PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Barkskin (feedback wanted)



schm0
2022-01-09, 10:40 AM
Barkskin
2nd level transmutation

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a handful of oak bark)
Duration: 8 hours

You touch a willing creature. Until the spell ends, the target's skin has a rough, bark-like appearance, and the target's AC can't be less than 18, regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing. When the targeted creature is hit by a ranged or melee attack, the target's minimum AC is reduced by 1. The spell ends when the minimum AC reaches 10 or the target's natural AC.



I always hated how lackluster barkskin is, especially when viewed next to a spell like mage armor. I imagine barkskin being literal bark that has to be "chipped away", so this is what I came up with. No more concentration, spell duration on par with mage armor.

What do you think?

Kane0
2022-01-11, 02:09 AM
Neat. Kinda like Mirror Image but applied directly to AC.
Would upcasting set a higher starting AC?

schm0
2022-01-12, 11:18 PM
I thought about it, but since Mage Armor is not upcast, I decided against it. I still feel like it's a little on the weak side, especially for 2nd level, but it's leagues better than it was IMHO.

GalacticAxekick
2022-01-13, 12:00 AM
I'd make this a 1st level spell.

It beats Mage Armor in terms of higher base AC, but loses as the AC diminishes. With a tradeoff like that, there's no reason to make it more costly.

EDIT: Mage Armor can give up to 18 AC (13 + 5 from Dex). If the tradeoff between these two spells is that Barkskin starts at higher AC but decreases as you take hits, then Barkskin should be able to bring the caster's AC above 18.

For example, Barkskin could set your base AC to 15 + your spellcasting ability. For an optimized caster, this would be 18 at 1st level, and 20 by 8th

Yakk
2022-01-18, 12:06 PM
20 dex is a large cost. Balancing this spell against "mage armor cast on someone with 20 dex" is not required.

---

I don't like it because it requires recalculating AC more often than I like.

GalacticAxekick
2022-01-18, 12:49 PM
20 dex is a large cost. Balancing this spell against "mage armor cast on someone with 20 dex" is not required.Virtually every Wizard has it by 16th level. Balancing Barkskin for high level play seems reasonable.


I don't like it because it requires recalculating AC more often than I like.It requires recalculating AC every 4 levels. The same as every other character.

Unless you're referring the schm0's rewrite and not the stat scaling that I suggested.

Yakk
2022-01-18, 01:58 PM
Virtually every Wizard has it by 16th level. Balancing Barkskin for high level play seems reasonable.
Combat Casting, Resilient(Con), +3-4 int is 4, 8, 12 and 16th level ASIs.

So, I'm not sure where "virtually every wizard" comes from.

Also, Barkskin is a 2nd level druid/ranger spell, not a wizard spell. I'm not sure why we care what dex wizards have? If mage armor (a self-only 1st level spell) is better than barkskin (an any target 2nd level spell) for level 16+ wizards, it is irrelevant.

Also, if there was a 2nd level wizard spell that granted 18 AC flat, no wizard would bother with 20 dex, there are better things to increase (like con).

It requires recalculating AC every 4 levels. The same as every other character.

Unless you're referring the schm0's rewrite and not the stat scaling that I suggested.
I am referring to the Barkskin in this thread, which loses 1 AC every time you get attacked. This requires changing your AC every time you get attacked. That sucks, and in my experience won't get tracked reliably.

(My use of "---" indicates a division in the subject matter.)

GalacticAxekick
2022-01-18, 03:57 PM
Combat Casting, Resilient(Con), +3-4 int is 4, 8, 12 and 16th level ASIs.

So, I'm not sure where "virtually every wizard" comes from.Experience. I've never seen a spellcaster actually take War Caster (since the ability to cast with hands full of weapons never comes up, since casting spells as opportunity attacks requires putting yourself in the suicidal position of close range, and your enemy making the unlikely decision of walking away, and finally since the concentration advantage isnt worth a feat).

I've only seen one player take Resilient (which, I agree with you, is a good feat for casters who expect to get hit). Most focus on not getting hit instead of keeping concentration once it happens.

Virtually everyone I've played with used the ASIs at 4th and 8th level for their spellcasting abilities, then 12th and 16th for Dex.

There was the one guy with Resilient, and he was making a joke build (half orc Strength wizard who only uses spells that ignore his spellcasting ability, like Mage Armor, Shield, Magic Missile, and Misty Step)


Also, Barkskin is a 2nd level druid/ranger spell, not a wizard spell. I'm not sure why we care what dex wizards have?Balance. We want everyone to be similarly powerful at the same levels.


Also, if there was a 2nd level wizard spell that granted 18 AC flat, no wizard would bother with 20 dex, there are better things to increase (like con).Yes. What is your point?

Breccia
2022-01-18, 09:05 PM
I love the idea of ablative armor. If anything, it feels like it falls off a little too quickly...but it's 2nd level no concentration, so I guess that's fair.

Yakk
2022-01-18, 09:40 PM
So, a 2nd level spell that grants 18 AC to anyone is better than a 1st level self only spell that grants 13+dex AC?

The question is is the -1 AC per attack worth the cost.

The tradeoff is already "can be cast on someone who doesn't invest in Dex", not "gives higher AC than someone with maximum mortal dexterity". And can be cast on someone else, while mage armor cannot.

Comparing mage armor to it is ridiculous, because there are almost no situations where you'd be going "do I cast mage armor or barkskin?"; you should compare things that are alternatives. Comparing things because they both modify AC is not useful, if they are not alternatives to each other.

GalacticAxekick
2022-01-18, 10:43 PM
So, a 2nd level spell that grants 18 AC to anyone is better than a 1st level self only spell that grants 13+dex AC?

The question is is the -1 AC per attack worth the cost.Yes. And my answer is "it is not worth the cost. The -1 AC per attack is such a serious penalty that even if it was a 1st level spell, it would not be worth the cost. After making it a 1st level spell, it needs some kind of buff to become worth the cost. I suggest raising the AC from 18 to a potential 20"

Also, Mage Armour isnt self only. Its touch. Just like Barkskin.


The tradeoff is already "can be cast on someone who doesn't invest in Dex", not "gives higher AC than someone with maximum mortal dexterity". And can be cast on someone else, while mage armor cannot.And that tradeoff is insufficient to make it worthwhile, thus why I recommend buffing it.


Comparing mage armor to it is ridiculous, because there are almost no situations where you'd be going "do I cast mage armor or barkskin?"; you should compare things that are alternatives. Comparing things because they both modify AC is not useful, if they are not alternatives to each other.Classes are alternatives. So I'm comparing them.

I don't want a table where the Druid is burning through 2nd level slots trying to keep up with the Wizard's single 1st level slot. I want them to get equal bang for their buck.

schm0
2022-01-19, 01:26 PM
Some interesting feedback here.

One quick note, you only lose AC on a successful hit, not any old attack. I agree that it would be lackluster if a monster used all of their multi-attack on you and bumped your AC down by 3 automatically.

The comparisons I see are:



Mage Armor
Barkskin


1st level
2nd level


15+Dex
18 (decreasing)


Self
A willing creature


8 hours
8 hours, or until AC drops below threshold
Permanent


I might be leaving some out here.

I think buffing it to a higher AC would be a mistake, because 2nd level spells come on pretty early, and 18 is nothing to scoff at. A solution might be to make an additional save to see if the AC decreases, but I don't really like that idea because it's even more fiddly. Maybe make it upcastable? Every 2 levels +1 AC?

As for the criticism that it's too hard to track, we already track HP and make concentration saves when a hit succeeds, so I don't really see this as a big deal.

GalacticAxekick
2022-01-19, 02:47 PM
One quick note, you only lose AC on a successful hit, not any old attack. I agree that it would be lackluster if a monster used all of their multi-attack on you and bumped your AC down by 3 automatically.I'm aware. It's with this in mind that I concluded 18 AC is too little for a penalty this grave.


The comparisons I see are



Mage Armor
Barkskin


1st level
2nd level


15+Dex 13+Dex
18 (decreasing)


Self A willing creature
A willing creature


8 hours
8 hours, or until AC drops below threshold
Permanent


I might be leaving some out here.Made some corrections.

Costing a 2nd level slot is worse than costing a 1st level slot.
18 decreasing is worse (in my opinion) than a steady 13+Dex
Both target willing creatures
Both last 8 hours

If this version of Barkskin was a 1st level spell, I think it would be a worse 1st level spell than Mage Armor. So in addition to making it a 1st level spell, I'd suggest higher AC.


I think buffing it to a higher AC would be a mistake, because 2nd level spells come on pretty early, and 18 is nothing to scoff at.18 is nothing to scoff at, if it's steady. But it'll be 17 after one encounter, and 10 by the end of the adventuring day. I cannot stress enough that the AC decreasing reduces its value.

But if you disagree, you disagree. I can't exactly prove this in math (it's quite complicated, and depends on encounter design)

Yakk
2022-01-20, 10:27 AM
Also, Mage Armour isnt self only. Its touch. Just like Barkskin.
Laugh! I have literally never seen Mage Armor not cast on self, so much so that I didn't know you could.

schm0
2022-01-22, 12:47 PM
18 is nothing to scoff at, if it's steady. But it'll be 17 after one encounter, and 10 by the end of the adventuring day. I cannot stress enough that the AC decreasing reduces its value.

But if you disagree, you disagree. I can't exactly prove this in math (it's quite complicated, and depends on encounter design)

I'm less worried about the math and more concerned with making the spell a viable 2nd level choice.

As for getting hit, I think for most non-moon druids, wading into battle is going to be the last thing they want to do. Coupled with the fact that they are the de facto control class, they have many tools to prevent creatures from getting too close. I think this reduces the chances of a hit a bit more than you might be giving them credit for. Even still, with starting equipment at level 3 (assuming leather armor, no shield, and 14 Dex) that's 4 hits (several of which are at a relatively high AC) before the spell is removed.

I think the clear advantage here is the higher AC, which will block far more attacks than mage armor would.

GalacticAxekick
2022-01-22, 05:11 PM
I'm less worried about the math and more concerned with making the spell a viable 2nd level choice.I understand. I'm saying it isnt viable, though I struggle to demonstrate that in math.


As for getting hit, I think for most non-moon druids, wading into battle is going to be the last thing they want to do. Coupled with the fact that they are the de facto control class, they have many tools to prevent creatures from getting too close. I think this reduces the chances of a hit a bit more than you might be giving them credit for.Your argument is "most druids arent being targeted! Their AC isnt at risk of being reduced". To which I respond "if they arent being targeted, why waste a spell slot increasing their AC?"

If they ARE being targeted, increasing your AC makes sense! But then their AC is at high risk of being reduced.

Either way, the spell has a cost-benefit issue.


Even still, with starting equipment at level 3 (assuming leather armor, no shield, and 14 Dex) that's 4 hits (several of which are at a relatively high AC) before the spell is removed.

I think the clear advantage here is the higher AC, which will block far more attacks than mage armor would.I see the advantage. But I dont expect it to last. If the average adventuring day has 7 encounters (as the DMG suggests), if the average encounter goes 3 rounds, and if you're being attacked on average once per round, that's 21 attacks coming at you per adventuring day.

The average CR appropriate monstere at 3rd level has +5 to hit (again according to the DMG). That's a 40% chance to hit 18 AC. You'll be hit 4 times within 10 rounds, or half the day.

Faster, actually, because your AC decreases with each hit. Fastest of you are a ranger or moon druid on the front lines (who are the ones who would want Barkskin in the first place). Slowest if you are a druid far out of harm's way, who does not need the spell to begin with.

schm0
2022-01-22, 08:59 PM
The average CR appropriate monstere at 3rd level has +5 to hit (again according to the DMG). That's a 40% chance to hit 18 AC. You'll be hit 4 times within 10 rounds, or half the day.

Faster, actually, because your AC decreases with each hit. Fastest of you are a ranger or moon druid on the front lines (who are the ones who would want Barkskin in the first place). Slowest if you are a druid far out of harm's way, who does not need the spell to begin with.

I think you have a very odd set of assumptions here, which may explain why we disagree. IMHO, Barkskin is not a good choice for moon druids (both before this change and with my homebrew), precisely for the reasons I outlined: they'll be hit far more often and the benefit won't last nearly as long. This spell is designed precisely for the druid you say doesn't need it, the one on the back lines controlling the battlefield with spells (i.e. pretty much every druid except moon druid.) When an enemy slips through to get within range, that's when the spell covers you. The increase to 8 hours was specifically designed to make this a "set it and forget it" type of spell, cast at the beginning of the dungeon, just like mage armor. Wizards aren't using mage armor to run into battle. Why would a druid?

GalacticAxekick
2022-01-22, 10:14 PM
I think you have a very odd set of assumptions here, which may explain why we disagree.My assumptions are:

That you have the number of encounters the DMG recommends (7)
That enemies have the bonus to hit that the DMG recommends (+5)
That the average encounter lasts about 3 rounds.
That the character is being attacked on average once per round.

Which of these assumptions is odd?


IMHO, Barkskin is not a good choice for moon druids (both before this change and with my homebrew), precisely for the reasons I outlined: they'll be hit far more often and the benefit won't last nearly as long.I agree!


This spell is designed precisely for the druid you say doesn't need it, the one on the back lines controlling the battlefield with spells (i.e. pretty much every druid except moon druid.) When an enemy slips through to get within range, that's when the spell covers you. The increase to 8 hours was specifically designed to make this a "set it and forget it" type of spell, cast at the beginning of the dungeon, Wizards aren't using mage armor to run into battle. Why would a druid?You've misunderstood me.

My argument was not "back-line spellcasters like the non-moon druid don't need Barkskin". My argument was "if the non-moon druid is rarely attacked, as you suggest, then the non-moon druid doesn't need an AC-boosting spell. But if the non-moon druid IS often attacked, it needs an AC-boosting spell more powerful than Barkskin"

I think the same way about Wizards. "if the Wizard is rarely attacked, then it doesn't need a AC-boosting spell. But because the Wizard IS often attacked, it needs an AC boosting spell, and Mage Armor does the job"

schm0
2022-01-22, 11:57 PM
Which of these assumptions is odd?

The one where a backline caster is getting hit every single round? I mean, maybe if there's no cover and they're facing ranged enemies? This seems like an extremely high rate for getting attacked. In my experience, full casters stay in the rearguard, taking cover as much as possible, or at least positioning themselves as far away from the enemy as possible. A druid, which lacks the evasion/teleporation spells that comes with arcane magic, is likely to add difficult terrain between them and the enemy to this mix. I'm lucky if I get attacks on my casters 10 times in an adventuring day.


I think the same way about Wizards. "if the Wizard is rarely attacked, then it doesn't need a AC-boosting spell. But because the Wizard IS often attacked, it needs an AC boosting spell, and Mage Armor does the job"

Wizards have shield, blur, blink, dimension door and similar spells that allow them to easily evade an enemy. Mage armor is one of several options a wizard has on any given day. Druids have very few similar tools, and most of them are conditional (absorb elements, protection against good and evil, etc.) Having an always-on, long-duration AC as a secondary bulwark against incoming attacks is a crucial tool, one that I believe barkskin was meant to fill but failed to do, and miserably so.

I think if you cast this version of barkskin you are going to change your playstyle to make sure you avoid hits as much as possible to keep it viable. Using other players for cover, obscurement, terrain... that sort of thing.

Maybe a good boost would be to allow shields to augment this to 20? That way there's a drawback (only one free hand, conditional on using an item) and a benefit.

"If you are wielding a shield, the minimum AC granted by this spell increases by an additional 2 points."

Maybe specify a wooden shield, because, you know, druids.

I'm really worried we are treading into the domain of martial characters, something I'm not sure I'd like to do.

Kane0
2022-01-22, 11:57 PM
Perhaps adjust it to say... 17 AC that only gets reduced by taking a crit or fire damage instead of any attack that hits.

Breccia
2022-01-23, 01:12 AM
"If you are wielding a shield, the minimum AC granted by this spell increases by an additional 2 points."

It would make more sense to me to adjust the way shields provide a bonus to AC, so you wouldn't have to say this for stoneskin, ironskin, and steelskin.

GalacticAxekick
2022-01-23, 04:14 AM
The one where a backline caster is getting hit every single round? I mean, maybe if there's no cover and they're facing ranged enemies? This seems like an extremely high rate for getting attacked. In my experience, full casters stay in the rearguard, taking cover as much as possible, or at least positioning themselves as far away from the enemy as possible. A druid, which lacks the evasion/teleporation spells that comes with arcane magic, is likely to add difficult terrain between them and the enemy to this mix. I'm lucky if I get attacks on my casters 10 times in an adventuring day.How often are you not facing ranged enemies? Virtually everyone is proficient with a ranged weapon of some kind (slings, crossbows, javelins, daggers, darts). Most spellcasters have cantrips that let them make ranged spell attacks (some from as far as 120 feet). I honestly cant think of the last encounter I've had with humanoids or intelligent monsters that didn't involve ranged attacks.

Between this and the fact that spellcasters are prime targets, I'm impressed if my spellcaster isn't being singled out in many encounters. If my party of Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric is facing four goblins in the woods (for example), I full expect all four goblins to Disengage from the martial character nearest to them, move to circumvent cover like trees and shrubs, and open fire on the casters. I fully expect the Wizard and Cleric to be targeted by two attacks per round throughout that encounter.


Wizards have shield, blur, blink, dimension door and similar spells that allow them to easily evade an enemy. Mage armor is one of several options a wizard has on any given day. Druids have very few similar tools, and most of them are conditional (absorb elements, protection against good and evil, etc.) Having an always-on, long-duration AC as a secondary bulwark against incoming attacks is a crucial tool, one that I believe barkskin was meant to fill but failed to do, and miserably so.I agree!


I think if you cast this version of barkskin you are going to change your playstyle to make sure you avoid hits as much as possible to keep it viable. Using other players for cover, obscurement, terrain... that sort of thing.What spellcaster isn't already doing those things?


Maybe a good boost would be to allow shields to augment this to 20? That way there's a drawback (only one free hand, conditional on using an item) and a benefit.I can get behind that!

schm0
2022-01-23, 11:54 AM
I honestly cant think of the last encounter I've had with humanoids or intelligent monsters that didn't involve ranged attacks.

Right, this would be for the other 11 monster types that aren't humanoids. There are plenty of monsters whose only ranged attack consists of an AOE that is centered on themselves, and plenty more who have none at all.


Between this and the fact that spellcasters are prime targets, I'm impressed if my spellcaster isn't being singled out in many encounters. If my party of Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric is facing four goblins in the woods (for example), I full expect all four goblins to Disengage from the martial character nearest to them, move to circumvent cover like trees and shrubs, and open fire on the casters. I fully expect the Wizard and Cleric to be targeted by two attacks per round throughout that encounter.

I think again there are some assumptions here: the enemies are a) intelligent b) can coordinate attacks c) know precisely who to target d) have the means to do so and e) are able to do so without risk

Maybe all your battles follow this exact formula, but mine don't. Your example just seems really contrived.

And if you agree that an AC boost is helpful, why would you describe the druid as not needing it? You seem to be contradicting yourself.


What spellcaster isn't already doing those things?

Pact of the blade warlocks, sword/valor bards, bladesingers, moon druids, clerics, paladins, rangers, eldritch knights, trickster rogues... Squishy casters are for the rear guard, beefy casters are going to be on the front lines getting hit. This spell is for the former, not the latter.

My point is: the squishy druid is going to avoid getting hit. That doesn't mean they don't need an AC boost.

GalacticAxekick
2022-01-23, 01:49 PM
Right, this would be for the other 11 monster types that aren't humanoids. There are plenty of monsters whose only ranged attack consists of an AOE that is centered on themselves, and plenty more who have none at all.Humanoids and intelligent monsters. Among Celestials, Constructs, Fey, Fiends, Giants, Monstosities, and Undead are monsters with the intelligence (or programmed with the ability) to make ranged weapon or spell attacks.


I think again there are some assumptions here: the enemies are a) intelligent b) can coordinate attacks c) know precisely who to target d) have the means to do so and e) are able to do so without risk
The only assumption here is A (that the enemies are intelligent enough to possess ranged attacks).

It doesn't matter if they lack B (the teamwork skills to coordinate attacks). Because each individual enemy should be going for the best target it can find, which will be the spellcasters.

It doesn't matter if they lack C (the knowledge of who is or isn't a spellcaster), because they will figure that out within one round of combat.

D is almost inconceivable (that they have the intelligence to make ranged attacks but not the means) given how accessible ranged weapons and ranged cantrips are.

And E is frankly ridiculous (how often is making a ranged attack more risky than making a melee attack? The foremost appeal of ranged attacks is attacking from a safe place!)



Maybe all your battles follow this exact formula, but mine don't. Your example just seems really contrived.If even less than half of battles involve ranged enemies, the battles that DO involve round after round of sustained attacks against the casters from one or more ranged enemies. For every battle where the caster is getting attacked next to never, there's a battle where the caster is getting attacked twice or more per round. Which is why I say, on average, the caster is getting attacked once per round.


And if you agree that an AC boost is helpful, why would you describe the druid as not needing it? You seem to be contradicting yourself.I'm NOT describing the Druid as not needing it! How could you possibly have construed that? I'm saying that the Druid DOES need an AC boost! I'm saying that Barkskin is TOO WEAK to serve as this AC boost, because it will be worn through too quickly! Below are direct quotes from my earlier post:


My argument was not "back-line spellcasters like the non-moon druid don't need Barkskin". My argument was "if the non-moon druid is rarely attacked, as you suggest, then the non-moon druid doesn't need an AC-boosting spell. But if the non-moon druid IS often attacked, it needs an AC-boosting spell more powerful than Barkskin"


Pact of the blade warlocks, sword/valor bards, bladesingers, moon druids, clerics, paladins, rangers, eldritch knights, trickster rogues... Squishy casters are for the rear guard, beefy casters are going to be on the front lines getting hit. This spell is for the former, not the latter.Let me rephrase my question. You said "I think if you cast this version of barkskin you are going to change your playstyle to make sure you avoid hits as much as possible to keep it viable."

My question is, what SQUISHY CASTER isn't already doing this? Every squishy caster is trying to avoid hits as much as possible. Your version of Barkskin isn't changing their playstyle at all.


My point is: the squishy druid is going to avoid getting hit. That doesn't mean they don't need an AC boost.I KNOW that they need an AC boost! I'm saying that Barkskin is too weak to serve as that boost. Weaker than Mage Armor. Because the same circumstances that make them require that AC boost (being attacked frequently) make Barkskin wear away quickly.

If, hypothetically, they weren't being attacked very often, Barkskin would last! But in that hypothetical cirucmstance (which I don't believe in, but you seem to), I don't think Barkskin, Mage Armor, or similar AC boosting spells would be worthwhile.

schm0
2022-01-23, 02:46 PM
The only assumption here is A (that the enemies are intelligent enough to possess ranged attacks).

It doesn't matter if they lack B (the teamwork skills to coordinate attacks). Because each individual enemy should be going for the best target it can find, which will be the spellcasters.

It doesn't matter if they lack C (the knowledge of who is or isn't a spellcaster), because they will figure that out within one round of combat.

D is almost inconceivable (that they have the intelligence to make ranged attacks but not the means) given how accessible ranged weapons and ranged cantrips are.

And E is frankly ridiculous (how often is making a ranged attack more risky than making a melee attack? The foremost appeal of ranged attacks is attacking from a safe place!)

For A, there are plenty intelligent creatures that don't have ranged attacks. If you are just homebrewing ranged attacks on anything with arms just so you can attack your spellcasters, then I guess? The rest of the monster manual still exists, as well.

For B, this is you metagaming as a DM. Each individual enemy should act according to their most immediate threat. That might not be a spellcaster at all. Look, there are absolutely times when you ignore the big beefy guy in shiny armor and focus fire on spellcasters, but at my table those moments are highly circumstantial.

For C, I think it absolutely matters. If a caster isn't perceived casting a spell (behind cover, line of sight, obscured, subtle spell, failed perception check, whatever) the creature has no idea player A is a caster or not. A cleric or paladin or eldritch knight (etc.) who wades into battle swinging a sword might not look any different than a fighter.

For D, a ranged attacker can't attack a creature that's hidden, there are certain spells require you to see the target, the creature might be out of range, etc.

For E, there are multiple reasons why a ranged attack might not be the best move (cover, disadvantage due to creature within 5 ft, target is prone, target is unseen, more immediate threat, escape, need to find cover, etc.)

This is what I mean by contrived. I'm not saying your scenario is implausible, I'm saying there are dozens of factors that would lower the likelihood of getting attacked every single round.

Look, I understand where you are coming from, I just think some of your assumptions are flawed. Maybe all your games play out this way. Personally speaking, I have never participated or witnessed a game of D&D that has that sort of consistency where the rear guard is consistently targeted every single round. Yes, intelligent enemies can target casters, but many times they don't get a chance for all the reasons I cited above.


I'm NOT describing the Druid as not needing it! How could you possibly have construed that?

You quoted everything except the part that counts:


My argument was "if the non-moon druid is rarely attacked, as you suggest, then the non-moon druid doesn't need an AC-boosting spell.

You say above in the case of being rarely attacked, they don't need it. I'd argue that's precisely why they need it. Because they are being attacked less, the spell will last longer and act as a secondary defense when all the other tactics they are employing (cover, terrain, buffs, etc.) fail. That's what I meant.


My question is, what SQUISHY CASTER isn't already doing this? Every squishy caster is trying to avoid hits as much as possible. Your version of Barkskin isn't changing their playstyle at all.

My point was that druids have medium armor, and without this spell I'd be boosting my AC through that and a shield. This allows a druid to forgo worrying about armor or a shield (freeing a hand to cast more spells, make 2h attacks, etc.) and instead use barkskin to augment their AC. That's the playstyle I was referring to.


If, hypothetically, they weren't being attacked very often, Barkskin would last! But in that hypothetical cirucmstance (which I don't believe in, but you seem to), I don't think Barkskin, Mage Armor, or similar AC boosting spells would be worthwhile.

Yeah, I think we just fundamentally disagree on what would be worthwhile for the druid in this case. Thanks for sharing the feedback, though, it was very helpful to hear despite the disagreement. :)