quick questions for folks. Primary being. The stat block on the HS states its AC is 13 (natural armour) does that calculation already include the +2 from dex? It doesn't specify but i assume its precalculated given its a stat block.
Secondly. What are some folks ideas for increasing its durability? Off hand. I feel like the only way really is TEMP hp from from some source that lasts all day (the Charisma feat comes to mind). and the new Barrier Tattoos-as it is a creature so it can attune.
It is a creature.. so if it somehow got profiency it could use a shield. Though I don't think there is any method of getting it profiency? Unnless there is some magic item that grants profiencies?
The statblock just sets the AC to 13, so DEX wouldn't be added here. It's like a calculation that just doesn't involve anything but a constant.
As for making it more resiliant: AC won't make much of a difference with that few HP and even with some temp HP it won't be able to take much of a hit. just keep it out of the way.
quick questions for folks. Primary being. The stat block on the HS states its AC is 13 (natural armour) does that calculation already include the +2 from dex? It doesn't specify but i assume its precalculated given its a stat block.
Secondly. What are some folks ideas for increasing its durability? Off hand. I feel like the only way really is TEMP hp from from some source that lasts all day (the Charisma feat comes to mind). and the new Barrier Tattoos-as it is a creature so it can attune.
It is a creature.. so if it somehow got profiency it could use a shield. Though I don't think there is any method of getting it profiency? Unnless there is some magic item that grants profiencies?
Natural Armor could be 11+2 (see Lizardfolk in Volo's) or 13 (see Tortles) with absolutely no way to tell which it is without an explanation, so you'll need your GM to make a decision. In either case, Natural Armor never stacks with worn armor and always stacks with shields.
Ways to make it more durable:
RAW, there is no penalty for equipping a shield without proficiency, and the shield just works. I've never had a GM obey this; they usually either house-rule that shields count as armor for proficiency purposes (it's important that they not always count as armor, or you'll nerf things like the Mage Armor spell) or they treat it more like a weapon and deny you the shield bonus without proficiency. If your GM keeps the RAW or rules the former, you can strap a shield to the homunculus, as you're allowed to decide it has arms, and get +2 AC, although in the former case, you'll nerf your saves.
As above, you can put a suit of armor on the little dude. You'll nerf his saves, but the armor will work.
He has your proficiency bonus in Stealth, so he can benefit from the Cloak of Elvenkind you're allowed to make as of level 6. Similarly, at the appropriate levels, he can wear winged boots, an amulet of health, and a ring of protection. He can also wear a cloak of protection, but I'm not sure it'll help him more than a cloak of elvenkind.
You could discuss with your GM that his stat block is incorrect - it lists his hit points as 1 per level you have, but his hit dice as d4s, which means his hit points should be <level>d4+<level>+your int bonus. <level>d4 means 2,3,2,3.... gained per level, as monsters don't always round up like PCs do. Your GM might be inclined to listen if you point out the homonuculus entry on page 188 of the Monstrous Manual, which gives the duder 1d4 hp per level, as expected. If this feels too durable, I recommend letting you replace the homunculus' con bonus to hp (1) with your int bonus if it is higher; this will also constrain your ability to buff him with an amulet of health (which you can make) and buff your ability to buff him with a headband of intellect (which you can't). Bear in mind the MM entry includes numerous buffs to your entry, and also several nerfs, so be wary of extending this logic too far.
In terms of found magic items, I mentioned a Headband of Intellect, which may give him a negligible number of hit points, depending on your base Intelligence. There are myriad found magic items he can wear or use which will help him, an obvious example being a Cloak of Displacement. All depends on what you find.
Considering the Homunculus is tiny simply hiding behind a medium sized ally ought to give it half or 3/4 cover, possibly even total cover if its hiding in your pocket. This will probably provide the most overall benefit for the least cost.
Magic Initiate or Aberrant Dragonmark are good feat choices for picking up Mage Armor if it's not on your class list. Aberrant Dragonmark has the bonus that the free casting recharges on short rests in addition to long rests, granting you multiple free castings of Mager Armor per day.
You could also consider barding. Any armor at 4x cost and 2x weight. It's intended to apply to mounts, i.e. large creatures, so I'd talk with a DM about reducing that weight to 1/2 the weight of the armor. The increased cost in this scenario isn't about requiring more material but fine tuning miniaturized armor pieces.
There's also a funny loophole with Temporary Hit Points and the Homunculus Servant.
"Unless a feature that grants you temporary hit points has a duration, they last until they're depleted or you finish a long rest."
Since the Homunculus is immune to exhaustion for it long rests are optional instead of mandatory. Since temp HP lasts until you finish a long rest the Homunculus can be juiced up with temp HP that lasts indefinitely if it simply doesn't take a long rest. With the ability to restore it's hp with Mending it typically never needs to take a long rest either.
The best way to make the Homunculus more durable is to keep it on your person. My homunculus is a spellpunk tophat that spends fights perched on either my own head or the head of the person I'm sending it to heal; it's never once been the target of an enemy's attack. Whenever an enemy has the chance, the individual the homunculus is riding is targeted instead. It has been caught (and killed by -_-) AoE blasts, but it's never been attacked directly.
Secondary bonus - an artificer with melee options and the Sentinel feat who keeps their homunculus on their person can freely use their Sentinel reaction if anyone does target the homunculus, which offers the little critter further protection.
Fun times and ideas here. I've often wished mage armour was on my class list.
Yep that temp hp trick was tempting. Though other than the level 9 one or the Charisma based speech feat, I can't think of a source that doesn't have a time limit I have access to until lv 9 (Alchemist so elixirs).
Intersting to note about the shield detail and proficinices.. Gonna need to look that up. Seems like that would help out most casters too then.
The AOE danger is probably my main concern since it'll often be on me, typically on my shield arm as a gauntlet when not floating off doing something important.
You could also consider barding. Any armor at 4x cost and 2x weight. It's intended to apply to mounts, i.e. large creatures, so I'd talk with a DM about reducing that weight to 1/2 the weight of the armor. The increased cost in this scenario isn't about requiring more material but fine tuning miniaturized armor pieces.
You got me all excited, so I went and checked, but there's still no errata letting barding have any special rules, so RAW, it still inflicts the standard nonproficiency penalties on your mount. I even checked the MM errata, and warhorses have an errata to their hoof attack, but still don't have proficiency with any sort of barding.
You could also consider barding. Any armor at 4x cost and 2x weight. It's intended to apply to mounts, i.e. large creatures, so I'd talk with a DM about reducing that weight to 1/2 the weight of the armor. The increased cost in this scenario isn't about requiring more material but fine tuning miniaturized armor pieces.
You got me all excited, so I went and checked, but there's still no errata letting barding have any special rules, so RAW, it still inflicts the standard nonproficiency penalties on your mount. I even checked the MM errata, and warhorses have an errata to their hoof attack, but still don't have proficiency with any sort of barding.
Huh. I always just assumed armor proficiencies were ignored with barding since I haven't heard of any animals in the game having armor proficiencies. But then again I never really looked too deeply into it.
RAW, there is no penalty for equipping a shield without proficiency, and the shield just works. I've never had a GM obey this; they usually either house-rule that shields count as armor for proficiency purposes (it's important that they not always count as armor, or you'll nerf things like the Mage Armor spell) or they treat it more like a weapon and deny you the shield bonus without proficiency. If your GM keeps the RAW or rules the former, you can strap a shield to the homunculus, as you're allowed to decide it has arms, and get +2 AC, although in the former case, you'll nerf your saves.
Huh. Concernign shield profiency penalty. Isn't this still classified as armour its under the armour proficiency quote no? So it uses "armor" to refer to suit of armour or a shield it looks like. Though that would just give it disadvantage on few things but that's still poteentially useful depending
"Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells."
Huh. Concernign shield profiency penalty. Isn't this still classified as armour its under the armour proficiency quote no? So it uses "armor" to refer to suit of armour or a shield it looks like. Though that would just give it disadvantage on few things but that's still poteentially useful depending
"Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells."
That's where it's located, but there is no rule anywhere classifying shields as armor - and many things, like the mage armor spell, are balanced around them not being armor. You can't assume anything just from placement, and as you can see in the rule you quoted, there simply is no listed penalty for nonproficient shield users, only nonproficient armor users.
(Obviously, dndbeyond support is not exactly proof of RAW or RAI)
If I have a character that isn't proficient in shields, and I give them a shield, and equip it, dndbeyond suddenly displays that character as having disadvantage in all STR and DEX skills and saves. I just tested this right now. Shields don't count as armor, technically, but they use the same penalties for lack of proficiency.
This makes sense. Otherwise, what's the point in having proficiency rules for shields?
(Obviously, dndbeyond support is not exactly proof of RAW or RAI)
If I have a character that isn't proficient in shields, and I give them a shield, and equip it, dndbeyond suddenly displays that character as having disadvantage in all STR and DEX skills and saves. I just tested this right now. Shields don't count as armor, technically, but they use the same penalties for lack of proficiency.
This makes sense. Otherwise, what's the point in having proficiency rules for shields?
I agree completely - as I originally noted, every GM I've ever played under has either ruled that that's how it works (like with armor) or that you simply lose the bonus (like with weapons).
Out of curiosity, does dndbeyond have a way to make mounts? We also discussed barding in this thread, and I'm wondering how dndbeyond deals with it.
You could also consider barding. Any armor at 4x cost and 2x weight. It's intended to apply to mounts, i.e. large creatures, so I'd talk with a DM about reducing that weight to 1/2 the weight of the armor. The increased cost in this scenario isn't about requiring more material but fine tuning miniaturized armor pieces.
You got me all excited, so I went and checked, but there's still no errata letting barding have any special rules, so RAW, it still inflicts the standard nonproficiency penalties on your mount. I even checked the MM errata, and warhorses have an errata to their hoof attack, but still don't have proficiency with any sort of barding.
Huh. I always just assumed armor proficiencies were ignored with barding since I haven't heard of any animals in the game having armor proficiencies. But then again I never really looked too deeply into it.
Many creatures get around issues like Proficiency because plenty of them don't have stat blocks that match their stats or necessarily proficiency in things. That could be differences in to hit, could be differences in ac, could be lacking any proficiency bonus to begin with or specifically save proficiencies. There are all kinds of discrepancies. So barding is one of those things that by RaW in some ways overlooks that pesky armor proficiency rule just like they don't have weapon proficiencies of any kind listed either but somehow many of them are at least proficient if not seemingly better than proficient with their weapons.
Also By RaW Barding just says it's armor designed to protect an animal in certain places and comes in all types armor does. It makes no further distinction than that. So Rulings Either way are basically in the hands of the DM as to how far they are willing to stretch barding and what they are willing to let wear it. Though I will say that there may be intent that you can't make barding for a horse and then just shove it on a wolf or bear that isn't expressly written into the rules.
Keep in mind this is also all that the Monster Manual Says about Armor and AC and makes no mention of need of proficiency in them for monsters.
A monster that wears armor or carries a shield has an Armor Class (AC) that takes its armor, shield, and Dexterity into account. Otherwise, a monster’s AC is based on its Dexterity modifier and natural armor, if any. If a monster has natural armor, wears armor, or carries a shield, this is noted in parentheses after its AC value.
Even when you look at equipment for monsters in the monster manual this is all the more that you get, which again doesn't seem to worry about weapon and armor proficiencies.
A stat block rarely refers to equipment, other than armor or weapons used by a monster. A creature that customarily wears clothes, such as a humanoid, is assumed to be dressed appropriately.
You can equip monsters with additional gear and trinkets however you like, using the equipment chapter of the Player’s Handbook for inspiration, and you decide how much of a monster’s equipment is recoverable after the creature is slain and whether any of that equipment is still usable. A battered suit of armor made for a monster is rarely usable by someone else, for instance.
But I think ultimately it would be up to your DM because your wandering into kind of odd territory. But another thing to keep in mind when making such choices. Remember that the Servants strength is only 4. This means that a lot of it are going to be too heavy for it to use. It can only carry something like 20 or 30 lbs considering that it's tiny and it has a strength of 4.
and now i love the idea of a lil HS with gauntlets of gr str, in barding of some sort, that carries all your things. your own personal squire.
I missed this earlier, but we do have rules - finally, since they're in Tasha's - for granting proficiency to NPCs (including horses!) in barding/armor. The rules you want are at p143 of Tasha's, under Sidekicks, but it's totally up to your GM allowing your homunculus access to a Sidekick class, and if they do allow it, they're supposed to count the homunculus as an extra team member for calculating CR, so be warned.
Howdy.
quick questions for folks. Primary being. The stat block on the HS states its AC is 13 (natural armour) does that calculation already include the +2 from dex? It doesn't specify but i assume its precalculated given its a stat block.
Secondly. What are some folks ideas for increasing its durability? Off hand. I feel like the only way really is TEMP hp from from some source that lasts all day (the Charisma feat comes to mind). and the new Barrier Tattoos-as it is a creature so it can attune.
It is a creature.. so if it somehow got profiency it could use a shield. Though I don't think there is any method of getting it profiency? Unnless there is some magic item that grants profiencies?
The statblock just sets the AC to 13, so DEX wouldn't be added here. It's like a calculation that just doesn't involve anything but a constant.
As for making it more resiliant: AC won't make much of a difference with that few HP and even with some temp HP it won't be able to take much of a hit. just keep it out of the way.
Natural Armor could be 11+2 (see Lizardfolk in Volo's) or 13 (see Tortles) with absolutely no way to tell which it is without an explanation, so you'll need your GM to make a decision. In either case, Natural Armor never stacks with worn armor and always stacks with shields.
Ways to make it more durable:
Strategic positioning. Have it use it's movement to take cover at the end of its turns.
Half Cover, Three-Quarters Cover, Total Cover
Considering the Homunculus is tiny simply hiding behind a medium sized ally ought to give it half or 3/4 cover, possibly even total cover if its hiding in your pocket. This will probably provide the most overall benefit for the least cost.
Spells:
Mage Armor, Barkskin, Shield of Faith
Magic Initiate or Aberrant Dragonmark are good feat choices for picking up Mage Armor if it's not on your class list. Aberrant Dragonmark has the bonus that the free casting recharges on short rests in addition to long rests, granting you multiple free castings of Mager Armor per day.
Magic Items:
Elven Chain (grants proficiency in itself), Barrier Tattoo, Bracers of Defense
You could also consider barding. Any armor at 4x cost and 2x weight. It's intended to apply to mounts, i.e. large creatures, so I'd talk with a DM about reducing that weight to 1/2 the weight of the armor. The increased cost in this scenario isn't about requiring more material but fine tuning miniaturized armor pieces.
There's also a funny loophole with Temporary Hit Points and the Homunculus Servant.
"Unless a feature that grants you temporary hit points has a duration, they last until they're depleted or you finish a long rest."
Since the Homunculus is immune to exhaustion for it long rests are optional instead of mandatory. Since temp HP lasts until you finish a long rest the Homunculus can be juiced up with temp HP that lasts indefinitely if it simply doesn't take a long rest. With the ability to restore it's hp with Mending it typically never needs to take a long rest either.
The best way to make the Homunculus more durable is to keep it on your person. My homunculus is a spellpunk tophat that spends fights perched on either my own head or the head of the person I'm sending it to heal; it's never once been the target of an enemy's attack. Whenever an enemy has the chance, the individual the homunculus is riding is targeted instead. It has been caught (and killed by -_-) AoE blasts, but it's never been attacked directly.
Secondary bonus - an artificer with melee options and the Sentinel feat who keeps their homunculus on their person can freely use their Sentinel reaction if anyone does target the homunculus, which offers the little critter further protection.
Please do not contact or message me.
Fun times and ideas here. I've often wished mage armour was on my class list.
Yep that temp hp trick was tempting. Though other than the level 9 one or the Charisma based speech feat, I can't think of a source that doesn't have a time limit I have access to until lv 9 (Alchemist so elixirs).
Intersting to note about the shield detail and proficinices.. Gonna need to look that up. Seems like that would help out most casters too then.
The AOE danger is probably my main concern since it'll often be on me, typically on my shield arm as a gauntlet when not floating off doing something important.
You got me all excited, so I went and checked, but there's still no errata letting barding have any special rules, so RAW, it still inflicts the standard nonproficiency penalties on your mount. I even checked the MM errata, and warhorses have an errata to their hoof attack, but still don't have proficiency with any sort of barding.
Huh. I always just assumed armor proficiencies were ignored with barding since I haven't heard of any animals in the game having armor proficiencies. But then again I never really looked too deeply into it.
Huh. Concernign shield profiency penalty. Isn't this still classified as armour its under the armour proficiency quote no? So it uses "armor" to refer to suit of armour or a shield it looks like. Though that would just give it disadvantage on few things but that's still poteentially useful depending
"Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells."
That's where it's located, but there is no rule anywhere classifying shields as armor - and many things, like the mage armor spell, are balanced around them not being armor. You can't assume anything just from placement, and as you can see in the rule you quoted, there simply is no listed penalty for nonproficient shield users, only nonproficient armor users.
(Obviously, dndbeyond support is not exactly proof of RAW or RAI)
If I have a character that isn't proficient in shields, and I give them a shield, and equip it, dndbeyond suddenly displays that character as having disadvantage in all STR and DEX skills and saves. I just tested this right now. Shields don't count as armor, technically, but they use the same penalties for lack of proficiency.
This makes sense. Otherwise, what's the point in having proficiency rules for shields?
I agree completely - as I originally noted, every GM I've ever played under has either ruled that that's how it works (like with armor) or that you simply lose the bonus (like with weapons).
Out of curiosity, does dndbeyond have a way to make mounts? We also discussed barding in this thread, and I'm wondering how dndbeyond deals with it.
Many creatures get around issues like Proficiency because plenty of them don't have stat blocks that match their stats or necessarily proficiency in things. That could be differences in to hit, could be differences in ac, could be lacking any proficiency bonus to begin with or specifically save proficiencies. There are all kinds of discrepancies. So barding is one of those things that by RaW in some ways overlooks that pesky armor proficiency rule just like they don't have weapon proficiencies of any kind listed either but somehow many of them are at least proficient if not seemingly better than proficient with their weapons.
Also By RaW Barding just says it's armor designed to protect an animal in certain places and comes in all types armor does. It makes no further distinction than that. So Rulings Either way are basically in the hands of the DM as to how far they are willing to stretch barding and what they are willing to let wear it. Though I will say that there may be intent that you can't make barding for a horse and then just shove it on a wolf or bear that isn't expressly written into the rules.
Keep in mind this is also all that the Monster Manual Says about Armor and AC and makes no mention of need of proficiency in them for monsters.
Even when you look at equipment for monsters in the monster manual this is all the more that you get, which again doesn't seem to worry about weapon and armor proficiencies.
But I think ultimately it would be up to your DM because your wandering into kind of odd territory. But another thing to keep in mind when making such choices. Remember that the Servants strength is only 4. This means that a lot of it are going to be too heavy for it to use. It can only carry something like 20 or 30 lbs considering that it's tiny and it has a strength of 4.
and now i love the idea of a lil HS with gauntlets of gr str, in barding of some sort, that carries all your things.
your own personal squire.
I missed this earlier, but we do have rules - finally, since they're in Tasha's - for granting proficiency to NPCs (including horses!) in barding/armor. The rules you want are at p143 of Tasha's, under Sidekicks, but it's totally up to your GM allowing your homunculus access to a Sidekick class, and if they do allow it, they're supposed to count the homunculus as an extra team member for calculating CR, so be warned.
Huh. Thats an interseting idea. I didn't think sidekkick rules as a potential feature
I just need to make sure they don't breath
bags of holding weight 15 pounds so you can't as warforged get to space in a bag of holding
but a homunculus servant _can_ and once you are light enough due to lack of gravity you can move with mage hand