The '+2' written in the Armor chart begs to differ.
D&D 5E What armor can druids wear? Is there a way to get a decent AC?
- Thread starter brehobit
- Start date
The '+2' written in the Armor chart begs to differ.
As I had tried to say, I'm not "comfortable" with it -- I don't think the spell is well written, but that is beyond my control. If the intent was what you suggest, I'd have expected them to phrase it in a different way.
But, while I am reluctant to have too many errata, I do feel clarification on this point would help a lot.
sithramir
First Post
Ok. I think I see where some confusion is. It seems pretty clear from reading it"
"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."
People are trying to talk about adding AC to a value that isn't AC. The spell only creates a MINIMUM value. It does not set the AC of any creature OTHER than setting their current AC to a minimum.
You can't get a +2 shield or a dex bonus to this because it ISN"T an AC value.
There's the general rule that states you only use one AC "rule". Unarmored defense, mage armor, regular armors, etc all state what your AC is with penalties, etc. The specific rule is when you look at one of these and it reads slightly differently you then use that specific value. However, this spell is giving a THIRD rule. It's basically stating that, however you calculate your AC, if said value is less than 16 it = 16. Done.
It seems very confusing to me that they add another concept when it's clear in every other way to set AC but it shouldn't be treated the same unfortunately.
If you have padded armor with disadvantage on stealth checks, a shield +2, and dex +5 your AC = 11 +5 +2 = 18 and no effect happens and you have disadvantage.
If you had padded armor and dex +1 your AC = 11 +1 +2 = 14 and now becomes 16 but you still have disadvantage, etc. It's just a minimum value.
"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."
People are trying to talk about adding AC to a value that isn't AC. The spell only creates a MINIMUM value. It does not set the AC of any creature OTHER than setting their current AC to a minimum.
You can't get a +2 shield or a dex bonus to this because it ISN"T an AC value.
There's the general rule that states you only use one AC "rule". Unarmored defense, mage armor, regular armors, etc all state what your AC is with penalties, etc. The specific rule is when you look at one of these and it reads slightly differently you then use that specific value. However, this spell is giving a THIRD rule. It's basically stating that, however you calculate your AC, if said value is less than 16 it = 16. Done.
It seems very confusing to me that they add another concept when it's clear in every other way to set AC but it shouldn't be treated the same unfortunately.
If you have padded armor with disadvantage on stealth checks, a shield +2, and dex +5 your AC = 11 +5 +2 = 18 and no effect happens and you have disadvantage.
If you had padded armor and dex +1 your AC = 11 +1 +2 = 14 and now becomes 16 but you still have disadvantage, etc. It's just a minimum value.
I wish something like that were in the PHB.
It still seems weird that this is the only behavioral restriction of any race, class, or background to carry mechanical weight, and for it to be so vaguely defined that we're left to come up with the justification for it.
CapnZapp
Legend
At first blush, this thread (the subthread about Barkskin, at least) appears very confusing.
But when I read it closely, I am not all that sure we are in disagreement; Defcon, KoboldStew, Ungehuerlich and others (and me).
That is because we are each discussing wildly different things.
"Interpreting" a game rule can mean so many things. For a rules lawyer, it simply means applying what the text says, without taking any realism, logic or gameplay considerations into account. For some of you, however, it implies a "reality check" to ensure the rule works at your table.
But the problem is that we are at that point in time discussing different things.
The spell, as written, does not set the druid's AC to anything. In the sense that, just as sithramir have discovered, the AC number mentioned by Barkskin isn't an actual AC number that cover and shields can build upon.
Barkskin does not change anything about how you calculate AC (how bonuses from shields, cover, armor etc apply) except that the druid's AC cannot be lower than 16.
Barkskin means "go ahead and calculate AC normally. At the end of that process, set it to 16 if your end result is lower than 16".
Meaning that AC bonuses can seem to vary a lot while Barkskin is active.
Druid Akka has a regular AC of 12 and dives for cover (the +5 kind).
Druid Bekka has a regular AC of 15 and dives for cover too (the +5 kind).
Normally, they both get +5 from their cover, granting them AC 17 and AC 20, respectively.
Now, imagine both Akka and Bekka has cast Barkskin prior to performing this experiment.
Druid Akkas AC is set to 16 by Barkskin and dives for cover, giving him AC 17. This is a +1 improvement.
Druid Bekkas AC is set to 16 by Barkskin and dives for cover too, giving her AC 20. This is a +4 improvement.
I sincerely hope you all can follow why the numbers end up this way. (Otherwise please ask before you complain about me getting it wrong)
"Barkskin AC" isn't a real number.
And yes, Barksin as written means AC bonuses (like cover, shields etc) no longer give simple fixed bonuses, if you don't look at the underlying AC values, the ones before Barkskin's "minimum 16" is applied.
So don't do that
It is the cause for the confusion.
As long as you keep calculating AC just like before, but always report 16 to the DM when lower, you'll do fine, and the spell is not hard to use.
(It is still difficult to explain in-world, but that is step 2. We're still only at step 1 here, agreeing what the rulebook actually says...)
Yes, this is difficult to explain in the game world. No, I am not saying I defend it. But I do say it is fairly clear what the spell does.
You don't have to like it. You are free to house rule it. But please don't claim your house rule interpretation is what the PHB is saying, because all it is saying is that your AC cannot be lower than 16, however illogical or strange as that may seem.
But when I read it closely, I am not all that sure we are in disagreement; Defcon, KoboldStew, Ungehuerlich and others (and me).
That is because we are each discussing wildly different things.
"Interpreting" a game rule can mean so many things. For a rules lawyer, it simply means applying what the text says, without taking any realism, logic or gameplay considerations into account. For some of you, however, it implies a "reality check" to ensure the rule works at your table.
But the problem is that we are at that point in time discussing different things.
The spell, as written, does not set the druid's AC to anything. In the sense that, just as sithramir have discovered, the AC number mentioned by Barkskin isn't an actual AC number that cover and shields can build upon.
Barkskin does not change anything about how you calculate AC (how bonuses from shields, cover, armor etc apply) except that the druid's AC cannot be lower than 16.
Barkskin means "go ahead and calculate AC normally. At the end of that process, set it to 16 if your end result is lower than 16".
Meaning that AC bonuses can seem to vary a lot while Barkskin is active.
Druid Akka has a regular AC of 12 and dives for cover (the +5 kind).
Druid Bekka has a regular AC of 15 and dives for cover too (the +5 kind).
Normally, they both get +5 from their cover, granting them AC 17 and AC 20, respectively.
Now, imagine both Akka and Bekka has cast Barkskin prior to performing this experiment.
Druid Akkas AC is set to 16 by Barkskin and dives for cover, giving him AC 17. This is a +1 improvement.
Druid Bekkas AC is set to 16 by Barkskin and dives for cover too, giving her AC 20. This is a +4 improvement.
I sincerely hope you all can follow why the numbers end up this way. (Otherwise please ask before you complain about me getting it wrong)
"Barkskin AC" isn't a real number.
And yes, Barksin as written means AC bonuses (like cover, shields etc) no longer give simple fixed bonuses, if you don't look at the underlying AC values, the ones before Barkskin's "minimum 16" is applied.
So don't do that
It is the cause for the confusion. As long as you keep calculating AC just like before, but always report 16 to the DM when lower, you'll do fine, and the spell is not hard to use.
(It is still difficult to explain in-world, but that is step 2. We're still only at step 1 here, agreeing what the rulebook actually says...)
Yes, this is difficult to explain in the game world. No, I am not saying I defend it. But I do say it is fairly clear what the spell does.
You don't have to like it. You are free to house rule it. But please don't claim your house rule interpretation is what the PHB is saying, because all it is saying is that your AC cannot be lower than 16, however illogical or strange as that may seem.
CapnZapp
Legend
The spell says:
It simply states the spell works the same regardless of what armor you are wearing. At the risk of being flippant, I can say this is functionally equivalent to "...regardless of what color your underpants are".
Namely, no impact whatsoever: You wear no armor? The spell works as written. You wear leather? The spell works as written. You wear plate? Okay, that's odd, but the spell still works as written.
Don't try to find some hidden meaning here. There are plenty of examples that the days of stringent D&D language are gone. There is no reason why the existence of this bit should contain some hidden gem of information, changing the spell workings.
Don't let it confuse you. All the spell does rules-wise is tell you the target’s AC can’t be less than 16.
The last bit there is probably just a misplaced attempt at clarity, 77IM. If you read it logically, it adds no information.
It simply states the spell works the same regardless of what armor you are wearing. At the risk of being flippant, I can say this is functionally equivalent to "...regardless of what color your underpants are".
Namely, no impact whatsoever: You wear no armor? The spell works as written. You wear leather? The spell works as written. You wear plate? Okay, that's odd, but the spell still works as written.
Don't try to find some hidden meaning here. There are plenty of examples that the days of stringent D&D language are gone. There is no reason why the existence of this bit should contain some hidden gem of information, changing the spell workings.
Don't let it confuse you. All the spell does rules-wise is tell you the target’s AC can’t be less than 16.
CapnZapp
Legend
Reading this once more, I actually think you are onto something.
This is because I believe Barkskin isn't "AC is AC is AC".
Barkskin does not set your AC to any particular value. It does not change how you calculate base AC.
So if this "regardless..." bit helps you conclude that Barkskin isn't like other items/spells that directly set or add to your AC (like mage armor, or a regular shield, or standing behind a tree), then the designer has gotten a fair mileage out of it, I'd say.
Pseudopsyche
First Post
IMHO we're overthinking this one. I don't see any compelling reason not to accept the simplest interpretation: Barkskin gives you the effective protection of chain mail, if you're not already wearing better armor. You can achieve AC 18 with Barkskin and a shield.
I don't think it should matter what the text of Mage Armor says, but note that spell only works on unarmored creatures, allowing it simply to specify the target's new (base) AC. In contrast, Barkskin is intended to be compatible with existing armor, hence the difference in wording.
I think you have to go out of your way to assert that equipping a shield has no effect on your AC if you are unarmored but under the effect of Barkskin. As we have seen, it is certainly possible to construct such an argument, but I think it's odd to dismiss the simple interpretation as a house rule.
To be clear, I wouldn't label the other interpretation a house rule, either. An interpretation is just that, an interpretation. To each his or her own.
I don't think it should matter what the text of Mage Armor says, but note that spell only works on unarmored creatures, allowing it simply to specify the target's new (base) AC. In contrast, Barkskin is intended to be compatible with existing armor, hence the difference in wording.
I think you have to go out of your way to assert that equipping a shield has no effect on your AC if you are unarmored but under the effect of Barkskin. As we have seen, it is certainly possible to construct such an argument, but I think it's odd to dismiss the simple interpretation as a house rule.
To be clear, I wouldn't label the other interpretation a house rule, either. An interpretation is just that, an interpretation. To each his or her own.
Last edited:
Reading this once more, I actually think you are onto something.
This is because I believe Barkskin isn't "AC is AC is AC".
Barkskin does not set your AC to any particular value. It does not change how you calculate base AC.
So if this "regardless..." bit helps you conclude that Barkskin isn't like other items/spells that directly set or add to your AC (like mage armor, or a regular shield, or standing behind a tree), then the designer has gotten a fair mileage out of it, I'd say.
Your explanation of how you are parsing the language is very understandable and I agree that the way you are reading it is certainly one way of looking at it. And your idea that the way the spell is written, Barkskin isn't "AC is AC is AC" makes that clear. I thank you for that.
I just happen to believe that interpretation makes for a very illogical and stupid spell whose protective bonuses that get applied to a person can change anywhere from a +6 all the way down to a -1 based on how and where the person happens to be standing and what he's holding when the spell is cast on him... and I refuse to believe that was the way it was meant to be interpreted.
So I am quite satisfied with how I am parsing the language in it. I'll continue to treat Barkskin as nothing more than a magical natural armor of 16-- the equivalent to the AC of scale mail + DEX mod-- an armor class the druid could easily normally have if they weren't prohibited from wearing metal armor. And then after that... all other bonuses to AC can be applied.
That's the easiest, simplest, and most logical interpretation. Your skin hardens to become an armor on par with chainmail when the spell is applied.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
