Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6444887" data-attributes="member: 6778044">So the only thing obvious about this rule as written is that people don't all agree on its interpretation.If you read the rules as restrictive, then nothing stacks. If you rule as permissive, then everything stacks. The phrase 'at least' is a permissive one. 'It can be higher than 16, but it can't be lower.' If it were intended to be restrictive, it would say 'at most.'So from a language standpoint, the 'obvious' interpretation is that your AC is at least 16 (it can be higher, but can't be lower).So, if it can be higher than 16, what can make it higher? Here's the funny thing. Almost everybody thinks that if you wear armor that grants a higher AC, then you use the AC of the armor. Yet at the same time, when presented with something that grants a bonus to the AC given by barkskin, there's great disagreement.Is a shield armor or does it provide an AC bonus? While it's listed in the armor table, I think that's for convenience. All Armor provides a set AC amount (AC = x), while shields provide a bonus (+2). Dexterity and many magic items also provide bonuses. Dexterity can also impart a penalty.Without any other information in the spell to work with, I would say the answer is: Anything that grants a bonus to AC (a '+x') works with the spell. Anything that provides a specific AC works the same way it always does, unless the AC it provides is less than 16. Anything that would lower your AC below 16 does not work.Does armor stack with it? No, it provides the same AC it always does, but is irrelevant if it's less than 16 (since the barkskin is higher - an attack may break through your armor's defense, but not the barkskin).Does a shield? YesCover? YesMagical bonuses? YesDexterity? Yes, (but...)So Dexterity is the tricky one, but I think it provides some insight into the designers thinking. There are two examples in the MM that does not apply the Dex bonus with barkskin. Here's what I think really happened.The designers are extremely familiar with the history of D&D and RPGs. In addition, they are writing/revising hundreds of pages of rules for a new game system. It's very common for somebody writing such rules to make assumptions or gloss over something that's obvious to them, often because it just doesn't occur to them that it's not obvious. Add to that the fact that these are rules in flux at the time they are writing them. Combine that with the fact that the same team is writing all three of the core books this time, instead of 3 teams working together. That has its advantages and disadvantages.So I think that the wording is assuming that people know that 'at least' means a shield and other things that grant a bonus will work with barkskin (because it has at least since the AD&D PHB), this is supported by Mike's tweet that a shield does work with it, along with the rules in past editions.On the other hand, the description of the spell was originally that your skin 'becomes tough as bark' which has been rewritten in a way that says it looks like that, but doesn't explicitly say it feels (or is) like that. But I think they decided that it was stiff and worked like any other armor that provides an AC 16 (chain mail) and heavy armor doesn't allow a Dexterity bonus. I'm OK with this ruling, although it does raise the question as to whether stealth checks are at a disadvantage (I'd say no). Again, I think this was an assumption on the part of the designers, they just wrote the MM entries, and it's entirely possible that they didn't even look at the PHB when they created the MM entries because they 'knew' that Dex didn't stack.The rules weren't written in a vacuum. This is a rule that has an extensive history, and although rules can change, in the absence of something that explicitly changes it, the 'obvious' interpretation for somebody that has played the game for a while is that a shield does stack.However, the rules should be written in a way that the intention of the designers should be clear to those reading it, whether they are familiar with the history of the game or not.Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification