Magic Vestment on a shirt = "Armor"

[Destil]

At least one publisher calls a shirt armor for the sake of enchanting. After consideration, I don't agree.

A monk or spell caster should not easily be able to get armor abilities such as fortification. Spellcasters already have a lot of options, and the monk has a lot of abilites to compensate.

Per the core rules: Mithral buckler. 0% Arcane spell failure, enhance away. Spellcasters being able to wear and enhance mithral armor is an old tradition in D&D... though with the new magic item prices, it does make mithral look rather easy to obtain, compaired to what is usted to be.

 

[LokiDR]

Per the core rules: Mithral buckler. 0% Arcane spell failure, enhance away. Spellcasters being able to wear and enhance mithral armor is an old tradition in D&D... though with the new magic item prices, it does make mithral look rather easy to obtain, compaired to what is usted to be.

The tradition I recall from 2nd ed was "you can not cast spells if you are wearing armor". You have a point about the mirthral buckler, but I have never seen a caster use one.

 

[dcollins]

So you are saying that the MV makes a shirt into a +5 armor bonus, which wouldn't stack with the +4 from mage armor? That makes sense.

Precisely.

Could a spell then be created, say "enhance defense" which gives an enhancement to the defense an item provides, and use it in conjunction with bracers of armor? Or would the spell only function on the bracers and not effect the mage armor spell that is effectively on you?

That's a little hard to follow, but: no, that would be a very significant variant of the core rules. In so doing you're making some kind of new "meta-enhancement" bonus type which doesn't exist in the rules as they stand, and would seem to very likely break the existing stacking-balancing system.

An "enhancement bonus" to armor is an existing bonus type by the rules. What you're suggesting here is something very, very different.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

The tradition I recall from 2nd ed was "you can not cast spells if you are wearing armor". You have a point about the mirthral buckler, but I have never seen a caster use one.

well that's just silly. They should take a mithral bucker+1 of fortificaiton. Sure they get no AC benefit since it won't stack with their bracers of armor, but they get fortificaiton, and get to avoid some crits and sneak attacks. I'm I going to have to come over there and show your players how to powergame.

 

[LokiDR]

That's a little hard to follow, but: no, that would be a very significant variant of the core rules. In so doing you're making some kind of new "meta-enhancement" bonus type which doesn't exist in the rules as they stand, and would seem to very likely break the existing stacking-balancing system.

An "enhancement bonus" to armor is an existing bonus type by the rules. What you're suggesting here is something very, very different.

Well, that teaches me to type off the top of my head. Tome and Blood list armor enhancement as only being possible by craft arms and armor, so I guess I should leave it at that.

 

[LokiDR]

well that's just silly. They should take a mithral bucker+1 of fortificaiton. Sure they get no AC benefit since it won't stack with their bracers of armor, but they get fortificaiton, and get to avoid some crits and sneak attacks. I'm I going to have to come over there and show your players how to powergame.

I play a caster with a silk shirt +1 of Speed, using the DotF speed enchantment before the errata. Some of us don't need much in the way of powergaming leasons .