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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Monk and Druid "reviews"
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="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6784615" data-attributes="member: 15700"><p>You could argue that it's worded poorly because it's not worded like the designers wanted (as evidenced by Mearls tweet) and I wouldn't argue that. But as it's written, it's clear. Any time you say something "can't be below X, or it is X", that means it's the final check in the process. It's a simple IF-THAN statement that's been around since before the days of BASIC coding. Nothing about that spell triggers until the AC is below 16 when tallied. Even if you were to argue that that check is made at every step of the process, you still wouldn't ever have an AC over 16 with that spell</p><p></p><p>For example, if you cast the spell and your AC is 14, then it triggers the spell and your AC becomes 16. If you <em>then add a shield</em> which brings it to 18, then the spell no longer is in effect since it's not below 16, and wouldn't take effect, which means you'd be back at your base 14 +2 for shield = 16.</p><p></p><p>That's because the spell does not take effect unless your AC is below 16, RAW. Again, it might not have been intended that way, but RAW, that's what it means. And in plain English, that's what it means when you say that "if something is less than X, then make it X."</p><p></p><p>Another example.</p><p></p><p>Let's say you make $1000 a week for 40 hours of work. If you have a rule that states if you work less than 30 hours, your minimum pay is $750 a week. So let's say you work 23 hours. The rule kicks in and you make $750. If you then work 10 more hours in that week somehow, that doesn't mean you get the $750 + the additional pay for the additional hours because it's inferred that that rule isn't checked until the end of the week. Just like the barkskin rule, RAW, doesn't take affect until your AC has been tallied. That's what that language means, and that's how it's used in logic when programming.</p><p></p><p>I'm also not ignoring the "regardless of armor" because that's a redundant statement. By your logic then, it means that it ONLY factors in armor since that was the only thing expressly called out. Does that mean you're arguing that barkskin is stackable with DEX, other spell buffs, magic items, and shields?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 6784615, member: 15700"] You could argue that it's worded poorly because it's not worded like the designers wanted (as evidenced by Mearls tweet) and I wouldn't argue that. But as it's written, it's clear. Any time you say something "can't be below X, or it is X", that means it's the final check in the process. It's a simple IF-THAN statement that's been around since before the days of BASIC coding. Nothing about that spell triggers until the AC is below 16 when tallied. Even if you were to argue that that check is made at every step of the process, you still wouldn't ever have an AC over 16 with that spell For example, if you cast the spell and your AC is 14, then it triggers the spell and your AC becomes 16. If you [i]then add a shield[/i] which brings it to 18, then the spell no longer is in effect since it's not below 16, and wouldn't take effect, which means you'd be back at your base 14 +2 for shield = 16. That's because the spell does not take effect unless your AC is below 16, RAW. Again, it might not have been intended that way, but RAW, that's what it means. And in plain English, that's what it means when you say that "if something is less than X, then make it X." Another example. Let's say you make $1000 a week for 40 hours of work. If you have a rule that states if you work less than 30 hours, your minimum pay is $750 a week. So let's say you work 23 hours. The rule kicks in and you make $750. If you then work 10 more hours in that week somehow, that doesn't mean you get the $750 + the additional pay for the additional hours because it's inferred that that rule isn't checked until the end of the week. Just like the barkskin rule, RAW, doesn't take affect until your AC has been tallied. That's what that language means, and that's how it's used in logic when programming. I'm also not ignoring the "regardless of armor" because that's a redundant statement. By your logic then, it means that it ONLY factors in armor since that was the only thing expressly called out. Does that mean you're arguing that barkskin is stackable with DEX, other spell buffs, magic items, and shields? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Monk and Druid "reviews"
Top