This is something I have been wondering ever since I looked up the spell. It is a spell that alters your AC and so I figured it would make more sense for it to use your spell modifier instead. Am I alone in this?
Well, I do agree it would make more sense for the spellcasting modifier to be used, I do have an idea as to why it is dex:
The spell creates a suit of magic armor the the wearer has on them. The armor is just that, armor. Well, magic armor. But it functions as a studded leather +1.
So essentially it's just armor, nothing more, nothing less.
I guess it's for the same reason other armors use a DEX mod... to represent your character's ability to potentially just dodge the attack outright. Although I wouldn't be opposed to a homebrew version that used your casting mod instead, although I would probably make it a higher level spell.
This is something I have been wondering ever since I looked up the spell. It is a spell that alters your AC and so I figured it would make more sense for it to use your spell modifier instead. Am I alone in this?
I doubt you are alone in that line of though, but I wouldn't do it (to each their own though, I can see why you'd do it). To be fair (and balanced? if there is such a thing), you'd have to adjust the weight held by Floating Disk, the damage reduced by Shield, the amount created with Create Food and Water, etc all based on the Spell Modifier (like I said, just to be fair and balanced).
I believe the Armor spell in my old 1st edition book said it created a "magical field that was similar to a suite of scale mail" and back then Dexterity played a roll in determining Armor Class, so......
It creates armor and light armor allows you to add your Dex mod. It's a first level spell with a long duration so it will be active much of the time. If it was 13 + spell mod the wizard would be better armored than the fighter. If you wanted to use spell mod it would have to be 10 + spell mod rather than 13 + dex.
The developers didn't want run-of-the-mill Wizards and Sorcs running around with better AC than Rangers and Paladins, basically. It's written that way for balance reasons. If you want higher AC, use a Shield spell, be a Dwarf, or start with a level in one of the Fighter-like classes. Or a Valor Bard.
The spell doesn't create a suit of armor. "You touch a willing creature who isn't wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds it until the spell ends. "
Someone using the Mage Armor spell is not wearing any armor, so - just like anyone else who is not wearing any armor - they get to add their Dex mod to their AC, to represent their own physical agility to dodge attacks.
But I have long wondered why Mage Armor doesn't scale with higher level spell slots. Like, if a Level 1 slot gives you AC 13, shouldn't a Level 2 spell slot give you AC 14, and a Level 3 spell slot give you AC 15 etc etc?
I mean, if you cast Mage Armor using a 9th level spell slot, you'd get an AC of 21, which really isn't all that high, considering it's the equivalent to regular plate armor and a shield and another +1. I mean, for a 9th level spell slot, that actually seems pretty modest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tayn of Darkwood. Lvl 10 human Life Cleric of Lathander. Retired.
Ikram Sahir ibn Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad, Second Son of the House of Ra'ad, Defender of the Burning Sands. Lvl 9 Brass Dragonborn Sorcerer + Greater Fire Elemental Devil.
Viktor Gavriil. Lvl 20 White Dragonborn Grave Cleric, of Kurgan the God of Death.
The spell doesn't create a suit of armor. "You touch a willing creature who isn't wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds it until the spell ends. "
Someone using the Mage Armor spell is not wearing any armor, so - just like anyone else who is not wearing any armor - they get to add their Dex mod to their AC, to represent their own physical agility to dodge attacks.
But I have long wondered why Mage Armor doesn't scale with higher level spell slots. Like, if a Level 1 slot gives you AC 13, shouldn't a Level 2 spell slot give you AC 14, and a Level 3 spell slot give you AC 15 etc etc?
I mean, if you cast Mage Armor using a 9th level spell slot, you'd get an AC of 21, which really isn't all that high, considering it's the equivalent to regular plate armor and a shield and another +1. I mean, for a 9th level spell slot, that actually seems pretty modest.
Bounded accuracy is important in 5e. As the target still gets to add their Dex mod either way, allowing the spell to scale would get out of hand pretty quickly.
Even for a level 9 spell, 21 AC base is crazy (not including Dex). More AC than full plate & shield without suffering disadvantage to stealth, without limiting the free use of a hand, without taking attunement slots, without requiring a restricted proficiency (heavy armor), and without requiring concentration? Nah.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I don't think it would be unbalancing to let it scale with level, a 20th level character only has a single 9th level spell slot so if they wanted to burn it on an up-cast Mage Armor it should be unbelieveably good, on par with the sturdiest of tanky armor wearers. But letting it add spellcasting modifier to your armor instead of Dex would get out of hand very quickly, and unbalance spellcasters by making them more SAD than every other class, so I draw the line there.
Using dex with mage Armor just makes sense. The spell is level 1 and is boosting your AC to 13 and is not restrictive so you get to use your dex mod for dodging. I have a level 15 sorcerer with a 20 DEX, bracers of Armor, ring of protection, cloak of protection which give an AC of 22 plus with the level 1 spell shield can boost the AC to 27 till start of next turn.
Since you brought up Unarmored Defence why not make the spell work as such? 10+dex+spellcasting ability modifier? Barbarians and Monks have it active all the time where as a caster would need to burn a spellslot for it.
Since you brought up Unarmored Defence why not make the spell work as such? 10+dex+spellcasting ability modifier? Barbarians and Monks have it active all the time where as a caster would need to burn a spellslot for it.
Barbarians & Monks are also meant to be melee fighters with iconic themes of going unarmored (or not as armored, in the case of Barbarians) while your standard spellcasting classes without armor proficiency - Wizards and Sorcerers - are not themed around being melee fighters.
But there are subclasses, like the Bladesinging Wizard, that are more melee fighters, and they get a temporary special feature that increases their AC by their INT modifier. Note that it's temporary, as opposed to provided by a non-concentration spell that lasts 8 hours.
Having a 10 + Dex + Int would be OK if that is all you get. Monks and barbs can not increase it higher without multi-classing (which nerfs there core abilities). AWith this a bladsewsinging wizard would have an AC of up to 25 which if he does get hit he can up to 30 by casting shield.
I played a UA armorer was able to get a high AC and cast shield which resulted in me being almost impossible to hit without a nat 20 (Late in the campaign my AC was 24 with shield upping it to 29. Other testers agreed it was OP and when Armorer came out as an official subclass shield was with thunderwave.
I think most of you have it wrong. You are looking at entirely wrong. Imagine a spell that sets your AC = 10 + Int modifier.
Now hear all the complaints about how their Wizard has a 16 Dex and that darn spell nerfed their ability to dodge. How unfair is it that I get no bonus for being Agile? Scumbag developers ripped me off.
The spell does not magically let you add your Dex to your AC. You could always do that. This spell simply and clearly adds a set bonus of +3 to your AC while preventing you from using any other Armor, while still allowing you to add your Dex, any Shield, and rings of protection.
Without a tome to increase max int, AC = 10+Int maxes out at 15. I would have no problent with that as a 1st level spell, it would onlt be better than normal mage armor if the In modifier is more than 3 better than dex.
AC or 13 + Int (which is the diect substitution for an Int based mage armor) is more powerful because it allows the wizard to dump dex and once Int is 20 allows shield to increase AC up 23 though magc items could increase that it is getting a little bit on the high side but probably OK for a higher level spell (maybe 4th)
Exactly, they should just let spellcasters have this.
Wizards are already known as one of the most powerful classes. Giving them an AC of 16-18 at the cost of 1-2 level 1 spell slots per day is not a good idea.
Exactly, they should just let spellcasters have this.
Nope, Spellcasters are already OP'ed and have spells like Shield. With this a 1st level wizard could have 13+3+5 AC or 21 AC while wearing no armor at all... that is insane. Mage Armor is meant to be a solution for Wizards and Sorcerers that do not have light armour proficiency to have some AC but ultimately these classes are still meant to have the lowest AC.
I could see an argument for Armor of Shadows to work like this for Warlock but else wise not needed for Wizard and Sorcerer. Wizard and Sorcerer already get too much if they manage to get their hands on a staff of defense, and in the late game, way too much from Robe of the Archmagi.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is something I have been wondering ever since I looked up the spell. It is a spell that alters your AC and so I figured it would make more sense for it to use your spell modifier instead. Am I alone in this?
Well, I do agree it would make more sense for the spellcasting modifier to be used, I do have an idea as to why it is dex:
The spell creates a suit of magic armor the the wearer has on them. The armor is just that, armor. Well, magic armor. But it functions as a studded leather +1.
So essentially it's just armor, nothing more, nothing less.
Regular armor.
D&D is a game for nerds... so I guess I'm one :p
I guess it's for the same reason other armors use a DEX mod... to represent your character's ability to potentially just dodge the attack outright. Although I wouldn't be opposed to a homebrew version that used your casting mod instead, although I would probably make it a higher level spell.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
If cast with a 4th level or higher spell, it becomes 10+your dex modifier+your spellcasting modifier? Makes it so you can't upcast it until 7th level.
Edit originally left base at 13, but lowered it to 10 to match unarmored defense for a max of 20 instead of 23.
I doubt you are alone in that line of though, but I wouldn't do it (to each their own though, I can see why you'd do it).
To be fair (and balanced? if there is such a thing), you'd have to adjust the weight held by Floating Disk, the damage reduced by Shield, the amount created with Create Food and Water, etc all based on the Spell Modifier (like I said, just to be fair and balanced).
I believe the Armor spell in my old 1st edition book said it created a "magical field that was similar to a suite of scale mail" and back then Dexterity played a roll in determining Armor Class, so......
...cryptographic randomness!
It creates armor and light armor allows you to add your Dex mod. It's a first level spell with a long duration so it will be active much of the time. If it was 13 + spell mod the wizard would be better armored than the fighter. If you wanted to use spell mod it would have to be 10 + spell mod rather than 13 + dex.
Because it's considered a form of light armor.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
AC represents your ability to absorb or avoid hits altogether.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The developers didn't want run-of-the-mill Wizards and Sorcs running around with better AC than Rangers and Paladins, basically. It's written that way for balance reasons. If you want higher AC, use a Shield spell, be a Dwarf, or start with a level in one of the Fighter-like classes. Or a Valor Bard.
The spell doesn't create a suit of armor. "You touch a willing creature who isn't wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds it until the spell ends. "
Someone using the Mage Armor spell is not wearing any armor, so - just like anyone else who is not wearing any armor - they get to add their Dex mod to their AC, to represent their own physical agility to dodge attacks.
But I have long wondered why Mage Armor doesn't scale with higher level spell slots. Like, if a Level 1 slot gives you AC 13, shouldn't a Level 2 spell slot give you AC 14, and a Level 3 spell slot give you AC 15 etc etc?
I mean, if you cast Mage Armor using a 9th level spell slot, you'd get an AC of 21, which really isn't all that high, considering it's the equivalent to regular plate armor and a shield and another +1. I mean, for a 9th level spell slot, that actually seems pretty modest.
Tayn of Darkwood. Lvl 10 human Life Cleric of Lathander. Retired.
Ikram Sahir ibn Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad, Second Son of the House of Ra'ad, Defender of the Burning Sands. Lvl 9 Brass Dragonborn Sorcerer + Greater Fire Elemental Devil.
Viktor Gavriil. Lvl 20 White Dragonborn Grave Cleric, of Kurgan the God of Death.
Anzio Faro. Lvl 5 Prot. Aasimar Light Cleric.
Bounded accuracy is important in 5e. As the target still gets to add their Dex mod either way, allowing the spell to scale would get out of hand pretty quickly.
Even for a level 9 spell, 21 AC base is crazy (not including Dex). More AC than full plate & shield without suffering disadvantage to stealth, without limiting the free use of a hand, without taking attunement slots, without requiring a restricted proficiency (heavy armor), and without requiring concentration? Nah.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I don't think it would be unbalancing to let it scale with level, a 20th level character only has a single 9th level spell slot so if they wanted to burn it on an up-cast Mage Armor it should be unbelieveably good, on par with the sturdiest of tanky armor wearers. But letting it add spellcasting modifier to your armor instead of Dex would get out of hand very quickly, and unbalance spellcasters by making them more SAD than every other class, so I draw the line there.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Using dex with mage Armor just makes sense. The spell is level 1 and is boosting your AC to 13 and is not restrictive so you get to use your dex mod for dodging. I have a level 15 sorcerer with a 20 DEX, bracers of Armor, ring of protection, cloak of protection which give an AC of 22 plus with the level 1 spell shield can boost the AC to 27 till start of next turn.
Since you brought up Unarmored Defence why not make the spell work as such? 10+dex+spellcasting ability modifier? Barbarians and Monks have it active all the time where as a caster would need to burn a spellslot for it.
Barbarians & Monks are also meant to be melee fighters with iconic themes of going unarmored (or not as armored, in the case of Barbarians) while your standard spellcasting classes without armor proficiency - Wizards and Sorcerers - are not themed around being melee fighters.
But there are subclasses, like the Bladesinging Wizard, that are more melee fighters, and they get a temporary special feature that increases their AC by their INT modifier. Note that it's temporary, as opposed to provided by a non-concentration spell that lasts 8 hours.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Having a 10 + Dex + Int would be OK if that is all you get. Monks and barbs can not increase it higher without multi-classing (which nerfs there core abilities). AWith this a bladsewsinging wizard would have an AC of up to 25 which if he does get hit he can up to 30 by casting shield.
I played a UA armorer was able to get a high AC and cast shield which resulted in me being almost impossible to hit without a nat 20 (Late in the campaign my AC was 24 with shield upping it to 29. Other testers agreed it was OP and when Armorer came out as an official subclass shield was with thunderwave.
I think most of you have it wrong. You are looking at entirely wrong. Imagine a spell that sets your AC = 10 + Int modifier.
Now hear all the complaints about how their Wizard has a 16 Dex and that darn spell nerfed their ability to dodge. How unfair is it that I get no bonus for being Agile? Scumbag developers ripped me off.
The spell does not magically let you add your Dex to your AC. You could always do that. This spell simply and clearly adds a set bonus of +3 to your AC while preventing you from using any other Armor, while still allowing you to add your Dex, any Shield, and rings of protection.
Without a tome to increase max int, AC = 10+Int maxes out at 15. I would have no problent with that as a 1st level spell, it would onlt be better than normal mage armor if the In modifier is more than 3 better than dex.
AC or 13 + Int (which is the diect substitution for an Int based mage armor) is more powerful because it allows the wizard to dump dex and once Int is 20 allows shield to increase AC up 23 though magc items could increase that it is getting a little bit on the high side but probably OK for a higher level spell (maybe 4th)
Wizards are already known as one of the most powerful classes. Giving them an AC of 16-18 at the cost of 1-2 level 1 spell slots per day is not a good idea.
Nope, Spellcasters are already OP'ed and have spells like Shield. With this a 1st level wizard could have 13+3+5 AC or 21 AC while wearing no armor at all... that is insane. Mage Armor is meant to be a solution for Wizards and Sorcerers that do not have light armour proficiency to have some AC but ultimately these classes are still meant to have the lowest AC.
I could see an argument for Armor of Shadows to work like this for Warlock but else wise not needed for Wizard and Sorcerer. Wizard and Sorcerer already get too much if they manage to get their hands on a staff of defense, and in the late game, way too much from Robe of the Archmagi.