Talk:Mage Armor, Swift (3.5e Spell)

A spell by any other name...
I think you're missing a major part of the spell. Y'know, the whole multiple targets thing? Yeah, the caster probably won't be wearing full plate (and come to think of it, why even mention Bracers of Armor, since they already block incorporeal attacks?), but the rest of the party probably is wearing something +5 or better. I can stand to see some of these things included, but as it stands, this is just a heap that stand just a bit too tall (and synergistically).--Quey 04:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless you play a Ghostwalk campaign it shouldn't be a problem. Really the multiple target is how the spell scale, since it never actually get longer. --Leziad 04:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I did see it. I figured the duration reduction was sufficient enough to qualify for that little bit extra.  Mage Armor is a prepare-it-once type spell, but with this one you'd need to prepare multiples to make it last through the day, or have alternatives to keeping your AC up.  This gives sorcerers a bit of an advantage in spammability, and I'm ok with that.  For wizards, this isn't as hot.


 * I presume at least two-three of your party are probably not squishy casters. The fighter types are wearing heavy armor, so they only get the incorp benefits.  Same with the clerics.  The skirmisher types might need it (rogue, monk, sometimes barbarian) but they're also as likely to be packing chain shirts, unless they can't like the monk.  Because even the most lightly armored usually dives for a chain shirt in short order, I don't really concern myself with the idea that a whole party is getting +4 AC, and think of "a whole party is getting incorp resistance). -- Eiji-kun 04:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * While SRD:Mage Armor also mentions incorporeal creatures ("Since mage armor is made of force, incorporeal creatures can’t bypass it the way they do normal armor."), it does so in a rather vague way, though perhaps not as vague as this new spell. The primary problem is that incorporeal creatures almost always have touch attacks, so it doesn't matter what armor you have on anyways. Since this doesn't specify incorporeal touch attacks, its likely not ever to matter. I see this spell getting use when the party is ambushed while sleeping at low levels and everyone wakes up naked. --Ganteka Future 05:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * All right, though I'm still uneasy with the added anti-ghost extra ability and multiple targets thing at the same spell level. I consider the swift for duration to be a fair trade-off, with maybe one of those two improvements over Mage Armor. But I'll change the rating. If, however, this is to be viewed as an anti-ghost spell and not just a fast Mage Armor, it should probably have a different name. And Ganteka, I believe that the description of Mage Armor is sufficient if you also know how incorporeal creatures bypass armor. But this is clarified in the FAQ.
 * "Ghost touch armor is supposed to protect you from attacks by incorporeal foes, but all these creatures have incorporeal touch attacks, and touch attacks ignore armor, so ghost touch armor is really worthless, right?
 * Wrong. Incorporeal touch attacks and touch attacks aren’t the same thing. If they were, they would not have different names. An incorporeal touch attack actually resembles a slam attack (battering the foe with a fist or other appendage), except that it passes through physical armor or shields. The term incorporeal touch attack simply serves as a reminder that most armor bonuses aren’t effective against these attacks.
 * Armor and shield bonuses from force effects, such as the mage armor spell, shield spell, and bracers of armor are effective against incorporeal touch attacks, as is ghost touch armor or a ghost touch shield.
 * Like a ghost touch weapon, an incorporeal creature or manifested ghost can wear ghost touch armor and get an Armor Class benefit from it. Such a creature also can pass through solid objects while wearing ghost touch armor."
 * But, no matter what, the reference to Bracers of Armor in this spell should be removed.--Quey 05:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)