Hi optimizers,
I was having a lengthy conversation over in the What's a player to do forum: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
The main question is if DnD 3.5 can be made optimizer proof.
So instead of asking you to optimize a character build, I'm asking you if yo know ways to optimize DnD 3.5 in such a way that it can't be broken any more. I'm not an optimizer but I have the feeling that the core of the problem is the rules for stacking and the amount of material available, even though with Core druid only I think the game is breakable.
What I mean with breakable is that players can get to a point where they perform well above what the CR/ECL mechanic should indicate.
I'm asking for a set of houserules that would make it very hard to impossible to optimize to the point where a CR+5 monster isn't a TPK and a CR monster isn't more than a speedbump.
Thanks
Another point is that tier differences and power curves go up really fast as the levels increase. Houserule patches like E6 are popular as a result (I don't have a handy link, but it's discussed in a lot of places. Short version of that idea: stop power level increases at level 6, but continue to allow player advancement).
We've also had a "discussion" (well, if you can call getting yelled at a discussion) with another forumgoer about the raw power of wealth-by-level optimization. I would very much like to see his suggestion of writing up a guide to why WBL is the ripest avenue for gamebreaking effects, as I haven't really explored the higher end of WBL optimization yet.
The problems with 3.5 optimization in its extremest forms - i.e. LordofProcrastination's Dirty Tricks, Tleilaxu_Ghola's attempts to slay Pun-Pun without DM fiat, and so on - isn't so much the diversity of material available so much as it's the ability to bring all such material to the fore at once. This isn't actually "stacking" in the mechanical sense, it's more about optimizing available actions more than anything else. There's the odd mathematical trick involved here and there, but even then, it almost always tends to come back to the action economy.
brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.p...
brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.p...
brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.p...
The E6 concept looks interesting, I will discuss it with my group.
Your description of being able to bring everything to the fore at once is what I mean by stacking. It's not just the action economy though, but also the availability, some tricks require 20 rounds of buffing, so aren't very action economy friendly.
At the end of the day, the only way to have a game that's not broken is to have players who understand hat playing in a game your GM can't keep up with, is going to be less than fun and likely short lived. It also involves having a DM that understands he's there to entertain and challenge the players, not just to kill their characters, or to hand feed them everything.
When tempest mentions that groups should be facing four encounters with EL = average eCL each day I'd also add that it could be broken down to less then that. I'm sure there are some who will disagree but if you put more encounters at a party with a lower EL you should see the 'weaker' classes often do a little better as the power classes can't/shouldn't be blowing their "I WIN" stuff all day. The idea here is simply that a wizard 20 may fair much better against the "infinite horde" the a fighter 20 if that horde comes slowly enough the wizard should (at least in theory) "run out of gas" while the fighter 20 can keep going and going.
The point being, optimization is not only a function of knowing the numbers of the game, but also when and where to apply them to maximum advantage. Seeing as how so many different play styles are out there, people who will start out with an ability score array of straight 18's and people who will role dice maybe 3 times a game in lue of simple story telling methods, trying to find a way to "break prof" a game like this is pretty imposable because the definition of broken can be solely defined by it's individual players.
On the gentlemen's agreement front, the way I express it to my players is "Don't use it if you don't ever want your enemies to use it." In theory, you could throw everything in as-is, with both players and their opponents using the most "broken" tricks available, and it would technically be balanced, if brutally short and somewhat arbitrarily resolved. It generally won't be like this because playing rocket tag with ultimate power is rarely what the players enjoy.
One specific thing I will note is that the action economy can work both ways if you're trying to balance things out; some (but not all) of the excessive options wouldn't be as bad if you just made them take longer to use.
1) Talk to the players
2) allow "broken" combos, as the Rules of Awesome trump the Rules of Lawyering
3) emphasize non-combat skills at least as much as combat, if not significantly more, so that the "munchkins" don't feel the need to go overboard in just one of the areas (combat) if they know how important everything else will be
OR they could role-play their characters as extremely focused on martial training to the point of reduced ability to function in the world of non-violence, and the others might not mind as much "taking up the slack" for everything else in the game if they know that
a) they will still get at least as much credit for being able to function in the entire rest of the game world without feeling overshadowed in that one other regard
b) they will still have "impossibly" powerful fighters (not necessarily Fighter-class) for when the group actually needs to fight for their lives. In a world as violent as the ones in D&D, why not role-play an adequate fighter as being thankful for being friends with somebody who can protect them from something stronger than s/he could handle alone?
4) As Slagger mentioned, if the party's enemies find out that something can be done, they could very well tell their own allies. Once all of the enemies involved know that something can be done, and the strongest among them devote themselves to learning it for themselves, a couple of them might very well turn out to be able to do it
5) See "1)"
If anybody would like to see a few of TVTropes' perspectives on the basic subject:
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/PlayingWi...
When roleplaying is throw into the mix, things can get even more out of whack. Players can manupulate fights to their favor or get their hands on things they shouldn't with unexpected decisions, unforeseen consequences, or just a few badly forged documents.
Complex answer is: Sort of. It requires a lot of effort on the DM's part though.
#1: Understand what breaks the system. If you don't know what causes problems, you'll never be able to keep them from popping up. The biggest perpetrators of this are:
Spell and monster creep (more books = more spells and monsters).
Spells and abilities which allow characters to act more often than they are assumed to be allowed. Includes "Breaking the Action Economy" like plymorphing into a Choker and "Infinite effect Loops" like persisted Vigor.
Spells and abilities that allow characters to act well outside their role.
Spells and abilities which cause core abilities to become obsolete. (flight, anti-archery)
#2: Understand what character's are doing. You can't prevent any character from getting out of control without knowing what abilities they have and what they are going to use. This ties back into the "Gentleman's Agreement" when a potentially powerful character (Wizard) doesn't use powerful options. And finally, when you don't like an ability or how someone plans to use it...
#3: Be able to say "No" in a convincing way to anything you deem to be too powerful. This involves micromanaging players options and setting rules, sometimes arbitrarily, but I believe is the most effective way to keep things from getting out of control. This also often involves enforcing restrictions on metagaming. Things like "Classes" or "Saving throws" are abstractions of the system and not necessarily within the scope of characters to understand their able to exploit them, even if players can.
#4: Be able to put up with everyday deviations from the CR system. Less-so than the breaks listed under #1, these are times when balance is not spot on but it is expected with the system or setting. A Ranger that's ultra-specialized in hunting Goblinoids for example should have a much easier time against Goblinoids than mere CR can account for.
Final Note: Not all Optimization is bad. Oftentimes optimization makes characters perform much better than they should within the constraints of the story, plot, and challenges that you as a DM set forth. This kind of optimization is the bad kind. It disrupts play, makes it hard to bring challenges to the party, and points out only too strongly that the character is just a character in a D&D game.
Sometimes however, optimization has a better side. It makes characters live up to what the other players and DM see the character as, it enhances the plot and gaming experience, and/or it fills in a much needed party roll. Rather than earning a book to the head for "broken bullsh*t", this is the time when an optimized character's exploits earn anything up to and including applause from the other players.
Lastly, remember that opinions differ. Some players might feel left out when an optimized character steals their spotlight, while others enjoy a better performing ally. DMs may feel that an optimized character has destroyed their deathtrap of a campaign while players are thankful for the increased survival rate. As the old quote goes...
You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
I submit to you this. Basically, as long as players place reasonably similar emphasis on the RP aspect of the game and on the optimization aspect of the game (that is, if RP is one axis and minmaxing is another, that people's locations on that grid are close together), then you should be fine. However, expecting changes in the system (which alter how the minmax axis behaves) to patch up problems with RP (a completely separate axis) is kind of setting yourself up for failure.
That said, there is a solution. From the link above:
Finally, the third point that I've noticed people committing the fallacy frequently make suggests that people are immutable, that munchkins should be booted from the table since they just hurt the game. (They also tend to use "munchkin" differently than I do - I read it as "immature player", not "optimizer". You can have a drama queen munchkin, but since D&D is a game of numbers, optimizer munchkins are probably more common.) The simplest rebuttal to this: Teach them. Seriously, all that matters for people to have fun at the game is to have everyone involved fall reasonably close together along both axes - that way, everyone's happy with how the game unfolds. If you have a high RP group and That One Min/Maxer, teach him how to act in character, put the team in situations where value decisions come to the fore, and be patient as he learns to act. And, contrariwise, consider having him offer suggestions on tactics and letting your team work better together - subject to the restriction that the choices must be justified in-character. If you're in the reverse situation, with a group of optimizers and That One Drama Queen, work outside the game to improve his character (not necessarily building his character for him, but certainly helping him see synergy). Similarly, you can get his creativity flexing in a different direction by challenging him to come up with histories or descriptions for particular game elements, even if they don't appear on his character - this is good practice for reflavoring, and it may let him see that his Split Rose Technique is really just a fancy description of Deft Opportunist or something. People can learn - and you can teach them most of the time.
You have a munchkin (immature player) with emphasis on optimization. Rather than compete with him, have him try to teach the others what he knows. You'll notice the whole party improving as a result - all of a sudden the munchkin sees the challenge in bringing the rest of the party up to par, and it's the team that matters rather than his own personal glory. Likewise, the rest of the team will be better suited to whatever the DM can bring to the table.
I knew about the Tier system for classes and PrCs. By the looks of it, your link has the same information as the links I have:
brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.p...
brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.p...
brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.p...
Just a heads up, the older BG boards part of BG
will be deleted soon (due to the multiple hackjobs).
But the minmaxboards part of BG will still be there.
The Tiers stuff has been ported over.
3.5e is not C.O. proof-able ...
... so says the pots + the kettles.The gentleman's agreement at a home table, is the one "true" way.
I just took a look at the original thread. It looks like your problem is that the players in question have different values, and that's the bigger problem. The rules can't fix interpersonal problems.
I submit to you this.
While our party has a large variety on the optimization axis, we're all pretty equal when it comes to roleplaying. I don't think the Stormwind fallacy is an issue here.
You have a munchkin (immature player) with emphasis on optimization. Rather than compete with him, have him try to teach the others what he knows. You'll notice the whole party improving as a result - all of a sudden the munchkin sees the challenge in bringing the rest of the party up to par, and it's the team that matters rather than his own personal glory. Likewise, the rest of the team will be better suited to whatever the DM can bring to the table.
That's the first thing we tried. It resulted in a bit of an arms race, and it ended in a party that can basically steamroll nearly any published monster short of major gods. Only a few things can really scare us, mostly threats based on HD or level as those can't be boosted.
We started to have a different discussion when the DM stepped into another discussion on how to optimize one of the lower Tier characters and asked if this was really what we should be doing as it was getting imposible to come up with plausible encounters.
We all recognized things just got silly and way out of whack. What we've found difficult is to draw a line on the sand and agree on when things "break" or how to solve it when things do end up broken.
We don't need a way to bring the rest of the party up to the level of the most optimized one, we need a way to bring the overall effectiveness of optimization down.
When I mean optimization, our resident optimizer just posted his current character build in the other thread I had created. community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
So I'm specifically looking for ways to make builds like this less powerful, maybe people can make suggestions on that more specific case?
Unless the PC in question, is a dedicated crafter like an Artificer
or an Erudite Spell To Power 7+ with Psychic Reformation abuse,
the DM can always ensure the relative effectiveness.
Monsters
The monster actually want to beat the PCs, so what they do is
beat up on the guy that seems to be most powerful. They've
got skill checks, or observation time leading up to the fight,
or heard it through the monster grapevine. Hey this !@#$
PC Hero is trying to waltz through our territory, get him.
What about the other guys? Worry about them later.
Deities
The God Of War , The God Of Justice , and The God Of Balance
are sitting in a bar and the one says to the others: "Watch this" ...
Gear
Unless the PC in question, is a dedicated crafter like an Artificer
or an Erudite Spell To Power 7+ with Psychic Reformation abuse,
the DM can always ensure the relative effectiveness.
I'm not sure what you mean here, please elaborate.
Monsters
The monster actually want to beat the PCs, so what they do is
beat up on the guy that seems to be most powerful. They've
got skill checks, or observation time leading up to the fight,
or heard it through the monster grapevine. Hey this !@#$
PC Hero is trying to waltz through our territory, get him.
What about the other guys? Worry about them later.
What the monsters are doing is ignoring the stronger character(s) in the party and picking on the weaker. At least intelligent monsters like Dragons. The most optimized charaters in the party are basically untouchable by most monsters.
Deities
The God Of War , The God Of Justice , and The God Of Balance
are sitting in a bar and the one says to the others: "Watch this" ...
Oh, I think we will have gods starting to get involved. But mostly because they're getting jealous and will gang up on us. The character of our best optimizer will probably ascend to godhood if he survives to the end of the current adventure. We already decided that ± will be his holy symbol and he already has a flock of followers and worshippers.
Do you melt it down = Artificer ... and lots more overpowered fun to be had.
Do you go to the local Magic Mart and diplomance them into buying it = dm fiat ... and lots lots more ov--
Do you pull out some high C.O. craft-o-matic super cheese = dm ought to know better ... and hey lets go Beholder Mage why not?!
or
Does the party decide to change what they're doing, to figure out what this
mysterious Item is, what it does, and who could use it to best (in party) effect.
The Hobbit 2012 , had the Dwarf King square off with the OneArmed (to be) Orc.
Couldn't the party have stopped fighting everyone else and all ganged up on the
lead BBEG, so he's dead, then they could all just mop up the Orc army, and easy (?).
But their story (the rest of them's) is just as important as the KIng.
In a word? No. By the definition of optimization. It can only be optimization-proof if all choices were equally valid and effective. So want optimization-proof? Play 4e.
Or just don't emphasize combat over everything else the PCs could be doing
In a word? No. By the definition of optimization. It can only be optimization-proof if all choices were equally valid and effective. So want optimization-proof? Play 4e.
We might just end up trying 4E.
Making all choices equal wasn't what I was looking for though. I can live with inbalance, a Druid is going to be more powerful than a Monk in 3.5, I have no problem with that.
What I was looking for is a simple (set of) rules changes that make it harder for the Druid to not just be powerful, but to completely break the game to the point that large parts of the mechanics just stop working, most importantly the encounter design as the designers intended it.
Or in other words, that things like CR and ECL have no meaning any more because most of the mechanics used to determine them are just ineffective.
I want suggestions on ways to make optimization less effective, not to make the Samurai as good as the Wizard.
Things like:
- Buffs don't stack any more.
- You can no longer use self-only buffs.
- Certain spells have much longer casting times.
- Certain spells no longer can be used.
- The duration of certain spells, maybe all, is very much reduced...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
I'm not an optimizer, and not very good at coming up with ideas. I was hoping that those with a much better grasp of the mechanics might have a bright idea or two. A solution that would still make it fun to find interesting combinations of mechanics, but reduce the effectiveness from being +300% to +30%.
In a word? No. By the definition of optimization. It can only be optimization-proof if all choices were equally valid and effective. So want optimization-proof? Play 4e.
Or just don't emphasize combat over everything else the PCs could be doing
Our most OP character at the moment is basically a Bard. He doesn't exacly have a hard time outside combat. Not just the numbers, he also roleplays it well.
In a word? No. By the definition of optimization. It can only be optimization-proof if all choices were equally valid and effective. So want optimization-proof? Play 4e.
Or just don't emphasize combat over everything else the PCs could be doing
And any caster can easily get their numbers so high there it doesn't matter. Unless you're suggesting doing away with die rolls altogether, in which case have fun, but most people out grew playing pretend well before age 10.
@OP: You want CR to have meaning again? Class up your monsters. Also play with their feats. Don't just take stuff out of the books and hope it works. CR is so incredibly inconsistent anyways, it should be an improvement.
The main question is if DnD 3.5 can be made optimizer proof.
I'm not sure it can, and I'm not sure it should. However, this is a different question:
I'm asking you if yo know ways to optimize DnD 3.5 in such a way that it can't be broken any more.
The problem is that different people have a different interpretation of the word "broken".
To my mind, "broken" does not mean "optimised" or even "over-optimised". In fact, I'm tempted to reserve that word for things like unintended infinite loops and bad rules interactions (e.g. "I summon a Sarrukh who grants me infinte power!"). Simply remembering that some books were written before others existing and house-ruling accordingly helps a lot here, but sometimes you just have to say "no". Generally it's obvious when something is this wrong.
Then there are things where people read stuff in stupid ways (*cough* Master Specialist). If the RAW aren't clear, picking one which gives you a ridiculous power boost is obviously being done just for that, so a DM should say, "no, it's clearly meant to work like this". That makes a lot of crazy stuff less crazy.
However, you still have the problem of things being "overpowered". That's when they're not broken as per say, they're just stronger than they should be. This is a lot tougher because it's more subjective (a big + number is obviously better than a littler one, but when does the ability to do XYZ make a big difference? That ability may not always be applicable).
Whilst we're on the topic of terminology, I would use "unbalanced" to refer not necessarily to something which is more or less powerful than the norm (and thus not balanced against it) but for something which unbalances the game - that is, something which is potentially very powerful in one situation, and often not in others. Every character should have strengths and weaknesses, so they get chance to shine without hogging the whole game, but this makes those swings too wild. It means they either can't contribute, or they dominate.
So I guess what I'm saying is, you need to decide exactly what you're going for. I played in a L20 game where everyone was like "Wow!" because I cast Time Stop in the first round of combat (and rolled a 4, making it pretty cool but nothing to do with my optimisation) and ever since the DM tried to strong-arm me (actually he had plot reasons I think but he didn't arrange that with me so we wound up in an arms race - which the DM always wins ;)). The level of optimisation there was not so high. You may likewise want to aim for a lower level. However, that's not the same as trying to get rid of "broken" stuff, if you see what I mean.
the various infintely different Cheeses the C.O. dawgs
have managed over the years ... then it'd be as simple
as handing Power Level X (not Class Level W) PCs
challenges appropriate to their Power Level.
As a for instance:
Thrallherd Sacrifice is a level 6 trick.
But it gets you: 1 Wish, unlimited Limited Wishes,
a.h. dark craft gold and exp for items.
OK
Face that off with a monster weilding a decent
pile of level 7 spells on total recharge.
And a DvR 1 proxy of a deity rather ticked about
all of his local followers disappearing; soon after.
Things like the sarrukh need to be fixed at the base level, since there are a lot of ways you could gain access to their special ability, but the problem is that the ability itself is virtually unlimited in scope. It's about the same with stuff like shapechange, albeit to a lesser degree.
And any caster can easily get their numbers so high there it doesn't matter. Unless you're suggesting doing away with die rolls altogether, in which case have fun, but most people out grew playing pretend well before age 10.
You wouldn't have to necessarily do away with dice rolls; you could, for example, put a hard level-based cap on die results (but that particular solution would be kind of heavy-handed compared to proper fine-tuning).
You can't really outgrow playing pretend if you still play D&D; like other roleplaying games, D&D is basically playing pretend with a ruleset, just like acting is playing pretend with a script.
To leash the power creep, you need to both shoot down the individually unbalanced abilities, and put some controls on the interaction of other abilities. For example, if no creature could ever have more than a single spell buff and debuff at any one time, you'd kill off a lot of problematic interactions. That's kind of extreme, but hopefully you get the idea.
Things like the sarrukh need to be fixed at the base level, since there are a lot of ways you could gain access to their special ability, but the problem is that the ability itself is virtually unlimited in scope. It's about the same with stuff like shapechange, albeit to a lesser degree
Shapechange gives you free 9s. One can achieve punpun with 9s without sarruhk.
And any caster can easily get their numbers so high there it doesn't matter. Unless you're suggesting doing away with die rolls altogether, in which case have fun, but most people out grew playing pretend well before age 10.
You wouldn't have to necessarily do away with dice rolls; you could, for example, put a hard level-based cap on die results (but that particular solution would be kind of heavy-handed compared to proper fine-tuning).
You can't really outgrow playing pretend if you still play D&D; like other roleplaying games, D&D is basically playing pretend with a ruleset, just like acting is playing pretend with a script.
D&D is a combat simulator first. This is especially obviouswhen you look at both the history and the proportions of rules dedicated to combat as opposed to everything else. And acting is performing. So wrong on both counts.
Shapechange gives you free 9s. One can achieve punpun with 9s without sarruhk.
Shapechange is indeed one of the elements that needs direct attention.
I don't recall a method for achieving the full Pun-Pun without the sarrukh, though I am open to the possibility that there are other individual methods that might bestow abilities in a similar fashion.
D&D is a combat simulator first. This is especially obviouswhen you look at both the history and the proportions of rules dedicated to combat as opposed to everything else. And acting is performing.
D&D does still include heavy combat elements and they make up a very significant part of its behaviour as a "game", but it's also largely defined by how much it moves away from its origins in a tabletop combat simulation by incorporating "roleplaying". Put the two together, and you've got a "roleplaying game", rather than a combat simulator.
Acting is indeed performing, but it's also "playing pretend", since the perfomance involves pretending to play the part of a different person. After all, "playing pretend" is itself just a simpler, less defined form of roleplaying.
If anybody ever asks me to describe what a RPG is it is really easy just to say it is playing "pretend" like when you were a little kid except that there are 'rules' to govern what actually happens. RPGs often provide a definite answer to the problem that happens when I say "I shot you; you're dead," but you say "no you didn't because you missed."
Shapechange gives you free 9s. One can achieve punpun with 9s without sarruhk.
Shapechange is indeed one of the elements that needs direct attention.
I don't recall a method for achieving the full Pun-Pun without the sarrukh, though I am open to the possibility that there are other individual methods that might bestow abilities in a similar fashion.
You're welcome
D&D is a combat simulator first. This is especially obviouswhen you look at both the history and the proportions of rules dedicated to combat as opposed to everything else. And acting is performing.
D&D does still include heavy combat elements and they make up a very significant part of its behaviour as a "game", but it's also largely defined by how much it moves away from its origins in a tabletop combat simulation by incorporating "roleplaying". Put the two together, and you've got a "roleplaying game", rather than a combat simulator.
How odd. By that reasoning, poker is "playing pretend" because there is no real royalty involved.
D&D at its best and most pure is a mathematics and pattern-recognition exercise
Acting is indeed performing, but it's also "playing pretend", since the perfomance involves pretending to play the part of a different person. After all, "playing pretend" is itself just a simpler, less defined form of roleplaying.
Again, nope. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
You're welcome
Very interesting, thank you. I wouldn't quite rate all of them on the same level as manipulate form, but they're certainly powerful enough to warrant attention. Ironically, ice assassin was already one I'd consider problematic, even though I hadn't considered that particular combination.
D&D is a combat simulator first. This is especially obviouswhen you look at both the history and the proportions of rules dedicated to combat as opposed to everything else. And acting is performing.
D&D does still include heavy combat elements and they make up a very significant part of its behaviour as a "game", but it's also largely defined by how much it moves away from its origins in a tabletop combat simulation by incorporating "roleplaying". Put the two together, and you've got a "roleplaying game", rather than a combat simulator.
How odd. By that reasoning, poker is "playing pretend" because there is no real royalty involved.
Poker is generally excluded by its lack of roleplaying, since you don't attempt to play the role of someone else. Were you to start pretending that you were one of the royal figures from the cards, then your particular poker game would include "playing pretend", even though it's not a typical feature of poker.
D&D at its best and most pure is a mathematics and pattern-recognition exercise
Math and pattern recognition are good for the game side, but far less valuable for the roleplaying side. The roleplaying gives the game elements a broader purpose, while the game elements give structure to the world in which the characters exist.
Acting is indeed performing, but it's also "playing pretend", since the perfomance involves pretending to play the part of a different person. After all, "playing pretend" is itself just a simpler, less defined form of roleplaying.
Again, nope. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
You'll earn no XP with an answer like that.
Playing pretend involves playing a role other than yourself; roleplaying by definition. And the same goes for acting; you play a role other than your own, and you're roleplaying.
What is your definition of "roleplaying" that doesn't involve playing a role?
Chalk this one up to a difference in values and drop it.
Ugh...
Chalk this one up to a difference in values and drop it.
You should hang out in the Tavern sometime. It'd be good for you.
I see the main problems as:
- A lot of initial content for 3E was already imbalanced. The PHB has both the Monk and the Druid. Later splat books tried to fix this by giving new options to classes like the fighter, bard, monk and ranger in an effort, sometimes misguided, to give them a boost. One of the problems comes if through another splat books, these very reasonable boosts can subsequently be applied to a Druid, Cleric or Wizard.
- 3E allows a lot of stacking mechanics, slightly less in 3.5 but still a lot. This means that a good optimizer, by picking and choosing wisely, can create totals that go well beyond what the designers thought possible.
- 3(.5)E allows specially spellcasters to nova. Assuming game balance will come from 4 encounters per day. The four encounters per day paradigm doesn't always work, it might challenge the suspension of disbelief, especially if something isn't a typical dungeon crawl. Because combat is rather tedious, it also tends to drag te speed of the adventure down. The problem gets worse if the nova form can be made virtually continuous.
Now for the post of my fellow player:
Well, lets make a simple calculation:
Charisma is 40, which is a +15 modifier. Mystic Wanderer (Magic of Faerun) gives a sacred bonus to AC if you're unarmored. Ascetic Mage states: if you would normally be allowed to add your wisdom modifier to your AC (such as for an unarmored, unencumbered monk) you instead add your charisma bonus (if any) to your AC instead. Monks belt on the other hand gives you the AC of a level 5 monk if you do not have any monk levels (with all the restrictions normally applied to monk AC). Normally, you could use a wilding clasp to continue using the belt while polymorphed (costs only 4000 gp), but our group has banned wilding clasps and instead uses the houserule that an item can be made "wilding" for twice the cost (effectively the price of making an item slotless), so the belt instead costs 26000 GP. Third, if I cast the spell Sirene's Grace (Spell Compendium) I can add my charisma to my AC as a deflection modifier. So, from Charisma only I can have an AC of 10+2*15 (Mystic Wanderer + Sirene's Grace) +16 (Monk AC as a level 5 monk)= 56.
Next lets apply polymorph. The most defensive shape I've found in the books is in Monster Manual 5, the Thrym Hound, a 13 HD monster which has a natural AC of +30. Add the simple spell "Barkskin" to this and you've got 35 Natural AC. The Thrym Hound is Huge (-2 AC) and has 12 Dexterity. From spells I get an +8 Enhancement bonus to dexterity (Nixie's Grace + the Ability enhancer feat) and another +6 sacred bonus to AC (Inner Beauty + the Ability enhancer feat). This together with charisma makes the AC: 56+35-2+8 = 87.
Next up I cast "Snowsong" from frostburn which gives a +4 insight bonus to AC and Greater Mage Armor for a simple +6 armor bonus. This then gets up to a grand total of 97 AC. Getting AC even higher is not very hard, but is rather pointless.
Concerning how long I can sustain it: Except for polymorph and Sirene's Grace all my buffing spells mentioned last 10 minutes/level (or longer). Which when extended (Using a lot of Extend rods) when combined with a very high caster level. For this I use beads of karma (+4), a ring of arcane might (+1, arcane only), Create magic tattoo (+1), Hymn of Praise (+2), and Harmonic Chorus (+2) which I let my Familiar to cast on me using the spell "Imbue familiar with spell-like ability". With Practiced spellcaster (twice, both for arcane and divine) I then have a caster level of 16 + 4 + (1/0) + 1 +2 + 2 = 26/25 (arcane/divine). My charisma buffing spells are all arcane. Using a rod of extend my 10 minut/level buffs then last: 520/60 = 8 hours and 40 minutes. For gaining bonus spell from a high Charisma from spells I need 8 hours of rest and 15 minutes of meditation, as such I can keep my Charisma at 40 for 24 hours and 40 minutes (as I currently only have 2 beads of karma, though I could buy another one (as I still have some cash left) so that I'd be able to keep it up for 26 hours per day (using 3 separate buff rounds). I mostly don't bother with Nixie's Grace (deflection bonus to AC, rounds per level, which in combat is only 18 rounds) and only use polymorph to change into something which has a little more offensive value than a Thrym Hound.
Some of you might btw wondering high I can boost my charisma to 40 (it is 40, not 44). In addition to 16 +4 from startin stats and levels I have Spell Focus Transmutation and the feat "Ability Enhancer" from "Dragon Compendium" which enhances each transmutation spell that increases ability scores by +2. I use 2 Transmutation spells which boost Charisma: Inner Beauty (+4 sacred bonus to Dexterity and Charisma) and Nixie's Grace (+8 enhancement bonus to charisma, and other stuff). These spells effectively enhance charisma by +6 and +10 because of these feats. I furthermore have Snowsong from Frosburn which gives a +4 morale bonus to Charisma. 16+4+6+10+4=40.
My point here is that I can't point at a single mechanic that's unbalanced by itself. It's the ingenious combination that creates the over the top result. The Thrym Hound might be pushing it, but there are pleny other froms with 20+ NA and even with 10 NA, the Tarrasque would need a natural 20 to hit, the Thrym Hound is overkill, Triceratops would suffice.
For the record: He usually uses octopus tree, I think from Fiend Folio, with NA 24.
Now I could give the Tarrasque 18 levels of Sorcerer and have it cast Energy Drain and True Strike before it goes to town. Or 15 Cleric levels and Blasphemy and it would be over right then and there. But things very quickly become ridiculous. It's not likely that any level appropriate CR 15/16 monster will be any kind of real challenge.
The biggest problem is that the area of real challenge, between a minor speedbump and TPK, becomes too small.
I don't want to critisize this specific build. This is not the first this guy came up with, and it will not be the last. I just want to use it to clarify what I'm trying to make less effective. I don't want to have to ban every ability he uses, because for a weaker character these things are actually useful or even needed.
I just want to make it much harder or less effective.
His previous heavily optimized character was a pure melee build, so it's not just spellcasting either that should be the focus.
I'm still interested in hearing suggestions. I prefer radical and simple over more conservative but complex.
If that's not an option, my suggestions would be to ban any Dragon mag material, and cap ability scores at 30. Another really easy thing to do is limit which splatbooks the players can access, or at least limit the material they can use from each one. For example, limit him to monsters from MM1, MM3, and the appropriate setting book.
Also, the multiple prayer beads is just cheese. Don't let him do it.
Again, it largely comes down to the Gentlemen's Agreement. If that's not an option, my suggestions would be to ban any Dragon mag material, and cap ability scores at 30. Another really easy thing to do is limit which splatbooks the players can access, or at least limit the material they can use from each one. For example, limit him to monsters from MM1, MM3, and the appropriate setting book.
I think we will need some form of gentlemens agreement. "Don't break the game" would work for me, but I don't think like an optimizer. For an optimizer it needs to be a bit more specific than that.
I was hoping other optimizers might give suggestions exaclty like you're doing right here.
The difficulty is where to draw the line. As I said, a lot of things that are fine or even needed for weaker characters become OP in a build like this. Something we allowed our Bard or Monk to make up for their weakness then bites us when an optimized build like this comes allong. My previous character was a Bard and we did have a Monk in the party until about a year ago so this is not hypothetical.
We hve tried to come up with a rule that is somehow linked to which Tiers of classes and PrCs are used so that things that a Bard or Monk would be allowed to do, might not be ok for a Druid or Wizard.
Also, the multiple prayer beads is just cheese. Don't let him do it.
If I understand it correctly, he's not stacking them, but he's using one prayer bead, and then 8 hours later when his buffs run out, he uses another and then 8 hours later again. He needs to buff roughly every 8 hours to keep his buffs running.
Monks on the other hand? Fundamentally broken. The class isn't designed to work at all. "You're really fast, and you hit a lot, cool? Oh you can't move and hit more than once..." "Dick move." The Monk gets some neat abilities, all of which are easily rendered useless (Stunning Fist, for example), or usable so infrequently they often don't get used at all (Abundant Step, Quivering Palm). Another foundational flaw? Unarmed Strike Damage and Ki Strike, these abilities are great but RAW the only real way to enhance them is an overpriced amulet which won't allow anything other than + to hit and damage. This reserves you to using a sub par weapon, losing access to some class features or house ruling a better option for unarmed (such as allowing the Savage Species item from 3.0).
Again, though it really comes down to allowing things to stack that maybe shouldn't and polymorph cheese that makes your players build redardinsane. If something adds an ability to a roll or damage, nothing else should do the same unless one of the two abilities explicitly implies it stacks (Even if the bonus types are different, or untyped). Polymorph needs a fix in general, and most people agree that the best fix is to just not use it at all. One fix I like requires that it replace racial ability modifiers, rather than your ability scores outright and that regardless of form the spell never adds more Natural Armor than your HD. It's simple but it fixes a lot. Oh, finally a few people add the "NO HP Change, regardless of Con change" rule. The last one will take it out of most casters.
- Polymorph prohibits spellcasting (plus the nerfs of your choice)
- More than one spell cannot add to a single ability score
- No roll or stat can benefit from the same ability score more than once.
- Feats and other features of a class or HD (by and large) do not work with abilities granted by magic items
If you play in the realm of optimizers fantasies, then your gentleman's agreement will be "Lrn2ply n00b". On the other hand, your gentleman's agreement might entail that one or more house rules need to be instituted to ensure that the game flows well and that Gandalf isn't soloing the Balrog at 6th level while the rest of the party struggle with mere orcs.
This all comes back to the same end results, a Gentleman's Agreement as to how nasty the players are able to get and micromanaging the combos they're allowed to pull off. For the example above, I could easily spin off 4 house rulings that no one would think twice about to defuse the whole thing.Suddenly, the problem has been torn apart into much smaller combos that, while still leaving the option to combo intact, greatly lower the numbers you're dealing with. This is the kind of micro-managing you have to work with to keep 3.5 in any kind of a working shape amongst a band of optimizers.
- Polymorph prohibits spellcasting (plus the nerfs of your choice)
- More than one spell cannot add to a single ability score
- No roll or stat can benefit from the same ability score more than once.
- Feats and other features of a class or HD (by and large) do not work with abilities granted by magic items
If you play in the realm of optimizers fantasies, then your gentleman's agreement will be "Lrn2ply n00b". On the other hand, your gentleman's agreement might entail that one or more house rules need to be instituted to ensure that the game flows well and that Gandalf isn't soloing the Balrog at 6th level while the rest of the party struggle with mere orcs.
Those are some nice suggestions. I think we allready assumed #1 to be the case, given that a Druid needs to invest a feat to gain spellcasting in Wildshape and there is nothing similar for Polymorph it would be odd if a Wizard would polymorph into an Animal he would be able to cast spells while a Druid would need a feat.
"What is your AC without any benefits from magical spells? Because the fiend ignored them and just destroyed them all..."
==Aelryinth
make Pierce Magical Protection a common feat with no reqs for monsters.
"What is your AC without any benefits from magical spells? Because the fiend ignored them and just destroyed them all..."
==Aelryinth
Hmmm, that would lower his AC to 41 I think, there are definitely monsters that can hit that. I don't think making the feat have no prereqs would be a good idea, our druid already has Mageslayer and is working towards this feat at level 18 I think.
Also I'm not DM right now, but I might casually bring it up...
I've a feeling it might drop his AC to well below 41. remember he loses his polymorph spell (it provides an AC benefit) and all his stat boosting spells (as they all affect his AC). He'd be back down to base stats and worn items. That could be harsh.
==Aelryinth
I have to ask, why would a druid go for this line of feats? The caster level hit is,....extreme.
I asked him at our last session yesterday, and he only has Mageslayer and compensates with Practiced Spellcaster. he indeed isn't planning on the other feat because of the caster level hit.
I've a feeling it might drop his AC to well below 41. remember he loses his polymorph spell (it provides an AC benefit) and all his stat boosting spells (as they all affect his AC). He'd be back down to base stats and worn items. That could be harsh.
==Aelryinth
The stat boosting spells would be unaffected I would think. The feat mentions "spells and spell effects that grant a bonus to Armor Class", I would not consider stat boosting spells affected by that.
That the stat bonus applies to AC isn't due spells but to other mechanics. I would assume that a spell that does "STR bonus to AC" to be affected by the feat, but "DEX bonus to AC" to be unaffected as it's not a spell but an inherent mechanic of the game. If you got your DEX bonus from items, base stats or spells shouldn't make a difference in my oppinion.
I would assume a monster with a Polymorph SLA to be affected, but not the Su ability Wildshape.
He could probably add the AC from a wildshape to the 41, as he can wildshape as a level 10 druid.
But this would definitely make him hittable. And a lot of the buffs that give him AC also do a lot of other things so it would tone him down quite a bit.
But I did suggest it to the DM...
==Aelryinth
Having a stat bonus grant you an AC bonus is no different the casting Mage armor and the translucent field of force granting you an AC bonus. You cast a spell, it makes a change, and your AC bonus changes...pretty straightforwards. The feat makes no distinction about how you got the bonus, only that you got one, which makes it VERY strong...it's a weapon against uber buffers, and considering the penalties that come with it, perfectly balanced.
==Aelryinth
No. Having a stat bonus that increases a modifier is quite a bit different from the armor bonus you get for casting Mage Armor. If you cast a spell that increases your stat that is what the spell does. It is then the rule of the game that take the increased (or decreased) modifier and apply it do different things. Increasing your DEX indirectly increases a character's AC which is far different from Mage Armor which directly gives the character an AC bonus.
I'll admit I'm not paying much attention to the bigger arguement/discussion but there is a considerable difference between the AC that Mage Armor provides and the increased AC a character could experience with an increased ability score. Saying they are "the same" is like saying an effect that gives you -4 on your attacks against me is the same as giving me +4 AC against that attack. The "net" effect may be the same but the mechanics to get there are different.
The only direct spell effect that comes to mind is haste, which kind of asks it for directly contradicting the description of dodge bonuses (in particular that they're never granted by spells or magic items).
What you've got is a double standard.
The effect of summoning up Mage Armor is to bring into being a protective shell of force. This shell provides a +4 Armor bonus as a result of the spell's effect.
The effect of Cat's Grace is +4 Dex. The boost provides +2 'dodge' ac, +2 on Dex checks as a result of the spell.
If you're going to argue cause and effect, there are a LOT of spells that are cause and effect.
A spell that grants your Cha instantly as a deflection bonus to AC is granting AC.
A spell that grants you Natural AC via any means is granting AC...no difference between polymorph and barkskin for this.
A spell that grants you a dodge or unnamed bonus to AC is granting AC. Doesn't matter if it's polymorph or cat's grace.
Not treating all spells equally is crazy. You can argue almost all spells are indirect. Haste doesn't grant a +1 bonus to AC, it just makes you faster, so you're harder to hit, PMP shouldn't work on you!
Pierce Magical Protection makes NO distinctions as to the source of the AC. If it's a spell, and that spell grants you an AC benefit as part of what it does, PMP can hack on it.
The double standard of not letting a feat do what it is designed to do (remove all buff spells that provide an AC benefit) and letting casters do whatever they want to do just boggles my mind.
==Aelryinth
I'm not arguing what Pierce Magic Protection does (although it may be listed earlier in this thread what is the source for that as I'm unfamiliar with it?) but I am agruing that things can be sufficiently different even if they have similar effects. The game does make distinctions about certain things and those will need to be honored.
Like I asked earlier what would the difference be between a spell that gives me +4 AC and one that gives all opponents trying to attack me a -4 penalty on their attack?
You could have a party situation in 4e that looks like this:
4 PCs that are level 1 , and supra-hero that's level 12.
The DM thinks to his ego: "I can't possibly figure this out."
The DM's super-ego goes: "Of course I can figure this out."
(the only reason I mention 4e is because the game
maths are a lot more brutal with imbalances like this)
So yes this could happen in 3e.
The 4 PCs face 3 giant younglings.
The Level 12 "D"ude faces the Frost Giant / UrPriest 5.
The PCs might be stupid enough to nock an arrrow
toward the Frost Giant, but they know about "HONOR"
and know that the Frost Giant would never ever ever
bother with them, because it's too easy.
There's 2 seperate combats happening at the same time.
It happens in the movies + fiction all the time.
Frost Giant says to the very blue ugly Mom later:
"Your whelps falled the test. Go make better whelps."
Level 12 dude has been reincarnated as a Badger.
The PCs are level 2 now and give the Badger a cookie.
Aelryinth, I guess if you want to say that treating something granting a +9 Natural Armor Bonus differently from something that sets DEX 28 creates a "double standard" you're actually going to be 100% correct. They are two different things if you are just looking at the effects. If I happened to be wearing some armor with a +0 MAX DEX I'll see that +9 Natural Armor Bonus but giving me DEX 28 isn't going to change a thing assuming I didn't have a penalty they.
I'm not arguing what Pierce Magic Protection does (although it may be listed earlier in this thread what is the source for that as I'm unfamiliar with it?) but I am agruing that things can be sufficiently different even if they have similar effects. The game does make distinctions about certain things and those will need to be honored.
Like I asked earlier what would the difference be between a spell that gives me +4 AC and one that gives all opponents trying to attack me a -4 penalty on their attack?
And you could be facing an enemy giving touch attacks with PMP, and your +9 Nat AC doesn't do squat for you. Suddenly, PMP doesn't work!...doesn't make much sense, does it?
You're trying to argue that a situational bonus or penalty affects the spell. That's like some other guy trying to argue that Wall of Stone, because it provides a cover bonus to AC, is subject to dispelling. No. Nowhere in anything it does is a cover bonus to AC ever invoked...it's the PC's POSITION that is providing the bonus, not the wall.
Likewise, using your example, suddenly you decide not to use a touch attack to use PMP, and BAM, you can hit the guy with Nat Armor bonus!
makes no sense.
The dex buff provides an AC bonus. If the PC wants to slap on armor and NOT take advantage of it, that's a PC choice, that's not the result of the spell. I believe the Cha bonus to AC requires you to be unarmored. If you suddenly put armor on, can PMP not take out the spell suddenly?
No. 100% of spells that provide an AC bonus, 100% of the time. Trying to argue situationals is counter-intuitive and a protest against what the feat does.
If the spell provides an AC bonus as a result of the spell, regardless if a PC puts themselves in a situation where they chose to lose (or gain, hah) the bonus, the feat works. Situational qualifers are just not something you want to get into here.
==Aelryinth
.My take on PMP: if it directly affects AC, it's pierced. That would not include Cat's Grace, but it would include a spell that allows you to use a different ability mod. Just my
I'd be similar in my reading.
In the case of polymorphing, natural armour is directly stated by the base spell (alter self) so it's pierced. The ability scores are mentioned, but since their effect on AC is not, it's simply a consequence of the spell's effect, and therefore isn't pierced.
And you wouldn't have it affect Cat's Grace?
makes no sense.
The fact that your AC is only one of the things affected by Cat's Grace is no different then Nat Ac being only one of the things affected by polymorph...or by a Shield Spell!!! (which also reflects magic missiles).
Nah, too many situational exceptions without justification. All spells, all the time. There's nothign in the feat which says "Oh, this spell only does it indirectly, so don't affect that one. But this is also the same, but a more powerful spell, so it makes sense to dispel that one."
Nope. All of them, all the time. I see no reason to allow PMP to take out Alter Self and to give Cat's Grace a pass just because the type of AC you might gain is different.
And phrasing the Dex bonus as not something you should gain, howzabout we turn into a Nymph, and gain Cha to AC? Suddenly your Cha went from +0 AC to +5 AC benefit! Oh, but it's typeless, it's just a stat giving out AC, it's indirect, it doesn't mean anything. Just because we're now a creature that gets the bonus is no reason for it to be dispelled...after all, you're not dispelling a bonus that enhances what every living creature already gets, why should this be any different!
Makes no sense.
==Aelryinth
Um. Alter Self is even more indirect then Cat's Grace. It does the exact same thing, and MORE BESIDES.
Alter self explicitly states that you gain the form's natural armour bonus as a physical quality granted by the spell, while cat's grace states that you gain increased Dexterity, and only notes that you gain AC benefits as a result of the improved Dexterity modifier that was in turn the result of the spell's benefit.
One is directly described as a benefit of the spell, while the other is described as a consequence of the spell's direct benefit. It doesn't really have anything to do with the type of bonus (it just works out nicely on that front since the spells boost the Dexterity score rather than the Dex bonus to AC).
Look, Slag. You can't have it both ways. Either spells that only purely and directly improve AC, like Mage Armor, get affected, or indirect things, like Cat's Grace or Alter Self are affected as well. The RAW is very clear, thoughm Cat's Grace is gone.
The natural armour bonus granted by alter self isn't indirect, since it's an explicitly stated physical quality granted by the spell. The spell doesn't tell you the exact value of that bonus, but receiving the bonus is a direct benefit of the spell.
Having a Dexterity modifier applied to AC isn't an effect granted by a spell, it's a natural part of Dexterity as an ability score. Changing your Dexterity score shifts the value of the bonus, but doesn't give you a bonus of its own.
For example, if you're using something like polymorph, which can also change ability scores, the natural armour benefit can be pierced (because it's directly stated by the base spell) while your Dexterity bonus to AC cannot (because that's not a direct benefit of the spell).
Now if you're going to houserule it, then by the same logic, Alter Self is equally indirect, and thus should be immune. But if you're not, dexterity bonuses are gone, as would Con bonuses if you're a FotF or Deepwarden.
It's a spell that improves AC. Period. Dead stop. That's the end. So, it is beaten by PMP.
Pierce Magical Protection doesn't ignore every kind of improvement to AC; it specifically "ignores any bonuses to Armour Class granted by spells ". If the bonus wasn't granted by a spell, PMP doesn't ignore it, even if the spell somehow causes an improvement in the value of the bonus.
Now if you're going to houserule it, then by the same logic, Alter Self is equally indirect, and thus should be immune. But if you're not, dexterity bonuses are gone, as would Con bonuses if you're a FotF or Deepwarden.
Cat's grace doesn't grant you a bonus to AC from Dexterity; that's a normal effect of having a Dexterity score. The spell just changes the value of your existing bonus.
Alter self directly states that it provides a natural armour bonus. It doesn't specify the exact value (which depends on the form chosen), but the bonus is directly granted by the spell so Pierce Magical Protection ignores it.
It's a spell that improves AC. Period. Dead stop. That's the end. So, it is beaten by PMP.
Pierce Magical Protection doesn't ignore every kind of improvement to AC; it specifically "ignores any bonuses to Armour Class granted by spells ". If the bonus wasn't granted by a spell, PMP doesn't ignore it, even if the spell somehow causes an improvement in the value of the bonus.
And the bonus to dexterity is caused by a spell. Dead stop, that's the end.
Now if you're going to houserule it, then by the same logic, Alter Self is equally indirect, and thus should be immune. But if you're not, dexterity bonuses are gone, as would Con bonuses if you're a FotF or Deepwarden.
Cat's grace doesn't grant you a bonus to AC from Dexterity; that's a normal effect of having a Dexterity score. The spell just changes the value of your existing bonus.
Increasing your bonus, thus increasing your AC. So you're SOL.
Alter self directly states that it provides a natural armour bonus. It doesn't specify the exact value (which depends on the form chosen), but the bonus is directly granted by the spell so Pierce Magical Protection ignores it.
From a common sense perspective, getting a physcal shell is different from a magical forcefield. It is every bit as indirect as Cat's Grace, so if you are houseruling it, it's at best intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise. Of course, by RAW it's ignored, but so is Cat's Grace, so it really doesn't matter.
And the bonus to dexterity is caused by a spell. Dead stop, that's the end.
The bonus to the Dexterity score isn't itself a bonus to AC, so Pierce Magical Protection doesn't ignore it.
It improves the creature's existing Dex bonus to AC, but that's not what Pierce Magical Protection is stated to overcome.
Increasing your bonus, thus increasing your AC. So you're SOL.
Pierce Magical Protection only ignores bonuses granted by spells. Its text states nothing about ignoring existing bonuses that are indirectly improved by spells.
From a common sense perspective, getting a physcal shell is different from a magical forcefield. It is every bit as indirect as Cat's Grace, so if you are houseruling it, it's at best intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise. Of course, by RAW it's ignored, but so is Cat's Grace, so it really doesn't matter.
The exact reasoning behind it from an in-game perspective is a different matter (it works out nicely, but isn't really the point). I'm just talking about RAW.
By RAW, cat's grace isn't ignored because the spell doesn't grant the bonus to AC, it just improves the ability score on which the bonus is based. Pierce Magical Protection makes no mention of how the exact values of bonuses are determined being important in any way; the deciding factor is whether or not the bonus itself was granted by a spell.
If a Lizardfolk uses Alter Self to turn into a normal elf, does that elf have +1 Natural Armor? Does the change in Natural Armor count as a bonus even though it drops their Natural Armor Bonus from +5 to +0? No, that's silly.
The new natural armor bonus in a feature of assuming the race, much as assuming any other aspect of them is also a feature of the spell. It isn't a bonus to your previous natural armor, it isn't a modification to your existing natural armor, it is the replacement of any existing natural armor.
The spell causes you to assume that form by granting you various qualities of that race, one of which is the race's natural armour bonus to AC.
If a Lizardfolk uses Alter Self to turn into a normal elf, does that elf have +1 Natural Armor? Does the change in Natural Armor count as a bonus even though it drops their Natural Armor Bonus from +5 to +0? No, that's silly.
Why would a normal elf have +1 natural armour?
But let's assume that we're using alter self to change from a lizardfolk (which has a +5 natural armour bonus to AC) into a bugbear (which has a +3 natural armour bonus to AC). The lizardfolk loses its own +5 natural armour bonus to AC (we can assume, though technically it's not stated by the spell), and gains the +3 natural armour bonus to AC of a bugbear. Should it then be attacked by a character with Pierce Magical Protection, the +3 bonus granted by the spell in the process of applying the new form is ignored. It may seem a little odd, but that's transformative magic for you.
You could certainly argue that RAW (since the spell does not state it explicitly), the lizardfolk still has its +5 natural armour bonus to AC. It would simply mean that using Pierce Magical Protection to ignore the +3 natural armour bonus to AC provided by the spell is unimportant in this particular case since the larger bonus overlaps it (and isn't ignored by the feat, since that bonus wasn't granted by a spell).
A bonus to AC doesn't cease to be a bonus to AC just because it replaced a larger bonus. In that sense, it's no different to removing a breastplate (+5 armour bonus to AC) and putting on studded leather armour (+3 armour bonus to AC). Both provide bonuses to AC, they're just separate bonuses of different amounts.
Slagger is in no way trying to have it both ways. He's making the very logical assumption that something which raises stat A which might increase stat B, is not the same as directly raising stat B. Something that allows you to add stat C to stat B when you normally couldn't? That's a more vague zone but usually the type added is the kicker, but what happens when you get Cha to AC for some reason (Shapechange?) and your CHA's only 10, or less. Are you then safe? So I'd rule no in fact PMP doesn't get you on that basis. Only if a spell explicitly states an improvement to AC in its entry should it be affected.
The same can also be said about the Fist of the Forest prestige class. When unarmored You get to add your CON as a completely separate bonus to AC like a monk would with their wisdom, and a Factotum can do the same with INT, So that would add WIS and INT buffs onto the list of things that can increase AC situationally but dont directly increase AC directly. Also, the feat itself explicitly states effecting spells that give a direct bonus to AC, so adding it all together, I think slaggers conclusion is the most RAW you're going to get out of it.
Although... If PMP is a dispelling effect and these class features (like the monk or FoF) are Su, then I don't see why those couldn't be suppressed, too. Not the ability buffs, mind you, but the actual class feature that adds a stat to AC.
And the bonus to dexterity is caused by a spell. Dead stop, that's the end.
The bonus to the Dexterity score isn't itself a bonus to AC, so Pierce Magical Protection doesn't ignore it.
Your contempt for magic is so fierce that as a standard action you can make a melee attack that ignores any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells (including spell trigger or spell completion effects created by magic items such as wands or potions). If you deal damage to your opponent, you also instantly and automatically dispel all that opponent's spells and spell effects that grant a bonus to Armor Class.
Absolute, bro. If it increases the AC in any way, it's gone.
It improves the creature's existing Dex bonus to AC, but that's not what Pierce Magical Protection is stated to overcome.
It increases the dexterity bonus, which increases AC. That's the end of it.
Pierce Magical Protection only ignores bonuses granted by spells. Its text states nothing about ignoring existing bonuses that are indirectly improved by spells.
Except in this case it would specifically have to say it doesn't ignore it, because, since it doesn't, every AC buff is gone, period.
The exact reasoning behind it from an in-game perspective is a different matter (it works out nicely, but isn't really the point). I'm just talking about RAW.
No, you aren't. The RAW says any AC buff is gone. Period. Cat's grace buffs AC, and therefore is gone. Period.
By RAW, cat's grace isn't ignored because the spell doesn't grant the bonus to AC, it just improves the ability score on which the bonus is based. Pierce Magical Protection makes no mention of how the exact values of bonuses are determined being important in any way; the deciding factor is whether or not the bonus itself was granted by a spell.
Wrong. Because PMP doesn't specify, any AC buff is gone, period. This is like the same reason IHS can turn off Mass Charm. No caveats or exceptions.
So... if a guy's wearing Mithril Breastplate and without enhancement has 20 Dex, then gets Chain Cats Grace, his AC doesn't increase due to the spell. Correct? Now let's assume he gets hit by PMP, does his Cat's grace go slpick still?
Correct. It doesn't disappear, because it doesn't increase the AC, and that's the absolute only thing the spell cares about.
Slagger is in no way trying to have it both ways. He's making the very logical assumption that something which raises stat A which might increase stat B, is not the same as directly raising stat B.
Except it doesn't matter. It increases the AC, period. That's the end of the matter. This is RAW, your "reasoning" is irrelevent. The text says "any," so it applies to any.
Something that allows you to add stat C to stat B when you normally couldn't? That's a more vague zone but usually the type added is the kicker, but what happens when you get Cha to AC for some reason (Shapechange?) and your CHA's only 10, or less. Are you then safe? So I'd rule no in fact PMP doesn't get you on that basis. Only if a spell explicitly states an improvement to AC in its entry should it be affected.
If it doesn't add to AC, then it doesn't add to AC. That's it, period. The result, an increase in AC, is the only thing that matters.
Very astute Lashius. You can add ANY ability score to AC, with the right classes or templates, meaning that for consistancy sake it's easiest to say that the buffs that increase your ability scores do NOT increase your AC. Otherwise you'd have to say that any ability boosting spell is removed by PMP.
Wrong. You don't have to say anything of the sort. If a spell increases your AC, whether it makes you prettier or have bigger pecs, it's gone. That's the end.
This is, of course, why it's easier just to say Transmutation is unaffected. Growing a shell is every bit as "indirect" as getting faster. And if you're going against RAW, you had better be consistent.
Your contempt for magic is so fierce that as a standard action you can make a melee attack that ignores any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells (including spell trigger or spell completion effects created by magic items such as wands or potions). If you deal damage to your opponent, you also instantly and automatically dispel all that opponent's spells and spell effects that grant a bonus to Armor Class.
Spells that buff your ability scores do not directly buff your AC. Increased AC from a higher ability score is a byproduct of that score both getting higher, and being keyed to your AC in the first place. If a Spell lists that an effect of it's use explicitly adds to AC, then it's a spell that effects AC, otherwise it isn't covered by the feats wording. This would mean that if a monk/fist of the forest had on Owls Wisdom and Bears Endurance, well a sword sage also had these spells on, as did a cleric, someone with the feat could auto dispel both spells off of the monk/fist of the forest, meanwile only Owls Wisdom is only dispelled from the sword sage, and both spells remain active on the cleric.
What kind of constancy is that? That would mean that the feat would function differently with certain spells based on the extraordinary class features of others, which makes no sense given the feat clearly states that it effects only spells that give bonuses to armor class. Putting two and two together, this would mean that unless a spell states in it's entry "you gain X bonus to AC..." it isn't directly effecting AC, and is therefor not subject to the effects of the feat.
As an example, the spell shield:
Show
Shield Abjuration [Force] Level: Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 min./level (D) Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. Unlike with a normal tower shield, you can’t use the shield spell for cover.
Does "increase to AC" include the DEX bonus that the character already has, or just temporary bonuses to that bonus?Just to make things even more confusing
Oh I know! If it kills your AC from DEX then it must kill ALL of the AC you get from DEX. That would be the ONLY way it makes any sense.
Just to make things even more confusing
Oh I know! If it kills your AC from DEX then it must kill ALL of the AC you get from DEX. That would be the ONLY way it makes any sense.
Oh, shut up. You're just embarrassing yourself. It's really almost painful to watch.
Really?? Didn't I just this exactly what you are saying? If you have something that kills AC granted from DEX when a spell boosts your DEX then it is going to kill everything.
If a character's CON modifier changes then his/her hitpoints change because of the game rules. It's not the effect that alters the ability score which alters hit points but the core rules. The same is true when it comes to DEX and AC. These things only look at the score and don't give a hoot where that ability score comes from.
I've already pointed out that Cat's Grace is NOT an AC booster. Certainly it can result in a higher AC but the spell itself does not do that. So how would PMP handle someone hit with Cat's Grace who is enjoying the higher DEX for many things but is already limited by MAX DEX? Do you do nothing? That makes sense as Cat's Grace doesn't do anything directly to AC. Do you drop the character's AC two points because that is how my AC Cat's Grace provides even if the dumb @$$ isn't using it? This doesn't make any sense although it seems to be what is hinted at. Do you drop ALL of the character DEX bonus? If you say PMP kills any spell based AC increase then I guess it needs to because you're killing the DEX bonus which is magically enhanced.
Just because something can provide a fixed modifier making you harder to hit that does NOT make in an AC modificaton.
- Natural armor bonus
- Deflection bonus
- Insight bonus
- Dodge bonus
- Armor bonus
- Shield bonus
- Competence bonus
There are probably a few more I'm forgetting, but you get the point (I hope). When a spell states that you gain an X bonus to armor, the feat would effect the spell, otherwise it wont fall into the category it lays out. You add your dexterity bonus to AC, the spell Cats Grace doesn't say it gives a +2 bonus to your AC, it says it gives a +4 bonus to your dexterity, which may increase your AC if your armor allows for the modification to the score, or would Pearce Magical Protection dispel a Cats Grace effect on someone wearing mountain armor who is getting no AC benefit from the spell, but enjoying a +2 to reflex saves? There is little to no consistency in just saying-
DM: "Okay, the npc swings at you and uses his Peirce Magical Protection feat, does the spell Bears Endurance increase your AC?"
Player: "Yes, but only because I'm a Deep Warden and I add my Con to AC instead of Dex."
DM: "Well, your Bears Endurance buff is dispelled. Okay the fighter is hit by second npc with pierce magical protection, but since he doesn't add Con to his AC, he gets to keep his buff."
It makes no sense, and just causes more book keeping to be had instead of asking "does the spell explicitly say it gives a bonus type of X to your AC directly? If so, it's dispelled, if not, your good".
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
lolwut
Like, seriously bro? Especially with the double standard, it's pretty obvious someone's been sucking some Code of Conduct.
Whatever, lets' try this again.
I don't care whether it makes sense or not. Cat's Grace being dispelled is the rules. Any claim otherwise is wrong.
Now, once y'all are willing to admit you're houseruling it, we can move on.
What "double standard" are you talking about? The feat says it effects anything that gives a bonus to armor. Armor, not Dex, not Con, not Wis, armor. It's really simple, if a spell states it gives X-type as an armor bonus, the feat effects it, if a spell effects another aspect that indirectly increases AC, it doesn't. It's simply the most consistent and literal reading of the feat, in other words, RAW. What you care about doesn't effect the English language, nor change the syntax of the feat. If you can find a line that says something to the effect "if an ability modifier effects your over all AC it is dispelled" in the feat description, then I'd be glad to yield the point, otherwise, your simply saying "I'm right because I'm not wrong, deal with it" which is no valid argument.
What "double standard" are you talking about?
Not directed at you. Context, bro.
The feat says it effects anything that gives a bonus to armor. Armor, not Dex, not Con, not Wis, armor. It's really simple, if a spell states it gives X-type as an armor bonus, the feat effects it, if a spell effects another aspect that indirectly increases AC, it doesn't. It's simply the most consistent and literal reading of the feat, in other words, RAW. What you care about doesn't effect the English language, nor change the syntax of the feat. If you can find a line that says something to the effect "if an ability modifier effects your over all AC it is dispelled" in the feat description, then I'd be glad to yield the point, otherwise, your simply saying "I'm right because I'm not wrong, deal with it" which is no valid argument.
Yes. It says armor. That means any spell that affects armor. Including Cat's Grace. You're wrong, and it's blatantly obvious.
A bonus to AC is a bonus to AC. Period. Whether or not you like it is hardly my concern, but those are the rules.
What "double standard" are you talking about?
Not directed at you. Context, bro.
You'll have to forgive me as I was the last post before ORC_Welfin and you, and you didn't address anyone by name.
The feat says it effects anything that gives a bonus to armor. Armor, not Dex, not Con, not Wis, armor. It's really simple, if a spell states it gives X-type as an armor bonus, the feat effects it, if a spell effects another aspect that indirectly increases AC, it doesn't. It's simply the most consistent and literal reading of the feat, in other words, RAW. What you care about doesn't effect the English language, nor change the syntax of the feat. If you can find a line that says something to the effect "if an ability modifier effects your over all AC it is dispelled" in the feat description, then I'd be glad to yield the point, otherwise, your simply saying "I'm right because I'm not wrong, deal with it" which is no valid argument.
Yes. It says armor. That means any spell that affects armor. Including Cat's Grace. You're wrong, and it's blatantly obvious.
A bonus to AC is a bonus to AC. Period. Whether or not you like it is hardly my concern, but those are the rules.
This is where you are making a very crucial mistake. The feat states "a bonus to armor class", meaning unless the spell directly increases AC (I.E. the spell description sates "gives X bonus to Armor Class") it's passed over. Cats grace increases Dex, it does not give a specific bonus to your AC because there are several mitigating factors when figuring if Dex can raise AC. Like I said earlier, what if someone is wearing a mountain plate?
you don't even add your base Dex to your AC when wearing a mountain plate, but under the effects of Cats Grace they would still get a +2 to reflex saves. How would the feat work in such a situation? The buffed target is getting no AC benefit from cats grace, so why would the feat work? Effectively it would just be dispelling a bonus to reflex saves based entirely on the notion that if the person wasn't in a Mountain Plate they would have gotten a bonus to AC.
PMP ignores situational effects. If you are wearing armor that limits your Dex bonus to AC, it doesn't matter. That's a situational effect. Which part of your Dex bonus is it ignoring? The +2 you just added? Or the +2 that was already there, and just got 'bumped up'? What if you get hit with a touch attack, and your Nat AC and Armor don't apply. Does a PMP touch attack not dispel those, now, because they didn't increase your AC against a touch attack?
For the mountain Plate example, what if you had a 6 dex, hah? In other words, a PENALTY? Suddenly, it gives you an AC bonus! Now it can be dispelled?
No? You ignore the situation...wearing the plate, which is a player's choice and limiting factor it has nothing to do with the spell. It's gone. Just the same way you'd ignore someone wearing plate and casting mage armor...PMP would still take out the mage armor, even though it is providing no benefit and would be immune under your example.
Trying to argue that gaining +4 to your Dex is not gaining +2 to your AC is not going to work, folks. If A cause B, and B causes C, then A causes C. PMP is absolute. Unless you've got a named exception, it doesn't matter how 'indirect' you want to make it.
Changing into a form with a lower Nat Armor bonus is situational. It says 'adds to your AC', not 'increases your AC from what it was before.' As long as it has an effect that can modify your AC positively, it goes. So Lizard Man to bugbear, Alter Self would go.
Trying to argue that Owl's Wisdom does not increase the AC of a monk is not going to work. Trying to argue Cat's Grace doesn't increase everyone's AC is not going to work. A=>B=>C. Owl's Wisdom on a monk would get Pierced, as would Cat's Grace on everyone, Eagle's Splendor on a nymph, Fox's Cunning on a duelist, and Bull's Endurance on a Deepwarden...and even if they were wearing +4 permanent magic items for the stat, because PMP doesn't care about the situation, it just looks at what the spells do.
Anything else is just being inconsistent and trying to play favorites with spells. PMP is a deadly feat if you rely on buffing for AC bonuses, and deservedly so. If you rely on magic items...it has no effect on you whatsoever.
And you only have a -8 to your caster level if you take it, too!
==Aelryinth
If there is something the negated all spell produced bonuses to attack would it prevent a character's STR bonus from applying assuming a melee attack was made? There is nothing "magical" about that attack bonus even if the STR score has been magically altered. In a similar manner if a spell produces a penalty to your AC you could say it is a "bonus" to my attack but because it isn't an actual "attack" bonus that wouldn't matter.
Trying to argue that Owl's Wisdom does not increase the AC of a monk is not going to work. Trying to argue Cat's Grace doesn't increase everyone's AC is not going to work. A=>B=>C. Owl's Wisdom on a monk would get Pierced, as would Cat's Grace on everyone, Eagle's Splendor on a nymph, Fox's Cunning on a duelist, and Bull's Endurance on a Deepwarden...and even if they were wearing +4 permanent magic items for the stat, because PMP doesn't care about the situation, it just looks at what the spells do.
Cat's grace and the other ability modifications may increase the subject's AC, but that's not the same as the spell actually granting a bonus to AC (they're just improvements to a bonus that the subject already possesses).
The feat specifically requires that a bonus be granted by the spell, regardless of whether or not the subject's total AC increases, decreases, or remains the same. It doesn't even matter whether or not the bonus it grants is currently usable.
For example, mage armour can still be ignored with the feat even when you're wearing full plate (though the result is irrelevant since the un-ignored armour bonus from the full plate still improves your Armour Class), and even a melee touch attack can be used to dispel it, since the feat does not require that the granted bonus to AC actually apply against the melee attack being used.
Yes. It says armor. That means any spell that affects armor. Including Cat's Grace. You're wrong, and it's blatantly obvious.
A bonus to AC is a bonus to AC. Period. Whether or not you like it is hardly my concern, but those are the rules.
The spell has to do more than just affect AC in order to be affected by Pierce Magical Protection; it has to specifically grant a bonus since that's what the feat specifies.
An increase in AC is not automatically the same as adding a bonus. For example, if you increase your Dexterity from 15 to 16 when increasing your level, you're gaining an increase in your overall AC, and an increase in the Dexterity bonus that you were already able to add to AC, but you haven't gained a bonus.
This is where you are making a very crucial mistake. The feat states "a bonus to armor class", meaning unless the spell directly increases AC (I.E. the spell description sates "gives X bonus to Armor Class") it's passed over. Cats grace increases Dex, it does not give a specific bonus to your AC because there are several mitigating factors when figuring if Dex can raise AC. Like I said earlier, what if someone is wearing a mountain plate?
Show me in the text where it says this.
See, you're claiming an exception to the incredibly clear text. Now the burden of proof is on you.
you don't even add your base Dex to your AC when wearing a mountain plate, but under the effects of Cats Grace they would still get a +2 to reflex saves. How would the feat work in such a situation? The buffed target is getting no AC benefit from cats grace, so why would the feat work? Effectively it would just be dispelling a bonus to reflex saves based entirely on the notion that if the person wasn't in a Mountain Plate they would have gotten a bonus to AC.
No, I'm not. If the target is wearing Mountain Plate then they don't benefit from Cat's Grace, assuming they don't have a Dex penalty, anyways, and so their CG buff would be ignored.
Truth. And awesomeness.
We're agreeing. Isn't there something in Revelations about this or something?
You're looking at categories incorrectly. Just because something (B) belongs to two different groups (A and C) that does NOT mean that A and C are equal. There is magic that directly increases a character's AC and there is also magic that increases other things. Increasing other things can increase a character's AC. Now just because magic increases the some other thing that does not mean 'magic' increased the character's AC.
Except that's not the case. A causes B and B causes C, then A causes C. This is very basic logic. Trying to cut it any other way is dishonest at best.
If there is something the negated all spell produced bonuses to attack would it prevent a character's STR bonus from applying assuming a melee attack was made? There is nothing "magical" about that attack bonus even if the STR score has been magically altered.
It doesn't matter. If a spell caused the attack bonus to increase, then the spell caused the attack bonus to increase.
In a similar manner if a spell produces a penalty to your AC you could say it is a "bonus" to my attack but because it isn't an actual "attack" bonus that wouldn't matter.
No, you couldn't. Attack bonuses and AC penalties are entirely separate. But, since you're obviously grasping, your concession is accepted.
You're talking about what is called a SIDE EFFECT. As apposed to a direct effect. If a spell as a side effect increases your AC that's not the same as it increasing your AC directly.
Show me in the text where it says Cat's Grace and the like are exceptions. Provide text. Your assertion, burden's on you.
Yes. It says armor. That means any spell that affects armor. Including Cat's Grace. You're wrong, and it's blatantly obvious.
A bonus to AC is a bonus to AC. Period. Whether or not you like it is hardly my concern, but those are the rules.
The spell has to do more than just affect AC in order to be affected by Pierce Magical Protection; it has to specifically grant a bonus since that's what the feat specifies.
Something increasing your Dex does.
An increase in AC is not automatically the same as adding a bonus. For example, if you increase your Dexterity from 15 to 16 when increasing your level, you're gaining an increase in your overall AC, and an increase in the Dexterity bonus that you were already able to add to AC, but you haven't gained a bonus.
It's a good thing Cat's Grace buffs it by an even number then.
Guys, seriously, proof. Provide it or conceed.
If PMP is so "incredibly clear" then there wouldn't be any discussion, if it can be called that, on the topic.
Appeal to popularity. Nice try,, though.
PMP ignores bonus to AC granted by spells. Cat's Grace, and similar things, alter a character's DEX.
Which increase AC. Unless you're going to start claiming that Alter Self doesn't improve AC, because it gives natural armor which increases AC, or something else equally ridiculous, then you've got nothing.
It is should be clear that Cat's Grace does NOT grand a bonus to AC although an increased DEX score may.
An increased DEX score caused by the spell. A=B=C, therefore A=C. There, that was fun,
It will doesn't matter if the spell alters something and then THAT something alters the AC because in is NOT the spell doing directly altering the AC.
It doesn't matter. The end result is an increased AC. Now, if you ahve some reason to think that it's a magic exception, prove it. Otherwise, give it up.
EA you're not providing any more proof than anyone else, just tons more attitude.
Yes I have. Cat's Grace improves AC. We've gone over this already.
Sp, where's your proof. Oh, right, you don't have any.
EA you're not providing any more proof than anyone else, just tons more attitude.
Yes I have. Cat's Grace improves AC. We've gone over this already.
Sp, where's your proof. Oh, right, you don't have any.
Cat's Grace does NOT improve AC. We've gone over this already. We've even "proved" that it doesn't.
PMP clearly doesn't work on spells that situationally increase AC. The cats grace in heavy armor is a great example, but there are plenty of others.
I'd point out a alter self into a dwarf vs alter self into an elf. You would argue that it dispels one and no the other? No thats dumb. If something says "You gain a +X bonus to AC" it applies. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
Really, just this.
The spell has to do more than just affect AC in order to be affected by Pierce Magical Protection; it has to specifically grant a bonus since that's what the feat specifies.
Cat's Grace does NOT improve AC.
Except, you know, it does.
We've gone over this already. We've even "proved" that it doesn't.
No, you haven't. You've provided no text that says there are exceptions to what PMP removes.
PMP clearly doesn't work on spells that situationally increase AC. The cats grace in heavy armor is a great example, but there are plenty of others.
Uh, no. I tdoes if there is an increase to AC. Becauses, you know, that's what it says.
I'd point out a alter self into a dwarf vs alter self into an elf. You would argue that it dispels one and no the other? No thats dumb. If something says "You gain a +X bonus to AC" it applies. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
As they say on wikipedia, [citation needed]
But increasing Dex from alter self would be dispelled, yes. Decreasing it wouldn't be. It's pretty clear.
The spell has to do more than just affect AC in order to be affected by Pierce Magical Protection; it has to specifically grant a bonus since that's what the feat specifies.
And, again, [citation needed]
Look, I'm waiting. Someone needs to provide text that clearly states exceptions to PMP. If not, then just give up, because the rules are very clear and you're obviously making **** up.
Instead of asking us for an exception perhaps you need to show us a clear EXPANSION of the feat where it will go looking for things beyond what it says it looks for. PMP looks at Cat's Grace and sees an increase to DEX, there's not increase to AC there so it is ignored. PMP is not an investigator that looks any further then what is stated. You are one who is reading too much into the ability.
I'm sure this is completely lost on you but a spell like Cat's Grace would represent a firewall to PMP. PMP looks at it as sees there is not explicit AC bonus there and then moves on despite the increase DEX offering the possible increase to AC.
The word bonus is where some of us are hung up. It does not say "provides an effect that increases armor class" which would be all incompasing. It instead implies that if the spell directly increases armour class by providing a "bonus" it is ignored, and dispelled.
I must say, DR's a nice way to deal with the later portion of this feat.
And increasing DEX provides a bonus to the DEX bonus to your AC. An increase is an increase, period.
Indeed it is, but the increase is an increase, and the feat doesn't apply its functions to an increase, but rather to a bonus.
The bonus granted by the spell is to Dexterity, an even given the logic you're presenting here (which is inaccurate, since the spell applies a bonus directly to the Dexterity score, rather than to the bonus to AC that it grants) applying a bonus to a bonus to AC isn't the same as applying a bonus to AC, even if the resulting number is the same. The feat specifies one and not the other.
Those are the rules.
The rules call for a bonus granted to AC by the spell, making it a requirement for the feat to function. If the spell does not grant a bonus to AC, the feat doesn't function. Granting a bonus to your Dexterity score simply means that your enhanced Dexterity is granting a higher bonus to AC than normal (along with all the other benefits of a higher Dexterity score); the spell's only bonus is to an ability score, not to AC, so it isn't subject to Pierce Magical Protection.
The feat never notes any requirement that the subject's total AC improves even a single point as a result of the spell in question, so the actual improvement of AC is irrelevant from a rules standpoint. RAW, the spell must grant a bonus to AC to be affected, and spells like cat's grace do not grant their bonus to AC, so they're unaffected (even though they cause a total increase in AC).
No, the spell will provide an ac bonus. In certain situations, this bonus may not apply, but that has no effect on the spell. And PMP will take it down...to no net effect on the one using it, in my example. Likewise, it will take down your affinity example.
Ah, I guess it was EA who said that if you're already at your max Dex to AC before Cat's Grace, then it doesn't get dispelled.
At least your position is clear: it removes everything, always.
One last confirmation: is Cat's Grace dispelled for someone who uses "Con instead of Dex to AC"? Is Bear's Endurance? Would Bear's Endurance be dispelled on someone with such an ability even if it wasn't used at the time?
I'm trying to explore if you can decide based on the spell only or if you have to look at the situation each and every time.
IF using Con to AC instead of Dex? Note that the operational word there is 'must' or 'can'.
If he CAN use Con to AC, or chose not to to, the yes, cat's grace is still gone, because now it's situational whether or not it applies...which means it applies, as PMP ignores situations.
If he MUST apply con instead of Dex...no, it won't get dispelled, as there has been a fundamental shift in the rules, and for that character, Cat's Grace can never provide a bonus.
In either scenario, Bear's Endurance would get dispelled, as it is now an AC-enhancing spell. Likewise, some effect that grants Cha to AC, and interacting with Eagle's Splendor.
==Aelryinth
IF using Con to AC instead of Dex? Note that the operational word there is 'must' or 'can'.
If he CAN use Con to AC, or chose not to to, the yes, cat's grace is still gone, because now it's situational whether or not it applies...which means it applies, as PMP ignores situations.
If he MUST apply con instead of Dex...no, it won't get dispelled, as there has been a fundamental shift in the rules, and for that character, Cat's Grace can never provide a bonus.
In either scenario, Bear's Endurance would get dispelled, as it is now an AC-enhancing spell. Likewise, some effect that grants Cha to AC, and interacting with Eagle's Splendor.
That is what I mean about the feat being blind to everything except the effects directly described in its text. It can't "see" any of the situations or consequences involved.
The feat does not know that you might be able to apply an ability score to AC; it doesn't know the standard effects of Dexterity any more than it knows the circumstances under which you can or must apply Constitution to AC. It does not know these things in the same way that it does not know whether mage armour armour bonus to AC is completely overlapped by full plate, and does not know that the deflection bonus to AC of protection from evil will not apply against a non-evil attacker.
The feat concerns only the applied effects of the spell, because that is all that its own effect addresses. To the feat, cat's grace is a +4 bonus to something. That +4 bonus is not granted to AC by the spell, and beyond that point all else is unimportant to the feat's function, which begins and ends with bonuses to Armour Class granted by spells.
You're grasping. I know it can be hard, but please, just admit you're wrong. We've already gone over everything, and you've been refuted at every turn.
So, basically, proof or go away. I tire of this.
You're grasping. I know it can be hard, but please, just admit you're wrong. We've already gone over everything, and you've been refuted at every turn.
Actually, I've been trying to explain the ideas to others who have a different viewpoint.
I'm not really sure why you'd think anything has been refuted, since that would require directly disagreeing with the feat's own text.
So, basically, proof or go away. I tire of this.
Bring proof of your own that there's even a suggestion of an alternative before you start arguing with the RAW text of the feat.
All the proof that you need the spell to grant a bonus in order to be affected is provided by the feat stating that it operates under those circumstances, and not stating that it does anything as a result of the AC being improved or increased.
Yeah, we're done.
Are you seriously trying to tell me Cat's Grace doesn't increase AC?
I'm telling you that it doesn't matter whether it increases AC (directly as one of the spell's effects or otherwise), because Pierce Magical Protection doesn't apply its benefit on that basis. The benefit is applied when the spell in question grants a bonus to AC. Exactly as stated by the feat.
The only bonus the cat's grace spell grants is a +4 enhancement bonus to Dexterity. The result of that enhanced Dexterity score is an increase in the subject's Dexterity modifier to AC, but the existing modifier to AC that is increased was not granted by the spell, nor was the increase to it part of the spell's own effect (the exact result of increased Dexterity on AC depends on the situation, being beyond the scope of the spell). It's very nice that an enhanced Dexterity score can improve your overall AC in a normal situation, but the feat doesn't function on the basis of the overall effect on AC.
For example, a spell that (hypothetically) applied a -10 penalty to Dexterity and a +1 natural armour bonus to AC is a valid target for Pierce Magical Protection, because it gives a +1 bonus to AC. Is your total AC worse than before? Probably, but the feat says nothing about it, and it's irrelevant to its function of ignoring and dispelling the AC bonuses granted by spells.
If he CAN use Con to AC, or chose not to to, the yes, cat's grace is still gone, because now it's situational whether or not it applies...which means it applies, as PMP ignores situations.
I don't call that ignoring situations, since it checks whether or not the character has a Con to AC ability, and how that ability works...
But I get what you mean; I disagree, but I get it.
If he MUST apply con instead of Dex...no, it won't get dispelled, as there has been a fundamental shift in the rules, and for that character, Cat's Grace can never provide a bonus.
In either scenario, Bear's Endurance would get dispelled, as it is now an AC-enhancing spell. Likewise, some effect that grants Cha to AC, and interacting with Eagle's Splendor.
Actually, that last bit is a better example than mine since now we get into checking in what order PMP does things: if it dispels the Cha to AC spell first, then Eagle's Splendor provides no AC benefit (I'm using "benefit" to avoid the increase vs bonus debate here) and so doesn't get dispelled.
I don't think there are any rules about this "order" - I assume you'll be in favour of "everything happens at once" since it strenghtens PMP.
@E_A: whose viewpoint is triumphing, in your opinion? I mean, you don't even agree with aelrynth.
I don't think there are any rules about this "order" - I assume you'll be in favour of "everything happens at once" since it strenghtens PMP.
Objection, leading!
@E_A: whose viewpoint is triumphing, in your opinion? I mean, you don't even agree with aelrynth.
Mine. Because it's correct, and that's what matters.
@AR: It doesn't matter. You can go believe that, or that the Earth is 4000 years old and humans rode dinosaurs, or that the Earth is flat, or that the sun orbits it, or whatever. It doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and I am right.
@E_A: whose viewpoint is triumphing, in your opinion? I mean, you don't even agree with aelrynth.
Mine. Because it's correct, and that's what matters.
@AR: It doesn't matter. You can go believe that, or that the Earth is 4000 years old and humans rode dinosaurs, or that the Earth is flat, or that the sun orbits it, or whatever. It doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and I am right.
Of course you say yours is correct and it is; at least it is from your point of view.
Guys, don't feed it. Don't!
But once in a while, you just can't resist it.
I'm stopping now, though; I scratched my itch.
Of course you say yours is correct and it is; at least it is from your point of view.
No. It is correct. Period. There is no such thing as a "point of view" when it comes to facts.
LOL You're really comparing this to creationism vs evolutionary theory? Dude, just grow up and get over it, this is a game we're discussing and a small interperitation issue. If one of us has an extreme view point it's you, I am aiming for the most moderate approach possible to all rules interperitations.
It's quite similar.In both cases, I am correct and those who disagree with it are laughably wrong. But if that hurt fragile litte feelings, then I can go with vaccines and autism. Same idea.
"Moderation" doesn't mean anything when one perspective is correct and the others aren't. But you can go back to getting high off CNN or whatever it is you do to get that bizarre Golden Mean idea. This is fact and that's all that matters.
Please bear in mind that Baiting / Trolling is against the Code of Conduct
Please keep the conversation civil and above all else, fun.
Thanks,
If a person with PMP uses it to strike someone with a spell that changes their AC, that spell is dispelled. Vssssh, gone. And quite technically, I'd have them all go at the same instant, because you're getting into that situational thing again if you allow the SHapechanged into a succubi for Cha to AC to get dispelled and then the Eagle's SPlendor to remain behind, whereas if you reversed the order it would not be.
Or, actually, in this instance the PMP guy would get the most beneficial effect, since it's his effect at work.
If it's magic that raises the AC, it's kaput. It's basically that simple. It's how the feat works. It may seem outlandishly strong to a spellcaster who just watched six buffs go away without a chance to save them, melees aren't supposed to do that to them!...but I really don't think so. There's no distinction in the feat between indirect and direct raising of AC, so it hits them ALL. I especially don't think that's a problem with versatile and powerful spells, which can have multiple effects with one casting. If they have multiple points of strength, they should also have multiple points of weakness...and the stat buffing and polymorph lines are clear abusers of this.
It's not that the feat is intelligent...it's simply what the feat does. After all, how does it tell the difference between ANY buff, and a buff that raises AC? I mean, seriously, it should just be a straight dispel buffs spell, if you think about it. But it's still limited to AC-making effects, which can leave a lot of spells behind...like fly, contingencies, concealment effects, divinations, and the like.
==Aelryinth
You're implying the PMP feat is smart, intelligent creation?
Nope. The text makes no mention of the feat having an Int scote.
It can detect a spell increasing AC, no matter how it does so, and then remove it.
Nope. The feat has no wisdom score, so it cannot detect them. It doesn't matter, though, as it removes them anyways.
Whereas those of us looking at the pseudo science, and reading the text are implying the feat simply interacts with spells that provide a certain type of protective field, and then blow them up if they're encountered. I see the implication now, never mind.
I fail to see how this matters. The text says it removes them, so it removes them. It's not particularly complicated.
Nope. The text makes no mention of the feat having an Int scote.
And no mention of affecting anything except spells that grant a bonus to AC.
Mere increases of any kind don't trigger it; a granted bonus is required.
The text says it removes them, so it removes them. It's not particularly complicated.
It's true that it's not complicated.
The text says that it removes spells that grant a bonus to AC. Cat's grace doesn't say that it grants a bonus to AC , so Pierce Magical Protection does not apply to it.
No, I'm stating that the feat does what the feat says. It doesn't have to check anything.
If a person with PMP uses it to strike someone with a spell that changes their AC, that spell is dispelled.
There's that point of difference again. The feat says that the spell has to grant a bonus to AC, not simply cause any kind of change.
The only "checking" is simply a description of applying the feat or not as the spell requires. The feat is not imbued with life and sentience like some magic homunculus, but it still "checks" in the same manner as a computer program to determine whether or not to apply its effect.
In theory, this occurs automatically as a law of the game universe. In practicality, the checking process is implemented by the DM and their players reading the feat and spell and making an appropriate decision.
There's no distinction in the feat between indirect and direct raising of AC, so it hits them ALL.
The distinction the feat makes is that the spell must grant a bonus to AC. Granting a bonus to something else that in turn grants an increased bonus to AC is significantly different.
It's not that the feat is intelligent...it's simply what the feat does. After all, how does it tell the difference between ANY buff, and a buff that raises AC?
The way to tell is if the text of the feat describes a bonus to AC being granted. If the spell describes a bonus to AC being granted, the feat applies. If it does not, the feat does nothing.
I mean, seriously, it should just be a straight dispel buffs spell, if you think about it. But it's still limited to AC-making effects, which can leave a lot of spells behind...like fly, contingencies, concealment effects, divinations, and the like.
It's all in the name "Pierce Magical Protection"; it's intended to pierce through magical protections to hit the target (protections against attack rolls, judging by the mechanics of it).
It isn't designed to hit flight because flight isn't a magical protection against attacks. It likewise isn't designed to affect cat's grace because that's an improvement to Dexterity that allows you to dodge blows more effectively (as one result) but isn't a magical protection in its own right.
I’ve removed content from this thread because harassment and trolling/baiting are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Might I point out that words like "bonus" have a specific meaning in D&D 3.5 and that when they're used, they have exactly that meaning.
Secondly, there seems to be some confusion about what a spell or ability states that it does mechanically, and the fluff on how it does that.
Example (my apologies to the colour blind):
An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to Armor Class.
The green part is fluff, the red part is the actual mechanics. In this "armor", "bonus" and "Armor Class" are words with a specific mechanical meaning, not just random English.
The same is I think thrue for PMP:
Your contempt for magic is so fierce that as a standard action you can make a melee attack that ignores any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells (including spell trigger or spell completion effects created by magic items such as wands or potions). If you deal damage to your opponent, you also instantly and automatically dispel all that opponent's spells and spell effects that grant a bonus to Armor Class.
Here all the underlined words have specific meanings within the game mechanics. The feat is explicitly written using those words so I think it's safe to assume that what it does it exactly what is says it does: it affects spells and spell effects that grant a bonus to Armor Class.
This means it does not affect spells that grant a bonus to Dex that grant a bonus to Armor Class.
Granting a bonus to A is not the same as granting a bonus to B that grants a bonus to A.
So in my view any spell or spell effect that grants a bonus to Armor Class get dispelled, no matter if they're being useful or not. So Mage Armor on someone in Full Plate would be dispelled, Cat's Grace or Owl's Wisdom would not. The feat doesn't care if that person was a Monk, Fighter or Deepwarden.
I think Alter Self would also be dispelled as it says that you acquire the natural armor bonus of the new form.
I also know that often these discussions aren't really resolved as both sides of the argument seem to think the text is completely clear in the way they interpret it. The clearest example of that is the Arcane Hierophant from Races of the Wild.
I asked the question if a Druid4/Wizard3/AH1 would have Wildshape to several people. I got answers from Andy Collins, Ed Stark, Jesse Decker, Rich Redman. All very clear and adamant that their answer was correct and the text wasn't unclear or open to interpretation. Fun thing is that two said no (Ed, Rich) and two said yes (Andy and Jesse). From Skip Williams I unfortunately only have a quote that the prerequisites for the class as printed are wrong and should be Woodland Stride instead of Trackless Step.
So in some cases even the developers themselves do not agree on how something is interpreted, but at the same time think the text is completely clear in the matter.
But anyway. That's tangential to the original point at best. I'm not sure how it even started.
But anyway. That's tangential to the original point at best. I'm not sure how it even started.
It started, at least to me, when aelryinth commented in post #42 that "Having a stat bonus grant you an AC bonus is no different the casting Mage armor and the translucent field of force granting you an AC bonus. You cast a spell, it makes a change, and your AC bonus changes...pretty straightforwards." and I then disputed that saying they are two very different things. Things went from there and really went down hill once a certain board member started posting stuff, some of which has been removed.
As you said and I know I've said a couple times before the question has been where do you draw the line. Actually, there are probably three lines. You have the spells everyone can agree get hit by PMP because they mention the spell directly granting a bonus to armor class and then you have everything else where a spell can lead to an increase in armor class. That third line will be just how far out you go when drawing connections between casting a spell and increasing AC.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think your way is far too vulnerable to splitting hairs...under your interpretation, Mage Armor would not be dispelled, because it creates a shell of force, and then that shell of force grants an armor bonus...look, I introduced an x, immune to PMP!
Meh. Your way is far too complex and situational. And I find the idea that raising Dex doesn't grant a bonus to AC to be slightly crazy.
==Aelryinth
Mage Armor clearly states that it "provides a +4 armor bonus to AC." There is nothing complex or situational about it because it is a clearly stated part of the spell. I've NEVER come close to saying that Mage Armor would be that PMP fails to hit. That spell granting a bonus to AC is spelled out in the spell in black and white or digital pixels if you read it that way. There are no hairs to split when I'm just going on what the spell says.
And as I we've pointed out you're splitting hairs a lot finer if you believe we'd miss Mage Armor with PMP then we would be if we say PMP can hit ANY spell that provides any kind of AC bonus as a result of its casting. Mage Armor, Haste, and the host of other spells we say are hit by PMP all will say they provide a "+X bonus to AC" somewhere in their description. When you say PMP hits any spell that can increase your AC then you bring in all the situational cases and make it a lot more complex.
Now does keeping PMP focused on spells that say "+X bonus to AC" make it less powerful then if it can hit anything that boost AC? Sure. Just remember that not all feats are created equal and that just because a feat is "weak" doesn't mean it isn't working as it was intended to work.
Alter self, for example, gives you a different form by stapling a whole bunch of changes onto you. One of those changes (for many forms) is giving you a natural armour bonus to AC, so Pierce Magical Protection applies when that bonus is granted.
You're trying to get from A to Y, and if X is in the way, it doesn't matter...you still end up with Y.
Not the best analogy IMO. It can make a pretty big difference where you go via.
Meh. Your way is far too complex and situational.
More complex and situational than some of these examples? Web provides cover. Cover provides AC. If I hit someone stuck in a Web, does the Web vanish? As opposed to simply looking for the phrase "bonus to AC" in the spell's description?
But yeah, I guess it's just another example of sloppy design. A feat designed to get through magical protections which also pierces a random bunch of unrelated stuff is kinda stupid, but they did write it like that...
If only the rules weren't written in such a subjective language, huh?
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
Flat-footed doesn't change anything, it's situational. The spell provides the bonus, even if you don't get it at the moment. You might as well use the same argument against someone grappled, asleep, or stunned.
Cat's Grace ups Dex which provides a bonus to AC, and specifically states that among the benefits of the spell. Alter Self changes form, which provides similar benefits, and the insistence that these are different. Mage Armor provides a barrier of force, then provides a +4 Bonus to AC from that. See, it's making a barrier of force. By the logic of your own position, it's not providing a direct bonus to AC, it's making the shield first. Only Barkskin and Shield of Faith and Prayer qualify for 'dispelling' under the fine edge of English that can be used on your definition of what can and can't be dispelled.
Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I'm not changing my opinion of what PMP can do, and the word-twisting which your version is susceptible to basically neuters it.
==Aelryinth
Cat's Grace ups Dex which provides a bonus to AC, and specifically states that among the benefits of the spell.
It's the Dexterity score that grants the bonus; improving your Dexterity just increases the bonus that already exists. Since the bonus already exists, it's not being granted by the spell, which is why it doesn't qualify as a valid target for Pierce Magical Protection's effect.
Secondarily, the spell isn't explicitly stating a bonus to AC (it mentions a "benefit", but not the "bonus to AC" or equivalent desirable text). I consider this a secondary issue, since it would be possible to rewrite the spell so it mentions the bonus to AC directly, but still wouldn't qualify as the source granting that bonus.
Alter Self changes form, which provides similar benefits, and the insistence that these are different. Mage Armor provides a barrier of force, then provides a +4 Bonus to AC from that. See, it's making a barrier of force. By the logic of your own position, it's not providing a direct bonus to AC, it's making the shield first. Only Barkskin and Shield of Faith and Prayer qualify for 'dispelling' under the fine edge of English that can be used on your definition of what can and can't be dispelled.
My determination is having the bonus described in the spell and having the bonus described as originating with the spell.
Cat's grace marginally fails to describe the bonus directly (as I said above, this is somewhat less important), but also isn't the originator of the bonus in question, which is the more important concern.
Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I'm not changing my opinion of what PMP can do, and the word-twisting which your version is susceptible to basically neuters it.
From my viewpoint (as I'm sure it looks from your own viewpoint), I've got a simple idea of what is required, and it's automatically obvious to me how cat's grace doesn't qualify. To me, your viewpoint seems like you're changing the feat to suit what you want it to do (I'm not saying that to be hostile or insulting; I'm explaining how the reasoning looks from my position), because it replaces the feat's stated requirement that the bonus be granted by the spell with a requirement that the spell somehow results in an improvement in AC, which seems to have no clear limits of scope.
How do you feel about the requirement I look for that the bonus should originate from the spell (to qualify as being "granted" by the spell), not simply be improved by the result of the spell? Our basic ideals seem to be very different on this point.
I do believe that even if we still ultimately disagree on the principles we use, the virtues our reasoning can be made clear to each other.
Web doesn't provide cover, you know that. Your position behind the web provides cover. I've used this same counter argument with Wall spells.
Of course I'm hardly suggesting that PMP should dispel Web, but the text says "If you have at least 5 feet of web between you and an opponent, it provides cover" (emphasis mine) which would suggest that that (warped) line of logic holds.
Mage Armor provides a barrier of force, then provides a +4 Bonus to AC from that. See, it's making a barrier of force. By the logic of your own position, it's not providing a direct bonus to AC, it's making the shield first.
The "tangible field of force" is the spell, "providing a +4 armor bonus to AC". Cat's Grace doesn't have a wording like that, it says the Dex increase provides the usual bonuses. It does increase AC, but doesn't provide a direct bonus to it. In D&D, that wording's important.
Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I'm not changing my opinion of what PMP can do, and the word-twisting which your version is susceptible to basically neuters it.
Well, I guess we will.
I mean, I can see the argument for something like Cat's Grace... but as for "word-twisting", I think an intepretation like that opens up so much more than going off whether the text states "bonus to AC".
I mean, I guess it's a question of whether the mechanic or the end effect is what's important. It just seems strange to me that effects designed not as magical protections (or which might be being used in a different way - like Cat's to bump AB) might get pierced by PMP. Probably, the best thing to do is just to apply common sense, but of course some people have that in short supply...
Mage Armor provides a barrier of force, then provides a +4 Bonus to AC from that. See, it's making a barrier of force. By the logic of your own position, it's not providing a direct bonus to AC, it's making the shield first.
I can't believe you are making this arguement with a straight face.
An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.
I bolded why PMP applies.
If it says "You get a +X ___ typed or untyped bonus to AC" it applies. If it does not, it does not.
Bonus=bonus, period.
You wouldn't say that a deflection bonus is a morale bonus just because they produce the same final AC. If the feat specifically said "deflection bonus to AC" you wouldn't start arguing that it should affect a morale bonus to AC.
There's an equal amount of difference between granting a bonus and increasing one that already exists; even though the final AC you get might likewise be the same. The feat requires that the bonus to be ignored/dispelled be granted by the spell, not simply increased.
Mage Armor provides a barrier of force, then provides a +4 Bonus to AC from that. See, it's making a barrier of force. By the logic of your own position, it's not providing a direct bonus to AC, it's making the shield first.I can't believe you are making this arguement with a straight face.
An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.I bolded why PMP applies.
If it says "You get a +X ___ typed or untyped bonus to AC" it applies. If it does not, it does not.
The problem is that your argument is entirely reliant on syntax. That's absurd on it's face.
This spell summons a barrier of force, which provides a +4 Armor Bonus to Armor Class.
This spell raises your Dexterity by 4, providing the usual benefits to AC, Reflex saves, initiatives, and so forth.
This spell changes your form, providing stat bonuses, potential natural armor class changes, and a shift in appearence.
This spell provides a +5 enhancement bonus to your Natural Armor class at level 12.
OR...this spell gives a +5 Enhancement to your Natural Armor, providing a Natural Armor class increase.
NOw, here's my problem.
You're arguing spell #1 is PMP vulnerable.
It does the same exact thing as spell #2, which you argue is NOT vulnerable.
Which does the same thing as spell #3, which people are back and forth on.
And everybody can agree that spell #4 is vulnerable...except it might not be. Sentence #2, using happy word-twisting and trying to justify indirect effect, effectively makes Barkskin the equivalent of Cat's Grace.
So if we are going to use your rules on syntax, then the only spells subject to PMP are those that directly, no go-between effects, no flavor language, provide a bonus to AC.
And that's an extremely small list of spells. Prayer, Shield of Faith, and Barkskin, I believe, which simply grant bonuses and do NOTHING else. Heck, Magic Vestment won't do it, because it enhances armor, and then the armor provides the bonus...exactly like Cat's Grace. You can even say BARKSKIN doesn't qualify, because it first enhances Natural ARmor, and then Nat Armor provides the bonus, just like Cat's Grace enhances Dex, and Dex provides the AC.
So, because of SYNTAX, of all things, none of the spell above are vulnerable to PMP. Meaning the feat is effectively WORTHLESS. You have to apply the same set of rules consistently and fairly, and that way is anything but fair. We're down to Shield of Faith, which grants a deflection bonus, and prayer, which grants a luck bonus, with no intermediary effects.
The only way to apply that interpretation is to be inconsistent, favoring this spell over that spell, picking and choosing what you want to be affected, and what not to be.
And that's not the way to run a rule.
Whereas if you simply look at the spell, see if it can raise AC when it is cast, you're done. It's consistent, it's fair, and every single counter-example deals with situations, not with the spell.
======
Fred, the note for web providing cover is because a web is, well, full of holes. What they are saying is there's enough intervening interference that a web can act like a wall, instead of being able to be shot through freely.
You still don't get the cover if you aren't in the right spot. So that's purely situational...the bonus is dependent on YOU and where you are standing, not the spell.
===Aelryinth
This spell summons a barrier of force, which provides a +4 Armor Bonus to Armor Class.
This spell raises your Dexterity by 4, providing the usual benefits to AC, Reflex saves, initiatives, and so forth.This spell changes your form, providing stat bonuses, potential natural armor class changes, and a shift in appearence.
Dude.
an invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.
Is very different from
You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind.
One gives an AC bonus and one lets you shapeshift.
Except I've already explained it. This is like a certain someone on television who will remain unnamed talking about the tide to justify creationism. It's absurd at best, and we've already gone down this road. Bonus=bonus, period. The end. But, hey, if you want to believe that the Cascade range is 4000 years old, or that one of your ancestors was a dinosaur wrangler or whatever, fine, but don't try to claim facts back you up.
..??? I missed something. How/when did I say my ancestors were dinosaur wranglers?
The problem is that your argument is entirely reliant on syntax. That's absurd on it's face.
No, that's exactly it. Syntax is pretty much everything in D&D - certainly as far as rules-lawyering goes. I mean, if people are willing to suggest that Dragonwrought Kobolds can take Epic feats and things like that, then suggesting that PMP works like this is... well, more than sensible by comparison.
So if we are going to use your rules on syntax, then the only spells subject to PMP are those that directly, no go-between effects, no flavor language, provide a bonus to AC.
And that's an extremely small list of spells. Prayer, Shield of Faith, and Barkskin, I believe, which simply grant bonuses and do NOTHING else. Heck, Magic Vestment won't do it, because it enhances armor, and then the armor provides the bonus...exactly like Cat's Grace. You can even say BARKSKIN doesn't qualify, because it first enhances Natural ARmor, and then Nat Armor provides the bonus, just like Cat's Grace enhances Dex, and Dex provides the AC.
So, because of SYNTAX, of all things, none of the spell above are vulnerable to PMP. Meaning the feat is effectively WORTHLESS. You have to apply the same set of rules consistently and fairly, and that way is anything but fair. We're down to Shield of Faith, which grants a deflection bonus, and prayer, which grants a luck bonus, with no intermediary effects.
You left out Shield, which provides a +4 shield bonus to AC.
I think you're trying to twist words too much. Your first paragraph is correct. Spells which provide a direct bonus to AC, with little to no go-between effects, are affected by PMP.
Magic Vestment and Cat's Grace/Owl's Wisdom, like you said, are not eligible. Neither is Alter Self/Polymorph type spells that change the caster into a form with an armor bonus. But Barkskin absolutely counts as a spell that grants a bonus to AC. The fact that it's a natural armor bonus doesn't change this fact, because PMP states that "any bonus to Armor Class granted by spells" is affected. So it doesn't matter if that bonues is armor, natural armor, shield, deflection, luck, sacred, morale, dodge, insight, or miscellaneous. If the effect of the spell is an increase to AC, then it counts.
Magic Vestment, like was said, increases the enhancement bonus of one's armor. Effectively making one's armor magical (or existing magic armor more powerful, in the event of the Greater version). And bonuses to AC granted by items are not affected by PMP.
Cat's Grace increases the recipient's DEX, which has a number of residual effects, such as increase to ranged attack rolls, DEX-related skill checks, Reflex saves, and possibly AC (unless the recipient's Max Dex bonus for amor keeps him from getting any more AC). Since the bonus to AC is conditional (upon what kind of armor the target is wearing), and not directly granted by the spell, Cat's Grace would not be affected by PMP.
So if we are going to use your rules on syntax, then the only spells subject to PMP are those that directly, no go-between effects, no flavor language, provide a bonus to AC.
And that's an extremely small list of spells. Prayer, Shield of Faith, and Barkskin, I believe, which simply grant bonuses and do NOTHING else. Heck, Magic Vestment won't do it, because it enhances armor, and then the armor provides the bonus...exactly like Cat's Grace. You can even say BARKSKIN doesn't qualify, because it first enhances Natural ARmor, and then Nat Armor provides the bonus, just like Cat's Grace enhances Dex, and Dex provides the AC.
I do see your point on magic vestment and barkskin, and I agree, since the enhancement bonus isn't actually being applied to AC. Technically speaking, magic vestment would be affected if applied to regular clothing (which by its own text grants no AC bonus), so the spell is the origin of the bonus in that case.
Alter self remains affected, since its granted bonus is directly described as one within the spell's text, as is mage armour for the same reason (there's no problem with piercing an AC bonus in the form of a created agent as long as it's all within the directly described effect of the spell).
But the exclusion of things like magic vestment and barkskin doesn't mean that the feat is being read wrong, it means that the feat isn't mechanically very well written to include a variety of common effects.
So, because of SYNTAX, of all things, none of the spell above are vulnerable to PMP. Meaning the feat is effectively WORTHLESS. You have to apply the same set of rules consistently and fairly, and that way is anything but fair. We're down to Shield of Faith, which grants a deflection bonus, and prayer, which grants a luck bonus, with no intermediary effects.
If you want to say that Pierce Magical Protection doesn't cover at lot of common AC-increasing effects, I'm going to agree with you.
But that's a question of what the feat should do in order to be worthwhile, not what it does do according to its text. If you look at it that way, you'll constantly deform your reading of a feat into what you think it should do, instead of recognizing its flaws and then doing something to change them.
Note, however, that I don't see the merit in Dexterity-enhancement being pierced in either case; on the syntax side it doesn't match the feat's text, while on the logical side, you can't pierce the defense of someone just moving out of the way (the feat is about piercing through defenses, not magically homing in on people who dodge). In logical terms, the feat should only allow you to pierce through magic that is actually contacted and opposes the motion of your attack, rather than magic that allows the target to move out of the way.
Questions.
Gust of wind knocks a target prone. Being prone grants a bonus to AC vs ranged attacks. Would you say PMP dispells it? If so, does it stand you back up?
Stone shape can be used to provide cover. Cover grants an AC boost. Does PMP Dispel it?
Mage Armor provides a barrier of force, then provides a +4 Bonus to AC from that. See, it's making a barrier of force. By the logic of your own position, it's not providing a direct bonus to AC, it's making the shield first.I can't believe you are making this arguement with a straight face.
An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.I bolded why PMP applies.
If it says "You get a +X ___ typed or untyped bonus to AC" it applies. If it does not, it does not.
The problem is that your argument is entirely reliant on syntax. That's absurd on it's face.
No it's not. It's exactly the only thing we have to go on: The written texts of the feat and the spells.
Anything beyond what's written in the feat and spells is interpretation.
And again I want to stress that you try and not mix the fluff description of what the character would see the spell do from the mechanics. The hole bit about the forcefield in Mage Armor has nothing to do with the game mechanics, it's descriptive text of what the character would see as the spell's effect.
The only big issue you can have with a lot of the 3.5 texts is that fluff and mechanics aren't usually separated very well in the text, unlike a game like Magic the Gathering.
Comepare the Mage Armor text to something like:"The Dragon inhales deeply and breathes fire on you for 6d6 damage." The 6d6 damage is pure mechanically, the breath and fire is a bit of mechanics and fluff at the same time, and it would not have mattered if the dragon had sneezed instead of inhaled deeply for the mechanics, but only for the story.
What complicates things for Cat's Grace is that the developers didn't just write down some fluff and mechanics, but also wrote a reminder of things that might be affected indirectly through mechanics that usually apply.
So a lot of descrptions have two or three of these components:
- A description of a mechanical effect.
- Some fluff text on what happens to a character, or what it senses.
- Some reminders/explanations by the developers to help players and DM.
You seem to be mixing these three up.
To get back to the original point: Yes syntax is everything. In that vein I want to again also express that I do not agree that if A affects B and B affects C that this is the same as A affects C directly.
Compare (Assuming you live in the USA, which I do not): If you vote for members of an Electoral College, who in turn vote for a President, is not the same as you voting for a President directly.
Anything that doesn't go by a literal interpretation of the texts of the feat and spells, the syntax as you call it, is going beyond the rules as written and can only end in an argument about intent that is for your DM to decide and of very little relevance on this forum.
To go back to the President comparison: It might be you intention and wish to vote for a certain President, but that's not what you're actually doing. You are not voting for a President, you're voting for a member of the Electoral College, who might or might not end up voting for the President you wanted.
Similarly Cat's Grace boosts your Dexterity. Your Dexterity in turn might or might not affect your Armor Class depending on a lot of things, like your class, equipement, active spells on you and in the area, etc. etc. It doesn't matter.
What the PMP feat does it look at spells (and spelllike stuff) on the target of the hit that give a bonus to AC. That's the exact syntax and most direct and thus logical way to interpret things.
I would even argue that if you hit someone using the PMP feat, who has Mage Armor, but is curently standing in an Anti Magic Field, the Mage Armor would still be dispelled, because it's still there, even if it's surpesssed by the AMF and the text of the Mage Armor still states that it grants a bonus to AC, even though that's surpressed at the moment as well.
I would even argue that someone with the PMP feat might do well to get some way to generate an AMF and go to town on all the buff monsters out there. I think it could be very effective.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
Questions.
Gust of wind knocks a target prone. Being prone grants a bonus to AC vs ranged attacks. Would you say PMP dispells it? If so, does it stand you back up?
Stone shape can be used to provide cover. Cover grants an AC boost. Does PMP Dispel it?
Krusk,
You're trying to argue situation again. Gust of Wind does not grant you the bonuses of being prone. Being prone grants you the bonuses of being prone. It's situational, it has nothing to do with the spell.
As for Stone Shape, see my example of Wall of Stone, Web, etc. Same argument. Your POSITION is causing the cover, not the spell.
Ditto the person who AGAIN brought up the armor situational effect.
------
Roger
as soon as you ignore the fluff description, I win the argument. Your side of the argument is ENTIRELY based on fluff.
My argument is 'end result'. As soon as you go with fluff, you quote indirectness.
There is no mechanical difference to 'field of force' for Mage Armor and Shield to 'shifts form' for Alter Self to 'raises Dex' for Cat's Grace. That's all fluff.
For the game, the only thing that matters is the end result. What I've been pointing out is that your interpretation relies on the Fluff, and mine relies on the Crunch...the end result.
Cat's Grace enhances Dex, which then raises AC. Barkskin enhances Nat Armor, which then raises AC. Magic Vestment enhances armor, which then raises AC. None of these spells directly provides an AC bonus. The 'fields of force' from Mage Armor and Shield have to be created, and then they provide the bonus.
As long as you can argue there's an intermediate effect, you're arguing Fluff nerfs the feat.
The other side of the argument is entirely fluff based. And as long as anyone can argue that there's an intermediary between spell and spell result, which will be FLUFF, PMP suddenly becomes useless.
If all you do is look at CRUNCH, then PMP applies as I've been arguing. And every counter-example is a situation and has nothing to do with the spells themselves.
So, I'm for the Crunchy version of PMP, which has teeth. And a lot of people are arguing for the Fluffy version, which, not suprisingly, does not.
==Aelryinth
You're not looking at the end result, since you're looking at theoretical possibilities: Cat's Grace could improve this creature's AC, so even if it does not right now it is dispelled.
If I try to sum up the positions (feel free to correct me, I'll edit my post):
- aelrynth:
If the spell could provide an AC increase to you, it is dispelled. But it has to be a spell cast on you or your gear, so "environmental spells" (Web, ...) are not taken into account.
- E_A:
If the spell currently provides an AC increase to you, it is dispelled.
(Not sure about his position about Web & co.)
edit: and we won't know because he got himself banned. Again.
- many other people:
Only spells that grant a bonus to AC are dispelled, so we go through them one by one to adjudicate which do get dispelled (Mage armor, Shield, Shield of faith get dispelled for sure).
(I think not everyone agrees on Alter Self, for instance.)
Frankly I don't like any position.
I'm also in favour of winding this conversation down rather than retreading the same ground again and again, but just by saying this it's guaranteed that it'll last longer.
My argument is 'end result'. As soon as you go with fluff, you quote indirectness.
"Fluff" that exists within the spell itself isn't indirect, since it's part of the spell's own function. And since this is D&D it's rare for part of the effect to be completely fluffy, even when it's not using a mechanical game term.
I could, for example, write up an effect that specifically works with spells that create invisible barriers, and it will instantly affect both mage armour and shield, even though their invisible nature isn't usually more than fluff.
In a sense, you look at the "end result" of the spell in terms of its own effects. Once you apply all the changes of mage armour, you've got an armour bonus to AC. Once you apply the changes of cat's grace, you've got an enhancement bonus to Dexterity. One gives what the feat is looking for, while the other does not. Any further calculations occur beyond the direct scope of the spell.
There is no mechanical difference to 'field of force' for Mage Armor and Shield to 'shifts form' for Alter Self to 'raises Dex' for Cat's Grace. That's all fluff.
Actually, there is. Some of the effects involved use mechanical game terms and some do not. For example, a "bonus", as described in the text of mage armour is a defined game element. A "usual benefit" is not; it's simply a description of what is occurring.
For the game, the only thing that matters is the end result. What I've been pointing out is that your interpretation relies on the Fluff, and mine relies on the Crunch...the end result.
The end result isn't mentioned by the feat. Pierce Magical Protection functions based on what the spell is doing (granting a bonus to AC), not what end result it might have produced.
Cat's Grace enhances Dex, which then raises AC. Barkskin enhances Nat Armor, which then raises AC. Magic Vestment enhances armor, which then raises AC. None of these spells directly provides an AC bonus. The 'fields of force' from Mage Armor and Shield have to be created, and then they provide the bonus.
That's arguing on the basis of fluff. Mechanically, the bonuses from mage armour and shield come directly from the spells in question; the fact that they cause some internal fluffy effects is irrelevant. In the case of cat's grace, the mechanical effect is an enhancement bonus to Dexterity. The improvement to AC then occurs beyond the scope of the spell, which is why it's different.
The other side of the argument is entirely fluff based. And as long as anyone can argue that there's an intermediary between spell and spell result, which will be FLUFF, PMP suddenly becomes useless.
The boundary line there is set by the direct effects described by the spell. Mage armour's bonus to AC occurs within its text, as does shield's; cat's grace has a bonus that only results in raised AC as a consequence of the spell's effects.
If all you do is look at CRUNCH, then PMP applies as I've been arguing. And every counter-example is a situation and has nothing to do with the spells themselves.
The AC bonus that can that result from a Dexterity score is also nothing to do with cat's grace itself, in the same way as the AC bonus that can result from a wall of stone's cover. In a normal situation a higher Dexterity can add a higher bonus to AC; it might be the normal situation, but it's still a situation that has nothing to do with the spell itself.
There are spells that directly provide a bonus to armor class. They have a section that states that they give a bonus to armor class and the bonus type that it is. These are spells like Mage Armor, Shield, and Magic Vestment. This will always get removed.
There are spells that provide a change to armor class that may or may not actually improve it and does not have a numbered "bonus". The have a section that states changes that the spell creates and Armor Class is one such change. These are spells like Polymorph and Alter Self. There is contention as to these spells.
There are spells that provide an incidental bonus to armor class. The have a section that states change(s) that the spell creates and Armor Class is related to one such change. These are spells like Cat's Grace and Heroics (dodge). There is also contention as to these spells.
There are spells which can provide a bonus to armor class in certain situations such as cover. These are spells like Web and Stone Shape. This is where Krusk seems to be pointing out that there need to be limits to what can be dispelled.
My opinion is that spells that directly provide a numbered bonus to armor class are the only type removed by this feat. Spells that don't provide a numbered bonus directly applied to AC or are otherwise not specifically designed to increase AC are ignored, regardless of whether their utilization increases someone's AC.
Krusk,
You're trying to argue situation again. Gust of Wind does not grant you the bonuses of being prone. Being prone grants you the bonuses of being prone. It's situational, it has nothing to do with the spell.
As for Stone Shape, see my example of Wall of Stone, Web, etc. Same argument. Your POSITION is causing the cover, not the spell.
Thats sort of my point. A situational dispelling of the spell doesn't work. It either dispells a spell or it doesn't. I was trying to judge the depth of the situations you would allow. Alter self and cat's grace are also situational bonuses that happen to increase your AC.
Mage armor says "You get +X AC" Cats grace does not. Mage armor is dispelled, and cats grace is not.
Sometimes my words don't come out right in type, but vortsukoto basically 100% agrees with me. So pretend I said all that stuff.
In your example, no. Because you're arguing for situation. As will anyone with any spell he thinks he can make immune.
Greater Magic Vestment enhances a peice of armor. It doesn't raise AC directly any more then Cat's Grace, which enhances Dex, does. Undispellable.
And I'm sorry, Slagger, but Cat's Grace raising Dex is not the end of the Crunch. My Dex goes from 16 to 20, and the games goes on, nothing happens?
No, what happens is that the bonus to AC, Initiative, Dex skills and Reflex saves goes up by +2. That's the Crunch. Raising Dex is the fluff. Raising Dex has no effect whatsoever on the game. The bonus that dexterity provides, however, has to be crunched, and the spell itself directly says that it does that. If Cat's GRace gave you a +2 Dex bonus to AC, +2 Init, +2 to Dex skills, and +2 to Reflex saves, it would do the exact same thing Crunch-wise as Cat's Grace....but would be much more awkward to say, and not as inherently limited as the enhancement bonus to Dex. Crunch is always about the real effect on the game, not on the fluff that says how it does it. +6 to damage is +6 to damage, no matter where, what or how you come by it, Crunch doesn't care, at the end.
And trying to argue that your position on the other side of a spell is the spell providing you a cover bonus just makes me roll my eyes.
The fact that you are penalizing yourself by wearing armor (in the case of mage armor and Dex limits) doesn't matter to the spell. It's a situation outside the context of the spell, and you're trying to judge the spell not its own merits, but by some situational modifier that has nothing to do with the spell itself. And PMP is based on the spell, not the situation.
==Aelryinth
Raising Dex is the fluff. Raising Dex has no effect whatsoever on the game.
That isn't true. Drop your dex to 0 and you have a completely different ballgame. Cat's Grace could very easily be used to temporarily un-paralyze someone who'd suffered catastrophic Dex damage.
The thing is, while the spell provides bonuses that may not stack with existing bonuses, whether they are active on your AC or not is immaterial. The Feat is looking do dispel a bonus. Bonuses are defined on page 21 of the Rules Compendium as any typed or untyped increase (or potential increase) in a stat. Every spell that provides a typed increase to armor class, and some spells that provide an untyped increase, are removed.
(I'm unsure as to Reduce Person which changes the Size bonus, but the reduction is a derivative of the spell, not caused by the spell itself. Probably not since if used on a Size Large or larger creature it's only reducing penalties not providing a bonus.)
Dexterity's application to AC is a game rule and function of AC, not any untyped or enhancement bonus that can be dispelled. The Spell provides an Enhancement bonus solely your Dex. Therefor the only bonus applied was to the character's Dexterity score and modifications to stats related to that Dex score are as much as an effect of the spell as curing insomnia is an effect of the Sleep spell.
And I'm sorry, Slagger, but Cat's Grace raising Dex is not the end of the Crunch. My Dex goes from 16 to 20, and the games goes on, nothing happens?
No, what happens is that the bonus to AC, Initiative, Dex skills and Reflex saves goes up by +2. That's the Crunch. Raising Dex is the fluff. Raising Dex has no effect whatsoever on the game. The bonus that dexterity provides, however, has to be crunched, and the spell itself directly says that it does that. If Cat's GRace gave you a +2 Dex bonus to AC, +2 Init, +2 to Dex skills, and +2 to Reflex saves, it would do the exact same thing Crunch-wise as Cat's Grace....but would be much more awkward to say, and not as inherently limited as the enhancement bonus to Dex. Crunch is always about the real effect on the game, not on the fluff that says how it does it. +6 to damage is +6 to damage, no matter where, what or how you come by it, Crunch doesn't care, at the end.
Crunch is about the mechanical effect of the spell, which includes how a benefit is bestowed, but not all the possible outcomes that might result (they're still mechanical, but they're not part of the spell). D&D being the kind of game it is, there isn't a completely unbreakable division between fluff and crunch (for example, a feat that gives a +1 bonus to the DC of spells with red-coloured effects is mechanically valid and a concrete piece of crunch, even though colour is usually irrelevant), but rather a few common trends.
In addition, you're slightly mistaken about the use of a Dexterity score, since the score itself is mechanically important in fulfilling prerequisites and taking ability damage; if cat's grace only granted the usual benefits that the overall game system grants as a result of a higher Dexterity modifier, you wouldn't meet the prerequisites that require a higher score in the ability, and you wouldn't be any harder to disable with Dexterity damage. Were cat's grace to be written in the manner you've suggested (+2 AC/initiative/Ref/Dex-based skills) it would indeed be vulnerable to Pierce Magical Protection, but it would lack some of the benefits that result from the normal spell improving the Dexterity score directly.
The fact that you are penalizing yourself by wearing armor (in the case of mage armor and Dex limits) doesn't matter to the spell. It's a situation outside the context of the spell, and you're trying to judge the spell not its own merits, but by some situational modifier that has nothing to do with the spell itself. And PMP is based on the spell, not the situation.
I agree that whether or not you're wearing armour is irrelevant. The bonus is provided regardless of whether or not a situation makes it more or less usable. Including whether or not the usual situation of applying your Dexterity modifier to AC is actually the case:
The only thing the the spell says it actually does is increase your Dexterity score. It notes that the usual results of Dexterity will occur, but they occur beyond the scope of the spell, within the situation caused by the normal functions of Dexterity. If applying your Dexterity modifier to AC was actually a function of the spell, it would apply even when something like the Deepwarden's stone warden ability replaces the normal Dexterity function with Constitution.
But it doesn't work like that because the spell has no crunchy mechanical effect beyond increasing your Dexterity score. All else is the result of feeding that change through the rest of the game system; as the spell states, they're the usual uses of the Dexterity modifier (as improved by your increased Dexterity score) that occur as part of the game situation surrounding the spell. If the situation changes (as with the Deepwarden) the results of an increased Dexterity score change, because those results depend on the standard situation, not the spell.
And trying to argue that your position on the other side of a spell is the spell providing you a cover bonus just makes me roll my eyes.
No, it's not the spell providing a cover bonus to AC, for exactly the same reason that cat's grace isn't providing a bonus to AC. Cover occurs because of the situation beyond the spell's effect, just like the application of your Dexterity modifier to AC.
Roger
as soon as you ignore the fluff description, I win the argument. Your side of the argument is ENTIRELY based on fluff.
My argument is 'end result'. As soon as you go with fluff, you quote indirectness.
There is no mechanical difference to 'field of force' for Mage Armor and Shield to 'shifts form' for Alter Self to 'raises Dex' for Cat's Grace. That's all fluff.
Ehm, no?
"Field of force" and "shifts form" are fluff. They are in game descriptions of what your character sees.
"raises DEX" is not fluff, it's mechanics.
Compare (fluff vs mechanics):
"Your hide gets ticker" with "You gain a +2 Natural Armor bonus to AC"
"You feel more nimble" with "You gain a +3 bonus to DEX"
"Your sword is made very sharp through magic" with "Your sword has the Keen enchantment"
"Your character tries to dive for cover" with "Make a reflex save"
"The dragon breathes fire, your hair is now buring" with "The dragon uses his breath weapon for 6d6 damage"
"The sword is made of adamantium" with "The sword is made of adamantium"
Natural Armor, Bonus, DEX, AC and such are mechanics. Your character has no concept of those, only the players do, they don't exist in the world, they're the game mechanics. Your character can hold a sword or see a force field. He can't touch a CON or see an Armor Class.
The "Field of force" is what the character sees in game, a.k.a. fluff, while the +4 armor bonus to AC is what happens in the game mechanics, a.k.a. crunch.
I ignore all fluff, and focus only on the syntax of the crunchy bits (the game mechanics). Those describe what happens. The fluff only describes how it will look to the character.
For the game, the only thing that matters is the end result. What I've been pointing out is that your interpretation relies on the Fluff, and mine relies on the Crunch...the end result.
Fluff vs. Crunch has nothing to do with end result.
"You hack of the trolls arm" and "You do 56 damage" are both an end result, one is fluff the other is crunch.
And no, the mechanics do often not care about the end result, they usually care more about how it's achieved. That's why there is a difference between an armor bonus and a luck bonus and a deflection bonus.
If you would not play D&D but something like GURPS or M&M, the mechanics would change, the fluff would not.
The character would still be surounded by a force field, but it would give +2 to his Protection value.
Fluff is for the story telling, crunch is for the game mechanics.
It's much clearer in Magic the Gathering. Something like "Serra Angel 2
4/4 Flying, Attacking does not cause Serra Angel to tap" is game mechanics, while "Born with wings of light and a sword of faith, this heavenly incarnation embodies pure fury and purity" is descriptive text.In D&D something like "A Steel Axe" is both fluff and crunch, as the character would be able to see that the Axe is made of steel, but Steel is also a specific material with a Hardness and other game mechanics.
Mage Armor. You're wearing Plate. Mage armor provides you NOTHING. Does it get dispelled?
In your example, no. Because you're arguing for situation. As will anyone with any spell he thinks he can make immune.
Greater Magic Vestment enhances a peice of armor. It doesn't raise AC directly any more then Cat's Grace, which enhances Dex, does. Undispellable.
Mage armor - I say yes it is dispelled. Because it still provides a +4 armor bonus, you just happen to not be using it.
GMV - Originally and at first glance I'd say its dispelled, but in reading into it I'd say it isn't. It ups your armors AC bonus, not yours.
Or was this not directed at me?
Gust of Wind does not grant you the bonuses of being prone. Being prone grants you the bonuses of being prone. It's situational, it has nothing to do with the spell.
Cat's Grace does not grant you the bonuses of a high Dex. Having a high Dex grants you the bonuses of having a high Dex. It's situational, it has nothing to do with the spell.
See the parallels here?
(Though, I can see the case for Cat's more than I can for Alter Self)
There's plenty of ways you can not be knocked prone by any spell, that have nothing to do with the spells themselves.
Krusk - see? use the fluff, and PMP is nerfed into oblivion. Use Crunch, and it's a very useful feat.
==Aelryinth
There's no way you can NOT get the dex bonus from cat's grace, and the resultant effects.
Unless you already have a higher Dex bonus from elsewhere? And what about this Alter Self? There are plenty of ways you can not get AC from it. What if you grant yourself +1 NA, but grow larger, taking a -1? Would that be dispelled? It's granting an AC bonus, but it's not improving your AC.
Krusk - see? use the fluff, and PMP is nerfed into oblivion. Use Crunch, and it's a very useful feat.
Aside from the fact that I believe both sides of the argument consider themselves to be using the crunch (it's just that the fluff backs up what appears to be the intention of the feat as well), that's irrelevant. Aside from the fact that any feat which lets fighter-types dispel magic at all is probably going to be pretty useful, as it's not something they can generally otherwise do, just because an interpretation makes a feat rubbish doesn't mean it's wrong. Go look at Toughness.
No, I can't see the parallel, since Cat's Grace is specifically granting the dex score, 'with all the usual benefits', stated right in the spell itself. There's no way you can NOT get the dex bonus from cat's grace, and the resultant effects.
In your opinion, would a Deepwarden with the stone warden ability receive their full improved Dexterity modifier to AC in addition to their Constitution modifier when under the effect of cat's grace? Keep in mind that they previously were not applying any part of their Dexterity modifier due to it being replaced by their Constitution modifier.
In addition, if the total AC of the aforementioned Deepwarden was increased by bear's endurance enhancing his Constitution score, is it your opinion that the spell in question is subject to Pierce Magical Protection? Keep in mind for that increasing AC is not a "usual benefit" of an improved Constitution score.
Edit:
GMV - Originally and at first glance I'd say its dispelled, but in reading into it I'd say it isn't. It ups your armors AC bonus, not yours.
Technically speaking, the feat doesn't state that the spell has to grant a bonus to the target's AC, though we could infer that "dispel all that opponent's spells" is meant to refer to spells that are in effect upon them, rather than something like spells that they may have cast.
The specific difference is that the bonus it provides is used to enhance the armour's bonus, rather than granting its own bonus to AC. In terms of flavour, it's one of the spells that Pierce Magical Protection probably should penetrate, even if its wording doesn't permit it to do so.
Situational modifiers change nothing for the spell itself.
2) Yes, it would dispel the spell, because of the class ability that isn't going away. Bear's endurance will raise the AC. Period. Just like Cat's Grace. Oh, sure, you can come up with situational mods where it doesn't apply. But that's just what they are...situational. For this Deepwarden, it's not a situational mod anymore...he gets the bonus if he wants to get the bonus. He gets a bonus because of his unique ability,a nd it has the drawback of making other effects susceptible to PMP.
If you are going to rule that Cat's Grace is affected, then subbing COn for Dex, you MUST rule that Bear's Endurance is now affected for this character.
Prior: You gain +4 to Dex and get larger, and you're trying to say your AC isn't going to be higher with the higher dex? Dispel Cat's Grace, does your AC go down? Then yes, you are definitely getting a bonus, and suddenly being Size L is situational and has nothing to do with the spell's benefits. Come on, Slagger, that was pretty weak.
As for having another Dex enhancer being worn...that has nothign to do with Cat's Grace itself. It provides the benefits. It sounds like you're trying to make the argument that it would situationally apply only if the +6 Dex gloves got suppressed...which is not something the feat is paying any attention to. That's yet another situation you're conjuring up where it wouldn't apply, and such situations mean nothing to the feat or the spell.
==Aelryinth
1) Sure, the cat's grace would be dispelled. You're relying on a situational modifier to say 'no, it doesn't apply.'
Please read the question I'm asking before you provide answers (it's hard to say this without sounding rude, but I'm not trying to be rude). I didn't ask if cat's grace would be dispelled.
I asked if it was your opinion that the example Deepwarden under the effect of cat's grace would be getting both his Dex bonus to AC (due to cat's grace saying he gets the usual benefits of Dex) and his Constitution bonus to AC (because of the stone warden ability that replaces the usual Dex bonus to AC with his Con Bonus).
You've stated that:
No, I can't see the parallel, since Cat's Grace is specifically granting the dex score, 'with all the usual benefits', stated right in the spell itself. There's no way you can NOT get the dex bonus from cat's grace, and the resultant effects.
So, do you gain the bonus because the spells states that you get it, even though the Deepwarden's ability replaces that benefit (at least as gained through a normal application of the rules outside the spell)?
You've answered the second question (and added some interesting insight for me on what you think is a situation; you seem to think it means something non-variable), but the overall answer depends on both being questions being addressed.
Nobody is changing anyone else's mind. Everyone is convinced that their interpretation is the correct one. Some are willing to admit that others' POV is valid; others aren't. Can't we just let this thread die its natural death already?!
Democracy!
My reply was spot on: What if his con is less then his Dex? He'll choose to keep his Dex bonus. We're back to a situation again. If he gets the bonus in any situation, and the spell provided it, he's going to lose it.
Cat's Grace ignores the situation, and looks at the benefit. Just because he has the option of getting Con to AC doesn't mean Cat's Grace's benefits aren't still there to be used.
StevenO, I believe Mage Armor should get dispelled, too. But Cat's Grace says it provides the usual benefits to AC right in the spell, too. And if you're going to argue that raising Dex isn't raising AC, then making a field of force is a perfect valid argument that it isn't raising AC, either, it's an indirect effect of the spell.
And that's where the fluff argument kicks in badly...it's way, way too susceptible to that line of logic.
End result/crunch is not.
==Aelryinth
...
StevenO, I believe Mage Armor should get dispelled, too. But Cat's Grace says it provides the usual benefits to AC right in the spell, too. And if you're going to argue that raising Dex isn't raising AC, then making a field of force is a perfect valid argument that it isn't raising AC, either, it's an indirect effect of the spell.
And that's where the fluff argument kicks in badly...it's way, way too susceptible to that line of logic.
End result/crunch is not.
Then why are/were you saying I do NOT believe Mage Armor should get hit by PMP? The only part of Mage Armor that matters is getting the +4 armor bonus to AC as a Force Effect. With Cat's Grace you are only getting a +4 enhancment to your DEX. It is then the rules of the game which say what other effects that has but those effect don't care where the higher DEX came from. Cat's Grace may remind people that the chacter gets the normal benefits of that higher DEX and mentioning what some of them are but it does NOT say he gets a +X bonus to AC.
As I've said before and I believe most of the other "anti-Cat's Grace crowd" will agree on is that PMP will hit spells that say, as part of their effect, they give a "+X bonus to Armor Class" which is not subject to the twisted logic used to say that Mage Armor could avoid PMP.
If there is a spell that would add your CHA modifier to your AC (note that is "+CHA mod to AC") then PMP would hit it but it would NOT touch an Eagle's Spendor spell used to enhance the character's CHA. When you only look at the "very end result" of casting a spell to determine if it is subject to PMP then you MUST include all types of situational conditions that can come from casting a spell even if it is just providing a cover bonus to AC.
I had been staying out of this thread, or at least this pointless back and forth, but when you want to call me out by name a response is likely.
Actually Slagger, I DID answer it. You're arguing for a situation again...does Cat's Grace get dispelled now that he gets Con to AC?
You're trying to answer the question you think underlies what I'm asking, instead of the actual question, which is about something different.
You've stated that you'll always get an improvement to AC from cat's grace because it states that you gain the "usual benefits" in its text. If that's true, you should also be gaining it when you're a Deepwarden who substitutes Constitution; the stone warden ability makes you swap Dexterity benefits over to Constitution, while having cat's grace adds the "usual benefits" of the Dexterity modifier.
If you believe that cat's grace will always grant that improvement because of the statement in its text, you should be fine stating that you gain both ability modifiers to AC when using stone warden and cat's grace. So, yes or no on having them both?
The answer determines whether or not you're applying your judgement of the text of cat's grace consistently when compared to situations that are not just about it being dispelled.
As I've said before and I believe most of the other "anti-Cat's Grace crowd" will agree on is that PMP will hit spells that say, as part of their effect, they give a "+X bonus to Armor Class" which is not subject to the twisted logic used to say that Mage Armor could avoid PMP.
You'd be right for me at least; it's about the text statements of the spell. Mage armour states the bonus within its text, while cat's grace essentially just confirms that Dexterity works the normal way.
It's hardly a natural death if you try to vote it into place.
It's euthanasia.
I'm still waiting for anyone to provide direct text that says that Mage Armor doesn't apply. You see, here we go by text, not innae rantings or absurd double standards. PMP is very inclusive, and includes Cat's Grace. So, yeah, waiting.
Who are you expecting to provide that text? Everyone agrees that Pierce Magical Protection works against mage armour (even if their reasons differ).
I think the only person who even hypothetically suggested mage armour not being affected was Aelryinth, and he was just using it as an argument about the directness of the effect created by a spell, not as a real claim about his own position.
It's hardly a natural death if you try to vote it into place.
It's euthanasia.
I'm not sure you can vote for euthanasia either...
One has to remember that spells like Cat's Grace, being some of the first written, tend to have extra bits like that to "help" players who might have forgotten that +Dex mean +other stuff. That bracket really should not be taken to mean anything of substance....
Completely and totally irrelevant. Unless you can provide a newer version, that's the text, period. And Cat's Grace very explicitly increases DEX.
Who are you expecting to provide that text? Everyone agrees that Pierce Magical Protection works against mage armour (even if their reasons differ).
I think the only person who even hypothetically suggested mage armour not being affected was Aelryinth, and he was just using it as an argument about the directness of the effect created by a spell, not as a real claim about his own position
Typo, bro. I meant Cat's Grace. and just appear to suck at life.
Actually Slagger, I DID answer it. You're arguing for a situation again...does Cat's Grace get dispelled now that he gets Con to AC?
You're trying to answer the question you think underlies what I'm asking, instead of the actual question, which is about something different.
You've stated that you'll always get an improvement to AC from cat's grace because it states that you gain the "usual benefits" in its text. If that's true, you should also be gaining it when you're a Deepwarden who substitutes Constitution; the stone warden ability makes you swap Dexterity benefits over to Constitution, while having cat's grace adds the "usual benefits" of the Dexterity modifier.
If you believe that cat's grace will always grant that improvement because of the statement in its text, you should be fine stating that you gain both ability modifiers to AC when using stone warden and cat's grace. So, yes or no on having them both?
The answer determines whether or not you're applying your judgement of the text of cat's grace consistently when compared to situations that are not just about it being dispelled.As I've said before and I believe most of the other "anti-Cat's Grace crowd" will agree on is that PMP will hit spells that say, as part of their effect, they give a "+X bonus to Armor Class" which is not subject to the twisted logic used to say that Mage Armor could avoid PMP.
You'd be right for me at least; it's about the text statements of the spell. Mage armour states the bonus within its text, while cat's grace essentially just confirms that Dexterity works the normal way.
Slagger, you're making a situation again. That's the problem. You're contriving a situation where he doesn't ge t the 'benefit' an Ac bonus from his Dex going up. In this case, because his Con does it.
My counter example was quite pointed. What if his Con bonus is less then his Dex bonus with Cat's Grace? What if he gets Con drained?
Abruptly, Cat's Grace 'kicks back on'? Suddenly, it's dispellable again, just because the situation has changed?
No. He has the bonus, he's choosing not to use it. That doesn't alter what the spell does and is granting him.
It's EXACTLY like casting Mage Armor and wearing full plate. You now have two armor bonuses, but only the bigger one matters. Does suddenly Mage Armor become non-dispellable? Your Deepwarden situation is exactly the same thing...a contrived situation that is, in the end, only a situation and irrelevant to what the spells do.
==Aelryinth
Mage Armor gives someone a +4 armor bonus to AC. It says so right there in the spell. The game rules also say that AC bonuses from different sources to not stack but they don't go away either as only that you use the greatest one applies. A PMP attack hitting that character will see the armor bonus to AC provided from the Full Plate, the armor bonus to AC provided by the Mage Armor spell, and may also see a bonus to AC provided by the character's DEX modifer. Now a spell may help the DEX score but it is the game rules that provide the DEX modifier which alters the character's AC.
Which brings us back to those stupid examples, like Bigby's Interposing Hand and Gust of Wind.
Typo, bro. I meant Cat's Grace.
Fair enough.
Slagger, you're making a situation again. That's the problem. You're contriving a situation where he doesn't ge t the 'benefit' an Ac bonus from his Dex going up. In this case, because his Con does it.
You're misreading the thrust of my point there. The issue isn't about whether or he's getting the bonus, it's about whether or not you're giving cat's grace the authority to overrule the standard situation (and any changes to it that might occur) with its "usual benefits", which are derived from that standard situation in the first place.
The thing about situations is that everything outside the spell and feat is a situation (the situation as a whole is the environment in which the interaction happens). Dexterity modifiers applying to AC are the normal situation, while stone warden creates an abnormal situation of applying Constitution modifiers instead.
Cat's grace refers to the "usual benefits" of increase Dexterity, but doesn't directly describe how they apply. For example, if I add an effect that doubled the Dexterity modifier to AC into the situation, would cat's grace now cause twice as much of an increase, or does it use the "usual benefits" that it never specifically defines? The same applies with stone warden (which is the reason for the question); are we allowing cat's grace to forcibly apply a standard situation with "usual benefits" which it never clearly defines, or does the result of its reference to that usual situation change because it directly calls upon it an existing situation that has changed instead of creating one itself.
Jerry the human Cleric is wearing Half-Plate, which has a max dex bonus of +0. Although he has a Dexterity of 12, he does not get the +1 bonus to AC.
-Jerry recieves a Cat's Grace spell, which improves his initiative, Reflex saves, Dexterity-based skill checks, and ranged attack rolls, but NOT his AC. Does PMP dispel his cat's grace?
Answer: No. Cat's Grace does not necessarily provide a bonus to AC in all cases, it is an enhancement bonus to his Dexterity, much like Gloves of Dexterity.
-Jerry also recieves a mage armor spell. Mage Armor grants a +4 armor bonus as a force effect. Jerry's half-plate gives him a +7 armor bonus to his AC, so the mage armor has no effect on his AC. Does PMP dispel his mage armor?
Answer: Yes. The spell is still in effect. He just has a +7 armor bonus and a +4 armor bonus, and he only counts the higher of the two towards his AC. Furthermore, were Jerry to be attacked by a shadow (an incorporeal undead) while under the effect of mage armor, the +4 armor bonus would improve his AC against the incorporeal touch, because it is a force effect. So regardless of the armor he is wearing, he still has a +4 armor bonus from a spell, even if that bonus is not directly affecting his AC.
-Jerry's nonmagical half-plate armor is affected by Magic Vestment at 8th caster level, enhancing his armor with a +2 bonus. Is Magic Vestment dispelled by PMP?
Answer: No. Bonuses to AC provided by items are not subject to PMP. Magic armor, whether enhanced permanently or not, remains unaffected by PMP.
-Jerry recieves a barkskin spell from an 8th level druid, giving him a +3 natural armor bonus. Natural armor is considered a different type of bonus than armor, so it stacks with the AC bonus from his half-plate. Is barkskin dispelled by PMP?
Answer: Yes. The spell directly grants a bonus to AC, and is one of the archetypical spells that would be dispelled by PMP.
-Jerry (perhaps through a domain spell) casts alter self and becomes a lizardfolk. As a lizardfolk, he has a +5 natural armor bonus. Is his alter self spell affected by PMP?
Answer: No. The spell changed him into another race. That race nonmagically has a +5 natural armor bonus. As per the details of the spell, he gets the natural armor bonus of the race he assumed, but the bonus to his AC is not granted by the spell, because the spell could have beeen used to turn him into a dwarf, which has no natural armor bonus.
-Clarification: If Jerry, in the form of a lizardfolk, recieved that barkskin spell (additional +3 natural armor bonus), what would happen if he was struck by a warrior with PMP? After all he currently has a +5 natural armor bonus and a +3 natural armor bonus. The answer is that barkskin would be dispelled, but his alter self would not be.
-Jerry casts shield of faith on himself. He's an 8th level cleric, so it grants him a +3 deflection bonus to his AC. Jerry is already wearing a ring of protection +1, so his net gain from the spell is a +2 to his AC. Is his shield of faith dispelled by PMP?
Answer: Yes. The deflection bonus from shield of faith is a bonus to his AC granted by a spell. Ergo, Jerry's AC drops by 2. The +1 defletion bonus from his ring remains unaffected.
-Jerry recieves a reduce person spell. His size becomes Small. He gets a +1 size bonus to AC and attack rolls, while suffering a -4 size penalty to grapple checks. He takes a -2 size penalty to STR, and gets a +2 size bonus to DEX. Because he is wearing half-plate, his overall AC goes up by 1, his melee attacks are unaffected, and his ranged attacks increase by 2. Is the reduce person dispelled by PMP?
Answer: No. The direct effect of the spell is that his size changes. One of the tangenital effects of the spell is a change of his existing size bonuses to his AC, but his AC is not directly affected by the spell.
The best way to determine this is to look at what kinds of bonuses actually go towards AC, and what kinds of bonuses are affected by spells.
Armor, shield, natural armor, deflection, dodge, luck, and sacred bonuses, if granted by spells, should be affected by PMP.
Enhancement bonuses are almost never directly an enhancement to AC. Any spell that grants an enhancement bonus to something besides just AC, whether it is to Dexterity, or to a suit of armor, will not be affected by PMP.
Size is something that affects many things, including AC, attacks, and more. Even if a spell affects size, the spell is doing so much more than just giving a bonus to AC. Same with ahapechanging spells. These spells do not necessarily improve AC.
So if a spell grants a bonus to AC no matter what, it is probably dispelled by PMP. Even if that bonus doesn't get used (such as Jerry under the effect of mage armor), the bonus is still there, being granted by the spell.
Spells that CAN be used to increase the subject's Armor Class, but won't necessarily provide a bonus, are not dispelled by PMP. Cat's Grace will not always affect the target's AC, as I have shown. Much like Fox's Cunning. Those of you who claim cat's grace would be dispelled, would fox's cunning? What if the subject was a Duelist? If you argue that whether or not fox's cunning is dispellable by PMP is dependant on the nature of the subject, then that is inconsistent. A spell is subject to PMP or it is not. Fox's Cunning and Cat's Grace are nearly identical. Same level, duration, range, school of magic, the only difference is what stat it affects. If one spell of that type (cat's grace, bull's strength, bear's endurance, fox's cunning, owl's wisdom, eagle's splendor) would not be dispelled by PMP, then none of them would. The increase to DEX spell is either subject to PMP dispelling or not, it can't be situational. Jerry gets no bonus to AC from that spell, how can it be subject to PMP?
Polymorph spells, to include those that change size, likewise should not be eligible. All subjects of Small or smaller size get the size bonus to AC, the AC bonus is a reflection of actual changes in dimension, not a magical enhancement. Likewise, a polymorph effect that grants a natural armor bonus should not count, b/c the natural armor effect is a secondary effect of the spell, and not a guaranteed effect of casting the spell. The spell will not ALWAYS grant an AC bonus. A human polymorphed into a dwarf will not have the polymorph dispelled by PMP, so why should the same spell that turned the human into a izardfolk be dispelled then? Again, if it's a situational bonus, it doesn't count.
This brings up another possible interpretation of the feat though, that it dispells AC boosting buffs the target has CAST and not all that are currently affecting them. The text leaves that open as a possible interpretation of the feat. Not saying that interpretation is right though, just figured it might move the topic around some.
likewise, your cat's grace. Mr. Sample takes off his armor. Now, He gets a full bonus to AC from Dex. Suddenly, Cat's Grace is dispellable? Your example and interpretation are inconsistent again.
If the spell can raise AC as part of its effects, it's dispellable.
==
Slagger: I've already stated my position on Cat's Grace. The deepwarden has the option of applying or not applying dex, therefore, not getting the bonus is situational and irrelevant to the spell.
As for the Bear's Endurance: Normally, there is no situation where Bear's Endurance raises AC. However, for the Deepwarden, the spell is suddenly doing double duty. THe Deepwarden has the option of using his Con bonus to AC, or situationally not doing so, as he chooses. This is exactly the same as Cat's Grace...effectively, the Deepwarden is enhancing the spell and making it subject to dispelling because of his innate abilities.
This has no effect on other characters where the usual benefits of the spell do not include raising AC.
the same ruling would apply to monks using Owl's Wisdom, Nymphs using Eagle's Splendor, and Duelists using Fox's Cunning. 'The usual benefits' of the spell, applied to that character, now include raising AC. The enhanced spell is now subject to PMP. This is consistent across all situations that it applies to.
The 'crunch' result tolerates far less word-twisting and contrived situations then the fluff.
==Aelryinth
Slagger: I've already stated my position on Cat's Grace. The deepwarden has the option of applying or not applying dex, therefore, not getting the bonus is situational and irrelevant to the spell.
As for the Bear's Endurance: Normally, there is no situation where Bear's Endurance raises AC. However, for the Deepwarden, the spell is suddenly doing double duty. THe Deepwarden has the option of using his Con bonus to AC, or situationally not doing so, as he chooses. This is exactly the same as Cat's Grace...effectively, the Deepwarden is enhancing the spell and making it subject to dispelling because of his innate abilities.
This has no effect on other characters where the usual benefits of the spell do not include raising AC.
You haven't answered the question I asked regarding cat's grace and the deepwarden (whether or not he'd get both bonuses at once, which would be more helpful in understanding your reasoning), but if I'm understanding your viewpoint on the parts you're talking about here, then a deepwarden using his Constitution bonus would render cat's grace no longer vulnerable to Pierce Magical Protection, since its "usual benefits" have been changed. If shifting over to Constitution makes a Constitution-enhanced vulnerable, then likewise, the Dexterity enhancer (which is no longer granting AC) is no longer vulnerable. Am I following your reasoning correctly on that?
the same ruling would apply to monks using Owl's Wisdom, Nymphs using Eagle's Splendor, and Duelists using Fox's Cunning. 'The usual benefits' of the spell, applied to that character, now include raising AC. The enhanced spell is now subject to PMP. This is consistent across all situations that it applies to.
You have included an internally consistent adaptation for these spells, but the effects that you're now turning into the "usual benefits" are entirely situational, rather than being part of the spell.
The bonus to AC from any one of those only exists in the situation where the subject has a particular special ability in the same way that the cover bonus from a magical wall only exists in the situation where you're standing behind it.
To add a further wrinkle to it, do you believe the monk's owl's Wisdom and the duelist's fox's cunning are still vulnerable to Pierce Magical Protection while they're holding shields that will cancel their special AC-granting abilities?
Chiba, your mage armor is using a double standard. Your other examples are using a 'result-based' proof, re: Cat's Grace in +0 Dex armor. Your mage armor example is not using the same example, since Mr. Sample's AC is not going up, therefore you are being inconsistent with your rules application.
To the contrary, I explicitly covered this, you just did not read it thoroughly. Go back and read it again, and you will see I covered this, and was entirely consistent throughout.
Mage Armor provides a +4 armor bonus in the form of a force effect. Jerry the cleric is wearing half-plate (+7 armor bonus), so his AC doesn't go up. HOWEVER, like I said before, he still has both armor bonuses in effect on his person. After all, it would make a difference to his AC if he was attacked by an incorporeal creature. Ergo, mage armor gets dispelled by PMP, even if he's wearing armor so heavy that his regular AC doesn't go up.
likewise, your cat's grace. Mr. Sample takes off his armor. Now, He gets a full bonus to AC from Dex. Suddenly, Cat's Grace is dispellable? Your example and interpretation are inconsistent again.
If the spell can raise AC as part of its effects, it's dispellable.
No, Cat's Grace remains undispellable by PMP. BECAUSE it would otherwise be inconsistent,
I really think you didn't actually read what I posted. Especially the last few paragraphs. I'll even re-post them for you:
The best way to determine this is to look at what kinds of bonuses actually go towards AC, and what kinds of bonuses are affected by spells.
Armor, shield, natural armor, deflection, dodge, luck, and sacred bonuses, if granted by spells, should be affected by PMP.
Enhancement bonuses are almost never directly an enhancement to AC. Any spell that grants an enhancement bonus to something besides just AC, whether it is to Dexterity, or to a suit of armor, will not be affected by PMP.
So if a spell grants a bonus to AC no matter what, it is probably dispelled by PMP. Even if that bonus doesn't get used (such as Jerry under the effect of mage armor), the bonus is still there, being granted by the spell.
Spells that CAN be used to increase the subject's Armor Class, but won't necessarily provide a bonus, are not dispelled by PMP. Cat's Grace will not always affect the target's AC, as I have shown. Much like Fox's Cunning. Those of you who claim cat's grace would be dispelled, would fox's cunning? What if the subject was a Duelist? If you argue that whether or not fox's cunning is dispellable by PMP is dependant on the nature of the subject, then that is inconsistent. A spell is subject to PMP or it is not. Fox's Cunning and Cat's Grace are nearly identical. Same level, duration, range, school of magic, the only difference is what stat it affects. If one spell of that type (cat's grace, bull's strength, bear's endurance, fox's cunning, owl's wisdom, eagle's splendor) would not be dispelled by PMP, then none of them would. The increase to DEX spell is either subject to PMP dispelling or not, it can't be situational. Jerry gets no bonus to AC from that spell, how can it be subject to PMP?
So...if you actually read what I posted, you will see that I was entirely consistent throughout.
If the spell doesn't always provide an AC bonus, it probably doesn't get dispelled. You fail to recognize that even Jerry the Cleric in half-plate under a Mage Armor spell is still recieving a +4 armor bonus. But the rules say his +7 from armor overrides the +4 from the spell. But both bonuses are still there, and like I keep saying, it DOES make a difference if he were to be attacked by an incorporeal creature. So, regardless of the armor he's wearing, Mage Armor is providing a bonus to his AC, and would be dispelled by PMP.
Cat's Grace falls into the same category of fox's cunning. And like I said, unless someone would argue that all of the stat-boosting spells are dispellable, none of them are. Would fox's cunning on a rogue be dispelled by PMP? Of course not, right, it provides no defensive bonus at all. Well, would fox's cunning be dispelled on a Duelist? Duelists add their Intelligence to AC. If you are arguing that fox's cunning on a Duelist WOULD get dispelled, but not on someone else, then THAT is inconsistent. It can't be dependant on the nature of the subject. If the bonus to AC is dependant in some way on the nature of the recipient, then that spell does not get dispelled.
Again, you need to remember that Mage Armor still grants the bonus even if it doesn't stack with their existing armor and improve overall AC.
So, I was enturely consistent.
Slagger: I've already stated my position on Cat's Grace. The deepwarden has the option of applying or not applying dex, therefore, not getting the bonus is situational and irrelevant to the spell.
As for the Bear's Endurance: Normally, there is no situation where Bear's Endurance raises AC. However, for the Deepwarden, the spell is suddenly doing double duty. THe Deepwarden has the option of using his Con bonus to AC, or situationally not doing so, as he chooses. This is exactly the same as Cat's Grace...effectively, the Deepwarden is enhancing the spell and making it subject to dispelling because of his innate abilities.
This has no effect on other characters where the usual benefits of the spell do not include raising AC.
You haven't answered the question I asked regarding cat's grace and the deepwarden (whether or not he'd get both bonuses at once, which would be more helpful in understanding your reasoning), but if I'm understanding your viewpoint on the parts you're talking about here, then a deepwarden using his Constitution bonus would render cat's grace no longer vulnerable to Pierce Magical Protection, since its "usual benefits" have been changed. If shifting over to Constitution makes a Constitution-enhanced vulnerable, then likewise, the Dexterity enhancer (which is no longer granting AC) is no longer vulnerable. Am I following your reasoning correctly on that?the same ruling would apply to monks using Owl's Wisdom, Nymphs using Eagle's Splendor, and Duelists using Fox's Cunning. 'The usual benefits' of the spell, applied to that character, now include raising AC. The enhanced spell is now subject to PMP. This is consistent across all situations that it applies to.
You have included an internally consistent adaptation for these spells, but the effects that you're now turning into the "usual benefits" are entirely situational, rather than being part of the spell.
The bonus to AC from any one of those only exists in the situation where the subject has a particular special ability in the same way that the cover bonus from a magical wall only exists in the situation where you're standing behind it.
To add a further wrinkle to it, do you believe the monk's owl's Wisdom and the duelist's fox's cunning are still vulnerable to Pierce Magical Protection while they're holding shields that will cancel their special AC-granting abilities?
For this exact reason, NONE of those spells are subject to PMP. A spell is either subject to PMP, or it is not. Having Fox's Cunning only be dispellable by PMP when it's on a duelist is inconcistent, therefore it never is. Bear's Endurance, since it only helps a Deepwarden, is likewise not subject to PMP. Owl's Wisdom on a monk, or Eagle Speldor on a Nymph (or incorporeal undead) is situational. The spell is either subject to PMP in all cases or in none. As those spells depend on the nature of the subject, none of them are dispelled by PMP. Cat's Grace on someone who's max Dex bonus from armor worn (or on an Adamantine Body warforged who already has a Dex bonus), is likewise situational. Therefore it is also not subject to PMP.
The Bonus to AC from Cat's Grace is still there, using your reasoning, it's just being overriden and negated by wearing armor. This is no different then mage armor being overriden by wearing plate.
The other stat spells raising AC and being made dispellable is because the spells themselves are being enhanced to provide the extra benefits. "The Usual benefits' for those spells, for that character, now includes an AC bonus. Thematically, it is absolutely no different then one character getting a bonus from a Prayer spell, and the one next to him not. PMP doesn't care what the spell is, it cares about the results.
This is not a contrived on/off situation, this is a change in what the magic is because of this character.
If a stat buffer spell suddenly raises AC, it's subject to PMP. PMP doesn't look at the language of the spell, it looks at the results of it.
And no, that is in no way similar to a circumstantial bonus to cover because you are behind a wall. That bonus is because of where the character is located, not because of some magical effect of the wall.
Slagger:
Are you asking if I think the Deepwarden gets both effects simultaneously, i.e. a double Dex boost? The answer to that is no.
The Deepwarden always has the option of using Dex instead of Con...he also gets the option of using Con instead of Dex. Therefore, both options are always in force, he's merely using one or the other non-stacking bonus at any given moment, and the other is irrelevant, like mage armor & plate mail...he's simply taking the higher bonus at the time.
Since both bonuses are effectively always in force, and he's just taking the larger one, PMP will take out Bear's Endurance and Cat's Grace, since both are providing AC bonuses, invisible or otherwise.
Trying to use the situational argument on this is akin to saying "Because Prayer provides +1 bonuses to allies, I can dispel it's effects on enemies due to it providing an AC bonus for someone else." In other words, if a cleric throws prayer, and his side gets +1 AC, and yours gets -1AC, you can use a 1 pt PMP on your allies and dispel Prayer, because it's giving a bonus to those orcs over there.
That's ridiculous on the face of it. However, we'll all agree that we can go over there and PMP the Prayer on the orcs.
This is the exact same situation For the stat buffer spells on Monks, Duellists, etc. On these characters, it raises AC and so can be dispelled. This has no effect for those characters over there where it doesn't do the same thing. End results matter. For someone just getting +4 Cha, PMP does nothing to the spell, the same way it won't dispel the negative effects of Prayer.
As for the monk/duellist and Shields - again, it's a contrived situation. The bonus is there, they are choosing to not use/suppress it. This is simply the high dex/low armor situation again. Just because they don't choose to use a bonus doesn't mean it isn't there. PMP will take the spells out.
==Aelryinth
....
Trying to use the situational argument on this is akin to saying "Because Prayer provides +1 bonuses to allies, I can dispel it's effects on enemies due to it providing an AC bonus for someone else." In other words, if a cleric throws prayer, and his side gets +1 AC, and yours gets -1AC, you can use a 1 pt PMP on your allies and dispel Prayer, because it's giving a bonus to those orcs over there.
That's ridiculous on the face of it. However, we'll all agree that we can go over there and PMP the Prayer on the orcs.
...
What's Prayer got to do with anything? I don't see anything about increasing AC anywhere. Of course giving all of your allies +1 to hit and all enemies -1 to hit is mechanically very similiar to giving all of your allies +1 AC and all enemies -1 AC.
When you keep saying Cat's Grace gets hit by PMP because its effect can lead to an increased AC then you are also saying that Summon Monsters can be hit by PMP because it can boost a lead to an increased AC.
This may not be a democracy but it certainly looks to me like most reasoning people discussing this topic believe PMP doesn't touch Cat's Grace. I'm 99% sure we can't change your mind. I'll say the rest of us can look at a spell and say if PMP will hit it or not with 99% certainty without know ANYTHING about who it is being cast on or how it is being cast. With your interpretation of PMP that drops greatly as you are opening up so many conditional uses; in fact most of us are seeing your stance as being "any time a spell does something that increases AC, for whatever reason, it will be subjected to PMP," and is just so wide open.
mmm, no.
The Bonus to AC from Cat's Grace is still there, using your reasoning, it's just being overriden and negated by wearing armor. This is no different then mage armor being overriden by wearing plate.
No, the bonus to DEX is still there, with other benefits (ranged attcaks Reflex saves, etc.). The bonus to AC does not exist in that situation.
As opposed to mage armor to someone wearing half-plate. The +4 armor bonus is still being granted (as can be evidenced by an incorporeal creature attacking someone in half-plate who does have mage armor, as opposed to an incorporeal creature attacking someone in half-plate without mage armor).
The difference is with the mage armor exampe, the bonus is there, just not being used. With Cat's Grace, there ARE bonuses being granted, but not to AC.
The other stat spells raising AC and being made dispellable is because the spells themselves are being enhanced to provide the extra benefits. "The Usual benefits' for those spells, for that character, now includes an AC bonus. Thematically, it is absolutely no different then one character getting a bonus from a Prayer spell, and the one next to him not. PMP doesn't care what the spell is, it cares about the results.
A spell is either subject to PMP or it is not. If you can say it's only subject to PMP in certain situations (like being a duelist), then it is not subject to PMP.
This is not a contrived on/off situation, this is a change in what the magic is because of this character.
If a stat buffer spell suddenly raises AC, it's subject to PMP. PMP doesn't look at the language of the spell, it looks at the results of it.
Again, a spell is either subject to PMP or it is not. It's not going to be altered because of who it was cast on. If Fox's Cunning isn't subject to PMP for an assassin or a loremaster, then it isn't for a duelist, either. Consistency needs to be maintained. Anything that isn't consistent is a contrived on/off situation.
And no, that is in no way similar to a circumstantial bonus to cover because you are behind a wall. That bonus is because of where the character is located, not because of some magical effect of the wall.
I quite agree. I never said PMP did apply to those other spells.
Are you asking if I think the Deepwarden gets both effects simultaneously, i.e. a double Dex boost? The answer to that is no.
Well, it's more Dex+Con than double Dex, though I'm glad to hear that you don't think both apply at once (the reasoning looks really wonky if you try to support both). Thanks for answering that.
The Deepwarden always has the option of using Dex instead of Con...he also gets the option of using Con instead of Dex. Therefore, both options are always in force, he's merely using one or the other non-stacking bonus at any given moment, and the other is irrelevant, like mage armor & plate mail...he's simply taking the higher bonus at the time.
Since both bonuses are effectively always in force, and he's just taking the larger one, PMP will take out Bear's Endurance and Cat's Grace, since both are providing AC bonuses, invisible or otherwise.
I disagree about both being in force; he has either one or the other, and the other simply doesn't exist.
By the text, his Constitution bonus to AC is used instead of his Dexerity, making the existences of the two possible AC bonuses mutually exclusive. It's not even described as a choice; he adds his Con bonus to AC only when Con is higher, and adds his Dex bonus to AC when his Dex bonus is higher (or equal). His ability scores still have an ability score bonus when he's not using them for AC (Dex 14 still has a +2 and so forth), but that ability score bonus doesn't produce an AC bonus when it's not dominant.
For example, with Dex 15/Con 16, his stone warden ability adds his +3 Con bonus to AC, and he doesn't have any AC bonus from Dex. If he received cat's grace, giving him Dex 19/Con 16, his +4 Dex modifier starts applying to AC, but his +3 Con modifier stops providing a bonus to AC.
Trying to use the situational argument on this is akin to saying "Because Prayer provides +1 bonuses to allies, I can dispel it's effects on enemies due to it providing an AC bonus for someone else." In other words, if a cleric throws prayer, and his side gets +1 AC, and yours gets -1AC, you can use a 1 pt PMP on your allies and dispel Prayer, because it's giving a bonus to those orcs over there.
That's ridiculous on the face of it. However, we'll all agree that we can go over there and PMP the Prayer on the orcs.
Well, targeting isn't properly described by the feat, but I think we agree that it's about AC bonuses on the foe struck by the feat owner (so prayer's not really valid because it buffs or penalizes attacks instead of granting bonuses, but we could imagine a spell that did something similar with a literal +1 bonus to AC for allies). But I don't see it as a valid comparison for the deepwarden case because that's about how the stone warden ability specifically makes bonuses appear or disappear.
This is the exact same situation For the stat buffer spells on Monks, Duellists, etc. On these characters, it raises AC and so can be dispelled. This has no effect for those characters over there where it doesn't do the same thing. End results matter. For someone just getting +4 Cha, PMP does nothing to the spell, the same way it won't dispel the negative effects of Prayer.
As for the monk/duellist and Shields - again, it's a contrived situation. The bonus is there, they are choosing to not use/suppress it. This is simply the high dex/low armor situation again. Just because they don't choose to use a bonus doesn't mean it isn't there. PMP will take the spells out.
There we come to a particular point of difference; mechanically, the monk or duelist isn't receiving the AC bonus at all when they're holding a shield, while having a higher Dex modifier than your armour means that the amount your of Dex modifier you're using for an AC bonus is capped, but the fact that you apply your Dex modifier to create a bonus to AC hasn't changed.
And that's back to the difference between the spell granting a bonus, or instead just affecting an existing AC bonus. When the spell supplies the bonus itself (as with mage armour), outside situations don't affect the existence of the bonus so it's non-situational, while if it's just a way to modify an existing bonus, the situation (such as whether or not a monk is holding a shield or more than lightly loaded) can cause bonuses to come or go in a way that makes the validity of Pierce Magical Protection depend on that situation.
And that's also the connection with the deepwarden; with stone warden, the AC bonus derived from your Dex modifier
And that's back to the difference between the spell granting a bonus, or instead just affecting an existing AC bonus. When the spell supplies the bonus itself (as with mage armour), outside situations don't affect the existence of the bonus so it's non-situational, while if it's just a way to modify an existing bonus, the situation (such as whether or not a monk is holding a shield or more than lightly loaded) can cause bonuses to come or go in a way that makes the validity of Pierce Magical Protection depend on that situation.
So, you are then saying that PMP only dispells those magical AC boosts which are non-situational (such as Mage Armor, Shield, Barkskin, Shield of Faith), even if the target's AC is not bring raised (because he's wearing armor, a shield, or a Ring of Protection), because the bonus from the spell is still being added, even if it doesn't stack, right?
And boosts to AC which are derived from a secondary effect of a spell (such as Cat's Grace, Fox's Cunning, Owl's Wisdom) that may be situational, then do NOT get dispelled by PMP?
Because if thats what you are saying I agree 100%. I just want to be clear, as you have mostly been discussing the Deepwarden, a PrC with which I am not familiar.
If that is the case, then how do you feel about Alter Self? I maintain that since Alter Self does not always provide an AC bonus, that it is never dispelled by PMP. So even if someone uses it to become a lizardfolk, they do not get the polymorph dispelled.
Situation: Jerry the Cleric manages to cast Alter Self (let's say it's a domain spell) to become a Lizardfolk. He's already wearing half-plate. He also recieves a Mage Armor, Barkskin and Cat's Grace spells. He gets hit by a warrior with PMP. I maintain that his Mage Armor and Barkskin get bypassed and dispelled, but he remains a Lizardfolk with a +4 bonus to DEX. Agree?
So, you are then saying that PMP only dispells those magical AC boosts which are non-situational (such as Mage Armor, Shield, Barkskin, Shield of Faith), even if the target's AC is not bring raised (because he's wearing armor, a shield, or a Ring of Protection), because the bonus from the spell is still being added, even if it doesn't stack, right?
And boosts to AC which are derived from a secondary effect of a spell (such as Cat's Grace, Fox's Cunning, Owl's Wisdom) that may be situational, then do NOT get dispelled by PMP?
That's essentially correct, though there are technicalities that make things like barkskin not be affected by Pierce Magical Protection (since the spell boosts the existing bonus to AC instead of granting one of its own).
Actually, that in itself is arguable, since the barkskin spell also talks about the enhancement bonus as if it were a direct enhancement bonus to AC that stacks with natural armour. But that's inconsistent with its initial statement, and the general description of natural armour bonuses suggests that barkskin works as an improvement to the existing bonus, rather than providing a separate one.
Because if thats what you are saying I agree 100%. I just want to be clear, as you have mostly been discussing the Deepwarden, a PrC with which I am not familiar.
The only ability of importance there (for this discussion) is its stone warden ability, which causes the deepwarden to apply his Constitution modifier as a bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity modifier (but only when the Constitution modifier is higher).
If that is the case, then how do you feel about Alter Self? I maintain that since Alter Self does not always provide an AC bonus, that it is never dispelled by PMP. So even if someone uses it to become a lizardfolk, they do not get the polymorph dispelled.
I would say that alter self is vulnerable only when it grants a natural armour bonus. Although this is a variation, it occurs within the spell itself and is a direct part of the spell's own effect, rather than the situation surrounding it.
After all, the issue with situations is that the improvement in AC that might result is not generated by the spell, so Pierce Magical Protection offers no benefit in overcoming them.
Cat's grace, for example, enhances the subject's Dexterity score, but that only leads to an AC bonus because of the behaviour of the Dexterity score as a concept, and if that concept changes (as with the deepwarden), so does the result, even though the spell that was cast hasn't changed its effects in the slightest.
When alter self grants a natural armour bonus to AC, it is vulnerable, but if it is cast so that it does not grant that bonus to AC, it is not vulnerable. If, hypothetically, you had a metamagic feat that added a +1 deflection bonus to AC to the other benefits a target received from a spell, then all spells affected by that metamagic feat would be vulnerable to Pierce Magical protection.
Situation: Jerry the Cleric manages to cast Alter Self (let's say it's a domain spell) to become a Lizardfolk. He's already wearing half-plate. He also recieves a Mage Armor, Barkskin and Cat's Grace spells. He gets hit by a warrior with PMP. I maintain that his Mage Armor and Barkskin get bypassed and dispelled, but he remains a Lizardfolk with a +4 bonus to DEX. Agree?
I leave out barkskin because of its wording, and cat's grace, because the bonus to AC isn't granted by the spell. This particular casting of alter self grants an AC bonus, which allows it to be affected, and mage armour is likewise vulnerable. The half-plate is irrelevant, because it makes no difference to the spell's own effects.
So, you are then saying that PMP only dispells those magical AC boosts which are non-situational (such as Mage Armor, Shield, Barkskin, Shield of Faith), even if the target's AC is not bring raised (because he's wearing armor, a shield, or a Ring of Protection), because the bonus from the spell is still being added, even if it doesn't stack, right?
And boosts to AC which are derived from a secondary effect of a spell (such as Cat's Grace, Fox's Cunning, Owl's Wisdom) that may be situational, then do NOT get dispelled by PMP?
That's essentially correct, though there are technicalities that make things like barkskin not be affected by Pierce Magical Protection (since the spell boosts the existing bonus to AC instead of granting one of its own).
Actually, that in itself is arguable, since the barkskin spell also talks about the enhancement bonus as if it were a direct enhancement bonus to AC that stacks with natural armour. But that's inconsistent with its initial statement, and the general description of natural armour bonuses suggests that barkskin works as an improvement to the existing bonus, rather than providing a separate one.
Incorrect on barkskin, actually.
From the 3.5e PHB on barkskin:
The enhancement bonus provided by
barkskin stacks with the target’s natural
armor bonus, but not with other enhancement
bonuses to natural armor. A creature
without natural armor has an effective
natural armor bonus of +0, much as a
character wearing only normal clothing
has an armor bonus of +0.
So, even if you don't have a natural armor bonus to start with, barkskin grants you one.
If that is the case, then how do you feel about Alter Self? I maintain that since Alter Self does not always provide an AC bonus, that it is never dispelled by PMP. So even if someone uses it to become a lizardfolk, they do not get the polymorph dispelled.
I would say that alter self is vulnerable only when it grants a natural armour bonus. Although this is a variation, it occurs within the spell itself and is a direct part of the spell's own effect, rather than the situation surrounding it.
You're being inconsistent. Either Alter Self is dispellable by PMP, or it isn't. That's how game rules work. If Jerry the Cleric uses Alter Self to become an elf, PMP won't work. So why should it when he used it to become a lizardfolk? He's not suddenly benefiting from magically conjured scales that improve his AC, he completely altered his race, and all members of that race have a natural armor bonus. So his decision to pick a race with an inerent natural armor bonus IS a situation, because the spell would not be dispelled from him turning into an elf.
After all, the issue with situations is that the improvement in AC that might result is not generated by the spell, so Pierce Magical Protection offers no benefit in overcoming them.
Cat's grace, for example, enhances the subject's Dexterity score, but that only leads to an AC bonus because of the behaviour of the Dexterity score as a concept, and if that concept changes (as with the deepwarden), so does the result, even though the spell that was cast hasn't changed its effects in the slightest.
I would argue that a boost to AC is a tangenital effect of having a higher Dexterity score (and not being overburdened by armor), rather than a bonus granted by the spell.
When alter self grants a natural armour bonus to AC, it is vulnerable, but if it is cast so that it does not grant that bonus to AC, it is not vulnerable. If, hypothetically, you had a metamagic feat that added a +1 deflection bonus to AC to the other benefits a target received from a spell, then all spells affected by that metamagic feat would be vulnerable to Pierce Magical protection.Situation: Jerry the Cleric manages to cast Alter Self (let's say it's a domain spell) to become a Lizardfolk. He's already wearing half-plate. He also recieves a Mage Armor, Barkskin and Cat's Grace spells. He gets hit by a warrior with PMP. I maintain that his Mage Armor and Barkskin get bypassed and dispelled, but he remains a Lizardfolk with a +4 bonus to DEX. Agree?
I leave out barkskin because of its wording, and cat's grace, because the bonus to AC isn't granted by the spell. This particular casting of alter self grants an AC bonus, which allows it to be affected, and mage armour is likewise vulnerable. The half-plate is irrelevant, because it makes no difference to the spell's own effects.
Again, inconsistent. Alter Self, when used in that fashion, is simply altering his race into a lizardfolk, who happen to have a natural armor bonus. Unless you are arguing that a warrior with PMP who hits all natural lizardfolk bypasses their natural armor bonus and eliminates it (which would be ridiculous), then alter self is not affected. Because it is situational. Ant effect from a spell that only grants abonus to AC situationally, is not a spell that is subject to PMP.
And barkskin, again, counts because it improves the "natural armor bonus" of any given creature, even if that bonus is initially +0.
What it boils down to is what I said earlier. If a spell grants one of the following bonuses: Armor, Shield, Deflection, Dodge, Natural Armor, Luck, or Profane/Sacred, it is subject to PMP.
Enhancement bonuses rarely directly affect AC. Barkskin is a special case, because it grants an "enhancement bonus" to a "natural armor bonus", thus a "natural armor bonus" is still being granted by the spell, and it will ALWAYS be granted by the spell, especially because it explicitly STACKS with any existing natural armor bonus.
Bonuses that are always granted by a spell(whether they do or don't stack with existing ones), are the only ones affected by PMP. Important to note that unless specified otherwise (like barkskin), the only bonuses of the same kind which ALWAYS stack with themselves are dodge bonuses, and luck bonuses (and untyped bonuses, of course, but those are rare). So if you have a +1 dodge bonus from the Dodge feat(against your "dodge buddy"), and get a +4 dodge bonus from the Mobility feat, and somehow get a +2 dodge bonus from a spell, you have a +7 dodge bonus against your "dodge buddy". Likewise, a +1 luck bonus from a magic item and a +1 luck bonus from a spell stack for a +2 luck bonus.
Cat's Grace grants an enhancement bonus to DEX score. DEX bonus to AC is situational. If Kiko the halfling rogue is under cat's grace and gets stunned (thus losing DEX bonus to AC), and gets hit by a warrior with PMP, would it still be dispelled?
Flashy the duelist and Blasty the Wizard both benefit from a Mass Fox's Cunning. A warrior with PMP strikes both of them. Why is that warrior capable of dispelling the same magical effect on Flashy but not Blasty? That is inconsistent, and does not follow logically.
Bottom line: a spell either "grants a bonus to AC", or it does not. Whether or not that bonus is actually resulting in a higher AC (such as Mage Armor on Jerry the Cleric), is irrelevant, the spell grants a bonus. DEX bonus to AC is a product of DEXTERITY, not a product of a spell. That bonus is, in and of itself, situational. If a spell enhances DEX, then tangenitally, his AC may go up, but that is not a protection granted by the spell. Cat's Grace is not a "Magical Protection". Protection From Arrows is a "magical protection", but not one that grats a bonus to AC. Protection From Evil is a "magival protection" that grants a +2 deflection bonus against attacks made by Evil creatures. I would say that even if the warrior with PMP is Chaotic Neutral, that PMP dispels Protection From Evil on the target, because that +2 deflection bonus is still being granted by the spell, even though it would not have specifically protect him from that warrior's attack (even if the warrior did not have PMP).
From the 3.5e PHB on barkskin:The enhancement bonus provided by
barkskin stacks with the target’s natural
armor bonus, but not with other enhancement
bonuses to natural armor. A creature
without natural armor has an effective
natural armor bonus of +0, much as a
character wearing only normal clothing
has an armor bonus of +0.
So, even if you don't have a natural armor bonus to start with, barkskin grants you one.
That's not incorrect, but the earlier part of barkskin's effect states:
"The effect grants a +2 enhancement bonus to the creature’s existing natural armor bonus."
And SRD information on the natural armour bonus type states:
"Some magical effects (such as the barkskin spell) grant an enhancement bonus to the creature's existing natural armor bonus, which has the effect of increasing the natural armor's overall bonus to Armor Class."
Both of which indicate that it's an enhancement to the existing natural armour bonus, rather than a bonus in its own right. It could certainly be reasoned that a character who had no natural armour now has a natural armour bonus, though a character who already has one has simply gained an improvement in their existing bonus.
It's one of those bits where Pierce Magical Protection needs to be more broadly written, since barkskin is an effect it really should be able to overcome.
You're being inconsistent. Either Alter Self is dispellable by PMP, or it isn't. That's how game rules work. If Jerry the Cleric uses Alter Self to become an elf, PMP won't work. So why should it when he used it to become a lizardfolk? He's not suddenly benefiting from magically conjured scales that improve his AC, he completely altered his race, and all members of that race have a natural armor bonus. So his decision to pick a race with an inerent natural armor bonus IS a situation, because the spell would not be dispelled from him turning into an elf.
It's not inconsistent, the result simply varies when the spell itself changes. When the spell grants a bonus to AC, it can be affected, when it does not, it cannot. The result is consistent with the spell's own effect.
Things that vary within the spell's own mechanical effects are part of the spell itself (which includes any decisions the caster makes about how to cast it), rather than the situation in which it occurs. For example, if you use a summon monster spell to summon an evil creature, the spell gains the Evil descriptor and can be affected by anything that works against evil spells, even though other castings of the same spell may summon different creatures and be affected by different effects.
The feat affects the spell based on its current form, not on other benefits that it could have if the caster had decided to cast it a different way. After all, why should Pierce Magical Protection pierce and dispel an AC bonus when the spell hasn't created one? Note that we're not just talking about a redundant or useless bonus, but a case where the spell hasn't granted the bonus at all.
Alter Self, when used in that fashion, is simply altering his race into a lizardfolk, who happen to have a natural armor bonus. Unless you are arguing that a warrior with PMP who hits all natural lizardfolk bypasses their natural armor bonus and eliminates it (which would be ridiculous), then alter self is not affected. Because it is situational. Ant effect from a spell that only grants abonus to AC situationally, is not a spell that is subject to PMP.
The actual effect of alter self is to give you a range of benefits that simulate, but do not entirely duplicate, becoming a real creature of the chosen form. There are limits on the exact benefits you can get (including things like the maximum movement speeds) because the spell isn't able to imitate every aspect of the chosen form.
The natural armour bonus of a real lizardfolk isn't bypassed because it's not produced by a spell. The natural armour bonus provided by alter self is bypassed because it's one of a variety of magical effects applied by the spell to make you seem like a real lizardfolk.
And as noted above, it's not situational because the natural armour bonus to AC granted by the spell. It's a variable part of the spell's own effect, rather than resulting from a situation outside of the spell.
Enhancement bonuses rarely directly affect AC. Barkskin is a special case, because it grants an "enhancement bonus" to a "natural armor bonus", thus a "natural armor bonus" is still being granted by the spell, and it will ALWAYS be granted by the spell, especially because it explicitly STACKS with any existing natural armor bonus.
The enhancement bonus is granted by the spell, but the reason it's not affected is because it's an enhancement bonus to another bonus (a natural armour bonus), rather than a bonus to AC.
That's not incorrect, but the earlier part of barkskin's effect states:
"The effect grants a +2 enhancement bonus to the creature’s existing natural armor bonus."
And SRD information on the natural armour bonus type states:
"Some magical effects (such as the barkskin spell) grant an enhancement bonus to the creature's existing natural armor bonus, which has the effect of increasing the natural armor's overall bonus to Armor Class."
Both of which indicate that it's an enhancement to the existing natural armour bonus, rather than a bonus in its own right. It could certainly be reasoned that a character who had no natural armour now has a natural armour bonus, though a character who already has one has simply gained an improvement in their existing bonus.
It's one of those bits where Pierce Magical Protection needs to be more broadly written, since barkskin is an effect it really should be able to overcome.
It creates a +2 enhancement to the creatures existing natural armor bonus, but most races have a natural armor bonus of +0.
You're being inconsistent. Either Alter Self is dispellable by PMP, or it isn't. That's how game rules work. If Jerry the Cleric uses Alter Self to become an elf, PMP won't work. So why should it when he used it to become a lizardfolk? He's not suddenly benefiting from magically conjured scales that improve his AC, he completely altered his race, and all members of that race have a natural armor bonus. So his decision to pick a race with an inerent natural armor bonus IS a situation, because the spell would not be dispelled from him turning into an elf.
It's not inconsistent, the result simply varies when the spell itself changes. When the spell grants a bonus to AC, it can be affected, when it does not, it cannot. The result is consistent with the spell's own effect.
That's inconsistent. The spell grants him the ability to change his form into anything. It is his decision AFTER casting the spell to turn into a lizardfolk. The natural armor bonus is a trait of lizardfolk, and only tangenitally provided by the spell.
Things that vary within the spell's own mechanical effects are part of the spell itself (which includes any decisions the caster makes about how to cast it), rather than the situation in which it occurs. For example, if you use a summon monster spell to summon an evil creature, the spell gains the Evil descriptor and can be affected by anything that works against evil spells, even though other castings of the same spell may summon different creatures and be affected by different effects.
Apples and Oranges, friend. Summon Monster gains an alignment descriptor as it is cast. Every casting of Summon Monster to summon a fiendish creature, it will be an evil spell. Alter Self gives you the ability to designate any new form you wish. The higher level versions, Polymorph and Shapechange, do not gain descriptors based on what you choose to become, the choice is one you make after you cast the spell. Summon Monster will ALWAYS gain an alignment or elemental subtype when you use it.
The feat affects the spell based on its current form, not on other benefits that it could have if the caster had decided to cast it a different way. After all, why should Pierce Magical Protection pierce and dispel an AC bonus when the spell hasn't created one? Note that we're not just talking about a redundant or useless bonus, but a case where the spell hasn't granted the bonus at all.
You haven't addressed the Mass Fox's Cunning that gets cast on Flashy the Duelist and Blasty the Wizard. The spell does not work in a different way on either of them, it gives both a +4 to INT. The nature os the spell is the same. Why would a warrior with PMP dispel this identical spell effect on Flashy, and not on Blasty? That makes no sense. Especially because in that instance, the nature of the spell has not changed at all.
Alter Self, when used in that fashion, is simply altering his race into a lizardfolk, who happen to have a natural armor bonus. Unless you are arguing that a warrior with PMP who hits all natural lizardfolk bypasses their natural armor bonus and eliminates it (which would be ridiculous), then alter self is not affected. Because it is situational. Ant effect from a spell that only grants abonus to AC situationally, is not a spell that is subject to PMP.
The actual effect of alter self is to give you a range of benefits that simulate, but do not entirely duplicate, becoming a real creature of the chosen form. There are limits on the exact benefits you can get (including things like the maximum movement speeds) because the spell isn't able to imitate every aspect of the chosen form.
The natural armour bonus of a real lizardfolk isn't bypassed because it's not produced by a spell. The natural armour bonus provided by alter self is bypassed because it's one of a variety of magical effects applied by the spell to make you seem like a real lizardfolk.
And as noted above, it's not situational because the natural armour bonus to AC granted by the spell. It's a variable part of the spell's own effect, rather than resulting from a situation outside of the spell.
If it's variable effect of the spell, then that spell is NOT subject to PMP. The feat allows you to "pierce magical protections". A spell is either a "magical protection" or it is not. If a situation can be crafted to gain protection from a spell that would not necessarily do that, then bully for you, but that spell still doesn't get dispelled by PMP.
Enhancement bonuses rarely directly affect AC. Barkskin is a special case, because it grants an "enhancement bonus" to a "natural armor bonus", thus a "natural armor bonus" is still being granted by the spell, and it will ALWAYS be granted by the spell, especially because it explicitly STACKS with any existing natural armor bonus.
The enhancement bonus is granted by the spell, but the reason it's not affected is because it's an enhancement bonus to another bonus (a natural armour bonus), rather than a bonus to AC.
Actually, for that exact reason (it being a bonus to a bonus) is why Barkskin IS affected by PMP.
If Jerry the Cleric is now a Lizardfolk from Alter Self (+5 natural armor bonus), and gets the Barkskin spell from a druid (+3 enhancement bonus to natural armor bonus), then he has 2 bonuses. One comes from his lizardfolk shape, and the other comes from a spell. The lizardfolk shape itself comes from a spell, but as far as the bonuses themselves, only the +3 from barkskin is actually CAUSED by the spell.
mmm, no.
The Bonus to AC from Cat's Grace is still there, using your reasoning, it's just being overriden and negated by wearing armor. This is no different then mage armor being overriden by wearing plate.
No, the bonus to DEX is still there, with other benefits (ranged attcaks Reflex saves, etc.). The bonus to AC does not exist in that situation.
As opposed to mage armor to someone wearing half-plate. The +4 armor bonus is still being granted (as can be evidenced by an incorporeal creature attacking someone in half-plate who does have mage armor, as opposed to an incorporeal creature attacking someone in half-plate without mage armor).
The difference is with the mage armor exampe, the bonus is there, just not being used. With Cat's Grace, there ARE bonuses being granted, but not to AC.
The other stat spells raising AC and being made dispellable is because the spells themselves are being enhanced to provide the extra benefits. "The Usual benefits' for those spells, for that character, now includes an AC bonus. Thematically, it is absolutely no different then one character getting a bonus from a Prayer spell, and the one next to him not. PMP doesn't care what the spell is, it cares about the results.
A spell is either subject to PMP or it is not. If you can say it's only subject to PMP in certain situations (like being a duelist), then it is not subject to PMP.
This is not a contrived on/off situation, this is a change in what the magic is because of this character.
If a stat buffer spell suddenly raises AC, it's subject to PMP. PMP doesn't look at the language of the spell, it looks at the results of it.
Again, a spell is either subject to PMP or it is not. It's not going to be altered because of who it was cast on. If Fox's Cunning isn't subject to PMP for an assassin or a loremaster, then it isn't for a duelist, either. Consistency needs to be maintained. Anything that isn't consistent is a contrived on/off situation.And no, that is in no way similar to a circumstantial bonus to cover because you are behind a wall. That bonus is because of where the character is located, not because of some magical effect of the wall.
I quite agree. I never said PMP did apply to those other spells.
So, if you've a fighter with 18 dex wearing plate, his dex bonus to AC doesn't exist?
You are absolutely wrong. That bonus is still there, he just isn't getting to apply it because he's wearing armor. Strip the armor, it magically comes back? No, it was there all along, just situationally suppressed. And because that bonus is always there, Cat's Grace is affected.
Slagger: Effectively, they are both always in effect because he will choose whichever one is better. Results wise, there's nothing different between "Both on, take the higher as they don't stack" or "the higher one is the only one applying." Regardless, the bonus is there, it's just held in abeyance.
let's contrive your situation further. He's got CG and BE on him, dex 16, con 18. He gets PMP'd. Wham, con 14, suddenly his dex is highest, WHEN do you apply the dispel effect from CG? Is it a tick off the box dispel in order effect, so CG just goes on the list and gets popped? Is it simultaneous, so CG slides by since it wasn't 'qualified' at the moment of the dispel? Is it non-applicable because it wasn't active at the start of the effect?
The examples you are attempting to make lead right into these kind of illogical arguments, of on/off attempted manipulation of what PMP can do.
The monk or duelist choosing not to receive the bonus is directly akin to dex bonus negated by being flat footed or wearing armor. It's a situation, it's contrived. THe bonus is still there, temporarily suspended. Artificial attempts to fool PMP aren't going to work.
StevenO- I'm probably remembering Chant or something. Let's use Holy Aura. In the area of effect, good people get +4 Deflection and evil characters are blinded. Hey, since the spell grants an AC bonus to Good characters, that means I can PMP my blinded Anti-Paladin buddy and dispel the effects on him, even though he doesn't get an AC bonus from the spell, right?
That's exactly what you're trying to argue with the stat bonus/Class abilities to gain AC. It doesn't matter that the spell affects this person differently then that one. This guy's qualifer is he's GOOD...so he gets a +4 Deflection bonus. But since the spell doesn't give bonuses to mr neutral and mr evil over there, I can't dispel it on Mr Good? Or because we treat the spell the same on everyone, I CAN dispel it on Mr. Evil?
I cast Mass Fox's Cunning. The duelist gets an AC bonus from Int, because he's a duelist. I don't. Because I don't get the bonus, the spell is non-dispellable on him?
That makes no sense on its face. PMP can certainly be discriminatory if the spells can be.
And btw, how are you getting AC bonuses from summoned monsters, again? Is this going to be one of those "I'm in cover" position arguments again? Monsters are no different then walls.
I'm sorry, but all I see you guys coming up with are as complexly contrived situations as you can make it trying to twist the language around...which is the weakness of your interpretation, not of mine. I just look at the end results and it's pretty clear to me, cutting right through some of the strange examples you're making.
==Aelryinth
meh.
Alter Self and the Polymorph Line: You're also ignoring the fact that when you change form, you automatically get the average physical stat line for the creature. If you've a dex of 10 or less, that means becoming an elf is a Dex raise to you. If you've a 4 Dex, it's an 8 point bonus to Dex.
I might be able to stomach PMP not affecting ALter Self if it grants no Dex advantage or bonus whatsoever (granting a 10 dex if you've a 6 is still a buff!) or no Nat Armor...but my gut says that's a situational choice again, and PMP would just see it as a relatively inefficient use of the spell (mage armor while in armor) and dispel it anyways, since it can't see your 'original' Dex score to know if you've improved or not.
As a final note, restricting the armor bonus types and not including untyped bonuses to AC smacks of cheese to me, especially since Dex is often a huge AC component. Likewise, you left out at least a half dozen modifers to AC that spells can come up with in various ways, and PMP has absolutely no restriction on 'what bonuses' it can dispel anywhere in its language.
===Aelryinth
Slagger: Effectively, they are both always in effect because he will choose whichever one is better. Results wise, there's nothing different between "Both on, take the higher as they don't stack" or "the higher one is the only one applying." Regardless, the bonus is there, it's just held in abeyance.
I agree that the results for his total AC are the same, but the methods of application are different. Mechanically speaking, the bonus to AC from Dexterity isn't there when the bonus to AC from Constitution applies.
When two bonuses don't stack, there are still mechanically two bonuses being granted. When you switch between the two, there's only one at any given time. Pierce Magical Protection operates based on bonuses being granted, rather than the total effect upon AC.
let's contrive your situation further. He's got CG and BE on him, dex 16, con 18. He gets PMP'd. Wham, con 14, suddenly his dex is highest, WHEN do you apply the dispel effect from CG? Is it a tick off the box dispel in order effect, so CG just goes on the list and gets popped? Is it simultaneous, so CG slides by since it wasn't 'qualified' at the moment of the dispel? Is it non-applicable because it wasn't active at the start of the effect?
The examples you are attempting to make lead right into these kind of illogical arguments, of on/off attempted manipulation of what PMP can do.
Naturally they lead to this, because that's part of my argument against relying on the overall result of the spell, rather than its stated effect. The bonus ends up depending on situations outside of the spell's own effect because that's where the bonus is granted.
The monk or duelist choosing not to receive the bonus is directly akin to dex bonus negated by being flat footed or wearing armor. It's a situation, it's contrived. THe bonus is still there, temporarily suspended. Artificial attempts to fool PMP aren't going to work.
Mechanically speaking, a "suspended" bonus isn't there; you either have a bonus, or you don't. The abilities themselves say that the character "loses" these bonuses.
And again, that's the the argument against it; you can turn the bonus on or off by a situational factor, rather than the bonus being part of the spell.
Slagger: Effectively, they are both always in effect because he will choose whichever one is better. Results wise, there's nothing different between "Both on, take the higher as they don't stack" or "the higher one is the only one applying." Regardless, the bonus is there, it's just held in abeyance.
I agree that the results for his total AC are the same, but the methods of application are different. Mechanically speaking, the bonus to AC from Dexterity isn't there when the bonus to AC from Constitution applies.
When two bonuses don't stack, there are still mechanically two bonuses being granted. When you switch between the two, there's only one at any given time. Pierce Magical Protection operates based on bonuses being granted, rather than the total effect upon AC.
let's contrive your situation further. He's got CG and BE on him, dex 16, con 18. He gets PMP'd. Wham, con 14, suddenly his dex is highest, WHEN do you apply the dispel effect from CG? Is it a tick off the box dispel in order effect, so CG just goes on the list and gets popped? Is it simultaneous, so CG slides by since it wasn't 'qualified' at the moment of the dispel? Is it non-applicable because it wasn't active at the start of the effect?
The examples you are attempting to make lead right into these kind of illogical arguments, of on/off attempted manipulation of what PMP can do.
Naturally they lead to this, because that's part of my argument against relying on the overall result of the spell, rather than its stated effect. The bonus ends up depending on situations outside of the spell's own effect because that's where the bonus is granted.
The monk or duelist choosing not to receive the bonus is directly akin to dex bonus negated by being flat footed or wearing armor. It's a situation, it's contrived. THe bonus is still there, temporarily suspended. Artificial attempts to fool PMP aren't going to work.
Mechanically speaking, a "suspended" bonus isn't there; you either have a bonus, or you don't. The abilities themselves say that the character "loses" these bonuses.
And again, that's the the argument against it; you can turn the bonus on or off by a situational factor, rather than the bonus being part of the spell.
battletide from the FR is another buff/debuff spell. It hastes you and slows your enemies. So, you get a Haste bonus to AC, so someone can PMP your foes because the spell grants an AC bonus to the caster? Or you can't be dispelled, because the other people affected by the spell aren't getting an AC bonus?
Assuming that "all that opponent's spells and spell effects" means the ones on the opponent, you would have to hit someone who is receiving the granted bonus to AC in order to dispel it.
If I understand the logic behind the dispel effect, you're supposed to be piercing through the spell and ripping it asunder in the process, thereby ending its effect, which would mean that the entire spell breaks down for all affected creatures.
So, you'd have to hit someone gaining the bonus to AC to make it one of "that opponent's spells and spell effects that grant a bonus to Armour Class", but you'd end the spell for everyone affected by that specific casting.
But the ambiguity on that point is one of the things that Pierce Magical Protection fails to clarify properly.
I might be able to stomach PMP not affecting ALter Self if it grants no Dex advantage or bonus whatsoever (granting a 10 dex if you've a 6 is still a buff!) or no Nat Armor...but my gut says that's a situational choice again, and PMP would just see it as a relatively inefficient use of the spell (mage armor while in armor) and dispel it anyways, since it can't see your 'original' Dex score to know if you've improved or not.
I personally distinguish between a choice made as part of the casting (which is part of the spell's effect), and everything else in the world (which comprises the situation in which the spell/feat interaction operates).
The spell (and the feat) can't see whether or not you gain a bonus to AC from your Dexterity modifier any more than it can see whether or not you're wearing armour, or if your position puts you behind a wall or monster relative to your opponents. They're all part of the situation, and can change without any modification to the spell as cast.
As a final note, restricting the armor bonus types and not including untyped bonuses to AC smacks of cheese to me, especially since Dex is often a huge AC component. Likewise, you left out at least a half dozen modifers to AC that spells can come up with in various ways, and PMP has absolutely no restriction on 'what bonuses' it can dispel anywhere in its language.
They're certainly unfounded restrictions by the feat's text, though I'd at least consider them if I were rewriting the feat, since it seems odd if a melee attack can rip through a spell without making any kind of contact, though you might reason certain bonuses (like luck) as having the spell be blind to the attack due to its magic-piercing nature. Deflection bonuses deserve particular consideration, because even though they don't create a physical barrier, they attempt to force the attack off course, and the feat should certainly be able to rip through that kind of direct resistance.
That's inconsistent. The spell grants him the ability to change his form into anything. It is his decision AFTER casting the spell to turn into a lizardfolk. The natural armor bonus is a trait of lizardfolk, and only tangenitally provided by the spell.
Choosing the form is part of the spell's casting, not an aftereffect. When the casting is finished, you're already changed; there's no decision-making process after the fact. As the Magic chapter of the PHB states:
"You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect."
And the spell merely simulates the desired form by enacting changes to imitate it (note how it's possible for someone else to see through the disguise), not by genuinely making you into a lizardfolk.
Apples and Oranges, friend. Summon Monster gains an alignment descriptor as it is cast. Every casting of Summon Monster to summon a fiendish creature, it will be an evil spell. Alter Self gives you the ability to designate any new form you wish.
The higher level versions, Polymorph and Shapechange, do not gain descriptors based on what you choose to become, the choice is one you make after you cast the spell. Summon Monster will ALWAYS gain an alignment or elemental subtype when you use it.
The fact of alter self having a wider range of choices, or summon monster spells specifically gaining descriptors is beside the point; the effect in each case is controlled by a decision made during the casting. It's also not technically correct to say that summon monster always gains an alignment or elemental subtype, since using summon monster VI to summon a janni doesn't cause it to gain either one.
If you prefer to remove that potential ambiguity, we can simply talk about summon nature's ally spells instead, which allows the summoning of many creatures without any alignment or elemental subtypes.
You haven't addressed the Mass Fox's Cunning that gets cast on Flashy the Duelist and Blasty the Wizard. The spell does not work in a different way on either of them, it gives both a +4 to INT. The nature os the spell is the same. Why would a warrior with PMP dispel this identical spell effect on Flashy, and not on Blasty? That makes no sense. Especially because in that instance, the nature of the spell has not changed at all.
I didn't address it because I don't disagree; neither one is being granted a bonus to AC by the spell in question, the duelist is just using its bonus to an ability score to improve an actual bonus to AC granted by his prestige class.
If it's variable effect of the spell, then that spell is NOT subject to PMP. The feat allows you to "pierce magical protections". A spell is either a "magical protection" or it is not. If a situation can be crafted to gain protection from a spell that would not necessarily do that, then bully for you, but that spell still doesn't get dispelled by PMP.
Pierce Magical Protection looks for that "magical protection" in the form of a granted bonus to AC. When a spell grants a bonus to AC, it is a magical protection by the feat's terms, and when it doesn't grant such a bonus, it is not.
The feat does not ever state that every spell must always be one way or another, it simply deals in the presence of granted bonuses.
Actually, for that exact reason (it being a bonus to a bonus) is why Barkskin IS affected by PMP.
If Jerry the Cleric is now a Lizardfolk from Alter Self (+5 natural armor bonus), and gets the Barkskin spell from a druid (+3 enhancement bonus to natural armor bonus), then he has 2 bonuses. One comes from his lizardfolk shape, and the other comes from a spell. The lizardfolk shape itself comes from a spell, but as far as the bonuses themselves, only the +3 from barkskin is actually CAUSED by the spell.
He has two bonuses, but only one of them is a bonus to AC. The other is a bonus to a bonus to AC, which doesn't match Pierce Magical Protection's specifications (it probably should be affected, but the wording of the feat doesn't cover it).
I think the only really consistent way to rule PMP is to look at the syntax of the spells. It should not depend on the situation, class abilities or how or by whom the spell was cast.
Alter Self says it grants the Natural Armor bonus of the creature you shape into. That's enough for PMP to effect it, even if the actual NA of the new shape is +0.
I would say Barkskin is not affected as it's a Bonus to a Bonus to AC, not a Bonus to AC. PMP only affects Bonus to AC. I think you could argue that the intention of PMP is that it should affect Barkskin and as a DM I would probably houserule it as affecting Bonus to AC and Bonus to NA.
As I said before, I think the effect of PMP should be decided purely on the syntax of the feat and the spells. The actual situation should be irrelevant. I should be able to make a list of what spells are affected without knowing anything else.
---------------------------------------------
I do want to ask Aelryinth one question which is a variant on what Slagger was asking:
A large part of the discussion centered around the following part of the description of Cat's Grace:
adding the usual benefits to AC, Reflex saves, and other uses of the Dexterity modifier.
Aerlyith seemed to be arguing that this was an intergral part of the spell description, while myself and Slagger were arguing that it was just a bit of reminder text tagged on by the developers to help players new to the game.
Now suppose we have a Deepwarden with CON 20 and DEX 10, he's got no items or spells active. His AC would be 10 +5 CON bonus = 15. Now someone casts Cat's Grace on him. Does his AC go to 17 because Cat's Grace states he gets the usual benefits to AC from +4 DEX?
He already said I think that the AC should stay at 15, but I find that inconsistent with his earlier position that the quoted part of Cat's Grace should be read as an intergral part of the description of what the spell does.
I want to clarify if Aerlyith argues purely from the situational effects of the spells. What I mean with that and what he seems to be saying is that: "If under any circumstance a spell can have an effect on AC, then it's affected by PMP".
My position is that you should be able to interpret the effect of PMP without knowing the situation. Aerlinth seems to argue that you need to take all possible situations into account. For example, taking the Deepwarden above, he seems to argue that Cat's Grace should be affected because the character could be hit by a -10 CON damage, at which point his AC would drop to 12, not 10 because Cat's Grace is active.
I would argue that taking each any every possible situation into account when trying to determine what PMP does is impossible because there is an infinite number of possible situations.
Therefore my argument would be that the situation is irrelevant. Otherwise you just end up with an endless "What if".
So, just because your Con bonus is higher doesn't mean you aren't getting a bonus to AC. It's just not stacking so you can see it. This is functionally identical to the mage armor/half-plate example, where only the higher bonus applies. The spell is still granting a bonus, it's just that in this particular contrived situation, you don't take it into account.
PMP, of course, has no language for situations modifying what it's looking at in a spell, and so will simply dispel it as an AC-granting spell.
==Aelryinth
You've got a contrived situation. Remember that Deepwarden ability is subbing for a Dex bonus...you can use one instead of the other. It doesn't actually ever say the Dexterity bonus goes away.
It says that: "He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity."
While it doesn't directly state that it's replaced, "instead" would mean that one bonus is replaced by the other, instead of there being both.
So, just because your Con bonus is higher doesn't mean you aren't getting a bonus to AC. It's just not stacking so you can see it. This is functionally identical to the mage armor/half-plate example, where only the higher bonus applies. The spell is still granting a bonus, it's just that in this particular contrived situation, you don't take it into account.
I can see the reasoning for how that works if both bonuses were to apply, but the ability is lacking text about the bonuses not stacking that I would expect if both bonuses were present, in addition to describing the effect as having one bonus instead of the other.
PMP, of course, has no language for situations modifying what it's looking at in a spell, and so will simply dispel it as an AC-granting spell.
That's back on the question with bear's endurance, then, since if the feat can't determine that stone warden is causing any change in the spell's result.
I think the only really consistent way to rule PMP is to look at the syntax of the spells. It should not depend on the situation, class abilities or how or by whom the spell was cast.
I'd still judge the "how" of the spell's casting as needing consideration, since if the magical effect of the spell changes from one that grants a bonus to AC to one that does not (or vice versa), a feat striking it on the basis of that bonus should be applied appropriately.
I suppose that from a logic point of view, that depends on whether you think the piercing effect should apply based on the spell's basic magical effect as a spell, or its final magical effect when cast (before considering situations).
As I said before, I think the effect of PMP should be decided purely on the syntax of the feat and the spells. The actual situation should be irrelevant. I should be able to make a list of what spells are affected without knowing anything else.
What's your thought on a hypothetical feat that added a bonus to AC to a spell's effect?
My position is that you should be able to interpret the effect of PMP without knowing the situation. Aerlinth seems to argue that you need to take all possible situations into account. For example, taking the Deepwarden above, he seems to argue that Cat's Grace should be affected because the character could be hit by a -10 CON damage, at which point his AC would drop to 12, not 10 because Cat's Grace is active.
My position on it is that you have to know the current form of the spell (because the spell is what's affected by the feat), but not the situation surrounding it.
You've got a contrived situation. Remember that Deepwarden ability is subbing for a Dex bonus...you can use one instead of the other. It doesn't actually ever say the Dexterity bonus goes away.
So, just because your Con bonus is higher doesn't mean you aren't getting a bonus to AC. It's just not stacking so you can see it. This is functionally identical to the mage armor/half-plate example, where only the higher bonus applies. The spell is still granting a bonus, it's just that in this particular contrived situation, you don't take it into account.
PMP, of course, has no language for situations modifying what it's looking at in a spell, and so will simply dispel it as an AC-granting spell.
==Aelryinth
If this is supposed to be an answer to my question I don't see it.
I made up this "contrived situation" as I'm trying to understand your point of view. As far as I'm concerned no situation makes any difference to what happens but you seem to have been arguing otherwise. By making this "contrived situation" I'm trying to clarify if your reasoning is consistent and if it's based more on the wording of the Cat's Grace spell or purely on the situational argument.
Your answer isn't clarifying any of those points for me.
The fluff version has variable results because of all these contrived situations. PMP just looks to see if it will increase AC, and if it will, gets rid of it. Anything in between is pretty much irrelevant.
That's why you can have bear's endurance get popped on one character, and not another. PMP doesn't discriminate just because the effects of the spell has changed...the deepwarden gets an AC bonus, on him, BE gets dispelled. On Joe the Duelist, Fox's Cunning will. On Joe the Fighter, neither do anything, because they don't increase AC there.
As soon as you change where and when PMP looks at a spell, you run into language problems. In general, whenever you're looking at effects like this, the default is to use whatever timing is most advantage for the active effect, i.e. PMP. By that standard, PMP would rip a spell if it granted an AC bonus anywhere along its line of effect, from initial to indirect. But really, all you have to do is look at the end. Does the spell provide an AC bonus, regardless of whether or not it currently applies? Then pop it.
==Aelryinth
As soon as you change where and when PMP looks at a spell, you run into language problems. In general, whenever you're looking at effects like this, the default is to use whatever timing is most advantage for the active effect, i.e. PMP. By that standard, PMP would rip a spell if it granted an AC bonus anywhere along its line of effect, from initial to indirect. But really, all you have to do is look at the end. Does the spell provide an AC bonus, regardless of whether or not it currently applies? Then pop it.
The weird part about that reasoning is that you're including situations that produce a bonus of one kind (like bear's endurance + stone warden), but excluding situations like cover that produce a bonus in a different way.
What principle are you using to decide that one is a situation while the other is not?
Come to think of it, I don't think PMP would allow you to dispel a free-standing effect that granted AC like that. I'd have to see the language, and while I'm sure it could dispel the effect on someone inside a Prot/Evil 10'r, unless the Prot is centered on a person, I don't think PMP could take out the Prot itself.
==Aelryinth
There is no difference between:
Spell provides bonus to DEX, DEX modifer potentially boosts AC.
Spell provides source of cover, cover source potential boosts AC.
If PMP can hit one then it logically should hit the other.
Because cover is not a benefit of the spell, it's a benefit of the person's position. that's quite beyond indirect, Slagger, come on. Perhaps more to the point, is a cover bonus dispellable if you hit the person? No, and PMP is about hitting the person, not freestanding objects.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that we're talking about something like wall of sand (SpC), which is dispellable and even mentions "providing normal cover appropriate for its size", just as cat's grace mentions that its Dexterity score bonus provides the "usual benefits" for AC, Reflex, and so no.
It can't really be "beyond" indirect; you've got the direct magical effect of the spell, while everything after that is different degrees of indirect. We can disagree on the exact end of the direct effect, but that's a separate issue; once you're beyond the direct effect, everything else is indirect.
If you have to hit the person in question, why can cat's grace be affected when it's allowing the person to more easily dodge out of the way of attacks?
Come to think of it, I don't think PMP would allow you to dispel a free-standing effect that granted AC like that. I'd have to see the language, and while I'm sure it could dispel the effect on someone inside a Prot/Evil 10'r, unless the Prot is centered on a person, I don't think PMP could take out the Prot itself.
I think you mean that the attack would be able to ignore the AC bonus provided by a magic circle against evil, but not end the spell, right?
If so, why (in your opinion) is that the case? The attack has clearly encountered the direct effect of the spell (otherwise ignoring the bonus would be unnecessary), so why can't it dispel that effect?
My point is you're making a situation, and PMP ignores it. It dispells the spell, because it looks at the crunch, the result of the spell, rather then the fluff and crazy situation involved.
But all your arguments do seem to take the situation into account. You are not just looking at the syntax of the spell, but you also look at how it's being used.
The fluff version has variable results because of all these contrived situations. PMP just looks to see if it will increase AC, and if it will, gets rid of it. Anything in between is pretty much irrelevant.
As I already argued, you don't seem to use the words fluff and crunch in the same way as the rest of the posters on this board. Most people seem to use them to distinguish between in game effects and game mechanics. Could you provide your idea of what they mean because the way you use them clearly is different. Either that or let's agree to not use them in this discussion any more because it makes it really hard for me to understand you.
That's why you can have bear's endurance get popped on one character, and not another. PMP doesn't discriminate just because the effects of the spell has changed...the deepwarden gets an AC bonus, on him, BE gets dispelled. On Joe the Duelist, Fox's Cunning will. On Joe the Fighter, neither do anything, because they don't increase AC there.
Which means you're looking at the situation. I argue that you should just look at the syntax of the spell, you should be able to determine if Fox's Cunning will always be affected by PMP or never based on that alone. I think it should make no difference if it's cast on Joe the Fighter or on Jane the Duelist. PMP affects it or it doesn't. Not even an Anti Magic Field should be able to stop PMP.
As soon as you change where and when PMP looks at a spell, you run into language problems.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
In general, whenever you're looking at effects like this, the default is to use whatever timing is most advantage for the active effect, i.e. PMP. By that standard, PMP would rip a spell if it granted an AC bonus anywhere along its line of effect, from initial to indirect. But really, all you have to do is look at the end. Does the spell provide an AC bonus, regardless of whether or not it currently applies? Then pop it.
==Aelryinth
You are again looking at the situation, while I argue that it's irrelevant.
You still haven't answered my question about how you interpret Cat's Grace in the example I provided. It would help me greatly in trying to understand your point of view.
Wall of Sand providing cover is no different then Wall of Iron providing cover. Neither is a magical effect of the spell. It's a result of someone being in position behind a solid object, not a magical bonus of any kind. I believe they mention it in Wall of Sand and not for Wall of Iron because they want you to know that a wall of shifting sand is still solid enough to provide cover. IF we extend out your logic that it must be mentioned in a spell to apply, then you get no cover bonus from Walls of Iron and Stone, right?
Silly on its face.
A bonus to AC from Dex is definitely a bonus from magic, and it can be dispelled. Crunch = AC bonus from magic, dispelled.
I don't think PMP would work on an object alone that granted AC because I don't think most objects can benefit from AC-increasing spells, as they can't be targets. If they could be targets, I'm sure you can PMP them. But I don't think you can PMP an area of Prot Evil 10'r, because there is no target with an AC bonus. I am pretty sure you can dispel the effects of the spell on a target within the radius...mmm. Interesting conundrum. I don't believe that hitting someone under the effect will dispel the spell for everyone, however, anymore then hitting someone under Mass Cat's Grace will dispel it for everyone else.
==Aelryinth
Wall of Sand providing cover is no different then Wall of Iron providing cover. Neither is a magical effect of the spell. It's a result of someone being in position behind a solid object, not a magical bonus of any kind. I believe they mention it in Wall of Sand and not for Wall of Iron because they want you to know that a wall of shifting sand is still solid enough to provide cover.
The sand wall itself is definitely magical, just as the Dexterity score bonus is magical. But the fact that the wallprovides cover is no more magical than the fact that your Dexterity modifier gives a bonus to AC.
And as for mentioning cover, that's equivalent to cat's grace, where they want you to know that a magically-increased Dexterity score works the same way as one increased by nonmagical means.
That's why your distinction on the "situation" is hard to understand; you're okay with the normal functions of cover being unaffected by the feat, even when the cover comes from magic, but you're allowing the normal functions of Dexterity to be affected when the Dexterity increase comes from magic.
Interesting conundrum. I don't believe that hitting someone under the effect will dispel the spell for everyone, however, anymore then hitting someone under Mass Cat's Grace will dispel it for everyone else.
But why not? If you normally dispel a mass cat's grace spell it ends for everyone.
Which is yet another reason why the cover argument doesn't work...the wall being made is very seperate from the being you are striking. Also, Walls of Stone and Iron, once they come into being, are non-magical objects. Now, if you want to say Walls of Sand are continuing and magical and provide a magical cover bonus, and so you can PMP the wall and dispel them...well, does PMP allow you to dispel objects? I suppose if you can make an attack roll you can dispel it, but unless the Wall has hp and you can damage it, how is that going to happen?
I refuse to acknowledge that a bonus granted by a person being in a position behind a solid object is a bonus granted by a spell, however. It's a nitpicky language argument, the kind that says mage armor is not subject to PMP because it creates a field of force, which THEN grants a +4 AC bonus, only you're trying to abuse it in the other direction. By such rules lawyering, you'd try to make sure something magical was providing cover to your enemy, just so you could hit the enemy and somehow dispel the cover at the same time.
Nah. Trying to argue that, and somehow justify that a bonus to Dex is not an AC increase, is just huge word-twisting. Crunch says no to both.
==Aelryinth
PMP isn't described as a mass area dispel...it's specifically limited to the person that it strikes. I don't believe it would dispel any mass effect that grants AC, simply because it is limited to one person at a time. A dispel magic that hits it, yes, will undo it for everyone in the area of effect.
Pierce Magical Protection is simply described as dispelling the spell, and that typically ends the entire spell. It's not specifically described one way or the other, which leaves us with the default.
Now, if you want to say Walls of Sand are continuing and magical and provide a magical cover bonus, and so you can PMP the wall and dispel them...well, does PMP allow you to dispel objects?
The wall itself is magical, but the fact that walls provide cover is nonmagical; it's performing the functions covered by any solid object.
Pierce Magical Protection allows you to dispel spells to grant bonuses to AC; whether or not those spells create objects or not is unimportant.
I refuse to acknowledge that a bonus granted by a person being in a position behind a solid object is a bonus granted by a spell, however. It's a nitpicky language argument, the kind that says mage armor is not subject to PMP because it creates a field of force, which THEN grants a +4 AC bonus, only you're trying to abuse it in the other direction. By such rules lawyering, you'd try to make sure something magical was providing cover to your enemy, just so you could hit the enemy and somehow dispel the cover at the same time.
I'm not arguing in favour of using Pierce Magical Protection to dispel the wall, I'm pointing out that cat's grace is just the same. The enhancement bonus to your Dexterity score may be magical, but the fact that you can use Dexterity to dodge out of the way of blows (the reason everyone normally adds their Dex modifier as a bonus to AC) is nonmagical. Just as nonmagical as the fact that walls can provide cover.
The created wall may provide a cover bonus to AC, and the improved Dexterity score may increase your ability bonus to AC, but neither one of those is part of the relevant spells' magical effects.
Mage armour is different because both the field of force and the +4 armour bonus to AC that it provides are part of the spell's effect; it applies that effect directly to the subject, without needing to call on any rules beyond its own text to create a bonus. Cat's grace relies on the ability score rules to create its AC bonus, while wall of sand relies on placement rules; neither one actually gives its own bonus to AC to the subject.
Trying to argue that, and somehow justify that a bonus to Dex is not an AC increase, is just huge word-twisting.
How exactly is it twisted? A bonus to Dexterity results in an increase to AC, but it is not, in and of itself, a bonus to AC. In comparison, you have to severely twist the wording of Pierce Magical Protection in order to make it start looking for total AC improvements, instead of granted bonuses to AC.
I'm using wall of sand simply to show the invalid nature of trying to treat basic physical functions (like walls being a physical obstruction, or the ability to avoid blows) as if they're part of a spell's magical effect.
Trying to argue there's seperation of effect between enhancing Dex and your AC going up, is exactly like arguing there's seperation of effect from casting mage armor, and your AC going up. There's EXACTLY the same seperation, spell does this, which forms this, which causes an AC increase.
yet you're willing to rule against one and not the other, and then keep bringing in a cover bonus for various examples which have nothing to do with the spells at all.
Your way is far more open to interpretive abuse to nerf the power of the feat, because you can't rule consistently on seperation. I'm sorry, if you argue like that for Cat's Grace, then the same argument applies to probably 90% of the armor granting spells out there, which means PMP is worthless on its face.
An enhancement bonus to Dex increases your AC the same way an enhancement bonus to your Nat Armor increases your AC, an enhancement bonus to the armor you're wearing does the same, etc etc. The fact there's a 1/2 'inefficiency' in the system means nothing. You enhance Dex, AC goes up. You enhance armor, AC goes up. The fact it's an untyped bonus to AC is a distraction, nothing more. It's still a bonus to AC, and PMP makes no distinction between typed and untyped bonuses.
==Aelryinth
... PMP makes no distinction between typed and untyped bonuses.
==Aelryinth
Therefore it would hit any spell that does anything to improve AC. That is how you are portraying it. A spell provides a cover bonus PMP hits it plain as that.
Although it is going to do absolutely no good here this is a really simple suggestion to anyone looking at the PMP feat: Don't bother with PMP until/unless you know how your DM is going to interpret it. Considering how long this thread has gone where "everyone is right but no one can agree" it all comes down to how liberal/conservative the DM rules on the feat.
Agreed with the rest.
==Aelryinth
Trying to argue there's seperation of effect between enhancing Dex and your AC going up, is exactly like arguing there's seperation of effect from casting mage armor, and your AC going up. There's EXACTLY the same seperation, spell does this, which forms this, which causes an AC increase.
In the case of mage armour, the entire effect is both stated in the spell in full detail, and the bonus itself only exists because the spell creates it (which is the very definition of granting a bonus, as Pierce Magical Protection wants). The field of force and the armour bonus it creates are direct magical products of the spell.
Cat's grace doesn't create the AC bonus itself (you apply your Dex modifier as a bonus to AC even without the spell), and also does not describe the bonus as part of its own text (it simply indicates the "usual" game mechanics for Dexterity). Your Dexterity score is improved, but the bonus to AC is just one way to use your Dexterity modifier (by evading blows), rather than the ability to evade blows being a creation of the spell.
Like cat's grace, wall of sand doesn't create the AC bonus itself (any solid object of sufficient size can grant cover, even without the spell), and likewise does not describe the bonus as one of its effects. Again like cat's grace, you can use the wall to gain a cover bonus to AC, but it's not part of the spell's magical effect.
It's a distinction between what is and is not mechanically part of the spell's magic; increased Dexterity and the creation of a wall are part of the spell's magic, mechanically, while the bonus to AC from cover or normal ability score rules are from broader rules of the D&D system.
yet you're willing to rule against one and not the other, and then keep bringing in a cover bonus for various examples which have nothing to do with the spells at all.
Your way is far more open to interpretive abuse to nerf the power of the feat, because you can't rule consistently on seperation. I'm sorry, if you argue like that for Cat's Grace, then the same argument applies to probably 90% of the armor granting spells out there, which means PMP is worthless on its face.
I think you misunderstand my distinction between the spells, and quite possibly I yours, which is why we're still discussing it.
I haven't had any trouble so far constistently distinguishing which spells are and are not affected by the feat. A spell which states the bonus to AC being granted in its own text (and not just paraphrasing other rules for convenience), is affected. Spells that do not state it are not affected. It's exactly in line with what the feat states: a spell that grants a bonus to AC.
If the spell states that it grants its bonus to something other than AC, it's not affected, even if an increase in AC somehow results; it needs to be a bonus from the spell's own effect.
An enhancement bonus to Dex increases your AC the same way an enhancement bonus to your Nat Armor increases your AC, an enhancement bonus to the armor you're wearing does the same, etc etc. The fact there's a 1/2 'inefficiency' in the system means nothing. You enhance Dex, AC goes up. You enhance armor, AC goes up. The fact it's an untyped bonus to AC is a distraction, nothing more. It's still a bonus to AC, and PMP makes no distinction between typed and untyped bonuses.
I've actually said that an enhancement bonus to natural armour is, technically, not affected, nor is an enhancement bonus to an existing piece of armour, just as with cat's grace.
An enhancement bonus applied to a Dexterity score, to natural armour, or to a suit of armour, is not a bonus to AC in the mechanical sense, even though each of those can in turn produce an actual bonus to AC. I agree, though, that if we were dealing with bonuses to AC, the type would be irrelevant as far as the feat's effects (in terms of game mechanics) are concerned.
Pierce Magical Protection probably should be written to include those effects, but as its text currently reads, it does not, because the bonuses in question are not being granted to AC (they're bonuses to bonuses, instead of bonuses in their own right).
No, the spell is not applying the cover bonus. Your position is. Period. End stop. It has nothing to do with the spell.
Cat's grace is likewise not applying the bonus to AC. Your ability score is. Period. End stop.
The cat's grace spell may have an influence on the situation by increasing your Dexterity score, just as the wall of sand spell has an influence by creating the wall that provides the cover, but it's not the spell applying the bonus in either case.
Trying to argue there's seperation of effect between enhancing Dex and your AC going up, is exactly like arguing there's seperation of effect from casting mage armor, and your AC going up. There's EXACTLY the same seperation, spell does this, which forms this, which causes an AC increase.
No it isn't.
- Casting mage armor = AC goes up
- Casting cats grace = Ups your dex = Possibly ups an AC
Its a direct vs indirect effect.
And there is no difference between applying a bonus to your natural armor, which then increases your AC, as applying a bonus to your Dex, which then increases your AC. Both are the same thing, both contribute nothing in certain situations (ooo, look, a touch attack PMP...guess it won't affect his Barkskin!), and your interpretation means that each and every spell you make you have to somehow decide if or when the bonus applies.
Cat's Grace = Upping your dex, of which one of the benefits is upping your AC. It seems to me, Slagger, that because Cat's Grace doesn't say: You gain the normal +2 bonus to AC , the normal +2 bonus to Dex based skills; the normal +2 bonus to Initiative; and the normal +2 increase to your Reflex saves from your increased Dexterity...
And instead simply substitutes 'all the usual benefits'...
That you are somehow making a summary judgement that Cat's Grace doesn't grant an AC bonus.
Which I find rather odd and amusing on its face. Especially with Mage Armor, a spell effect that provides exactly the same 'seperation of effect' and has numbers of situations where it does nothing, you rule for because it simply mentions a '+4'.
You also note how you have been able to make a decision on what spells are and aren't affected. And I have rather obviously shown how someone else using the exact same logic you are using is coming up with completely different restrictions. In other words, their judgement is not the same as yours, using your own methodology.
None of those questions exist with how I'm doing it. The closest you can contrive is this 'cover bonus' you keep coming back to, which has nothing to do with the spell at all, and is a non-issue people keep trying to make an issue to press home a point which doesn't exist, which only highlights how highly variable, language-dependent and individually biased your own interpretation is.
Mine doesn't have quite that problem.
If you want to nerf the feat into oblivion, do it your way. You won't have to worry about interpreting it, because a powerful defense against magic just got strangled to nothing.
I don't have those issues. My reading of it is very simple, very straight-forwards, and worthwhile to read.
Oh, and a targeted dispel on one person does not dispel magic on everyone who might be sharing an effect with them. PMP is pretty much the definition of a targeted dispel.
==Aelryinth
Cat's Grace = Upping your dex, of which one of the benefits is upping your AC. It seems to me, Slagger, that because Cat's Grace doesn't say: You gain the normal +2 bonus to AC , the normal +2 bonus to Dex based skills; the normal +2 bonus to Initiative; and the normal +2 increase to your Reflex saves from your increased Dexterity...
And instead simply substitutes 'all the usual benefits'...
That you are somehow making a summary judgement that Cat's Grace doesn't grant an AC bonus.
That absence just saves us some time by readily excluding even the possibility of mistaking it for part of the spell's effect. Identifying it as "the normal +2 bonus" (or a reasonable equivalent likewise indicating the underlying game mechanics) would still be assigning the cause of that bonus beyond the spell's scope, as the "normal" part of it indicates.
You can, obviously, describe elements of the broader game system within a spell's text for convenience without making them part of the spell, it's just not ideal to do so because of the possibility of confusion (it can easily get mistaken for a spell-specific bonus that will stack with the regular one).
The spell should indeed state the bonus to AC for it to be the spell's responsibility, but not every instance of "bonus" need automatically be the work of the spell when the spell is attributing the that bonus to something other than itself (the fundamental mechanics of ability scores, in this case). By stating them as the "usual benefits" cat's grace attributes those benefits to a "usual" situation described by the rules; its own effect is improving the subject's Dexterity score, while the bonus to AC is granted by the ability score mechanics. That dependence on an external game structure allows the AC bonus to shift fluidly with abilities like stone warden, since the spell just feeds in a higher starting number for the ability score, and leaves the application of any bonuses from that score to the relevant effects.
Which I find rather odd and amusing on its face. Especially with Mage Armor, a spell effect that provides exactly the same 'seperation of effect' and has numbers of situations where it does nothing, you rule for because it simply mentions a '+4'.
Mage armour can't call upon an external source, since its field of force only exists within the spell, and only includes the bonus to AC because the spell defines it.
There isn't any separation of effect; the logical cause (a field of force), and the mechanical bonus to AC both exist entirely within the spell's effect.
You also note how you have been able to make a decision on what spells are and aren't affected. And I have rather obviously shown how someone else using the exact same logic you are using is coming up with completely different restrictions. In other words, their judgement is not the same as yours, using your own methodology.
None of those questions exist with how I'm doing it. The closest you can contrive is this 'cover bonus' you keep coming back to, which has nothing to do with the spell at all, and is a non-issue people keep trying to make an issue to press home a point which doesn't exist, which only highlights how highly variable, language-dependent and individually biased your own interpretation is.
And yet it's obviously showing how someone else using the exact same logic you are using is coming up with another spell that will be affected by Pierce Magical Protection. In other words, their judgement is not the same as yours, using your own methodology.
Mine doesn't have quite that problem.
Your reasoning makes it easy to include wall of sand in the affected spells. You may say that the cover has nothing to do with the spell, yet it's described within the spell's text just as is the case with cat's grace, and like cat's grace, it results in a total increase in AC, which is the standard you're using to evaluate the effect.
You have yet to explain a consistent principle that identifies why one should be affected but not the other, when both depend on an external situation for their bonus (positioning for the wall, and the behaviour of ability scores for the ability bonus).
If you want to nerf the feat into oblivion, do it your way. You won't have to worry about interpreting it, because a powerful defense against magic just got strangled to nothing.
It's not about nerfing it, it's about recognizing that the feat simply isn't written in support of what you'd like it to do.
I certainly wouldn't object to discussing what a broadly functional rewrite would entail, given an agreed-upon goal.
My reading of it is very simple, very straight-forwards, and worthwhile to read.
Both of our approaches look simple and straightforward to us.
Oh, and a targeted dispel on one person does not dispel magic on everyone who might be sharing an effect with them. PMP is pretty much the definition of a targeted dispel.
A dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired, and when a spell's duration expires, it normally stops affecting all targets.
The text for dispel magic doesn't mention any special variation for target dispel attempts.
To put it another way is there anyone who can see PMP missing a spell that explicitly states it gives the target a "+X bonus to AC" which is probably the strictest possible interpretation of PMP? Using Mage Armor in any kind of arguement doesn't make any sense when it may be one of the few spells that ~100% of people will say gets hit. Going the other way it is a lot easier to conclude that if PMP can hit Cat's Grace which potentially produces an AC increase through the game's basic rules then it should also hit any other spell which can produce an AC increase through the game's basic rules.
At this point, I'm not even clear what his arguement is honestly.
Casting mage armor = POSSIBLY your AC going up, Krusk. Let's just abuse your situation and wear ghost touch plate armor, shall we? Or even normal armor, for 90% of combat situations. As you've so diligently kept trying to point out, the fact that it grants an AC bonus becomes immaterial if that bonus never applies, right?
No. If you wear plate and cast mage armor PMP still dispells your mage armor spell.
And if you walk into an A-M shell with Mass Cat's Grace, everyone else's Cat's Grace is suddenly suppressed, too? No, they are individual targets of the spell. If you aren't in range of the slow spell when it is cast on the other Haste users, you are still hasted. A targeted dispel affects only the being it is cast on.
Mentioning that Wall of Sand is solid enough to provide cover if someone is behind it does not make it a magical effect granted by a spell. It makes it a bonus granted by the position of a person behind a solid object, which you know and are delibrately ignoring to try and make an irrelevant point. Wall of Iron and Wall of Stone will both do the exact same thing, but you aren't bringing them up simply because the fact the same rule applies automatically without having it needed to be spelled out for you. Since cover bonuses are dependent upon the hardness of the cover, not being spun out of nowhere, you are simply being informed that the Wall is tough enough to provide a cover bonus.
Next thing, you're going to start arguing that using TK to move an enemy in front of you to provide a cover bonus for you against enemy missile fire is now an AC-producing spell.
=================
First of all, I don't personally believe that Mage Armor is immune to PMP. Under 'fluff' rules you're using, I perfectly well believe it is. The spell generates a field of force. Stop. That's it. That's what it does.
The EFFECT of that field of force is to grant you a +4 Armor Bonus to your Armor class...if it applies. That's the Crunch. It doesn't grant you a +4 Armor bonus...it grants you a field of force that grants you a +4 Armor bonus.
Cat's Grace ups your Dex by 4. Fluff. Stop.
The EFFECT of Cat's Grace is the 'the usual benefits'. Crunch. One of those benefits is +2 to AC.
Virtually all of your arguments are logically broken down into these two steps. If something can be described as 'fluff', it then becomes immune to PMP, because fluff doesn't grant AC. There is clearly a difference between how Mage ARmor grants a +4 bonus, and how Shield of Faith grants a bonus...there's no 'field of force' conjured up by the latter spell. Mage Armor is exactly as ripe for exclusion from PMP as Cat's Grace is.
I do believe you're trying to make an exception for Mage Armor because it specifically mentions an AC bonus. Well, Cat's Grace specifically mentions 'the usual benefits', which tie back to increased Dex, and for some reason you're breaking the logical application of your own rule. Repeated applications of your rule bar Magic Vestment, Barkskin, and the Polymorph line from dispelling, despite these being the most used, and in the case of the Polymorph line, abused, ways to gain AC in the game.
---
And unless you can convince me that a spell that provides cover counts as a defensive buff cast on a target and is dispellable on that same target, your 'cover' argument is exactly as absurd as you're making it sound. I know neither of us believe it, and you're just trying to manufacture a situation to draw attention from the multiple fallacies in your view of the feat, and it just isn't working. Everyone reading knows its not a magical bonus gained from a magical spell; that it's not dispellable if you PMP the person with the bonus, or cast dispel magic on them, or put them into an Anti-magic shell...they'll STILL HAVE THE BONUS. It has nothing to do with them. It has to do with where they are standing. You can't dispel something that is not intrinsically provided by the spell. Magic has nothing to do with why the person you are hitting has a Cover bonus, or an A-M Shell would also suppress the bonus.
There is absolutely no way you can say the same with Cat's Grace and all the other examples of standard buffing magic.
I also believe you severely doubt your own Mass Cat's Grace argument on dispelling. SPells have to within the range of the dispel to be undone, or the center of an AoE has to be taken out. PMP does not affect anyone other then the target. Spell duration is a poor example to use in such an instance. If you're 200' away from the rest of the Hasted party when they are Slowed and lose their Haste, you don't lose yours...you weren't in the area of effect, and your bonus affects you alone, and will continue to do so until its duration expires. There is no 'center of effect' that is going to wipe out every instance of the spells we are talking about.
==Aelryinth
First of all, I don't personally believe that Mage Armor is immune to PMP. Under 'fluff' rules you're using, I perfectly well believe it is. The spell generates a field of force. Stop. That's it. That's what it does.
The EFFECT of that field of force is to grant you a +4 Armor Bonus to your Armor class...if it applies. That's the Crunch. It doesn't grant you a +4 Armor bonus...it grants you a field of force that grants you a +4 Armor bonus.
Cat's Grace ups your Dex by 4. Fluff. Stop.
The EFFECT of Cat's Grace is the 'the usual benefits'. Crunch. One of those benefits is +2 to AC.
So if a "field of Force" is the effect of Mage Armor and everything else is Fluff that can be ignored I guess that means we could just ignore the +4 armor bonus the spell provides. Maybe you can say the "field of Force" is a game mechanic it that an AC bonus from it applies to incorporeal attacks but that is ALL you can say about it. I'd bet that if you asked 20 people what Mage Armor's effect is more then 18 of them would tell you that it gives the target a +4 armor bonus to AC. It seems to me like you have the "fluff" and the "crunch" of that spell turned around.
The same appears to be true for Cat's Grace. The mechanical effect is that it increases your DEX +4 points. That is NOT "fluff" but the game mechanic put as simply as possible. Other rules then interact normally with your DEX score but they really don't care about where it came from. If you're saying the actual game mechanic of Cat's Grace it to the target a +2 bonus to AC, +2 bonus to all ranged attacks, +2 bonus on any attack made using weapon finesse, +2 on REF Save, +2 on all DEX based skill checks, +2 on initiative checks, and +2 on any DEX ability check made you have still failed to cover everything that an increase of +4 on your DEX score does; even worse you're not even always correct about all of those things.
Furthering our issue with your interpretation aelryinth is that it is so wide open and so conditional. You say Cat's Grace is ALWAYS hit. You've also said that Bear's Endurance, Fox's Cunning, and Owls's Wisdom COULD be hit (despite saying nothing about AC in their descriptive text) if they just happen to be cast on the wrong character.
And if you walk into an A-M shell with Mass Cat's Grace, everyone else's Cat's Grace is suddenly suppressed, too? No, they are individual targets of the spell. If you aren't in range of the slow spell when it is cast on the other Haste users, you are still hasted. A targeted dispel affects only the being it is cast on.
An antimagic field only suppresses the effects of the spell, it doesn't affect the spell as a whole the way dispelling does.
The slow vs. haste issue is interesting, since by dispelling haste, the entire spell is ended for all subjects. It seems slightly counterintuitive at first glance, but it's the spell itself that you're ending, rather than just its effect on each subject.
Since cover bonuses are dependent upon the hardness of the cover, not being spun out of nowhere, you are simply being informed that the Wall is tough enough to provide a cover bonus.
Cover bonuses aren't dependent on the hardness of the cover; a wall made out of ice (hardness 0) provides just as much cover as a similar wall made of iron (hardness 10).
Virtually all of your arguments are logically broken down into these two steps. If something can be described as 'fluff', it then becomes immune to PMP, because fluff doesn't grant AC. There is clearly a difference between how Mage ARmor grants a +4 bonus, and how Shield of Faith grants a bonus...there's no 'field of force' conjured up by the latter spell. Mage Armor is exactly as ripe for exclusion from PMP as Cat's Grace is.
No, its not about it being fluff or crunch, it's about it being contained within the spell's own magical effect, as opposed to existing outside it. A field of force and the +4 armour bonus to AC it provides are both part of what mage armour does magically, which is why it can be pierced. The cover benefit from wall of sand and the improved ability score usage from cat's grace are not part of the spell's magical effect, which is why they can't be pierced.
I do believe you're trying to make an exception for Mage Armor because it specifically mentions an AC bonus. Well, Cat's Grace specifically mentions 'the usual benefits', which tie back to increased Dex, and for some reason you're breaking the logical application of your own rule. Repeated applications of your rule bar Magic Vestment, Barkskin, and the Polymorph line from dispelling, despite these being the most used, and in the case of the Polymorph line, abused, ways to gain AC in the game.
There are two basic requirements for Pierce Magical Protection:
- An AC bonus is being granted.
- That bonus comes from the spell.
Mage armour meets the first requirement, since the bonus is described right there within the spell's text, and also meets the second because the bonus is granted entirely by the spell's effect.
And unless you can convince me that a spell that provides cover counts as a defensive buff cast on a target and is dispellable on that same target, your 'cover' argument is exactly as absurd as you're making it sound. I know neither of us believe it, and you're just trying to manufacture a situation to draw attention from the multiple fallacies in your view of the feat, and it just isn't working.
It's being used to draw attention to the faults perceived in your own viewpoint.
You can't dispel something that is not intrinsically provided by the spell.
I'm glad we agree on that; it's exactly the same principle I'm using for the second requirement I described for the feat, above.
There is absolutely no way you can say the same with Cat's Grace and all the other examples of standard buffing magic.
This is the part where I don't follow your reasoning. In the case of cat's grace, it's easy to show that the AC bonus is not an intrinsic part of the spell, since you can use the stone warden ability to remove it entirely without the slightest change to the spell itself.
If the AC bonus were an intrinsic part of cat's grace, it should remain unchanged as long as the magic of the spell remains unchanged.
I also believe you severely doubt your own Mass Cat's Grace argument on dispelling. SPells have to within the range of the dispel to be undone, or the center of an AoE has to be taken out. PMP does not affect anyone other then the target. Spell duration is a poor example to use in such an instance. If you're 200' away from the rest of the Hasted party when they are Slowed and lose their Haste, you don't lose yours...you weren't in the area of effect, and your bonus affects you alone, and will continue to do so until its duration expires. There is no 'center of effect' that is going to wipe out every instance of the spells we are talking about.
There's an interesting point to be made about spells here, since the spell itself doesn't have a discrete physical existence at any given point in space. Its only real connection to any given position in space is the location of its effects, so any effect attempting to target the spell has to use the position of those effects.
Consider the case of a targeted dispel magic, where the target can be "One object, creature, or spell". If I aim at a haste spell, how can I tell if it's in range? Obviously, even though I'm targeting the spell itself instead of a creature it affects, I can only determine the range by using one of its subjects, since there isn't anything else to use.
But the spell itself is still a single magical effect, no matter how many targets it affects; if you do dispel it, its entire effect ends everywhere. There are spells that can lose segments of their effect to dispelling, like prying eyes, but they state it in their text, and you've similarly got examples like wind walk, where the effect can be withdrawn from individual subjects, but the spell as a whole hasn't ended in either case.
So if a "field of Force" is the effect of Mage Armor and everything else is Fluff that can be ignored I guess that means we could just ignore the +4 armor bonus the spell provides. Maybe you can say the "field of Force" is a game mechanic it that an AC bonus from it applies to incorporeal attacks but that is ALL you can say about it. I'd bet that if you asked 20 people what Mage Armor's effect is more then 18 of them would tell you that it gives the target a +4 armor bonus to AC. It seems to me like you have the "fluff" and the "crunch" of that spell turned around.
I would also note that there isn't a complete distinction between mechanical effects in D&D; if we had a "Pierce Force Field" feat that specifically dispelled spells that "create a field of force" rather than those that "grant a bonus to Armour Class", the fact that mage armour creates such a field would be important, while its +4 armour bonus to AC would be irrelevant.
A field of force is still somewhat fluffier in general, since it's not part of an established game mechanic, but it's not entirely cut off from the crunchy mechanical function of game effects. I had a nice long discussion on a point related to this with regard to entangle affecting "plants" within its area.
That is clearly not the case.
And you're bringing in the Stonewarden is not a defense of your position. The Stonewarden has a class ability that breaks the rules. All sorts of things can happen when you break the rules. You can even gain a bonus to AC where a normal person couldn't! Shocking, I know. You might even be able to dual or triple stack a Charisma bonus to AC, and really abuse your own fluff rule, since none of those could possibly be dispelled by PMP.
A Wall of Ice might have 0 hardness, but it still has HP, and must be penetrated to get to whatever is behind it. A Wall of Sand is described as a floating, roiling mass of sand...I don't believe it's described as having HP or Hardness, but it's still being described as able to provide cover, much like, I believe, shooting through water, which has neither hardness nor hp, but still provides cover.
your haste argument doesn't bear water, either. Haste has targets of its effects, and once it goes off, like cat's grace, each target has their own little spell they are running around with. There is no rule in the game that enforces a spell being dispelled when it is outside the effect of the dispelling force!
I likewise find it very, very difficult to believe that you have such reservations about PMP dispelling AC-boosting effects to characters who get other stat bonuses to AC. Do you also argue against Fireballs doing reduced damage to characters who get fire resistance from a class ability, or doing extra damage against characters with fire vulnerability? The very nature of feats, spells, and class abilities mean that they can twist what a normal spell or effect is capable of. If you suddenly get the fire subtype, fireballs have a sudden negative effect on you, but frost spells are effectively boosted. You are effectively arguing that the fireball would not be negatively affected, just like a Fox's Cunning wouldn't suddenly be susceptible to PMP because its nature and effect changed due to the target.
Therefore, the reason that stat boosters get dispelled is part and parcel of the existing game. The closest analogy I can think of is something like Frozen Spell, where you add the 'Cold' modifier to any spell in existence. That spell is now buffed by effects that buff cold, and reduced by effects that don't. Likewise, PMP treats every spell that has an AC-modifying effect as a viable target, and that can vary from creature to creature the same way elemental resistance can wildly alter the damage of a spell.
I would also like to point out to you. Slagger, that there are creatures in the game that can pierce force effects (Force Dragons) and casters in the game that can modify protective force spells (argent savants). So such things DO exist. They are all unique and special, and they modify the rules.
The rule for PMP is that the spell can raise AC in the end. Situations may stop it from doing so, just as mage armor might be cast to no benefit, but that doesn't change the fact that it can and will do so, given the opportunity. Furthermore, the effect must be dispellable on the target...or PMP simply won't work, which will really shoot down any 'cover' arguments you have.
If you have problems with PMP being able to ignore a Dex bonus, that's easily explained as the fact it's dispelling the effect even as it is being swung, ignoring the magic at work. Thus, you don't see it coming with your insight bonus, you don't fortuitously step aside from it with your luck bonus, the gods don't protect you with their sacred/profane bonuses, you can't zip out of the way with your Haste bonus, and you can't bend away from it with your enhanced Dex bonus. It's an anti-magical strike, adn apparantly pretty good at it.
Is it overpowered? The only people it is effective against is a very small subset of creatures that buff instead of using magic items, and even then, they've got to have the spells up to be dispelled. It's very useful against them...against everyone else, it's virtually useless, the very definition of a niche feat.
==Aelryinth
If the Dex bonus to AC from Cat's Grace wasn't an intrinsic part of the spell, then dispelling it by any methodology would have no effect on AC.
That is clearly not the case.
That same argument can be made for cover gained from wall of sand, so it doesn't hold up to inspection.
And you're bringing in the Stonewarden is not a defense of your position. The Stonewarden has a class ability that breaks the rules. All sorts of things can happen when you break the rules. You can even gain a bonus to AC where a normal person couldn't! Shocking, I know. You might even be able to dual or triple stack a Charisma bonus to AC, and really abuse your own fluff rule, since none of those could possibly be dispelled by PMP.
The Deepwarden's stone warden ability does change the rules, but that's the point; it changes the general rules, rather than making any specific change to the cat's grace spell.
It can only undercut the results of the spell's effect because the bonus to AC derived from a Dexterity score isn't an intrinsic part of the spell.
your haste argument doesn't bear water, either. Haste has targets of its effects, and once it goes off, like cat's grace, each target has their own little spell they are running around with. There is no rule in the game that enforces a spell being dispelled when it is outside the effect of the dispelling force!
And there's no rule in the game that causes one spell to become multiple spells just because it has multiple targets, so your argument for it being multiple spells doesn't hold water.
If you cast a single spell, it stays as a single spell unless there's a rule saying otherwise.
I likewise find it very, very difficult to believe that you have such reservations about PMP dispelling AC-boosting effects to characters who get other stat bonuses to AC. Do you also argue against Fireballs doing reduced damage to characters who get fire resistance from a class ability, or doing extra damage against characters with fire vulnerability? The very nature of feats, spells, and class abilities mean that they can twist what a normal spell or effect is capable of. If you suddenly get the fire subtype, fireballs have a sudden negative effect on you, but frost spells are effectively boosted. You are effectively arguing that the fireball would not be negatively affected, just like a Fox's Cunning wouldn't suddenly be susceptible to PMP because its nature and effect changed due to the target.
Those are changes in the effect upon the target, not in the function of the spell itself. A fireball still deals full damage to creatures with fire immunity, but those creatures take less damage because their defenses apply to the effect that the spell created (there's an official difference between "deal damage" and "take damage" for a reason).
Therefore, the reason that stat boosters get dispelled is part and parcel of the existing game. The closest analogy I can think of is something like Frozen Spell, where you add the 'Cold' modifier to any spell in existence. That spell is now buffed by effects that buff cold, and reduced by effects that don't. Likewise, PMP treats every spell that has an AC-modifying effect as a viable target, and that can vary from creature to creature the same way elemental resistance can wildly alter the damage of a spell.
I think you mean Snowcasting, rather than Frozen Magic (which gives a DC boost for casting cold spells in cold environments), but that's a change to actual effect that the spell attempts to apply, rather than a change in the potential result due to its interaction with mechanics beyond the spell itself.
Both cat's grace and wall of sand apply a bonus to AC for reasons beyond the spell itself, which is why neither one is subject to Pierce Magical Protection as currently written (they fail the requirement that the bonus comes from the spell). Mage armour's bonus to AC originates within the spell itself, so it is subject to piercing by the feat.
I would also like to point out to you. Slagger, that there are creatures in the game that can pierce force effects (Force Dragons) and casters in the game that can modify protective force spells (argent savants). So such things DO exist. They are all unique and special, and they modify the rules.
Indeed there are such creatures, but their existence doesn't modify the effect that a spell is applying, even though they can modify its result.
The rule for PMP is that the spell can raise AC in the end. Situations may stop it from doing so, just as mage armor might be cast to no benefit, but that doesn't change the fact that it can and will do so, given the opportunity. Furthermore, the effect must be dispellable on the target...or PMP simply won't work, which will really shoot down any 'cover' arguments you have.
That's not the rule for Pierce Magical Protection at all. As the text states, the rule is that a bonus to AC be granted by the spell. The words, "raise", "improve", or "increase" do not exist within its text, nor does any synonym of those words.
If you have problems with PMP being able to ignore a Dex bonus, that's easily explained as the fact it's dispelling the effect even as it is being swung, ignoring the magic at work.
That conflicts with the feat's statement that the dispelling occurs if you deal damage. You can make an attack that ignores the bonuses to AC granted by a spell without dispelling that spell if you're not dealing damage (for example, if you're making a touch attack to initiate a grapple), so the reason for ignoring the bonus to AC cannot depend on dispelling it.
Just to throw a spanner in the logic works of trying to ignore cat's grace, in addition to providing an example of when simply describing an AC bonus within the spell's text doesn't automatically make it the direct result of the spell's magic, I'd like to mention reduce person, where the +1 bonus to AC is described as being due to the subject's reduced size (note the difference from alter self, where the bonus is not described as resulting from anything other than the spell's direct function).
As with cat's grace, the fact that being smaller grants a bonus to AC is not an intrinsic part of the reduce person spell, even though the fact that you are smaller in the first place is. Cat's grace and reduce person both set up the conditions that allow you to more easily evade blows (by being smaller or more nimble), without being responsible for the bonus in question in any magical sense. AC bonuses from being smaller or nimbler are the result of the D&D universe rather than the spell.
C'mon, Slagger, you want to show me how you grant an AC bonus without raising AC? If there's a seperate thing that then neutralizes the bonus, it's still raising it up and then lowering it down.
You can't dispel the cover bonus from a wall of sand by hitting the person, because it's not a granted effect of the spell. It's from his position, quit citing it. IF he's in an Anti-magic Shell behind the wall of sand, he still gets the bonus. Position. ANy further arguments you make concerning this that you make I'm simply going to ignore as invalid as presented, please don't shoot that dead horse further.
The same person walking into an A-M shell with Cat's Grace, or having it dispelled, will have their AC go down every single time. It's an effect granted by the spell, and trying to talk around it isn't going to change that fact. Ditto your size examples and stuff. In every single case, there's an AC bonus being applied, and when the spell ends/is dispelled/is suppressed, it goes away. There is no further proof needed to destroy your argument then that. Bringing up the Stonewarden who has a class ability that allows him to selectively supercede the bonus is no different that having Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Vestment...both the effects will get dispelled, despite only one actually affecting AC at any time.
I would also like you to show me ANY published example, anywhere, where if I throw a targeted dispel on one person, it dispels every group buff they have on them for everyone else who has it, wherever they are. You can't, because there is no such rule. If a spell has multiple targets, they are treated individually for all purposes. Your example is akin to one person getting to save for everyone else affected by a fireball, and if it's the rogue and he makes it, nobody takes any damage. It makes no sense on its face.
Spells with multiple targets and ongoing effects are treated individually, right down to rolling individually for damage and generating individual saves, and rolling seperate saves against SR. Where a fireball blows up and does the same damage to everyone, each magic missile at a different target is rolled individually, and each person taking damage from a different Evard's tentacle rolls quite independently.
So, no, Slagger, you haven't made any points at all. It just looks like you're trying to build a ditch to hide in. It doesn't matter how the spell accomplishes raising the AC/increasing the AC/granting a Bonus to AC, it only matters that it can/does/did, and if that bonus is dispellable. Trying to add extra conditions based on fluff is nowhere part of the feat.
==Aelryinth
C'mon, Slagger, you want to show me how you grant an AC bonus without raising AC? If there's a seperate thing that then neutralizes the bonus, it's still raising it up and then lowering it down.
We've shown that there are lots of situational ways for that to occur, such as mage armour with full plate, or cat's grace on a Deepwarden of at least 2nd level; the fact that they're situations beyond the spell is exactly why you look at the granted bonus instead of just the total change to AC, since the feat hits the spell based on its magical effect.
You can't dispel the cover bonus from a wall of sand by hitting the person, because it's not a granted effect of the spell. It's from his position, quit citing it. IF he's in an Anti-magic Shell behind the wall of sand, he still gets the bonus. Position. ANy further arguments you make concerning this that you make I'm simply going to ignore as invalid as presented, please don't shoot that dead horse further.
The same person walking into an A-M shell with Cat's Grace, or having it dispelled, will have their AC go down every single time. It's an effect granted by the spell, and trying to talk around it isn't going to change that fact. Ditto your size examples and stuff. In every single case, there's an AC bonus being applied, and when the spell ends/is dispelled/is suppressed, it goes away. There is no further proof needed to destroy your argument then that.
The difference you're seeing there is whether or not the spell's magic has been exposed to the antimagic field, leading to its results being cancelled, rather than its results being an intrinsic part of the spell.In every single case where you place the wall of sand within the antimagic field, you likewise lose its cover bonus, which by your reasoning makes it an intrinsic part of the spell.
Bringing up the Stonewarden who has a class ability that allows him to selectively supercede the bonus is no different that having Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Vestment...both the effects will get dispelled, despite only one actually affecting AC at any time.
In the Deepwarden's case, when the stone warden ability applies, it changes him from deriving a bonus to AC from his Dexterity score to deriving a similar bonus from his Constitution score. Both the fact that he gains a Con-to-AC bonus and loses his Dex-to-AC show the separation of the ability score bonuses to AC from any intrinsic effect of spells that improve those scores.
I would also like you to show me ANY published example, anywhere, where if I throw a targeted dispel on one person, it dispels every group buff they have on them for everyone else who has it, wherever they are. You can't, because there is no such rule. If a spell has multiple targets, they are treated individually for all purposes. Your example is akin to one person getting to save for everyone else affected by a fireball, and if it's the rogue and he makes it, nobody takes any damage. It makes no sense on its face.
Show me any example of the alternative; where a targeted dispel leaves some active part of a multi-target spell behind. You can't, because there is no such rule.
No matter how many targets a spell has, it's still a single spell, because you cast it as a single spell and nothing in the rules changes that.
Spells with multiple targets and ongoing effects are treated individually, right down to rolling individually for damage and generating individual saves, and rolling seperate saves against SR. Where a fireball blows up and does the same damage to everyone, each magic missile at a different target is rolled individually, and each person taking damage from a different Evard's tentacle rolls quite independently.
Let's look at that idea in the light of counterspelling:
If I counter a 9th-level wizard's magic missile aimed at a group of five targets with a magic missile of my own, are all targets spared from damage, or just one? By your reasoning, only one target can be protected, because the other missiles are like their own spells (you couldn't even counter multiple targets with your own, because you're using a single readied action to counter one spell). But it doesn't work that way, because it's still a single magical effect that you're countering.
Similarly, if I instead fire all five missiles of that spell at a target with spell resistance, I check once to see if I resist the spell as a whole, rather than once for each missile, because the spell is still a single entity.
It doesn't matter how the spell accomplishes raising the AC/increasing the AC/granting a Bonus to AC, it only matters that it can/does/did, and if that bonus is dispellable. Trying to add extra conditions based on fluff is nowhere part of the feat.
The feat talks only of granted bonuses, so why is it a problem for it to only affected granted bonuses?
You're trying to add coverage for general increases and alterations to AC that are nowhere part of the feat.
This thread has gone from depressing to pathetic. Logical contortions to try to justify an obviously wrong position rather than admitting your incorrectness.
What seem like logical contortions from one viewpoint are completely natural progressions from the other. The point of the discussion is to understand someone else's thinking and apply reasoning to it in test of its validity. Aelryinth's logic may seem to contort the feat's exact text in service of a perceived goal, but I assume that he does so from a point of view that seems as consistent and natural to him as mine does to me.
And in the process of discussion, we're forced to examine our ideals and principles and present our own reasoning on its strengths, while confronting the ideals, principles, and reasoning of others in turn, and learning more about both sides, which is a good thing. Petrifying our opinions renders them lifeless, at which point we might as well write down a static account of our ideals in some dusty tome and just drop dead; life entails change.
After all, even in a post like the one you've just made, you're still seeking a resolution to the situation, or you would not post. But using insults in an attempt to intimidate people into abandoning their position is not a very effective way to convince them of the validity of your views.
If you throw a wall of sand into an A-M shell, the spell is suppressed and collapses. Even if you stand outside the shell, it does not provide you a cover bonus, because there physical effect of the wall of sand, the roiling sand, is no longer there to provide cover. That is a physical reality, not a magical effect.
I cited the 'bonus' language because you were being ENglish nit-picky, and you come back with recycled stuff off topic? C'mon, Slag.
You also have no proof that a Stonewarden 'loses' his Dex to AC bonus. Actually, since there is nothing in the rules that says it is negated, he still has it, barring other rules. He just 'may use' Con instead - that's an exchange, not a removal. So the bonus is there, it might not be actively used, but if his Con drops, guess what? Back in force.
A Slow spell targeting somene who is hasted dispels and counters them. It has to target them. If they are outside the AoE, they can't be targeted.
Your Counterspell example is completely ingenuous since we are not talking about spells at the moment of casting, when everything is in the AoE and the spell is operating as a single function. We are talking 5 rounds later when everyone is spread all over the place, and your targets are all independently situated and not subject to a dispel that can't affect them. Dispels affect targets, not people LINKED to the targets.
The feat can only dispel effects that can be dispelled. A cover bonus is non-magical and can't be dispelled by hitting someone. Your assertion is false on its face, because you have no basis that the bonus provided is magical, you're only using it because it was quoted in the spell. Indeed, you are completely ignoring the fact that there are many, many spells that could provide cover bonuses, but because the spell description doesn't bother to mention the fact as being unneccessary, you're beating this dead horse instead of acknowledging reality.
Drop the Wall of Sand argument. It's not valid and you're only sticking with it to be stubborn. We both know it's false.
And you may as well stop with the contrived situations, too, because we all know that's how you defend the fluff side of the argument, which is completely unbalanced and without a solid rationale behind it. My version works at all times and doesn't have that problem.
==Aelryinth
If you throw a wall of sand into an A-M shell, the spell is suppressed and collapses. Even if you stand outside the shell, it does not provide you a cover bonus, because there physical effect of the wall of sand, the roiling sand, is no longer there to provide cover. That is a physical reality, not a magical effect.
Being able to use your Dexterity to move out of the way of blows is also part of physical reality; cat's grace makes you a little better at it, but it isn't granting you the ability to do so (the AC bonus) in question.
You also have no proof that a Stonewarden 'loses' his Dex to AC bonus. Actually, since there is nothing in the rules that says it is negated, he still has it, barring other rules. He just 'may use' Con instead - that's an exchange, not a removal. So the bonus is there, it might not be actively used, but if his Con drops, guess what? Back in force.
The text of the Deepwarden's stone warden ability says that you are able to add your Con bonus to AC "instead" of your Dex bonus, meaning that you add one and not the other, in the same way that you're not driving a car if you say that "I'm driving a truck instead of a car". As the word "instead" literally says by its meaning, it's something "in stead" (in the place/position of), another thing; one thing is replaced by the other.
Note that you've still got your basic ability score bonuses (which are applied to skill checks, saving throws, and so on as a general principle), but you are able to add your Con bonus to AC "instead" of your Dex bonus. Your ability score bonus is not, however, inherently a bonus to AC, any more than it's inherently a bonus to Dex-based skill checks; it can be used in either way, but the bonus has no specific existence as either outside of specific applications.
A Slow spell targeting somene who is hasted dispels and counters them. It has to target them. If they are outside the AoE, they can't be targeted.
That's one of those tricky areas that the rules don't completely define; in terms of dispelling or countering, you can do it when within range of the spell, which has no specific physical location, and can therefore only be within range when its effects are present, but a dispelled spell ends completely when dispelled, because it's still a single coherent magical effect.
Your Counterspell example is completely ingenuous since we are not talking about spells at the moment of casting, when everything is in the AoE and the spell is operating as a single function. We are talking 5 rounds later when everyone is spread all over the place, and your targets are all independently situated and not subject to a dispel that can't affect them. Dispels affect targets, not people LINKED to the targets.
As dispel magic states: "One object, creature, or spell is the target"; you can choose to target a single spell and end it, independent of any particular creature or object, and regardless of how many targets it might affect. And even when you dispel a target, it's still the spell's magic that you're ending.
As an analogy, you could think of the multi-effect spell as a computer server providing a service to multiple users; because it's still only a single source, you can "crash" it through just one of those users with dispel magic and end the benefit it provides to everyone, without needing any direct contact with the other users.
The spell never ceases to be a single magical effect from the moment of its casting until the end of its duration. After all, what does it matter to a completely non-physical entity like a spell that its targets are now scattered all over the place?
The feat can only dispel effects that can be dispelled. A cover bonus is non-magical and can't be dispelled by hitting someone.
And the AC bonus from applying an ability score is likewise non-magical and can't be dispelled by hitting someone.
Your assertion is false on its face, because you have no basis that the bonus provided is magical, you're only using it because it was quoted in the spell. Indeed, you are completely ignoring the fact that there are many, many spells that could provide cover bonuses, but because the spell description doesn't bother to mention the fact as being unneccessary, you're beating this dead horse instead of acknowledging reality.
And that's true for cat's grace, too. It may mention the bonus to AC that a Dexterity score provides, but there's no basis for claiming that bonus is magical just because the score powering it has been magically improved.
Why acknowledge cover as nonmagical, but ignore the reality that the perfectly natural function of Dexterity wasn't created by a spell?
Drop the Wall of Sand argument. It's not valid and you're only sticking with it to be stubborn. We both know it's false.
Yes, it's as false as cat's grace as a valid target for Pierce Magical Protection.
It keeps getting used because it's a valid comparison to the reasoning you're using for that spell; a magical effect leads to a nonmagical AC bonus in both cases. One through the nonmagical function of cover, the other through the equally nonmagical function of ability modifiers.
It also handily answers the issue of mentioning that bonus within the spell, since wall of sand mentions cover in the same way that cat's grace mentions the usual AC benefits of Dexterity.
And you may as well stop with the contrived situations, too, because we all know that's how you defend the fluff side of the argument, which is completely unbalanced and without a solid rationale behind it. My version works at all times and doesn't have that problem.
You seem to persist in thinking of it as "fluff" when we're talking about the described mechanical effects of the feat and spell. If the feat's unbalanced (and it may well be), it's just one more unbalanced feat in the system and trying to pretend it's not won't ever fix it.
The solid rationale behind it is fulfilling the conditions described by the feat: A bonus to AC, and the spell as the granter of that bonus.
You've invented a goal of "any improvement to AC" that the feat never mentions, and added to it a requirement that the feat be balanced according to what you'd like it to do, instead of just reading the feat's own text and then deciding how it works based on what the text says.
If you want to address a more fundamental difference between the viewpoints than vauge ideas of "fluff" and "crunch" (which are arbitrary in game terms, since anything can become crunch), you're looking at the end result, while I'm looking at the means used to achieve that result.
You cite your own Stonewarden example of being 'able to' sub Con for Dex, which means the dex bonus is still there and being voluntarily superceded, and then argue against that very fact you are quoting? Slag, you've lost that argument right there, too.
The difference between your very weird example of equating a cover bonus and a dex bonus is quite simple: Cat's Grace is a spell cast on a person that has, as a primary effect, raising his AC via his Dex bonus. The cover bonuses you cite are all incidental bonuses gained from the position of the character behind an object relative to yet another person, and are non-dispellable because there is no spell effect providing the cover bonus...the bonus comes from his position relative to another person, nothing from the spell itself.
Simply put, you can't dispel a cover bonus from any spell by dispelling the character. It's invalid on its face.
Trying to argue that your magical enhanced Dex bonus to AC is not a bonus gained from magic just isn't true, as any targeted Dispel Magic or Anti-Magic Shell will instantly show you. You are simply flat out WRONG.
YOu CAN eliminate the extra AC from an enhanced Dex bonus by dispelling the Cat's Grace. Thus, Cat's Grace will be eliminated, and PMP has no way to get rid of a cover bonus from anything, even if it were eligible, which by being ineligible to be dispelled, proves its not eligible in the first place.
None of your arguments are working at this point, Slagger. Your dispel rules ignore Target and AoE mechanics, and invent some weird 'interlinking' that isn't in the rules. If you want to dispel all portions of a spell, you must be able to target all of it. You miss some, you're out of luck.
Your own quotes and examples shoot down your Stonewarden examples.
Your equating of cover and Dex bonuses does not fly.
Your using Cover as an example does not work.
Your defining of Dex as a non-magical bonus getting enhanced and being non-magical is completely illogical. Next, you're going to say that Magical Vestment, Barkskin, and Greater Magical Vestment are not liable to PMP because they provide enhancements to non-magical AC foundations. That's hilarious and totally undefendable on its face.
None of your examples stand up to the proof of an A-M shell or a targeted dispel. All of mine do.
Slagger, you've lost the argument unless you come up with something really new.
You may decide to play the way you play because you interpret it differently, but your logic and the game's logic are not aligned at this point.
==Aelryinth
Slag, I outright reject your definition of dispelling spells. You can't dispel magic on anyone or anything and affect anything outside the AoE. If I slow these three people here, the 4th person with haste on him 600' away is not affected; he's not a target, and he's not in the area of the slow spell. To be dispelled, you must be targeted by the dispel or in it's area, it's part of the magic. Your 'server spell' has absolutely no basis in fact, and I highly doubt any game would use the definition.
It's the spell itself that you're trying to end with a dispel effect, and to "hit" it you just need some part of it to strike, in the same way that you can kill a Colossal creature with melee attacks even when only part of it is within your reach.
You cite your own Stonewarden example of being 'able to' sub Con for Dex, which means the dex bonus is still there and being voluntarily superceded, and then argue against that very fact you are quoting?
No, the AC bonus is not being merely superseded; the use of your Dex ability score bonus as a bonus to AC is completely gone, mechanically speaking, while you're using your Con ability score for that purpose. The statement of the stone warden ability is that you have one "instead" of the other; if you had both, it would say that they don't stack.
And I'm not arguing against it with the paragraph that followed; I'm noting the distinction between the ability score modifier itself, and the capacity to add that ability score modifier as a bonus to AC. For example, everyone has a Constitution modifier from their Constitution ability score, but only the Deepwarden has the stone warden ability that allows him to apply it as a bonus to AC instead of applying his Dexterity modifier as a bonus to AC.
The difference between your very weird example of equating a cover bonus and a dex bonus is quite simple: Cat's Grace is a spell cast on a person that has, as a primary effect, raising his AC via his Dex bonus. The cover bonuses you cite are all incidental bonuses gained from the position of the character behind an object relative to yet another person, and are non-dispellable because there is no spell effect providing the cover bonus...the bonus comes from his position relative to another person, nothing from the spell itself.
Simply put, you can't dispel a cover bonus from any spell by dispelling the character. It's invalid on its face.
The primary effect of cat's grace is raising the character's Dex bonus; the increase to AC only occurs as a secondary result (and it's dependent on the normal operation of Dexterity as an ability score, not on the function of the spell, which is why stone warden can change it). The spell doesn't provide the AC bonus; that's provided by the way Dexterity works as an ability score. Changing the way that Dexterity applies to AC (as with the stone warden ability) changes the benefit you get, proving that it's not part of the spell.
The effect of dispelling is to end the magical effect of a spell; the various targeting methods are just ways to aim at that magic. The fact that cat's grace is attached to the character is largely incidental, at least in terms of the effect of dispelling upon it.
Trying to argue that your magical enhanced Dex bonus to AC is not a bonus gained from magic just isn't true, as any targeted Dispel Magic or Anti-Magic Shell will instantly show you. You are simply flat out WRONG.
The fact that your Dexterity is enhanced is from a magical bonus. The fact that having a higher Dexterity score gives you a higher bonus to AC from Dexterity is not.
You already can have a Dexterity bonus to AC without any intervention from the spell, so it's illogical to conclude that something that already existed was granted by the spell.
YOu CAN eliminate the extra AC from an enhanced Dex bonus by dispelling the Cat's Grace. Thus, Cat's Grace will be eliminated, and PMP has no way to get rid of a cover bonus from anything, even if it were eligible, which by being ineligible to be dispelled, proves its not eligible in the first place.
You CAN eliminate the extra AC from a cover bonus by dispelling the wall of sand. Thus, by your reasoning, wall of sand will be eliminated.
None of your arguments are working at this point, Slagger. Your dispel rules ignore Target and AoE mechanics, and invent some weird 'interlinking' that isn't in the rules. If you want to dispel all portions of a spell, you must be able to target all of it. You miss some, you're out of luck.
You're the one inventing things; where did you come up with the idea that one spell suddenly works like multiple spells when it has multiple targets?
The separate portions of the spell are all part of the same spell, and are subject to dispelling from a single affected target in the same way that you can attack a creature as a whole even when you can reach only one of its occupied squares. It's not something I suddenly pulled out of nowhere, it's how the game normally treats individual elements, be they creatures, spells, feats, or whatever.
Your defining of Dex as a non-magical bonus getting enhanced and being non-magical is completely illogical. Next, you're going to say that Magical Vestment, Barkskin, and Greater Magical Vestment are not liable to PMP because they provide enhancements to non-magical AC foundations. That's hilarious and totally undefendable on its face.
It's not undefendable because it's completely consistent with the text of the feat and spells, and if you read back you'll see that I've regularly supported those spells not being liable to Pierce Magical Protection because of its poor design.
Yes, it seems hilariously bad, because that's exactly how Pierce Magical Protection is written. It's poorly-defined in numerous ways, and doesn't perform what we can assume would be its intended function.
In terms of intentions, Pierce Magical Protection really should go through barkskin and its ilk like a hot knife through butter. Mechanically, the feat fails to include them because it doesn't account for how those enhancement bonuses are not AC bonuses in their own right.
None of your examples stand up to the proof of an A-M shell or a targeted dispel.
An antimagic field could easily allow you to walk up to a wall of sand and hit the person normally protected by its cover, because in suppressing the spell's magic (and temporarily removing the wall) you're undercutting the nonmagical benefit of cover. That's exactly the same as what happens with cat's grace; you undercut (part of) a nonmagical bonus to AC by suppressing or dispelling the magical effect that influences it.
And all that the targeted dispel shows is that you can hit magic by aiming at part of its effect; it doesn't prove anything one way or the other about whether or not the bonus in question depends on the magic involved (though from your idea of fragmented magic, I can see why you might think that physical separation means magical separation).
Since you've mentioned both dispelling and antimagic, I'll take the opportunity to point out how the differing effects of dispel magic and antimagic field nicely display the difference between merely suppressing some effects of a spell and actually dispelling that spell. When you suppress a spell, only the affected parts cease working, but the basic magical effect of the spell continues; when you dispel a spell, it ends completely, because the underlying magic that was produced by the spellcaster has been ended.
You may decide to play the way you play because you interpret it differently, but your logic and the game's logic are not aligned at this point.
That's my viewpoint towards what you're saying as well, though it's somewhat illuminating to see how your idea of fragmented magic could lead to the conclusions you've produced.
I'm not entirely displeased by that; people don't usually form ideas that make no sense to them, so glimpsing a few of the different principles you're applying confirms that you're using reason to reach your conclusions, just as I'm using reason to reach mine.
they don't do that. what you're trying to argue is that the effects of targeted buffs spells are EMNATIONS, which have completely seperate rules and yes, all go away when the source is taken down. But independent, targeted spells don't and have never functioned like that.
Your excuse for the Cat's Grace makes no sense in the face of your support of mage armor. If you are wearing armor, you already have an armor bonus, thus mage armor is non-dispellable for adding an armor bonus by your definition of dex bonus translating over to other bonuses. If you support your dex argument, you have to strike against mage armor.
Furthermore, the feat in no way mandates that you have to create a bonus from nothing. An increase is AC is ALL the feat says. And you trying to argue that Cat's Grace doesn't increase AC is simply false on its face. Your example falls flat on its face as soon as you point out 10 or less Dex examples, where there is no bonus, and might be penalties. Your fluff inverts and chokes itself.
We've gone over Stonewarden, and as your Dex limit argument doesn't work, neither does this.
PMP cannot target a Wall of Sand to take down a cover bonus, it has to strike and do damage against the target of the effect. And we already proved it's a non-magical bonus, and so can't be dispelled. Ergo, ineligible on all counts. Drop it...it's a false argument.
Mechanically, the spell goes after any dispellable spell on the target of the blow that increases AC. That's it, that's all there is to it. Your arguments are so crazily situational the only logical way to look at the feat is simply to ignore contrived situations. You're putting into place conventions, definitions and limitations that, simply put, DO NOT EXIST, just to try and justify your interpretation of this feat.
I find that a clear head-shaker, which only increases my opposition and solidifies my stance on PMP. If you have to go that far outside the rules to justify the feat, I have to be right.
My easiest proof is very simple: Cast a targeted dispel on a person, OR stick them in an A-M shell. Any spell which affects their AC which is then dispelled or suppressed is a target for PMP.
Your version cannot meet that simple test. Instead, you make the feat some wildly complex thing based on personal interpretation of eligible and ineligible spells.
==Aelryinth
Sorry, Slagger. that Dispel example still completely flies against existing rules. There's no 'server spell' anywhere in the rules. There is 'targeted' and 'area of effect.' Once the spell is cast, each of the targets are on their own. I don't know how you can rule differently...because if they weren't, as soon as they leave the AoE, the linked spells under your rules would go away.
they don't do that. what you're trying to argue is that the effects of targeted buffs spells are EMNATIONS, which have completely seperate rules and yes, all go away when the source is taken down. But independent, targeted spells don't and have never functioned like that.
The type of spells about which we're talking typically aren't area effects, but multi-target targeted spells. Area limits are only important for spells that are actually areas and that constantly emit, not simply any spell with a duration. The magical effects of most spells can extend beyond the initial range of the spell after they've been cast.
The "server" effect is simply a consequence of it being a single spell providing multiple effects; there's no division of the spell described in the rules, so it remains one spell and when it's dispelled, that one spell ends, along with all its effects.
As dispel magic states "A dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired.", so when you dispel that mass cat's grace, the spell ends as if its duration had expired, causing it to cease applying for all affected targets.
Your excuse for the Cat's Grace makes no sense in the face of your support of mage armor. If you are wearing armor, you already have an armor bonus, thus mage armor is non-dispellable for adding an armor bonus by your definition of dex bonus translating over to other bonuses. If you support your dex argument, you have to strike against mage armor.
Furthermore, the feat in no way mandates that you have to create a bonus from nothing. An increase is AC is ALL the feat says. And you trying to argue that Cat's Grace doesn't increase AC is simply false on its face. Your example falls flat on its face as soon as you point out 10 or less Dex examples, where there is no bonus, and might be penalties. Your fluff inverts and chokes itself.
Quote me the sentence from Pierce Magical Protection where it says "increase"; the feat doesn't even contain that word.
Pierce Magical Protection mandates the need to create a bonus from nothing by stating that it works against a bonus to AC granted by the spell in question (if the spell doesn't create the bonus itself, it can't have granted it, because something else has granted it). The bonus need not actually be useful, or even result in an increase to the subject's AC, but its basic magical effect must be a bonus, because that's what the feat affects.
Even when mage armour is useless in terms of the subject's AC total, its magical effect is still a +4 armour bonus to AC. Likewise, the magical effect of cat's grace is a +4 enhancement bonus to Dexterity. The feat is mechanically concerned only with the spell on this level; it cannot affect the spell based on whatever the result of the magical effect might be (such as the default nature of that Dex resulting in higher AC, or the alternative caused by the stone warden ability, or the uselessness of an armour bonus when overlapped).
The minute cat's grace has to account for an actual consistent bonus to AC (as the feat wants) it does fall on its face, which is exactly why I've been arguing against it applying. Its magical effect doesn't innately do anything to AC.
PMP cannot target a Wall of Sand to take down a cover bonus, it has to strike and do damage against the target of the effect. And we already proved it's a non-magical bonus, and so can't be dispelled. Ergo, ineligible on all counts. Drop it...it's a false argument.
There no stated requirement that the person struck has to be the target of the effect that is dispelled; remember what I said before about the feat being poorly written?
Mechanically, the spell goes after any dispellable spell on the target of the blow that increases AC. That's it, that's all there is to it. Your arguments are so crazily situational the only logical way to look at the feat is simply to ignore contrived situations. You're putting into place conventions, definitions and limitations that, simply put, DO NOT EXIST, just to try and justify your interpretation of this feat.
I find that a clear head-shaker, which only increases my opposition and solidifies my stance on PMP. If you have to go that far outside the rules to justify the feat, I have to be right.
I'm just trying to show you where the method you're using breaks down. From my own point of view, these are all obvious to the point that I don't normally need to state them.
It seems equally crazy to me that the simple (to me) act of looking for a granted bonus to AC as the feat describes could be so difficult, and the attempt to shoehorn cat's grace into it by trying to justify clearly nonmagical effects like the Dex bonus to AC as part of the spell seems like it only serves an interpretation where you want an overly limited and poorly-written feat to become better than it is. I am, however, trying to be considerate of your viewpoint in the process.
My easiest proof is very simple: Cast a targeted dispel on a person, OR stick them in an A-M shell. Any spell which affects their AC which is then dispelled or suppressed is a target for PMP.
Your version cannot meet that simple test. Instead, you make the feat some wildly complex thing based on personal interpretation of eligible and ineligible spells.
My easiest proof is also very simple: Check if there's a bonus to AC in the text which isn't attributed to an external fact (like the operation of Dexterity or cover). Any spell that describes a bonus is a target for Pierce Magical Protection.
Your version cannot meet that simple test. Instead, you make the feat some wildly complex thing where you include everything that might result in an effect on AC, regardless of whether or not it's part of the spell's magical effect, then arbitrarily pick out the bits you don't like.
Note that I'm not trying to mock you with this kind of mirroring response, but trying to provide you with additional insight into how things look from my position. Both of our interpretations obviously work by their own standards.
On of the fundamental parts where your position seems flawed (to me) is that it can't decide whether or not the dispel is valid without knowing the result for the creature's total AC; it's gone beyond just the evaluation of the spell's own magical effect to become bogged down in the secondary results of that magical effect (which is inherently subject to failing the requirement that the bonus be granted by the spell instead of some other agency).
By the looks of it we still have some fundamentally different ideas about the way magic of this type works within the system. We've got "fragmented" magic vs. "server" magic for starters (a spell spawning independent effects vs. remaining as a whole), and there's also that issue of when a bonus is a bonus, which I mention because you said something about mage armour above; I'm not sure how you see this, but to me, the +4 magical bonus from mage armour is always a bonus to AC, even when that bonus doesn't actually result in any useful addition to the subject's total AC.
PMP asks for a bonus. A bonus naturally means an increase. You're treating it as a static object, a thing, instead of an effect. For some reason, 'bonus' is now an item to you, instead of a shift in a number...which is completely erroneous. Bonus to AC means an increase in armor class, which cat's grace and mage armor both provide in their own way. You're also ignoring the fact that trying to say a modifier to a dex bonus is not the same as a modifier to an AC bonus...your own logic is not transitive, and doesn't follow. It never has. It consistently does nothing to AC like mage armor does nothing to AC...nothing follows from either of those.
There's no logic to that and it doesn't float, Slag.
Your dispel magic example is conveniently ignoring the limitation of targets and Area of effect. A Dispel Magic will not affect a spell it is not targeting, nor one outside its area of effect. By the game rules, it simply has no power to do so.
What you are saying is that Dispel Magic can now affect things it is NOT targeting, and spells OUTSIDE its area of effect. That is clearly outside the rules, and thus, not true. There are spells that are cakes, where you can take them out...we call them emanations. THere are spells that are spun out and become their own little spells...we call them targeted spells. There is no language whatsoever to say they are still 'linked' and 'one-sourced'. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that targeted spells with durations have absolutely no 'link' to one another whatsoever, and you can eliminate one targeted effect while having no effect on other independent targets.
"Your contempt for magic is so fierce that as a standard action you can make a melee attack that ignores any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells (including spell trigger or spell completion effects created by magic items such as wands or potions). If you deal damage to your opponent, you also instantly and automatically dispel all that opponent's spells and spell effects that grant a bonus to Armor Class."
I'm not seeing where that would dispel a wall of sand. We've proved repeatedly that the spell isn't providing the bonus to AC, your position, and the position of who you're taking cover from, is providing that. So it's a non-issue.
If what you're saying is that damaging the mage who cast Mass Cat's Grace dispels that Mass Cat's Grace on everyone...well, I find that pretty amusing if you want to apply it that broadly, but you know, it has no effect on my argument on what is and is not eligible. A Wall of Sand is never providing the AC bonus, your position is, and is thus immune to being a dispel target. You ignore the situation (where attacker and defender are) and look at the spell. Wall of Sand never provides a cover bonus unless there's someone to provide cover against...that's the very definition of a situational modifier which PMP is going to ignore, and in this case, isn't even magical.
Your explanation: "My easiest proof is also very simple: Check if there's a bonus to AC in the text which isn't attributed to an external fact (like the operation of Dexterity or cover). Any spell that describes a bonus is a target for Pierce Magical Protection."
Is not simple at all, because 'external fact' can be argued endlessly, and Dexterity is never external to a target, it's as intrinsic as Natural Armor class. Your explanation leaves people wildly clawing for what is external and what is not, because you don't have an ironclad, simple definition, and trying to defend it from both directions is going to be the result. It doesn't work at all. You keep attempting to throw in a cover bonus as part of my definition, as I repeatedly point out that it has nothing to do with the spell...you're the one who has to go in there and remove it with a judgement call, and weigh each and every spell.
I just have to look at the end results. You're making mine complex, when yours requires the balancing and explanation for each and every spell that PMP might affect. I just have to look at what would be suppressed or dispelled, and if it affects AC magically.
I think it is very clear which of ours is simpler and more logical, and easier to address. Mine's also the one that makes PMP worth taking. It seems to me that your version is seeking to exploit vague wording to neuter the feat, which is word-twisting, and I'm simply taking it on its face and applying it as is, rather then trying to invent new definitions and mechanics which are not part of the feat.
Really, man, there's nothing in the feat dealing with 'spells that mention AC bonus', 'external fact', and what not.
It's spells that grant a bonus to AC. And you trying to interject middle ground disqualiers into that just doesn't fly.
==Aelryinth
...
"Your contempt for magic is so fierce that as a standard action you can make a melee attack that ignores any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells (including spell trigger or spell completion effects created by magic items such as wands or potions). If you deal damage to your opponent, you also instantly and automatically dispel all that opponent's spells and spell effects that grant a bonus to Armor Class."
I'm not seeing where that would dispel a wall of sand. We've proved repeatedly that the spell isn't providing the bonus to AC, your position, and the position of who you're taking cover from, is providing that. So it's a non-issue.
...
You know something, you're right here; there is nothing in the PMP text that says it will dispell a Wall of Sand. I know that and Slagger also knows that. There is also nothing in that description that says it will dispel a bonus to DEX which gets provided by Cat's Grace. It is when we look at your interpretation of "spells that grant a bonus to Armor Class" to include Cat's Grace that will as see how easily it applies to Wall of Sand and thus will use it as another example. We are looking at the actual spell while you keep looking beyond the actual spell to determine PMP's effect.
It should be obvious that no one is going to convince the other to change his/her view on the subject so maybe it would be a good time to just stop with the walls of text that don't introduce anything new. Now if there is something new in them that would be great but sorting that out is going to be hard.
No, we shouldn't; Agreeing to disagree only works when both sides are valid. In this case, though, one side(Mine) is correct and the other(Slagger/SO/etc) is wrong.
And see, you devolve into English nipicking again with 'increase.'
What you see as "nitpicking", I see as the stated method of the feat. There's a mechanical difference between an effect that grants a bonus, and one that just leads to some kind of overall increase in AC. And "devolve" is likewise inaccurate, since I've held that as a constant standard and it's an important one.
From a direct and practical point of view, "granting" the bonus also allocates direct responsibility for the bonus to the spell's magic, making it logical for the feat to overcome it, compared to any kind of increase, which could result from incidental nonmagical side effects.
PMP asks for a bonus. A bonus naturally means an increase. You're treating it as a static object, a thing, instead of an effect. For some reason, 'bonus' is now an item to you, instead of a shift in a number...which is completely erroneous. Bonus to AC means an increase in armor class, which cat's grace and mage armor both provide in their own way. You're also ignoring the fact that trying to say a modifier to a dex bonus is not the same as a modifier to an AC bonus...your own logic is not transitive, and doesn't follow. It never has. It consistently does nothing to AC like mage armor does nothing to AC...nothing follows from either of those.
A bonus means a positive modifier is being applied, but there's no guarantee that such a modifier will be effective or useful in increasing overall AC, which is why there's a distinction between the two.
And for the Dexterity bonus (we'll assume it's a positive modifier, for simplicity), there's the standard fact that you have such an ability score bonus simply from having a Dexterity score of 12 or higher, and then there's the capability of applying that ability score bonus as a bonus to AC, which is a separate effect from the ability score bonus itself. You can, for example, use the Deepwarden's stone warden ability to divorce your Dex score modifier from your AC, but you still have the ability score modifier in question available to use for all other purposes, such as Reflex saves, Dex-based skills, and initiative.
The difference with mage armour is that the effect (both the field of force, and the +4 bonus it provides) is entirely within the spell's domain of influence, whereas cat's grace grants an improvement to the Dexterity score, with the exact effects of the Dexterity score existing beyond the spell's influence, and consequently not being a part of the spell. Mage armour cannot be subdivided like that, because it's all part of the spell.
Your dispel magic example is conveniently ignoring the limitation of targets and Area of effect. A Dispel Magic will not affect a spell it is not targeting, nor one outside its area of effect. By the game rules, it simply has no power to do so.
By the game rules, having even single target of a multi-target effect within the dispel's range means that you can access the spell for the purpose of attacking and ending its magic.
It's no different, in logical terms, to killing a Colossal dragon with a fireball when only half the spaces occupied by its body are in range; you don't need to be able to reach its entirety to affect the creature (or spell) as a coherent whole, and the parts of its body outside of range still end up just as dead.
What you are saying is that Dispel Magic can now affect things it is NOT targeting, and spells OUTSIDE its area of effect. That is clearly outside the rules, and thus, not true. There are spells that are cakes, where you can take them out...we call them emanations. THere are spells that are spun out and become their own little spells...we call them targeted spells. There is no language whatsoever to say they are still 'linked' and 'one-sourced'. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that targeted spells with durations have absolutely no 'link' to one another whatsoever, and you can eliminate one targeted effect while having no effect on other independent targets.
You're attacking the spell itself, not each individual target that might be receiving its benefit. Some of the targets might be beyond the range of the dispelling effect, but as long as one of the targets is within reach, the spell is within reach, and you're able to end that spell, along with all its effects.
One spell can be universally ended by one successful dispel attempt. What is the evidence you have that these targets are not all still subject to one spell?
I'm not seeing where that would dispel a wall of sand. We've proved repeatedly that the spell isn't providing the bonus to AC, your position, and the position of who you're taking cover from, is providing that. So it's a non-issue.
If what you're saying is that damaging the mage who cast Mass Cat's Grace dispels that Mass Cat's Grace on everyone...well, I find that pretty amusing if you want to apply it that broadly, but you know, it has no effect on my argument on what is and is not eligible. A Wall of Sand is never providing the AC bonus, your position is, and is thus immune to being a dispel target. You ignore the situation (where attacker and defender are) and look at the spell. Wall of Sand never provides a cover bonus unless there's someone to provide cover against...that's the very definition of a situational modifier which PMP is going to ignore, and in this case, isn't even magical.
And the comparison to cat's grace is what this is all about. I agree that a wall of sand isn't affected by Pierce Magical Protection, and the reason is the same as for cat's grace, since the spell is never providing the bonus to AC.
Dexterity providing a bonus to AC is likewise part of a situation beyond the scope of the spell in question; it derives from non-spell functions of the ability score, and is subject to change by external effects (like the stone warden ability) that have nothing to do with the spell.
Putting aside the issue of cat's grace for a moment, from a mechanical point of view, if you had a multi-target version of mage armour, dispelling the spell on a single target would likewise end the spell effects for all targets, since the spell supporting all those spell effects has ended. You could write a different version of Pierce Magical Protection that didn't work this way, but its current text affects both spells and spell effects.
Your explanation: "My easiest proof is also very simple: Check if there's a bonus to AC in the text which isn't attributed to an external fact (like the operation of Dexterity or cover). Any spell that describes a bonus is a target for Pierce Magical Protection."
Is not simple at all, because 'external fact' can be argued endlessly, and Dexterity is never external to a target, it's as intrinsic as Natural Armor class.
It's not external to the target creature, but it is external to the spell and feat, which is the important fact for my position.
One of the differences between our viewpoints on that is that you care about the effect on the AC of the creature in question, while I only care about the direct interaction of the spell and feat. The fact that Dexterity is part of the creature means that it's not part of the spell.
Your explanation leaves people wildly clawing for what is external and what is not, because you don't have an ironclad, simple definition, and trying to defend it from both directions is going to be the result. It doesn't work at all. You keep attempting to throw in a cover bonus as part of my definition, as I repeatedly point out that it has nothing to do with the spell...you're the one who has to go in there and remove it with a judgement call, and weigh each and every spell.
I'm not throwing in the cover bonus as anything except an example of why the cat's grace logic doesn't work.
See, again we're talking about the internal/external division on a different line of reasoning; the normal function of Dexterity as an ability score and cover from solid objects are both external to the spell-feat interaction.
I just have to look at the end results. You're making mine complex, when yours requires the balancing and explanation for each and every spell that PMP might affect. I just have to look at what would be suppressed or dispelled, and if it affects AC magically.
I just have to look at the spell text. You're making mine complex, when yours requires the balancing and explanation for each and every side-effect of a spell that Pierce Magical Protection might affect, to tell whether or not they're separate.
We do, however, share a common focus on whether or not the spell affects AC magically, we just have different ideas about how to determine that level of effect.
I think it is very clear which of ours is simpler and more logical, and easier to address. Mine's also the one that makes PMP worth taking. It seems to me that your version is seeking to exploit vague wording to neuter the feat, which is word-twisting, and I'm simply taking it on its face and applying it as is, rather then trying to invent new definitions and mechanics which are not part of the feat.
I can assure you that mine is simple, logical, and easy to address.
As to whether or not the feat is worth taking, it seems to me that your version is word-twisting designed to make the feat do what you think it should do, instead of taking it on its face and applying it as is . Definitions and mechanics like "overall increase to AC" are not part of the feat, while a granted bonus to AC most certainly is. It's not good as a feat, but that can be fixed once you accept and realize its problems.
Really, man, there's nothing in the feat dealing with 'spells that mention AC bonus', 'external fact', and what not.
It's spells that grant a bonus to AC. And you trying to interject middle ground disqualiers into that just doesn't fly.
Mentioning an AC bonus is a primary method for telling that the spell is granting a bonus to AC. Really, man, there's nothing in the feat dealing with "increases to AC", "overall boost to AC", and what not.
We both support the limitation on external effects, albeit in different ways; you wouldn't include things like cover, because you recognize it as external to the spell's target, while I also wouldn't ability score results, because those are likewise external to the spell and feat.
It's spells that grant a bonus to AC. You trying to qualify into that effect some spells that don't grant a bonus to AC is what doesn't fly with my position.