+X armor, does the '+plus' float?

[Zhorn]

Say you have a character wearing magic armor with a +plus to AC, but they are under the effect of a spell or feature that has them using a different calculation than the base number the particular armor uses. Does the +plus float, as in applies ontop of the other value, or is it connected solely to the armor's AC calculation?

Example1: Lizardfolk with a 16 (+3) Dex wearing +1 leather armor

Leather armor is 11+Dex mod
Lizardfolk's Natural Armor is 13+Dex mod


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.


Armor, +1, +2, or +3
Armor (light, medium, or heavy), rare (+1), very rare (+2), or legendary (+3)
You have a bonus to AC while wearing this armor, The bonus is determined by its rarity

With the +1, the leather armor will result in total of AC 15.
The Natural Armor alone will yield an AC 16, but if that +1 is a floating modifier just for wearing the armor, that would bump it up to AC 17.

Example 2: Human this time with a 16 (+3) Dex wearing +1 leather armor. They have an AC 15.
They get barkskin cast on them.
either:
Their AC was lower than 16 including the bonus, and so their AC is now just set at 16.
The bonus to the AC granted by the magic armor floats to the top and is applied on that AC 16 minimum for a total of AC 17.

[stoutstien]

No. Each formula is closed for the lack of a better term. The +1 leather armor is exactly that which is different from warforged static +1 to AC.

[CapnWildefyr]

No. Each formula is closed for the lack of a better term. The +1 leather armor is exactly that which is different from warforged static +1 to AC.

Agreed. When you wear armor, you get its AC. (As a side note, other magic may behave differently.)

[JeenLeen]

I could see it either way, but I'm not sure what the RAW would resolve to or what the RAI is.

From the description of magical armor in the DMG, if it was any item other than armor, I would say the bonus floats. The description is describing an enhancement to the PC, not the armor's defensive value directly.
On the other hand, if you had a magic ring that said "Any armor you wear gives an additional +1 AC", I would say it is negated as the magic effect is on the armor, not the PC directly.

[Zhorn]

I could see it either way, but I'm not sure what the RAW would resolve to or what the RAI is.

From the description of magical armor in the DMG, if it was any item other than armor, I would say the bonus floats. The description is describing an enhancement to the PC, not the armor's defensive value directly.
On the other hand, if you had a magic ring that said "Any armor you wear gives an additional +1 AC", I would say it is negated as the magic effect is on the armor, not the PC directly.

This is the reason I've come to the forums. My google-fu isn't quite working out without knowing the 'official' way to phrase the question. looking for some reference to a citable source would be awesome.


No. Each formula is closed for the lack of a better term. The +1 leather armor is exactly that which is different from warforged static +1 to AC.
Which would make sense if the +plus was stated as being applied to the armor, but as JeenLeen says, the wording for the bonus to AC is "you have" not "the armor has".
The closed formula is a useful distinction for many things; worn armor, mage armor, natural armor, unarmored defense (monk and barbarian variants)... but all formulas given in those descriptions don't account for +plus bonuses. They're all [static number] + [attribute modifier].

[stoutstien]

This is the reason I've come to the forums. My google-fu isn't quite working out without knowing the 'official' way to phrase the question. looking for some reference to a citable source would be awesome.


Which would make sense if the +plus was stated as being applied to the armor, but as JeenLeen says, the wording for the bonus to AC is "you have" not "the armor has".
The closed formula is a useful distinction for many things; worn armor, mage armor, natural armor, unarmored defense (monk and barbarian variants)... but all formulas given in those descriptions don't account for +plus bonuses. They're all [static number] + [attribute modifier].

I should say that my view is not based on any RAW thought there might be a clause in the armor section about wearing armor but not 'wearing' it. My view is keep it simple, clean, and balanced.

[bid]

Example 2: Human this time with a 16 (+3) Dex wearing +1 leather armor. They have an AC 15.
They get barkskin cast on them.
either:
Their AC was lower than 16 including the bonus, and so their AC is now just set at 16.
The bonus to the AC granted by the magic armor floats to the top and is applied on that AC 16 minimum for a total of AC 17.

Barkskin sets to AC16, even a shield doesn't affect that. The armor "+plus" is no different.

Neither shield nor magic armor have that spelled out, so they might work the same way.

[Zhorn]

At the very least I've fished up an answer for Example 2:

Bonuses do not stack on top of barkskin.


https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/26/barkskin-ac-bonus/
Q: Does the Barkskin spell stack with Dex bonus? A shield? Magic bracers & rings? Cover?
A: Barkskin is an unusual case, since it sets an AC minimum, not a calculation

If your AC is less than 16, it becomes 16.
Say you have an AC 12, and are under the effect of barkskin (AC 16), then have shield cast on yourself (AC +5)
Your AC doesn't increase from 16 to 21, it increases from 12 to 17. Your AC is over 16 so barkskin doesn’t do anything.

edit: Ninja'd by bid

[Zhorn]

Further digging:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/787334304892268544?lang=en
AC calculations don't stack (you have AC X + Y), but bonuses to AC do (like from a cloak of protection and a ring of protection).

So the simple and consistent method would be if it is phrased as a "bonus to AC", then it floats so long as you meet the requirements for that bonus.

[Monster Manuel]

I'm away from book at the moment, but is the Ring of Protection still a thing in 5E? Wear this ring and get a +X to AC?

If so, I would be inclined to argue that the + from magic armor should NOT float, since that floating bonus to your AC is what the magic item does, specifically.

If I'm getting confused by previous editions and they don't have such an item in 5E (again, don't have a DMG handy to go double-check), I think that ALSO points towards the + from armor not floating, but more in a RAI sense. If they wanted armor to behave in this way, the ring would have been introduced since it's such a simple and basic concept for a magic item.

The bonus enhances the armor itself, in other words, not the wearer. If the armor's AC is surpassed by another method of determining AC, the bonus is surpassed along with it. If leather armor +1 gives someone an AC of 12, it's not AC11 +1 from the magic, it's just a magical +12. At least, that's how I would rule it, but you make a good point about the wording...it could really go either way.

To build on from this, what if you had that same +1 leather armor, but it also granted resistance to Cold? If you're a Dragon-blood sorcerer with a natural AC higher than the armor, and you're not getting the +1 from the armor, can you still get the resistance to cold? Do effects not strictly related to AC float?

**edit**You know what? I take it all back. Crawford's comment posted above makes it clear that bonuses to AC stack, and the description of the magic armor describes it as a bonus to AC, not "this magic armor has an AC of X". Leaving my previous comments for context, but I think you're right. The bonus DOES float. We ALL float down here.

[stoutstien]

I think it falls in the same line of thinking that a candle needs to be lit to provide light even of the rules don't say so.

[Monster Manuel]

I think it falls in the same line of thinking that a candle needs to be lit to provide light even of the rules don't say so.

It may be that it ONLY works for the lizardfolk described above. The key is the line in the description of that Lizardfolk's natural armor, that says "You can use your natural armor to determine your AC if the armor you wear would leave you with a lower AC". Thus, they can wear the armor, giving them the magic +1 that wearing the armor grants, but still apply their natural AC.

Looking at the Draconic Sorcerer (thanks, free online Basic rules), they get an AC of 13+dex when "you aren't wearing armor". In this case, they can't apply the +1. Either they are wearing the armor (+1 applies per the description of the magic armor which says "you have a bonus to AC when wearing this armor"), or they are not, in which case they get to use their 13+.

The thing about using the natAC instead of armor worn may be unique to the lizardfolk, but I would argue that it works there since the armor is still worn (allowing for the magic bonus) while also being superseded by the higher natural armor..

[stoutstien]

It may be that it ONLY works for the lizardfolk described above. The key is the line in the description of that Lizardfolk's natural armor, that says "You can use your natural armor to determine your AC if the armor you wear would leave you with a lower AC". Thus, they can wear the armor, giving them the magic +1 that wearing the armor grants, but still apply their natural AC.

Looking at the Draconic Sorcerer (thanks, free online Basic rules), they get an AC of 13+dex when "you aren't wearing armor". In this case, they can't apply the +1. Either they are wearing the armor (+1 applies per the description of the magic armor which says "you have a bonus to AC when wearing this armor"), or they are not, in which case they get to use their 13+.

The thing about using the natAC instead of armor worn may be unique to the lizardfolk, but I would argue that it works there since the armor is still worn (allowing for the magic bonus) while also being superseded by the higher natural armor..

Could add loxodon also. Similar text. Could be an interesting circumstance.

[Zhorn]

It gets pretty hairy if you start ruling "this bonus will apply" and 'this bonus cannot apply' when the wording used for each are pretty darn close.


Armor, +1, +2, or +3
Armor (light, medium, or heavy), rare (+1), very rare (+2), or legendary (+3)
You have a bonus to AC while wearing this armor, The bonus is determined by its rarity

Bracers of Defense
Wonderous item, rare (requires attunement)
While wearing these bracers, you gain a +2 bonus to AC if you are wearing no armor and using no shield.

Cloak of Protection
Wonderous item, uncommon (requires attunement)
You gain a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws while you wear this cloak.

Ring of Protection
Wonderous item, rare (requires attunement)
You gain a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws while you wear this ring.

Then you can get super noodly with adding non-magical things...

Fighting Style: Defense
While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC.

Unless there's a special clause in the books somewhere that specifically excludes something from working, this language is enough to show that all these items would be treated under the same ruling.
Meet the qualifying requirements = get the benefit of the bonus.

I picked the Lizardfolk for this example because it was the first thing I could think of that could wear armor while not use the armor's AC formula. Loxodon would also fall under a similar rule (AC 12+con modifier) edit: ninja'd by stoutstien this time.

The question popped into my head when I was double checking if Ring/Cloak of Protection stacked with Mage Armor, and then when reading

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/06/11/so-mage-armor-plus-bracers-of-defense-would-make-your-ac-15-dex-mod/
Q: So Mage Armor plus Bracers of Defense would make your AC 15+ Dex mod?
A: Bracers of defense work with mage armor
I had a need for answers.

[firelistener]

Maybe context will help. 5e was designed around the concept of "bounded accuracy", where AC doesn't ever get too high and bonuses don't stack as high as they did in older editions. That's why the rules typically disallow any stacking benefits like armor with natural armor and other similar things. It's intended to prevent number bloat where in older editions you'd have to keep track of four or five +X features and items for all your different scores.

[Zhorn]

Further fishing for info:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1019391202263625728
"The AC bonus that magic armor confers to you while you wear it is a property of the armor. That bonus doesn't apply to other AC calculations you might have."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1019647170910318593
"If you're tempted to run in triumph to someone you're arguing with about this or another bit of rules minutia, remember this: rules in D&D exist to serve your group's story and fun. The DM has final say. Rules are a tool, not a weapon, and friendships matter more than rules."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1019647170910318593
"If a DM wants the AC bonus conferred by magic armor to apply to the natural armor of lizardfolk, nothing in the game will break. And that DM is making a reasonable call based on the wording of the armor's description. I shared our intent, but the DM decides."

So their RAI stance would be a 'not intended', but they recognise that based on the wording used it would be allowable within RAW as the conditions required are being met.
Most probably just a case of having worded the items in the DMG long before they were thinking about the Natural Armor features of Lizardfolk and Loxodon. For things like Unarmored Defense and Mage Armor, they didn't need to add any additional base rules on the matter since those feature do not allow armor to be worn at all, so the technical wording use for the AC bonus on magical armor could be the same as for things like Cloaks/Rings of Protection.


Maybe context will help. 5e was designed around the concept of "bounded accuracy", where AC doesn't ever get too high and bonuses don't stack as high as they did in older editions. That's why the rules typically disallow any stacking benefits like armor with natural armor and other similar things. It's intended to prevent number bloat where in older editions you'd have to keep track of four or five +X features and items for all your different scores.
That particular comparison is more apt to the base AC formulas not stacking, such as not able to combine any of;
Unarmored Defense (Barbarian): 10 + Dex modifier + Con modifier
Unarmored Defense (Monk): 10 + Dex modifier + Wis modifier
Natural Armor (Lizardfolk): 13 + Dex modifier
Natural Armor (Loxodon): 12 + Con modifier
Mage Armor: 13 + Dex modifier
or any worn armor: various (PHB p145)
as each of them is giving the formula to use, not a plus bonus to combine with a pre-existing AC value.

As for bloat, it doesn't actual prevent any at all, as the combination of the same plus bonuses would still exist if starting from any of the other armor AC formulas that your character qualified for. That part is already limited by the size of the bonuses in this edition, along with attunement slots, or clauses in the items/features already that prevent specific stacking (Mage Armor and both forms of Unarmored Defense state you cannot wear armor at all for the features to work).

Then with bounded accuracy, this doesn't break any of those high end values some class combinations are able to reach WITHOUT magic items. Eldritch Knights can get ridiculously tanky with very little attribute dependence:
Plate (AC 18), carrying a shield (+2 AC), Fighting Style: Defense (+1 AC) = 21 AC
add buffs: Haste (+2 AC), Shield (+5 AC) = 23 to 28 AC without magic items, nor needing an ally to buff you to get there.
add an ally: Shield of Faith (+2 AC) = 25 to 30 AC (good thing save spells are an option)