Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6386156" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think a lot of posters could benefit from your pro tip!This is not correct. No DEX modifier is added to the numeric value of heavy armours. And only a limited amount of DEX modifier may be added to the numeric value of medium armours.Mage Armour refers to a base armour class. Which is defined as what you get from your armour and shield (Basic PDF p 44).To me, this implies (i) that wielding a shield while using Mage Armour does not increase AC, and (ii) that adjustments to armour class that are not adjustments to base armour class (eg cover bonuses) apply normally to a character using Mage Armour.Barkskin, lacking the reference to base armour class, seems to me to be implying that it is an adjustment to overall armour class. (The adjustment takes the form of establishing a minimum.)On the other hand, there is the reference to &quot;regardless of armour worn&quot;, which implies, perhaps, that non-armour considerations might affect your otherwise-minimum-AC of 16. Whether a shield might be such a consideration is further complicated by the fact that a shield is apparently a type of armour (it appears on the armour chart) although arguably it is not a type of armour that is worn.Bottom line: this is a very poorly worded spell. Although no doubt others think it is well-worded because it encourages GM rulings in favour of determinate rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6386156, member: 42582"] I think a lot of posters could benefit from your pro tip! This is not correct. No DEX modifier is added to the numeric value of heavy armours. And only a limited amount of DEX modifier may be added to the numeric value of medium armours. Mage Armour refers to a [I]base[/I] armour class. Which is defined as what you get from your armour and shield (Basic PDF p 44). To me, this implies (i) that wielding a shield while using Mage Armour does not increase AC, and (ii) that adjustments to armour class that are not adjustments to [I]base[/I] armour class (eg cover bonuses) apply normally to a character using Mage Armour. Barkskin, lacking the reference to base armour class, seems to me to be implying that it is an adjustment to [I]overall[/I] armour class. (The adjustment takes the form of establishing a minimum.) On the other hand, there is the reference to "regardless of armour worn", which implies, perhaps, that non-armour considerations might affect your otherwise-minimum-AC of 16. Whether a shield might be such a consideration is further complicated by the fact that a shield is apparently a type of armour (it appears on the [I]armour [/I]chart) although arguably it is not a type of armour that is [I]worn[/I]. Bottom line: this is a very poorly worded spell. Although no doubt others think it is well-worded because it encourages GM rulings in favour of determinate rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification