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

[CapnZapp]

To me, there's only one legitimate way to play this spell... one that makes complete sense in the totality of what the druid has/needs and how the spell is described.

Snip very long post.

"Lazy fairies" is shorter

 

[DEFCON 1]

Snip very long post.

"Lazy fairies" is shorter

Well yes, but I hate to paint all fairies with a single wide brush. #notallfey

 

[Lanefan]

Look, narratively I don't like the spell. I think they were trying to come up with something that could ignore any oddity from wild shape (high dex, natural armor, what have you) and ended up with a weird, off off spell. I agree it makes no sense fictionally. If you want to change what the spell does, go for it.

But that's not what my answer was about. You said the spell wasn't simple - it is, just compare your AC to 16, and use 16 if it's lower. You talked about ignoring cover - you don't, that's just complicating it. You add cover like any other change to AC. Then compare to 16. Any attempt to add AC after AC has been calculated is what makes it look complex; it's NOT. Can you calculate your AC with cover normally? How much harder is it then say "or use 16 if it's higher"? It's dirt simple.

It's a stupid spell, but it's clear on what it does.

It's highly unclear on one little tiny point that makes all the difference: are you comparing your root AC (i.e. just armour) to 16 or your overall AC (armour + dex + shield + cover etc.) to 16?

The wording vaguely implies but does not specifically state the latter. The name of the spell quite strongly implies but does not specifically state the former.

There's certainly ways to avoid shenanigans with the spell if using the compare-vs.-root-AC version; e.g. make it that the spell can only be cast on self or animal companion (so you can't run up your dex-based Rogue's AC into the stratosphere), and-or that the act of wildshaping causes you to lose concentration (to prevent the caster wildshaping into some immensely dextrous creature with root AC 16).

That said, if they'd called the spell Nature's Defense or something to imply that it's a protective aura that only functions when there's nothing else better - and then spelled that out clearly in the write-up, it'd be fine.

 

[the Jester]

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

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.

 

[Blue]

It's highly unclear on one little tiny point that makes all the difference: are you comparing your root AC (i.e. just armour) to 16 or your overall AC (armour + dex + shield + cover etc.) to 16?

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.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

 

[Parmandur]

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

 

[DEFCON 1]

So the GM who somehow decides he will only describe Barkskin as having all shots hit the barkskin and miss cover etc flawlessly is creating his own "narrative" problems.

What can I say? This is the one place where I'm just unwilling to suspend my disbelief between mechanics and story. For some folks it'd be hit points-- how their use and adjudication are completely separate from any sort of in-game reality of getting injured. Yet for hit points I'm right there like you are with Barkskin... not really caring about the integration between the mechanics and story. I can wave my hand and explain away all the ridiculous discrepancies in hit points and none of it bothers me. But for whatever reason... I just can't do it with this one spell. Probably because the fix is just so simple to make mechanics and spell description align that I just say "screw it!", ignore Jeremy in this case, and make the change myself.

 

[5ekyu]

What can I say? This is the one place where I'm just unwilling to suspend my disbelief between mechanics and story. For some folks it'd be hit points-- how their use and adjudication are completely separate from any sort of in-game reality of getting injured. Yet for hit points I'm right there like you are with Barkskin... not really caring about the integration between the mechanics and story. I can wave my hand and explain away all the ridiculous discrepancies in hit points and none of it bothers me. But for whatever reason... I just can't do it with this one spell. Probably because the fix is just so simple to make mechanics and spell description align that I just say "screw it!", ignore Jeremy in this case, and make the change myself.

If I wanted to fix anything, it would be to have cover be a penalty to the attack. Like I said, I prefer things like circumstantial and positional modifiers to adjust the active party - not the mostly static baselines.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If I wanted to fix anything, it would be to have cover be a penalty to the attack. Like I said, I prefer things like circumstantial and positional modifiers to adjust the active party - not the mostly static baselines.

That would indeed remove any problem with cover and barkskin and make cover more intuitive.