In our game tonight, we had a guy who has a Barbarian 1/Bard 3. His normal AC is 10 + dex mod + con mod, as long as he is not wearing any armor.
He has Mage Armor as one of his spells from being a Bard. Mage Armor says the base AC becomes 13 + dex mod. Does this override the Barbarian ability? Does Mage Armor count as armor, so it makes the Barbarian ability no longer kick in?
I don't think it counts as armour, per se. In the spell description is says "The target’s base AC becomes 13 + its Dexterity modifier". The wording "base AC" seems to strongly indicate that this isn't the same thing as wearing armour.
Since each sets the character's base AC, they do not stack. You get one or the other.
Undrhil wrote:
Yeah, that's how I read it and how we decided to handle it. It seemed a bit broken when he declared his AC was 21.
It does stack. Barbarian ability says "while you are not wearing any armour". And mage armor not wearable AC bonus, its a magical force and only works with "creature that is not wearing armor". So it stacks...
ShevarashG wrote:
ShevarashG wrote:
It doesn't stack. However, for the time being, Bracers of Defense say +3 AC, not AC 13+.
Level 12 fighter, level 1 barbarian: 20 con, 20 dexterity, +1 shield, defense fighting style, bracers of defense, = 27 AC. Not too bad. Throw in a defender weapon for good measure in case Asmodeus starts thinking he can hit you.
ShevarashG wrote:
Gonna have to agree with the posters saying it doesn't stack. You have two different effects that are defining your AC. Only the higher value sould apply. Though the way these two abilities interact does lead to some ambiguity. Wouldn't be surprised if this makes it into the FAQ.
Unarmored defense: AC = 10+Dex+Con
Mage Armor: AC = 13+Dex
Mephi1234 wrote:
Seuleslintan wrote:
I'd say no, mainly because unarmored defense is actually carefully worded so it doesn't say "Whilst you not wearing armor you add your constitution modifier to your AC"
What it actually says is.
"Whilst you are not wearing armour, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Consitution modifier. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit."
There are 4 things that set your 'Base AC'. None of which stack.
Everyone has: Your Base AC is 10+Dexterity modifier.
Armour has a Base AC as listed in the equipment section (You'll see that light armour even says '11+Dexterity modifier' - that's the full formula)
Monks and Barbarians have 'Unarmored Defense' (10+Dex+Con or 10+Dex+Wis)
Mage armour is "13+Dex"
None of them stack - pick the best one. If any other rule says 'Base AC' it replaces these.
The only ACs that stack are things that are a straight up + without mentioning Base AC or the formula. sheild of faith, shield, the Defense fighting style, etc.
tallric_kruush wrote:
Zyph wrote:
I'm still curious as to how he has Mage Armor if he's a bard
Colt2014 wrote:
- Colt2014 wrote:
obsid wrote:
Plenty of people have mentioned it above, but spells and abilities that set a *base* AC do not stack with others that do the same.
~~I see the problem with Mage Armor Spell is the QA of this book in not defining the term "Base", Base AC is normally 10, but under the Spell it becomes 13, so the equation would be "Base AC + Dexterity modifier + Wisdom modifier" or "Base AC + Dexterity modifier + Con modifier" for the Barbarian, you remove the Class Ability with a first level spell, wrong
So the True Problem is Bad Editing
Are you quoting someone or are you saying that's your opinion? I'm misunderstanding the point of the ~~'s before the initial comment.
As it stands, I'd disagree. It's not removing a class ability with a first level spell.
If the first level spell's value is better than you class ability then you benefit from the spell.
If the first level spell's value is worse than your class ability then you benefit from the class ability.
The first level spell doesn't "remove" a class ability; at best it provides an upgrade above what that abliity offers, at worst is simply has no affect.
If you have mage armor cast on you as a barbarian or monk you aren't forced to accept the Mage Armor AC, you get to choose which equation to use based on what gives you the best AC.
I agree with the ruling that they do not stack, but I also agree that the wording could be more explicit and also, Mage Armor referencing 'Base AC' rather than simply stating 'Your AC becomes' the same as the other ablities is misleading.
I also think that they SHOULD stack from a thematic, in-world perspective, but I understand why they don't from a meta-game, balance perspective.
This is also something that comes up enough and causes enough confusion that it should be clarified via errata. There are plenty of rules currently that are implied but not explicit and AC is one of those. Add in the fact that it is a departure from how all prior editions worked (where armor applied a bonus to the AC rather than replacing the formula) and WotC should have realised this would be a point of confusion and gone to greater lengths to ensure clarity.
They stack. It reads pretty clear. yes, a barbarian caster has the ability to be very tough.
xirr2000 wrote:
xirr2000 wrote:
Mearls tweet re: Bracers of Armor is wrong, as they explicitly give a +3 bonus to AC in the current HotDQ online supplement PDF. Now, they may change it for the DMG, and it is explicitly called out as a "work in progress!", but as it stands right now, they stack.
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.
Yeah, he was a Barbarian 1/Sorcerer 3, not Bard 3. My mistake. However, the point still stands: unarmored defense does not stack with mage armor. So, we're good. 
xirr2000 wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
How does a First Level Barbarian get a Feat? I missed that one
~~Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use
~~opinion
Use this spell as an attack spell on all Barbarians and Monks, Reduce their AC if they have High CON-WIS and DEX
Using the 1st Level Spell "Mage Armor" with a new Base AC is a direct atack on the Higher Powers, Gods Above and Below beware my +3 to Base AC
--Opinion
~~~~I see the problem with Mage Armor Spell is the QA of this book in not defining the term "Base", Base AC is normally 10, but under the Spell it becomes 13, so the equation would be "Base AC + Dexterity modifier + Wisdom modifier" or "Base AC + Dexterity modifier + Con modifier" for the Barbarian, you remove the Class Ability with a first level spell, wrong
So the True Problem is Bad Editing
Athinar1 wrote:
My take isnt necessarily RAW, but what i think the intent was when writing the rules (make it easy for new players to understand ) that has made this confusing. However, if you take into account assumed knowledge from past iterations of D&D, it makes more sense.
Lets take a look at a typical unarmored PC in D&D. Going back all the way to the beginning of D&D, Base AC for playable characters is 10. When determing AC, if you had a dex bonus, you added that to Base AC to determine your "full" AC. However, any dex bonus is not always active, for instance, you get "held by hold person, or get knocked unconscious, you lose your dex bonus. Thus, to determine your AC, you would take your Base AC only, which for typical player characters is 10. Note: the dex bonus is NOT always active, so its has nothing to do with BASE AC! In other words, BASE AC is how tough you skin is alone (not very).
Now, the new players handbook was written for new players in mind and meant to be read from beginning to end. The barbarian description is near the start of the book. When discussing the barbarian class feature to determin AC without armor, they use 10 + dex bonus + con bonus. They could have said base AC + dex bonus + con bonus and there would be no disagreement about mage armor + this barbarian class feature, but they didnt do that since bringing up the whole notion of Base AC at that point at the beginning of the book would be confusing to new players. So they stated the calculation with 10 + dex + con, which would be correct for 99% of situations.
Just my opinion tho...
To reiterate what I wrote about above (and I think someone before me alluded to this), is that there is no definition of Base AC in the new rules. We all know what it is from the past rules, but they never truly explain it in the new 5e rules. What it really is, is your AC with no bonuses from stats of any kind. For normal player characters, most of the time, that is 10. If you are wearing armor, it would be the AC listed in the armor description. For instance, Base AC for a character with half plate is 15, regardless of what their dex modifier is. So, if they were held by a hold person spell their AC would be 15. You can think of Base AC as a floor value that can never be less than that regardless of what condition you are in (its how tough your skin, hide, armor is by its very nature).
Rickdal wrote:
If your Barb is well-built, DEXmod + CONmod > 3, so he's better off with Unarmored Defense.
If your Barb is designed to cast Mage Armor (or Shield) on himself ... and if I were your DM, I would be thinking about ways to attack you that do not use AC. A 10' pit trap full of Jell-O or Cool Whip comes to mind.
I wouldn't call that a well built barbarian - as it requires a belt of giant strength (or gauntlets of ogre power) to pick up the slack.
Using PB - it requires 4/5 of your ABIs to get 20 Dex and Con, sacrificing feats and strength to gain a minimal benefit (22ac). It just isn't worth the cost
Mephi1234 wrote:
Cutlass wrote:
cowleymen wrote:
Here's an official answer from the Devs:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/552629866252615682
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/552617620524904448
Caveat: I don't have the PHB in front of me.
If the Barbarian ability is simply a bonus to AC, I think it would stack because the spell name is not a specific descriptor (it doesn't create armor).
If the Barbarian's ability is setting the 'base AC', then it is performing the same benefit as Mage Armor and would not stack.
I believe the sprit of the Barbarian ability is to have an unarmored, unencumbered warrior, and Mage Armor magically circumvents that not encumbering the Barbarian, but providing deflective qualities. This may be overriden by game balance, so if I read differently in the PHB I'll change my stance on this. ;o)
I agree that it's for game balance, to keep someone from acquiring 13 + DEX + WIS + CON + Defensive style AC at level 4 or so.
But, as long as a player wasn't specifically abusing it to powergame, I don't see why Mage Armor wouldn't stack with other defenses, from an in-universe perspective. Think of your skin as the walls of Fort Knox, and your squishy pink innards as the gold.
Monk: guards patrol the wall, who can anticipate attacks and counter them.
Barbarian: the wall is a lot tougher, maybe has another of layer of wall on your wall to defend while you defend.
Mage Armor: an electric fence surrounds the area.
All of these defenses should complement each other, in principle. As long as the player wasn't min-maxing to make their AC impossibly high with minimum investment - like, they only have +3 DEX, +1 WIS, and +1 CON - I would let these stack. But I would say that at some point, if their AC starts getting really too high, they start experiencing diminishing returns on the overlapping defensive strategies and don't get their full benefits.
Macv12 wrote:
Jeremy Crawford has made it clear that they don't stack, so the choices are:
Mage Armor spell: (no armor, may add a shield to base AC): Base AC 13 (+ shield) + Dex
Barbarian, Unarmored Defense: (no armor but may have a shield*) 10 + Dex + Con
Monk, Unarmored Defense: (no armor, no shield) 10 + Dex + Wis
The character can take only one of these and not stack them. Generally, take the one that delivers the best AC.
*: Does the shield add to this, if used, or is the AC still 10 + Dex + Con?
Yes, barbarians gain the benefit of shields. 10+Dex+Con+Shield (if any). This gives them a potential AC of 22 at 16th level (assuming PB) and AC 24 at 20th level (primal warrior), and costing 4/5 of their ABIs. If they forego their shield, this gives them a respectable AC20-22 while still allowing THWs.
- Max AC possible: AC28 (10+5 Dex, + 7 CON, + 5 Shield +1 ring of protection) or 25 (10+ 5 Dex, +7 Con, +2 bracers of defense, +1 ring of protection)
- Investment: 4 ABIs/feats, starting DEX 16, Starting Con 16 (16-18 Stat points, PB), L20 Barbarian (-2 AC before 20th level).
This is far from cost effective however, as a Barbarian can achieve a respectable AC19-20 with minimal investment (human; Dex 16; medium armor mastery; scale/half-plate + shield). At worst, such a combo requires 2 ABI/feats (assuming starting Dex 14 and non-human base race). This does not assume multiclassing of course, which is also viable with this strategy.
- Max AC possible: AC27 (18 +3 half-plate, +3 Dex, +5 shield, +1 ring of protection)
- Investment: 0-2 ABIs/feats, starting DEX 14-16, L1 Barbarian.
The fact that Barbarian's can achieve stupidly-high ACs unarmored is largely irrelevant, as there are much better ways to make a tank than to go the Barbarian route. Fighters and Paladins can easily get AC22-23 for example (plate+shield+defense fighting style), and clerics can achieve AC22. All without a single feat, ABI, or magic item. If we include magic items, fighters (and paladins) can potentially achieve the following:
- Fighter/Paladin AC: AC28 (21 +3 plate, +5 shield, +1 ring of protection, +1 defense FS)
- Investment: Fighting style, L1 Fighter/Paladin.
Yeah, not seeing the advantage of being a tanky unarmored barbarian here. Too cost prohibitive. They are better off taking proficiency in heavy armor (via feat/multiclassing), or taking medium armor mastery.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Yunru wrote: