D&D 5E Does "Unarmoured Defense" work with Druids who are shapechanged?

[ECMO3]

Huh? Defense Fighting Style says: "While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC." So what's the question about whether or not it can be used with Wildshape? Get armor on your Druid, you can use it. No armor, you can't.

IF you are wildshaped you are not wearing armor since what you are wearing (armor) before you shape is transformed and is part of your new form and not armor after you shape.

I honestly think generally the best beast to wildshape into is usually the snapping turtle because of the relatively high AC. I think that will generally work better than an Ape or T-Rex at the levels they are available.

 

[ECMO3]

Huh? Defense Fighting Style says: "While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC." So what's the question about whether or not it can be used with Wildshape? Get armor on your Druid, you can use it. No armor, you can't.

You are not "wearing" armor when you are wildshaped, it is no longer on you. Unless you put the armor on the floor and then wildshape and then put it back on (assuming it fits the new form).

 

[James Gasik]

You are not "wearing" armor when you are wildshaped, it is no longer on you. Unless you put the armor on the floor and then wildshape and then put it back on (assuming it fits the new form).

Uh that's what I said.

 

[jgsugden]

IF you are wildshaped you are not wearing armor since what you are wearing (armor) before you shape is transformed and is part of your new form and not armor after you shape.

I honestly think generally the best beast to wildshape into is usually the snapping turtle because of the relatively high AC. I think that will generally work better than an Ape or T-Rex at the levels they are available.

From the PHB:

You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature’s shape and size. Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can’t wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form.

From the DMG:

In most cases, a magic item that’s meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer. Rare exceptions exist. If the story suggests a good reason for an item to fit only creatures of a certain size or shape, you can rule that it doesn’t adjust. For example, armor made by the drow might fit elves only. Dwarves might make items usable only by dwarf-sized and dwarf-shaped characters.

This is going to be a DM call, but: 1.) As a druid you decide if equipment merges with your form or can continue to be worn if it can be worn, and magical armor does resize to fit a new form. Whether that applies to specific wildshape forms, or whether the ''equipment doesn't change size or shape' was intended to negate the magical resizing of magic armors is up to the DM. There is sage advice that leans heavily away from non-humanoid forms being allowed to wear armor, but some animal shapes are humanoid forms.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Out of curiosity, I have checked how it works in BG3. Unarmoured Defence works whilst wildshaped. AC = 10 + Wis bonus + Dex bonus from the shape (if applicable). Other Monk and Barbarian abilities are disabled.

 

[Clint_L]

My call as DM is simple: you use the AC of the wild shaped creature. I don’t care about RAW when it doesn’t make sense and is just rules lawyering.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why would it not make sense? Animals can evade attacks just as well as a human.

 

[Clint_L]

It doesn’t make sense that you can do a one level dip as monk and suddenly you can do martial arts as a giant snake. It’s the kind of power gaming stuff that I hate, where D&D becomes about rules lawyering rather than trying to make a compelling story. I understand that some folks love that really game-oriented style of play and that’s fine, but it’s not for me.

For me the rule here is simple: your AC is that of your wild shape.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It doesn’t make sense that you can do a one level dip as monk and suddenly you can do martial arts as a giant snake.

My character was raised in a monastery, but always felt a close affinity to nature.

It’s the kind of power gaming stuff that I hate

Then don't allow multi-classing. It's an optional rule.

And this is weaksauce. The powergame option is to stay single classed. The only reason for doing it is thematic.

 

[Clint_L]

Then don't allow multi-classing. It's an optional rule.

Or, I could just allow multi-classing and say that you use the AC of the creature, but thanks for the advice.

And this is weaksauce. The powergame option is to stay single classed. The only reason for doing it is thematic.

Great - then you would have no problem with my ruling!