D&D 5E barkskin

[DEFCON 1]

I can buy that.

I don't WANT to buy that, because it just makes the end result that much worse in terms of well presented rules.


At the end of the day I'm making house rules to vastly more important things than Barkskin. So, whatever .
But it still says what it says.

The funny thing though (as I mentioned way further up) is that really, none of us have to "house rule" quote/unquote anything. The rule as presented is extremely clear and works exactly right, no necessary editing or "figuring out" required at all-- with two completely different results. Heh heh!

I don't know if any of us have read the Barkskin spell and have had to ask ourselves "Wait-- what? I don't understand. That doesn't make sense!" The spell as written has (I think) made perfect sense to every one of us. We just end up with two entirely separate ways to play it.

Which actually I think is really kinda impressive! They were able to write a single rule that generates two results, both of which are extremely clear to both sides and which seem so obvious none of us can understand how the other side doesn't see it the same way. I don't think that's easy. They should be commended for an absolutely BEAUTIFUL creation of something completely screwed up!

 

[Kobold Stew]

Which actually I think is really kinda impressive! They were able to write a single rule that generates two results, both of which are extremely clear to both sides and which seem so obvious none of us can understand how the other side doesn't see it the same way. I don't think that's easy. They should be commended for an absolutely BEAUTIFUL creation of something completely screwed up!

There is arguably a place for the writer of Barkskin in negotiating international trade agreements.

 

[Joe Liker]

The funny thing though (as I mentioned way further up) is that really, none of us have to "house rule" quote/unquote anything. The rule as presented is extremely clear and works exactly right, no necessary editing or "figuring out" required at all-- with two completely different results. Heh heh!

Another way to look at it is that everyone must house rule it because the rule is incomplete, unclear, and ambiguous.

I don't know if any of us have read the Barkskin spell and have had to ask ourselves "Wait-- what? I don't understand. That doesn't make sense!" The spell as written has (I think) made perfect sense to every one of us. We just end up with two entirely separate ways to play it.

I can state without the slightest hesitation that I immediately thought of numerous questions that would arise due to the imprecise wording. My first thought was, "I can never use this spell because no two people will ever agree on what it means."

Which actually I think is really kinda impressive! They were able to write a single rule that generates two results, both of which are extremely clear to both sides and which seem so obvious none of us can understand how the other side doesn't see it the same way. I don't think that's easy. They should be commended for an absolutely BEAUTIFUL creation of something completely screwed up!

Or tarred and feathered, in a figurative, internet-forum kind of way.

 

[KarinsDad]

I agree, this is reading a lot into it. But what other plausible explanation is there for Mearls tweeting that shields would apply?

My guess is that at some point they had a concept like "base AC," which was set by your armor. Some armors would let you add dex, others wouldn't (this is in practice what we have now). My guess is the earlier barkskin referenced base AC and set it to 16. With the base AC rules elsewhere in the book, it was clear how this would work.

However, at some later point they realized they didn't really need the specific concept of "base AC", and could remove it for simplicity. Some intern or something was told to go through the book and rewrite every reference to "base AC." He got to barkskin, realized it did something kind of unique to the old concept, and clumsily tried to replace it.

That's obviously a fairly specific theory, and is probably wrong, but it seems like the most plausible explanation to me.

Do you have a better theory for why Mearls would say to allow a shield bonus, other than Mearls just doesn't give a flip about what his team wrote in the book?

I would think that Mearls tweets a lot of things these days that did not get brought up in playtest and he now makes a ruling. Kind of like the Sage used to do.

I think tweets are a subpar source of errata. Until there is an official errata, I think the best plan is to either house rule, or play by RAW until errata arrives.

 

[KarinsDad]

Another way to look at it is that everyone must house rule it because the rule is incomplete, unclear, and ambiguous.

RAW is 100% clear. A literal reading has only one meaning.

RAI is unclear (or at least if one takes into account the fluff text).

And no, everyone does not have to houserule this.

 

[KarinsDad]

But it still says what it says.

Not according to some people.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And no, everyone does not have to houserule this.

Actually, *no one* has to houserule it, because every DM at their own table thinks their interpretation is the right one. LOL!

 

[Sacrosanct]

D&D barkskin spell. The new version of: "What is the answer: 48 ÷ 2 (2*3)"

 

[CapnZapp]

Mine was one of those posts you referred to, so I guess I should clarify my position.

While I have personally landed on an explanation that makes sense to me, I am absolutely NOT saying it's obvious. It's not. The spell is not fine, not at all. Barkskin needs a rewrite, desperately. In fact, I think it's the most poorly written spell in the book.

I was just stating how I see it, and how I think things might pan out if and when an official clarification appears, give or take a Dex bonus. (Dryads!)

Thank you.

And let me return the favor with a clarification of my own.

I never targeted you.

While I referred to you, I was talking to those in general who do tell themselves the spell is obvious.

I was using your interpretation and others to show how different people are coming to directly contradictory conclusions. Some of you are even convinced no other interpretation is possible! That does not necessarily include you

My point is simply to observe that any spell that is given wildly different interpretations can't be said to be well-written.

This spell defies interpretation. I can't arrive at an interpretation that both works as a rulesy-language point of view and makes sense in the game world simultaneously.

That's broken to me.

Barkskin is broken. Can it still work at your game? Of course it can.

But it remains broken.

 

[CapnZapp]

Natural Armor is mentioned repeatedly in the MM.

As noted by others, and by the application of the spell on the Dryad, I'd agree that the DEX bonus doesn't apply.

Because of Mike Mearl's tweet, along with the fact that a shield provides a bonus to AC instead of a specific AC, I agree that a shield stacks with barkskin (plus that fact that the spell itself says 'minimum' which implies some things can make it better), as well as circumstantial bonuses like cover.

Ilbranteloth

The fact the spell says "minimum" does not necessarily imply things can make it better.

The simplest interpretation is that your AC can simply be higher than the one given to you by Barkskin.

If you're wearing Full Plate, I think most of us agrees your AC 18 is unchanged by this spell.

This does not necessarily mean things can make Barkskin better. Only that your AC can be better than what Barkskin provides.