D&D 5E Barkskin *Might* Be the Worst Spell Description I've Ever Read

[CapnZapp]

Your AC can't be less than 16. THAT IS ALL IT DOES.

It's an incredibly simple spell that needs no interpretation, but people persist in trying to "But Whatabout ...?" it.

No.

 

[CapnZapp]

This is what it should be, but it explicitly isn't what the spell does. That's the cause of confusion.

Give the spell a different name and description, and all would be well.

Toughen the skin, and have an effect that reflects that, and all would be well.

Ignore any attempt to imagine the spell's consistent application within the narrative, and all would be well.

As it is, picking up a shield makes your skin less barky, dropping it makes it barky again; unless you have a super-high Dexterity, or are wearing heavy armour, or walk in front of a low wall... in which case it's not barky at all.

It is, absolutely, the worst spell description. Not because it is unclear (it is very clear), but because its name, its description, and its effect are unrelated to each other.

Exactly

 

[CapnZapp]

If you just take it to give you an AC of 16, a la Heavy Armour, everything works fine. I don't get why they put in any sort of minimum clause, as you always choose which AC calculation to use anyway.

Except how do you explain "I have two suits of armor, and which one is used depends on me standing behind a wall"

 

[Yunru]

Except how do you explain "I have two suits of armor, and which one is used depends on me standing behind a wall"

You don't, because that's stupid and the spell is stupid.

It's also ambiguous enough that I'm happy to read it as referring to your base AC, since for whatever reason they didn't make that a defined thing.

 

[cmad1977]

Easy spell. Simple description. Not a problem.

 

[CapnZapp]

Easy spell. Simple description. Not a problem.

So how do explain this and all the other threads on the subject?

 

[Gadget]

I'm seeing some revisionist history here. When 5e first came out, almost no one was interpreting it the way it is now, especially since the "regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing" clause seems to tie the AC granted as a replacement to the armor component of AC, not everything. It does not say "regardless of shield, cover, Dex, etc." and the fiction of the skin hardening to bark-like quality also goes along with this interpretation. Even Mearls (who is admittedly not the official Sage) tweeted early on that, in his interpretation, a shield added to the AC granted by bark skin.

This strikes me as, like the contagion, to be more of a stealth errata/nerf--without having to issue official errata--under the guise of, "yeah, that's how we intended it work, yeah, that's the ticket."

 

[happyhermit]

Some times I worry about the wider community, I have seen this spell pass the 12 y.o test with flying colours...

 

[akr71]

Because if your AC is higher than 16, Barkskin doesn't lower it.

and I would argue that if you equip a shield after the spell is cast, your AC is now 18.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm seeing some revisionist history here. When 5e first came out, almost no one was interpreting it the way it is now,

This isn't true. I remember those conversations well, and it was pretty split. Lots of people interpreted it as it is now, because that's what the words mean in how they are presented. In fact, when I had chimed in on the topic back when, I used an "if ... than" BASIC coding analogy to help explain it.