Magic Vestment

[Mike Sullivan]

The wording of the rules seems to me to fairly unambiguously support JChung2003's interpretation -- that using Magic Vestment on a breastplate has no result.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The spell grants the armor in question a (enhancement) bonus. A mundane breastplate doesn't have a bonus - it only grants a (armor) bonus to the wearer. So the spell will grant a whole +5 bonus (at 15th level) to that mundane armor. That armor, in turn, will grant you a +10 armor bonus then.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

The spell grants the armor in question a (enhancement) bonus.

Right.

A mundane breastplate doesn't have a bonus - it only grants a (armor) bonus to the wearer.

Hmmm.

Upon further reading of the spell, I think you're right -- the spell itself is very careful about what's what (clothing counts as armor which grants a +0 bonus, and an enhancement bonus increases an armor or shield's benefit.)

Poor choice of phrasing, though.

And it does seem to be the case that the bonus granted by Magic Vestment won't stack with other bonuses to the armor's base AC, like a luck bonus or whatever, beyond +5.

 

[kreynolds]

And it does seem to be the case that the bonus granted by Magic Vestment won't stack with other bonuses to the armor's base AC, like a luck bonus or whatever, beyond +5.

It should stack with any other bonus besides another enhancement bonus.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

Maybe the wording will be more clear in the 3.5 PH.

IMC, I count the MV as a temporary enhancement bonus. Therefore it does not stack with another enhancement bonus. I also do not allow any armor to have more than a +5 bonus above its normal armor bonus. So a +1 suit of full plate armor with a +3 MV spell cast upon it is temporarily +3 full plate armor. If this armor were to benefit from another +3 sacred or luck bonus, it would only be able to use an additional +2, because of the max of +5.

So far, IMC, there have not been any cases where this has applied. The current spellcasters can cast at 10th level, so +3 is the max for these kinds of spells. My dwarven cleric wears full plate armor, and usually buffs it with MV for 10 hours per day.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

It should stack with any other bonus besides another enhancement bonus.

But it clearly doesn't, by the book's wording:

Note: An enhancement bonus increases
armor’s or a shield’s benefit to the wearer’s
AC. A suit of armor cannot have more than
+5 in total bonuses (even if some of its
bonus is from other than enhancement).

How could that possibly be read to mean that armor, with, say, a +2 Luck bonus and a Magic Vestment cast by a level 15 caster would have a total of a +7 bonus?

I agree that that's probably a result of choked phrasing by the authors, and I'd certainly ignore it in my own games, but the wording is quite clear: The armor can not have more than +5 in total bonuses (note the plural to bonuses), and explicitely, this is still true even if some of the bonus is not enhancement bonus.

Now, if you read a Luck Bonus on a suit of armor as providing a bonus directly to the wearer's AC, rather than increasing the armor bonus provided by the armor, then that would work. However, that would mean that if you had a suit of armor with a Luck bonus to the AC, and a shield with a Luck bonus to the AC, the luck bonuses from the armor and shield would not stack (because they aren't improving the Armor bonus granted by the armor and shield, which are special-ruled to stack, but, instead, applying directly to the wearer -- so they're two like-named bonuses to the wearer's AC, and so don't stack).

This may be irrelevent, of course -- are there actually armor or shield based bonuses that are non-enhancement?

 

[kramis]

old religious texts

This is like one of those heated debates about some old religious text (choose your religion). Arguing the fine print in one passage through several translations vs. actually trying to figure out what the (human and thus prone to silly errors) author actually intended.

I haven't found it yet, but I wouldn't be surprised it there was a heated thread here somewhere whose whole basis was a misplaced comma ... did they mean to put the comma there or not? The whole meaning could change if the comma is in the wrong place ...

 

[kramis]

by the way

Just in case anyway is going to come back with the obvious flames to my post I'll say up front that I immensely enjoy reading these boards late at night ... better than the Jerry Springer show, so I certainly don't advocate anyone stopping or changing their style. Just feel the need to fuel the flames a bit now and then.

 

[kreynolds]

This may be irrelevent, of course -- are there actually armor or shield based bonuses that are non-enhancement?

There are lots of different bonus types, most of which do not stack with themselves. Non-epic armor is limited to a +5 enhancement bonus to AC. This is clearly written in the rules. However, a suit of armor with a +5 enhancement bonus, a +5 deflection bonus, and a +5 luck bonus, all to AC, still has only a +5 enhancement bonus. Therefore, even with a total of +15 to AC, it does not violate the rules.

That is simple fact, and I think the intent of the spell is quite clear in that it is not meant to violate the rules in such a poorly worded manner, rather it is meant to remind you of them. It just so happens that it failed pitifully.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: old religious texts

This is like one of those heated debates about some old religious text (choose your religion). Arguing the fine print in one passage through several translations vs. actually trying to figure out what the (human and thus prone to silly errors) author actually intended.

Well, I take comfort in the fact that my argument leans towards intent then.

I haven't found it yet, but I wouldn't be surprised it there was a heated thread here somewhere whose whole basis was a misplaced comma ...

They're not about misplaced commas, but find the threads about Mind Blank protecting against True Strike. Those are frickin' hysterical.