And yet, the second third of that rule exists: "You can use your natural armor to determine your AC if the armor you wear would leave you with a lower AC" +1 Leather would leave you at AC 12+Dex. Lower than 13+Dex, so you can use your Natural Armor. So then, how does the "+1 Bonus to AC" from the magic armor fit in? It doesn't say your Armor's AC is increased by 1, but that you get a +1 bonus.

That's not what it says. It uses the same exact verbiage as a Ring of Protection or a Cloak of Protection. "If you wear this, you get +1 to AC." Not "The AC value of this armor is increased by 1."

@guildsbounty But you can't use natural armor if you're wearing the Leather Armor, no?

@NautArch "You can use your natural armor to determine your AC if the armor you wear would leave you with a lower AC." You can wear the leather armor, but still use your Natural AC because the leather armor leaves you with a lower AC. That is the crux of this question.

@guildsbounty But the previous line is saying you can't wear armor if you want to use natural armor. While the sentence you quote is pretty poorly written, it shouldn't override the previous and intent seems to be saying that "if the armor you would wear would leave with you with..." But if it can be read the other way, this should go onto the cheeseboard :)

@NautArch I agree that this probably isn't intended (as I said in my answer). But if it was not intended that you could wear armor, but still use your better Natural AC, then why is the second phrase there at all? Why include a phrase that says you can use your Natural AC if it's better than the AC of your armor--if that wasn't an intended function? I think this is more of an issue with how +1 Armor is defined, not how the Lizardfolk's Natural Armor is defined.

@guildsbounty I think it's what I said in my previous comment. That they are saying if wearing armor would be lower than your natural AC, then you can use your natural AC. But that still must be used without wearing armor due to the first line. They do work together because the second sentence is just telling you how to figure out which one you use.

@NautArch I strongly disagree on grounds of sensibility. Why would a lizardfolk suddenly become less durable because he put a leather suit on? Light armor is the protectiveness of the armor + your ability to avoid harm. Why did the lizardfolk's tough, durable skin stop being protective because they put a sheet of leather over it? That is, IMO, why that rule exists. The lizardfolk doesn't stop having tough skin just because they put some armor on. If their skin is tougher than the armor, you use their natural calculation.

@guildsbounty I also strongly disagree on the grounds of sensibility :) No way is a lizard folk supposed to turn regular magical armor into straight AC bonus even when not actively using the armor.

@guildsbounty this reading implies that you could stack many pieces of enchanted armor on top of each other, then say "I do not get the AC from each armor, but I still get the +1 from wearing them". Is that correct?

^^

Which I think is a problem with how "+1 Armor" is phrased, not with how the Lizardfolk's natural armor is phrased.

Just to be clear, this may be what the actual text says due to poor wording.

@Matthieu Sure, except that's not the only rule in the books. See the DMG section on magic items: "A character can’t normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, and one cloak."

I just really don't think that's the case and reading it that way is...cheese.

and I'm unfortunately dairy-free now.

@NautArch 'tis a shame, the cheese on the cheese board is quite delectable

I totally agree that it's cheese, which is why in my answer I acknowledged that it's probably not intended. And my answer was a strictly "rules as written" not "rules as I'd rule it" response.

I think you can lean more into that be clearer and say what the risks/problems/consequences are of using this reading.

But again, the issue in my opinion is the wording of +1 Armor being identical to the wording of a Cloak/Ring of Protection. "If you wear it, you get the bonus" not "if you're using this to calculate your AC, you get the bonus" or "if you wear it, the armor's AC value gets the bonus."

Yeah, it basically turns +1 Leather into +2 Studded when worn by a Lizardfolk.

BUt the Cloak/Ring don't have the prior line about not being able to use Y if you are wearing them.

Neither does the armor. That's the Lizardfolk's rules.

And, again....it's structured as a conditional override.

"When you are not wearing armor, calculate your AC like this. If the armor you are wearing is worse than that value, use that value."

Not "if the armor you are wearing is worse than that value, let me give you some guidance on making better life choices about what you wear." Nothing else in the game is structured like that.

"Pick the better numbers" is obvious

You don't need a codified racial trait to tell you that.

I'm also pretty sure the "would" in the sentence we're discussing is not in the right place.

But it is in the place that it's in :)

I still think you can update your answer with a clearer discussion about this (like what we're having here.)

I'm working on it

sweet.

fwiw, I my gut is that guildsbounty is correct raw, but not allowed at my table

I think you're right @goodguy5, and also would NEVER be allowed at my table.

One of those "this clearly isn't right, so we're not playing it that way" instances.

Maybe once, for one session, for the lulz

But I'm also pretty generally against the modifiers in my games. I really do think 5e was not made for a lot of them.

And runs much better without (although we also use better stats, so that may skew my impressions)

@guildsbounty Nice update! Did you want to include any discussion on the first phrase in relation to the third?

please explain?

Fair enough - just that there was enough discussion in here about it it seemed like it might be helpful to include in your answer (which will likely be selected).

Cleaned up my comments, too.

Added a tiny blurb up near the top. Thanks for the discussion, all..have a good one.