Armor lock from Complete Scoundrel question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Armor lock from Complete Scoundrel question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
chakrava
02-11-07, 04:01 PM Armor lock is a level 1 bard/hexblade/sorc/wiz spell. It has a fort save to negate, a 1 round/level duration, and the following effects:
Target's land speed reduced to 10
Burrow/climb/swim speeds also reduced to 10
Target cannot remove armor
Target loses any dexterity bonus to AC for the duration of the spell

"Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)..."

As written, that allows a rogue to sneak attack the target of an armor lock spell for the entire duration. That's a huge move penalty, and any rogue could positively skewer the poor guy hit by that spell. I see how all the effects of the spell make sense, but I'm thinking that could be a little much for a first level spell.

My thoughts would be to re-word the spell as something like: "the target's armor has a Max Dex bonus of 0 for the spell's duration".
Wolf72
02-11-07, 05:37 PM Ring of Free Action or Free action spell would be a perfect foil to this ... geez, this 1e old geezer is behind the times ...

it's now, freedom of movement :rollseyes:

unfortunately its a 4th lvl spell so not quite a perfect foil
Talchar
02-11-07, 10:29 PM Have a ring of protection. = The spell does not work on those who have an "AC bonus from items other then armor"
IceFractal
02-11-07, 11:09 PM The spell is weakened by the Fort save though, given that most armored types have good Fort saves.
chakrava
02-12-07, 09:44 AM Have a ring of protection. = The spell does not work on those who have an "AC bonus from items other then armor"

"This spell has no effect on unarmored opponents, creatures with only natural armor or an AC bonus from items other than armor, or those using only shields."

I believe the intention was to say that creatures with an armor bonus from rings/bracers/class skills/etc. but aren't wearing any armor are immune to this spell.

The spell is weakened by the Fort save though, given that most armored types have good Fort saves.

Fighters do. But the spell says "Target: One creature wearing armor", so a rogue or ranger is just as valid a target.

I've since found another level 1 bard spell Phantom Threat in the Spell Compendium. "Though the subject doesn't actually perceive any additional enemies...a creature affected by this spell is considered flanked, even if not threatened by other creatures." This one is a will save.

So apparently level 1 spells granting free sneak attacks is "ok".

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
chakrava 02-11-07, 04:01 PM	Armor lock is a level 1 bard/hexblade/sorc/wiz spell. It has a fort save to negate, a 1 round/level duration, and the following effects: Target's land speed reduced to 10 Burrow/climb/swim speeds also reduced to 10 Target cannot remove armor Target loses any dexterity bonus to AC for the duration of the spell "Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)..." As written, that allows a rogue to sneak attack the target of an armor lock spell for the entire duration. That's a huge move penalty, and any rogue could positively skewer the poor guy hit by that spell. I see how all the effects of the spell make sense, but I'm thinking that could be a little much for a first level spell. My thoughts would be to re-word the spell as something like: "the target's armor has a Max Dex bonus of 0 for the spell's duration".
Wolf72 02-11-07, 05:37 PM	Ring of Free Action or Free action spell would be a perfect foil to this ... geez, this 1e old geezer is behind the times ... it's now, freedom of movement :rollseyes: unfortunately its a 4th lvl spell so not quite a perfect foil
Talchar 02-11-07, 10:29 PM	Have a ring of protection. = The spell does not work on those who have an "AC bonus from items other then armor"
IceFractal 02-11-07, 11:09 PM	The spell is weakened by the Fort save though, given that most armored types have good Fort saves.
chakrava 02-12-07, 09:44 AM	Have a ring of protection. = The spell does not work on those who have an "AC bonus from items other then armor" "This spell has no effect on unarmored opponents, creatures with only natural armor or an AC bonus from items other than armor, or those using only shields." I believe the intention was to say that creatures with an armor bonus from rings/bracers/class skills/etc. but aren't wearing any armor are immune to this spell. The spell is weakened by the Fort save though, given that most armored types have good Fort saves. Fighters do. But the spell says "Target: One creature wearing armor", so a rogue or ranger is just as valid a target. I've since found another level 1 bard spell Phantom Threat in the Spell Compendium. "Though the subject doesn't actually perceive any additional enemies...a creature affected by this spell is considered flanked, even if not threatened by other creatures." This one is a will save. So apparently level 1 spells granting free sneak attacks is "ok".