D&D 5E barkskin

[trentonjoe]

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

 

[TwoSix]

Pretty sure it means that the spell sets a floor value of AC to 16. So it's a big bonus if you have 10 Dex and no armor, but it doesn't do anything for you if you're wearing full plate. It's probably intended for Druids in beast form, because they tend to have lousy AC.

 

[zoroaster100]

If a druid casts barkskin, and then wildshapes, will the barkskin continue to work in beast form?

 

[Kobold Stew]

If a druid casts barkskin, and then wildshapes, will the barkskin continue to work in beast form?

As long as concentration is maintained, it should do.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Druids make the best escorts...


Oh, the DM gave us a dex 7 NPC to get through the orc wood... and he bearly knows how to wear cloths let alone armor... BARKSKIN,

 

[Lackenthor]

So why does it say "taget's ac can't be LESS than 16" shouldn't it say "target's ac IS 16.... "

I wonder if you have barkskin and shield do you have 18???? workding is a bit fuzzy.

 

[trentonjoe]

I think shield's help because they are a +2 to AC and the "less than" removes any dex penalties. I think......

 

[Paraxis]

Targets AC can't be less than 16 regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing.

To me that means exactly what it says and shields are armor so I would not add them, but I believe in a tweet Mike Mearls stated that he would rule that shields do add to the armor so ehh.

Here is link to Mearls about shields and AC. http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/barkskin-and-shield-ac/

 

[DEFCON 1]

There was actually a long thread specifically about the Barkskin conundrum a little while ago, where there were arguments on both sides of the "less than 16" issue.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?362017-What-armor-can-druids-wear-Is-there-a-way-to-get-a-decent-AC&highlight=barkskin

Long story short... some people believe that things like shields and cover do not stack with Barkskin, while others think they do. There are legitimate arguments on both sides due to the language involved in the Barkskin spell... which also ties in to the thread here about whether "flavor" should be considered Ruled As Written just like game mechanics are.

The spell is written just basic enough that both sides can make claims to being correct, so I'd suggest you go through the entire thread (or at least the first half a dozen pages) to see all of us argue vociferously about what we think is right. Then you can make your own ruling based upon the language, flavor, and sense of how you think Barkskin should work.

Best of luck!

 

[CapnZapp]

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 :-(