Magic Vestment

[Hypersmurf]

You're trying too hard to make it look absurd. The described limit is within the context of the spell.

No, I'm not, and it's not stated as having anything to do with the spell. It states that armor cannot have a bonus higher than +5, whatever the source.

The location of a rule does not limit its scope. To believe otherwise means that the Two-Weapon Fighting feat reduces the penalties for throwing axes with both hands, or that enhancement bonuses on bows provide no extra hardness, extra hit points, or imunity to weapons of lesser enhancement.

Either the phrase is meant to include the base armor bonus of a suit of armor, in which case heavy armor does not exist; or it doesn't, in which case Magic Vestment can give a mundane suit of full plate a +5 bonus.

Since it is quite clear that heavy armor exists, the second case must be true - the passage in question does not take into account the physical armor bonus provided by the suit of armor, only modifiers thereto.

-Hyp.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

Either the phrase is meant to include the base armor bonus of a suit of armor, in which case heavy armor does not exist; or it doesn't, in which case Magic Vestment can give a mundane suit of full plate a +5 bonus.

Since it is quite clear that heavy armor exists, the second case must be true - the passage in question does not take into account the physical armor bonus provided by the suit of armor, only modifiers thereto.

That is how I read it, too. I was just stunned by the other interpretation, I guess.

 

[dcollins]

Either the phrase is meant to include the base armor bonus of a suit of armor, in which case heavy armor does not exist; or it doesn't, in which case Magic Vestment can give a mundane suit of full plate a +5 bonus.

Since it is quite clear that heavy armor exists, the second case must be true - the passage in question does not take into account the physical armor bonus provided by the suit of armor, only modifiers thereto.

It's ridiculous to think that a clause inside a spell is a universal ruling. If that were so, even under your "B" interpretation, then the spell is still asserting that no bonuses of any kind stack with any others -- "even if some of its bonus is from other than enhancement" -- which is just as absurd a contradiction of the rules at large.

The only intepretation left, then, is that the note is with respect to the spell it's under.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If that were so, even under your "B" interpretation, then the spell is still asserting that no bonuses of any kind stack with any others -- "even if some of its bonus is from other than enhancement" -- which is just as absurd a contradiction of the rules at large.

It's only in reference to modifiers to an armor's bonus, though.

Leather Armor gives a base Armor Bonus of +2. It can be modified up to +7 by means of bonuses that increase that. Enhancement is the only one given in the DMG, since most other bonuses modify AC directly.

But if there were, for example, a substance that, when smeared on leather, provides a +2 Alchemical Bonus to the Armor's Bonus, then the Magic Vestment ruling would mean that:

Leather Armor: +2 Armor Bonus.
+1 Leather Armor: +3 Armor Bonus (+2 Base, +1 modifier).
+3 Hardened Leather Armor: +7 Armor Bonus (+2 base, +3 enhancement, +2 alchemical).
+4 Hardened Leather Armor: +7 Armor Bonus (+2 base, +4 enhancement, +2 alchemical, to a maximum of +5 in modifiers).

That's not a contradiction of the Stacking rules, it's merely an addendum, setting an upper limit on the total protective capability of a suit of armor or shield.

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

But if there were, for example, a substance that, when smeared on leather, provides a +2 Alchemical Bonus to the Armor's Bonus, then the Magic Vestment ruling would mean that:

They rest of you guys' argument doesn't interest me much, but I'm swiping this for my campaign.

 

[JChung2003]

Re: Cast on armour and shields?

The spell says it effects a suit or armour or shield. If you cast it on both armour and shield (ie two spells) do they stack for a possible +10 enhancement bonus (+5 from armour, +5 from shield)?

Yes. DMG p. 179: "Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses."

 

[JChung2003]

Build me a breastplate with +5 luck, +5 deflection, +5 enhancement and +5 natural armour bonus.

DMG pg. 179: "Magic armor bonuses are referred to as enhancement bonuses [and] never rise above +5. A suit of armor cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10."

 

[kreynolds]

DMG pg. 179: "Magic armor bonuses are referred to as enhancement bonuses [and] never rise above +5. A suit of armor cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10."

While that passage in the DMG is informative, it's irrelevant in regards to the armor you quoted. The aforementioned armor still does not have an effective enhancement bonus higher than +10. Let's break it down...

+5 enhancement
+5 deflection
+5 luck
+5 natural armor

...now, which of those are enhancements? Only the first. Nothing else. "Effective bonus" refers to armor enhancements, such as fortification, like +5 heavy fortification full plate. That would have an effective bonus of +10, and could go no higher. But, you could still add the deflection, luck, and natural armor without exceeding the limit. Why? Because those three are not enhancement bonuses.

Make sense?

 

[dcollins]

It's only in reference to modifiers to an armor's bonus, though.

No, it's not. The exact phrase is "total bonuses". The fact that you're arguing that the clause is referring to non-existent bonuses (such as a hypothetical "alchemical bonus to armor") reinforces my observation that you're trying way too hard to make the language look absurd.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, it's not.

All right, let me rephrase.

It's only in reference to armor.

The passage doesn't have sweeping ramifications throughout the whole stacking system, only armor.

If we include the base armor bonus, it is a contradictory rule. It precludes the existence of Heavy Armor.

If we don't, it is just an additive rule. It merely limits the total bonus that can be added to a suit of armor.

One is possible, the other isn't. And as Sherlock Holmes is so often quoted as saying, once we have eliminated the impossible...

-Hyp.