# Luminous armor



## Antoine (Aug 9, 2004)

Luminous armor and greater luminous armor from BoED provide +5 or +8 armor bonus, and a -4 penalty attack rolls against the target, with a 2nd or 4th level spell that lasts for hours with a minor sacrifice (-1d2 or 1d3 Str).

Balanced ?
Already discussed ?
Any suggestion on how to handle this ?

Especially the -4 penalty for attacking in a daylight (!), which really looks like another +4 AC bonus that stacks with everything (except for a few blind fellas).

Thanks for any experience/suggestion.


----------



## Scharlata (Aug 9, 2004)

Antoine said:
			
		

> Luminous armor and greater luminous armor [...]




Broken   

Kind regards


----------



## Brekki (Aug 10, 2004)

For non-VoP monks it's to good.

For everyone who already wears a fullplate the lesser spell still gives an effective extra +4 AC ... to good.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Aug 10, 2004)

yup broken - since these spells are designed to be learned one at a time, and only with DM permission it is really easy just to delete it.  There may be a pretige class in BoED that gives the whole list, but I would consider that broken as well.
If you really want to use it- 
first I stuck a (elderin) requirement on it but should any PC actually meet this requirement I would prolly bump it to 4th level. as it seems at least on par with stoneskin/minor globe


----------



## Dracomeander (Aug 10, 2004)

I don't think they are that broken.

The -4 penalty to be hit only applies to foes in melee. Beyond melee range, while the light is still bright, it is no longer blinding. You are still subject to being pincushioned by archers and other ranged opponents.

I suppose it could be house ruled that those attacking with *reach* could ignore the blinding penalty as well.

In our game, we added a house rule for ranged combat that the -4 penalty was converted to a bonus applied to negate the negatives due to range increment. (The target was easier to see. Beware of long range ambush.)


----------



## DM_Matt (Aug 11, 2004)

Evilhalfling said:
			
		

> yup broken - since these spells are designed to be learned one at a time, and only with DM permission it is really easy just to delete it.  There may be a pretige class in BoED that gives the whole list, but I would consider that broken as well.




Not true.  Exalted Feats are special like that but not the spells. Any cleric or high enough level arcane arcanist can spont cast any exalted spell.


----------



## James McMurray (Aug 11, 2004)

Both of these spells are way too nice. Removing the -4 bright light penalty will balance them for the most part. Making them only count as daylight for creatures that are light sensitive would also make them closer to balanced.


----------



## Methos of Aundair (Aug 11, 2004)

First off, I don’t have the book so can only post my observation based off of this thread. Anyway, I don’t understand why the spell would grant a -4 penalty to hit versus adjacent foes due to a daylight spell? Shouldn’t it instead be a concealment miss chance? A negative modifier would imply to me that it would be due to a cover bonus, which obviously cannot be granted due to intense light. I personally would think the recipient of this spell should have % miss chance due to concealment. Think of it as driving into the setting sun, a very bright light. Though you know the road is directly in front of you it can be very hard to see due to the bright sun, or the concealment of the intense light. Just an observation.


----------



## Laman Stahros (Aug 11, 2004)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> Not true. Exalted Feats are special like that but not the spells. Any cleric or high enough level arcane arcanist can spont cast any exalted spell.



As per both the BoVD and the BoED, you cannot spont cast any exalted or vile spell (prepared only).


----------



## TheBadElf (Aug 11, 2004)

Laman Stahros said:
			
		

> As per both the BoVD and the BoED, you cannot spont cast any exalted or vile spell (prepared only).





According to BoED page 84, Clerics can spontaneously cast any Sanctified spell (subset of exalted spells) "just as they can spontaneously cast _Cure Wounds_ spells:.


----------



## Scharlata (Aug 11, 2004)

Laman Stahros said:
			
		

> As per both the BoVD and the BoED, you cannot spont cast any exalted or vile spell (prepared only).




Sorry, but that's* incorrcet*! 

*Corrupt spells* can be cast by anyone who *prepares spells*, i.e. a wizard, a paladin, or a cleric (as opposed to someone who cast spells spontaneously, i.e. a bard, or a scorerer, a warmage, an assassin, etc.). In spite of the above mentioned rule, a spontaneous caster like a bard or a sorcerer CAN cast a corrupt spell from a scroll. *GOOD characters are NOT ESPECIALLY FORBIDDEN to use corrupt spells*, but have to pay the price (as all other casters of corrupt spells and suffer the consequences of casting evil spells, if the corrupt spell has the "Evil" descriptor). [See page 77/78 BoVD.]

*Sanctified spells* can be cast by anyone who *prepares spells*, i.e. a wizard, a ranger, or a cleric (as opposed to someone who cast spells spontaneously, i.e. a bard, or a scorerer). In spite of the above mentioned rule, a spontaneous caster like a bard or a sorcerer CAN cast a sanctified spell from a scroll. *EVIL characters are ESPECIALLY FORBIDDEN to use sanctified spells*. *CLERICS, and only CLERICS* [not druids, not paladins, not healers, not etc.], are able to *spontaneously cast a sanctified spell* instead of a prepared divine spell, just as the rule of spontaneously casting Cure spells allows a cleric to lose a prepared spell to cast a Cure spell spontaneously. Combining the EVIL and CLERIC rules, you must be a *nonevil cleric of a nonevil deity to cast a sanctified spell spontaneously*. [See page 83/84 BoED.]

Kind regards


----------

