SRD v MIC: Bracers of Armor

[Agamon]

I just noticed something in the Magic Item Compendium's item lists: Bracers of Armor's effects say, "+x enhancement bonus to AC".

Say what? According to the SRD, they give an armor bonus, not an enhancement bonus.

So, typo or meaningful change? Honestly, the bonus from the BoA costs the same as adding an enhancement bonus to armor or shield. So now an armored character could wear the bracers with armor and the only thing that doesn't stack is the armor's magic bonus and the bracers' bonus. Plus, a slot (arms) is taken up, so adding the bonus to armor is more efficient, but having the bracers lets the enhancement bonus be there regardless of what armor, if any, the PC is wearing.

The other thing, though, is that armor/shields aren't allowed to have a bonus of +6 or higher. This would be a way to circumvent that.

Thoughts?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I just noticed something in the Magic Item Compendium's item lists: Bracers of Armor's effects say, "+x enhancement bonus to AC".

Say what? According to the SRD, they give an armor bonus, not an enhancement bonus.

So, typo or meaningful change?

When a table conflicts with primary text, the primary text takes precedence; the table is incorrect.

-Hyp.

 

[Agamon]

When a table conflicts with primary text, the primary text takes precedence; the table is incorrect.

I'd agree with that if the table was in the same book as the text. But seeing as it's not only in a different book, but a book that changed some of the rules concerning magic items, does this apply?

 

[Diirk]

Tables quite often have shorthand descriptions that are inaccurate, misleading or just plain wrong. Which is why you always refer to the full writeup. MIC has the bracers of armour in a table, but it clearly refers you back to the DMG to read the full item; so yes I'd say the text still trumps the table.

 

[frankthedm]

In a way the MiC is not utterly wrong. The Bonus is really "enhancement" onto an "armor" rating of 0. But to correctly write that out does take up a lot of space.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In a way the MiC is not utterly wrong. The Bonus is really "enhancement" onto an "armor" rating of 0. But to correctly write that out does take up a lot of space.

Er... where do you get that from?

"These items appear to be wrist or arm guards. They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor."

The bonus is an armor bonus, not an enhancement bonus to an armor bonus.

-Hyp.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Er... where do you get that from?

"These items appear to be wrist or arm guards. They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor."

The bonus is an armor bonus, not an enhancement bonus to an armor bonus.

-Hyp.

So does that mean you could cast Magic Vestment on bracers and have it be effective?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So does that mean you could cast Magic Vestment on bracers and have it be effective?

No, because "Target: Armor or shield touched"...

The character gains an armor bonus as if he were wearing armor, but the bracers don't behave in any other fashion as armor, so they aren't a valid target for the spell.

-Hyp.

 

[Agamon]

So does that mean you could cast Magic Vestment on bracers and have it be effective?

Nope. Magic Vestment lets you target a shield or suit of armor, not something that grants an armor bonus.

Text over table as RAW aside, I guess the enhancement bonus would be too powerful. You could wear +1 mithral full plate of speed and bracers of armor +7 and the costs wouldn't stack. And while that follows along with the theme of MIC, it's not very balanced.

 

[frankthedm]

Er... where do you get that from? -Hyp.

The "If it quacks like a duck" argument. They certainly match up well enough.