-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Barkskin *Might* Be the Worst Spell Description I've Ever Read
- Thread starter Retreater
- Start date
This is one of those spells that is both very clear yet very poorly worded. Yes, it is clear that your minimum AC is now 16, but this is I think the ONLY example of that in the game. Every other item or spell affecting AC provides a base, or a bonus, and some limits, and can usually be modified by Dex or some other factors. So while it is pretty clear RAW wise, it's uniqueness in how it works is legit cause for some confusion.
D
dco
Guest
They should also get past the clothes to hit/touch you if that is your point and clothes don't get AC bonus.
D
dco
Guest
We are talking about how to explain or narrate what happens with armor. The armor reduces damage in the real world and in the game it makes you difficult to hit, the effect is less damage in both cases but how you get there is different. In this game a standing person not moving has more chances to avoid a hit from a titan with a two handed sword using a leather armor, or the armor has the same chances to avoid all damage of a fork or a titan 's two handed sword. For me this makes as much sense at the time of narrating the effect as the barkskin spell, that's all, for others it seems armor acting like force fields is part of their reality, but in that case, not sure why clothes don't act the same way.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Reading the Loxodon description I could see barkskin rewritten to match that of the natural armor trait.
"If your armor would leave you with a lower AC you can chose to use AC 12+Constitution bonus. You can still use a shield." So it is nearly crystal clear that the AC 12+Con part is only used to replace the armor and nothing else.
Even though I think it is not a good thing to take dexterity out of the equation but still allow it for light and medium armor. But that is just my personal quibble.
"If your armor would leave you with a lower AC you can chose to use AC 12+Constitution bonus. You can still use a shield." So it is nearly crystal clear that the AC 12+Con part is only used to replace the armor and nothing else.
Even though I think it is not a good thing to take dexterity out of the equation but still allow it for light and medium armor. But that is just my personal quibble.
Harzel
Adventurer
Simple in an absolute sense perhaps, but (although I'd have to agree in the abstract at least) that's subjective.
What is objectively true is that it makes AC calculation more complicated; every AC calculation now has the 'min' function tacked on. That might be ok if there was some benefit to having it this way rather than something that fit more smoothly into the more usual AC calculations.
Harzel
Adventurer
If consistency is a desideratum, Barkskin as specified by JC's sage advice is most certainly an epic fail.
There is no logical connection between minimizing errata and making the rules consistent (which is what I assume you mean by 'integration of the rules'.)
As measured by what? Keep in mind that his current favorite pat phrase in his tweets is "D&D is a game of exceptions."
Harzel
Adventurer
So you are saying that in the fiction the difference between armors is attributable solely to how much body area they cover? Sorry, that's not working very well for me. If that were the case, it would be a lot more sane to have, as some other systems do, incremental AC benefits for which pieces of armor you have rather than the type of armor you have. The version you propose has never IMX been the common D&D fiction.
Similar Threads
