D&D 5E Comparing Monk DPR

[Asisreo]

A fair point, except that I always see step of the wind as the most situational of the abilities.

Sure, disadvantage and +3 AC is AMAZING and likely to make a single opportunity attack miss. Step of the Wind with a Dash though allows the monk to guarantee that a dozen opportunity attacks don't even get made.

Is it generally weaker? Sure. But, Step of the Wind has always been the weakest option, because it is mostly for dashing and monks are crazy fast.

I'd say make Step of the Wind better in a more unique way. Give them a flying speed equal to their walking speed until the start of their next turn on top of everything else. That way, monks have an option to challenge flying enemies as well. It would be expensive to keep it up but it would give them much more important mobility in combat.

 

[Chaosmancer]

At level 5 you have mage armor which is 13, +4Dex, +3intelligence, +2 Haste +5 shield. That is 27 with bracers pushing it to 29. Shield is only for 1 round, but you do not need it very often as 22 is pretty darn good already and you only cast shield when they would hit a 22.

Let us break this down for a second.

18 dexterity.
16 intelligence
Bladesinging feature
1st level spell
3rd level spell
Reaction 1st level spell


That is a lot. But it is also using a lot of resources. So, I can completely see the argument that Bracers of Defense added to all of this is troublesome. But, this meaning that the Bracer's shouldn't be changed, because of this one situation, is kind of silly. Especially considering that when the Bracers were designed, this wasn't possible.

Three Counter points.

Most Monks with 18 dexterity and 16 wisdom has... 17 AC. 10 points less. They have no access to mage armor (and if they did it wouldn't change anything), no access to shield, no access to haste. If they get the bracers is raises them to 19.


If you gave that bladesinger the option of any magical items to increase their AC, and they picked the Bracers... they've made a mistake. A staff of power gives them the same AC bonus with multiple other benefits. An amulet or cloak of protection gives them only a +1, but it also increases their saves, and since their AC is already so ridiculously high, the +1 is likely not going to help.



If you take a fighter or other heavy armor using character, with defensive style and give them a +2 shield, they have an AC of 23. A +2 shield is the same rarity and benefit of Bracers of Defense, but it does not require attunement. And is still better than the Monk.



I don't think anyone is going to argue that Bladesinging wizards who dump everything into getting an amazing AC aren't going to have an amazing AC. But that misses the point of the complaint, to take one of the most extreme examples, and use it as the baseline.

+2 AC to an unarmored character is a big deal.

But +2 to an armored character who already has a higher AC isn't a big deal?

Further it is always better than a shield as it does not take an action to don or drop, and it gives you a bonus while allowing a free hand for two weapon fighting, a free action, spell casting, grappling etc. Shields pretty much suck for anyone except a non-melee cleric or a warlock who takes the moderately armored feat.

Shields taken an action to don has come up... once. In the last seven years of gameplay.

It does give you a hand for two weapon fighting. This is not something that wizards, sorcerers or monks will ever use, and it is rarely used for Barbarians. It rarely affects spellcasting at all, because most casters are using their arcane focus anyways, like a staff, and have two free hands. Also, monks aren't spellcasting.

Also, shields are AMAZING. I don't get where you have the idea that they aren't good for most people. They are crazy good for most people.

We have a magic +1 shield in a campaign I am playing right now. Aside from being a magic shield, it also is intelligent and can cast several spells once a day. No one in the entire party wanted it because no one wants to lug around a shield. One of our wizards (who is not proficient) ended up carrying it on his back, he will pull it off and use it to cast something like it is a wand and then drops it or puts it back on his back. If we found bracers of defense multiple characters would be fighting over who got to wear them.

You guys are crazy. Every character who isn't using a bow, non-profiecient, or using a two-handed weapon is using a shield in our games. But no one in our games would ever use the Bracers of Defense.

Remember, to use the Bracers, you cannot be wearing armor. Full PLate is 18 AC. That is equivalent to +8 AC over not wearing it. You have to give it up to get a +2. Every single character who can wear light armor can get the exact same benefit of using the bracers by wearing studded leather armor. This item isn't powerful at all.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'd say make Step of the Wind better in a more unique way. Give them a flying speed equal to their walking speed until the start of their next turn on top of everything else. That way, monks have an option to challenge flying enemies as well. It would be expensive to keep it up but it would give them much more important mobility in combat.

I could see that. I think the issue is that it would only be different from the increased jump distance if the flying enemy is more than 30 up, or away from a wall. Because, remember, by level 9 all monks can run up vertical surfaces with ease

 

[auburn2]

Let us break this down for a second.

18 dexterity.
16 intelligence
Bladesinging feature
1st level spell
3rd level spell
Reaction 1st level spell


That is a lot. But it is also using a lot of resources. So, I can completely see the argument that Bracers of Defense added to all of this is troublesome. But, this meaning that the Bracer's shouldn't be changed, because of this one situation, is kind of silly. Especially considering that when the Bracers were designed, this wasn't possible.

Three Counter points.

Most Monks with 18 dexterity and 16 wisdom has... 17 AC. 10 points less. They have no access to mage armor (and if they did it wouldn't change anything), no access to shield, no access to haste. If they get the bracers is raises them to 19.


If you gave that bladesinger the option of any magical items to increase their AC, and they picked the Bracers... they've made a mistake. A staff of power gives them the same AC bonus with multiple other benefits. An amulet or cloak of protection gives them only a +1, but it also increases their saves, and since their AC is already so ridiculously high, the +1 is likely not going to help.



If you take a fighter or other heavy armor using character, with defensive style and give them a +2 shield, they have an AC of 23. A +2 shield is the same rarity and benefit of Bracers of Defense, but it does not require attunement. And is still better than the Monk.



I don't think anyone is going to argue that Bladesinging wizards who dump everything into getting an amazing AC aren't going to have an amazing AC. But that misses the point of the complaint, to take one of the most extreme examples, and use it as the baseline.




But +2 to an armored character who already has a higher AC isn't a big deal?



Shields taken an action to don has come up... once. In the last seven years of gameplay.

It does give you a hand for two weapon fighting. This is not something that wizards, sorcerers or monks will ever use, and it is rarely used for Barbarians. It rarely affects spellcasting at all, because most casters are using their arcane focus anyways, like a staff, and have two free hands. Also, monks aren't spellcasting.

Also, shields are AMAZING. I don't get where you have the idea that they aren't good for most people. They are crazy good for most people.



You guys are crazy. Every character who isn't using a bow, non-profiecient, or using a two-handed weapon is using a shield in our games. But no one in our games would ever use the Bracers of Defense.

Remember, to use the Bracers, you cannot be wearing armor. Full PLate is 18 AC. That is equivalent to +8 AC over not wearing it. You have to give it up to get a +2. Every single character who can wear light armor can get the exact same benefit of using the bracers by wearing studded leather armor. This item isn't powerful at all.

It is a big deal when bracers do not require any proficiencies or abilities to use. To use plate there are a ton of negatives and requirements - heavy armor proficiency, a minimum strength score and disadvantage on stealth checks. Compare that to bracers of defense which ONLY requires attunement, it is far harder to get and use full plate. Plate is only +8 over someone with no dexterity bonus, it is not that in use compared to most that will use the bracers. Plate is only +1 better than a Monk should have at the point a character can afford plate. So a Monk with bracers of defense at a point where plate is appropriate will have a BETTER AC than another character in plate armor with two free hands.

You also act like any character can use a shield, they can't. The gp cost of a shield is not the barrier to using it, the proficiency is. It is one of the hardest common items for a character to get access to, harder than any other weapons and for most players as difficult as getting heavy armor proficiency. Just about anything else can be picked up with a race or at most one feat, but to get shield proficiency you either need to multiclass into a class that gets it or use TWO feats (one if you already have light armor proficiency). If everyone in your party uses a shield like you claim, then many of them took the moderately armored feat because Rogues, Wizards, Sorcerers, etc can't get shield proficiency any other way. In a typical party you are going to have probably 2-3 characters with shield proficiency. Of those 2-3 characters take out the clerics who are not back liners and need a weapon in 1 hand and another hand free for casting. Then take out the martials using primarily bows, cross bows and two handed weapons, then take out any that are TWF specialists. What you are left with is the characters that both can and have a reason to use a shield, I would argue it is 0 in most parties. A few probably have a cleric with warcaster or a sword and board fighter, but I think it is a minority of parties that have such a character and very few have 2 of them. Now how many can and would use BOD? Probably 2 or 3 can use them and would use them - all the Monks, most of the wizards, sorcerers and warlocks, some of the Barbarians and Rogues. You talk about doing something for one subclass; yet in 5 years of playing 5E we have had the same number of bladesingers at my table (3), as we have had PCs of all types that used a shield (1 light cleric, 1 battlemaster fighter, 1 vengence paladin).

To put it another way - you say this is no better than a shield and a shield is not a big deal so this is not a big deal ........ if a shield is "no big deal", why doesn't every wizard and sorcerer rock a shield? There is no reason for them not to and certainly every single one of them would take a free +2 to AC? It is a safe bet every one of them with a spare atunement spot would take BOD.

This is an item that is better than a shield in combat, does not require an action to don or doff, does not take up you offhand and does not require proficiency. Considering the significant barriers to most characters using a shield, why should this be free to employ? This is better than a shield in use, so certainly there should be some barrier or something to give up to use it!

Finally your entire argument is the +2 AC is not a big deal, if that is true, then you are not losing much if you have to drop it to attune to something else. You can't really have it both ways, either the +2 is a big deal and should require atunement or it isn't and then it is not a big deal if they don't have the +2.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It is a big deal when bracers do not require any proficiencies or abilities to use. To use plate there are a ton of negatives and requirements - heavy armor proficiency, a minimum strength score and disadvantage on stealth checks.

But it is one of three attunement slots, and it is only viable for 4 classes. Again, compare it to the actual same value by itself, which is studded leather armor, which has 9 classes which can use it, no strength requirement and no stealth disadvantage.

This is why the Bracers are so limited, because only the classes that no other choice really want them, and the Barbarian, only if they insist on using a two-handed weapon and have high scores.

Compare that to bracers of defense which ONLY requires attunement, it is far harder to get and use full plate. Plate is only +8 over someone with no dexterity bonus, it is not that in use compared to most that will use the bracers. Plate is only +1 better than a Monk should have at the point a character can afford plate. So a Monk with bracers of defense at a point where plate is appropriate will have a BETTER AC than another character in plate armor with two free hands.

Attunement is an incredibly limited resource. You get three. And yes, it is +8 over someone with zero dex. A necromancer might have a very low dex. A Celestial Soul Sorcerer might have very low Dex. These characters want the Bracers too.

And, to break down your numbers again, if full plate is only +1 better, then you are saying the Monk should have a 17 AC. Now, let's just say that the fighter gets full plate around level 6. Now, the monk can use one of their highly limited attunement slots, with a Rare magical item to jump up higher with a 19 AC. With both hands free.

• The fighter... could have taken the defensive style to get 19 AC. With Both hands free.
• The fighter could have gotten an uncommon attunement item (the cloak of protection) that gives +1 to all their saves and gives them 19 AC. With both hands free.

But, why does both hands free matter? Sure, a shield takes an action to put on, but drawing a weapon is a free-item interaction. So, you could have one hand free to do things like open doors, then draw your weapon as part of your attack. Just about the only thing this prevents is you can't grapple... unless you sheath your sword (which is free) to grapple. So, let us assume the fighter is willing to risk those rare times when having only one-hand is going to be a tricky situation during combat, when AC matters.

• The fighter could wear a shield. This brings them to 20 AC.
• The fighter could get a rare magic item that doesn't require attunement, a +2 shield, that brings their AC to 22

Oh, and lest we forget... most of this stacks. So, you could have a 23 AC fairly easily, with no attunement. 4 points higher than the monk using their attunement.

You also act like any character can use a shield, they can't. The gp cost of a shield is not the barrier to using it, the proficiency is. It is one of the hardest common items for a character to get access to, harder than any other weapons and for most players as difficult as getting heavy armor proficiency. Just about anything else can be picked up with a race or at most one feat, but to get shield proficiency you either need to multiclass into a class that gets it or use TWO feats (one if you already have light armor proficiency).

There are 13 classes in the game.

Natively able to use shields? Artificers, Barbarians, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger (7)

Has a subclass that gives a melee version of the class who can use shields? Bard, Warlock (2)

Has no access to shields outside of multi-classing or Feats? Monk, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard (4)


It is actually harder to get martial weapon proficiency or Heavy Armor Proficiency. Just about 75% of all classes can use Shields though. And, on that list with no access outside of feats or the subclass list? Only the Monk, Sorcerer and Wizard need two feats, because the Bard Warlock and Rogue all have light armor proficiency. These three classes also never will attune to Bracers of Defense, because it offers them nothing that they can't get by wearing Studded Leather armor.

If everyone in your party uses a shield like you claim, then many of them took the moderately armored feat because Rogues, Wizards, Sorcerers, etc can't get shield proficiency any other way.

Actually, they are fighters, rangers, paladins, barbarians, ect.

In a typical party you are going to have probably 2-3 characters with shield proficiency. Of those 2-3 characters take out the clerics who are not back liners and need a weapon in 1 hand and another hand free for casting.

Nope, Clerics and Paladins can use their shield as a Holy Symbol, meaning they do not need a free hand for casting per the rules.

Then take out the martials using primarily bows, cross bows and two handed weapons, then take out any that are TWF specialists.

Handcrossbow can be used with a shield, but I will concede that martial ranged characters and TWF specialist have chosen not to use a shield. Not that they couldn't, they just have made a choice to no use one while using their preferred method of fighting.

Funny thing though? Two Weapon Fighting Feat gives +1 AC, so if they are a fighter wearing full plate? AC 19, just like the Monk with the Bracers.

What you are left with is the characters that both can and have a reason to use a shield, I would argue it is 0 in most parties.

You would be very wrong.

A few probably have a cleric with warcaster or a sword and board fighter, but I think it is a minority of parties that have such a character and very few have 2 of them. Now how many can and would use BOD? Probably 2 or 3 can use them and would use them - all the Monks, most of the wizards, sorcerers and warlocks, some of the Barbarians and Rogues.

Rogues and Warlocks would never use Bracers of Defense, because they get the exact same benefit from wearing Studded Leather armor. Again, to repeat. To use Bracers of Defense you cannot wear any armor. This is a major drawback of the item. There are 9 classes to whom this item is 100% worthless. That is a super majority of the classes in the game. Only 4 can get any use out of it, one (the barbarian) has to have high stats to even consider it, and the other 3 are where we are talking, wizards, sorcerers, and Monks

You talk about doing something for one subclass; yet in 5 years of playing 5E we have had the same number of bladesingers at my table (3), as we have had PCs of all types that used a shield (1 light cleric, 1 battlemaster fighter, 1 vengence paladin).

So? Bladesinger wizards may be common at your table, but again, if this item is a problem for them, just don't give it to them. But designing this item to be nearly worthless for everyone, just because one subclass can go nuts with it, is a problem.

The issue isn't the item, it is the stacking on top of everything else you are having the bladesinger do.

To put it another way - you say this is no better than a shield and a shield is not a big deal so this is not a big deal ........ if a shield is "no big deal", why doesn't every wizard and sorcerer rock a shield? There is no reason for them not to and certainly every single one of them would take a free +2 to AC? It is a safe bet every one of them with a spare atunement spot would take BOD.

If they could get shields without needing two feats, they would rock shields at every opportunity. But, you said a key phrase here. "with a spare attunement spot".

That is the trick here, is a shield worth attunement? Sure, if you have nothing better to attune to, but how many items are better to attune to? Would you give up a ring of spell storing for a shield? A Wand of Fireballs? There are a lot of things that are far better for them, that also require attunement. And why does this item require attunement when it is already so limited?

This is an item that is better than a shield in combat, does not require an action to don or doff, does not take up you offhand and does not require proficiency. Considering the significant barriers to most characters using a shield, why should this be free to employ? This is better than a shield in use, so certainly there should be some barrier or something to give up to use it!

Finally your entire argument is the +2 AC is not a big deal, if that is true, then you are not losing much if you have to drop it to attune to something else. You can't really have it both ways, either the +2 is a big deal and should require atunement or it isn't and then it is not a big deal if they don't have the +2.

But a smart player sheaths their sword instead of donning and doffing the shield. Most player's don't need both hands all the time. Most players can get proficiency rather trivially with a shield.

And the barrier of being unable to wear armor immediately drops the Bracers down to being usable by 4 classes in the entire game. If shields can be used by 9 classes, and BoD can be used by 4 (one with a asterisk) then... why also make it need attunement? The only reason I don't compare it to studded leather armor is because it stacks with non-armor AC calculations, but if you want to give it to a rogue... it literally has all the benefits of studded leather armor with additional drawbacks and a massive price tag.

I think you are just not seeing how heavily limited this item already is. The only characters whom this item would be a no brainer for without attunement are Monks, Wizards and Sorcerers. And other than the bladesinger, none of them are going to be getting the ridiculous levels of AC that the traditional AC builds can do with magical armor and shields.

The maximum I could see a Monk hitting with this, is if you gave them a Defender, Bracers, two items of Protection, and the Ioun Stone. Max their stats and you could see an AC 28

The max of a Fighter with +3 plate, +3 shield, Defender, two items of protection and the ioun stone is 32.

I might be wrong about the Defender not requiring attunement, but in that case, drop the Ioun stone and both ACs by 1. That is the "worst case" scenarios for both of them stacking as much AC with attunement slots as they can if Bracers are free. Again, a difference of 4 points, not including the defensive fighting style.

There is just nothing the Monk can do with free bracers that breaks anything not already broken. Opening them up doesn't do anything except level the field a tiny bit. And make Bladesingers potentially more broken than they already were.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Shields taken an action to don has come up... once. In the last seven years of gameplay.

Interesting, as it comes up frequently in my games. I often have ranged attackers at elevated positions, flying enemies who stay out of melee reach, and so on. Seems every other session, I have a player forgetting that doffing a shield is an action.

Remember, to use the Bracers, you cannot be wearing armor. Full PLate is 18 AC. That is equivalent to +8 AC over not wearing it. You have to give it up to get a +2. Every single character who can wear light armor can get the exact same benefit of using the bracers by wearing studded leather armor. This item isn't powerful at all.

The power of Bracers of Defense is that they can be used by characters who can't use armor, who have preciously few ways of increasing their AC. +2 AC is, as you point out, a big deal, and certain classes have virtually no way to get it. That's why the item requires attunement. It's literally a special item for certain classes. Your argument that it's not useful to Fighters...I mean, so what? A legendary, sentient greataxe isn't particularly useful to rogues.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Interesting, as it comes up frequently in my games. I often have ranged attackers at elevated positions, flying enemies who stay out of melee reach, and so on. Seems every other session, I have a player forgetting that doffing a shield is an action.

Yeah, those things aren't quite as common in our games, and when they are a ranged character usually deals with that threat while the character with the shield deals with the ground units. Or they swap over to a bow or something, and don't swap back until the fight is over

The power of Bracers of Defense is that they can be used by characters who can't use armor, who have preciously few ways of increasing their AC. +2 AC is, as you point out, a big deal, and certain classes have virtually no way to get it. That's why the item requires attunement. It's literally a special item for certain classes. Your argument that it's not useful to Fighters...I mean, so what? A legendary, sentient greataxe isn't particularly useful to rogues.

The thing is though, the exact same benefit and rarity (+2 AC) is given to fighters via +2 shields. No attunement. Go up a single Rarity level and you can get +2 Armor, with no attunement. Or if you are a spellcaster, a Staff of Power which gives a +2 AC for attunement... but also +2 Attack, damage, spell attack, a series of spells, charged attacks, ect ect

Why is this item which is a special item for about three classes so much worse than comparable items? You are right, characters who can't have armor have precious few ways to increase AC, unlike people with armor, so why is their practically unique AC increasing item WORSE than magical armor?

Especially since all of those items I mentioned, say if you were a Hexblade and could use the staff, armor and shield, STACK. While the Bracers of Defense explicitly can't stack with armor, and taking up one of three attunement slots means it could easily be abandoned for a better item.

 

[fearsomepirate]

The thing is though, the exact same benefit and rarity (+2 AC) is given to fighters via +2 shields. No attunement.

Because shield proficiency is a class feature of fighters. It's not a class feature of wizards or monks. On the flip side, it would be perfectly reasonable for, say, an amulet that allows any wearer to cast Detect Magic and Identify as rituals, an extremely mundane task for wizards, to require attunement. It would be perfectly reasonable for a belt that allows you to take the Dodge action as a bonus action three times per day, something that monks get merely for existing, require attunement.

Go up a single Rarity level and you can get +2 Armor, with no attunement.

If you're not proficient, no, you can't. The penalties for wearing armor you're not proficient in are severe. You're basically crippled:

Armor Proficiency: Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a Shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or Attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast Spells.

Bracers of defense don't impose those penalties. This makes them, for the classes that can use them, infinitely better than a suit of +3 plate armor. We might also note that your argument applies to Frost Brand. It's a rather useless item for a typical STR-dumping sorcerer, worse than a cantrip with its 1d8+1d6-1 damage and weak attack...that is, not unlike a Fighter losing AC if he wears the Bracers, a Sorcerer loses damage if he uses Frost Brand instead of Ray of Frost. But, for a Fighter, it's very good. We should also note that, unlike a Ring of Protection, a Fighter is never going to insist that the Bracers of Defense are rightfully his, due to taking most of the hits in battle. A non-armor class will actually get them, for sure.

 

[auburn2]

But it is one of three attunement slots, and it is only viable for 4 classes. Again, compare it to the actual same value by itself, which is studded leather armor, which has 9 classes which can use it, no strength requirement and no stealth disadvantage.

This is why the Bracers are so limited, because only the classes that no other choice really want them, and the Barbarian, only if they insist on using a two-handed weapon and have high scores.

Attunement is an incredibly limited resource. You get three. And yes, it is +8 over someone with zero dex. A necromancer might have a very low dex. A Celestial Soul Sorcerer might have very low Dex. These characters want the Bracers too.

No, you have the math backwards. The number of items you can use in your hand is extremely limited, the number of items you can attune to is irrelevant for the majority of games.

Bracers are one of FOUR magic items you can attune to, a shield is one of TWO items you can have in your hands (three if you have the mage hand cantrip). Further, there are a lot of magic items that don't count against that 4-item attune limit, while every single weapon, every shield and a heck of a lot of other items, both magical and not, account against the number of items you can carry in your hands.

I have regularly had 1st level characters who ran out of hands, I have never had a character below 11th level that ran out of attunement slots. When a player can wield a shield in addition to three other items in their hands, then at that point this argument will have merit.

And, to break down your numbers again, if full plate is only +1 better, then you are saying the Monk should have a 17 AC. Now, let's just say that the fighter gets full plate around level 6. Now, the monk can use one of their highly limited attunement slots, with a Rare magical item to jump up higher with a 19 AC. With both hands free.

• The fighter... could have taken the defensive style to get 19 AC. With Both hands free.
• The fighter could have gotten an uncommon attunement item (the cloak of protection) that gives +1 to all their saves and gives them 19 AC. With both hands free.

An 8th level Monk should have an AC of 17. 8th level is about when a character should be able to afford Plate. In 5 years of playing 5E I have never had a 6th-level character that could afford plate and most of those were official campaigns, so we had the proper amount of loot. As a matter of fact both times our party got bracers of defense we got them BEFORE characters could afford plate.

Your second example illustrates my point - a fighter could attune to an item to get the same AC as a Monk who attunes to BOD. The fighter has to overcome the other negatives of plate (disadvantage on stealth, minimum strength score) so he is worse off than a Monk, but he has the same AC WITH ATTUNEMENT

But, why does both hands free matter? Sure, a shield takes an action to put on, but drawing a weapon is a free-item interaction. So, you could have one hand free to do things like open doors, then draw your weapon as part of your attack. Just about the only thing this prevents is you can't grapple... unless you sheath your sword (which is free) to grapple. So, let us assume the fighter is willing to risk those rare times when having only one-hand is going to be a tricky situation during combat, when AC matters.

You need a free hand to cast spells, to grapple ect. You also can not open doors and then draw your weapon and then attack in one turn. If you open a door, that is interacting with the environment and RAW counts as your interact with an object. You would then need to use an action to interact with a 2nd object (drawing your weapon) and would not be able to take the attack action.

Now if you are not playing by the rules, then certainly having a hand free is not as big a deal.

• The fighter could wear a shield. This brings them to 20 AC.
• The fighter could get a rare magic item that doesn't require attunement, a +2 shield, that brings their AC to 22

The fighter could if he has a 18 strength. Most classes, and to be honest even most fighters can't though.

There are 13 classes in the game.

Natively able to use shields? Artificers, Barbarians, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger (7)

But only 2 of them can use heavy armor (which is the other part to your arguement) and most of those that can use heavy armor still can't use plate.

Nope, Clerics and Paladins can use their shield as a Holy Symbol, meaning they do not need a free hand for casting per the rules.

Not RAW, this is covered in sage advice. A player with a properly prepared shield can can cast a spell with a shield in one hand and a weapon in the other ONLY when the spell has BOTH a material and a somatic component. If a spell has no material component but does have a somatic component the cleric "needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component."

https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium.pdf

Again if you are not playing RAW then having your hands full (literally) is not as big a deal.

Funny thing though? Two Weapon Fighting Feat gives +1 AC, so if they are a fighter wearing full plate? AC 19, just like the Monk with the Bracers.

Yes and taking a feat instead of an ASI to get there.

Rogues and Warlocks would never use Bracers of Defense, because they get the exact same benefit from wearing Studded Leather armor. Again, to repeat. To use Bracers of Defense you cannot wear any armor. This is a major drawback of the item. There are 9 classes to whom this item is 100% worthless. That is a super majority of the classes in the game. Only 4 can get any use out of it, one (the barbarian) has to have high stats to even consider it, and the other 3 are where we are talking, wizards, sorcerers, and Monks

A better way to put it is it gives you the same benefit of studded leather WITHOUT WEARING ANY ARMOR. Why would you wear studded when you could get the same AC without it? The only Rogues that wouldn't wear it are those with medium armor proficiency, magic studded leather or four items they want to attune to. That is some of them certainly. Maybe a plurality.

As for Warlocks, same arguement as above except bracers also work with mage armor which would be a full 3 points better than studded leather.

So? Bladesinger wizards may be common at your table, but again, if this item is a problem for them, just don't give it to them. But designing this item to be nearly worthless for everyone, just because one subclass can go nuts with it, is a problem.

I believe bladesingers are as common as PCs that use shields period, not just at my table. I don't know that but I think it to be true.

That is the trick here, is a shield worth attunement? Sure, if you have nothing better to attune to, but how many items are better to attune to? Would you give up a ring of spell storing for a shield? A Wand of Fireballs? There are a lot of things that are far better for them, that also require attunement. And why does this item require attunement when it is already so limited?

Not for most characters. To start with the vast majority, well over 80% of all characters do not have 4 attunement items they need to attune to. In that case there is no reason not to wear BOD. Heck even the fighter in plate with a shield would wear them if he had them because his AC woudl be better if caught in bed, while not wearing armor.

Basically, unless you actually have 4 attunement items, and all four are better than BOD, any character period will ALWAYS be better off wearing BOD. The same is not true for a shield. Aside from the fact many can't use it, many others would be worse if they tried.

But a smart player sheaths their sword instead of donning and doffing the shield. Most player's don't need both hands all the time. Most players can get proficiency rather trivially with a shield.

Shield proficiency is never trivial. It requires a feat or a class. Unless he uses an action to sheath it, a player can only sheath a sword on a turn he did not draw it or pick it up on.

And the barrier of being unable to wear armor immediately drops the Bracers down to being usable by 4 classes in the entire game. If shields can be used by 9 classes, and BoD can be used by 4 (one with a asterisk) then... why also make it need attunement? The only reason I don't compare it to studded leather armor is because it stacks with non-armor AC calculations, but if you want to give it to a rogue... it literally has all the benefits of studded leather armor with additional drawbacks and a massive price tag.

As noted earlier, bracers are useable by every character. A fighter in plate and carrying a shield can attune to and use bracers of defense, he just does not get the armor bonus while wearing the armor or with the shield donned. Whenever those two things are not the case, he gets the bonus to AC.

The only character that can't use BOD are those already attuned to 4 items.

Also as noted earlier BOD are better than studded leather, because you don't have to wear armor to have a 12 AC. The only cost to a BOD for the super majority of characters are the 1-pound weight. That is hardly a "massive" price tag and as a matter of fact the studded leather you noted has literally 13 times the price the pay.

I think you are just not seeing how heavily limited this item already is. The only characters whom this item would be a no brainer for without attunement are Monks, Wizards and Sorcerers. And other than the bladesinger, none of them are going to be getting the ridiculous levels of AC that the traditional AC builds can do with magical armor and shields.

Like I said before even with attunement is a no-brainer for the majority of characters of characters of every single class already. If it had no attunement it would be a no-brainer for literraly every single character playing the game.

The max of a Fighter with +3 plate, +3 shield, Defender, two items of protection and the ioun stone is 32.

I might be wrong about the Defender not requiring attunement, but in that case, drop the Ioun stone and both ACs by 1. That is the "worst case" scenarios for both of them stacking as much AC with attunement slots as they can if Bracers are free. Again, a difference of 4 points, not including the defensive fighting style.

Ok to start with that is only true for a fighter with 18+ strength, so that is far from all of them. Second you have two legendary items, a very rare item and three rare items.

No character of ANY level should have the collection of magic items you posted for the fighter. A 20th level character should have 1 legendary, 1 very rare, 2 rare and 2 uncommon permanent magic items (plus a bunch of limited use items). The Monk you posted actually had items consistent what a 20th-level character should have (1 legendary, 4 rare). Redo your Fighter AC using more reasonable magic items, or better yet the same formula you used for the Monk (1L, 4R) and see how their AC compares.

There is just nothing the Monk can do with free bracers that breaks anything not already broken. Opening them up doesn't do anything except level the field a tiny bit. And make Bladesingers potentially more broken than they already were.

There is nothing that breaks the game by keeping them attunement.

 

[Lord Twig]

I am not going to try to quote that very long post, but off the top of my head there are several glaring flaws with your arguments.

I have never, in my 40 years of playing various fantasy RPGs, had a party that didn't have at least one character that used a shield. They are as common as dirt and only cost 10gp and are available in just about every town. Studded leather is 45gp and plate armor is 1500. Bracers of Defense costs many thoudsands of gold pieces (2d10x1000) and that is only if you are lucky enough to find it for sale anywhere.

The weight of studded leather armor is meaningless until you hit your maximum carrying capacity, which is extremely generous in 5e. And again, it costs 2d10x1000-45 less than the Bracers of Defense.

The maximum number of attuned items is 3, p138 of the DMG.

Wearing armor only prevents you from wearing different armor, or the Bracers of Defense. The Bracers of Defense limits you to just two other attuned items. If you also have a good weapon (like the Staff of Striking, a Flame Tongue short sword or a Sun Blade) that also costs attunement and now you only have one slot available.

You only have two hands, sure. But you can change what is in your hands with an action. It takes an hour to attune to a different item. And you only get 3 attuned items.

Why do you keep mentioning a fighter with an 18 Str is needed to wear plate? It only requires a 15 Str. Even if you don't have the required strength the only penalty is it slows you down by 10'.

And again, most classes get some kind of armor proficiency. If you are wearing armor anyway then there is no extra cost to wearing magic armor. And magic armor does not require attunement. For a non-armored person (monk, sorcerer, wizard) they have to use one of there (very valuable) attunement slots.