guildsbounty

But I don't think that this particular question was the place to get hung up on the exact nature of your homebrew as "Spells from Source A use the spellcasting attribute of Source A" is a concrete enough rule despite the other deviations from the rules.

That's why everyone keeps saying homebrew. Homebrew is a very broad, very generic term for "You're using rules that aren't in the book" whether that's a new creature, or a way of using a monster manual creature as a player character, or even something as simple as allowing players to roll 5d6 (keep best three) for their stats so they get better numbers. All homebrew

Though what everyone else is saying is spot-on. Using a monster from the DMG is NOT in the character creation rules. That's why everyone is saying it's homebrew. You're not using a homebrew creature, but you are not using the official rules to create your character.

In short: "Closed question" means "needs improvement before it's ready for answers" not "this is a bad question and it shouldn't exist."

Ah, I see. So, this is actually a little quirk in how The Stack works. If a question is not up to "will produce a good answer" standards, typical policy is to close the question and then help the asker refine the question to a good level--then re-open it. The idea is to not allow people to answer a question if the community-at-large thinks the question isn't ready to be answered. If you need a more thorough discussion on "who does this keep getting closed and how can I make it better" then you can hit up the Meta channel: rpg.meta.stackexchange.com

This question seems perfectly clear to me--though it is viewed through the lens of a particular character option that includes Homebrew. A similar non-homebrew example could be a Tiefling Cleric--they gain a cantrip and two spells with a "Charisma" spellcasting modifier, and then their entire class worth of spells with a "Wisdom" spellcasting mod.

@Dave It's the same wording. But their AC floor is 12+Dex which, as mentioned a few comments up, is less than or equal to the value of any +x armor. +1 Padded gives you AC 12+Dex. So, essentially...except for the Lizardfolk--this just never comes up which is likely why there are no rules around it.

@NautArch And only the Lizardfolk, as it happens. Because the other two races with similar Natural Armor features (Loxodon and Locathah) have their floor at 12+Dex, which is matched or surpassed by any magic armor.

@Dave There, just hacked that phrase out--it was honestly unnecessary to the answer anyway.

@Dave Fair enough, I'll adjust the phrasing.

@Dave The way I interpret it is that the Lizardfolk is wearing and using the armor...but +1 Armor is Better Armor. But the better armor still isn't as good as the Lizardfolk's skin. It's not that the Better Armor somehow makes their skin better.

@Dave it's not strictly the benefit attained, it's the method by which it is gotten. Exact-wording your way into additional benefit.

@Anagkai Read the rest of the rule. "When you aren't wearing armor, your AC is 13 + your Dexterity modifier. You can use your natural armor to determine your AC if the armor you wear would leave you with a lower AC. The second phrase applies a conditional override on the first phrase. If it didn't, then why is that second phrase there?

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

I'm working on it

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

"Pick the better numbers" is obvious

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.

"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."

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

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

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

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."

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.

@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."

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

@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.

@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.

@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.

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."

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.

Addendum: Hold Person is a Wis save. So those two spells stack beautifully. If they fail Devolve Person, they auto-fail Hold Person.

@Andrendire I was primarily speaking of combat as well. The vast bulk of the spells I mentioned are usable in combat. Geas and Imprisonment being the only two I listed that lack a '1 Action' cast time. Yes, Disintegrate can kill a target very effectively, but they may survive if they have enough HP. But Feeblemind is an immediate end to a spellcaster, and a lot of other wis/int spells immediately remove the target from the fight. No amount of HP can help them.

@Andrendire I tend to disagree, because spells that target Str/Dex tend to be damage dealing spells, and a creature with enough hit points can still weather that. Spells that target Wis/Int can just straight-up eliminate (or flip!) a target. Feeblemind, Geas, Dominate Person, Imprisonment, Polymorph (in all its forms), Modify Memory, Suggestion. It is, perhaps, telling that there are 4 different Conditions that cause auto-failure of Dex/Str, but no conditions that cause auto-failure of any other Save type.

@TKoL I believe the basic thing you're seeing is in part the nature of the Stack. People tossing in their personal take about how a ruling could be made is the sort of opinion-based answers that this stack doesn't really like all that much. If you want advice on how you could rule something like this, a forum or reddit is a better place to go. The rules of this stack tend to make us as facts-focused as possible.

Anyway, I'm off...have a nice day

Though...if you do choose to show this to your DM....I mean, all three answers you have so far are saying "No." So, probably not a strong place to make an argument from.

However, feel free to show your DM this debate, and if you can convince your DM that they should let you do this...then sure, have fun. You're not one of my players so you don't answer to me. DM's are free to ignore RAW and RAI if they so choose.

I rather strongly disagree with you on that. "Your clothing and equipment aren't changed by this trait." "Aren't Changed" rather implies "Cannot add to"

On the other hand, if my player said "I want to use my ability to alter my own body to grow things that are not normally part of a living creature's body" then I would say no.

Now, if my player suggested using the Shapechanger trait in such a way to, basically, body-paint themselves in order to create a pseudo-disguise...then I would personally allow that. It's a clever use of the ability to 'alter your coloration.' It would hold up to casual inspection...but would not be as useful as someone who spent actual money and effort on an actual disguise or outfit.

The functional theme of the Shapechanger trait, by my reading, is that it is intended to allow you to alter your body to look like someone else. The specific exclusion about clothing tells me that if you want clothing, you must procure it. Not just "okay, I take my armor off and grow a fancy dress gown."

My personal interpretation of this is "If you cannot change your clothing or equipment, that includes creating clothing or equipment where none existed previously."

Because the rules say "Your clothing and equipment aren't changed by this trait" and that's all that feature has to say about clothing.

I have prefaced literally everything I have said to you with "This is how I would run it as a DM"

it's listed in the Adventuring Gear equipment table

And clothing is equipment

braid it together, you can totally make a rope out of it

hair is extremely strong...