D&D 5E What armor can druids wear? Is there a way to get a decent AC?

[WarHawke]

Your math confuses me...

I am trying to understand how having barkskin (AC 16) and being in cover (+5 AC) = 17 AC.

If I have 16 AC because my skin turns into bark, and I dive for cover, I should have 21 AC.

Yes the rules need to be clearer, but let's look at the description...

You skin turns into bark... Ok,, my skin turns into bark, that bark is labled as a minimum AC of 16.

Armor does not stack... so I cannot wear a chain shirt and throw on full plate to get a 20+ AC... so the 16 AC from barkskin being the armor is 16 armor, minimum.

Now, one CAN argue that you do not get the DEX mod to AC because it is not stated, like in the Armor spell or the Unarmored skills. But, shields are not listed as not being able to be used, or not be used and it does not always state this.

Armor spell doesn't say I can't use a shield. But wearing armor says that an increase of 2 to AC occurs while equipping a shield.

So with that, I would argue that with Barkskin and a shield, my AC will be 18.

If I am in Cover my AC will be a 23. If I toss out the shield spell, 28.

Again, it would be nice if WoTC worded this right, or even came out with an official ruling/example on this spell.

 

[Plaguescarred]

IMO Barksin does set a value threshold for your AC in saying that your AC can't be less than 16 regardles....So if your AC is lower than 16, now you have AC 16 and if its higher, than you have a higher AC than 16.

 

[am181d]

I just happen to believe that interpretation makes for a very illogical and stupid spell whose protective bonuses that get applied to a person can change anywhere from a +6 all the way down to a -1 based on how and where the person happens to be standing and what he's holding when the spell is cast on him...

Ah, I think I see part of the mistake you're making: Are you assuming that AC remains static over the course of the spell? That if your AC is less than 16 when the spell is cast, that it's "trapped" at 16 for the duration of the spell? That is not what the spell states.

All it says that, for the duration of the spell, your AC cannot be lower than 16. If you put on platemail after the spell is cast (remember it can be cast on allies too), your AC will go up above 16.

This is a really straightforward spell. I think the issue is that the mechanic doesn't fit naturally with the "barkskin" theme. Might be better if it was called "Rary's Minimum Defense" or something like that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Ah, I think I see part of the mistake you're making: Are you assuming that AC remains static over the course of the spell? That if your AC is less than 16 when the spell is cast, that it's "trapped" at 16 for the duration of the spell? That is not what the spell states.

All it says that, for the duration of the spell, your AC cannot be lower than 16. If you put on platemail after the spell is cast (remember it can be cast on allies too), your AC will go up above 16.

This is a really straightforward spell. I think the issue is that the mechanic doesn't fit naturally with the "barkskin" theme. Might be better if it was called "Rary's Minimum Defense" or something like that.

Nope, it's not adding of additional armor that is the issue (since that gets covered by the "regardless of the armor you're wearing" statement in the spell itself)... it's the putting on of a shield or going behind cover and whether those "stack" with the Barkskin spell. Take a look earlier in the thread, and you'll see the full conversation about it.

 

[Skyscraper]

Both points of view in this thread have some value, but I find that the idea that barkskin sets a minimum of 16 regardless of any and all bonuses and circumstances, is probably not supported. I think DEFCON has it right, mostly.

Barksin: You touch a willing creature. Until the spell ends, the target's skin has a rough, bark-like appearance, and the target's AC can't be less than 16 regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing."

​

I haven't gotten the PHB yet, but here's an excerpt from the basic rules, p. 9, under "ARMOR CLASS":

"Your armor class (AC) represents how well your character avoids being wounded in battle. Things that contribute to your AC include the armor your wear, the shield you carry, and your dexterity modifier.

(...)

Withouth armor, your character's AC equals 10 + his or her dexterity modifier. If your character wears armor, carries a shield, or both, recalculate your AC using the rules in Chapter 5."

(emphasis mine)

In Chapter 5, the only thing we get that I see having any impact on this discussion, is an AC value next to each armor type. For example, "leather" has an AC of "11 + dex mofifier"; while chainmail has an AC of 16. Again, it seems like the DEX modifier is part of the AC value.

After considering both sides of the argument, I'll side with DEFCON on this argument (mostly). Here's why.

Barkskin states that the target's AC will be no less than 16 regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing. Not regardless of whether it wears a shield, or even regardless of whether it has a DEX modifier or cover. So, contrarily to DEFCON, I would probably allow the DEX bonus to kick in in addition to allowing a shield and cover to stack with barkskin.

I'll note that stating that the barkskinned character's AC will be equal to 16 regardless of shield and cover and anything else, would be similar to stating that a character's AC is that stated on the armor table regardless of shield or cover. I.e. it's not because the armor table states that the armor class is 11 for a character wearing leather armor, that shield and cover do not apply. We all know this. However, reading the interpretation that shield and cover do not stack with a barkskinned character's barkskin spell, appears the same to me as stating that a character's AC is 11 + DEX mod regardless of shields or cover, because the armor table says so.

Also, taking a naked druid with no DEX bonus as an example, let's assume that as DM I use DM fiat to adjudicate that a specific circumstance should grant that character a +2 circumstantial bonus because of whatever reason: should this be ignored also because it does not raise the total non-barkskin AC above 16? Also, as mentioned above, cover does not influence this barskinned character either?

When common sense crumbles, I think that a reasonable interpretation of the spell should be sought. To me, the absence of "regardless or shield or other bonuses" in the spell description, alongside "regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing", concretly points towards including only armor in the "the target's AC can't be less than 16" calculation.

Consequently, DEX bonuses, cover and other cirucmstantial bonuses, would stack with barkskin.

I don't believe this makes an overpowered spell, since it only lasts for one hour and while it provides an interesting bonus, equivalent to a heavy armor, even if it stacks with DEX and shield, it remains short-lived.

Peace,

Sky

 

[Skyscraper]

Also, in the armor table, armors set a numeric value to AC, plus a possible DEX modifier. It seems to me like setting a mininum AC value to barkskin, to replace the armor's numeric AC value in the armor table, is also reasonable. Again, DEX mods, shield and cover would stack with this numeric value (of no less than 16).

 

[WarHawke]

Yeah, I dont think Barkskin is in anyway overpowered either. It's a Concentration spell with a duration of 1 hour. Meaning if you sustain damage and fail your Concentration save... spell goes poof. Plus you cannot cast any other concentration spells..

I think it is a good intermediate spell for Druids until they can fashion some dragonscale splint mail and get their ACs up, because let's face it.. .12 AC for Hide armor is the suck.

 

[mcbobbo]

Why assume that barkskin functions like light armor (allowing Dex), rather than heavy?

 

[Skyscraper]

Why assume that barkskin functions like light armor (allowing Dex), rather than heavy?

Why assume that barkskin functions like armor at all? It is neither light nor heavy armor. It seems to me like barkskin supercedes the numeric armor value for AC calculation, if the armor provides AC < 16, but it doesn't function like armor.

I see nothing in the barkskin that suggests that it would prevent the DEX bonus or that it would slow the barkskinned character down. The fact that it provides the same AC value as a chainmail is in no way suggestive that it functions like heavy armor in this respect.

 

[sithramir]

Because barskin isn't setting your ac!

You calculate ac with modifiers period. If said value is less than 16 use 16.
You can't add covet or a shield to a minimum. You calculate normally.

If you say it is a value like chainmail then you could also add Dex etc. 16 +5 Dex + shield would be broken

But calculating ac SEPARATE Then if it isn't 16 use 16.

Put 2 values on a piece of paper. Your ac with all modifiers and the number 16. Choose the larger value.

You can't add a shield to something that isn't ac.

Obviously feel free to house rule but please let me play