D&D 5E barkskin

[Hussar]

Not to open a can of worms but why wouldn't shields work? Shields don provide an AC like armor, they provide a bonus. My minimum AC is 16 so why would a shield not add to that?

 

[CapnZapp]

Not to open a can of worms but why wouldn't shields work? Shields don provide an AC like armor, they provide a bonus. My minimum AC is 16 so why would a shield not add to that?

The literal interpretation of the spell is that it just sets your AC to 16 if less.

If your AC is 14, then it gets upped to 16 by this spell.

If your AC is 14 and you grab a shield, your AC is naturally going to be 16. If you at that time cast Barkskin on yourself, your AC is at that time not lower than 16, so the spell does nothing.

In this case, you will probably think the spell doesn't stack with shields.

Even though the spell 1) doesn't say anything - neither for or against, and 2) that the spell designer very probably did not intend this to be the spell's behavior.

And this is the "obvious" interpretation...

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I don't see the issue. In 5E, there are things that set your AC at a certain value and things that give a bonus to AC. I'm pretty sure that things that give a bonus to AC should stack, while things that set your AC should not. So, barkskin stacks with a shield (it gives a bonus to your AC), but not with Dexterity (it doesn't give a bonus to AC, your AC is set as 10 + Dex modifier instead).

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't see the issue. In 5E, there are things that set your AC at a certain value and things that give a bonus to AC. I'm pretty sure that things that give a bonus to AC should stack, while things that set your AC should not. So, barkskin stacks with a shield (it gives a bonus to your AC), but not with Dexterity (it doesn't give a bonus to AC, your AC is set as 10 + Dex modifier instead).

The issue is that this is your interpretation, not what people find to be the "obvious" reading of the spell.

The issue is that you assume things to be neat and well thought. The spell does not mention any of the things you mention, it just says that the AC is minimum 16.

Which in turn means that the spell stacks with a shield, except when it doesn't.

Broken.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

The issue is that this is your interpretation, not what people find to be the "obvious" reading of the spell.

The issue is that you assume things to be neat and well thought. The spell does not mention any of the things you mention, it just says that the AC is minimum 16.

Which in turn means that the spell stacks with a shield, except when it doesn't.

Broken.

Sorry, but it's not my interpretation, it's the rules as written. If you go through your PHB, you'll see that sometimes the language used is "your AC is XX". In other places, the language used is "you gain a +X bonus to your AC". Barkskin clearly uses the first language, and this is the reason why it can't stack with armor, dexterity, or anything else that uses the same language (such as constitution or wisdom, for barbarians and monks, respectively). Shields, on the other hand, uses the second type of language, much like cover or the shield of faith spell. A druid should be able to stack barkskin with a shield in the same way a barbarian does with the unarmored defense feature.

If interpretation of rules as written is not enough to you, though, we can go the other way and analyze the spell on its own merits. If we had a spell that puts you on nonmagical chainmail for up to one hour, 2nd level, concentration required, would it be broken? I don't think so. So, where's the brokenness?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Barkskin clearly uses the first language,

not necessarily. It uses it's own language, the "If....then" statement at the beginning that your first language example does not have. Your first language, it sets your AC to a certain value all the time at the beginning of calculating your AC. X = Y. With barkskin, it's conditional. It doesn't set or add anything to your AC until AC has already been calculated. That's a key difference in the order of operations. If X < 16, then X = 16.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If we had a spell that puts you on nonmagical chainmail for up to one hour, 2nd level, concentration required, would it be broken? I don't think so. So, where's the brokenness?

I suspect CapnZapp is using the term 'broken' differently than how some other people might define the term in an RPG context.

I think many people use the term 'broken' to describe a rule or mechanic in the game that is severely over-powered or under-powered when compared to other options at a similar available point in the game. If you have a spell that is conceptually, mathematically, and understandably way more powerful than any other spell available at the same point... so powerful that most people would consider you a fool for not taking it (even when you throw ideals like "character concepts" and whatnot that might try and justify why you wouldn't). That kind of spell would be termed 'broken' because by taking it you could "break the game". You could consistently make encounters or events trivially easy or hard because the balance of the spell was just too far off.

CapnZapp is using the term 'broken' more to describe the language of the spell, the sentence structure and conceptual results we get from it. Mechanically the spell is fine-- both ways it is interpreted by both sides do not make PCs that use Barkskin over-powered or under-powered. However, the language of the spell admittedly is not good because it does not produce the single result that presumably the designers and developers were trying to get across.

I think we all understand what CapnZapp is meaning when he says 'broken'... he's just using a term that other people have determined to mean something different. If you replaced 'broken' with 'badly worded' in his posts, his intention I believe would be the same.

 

[Joe Liker]

Sorry, but it's not my interpretation, it's the rules as written. If you go through your PHB, you'll see that sometimes the language used is "your AC is XX". In other places, the language used is "you gain a +X bonus to your AC". Barkskin clearly uses the first language, and this is the reason why it can't stack with armor, dexterity, or anything else that uses the same language (such as constitution or wisdom, for barbarians and monks, respectively). Shields, on the other hand, uses the second type of language, much like cover or the shield of faith spell. A druid should be able to stack barkskin with a shield in the same way a barbarian does with the unarmored defense feature.

The problem is that barkskin does not use the language you claim it uses. It uses language that is used nowhere else in the rules: "target's AC can't be less than 16, regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing."

This phrase, in a rules context, is ambiguous to the point of being meaningless.

 

[MerricB]

Not to open a can of worms but why wouldn't shields work? Shields don provide an AC like armor, they provide a bonus. My minimum AC is 16 so why would a shield not add to that?

Shields don't add a regular bonus, they instead change your base AC.

Cheers!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

All rulings have its merits.
AC floor = 16 is easier to calculate on the table, instead of figuring out, what part of AC was coming from which item or circumstance.
AC floor = 16 + circumstance bonus (like cover) same as above, but maybe even easier to calculate: Your AC is 16 if it was lower before, if you have cover, add it to the 16 instead of adding it to your now irrelevant low AC score of your light armor. Most probably the most used interpretation of the rules, as it is the most easy one to calculate.
AC floor = 16 + shield + cover bonus is the one I will use, as in my opinion great weapons are good enough and sword and bord is circumstantial enough to allow picking up a shield to have 18 AC not be gamebreaking bad. Now barkskin functions exactly like chain mail that overrides your AC from weaker armors. In my opinion the best interpretation and that which makes most sense.

But really, play as you like and rule it at your table. BTW, for the most useful application, using it in beast form, Variant 2 and 3 are equal.
Not giving AC bonuses for cover on top of it just seems wrong.