Abjurant Champion (CM)

[kayn99]

Ok, I just picked up this book and looking through it I came to the Abjurant Champion. Something did not sit right with me with this class and reading its abilities. The first I come too...

Abjurant Armor(Su): Any time you cast an Abjuration spell that grants you an armor bonus or shield bonus to AC, You can increase the value of the bonus by your Abjurant Champion class level. Abjurant Champion rely on Mage armor, shield, and similar spell instead of actual armor.

This seemed pretty cool until you look us Mage Armor and find out it is not a Abjuration spell. The example character they give uses mage armor as if it was a abjuration spell. Is there a SRD change that makes Mage Armor an Abjuration spell or is the Text for Abjurant Champion just wrong?

Kayn

 

[Paradigm]

Ok, I just picked up this book and looking through it I came to the Abjurant Champion. Something did not sit right with me with this class and reading its abilities. The first I come too...

Abjurant Armor(Su): Any time you cast an Abjuration spell that grants you an armor bonus or shield bonus to AC, You can increase the value of the bonus by your Abjurant Champion class level. Abjurant Champion rely on Mage armor, shield, and similar spell instead of actual armor.

This seemed pretty cool until you look us Mage Armor and find out it is not a Abjuration spell. The example character they give uses mage armor as if it was a abjuration spell. Is there a SRD change that makes Mage Armor an Abjuration spell or is the Text for Abjurant Champion just wrong?

Kayn

It is just wrong, but Luminous Armor works pretty well.

 

[Sejs]

Yeah, that's always been one of those 'wait, what?' moments regarding mage armor.

You could float the proposal past the DM. Failing that - research an abjuration version of mage armor.

 

[szilard]

The text is wrong, but I think the intent of the class is for it to work with Mage Armor, so I'd allow Abjurant Champions to cast that as an abjuration spell.

-Stuart

 

[kayn99]

I think that research would be the best way for it to happen. But it does sadden me that this error made it through, when they could just proof read their product and play test it.


Kayn

 

[Bad Paper]

I'm pretty sure the Sage answered this and said that it was not intended to work with mage armor.

 

[Legildur]

I'm pretty sure the Sage answered this and said that it was not intended to work with mage armor.

Even though the ability explicitly calls out Mage Armor! (assuming kayn99 quoted accurately in the opening thread) LOL! Good one WotC! I can feel an errata FAQ coming on....

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well, I wrote the initial draft of the abjurant champion. However, the "abjurant armor" ability was added in development, and was not part of my turnover. I do not mention this in an effort to "pass the buck"; I think most of you know, by now, that I'm willing to own up to mistakes when they're actually mine. Rather, it's so you know that my opinion on this particular issue does not have the weight of "author's intent" behind it, since even though I wrote the bulk of the class, I wasn't the author of that particular ability.

My personal opinion is that the ability should work with mage armor. I know the spell isn't technically abjuration, but I feel that the thematic fit is too close, and mage armor is really the only truly long-term defensive spell easily available.

 

[kayn99]

Ari,

I thank you for tell me what is going on. I am not saying that I do not think that Mage armor should or should not work with the class, just that it is poor execution on their parts. This is suppose to be an expansion book for the base classes and the basics are wrong. For X dollars, I think that the time should be taken to edit the product one last time for glaring errors. The intent of the book is wonderful and content is good; glaring mistakes take away from that and could be easily found by a last third party edit. The amount they ask us to pay, we atleast deserve that.

Kayn

 

[SteelDraco]

Wait a minute - you mean it's not an abjuration? Why isn't Mage Armor an abjuration spell? That's just a strange call. The whole point of the Abjuration school is to be the defensive spells, and there isn't a more essential and iconic defensive spell than Mage Armor.

Particularly, it shouldn't be a Conjuration spell. Conjuration seems to be creeping more and more into other schools, with the various "It's real energy, so it's Conjuration!" blasting spells, and the odd choice of Mage Armor being a Conjuration. You can always twist the flavor text around to make a spell seem like a different school, but shouldn't they be defined by their game effects, not flavor text?