Author Topic: So you wanna take a hit... (Read 15851 times)

SorO_Lost · « **Reply #20 on:** February 13, 2012, 01:14:13 AM »

Quote from: liquid150 on February 12, 2012, 09:56:57 PM

Am I missing something? Is there another precedent for being able to cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor or Luminous Armor?

Yes.

1.

(click to show/hide)

2.

(click to show/hide)

Any questions?

Jackinthegreen · « **Reply #21 on:** February 13, 2012, 03:15:24 AM »

Quote from: Drammor on February 11, 2012, 05:54:45 PM

Quote from: Jackinthegreen on February 09, 2012, 11:23:40 PM
Don't forget the Spellblade weapon enhancement from Magic of Faerun. Immunity to a specific spell is great for a +1.

Like Locate City.

Spellblade only works on single target spells, sadly. It doesn't work on area spells, which Locate City falls under.

liquid150 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2012, 08:12:41 AM »

Quote from: SorO_Lost on February 13, 2012, 01:14:13 AM

Quote from: liquid150 on February 12, 2012, 09:56:57 PM
Am I missing something? Is there another precedent for being able to cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor or Luminous Armor?
Yes.

1.
(click to show/hide)
Quote
Magic Vestment^A
Target: Armor or shield touched
You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5 at 20th level).

Shield^B
Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force¹ 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 shield² 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.³
Is B really a shield? It denotes it's sized like one¹ and calls it one². It even removes the possibility of ACP/ASF inheritance³.

Does A care if the Shield or Armor is Masterwork?
No.

Conclusion: Shield is produces a shield, which is all Magic Vestment cares about and therefor it applies. It works in my opinion and you can debate that if you like, but at least try to center your rebuttal on something better than...

2.
(click to show/hide)
Magic Vestment (or standard crafting) does not give an Enhancement bonus to your AC, it gives your Armor's Armor Bonus an Enhancement bonus. This is why you for the last ten years you have been stacking your +5 Buckler, +5 Full-Plate and Necklace of Natural Armor +5 together. This Article even explains it for you.

Any questions?

I am pretty sure I wasn't arguing, I was asking for rules quotes and precedents. Saying "your rebuttal" implies that I was arguing, and I clearly wasn't.

Also, that second quote appears to be saying exactly the same thing that I did.

Any questions?

Any MORE than just circumstantial evidence that the effect of Shield is called a "shield" just once? It could very well just be the name of the spell, just as mage armor uses. What about Greater Luminous Armor? IIRC it's only called an "aura."

SorO_Lost · « **Reply #23 on:** February 13, 2012, 02:11:12 PM »

(click to show/hide)

Quote from: liquid150 on February 13, 2012, 08:12:41 AM

Any MORE than just circumstantial evidence that the effect of Shield is called a "shield" just once? It could very well just be the name of the spell, just as mage armor uses. What about Greater Luminous Armor? IIRC it's only called an "aura."

Points for being called "the shield" opposed to "a mage armor/since mage armor" etc?

liquid150 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 13, 2012, 06:30:18 PM »

Um, okay, whatever.

The actual text from the PHB has "shield" italicized, which by precedent and standard procedure of the rules, indicates that the sentence refers to the spell name, not to the shield as an object. The same is true of Luminous Armor.

So, as I said, any more than just circumstantial evidence? The argument in favor thus far holds very little water. The Magic Vestment spell clearly calls for "armor or shield touched." Nowhere in the spell descriptions are Shield, Mage Armor, and Luminous Armor referred to as a suit of armor or a shield in the context of them being an object, they are always referred to in the context of the spell name through italicization.

And yeah, maybe this is slightly more of an argument now, because I'm becoming more convinced that you can't actually do this.

Jackinthegreen · « **Reply #25 on:** February 13, 2012, 08:35:16 PM »

As far as casting Magic Vestment on a Shield goes, it doesn't looks like it would work. It wants an actual shield after all, not a spell effect that happens to give a shield bonus. Likewise, it wouldn't work on Luminous Armor or Mage Armor since they aren't actually armor.

However, a character can gain the benefit of Magic Vestment anyway since it can explicitly be cast on regular clothes.

Quote

An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

Thus, even if the character has a regular armor bonus from something else, MV can be cast on its clothes and it'd gain the enhancement bonus to its armor bonus. An enhancement bonus to an armor bonus and an armor bonus itself don't overlap. They stack, as per the rules. That's what I was getting at.

dman11235 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 13, 2012, 08:45:05 PM »

Here's the thing, when you get an enhancement bonus to a suit of armor, you don't have a +8 Armor Bonus and a +5 Enhancement Bonus to AC, you have a +13 Armor Bonus to AC.

liquid150 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 13, 2012, 08:55:01 PM »

Right, but two armor bonuses don't stack, even if one is an enhancement bonus. If you have a shirt with a +0 armor bonus and a +5 enhancement bonus to armor, but also wear regular full plate with no enhancement bonus, the enhancement bonus is wasted as it does not stack. Therefore, even with a shirt having a +5 enhancement bonus, if you have cast Greater Luminous Armor your shirt will not stack with the spell.

Jackinthegreen · « **Reply #28 on:** February 13, 2012, 09:18:48 PM »

I guess we have some more rules to interpret.

Quote from: Rules Compendium pg 15

Armor and Shield Bonuses
Your armor and shield each provide a bonus to AC. This bonus represents their ability to protect you from blows.
Enhancement Bonuses
An enhancement bonus makes an armor bonus, natural armor bonus, or a shield bonus better. The enhancement bonus stacks as if it were part of the bonus to which it applies—armor, natural armor, or shield—so it’s not included in the AC formula above.

Emphasis mine. To me that says if you've got an enhancement bonus to, say, armor, then that stacks with any existing regular armor bonus. Anyone thinking it works differently?

Maat Mons · « **Reply #29 on:** February 13, 2012, 10:37:02 PM »

You don't get an enhancement bonus to “armor.” You get an enhancement bonus to the armor bonus provided by a particular item.

If you cast magic vestment on your clothing, the enhancement bonus stacks as though it were part of the armor bonus provided by the clothing (+0 for the purposes of this spell). The armor bonus from mage armor gets no benefit, since it isn't the bonus to which the enhancement bonus applies. It is a separate bonus, which happens to be of the same type.

SorO_Lost · « **Reply #30 on:** February 14, 2012, 11:45:01 PM »

Quote from: liquid150 on February 13, 2012, 06:30:18 PM

The actual text from the PHB has "shield" italicized, which by precedent and standard procedure of the rules, indicates that the sentence refers to the spell name, not to the shield as an object. The same is true of Luminous Armor.

And yeah, maybe this is slightly more of an argument now, because I'm becoming more convinced that you can't actually do this.

And believe it or not you have something there too. This minor change in font can make a huge difference in how something is read. Like the PHB's entry is using a proper noun where as in the SRD could be read it using one of several types of nouns which creates an ambiguity the reader must distinguish him self.

X-Codes · « **Reply #31 on:** February 16, 2012, 10:39:36 PM »

Quote from: SorO_Lost on February 14, 2012, 11:45:01 PM

Quote from: liquid150 on February 13, 2012, 06:30:18 PM
The actual text from the PHB has "shield" italicized, which by precedent and standard procedure of the rules, indicates that the sentence refers to the spell name, not to the shield as an object. The same is true of Luminous Armor.

And yeah, maybe this is slightly more of an argument now, because I'm becoming more convinced that you can't actually do this.
And believe it or not you have something there too. This minor change in font can make a huge difference in how something is read. Like the PHB's entry is using a proper noun where as in the SRD could be read it using one of several types of nouns which creates an ambiguity the reader must distinguish him self.

Or you're wrong...

Again.

SorO_Lost · « **Reply #32 on:** February 16, 2012, 10:49:58 PM »

Quote from: X-Codes on February 16, 2012, 10:39:36 PM

Or you're wrong...

Again.

Pretty sure you're trying to bait me there.

It worked, I think even less of you and posted. gj.

skydragonknight · « **Reply #33 on:** February 17, 2012, 05:28:57 AM »

Quote from: Maat Mons on February 13, 2012, 10:37:02 PM

You don't get an enhancement bonus to “armor.” You get an enhancement bonus to the armor bonus provided by a particular item.

If you cast magic vestment on your clothing, the enhancement bonus stacks as though it were part of the armor bonus provided by the clothing (+0 for the purposes of this spell). The armor bonus from mage armor gets no benefit, since it isn't the bonus to which the enhancement bonus applies. It is a separate bonus, which happens to be of the same type.

Yep.

Quote from: Rules Compendium p.15

Armor and Shield Bonuses
Your armor and shield each provide a bonus to AC. This bonus represents their ability to protect you from blows.
Enhancement Bonuses
An enhancement bonus makes an armor bonus, natural armor bonus, or a shield bonus better. The enhancement bonus stacks as if it were part of the bonus to which it applies—armor, natural armor, or shield—so it’s not included in the AC formula above.

Emphasis mine. (I've missed saying that) It makes an armor bonus better. Whichever one it applies to - the target of the spell - that one improves. And then after the recalculation only the largest armor bonus applies as always, per the normal stacking rules.

liquid150 · « **Reply #34 on:** February 17, 2012, 08:26:19 AM »

Quote from: X-Codes on February 16, 2012, 10:39:36 PM

Quote from: SorO_Lost on February 14, 2012, 11:45:01 PM
Quote from: liquid150 on February 13, 2012, 06:30:18 PM
The actual text from the PHB has "shield" italicized, which by precedent and standard procedure of the rules, indicates that the sentence refers to the spell name, not to the shield as an object. The same is true of Luminous Armor.

And yeah, maybe this is slightly more of an argument now, because I'm becoming more convinced that you can't actually do this.
And believe it or not you have something there too. This minor change in font can make a huge difference in how something is read. Like the PHB's entry is using a proper noun where as in the SRD could be read it using one of several types of nouns which creates an ambiguity the reader must distinguish him self.
Or you're wrong...

Again.

Prove it.

I would like for it to work, and have repeatedly asked for rules support showing that it does. If it works, then I am happy, but there needs to be support behind it and not just "I don't like the RAW conclusion." If there are RAW that prove it to be possible, then fine, but I don't see any.

X-Codes · « **Reply #35 on:** February 17, 2012, 11:21:09 PM »

Are you insisting that I engage SorO_Lost in a debate?

snakeman830 · « **Reply #36 on:** February 18, 2012, 01:21:34 AM »

Quote from: X-Codes on February 17, 2012, 11:21:09 PM

Are you insisting that I engage SorO_Lost in a debate?

I don't think he wants you to waste your time. We all know what Soro does in "debates".

SorO_Lost · « **Reply #37 on:** February 18, 2012, 04:40:28 AM »

Quote from: snakeman830 on February 18, 2012, 01:21:34 AM

Quote from: X-Codes on February 17, 2012, 11:21:09 PM
Are you insisting that I engage SorO_Lost in a debate?
I don't think he wants you to waste your time. We all know what Soro does in "debates".

Jumping into the middle of a thread for no other reason than to flame people? Wait, nope. That's a few other people whose names I don't have to mention at this point. They're both here. I normally provide rules quotes and insult in condescending mannerisms when provoked ~Hey X-Codes, bet you that you can't lock this thread after calling everyone a douchebag when you reneged your opinion like your last one.~ but otherwise don't shove my head up my ass so far I can watch my self burp. Like case and point. Liquid has a very good point out on VM not working on Shield based on the Italicized emphasis in the PHB and have said as much. There is me, no name calling, no flaming, in the middle of a debate and when proven otherwise admitting I was wrong pretty gracefully. So where did the thread go sour? When X-Codes posted.

Can you see why I like X-Codes? He can brighten my day, like he is a tranny's gusset, on one hand that is totally sick to talk about but one the other without him my cock wouldn't have as much swing to it. When he is feeling a little down after yet another failed date he can pop int and troll up some drama, I'm a guaranteed to take the bait after all. He does things in such a way I could almost get into that whole righteous smiting of the wicked thing if my attention span was longer than a gnat's and generally just didn't care. But the whole five minutes of typing this I get to be like "holy raccoon poo, I'm the good guy!". At least until I ruin it... Like now

RedWarlock · « **Reply #38 on:** February 18, 2012, 07:02:17 AM »

Holy excessive antagonism, batman! Seriously, guys, grow the F up!

I'm gonna back the concept that magic vestment doesn't work on a shield spell. Italicized text not being carried over to the SRD is an error in the SRD, it's still there in the book version, and does change a lot of the intent of the wording. Plus, I think if it created an actual shield which could be augmented by other shield-based effects, rather than an effect which serves most of the same purpose of a shield, we would have an "Effect: A shield of force." or some-such in the spell's description header.

Plus, it's a bit of a waste, in my opinion, shield is minutes per level, magic vestment is hours per level.

liquid150 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 18, 2012, 11:11:26 AM »

Quote from: X-Codes on February 17, 2012, 11:21:09 PM

Are you insisting that I engage SorO_Lost in a debate?

No, not at all.

Did I misunderstand your post? I thought you were saying that I was wrong, and that by changing his mind and agreeing with me that Soro was wrong. If I was incorrect in my assumption, I apologize for misinterpreting your sentiments.

I had thought you were saying that you can cast MV on a Shield, Mage Armor, or Luminous Armor. If that is what you were saying, I am asking what RAW proof there is, because so far in this thread I have only moved closer to the opinion that it is not possible based on the rules.

News:

Author Topic: So you wanna take a hit... (Read 15851 times)