# Ring of Protection vs. Bracers of Armor



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 29, 2005)

Why are Rings of Protection twice the cost of Bracers of Armor?  Is it because one is a deflection bonus and the other is armor bonus?


----------



## Nail (Nov 29, 2005)

Yep.

Deflection bonuses are better, as it applies to things like touch and flat-footed AC.


----------



## Nail (Nov 29, 2005)

....and armor bonuses don't.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 29, 2005)

Also, a ring of protection will stack with normal armor.  Bracers of armor don't.


----------



## pbd (Nov 30, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Yep.
> 
> Deflection bonuses are better, as it applies to things like touch and flat-footed AC.




Not to confuse anyone, armor does count while flatfooted...


----------



## Nac_Mac_Feegle (Nov 30, 2005)

This has brought up an interesting point for my gaming group.

We always consider all magic bonus' to AC if they come from magic.

Take bracers of armour, they are only a pair of bracers, but they can give +8 armour, so against a touch attack, where platemail wouldnt help, we have always rules bracers of armour would, because its a magical bonus.

Have we been doing this completely wrong?

We figured that the types of bonus' were stated, because you cannto have 2 of the same type form magical armour (2x Ring of defence would give deflection bonus' so they dont stack) But an amulet of armour, ring of protection, armour wiht a magical bonus would stack. 

I hope I made myself clear.

So are we saying that flat footed (no dex bonus) you would also lose any deflection dependent magial bonus (ring of protection). And against touch attacks, you would lose any magical armour bonus (from bracers of armour)?

Also, if that correct, if you were wearing +3 plate, and were targetted by a touch attack, would you lose only the armour bonus of the platemail, or the platemail, and all its other proporties eg. the +3

Feegle Out


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 30, 2005)

Nac_Mac_Feegle said:
			
		

> Take bracers of armour, they are only a pair of bracers, but they can give +8 armour, so against a touch attack, where platemail wouldnt help, we have always rules bracers of armour would, because its a magical bonus.
> 
> Have we been doing this completely wrong?



Indeed you have been. In the example above, it's not a "magical bonus", it's an armor bonus. It doesn't really matter what the source is, it's the bonus type that you have to be aware of.


> So are we saying that flat footed (no dex bonus) you would also lose any deflection dependent magial bonus (ring of protection).



No - a deflection bonus still applies when you're flatfooted.


> And against touch attacks, you would lose any magical armour bonus (from bracers of armour)?



That's correct.


> Also, if that correct, if you were wearing +3 plate, and were targetted by a touch attack, would you lose only the armour bonus of the platemail, or the platemail, and all its other proporties eg. the +3



All of it - you lose your armor bonus and the armor's related enhancement bonus (the +3).


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 30, 2005)

Yes, you have been doing that wrong (or, at least, some of it).

Bracers of Armor +8 are, for almost all AC purposes, identical to wearing a suit of normal platemail.  They provide Armor bonuses, which do not stack with normal armor (which also provide Armor bonuses) and do not count against touch attacks.

Being denied your Dex bonus to AC (such as when flat-footed) does not deny you any Deflection or Armor bonuses you may have.  It does deny you any Dodge bonuses you might have, however.

Platemail +3 has, at base, a +8 Armor bonus to AC.  It also carries an Enhancement bonus, which improves the Armor bonus the platemail provides.  In effect, your platemail is providing a +11 Armor bonus to AC.  Thus, it all goes away against a touch attack.


----------



## Rhun (Nov 30, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Also, a ring of protection will stack with normal armor.  Bracers of armor don't.




Patryn, can you point me to where it says this? I know bracers didn't stack with armor in 1st/2nd edition, but I have never been able to find where it says this in 3.X.


----------



## ragnar99 (Nov 30, 2005)

Rhun said:
			
		

> Patryn, can you point me to where it says this? I know bracers didn't stack with armor in 1st/2nd edition, but I have never been able to find where it says this in 3.X.




Bracers of Armor provide a armor bonus and normal armor provides a armor bonus.  So like bonuses do not stack.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 30, 2005)

ragnar99 said:
			
		

> Bracers of Armor provide a armor bonus and normal armor provides a armor bonus.  So like bonuses do not stack.




There are specific exceptions like dodge bonuses. But in the main, like bonuses do not stack. You take the best one of the ones you've got. So while you can wear them, only one of them does you any good at any one time.


----------



## dcollins (Nov 30, 2005)

Rhun said:
			
		

> I know bracers didn't stack with armor in 1st/2nd edition, but I have never been able to find where it says this in 3.X.




As the previous posters said, that's the whole point of the bonus type system. Two "armor bonuses" (plate mail, _bracers of armor_) do not stack.

For additional confirmation, read the paragraph in the PHB under "Armor: Armor Qualities: Armor Bonus", where it uses _bracers of armor_ as an example.


----------



## StormCrow42 (Nov 30, 2005)

To add just a bit more confusion to the subject, which the above posters are correct that you lose the AC bonus that bracers of armor gives to touch attacks, bracers of armor do apply against INCORPOREAL touch attacks, unlike regular armor.


----------



## CronoDekar (Nov 30, 2005)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Indeed you have been. In the example above, it's not a "magical bonus", it's an armor bonus. It doesn't really matter what the source is, it's the bonus type that you have to be aware of.




Just a minor exception -- as of 3.5 natural armor is divided into enhancement bonuses to natural armor and natural armor you have... naturally (see Barkskin spell).  But that's the only exception besides dodge and unnamed.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 30, 2005)

So is double the price for an item that grants the same AC really worth that much money, when all you are getting out of it is the ability to retain the AC bonus when flat-footed and against incorporeal attacks?  32k vs 16k (for +4 to AC) seems like a BIG difference for such a small benefit.


----------



## StormCrow42 (Nov 30, 2005)

It also stacks with your armor, which is why it costs more.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Nov 30, 2005)

CronoDekar said:
			
		

> Just a minor exception -- as of 3.5 natural armor is divided into enhancement bonuses to natural armor and natural armor you have... naturally (see Barkskin spell).  But that's the only exception besides dodge and unnamed.



 It isn't an exception--those are different bonus types (just like a magic platemail has a stackable enhancement bonus to the armour bonus)


----------



## Legildur (Nov 30, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> So is double the price for an item that grants the same AC really worth that much money, when all you are getting out of it is the ability to retain the AC bonus when flat-footed and against incorporeal attacks?  32k vs 16k (for +4 to AC) seems like a BIG difference for such a small benefit.



Small benefit?  I think that the ability to stack a deflection bonus with an armor bonus more than justifies the additional expense.  How many armored characters do you see walking around with bracers of armor?  Not many, although I do promote the practise because of their usefuleness against incorporeal touch attacks as noted by StormCrow42, but only if no one else has a use for them.  Now, how many armored characters do you see walking around with a ring of protection?  A lot more, regardless of expense.


----------



## AuraSeer (Nov 30, 2005)

I don't think the doubled price is primarily because of flat-footedness or touch attacks; those attack types tend to be relatively rare. IMO it's there mostly to control the stacking of bonuses.

The base unit of magic AC increase is the armor bonus. That's the cheapest: it costs 1000 gp times the bonus squared. Its price is the same whether you buy it as an enhancement on armor, or as a set of bracers. (Note that wearing _bracers +1_ is basically equivalent to wearing _normal clothes +1_, if such things exist.)

The other common types of magic AC bonus, deflection and natural armor, are "extras" that stack over and above what your armor provides. That means you can use multiple types to achieve very high AC totals. In order to balance the game and keep ACs at reasonable levels, these extra bonuses are doubled in price, so you must make more sacrifices if you want to try and be unhittable.


----------



## Legildur (Nov 30, 2005)

I should also mention that Rings of Protection are, IMO, inherently more valuable than bracers of armor - particularly to armored types.  Many characters that wear armor would desire Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Gloves of Dexterity, Bracers of Archery, or similar to enhance their combat abilities.  Wearing any of those would negate the ability to wear bracers of armor.  And you can wear 2 rings.

I can't think of a single base character class that would not want to have a Ring of Protection, but only the Monk, Sorceror and Wizard would generally want the Bracers of Armor.

It looks like a supply/demand thing to me.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 1, 2005)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Many characters that wear armor would desire Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Gloves of Dexterity, Bracers of Archery, or similar to enhance their combat abilities.  Wearing any of those would negate the ability to wear bracers of armor.




_A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear consisting of one item from each of the following groups, keyed to which place on the body the item is worn.

One headband, hat, helmet, or phylactery on the head 
One pair of eye lenses or goggles on or over the eyes 
One amulet, brooch, medallion, necklace, periapt, or scarab around the neck 
One vest, vestment, or shirt on the torso 
One robe or suit of armor on the body (over a vest, vestment, or shirt) 
One belt around the waist (over a robe or suit of armor) 
One cloak, cape, or mantle around the shoulders (over a robe or suit of armor) 
*One pair of bracers or bracelets on the arms or wrists 
One glove, pair of gloves, or pair of gauntlets on the hands *
One ring on each hand (or two rings on one hand) 
One pair of boots or shoes on the feet _

You can wear Bracers of Armor and Gauntlets of Ogre Power just fine 

-Hyp.


----------



## Nac_Mac_Feegle (Dec 1, 2005)

Oh man, I can see quite clearly now where we misinterpreted the rules.

However, I could see making such drastic changes to our group after all these years getting me hung, lucky im not the current GM so I dont have to enforce them 

Thanx for the clarification guys and gals

Feegle Out


----------



## Legildur (Dec 1, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> _You can wear Bracers of Armor and Gauntlets of Ogre Power just fine _



_Well there you go....  Ah, I know why I'm getting it wrong... My druid has Bracers of Armor +4 and he can't wear a Bracelet of Friends that we found.....  Thanks Hyp.  Sorry to everyone else for peddling crap....._


----------



## Nail (Dec 2, 2005)

...no biggie.  My answer post at the top of the thread had an error too.  

To sum up:

A "Ring of Protection" gives a deflection bonus to AC.  Deflection bonuses stack with armor bonuses to AC (magical enhancement and/or mundane armor bonuses).  Deflection bonuses are not lost against touch attacks.  Armor AC bonuses _are_ lost against touch attacks......

..... except in the case of incorporeal touch attacks.  In this case, force effects, like those of magical "Bracers of Armor" or the spell _mage armor _ (but NOT  magical armor bonuses on actual armor) continue to provide armor bonuses to AC.  

And (correcting my mistake above), both armor _and _ deflection bonuses apply to flat-footed AC.  

Clear?  

Who says this stuff id complicated?


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 2, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Clear?
> 
> Who says this stuff id complicated?




You mean like words like "is"?


----------

