The Barkskin spell in 5e PHB has some odd wording, "...and the target's AC can't be less than 16, regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing." This implies that you can have an AC > 16. Does this mean:
A - the target's AC is 16, no matter what armor they may be wearing or what Dex bonus they have? If so, why the odd wording?
B - the target's base (natural) AC is 16 (which is 10+6 if not wearing any armor) AND if you have armor, the armor's additional protection is added?
For example: the Druid touches the Fighter with 12 Dex in Chainmail. Fighter's base (natural) armor increases from 10 to 16, then you add 6 for the Chainmail (and still nothing for the Dex); giving the Fighter AC 22 as long as the Druid maintains his concentration.
2nd example: the Druid with 14 Dex casts Barkskin before Wildshaping into an Ape (size=med) that still fits into the Chain shirt he is wearing. Druid AC increases from AC 15 (Chain shirt+Dex) to AC 21 (16+3+2 Natural+Chain shirt bonus+Dex).
C - the target's natural (and armored) AC becomes 16, then you ONLY add Dex bonus?
For example: the Druid casts Barkskin before Wildshaping into a Dire Wolf. The Wolf's AC increases from AC 14 (12+2 Dex) to AC 18 (16+2 Dex).
2nd example: the Druid casts Barkskin before Wildshaping into an Ape (size=med) that still fits into the Chain shirt he is wearing. Druid AC increases from AC 15 (Chain shirt+Dex) to AC 18 (16+2 Natural+Dex).
D - some other interpretation I haven't thought of?
The answer is A.
The sentence is specifically worded in such a way that you can't lose AC due to a loss of armor (fighting oozes) or a loss of Dex bonuses.
Had the spell say "the target's AC becomes 16, regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing", it is possible to interpret this to mean that the target's Dex is magically reduced, its AC can drop below 16, since nothing written prevents this from occurring.
Cool the only utility I saw for this spell was making you beast form harder to hit. Now I see another one.
Closer to D
If you have AC 20 from plate & shield, barkskin won't drop your AC to 16.
The way it works is that, after calculating your AC, if it would be lower than 16, it's 16 instead.
bid wrote:
String7r wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Although, this complicates matters. Not sure it'll stand though.
ZyloSnarf wrote:
ZyloSnarf wrote:
I'd probably go with something like "Regardless of the method you use to calculate your character's AC, it cannot be lower than 16." Which would then be fine with the use of a shield, as noted, just like any other normal armor calculation would be helped by a shield (being one of the very very fewer additive bonuses to AC anymore).
I"m kind of confused as to why barkskin just doesn't say "You may calculate your AC as 16." like mage armor (sans Dex bonus) or the rules for wearing heavy armor- especially if shields are allowed to stack with the spell.
I suppose the spell may have been worded to combat cases of, say, an 8-Dex Druid wearing no armor but using Bracers of Defense and a Ring of Protection and having a 20 AC, or simply as a reaction to the very powerful "stackable nature" of natural armor in previous editions.
If a shield is allowed with barkskin I'd feel compelled to allow other magical enhancements such as the Ring or Bracers, unless one added a proviso such as "barkskin counts as wearing armor and the spell ends if you don armor, not counting a shield." It does seem a little unfair to a druid to not be able to combine barkskin with a shield, if desired. I think Bracers of Defense are overkill, though. Ring of Protection seems okay.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
String7r wrote:
So if you're in Dire Wolf form after having cast Barkskin, your AC would be 18, right?
Barkskin doesn't stack with anything. If your AC is less than 16 with whatever calculation you use, it becomes 16 instead for the duration of the spell, or until the calculated AC exceeds 16.
Barkskin does NOT give a new method of calculating AC, it simply sets a minimum for the duration of the spell.
"You touch a willing creature. Until the spell ends (concentration, up to 1 hour), the target's skin has a rouch, bark-like appearance, and the target's AC can't be less than 16, regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing."
The varying interpretations of the barkskin spell are what started this thread in the first place, and the "minimum" approach is certainly the most valid one on its face.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
"... the target's AC can't be less than 16, regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing."
The effect of the spell is quite simple: you compare your AC to 16, and then raise it to 16 if it is anything less. The spell makes no mention whatsoever of any new method of calculating AC, that 16 is a base value, or that the 16 minimum can be modified.
The "regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing" might give some pause, but it adds nothing to the spell itself. The spell already states that the user's AC can't be below 16; the note that this is despite the armor worn is already redundant with the previous effect as it already places a floor of 16 on AC. The best explanation for the line is that it is meant to further describe the effects of the spell in evocative terms.
Some might argue that the last clause means that the spell allows for one to add shield or dexterity bonuses to AC directly to the 16, but that is a poor interpretation as it involves the creation of rules and language that simply isn't in the spell itself.
Ganymede425 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Wow, some people like to use a lot of words. Simply put, this spell makes your AC 16 - forget DEX bonus. If you use a shield 18. The real benefit is if you shape change. You new AC is 16. Don't factor in DEX. It is 16. This is a concentration spell. You might loose it if you take damage,
That is the spell. No more no less.
I think if the intent were to allow barkskin to work with Dexterity, it would clearly be called out as such in the spell description. No other armor or spell in the game can generate an AC of 16 + Dex (uncapped) (+ shield).
Allowing a shield is sort of an after-the-fact (development) concession, I believe, as the barkskin spell makes the ability of a Druid to use a shield fairly pointless. It's also an alteration of what the spell "says it does" for the sake of making it more powerful. Adding Dexterity onto the barkskin's 16 AC would also be a significant departure from the original spell.
The most robust and simplest way to adjudicate barkskin is the "minimum 16 AC" method: is your AC lower than 16? With barkskin, set it to 16. No other AC modifiers apply after setting the AC to 16.
Adding a stacking shield bonus, magic bonus (from a Ring of Protection), or Dexterity bonus are possible additions to the basic way to use the spell, but they can really throw off the combat math and make barkskin a required defensive buff, similar to the way it was in 3rd edition. It also makes Dex-characters even better at "AC" than they currently are.
Novacat wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
I think this spell is weird, and they should have given some examples about what doesnt stack (shields, dex, etc) if that was the intent. As is, seems to me it just gives a minimum AC 16 safety net and doesnt stack with anything. It's purpose appears to be buffing AC for beast form, but leaving open the Druid an option to switch back to normal form and keep his normal (higher than 16) AC, then switch back to beast later while the spell is still going, and only drop down to 16 again.
The druid in the appendix in the back of the Monster Manual has a Dex of 12 (+1) and has "AC: 11 (16 with barkskin)".
So the one example we have so far is consistent with the barkskin-as-minimum-AC approach.
tendentious wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
I'm confused about what the confusion is. 
The spell is very clear: the target's AC can't be less than 16. It doesn't do any more than that, and it doesn't do any less than that. The spell does exactly what it says it does. If the question is intent, then look at the druid NPC AND the Dryad in the MM. If you think that both those places in the MM are somehow wrong, AND the wording of the spell is also wrong... well then make up your own game, because that's the direction you are going anyway.
I must admit that I had hoped for more from barkskin though (I'm playing a druid right now).