My players cant seem to grasp the idea that rings of protection - bracers of armour - cant be worn with their other mundane ( or magical ) armour.
The biggest argument we have is that they think that the wizard could cast Mage armour on the Warriors in thier plate mail.
I have just Vetoed this silly proposal but I would like some back up - with refernces to rules on it ( that I cant seem To find ) .
The main rule - bonuses of the same type do not stack.
Armor - plate and other - provides an aptly named armor bonus. Rings of protection provide a deflection bonus. Go ahead and wear your rings with your armor, they stack just fine. However, both bracers of armor and mage armor provide an armor bonus. You may wear them with your armor, but only the greater of the two bonuses counts. (That will probably be their armor...)
Hope that helps,
Drew Garrett
Well bro- thats fine as far as the rules go - but what happens ?- Does the mage armour interfere with the armour? Where does it talk about this in any of the book?
I don't know page numbers, but the mage armor simply has no effect if the armor bonus of the character's items is better. Any bonus that has a listed type stacks with every bonus other than ones of the same type. Natural, deflection, armor, shield, dodge, circumstance, luck, sacred, profane, etc., all stack with each other.
Most do not stack with themselvesm, such as armor + armor. You just use whatever is better. The other bonus and whatever gives it is completely ignored. Should something take away the higher armor bonus, the secondary one then comes into effect if it is still present.
Some bonus types do stack with each other, such as dodge and circumstance. Also, there are unnamed modifiers, i.e., a barbarian's rage. It confers a -2 AC penalty. It doesn't say -2 armor penalty, or luck or whatever. This means it's unnamed and stacks with everything else, even other unspecified modifiers.
It should also be noted that mage armor has a secondary function. It is an armor bonus, just like a chain shirt or full plate, but it is made of force, rather than materials. Thus, it still applies against the attacks of incorporeal creatures, while the full plate doesn't.
I don't know page numbers.
Most of the relevant rules can be found in the Player's Handbook, pages 171-172 under "Combining Magical Effects."
Well bro- thats fine as far as the rules go - but what happens ?- Does the mage armour interfere with the armour? Where does it talk about this in any of the book?
What Jeremy had to say about stacking, etc. is all well and good, but that's just dealing with the rules as written. From a practical standpoint, you could couch your explanation in several different ways. For instance, you could say that the mage armor spell creates a field of force that is shaped like a suit of armor and actually takes up the same space as normal armor. It would be like wearing two suits of armor that take up exactly the same body space at once (a physical impossibility).
really, there is no real reason why certain types of bonuses wouldn't stack, but then the game would be bogged down in a lot more inconsistencies, and PCs would be abusing the mage armor spell left, right, and center!
Some bonus types do stack with each other, such as dodge and circumstance. Also, there are unnamed modifiers, i.e., a barbarian's rage. It confers a -2 AC penalty. It doesn't say -2 armor penalty, or luck or whatever. This means it's unnamed and stacks with everything else, even other unspecified modifiers.
I agree with everything you say, except a few of the things here. Only dodge bonusses stack. Circumstance bonusses do not. You're right about unnamed bonusses, though. They allways stack with everything else. But that's really just a fix. Sometimes writers forget to add the bonus type when they're writing adventures.
Penalties always stack. Whether they're of the same type or not. I guess life's unfair that way.
Some bonus types do stack with each other, such as dodge and circumstance. Also, there are unnamed modifiers, i.e., a barbarian's rage. It confers a -2 AC penalty. It doesn't say -2 armor penalty, or luck or whatever. This means it's unnamed and stacks with everything else, even other unspecified modifiers.I agree with everything you say, except a few of the things here. Only dodge bonusses stack. Circumstance bonusses do not. You're right about unnamed bonusses, though. They allways stack with everything else. But that's really just a fix. Sometimes writers forget to add the bonus type when they're writing adventures.
Penalties always stack. Whether they're of the same type or not. I guess life's unfair that way.
That was true in 3.0, I believe. However, "Circumstance: This is a bonus or penalty based on situational factors, which may apply to either a check or the DC for that check. Circumstance modifiers stack with each other, unless they arise from essentially the same circumstance." (DMG, pg. 21)
I think this is a major improvement. After looking over the bonus types on this page, I noted that dodge and circumstance are the ONLY bonuses that stack, other than unnamed. I thought there was a third; apparently I was wrong, too.
I didn't see anything there about all penalties stacking, but I think you're right, except for rare instances.
That was true in 3.0, I believe. However, "Circumstance: This is a bonus or penalty based on situational factors, which may apply to either a check or the DC for that check. Circumstance modifiers stack with each other, unless they arise from essentially the same circumstance." (DMG, pg. 21)
Thanks for setting me straight. 'preciate it.
It may be a moot point in most cases, but casting Mage Armor or your plate-wearing fighters isn't utterly pointless. Unlike other armor bonuses, Mage Armor isn't ignored by incorporeal touch attacks, making it very useful when fighting shadows, wraiths and other incorporeal undead.
I have now turned mage armour in to a super neon pink glowing force shield that loudly squeaks like baloons being rubbed together and emits a powerful lavender scent.
That should handle it. Kinda like the Holtzman shields in the Dune book.
And you still cant wear armour with it.
One of the charcters is furiosly working on his new spell..." Mage armour - They way it should be."
Mentioned earlier was the barbarian's rage ability as being an unnamed bonus to STR and CON. I would argue that it is an enhancement bonus, as p. 308 of the PH states that enhancement is a general bonus to an ability and enhancements do not stack with each other.
One of my PC's wants to cast Bull's Strength and himself and then rage to gain a +8 enhancement to his strength and he's quite angry that I won't let him. I used to let him until I read the definition of enhancement.
Maybe I'll just tell him that it makes him smell like "lavender." LOL
Mentioned earlier was the barbarian's rage ability as being an unnamed bonus to STR and CON. I would argue that it is an enhancement bonus, as p. 308 of the PH states that enhancement is a general bonus to an ability and enhancements do not stack with each other.
One of my PC's wants to cast Bull's Strength and himself and then rage to gain a +8 enhancement to his strength and he's quite angry that I won't let him. I used to let him until I read the definition of enhancement.
Maybe I'll just tell him that it makes him smell like "lavender." LOL
I think wet dog would be even more of a deterant. Knowing my players, they would jump at the chance to smell like "lavender."
Anyway, I agree with your logic that enhancement is a general bonus that just makes things "better", however, the entry for a barbarian's rage just says "+4 bouns". If it were enhancement, it would say it there.
However, I think you would be justified in making it enhancement as a house rule, since, the way I see it, that's so,ething like saying the masterwork bonus should stack with the enhancement bonus, which of course, it doesn't.
I gave in and allowed the barbarian to stack the +4 "unnamed" bonus (I still think it's an enhancement) with other bonuses.
The only reason I gave in is because the "errata sheet" published by Wizards for the PH 3.5 did not correct or clarify the issue, so I'll go along and call it an unnamed bonus. Wizards had their chance and didn't correct it...maybe I AM wrong (but probably not).
I gave in and allowed the barbarian to stack the +4 "unnamed" bonus (I still think it's an enhancement) with other bonuses....
I think enhancement bonuses are magical in nature, whereas the barbarian's abilities are not. I can easily buy into the bonuses not stacking.
Regards,
Jack
I gave in and allowed the barbarian to stack the +4 "unnamed" bonus (I still think it's an enhancement) with other bonuses.
The only reason I gave in is because the "errata sheet" published by Wizards for the PH 3.5 did not correct or clarify the issue, so I'll go along and call it an unnamed bonus. Wizards had their chance and didn't correct it...maybe I AM wrong (but probably not).
The barbarian rage bonus is one of those (rare) cases where the bonus is unnamed for a reason. If you make it an enhancement bonus, you take away one of the barbarian's most usefull class features. Why would a barbarian enter a rage if het can just gobble down a couple of potions to achieve the same result. The fact that the bonus stacks with everything else makes the barbarian's rage so powerfull.
I gave in and allowed the barbarian to stack the +4 "unnamed" bonus (I still think it's an enhancement) with other bonuses.
The only reason I gave in is because the "errata sheet" published by Wizards for the PH 3.5 did not correct or clarify the issue, so I'll go along and call it an unnamed bonus. Wizards had their chance and didn't correct it...maybe I AM wrong (but probably not).
The barbarian rage bonus is one of those (rare) cases where the bonus is unnamed for a reason. If you make it an enhancement bonus, you take away one of the barbarian's most usefull class features. Why would a barbarian enter a rage if het can just gobble down a couple of potions to achieve the same result. The fact that the bonus stacks with everything else makes the barbarian's rage so powerfull.
Yes, I have been convinced that this is the way it should be, much to the delight of the players of the two barbarians in my two different campaigns.
"I can smell the logic now, Spock!"
As it says in each of the core rule books, each rule is subject to the DM's discretion. If you say something is so, then it is so. I can argue both ways for Mage Armor. It could be said that it is a force lining the body, even armor and adding that much more protection. Then again it could also be said that it acts like a piece of armor and can't take up the same slot as say plate mail.
As for the barbarian's rage, I would agree and say that they stack. The potion enhances the character's physical strength and when a BBN rages, he gets physically stronger, not magically and not supernaturally, thus it stacks.