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

[Charlaquin]

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

Oh, it was super controversial when 5e first came out. The thing is, it’s extremely easy to understand the literal meaning of the words, but the conclusion can be very difficult to reconcile with the fiction. For example, a character with 14 Dex and hide armor has an AC of 14, so Barkskin increases it to 16. But if that character picks up a shield, Barkskin no longer affects them because their AC is already 16. It’s pretty unintuitive that the amount by which having your skin turned hard as bark affects your odds of being hit varies depending on how hard you already are to hit, and a lot of people take that to mean that the natural reading of the spell description must not be correct.

 

[eayres33]

Oh, it was super controversial when 5e first came out. The thing is, it’s extremely easy to understand the literal meaning of the words, but the conclusion can be very difficult to reconcile with the fiction. For example, a character with 14 Dex and hide armor has an AC of 14, so Barkskin increases it to 16. But if that character picks up a shield, Barkskin no longer affects them because their AC is already 16. It’s pretty unintuitive that the amount by which having your skin turned hard as bark affects your odds of being hit varies depending on how hard you already are to hit, and a lot of people take that to mean that the natural reading of the spell description must not be correct.

This. Barkskin is fairly easy to read and understand but it just doesn’t make a lot of sense, especially with how cover doesn’t affect it. It is what it is and I understand some of the reasons it works the way it does, it just doesn’t seem to fit into the narrative of most stories, at least most stories that I am telling.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, it was super controversial when 5e first came out. The thing is, it’s extremely easy to understand the literal meaning of the words, but the conclusion can be very difficult to reconcile with the fiction. For example, a character with 14 Dex and hide armor has an AC of 14, so Barkskin increases it to 16. But if that character picks up a shield, Barkskin no longer affects them because their AC is already 16. It’s pretty unintuitive that the amount by which having your skin turned hard as bark affects your odds of being hit varies depending on how hard you already are to hit, and a lot of people take that to mean that the natural reading of the spell description must not be correct.

Yeah, I have to agree that it's staggeringly unintuitive as written.

There needs to be more explanation right in the spell description regarding whether and how other sources of armour (dex, shield, armour, cover, etc.) interact with it.
[MENTION=50987]CleverNickName[/MENTION] - the difference between this and a device of strength is that there's very rarely (if ever!) anything else other than the device trying to modify your strength, but there's always things other than Barkskin trying to modify your AC.

 

[Guest 6801328]

REDACTED

I'm on a mission to become a kinder, gentler forum citizen. Really.

 

[the Jester]

Oh, it was super controversial when 5e first came out. The thing is, it’s extremely easy to understand the literal meaning of the words, but the conclusion can be very difficult to reconcile with the fiction. For example, a character with 14 Dex and hide armor has an AC of 14, so Barkskin increases it to 16. But if that character picks up a shield, Barkskin no longer affects them because their AC is already 16. It’s pretty unintuitive that the amount by which having your skin turned hard as bark affects your odds of being hit varies depending on how hard you already are to hit, and a lot of people take that to mean that the natural reading of the spell description must not be correct.

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".

 

[Charlaquin]

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".

Yeah, i don’t have a problem with making it work in the fiction. It’s just not the most intuitive, so early on a lot of people assumed that the spell was meant to set your minimum AC to 16 before bonuses like shields and cover instead of after, and therefore the wording must be wrong. Jeremy Crawford eventually confirmed the RAW does match RAI. Of course, by then a lot of people were already pretty deeply entrenched in their positions. But, so it goes in online discussions.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, I have to agree that it's staggeringly unintuitive as written.

There needs to be more explanation right in the spell description regarding whether and how other sources of armour (dex, shield, armour, cover, etc.) interact with it.

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think the spell is not as simple as some seem to suggest... the second part: no matter what kind of armor it is wearing might suggest that the no less than 16 relates to the armor part. And this is what I still would go for. Makes more sense for me and also seems easier to me. Especially when you consider that there are a few monsters (druids) that use barkskin as their main defense. And nowhere it is said, that they can´t benefit from cover.
You could argue more about the shield and say that a shield would not benefit you as it is not better to t´deflect a blow with a shield or with your hardened skin.

 

[S'mon]

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.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

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