 Armor Check Penalty=0 Arcane Spell Failure = 0% Max Dex to AC = Unlimited Does not count as armor for encumberance or movement beyond its weight Master work clothing for enchantment cost... come on, how do you get magic robes then? Magic shirt? Magic vest? Magic Boots? You are really trying to make this harder than this is. For robes you magically add an "armor" bonus to AC. There are rules for the cost of that, and its a bit more than enchanting an armor with a +1 enhancement.
Merestil Haye 05-08-07, 06:20 AM	Armor bonus=0 Armor Check Penalty=0 Arcane Spell Failure = 0% Max Dex to AC = Unlimited Does not count as armor for encumberance or movement beyond its weightNow please explain how monks can wear clothes? The game recognises a difference between the number zero and "-". The latter means does not exist. Making clothes into armour, with all the armour properties, means monks cannot wear clothes. And your list is simplistic. Do you really think that royal robes have an ASF of zero? That cold-weather gear has an ACP of zero? Just think about the design of the various outfits for a moment. Your approach doesn't work. Master work clothing for enchantment cost... come on, how do you get magic robes then? Magic shirt? Magic vest? Magic Boots? You are really trying to make this harder than this is.You don't have to have "masterwork clothing" to enchant it as a wondrous item. Nowhere does it say anything about that. The only things that need to be masterwork to enchant are those things enchanted by the Craft Magic Arms and Armour feat. But if you make clothing into armour, then you have to use Craft Magic Arms and Armour to enchant them, which means they have to be masterwork. So, you need masterwork clothing. And frankly the concept of a "masterwork peasant's outfit" which would cost more than the value of all bar the royal outfit, seems really really silly to me. Sillier than a masterwork club.
Forged_Fury 05-08-07, 08:02 AM	You don't have to have "masterwork clothing" to enchant it as a wondrous item. Nowhere does it say anything about that. The only things that need to be masterwork to enchant are those things enchanted by the Craft Magic Arms and Armour feat. Correct here, although the text from the SRD appears to indicate that you could have masterwork clothing. Masterwork Items Masterwork items are extraordinarily well-made items. They are more expensive, but they benefit the user with improved quality. They are not magical in any way. However, only masterwork items may be enhanced to become magic armor and weapons. (Items that are not weapons or armor may or may not be masterwork items.)
penchant 05-08-07, 03:12 PM	Now please explain how monks can wear clothes? The game recognises a difference between the number zero and "-". The latter means does not exist. Making clothes into armour, with all the armour properties, means monks cannot wear clothes. And your list is simplistic. Do you really think that royal robes have an ASF of zero? That cold-weather gear has an ACP of zero? Just think about the design of the various outfits for a moment. Your approach doesn't work. Most monks don't wear much in the way of clothing in any case, however that stat block is for the purposes of enchanting clothing as armor. Gnomish twist cloth is simply clothing arranged and wrought as very light armor, however it gets an armor stat block and is by RAW enchantable. You don't have to have "masterwork clothing" to enchant it as a wondrous item. Nowhere does it say anything about that. The only things that need to be masterwork to enchant are those things enchanted by the Craft Magic Arms and Armour feat. So you agree then. But if you make clothing into armour, then you have to use Craft Magic Arms and Armour to enchant them, which means they have to be masterwork. So, you need masterwork clothing. And frankly the concept of a "masterwork peasant's outfit" which would cost more than the value of all bar the royal outfit, seems really really silly to me. Sillier than a masterwork club. No, there is no masterwork peasan't outfit, however you can easily envision masterwork adventuring outfits, masterwork mages robes, masterwork nobles outfits, etc. Exceptional materials, double / triple stitching, custom fittings, opulent embroidery, design features... What's the difference between a generic pair of boots from Walmart and a $100 pair of Doc Martins? A masterwork club = Louisville Slugger. Fiberglass police baton. Wooden stick with masterwork armor spikes nailed to it. The paddle my shop teacher used in school.
forsaken1111 05-08-07, 03:50 PM	In any case, the mechanic you're after (Getting an armor bonus from non-armor clothing) is already provided for in the rules. There's no reason to stretch the rules and make up your own system based on your sketchy interpretation. There is a price associated with adding an armor bonus to clothing or robes or anything else. It functions like bracers of armor, and in fact there is an example in the MIC where a robe has an armor bonus.
Drachasor 05-08-07, 04:27 PM	In any case, the mechanic you're after (Getting an armor bonus from non-armor clothing) is already provided for in the rules. There's no reason to stretch the rules and make up your own system based on your sketchy interpretation. There is a price associated with adding an armor bonus to clothing or robes or anything else. It functions like bracers of armor, and in fact there is an example in the MIC where a robe has an armor bonus. Actually, you have a choice. You can enchant something like Bracers of Armor, in which case you can get up to a +8 Armor Bonus, IIRC. Or you can enchant clothing like armor, in which case you can give that clothing up to a +5 enhancement bonus to armor. Note the enhancement bonus is something that clothing has (its armor bonus is enhanced), so it doesn't stack with the bracers (or any other armor bonus, for that matter). -Drachasor
Nephlite 05-08-07, 10:58 PM	Well, I'm going with the text of Magic Vestment and broadening it... "An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell." They are only armor for the puerposes of the spell: monks don't have to be naked to fight with Wis to AC. :D
Talchar 05-09-07, 02:23 AM	Then 2nd edition Armor spell is legacy spell from the 1st edition Phantom Armor spell. With the elimination of the separate illusion spell lists they needed to place the Armor spell somewhere. So they kept the spell mechanics and underlying flavor (Create an ablative like barrier of force that acted as Armor) The school that best represented the creation of a suit of armor was the Conjuration school. Mage Armor is in the Conjuration school is legacy effect from the switch from 2nd to 3rd edition ) [Armor to Mage Armor]. They simply converted the spell mechanics from 2nd to 3rd (IE AC6 to +4 AC) and eliminated its ablative qualities because people misused it & 3rd edition did not support that mechanic. So that is my take on why Mage armor is conjuration spell. Simply no one sat down and evaluated the spell after its basic conception/ flavor had been stripped out over the editions.