Magic Vestment

[KillingAScarab]

Going to play it safe and put this in with 3.X topics. So, in OotS #1039 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1039.html) we have a high level cleric who has, in the recent past, had access to ample resources (leading an entire city) casting magic vestment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicVestment.htm) on his own armor. Is this a tactic which you, yourself, would consider? It seems like a waste of a spell slot every day to me, unless your armor is just +1 with a bunch of special abilities. I don't mean to imply that every character in every story must do the most optimal thing, period, but is there something I'm missing here? Is there something which combines well with this particular spell? Do high level clerics have nothing better to prepare in a third level spell slot?

[Pluto!]

A 3rd level Pearl of Power is cheaper than actual armor enhancements.

[Troacctid]

Why would you pay tens of thousands of gp to increase your armor bonus by a few points when you could do it for free with magic vestment instead?

[IcarusWulfe]

Generally, it is considered a bit of a waste to spend money getting flat + X bonus. So a lot of people (especially when optimizing) will actually have +1 armor with a bunch of enchantment. The reasoning is that +x bonus to AC will become irrelevant eventually while an enchantment can be useful at all levels. Thus the use of Greater Magic Vestiment is not that uncommon at the higher levels.

[KillingAScarab]

A 3rd level Pearl of Power is cheaper than actual armor enhancements.But, that just lets you cast the spell again after preparing and casting it once. Would that be a lower level tactic, to get the benefit for the whole day?


Why would you pay tens of thousands of gp to increase your armor bonus by a few points when you could do it for free with magic vestment instead?I haven't really played dedicated spellcasters, and very little at high level. The sure thing seems better to me over the one which could be dispelled. I'm also assuming Redcloak had alot of resources at his disposal. He also doesn't seem like the type to rely solely on the power of his deity.


Generally, it is considered a bit of a waste to spend money getting flat + X bonus. So a lot of people (especially when optimizing) will actually have +1 armor with a bunch of enchantment. The reasoning is that +x bonus to AC will become irrelevant eventually while an enchantment can be useful at all levels. Thus the use of Greater Magic Vestiment is not that uncommon at the higher levels.What book is the greater version printed in?

[Malroth]

Redcloak is a lv 19+ Cleric with artifiact lv equipment, the number of beings in the world who can sucessfully dispel him can probably be counted on his fingers, and even if they do dispel it, an epic lv or near epic lv opponent just wasted a combat action that could have been lethal in order to strip a protection that defends against physical attacks which makes it a 3rd lv slot well spent.

[Barstro]

Agreeing with above, I'd rather have +1 armor with +3 with of other enhancements and the option of casting Magic Vestments. As the caster gains levels, Magic Vestments saves more money.

Rarely have my characters felt strapped for spell slots due to using MV..


But, that just lets you cast the spell again after preparing and casting it once. Would that be a lower level tactic, to get the benefit for the whole day?
Ah, but Pearls can be used for ANY spell that was prepared. As long as there is a single spell of that level you might want to cast a second time that day, it works out as a "free" Magic Vestments.

[Pluto!]

But, that just lets you cast the spell again after preparing and casting it once. Would that be a lower level tactic, to get the benefit for the whole day?
If you have a spell that you want to cast more than once a day - Nauseating Breath, Dispel Magic or Summon Monster, for instance - you can use the Pearl instead of a normal spell slot for it, which frees up a level 3 slot for Magic Vestment at 9k, which at higher levels is a good price.

Vestment's actually a lot better at high levels than low levels, due to its scaling bonus and the decreasing value of level 3 spell slots.

Not to mention that once you hit level 12 or so, you usually have more spell slots every day than you have combat rounds, which makes it pretty affordable to spend a couple slots for things like Magic Vestment, Superior Resistance or Greater Magic Weapon, freeing up a bunch of cash for things you actually want to spend your money on.

Plus there's the trick of preparing Extended Hour/level buffs the day before you dungeon-dive and casting them before bed the night before, which leaves you with their benefits on your adventuring day without costing any spell slots.

[Glimbur]

If nothing else, you could use the Pearl of Power to get magic vestment back and then spontaneously cast an inflict spell (in the case of Redcloak) instead. Probably a waste of an action in combat at his level, but it is an option.

[KillingAScarab]

Ah, these are all valid points. I jumped straight to using the Pearl of Power for magic vestment, rather than other things which then allows for preparing magic vestment. Thanks, all.


Plus there's the trick of preparing Extended Hour/level buffs the day before you dungeon-dive and casting them before bed the night before, which leaves you with their benefits on your adventuring day without costing any spell slots.Now there's a trick that didn't work when I tried a Clericzilla in Hordes of the Underdark (starting level for a new character is 15, I believe). Resting worked very differently in BioWare's Neverwinter Nights: you could rest anywhere which was far enough from enemies, the in-game clock didn't really matter much so the progress bar would fill in less than a minute, but all your buffs were removed once you began.

[Inevitability]

Also remember that Redcloak is as far as we know the closest thing to a decent tank his party has (MitD has never entered a fight, Xykon's a blaster, Oona is probably low-level and her worg is even weaker). In such a situation, a +5 bonus to AC is probably more useful than whatever low-level offensive spell he could've cast. Even a 3rd-level summon probably reduces incoming damage by a smaller amount.

[Gildedragon]

If the pearl of power III is too onerous, a minor schema of magic vestment is 3k cheaper and is good enough for a 1/day use.

[LTwerewolf]

If you're allowing 3pp, spheres of power has a feat that lets you use your caster level instead of a wand's. Use this with an eternal wand and you're pretty set.

[honorconner]

For arcane folks an extended mage armor will give you +4 all day

[Andezzar]

If you're allowing 3pp, spheres of power has a feat that lets you use your caster level instead of a wand's. Use this with an eternal wand and you're pretty set.I don't know that feat, but eternal wands are not actually wands despite their name. They are wondrous items.


For arcane folks an extended mage armor will give you +4 all dayThat however is an armor bonus and the target of the spell is a character, magic vestment is an enhancement bonus to AC and the target of the spell is a suit of armor. The former overlaps with a full plate, the latter enhances it.

[honorconner]

For arcane folks an extended mage armor will give you +4 all day

[Sliver]

For arcane folks an extended mage armor will give you +4 all day

That however is an armor bonus and the target of the spell is a character, magic vestment is an enhancement bonus to AC and the target of the spell is a suit of armor. The former overlaps with a full plate, the latter enhances it.

[Âmesang]

Though I imagine one could conceivably use (greater) mage armor in conjunction with bracers of armor +1 loaded with abilities (via the Arms and Equipment Guide, page 130).

[Andezzar]

Though I imagine one could conceivably use (greater) mage armor in conjunction with bracers of armor +1 loaded with abilities (via the Arms and Equipment Guide, page 130).Doing that with a suit of armor with 0% spell failure and -0 ACP will probably be cheaper.

[LTwerewolf]

I don't know that feat, but eternal wands are not actually wands despite their name. They are wondrous items.


Nowhere does it say the wand is not a wand, and it requires craft wand to make, I'm inclined to call it a wand.

[Andezzar]

Nowhere does it say the wand is not a wand, and it requires craft wand to make, I'm inclined to call it a wand.
1. It does not work like a wand:

The spell need not be on the user's class spell list, but the user must be able to cast arcane spells. Wands work in the opposite way (spell needs to be on class list, user need not be able to cast spells).
It is not a charged item.
Command word activation instead of spell trigger activation.
Activation always requires a standard action and not the action that the spell stored would require if it is longer.


2. Eternal wands are not created like wands

You need Craft Wondrous Items in addition to Craft Wands
You need not supply the material or XP components of the spell in the Eternal Wand during cration.

So except for similar names the two items are not alike.

[IcarusWulfe]

But, that just lets you cast the spell again after preparing and casting it once. Would that be a lower level tactic, to get the benefit for the whole day?

I haven't really played dedicated spellcasters, and very little at high level. The sure thing seems better to me over the one which could be dispelled. I'm also assuming Redcloak had alot of resources at his disposal. He also doesn't seem like the type to rely solely on the power of his deity.

What book is the greater version printed in?

Oops, it looks like I got Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment mixed up in my head. There's no such thing as Greater Magic Vestment:smalltongue:

[LTwerewolf]

1. It does not work like a wand:


2. Eternal wands are not created like wands


So except for similar names the two items are not alike.

1. It does not work like other wands. They are a different type of wand.

2. They require craft wand. This makes them a wand. They require craft wondrous item. This makes them a wondrous item. Being a wondrous item and being a wand is not mutually exclusive.

It is called a wand. It is a wand.

[KillianHawkeye]

For all we know, Redcloak's armor may be mostly decorative! :smallbiggrin:

[Andezzar]

1. It does not work like other wands. They are a different type of wand.So you do acknowledge that they are different. Please show me the rule saying that an item different from a (regular) wand is treated like a (regular) wand.


2. They require craft wand. This makes them a wand. They require craft wondrous item. This makes them a wondrous item. Being a wondrous item and being a wand is not mutually exclusive.Please show me those rules. I may have gone too far by saying that they are wondrous items, but there is no rule saying that anything created with both those feats is either one of those types of items or both. All we know is that an Eternal Wand is a magic item.


It is called a wand. It is a wand.No, it is not called a wand, it is called an eternal wand. That makes about as much sense as saying Obscure Object is a Cure spell. Is a traffic jam, something you spread on pastry?

Wands and Eternal Wands have some superficial similarities but they are by no means identical. There is no indication in the rules for staff-like wand (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/arcane-discoveries/arcane-discoveries-paizo/staff-like-wand) that it works for anything other than a (regular) wand.

[Troacctid]

The rules call eternal wands "a new form of wand", so yes, they are wands.

[LTwerewolf]

No, it is not called a wand, it is called an eternal wand. That makes about as much sense as saying Obscure Object is a Cure spell. Is a traffic jam, something you spread on pastry?

No, it is more akin to you saying that a white automatic shifting car, because it doesn't work like a red stick shift car, is not a car. To me, both of these things are still cars.

[Andezzar]

Since cars are defined as comprising both options and others besides I agree with you in that case, however a wand is not defined in a similar manner. A wand is a very specific type of magic item.

Is this even an issue, if you play pathfinder? Are there rules for eternal wands in that game? It seems the issue comes from combining two not totally compatible systems. In that case you need houseruling anyways. I wouldn't allow staff-like wand to work with eternal wands.

[Florian]

Is this even an issue, if you play pathfinder? Are there rules for eternal wands in that game?

Nope. They don´t exist.