1. Whenever you have two valid AC calculations in effect, you can choose which to use. 2. The Tortle's Natural Armor ability says that your shell "gives you a base AC of 17" and specifies that "you gain no benefit from wearing armor". 3. The Level 6 Forge Cleric ability "Soul of the Forge" grants the following ability: "While wearing heavy armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC."
I interpret this to mean that I can put on Ring Mail (AC 14), and since I gain no benefit from wearing it, I may choose to use my Natural Armor instead (AC 17). Soul of the Forge then still causes me to "gain a +1 bonus to AC", making my AC 18, as it specifically does not grant the armor the bonus, it grants you the bonus.
"Soul of the Forge" is clearly worded differently than the Level 1 ability "Blessing of the Forge", which grants a +1 bonus to the armor itself, and therefore provides no bonus if I am using the Natural Armor calculation.
D&D Beyond doesn't seem to be calculating this correctly, but I wanted to make sure I'm accurately interpreting the interaction of these three rules before reporting it.
Soul of the Forge is a benefit from wearing armor, even with the armor vs you interpretation...
Which then points to item 1, you would be choosing between the AC 17 Natural vs the AC 14+1 Ring Mail/Soul of the Forge... 17 is higher, and that's what D&D Beyond sheet is calculating.
...for testing purposes, Add AC 18 Plate to your character, equip it, and you'll see the new calculation jump to 19, correctly applying Soul of the Forge. You could then of course, add your Blessing of the Forge and achieve AC 20.
Sorry, it's new this week. I guess the reprint on the Tortle from MOTM reads this:
"Natural Armor: Your shell provides you a base AC of 17 (your Dexterity modifier doesn’t affect this number). You can’t wear light, medium, or heavy armor, but if you are using a shield, you can apply the shield’s bonus as normal."
If there was a question previously about Rule as Intended, this new version makes it pretty clear how the intended rules about armor should interact with a Tortle.
So if that rule is a factor for your table, a Tortle Forge Cleric would not be a super ideal combo.
Wow, interesting about the new version of the Tortle! I agree that definitely operates differently then, but I’m using the “Legacy” version from Tortle Package (haven’t bought MotM) and have been since character creation.
I see what you’re saying about interpretation though, so it’s likely not a bug and I will just adjust it manually for our table.
Soul of the Forge says you gain that benefit while wearing heavy armor. If you're not wearing heavy armor, you don't gain that benefit. End of.
100% true, unless you're discussing a Tortle. Which we are.
RAW for Legacy Tortle: "You gain no benefit from wearing armor" ... it's clear that this was not specific enough, so the new print of Tortle identifies: "You cannot wear armor"
That being said, I would personally have no problem if the DM granted a Tortle Forge Cleric the benefit from Soul of the Forge, but RAW, for both legacy and current, it is not supposed to benefit. +1 AC isn't a game breaker, especially from 17 to 18, which would get a Tortle Cleric the equivalent of Plate without wearing Plate. This is completely reasonable to allow, even if it goes against RAW.
I don't intend to engage any further... enjoy your Tortle, it sounds like a fun character!
Not, you don't gain the armor's AC (or can use it for calculations). It's a flat, NO BENEFIT.
Not sure why you felt this was helpful. Nobody thinks you get any benefit from wearing the armor. You get a benefit from the class ability (Soul of the Forge).
Not, you don't gain the armor's AC (or can use it for calculations). It's a flat, NO BENEFIT.
Not sure why you felt this was helpful. Nobody thinks you get any benefit from wearing the armor. You get a benefit from the class ability (Soul of the Forge).
Soul of the Forge is a benefit from wearing armor. You can only get it when you wear heavy armor. But your race precludes you from ANY benefit from wearing armor.
If they only meant that you cannot calculate your AC based on wearing armor, it would have said so. But it just blanket says, "...no benefit..."
For instance, if you wore Armor of Fire Resistance, you would not gain the benefit of fire resistance.
Not, you don't gain the armor's AC (or can use it for calculations). It's a flat, NO BENEFIT.
Not sure why you felt this was helpful. Nobody thinks you get any benefit from wearing the armor. You get a benefit from the class ability (Soul of the Forge).
Soul of the Forge is a benefit from wearing armor. You can only get it when you wear heavy armor. But your race precludes you from ANY benefit from wearing armor.
I already went over this. I'm not getting a benefit from wearing armor. I'm getting a benefit from a class ability that has been activated. Class abilities trigger off many things - hitting enemies, using skills, and in this case, wearing armor. Legacy Tortle (what I play) does not prevent the player from WEARING heavy armor (and thus triggering this ability), only from gaining the armor's benefit.
Presumably that's why they changed the text in the reprint to say that Tortles cannot even WEAR armor. There would be no need to change the text if your interpretation was correct, as the meanings would be identical.
If they only meant that you cannot calculate your AC based on wearing armor, it would have said so. But it just blanket says, "...no benefit..."
For instance, if you wore Armor of Fire Resistance, you would not gain the benefit of fire resistance.
Not analogous. The armor (Armor of Fire Resistance) provides the benefit, so yes, of course a tortle would not gain the benefit from wearing armor.
Again, as mentioned in the OP, Soul of the Forge specifically does not grant the armor the bonus, it grants you the bonus.
I'm inclined to agree with Cyberfunkr on this; you're trying to argue that you're only getting the benefits of a class feature, but it's a feature tied specifically to wearing armour, so it's very easily argued to be a benefit of wearing armour (you can't gain the benefit if you're not wearing armour, ergo a benefit of wearing armour).
The fact that WotC changed the wording seems to reinforce this as being the intention, as they've maybe realised that "benefits of wearing armour" was too poorly defined, and that not being able to wear the armour in the first place achieves the exact same result but in a way that is 100% unambiguous.
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.
I agree that the second version was changed because they felt the wording allowed you to do something they didn’t want you do do. But that doesn’t change the original wording which *does* allow it. MOM is not errata, it’s a new version of the races.
My Goblin Artificer does 8 damage once per long rest with Fury of the Small. If I made him with the MOM version, the ability would do 4 damage once per short rest instead. Nobody would argue this was “the original intent” of Fury of the Small, it was a minor balance correction.
As I mentioned many posts ago, I agree that this interaction isn’t a bug, which is why I created the thread. But RAW, the old Tortle gets AC from a triggered class feature, just the same as carrying around a bag of rats triggers class features that are clearly "intended” to be used in encounters.
Quote from CapAp>As I mentioned many posts ago, I agree that this interaction isn’t a bug, which is why I created the thread. But RAW, the old Tortle gets AC from a triggered class feature, just the same as carrying around a bag of rats triggers class features that are clearly "intended” to be used in encounters.
But it's not RAW, it's your interpretation. But from the responses I'm seeing in this thread, it's not an interpretation that most would agree on. If your DM says it works, then it works. Otherwise, it's just an opinion.
My Goblin Artificer does 8 damage once per long rest with Fury of the Small. If I made him with the MOM version, the ability would do 4 damage once per short rest instead. Nobody would argue this was “the original intent” of Fury of the Small, it was a minor balance correction.
Now you are being not analogous.
The change in Fury of the Small is going from once per rest doing 1-20 points of damage, to 2-6 points of damage multiple times a day.
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.
As I mentioned many posts ago, I agree that this interaction isn’t a bug, which is why I created the thread. But RAW, the old Tortle gets AC from a triggered class feature, just the same as carrying around a bag of rats triggers class features that are clearly "intended” to be used in encounters.
The problem is that you seem to be relying on trying to define a class feature as somehow disconnected from other rules, but that's not how it works.
If a class feature provides a benefit that applies only when wearing armour then it is a benefit of wearing armour; it doesn't matter that it's class specific, all that means is that it's a benefit that not everyone can get. This is no different to if an Artificer applied an infusion to the armour (a class feature of Artificer) which wouldn't work for a Tortle either.
I don't think that the new version of the Tortle rule is telling us anything new; it's just telling us the same thing in a much simpler way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
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.
As I mentioned many posts ago, I agree that this interaction isn’t a bug, which is why I created the thread. But RAW, the old Tortle gets AC from a triggered class feature, just the same as carrying around a bag of rats triggers class features that are clearly "intended” to be used in encounters.
The problem is that you seem to be relying on trying to define a class feature as somehow disconnected from other rules, but that's not how it works.
I mean, it's disconnected from many other rules. It's disconnected from the rules for falling damage, it's disconnected from the rules for spell slots. There are tons of rules that don't affect this class feature, and one of them is the Tortle's armor rule.
I brought up the bag of rats because it is the classic example of RAI vs RAW; what was "intended", vs what the rules say. You and I can disagree on what is intended with the Legacy Tortle (and we do), but we can't disagree on what is written: 1. Tortles can wear armor, and 2. Forge Clerics trigger an ability when they wear armor The ability triggers when the cleric wears armor. It doesn't give the armor a benefit, it gives the cleric a benefit. So it does not matter if the cleric can gain the armor's benefit or not. The armor is not providing the benefit being considered.
If Soul of the Forge said "while wearing heavy armor your eyes turn red", you would not argue that the armor's eyes are turning red.
If a class feature provides a benefit that applies only when wearing armour then it is a benefit of wearing armour; it doesn't matter that it's class specific, all that means is that it's a benefit that not everyone can get. This is no different to if an Artificer applied an infusion to the armour (a class feature of Artificer) which wouldn't work for a Tortle either.
Again, this is a false analogy. The Artificer Tortle clearly can apply an infusion to an armor. That application is the class ability being triggered. Our consideration of the triggered ability is now concluded. Once he has done this, his armor now has an additional benefit, and if he were to wear it, he would gain none of its benefits.
The Soul of the Forge does not apply any benefit to the armor. For a third time, I will point out the language used. "While wearing heavy armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC." You. Not the armor. The class ability modifies the CHARACTER's AC and does nothing to the ARMOR's AC. The character is gaining no benefit from the armor. There really is no way to make this more obvious.
The Soul of the Forge does not apply any benefit to the armor. For a third time, I will point out the language used. "While wearing heavy armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC." You. Not the armor. The class ability modifies the CHARACTER's AC and does nothing to the ARMOR's AC. The character is gaining no benefit from the armor. There really is no way to make this more obvious.
This is irrelevant; the benefit still only applies when wearing armour, therefore it is a benefit of wearing armour. You can't just highlight one word while ignoring all of the others.
What you seem to be trying to describe is that somehow the Tortle's rule only applies to benefits specifically applied to the armour itself, but that's not what the Tortle rule says. It says "you gain no benefit from wearing armor", it doesn't care what the source of that benefit might be, only that it's a result of wearing armour. What you want it to say would be something like "you gain none of benefit of any armour you choose to wear" or something along those lines, i.e- specific to the worn armour, not the act of wearing armour.
But that's not the rule, the rule is no benefits from wearing armour, and Soul of the Forge is giving you a benefit from wearing armour. It doesn't matter if it says "you", it's still a benefit from wearing armour.
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.
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.
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.
1. Whenever you have two valid AC calculations in effect, you can choose which to use.
2. The Tortle's Natural Armor ability says that your shell "gives you a base AC of 17" and specifies that "you gain no benefit from wearing armor".
3. The Level 6 Forge Cleric ability "Soul of the Forge" grants the following ability: "While wearing heavy armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC."
I interpret this to mean that I can put on Ring Mail (AC 14), and since I gain no benefit from wearing it, I may choose to use my Natural Armor instead (AC 17).
Soul of the Forge then still causes me to "gain a +1 bonus to AC", making my AC 18, as it specifically does not grant the armor the bonus, it grants you the bonus.
"Soul of the Forge" is clearly worded differently than the Level 1 ability "Blessing of the Forge", which grants a +1 bonus to the armor itself, and therefore provides no bonus if I am using the Natural Armor calculation.
D&D Beyond doesn't seem to be calculating this correctly, but I wanted to make sure I'm accurately interpreting the interaction of these three rules before reporting it.
I don't know if I'd agree with that.
2. "You gain no benefit from wearing armor"
Soul of the Forge is a benefit from wearing armor, even with the armor vs you interpretation...
Which then points to item 1, you would be choosing between the AC 17 Natural vs the AC 14+1 Ring Mail/Soul of the Forge... 17 is higher, and that's what D&D Beyond sheet is calculating.
...for testing purposes, Add AC 18 Plate to your character, equip it, and you'll see the new calculation jump to 19, correctly applying Soul of the Forge. You could then of course, add your Blessing of the Forge and achieve AC 20.
I don't think there is a bug to report here.
Sorry, it's new this week. I guess the reprint on the Tortle from MOTM reads this:
"Natural Armor: Your shell provides you a base AC of 17 (your Dexterity modifier doesn’t affect this number). You can’t wear light, medium, or heavy armor, but if you are using a shield, you can apply the shield’s bonus as normal."
If there was a question previously about Rule as Intended, this new version makes it pretty clear how the intended rules about armor should interact with a Tortle.
So if that rule is a factor for your table, a Tortle Forge Cleric would not be a super ideal combo.
Wow, interesting about the new version of the Tortle! I agree that definitely operates differently then, but I’m using the “Legacy” version from Tortle Package (haven’t bought MotM) and have been since character creation.
I see what you’re saying about interpretation though, so it’s likely not a bug and I will just adjust it manually for our table.
Soul of the Forge says you gain that benefit while wearing heavy armor. If you're not wearing heavy armor, you don't gain that benefit. End of.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Yep. I'm wearing heavy armor.
You might want to actually read the whole post before posting a reply you think is snappy or clever or whatever.
100% true, unless you're discussing a Tortle. Which we are.
RAW for Legacy Tortle: "You gain no benefit from wearing armor" ... it's clear that this was not specific enough, so the new print of Tortle identifies: "You cannot wear armor"
That being said, I would personally have no problem if the DM granted a Tortle Forge Cleric the benefit from Soul of the Forge, but RAW, for both legacy and current, it is not supposed to benefit. +1 AC isn't a game breaker, especially from 17 to 18, which would get a Tortle Cleric the equivalent of Plate without wearing Plate. This is completely reasonable to allow, even if it goes against RAW.
I don't intend to engage any further... enjoy your Tortle, it sounds like a fun character!
It says it right in the description:
Not, you don't gain the armor's AC (or can use it for calculations). It's a flat, NO BENEFIT.
Not sure why you felt this was helpful. Nobody thinks you get any benefit from wearing the armor. You get a benefit from the class ability (Soul of the Forge).
Soul of the Forge is a benefit from wearing armor. You can only get it when you wear heavy armor. But your race precludes you from ANY benefit from wearing armor.
If they only meant that you cannot calculate your AC based on wearing armor, it would have said so. But it just blanket says, "...no benefit..."
For instance, if you wore Armor of Fire Resistance, you would not gain the benefit of fire resistance.
I already went over this. I'm not getting a benefit from wearing armor. I'm getting a benefit from a class ability that has been activated. Class abilities trigger off many things - hitting enemies, using skills, and in this case, wearing armor. Legacy Tortle (what I play) does not prevent the player from WEARING heavy armor (and thus triggering this ability), only from gaining the armor's benefit.
Presumably that's why they changed the text in the reprint to say that Tortles cannot even WEAR armor. There would be no need to change the text if your interpretation was correct, as the meanings would be identical.
Not analogous. The armor (Armor of Fire Resistance) provides the benefit, so yes, of course a tortle would not gain the benefit from wearing armor.
Again, as mentioned in the OP, Soul of the Forge specifically does not grant the armor the bonus, it grants you the bonus.
I'm inclined to agree with Cyberfunkr on this; you're trying to argue that you're only getting the benefits of a class feature, but it's a feature tied specifically to wearing armour, so it's very easily argued to be a benefit of wearing armour (you can't gain the benefit if you're not wearing armour, ergo a benefit of wearing armour).
The fact that WotC changed the wording seems to reinforce this as being the intention, as they've maybe realised that "benefits of wearing armour" was too poorly defined, and that not being able to wear the armour in the first place achieves the exact same result but in a way that is 100% unambiguous.
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.
I agree that the second version was changed because they felt the wording allowed you to do something they didn’t want you do do. But that doesn’t change the original wording which *does* allow it. MOM is not errata, it’s a new version of the races.
My Goblin Artificer does 8 damage once per long rest with Fury of the Small. If I made him with the MOM version, the ability would do 4 damage once per short rest instead. Nobody would argue this was “the original intent” of Fury of the Small, it was a minor balance correction.
As I mentioned many posts ago, I agree that this interaction isn’t a bug, which is why I created the thread. But RAW, the old Tortle gets AC from a triggered class feature, just the same as carrying around a bag of rats triggers class features that are clearly "intended” to be used in encounters.
But it's not RAW, it's your interpretation. But from the responses I'm seeing in this thread, it's not an interpretation that most would agree on. If your DM says it works, then it works. Otherwise, it's just an opinion.
Now you are being not analogous.
The change in Fury of the Small is going from once per rest doing 1-20 points of damage, to 2-6 points of damage multiple times a day.
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.
The problem is that you seem to be relying on trying to define a class feature as somehow disconnected from other rules, but that's not how it works.
If a class feature provides a benefit that applies only when wearing armour then it is a benefit of wearing armour; it doesn't matter that it's class specific, all that means is that it's a benefit that not everyone can get. This is no different to if an Artificer applied an infusion to the armour (a class feature of Artificer) which wouldn't work for a Tortle either.
I don't think that the new version of the Tortle rule is telling us anything new; it's just telling us the same thing in a much simpler way.
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.
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.
I mean, it's disconnected from many other rules. It's disconnected from the rules for falling damage, it's disconnected from the rules for spell slots. There are tons of rules that don't affect this class feature, and one of them is the Tortle's armor rule.
I brought up the bag of rats because it is the classic example of RAI vs RAW; what was "intended", vs what the rules say. You and I can disagree on what is intended with the Legacy Tortle (and we do), but we can't disagree on what is written:
1. Tortles can wear armor, and
2. Forge Clerics trigger an ability when they wear armor
The ability triggers when the cleric wears armor. It doesn't give the armor a benefit, it gives the cleric a benefit. So it does not matter if the cleric can gain the armor's benefit or not. The armor is not providing the benefit being considered.
If Soul of the Forge said "while wearing heavy armor your eyes turn red", you would not argue that the armor's eyes are turning red.
Again, this is a false analogy. The Artificer Tortle clearly can apply an infusion to an armor. That application is the class ability being triggered. Our consideration of the triggered ability is now concluded. Once he has done this, his armor now has an additional benefit, and if he were to wear it, he would gain none of its benefits.
The Soul of the Forge does not apply any benefit to the armor. For a third time, I will point out the language used. "While wearing heavy armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC." You. Not the armor. The class ability modifies the CHARACTER's AC and does nothing to the ARMOR's AC. The character is gaining no benefit from the armor. There really is no way to make this more obvious.
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.
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.
*sigh* No.. I didn't quote everything because I thought it had been quoted enough. But here goes...
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 are right, 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.