tortles and armor

[Skrum]

Tortle's natural armor reads -

Due to your shell and the shape of your body, you are ill-suited to wearing armor. Your shell provides ample protection, however; it gives you a base AC of 17 (your Dexterity modifier doesn't affect this number). You gain no benefit from wearing armor, but if you are using a shield, you can apply the shield's bonus as normal.

The highlighted part is my question: it seems to me that a tortle can still wear the armor, even if it doesn't affect their AC. Which would allow them to qualify for Defensive fighting style. Slap some padded leather on the shell.

[nickl_2000]

Ask your DM, if you are the DM then whatever seems the most fun. I don't believe there is an official ruling

[OvisCaedo]

Qualifying for a fighting style technically sounds like a benefit of wearing armor, to me. But also if I were GMing I would probably just let a Tortle take the fighting style without needing to look for any loophole.

...In fact, I would probably just... be willing to overlook the armor requirement in general. There's extremely little point to the restriction, I'd think; is it just to prevent multiclassing Monks and Barbarians from getting an extra point of AC? That doesn't really seem like a vital restriction... I'd guess instead it was just because most fighting styles were technically tied to SOME kind of equipment, so they decided the defense one MUST be equipment reliant in some way?

[Dr.Samurai]

It's a cool idea, but I don't think it works.

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

In order to benefit from the style, you need to be wearing armor. But your Shell trait stops you from gaining any benefit by wearing armor.

[Skrum]

In order to benefit from the style, you need to be wearing armor. But your Shell trait stops you from gaining any benefit by wearing armor.

Well that's exactly why I'm drawing a distinction between wearing armor, and gaining the benefit of it. A lizardfolk for instance can put on padded leather, but it won't do anything for them because their natural armor is better, and explicitly takes precedent over the worn armor

[Chad.e.clark]

Tortle's natural armor reads -

Due to your shell and the shape of your body, you are ill-suited to wearing armor. Your shell provides ample protection, however; it gives you a base AC of 17 (your Dexterity modifier doesn't affect this number). You gain no benefit from wearing armor, but if you are using a shield, you can apply the shield's bonus as normal.

The highlighted part is my question: it seems to me that a tortle can still wear the armor, even if it doesn't affect their AC. Which would allow them to qualify for Defensive fighting style. Slap some padded leather on the shell.

RAW from my copy of the PHB, that would seem to work. Defense fighting style only says the PC must be wearing armor, not "benefitting" from the armor. Tortle says they can not benefit from armor, but are not strictly prohibited from wearing it. Andthe +1 to AC does not say it is added to the armor, but the PC itself, so RAW, yeah, It seems to check out. Plus, it doesn't really break anything. AC 20 for a martial PC is nowhere near unheard of.

[Tawmis]

I'd probably rule it that the shell COUNTS as armor. So there's no need to "put on" any form of other armor.

So I would say it works.

[Keltest]

I'd probably rule it that the shell COUNTS as armor. So there's no need to "put on" any form of other armor.

So I would say it works.

Ditto. Natural armor can count as armor or non-armor for any features at my table.

[JNAProductions]

I'd probably rule it that the shell COUNTS as armor. So there's no need to "put on" any form of other armor.

So I would say it works.

This. 18 AC (before spells and a Shield) is not breaking anything.

Obviously a DM can rule otherwise, and is perhaps more in-line with the RAW if they do... But I see no reason to deny this request.

[ender241]

I'd probably rule it that the shell COUNTS as armor. So there's no need to "put on" any form of other armor.

So I would say it works.

I would advise DMs to be careful. Ruling that natural armor counts as armor may set a precedent that opens up other more exploitable scenarios. Because if this works for a Tortle, then why not for a Wild Shaped Druid? Or a polymorphed anybody? Maybe that's ok, but something to think about.

And what other rules are there that require armor? I'm sure there are more out there and someone will probably come along and find some way it breaks the game. But maybe not, and all is good.

As for the RAW in this specific case, I think it boils down to whether you consider the +1 granted from the fighting style as "a benefit from wearing armor." I think the answer to that is yes - a +1 is a benefit and you only receive it as a result of wearing armor. So from a strict RAW perspective I don't think it works.

As for whether I'd allow it? Not sure... On a Tortle mono-class Fighter? Maybe. On a Tortle Fighter 1 / Bladesinger X? Maybe not...

[JNAProductions]

I would advise DMs to be careful. Ruling that natural armor counts as armor may set a precedent that opens up other more exploitable scenarios. Because if this works for a Tortle, then why not for a Wild Shaped Druid? Or a polymorphed anybody? Maybe that's ok, but something to think about.

And what other rules are there that require armor? I'm sure there are more out there and someone will probably come along and find some way it breaks the game. But maybe not, and all is good.

As for the RAW in this specific case, I think it boils down to whether you consider the +1 granted from the fighting style as "a benefit from wearing armor." I think the answer to that is yes - a +1 is a benefit and you only receive it as a result of wearing armor. So from a strict RAW perspective I don't think it works.

As for whether I'd allow it? Not sure... On a Tortle mono-class Fighter? Maybe. On a Tortle Fighter 1 / Bladesinger X? Maybe not...

A Druid that's Wild Shaped into something with natural armor and has the Defensive Fighting Style gaining +1 AC is absolutely fine in my book.

This post feels like doomsaying, without actually having an example of something worth dooming about.

[ender241]

A Druid that's Wild Shaped into something with natural armor and has the Defensive Fighting Style gaining +1 AC is absolutely fine in my book.

This post feels like doomsaying, without actually having an example of something worth dooming about.

You're probably right. The Fighter 1 / Bladesinger X is kind of ridiculous with this though. 21 AC at level 3 and 23 AC at level 9, without any magic items and before Shield (while Bladesinging). Bladesinger AC is already pretty busted obviously but Tortle + defensive fighting style would just take it one step further, a little earlier than usual.

[Tawmis]

You're probably right. The Fighter 1 / Bladesinger X is kind of ridiculous with this though. 21 AC at level 3 and 23 AC at level 9, without any magic items and before Shield (while Bladesinging). Bladesinger AC is already pretty busted obviously but Tortle + defensive fighting style would just take it one step further, a little earlier than usual.

As a DM, adjust to have mobs that have spells that require AOE / Savings Throws and/or Magic Missile. :smallwink: :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

Qualifying for a fighting style technically sounds like a benefit of wearing armor, to me. But also if I were GMing I would probably just let a Tortle take the fighting style without needing to look for any loophole.

...In fact, I would probably just... be willing to overlook the armor requirement in general. There's extremely little point to the restriction, I'd think; is it just to prevent multiclassing Monks and Barbarians from getting an extra point of AC? That doesn't really seem like a vital restriction... I'd guess instead it was just because most fighting styles were technically tied to SOME kind of equipment, so they decided the defense one MUST be equipment reliant in some way?

It is there to differentiate from and stop it from combining with unarmored defense, yes.

[Skrum]

It is there to differentiate from and stop it from combining with unarmored defense, yes.

Yes because one can't really fight defensively without wearing armor.

[Dr.Samurai]

As for the RAW in this specific case, I think it boils down to whether you consider the +1 granted from the fighting style as "a benefit from wearing armor." I think the answer to that is yes - a +1 is a benefit and you only receive it as a result of wearing armor. So from a strict RAW perspective I don't think it works.

This is my reading as well and maybe I didn't explain it clearly previously but yeah... you're getting a benefit from wearing armor, and your racial trait prevents you from doing that, so I don't think the OP is a workaround.

That said, I do like the idea of letting it count as armor for the purposes of Defense Style. However, it would also have to count as unarmored, as Keltest said, for things like Monk/Barbarian features, etc.

[Segev]

Yes because one can't really fight defensively without wearing armor.

It is a technique that specifically uses the defense armor provides to maximize ... defense. That is, you're better at making sure the armor takes the hit instead of you.


From a game mechanics balance perspective, it's because +1 while wearing armor is a touch more controlled than +1 while using two stats for AC.

From a class "feel" perspective, it's because fighters wear armor, and this is to make them better at wearing armor.