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

[TwoSix]

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."

But does that really feel like Barkskin? That's my secondary complaint about the spell (the first being the odd drafting). It doesn't make sense that a character with tough skin wouldn't benefit from a shield or from ducking behind a wall. Intuitively, tough skin and cover should stack. (And doesn't a focus on naturalistic rules means that we should be able to trust our intuition?) Giving a base AC when you have nothing else going for you feels more like a luck or divination spell, not a transmutation.

I'd write it as
"Your skin becomes unnaturally tough and rigid, like the bark of an ancient hardwood. Functionally, your skin acts as chainmail armor, giving you an AC of 16, and you no longer gain a bonus (or are penalized) for your Dexterity modifier to AC. This armor requires no proficiency, and you do not suffer a penalty to your movement for having a low Strength, as with standard heavy armor. Just as with chainmail, you suffer a disadvantage to Stealth checks."

 

[jadrax]

Tbh, given that an Awoken Tree has AC 13, I am having a disconnect with Barkskin being equivalent to chain in the first place.

In the last open play test it (and the leaked alpha for that matter) it was just a +2 Bonus to AC (I.e. close to Studded Leather which seems about right in terms of realism).

Obviously the spell has changed massively since then, in ways that don't really seem to make a whole lot of sense.

 

[mcbobbo]

Intuitively tough skin and armor should stack. Historicly people in full armor took damage from almost any blow. Broken limbs, etc.

Unfortunately D&D is not often intuitive.

 

[Kobold Stew]

It doesn't make sense that a character with tough skin wouldn't benefit from a shield or from ducking behind a wall.

As has been discussed upthread, it is not helpful to consider these together. Shield, for better or worse, is considered armour and is part of the basic calculation of AC. Taking cover is a situational bonus, for which there are in-game mechanics for bypassing it.

Tbh, given that an Awoken Tree has AC 13, I am having a disconnect with Barkskin being equivalent to chain in the first place.

Well said.

 

[TwoSix]

As has been discussed upthread, it is not helpful to consider these together. Shield, for better or worse, is considered armour and is part of the basic calculation of AC. Taking cover is a situational bonus, for which there are in-game mechanics for bypassing it.

Why not helpful? It makes more sense for Barkskin to stack with a shield than to not. Assuming it's not unbalancing, that should be the primary consideration.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Why not helpful? It makes more sense for Barkskin to stack with a shield than to not. Assuming it's not unbalancing, that should be the primary consideration.

I'll admit, I think I miss your point. Even though we don't agree on what the difference is, you seem to agree that there is a difference between these. But, since we don't agree (i.e. I think it makes more mechanical sense that the shield be part of the intended calculation of AC against which the spell is operating than an element of partial cover), keeping them separate makes sense too.

Your second sentence makes this point:

"Assuming it's not unbalancing, that [i.e. "it makes more sense..."] should be the primary consideration.

unbalancing is a mechancial consideration; that is what Im saying the spell is all about.
making sense (in an in-game world) is, I suggest, simply not possible with the wording of the spell as we have it. There is a necessary element of abstraction here (as, again, with hit points etc.) and I think no one has been able to tie the spell wording to making sense.

So: we are not in a position to assume it's not unbalancing; making (in-game, diegetic) sense of barkskin as worded. And it is not obvious that the shield (part of the armour rules, and part of the basic calculation of armour class) interacts with the spell in the same way (or necessarily a different way) than cover. Each element should be considered separately.

 

[77IM]

"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."

That would be way better than what we have now. It would seem like a weird way for that spell to work, but at least it would be coherent, and fulfill an interesting tactical niche because of not stacking with cover.

 

[pemerton]

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."

That woud be wording to achieve your preferred interpretation.

My suggested wording was meant to achieve the "equivalent to magic chainmail" interpretation, which seems to be Mearls' approach.

I hope the designers know which interpretation they had in mind when they wrote and balanced the spell!

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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."

I think this is close. To me, Barkskin provides natural armor.

But I agree with Mike's tweet that a shield will improve your AC with Barkskin (and I'd add, natural armor). As written (and has always been the case in the game), it provides a bonus to your AC (+2) as is noted on the table and in the text. So if you have a natural armor of 12, then with a shield it would be 14.

This is also in line with the Barbarian's Unarmored Defense class feature. Again, the feature provides a natural AC of 10 + Dex + Con. But it specifically states you can still gain this benefit and use a shield. If using the shield doesn't improve your AC, then there's no point in the shield.

Randy

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Intuitively tough skin and armor should stack. Historicly people in full armor took damage from almost any blow. Broken limbs, etc.

Unfortunately D&D is not often intuitive.

I'm not sure I fully agree with this (or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you). Armor can deflect a blow, or it can absorb some of the blow. But since it's worn, once those defenses are broken, you'll take damage. If your natural AC is less than that of the armor, then I think if the armor is defeated, then so is your natural armor, thus there isn't an inherent stacking of AC. If your natural armor is higher than a given type of armor, then yes, perhaps it would make more sense if the armor did provide some added protection, at least in the case of absorbing damage. But D&D's AC is based on deflection, not absorption. Either you hit, or you don't. So in that scenario, stacking doesn't make as much sense. Instead, hit points account for some of the absorption, along with combat skill, pain tolerance, and other factors.

The reality is that it's much more complex than even this, but adding that complexity doesn't necessarily improve the simulation of combat provided by the game.

With a shield, it's different. Even if the blow gets through the shield, it still has to contend with your armor, natural or otherwise. And that's assuming it actually gets to the armor. For example, and arrow or spear that pierces the shield may have to fully penetrate the shield and still have enough force to overcome the armor.

So it makes sense to me that a shield provides a bonus to AC (as the rules indicate) even if the AC provided from armor doesn't stack with natural armor.