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

[DEFCON 1]

Ah yes! The one Sage Advice Jeremy has given that I actually can't stand with a passion, and the ruling I always bring up when people claim I'm nothing but a WotC apologist!

Yep.. the game mechanic itself is fine. Easy to understand, easy to adjudicate.

The story of the spell called 'Barkskin' is fine. Your skin hardens like tree bark, making your skin like armor and more difficult to get hurt.

The two combined together are a mess because one does not make sense with the other... especially when you add in the shield and cover into the equation.

When you can stand naked out in the open with a spell cast on you that makes your naked skin tougher and more impervious to wounds like tree bark... and then pick up a shield in front of you *and* walk behind half a wall... and have those maneuvers accomplish absolutely nothing... the fiction of the spell is incorrect.

Every other character out there in every single other type of armor or armor calculation picks up a shield and/or walks behind a wall, they become more difficult to hit. Why? Because the fiction tells us that the shield and the wall block some of the attacks from hitting.

But for some odd reason... the 'Barkskin' character is the only one for whom that doesn't happen. Not a single attack in the fiction ever seems to hit the wall or the shield... they all by complete coincidence manage to get past the wall and the shield, and then get blocked ONLY by the "barkskin armor" on the person. How is it that any other person who gets bombarded by arrows will have the shield and the wall block any number of them... but the naked Barkskinned person doesn't? Their AC was 16 before picking up the shield and hiding behind cover, and their AC was STILL 16 after picking up the shield and hiding behind cover. Thus, according to the fiction... the shield and wall accomplish nothing. They serve no use.

Why?

It's entirely because of how they wrote the game mechanic. That's it. Nothing in the reality of the world nor in the story and fluff of the spell's description explains it. Nothing in the spell's description or fluff should preclude a shield or cover from having an affect this character standing naked out in the world... it's ONLY how they wrote the game mechanic and then Sage Adviced it that it doesn't.

And it's a dumb decision. I don't care what some of you think.

To me, there's only one legitimate way to play this spell... one that makes complete sense in the totality of what the druid has/needs and how the spell is described.

- The druid as a class is given proficiency in Medium Armor. Which means at 1st level, the best armor a druid can afford to buy based on 100 starting gold pieces is Chain Mail. An armor which would give them an AC of 16 and Disadvantage on Stealth checks.

- However, the druid is not allowed to use Chain Mail, because of the whole "no metal armor" fluff rule for the class. Which means even though then can afford it, they aren't allowed to have the same AC as another class who starts with proficiency in Medium Armor (like the Cleric) for no other reason than story reasons.

- In return for this... the druid is instead given a spell that hardens their skin as though they were wearing armor. And this "bark-like" skin just coincidentally happens to grant them the same AC they otherwise could have had due to their Medium Armor proficiency (if their class allowed them to wear it.)

To me... this makes perfect sense. Both the cleric and the druid can now "wear chain mail" as their Medium Armor proficiency allows and get an AC of 16. And thus by rights... anything that can raise the cleric's AC in the fiction should have no problem affecting the druid in the same way. Pick up a shield? They get 2 more points of AC. Hide behind a partial cover or 3/4 cover? They get a +2 or +5 to their AC. They are now equal!

... if of course we ignore the fact that the cleric can wear their chain mail at 1st level, and the druid has to wait until 3rd level. And that the druid's "chain mail" only lasts for an hour. And that the druid has to use its concentration slot to have it. And that the "chain mail" will probably disappear much sooner than an hour due to all the CON checks it'll have to make.

But I guess you can't have everything.

>>>

MY version of the spell.

Barkskin
1st-level transmutation

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V S M (Oak bark)
Duration: Up to 1 hour

A willing creature's skin becomes hard like bark, as though they were wearing a suit of chain mail armor. While under the effects of the spell they have an AC of 16 and disadvantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks. The creature can still gain bonuses to its AC from shields and cover.

 

[5ekyu]

Ah yes! The one Sage Advice Jeremy has given that I actually can't stand with a passion, and the ruling I always bring up when people claim I'm nothing but a WotC apologist!

Yep.. the game mechanic itself is fine. Easy to understand, easy to adjudicate.

The story of the spell called 'Barkskin' is fine. Your skin hardens like tree bark, making your skin like armor and more difficult to get hurt.

The two combined together are a mess because one does not make sense with the other... especially when you add in the shield and cover into the equation.

When you can stand naked out in the open with a spell cast on you that makes your naked skin tougher and more impervious to wounds like tree bark... and then pick up a shield in front of you *and* walk behind half a wall... and have those maneuvers accomplish absolutely nothing... the fiction of the spell is incorrect.

Every other character out there in every single other type of armor or armor calculation picks up a shield and/or walks behind a wall, they become more difficult to hit. Why? Because the fiction tells us that the shield and the wall block some of the attacks from hitting.

But for some odd reason... the 'Barkskin' character is the only one for whom that doesn't happen. Not a single attack in the fiction ever seems to hit the wall or the shield... they all by complete coincidence manage to get past the wall and the shield, and then get blocked ONLY by the "barkskin armor" on the person. How is it that any other person who gets bombarded by arrows will have the shield and the wall block any number of them... but the naked Barkskinned person doesn't? Their AC was 16 before picking up the shield and hiding behind cover, and their AC was STILL 16 after picking up the shield and hiding behind cover. Thus, according to the fiction... the shield and wall accomplish nothing. They serve no use.

Why?

It's entirely because of how they wrote the game mechanic. That's it. Nothing in the reality of the world nor in the story and fluff of the spell's description explains it. Nothing in the spell's description or fluff would preclude a shield or cover from having an affect this character standing naked out in the world... it's ONLY how they wrote the game mechanic and then Sage Adviced it that it doesn't.

And it's a dumb decision. I don't care what some of you think.

To me, there's only one legitimate way to play this spell... one that makes complete sense in the totality of what the druid has/needs and how the spell is described.

- The druid as a class is given proficiency in Medium Armor. Which means at 1st level, the best armor a druid can afford to buy based on 100 starting gold pieces is Chain Mail. An armor which would give them an AC of 16 and Disadvantage on Stealth checks.

- However, the druid is not allowed to use Chain Mail, because of the whole "no metal armor" fluff rule for the class. Which means even though then can afford it, they aren't allowed to have the same AC as another class who starts with proficiency in Medium Armor (like the Cleric) for no other reason than story reasons.

- In return for this... the druid is instead given a spell that hardens their skin as though they were wearing armor. And this "bark-like" skin just coincidentally happens to grant them the same AC they otherwise could have had due to their Medium Armor proficiency (if their class allowed them to wear it.)

To me... this makes perfect sense. Both the cleric and the druid can now "wear chain mail" as their Medium Armor proficiency allows and get an AC of 16. And thus by rights... anything that can raise the cleric's AC in the fiction should have no problem affecting the druid in the same way. Pick up a shield? They get 2 more points of AC. Hide behind a partial cover or 3/4 cover? They get a +2 or +5 to their AC. They are now equal!

... if of course we ignore the fact that the cleric can wear their chain mail at 1st level, and the druid has to wait until 3rd level. And that the druid's "chain mail" only lasts for an hour. And that the druid has to use its concentration slot to have it. And that the "chain mail" will probably disappear much sooner than an hour due to all the CON checks it'll have to make. But at least the fiction of the game world makes sense this way.

>>>

Barkskin
1st-level transmutation

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V S M (Oak bark)
Duration: Up to 1 hour

A willing creature's skin becomes hard like bark, as though they were wearing a suit of chain mail armor. While under the effects of the spell they have an AC of 16 and disadvantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks. The creature can still gain bonuses to its AC from shields and cover.

RE this:

"But for some odd reason... the 'Barkskin' character is the only one for whom that doesn't happen. Not a single attack ever seems to hit the wall or the shield... they all by complete coincidence manage to get past the wall and the shield, and then get blocked ONLY by the "barkskin armor" on the person. Why? How is it that any other person who gets bombarded by arrows will have the shield and the wall block any number of them... but the naked Barkskinned person doesn't? "

there is nothing at all saying the barkskin creature doesn't have arrows blocked by the wall or the shield. there is nothing stopping a Gm from narrating the barkskin character getting missed and the arrow hitting the wall.

Just like there is nothing preventing a character in armor from being "missed" by an arrow as opposed to it being stopped by his armor.

just like there is nothing stopping the arrow from being a wild shot cause by a slip in the caster's footing and the wet deck - even though the Gm did not assess a penalty for the wet deck.

just because an actual measurable penalty to the roll/DC assessed before thr roll for a scenery effect by no means prevents that scenery effect from being part of the narration of the outcome. This is shown in game after game in play every day.

barkskin and its "cover problem" is no different.

a GM wanting to add that narrative limitation to how he runs barkskin is one that seems to be trying to portray it as negatively as possible - which points to the Gm as the source of that particular problem in play.

 

[DEFCON 1]

*EDIT* Yes, yes... Chain Mail is a Heavy Armor that grants an AC of 16. What I meant to say is that the normal druid with Medium Armor proficiency could start with a max AC of 16 because of Scale mail (AC 14) plus 2 points of DEX.

The point otherwise is still the same.

 

[DEFCON 1]

there is nothing at all saying the barkskin creature doesn't have arrows blocked by the wall or the shield. there is nothing stopping a Gm from narrating the barkskin character getting missed and the arrow hitting the wall.

Just like there is nothing preventing a character in armor from being "missed" by an arrow as opposed to it being stopped by his armor.

just like there is nothing stopping the arrow from being a wild shot cause by a slip in the caster's footing and the wet deck - even though the Gm did not assess a penalty for the wet deck.

just because an actual measurable penalty to the roll/DC assessed before thr roll for a scenery effect by no means prevents that scenery effect from being part of the narration of the outcome. This is shown in game after game in play every day.

barkskin and its "cover problem" is no different.

a GM wanting to add that narrative limitation to how he runs barkskin is one that seems to be trying to portray it as negatively as possible - which points to the Gm as the source of that particular problem in play.

If the AC of every single character goes up when using a shield or being behind cover, EXCEPT for a person under the effects of a Barkskin spell... it's not the DM that is portraying things as negatively as possible. I'd say it was the spell description.

But hey, if you are willing to ignore it, go right ahead. It's still a dumb connection between description and mechanic.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Of course you can apply cover to your AC. And then you compare your AC to 16, and if it's lower you increase it to 16.

The order of operations is:
1. Do all AC calculations. Armor, dex, shield, spells, cover, etc.
2. While barkskin is up if the results of step 1 are less than 16 then use 16 instead.

Yes, and I call . As much as I hate to agree with CapnZap, it makes no sese fictionally and it does not make the game easier. I really understand the text, really. But it makes no sense. And the part "regardless which armor you wear" and Jeremy´s first ruling strongly hints to the fact that the intention was different in the beginning. He now just answers sage advice differently: he tries to make the most straight forward interpretation, in this case ignoring the second part. And I still think that is a mistake.
Look at the druid in the MM: AC 16 with barkskin. If a DM has to remember that it is either 16 Barkskin or normal AC + cover, that is counterintuitive.
So please, don´t explain such trivial things to me. I can easily read it. But as others mention: it does not make sense for many of us.

 

[Blue]

Yes, and I call . As much as I hate to agree with CapnZap, it makes no sese fictionally and it does not make the game easier. I really understand the text, really. But it makes no sense. And the part "regardless which armor you wear" and Jeremy´s first ruling strongly hints to the fact that the intention was different in the beginning. He now just answers sage advice differently: he tries to make the most straight forward interpretation, in this case ignoring the second part. And I still think that is a mistake.
Look at the druid in the MM: AC 16 with barkskin. If a DM has to remember that it is either 16 Barkskin or normal AC + cover, that is counterintuitive.
So please, don´t explain such trivial things to me. I can easily read it. But as others mention: it does not make sense for many of us.

Look, narratively I don't like the spell. I think they were trying to come up with something that could ignore any oddity from wild shape (high dex, natural armor, what have you) and ended up with a weird, off off spell. I agree it makes no sense fictionally. If you want to change what the spell does, go for it.

But that's not what my answer was about. You said the spell wasn't simple - it is, just compare your AC to 16, and use 16 if it's lower. You talked about ignoring cover - you don't, that's just complicating it. You add cover like any other change to AC. Then compare to 16. Any attempt to add AC after AC has been calculated is what makes it look complex; it's NOT. Can you calculate your AC with cover normally? How much harder is it then say "or use 16 if it's higher"? It's dirt simple.

It's a stupid spell, but it's clear on what it does.

 

[5ekyu]

If the AC of every single character goes up when using a shield or being behind cover, EXCEPT for a person under the effects of a Barkskin spell... it's not the DM that is portraying things as negatively as possible. I'd say it was the spell description.

But hey, if you are willing to ignore it, go right ahead. It's still a dumb connection between description and mechanic.

I am not ignoring the spell description at all, I am just not imposing on that one spell a requirement that I never use non-bonus providing scenery in my narrative of results.

If a guy makes a running jump that requires a check for extra distance and fails, i can narrate part of that failure as a slip on the wet floor even if I did not impose any penalty due to wet floor.

If a guy misses a bow shot at range on a stormy day under lightly obscured confitions, I can narrate part of that failure on the rain and unclear spotting even tho the lightly obscured did not actually affect the to hit roll.

Similarly, I can ignore cover entirely in the narration, even if it did affect the roll or i can make it mix and match - to shot around the cover you wound up hitting the shield.

So the GM who somehow decides he will only describe Barkskin as having all shots hit the barkskin and miss cover etc flawlessly is creating his own "narrative" problems.

That is separate from whether or not one likes the mechanics.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Look, narratively I don't like the spell. I think they were trying to come up with something that could ignore any oddity from wild shape (high dex, natural armor, what have you) and ended up with a weird, off off spell. I agree it makes no sense fictionally. If you want to change what the spell does, go for it.

But that's not what my answer was about. You said the spell wasn't simple - it is, just compare your AC to 16, and use 16 if it's lower. You talked about ignoring cover - you don't, that's just complicating it. You add cover like any other change to AC. Then compare to 16. Any attempt to add AC after AC has been calculated is what makes it look complex; it's NOT. Can you calculate your AC with cover normally? How much harder is it then say "or use 16 if it's higher"? It's dirt simple.

It's a stupid spell, but it's clear on what it does.

No. The last part makes it unclear as it refers to armor you are wearing.

 

[CleverNickName]

It's dirt simple.

It's as simple as you want it to be.

The ranger wanted to be able to prepare and cast Shield of Faith like the paladin could. I said "sure, but let's call it Shield of Nature instead to avoid confusion." I forgot the reason, but it made sense at the time and we never looked back.

Maybe that's a possible solution? Remove Barkskin and let druids/rangers cast Mage Armor (or whatever) instead?

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes, and I call . As much as I hate to agree with CapnZap

lol