D&D 5E Amulet of Natural Armor

[Pauln6]

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.

No that's OK, if my understanding of what you were suggesting was correct, then I'll stand by my version. The Amulet of Natural Armour in 5e should only benefit unarmoured wearers (unless the armoured AC is lower), including those who already benefit from natural armour. So it would help barbarians, monks, wizards, sorcerers, druids in wildshape, polymorphic characters and animal companions, plus armoured characters while resting. That is still a wide number of characters. Whether it should be attuned is another matter. It's weaker than a ring of protection so I'd say no.

The simple and far less useful on is the version that gives a fixed AC. Although less useful, it's equivalent to a permanent mage hand or Bracers of Defence so would probably need to be attuned. If you want to spice it up, allow it to grant damage resistance for 1 minute once per day but it would end up being worn for that rather than the natural armour.

 

[CapnZapp]

That is still a wide number of characters.

That I never contested.

The issue is you can't include only some of them with a elegant rule. You pretty much have to list each and every case, which means future cases will still miss out.

None of this matters for your or my home game. We can simply say what we mean and out players understand.

However, I am basing this discussion on the assumption we want an item description that holds up to scrutiny. Text that could have been included in the DMG and still work even if they add more eligible cases later on.

Have a nice day

 

[Pauln6]

That I never contested.

The issue is you can't include only some of them with a elegant rule. You pretty much have to list each and every case, which means future cases will still miss out.

None of this matters for your or my home game. We can simply say what we mean and out players understand.

However, I am basing this discussion on the assumption we want an item description that holds up to scrutiny. Text that could have been included in the DMG and still work even if they add more eligible cases later on.

Have a nice day

How about Your base AC is 11 instead of 10 or your natural armour rating +1, whichever is higher. If you have a class feature that calculates your AC using a formula starting with AC10 (such as unarmoured Defence) the formula is calculated using AC11.

This way the item stacks with class features but not magic.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Personally, I think it is right that an Amulet of Natural armour should only benefit unarmoured users, as does natural armour gained as a racial or class feature. No reason why "your skin is scaly" would function differently depending on the cause.

 

[S'mon]

Personally, I think it is right that an Amulet of Natural armour should only benefit unarmoured users, as does natural armour gained as a racial or class feature. No reason why "your skin is scaly" would function differently depending on the cause.

So treat same as bracers of defence? +2 AC when no armour/shield, requires attunement? Bracers plus amulet together would give +4 AC, for 2 atunement slots that does not seem too OP.

 

[Tormyr]

So treat same as bracers of defence? +2 AC when no armour/shield, requires attunement? Bracers plus amulet together would give +4 AC, for 2 atunement slots that does not seem too OP.

Rather than have them both be +2 maybe something like the draconic sorcerer's Draconic Resilience? AC = 13 + Dex when not wearing armor. Then it creates a new way to calculate AC rather than adding on a potential new bonus for barbarians, monks, draconic sorcerers, and users of mage armor.

 

[Pauln6]

Rather than have them both be +2 maybe something like the draconic sorcerer's Draconic Resilience? AC = 13 + Dex when not wearing armor. Then it creates a new way to calculate AC rather than adding on a potential new bonus for barbarians, monks, draconic sorcerers, and users of mage armor.

I'm not really in favour of any magical pluses stacking in the bounded system whether magical pluses from armour or shield or any other source. It's too risky to create unforeseen issues.

I think stacking on monks and barbarians unarmoured defence isn't too dangerous, since they will make sacrifices in other stats to get a higher AC and the maximum AC they can achieve is still reasonably bounded, unlikely until very high levels, and comparable to someone with heavy armour and a shield. I'm not sure I'd recommend a +2 bonus though but I'm quite cautious.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So treat same as bracers of defence? +2 AC when no armour/shield, requires attunement? Bracers plus amulet together would give +4 AC, for 2 atunement slots that does not seem too OP.

From a function/philosophical perspective, I would go for something that didn't stack with monk/barbarian armour (bracers do).

I would do for AC = 14 + Dex (+Shield if applicable) (Requires attunement). I.e. slightly better than lizardfolk/dracosorc/mage armour.

 

[Pauln6]

From a function/philosophical perspective, I would go for something that didn't stack with monk/barbarian armour (bracers do).

I would do for AC = 14 + Dex (+Shield if applicable) (Requires attunement). I.e. slightly better than lizardfolk/dracosorc/mage armour.

Yes, you certainly pitch it so that it covers a big chunk of its intended recipients. If most beast companions have AC13+Dex, this Amulet would still be hugely useful.

 

[Mort]

Edit: wow phone posted response I didn't mean to post!