D&D 5E Amulet of Natural Armor

[The Grassy Gnoll]

It's a chameleon and gives the wearer the natural armour of the last creature the wearer killed (by weapon or spell but either way, the actual killing blow).

Great after you've just fought a dragon and administered the last hit. But then you fight and kill another, less well-armoured creature (hey, why not a human?).

Could make for interesting choices in the heat of battle! Also, for flavour, the natural armour could be visually realised (gives the visual of dragon hide, tough bark, etc). Even down to skin tone (kill that swarthy guard and help with your Disguise check when you enter the camp of swarthy bandits)?

It would certainly be work to keep track of, but could be fun.

(Innkeeper: The rooms are 1gold apiece, but your...dog? friend..has to sleep in the common room"
Character: No, you don't understand, there was this wolf...")

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Animated Armor: per the Monster Manual, an Animated Armor uses the natural armor AC calculation. Its AC is 18 and its Dexterity modifier is 0. So its natural armor bonus must be +8, which makes sense, because it's a walking and not talking full Plate mail, which has an AC of 18!

We don't have enough information to verify this. Since its Dex modifier is 0, there's no way to know whether its formula is "just 18" or "18 + Dex mod".

A more useful implementation that tries to replicate the intention behind the d20 amulet would be:

Your Dexterity modifier counts as one higher for the purposes of calculating AC.

No offense, but that's overly complicated for how math works in this edition, and leads to weird situations where someone in medium armor who already has Dex 14 or 15 (i.e. the majority of characters wearing medium armor) will get no benefit from it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Huh. Yeah, I don't agree with that answer of his. Your AC should be 16.

Why? A shield can be picked up and put down. The spell says your AC will not be less than 16, not that it WILL BE 16.

 

[CapnZapp]

leads to weird situations where someone in medium armor who already has Dex 14 or 15 (i.e. the majority of characters wearing medium armor) will get no benefit from it.

Did you read my post? You say this like I wasn't completely upfront about this: I clearly stated this in my post.

The reason is to make the amulet not simply stack with ALL armor, to honor the way natural armor doesn't stack with fabricated armor in 5E, but at the same time not suggesting a simple +1 to AC.

 

[jaelis]

Why? A shield can be picked up and put down. The spell says your AC will not be less than 16, not that it WILL BE 16.

This was also clarified in Sage Advice, and does contradict Mearl's response.

How does barkskin work with shields, cover, and other modifiers to AC? Barkskin specifies that your AC can’t be lower than 16 while you are affected by the spell. This means you effectively ignore any modifiers to your AC—including your Dexterity modifier, your armor, a shield, and cover—unless your AC is higher than 16. For example, if your AC is normally 14, it’s 16 while barkskin is on you. If your AC is 15 and you have half cover, your AC is 17; barkskin isn’t relevant in this case, because your AC is now higher than 16.

 

[jaelis]

As for the amulet, just let it give +X natural armor. It will be useful to unarmored characters who don't have some other AC boosting method. And it makes the effect agree with the name on the box.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Did you read my post? You say this like I wasn't completely upfront about this: I clearly stated this in my post.

The reason is to make the amulet not simply stack with ALL armor, to honor the way natural armor doesn't stack with fabricated armor in 5E, but at the same time not suggesting a simple +1 to AC.

I read it, but you seemed to skim through this part without giving a solid reason for why it should work this way. The added complexity, and the bizarre interaction with medium armor, both warrant additional concern.

What was wrong with using natural armor how it actually works for monsters? If the amulet just gave you a new formula for calculating AC, and that formula was "16", then it would solve all of the problems everywhere. Zero complexity.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This was also clarified in Sage Advice, and does contradict Mearl's response.

This is one of the calls that prompts me to take sage advice with a grain of salt.

 

[Horwath]

I would make the amulet(s)

uncommon, AC 12+dex
rare, AC 14+dex
very rare, AC 16+dex
legendary, AC 18+dex

if you attune yourself to the amulet the AC is 1 point higher.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I would make the amulet(s)

uncommon, AC 12+dex
rare, AC 14+dex
very rare, AC 16+dex
legendary, AC 18+dex

if you attune yourself to the amulet the AC is 1 point higher.

I would make the amulet(s)

uncommon, AC 16
rare, AC 17
very rare, AC 18
legendary, AC 20

Attunement is required.