Take a look at Page 14 of the Player's Handbook. Paraphrased, it talks about calculating AC - and if there are multiple formulas, you pick the one you want to use (usually the one that grants the highest AC). They don't stack.
'Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use.' (PHB. Page 14).
Wickedogre, there's basically three ways that your AC can get modified in 5th Edition:
By default, a naked character's AC is 10+Dexterity Modifier. The monk and barbarian abilities, or regular armor, or Mage Armor, etc.... they'll all say something like "your Armor Class equals [a number, usually 10] + your [Whatever] modifier [+ maybe even a second modifier]". If a character has access to multiple AC formulas, you can usually pick the one that gives you the highest AC. Formulas can't be combined, you're either using the normal formula or a formula from armor or a one provided by your class.
Other abilities, spells, or equipment may give a bonus to AC. A shield, the Shield, the bonus received from certain fighting styles and feats... these will provide a +X AC bonus that you apply on top of your AC formula.
Finally, a spell like Barkskin just sets your AC to a certain number, which cannot be further modified with bonuses from things like shields.
If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class.
This means that, if you are playing a Barbarian and multiclass into Monk, you do not gain the Unarmored Defense feature from the Monk class at all. Currently D&D Beyond doesn't enforce this rule, but instead takes the more advantageous AC of the two abilities.
That is such a weird rule that I always forget that it exists... It is a complete stand out as probably the only rule in the entire ruleset that punishes future multiclassing decisions for what you did earlier at lower levels, and also is unique by changing the way that gaining features from multiclassing works, but only for two specific classes. It basically treats a class feature like a class proficiency , which... I dunno, I don't like it! It's an unusually harsh and paperwork-complicating rule that also doesn't really serve any conceivable purpose, because you already can only benefit from one AC calculation formula at a time. It almost feels more like draft language from an earlier version of the ruleset that was accidentally left in...
That is such a weird rule that I always forget that it exists... It is a complete stand out as probably the only rule in the entire ruleset that punishes future multiclassing decisions for what you did earlier at lower levels, and also is unique by changing the way that gaining features from multiclassing works, but only for two specific classes. It basically treats a class feature like a class proficiency , which... I dunno, I don't like it! It's an unusually harsh and paperwork-complicating rule that also doesn't really serve any conceivable purpose, because you already can only benefit from one AC calculation formula at a time. It almost feels more like draft language from an earlier version of the ruleset that was accidentally left in...
Dndbeyond, please never "fix" this! :D
What this guy said! I am reading it the way it is printed, I have found the rules that say different. Guess I should read, thanks all.
I agree, it does somewhat feel like the intent of not being able to gain the feature again was to avoid any stacking confusion - which is how I always read it. I can't see the issue in allowing the player to choose either formula - so long as they don't try and add both Wis and Con modifiers. Perhaps they decided being able to switch your unarmoured defence bonus on the fly if, say, you took a penalty to your Con or Wis, was too powerful.
Though it has never come up in any of my games, I'm sure I'd probably house-rule to allow it.
With Rage only applying on Strength attacks, and Strength monks being so rare and hard to build, and with Dexterity or Constitution malus abilities on monsters being so exceedingly rare (nonexistent?)... I just feel like it's pretty unlikely that this rule was the result of any playtesting that identified a problem with monk/barbarians, at least under the current rule system. Weirdness.
Basically do they stack to get +Wis and +Con while wearing no armor and no shield?
I admit I did not do an in-depth look online to see if this was addressed before, any info would be helpful.
Thanks!
Hi Wickedogre,
Take a look at Page 14 of the Player's Handbook. Paraphrased, it talks about calculating AC - and if there are multiple formulas, you pick the one you want to use (usually the one that grants the highest AC). They don't stack.
'Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use.' (PHB. Page 14).
Wickedogre, there's basically three ways that your AC can get modified in 5th Edition:
By default, a naked character's AC is 10+Dexterity Modifier. The monk and barbarian abilities, or regular armor, or Mage Armor, etc.... they'll all say something like "your Armor Class equals [a number, usually 10] + your [Whatever] modifier [+ maybe even a second modifier]". If a character has access to multiple AC formulas, you can usually pick the one that gives you the highest AC. Formulas can't be combined, you're either using the normal formula or a formula from armor or a one provided by your class.
Other abilities, spells, or equipment may give a bonus to AC. A shield, the Shield, the bonus received from certain fighting styles and feats... these will provide a +X AC bonus that you apply on top of your AC formula.
Finally, a spell like Barkskin just sets your AC to a certain number, which cannot be further modified with bonuses from things like shields.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/phb/customization-options#UnarmoredDefense
This means that, if you are playing a Barbarian and multiclass into Monk, you do not gain the Unarmored Defense feature from the Monk class at all. Currently D&D Beyond doesn't enforce this rule, but instead takes the more advantageous AC of the two abilities.
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!"🔊
That is such a weird rule that I always forget that it exists... It is a complete stand out as probably the only rule in the entire ruleset that punishes future multiclassing decisions for what you did earlier at lower levels, and also is unique by changing the way that gaining features from multiclassing works, but only for two specific classes. It basically treats a class feature like a class proficiency , which... I dunno, I don't like it! It's an unusually harsh and paperwork-complicating rule that also doesn't really serve any conceivable purpose, because you already can only benefit from one AC calculation formula at a time. It almost feels more like draft language from an earlier version of the ruleset that was accidentally left in...
Dndbeyond, please never "fix" this! :D
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
What this guy said! I am reading it the way it is printed, I have found the rules that say different. Guess I should read, thanks all.
I agree, it does somewhat feel like the intent of not being able to gain the feature again was to avoid any stacking confusion - which is how I always read it. I can't see the issue in allowing the player to choose either formula - so long as they don't try and add both Wis and Con modifiers. Perhaps they decided being able to switch your unarmoured defence bonus on the fly if, say, you took a penalty to your Con or Wis, was too powerful.
Though it has never come up in any of my games, I'm sure I'd probably house-rule to allow it.
With Rage only applying on Strength attacks, and Strength monks being so rare and hard to build, and with Dexterity or Constitution malus abilities on monsters being so exceedingly rare (nonexistent?)... I just feel like it's pretty unlikely that this rule was the result of any playtesting that identified a problem with monk/barbarians, at least under the current rule system. Weirdness.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.