D&D 5E What armor can druids wear? Is there a way to get a decent AC?

[Mouseferatu]

Actually I think the best 'not logical' example of druids and metal is coins. Always metal and every druid collects them in D&D.

Well, they use metal weapons, too.

I tend to think of it as a matter of degree. Druids have no problem carrying or using metal, but being substantially encased in it feels like a separation from the natural world. (Or it may actually be a separation. It could easily be decided that a druid in metal armor cannot wild shape or access certain other nature-focused abilities. That's more or less how I tend to explain it in my own campaigns.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

...

And it only just now occurs to me, this may be one of the reasons for wild shape serving as "hit point buffer," with damage taken in other forms not (for the most part) carrying over to the druid's "real" hit points. If they're expected to get hit more often (due to having worse armor), said buffer may well be specifically intended to counter that.

If so, that's a nice piece of behind-the-curtain synergy.

 

[Tony Semana]

I think your interpretation makes sense; but I revert to the question: why would the thick skin work differently than armor? Your answer is to throw a question back: why would it work like armor? My answer to that is: because that's how the game works in all other aspects, and that's how the game has worked in the past. It's like jurisprudence in matters of law: when the law is unclear, precedent is taken into account.

I agree that your idea makes sense in itself; however I do not find it compelling when taken in the context of the game.

You mention that this might be a unique game mechanic: I agree that it might. I just find it improbable that it would, where another way of reasonably interpretating the rules according to precedent, also works.

Thanks for agreeing that it makes sense, but I'm not sure about the 'in itself' part. Given the fact that the interpretation works mechanically, against the text of the spell description, AND it actually makes sense within the narrative, I'm not sure why that isn't "compelling in context of the game". What other contexts of the game is there?

"It's unclear because it's different" is a confusing position given the above.

Here's my answer to why it wouldn't work like armor: Because thick skin is skin and armor is armor, and therefore they would and do work differently. Why? Because THIS spell has described how thick skin works. Specific trumps general. The spell does nothing to change the way armor calculations are done.

So again: What's my AC? Does X attack roll hit? NO? yay!!! Yes? Does X attack roll get past AC16 of my barkskin? No? yay!! Yes? ouch!!

 

[jadrax]

Alexander Bateman ‏@jadraxdarkfire 22h
@mikemearls @JeremyECrawford If I cast Barkskin and use a Shield, is my AC 16 or 18?

Mike Mearls ‏@mikemearls 2h
@jadraxdarkfire @JeremyECrawford I'd say 18

Well Mike Mearls at least feels shields should stack, which lends credence to the 'treat as armor' proponents.

 

[pemerton]

There's no house ruling going on here; the text of barkskin is just unclear.

Pro tip: if some text seems clear to you, but it is not clear to a lot of other people, then it is unclear.

I think a lot of posters could benefit from your pro tip!

all armors provide a numeric AC value (e.g. 11 for leather) to which the DEX modifier is added.

This is not correct. No DEX modifier is added to the numeric value of heavy armours. And only a limited amount of DEX modifier may be added to the numeric value of medium armours.

Mage Armor says your AC becomes 13 + DEX mod. It says nothing about cover applying, just like Barkskin says nothing about cover one way or another. Do you rule that someone with Mage Armor doesn't get a cover bonus to AC since the spell doesn't specifically say that it can?

Mage Armour refers to a base armour class. Which is defined as what you get from your armour and shield (Basic PDF p 44).

To me, this implies (i) that wielding a shield while using Mage Armour does not increase AC, and (ii) that adjustments to armour class that are not adjustments to base armour class (eg cover bonuses) apply normally to a character using Mage Armour.

Barkskin, lacking the reference to base armour class, seems to me to be implying that it is an adjustment to overall armour class. (The adjustment takes the form of establishing a minimum.)

On the other hand, there is the reference to "regardless of armour worn", which implies, perhaps, that non-armour considerations might affect your otherwise-minimum-AC of 16. Whether a shield might be such a consideration is further complicated by the fact that a shield is apparently a type of armour (it appears on the armour chart) although arguably it is not a type of armour that is worn.

Bottom line: this is a very poorly worded spell. Although no doubt others think it is well-worded because it encourages GM rulings in favour of determinate rules.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Bottom line: this is a very poorly worded spell. Although no doubt others think it is well-worded because it encourages GM rulings in favour of determinate rules.

Yeah... I would even go so far as saying rather than "poorly-worded" or "well-worded"... Barkskin is a classic example of "simply-worded". And when it's come to 5E, WotC's penchant has been to go for that over all other kinds of rule explanations. Stealth is another example of that.

They came to the conclusion that trying to write all rules so they cover every single base any player will ever come up with never actually works. There's always some corner case that's found or got missed... or even only shows up later on in the game cycle when a new expansion of the rules arrives in a supplement or something. So their way of dealing with it is "Here's a simple rule. If there's a question, the DM can deal with it at the table."

Which on first blush is a fantastic way of handling it... because what's one of the complaints we always hear? Too much errata. Some players don't want to have to print pages of rules clarifications because it's a hassle and it makes them think the rules were poorly designed. But why *is* there errata? Because some other players want all the interlocking rules to be seamless and airtight, which means you have to close up all those corner cases as they appear. They don't want to have to make their own determinations because other players might disagree with them (especially out in the wilds of Public Play), and also they feel like getting the ruleset straight is WotC's job, and not theirs.

I mean heck... even now with Morrus and that other blog collecting all of Mike and Jeremy's tweets about their D&D rulings in one place... half the players want that list to get hammered into a workable format and then posted to the D&D website immediately for use... while the other half find this list to be an anathema because they know that other players are going to trumpet these rules clarifications as though they are the word of god, and refuse to accept the DM's rulings at the table.

So really... there's no actual solution here. And ironically we (and I'm definitely including myself in this) are going absolutely against the philosophy of 5E's design by even having these long arguments about how these spells are supposed to work in the first place. I know I got a bee in my bonnet the couple times folks had posted "Yours is a house-rule, this is the real rule" and I reacted with pretty much a "NUH UH! YOU'RE THE HOUSE RULE! " When truth be told... I think we're really all supposed to be looking at the system as a whole as nothing BUT a huge set of house-rules. We're given some basic stuff written down in a book (or several books) and we take them home and hammer them into whatever it is we want them to be. I mean heck... that's the whole purpose of the upcoming DMG's existence. Nothing BUT some more basic stuff to take home and meld into our games.

So screw it. From now on... I'm going to do my best to no longer try and explain the rules as I see them here on the boards. Instead, I'm going to just state how I'm interpreting the "simply-worded" information given to me and how that will interact with things in my game. I chose to play 5E... the least I can do is actually go along with their philosophy about the game as well.

 

[SkidAce]

.snipped other really good stuff...

So really... there's no actual solution here. And ironically we (and I'm definitely including myself in this) are going absolutely against the philosophy of 5E's design by even having these long arguments about how these spells are supposed to work in the first place. I know I got a bee in my bonnet the couple times folks had posted "Yours is a house-rule, this is the real rule" and I reacted with pretty much a "NUH UH! YOU'RE THE HOUSE RULE! " When truth be told... I think we're really all supposed to be looking at the system as a whole as nothing BUT a huge set of house-rules. We're given some basic stuff written down in a book (or several books) and we take them home and hammer them into whatever it is we want them to be. I mean heck... that's the whole purpose of the upcoming DMG's existence. Nothing BUT some more basic stuff to take home and meld into our games.

So screw it. From now on... I'm going to do my best to no longer try and explain the rules as I see them here on the boards. Instead, I'm going to just state how I'm interpreting the "simply-worded" information given to me and how that will interact with things in my game. I chose to play 5E... the least I can do is actually go along with their philosophy about the game as well.

Bravo...bravo! (must spread around etc.)

Me too.

 

[TwoSix]

So screw it. From now on... I'm going to do my best to no longer try and explain the rules as I see them here on the boards. Instead, I'm going to just state how I'm interpreting the "simply-worded" information given to me and how that will interact with things in my game. I chose to play 5E... the least I can do is actually go along with their philosophy about the game as well.

Bingo. Don't worry about RAW. Focus on understanding and disseminating what makes the best RAP (Rules as Played). Having Barkskin be magical chainmail is much easier to understand and play with than the (<16 = 16) interpretation, so push for that. There's no point to being a lawyer; better to be an advocate.

 

[pemerton]

trying to write all rules so they cover every single base any player will ever come up with never actually works.

<snip>

So really... there's no actual solution here. And ironically we (and I'm definitely including myself in this) are going absolutely against the philosophy of 5E's design by even having these long arguments about how these spells are supposed to work in the first place.

<snip>

From now on... I'm going to do my best to no longer try and explain the rules as I see them here on the boards. Instead, I'm going to just state how I'm interpreting the "simply-worded" information given to me and how that will interact with things in my game.

What frustrates me is that the rules aren't all that simple - AC is a function of armour, shield, DEX (but only sometimes), cover, etc. Contrast the much simpler rules in (say) B/X.

And then the wording is not simple or uniform either - sometimes it talks about Base AC, sometimes not.

If you are going to write "plain language" rules, it is helfpful to (i) use words and phrases consistently (because in plain English, a difference of language is often taken to signify a difference of meaning), and (ii) to have simple rules!

It's not as if using a shield with Barkskin, Mage Armour etc is a corner case. It's going to come up at nearly every table!

Don't worry about RAW. Focus on understanding and disseminating what makes the best RAP (Rules as Played).

That's fine by me. Most discussions of RAW (especially when contrasted with RAI) rely on poor interpretive methodologies in any event.

But I don't think that's an excuse for poor drafting.

For instance, "while under the effect of this spell your AC cannot be less than 16, regardless of armour worn" is not a clearly written spell. That is not simple or plain language, because it introduces the idea of the spell setting a floor rather than a value, and it introduces the comparison to armour worn in a subordinate clause rather than as a self-standing exception.

Contrast: "This spell toughens your skin and gives you AC 16. If your AC from armour worn would be higher, use that AC instead."

 

[CapnZapp]

Contrast: "This spell toughens your skin and gives you AC 16. If your AC from armour worn would be higher, use that AC instead."

Perhaps:

"This spell magically protects you when everything else fails, granting you AC 16. If your AC from regular sources (including, but not limited to, Dexterity modifiers, armor worn, shield bonus, and conditional modifiers such as cover) would be higher, use that AC instead."