Post/Author/DateTime	Post
magelover 04-11-08, 08:18 AM	In the description of the Abjurant Champion, and in the example character there, the spell Mage Armor is used as an example of a spell in the Abjurant school, but in the Player's Handbook (v 3.5), it's listed as a conjuration spell. Which is it? Thanks.
JWT 04-11-08, 10:41 AM	Wrong thread here. Try here (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20). Maybe a mod will move it. As to your question, officially Mage Armor is Conjuration, but it is generally accepted (http://forums.gleemax.com/archive/index.php/t-787634.html) that making it an abjuration spell or simply ruling that it just works with Mage Armor is OK (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Abjurant+Champion%22+%22mage +armor%22+site%3Aforums.gleemax.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). Final answer: Its your (or your DM's) decision.
Shado 04-15-08, 02:19 PM	From the errata: Page 51 – Abjurant Champion Class Features [Deletion] Under the abjurant armor ability, remove mention of “mage armor” at the end of the paragraph. The abjurant armor ability does not affect mage armor, but the spell is still useful to an abjurant champion. So it's still conjuration.
SeraphimDominion 04-22-08, 03:37 PM	Wrong thread here. Try here (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20). Maybe a mod will move it. As to your question, officially Mage Armor is Conjuration, but it is generally accepted (http://forums.gleemax.com/archive/index.php/t-787634.html) that making it an abjuration spell or simply ruling that it just works with Mage Armor is OK (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Abjurant+Champion%22+%22mage +armor%22+site%3Aforums.gleemax.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). Final answer: Its your (or your DM's) decision. I would strongly suggest against allowing Mage Armor to get the bonuses from Abjurant Champ. Abjurant champion is already a borderline broken class, being full-bab, full-casting, trivial entry reqs and super-powerful abilities. It gets to cast swift Shields for +9 AC already, it doesnt need to have +9 Mage armor all day on top of that.
JWT 04-23-08, 02:50 PM	I would strongly suggest against allowing Mage Armor to get the bonuses from Abjurant Champ. Abjurant champion is already a borderline broken class, being full-bab, full-casting, trivial entry reqs and super-powerful abilities. It gets to cast swift Shields for +9 AC already, it doesn't need to have +9 Mage armor all day on top of that. Meh, YMMV, but by the time you get that uber-armor class, it is all about the saving throws anyway.
Jetstream 04-27-08, 01:40 AM	I would strongly suggest against allowing Mage Armor to get the bonuses from Abjurant Champ. Abjurant champion is already a borderline broken class, being full-bab, full-casting, trivial entry reqs and super-powerful abilities. It gets to cast swift Shields for +9 AC already, it doesnt need to have +9 Mage armor all day on top of that. Thing is, though, that ability doesn't apply to any spells. It applies to Shield... and I think one thing in the Manual of Exalted Deeds that was never reprinted anywhere else. There ARE no abjuration spells that provide AC bonuses aside from those two. I went through my books with a fine-tooth comb, too.
Shado 04-27-08, 03:20 AM	Thing is, though, that ability doesn't apply to any spells. It applies to Shield... and I think one thing in the Manual of Exalted Deeds that was never reprinted anywhere else. There ARE no abjuration spells that provide AC bonuses aside from those two. I went through my books with a fine-tooth comb, too. Still, in spite of this, Abj. Champs are a ridiculously powerful PrC and the errata still says no.
teshen 04-27-08, 02:48 PM	I would strongly suggest against allowing Mage Armor to get the bonuses from Abjurant Champ. Abjurant champion is already a borderline broken class, being full-bab, full-casting, trivial entry reqs and super-powerful abilities. It gets to cast swift Shields for +9 AC already, it doesnt need to have +9 Mage armor all day on top of that. . . . Abj. Champs are a ridiculously powerful PrC and the errata still says no.Ridiculously? Any caster can research spells. If they research a first level spell that grants a +4 armor class from invisible force that lasts one hour per caster level and, since it is a sort of protection spell, count it as abjuration, then it qualifies. It's been talked to death in multiple threads. AC grants good numbers and good abilities... for a gish. It's just as easy to use prcs that grant you the ability to cast in plate without arcane spell failure... add a animate shield and tell me where the difference is... the money, right. And any caster can multiply his money with tricks at that point. If you're a full caster spending any length of time in a fighting prc, you're a fool. Other prcs will give you casting + casting bonus and that's a whole lot more sexy on anything that makes arcane might his shtick rather than using some arcane might to buff himself and wade into melee. Thing is, though, that ability doesn't apply to any spells. It applies to Shield... and I think one thing in the Manual of Exalted Deeds that was never reprinted anywhere else. There ARE no abjuration spells that provide AC bonuses aside from those two. I think there is one in Complete Mage called repeling shield, and in the BoED its luminous armor and greater luminous armor. Otherwise there's crap for the prc's defining ability.
SeraphimDominion 04-28-08, 04:10 PM	Thing is, though, that ability doesn't apply to any spells. It applies to Shield... and I think one thing in the Manual of Exalted Deeds that was never reprinted anywhere else. There ARE no abjuration spells that provide AC bonuses aside from those two. I went through my books with a fine-tooth comb, too. Exactly, hence my statement that I would advise against allowing mage armor to benefit from the Abj Champ's bonuses. The spell from BED you mention is called Luminous Armor and Greater Luminous Armor, btw.
runestar 04-28-08, 09:02 PM	Any caster can research spells. If they research a first level spell that grants a +4 armor class from invisible force that lasts one hour per caster level and, since it is a sort of protection spell, count it as abjuration, then it qualifies. Success still requires DM permission. So it is no easier than simply getting your DM to rule that mage armour is an abjuration spell. And any caster can multiply his money with tricks at that point. Not that the DM might allow it. +9 shield bonus from abjurant champion far outstrips the AC from a +5 mithral buckler, and if you want to, you can still get a +1 mithral buckler with up to +9 worth of other armour properties. It's just as easy to use prcs that grant you the ability to cast in plate without arcane spell failure... PRCs like...? Other prcs will give you casting + casting bonus and that's a whole lot more sexy on anything that makes arcane might his shtick rather than using some arcane might to buff himself and wade into melee. Abjurant champion is only 5 lvs long, shouldn't be that hard to squeeze into a caster build. It lets you swift-cast up to 3rd lv abjuration spells. As mentioned earlier, greater luminous armour easily lasts all day, and grants up to +13 AC, which far exceeds what is granted by bracers of armour or twillight mithral shirt. Still a very good deal even with the errata clarifying that mage armour does not work, IMO.
teshen 04-29-08, 01:48 AM	Success still requires DM permission. So it is no easier than simply getting your DM to rule that mage armour is an abjuration spell.Says you. Granted, I've played under a lot of liberal dms, but taking an existing spell, and using a pre-existing method of making new spells that is fairly well spelled out in the PHB and balancing it against spells in the PHB shouldn't take an act of congress, especially when you're changing one word. And didn't they have something in one of the other complete supplements about how some spells could be dual school spells? Not that the DM might allow it. +9 shield bonus from abjurant champion far outstrips the AC from a +5 mithral buckler, and if you want to, you can still get a +1 mithral buckler with up to +9 worth of other armour properties. You mean the +9 from the shield spell you can get at 11th level and probably not before. You are either getting it on a gish, which means his casting isn't what it should be because it's not the focus of the character, or you are spending class levels on a straight caster, trying to make him more survivable when things get up close and personal, when a caster shouldn't allow something to get close to him in the first place. It's relatively easy to dispel. Magic weapons and armors aren't. But if you really want to make it better, tack on a few levels in argent savant. PRCs like...? I'm sorry. My optimization-fu is weak. I can only think of the race specific runecaster from Races of Stone at the moment. Of course a battle sorcerer/beguiler/warmage/dread necro all qualify for the feat battle caster, which will allow them to run around in mythril mechanus plate without ASF. I remember somebody mentioning a faerun prc or two that grants ASF reductions, enough so that mythril or halfweight becomes an option, but I don't have a lot of faerun material handy. Abjurant champion is only 5 lvs long, shouldn't be that hard to squeeze into a caster build. It lets you swift-cast up to 3rd lv abjuration spells. As mentioned earlier, greater luminous armour easily lasts all day, and grants up to +13 AC, which far exceeds what is granted by bracers of armour or twillight mithral shirt.And I'll counter with the same thing I've said before. Any full caster that has spent any time in abjurant champion is wasting levels. You're looking at levels 11 to 15 with a caster. Rather than trying for the being able to freely quicken up to third level spells from a single school at fifteenth level, why aren't you taking casting prcs that hand out metamagic and/or enhance an entire school that you're using. I can always point out the superbikes of caster prcs like incantrix and initiate of the seven fold veil that go from zero to infinity pretty quickly... but even with some of the 'weaker' casting prcs can do some impressive things with spells, like wizard 5/stormcaster 10 verses wizard 10/abjurant champion 5. What about five levels in war weaver... doesn't preclude you from going into abjurant champion? You'd be right... except it does delay you long enough on a full caster that you're not getting in until level twelve or thirteen when you'd want to be using it Now. Still a very good deal even with the errata clarifying that mage armour does not work, IMO.I'd agree... on a gish. Something like paladin 2/battle sorcerer 4/AC 5. It's something that uses spells to make it buff up to enter battle. Abjurant champions numbers are good... and they are meant to shore up the inherent problem/weakness of multiclassing a fighter type and a casting type. The fact that it is only five levels is one of the balancing factors of the prc. If the progression extended beyond that, it would be overpowered. As it is, it is a solid, niche prc. As it is, I've said it before (http://forums.gleemax.com/archive/index.php/t-764139.html), and I'll say it again (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=806250).
runestar 04-29-08, 11:22 PM	but taking an existing spell, and using a pre-existing method of making new spells that is fairly well spelled out in the PHB and balancing it against spells in the PHB shouldn't take an act of congress, especially when you're changing one word. It should, especially when that 1 word results in you getting an extra +5AC. I don't adjudicate spells in a vacuum, I gauge their impact based on how they would interact with the setting. Meaning that while I should have no issues with allowing mage armour as an abjuration spell in a game with no abjurant champions, I would probably not allow it as one for a PC going Abjurant champion. Likewise, I think a gish is a perfectly viable career choice. Even though nothing really beats pure spellcasting, that does not really give you carte blanche to lump all sorts of bonuses as "renumeration". For example, I could go elven focused specialist conjurer5/eldritch knight9/paragnostic apostle1/abjurant champion5. I lose only 1 caster lv, but have a bab of +17. I am sure the concept of a "tank" wizard is quite viable. It might be atypical of the wizard with regards as to how it is played, but it does not necessarily make it any more inferior in terms of contribution. In a pinch, my wizard can still wield a sizing weapon, cast polymorph and wade into melee, protected by his buffs. Also, just because stupidly powerful prcs such as incantatrix exist, does not mean that other "inferior" alternatives have to play catchup like crazy. Of course a battle sorcerer/beguiler/warmage/dread necro all qualify for the feat battle caster, which will allow them to run around in mythril mechanus plate without ASF. None of which can compare with the powers of a sorc or wizard, because they obviously fulfill very different roles.
JaronK 04-30-08, 10:46 PM	In the description of the Abjurant Champion, and in the example character there, the spell Mage Armor is used as an example of a spell in the Abjurant school, but in the Player's Handbook (v 3.5), it's listed as a conjuration spell. Which is it? Thanks. Quite simply: Never use example characters for anything. They're wrong a lot of the time, and whenever they contradict the main rules, ignore the example character and go with the listed rules. Heck, every single example character in Heroes of Horror and ToB is wrong, for example, with some sort of rules flaw. So yeah, just ignore the example characters. JaronK
teshen 05-01-08, 03:22 AM	It should, especially when that 1 word results in you getting an extra +5AC. I don't adjudicate spells in a vacuum, I gauge their impact based on how they would interact with the setting. Meaning that while I should have no issues with allowing mage armour as an abjuration spell in a game with no abjurant champions, I would probably not allow it as one for a PC going Abjurant champion. And just what impact would that be? Giving specialist wizards that dump conjuration (which would be rediculous on its own) another spell that will add +4 to armor. That's all it does for the first ten levels on a full caster... and if it's on a gish, it gives them the option to use spells instead of armor starting at level seven. I also don't want to penalize a character for making a 'career move' that has only one real option for the defining class ability. I know that there are repeling shield, luminous armor and greater luminous armor, but exalted is wonky, and repeling shield is shield with a cost increase that isn't really worth the bonus. I also don't require, when I dm, for everybody to turn in their projected outline for their characters. If somebody winds up in AC, cool. If not, it is not a big deal. Likewise, I think a gish is a perfectly viable career choice. Even though nothing really beats pure spellcasting, that does not really give you carte blanche to lump all sorts of bonuses as "renumeration". For example, I could go elven focused specialist conjurer5/eldritch knight9/paragnostic apostle1/abjurant champion5. I lose only 1 caster lv, but have a bab of +17. I am sure the concept of a "tank" wizard is quite viable. It might be atypical of the wizard with regards as to how it is played, but it does not necessarily make it any more inferior in terms of contribution. In a pinch, my wizard can still wield a sizing weapon, cast polymorph and wade into melee, protected by his buffs. *shrug* Maybe... and that's not the point. He's not a gish for the first five levels of your build there. He's got none of the hit points, proficiencies, base attack and saves, to allow him to stay safe in melee... and that's where he wants to go. Yeah he starts to catch up over time, but he's still behind. If he starts out as a fighter type... he can melee in the first few levels and then takes spells to augment his fighting when he starts to get them... but remember, thou shalt not lose caster levels. Most of the gish prcs aren't that great. There's a reason nobody takes many, if any, levels in bladesinger or spellsword. Eldritch knight is better than alternating levels in wizard and fighter, but then again, anything with too many levels in fighter is made of suck. . . . just because stupidly powerful prcs such as incantatrix exist, does not mean that other "inferior" alternatives have to play catchup like crazy. And that's not what I said. Even a 'regular' casting prc will grant a caster more utility than the AC... because it adds to casting abilities rather than adding fighting abilities at a point where you're too late to catch up. On a gish, it's helping out from when you had to multiclass to get to this point. None of which can compare with the powers of a sorc or wizard, because they obviously fulfill very different roles.A battle sorcerer is a sorcerer. It fills the same role that a sorcerer does, but with light armor and a single martial weapon with one less spell known and one less spell slot per level.
runestar 05-01-08, 08:02 AM	And just what impact would that be? Giving specialist wizards that dump conjuration (which would be rediculous on its own) another spell that will add +4 to armor. That's all it does for the first ten levels on a full caster... and if it's on a gish, it gives them the option to use spells instead of armor starting at level seven. Which seems to defeat the purpose of giving up a school in the first place, if I could just research cross-school spells which do the exact same thing. What is the point of say, giving up enchantment, if I could just research charm monster as a transmutation spell, and rationalize it as physically altering the neurons of the monster or something? (And the in process, getting rid of the annoying mind-affecting descriptor that is common with enchantment spells).
RobbyPants 05-01-08, 09:06 AM	Personally, I feel the Abjurant Champion is fine without Mage Armor. If I'm taking the class, I'm making a gish, which probably means the level before it will be a level of Spellsword. At that point, I can ignore 10% arcane spell failure anyway, so I can cast in a mithril shirt. Granted, it's not a swift +9 armor bonus to AC, it's still a viable solution that requires no house-rules or DM interpretation.
teshen 05-01-08, 10:32 PM	Personally, I feel the Abjurant Champion is fine without Mage Armor. If I'm taking the class, I'm making a gish, which probably means the level before it will be a level of Spellsword. At that point, I can ignore 10% arcane spell failure anyway, so I can cast in a mithril shirt. Granted, it's not a swift +9 armor bonus to AC, it's still a viable solution that requires no house-rules or DM interpretation.I'm under the impression that the abjurant champion didn't have the abjurant armor feature when it was summitted to WotC by the freelancer who built it. Originally, it just had the ability to cast in light armor without ASF. The abjurant armor ability was added after they got it and before it hit print. I'll agree with you RobbyPants that the Abjurant Champion is fine without mage armor... it's just that I don't think the way it currently works is that awesome. If you allow mage armor (yes, a house rule at this point), it becomes a trade off. Are you going to burn through your lower level spells to power your defense or do you shell out the cash to make it permenant so you don't have to worry about durations and/or dispelling? All and all, I suppose it comes out to different experiences at different levels. On a multiclass spellcaster/melee character AC helps out. If a straight caster picks up levels in AC it's just not that useful. That's my experience... but my experience with high level casters isn't that extensive. Most of my caster knowledge is from reading other comments on the boards.
RobbyPants 05-02-08, 08:10 AM	I'll agree with you RobbyPants that the Abjurant Champion is fine without mage armor... it's just that I don't think the way it currently works is that awesome. Well, what I think is best about the class is full casting and BAB advancement through all the levels. The only real downside is it's only a five level class, so you need to find other filler for a high level build, and you can't take the class epic. I still think the ability to cast Shield for +9 AC as a swift action and a 1st level spell slot is pretty nice though. ;) If you allow mage armor (yes, a house rule at this point), it becomes a trade off. Are you going to burn through your lower level spells to power your defense or do you shell out the cash to make it permenant so you don't have to worry about durations and/or dispelling? Well, I'd take the ability to have Mage Armor affected over a mithril shirt any day. By the time you have your first level in the class, you're probably about a 6th level caster, and a 10th level caster when you're done with the class. That means that Mage Armor will last 6 to 10 hours per casting, or 12 to 20 if it's extended by a metamagic feat or rod. So, even if it does get dispelled, it's not that hard to recast it, and it's only a swift action.
runestar 05-02-08, 09:10 AM	Abjurant champion needs bab+5, IIRC, so you can't really enter it prior to wiz10 or sorc10. Duskblade lacks access to the spells to make it work. Fastest way I can think of is wiz7, find a skillful weapon ASAP (grants you 3/4bab), never let go of said blade and then enter AC.:P
Kaleran1277 05-02-08, 11:24 AM	What about this: Abjurant Champion + Argent Savant. Do the bonuses stack? Can such a Mage cast a Shield Spell that has (Base AC: 4 + 2[ASv] + 5[AbC]=)11 ? Thanks
RobbyPants 05-02-08, 12:38 PM	Abjurant champion needs bab+5, IIRC, so you can't really enter it prior to wiz10 or sorc10. Duskblade lacks access to the spells to make it work. I didn't specify in my last post, but in the one prior, I said I only take levels of Abjurant Champion when I'm building a gish. The previous level is often spellsword. In that case, the entry will either be: fighter 1/wizard 6/spellsword 1 fighter 2/wizard 4/spellsword 1 or paladin 2/sorcerer 4/spellsword 1 Without that specification, it was confusing what I meant. In the latter two examples, you'd be a 6th level caster at your first Abjurant Champion level.
GalaGalaxia 05-02-08, 01:40 PM	I still think the ability to cast Shield for +9 AC as a swift action and a 1st level spell slot is pretty nice though. ;) Well, I'd take the ability to have Mage Armor affected over a mithril shirt any day. [...] So, even if it does get dispelled, it's not that hard to recast it, and it's only a swift action. Assuming you're a wizard (or other prepared caster). A sorcerer or other spontaneous caster doesn't benefit from Swift Abjuration at all. So, great ... now you need to prepare an extra Mage Armor "just in case" :rolleyes:
Cartigan 05-02-08, 02:45 PM	Assuming you're a wizard (or other prepared caster). A sorcerer or other spontaneous caster doesn't benefit from Swift Abjuration at all. If you discount the fact that you don't have to cast spells using a spell slot 4 levels higher :rolleyes:
GalaGalaxia 05-02-08, 03:18 PM	Ah, yes ... :rolleyes: Then again, if you've taken Practical Metamagic, things start looking a whole lot better.
Cartigan 05-02-08, 06:25 PM	Ah, yes ... :rolleyes: Then again, if you've taken Practical Metamagic, things start looking a whole lot better. Ohh, I didn't think of that. Now you only have to cast a Quickened Spell using a slot 3 slots higher. Totally different. :rolleyes:
RobbyPants 05-05-08, 09:07 AM	Assuming you're a wizard (or other prepared caster). A sorcerer or other spontaneous caster doesn't benefit from Swift Abjuration at all. So, great ... now you need to prepare an extra Mage Armor "just in case" :rolleyes: Or buy a wand for 750 gp. Still, it's a moot point. It doesn't work on Mage Armor, so we're just arguing "what ifs".