Barktalk

[Dmdork]

So, if I cast barkskin on someone wearing armor, does that add together? This whole 'AC set to minimum' is confusing. If nothing stacks with barkskin, wouldn't it say 'AC set to maximum'?

[Ventruenox]

Barkskin would replace the AC set by natural or worn armor, or the Unarmored Defense.

[Aett_Thorn]

So, if I cast barkskin on someone wearing armor, does that add together? This whole 'AC set to minimum' is confusing. If nothing stacks with barkskin, wouldn't it say 'AC set to maximum'?

They don't add together. Barkskin just gives you a different way to calculate your AC, IF other ways would give you a lower AC. So if you cast Barkskin on someone in Leather Armor with a Dex of 14 (combined 13 AC), then their AC would be set at 16 instead. If, however, you cast it on someone in full plate armor (AC 18), then Barkskin would basically have no effect, since 18 > 16.

[FirstBornSon]

Barkskin would replace the AC set by natural or worn armor, or the Unarmored Defense. Additional modifiers such as Bracers or Cloaks of protection, or use of the Shield spell would stack on the 16 AC provided by Barkskin.

What about a shield?

[PhantomSoul]

A shield bonus would stack (barring limitations otherwise, like Monks' Unarmoured Defense not allowing shields to be worn); the shield bonus is +2 (PHB145), so it adds to an AC calculation (compare to how armours' AC values as described in the table).

Edit: Oops, forgot that Barkskin doesn't actually give a calculation at all -- the above only applies for calculations. Barkskin just says that if the final output of the calculation is lower than 16, your AC is 16 instead.

[Sigreid]

A shield bonus would stack (barring limitations otherwise, like Monks' Unarmoured Defense not allowing shields to be worn); the shield bonus is +2 (PHB145), so it adds to an AC calculation (compare to how armours' AC values as described in the table).

I disagree. Barskin isn't a calculation, it just raises the floor.

[Ventruenox]

From January 2016 Sage Advice: Barkskin specifies that your AC can’t be lower than 16 while you are affected by the spell. This means you effectively ignore any modifiers to your AC—including your Dexterity modifier, your armor, a shield, and cover—unless your AC is higher than 16. For example, if your AC is normally 14, it’s 16 while barkskin is on you. If your AC is 15 and you have half cover, your AC is 17; barkskin isn’t relevant in this case, because your AC is now higher than 16.

[PhantomSoul]

I disagree. Barskin isn't a calculation, it just raises the floor.

Oh yes, good point -- brainfart! (I'll make a note in my previous post.)

[FirstBornSon]

So basicly purpose of spell is to cast it before shapeshifting as your druid will have at least 15 AC.

[Dmdork]

That's a lot of different opinions about the interpretation of barkskin, I like the sage advice best, it's the only one that explains the minimum AC thing

[smcmike]

I am truly mystified by how this spell confuses people. The wording is pretty plain.

[Findulidas]

I am truly mystified by how this spell confuses people. The wording is pretty plain.

As far as I remember they have changed quite a bit how it works. Its gone from being staple to quite bad. It also has a pretty unique effect I think. Thats probably why.

[EvilAnagram]

I am truly mystified by how this spell confuses people. The wording is pretty plain.

People don't want it to say what it says, so they desperately try to figure out how it could not mean what it clearly says.

[Specter]

You can use it to protect an animal or civilian traveling with the party, but otherwise it should not be prepared.

[Vogonjeltz]

So, if I cast barkskin on someone wearing armor, does that add together? This whole 'AC set to minimum' is confusing. If nothing stacks with barkskin, wouldn't it say 'AC set to maximum'?

1) No. You use whichever is more AC.

2) Because it can't reduce your AC if it's already higher, but it can increase it if it's lower.


And, contrary to what Ventruenox wrote the spell does not replace the AC, it provides an alternative AC. If you raise your AC higher than Barkskin using another method, then that higher AC would take effect. Similarly, if you had higher AC and it lowers, as long as Barkskin is in effect your AC would not reduce below 16.

[Beelzebubba]

That's a lot of different opinions about the interpretation of barkskin, I like the sage advice best, it's the only one that explains the minimum AC thing

The spell itself explains it perfectly. My new players don't have any problems with it.

It's mainly people coming in with experience playing earlier editions on their brain that can't wrap their heads around it. It's a new way of calculating AC that goes hand-in-hand with Bounded Accuracy and it has a more terse presentation than 3E or 4E.

[DragonBaneDM]

You can use it to protect an animal or civilian traveling with the party, but otherwise it should not be prepared.

I mean 100% of the time I cast this spell I'm about to become the animal traveling with the party.

It's a spell for Moon Druids to fix Beast AC outside multiclassing.

[Safety Sword]

People don't want it to say what it says, so they desperately try to figure out how it could not mean what it clearly says.

See: All rules arguments

By the way, "Barktalk" should totally be a druid discussion post title :smallamused:

[coredump]

By the way, "Barktalk" should totally be a druid discussion post title :smallamused:

A Druid based podcast.

[hymer]

A thought occurs: Barkskin should be able to be cast with increased effect from higher spell slots. It could be as simple as +1 AC for every level above 2. I don't think AC 24 for an hour is too much for a ninth level slot. Or it could be something like allowing it to be used without Concentration at +2 spell level. Or some combination. Maybe additional targets, so you could cast it on your conjured minions once you got it concentration free.

[EvilAnagram]

A Druid based podcast.

Hi and welcome to Barktalk, where our bark is better than our bite. I'm your host Moonweaver.

And I'm your other host Willowsong, may the spirits guide your travels.

So, Willowsong, have you heard about the filthy townsfolk encroaching on our sacred groves?

I have, may the Treemother rend them limb from limb.

brought to you by Audible

[Safety Sword]

Hi and welcome to Barktalk, where our bark is better than our bite. I'm your host Moonweaver.

And I'm your other host Willowsong, may the spirits guide your travels.

So, Willowsong, have you heard about the filthy townsfolk encroaching on our sacred groves?

I have, may the Treemother rend them limb from limb.

brought to you by Audible

:smallamused:

[Chugger]

This spell definition is cryptic and ... meh, is Crawford a lawyer in real life? I've seen stereo instructions that made more sense.

(I love 5e but yes, there are parts of the phb that are not well or fully explained - or you have to cross-reference in 3 different places to get a full answer (and you have to figure this out, there isn't even a hint of this in the book - so yeah, the phb really needs a new editing for ease of use and basic common sense imho ... like I'm gonna fork out another 40 to 50 bucks if they actually do that ... ahem.....)

[smcmike]

This spell definition is cryptic and ... meh, is Crawford a lawyer in real life? I've seen stereo instructions that made more sense.


How is this spell cryptic??? The target's AC can't be less than 16. What is confusing about that?

[Chugger]

How is this spell cryptic??? The target's AC can't be less than 16. What is confusing about that?

Really, you don't see it?

Look, I'm sure there is an answer, and I'm guessing you're a lawyer or have a lawyer's mind if you're genuinely comfortable with how the phb is written. There are some here who are - hey that's great except most of us aren't. I can explain String Theory (to an extent) - I can discuss the evolution of Cantor's naive set theory through Zermelo-Frankel to Goedel's I.T. I can tell you what major world event happened in 1453 and why it has implications to this day. I can quote a lot of arcane literature and so on, but I can't understand what the hell Kant and Hegel are saying in their own words - I can understand other philosophers who don't totally suck at communication like Kant and Hegel do (and I think this is objectively provable) say when they explain what Kant and Hegel said - it's not even hard. It's complex but no one aspect of it is hard. Their effed-up language skills is what makes it hard. For me and many others. Same for phb and this def of barkskin.

So....where were we? The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment? No. No no on. That wasn't it. Um....yeah....

[smcmike]

Really, you don't see it?

Look, I'm sure there is an answer, and I'm guessing you're a lawyer or have a lawyer's mind if you're genuinely comfortable with how the phb is written. There are some here who are - hey that's great except most of us aren't. I can explain String Theory (to an extent) - I can discuss the evolution of Cantor's naive set theory through Zermelo-Frankel to Goedel's I.T. I can tell you what major world event happened in 1453 and why it has implications to this day. I can quote a lot of arcane literature and so on, but I can't understand what the hell Kant and Hegel are saying in their own words - I can understand other philosophers who don't totally suck at communication like Kant and Hegel do (and I think this is objectively provable) say when they explain what Kant and Hegel said - it's not even hard. It's complex but no one aspect of it is hard. Their effed-up language skills is what makes it hard. For me and many others. Same for phb and this def of barkskin.

So....where were we? The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment? No. No no on. That wasn't it. Um....yeah....

I'm sorry if my incredulity came off as rude. I genuinely want to know what is confusing about Barkskin.

The best answers I've seen is that people expect it to work like it did in previous editions, or that people expect it not to suck. Those are both fair reasons for confusion, but they aren't created by ambiguous language.

[Chugger]

Don't believe me? A quick example.

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"

What does that mean? Don't look it up. Just reading it as you are right now, what does that mean?

That's Kant.

Some of his critics said he was copying/repurposing Jesus' Golden Rule (do unto others...) - and at first Kant denied that. Then he sort of admitted it but argued Jesus' Golden Rule was at best informal logic (and whether or not that's really a flaw is a huge still unresolved debate), and his categorical imperative was a formal expression of the right code for human morality.

But again, what exactly do Hume's (above) words mean?

This little gem is a bit more accessible “So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end, and never as only a means.” but still has inspired many decades or argument and debate. Schopenhauer iirc ended up criticizing Kant for being too formal and not subjective enough on a moral issue that for S. required subjectivity - required the inclusion of that very human feature - to be meaningful and usable to normal human beings (and even most extraordinary human beings - after all what do Kant's formulations really mean? They're not as workable or even clear as he thought they were AND require books worth of (I'm exaggerating only a bit) context to even hope to understand.

What I'm telling you here is not that far off from my struggles with the phb and why I'm leaning on you good people to help me with it. I'm glad you're here and that you can untangle the parts I'd rather not. Maybe my brain is gapped or has "holes" in it visa-viz certain tasks. But yes, Kant and the PHB are both problematic for many people. Doesn't mean they're worthless. Means there's a problem - and hey it's part of why places like this are so helpful and popular! Not all bad then, right?

[Chugger]

I'm sorry if my incredulity came off as rude. I genuinely want to know what is confusing about Barkskin.

The best answers I've seen is that people expect it to work like it did in previous editions, or that people expect it not to suck. Those are both fair reasons for confusion, but they aren't created by ambiguous language.

Sorry I'm not really helping. I went academic there - I'm better now.

Just look at the above. Look at the confusion (not so much in my posts - the others).

Once you get the "right" understanding of this rule-set's language, it's really not hard (but it is - we all mess up as we adjust - the game is complex and this is a necessary condition and is okay - and in general 5e is very good).

I'm about to leave - let me scan through the above and try to put together a case for you. Later tonight I hope. Sorry about the Kant and Hegel. Don't know what possessed me - but it is interesting stuff (for some of us).

[EvilAnagram]

Sorry I'm not really helping. I went academic there - I'm better now.

No, you just went rude.

He asked you what was unclear about the spell's wording, and you decided to assume that he was questioning your intelligence and went on a long tangent about how you're super smart and can read Kant and Hegel. I mean, I'm glad you're interested in philosophy, but if your ego is so brittle you shatter the moment you see the shadow of someone doubting your intelligence, then you should probably work on internalizing some of those ideas. I don't think angrily ranting at people who ask simple questions is something that, universally applied, would benefit society, so at least Kant and I agree on one thing.

Let's try this again: He wants to know what is confusing about this phrase: "the target's AC can't be less than 16, regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing." If you find something ambiguous there, please explain. If you feel as though your intelligence is under attack, maybe take some personal time to examine those feelings.

[Chugger]

No, you just went rude.



I'm glad you can read minds across great distances. What else can you do?

You're assuming now - assuming the worst in my motives. And I find that RUDE. :smallwink:

[EvilAnagram]

I'm glad you can read minds across great distances. What else can you do?

You're assuming now - assuming the worst in my motives. And I find that RUDE. :smallwink:

Rudeness is a behavioral problem, not a matter of motivation. When you throw a tantrum and behave poorly, you are being rude, regardless of your motovations.

And I don't have to read minds. The conversation essentially went like this:

How is the spell not clear?
Well excuuuuse me, but I can read Kant. Can you read Kant???

If I were to write a hysterical bruised-ego tantrum for a CBS sitcom, I would have made it a little more subtle than that.

[Chugger]

Back to barkskin...

It's worded differently from all other spells (that I've studied) like it in the phb. So if I'm using the book as a quick reference and have a lot on my mind - like I'm in a game and thinking about all sorts of other stuff - it's going to throw me off. If my ac can't be less than 16 ... wait is that a clue?

Not all of us think laterally like this. The problem is compounded because a lot of rules are written with "clues" in them or are further explained in other sections of the phb.

It doesn't answer if ones Dex should or should not be added to that score of 16. If a moon druid casts it and then goes animal form, and that animal has a dex with a +2 say, do you add that +2? I don't think you do - you have to assume the MM ac has dex included - but since I don't know what can't be lower than 16 means ... I'm questioning everything now. It's not really clear thinking - sure - I don't have an example to help me, so I'm thrown off.

This is an inherently tricky spell. We deserve more info - it should be explained more clearly. Maybe can't be lower than means if I cast it on a Barbarian who has ac 15 from nat armor their ac goes to 16, but if they have nat armor 17 it won't increase it ... but ... if that barb then loses the dex component to his ac (which I don't recall being covered in this version of the game anywhere - it probably is but if so it's elsewhere in the phb - so I don't have in my head which conditions do and don't remove the dex component to ac) - so is it worded that way to mean such a barb would keep ac 16 if he lost somehow the sta or dex portion of his nat armor ac ... so wait, I have to table that because I'm about to make a roll - and I still am not sure if I add my dex mod to barkskin ac or not. Say I cast it on a wiz who has a +1 dex mod - is his ac 17 or 16. This wiz dipped fi and has a shield - and has mage armor - so I know mage armor is just forgotten about - but is his ac 16, 17, 18 or 19? Where do I cross reference to find out?

If "For example, one does not add a dex modifier to this spell's base ac of 16, but one does add +2 for using a shield" - something like that would clear up tons.

That's just a bit of why I find this wording maddening. It's a minimalist approach to rule writing, and it works for people who happen to get it. Some people just "get" Kant, some don't, and some find any mentioning of his name "rude." :smallsigh: :smallwink: I bring this up not to perseverate but because it's another great example of how we think differently - how we can see a block of words and assume different things or interpret them different ways (and incorrectly). Now as to 5e, were the rule writers up against a page count limit imposed by publishing constraints? Have they found that overexplaining rules fails in ways I don't know about? That giving examples backfires? I doubt that - they do give some examples, and where they do the rules are far more clear. Most of us learn better by emulation. Examples usually reinforce interpretation and only help. I don't know why the rules are so sparse except I'm guessing stereo instruction effect - the people who made the stereo wrote the instructions and are therefore blind to how they can't be interpreted by others (and classically they assume others are stupid, which is not the case - they failed to write clear instructions). These rules are very complex and really, more examples were needed in many key areas. In many cases one little sentence would be enough. Anyway, that's the answer.

[Chugger]

Rudeness is a behavioral problem, not a matter of motivation. When you throw a tantrum and behave poorly, you are being rude, regardless of your motovations.

And I don't have to read minds. The conversation essentially went like this:

How is the spell not clear?
Well excuuuuse me, but I can read Kant. Can you read Kant???

If I were to write a hysterical bruised-ego tantrum for a CBS sitcom, I would have made it a little more subtle than that.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about above.

Tantrum - another assumption. Why do you let your mind go there? Don't assume I'm asking out of spite or meanness - this rule you assert that motivation is not a factor in whether or not one is being "rude" is not correct. I'm sorry, but you seem a bit off your rails yourself to me - I could be wrong. I probably am, just as you are about me and my current mental state.

If we were face to face you'd be able to tell from my tone of voice and body language that I'm not upset - that I'm amused by you - and that I'm not being rude.

So why are we building this into a flame war? And yes I'm editing because something I said earlier could have been taken in a way I didn't mean it - and would have been like tossing on gasoline.

Rather than doing that - adding more gasoline to this - let me suggest you scroll up. I said I was sorry before you came in. Even if I were being rude, I'd already apologized for it - so why did you need to interfere (yes, this is a rhetorical question, but answer it if you really want to)? Because I'd already apologized, isn't calling me "rude" like piling on - not necessary at the very least? I apologized to the other person because I realized my answer was too general - I was trying to answer their question, but I had a very weird take on their question - it was not what they wanted to know. I was apologizing more for having read them incorrectly, not because I suddenly realized I'd been "rude" - it was never my intention to browbeat them or snark or have an IQ contest or w/e you've read into this. And yes, I'm not entirely sure what you have read into this or why it's gotten you upset - but it shouldn't have (and maybe you aren't upset even, though your words make me think you are). Again, were we face to face it never would have gone to this - you would have seen and heard that I didn't mean any evil by my words - that maybe I have bizarre interests and misinterpret others sometimes or see causality where others don't - but again I had already apologized for this to the other person. So ... I don't see your part in this non-fight. Really.

Let's blame this on not being able to see and hear each other (body language and tone are huge portions of human communication which the Internet doesn't allow in forums like this for obvious reasons - between this and anonymity, probably 90% of the reason for flames). I don't think this forum likes or allows flames. I was being a little snarky at you earlier, but now I'm not. Because we're really on different pages here - and it's incredibly silly to flame each other because of Internet-caused misunderstanding - I think it would make sense to calm this down. Good luck to you.

[Sigreid]

Chugged, I think I might see your problem. It sounds to me like you have a lot of experience with statements that are intended to be extrapolated to find the truth behind them. That's not what is happening with barskin. It does what it says on the tin. While it is in effect, the target's AC can't be lowered below 16 by any means, such as removing their armor, dropping their shield or reducing their dexterity. If their AC would otherwise be higher, it has no effect.

Hope this helps. In my estimation most of the confusion people experience in 5e comes from the expectation that it can't possibly be as simple as it sounds.

[smcmike]

Yeah, it sounds like your problem is that the spell doesn't do what you think it should do. I say that because of your shield example - it sounds like you think things like shield or cover SHOULD stack with Barskin. That makes sense, both in terms of balance and simulationism. But that's not what the text says. It simply says that your AC can't be lower than 16.

Sometimes extra text and examples confuse things. In this case, "regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing" actually makes the spell more confusing. You could argue that this phrase implies that Barkskin is only supposed to supplant the AC of your armor and dexterity. That doesn't really fit with the way they worded the spell, though.

Also, and please don't take this the wrong way: I understand your frustration about "minimalist" text, but your maximalist walls really serve as a good example of why minimalism is sometimes a good thing.

[Georlik]

I guess you have to be wise as a druid in order to accept this wording as it is ;)
My heart tells me Barkskin states:
Either you have 16 AC from Barkskin or you have more AC from other sources.

Do I need additional clarification for Shield Spell and magic items? No. But YMMV.