D&D 5E Natural Armor

[Connorsrpg]

So this was in a recent Sage Advice wasn't it? So I take it natural armor is always a 'value' (such as 11, not +1) that is replaced with armor - so therefore natural armor is much better for those non-armor wearing classes.

Also, so what would a warforged have for eg?

 

[jaelis]

So this was in a recent Sage Advice wasn't it? So I take it natural armor is always a 'value' (such as 11, not +1) that is replaced with armor - so therefore natural armor is much better for those non-armor wearing classes.

Right.

Also, so what would a warforged have for eg?

In the unearthed arcana version, they just get a straight +1 AC bonus.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Wow, isn't that contradictory? I am sure warforged will move to the standard value won't they? At this stage we have warforged with their starting armor 'built-in'. That represents their material make-up and the can later 'upgrade'.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I understand your confusion. Even going by the tweets, it's not so cut and dry. As far as I can Tell "Natural Armor" is not a consistently used game term.

For Monsters it seems to just be a different method of calculation AC. Example. 11+DEX for Werebears and Werewolves.

For players it sometimes lists it as a straight +1. Even apart from the Warforged (which is from UA and not officially published material) there are others.

Example: Player Character as Werebear or Werewolf. "The character gains... a+ 1 bonus to AC while in wolf[or bear] or hybrid form (from natural armor)." Note that PCs in Hybrid Bear and Wolf form could have armor on or Unarmored Defense. So is it a new Calculation or a straight +1? It's not always clear.

My rule of thumb: Regardless of whether or not it says "Natural Armor" if it calls out a new equation for calculating AC then that's it, but if it lists a straight +X bonus then it stacks on other AC calculations.

Of course, YMMV.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Wow, isn't that contradictory? I am sure warforged will move to the standard value won't they? At this stage we have warforged with their starting armor 'built-in'. That represents their material make-up and the can later 'upgrade'.

Warforged are not considered to have Natural Armour.

They basically put on and wear normal armour just like any other race. They just have a +1 bonus to their AC after that because of the materials they are made of. I'd guess that would stack with everything other than Barkskin.

 

[Horwath]

Only beef that I have is monks unarmored defense not stacking with other unarmored defense(barbarian/dragon sorcerer).

I see barbarian/dragon sorcerer as natural armor so they should not stack with themselves but monks wisdom bonus is just another source of dexterity so it should stack IMO.

so barbarian/monk should be 10+dex+con+wis. although I would rule that you lose +wis while in rage.

Sorcerer should be 13+dex+wis, as should be mage armor on monk. 13+dex+wis.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Only beef that I have is monks unarmored defense not stacking with other unarmored defense(barbarian/dragon sorcerer).

I see barbarian/dragon sorcerer as natural armor so they should not stack with themselves but monks wisdom bonus is just another source of dexterity so it should stack IMO.

so barbarian/monk should be 10+dex+con+wis. although I would rule that you lose +wis while in rage.

Sorcerer should be 13+dex+wis, as should be mage armor on monk. 13+dex+wis.

AFAIK the "separate calculation" method is to prevent stacking to get very high ACs. With Bounded Accuracy, AC doesn't change much, which is why its designed that you can't stack multiple numbers to get huge ACs as easily as some other editions.

Hence why the assorted AC calculations are either/or whereas trying to think of it "realistically" most would stack.

 

[Koren]

One of my pet peeves with Sage Advice is the inconsistencies in systems and wording used. From the 1.06 SA compendium on calculated ACs:

"How do you calculate a creature’s Armor Class (AC)?
Chapter 1 of the Player’s Handbook (p. 14) describes how to determine AC, yet AC calculations generate questions frequently. That fact isn’t too surprising, given the number of ways the game gives you to change your AC!

Here are some ways to calculate your base AC:

Unarmored: 10 + your Dexterity modifier.
Armored: Use the AC entry for the armor you’re wearing (see PH, 145). For example, in leather armor, you calculate your AC as 11 + your Dexterity modifier, and in chainmail, your AC is simply 16.
Unarmored Defense (Barbarian): 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier.
Unarmored Defense (Monk): 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom modifier.
Draconic Resilience (Sorcerer): 13 + your Dexterity modifier.
Natural Armor: 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your natural armor bonus. This is a calculation method typically used only by monsters and NPCs, although it is also relevant to a druid or another character who assumes a form that has natural armor."

The only one of these that talks about a "bonus" is Natural Armor. Considering they've gone out of their way with all other types of "base" armor class so it straight sets a value 10 or higher, and thus they do not stack with each other, it's strange that natural armor gets referred to as a "bonus" especially since natural armor doesn't "stack" with regular armor. This "bonus" value isn't visible in the stat block other than doing the math to subtract the Dex mod (and then 10) from the listed AC. It just adds more confusion/inconsistency to the issue and could have been solved by:

"Your natural Armor Class (a value between 10 and n) + your Dexterity modifier."

And then to determine which AC to apply when there are more than one option:
"If you have multiple legal ways to calculate your AC (barkskin, natural armor, armor, mage armor), your AC becomes the highest value of the results of these formulae."

Problem and ambiguities solved, instead of introducing more technical terms that can cause even more confusion and room for misinterpretation.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Problem and ambiguities solved, instead of introducing more technical terms that can cause even more confusion and room for misinterpretation.

I am amused by your thoughts on this topic. First, of course, you are right that your suggested way does remove ambiguities. It does so by introducing "math language" rather than "natural language", which goes against the design philosophy of this edition - and also, "n" is a much more technical term than "bonus" (which is being used in its natural language form, not as a specially defined game term), which is the primary source of my amusement since we are talking about the language used in a game intended to be played by ages 12+ (in an official sense) so there is a fair likelihood that if the game used "n" as you suggest it would also have to take time to explain the concept behind "n" as a number because otherwise a large number of young players would be seeing the use of n as a number for the first time and have to go google what it means - while the word "bonus" is likely already to be understood due to actually getting used in real-life conversations, outside of math classes and people whose professions rely upon math, with some frequency.

 

[Carboncross]

Ok.. I see a lot of bad arguments for not having armor and natural armor stack. An elephant or even say a honey badger has thick tough skin. A natural armor. If I stick a layer of chain mail over that, that skin is not less hard to pierce and now before I can even pierce it, I have to pierce chain mail. I'd say they stack. Especially since the only actual natural armor example I can see in the books is a recalculation due to a druids wild shape. Something which has never stacked, in the first place as you and everything on you basically morphs into the animal. Not accounting for races with a natural armor class feels like a huge oversight by WoC, when looking at threats like these.