Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Barkskin *Might* Be the Worst Spell Description I've Ever Read
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="epithet" data-source="post: 7510513" data-attributes="member: 6796566"><p>Mr. Crawford's sage advice on the barkskin spell is one of the clearest indications, to me, of the stark raving madness of trying to foist your DM's responsibility for making rulings off on a distant, removed arbiter. Jeremy's primary objective is not to make sure that things work at your table in a way that makes sense and promotes your fun game session. That may be a secondary objective, but the primary objective is to preserve, to the greatest degree possible, the consistency and internal logic of his rules system.</p><p></p><p>If there are two ways to read a rule, one of which works really well for everyone involved and the other preserves the integration of the rules by abiding by them in a stupid way that renders, for example, a spell completely useless, Jeremy Crawford will choose--must choose, really--the second interpretation. The goal is always to keep errata down to the barest minimum possible.</p><p></p><p>I don't begrudge him that. Keeping the 5e rules rationally integrated and consistent is his job, and he's pretty good at it. What I don't have much respect for is the DMs who look to him to make rulings for their own campaign. That's your job as a DM, man. Sure, you can look at the sage advice for guidance. You probably should, from time to time. Never lose sight of the fact that it's <em>advice</em>, though. Take notice of it, let it inform your ruling at the table, but never lose sight of the fact that it is your ruling, not Jeremy's. If you tell your druid player that barkskin won't stack with a shield, a ring of protection, or cover... that's your ruling, dude. You may be ruling in the way JC advises, but it's still your ruling, and you can't just say "hey man, that's the rule, clarified in Sage Advice." The rule is what's in the book, the interpretation is yours to make, and Sage Advice is just there to make a suggestion if you aren't sure which way to go with it.</p><p></p><p>In my campaign, barkskin is natural armor giving you an AC of 16. Like heavy armor, it doesn't stack a Dex bonus, but unlike heavy armor it doesn't penalize stealth at all. You can gain a benefit from rings/cloaks of protection, haste, dual wielder feats, shields, and cover. That's not a house rule, that my ruling as a DM on the rule as it appears in the Player's Handbook. I have considered and rejected the advisory opinion of Jeremy Crawford <em>vis-a-vis</em> the barkskin spell.</p><p></p><p>I have contemplated a house rule that would set the AC at 15 (like a wooden object) and give the target a damage threshold equal to 3 + the level of the spell slot, or maybe 2 x the level of the spell slot. Fire damage would bypass the threshold. It seems like it would be entertaining to play up the transformative aspect of the spell that way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="epithet, post: 7510513, member: 6796566"] Mr. Crawford's sage advice on the barkskin spell is one of the clearest indications, to me, of the stark raving madness of trying to foist your DM's responsibility for making rulings off on a distant, removed arbiter. Jeremy's primary objective is not to make sure that things work at your table in a way that makes sense and promotes your fun game session. That may be a secondary objective, but the primary objective is to preserve, to the greatest degree possible, the consistency and internal logic of his rules system. If there are two ways to read a rule, one of which works really well for everyone involved and the other preserves the integration of the rules by abiding by them in a stupid way that renders, for example, a spell completely useless, Jeremy Crawford will choose--must choose, really--the second interpretation. The goal is always to keep errata down to the barest minimum possible. I don't begrudge him that. Keeping the 5e rules rationally integrated and consistent is his job, and he's pretty good at it. What I don't have much respect for is the DMs who look to him to make rulings for their own campaign. That's your job as a DM, man. Sure, you can look at the sage advice for guidance. You probably should, from time to time. Never lose sight of the fact that it's [I]advice[/I], though. Take notice of it, let it inform your ruling at the table, but never lose sight of the fact that it is your ruling, not Jeremy's. If you tell your druid player that barkskin won't stack with a shield, a ring of protection, or cover... that's your ruling, dude. You may be ruling in the way JC advises, but it's still your ruling, and you can't just say "hey man, that's the rule, clarified in Sage Advice." The rule is what's in the book, the interpretation is yours to make, and Sage Advice is just there to make a suggestion if you aren't sure which way to go with it. In my campaign, barkskin is natural armor giving you an AC of 16. Like heavy armor, it doesn't stack a Dex bonus, but unlike heavy armor it doesn't penalize stealth at all. You can gain a benefit from rings/cloaks of protection, haste, dual wielder feats, shields, and cover. That's not a house rule, that my ruling as a DM on the rule as it appears in the Player's Handbook. I have considered and rejected the advisory opinion of Jeremy Crawford [I]vis-a-vis[/I] the barkskin spell. I have contemplated a house rule that would set the AC at 15 (like a wooden object) and give the target a damage threshold equal to 3 + the level of the spell slot, or maybe 2 x the level of the spell slot. Fire damage would bypass the threshold. It seems like it would be entertaining to play up the transformative aspect of the spell that way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Barkskin *Might* Be the Worst Spell Description I've Ever Read
Top