Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6383648" data-attributes="member: 7006">But again... the rule and the spell doesn't say that.The spell says:&quot;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.&quot;Where exactly in those two sentences does it state that your AC cannot go higher than 16?&nbsp; Or that bonuses to that AC can not be used or do not apply?&nbsp; The fact is... in those two sentences it doesn't.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; That's it.&nbsp; That's all it's saying.&nbsp; It does not reference an AC maximum.&nbsp; It does not reference your AC going up and then stopping.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It says nothing about cover applying, just like Barkskin says nothing about cover one way or another.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; If you do rule it that way, I'd smile because at least you'd be consistent.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6383648, member: 7006"] But again... the rule and the spell [I]doesn't[/I] say that. The spell says: [I]"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."[/I] 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 [I]Mage Armor[/I] and [I]Unarmored Defense[/I] are written, and adding those interpretations to those two sentences in the spell. ...the target's AC [I]can't be less[/I] 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 [I]Specific trumps General[/I] 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... [B]Mage Armor[/B] 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 [I]Mage Armor[/I] 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. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification