D&D 5E barkskin

[Ilbranteloth]

"At least" and "at most" are both equally as restrictive, just in different directions. Ones a floor, ones a ceiling.

Yes, but within a given context. In this case we're asking whether anything can add additional bonuses to AC. Can something make it higher? In the current context, the phrase 'at least' is a permissive one.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Sacrosanct]

The literal text seems pretty obvious. Nothing in the spell says it does anything to your AC until the point where the AC becomes less than 16. It's a contingency spell, clearly spelled (no pun intended) out when it takes effect. I.e., nothing stacks with it. Everything that impacts AC is figured out, then the spell either applies (making AC 16), or it doesn't. If they didn't intend it that way, then sure it's poorly written. But the interpretation should not be ambiguous any more than order of operations in math is ambiguous. It literally says the AC can't be less than 16. The spell is setting a floor rate, not a base rate. That does not in any way, shape, or form, make your base AC at least 16 or it would have said "base AC". The term "Armor Class" is made up of several factors. So if all those factors result in an AC less than 16, barkskin takes affect and makes it 16. That's when floor rates kick in. That's how things like floor rates work in pretty every industry.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes it does say that for shield, but not for Dex.

It says: 'The armor (and shield) you wear determines your base Armor Class.' That's pretty unambiguous. Although it doesn't repeat that level of clarity under the heading of Shield itself.

That's because Shields can be used with Mage Armor. When wearing armor, they are part of the base AC. When not wearing armor, they are a modifier. The same seems to be the RAI implication of Dex.

It also says 'you add your Dexterity modifier to the base number from your armor type to determine your Armor Class' (not to determine your base Armor Class).

On page 177 is also specifies that 'you might add some or all of your Dexterity modifier to your Armor Class', not base Armor Class.

Regardless, the example of Druid and Dryad indicates that Barkskin does not stack with Dex. Minimally, Dex is not a modifier to Barkskin. This seems to indicate that it is possible that a Shield also is not a modifier to Barkskin.


I do agree with you that Dex is not spelled out as part of base AC when wearing armor. But, it seems to be RAI, even if it is not RAW.


For example, base AC for Mage Armor is 3 + Dex modifier. If base AC did not include the Dex modifier, than there would be an argument (not very strong) that spell casters could have an AC of 13 + Dex (i.e. base AC + Dex when using Mage Armor.

Hence, the implication that Dex is part of base AC from the chart on page 145 is a reasonable one. The shield modifier on that chart is part of base AC. The Dex modifier might change based on the armor worn, but base AC always changes based on armor worn.

Definitely not RAW, just possibly RAI.

It also sounds a bit counterintuitive that something that is part of your base AC can vary in application, rather than a modifier. Your modified AC can be situational, but your base AC shouldn't change. The fact that your Dexterity modifier functions differently with different types of armor means (to me) that it's a modifier, not base.

Your base AC changes whenever your PC situationally puts on different armor. Or your PC takes it off to go to bed. Or when Mage Armor is cast on your PC.

This is also consistent with earlier editions where certain circumstances denied your Dexterity modifier to AC (flat-footed, etc.).

But earlier editions do not matter.


I think it is totally reasonable for the minimum AC 16 of Barkskin to be considered to be base armor and normal base armor includes armor, Dex, and Shield from a RAI POV.

If Dex and Shield are just added to the 16 of Barkskin, that can be AC 23 at level 8. That doesn't seem like it is RAI of the Barkskin spell with the "can't be less than 16" wording. Barkskin seems to be a spell intended for when Druids wild shape, or for Ranger companions (as a general rule). Obviously it can be used for more than that. But, being a spell to boost AC of the Ranger or multiclassed Rogue to 23 doesn't seem to be the intent.

 

[Plaguescarred]

How i read it barksin is an AC minimum threshold setting your AC to a predetermined value if its less than 16.

That's because Shields can be used with Mage Armor.

Making shields work with mage armor on the premise that they aren't armor creates more problem than it solves any IMO as it means shields can be worn without any downside regardless of proficiency.


BR44 Armor Proficiency: If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.

 

[KarinsDad]

How i read it barksin is an AC minimum threshold setting your AC to a predetermined value if its less than 16.

That is the RAW or literal reading. I'm mostly discussing RAI at this point.

Making shields work with mage armor on the premise that they aren't armor creates more problem than it solves any IMO as it means shields can be worn without any downside regardless of proficiency.

I wouldn't go that far. In order to use them, a PC would need to have the proficiency.


But what happens if a PC is not wearing normal armor? Does he get a +2 to AC for a Shield? Of course he does, even though "cloth armor" is not on the chart. +2 AC for a Shield is on that chart. And, it's a +2 that stacks with or without other armor.

I just would find it odd that if an Elven Fighter / Wizard was resting in an inn and grabbed his shield and cast Mage Armor, that his AC wouldn't be 15 + Dex. It's quite possible that this is RAI, but it seems odd.

 

[Joe Liker]

Because shields use the donning/doffing rules, they are clearly a worn item. Because they are described in the armor section, they count as worn armor. Therefore, they cannot be used in conjunction with mage armor.

 

[Hussar]

Ok. I'll buy that.

But, a Shield is part of "base AC" (it actually explicitly states this on page 144 PHB), just like Dex.


/snip

Ahh, missed that line. Was reading too fast. That works for me.

 

[txshusker]

i've re-examined my own position on this... originally believing dex should add.

The spell says it turns skin like bark and gives an AC of 16 no matter what armor you are wearing. Shield is not armor, as the rules of armor class state. So it seems pretty evident to me that a shield would add. Also, dex is stackable on armor, thus, if barkskin is replacing armor, then dex goes with it... UNLESS, it's determined that the barkskin is considered heavy armor. And perhaps that's the link that's missing for a clearer ruling, now that I rethink my position. It would make sense that's the actual case, since the equiv armor that gives you AC16 is chain, upon which dex does not stack. I don't know why Bskin would be a heavy armor - other than the bark like skin makes it simply harder for your limbs to move, thus you do not benefit from dex. At least, that's how it'll run in the campaign I'm DMing... if anyone ever uses it, that is...

 

[guachi]

The literal text seems pretty obvious. Nothing in the spell says it does anything to your AC until the point where the AC becomes less than 16. It's a contingency spell, clearly spelled (no pun intended) out when it takes effect. I.e., nothing stacks with it. Everything that impacts AC is figured out, then the spell either applies (making AC 16), or it doesn't. If they didn't intend it that way, then sure it's poorly written. But the interpretation should not be ambiguous any more than order of operations in math is ambiguous. It literally says the AC can't be less than 16. The spell is setting a floor rate, not a base rate. That does not in any way, shape, or form, make your base AC at least 16 or it would have said "base AC". The term "Armor Class" is made up of several factors. So if all those factors result in an AC less than 16, barkskin takes affect and makes it 16. That's when floor rates kick in. That's how things like floor rates work in pretty every industry.

^^^This^^^ It's no different than the US government setting a price floor for wheat (or whatever). There are two prices - the market price and the government. They do not interact in any way. Just like Barkskin does not interact in any way with any other modifiers. It doesn't set your base AC to 16, it just makes your AC no lower than 16. If it actually was affected by something like Dex the spell would have to tell you if it functioned like light, medium, or heavy armor for Dex modifier purposes.

Personally, I'd appreciate a ruling on if you can add a shield AC. Was there one and I missed it?

 

[KarinsDad]

Personally, I'd appreciate a ruling on if you can add a shield AC. Was there one and I missed it?

From the strict "16 floor" reading, nothing matters. Your AC is whatever the rest of the rules say. If that AC is below 16, it becomes 16. Nothing adds to the 16. All modifiers add to your AC pre-Barkskin.


There is an interesting sentence on page 14 that states "Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use". Not quiet sure how this applies, if at all, to Barkskin. I don't think it does.


Shields, however, are a type of armor. They only stack with armor (and no armor via a combination of rules from page 14 and the Shields section on page 144). But nothing indicates that Shields stack with anything else. They only give a bonus to a base AC 10 (plus possible dex mods), or to an armor (plus possible dex mods) best I can tell. The quote above from page 14 seems to indicate that if you get your AC a different way, then the armor rules (including shields) do not apply.