Super-Duper AC Man Returns!

[AGGEMAM]

I don't think so. My monk used bracers of armor and a ring of force shield. They don't weigh anything, so they shouldn't effect you like actually wearing encumbering armor.

Ring of Force Shield says: "...and can be wielded AS IF it were a normal shield."

That certainly counts as wielding a shield any way you look at it.

 

[hong]

"An invisble but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of Mage Armor, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC. Unlike mundane armor, Mage Armor, entails no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction."

There is no point in the last sentence if it didn't count as wearing armor. If that was the case they could have left that sentence out entirely.

There's nothing wrong with providing superfluous material in rulebooks. In fact, it could be thought of as a Good Thing, due to obsessively anal gamers who insist on having every possible contingency accounted for and ticked off in the rules.

In fact, the bit you've quoted effectively states that mage armour is not like physical armour at all, being just a forcefield. Hence monks can use bracers of armour, which do the same thing.

 

[AGGEMAM]

And Bracers of Armor says:

"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."

 

[AGGEMAM]

And Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English says:

Tangible: 1) That can be percieved by touch. 2) clear and definite; REAL.

 

[hong]

And Bracers of Armor says:

"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."

That just means that the benefit of wearing bracers of armour is the same as with wearing physical armour -- they both provide an armour bonus to AC. Note the clause preceding the "as though". If bracers of armour were really meant to be equivalent to physical armour in every way, the description would have said something like "these bracers function just as though the user were wearing armour, providing a +X armour bonus to AC".

Oh, and quoting everyday English definitions is meaningless in a rules lawyering war.

 

[Paladin]

You can have Bracers of Armor +10, you just have to have a 20th level wizard make them for you.

From the SRD:

"Caster Level: 7th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, mage armor, creator’s class level must be twice that of the bonus placed in the bracers;"

"Most items that add to saving throws, attack rolls, damage rolls, or AC are restricted to a maximum bonus of +5. (Bracers of armor are an exception.) "

 

[AGGEMAM]

Firstly, I don't consider this a war of any kind except perhaps on words.

Secondly, English is my 3rd language and tangible was not a word I had seen before reading the PHB (actually that was in the 1st Edition PHB) so I looked it up.

So tangible actually means physical or real.

 

[hong]

So tangible actually means physical or real.

That's _one_ meaning of "tangible". The other meaning is the one relevant here: something that you can feel or touch. The bracers of armour provide a tangible field of force, and that's how they stop things from hitting you.

 

[AGGEMAM]

That just in no way explains why they write 'invisible but tangible field of force'.

I wouldn't have any problem if they had just written 'invisible field of force' or 'invisible force field'.

 

[Anubis]

Actually, to end your argument, Bracers of Armor DO NOT count as actually wearing armor. Simply look at the NPC Monk in the DMG. Notice that said Monk wears Bracers of Armor and has NO PENALTIES for doing so. That is ABSOLUTE PROOF that Bracers of Armor do not count as wearing armor.