D&D 5E (2014) Barkskin *Might* Be the Worst Spell Description I've Ever Read

[cmad1977]

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

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.

 

[Blue]

and I would argue that if you equip a shield after the spell is cast, your AC is now 18.

Barkskin does not give you a 16 AC, set at the casting. It just makes it 16 if it would be lower.

So there is no "barkskin + shield" calculation that can ever be made because barkskin isn't armor. Just a "armor + dex + shield < 16" calculation to have it overwrite your AC.

Same if some monster had a debuff that reduced your DEX by 10 points - it wouldn't come off the barkskin AC, just the original AC to compare.

 

[Blue]

Yeah, I have to agree that it's staggeringly unintuitive as written.

There needs to be more explanation right in the spell description regarding whether and how other sources of armour (dex, shield, armour, cover, etc.) interact with it.

It does. You calculate your AC. Then you compare and adjust if you are less than 16.

If you change your AC, they you calculate and adjust if less than 16.

If you change you AC AGAIN, you do it AGAIN. For the duration.

It doesn't have an AC to modify - it just changes your AC to 16 if, after all AC calculations are done, it's less than 16. And it keeps doing it for the duration of the spell.

 

[Blue]

If you just take it to give you an AC of 16, a la Heavy Armour, everything works fine. I don't get why they put in any sort of minimum clause, as you always choose which AC calculation to use anyway.

Barkskin doesn't grant an AC, just

Say you AC would be 13 without barkskin. You cast barkskin, it's now 16. With yours your AC is 16. Okay.

You pick up a shield. With barkskin, you base AC is now 15, so is raised to 16. With yours, it becomes 18.

You gain a +2 cover bonus to AC from one target. With barkskin, your 15 becomes a 17 against that target, 16 against everyone else. With yours it becomes a 20 vs. them, 18 vs. everyone else.

Yes, it's not the most intuitive spell because while it does exactly what it says, it does something unique. It does a different thing then just granting an AC. My guess as to why is that it has no chance to become part of a power-combo that moves outside of bounded accuracy, but it doesn't really matter why, just what the spell does.

 

[Blue]

I think the spell is not as simple as some seem to suggest... the second part: no matter what kind of armor it is wearing might suggest that the no less than 16 relates to the armor part. And this is what I still would go for. Makes more sense for me and also seems easier to me. Especially when you consider that there are a few monsters (druids) that use barkskin as their main defense. And nowhere it is said, that they can´t benefit from cover.
You could argue more about the shield and say that a shield would not benefit you as it is not better to t´deflect a blow with a shield or with your hardened skin.

Of course you can apply cover to your AC. And then you compare your AC to 16, and if it's lower you increase it to 16.

The order of operations is:
1. Do all AC calculations. Armor, dex, shield, spells, cover, etc.
2. While barkskin is up if the results of step 1 are less than 16 then use 16 instead.

 

[Yunru]

Barkskin doesn't grant an AC, just

Say you AC would be 13 without barkskin. You cast barkskin, it's now 16. With yours your AC is 16. Okay.

You pick up a shield. With barkskin, you base AC is now 15, so is raised to 16. With yours, it becomes 18.

You gain a +2 cover bonus to AC from one target. With barkskin, your 15 becomes a 17 against that target, 16 against everyone else. With yours it becomes a 20 vs. them, 18 vs. everyone else.

Yes, it's not the most intuitive spell because while it does exactly what it says, it does something unique. It does a different thing then just granting an AC. My guess as to why is that it has no chance to become part of a power-combo that moves outside of bounded accuracy, but it doesn't really matter why, just what the spell does.

Yes, I'm saying it would actually be logical and fit the flavour of the spell if it did just say "You have an AC of 16."
Also "No chance to become part of a power combo" my ass, it's literally just caster-friendly Chain Mail, without the stealth disadvantage.

 

[Yunru]

Of course you can apply cover to your AC. And then you compare your AC to 16, and if it's lower you increase it to 16.

The order of operations is:
1. Do all AC calculations. Armor, dex, shield, spells, cover, etc.
2. While barkskin is up if the results of step 1 are less than 16 then use 16 instead.

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.

 

[Blue]

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

People who don't believe it's done that way because it's doesn't match their expectations because of other AC calculations.

 

[Blue]

Yes, I'm saying it would actually be logical and fit the flavour of the spell if it did just say "You have an AC of 16."
Also "No chance to become part of a power combo" my ass, it's literally just caster-friendly Chain Mail, without the stealth disadvantage.

Not just caster friendly, but CALCULATION friendly with wild shape. No need to worry about how a beast get's it's AC. If it's lower than 16, it becomes 16. Easy.

 

[Yunru]

Not just caster friendly, but CALCULATION friendly with wild shape. No need to worry about how a beast get's it's AC. If it's lower than 16, it becomes 16. Easy.

Ironically I was talking about if it just gave you an AC of 16.
Natural Armour is a real mess, being a bonus that only applies to one AC calculation, which is apparently only the default one (so not even Unarmored Defense counts). So it would be 16 if it's lower either way.