Abjurant champion "mage armor" makes me sad

[redking]

I want a Rules As Intended ruling here. Mob rule prevails.


Abjurant Armor (Su): Any time you cast an abjuration spell that grants you an armor bonus or shield bonus to AC, you can increase the value of the bonus by your abjurant champion class level. Abjurant champions rely on mage armor, shield and similar spells instead of actual armor.

Is it the case the that designer of abjurant champion thought that mage armor was an abjuration spell and designed the class around that? If that is the consensus, then I would add the following in the description of the ability for my own campaigns.


Abjurant Armor (Su): Any time you cast an abjuration spell that grants you an armor bonus or shield bonus to AC, you can increase the value of the bonus by your abjurant champion class level. Abjurant champions rely on mage armor, shield and similar spells instead of actual armor. An abjurant champion has the ability to cast mage armor as an abjuration spell instead of a conjuration spell, and can even cast mage armor if it is normally from a barred school of magic.

So - what was intended? Sound off.

[SangoProduction]

Yeah. In all likelihood it was the writers not knowing what they were doing. Just ask the DM to rule in favor of changing it - or explicitly including (Greater) Mage Armor.

[Biggus]

It was a mistake that was corrected in the errata, it doesn't affect Mage Armor.

[ThanatosZero]

Since Biggus spoke of it, here the link to all the 3.5e errata.
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata

[redking]

Since Biggus spoke of it, here the link to all the 3.5e errata.
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata

I am aware of the errata. What I am getting at is what I stated in my OP.


Is it the case the that designer of abjurant champion thought that mage armor was an abjuration spell and designed the class around that? If that is the consensus, then I would add the following in the description of the ability for my own campaigns.

Did the original designer intend for mage armor to be a spell that the abjurant champion could take advantage of, only to be mistaken about the magic school?

Whatever was intended, there is a failure either way. If mage armor was never intended to be a spell that abjurant champion's class abilities could take advantage of then its hard to see the point of the class. It seems likely to me that the designer was simply confused about the magic school, designed the class around mage armor, and then it got "fixed" in the errata.

[ThanatosZero]

Did the original designer intend for mage armor to be a spell that the abjurant champion could take advantage of, only to be mistaken about the magic school?

Whatever was intended, there is a failure either way. If mage armor was never intended to be a spell that abjurant champion's class abilities could take advantage of then its hard to see the point of the class. It seems likely to me that the designer was simply confused about the magic school, designed the class around mage armor, and then it got "fixed" in the errata.

It is easy to mistake Mage Armor as a abjuration spell, since abjuration is all about protection and the negation of spells.
In Advanced D&D 2nd Edition it's 2e iteration, the Armor spell, was also a conjuration spell.

Edit: Also IIRC, the original designer made it differently, before the editors changed it. I cannot find it currently.

[RandomPeasant]

There's absolutely no reason not to just make mage armor an Abjuration spell in general. It has no business being Conjuration, and Conjuration does too much stuff already.

[Biggus]

Whatever was intended, there is a failure either way. If mage armor was never intended to be a spell that abjurant champion's class abilities could take advantage of then its hard to see the point of the class.

I'm a bit puzzled what you mean by this, as far as I can see it's still easily the best arcane gish class out there even after the errata.

[redking]

Edit: Also IIRC, the original designer made it differently, before the editors changed it. I cannot find it currently.

You mean a pre-submission version was out in the wild?


I'm a bit puzzled what you mean by this, as far as I can see it's still easily the best arcane gish class out there even after the errata.

I agree that its the best gish PrC out there even after the errata. Whether the designer intended mage armor to get the buff is the question at hand.


There's absolutely no reason not to just make mage armor an Abjuration spell in general. It has no business being Conjuration, and Conjuration does too much stuff already.

Well one reason to not touch it is because it could throw the spell lists of published specialist wizards out of whack. That is why I suggested in my OP that the abjurant champion could have the class ability to cast mage armor as an abjuration spell, even though it is normally conjuration.

[Remuko]

There's absolutely no reason not to just make mage armor an Abjuration spell in general. It has no business being Conjuration, and Conjuration does too much stuff already.

gotta throw my hat in with this.

[ThanatosZero]

You mean a pre-submission version was out in the wild?
More like comments of the creator about it. His submission for Complete Mage was different than the result, which was publizised in Complete Mage.

I was either on a very old forum or under 4chan own, but now absent wiki board.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/gameschat19968/

I still cannot find it.

[Weasel of Doom]

I've always assumed it was an intentional balance measure by the developers. Abjurant Champ is already head and shoulders the best gish, letting them boost mage armour would just add to that.

[noob]

I want a Rules As Intended ruling here. Mob rule prevails.



Is it the case the that designer of abjurant champion thought that mage armor was an abjuration spell and designed the class around that? If that is the consensus, then I would add the following in the description of the ability for my own campaigns.



So - what was intended? Sound off.

just go to the light side and cast luminous armour.

[RandomPeasant]

Well one reason to not touch it is because it could throw the spell lists of published specialist wizards out of whack. That is why I suggested in my OP that the abjurant champion could have the class ability to cast mage armor as an abjuration spell, even though it is normally conjuration.

If you're really concerned about that, just declare that there is a new spell called "arcane armor" or "abjurant armor" that is "exactly mage armor, but Abjuration". But frankly, I find it fairly unlike that the intersection of "banned Abjuration" and "prepared mage armor" is pretty small among published specialist Wizards. So I'm much less concerned about that than I am about this approach to RAW, which I consider to be categorically the wrong way of approaching the rules.

[bekeleven]

I've posted before how there are only two mechanical schools of magic: The one that makes stuff (Conjuration) and the one that changes stuff (transmutation). In addition, there are several subschools: Making energy (Evocation), Changing People (Enchantment), Changing Senses (Illusion, except shadow spells; those are closer to evocation than anything).

That leaves three schools. These fields of magic are not limited by their mechanical function, but instead by their conceptual goal or end result. We have spells that deal with life or feel eeeeevvviiiiilll (Necromancy), spells that find stuff out (Divination), and spells that protect or dislike magic (Abjuration).

It's easy to see how a single spell can fall into multiple of these categories. Mage Armor slots neatly into three of them: It makes energy, meaning that it's a Conjuration (Evocation) spell, but it does so with the intent of protecting you, so you can slide it over to abjuration. As we all know, conjuration does everything in this game for no reason, so that's the RAW school. But if you want to move it, within the framework of the 8 standard schools there are two other obvious contenders.

[Thurbane]

I don't think it would be unbalanced to just allow the bonus to apply to any spells that gives an armor or shield bonus, would it?

Or if that was OP, you could just amend the ability description to "Any time you cast an abjuration spell (or spell of any school with the force descriptor) that grants you an armor bonus or shield bonus to AC, you can increase the value of the bonus by your abjurant champion class level."

[redking]

Or if that was OP, you could just amend the ability description to "Any time you cast an abjuration spell (or spell of any school with the force descriptor) that grants you an armor bonus or shield bonus to AC, you can increase the value of the bonus by your abjurant champion class level."

That looks like it would work. But then the other abilities of the abjurant champion would not affect mage armor (like extend abjuration and swift abjuration). That's why my OP has the ability to cast them as abjuration spells. Taking you terminology it could be as follows -

"Any time you cast a spell of any school with the force descriptor that grants you an armor bonus or shield bonus to AC, you cast the spell as if it was an abjuration spell."

[Godskook]

I've always assumed it was an intentional balance measure by the developers. Abjurant Champ is already head and shoulders the best gish, letting them boost mage armour would just add to that.

This is only relevant on gishes that don't have access to Sanctified Spells, which is basically no prepared Good caster, and any spontaneous Good caster who grabs Arcane Preparation. (Greater) Luminous Armor grants more AC, and is just a better buff in general.

And you're rapidly approaching the point where Magic Vestments and a Robe of Armor are more AC than Mage Armor while being reasonably cheap for that level, so honestly, it's not a very "aware" balance decision.

[martixy]

IMO if you allow mage armor for Abjurant champion, you gotta do something to buff armor for mundanes.

[Silly Name]

RAI, it's clear the designers thought that Mage Armor was an Abjuration spell (and why wouldn't they? It makes far more sense as an abjuration!). I agree, just give Abjurant Champion the ability to cast M.A. as an Abj spell and be done with it.

[Darg]

If you don't do multiclassing shenanigans, the average wizard would gain access at level 11. If you are a multiclass fighter wizard you could gain access as early as level 7 with the sacrifice of spell progression. If you go pure wizard you could take eldritch knight at 6 and gain access at level 9.

If you go with the earliest access, you get 5 armor and shield AC at level 7 with 1 or 2 caster levels. That isn't a whole lot, nor are 1st level spells awesome to cast in combat at that level. If you go the eldritch knight route its +7 and +5 at level 9 with greater mage armor. Being a caster that goes into melee, it really isn't all that big of a deal.

Now, Luminous armor on the other hand, that is just plain broken. +5(+8) armor bonus AND a -4 untyped attack penalty (it stacks with bright light sensitivity while providing said light) to anyone trying to attack the target.

Personally, the best gishy features are the swift abjuration and arcane boost along with the d10 HD and full BAB and casting progression.

[Faily]

Ignoring the fault of listing Mage Armor as an example spell in the writeup, Abjurant Champion's abilities still applies to the Shield spell (which is in fact Abjuration and not Conjuration). With 2nd level Abjurant Champion, you're also casting it Quickened so it can be cast for when you need it.

So it's not useless.

[noob]

Ignoring the fault of listing Mage Armor as an example spell in the writeup, Abjurant Champion's abilities still applies to the Shield spell (which is in fact Abjuration and not Conjuration). With 2nd level Abjurant Champion, you're also casting it Quickened so it can be cast for when you need it.

So it's not useless.

In fact it also applies to luminous armour so you add your abjurant champion level to your amour bonus to ac and to your shield bonus to ac.
So it is kind of ridiculous for pumping up ac with minimal effort.

[Faily]

In fact it also applies to luminous armour so you add your abjurant champion level to your amour bonus to ac and to your shield bonus to ac.
So it is kind of ridiculous for pumping up ac with minimal effort.

Yep. Abjurant Champion-builds are pretty cheesy when it comes to AC-boosting.

(just remember to protect yourself from Dispel Magic :smallbiggrin: )

[Psyren]

There's absolutely no reason not to just make mage armor an Abjuration spell in general. It has no business being Conjuration, and Conjuration does too much stuff already.


gotta throw my hat in with this.

+1


IMO if you allow mage armor for Abjurant champion, you gotta do something to buff armor for mundanes.

Theirs can't be stripped off with an area dispel, would that work?

[Thurbane]

I've mentioned this before, but it kinda cracks me up that the four 1st level core spells with the Force descriptor are from three different different schools: if you shoot little pellets of force (Magic Missile) or summon a plane of force horizontally (Tenser's Floating Disk), it's Evocation; if you summon a plane of force in front of you (Shield) it's Abjuration; if you summon force around you (Mage Armor) it's Conjuration. :smallamused:

[noob]

I've mentioned this before, but it kinda cracks me up that the four 1st level core spells with the Force descriptor are from three different different schools: if you shoot little pellets of force (Magic Missile) or summon a plane of force horizontally (Tenser's Floating Disk), it's Evocation; if you summon a plane of force in front of you (Shield) it's Abjuration; if you summon force around you (Mage Armor) it's Conjuration. :smallamused:

In dnd 5.5e tenser floating disk will be necromancy just to get people even more confused and wonder if it means the disk is some sort of hovering force undead.

[Fouredged Sword]

I am in favor of simply saying that all force effects are created by the manipulation of raw magic itself and we should shove them all into abjuration.

Evocation should be about the manipulation of energy, but that should be understood to be PLANER energy, not just physical energy like heat. A ton of conjuration spells like the orb spells should be evocation.

Conjuration should be scaled back to be specifically about travel to and from the planes, meaning the sending and bringing discrete things from the planes.

[redking]

As for the question about whether the designer intended for mage armor to be affected by the Abjurant Champion's abilities, I looked up Complete Mage and found a definitive answer.

Caspian LaMont, the 5th level NPC abjurant champion example, has mage armor† († = Already cast) as a listed spell. Mage armor gives a +4 armor bonus to AC. 5th level of abjurant champion gives a +5 bonus to abjuration spells, and mage armor is specifically listed as a spell affected. If the designer intended for mage armor to be affected by abjurant champion's class abilities, then Caspian LaMont should have +9 armor bonus to AC.

Caspian LaMont does have +9 armor bonus to AC. I think the RAI is thus clear, and the errata is a lame nerf that could have been fixed with a bit more imagination.

[bekeleven]

In dnd 5.5e tenser floating disk will be necromancy just to get people even more confused and wonder if it means the disk is some sort of hovering force undead.

I mean, let's be clear, the school assignments are 100% arbitrary. Corpse Candle is a spell where you take a literal actual corpse (Necromancy) and put energy into it to conjure (Conjuration) an illusory, insubstantial (Illusion) hand holding a candle that reveals invisible (Divination) threats to you (Abjuration). What school is it?

Here's one from the PHB. Secret Page is a spell where you enchant (Enchantment) a page of text to hide the contents (Illusion) by changing them (Transmutation) in order to protect your stuff (Abjuration). What school is it?


I've posted before how there are only two mechanical schools of magic: The one that makes stuff (Conjuration) and the one that changes stuff (transmutation).
Conjuration and transmutation, respectively.

Turns out "making stuff" and "changing stuff" can be used to describe literally every spell. Hell, we can swap them. Corpse candle changes a corpse into a ghost corpse: Transmutation! Secret Page conjures a new page: Conjuration! Why not! Nothing matters.

If I wanted to balance the existing 8 schools of magic, I would start by putting every spell with the force descriptor into evocation. (Then I'd move healing stuff back to necromancy.)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

In dnd 5.5e tenser floating disk will be necromancy just to get people even more confused and wonder if it means the disk is some sort of hovering force undead.Well, Star Wars d20 does have Force ghosts...

[Darg]

With the introduction of dual school spells with the PHBII, I think it would have been awesome if they did a reprinting of the spell compendium with having dual school spells in mind.

But really, spell schools themselves are too simplistic and seem more like a way to classify spells than to actually explain them.

[Thurbane]

As for the question about whether the designer intended for mage armor to be affected by the Abjurant Champion's abilities, I looked up Complete Mage and found a definitive answer.

Caspian LaMont, the 5th level NPC abjurant champion example, has mage armor† († = Already cast) as a listed spell. Mage armor gives a +4 armor bonus to AC. 5th level of abjurant champion gives a +5 bonus to abjuration spells, and mage armor is specifically listed as a spell affected. If the designer intended for mage armor to be affected by abjurant champion's class abilities, then Caspian LaMont should have +9 armor bonus to AC.

Caspian LaMont does have +9 armor bonus to AC. I think the RAI is thus clear, and the errata is a lame nerf that could have been fixed with a bit more imagination.

Yeah, no doubt in my mind that the author erroneously believed Mage Armor to be an Abjuration spell - which is a fair enough mistake. I see no reason why creating a virtual shield out of force and virtual suit of armor out of force should be of different schools.

With the introduction of dual school spells with the PHBII, I think it would have been awesome if they did a reprinting of the spell compendium with having dual school spells in mind.

But really, spell schools themselves are too simplistic and seem more like a way to classify spells than to actually explain them.

Actually, great point. Dual school spells only exist in PHB2. Some existing spells would have made a bit more sense if they were updated, although you'd run into issues with Specialist Wizards suddenly losing access to spells already in their books due to banned schools.

And of course, the inevitable "primary source" sulking. :smallbiggrin:

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Psionic disciplines usually make WAY more sense with how they're adjudicated. They're far more concerned about the what and the how instead of the why, while standard magic seems to be a weird, schizophrenic mix of the three, leaning just a bit harder on the why than the how and what which is where, I think, it screws up so hard.

[Psyren]

Psionic disciplines usually make WAY more sense with how they're adjudicated. They're far more concerned about the what and the how instead of the why, while standard magic seems to be a weird, schizophrenic mix of the three, leaning just a bit harder on the why than the how and what which is where, I think, it screws up so hard.

I agree, but psionics has its own problems. Jumping through hoops for even basic illusions sucks, and next to no necromancy or summoning is sad too.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Actually, great point. Dual school spells only exist in PHB2. Some existing spells would have made a bit more sense if they were updated, although you'd run into issues with Specialist Wizards suddenly losing access to spells already in their books due to banned schools.

And of course, the inevitable "primary source" sulking. :smallbiggrin:

They also exist in Dragon Magic, but seeing an errata to add them to additional spells would also be nice.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I agree, but psionics has its own problems. Jumping through hoops for even basic illusions sucks, and next to no necromancy or summoning is sad too.Agreed, but not the point of this conversation. I was just making a comment on why magic schools are futzed up and how they could be fixed.

[Thurbane]

They also exist in Dragon Magic, but seeing an errata to add them to additional spells would also be nice.

Ooh, good to know - I hadn't picked that up before! :smallsmile:

[atemu1234]

You mean a pre-submission version was out in the wild?

I can see you're new around here.

Real talk, one thing that I greatly appreciate in hind sight, looking at the stuff that's come out since, is the fact that WoTC has greatly increased their editing standards prior to publication.


I am in favor of simply saying that all force effects are created by the manipulation of raw magic itself and we should shove them all into abjuration.

Evocation should be about the manipulation of energy, but that should be understood to be PLANER energy, not just physical energy like heat. A ton of conjuration spells like the orb spells should be evocation.

Conjuration should be scaled back to be specifically about travel to and from the planes, meaning the sending and bringing discrete things from the planes.

Honestly, the whole spell school system needs to be redone. But my understanding of how it's "supposed" to work is as follows:

Abjuration: Magical defenses. Protecting you from one type of thing or another, through wards or the like. Has less to do with the planes or planar energy than the other two below.

Conjuration: Directly bringing something from one plane to another. As in, 'conjuring' it from another place.

Evocation: Creating an effect with planar energy; not the same as conjuration because it's less direct. You're just powering the spell with it, not directly bringing something over.

By this logic of mine, Mage Armor should be Evocation.


With the introduction of dual school spells with the PHBII, I think it would have been awesome if they did a reprinting of the spell compendium with having dual school spells in mind.

But really, spell schools themselves are too simplistic and seem more like a way to classify spells than to actually explain them.

Honestly the greatest fault that 3e/3.5e had was that every supplement was supposed to exist in a vacuum. While not a bad concept on its own, as it means you didn't have to buy everything to understand everything, the end result was a disjointed mess that doesn't really feel cohesive. It seems like half of what I do as a DM is restat stuff to include things from other sources.

I refer to this as the "spell mod" problem - if only the players have access to it, of course they'll wind up with an unfair advantage over NPCs, and the NPCs will feel plain by comparison.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Honestly the greatest fault that 3e/3.5e had was that every supplement was supposed to exist in a vacuum. While not a bad concept on its own, as it means you didn't have to buy everything to understand everything, the end result was a disjointed mess that doesn't really feel cohesive. It seems like half of what I do as a DM is restat stuff to include things from other sources.

This was more a problem in 3.0 and the early days of 3.5, but books like Complete Mage, Dragon Magic, Tome of Battle (although, here, it's mostly just the artwork with various noncore races), most of the Eberron books, and even some Forgotten Realms books reference past sources. Dragon Magic is especially good about this, as it had soulmelds, psionic powers, and the dual school spells - each of which was introduced in a separate source book.

I do wish that that sort of content was more common and we could have seen references to Warlocks, Totemists, and Shadowcasters in more books. Maybe if 3.X lasted a little longer, that could have happened.

[Jack_Simth]

In dnd 5.5e tenser floating disk will be necromancy just to get people even more confused and wonder if it means the disk is some sort of hovering force undead.

Bah! Clearly, it's Transmutation, as you're reshaping gravity!

[noob]

Bah! Clearly, it's Transmutation, as you're reshaping gravity!

Transmutation is one of the schools the most able to fit everything.
"conjuration? it is just transforming the position of things"
Also I think that fireball could be moved from evocation to necromancy: it is a spell to kill people.

[Darg]

Transmutation is one of the schools the most able to fit everything.
"conjuration? it is just transforming the position of things"
Also I think that fireball could be moved from evocation to necromancy: it is a spell to kill people.

Ah, but it does it with fire, not positive or negative energy the energies that power life and death.

I think evocation should actually be removed entirely to be classified as conjuration. You have fireball, which pulls flames from the plane of fire, blasting with technically nonmagical but somehow magical fire. Then you have Orb of fire, which pulls flames from the plane of fire, doing the same thing, but is somehow nonmagical because it creates an orb instead of a compressed bead out of that fire. If the orb returns to where it came from, there is actually nothing that separates it from evocation spells (which it was originally and how they were designed.) But hey, consistency isn't necessary when you need to provide more damage options when people prohibit evocation thinking "it's weak."