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

[Savage Wombat]

A spell that gives you an armor class as if you were wearing a certain kind of armor is in keeping with the nature of spells in traditional D&D.

A spell that gives you an armor class based solely on the numeric value of your current armor class, circumstances included, doesn't seem to model the same way.

I'm going to go with "you're wearing chain mail". YMMV, of course.

 

[am181d]

Nope, it's not adding of additional armor that is the issue (since that gets covered by the "regardless of the armor you're wearing" statement in the spell itself)... it's the putting on of a shield or going behind cover and whether those "stack" with the Barkskin spell. Take a look earlier in the thread, and you'll see the full conversation about it.

I saw the earlier conversation. I didn't see a justification for the -1 claim.

 

[mcbobbo]

The fact that it provides the same AC value as a chainmail is in no way suggestive that it functions like heavy armor in this respect.

So your position is that Barkskin should be superior to chain mail? Why?

Chain mail is heavy armor and does NOT allow for a Dex bonus. So if you feel it should be treated the same as chain mail, why should it not be treated the same as chain mail?

"It seems to me like setting a mininum AC value to barkskin, to replace the armor's numeric AC value in the armor table, also nullifying Dex as per that same armor, is also reasonable."

To this end, it should probably also give you disadvantage with Stealth, require a Str of 13, and increase your weight by 55 pounds. Because ALL of that comes with chain mail.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Thank you for your civility. And you are definitely free to think it an illogical and stupid spell - I am certainly not defending the consequences of the spell as written.

However; Barkskin in no way gives negative bonuses. That "all the way down to a -1" is a misunderstanding.

All the spell does, is tell us "your AC can't be lower than 16".

Under no circumstances should the spell be interpreted as reducing your AC.

Simply calculate AC as normal, and after applying everything from shields to cover, if it still lower than 16, assume AC 16. That is all the spell does.

Either your AC is 16 or higher, in which case Barkskin does nothing. Or your AC is lower than 16, in which case Barkskin ups it to 16.

Good luck with your houserule, Defcon!

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

The spell is clearly not giving you the equivalent of chain mail. All it does is set your AC to 16, if lower.

That doesn't mean WotC might have intended for something along the lines of your houserule. And it does not mean that your houserule isn't better and cleaner.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am trying to understand how having barkskin (AC 16) and being in cover (+5 AC) = 17 AC.

If I have 16 AC because my skin turns into bark, and I dive for cover, I should have 21 AC.

Are you asking me, how I came up with my number?

Or are you thinking about any number of houserule suggestions to treat Barkskin as actual armor floating around?

Because in the first case, I can answer:

Assume a Druid with AC 12. Whether this is because he's wearing AC 12 leather, or because his Dex is 14, or because he's using a shield does not matter.

This druid then takes cover. His AC increases by +5 to AC 17.

So far so good.

Now let's repeat this sequence of events, only the Druid casts Barkskin on himself first.

His AC is still calculated to 12, but because the spell tells us his AC can't be lower than AC 16, then so be it. His AC is 16.

Now he dives for cover. Regardless of how he got his AC 12 in the first place... his AC is now 17.
Leather + Cover = 12 +5 = 17.
Dex + Cover = 10 + 2 + 5 = 17.
Shield + Cover = 10 + 2 +5 = 17.

The spell is still only telling us his minimum AC is 16. So we are unaffected by the spell, and our AC remains 17. It is not increased because it is already above the minimum. And it is certainly not decreased, since the spell only talks about a minimum, not a maximum.

Hope this makes my reasoning clear, WarHawke

(None of this changes the fact that it would probably be a lot simpler if the spell just said Barkskin acts as magical chain)

 

[CapnZapp]

IMO Barksin does set a value threshold for your AC in saying that your AC can't be less than 16 regardles....So if your AC is lower than 16, now you have AC 16 and if its higher, than you have a higher AC than 16.

Exactly

 

[CapnZapp]

Nope, it's not adding of additional armor that is the issue (since that gets covered by the "regardless of the armor you're wearing" statement in the spell itself)... it's the putting on of a shield or going behind cover and whether those "stack" with the Barkskin spell. Take a look earlier in the thread, and you'll see the full conversation about it.

I don't think anyone is trying to pretend those issues doesn't exist, or that the objections aren't valid.

All some of us is saying is that the spell as written is very simple and very clear.

Whether it makes any sense whatsoever is very valid discussion. However, it does not change what the PHB says.

Myself, I am undecided. If Myers should tweet about it, or WotC issues errata, I'm fine with that.

But as written, I don't see any support for the idea that the spell acts as magical chainmail. That is a very worthy houserule, but still a house rule.

Best regards,
Zapp

 

[CapnZapp]

A spell that gives you an armor class as if you were wearing a certain kind of armor is in keeping with the nature of spells in traditional D&D.

A spell that gives you an armor class based solely on the numeric value of your current armor class, circumstances included, doesn't seem to model the same way.

I'm going to go with "you're wearing chain mail". YMMV, of course.

Just let me state on record I agree.

That is, the spell as written is rather strange, and not "keeping with the nature" of the spell from previous editions.

 

[brehobit]

I don't know if Barkskin was intended to stack with shields (I think probably was, but no even a little clear) or Dex (almost certainly not). But I can't imagine it was intended to not stack with cover. That would be _really_ strange and meta-gamey.