What is the point of mage armor ?

[DeLastOne]

We need to be naked to cast it and it only provide +3 AC:.. not sure I get it
Lot of armors provide better protection even self robe

[Angel]

mage armor adds +3AC while not wearing armor. Robes are considered clothing.. not armor.

[RealDealBreaker]

A robe does not add AC. THe base armor class calculation is 10 + DEX modifier. Armor replaces the 10 with the armor's value (e.g., leather is 11, studded leather is 12) and then DEX is added based on the type of armor (full dex modifier for light, up to +2 for medium or + 3 with a feat, and no dex modifier for heavy armor. You will notice the robe is 10+dex and it does not count as armor. You CAN cast mage armor while wearing a robe, or a shirt and pants, or naked if you prefer and it works the same.

The point of mage armor is that wizards do not have proficiency in ANY armor so mage armor increasing their AC from 10 + DEX to 13 +DEX is a big deal. Besides, mage armor is actually better protection than studded leather strictly in terms of the AC it provides since studded leather is 12 + DEX and mage armor is 13 + DEX.

[SnarkOne]

Clothing such as Gale's starting robe doesn't count as armor, so you can cast it while wearing that. The spell is made for mages, as the name suggests. It just offers a little bit more protection... I suggest getting 1 spell slot it in, it's pretty useful as it doesn't require concentration and you get a little bit more protection. It can make a huge difference if you have prolonged fights; but if you finish the fights in 2-3 turns, then it doesn't have much, if any, use. Overall it depends on your play style and how long your fights drag on.

[Hobocop]

It's called Mage Armor for a reason. Wizards and Sorcerers can't effectively wear armor by default.

[Jack Hawklight]

If you are questioning the usefulness of mage armour I can only say this, you should always have mage armour on your wizard. Always.

[RealDealBreaker]

Originally posted by Funniesthobo:

If you are questioning the usefulness of mage armour I can only say this, you should always have mage armour on your wizard. Always.

Not always, but it is definitely a very good pick especially in a game like BG3 where you can't effectively use terrain features for protection very often. I have played wizards in tabletop and didn't take mage armor at all. I made extensive use of cover and positioning relative to my allies and the enemies to survive.

[Angel]

Originally posted by RealDealBreaker:

Originally posted by Funniesthobo:

If you are questioning the usefulness of mage armour I can only say this, you should always have mage armour on your wizard. Always.

Not always, but it is definitely a very good pick especially in a game like BG3 where you can't effectively use terrain features for protection very often. I have played wizards in tabletop and didn't take mage armor at all. I made extensive use of cover and positioning relative to my allies and the enemies to survive.

Your post suddenly made me picture Xcom style battles in BG3 :D "Gale! Duck behind that log for half cover!"

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

If you have no armor proficiencies then you should be using Mage Armor, otherwise you can get a higher AC even with light armor.

[dolby]

well there are multiple uses
1. Use it on your casters in robes... But casters can have armor proficiencies you say?
Well a light armor with bad dex is worse than a robe and mage armor.
If you have good dex or have heavy armor proficencey well use that...doh, you dummy.

2. Pets like the ones from find familiar spell or ranger beast master subclass all benefit from that mage armor. Cast that on and maybe shield of faith... and off you go solo with the pet...or something. The sky is the limit, if you play as a raven literally.

3. Druids in wild shapes all those are great with mage armor.

4. Story event happens when you lose your armor? you get locked up or something? Just use mage armor till you find old one or new armor...

5. Maybe you are at the beach? and the sun is hot and you just want to show some skin? Well. again just use mage armor, your friendly pocket armor for every occasion.

[Jack Hawklight]

Originally posted by dolby:

well there are multiple uses
1. Use it on your casters in robes... But casters can have armor proficiencies you say?
Well a light armor with bad dex is worse than a robe and mage armor.
If you have good dex or have heavy armor proficencey well use that...doh, you dummy.

2. Pets like the ones from find familiar spell or ranger beast master subclass all benefit from that mage armor. Cast that on and maybe shield of faith... and off you go solo with the pet...or something. The sky is the limit, if you play as a raven literally.

3. Druids in wild shapes all those are great with mage armor.

4. Story event happens when you lose your armor? you get locked up or something? Just use mage armor till you find old one or new armor...

5. Maybe you are at the beach? and the sun is hot and you just want to show some skin? Well. again just use mage armor, your friendly pocket armor for every occasion.

Nice summary. I didn't even think about #2. My raven will be well protected from this day forth.

[id795078477]

The way I see it, Mage Armor is definitely not a great design decision, but it's down to the 5e, not the game. That's because it's the only spell (to my knowledge) that both doesn't require concentration and is persistent (lasts till long rest). Sounds to me as if just giving all robes +3 AC by default would do the same thing. And that also sounds like it was obvious for rulemakers that such a disadvantage in AC has to be compensated.. somehow.

Anyways, it's great that the spell exists, it's just gettting into those category of "must have" and "must cast" spells without which the spellcaster is much less viable and I am not a big fan of "must have" stuff in RPGs.

[RealDealBreaker]

Originally posted by Dellecross:

The way I see it, Mage Armor is definitely not a great design decision, but it's down to the 5e, not the game. That's because it's the only spell (to my knowledge) that both doesn't require concentration and is persistent (lasts till long rest). Sounds to me as if just giving all robes +3 AC by default would do the same thing. And that also sounds like it was obvious for rulemakers that such a disadvantage in AC has to be compensated.. somehow.

Anyways, it's great that the spell exists, it's just gettting into those category of "must have" and "must cast" spells without which the spellcaster is much less viable and I am not a big fan of "must have" stuff in RPGs.

Giving robes +3 to AC would not do the same thing. THe point is in order to have the protection from mage armor, you must use a spell slot (or scroll) every day to have it. Simply giving robes +3 AC would make light armor not only useless, but less effective than simple robes.

[Jack Hawklight]

Originally posted by RealDealBreaker:

Giving robes +3 to AC would not do the same thing. THe point is in order to have the protection from mage armor, you must use a spell slot (or scroll) every day to have it. Simply giving robes +3 AC would make light armor not only useless, but less effective than simple robes.

That is definitely true. The way I've seen it is that it is a tax to keep your mage alive longer. I always have it up. Gale gets targeted less and has a greatly increased ability to survive if he does get attacked. If he gets put down, he can't do anything at all, so mage armour is just the tax I pay for that. It is an expensive tax at lower levels, but not so much once you get more spell slots.

[dolby]

Originally posted by Dellecross:

The way I see it, Mage Armor is definitely not a great design decision, but it's down to the 5e, not the game. That's because it's the only spell (to my knowledge) that both doesn't require concentration and is persistent (lasts till long rest). Sounds to me as if just giving all robes +3 AC by default would do the same thing. And that also sounds like it was obvious for rulemakers that such a disadvantage in AC has to be compensated.. somehow.

Anyways, it's great that the spell exists, it's just gettting into those category of "must have" and "must cast" spells without which the spellcaster is much less viable and I am not a big fan of "must have" stuff in RPGs.

Read my above post again and no one is forcing you to play a caster with no armor proficiencies. It's a choice you pick at the start and can be fixed at later levels with feats.

And the ♥♥♥♥-fact that it doesn't have concentration is a good thing not a bad thing lol

[id795078477]

Originally posted by RealDealBreaker:

Originally posted by Dellecross:

The way I see it, Mage Armor is definitely not a great design decision, but it's down to the 5e, not the game. That's because it's the only spell (to my knowledge) that both doesn't require concentration and is persistent (lasts till long rest). Sounds to me as if just giving all robes +3 AC by default would do the same thing. And that also sounds like it was obvious for rulemakers that such a disadvantage in AC has to be compensated.. somehow.

Anyways, it's great that the spell exists, it's just gettting into those category of "must have" and "must cast" spells without which the spellcaster is much less viable and I am not a big fan of "must have" stuff in RPGs.

Giving robes +3 to AC would not do the same thing. THe point is in order to have the protection from mage armor, you must use a spell slot (or scroll) every day to have it. Simply giving robes +3 AC would make light armor not only useless, but less effective than simple robes.

That's on an assumption that no other changes are done to the armor. I'm not suggesting the change, just describing that in 99.9% cases it will just do the same as if the robe was granting +3 AC.

Originally posted by dolby:

And the ♥♥♥♥-fact that it doesn't have concentration is a good thing not a bad thing lol

And where did I state that it is bad?