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: 7510586" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Trees can’t benefit from partial cover because they can’t move. You’re going to hit a tree that is not behind total cover, the attack roll is just to see if you hit it hard enough. A creature affected by Barkskin can benefit from cover, however. It adds 2 to the threshold that needs to be met or exceeded on an attack roll to hit its body. The value that is calculated as 10 + Dexterity Mod by default, or by a different formula depending on what armor the creature is wearing. Since the creature’s body is also treated like an object, however, simply hitting its body may or may not be enough to damage it. To determine whether or not it is, you compare the result of the attack roll to a target number, in this case 16. If the first value is already higher than 16, you can skip this step, because any attack that is accurate enough to hit the body of a creature with 14+ Dex, wearing hide armor, holding a shield, and behind cover, is also solid enough to do damage to a tree. On the other hand, if the first value is lower than the second, you can skip the first step, because any attack that is solid enough to do damage to a tree is also accurate enough to hit the creature’s body. So, rather than giving the creature two separate AC values and ignoring the lower, Barkskin simplifies the process by merely setting a floor for the first value equal to the second value.</p><p></p><p>The weird thing that’s going on here here is that AC represents two different things depending on whether the target is a creature or an object. Barkskin merely exposes this oddity by making the subject function as both at once.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And that’s totally fair! I don’t begrudge anyone for deciding that the RAI of Barkskin just does not work for them, and ruling that it works differently in their games. I’ve seen a few suggestions of how people prefer to rule Barkskin in this thread, and they’re all quite reasonable. My argument is simply that the RAI is consistent with the RAW, and pointing out the fiction that I believe the RAI is meant to model.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: You know, come to think of it, I think the wording could be improved to make both the intended function and what it represents in the fiction clearer:</p><p></p><p>”The creature’s skin becomes as hard as bark. For the duration, any attack that hits the creature does no damage unless the result of the attack roll was 16 or higher.”</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7510586, member: 6779196"] Trees can’t benefit from partial cover because they can’t move. You’re going to hit a tree that is not behind total cover, the attack roll is just to see if you hit it hard enough. A creature affected by Barkskin can benefit from cover, however. It adds 2 to the threshold that needs to be met or exceeded on an attack roll to hit its body. The value that is calculated as 10 + Dexterity Mod by default, or by a different formula depending on what armor the creature is wearing. Since the creature’s body is also treated like an object, however, simply hitting its body may or may not be enough to damage it. To determine whether or not it is, you compare the result of the attack roll to a target number, in this case 16. If the first value is already higher than 16, you can skip this step, because any attack that is accurate enough to hit the body of a creature with 14+ Dex, wearing hide armor, holding a shield, and behind cover, is also solid enough to do damage to a tree. On the other hand, if the first value is lower than the second, you can skip the first step, because any attack that is solid enough to do damage to a tree is also accurate enough to hit the creature’s body. So, rather than giving the creature two separate AC values and ignoring the lower, Barkskin simplifies the process by merely setting a floor for the first value equal to the second value. The weird thing that’s going on here here is that AC represents two different things depending on whether the target is a creature or an object. Barkskin merely exposes this oddity by making the subject function as both at once. And that’s totally fair! I don’t begrudge anyone for deciding that the RAI of Barkskin just does not work for them, and ruling that it works differently in their games. I’ve seen a few suggestions of how people prefer to rule Barkskin in this thread, and they’re all quite reasonable. My argument is simply that the RAI is consistent with the RAW, and pointing out the fiction that I believe the RAI is meant to model. EDIT: You know, come to think of it, I think the wording could be improved to make both the intended function and what it represents in the fiction clearer: ”The creature’s skin becomes as hard as bark. For the duration, any attack that hits the creature does no damage unless the result of the attack roll was 16 or higher.” [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Barkskin *Might* Be the Worst Spell Description I've Ever Read
Top