D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[Wrathamon]

No, that shields and cover don't stack with it.

"How does barkskin work with shields, cover, and other modifiers to AC? Barkskin specifies that your AC can’t be lower than 16 while you are affected by the spell. 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."

cover and shield work if it makes your AC higher than 16. If lower it is not relevant since barkskin sets the MIN AC to 16. Oh I see what you mean. NM. The example isn't very clear

 

[Bacon Bits]

It also helps to understand what SA does:

RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.

Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published.

I think this is the entire problem. Crawford's first idea for answering the question is, "I'm going to read the book back to you." Then if he thinks that answers the question, he stops. The last thing I want for D&D, a game where there is explicitly a referee at the table to make decisions and alter the game, is a strict constructionist reading of the rules.

I'm not really interested in another pair of eyes reading the book when I take the step of asking WotC or Crawford a D&D question. I'm pretty good at reading comprehension (when I take the time to do it). What I want to hear is, "What did you mean when you wrote this?" or "What was the intended interaction here? Was this interaction identified even?" That's much more informative because it tells me what parts of the text can be ignored.

I would be much, much happier with a response like, "We didn't consider that particular interaction." I suppose in those instances it's not really helpful to say that. And people don't want to think. They want an answer. Maybe that's the problem.

Reminds me of G'Kar's sermon about God and truth. His first answer is deep and meaningful and thoughtful. His second is shallow and empty and cliched. And his followers prefer the second answer.


Crawford knows those of us who can decide what to do don't need Sage Advice. He also knows that there are a ton of people who don't want to know that there's a man behind the curtain who, truthfully, wants you to think for yourself and join the former group. But those people don't want that. They want an answer they can quote, chapter and verse. Maybe that's all he's doing.

 

[Laurefindel]

I think this is the entire problem. Crawford's first idea for answering the question is, "I'm going to read the book back to you." Then if he thinks that answers the question, he stops. The last thing I want for D&D, a game where there is explicitly a referee at the table to make decisions and alter the game, is a strict constructionist reading of the rules.

I'm not really interested in another pair of eyes reading the book when I take the step of asking WotC or Crawford a D&D question. I'm pretty good at reading comprehension (when I take the time to do it). What I want to hear is, "What did you mean when you wrote this?" or "What was the intended interaction here? Was this interaction identified even?" That's much more informative because it tells me what parts of the text can be ignored.

I would be much, much happier with a response like, "We didn't consider that particular interaction." I suppose in those instances it's not really helpful to say that. And people don't want to think. They want an answer. Maybe that's the problem.

Reminds me of G'Kar's sermon about God and truth. His first answer is deep and meaningful and thoughtful. His second is shallow and empty and cliched. And his followers prefer the second answer.


Crawford knows those of us who can decide what to do don't need Sage Advice. He also knows that there are a ton of people who don't want to know that there's a man behind the curtain who, truthfully, wants you to think for yourself and join the former group. But those people don't want that. They want an answer they can quote, chapter and verse. Maybe that's all he's doing.

Uh, amen?

 

[DEFCON 1]

cover and shield work if it makes your AC higher than 16. If lower it is not relevant since barkskin sets the MIN AC to 16. Oh I see what you mean. NM. The example isn't very clear

Yep. You stand out in the open wearing no armor and your AC is 10. Barkskin is cast on you, your skin (according to the fluff of the spell) hardens like tree bark and now your AC goes up to 16. Okay, so far so good. But then you walk behind 3/4 cover (like inside a tower with an arrow slit) and your AC remains at 16 despite 95% of your body now being completely covered by the tower walls. For everyone else their ACs jump up +5 points for 3/4 cover... but for you though it doesn't. Which means either one of two things fluff-wise...

...either the tower is now completely insubstantial and allows every attack against you to go through it (where it then gets blocked by the AC 16 Barkskin spell) or your Barkskin spell magically reduced itself down to AC 11 when you walked into the tower, with the other 5 points of AC coming from the 3/4 cover like normal.

In either case... rather than stacking on top of your "armored" Barkskin AC like shields and cover do with all other armors and AC adjusters, their protection instead either disappears or your Barkskin spell fluctuates its bonus up and down as you pick up or drop shields and move back and forth into and out of cover. The fluff of the spell does not match the mechanical effect the spell gives.

 

[Iry]

My favorite explanation for Barkskin was lazy fey spirits. They only work as hard as they need to reach 16AC, then slack off.
I don't remember who first came up with the idea, but it's stuck with me ever since.

 

[Laurefindel]

My favorite explanation for Barkskin was lazy fey spirits. They only work as hard as they need to reach 16AC, then slack off.
I don't remember who first came up with the idea, but it's stuck with me ever since.

That’s what happens when you give them a concentration spell; they think they’re paid by the round...

 

[Kobold Stew]

SA rulings that don't follow the rules are the ones that bother me. Goodberry + Disciple of Life working together fits this bill for me.

This is the one that gets me. Barkskin is bad, because it's written poorly. Goodberry was fine until the SA ruling, at which point it becomes a go-to for healing because of a silly misreading that is way out of synch with other 1st-level healing spells.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not really interested in another pair of eyes reading the book when I take the step of asking WotC or Crawford a D&D question. I'm pretty good at reading comprehension (when I take the time to do it). What I want to hear is, "What did you mean when you wrote this?" or "What was the intended interaction here? Was this interaction identified even?" That's much more informative because it tells me what parts of the text can be ignored.

I would be much, much happier with a response like, "We didn't consider that particular interaction." I suppose in those instances it's not really helpful to say that. And people don't want to think. They want an answer. Maybe that's the problem.

I'm cynical enough to suspect that part of the problem is simply not wanting to admit to making a design mistake....

 

[Helldritch]

You don’t seem to have actually read what you’re responding to. Maybe reread it. Your reply is nonsense.

FYI, I’ve fought with a sword and shield quite a bit. Having done so bears no relation to anything I said about magic shield enchantments in D&D .

also citing shadiversity, a garbage MRA whiner, isn’t gonna score you any points.

I was replying to this garbage you wrote:

No, the magic of the shield extends a field of protection around you.
Or it magically compels attacks toward the shield.
Or makes it hard to properly look at you closely enough to target you with accuracy.
Or whatever else someone wants to imagine.

What you wrote is nothing more than your own preference for how a shield works, and not one I’d even like as a player or use as a DM.

A shield does not do that or if it does it is specified in the shield's description. A +x shield does not do any of things you mentionned in either the general rule or the specific rule about shields. So my reply makes a lot of sense. Did you actually read it?

As for your experience in wielding a shield... You should then know how a shield works. To have said the above tells me you do not. Magic has always been assumed to enhance or to facilitate an object's ease of use or its durability. At least, that is what fantasy, lore and D&D assumed and still assume up to this day. When an enchantment does something else, it is always written in the specific item's description. It is not MY preference as you said, but how it has always been from the start. So yep, I read your comment and did not find anything that was remotely logical or sensical in it.

Lastly, you may not like Shadiversity, but it does not entitle you to belittle him in anyways. Unless you do research too? If so would you care to do rebuttal vids about the vids Shad's done for the past years to prove him wrong? (And when he is proven wrong, btw, he admits it. Which is way better than a lot of persons on the internet or IRL that I know).

Stop acting like a fan and use your logic to actually think about the ruling with shields. Before this SA, would you really have allowed this crap at your table? Really???? Your comments are usually much better (way better) than what you have given us in this thread.

 

[Helldritch]

I think this is the entire problem. Crawford's first idea for answering the question is, "I'm going to read the book back to you." Then if he thinks that answers the question, he stops. The last thing I want for D&D, a game where there is explicitly a referee at the table to make decisions and alter the game, is a strict constructionist reading of the rules.

I'm not really interested in another pair of eyes reading the book when I take the step of asking WotC or Crawford a D&D question. I'm pretty good at reading comprehension (when I take the time to do it). What I want to hear is, "What did you mean when you wrote this?" or "What was the intended interaction here? Was this interaction identified even?" That's much more informative because it tells me what parts of the text can be ignored.

I would be much, much happier with a response like, "We didn't consider that particular interaction." I suppose in those instances it's not really helpful to say that. And people don't want to think. They want an answer. Maybe that's the problem.

Reminds me of G'Kar's sermon about God and truth. His first answer is deep and meaningful and thoughtful. His second is shallow and empty and cliched. And his followers prefer the second answer.


Crawford knows those of us who can decide what to do don't need Sage Advice. He also knows that there are a ton of people who don't want to know that there's a man behind the curtain who, truthfully, wants you to think for yourself and join the former group. But those people don't want that. They want an answer they can quote, chapter and verse. Maybe that's all he's doing.

I would tend to agree with you.

I remember the old SA of Dragon Magazine of the 80's. It was never about what was written, but what was the intent when the rule was written. Sometimes, the writting and the intent matched, but the exact wording was not up to the task of fully describing the intent. And they usually admit it. We all know that sometimes, a single coma can change the meaning of an entire sentence. SA should be about intent, not RAW. When both match, great, it is just clarifying. But in this shield ruling... ho boy did they missed the mark.