Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sargeras 10-11-06, 03:43 PM	Does wearing Bracers of Armor (or a Ring of Force Shield) prevent a Monk or Duelist from getting their armor bonuses from Wis/Int? 'Cause it says "when unarmored" in the monk description and "when not wearing armor or using a shield" in the duelist's. But the description for bracers of armor says "...granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor." Any official ruling on this? Or is this one of those things where you can get by on a technicality?
Plothos 10-11-06, 03:48 PM	Monks and Duelists can use these with no problem. Bracers give an armor bonus, but that does not mean they ARE armor. Nor does it mean the character wearing them is wearing armor. They have a armor bonus, but that's all. To say a character is armored is to say they are wearing armor, not to say they have been granted an armor bonus from any source whatsoever. And conceptually it makes sense too. The monk and duelist are all about being able to move totally unimpeded and having that mobility be the basis of their techniques. They could wear bracers of archery, say, and have no problem, so the fact that these bracers grant an armor bonus rather than an archery bonus is irrelevant to the rationale for denying the monk and duelist armor in the first place.
Sargeras 10-11-06, 04:52 PM	Cool. Thanks. I was just wondering since the bracers said "just as though he were", but now that you mention it, that doesn't mean he is, just as though he were. Sweet. Good to know.
Esponer 10-11-06, 06:55 PM	I almost hate to bring this up, but this has been disputed. As I recall DarknessEternal, a fairly regular poster, believes otherwise. One thing to take note of is that many NPCs in official books use bracers of armour as monks or duellists and don't lose any abilities (as evidenced by their AC totals).
Manus 10-11-06, 07:33 PM	Important to note: this should actually be two separate questions: one for the bracers of armor, and the other for ring of force shield. The ring of force shield does not generate an effect similar to the 'shield' spell. Unlike the shield spell, which generates a shield that hovers, the ring creates a force shield attached to your hand that the character then has to move around manually. So, issue #1: monks are not proficient with shields. This actually makes no difference since the armor check penalty of the shield is zero. Issue #2 though: Since the character has to move the shield manually, in our game, a monk who is concentrating on where to place his shield, ISN'T concentrating on using his wisdom-driven zen like dodging abilities. So we've ruled that the ring of force shield is incompatible with the monk ac bonus. However, he can benefit from the shield spell, and bracers of armor.
Esponer 10-11-06, 07:49 PM	Manus is correct: sorry, I completely missed the ring of force shield question.
Tyler Do'Urden 10-11-06, 08:49 PM	I almost hate to bring this up, but this has been disputed. As I recall DarknessEternal, a fairly regular poster, believes otherwise.That dude argues with everything. I've observed something in my time here. Being a regular poster affords you no more credibility than a guy who just showed up a month ago. You never, ever reach a point where people just trust your judgement. No matter how long you've been here, no matter how many correct answers you've supplied, there will always be somebody there to say, "hang on a minute," and present an alternate point of view, well-founded or not. *ahem* Bracers of armor aren't armor; they're a wondrous item in the bracers slot. They don't require proficiency, have an armor check penalty, impose spell failure chance, or carry any of other properties of real armor (which occupies a different slot, by the way). They only thing they have in common with armor is the fact that they grant an armor bonus. A mage armor spell grants an armor bonus, too, but nobody is claiming that a monk loses his abilities when someone casts the spell on him. If he did, it'd be praised as a clever method for taking down a particularly wise monk; quickly cast mage armor on him and lower his AC. Same goes for duelists; bracers simply aren't armor.
Millennium 10-11-06, 10:04 PM	The RAW never states it outright, namely because it never provides a rigorous definition for "wearing armor". However, there have been many sample monks in D&D material over the years. Almost all of them have bracers of armor (sometimes in a custom form factor), yet all of them retain the full AC bonus. I should know; I cited six of them in the older thread that people mentioned. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that according to the spirit of RAW, monks and duelists should retain the bonus. The letter of RAW, however, is technically silent on the issue.
DarknessEternal 10-12-06, 01:55 AM	It says they count as wearing armor. You can dislike that all you want, but that is what the RAW says. Lots of DMs ignore that, and that's they're business. But let's not lie about what it actually says.
StruckingFuggle 10-12-06, 02:09 AM	It says they count as wearing armor. You can dislike that all you want, but that is what the RAW says. Lots of DMs ignore that, and that's they're business. But let's not lie about what it actually says. I'm looking at my 3.5 DMG right now, and it says no such thing.
jaelis 10-12-06, 02:57 AM	Bracers of Armor These items appear to be wrist or arm guards. They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor. Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective. I believe that the bolded text is what DarknessEternal is referring to. Not that I agree with his conclusions, but the line is there.
Sargeras 10-12-06, 03:36 AM	Well, it doesn't actually say that they count as wearing armor, it actually says that they "surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor". This can be saying 2 things: 1. That they "surround the wearer with a...tangible field of force...just as though he were wearing armor" with "granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8 being simply clarification of what that "tangible field" does, or 2. They "grant him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor" and the "tangible field of force" could just be sort of a flavor text describing how it works. That's what needs clarification. #1 could be interpreted (I'm afraid) as that tangible field of force being like wearing armor (where we get into a common sense/what the implications of that really are in relation to Wis/Int bonus to AC discussion) I like #2 better, because it seems to make more sense as far as the reason Bracers of Armor exist- so that characters that can't wear armor can have the armor bonus (note that the "tangible field of force" doesn't interfere with spellcasting). It just costs a heckuvalot. And, as previously mentioned, sample characters and such use them with no penalties, so that's good enough for me. (I just hope it's good enough for my DM. He may start to try to nerf me when he realizes I can get an AC of 84 with this guy...:P
Sargeras 10-12-06, 03:38 AM	So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: They don't count as wearing armor, they just give a bonus as though you are. But you're not. That's kinda the point of these things. :) Right? As far as I can tell...right.
Grey_Mage 10-12-06, 03:45 AM	Bracers of Armor These items appear to be wrist or arm guards. They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor. Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective. Thats the thing... by saying that its "just as though he were wearing armor" gives us a reminder that its an armor bonus to ac. This is from one of the origional books, before people were quite so anul-retentive about the wording of everything, and probly copied and pasted in. It gives an armor bonus to AC. Its not Armor. From the Monks AC bonus ability: These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. She loses these bonuses when she is immobilized or helpless, when she wears any armor, when she carries a shield, or when she carries a medium or heavy load. Of course, emphasis is mine. In this case its obviously talking about the kind of item known as "Armor" In the Dnd Game. Bracers of Armor arent on this list, theyre not even remotely that kind of item, and theres no reason they should be.
Tyler Do'Urden 10-12-06, 04:18 AM	"...just as though he were wearing armor," means he's not actually wearing armor. He's wearing something that grants the same benefit, but there's no indication in that line or in the rest of the description that it has any of the same drawbacks. This is to say nothing of all the NPC monk on DMG p. 119.
babysamurai 10-12-06, 05:17 AM	It says they count as wearing armor. You can dislike that all you want, but that is what the RAW says. Lots of DMs ignore that, and that's they're business. But let's not lie about what it actually says. Are you actually suggesting that monks are affected by wearing bracers of armour as though wearing actual armour? Or are you just being pedantically difficult?
Sargeras 10-12-06, 05:22 AM	"...just as though he were wearing armor," means he's not actually wearing armor. He's wearing something that grants the same benefit Yeah, that. That's what I've been trying to say. Why the heck couldn't I think of how to say it that simply? It's what I was thinking. I should just say what I'm thinking more often instead of thinking about it more. Anyways, good point, and thank you, Tyler Do'Urden (and of course all others who gave their input).
Esponer 10-12-06, 05:25 AM	As I said, I hate to bring this up...
Bopple 10-12-06, 10:36 AM	What Tyler said. You do (A) != You do (B) as if you did (A) Perhaps you might be treated as when doing (A), perhaps not. But as for Bracers of Armor, all the monk, duelist and similar examples show it's not the case.
DarknessEternal 10-12-06, 10:53 AM	This can be saying 2 things: 1. That they "surround the wearer with a...tangible field of force...just as though he were wearing armor" with "granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8 being simply clarification of what that "tangible field" does, or 2. They "grant him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor" and the "tangible field of force" could just be sort of a flavor text describing how it works. Correct. It has an equal chance of meaning either of those. Thanks to our lovely language, we'll never know.
babysamurai 10-12-06, 11:03 AM	Correct. It has an equal chance of meaning either of those. Thanks to our lovely language, we'll never know. …But we do know.
jaelis 10-12-06, 12:25 PM	…But we do know. and knowing is half the battle.
Sargeras 10-12-06, 12:47 PM	…But we do know. What do we know? And how? That they don't interfere with Wis/Int bonus to armor, since sample characters set a precedent showing that they don't? ... ... ... ... "GI Jo-----e!":P
starfire311 10-12-06, 03:01 PM	I have seen this wording before... Giant spider may block as though it had flying. Giant spider does not have flying, but can still block creatures with flying. seems like they took a page out of MtG rules, and those rules are clear and concise, no one argues that a hurricane(deal x damage to all creatures with flying) will deal x damage to a giant spider.
Millennium 10-12-06, 03:47 PM	It says they count as wearing armor. You can dislike that all you want, but that is what the RAW says. No, no it doesn't. Your misinterpretation of the line is perhaps understandable, but directly contradicted by evidence in the very same book where that line appears. Lots of DMs ignore that, and that's they're business. But let's not lie about what it actually says. Why would Wizards, the people who wrote the RAW in the first place, "ignore" RAW? As I have now repeatedly pointed out, many NPC monks appear in the core and non-core rulebooks, most of them have bracers of armor, and yet none of them lose their class-based AC bonuses. Not even one. Do the math if you want; even in cases where the listed AC for these characters isn't broken down, the only way the monk could have the listed AC is if both the bonus from the bracers and the class-based bonuses are both taken into account. I have given you examples from the PHB, arguably the most core of the core books. I have given you examples from the DMG, the same book where the line you are misinterpreting appears. I have given you examples from the campaign settings, and from other books as well. Find me even one counterexample and I'll back off. Until you can find that, then I'm afraid your interpretation of this line is simply wrong, and that's all there is to it.
Jhaelen 10-12-06, 04:48 PM	It says they count as wearing armor. You can dislike that all you want, but that is what the RAW says.RAW is a myth. You cannot use the RAW without interpretation. Every piece of evidence elsewhere suggests that your interpretation is not correct.
BackInBlack 10-12-06, 10:45 PM	using a floating shield might have the effect the orginal poster wanted
babysamurai 10-13-06, 04:00 AM	and knowing is half the battle. A real American hero!
Qube 10-13-06, 04:18 AM	actually their is an easy way to see: does anyone here have a DMG -> there are pregenerated characters for each class/level ---> does the pregen monk have bracers of armor in its equipment (beeing much cheaper then rings/amulet of natural armor, i guess if it stacks it would be a good monk-item, so the pregen monk would have it)
babysamurai 10-13-06, 04:29 AM	anyone here have a DMG -> there are pregenerated characters for each class/level ---> does the pregen monk have bracers of armor in its equipment Yes.
Qube 10-13-06, 05:05 AM	RAW is a myth. You cannot use the RAW without interpretation. Every piece of evidence elsewhere suggests that your interpretation is not correct. yes you can: you can quote it, but nobody can read it :) :foryou can't read without interpreting: lets say "the barbarian gets +4 Str and +4 Con for a number of turns equal to 2+his new con modifier" --> when rage my barbarian thus get 4 strength permenently ( RAIIT says only the CON lasts only a number of rounds :D ) )
Qube 10-13-06, 05:10 AM	Yes. And now for disbeleavers: is their AC actually increased or are those yust vs flat-footedness. And - I almost forgot - is it listed errata as a fault? RAW or RAIIT are now longer important, its RADIT: Rules As the Developers Interpreted Them.
babysamurai 10-13-06, 05:16 AM	And now for disbeleavers: is their AC actually increased or are those yust vs flat-footedness. And - I almost forgot - is it listed errata as a fault? I’m slightly confused by your wording. But I’ll have a go: A monk retains all class features when wearing bracers of armour. So, he/she would gain a Wis bonus (if any), a Dex bonus (if any), and an armour bonus from the bracers to AC. There has been no errata – the monk NPC in the DMG is happily equipped with bracers of armour.
Qube 10-13-06, 05:55 AM	There has been no errata – the monk NPC in the DMG is happily equipped with bracers of armour. RADIT wins again. problem solved. case closed :tiphat: :monk: :monk: :monk: :monk:
babysamurai 10-13-06, 07:03 AM	RADIT wins again. problem solved. case closed :tiphat: :monk: :monk: :monk: :monk: The thing is, the case has been close since 2000, but for some strange reason there are these people clinging to the idea that bracers of armour count as "actual" armour. …Odd.
DarknessEternal 10-13-06, 10:45 AM	There has been no errata – the monk NPC in the DMG is happily equipped with bracers of armour. They never errata the sample NPCs. Almost half of them violate rules, but that never matters. For example, there's about one NPC in the entire Tome of Battle that isn't cheating. Trying to find rules based on the example NPCs is a West End Games maneuver, and it worked out so well for them. If you really want to let Monks wear Bracers of Amour without losing their abilities, then go ahead. I never said you couldn't. Even if I did, what do you care what I think? I said the wording could also suggest that they would lose some abilities since they are now wearing armour.
babysamurai 10-13-06, 10:52 AM	They never errata the sample NPCs. Almost half of them violate rules, but that never matters. But the monk wearing, and gaining the benefit of braces of armour, is not violating any rules. Monk + bracers of armour = fine. End of story.
babysamurai 10-13-06, 10:55 AM	I said the wording could also suggest that they would lose some abilities since they are now wearing armour. But they’re not “wearing” armour; they’re wearing a wondrous item that grants an armour “bonus”. See; see how that works?
Bob Loblaw 10-13-06, 11:05 AM	Just a question, if we assume that it is actually armor, could you fill in the blanks for me: Type (Light, Medium, Heavy): _________ Maximum Dex Bonus: _________ Armor Check Penalty: _________ Arcane Spell Failure Chance: _________ These are all armor qualities. If bracers have the same qualities, then they should be considered armor. If they do not have these qualities, then they cannot be considered armor.
babysamurai 10-13-06, 11:14 AM	Just a question, if we assume that it is actually armor, could you fill in the blanks for me: Type (Light, Medium, Heavy): _________ Maximum Dex Bonus: _________ Armor Check Penalty: _________ Arcane Spell Failure Chance: _________ These are all armor qualities. If bracers have the same qualities, then they should be considered armor. If they do not have these qualities, then they cannot be considered armor. Nice.
spyderfreek 10-13-06, 11:38 AM	Just a question, if we assume that it is actually armor, could you fill in the blanks for me: Type (Light, Medium, Heavy): _________ Maximum Dex Bonus: _________ Armor Check Penalty: _________ Arcane Spell Failure Chance: _________ These are all armor qualities. If bracers have the same qualities, then they should be considered armor. If they do not have these qualities, then they cannot be considered armor. Damnskippy!! So, a wizard/sorc wearing bracers of armor +8 would obviously have penalties as per full plate armor. Yeah, right! 'Cuz so many wizards forgo wearing there little babies so as not to incur such penalties.
starfire311 10-13-06, 11:54 AM	Damnskippy!! So, a wizard/sorc wearing bracers of armor +8 would obviously have penalties as per full plate armor. Yeah, right! 'Cuz so many wizards forgo wearing there little babies so as not to incur such penalties. actually if you were using the interpretation that bracers count as armor, wizards would indeed take non-proficency penalties, fortunatly the armor check penalty is 0, and the non-proficiency penalties would also be 0
spyderfreek 10-13-06, 12:43 PM	they would also have arcane failure checks based off of full plate
Sargeras 10-13-06, 12:57 PM	using a floating shield might have the effect the orginal poster wanted I appreciate your idea. However, the reason I didn’t include floaty shields in my question in the first place is: “Animated: A character with an animated shield still takes any penalties associated with shield use….” Monk- “AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. She loses these bonuses…when she wears any armor…etc.. Since the character "takes any penalties associated with shield use", he loses the Wisdom bonus to AC because he has a shield. Duelist- “Canny Defense (Ex): When not wearing armor or using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus…etc..” Shield would prevent getting the Int bonus to AC. Also: If you really want to let Monks wear Bracers of Amour without losing their abilities, then go ahead. I never said you couldn't. Even if I did, what do you care what I think? I care what you think because maybe you have good reason to disagree with pretty much all of the users participating in this thread, and I don't think you would do that unless you have a good reason. And trust me, I understand your reasoning- it's the whole purpose of my starting this thread, because I wondered if my DM would rule as you are. But based on all of the responses I've gotten, what makes the most sense is summarized by Tyler's statement- "...just as though he were wearing armor," means he's not actually wearing armor. He's wearing something that grants the same benefit.... And so I have a good, logical answer for whether or not I can use the bracers with my character if my DM thinks differently (but of course if I can't change his mind then I'm gonna have to abide by his ruling, and that's fine- he's the DM). That's the great thing about the message boards- someone can ask a question and you get several different opinions/rulings in response. Tyler's just makes the most sense. That being said: I said the wording could also suggest that they would lose some abilities since they are now wearing armour. (Emphasis mine) Again, they are not actually wearing armor. Just as Tyler said, they wouldn't say "...just as though he were wearing armor" unless the character wasn't. This means that the description isn't saying "you are wearing armor", it's saying that "you're not, but this item grants the same effect" (which is why they provide an armor bonus (due to the "tangible field"), not a deflection bonus like a Ring of Protection). But it doesn't grant the same penalties as actual armor, because it's a Wondrous Item. You may rule, as a DM, that it actually has the same effect, that the "tangible field" gets in the way like armor would (which is what I was afraid of my DM ruling when I started this thread), but then what's the need for a wondrous item like this? Why would a character spend 36,000gp on Bracers of Armor +6 when he could just get a +2 Mithral Chain shirt for 5,100gp and have the same penalties? It’s a useless Wondrous item by your ruling. The reason this item (and many other Wondrous Items) exist is so that characters that can't wear armor can get some of the same benefit (albeit at a much greater price). I guess I just mean that instead of you saying that "some DMs rule that it's not wearing armor", what's really happening is that you're ruling that it is (and I can understand why, 'cause I was wondering about it at first, but based on all the reasons in this thread, I don't see why you would still rule it that way). Of course, the real concern for a Monk is whether it hinders his ability to dodge blows or move freely, right? No other force effect does, and therefore the force effect from bracers of armor shouldn't either. I think everyone can agree that they are a Wondrous Item that gives you the effect of Mage Armor while you have them equipped, and Mage Armor (which is the only spell required to create them) doesn't affect spellcasting, so it shouldn't affect agility/movement. Origionally, I was worried about the clause :"...just as though he were wearing armor" because it had "wearing armor" in it. But since it doesn't mean that they are actually wearing armor, it just provides that benefit through a different effect (magic force instead of leather or metal or any other material) I hope this thread is done....
DarknessEternal 10-13-06, 03:47 PM	You may rule, as a DM, that it actually has the same effect, that the "tangible field" gets in the way like armor would (which is what I was afraid of my DM ruling when I started this thread), but then what's the need for a wondrous item like this? Why would a character spend 36,000gp on Bracers of Armor +6 when he could just get a +2 Mithral Chain shirt for 5,100gp and have the same penalties? To counter that logic, why would a Monk/Ninja/etc get extra AC cheaper than everyone else? Since they already get Wisdom and a class level modifier for zero gp, and they'd still be able to increase thier AC via, not only bracers (same as anyone else) but also via leveling and ability enhancing items. As you can see, gp cost is hardly relevant.
DocBeard 10-13-06, 11:27 PM	Monks don't lose their AC bonus when wearing bracers of armor. End of. Because I said so. Shut up. What I'm wondering is whether magic robes (which take up the armor slot, but which, mostly, don't grant any AC bonus) can be worn by monks without losing their AC bonus.
Bob Loblaw 10-14-06, 12:52 AM	actually if you were using the interpretation that bracers count as armor, wizards would indeed take non-proficency penalties, fortunatly the armor check penalty is 0, and the non-proficiency penalties would also be 0 Those penalties are not spelled out like with every other piece of armor in the game. There's not even a hint that these qualities are to be assumed. In fact, there is not even a mention of it in the description of any form of bracers. Why would bracers +1 have any difference than bracers +2 or barcers of archery? If the bracers are actually a form of armor, why aren't they listed with Armors? Why are they with the Wondrous Items? they would also have arcane failure checks based off of full plate Why full plate? Why not chain mail +3? Why not mithral full plate? Why not chain shirt +5? My point is that the qualities are not listed because the bracers are not meant to be actual armor. Sorry, but unless you can give me a solid answer on what type of armor I'm supposed to use, then I would have to say that the bracers are most definately not armor. Let's also take this another step, just to continue my point, what about Bracers of Epic Armor? Now what kind of armor would you consider +12 bracers? +15? Higher?
Red_Decker 10-14-06, 01:22 AM	Just a question, if we assume that it is actually armor, could you fill in the blanks for me: Type (Light, Medium, Heavy): _________ Maximum Dex Bonus: _________ Armor Check Penalty: _________ Arcane Spell Failure Chance: _________ These are all armor qualities. If bracers have the same qualities, then they should be considered armor. If they do not have these qualities, then they cannot be considered armor. DarknessEternal, please answer this question. If you cannot logic dictates the Bracers of Armor are not in fact armor. This is the same logic as "If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck it must be a duck." Another example of Wizards apparently ignoring the ruling you present as being the true one: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20050310a http://www.geocities.com/customsmiliesbyswordmaster/inthered.txt
Qube 10-14-06, 02:55 AM	They never errata the sample NPCs. Almost half of them violate rules, but that never matters. For example, there's about one NPC in the entire Tome of Battle that isn't cheating. Trying to find rules based on the example NPCs is a West End Games maneuver, and it worked out so well for them. If you really want to let Monks wear Bracers of Amour without losing their abilities, then go ahead. I never said you couldn't. Even if I did, what do you care what I think? I said the wording could also suggest that they would lose some abilities since they are now wearing armour. can you give an example of an other fault of the NPC's in CORE books ? the reason you can drive the AC of a monk skyhigh is because they otherwise suck as melleers (no good hp, no BAB+20, but +15/+15 instead at high level, no uber strength to attack, a lack of item-slots to boost themself (no armor-slot, no weapon slot) ) AND BY THE WAY DarknessEternal, explain your 2 point of views please: > RAW says 'wearing armor' so a monk shouldn't wear the bracers but when the monk NPC is given > the NPC example is wrong if the NPC is wrong there is a fault in the core books, meaning RAW is not completely correct, meaning your first statement is BS, for it now translates to: > 'a possibly incorrect source' says 'wearing armor' so a monk shouldn't wear the bracers could you please explain to us WHY you think you are correct? (and i would also like to note that bracers of armor themselve give no no-magical protection, so they can be the size of a wristwatch, and monks are allowed to wear yewelry and keep their AC) so in conclusion: - bracers do not behave like armor (asf,acp, ...) - they are not listed in the armor table (they are actually listed in the weapons table (unarmed strike for a monk is still possible: kicks) ) - there is an example in the CORE books that shows that they stack and - if you say RAW is wrong, don't use RAW to prove your point
Neutronium_Dragon 10-14-06, 03:31 AM	> To counter that logic, why would a Monk/Ninja/etc get extra AC cheaper than > everyone else? They don't. Adding +1 AC via bracers is just as expensive as adding +1 AC as an Enhancement bonus to armor. ----- As far as, "the wording might be that way" - no. There's a specific wording which indicates that the creature is considered to be wearing armor, and it has appeared in other places where this is the case (such as the Warforged armored body feats). The text in that case reads, "... and you are considered to be wearing (light/medium/heavy) armor."
Tyler Do'Urden 10-14-06, 07:32 AM	To counter that logic, why would a Monk/Ninja/etc get extra AC cheaper than everyone else?They're not. You've got two 5th-level characters with the elite array. One's a fighter, one's a monk. They've both got 9,000 gp to spend. The fighter gets himself a +1 longsword, +1 full plate, a ring of protection +1, and a +1 heavy shield. With a Dex of 12, he's got an AC of 24. The monk gets himself bracers of armor +2, a ring of protection +1, an amulet of natural armor +1, and a pair of masterwork nunchakus. With a Dex of 14 and a Wis of 16 (his two best scores), he has an AC of 19. Five points lower than a fighter with the same wealth and available stats. They're not getting cheaper AC. Not unless they've got obscenely high ability scores in the first place.
Orion_Danthyer 10-14-06, 06:02 PM	Monks and Duelists can use these with no problem. Bracers give an armor bonus, but that does not mean they ARE armor. Nor does it mean the character wearing them is wearing armor. They have a armor bonus, but that's all. To say a character is armored is to say they are wearing armor, not to say they have been granted an armor bonus from any source whatsoever. And conceptually it makes sense too. The monk and duelist are all about being able to move totally unimpeded and having that mobility be the basis of their techniques. They could wear bracers of archery, say, and have no problem, so the fact that these bracers grant an armor bonus rather than an archery bonus is irrelevant to the rationale for denying the monk and duelist armor in the first place. What! Dont listen to his nonsense. Monks Wis and the Ac bonus do NOT stack because those are in its self a armor BONUS, if a fighter wore 2 full plates he does not gain a armor of +16
Bob Loblaw 10-14-06, 06:19 PM	What! Dont listen to his nonsense. Monks Wis and the Ac bonus do NOT stack because those are in its self a armor BONUS, if a fighter wore 2 full plates he does not gain a armor of +16 Incorrect. The monk's AC bonus is not an armor bonus. It seems to be unnamed but works much like a dodge bonus. The duelist's ability seems to work in a similar manner to a dodge bonus as well, but it appears to also be unnamed. Monk from the SRD: AC Bonus (Ex) When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level). These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. She loses these bonuses when she is immobilized or helpless, when she wears any armor, when she carries a shield, or when she carries a medium or heavy load. Duelist from the SRD: Canny Defense (Ex) When not wearing armor or using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level to her Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a duelist is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus. So, would you like to show me how either of these actually works as armor?
Sargeras 10-15-06, 12:54 AM	To backup Bob, I'd like to remind you that bonuses of different types stack, that dodge bonuses stack with themselves, and that unnamed bonuses stack with themselves as well. Bracers of Armor = Armor bonus Monk Wis Bonus = Unnamed bonus If the Bracers don't cancel the Monk's AC bonus ability (which it has already been clarified that they don't), then the bonuses do indeed stack. Of course in the example of the 2 full plates, they both provide armor bonuses, which do not stack, they overlap (even though I can't conceive of a way to put on 2 suits of full plate...but anyways...). If you were to wear a suit of full plate and the Bracers of Armor, they would overlap as well, because they both provide an armor bonus. But a suit of full plate and a Ring of Protection (which provides a deflection bonus to AC) would stack, because one is an armor bonus and one is a deflection bonus. If you add a shield (which adds a shield bonus to AC), this would also stack with the other bonuses to AC (armor and deflection). You gotta read up on the basic rules....:twitch:
starfire311 10-15-06, 01:55 AM	What! Dont listen to his nonsense. Monks Wis and the Ac bonus do NOT stack because those are in its self a armor BONUS, if a fighter wore 2 full plates he does not gain a armor of +16 lol, now your just making stuff up.
Orion_Danthyer 10-15-06, 05:43 PM	Incorrect. The monk's AC bonus is not an armor bonus. It seems to be unnamed but works much like a dodge bonus. The duelist's ability seems to work in a similar manner to a dodge bonus as well, but it appears to also be unnamed. Monk from the SRD: Duelist from the SRD: So, would you like to show me how either of these actually works as armor? Damn, that does sound funny the more i read, i guess i must have been thinking of another rule