D&D 5E barkskin

[KarinsDad]

The spell is not fine, not at all. Barkskin needs a rewrite, desperately. In fact, I think it's the most poorly written spell in the book.

Just looking at the RAW of the spell and looking at a Druid wild shaped into a bear with AC 11, I think that the spell is not all that bad. It's a pretty kick butt spell in that scenario.

The problem comes in when people want to use it mechanically like other types of armor and/or other types of AC spells.

 

[KarinsDad]

The intent is stated, it's just in the fluff part of the spell rather than in the mechanics. Now... this brings us back to the other thread that asked whether or not you consider the fluff to be part of RAW or not. Some people say yes, some people say no. If you are a 'no', then the way you say the rule is clear certainly is. However, if you say 'yes'... then the fact that the spell makes your skin hard like tree bark (implying that your skin is becoming hard like armor), then the "Your AC can't go below 16" takes on a different meaning.

Ah sorry. I was thinking of different text for fluff text. I get your meaning now.

 

[Lidgar]

Based on the Dryad in the MM, that seems to be the way that's supposed to work. (She loses her Dex modifier when she has Barkskin up.)

Same with the NPC druid in the MM. No dex bonus added with Barkskin, just AC 16.

Agree with others that this spell shines for shapechanging druids. Which makes me wonder why they bothered to include it on the Ranger spell list, but perhaps it is for those wonky-strength based rangers...

 

[txshusker]

someone tweet Maerls again... I want a ruling on that Dex bonus!

 

[Celtavian]

Same with the NPC druid in the MM. No dex bonus added with Barkskin, just AC 16.

Agree with others that this spell shines for shapechanging druids. Which makes me wonder why they bothered to include it on the Ranger spell list, but perhaps it is for those wonky-strength based rangers...

Animal Companion is why on Ranger's list? I guess we'll go with the MM version of the spell. No additional bonuses. Mainly for Wild Shape and Animal Companion.

 

[Lidgar]

Animal Companion is why on Ranger's list?

Agreed, great point. Buff for your sidekick.

 

[Authweight]

I think this goes WAY beyond what was intended. This is a missing paragraph of intention.


I think what you wrote here is balanced and playable, I just don't see that the designers meant this at all.

I agree, this is reading a lot into it. But what other plausible explanation is there for Mearls tweeting that shields would apply?

My guess is that at some point they had a concept like "base AC," which was set by your armor. Some armors would let you add dex, others wouldn't (this is in practice what we have now). My guess is the earlier barkskin referenced base AC and set it to 16. With the base AC rules elsewhere in the book, it was clear how this would work.

However, at some later point they realized they didn't really need the specific concept of "base AC", and could remove it for simplicity. Some intern or something was told to go through the book and rewrite every reference to "base AC." He got to barkskin, realized it did something kind of unique to the old concept, and clumsily tried to replace it.

That's obviously a fairly specific theory, and is probably wrong, but it seems like the most plausible explanation to me.

Do you have a better theory for why Mearls would say to allow a shield bonus, other than Mearls just doesn't give a flip about what his team wrote in the book?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's obviously a fairly specific theory, and is probably wrong, but it seems like the most plausible explanation to me.

I don't think it's wrong, because that's visible in how a lot of other mechanics work. They just didn't want to give it a name like "base AC" because that's more jargon that they're trying to get rid of, so they go with explaining the concept with "use whichever formula gives the best result" instead of inventing a consistent term for it.

 

[BryonD]

Natural Armor is mentioned repeatedly in the MM.

Sure, but not "as in 3e" with the previously stated implications for stacking.

As noted by others, and by the application of the spell on the Dryad, I'd agree that the DEX bonus doesn't apply.

Because of Mike Mearl's tweet, along with the fact that a shield provides a bonus to AC instead of a specific AC, I agree that a shield stacks with barkskin (plus that fact that the spell itself says 'minimum' which implies some things can make it better), as well as circumstantial bonuses like cover.

Ilbranteloth

I agree that the rules as stated are irrational and this makes sense.

 

[BryonD]

That was my point. Intention.

KarinsDad was wondering if people were adding intention where none was outright stated. My post was to say that no, if you include the fluff, then there *is* an intention we are getting from what was written in the spell that supports our interpretation as one of the two legitimate ways to rule it.

I can buy that.

I don't WANT to buy that, because it just makes the end result that much worse in terms of well presented rules.


At the end of the day I'm making house rules to vastly more important things than Barkskin. So, whatever .
But it still says what it says.