Best armor stat wise

[Gwyllgi]

In the Underdark book on page 70 there's a armor enchantment called halfweight. Which reduces armor weight by half and lowers its armor class down to light. I wanted to try to make a mountain plate with this on it but I was wondering, barring most unofficial sources i.e. Most Third party stuff, what's the best armor / special ability set up I could make using Half weight to bring a heavy down to light.
I'm asking this for use with a character who is a Spellscale Dread Necro/SpellSword gestalt that uses monk fast movement (up to light armor) and unarmed attack scaling.

[Maat Mons]

Thaalud stone armor comes in at a hefty +12 armor bonus. Is Anauroch: The Empire of Shade too obscure for you?

Edit: Even if A:EoS is off the table, there's always Mechanus gear, from Planar Handbook. It's basically mountain plate, except without the drawbacks, and you don't need to spend a feat.

[Gwyllgi]

Do you have a page number for the stone armor?

[Maat Mons]

Page 108. Sorry. I forgot how hard it is to find.

[Gwyllgi]

After reading the description I'm wondering. It says that the plate gets its absurd AC from ston plates on the armor, at the same time stating that the base is metal... I guess this means you could in theory have it made out of any material aswell because you're replacing the the metal plates the thaalud stone is attached to.

[Crake]

After reading the description I'm wondering. It says that the plate gets its absurd AC from ston plates on the armor, at the same time stating that the base is metal... I guess this means you could in theory have it made out of any material aswell because you're replacing the the metal plates the thaalud stone is attached to.

While that may be true, that would be like making an axe's haft out of darkwood, or studded leather's studs out of adamantium. While you could do it, I doubt any GM would let it have a meaningful effect.

[HouseRules]

Naked at Dex > 40. This is actually true because your character's dex modifier would be bounded by armor. Your armor class would be higher using your dex bonus directly once it becomes so high. Around level 36+ your dex score could be 40+, and dex modifier 15+.

[noob]

Naked at Dex > 40. This is actually true because your character's dex modifier would be bounded by armor. Your armor class would be higher using your dex bonus directly once it becomes so high. Around level 36+ your dex modifier could be 40+.

you should probably wear a mithril buckler or a feycraft targe or both since those have no maximum dex and while they do not stack you can get armor enchantments for cheaper if you spread them among multiple shields.

[HouseRules]

Basically, any equipment not an armor that gives armor class is better than an actual armor.

Bracer of Armor, etc.

[Deophaun]

you should probably wear a mithril buckler or a feycraft targe or both since those have no maximum dex and while they do not stack you can get armor enchantments for cheaper if you spread them among multiple shields.
Depends. Are you also getting your Wis/Cha bonus to AC? In that case, no buckler.

And you can still spread armor enhancements out between clothes and bracers of armor. There aren't that many that are worthwhile anyway, and they aren't doubled in price like weapons.

[noob]

Depends. Are you also getting your Wis/Cha bonus to AC? In that case, no buckler.

And you can still spread armor enhancements out between clothes and bracers of armor. There aren't that many that are worthwhile anyway, and they aren't doubled in price like weapons.

The enchantments that works as +x do increase in cost quadratically if you put them all on the same item.
If you want soulfire and +4 armor then it is better to spread those enchantments between two shields: the total cost will be roughly half as much.

[Deophaun]

The enchantments that works as +x do increase in cost quadratically if you put them all on the same item.
If you want soulfire and +4 armor then it is better to spread those enchantments between two shields: the total cost will be roughly half as much.
As I said, there aren't that many worthwhile that you would need more than two pieces to spread them around. And there's no reason to have +4 armor when magic vestment is a thing.

[noob]

As I said, there aren't that many worthwhile that you would need more than two pieces to spread them around. And there's no reason to have +4 armor when magic vestment is a thing.

it depends on how much gibbering orbs you want to face tank.

[Deophaun]

it depends on how much gibbering orbs you want to face tank.
With gibbering orbs you cast ray deflection and watch your DM throw up his hands.

[CIDE]

Wasn't there a combo of armor pieces from the oriental adventures books that could layer pieces of armor? And, while it may not be the best the Clockwork armor made out of riverine would have no max dex bonus for a wearer that can properly use it.

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cw/20070212a

Riverine makes it (effectively) unbreakable, +8 armor like full plate, +4 circumstance bonus to Strength AND Dex, and just all around looks cool with the automatically retracting helmet. Used properly it's a +10 AC before enhancement bonus even comes into play and any other sorts of shenanigans. I'm just not sure making it light armor helps any.

[Elkad]

And there's no reason to have +4 armor when magic vestment is a thing.

Because nobody ever casts Dispel Magic in combat. Especially not Chained Greater Dispel aimed at five party members, 5 suits of armor, every held weapon, and a random selection of other visible gear.

[Deophaun]

Because nobody ever casts Dispel Magic in combat. Especially not Chained Greater Dispel aimed at five party members, 5 suits of armor, every held weapon, and a random selection of other visible gear.
You do realize that it's easy to cast buffs at a CL of "nope" when it comes to dispelling?

[noob]

You do realize that it's easy to cast buffs at a CL of "nope" when it comes to dispelling?

sadly it does not works against mordenkainen disjunction or dweomer vortex.

[Deophaun]

sadly it does not works against mordenkainen disjunction or dweomer vortex.
The nice thing about buffs is they don't cost you tens of thousands of gold when they're disjoined.

Dweomer vortex is the rub, but that's entirely dependent on the DM knowing it even exists.

[Elkad]

You do realize that it's easy to cast buffs at a CL of "nope" when it comes to dispelling?

At a level of optimization not seen at most tables, sure.

The majority of tables are going to have buffs at character level, to maybe 5 points higher.

[noob]

The nice thing about buffs is they don't cost you tens of thousands of gold when they're disjoined.

Dweomer vortex is the rub, but that's entirely dependent on the DM knowing it even exists.

The nice thing about magic items is that you get some chance to still have it after a disjunction and so not be powerless against the wizard who just disjoined you.

[Elkad]

Dweomer vortex is the rub, but that's entirely dependent on the DM knowing it even exists.

Except it's trivially stopped by Magic Aura or similar long-duration buffs.

[Gwyllgi]

Wasn't there a combo of armor pieces from the oriental adventures books that could layer pieces of armor? And, while it may not be the best the Clockwork armor made out of riverine would have no max dex bonus for a wearer that can properly use it.


Riverine makes it (effectively) unbreakable, +8 armor like full plate, +4 circumstance bonus to Strength AND Dex, and just all around looks cool with the automatically retracting helmet. Used properly it's a +10 AC before enhancement bonus even comes into play and any other sorts of shenanigans. I'm just not sure making it light armor helps any.

Riverine can get dispelled... then I'm a naked wet dragon man doing kungfu poses on a castle ledge.

[ezekielraiden]

Riverine can get dispelled... then I'm a naked wet dragon man doing kungfu poses on a castle ledge.

From what I can tell, it seems only disintegrate, a rod of cancellation, a sphere of annihilation, or disjunction can destroy it. No mention of dispel or greater dispel is made.

That said, half the armor bonus becomes deflection bonus, which means you can't use a ring of protection. Given that an armor bonus of +8 and a ring of protection +5 is better than +4 armor and +4 deflection, I suspect a different material would be superior, if some material that lets max dex bonus be unbounded exists.

[Deophaun]

At a level of optimization not seen at most tables, sure.
Ring of enduring arcana + bead of karma will get you +8 out of the gate. That's two points away from "nope" to an equal level caster. This is base level optimization for a buffer.

"Oh, but they're expensive." Not for the levels chain dispel is a thing to worry about. Or even for the levels when you run into things with at-will greater dispel.

The nice thing about magic items is that you get some chance to still have it after a disjunction and so not be powerless against the wizard who just disjoined you.
You're talking about a +5 armor bonus. How does losing that make you powerless? Slightly inconvenienced, maybe. But you were hit by a disjunction. You have bigger things to worry about.

Honestly, no one wants to be hit by disjunction. Maybe possibly having a chance at only being nearly entirely screwed by it is not a check in anything's favor. Certainly not worth 25 grand. You protect against disjunction by not being a valid target of disjunction. Period.

Except it's trivially stopped by Magic Aura or similar long-duration buffs.
Magic aura doesn't stop it. A high-level adventurer wearing something that doesn't radiate magic is suspicious. And while you can cast a thousand arcane marks on the item, you're now in cheese town.

From what I can tell, it seems only disintegrate, a rod of cancellation, a sphere of annihilation, or disjunction can destroy it. No mention of dispel or greater dispel is made.
Forceward. That's the big one. Because you might actually want to have forceward cast in an area you are in.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Spellblade for both dispel magic and the greater version only costs 12,000 gp, which is really cheap for someone who relies on self-buffage and doesn't want to get FUBAR'd by any hedge-mage with CL boosts that comes along.

[CIDE]

Riverine can get dispelled... then I'm a naked wet dragon man doing kungfu poses on a castle ledge.

No, it can't. Almost anything that will harm Riverine is already going to destroy other armors anyway.


From what I can tell, it seems only disintegrate, a rod of cancellation, a sphere of annihilation, or disjunction can destroy it. No mention of dispel or greater dispel is made.

That said, half the armor bonus becomes deflection bonus, which means you can't use a ring of protection. Given that an armor bonus of +8 and a ring of protection +5 is better than +4 armor and +4 deflection, I suspect a different material would be superior, if some material that lets max dex bonus be unbounded exists.

If the dex is high I'd still take the Clockwork armor (which is actually +4 armor, +4 deflection, +2 from dex for a total of +10) over full plate+ring. It's kind of useless for the price but you'd still get a +1 from a +5 ring due to overlap with a theoretical +11 with no max dex vs +13. I'm sure there's other ways to stack more on top of the Riverine suit too.

I don't know of any tricks to get a higher max dex from conventional armors that can compete. So, it really comes down to what the dex is and whether it's worth the extra cost of clockwork armor.

Edit: keep in mind there's also no spell failure with the clockwork armor. I know he's got spellsword levels but that's kind of a big deal.

[Elkad]

Except it's trivially stopped by Magic Aura or similar long-duration buffs.


Magic aura doesn't stop it. A high-level adventurer wearing something that doesn't radiate magic is suspicious. And while you can cast a thousand arcane marks on the item, you're now in cheese town.

Dweomer Vortex only dispels 6 spell levels, and lowest to highest. You don't need thousands of spells on your sword, just a couple. You aren't trying to block detection.
Changing the aura could be useful in some situations (change the abjuration of Dimensional Lock/Binding, or the Transmutation of Keen, to a Evocation[Fire], so they think it's a silly Flaming Burst weapon), but that's unrelated to this topic.

Vs a buffed party, the Vortex is likely to cancel Anticipate Teleportation, Protection from Evil 10', and similar buffs and then dissipate as soon as you walk into their area of effect anyway. You may not even get to target that sword unless you have a stack of Vortices pre-cast. Which is still a great use for the spell, but the lack of control of what it Dispels limits it somewhat.

[Crake]

Ring of enduring arcana + bead of karma will get you +8 out of the gate. That's two points away from "nope" to an equal level caster. This is base level optimization for a buffer.

I can count the number of times those items have been bought in my games on one hand.


Spellblade for both dispel magic and the greater version only costs 12,000 gp, which is really cheap for someone who relies on self-buffage and doesn't want to get FUBAR'd by any hedge-mage with CL boosts that comes along.

Yeah, but blocking dispel and greater dispel once each for 12k is pretty expensive. Spellblades only function once.

[ezekielraiden]

I can count the number of times those items have been bought in my games on one hand.

Frankly, I can't imagine not grabbing both if you can as a full-caster reliant on buffs, and can afford the relatively low price of 26k. Slotless +4 to your CL when you buff up in the morning is amazing for 20k (much better than the orange prism ioun stone, which is 30k!), and if you don't have a pressing need for some other ring, Enduring Arcana is among the best choices for the buff-dependent. (My current 3.PF gestalt Druid/Wizard is using both, particularly since the +4 to CL from the bead only requires a divine spell to activate--the CL applies to all spells, regardless of origin.)


Yeah, but blocking dispel and greater dispel once each for 12k is pretty expensive. Spellblades only function once.

Er...once ever? I'm pretty sure that's not how most people read it. "The wielder of a spellblade weapon is immune to a single spell chosen at the time the weapon is created." How can you be immune if it only works once?

(To be clear: I think it's terribly written, and there's room for a RAI argument that, at its price, it was meant to be more limited in use. But it does explicitly say the wielder is immune to the spell, full stop, no further info needed; any argument about its limited effect could only apply to the absorb-and-redirect part.)

[Crake]

Er...once ever? I'm pretty sure that's not how most people read it. "The wielder of a spellblade weapon is immune to a single spell chosen at the time the weapon is created." How can you be immune if it only works once?

(To be clear: I think it's terribly written, and there's room for a RAI argument that, at its price, it was meant to be more limited in use. But it does explicitly say the wielder is immune to the spell, full stop, no further info needed; any argument about its limited effect could only apply to the absorb-and-redirect part.)

It then goes on to say that "The next time that spell is cast [it is cancelled etc]". It doesn't say "every time" or "each time" it says "the next" time. To me, that quite clearly says it functions once, and it's price also reflects that.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It then goes on to say that "The next time that spell is cast [it is cancelled etc]". It doesn't say "every time" or "each time" it says "the next" time. To me, that quite clearly says it functions once, and it's price also reflects that.But the effect is still on the weapon. It says nothing about fizzling or dispelling or whatever. So it's still in effect, meaning that the next time, it still happens. And the next. And the next. And so on. There's always a next time (until there isn't, of course).

[Crake]

But the effect is still on the weapon. It says nothing about fizzling or dispelling or whatever. So it's still in effect, meaning that the next time, it still happens. And the next. And the next. And so on. There's always a next time (until there isn't, of course).

That's a strange way of reading the word "next". If a store were to say "the next customer to sign up with our exclusive program will get a free teddy bear" does that mean that every "next" customer gets one? No, only the first next customer, that's how english works. You can use all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify your interpretation, my reasoning is pretty solid, and I think the wording and the price make it pretty clear it's supposed to be a one-off effect meant to protect you against some kind of really painful, powerful effect, but cognitive dissonance can be a powerful thing.

[Thurbane]

I remember one of the forum members (Curmudgoen, no longer active AFAIK) made an argument that normal robes can be enchanted as armor, due to the wording of magic vestment?

[Elkad]

I remember one of the forum members (Curmudgoen, no longer active AFAIK) made an argument that normal robes can be enchanted as armor, due to the wording of magic vestment?

Sure, just like normal skin (Natural Armor of 0) can be enhanced with Barkskin.

Your robe has an AC bonus of 0, with whatever enhancement bonus stacked on top.

That is straightforward.

Where it gets weird is when people try to combine items. "I wear my +1 chain shirt with +9 more spent on abilities like Fortification, for 5 AC bonus, and cast magic vestment on my tunic for +4 enhancement bonus"
I'm sure there is a table where that flies. But it isn't mine.

[Ruethgar]

Best armor stat wise would be 3.P piecemeal armor of some sort that’s been buffed to the nines. Even without pathfinder, Light Reinforced Sharpened Serrated Spikes&Razors Dual Wand Chamber Legendary Muffle Camouflage Segmented armor can all be applied for some lovely minor bonuses without magic.

[Necroticplague]

Where it gets weird is when people try to combine items. "I wear my +1 chain shirt with +9 more spent on abilities like Fortification, for 5 AC bonus, and cast magic vestment on my tunic for +4 enhancement bonus"
I'm sure there is a table where that flies. But it isn't mine.

It shouldn't be any, because that's not how enhancement bonuses on armor and shields work. There's only one source of an enhancement bonus to AC directly, and it's a power. The rest are enhancement bonuses to other bonuses to AC. This includes the theoretical magic tunic, which would be gaining a +4 enhancement bonus to its armor bonus to AC, making it provide +4 armor bonus to AC, which wouldn't stack with the +5 armor bonus of the chain.

[shaikujin]

Best armor stat wise would be 3.P piecemeal armor of some sort that’s been buffed to the nines. Even without pathfinder, Light Reinforced Sharpened Serrated Spikes&Razors Dual Wand Chamber Legendary Muffle Camouflage Segmented armor can all be applied for some lovely minor bonuses without magic.

This.

Dark Sun has even more advantageous rules for piecemeal armor though.

As along as a magic ability exists on the torso piece, the helmet or any 2 other pieces of other armor parts, you get the full benefits.

Enhancement bonus still doesn't stack and will come from the largest piece, normally the torso. Also, helms grant 1 additional AC.

Hence, you can for example, enchant 3 sets of clockwork armor each with +1 enhancement to AC and +9 bonus worth of different abilities.

AC will be 9, but you have
- +9 abilities by getting just both arms of 1 set of clockwork armor
- +9 from both legs
- +9 from torso
- +9 from helm

Giving +36 bonus worth of armor abilities.

The remaining pieces can form 2 full sets with the same bonuses which your other party members can use.



Or for the torso, use a chain shirt, which opens up the dastana and chahar aina, each again can have +9 worth of abilities. Bumping it up to +54 worth of armor abilities altogether.



We can go 1 step further if the DM has not thrown any books at you yet.

Chain Shirt comes with a steel cap. So instead of swapping the torso piece, swap out the helm for the steel cap. Now you are also wearing part of the Chain Shirt ensemble, you are allowed the dastana and chahar aina.

Beware of flying books though.