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

[Charlaquin]

How’s this for an unpopular opinion: I don’t think its intended function is particularly incongruous with the fiction.

Look, the way I see it, a creature’s AC generally represents how difficult that creature is to hit. Being more nimble, holding a plank of wood in front of you, ducking behind a chest-high wall, being surrounded by a magical field of repulsive force, wearing a nigh-invulnerable steel exoskeleton with only small gaps between plates through which a blade might slip... all of these things make your body more difficult to hit with a weapon, ergo they increase your AC.

An object’s AC represents how hard you have to hit that object to leave noticeable damage to it. Nobody is missing the giant spider webs their friend is wrapped up in, they’re just failing to cut through any of the strands. Nobody is missing the inanimate door they’re trying to hack down with an axe, their axe is just bouncing off without splintering the wood.

Barkskin does not make your body more difficult to hit, ergo, it does not add to or change the way you calculate the value that represents how difficult you are to hit. You still calculate that value as you normally would (you have to, to know if it’s greater or less than 16). What it does is make your body like an object - like an oak tree, to be specific. if an Attack hits you (by meeting or exceeding your AC), it still has to be a solid enough hit to meaningfully damage an oak tree in order to deal damage to you. And it happens, the way you determine if a hit against an object is solid enough to damage it is by comparing the result of your roll to the object’s AC. So, if your AC is higher than an oak tree’s due to being exceedingly difficult to hit, then any attack that hits you is also strong enough to damage an oak tree. However, if your AC is lower than 16, an attack that hits your body might or might not not be strong enough to damage an oak tree. So you’ve still got to compare the result to an AC of 16.

If there’s a problem here, it’s that the difficulty of hitting a creature and the difficulty of damaging an object are represented by the same mechanic. In my opinion, you shouldn’t have to roll to hit objects at all, they should just have damage thresholds, and Barkskin should give you a damage threshold as if you were an oak tree. But, the rules for attacking objects being what they are, the mechanics of Barkskin are exactly what the mechanics of trying to hit a creature with a body that is as difficult to damage as an oak tree should work.

 

[Lanefan]

Look, the way I see it, a creature’s AC generally represents how difficult that creature is to hit. Being more nimble, holding a plank of wood in front of you, ducking behind a chest-high wall, being surrounded by a magical field of repulsive force, wearing a nigh-invulnerable steel exoskeleton with only small gaps between plates through which a blade might slip... all of these things make your body more difficult to hit with a weapon, ergo they increase your AC.

An object’s AC represents how hard you have to hit that object to leave noticeable damage to it. Nobody is missing the giant spider webs their friend is wrapped up in, they’re just failing to cut through any of the strands. Nobody is missing the inanimate door they’re trying to hack down with an axe, their axe is just bouncing off without splintering the wood.

We're good up to here.

Barkskin does not make your body more difficult to hit

The spell's very name would rather strongly suggest otherwise.

ergo, it does not add to or change the way you calculate the value that represents how difficult you are to hit. You still calculate that value as you normally would (you have to, to know if it’s greater or less than 16). What it does is make your body like an object - like an oak tree, to be specific. if an Attack hits you (by meeting or exceeding your AC), it still has to be a solid enough hit to meaningfully damage an oak tree in order to deal damage to you. And it happens, the way you determine if a hit against an object is solid enough to damage it is by comparing the result of your roll to the object’s AC. So, if your AC is higher than an oak tree’s due to being exceedingly difficult to hit, then any attack that hits you is also strong enough to damage an oak tree. However, if your AC is lower than 16, an attack that hits your body might or might not not be strong enough to damage an oak tree. So you’ve still got to compare the result to an AC of 16.

If there’s a problem here, it’s that the difficulty of hitting a creature and the difficulty of damaging an object are represented by the same mechanic. In my opinion, you shouldn’t have to roll to hit objects at all, they should just have damage thresholds, and Barkskin should give you a damage threshold as if you were an oak tree. But, the rules for attacking objects being what they are, the mechanics of Barkskin are exactly what the mechanics of trying to hit a creature with a body that is as difficult to damage as an oak tree should work.

Which is fine as far as it goes, but last I checked oak trees can't effectively wield shields to improve their defenses, nor can they duck behind a rock. They're also not all that dextrous, unless the wind is strong enough to represent its own hazard. Druids, on the other hand, can wield shields - at least when in normal form - and duck behind rocks, and sometimes have some dexterity going for them as well. Therefore, if your total AC gets to what it is via 13 (armour) + 2 (shield) + 2 (dex) = 17, sheer logic says that because your skin is now that much harder it goes 16 (barkskin) + 2 (shield) + 2* (dex) = 20*.

* - though a very good case can be made that the hardening of the skin denies some or all dex benefits to AC

So yes, the body is as hard to damage as an oak tree, once you get through these other defenses; which is exactly how it works when one takes the spell's name as an indication of its function (it makes the skin hard) and goes from there. And as the write-up doesn't bother to clarify the intent, going with what retains consistency in the fiction just makes sense.

Lan-"I'm surprised something like this made it to print as most of the rest of 5e seems pretty well thought through and-or edited for clarity"-efan

 

[CapnZapp]

How’s this for an unpopular opinion: I don’t think its intended function is particularly incongruous with the fiction.

Look, the way I see it, a creature’s AC generally represents how difficult that creature is to hit. Being more nimble, holding a plank of wood in front of you, ducking behind a chest-high wall, being surrounded by a magical field of repulsive force, wearing a nigh-invulnerable steel exoskeleton with only small gaps between plates through which a blade might slip... all of these things make your body more difficult to hit with a weapon, ergo they increase your AC.

An object’s AC represents how hard you have to hit that object to leave noticeable damage to it. Nobody is missing the giant spider webs their friend is wrapped up in, they’re just failing to cut through any of the strands. Nobody is missing the inanimate door they’re trying to hack down with an axe, their axe is just bouncing off without splintering the wood.

Barkskin does not make your body more difficult to hit, ergo, it does not add to or change the way you calculate the value that represents how difficult you are to hit. You still calculate that value as you normally would (you have to, to know if it’s greater or less than 16). What it does is make your body like an object - like an oak tree, to be specific. if an Attack hits you (by meeting or exceeding your AC), it still has to be a solid enough hit to meaningfully damage an oak tree in order to deal damage to you. And it happens, the way you determine if a hit against an object is solid enough to damage it is by comparing the result of your roll to the object’s AC. So, if your AC is higher than an oak tree’s due to being exceedingly difficult to hit, then any attack that hits you is also strong enough to damage an oak tree. However, if your AC is lower than 16, an attack that hits your body might or might not not be strong enough to damage an oak tree. So you’ve still got to compare the result to an AC of 16.

If there’s a problem here, it’s that the difficulty of hitting a creature and the difficulty of damaging an object are represented by the same mechanic. In my opinion, you shouldn’t have to roll to hit objects at all, they should just have damage thresholds, and Barkskin should give you a damage threshold as if you were an oak tree. But, the rules for attacking objects being what they are, the mechanics of Barkskin are exactly what the mechanics of trying to hit a creature with a body that is as difficult to damage as an oak tree should work.

You know, I think any spell that triggers such a long and complex response should probably be considered for a rewrite on that criteria alone.

 

[Yunru]

You are comparing it to the target creature's AC. Not the target creature's armor's base AC or anything else. That's the only AC it can affect. It doesn't target armor, it targets a creature.

That's their AC - not part of their AC but we'll add a shield later, or just the base AC of their armor, or AC without cover, or anything like that.

If the DM says, "what's your AC" - that's your character's AC and what it is comparing.

There is no ambiguity, people are literally imagining that it can apply to something else, and then saying it's complex. It's only complex if you pretend the target has more than once AC against a particular attack.

Counterpoint: It doesn't say that.
"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 [...]"

Okay, so the target's armour class can't be less than 16. Nothing specifies not getting bonuses from shields.

So let's look at other cases where things mention armour class.

Unarmored Defense: "While you are not wearing any armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your [STAT] modifier."
Draconic Resilience: "When you aren’t wearing armor, your AC equals 13 + your Dexterity modifier."

And yet, shields work with those.



Which brings me back to the point that it's only a problem because they use "AC" to refer to both the number before modifiers, and after.

 

[akr71]

I don't think Druids can use shields, certainly not when in beast form.

They get Shield Proficiency. Certainly, they don't get any advantage from one in beast form, but as long as it is a non-metal shield, then yes.

The no metal restriction is a whole other discussion... what do they think their scimitar, sickle or mace is made out of?

 

[akr71]

Maybe. Here's what you do: Figure out what your AC would be sans barkskin.

Is it less than 16? Then it is now 16.

Is it now 17 or higher? Then it is now 17 or higher. For instance, if you are wearing chain mail and equip a shield, it is now 18.

I guess I can understand the confusion vis-a-vis the fiction, but I don't share it. I think it's simple, concisely worded, and intuitive. No matter what, the process is the same: check your AC without it, and if it's less than 16, it's 16 instead.

I said I would argue that point, I didn't say I would win the argument.

However, as a DM, I would allow it for the reasons [MENTION=7706]SkidAce[/MENTION] outlined below:

I agree its simple. And understandable to a degree.

But it makes no sense.

I have barkskin on and no shield. AC 16.

My buddy has barkskin and a shield. AC 16.

No difference when anyone is trying to hit either of us.....although one of us has more protection.

Every single other example when I pick up a shield I get more protection.

Is the barkskin less "barky" when I pick up the shield?


I know that it is a narrative concern, but it bothers me.

 

[ad_hoc]

A brown bear has AC 11.

Barkskin raises it to 16, so a +5 to AC.

That's fine.

 

[jasper]

Except how do you explain "I have two suits of armor, and which one is used depends on me standing behind a wall"

As the simpsons episode explained it. The Great Katerine Janeway in her Wonder Woman costume told Bart "If anything does not make sense a wizard did it." Voice By Lucy Ball or Lucy Lawless I forget which.

 

[DEFCON 1]

What the spell really needs is just a longer description... wherein the spells specifies quite succinctly:

This spell is intended to only be used while Wildshaped.

Because truth be told, that's what it is. It is not intended to be the druid's equivalent to Mage Armor. If it was... if it was meant to be a spell a druid used as their "armor" all the time in replacement of normal armor... it wouldn't cost a 2nd level spell, it wouldn't only last an hour, and it wouldn't require concentration.

I think their intention is that they expect druids in their normal humanoid form to already have an AC of 16. They will be wearing Hide Armor (AC 12), have quite likely a +2 bonus due to DEX (AC 14), and use a shield (AC 16). So Barkskin in their humanoid form accomplishes nothing.

It's only when they then wildshape and normally see their AC in animal form drop 2 to 5 points that druids would go "Hey, what the?!?" So Barkskin is a way to let them keep their AC 16 in their animal form at least for a little while.

Unfortunately, the spell description doesn't point any of this out. And actually the way they write it, they make it sound like it *is* meant to be an armor replacement because of it saying "regardless of the armor the creature is wearing." Since animals don't wear armor and humanoids do... the spell infers that its a spell that could be used during the time a PC would be wearing armor. When in point of fact, it should never be used while a PC could be wearing armor.

Had the spell been called Natural Beast Armor and it pointed out that it was meant to be cast just prior to wildshaping... I don't think any of these issues people have with the spell and its wording would have been nearly as acute.

 

[Jester David]

How’s this for an unpopular opinion: I don’t think its intended function is particularly incongruous with the fiction.

Look, the way I see it, a creature’s AC generally represents how difficult that creature is to hit. Being more nimble, holding a plank of wood in front of you, ducking behind a chest-high wall, being surrounded by a magical field of repulsive force, wearing a nigh-invulnerable steel exoskeleton with only small gaps between plates through which a blade might slip... all of these things make your body more difficult to hit with a weapon, ergo they increase your AC.

An object’s AC represents how hard you have to hit that object to leave noticeable damage to it. Nobody is missing the giant spider webs their friend is wrapped up in, they’re just failing to cut through any of the strands. Nobody is missing the inanimate door they’re trying to hack down with an axe, their axe is just bouncing off without splintering the wood.

Barkskin does not make your body more difficult to hit, ergo, it does not add to or change the way you calculate the value that represents how difficult you are to hit. You still calculate that value as you normally would (you have to, to know if it’s greater or less than 16). What it does is make your body like an object - like an oak tree, to be specific. if an Attack hits you (by meeting or exceeding your AC), it still has to be a solid enough hit to meaningfully damage an oak tree in order to deal damage to you. And it happens, the way you determine if a hit against an object is solid enough to damage it is by comparing the result of your roll to the object’s AC. So, if your AC is higher than an oak tree’s due to being exceedingly difficult to hit, then any attack that hits you is also strong enough to damage an oak tree. However, if your AC is lower than 16, an attack that hits your body might or might not not be strong enough to damage an oak tree. So you’ve still got to compare the result to an AC of 16.

If there’s a problem here, it’s that the difficulty of hitting a creature and the difficulty of damaging an object are represented by the same mechanic. In my opinion, you shouldn’t have to roll to hit objects at all, they should just have damage thresholds, and Barkskin should give you a damage threshold as if you were an oak tree. But, the rules for attacking objects being what they are, the mechanics of Barkskin are exactly what the mechanics of trying to hit a creature with a body that is as difficult to damage as an oak tree should work.

I don’t disagree. Barkskin should maybe function like a lesser form of stoneskin. But it’s always been the druidic AC boost, so it remains that way as that’s what you expect it to do.