Does a Tortle’s Natural Armor interfere with the Monk’s Unarmored Movement ability?

The Tortle’s Natural Armor ability says:

Due to your shell and the shape of your body, you are ill-suited to wearing armor. Your shell provides ample protection, however; it gives you a base AC of 17 (your Dexterity modifier doesn’t affect this number). You gain no benefit from wearing armor, but if you are using a shield, you can apply the shield’s bonus as normal.

The Monk’s Unarmored Movement ability says:

Starting at 2nd level, your speed increases by 10 feet while you are not wearing armor or wielding a shield. This bonus increases when you reach certain monk levels, as shown in the Monk table.

The comments on this answer to a related question briefly mention the interaction between Natural Armor and Unarmored Movement, but nothing conclusive is discussed.

It is not clear if Natural Armor counts as worn, or even as armor, for the purposes of the Monk’s Unarmored Movement Ability.

Does a Tortle’s Natural Armor interfere with the Monk’s Unarmored Movement ability?

Does having natural weapons prevent a wild-shaped monk from using Martial Arts?

The monk’s Martial Arts feature’s benefits all require a monk to be “unarmed or only wielding monk weapons”. Even if you’re a Way of the Kensei monk, that only lets you add a couple of new simple or martial weapons to your monk weapon list.

The druid’s Wild Shape forms all come wielding natural weapon attacks. Natural attacks are not unarmed attacks, nor are they monk weapons, nor are they simple or martial weapons that can possibly be chosen by a kensei.

Therefore, a beast is never “unarmed”, and thus can never use a druid/monk’s martial arts benefits even if it wanted to choose to use unarmed strikes instead of its natural attacks.

Is this accurate? Or, can a beast choose not to “wield” it’s teeth and claws?

This blanket prohibition on Martial Arts when one has natural weapons seems overly-restrictive; it would mean, for example, that a Minotaur can never be a monk, since they are “never unarmed.”

I am explicitly not answering the (already answered and very obvious) question of whether animals can make unarmed attacks. I am asking whether they can ever choose not to “wield” their own natural weapons, so as to be able to use martial arts in the first place.

Ranger Natural Explorer

The rule in the PHB states : (emphasis mine)

While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:

The way I read this and how it should be played RAW

When a party with a ranger in his favored terrain starts travelling, the first hour of travel the feature is not active and will activate only starting at the 2nd hour of travel ? So they could become lost during the first hour of travel if the navigator fails a survival check. If they stop travelling for some reason, then they need to again make surival checks for the first hour and then Natural Explorer will quick-in again at the 2nd hour.

Is that correct (as per RAW playing mode) ?

NOTE: We are not playing with UA rules.

Does (a dragon’s) natural armour stack with barding-armour? [duplicate]

Logic suggests dragons may have interest in armour &/or barding, such as making draconic-scale armour from their cast-off scales. Smaug wore iron scales & hard gems after all. But how does this stack-up in 5e?

If i missed the StackExchange 5e answer, my apologies in advance / could not find it.

Two possibilities abound:

1. Of course they stack! Using Smaug from The Hobbit as cannon-canon, extra armour is always good. Example: add dragon’s value of 22 to barding-armour value of 8 or so for a total of… 30? Remove the dexterity bonuses (little dragon-joke here, all wyrms have horrid dexterity) – and throw away Barkskin, as that only works for trees.

2. Of course they don’t stack!! This is 5e and we work with sliding scale / curved averages / weighted probabilities or whatever. One (must?) find(s) the best of the two results. Just as a barbarian (constitution) or monk (wisdom) loses all AC bonuses by wearing a leather jacket on a cool day, so too must dragons struggle. We best not mention helmets. Or a gargantuan dragon with +2 to AC for a wooden buckler on one, um, finger. Ten wee bucklers for +20 AC?

But i digress. Let us ask The Question:

Would a dragon’s ‘extra’ armour-barding stack?

Could Control Weather stop natural disasters?

Ok, I’m kinda curious about this-provided you had a high enough level caster, could one disperse the Category 5 hurricane heading for the defenseless coastal town? Re-aim or destroy the F4 tornado threatening to shred your little village?

According to the spell description, it says ‘When the spell ends, the weather gradually returns to normal’ (link to Roll20)

So does this mean that the hurricane/tornado/blizzard/sandstorm would only be temporarily stopped according to RAW? Or would the storm be dispersed and not return?

Does a natural 20 on an attack cause a critical hit (even if the attack would have missed)?

Related question

I was going over the degrees of success rules in relation to the above question and it’s answers and came across a bit of rules that seem contradictory.

Step 4: Determine degree of success (Core Rulebook, General Rules, Checks p445)

You critically succeed at a check when a check’s result meets or exceeds the DC by 10 or more. If the check is an attack roll, this is sometimes called a critical hit. You can also critically fail a check. The rules for critical failure—sometimes called a fumble—are the same as those for a critical success, but in the other direction: if you fail a check by 10 or more, that’s a critical failure.

If you rolled a 20 on the die (a “natural 20”), your result is one degree of success better than it would be by numbers alone.

We are, in general, pretty familiar of this concept introduced in the playtest era. However, there are more rules that seem like they may be more specific.

Critical Hits (Core Rulebook, Equipment, Weapons, Attack Rolls p278)

When you make an attack and roll a natural 20 (the number on the die is 20), or if the result of your attack exceeds the target’s AC by 10, you achieve a critical success (also known as a critical hit).

If you critically succeed at a Strike, your attack deals double damage (page 451). Other attacks, such as spell attack rolls and some uses of the Athletics skill, describe the specific effects that occur when their outcomes are critical successes.

This second section makes no accounting for "would have been a success/hit", and says that "When you make an attack and roll a natural 20 […] you achieve a critical success." Does this make attack an exception to the rules that natural 20’s only take you one degree higher on success?

Can a creature with a natural walking speed of 0 ft. get up from being prone?

In a one-shot I recently played the players were fighting a homebrewed Weeping Angel (stats). It has a walking speed of 0 ft. and can teleport 80 ft. on its turn under some conditions. One of the players knocked the Weeping Angel, which is essentially a statue, over by using the shove action. On its turn, the Weeping Angel was prone with a speed of 0 ft. It then used its Impossible movement to teleport away and appear upright again.

Now there are three options on how to rule this situation:

  1. The Weeping Angel uses half of 0 ft., so still 0 ft., to get up from being prone and proceeds as normal
  2. The Weeping Angel lifts the prone condition simply by teleporting
  3. The Weeping Angel is prone, and can’t get up anymore

According to the rules, which of this rulings (if any) would be correct?

Does a natural 1 end your attack progression

In many 3.5 games that I have played, a roll of a natural one on an attack roll is not just a miss, but it ends your attack progression. I thought this was an official rule, but I am not finding it anywhere. In fact, when I looked it up in the SRD, it just says that it is a miss. It does not say anything about ending the attack progression.

Am I misremembering? Is a roll of a natural 1 just a miss, and the creature may continue their attack progression as normal? If it is an actual official rule, could someone point me to its location?

examples for languages of natural numbers

I need to find examples for language $ L_i$ $ i\in[1,3]$ of natural numbers that is:

  1. $ L_1\in$ $ RE \backslash R$

  2. $ L_2\in$ $ coRE\backslash R$

  3. $ L_3\in$ $ \overline{ R \cup RE}$

My idea was in any case to take a language in the desired language class, and find some sort of function from the language to the natural numbers. But I do not know if this is the right way to approach the problem, and how exactly to find such function.