D&D (2024) Sage Advice column is live

[Atomoctba]

Yes, if you read something the text doesn’t say and the developer clarifications counter-indicate, it works just fine!

I do not say that is RAW or even RAI. I just said that makes more sense if you read it that way

 

[Charlaquin]

How does Barkskin work with Shields, cover, and other modifiers to AC?
The target of Barkskin has an Armor Class of 17 if its AC is lower than that. This means the target effectively ignore any modifiers to its AC—including any armor, a Shield, or cover—unless its AC is higher than 17. For example, if you’re the target of a Barkskin spell and your AC is normally 14, your AC is 17 while under the effects of the spell; however, if your AC is normally 16 and you have Half Cover, your AC is 18, and Barkskin’s effect isn’t relevant.

While this interpretation is consistent with the wording of the spell, reading it has made me realize that I don't like how the 2024 version of Barkskin works.

I like that the 2024 version is a bonus action to cast and doesn't require concentration, but I prefer the 2014 version's mechanical benefit, which is that your AC "can't be lower than 16". That makes it so you can benefit from things like shields and cover.

No, the 2014 version also worked in exactly this way, where if your AC was less than 16 it became 16 and if your AC was 16 or higher it didn’t do anything, and the old sage advice confirmed as much. The new wording just removes the ambiguity, but that was always how it was supposed to work.

 

[pukunui]

No, the 2014 version also worked in exactly this way, where if your AC was less than 16 it became 16 and if your AC was 16 or higher it didn’t do anything, and the old sage advice confirmed as much. The new wording just removes the ambiguity, but that was always how it was supposed to work.

Huh! I just looked at the old Sage Advice Compendium pdf, and you're right! In fact, the two answers are almost identical. I still don't like it. I think shields and cover should apply on top of Barkskin. It's silly that they don't.

Also, a major redesign that lists the most recent errata issued for every official product

The old Sage Advice Compendium PDFs included lists of errata with hyperlinks too.

 

[Mistwell]

Not really. 4e did it just fine.

4e went through like 4 different variations over the course of the publishing history before they finally landed on that one. I agree it's better than this, but it sure didn't feel like a "fine" process at the time when they updated the friggen rule multiple times in a matter of weeks. I think they even changed the name of it from hide to stealth at some point.

 

[pukunui]

4e went through like 4 different variations over the course of the publishing history before they finally landed on that one. I agree it's better than this, but it sure didn't feel like a "fine" process at the time when they updated the friggen rule multiple times in a matter of weeks. I think they even changed the name of it from hide to stealth at some point.

They also rewrote the entire set of rules at one point. I've shared a screenshot in several recent threads ...

EDIT: Here we go! "Replace all text after the first paragraph ..."

 

[Minigiant]

It doesn’t make you literally transparent in the narrative, but it does seem to make you functionally transparent, mechanically speaking. You can’t be seen without special senses, unless they succeed a Perception check, which uses an action.

You aren't functionally transparent either.
Your back is essential always turned until they search or you reveal yourself.

Humanoids of infinite backs

 

[James Gasik]

I remember the WotC forums (remember when those were a thing?) had a stickied thread about the "Rules of Hidden Club" just to explain to people what was going on with the new Stealth rules. What I really hated was when my players would take a utility power designed for the older Stealth rules that now no longer functioned. I'd have to explain to them why it wouldn't work as written, and they'd just act like I was being a massive jerk.
-
This whole "being able to see someone who is invisible does not make them not-invisible" is just as messed up as when Crawford said it. How can they not realize how confusing this sounds?

 

[pukunui]

This whole "being able to see someone who is invisible does not make them not-invisible" is just as messed up as when Crawford said it. How can they not realize how confusing this sounds?

I wonder who is writing the Sage Advice now that Crawford has gone.

 

[James Gasik]

I wonder who is writing the Sage Advice now that Crawford has gone.

ChatGPT?

EDIT: I should have said Gleemax, lol.

 

[mamba]

Good to have this clarified even if I don’t like it – particularly in the way that this makes it so if you fail your save against a monk’s Stunning Strike, you can move at full speed, whereas if you succeed, you can only move at half speed.

that sounds like it should be errata’d