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

[S'mon]

But sometimes, e.g. when I've got a loaded shocking staff and all I need to do is touch you with it in order to deliver its shock, your armour and some other AC factors might not help you. In these cases, I'm rolling against a lower AC.

Do you play 5e at all?nIn 5e the shock spell rolls a regular attack vs AC, with advantage if the target has metal armour.

The default assumption in 5e is that armour protects against damage, and AC is a measure of protection. Where that is clearly inapplicable the game uses opposed checks, although often monsters roll vs AC for stuff like grabbing and pushing as part of their attacks.

 

[5ekyu]

Yes, the nearest thing to a touch AC in 5e is an opposed Athletics or Acrobatics check to avoid being grabbed. A tree does not get to make such checks & is always grabbed.

AC in 5e is always a measure of how hard it is to damage the target.

You get some weird edge cases in 5e like it being an object interaction to pick up an unconscious character (unless the GM says it's an Action - but even then still automatic) but hitting them for damage is still vs their AC which by RAW often includes their DEX bonus.

Th edge case for unconscious AC still holds - the touch/grab is automatic cuz its an unassisted contest. The strike forcdsmage is made with advantage yo represent the lack of resistance but still has to "win" damaging thru the attack roll ( possibly with autocrit)

But the designers did acknowledge that was done intentionally to let the quick and easy disadvantage mechanic handle that to avoid changing ability score bonuses and figured valued or derived stats on the fly for normal play.

 

[Yunru]

Thanks for bringing these up. To which I would then point out, how come armor doesn't work with these? Apparantely my barbarian is super beef cake....except when he puts on armor?

Its the same concept as barkskin, just swapping shields for armor in this case.

Because they specifically say they don't, which makes it not the same as Barkskin.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So we can state: the spell does what it does and if you twist your head enough you can make sense of it.
So why not change barkskin to damage reduction a la heavy armor mastery? That would actually help.

 

[dco]

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.

Who cares, in this game you don an armor and suddenly enemies have more difficulty to hit you. The important thing is the effect.

 

[Yunru]

Who cares, in this game you don an armor and suddenly enemies have more difficulty to hit you. The important thing is the effect.

Well armour also does that in real life... (since if the armour absorbed it, they haven't really hit you, and if it deflects it, well... they still haven't hit you.)

Not to mention camo armour.

 

[epithet]

I try to be mindful of the things that go into AC when I describe a miss. "You caught it on your shield," or "You got past his guard, but glanced off his armor." I basically layer it DEX, then armor, then shield. I think it helps players understand what their hit target number is.

For a "touch" attack, I either do it as a grapple where defense has to be dex (acrobatics,) or I take the to-hit bonus + 8 as the DC for a dex save. Most of the time I use the opposed check for a PC attack, dex save for an npc attack, on the principle that the dex save is easier but you should always let the players roll something if possible.

 

[Gadget]

At first I was kind of wondering why the target for the spell is a "willing creature" rather than "self" if the purpose of the spell is to buff a druid's beast-shape AC. I mean, things like mage armor have a range of "self." Why not barkskin? Then I remembered the Druid in the past has been a "pet" class, and even in 5e has some pretty good summoning spells. So I must surmise that the Druid must have it to put on a friendly animal. But a summons is concentration and would not fly. Buff the fighter? He probably already has better AC, but if you're in one of those escape from prison naked scenarios...Buff the Barbarian? The Monk? Before they are high enough level to get their no armor AC benefits high enough? The Ranger's Animal companion?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

You can always cast barkskin on the Giant Ape the wizard just polymorphed the rogue into.

 

[dco]

Well armour also does that in real life... (since if the armour absorbed it, they haven't really hit you, and if it deflects it, well... they still haven't hit you.)

Not to mention camo armour.

No, armour doesn't act like fictional power fields. To avoid being hit a person has to parry, dodge, take cover, etc.
The effect in the game is the same, you avoid damage or HPs, but the narrative could have the same problems as the barkskin narrative. It can also bring other problems for touching rules.
Camo armour gives you camouflage.