Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UltimaGabe" data-source="post: 4038925" data-attributes="member: 16019">Look, the fact of the matter is that Mage Armor isn't on a Duskblade's spell list because they don't need it. They can wear Light Armor and not suffer Arcane Spell Failure, which Wizards cannot do (which is the entire point Wizards get Mage Armor to begin with). They don't need it. Sure, it wouldn't be gamebreaking if they had it, but so what? If a person wants to make a Fighter that specializes in fighting unarmored, does he get any sort of compensation for it? Of course not! He doesn't immediately gain the ability to grant himself a +4 armor bonus, despite the fact that he could easily just don a suit of armor. Sure, some DMs might give him something to offset the fact that he's willingly gimped himself, just like some DMs might give a Duskblade Mage Armor if the player really wants it. But the class is designed to wear Light Armor, and has the class ability to specifically allow him to do it, something that other arcane casters can't do. The Fighter has the ability to wear armor, but if he chooses to go against the spirit of the class, he doesn't get anything for it. He could always buy potions of Mage Armor (and he most likely will), but so can the Duskblade. And believe me, I've heard plenty of players who've wanted to play unarmored Fighters, and not one of them tried to argue that he should get access to Mage Armor.As I said, the Duskblade doesn't get Mage Armor because he doesn't need it. If you choose to not make use of one of its core abilities, go for it- maybe your DM can houserule you some compensation- but there's no reason you should get something for thematic purposes. In fact, most choices made for a character's theme rather than mechanics will almost always, if not always, hinder you.</blockquote>

Verification