Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7915356" data-attributes="member: 6857506">Welllll, as to RAI, it appears you are correct.[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-january-2016[/URL]However, I greatly disagree that the wording of the spell leaves no room for misinterpretation.&nbsp; As evidence, I submit the words of the many people who have expressed their confusion here and elsewhere; it is abundantly clear that it is possible to misinterpret it.&nbsp; And it seems to me there are two good reasons that people might misinterpret the spell.&nbsp; First, the phrase &quot;regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing&quot; calls attention specifically to armor and will cause (some) people to think that armor is particularly germane to the effect of the spell.&nbsp;&nbsp; In your interpretation (and Crawford's intent) armor is just one factor among many.&nbsp; As I noted previously, that intent would be much better expressed by &quot;regardless of what its AC would be otherwise&quot;, or, in fact, by simply leaving off any such phrase entirely.&nbsp; &quot;the target's AC can't be less than 16&quot; is more concise and less subject to misinterpretation.Just to be clear, I agree that the phrase &quot;regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing&quot; is logically consistent with the intended interpretation.&nbsp; But that does not mean that that is the only interpretation with which it is consistent (it's not), nor that that is the interpretation that everyone will consider the most likely (it's not), though some may.The second thing that I suspect trips people up (certainly it tripped me up) is that the intended working of the spell is quite at odds with many peoples' view of the fiction.&nbsp; Both the name of the spell and the fluff &quot;the target's skin has a rough, bark-like appearance&quot; give the impression that the spell's effect can be attributed, in the fiction, to the target having tougher skin.&nbsp; Given that fiction, many (I'd even stretch it to say most) people would expect a shield, cover, and anything else that usually stacks with armor to give their usual bonuses on top of the Barkskin effect.&nbsp; And many people when uncertain will gravitate toward an interpretation that matches their view of the fiction.And just to respond in advance to a comment that I'm sure a few people are just itching to type back at me - no, the fact that there are a number of D&amp;D rules that present challenges when trying to construct a corresponding fiction does not mean that it is somehow illogical to not want more such instances, nor that it is unreasonable to tend to resolve perceived ambiguities in favor of rules that are consonant with the fiction as we imagine it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Harzel, post: 7915356, member: 6857506"] Welllll, as to RAI, it appears you are correct. [URL unfurl="true"]https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-january-2016[/URL] However, I greatly disagree that the wording of the spell leaves no room for misinterpretation. As evidence, I submit the words of the many people who have expressed their confusion here and elsewhere; it is abundantly clear that it is possible to misinterpret it. And it seems to me there are two good reasons that people might misinterpret the spell. First, the phrase "regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing" calls attention specifically to armor and will cause (some) people to think that armor is particularly germane to the effect of the spell. In your interpretation (and Crawford's intent) armor is just one factor among many. As I noted previously, that intent would be much better expressed by "regardless of what its AC would be otherwise", or, in fact, by simply leaving off any such phrase entirely. "the target's AC can't be less than 16" is more concise and less subject to misinterpretation. Just to be clear, I agree that the phrase "regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing" [I][B]is [/B][/I]logically consistent with the intended interpretation. But that does not mean that that is the only interpretation with which it is consistent (it's not), nor that that is the interpretation that everyone will consider the most likely (it's not), though some may. The second thing that I suspect trips people up (certainly it tripped me up) is that the intended working of the spell is quite at odds with many peoples' view of the fiction. Both the name of the spell and the fluff "the target's skin has a rough, bark-like appearance" give the impression that the spell's effect can be attributed, in the fiction, to the target having tougher skin. Given that fiction, many (I'd even stretch it to say most) people would expect a shield, cover, and anything else that usually stacks with armor to give their usual bonuses on top of the Barkskin effect. And many people when uncertain will gravitate toward an interpretation that matches their view of the fiction. And just to respond in advance to a comment that I'm sure a few people are just itching to type back at me - no, the fact that there are a number of D&D rules that present challenges when trying to construct a corresponding fiction does not mean that it is somehow illogical to not want more such instances, nor that it is unreasonable to tend to resolve perceived ambiguities in favor of rules that are consonant with the fiction as we imagine it. [/QUOTE]

Verification