Is Arms & Equipment Guide a broken sourcebook?

[Cygnia]

Or, at the very least, some of the items listed in it too powerful?

People sneaking in dastanas or gnomish sights on their crossbows...

[nijineko]

Not really? The two things you mention are not really broken. The Core rulebooks have much bigger problems than a few extra bonuses on attack or defense from A&E or OA. I'd be more worried about infinite wishes than a small bonus.

[Saint-Just]

Well, the Edible Items table is hilarious. Wheat is the cheapest grain (next cheapest one costs 50 times more), but the wheat flour costs 300 times more than the wheat grain. So either millers are rolling in gold or they can mill just a few pounds of wheat per week (to be consistent with the PHB's rules for profession). I get assigning arbitrary numbers for edibles because prices has always differed from year to year, from region to region etc., but there is getting numbers wrong and there is not even trying to make self-consistent numbers.

[Batcathat]

Well, the Edible Items table is hilarious. Wheat is the cheapest grain (next cheapest one costs 50 times more), but the wheat flour costs 300 times more than the wheat grain. So either millers are rolling in gold or they can mill just a few pounds of wheat per week (to be consistent with the PHB's rules for profession). I get assigning arbitrary numbers for edibles because prices has always differed from year to year, from region to region etc., but there is getting numbers wrong and there is not even trying to make self-consistent numbers.

Clearly the price of flour (and also the world) is secretly controlled by a conspiracy of milllers, who sponsor all sorts of monsters, evil necromancers and brutal warlords in order to keep adventurers from going after the real bad guys.

[SirNibbles]

Well, the Edible Items table is hilarious. Wheat is the cheapest grain (next cheapest one costs 50 times more), but the wheat flour costs 300 times more than the wheat grain. So either millers are rolling in gold or they can mill just a few pounds of wheat per week (to be consistent with the PHB's rules for profession). I get assigning arbitrary numbers for edibles because prices has always differed from year to year, from region to region etc., but there is getting numbers wrong and there is not even trying to make self-consistent numbers.

Away from books, but I'm guessing it's a matter of weight; 1 lb of wheat gets you less than 1 lb of wheat flour.

As for the book, I think it's fine as it is- nothing is so broken that it would cause significant issues.

[Saint-Just]

Away from books, but I'm guessing it's a matter of weight; 1 lb of wheat gets you less than 1 lb of wheat flour.

As for the book, I think it's fine as it is- nothing is so broken that it would cause significant issues.

Um, yes. Really white stuff is 70% extraction, but it should be unavailable in most of the settings anyway. Historical bread eaten by commoners was probably mostly made from 90%+ extraction flour. And yes there is a labor costs etc, but it cannot justify 300x increase in price. Even something like 10x increase would mean that only the wealthy would ever eat anything made from flour.

Going back to the actual purpose of this thread, I remember some ridiculous TO trick based on A&EG, but it was not merely using the item as you are supposed to, but using it in unorthodox manner in combination with some other ability or item (think Chicken-infested).

[Telonius]

I think they assume 95% of the game world's grains go to producing alcohol for dwarves and adventurers. Grain that survives to make it to a baker would be a rare and expensive thing. Quest-gives don't usually hang out in bakeries, after all. (Though I now feel compelled to write up a one-shot where the Baking Guild is hiring guards for a major shipment..)

[Mehangel]

Clearly the price of flour (and also the world) is secretly controlled by a conspiracy of milllers, who sponsor all sorts of monsters, evil necromancers and brutal warlords in order to keep adventurers from going after the real bad guys.

Or maybe, it is because millers inflate the prices after adventurers realized that they can toss bags of flour as a way to reveal invisible creatures.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Or, at the very least, some of the items listed in it too powerful?

People sneaking in dastanas or gnomish sights on their crossbows...
How are those too powerful?

A dastana will only ever grant you a +1 bonus to AC (since enhancements on it don't stack with armor). That wouldn't be too powerful even if it stacked with full plate, which it doesn't.
Sure, you can use it to get more armor enhancements cheaper, but there really aren't enough worthwhile ones or enough WBL to even come close to breaking the game with it.

And crossbow sights will only ever remove range penalties for 2 range increments.
That's helpful for hand crossbow users, sure, but those aren't exactly gamebreaking even with that bonus. For everyone else most of the time they'll do absolutely nothing.
Or at least i have very rarely seen true long-range engagements in any game i've played in, let alone ones where even a triple-range crossbow would've even been close to a magic user.
Not to mention that archery is one of the weaker combat styles in the game, with crossbows generally being inferior to bows and mostly used by low level casters to save on spell slots.

There's a few nice mundane items that give minor skill boni in the book, but aside from those few of the things inside are even useful.
Most of the magic items are pretty lame tbh, none of the special materials hold a candle to mithral or adamantine, a lot of the mundane gear is useless unless you like to roleplay camping...

It's been a while since i've opened the book but i don't think i can recall anything broken in it. Or even anything particularly powerful or must-have.

[SirNibbles]

Um, yes. Really white stuff is 70% extraction, but it should be unavailable in most of the settings anyway. Historical bread eaten by commoners was probably mostly made from 90%+ extraction flour. And yes there is a labor costs etc, but it cannot justify 300x increase in price. Even something like 10x increase would mean that only the wealthy would ever eat anything made from flour.

Taking a glance at the rest of the table and the prices of grains vs flours, as well as the Trade Goods prices (Player's Handbook, page 112) which lists flour as 2 cp, it was likely an error of some sort. The roughly double price of flour vs grain makes sense.

[Saint-Just]

Taking a glance at the rest of the table and the prices of grains vs flours, as well as the Trade Goods prices (Player's Handbook, page 112) which lists flour as 2 cp, it was likely an error of some sort. The roughly double price of flour vs grain makes sense.

It is not something that can be characterized as "a" mistake. Other flours made from other grains cost double the price of the grain, it's true, but as I said the second-cheapest grain costs 50 times more than wheat. Walnuts costing less and hazelnuts costing the same as aforementioned second-cheapest grain. A gallon of vegetable oils (highly nutritious and desirable substance) costing less than a pound of aforementioned second-cheapest grain. Pint of honey costing 2.5 times less than a pint of cheapest beer-like substance (the price of beer is given per gallon, but we can divide by eight). No mater how you look at it you can't make heads or tails out of it. If you assume that some prices are 10 times higher than they should be you still cannot make it consistent with real world in any age or place. If you assume that some prices are 100 times higher than they should be, or some are 10 times lower and some are 10 times higher then even if it's true you may as well throw out the table entirely, because trying to work through all possible combinations will take ungodly amount of time.

Oh, and once you have directed me to PHB (I forgot about it) I find that price of a live cow is equivalent to five pounds of beef sausage. Yes there are significant labor investments in the butchering and preparing the sausage but never to that degree (unless authors managed to look up some artisanal gold-plated Italian sausage, but at that point I find it slightly more likely that they just spun a wheel or something).

[unseenmage]

Just ban the Rod of Construct Control and call it a day. Everything else is fine.

[Thurbane]

The pricing of the Phylactery of Change is a little questionable: polymorph on yourself with an unlimited duration, 1/day. 11,200gp.

[Gruftzwerg]

The pricing of the Phylactery of Change is a little questionable: polymorph on yourself with an unlimited duration, 1/day. 11,200gp.

I don't think so. It seems in line with a Psychoactive Skin of Proteus 84,000 gp

1/day = divide by 5
slotless = x2

So if you would custom tailor the Phylactery of Change into "no charges" (x5) and slotless (x2) it would even cost 112,000gp

So it is even more expensive than a Psychoactive Skin of Proteus in an equal comprehension.

[Melcar]

Or, at the very least, some of the items listed in it too powerful?

People sneaking in dastanas or gnomish sights on their crossbows...

Free wishes are broken, what in this book equals the power of free wishes? Let me help you... nothing at all in the book is even remotly close to being broken. Full Stop!

[sleepyphoenixx]

The pricing of the Phylactery of Change is a little questionable: polymorph on yourself with an unlimited duration, 1/day. 11,200gp.

It's Polymorph Self, a spell that no longer exists in 3.5, so it requires DM adjustment anyway.
And a single questionable item does not make a broken sourcebook.

[Kaleph]

How are those too powerful?

A dastana will only ever grant you a +1 bonus to AC (since enhancements on it don't stack with armor). That wouldn't be too powerful even if it stacked with full plate, which it doesn't.
Sure, you can use it to get more armor enhancements cheaper, but there really aren't enough worthwhile ones or enough WBL to even come close to breaking the game with it.

I'm not arguing that it is TOO powerful or broken, but please consider that it's also the best armor for a typical arcane gish (exceptions may exist). Mithral chain shirt (twilight) with mithral dastana and chahar aina means you have almost a full plate with no spell failure chance. And you can pile up enchantments like soulfire and freedom for discounted costs. And simply being "the best" is interpreted by many DMs as being outright broken, regardless of the fact that it provides a limited advantage only to a very niche application...

[Gruftzwerg]

I'm not arguing that it is TOO powerful or broken, but please consider that it's also the best armor for a typical arcane gish (exceptions may exist). Mithral chain shirt (twilight) with mithral dastana and chahar aina means you have almost a full plate with no spell failure chance. And you can pile up enchantments like soulfire and freedom for discounted costs. And simply being "the best" is interpreted by many DMs as being outright broken, regardless of the fact that it provides a limited advantage only to a very niche application...


I always find it odd that people forget that there are Bracers of Armor +8 / +5 (8 armor bonus and 5 enhancement bonus) where you can pile up another +5 worth of armor enhancement compared to the Mithral Twilight (+1) chain shirt which has already spend +1 worth of enhancements (and has up to 4 AC less).

[sleepyphoenixx]

I always find it odd that people forget that there are Bracers of Armor +8 / +5 (8 armor bonus and 5 enhancement bonus) where you can pile up another +5 worth of armor enhancement compared to the Mithral Twilight (+1) chain shirt which has already spend +1 worth of enhancements (and has up to 4 AC less).

I think it's less that people forget and more that Bracers of Armor are really expensive. Price matters.
They're basically priced as armor with a +0 AC, so you're paying the same you'd pay for enhancing magical armor only without getting free cheap AC from the base armor.

What makes dastana good isn't the AC, that's just icing on the cake. It's the fact that you can split your enhancements between two pieces of equipment to save costs.

Bracers of Armor +8 may grant the same AC as full plate, but you're paying quadruple the cost of a chain shirt +4 for the same AC.
Stacking armor enhancements on top just makes it even less efficient. They also don't stack with Magic Vestment while a chain shirt +1 will.
They're fine for getting armor enhancements but for AC they're a trap option, you're better off with a mithral twilight chain shirt.

Bracers of Armor are pretty much only useful for characters who want to wear a Monk's Belt (or monks) to get a slot for armor enhancements like Soulfire. Everyone else is better off with the chain shirt.

[Gruftzwerg]

I think it's less that people forget and more that Bracers of Armor are really expensive. Price matters.
They're basically priced as armor with a +0 AC, so you're paying the same you'd pay for enhancing magical armor only without getting free cheap AC from the base armor.

What makes dastana good isn't the AC, that's just icing on the cake. It's the fact that you can split your enhancements between two pieces of equipment to save costs.

Bracers of Armor +8 may grant the same AC as full plate, but you're paying quadruple the cost of a chain shirt +4 for the same AC.
Stacking armor enhancements on top just makes it even less efficient. They also don't stack with Magic Vestment while a chain shirt +1 will.
They're fine for getting armor enhancements but for AC they're a trap option, you're better off with a mithral twilight chain shirt.

Bracers of Armor are pretty much only useful for characters who want to wear a Monk's Belt (or monks) to get a slot for armor enhancements like Soulfire. Everyone else is better off with the chain shirt.

Sure they ain't perfect, but they are not as bad as you think imho.

- a chainwshirt +4 should be compared to a bracers of armor +4 / +4 which only cost double the price, not quadruple

- Magic Vestment (MV) can be used with Bracers of Armor the same way as with any other armor, unless you are running around naked otherwise (hint: MV works on your normal clothes. bracers of armor +X/+0 profits from can work with MV if you wear any kind of clothes/armor)

- no armor check penalty

- no Dex cap

The double price is for not having to deal with armor check penalty and Dex cap. Which can be acceptable depending on the circumstances. For some builds, they can be the better option.

edit: changed a sentence to prevent misinterpretation.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Sure they ain't perfect, but they are not as bad as you think imho.

- a chainwshirt +4 should be compared to a bracers of armor +4 / +4 which only cost double the price, not quadruple
Assuming the +4 / +4 means a +4 enhancement with +4 in special abilities that's still a +8 bonus, meaning you pay 64k gp.
A chain shirt +4 costs 16k (plus the cost of the mwk chain shirt, but that's negligible).


- Magic Vestment (MV) can be used with Bracers of Armor the same way as with any other armor, unless you are running around naked otherwise (hint: MV works on your normal clothes. bracers of armor +X/+0 profits from MV)
Nope. According to the rules for magic armor all magic armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses.
Since neither BoA nor Magic Vestment specify otherwise they're the same bonus type and therefore don't stack.


- no armor check penalty

- no Dex cap

The double price is for not having to deal with armor check penalty and Dex cap. Which can be acceptable depending on the circumstances. For some builds, they can be the better option.

A mithral chain shirt doesn't have ACP either. And even characters with a dex bonus higher than +8 are still better off with the appropriate armor (there are armors without a max dex bonus) unless they have class features forbidding it or wear a Monk's Belt because it'll come with at least 1 AC for basically free.

[Gruftzwerg]

Assuming the +4 / +4 means a +4 enhancement with +4 in special abilities that's still a +8 bonus, meaning you pay 64k gp.
A chain shirt +4 costs 16k (plus the cost of the mwk chain shirt, but that's negligible).
nope it means +4 armor bonus and +4 enhancement bonus to armor. See, most people don't even get how bracers of armor work (no offense here, I had the same problem for several years..^^). bracers of armor +4 (16k) + 4 enhancement bonus (16k) = 32k



Nope. According to the rules for magic armor all magic armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses.
Since neither BoA nor Magic Vestment specify otherwise they're the same bonus type and therefore don't stack.
As said, the first number after bracer of armor (which is part of the items name, e.g. BoA +1) refers to base armor class and not magical enhancement bonus to armor. That is the second number.
BoA (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#bracersofArmor):

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.


A mithral chain shirt doesn't have ACP either. And even characters with a dex bonus higher than +8 are still better off with the appropriate armor (there are armors without a max dex bonus) unless they have class features forbidding it or wear a Monk's Belt because it'll come with at least 1 AC for basically free.

why not stack it with a monk's belt? (if the intent is to go for high AC as the thread suggests).

____
for reference: a BoA +8 / +5 gives:
+13AC +8AC +5 worth of magical enhancements, with 0 ACP 0%ASF and no Dex cap
And lets not forget that they are a force effect making em basically ghost touch armor for free!
Sure, not everybody is going to invest that much into them. But they have their niche.


edit: small change to prevent misinterpretation.

edit2: fun fact:
IIRC it is Arms & Equipment that suggests that you can enhance BoA like real armor.
So yeah, maybe the book is broken to some degree^^

edit3: corrected the AC value, since I was pointed out to a mistake

[sleepyphoenixx]

nope it means +4 armor bonus and +4 enhancement bonus to armor. See, most people don't even get how bracers of armor work (no offense here, I had the same problem for several years..^^). bracers of armor +4 (16k) + 4 enhancement bonus (16k) = 32k



As said, the first number after bracer of armor (which is part of the items name, e.g. BoA +1) refers to base armor class and not magical enhancement bonus to armor. That is the second number.
BoA (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#bracersofArmor):
That's not how it works. BoA aren't armor. They don't grant a base AC. The only thing they grant is the magical bonus. They're effectively armor with a base AC of 0 for enhancement purposes.


why not stack it with a monk's belt? (if the intent is to go for high AC as the thread suggests).
Because it works like the Monk's AC bonus which doesn't work when wearing armor or a shield.


edit2: fun fact:
IIRC it is Arms & Equipment that suggests that you can enhance BoA like real armor.
So yeah, maybe the book is broken to some degree^^
I think you misunderstood something there. A&EG allows you to add special abilities in place of an enhancement bonus to armor (just like regular armor).
Meaning you can get Bracers of Armor +1 with Soulfire for the price of Bracers of Armor +5 instead of just the RAW AC bonus, just like a Soulfire Chain Shirt +1 has an effective bonus of +5.

It's basically intended to let classes who don't or can't wear armor and shields get a gear slot for armor enhancements.
That doesn't make BoA magical armor that can be additionally enhanced as normal armor can.

[Gruftzwerg]

That's not how it works. BoA aren't armor. They don't grant a base AC. The only thing they grant is the magical bonus. They're effectively armor with a base AC of 0 for enhancement purposes.
...
Read the SRD quote from my previous post. It clearly states that BoA give "Armor Bonus". The same armor bonus that regular armor does give (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm), no point to debate left here.

edit: regarding Monk's Belt:
the belt works like the class feature, thus it gives "Wisdom bonus" to AC and "untyped bonus" to AC. So, it can be stacked with anything else.

[Lilapop]

Nope. According to the rules for magic armor all magic armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses.
You are referring to this segment, I presume:

Magic armor is a common but vital item. In general, it protects the wearer to a greater extent than nonmagical armor. Magic armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses (and with shield and magic shield enhancement bonuses).
Bracers of Armor go to +8 though. And their bonus type is listed as being armor.

However, all of that is moot and Gruftzwerg's "+4 / +4" thing does not work, because: nowhere does it say you can slap enhancement bonus effects (either as a magic item or from a magic vestment spell) on Bracers of Armor. They are not a suit of armor, they just give the same bonus type as a suit of armor would. They are not an "outfit of regular clothing", as per magic vestment (which would only apply "for the purposes of that spell" anyway). Even the sidebar in the A&EG doesn't allow this:

A character who [meets the requirements] can add the armor special abilities shown on Table 8–6 in the Dungeonmaster’s Guide to a set of bracers of armor.
Table 8-6 on page 180 in the 3.0 DMG became table 7-5 on page 217 in the 3.5 DMG. Neither includes basic enhancement bonuses.





the belt works like the class feature, thus it gives "Wisdom bonus" to AC and "untyped bonus" to AC. So, it can be stacked with anything else.
This is not a bonus type issue, but how that particular class feature works:

She loses these bonuses when she is immobilized or helpless, when she wears any armor, when she carries a shield, or when she carries a medium or heavy load.

[Gruftzwerg]

However, all of that is moot and Gruftzwerg's "+4 / +4" thing does not work, because: nowhere does it say you can slap enhancement bonus effects (either as a magic item or from a magic vestment spell) on Bracers of Armor. They are not a suit of armor, they just give the same bonus type as a suit of armor would. They are not an "outfit of regular clothing", as per magic vestment (which would only apply "for the purposes of that spell" anyway).
Reread what I said. I assume you aren't running around naked and that you at least wear some kind of clothes when you use BoA. So a BoA +X/+0 only gives armor bonus, which can stack with the enhancement bonus to AC from MV (which applies to your regular clothes). Explain me where you see any conflict? one is armor bonus, the other enhancement bonus to armor. Why it shouldn't stack in your opinion?


Even the sidebar in the A&EG doesn't allow this:

Table 8-6 on page 180 in the 3.0 DMG became table 7-5 on page 217 in the 3.5 DMG. Neither includes basic enhancement bonuses.
I had to call a friend since he has my A&EG and yeah, crafting enhancement bonuses to armor on BoA seems to be excluded (didn't know that or forgot it..^^). But that still doesn't stop you from stacking enhancement bonuses to armor from other sources (like MV) as long as they don't target the bracers.



This is not a bonus type issue, but how that particular class feature works:
And where do you see any conflict? Just because BoA can have magical properties "like" real armor and because they give "armor bonus" doesn't let em become/count as armor in general. Further the monks AC bonus is an "untyped bonus to AC" (! not the same as "armor bonus"). I don't see any conflict here.

[tyckspoon]

Reread what I said. I assume you aren't running around naked and that you at least wear some kind of clothes when you use BoA. So a BoA +X/+0 only gives armor bonus, which can stack with the enhancement bonus to AC from MV (which applies to your regular clothes). Explain me where you see any conflict? one is armor bonus, the other enhancement bonus to armor. Why it shouldn't stack in your opinion?


"Enhancement bonus to armor" is just Armor Bonus - an 'Enhancement bonus' isn't a distinct bonus type in the final calculation. It makes another bonus larger, and stacks/combines with other bonuses as if it was the original bonus type. (There are a couple of bizarre edge cases where somebody didn't understand how this was supposed to work, so you get 'an Enhancement bonus to AC' that will stack differently, but in most standard usage Enhancement doesn't apply directly to AC - you increase your Armor bonus or your Natural Armor bonus or your Dex modifier or whatever, and then you compare that to other sources of Armor/Natural Armor to see which one to use as the highest source of that bonus.) A Chain Shirt +1 doesn't have 4 Armor 1 Enhancement; it's just 5 Armor for stacking purposes.

So if you have Bracers of Armor +2 and Magic Vestments cast on a robe for a +2 enhancement, you have 2 sources of Armor Bonus +2 to AC. They don't combine.

[Gruftzwerg]

"Enhancement bonus to armor" is just Armor Bonus - an 'Enhancement bonus' isn't a distinct bonus type in the final calculation. It makes another bonus larger, and stacks/combines with other bonuses as if it was the original bonus type. (There are a couple of bizarre edge cases where somebody didn't understand how this was supposed to work, so you get 'an Enhancement bonus to AC' that will stack differently, but in most standard usage Enhancement doesn't apply directly to AC - you increase your Armor bonus or your Natural Armor bonus or your Dex modifier or whatever, and then you compare that to other sources of Armor/Natural Armor to see which one to use as the highest source of that bonus.) A Chain Shirt +1 doesn't have 4 Armor 1 Enhancement; it's just 5 Armor for stacking purposes.

So if you have Bracers of Armor +2 and Magic Vestments cast on a robe for a +2 enhancement, you have 2 sources of Armor Bonus +2 to AC. They don't combine.

Sorry but that is not how it works.

The score to which all mentioned bonus types are added to is AC, I think we can agree all on that.

1:
BoA +X would give you +X armor bonus to AC

2:
MV (despite targeting your regular clothes) gives you +Y enhancement bonus to your AC. If you target regular clothes with MV, IIRC the clothes count as + 0 armor bonus.

3:
Now we have 2 items which give bonuses to our AC. The first gives us "+X armor bonus" while the second gives us "+0 armor bonus and +Y enhancement bonus". If we apply basic stacking rules, the +0 armor bonus for the regular clothes from MV gets trumped by +X from BoA and the +Y enhancement bonus may stack on top of that.
AC = 10 + size + X armor bonus + Y enhancement bonus +...

and a monk's belt, which gives Wis bonus to AC and untyped bonus to AC may stack on top of that.

Note: you don't calculate each item for itself and than compare the items. There is no rule for that (unless you can point me to one). The rule is to compare all bonuses to a score if they may add or not, despite how many sources/items gives you these bonuses.

Really, I still don't see any conflict here.

[Troacctid]

The enhancement bonus isn't directly to your AC. It's to your armor's armor bonus. This is why you can have an armor with an enhancement bonus and a shield with an enhancement bonus and have them both stack.

[gijoemike]

Bracer's of Armor are a weird item.

The bonus they give is listed as an Armor bonus as Gruftzwerg has stated. This is so one cannot wear plate mail and bracers of armor for super high AC. The source of magic is Mage Armor.

As Troacctid said enhancement bonuses stack onto a base armor/shield to increase it. But the enhancement bonus from the shield don't stack with the armor.


So wearing Bracers +4 gives an armor bonus. But casting Greater Magic Vestment on a separate piece of clothing means you are now wearing a second item that has an armor bonus of 4 the enchanment bonus isn't a separate category to your AC calculation. An armor bonus of 4 and and armor bonus of 4 DO NOT STACK. The better value wins. Casting GMV on your cloths when wearing bracers of Armor is worthless in most use cases. Bracers adds to touch ac vs incorporeal attacks.


The monks belt stacks with bracers of armor because the wearer isn't wearing armor. They just have an armor bonus.

[Gruftzwerg]

The enhancement bonus isn't directly to your AC. It's to your armor's armor bonus. This is why you can have an armor with an enhancement bonus and a shield with an enhancement bonus and have them both stack.

I get what you mean, but I can give you a counterexample:

Defending weapon enhancement:

A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword's enhancement bonus to his AC as a special bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn.
there are enhancement bonuses to AC not bound to armor and shields.

Bracers of Armor +8
Armor spikes +X (+1 Defending)

there we go again: BoA + enhancement bonus AC
caps at +12 AC before epic (when we can have more than +5 enhancements it caps at+13AC. Not much of a difference).

[rrwoods]

The enhancement bonus isn't directly to your AC. It's to your armor's armor bonus. This is why you can have an armor with an enhancement bonus and a shield with an enhancement bonus and have them both stack.
Yup this is correct. To further elaborate, the SRD entry for enhancement bonus has this to say:

Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks.
A +1 full plate provides a +9 armor bonus to your AC (because its normal +8 is increased to +9 via the armor's enhancement bonus) -- it does *not* provide a +8 armor bonus and a separate +1 enhancement bonus.

Separately, table 6-11 in the MIC lists (for example) "AC, +4 to +5 armor bonus" in the arms and body slots, and has the footnote "cannot be added to any item that already provides a nonmagical armor or shield bonus to AC", and notably, it *does not* list "+X to +X+1 enhancement to armor bonus" anywhere. (It does list enhancement bonuses to natural armor.)

EDIT:

Your defending weapon example is not relevant. It explicitly becomes a "special bonus that stacks with all others" instead of an enhancement bonus. (Why they didn't just make it an untyped bonus, I don't know.)

[Troacctid]

There's no particular reason why an effect couldn't grant an enhancement bonus to your AC directly, if the writers wanted to create one. But that's not the choice they made in this case.

[Gruftzwerg]

Yup this is correct. To further elaborate, the SRD entry for enhancement bonus has this to say:
Sorry but I don't explicitly see the rule that you describe in the quote. I still can say that the bonus types are "armor enhancement" bonus to AC and "shield enhancement" bonus to AC and the quoted sentence and all other related rules still work as you would expect.


EDIT:

Your defending weapon example is not relevant. It explicitly becomes a "special bonus that stacks with all others" instead of an enhancement bonus. (Why they didn't just make it an untyped bonus, I don't know.)

I know that it isn't the best example, but it was the first to come into my mind^^ Dunno if there are any other, but I'm under the impression yes. But I haven't found any other example right off the bat.

[rrwoods]

Sorry but I don't explicitly see the rule that you describe in the quote.
Sorry, I cut a bunch of context there. Here's the entry itself: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#enhancementBonus

[Thurbane]

It's Polymorph Self, a spell that no longer exists in 3.5, so it requires DM adjustment anyway.
And a single questionable item does not make a broken sourcebook.

Completely agree, I used A&EG a lot myself. Just pointing out some material as other had.

[Gruftzwerg]

Sorry, I cut a bunch of context there. Here's the entry itself: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#enhancementBonus

I read the paragraph and my point hasn't changed.

I can still say that my AC calculation looks like this and it should still be RAW legal:

AC = 10 + armor bonus + armor enhancement bonus + shield bonus + shield enhancement bonus + natural armor ....

I don't see any strict rule that forces me to calculate the modified armor and shield bonuses for each source beforehand to compare those later in the AC calculation. It's more beneficial and still legal (imho, unless you can provide rules that say otherwise) to compare all bonuses in the AC calculation itself and than pick the highest bonuses that count. If there is a rule that says otherwise, pls point me to it (I'm curious if there is one..).

[denthor]

I think they assume 95% of the game world's grains go to producing alcohol for dwarves and adventurers. Grain that survives to make it to a baker would be a rare and expensive thing. Quest-gives don't usually hang out in bakeries, after all. (Though I now feel compelled to write up a one-shot where the Baking Guild is hiring guards for a major shipment..)

At some point in the time we game we all gaurd the caravan. Unless we rob it, I have never been told what we are guarding. I find it amusing that it could have been flour, sugar or other common goods.

Caravans get attacked on the regular. This is why NPC equipment is lacking.

Now imagine giving out similar awards of treasure to your PC'S. You have just cleared the cave complex of the evil human cult. You have found they were hoarding bread, hunting for deer and you find 100 balls of yarn. Plus their mostly ruined sets of leather armor (2 gp) per set 5 sets. You made a fortune...by peasant standards.

This your thumbs up by the way.

[rrwoods]

I read the paragraph and my point hasn't changed.

I can still say that my AC calculation looks like this and it should still be RAW legal:

AC = 10 + armor bonus + armor enhancement bonus + shield bonus + shield enhancement bonus + natural armor ....

I don't see any strict rule that forces me to calculate the modified armor and shield bonuses for each source beforehand to compare those later in the AC calculation. It's more beneficial and still legal (imho, unless you can provide rules that say otherwise) to compare all bonuses in the AC calculation itself and than pick the highest bonuses that count. If there is a rule that says otherwise, pls point me to it (I'm curious if there is one..).


AC = 10 + size modifier + Dex modifier + armor bonus + shield bonus + deflection bonus + insight bonus + natural armor bonus + dodge bonuses + other modifiers

An enhancement bonus makes an armor bonus, natural armor bonus, or a shield bonus better. The enhancement bonus stacks as if it were part of the bonus to which it applies—armor, natural armor, or shield—so it’s not included in the AC formula above.

"An enhancement bonus makes an armor bonus better". It's not separate.

[Gruftzwerg]

"An enhancement bonus makes an armor bonus better". It's not separate.

You see, here we have proof that the Rules Compendium have failed.
What about enhancement bonuses to ability scores? If you take that paragraph as a rule, you make all enhancement bonuses to ability scores dysfunctional. Why isn't a possible enhancement bonus to Dexterity mentioned as also have been calculated into the Dex modifier? I have to assume that RC ain't trying to change the rules here and just has failed to provide a correct example of how to do it. Therefore, I still have to demand a plausible primary source.

And the example there is IIRC is even more devastating:

AC= 10 + Dex mod + armor bonus + shield bonus + size mod

No mention of natural armor or any kind of other modifiers (except size & Dex) that would apply.
So we are still in a grey area of the rules imho.

[rrwoods]

I typed up a long response to this and then thought better of it. It is clear to me that the rules do not support your interpretation and I have explained why. I’m done on that front.

But:

And the example there is IIRC is even more devastating:

AC= 10 + Dex mod + armor bonus + shield bonus + size mod

No mention of natural armor or any kind of other modifiers (except size & Dex) that would apply.
So we are still in a grey area of the rules imho.
What? Where did you get this “example” from? It’s not from the Rules Compendium page I cited, and in fact copied and pasted! Your assertion that the formula doesn’t mention natural armor is wrong.

[Gruftzwerg]

I typed up a long response to this and then thought better of it. It is clear to me that the rules do not support your interpretation and I have explained why. I’m done on that front.

But:

What? Where did you get this “example” from? It’s not from the Rules Compendium page I cited, and in fact copied and pasted! Your assertion that the formula doesn’t mention natural armor is wrong.

PHB p6 is the first time AC is explained (and I therefore assume that the PHB is the primary source for AC):

Armor Class:
Your Armor Class (AC) determines how hard your character is to hit. Add the following numbers together to get your AC: 10 + your armor bonus + your shield bonus + your size modifier + your Dexterity modifier.
no natural armor and no indicator for other possible bonus types.
Do you see all the conflicts that emerge from viewing these formulas as they are presented as rules?
I still miss to see a "text rule" that forces me for my "AC" calculation, to calculate enhancement bonuses to armor/shields beforehand. Imho I can still compare all available bonus types in the total AC calculation and than pick the highest available and sum em up. The formulas are just examples. And the "Enhancement" section in the RC causes dysfunctions if you take it as rule and not as a failed explanation attempt.

edit: the sole rules that I'm aware of regarding calculating things in 3.5 are the stacking rules. And if we just take these as the given rules and include the different enhancement types (shield enhancement, armor enhancement..) for calculating our AC, it is simple and doesn't cause any dysfunctions. Therefore I think it is the best way to solve the question how AC is calculated. If you can present me other clear rules, I would be more than happy. (I'm serious)

[rrwoods]

I gave clear rules support already.

You countered with an argument about enhancement bonuses being able to benefit other things, where the rule in question is in a section of the RC about armor class and the context is *obviously* that the enhancement bonuses they are talking about are ones on armor, shields, or natural armor.

The rules writers are frequently imprecise, and they were imprecise here as well. But there is clear support for the way Troacctid and I are saying this works. There is no support for the way you’re saying this works.

I’m done attempting to discuss this now as it’s evident that your position is too adamantly held to be changed.

[Gruftzwerg]

I gave clear rules support already.

You countered with an argument about enhancement bonuses being able to benefit other things, where the rule in question is in a section of the RC about armor class and the context is *obviously* that the enhancement bonuses they are talking about are ones on armor, shields, or natural armor.

The rules writers are frequently imprecise, and they were imprecise here as well. But there is clear support for the way Troacctid and I are saying this works. There is no support for the way you’re saying this works.

I’m done attempting to discuss this now as it’s evident that your position is too adamantly held to be changed.

Since when is an enhancement bonus to Dex irrelevant for AC calculation?

and where is the rule that you have presented? Is it this one?


Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks.
The rule here is that enhancement (to armor or natural armor) bonuses don't apply against touch attacks. "Effectively" indicates that the sentence is going to tell us how the situation will result (regarding touch attacks and not how to calculate your AC total in general).
Where does it say that you have to calculate enhancement bonuses beforehand for your total AC? I fail to see where it says what you are implying here. If you mean another text passage, pls point me to it.

edit: The quoted rule from RC seems to count "enhancement bonuses to shields" when it comes to your touch AC.. lol... RC get more and more silly here just as sidenote.