Magic Vestement!!!
- Thread starter protheus
- Start date
Conjureman
First Post
Originally Posted by HyperSmurf:
I'm looking at the rule that says "A suit of armor cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10".
You are reading that out of the magic item creation section, though, correct? All of the discussion in that section is in regards to making permanent enchantments on an item. The like bonuses don't stack rule would mean that the superior enchancement bonus would override the inferior one, rather than adding together. But the spirit in which the spell appears to be intended is basically a "You can make your armor up to +5 depending on the level" sort of stance. Nothing in the rules section you are quoting states that this rule *does* apply to temporary spell effects, so it is open to interpretation either way. which is why I think it is important to consider the intent and effect of the spell.
Considering that this is a third level spell with a relatively limited duration, I do not think that allowing it to operate on a suit of armor with +10 in "special ability bonus equivalents" (well, +9 and the base +1 enchancement bonus) would make this spell unbalancing or overly effective. The "+10 max" from magic item creation rules I would interpret as applying to magic item creation. There is no indication in the section on spells or magic itself indicating that these equivalent bonuses would apply when considering whether enhancement type spells (magic weapon, magic vestment) would be able to be applied to a certain item. I can see why one may chose to interpret the magic item rule as applying in this situation, but as adding a transitory enhancement bonus to your armor is not, in my opinion, going to overly or unbalancingly effect the game, why worry about it?
Consider this. At 20th level, the cleric running around in a set of full plate armor with a +1 enchancement bonus and +9 in enchancement equivlanet bonuses (I am assuming no one is handing out effective +10 armor at 5th level here) and a +5 large shield is at AC 26 (assuming no dex bonus or other magical equipment that is adding AC). By allowing the magical vestment bonus to stack, her armor class increases to 31 (the +5 overrides, rather than adds to, the +1).
The fighter who is attacking her has a BAB of +20. Now, we seem to have established a rather potent magic item level, so let's assume that the fighter has a +5 sword of his own and an 18 strength (at this point he would have been able to add 5 bonus character points, so even if strength started at 13 it would be up to 18 by now). This puts the fighter with a total attack bonus of +29, striking the cleric on a 2 or better. And this is assuming that out of those 3 billion bonus fighter feats, he has never picked up anything like weapon focus. But to be honest, that wouldn't matter because a one always misses.
If the cleric did not have the +4 additional enchancement, the fighter would hit unless he rolled a 1, giving him a 95% chance to hit as his attack bonus is higher than the target AC but a roll of one always misses. If the additional +4 is in effect from magic vestment, the fighter hits on a two or better. Meaning (and I know you all see this coming) that he STILL hits unless he rolls a one, leaving the hit chance at 95%. Due to inherent game mechanics, in this scenario adding the enhancement bonus makes absolutely no difference.
I think the debate about whether the enhancement bonus would take affect is moot when you look at lower levels. If 10th level characters are running around in armor with equivalent of +10 enhancement, the least of your concerns will be magic vestment.
I could do more examples, but my primary point is that unless you hand out +10 equivalent armor at pretty low levels, letting the enchancement bonus from the magical vestment spell stack has minimal or no game effect beyond your cleric going "Yay! I love this spell! I have an armor class of 31 now!" Not allowing it take affect when the armor worn has a ton of non ac affecting enhancements, however, is likely to create debates, ongoing discussions, and really, really long threads on message boards...
I'm looking at the rule that says "A suit of armor cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10".
You are reading that out of the magic item creation section, though, correct? All of the discussion in that section is in regards to making permanent enchantments on an item. The like bonuses don't stack rule would mean that the superior enchancement bonus would override the inferior one, rather than adding together. But the spirit in which the spell appears to be intended is basically a "You can make your armor up to +5 depending on the level" sort of stance. Nothing in the rules section you are quoting states that this rule *does* apply to temporary spell effects, so it is open to interpretation either way. which is why I think it is important to consider the intent and effect of the spell.
Considering that this is a third level spell with a relatively limited duration, I do not think that allowing it to operate on a suit of armor with +10 in "special ability bonus equivalents" (well, +9 and the base +1 enchancement bonus) would make this spell unbalancing or overly effective. The "+10 max" from magic item creation rules I would interpret as applying to magic item creation. There is no indication in the section on spells or magic itself indicating that these equivalent bonuses would apply when considering whether enhancement type spells (magic weapon, magic vestment) would be able to be applied to a certain item. I can see why one may chose to interpret the magic item rule as applying in this situation, but as adding a transitory enhancement bonus to your armor is not, in my opinion, going to overly or unbalancingly effect the game, why worry about it?
Consider this. At 20th level, the cleric running around in a set of full plate armor with a +1 enchancement bonus and +9 in enchancement equivlanet bonuses (I am assuming no one is handing out effective +10 armor at 5th level here) and a +5 large shield is at AC 26 (assuming no dex bonus or other magical equipment that is adding AC). By allowing the magical vestment bonus to stack, her armor class increases to 31 (the +5 overrides, rather than adds to, the +1).
The fighter who is attacking her has a BAB of +20. Now, we seem to have established a rather potent magic item level, so let's assume that the fighter has a +5 sword of his own and an 18 strength (at this point he would have been able to add 5 bonus character points, so even if strength started at 13 it would be up to 18 by now). This puts the fighter with a total attack bonus of +29, striking the cleric on a 2 or better. And this is assuming that out of those 3 billion bonus fighter feats, he has never picked up anything like weapon focus. But to be honest, that wouldn't matter because a one always misses.
If the cleric did not have the +4 additional enchancement, the fighter would hit unless he rolled a 1, giving him a 95% chance to hit as his attack bonus is higher than the target AC but a roll of one always misses. If the additional +4 is in effect from magic vestment, the fighter hits on a two or better. Meaning (and I know you all see this coming) that he STILL hits unless he rolls a one, leaving the hit chance at 95%. Due to inherent game mechanics, in this scenario adding the enhancement bonus makes absolutely no difference.
I think the debate about whether the enhancement bonus would take affect is moot when you look at lower levels. If 10th level characters are running around in armor with equivalent of +10 enhancement, the least of your concerns will be magic vestment.
I could do more examples, but my primary point is that unless you hand out +10 equivalent armor at pretty low levels, letting the enchancement bonus from the magical vestment spell stack has minimal or no game effect beyond your cleric going "Yay! I love this spell! I have an armor class of 31 now!" Not allowing it take affect when the armor worn has a ton of non ac affecting enhancements, however, is likely to create debates, ongoing discussions, and really, really long threads on message boards...
Last edited:
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Yup.
As a related question :
If you had a +2 Sword of Defending, and cast a +4 GMW on it, how would you allow it to work?
Would they be able to allocate a maximum of 2 points of Enhancement to AC, and retain a +4 to attack and damage regardless of how much they assigned to defense? (ie 0/+4, +1/+4, or +2/+4)
Would they be able to allocate a maximum of 2 points of Enhancement to AC, with those points coming off the +4 to attack and damage? (ie 0/+4, 1+/+3, +2/+2)
Or would they be able to assign up to 4 points of Enhancement to AC, just as a normal +4 Defender? (ie 0/+4, +1/+3, +2/+2, +3/+1, +4/0)
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Oddly, I feel it's far easier (depending on the assumptions one uses) to justify either of the other options
I threw this one in as the intermediate option, even though I didn't think it made sense What about if the wielder assigned the points to AC - leaving it with a temporary +0 Enhancement bonus - before casting GMW on it? Would you consider that 2 points of the GMW bonus were redirected as soon as the spell took effect?
-Hyp.
Conjureman
First Post
Greater magic weapon specifically grants an enhancement bonus to attack. In my interpretation,that would mean that nothing gained through GMW would affect AC alotment from a defender, and the maximum bonus on the weapon would still be a +5 enhancement bonus. Depending on how you chose to interpret that situation, you could declare that if the defender bonus was applied to AC, there is effectively no enhancement bonus to the attack of the weapon and the full +4 would apply to attack and damage.
Personally, I would restrict the defender to +5 enhancement bonus total, meaning that with the afore mentioned GMW cast upon it you can chose to have +2 att/dmg and +2 AC, +3 att/dmg and +1 AC, or +4 att/dmg +0 AC.
Comparing this to the magic vestment/armor with enhancement bonus equivalents situation is a case of apples versus oranges though. The defender does indeed have a +2 enhancement bonus, not a market price equivalent bonus. It happens to have a special ability that allows the user to chose whether to apply the enhancement bonus to offense or defense, but the enhancement bonus itself is inherent to the weapon.
The primary point of my last post was that allowing the enhancement bonus to affect armor that had all kinds of nifty non-armor class affecting enhancements is in no way unbalancing and fits the spirit of the spell, which tends to leave players walking away from the table a bit happier and more content. Or, put another way, if it doesn't really affect much of anything, and it makes the player happy, why bother to forbid it. In the example I gave previously it is clear that at the levels one would have the equivalent of +10 armor (if ever) that adding the temporary enhancement bonus to AC accomplishes absolutely nothing but giving the player a feel good move. Forbidding it, conversely, accomplishes absolutely nothing but providing the potential for resentment around the feeling that a rule was arbitrarily interpreted to the negative, debates (or arguements), etc. etc.
The fact is that there is no right answer to this because the rules don't spell it out either way. There is no line saying "Temporary enhancement bonuses from spells are/aren't effected by this +10 max" so in the end, it is a matter of interpreation.
When I am boiled down to interpreting a rule and having to make a judgement call, I look at 1) game effect and balance and 2) Worst possible outcome for each decision.
I addressed balance in my last post, pointing out how in the scenario provided, a +5 enhancement bonus to the cleric's armor would result in *no difference at all in terms of the fighter's odds to hit*. So, play balance I will not sweat.
Now let's look at worse possible outcome. If I permit the spell on the set of armor, worst possible outcome is that the player will waste a 3rd level spell to enhance his armor, accomplishing nothing other than feeling good that his AC is sooo high, until he figures out that it makes no difference. If I forbid the spell, worst possible outcome is that the player will get all pissed off, resulting in arguements, debates, etc. etc over a decision I made that had *no point whatsoever except to say no, as in the end, casting the spell would not have made one blessed iota of difference*
My goal when I DM is for everyone to have fun, in the end. Fun comes in different packages for different people, but I think most people oppose rules interpretations that they feel are arbitrary or unfair. So again, my basic stance would be why bother to forbid it when it doesn't really do much of anything anyway?
Personally, I would restrict the defender to +5 enhancement bonus total, meaning that with the afore mentioned GMW cast upon it you can chose to have +2 att/dmg and +2 AC, +3 att/dmg and +1 AC, or +4 att/dmg +0 AC.
Comparing this to the magic vestment/armor with enhancement bonus equivalents situation is a case of apples versus oranges though. The defender does indeed have a +2 enhancement bonus, not a market price equivalent bonus. It happens to have a special ability that allows the user to chose whether to apply the enhancement bonus to offense or defense, but the enhancement bonus itself is inherent to the weapon.
The primary point of my last post was that allowing the enhancement bonus to affect armor that had all kinds of nifty non-armor class affecting enhancements is in no way unbalancing and fits the spirit of the spell, which tends to leave players walking away from the table a bit happier and more content. Or, put another way, if it doesn't really affect much of anything, and it makes the player happy, why bother to forbid it. In the example I gave previously it is clear that at the levels one would have the equivalent of +10 armor (if ever) that adding the temporary enhancement bonus to AC accomplishes absolutely nothing but giving the player a feel good move. Forbidding it, conversely, accomplishes absolutely nothing but providing the potential for resentment around the feeling that a rule was arbitrarily interpreted to the negative, debates (or arguements), etc. etc.
The fact is that there is no right answer to this because the rules don't spell it out either way. There is no line saying "Temporary enhancement bonuses from spells are/aren't effected by this +10 max" so in the end, it is a matter of interpreation.
When I am boiled down to interpreting a rule and having to make a judgement call, I look at 1) game effect and balance and 2) Worst possible outcome for each decision.
I addressed balance in my last post, pointing out how in the scenario provided, a +5 enhancement bonus to the cleric's armor would result in *no difference at all in terms of the fighter's odds to hit*. So, play balance I will not sweat.
Now let's look at worse possible outcome. If I permit the spell on the set of armor, worst possible outcome is that the player will waste a 3rd level spell to enhance his armor, accomplishing nothing other than feeling good that his AC is sooo high, until he figures out that it makes no difference. If I forbid the spell, worst possible outcome is that the player will get all pissed off, resulting in arguements, debates, etc. etc over a decision I made that had *no point whatsoever except to say no, as in the end, casting the spell would not have made one blessed iota of difference*
My goal when I DM is for everyone to have fun, in the end. Fun comes in different packages for different people, but I think most people oppose rules interpretations that they feel are arbitrary or unfair. So again, my basic stance would be why bother to forbid it when it doesn't really do much of anything anyway?
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Well, so does Craft Magic Arms...
I see it as the same thing.
Either an enhancement bonus granted through a spell is completely different to an enhancement bonus granted through CMA&A, or they're the same.
If they're different, then a Defender with a +4 Craft Enhancement bonus and a +4 GMW Enhancement bonus can assign any of its Craft Enhancement to defence. If it assigns 2 points, the it has a +2 AC bonus, a +2 Craft Enhancement bonus, and a +4 GMW Enhancement bonus. The 2 enhancement bonuses don't stack, so the result is +2 AC, +4 attack/damage. If all 4 Craft Enhancement points are assigned to AC, then the result is +4 AC, +4 attack/damage.
In this case, I can see no problem with Magic Vestment pumping a suit of armor up to +14 in bonus and bonus equivalents.
The alternative - they're the same. In this case, when the +4 GMW is applied to the +2 Defender, then for the duration of the spell, the sword has a +4 Enhancement bonus. The Defending property "allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword's enhancement bonus to his AC". Without GMW, that's up to 2 points. With GMW, it's up to 4.
And in this case, armor is limited by virtue of being armor to an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents) of +10. Regardless of the source of that enhancement bonus. If someone has +1 Silent Ethereal Armor of Invulnerability, it's already maxed out. Casting Magic Vestment is a waste of time, because that would push the effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents) above +10.
I think consistency is important, and I think that the two situations are similar enough that a ruling on one implies a ruling on the other.
-Hyp.
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (179) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027
