D&D (2024) Armour Bonus Stacking and Rings of Protection

[Pauln6]

I begrudge using an attunement slot for a Ring of Protection when the Paladin gives out higher save bonuses without breaking a sweat.

Bracers of Defence and Rings of Protection never used to stack with magic armours but the 5e wording is sketchy, especially surrounding Barbarians or Monks and mage armour.

To limited attunement slots make these items useless to the classes they were intended for and is there a way to either remove attunement requirements or give the items some gravy to make them worthwhile, such as giving bracers a defensive reaction or the ring a save re-roll?

 

[mellored]

Or nerf the paladin.

Make aura of protection take their reaction, and/or have limited uses. Similar to Flash of Genius the artificers have.

Barbarians are fine on defense.

Monks could use a boost.

 

[Clint_L]

We don't have a ton of magic items in my campaigns, and nobody ever wants to play a paladin, so both of those are highly coveted items, the Bracers in particular! Can you clarify what is "sketchy" about the wording? Mage armor shields a target who is not wearing armour in a "magical force"; I don't see why that wouldn't work with the bracers. And 5e ring of protection works with everything.

Edit: thinking further, what this comes down to is 5e trying to police the use of magic items through attunement slots. I assume this is done for balance reasons, on the premise that characters with too many powerful magic items will really skew the intended challenge presented by creature combat ratings, etc. However, if you are an experienced DM who likes having very powerful PCs, you could just tell them to ignore attunement and equip what they want. Your table, your rules.

 

[Pauln6]

We don't have a ton of magic items in my campaigns, and nobody ever wants to play a paladin, so both of those are highly coveted items, the Bracers in particular! Can you clarify what is "sketchy" about the wording? Mage armor shields a target who is not wearing armour in a "magical force"; I don't see why that wouldn't work with the bracers. And 5e ring of protection works with everything.

Edit: thinking further, what this comes down to is 5e trying to police the use of magic items through attunement slots. I assume this is done for balance reasons, on the premise that characters with too many powerful magic items will really skew the intended challenge presented by creature combat ratings, etc. However, if you are an experienced DM who likes having very powerful PCs, you could just tell them to ignore attunement and equip what they want. Your table, your rules.

I meant that, technically, features and spells that determine an AC determine your final AC. You don't layer any bonuses, magical or otherwise on top. So most unarmoured classes would not benefit from these items, which is counterintuitive. Spellcasting classes, who should want these, have to use up an attunement slot that could be used for something far more valuable.

A ring that adds +1 to saves vs armour that adds +3 to AC. What is so valuable about the former that should require the designers to think attunement was required?

 

[Clint_L]

I meant that, technically, features and spells that determine an AC determine your final AC.

Come again? Where is that in the rules? Maybe I'm not understanding; are you stating that a monk, for example, couldn't benefit from bracers of defence because of unarmored defence? Both the ring and bracers work fine with unarmored defence on DnDBeyond, which is WotC.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Bracers of Defence and Rings of Protection never used to stack with magic armours but the 5e wording is sketchy, especially surrounding Barbarians or Monks and mage armour.

the bracers of defense specifically say you gain the bonus to AC "if you are wearing no armor and using no shield". i'd say that's pretty specific. barbarians and monks have unarmoured defense, meaning their AC calculation changes specifically when they do not wear armor - there's no reason why this feature would disallow you from wearing bracers of defense.

mage armor also only works on a creature not wearing armor, and RAW only gives you a different AC calculation, meaning RAW it's not actually armor.

I meant that, technically, features and spells that determine an AC determine your final AC. You don't layer any bonuses, magical or otherwise on top.

this is wrong - most features and spells that determine an AC give you an alternate AC calculation. the base AC calculation is 10+Dexterity, most armors give you an AC calculation either #+Dexterity, #+Dexterity (maximum 2), or just # (depending on if it's light, medium, or heavy armor respectively), mage armor gives you an AC calculation of 13+Dexterity, etc. however, there are features that just give bonuses to AC, like shield of faith or the bracers of defense - these are stacked on top of your AC calculation. if AC worked the way you said it would, shield of faith and bracers of defense would be literally worthless, because everyone has a default AC calculation they wouldn't work with.

 

[Pauln6]

the bracers of defense specifically say you gain the bonus to AC "if you are wearing no armor and using no shield". i'd say that's pretty specific. barbarians and monks have unarmoured defense, meaning their AC calculation changes specifically when they do not wear armor - there's no reason why this feature would disallow you from wearing bracers of defense.

mage armor also only works on a creature not wearing armor, and RAW only gives you a different AC calculation, meaning RAW it's not actually armor.

this is wrong - most features and spells that determine an AC give you an alternate AC calculation. the base AC calculation is 10+Dexterity, most armors give you an AC calculation either #+Dexterity, #+Dexterity (maximum 2), or just # (depending on if it's light, medium, or heavy armor respectively), mage armor gives you an AC calculation of 13+Dexterity, etc. however, there are features that just give bonuses to AC, like shield of faith or the bracers of defense - these are stacked on top of your AC calculation. if AC worked the way you said it would, shield of faith and bracers of defense would be literally worthless, because everyone has a default AC calculation they wouldn't work with.

OK, that makes sense but now I suppose we are in a scenario where the bonuses stack with armour, magic armour, class features etc?

I recall in 1e Cloaks of Protection worked only for characters in light or no armour but would free up a finger for wizards.

I think Rings of Protection should not require attunement but should not work while wearing magic armour. Cloaks of Protection should be brought back. Shield bonuses should not stack with magic armour (unless limited to +1).
Bracers of Protection should not require attunement or stack with armour but we're now in a scenario whereby a monk or barbarian could invest or multiclass for AC26?

I am thinking a hard cap of AC25 might not be a bad idea.

 

[Horwath]

Simple idea:

remove +X to attack, AC, DCs,saves from magic items.

add +Xd6 damage to weapons and bonus HP or DR to armors.

Cloak or resistance could give proficiency in saves that you lack after attunement during long rest.

"+1" cloak would give one save proficiency, "+2" would give two, "+3" would give proficiency in 3 saves.

 

[Shiroiken]

Magic Armor and Ring/Cloak of Protection worked together in OD&D thru 2E, and most of 5E's magic items are based on that time period. Not sure where you're looking at the Bracers of Defense, but like Mage Armor, it doesn't work with armor due to providing a different AC option.

Simple idea:

remove +X to attack, AC, DCs,saves from magic items.

add +Xd6 damage to weapons and bonus HP or DR to armors.

Cloak or resistance could give proficiency in saves that you lack after attunement during long rest.

"+1" cloak would give one save proficiency, "+2" would give two, "+3" would give proficiency in 3 saves.

Overall I like the ideas, because I feel +X magic items are fairly boring. Moving away from them helps keep Bounded Accuracy intact.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

OK, that makes sense but now I suppose we are in a scenario where the bonuses stack with armour, magic armour, class features etc?

bracers of defense specifically do not stack with armor, and there's no reason they shouldn't stack with unarmored defense, but yeah RAW they stack with mage armor for some reason.

I recall in 1e Cloaks of Protection worked only for characters in light or no armour but would free up a finger for wizards.

I think Rings of Protection should not require attunement but should not work while wearing magic armour. Cloaks of Protection should be brought back.

i mean...why would they not work with magic armor? they have nothing to do with AC, they boost saves, and they don't exactly take up the spot a piece of armor could (not even a cloak would do that, really - if anything you might be able to work it into a surcoat, which was almost universal for any sort of soldier in the medieval era, even ones in full plate). frankly, aside from high level monks and parties with paladins, most characters get absolutely screwed in the save department anyway. why make it worse?

Shield bonuses should not stack with magic armour (unless limited to +1).

i think shields need to be reworked entirely tbh.

Bracers of Protection should not require attunement or stack with armour but we're now in a scenario whereby a monk or barbarian could invest or multiclass for AC26?

bracers of defense already don't work with armor. a monk or barbarian could hypothetically get to 22 AC with unarmoured defense (20 wis/dex for monk or 20 con/dex for barbarian) and bracers of defense, but the vast majority of players will never be able to get that and idk where you're pulling the extra 4 AC from. i guess a barbarian could have a magical shield for up to a +5 but dex barbarians are hard to make well and i doubt the party would be giving a +3 shield to one. edit: oops, this doesn't work with the bracers of defense because those don't allow shields - though level 20 boosts the barbarian up to 24 con if they already had it at 20, so theoretically a barbarian could get to 22 AC before a shield anyway if they were a dex barbarian, but why the hell would you be a level 20 dex barbarian when you'd have 24 strength at this level? anyway, idk how either of them would have an advantage at multiclassing to get to 26 AC either compared to anyone else

Not sure where you're looking at the Bracers of Defense, but like Mage Armor, it doesn't work with armor due to providing a different AC option.

from what i can find, this is not correct.