Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Shade007 Feb 25, 2015 18:34:32	The DMG rates +1 armor as 'rare' and rates +1 shields and weapons as 'uncommon'. Has anyone seen a reasoning for the diffence? Has it been errated anywhere? Surely if a +1  shield is uncommon then +1 armor should also be uncommon?   Thanks.
#2 jaelis Feb 25, 2015 18:38:08	Seems reasonable to me, the armor is better, really. And doesn't it depend on armor type?
#3 Coredump00 Feb 25, 2015 19:43:57	Makes sense to me also.  Shields are usable by a wider selection of people, so it makes sense that more of them are made.
(Reply to #3) Shade007	Coredump00 wrote:
#5 mellored Feb 25, 2015 20:46:37	Because armor can be used by 1 Or 2 handed people. Where as shields require you to lose damage.
(Reply to #4) Coredump00	Shade007 wrote:
#7 Byakugan01 Feb 26, 2015 3:57:53	I dont think it matters much....only the best magic armor of whatever type is worth a crap anyways.  Except for special stuffs with relevant abilities.  I mean I guess if you found a set of +1 splint mail that would work till you found some magic plate.  That is my impression in AL anyways.  only like 3 or 4 kinds of magic weapons are 'desireable'. the rest are poisonous because of item count restrictions.
#8 Mephi1234 Feb 26, 2015 6:00:09	Attunement rules made Dual Wielding pointless unless you talk about just plain +X weapons.    Everything pushes you towards minimum magic.
#9 Bloodscythe Feb 26, 2015 7:54:14	One could also state from a roleplay perspective that making magical shields is just easier... magical suits of armor resize to fit the wearer.  Shields are just shields.  Also, since shields are shields, but there are various types of armor, statistically a suit of armor should be slightly less common than a shield... armor might actually be more common, but a particular suit of armor will be less likely.   100% of magical shields are shields. 10% of magical armor might be leather. 50% of magical armor might be chain mail.   Since DMs are encouraged to supply a party with armor they can actually use, the odds become stacked in the players' favor that the armor will be a type they can wear, but the armor they can wear won't be as common as a shield they can wear.
#10 ChrisCarlson Feb 26, 2015 8:27:14	Mephi1234 wrote:
#11 Tempest_Stormwind Feb 26, 2015 9:31:28	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#12 ChrisCarlson Feb 26, 2015 9:41:44	Well, that's what I thought Mephi was implying. Buecause, like you I believe it to be wrong (or at least misplaced). So I was hoping for clarification before coming down on the other side of it.
#13 Psikerlord Feb 26, 2015 22:30:16	mellored wrote:
#14 Mephi1234 Feb 27, 2015 5:33:29	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
(Reply to #14) Coredump00	Mephi1234 wrote:
#16 ChrisCarlson Feb 27, 2015 7:41:52	Also, it just sounds to me like handwringing because he "can't dual weild holy avengers" or whatnot. Which, in and of itself is wrong. You totally can. You can attune to both of them. It just eats up two of your three attunement options. But know what? That's a good thing, IMO. You're frickin' wielding two holy avengers fer cryin' in a bucket! What more do you want?   Look, you want two use two wicked cool weapons that have lots of neat features? No prob. Here you go. That's your shtick. Enjoy. What's that? You also want to be able to have what everyone else has? Well now it's starting to sound a little like wanting to eat your cake and have it too.   How 'bout this then... You still want to have the ability to attune to other stuff while having two magic weapons? Okay. That's also no problem. Just use these slightly less awesome magic weapons and all's good. I know, I know. They aren't as uber as those other weapons you wanted. That does kinda suck. But look at these other cool magic items you get to attune too still...
(Reply to #16) Bloodscythe	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#18 Mephi1234 Feb 27, 2015 8:07:22	Coredump00 wrote:
#19 ChrisCarlson Feb 27, 2015 8:19:46	Mephi1234 wrote:
#20 ChrisCarlson Feb 27, 2015 8:25:27	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #20) Bloodscythe	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#22 QwertyAzerty Feb 27, 2015 10:21:32	the raryty that blow my mind if ring of cold resistance (offer resistance VS cold) is a rare item, but ring of warmth (offer resistance against cold and your equipment is protected to temperature under 50 degree farhenein) is a uncommon.   The uncommmon ring of warmth is more powerfull no question asked then a ring of cold protection. This is not a case of ring of warmth is better in 90% of the time but on some rare case ring of cold resistance might be better, no ring of warmth is ALWAYS better then ring of cold resistance, but the ring of cold resistance is more rare then the ring of warmth.   Oh and remember also that a +1 padded armor is rare, compare to a leather armor who offer the SAME AC and no not give disavantage on stleaht check, but one is a rare magic item, the other is a mundane regualr item from the PHB.   Same goes with leather armor+1 and studded armor.   So basically all the armor +1 are useless unless they are the best of there class (studded leather for light, half plate for medium and full plate for heavy) since they all have an equivalent that give out the SAME bonus but is easier to find and cheaper (and in some case even better since they don't have stealth disavantage)
#23 ChrisCarlson Feb 27, 2015 10:29:47	Meh. That's just a quirky corner case, IMO, based on one of many options for the resistance rings running up against a more specific ring. They made the table of resistances to include all energy types as an option. You don't have to use the cold line item if you don't want to. But it's there for completeness. After all, there is no Ring of Grounding (that protects against electricity AND does something else). Or a Ring of Ipecac (that protects against poison AND does something else), etc.
(Reply to #23) Bloodscythe	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#25 ChrisCarlson Feb 27, 2015 11:05:52	<shrug> Sure sure and all that. I really just wanted to make Ring of Ipecac a thing! The rest was window dressing.
(Reply to #25) Bloodscythe	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#27 ChrisCarlson Feb 27, 2015 12:14:03	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #22) Coredump00	QwertyAzerty wrote:
#29 FunkySpunk Mar 01, 2015 5:39:36	Mephi1234 wrote:
#30 Noon Mar 01, 2015 17:23:44	Armour is articulated, shields are not.   It'd make working with shields a lot easier.
#31 Huscarl Mar 02, 2015 22:56:38	Alongside purely rules concerns is the fact that you can find many more examples of magical shields in mythology than of magical armor. I realize I might be in the minority here, but I consider that at least as important as any other factor. I'm happy to see shields getting some love.   Steve
#32 Orethalion Mar 03, 2015 10:06:58	Huscarl wrote:
#33 Enevhar_Aldarion Mar 03, 2015 18:52:30	In general, armor requires more material and time to make than shields or weapons, so the magical version should be rarer. Without looking at specific creation times, let's say you can create three +1 shields or swords in the time it takes to make one set of +1 armor. So in a world where the cost of these items is much more abstract, someone capable of making these items is much more likely to make the stuff that takes less time, giving them a larger supply to sell or equip an army, etc.