D&D 5E barkskin

[Ilbranteloth]

Personally, I'd appreciate a ruling on if you can add a shield AC. Was there one and I missed it?

Yes, Mike Mearls tweeted that a shield would work with Barkskin.
In addition, the two creatures in MM with Barkskin aren't applying their Dex bonus.

Which is why I'm sticking with shields, magic, and situational modifiers to AC work with Barkskin and Dex modifiers don't.

Ilbranteloth

 

[aramis erak]

Not to open a can of worms but why wouldn't shields work? Shields don provide an AC like armor, they provide a bonus. My minimum AC is 16 so why would a shield not add to that?

Because minimum would most logically be applied after all modifiers to base are applied.

If, without barkskin, you've got an AC15, the barkskin makes you 16; your worn/wielded AC goes to 17 when you wield the shield. Or when you fight defensively. If you're worn AC14 or less, Barkskin's better than losing the free hand or the action for the +2 AC.

And, since it doesn't appear that concentration is broken by wildshape, it's great for those low-level druids to buff their wildshapes.

 

[Hussar]

Because minimum would most logically be applied after all modifiers to base are applied.

If, without barkskin, you've got an AC15, the barkskin makes you 16; your worn/wielded AC goes to 17 when you wield the shield. Or when you fight defensively. If you're worn AC14 or less, Barkskin's better than losing the free hand or the action for the +2 AC.

And, since it doesn't appear that concentration is broken by wildshape, it's great for those low-level druids to buff their wildshapes.

Yup, I agree with this. That seems to be the cleanest interpretation. Calculate your non-barkskin AC. If it's 16 or higher, the barkskin does nothing, otherwise your AC is 16.

I suppose the only question in my mind is how cover works, but, I'd say that cover should work normally - you get the bonus to the 16.

 

[Evenglare]

11 pages of bickering for a simple flow chart?

Is your ac 16 or higher? (look at your character sheet in the little box that says AC there's a number, now see what it is.)
If yes, then your AC stays what it is.
If no, then your AC is 16.

That's literally the only thing that needs to be asked. Everyone is making it more complicated and granular with shields and cover and... gah. Its one number, interpret it however you want, but the number is the only thing that is affected by the spell and should be the only thing looked at by the spell, as it is currently written. But continue the arguing by all means.

 

[BryonD]

11 pages of bickering for a simple flow chart?

Is your ac 16 or higher? (look at your character sheet in the little box that says AC there's a number, now see what it is.)
If yes, then your AC stays what it is.
If no, then your AC is 16.

That's literally the only thing that needs to be asked. Everyone is making it more complicated and granular with shields and cover and... gah. Its one number, interpret it however you want, but the number is the only thing that is affected by the spell and should be the only thing looked at by the spell, as it is currently written. But continue the arguing by all means.

But it is FUN bickering.
Really, this is a complete non-issue to me for at the table. But if you get into it from a pure rules perspective, it is completely fair to say, "it is a simple flow chart, except what if the flow chart gives a moronic answer?" And, yes, it is just that simple. And sometimes it gives completely moronic answers.

Ignore problems at table. Have fun bickering online.

EVERYBODY WINS!!!!!

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yup... bickering over the legitimacy of moronic rules is half the fun of being here on the boards.

And that's why I personally use the fluff + the mechanics to make my ruling on Barkskin. Fluff says Barkskin makes your skin thicker (like an armor), and since druids at 1st level *should* be allowed to buy/wear Medium armor that grants a max AC of 16 (14 for armor + 2 for DEX mod)-- but CAN'T because of the "no metal armor" fluff rule to druids-- I presume Barkskin was made to give them what they should be able to have if it were not due to fluff. Then all other "AC modifiers" can come into play (shields, cover etc.)

As I treat the entire Player's Handbook in the spirit of which 5E was designed (where *everything* is table-specific, DM-adjudicated, "Ruled As Intended"), I am more than happy to rule the spell in the manner that I feel actually makes logical sense and has an obvious effect in the game world. The rest of you people can rule it in whatever crazy-assed, nonsensical manner you wish.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Yes, Mike Mearls tweeted that a shield would work with Barkskin.
In addition, the two creatures in MM with Barkskin aren't applying their Dex bonus.

Which is why I'm sticking with shields, magic, and situational modifiers to AC work with Barkskin and Dex modifiers don't.

Ilbranteloth

I think it's easy to overstate the "Mike Mearls tweeted..." angle.

Here's the tweet (are there others?).

To me, "I'd say..." suggests nothing definitive. It's an at-table (or off the cuff) call, possibly made without reference to books and probably made without reference to or knowledge of the larger debate. It might be right, but not simply because it's been Mearlsed.

 

[Ristamar]

I think I'll use the "Barkskin functions as chaninmail" line of reasoning since it aligns cleanly with existing rules regarding AC. It fits with existing evidence in the Monster Manual (no Dex bonus), it compensates for a poor Dex score like heavy armor, and it fits with Mearls shield related tweet, as well.

 

[lkj]

I think it's easy to overstate the "Mike Mearls tweeted..." angle.

Here's the tweet (are there others?).

To me, "I'd say..." suggests nothing definitive. It's an at-table (or off the cuff) call, possibly made without reference to books and probably made without reference to or knowledge of the larger debate. It might be right, but not simply because it's been Mearlsed.

The real question is whether Crawford said anything, since they've both agreed he's the final arbiter. I imagine it will show up in their FAQ or a new Sage Advice column. I think I tweeted the barkskin question to him awhile ago, but I never saw an answer. I imagine it's hard to keep up with all the questions.

Not to say I don't appreciate Mearls' responses. Even if they sometimes deviate from the final 'official' ruling, it gives me a gauge on the 'will it break anything' meter. So, whether you include shield or not in the 'flowchart' probably isn't a huge deal so long as everyone at the table is on the same page.

AD

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The real question is whether Crawford said anything, since they've both agreed he's the final arbiter. I imagine it will show up in their FAQ or a new Sage Advice column. I think I tweeted the barkskin question to him awhile ago, but I never saw an answer. I imagine it's hard to keep up with all the questions.

Not to say I don't appreciate Mearls' responses. Even if they sometimes deviate from the final 'official' ruling, it gives me a gauge on the 'will it break anything' meter. So, whether you include shield or not in the 'flowchart' probably isn't a huge deal so long as everyone at the table is on the same page.

AD

Sure. But folks often ask what either of them have said. And of all the voices that have weighed in on the subject here or elsewhere, his is the most (and so far only) 'official' response on this specific subject.

For me the real question is what I, and my players, think. Sure, we like to know what the official rules say, and any clarification from official sources is helpful too. But in the end, we decide what we feel needs a bit of tweaking. We use at least 90% of the rules as is.

For us it's simple: shields, magical items, and circumstantial bonuses work because that's how it's always worked in my campaign. Dex bonus worked as well, but we're comfortable forgoing that now because the base AC that is provided by the spell now is higher than the +2 of the older spells.

The fact that Mike's tweet provides some support for that position is just a nice bonus. One of the things that was always a part of D&D (good and/or bad depending on your perspective) is that the DM, and to some degree the players, get to interpret the rules for what's appropriate for them. Part of this for us (since I've had such long-running campaigns) is how to deal with a new edition of the game, if at all.

For this particular spell, the answer for us is 'not much.' Druids could use a shield to get an additional bonus before, and they still can now. I don't see any reason why an additional temporary 18 AC is going to break the game any more than a 16 AC.

If that doesn't work for your campaign, or if it's ultimately not the ruling used in organized play, so be it.

Ilbranteloth