Hi,
my question is quite simple: Do Bracers of Defense stack with Mage Armor? Originally, I was inclined to say no, but after reading the descriptions, I'm not so sure anymore:
Mage Armor:
You touch a willing creature who isn’t wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds it until the spell ends. The target’s base AC becomes 13 + its Dexterity modifier. The spell ends if the target dons armor or if you dismiss the spell as an action.
I don't see any reason they wouldn't stack.
sorry I don't have the PHB yet so they might have been changed, but then you multiclass barbarian and monk and your AC become :
13(mage armor)+dex+con+wis+3(bracer of armor)+1(ring of protection)
Sorxores wrote:
Bantam wrote:
Bracers are not like the others, they just give a bonus.
Proletheus wrote:
Yeah, seems functional to me, too.
In my games I'm treating mage armor as armor. I don't see why anyone wouldn't spell or otherwise. I'm not letting these stupid bracers break my game when such an easy fix is applicable, if you even think that making mage armor "armor" is a fix. (which I don't, it seems self evident to me but w/e)
I think it'd have been an incredibly easy fix to write the Bracers as "While you wear no armor or use a shield, your AC is determined as 13 + Dex" etc, just like mage armor, and preclude any stacking. So I'm assuming it was intentional. Then again, if you just change the mage armor spell, wouldn't a Barbarian or Monk still stack the bracers?
In my games I'm treating mage armor as armor. I don't see why anyone wouldn't spell or otherwise. I'm not letting these stupid bracers break my game when such an easy fix is applicable, if you even think that making mage armor "armor" is a fix. (which I don't, it seems self evident to me but w/e)
Plaguescarred wrote:
Bracers are like +3 armour for armour wearers. What level are those bracers given out at in the Hoard module?
Proletheus wrote:
Evenglarexi wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Evenglarexi wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
jaelis wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
To sum it up: Bracers of Defense in the playtest used to be like Mage armor (defining a base AC) but that is no longer true. Bracers of Defense now add +3 to your AC. Yes that's contingent on you not wearing armor or using a shield, but it's still a flat bonus to your AC. As such it would stack with mage armor, or any unarmored defense ability that didn't use armor or shields (such as the Monk, Barbarian if a shield isn't used, Mage Armor, or the Draconic Sorcerer scaled skin).
-Polaris
reddaemon wrote:
Indeed, mage armor does not need concentraition.
However bracers do change the fomula. There is no change in that.
If it deviates from the standard fomula its a different fomula. There is no wiggle room for that.
Defensive style does give a flat +1 bonus. Huge difference.
reddaemon wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
Proletheus wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
h347h50 Can you quote where you are getting your Bracers of Protection from?
Currently others are reading from the Hoard of the Dragon Queen supplement:
Bracers of Defense
Wondrous item, rare, requires attunement
While you wear these bracers, you have a +3 bonus to
your AC while you wear no armor and use no shield.
That is directly from the packet, and as you can see there is absolutely no change in calculations here. Just that you can't wear armor or use a shield. At one time in playtest what you said is true that it was a recalculation, but I think most of this just seems to be a misunderstanding. (I know for Adventurer's League I'm juggling 4 packets, and a PHB at this time and its a pain to know which information comes from where)
I think h347h50's problem here is that he thinks there is a kind of universal AC calculation formula (the one he made up) and tries to shoehorn magic items into it.
nightwalker450 wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
So I was right...
Mike Mearls @h347h1 probably not stack - think of bracers and unarmored defense as establishing a base AC, like using natural OR manufactured armor
Which goes with what I was saying, the AC fomulas are based around something give you a "base" ala armor.(or no armor wich means a base of 10) The alternate fomulas substitute armor for something else. Like for barbarian consitiution.
h347h50 wrote:
nightwalker450 wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
Whir wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
nightwalker450 wrote:
Honestly (and I hate to say this about a developer) but I wouldn't take Mearl's word as rules canon right now. When judged against the written rules, he's been wrong at least as often as he's been right, and given the choice between what is written in black and white and what a Dev says (even a lead Dev) we need to go with what's written in black and white.
Right now, Bracers of Defense give +3 to your AC if you aren't wearing armor or shield. Period. That is a flat bonus. That isn't the way they used to be described and I wouldn't at all be shocked if Mearls wasn't familiar with the latest version.
-Polaris
So wait, under h347's description, you cannot stack mage armor with unarmored defense. Is that correct?
Whir wrote:
Whir wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Just got the PHB and downloaded the HofDQ supplement. As worded, I agree to disagree with what you are arguing, h347, per your own statements. Mage armor specifically states that your AC becomes 13 when you recieve the spell and are not wearing armor. Similarly, unarmored defense states that your AC is 10, plus your bonsues. Bracers of defense states that you receive a +3 bonus when you wear them with no armor. Your AC does not become 13 when wearing them, it is a bonus and bonuses stack as far as I am yet aware.
Therefor I have to agree that BoD will stack with either mage armor or unarmored defense.
Could it be a little crazy in the hands of a barbarian with a good con and dex? Probably. But it's a magic item, they are supposed to be awesome and great in this edition, not just another plus to throw on the stack like they were in 3.x. That's my outlook on it.
Whir wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Btw Mike Mearls is not so sure anymore:
Sebastian Schaller @Nalim_X · 19m
@mikemearls @h347h1 @reddemon102005 Mike Mearls, could it be that you are still judging this by the Bracers' outdated playtest description?
Let's all just play it as we see fit until some other errata or reprint changes our minds. :D
h347h50 wrote:
Proletheus wrote:
Reguardless of all the argument in my campaign they will stack with Mage Armor.
Polaris wrote:
I hope Mike revise his position once he can look up the info or he will mislead some followers. I'd never answer Q&A without first consulting my books but that's just me 
Plaguescarred wrote:
Well I'm sure he'll stop tweeting if we all ask him to :P
lawrencehoy wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
h37h50 is flat out wrong. If what he is saying were the intended result, the rule would be worded pretty much exactly like mage armour;
"Your base AC is 13 + Dexterity Modifier while you are not wearing armour."
This is how it worked in the playtest. I can't see any reason to change the way it is worded other than for it to stack. It doesn't even mention Base AC at all - which is significant. Since it doesn't say it changes the Base AC formula, it adds to AC as written.
Honestly, I would rule that Mage Armor counts as armor. Not only is 'armor' in the name of the spell, but it also replaces existing armor, acting as if it's worn. If you try and don another armor, it breaks the spell as you are essentially replacing it.
I fully expect that to be in the errata.
KarlB wrote:
Uhm ... why would it dispel itself? That's some pretty weird logic, no offense. But following that train, if you cast Mage Armor on someone who already had Mage Armor, then the second Mage Armor would dispel the first one, yes.
KarlB wrote:
KarlB wrote:
Does it matter? Even if Mage Armor counted as armor, you didn't take the don action to don it, therefore, even though you're wearing it, you didn't don it. Therefore Mage Armor wouldn't dispell Mage Armor.
There's no such thing as a don action. Don merely implies the act of going from unarmored to armored, and the requisite time it takes to do so.
With the new rules of only 3 attuned magic items, bracers stacing with mage armor isn't broken. If the character wishes to give up one of his item slots for +3 to armor so be it. That is why bonus types arent in the system anymore, the limited magic items takes care of that. So mage armor, plus bracers, and even plus a ring of protection takes up two of the characters magic items leaving room for only one more attuned item. If that is where the character wishes to spend his magic on, then so be it, as he is giving up some powerful items for AC.
reddaemon wrote:
It seems to me that Bracers of Defense are Mage Armor, in physical form. They just don't require the spell or a spell slot, last all day long, and don't stack with armor.
Consider that both Mage Armor and BoD won't work if you're wearing armor, and both give you a base AC of 13 + DEX. They're the perfect treasure for your party's Mage!
Yet in true 5e form the wording of interactions leaves a lot up to the DM on how they want their game to run.
E-Tallitnics wrote:
Oh, i missed the attument part. Yea, that could make them ok.
Presumably +3 plate also has attument.
Polaris wrote:
Actually, looking back, I'm going to go ahead and change mind and say that bracers of defense DO combine with mage armor.
Here's why:
I see Bracers of Defense as the equivalent to finding armor with +1 or higher enhancement bonus. In fact, Bracers of Defense may be there specifically so that unarmored people may also have access to this kind of magic item AC boost. Since you can't get Mage Armor with an enhancement bonus, I'd say it combines.
This is probably one of the first things I'm going to ban under my personal set of house rules.
I most emphatically don't believe that every other class deserves an Armor Class near that of a Fighter or Paladin in full plate. Full spellcaster classes are given other features to compensate; they can deal with a lower AC.
WhiteHarness wrote:
Their effectivly +3 magic armor, for those who don't wear armor.