D&D 5E barkskin

[txshusker]

It is a way to write a rule.

The fact different people can interpret the same text in diametrically opposing ways should be seen as a major failure, not as something positive :-(

Welcome to the US Constitution. Fortunately for D&D players, the creators of the language are still around for their debates and can shed some light at some point.

 

[KarinsDad]

You see?

I could not hope to illustrate the problems better if I tried... ;-)

These last posts, where people say the spell is fine and it's obvious how it works... Yet reaches completely opposite conclusions!

Nothing more needs to be said. It's completely impossible. That's broken to me...

People have mostly been debating intent of the spell, not RAW of the spell.

It's not broken in any way. It's not unclear in any way. It's just not what people want or expect.

 

[KarinsDad]

I agree, the rule is unnecessarily vague. Some people will argue that that this a feature of 5e, not a bug, arguing essentially that ambiguity is supposed to be a tool to increase the DM's power by relying on "rulings, not rules." I find that argument incredibly bogus. If the designers want rulings, not rules, they should just say so, for instance saying "barkskin makes your skin bark-like and hard. The DM decides what this means, but here are some possible interpretations: ..." instead of trying to get there through some sort of strategic ambiguity. Vague rules are just bad design and bad writing.

How is it vague?

Unexpected? Sure.

Non-intuitive? Maybe.

But, it is totally clear.

 

[txshusker]

Targets AC can't be less than 16?
What does that mean?

In every generation, I've always interpreted it like the Barkskin is armor - it makes your skin literally hard... so it replaces whatever armor you are wearing. (unless that armor gives a higher base AC, obviously, in which case you just wasted a spell slot) A shield is not armor and requires a separate proficiency to use - thus, not a part of the description of the spell and is stackable. Thus, the barkskin (replacing armor) is base AC + shield + dex mod + whatever else would add to AC during standard combat (cover, etc).

 

[CapnZapp]

People have mostly been debating intent of the spell, not RAW of the spell.

It's not broken in any way. It's not unclear in any way. It's just not what people want or expect.

Sorry, but now you are ignoring all the evidence.

If you want to believe this is the most clear spell since Jesus handed out toast to the legionaries, I can't stop you.

More importantly, I won't even try. I have better things to do.

 

[Authweight]

How is it vague?

Unexpected? Sure.

Non-intuitive? Maybe.

But, it is totally clear.

I would say that the definition of vague is when different people routinely interpret it different ways. That's the case here.

Edit to add: part of making something clear is adding examples and further explanation where necessary, particularly when the result is counter-intuitive. A literal reading in this case produces a clear result, but it's unclear if a literal reading was intended.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sorry, but now you are ignoring all the evidence.

Evidence? What evidence? It's one thing to say it, it's another to prove your point.

If you want to believe this is the most clear spell since Jesus handed out toast to the legionaries, I can't stop you.

Is there a reason you are getting snarky?

More importantly, I won't even try. I have better things to do.

It's obvious that the spell is written clearly.

It's also obvious that people want it to mean "base AC" because that is a game mechanic idea (i.e. armor) that already exists, and stacks with other modifiers, and in many ways, makes sense. It's also clear that as written, it makes a decent wild shape buff, but a lousy other PC buff.


Your argument is that if the spell does not read as per the (your) intent, then it is unclear. Nope. Perfectly clear. Just incorrect if it does not match designer intent. There is a difference between clarity and inaccuracy.

 

[KarinsDad]

I would say that the definition of vague is when different people routinely interpret it different ways. That's the case here.

Once people sit down and actually read it, is it that they are interpreting it differently, or is it that they are adding intent when none is stated? It could definitely be that the phrase "regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing" was meant to indicate a "base AC" or "natural AC" (or this replaces AC from armor) type of rule, but is this actually what is written, or is it what people think should be written?

 

[Kalshane]

For simplicity's sake, we treat it as Heavy Armor AC 16 and we're done. No dex, but anything that would add to armor does.

Based on the Dryad in the MM, that seems to be the way that's supposed to work. (She loses her Dex modifier when she has Barkskin up.)

 

[Authweight]

Once people sit down and actually read it, is it that they are interpreting it differently, or is it that they are adding intent when none is stated? It could definitely be that the phrase "regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing" was meant to indicate a "base AC" or "natural AC" (or this replaces AC from armor) type of rule, but is this actually what is written, or is it what people think should be written?

I agree that by a literal reading, there is a clear right answer. However, what is unclear is whether a literal reading was intended. An example or two, or a few sentences explaining what it does and does not stack with, would dramatically enhance clarity.