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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7510553" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>I don’t feel like I have to. The spell’s mechanical function is perfectly clear, and in my assessment, internally consistent with the way creature and object AC works in the game. But, since some people seem to be struggling to understand how the mechanics translate to the fiction, I explained it in detail for their benefit.</p><p></p><p>If there’s anything here complicating the explanation, it’s not the spell, but the way D&D abstracts accuracy and the strength of a hit. It’s super unintuitive for both your likelihood of hitting a creature and your likelihood of hitting an object hard enough to damage it to be represented by the same value. I’ve seen the exact same reaction every single time I’ve had to tell a player that they need to make an attack roll against an inanimate object. They say some variation of “how hard can it be to hit something that isn’t moving?” and I explain that, in this instance, it’s not about whether or not they hit it, but whether or not the hit is solid enough to damage the object. I’ve also had quite a few new players surprised that a heavily armored character is harder to “hit” than one who is lightly armored but extremely nimble, to which I explain that hitting someone wearing heavy armor doesn’t generally do meaningful damage, you have to go for a vulnerable spot like a gap in the armor. So while the heavily armored character may be easier to touch, they are harder to hit in a spot where it will do damage.</p><p></p><p>Nobody expects to “miss” a tree, and everybody expects armor to reduce damage. But us D&D veterans are good at looking past the many, many unintuitive quirks of D&D’s mechanics. Until we encounter a mechanic that works differently than the particular ones we’ve gotten used to. Barkskin is such a mechanic. The way it works is in fact consistent with the way D&D handles creature AC vs. object AC, but the way D&D handles creature AC vs. object AC is super unintuitive. We’re just used to handling each in isolation. This particular case where both need to be used to resolve an attack forces us to confront that, and many people assume it’s the spell’s fault for being unintuitive rather than the system’s.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7510553, member: 6779196"] I don’t feel like I have to. The spell’s mechanical function is perfectly clear, and in my assessment, internally consistent with the way creature and object AC works in the game. But, since some people seem to be struggling to understand how the mechanics translate to the fiction, I explained it in detail for their benefit. If there’s anything here complicating the explanation, it’s not the spell, but the way D&D abstracts accuracy and the strength of a hit. It’s super unintuitive for both your likelihood of hitting a creature and your likelihood of hitting an object hard enough to damage it to be represented by the same value. I’ve seen the exact same reaction every single time I’ve had to tell a player that they need to make an attack roll against an inanimate object. They say some variation of “how hard can it be to hit something that isn’t moving?” and I explain that, in this instance, it’s not about whether or not they hit it, but whether or not the hit is solid enough to damage the object. I’ve also had quite a few new players surprised that a heavily armored character is harder to “hit” than one who is lightly armored but extremely nimble, to which I explain that hitting someone wearing heavy armor doesn’t generally do meaningful damage, you have to go for a vulnerable spot like a gap in the armor. So while the heavily armored character may be easier to touch, they are harder to hit in a spot where it will do damage. Nobody expects to “miss” a tree, and everybody expects armor to reduce damage. But us D&D veterans are good at looking past the many, many unintuitive quirks of D&D’s mechanics. Until we encounter a mechanic that works differently than the particular ones we’ve gotten used to. Barkskin is such a mechanic. The way it works is in fact consistent with the way D&D handles creature AC vs. object AC, but the way D&D handles creature AC vs. object AC is super unintuitive. We’re just used to handling each in isolation. This particular case where both need to be used to resolve an attack forces us to confront that, and many people assume it’s the spell’s fault for being unintuitive rather than the system’s. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Barkskin *Might* Be the Worst Spell Description I've Ever Read
Top