Super-Duper AC Man Returns!

[kkoie]

Firstly Bracers of Armor DO count as wearing armor, they simply do not enact any armor check penalties.

Secondly, Bracers of Armor +10 are possible, and it's in print. Check Sass Tam (sp?) in FRCS for an example, he possesses Bracers +10.

 

[AGGEMAM]

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.

As I wrote earlier I have already considered and neglected it. Why? Well, it wouldn't be the first thing they have forgotten to errate, no would it?

Anyway, I am not saying you are wrong and I am right. Or anything of that sort.

I am simply pointing out it is (slightly) ambigious.

 

[Anubis]

No they do NOT count as actually wearing armor. Read the DMG, IT'S IN PRINT, as you say. Just look at the darn NPC Monk!

 

[Anubis]

Wait, I got more for you. EVERY SINGLE MONK in the Enemies and Allies book, INCLUDING the iconic Ember, wears Bracers of Armor.

Is that good enough to convince you all?

 

[hong]

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'.

Um, right.

The word "tangible" that you are getting so hung up on just means that the bracers project out a field of force that has the ability to physically intercept and deflect incoming blows. That's _all it means_. What's tangible here is the protective effect that the bracers have, nothing else.

 

[AGGEMAM]

It is not just the actual use of the word 'tangible' but that in conjunction with the second sentence of the Mage Armor description and the 'just as though' reference in the Bracers of Defense description.

Had any one of these points stood alone I would not have come to the conclusion I have.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Portions of the WotC website showing bracers of armor on monks without loss of abilities:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/fc/fc20011208a

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/fc/fc20010803a

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/fc/fc20010525a

Etc. (I'm bored. )

 

[hong]

It is not just the actual use of the word 'tangible' but that in conjunction with the second sentence of the Mage Armor description and the 'just as though' reference in the Bracers of Defense description.

... and since all of these points on which your argument stands have now been demolished, your position is no longer viable.

 

[armac]

Okay, first off a few disclaimers:

3. Super-Duper AC Man is entirely legal to the best of my knowledge. He has the recommended amount of treasure for his level, he doesn't have an XP penalty, and everything stacks properly. If you see an error, please let me know so I can correct it or correct you.

Super-Duper AC Man is a (deep breath): Gnome Mnk2/Pal2/Clr3/Psion1/Ranger1/Mystic Wanderer 1/Duelist 10

Hi,

Wouldn't he have an XP penalty?

The Cleric class is out of balance with the first level
classes.

Not that this modifies the AC at all, but I thought I'd
point it out.

Angus

 

[AGGEMAM]

Portions of the WotC website showing bracers of armor on monks without loss of abilities:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/fc/fc20011208a

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/fc/fc20010803a

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/fc/fc20010525a

Etc. (I'm bored. )

And as you probably know I have already seen those *shrug*.

I don't see any of my points proven wrong by that.

Just because wotc doesn't actually read the books they publish it doesn't mean we don't have to.