D&D 5E Mage armor and A shield

[MasterTrancer]

I'd allow it: it's not that broken, and it also makes sense (the PC dons an armor made of magic and uses a shield).

The 20 AC at 3rd level is pretty specific also, since it presumes an unmodified 18 DEX from the start.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

If you're not worried about a 3rd level character with a Dex of 20, why worry about the rest?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The 'RAW' (if such has any real bearing in 5e) is contradictory:

"Armor Class (AC). Armor protects its wearer from attacks. The armor (and shield) you wear determines your base Armor Class."

"Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time."

One quote implies that Shields change your base armor class (something that's a bit at odds with the concept of base armor class, which is that two different things that determine your base AC don't stack, only the better applies). The other quote states that shields increase AC (the word 'base' is not used).

5e isn't designed with keywords and carefully defined jargon, but mostly natural language, so technical contradictions like this are not surprising. The DM rules whichever way he feels is best for his campaign.

If you're concerned about 'realism' you might want to think about this protective field of force - does it surround the subject like a second skin - like worn armor? Or does it stand out from him a bit, and he can use it to parry attacks like a shield? Or both? Or does having something thick or bulky strapped to you - like armor, a shield, or a backpack - disrupt the field?

If you're concerned about balance, consider that Mage Armor's base AC of 13+dex is superior to any actual light armor (best is 12), but not as good as that best armor + shield. If you allow it to stack with Shield, it is strictly superior to wearing light armor. If you don't, it's a convenient alternative to armor & shield (no weight, not visible, no proficiency required, leaves hands free), but not quite as high AC as Studded Leather & a Shield.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

Of course shields stack with mage armour, mage armour is like armour, where it sets your AC to 11+, shields just increase AC by 2.

Just like shields stack with Unarmoured Defence.

 

[Tormyr]

The 'RAW' (if such has any real bearing in 5e) is contradictory:

One quote implies that Shields change your base armor class (something that's a bit at odds with the concept of base armor class, which is that two different things that determine your base AC don't stack, only the better applies). The other quote states that shields increase AC (the word 'base' is not used).

5e isn't designed with keywords and carefully defined jargon, but mostly natural language, so technical contradictions like this are not surprising. The DM rules whichever way he feels is best for his campaign.

If you're concerned about 'realism' you might want to think about this protective field of force - does it surround the subject like a second skin - like worn armor? Or does it stand out from him a bit, and he can use it to parry attacks like a shield? Or both? Or does having something thick or bulky strapped to you - like armor, a shield, or a backpack - disrupt the field?

If you're concerned about balance, consider that Mage Armor's base AC of 13+dex is superior to any actual light armor (best is 12), but not as good as that best armor + shield. If you allow it to stack with Shield, it is strictly superior to wearing light armor. If you don't, it's a convenient alternative to armor & shield (no weight, not visible, no proficiency required, leaves hands free), but not quite as high AC as Studded Leather & a Shield.

In lots of cases also, someone with mage armor does not have access to shields, and someone with the ability to use a shield does not have access to mage armor. There are several ways around this. I think Eldritch Knight has access to both, but only after 3rd level, and they don't get many spells. Someone else could cast mage armor onto the shield user, but again that is using up spells. The PC could take magic initiate, but mage armor only lasts 8 hours. Any long adventuring in a day would require multiple castings.

I personally see the shield as one of the few things that does a straight add of +2 to AC. Shield spell would be another of those along with the Bracers of Defense and the Ring and Cloak of Protection. Those all seem to function the same way as a blanket addition to AC (albeit with restrictions sometimes). Whereas Armor, Unarmored Defense, mage armor, and Sorcerer Charisma Defense all seem to set a base AC, once again with restrictions in some cases.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The bottom line here, with several interpretations, is to go with the one you like and will have the most fun with. You can't go wrong with that.

 

[bganon]

The same character could just wear studded leather with the shield and have an AC of 19 without having to waste a precious invocation slot. IMO pretty far from "overpowered"; it's actually in the long run likely a poor choice when there are invocations like Agonizing Blast, Book of Ancient Secrets, or Devil's Sight available.

 

[Jaron Mortimer]

Yep, totally works. The only times when AC increases do NOT stack are when one of them gives you a new way to calculate your AC.

Mage armor sets your Base AC to 13+Dex
Monks have a Base AC of 10+Dex+Wis
Barbarians have a base AC of 10+Dex+con
Any suit of armor changes your Base AC to a new value (Maybe +dex)

A shield gives you +2 to your AC.
Natural armor might give you a +1 or +2 to your AC.
A ring of Protection or cloak of resistance gives you +1 to your AC.

These things stack with whatever your BASE AC is, as determined by what we see above.

 

[Mirtek]

These things stack with whatever your BASE AC is, as determined by what we see above.

No one is denying this. However the argument in this thread seems to be that wearing a shield counts as wearing armor (since shields are listed on the armor table) and mage armor only sets your AC to something while you are not wearing armor.

So a shield would stack with the formular set by mage armor, except if using a shield prevents mage armor from changing the formular in the first place.

 

[Paraxis]

Jeremy Crawford answered this here http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/04/draconic-resilence/

According to him they do stack so that is good enough for me.