Remove GSF Abjuration bonuses from Mage Armor

Burgesse

Spells can't just be balanced around their effectiveness to solo play.

Spells can't just be balanced around their effectiveness to group play either.

It's half a blur spell (one of the most commonly used potions), with a massive duration and a cheap slot. And GFS abju provides a large helping of defensive benefits besides.

Blur also gives 20% concealment and half a blur spell is a lvl 1 spell. Yes, it lasts longer, but Blur also doesn't need 2 feats and is widely available.

And of course GSF Abjuration gives benefits. It should considering it's two feats. As well, the 3/1 only comes from the sorcerer, the effect doesn't come from a wand or potion.

It wouldn't fix the initial issue raised, and making a whole new spell is far more work than simply reverting a change.

The initial issue is that 'a 1st lvl spell that gives +4 ac also gives 3/1 dr after 2 feats.'
Considering that GSF conjuration not only gives vastly longer lasting summons but also additional ones, I'd argue that putting a lot of focus into something should give you something. Yes, abjuration gives you other stuff, but that isn't the focus of this debate.

At the end of the day, for a large expenditure, you get a useful buff to a spell. Yes, that spell can be used on summons. (Who don't last nearly as long.) and undead (who require extra steps but heal with negative energy) and other party members (Who don't use armor.) but I still argue that the bonus it gives isn't wildly powerful when you put it up against your complaint.

And yet Sorcerers do now have spell regeneration, and therefore it needs to be taken into account. How balanced it would be prior to spell regen is somewhat irrelevant.

It is very much worth taking into account. Half the argument here is about how sorcerers can spam it. If they lacked regenerating spells, would it still be as powerful? No. Because now you have a character with just as much staying power as any other caster, but far less versatility. At that point, you might as well play a wizard.

Specialization should have benefits. SF abjuration doesn't give it anything so you need the full spec to get the buff.

The benefit it gives is not 'broken' or 'op' and without it, all abjuration does is mildly improve your elemental resist spells and leave Shield still equally average.

Do not punish every caster simply because one class can make slightly better use.

SpiffyMeister

When the spell buffs were put up for discussion, the intention was to make Abjurers, a specialization, who oddly ought to be the best at protecting themselves, significantly better. I honestly can't recall the justification for the mage armor buff for GSF Abjuration providing 3/+1 DR.

Conjurors are already /extremely fucking good/ and i don't really wish to see them having another one-up on the poor, abused abjuror.

Zap

@burgesse said in Remove GSF Abjuration bonuses from Mage Armor:

Do not punish every caster simply because one class can make slightly better use.

Which is it? A niche benefit of a 2 feat investment or something that will negatively impact every caster of its removed?

Burgesse

@zap

It's both.

GSF Abjuration's perks give casters a reliable protection that isn't spamming short term buffs or invis. In PvE, it gives a modest shield to massed arrows when the AI decides 'low hp = prime target'. In PvP it doesn't do much. But pvp usually boils down to who has more potions of heal.

Remove it and you've got...better elemental protection... iron gut... and shield.

Taking the perk away makes conjuration the better option unless you're aiming for high dc's.

You've really only got DC casters, enchantment, abjuration and conjuration/necromancy. All these provide an actual style of play.

Transmutation, Illusion, Divination and evocation* are all very niche in terms of SF benefits.

*Evocation less so since fireballs are a valid style.

So yes. Removing it would negatively impact every caster unless there is some other reason to take it.

I've said my piece.

Zap

@burgesse conjuration should be the better option for mage armour. Its a conjuration spell for whatever reason. The fact gsf abju was providing it to a conj spell lost to abju specialists was the point in the first place.

A Former User

@burgesse said in Remove GSF Abjuration bonuses from Mage Armor:

@zap

It's both.

GSF Abjuration's perks give casters a reliable protection that isn't spamming short term buffs or invis. In PvE, it gives a modest shield to massed arrows when the AI decides 'low hp = prime target'. In PvP it doesn't do much. But pvp usually boils down to who has more potions of heal.

Remove it and you've got...better elemental protection... iron gut... and shield.

Taking the perk away makes conjuration the better option unless you're aiming for high dc's.

You've really only got DC casters, enchantment, abjuration and conjuration/necromancy. All these provide an actual style of play.

Transmutation, Illusion, Divination and evocation* are all very niche in terms of SF benefits.

*Evocation less so since fireballs are a valid style.

So yes. Removing it would negatively impact every caster unless there is some other reason to take it.

I've said my piece.

Err. All of those schools can be valid styles of play for a caster tbh. There are also plenty of long term buffs that provide protection. (Stoneskin is hour/level)

foamcastle

This change also affects clerics with protection domain that take SF/GSF abjuration.

Shadowfax

After finally getting this suggestion explained to me (sorry, I'm mechanically slow XD), I understand why it should be removed.

First off, Mage armor is a conjuration spell. It should not be getting any bonus from Abjuration.
Also, the DR given here is OP.

So, it should be removed. If you find abjurers lose on this, please give suggestions to make Abjurations spells more awesome with SF and GSF! (I'll leave the headaches of mechanics to you guys hehe)

Prof. Misclick

We're looking at the shield spell already as part of this suggestion. Thanks everyone!

Prof. Misclick

v7462
Removed GSF: Abjuration granting 3/+1 DR