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

[Kobold Stew]

To rephrase what I was saying, people that support the "AC = 16 minimun including all modifiers" position take the position that the "AC" in the barkskin spell descripition, means "AC including all modifiers". What I'm saying is that:

1) in the armor chart, there is a numerica value for AC than will later be modified by DEX modifiers, shields and other modifiers such as cover.
2) the text of the barkskin spell specifically mentions that the mimimum AC value will be 16 regardless of what type of armor the target is wearing. The text makes no reference to "regardless of shields, DEX mods, cover or other modifiers".

To me, the specific including of armor only in (2) and the exclusion of all other bonuses, then points towards interpretating the AC in the barkskin spell description in the way I mention in (1).

This is a good statement of your position (and Defcon's, as I understand it). It does make better sense of the spell, but it does not match the definition of armour class in the PHB -- p. 14 -- where the armour class is your base (10 or what armour gives you) + your shield + your dex. (and we know that, with specific trumping general, it will include con/wis bonuses from barb/monk, draconic sorcerer protection, etc.)

It is the sum of these things that are your armour class, because (p. 7) the armour class is defined as the target number.

Two things follow from this:

1. The rule makes good mechanical sense, but cannot be easily explained by in-world physics especially if you literalize "barkskin" and your skin gets a bit thicker when you drop your shield). We can find similar holes throughout the game (hit points and healing, anyone?), and as a result I do not see this as fatal.

2. While my reading includes all abilities, magic rings, and armour including shields, I do think a reasonable case can be made for "DM's call" in two cases:
a. parrying (and similar maneuvers, that expend a resource), I'd probably allow to add to the AC at 16;
b. cover too. Cover is external to the character and is something that certain abilities negate (e.g. sharpshooter feat).

Both of these are situational bonuses to your AC, that opponents have an opportunity to bypass.

But in the end it remains unclear, and we each feel our own reading is the most natural one.

 

[WarHawke]

.

Now he dives for cover. Regardless of how he got his AC 12 in the first place... his AC is now 17.
Leather + Cover = 12 +5 = 17.
Dex + Cover = 10 + 2 + 5 = 17.
Shield + Cover = 10 + 2 +5 = 17.

The spell is still only telling us his minimum AC is 16. So we are unaffected by the spell, and our AC remains 17. It is not increased because it is already above the minimum. And it is certainly not decreased, since the spell only talks about a minimum, not a maximum.

Yeah, that is the problem with the math... You are counting a situational modifier to AC (cover) as actual AC. That part, while I understand why you came up with it, it just doesn't jive with the spirit of the rules to lean in that direction of interpretation.

No other armor spell/equipment states or hints towards ignoring situational modifiers to AC.

Like I said in my post above, I can see how someone might say Barkskin does not get their Dex mod, and the shield mod... I need more convincing they dont get that.

But all in all, if WoTC would send out some kind of clarification, all this speculation would be nullified and we can focus on something else that is vague

 

[dco]

Hi,
your DM could let you have an armor of wood, for example a breastplate or scalemail, in MERP or RM I don't remember well there was for example some wood as hard as iron. It's fantasy, another option is a magic item (for example in War of the Burning sky there is a magic sword made of wood) or something more cool like turtle caparace.

Personally I find absurd that a druid can't wear a metal armor but can have tons of metal weapons, as a master I would be a bit flexible and facilitate things to a druid that wants something more than hide armor.


About barkskin, the description talks about the skin and it also says "regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing", my interpretation is that it substitutes your armor + dex bonus if they are below 16, if it was a substitution to all your AC the last phrase about armor is redundant.
For example if you wear hide:
Hide + 5 dex bonus --> AC 17 --> 17 with barkskin
Hide + 2 dex bonus --> AC 14 --> with barkskin AC16.
Hide + 2 dex bonus + shield --> AC 14+2 --> with barkskin AC18
It makes the most sense, you also avoid the strange things that happen with cover if you interpret the other way.
Also it is well balanced, compare the other option to mage armor:
Mage armor: 1st level, AC=13+dex (15+dex with shield), 8h, no concentration
Barkskin: 2nd level, if you have less than 16 your AC becomes 16, requires concentration.
In this case with a shield and hide armor (AC=14+dex) this spells gives you at max 2AC bonus if you don't have dex bonuses or while you don't get cover. Practically only interesting if for some strange reason you don't want to make use of your armor proficiencies or if you change form.

It's a matter of how do you interpret it, in my opinion it flows better considering the spell as a substitute for your armor+dex bonus to AC.

 

[Skyscraper]

Can you name any armor with an AC as high as 16 that permits a Dex bonus?

Do you not find it a balance issue to introduce an alternative that does permit this?

It is difficult for me to judge balance issues without play experience with this spell.

It seems like a fairly good spell indeed; however as I noted above, it is limited in time and it also requires concentration on the part of the caster, further limiting his options. So the caster may get a warrior-equivalent armor class, for a limited duration, and subject to keeping his concentration and not using other buff spells.

 

[mcbobbo]

Actually I think the best 'not logical' example of druids and metal is coins. Always metal and every druid collects them in D&D.

 

[Skyscraper]

I find it pretty straight forward personally: You're not suddenly wearing chain mail, you're suddenly Colossus (a wood version)!

Barkskin affects your skin. Your skin has an effective AC of 16. It is what gets hit after other defences have been breached.

So, calculate your AC as normal (Dex mod, armour with/without shield, cover) for the circumstance of the attack - if the attack hits (gets through your calculated AC) it lands on your skin BUT it may still be stopped by the skin's effective AC of 16.

eg. For all my moving, dodging, shield wielding and diving into cover, an attack still hits me (gets past my AC) and makes contact with my 'unprotected' neck, without barkskin I would immediately take the damage. With barkskin, if the attack value is less than 16 it glances off taking a few chips of wood but leaves me unharmed, if the attack value is more than 16 it bites true and I take damage.

This is an interesting take on giving sence to the "mininum AC of 16 including all modifiers" interpretation.

My counter-argument would be, however, that barkskin would then work differently than the other AC-boosting mechanics. Normally, the AC is determined by adding (I'll use non-5E terminology here) armor bonuses, shield bonuses, DEX bonuses, and other circumstantial bonuses. Why would barkskin then work as you suggest, while regular armor does not?

 

[Skyscraper]

This is a good statement of your position (and Defcon's, as I understand it). It does make better sense of the spell, but it does not match the definition of armour class in the PHB -- p. 14 -- where the armour class is your base (10 or what armour gives you) + your shield + your dex. (and we know that, with specific trumping general, it will include con/wis bonuses from barb/monk, draconic sorcerer protection, etc.)

It is the sum of these things that are your armour class, because (p. 7) the armour class is defined as the target number.

Two things follow from this:

1. The rule makes good mechanical sense, but cannot be easily explained by in-world physics especially if you literalize "barkskin" and your skin gets a bit thicker when you drop your shield). We can find similar holes throughout the game (hit points and healing, anyone?), and as a result I do not see this as fatal.

2. While my reading includes all abilities, magic rings, and armour including shields, I do think a reasonable case can be made for "DM's call" in two cases:
a. parrying (and similar maneuvers, that expend a resource), I'd probably allow to add to the AC at 16;
b. cover too. Cover is external to the character and is something that certain abilities negate (e.g. sharpshooter feat).

Both of these are situational bonuses to your AC, that opponents have an opportunity to bypass.

But in the end it remains unclear, and we each feel our own reading is the most natural one.

I agree with you then! And I perfectly understand why someone might read the rules as you do.

I feel that your interpretation makes more sense litterally, but less sense in game terms. While my interpretation makes less sense litterally, but more sense in game terms. But in the end, there is no single clear-cut answer to this question, at least, IMO, and for the time being. (Does WotC support still exist to answer questions?)

 

[Tony Semana]

This is an interesting take on giving sence to the "mininum AC of 16 including all modifiers" interpretation.

My counter-argument would be, however, that barkskin would then work differently than the other AC-boosting mechanics. Normally, the AC is determined by adding (I'll use non-5E terminology here) armor bonuses, shield bonuses, DEX bonuses, and other circumstantial bonuses. Why would barkskin then work as you suggest, while regular armor does not?

My response to your counter argument would be (in no order of validity/correctness):

- Because barkskin works the way it's described in the block. Specific over... implied ?
- Barkskin is not armor at all, it is the effect of a spell, so to reverse your question: why would barkskin have to work as regular armor does.
- Where is it specified that ALL AC-boosting mechanics MUST work the same way in ALL instances ?

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.

My interpretation:

Barkskin affects your skin. Your skin has an effective AC of 16. It is what gets hit after other defences have been breached.

So, calculate your AC as normal (Dex mod, armour with/without shield, cover) for the circumstance of the attack - if the attack hits (gets through your calculated AC) it lands on your skin BUT it may still be stopped by the skin's effective AC of 16.

eg. For all my moving, dodging, shield wielding and diving into cover, an attack still hits me (gets past my AC) and makes contact with my 'unprotected' neck, without barkskin I would immediately take the damage. With barkskin, if the attack value is less than 16 it glances off taking a few chips of wood but leaves me unharmed, if the attack value is more than 16 it bites true and I take damage.

Taken outside of an expectation that "all armor-related effects MUST follow the same armor boosting mechanics", is there a logical hole to that interpretation?

 

[Skyscraper]

Taken outside of an expectation that "all armor-related effects MUST follow the same armor boosting mechanics", is there a logical hole to that interpretation?

I think your interpretation makes sense; but I revert to the question: why would the thick skin work differently than armor? Your answer is to throw a question back: why would it work like armor? My answer to that is: because that's how the game works in all other aspects, and that's how the game has worked in the past. It's like jurisprudence in matters of law: when the law is unclear, precedent is taken into account.

I agree that your idea makes sense in itself; however I do not find it compelling when taken in the context of the game.

You mention that this might be a unique game mechanic: I agree that it might. I just find it improbable that it would, where another way of reasonably interpretating the rules according to precedent, also works.

 

[skotothalamos]

Actually I think the best 'not logical' example of druids and metal is coins. Always metal and every druid collects them in D&D.

Dark Sun coins are not metal

/nitpick