Not Wearing Armor Bonuses

[Khrysaes]

So I was reading around, and while in the PHB, it says that Unarmored defense(such as barbarian and monk) don't stack, you only get one of them. What about others that aren't Unarmored Defense.

For example, lizardmen's natural armor. I think it would be a shame that if you are a barbarian, then you don't get that higher base armor for having a scaly hide.

In a similar fashion, Redemption Pallys get 16+Dex, it is also not called unarmored defense.

Stone sorcerers get one too.

I wholly believe that these don't stack for mechanical reasons, but logically they don't make sense to me.

Any thoughts?

[Maxilian]

They don't stack, the only thing that stack that have to do with AC, is when it says you get a "Bonus AC of X or increase your AC + X".

Note: But you will use the one that give you the highter AC (so if you're a Barbarian Lizarfolk that have really low CON, and just increase DEX, then you will most likely use the Lizardfolk Scale skin, instead of the Barbarian Unarmored Defense)

[nickl_2000]

I see what you are saying about it being mechanical verses logical.

A lizardman's skin doesn't get any softer when they put on a set of fullplate. A monk is no less wis and a barbarian can take no less abuse if they put on armor.



That being said, I like how they do it. It balances it nicely

[clash]

Logically there is a certain amount of sense to it.

For example, you have a lizardman wearing full plate. Someone rolls 19 to hit. The concept being that the 19 means they aimed with enough skill to hit one of the vulnerable points in your armor (neck, armpit, knee) mostly the joints. The 19 also hit just the scales meaning that it rolled high enough to the vulnerable points on your tough skin. Again probably the joints. So if you consider that the vulnerable points on each armor type are the same then aiming for one on the better of the two armors would also overcome the weaker of the two.

As for the monk the wisdom bonus to ac can be thought of as predicting where someone might strike and reading their movements to aid in avoiding it. When you are in heavy armor you are not trying to dodge hits instead relying on your armor to defend you. (no dex to ac) it gets harder to explain for light and medium armor, but perhaps things like a helmet impede your vision too much to read the slightest change in your opponents movements.

[Mortis_Elrod]

i see this question all the time, (and this is not to offend anybody) but i don't see where the confusion is coming from. It's like asking if someone wearing scale mail and plate mail and asking which AC to use. It's all just using different armor, use the highest, (unless you 2 have unarmored defense use the first one you got, as said in the MC part in the phb).

[PeteNutButter]

I see what you are saying about it being mechanical verses logical.

A lizardman's skin doesn't get any softer when they put on a set of fullplate. A monk is no less wis and a barbarian can take no less abuse if they put on armor.

That being said, I like how they do it. It balances it nicely

The odd thing about the lizardfolk scales is they work while wearing armor, so you can wear leather armor and take the defense fighting style for an AC of 14+dex.

Anyways the only other option would be to just give a free +1 racial AC, which is probably too strong for a race that isn't UA.

[Khrysaes]

Logically there is a certain amount of sense to it.

For example, you have a lizardman wearing full plate. Someone rolls 19 to hit. The concept being that the 19 means they aimed with enough skill to hit one of the vulnerable points in your armor (neck, armpit, knee) mostly the joints. The 19 also hit just the scales meaning that it rolled high enough to the vulnerable points on your tough skin. Again probably the joints. So if you consider that the vulnerable points on each armor type are the same then aiming for one on the better of the two armors would also overcome the weaker of the two.

As for the monk the wisdom bonus to ac can be thought of as predicting where someone might strike and reading their movements to aid in avoiding it. When you are in heavy armor you are not trying to dodge hits instead relying on your armor to defend you. (no dex to ac) it gets harder to explain for light and medium armor, but perhaps things like a helmet impede your vision too much to read the slightest change in your opponents movements.

That is comparing wearing armor to not wearing armor, particularly heavy armor, and has nothing to do with why this isn't logical.

Without classes, a human has 10 + dex as AC when they are not wearing armor.

In a similar fashion, the Lizardman has 13 + dex. This is to represent that they have less vulnerabilites than a human because of their scales.

So a human barbarian gets 10 + dex + con, representing the increased physical endurance of their bodies. Their muscles block their vulnerable spots.

A Lizardman barbarian gets the same, even though they still have scales that logically would make them even less vulnerable a human barbarian.

In a similar fashion, the monk as you said adds their wisdom to their ac because they are observing and predicting where the attacks would go. In this case, the Lizardman would still be less vulnerable because of their scales, than a human, and equally as capable of dodging.

This is represented by the 13 base AC the Lizardman has over a Human's 10.

Mechanically, the way it currently works is done for balance, but logically it doesn't make sense.

Other ones like Mage armor are the same. Anything that changes your Base AC, such as Mage armor, or worn armor, seems to represent the reduction in physical vulnerabilities that are easy to attack sure in Full Plate a human and Lizardman would both be vulnerable in their eyes. But without armor a lizardman has its scales, and would be less vulnerable than a human, regardless of what class they pick. Which is why I find it nonsensical that a human barbarian or monk would have the same ability to avoid or resist damage as a lizard of the same class.

[nickl_2000]

The odd thing about the lizardfolk scales is they work while wearing armor, so you can wear leather armor and take the defense fighting style for an AC of 14+dex.

They don't combine together, you just take the better of the two for AC purposes (leather or lizard folk scales). Although, you could wear Leather Armor of Resistance to get the damage resistance while still having the Natural Armor of 13.

[PeteNutButter]

That is comparing wearing armor to not wearing armor, particularly heavy armor, and has nothing to do with why this isn't logical.

Without classes, a human has 10 + dex as AC when they are not wearing armor.

In a similar fashion, the Lizardman has 13 + dex. This is to represent that they have less vulnerabilites than a human because of their scales.

So a human barbarian gets 10 + dex + con, representing the increased physical endurance of their bodies. Their muscles block their vulnerable spots.

A Lizardman barbarian gets the same, even though they still have scales that logically would make them even less vulnerable a human barbarian.

In a similar fashion, the monk as you said adds their wisdom to their ac because they are observing and predicting where the attacks would go. In this case, the Lizardman would still be less vulnerable because of their scales, than a human, and equally as capable of dodging.

This is represented by the 13 base AC the Lizardman has over a Human's 10.

Mechanically, the way it currently works is done for balance, but logically it doesn't make sense.

Other ones like Mage armor are the same. Anything that changes your Base AC, such as Mage armor, or worn armor, seems to represent the reduction in physical vulnerabilities that are easy to attack sure in Full Plate a human and Lizardman would both be vulnerable in their eyes. But without armor a lizardman has its scales, and would be less vulnerable than a human, regardless of what class they pick. Which is why I find it nonsensical that a human barbarian or monk would have the same ability to avoid or resist damage as a lizard of the same class.

Just one of many many many things that don't make sense in D&D, but exist for the sake of balance.

If they all did stack, a lizardman barbarian 1, monk 1, draconic sorcerer 1 would have a 23 AC at level 3... toss on mage armor and it's 26.

[Maxilian]

That is comparing wearing armor to not wearing armor, particularly heavy armor, and has nothing to do with why this isn't logical.

Without classes, a human has 10 + dex as AC when they are not wearing armor.

In a similar fashion, the Lizardman has 13 + dex. This is to represent that they have less vulnerabilites than a human because of their scales.

So a human barbarian gets 10 + dex + con, representing the increased physical endurance of their bodies. Their muscles block their vulnerable spots.

A Lizardman barbarian gets the same, even though they still have scales that logically would make them even less vulnerable a human barbarian.

In a similar fashion, the monk as you said adds their wisdom to their ac because they are observing and predicting where the attacks would go. In this case, the Lizardman would still be less vulnerable because of their scales, than a human, and equally as capable of dodging.

This is represented by the 13 base AC the Lizardman has over a Human's 10.

Mechanically, the way it currently works is done for balance, but logically it doesn't make sense.



Well if both are the same (are the same at combat, the same at tactics and the same in endurance, i see no reason to have them with different AC if they are both experts), a low lvl Monk or a low lvl Barbarian Lizardfolk may have a better AC than a human depending how they trained (Did they trained mainly their DEX and put aside WIS or CON?) etc....

[Khrysaes]

i see this question all the time, (and this is not to offend anybody) but i don't see where the confusion is coming from. It's like asking if someone wearing scale mail and plate mail and asking which AC to use. It's all just using different armor, use the highest, (unless you 2 have unarmored defense use the first one you got, as said in the MC part in the phb).

This isn't a mechanical or design question. I know how it works, and the reason it works that way. I just don't think it makes sense logically.


The odd thing about the lizardfolk scales is they work while wearing armor, so you can wear leather armor and take the defense fighting style for an AC of 14+dex.

Anyways the only other option would be to just give a free +1 racial AC, which is probably too strong for a race that isn't UA.

Partially right. They can opt to use their scales only if it is better than the armor they are wearing. they don't stack. I also misread your post and understand what you are saying now....

I would argue, that things that change base armor like the lizardfolk scales would give a flat bonus while unarmored. So a human is 10 + dex, a lizardfolk would be gain a +3 to their ac while unarmored, or wearing armor that would give them a base ac below 13.

But again, I understand why it is because of balance...

[nickl_2000]

I would argue, that things that change base armor like the lizardfolk scales would give a flat bonus while unarmored. So a human is 10 + dex, a lizardfolk would be gain a +3 to their ac while unarmored, or wearing armor that would give them a base ac below 13.


except this isn't RAW at all. It's very specific about it

Copied from Volo's
Natural Armor. You have tough, scaly skin. When you aren't wearing armor, your AC is 13 + your Dexterity modifier. You can use your natural armor to determine your AC if the armor you wear would leave you with a lower AC. A shield's benefits apply as normal while you use your natural armor.

[Khrysaes]

except this isn't RAW at all. It's very specific about it

Copied from Volo's
Natural Armor. You have tough, scaly skin. When you aren't wearing armor, your AC is 13 + your Dexterity modifier. You can use your natural armor to determine your AC if the armor you wear would leave you with a lower AC. A shield's benefits apply as normal while you use your natural armor.

I knew when writing it that the part you quoted wasn't raw. Again I understand the way it is done is because of balance.

My suggestion was a potential homebrew rule that probably would never be implemented, because of balance reasons. If it was you could argue that a barbarian 1/monk 1/sorc 1 does get all the bonuses to stack, because they, at least barb and monk, dont change the base armor, and add different things to their unarmored defense represented in different ways, which a single person could have both of. This is part of what the problem was in 3.5, with AC going to rediculous numbers and Attack bonuses increasing just the same to keep up.

[Mortis_Elrod]

That is comparing wearing armor to not wearing armor, particularly heavy armor, and has nothing to do with why this isn't logical.

Without classes, a human has 10 + dex as AC when they are not wearing armor.

In a similar fashion, the Lizardman has 13 + dex. This is to represent that they have less vulnerabilites than a human because of their scales.

So a human barbarian gets 10 + dex + con, representing the increased physical endurance of their bodies. Their muscles block their vulnerable spots.

A Lizardman barbarian gets the same, even though they still have scales that logically would make them even less vulnerable a human barbarian.

In a similar fashion, the monk as you said adds their wisdom to their ac because they are observing and predicting where the attacks would go. In this case, the Lizardman would still be less vulnerable because of their scales, than a human, and equally as capable of dodging.

This is represented by the 13 base AC the Lizardman has over a Human's 10.

Mechanically, the way it currently works is done for balance, but logically it doesn't make sense.

Other ones like Mage armor are the same. Anything that changes your Base AC, such as Mage armor, or worn armor, seems to represent the reduction in physical vulnerabilities that are easy to attack sure in Full Plate a human and Lizardman would both be vulnerable in their eyes. But without armor a lizardman has its scales, and would be less vulnerable than a human, regardless of what class they pick. Which is why I find it nonsensical that a human barbarian or monk would have the same ability to avoid or resist damage as a lizard of the same class.

The issue with this is, you're assuming that lizardfolk have the exact same physical limits as humans. Which is most likely false. The lizardman barbarian has unarmored defense yes, but its ONLY better than his natural ac if he pushes his body far enough to achieve that. The human barbarian AC is only as good as the lizard mans if he is faster and his muscles are tougher. Lizard man is still better because he has a head start, but the human body can catch up. Lizard man can do way better if he tried, but his body has limits, he cant increase the scales ability to deflect attacks or how many scales he has, just like a human can't chose the rate of skin or hair growth.

So they might get the same AC, but the human worked harder for it. Lizard would still eat human.

[Khrysaes]

The issue with this is, you're assuming that lizardfolk have the exact same physical limits as humans. Which is most likely false. The lizardman barbarian has unarmored defense yes, but its ONLY better than his natural ac if he pushes his body far enough to achieve that. The human barbarian AC is only as good as the lizard mans if he is faster and his muscles are tougher. Lizard man is still better because he has a head start, but the human body can catch up. Lizard man can do way better if he tried, but his body has limits, he cant increase the scales ability to deflect attacks or how many scales he has, just like a human can't chose the rate of skin or hair growth.

So they might get the same AC, but the human worked harder for it. Lizard would still eat human.

From my understanding of this, you are saying that, in terms of Barbarian or Monk, especially barbarian, the human and lizardfolk have the same upper limit, the human just has to work harder to get there. I.E, the natural armor is comparable to a 16 con + dex for a human barb(in terms of AC), the only way to be better is get 18 con. I.E, the lizardfolk is just naturally more beefy because of its scales. For monk I guess they just rely on the scales rather than their awareness.

[Ruebin Rybnik]

I can agree with how lizard folk natural armor and barbarian unarmored defense don't stack with armor because these are about their bodies being tough and the armor covers their bodies. Now for the monk I think logical it would make more sense to treat theirs more like dex with armor as it is based on seeing, predicting, and avoiding attacks.
i.e. monk in plate gets AC 18+shield cause not getting UAD, in h.plate gets AC 15+DEX max 2+WIS max 2, and in s.leather AC 12+DEX+WIS. you could get AC 22 with s.leather but that is only if you max DEX and WIS which would only happen at high lvl at which point you will still be hit regularly.

Now Mage Armor is something else entirely, the text says the a protective magical force surrounds the target. Logically why would this not stack with armor? Shield also says a magical force protects you and it does stack with armor.


Before anyone jumps in " Because balance...", this is only from a logical stand point. I actually agree and like the way things are balanced. Except when you start adding magic armor as then the non armor wearers kind of get shafted.

[JackPhoenix]

Both AC and HP are abstract mechanic, and they are closely interconnected. From in-character perspective, to an certain extent, they are represented by the one and the same: ability to avoid damage through whatever means. AC combines luck, ability to avoid attacks and physical resistance. HP also combines luck (or plot armor), skill in avoiding attacks and physical toughness. There are situations where the description of being hit but not killed by an attack with deadly weapon thanks to the armor may apply both when the actual attack roll missing thanks to high AC from, say a plate, and the attack roll actually hitting, but not causing enough damage to kill the armored target.

Point is, what makes logical sense doesn't have to correlate with mechanics. Perhaps, despite having the same AC as the human barbarian, the lizardfolk actually is tougher... but when both go down in the combat after the same time (because they have the same mechanical statistics), the lizardfolk's foe had to hit much harder or more precisely than with the human to fell him (because that makes more sense when describing the scene).

[bid]

Armor and scale work the same way: they redirect energy/momentum because the weapon slides off or distribute it over a large area when you hit the right spot.

If a weapon catches in a weakness of the armor and doesn't slide off, it's guided into the underlying scales without further chances to diffuse energy. And as others have said, weak spots are joints where both armor and scale must allow for movement.


If we go meta on "logical", it's does nothing but force the DM to improve the enemies hit bonus. At worst, it penalizes the other players who couldn't munchkin their way to the same optimum.

My thought on all those attempts to bypass TANSTAAFL is this: power grab is a fun killer that leads to adverserial playstyle.

[Misterwhisper]

The problem I have with every form of unarmored defense is that the Monk, the supposed master of the unarmed and unarmored has by far the worst ac with their non armored options.

Barbarians: 2 stats and keeps shields
Sorcerer Stone: gets con instead of dex 13 base ac and still can use shields
Redemption Paladin: at level 3 when you hit the subclass can have a better ac than the monk and never even needs but 1 stat at all and can still use things with 2 hands.

Monks: 2 stats, no chance to use a shield even if you gain proficiency.

Monks need some love here.

[bid]

The problem I have with every form of unarmored defense is that the Monk, the supposed master of the unarmed and unarmored has by far the worst ac with their non armored options.

Barbarians: 2 stats and keeps shields
Sorcerer Stone: gets con instead of dex 13 base ac and still can use shields
Redemption Paladin: at level 3 when you hit the subclass can have a better ac than the monk and never even needs but 1 stat at all and can still use things with 2 hands.

Monks: 2 stats, no chance to use a shield even if you gain proficiency.

Monks need some love here.
Not really:
- barbarian: Con is secondary stat, Dex is tertiary with Wis {AC20 after 4 ASI for mountain dwarf}
- stone: Con is secondary stats {AC20 after 4 ASI}
- redemption: you'll need Dex20 to match heavy + shield + defense {AC20 after 2 ASI as dexadin}

Dex is primary stat for monks, Wis is tied second with Con {AC20 after 4 ASI}

[Misterwhisper]

Not really:
- barbarian: Con is secondary stat, Dex is tertiary with Wis {AC20 after 4 ASI for mountain dwarf}
- stone: Con is secondary stats {AC20 after 4 ASI}
- redemption: you'll need Dex20 to match heavy + shield + defense {AC20 after 2 ASI as dexadin}

Dex is primary stat for monks, Wis is tied second with Con {AC20 after 4 ASI}

Ummm no.
Barbarian, can easily start with a 16 con and 14 dex, pick up shield, level 1 AC= 17
Or they could just wear armor like half plate and start with an ac of 19 and lose nothing. Unarmored defense is just an option.

Stone Sorcerer, can boost con instead of dex which is great for concentration checks and get more hp while boosting their ac. Level 3 ac with just a con of 16 and a shield ,18.

A redemption paladin with a 10 in every stat has the same ac as a monk with 2 16'd. Make dex a 16 and with no armor and no shield you have an ac 19, and you can take a fighting style in mariner to have a 20 at level 3. Heck a redemption paladin can get a 22 ac by level 8 if they wanted to by just leveling dex, which is very reasonable, at level 4 it can be a 21, that is higher than a monk can get even after they spend 4 ASI on stats.

Monk, who bought at least a 15 and a 14 starting out, and maxed out their stats as much as possible can have at most an ac of 16 for level 1 thru 3. This is not optional like the others except for stone sorcerer, a monk can never wear armor or use a shield if they want to. It is not an option it is manditory.

Monks need to gain ac as part of class levels like they used to, like when your proficiency bonus goes up, you also gain 1 point of ac while using unarmored defense.

A 24 ac at level 20 after you drop 4 of your 5 ASI on stats is very reasonable.

[Mortis_Elrod]

From my understanding of this, you are saying that, in terms of Barbarian or Monk, especially barbarian, the human and lizardfolk have the same upper limit, the human just has to work harder to get there. I.E, the natural armor is comparable to a 16 con + dex for a human barb(in terms of AC), the only way to be better is get 18 con. I.E, the lizardfolk is just naturally more beefy because of its scales. For monk I guess they just rely on the scales rather than their awareness.

yeah, and in the case of the monk maybe the lizardfolk has an instinctual starting advantage. Humans kinda have to relearn getting in touch with their bodies, and predicting peoples movements and stuff. Lizardman been doing that since day 1 out the egg. He always assesses what is or isn't food and weather something is useful. They have +1 wis too so there's that, and they already fight with non manufactured weapons, The BITE. And just like before, the lizardman has the advantage nature gave him, but its nothing more than a head start. Human and lizard both end up with same martial arts die, because they learned where to best place their blows. but you can only use a bite attack in so many ways so even though it started better than say a humans punch, the punch still gets to do the same damage in the end.

[bid]

Ummm no.
Barbarian, can easily start with a 16 con and 14 dex, pick up shield, level 1 AC= 17
Or they could just wear armor like half plate and start with an ac of 19 and lose nothing. Unarmored defense is just an option.
Barbarian unarmored defense is just plain bad, I wouldn't use it as an argument for more monk love.



A 24 ac at level 20 after you drop 4 of your 5 ASI on stats is very reasonable.
As I've shown above, no class gets that. Except a dexbarian that gimps its damage potential. You can't have your cake and eat it.


Your real point seems to be that monk is behind on AC at low level.
- stone sorcerer can start at AC18, which monk needs level 8 to match, and follow the same AC progression after.
- redemption paladin can start at AC20... which saves the 200gp of splint. Although you can use 2-handers, which your armored pals cannot match.


While I agree monk is tight and requires sacrifice, I don't think this argument has value. UA classes don't balance against PHB, they may follow the same path as favored soul. And tank/caster are not skirmishers. Apples and oranges.

The other skirmisher class (rogue) starts at AC15 and caps at AC17. Monk gets as much love.

[Misterwhisper]

Barbarian unarmored defense is just plain bad, I wouldn't use it as an argument for more monk love.



As I've shown above, no class gets that. Except a dexbarian that gimps its damage potential. You can't have your cake and eat it.


Your real point seems to be that monk is behind on AC at low level.
- stone sorcerer can start at AC18, which monk needs level 8 to match, and follow the same AC progression after.
- redemption paladin can start at AC20... which saves the 200gp of splint. Although you can use 2-handers, which your armored pals cannot match.


While I agree monk is tight and requires sacrifice, I don't think this argument has value. UA classes don't balance against PHB, they may follow the same path as favored soul. And tank/caster are not skirmishers. Apples and oranges.

The other skirmisher class (rogue) starts at AC15 and caps at AC17. Monk gets as much love.

On the point of a monk at level 20 with a possible 24 ac being too high.

A barbarian at 20 could easily have a 24 ac as well, from a 24 Con due to their level 20 ability, and if they maxed dex, hand them a non magic shield = 24 ac. Considering how cheap magic items that give 19 or more strength it is pretty easy.

With magic items any class that can use a shield can get 24 ac with nothing but armor and shield.
+3 studded leather +2 shield, = 24 ac with a to dex.

On the rogue comparison, the rogue has the best escape and mobility in the game thanks to cunning action. They do not need the huge ac because they are much harder to target. They can also drop back to ranged combat if needed.

A monk must stay in melee to be effective but he has to do it with lower ac and lower hp most of the time because they have to boost dex and wis. Monks need the better ac.

[EvilAnagram]

On the point of a monk at level 20 with a possible 24 ac being too high.

A barbarian at 20 could easily have a 24 ac as well, from a 24 Con due to their level 20 ability, and if they maxed dex, hand them a non magic shield = 24 ac. Considering how cheap magic items that give 19 or more strength it is pretty easy.

With magic items any class that can use a shield can get 24 ac with nothing but armor and shield.
+3 studded leather +2 shield, = 24 ac with a to dex.

On the rogue comparison, the rogue has the best escape and mobility in the game thanks to cunning action. They do not need the huge ac because they are much harder to target. They can also drop back to ranged combat if needed.

A monk must stay in melee to be effective but he has to do it with lower ac and lower hp most of the time because they have to boost dex and wis. Monks need the better ac.
Any character building argument that depends on the character finding a very rare or legendary piece of equipment is flawed in the same way that the pyramids are a bit old.

[Misterwhisper]

Barbarian unarmored defense is just plain bad, I wouldn't use it as an argument for more monk love.



As I've shown above, no class gets that. Except a dexbarian that gimps its damage potential. You can't have your cake and eat it.


Your real point seems to be that monk is behind on AC at low level.
- stone sorcerer can start at AC18, which monk needs level 8 to match, and follow the same AC progression after.
- redemption paladin can start at AC20... which saves the 200gp of splint. Although you can use 2-handers, which your armored pals cannot match.


While I agree monk is tight and requires sacrifice, I don't think this argument has value. UA classes don't balance against PHB, they may follow the same path as favored soul. And tank/caster are not skirmishers. Apples and oranges.

The other skirmisher class (rogue) starts at AC15 and caps at AC17. Monk gets as much love.

On the point of a monk at level 20 with a possible 24 ac being too high.

A barbarian at 20 could easily have a 24 ac as well, from a 24 Con due to their level 20 ability, and if they maxed dex, hand them a non magic shield = 24 ac. Considering how cheap magic items that give 19 or more strength it is pretty easy.

With magic items any class that can use a shield can get 24 ac with nothing but armor and shield.
+3 studded leather +2 shield, = 24 ac with a to dex.

On the rogue comparison, the rogue has the best escape and mobility in the game thanks to cunning action. They do not need the huge ac because they are much harder to target. They can also drop back to ranged combat if needed.

A monk must stay in melee to be effective but he has to do it with lower ac and lower hp most of the time because they have to boost dex and wis. Monks need the better ac.