D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[DEFCON 1]

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.

I believe it was our good @CapnZapp who first postulated the lazy fey idea.

I actually find it an amusing character idea. You're a character that has a swarm of fey spirits all around you all the time. When you cast Spirit Guardians you call them to action and they get to fly around attacking everything in sight when you move close to them. They are bloodthirsty little things and love to just kill, kill, kill.

But then you decide to cast Barkskin and suddenly they no longer get to go around killing things, instead they are stuck going on the defensive and have to block attacks made against you. Talk about boring! Then to make matters worse... if you then pick up and use a shield or move behind cover, they are all like "What the hell is this crap?!? What, the job we doing no good enough for you?!? Screw you, dude!" and they slack off their duties and that's why your AC remains only at 16 despite the shield and/or cover bonuses.

But cast Spirit Guardians and they get all happy again! The lesson learned is... don't piss off the fey spirits.

 

[Helldritch]

Barkskin is actually the first SA that rang an alarm bell in my mind.
It gives AC 16. From there, you can go up. Use a shield? AC 18. Go behind cover +5 AC so you're now 23. This is how the spell was meant to be from the beginning of the spell itself. I think they realized they made it too good so they had to find a way to minimize their mistake and came up with this illogical rule.

If they would be willing to admit they made it too good. Just give it AC 14 at all time in an errata. Not this non sensical of maximum AC...

 

[DND_Reborn]

If they would be willing to admit they made it too good

Yeah, that was a horrible ruling IMO, too.

And do you really think Barkskin is too good? I mean, it is a 2nd level spell, 1 hour, with concentration. That is only the equivalent of chain mail. A PC in chain mail (only 75 gp), shield, and behind 3/4-cover would have the same AC 23 without the need of a spell slot or concentration.

By comparison, Mage Armor is AC 13, has no concentration, and lasts 8 hours.

I really don't think it is too good at all, personally, and gives druid a way to bump their AC beyond the medium armors.

EDIT: looking over the spell again, there should be some flavor text about how the bark limits your mobility, and maybe a rule that you cannot apply any DEX modifier to your AC (or limit it to +2?).

 

[billd91]

Barkskin is actually the first SA that rang an alarm bell in my mind.
It gives AC 16. From there, you can go up. Use a shield? AC 18. Go behind cover +5 AC so you're now 23. This is how the spell was meant to be from the beginning of the spell itself. I think they realized they made it too good so they had to find a way to minimize their mistake and came up with this illogical rule.

If they would be willing to admit they made it too good. Just give it AC 14 at all time in an errata. Not this non sensical of maximum AC...

I think you mean minimum AC...

The barkskin spell is oddly written, no doubt, and it does lead to goofy interpretations. They’d probably have been better off writing it more like the 2e version, giving a higher base AC and not working with armor. Or like 5e mage armor for druids.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, that was a horrible ruling IMO, too.

And do you really think Barkskin is too good? I mean, it is a 2nd level spell, 1 hour, with concentration. That is only the equivalent of chain mail. A PC in chain mail (only 75 gp), shield, and behind 3/4-cover would have the same AC 23 without the need of a spell slot or concentration.

By comparison, Mage Armor is AC 13, has no concentration, and lasts 8 hours.

I really don't think it is too good at all, personally, and gives druid a way to bump their AC beyond the medium armors.

Yea, even having it act as concentration-gated chain mail (which is how I run it), it's still not a great spell. Its real use is in making your wild shapes have not-atrocious AC.

 

[Helldritch]

Yeah, that was a horrible ruling IMO, too.

And do you really think Barkskin is too good? I mean, it is a 2nd level spell, 1 hour, with concentration. That is only the equivalent of chain mail. A PC in chain mail (only 75 gp), shield, and behind 3/4-cover would have the same AC 23 without the need of a spell slot or concentration.

By comparison, Mage Armor is AC 13, has no concentration, and lasts 8 hours.

I really don't think it is too good at all, personally, and gives druid a way to bump their AC beyond the medium armors.

EDIT: looking over the spell again, there should be some flavor text about how the bark limits your mobility, and maybe a rule that you cannot apply any DEX modifier to your AC (or limit it to +2?).

Do I think the spell is too good? Personally? Absolutely not. In fact, I found it quite ok before the SA.
But to have gimped the spell in such a way must mean that it was wayyyyyyy too good. At least, that's what I imagine they've thought with the SA...

 

[NotAYakk]

Do I think the spell is too good? Personally? Absolutely not. In fact, I found it quite ok before the SA.
But to have gimped the spell in such a way must mean that it was wayyyyyyy too good. At least, that's what I imagine they've thought with the SA...

Better answer:

Roll20 - Compendium and Rule Set Directory

Browse and reference your favorite RPG rule sets for systems including D&D, Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, and Cyberpunk RED.

roll20.net

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 spell is intended to act like chainmail without requiring proficiency. It can still gain benefits from shields, cover, or magic items. In short, the target's base AC becomes 16, or the AC it gains from armor, whichever is better.

It is pretty obvious it was written to avoid "I cast barkskin on the dragon" and that lowering the dragon's AC.

 

[Helldritch]

Better answer:

Roll20 - Compendium and Rule Set Directory

Browse and reference your favorite RPG rule sets for systems including D&D, Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, and Cyberpunk RED.

roll20.net

* This spell is intended to act like chainmail without requiring proficiency. It can still gain benefits from shields, cover, or magic items. In short, the target's base AC becomes 16, or the AC it gains from armor, whichever is better.

It is pretty obvious it was written to avoid "I cast barkskin on the dragon" and that lowering the dragon's AC.

That's the way I have been playing the spell all along. Ruling it any other way is just outrageous. Yet, I know a few DMs that were abiding by the SA. It took a long time but they finally agreed that the SA ruling was not right. The only argument they had was, but it is SA, it is official... It is not because a WotC employee tell me something that it can't be wrong. Humans make mistakes...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I was replying to this garbage you wrote:


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.

You’ve still misread it.

I didn’t comment on how shields work.

 

[Helldritch]

You’ve still misread it.

I didn’t comment on how shields work.

Your explanations were not satisfactory answers. You commented on how, according to SA (and you?) a magical shield was affording protection. These examples trying to justify the bonus a magical shield impart to its user shows a lack of how shields (and therefore magical shields too) work. I simply tried to enlightned you on how shield using is working both in the real world and (should) in fantasy. (and yes there are exceptions, such as the flying shield. But that is another story.)

Denying what you wrote by saying I did not read correctly is not respectful. You also have to keep in mind things you wrote earlier too.