D&D 5E Barkskin *Might* Be the Worst Spell Description I've Ever Read

R

Retreater

Legend

• Oct 17, 2018

• #1

It came up in our last game when the druid cast Barkskin on herself that it might be the worst described spell I've yet come across since I started playing AD&D in 1989. "...the target’s AC can’t be less than 16" does not describe what the bonus to AC is or what the effect on the character is. What about Dexterity adjustments? Can the character's AC be better than 16? How did this make it into the final rule printing?

Man, I'm starting to really dislike 5e. It's just so ... sloppy?

 

log in or register to remove this ad

M

Monayuris

Hero

• Oct 17, 2018

• #2

Sounds pretty clear to me.

Check whatever the targets AC currently is (before casting the spell). If it is less than 16, the targets AC becomes 16.

 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

• Oct 17, 2018

• #3

It doesn’t describe what the bonus to AC is because it doesn’t give a bonus to AC. It is, in fact, an extremely efficient spell description, as it says in very precise terms exactly what it does. It prevents your AC from being less than 16. Is your AC 12? Barkskin sets it to 16. Is it 15? Barkskin sets it to 16. Is your AC 17? Then it is not less than 16, so Barkskin doesn’t adjust your AC.

 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing

• Oct 17, 2018

• #4

What [MENTION=6859536]Monayuris[/MENTION] said.

5E can take some getting used to, especially when coming over from older editions. The old way of "start with a number and then find ways to stack bonuses" has been replaced with fixed numbers. Barkskin doesn't give you a bonus to AC, it changes your (minimum) AC to a fixed number. Belt of Giant Strength doesn't give you a bonus to Strength; it changes your Strength score to a fixed number. And so on.

It's really fast and easy, and it makes the game incredibly easy to balance. But if you're looking for the stacking bonuses and high AC values of older editions, you are going to be very frustrated.

 

M

Monayuris

Hero

• Oct 17, 2018

• #5

Monayuris said:

Sounds pretty clear to me.

Check whatever the targets AC currently is (before casting the spell). If it is less than 16, the targets AC becomes 16.

Click to expand...

On my phone... on second read, my response sounds a lot more curt and dismissive than I intended.

I apologize.

 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

• Oct 17, 2018

• #6

The problem with Barkskin is that its effect is very easy to apply, yet very hard to narrate.

 

R

Retreater

Legend

• Oct 17, 2018

• #7

Why not just say "the target's AC becomes 16?" That is much clearer than describing the spell's effects in negative terms: "can't be worse than..."

 

FXR

Explorer

• Oct 17, 2018

• #8

Because if your AC is higher than 16, Barkskin doesn't lower it.

 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

• Oct 17, 2018

• #9

Retreater said:

Why not just say "the target's AC becomes 16?" That is much clearer than describing the spell's effects in negative terms: "can't be worse than..."

Click to expand...

Because that would change its function. With that wording, it could be used to reduce a target’s AC, and it could be modified from that value by things like equipping a shield or going behind cover. With the current wording, if you AC would be less than 16 without Barkskin, it becomes 16, and if your AC would be equal to or greater than 16, it remains that value.

 

the Jester

Legend

• Oct 17, 2018

• #10

This is the first time I have ever heard anyone have trouble understanding barkskin in 5e. I think it's very clear.