Magic Vestment

[Dthamilaye]

.

Imho, Hypersmurf has it quite right.

Only bonus that adds to ARMOUR is ENCHANTMENT.

Natural, Sacred, luck and such add to AC.

Now, according to Vestment spell, it allows only up to +5 effect to AC from ARMOUR (which, according to Hypersmurf logic, means all BONUSES which affect the ARMOUR).

Now, as Natural, Sacred, luck and so on don't affect the ARMOUR itself, but AC, then they are not counted towards the limit of the Vestment spell.

One can have an Earplug of +5 natural AC, +5 sacred AC +5 luck AC, if someone wants. Only Enchantment is the bonus that is added to the initial armour. Others are just separate magic things that are added with Craft Wondorous Items -feat.

 

[Darklone]

"Quite charming, that dude in his breastplate with Enchantments(TM)..."

Enhancements anyone?

 

[dcollins]

All right, let me rephrase.

It's only in reference to armor.

And one last time, I will restate:

No, it's not. There is no justification for this assertion, the exact language is "total bonuses", and your Holmesian deduction is therefore invalid. (At which point we return to my 05-11-2003 01:40 AM post.)

 

[kramis]

Cool

I think you guys might actually be using a +5 stick of dead horse beating. Where'd you find it?

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, it's not. There is no justification for this assertion, the exact language is "total bonuses"...

The exact language is "A suit of armor cannot have more than +5 in total bonuses".

Nothing about AC being limited to +5 in bonuses. Nothing about attack rolls being limited to +5 in total bonuses. Nothing about Strength, or damage, or saving throws, or anything else.

Just armor.

No justification?

-Hyp.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Why don't we finish that pointless debate? I'm 100% sure they didn't want to hamper armor by giving magic vestment that limit - no more than +5 armor bonus can be reached with that spell, meaning even the least type of armor (considering the PHB armor types only, not considering normal clothes) can get an increase of 4 at the most. - That would further penalize the boys with heavier armor (which cannot use their dex bonus) and make it harder in general to increase your AC - while you can increase your attack bonus quite easily, with greater magic weapon. Considering that attack bonuses exceed AC quite quickly (at least for characters without natural armor), this is hardly a good thing.

Also, they got rid of most of the special rulings in 3e (which was the point), so why would they do so here?

 

[IanB]

Why is there even an argument going on here?

If you take a suit of +5 leather armor, and add an enchantment that adds a +5 luck bonus to AC, you aren't changing the bonus armor class granted by the armor, you're essentially adding a slotless magic item bonus to the armor, much like making armor that gives a +6 enhancement bonus to a stat.

The fact that only enhancement bonuses add to the armor bonus of the armor in the first place, and that said enhancement bonuses are capped at +5 in non-epic items makes this whole argument pointless.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The fact that only enhancement bonuses add to the armor bonus of the armor in the first place, and that said enhancement bonuses are capped at +5 in non-epic items makes this whole argument pointless.

No, that's the very reason there is an argument.

a/ In the Core Rules, there are only two things that contribute to Armor Bonus - the base quality of the physical armor, and enhancement bonuses.
b/ The spell includes the phrase "even if some of its bonus is from other than enhancement".

(Oh, and "What about Divine Shield?" )

-Hyp.

 

[blakwind]

I'll briefly drop out of lurker mode to add that in my campaign, I have always ran Magic Vestmentas option A, total maximum bonus of +5, for the same reasons that dcollins has already stated. The text and the intent of the spell seemed crystal clear to me. In fact, prior to this thread, I hadn't even considered that the mechanics could be open to other interpretations. With so many folks disagreeing so vocally, however, I'm now doubting myself. For the record though, here's how I rationalized it.

Basically, the spell helps out those who need it the most. It gives a big boost to the effective AC of ordinary cloths, a small boost to light armors, and no boost at all to chainmail or better. It makes any armor less than chainmail as good as chainmail. I'm an old timer who's played a lot of 1st edition, and this seemed to be the modern interpretation of the spell from the old days. It's certainly an unusual spell, but that's exactly why it's interesting.

The cleric in my campaign often casts Magic Vestment on the party monk. He doesn't cast it on himself, 'cause he's already wearing platemail, so it doesn't help him.

As to Hypersmurf's argument -- that as written, the spell text precludes the existence of heavy armor -- I simply assumed that the note only referred to the effect of the Magic Vestment.

Like I said though, I'm now doubting myself.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The cleric in my campaign often casts Magic Vestment on the party monk. He doesn't cast it on himself, 'cause he's already wearing platemail, so it doesn't help him.

What about his shield?

Do you consider that Magic Vestment on a large shield caps at a +3 enhancement bonus - for a total of a +5 armor bonus - or at a +5 enhancement bonus, since it's not "a suit of armor" and therefore not limited by the disputed clause?

-Hyp.