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

[DEFCON 1]

I could actually see a drop if it made you more stiff. And bark is typically not meant for the same movement as skin...

So you're saying that the purpose of the Barkskin spell is to make the recipient's armor class worse?

 

[TwoSix]

So I'm going to go with my instincts on this one. Barkskin turns your skin into what is functionally chainmail armor (AC 16). I'm not going to include any DEX bonus, because you don't get a DEX bonus when wearing chainmail so that makes sense to me. But any other things that increase your AC when wearing chainmail will also work when under the Barkskin spell. That includes shields and cover.

I'm going with your interpretation. Barkskin is magical chainmail. The other way leads to stupid corner cases, which I don't like.

 

[Kobold Stew]

It would drop because by the way you all are reading it-- that you don't gain the bonus AC from a shield or cover when you have Barkskin on-- the guy's AC wouldn't go up to match it if the order in which the guy received the stuff went differently.

This is mistaken -- it's simply not what I and others are saying.

The AC stays at 17 in your example. No one is saying different.

That makes absolutely no sense.

The effect of the Barkskin spell sets a minimum AC regardless of what else is happening.

Does it make sense? No -- again, I'm not sure anyone is saying this is a particularly good rule. We are saying it's not unclear, however:

If (barkskin) and (AC is <16), then AC=16.

The effect is purely metagamey, depending on character stats and not the in-world fiction. Again, I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it is what they've done.

If your AC is 10 (by whatever means) and you cast Barkskin, your AC becomes 16.
If your AC is 14 (By whatever means) and you cast Barkskin, your AC becomes 16. 
If your AC is 16 (by whatever means) and you cast Barkskin, it stays at 16.
If your AC is 18 (by whatever means) and you cast Barkskin, it stays at 18.

Does this "make sense" no, not really. But that's what the rule is saying. House rule away.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is mistaken -- it's simply not what I and others are saying.

The AC stays at 17 in your example. No one is saying different.



The effect of the Barkskin spell sets a minimum AC regardless of what else is happening.

Does it make sense? No -- again, I'm not sure anyone is saying this is a particularly good rule. We are saying it's not unclear, however:

If (barkskin) and (AC is <16), then AC=16.

The effect is purely metagamey, depending on character stats and not the in-world fiction. Again, I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it is what they've done.

If your AC is 10 (by whatever means) and you cast Barkskin, your AC becomes 16.
If your AC is 14 (By whatever means) and you cast Barkskin, your AC becomes 16.
If your AC is 16 (by whatever means) and you cast Barkskin, it stays at 16.
If your AC is 18 (by whatever means) and you cast Barkskin, it stays at 18.

Does this "make sense" no, not really. But that's what the rule is saying. House rule away.

Actually I am not even sure anymore that this is RAW. The spell explicitely refers to the Armor: "... regardless of what kind of armor you are wearing"

And a shield says: "increases your AC by 2"

So I do read it RAW as First dtermine AC from Armor, check for barkskin and then apply shield and cover. Magical chainmail it is.

 

[jadrax]

Yes. What [MENTION=23484]Kobold Stew[/MENTION] just said.

 

[mcbobbo]

So you're saying that the purpose of the Barkskin spell is to make the recipient's armor class worse?

More like bark, is what I intended to say.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is mistaken -- it's simply not what I and others are saying.

The AC stays at 17 in your example. No one is saying different.



The effect of the Barkskin spell sets a minimum AC regardless of what else is happening.

Does it make sense? No -- again, I'm not sure anyone is saying this is a particularly good rule. We are saying it's not unclear, however:

If (barkskin) and (AC is <16), then AC=16.

The effect is purely metagamey, depending on character stats and not the in-world fiction. Again, I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it is what they've done.

If your AC is 10 (by whatever means) and you cast Barkskin, your AC becomes 16.
If your AC is 14 (By whatever means) and you cast Barkskin, your AC becomes 16. 
If your AC is 16 (by whatever means) and you cast Barkskin, it stays at 16.
If your AC is 18 (by whatever means) and you cast Barkskin, it stays at 18.

Does this "make sense" no, not really. But that's what the rule is saying. House rule away.

But again... the rule and the spell doesn't say that.

The spell says:

"You touch a willing creature. Until the spell ends, the target's skin has a rough, bark-like appearance, and the target's AC can't be less than 16 regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing."

Where exactly in those two sentences does it state that your AC cannot go higher than 16? Or that bonuses to that AC can not be used or do not apply? The fact is... in those two sentences it doesn't. You are only coming to that conclusion by pulling in how the wording of Mage Armor and Unarmored Defense are written, and adding those interpretations to those two sentences in the spell.

...the target's AC can't be less than 16. That's it. That's all it's saying. It does not reference an AC maximum. It does not reference your AC going up and then stopping. It says nothing about your DEX mod, the use of a shield, the addition of cover, or any other AC-modifying thing-- either that you definitely can use them, or that you definitely can't use them. It doesn't say anything Specifically one way or the other.

So with no Specific trumps General rule written here in this spell... there's no reason to suggest a shield wouldn't work (because the General rule is anyone with proficiency can use a shield for a +2 AC bonus) and there's no reason to suggest cover would no longer apply (because the General rule is everyone gains the benefit of cover for increased armor class except in the specific case of the ranged attacker who has a specific rule that allows him to ignore cover.)

Besides that... 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? If you do rule it that way, I'd smile because at least you'd be consistent.

 

[mcbobbo]

Defcon, are you advocating a base AC of +6 on a spell of this level?

 

[jadrax]

So with no Specific trumps General rule written here in this spell... there's no reason to suggest a shield wouldn't work (because the General rule is anyone with proficiency can use a shield for a +2 AC bonus)

Well, for starters, I am not sure this is technically correct. A shield does not give you an Bonus to Armour Class.

Page 144.

'Armor Class (AC). Armor protects its wearer from attacks. The armor (and shield) you wear determines your base Armor Class.'

'Shields. A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time.'

There is nothing there about it being a '+2 AC bonus'. It is explicitly part of your base Armor Class.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Defcon, are you advocating a base AC of +6 on a spell of this level?

Yep.

Any character proficient with Medium Armor can spend 50 gold pieces to buy Scale Mail, which (when you add in a potential DEX bonus), gives the character an AC of 16.

A druid would be one of these characters... except for fluff reasons they aren't allowed to have an armor better than Hide. The Barkskin spell is a way for druids to get what should be their rightful AC if the game didn't prohibit metal armors.

And do characters who wear scale mail get to also wear shields and use cover? Absolutely. So to suggest that a druid doesn't get to because of a spell that only gives them a natural armor class is really kind of ridiculous in my opinion.

But in any case... Kobold Stew admits that they way he's ruling it is metagamey and makes no sense... but if he's comfortable with that... then so be it. I'm fine with that too. But I'm just trying to make it clear (especially for all those people reading this who might not have made up their mind yet) that what I am stating here is not a house-rule to a completely accepted and unambiguous rule... rather it is my opinion of how this spell could (and personally should) be understood as written.

It's obviously ambiguous, since we are arguing the language about it. Now it's up to everyone else to decide what way makes the most sense for them and their game.