|
Post by Andre on Jul 3, 2011 17:18:13 GMT -5
Been doing some research on mage armor and how it affects your touch AC.. and I'm pretty sure mage armor improves your touch AC too but wanted to throw it out there to see what people think (rules gurus please post away ) I checked this website.. an official WOTC website (WOTC being the owners of the D&D game for our newer players who aren't rules gurus yet ) .. Skip Williams, a writer for WOTC posts rules clarifications on there so I pretty much take anything he posts there as being as legit as if it came from the player's handbook or dungeon master's guide.. at this website he says : www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040127aOverlapping Bonuses are Still in Place: This can become significant when dealing with Armor Class. For example, our human has an Armor Class of 24 against an incorporeal touch attack, as follows:
Base 10 (AC) +2 Dexterity: The chainmail's Dexterity cap still applies, even though the chainmail itself can't block the attack. +4 shield bonus: The shield spell works against the attack because it is a force effect. +4 armor bonus: The mage armor spell works against the attack because it is a force effect. +2 deflection bonus from shield of faith spell. So, reading through it I get the impression that both mage armor , greater mage armor (see the WOTC spell compendium book for greater mage armor spell description but basicallyl +6 rather than +4 to AC) , and shield all improve your touch AC .. does this sound about right to you guys ?
|
|
|
Post by Andre on Jul 3, 2011 17:22:54 GMT -5
Also Serinda just to confirm .. is it safe to assume Serinda casts greater mage armor on herself every day ? Basically just trying to confirm her +6 to AC in FG is pretty much normally in place ? (the spell lasts one hour/caster level , 9 hours in Serinda's case - long enough to cover most in-game combat and adventuring unless someone sneaks up and tries to surprise you at night in your sleep or something like that )
|
|
|
Post by darkalloy on Jul 3, 2011 17:26:18 GMT -5
Well if you look it's talking about an incorporeal touch attack. As both the shield spell and mage armor are force effects, I'm not sure if it help the basic touch ac or not, this would probably boil down to a your call thing.
|
|
|
Post by Andre on Jul 3, 2011 19:57:39 GMT -5
Yeah that's what I'm trying to figure out myself, lol .. Unless someone comes up with a quote from a rulebook or other WOTC sourcebook that says otherwise I'm probably just going to go ahead and assume it helps with touch attacks.. kind of like a supernatural floating force field with "gaps" in it (otherwise it wouldn't be possible to score a hit on the person protected by such no matter how high your attack roll is ) that rotates to block attacks (not always successfully - again to take into account someone with a high enough attack roll can still hit and score damage on you) ... if you're trying to touch say the bare flesh of your victim with a touch attack you have to be able to get by the "force" effect of the spells first...
|
|
|
Post by solardawn on Jul 4, 2011 1:05:43 GMT -5
It doesnt, while it is a force effect and aids against ethereal attacks, AC of the "Armor type" never adds to touch attack, and the spell states it is armor AC, also gonna take two uses of greater mage armor, so its only inactive during down time.
If you want I can probably find a quote when im home, on my phone at work now
|
|
|
Post by solardawn on Jul 4, 2011 11:13:35 GMT -5
It seems I was wrong, while armor does not defend against a REGULAR touch attack, it does defend against a non-corporeal touch attack. Took this from the SRD.
Armor Bonus An armor bonus applies to Armor Class and is 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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Andre on Jul 4, 2011 12:33:40 GMT -5
Oh ok.. duly noted then thanks solardawn appreciate all the posting here
|
|