Armoring Up

[Gazzien]

Is there any way other than Deflective Armor (apologies for no link/ source, on mobile) to apply your armor's AC bonus to your touch AC?

[Raineh Daze]

Ghost Ward sort of does that. It's only the enhancement bonus, but if you're wearing light armour it could be worth it.

[Gazzien]

I'm in heavy armor, just not psionic and a bit stretched for feats so I was hoping there was another way. Thank you though, Raineh.

[Kasz]

Doesn't Riverine work for this? At least the deflection portion.

[Gazzien]

Doesn't Riverine work for this? At least the deflection portion.

That does get half the AC bonus applied... though it then wouldn't stack with a Ring. Thank you, though!

[Captnq]

Good old fashioned AC 1 Bracers of Armor (+5 EB, w/ghost touch)

Since the Bracers are force, the EB already applies to your touch AC. When you add ghost touch, the EB adds twice. So for . 37,000 gp, you have +6 base armor, +11 touch attack. Wacky, huh? If you wear then over other armor, it won't help your base armor (chances are if you got heavy armor, the base AC is already over 6), but the +11 to touch attack is more then likely WAY above whatever you got on your base armor (ie, a big fat ZERO).

[Maat Mons]

Force effects apply against incorporeal touch attacks, not touch attacks in general.  There are lots of touch attacks that are not sub-categorized as incorporeal touch attacks, notably boatloads of spells. 

I'm pretty sure there's no way to give bracers of armor an enhancement bonus, but I'll hear you out on that one. 

I'll assume you meant "ghost ward," not "ghost touch."  Your armor's enhancement bonus is normally treated as part of the armor bonus for purposes of stacking.  I don't see why ghost ward would change that. 

[Captnq]

AH. Correct. Ghost Ward, Not Touch.

(click to show/hide)

- LIBRIS MORTIS (3.5)
- MAGIC ITEM COMPENDIUM (3.5)
Price: +1 bonus
Property: Armor or Shield
Caster Level: 5th
Aura: Faint; (DC 17) conjuration
Activation: —
Description: This item appears normal at first glance, but closer examination reveals the image of a ghostly face on its surface.
A suit of armor or shield that has this property allows you to add its enhancement bonus (but not its armor or shield bonus) to your Armor Class against touch attacks (including incorporeal touch attacks).
Construction: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, mage armor.
Editor: This adds to your touch AC. So few things add to your touch AC. Get this on your armor and shield, use magic vestment or other armor enhancement boosting spells, and you can give yourself a +10 to your touch attack. Considering how lousy most touch attacks are, that’s something to consider. Ironically, I would not buy it to use against ghosts.

(click to show/hide)

A character who has the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats, as well as mage armor and all the other prerequisites necessary, can add the armor special abilities shown on Table 8–6 in the DUNGEONMASTER’s Guide to a set of bracers of armor. The cost is the same as for adding a special ability to normal armor: an increase in the effective bonus of the bracers. Just as magic armor can never exceed a +8 enhancement bonus, bracers of armor never provide more than a +8 armor bonus. However, special abilities can increase the effective bonus as high as +13 (bracers +8 with an ability valued at +5, such as heavy fortification). The market prices for bracers of armor with an effective bonus higher than +8 are as follows: 81,000 gp (+9), 100,000 gp (+10), 121,000 gp (+11), 144,000 gp (+12), 169,000 gp (+13). Any special ability that can be added to armor can be added to bracers of armor. Armor qualities with a cost expressed in gp rather than an effective bonus can be added to bracers for the same price.

Ah, that's what I get for not checking the source. Cost is 49,000 gp, not 37,000 gp. Still, As it reads, I can add any Enhancement Bonus I want to the armor bracers, meaning I can have bracers of Armor AC 1, +5 EB, and then tack on up to +7 ASAs as I see fit. not that you would, mind you. I can't think of a total of +5 ASAs I'd want, much less +7. But Ghost Ward is a +1 Bonus, so AC 1 +5, Ghost Ward is +11 to to your touch attack.

(click to show/hide)

These items appear to be wrist or arm guards. They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor. Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective.

(click to show/hide)

A bonus to Armor Class granted by armor or by a
spell or magical effect that mimics armor. Armor bonuses stack with
all other bonuses to Armor Class (even with natural armor bonuses)
except other armor bonuses. Magic armor typically grants an
enhancement bonus to the armor’s armor bonus, which has the
effect of increasing the armor’s overall bonus. An armor bonus
granted by a spell or magic item typically takes the form of an
invisible, tangible field of force around the recipient. An armor
bonus doesn’t apply against touch attacks, except for armor bonuses
granted by force effects (such as the mage armor spell) which apply
against incorporeal touch attacks, such as that of a shadow

So, Bracers of Armor are force Armor, like mage armor, thus applies to touch attacks.
Enhancement Bonus adds to the base AC, so it increases the base Armor and thus increases against touch attacks.
Ghost ward adds your EB against your touch attacks.
Ergo, You get +11 to touch attacks, which does not stack with any touch attack AC granted by your base armor.

Or you could simply get Bracers of Armor AC 1, Ghost Ward for 4,000 gp then cast Magic Vestment on your bracers to boost the EB, thus granting the double bonus to your touch attack on the cheap, but that requires someone casting magic vestment on you. Now, it lasts 1 hour a level, so if you buy a 9,000 gp pearl of power and loan it to the cleric to cast this for you, you only get a +4 at 8th level, +6 at 12, +8 at 16, and +10 at 20th. It might be worth the WBL at higher levels to just buy the bracers to wear all the time.

[Captnq]

AH, I see where the issue is. You think that force armor ONLY applies against incorporeal touch attacks. I can see how you might read it that way. However, while poorly worded, the way it ACTUALLY reads as RAW is:

All armor fails to add to touch attacks.
EXCEPTION: Force Armor
Which apply against incorporeal touch attacks.

They needed to include an ONLY in there for it to only apply against incorporeal touch attacks. Because it's an exception in the same sentence as the rule, it applies against the rule in all cases, and the "incorporeal touch attack" section counts as an example. If they had a period instead of a comma, then it would be a separate sentence and thus only be an exception in that one situation.

Now, you could argue the RAI is that it should only apply against touch attacks for incorporeal only, which may or may not be the case. I will not argue RAI here. However, in a court of law, if anyone was stupid enough to have something like this in a contract, I'd hang them with it. RAW is, Force armor is an exception to touch attacks, btw, that includes incorporeal touch attacks as well.

Ironically, when directly asked to answer this question in the FAQ, they skirt the issue. They never actually come and flat out say "Force Armor ONLY applies to Incorporeal Touch Attack." It's implied, but never clarified. They say that the two things are different, but All incorporeal touch attacks are touch attacks, not all touch attacks are incorporeal. To simply state that Force armor applies against incorporeal touch attack is obvious. We already know that. We need clarification if it only applies against it or ALL touch attacks.

So by RAW, All Force Armor is an exception to ALL touch attacks, and incorporeal touch attacks are an example, not a limiter.

Addendum: If they had not included the "such as that of a shadow" at the end of the sentence, It would be easier to argue that the which means that everything after it is a qualifier. But once they include an example phrase in the rule itself, then any hope of arguing that the intent is Incorporeal Touch Attacks ONLY goes right out the window.

[Maat Mons]

I can sort of see how you'd parse that sentence to support your view. 

You're fundamentally wrong about what adding the word "only" would have meant.  That would actually have changed the sentence to mean that force effects don't apply against normal attacks (e.g. being stabbed with a sword). 

Everything after the "which" is defining the capacity in which force effects are an exception to the general rule.  That is to say, force effects represent an exception to the general rule of armor bonuses not applying against touch attacks in the sense that force effects apply against incorporeal touch attacks. 

Even if you were right, this would be a rule preventing armor bonuses from applying to touch AC with a clause saying the rule doesn't apply to force effects.  It would not be a rule saying force effects apply to touch AC.  If it were the latter, it could (in certain specific cases) potentially override some other rule that prevents a bonus to AC from applying.  Since it is the former, it has no interaction with any other rule that prevents a bonus to AC from applying. 

There are, in many locations, rules saying that armor bonuses don't apply against touch attacks with no text anywhere in the area that could possibly be construed as meaning that force effects are an exception.  RAW, these rules and the one you quoted are separate conditions that prevent a bonus from applying to AC.  Even if we suppose that the rule you quoted doesn't prevent bracers of armor from applying against normal (non-incorporeal) touch attacks, these other rules do.  Since the rules don't interact with each other, running afoul of any one of them is sufficient to keep the AC bonus from applying. 

But let's suppose that each place where armor bonus against touch attacks is discussed is actually a different version of the same rule.  In this case, we don't apply each one individually.  We instead figure out which version takes precedence.  The version you quoted is from the glossary of the Player's Handbook.  I'd say the rules for AC and touch attacks in the Combat section of the Player's Handbook supersede anything in the glossary, which is sufficient to invalidate your quotation.  The text of the Rules Compendium definitely supersedes everything in the Player's Handbook. 

So, have I just proven that force effects don't apply to touch attacks, not even incorporeal touch attacks?  Not quite.  There are rules saying that force effects apply against incorporeal touch attacks which override the general rule of armor bonuses not applying against touch attacks.  The difference between these rules and what you quoted from the glossary is that there's no possible torturing of the wordings of these rules that could be supposed to imply that force effects apply against touch attacks other that incorporeal touch attacks.