D&D 5E Natural Armor

[Kobold Stew]

Isn't the problem that there is more than one way to calculate natural armour in 5e? I'm AFB right now, but...

1. Draconic Sorcerer offers an alternative base when not wearing armour (a formulation to avoid making things stack). This makes natural armour work like other AC-base-altering abilities, such as Mage Armour, as well as AC-calcuation-altering abilities such as the monk and barbarian's Unarmoured Defense.

2. Warforged offers a flat bonus to AC, regardless of armour (in this case +1; though at the back of the DMG I believe Lizardfolk are presented as having a +3 Natural armour bonus). In these cases, assuming the DM allows it, appropriately-sized armour would change the base to which natural armour would be added.

3. Then there's barkskin, which should be working like natural armour, but whose poor wording has been well documented. I'll leave this one out of consideration here.

This inconsistency between 1 and 2 means that there is no single answer to this question -- it simply isn't one or the other. I'll note that all of the examples in 1. are in the PHB, and the examples in 2 are not; but still --

here's a little test:
a. Should a Warforged monk be harder to hit (and do damage) than a human monk, all other things being equal?
b. Should wearing appropriate-sized leather armour make a Lizardfolk harder to hit?
c. Are you willing to bend bounded accuracy to accommodate natural armour?

If you answer "yes" to two or more of these questions, then a flat bonus (a la Warforged) is your answer!

 

[Ahrimon]

here's a little test:
a. Should a Warforged monk be harder to hit (and do damage) than a human monk, all other things being equal?
b. Should wearing appropriate-sized leather armour make a Lizardfolk harder to hit?
c. Are you willing to bend bounded accuracy to accommodate natural armour?

If you answer "yes" to two or more of these questions, then a flat bonus (a la Warforged) is your answer!

I think your test is based on a flawed premise. Armor in DnD is not only whether you get hit or not but it also includes whether you take damage or not. A combatant may land a solid blow on someone but the armor they are wearing turns the blow away.

I understand the why they have chosen to build the stem the way they have due to bounded accuracy. But this is one of those areas that strains my verisimilitude. If two beings, on pink and squishy and another green with thick scaly skin, both put on a shirt of metal rings which one is harder to hurt? Both are just as agile so both with dodge blows just as easy, but the green guy will have more blows turned away due to his thicker skin. I definitely understand why they did it. I just wish they hadn't and kept natural armor bonuses lower so that the two would play together better.

I wonder if an alternate way of doing it could be that natural armor is halved when wearing armor. This could help keep the numbers down and still allow a little more realism (funny when talking about DnD AC) in the AC system.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I think your test is based on a flawed premise. Armor in DnD is not only whether you get hit or not but it also includes whether you take damage or not. A combatant may land a solid blow on someone but the armor they are wearing turns the blow away.

I agree with you 100% (except for the claim that the premise is flawed!). This is why I included in parentheses "and do damage": the "and do damage" (as measured within the game with hit points) is precisely what I am seeking to identify, not merely whether the blow physically connects (which is all narration anyways).

 

[The Grand User]

I'm thinking of borrowing an armor rule from another system, where if you had multiple sources for something you'd use the best and +1 for each additional source.

So natural armor (probably including the Dragon Sorcerer's armor, but probably not the Barbarian or Monk's alternate defenses) works as either the new base calculation or as a simple +1 to AC, whichever is better. It allows for the typically unarmored or light armored classes to have a good boost, and still giving a small boost to the classes that typically do use armor. So the warforged would be "Natural Armor: base 12/13 + Dex, or +1 to AC".

Though I might also limit it to only working with up to medium armor, not sure.

 

[Tormyr]

The thing to remember about the warforged blanke +1 to AC is that it is a racial feature, The warforged trades that for an additional +1 to an ability. A lizardfolk PC may get the 13+dex natural armor, but they don't get much else aside from holding their breath. So the trade off of base AC for other racial traits would still be in place. There are also precious few situations where the 13+dex natural armor would be better than something else.

I am a big believer in working with players to come up with an exotic (non PHB) race as long is the new race is not better than what is in the PHB (and in reality it may be slightly worse mechanically). I worked with one of my players to make a Half-Gnoll paladin with a Charisma of 8. I would have little issue with a lizardfolk having 13+dex natural armor. I noticed someone mentioned possibly giving additional AC to dragonborn. I personally would not do that since the dragonborn is already in the PHB without taking something else away from the dragonborn.

 

[Tormyr]

I'm thinking of borrowing an armor rule from another system, where if you had multiple sources for something you'd use the best and +1 for each additional source.

So natural armor (probably including the Dragon Sorcerer's armor, but probably not the Barbarian or Monk's alternate defenses) works as either the new base calculation or as a simple +1 to AC, whichever is better. It allows for the typically unarmored or light armored classes to have a good boost, and still giving a small boost to the classes that typically do use armor. So the warforged would be "Natural Armor: base 12/13 + Dex, or +1 to AC".

Though I might also limit it to only working with up to medium armor, not sure.

I would suggest running through some scenarios first to see if it is really necessary. Between what is already built into the system and magic items, there is not much else that is needed.
Without any magic items:
*Any character with enough strength and money and the proficiency can have AC 20 with plate and shield. Most of them will start at AC 18 and work up when they get the money or suitable plate mail drop.
*Many classes can get a +2 to AC from shield
*Monks go from roughly 16 at level 1 to and can be 20 by about level 12 or 16.
*Barbarians can go from roughly 16 at level 1 to 22 at level 20.
*Lightly armored characters can go from 14 or 15 at level 1 to 17 by level 8 or so.
*Medium armored characters can easily start at 16 or 18 with a shield.
*A +1 from fighting style can be obtained from certain classes.
*A wizard can generally start at 16 AC if the player wants to and can bump that to 21 with shield.

So a very few classes would start with 14 or 15 AC. Most can start with 16 fairly easily, and make it to 20 or beyond. Personally, I think that is sufficient once you also factor in fairly cheap magic items like bracers of armor (straight +2 for characters not wearing armor) and rings of protection. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The thing to remember about the warforged blanke +1 to AC is that it is a racial feature, The warforged trades that for an additional +1 to an ability. A lizardfolk PC may get the 13+dex natural armor, but they don't get much else aside from holding their breath. So the trade off of base AC for other racial traits would still be in place. There are also precious few situations where the 13+dex natural armor would be better than something else.

I think your instinct is right. There is a distinction to be made between two things, though (continuing with the lizard folk e.g.): between +3 natural armour on the one hand, and 13+dex natural armour on the other.

+3 natural armour would then stack with other armour worn (and dex and whatever else); 13+dex offers another means of calculating AC (leather would not improve things for the guy but a lizard folk in plate (with typical dex) would).

 

[Ilbranteloth]

If two beings, on pink and squishy and another green with thick scaly skin, both put on a shirt of metal rings which one is harder to hurt? Both are just as agile so both with dodge blows just as easy, but the green guy will have more blows turned away due to his thicker skin.

I always looked at this as the opposite being true. If an attack is strong enough to make it through the shirt of metal rings to cause damage, as long as the flesh beneath the armor is a lower armor class, it does damage. How thick the skin is doesn't matter because the force is already sufficient to make it through something stronger than your skin.

If you game system is measuring AC as damage reduction, then I'd go with your approach. Don't get me wrong, I totally get what you're saying, and from a physics standpoint, every layer of protection is going to absorb some of the blow. But in this abstract system of AC and hit points, I think the current approach makes sense.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Derren]

I always looked at this as the opposite being true. If an attack is strong enough to make it through the shirt of metal rings to cause damage, as long as the flesh beneath the armor is a lower armor class, it does damage. How thick the skin is doesn't matter because the force is already sufficient to make it through something stronger than your skin.

That doesn't
t really make sense. By going through the metal rings the attack loses force. The strength of the material beneath it has an influence on how much damage the attack does or even does damage at all instead of being stopped. Layered armor does work.
Also, this assumes that all attacks are brute force which is a silly concept with heavy armor like plate mail for example.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That doesn't
t really make sense. By going through the metal rings the attack loses force. The strength of the material beneath it has an influence on how much damage the attack does or even does damage at all instead of being stopped. Layered armor does work.
Also, this assumes that all attacks are brute force which is a silly concept with heavy armor like plate mail for example.

The reality is that it depends on the type of attack and the type of armor. Chainmail is very poor at stopping piercing weapons and things like arrows and bolts, along with bludgeoning weapons. It's very good against slashing (but not chopping) weapons.

For example, to stop an arrow, you need a type of armor that will absorb the force by transferring over a wider area. Plate armor does that very well, so does lamellar. When striking chainmail, very little energy is absorbed, and anything wearing it receives very little protection.

Another factor that comes into play in my mind with natural armor is the fact that damaging the natural armor of a creature is actually damaging the creature. If you put chainmail on, say, a Thri-kreen that has an exoskeleton, and you hit them with a mace. It won't break through the chain, but it will crush and damage some of the exoskeleton. Plus, you don't actually have to do any damage to the exterior to do real physical damage. Bludgeoning weapons don't usually break through the armor, they just compress and damage the target through the armor. A really good example of this is all of the discussion about head injuries in the NFL.

The 1st Edition tried to take this into effect, and there have been other systems that have gone farther, but it gets very complicated. In addition, when designing a game system you often have to make compromises when looking at very specific situations so that the system works in general across most situations.

I've always viewed AC as combining the raw stopping power (of armor, thick skin, etc) and skill (DEX bonus), along with magic if applicable. But the skill portion of AC is also partially accounted for in hit points, which continue to rise when you get better (raise levels), even though the actual ability to withstand a sword thrust that strikes true doesn't. Your increasing hit points really accounts for the fact that you are better able to keep that thrust from striking true.

So I look at the raw stopping power of worn armor, natural armor, and magical armor (barkskin, mage armor, etc.) as non-stackable. If something gets past the strongest layer of defense, then it's broken through.

Shields on the other hand are quite different. First off, they are often of stronger materials that help stop a blow. Second, if an arrow pierces a shield, for example, it generally doesn't go all the way through. More importantly, unless the shot actually hit the arm, a blow that goes through a shield then 'strikes' open air. Strikes directly against the shield absorb the blow because the shield (and arm) can move. If it does get through the shield to actually strike the wielder it's as if it's another attack. So I've always seen shields as logically stacking, simply because it works differently than armor (including natural armor).

It wouldn't bother me if the system was designed to work differently. My point is that it doesn't bother me that it's designed the way it is. There are a few gray areas, and in my book a shield does stack with barkskin and mage armor.

I also don't see any point in mage armor being automatically dispelled if donning armor. If the armor's a higher AC, then the mage armor is ineffective and pointless. If the donned armor is a lower AC, then the mage armor does it's job and the worn armor is simply decorative. Maybe you are trying to disguise yourself as a member of a guard and they wear padded or leather armor. I'd have no problem allowing you to cast mage armor give you a better AC. It doesn't stack, you just use the better of the two.

Is it a perfect model of how the physics of combat work? Of course not. But for a simple combat system that will allow me to model a combat relatively realistically? I think so.

Ilbranteloth