The reason why mage armor should stack but multiclassing should not is that both monk and barbarian have their own versions of "Unarmored Defense". As stated in other posts for spells, you cant stack the same spell twice. Why should you be able to do the same with class features. Mage armor however, is not a class feature, but rather a spell that some get. Spells that increase AC or change how it is calculated should state so in its description. Mage armor does not classify as armor, its a spell. I see no reason to not let a barbarian or a monk gain the benefits of this. Now granted its maximum possibly would be a bit ridiculous, but remember that monsters such as the Ancient Red Dragon with a +17 to hit, or the Tarrasque with a +19 to hit. Meaning with a barbarian with maxed out stats (24 Dex and 24 Con) + mage armor + a +3 shield would come out to a total 27 AC. which against a red dragon would mean they would have to roll a 10 or higher or a 50% chance of hitting or missing. That is honestly not that great in the grant scheme of things since that AC requires a spell, a very rare magic shield and maxed dex and con which would mean your other stats are probably not that high unless you are somehow extortionary lucky.
For short games however, like from 1st to 10th, It would be pretty powerful. But remember that there are ways to balance it out. If you wanted to be a bit direct, you can make it to where they cannot wear a shield when using mage armor. So while it is better than a shield, you cant raise the stat higher with one since a shield goes under the "armor" proficiency.
Overall, I think leaving it to the DM's is ok. I just wish that because the spell recalculates your AC it should mention that somewhere other than "your AC becomes 13+dex" because that doesn't explain outright that it changes unarmored defense. I just want it to be more clear about that to prevent mistakes being made. (Now I understand in other areas it explains this, but some do not read that far into it. It should mention it a bit or at least have a link or page number to go to to clear up the rules behind the spells)
The problem with Mage Armor stacking with Unarmored Defense is not that it is pretty powerful, it is because it is downright broken. Take for example a V Human Barbarian with Magic Initiate, at lvl 1, with point buy 16 DEX 16 CON and they are already rocking 19 AC. 19 AC at lvl 1 with no gear...now you try to explain that to the other lvl 1 characters with chainmail and a shield and end up with only 18 AC.
And oh the Barb can Rage as well and only take half damage? They can also use 2 weapons and attack with their bonus action? Why would the other melee martials want to play when the Barb gets such a massive boost?
Mage armor doesn't stack with Unarmourderd defence because "The target's base AC becomes 13 + its Dexterity modifier." not "The Targets gets a +2 bonus to AC" (like something like bracers of defense"
The reason that is the case is because iis so powerful all monks and barbs would feel compelled to get mage armor.
For example, I was hoping the UA mariners fighting style would become available so when my monk hit 19 I could get a +1 to AC. Compare that to magic initiate where I could get +3 to AC for 8 hours a day (all that is nearly always required) and 2 cantrips. In fact you don't even need to invest a feat just get the wizard / sorcerer to cast it on you. Roll reasonably well for abilities (say a 17 and a 16 as your highest 2 which you make into 18s with racial bonuses) and by level 8 you have an AC of 23 , even if they can't where a shield (A level 8 wizard won't miss a 1st level spell slot often), when the Fighter, (assuming he has got plate) only has an AC of 18 if he wants to use a two handed weapon or two weapon fighting that is a HUGE difference.
Other classes gain specific abilities that make them better at things that barbarians are not. Thinking purely in the combat aspect of things. Fighters can regain HP and get 1 additional action on their turn if they action surge. They can output more damage than a barbarian at higher levels even without the action surge. Paladins can heal and give everyone around them a booster. Barbarians were built to take damage, and increased AC just makes them better at that job, not everything. The other classes have abilities it cannot get which make them special and have certain roles. While yes, it can be busted, if you spent your points in dex and con then the other stats likely wont be that high. So you would be hard to hit, but you wouldn't be able to hit very hard or perceive things. It is possible to have a barbarian tear though the enemy lines, but thats at the cost of AC. So if you did point but with a variant human, you could have a 15 STR, 16 DEX and 16 CON but an 8 for the other 3 stats meaning you wouldnt be good at spell saves. High AC doesnt mean you are invincible. Now as for the monk. Monks are built to hold enemies in place similar to a barbarian and overall control enemy movements. Again, you could have a massive AC with Mage Armor, but it you wouldn't be great at much else. On top of that, all you need is a spell caster with "Dispel Magic" and the armor is just gone. Its that easy, mage armor isn't that strong.
I once actually had this problem. I played as a tiefling barbarian warlock with armor of shadows with permission of my DM to allow it to stack. Even with the increased AC, I still got wrecked by spell casters. I had a 21 AC but because my other stats werent as high (we rolled just fyi). I got hit by just about every saving throw spell and it drained my HP so fast. I had a monster 138 HP and I went to 0 in the final boss fight in 4 rounds and didnt kill anything. Even before this it didn't actual make much difference. We were fighting giants in armor with flaming hammers, Even with my massive AC it seemed like 40-50% of the time I was getting hit. (Everyone else was taking damage too, he wasnt targeting me). We did win, but Everyone including me, was very low even with my rage resistances. Had I been a monk with the same AC I probably would of died. Mage armor is a decent spell at the beginning, and can make any unarmored fighter busted. But remember that some DMs dont allow Magic Initiate in which case you would have to multiclass to get mage armor.
RAW I understand why it shouldnt stack, just from personal experience however, its not at great as people let on.
One minor thing you overlooked, if I was going DEX Barb I would not be getting 15 STR. I would most likely make STR my dump stat since I can hit with DEX through finesse weapons. Losing Reckless Attack is fine since DEX Barbs are tanks and do not want to give the enemy advantage to hit them.
Yes but then you also lose the damage boost from raging. So you are hard to hit and can hit consistently but not as hard as you would with a strength weapon. On top of that if strength was a dump stat, you would lose most of the barbarian strength benefits. Such as your strength save being reduced, and your strength checks although with advantage, would still be weak.
I am usually the dm and I think giving people the ability to make cool and fun characters and making a believable living world is far more important than rules in black and white.
Yes but then you also lose the damage boost from raging. So you are hard to hit and can hit consistently but not as hard as you would with a strength weapon. On top of that if strength was a dump stat, you would lose most of the barbarian strength benefits. Such as your strength save being reduced, and your strength checks although with advantage, would still be weak.
All your points are true however I think you maybe overstating the impact. Rage damage is 2-4 per hit while nice to have is not a big deal if you lose it. STR saves you get proficiency so its ok having a -1 mod. Most STR checks are athletics checks so if you get proficiency in athletics that helps solve that problem as well.
Also keep in mind that STR is a stat that can be raised by a variety of items like Gauntlets of Ogre Power and the many versions of Giant Belts.
Yes, of course you can get those magic items. But they are magic items, which can be turned off or simply not available but the point is still valid. They wouldn't be rewarded at 1st level, but more likely around 6-8th level for strength increasing items. But that's entirely up to the type of dm. As stated by DroneoftheNation, "giving people the ability to make cool and fun characters and making a believable living world is far more important than rules in black and white." They are correct with this answer, it is dependent on the type of DM and Campaign setting that makes the rules and not the books.
Yes, of course you can get those magic items. But they are magic items, which can be turned off or simply not available but the point is still valid. They wouldn't be rewarded at 1st level, but more likely around 6-8th level for strength increasing items. But that's entirely up to the type of dm. As stated by DroneoftheNation, "giving people the ability to make cool and fun characters and making a believable living world is far more important than rules in black and white." They are correct with this answer, it is dependent on the type of DM and Campaign setting that makes the rules and not the books.
Yes cool and fun characters are important, however as a DM you have to make sure everything is balanced. If 1 character outshines the rest of the party because the got exceptions to the rules that everybody else is abiding by then it decreases the fun and enjoyment of everybody else. I know the rules are only guidelines and that the DM ultimately has the final say on what happens at their table, however I would like to point out that the rules are there to balance things like combat and that handwaving things could potentially cause the DM a headache further down the line when it comes to creating challenging combat encounters.
I would like to point out that the wording can be misleading, and I disagree with how the spell currently functions.
Unarmored Defense: "While you are not wearing any armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier."
The key in that you are not physically wearing any armor.
Mage Armor specifically says "You touch a willing creature who isn't wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds ituntil the spell ends. The targets base AC becomes 13+ its Dexterity modifier. The spell ends if the target dons armor or if you dismiss the spell as an action."
To me physical armor and magical armor are separate entities, the idea being that one could use magic, to place a magical barrier around a target to aid in their protection from physical attack. For example: A party of adventurers are in a town that is suddenly over run with Orcs. Arrows are falling from the sky and the Wizard of the party sees a child stuck in the street within the area of falling arrows. The wizard casts Mage Armor on the child to protect it long enough for the party to rush in and pick up the child.
Another example: The party is escorting an important delegate away from danger and the Wizard casts Mage Armor on the delegate, as a precautionary measure.
It makes sense that the spell description does not incorporate the Constitution bonus of the Barbarian as it is the only class with this feature; However Mage Armor has far more uses in game than just the characters being played. The Barbarian's Unarmored Defense, much like the monks Unarmored Defense, is a reflection of their skill and knowledge of battle rather than physical armor protecting them from attacks that would normal injure. For example: A monk's wisdom affords him the intuition that how the Orc raises its greataxe to strike, will strike a certain way, allowing the monk to dodge the attack. Physical armor would hinder this movement rendering the monks quick reflexes inert.
Mage Armor is supposed to be a magical supplement to those who do not wear armor. An Elven ranger with 20 Dex and leather armor would have 16 AC But if he took that Leather armor off and had Mage Armor cast on him, he would have 18 AC. In this instance there is benefit to the spell, yet the Rangers unique skills and features have not been hindered. Fighters and Paladins wearing +1 full plate armor, slightly magical shields and the right feats can have 23-25AC. And I don't think it unreasonable for a party around level 6-8 to have come across such magical items. Yet a Monk or Barbarian with 20 on both Dex and Con/Wis (which is hard to get and unlikely for a point buy character), have only 20AC without a shield. Fighters and Paladins are regarded as the front line fighters, but many people (including myself) also consider monks and barbarians as front line fighters. If a Barbarian can wear Bracers of Defense (which are magical) without it impacting his Unarmored Defense feature, why would a spell providing a magical barrier affect it?
On page 14 of the players handbook it states that without armor or a shield, your characters AC equals 10+ your Dexterity modifier. This is a general rule for characters and does not incorporate the Barbarian's or Monk's Unarmored Defense features. The spell Mage Armor, modifies your BASE unarmored value of 10 to 13. You then add on your Dex bonus, which again is a general rule for characters and does not address the Unarmored Defense feature. As the spell does not explicitly state, that for all intents and purposes the magical barrier around you is as cumbersome as physical metal armor (which is absurd in my opinion) and impacts the Unarmored Defense feature, I advocate that Mage Armor, should work with the Unarmored Defense feature for both Barbarians and Monks.
The basic rule is that if you have 2+ ways of calculating your base armor class you have to pick one since they don’t stack. This applies not just to the barbarian ( and monk) but to other characters like the draconic sorceror. The rule is there to maintain balance between classes especially at the start. I know we would all like to be able to have that super powerful L1 character but the sad truth is it’s unbalancing and while you may have great fun the other party members are probably not. Take a look at how the martials stack up AC wise with standard starting armor. I’ve included the barbarian and monk with mage armor (MA) for comparison. Barbarian (S): 10+ 3(DB)+2(CB)+2(shield)=17 Barbarian (MA): 13+3+2+2=20 Fighter: Chainmail (16) + Shield (+2)= 18 Monk (S): 10 + 3(DB) + 2(WB) = 15 monk (MA): 13 +3+2=18 Paladin: Chainmail+shield = 18 Ranger: Scalemail (14) + 2 (DB) = 16. (14 +2+2(shield)=18)
As you can see with the exception of the starting monk ( that pretty much everyone seems to agree is nerfed) the starting ACs are pretty much in line with each other (16-18) so they at least start balanced so whatever you play your not feeling left out. Allowing mage armor to stack throws the balance off hence the rule that they don’t stack. Your extra enjoyment of having that OP Barbarian doesn’t counter the rest of the players unhappiness at being left out.
I certainly found the rules for AC calculation counter intuitive coming to 5e from 3.5e. However for the strict RAW interaction between Mage Armor and Unarmored Defense, Stormknight's post at the beginning of this thread is still as accurate as it was 3 years ago.
Also keep in mind that Monks and Barbarians have other ways of defending themselves beyond just AC that Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers don't have. There is a reason Totem Warrior Barbarians are infamous for their tankyness.
As you can see with the exception of the starting monk ( that pretty much everyone seems to agree is nerfed)
Who agrees that? You've omitted Rogues whose starting AC is likely to be around 14, Monks sit between that and a typical medium/heavy armoured martial without shield, it's perfectly fine as far as AC goes. Also keep in mind that from 2nd level Monks can start dodging as a bonus action (Patient Defence); the higher level they get, the more they can do it, which is equivalent to having +5 AC, so a lower cost but preemptive (rather than retroactive) Shield. They also have increased speed which makes it easier to add cover to your AC against ranged attacks, or close with an enemy faster (fewer enemy ranged attacks in the first place).
Just saying, because this is why Monks don't need Mage Armor either, as AC is only part of the defence equation, and that's why neither Barbarian nor Monk need a Mage Armor related exploit.
Sorry haravikk but I simply don’t really think of rogues as a martial class - I know they can fight and do really substantial damage but for me their focus is never combat . In much the same way that we typically don’t talk about clerics as martials because their focus is elsewhere despite their significant fighting ability. I recognize that this isn’t a popular view but it is mine. I would include monks in that except they don’t have a lot else to do besides fight. To me (and others are free to disagree) barbarians, fighters, paladins and rangers are the martials and everyone else has a different roll even if they try to improve their fighting with martial oriented subclasses like the valor bard or hexblade.
With the exception of the occasional Inquisitive, the rogue is the most oft used meta gamed martial class in the game. They have not been the sneak around pick lock character and hide in shadows since 2a. They are absolutely the glass cannon of martial classes.
And the fact that they are a glass canon is exactly why I don’t consider them a martial class. But as I said I recognize that that is my opinion and you are free to have your own. I’m not trying to convince you of mine just stating it. If you want to state yours feel free but realize you are not changing mine by doing so. Nor am I actually interested in discussing it especially in the barbarian forum.
Sorry haravikk but I simply don’t really think of rogues as a martial class - I know they can fight and do really substantial damage but for me their focus is never combat .
That's not how Rogues in 5th edition work though; they're an extremely effective weapons-based combat class, so they absolutely qualify as a martial.
My main point though really was that AC isn't the only defensive characteristic; this applies to Rogues as well actually once they have Uncanny Dodge, which actually makes them pretty durable (on top of Disengage and Hide to not take damage in the first place).
The reason Barbarians and Monks don't need Mage Armor is that they don't really need a higher AC in general; for Barbarians it's also arguably counter productive, since a high AC means if your DM runs enemies at least somewhat cleverly then they won't waste time attacking targets they're unlikely to hit.
For early levels Mage Armor might be fine on a Barbarian that has casting for some reason, but you'd want to gain it in a way that it can be swapped out later, as Unarmored Defence will most likely outstrip it unless your Barbarian build is high DEX but relatively low CON.
For the Barbarian MI feat combo, it would be better to focus on increasing temporary hitpoints via False Life or Armor of Agathis. Non-concentration lasts an hour, and while raging EFFECTIVELY doubles this THP to BSP damage.
imho
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The reason why mage armor should stack but multiclassing should not is that both monk and barbarian have their own versions of "Unarmored Defense". As stated in other posts for spells, you cant stack the same spell twice. Why should you be able to do the same with class features. Mage armor however, is not a class feature, but rather a spell that some get. Spells that increase AC or change how it is calculated should state so in its description. Mage armor does not classify as armor, its a spell. I see no reason to not let a barbarian or a monk gain the benefits of this. Now granted its maximum possibly would be a bit ridiculous, but remember that monsters such as the Ancient Red Dragon with a +17 to hit, or the Tarrasque with a +19 to hit. Meaning with a barbarian with maxed out stats (24 Dex and 24 Con) + mage armor + a +3 shield would come out to a total 27 AC. which against a red dragon would mean they would have to roll a 10 or higher or a 50% chance of hitting or missing. That is honestly not that great in the grant scheme of things since that AC requires a spell, a very rare magic shield and maxed dex and con which would mean your other stats are probably not that high unless you are somehow extortionary lucky.
For short games however, like from 1st to 10th, It would be pretty powerful. But remember that there are ways to balance it out. If you wanted to be a bit direct, you can make it to where they cannot wear a shield when using mage armor. So while it is better than a shield, you cant raise the stat higher with one since a shield goes under the "armor" proficiency.
Overall, I think leaving it to the DM's is ok. I just wish that because the spell recalculates your AC it should mention that somewhere other than "your AC becomes 13+dex" because that doesn't explain outright that it changes unarmored defense. I just want it to be more clear about that to prevent mistakes being made. (Now I understand in other areas it explains this, but some do not read that far into it. It should mention it a bit or at least have a link or page number to go to to clear up the rules behind the spells)
The problem with Mage Armor stacking with Unarmored Defense is not that it is pretty powerful, it is because it is downright broken. Take for example a V Human Barbarian with Magic Initiate, at lvl 1, with point buy 16 DEX 16 CON and they are already rocking 19 AC. 19 AC at lvl 1 with no gear...now you try to explain that to the other lvl 1 characters with chainmail and a shield and end up with only 18 AC.
And oh the Barb can Rage as well and only take half damage? They can also use 2 weapons and attack with their bonus action? Why would the other melee martials want to play when the Barb gets such a massive boost?
Mage armor doesn't stack with Unarmourderd defence because "The target's base AC becomes 13 + its Dexterity modifier." not "The Targets gets a +2 bonus to AC" (like something like bracers of defense"
The reason that is the case is because iis so powerful all monks and barbs would feel compelled to get mage armor.
For example, I was hoping the UA mariners fighting style would become available so when my monk hit 19 I could get a +1 to AC. Compare that to magic initiate where I could get +3 to AC for 8 hours a day (all that is nearly always required) and 2 cantrips. In fact you don't even need to invest a feat just get the wizard / sorcerer to cast it on you. Roll reasonably well for abilities (say a 17 and a 16 as your highest 2 which you make into 18s with racial bonuses) and by level 8 you have an AC of 23 , even if they can't where a shield (A level 8 wizard won't miss a 1st level spell slot often), when the Fighter, (assuming he has got plate) only has an AC of 18 if he wants to use a two handed weapon or two weapon fighting that is a HUGE difference.
Other classes gain specific abilities that make them better at things that barbarians are not. Thinking purely in the combat aspect of things. Fighters can regain HP and get 1 additional action on their turn if they action surge. They can output more damage than a barbarian at higher levels even without the action surge. Paladins can heal and give everyone around them a booster. Barbarians were built to take damage, and increased AC just makes them better at that job, not everything. The other classes have abilities it cannot get which make them special and have certain roles. While yes, it can be busted, if you spent your points in dex and con then the other stats likely wont be that high. So you would be hard to hit, but you wouldn't be able to hit very hard or perceive things. It is possible to have a barbarian tear though the enemy lines, but thats at the cost of AC. So if you did point but with a variant human, you could have a 15 STR, 16 DEX and 16 CON but an 8 for the other 3 stats meaning you wouldnt be good at spell saves. High AC doesnt mean you are invincible. Now as for the monk. Monks are built to hold enemies in place similar to a barbarian and overall control enemy movements. Again, you could have a massive AC with Mage Armor, but it you wouldn't be great at much else. On top of that, all you need is a spell caster with "Dispel Magic" and the armor is just gone. Its that easy, mage armor isn't that strong.
I once actually had this problem. I played as a tiefling barbarian warlock with armor of shadows with permission of my DM to allow it to stack. Even with the increased AC, I still got wrecked by spell casters. I had a 21 AC but because my other stats werent as high (we rolled just fyi). I got hit by just about every saving throw spell and it drained my HP so fast. I had a monster 138 HP and I went to 0 in the final boss fight in 4 rounds and didnt kill anything. Even before this it didn't actual make much difference. We were fighting giants in armor with flaming hammers, Even with my massive AC it seemed like 40-50% of the time I was getting hit. (Everyone else was taking damage too, he wasnt targeting me). We did win, but Everyone including me, was very low even with my rage resistances. Had I been a monk with the same AC I probably would of died. Mage armor is a decent spell at the beginning, and can make any unarmored fighter busted. But remember that some DMs dont allow Magic Initiate in which case you would have to multiclass to get mage armor.
RAW I understand why it shouldnt stack, just from personal experience however, its not at great as people let on.
One minor thing you overlooked, if I was going DEX Barb I would not be getting 15 STR. I would most likely make STR my dump stat since I can hit with DEX through finesse weapons. Losing Reckless Attack is fine since DEX Barbs are tanks and do not want to give the enemy advantage to hit them.
Yes but then you also lose the damage boost from raging. So you are hard to hit and can hit consistently but not as hard as you would with a strength weapon. On top of that if strength was a dump stat, you would lose most of the barbarian strength benefits. Such as your strength save being reduced, and your strength checks although with advantage, would still be weak.
I am usually the dm and I think giving people the ability to make cool and fun characters and making a believable living world is far more important than rules in black and white.
All your points are true however I think you maybe overstating the impact. Rage damage is 2-4 per hit while nice to have is not a big deal if you lose it. STR saves you get proficiency so its ok having a -1 mod. Most STR checks are athletics checks so if you get proficiency in athletics that helps solve that problem as well.
Also keep in mind that STR is a stat that can be raised by a variety of items like Gauntlets of Ogre Power and the many versions of Giant Belts.
Yes, of course you can get those magic items. But they are magic items, which can be turned off or simply not available but the point is still valid. They wouldn't be rewarded at 1st level, but more likely around 6-8th level for strength increasing items. But that's entirely up to the type of dm. As stated by DroneoftheNation, "giving people the ability to make cool and fun characters and making a believable living world is far more important than rules in black and white." They are correct with this answer, it is dependent on the type of DM and Campaign setting that makes the rules and not the books.
Yes cool and fun characters are important, however as a DM you have to make sure everything is balanced. If 1 character outshines the rest of the party because the got exceptions to the rules that everybody else is abiding by then it decreases the fun and enjoyment of everybody else. I know the rules are only guidelines and that the DM ultimately has the final say on what happens at their table, however I would like to point out that the rules are there to balance things like combat and that handwaving things could potentially cause the DM a headache further down the line when it comes to creating challenging combat encounters.
I would like to point out that the wording can be misleading, and I disagree with how the spell currently functions.
Unarmored Defense: "While you are not wearing any armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier."
The key in that you are not physically wearing any armor.
Mage Armor specifically says "You touch a willing creature who isn't wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds it until the spell ends. The targets base AC becomes 13+ its Dexterity modifier. The spell ends if the target dons armor or if you dismiss the spell as an action."
To me physical armor and magical armor are separate entities, the idea being that one could use magic, to place a magical barrier around a target to aid in their protection from physical attack. For example: A party of adventurers are in a town that is suddenly over run with Orcs. Arrows are falling from the sky and the Wizard of the party sees a child stuck in the street within the area of falling arrows. The wizard casts Mage Armor on the child to protect it long enough for the party to rush in and pick up the child.
Another example: The party is escorting an important delegate away from danger and the Wizard casts Mage Armor on the delegate, as a precautionary measure.
It makes sense that the spell description does not incorporate the Constitution bonus of the Barbarian as it is the only class with this feature; However Mage Armor has far more uses in game than just the characters being played. The Barbarian's Unarmored Defense, much like the monks Unarmored Defense, is a reflection of their skill and knowledge of battle rather than physical armor protecting them from attacks that would normal injure. For example: A monk's wisdom affords him the intuition that how the Orc raises its greataxe to strike, will strike a certain way, allowing the monk to dodge the attack. Physical armor would hinder this movement rendering the monks quick reflexes inert.
Mage Armor is supposed to be a magical supplement to those who do not wear armor. An Elven ranger with 20 Dex and leather armor would have 16 AC But if he took that Leather armor off and had Mage Armor cast on him, he would have 18 AC. In this instance there is benefit to the spell, yet the Rangers unique skills and features have not been hindered. Fighters and Paladins wearing +1 full plate armor, slightly magical shields and the right feats can have 23-25AC. And I don't think it unreasonable for a party around level 6-8 to have come across such magical items. Yet a Monk or Barbarian with 20 on both Dex and Con/Wis (which is hard to get and unlikely for a point buy character), have only 20AC without a shield. Fighters and Paladins are regarded as the front line fighters, but many people (including myself) also consider monks and barbarians as front line fighters. If a Barbarian can wear Bracers of Defense (which are magical) without it impacting his Unarmored Defense feature, why would a spell providing a magical barrier affect it?
On page 14 of the players handbook it states that without armor or a shield, your characters AC equals 10+ your Dexterity modifier. This is a general rule for characters and does not incorporate the Barbarian's or Monk's Unarmored Defense features. The spell Mage Armor, modifies your BASE unarmored value of 10 to 13. You then add on your Dex bonus, which again is a general rule for characters and does not address the Unarmored Defense feature. As the spell does not explicitly state, that for all intents and purposes the magical barrier around you is as cumbersome as physical metal armor (which is absurd in my opinion) and impacts the Unarmored Defense feature, I advocate that Mage Armor, should work with the Unarmored Defense feature for both Barbarians and Monks.
The basic rule is that if you have 2+ ways of calculating your base armor class you have to pick one since they don’t stack. This applies not just to the barbarian ( and monk) but to other characters like the draconic sorceror. The rule is there to maintain balance between classes especially at the start. I know we would all like to be able to have that super powerful L1 character but the sad truth is it’s unbalancing and while you may have great fun the other party members are probably not. Take a look at how the martials stack up AC wise with standard starting armor. I’ve included the barbarian and monk with mage armor (MA) for comparison.
Barbarian (S): 10+ 3(DB)+2(CB)+2(shield)=17
Barbarian (MA): 13+3+2+2=20
Fighter: Chainmail (16) + Shield (+2)= 18
Monk (S): 10 + 3(DB) + 2(WB) = 15
monk (MA): 13 +3+2=18
Paladin: Chainmail+shield = 18
Ranger: Scalemail (14) + 2 (DB) = 16. (14 +2+2(shield)=18)
As you can see with the exception of the starting monk ( that pretty much everyone seems to agree is nerfed) the starting ACs are pretty much in line with each other (16-18) so they at least start balanced so whatever you play your not feeling left out. Allowing mage armor to stack throws the balance off hence the rule that they don’t stack. Your extra enjoyment of having that OP Barbarian doesn’t counter the rest of the players unhappiness at being left out.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I certainly found the rules for AC calculation counter intuitive coming to 5e from 3.5e. However for the strict RAW interaction between Mage Armor and Unarmored Defense, Stormknight's post at the beginning of this thread is still as accurate as it was 3 years ago.
Also keep in mind that Monks and Barbarians have other ways of defending themselves beyond just AC that Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers don't have. There is a reason Totem Warrior Barbarians are infamous for their tankyness.
I do not meta game in a role playing game. To me, this is mental M*&#$bation.
Molon Labe, Lord Low
Who agrees that? You've omitted Rogues whose starting AC is likely to be around 14, Monks sit between that and a typical medium/heavy armoured martial without shield, it's perfectly fine as far as AC goes. Also keep in mind that from 2nd level Monks can start dodging as a bonus action (Patient Defence); the higher level they get, the more they can do it, which is equivalent to having +5 AC, so a lower cost but preemptive (rather than retroactive) Shield. They also have increased speed which makes it easier to add cover to your AC against ranged attacks, or close with an enemy faster (fewer enemy ranged attacks in the first place).
Just saying, because this is why Monks don't need Mage Armor either, as AC is only part of the defence equation, and that's why neither Barbarian nor Monk need a Mage Armor related exploit.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Sorry haravikk but I simply don’t really think of rogues as a martial class - I know they can fight and do really substantial damage but for me their focus is never combat . In much the same way that we typically don’t talk about clerics as martials because their focus is elsewhere despite their significant fighting ability. I recognize that this isn’t a popular view but it is mine. I would include monks in that except they don’t have a lot else to do besides fight. To me (and others are free to disagree) barbarians, fighters, paladins and rangers are the martials and everyone else has a different roll even if they try to improve their fighting with martial oriented subclasses like the valor bard or hexblade.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
With the exception of the occasional Inquisitive, the rogue is the most oft used meta gamed martial class in the game. They have not been the sneak around pick lock character and hide in shadows since 2a. They are absolutely the glass cannon of martial classes.
Molon Labe, Lord Low
And the fact that they are a glass canon is exactly why I don’t consider them a martial class. But as I said I recognize that that is my opinion and you are free to have your own. I’m not trying to convince you of mine just stating it. If you want to state yours feel free but realize you are not changing mine by doing so. Nor am I actually interested in discussing it especially in the barbarian forum.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
That's not how Rogues in 5th edition work though; they're an extremely effective weapons-based combat class, so they absolutely qualify as a martial.
My main point though really was that AC isn't the only defensive characteristic; this applies to Rogues as well actually once they have Uncanny Dodge, which actually makes them pretty durable (on top of Disengage and Hide to not take damage in the first place).
The reason Barbarians and Monks don't need Mage Armor is that they don't really need a higher AC in general; for Barbarians it's also arguably counter productive, since a high AC means if your DM runs enemies at least somewhat cleverly then they won't waste time attacking targets they're unlikely to hit.
For early levels Mage Armor might be fine on a Barbarian that has casting for some reason, but you'd want to gain it in a way that it can be swapped out later, as Unarmored Defence will most likely outstrip it unless your Barbarian build is high DEX but relatively low CON.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
For the Barbarian MI feat combo, it would be better to focus on increasing temporary hitpoints via False Life or Armor of Agathis. Non-concentration lasts an hour, and while raging EFFECTIVELY doubles this THP to BSP damage.
imho