Brancers of Armor

[Jimlock]

one other thing... the "Bracers of Armor and Armor Special Abilities" clause in A&EG (3.0) is WRONG.

It says that the bracers can not have more than +8 armor bonus just like magic armor can have up to +8 enhancement bonus.

In 3.0 DMG it is clearly stated that the enhancement bonus cannot exceed +5.

 

[Vespucci]

one other thing... the "Bracers of Armor and Armor Special Abilities" clause in A&EG (3.0) is WRONG.

It says that the bracers can not have more than +8 armor bonus just like magic armor can have up to +8 enhancement bonus.

In 3.0 DMG it is clearly stated that the enhancement bonus cannot exceed +5.

Chill. It's an optional expansion. It changes the rules. It's neither right nor WRONG. After all, the Epic Level Handbook radically changes the rules about maximum enhancement bonuses - is that book WRONG?

 

[Jimlock]

You're lying, it does make sense. I understand that you disagree, but that's beside the point. My post was an attempt to clarify how the Arms & Equipment interpretation of Bracers of Armor works. Now, if you think that interpretation is SHATTERINGLY BROKEN, count me as surprised and intrigued...

Your interpretation is clearly wrong.

Enchanted Bracers have an enhancement bonus to armor

Nope. Bracers have armor bonus, not enhancement.

Bracers of Armor should be considered a kind of Armor

Nope, Bracers are not "armor" nor "magical armor" when enchanted. When Bracers are enchanted they are a wondrous item.
So as to get to the +8 & the +5 abilities two feats are required.
By your assumption one can do that with Craft magic arms and armor only. (Which is wrong)

and special abilities that increase the effective bonus can be added as normal for magic armor.

If you did that you would only be able to go up to +5 enhancement bonus and another +5 for abilities, thus the +13 would not be possible by that interpretation.


That sounds like SHATTERINGLY BROKEN to me....

cheers

 

[Jimlock]

Chill. It's an optional expansion. It changes the rules. It's neither right nor WRONG. After all, the Epic Level Handbook radically changes the rules about maximum enhancement bonuses - is that book WRONG?

Are you reading to what i'm writing??

Yes it does change the rules... for Bracers... no problem with that.

....and then it states that the +8 bonus is possible just as magic armor can never exceed a +8 enhancement bonus

In the DMG 3.0, page 179 it clearly says: Magic armor bonuses are referred to as enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5...

Are we clear on what is WRONG now?

 

[Jimlock]

That's really misleading. The 3.0 DMG is no more flexible than the 3.5 version. A&E is not core to either version: it's a product put out by WotC to be compatible with 3.0. The correct answer is that this is possible if the ref allows the rules from A&E, or at least this specific rule (regardless of edition - i.e. you could graft this sort of thing backwards into 2e).

What is misleading again?

The fact that it's only natural to assume that a DM who plays 3.0 Is more likely to allow a 3.0 supplement, that a DM who plays 3.5?

 

[Vespucci]

What is misleading again?

The fact that it's only natural to assume that a DM who plays 3.0 Is more likely to allow a 3.0 supplement, that a DM who plays 3.5?

This is a fair question. Please allow me to clarify. While I tend to agree with you about the likelihood of refs accepting supplements, it's misleading to claim that:

"In 3.0 it is possible. You can enchant the bracers with magic armor special abilities up to +5, as in A&EG. This can be done by using the craft magic armor feat.
The +5 cannot be used for armor bonus just for special abilities.

In 3.5 it is not possible.
However, since there is no 3.5 A&EG, a DM might allow this, even though in the 3.5 DMG there is no such option."


I read the statement emphasized in bold (especially in the context I've underlined) as a declaration that the rule under discussion is something that a ref has to accept when playing under 3.0 rules. That's simply false. A&E is not part of the 3.0 Core Rules. It's just an optional supplement published by WotC. The ref is under no obligation to accept A&E, regardless of the edition of core rules used.

If I've misread you, then please accept my apologies for the confrontation. However, the point about player entitlement is an important one and I don't regret stressing it. Refs have to be able to say, "Not in my game," even when dealing with books carrying the WotC logo. Too often it's assumed that this is illegitimate.

 

[Jimlock]

This is a fair question. Please allow me to clarify. While I tend to agree with you about the likelihood of refs accepting supplements, it's misleading to claim that:

"In 3.0 it is possible. You can enchant the bracers with magic armor special abilities up to +5, as in A&EG. This can be done by using the craft magic armor feat.
The +5 cannot be used for armor bonus just for special abilities.

In 3.5 it is not possible.
However, since there is no 3.5 A&EG, a DM might allow this, even though in the 3.5 DMG there is no such option."


I read the statement emphasized in bold (especially in the context I've underlined) as a declaration that the rule under discussion is something that a ref has to accept when playing under 3.0 rules. That's simply false. A&E is not part of the 3.0 Core Rules. It's just an optional supplement published by WotC. The ref is under no obligation to accept A&E, regardless of the edition of core rules used.

If I've misread you, then please accept my apologies for the confrontation. However, the point about player entitlement is an important one and I don't regret stressing it. Refs have to be able to say, "Not in my game," even when dealing with books carrying the WotC logo. Too often it's assumed that this is illegitimate.

You are wrong... but let me explain why...

I believe that you are misinterpreting what is being said here. When i say: In 3.0 it is possible, i'm referring to RAW.
When i say: In 3.0 it is possible, I'm actually stating that it is possible by the given rules, as written, in a 3.0 supplement. No matter if its core or not, it is a rule in an official supplement.
In 3.5 there is no such rule in ANY of the 3.5 books... core or no core.

AGAIN: the above rule on bracers is a part of the 3.0 rules, as written, in a 3.0 official supplement.

A DM may choose to use whatever rules he likes. Be that 3.5 , 3.0 , 2e...Hell he is free to house-rule the whole thing without even paying attention to the books!


...But when we talk about the rules of a certain edition, we talk about just that, and not based on what a DM might or might not incorporate in his game...because then it would be as if we all talked in a language of our own.

 

[Vespucci]

You are wrong... but let me explain why...

I believe that you are misinterpreting what is being said here. When i say: In 3.0 it is possible, i'm referring to RAW.
When i say: In 3.0 it is possible, I'm actually stating that it is possible by the given rules, as written, in a 3.0 supplement. No matter if its core or not, it is a rule in an official supplement.
In 3.5 there is no such rule in ANY of the 3.5 books... core or no core.

AGAIN: the above rule on bracers is a part of the 3.0 rules, as written, in a 3.0 official supplement.

A DM may choose to use whatever rules he likes. Be that 3.5 , 3.0 , 2e...Hell he is free to house-rule the whole thing without even paying attention to the books!


...But when we talk about the rules of a certain edition, we talk about just that, and not based on what a DM might or might not incorporate in his game...because then it would be as if we all talked in a language of our own.

Well, I agree whole-heartedly with that last paragraph. But the rules of 3.0 are just the three core books. A&E is no more official than any other supplement, published or unpublished, that was designed for use with the 3.0 rules. If the ref wants to use A&E, or any other supplement (no matter who published it), making it part of their campaign is a house rule. Keeping it out is the RAW.

 

[Jimlock]

Ohh.. and something else..

However, since there is no 3.5 A&EG, a DM might allow this, even though in the 3.5 DMG there is no such option.

Most of the 3.5 books "override" the 3.0 books. The best example are the core books. You also have all the complete series that override "Sword and Fist" and the like...
But this is not always the case... There are plenty of 3.0 books that are part of the 3.5 system. MM II is a good example. They've even been updated by WotC by PDFs on their site. Those are without a doubt part of the 3.5 RAW.

A&EG is one of the ambiguous ones. There is no such book in 3.5, yet WotC never provided an updated PDF for it... So when i say a "DM might allow it" i'm actually referring to that ambiguity...

 

[Jimlock]

But the rules of 3.0 are just the three core books. A&E is no more official than any other supplement, published or unpublished, that was designed for use with the 3.0 rules.

Is it the first time you hear of "official supplements"?

So A&EG is just as unofficial as a book by Mongoose Publishing? ...and just as unofficial as a personal house rule of mine?

No. D&D 3.0 rules, are all the rules in all the 3.0 D&D books. Whether you get to use them or not is a different story, as is a different story whether you use all or some of the rules in the core books.

If the ref wants to use A&E, or any other supplement (no matter who published it), making it part of their campaign is a house rule. Keeping it out is the RAW.

RAW = Rules As Written... you are clearly confusing this with SRD...
totally different things...

Here's something that makes what i'm saying clear:

Rules Compendium (Official 3.5 supplement):

The book you hold in your hands is the definitive guide for how to play the 3.5 revision of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Roleplaying Game. Years in the making, it gathers resources from a wide variety of supplements, rules errata, and rules clarifications to provide an authoritative guide for playing the D&D game. It updates and elucidates the rules, as well as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and easier to play. When a preexisting core book or supple- ment differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. If you have a question on how to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer that question.