D&D 5E barkskin

[KarinsDad]

I agree that by a literal reading, there is a clear right answer. However, what is unclear is whether a literal reading was intended. An example or two, or a few sentences explaining what it does and does not stack with, would dramatically enhance clarity.

I agree. In this day and age of Internet, I think the designers should already have an errata document clarifying anything which is contentious on the various boards.


However, I also have to wonder if the "this replaces armor" intent is actually valid. This puts 8th level PCs with Dex 20 at AC 21 without other buffs, without shields, etc. That's pretty buffy, 3 above Mage Armor.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Once people sit down and actually read it, is it that they are interpreting it differently, or is it that they are adding intent when none is stated?

The intent is stated, it's just in the fluff part of the spell rather than in the mechanics. Now... this brings us back to the other thread that asked whether or not you consider the fluff to be part of RAW or not. Some people say yes, some people say no. If you are a 'no', then the way you say the rule is clear certainly is. However, if you say 'yes'... then the fact that the spell makes your skin hard like tree bark (implying that your skin is becoming hard like armor), then the "Your AC can't go below 16" takes on a different meaning.

 

[BryonD]

The intent is stated, it's just in the fluff part of the spell rather than in the mechanics. Now... this brings us back to the other thread that asked whether or not you consider the fluff to be part of RAW or not. Some people say yes, some people say no. If you are a 'no', then the way you say the rule is clear certainly is. However, if you say 'yes'... then the fact that the spell makes your skin hard like tree bark (implying that your skin is becoming hard like armor), then the "Your AC can't go below 16" takes on a different meaning.

I completely disagree here. Defining *why* your AC can't go below 16 makes no difference whatsoever to what the words say.

I think your point is that it is completely irrational to say that a character with AC16 due to barkskin does not become any more difficult to hit when you hand them a shield. And, yeah, that is irrational. But all that means is that what the spell says, including flavor text, has some issues with being rational.

I support that your interpretation is probably better at the table and also probably better at being as intended. But even the flavor text doesn't change the strict interpretation of what the words actually say.

 

[Authweight]

I agree. In this day and age of Internet, I think the designers should already have an errata document clarifying anything which is contentious on the various boards.


However, I also have to wonder if the "this replaces armor" intent is actually valid. This puts 8th level PCs with Dex 20 at AC 21 without other buffs, without shields, etc. That's pretty buffy, 3 above Mage Armor.

I feel like what was intended was basically, "you now have chainmail, and act as though you're proficient with it." That would mean:

1) Your minimum AC is 16, barring unusual penalties.

2) Dex adds nothing to this, since you don't add dex while wearing heavy armor.

3) Shields and cover and other situational bonuses can apply, and stack on top of the base 16.

This fits with Mearls' tweet that he allows shields to stack with barkskin, it fits nicely with the overall thrust of the armor rules, and it sort of comes close to the RAW wording. It's also reasonably balanced, IMO. But it clearly is not the RAW wording.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I support that your interpretation is probably better at the table and also probably better at being as intended.

That was my point. Intention.

KarinsDad was wondering if people were adding intention where none was outright stated. My post was to say that no, if you include the fluff, then there *is* an intention we are getting from what was written in the spell that supports our interpretation as one of the two legitimate ways to rule it.

 

[KarinsDad]

I feel like what was intended was basically, "you now have chainmail, and act as though you're proficient with it." That would mean:

1) Your minimum AC is 16, barring unusual penalties.

2) Dex adds nothing to this, since you don't add dex while wearing heavy armor.

3) Shields and cover and other situational bonuses can apply, and stack on top of the base 16.

This fits with Mearls' tweet that he allows shields to stack with barkskin, it fits nicely with the overall thrust of the armor rules, and it sort of comes close to the RAW wording. It's also reasonably balanced, IMO. But it clearly is not the RAW wording.

I think this goes WAY beyond what was intended. This is a missing paragraph of intention.


I think what you wrote here is balanced and playable, I just don't see that the designers meant this at all.

 

[KarinsDad]

That was my point. Intention.

KarinsDad was wondering if people were adding intention where none was outright stated. My post was to say that no, if you include the fluff, then there *is* an intention we are getting from what was written in the spell that supports our interpretation as one of the two legitimate ways to rule it.

Maybe.

I just see a different between implication and inference.

The text implies nothing other than the fact that the regardless of armor, this is the minimum.

The inference is from the people reading the text and adding their own inference to the text. They read that as fluff text meant to imply that AC from armor is minimized by this, but that's an inference, not an implication.

It's not even fluff text. It lets the reader know that with this spell on, even lesser armors will not lower the AC below 16.

 

[Joe Liker]

You see?

I could not hope to illustrate the problems better if I tried... ;-)

These last posts, where people say the spell is fine and it's obvious how it works... Yet reaches completely opposite conclusions!

Nothing more needs to be said. It's completely impossible. That's broken to me...

Mine was one of those posts you referred to, so I guess I should clarify my position.

While I have personally landed on an explanation that makes sense to me, I am absolutely NOT saying it's obvious. It's not. The spell is not fine, not at all. Barkskin needs a rewrite, desperately. In fact, I think it's the most poorly written spell in the book.

I was just stating how I see it, and how I think things might pan out if and when an official clarification appears, give or take a Dex bonus. (Dryads!)

 

[Ilbranteloth]

There is no such thing as "natural armor" in 5E as in 3E. And nothing in the wording to be found in the PH suggests that anything shields or otherwise, stack with it.

Natural Armor is mentioned repeatedly in the MM.

As noted by others, and by the application of the spell on the Dryad, I'd agree that the DEX bonus doesn't apply.

Because of Mike Mearl's tweet, along with the fact that a shield provides a bonus to AC instead of a specific AC, I agree that a shield stacks with barkskin (plus that fact that the spell itself says 'minimum' which implies some things can make it better), as well as circumstantial bonuses like cover.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Personally, I can never remember whether cover grants a +2 AC bonus to the target or a -2 penalty to the attack. In my mind, those mechanics really should be equivalent, so that's a reason I would not go with the strict interpretation of this spell.

I just switched to the usual mechanic, and have no cover, partial cover, and total cover. Partial cover imposes disadvantage on attacks. Much simpler.

Ilbranteloth