Mithral bucklers: A Bard's/Rogue's/Sorcerer's/Wizard's best friend...

[Jack Haggerty]

So now... What about magical armor and magical shields stacking?

If I've got a leather armor +2, a large shield +2, and a Dex of 10... Should my AC be 16 or 18? Those two +2 bonuses are the labeled the same and made with the same spell, so they shouldn't stack.

But they do.

I'm really trying to be a jerk here, I just want to make damn sure of my options. If I can't use Mage Armor with an enchanted buckler, that means I have an extra 1st level spell slot to use on a different spell, and I don't waste money on a Wand of Mage Armor.

Caliban, you wouldn't happen to remember the reasoning the designers gave for those bonuses not stacking, would you? I'm looking for something a little more concrete than, "Soandso says so."

 

[IceBear]

Jack, trust me as a person who's been on these boards since Eric's site, this has been debated to death in the past. Yes, shields stack with *physical* suits of armor. No, they don't stack with other armor. The designers basically said they did this so it conforms better with 2E and so that you can't do things like has been thought about on these boards - mithril buckler +5 with bracers of armor +8 - and end up with spellcaster and rogues with better AC than fighters.

I had a house rule that shields provided a shield bonus, and not an armor bonus, so spellcasters in my campaign could stack shields with mage armor and bracers of armor. However, in my low magic campaign, this isn't as likely to be abused as in a standard one. If I was playing in a different campaign, I'd not allow it either.

[Edit] Even Karinsdad who felt that they should stack eventually came to agree that they shouldn't because of things that happened in his campaign with it getting unbalancing.

IceBear

 

[laiyna]

side question

just a small question,

Can I enchant a buckler with "invurnability" and if I can, does it counts to everybody attacking me or the person to who I use the buckler?

A buckler with the invurnability would make a very good item for a mage, prob even better then bracers of defence +8.

laiyna

 

[Dr. Zoom]

So now... What about magical armor and magical shields stacking?

If I've got a leather armor +2, a large shield +2, and a Dex of 10... Should my AC be 16 or 18? Those two +2 bonuses are the labeled the same and made with the same spell, so they shouldn't stack.

But they do.

Yes, they do. Suits of armor and shields are the exception, not the rule. Your AC here would be 18. You get a +4 armor bonus from the +2 leather and a +4 armor bonus from the +2 large shield (enhancement bonuses count as armor bonuses here). Normally armor bonuses do not stack, but since these two armor bonuses come from a suit of armor and a shield, they stack. If you cast mage armor on yourself, you would get another +4 armor bonus, which does not stack with either the armor or the shield, because they are the same bonus. The mage armor spell would count against incorporeal sources, however, while your armor and shield would not.

 

[Jack Haggerty]

Jack, trust me as a person who's been on these boards since Eric's site, this has been debated to death in the past.

That's great. Trust me as someone who's been here since Eric's board... I haven't yet seen the debate. Certainly not within the last year. The "shield" bonus that you uise is a much better idea. There's no need for "exceptions" and it fits perfectly... If fact, you could call a spell like Shield a shield bonus, instead of cover, and reduce a little of the potintial abuse.

Anyway... I don't really care whether or they do stack, I'm just trying to find a good reason for it, substantiated by something printed in the rulebooks. If the designers meant it to be that way, why didn't they make it a little more clear in the books?

It just gets a little frustrating to continually hear...

"Can I do this?"

"No."

"Why not? The rules don't say I can't..."

"Because They said you can't."

Laiyna - Bucklers give you a +1 to AC against everyone who attacks you... You no longer have to pick a single opponent. So any Special Ability you put on the buckler affects all enemies attack you. However, Invulnerability is a Special Ability you can only put on Armor, not Shields.

Dr. Zoom - I know it works that way, I was just trying to a point about the how silly the exception is... You do have a good point about incorporal attacks, though. I'll have to remember that.

At any rate... I asked my DM and the other players about it. They saw no reason why Mage Armor shouldn't stack with shields, with the Mage Armor essentially replacing normal armor. It looks like we'll probably use a house rule similar to IceBear's, with a warning for me not to take it to any extreme.

I don't think he was worried about it... Our next jaunt is into the Temple of Elemental Evil.

Now, back to mithral bucklers...

The reason I'm fond of the buckler, isn't so much that it'll give me better AC... Like Caliban and others have said, Bracers of armor can give a much larger AC bonus... But the fact that they can be enchanted with Special Abilities like Fortification, Spell Resistance, or Reflecting, which a wizard normally wouldn't be able to take advantage of.

 

[IceBear]

Well, I don't know why you don't remember the debates because they were pretty intense - Caliban and Karinsdad were really battling it out. I basically made my house rule then, but I have seen where it can be abused and as such I may do with the rules in my next campaign. It's one thing to allow it when a +1 buckler is all the wizard is going to have, it's quite another with a +5 buckler and +8 bracers of armor.

I agree it makes more logical sense to allow them to stack, but after playing with those rules (and seeing the frustration on the fighter's face when the mage is running around with Shield, Mage Armor and a magical buckler) I think I may not for balance reasons. We don't have a *real* problem with rules that exisit for no other reason than balance.

IceBear

 

[Caliban]

It just gets a little frustrating to continually hear...

"Can I do this?"

"No."

"Why not? The rules don't say I can't..."

"Because They said you can't."

Except in this case, the rules do say that you can't.

PHB, page 104, Armor, Armor Qualities, armor bonus.

The protective value of the armor. Bonuses from armor and a shield stack. This bonus is an armor bonus, so it does not stack with other effecxts that increase your armor bonus, such as the mage armor spell or bracers of armor.

A shield is on the armor table on page 104, and it is listed as having an armor bonus. It is considered "armor" just as much as a set of banded mail. Thus the armor bonus of a shield and set of armor will stack with each other, but not with mage armor or bracers.

There is some contradictory text in the combat section and the glossary that refers to the bonus from a shield as a "shield bonus", but according to the designers it should be read as "armor bonus from the shield."

 

[Dr. Zoom]

Anyway... I don't really care whether or they do stack, I'm just trying to find a good reason for it, substantiated by something printed in the rulebooks. If the designers meant it to be that way, why didn't they make it a little more clear in the books?

It just gets a little frustrating to continually hear...

"Can I do this?"

"No."

"Why not? The rules don't say I can't..."

"Because They said you can't."

I am not sure I understand this. The rules are clear on this. Like bonuses do not stack, with few exceptions. Dodge bonuses stack. Some circumstance bonuses stack. The armor bonuses from a suit of armor and a shield stack. How is this unclear or difficult?

When a player says "The rules don't say I can't..." show him where the rules do say that he can't.

 

[IceBear]

I am not sure I understand this. The rules are clear on this. Like bonuses do not stack, with few exceptions. Dodge bonuses stack. Some circumstance bonuses stack. The armor bonuses from a suit of armor and a shield stack. How is this unclear or difficult?

When a player says "The rules don't say I can't..." show him where the rules do say that he can't.

I think he's questioning the logic of the rules and wants a logical explaination why they don't stack and the "Because THEY say so" is to infer that this is the only reason the rule exists.

As I said, I have no issues with rules purely for balance as there are plenty of rules that exist only because THEY say so (a fireball capping at 10d6, only rogues can spot traps with a high DC even if my elven fighter has a spot of 10 zillion, why is a dragon's 5-ft only 5ft, etc). These rules tend to be because of balance and I have no issues with THEY saying yes or no to them.

IceBear

 

[kreynolds]

I think he's questioning the logic of the rules and wants a logical explaination why they don't stack and the "Because THEY say so" is to infer that this is the only reason the rule exists.

Then let him house rule however he wants them to stack or not stack and let this thread die.

Essentially, the rules are sound, but they're worded poorly. The designers didn't come back and change their mind. They just clarified some poor wording.