Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lord Twig" data-source="post: 8249730" data-attributes="member: 31754">I think it is fair to say that Bracers of Defense are slightly better than a shield if you can use one and are not wearing armor, and much better if you cannot use a shield or armor at all. But they are near worthless if you can wear armor as that will almost always be better. And, of course, the cost is much higher for the Bracers of Defense. In rarity and value, but also in the cost of an attunement slot.As a side note, with the exception of a war cleric wielding a greatsword, every cleric I have ever played with has used a shield. And the issue of a free hand was never a problem as, after about 5th level, they never had a weapon in hand anyway. They usually had a weapon, but never used it as a spell was always better.But really Bracers of Defense should be compared to magic armor. +1 armor is rare, +2 is very rare, +3 is legendary, and none of them require attunement. So why not make Bracers of Defense the same? Why not have Bracers of Defense that is +1 to +3 with increasing rarity? From rare to legendary and with no attunement cost. Then monks and other non-armor wearers could theoretically get the same bonus at approximately the same time as armor wearers. That's really what they should have done.Going back to (almost) the very beginning of AD&amp;D, Bracers of Defense came in a variety of levels that would set your AC to 8 (equal to leather) to 2 (equal to plate armor). AD&amp;D 2nd edition was the same. D&amp;D 3.x changed them to Bracers of Armor and gave an armor bonus of +2 to +8, again providing the same benefit of wearing armor from leather to plate. mumble mumble 4th/pathfinder...And then D&amp;D 5e came out and now it only comes in one flavor, +2, and it requires a resource that was never needed in the past, attunement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lord Twig, post: 8249730, member: 31754"] I think it is fair to say that Bracers of Defense are slightly better than a shield if you can use one and are not wearing armor, and much better if you cannot use a shield or armor at all. But they are near worthless if you can wear armor as that will almost always be better. And, of course, the cost is much higher for the Bracers of Defense. In rarity and value, but also in the cost of an attunement slot. As a side note, with the exception of a war cleric wielding a greatsword, every cleric I have ever played with has used a shield. And the issue of a free hand was never a problem as, after about 5th level, they never had a weapon in hand anyway. They usually had a weapon, but never used it as a spell was always better. But really Bracers of Defense should be compared to magic armor. +1 armor is rare, +2 is very rare, +3 is legendary, and none of them require attunement. So why not make Bracers of Defense the same? Why not have Bracers of Defense that is +1 to +3 with increasing rarity? From rare to legendary and with no attunement cost. Then monks and other non-armor wearers could theoretically get the same bonus at approximately the same time as armor wearers. That's really what they should have done. Going back to (almost) the very beginning of AD&D, Bracers of Defense came in a variety of levels that would set your AC to 8 (equal to leather) to 2 (equal to plate armor). AD&D 2nd edition was the same. D&D 3.x changed them to Bracers of Armor and gave an armor bonus of +2 to +8, again providing the same benefit of wearing armor from leather to plate. [SIZE=1]mumble mumble 4th/pathfinder...[/SIZE] And then D&D 5e came out and now it only comes in one flavor, +2, and it requires a resource that was never needed in the past, attunement. [/QUOTE]

Verification