Mage Armor and Ethereal opponents

[TanisFrey]

I didn't say that Mage Armor effected a held weapon, just that it would overlap the beneficiary's hands just as a gauntlet would...

The only interpretation I'm making is that Mage Armor surrounds (as in outlines) the beneficiary in such the same way as Full Plate surrounds its wearer. As I've argued above, if you bought adamantine armor that came with gauntlets, the gauntlets would also be adamantine - which could be used to overcome adamantine DR. How is this not comparable with armor that is made out of force, in that it translates the same innate property to the hands of the beneficiary?

Full plate has an Armor bonus of +8, Mage Armor has an Armor of +4, the 2 are not equal.
Chain shirt has an Armor bonus of +4, this is equal to Mage Armor.
All armors, except Half and Full plate, you are unarmed when you punch. Which is why gauntlets are a listed item in the PBH.

Ectoplasmic Armor would give you a better argument. It is a 1st level mage spell that grants +9 AC vs Incorporeal attacks only from Libris Mortus.

You could argue that that oil of Ghost Armor applied to gauntlets could do this since they grant ghost armor when applied. The spell is a 2nd level spell in Libris Mortus.

Greater Mage armor in Spell Compendium, a 3th level spell grants +6, still not up to Half or Full plate.

We then get into higher than 3rd level spells that cannot be put into potions without finding someone with rare prestige class that allows it. There is the Master Alchemist PRC in Magic of Faruen that can put up to 9th level spells into potions. A good DM will calculate any potion made by such a person as normal then double or triple it due to rareness.

 

[orion90000]

Full plate has an Armor bonus of +8, Mage Armor has an Armor of +4, the 2 are not equal.
Chain shirt has an Armor bonus of +4, this is equal to Mage Armor.
All armors, except Half and Full plate, you are unarmed when you punch. Which is why gauntlets are a listed item in the PBH.

Ectoplasmic Armor would give you a better argument. It is a 1st level mage spell that grants +9 AC vs Incorporeal attacks only from Libris Mortus.

You could argue that that oil of Ghost Armor applied to gauntlets could do this since they grant ghost armor when applied. The spell is a 2nd level spell in Libris Mortus.

Greater Mage armor in Spell Compendium, a 3th level spell grants +6, still not up to Half or Full plate.

We then get into higher than 3rd level spells that cannot be put into potions without finding someone with rare prestige class that allows it. There is the Master Alchemist PRC in Magic of Faruen that can put up to 9th level spells into potions. A good DM will calculate any potion made by such a person as normal then double or triple it due to rareness.

My arguement wasn't on AC equivalents, but coverage equivalent. AC 4 also equals Scale Mail: "The suit includes gauntlets."

 

[Dandu]

Gauntlets are weapons, not armor.

Scale mail is armor, not a weapon.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I'd rule 'no', simply because the RAW of the spell says nothing about mage armor enhancing the user's attacks in any way; and because there's already a mechanic (ghost touch) for precisely this sort of thing.

This is the sort of fluff-modifies-mechanics that could easily raise unforeseen questions later on: Does mage armor allow bull rushing an incorporeal, and how would that work mechanically? Can an incorporeal trip a character with mage armor? If there's a beefier version of mage armor that gives +8 armor bonus, would it allow the monk to hit an incorporeal "harder" than the normal spell? And so on.

But really this a question for your DM, since he's the one that has to live with the ruling.

 

[orion90000]

From the Main 3.5 FAQS:

Does an ethereal object block force spells cast against
targets on the Material Plane? If force spells affect
incorporeal creatures, and stuff on the Ethereal Plane is
incorporeal on the Material Plane, doesn’t an ethereal wall
get in the way? If so, does it get in the way of force effects
such as mage armor, thus stopping a PC protected by such
an effect from moving through?
An ethereal wall would block force effects cast on the
Material Plane. In essence, a creature affected by mage armor
is “wearing” a suit of armor made of force—a suit of armor that
can’t pass through ethereal objects. His weapons, spells, and so
on still can’t affect ethereal objects any more than they
normally could.
Can an ethereal creature or a ghost that isn’t
manifesting (and thus has a Strength score) grapple
someone wearing bracers of armor or who has the mage
armor spell cast on them? What about an incorporeal
creature, such as a spectre? What if it’s the other way
around? Can a person that has a mage armor effect on him
bull rush an ethereal ghost or an incorporeal spectre?
Mage armor and bracers of armor aren’t powerful enough
to allow a material creature to interact normally with either
incorporeal or ethereal opponents (or vice-versa). While the
armor bonus from the mage armor spell or bracers of armor
applies against incorporeal touch attacks, it doesn’t turn the
affected creature into a force effect himself. A monk wearing
bracers of armor can’t affect incorporeal or ethereal creatures
with her unarmed strikes any more easily than she normally
could, and neither could a fighter “wearing” mage armor bull
rush an incorporeal or ethereal foe.

So, yes I am right and I am wrong. Mage armor is a "suit" of armor not an egg. But isn't sufficient to interact with incorporeal.

I personally feel that the authors should have defined "force effects" better since there are apparently different types of force. I do appreciate all the input from the community and I hope that no one is pissed from the debate.

 

[TanisFrey]

So, yes I am right and I am wrong. Mage armor is a "suit" of armor not an egg. But isn't sufficient to interact with incorporeal.

I personally feel that the authors should have defined "force effects" better since there are apparently different types of force. I do appreciate all the input from the community and I hope that no one is pissed from the debate.

They just needed to state in the PBH that it was a weak force effect. I have fun debating some of these arguments, so long as no one starts getting personal about it.