D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[Helldritch]

They went with that the spell actually said, rather than with a houserule that would contradict the PHB text.
If they ewanted to do that, they would put it in the errata.

Barkskin
2nd-level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a handful of oak bark)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour

You touch a willing creature. Until the spell ends, the target’s skin has a rough, bark-like appearance, and the target’s AC can’t be less than 16, regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing.


Spell Lists. Druid, Ranger

Semantically, can't be less does not mean can't be more. Barkskin offers the bare minimum of AC 16 as your skin becomes hard as... well... bark? So AC 16 isn't something to laugh at, but neither is it overpowered. By this time, the fighter with a shield could stand anywhere between 16 to 20. The spell takes one of the precious druid's spell slot and the ranger will cast this spell at level 5... by which time he'll already have a good armor with Breast Plate...

Also, @Helldritch your privileges to complain about 5e "being Easy Mode" are hereby revoked. Letting a Druid PC in a low HP The

That is not a "Metal" DM move, that is a "Sippy Cup/Participation Trophy" DM move.

I say: "Good Day to you".

The true 1ed attitude is to let the excess damage go directly to the druid's HP. Just like 1ed always did (so was 2ed and even 3ed). Can't talk about 4ed druid as I stuck with the 1st PHB only. If the spill damage kills the druid, good. The druid is dead. If not, he thrown out of his wild shape, plumet to the ground and will suffer falling damage.

So yep, I keep my privilege to complain. I killed more party (TPK) in 5ed than in all the other editions combined. Especially in the first two years. But I do appreciate the comment. It made me laugh quite a bit.

 

[commandercrud]

Is there a standard process for the SA person kicking the question to the errata person? (Are they the same person?) Should it be done more often?

Same person.

 

[Wrathamon]

Barkskin
2nd-level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a handful of oak bark)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour

You touch a willing creature. Until the spell ends, the target’s skin has a rough, bark-like appearance, and the target’s AC can’t be less than 16, regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing.

This to me reads that you can use a shield (since it's not armor) and can add cover (since its not armor). The sage advice says it sets the MIN. The example at the end of SA is the confusing part.

This means you effectively ignore any modifiers to your AC—including your Dexterity modifier, your armor, a shield, and cover—unless your AC is higher than 16. For example, if your AC is normally 14, it’s 16 while barkskin is on you. If your AC is 15 and you have half cover, your AC is 17; barkskin isn’t relevant in this case. - sage advice

You could read this as his example is bad. but, the first part doesn't contradict you can use a shield and cover and dex. it just doesnt matter because your ac is 16. It only matters in the part he talks about if you AC is higher than 16. That is where it is odd because he is saying you dont get the other benefits, but nothing in the spell says that. It just says Cant be lower. Doesnt say it cant be higher.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You are entitled to disagree with WotC as to the purpose and implementation of anything that they do, whether that is Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, or indeed the D&D game itself.

Um... thank you?

The balance of a CR 1 creature is described very well in the Dungeon Master's Workshop section of the DMG. A CR 1 bear has an AC of 11...which is lower than a CR 0 creature, but balances out that the bear form's DPR is equivalent to a CR 2 monster.

An AC of 16 is the baseline for a CR 8 creature. So, if you remove the Concentration duration from Barkskin, the Bear Form moon Druid stings like a CR 2 Giant Wasp, and dodges like a CR 8 Bee.

LOL but when you Wild Shape you aren't that creature, you are a Druid assuming its form, so you can toss your CR calculation worries out the window--they don't apply here. Also, you are using a second level spell for the AC buff. A CR 1 brown bear is not available until 8th level Druid (unless you go the ever popular Moon Druid route--but that is only one subclass out of the half-dozen or so out there...). Even if you insist on look at this as a Moon Druid (whose strongest feature IS wild shaping!), you are using 1: One of your two second level slots and 2: one of your Wild Shapes. Those are precious resources, so it should be effective. You can use this tactic (at most) twice a day, for an hour each use since you only have two 2nd-level slots.

But in all other subclass cases, considering all the things an 8th level Druid can be doing, a CR 1 Brown Bear, even with AC 16, is hardly game breaking at all. When you consider the fact that at level 8 you are likely encountering CR 3-5+ monsters, often higher, Wild Shaping into a CR 1 (or 2 even) beast is not going to be a big factor.

I also think since you are concerned with the creature creation section of the DMG, you should really learn how it works. Having a base AC of 16 doesn't make your defense the equal of a CR 8 monster...

Spoiler: CR 1 (?) Brown Bear

For reference:

DEFENSE
1. Begin with finding the HP and determining the base CR. With 34 HP, the base CR is 1/8.
2. Look at the AC for the base CR. For 1/8, it is AC 13. With Barkskin and AC 16, we are 3 points of AC higher.
3. Adjust the base defensive CR up (in this case) 1 level for each full two points of difference in AC. With a 3 point difference, this is only an increase of 1 level.
4. So, your final defensive CR is 1/4.

OFFENSE
1. Begin by finding the average damage for the attacks. For the brown bear it is 19, which results in a CR 2.
2. Next, look up the attack bonus for the base CR (2 in this case), and get +3.
3. Compare the monsters attack bonus (+5) with the CR's attack bonus (+3), adjust the offensive CR up (in this case) 1 level for each full two points of difference in the attack bonus. With a 2 points difference, this is again a +1 increase in CR
4. So, your final offensive CR is 3.

FINAL CR
1. Take the average of the defensive and offensive CRs, rounding normally. The average of 3 and 1/4 is 1.625, so rounded up to CR 2.

Here's the kicker...
BUT if you leave the AC at 11, the Defensive Rating would be CR 0, and the average of 3 and 0 is 1.5, still rounded up to CR 2.

So, although the listed CR for a Brown Bear is 1, it should be 2 according to the DMG method. This is why the CR system is more about the guidelines than actual rules.

Papa Smurf is just plain wrong here.

Shrug No, I think you are paranoid and "just plain wrong" but whatever... I'll sleep just as well at night without your approval so have a nice day.

 

[Guest User]

I also think since you are concerned with the creature creation section of the DMG, you should really learn how it works. Having a base AC of 16 doesn't make your defense the equal of a CR 8 monster...

I like your style Papa Smurf..flood the zone with content, and based off sheer numbers hope one of your nuggets is correct.

I lack the eloquence to say this gently, dnd4vr, from your posts, I don't think you grok the subtlties of 5e D&D.

I understand you will be angry at the statement, and huff and puff in retaliation.

I did not write this post to upset you. I do not want to upset you. I truly do not.
I do want you to know, how I view you- based off of your posts, so we can have a constructive conversation.

Please, Go read the Monster Creation section of the DMG, and please summarize what you think the book states. Then, kindly re-read my post...did I write an AC of 16 makes a creature a CR 8 creature....I did not.

Monster creation is holistic....all points have to be considered and judged as a whole.

Your posts, big Papa Smurf, lead me to think you still view the monster creation rules from a 3e perspective, which was less holistic and more "add X" to the CR.

To restate, for emphasis:
I did not write this post to upset you. I do not want to upset you. I truly do not.
I do want you to know, how I view you- based off of your posts, so we can have a constructive conversation.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I like your style Papa Smurf..flood the zone with content, and based off sheer numbers hope one of your nuggets is correct.

No, that isn't quite right. It was (apparently) a futile attempt to show you how your view point that removing concentration would lead to your concerns expressed below was unfounded:

Remove the Concentration duration requirement from Barkskin, and you empower casters.
That Moon Druid in CR 1 bear form, now has a 16 AC that can only be removed via Dispel Magic. Beating on the brat with a baseball bat can no longer break the spell.

from your posts, I don't think you grok the subtlties of 5e D&D.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I understand you will be angry at the statement, and huff and puff in retaliation.

LOL, you give yourself way too much credit. I am actually just not going to bother responding to you further after this post since you pulled only one part of my last response to you and failed to address the other points or reply to my other post concerning Mage Armor.

Thanks for the homework assignment...

Please, Go read the Monster Creation section of the DMG, and please summarize what you think the book states. Then, kindly re-read my post...

...but I think I'll pass. From my post it is clear to me I have likely have a better understanding of it and the "subtlties of 5e D&D" than you do.

did I write an AC of 16 makes a creature a CR 8 creature....I did not.

No, but then again... neither did I, nor did I claim you did.

You wrote:

An AC of 16 is the baseline for a CR 8 creature. So, if you remove the Concentration duration from Barkskin, the Bear Form moon Druid stings like a CR 2 Giant Wasp, and dodges like a CR 8 Bee.

To which I replied:

Having a base AC of 16 doesn't make your defense the equal of a CR 8 monster...

Both you and I are talking about defense, not an overall CR 8 creature. Perhaps you should make certain you understand my post entirely before responding?

Anyway, I actually find your overall response to my posts defensive and laughable because you could not address it directly.

I did not write this post to upset you. I do not want to upset you. I truly do not.
I do want you to know, how I view you- based off of your posts, so we can have a constructive conversation.

Well, thank you for your consideration! Yes, thank you so much. But, no, thank you.

If you believe removing concentration from Barkskin will cause such problems, don't do it. I think it is an idea worth considering when you compare it to other spells and it will hardly ruin anything in the game IMO, so I'll bring it up to my tables.

If you actually want to address the points I made in my posts, I'll consider responding--otherwise, best of luck and have fun with your game!

 

[Guest User]

What "points" have you made? You post was just a pastiche of rage and snippets of quotes.

The TL;DR for you, Papa Smurf always is: "I'm Right, All else is Wrong, Have a nice day".

There is nothing to respond to.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Except we've seen posted in this thread as quotes from the rulebooks some general rules that - in my eyes anyway - seem to specify pretty clearly how magic items work. In brief: for the magic in an item to function you have to use it as normally intended. Exceptions - and there are some, but shields are not one - are noted in the specific item write-ups.

This means you have to wield a weapon, wear armour, drink a potion, read a scroll, etc. The same would, one assumes, apply to a shield.

With shields specifically, I wonder if a lot of the confusion (and mis-wording on Crawford's part) comes from people thinking different things on reading/hearing the word 'shield': some (like me) think of a fairly big cumbersome thing that either has straps or at least two loops (your arm goes through one loop, you grab and hold the other with your hand) and that takes a brief moment to don; while others (like JC?) are thinking of a Captain America shield - a smaller lighter thing with a single grip that can quickly be picked up and put to use with one hand.

Not all non-strapped shields are been small, but no that isn’t the source of the disconnect, because no one who agrees with JC does so because of how they think shields work.

The magic shields say “while holding” not any other language that would indicate that it must be equipped, much less properly equipped. That means that regardless of the general rule, each magic shield with that language gives its magical benefits while you hold it, regardless of how you hold it. This, in turn, means that the magic shields do not function simply by making the shield lighter and quicker to move (and obviously they don’t. I don’t buy that magic swords do so either. If they did I could get a +1 simply by inventing better mundane metallurgy.), but instead by some manner of projection of protective energy similar to a ring or cloak of spell of protection.

 

[Maxperson]

I like your style Papa Smurf..flood the zone with content, and based off sheer numbers hope one of your nuggets is correct.

I lack the eloquence to say this gently, dnd4vr, from your posts, I don't think you grok the subtlties of 5e D&D.

I understand you will be angry at the statement, and huff and puff in retaliation.

I did not write this post to upset you. I do not want to upset you. I truly do not.
I do want you to know, how I view you- based off of your posts, so we can have a constructive conversation.

Please, Go read the Monster Creation section of the DMG, and please summarize what you think the book states. Then, kindly re-read my post...did I write an AC of 16 makes a creature a CR 8 creature....I did not.

Monster creation is holistic....all points have to be considered and judged as a whole.

Sure, but it only matters with regard to monsters, which are intended to fight entire parties. The monster rules don't apply to PCs. PCs are intended to have high ACs starting at level 1.

What Barkskin does is make one encounter easier, as it should, and then becomes an expended resource. It will rarely matter for more than one encounter.

 

[Lanefan]

Not all non-strapped shields are been small, but no that isn’t the source of the disconnect, because no one who agrees with JC does so because of how they think shields work.

The magic shields say “while holding” not any other language that would indicate that it must be equipped, much less properly equipped.

That it says "while holding" instead of "while worn" or "while equipped" or something similar is just the problem, and is a glaring mistake.

That means that regardless of the general rule, each magic shield with that language gives its magical benefits while you hold it, regardless of how you hold it. This, in turn, means that the magic shields do not function simply by making the shield lighter and quicker to move (and obviously they don’t. I don’t buy that magic swords do so either. If they did I could get a +1 simply by inventing better mundane metallurgy.), but instead by some manner of projection of protective energy similar to a ring or cloak of spell of protection.

I actually have all* magic items weighing somewhat less than their mundane counterparts in any case - usually about a 25% difference.

As for the idea of +1 swords and armour simply being due to superior metallurgy, 3e already got partway there by making masterwork weapons +1 to hit. It's not that big a stretch to go one step further and invent your world's version of Vibranium, that gives anything made of it a serious lack of weight/encumbrance and at least a full +1 bonus to whatever it does.

* - with occasional glaring exceptions; sometimes as a removable curse, other times as just an intrinsic drawback to the item.