Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7916563" data-attributes="member: 7006">Obviously I'm not going to convince you either, but just to make it a point, your explanation doesn't hold water either.If we want to say the druid's skin is hard like bark, I'm all in with that.&nbsp; That's great.&nbsp; And if we want to say that the AC gained from it is like an object's AC and thus blocking terrain like shields and cover have no effect on this number... like because the disparity between causing damage to a tree and just simply deflecting blows with a shield is so great that deflection is not worth anything in comparison... I'm fine with that explanation too.&nbsp; Shields and cover don't affect the druid because the barkskin is the only AC worth its salt.&nbsp; Everything else is too small to worry about.&nbsp; Sounds good.However... if that's the case, then shields and cover can NEVER affect the druid's AC.&nbsp; The disparity between the object AC and the deflection is always in place.&nbsp; We've said now that the druid with object-like AC from the barkskin doesn't get any use from shields by themselves or cover by themselves normally, so they can't suddenly get it now when you combine the two together.&nbsp; The barkskinned druid holding a shield (+2) and behind 3/4ths cover (+5) would still have to have an AC of 16 from the barkskin alone because we've already made the claim that the disparity is too great.&nbsp; We just cannot say &quot;shields by themselves&quot; are too worthless to help the barkskinned druid nor &quot;cover by itself&quot; is too small to help the barkskinned druid... only to then say &quot;Well, now that we have both of them together, they somehow now boost themselves up to grant a +1 bonus to the druid's AC!&quot; (giving the druid an AC of 17-- 16 from the barkskin, +1 for the deflection coming from the shield and the cover.)&nbsp; Because that means we are now saying shields and cover CAN affect the barkskinned druid.&nbsp; The disparity ISN'T &quot;so great&quot; to be ineffective.&nbsp; And if shields and cover CAN affect the druid, then the rules for their use need to apply in their standard fashion.&nbsp; We can't suddenly just make up a rule that says various blocking terrain when used together can generate a +1 bonus to AC.&nbsp; There's no other situation in the game where AC bonuses don't grant their bonuses normally and instead you just make up some number that they do give.Shields and cover either work for the druid to make them harder to hit, or they don't.&nbsp; And if they work, then they need to work the regular way like they do for every other possible character in the game (other than this special druid with barkskin for some inane reason.)&nbsp; That means they need to stack with what you are pretty much defining as the &quot;Natural Armor Class&quot; gained from barkskin of 16.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7916563, member: 7006"] Obviously I'm not going to convince you either, but just to make it a point, your explanation doesn't hold water either. If we want to say the druid's skin is hard like bark, I'm all in with that. That's great. And if we want to say that the AC gained from it is like an object's AC and thus blocking terrain like shields and cover have [I]no effect[/I] on this number... like because the disparity between causing damage to a tree and just simply deflecting blows with a shield is so great that deflection is not worth anything in comparison... I'm fine with that explanation too. Shields and cover don't affect the druid because the [I]barkskin[/I] is the only AC worth its salt. Everything else is too small to worry about. Sounds good. [I]However[/I]... if that's the case, then shields and cover can NEVER affect the druid's AC. The disparity between the object AC and the deflection is always in place. We've said now that the druid with object-like AC from the [I]barkskin[/I] doesn't get any use from shields by themselves or cover by themselves normally, so they can't suddenly get it now when you combine the two together. The [I]barkskinned[/I] druid holding a shield (+2) and behind 3/4ths cover (+5) would still [B]have to have[/B] an AC of 16 from the [I]barkskin[/I] alone because we've already made the claim that the disparity is too great. We just cannot say "shields by themselves" are too worthless to help the [I]barkskinned[/I] druid nor "cover by itself" is too small to help the [I]barkskinned[/I] druid... only to then say "Well, now that we have both of them together, they somehow now boost themselves up to grant a +1 bonus to the druid's AC!" (giving the druid an AC of 17-- 16 from the barkskin, +1 for the deflection coming from the shield and the cover.) Because that means we are now saying shields and cover CAN affect the [I]barkskinned[/I] druid. The disparity ISN'T "so great" to be ineffective. And if shields and cover CAN affect the druid, then the rules for their use [I]need to apply in their standard fashion[/I]. We can't suddenly just make up a rule that says various blocking terrain when used together can generate a +1 bonus to AC. There's no other situation in the game where AC bonuses don't grant their bonuses normally and instead you just make up some number that they do give. Shields and cover either work for the druid to make them harder to hit, or they don't. And if they work, then they need to work [B]the regular way like they do for every other possible character in the game[/B] (other than this special druid with [I]barkskin [/I]for some inane reason.) That means they need to stack with what you are pretty much defining as the "Natural Armor Class" gained from [I]barkskin[/I] of 16. [/QUOTE]

Verification