D&D 5E Amulet of Natural Armor

[Horwath]

I would make the amulet(s)

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

Attunement is required.

I would rather lower the AC bonus than to limit dex bonus if it turns out too high.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

I think you might confuse me for somebody else.

I have no objections to an amulet that gives you "AC 16" as an an ability. However, AFAIK that's not what most people have suggested. And I was posting a positive contribution - I wasn't trying to shoot down your or anybody else's suggestions (except Barkskin...)

Some people have suggested Barkskin the spell, which is not the same as what you're suggesting here. Your suggestion is much better, since it would work with cover and shields just the way everybody expects: namely, that with three-quarters cover my AC would be 21 (16+5), and with half cover and a shield it would be 20 (16+2+2).

Regardless, I do need to note that "Natural armor AC 16" feels pretty powerful. Even lizardfolk natural armor is only AC 13. Not saying this makes your proposal unreasonable, just trying to understand why it has never been suggested before.

Please read my post in the light of someone trying to help within the constraints percieved.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Either way is possible, of course.

The interesting bit to me isn't to quibble about details, but to have the designer discussion: "for whom is the amulet intended?"

If you imagine a pretty agile outdoorsman to have this, then Dex should probably be included in the equation.
If, OTOH, you think this is more for gnarly old druids (say), then Dex should not be included in the equation.

And another question is: is there a "gap" in the existing magic defense items. Are there some character archetype that can't utilize the items offered by the DMG?

It boils down to: do you feel rangers and druids (etc) should be rewarded for a high Dex? Or do you feel this item should ease on the multi-ability dependencies of relevant classes?

Zapp

PS. By the way, why do you feel the amulet needs attunement? As I see it, you use attunement for a number of specific reasons:

- the item is very powerful, and attunement restrains usage into "the three slots"
- the item should have a clear beneficary or "owner", which most easily is "the one attuned to it"
- the item would be abusable if everyone in the party wore it one by one (i.e. taking advantage of the built-in attunement requirements: only one "owner" at a time, takes a short rest to switch "owner")

Do you feel the amulet is need of any of these three?

Otherwise, why not make it like any shield or sword: while you wield/wear it you gain the benefits; when you don't you don't. That is: skipping attunement.

 

[CapnZapp]

I plan on being careful (what with bounded accuracy and all) but we are converting some of our magical items, in our homebbrew, and an amulet of natural armor is one such item.

I intend on having it set your base (or natural armor) to 11. This should not be any more overpowering or of bounds than a +1 Ring of Protection (which also helps saves).

Any thoughts?

Revisiting this 2014 thread in 2019

As this thread tells you, just changing your base (unarmored) AC is of very little help, since every character with a better AC than simply 10 + Dex replaces this formula for something else. In short: improving the formula to 11 + Dex does not help much since it gets replaced for most characters.

Not even giving you "natural armor" is of substantial benefit. Note how even a Lizardfolk's Natural Armor ability (AC = 13 + Dex) only helps a very limited selection of characters except on the very lowest levels. A Lizardfolk Monk replaces her AC calculation and thus has no use for her ability (assuming a Wisdom of 16 or better). A Lizardfolk Draconian Sorcerer replaces her AC calculation. A Lizardfolk in armor replaces her AC calculation.

To be sure, 13 + Dex is still good enough to benefit some characters through much of their careers (wizards and circle druids?), just not nearly as many as you'd believe. And that's effectively a +3 Amulet!

So the only benefit that gives a consistent bonus is by giving an AC bonus. However, in 5E there are no different types of AC bonuses. So a +1 AC amulet of natural armor would be identical to a Ring of Protection (except, I suppose, the different name allowing you to stack both for +2).

---

However, there is, I believe, a useful implementation that tries to replicate the intention behind the d20 amulet:

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

Now, you benefit equally if you wear no armor or leather armor. You benefit if you're a monk using Unarmored Defense or a Wizard using Mage Armor. However, to benefit if you're using medium armor (such as a Breastplate) you need to have a middling Dexterity score. And you wouldn't benefit at all if you wear heavy armor.

This makes the item consistent with how 5E treats natural armor. That is, the more artificial armor you wear the less you gain from natural armor.

---

There is, of course, a much simpler implementation: you gain +1 AC.

The difference here is that unlike the Ring of Protection there's no attunement requirement. This makes the item very powerful - much more than a mere +1 Amulet of Natural Armor in d20 (despite the identical mechanism).

---

Finally, you could experiment with replicating the Barkskin spell. However, that spell suffers terribly by a mismatch between the spell's name, history and expected effect on one hand, and the spell's actual 5E mechanism on the other. I would recommend against this option myself.

 

[Rhenny]

Make sure you think about how it will work with Barbarian and Monk unarmored defense. If it is armor, then it will not stack so it may be totally useless for those classes. If it is natural skin and you raise base ac from 10, then there may be an argument that it stacks with unarmored defense. Just to note.

 

[jgsugden]

Just make it permanent mage armor.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Just make it work 5 years ago.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just make it permanent mage armor.

Sorry, this is an example of what does not work in the context of 5E.

Mage Armor is incompatible with most every other AC-related ability. Actually, it only really benefits Wizards! (Slightly simplified)

Draconic Sorcerers? No. Monks? No. Rangers? Fighters? Nope, nope, nope. Rogues and Bards? Warlocks? Maybe. They do gain 1 AC, but only while sporting non-magical armor.

In the end, this approach chiefly saves the Wizard a first-level slot. Hardly exciting stuff.

 

[CapnZapp]

Make sure you think about how it will work with Barbarian and Monk unarmored defense.

That is good advice. The devil is in the details, though.

If it is armor, then it will not stack so it may be totally useless for those classes.

It's not that simple. It can well be useless even if not armor.

In fact, the point is that almost *every* approach gives results that are useless for some characters!

 

[Tormyr]

I am not really a fan of the amulet and dropped it from my 3.5 conversions. However, if someone is determined to include it, I think boosting the Dex bonus by 1 is a decent way.

* Characters that use "something + Dex" calculations, including light armor, draconic sorcerers, mage armor, barbarians, monks, and characters using "base AC" just add 1 to their AC.
* Characters with medium armor add 1 to their AC if their Dex bonus is less than 2. A character with medium armor and a Dex bonus of 2 or higher does not receive a benefit because the Dex bonus cannot be above 2.
* Characters with heavy armor do not receive a benefit.

A character with no armor, 20 Dexterity, and this amulet would effectively have always on barkskin. The item is clearly not as good as a ring or cloak of protection, so it may even be able to avoid attunement.