January 2016 Sage Advice - All About AC

There is a new Sage Advice from WotC's Jeremy Crawford posted on the D&D website about Armor Class and how spells interact with it. As always, the Sage Advice Compendium has also been updated with this information. This month, Jeremy discusses how to calculate creature ACs, and how spells like mage armor, barkskin, amor of Agates, and heroism work. Interestingly, it also contains a reconsidered ruling on how barkskin and shields work, and an update to his previous ruling one the Savage Attacker feat.
Find the full column here and the full compiled Sage Advice Compendium PDF here.

Also of note, the Monster Manual errata has been updated and now includes the water elemental and changes to the kraken.


Sage Advice is a monthly column that gives official clarifications of D&D rules. It also sometimes provides reference documents to help your D&D game run smoothly. Despite its official status, Sage Advice doesn’t trump the rulings of a Dungeon Master; the answers and information provided here are meant to assist a DM in adjudicating the game.

 

[Jester David]

Was savage attacker updated?

 

[Pauper]

The new Sage Advice Compendium clarifies that Savage Attacker doesn't work with unarmed strikes, because Savage Attacker references a weapon's damage die, and an unarmed strike isn't a weapon (as per the PH Errata). So half-orc monks need to use a monk weapon to get the benefit of their racial trait.

Of all the items in this article, the willingness to revisit and revise old rulings is the one that heartens me the most; I'm looking forward to the day that Crawford realizes he got the distinction between somatic and material components precisely backward. (The text of the PH specifies that, if you are able to perform somatic components with a hand, you can access material components with the same hand, but his ruling regarding emblazoned holy symbols presupposes the opposite -- if you have access to a material component with a hand, you can perform somatic components with that hand -- and the apposite interpretation is not strictly supported by the text in the PH.)

--
Pauper

 

[Blue]

From the linked SA compendium:

Savage Attacker
Does the Savage Attacker feat work with unarmed strikes?
No. Savage Attacker relies on a weapon’s damage dice, and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon (a point that was clarified in the Player’s Handbook errata).

 

[Zaran]

Why is Savage Attacker overpowered when used with Unarmed Strike?

 

[wedgeski]

Why don't we throw a few clicks to the official website rather than copy-pasting here..?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Interesting to read the ruling on barkskin. That's the way I interpreted it, and that's what it means literally as written. But either way, no wonder there was confusion because of prior tweets. Hopefully this finally puts this discussion to bed

 

[DEFCON 1]

There is a new Sage Advice from WotC's Jeremy Crawford posted on the D&D website about Armor Class and how spells interact with it. As always, the Sage Advice Compendium has also been updated with this information. This month, Jeremy discusses how to calculate creature ACs, and how spells like mage armor, barkskin, amor of Agates, and heroism work. Interestingly, it also contains a reconsidered ruling on how barkskin and shields work, and an update to his previous ruling one the Savage Attacker feat.
Find the full column here and the full compiled Sage Advice Compendium PDF here.

Also of note, the Monster Manual errata has been updated and now includes the water elemental and changes to the kraken.


Sage Advice is a monthly column that gives official clarifications of D&D rules. It also sometimes provides reference documents to help your D&D game run smoothly. Despite its official status, Sage Advice doesn’t trump the rulings of a Dungeon Master; the answers and information provided here are meant to assist a DM in adjudicating the game.

 

[CapnZapp]

Why don't we throw a few clicks to the official website rather than copy-pasting here..?

I much enjoy visiting this site to stay at this site. Thank you

 

[CapnZapp]

Interesting to read the ruling on barkskin. That's the way I interpreted it, and that's what it means literally as written. But either way, no wonder there was confusion because of prior tweets. Hopefully this finally puts this discussion to bed

It is really the only way to read the spell.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact it makes no sense, especially for a spell such as Barkskin...