D&D 5E Amulet of Natural Armor
SilverfireSage
Explorer
Uh I don't see anything wrong with that. It doesn't say that your armor can't be more, it says it can't be less. Shields don't effect the armor bonus, therefore, its allowed to stack.
Many of the ambiguities are discussed in this thread, which has been active for the past 9 days.
To give a sample of the issues:
imagine a Dex 18 fighter +Barkskin. AC= 16 or 20?
Dex 18 fighter + leather armour and shield +Barkskin. AC= 18, 20 or 22?
Then there is cover...
Last edited:
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Huh. Yeah, I don't agree with that answer of his. Your AC should be 16.
the Jester
Legend
Hmm, I see your point.
I still think it's easy to answer, though; your AC is whatever you would have without barkskin or 16, whichever is higher. At least, without reading that thread, that's my take.
I agree with you that that's what the spell says, but we are in a minority.
Mearls's tweet disagrees, obviously, and it's not clear to me that in this form it's powerful enough for a concentration spell.
Two words: requires attunement
The Crimson Binome
Hero
That's because it's natural armor, and natural armor in 5E works by giving you a new formula for calculating AC rather than modifying any existing formula. It only ever works if the value of the natural armor is better than what you would get from some other formula.
CapnZapp
Legend
I didn't find a better thread on how to implement natural armor in 5E than this, so I'm resuming the discussion.
Please do not bring up Barkskin in this thread. Some of you like it - fine. Some of us hates it - okay. Either way, it's off topic. Besides, most if not all arguments have already been made since september 2014.
Conceptually, natural armor is simple. It is a type of armor: much like leather or chain, you've got "natural".
So, having natural armor would give you a new way to calculate your AC. It stands to reason it would work simply as a kind of light armor (that doesn't limit Dex), and this is exactly how the DMG treats it for monsters.
Your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your natural armor bonus
Let's take a few examples:
Humanoid (default): your natural armor bonus is zero (0)
Lizardfolk: +3 natural armor bonus to AC
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!
This can be done for any monster, say an...
Aboleth: it too uses the natural armor AC calculation. It's AC is 18 and its Dexterity modifier is -1. So its natural armor bonus must be +9. But 5th edition isn't exact in the way 3rd edition was, so if you don't like a natural armor bonus that high (considering Aboleths aren't described as wearing heavy plate armor) you would be free to assuming it's got protective magicks going on to account for some of that high AC.
What 5th Edition doesn't do, however, is allow natural armor to stack with regular armor. (See DMG page 276: a creature can wear armor, but would then lose the "add your natural armor bonus" part of the equation).
So, the first attempt at implementing an +1 Amulet of Natural Armor would be:
You can calculate your base AC as 11 + your Dexterity modifier when wearing no armor.
Now, how useful is that for an adventurer? Pretty useless, that's what. Why would anyone bother creating something that's functionally identical to wearing simple leather armor (you do get rid of 10 lbs of gear, but that's hardly worth the effort).
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.
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.
(Of course, you could say it favors lightly armored characters compared to 3E. But this is solved best by also adding magical armors (and shields) to favor the tin cans in your campaign.)
Of course, the basic solve is to skip on natural armor altogether and simply hand out rings of protection that give +1 AC no questions asked. But that wasn't what the OP wanted.
Please do not bring up Barkskin in this thread. Some of you like it - fine. Some of us hates it - okay. Either way, it's off topic. Besides, most if not all arguments have already been made since september 2014.
Conceptually, natural armor is simple. It is a type of armor: much like leather or chain, you've got "natural".
So, having natural armor would give you a new way to calculate your AC. It stands to reason it would work simply as a kind of light armor (that doesn't limit Dex), and this is exactly how the DMG treats it for monsters.
Your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your natural armor bonus
Let's take a few examples:
Humanoid (default): your natural armor bonus is zero (0)
Lizardfolk: +3 natural armor bonus to AC
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!
This can be done for any monster, say an...
Aboleth: it too uses the natural armor AC calculation. It's AC is 18 and its Dexterity modifier is -1. So its natural armor bonus must be +9. But 5th edition isn't exact in the way 3rd edition was, so if you don't like a natural armor bonus that high (considering Aboleths aren't described as wearing heavy plate armor) you would be free to assuming it's got protective magicks going on to account for some of that high AC.
What 5th Edition doesn't do, however, is allow natural armor to stack with regular armor. (See DMG page 276: a creature can wear armor, but would then lose the "add your natural armor bonus" part of the equation).
So, the first attempt at implementing an +1 Amulet of Natural Armor would be:
You can calculate your base AC as 11 + your Dexterity modifier when wearing no armor.
Now, how useful is that for an adventurer? Pretty useless, that's what. Why would anyone bother creating something that's functionally identical to wearing simple leather armor (you do get rid of 10 lbs of gear, but that's hardly worth the effort).
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.
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.
(Of course, you could say it favors lightly armored characters compared to 3E. But this is solved best by also adding magical armors (and shields) to favor the tin cans in your campaign.)
Of course, the basic solve is to skip on natural armor altogether and simply hand out rings of protection that give +1 AC no questions asked. But that wasn't what the OP wanted.
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
Crawford reviews how natural armor works in the latest Dragon+ (or January Sage Advice).
It works as you suggest.
It works as you suggest.
Last edited:
