D&D 5E (2014) Mage armor + bracers of defence

[lkj]

Incidentally, Crawford talks about AC calculations at length in his 'sage segment' in the latest Dragon Talk podcast.

AD

 

[marcelvdpol]

Anything that provides a "bonus" to AC (specifically stating the bonus as a "+X" to AC) will always stack with whatever method you use to calculate the armor class (unless it violates other conditions, such as the Bracers of Defense interaction with Armour). However, two of the same item will not stack; two Bracers of Defense will not provide a +4 to AC bonus.

Methods for calculating AC however are mutually exclusive; Mage Armour, Unarmoured Defense, wearing actual armour etc. You pick one and ONLY one for calculating your AC. Then, you add any bonusses to AC granted by stuff, such as a Shield, Bracers of Defense, Ring of Protection etc.

A Barbarian with 20 DEX, 20 CON, a Shield, a Bracers of Defense and a Ring of Protection would have a base AC of 10 + 5 (Dexterity Modifier) + 5 (Constitution Modifier) = 20.
You add + 2 (Shield) + 2 (Bracers of Defense) + 1 (Ring of Protection) for a total AC of 25.

 

[CapnZapp]

Incidentally, Crawford talks about AC calculations at length in his 'sage segment' in the latest Dragon Talk podcast.

AD

Care to summarize (or link to a transcript)?

 

[CapnZapp]

A Barbarian with 20 DEX, 20 CON, a Shield, a Bracers of Defense and a Ring of Protection would have a base AC of 10 + 5 (Dexterity Modifier) + 5 (Constitution Modifier) = 20.
You add + 2 (Shield) + 2 (Bracers of Defense) + 1 (Ring of Protection) for a total AC of 25.

Bracers of Defense doesn't work if you wear a shield.

 

[CapnZapp]

While wearing these bracers, you gain a +2 bonus to AC if you are wearing no armor and using no shield.

Do note that many DMs will allow the bracers to stack with the Mage Armor and Shield spells.

That is, despite their names containing the words "armor" an "shield" many DMs will not consider having them cast as actually wearing armor or using a shield.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 2nd edition Bracers of Defense gave a specific AC rather than a bonus, so Mearls is probably just mixing up the rules by edition

As in 1e, yes, as did the 'Armor' Spell (which gave AC 8 and absorbed hp damage before being dispelled). And, in 3e, Mage Armor, regular armor, and Bracers of 'Armor' (ie Bracers of defense) all gave mutually-non-stacking Armor bonuses.

Apparently in the D&D Next 5E playtest too.

So this is the first time Bracers arguably stack with Mage Armor?

 

[CapnZapp]

It's possible bracers didn't stack with some things in 3E, but it was still easy to stack much too many things...

I don't know.

 

[marcelvdpol]

In 3d edition all bonuses had a type associated with it (such as Deflection bonus, etc) and bonuses of yhe same type don't stack. Im quite glad this is gone now; its less things to keep track off and makes the rules simpler without loosing much.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's possible bracers didn't stack with some things in 3E, but it was still easy to stack much too many things...

3e did have 18 named bonus types! At least triple the number in runner-up 4e, in that department.

Though even 18 named bonuses is better than no inherent mechanical indicator of what stacks with what.

 

[jaelis]

Though even 18 named bonuses is better than no inherent mechanical indicator of what stacks with what.

You don't like the 5e rule that all things stack (except with themselves)? Or just pointing out that if you don't let all things stack (or I suppose let nothing stack), then you better have something like named bonuses.