Originally Posted by ZOZO1006
All i am saying if we have a natural 10 armor class.
And we have armor example: mage armor ligth medium heavy armor unarmored armor bonus all those are added to our basic or natural armor class. As it is its fine non of them is addictive only shield bonus and buffs like haste and shield of fate and cover
But barkskin is raising the base armor class to 16 . And nobarmor modifier can raise it only change the base ac to higher according niaras explanition.
Thats mean no haste no cover no shild of fate and no shild bonuses as well protection ring and cloak. Until you have less ac then 16. But in bg3 you can have with barkskin base ac 16 + shield of fate haste and +2 more item bonuses and mirror image 31 ac how s that logical and correct tell me.

But really guys its so stupid there is a situation the druid is full cover. Behind a wall and he is stuck with 16 ac the aganst all logic . This Sa- Compedium is bull...
Also if its suppose to curse you with 16 ac the all haste and shield of fate mirror image ligthing charges and the shove ring should not give +15 bonus ac to Barksin . Wat is clearly a bug.

I'm really sorry, I still don't think I'm getting your point. I'm not quite sure whether you're (1) disagreeing that Barkskin's 5e rules as written work in the way Niara has explained, (2) complaining (correctly and understandably) that those 5e rules make Barkskin a far less useful spell than it would be if it stacked with other bonuses (3) saying you've found a bug in BG3 where AC isn't correctly calculated in accordance with 5e rules as written, or (4) pointing out that there is a bug in the way the AC tooltip displays the calculation when Barkskin is applied to a character with AC of less than 16. Or indeed making more than one of those points or some other one I've not understood.

If (3), then that's interesting and sounds like something that needs to be reported. I'm not seeing a problem myself, as the below screenshots may help illustrate. If (4) then I agree and have seen this bug too as the final screenshot of the three shows.

First, here's my druid who has an armour class of 17 made up of 14 AC chainmail (which she shouldn't be allowed per RAW, but is in BG3), +1 Dexterity and +2 from her Adamantine shield that RAW wouldn't allow her either, I believe. There is no mention of Barkskin despite the fact that, as you can see from the little icon to the left of her portrait, is cast on her. That is correctly having no impact on her AC as she's already above the minimum.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


Second, here's Gale with Mage Armour and NO Barkskin. His AC is 15, and as per the tooltip made up of 10 Base Armour class, +3 Mage Armour, +2 from Dexterity. It's a slightly odd way of putting it, given that the Mage Armour description itself says that it raises base AC to 13, but at least the results are the same and I did check that when I cast Mage Armour on my druid's polar bear, which has a Base AC of 12, the tooltip then says it gets +1 from Mage Armour, so still taking it up to 13.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


Third, my druid casts Barkskin on Gale, and as his AC is lower than 16, the spell correctly bumps it up to that minimum. However the AC tooltip is confusing, or possibly just plain wrong, as it mentions 10 Base Armour class, +6 from Barkskin, +2 from Dexterity, implying the total AC should be 18 ... which it shouldn't be, and isn't.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]



My apologies if that doesn't actually address your point.

"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"