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

[Charlaquin]

So how do explain this and all the other threads on the subject?

Because lots of people refuse to accept that it works the way it says it does, because they can’t reconcile what it says it does with the fiction.

 

[Morrus]

Pretty simple. Lack of reading comprehension. I mean... there are people on this forum who think things like sharpshooter and GWM are broken so... it’s not like we’re always dealing with the most competent of individuals.

I get how it COULD be confusing I guess if your really trying hard to make it so.

You don't need to insult people you don't agree with.

 

[S'mon]

Although the wording is entirely clear, I had a player dispute the wording on the basis that threads on the Internet were arguing about it. This was the last thing I needed in the middle of a game.

 

[jasper]

Although the wording is entirely clear, I had a player dispute the wording on the basis that threads on the Internet were arguing about it. This was the last thing I needed in the middle of a game.

Yeap that player is barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Yunru]

I think you need to just assert your role as the final arbiter there. And if they complain, they need thicker skin.

...

That was supposed to be a pun. Brain, why do you fail me?

 

[5ekyu]

The problem is they use the term "AC" to refer to two different things:
Your total AC, which is (and here's the confusing part) your AC plus any bonuses.
And your AC, before bonuses, as defined by a formula.

I see it differently, exactly opposite.

I see the core problem here as this - Cover should be a penalty on the attack instead of a boost to the AC.

Given the 5e design principle of having different AC calculations, choose one, then if you have to have situational modifiers, assigning them into that side of the test that uses different calculations seems fundamentally flawed.

For any attack there is really only one attack roll, with finesse and thrown giving you two different ability scores to choose but still the one calculation.

So the fluid on the fly stuff should apply to the simpler side or maybe the active side trying to succeed.

It also makes more intuitive sense to me that cover makes the shot harder to make rather than making the target harder. (That is completely flavor reference I agree.)

 

[Yunru]

I see the core problem here as this - Cover should be a penalty on the attack instead of a boost to the AC.

And shields should give partial cover?

 

[5ekyu]

Is it possible that the unique wording for barkskin was because they wanted its effects to carry over into wildshape?

If it gave the druid chain mail that gives the druid an ac calculation that gets replaced in wildshape, but barkdkin does not alter the AC calculation, so maybe that's why this spell gets a different text.

 

[CleverNickName]

[MENTION=50987]CleverNickName[/MENTION] - the difference between this and a device of strength is that there's very rarely (if ever!) anything else other than the device trying to modify your strength, but there's always things other than Barkskin trying to modify your AC.

Agreed. And I think the elephant in the room here is that some folks want there to be even more ways to modify their armor class. I've never heard a single complaint in real-life about the Barkskin spell's wording...but I've heard countless complaints from players about how hard it is to improve their armor class above 22. The words "unfair" and "unrealistic" get thrown around a lot.

That particular spell's description isn't going to win a Pulitzer or anything, but it's clear and straightforward. I think that these complaints stem from it not granting a stacking bonus to armor class the way shields or certain other magic items do. If that's something you want, a house rule can fix it for you pretty easily. But now we aren't talking about the wording of the spell anymore.

 

[Charlaquin]

And shields should give partial cover?

I would love that!