Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="auburn2" data-source="post: 8244389" data-attributes="member: 6855259">It is a big deal when bracers do not require any proficiencies or abilities to use.  To use plate there are a ton of negatives and requirements - heavy armor proficiency, a minimum strength score and disadvantage on stealth checks.  Compare that to bracers of defense which ONLY requires attunement, it is far harder to get and use full plate.  Plate is only +8 over someone with no dexterity bonus, it is not that in use compared to most that will use the bracers.  Plate is only +1 better than a Monk should have at the point a character can afford plate.  So a Monk with bracers of defense at a point where plate is appropriate will have a BETTER AC than another character in plate armor with two free hands.You also act like any character can use a shield, they can't.  The gp cost of a shield is not the barrier to using it, the proficiency is.  It is one of the hardest common items for a character to get access to, harder than any other weapons and for most players as difficult as getting heavy armor proficiency.   Just about anything else can be picked up with a race or at most one feat, but to get shield proficiency you either need to multiclass into a class that gets it or use TWO feats (one if you already have light armor proficiency).  If everyone in your party uses a shield like you claim, then many of them took the moderately armored feat because Rogues, Wizards, Sorcerers, etc can't get shield proficiency any other way.  In a typical party you are going to have probably 2-3 characters with shield proficiency.  Of those 2-3 characters take out the clerics who are not back liners and need a weapon in 1 hand and another hand free for casting.  Then take out the martials using primarily bows, cross bows and two handed weapons, then take out any that are TWF specialists.  What you are left with is the characters that both can and have a reason to use a shield, I would argue it is 0 in most parties. A few probably have a cleric with warcaster or a sword and board fighter, but I think it is a minority of parties that have such a character and very few have 2 of them.  Now how many can and would use BOD?  Probably 2 or 3 can use them and would use them - all the Monks, most of the wizards, sorcerers and warlocks, some of the Barbarians and Rogues.  You talk about doing something for one subclass; yet in 5 years of playing 5E we have had the same number of bladesingers at my table (3), as we have had PCs of all types that used a shield  (1 light cleric, 1 battlemaster fighter, 1 vengence paladin).To put it another way - you say this is no better than a shield and a shield is not a big deal so this is not a big deal ........ if a shield is "no big deal", why doesn't every wizard and sorcerer rock a shield?  There is no reason for them not to and certainly every single one of them would take a free +2 to AC?  It is a safe bet every one of them with a spare atunement spot would take BOD.This is an item that is better than a shield in combat, does not require an action to don or doff, does not take up you offhand and does not require proficiency.  Considering the significant barriers to most characters using a shield, why should this be free to employ?  This is better than a shield in use, so certainly there should be some barrier or something to give up to use it!Finally your entire argument is the +2 AC is not a big deal, if that is true, then you are not losing much if you have to drop it to attune to something else.   You can't really have it both ways, either the +2 is a big deal and should require atunement or it isn't and then it is not a big deal if they don't have the +2.</blockquote>

Verification