Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What armor can druids wear? Is there a way to get a decent AC?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6384153" data-attributes="member: 12731"><p>At first blush, this thread (the subthread about Barkskin, at least) appears very confusing.</p><p></p><p>But when I read it closely, I am not all that sure we are in disagreement; Defcon, KoboldStew, Ungehuerlich and others (and me).</p><p></p><p>That is because we are each discussing <strong>wildly different things</strong>.</p><p></p><p>"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. </p><p></p><p>But the problem is that we are at that point in time discussing different things. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Barkskin does not change anything about how you calculate AC (how bonuses from shields, cover, armor etc apply) <strong>except that the druid's AC cannot be lower than 16.</strong></p><p></p><p>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".</p><p></p><p>Meaning that AC bonuses can <strong>seem to</strong> vary a lot while Barkskin is active. </p><p></p><p>Druid Akka has a regular AC of 12 and dives for cover (the +5 kind). </p><p>Druid Bekka has a regular AC of 15 and dives for cover too (the +5 kind).</p><p></p><p>Normally, they both get +5 from their cover, granting them AC 17 and AC 20, respectively.</p><p></p><p>Now, imagine both Akka and Bekka has cast Barkskin prior to performing this experiment.</p><p></p><p>Druid Akkas AC is set to 16 by Barkskin and dives for cover, giving him AC 17. <strong>This is a +1 improvement.</strong></p><p>Druid Bekkas AC is set to 16 by Barkskin and dives for cover too, giving her AC 20. <strong>This is a +4 improvement.</strong></p><p></p><p>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)</p><p></p><p>"Barkskin AC" isn't a real number. </p><p></p><p>And yes, Barksin as written means AC bonuses (like cover, shields etc) no longer give simple fixed bonuses, if you <strong>don't</strong> look at the underlying AC values, the ones before Barkskin's "minimum 16" is applied.</p><p></p><p>So don't do that <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> It is the cause for the confusion. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>(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...)</p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 6384153, member: 12731"] 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 [B]wildly different things[/B]. "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) [B]except that the druid's AC cannot be lower than 16.[/B] 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 [B]seem to[/B] 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. [B]This is a +1 improvement.[/B] Druid Bekkas AC is set to 16 by Barkskin and dives for cover too, giving her AC 20. [B]This is a +4 improvement.[/B] 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 [B]don't[/B] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What armor can druids wear? Is there a way to get a decent AC?
Top