D&D 5E barkskin

[lkj]

Sure. But folks often ask what either of them have said. And of all the voices that have weighed in on the subject here or elsewhere, his is the most (and so far only) 'official' response on this specific subject.

For me the real question is what I, and my players, think. Sure, we like to know what the official rules say, and any clarification from official sources is helpful too. But in the end, we decide what we feel needs a bit of tweaking. We use at least 90% of the rules as is.

For us it's simple: shields, magical items, and circumstantial bonuses work because that's how it's always worked in my campaign. Dex bonus worked as well, but we're comfortable forgoing that now because the base AC that is provided by the spell now is higher than the +2 of the older spells.

The fact that Mike's tweet provides some support for that position is just a nice bonus. One of the things that was always a part of D&D (good and/or bad depending on your perspective) is that the DM, and to some degree the players, get to interpret the rules for what's appropriate for them. Part of this for us (since I've had such long-running campaigns) is how to deal with a new edition of the game, if at all.

For this particular spell, the answer for us is 'not much.' Druids could use a shield to get an additional bonus before, and they still can now. I don't see any reason why an additional temporary 18 AC is going to break the game any more than a 16 AC.

If that doesn't work for your campaign, or if it's ultimately not the ruling used in organized play, so be it.

Ilbranteloth

Oh, I agree that the real 'real question' is how it works best at your table. Was just thinking that this has generated enough discussion we'll probably get an 'official' ruling. Whether that matters or not is a table to table thing of course.

AD

 

[Kelly Baldwin]

Thank you for the welcome. Just started playing. After reading through the thread I believe my question is answered. Just wanted to know that if I cast barkskin on myself as a druid - would I be able to keep it once I shifted into an animal. I believe the answer is yes as long as concentration is not broken (like going unconscious). If you believe I have something wrong - let me know. Trying hard to become a better player.

 

[Charlaquin]

By the way, I know this is an old argument, but for anyone who might be curious, there was an official answer in Sage Advice about two years ago.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-january-2016

How does barkskin work with shields, cover, and other modifiers to AC? Barkskin specifies that your AC can’t be lower than 16 while you are affected by the spell. This means you effectively ignore any modifiers to your AC—including your Dexterity modifier, your armor, a shield, and cover—unless your AC is higher than 16. For example, if your AC is normally 14, it’s 16 while barkskin is on you. If your AC is 15 and you have half cover, your AC is 17; barkskin isn’t relevant in this case, because your AC is now higher than 16.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Ah yes! My one 5E bane! I know I'm usually classified as one of the "WotC Apologists" where I can justify every decision they make... but their Barkskin ruling is the one time where I will freely admit is their dumbest one of all time!

The irony of course being I have not had even a single player in any of my games even think about casting Barkskin, let alone ask how I'm ruling how the spell is supposed to work. So my furor over that Sage Advice has been nothing more than smoke in the breeze. LOL!

 

[Charlaquin]

Ah yes! My one 5E bane! I know I'm usually classified as one of the "WotC Apologists" where I can justify every decision they make... but their Barkskin ruling is the one time where I will freely admit is their dumbest one of all time!

The irony of course being I have not had even a single player in any of my games even think about casting Barkskin, let alone ask how I'm ruling how the spell is supposed to work. So my furor over that Sage Advice has been nothing more than smoke in the breeze. LOL!

Well, Crawford’s answers do tend to be very, very by-the-book. And the answer he gave on Barkskin, while arguably a bad rule, is exactly what the rule as written says it does.