Post/Author/DateTime	Post
reddevilz 01-08-08, 07:13 PM	Ok here is my question, the text for Bracers of Armor state "...granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor." So this would mean that a monk or ninja would lose there abilitys, is this correct as monk states "When unarmored and unencumbered..."
mvincent 01-08-08, 07:23 PM	this would mean that a monk or ninja would lose there abilitysNope. From the 3.5 FAQ: "Do wearing bracers of armor prevent a monk from using her AC bonus class feature? No. Bracers of armor grant an armor bonus to AC, but they don’t count as armor worn and thus don’t interfere with a monk’s special abilities. The phrase you cite simply explains what an armor bonus is, pointing out that you don’t get the AC bonus from the bracers and also from armor you wear."
reddevilz 01-08-08, 07:27 PM	where is this FAQ?
mvincent 01-08-08, 07:50 PM	where is this FAQ?Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)
groveborn 01-09-08, 12:57 AM	That just tells you that it's the same type of bonus that armor grants, not that a creature should be treated as wearing armor.
Tyler Do'Urden 01-09-08, 04:53 AM	Bracers of armor are a wondrous item that fill the 'bracers' slot, like bracers of archery. The general term "Armor" as used in the monk AC Bonus class feature description refers to mundane items that fill the 'armor/robe' slot, like a chain shirt. Not everything that grants an armor bonus to AC is considered "Armor". See also the mage armor spell.
Legdiwena 01-09-08, 02:30 PM	By this same token, the Ring of Force Shield shouldn't count against monks either.
mvincent 01-09-08, 03:21 PM	By this same token, the Ring of Force Shield shouldn't count against monks either.That is subject to some interpretation. Its description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#forceShield) says: "this simple ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free." and the 3.5 FAQ says: "it appropriate to assume that the ring’s shield functions just like a normal heavy shield (except for the lack of armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance). Thus, it requires a free hand to gain the shield’s benefit." So I'd have to view this as effectively a heavy shield, except where noted. The matter has been discussed before (here (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-534372)). I personally believe that in real-life, martial artists would not be able to do many of their moves with a large, flat disk attached to their arm... even if it was weightless. However, a monk could benefit from things that provide a shield bonus (like two-weapon defense or the shield spell) without issue, so long as they were not actually wielded like a shield.
groveborn 01-09-08, 04:38 PM	I'd say the ring counts as a ring, not a shield. The effects of said ring notwithstanding, of course.
mvincent 01-09-08, 04:56 PM	I'd say the ring counts as a ring, not a shield. The effects of said ring notwithstanding, of course.So you wouldn't allow someone to bash with a force shield? Why do you consider it not a shield? A mithral shield has no ACP and no ASF%, yet is still considered a shield. An animated shield is weightless and encumberance free, yet is still considered a shield. Its description says it's wielded as a shield.
groveborn 01-10-08, 12:24 AM	Wielded as a shield, not counted AS a shield. That's a difference.