Bonus granted by bracers of armor?

[skywalker]

So I was flipping through the MIC(as I do pretty much daily) looking for stylish lightning gloves to match my cloak, when I came across a particular little gem on page 245:


bracers of armor +1
+1 enhancement bonus to AC


Italics mine. Has anyone else noticed this? Do you think this is a typo, or a revision? Every bracers of armor entry in that table says enhancement bonus to AC, whereas the SRD says bracers of armor grant an armor bonus to AC.

Leading me to think one of two things happened:

1) They simply wrote the wrong thing in the first bracers of armor entry, and then copy-pasted it wrong.

2) Wizards actually intends for bracers of armor to stack with armor. Now, I know that enhancement bonuses are dirt cheap, and that it doesn't really matter, but at low levels, those +1 bracers of armor are suddenly really slick. Plus, you can switch out that enhancement bonus from mundane armor to mundane armor, instead of having a new set made.

Thoughts?

[Inane-Fedaykin]

And the game gets that much more broken...

[drawingfreak]

Any issues where the difference would matter never came up for me when I was using them.

[Nerd-o-rama]

1) is probably true. If 2) is true, than I can safely say that I will be houseruling otherwise in every game I DM, because that's just stupid.

[tainsouvra]

Thoughts? Entries in a table are automatically considered to be in error if they conflict with the actual description, it's automatic unless the errata specifically notes otherwise. It's their "primary sources" errata rule:
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry.
...additionally, the fact that Bracers of Armor are in the DMG as their primary source causes the second part of that rule to come into effect on top of it:
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources
involves book and topic precedence. [...] The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on.
...in other words, it's automatically considered fixed in the errata, even that book doesn't have one of its own, because it's the WotC standard.

[RAGE KING!]

huh? i just wore them and added ac. I never really thought about it. I thought it was an armour bonus that stacked with other armour.

[tainsouvra]

huh? i just wore them and added ac. I never really thought about it. I thought it was an armour bonus that stacked with other armour. There is no such thing as an armor bonus that stacks with other armor, where did you get that?
An armor bonus applies to Armor Class and is granted by armor or by a spell or magical effect that mimics armor. Armor bonuses stack with all other bonuses to Armor Class (even with natural armor bonuses) except other armor bonuses.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm

[skywalker]

Entries in a table are automatically considered to be in error if they conflict with the actual description, it's automatic unless the errata specifically notes otherwise. It's their "primary sources" errata rule:
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry.
...additionally, the fact that Bracers of Armor are in the DMG as their primary source causes the second part of that rule to come into effect on top of it:
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources
involves book and topic precedence. [...] The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on.
...in other words, it's automatically considered fixed in the errata, even that book doesn't have one of its own, because it's the WotC standard.

Actual updated errata are no longer being produced. As for the primary source being THE ABSOLUTE SOURCE, most of the items in the MIC are reprinted and changed from the original source. Further, there are many spells which were changed in the Spell Compendium, for whom the "primary source" as you say, is the PHB. There is plenty of support for further books(especially the compendiums) changing rules.

@rage king: No, you've been doing it wrong. Same type bonuses do not stack, except in the case of dodge bonuses. Since armor and bracers of armor both grant armor bonuses to AC, they do not stack. It was hard for my group to get our heads around too. They're really meant for mages(and, as mentioned on another thread, high-level rogues and other dexterous folk).

[Jasdoif]

Actual updated errata are no longer being produced. As for the primary source being THE ABSOLUTE SOURCE, most of the items in the MIC are reprinted and changed from the original source. Further, there are many spells which were changed in the Spell Compendium, for whom the "primary source" as you say, is the PHB. There is plenty of support for further books(especially the compendiums) changing rules.I don't have the MIC to check this myself, so tell me: Is the actual text of bracers of armor reprinted in the book that way, or is it just mentioned in a summary listing in a table?

If it's only in a summary table, then the item rules haven't been changed, and the table is in error.

[tainsouvra]

Actual updated errata are no longer being produced. That's completely unnecessary, because it's an errata rule, not an errata entry. It applies to everything D&D, regardless of which book it is, unless specifically noted otherwise.

If you want to houserule in funky bonus effects, go for it, but the rules are pretty clear on this one.

[skywalker]

I don't have the MIC to check this myself, so tell me: Is the actual text of bracers of armor reprinted in the book that way, or is it just mentioned in a summary listing in a table?

If it's only in a summary table, then the item rules haven't been changed, and the table is in error.

No, they've not reprinted bracers of armor, just the table.

It is, in fact, in a table with a page listing pointing toward the DMG.

Having never read Wizards' policy on rules, tables, etc, I will bow to superior knowledge of that subject.

I just thought it was interesting that they made that glaring an error, and repeated it 7-8 times. It seems more than a simple mistake to me.

[tainsouvra]

No, they've not reprinted bracers of armor, just the table.

It is, in fact, in a table with a page listing pointing toward the DMG. Then the DMG is indisputably the primary source, and the rule definitely applies.
Having never read Wizards' policy on rules, tables, etc, I will bow to superior knowledge of that subject. You've read part of it--that's what I reprinted in my previous post. As long as I'm at it, I might as well quote the whole section. Spoiler tags to reduce post space: Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct. One example of a
primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over
a table entry. An individual spell description takes
precedence when the short description in the beginning
of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources
involves book and topic precedence. The Player's
Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing
the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class
descriptions. If you find something on one of those
topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the
Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's
Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is
the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the
primary source for topics such as magic item
descriptions, special material construction rules, and so
on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for
monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural,
extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.
I just thought it was interesting that they made that glaring an error, and repeated it 7-8 times. It seems more than a simple mistake to me. Unfortunately they make that kind of mistake fairly frequently, that's why they made a rule about it instead of trying to correct every instance of that mistake :smallsmile:

[DiscipleofBob]

My gaming group and I have always assumed that Bracers of Armor does not stack with other armor. It is after all, an ARMOR bonus. The main point behind the Bracers of Armor is to give to an otherwise armorless-class like Wizard, Monk, Ninja, etc. so they get an armor bonus.

[Draz74]

Enhancement bonuses come in their own separate varieties, anyway. For example, you can have a Natural Armor Enhancement bonus to AC (e.g. Barkskin or Amulet of Natural Armor). If you have +4 Studded Leather Armor, +6 natural armor (Troglodyte or that broken ol' Alter Self spell), and a Barkskin buff, they all stack, because enhancement bonuses are tricky that way.

Therefore, if you take the MIC up on its word and treat the Bracers as an enhancement bonus, I'd assume they'd still be an Armor Enhancement Bonus. Not a Natural Armor Enhancement Bonus or a Deflection Enhancement Bonus or a generic, independent Enhancement Bonus.

If you treat them that way, they stack with the basic, physical abilities of armor, but they don't stack with the armor's enhancement bonus.

So in many cases, there would still be no reason for an armored character to use these items. (I guess a few extremely wealthy and paranoid adventurers use Bracers of Armor sheerly as backup in case they are attacked by incorporeals or a Mordenkainen's Sword.) After all, why have Bracers of Armor +3 and a mundane breastplate when you could have a +3 Breastplate and save an item slot?

But I suppose Bracers go up to +8 pre-epic, while armor only goes up to +5. More importantly, I guess you could use this to add more interesting abilities to your armor. Getting +3 Bracers and +1 Heavy Fortification Full Plate is a lot cheaper than just getting +3 Heavy Fortification Full Plate on its own.

So if you treat the Bracers as an enhancement bonus to AC, at least interpret them this way. It's still a bit cheesy, but not as bad as if it stacks with +3 armor; and it may even encourage characters to get more interesting types of magic armor.

[woc33]

The bracers of armor are simply a way of giving characters that can't usually wear armor get the enchantment bonus to ac from them, like monks, wizards and sorcerers. Just look at the cost of the bracers, every level of bonus (+1, +2, +3...) is equal in price to the enchantment bonus to armor price (+1 is 1000 for both, +2 is 4000 for both and +3 is 9000 for both...).

[The Prince of Cats]

Bracers of Armour (Bracers of Defence) could never be worn with armour in second edition and my group tends to default to second edition to solve issues like this.

Think of them as super-light armour which needs no proficiency, has no check-penalty or spell-failure, and offers +0 AC by themselves. They are armour that does not count as armour for the sake of 'you cannot use this skill when wearing armour' but have no inherent bonus unless enchanted as magic armour.

[Ulzgoroth]

But they can be worn with armor in 3.5, and even with the (much better) PHB version it is potentially useful to do so, since their protection works against incorporeal attacks, and at least in theory could be a higher armor bonus than the armor you wear. If you can lay hands on half-price bracers +8, and don't want anything with armor check penalty, magic padded (+1 and special abilities) may serve better than mithril chain.

[Telonius]

Oh, absolutely. A fighter can wear +5 full plate and then strap on bracers of armor +2. The effects just don't stack.

[KillianHawkeye]

But they can be worn with armor in 3.5, and even with the (much better) PHB version it is potentially useful to do so, since their protection works against incorporeal attacks, and at least in theory could be a higher armor bonus than the armor you wear. If you can lay hands on half-price bracers +8, and don't want anything with armor check penalty, magic padded (+1 and special abilities) may serve better than mithril chain.

If the armor bonus from your bracers is higher than what you're getting from the armor you're wearing, then why are you still wearing it? The bonuses do not in any way stack, so you're just encumbering yourself for no reason. Unless you have awesome bracers and you're only wearing the armor to get some magic ability from it, I guess. But the armor bonuses don't stack.

[Citizen Joe]

Bracers of Armor

These items appear to be wrist or arm guards. They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor. Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective.


Armor bonuses don't stack, although they can overlap. In this case the force effect allows it to work against Incorporeal touch attacks, thus possibly granting better AC with the bracers than your armor would.

An armor enhancement bonus can be applied to an armor bonus source, which would increase that particular source's effective armor rating. Normally, this is magic applied to an inherent armor source, like a suit of armor. However, in the case warforged, they have an inherent armor rating that is not a 'natural armor' rating. So, in theory, some sort of magic item could be developed to work on the warforged inherent armor. More likely, it would be some sort of reforging process.

Amulet of natural armor gives an enhancement bonus to Natural armor. Everyone is assumed to have natural armor 0 unless otherwise specified, thus it helps even if you don't have a natural armor rating. Note that Barkskin grants an Enhancement bonus to existing natural armor, thus won't stack with the amulet. However changing into a troglodyte grants a +6 natural armor bonus, which would be your starting point, then add enhancement bonus to that. Note that very large creatures start getting a natural armor bonus due to size, but there is a size penalty to overall AC due to size as well.

Then you have a shield bonus, and an enhancement bonus to shield bonus.

One deflection bonus (shield spell, protection from evil, etc.)

Dodge bonuses stack

Dexterity bonus

The SRD does a pretty good job explaining stacking here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm)

All that being said, the OP referred to the bracers of armor from the MIC, which was listed apparently only on the table as an enhancement bonus to armor. This is clearly different from the SRD description. All I can suggest is compare the prices from the SRD and the MIC. If they are different, then its likely that the MIC Bracers of Armor is a different magic item from the SRD Bracers of Armor. If they are the same, then the enhancement bonus, listed on the table in the MIC is a typo/misprint/senior moment.

[Ulzgoroth]

If the armor bonus from your bracers is higher than what you're getting from the armor you're wearing, then why are you still wearing it? The bonuses do not in any way stack, so you're just encumbering yourself for no reason. Unless you have awesome bracers and you're only wearing the armor to get some magic ability from it, I guess. But the armor bonuses don't stack.
All true. In theory, you're wearing the armor because padded armor (or leather) has no encumbrance whatsoever unless you've got dex over 26 (22), class features that don't work in any armor, arcane spellcasting, or so much weight that you can't handle 10 (15) lb extra. In return, you get the opportunity to grab special armor enhancements at a vastly lower cost than someone who actually is relying on their armor to grant them AC, and thus using +5 armor. And you get hosed just a tiny bit less by an antimagic field, I suppose.

Since bracers +8 give only one AC less than the very best no-ACP armor (mithril chain shirt +5), this might be useful for someone wanting to get very magical armor. Particularly if they can impose on someone with Craft Wondrous Item to get the bracers for 32k, but don't have a magic armorsmith in their pocket. 32k bracers + 16k +4 effective near-clothing (with +1 throwaway and +3 useful bonuses) is cheaper than and competitive with 49k (50, with mithril) +7 effective, and it gets better from there fast.

Without the discount, bracers plus +6 padded costs almost the same as +10 mithril chain, so you lose a point of AC and the only win is the option of upgrading to +7 or more, and the max dex bonus being 8 instead of 6. And the effectiveness against incorporeal attacks.

[Shas aia Toriia]

But the enhancement bonus from Bracers don't stack with magic armor. Therefore, you can't have +5 chain shirt and +8 bracers, only the +8 would count.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

But the enhancement bonus from Bracers don't stack with magic armor. Therefore, you can't have +5 chain shirt and +8 bracers, only the +8 would count.

True, but you could get something like a +1 chain shirt of Heavy Fortification, and Bracers of Armor +8, and it would be like wearing +8 Chain Shirt of Heavy Fortification.... if it were an enhancement bonus and not an armor bonus.

I will continue to use the SRD rule set in which it is an armor bonus and does not stack with armor. Period. Anything else is to invite aforementioned cheeze

[Ulzgoroth]

But the enhancement bonus from Bracers don't stack with magic armor. Therefore, you can't have +5 chain shirt and +8 bracers, only the +8 would count.
...yes, and if you're using that bad idea, that's awesome. Except that you'd make it +1 chain shirt and 4 points of misc. other bonuses, and have an armor AC of 12 without any armor check.

I'd regard that version as a mistake, though. Especially since they do stack, under the MIC version. A +1 enhancement bonus to armor class would stack with every other form of bonus I've ever seen. There are enhancement bonuses to the armor or shield bonus of an item, or to natural armor, but I've never before seen an enhancement bonus to armor class.

Stick that in your +5 mithril full plate, and be horrified at the abomination you have spawned...

[Amphimir Míriel]

I actually bent this rule a little bit in favor of one of my players.

She plays a Half Orc female fighter named Olga (think She-Hulk in D&D). She doesnt want to wear heavy armor nor have any Armor Check penalties (due to conceptual, fluffy reasons), but she is still the tank of the party.

So I gave her a Mithril Chain Shirt and Bracers of Shield +1 (meaning that the bracers grant a shield bonus, instead of an armor bonus).

So, she's happy with her character being able to show some skin while still being able to tank with some effectiveness (none of my players optimize, so theres no problem with this)

[tainsouvra]

I will continue to use the SRD rule set in which it is an armor bonus and does not stack with armor. Period. Anything else is to invite aforementioned cheeze Not only cheesy, but directly contracting what WotC published. A bad copy-paste in a table doesn't override the actual item description referenced, which clearly states "armor bonus".

[The Prince of Cats]

But the enhancement bonus from Bracers don't stack with magic armor. Therefore, you can't have +5 chain shirt and +8 bracers, only the +8 would count.
Actually, the chain shirt would count, but not the bracers. The bracers offer a +8 to armour, while the shirt offers +9 (+4 chain shirt +5 enhancement) and so the shirt trumps the bracers.

[Citizen Joe]

Actually, the chain shirt would count, but not the bracers. The bracers offer a +8 to armour, while the shirt offers +9 (+4 chain shirt +5 enhancement) and so the shirt trumps the bracers.
No, well yes, but no, that's not what they meant.

IF bracers of armor are granting an armor enhancement bonus, then they would have supplanted the +5 enhancement bonus on the chain shirt, essentially making it a +8 chain shirt. This is what the complaint is all about.

What we are (most of us anyway) saying is that its a typo and should be an armor bonus not an armor enhancement bonus. Thus yes, the +5 chain shirt (9 total armor) would be better than the +8 bracers.

[Rex Blunder]

This has been officially confirmed as a typo, I believe...



I wish we'd been clearer about this in the Magic Item Compendium, but the tables in the MIC do not supersede the DMG. There is some info in the book that does (adding common traits to items), but it's clearly defined.
wizards thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13338278#post13338278)