Really, the main problem from benefiting from armor is the impact that Shell Defense provides. At a 17 AC, the Shell Defense bumps to 21. If you are ignoring the armor restrictions and using Heavy Armor like Plate and Shields and features like Soul of the Forge, or hell, even Fighting Style: Defense, then the Shell Defense approaches significantly different levels that it was never intended to approach. High AC is one thing: Shield does that for Eldritch Knights and others ... but the ADV on STR and CON saves (ack the DIS on DEX) are a little much if a clever Tortle Caster wanted to use a big CONC spell, then next turn dip into a Shell Defense until the fight was over... without the RAW armor restrictions, 21 AC is the max, possibly 23 if you somehow imagine that a Tortle retracted in a shell still has the benefit of a Shield (I wouldn't allow that...). If you suddenly decided that AC bonuses from Armor was okay, then that number gets higher and higher and more and more ridiculous. It's not supposed to. So let's cut the crap.
Either Tortles use Natural Armor and gain benefit from Shell Defense, or they follow the same rules as everyone else and do not gain access to Shell Defense. In no situation ever should they benefit from both.
Shell Defense: "You can withdraw into your shell as an action. Until you emerge, you gain a +4 bonus to AC, and you have advantage on Strength and Constitution saving throws. While in your shell, you are prone, your speed is 0 and can’t increase, you have disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws, you can’t take reactions, and the only action you can take is a bonus action to emerge from your shell."
I "noped" out a while ago, but I have to jump back in. I won't repeat any rules or quotes from features that we already discussed. Because again, it's really clear that RAW, Tortles do not benefit from armor... I'll address why that is a little later.
Big picture? Race choices impacting class/character choices has been addressed by the game designers. The customizing origin optional rule in TCE clarifies the INTENT that you shouldn't feel limited by a race, and it offered rules to address that. The new MotM doesn't even make that optional, it's baked into the rules of every race in that book.
If it were my table, and it's definitely not... I'd offer the Tortle the option to wear armor (any armor they are proficient with) and determine their AC by choice, which is normal for nearly every other race/class/game situation for determining AC.
Additionally, I would also rule that using Shell Defense as an action is ONLY available if you are using Natural Armor. Retracting into your shell within 1 action while wearing heavy armor is probably the exact reason why the designers restricted armor benefits to this race.
So pick one or the other: Natural Armor and Shell Defense, which is how the Race was designed, or basic armor rules and class features, which is how the class was designed. Feel free to take the armor off and revert to the Natural Armor, or more likely to happen: get attacked in the middle of a long rest while unarmored and not completely suck. Then put the armor back on like everyone else.
But please, I hope that you are not arguing or insisting that retracting into your Shell while wearing AND benefiting from Armor is anywhere near RAW or RAI... which is perhaps the unspoken part of this discussion that is actually the most significant factor to consider.
I agree. The Legacy Tortle can of course choose to wear armor, and then make the same choice every character has to choose which applicable AC they would prefer. In my mind that's why the old Tortle was given the *option* of wearing armor and gaining no benefit. Its AC calculation is always going to be inferior because it doesn't gain AC from armor, but wearing the armor can still trigger other game effects, such as Soul of the Forge or Heat Metal.
Again, I really have to mention that I went over that point in my OP. It's very frustrating to continue to argue points that were addressed from the outset.
I'm not sure why you bring the Shell Defense up. The tortle can't benefit from wearing armor. Nobody disagrees on that point. Using Shell Defense doesn't alter that restriction in any way.
With the Tortle, it's changing from "You are ill-suited to wearing armor. You can try to put on armor, but it doesn't help you at all," to "You can't wear armor." That's not really changing any rules, but clarifying them. That chain shirt built for a dwarf isn't going to stretch over your shell and help in any way.
LOL, I think the fact that you rewrote the excerpt from the old Tortle to try to make it agree with your point says everything that needs to be said. When you're misquoting the text to try to appear right, you're not trying to support an argument, you're just trying to avoid being wrong on the internet. It doesn't say "you can try to put on armor but it doesn't help you", it says "You gain no benefit from wearing armor".
So to say "It isn't really changing any rules" is so absurdly and patently false to anyone with English as a primary language that I really don't have anything else to respond to you with. It literally changed from "you can wear armor" to "you can't wear armor". So, thanks for your input and goodbye.
*sigh* No.. I didn't quote everything because I thought it had been quoted enough. But here goes...
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.
Let's look at that bit I highlighted; ill-suited. According to Merriam, that means "not having the qualities that are right, needed, or appropriate for something." So, to put that tortle line another way, "Due to your shell and the shape of your body, you lack the qualities that areright, needed, or appropriate to wearing armor." If you don't have what is needed to wear armor, you can't wear armor.
Sure, you can throw a chain shirt over your shoulder, take bits of plate armor and use it for knee pads. But that's not wearing armor as far as 5e goes. That's decoration.
So the jump from "ill-suited to wear armor" to "can't wear light, medium, or heavy armor" seems like a clarification, not a radical change.
Then why have the "You gain no benefit from wearing armor," at all? Because someone is going to say, "I made a shawl from a bunch of chain mail," or "I took apart 5 suits of plate armor and glued the pieces to my shell," and think that's wearing armor and they should get the benefits.
I'm joining DeltaTango and noping out of this conversation. Feel free to die on that hill of getting +1 AC.
Lol again you're defeating your own argument. We agree that the Legacy Tortle CAN wear armor and gains no benefit. We agree that the MOM Tortle can't wear armor.
So what was the reason for this change? Your interpretation of the Legacy Tortle means that armor at no point could ever have a game effect. There was no reason to allow the Legacy Tortle to wear armor and specify that it had no effect. If they were worried someone would put on a "shawl of chain mail" the simpler rule would have been to write "you can't wear armor", which in fact is what they did with the rewrite.
So why not just write that the first time? Why instead write the longer and much more nuanced explanation? Why didn't the first Tortle just say "you can't wear armor"? Because, obviously, the intent was to allow the wearing of armor to trigger game effects other than the standard "benefits" of armor such as AC, resistances, etc.
Why didn't they ever errata the old Tortle? Because it wasn't being played wrong. They put out a new, rebalanced version, which is why I made the example of the Goblin in my previous post. Now both are available. The newer one is obviously more in line with their new design direction, but the old one works just fine, and differently, if you'd prefer to use it. Like all the Legacy races.
The fault in your argument is that it's based on assigning intent (RAI) to override the plain language that allows armor to be worn and trigger other effects (RAW). But there is no possible intent. Unless you can come up with a reason why they didn't first start with the simpler explanation you claim they intended, your argument fails. It fails over and over and over and over and over. So I do in fact recommend you "nope out".
Shell Defense is the whole point. We've been circling the subject on one line of the racial features but we never zoomed out for the entire race traits, and Shell Defense is the feature that allows you to literally use your natural armor for a big benefit.
Shell Defense as a race feature is precisely why BOTH legacy and current Tortles are not supposed to wear or use armor. We can't have the natural armor discussion without considering Shell Defense.
Physically, wearing Armor? Describe that. Like anatomically, how is the armor being worn by the Tortle? Is it just on his legs, arms, and head? Is it draped or wrapped around the shell, or covering the chest? Then describe how or why a Tortle wearing that armor can easily withdraw (1 action) into the shell and still benefit from armor? Or even a shield at that point?
What we were missing was the whole context of the race, and within that context is the intent for why armor isn't part of the equation. Armor is baked in already. And some may look at Shell Defense and "so what" ... and yeah, removing movement/actions/reactions while in the shell is a limiting factor, some classes benefit from that more than others. Classes with actions that impact multiple turns with powerful spells that require concentration would benefit substantially from this tactic. Don't even need to burn a feat on Warcaster anymore, congratulations.
And that's a fine, fair tactic that the designers allowed with the assumption and intent that the Character in Shell Defense will have an AC of 21 and advantage on CON/STR saves until the character emerges. 21 isn't invulnerable, but it's pretty well protected, especially in low tiers of play. Tortles can have AC 21 at first level on day one without any cost. If you start stacking armor benefits and approach a Shell Defense of 24... 25... 26... now we're in a territory that it should have never reached. Forge Cleric happens to be a subclass that can easily reach those kinds of ACs without even factoring in Magic Armor. So yeah, it feels connected.
And it's not a cool, clever way to use a Race Feature... it's interpreting rules in a way that twist a character to benefit more than it is intended to benefit from other features. So yeah, that's what this entire conversation is about.
... my previous replies have provided Rules interpretations, as well as personal thoughts on how/why you could/should enjoy your Tortle character. You can and should enjoy your character, and I hope you do. None of those replies considered Shell Defense.
So whether its you or anyone considering a Tortle Forge Cleric to specifically stack AC, pop a big CONC spell and then chill inside an impenetrable shell the rest of the fight, just know that you're doing that beyond the scope of what the Rules ever stated or intended. And that's why the Natural Armor is limited the way it is.
... my previous replies have provided Rules interpretations, as well as personal thoughts on how/why you could/should enjoy your Tortle character. You can and should enjoy your character, and I hope you do. None of those replies considered Shell Defense.
So whether its you or anyone considering a Tortle Forge Cleric to specifically stack AC, pop a big CONC spell and then chill inside an impenetrable shell the rest of the fight, just know that you're doing that beyond the scope of what the Rules ever stated or intended. And that's why the Natural Armor is limited the way it is.
Well, I mean I guess I agree, but I'm pretty confused why you're so convinced it's "the whole point" when it's an entirely unrelated issue. Who's arguing that 26 AC inside the shell is a possibility?
My question was about the specific interaction of Natural Armor and Soul of the Forge which provides either +0 AC or +1 AC depending on interpretation, which I originally thought was a bug and you convinced me was not when you pointed out the MOM reprint.
I can't see how anyone would try to "abuse" Shell Defense using Soul beyond making their 21 AC into a 22 AC, which seems.... unremarkable at best. Like you, I wouldn't even allow a shield to be wielded inside the shell, it makes no sense (although I enjoy the mental image of the Tortle popping inside and plugging up the neck hole with his shield like a Warner Bros cartoon).
I'm so glad you finally agree with me. Yes, as you yourself typed, Soul of the Forge is giving you a benefit. Not the armor!
Quoting me out of context so you can ignore the parts you don't like is seriously dishonest, and it's been your entire problem from the start.
If you don't want the correct answer to a question, then don't post it online; your DM is free to overrule whatever they like, and if they're happy to do that then fine, but if they do rule it this way it's homebrew, it is not, never has been, and never will be, the rules as written, as multiple people have now tried to explain to you in good faith.
Everyone else, just let this thread die; CapAp doesn't appear to have any interest in how the rules are supposed to work on this. I'm unsubscribing from the thread, I suggest others do the same.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Since you felt the need to report my responses as trolling, I'm gonna go ahead and ignore you as a user now. I'm happy to have proven you factually incorrect multiple times, and to have had you admit it in-thread.
And for any users browsing the thread in the future, prior to his edits, Haravikk admitted that the benefit is coming from Soul of the Forge rather than from the armor, thus defeating his own argument. Rather than admit he was wrong, he edited his post and reported me as "trolling" for posting a sarcastic response. This isn't good faith discussion or "interest in how the rules work". I'd recommend ignoring any rules responses he posts elsewhere, as they are not shared with any intention of intellectual honesty.
Lol again you're defeating your own argument. We agree that the Legacy Tortle CAN wear armor and gains no benefit. We agree that the MOM Tortle can't wear armor.
I agree with Haravikk; you don't listen, you twist things to make is seem you're right.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I have NEVER agreed with you.
I have NEVER thought Tortles could wear armor; legacy or MOM.
And since your ONLY rationale is, Soul of the Forge says "you" not "armor", consider this...
The quote from Soul of the Forge is "While wearing heavy armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC."
The quote from Tortle is, and I'll make it big so you can see it:
"You gain no benefit from wearing armor..."
So if the Soul of the Forge gives YOU the bonus, but the description of Tortle clearly states YOU gain no benefits from wearing armor, you've proving everyone else's point all along. Either:
Tortles (Legacy and MOM) cannot wear armor, therefor they cannot benefit from Soul of the Forge. (My, and most everyone else's philosophy)
or
Legacy Tortles could wear armor, and Soul of the Forge affects "you" , not the armor. But, as a legacy Tortle, "you" gain no benefits from wearing armor and therefor cannot benefit from Soul of the Forge.
You can't say "you" means "you" in Soul of the Forge, but "you" doesn't mean "you" in the Tortle description.
After this, any other rationalization about why you deserve that +1 is just desperation at this point.
Lol again you're defeating your own argument. We agree that the Legacy Tortle CAN wear armor and gains no benefit. We agree that the MOM Tortle can't wear armor.
I agree with Haravikk; you don't listen, you twist things to make is seem you're right.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I have NEVER agreed with you.
I have NEVER thought Tortles could wear armor; legacy or MOM.
Great, then it's obvious to all that you are not interested in the actual rules!
The legacy Tortle says "you gain no benefit from wearing armor". In order for this sentence to be anything but nonsense, a tortle who is wearing armor is gaining no benefit. There is literally no way to parse this other than that Legacy Tortles can wear armor, and that when they do they gain no benefit.
Since you interpret "a tortle wearing armor" to mean "a tortle can't wear armor", this conversation is done. You don't understand plain english.
Lol again you're defeating your own argument. We agree that the Legacy Tortle CAN wear armor and gains no benefit. We agree that the MOM Tortle can't wear armor.
You can't say "you" means "you" in Soul of the Forge, but "you" doesn't mean "you" in the Tortle description.
After this, any other rationalization about why you deserve that +1 is just desperation at this point.
Also, i just want to say that this is word salad and it's utterly baffling. What are you talking about? The "you" means the same in both places, you the PC. "You" the PC can gain +1 from Soul of the Forge because nothing prevents it. "You" the PC cannot gain anything from armor because the Tortle ability prevents it. But "you" the PC can still wear armor, which will trigger Soul of the Forge. Soul of the Forge targets "you" the PC and does not target the armor.
And again, this is different than the level 1 ability "Blessing of the Forge", which instead of targeting the PC, targets the ARMOR with a +1 AC bonus. The Tortle cannot benefit from this, because it's changing the ARMOR. If these abilities function the same way. why were they intentionally given different wording?
You just can't seem to understand that it doesn't matter where Soul's trigger is coming from. Have you ever played a video game or a card game, like Magic, that has "sources" of damage and "targets" for effects?
MTG analogy. I play a card called "Tortle". It says "when you play a card with the 'Armor' type, ignore its text". I play a card called "Heavy Armor". It has some game text, but it is 'Armor' type, and since I have Tortle in play, I have to ignore this text. I can't benefit from it. I can still play the card for no effect, though. I play a card called "Soul of the Forge". It says "if you have 'Heavy Armor' in play, gain 5 life". Guess what? I gain 5 life. My Tortle card doesn't care what triggered my Soul of the Forge card. My Tortle card only prevents me from doing what Heavy Armor says.
D&D WORKS THIS WAY. EVERY GAME WORKS THIS WAY. THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WORKS THIS WAY. Soul of the Forge could trigger off of wearing armor, making a spell attack, or me saying my grandpa's name. IT DOES NOT MATTER. Tortle does not care what triggers it. Tortle does not prevent me from triggering Soul of the Forge. Tortle only cares if I try to gain a benefit from WEARING ARMOR.
MOM Tortle changes this all by changing the rule to say "you can't wear armor". This new Tortle therefore cannot do the thing that would trigger Soul of the Forge.
Really, the main problem from benefiting from armor is the impact that Shell Defense provides. At a 17 AC, the Shell Defense bumps to 21. If you are ignoring the armor restrictions and using Heavy Armor like Plate and Shields and features like Soul of the Forge, or hell, even Fighting Style: Defense, then the Shell Defense approaches significantly different levels that it was never intended to approach. High AC is one thing: Shield does that for Eldritch Knights and others ... but the ADV on STR and CON saves (ack the DIS on DEX) are a little much if a clever Tortle Caster wanted to use a big CONC spell, then next turn dip into a Shell Defense until the fight was over... without the RAW armor restrictions, 21 AC is the max, possibly 23 if you somehow imagine that a Tortle retracted in a shell still has the benefit of a Shield (I wouldn't allow that...). If you suddenly decided that AC bonuses from Armor was okay, then that number gets higher and higher and more and more ridiculous. It's not supposed to. So let's cut the crap.
Either Tortles use Natural Armor and gain benefit from Shell Defense, or they follow the same rules as everyone else and do not gain access to Shell Defense. In no situation ever should they benefit from both.
Shell Defense: "You can withdraw into your shell as an action. Until you emerge, you gain a +4 bonus to AC, and you have advantage on Strength and Constitution saving throws. While in your shell, you are prone, your speed is 0 and can’t increase, you have disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws, you can’t take reactions, and the only action you can take is a bonus action to emerge from your shell."
I agree. The Legacy Tortle can of course choose to wear armor, and then make the same choice every character has to choose which applicable AC they would prefer. In my mind that's why the old Tortle was given the *option* of wearing armor and gaining no benefit. Its AC calculation is always going to be inferior because it doesn't gain AC from armor, but wearing the armor can still trigger other game effects, such as Soul of the Forge or Heat Metal.
Again, I really have to mention that I went over that point in my OP. It's very frustrating to continue to argue points that were addressed from the outset.
I'm not sure why you bring the Shell Defense up. The tortle can't benefit from wearing armor. Nobody disagrees on that point. Using Shell Defense doesn't alter that restriction in any way.
Lol again you're defeating your own argument. We agree that the Legacy Tortle CAN wear armor and gains no benefit. We agree that the MOM Tortle can't wear armor.
So what was the reason for this change? Your interpretation of the Legacy Tortle means that armor at no point could ever have a game effect. There was no reason to allow the Legacy Tortle to wear armor and specify that it had no effect. If they were worried someone would put on a "shawl of chain mail" the simpler rule would have been to write "you can't wear armor", which in fact is what they did with the rewrite.
So why not just write that the first time? Why instead write the longer and much more nuanced explanation? Why didn't the first Tortle just say "you can't wear armor"? Because, obviously, the intent was to allow the wearing of armor to trigger game effects other than the standard "benefits" of armor such as AC, resistances, etc.
Why didn't they ever errata the old Tortle? Because it wasn't being played wrong. They put out a new, rebalanced version, which is why I made the example of the Goblin in my previous post. Now both are available. The newer one is obviously more in line with their new design direction, but the old one works just fine, and differently, if you'd prefer to use it. Like all the Legacy races.
The fault in your argument is that it's based on assigning intent (RAI) to override the plain language that allows armor to be worn and trigger other effects (RAW). But there is no possible intent. Unless you can come up with a reason why they didn't first start with the simpler explanation you claim they intended, your argument fails. It fails over and over and over and over and over. So I do in fact recommend you "nope out".
Shell Defense is the whole point. We've been circling the subject on one line of the racial features but we never zoomed out for the entire race traits, and Shell Defense is the feature that allows you to literally use your natural armor for a big benefit.
Shell Defense as a race feature is precisely why BOTH legacy and current Tortles are not supposed to wear or use armor. We can't have the natural armor discussion without considering Shell Defense.
Physically, wearing Armor? Describe that. Like anatomically, how is the armor being worn by the Tortle? Is it just on his legs, arms, and head? Is it draped or wrapped around the shell, or covering the chest? Then describe how or why a Tortle wearing that armor can easily withdraw (1 action) into the shell and still benefit from armor? Or even a shield at that point?
What we were missing was the whole context of the race, and within that context is the intent for why armor isn't part of the equation. Armor is baked in already. And some may look at Shell Defense and "so what" ... and yeah, removing movement/actions/reactions while in the shell is a limiting factor, some classes benefit from that more than others. Classes with actions that impact multiple turns with powerful spells that require concentration would benefit substantially from this tactic. Don't even need to burn a feat on Warcaster anymore, congratulations.
And that's a fine, fair tactic that the designers allowed with the assumption and intent that the Character in Shell Defense will have an AC of 21 and advantage on CON/STR saves until the character emerges. 21 isn't invulnerable, but it's pretty well protected, especially in low tiers of play. Tortles can have AC 21 at first level on day one without any cost. If you start stacking armor benefits and approach a Shell Defense of 24... 25... 26... now we're in a territory that it should have never reached. Forge Cleric happens to be a subclass that can easily reach those kinds of ACs without even factoring in Magic Armor. So yeah, it feels connected.
And it's not a cool, clever way to use a Race Feature... it's interpreting rules in a way that twist a character to benefit more than it is intended to benefit from other features. So yeah, that's what this entire conversation is about.
... my previous replies have provided Rules interpretations, as well as personal thoughts on how/why you could/should enjoy your Tortle character. You can and should enjoy your character, and I hope you do. None of those replies considered Shell Defense.
So whether its you or anyone considering a Tortle Forge Cleric to specifically stack AC, pop a big CONC spell and then chill inside an impenetrable shell the rest of the fight, just know that you're doing that beyond the scope of what the Rules ever stated or intended. And that's why the Natural Armor is limited the way it is.
Well, I mean I guess I agree, but I'm pretty confused why you're so convinced it's "the whole point" when it's an entirely unrelated issue. Who's arguing that 26 AC inside the shell is a possibility?
My question was about the specific interaction of Natural Armor and Soul of the Forge which provides either +0 AC or +1 AC depending on interpretation, which I originally thought was a bug and you convinced me was not when you pointed out the MOM reprint.
I can't see how anyone would try to "abuse" Shell Defense using Soul beyond making their 21 AC into a 22 AC, which seems.... unremarkable at best. Like you, I wouldn't even allow a shield to be wielded inside the shell, it makes no sense (although I enjoy the mental image of the Tortle popping inside and plugging up the neck hole with his shield like a Warner Bros cartoon).
Quoting me out of context so you can ignore the parts you don't like is seriously dishonest, and it's been your entire problem from the start.
If you don't want the correct answer to a question, then don't post it online; your DM is free to overrule whatever they like, and if they're happy to do that then fine, but if they do rule it this way it's homebrew, it is not, never has been, and never will be, the rules as written, as multiple people have now tried to explain to you in good faith.
Everyone else, just let this thread die; CapAp doesn't appear to have any interest in how the rules are supposed to work on this. I'm unsubscribing from the thread, I suggest others do the same.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Since you felt the need to report my responses as trolling, I'm gonna go ahead and ignore you as a user now.
I'm happy to have proven you factually incorrect multiple times, and to have had you admit it in-thread.
And for any users browsing the thread in the future, prior to his edits, Haravikk admitted that the benefit is coming from Soul of the Forge rather than from the armor, thus defeating his own argument. Rather than admit he was wrong, he edited his post and reported me as "trolling" for posting a sarcastic response. This isn't good faith discussion or "interest in how the rules work". I'd recommend ignoring any rules responses he posts elsewhere, as they are not shared with any intention of intellectual honesty.
I just had to come back and see what you'd say.
I agree with Haravikk; you don't listen, you twist things to make is seem you're right.
Don't put words in my mouth.
And since your ONLY rationale is, Soul of the Forge says "you" not "armor", consider this...
The quote from Soul of the Forge is "While wearing heavy armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC."
The quote from Tortle is, and I'll make it big so you can see it:
"You gain no benefit from wearing armor..."
So if the Soul of the Forge gives YOU the bonus, but the description of Tortle clearly states YOU gain no benefits from wearing armor, you've proving everyone else's point all along. Either:
or
You can't say "you" means "you" in Soul of the Forge, but "you" doesn't mean "you" in the Tortle description.
After this, any other rationalization about why you deserve that +1 is just desperation at this point.
Great, then it's obvious to all that you are not interested in the actual rules!
The legacy Tortle says "you gain no benefit from wearing armor". In order for this sentence to be anything but nonsense, a tortle who is wearing armor is gaining no benefit. There is literally no way to parse this other than that Legacy Tortles can wear armor, and that when they do they gain no benefit.
Since you interpret "a tortle wearing armor" to mean "a tortle can't wear armor", this conversation is done. You don't understand plain english.
Also, i just want to say that this is word salad and it's utterly baffling. What are you talking about? The "you" means the same in both places, you the PC. "You" the PC can gain +1 from Soul of the Forge because nothing prevents it. "You" the PC cannot gain anything from armor because the Tortle ability prevents it. But "you" the PC can still wear armor, which will trigger Soul of the Forge. Soul of the Forge targets "you" the PC and does not target the armor.
And again, this is different than the level 1 ability "Blessing of the Forge", which instead of targeting the PC, targets the ARMOR with a +1 AC bonus. The Tortle cannot benefit from this, because it's changing the ARMOR. If these abilities function the same way. why were they intentionally given different wording?
You just can't seem to understand that it doesn't matter where Soul's trigger is coming from. Have you ever played a video game or a card game, like Magic, that has "sources" of damage and "targets" for effects?
MTG analogy.
I play a card called "Tortle". It says "when you play a card with the 'Armor' type, ignore its text".
I play a card called "Heavy Armor". It has some game text, but it is 'Armor' type, and since I have Tortle in play, I have to ignore this text. I can't benefit from it. I can still play the card for no effect, though.
I play a card called "Soul of the Forge". It says "if you have 'Heavy Armor' in play, gain 5 life".
Guess what? I gain 5 life. My Tortle card doesn't care what triggered my Soul of the Forge card. My Tortle card only prevents me from doing what Heavy Armor says.
D&D WORKS THIS WAY. EVERY GAME WORKS THIS WAY. THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WORKS THIS WAY. Soul of the Forge could trigger off of wearing armor, making a spell attack, or me saying my grandpa's name. IT DOES NOT MATTER. Tortle does not care what triggers it. Tortle does not prevent me from triggering Soul of the Forge. Tortle only cares if I try to gain a benefit from WEARING ARMOR.
MOM Tortle changes this all by changing the rule to say "you can't wear armor". This new Tortle therefore cannot do the thing that would trigger Soul of the Forge.