January 2016 Sage Advice - All About AC

There is a new Sage Advice from WotC's Jeremy Crawford posted on the D&D website about Armor Class and how spells interact with it. As always, the Sage Advice Compendium has also been updated with this information. This month, Jeremy discusses how to calculate creature ACs, and how spells like mage armor, barkskin, amor of Agates, and heroism work. Interestingly, it also contains a reconsidered ruling on how barkskin and shields work, and an update to his previous ruling one the Savage Attacker feat.
Find the full column here and the full compiled Sage Advice Compendium PDF here.

Also of note, the Monster Manual errata has been updated and now includes the water elemental and changes to the kraken.


Sage Advice is a monthly column that gives official clarifications of D&D rules. It also sometimes provides reference documents to help your D&D game run smoothly. Despite its official status, Sage Advice doesn’t trump the rulings of a Dungeon Master; the answers and information provided here are meant to assist a DM in adjudicating the game.

 

[Li Shenron]

What? Just because your skin takes on a hardened form of pseudo-natural armor that protects you even when you're wearing leather armor over it... but then that protection suddenly disappears once you strap a shield on your arm? How could that NOT make sense?!?

The only way to make some sense to it, is to try and keep focused on the original idea that in D&D "armor is cover", so any AC increase is more about covering your weak spots rather than absorbing hits.

If you think of Barkskin, natural armor, shield etc. to be mostly about covering more of your exposed body, it starts making some sense that these don't just stack like they easily did in 3e, but you tend to get diminishing returns from adding more AC bonuses.

But then, what suddenly starts to feel broken, is 3/4 cover. We have all these restrictions meant to keep your AC low for bounded accuracy, but a ranged combatant has such an easy way to boost her AC by a whooping +5 just by getting behind 3/4 cover that stacks with everything - except of course Barksin

 

[CapnZapp]

Mechanically barkskin is a more interesting spell with this ruling. It is a way for parties to help a character that might not have optimized stats, such as a Monk who picks strength over dexterity. I prefer this over yet another spell that adds X to your AC.

And I have said that I can work with the mechanism, but then you'd need a plausible pseudo-explanation for the way the protection varies with other forms of AC, including trivial examples like the sarcastic shield example given above.

Rename the spell "Ancestral Defense" or something and it becomes difficult to accuse the spell of not making sense.

Or perhaps describe how nature spirits deflect attacks but how these work best if you go naked as a babe but get less and less energetic with your other protective measures, and I'm all good.

But a spell that turns your skin "hard as bark" does not make any sense at all with this mechanic. Quite contrary - a "skin as bark" is a veritable posterboy for the natural AC mechanic.

---

That's why I say I find it incomprehensible why Barkskin is written as it is, and why it doesn't showcase the Natural AC armor mechanic.

regards,

 

[Sadras]

Either they have intended Barkskin to be used only by the caster, in which case it should have had a target:self, or it is intended to benefit others too and then that's what it should do.

But it seems to me that it is not their priority to make Barskin tactically interested, but rather their priority is to make ruling consistent, even at the expense of narrative being inconsistent.

Which is a bit dissonant with other aspects of the game where they have thrown consistency out of the window because it was not fun (e.g. NPC and monster design).

We have all these restrictions meant to keep your AC low for bounded accuracy, but a ranged combatant has such an easy way to boost her AC by a whooping +5 just by getting behind 3/4 cover that stacks with everything - except of course Barksin

A possible solution to fix the problem with keeping to 5e's bounded accuracy policy but also ensuring consistency with narrative, the spell Barkskin could be altered to allow damage prevention. One would need to ensure this is balanced and the duration of the spell is reasonable of course so it doesn't make it OP.

 

[CapnZapp]

The only way to make some sense to it

I really honestly wouldn't wish for you or anyone to go there...

The best way to make sense of the spell is either to rework its mechanism or its description&name. That is change either the crunch or the fluff, so they match each other.

You could even do both:

Barkskin. Target: Self. While you don't wield a shield, you gain the equivalent of heavy armor AC 16. You're considered to be proficient with Barkskin armor, which is non-metal, has no Strength requirement and doesn't give Stealth disadvantage.

(This option means cover etc work just as you expect them to. The prohibition on shields is a bit of a stretch, but really not anything Monks haven't coped with.)

Nature's Defense. If your current AC is less than 16, your AC becomes 16 as nature spirits cover the gaps in your armor.

 

[Li Shenron]

I really honestly wouldn't wish for you or anyone to go there...

The best way to make sense of the spell is either to rework its mechanism or its description&name. That is change either the crunch or the fluff, so they match each other.

Yeah, but obviously I meant "with the current rules". Changing the PHB is not on the table right now.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, but obviously I meant "with the current rules". Changing the PHB is not on the table right now.

My only suggestion then is not to use Barkskin until such time.

 

[Azurewraith]

A possible solution to fix the problem with keeping to 5e's bounded accuracy policy but also ensuring consistency with narrative, the spell Barkskin could be altered to allow damage prevention. One would need to ensure this is balanced and the duration of the spell is reasonable of course so it doesn't make it OP.

I had the exact same thought but unfortunately or fortunately? I dunno lol basic damage reduction didn't make it into this ed. It could give resistance to everything but psychic and vulnerable fire and slashing? Not sure seems op to me

 

[Sadras]

I had the exact same thought but unfortunately or fortunately? I dunno lol basic damage reduction didn't make it into this ed.

Have a look at the Heavy Armour Master Feat

With regards to it being OP. What I mean is that it will be a must have spell in every situation. Personally I don't like that kind of spell.

@CapnZapp had the most elegant solution: To change the name of the spell - for the narrative/description to suit the mechanics.

 

[Azurewraith]

Have a look at the Heavy Armour Master Feat

With regards to it being OP. What I mean is that it will be a must have spell in every situation. Personally I don't like that kind of spell.

@CapnZapp had the most elegant solution: To change the name of the spell - for the narrative/description to suit the mechanics.

Please accept my sincerest face palm for forgetting that.

View attachment 73704

 

[Yaarel]

The Barkskin spell might need a rewrite to help its mechanics and narrative cohere with each other.

In 4e, only mechanics mattered, and ‘fluff’ was officially suggestive and alterable, even alterable by the players using the mechanic.

But in 5e, both the mechanics and the narrative matter. The game expects the DM to adjudicate outcomes based on the implications that result from the narrative description.

So, DMs who adjudicate the Barkskin spell by favoring its narrative description over its mechanical description, are, in fact, playing D&D 5e right.

In this particular case, the problem is with the language of the spell itself, its conflictive stats and narrative.