So a barbarian with 18 constitution and leather armor of cold resistance loses -3 Armor Class? Does the same happen to a lizardfolk ranger? (Before anyone decides to be a pedant, no, it's only -2.)
As I read it, and going by the Sage Advice guidance, all the feature does is give you an alternate way of calculating AC when not wearing armor. You, the player, still get to choose the most beneficial formula for you. Putting on unrestrictive armor doesn't make your pectoral muscles or gatorskin hide any less durable.
I respect you coming in here to try and settle an argument. I know you're just doing your job, but...man...I cannot agree with your position.
Lizardfolk's natural armor rule specifically state that they can choose the NA AC "if the armor you wear would leave you with a lower AC". Barbarians' Unarmored defence rule states that they can't wear armor at all if they want to use unarmored defence. It's all there right in the rules.
So a barbarian with 18 constitution and leather armor of cold resistance loses -3 Armor Class?
Yes, sadly; they're sacrificing AC to gain cold resistance.
The rule about choosing which AC calculation to use applies only when you have multiple valid options to choose from; a Lizardfolk Barbarian wearing no armour has two unarmored AC calculations to choose from, so you can always pick the best one (the racial option, or the Barbarian one). But once you put armour on, both unarmored defence options become invalid, so the only AC calculation available for you to choose from is the one provided by your armour.
You have to stretch a bit to justify it logically sometimes; for example, a Lizardfolk character may have tough scales, but they presumably have a softer underbelly, so their defence is as much about moving to prevent hits there. Putting on armour restricts their movement, but offers a different form of protection to their underbelly, but it's not necessarily better than taking the hits on your toughest scales. This is one of the drawbacks of having a simple defence stat; AC gets a bit weird in terms of what it represents exactly.
"While you are not wearing armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit." (PHB 48)
"Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use." (PHB 14)
So having a class feature that allows you to calculate your AC differently than the general rule now doesn't apply? Is it because we don't have multiple features, just the one? Or are we really going to say wearing armor makes you physically weaker?
EDIT: @Jhffan, thank you for your in-depth breakdown; including citing the monk's similar feature. It has been the most helpful contribution to this dust up all day. As much as I wish this was simply a "rulings, not rules" situation, that might not be the case.
So, does anyone have recommendations for how to properly flavor my crow?
"While you are not wearing armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit." (PHB 48)
"Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use." (PHB 14)
So having a class feature that allows you to calculate your AC differently than the general rule now doesn't apply? Is it because we don't have multiple features, just the one? Or are we really going to say wearing armor makes you physically weaker?
Seriously, at this point I have to assume you're just trolling. Unarmored Defense gives you a different way to calculate your AC. However, it also includes a condition for when that ability can be used, "while you are not wearing armor". That condition is stated plainly and explicitly in the wording of the ability. It's no different from how Bracers Of Defense only work when you aren't wearing armor and not holding a shield. Why do you insist on pretending that part of the wording of Unarmored Defense just doesn't count for some reason?
"While you are not wearing armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit." (PHB 48)
"Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use." (PHB 14)
So having a class feature that allows you to calculate your AC differently than the general rule now doesn't apply? Is it because we don't have multiple features, just the one? Or are we really going to say wearing armor makes you physically weaker?
The Unarmored Defence rule specifically states that you can only use it when you are not wearing armour; it literally cannot be clearer about that point. The class feature doesn't give you an alternate way to calculate your AC whenever you want, it gives you a way to calculate your AC only when you are unarmored. Just as you can't use your armour's AC when you're not wearing it.
General rules are always overridden by more specific rules; if a general rule says you can't do X, but your class says you can, then you can, and vice versa. Unarmored Defence tells you when you can, and can't, use it; this overrides any and all general rules that might otherwise apply.
And no, wearing armour doesn't make you physically weaker, as AC is not a measure of physical strength; it is your ability to not be hit in a way that will inflict damage (or other effects), either by avoiding the hit in the first place, by having the hit glance off your armour without penetrating it, etc.
It is best to think of a Barbarian or Monk's Unarmored Defence as avoiding hits rather than taking them; it's all about moving out of the way of incoming harm, but armour can be heavy, and restrict movement, so you can't do that as easily, so if you wear the wrong set of armour you're sacrificing mobility for less protection, i.e- you get hit more and the armour doesn't stop the hits from going through.
"While you are not wearing armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit." (PHB 48)
"Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use." (PHB 14)
So having a class feature that allows you to calculate your AC differently than the general rule now doesn't apply? Is it because we don't have multiple features, just the one? Or are we really going to say wearing armor makes you physically weaker?
The Unarmored Defence rule specifically states that you can only use it when you are not wearing armour; it literally cannot be clearer about that point. The class feature doesn't give you an alternate way to calculate your AC whenever you want, it gives you a way to calculate your AC only when you are unarmored. Just as you can't use your armour's AC when you're not wearing it.
General rules are always overridden by more specific rules; if a general rule says you can't do X, but your class says you can, then you can, and vice versa. Unarmored Defence tells you when you can, and can't, use it; this overrides any and all general rules that might otherwise apply.
And no, wearing armour doesn't make you physically weaker, as AC is not a measure of physical strength; it is your ability to not be hit in a way that will inflict damage (or other effects), either by avoiding the hit in the first place, by having the hit glance off your armour without penetrating it, etc.
It is best to think of a Barbarian or Monk's Unarmored Defence as avoiding hits rather than taking them; it's all about moving out of the way of incoming harm, but armour can be heavy, and restrict movement, so you can't do that as easily, so if you wear the wrong set of armour you're sacrificing mobility for less protection, i.e- you get hit more and the armour doesn't stop the hits from going through.
Thank you for saying this better than I was.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
@Jhffan, thank you for your in-depth breakdown; including citing the monk's similar feature. It has been the most helpful contribution to this dust up all day. As much as I wish this was simply a "rulings, not rules" situation, that might not be the case.
It has literally never been the case. The rules are crystal clear.
Anyway, to get back on topic, the best armour depends on the situation. If you get some kind of benefit besides AC then medium armour can be the way to go. If you happen to roll really well for stats, go bare.
@Jhffan, thank you for your in-depth breakdown; including citing the monk's similar feature. It has been the most helpful contribution to this dust up all day. As much as I wish this was simply a "rulings, not rules" situation, that might not be the case.
It has literally never been the case. The rules are crystal clear.
Anyway, to get back on topic, the best armour depends on the situation. If you get some kind of benefit besides AC then medium armour can be the way to go. If you happen to roll really well for stats, go bare.
To add to what Lostwhilefishing said here, I've got a zealot barbarian who currently has 13 dex and 16 con for a +1 dex mod and a +3 con mod. His unarmored defense is therefore 14 and he carries a shield to boost it to 16, which he sonetimes did at level 1 and level 2 and stopped doing sometime during level 3. His HP was high enough that I wasn't stressing as much about him going down and he managed to pick up a Ring of Protection and finally bought some Scale Mail which got his AC to 16 without the shield at the cost of disadvantage on stealth rolls. 16 seems to work well for me and the stealth isn't as big of an issue since our Cleric also has Scale Mail and our DM tends to use group checks if we try to be stealthy.
Unarmored defense is superior from a monetary cost and usually from a stealth perspective (Breastplate, Mithral Armor, and Medium Armor Master are the exceptions for stealth superiority) as well as the ability to gain AC from higher stats, dexterity in particular. Medium armor is more forgiving of lower stats and can receive a variety of benefits from magical versions. If you are going Battlerager, Spiked Armor is required for your third level ability (talk to your DM to find out how you'll go about acquiring that armor since the cost is 75 gp and you don't start with armor, you may want to go unarmored defense until you buy it).
In short, find the AC level that you like and then use the armor or Unarmored Defense that gets you the closest to that AC for the right cost (stats investment, gp, advantages, and disadvantages). It's fine if that changes several times throughout your career as you level up and find treasure.
"While you are not wearing armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit." (PHB 48)
"Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use." (PHB 14)
So having a class feature that allows you to calculate your AC differently than the general rule now doesn't apply? Is it because we don't have multiple features, just the one? Or are we really going to say wearing armor makes you physically weaker?
EDIT: @Jhffan, thank you for your in-depth breakdown; including citing the monk's similar feature. It has been the most helpful contribution to this dust up all day. As much as I wish this was simply a "rulings, not rules" situation, that might not be the case.
So, does anyone have recommendations for how to properly flavor my crow?
Wearing armor does not make you physically weaker, but it does prevent you from using your CON modifier to your AC. Because it specifically says you can only add your CON mod to AC when you are not wearing armor.
If you rolled really well, perhaps Unarmored Defense.
If you're doing point buy, it's a no-brainer to put 14 into Dex and pick up medium armor.
Half-plate plus 14 Dex = 17 AC.
To get 17 AC from Unarmored Defense you'll need an 18 and 16 into Dex and Con (or visa versa). But then you also want Str to be your main stat. So if you ignore everything else, your point buy stats look like this: 15-15-15-8-8-8 to start. Now you have three negative ASI bonuses and you're still not there. You still need to invest ASI bonus points into either Dex or Con to get there, when you could be putting them into Str or grabbing a feat.
OR, you can allocate your stats something like this: 15-14-14-8-10-10, or some variation depending on your racial ASI bonuses. Now you can have the same AC and you can focus on pumping Str, get feats, or increase Con as you desire.
If you are looking at it numerically, assuming your Dex mod is no more than +2, you are staying away from heavy armour, you have access to the armour, and you don't mind any stealth penalties, you should go for the following armour if your Con mod is less than:
Hide: +2
Chain shirt: +3
Scale mail/Breastplate: +4
Half plate: +5
However, from what I have read this becomes less and less important as you level up. You will often be able to tank with your HP and resistances, and you are likely to be using reckless attack which makes increases in AC less valuable.
My own Barb, at Level 2, has +1 Dex and +3 Con. I would need scale mail or better to beat my unarmoured defence. Scale mail is all I can afford right now, so I have chosen to use unarmoured defence for the time being: The +1 AC isn't worth the disadvantage on stealth (or half my gold) right now, in my opinion.
Bottom line up front: Unarmored Defense does not stack with anything else, be it armor or natural armor. You have to choose one or the other.
If your Dex + Con is high enough then Unarmored Defense *can* become higher AC than regular armor. Unless you rolled really well, that will eat up a lot of your resources trying to accomplish it. And it won’t happen until you are much higher level, gaining an ASI increase every four levels.
Bottom line up front: Unarmored Defense does not stack with anything else, be it armor or natural armor. You have to choose one or the other.
It does stack with some magical items though, such as Bracers of Defense and Ring of Protection, which a DM should absolutely make available for an unarmored player if they make magic armours available to others.
A Barbarian can also use a shield with their Unarmored Defence (unlike a Monk), but I've not seen many Barbarians opt for this, though the Fighting Initiate feat in Tasha's Cauldron could make it a more interesting option now?
Also worth noting, but Unarmored Defence stacks just fine with cover; Barbarians may be angry, but that doesn't mean they don't get to use cover when they need to.
Never use heavy armor as a barbarian, there is almost no reason to do so
Since barbarians lack heavy armor proficiency, it's not a great option ever. Combine this with the fact that Rage explicitly doesn't work with Heavy Armor and that it's relatively easy to get a 14 or 15 AC with unarmored defense or medium armor, the extra 1 or 2 AC isn't going to be worth it in almost any case. Just the damage resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage and the high hit die of the barbarian will provide the difference in the extra AC in many cases.
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.
For some reason, I believe that you’ve collectively took the words right out of their mouths. But regardless, I’m sure the feeling is very much mutual.
Unarmored Defense is, I think, a lot more complicated than people seem to think it is. All it does is give you another means of calculating AC, and it doesn't suddenly stop working if you are. If your dexterity is 14, your constitution is 18, and you're wearing a chain shirt, your AC doesn't drop to only 15. It stays at 16.
I'm not sure that it's supposed to, the Unarmored Defense rule specifically states "While you are not wearing any armor", so you can't wear that chain shirt and still use your Unarmored AC. The D&D Beyond character sheet however can be a bit weird when it comes to the correct AC (sometimes you have to reload it or un-equip and re-equip items before it'll reset to the correct value, while other times it'll just work, which has made it hard to report a bug).
Yeah, D&D Beyond’s Character Sheet had me messed up in that regard too. I’m still not 100% sure why that happens to be an issue to this day, it almost feels like an intentional design choice on the part of the site’s developers.
But honestly, I don’t mind it. For rather obvious reasons, I like the idea of being able to get the Unarmored Defense bonus, even with Armor on. Even if it doesn’t necessarily work RAW, I just think it’s neat and makes more sense and seems fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Lizardfolk's natural armor rule specifically state that they can choose the NA AC "if the armor you wear would leave you with a lower AC". Barbarians' Unarmored defence rule states that they can't wear armor at all if they want to use unarmored defence. It's all there right in the rules.
Yes, sadly; they're sacrificing AC to gain cold resistance.
The rule about choosing which AC calculation to use applies only when you have multiple valid options to choose from; a Lizardfolk Barbarian wearing no armour has two unarmored AC calculations to choose from, so you can always pick the best one (the racial option, or the Barbarian one). But once you put armour on, both unarmored defence options become invalid, so the only AC calculation available for you to choose from is the one provided by your armour.
You have to stretch a bit to justify it logically sometimes; for example, a Lizardfolk character may have tough scales, but they presumably have a softer underbelly, so their defence is as much about moving to prevent hits there. Putting on armour restricts their movement, but offers a different form of protection to their underbelly, but it's not necessarily better than taking the hits on your toughest scales. This is one of the drawbacks of having a simple defence stat; AC gets a bit weird in terms of what it represents exactly.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
"While you are not wearing armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit." (PHB 48)
"Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use." (PHB 14)
So having a class feature that allows you to calculate your AC differently than the general rule now doesn't apply? Is it because we don't have multiple features, just the one? Or are we really going to say wearing armor makes you physically weaker?
EDIT:
@Jhffan, thank you for your in-depth breakdown; including citing the monk's similar feature. It has been the most helpful contribution to this dust up all day. As much as I wish this was simply a "rulings, not rules" situation, that might not be the case.
So, does anyone have recommendations for how to properly flavor my crow?
Seriously, at this point I have to assume you're just trolling. Unarmored Defense gives you a different way to calculate your AC. However, it also includes a condition for when that ability can be used, "while you are not wearing armor". That condition is stated plainly and explicitly in the wording of the ability. It's no different from how Bracers Of Defense only work when you aren't wearing armor and not holding a shield. Why do you insist on pretending that part of the wording of Unarmored Defense just doesn't count for some reason?
The Unarmored Defence rule specifically states that you can only use it when you are not wearing armour; it literally cannot be clearer about that point. The class feature doesn't give you an alternate way to calculate your AC whenever you want, it gives you a way to calculate your AC only when you are unarmored. Just as you can't use your armour's AC when you're not wearing it.
General rules are always overridden by more specific rules; if a general rule says you can't do X, but your class says you can, then you can, and vice versa. Unarmored Defence tells you when you can, and can't, use it; this overrides any and all general rules that might otherwise apply.
And no, wearing armour doesn't make you physically weaker, as AC is not a measure of physical strength; it is your ability to not be hit in a way that will inflict damage (or other effects), either by avoiding the hit in the first place, by having the hit glance off your armour without penetrating it, etc.
It is best to think of a Barbarian or Monk's Unarmored Defence as avoiding hits rather than taking them; it's all about moving out of the way of incoming harm, but armour can be heavy, and restrict movement, so you can't do that as easily, so if you wear the wrong set of armour you're sacrificing mobility for less protection, i.e- you get hit more and the armour doesn't stop the hits from going through.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Thank you for saying this better than I was.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
It has literally never been the case. The rules are crystal clear.
Anyway, to get back on topic, the best armour depends on the situation. If you get some kind of benefit besides AC then medium armour can be the way to go. If you happen to roll really well for stats, go bare.
To add to what Lostwhilefishing said here, I've got a zealot barbarian who currently has 13 dex and 16 con for a +1 dex mod and a +3 con mod. His unarmored defense is therefore 14 and he carries a shield to boost it to 16, which he sonetimes did at level 1 and level 2 and stopped doing sometime during level 3. His HP was high enough that I wasn't stressing as much about him going down and he managed to pick up a Ring of Protection and finally bought some Scale Mail which got his AC to 16 without the shield at the cost of disadvantage on stealth rolls. 16 seems to work well for me and the stealth isn't as big of an issue since our Cleric also has Scale Mail and our DM tends to use group checks if we try to be stealthy.
Unarmored defense is superior from a monetary cost and usually from a stealth perspective (Breastplate, Mithral Armor, and Medium Armor Master are the exceptions for stealth superiority) as well as the ability to gain AC from higher stats, dexterity in particular. Medium armor is more forgiving of lower stats and can receive a variety of benefits from magical versions. If you are going Battlerager, Spiked Armor is required for your third level ability (talk to your DM to find out how you'll go about acquiring that armor since the cost is 75 gp and you don't start with armor, you may want to go unarmored defense until you buy it).
In short, find the AC level that you like and then use the armor or Unarmored Defense that gets you the closest to that AC for the right cost (stats investment, gp, advantages, and disadvantages). It's fine if that changes several times throughout your career as you level up and find treasure.
Wearing armor does not make you physically weaker, but it does prevent you from using your CON modifier to your AC. Because it specifically says you can only add your CON mod to AC when you are not wearing armor.
If you rolled really well, perhaps Unarmored Defense.
If you're doing point buy, it's a no-brainer to put 14 into Dex and pick up medium armor.
Half-plate plus 14 Dex = 17 AC.
To get 17 AC from Unarmored Defense you'll need an 18 and 16 into Dex and Con (or visa versa). But then you also want Str to be your main stat. So if you ignore everything else, your point buy stats look like this: 15-15-15-8-8-8 to start. Now you have three negative ASI bonuses and you're still not there. You still need to invest ASI bonus points into either Dex or Con to get there, when you could be putting them into Str or grabbing a feat.
OR, you can allocate your stats something like this: 15-14-14-8-10-10, or some variation depending on your racial ASI bonuses. Now you can have the same AC and you can focus on pumping Str, get feats, or increase Con as you desire.
If you are looking at it numerically, assuming your Dex mod is no more than +2, you are staying away from heavy armour, you have access to the armour, and you don't mind any stealth penalties, you should go for the following armour if your Con mod is less than:
However, from what I have read this becomes less and less important as you level up. You will often be able to tank with your HP and resistances, and you are likely to be using reckless attack which makes increases in AC less valuable.
My own Barb, at Level 2, has +1 Dex and +3 Con. I would need scale mail or better to beat my unarmoured defence. Scale mail is all I can afford right now, so I have chosen to use unarmoured defence for the time being: The +1 AC isn't worth the disadvantage on stealth (or half my gold) right now, in my opinion.
Bottom line up front: Unarmored Defense does not stack with anything else, be it armor or natural armor. You have to choose one or the other.
If your Dex + Con is high enough then Unarmored Defense *can* become higher AC than regular armor. Unless you rolled really well, that will eat up a lot of your resources trying to accomplish it. And it won’t happen until you are much higher level, gaining an ASI increase every four levels.
Yep, it definitely doesn't stack with armour, and as soon as you are wearing armour it is no longer available.
It does stack with some magical items though, such as Bracers of Defense and Ring of Protection, which a DM should absolutely make available for an unarmored player if they make magic armours available to others.
A Barbarian can also use a shield with their Unarmored Defence (unlike a Monk), but I've not seen many Barbarians opt for this, though the Fighting Initiate feat in Tasha's Cauldron could make it a more interesting option now?
Also worth noting, but Unarmored Defence stacks just fine with cover; Barbarians may be angry, but that doesn't mean they don't get to use cover when they need to.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Never use heavy armor as a barbarian, there is almost no reason to do so
Since barbarians lack heavy armor proficiency, it's not a great option ever. Combine this with the fact that Rage explicitly doesn't work with Heavy Armor and that it's relatively easy to get a 14 or 15 AC with unarmored defense or medium armor, the extra 1 or 2 AC isn't going to be worth it in almost any case. Just the damage resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage and the high hit die of the barbarian will provide the difference in the extra AC in many cases.
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.
For some reason, I believe that you’ve collectively took the words right out of their mouths. But regardless, I’m sure the feeling is very much mutual.
Lol.
God. I’m not a fan of D&D Beyond’s Comment System.
But honestly, I don’t mind it. For rather obvious reasons, I like the idea of being able to get the Unarmored Defense bonus, even with Armor on. Even if it doesn’t necessarily work RAW, I just think it’s neat and makes more sense and seems fun.