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

S'mon said:

Your AC can't be less than 16. THAT IS ALL IT DOES.

It's an incredibly simple spell that needs no interpretation, but people persist in trying to "But Whatabout ...?" it.

Click to expand...

Sorcerers Apprentice said:

Another reason that a lot of people doubted the natural reading is that the spell is not very useful as written. A 2nd level concentration spell that gives you mediocre AC for one hour, why would anyone ever cast that? Consider that mage armour is a 1st lvl spell, lasts way longer and doesn't need concentration, and you see why people were confused about Barkskin

Click to expand...

the Jester said:

"beneath your armor and shield, behind that cover, etc, you've got a final line of defense- your skin is as hard as bark! If you break through those other defenses, you still have to penetrate the bark.".

Click to expand...

Kobold Stew said:

This is what it should be, but it explicitly isn't what the spell does. That's the cause of confusion.

Give the spell a different name and description, and all would be well.

Toughen the skin, and have an effect that reflects that, and all would be well.

Ignore any attempt to imagine the spell's consistent application within the narrative, and all would be well.

As it is, picking up a shield makes your skin less barky, dropping it makes it barky again; unless you have a super-high Dexterity, or are wearing heavy armour, or walk in front of a low wall... in which case it's not barky at all.

It is, absolutely, the worst spell description. Not because it is unclear (it is very clear), but because its name, its description, and its effect are unrelated to each other.

Click to expand...

UngeheuerLich said:

Or actually rewrite that spell. Make it: you treat it as chain armor (AC 16 no dex bonus).
Even if it now has offensive uses against very dextrous heroes, it has concentration requirement so what.

Click to expand...

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...

Retreater said:

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?

Click to expand...

the Jester said:

Huh. I guess I missed all the controversy.

I can see what you're saying, I guess- and I agree that the cover issue, for example, is a weird one. But I guess I have always seen it as sort of "beneath your armor and shield, behind that cover, etc, you've got a final line of defense- your skin is as hard as bark! If you break through those other defenses, you still have to penetrate the bark."

I see it as basically the same as having to choose between any other form of AC calculation. It's just that this calculation is "always at least 16".

Click to expand...

Charlaquin said:

I don’t really think it does. The wording very succinctly and accurately describes the function. The most natural interpretation of the words is the correct one, it’s just that it feels like it shouldn’t be, because nothing else in the game works that way, and you kind of have to stretch to justify it in-fiction.

Click to expand...