Why do the Bracers of Defense require attunement?

[Greywander]

It's a magic item that increases AC when not wearing armor or using a shield.

Armor +X and shield +X don't require attunement. The bracers offer the same AC boost as a shield of the same rarity.

It feels like the point of Bracers of Defense is to give that AC boost to classes who can't use armor/shields +X, but it gives a lower AC boost and requires attunement.

Would it be unbalanced to change the Bracers of Defense to not require attunement and to come in Uncommon (+1), Rare (+2), and Very Rare (+3) variants? This would mirror the progression of magic shields, and it still can't be stacked with magic armor.

[Dork_Forge]

It's a magic item that increases AC when not wearing armor or using a shield.

Armor +X and shield +X don't require attunement. The bracers offer the same AC boost as a shield of the same rarity.

It feels like the point of Bracers of Defense is to give that AC boost to classes who can't use armor/shields +X, but it gives a lower AC boost and requires attunement.

Would it be unbalanced to change the Bracers of Defense to not require attunement and to come in Uncommon (+1), Rare (+2), and Very Rare (+3) variants? This would mirror the progression of magic shields, and it still can't be stacked with magic armor.

Armor and Shields require proficiency which might be tied into it, I see it like this: Ring/Cloak of Protection require attunement, the bracers are the same thing just swapping the +1 save for another +1AC.

[Dungeon-noob]

I'm going to guess that the reason they kept the bracers relatively weak is that it is an AC boost that be stacked by everyone. The paladin with +1 plate and a shield can also use it as well as the monk, and that makes it one of the best ways to get your AC into the stratospheric levels that everyone but that player wants to avoid.

Personally, i'd be fine with that change and just controlling what parties and players get what magic items, just another part of DM management. Even more, i like making custom magic bracers, like a set i have lying around in my homebrew folder that i made to prove 4 elements could be replaced/outdone by some simple magic items.

[Greywander]

Armor and Shields require proficiency which might be tied into it, I see it like this: Ring/Cloak of Protection require attunement, the bracers are the same thing just swapping the +1 save for another +1AC.
Proficiency is a fair point. The Ring and Cloak of Protection stack with armor, though, so that's probably why they require attunement. It makes sense for the bracers to be perhaps weaker that armor +X, since you don't need proficiency to use them, but they can't stack with armor like the ring and cloak can. You're either using the bracers or wearing armor, not both.


I'm going to guess that the reason they kept the bracers relatively weak is that it is an AC boost that be stacked by everyone. The paladin with +1 plate and a shield can also use it as well as the monk, and that makes it one of the best ways to get your AC into the stratospheric levels that everyone but that player wants to avoid.

Personally, i'd be fine with that change and just controlling what parties and players get what magic items, just another part of DM management. Even more, i like making custom magic bracers, like a set i have lying around in my homebrew folder that i made to prove 4 elements could be replaced/outdone by some simple magic items.
Technically, the paladin can use the bracers, but to do so he has to take off his armor and shield. The bracers do not by any stretch let you boost your AC to stratospheric levels, you want armor +3 and a shield +3 for that, which can't be used with the bracers.

To reiterate, the bracers do not work if you're wearing armor or using a shield. This makes them one of the weaker AC items, since it prevents AC stacking.

[Foxhound438]

I'm going to guess that the reason they kept the bracers relatively weak is that it is an AC boost that be stacked by everyone. The paladin with +1 plate and a shield can also use it as well as the monk, and that makes it one of the best ways to get your AC into the stratospheric levels that everyone but that player wants to avoid.

Personally, i'd be fine with that change and just controlling what parties and players get what magic items, just another part of DM management. Even more, i like making custom magic bracers, like a set i have lying around in my homebrew folder that i made to prove 4 elements could be replaced/outdone by some simple magic items.

Bracers of defense don't work with armor, you have to have no armor to get the bonus.

As for the stacking issue, I generally rule "magic item bonus" as being the same magical effect, and thus don't allow it to stack. Otherwise, shield builds become boringly un-hitable, archer builds stack + arrows with + bows to overpower anything melee, and casters generally have to resort to "unfun" things like forcecage to stay relevant in comparison. Honestly though, I generally prefer to homebrew magic items that do actually interesting things rather than give +X.

[Yakk]

Unarmored defence classes - barbarian and monk - already can scale their AC from 15ish up to 20ish at level 20.

Bracers of Defence lets them outscale the target amount of AC unarmored builds are "supposed" to have.

The same is true of shields, but shields require giving up on GWM and SS similar high-return options.

It wouldn't break the game if they where attunement free. But in 5e they out effort into ensuring that heavy plate armor was better AC than no armor.

[Greywander]

It wouldn't break the game if they where attunement free. But in 5e they out effort into ensuring that heavy plate armor was better AC than no armor.
Well they kind of failed. Light and medium armor will always sit just 1 point behind heavy, and with Medium Armor Master even that goes away, letting you get plate-level AC but without a stealth penalty. And anyway I feel like Unarmored Defense is supposed to be, "You get to have good AC even though you don't wear armor." Besides, Unarmored Defense requires a high stat investment, whereas heavy armor only requires 15 STR. Basically, with a properly optimized party, you'd almost never see a monk with Bracers of Defense having more AC than your heavy armor wearers.

Although I will agree that it would have been more interesting if there was more distinction between different armor types. The two armor feats kind of do this (heavy gives damage reduction, medium lets you sneak while having best AC), but not many people want to pay the feat tax, and there's nothing for light armor or unarmored.

[Keltest]

Its probably intended to be the opportunity cost in order for non-armor classes, spellcasters specifically, to be able to have an AC bonus from items. Its not amazing, but they could get the same bonus from some light armors, so right there its already the equivalent of a feat or racial bonus to a wizard.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Because this is a very strong item on monks, barbarians, baldsingers with mage armour. Another mage armour users(it turns it to the equivalent of studded leather+3 without being considered armoured which is a bonus). Robe of the Archmagi and other non armour AC bonus like staff of defense, staff of power and more.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Probably because it's not a huge burden on their intended users.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Remember Bracers of Defense DO stack with the spell Mage Armor. So its not just Barbarians and Monks. Oh and certain wild shapes for Druids could also wear the bracers.

In regards to attunment,
It doesn't matter that it doesn't stack with regular armor its not intended for classes who wear armor anyway. A magic item doesn't have to be universally useful to all classes require attunment. Its about an opportunity cost, if the wizard attunes to the bracers thats one less staff or wand he could attune to.

[MrStabby]

Some classes have low AC as one of their weaknesses. Letting a class remove that is a step towards losing the distinction between them. Putting a bit more of an opportunity cost to this helps keep it non-obvious what type of item to use and keep characters from blending in to each other.

To be honest, if they didnt require attunement it wouldn't bother me at all. I just wouldn't have them appear in the campaign.

[FaerieGodfather]

Armor and shields require proficiency and impose penalties and restrictions on the character's movement.

[beargryllz]

I tend to agree that either the rarity (rare) or the attunement requirement are slightly steep on this item

For a while I thought they were uncommon. Them requiring attunement for 2 AC is still nice if you find a pair because more likely than not, at least 1 of the 12-18 attunement slots available on a typical adventuring party is open and at least one character will gain 2 AC from them

If I truly wanted to minmax for high magic, higher level, efficient use of gold available on a character build, they would probably be cut in favor of some better rare magic item