Timeline for Do bracers of armor stack with magic armor enhancements and special abilities?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 11, 2022 at 22:38 | comment | added | KRyan | @nijineko Yeah, this is very much “controversy over the correct definition to apply” not any kind of “strictly speaking this is actually objectively true.” There is a certain amount of basis for this position, though, since the errata rules really do true to establish that things have a “single source of truth,” so the 3.5e DMG printing of the item really ought to be the full and complete information necessary to use it correctly. Which gets back to the fact that A&EG wasn’t really supposed to be updating a core item to begin with, even in 3.0e. | |
| Dec 11, 2022 at 20:45 | comment | added | nijineko | Oh, gotcha. I guess I never considered that sort of thing as meeting the definition of an update - unless the reprinted text specifically said it was reverting back on purpose. Otherwise it's a reversion, not an update... therefore it wasn't updated, ergo the change still stood. Probably my Autistic tendancy towards literal interpretation blocked me from understanding the way you explained it. I get it now. | |
| Dec 11, 2022 at 19:24 | comment | added | KRyan | @nijineko That is the rule, yes, stated in the update guidelines that Wizards published for free (not part of any book). It might also be mentioned in the 3.5e DMG, not sure. But the problem is that they did “update” the bracers of armor by printing them again in the 3.5e Dungeon Master’s Guide without that ability—arguably, that “update” supersedes the Arms & Equipment Guide’s “version” of the item. Arms & Equipment Guide is in general very controversial in 3.5e. | |
| Dec 11, 2022 at 18:46 | comment | added | nijineko | I thought there was a book which indicated that non-updated 3.0 was still legit in 3.5? The Conversion book maybe? I also thought the updated A&EG ruling about Bracers being able to have +8 armor and another +5 of bonuses was never rescinded or updated again in 3.5? Perhaps I am mistaken? | |
| Dec 11, 2022 at 14:57 | comment | added | KRyan | @Digius Yes, but it costs too much. For example, if you have a +1 chain shirt, with its +5 armor bonus, you need bracers of armor +6 to get a higher armor bonus. Getting +1 more AC that way requires a 36,000-gp item, while going to a +2 chain shirt for the same bonus costs 3,000 gp—and is overpriced at that cost. If bracers of armor are not allowed to have special armor properties, there is no point in having the item; even if you find one, you should sell it. Armor bonuses to AC are not important or valuable. The +5 from the +1 chain shirt is fine. | |
| Dec 11, 2022 at 14:44 | comment | added | Digius | Thank you KRyan, properties are not allowed on braces of armour in our game. I was only unsure if I could get the bonus from an armor with 2/3 magic special properties while also getting AC bonus from the bracers. | |
| Dec 11, 2022 at 14:27 | comment | added | KRyan | @Digius Yes if you have +1 chain shirt, heavy fortification and +1 bracers of armor, invulnerability, you get +5 armor bonus to AC, immunity to critical hits (and sneak attack), and DR 5/magic. (This assumes that special properties are allowed on bracers of armor, ask your DM. But note that you could do the same thing with a magic shield, assuming you have a hand for it.) (Also, invulnerability is garbage, don’t get that. By the time you can afford it, every enemy has magic weapons.) | |
| Dec 11, 2022 at 14:22 | history | edited | KRyan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Autocorrect errors
|
| Dec 11, 2022 at 8:52 | comment | added | Digius | Thank you, sorry as English is my second language I need one clarification about your answer to the second question. Following my example, does the PC get both the armour bonus from the bracelets and the special bonuses (fortification and invulnerability) from the armour? (PS. I understand the PC does not get the +3AC from the leather armor) | |
| Dec 11, 2022 at 8:30 | comment | added | Nobody the Hobgoblin | +1 for the super valuable context about if what the question is asking about is actually worthwhile to pursue, in addition to clearly explaining the rules situation | |
| Dec 11, 2022 at 8:23 | history | answered | KRyan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |