D&D 5E What armor can druids wear? Is there a way to get a decent AC?

[Coroc]

This. Or look at the unarmored AC boosts for barbarian and monk.

Barkskin isn't just a slight difference in phrasing, that can be chalked up to natural language. It's dramatically different. As I interpret it, then, anything that adds to your AC simply has no effect while you're barkskinned until it exceeds 16. Thus:

Barkskin = AC 16.
Barkskin + Dex 20 = AC 16.
Barkskin + shield = AC 16.
Barkskin + mage armor = AC 16.
Barkskin + shield + mage armor = AC 17.
Barkskin + mage armor + Dex 20 = AC 18.

IOW, your AC is either determined by barkskin or by everything else, whichever is higher.

Could you clarify by editing with red and green font eventually which parts of the armor do contribute in each case please?

Ups i fell for a case of slight thread necromancy sorry for my zeal.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hello all,
My reading of the druid is that of the PHB armors, they can wear leather, padded and hide for certain. Studded leather is unclear (is "made of metal" the same as "has some metal"?)

This seems really painful for a druid--it's hard to build a casting (one who is generally not wild shapped), even with armor feats or multi-classing. The AC is just really low and even barkskin doesn't help much (concentration). Is there anything other than wild shapping that helps? Am I understanding the armor rules correctly?

My rogue wears studded leather that is layers of leather supported by owlbear bone, no metal involved. No reason a Druid couldn’t do the same.

 

[Charlaquin]

Could you clarify by editing with red and green font eventually which parts of the armor do contribute in each case please?

Ups i fell for a case of slight thread necromancy sorry for my zeal.

It’s not as complicated as that post makes it seem. Calculate your AC as if you didn’t have Barkskin. If that number is less than 16, Barkskin brings your AC to 16 (because the effect of Barkskin is that your AC can’t be less than 16.) If that number is 16 or greater, Barkskin has no effect (because your AC is not less than 16.)

 

[Gradine]

Or you could always move to Eberron and get yourself a set of Bronzewood Half Plate.

Wow this intelligent and, might I say, gorgeous individual certainly made an excellent point two years ago!

 

[Iry]

Start a Heavy Metal Druid band.
Frig the consequences!

 

[Harzel]

It’s not as complicated as that post makes it seem. Calculate your AC as if you didn’t have Barkskin. If that number is less than 16, Barkskin brings your AC to 16 (because the effect of Barkskin is that your AC can’t be less than 16.) If that number is 16 or greater, Barkskin has no effect (because your AC is not less than 16.)

Except that that is not what the spell says, at least to me. Consider the two following wordings:

the target's AC can't be less than 16, regardless of what its AC would be otherwise

the target's AC can't be less than 16, regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing

If the spell read as in the first wording, I would agree with you. However, what we actually have is the second. So I would modify what you said to be the following:

Calculate your AC based only on what armor you are wearing, that is, according to the table on page 145 of the PH (or 10 + DEX mod if you are wearing no armor). If that number is less than 16, Barkskin brings your armor-based AC to 16 (because the effect of Barkskin is that your armor-based AC can’t be less than 16.) If that number is 16 or greater, Barkskin has no effect (because your armor-based AC is not less than 16.) Then modify your AC according to items/features that usually modify your armor-based AC, such as a shield.

To me, the only thing that could be controversial is the treatment of your DEX modifier. One could argue that if a character has only Barkskin and no armor, then its AC should be 16 + DEX mod. I think that is not RAI because

a) It is a general rule that how DEX affects AC depends on armor type. Since the Barkskin effect is, effectively, armor, and its description says nothing about adding your DEX mod, that means you don't add your DEX mod. It is analogous to the lines for the heavy armor types in the table on page 145 of the PH. (In fact, since the AC that it is granting is 16, it seems very reasonable to treat it similarly to a heavy armor, except for the fact that you can, if you choose wear a more protective armor over it, provided you can find some that a druid can wear.)

b) If you did add DEX mod, a druid with Barkskin, a shield, and a DEX of 14 would have an AC of 20. To me, that seems quite unlikely to be intended (but this is, clearly, subjective).

Finally, I guess, a word about shields. I am not aware of any instances in the 5e rules in which the word "armor" is intended to include the use of a shield. And in the specifications of Unarmored Defense feature for Barbarians and Monks, whether a shield is allowed is made explicit. So my take is that "what kind of armor it is wearing" does not comprehend shield use.

All of which amounts to what @DEFCON 1 said rather more concisely, um, 5 1/2 years ago.

The way I read it... you have a floor of 16 for AC due to armor, and it can go up from there with anything else besides armor that normally raises your AC.

Oh, and then one last word about why the way the spell is written is absolutely terrible and subject to so much discussion. The fundamental flaw is simple (and, I would think, obvious to a competent author): basically, instead of telling you what the target's AC is, it tells you what the target's AC isn't (it is not less than 16). Would it have taken a few more words to say, explicitly, how to calculate the target's AC? Yes. Would it have eliminated a lot of DMs spending time - time that could have been usefully spent otherwise - trying to figure out WTF they meant (or, failing that, how I want it to work) because even though I don't care a lot about how exactly the spell works, I have to make a decision? Also, yes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Except that that is not what the spell says, at least to me. Consider the two following wordings:

If the spell read as in the first wording, I would agree with you. However, what we actually have is the second. So I would modify what you said to be the following:

Calculate your AC based only on what armor you are wearing, that is, according to the table on page 145 of the PH (or 10 + DEX mod if you are wearing no armor). If that number is less than 16, Barkskin brings your armor-based AC to 16 (because the effect of Barkskin is that your armor-based AC can’t be less than 16.) If that number is 16 or greater, Barkskin has no effect (because your armor-based AC is not less than 16.) Then modify your AC according to items/features that usually modify your armor-based AC, such as a shield.

To me, the only thing that could be controversial is the treatment of your DEX modifier. One could argue that if a character has only Barkskin and no armor, then its AC should be 16 + DEX mod. I think that is not RAI because

a) It is a general rule that how DEX affects AC depends on armor type. Since the Barkskin effect is, effectively, armor, and its description says nothing about adding your DEX mod, that means you don't add your DEX mod. It is analogous to the lines for the heavy armor types in the table on page 145 of the PH. (In fact, since the AC that it is granting is 16, it seems very reasonable to treat it similarly to a heavy armor, except for the fact that you can, if you choose wear a more protective armor over it, provided you can find some that a druid can wear.)

b) If you did add DEX mod, a druid with Barkskin, a shield, and a DEX of 14 would have an AC of 20. To me, that seems quite unlikely to be intended (but this is, clearly, subjective).

Finally, I guess, a word about shields. I am not aware of any instances in the 5e rules in which the word "armor" is intended to include the use of a shield. And in the specifications of Unarmored Defense feature for Barbarians and Monks, whether a shield is allowed is made explicit. So my take is that "what kind of armor it is wearing" does not comprehend shield use.

The distinction you’re trying to draw between AC and “armor-based AC” is not supported by the rules.

All of which amounts to what @DEFCON 1 said rather more concisely, um, 5 1/2 years ago.

And it wasn’t correct then either.

Oh, and then one last word about why the way the spell is written is absolutely terrible and subject to so much discussion. The fundamental flaw is simple (and, I would think, obvious to a competent author): basically, instead of telling you what the target's AC is, it tells you what the target's AC isn't (it is not less than 16). Would it have taken a few more words to say, explicitly, how to calculate the target's AC? Yes. Would it have eliminated a lot of DMs spending time - time that could have been usefully spent otherwise - trying to figure out WTF they meant (or, failing that, how I want it to work) because even though I don't care a lot about how exactly the spell works, I have to make a decision? Also, yes.

Telling you how to calculate your AC would change the function of the spell. Barkskin does not give you a new way to calculate your AC. It prevents your AC from falling below a certain threshold. The wording is very simple and concise, and leaves no room for misinterpretation. The target’s AC (regardless of what armor it is wearing) can’t be less than 16. If its AC would be 15, its 16. If its AC would be 17, it’s 17. What armor it’s wearing makes no difference. Simple.

 

[CleverNickName]

The "no metal armor" restriction doesn't have to be as limiting as you think. With some imagination (and your DM's permission) you could make Medium or Heavy armor out of all sorts of materials.

Maybe there is a special tree in your campaign, called Umbrite or whatever. And maybe the elves have learned how to collect the sap from the umbrite trees, and they boil it down and harden it to make golden, translucent weapons and armor that are as light and strong as steel. But be careful, it's still technically wood (and can burn).

Maybe the dwarven druids of the Earth-Singer clan have a special kind of armor made from ceramic. They mine the rare clays from ancient fossil beds deep beneath the mountain, mix it with the blood of gorgons, and fire it in great kilns to create stone armor. This ceramic armor might be unaffected by heat metal, but watch out for transmute rock.

Or maybe you want a breastplate for your druid. You ask around, and you find an NPC who can make one for you out of chitin. Your DM could put a quick little adventure together for you to hunt and slay an ankheg large enough for the project, but you're going to have to find a way to slay it somehow without cracking its shell. If you pull it off, you could have a chitin breastplate in about 4-5 in-game months. (And a pretty cool story about where your unique armor came from.)

 

[Weiley31]

The "no metal armor" restriction doesn't have to be as limiting as you think. With some imagination (and your DM's permission) you could make Medium or Heavy armor out of all sorts of materials.

Maybe there is a special tree in your campaign, called Umbrite or whatever. And maybe the elves have learned how to collect the sap from the umbrite trees, and they boil it down and harden it to make golden, translucent weapons and armor that are as light and strong as steel.

Maybe the dwarven druids of the Earth-Singer clan have a special kind of armor made from ceramic. They mine the rare clays from ancient fossil beds deep beneath the mountain, mix it with the blood of gorgons, and fire it in great kilns to create stone armor.

Or maybe you want a breastplate for your druid. You ask around, and you find an NPC who can make one for you out of chitin. Your DM could put a quick little adventure together for you to hunt and slay an ankheg large enough for the project, but you're going to have to find a way to slay it somehow without cracking its shell. If you pull it off, you could have a chitin breastplate in about 4-5 in-game months. (And a pretty cool story about where your unique armor came from.)

I like my Ironwood idea, but that is also totally kick-ass too!

 

[Paul Smart]

This is why Tortles make some of the best Druids. AC 17, 19 with a shield (I like to say my shield is a giant Turtle Shell).