Help me convince my players to wear heavy armor.

[Jack Simth]

Don't forget:
Wizard can bump his AC a might (and skip the Shield spell) with an Enchanted Mithral Buckler (or Mithral Light Steel Shield) - 0% ASF, 0 ACP.

If he skips the shield, depending on DM interpertation, he can get a Monk's Belt and a Peripat of Wisdom effect for some nifty touch AC, too.

 

[airwalkrr]

Don't forget:
Wizard can bump his AC a might (and skip the Shield spell) with an Enchanted Mithral Buckler (or Mithral Light Steel Shield) - 0% ASF, 0 ACP.

At that point he is spending a lot more money than the cleric. A +5 mithral buckler costs 26,165 gp or 13,665 gp if the wizard can craft it. Look, the bottom line is this, barring incredibly high ability scores, given the same budget, a character in heavy armor will usually have a better AC than a character without heavy armor.

I'll ignore the monk note as that seems to be a particularly loose (read: wrong) reading of the rules. If you can convince the DM to ignore the RAW, you can do virtually anything.

 

[Jack Simth]

At that point he is spending a lot more money than the cleric. A +5 mithral buckler costs 26,165 gp or 13,665 gp if the wizard can craft it. Look, the bottom line is this, barring incredibly high ability scores, given the same budget, a character in heavy armor will usually have a better AC than a character without heavy armor.

There's exceptions for Dex-based characters. In general, with armor, ther Armor AC bonus plus the Max Dex bonus is in the seven to nine range, although a handful of sets drop below that - such as Splint Mail. Thus, a Rogue doesn't usually benefit from heavy armor; he benefits from armor where the Maximum Dexterity bonus just happens to match his Dexterity Bonus - so a mithral Chainmail at a Dex of 20 (not hard, for a Rogue), a Mithral Breastplate at a dex of 22, a Mithral Chain Shirt at a Dex of 24, Padded at 26 (or, potentially, Mithral Studded Leather, if your DM is a historian); At a Dex of 28+ (high level, dedicated rogue), it's Bracers of Armor, all the way (as the Bracers of Armor have a cost that scales exactly like the Enhancement bonus, but with a higher cap).

Past a certain point, basically everybody is going to have a higher dex bonus than any traditional armor is going to support. For the non-Dex characters, that point is going to be somewhere Epic. For the Dex-based characters, it's going to be a might sooner than that.

I'll ignore the monk note as that seems to be a particularly loose (read: wrong) reading of the rules. If you can convince the DM to ignore the RAW, you can do virtually anything.

It's a DM interpertation issue; it gives the AC bonus of a 5th level monk. Does that refer to the "AC Bonus" entry on the table, or the "AC Bonus" class ability? Both have the exact same name, and the belt refers to the ability by name. Oh yeah - and the values on the table are derived from the class ability entry. By what criteria do you pick one over the other, sticking purely to the rules as written? I'm thinking no particularly good pure-RAW criteria exists; thus, DM interpertation.

 

[Hawken]

I forgot ghost touch was a +3 enchancement (thought it was +1 for some reason). It makes no difference. Let's suppose the cleric is wearing +3 ghost touch full plate and has a +2 ghost touch heavy shield (total price tage of 62,820 gp). He is still spending less than he would on bracers of armor +8 (price tage of 64,000 gp).

It is +1, for weapons.

In this example, yes, the armor is cheaper, but only by a tiny 1,180gp. This would give your armor guy an AC of 26 (assuming a Dex of at least 12/+1); 10 (base), +8 (armor), +2 (shield), +3 enhancement, +2 enhancement, +1 Dex. He would also have a touch AC of 16 and flat footed AC of 25. And his movement would be reduced to 20, with a -6 armor check penalty and run at X3.

Bracer guy would have an AC of 18; 10 (base), +8 (bracers). Now, at this point, Bracer guy gets to add his Dex (+1 to +5, depending on level and race, not counting any other magic items or spells). We'll go with +5 for Dex. So, total AC of 23 (18+5); Touch AC of 15, Flat footed AC of 18. Movement is not reduced, nor is Run, and there is no armor check penalty.

Touch AC is comparable for either, and flat footed AC is not an issue if we are dealing with someone with Uncanny Dodge, even still, an 18 is not entirely bad. However, the rest is dependent upon situation. If bracer guy were a Barbarian, Bard, Monk, Rogue, Sorcerer or Wizard, they are definitely going to have more advantages to back up the difference in AC. The Plate guy is only a benefit to Clerics, Fighters, and Paladins, and definitely not in situations where stealth or mobility are important, where they could be a liability to their party.

This example is quite extreme. It also proves absolutely nothing because most of these are tricks a cleric can pull. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. A cleric can have craft magic arms & armor and craft wondrous as easily as the wizard. I should also point out that a wizard cannot make amulets of natural armor or rings of protection because he lacks the prerequisite spells (barkskin and shield of faith).

Extreme as stated, that was my point. And I think it proved my point quite well. The fact that a cleric can nearly do the same thing is irrelevant. If I had used a cleric in my example of Bracer Guy, you would just have replied that a Wizard could do the same thing (or a Sorcerer, etc., etc.). As for what a wizard can or cannot cast, if they are high enough level to create the items I used in my example, they are high enough level to create their own spells to duplicate the effects of the ones they cannot cast, thereby allowing them to make those items. Do you honestly think a Wizard that powerful is going to shy away from making those items? No. They're going to either get the nearest cleric to assist or their going to figure out a way to do it themselves.

although things like a cloak that grants shield might not be allowed by the DM

How so? If the character has the Craft Wondrous Items feat, he can make a Wondrous Item. There is nothing in the RAW (PHB or SRD) stating that the character is limited to making what is in the DMG. In fact, the DMG 3.5 provides the table (pg 285) for expenses involved in crafting any manner of Wondrous Item. A cloak with a Shield spell takes up the Cloak slot. It is a Spell Effect item that would fall under Use Activated or Continuous. The Base Price is Spell Level X Caster Level X 2,000gp. For the Shield spell, that would be 1 (spell level) X 1 (using only a caster level of 1 by choice) X 2,000gp, for a subtotal of 2,000gp. Since the duration of Shield is in minutes, this total is multiplied by 2, for a total Base Price of 4,000gp. Since it is being made by the same wizard, it only costs 2,000gp to craft it. DM's are always free to say "no, you can't", but this is not an abuse of the rules (#1 reason for DM's to say "no, you can't"), in fact, it is something made specifically within the guidelines provided.

My cleric is still better. Here's why. The equipment of a fully equiped cleric, using only the core rules and assuming an elite array of ability scores (to make it fair):

(your breakdown edited to cut down on size of this post)

The only way our wizard is even managing to be competitive with the cleric in these categories is by casting shield, which usually takes at least a swift action to cast and at high levels is not always the best choice in combat. Even still, his base AC and flat-footed AC are worse than the cleric's. Not to mention we are assuming the wizard has someone to cast barkskin and shield of faith for him. The cleric has a higher walking AC than the wizard, and that doesn't even count the fact that he can cast magic vestment on his full plate to make it +5, giving him an even bigger advantage.

Heavy armor is better nine times out of ten. If you DM allows you to have godlike ability scores and you are willing to sacrifice a spellcaster level, be lawful, and spend resources on an ability score that otherwise grants you little benefit like Wisdom, then you can take a level of monk as a wizard and be competitive with the heavy armor wearer, but it requires resources and a huge opportunity cost (a lost caster level) which most spellcasters simply won't make.

Before I go any further, if you're going to use my example, you use my example in its entirety, not picking and choosing aspects of it to make your argument appear better. Also, for sake of simplicity, I will regard both Armor Guy and Bracer Guy as having access to all items necessary to make their magic and we can stick with your stats of Dex being 10 for Armor Guy and 16 for Bracer Guy.

Your Armor Guy would have an AC of 40--base 10, full plate 8, enhancement 2, hvy steel shield 2, enhancement 5, amulet 5, ring 5, Dex 3.
Touch AC of 25--base 10, armor enhancement 2, shield enhancement 5, ring 5, Dex 3. Full Plate, shield and amulet do not count since Touch attacks ignore armor.
AC vs Incorporeal of 33--base 10, armor 8, arm enhancement 2, sh enhancement 5, ring 5, Dex 3. Again, ignoring the shield and natural armor.
Flat footed AC of 37--all but Dex.

Bracer Guy would have all items that I listed in my example (including Wis 14/+2, Periapt, and 1 level of Monk). Total and variant ACs would be the same listed; Base AC 45, vs Touch/Incorporeal 40, and Flat Footed AC of 37.

Bracer Guy would be out 119,000gp vs. Armor Guy being out 103,820gp. A difference of 15,180gp. Hooray for Armor Guy who still moves at 20', has his Run limited to X4, still carries a -4 armor check penalty (-8 to Swim). His AC is anywhere from 5 to 20 points worse depending on the situation, except for sharing a flat footed AC and Bracer Guy still has all the benefits I listed in my example. Armor Guy is only marginally better off with Mithril plate, but not enough to make a noticeable difference. Also, his armor marks him as a big (and slow) target, and an immediate threat. Not so for Bracer Guy who can dress as he pleases and still look relatively mundane and nonthreatening. Also, casting Magic Vestment only improves his overall AC by 3 (+5 enhancement supercedes +2) and is a temporary benefit that still doesn't put him entirely on par with Bracer Guy.

If you DM allows you to have godlike ability scores and you are willing to sacrifice a spellcaster level, be lawful, and spend resources on an ability score that otherwise grants you little benefit like Wisdom, then you can take a level of monk as a wizard and be competitive with the heavy armor wearer, but it requires resources and a huge opportunity cost (a lost caster level) which most spellcasters simply won't make.

What godlike ability scores? A 20 Dex (16 from your elf elite array, +4 for level bonuses, there you go, or Bracer Guy could have been gifted with a lucky 18 roll, or put the point buy into it to get an 18, then +2 elf bonus) is hardly god-like. Being lawful is not a sacrifice, uncommon perhaps for an elf, but no different than any other alignment in benefit or drawback.

Also, multiclassing is hardly a sacrifice. A Wiz19/Mnk1 is a decent combination and not a sacrifice at all. True, he does not get +1 BAB, +1 Will, +1 metamagic, and +1 9th lvl spell. But he does get more hit points (D8 vs D4), +2 Fort, +2 Ref, +2 Will, Flurry of Blows, Unarmed Strike, Unarmed damage of 1D6, 2 extra skill points (even more if Monk is taken as the character's 1st character level) and a wider selection of skills, proficiency with extra martial and exotic weapons, an overall AC bonus equal to Wisdom, (and an additional AC bonus if Monk items are acquired that boost effective monk level), and either Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist. These are all constant abilities that the character will get more use out of than 1 extra 9th level spell.

Even without the level of Monk, that just means that Bracer Guy saved money not spent on the Periapt and his AC is on par (and still better in some areas) with Armor Guy. Bracer Guy is still even more dangerous than Armor Guy (cleric is either casting spells or wading in enemies in melee--if he's out of the way casting, his armor is useless; if he is in melee, he's not casting without taking significant risk of spell disruption--while Bracer Guy is out of the way turning his enemies into dust (or any of the myriad options available) before they even get close or laughing when they miss him if they do get close enough to attack.

I'll ignore the monk note as that seems to be a particularly loose (read: wrong) reading of the rules. If you can convince the DM to ignore the RAW, you can do virtually anything.

What is wrong about the Monk part? RAW state, "When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus to AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th lvl...." Where is the error you are referring to? One level of monk grants the Wisdom bonus to AC. And a Monk Belt treats that level 1 monk as a level 5 monk for the AC bonus mentioned. It's really pretty simple and clear.

 

[airwalkrr]

The Plate guy is only a benefit to Clerics, Fighters, and Paladins, and definitely not in situations where stealth or mobility are important, where they could be a liability to their party.

I don't find this particularly amazing. These are the only classes in the core rules that get heavy armor proficiency. Is it that surprising that these classes are the only ones that benefit from heavy armor proficiency?

Do you honestly think a Wizard that powerful is going to shy away from making those items? No.

The real issue here is not whether the wizard would pursue a logical course of action. The question is whether or not the DM will allow new magic items. Remember that the guidelines in the back of the DMG are only that: guidelines. The item you suggest (a cloak that gives always active shield) is considerably more powerful than the guidelines suggest. It provides access to a spell that most characters can not have (personal range) and is in every way better than a ring of force shield (which costs 8,000 gp). It probably deserves to cost at least 10 times what the guidelines recommend, if not more. Compare it to a ring of force shield and scale appropriately, factoring in the benefit that you are immune to magic missile.

How so? If the character has the Craft Wondrous Items feat, he can make a Wondrous Item. There is nothing in the RAW (PHB or SRD) stating that the character is limited to making what is in the DMG. In fact, the DMG 3.5 provides the table (pg 285) for expenses involved in crafting any manner of Wondrous Item.

I have already explained this above. However, I would like to point you to page 214 of the DMG wherein is listed the "Variant: New Magic Items" section. A variant is not part of the core rules, a variant is an optional rule that the DM may or may not allow at his option. In the first place, no player is allowed to tell a DM what he can and cannot allow. If the DM says a shield cloak is not allowable, it is not allowable. Pointing out that the DMG has guidelines for creating such an item will not win that argument. In the second place, the core rules do not presume that characters can create new items. The creation of new items is a variant, and in my campaign, it requires not only the cost of creating the item, but also a research cost, usually 10% of the cost of the item, to see if the item is even craftable.

Before I go any further, if you're going to use my example, you use my example in its entirety, not picking and choosing aspects of it to make your argument appear better.

You made some unreasonable assumptions. I pointed out why I believed the assumptions were unreasonable, at least for this test case, and then proceeded. As I said, if the bracer wearer has a base Dex of 20 we are already skewing things by allowing very high ability scores and the discussion is really pointless. There have to be rules of engagement so to speak and I think using an elite array is a fair way of doing it.

Bracer Guy would have all items that I listed in my example (including Wis 14/+2, Periapt, and 1 level of Monk). Total and variant ACs would be the same listed; Base AC 45, vs Touch/Incorporeal 40, and Flat Footed AC of 37.

This excerpt is an exercise in munchinism. I am not talking about twinking out AC. If that is the goal then I would not bother with using a cleric in my example. I am talking about rational character builds. Most wizards would not give up a caster level and invest in a periapt of wisdom (forgoing an amulet of natural armor by the way which you seem to have forgotten) and monk's belt just to improve their AC. Honestly, I would rather have the +5 from the amulet of natural armor and not lose a caster level than get a +5 (+4 Wis using a starting Wisdom of 12 and +1 monk) which also adds to my touch AC.

What godlike ability scores? A 20 Dex (16 from your elf elite array, +4 for level bonuses, there you go, or Bracer Guy could have been gifted with a lucky 18 roll, or put the point buy into it to get an 18, then +2 elf bonus) is hardly god-like.

Your example assumed 18 as a base for Dexterity (+2 for elf). Godlike was hyperbole, indeed, but most characters do not start with two 18s, and if a wizard got only one, it would go into Intelligence. So a starting Dexterity of 20 is definitely a high powered campaign and if we have that kind of assumption, the same benefit of the doubt needs to be given to the heavy armor wearer.

Also, multiclassing is hardly a sacrifice. A Wiz19/Mnk1 is a decent combination and not a sacrifice at all.

After 17th level it is not as much of a sacrifice. But until you reach 17th level, you will be missing out on those higher level spells all the time, something most spellcasters are loathe to do. If you do not know this then you apparently do not play spellcasters very often.

These are all constant abilities that the character will get more use out of than 1 extra 9th level spell.

Actually I would debate that. You are aware of the effects of 9th level spells right? The ability to kill everyone around you one more time per day with a high save DC is not exactly chump change compared to melee-oriented combat feats and a few bonuses to your saving throws. The character might get more use in general, but that does not mean these abilities are a more effective means to accomplishing the wizard's ends. Plus a wizard gets an extra 8th level spell at 20th level too.

Even without the level of Monk, that just means that Bracer Guy saved money not spent on the Periapt and his AC is on par (and still better in some areas) with Armor Guy.

You are still assuming that the bracer wearer has a shield spell. Without it, his AC is substantially lower.

Bracer Guy is still even more dangerous than Armor Guy (cleric is either casting spells or wading in enemies in melee--if he's out of the way casting, his armor is useless; ...

I think you are confusing this argument with the general differences between clerics and wizards. AC does not make you dnagerous.

What is wrong about the Monk part?

I'll concede this point is debatable and open to interpretation, but I have not ever seen it used this way and it smacks of cheese.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt on the monk's belt, the cleric is still superior by the core rules. Take the following refined example, in which I eschew the ghost touch enhancement and the house rule cloak that I have demonstrated is not guaranteed by the core rules (and would not be allowed by most DMs, at least not at such a cheap cost, because it duplicates a powerful spell that has a personal range).

Clr20, base Dexterity 10
+5 mithril full plate - 35,650 gp or 23,150 gp to craft
+5 heavy steel shield - 25,170 gp or 12,670 gp to craft
+5 amulet of natural armor - 50,000 gp or 25,000 gp to craft (if he has the Plant domain or we assume the party druid/ranger casts barkskin for him)
+5 ring of protection - 50,000 gp or 25,000 gp to craft
+6 gloves of dexterity - 36,000 gp or 18,000 gp to craft (we assume the party bard/druid/sorcerer/wizard casts cat's grace for him)

Total AC: 43, touch 18 (incorporeal 18), flat-footed 40
Total Cost: 196,820 gp or 103,820 gp to craft

Mnk1/Wiz19, base Dexterity 16, base Wisdom 12
+8 bracers of armor - 64,000 gp or 32,000 gp to craft
+5 amulet of natural armor - 50,000 gp or 25,000 gp to craft (we assume the party cleric/druid/ranger casts barkskin for him)
+5 ring of protection - 50,000 gp or 25,000 gp to craft (we assume the party cleric casts shield of faith for him)
+6 gloves of dexterity - 36,000 gp or 18,000 gp to craft
monk's belt - 13,000 gp or 6,500 gp to craft

Total AC: 36, touch 23 (incorporeal 31), flat-footed 30
Total cost: 213,000 gp or 106,500 gp to craft

Now one thing I am willing to give you is the +6 periapt of wisdom, but only if we multiply the cost by 2 because it has no space limitation. I feel this is much more reasonable than the shield cloak because there is already a precedent for a lesser item of this type in the incandescent sphere blue ioun stone. But that skyrockets the wizard's costs by 72,000 gp, 36,000 gp if he is crafting it. That is a respectable chunk of change for only a +3 enchancement to his AC. What we have here is an armorless wizard who has an advantage in touch AC but not AC in general or flat-footed AC. While a high touch AC is nice, it is far from being as useful as AC in general.

But let us do a more equitable comparison: one between an armored cleric and a bracered cleric.

Clr19/Mnk1, base Dexterity 10, base Wisdom 15
+8 bracers of armor - 64,000 gp or 32,000 gp to craft (we assume the party wizard casts mage armor for him)
+5 amulet of natural armor - 50,000 gp or 25,000 gp to craft (if he has the Plant domain or we assume the party druid/ranger casts barkskin for him)
+5 ring of protection - 50,000 gp or 25,000 gp to craft
+6 gloves of dexterity - 36,000 gp or 18,000 gp to craft (we assume the party bard/druid/wizard casts cat's grace for him)

Total AC: 36, touch 23 (incorporeal 31), flat-footed 33
Total Cost: 200,000 gp or 100,000 gp to craft

So with roughly the same expenditure of wealth, we have a bracered cleric who is inferior to the armored cleric in every manner except for touch/incorporeal touch AC. The bracered cleric can use a shield, but if he does that, he might as well use the armor too because he loses his monk bonus to AC either way. Oh, and did I mention he loses some spells? But he can grapple so much better you say? Whoop dee doo. That +4 just made it SO much easier to avoid the purple worm. I'll take freedom of movement thank you.

What you are doing is trading seven points of AC for the ability to move 10 extra feet per round and be ever so slightly sneakier (yes that -5 armor check penalty is a dead giveaway to opponents with +30 on their Listen/Spot checks). The penalty to Swim checks is moot when you can cast freedom of movement. The penalty to Climb and Jump checks is moot when you can cast air walk. All you are really getting is 10 extra feet per round. When you consider that at high levels the wizard will often cast haste or quickened haste in the first round, the 20 speed stops being such a huge issue. If it really bugs you so badly, you can always pick up boots of striding and springing; it isn't like there are that many items clamboring for your boot spot anyway.

Look, here's the bottom line. The OP's players obviously favor light armor over heavy armor. Maybe they really value mobility or have character concepts that support it. Maybe they are playing classes that don't specialize in heavy armor. If they are, so be it. Those are the characters they want to play. Heavy armor will almost always get you a better AC, lighter armor is a trade-off that gets you better speed. If that is what his players want, then that is what they value. Making heavy armor more attractive is not the solution and is likely to make heavy armor too powerful in his campaign. If he wants to highlight the potential of good armor, then he could have his PCs face villains who are heavily armored, or simply give the PCs access to other kinds of armor from Arms & Equipment or Races of Stone.

 

[Farland]

Just a few pieces of advice:

Make it clear that you cannot hide the fact that you are wearing medium armor either.

In my experience, the single biggest reason that PCs don't wear heavy armor is the limit on DEX bonus to AC. Raise those limits and I bet players will begin to wear the armors more.

 

[Spatzimaus]

my experience, the single biggest reason that PCs don't wear heavy armor is the limit on DEX bonus to AC. Raise those limits and I bet players will begin to wear the armors more.

True. IMC, the Masterwork-like bonus for armor increases the Max DEX bonus by 1 in addition to the Armor Check Penalty. Using exotic materials makes it even higher. Even in the DMG rules this is already in place; Mithral increases Max DEX by 2, in addition to the size part. We've also added "Armor Mastery" feats that increase this a bit more.

Plate with a Max DEX of 0-1 is just annoyingly restrictive for characters whose average base stat is a 12. But raise that by 2 or 3, even at the cost of a feat or a lot of gold, and suddenly those options get a LOT more popular. A Dwarven Fighter in mithral full plate is REALLY hard to hit.

 

[Hawken]

The question is whether or not the DM will allow new magic items. Remember that the guidelines in the back of the DMG are only that: guidelines. The item you suggest (a cloak that gives always active shield) is considerably more powerful than the guidelines suggest. It provides access to a spell that most characters can not have (personal range) and is in every way better than a ring of force shield (which costs 8,000 gp). It probably deserves to cost at least 10 times what the guidelines recommend, if not more. Compare it to a ring of force shield and scale appropriately, factoring in the benefit that you are immune to magic missile.

No, it's not. It was an example I used to illustrate a point. Nothing more. You're trying to sidetrack away from the point I made. My example has nothing to do with DMs. You're putting DMs into the mix to try to invalidate one of my examples, which doesn't work. As many DMs would allow it as not, if not more. Also, keep in mind that the things in the back of the DMG, like everything else in the DMG (and PHB, and MM I-IV, etc.) are ALL guidelines. Magic Item creation rules, costs, etc. are as much rules as anything else in the PHB or DMG. You are trying to make them appear as optional. They are no more or less optional than the abilities a Druid or Rogue get at each level, or effects of spells that are cast or the damage done by an attack with a longsword. And of course a Shield Cloak provides access to a spell most characters cannot have. That is what ALL magic items do! And don't bring DMG costs into it. You know as well as everyone else that the prices listed there do not make any sense or have any logic to them and they more often than not do not even follow the pricing formula. If you want to make it cost 20,000gp, you go right ahead and see if you can convince your players that you're not insane.

I have already explained this above. However, I would like to point you to page 214 of the DMG wherein is listed the "Variant: New Magic Items" section. A variant is not part of the core rules, a variant is an optional rule that the DM may or may not allow at his option. In the first place, no player is allowed to tell a DM what he can and cannot allow. If the DM says a shield cloak is not allowable, it is not allowable. Pointing out that the DMG has guidelines for creating such an item will not win that argument. In the second place, the core rules do not presume that characters can create new items. The creation of new items is a variant, and in my campaign, it requires not only the cost of creating the item, but also a research cost, usually 10% of the cost of the item, to see if the item is even craftable.

Again, you're trying to detract from my example by saying it cannot be done. In your game, obviously not. However, as I have mentioned, as many DMs are open to new things as there are ones that shun creativity and cling to the items listed in the DMG and PHB as if that is all there is. Nowhere did I say anything about a player telling a DM what to do or allow. Nor did I mention anything about a player winning any argument with a DM. Once again, you are trying to make your position seem better by inserting things I did not mention and going off on tangents that were never brought up.

As for your 'second place', it is your assumption and your interpretation of the core rules what they presume. Don't try to enforce your ideas on me and my arguments, they don't apply. I'm not one of your players and I am not bound by your assumptions or interpretations and what happens in your campaign is immaterial and irrelevant to my point of view and any examples I make to support my points of view. If you want to charge your players more for doing something they should be able to do already, fine, the loss is theirs if they go along with your rules.

You made some unreasonable assumptions. I pointed out why I believed the assumptions were unreasonable, at least for this test case, and then proceeded. As I said, if the bracer wearer has a base Dex of 20 we are already skewing things by allowing very high ability scores and the discussion is really pointless. There have to be rules of engagement so to speak and I think using an elite array is a fair way of doing it.

I made no assumptions. I made an argument and posted valid information that supported my position. You can believe my argument (again, I made no assumptions) is unreasonable all you want, but if you're going to use my argument, you use all of it, not picking and choosing what you want and expressing it as though it were my idea and not your alteration. Also, a 20 in any ability score may be high compared to a 10 being average, but it is hardly a game or even world breaking event. Elves can have 20 Dex at 1st level, as can Halflings, Half-Orcs can have a 20 Str, Dwarves a 20 Con, etc. That hardly disrupts a game and with a 1st level range of 4-17 hit points where a single critical hit (or even a few weak hits) can kill that person with the 20 stat, it is something that is even far less disruptive than you make it out to be. Again, if you do not allow your players to have 20s or think that they somehow overpower a game, that's fine as long as your players are fine with you cheating them out of some fun in the game and not letting them do what the RAW allows them to do. And rules of engagement assume both parties agree to them. Again, you just assumed I'd agree. Initially, there was no such rule. You posted something. I challenged it and then you tried to break down my point using your own assumptions. And while you may think an elite array is powerful (borderline too powerful from your posted reaction to a single score of 20), I disagree and have seen players in my games consistently roll better enough that the 'elite' array is rather mundane in comparison.

This excerpt is an exercise in munchinism. I am not talking about twinking out AC. If that is the goal then I would not bother with using a cleric in my example. I am talking about rational character builds. Most wizards would not give up a caster level and invest in a periapt of wisdom (forgoing an amulet of natural armor by the way which you seem to have forgotten) and monk's belt just to improve their AC. Honestly, I would rather have the +5 from the amulet of natural armor and not lose a caster level than get a +5 (+4 Wis using a starting Wisdom of 12 and +1 monk) which also adds to my touch AC.

Munchkinism is the word, I think. And I wasn't talking about twinking out AC either. I just used an example that I came up with off the top of my head. Anyone with enough time and research could come up with much better, as could I, but that wasn't my intention. And, NO, you weren't talking about character builds either. Your premise was that someone in +5 full plate and +5 shield was spending less and getting more out of his armor than someone with Bracers of Armor +8. I posited an example of how your statement was not correct. It had nothing to do with character builds. Your statement about most wizards is also fallible and cannot be proven. It should actually be most wizards you could imagine. You're not speaking for everyone else playing a wizard in D&D, so don't try to come across like you are. And with AC being a direct link between a long life and a short one for the wizard, I believe that there are many that would invest in something unconventional to boost their AC. If you would rather not trade a caster level, that's fine, for you, don't assume anyone else agrees with you.

Your example assumed 18 as a base for Dexterity (+2 for elf). Godlike was hyperbole, indeed, but most characters do not start with two 18s, and if a wizard got only one, it would go into Intelligence. So a starting Dexterity of 20 is definitely a high powered campaign and if we have that kind of assumption, the same benefit of the doubt needs to be given to the heavy armor wearer.

No, it didn't because I didn't posit what the character's levels were in the example I used. And from 1 to 20, there are many ways to get an 18. You just assumed--again. I will agree with you that most characters do not start play with two 18s, although instances of characters having an 18 and a 16, and a +2 bonus to make the 16 a second 18 are more frequent than just having two rolled 18s. Again, your inserting your own assumptions that this is a 'starting' score, and you're applying your standards of what a high powered campaign is to the example I submitted. Neither of which have any place or validity in my example. It wasn't about campaigns and their power levels, it was about proving that your statement was not entirely true. And if you want to give Armor Guy two 18s, go ahead. In neither of your examples would Armor Guy benefit from a Dex higher than 10, and if you take a similar tack and give an example of Armor Guy using one of those 18s to increase his AC (as the Monk class could do), then you are only supporting my point.

After 17th level it is not as much of a sacrifice. But until you reach 17th level, you will be missing out on those higher level spells all the time, something most spellcasters are loathe to do. If you do not know this then you apparently do not play spellcasters very often.

Sacrifice is your word, not mine. I don't view multi-classing as a sacrifice. It is not. Sacrifice implies a loss. Multi-classing is not a loss but a trade. The exact value of that trade can only be determined by the person making the trade. And it wouldn't be missing out on higher level spells. You make it sound as if multi-class wizards won't ever get their high level spells. They may not get it as soon as a wizard that does not multi-class, but they still get it, and the extra HP or AC or saves or whatever from multi-classing could easily mean the difference between gaining a level and gaining a newly chiseled tombstone. And as for what I play (and even how), anything you say is just a guess or yet another of your seemingly endless assumptions (as is assuming most spellcasters are loathe to multi-class). Aside from my example, there are plenty of prestige classes that result in a lower spellcasting level anyway and there are still plenty of players that take those classes for their character.

Actually I would debate that. You are aware of the effects of 9th level spells right? The ability to kill everyone around you one more time per day with a high save DC is not exactly chump change compared to melee-oriented combat feats and a few bonuses to your saving throws. The character might get more use in general, but that does not mean these abilities are a more effective means to accomplishing the wizard's ends. Plus a wizard gets an extra 8th level spell at 20th level too.

Anyone could debate that to the end of time. And not all 9th level spells allow the wizard to kill everyone around him. Actually none of them do unless he finds himself surrounded by low level people alot. And I never stated it was 'chump-change', again, stop putting words in my mouth. If a character gets more use out of another class's abilities, then yes, it does mean they are more effective in accomplishing the wizard's goals.

You are still assuming that the bracer wearer has a shield spell. Without it, his AC is substantially lower.

No, I'm not assuming--that's your bag. I stated. My example, I stated it. Period. And even if, using my example, Bracer Guy didn't have a Shield Cloak (for lack of a better name), his AC would still come out to 41, which is still better than Armor Guy's AC.

I think you are confusing this argument with the general differences between clerics and wizards. AC does not make you dnagerous.

Indirectly it does. An enemy with a much higher AC, is more dangerous than a similar enemy with a lower AC. Higher AC = harder to hit = harder to hurt = harder to kill = more dangerous than an enemy with similar power but lower AC.

I'll concede this point is debatable and open to interpretation, but I have not ever seen it used this way and it smacks of cheese.

What's there to concede? The point is not debatable nor open to (mis)interpretation. The PHB states in an extremely clear manner, "...the Monk adds her Wisdom bonus...to her AC. In addition, the Monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level...," and it goes on to say that the 5th level bonus increases at 10th, 15th, and 20th. It is not possible for that to be any more clear. Monks get a Wisdom bonus to AC and a level based bonus to AC. If you've never seen it used that way then you either have not played a monk, played with someone else playing a monk or you've never learned to accurately and correctly establish their AC or witness it accurately and correctly established.

As for the rest, make all the examples you want. I've stated my point. I defended my point against each of your arguments and negated your assumptions and other flaws either in your own reasoning against my point or your attempts to make my point appear invalid through flawed interpretation of my point.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Magic Item creation rules, costs, etc. are as much rules as anything else in the PHB or DMG. You are trying to make them appear as optional. They are no more or less optional than the abilities a Druid or Rogue get at each level, or effects of spells that are cast or the damage done by an attack with a longsword.

Sorry, try again. It's clearly been stated, MANY times, by the developers (in the official FAQ, for instance) that the item creation guidelines are only GUIDELINES, and that the cost (or even possibility) of new items are purely up to the DM.

I'll quote from the latest FAQ, off the WotC website. The first place I saw it mentioned was on p. 20: "Remember that the Dungeon Master's Guide only provides pricing guidelines, not strict rules. The sidebar on page 282 suggests a few rough adjustments that might help in finding an appropriate price, but whenever you create a new magic item, be sure its price is reasonable based on comparison to other magic items of similar power and utility. The DM is strongly encouraged to adjust the price of any player-created magic item to ensure that it is appropriate for the campaign. This is particularly true of player-created items with a restriction on who can use them, since that restriction often isn't significant in play."
I'd go hunting for more mentions of this clause, but why bother? That one's pretty clear.

The best examples given in the past were things like a wondrous item that cast cure minor wounds at will; this isn't much different from a ring with Fast Healing 1 in it that can be freely passed around from player to player, and so should be priced much higher than the ring of regeneration (which at a cost of 90k only heals 1 point per level per hour, and only heals damage taken while the ring was worn).

The SRD even says "Not all items adhere to these formulas directly. The reasons for this are several. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth." A similar statement was clarified in an early FAQ as meaning that you should price permanent/at will effects based more on their effect than on what spell was used to create them.

So no, an item of unlimited/permanent shield wouldn't be dirt cheap, it'd cost whatever it'd normally cost to get +4 AC (minimum 16k, maximum 40k), plus the fact that it blocks incorporeal attacks and magic missiles.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Heavy armor sucks for the simple fact it is *heavy.* Swimming is difficult, mobility is limited (both due to limited Dex & speed), it can't be slept in, it requires a lot of time don/doff, etc, etc.

So why was heavy armor historically used? Well, it's hard, which is not modeled so well in the system. Chainmail transmits virtually 100% of the force of sword blow to your body so you aren't cut but it's like being hit by an iron bar that's 1 chain-link wide. Yeah, that'll break a rib.

Plate mail transmits that force as well but a) slows the velocity down significantly due to the magic of inertia and b) spreads it out over an area 100x larger than that of chainmail. Other than attacks to your joints where you bleed out, you're more likely to be knocked unconscious than killed on the field of battle.

So my recommendation would be: Each point of AC >+3 that hard armor has grants a point of DR/-. Furthermore, fullplate (The only one that has hard-armor joints that protect against sneak attacks) converts normal damage from attacks to subdual.

I chose +3 b/c scale mail is a kind of plate armor and should provide some bonus over chain.