Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pseudopsyche" data-source="post: 6384473" data-attributes="member: 54600">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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pseudopsyche, post: 6384473, member: 54600"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification