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?
I could actually see a drop if it made you more stiff. And bark is typically not meant for the same movement as skin...
I'm going with your interpretation. Barkskin is magical chainmail. The other way leads to stupid corner cases, which I don't like.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.
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.
That makes absolutely no sense.
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.
More like bark, is what I intended to say.So you're saying that the purpose of the Barkskin spell is to make the recipient's armor class worse?
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.
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)
Defcon, are you advocating a base AC of +6 on a spell of this level?