D&D 5E Bracers of Defense

[Remathilis]

Hold up, dude. You just accused him of "liking the +1 treadmill", when in the post you're quoting, he talks about removing +X magic items from the game entirely. Can you explain that, or do you want to edit?

Further, as we're discussing 5E, by and large, why are you bringing up "selling X to fund Y", which is, AFAIK, not present in 5E? That seems to have nothing to do with what he is saying. I get that you dislike it, but it doesn't seem to make much sense as a response to his post.

Sure. He said "as a GM, on balance I prefer the 4e approach to mathematical bonuses because I prefer the tightly bounded accuracy that it tends to generate." So I responded to that. Afterwards, he comments on removing it to keep with 5e's low number math, which is his prerogative also.

Why I bring up the "selling X to fund Y" is that since its not present, a player cannot command whatever magical gear he wishes. If the DM doesn't want bracers of armor in his game, then the PCs don't find them. Nor now is the DM obligated to give them up to keep the math in check. These bracers are powerful, the kind of thing a PC will treasure due to them being equivalent to sorcerer dragon scales or hide armor. They're not the latest in the scaling math that will be discarded with the +4 bracers come along (or sold and used to fund the purchase of +4 bracers later). Likewise, a suit of mithral chain is going to be a rare, wondrous find that a player will remember, not a no-brainer purchase because the PC has 10th level starting gold and its the best mechanical light armor.

 

[Dausuul]

+3 BoDs require attunement, we can see that, but we don't know whether +3 armour also does, AFAIK. Even in the late playtest we only ever saw +1/2 armour.

I dunno about anyone else, but I'd be pretty surprised if there was any +3 armour that didn't require attunement, personally. Tell me if I've missed some that didn't.

I was comparing the bracers to +1 armor (which we do have in the supplement and which does not require attunement). People were complaining about them being the same rarity but the bracers being OMGBROKEN compared to the armor.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure. He said "as a GM, on balance I prefer the 4e approach to mathematical bonuses because I prefer the tightly bounded accuracy that it tends to generate." So I responded to that. Afterwards, he comments on removing it to keep with 5e's low number math, which is his prerogative also.

The coloured bit has literally nothing to do with liking "the +1 treadmill". I don't think you understand what he was saying at all, if you were responding to that.

Why I bring up the "selling X to fund Y" is that since its not present, a player cannot command whatever magical gear he wishes.

Which, superficially, has nothing to do with the argument you appear to be making, which is why I question it.

If the DM doesn't want bracers of armor in his game, then the PCs don't find them.

There has never been an edition of D&D where this was not the case, so that seems like a strange thing to say. Only in TSR and WotC's "official play"-type deals (Living Forgotten Realms etc.) has it ever been otherwise (and will remain otherwise in 5E's version, it appears).

Nor now is the DM obligated to give them up to keep the math in check. These bracers are powerful, the kind of thing a PC will treasure due to them being equivalent to sorcerer dragon scales or hide armor.

Only 3E "obligated" the DM in that regard, and only arguably (4E had the "innate bonuses" option). Comparing the bracers to sorcerer dragon scales or hide armour is rather strange. The point is that they stack with the former and avert the need for the latter.

They're not the latest in the scaling math that will be discarded with the +4 bracers come along (or sold and used to fund the purchase of +4 bracers later). Likewise, a suit of mithral chain is going to be a rare, wondrous find that a player will remember, not a no-brainer purchase because the PC has 10th level starting gold and its the best mechanical light armor.

Neither point has anything to do with what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was saying, though, nor do they illustrate anything beyond that you disliked the 3E approach to things, which is fair enough, but not really relevant.

[MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] - Fair enough. It is pretty odd to see +3 BoD in an adventure where no armour goes beyond +1, I have to admit, as one presumes +3 BoD are as high as BoD go (not having seen any +X item beyond +3 in anything to do with 5E). I rather suspect +1 BoD would not require attunement, but we won't know for months, I guess.

 

[transtemporal]

True, but it's also not a customer service position. The post I was responding to described players acting like it's the DM's job to just give them what they want.

True. I didn't mean to imply the DMs job was to hand out magic items (although it came pretty close to this in 4e). I played in a 2e campaign where the DM either a) didn't give rewards at all; or b) gave out joke rewards (like Tridents of Fish Command, a Deck of Many Things with all the good cards taken out). That DM made me determined to make sure the rewards were commensurate with the challenge. Or at least, mostly useful or interesting.

I find people take more satisfaction in things they've worked hard for. To me, the ideal adventure is one where the PCs are repeatedly beaten within an inch of their lives, have several moments where they think a TPK is imminent, and ultimately emerge victorious. (It's a fine line to walk between that and an actual TPK, of course.)

Absolutely, as long as the reward at the end is worth it. As with the DM I mentioned above, he delighted in placing rewards at the end of long adventures he knew we couldn't use. "There is 2 million... copper pieces in the hoard, if only you had a bag of holding, ha ha"

It's not hard to provide items somebody can use. I don't follow wish lists because, as I said, I want players to go out and make things happen in the game world if they want them to happen.

Here's where it gets a little bit trickier. If I'm just DMing, I don't necessarily know the player classes intimately since the last edition. I skim over the details of course, but I also like for it to be a surprise for me.

So for example, initially in 4e I didn't give out rod/wand/staff implements because I didn't realise that wizards used implements in 4e so the wizard was falling behind the curve and getting frustrated. Also with armor, I assumed that fighters could wear plate since they could in every other edition. Nope, not the case in 4e.

I'm glad this edition doesn't have such a reliance on magic items... but bbns and monks are going to go after those bracers like crazy. Which I guess is fine. They can go questing for them, as you say.

I also want serendipity to play a role. Sometimes PC find magic items and the players get really attached to them even though they weren't on any wish list. Characters go in unexpected directions as a result.

Serendipity can be interesting if it is serendipity and not the DM deciding everyone should use spears because he likes Mat Cauthon from the Wheel of Time series.

Man, that campaign was really traumatising, lol.

 

[KarinsDad]

I do like the way they're doing staves.

Yup.

 

[KarinsDad]

Also; a barbarian with 16 Dex/Con and bracers: AC 19. A Fighter with an 8 dex, 16 con, +1 chainmail and a shield: AC 19.

Barbarians have more hit points and a raging barbarian has resist pierce/slash/bludgeon.

+3 bracers for a barbarian is heads and shoulders above +1 chainmail for a fighter. Same AC, barbarian takes less damage and has more hit points.

There's a reason that heavy armor is balanced the way it is.

 

[FadedC]

Also barbarians can use shields too, so the barbarian with bracers would be ac 21.

Barbarians have more hit points and a raging barbarian has resist pierce/slash/bludgeon.

+3 bracers for a barbarian is heads and shoulders above +1 chainmail for a fighter. Same AC, barbarian takes less damage and has more hit points.

There's a reason that heavy armor is balanced the way it is.

 

[pemerton]

I hate the fact my PCs sell quirky or interesting side items so they can invest in the next magical plus to AC, saves or attacks.

To me, this is like complaining that the 1st level wizard who gets to choose only one spell is going to choose Sleep over Affect Normal Fires.

One solution is to give both. For instance, in 4e if you keep the enhancement items at a level equal to or better than what the PCs could craft, they have no incentive to liquidate other items.

(There can also be other issues, like the players not sharing the GM's judgement as to what is interesting/quirky, but that's a different case.)

Great, you like the +x treadmill.

That's not quite what I said. I said that, if there are going to be +X items, I prefer them to be incorporated into expected PC build, so as to preserve bounded accuracy. If a system has bounded accuracy without +X items, then I don't see why I would want to introduce such items into the game.

Even when you give out an item they can use, they often sell it because "I don't need a +2 longsword, so I'll take the 4,150 gp and put it toward making my +1 cold iron longsword flaming".

You seem to be talking about 3E. It's not a game I've played or run much, and there's a range of reasons for that.

In 4e, the solution to the problem you describe is pretty straightforward: you upgrade existing items rather than place new ones. (Adventurer's Vault discusses this.)

These bracers are powerful, the kind of thing a PC will treasure due to them being equivalent to sorcerer dragon scales or hide armor. They're not the latest in the scaling math that will be discarded with the +4 bracers come along

Again, upgrading existing items is an easy solution to this.

As to whether the PC will treasure them, that's not very important to me. The PCs would treasure a quiet life, too, but that doesn't make for a good game, and I care about what makes for a good game. In 4e, the system breaks down without enhancement bonuses. Conversely, in 5e it seems the game may run better without them. But this has nothing to do with whether or not players have been "spoiled".

 

[Dausuul]

Also barbarians can use shields too...

Not with bracers of defense, they can't.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

And really, its only more powerful than +1 padded or leather. The Bracers give a 13 base AC. +1 Studded Leather Armor is base AC 13. +1 scale mail is Base 15. +1 Chainmail is Base 17.

Also; a barbarian with 16 Dex/Con and bracers: AC 19. A Fighter with an 8 dex, 16 con, +1 chainmail and a shield: AC 19.

1. No, really, it's more powerful than studded leather because it stacks with monk or barbarian or sorcerer armor bonuses, as you already know.

2. This proves my point exactly. The fighter compromised his damage to get better AC by carrying a one-hander and a shield instead of a greatsword, and the barbarian negates his advantage with an unbalanced magic item.