Monk w/ Mage Armor? (from Magic Initiate feat)

[odigity]

The Monk's "Unarmored Defense" ability says:

"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."

The text for Mage Armor says:

"The target’s base AC becomes 13 + its Dexterity modifier."

So, can the two combine? (I assume Dex only gets added once for sanity sake.)

[MeeposFire]

The Monk's "Unarmored Defense" ability says:

"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."

The text for Mage Armor says:

"The target’s base AC becomes 13 + its Dexterity modifier."

So, can the two combine? (I assume Dex only gets added once for sanity sake.)

No. First off there is a rule in the PHB that directly says things like this do not stack (you will have to give me a minute to get the page number if you want it). Also the language of the abilites says that each sets the AC to a different value so you would take the best one.

[Chaosvii7]

They cannot, and the keyword is "becomes". Because they are two substitutes for the standard AC formula(10 + DEX + Armor), you can only choose one. And you should probably choose the higher one. 5e now specifically has differentiated terms between bonuses(+this or +that) and modifications(your AC becomes this). It's also exhibited in Heavy armor, which you just take the score of instead of adding Dex to it.

EDIT:
No. First off there is a rule in the PHB that directly says things like this do not stack (you will have to give me a minute to get the page number if you want it). Also the language of the abilites says that each sets the AC to a different value so you would take the best one.

Page number is 14.

[Noldo]

No, both modify the way the AC is calculated and they may not be combined. (Page 14 PHB: If you have two abilities that grant different methods of calculating AC, you may only use one)

[Steel Mirror]

There is a passage early in the PHB that deals with this sort of thing (easy to miss).


Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use.
So no, unfortunately, the two do not stack.

[odigity]

That's a shame. Oh well.

[HylianKnight]

Can we please sticky this answer to the top of the board? I swear, every other week someone asks this question (no offense Odigity, nothing on you, just a LOT of people have wondered this exact thing)

[Psyren]

You could put Mage Armor on Monks in 3.5/PF so that may be why people are confused here.

[Steel Mirror]

All things considered, I think it's a pretty understandable confusing, really. The rule that makes such stacking impossible is buried near the beginning long before the class features are discussed, and it's exactly the sort of thing that is easily overlooked when you are skimming the first few pages of the PHB to get to the good parts where the classes and races and such are described.

So I think it would be nice to sticky this thread, or one of the similar ones that, to make it obvious to people that stacking AC effects are very uncommon in 5E.

[Easy_Lee]

WoTC is doing everything they can to prevent stacking bonuses, so as expected, this does not work. Only a few options come to mind as far as potential ways for a monk to boost their AC.

Defensive Duelist, assuming your DM counts unarmed as dual wielding
Buffs
Items we haven't seen yet that may provide the 5e equivalent of deflection bonus
Bracers of armor if poorly written, though Mearls says this doesn't work since the bracers either count as armor or set your AC
Bonus action dodge, forgoing your flurry


It's depressing, but not because it prevents Monks from being untouchable. Rather, powerful bracers of armor or similar effects can potentially make the most maladroit caster just as untouchable (AC-wise) as the best monk. I can imagine bracers of armor being particularly effective on a moon druid if they set your AC; there's little reason why they shouldn't work with the new form beyond a DM saying no.

So, like in 3.5, casters will have more options than mundanes. That's fine, but I just wish there were more uniquely-monk ways for monks to pull ahead in AC.

[Strill]

WoTC is doing everything they can to prevent stacking bonuses, so as expected, this does not work. Only a few options come to mind as far as potential ways for a monk to boost their AC.

Defensive Duelist, assuming your DM counts unarmed as dual wielding
Buffs
Items we haven't seen yet that may provide the 5e equivalent of deflection bonus
Bracers of armor if poorly written, though Mearls says this doesn't work since the bracers either count as armor or set your AC
Bonus action dodge, forgoing your flurry


It's depressing, but not because it prevents Monks from being untouchable. Rather, powerful bracers of armor or similar effects can potentially make the most maladroit caster just as untouchable (AC-wise) as the best monk. I can imagine bracers of armor being particularly effective on a moon druid if they set your AC; there's little reason why they shouldn't work with the new form beyond a DM saying no.

So, like in 3.5, casters will have more options than mundanes. That's fine, but I just wish there were more uniquely-monk ways for monks to pull ahead in AC.
What do you mean? From the sound of these bracers, they're the same as having Mage Armor. That means AC = 13 + DEX, which maxes out at 18. A Monk can get DEX 20, WIS 20 which maxes out at 20 AC.

[Fwiffo86]

I have noticed that apparently by design, no form of substitution armor (unarmored class feature, magic armor, etc) will ever be as effective as a fully plated and shield carrying character.

Magic bonuses calculated because it represents the limit, not the expectation.

18(+3) plate
+2(+3) shield
---------------
20/26 Armor Class

[Strill]

I have noticed that apparently by design, no form of substitution armor (unarmored class feature, magic armor, etc) will ever be as effective as a fully plated and shield carrying character.

Magic bonuses calculated because it represents the limit, not the expectation.

18(+3) plate
+2(+3) shield
---------------
20/26 Armor Class

Where did you hear about +3 armor and shields?

[Ghost Nappa]

What do you mean? From the sound of these bracers, they're the same as having Mage Armor. That means AC = 13 + DEX, which maxes out at 18. A Monk can get DEX 20, WIS 20 which maxes out at 20 AC.


Bracers of Defense
Wondrous item, rare, requires attunement
While you wear these bracers, you have a +3 bonus to
your AC while you wear no armor and use no shield.

Really? To me it sounds like it's actually one of those rare-stacking bonuses. It doesn't explictly state the formula thing again, making it perhaps the only way a Monk or Barbarian would EVER get their AC above 20.

(Here's the link: http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/HoardDragonQueen_Supplement1.pdf )

[Ferrin33]

I have noticed that apparently by design, no form of substitution armor (unarmored class feature, magic armor, etc) will ever be as effective as a fully plated and shield carrying character.

Magic bonuses calculated because it represents the limit, not the expectation.

18(+3) plate
+2(+3) shield
---------------
20/26 Armor Class

Magic shields are a ? at the moment, likely a big fat no.

[Strill]

Really? To me it sounds like it's actually one of those rare-stacking bonuses. It doesn't explictly state the formula thing again, making it perhaps the only way a Monk or Barbarian would EVER get their AC above 20.
Barbarians can use shields. Their Unarmored Defense is different from the Monk's.

As for the magic item, the rules for it are explicitly a work-in-progress, as it says right on the corner of the page. I wouldn't be surprised if they changed it to be identical to Mage Armor in the final release.

[Jeraa]

Magic shields are a ? at the moment, likely a big fat no.

The only questionable thing is whether or not a player will have one. +3 armor does exist (it is an optional piece of equipment for Drow priestesses in the Monster Manual), so its not of a stretch to assume +3 shields also exist.

[Strill]

The only questionable thing is whether or not a player will have one. +3 armor does exist (it is an optional piece of equipment for Drow priestesses in the Monster Manual), so its not of a stretch to assume +3 shields also exist.

Drow equipment loses its enchantments if exposed to sunlight. It's a way for a DM to adjust monsters.

Assuming +3 shields exist IS very much a stretch, as it dramatically skews bounded accuracy in favor of shield-users, which runs counter to existing game balance.

[Greylind]

Magic shields are a ? at the moment, likely a big fat no.

There's one out there already, in the Hoard of the Dragon Queen online supplement.

[Easy_Lee]

What do you mean? From the sound of these bracers, they're the same as having Mage Armor. That means AC = 13 + DEX, which maxes out at 18. A Monk can get DEX 20, WIS 20 which maxes out at 20 AC.

My suspicion is that the best bracers would equal plate armor, meaning 18. Combined with the shield spell and numerous other defensive options, it probably comes out in favor of mages in general. Let's not even get started on abjuration specialists.

[Strill]

There's one out there already, in the Hoard of the Dragon Queen online supplement.

That one only works on ranged attacks, and only a +1.

[Greylind]

That one only works on ranged attacks, and only a +1.

And it's a Rare, which means anything better is going to be increasingly scarce, but there are magic shields in 5th edition.

[Steel Mirror]

And it's a Rare, which means anything better is going to be increasingly scarce, but there are magic shields in 5th edition.The question is less 'will there be shields in 5E with magical properties', which is a pretty obvious 'yes', and more 'will there be a series of standard +X shields that are the equivalent of +X armor or weapons?' I hope the answer to that one is 'no', because as has been pointed out, otherwise shield users get ridicusoulsy powerful and scat all over the bounded accuracy thing.

[Greylind]

The question is less 'will there be shields in 5E with magical properties', which is a pretty obvious 'yes', and more 'will there be a series of standard +X shields that are the equivalent of +X armor or weapons?' I hope the answer to that one is 'no', because as has been pointed out, otherwise shield users get ridicusoulsy powerful and scat all over the bounded accuracy thing.

The one I homebrewed for relatively low levels, for my rehashed and converted version of T1, is Dernière Chance de Chevalier, a +0 shield that lets the wielder use the Shield spell one time per day. I'm hoping it falls into the general guidelines pretty well as a low-power but useful item.

[odigity]

Only a few options come to mind as far as potential ways for a monk to boost their AC.

Defensive Duelist, assuming your DM counts unarmed as dual wielding



Defensive Duelist is for someone wielding one or more finesse weapons by RAW. The monk can take and use Defensive Duelist with a dagger or shortsword just fine as far as I know.

[MustacheFart]

I can guarantee there will be +x shields at some point. Mark my words, there will be. As for that putting shield users over the top, umm... so? They should be at the top echelon for defense. They're wielding a tactical piece of equipment solely built for defense. Now that doesn't mean it doesn't come without significant downsides such as not having a hand free, not able to wield a two-hander, much more noisy, not as easily hidden as armor, etc etc. Sure you can get around the downsides with feats but then you've gone and blown your feats on such defensive spells which should result in defensive rewards. Not everyone at the table will pick up a shield just because +x shields exist.

[Steel Mirror]

I can guarantee there will be +x shields at some point. Mark my words, there will be. As for that putting shield users over the top, umm... so? They should be at the top echelon for defense. They're wielding a tactical piece of equipment solely built for defense. Now that doesn't mean it doesn't come without significant downsides such as not having a hand free, not able to wield a two-hander, much more noisy, not as easily hidden as armor, etc etc. Sure you can get around the downsides with feats but then you've gone and blown your feats on such defensive spells which should result in defensive rewards. Not everyone at the table will pick up a shield just because +x shields exist.The thing is, shields already do that. There already exists a tradeoff that makes the decision whether or not to use a shield a meaningful one; do you go for slightly better damage, or +2 AC? That's a conundrum.

The problem with having +3 shields floating around is that there is then no conundrum. Do I want slightly better damage, or +5 AC? +5 AC is enough to more or less make you unstoppable; since the MM critters are not designed to anticipate such a massive boost (keeping in mind that this is likely on top of +2 or +3 armor), you'll never get hurt. The one way I could see it work is if magical bonuses from armor and shield do not stack; then you could benefit from +3 armor or a +3 shield, but using both at the same time is redundant. That might be a good way to go.

I can't guarantee obviously that there will be no +X shields in the game, but I can guarantee that if they include them without having some caveat like the no-stacking rule, it will break the math of the game.

[Easy_Lee]

Regarding the above post, I suspect they'll have stats called something like magic bonus to armor and attack. Having all magical (item) sources of enhanced AC or Attack fall under the same stat might prevent the math from breaking. A shield could still provide more unique effects, like granting extra saves or a chance to disarm attackers or something, and still be useful even if the AC was redundant.

[Fwiffo86]

The thing is, shields already do that. There already exists a tradeoff that makes the decision whether or not to use a shield a meaningful one; do you go for slightly better damage, or +2 AC? That's a conundrum.

The problem with having +3 shields floating around is that there is then no conundrum. Do I want slightly better damage, or +5 AC? +5 AC is enough to more or less make you unstoppable; since the MM critters are not designed to anticipate such a massive boost (keeping in mind that this is likely on top of +2 or +3 armor), you'll never get hurt. The one way I could see it work is if magical bonuses from armor and shield do not stack; then you could benefit from +3 armor or a +3 shield, but using both at the same time is redundant. That might be a good way to go.

I can't guarantee obviously that there will be no +X shields in the game, but I can guarantee that if they include them without having some caveat like the no-stacking rule, it will break the math of the game.

An AC of 26 vs. +11 to hit from monsters seems pretty balanced to me.

[MustacheFart]

I can't guarantee obviously that there will be no +X shields in the game, but I can guarantee that if they include them without having some caveat like the no-stacking rule, it will break the math of the game.

I disagree. Your stating that a +3 shield alongside +3 armor (which btw both will be incredibly rare so getting either will take a lot; thus, invalidating that a real balance issue would occur) means you're invulnerable. What about all of the attacks such as spells or traps that aren't affected by AC? A +3 shield and +3 armor doesn't mean "Welp I can't be hurt anymore, I can do whatever I want."

By the time you could actually even achieve a +3 shield and +3 armor you WILL be high level--at point at which monsters are a lot more difficult and possess unique abilities/attacks. Their attacks will also be at a higher level (ie. higher prof or more to their attack) so I'd say it will probably scale fairly well.

You've stated that the +2 AC from a standard shield is already enough to make someone contemplate the question of whether they want a bit more defense or possibly more offense. Well, that +2 doesn't ever go up. It's the same at level 1 as it is at level 20. At level 1 that +2 might be tempting versus some more offense but at level 20? I freaking doubt it. It needs to be better to scale with the heightened level which is where a magical enhancement comes in.

It would be fair to assume that at the high teen levels you will face a lot of magical creatures or spellcaster npcs who will circumvent your AC. I think everyone's argument on such is pretty silly without real mathematical evidence from higher level play.

Even if by some chance a fighter with +3 fullplate and +3 shield is unhittable at high levels...so what? They should be! They're not running around in a simple tin can anymore. They're using the equivalent of Captain America's shield and Iron Man's armor. They're at the top echelon of physical defense which undoubtedly came from heavy heavy effort. There's still plenty of ways to circumvent that high unhittable AC making even such a player feel threatened.

So, once again I am sure there will be both and both will stack together. I am also sure it will not break the game.

Halfway decent to good enhancements for weapons (particularly twohanders) would be enough of a destraction from +x sheilds anyway and it's fair to assume they'll be included at some point as well.

[Steel Mirror]

You've stated that the +2 AC from a standard shield is already enough to make someone contemplate the question of whether they want a bit more defense or possibly more offense. Well, that +2 doesn't ever go up. It's the same at level 1 as it is at level 20. At level 1 that +2 might be tempting versus some more offense but at level 20? I freaking doubt it. It needs to be better to scale with the heightened level which is where a magical enhancement comes in.That is not how probability works. :smallfrown: A 10% chance to miss you at level 1 is still a 10% chance to miss you at level 20.


It would be fair to assume that at the high teen levels you will face a lot of magical creatures or spellcaster npcs who will circumvent your AC.That's totally true, I admit to having gone in for a bit of hyperbole as far as calling them invincible. I still think that 5E isn't about stacking up super high numbers though, and the philosophy of "it's okay to have some parts of the party have ACs so high that a monster who is able to hit them will always hit the rest of the party" was part of what made high level 3.X so untenable. Bounded accuracy disqualifies the +X stacking shields, IMO.


I think everyone's argument on such is pretty silly without real mathematical evidence from higher level play.Inasmuch as I agree that more data would be helpful to back up any arguments I have made (though I think the math is pretty persuasive on its own), I note that the same argument could be leveled against your claims. :smallwink: In any case, I've said my piece, and while you and I disagree, I'd bet we are both waiting on tenterhooks to see what the DMG has in store for us all!

[MustacheFart]

That is not how probability works. :smallfrown: A 10% chance to miss you at level 1 is still a 10% chance to miss you at level 20.

You miss my point. I understand how probability works lol. That 10% chance to miss you at level 1 doesn't count for as much at level 20 when the monsters you fight at level 20 have a +20% chance to hit you over those you'd fight at level 1. Get it?


As far as the part about characters having high ac means certain monsters will only attack other party members, that happens right now. At least in my game it does. My DM has often tried to go after my wife's rogue standing within reach of my barbarian, which he's openly defended as "They saw the rogue and figured she was squishier so they're going to opt for her". That's just being tactical and will happen regardless of +x shields stacking with +x armor.

Now, the fact that my DM determined I was harder to hit when I am wearing no armor at all and the rogue is, from an npc standpoint is another matter. :smallwink: DMs can clearly metagame too. He knew I was sitting on a 20 ac but meh. It doesn't bother me as my wife's rogue wasn't squishy at all anyway.

I am sorry but I am definitely of the opinion that if a bad guy is outnumbered or is out for blood that he should go for who he thinks he can hit which will be the "squishies".

It kind of sounds like you want everyone to have a similar level of squishiness. That you want the iron clad fighter to be as squishy as the robe wearing wizard. That's just not how it is.

[Steel Mirror]

You miss my point. I understand how probability works lol. That 10% chance to miss you at level 1 doesn't count for as much at level 20 when the monsters you fight at level 20 have a +20% chance to hit you over those you'd fight at level 1. Get it?Which is why having +3 armor is nice, to match up those odds again. But having +6 is overkill.


It kind of sounds like you want everyone to have a similar level of squishiness. That you want the iron clad fighter to be as squishy as the robe wearing wizard. That's just not how it is.Not at all! But I think the system currently does a good job of having some types be beefier than others, already. A high level fighter with +3 heavy armor and a shield could have 24 AC, easy. A high level wizard not wearing armor might have 17, with mage armor. So something that hits the wizard 80% of the time will only hit the fighter 45% of the time. Not to mention that the fighter has twice the hp, and a healing surge, and other ways to be tankier and last longer in a fight. I definitely want some characters to be squishy and others to be tanky, I just don't want to go too far, because I remember earlier editions where it got out of hand and drawing up challenges for a party of wildly mismatched stats was a huge headache for the DM.

[MustacheFart]

Which is why having +3 armor is nice, to match up those odds again. But having +6 is overkill.

Not at all! But I think the system currently does a good job of having some types be beefier than others, already. A high level fighter with +3 heavy armor and a shield could have 24 AC, easy. A high level wizard not wearing armor might have 17, with mage armor. So something that hits the wizard 80% of the time will only hit the fighter 45% of the time. Not to mention that the fighter has twice the hp, and a healing surge, and other ways to be tankier and last longer in a fight. I definitely want some characters to be squishy and others to be tanky, I just don't want to go too far, because I remember earlier editions where it got out of hand and drawing up challenges for a party of wildly mismatched stats was a huge headache for the DM.

I think you're over-estimating the +3 bonus of a +3 shield when compared to a +3 piece of armor but if it makes you feel any better, I don't think we'll have to deal with animated shields, +X defensive armor spikes, or the like LOL. ;-)

A player will be much more likely to find a +1 shield and a +1 piece of armor. At that point it's only +2 AC. Not that big of a deal. Also the +3 items might all have that attunement requirement so they may get a +3 shield and +3 armor at the cost of other magic items.

[Easy_Lee]

A player will be much more likely to find a +1 shield and a +1 piece of armor. At that point it's only +2 AC. Not that big of a deal. Also the +3 items might all have that attunement requirement so they may get a +3 shield and +3 armor at the cost of other magic items.

That's assuming the +1 from both armor and shield stack. All things considered, I have my doubts.

[Ferrin33]

I disagree. Your stating that a +3 shield alongside +3 armor (which btw both will be incredibly rare so getting either will take a lot; thus, invalidating that a real balance issue would occur) means you're invulnerable. What about all of the attacks such as spells or traps that aren't affected by AC? A +3 shield and +3 armor doesn't mean "Welp I can't be hurt anymore, I can do whatever I want."

By the time you could actually even achieve a +3 shield and +3 armor you WILL be high level--at point at which monsters are a lot more difficult and possess unique abilities/attacks. Their attacks will also be at a higher level (ie. higher prof or more to their attack) so I'd say it will probably scale fairly well.

You've stated that the +2 AC from a standard shield is already enough to make someone contemplate the question of whether they want a bit more defense or possibly more offense. Well, that +2 doesn't ever go up. It's the same at level 1 as it is at level 20. At level 1 that +2 might be tempting versus some more offense but at level 20? I freaking doubt it. It needs to be better to scale with the heightened level which is where a magical enhancement comes in.

It would be fair to assume that at the high teen levels you will face a lot of magical creatures or spellcaster npcs who will circumvent your AC. I think everyone's argument on such is pretty silly without real mathematical evidence from higher level play.

Even if by some chance a fighter with +3 fullplate and +3 shield is unhittable at high levels...so what? They should be! They're not running around in a simple tin can anymore. They're using the equivalent of Captain America's shield and Iron Man's armor. They're at the top echelon of physical defense which undoubtedly came from heavy heavy effort. There's still plenty of ways to circumvent that high unhittable AC making even such a player feel threatened.

So, once again I am sure there will be both and both will stack together. I am also sure it will not break the game.

Halfway decent to good enhancements for weapons (particularly twohanders) would be enough of a destraction from +x sheilds anyway and it's fair to assume they'll be included at some point as well.

The issue is more that getting shield proficiency is a to powerful bonus compared to people without shield proficiency if they get an enchancement bonus.

[MustacheFart]

That's assuming the +1 from both armor and shield stack. All things considered, I have my doubts.

Umm...yes I know. I was making my point based on that assumption. I thought it was clear.


The issue is more that getting shield proficiency is a to powerful bonus compared to people without shield proficiency if they get an enchancement bonus.

Source? What data shows that adding a stackable +x to a shield makes the shield proficiency too strong?

People want to keep making this argument that it will be too strong or game breaking then as the aggressors the burden of proof falls to you.

[Steel Mirror]

People want to keep making this argument that it will be too strong or game breaking then as the aggressors the burden of proof falls to you.But we do provide an explanation why! We think that the resulting boost to AC is too high, and makes choosing to use a shield too strong. I've given you some quick, back of the envelope map to explain why I have that opinion.

Think of it this way: right now, there are no magical +X shields. Choosing a shield has an opportunity cost, yes, but it also gives you +2 AC. If that is a balanced choice, with a reason to choose either way, we would see lots of builds on both sides of the equation. And we do. Choosing to wield a shield is a strong option, but not an overpowered one, so different characters make different choices.

All of a sudden, you decide to make +X shields an option. Now the opportunity cost of using a shield is the same as it was before, but the benefit is vastly stronger. Ways to stack AC improvements in 5E are quite rare, and you just threw in a big honking one that doesn't even have any downsides. How many people will choose not to use a shield, now?

My guess is not many. That is my explanation, and while you may not agree with it (rather, you clearly don't), you can't say I didn't even give you an explanation. :smallsmile:

[pwykersotz]

Umm...yes I know. I was making my point based on that assumption. I thought it was clear.



Source? What data shows that adding a stackable +x to a shield makes the shield proficiency too strong?

People want to keep making this argument that it will be too strong or game breaking then as the aggressors the burden of proof falls to you.

Let's see...A Solar, CR21, has a +15 to hit. A Fighter in Full Plate and a Shield has 18+2 armor, +6 for enhancement. Let's assume he has a Staff of Defense too, for that lovely shield spell, and Defense fighting style. That's 32 AC. The Solar hits on a 17.

Now at the same time, you need a +13 to hit him with anything other than a nat 20. It does trivialize low levels. Remove +3 for the shield, now it's 10 or above. Does it make a substantial difference? The Behir is a CR11 and it has a +10 to hit. The Death Knight is a CR17 and has a +11 to hit. The Balor is CR19 and has a +14 to hit.

All in all, I'd say that at top levels of optimization for AC defense, the +3 seems to REALLY matter. Whether that's good or bad...I dunno.

[Demonic Spoon]

My money is on the idea that the DMG will not have "+ AC" shields, or they won't stack with armor bonuses.

[MaxWilson]

Let's see...A Solar, CR21, has a +15 to hit. A Fighter in Full Plate and a Shield has 18+2 armor, +6 for enhancement. Let's assume he has a Staff of Defense too, for that lovely shield spell, and Defense fighting style. That's 32 AC. The Solar hits on a 17.

He doesn't have to have a Staff of Defense, he could just be an Eldritch Knight. Now stack on +2 from Haste and +2 from Shield of Faith, and Blur from the Fighter himself, and the Solar hits only 0.25% of the time (two natural 20s). That is, until the fighter runs out of Shield spells, or the duration runs out on Haste.

My conclusion: resource management (spell slots) matters a lot more than raw AC. (And mobility matters a lot too, arguably more than AC. A 1st level character with the Mobile feat, Expeditious Retreat, and a Chill Touch cantrip can kill an Iron Golem by simple virtue of never engaging at melee ranges. You can't do that via AC.)

[MustacheFart]

you can't say I didn't even give you an explanation. :smallsmile:

An explanation does not equate to proof. I'm sorry if you don't agree with that LOL.

Plus your explanation is weak at best. You don't decide to use a shield because you could get a +x shield. You may never find a +x shield so then what? There's no more Magic Mart so magic items are scarce and not a guarantee. Yes, from an optimizing standpoint you could make the choice to become proficient in shields and utilize a sword & board but that's hardly without any risk. The greatest risk being you won't necessarily find one.

[Ferrin33]

An explanation does not equate to proof. I'm sorry if you don't agree with that LOL.

Plus your explanation is weak at best. You don't decide to use a shield because you could get a +x shield. You may never find a +x shield so then what? There's no more Magic Mart so magic items are scarce and not a guarantee. Yes, from an optimizing standpoint you could make the choice to become proficient in shields and utilize a sword & board but that's hardly without any risk. The greatest risk being you won't necessarily find one.

If you don't want to read an explanation about why it would be to much including some rough math, what other proof could you possibly want that could dissuade you?

[Steel Mirror]

An explanation does not equate to proof. I'm sorry if you don't agree with that LOL.I'm not "proving" anything, don't worry. I'm just explaining why I hold the opinion that I do. Which is why it doesn't bother me if you don't agree with me, so long as we understand each other. As it stands, I think we are agreed on the facts at this point. Introducing +X shields makes shield bearers very powerful, as pwykersotz helped to clarify in his post using numbers from iconic MM enemies. An optimizer who has a choice between a +3 shield and a one handed weapon, and a two handed weapon no shield, would very likely choose the +3 shield. That's a product of the math, and the fact that two handed weapons in this edition don't have a large lead on damage dealt (especially once you factor in the Duelist fighting style).

You don't see a problem with that, and are of the opinion that making +X shields rare could render it a nonissue. I (and others) do see it as an imbalancing issue, and believe that it would unnecessarily skew game balance in favor of shield users. I also think that magical items should be designed with the game's underlying math in mind, which is clearly the case in 5E so far; see the loss of +4 and +5 weapons and armor as a prime example of that. After all, your "loot limitation" argument could be equally applied to a +5 sword, yet the designers chose to omit that from this edition so far. (Which I also like)

At this point, if we agree on the facts but disagree on the interpretation, that's fine! Reasonable people can disagree, and you can houserule +3 shields into your game if they don't print them, and I can houserule them out if they do. Happy gaming either way!

EDIT: To the OP, I just realized how many posts I put in your thread that have nothing to do with the actual thread topic. :smallfrown: I'm sorry! If we want to continue the magical shield discussion, it really does seem like we should make a new thread.

[MustacheFart]

If you don't want to read an explanation about why it would be to much including some rough math, what other proof could you possibly want that could dissuade you?

Nah, the rough math is fine. I simply won't interpret any "explanations" without any math as proof, I'm sorry. Up until pwykersotz posted some actual math, "explanations" included less than even rough math.


I'm not "proving" anything, don't worry. I'm just explaining why I hold the opinion that I do. Which is why it doesn't bother me if you don't agree with me, so long as we understand each other. As it stands, I think we are agreed on the facts at this point. Introducing +X shields makes shield bearers very powerful, as pwykersotz helped to clarify in his post using numbers from iconic MM enemies. An optimizer who has a choice between a +3 shield and a one handed weapon, and a two handed weapon no shield, would very likely choose the +3 shield. That's a product of the math, and the fact that two handed weapons in this edition don't have a large lead on damage dealt (especially once you factor in the Duelist fighting style).

You don't see a problem with that, and are of the opinion that making +X shields rare could render it a nonissue. I (and others) do see it as an imbalancing issue, and believe that it would unnecessarily skew game balance in favor of shield users. I also think that magical items should be designed with the game's underlying math in mind, which is clearly the case in 5E so far; see the loss of +4 and +5 weapons and armor as a prime example of that. After all, your "loot limitation" argument could be equally applied to a +5 sword, yet the designers chose to omit that from this edition so far. (Which I also like)

At this point, if we agree on the facts but disagree on the interpretation, that's fine! Reasonable people can disagree, and you can houserule +3 shields into your game if they don't print them, and I can houserule them out if they do. Happy gaming either way!

EDIT: To the OP, I just realized how many posts I put in your thread that have nothing to do with the actual thread topic. :smallfrown: I'm sorry! If we want to continue the magical shield discussion, it really does seem like we should make a new thread.

A couple of points:

1) You're arguing that they removed +4 and +5 weapons because they're too strong despite my argument of magic item rarity. For reference, I am referring to this line you wrote:

After all, your "loot limitation" argument could be equally applied to a +5 sword, yet the designers chose to omit that from this edition so far. (Which I also like)
Well, by your logic then that means a +3 shield is absolutely fine since they chose to leave them in. If they're allowing +3 items then clearly they feel +3 isn't too strong based on the point you've made.

2) This is an example of what I disagree with most in your posts:


An optimizer who has a choice between a +3 shield and a one handed weapon, and a two handed weapon no shield, would very likely choose the +3 shield. That's a product of the math, and the fact that two handed weapons in this edition don't have a large lead on damage dealt (especially once you factor in the Duelist fighting style).

That is a product not of math but one of assumptions made from not enough information.

Two handed weapons don't have a lead on damage dealt this edition? Really? Where are you getting that from? Have you actually played 5th ed yet? Because two-handers lead in damage dealt compared to one-handers and sizeably so at that. That hasn't changed.

You're also operating off the fact that there will not be any nonnumeric enhancements that will/can be added to weapons. Perhaps there will be some that apply to two-handers only? Perhaps, some nonnumeric effects that offset the numeric appeal of +3 to AC. The fact is you don't know. I don't know.

Based on the information thus far, I simply will not accept that a +3 shield will break the game. It's foolish to even try and make that claim until more information is presented.

And in all actuality, I am okay with more incentive being given to shield bearers. There should be! In 3.5 I rarely encountered a fellow player using a shield. Almost always was it either the big two-hander or dual-wielding. Outside that animated shield cheese players typically didn't endorse using a shield which is sad because that IS a serious tactical advantage. It should be.

[Ferrin33]

The difference in damage between a +3 one-hander and a +3 two-hander does not change. The increase in AC from a shield is weighed against the increase in damage from a two-hander that is the same regardless of whether you have a magic weapon. If you allow shields to be magical the difference between a One-hander + Shield vs a Two-Hander is skewed in favor of the shield user the higher the enchantment bonus. Unlike 3.5 people can use a shield in this edition without gimping themselves, it's a good option and does not need to become even stronger relative to the other options.

[MustacheFart]

If you allow shields to be magical the difference between a One-hander + Shield vs a Two-Hander is skewed in favor of the shield user the higher the enchantment bonus.

Unless of course the player wants to do more damage then he'll opt for the two-hander.

[Ferrin33]

Unless of course the player wants to do more damage then he'll opt for the two-hander.

But the difference in damage and armor class remains the same no matter what enhancement bonus the weapon has. With magic shields the difference between damage and AC becomes a lot bigger.

[MustacheFart]

But the difference in damage and armor class remains the same no matter what enhancement bonus the weapon has. With magic shields the difference between damage and AC becomes a lot bigger.

Agreed. But there's still a difference in damage which at its base might be enough to sway someone that way. There's plenty of threads on this forum that already illustrate that the difference in damage from a two-hander is substantial, +3 shields aside.

[Ferrin33]

Agreed. But there's still a difference in damage which at its base might be enough to sway someone that way. There's plenty of threads on this forum that already illustrate that the difference in damage from a two-hander is substantial, +3 shields aside.

The difference in damage between a 1d8 one-hander and a 2d6 two-hander if you have the appropriate fighting style for both is around ~1.8 in favor of the two-hander, not counting extra damage dice from critical hits or other effects which increases the bonus by 0.66 per extra d6. So let's say it's roughly 2 damage, more or less for different classes. Without the appropriate fighting style the difference is 2.5 in favor of two-handers. This is ofcourse only with the greatsword and maul, other two-handers deal less damage.

The extra armor class provided by a shield seems to be good trade-off, but would be disproportional to the amount of damage you give up if a shield can be enchanted. But now we have only accounted for Two-hander vs One-hander + Shield, there are also people just using a one-hander or dual-wielding which are also nerfed in comparison to their shield wearing friends.

*Copying post to the thread dedicated to it, I'd appreciate you'd please reply to it there instead.

[Fwiffo86]

Are we really having this discussion when +3 armor and +3 shield acquisition should be right around when the casters are slinging wish and miracle?

Stop looking at it in the singular and remember that the character will be part of a party, each equipped with their own version of uber here.

[Demonic Spoon]

Are we really having this discussion when +3 armor and +3 shield acquisition should be right around when the casters are slinging wish and miracle?

Stop looking at it in the singular and remember that the character will be part of a party, each equipped with their own version of uber here.

Yes, we are absolutely having this discussion, because regardless of inter-class balance, magic items should not screw up the balance between 2H and 1H+Shield martial characters.

+3 shield and +3 armor is the extreme case. The potential problem still exists with +1 armor and a +1 shield.

[Fwiffo86]

Yes, we are absolutely having this discussion, because regardless of inter-class balance, magic items should not screw up the balance between 2H and 1H+Shield martial characters.

+3 shield and +3 armor is the extreme case. The potential problem still exists with +1 armor and a +1 shield.

There is no balance to screw up here.
Either you decide to be offensive, or you don't.
Here... trade +3 shield for +1 2handed sword with +2d6 psychic damage.

You may want to remember that there are vastly more options to deal damage in the hands of melee than there are ways to prevent it.

Smite/smite spells
Reckless attack
multiple attack
2 handed master
polearm master
Volley/arrow spells

I am not seeing a balance issue when weighed against those.

[Demonic Spoon]

I am not seeing a balance issue when weighed against those.


That's a completely separate argument from


Are we really having this discussion when +3 armor and +3 shield acquisition should be right around when the casters are slinging wish and miracle?

Stop looking at it in the singular and remember that the character will be part of a party, each equipped with their own version of uber here.


Wherein you basically said "it doesn't matter, casters have Wish".

[Ferrin33]

There is no balance to screw up here.
Either you decide to be offensive, or you don't.
Here... trade +3 shield for +1 2handed sword with +2d6 psychic damage.

It's +1 one-handed weapon with +2d6 psychic damage with +3 shield vs a +1 two-handed weapon with +2d6 psychic damage.


You may want to remember that there are vastly more options to deal damage in the hands of melee than there are ways to prevent it.

Smite/smite spells
Reckless attack
multiple attack
2 handed master
polearm master
Volley/arrow spells

I am not seeing a balance issue when weighed against those.

Every single one of these options works for shield users as well except for Great Weapon Master, the benefit in AC traded for damage stays around the same with equal investment in resources.

[Segev]

I'm going to chime in on the original topic rather than the tangent simply to say, I'm disappointed that Mage Armor doesn't stack. It doesn't, I think, do what they intended it to do, but instead just diminishes the benefit of the Monk class feature.

It's interesting that Mage Armor is only (effectively) +3 now, too; it has been +4 in every prior edition. So that's a significant change in a "noteworthiness" sense, if nothing else.

[Fwiffo86]

Every single one of these options works for shield users as well except for Great Weapon Master, the benefit in AC traded for damage stays around the same with equal investment in resources.

I'm not drawing a comparison to options + shield/no shield.
I'm drawing a comparison to damage dealing abilities vs. defense abilities.

[Demonic Spoon]

I'm going to chime in on the original topic rather than the tangent simply to say, I'm disappointed that Mage Armor doesn't stack. It doesn't, I think, do what they intended it to do, but instead just diminishes the benefit of the Monk class feature.


What do you think they intended it to do other than to give armor squishy mages who don't otherwise have armor

[Segev]

What do you think they intended it to do other than to give armor squishy mages who don't otherwise have armor

I get the sense that the inability of it to stack is meant to keep AC from being abused to great heights by dipping magic into your build or getting magic items. I suspect this will result not in preventing magic from being go-to, but instead in magic focus being the more optimal choice.

[Easy_Lee]

I get the sense that the inability of it to stack is meant to keep AC from being abused to great heights by dipping magic into your build or getting magic items. I suspect this will result not in preventing magic from being go-to, but instead in magic focus being the more optimal choice.

There's no doubt that a team of magic users, particularly if they have a warlock 2 / lore bard X, will handle a wider variety of threats than a team of mundanes. Ultimately, people will play what they want to, I suspect. Since even the most suboptimal character is at least useful this gen, I'm glad they haven't let the numbers run away too much so far.

And yeah, no doubt they don't want stacking AC. Otherwise multiclass builds are superior.

[MaxWilson]

But the difference in damage and armor class remains the same no matter what enhancement bonus the weapon has. With magic shields the difference between damage and AC becomes a lot bigger.

Not true. The bigger your enhancement bonus, the more Great Weapon Mastery power attacking pulls ahead of regular usage.

[Ferrin33]

Not true. The bigger your enhancement bonus, the more Great Weapon Mastery power attacking pulls ahead of regular usage.

Which is a feat, and should be compared to feats available to non-two-handed weapon users which are overall not focused on damage and so give different benefits that you can't compare as easily. So yes, if you want to focus on damage go two-hander, but for defense go with a shield. "The more AC you have, the more Defensive Duelist pulls ahead of regular usage" is a similar argument and is dependant on a feat as well.

[MaxWilson]

Which is a feat, and should be compared to feats available to non-two-handed weapon users which are overall not focused on damage and so give different benefits that you can't compare as easily. So yes, if you want to focus on damage go two-hander, but for defense go with a shield. "The more AC you have, the more Defensive Duelist pulls ahead of regular usage" is a similar argument and is dependant on a feat as well.

What's your point? I responded to a claim that enhancement bonus is mathematically irrelevant when comparing Greatswords vs. Longswords. It sounds like you now agree with me and are simply pointing out that the situation is complex. This is true too. I'm glad you've changed your mind.

[Ferrin33]

What's your point? I responded to a claim that enhancement bonus is mathematically irrelevant when comparing Greatswords vs. Longswords. It sounds like you now agree with me and are simply pointing out that the situation is complex. This is true too. I'm glad you've changed your mind.

You compared longsword without feat vs greatsword with feat.

[MaxWilson]

You compared longsword without feat vs greatsword with feat.

So pick a feat--Shield Mastery for example. Show how adding Shield Mastery to longsword changes the basic math which states that a Greatsword +3 offers more damage increase over a Greatsword +1 than a Longsword +3 does over a Longsword +1.

Edited for tone.

[Ferrin33]

So pick a feat--Shield Mastery for example. Show how adding Shield Mastery to longsword changes the basic math which states that a Greatsword +3 offers more damage increase over a Greatsword +1 than a Longsword +3 does over a Longsword +1.

Edited for tone.

The benefits are defensive in nature and you want me to compare them to the offensive benefits of great weapon master?

[MustacheFart]

The benefits are defensive in nature and you want me to compare them to the offensive benefits of great weapon master?

Yeah, why not? You were comparing defensive to offensive before. Suddenly you're not able to? Strange.

[Ferrin33]

Yeah, why not? You were comparing defensive to offensive before. Suddenly you're not able to? Strange.

I was comparing the offensive and defensive benefits of a one-hander + shield versus two-hander where the only difference without feats is Damage and AC. The feats add a layer of complexity that prevents them from being weighed against each other as easily because of the differences in application and situation. If you feel like you can do so I'd be very interested in reading that though.

[MustacheFart]

I was comparing the offensive and defensive benefits of a one-hander + shield versus two-hander where the only difference is a layer of complexity that prevents them from being weighed against each other as easily because of the differences in application and situation.

I am glad we agree here that it is too complex of a matter for a simply comparison.

[Ferrin33]

I am glad we agree here that it is too complex of a matter for a simply comparison.

Which is exactly why I leave feats out of the comparison.

[MustacheFart]

Which means you've wasted your time and your whole conclusion is inconclusive due to being unable to process all relevant data.

[Ferrin33]

Which means you've wasted your time and your whole conclusion is inconclusive due to being unable to process all relevant data.

My conclusion is accurate if feats are left out of the equation. I won't take the "feats are optional" defense, but in what combat situations do you want to compare the feats? They obviously apply to different ones. You are ignoring the points I have made and have not backed up your own claims about two-handers dealing substantially more damage than one-handers without taking feats into account which is strange as you agree feats are complicated to compare. This means that your own conclusions are therefore not only incomplete, they're based on a false comparison (Two-handed user with feat versus one-handed user without).

[MustacheFart]

This means that your own conclusions are therefore not only incomplete, they're based on a false comparison (Two-handed user with feat versus one-handed user without).

Really? What were my conclusions? :smallwink:

I never based any of my "conclusions" off of one side including a feat or anything of the like. I simply stated that Two-handers will do significantly more damage than a one-hander.

Since I haven't really backed that up, I suppose (though I felt that others had so I didn't need to) I will now. It's too complex to compare defense to offense. They're apples and oranges. That's what makes the whole debate of a stacking +x shield invalidating a two-handed offensive weapon just silly.

Now, when comparing offense to offense that is a totally different matter. This is what I was comparing because to use a shield means your offense is limited to a single one-hander weapon. A single one-hander cannot do as much damage as a two-hander with ALL data considered. By this I mean, if you do everything you possibly can within reason to build up the damage of a one-hander it will still fall significantly short of a two-hander when you do the same. That very fact proves that a stacking +x shield isn't the coffin of a two-hander.

[Sartharina]

WoTC is doing everything they can to prevent stacking bonuses, so as expected, this does not work. Only a few options come to mind as far as potential ways for a monk to boost their AC.

Defensive Duelist, assuming your DM counts unarmed as dual wielding
Buffs
Items we haven't seen yet that may provide the 5e equivalent of deflection bonus
Bracers of armor if poorly written, though Mearls says this doesn't work since the bracers either count as armor or set your AC
Bonus action dodge, forgoing your flurry


It's depressing, but not because it prevents Monks from being untouchable. Rather, powerful bracers of armor or similar effects can potentially make the most maladroit caster just as untouchable (AC-wise) as the best monk. I can imagine bracers of armor being particularly effective on a moon druid if they set your AC; there's little reason why they shouldn't work with the new form beyond a DM saying no.

So, like in 3.5, casters will have more options than mundanes. That's fine, but I just wish there were more uniquely-monk ways for monks to pull ahead in AC.There are four ways for a monk to boost AC:
Improve Wisdom to a max of 20.
Improve Dexterity to a max of 20
Get a ring of protection or other +1 AC item
Take defensive duelist - where the heck do you get the idea that it requires dual-wielding?

[Ferrin33]

Really? What were my conclusions? :smallwink:

I never based any of my "conclusions" off of one side including a feat or anything of the like. I simply stated that Two-handers will do significantly more damage than a one-hander.

Fair enough, although it implied the use of feats when you drop the word "significantly" though.


Since I haven't really backed that up, I suppose (though I felt that others had so I didn't need to) I will now. It's too complex to compare defense to offense. They're apples and oranges. That's what makes the whole debate of a stacking +x shield invalidating a two-handed offensive weapon just silly.

Now, when comparing offense to offense that is a totally different matter. This is what I was comparing because to use a shield means your offense is limited to a single one-hander weapon. A single one-hander cannot do as much damage as a two-hander with ALL data considered. By this I mean, if you do everything you possibly can within reason to build up the damage of a one-hander it will still fall significantly short of a two-hander when you do the same. That very fact proves that a stacking +x shield isn't the coffin of a two-hander.

There is a significant problem if it means shields are giving a disproportionately large benefit for what you'd give up. There is no reason for magical shields to stack with magical armor aside from the legacy of older editions, in 5th edition things point toward shields being balanced against the damage increase of a two-hander without involving feats. It may not be the coffin of a two-hander, but it diminishes their relative power unnecessarily and I have read no argument for why you think it should be. If you have I'm sorry for having missed it and would appreciate a reminder.

If you want to prove otherwise by calculating the differences in combat situations with the two-hander and shield user respectively in a multitude of combat situations I'll be happy to read it.

[Easy_Lee]

There are four ways for a monk to boost AC:
Improve Wisdom to a max of 20.
Improve Dexterity to a max of 20
Get a ring of protection or other +1 AC item
Take defensive duelist - where the heck do you get the idea that it requires dual-wielding?

Misread it. It does require finesse so I would still talk to the DM

[MustacheFart]

Fair enough, although it implied the use of feats when you drop the word "significantly" though.



There is a significant problem if it means shields are giving a disproportionately large benefit for what you'd give up. There is no reason for magical shields to stack with magical armor aside from the legacy of older editions, in 5th edition things point toward shields being balanced against the damage increase of a two-hander without involving feats. It may not be the coffin of a two-hander, but it diminishes their relative power unnecessarily and I have read no argument for why you think it should be. If you have I'm sorry for having missed it and would appreciate a reminder.

If you want to prove otherwise by calculating the differences in combat situations with the two-hander and shield user respectively in a multitude of combat situations I'll be happy to read it.

Okay so the word "significantly" implies "use of feats". Sorry I didn't know this was an accepted norm here. Come on? That's just stupid.

The benefit a magical shield gives isn't able to be determined as "disproportionately large" for what you'd give up when you take EVERYTHING into consideration. This includes feats, class features, enhancements, etc. It's too complex and without the DMG even released we're purely speculating.

However, you want a reason why they should stack? Here's one! It makes sense! That would be RAI which I'll have you know is all that matters! What am I referring to? Well, I brought up a ring of protection and how it gives +1 to AC. Nobody had one bit of a problem with that stacking with +X armor. So, since those TWO totally SEPARATE items are assumed to stack then why shouldn't an EQUALLY SEPARATE item such as a shield stack?

The only difference is one fits on your finger (make it better because you still have a free hand) and the other fits over your arm. If you aren't going to allow +x shields to stack with +x armor then rings of protection should also not stack.

[Ferrin33]

Okay so the word "significantly" implies "use of feats". Sorry I didn't know this was an accepted norm here. Come on? That's just stupid.

I didn't know 2 damage was "significant", my apologies. No really, you're not trying to tell me that you thought of it without including feats when typing that right?


The benefit a magical shield gives isn't able to be determined as "disproportionately large" for what you'd give up when you take EVERYTHING into consideration. This includes feats, class features, enhancements, etc. It's too complex and without the DMG even released we're purely speculating.

It depends what features you're comparing, and yes it is complex. Which is exactly why I did not include feats which change things from a point for point comparison to different combat situations. I mentioned the difference remains the same without involving feats. I did however include Fighting Styles and weapon enchantments, which only leaves feats and class-specific features out.You have given no math or comparison and hand-wave mine away.


However, you want a reason why they should stack? Here's one! It makes sense! That would be RAI which I'll have you know is all that matters! What am I referring to? Well, I brought up a ring of protection and how it gives +1 to AC. Nobody had one bit of a problem with that stacking with +X armor. So, since those TWO totally SEPARATE items are assumed to stack then why shouldn't an EQUALLY SEPARATE item such as a shield stack?

The only difference is one fits on your finger (make it better because you still have a free hand) and the other fits over your arm. If you aren't going to allow +x shields to stack with +x armor then rings of protection should also not stack.

Ring of Protection requires attunement, weapons and armor do not. It's highly likely that shields won't either from this information. As there are no rules for +1-3 Magic Shields yet you can not say it's RAI to say that they would stack with magical armor as your comparison of Ring of Protection is flawed because of the Attunement requirement for which we have no reason to believe shields will have an attunement requirement.

[Strill]

The benefit a magical shield gives isn't able to be determined as "disproportionately large" for what you'd give up when you take EVERYTHING into consideration. This includes feats, class features, enhancements, etc. It's too complex and without the DMG even released we're purely speculating.

Of course it is. Bump your AC high enough and you become immune to conventional damage. Each point of AC is worth more and more effective HP than the last. Eventually you get enough AC that enemies cannot hit you at all, and you reach unlimited effective HP. If a character is anywhere near this situation, boosting their AC becomes worth more than just about any other benefit.

[MaxWilson]

I was comparing the offensive and defensive benefits of a one-hander + shield versus two-hander where the only difference without feats is Damage and AC. The feats add a layer of complexity that prevents them from being weighed against each other as easily because of the differences in application and situation. If you feel like you can do so I'd be very interested in reading that though.

So you're performing an easy analysis, because a correct analysis is too difficult. That reminds me of the story of the guy who lost his keys in an alleyway and went looking for them under a streetlamp. When asked why, he replied, "It's too dark to see in the alley!"

[MustacheFart]

I didn't know 2 damage was "significant", my apologies. No really, you're not trying to tell me that you thought of it without including feats when typing that right?

Actually, I wasn't think of feats. I was thinking of class features with a two-hander.




It depends what features you're comparing, and yes it is complex. Which is exactly why I did not include feats which change things from a point for point comparison to different combat situations. I mentioned the difference remains the same without involving feats. I did however include Fighting Styles and weapon enchantments, which only leaves feats and class-specific features out.You have given no math or comparison and hand-wave mine away.

Your math is flawed. It only takes into account a select amount of data by your own admission. That's what I am saying. It's not fair to exclude some data. That's why it may seem that I am hand-waving your "math" away. You keep pointing that out as though it will change something. I don't need to provide math of my own to prove that yours doesn't take all data into account. You've openly admitted that yourself. What don't you get about that? I'm simply not going to do any math because we don't have all the data yet. We won't until the DMG is released most likely.

As for the maximum damage potential of a two-hander versus a one-hander that math already exists on these forums. If you want to read it then I suggest using the advanced search feature. I'm not going to reproduce math because you're being too lazy to go look for it.




Ring of Protection requires attunement, weapons and armor do not. It's highly likely that shields won't either from this information. As there are no rules for +1-3 Magic Shields yet you can not say it's RAI to say that they would stack with magical armor as your comparison of Ring of Protection is flawed because of the Attunement requirement for which we have no reason to believe shields will have an attunement requirement.

LOL. As someone else on your side pointed out, characters receive multiple attunements so that doesn't mean crap. Also you're wrong when you say weapons and armor do not require attunement. I can think of one specific weapon already released that requires attunement as well as a shield. That's neither here nor there as I know you meant non-specific magical weapons & armor but you need to watch your wording.

The fact is you have an item seperate of your armor that gives a +1 to AC that stacks with +X armor. Based on that logic a shield should do the same. Are you really trying to say 1 out of 3 attunements is enough of an offset for that? Are you trying to imply that making +3 shields require attunement would offset the bonus stacking with +x armor?


Of course it is. Bump your AC high enough and you become immune to conventional damage. Each point of AC is worth more and more effective HP than the last. Eventually you get enough AC that enemies cannot hit you at all, and you reach unlimited effective HP. If a character is anywhere near this situation, boosting their AC becomes worth more than just about any other benefit.

Okay smart guy. Let's play a little math game. In accordance with the current released rules let's say that you have +3 armor of any kind and a +3 shield that stacks. Show me now how you could get your AC RELIABLY high enough that nothing could hit you outside of a 20. Go on, prove it. Notice how I said reliably high enough. That means none of that 1 attack per turn super buffing crud. If the +3 stacking is such an issue then it should be compared under the context of every single attack of every single combat.

[MaxWilson]

Of course it is. Bump your AC high enough and you become immune to conventional damage. Each point of AC is worth more and more effective HP than the last. Eventually you get enough AC that enemies cannot hit you at all, and you reach unlimited effective HP. If a character is anywhere near this situation, boosting their AC becomes worth more than just about any other benefit.

In D&D you can't get more than a x20 multiplier on your HP.

[Ferrin33]

Actually, I wasn't think of feats. I was thinking of class features with a two-hander.

Which remains at around a damage advantage of ~2 with class features thrown in the mix. (Fighting Styles: 1.8(+0.66 per extra d6 from other features) advantage with a 2d6 2-h vs 1d8 1-h) How is this significant? Without fighting styles the difference is 2.5 in favor of two-handers by the way so one-handers actually close the gap slightly there. This is using only the greatsword and maul, it's less with other two-handers.


Your math is flawed. It only takes into account a select amount of data by your own admission. That's what I am saying. It's not fair to exclude some data. That's why it may seem that I am hand-waving your "math" away. You keep pointing that out as though it will change something. I don't need to provide math of my own to prove that yours doesn't take all data into account. You've openly admitted that yourself. What don't you get about that? I'm simply not going to do any math because we don't have all the data yet. We won't until the DMG is released most likely.

As for the maximum damage potential of a two-hander versus a one-hander that math already exists on these forums. If you want to read it then I suggest using the advanced search feature. I'm not going to reproduce math because you're being too lazy to go look for it.

You do not bring in your own math and expect me to find the answer that's supposedly out there, I would appreciate a link at least. I believe you because I've done the math myself, and when you're including feats one-handers lack options for damage so of course two-handers will pull out ahead. The problem is; there is no math done on the defensive benefits of the shield users' feats compared to the feat available to two-handed users. So you claim two-handers are ahead while omitting the areas that shield users have the advantage, you're making comparisons that make no sense because you are leaving things out that would make the comparison equal.

I left out feats but included class features and enchantments for both sides, not just one side. Each side gets the same amount of class features and possible basic enchantments on their gear, otherwise why bother comparing? I left out feats because they make the comparison not just complicated, but also irrelevant in a great deal of situations. Again, feel free to bring your math in on this to compare feats for two-handed users versus one-handed users, but so far the math shows the average damage between the two not changing much without feats.


LOL. As someone else on your side pointed out, characters receive multiple attunements so that doesn't mean crap. Also you're wrong when you say weapons and armor do not require attunement. I can think of one specific weapon already released that requires attunement as well as a shield. That's neither here nor there as I know you meant non-specific magical weapons & armor but you need to watch your wording.

Three attunements all with possible combat benefits, it would possibly take an attunement slot but this is unknown. Attunement slots means you give something else up to use it, how is this not relevant? You are dismissing it out of hand without saying why while it is quite obvious that it is a substantial cost depending on the amount of magical items available. Which with +3 items available is possibly a pretty high chance there are. I don't see why I'd need to watch my wording any more than I am because of this, care to elaborate?

Where exactly are you finding these magical shields that require attunement? I'm not aware of any.


The fact is you have an item seperate of your armor that gives a +1 to AC that stacks with +X armor. Based on that logic a shield should do the same. Are you really trying to say 1 out of 3 attunements is enough of an offset for that? Are you trying to imply that making +3 shields require attunement would offset the bonus stacking with +x armor?

No, I'm saying that there is no reason to believe shields will have an attunement, I mentioned nothing about whether it would be balanced or not.

I think it would help, but I'd still think the bonus would be slightly to high for just one attunement slot.


Okay smart guy. Let's play a little math game. In accordance with the current released rules let's say that you have +3 armor of any kind and a +3 shield that stacks. Show me now how you could get your AC RELIABLY high enough that nothing could hit you outside of a 20. Go on, prove it. Notice how I said reliably high enough. That means none of that 1 attack per turn super buffing crud. If the +3 stacking is such an issue then it should be compared under the context of every single attack of every single combat.

You are treating this as if it is only player vs player, you are not fighting players most of the time.

[Ghost Nappa]

You are treating this as if it is only player vs player, you are not fighting players most of the time.

I must object here. Allow me to correct this statement as such:


You are treating this as if it is only player vs player, you should not be fighting players most of the time.

You have not played with our warlock.