D&D 5E Mage armor + bracers of defence

[Arial Black]

Remember that two items of the same type DO NOT STACK. So two Ring of Protections would not provide +2 AC and Saves. But a Ring of Protection and Bracers of Defense do combine.

Is there a 5E rule that says this, or are you just making it up?

I could see a DM ruling you cannot wear two sets of bracers at the same time (in the same way that you can't wear two sets of armour at the same time) so the question of stacking is moot in that case.

However, you can wear two rings at the same time. Each ring does what it says it does. If a ring gives you +1 AC, it will do that and continue to do that no matter what other rings you might be wearing. No ring is aware of any other ring, and cannot choose to stop working out of, what, jealousy?

Unless there is a rule that says so. If there is, can you provide the quote please?

 

[Satyrn]

That jealousy line is gold.

 

[shoak1]

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.

.......
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)

I like the 2 poss.advantage thing, but would prob go the route of 3 types (circumstance, tactic, build). Having 1 of the 3 would grant a +2, 2 of 3 grant ADV, then if you have all 3 you get ADV +2. I've always felt that the +4 or 5 equiv.you get from ADV to be too much. Make em stack 2 ADV bonuses to get it.

 

[shoak1]

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.

Easy? Yes. Smooth? No. The ADV system is OVER-simplification. You know intellectually you should get some stacking there, and you don't. They should have dropped the bonuses into 2-3 ADV types not into just 1. Good simplification should be synergistic with common sense and the ADV rules just aren't imo. It's not the only oversimplification casualty of 5e, but imo one of the worst. Especially since it falls heavy on what WoC should consider one of their core playstyles, the power-gamer/min-maxer/tactician. Like other parts of 5e , the oversimplified ADV rules makes me feel like an unwanted step-child.

 

[CapnZapp]

Is there a 5E rule that says this, or are you just making it up?

I could see a DM ruling you cannot wear two sets of bracers at the same time (in the same way that you can't wear two sets of armour at the same time) so the question of stacking is moot in that case.

However, you can wear two rings at the same time. Each ring does what it says it does. If a ring gives you +1 AC, it will do that and continue to do that no matter what other rings you might be wearing. No ring is aware of any other ring, and cannot choose to stop working out of, what, jealousy?

Unless there is a rule that says so. If there is, can you provide the quote please?

I'm not Horus, but I'm guessing he's thinking of two rules passages:

Edit: He was thinking of the third - see below.

On one hand, the passage Multiple Items of the Same Kind you yourself talk about:

Use common sense to determine whether more than
one of a given kind of magic item can be worn.

On the other, the passage on Combining Magical Effects:

The effects of
the same spell cast multiple times don't combine,
however.

There is, however, no rule in this edition that combines these two: a DM is well within her right to rule two identical magic items stack (provided you manage to use them at the same time).



Edit:

Posters later in this thread reminded me there's a third relevant quote:

Additionally, a creature can't attune to more than
one copy of an item. For example, a creature cannot
attune to more than one ring of protection at a time.

This does indeed mean "two items of the same type DO NOT STACK" like Warmaster Horus claims provided they require attunement.

Rings of Protection do, so I guess they are jealous after all

But not all rings do. Rings of Swimming and rings of Water Walking provide static benefits (that don't stack), but you can "stack" two (or five) rings of Animal Influence all right.

More generally, finding an item that provides a straightforward numeric benefit that does not require attunement is rather straightforward. I mean, you can hold two +3 shields for +6 AC, can't you?

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Well, if you're my player, I want both your decisions before a game session AND your decisions in the game session to matter, just like they want both cover and visibility to count.

 

[CapnZapp]

Easy? Yes. Smooth? No. The ADV system is OVER-simplification. You know intellectually you should get some stacking there, and you don't. They should have dropped the bonuses into 2-3 ADV types not into just 1. Good simplification should be synergistic with common sense and the ADV rules just aren't imo. It's not the only oversimplification casualty of 5e, but imo one of the worst. Especially since it falls heavy on what WoC should consider one of their core playstyles, the power-gamer/min-maxer/tactician. Like other parts of 5e , the oversimplified ADV rules makes me feel like an unwanted step-child.

I consider myself a power gamer, and let me tell you I shared your worries.

At first.

Practical play has shown that most cases brought up as arguments against advantage are indeed corner cases, that simply seldom have any impact on the game.

That is why I reserve my concern for the future, since I feel they would push their luck if all they did was to create ever-more sources of advantage.

While I can't agree the advantage system is overworked (not to the point where the disadvantages of having it overshadows the brilliant simplicity), I am not denying the risk of it doing so in the future.

The more advantage you add, the more strained the system will be. That is why I caution the designers: don't add much more advantage without also coming up with a solution that takes the pressure off!

I would be okay with a "double advantage" rule emaining a variant for those of us that need it. You might need it already. I might need it when the Big Book of crunch drops. Others might never need it.

What worries me is how UA subclass after UA subclass grants advantage with no indication the design team can even see the pressure rising... Even a very simple or clumsy attempt at fixing the issue (such as a crude UA article) would ease my mind, since it would tell me MMearls & Co are at least aware of the issue...

 

[Helldritch]

As long as sources of advantage won't stacks and that a single source of disadvantage will negate any amount of advantage I see no problem in the future. A single blur spell or simply dodging will negate any and all advantage sources. Just as the opposite is true; a single source of advantage will negate any number of sources of disadvantage.

I don't think WotC will change that. They will give classes some way to get advantages on their own. I see nothing wrong in that. The more you have a chance to attack with advantage, the more effective you become. Even if it is only to get rid of disadvantage it's still quite a good mechanic.

 

[Henry]

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.
.

Using those definitions, I'm fine with little to no build mastery in the system - it always accelerates the power creep the more you reward it, no "ifs, ands, or buts." I am fine with rewarding play mastery, because that's what in my opinion brings people back to a successful game. A game that is easy to pick up how to play quickly, but you can get slightly better at every time you play, is the hallmark of an addictive game. So having obvious rewards in D&D for things like:

-cooperation
-tactical thinking during combat
-caution in unknown situations
-social resolutions to some problems
-bold actions in dramatically appropriate moments

These are what reinforces those things.

All play mastery encourages in my experience is relying exclusively on the one or two things you are optimized for to the exclusion of other methods of play. I'm not saying it's not fun, but it doesn't encourage PLAY, it encourages BUILDING, and doesn't encourage wide audiences of players who aren't into character optimization.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Easy? Yes. Smooth? No. The ADV system is OVER-simplification. You know intellectually you should get some stacking there, and you don't. They should have dropped the bonuses into 2-3 ADV types not into just 1. Good simplification should be synergistic with common sense and the ADV rules just aren't imo. It's not the only oversimplification casualty of 5e, but imo one of the worst. Especially since it falls heavy on what WoC should consider one of their core playstyles, the power-gamer/min-maxer/tactician. Like other parts of 5e , the oversimplified ADV rules makes me feel like an unwanted step-child.

Maybe your feelings are right about this?