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

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Actually, this one is not sketchy. It is actually written perfectly clear.

 

[Pauln6]

Apologies, I was so desperate for a thread unrelated to OGL, I didn't re-read the rules and threw in Bracers as an afterthought. So if bracers don't work with shields then that does reduce the max AC to 24 (20+20 + fighting style + ring + bracers or shield). That doesn't seem so bad if magical bonuses to shields are capped at +1 (AC25) and don't stack with the ring.

To be clear, when I was talking about the Cloak of Protection, I was referring to the 1e version, which would be the same as the ring except that it only worked with no or light armour (don't look for logic, it was an item for wizards or thieves). This is different to the 3e Cloak of Resistance that only applied to saves. I'm a bit meh about that arbitrary change, which was really just to fill up different body slots.

I'm fine with only allowing +1 to saves, I'm just unconvinced that this is good enough to require attunement. I also think that the ring's armour bonus should not apply when wearing magic armour, particularly if not requiring attunement.

I think in a bounded system, the default should be no magical stacking unless noted otherwise but that's a whole other issue.

 

[rules.mechanic]

I totally agree that AC bonuses from item really shouldn't stack with each other. Likewise AC bonuses from effects also really shouldn't stack with each other (I'm looking at you Ceremony of Wedding, Defensive Duelist, Defensive Flourish, Haste, Multiattack Defense, Shield, Shield of Faith and undoubtedly others). I've just learned that Pathfinder specifies this, so good on Pathfinder (wrong thread to say why I'm reading Pathfinder...)

 

[mellored]

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

There is room in the game for boring items that some one can write down and forget they have, instead of trying to remember to use it under that scenario that comes up once evey other session.

That said. I would make the + armor, + weapons require attunement.

Then if you want to spend all your slots of defense, instead of winged boots and a weapon, that's fine.

 

[Pauln6]

There is room in the game for boring items that some one can write down and forget they have, instead of trying to remember to use it under that scenario that comes up once evey other session.

That said. I would make the + armor, + weapons require attunement.

Then if you want to spend all your slots of defense, instead of winged boots and a weapon, that's fine.

So un-attuned no stack; attuned 1 stack chosen on a short rest? Sounds doable.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Apologies, I was so desperate for a thread unrelated to OGL, I didn't re-read the rules and threw in Bracers as an afterthought. So if bracers don't work with shields then that does reduce the max AC to 24 (20+20 + fighting style + ring + bracers or shield).

oh yeah, the ring does effect AC. didn't notice that earlier, my bad.
defense (the fighting style you're referencing) only works if you're wearing armor, so that gets nixed here, and again, very few characters are going to get to 20 in both of their unarmoured defense stats (monks have a better chance because they actually use dex, but i don't see most barbarians going past 14 dex and even that's only to fill out medium armor because, frankly, medium armor is just better then a barbarian's unarmoured defense most of the time). i'd guess until level 16-19 the actual maximum will probably be closer to 20.

That doesn't seem so bad if magical bonuses to shields are capped at +1 (AC25) and don't stack with the ring.

again i think shields should get a total rework to make them more interesting then just "more AC", but like that'll ever happen.

I'm fine with only allowing +1 to saves, I'm just unconvinced that this is good enough to require attunement.

yeah it's really not, you're right.

I also think that the ring's armour bonus should not apply when wearing magic armour, particularly if not requiring attunement.

I think in a bounded system, the default should be no magical stacking unless noted otherwise but that's a whole other issue.

to be fair, at the levels you're going to have all of this set up, you're fighting things with like...+19 to hit, meaning even 25 AC is kind of a joke. the problem is not just player AC - bounded accuracy kind of just goes out the window after a point. it's EXTREMELY noticeable with saves.

 

[Clint_L]

Apologies, I was so desperate for a thread unrelated to OGL...

I didn't even need to read the rest and I was already gonna throw you a like. Quite frankly, the rest could have been something about the virtues of factory farming and why puppies are horrible and I still would have given you the like.

You had me at hello, is what I'm saying.

 

[Pauln6]

oh yeah, the ring does effect AC. didn't notice that earlier, my bad.
defense (the fighting style you're referencing) only works if you're wearing armor, so that gets nixed here, and again, very few characters are going to get to 20 in both of their unarmoured defense stats (monks have a better chance because they actually use dex, but i don't see most barbarians going past 14 dex and even that's only to fill out medium armor because, frankly, medium armor is just better then a barbarian's unarmoured defense most of the time). i'd guess until level 16-19 the actual maximum will probably be closer to 20.

again i think shields should get a total rework to make them more interesting then just "more AC", but like that'll ever happen.

yeah it's really not, you're right.

to be fair, at the levels you're going to have all of this set up, you're fighting things with like...+19 to hit, meaning even 25 AC is kind of a joke. the problem is not just player AC - bounded accuracy kind of just goes out the window after a point. it's EXTREMELY noticeable with saves.

I'm not sure +19 to attack is common. I thought stats went up to 30 (+10) and proficiency bonus goes up to +6 so only something with god-like attack stats and a +3 weapon is going to be that good. A range of +7 to +12 seems to be far more common. Doesn't dual wielder grant +1 AC regardless of armour so it might still be possible to get to AC24? Admittedly, to achieve it, a character has to trade off against other things so I am fine with that.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I'm not sure +19 to attack is common. I thought stats went up to 30 (+10) and proficiency bonus goes up to +6

monster proficiency goes up to +9.

A range of +7 to +12 seems to be far more common.

+13 and higher isn't exactly uncommon at CR 18+, which are probably the sort of big monsters you're going to be fighting when your hypothetical monk/barbarian is getting up to AC 22+.

Doesn't dual wielder grant +1 AC regardless of armour so it might still be possible to get to AC24? Admittedly, to achieve it, a character has to trade off against other things so I am fine with that.

why would a monk or barbarian invest in two-weapon fighting? monks get flurry of blows and the passive bonus action attack from martial arts, and barbarians are best with two-handed weapons.

 

[Pauln6]

monster proficiency goes up to +9.

+13 and higher isn't exactly uncommon at CR 18+, which are probably the sort of big monsters you're going to be fighting when your hypothetical monk/barbarian is getting up to AC 22+.

why would a monk or barbarian invest in two-weapon fighting? monks get flurry of blows and the passive bonus action attack from martial arts, and barbarians are best with two-handed weapons.

Oh ok. Our PCs are level 16 so maybe I will be building such encounters soon but even so, the monster still needs 30 in an attack stat to get that high (or a +3 weapon) Still unlikely for most encounters, but I get your point.