D&D 5E barkskin

[aramis erak]

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 :-(

pretty much every rule that exceeds a simple sentence can be interpreted multiple ways.

I'd interpret "not less than 16" to mean it only raises AC if your AC, counting all other sources, was less than 16; nothing stacks with it, but at the same time, anything that stacks with your worn AC continues to do so. In other words, Barkskin's useless on a guy in plate, unless he has a penalty from a curse or other special case.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry aramis, but that's relativizing far too much for my taste.

It's one thing to not aim for lawyer-airtight language.

It's something else to write something that doesn't make sense.

Take your interpretation for example; I can't understand it. Nothing stacks yet anything stacks?

But my point wasn't to shoot down your ruling. My point is that your ruling, as well as mine, or anyone else's need to add stuff that simply isn't in the text.

The spell only makes sense as written if you run Barkskin as "calculate AC normally, ignoring the spell. Then, at the end, you just set the AC to 16 if lower, and you don't change it if it already is 16 or more."

The trouble is that to make even this much sense out of it, I had to look at it from a purely mechanical standpoint. As soon as you ask yourself how the effect works and how it would be experienced by characters in-game it falls apart (this wall protects me much more than my friend; it must like clumsy creatures...)

Feel free to disagree with me on this; it only furthers my point that the spell text is FUBAR and needs to be officially repaired

 

[Sacrosanct]

FWIW, I don't think there is any ambiguity with barkskin at all.

"You touch a willing creature. Until the spell ends, the target's skin has a rough, bark-like appearance, and the target's AC can't be less than 16, regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing."

Stacking isn't an issue because nothing in the spell description says that barkskin adds any AC value. It is quite clear that AC can't go below 16. So if you have an AC 14 and cast barkskin, your AC is 16 because that's the minimum threshold. If you have AC 14, have barkskin, then get a shield +1, the barkskin spell doesn't do anything because your AC would be 17.

In codespeak:

AC = 10 + armorvalue+abilitymodifier+shieldvalue+externalvalue+classabilityvalue
If AC < 16, then AC = 16
else, AC = AC

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Yeah, it could be worded differently/better.

But I also think that it's fairly clear. Barkskin gives you an AC of 16, shields and other bonuses improve it. Armor does not. Armor provides a specific AC rather than a bonus to AC.

If you happen to be wearing leather armor, your AC is now 16 instead, plus whatever bonuses you may have (DEX, shield, magical, etc.).

Ilbranteloth

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Personally, I can never remember whether cover grants a +2 AC bonus to the target or a -2 penalty to the attack. In my mind, those mechanics really should be equivalent, so that's a reason I would not go with the strict interpretation of this spell.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The really issue here is not whether any of us think the rule is clear or not clear... the issue is that the designers and developers at WotC apparently thought it was clear enough that how they wrote it was sufficient. They had in their heads what the spell was supposed to do... they wrote the spell's instructions a certain way to get that across (so they thought) while also retaining brevity... and apparently no one offered up the other interpretation-- or at least not enough offered up the differing interpretation to make them think what they wrote wasn't clear enough.

So CapnZapp is right that it probably could/should be repaired (or at least clarified as to the explanation they were trying to get across). If they meant it one way, but enough other people keep inquiring as to the legitimacy of the other way... they will probably get around to making official what their intent behind the spell was supposed to be.

And even if they don't... at least the spell is clear enough that it seems everyone is coming to one of the two conclusions. So it is completely usable at any particular table. The only time an issue would crop up would be during organized play events and a player was bringing their PC that uses the spell and interpreting it the opposite way that the DM was at the table they sat at. Then you have to have a bit of the negotiation as to the method of the spell for that specific game.

 

[Celtavian]

We went simple. It makes your AC 16 like armor. Dex and shield stack. It's pretty open to DM whim as far as how it interacts with other defensive items and effects. No idea why they didn't write it in a simpler fashion like Mage Armor.

 

[KarinsDad]

We went simple. It makes your AC 16 like armor. Dex and shield stack. It's pretty open to DM whim as far as how it interacts with other defensive items and effects. No idea why they didn't write it in a simpler fashion like Mage Armor.

I don't know how much clearer they had to get than "can't be lower than 16". It doesn't actually add to armor and nothing stacks with it. It just sets a minimum.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't know how much clearer they had to get than "can't be lower than 16". It doesn't actually add to armor and nothing stacks with it. It just sets a minimum.

Agreed. It doesn't say "sets your base AC to 16". It says "AC can't be less than 16."

 

[Celtavian]

I don't know how much clearer they had to get than "can't be lower than 16". It doesn't actually add to armor and nothing stacks with it. It just sets a minimum.

Cover won't help it? Shield of Faith[/ii] won't help it? Shield won't help it? None of those boost it either. It's that weak for a 2nd level spell? You think that was the intent?

Then I imagine our rule will be a house rule. A 2nd level spell weaker than mage armor is pretty lame.

I figured the line "...regardless of what kind of armor you are wearing" implied that they meant for barkskin to be a replacement for armor and thus stack with everything that can boost armor. If that isn't the case, they need to take a look at it. It's super weak for a 2nd level spell.