Bracers of Armor and Magic Item Comp

[autumn_embrace]

I recently picked up the Magic Item Compendium and had a small happygasm that the bonus type on the Bracers of Armor was changed from an armor bonus to an enhancement bonus. I've always told me players they could use them on their spellcasters and that they stacked with the parent spell Mage Armor. Because of the limited time Mage Armor protects the character, and the fact that most players don't stop to cast it on themselves. (At least in my groups.. They almost never buff themselves..)

As a DM, I understand the Rule 0/DM's Fiat stuff. I've recently stepped off the DM bandwagon and let another player, our Rules-Lawyer, step in as a DM. I could write a paragraph of all the things he's done to annoy his players (Such as collecting our stats, auditing our sheets for bonus stacking..), he's also not accepting that the bonus type has changed on the updated equipment in the Magic Item Compendium, which he ruled as acceptable to use at our table.

My Question: How do you feel about the change? And how would you go about presenting a case to the DM that doesn't accept an errata of something that allows players with low AC (Like Mages...) a better chance at surviving during the low levels?

Thank You!

[Reel On, Love]

...bluntly, your DM's right. The MIC table is in error; it's not intended, and it's, well, a table. Text always beats table, and the text of the Bracers of Armor beats the little summary in the table in the MIC.

The DM is also right to check character sheets. It's not really fair to give someone a bonus just because they cheated or because they got confused and stacked things that aren't stackable

[autumn_embrace]

Auditing and checking character sheets is fine. But writing down AC, HP, Number of Spells, Attack rolls and weapons used is a little annoying. Its not so fun to be told "Your hit for 12 damage by kobold 1, which takes you to -1 HP. You'll need to roll a X or better to stabilize."

I wouldn't have such a big problem with the above statement in my post if he'd disclose that information about his monsters. Its great fun tossing our attack numbers and getting a chance or have some kind of say in things.

[Extra_Crispy]

Currently it does not bother me at all. I am running a very low magic ITEM game. Mages and magic is powerful but why build that ring or wand to cast the spells when someone is just going to take it and use it against you. As such Bracers of Armor are unheard of in my game.

Overall I can see both sides. Mages are VERY powerful later in their career. One of the only things Fighters had on them was the ability to hit them easy and thus maybe have a chance to stop the spell that is about to kill them. With the ability of Bracers to stack with spells now the mages will have higher armor class and while probably still not be too high for a fighter to miss with their first attack it will make it harder for that fighter to hit and then unbalance the mage more. Making mages even more deadly to non mages.

On the other hand I can see how bracers would then be just like a ring of protection and provide a enhancement bonus instead of an armor bonus. This makes them basically just like the ring but takes up a different space on the body. So in basic there is no difference between taking a ring of protection and the mage spells that give you armor (which you can do with the old version of bracers of armor) and taking the bracers and a mage spell that gives you armor. I might be remembering ring of protection wrong, I think it gives you an enhancement bonus to AC. When you look at it this way then it is perfactly fine and should be allowed. Maybe you can explain it that way to your GM as the bracers are now the same as the ring.

[Rad]

Rings of Protection give a bonus from +1 to +5 while bracers of Armor go up to +8 or +10.
Actually, bracers are an high level item because they are more expensive than rings of protection and amulets of natural armor, which also stack with mage armor and shield and are then the objects a wizard will get first.
As it was pointed out, more power to wizards at mid to high level is not a good thing, so I'd say the bracers stand as they are. It could be made an argument to have monks benefit from them, but not casters.

Auditing and checking character sheets is fine. But writing down AC, HP, Number of Spells, Attack rolls and weapons used is a little annoying.

Uh? then what is it that you do write on your character sheet?

Its not so fun to be told "Your hit for 12 damage by kobold 1, which takes you to -1 HP. You'll need to roll a X or better to stabilize."

I don't get you here: is it not fun because it sucks to be at -1 and bleeding? Sure. But what's wrong with the DM? Is it that she keeps track of your HP?

I wouldn't have such a big problem with the above statement in my post if he'd disclose that information about his monsters. Its great fun tossing our attack numbers and getting a chance or have some kind of say in things.

Unless you make some knowledge roll the characters have no clue what the stats of a monster (or worse, NPC) are, so why should you be told as a player? This is not a board game.
The DM has to know everything about the PCs as some opponents do have a way to know without the players being aware of it; it is the DM's job to use this knowledge only with those opponents that actually have access to it. Fair? No but again, this is not a board game, it does not need to be fair in that sense since the DM is not trying to "win": she's trying to make the encounter fun and surprising your players with what your critters can do is often part of it.

[Skjaldbakka]

What's wrong with keepin' track of your PC's stats? I keep a cheat cheat of my player's AC, Saves, and perception skill modifiers, as a way to expedite combat. I'd say about half of the DMs I've gamed with have collected character sheets each session.

Knowing what your PCs stats are helps when designing encounters, so that you make sure everything is a good challenge, but not too much for them to handle.

[Rad]

I'd say about half of the DMs I've gamed with have collected character sheets each session.
Knowing what your PCs stats are helps when designing encounters, so that you make sure everything is a good challenge, but not too much for them to handle.

Not to mention how handy it is to have the sheet at the table when for whatever reason someone fails to show up

[Extra_Crispy]

Not to mention how handy it is to have the sheet at the table when for whatever reason someone fails to show up

Or what happened in a Warhammer fantasy game a while back. The power, min maxed, has to be the best at everything, player was not happy with his powerful character and "lost" the character sheet only to remake the character with "remembered stats" that turned out to be at the most 5% from max with most being the best possible stats you can roll. Keeping notes is a good thing espically about AC, saves and such as this helps you speed up combat and helps you keep track and correct small errors. One in our gaming group is notorious for simple math errors. But what I think autumn is trying to say is that the GM is maybe going over board and/or stopping the player from roll playing his character and is instead roleplaying it himself some. By just saying "these are your hitpoints" or "you fail the save" when the player did not even roll the save seems like being railroaded and having your character played for you. I find that letting my players roll all their saves and describing the effect before they roll leads to them interperting the roll and result in RP fashion. "Somehow my thief hid behind a small tree and as it was blasted apart I took no damage (natural 20 with evasion)" Just being told that you made the save or that you are now at certain HP takes any embellishment out of the players hands

[skywalker]

]On the other hand I can see how bracers would then be just like a ring of protection and provide a enhancement bonus instead of an armor bonus. This makes them basically just like the ring but takes up a different space on the body. So in basic there is no difference between taking a ring of protection and the mage spells that give you armor (which you can do with the old version of bracers of armor) and taking the bracers and a mage spell that gives you armor. I might be remembering ring of protection wrong, I think it gives you an enhancement bonus to AC. When you look at it this way then it is perfactly fine and should be allowed. Maybe you can explain it that way to your GM as the bracers are now the same as the ring.

Bracers provide an armor bonus. One of their primary intentions is to obviate the need to cast mage armor. However, mage armor also has duration of hours, meaning that you really should only need to cast it once or twice. Bracers are also nice for monks, who cannot wear armor and probably have better things to spend their body slot on than robes(which are good for mages at higher levels).

Rings of protection provide a deflection bonus to AC. Rings and bracers do stack. The nice thing about the ring of protection is that deflection bonuses apply to touch attacks, touch AC being one of the things melee types have slight problems boosting.

So, to the OP, your DM is right(I actually asked this question about a month or two ago, because I was pretty excited as well) and there's absolutely nothing wrong with auditing character sheets. Now, I'm with the rest of the crowd, you definitely shouldn't have a monster's stats in game. But if you're worrying about knowing Kobold stats, have you heard of the SRD? I don't think you'd be in the wrong if you used knowledge you just happened to remember from the monster manual against kobolds.

Yes, your DM might be using some of the information he has about your characters against you. It's natural. But there's also a level of trust where you have to trust your DM not to screw you. Otherwise he can't be your DM. If you're used to a more open style of play, tell him. Did he play in the game you DM'ed? If so, explain to him that you're used to that style, as are the other players, and perhaps you could reach a compromise? He seems slightly strict(not even telling you what the kobolds rolled) but nothing very far-fetched. Auditing character sheets is a perfectly normal thing.

Wow, this post got really long but I really needed to say all of this, my bad.

[RandomNPC]

i've let them stack before, saying the bracers are magical by nature, the armor is magical so it can do it's job better. wow that sounded better in my head.

anywho, you can justify anything if you dance around it enough, but why not drop either the bracers or the armor and spend all the money on one really good one?

also, auditing sheets is necesary when paladins can somehow improved critical at third level...... yea.

[Renegade Paladin]

I keep summaries of all the vital stats of all the PCs in my games. This is a common DM practice; there's nothing wrong with it. The only conceivable reason to be annoyed by it is because you're cheating; otherwise there should be no problem.