D&D 5E Amulet of Natural Armor

[ad_hoc]

Ack! No no no!

a. Barkskin is terribly worded, and currently no one really knows what is intended or how the spell is supposed to work. Even if there was a clear sense, though,

Barkskin is one of the most concise and straightforward spells in the game. It is perfectly clear how it works.

It's just not as powerful as people want it to be.

 

[Mort]

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.

?

Mage armor is essentially a mithral chain shirt without the DEX cap or the weight! That's actually pretty good.

My Dex paladin is currently limited to studded leather which provides AC 18 (12 + 2 [shield] +4 [DEX]), He could get half plate and go to AC 19 but that poses problems with stealth, so is a no go. Mage armor would put the AC at 19 no problem (and if dex increases the AC increases).

Rogues, Dex fighters, Dex rangers (so - many rangers), many bards - could benefit a lot from an item bestowing mage armor.

I think this would be a great way to do an amulet of natural armor.

 

[Pauln6]

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.

Surely the amulet needs to grant a +1 bonus to the wearer's natural armour or it isn't doing what it says on the tin? In the case of the Unarmoured Defence (or similar) class feature where AC is determined by reference to the character's base AC10, treat the Base AC as AC11. When the wearer's listed AC is determined by natural armour (including those transformed into another form which wears no armour), increase the armour class by +1.

 

[CapnZapp]

My Dex paladin is currently limited to studded leather which provides AC 18 (12 + 2 [shield] +4 [DEX]), He could get half plate and go to AC 19 but that poses problems with stealth, so is a no go. Mage armor would put the AC at 19 no problem (and if dex increases the AC increases).

Not legal in 5E.

 

[CapnZapp]

Surely the amulet needs to grant a +1 bonus to the wearer's natural armour or it isn't doing what it says on the tin? In the case of the Unarmoured Defence (or similar) class feature where AC is determined by reference to the character's base AC10, treat the Base AC as AC11. When the wearer's listed AC is determined by natural armour (including those transformed into another form which wears no armour), increase the armour class by +1.

Which my suggestion just about ends up with, using far fewer words.

 

[Pauln6]

Which my suggestion just about ends up with, using far fewer words.

Oh soz, I misinterpreted! Were you not proposing an increase to dex bonus which would benefit those wearing light and medium armour rather than just unarmoured characters and forms. In 5e natural armour and armour never stack.

 

[CleverNickName]

Eh, I'd probably let it make the wearer's AC become 13* + Dex modifier when not wearing armor, and have it require attunement. Basically light armor for characters who can't wear armor.

*or 11, or 12, or 14, whatever is balanced for your table.

 

[Pauln6]

Eh, I'd probably let it make the wearer's AC become 13* + Dex modifier when not wearing armor, and have it require attunement. Basically light armor for characters who can't wear armor.

*or 11, or 12, or 14, whatever is balanced for your table.

I'd prefer something of more general use to beast companions and druids in wildshape.

 

[CapnZapp]

Eh, I'd probably let it make the wearer's AC become 13* + Dex modifier when not wearing armor, and have it require attunement. Basically light armor for characters who can't wear armor.

*or 11, or 12, or 14, whatever is balanced for your table.

Again, sounds right but doesn't work well within the 5E framework.

Again (very roughly) only Wizards benefit from this, and the only benefit is they can skip Mage Armor.

Hardly what you'd expect.

Point remains: AC works in really specific ways in 5E. For more, I refer to my earlier post.

 

[CapnZapp]

Oh soz, I misinterpreted! Were you not proposing an increase to dex bonus which would benefit those wearing light and medium armour rather than just unarmoured characters and forms. In 5e natural armour and armour never stack.

I see no reason to restrict this to just unarmored characters, especially given how much of a rules kludge it is.

Making a complicated ruling just to narrow the item to only a very few useful cases does not make much sense to me personally but your mileage clearly varies.

In 5E very few characters are unarmored. Not draconic sorcerer's, not monks, not wizards with Mage Armor, not Rogues in light armor...

Wildshaped druids... The paladin caught out of her plate armor... And that's about it.

If you want a rule that's kept simple and easy, you are going to get all of them. That's how 5E is set up.