Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="W'rkncacnter" data-source="post: 8916177" data-attributes="member: 7033455">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 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?i think shields need to be reworked entirely tbh.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. <s>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.</s> 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 elsefrom what i can find, <a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/4594-bracers-of-defense" target="_blank">this is not correct.</a></blockquote>

Verification