Mage Plate (upgraded mage armor)

[KittenMagician]

Mage Plate
4th-level abjuration

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: touch
Components: V, S, M (an iron ingot)
Duration: 8 hours

You touch a willing creature who isn't wearing armor, and a thick layer of magical force surrounds it until the spell ends. The target's base AC becomes 17 + its Dexterity modifier. The spell ends if the target dons armor or if you dismiss the spell as an action.


thoughts?

[Townopolis]

Is there a particular issue or pain point that this spell is supposed to address?

Because this spell seems only to remove one of the intended shortcomings of several full casters--the kind of shortcomings that the rest of the party is supposed to compensate for, not the sort of thing that should generally be edited out with a new spell.

[Edit]: and the secondary effect of this spell seems to be to kick Strength builds while they're down.

[Kane0]

This would give you significantly more AC than most characters built for AC

If it was concentration maybe

[GeoffWatson]

That's really good.
The Wizard in the group I'm playing in already has the best AC (with Bladesinger) and even more with shield.
This would make them even better.

[Saelethil]

It does seem really powerful. Maybe don’t let it add your dex? Then it would just be an improved Barkskin which might still be too much considering barkskin isn’t on the Wizard list

[DeTess]

I don't think this spell should exist. Between mage armor and shield, casters can already have very decent AC. Adding this spell, and any mage can have AC20 (equal to a shield+plate wearer) with dex 16, which ups to 25 whenever they really need it to, which is well beyond what any martial could reasonably expect to have at level 7(hell, I've played in some groups where even having plate at level 7 for the heavy armor users is far from guaranteed).

To further reinforce this point, your spell gives armor far in excess of what a legendary item would give (to get AC17 + dex, you'd need studded leather +5), which seems way too much to me.

As others have said, making it 17 without dex is probably okay.

[nickl_2000]

Don't forget that it's touch, so you can also cast it on the rogue and ranger who will have 22 AC. It's too much to have that long of a duration and no concentration

[Ninja_Prawn]

I agree with everyone else. This is too strong and doesn't need to exist. Hell, if you wanted a solid 4th level defensive buff for wizards, what was wrong with stoneskin?

[Yakk]

If it is "plate", you don't get to add your dexterity.

It costs a level and an ASI and high strength to wear plate armor. A single 4th level spell slot shouldn't be better than that. Even a 9th level spell is pushing it.

[KittenMagician]

what if i just made it a flat 18 AC like plate armor actually is? then it would be equivalent to mage armor with a +5 dex. so you could still get the AC without having to need the dex

[Saelethil]

what if i just made it a flat 18 AC like plate armor actually is? then it would be equivalent to mage armor with a +5 dex. so you could still get the AC without having to need the dex

That seems much more reasonable. Still incredibly powerful but a 4th level slot isn’t free, especially at the most common levels of play.

[Kane0]

what if i just made it a flat 18 AC like plate armor actually is? then it would be equivalent to mage armor with a +5 dex. so you could still get the AC without having to need the dex

Or you could make it an upcasting of mage armor, so you dont need a while new spell for it.

[Hawk7915]

what if i just made it a flat 18 AC like plate armor actually is? then it would be equivalent to mage armor with a +5 dex. so you could still get the AC without having to need the dex

This seems reasonable. A balancing point in 5E is that A) full arcane casters tend to have bad AC and must invest significantly to fix it (or have their party cover them, more likely) and B) stuff that lets casters "break the limits" is Concentration, to prevent stacking buffs leading into a Superman build and to allow counter-play on the part of The DM/Team Monster. This breaks both of those rules, effectively giving Wizards, Sorcerers, and non-Hexblade Warlocks (if they get this on their spell list) Fighte/Paladinr-level AC with no Concentration required...

But a 4th level spell slot is a non-trivial investment for the average caster in the average campaign. And, this shakes out to being equal with Dex + Mage Armor, so builds that intended to go hard on Dex don't love it and it isn't busted when cast on the party's Monk/Barbarian/Ranger/Rogue instead. It's still very powerful and would become a de facto best defensive spell at 4th level for Arcane Casters - and that alone might be reason to not do it. But, I don't think it's broken.

[Townopolis]

Agreed. A straight 18 for a 4th level spell slot isn't busted. It's a little on the strong side. If I were to allow it at my table (and if I were using normal rest rules), I'd probably shorten the duration to 1 hour, maybe 3.

But, even at 8 hours, it's probably fine.

[luuma]

This seems reasonable. A balancing point in 5E is that A) full arcane casters tend to have bad AC and must invest significantly to fix it (or have their party cover them, more likely) and B) stuff that lets casters "break the limits" is Concentration, to prevent stacking buffs leading into a Superman build and to allow counter-play on the part of The DM/Team Monster. This breaks both of those rules, effectively giving Wizards, Sorcerers, and non-Hexblade Warlocks (if they get this on their spell list) Fighte/Paladinr-level AC with no Concentration required...

But a 4th level spell slot is a non-trivial investment for the average caster in the average campaign. And, this shakes out to being equal with Dex + Mage Armor, so builds that intended to go hard on Dex don't love it and it isn't busted when cast on the party's Monk/Barbarian/Ranger/Rogue instead. It's still very powerful and would become a de facto best defensive spell at 4th level for Arcane Casters - and that alone might be reason to not do it. But, I don't think it's broken.

Agree with all of this. I reckon that 17 AC would be the right number for a 4th level Wizard spell, and would stack up reasonably well vs Death Ward.

I think what this thread is teaching me is that Barkskin should probably do 15 AC for 8 hours lol

[BerzerkerUnit]

Add an upcast rider to mage Armor: when you cast this spell with a spell slot of 2nd or third level the bonus provided is +4, 4-5 is +5, 6-7 is +6, 8-9 is +7.

That would put the typical mage (16 dex) at a 20 AC at level 15. That hardly seems broken for the investment.

[luuma]

Add an upcast rider to mage Armor: when you cast this spell with a spell slot of 2nd or third level the bonus provided is +4, 4-5 is +5, 6-7 is +6, 8-9 is +7.

That would put the typical mage (16 dex) at a 20 AC at level 15. That hardly seems broken for the investment.

I don't like the look of this, it makes one of the highest AC builds in the game go even higher. If this was the effect, I expect people would always cast it at 2nd level.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Vs Mirror Image? I guess. You could probably make it every 2 levels higher instead then and just do odds.

[JNAProductions]

Vs Mirror Image? I guess. You could probably make it every 2 levels higher instead then and just do odds.

Mirror Image takes an action to cast, and lasts one minute.
Mage Armor also takes an action to cast, but lasts eight hours.

In terms of defensive power, Mirror Image will usually give a better bang for your spell slot buck. But Mage Armor doesn't eat into your action economy.

[SharkForce]

[snip]...what was wrong with stoneskin?

duration, expensive material component, and especially concentration, since you asked :)

(not that I think this spell is a good idea, mind you... I'm just saying that stoneskin is not a good solution to the problem of needing a protective spell).

AC 17 flat does sound a lot more reasonable. it might be a *little* low (you're looking at a +1 over mage armour with dex 16, which is not exactly a major improvement), but I would probably start at 17 and then carefully consider after some playtesting whether to let it go up to 18, but no higher than that, at least not as a general wizard spell.

if you were to suggest that draconic sorcerers should get the equivalent of heavy armour as a subclass ability that improves to be as good as magical plate, I could see something like that (it has never made sense to me that the sorcerer subclass based on dragons would rely primarily on *dexterity* for protection), but not as something to just let all wizards pick up with a spell known.

[Yakk]

Without this spell, spellcasters have to make serious build investment in getting good AC.

With this spell, spellcasters have to choose to consume one small class feature to get good AC.

This is not a good design in my opinion. It isn't a matter of "a 4th level spell slot is expensive", it is "you are giving robe casters plate-level AC for nearly no build cost".

It would be like letting a fighter cast a 9th level spell in exchange for never making a 4th attack for the rest of the day. It honestly doesn't matter what the fighter is sacrificing to get that 9th level spell cast.

[KittenMagician]

Without this spell, spellcasters have to make serious build investment in getting good AC.

With this spell, spellcasters have to choose to consume one small class feature to get good AC.

This is not a good design in my opinion. It isn't a matter of "a 4th level spell slot is expensive", it is "you are giving robe casters plate-level AC for nearly no build cost".

It would be like letting a fighter cast a 9th level spell in exchange for never making a 4th attack for the rest of the day. It honestly doesn't matter what the fighter is sacrificing to get that 9th level spell cast.

i feel like your comparison is way too extreme. i looked around and its generally acceptable that plate armor is fine at as low a level as 3 (most say 5). this spell wouldnt even be available to someone til level 7 and then you are spending your biggest damage potential spell slot on defense. I think it would be (or maybe should be) fairly easy for a party to get +1 armor/shields at level 7 letting fighters/paladins get to 22 AC while the spell (the revised form of flat 18) would never be higher. and most CR 7 monsters have a +6 to a +9 to hit (40-55% hit rate). at higher levels AC becomes almost laughably pointless as some creatures have a +12 or higher to hit. i think that at the level required to get this it is a huge resource sink but becomes less and less so as levels go on and likewise it becomes less and less useful proportionately.

[SharkForce]

i feel like your comparison is way too extreme. i looked around and its generally acceptable that plate armor is fine at as low a level as 3 (most say 5). this spell wouldnt even be available to someone til level 7 and then you are spending your biggest damage potential spell slot on defense. I think it would be (or maybe should be) fairly easy for a party to get +1 armor/shields at level 7 letting fighters/paladins get to 22 AC while the spell (the revised form of flat 18) would never be higher. and most CR 7 monsters have a +6 to a +9 to hit (40-55% hit rate). at higher levels AC becomes almost laughably pointless as some creatures have a +12 or higher to hit. i think that at the level required to get this it is a huge resource sink but becomes less and less so as levels go on and likewise it becomes less and less useful proportionately.

I think it's a valid concern. I'm not saying that 18 AC is definitely a bad idea... but even at 17 AC you're getting a pretty good deal. a wizard would need 18 dexterity to pull that off on their own most likely (using mage armour) unless they multiclass (delaying a their higher level spells and class features) or spend feats (probably 2 of them), which lowers their spells prepared, save DCs, and spell attack modifier (since feats cost ASIs).

at AC 18, the wizard would otherwise need a 20 in dexterity to match it.

also, AC never gets useless in this edition. it might become less powerful at higher levels (unless you can continue improving it), but it is never not helping. an enemy with +12 to hit against an AC of 15 (fairly typical for most wizards that don't find a way to get armour in my experience, unless they've been maxing out dexterity) will hit on a 3+, while an AC of 17 is on a 5+ and actually means you are getting hit only ~89% as often. 18 AC would actually take that down to ~83%.

start adding on shield spells when necessary, and it can make a pretty big difference. likewise if you can add disadvantage or some other means of improving armour class (bracers of defense, ring of protection, etc). particularly consider that the more you can add, the more valuable the next point is (until you go off the d20), so even the +2 increase above typical could become quite significant if the wizard has other ways to improve their armour class.

[Yakk]

i feel like your comparison is way too extreme. i looked around and its generally acceptable that plate armor is fine at as low a level as 3 (most say 5). this spell wouldnt even be available to someone til level 7 and then you are spending your biggest damage potential spell slot on defense. I think it would be (or maybe should be) fairly easy for a party to get +1 armor/shields at level 7 letting fighters/paladins get to 22 AC while the spell (the revised form of flat 18) would never be higher. and most CR 7 monsters have a +6 to a +9 to hit (40-55% hit rate). at higher levels AC becomes almost laughably pointless as some creatures have a +12 or higher to hit. i think that at the level required to get this it is a huge resource sink but becomes less and less so as levels go on and likewise it becomes less and less useful proportionately.

Sure, but you are comparing a build choice against a daily option. One of them is a plate armored tough PC, the other is a scholar who figured out one weird trick.

That scholar also has access to shield spell, burning a reaction and 1st level slots to boost their AC to 23 whenever they are hit. The +1 plate and +1 shield PC meanwhile has 22, and is easier to hit.

With mage armor and 14 dex, it is 15/20 AC on the spellcaster, vs 22 AC on the plate-clad knight. The gap is now in favor of the player who picked a high-AC melee character, and not the scholar.

And both +1 plate and +1 shield at level 7 is significantly above the expected magic items you will get using DMG rules. Moreso if that player is also able to swing a magical sword (in order to, you know, hurt a large chunk of monsters); now they have the best type of rare armor (plate +1) for their PC, and a two solid uncommon items (shield +1 and weapon +1).

If the character is a dex based two weapon fighter, they similarly need +1 studded for a mere 18 AC (again, 2 uncommon and a rare item to "fully kit out"). Now they are 5 AC behind the scholar, who still has a full raft of 2nd and 3rd level spells to use each day.

The scholar could also get bracers of defence (rare item) to make the gap even larger.