TheCosmicKid
Hero
It bugs me more because it's such a weird effect. Why does it work differently than mage armor?
D&D 5E Barkskin clarification
- Thread starter Gwarok
- Start date
AaronOfBarbaria
Adventurer
Well, for one reason so that it has a reason to be a spell in the first place, rather than just putting mage armor in its place on spell lists.
For another, it is designed to be consistently beneficial even on characters that can frequently change AC by changing shape, without also resulting in pushing the possible AC reached by such characters to higher numbers than preferred.
My personal theory was that they purposely wanted to create a different mechanical effect for Barkskin over Mage Armor (because otherwise, if the mechanics were the same why not just give druids Mage Armor?) and that at some point the idea of "Natural Armor" was perhaps still in play.
Barkskin is described in the fluff as though it was giving you something akin to natural armor-- "the target’s skin has a rough, bark-like appearance". So the question then came down to how they wanted to mechanically represent natural armor such that it was different than the mechanics of Mage Armor or Unarmored Defense. What they came up with is the idea that you have an always-on AC of 16 that couldn't go lower regardless of the armor you were wearing. The natural armor wouldn't stack with real armor, but at the same time it wouldn't get replaced if you wore armor of a lower AC.
The only downside though is that the resulting mechanics makes absolutely no sense in the "world" of the game. Because now... things like shields and getting behind cover can provide absolutely no benefit. If you are naked and have Barkskin on, your AC is 16. Then you pick up a shield... your AC is still 16. You then get behind cover, your AC remains at 16. Which means either you are the only class for whom shields and cover provide no benefit in this situation... or your Barkskin spell is purposefully getting 2 points worse each time you add a shield or get behind cover for some god-awful ridiculous reason. It just happens. The Barkskin morphs away from you by two points when you add the two AC points from the shield, or the two points from the cover. Thus... while the fluff and story of the spell implies your skin is hardening like tree bark to provide a thick armor-like material to deflect injury, it's actually some other weird magic force that morphs around you, sometimes on, and sometimes off. Meanwhile... the wizard next to you that has Mage Armor on gets behind the same cover you do, and his AC goes up by 2. Because his magical armor is real and actually stacks with cover bonuses. But your fake armor-morphing magical barrier thing does not.
It's stupid, it makes no sense, and thus I ignore the Sage Advice.
As I tell people... the 1st level druid is given proficiency in Medium Armor. So ordinarily he could have started the game having bought a set of scale mail... which, at its best state (that of a druid with at least a +2 DEX)... means that your best-case scenario 1st level druid character would have a 16 for AC (pre-shield). However, due to flavor and story reasons, the druid is not allowed to be wearing metal armor and thus is stuck buying and wearing Hide, giving him at best an AC of 14 at 1st level.
Now how do you balance the druid against say the cleric (who also starts with the cash and the medium armor proficiency) who can start the game with an AC of 16 while the druid can't? You give the druid a spell that gives him that AC of 16 instead. From there... I would say you'd treat the druid and the cleric the exact same way after that. They both can add on shield for a bonus +2 to the AC... and they both can get behind cover for either another bonus +2 or +5 to AC.
Thus, Barkskin becomes essentially what its fluff says it should be-- a natural armor equivalent to scale mail and DEX (to +2), or chain mail and no DEX bonus. And I personally treat it as such.
Last edited:
The Crimson Binome
Hero
My best guess is that it's because they wanted it to work with Wild Shape, without making the math complicated. If barkskin worked like mage armor, then you would have to recalculate your AC whenever you changed into a form that had a different Dex bonus.
They could have just made it work like heavy armor, so a shield and cover would still work, but I also think that something got lost in transcription. At my table, I run it like heavy armor, and I just assume that the weird wording (and the literal reading) is a failure to effectively communicate that intent. It's way easier like that.
Last edited:
In 5th edition, Armour is no longer a single, stackable, number but instead utilises a couple of methods:
Standard Armour Class calculation is 10 + dexterity modifier, everyone has access to this calculation at all times.
Wearing Armour offers a second calculation, such as Leather offering you 11 + dexterity modifier.
Mage Armour, the spell, offers a further calculation of 13 + dexterity modifier.
Barbarian offers you 10 + dexterity modifier + constitution modifier
Barkskin offers you 16 only (no modifications allowed).
Natural Armour offers you a precise number (no modifications allowed).
While it may seem Barkskin is a new kettle of fish, in 5th edition there are precisely 2 ways of calculating Armour Class:
1) X + modifiers, wherein X represents a base number (such as 10 for the standard formula or 13 for a Mage Armour spell) and X represents additional bonuses (such as dexterity modifier or wisdom modifier)
2) Set Armour to X, where X is a specific number which is not altered by other factors (like Barkskin)
Each monster or player can have multiple armour calculations, unlike previous editions wherein you would have a single calculation that may have additional modifiers such as +2 AC versus piercing weapons, but ultimately each calculation is made... and then you pick the one you wish to use:
If a Druid with a Dex of 20 has mage armour cast on her, then casts Barkskin on herself before shifting into a Brown bear... she will have the following armour calculations available:
Universal calculation of 10 + dex mod (so 10 in the bear's case)
Bear's Natural Armour Class of 11
Mage Armour of 13 + dex (so 13 for the bear)
Barkskin 16
As far as I know, the druid may freely choose which armour class is used (unless somewhere the rules say you must use the highest, in which case she is forced to use the 16) but has 4 differing calculations to take advantage of. When she shapeshifts back into druid form, her options are now:
Universal 15 (base 10 + 20 dex offering an additional 5)
Mage Armour 18 (13 + dex mod of 5)
Barkskin 16
This means in normal form her AC becomes 18, if she chooses.
Having multiple Armour Class options available isn't too common, especially when you ignore the Universal option (since 90% of the time you'll be wearing armour or have some kind of spell/ability to buff your AC instead) but it still exists.
TheCosmicKid
Hero
Yeah, this is what I was getting at. Every other "you get armor" effect works a different way that actually makes sense.
not really. They could have done it easily without going the detailed micro-managing way of 3e AC with it's umpteen types of boni. All they had to do was say something to the effect of "your skin grows rough and bark-like, making you more resistant to harm. This spell will replace the armor portion of the target's AC, giving the target a minimum AC of 15 (a little lower due to it now stacking with things), unless the target would have a better AC with their current armor, in which case the spell offers no benefit."
Not that good, perhaps, but I'm sure it could be polished up a bit and convey the implications clearly and cleanly without having to parse words to the finest detail.
Illithidbix
Explorer
There is a simple rule that is easy to miss in Chapter 1 (Page 14) that dictates how Armor Class works.
And a similar rule in the combat section.
Now this does lead to some... odd quirks that Paralyzed and Unconscious targets still technically get their Dexterity modifier to AC (even if you do have Advantage to attack them*) despite not being able to move.
But overall I am very thankful to how simple Attacks and AC are in 5E and I really don't miss flatfooted and touch AC despite the verisimilitude they might add.
*(There is a vague argument that the rough value of Advantage giving +5 to an attack mirrors the -5 AC penalty for 0 Dexterity... but that falls apart rather quickly if you think about it)
Chapter 1 PHB and Basic Rules said:
And a similar rule in the combat section.
And attack rolls are always a roll against AC.
Now this does lead to some... odd quirks that Paralyzed and Unconscious targets still technically get their Dexterity modifier to AC (even if you do have Advantage to attack them*) despite not being able to move.
But overall I am very thankful to how simple Attacks and AC are in 5E and I really don't miss flatfooted and touch AC despite the verisimilitude they might add.
*(There is a vague argument that the rough value of Advantage giving +5 to an attack mirrors the -5 AC penalty for 0 Dexterity... but that falls apart rather quickly if you think about it)
