Here's a situation I have encountered, and would like some opinions on the matter:
What if a being/character/creature dons Bracers of Defense when the natural AC (no armor) of said entity is equal to, or better than, the magical items they are wearing (for whatever reason...go with me on this).
I am thinking of using the optional barding enhancement rules on this one, where the magical Bracers will confer an AC benefit (+1, 2, or 3, depending) as barding does with the natural AC of mounts (horses, griffons, hippogriffs). I think this rule was proposed in the Arms & Equipment supplement, and perhaps a few other books.
The bracers add no further protection if the natural AC of the wearer is already equal to or greater than the AC provided by the bracers, just as a character wearing full plate donning Bracers of Defense AC 2 would gain no benefit. The system you describe is more akin to what 3E+ rules do, so you may be setting yourself up for some bad stuff, like a fighter in full plate, with Bracers of Defense AC 2, plus a ring of protection, plus a...etc., for a total AC of -14!!! Lolth and Indra beware!!! I think that Bracers of Defense not bolstering extant ACs is a part of the whole point of how they were made to work in 1E/2E rules. 1E/2E has built-in limitations on AC, HP, Saving Throws, and many other things, unlike 3E+ which has few to none, so things combining and ramping up further is not so much of a problem (if any problem at all) in 3E+, whereas it can get out of control in 1E/2E. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Good points, fellows. Thank you for your explanations. BW, you mentioned the reason why 'physical' armors may enhance (if even minutely) AC (reduce it) but magical items that mirror armoring effects don't. I gotta kick that around in my mind for a while...but I understand your argument...just not sure myself.
Just to echo the voices of others I agree..... an recognizing this is a 2e thread,
And certainly not to disagree with the Big PURPLE C.... (insert Ducking here) but,
Even in 3.5e the use of bracers, helms, baldrics, etc have been "merged" into the overall AC for armaments such as Breastplate (which includes helm & Greaves now.. go figure) Full Plate, etc. (See P122 PHB Armor/ Shield Bonuses,PHB p124 for what is included, and PHB p171 that references stacking)
But in fairness his assessment of "stacking" in 2e versus 3.5 is accurate except in this specific example. It can get out of control.
The only caveat I think that bears mentioning is if they bestow some other "protections" than Strength or AC modifications, ie fire, ect. OR if, in your campaign, you have an allowance for "called shots" and then that might factor into that.
Just to echo the voices of others I agree..... an recognizing this is a 2e thread,
And certainly not to disagree with the Big PURPLE C.... (insert Ducking here) but,
Even in 3.5e the use of bracers, helms, baldrics, etc have been "merged" into the overall AC for armaments such as Breastplate (which includes helm & Greaves now.. go figure) Full Plate, etc. (See P122 PHB Armor/ Shield Bonuses,PHB p124 for what is included, and PHB p171 that references stacking)
You are not disagreeing, as I wasn't making a specific comparison, only stating that many AC bonuses stack in 3E+. However, you are correct in what you mention about these particular bonuses not stacking in 3e+, as even 3E+ exercises a modicum of sensibility, so there are "only" 9...yes, 9... different types of bonuses that can be combined to bolster a character's AC in 3E+. That's the model of restraint to be sure! _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:07 am; edited 1 time in total
OK, I'm not 10% sure I know what you're getting at. Magic items that mirror armoring effects?
I must be missing something, since I can only think of two basic types of AC affecting items:
1: Items that affect base AC (as in the Bracers).
2: Items that affect your current, existing AC (like Rings of Protection).
Though now I must admit I see an argument the other way. I mean, a person wearing Bracers of Defense AC2 putting on some chain mail...why couldn't the chain mail then improve on the AC2 given by the Bracers?
Sorry, best answer I can come up for this is "that's just how it works"
BW, you are correct in interpreting my statement. Bracers of Defense are the chief 'common' items that mimic armor. To me, Rings of Protection only enhance and bolster protection, they don't mirror 'true' armor. However, I don't see why Bracers (or Belts, Rings, etc) of Defense couldn't add a bonus +1 AC shift if something had a natural AC that was already better. But...that's me.
Cebrion wrote:
You are not disagreeing, as I wasn't making a specific comparison, only stating that many AC bonuses stack in 3E+. However, you are correct in what you mention about these particular bonuses stacking in 3e+, as even 3E+ exercises a modicum of sensibility, so there are "only" 9...yes, 9... different types of bonuses that can be combined to bolster a character's AC in 3E+. That's the model of restraint to be sure!
Now, for me, that is the true level of 'out of control.' I may twist and bend, contort and tinker, with rules...but even Lanthorn's got his limits.
I tossed this question out to my fellow DM and player and he offered the following solution (non-traditional, unorthodox as it may seem):
He suggested that two separate 'to hit' rolls are made, one to penetrate the armoring protection of the Bracers, followed by a subsequent roll 'to hit' to penetrate the being's (creature's) natural AC.
He cited what he and I do in our own game when a Shield spell is cast by a mage with magical protections (like Bracers) or wearing armor (as per the Options book) as with battlemages. We have attackers make two separate 'to hit' rolls, first to penetrate the Shield spell, then a second one to penetrate the armored wizard.
Again, perhaps not 'by the rules' (but I don't recall it specifying otherwise), but a solution all the same...
Two "To Hit" rolls is not such a good solution imho, as it still compounds the issue.
Example: A fighter is wearing full plate and shield (AC 0) and bracers of defense (AC 2). A hill giant (THAC0 9) goes after him. the giant hits on a 9, followed by a 7. Versus only the better of the two ACs , that being AC 0, the hill giant would hit 60% of the time. Versus both ACs, 0 and 2, the chance of a successful hit drops to 42 %. Big difference.
Now, apply that to even better ACs that higher level characters usually have.
Example: A fighter has full plate +1, a shield +2, bracers of defense AC 2, a ring of protection +2 (which does stack with the bracers, but which doesn't stack with armor), and Dex 16 for a further +2 AC bonus (armor+ shield+ Dex = AC -5; bracers + ring + Dex = AC -2). If the hill giant needs to punch through the better of the two ACs (-5) it has a 35% chance of success. If it has to get through both ACs, then it has a 15.75% chance of success. As you can see, the more disparity there is between the ACs and the THAC0, the more pronounced the effect is, if both ACs must be by-passed to hit successfully.
Remember, the rules are a two-way street, and there are lots of critters that have natural ACs. Ever see an ancient red dragon in full plate armor and wearing a ring of protection +5? Now you will. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Ceb, I get your analogy and point, but here is my additional quandary, and thus question:
If you have a wizard wearing, let us say, Bracers of Defense (or even a mage who can wear armor), what is the point of casting a Shield spell? To me, having that extra barrier, magical or otherwise, should help to deflect, retard, or absorb some of the attacker's ability to damage them...and thus, have to roll twice, once for the outermost defense, then subsequently the innermost.
As for a 'two way street,' you can ask my players about that. I have long made it a point in my games that "What is good for the goose, is good for the gander!"
The point is that the magic user is then immune to magic missiles from the front arc; otherwise, nothing. As to spell effects, you would use the better of the ACs (bracers, armor, or spell). If a spell has a lesser effect, there is no point to using it, so any wizard with a brain will not employ such a spell unless there are other benefits (such as spirit armor's +3 save bonus vs magic, shield blocking magic missiles, etc.). _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
He suggested that two separate 'to hit' rolls are made, one to penetrate the armoring protection of the Bracers, followed by a subsequent roll 'to hit' to penetrate the being's (creature's) natural AC.
-Lanthorn
Lanthorn wrote:
Two "To Hit" rolls is not such a good solution imho, as it still compounds the issue.
The First part brought thoughts of a movie quote " The Slow Blade penetrates the shield"....
I have to agree with C on this, if you designate "division of rolls" for "protections" I think you open up other disparagement to spell protections ... Would you then handle web, Protections from ____, Prismatic Wall, etc in a similar fashion?
Just my two CP
Protections spells (-from Fire, -from Lightning, etc) are straightforward, as they are good against only specific effects. As for the others, you'd have to give me an example.
He suggested that two separate 'to hit' rolls are made, one to penetrate the armoring protection of the Bracers, followed by a subsequent roll 'to hit' to penetrate the being's (creature's) natural AC.
He cited what he and I do in our own game when a Shield spell is cast by a mage with magical protections (like Bracers) or wearing armor (as per the Options book) as with battlemages. We have attackers make two separate 'to hit' rolls, first to penetrate the Shield spell, then a second one to penetrate the armored wizard.
And
Protections spells (-from Fire, -from Lightning, etc) are straightforward, as they are good against only specific effects. As for the others, you'd have to give me an example.
Huummm Let's see if I can elaborate, or inspire others to.....
I will "try" to confine to 2e but most will be from memory and some 3.5e may "leak" in ..
Applying my "understanding" of your example and expanding it.....
Lets Start
1>+2 Ring of Protection .....
Normally I would apply +2 bonus to AC or the save.
Using your methodology I would be implying that you could have one roll to overcome the "AC enhancement defenses" and the second to the PC defenses.... (see your shield spell reference for similarity)
2> Wizards 2nd Lvl Spell Web
A creative mage could cast web to provide full cover. In 2e the spell denotes that missile fire is generally ineffective. Though it could be construed to classify this as complete cover... and Apply an AC modifier.
Generally, IMC I would apply this as a negative value to the aggressor's attack roll.
Using your methodology, you could attempt to overcome the spell effect through precision of aim, (first roll) and then the targets AC (2nd roll).
3> Clerical Spell 3rd Lvl- Magical Vestment
The spell grants the caster +1 AC enhancement for every 3 lvls beyond 5th.
Normally I would Adjust the Caster's AC accordingly.
Using your methodology, you could attempt to overcome the spell effect with the 1st roll, and the target with the second.
Though IMO all of these extra rolls seems IMO impractical. At what point would there be too many?
The 9th lvl Cleric-Mage in the tower protected with his +2 Magical Vestment and +1 ring of protection, donning his +2 Bracers of Defense, Casts shield before him and followed with web between two groves of silverpine halfway between he and the 6 brigands. I see the potential for a lot dice rolling to overcome.
As to protections from good, evil, fire, lightning... I miss interpreted your application since you were clearly not offering an alternate to modifications to saving throws.
Lastly, don't construe this as a negative critique, I like out of the box thought.. keeps us sharp.
My dear DLG, no offense taken whatsoever. By virtue of your proclamation to avoid any negativity perceived, you automatically dispel it. Thank you for your clarification.
I can well see your points as your outlined them in your follow-up. Regarding your Web example, I would treat that more as a cover or concealment bonus as offered in the 2e rules in the PHB. Anything that missed the target is likely to get caught in the magical strands. I think you implied a similar philosophy in your comments.
Your 'stacking' counterpoints are well-made, duly noted, and Lanthorn begins to ponder at length...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
I think that Bracers of Defense not bolstering extant ACs is a part of the whole point of how they were made to work in 1E/2E rules. 1E/2E has built-in limitations on AC, HP, Saving Throws, and many other things, unlike 3E+ which has few to none, so things combining and ramping up further is not so much of a problem (if any problem at all) in 3E+, whereas it can get out of control in 1E/2E.
go figure) Full Plate, etc. (See P122 PHB Armor/ Shield Bonuses,PHB p124 for what is included, and PHB p171 that references stacking)
I may twist and bend, contort and tinker, with rules...but even Lanthorn's got his limits. 
