D&D 5E Mage armor + bracers of defence

[Tony Vargas]

You don't like the 5e rule that all things stack (except with themselves)? Or just pointing out that if you don't let all things stack (or I suppose let nothing stack), then you better have something like named bonuses.

The latter, mostly. AD&D was a bit of a mess with some convoluted takes on what could stack with what, formalizing named bonuses cleaned that up considerably.

5e gets away with not having formal stacking rules by a) using Base AC calculation as a de-facto named bonus, and b) providing relatively few bonuses (using Advantage instead a great deal). If, as the game expands, too many bonuses are added without some further tricks to constrain stacking, BA will, of course, break. I think that's obvious enough that WotC won't make that mistake, but clearly, one should be cautious about adding new bonuses from any source...

 

[CapnZapp]

As you know I rarely fail to voice my concerns over a shaky subsystem in my favorite game, but I can't say this is one of them.

Sure I see where a +3 Plate/Studded and a +3 Shield would lead (or +3 arrows with a +3 bow), but other than that I haven't come across any issues.

And since the +6 armor+shield issue is so very directly obvious, I can't say it's much of an issue.

Therefore, I think the way 5E does away with bonus stacking rules is a brilliant one. Everytime you can do away with complexity without losing a core value that deserves to be called brilliant.

 

[lkj]

Care to summarize (or link to a transcript)?

Don't know if there's a transcript. I was only half listening. But with those caveats

-- He explains about the difference between armor calculations and armor bonuses. Gives examples
-- He gives their rationale for why they went this route (part of it, that I recall, was avoiding stacked bonus complexity while still preventing absurd AC inflation)

AD

 

[CapnZapp]

As you know I rarely fail to voice my concerns over a shaky subsystem in my favorite game, but I can't say this is one of them.

Sure I see where a +3 Plate/Studded and a +3 Shield would lead (or +3 arrows with a +3 bow), but other than that I haven't come across any issues.

And since the +6 armor+shield issue is so very directly obvious, I can't say it's much of an issue.

Therefore, I think the way 5E does away with bonus stacking rules is a brilliant one. Everytime you can do away with complexity without losing a core value that deserves to be called brilliant.

That said, I do see a future cloud in the sky, in that there's one fundamentally limiting issue that will bite the designers sooner than later.

That is: you want the game to reward build mastery as well as tactical mastery. (D&D always have) And, quite possibly, good roleplaying too. Problem is, with very few exceptions, both kinds of mastery are based on advantage.

And advantage, as you very well know, does not stack. And more to the point, once you start thinking about removing that rule - even for a justified exception - you're opening Pandora's box and you will quickly end up with a full gaggle of stacking rules again.

Do note my perspective here. I'm aware people have complained about the simplicity of advantage before, and how it "doesn't make sense". Not sure I can find a good example, but things like how if you as an archer already get disadvantage from a light fog, you're no longer incentivized to get rid of some other source of disadvantage, such as from lying down.

That's not what I see as a problem. That's just a simplification. No, I'm talking about how you want to be rewarded for system mastery, charop, minmaxing, call it what you will on one hand, and good tactics, second-guessing the enemy, smart teamplay etc on the other.

But you cannot do that if both rewards is advantage.

This will strongly limit the number of interesting combinations you can pull off. I see it already with the new UA barbarian subclasses. Who cares if your class gives you advantage, if you have a spell or a move or a teammate who can give you advantage already?

To be honest, I saw this already with Inspiration. I instinctively recoiled from WotC's implementation, since all Inspiration does, is replace either (system mastery or good tactics). Let me stop right away, since I could talk a lot more about Inspiration...

So.

I foresee a need for WotC to implement something. How that something will look I'm not ready to say. But for discussion's sake, let me suggest an example as a crude and rough illustration.

Say you can get blue advantage from your class features (=build), and red advantage from circumstances (=tactics), and whenever you have purple advantage, "double advantage", you gain a further +2 on your roll with advantage.

(Yes, I'm deliberate with the static bonus, since it means you're much more helped by "double advantage" when advantage would only give you a +1, than when it would give you a +5. Work out the math and you'll see a +2 bonus when you have a 70% chance isn't really a big deal, while a +2 bonus when you must roll a 20, is.

At 70%, advantage means +4 for a total bonus of +4, but with a static +2, advantage only adds another +3 for a total bonus of +5, halving the benefit of the static bonus. At 5%, advantage means +1 for a total of +1, but given a static +2 bonus, advantage now gives +2 for a total of +4

Besides, actually implementing a "double advantage" mechanism as "pick best out of three rolls" would mostly only accomplish a lot of needless die rolling when you really want just say "with double advantage you automatically succeed"...

And automatic success is not where I want to go)

 

[Parmandur]

Crawford said in the interview that cover provides an AC bonus, because they wanted cover and visibility to both count in tactical consideration and advantage doesn't stack.

System mastery is something they have eschewed and repudiated at this point; adding complexity like that seems unlikely, since the current system works so smoothly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That is: you want the game to reward build mastery as well as tactical mastery. (D&D always have) ... I'm talking about how you want to be rewarded for system mastery, charop, minmaxing, call it what you will...

There's no need to intentionally build rewards for system mastery into the system. Yes, D&D has always had them (and so does 5e), but only 3e ever set out to provide them intentionally. The thing is, unless your game is perfectly balanced, there are going to be rewards for system mastery. 5e has plenty (the DM is just decidedly free to squelch them if he feels like it). Heck, you can try your hardest to avoid imbalances that can be leveraged via system mastery, and still end up with a game that provides many such rewards. Nature of complex systems.

That said, if you did want to limit Adv/Dis to the in-play side, you'd still need something to limit stacking on the build side. Adding a new mechanic just increases complexity, though, so you'll pay a price for doing it.

 

[CapnZapp]

There's no need to intentionally build rewards for system mastery into the system.

First off, system mastery is what I'd call build mastery (what your character is) and play mastery (what your character does) together, and if that's what you mean, I agree.

What I'm saying is that the reward for build mastery doesn't stack with the reward for play mastery. And I'm saying that's acceptable... for now. But when WotC is ready to add some major crunch, I predict they will have to give this a do-over.

Yes, D&D has always had them (and so does 5e), but only 3e ever set out to provide them intentionally. The thing is, unless your game is perfectly balanced, there are going to be rewards for system mastery. 5e has plenty (the DM is just decidedly free to squelch them if he feels like it). Heck, you can try your hardest to avoid imbalances that can be leveraged via system mastery, and still end up with a game that provides many such rewards. Nature of complex systems.

Absolutely true. Also not my point

That said, if you did want to limit Adv/Dis to the in-play side

I don't.

While I can see various alternatives, I'm generally quite happy with advantage, for several reasons. Can't really decide which part of it is the most brilliant. The simplicity? Or the built-in shock absorber?

That is why I decided to stick with advantage for my crude and rough example. For both the build mastery side of things, and also for the play mastery side of things.

I'm getting the feeling you're not quite talking about the same things I am... Do read about my example, I certainly think it would clear things up, even though it's crude and rough.

 

[Tony Vargas]

First off, system mastery is what I'd call build mastery (what your character is) and play mastery (what your character does) together, and if that's what you mean, I agree.

Cool, we understand eachother that far.

Beyond that, though, on this side topic, noth'n...

 

[marcelvdpol]

Do note that many DMs will allow the bracers to stack with the Mage Armor and Shield spells.

That is, despite their names containing the words "armor" an "shield" many DMs will not consider having them cast as actually wearing armor or using a shield.

The spell Mage Armour is NOT technically "worn", and the Shield spell is NOT technically "used". However, I can see that there are DM's which might rule in a different direction, as the names of the spells contain words which the Bracers of Defense is specifically prohibiting.

 

[Yunru]

The spell Mage Armour is NOT technically "worn", and the Shield spell is NOT technically "used". However, I can see that there are DM's which might rule in a different direction, as the names of the spells contain words which the Bracers of Defense is specifically prohibiting.

Which'd be dumb of them.

I mean, they'd also have to exclude Shield of Faith and Armor of Agathys, to name two of the top of my head, right?