The DM could just rule that the magic of the ring will not work through the armor so it must be on the outside to work. Sort of like when magic items are inside your bag of holding they do not work until brought out and brandished.
So does that mean at your table you have to use a bonus action and an action to drink a potion on your turn?
Yes, I have to use my bonus action to open my helmet, Action to consume the potion. We genuinely treat this as though it is a sealed ironman helmet for breathing and such as well.
I wouldn't mind that ruling I am just looking to see what the actual rules say for rings and armor. So the biggest issue I have here is the Wizards of the Coast lack of support for the class. They through out a bunch of fun stuff and then said, good luck figure out how it works for us.
At our table an unconscious individual cannot be unwilling as that requires a conscious act so the arcane armor could be removed or manipulated to get to the ring even if worn inside. The ring could be removed.
The actual rules are pretty much what I quoted for you earlier. Items that are worn and meant to be worn in the intended way. In a couple of places it is stated that rings are intended to be worn on the finger.
I am firmly in the camp that items that are worn on the body are closer to your body than a suit of armor that "attaches to you" and "covers" your body. My interpretation is that you don't have to strip off articles of clothing and other items that are worn before donning this armor. But, you would have to remove satchels and pouches and things that you are generally "carrying" but not really "wearing", probably including small items that might be carried inside the pockets of your clothing since you wouldn't be wearing the armor "as intended" if loosely carried but unworn items are stored under it.
I read against your will as, without express content.
I think that this is a stretch. Against your will implies that you are actively resisting. Without consent means that the thing just cannot be done without my permission which means that it can't be done if I take no action at all. I think that there's a difference but we're definitely getting into the realm of DM interpretation when we decide how "against your will" may or may not interact with the unconscious condition.
One of the nice features about this particular armor being discussed is that it includes a benefit that you can doff or don that armor with one action, so it becomes pretty trivial. For regular store-bought armor, you could look at the Chapter 5 equipment description for whichever type you have -- some explicitly include gauntlets and some don't, for example. Not sure how I feel about enforcing the full doffing time for a suit of armor just to remove one gauntlet so that you can put on a ring though. if there was some time sensitive reason why this actually becomes an issue then that might be a DM's call sort of thing if such timeframes could be shortened for the partial-doffing.
The DM could just rule that the magic of the ring will not work through the armor so it must be on the outside to work.
Sort of like when magic items are inside your bag of holding they do not work until brought out and brandished.
If its on the outside it can be removed.
Yes, I have to use my bonus action to open my helmet, Action to consume the potion. We genuinely treat this as though it is a sealed ironman helmet for breathing and such as well.
I wouldn't mind that ruling I am just looking to see what the actual rules say for rings and armor. So the biggest issue I have here is the Wizards of the Coast lack of support for the class. They through out a bunch of fun stuff and then said, good luck figure out how it works for us.
At our table an unconscious individual cannot be unwilling as that requires a conscious act so the arcane armor could be removed or manipulated to get to the ring even if worn inside. The ring could be removed.
The actual rules are pretty much what I quoted for you earlier. Items that are worn and meant to be worn in the intended way. In a couple of places it is stated that rings are intended to be worn on the finger.
I am firmly in the camp that items that are worn on the body are closer to your body than a suit of armor that "attaches to you" and "covers" your body. My interpretation is that you don't have to strip off articles of clothing and other items that are worn before donning this armor. But, you would have to remove satchels and pouches and things that you are generally "carrying" but not really "wearing", probably including small items that might be carried inside the pockets of your clothing since you wouldn't be wearing the armor "as intended" if loosely carried but unworn items are stored under it.
I think that this is a stretch. Against your will implies that you are actively resisting. Without consent means that the thing just cannot be done without my permission which means that it can't be done if I take no action at all. I think that there's a difference but we're definitely getting into the realm of DM interpretation when we decide how "against your will" may or may not interact with the unconscious condition.
For the "under the armor" crowd would that mean one would have to take off the armor to don a new ring or to identify it during your rest period?
Identify? No. You can hold it in your armored hand and investigate it just fine.
But you'd definitely have to remove the armor to add a ring.
One of the nice features about this particular armor being discussed is that it includes a benefit that you can doff or don that armor with one action, so it becomes pretty trivial. For regular store-bought armor, you could look at the Chapter 5 equipment description for whichever type you have -- some explicitly include gauntlets and some don't, for example. Not sure how I feel about enforcing the full doffing time for a suit of armor just to remove one gauntlet so that you can put on a ring though. if there was some time sensitive reason why this actually becomes an issue then that might be a DM's call sort of thing if such timeframes could be shortened for the partial-doffing.