The character sheet is not correctly totaling the armor class for a Lizardfolk Monk. The Natural Armor of the Lizardfolk is not being added to the total.
My Lizardfolk Monk currently looks like this:
Armor Class: 15
10
Armor(None)
+3
Unarmored Bonus(Unarmored Defense)
+2
Dexterity Bonus
I created a test Lizardfolk Wizard who looks like this:
Armor Class: 15
10
Armor(None)
+3
Unarmored Bonus(Natural Armor )
+2
Dexterity Bonus
The Natural Armor is missing from the Monk character sheet. The Unarmored bonus of the LIzardfolk and Monk should stack. There is no mechanical or lore reason that they should not.
Actually, they don’t stack. Natural armor is not an AC bonus. Both are armor calculations, which means you have to pick one. Just like Mage Armor wouldn’t stack with unarmored defense.
OK, I found the actual reference. Page 14 of the Player's Handbook states, "If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use." References are important.
That's real stupid. Why even give it natural armor at all? If you don't benefit from it while wearing armor, and you don't benefit from it on top of unarmored defense, and you don't benefit from it with mage armor, why have it at all? That literally eliminates its usefulness to every class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Come on guys, do you really think I cursed ALL the loot?
That literally eliminates its usefulness to every class.
No, it doesn't.
"I could just wear armor instead" yes, you can - at least sometimes. The benefit is that you don't have to wear armor to get a better AC than just 10 + your dexterity modifier.
"but my unarmored defense" having natural armor gives you a chance at the same AC without as much investment in your relevant ability scores, so it's still a benefit.
"I can cast mage armor" but having natural armor means you could spend that limited resource of knowing the spell and spending a spell slot on casting it on some other spell instead, which is a benefit - as is the natural armor not being limited to an 8 hour duration.
The only thing eliminated by treating natural armor as not adding together with other AC calculation methods is characters with natural armor having a higher maximum potential AC - and eliminating that just makes the game more likely to keep working as intended, so it's not a bad thing to eliminate.
All those points you made are fair, but I don't want to dump Wisdom. I need it for relevant skills like Perception.
Racial features should exist to strengthen characters in ways that would otherwise be unavailable to you. It's part of what makes picking a race a unique and interesting choice, and one that has consequences and benefits that add to the storytelling element of the game. This rule effectively removes the importance of picking a class when the book tells you you can't do the cool thing you thought you'd be able to do. It's especially aggravating for the lizardfolk monk scenario. Why wouldn't a lizardfolk monk naturally have a higher armor class than a non-lizardfolk monk with the same ability scores? Being a monk does not cause a lizardfolk to become scaleless, and being a lizardfolk should not counteract the monk training that allows them to add their Wisdom to their AC in the first place. It doesn't make any sense.that natural armor doesn't stack. It's a part of what the lizardfolk is. It isn't like caster's wearing armor where the argument can be made that armor interferes with the act of casting spells. That at least has a line of logic that can be followed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Come on guys, do you really think I cursed ALL the loot?
I'll disagree with you there - racial features don't have to strengthen characters directly, they can add versatility.
Consider a Lizardfolk rogue who has accepted an invitation to a masked ball, hoping to use it to steal some treasures, but they get rumbled and have to fight their way out - that natural AC is pretty useful in situations where it's not possible to wear armour - jail breaks, walking around in the city etc.
As a Monk character, picking any race that has a natural AC is going to find that the natural AC is a waste though.
That's real stupid. Why even give it natural armor at all? If you don't benefit from it while wearing armor, and you don't benefit from it on top of unarmored defense, and you don't benefit from it with mage armor, why have it at all? That literally eliminates its usefulness to every class.
I believe the warforged race give you a permanent +1 bonus to AC. it seems like that might be what you prefer. But to answer why natural armor doesn't stack, if you put iron inside of plate mail, the plate mail will protect the iron to the same amount that it would if a sponge were in it. In other words, the outer armor is what matters and not what's inside. Unless you're made of glass, but that's a different material issue dealing with breakability.
Consider a Lizardfolk rogue who has accepted an invitation to a masked ball, hoping to use it to steal some treasures, but they get rumbled and have to fight their way out - that natural AC is pretty useful in situations where it's not possible to wear armour - jail breaks, walking around in the city etc.
As a Monk character, picking any race that has a natural AC is going to find that the natural AC is a waste though.
This is really good! Natural armor is perfect in these situations. Or in a campaign where everyone removes their armor for sleep. If they are snuck up on in the middle of the night, everyone else will have low ac, except for the creatures with natural armor.
But to answer why natural armor doesn't stack, if you put iron inside of plate mail, the plate mail will protect the iron to the same amount that it would if a sponge were in it. In other words, the outer armor is what matters and not what's inside. Unless you're made of glass, but that's a different material issue dealing with breakability.
Consider a Lizardfolk rogue who has accepted an invitation to a masked ball, hoping to use it to steal some treasures, but they get rumbled and have to fight their way out - that natural AC is pretty useful in situations where it's not possible to wear armour - jail breaks, walking around in the city etc.
As a Monk character, picking any race that has a natural AC is going to find that the natural AC is a waste though.
This is really good! Natural armor is perfect in these situations. Or in a campaign where everyone removes their armor for sleep. If they are snuck up on in the middle of the night, everyone else will have low ac, except for the creatures with natural armor.
Pretty sure he understands it doesnt stack with armor. I agree it -shouldnt- stack with armor. But I cannot understand why it screws you out of being a monk. It just turns off your ability to add wis to ac cause you got scales? Yes +3 ac is strong. But in essence it counters the fact that you arent ever getting +3 armor like a plate wielder gets.
The issues is this... that 13 + Dex ac is a big part of their racial balance the same was Wis to ac is a huge factor on monk balancing. By going lizardfolk monk you essentially eliminate either a class feature or a racial feature from your sheet.
It would be like Wood Elf not getting to use their base 35 feet move speed when they go monk.
Or Drow/Tritons losing their spell casting features if they take a casting class. It just sadly doesnt make since.
As far as balance goes I feel like the 13 base ac makes up for the fact they can never get +3 armor like other classes.
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.
Notice that it says some SPELLS and CLASS FEATURES. Not RACIAL FEATURES. so the lizards feature being from his race and not SPELL OR CLASS, it should be able to stack with his class.
The restrictions were made to avoid multi class and spells giving out of control ac. For example a barbarian monk should not be able to stack Dex +con+ Wis. They either choose Dex +con or Dex+Wis.
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.
Notice that it says some SPELLS and CLASS FEATURES. Not RACIAL FEATURES. so the lizards feature being from his race and not SPELL OR CLASS, it should be able to stack with his class.
The restrictions were made to avoid multi class and spells giving out of control ac. For example a barbarian monk should not be able to stack Dex +con+ Wis. They either choose Dex +con or Dex+Wis.
That was probably due to the fact that at the time there was no player race in the PHB that would grant natural armor.
Was this short-sighted? probably Is it unfair? not at all
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I like to think of AC more of avoidance class than armor class due to the way the mechanics work. Being more dexterous doesn't make your armor magically better; you are harder to hit because you dodge. In the case of a monk's AC, they are more dexterous and able to dodge, but they also have learned that certain movements indicate an incoming attack. They use these abilities to dodge attacks or block them from striking, not to redirect the ones that actually strike their body. Whereas, a lizardfolk's natural armor would allow them to shrug off those strikes. Since most monks aren't Lizardfolk, they wouldn't know how to teach a lizardfolk monk how to incorporate their natural armor into the fighting style and it's completely plausible that there would be weak points involved when a block misses. IF I were to rule that lizardfolk could stack unarmored defense with natural armor as a DM, I would only allow it at 20th level with the understanding that the lizardfolk finally had enough practical practice incorporating the natural armor into the fighting style and adjusting the blocks accordingly.
I think the AC's should stack because whereas wearing armour would stop the scales for being useful, they should be counted for someone wearing normal clothes, however good that person is at dodging.
The conflict simply comes from one of the fundamental issues I have always had with D&D Armor Class: it is supposed to be a representation of the combination of protective capabilities of the creature, counting on pure avoidance (dodging) as much as pure stopping power (parrying, resistance/absorption of shield and armor used).
This makes little sense, to me at least, and I always considered we should instead have armor act as damage reduction, and shields as a sort of "save against hit" when avoidance (calculated as something like 10+Reflex save bonus as a base) fails. [EDIT: the whole idea is much more complicated than this, but it was just to give the idea of what I envision]
Sadly this would mean a MAJOR overhaul of the combat system, and D&D in its 5ed incarnation is about simplicity and straightforwardness, and such a house rule would potentially complicate it a tad too much, aside from generating the need of modifying all adversaries used.
The current system has imperfection and weird overlaps that do not work together as they theoretically should, but that's the price for a fundamentally simple and approachable system.
Which would be fine if you wanted to rule it that way as the DM. My suggestion would be to have them "stack" by using the 13 (or 12 from some other races) + the dex modifier that either one uses (but not twice) + the con modifier if the source of unarmored defense is barbarian or natural armor is from loxodon + wis modifier if UD is from monk + shield if monk UD is not factored.
This would give a theoretical max ac of:
Lizardfolk barbarian with shield
13 + 5 dex + 5 con (7 if barbarian capstone achieved pushing con to 24) +2 from nonmagical shield=13 + 12 (14) =25 (27) which isn't game a breaking home brew as it's increasing the AC by 3 if it's only available at a higher level. The only magical bonuses available are from the shield which negates the magical bonuses available from magical armor.
Lizardfolk monk
13 + 5 dex + 5 wis = 23 which is also just the 3 increase.
Loxodon monk
12 + 5 con + 5 dex + 5 wis= 12 + 15 = 27. This one gives an increase of 7 which is quite the significant boost even though it's the same as the high end lizardfolk barbarian. This is much better than a monk is supposed to have and potentially changes the tactics that the monk would use. I think that I would cap the bonus to +3 similar to medium armor and the dex modifier.
Loxodon barbarian is the same as lizardfolk barbarian with the exception of the 12 instead of the 13.
Stacking otherwise if you add either natural armor on top of either unarmored defense or add the unarmored defenses together, you get at least 20 AC with out an positive or negative modifiers. If this were a possibility, the most MAD of builds would suddenly be unlocked to even the unluckiest of random rolls as there would be no concern for defensive stats and only offensive stats. This is essentially the goal of these options anyway as they stand, particularly loxodon natural armor that gives hp and AC in the same stat.
Also, I like LeK's response not only in regards to AC but to many of the incongruencies regarding the rules.
They don’t stack. Sage advice compendium from wizards released earlier this year goes over a bunch of questions. One of which is covers Armor. It also states it in the first chapter of the PhD. If you have multiple ways of determining AC, you choose one. They have it this way to keep the game balanced, so a pc isn’t too overpowered compared to others. It’s similar to the multiclassing rules for spell casting classes.
The character sheet is not correctly totaling the armor class for a Lizardfolk Monk. The Natural Armor of the Lizardfolk is not being added to the total.
My Lizardfolk Monk currently looks like this:
I created a test Lizardfolk Wizard who looks like this:
The Natural Armor is missing from the Monk character sheet. The Unarmored bonus of the LIzardfolk and Monk should stack. There is no mechanical or lore reason that they should not.
Actually, they don’t stack. Natural armor is not an AC bonus. Both are armor calculations, which means you have to pick one. Just like Mage Armor wouldn’t stack with unarmored defense.
They should not. Different methods to calculate AC do not stack.
OK, I found the actual reference. Page 14 of the Player's Handbook states, "If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use." References are important.
That's real stupid. Why even give it natural armor at all? If you don't benefit from it while wearing armor, and you don't benefit from it on top of unarmored defense, and you don't benefit from it with mage armor, why have it at all? That literally eliminates its usefulness to every class.
Come on guys, do you really think I cursed ALL the loot?
All those points you made are fair, but I don't want to dump Wisdom. I need it for relevant skills like Perception.
Racial features should exist to strengthen characters in ways that would otherwise be unavailable to you. It's part of what makes picking a race a unique and interesting choice, and one that has consequences and benefits that add to the storytelling element of the game. This rule effectively removes the importance of picking a class when the book tells you you can't do the cool thing you thought you'd be able to do. It's especially aggravating for the lizardfolk monk scenario. Why wouldn't a lizardfolk monk naturally have a higher armor class than a non-lizardfolk monk with the same ability scores? Being a monk does not cause a lizardfolk to become scaleless, and being a lizardfolk should not counteract the monk training that allows them to add their Wisdom to their AC in the first place. It doesn't make any sense.that natural armor doesn't stack. It's a part of what the lizardfolk is. It isn't like caster's wearing armor where the argument can be made that armor interferes with the act of casting spells. That at least has a line of logic that can be followed.
Come on guys, do you really think I cursed ALL the loot?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersI'll disagree with you there - racial features don't have to strengthen characters directly, they can add versatility.
Consider a Lizardfolk rogue who has accepted an invitation to a masked ball, hoping to use it to steal some treasures, but they get rumbled and have to fight their way out - that natural AC is pretty useful in situations where it's not possible to wear armour - jail breaks, walking around in the city etc.
As a Monk character, picking any race that has a natural AC is going to find that the natural AC is a waste though.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Published Subclasses
The issues is this... that 13 + Dex ac is a big part of their racial balance the same was Wis to ac is a huge factor on monk balancing. By going lizardfolk monk you essentially eliminate either a class feature or a racial feature from your sheet.
It would be like Wood Elf not getting to use their base 35 feet move speed when they go monk.
Or Drow/Tritons losing their spell casting features if they take a casting class. It just sadly doesnt make since.
As far as balance goes I feel like the 13 base ac makes up for the fact they can never get +3 armor like other classes.
The AC restrictions on the book says that:
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.
Notice that it says some SPELLS and CLASS FEATURES. Not RACIAL FEATURES. so the lizards feature being from his race and not SPELL OR CLASS, it should be able to stack with his class.
The restrictions were made to avoid multi class and spells giving out of control ac. For example a barbarian monk should not be able to stack Dex +con+ Wis. They either choose Dex +con or Dex+Wis.
This post from Sage Advice explains Lizardfolk with Barbarian Unarmored Defense, I don't see why it wouldn't go with Monk Unarmored Defense. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/19/does-the-new-lizardfolks-natural-armor-affect-a-barbarian-unarmored-defense/ The bonuses do not stack.
Published Subclasses
Is it unfair? not at all
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I like to think of AC more of avoidance class than armor class due to the way the mechanics work. Being more dexterous doesn't make your armor magically better; you are harder to hit because you dodge. In the case of a monk's AC, they are more dexterous and able to dodge, but they also have learned that certain movements indicate an incoming attack. They use these abilities to dodge attacks or block them from striking, not to redirect the ones that actually strike their body. Whereas, a lizardfolk's natural armor would allow them to shrug off those strikes. Since most monks aren't Lizardfolk, they wouldn't know how to teach a lizardfolk monk how to incorporate their natural armor into the fighting style and it's completely plausible that there would be weak points involved when a block misses. IF I were to rule that lizardfolk could stack unarmored defense with natural armor as a DM, I would only allow it at 20th level with the understanding that the lizardfolk finally had enough practical practice incorporating the natural armor into the fighting style and adjusting the blocks accordingly.
I think the AC's should stack because whereas wearing armour would stop the scales for being useful, they should be counted for someone wearing normal clothes, however good that person is at dodging.
The conflict simply comes from one of the fundamental issues I have always had with D&D Armor Class: it is supposed to be a representation of the combination of protective capabilities of the creature, counting on pure avoidance (dodging) as much as pure stopping power (parrying, resistance/absorption of shield and armor used).
This makes little sense, to me at least, and I always considered we should instead have armor act as damage reduction, and shields as a sort of "save against hit" when avoidance (calculated as something like 10+Reflex save bonus as a base) fails. [EDIT: the whole idea is much more complicated than this, but it was just to give the idea of what I envision]
Sadly this would mean a MAJOR overhaul of the combat system, and D&D in its 5ed incarnation is about simplicity and straightforwardness, and such a house rule would potentially complicate it a tad too much, aside from generating the need of modifying all adversaries used.
The current system has imperfection and weird overlaps that do not work together as they theoretically should, but that's the price for a fundamentally simple and approachable system.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Which would be fine if you wanted to rule it that way as the DM. My suggestion would be to have them "stack" by using the 13 (or 12 from some other races) + the dex modifier that either one uses (but not twice) + the con modifier if the source of unarmored defense is barbarian or natural armor is from loxodon + wis modifier if UD is from monk + shield if monk UD is not factored.
This would give a theoretical max ac of:
Lizardfolk barbarian with shield
13 + 5 dex + 5 con (7 if barbarian capstone achieved pushing con to 24) +2 from nonmagical shield=13 + 12 (14) =25 (27) which isn't game a breaking home brew as it's increasing the AC by 3 if it's only available at a higher level. The only magical bonuses available are from the shield which negates the magical bonuses available from magical armor.
Lizardfolk monk
13 + 5 dex + 5 wis = 23 which is also just the 3 increase.
Loxodon monk
12 + 5 con + 5 dex + 5 wis= 12 + 15 = 27. This one gives an increase of 7 which is quite the significant boost even though it's the same as the high end lizardfolk barbarian. This is much better than a monk is supposed to have and potentially changes the tactics that the monk would use. I think that I would cap the bonus to +3 similar to medium armor and the dex modifier.
Loxodon barbarian is the same as lizardfolk barbarian with the exception of the 12 instead of the 13.
Stacking otherwise if you add either natural armor on top of either unarmored defense or add the unarmored defenses together, you get at least 20 AC with out an positive or negative modifiers. If this were a possibility, the most MAD of builds would suddenly be unlocked to even the unluckiest of random rolls as there would be no concern for defensive stats and only offensive stats. This is essentially the goal of these options anyway as they stand, particularly loxodon natural armor that gives hp and AC in the same stat.
Also, I like LeK's response not only in regards to AC but to many of the incongruencies regarding the rules.
They don’t stack. Sage advice compendium from wizards released earlier this year goes over a bunch of questions. One of which is covers Armor. It also states it in the first chapter of the PhD. If you have multiple ways of determining AC, you choose one. They have it this way to keep the game balanced, so a pc isn’t too overpowered compared to others. It’s similar to the multiclassing rules for spell casting classes.