D&D 5E Amulet of Natural Armor

[SkidAce]

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?

 

[MerricB]

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?

It won't work as you think it will!

The Base AC for characters isn't actually 10. It's a calculation, typically 10 + Dexterity Modifier for unarmoured characters, and AC 16 for someone wearing chainmail. A unarmoured barbarian has a Base AC of 10 + Dexterity modifier + Constitution modifier. The 10 that you start with? It isn't the base AC!

Personally, I'd create the amulet as giving a +1 AC to anyone not wearing heavy armour, and requiring attunement.

Cheers!

 

[Mistwell]

I would probably have it replicate a barkskin spell.

 

[Kobold Stew]

At a quick glance, it seems good (11+DEX instead of 10+DEX), especially since it would be cancelled by Mage Armor, dragon-srocs, barbs, monks, etc.

 

[Paraxis]

I would probably have it replicate a barkskin spell.

+1

The spell might be odd, but a flat 16 AC all the time is still nice.

Good for most light armor wearers if dex is not primary, and great for heavy armor wearers for those moments when you get caught without your armor.

 

[SilverfireSage]

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?

I did it a little differently. All of my characters had just gotten amulets from a king for saving his valley, and they were all +1 AC. Instead for this edition though, I changed them to amulets of resistance, all of them of a different type. I like your idea, but it seems that most people that wear armor would get rid of it. Might I suggest having the amulets contain gems that can be used for certain spell components? For instance, maybe a fighter doesn't care about the amulet, but the Druid might want the gem inside to use awaken.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I would probably have it replicate a barkskin spell.

+1

The spell might be odd, but a flat 16 AC all the time is still nice.

Good for most light armor wearers if dex is not primary, and great for heavy armor wearers for those moments when you get caught without your armor.

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,

b. Barkskin the spell requires concentration -- it's the only curb on the spell that exists. An amulet, which doesn't require concentration? That's an always on concentration spell -- much much better than the spell itself.

 

[the Jester]

Barkskin is terribly worded, and currently no one really knows what is intended or how the spell is supposed to work.

What? I think "Your AC can't be less than 16" is pretty simple and clear. I wasn't aware that there was any confusion there at all.

Barkskin the spell requires concentration -- it's the only curb on the spell that exists. An amulet, which doesn't require concentration? That's an always on concentration spell -- much much better than the spell itself.

I agree with this. I'd have an amulet of natural armor be like barkskin, but slightly different- no concentration required, AC never less than 13. While I recognize that it isn't great, you can't just stack +1s to AC in 5e like you could in 3e, and I just wouldn't.

 

[Paraxis]

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,

b. Barkskin the spell requires concentration -- it's the only curb on the spell that exists. An amulet, which doesn't require concentration? That's an always on concentration spell -- much much better than the spell itself.

A concentration spell constantly up is powerful, but it depends on the spell.

Barkskin seems to be clearly worded to me, your AC can't be less than 16 no matter what armor you are wearing.

It doesn't give you a bonus to AC, it doesn't stack with anything, it just ensures that your AC is at least 16. This is not all that useful honestly but as an amulet it could be.

 

[SkidAce]

Most replies do not seem to be geared to making it like a ring of protection, +1 AC.

I have to admit, my initial thoughts were about something that would work for a monk or sorcerer. Hence the idea about changing the "base".

Meaning all those calculations would be 11 + etc ,etc, .

How would that be any more OP than a ring?