Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TheCobra 01-29-08, 01:56 PM	I'm wondering which spells this feat affects. Has any consensus been reached lately? In past, I know some claimed it would ignore and remove even polymorph and the like. Others rejected this argument. Is there any official word on the feat? Turning an apparent dragon back into a human wizard with a punch amuses me. Not as silly as some interpretations of Iron Heart Surge, but still odd.
mplindustries 01-29-08, 02:19 PM	I'm wondering which spells this feat affects. Has any consensus been reached lately? In past, I know some claimed it would ignore and remove even polymorph and the like. Others rejected this argument. Is there any official word on the feat? Turning an apparent dragon back into a human wizard with a punch amuses me. Not as silly as some interpretations of Iron Heart Surge, but still odd. I find it silly, but my GM is of the mind that it does remove Polymorph. I was confused but pleased by that ruling, though he hasn't decided on whether it removes cat's grace, or Owl's Wisdom if cast on a monk. I don't personally think it should remove any of those things, as they are side effects of the spell. Polymorph does not give you an AC bonus, the form you change into gives you an AC bonus. Of course if you're still using polymorph in your games, you have other problems. As for the "silly" interpretations of Iron Heart Surge, I believe its ability to remove Anti-Magic Field is even in the FAQ. Now, I don't think the FAQ is "official RAW" or anything like that, far from it in fact, but I also don't think abiding by the FAQ is silly.
TheCobra 01-29-08, 04:38 PM	How about transmutations spells that mimic the effects of polymorph, such as [i]bite of the weretiger[i]? It gives an enhancements bonus to natural armor, so I'd imagine it would have to be affected.
tyrecian 01-29-08, 09:33 PM	IIRC this feat used this way will eventually lead to your fist becoming intelligent. This is what happened to Vampire Hunter D, who eventually evolved a face within his hand. :) I would use this this way, as a kind of dispel effect for any spell that alters the wizard's AC. I use the in game graphic that there is a visible field when the PC uses it, like a black cloud surrounding the monk's fist, or a red clinging energy could over the blade of the rogue. If the fighter/rogue/monk wants to take this line up, give em everything. Now buffs to abilities, no. A monk with Owl's wisdom isn't getting AC from a spell (like polymorph, which is making the wizard's skin harder, whether he is a rust monster or a dragon, and thereby qualifiable), rather the AC is coming from a class feature (wis as AC bonus) and shouldn't be able to to qualify. Dex is also similarly not negated, since its an ability score, not an AC enhancement. Just like con increase isn't temp HP, rather it changes the PC's max HP for duration of BE, polymorph (unerratted) and wildshape (unerratted). I really dug this line of feats, btw, and as a DM i have enjoyed employing them on my ninjas that i sent to retake artifacts and such from my PCs while they slept. Oh how the RSoP wept :D How about transmutations spells that mimic the effects of polymorph, such as [i]bite of the weretiger[i]? It gives an enhancements bonus to natural armor, so I'd imagine it would have to be affected. if the text of the spell grants AC (specifically) in any form (even dodge, such as haste) get it out of there! Anything indirect (such as dex increase, or mirror images) remains.
Tordak 01-29-08, 09:46 PM	Pierce magical protection works on spells that grants you an AC bonus as the effect of the spell, not as a side consequence of the spell. Mage Armor, Shield, Shield of Law, Mage's transformation are only a few example of spell that grant you an bonus to AC. Polymorph does not grant you a bonus to armor class, it grants you the natural armor class of the creature you are polymorph into, which might or might not be better than your own natural armor class bonus (if you polymorph into a human, with no bonus to AC from natural armor, what would the feat do then? nothing?). To rule otherwise would be, well, unwise. Anti-magic field does not affect you, it affects magic. At most, it affects the caster of the spell because it emanates from him. How the faq came to the conclusion a simple maneuver would get ride of that spell is beyond me. As for bite of the weretiger, it would be affect because it grants a bonus to AC (namely, an enhancement bonus). Polymorph would not be affected, not anymore then shrink person (you gain a size bonus to AC).
TheCobra 01-29-08, 09:55 PM	Polymorph would not be affected, not anymore then shrink person (you gain a size bonus to AC). I thought about reduce person as well. If it worked on that spell, I could imagine a barbarian punching all halflings... Korg: "You too small! Korg hit you, you become big! Worked before." I love the idea of ignoring a size bonus granted by a spell. ;)
Obsidianjaerc 01-29-08, 11:05 PM	--I didn't notice Tordak had beat me, yet again. This may mean war.--
Tordak 01-30-08, 08:48 AM	Sweet
aelryinth 01-30-08, 10:41 PM	Not calling the AC gained from Polymorphing into a form with a high Natural AC is being willfully blind. It's already been determined that an Alter Self to a troglodyte has a more powerful defensive effect then a Barkskin (+7 to Nat AC vs a cap at level 20 of +5!!!). Likewise, assuming a form to take advantage of high stats (poly into a Kelzvu demon for a dex of 31 in addition to the +12 Nat AC, thank you.) is also ignoring the implications of what exactly is providing that AC. take away the spell, does the AC bonus go away? Yes. Obviously, the spell is providing the AC. Pierce Magical Protection has no language about direct/indirect. Apply the inkblot test...if you remove the spell, does the target's AC change? Then the spell was providing a bonus, and it's gone. It really IS that simple. I see nothing in the feat description that states that the spell must NAME the AC bonus provided, no description on direct/indirect artificial distinctions. Inkblot test. Clean, simple, works. ===Aelryinth
TheCobra 01-30-08, 11:06 PM	Clean, simple, works. Think of the halflings! Won't somebody please think of the halflings? Halflings aside, this reading leads to some amusing readings. Would you allow a PC to use the feat to dispel baleful polymorph? That could be awfully handy.
Tordak 01-31-08, 09:13 AM	Not calling the AC gained from Polymorphing into a form with a high Natural AC is being willfully blind. It's already been determined that an Alter Self to a troglodyte has a more powerful defensive effect then a Barkskin (+7 to Nat AC vs a cap at level 20 of +5!!!). Likewise, assuming a form to take advantage of high stats (poly into a Kelzvu demon for a dex of 31 in addition to the +12 Nat AC, thank you.) is also ignoring the implications of what exactly is providing that AC. take away the spell, does the AC bonus go away? Yes. Obviously, the spell is providing the AC. Pierce Magical Protection has no language about direct/indirect. Apply the inkblot test...if you remove the spell, does the target's AC change? Then the spell was providing a bonus, and it's gone. It really IS that simple. I see nothing in the feat description that states that the spell must NAME the AC bonus provided, no description on direct/indirect artificial distinctions. Inkblot test. Clean, simple, works. ===Aelryinth This leads to even more problems. A human character with a natural armor bonus polymorphing into another human (to diguise himself) would not have the spell dispelled on him since there is no bonus to AC, while the human changing into an ogre would be dispelled in one hit. It would also lead to the dispelling of baleful polymorph, as suggested by TheCobra. Protection from evil, holy aura and reduce person would also be dispelled (the last one causes all barbarians punching all halflings). The feat does state 'spell that grant a bonus to armor class', which polymorph doesn't. The description of polymorph does not say you get a bonus to ac (or alter self or shapechange for that matter), it simply says you get the creature's natural armor, which might or might not be a bonus. As another example, the same goes with a wall of iron; it grants cover, which in turn grants bonus, but the spell itself does not grant a bonus to AC. That what the feat requires to work. As I said, mage's armor, barkskin, mage's transformation, shield all qualify because they grant bonus to armor class as part of the spell. Polymorph, reduce person (the bonus to AC, even if in the description of the spell, is clearly stated as being due to size change), cat's grace do not grant bonuses to ac, even if your AC might be better as a result of the casting of the spell. Edit: Sorry, I took darkness and concealment back, concealment doesn't grant bonus to AC, only miss chance. Also notice Iron body does not improve your AC, could swear I saw that somewhere. Guest I don't have that many examples left...
mplindustries 01-31-08, 02:16 PM	The feat does state 'spell that grant a bonus to armor class', which polymorph doesn't. The description of polymorph does not say you get a bonus to ac (or alter self or shapechange for that matter), it simply says you get the creature's natural armor, which might or might not be a bonus. This I think is key to the issue. Here is the detailed example you were having trouble coming up with ;) If a human polymorphs into a trogolodyte, he does not get +6 Natural Armor, his Natural Armor simply becomes 6. The game doesn't care that his new natural armor is 6 higher because he didn't get +6, he just got 6. X = 0 + 6 and X = 6 Are actually very different things. As much as I'd like to be able to dispel polymorph and all that kind of stuff, the inkblot test is just not sufficient here. Getting a bonus to armor class, and having your armor class simply become higher are two different mathematical functions and Pierce Magical Protection only dispels the first one (ie. not Polymorph)
aelryinth 02-01-08, 12:03 AM	No, I'm simply not going to let someone mathematically try to duck around the question. PMP has nothing in its language about only eliminating spells that STATE they provide an AC bonus. Also, go look in the SRD. There is a very specific listing for NATURAL ARMOR BONUS...and the polymorph spell provides one. Things like Barkskin provide a benefit on TOP of the NAC bonus. Polymoprh is only different because the bonus is Variable dependent on what form you take. What you call 'becoming +6' is 'becoming a +6 Nat AC bonus.' Sorry, trying to have fun with language isn't on your side either. An AC bonus is anything which raises your AC higher then it naturally is. There's the inkblot. Remove the effect, does your AC go down? Then the spell was providing the effect. It really, really is that simple, and talking around the effect really has no support from the feat. It simply makes you look like you're trying to find a loophole so the feat can't dispel stuff. As for it being situationally effective...so what? The spell is already massively situationally effective...it only works on buff spells, not continuous magic items. In short, it's only effective against uber buffers. It actually has an unforeseen utility effect against a hostile spell? How horrible. So yes, it'd work against people using Reduce, Baleful Polymorph, and the like. So what? The situation is so rare, why would it matter if it did? It can be used in a less offensive manner...wow, the feat actually has use that can help a friend, instead of slaying a foe? Amazing. I don't consider that ridiculous...I consider that a much-needed expansion to an underpowered feat. Situationally, it'd work against Cat's Grace and owl's Wisdom and such-like...so what? That in no way overpowers it, because the same effect is useless against anyone actually wearing stat buffs. ====Aelryinth
TheCobra 02-01-08, 12:46 AM	I consider that a much-needed expansion to an underpowered feat. Underpowered feat? Ha. It's situational, obviously, but fulfills its purpose exceptionally well even with a conservative reading. When facing wizards, sorcerers, druids, or clerics, it's a godsend.
aelryinth 02-01-08, 01:30 PM	Cobra, only if those classes are relying on buff spells. And then it's one attack per round, and it only gets rid of SOME of the buff spells. Sure, they may be useful ones, but it doesn't eliminate them all. Now, compare the situational effectiveness of this feat, useful against things casting spells, against a spellcaster with a full array of spells he can custom tailor on demand to work against the weaknesses of melee monster/characters...say, the Will save. Those spells are also situationally effective...they generally only work on stuff with sucky will saves. Well, this feat only works against casters who rely on buff spells. Yet, people are perfectly happy witht he first, and not hte second. Clearly, the Will save is NOT useful against casters, but nobody complains. Clearly, PMP has NO usage against against melee monsters, but because it works against casters, casters complain. There's no love, no justice. PMP is fine as a feat. I'm about ready to see it as overpowered as the group wizard is to say his DC 25 Dominate is. ===Aelryinth
Derren S. 02-01-08, 01:39 PM	Imo this spell works whenever a spell gives a direct + to AC but not through a side effect (+ Dex or changing into another form). Just look at the spell description and when it says that you get +X to AC then this feat works.
mplindustries 02-01-08, 02:04 PM	Cobra, only if those classes are relying on buff spells. And then it's one attack per round, and it only gets rid of SOME of the buff spells. Sure, they may be useful ones, but it doesn't eliminate them all. Now, compare the situational effectiveness of this feat, useful against things casting spells, against a spellcaster with a full array of spells he can custom tailor on demand to work against the weaknesses of melee monster/characters...say, the Will save. Those spells are also situationally effective...they generally only work on stuff with sucky will saves. Well, this feat only works against casters who rely on buff spells. Yet, people are perfectly happy witht he first, and not hte second. Clearly, the Will save is NOT useful against casters, but nobody complains. Clearly, PMP has NO usage against against melee monsters, but because it works against casters, casters complain. There's no love, no justice. PMP is fine as a feat. I'm about ready to see it as overpowered as the group wizard is to say his DC 25 Dominate is. ===Aelryinth For the record, I never play casters. I hate casters. I play a Binder with Pierce Magical Protection and I feel uncomfortable with just how amazingly powerful it is. Who, in the mid to high levels, isn't buffed? Nobody. It is godly. Allowing it to take down indirect buffs is a little much I feel. However, my GM is on your side and lets me. Its been pretty sick so far.
TheCobra 02-01-08, 03:16 PM	Cobra, only if those classes are relying on buff spells. If they aren't, you're probably already doing okay. 3.5 is all about buffing. By the way, how do you feel about magic vestment and the like? Does the feat remove that? Clearly, the Will save is NOT useful against casters, but nobody complains. That's not necessarily true. When the right build, even casters have to worry about enchantment spells. There's no love, no justice. Darn right. Casters rule, and we'll do anything to maintain their privilege. We don't care if means nerfing even the likes of Weapon Focus. ;)
aelryinth 02-01-08, 08:34 PM	Yes, I'd have it take down magic vestment. If you dispel the caster, magic vestment might go away. PMP will accomplish the same thing. ===Aelryinth
TheCobra 02-01-08, 10:41 PM	If you dispel the caster, magic vestment might go away. I'm not sure that a targeted dispel could get it. Magic vestment affects the armor or shield, not the wielder or wearer.
mplindustries 02-02-08, 01:25 AM	Aelryinth, your view on this feat is intriguing, but I feel ultimately dangerous. Out of curiosity, I am going to offer a number of unusual situations involving spells, and I'd appreciate it if you could tell me your thoughts on what would or would not be bypassed/dispelled in each situation (Assume in all situations that I am using pierce magical protection). 1) I attack a creature that has the incorporeal subtype with Eagle's Splendor. 2) I attack a Fist of the Forest with Bear's Endurance. 3) I attack a Troglodyte (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troglodyte.htm) Fist of the Forest with 12 Dexterity and 14 Constitution who is polymorphed into a 5-Headed Hydra (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm) (Note, they have the same natural armor bonus, but the Hyrda form would raise his con to 20). 4) I attack a halfling Fist of the Forest with 18 Dexterity and 20 Constitution who is polymorphed into a 5-Headed Hydra (Though the halfling's Natural armor bonus would improve by 6, his total AC would actually not increase because his dexterity goes down by 6 and he increases 3 sizes). 5) I attack an archer getting a +4 cover bonus to AC by peeking around a Wall of Force. 6) I attack a Rogue dual-wielding daggers buffed with a Heroism spell that gives him the Two-Weapon Defense Feat. 7) I am under the effects of a greater invisibilty spell, and I attack a Fighter buffed by See Invisible. 8) I am attacking a Fighter who is entangled (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm), but currently under the effects of a Freedom of Movement spell. 9) I am evil and attack a Fighter who is within 10 feet of his party's cleric; the cleric is currently buffed by a Magic Circle against Evil. 10) I have reach and am attacking a Wizard who is receiving a +4 soft cover bonus by standing behind his summoned Hound Archon. 11) I have reach and am attacking a Druid who is receiving a +4 soft cover bonus by standing behind a medium sized centipede affected by Giant Vermin (If the centipede were not buffed, it would be too small to provide cover). 12) I am attacking a Fighter who is affected by a Slow spell, but is currently standing within the radius of an Antimagic Field. 13) I am attacking a Battle Sorcerer wearing a Chain Shirt with Mage Armor. 14) I am attacking a Battle Sorcerer 10/Argent Savant 2 wearing a Chain Shirt with Mage Armor. I wanted to do more, but I think this is sufficient. I really want to see where you are coming from on this, so if you could explain why various things would or would not be dispelled, I'd appreciate it. If you only used the "inkblot test" as you call it (ie - "If the spell is removed, does their AC go down?), everything except #4 and #13 would result in a dispel.
aelryinth 02-03-08, 12:10 AM	Aelryinth, your view on this feat is intriguing, but I feel ultimately dangerous. Out of curiosity, I am going to offer a number of unusual situations involving spells, and I'd appreciate it if you could tell me your thoughts on what would or would not be bypassed/dispelled in each situation (Assume in all situations that I am using pierce magical protection). 1) I attack a creature that has the incorporeal subtype with Eagle's Splendor. 2) I attack a Fist of the Forest with Bear's Endurance. 3) I attack a Troglodyte (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troglodyte.htm) Fist of the Forest with 12 Dexterity and 14 Constitution who is polymorphed into a 5-Headed Hydra (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm) (Note, they have the same natural armor bonus, but the Hyrda form would raise his con to 20). 4) I attack a halfling Fist of the Forest with 18 Dexterity and 20 Constitution who is polymorphed into a 5-Headed Hydra (Though the halfling's Natural armor bonus would improve by 6, his total AC would actually not increase because his dexterity goes down by 6 and he increases 3 sizes). 5) I attack an archer getting a +4 cover bonus to AC by peeking around a Wall of Force. 6) I attack a Rogue dual-wielding daggers buffed with a Heroism spell that gives him the Two-Weapon Defense Feat. 7) I am under the effects of a greater invisibilty spell, and I attack a Fighter buffed by See Invisible. 8) I am attacking a Fighter who is entangled (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm), but currently under the effects of a Freedom of Movement spell. 9) I am evil and attack a Fighter who is within 10 feet of his party's cleric; the cleric is currently buffed by a Magic Circle against Evil. 10) I have reach and am attacking a Wizard who is receiving a +4 soft cover bonus by standing behind his summoned Hound Archon. 11) I have reach and am attacking a Druid who is receiving a +4 soft cover bonus by standing behind a medium sized centipede affected by Giant Vermin (If the centipede were not buffed, it would be too small to provide cover). 12) I am attacking a Fighter who is affected by a Slow spell, but is currently standing within the radius of an Antimagic Field. 13) I am attacking a Battle Sorcerer wearing a Chain Shirt with Mage Armor. 14) I am attacking a Battle Sorcerer 10/Argent Savant 2 wearing a Chain Shirt with Mage Armor. I wanted to do more, but I think this is sufficient. I really want to see where you are coming from on this, so if you could explain why various things would or would not be dispelled, I'd appreciate it. If you only used the "inkblot test" as you call it (ie - "If the spell is removed, does their AC go down?), everything except #4 and #13 would result in a dispel. THis is kind of what I like to call people delibrately making things difficult by playing one thing off another. 1) What this is really asking is "I attack anyone who gets a Cha bonus to AC from Eagle's splendor." Yes, I'd have it dispelled. Ditto Monks with Owl's Wisdom, anyone with Cat's Grace, and Duelist's with Fox's Cunning. 2) See above. 3) The Troglodyte race is a non-factor. Raising the Con is. As for the Nat Armor argument, I'd simply treat it as the same for all races...just because the Nat AC is the same I wouldn't let it work against, say, a 20 Con Dwarf, and not against the troglodyte. All other things being ignored (including race), would the spell adjust AC? Yes. Gone. 4) The spell granted a natural AC bonus. By terms of the feat, it's dispelled. I.e. all other things being equal, you removed it, his AC changed. The other 'offsetting' bonuses you are trying to use to justify your point are irrelevant. each spell stands on its own merits, it isn't dependent on all the other ones around it. 5) The archer isn't buffed with a spell that provides AC. PMP destroys spells on people, not free standing spells. 6) If there were no heroism, would his AC go down? Yes. Gone. 7) I don't see this spell granting an AC bonus? Removal of a bonus for you to hit him is not an AC bonus to him. 8) Freedom of MOvement does not provide an AC bonus...it neutralizes the penalty of the other spell. That's a situation, not an effect of the spell. Each spell stands alone. Entangle is irrelevant. Would FoM provide an AC benefit all the time? No. Stays. 9) As the fighter is not the base for the spell, you can't dispel it. You could, however, attack the cleric. 10) Cover bonus is provided by the Archon, it's not centered on the wizard. same as wall of force...this is a silly example. You only get rid of buffs. 11) Cover argument again. 12) Slow spell is a penalty. removing a penalty is not the same as an AC bonus, and furthermore, within the Anti-Magic shell, he's not being affected by any magic at all, ergo there is nothing to dispel. 13) All other things being ignored, does removing mage armor change a person's AC? Yes. Dispelled. 14) Ditto. Your arguments are heavily contrived, but the inkblot test still works fine. You are trying to play buffs off against penalties, but the feat does not care about those. Evaluate each spell on its own merits, and rule from there. And that cover stuff is REALLY silly, since it's not a buff and not centered on the caster, it's a free standing effect. And summoned creatures are creatures, not spells. YOu can't get rid of them anymore then you could dispel an animated shield. ===Aelryinth
mplindustries 02-03-08, 04:48 AM	4) The spell granted a natural AC bonus. By terms of the feat, it's dispelled. I.e. all other things being equal, you removed it, his AC changed. The other 'offsetting' bonuses you are trying to use to justify your point are irrelevant. each spell stands on its own merits, it isn't dependent on all the other ones around it. 7) I don't see this spell granting an AC bonus? Removal of a bonus for you to hit him is not an AC bonus to him. 8) Freedom of MOvement does not provide an AC bonus...it neutralizes the penalty of the other spell. That's a situation, not an effect of the spell. Each spell stands alone. Entangle is irrelevant. Would FoM provide an AC benefit all the time? No. Stays. 12) Slow spell is a penalty. removing a penalty is not the same as an AC bonus, and furthermore, within the Anti-Magic shell, he's not being affected by any magic at all, ergo there is nothing to dispel. 13) All other things being ignored, does removing mage armor change a person's AC? Yes. Dispelled. 14) Ditto. Your arguments are heavily contrived, but the inkblot test still works fine. You are trying to play buffs off against penalties, but the feat does not care about those. Evaluate each spell on its own merits, and rule from there. And that cover stuff is REALLY silly, since it's not a buff and not centered on the caster, it's a free standing effect. And summoned creatures are creatures, not spells. YOu can't get rid of them anymore then you could dispel an animated shield. ===Aelryinth Well, I honestly thought you could dispel summoned creatures. I may be wrong, but eh, not really important. I just want to explain a couple of the situations where my real question was potentially misunderstood. In #4, as far as all things are considered, if you removed the spell, his AC would not change, since it raised and lowered his AC by the same amounts. His total AC would be the same with or without the spell. That was the issue with the question. Polymorph sometimes changes AC and sometimes doesn't. I was trying to see if you feel a certain spell could be removed at times, and not at others. For #7, if I am invisible, and my target was unable to see me, he is treated as effectively blind. A blinded (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#blinded) character "takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)..." And so, by having See Invisible on, his AC increases. The inkblot test here is apparently not enough if you think it would not be dispelled. The point of this question was to see whether or not you feel a spell that changes your AC, but only situationally, would be dispelled. In #8, your point about negating penalties is fine, but you can't just use the inkblot test then, since the character's AC did change. Additionally, you ask whether the spell "provides an AC bonus all the time." The answer is no, of course, for Freedom of Movement, but it is also true of Polymorph. Polymorph does not "always" provide a bonus. I only bring this up because it seems to me that it contradicts your answers about polymorph, but I want to allow you a rebuttal on this. In #12, he is being affected by a spell, namely, Antimagic Field. RAW, a Warblade with Ironheart Surge can remove an Antimagic Field, so it is certainly possible. The AMF was canceling a penalty, however, so it could be considered to be the same problem as #8. #13 was another issue of when would the "inkblot test" not be sufficient. If you applied the inkblot test to the character in question, Mage Armor would not change the character's AC, so clearly there is something else that you use as criteria other than the inkblot test alone. You seem to be suggesting some kind of totally blank character in a total vacuum affected by nothing but the spell. If thats the case, then Eagle's Splendor wouldn't change a "blank" character's AC. Polymorphing would be dispelled if you change into a hydra, but not if you change into a human or a dwarf? I did create crazy interactions to see what you would say, and I openly admit that. However, crazy situations like that happen. In fact, as a Binder, I can turn invisible and entangle people and things of that nature, so it could potentially come up. I also want to mention just on the side that I think you are coming from a totally different perspective than most here, because you seem to think buffing is not all that common, whereas my party, for example, faced a half dozen non-spellcasting devils the other day who were buffed with mage armor and shield, presumably from whoever ordered them to hunt us down, and we're only levels 8 and 9.
TheCobra 02-03-08, 03:37 PM	Well, I honestly thought you could dispel summoned creatures. I may be wrong, but eh, not really important. No, you're correct. You can dispel summons. As far the topic goes, I think aelryinth takes the feat places I don't want to ever go. I suspect I'll use the most conservative interpretation. However, tyrecian's opinion also appeals to me.
aelryinth 02-04-08, 12:32 AM	Well, I honestly thought you could dispel summoned creatures. I may be wrong, but eh, not really important. I just want to explain a couple of the situations where my real question was potentially misunderstood. In #4, as far as all things are considered, if you removed the spell, his AC would not change, since it raised and lowered his AC by the same amounts. His total AC would be the same with or without the spell. That was the issue with the question. Polymorph sometimes changes AC and sometimes doesn't. I was trying to see if you feel a certain spell could be removed at times, and not at others. For #7, if I am invisible, and my target was unable to see me, he is treated as effectively blind. A blinded (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#blinded) character "takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)..." And so, by having See Invisible on, his AC increases. The inkblot test here is apparently not enough if you think it would not be dispelled. The point of this question was to see whether or not you feel a spell that changes your AC, but only situationally, would be dispelled. In #8, your point about negating penalties is fine, but you can't just use the inkblot test then, since the character's AC did change. Additionally, you ask whether the spell "provides an AC bonus all the time." The answer is no, of course, for Freedom of Movement, but it is also true of Polymorph. Polymorph does not "always" provide a bonus. I only bring this up because it seems to me that it contradicts your answers about polymorph, but I want to allow you a rebuttal on this. In #12, he is being affected by a spell, namely, Antimagic Field. RAW, a Warblade with Ironheart Surge can remove an Antimagic Field, so it is certainly possible. The AMF was canceling a penalty, however, so it could be considered to be the same problem as #8. #13 was another issue of when would the "inkblot test" not be sufficient. If you applied the inkblot test to the character in question, Mage Armor would not change the character's AC, so clearly there is something else that you use as criteria other than the inkblot test alone. You seem to be suggesting some kind of totally blank character in a total vacuum affected by nothing but the spell. If thats the case, then Eagle's Splendor wouldn't change a "blank" character's AC. Polymorphing would be dispelled if you change into a hydra, but not if you change into a human or a dwarf? I did create crazy interactions to see what you would say, and I openly admit that. However, crazy situations like that happen. In fact, as a Binder, I can turn invisible and entangle people and things of that nature, so it could potentially come up. I also want to mention just on the side that I think you are coming from a totally different perspective than most here, because you seem to think buffing is not all that common, whereas my party, for example, faced a half dozen non-spellcasting devils the other day who were buffed with mage armor and shield, presumably from whoever ordered them to hunt us down, and we're only levels 8 and 9. His AC gained from the Spell does indeed change...the bonuses gained go up and down. That they offset one another is moot, and you are trying to make this whole thing an example of situations and not looking at the spells themselves. Sure you can dispel summons. You have to target the summons. Since you aren't targeting the summons, but someone behind it, it's quite moot. Once again, you are trying to use PMP to target the situation, instead of looking at the spells. In #4, the fact that you can use the Inkblot test does not mean you can't also use the feat itself; you are hence trying to twist the purpose of the inkblot test. Polymorph provides a Nat AC bonus as part of the form change; whether you started with a Nat AC bonus is immaterial, so the wording of the feat kicks in. You also apply the transitive property - if the spell provides the AC bonus to the Dwarf, it must also be providing it to the troglodyte (since it loses its own Nat AC bonus when transformed, it thus must be 'gaining' the Nat AC of the hydra). Dwarf or troglodyte, neither's 'natural' AC applies when Polymorphed, and they certainly do gain the benefit, do they not? For #7, you are again applying a non-magical situation to the feat. Being able to see invisble does not provide an AC benefit...it removes an AC penalty. There is a distinct difference. If you want to argue this situation, then I could just as easily argue that the -2 AC penalty is a negative AC bonus, hit myself, and dispel your invisibility! Obviously, since that is not logical, neither of our interpretations thus will work, and See Invis is not affected. For #8, again, ceteris parabis applies...all other things being equal. If polymorph is specifically used so as not to create ANY AC bonus, then congrats, you got away with it...maybe you turned into a standard human. But remember that the spell is dispelled based on what the spell does, not what the caster has. A Dragon with +42 Nat AC polymorphing into an elf with 13 Dex is getting a +1 Dex bonus from his elf form...the fact his AC dropped hugely is immaterial...the spell stands on its own merits, not the caster's merits. Does the spell provide an AC bonus? Yes, inkblot, it's gone. #12, again, you are attempting to use a feat against a situation. The AMF is not part of the fighter, and specifically it's impossible to gain an AC bonus from a magical effect while all magical effects are being suppressed. There's nothing for the PMP to dispel. And we aren't talking about the poor wording of IHS, which if read creatively allows you to end 'life as we know it' by calling it a 'condition'. #13, ceteris parabis again, the spell stands on its own merits, not the situations! Does AC change when you apply the spell, all other factors being ignored/equal? Yes. Boom, gone. the fact he is wearing armor is a Non-factor, a situation that exists OUTSIDE the test. Throwing situations is not how you measure the feat. You measure the feat against the effect of the spells it attacks, and it attacks those that are cast and centered on the person, and that stand on their own merits, ignoring all else that is not directly relevant. ===Aelryinth
mplindustries 02-04-08, 01:29 AM	Throwing situations is not how you measure the feat. You measure the feat against the effect of the spells it attacks, and it attacks those that are cast and centered on the person, and that stand on their own merits, ignoring all else that is not directly relevant. ===Aelryinth I understand now, though still disagree. You consider polymorph not to increase your natural armor, or "set" your natural armor at a number, you seem to be treating it as if Polymorph totally negates your natural armor and physical attributes, and then gives an armor bonus. And I object to the phrase "not directly relevant" because what you consider relevant and what I consider relevant is clearly not the same. Just to confirm three last questions I have of you: 1) You mention that a Dragon polymorphing into an Elf would get dispelled because the Elf gives +1 Dex AC, and I can assume (I hope?) that this would happen even if the Dragon already had a natural Dexterity of 12? So, that means, sometimes, Owls Wisdom would be dispelled (if it were cast on a monk, for example), but on most people (ie anyone who isn't a monk, swordsage, or ninja), it would not be dispelled? So you feel the target's class features are directly relevant, but the target's situation is not? If a Sacred Fist with monk levels wore armor (thus losing their Wisdom bonus to AC), you'd still dispel Owls Wisdom, correct? 2) The spell, Sirine's Grace, allows your Charisma modifier to apply as a Deflection bonus to my AC. What if the target also had an Eagle's Splendor active? Obviously, if I attacked with Pierce Magical Protection, I'd ignore the charisma bonus for my attack, but if I hit, what would get dispelled? Sirine's Grace only (since it would eliminate the charisma bonus altogether) or both because PMP checks to see what's increasing AC all at the same time? 3) Again, taking the example of the dragon polymorphing into an elf: Lets say I know that a particular Elf has Mage Armor and Shield active, since they presumably have some kind of visible effect. I want to use Pierce Magical Protection to dispel those. However, I don't know said Elf is really a Dragon with +42 natural armor just pretending to be an Elf. You, if I am correct, would say that by using PMP, I'd actually cause my target's AC to increase? This actually has relevance, because as a Binder who uses Otiax's wind as a weapon, I only make Touch Attacks. There are actually, with your interpretation, a number of ways that I could actually end up increasing my opponent's touch AC by dispelling their buffs, in addition to the already numerous ways I could cause him to gain non-touch AC with the ability.
Tordak 02-12-08, 10:27 AM	Sorry for ressurecting this thread, I've been quite busy in the past few days and couldn't find the time to come and write anything. So here is what else I have to say about this (once again, sorry if that topic was buried to you) : Mage's Armor An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC. This here is an example of bonus to Armor Class granted by a spell. Reduce Person This spell causes instant diminution of a humanoid creature, halving its height, length, and width and dividing its weight by 8. This decrease changes the creature’s size category to the next smaller one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to Dexterity, a -2 size penalty to Strength (to a minimum of 1), and a +1 bonus on attack rolls and AC due to its reduced size. This is an example of bonus to Armor Class not granted by a spell. Altough the use of the spell is the origin of the size change, the bonus to AC is granted by the target's new size, not the spell. The bonus to strengh and penalty to dexterity are granted by the spell, because the spell grants a size bonus, which is not the same thing as a bonus due to changes in size. Same goes for Cat's Grace, even if you'll most likely get a better AC with the effect of the spell, it does not grant you a bonus to armor class. You could even end up with the situation where a spellsword cast cat's grace on himself (to gain the reflex save bonus from high dex I suppose) and does not gain the benefit of increase AC because he wears a full plate. Same goes for polymorph. It does not grant you a bonus to AC, it exchange your natural armor bonus with that of the creature you mimic (which could result, as pointed out earlier, in a less effective AC). The only spells affected by the PMP feat are spells that unambiguously grant AC bonus (that is, stated in the spell to grant a bonus to AC). There are many very good spells that do that and will be affected: haste, protection from evil (good, law, chaos), mage's transformation, shield, mage's armor are only some example. Whether it is usefull or not is irrelevant (again, the spellsword in full plate who cast mage armor, to protect himself of let say incorporal creature, would have is mage armor dispelled by anyone with the PMP feat who succesfully damage him as a standard action for that purpose, even if the mage armor does not increase the spellsword AC (armor bonus do not stack, they overlap)). If a spell from the polymorph subschool or that mimic the effect of a polymorph grant a bonus to AC (bite of the tiger, as proposed by the original poster), then it is affected by PMP and will be dispel. I'm still convinced polymorph (the regular one) is not affected. Nor is cat's grace, owl's wisdom on a monk, and so forth.
narack 02-12-08, 12:39 PM	You can overcome the magical protections of your enemies. doesn't it mean bypass SR which is in other term a magical protection.
Tordak 02-12-08, 12:45 PM	I think the exact benefit is 'ignore bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells'. The magical protection part is explanation of the feats benefits, but you don't bypass every type of magical protection; resistance to fire (form the resist elements spell) would still apply against a fireball cast by someone with the PMP feat. And SR is not a magical protection, it is a protection from magic. SR is en (Ex) ability, nothing magical about it.
aelryinth 02-12-08, 01:36 PM	I understand now, though still disagree. You consider polymorph not to increase your natural armor, or "set" your natural armor at a number, you seem to be treating it as if Polymorph totally negates your natural armor and physical attributes, and then gives an armor bonus. And I object to the phrase "not directly relevant" because what you consider relevant and what I consider relevant is clearly not the same. Just to confirm three last questions I have of you: 1) You mention that a Dragon polymorphing into an Elf would get dispelled because the Elf gives +1 Dex AC, and I can assume (I hope?) that this would happen even if the Dragon already had a natural Dexterity of 12? So, that means, sometimes, Owls Wisdom would be dispelled (if it were cast on a monk, for example), but on most people (ie anyone who isn't a monk, swordsage, or ninja), it would not be dispelled? So you feel the target's class features are directly relevant, but the target's situation is not? If a Sacred Fist with monk levels wore armor (thus losing their Wisdom bonus to AC), you'd still dispel Owls Wisdom, correct? 2) The spell, Sirine's Grace, allows your Charisma modifier to apply as a Deflection bonus to my AC. What if the target also had an Eagle's Splendor active? Obviously, if I attacked with Pierce Magical Protection, I'd ignore the charisma bonus for my attack, but if I hit, what would get dispelled? Sirine's Grace only (since it would eliminate the charisma bonus altogether) or both because PMP checks to see what's increasing AC all at the same time? 3) Again, taking the example of the dragon polymorphing into an elf: Lets say I know that a particular Elf has Mage Armor and Shield active, since they presumably have some kind of visible effect. I want to use Pierce Magical Protection to dispel those. However, I don't know said Elf is really a Dragon with +42 natural armor just pretending to be an Elf. You, if I am correct, would say that by using PMP, I'd actually cause my target's AC to increase? This actually has relevance, because as a Binder who uses Otiax's wind as a weapon, I only make Touch Attacks. There are actually, with your interpretation, a number of ways that I could actually end up increasing my opponent's touch AC by dispelling their buffs, in addition to the already numerous ways I could cause him to gain non-touch AC with the ability. You most certainly could cause their AC to go up by dispelling magic on them, particularly polymorph. If a Dragon morphs into something with a Nat AC bonus less then its own, and you dispel it, that is EXACTLY what will happen. The Wis bonus to AC example? It'd get dispelled anytime it was put on someone with a wis bonus to AC. That they are wearing armor is, again, an artificial situation and contrivation. It's the same as throwing Cat's Grace on a fighter with 16 Dex wearing Mithral, and another wearing adamantine. One can get the benefits of the raise, and the other can't, and so it works on one, not the other? No. You remove the armor from the situation, and look at the effect of the spell. As for the Charisma effect again, you are again being misleading. Now you are trying to introduce TIMING in as a negatory argument. There is no timing. You hit. Does Sirine's Grace grant an AC benefit? Yes. Poof, gone. At the same time: Does Eagle's Splendor grant an AC benefit? Because of Sirine's Grace, yes. Poof, gone. Is it really that hard? ====== As for how to look at Polymorph, you are employing literary gymnastics to make the feat say what you want it to say. Polymorph turns you into a form with a Nat AC. That is a Nat AC bonus, by definition, right out of the SRD. It has thus provided you an AC bonus. Be that bonus bigger or smaller then before, it has still provided you a bonus. Arguing around the point (it 'sets' your AC at x?!?) is being evasive. Polymorph put you in a form that granted you an AC bonus. Remove the spell, and that bonus goes away. Bing! Feat triggered. It's THAT simple. Contriving all the silly situations above just makes me shake my head. You are trying to make the simple complex just to restrict the power of the feat and to shoot it down. The feat isn't good enough to need shooting down in the first place, and the contrived situations make it worse. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 02-12-08, 01:45 PM	Sorry for ressurecting this thread, I've been quite busy in the past few days and couldn't find the time to come and write anything. So here is what else I have to say about this (once again, sorry if that topic was buried to you) : This here is an example of bonus to Armor Class granted by a spell. This is an example of bonus to Armor Class not granted by a spell. Altough the use of the spell is the origin of the size change, the bonus to AC is granted by the target's new size, not the spell. The bonus to strengh and penalty to dexterity are granted by the spell, because the spell grants a size bonus, which is not the same thing as a bonus due to changes in size. Same goes for Cat's Grace, even if you'll most likely get a better AC with the effect of the spell, it does not grant you a bonus to armor class. You could even end up with the situation where a spellsword cast cat's grace on himself (to gain the reflex save bonus from high dex I suppose) and does not gain the benefit of increase AC because he wears a full plate. Same goes for polymorph. It does not grant you a bonus to AC, it exchange your natural armor bonus with that of the creature you mimic (which could result, as pointed out earlier, in a less effective AC). The only spells affected by the PMP feat are spells that unambiguously grant AC bonus (that is, stated in the spell to grant a bonus to AC). There are many very good spells that do that and will be affected: haste, protection from evil (good, law, chaos), mage's transformation, shield, mage's armor are only some example. Whether it is usefull or not is irrelevant (again, the spellsword in full plate who cast mage armor, to protect himself of let say incorporal creature, would have is mage armor dispelled by anyone with the PMP feat who succesfully damage him as a standard action for that purpose, even if the mage armor does not increase the spellsword AC (armor bonus do not stack, they overlap)). If a spell from the polymorph subschool or that mimic the effect of a polymorph grant a bonus to AC (bite of the tiger, as proposed by the original poster), then it is affected by PMP and will be dispel. I'm still convinced polymorph (the regular one) is not affected. Nor is cat's grace, owl's wisdom on a monk, and so forth. I simply call literary gymnastics. You are putting an artificial barriar down which does not naturally exist. Furthermore, diverging from the main argument, you are completely avoiding the reason that people DO shapechange...getting the 'forms' and their 'base stats' is exactly why those forms are being chosen, and in many cases they are far, far greater then those that can be supplied by spells devoted to enhancing stats! (Compare polymorphing into a Firbolg vs, oh, Bite of the Werebear. You gain far, far more from the former then the latter.) A Nat AC is by definition a Nat AC bonus. period. It's a definition! Arguing against it is literary contortionism, nothing else. you are attempting to rename something that is obvious and apparant. It's equally obvious and apparant what the source of that bonus is...the Spell that gave it to you. Not acknowledging this is just being willfully obfuscatory. You can mess around with the uncertainties of bonuses that increase AC based on class abilities, but what you are saying then is 'abuse me.' instead of treating all such spells equally. ===Aelryinth
Tordak 02-12-08, 03:13 PM	Furthermore, diverging from the main argument, you are completely avoiding the reason that people DO shapechange...getting the 'forms' and their 'base stats' is exactly why those forms are being chosen, and in many cases they are far, far greater then those that can be supplied by spells devoted to enhancing stats! (Compare polymorphing into a Firbolg vs, oh, Bite of the Werebear. You gain far, far more from the former then the latter.) A Nat AC is by definition a Nat AC bonus. period. It's a definition! Arguing against it is literary contortionism, nothing else. you are attempting to rename something that is obvious and apparant. It's equally obvious and apparant what the source of that bonus is...the Spell that gave it to you. Not acknowledging this is just being willfully obfuscatory. You can mess around with the uncertainties of bonuses that increase AC based on class abilities, but what you are saying then is 'abuse me.' instead of treating all such spells equally. That's because you only think of polymorph as a buff rather than a tool (I admit that this is most often than not the case); polymorph, much like alter self, is also use as a disguise, a way to gain a mode of transportation or a way to adapt to some type of environment (gaining the type and subtype of the creature). Even if it is mostly used as a buff, it remains that polymorph as other applications. The point is, if a dragon polymorph into a human (for whatever reason), it does not have a natural armor bonus of +0, it lacks natural armor bonus altogether. Which means, according to what you've been saying, that it would not be dispelled in that case, but the other way around (human to dragon), the effect would be dispelled. Same with owl's wisdom, which, according to you, is dispelled on a monk but not on a fighter or cleric. It's not a matter of treating all such spell equally (which I do by the way, saying none of the 'animal's attribute' spell is dispelled because none of them grant you a armor bonus; it's the class ability that grants the bonus, not the spell), but treating each spell the same way in different situation. Whether it increases your AC or not, owl's wisdom does not grant you a bonus to AC, it grants a bonus to your wisdom score. So the feat works against certain spells, not certain situations (much like its brother pierce magical conealement). I understand the polymorph controversy however, as it says it grants you the creature's natural armor bonus. Still, there's is a distinction between 'bonus to AC granted by spell' and just having a better AC after the casting of a spell, no artificial barriar, it's a real distinction. Bonuses have a specific definition in D&D; boons are not bonuses.
mplindustries 02-12-08, 03:57 PM	As for how to look at Polymorph, you are employing literary gymnastics to make the feat say what you want it to say. Polymorph turns you into a form with a Nat AC. That is a Nat AC bonus, by definition, right out of the SRD. It has thus provided you an AC bonus. Be that bonus bigger or smaller then before, it has still provided you a bonus. Arguing around the point (it 'sets' your AC at x?!?) is being evasive. Polymorph put you in a form that granted you an AC bonus. Remove the spell, and that bonus goes away. Bing! Feat triggered. It's THAT simple. Contriving all the silly situations above just makes me shake my head. You are trying to make the simple complex just to restrict the power of the feat and to shoot it down. The feat isn't good enough to need shooting down in the first place, and the contrived situations make it worse. ==Aelryinth Well, this is the crux of it, I guess. You feel it is weak, I think it is an incredibly powerful feat. All my characters ever take it now. I would take it with my ruling on it. Its still amazing. I even have discussed my opinion on it with my GM openly, because it feels so powerful. I have, every session since I've taken it, reduced at least one enemy's AC by four or more, usually more, and that makes a huge difference to the party. I also don't think I am shooting it down, I am trying to use it correctly. I find your ruling on this anything but simple. Literary gymnastics are how you determine what is RAW and what isn't. If they wrote it poorly, guess what? Too bad. You can have your opinion, but if they wrote it wrong, its a houserule. It might make a lot more sense, it might be more balanced, but its not official. The feat says, "bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells." Polymorph: "You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind. Physical qualities include natural size, mundane movement capabilities (such as burrowing, climbing, walking, swimming, and flight with wings, to a maximum speed of 120 feet for flying or 60 feet for nonflying movement), natural armor bonus, natural weapons (such as claws, bite, and so on), racial skill bonuses, racial bonus feats, and any gross physical qualities (presence or absence of wings, number of extremities, and so forth). A body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks (or more advantageous two-weapon attacks) than normal." Now is this an Armor Class bonus? Yes, as you've said. I agree. Is it granted by the spell, or the form? Thats the question, and no matter what kind of hand waving you want to do, it is not simple to answer it. Is it literary gymnastics? Yes. Is that what you do to determine what vaguely written material means? Also yes. You can't discount word and logic games because they are absolutely critical tools for determining what is a law and what isn't. Go into a court room and tell people "Its simple. The law intends X." Guess what? You will lose, because the law doesn't "intend" anything. Now, I wish the game were written better. I wish the writers were more precise in their language. They weren't, and so we are having this discussion. Oh, and I appreciate that you responded, but I really think you misunderstood my tone every time. I wasn't trying to fight, I was trying to discover if and when your argument breaks down. Your reading is very consistant, but as it turns out, far from simple. How can you call it simple to dispel something when its on person X, but not on person Y? How is it simple to completely discount the current situation, but not the person's current class abilities? How is it simple to dispel polymorph because it clearly gives you an armor bonus, and then also dispel cat's grace because it clearly gives you a dexterity bonus, even when that dexterity bonus may or may not change your AC? Again, consistant, but not simple.
aelryinth 02-12-08, 10:48 PM	Well, the way your post reads, it's like you are willfully trying to make things difficult for yourself and others. The feats says Bonus. It doesn't actually say it increases your AC. Thus, you could indeed get into a situation where YOUR AC goes down when your buffs get stripped...but someone else's goes UP (say, A Dragon). The only way you can apply the spell is to remove you and the dragon from the equation and look at what the spell does all on its own, and then apply the results evenly. Anything else is being situational, and that's a mental trap. You have to stay away from the mental trap. If you think it's a great feat, mroe power to you. There's a ton of monsters out there it is absolutely a waste on, and there's others it is a little useful against, and against an Optimized NPC spellcaster using his spells to become an invincible melee sort...yeah, it's THE key to the treasure vault, baby! But a feat that only comes into play against 10% or less of the foes you fight is not a great feat. Remember, it doesn't work on magic items...only on cast spells. Against an enemy fighter, for instance, it's probably useless. Ditto the big bruiser coming to crush you. Mages? Yes, if they don't wear bracers. Clerics, yes, against Shield fo Faith and magic vestment. Druids? Certainly, barkskin and all the fun stuff. But that's only a fraction of the opponents you face. A spell that was useful ini less then 10% of combat situations is probably something you seriously consider not memorizing. That's how a lot of people look at PMP. ===Aelryinth
mplindustries 02-12-08, 11:14 PM	If you think it's a great feat, mroe power to you. There's a ton of monsters out there it is absolutely a waste on, and there's others it is a little useful against, and against an Optimized NPC spellcaster using his spells to become an invincible melee sort...yeah, it's THE key to the treasure vault, baby! But a feat that only comes into play against 10% or less of the foes you fight is not a great feat. Remember, it doesn't work on magic items...only on cast spells. Against an enemy fighter, for instance, it's probably useless. Ditto the big bruiser coming to crush you. Mages? Yes, if they don't wear bracers. Clerics, yes, against Shield fo Faith and magic vestment. Druids? Certainly, barkskin and all the fun stuff. But that's only a fraction of the opponents you face. A spell that was useful ini less then 10% of combat situations is probably something you seriously consider not memorizing. That's how a lot of people look at PMP. ===Aelryinth I'm surprised you only find it useful 10% of the time. I think your DM is either very kind, or very lazy. Any brute type monster could be buffed by some offscreen force. During the last session of the game I'm in, we were attacked by a group of non-spellcasting devils who had at least 8 AC worth of protective spells (I'm assuming Mage Armor at least, don't know what else). If facing a group over 5th level with at least one spellcaster, the entire force is probably going to have haste, and numerous other buffs. Plus, when facing a mixed party, who is the threat? That warrior? No, my Persisting cleric ally can take him. The problem is the insane AC caster in the back who keeps turning invisible and dropping nukes and crowd control. Thats where I come in, using Mindsight and the Mageslayer line. Now, obviously your mileage is different, but I find that I use it at least once per session, if not per encounter. I'd say, its been effective 75% of the time. I guess it must be that the DM I know is an optimizer, and a big fan of spell casters. On the other hand, in my games, it would be a useless feat, even with your interpretation. I hate the magic system, and so buffs just don't come up. I also don't use magic items, except as major plot points. And I take nothing straight from the book. I custom make all enemies and the few magic items I might give. I dislike the way armor works too, so usually wraithstrike is pretty useless in my game as well, since my high AC foes are usually monks, swordsages, and/or other similar classes with extra stats to AC. So, yeah I can understand why you'd find it weak. I feel as though its either totally awesome, or useless in every way, so I don't think it needs a power boost. Its just situational. Oh, and as for making it harder for me and others: it might be slightly tougher for me, but I don't think a lot of the buffs in question are used by NPCs. However, they are used by players, and I think it'd screw the party over quite a bit more if Pierce Magical Protection were even more powerful.
aelryinth 02-13-08, 08:24 PM	I'm surprised you only find it useful 10% of the time. I think your DM is either very kind, or very lazy. Any brute type monster could be buffed by some offscreen force. During the last session of the game I'm in, we were attacked by a group of non-spellcasting devils who had at least 8 AC worth of protective spells (I'm assuming Mage Armor at least, don't know what else). If facing a group over 5th level with at least one spellcaster, the entire force is probably going to have haste, and numerous other buffs. Plus, when facing a mixed party, who is the threat? That warrior? No, my Persisting cleric ally can take him. The problem is the insane AC caster in the back who keeps turning invisible and dropping nukes and crowd control. Thats where I come in, using Mindsight and the Mageslayer line. Now, obviously your mileage is different, but I find that I use it at least once per session, if not per encounter. I'd say, its been effective 75% of the time. I guess it must be that the DM I know is an optimizer, and a big fan of spell casters. On the other hand, in my games, it would be a useless feat, even with your interpretation. I hate the magic system, and so buffs just don't come up. I also don't use magic items, except as major plot points. And I take nothing straight from the book. I custom make all enemies and the few magic items I might give. I dislike the way armor works too, so usually wraithstrike is pretty useless in my game as well, since my high AC foes are usually monks, swordsages, and/or other similar classes with extra stats to AC. So, yeah I can understand why you'd find it weak. I feel as though its either totally awesome, or useless in every way, so I don't think it needs a power boost. Its just situational. Oh, and as for making it harder for me and others: it might be slightly tougher for me, but I don't think a lot of the buffs in question are used by NPCs. However, they are used by players, and I think it'd screw the party over quite a bit more if Pierce Magical Protection were even more powerful. First of all, I set my yardstick by published modules and rote monsters, and the number of magical AC buffs those use tends to not be anywhere near as extensive as what the PC's use. This is partly because the DM has a much harder time managing buffs that aren't pre-figured into stat blocks, and will miss possible buffs far more often then PC's who specialize in one person control, not multiples. Secondly, I don't think I"ve ever seen an NPC grab these feats. I'm sure a devoted wizard-killer might grab the tree...but again, restricted use, campaign-specific. Even you noted that in your campaign, it's a useless investment. If the DM loves spell buffing monsters, obviously it's a winner of a feat. Yes, it will be more universally useful against a party, especially one that relies on maximal buffing. There's no doubt about that. however, it is UNLIKELY that any given NPC will have the feat, so one who does is obviously a special threat...and there's nothing wrong with that, occasionally the PC's should feel threatened. Lastly, it's not the first time something has been put into the game more useful for monsters then PC's. Take a look at Brilliant weapons...ignoring Armor and Shields for AC is clearly a party-killing enchantment, it does spit against, oh, dragons, demons, devils, etc. It's murder against high level fighters and clerics and...you get the picture. ===Aelryinth