D&D 5E barkskin

[Giltonio_Santos]

not necessarily. It uses it's own language, the "If....then" statement at the beginning that your first language example does not have. Your first language, it sets your AC to a certain value all the time at the beginning of calculating your AC. X = Y. With barkskin, it's conditional. It doesn't set or add anything to your AC until AC has already been calculated. That's a key difference in the order of operations. If X < 16, then X = 16.

Well, this is a fair interpretation, but the worst one, IMO, because it creates a "third language" unsupported anywhere else in the rules. It would be worth the effort only if that choice was necessary, for example, to fix something that would be broken (in the sense we generally use it) otherwise. I defend that this is not the case. Allowing barkskin to stack where other stances of "AC set to a value" would, will certainly not break the game. In this case, why threat the spell as something different?

 

[KarinsDad]

Sorry, but it's not my interpretation, it's the rules as written. If you go through your PHB, you'll see that sometimes the language used is "your AC is XX". In other places, the language used is "you gain a +X bonus to your AC". Barkskin clearly uses the first language, and this is the reason why it can't stack with armor, dexterity, or anything else that uses the same language (such as constitution or wisdom, for barbarians and monks, respectively). Shields, on the other hand, uses the second type of language, much like cover or the shield of faith spell. A druid should be able to stack barkskin with a shield in the same way a barbarian does with the unarmored defense feature.

If interpretation of rules as written is not enough to you, though, we can go the other way and analyze the spell on its own merits. If we had a spell that puts you on nonmagical chainmail for up to one hour, 2nd level, concentration required, would it be broken? I don't think so. So, where's the brokenness?

No.

There are three things:

1) Things that add to AC.

2) Things that set base AC.

3) Things that set a minimum AC.

Barkskin falls under the third category, not the second.

The key phrase here is "Until the spell ends, the target's AC can't be below 16". You are equating this phrase like Mage Armor or normal Armor where the base AC is set to a specific number. Barkskin does not do that.

Mage Armor and other forms of armor set "base AC". Barkskin does not.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, this is a fair interpretation, but the worst one, IMO, because it creates a "third language" unsupported anywhere else in the rules. It would be worth the effort only if that choice was necessary, for example, to fix something that would be broken (in the sense we generally use it) otherwise. I defend that this is not the case. Allowing barkskin to stack where other stances of "AC set to a value" would, will certainly not break the game. In this case, why threat the spell as something different?

Go look at the Druid or Dryad in the Monster Manual. They both do not get Dex bonuses (for example) to Barkskin.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Go look at the Druid or Dryad in the Monster Manual. They both do not get Dex bonuses (for example) to Barkskin.

Which is correct, considering that, under 5E rules, the dex modifier is part of the set AC, not a bonus added later.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Really... at this point no one should really be claiming that their interpretation is the "right" one or the "obvious" one... because the rule *as a rule* is incomplete. It is not written in such a way that gives us enough explanation as to tell us what the spell *really* is doing.

"Your Armor Class can't be below 16, regardless of the armor you're wearing" is completely useless because it fails to tell us the most important question...

Why?

Why *can't* our AC be below 16? What is happening to us when the spell gets cast? Does the spell give us magical armor? Does the spell make us more easily able to dodge attacks? Does the spell magically parry attacks for us? We don't know. The mechanics in of themselves do not tell us *anything* of what is occurring the game world to give us a better Armor Class if it currently is lower than 16.

Thus... every single one of our attempts at figuring out what is actually happening to a PC who has had Barkskin cast upon them involves making interpretations and leaps from that simple, incomplete sentence to try and come up with a ruling that is logical, correctly-powered, understood in the game world, and "makes sense".

And every one of us is using our tools of reading comprehension and comparative analysis to come up with two distinctly different results.

Which is fine! There's no *real* problems that result from that (other than that one Adventurer's League player who has a druid character based around using Barkskin that now has to speak with their AL DM each time they go to a table to find out which way that DM rules it.)

But let's just accept that this is the case-- that there are two legitimate results that are being given based upon using incomplete information and leave it at that. Because to continue to insist that "No, MY way is the RIGHT way, and YOUR way is a HOUSERULE!" is rather kind of lame. At the end of the day does it really matter? Especially considering WotC probably knows in-house what their intention was with the spell and just hasn't gotten around to telling the rest of us (because again, does it really matter?)

 

[CapnZapp]

Heh.

Again, the thread itself is all the proof I need.

But point about "broken" taken: Yes, I don't mean "broken as in overpowered"

I mean "phrased significantly worse than almost all other rules in the entire PHB".

And I mean "in immediate need of a rewrite"

 

[KarinsDad]

Which is correct, considering that, under 5E rules, the dex modifier is part of the set AC, not a bonus added later.

Ok. I'll buy that.

But, a Shield is part of "base AC" (it actually explicitly states this on page 144 PHB), just like Dex.


So, given that, I could definitely see an interpretation that a cover bonus stacks with Barkskin. But not a Shield. Given the interpretation that Dex is part of base AC (which is implied via the chart) and a Shield is part of base AC (which is stated) and the most reasonable RAI that Barkskin makes base AC a minimum of 16, I could see allowing cover to go above and beyond that.

But, I cannot see an interpretation that Barkskin is the equivalent of Armor where Dex and Shield add to it.


Replacing the phrase "target's AC can't be less than 16, regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing" with "target's base AC can't be less than 16, regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing" does make sense and can easily be viewed as a typo.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

So the only thing obvious about this rule as written is that people don't all agree on its interpretation.

If you read the rules as restrictive, then nothing stacks. If you rule as permissive, then everything stacks. The phrase 'at least' is a permissive one. 'It can be higher than 16, but it can't be lower.' If it were intended to be restrictive, it would say 'at most.'

So from a language standpoint, the 'obvious' interpretation is that your AC is at least 16 (it can be higher, but can't be lower).

So, if it can be higher than 16, what can make it higher? Here's the funny thing. Almost everybody thinks that if you wear armor that grants a higher AC, then you use the AC of the armor. Yet at the same time, when presented with something that grants a bonus to the AC given by barkskin, there's great disagreement.

Is a shield armor or does it provide an AC bonus? While it's listed in the armor table, I think that's for convenience. All Armor provides a set AC amount (AC = x), while shields provide a bonus (+2). Dexterity and many magic items also provide bonuses. Dexterity can also impart a penalty.

Without any other information in the spell to work with, I would say the answer is: Anything that grants a bonus to AC (a '+x') works with the spell. Anything that provides a specific AC works the same way it always does, unless the AC it provides is less than 16. Anything that would lower your AC below 16 does not work.

Does armor stack with it? No, it provides the same AC it always does, but is irrelevant if it's less than 16 (since the barkskin is higher - an attack may break through your armor's defense, but not the barkskin).
Does a shield? Yes
Cover? Yes
Magical bonuses? Yes
Dexterity? Yes, (but...)

So Dexterity is the tricky one, but I think it provides some insight into the designers thinking. There are two examples in the MM that does not apply the Dex bonus with barkskin. Here's what I think really happened.

The designers are extremely familiar with the history of D&D and RPGs. In addition, they are writing/revising hundreds of pages of rules for a new game system. It's very common for somebody writing such rules to make assumptions or gloss over something that's obvious to them, often because it just doesn't occur to them that it's not obvious. Add to that the fact that these are rules in flux at the time they are writing them. Combine that with the fact that the same team is writing all three of the core books this time, instead of 3 teams working together. That has its advantages and disadvantages.

So I think that the wording is assuming that people know that 'at least' means a shield and other things that grant a bonus will work with barkskin (because it has at least since the AD&D PHB), this is supported by Mike's tweet that a shield does work with it, along with the rules in past editions.

On the other hand, the description of the spell was originally that your skin 'becomes tough as bark' which has been rewritten in a way that says it looks like that, but doesn't explicitly say it feels (or is) like that. But I think they decided that it was stiff and worked like any other armor that provides an AC 16 (chain mail) and heavy armor doesn't allow a Dexterity bonus. I'm OK with this ruling, although it does raise the question as to whether stealth checks are at a disadvantage (I'd say no). Again, I think this was an assumption on the part of the designers, they just wrote the MM entries, and it's entirely possible that they didn't even look at the PHB when they created the MM entries because they 'knew' that Dex didn't stack.

The rules weren't written in a vacuum. This is a rule that has an extensive history, and although rules can change, in the absence of something that explicitly changes it, the 'obvious' interpretation for somebody that has played the game for a while is that a shield does stack.

However, the rules should be written in a way that the intention of the designers should be clear to those reading it, whether they are familiar with the history of the game or not.

Ilbranteloth

 

[KarinsDad]

The phrase 'at least' is a permissive one. 'It can be higher than 16, but it can't be lower.' If it were intended to be restrictive, it would say 'at most.'

"At least" and "at most" are both equally as restrictive, just in different directions. Ones a floor, ones a ceiling.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Ok. I'll buy that.

But, a Shield is part of "base AC" (it actually explicitly states this on page 144 PHB), just like Dex.

Yes it does say that for shield, but not for Dex.

It says: 'The armor (and shield) you wear determines your base Armor Class.' That's pretty unambiguous. Although it doesn't repeat that level of clarity under the heading of Shield itself.

It also says 'you add your Dexterity modifier to the base number from your armor type to determine your Armor Class' (not to determine your base Armor Class).

On page 177 is also specifies that 'you might add some or all of your Dexterity modifier to your Armor Class', not base Armor Class.

It also sounds a bit counterintuitive that something that is part of your base AC can vary in application, rather than a modifier. Your modified AC can be situational, but your base AC shouldn't change. The fact that your Dexterity modifier functions differently with different types of armor means (to me) that it's a modifier, not base. This is also consistent with earlier editions where certain circumstances denied your Dexterity modifier to AC (flat-footed, etc.).

Ilbranteloth