D&D 5E Mage armor + bracers of defence

[CapnZapp]

True powergaming in [every edition of every game] is gaming the DM, not the system.

Spoken like a true champ!

(I just perfected your quote a little )

 

[CapnZapp]

I swear I read some clarification that effects from similar things, and not just spells, don't stack. But that may have been discussing overlapping Paladin auras that don't stack and not talking about a magical effect from something like rings and bracers.

Crawford also discusses this topic in the podcast this week: any bonus source having the same name does not stack, period. Specifically he used the example of two Cloaks of Protection providing no benefit, but the principle also applies to two Rings of Protection: same name, doesn't stack, end of story.

That would be Sage Advice Sep 2015:

Do the AC bonuses from a ring of protection and bracers of defense stack? Yes. In general, bonuses stack, unless they’re from the same spell (see “Combining Magical Effects” in the Player’s Handbook, p. 205). You also can’t benefit from more than one ring of protection, for instance, since you can’t attune to more than one copy of an item at a time.​

Thank you for making me go back and find that.

The first part I already covered (though without explicitly spelling out the case where the spell is cast from/by an item), but the second one is a worthwhile addition.

I'll go edit my post now.

 

[Parmandur]

That would be Sage Advice Sep 2015:

Do the AC bonuses from a ring of protection and bracers of defense stack? Yes. In general, bonuses stack, unless they’re from the same spell (see “Combining Magical Effects” in the Player’s Handbook, p. 205). You also can’t benefit from more than one ring of protection, for instance, since you can’t attune to more than one copy of an item at a time.​

Thank you for making me go back and find that.



The first part I already covered (though without explicitly spelling out the case where the spell is cast from/by an item), but the second one is a worthwhile addition.



I'll go edit my post now.

Yeah, Crawford also said that in retrospect they feel they buried the lede a bit on how stacking works in the rulebooks, since it keeps coming up, over and over.

 

[CapnZapp]

Edit:

Posters later in this thread reminded me there's a third relevant quote:


This does indeed mean "two items of the same type DO NOT STACK" like Warmaster Horus claims provided they require attunement.

Rings of Protection do, so I guess they are jealous after all

But not all rings do. Rings of Swimming and rings of Water Walking provide static benefits (that don't stack), but you can "stack" two (or five) rings of Animal Influence all right.

More generally, finding an item that provides a straightforward numeric benefit that does not require attunement is rather straightforward. I mean, you can hold two +3 shields for +6 AC, can't you?

The quote above links to my previous post; the quoted text is my after-the-fact addition.

 

[Helldritch]

Agreed on all points.

Now, if you will, what are your thoughts on what I am talking about?

Oki doki
I would not let different sources of advantage stack to give bonus to hit/dmg or whatever. Having advantage is quite enough.
In 3rd, Pathfinder and 4th we have seen what insane amount of stacking can lead to. I, personally, don't want to go back to those days.

Now don't get me wrong. Your idea has a lot of merit. It does encourage players to cooperate and be imaginative to get numerous sources of advantage to get that little extra that will ensure maximum.

You said

That said, I do see a future cloud in the sky, in that there's one fundamentally limiting issue that will bite the designers sooner than later.

That is: you want the game to reward build mastery as well as tactical mastery. (D&D always have) And, quite possibly, good roleplaying too. Problem is, with very few exceptions, both kinds of mastery are based on advantage.

And advantage, as you very well know, does not stack. And more to the point, once you start thinking about removing that rule - even for a justified exception - you're opening Pandora's box and you will quickly end up with a full gaggle of stacking rules again.

Fully agree there. You are stating the obvious.

Do note my perspective here. I'm aware people have complained about the simplicity of advantage before, and how it "doesn't make sense". Not sure I can find a good example, but things like how if you as an archer already get disadvantage from a light fog, you're no longer incentivized to get rid of some other source of disadvantage, such as from lying down.

That's not what I see as a problem. That's just a simplification. No, I'm talking about how you want to be rewarded for system mastery, charop, minmaxing, call it what you will on one hand, and good tactics, second-guessing the enemy, smart teamplay etc on the other.

But you cannot do that if both rewards is advantage.

This will strongly limit the number of interesting combinations you can pull off. I see it already with the new UA barbarian subclasses. Who cares if your class gives you advantage, if you have a spell or a move or a teammate who can give you advantage already?

To be honest, I saw this already with Inspiration. I instinctively recoiled from WotC's implementation, since all Inspiration does, is replace either (system mastery or good tactics). Let me stop right away, since I could talk a lot more about Inspiration...

Agree on the first part and yes many are angry about the mechanic of advantage. I did participated in the surveys on D&D next and I am sure that what made it into the final published material is mostly what was the majority of those surveyed agreed upon.

But on inspiration, I really like that mechanic. It's kind of saying: "I'm a hero, I'm in trouble and desperate. Let's give this a go." I really like that. A one last ditch effort to accomplish the impossible... or not. That explains what heroes are made of.

So.

I foresee a need for WotC to implement something. How that something will look I'm not ready to say. But for discussion's sake, let me suggest an example as a crude and rough illustration.

Say you can get blue advantage from your class features (=build), and red advantage from circumstances (=tactics), and whenever you have purple advantage, "double advantage", you gain a further +2 on your roll with advantage.

(Yes, I'm deliberate with the static bonus, since it means you're much more helped by "double advantage" when advantage would only give you a +1, than when it would give you a +5. Work out the math and you'll see a +2 bonus when you have a 70% chance isn't really a big deal, while a +2 bonus when you must roll a 20, is.

At 70%, advantage means +4 for a total bonus of +4, but with a static +2, advantage only adds another +3 for a total bonus of +5, halving the benefit of the static bonus. At 5%, advantage means +1 for a total of +1, but given a static +2 bonus, advantage now gives +2 for a total of +4

Besides, actually implementing a "double advantage" mechanism as "pick best out of three rolls" would mostly only accomplish a lot of needless die rolling when you really want just say "with double advantage you automatically succeed"...

And automatic success is not where I want to go)

You seem to favor the static bonus but I would not do that nor would I even allow to roll a 3rd dice. That is where I disagree. Advantage in itself is quite enough. If you have to calculate every single bonuses coming from different sources it becomes a throw back in the days of 3rd and 4th edition. Again, I do not want to go in that era for any amount of reason.

I know you did that to put yourself in the other posters' place but I would have not gone through that trouble. I understand their point of view. But I am not willing to give an inch on that. It will take serious argumentation to make me change my mind on that. I still remember some fights in 3rd where a single forgotten bonus led to a TPK. No thanks. No stacking static bonuses or 3rd dice. Not for my groups.

 

[Arial Black]

Ah, so it's not that two of the same items don't stack per se, it's that you cannot be attuned to two copies of the same item.

So if I had a Ring of Protection and was wearing another magic ring that gives a +1 to AC, the second ring's AC bonus stacks with the first whether it requires attunement or not, just so long as it wasn't a second Ring of Protection.

Also, if Rings of Protection did not need to be attuned then the bonuses would stack.

It's not that the bonuses don't stack, but that the second (identical) item cannot be attuned.

 

[CapnZapp]

Ah, so it's not that two of the same items don't stack per se, it's that you cannot be attuned to two copies of the same item.

So if I had a Ring of Protection and was wearing another magic ring that gives a +1 to AC, the second ring's AC bonus stacks with the first whether it requires attunement or not, just so long as it wasn't a second Ring of Protection.

Also, if Rings of Protection did not need to be attuned then the bonuses would stack.

It's not that the bonuses don't stack, but that the second (identical) item cannot be attuned.

That would be how I understand it too.

Except I hope noone ever creates a Ring of Preservation +1 AC

 

[Tony Vargas]

True powergaming in 5e is gaming the DM, not the system.

True powergaming in [every edition of every game] is gaming the DM, not the system.

That'd be 'GM,' in games other than D&D. ;P
But, in most games it'd be doing both - in most RPGs there are (often unintended) rewards for system mastery, and some dependence on DM rulings (and DMs can be manipulated). Some games can be run so tightly to the RAW that gaming the DM hardly comes into it, others, like 5e, leave the DM so much latitude to overrule the system that mastery thereof loses much of its utility as a powergaming tool.