Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skyscraper" data-source="post: 6384676" data-attributes="member: 48518">Both points of view in this thread have some value, but I find that the idea that barkskin sets a minimum of 16 regardless of any and all bonuses and circumstances, is probably not supported. I think DEFCON has it right, mostly.Barksin: 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 haven't gotten the PHB yet, but here's an excerpt from the basic rules, p. 9, under "ARMOR CLASS":"Your armor class (AC) represents how well your character avoids being wounded in battle. Things that contribute to your AC include the armor your wear, the shield you carry, and your dexterity modifier.(...)Withouth armor, your character's AC equals 10 + his or her dexterity modifier. If your character wears armor, carries a shield, or both, recalculate your AC using the rules in Chapter 5."(emphasis mine)In Chapter 5, the only thing we get that I see having any impact on this discussion, is an AC value next to each armor type. For example, "leather" has an AC of "11 + dex mofifier"; while chainmail has an AC of 16. Again, it seems like the DEX modifier is part of the AC value.After considering both sides of the argument, I'll side with DEFCON on this argument (mostly). Here's why.Barkskin states that the target's AC will be no less than 16 regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing. Not regardless of whether it wears a shield, or even regardless of whether it has a DEX modifier or cover. So, contrarily to DEFCON, I would probably allow the DEX bonus to kick in in addition to allowing a shield and cover to stack with barkskin.I'll note that stating that the barkskinned character's AC will be equal to 16 regardless of shield and cover and anything else, would be similar to stating that a character's AC is that stated on the armor table regardless of shield or cover. I.e. it's not because the armor table states that the armor class is 11 for a character wearing leather armor, that shield and cover do not apply. We all know this. However, reading the interpretation that shield and cover do not stack with a barkskinned character's barkskin spell, appears the same to me as stating that a character's AC is 11 + DEX mod regardless of shields or cover, because the armor table says so.Also, taking a naked druid with no DEX bonus as an example, let's assume that as DM I use DM fiat to adjudicate that a specific circumstance should grant that character a +2 circumstantial bonus because of whatever reason: should this be ignored also because it does not raise the total non-barkskin AC above 16? Also, as mentioned above, cover does not influence this barskinned character either?When common sense crumbles, I think that a reasonable interpretation of the spell should be sought. To me, the absence of "regardless or shield or other bonuses" in the spell description, alongside "regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing", concretly points towards including only armor in the "the target's AC can't be less than 16" calculation.Consequently, DEX bonuses, cover and other cirucmstantial bonuses, would stack with barkskin.I don't believe this makes an overpowered spell, since it only lasts for one hour and while it provides an interesting bonus, equivalent to a heavy armor, even if it stacks with DEX and shield, it remains short-lived.Peace,Sky</blockquote>

Verification