Does mage armor stack with monk/barb unarmored defense?

[Bellberith]

yes/no with quotes please. thank you.

[Ferrin33]

yes/no with quotes please. thank you.

No, you use a different calculation instead.

[Bellberith]

No, you use a different calculation instead.

well you answered my question, but i don't get the reason. different calculation?

[Submortimer]

RAI, and essentially RAW, I'd say yes.


UNARMORED DEFENSE
Beginning at 1st level, while you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom modifier.



Mage Armor
1st-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a piece of cured leather) Duration: 8 hours
You touch a willing creature who isn’t wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds it until the spell ends.The target’s base AC becomes 13+its Dexterity modifier. The spell ends if the target dons armor or if you dismiss the spell as an action.

In my eyes, this means that the Monk, Assuming a 20 dex and 20 wis, with mage armor, would have an AC of 23 (13 base+5 dex+5 wis). MA is pretty explicit about wether or not the target is considered to be wearing armor.

[Demonic Spoon]

yes/no with quotes please. thank you.

How would you imagine it stacking? Mage armor does not give you an armor bonus, it gives you a formula that you can use. Unarmored defense does not give you an armor bonus, it gives you a formula.

You cannot stack two formulas on top of each other to create a new, better formula. You pick one. Anything else doesn't make any sense. There are quotes in the PHB to confirm the latter, but it's better to just explain that then try to quote obscure quotes.


RAI, and essentially RAW, I'd say yes.


How do you possibly go from

AC = 13 + DEX
AC = 10 + DEX + WIS
to
AC = 13 + DEX + WIS?

Nowhere in the PHB is there support for combining formulas. There are armor bonuses that stack with other armor bonuses, but they are always listed as an armor bonus, not an armor formula.

[ToolboxWizard]

However on the flipside of that coin there is nowhere in the PHB expressly forbidding the combination of the formulas either.

However as aforementioned, the RAW for Mage Armor expressly states that the target must not be wearing armor and that the spell effect ends only under the condition of an elapsed 8 hour period, the target dons armor or it is dismissed.

Without a definitive answer provided, I'd definitely place this into the territory of the "DM's Call" and be done with it. Some may prefer their Monks and Barbarians to have a little bit of a helping hand from their Wizard, others may not permit it for concern of balancing issues.

[Submortimer]

The normal base AC for a character is 10+dex bonus. The monk uses 10+dex+wis bonus, which, though not EXPLICITY stated that way, is base AC +wisdom bonus. Mage armor says that you change the base AC of the target to 13+dex bonus instead. It's not a huge leap of logic to think that a monk with mage armor would use the 13+dex+wis.



You cannot stack two formulas on top of each other to create a new, better formula. You pick one. Anything else doesn't make any sense. There are quotes in the PHB to confirm the latter, but it's better to just explain that then try to quote obscure quotes.

Please provide some context here. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just haven't found that bit o' evidence yet.

[Dark Tira]

The normal base AC for a character is 10+dex bonus. The monk uses 10+dex+wis bonus, which, though not EXPLICITY stated that way, is base AC +wisdom bonus. Mage armor says that you change the base AC of the target to 13+dex bonus instead. It's not a huge leap of logic to think that a monk with mage armor would use the 13+dex+wis.



Please provide some context here. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just haven't found that bit o' evidence yet.

Try page 14:
"If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use."

[emeraldstreak]

there's a mearls quote that says no but Im too lazy to look for it.

the RAI is no source of armor calculation ever stack with another in 5th.

[Bellberith]

Try page 14:
"If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use."

that would be the winner right there. thank you.

[Submortimer]

Well, I am wrong. That being said, It still FEELS like it should stack. I imagine that particular bit will be overlooked/houseruled by a lot of DMs, since it "Worked in 3.5"

[Ferrin33]

Well, I am wrong. That being said, It still FEELS like it should stack. I imagine that particular bit will be overlooked/houseruled by a lot of DMs, since it "Worked in 3.5"

I would say the opposite is true as they're explicitly disallowing the stacking of many things.

[mabriss lethe]

Well, I am wrong. That being said, It still FEELS like it should stack. I imagine that particular bit will be overlooked/houseruled by a lot of DMs, since it "Worked in 3.5"

It's a transition thing, really. 5e is brand new and a lot of us still unconsciously hang on to a handful of expectations from previous editions. Remember, Bounded Accuracy is the by-word for this edition. Since attack bonuses are so much smaller, an AC of 20 is equivalent to a much higher AC in 3.5

[emeraldstreak]

Yet high AC doesnt equal 3rd's because crits autoconfirm.

[Aramis Rhett]

Idk about the Monks Unarmored Defense, but a Barbarians states then when wearing no armor, AC = 10 + Dex + Con. And can also stack with having a shield if you choose to equip one. That translates to 24 AC at lvl 20 if Dex and Con are maxxed out. Pretty impressive if one should decide to go Bear Totem tank. Int, Wis, and Cha would be LOW though. Unless you got REALLY good dice rolls or your DM allows you to write in awesome stats (maybe for a REALLY hard campaign.

[mabriss lethe]

Which is balanced against the fact that, by and large, critical threat ranges and high crit multipliers are gone from this edition. You only crit on a nat 20, (with exception to the champion fighter.) and the crit damage formula is the same regardless of weapon.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Try page 14:
"If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use."

Lol

There it is

[Pex]

Idk about the Monks Unarmored Defense, but a Barbarians states then when wearing no armor, AC = 10 + Dex + Con. And can also stack with having a shield if you choose to equip one. That translates to 24 AC at lvl 20 if Dex and Con are maxxed out. Pretty impressive if one should decide to go Bear Totem tank. Int, Wis, and Cha would be LOW though. Unless you got REALLY good dice rolls or your DM allows you to write in awesome stats (maybe for a REALLY hard campaign.

That hadn't sunk in. In 5E players can now effectively be Arnold Schwarzeneggar in a loin cloth.

If you're into that sort of thing.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Stop looking at me.

[squashmaster]

Noway.

The AC is calculated two different ways. One or the other, not both.

[TheOOB]

By a strict reading, you would gain whatever ability was applied later. Both add nothing to your AC, but change how your calculate your AC. When you take monk, your standard 10+dex is replaces by 10+dex+wis. When you cast mage armor, your 10+dex+wis is replaces by 13+dex. Most DM's I would imagine would let you use the better of the two formulas.

5e so far is pretty good about not having stacking effect abuse.

[Graustein]

http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/mage-armor/

This is the closest I've found to a quote that weighs in on the issue either way. It says that the difference in wording (specifically the phrase "base AC") between the two is unintentional, so I don't think I'd be wrong in inferring that means you can use one or the other. Without the word "base" there it seems pretty open-and-shut to me.

[pikeamus]

snip
How do you possibly go from

AC = 13 + DEX
AC = 10 + DEX + WIS
to
AC = 13 + DEX + WIS?

...

AC = 13 + DEX
AC = 10 + DEX + WIS

13 + DEX = 10 + DEX + WIS
13 = 10 + WIS
WIS = 3

So, having both sets your wisdom to 3. And then you pick whichever is best for your AC. :)

[SliceandDiceKid]

AC = 13 + DEX
AC = 10 + DEX + WIS

13 + DEX = 10 + DEX + WIS
13 = 10 + WIS
WIS = 3

So, having both sets your wisdom to 3. And then you pick whichever is best for your AC. :)

Oh my God
Thank you

[Fwiffo86]

Mage Armor
1st-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a piece of cured leather) Duration: 8 hours
You touch a willing creature who isn’t wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds it until the spell ends.The target’s base AC becomes 13+its Dexterity modifier. The spell ends if the target dons armor or if you dismiss the spell as an action.

This says to me that your AC is changed to this formula. Conveniently they added "willing" creature and "isn't wearing armor" so that you can't run up to the Plates and cast Mage Armor on them to make them easier to hit.

Also, see the multiclassing rules for not combining Unarmored Defense methods. I think Mage Armor counts as armor and thus eliminates Unarmored defense by nature, not stacking with it.

[DCraw]

AC = 13 + DEX
AC = 10 + DEX + WIS

13 + DEX = 10 + DEX + WIS
13 = 10 + WIS
WIS = 3

So, having both sets your wisdom to 3. And then you pick whichever is best for your AC. :)

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to be a pedant.

AC = 10 + ((DEX-10)/2) + ((WIS-10)/2)
AC = 13 + ((DEX-10)/2)
.:
13 + ((DEX-10)/2) = 10 + ((DEX-10)/2) + ((WIS-10)/2)
13 = 10 + ((WIS-10)/2)
WIS = 16

Following your logic, it sets your WIS modifier to +3, rather than your WIS score.
</pedant>

[Submortimer]

Now, honestly, I'm wondering what the highest possible AC you can get without resorting to magic items. The 24 that a 20th level maxed out barbarian can get seems to be the ticket. (10+5 dex+7 con+2 shield)

[Rilak]

Now, honestly, I'm wondering what the highest possible AC you can get without resorting to magic items. The 24 that a 20th level maxed out barbarian can get seems to be the ticket. (10+5 dex+7 con+2 shield)

Casters can get more, but assuming no spells like Shield, Shield of Faith, or Shapechange I think it is hard to beat the Barbarian.
Plate Fighters are 18+2 Shield+1 style. (Assuming a +3 armor, they reach the same AC as the capstoned Barbarian.)

Defensive duelist can add +6 AC against a single melee attack for a reaction. The Barbarian can use this too, though.

With the 21 AC, casting Shield(EK), Shield of Faith (from the Cleric). The ancient red still hits you on 11+. Poor Wizard with his 15 AC when you are up against these bad boys ;)

[Ramshack]

Page 14 pretty much sums it up, I can't think of an argument a player could use to convince me to let them stack.

I'd also have to agree a Dex Barbarian does seem to be the highest AC possible without magic.