# MIC: Ironward Diamond....Overpowered?



## Stalker0 (Apr 8, 2007)

Well we knew once the MIC got a look over we'd start seeing these kinds of threads, so I thought I'd get the ball rolling.

The ironward diamond greater augment crystal grants DR 5/- for 8000. The catch is that it only absorbs 50 points of damage, so 10 swings worth. BUT...the huge benefit is it stacks with other DR. You could have adamantine full plate with this crystal and have DR 8/-....not too shabby.

Compared to the DMG's mantle of faith its a great deal. The MOF costs 76,000 (almost 10 crystals worth), and its DR isn't as good.

So what do you all think, is the limited amount good enough to keep this crystal in line, is DR in the DMG so overpriced that the crystal just looks cheap but is right where it should be, or did someone go off the powergaming deep end with this one?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Apr 8, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Well we knew once the MIC got a look over we'd start seeing these kinds of threads, so I thought I'd get the ball rolling.
> 
> The ironward diamond greater augment crystal grants DR 5/- for 8000. The catch is that it only absorbs 50 points of damage, so 10 swings worth. BUT...the huge benefit is it stacks with other DR. You could have adamantine full plate with this crystal and have DR 8/-....not too shabby.
> 
> ...



 10 swings and all its power is gone forever?  That seems to me a substantial limiting factor.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Apr 8, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> 10 swings and all its power is gone forever?  That seems to me a substantial limiting factor.



Its power is just gone for a day. It renews at dawn.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Apr 8, 2007)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Its power is just gone for a day. It renews at dawn.



 Ah, never mind then--one can just buy several for the price difference then.


----------



## Someone (Apr 8, 2007)

(Roughly) +50 hit points for 8000 gp? Count me in!


----------



## starwed (Apr 8, 2007)

> Compared to the DMG's mantle of faith its a great deal.



Have you ever known anyone to buy one of these items?

And keep in mind that the 10 uses per day _is_ going to make a difference, especially at the level where this thing is likely to be bought.


----------



## brehobit (Apr 8, 2007)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Its power is just gone for a day. It renews at dawn.



OK, that's a "must have".  Does it use a slot or something?

mark


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2007)

It's an armour crystal, which means it sits on your armour. You can only use one armour crystal at a time, but you can swap them in and out.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 8, 2007)

I agree with the OP.

This sounds WAY too potent for the price.

Plus, it is DR 5/-, not DR 5/evil like the mantle and it stacks with other DR.

Having a half dozen of these and switching them between combats sounds really potent. For a high level PC, it's more or less equivalent to a +6 Amulet of Health for a little over 20% of the cost. For a mid level PC, it's more or less equivalent to a +10 Amulet of Health for about 8% of the cost.

Yikes!  

The bigger, better, badder syndrome of WotC strikes again.


----------



## MarkB (Apr 8, 2007)

Bear in mind that greater Augment Crystals must be applied to an item with at least a +3 enhancement bonus, so that's potentially an extra cost compared to what you might normally have added to that armour.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 8, 2007)

MarkB said:
			
		

> Bear in mind that greater Augment Crystals must be applied to an item with at least a +3 enhancement bonus, so that's potentially an extra cost compared to what you might normally have added to that armour.



Yup, not overpowered at all. However, I do consider to increase the time it takes to swap crystals to put a limit to the 'I'll simply buy a dozen of those' mentality that they might create in some players.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 8, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Ah, never mind then--one can just buy several for the price difference then.




I'd have to check, but they seem to have dealt with that issue for most items in that book.  Most of those items say you have to have them in place for 24 hours before they can be used (and you can only have on crystal in place at a time).  So, assuming that clause is in that item, buying several won't help you.

[Edit - I checked, and it does NOT have that limitation, which seems unwise to me.  It does at least have the limitation that it must be affixed to heavy armor with no less than +3 enhancement bonus, as in actual enhancement bonus and not equivalent to that bonus. It also takes a move action to remove a crystal, and a move action to place a crystal, and probably a move action to draw the crystal unless you happen to have it in hand.]


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 8, 2007)

At level 10, that item is about 15% of a PC's wealth and it will last about 3-5 rounds a day for a front line fighter, double that for most other combatants, and significantly more for casters. It's nice, I have to admit. And, the less combats per day the better it is, and the more one big guy vs party fights as opposed to mook fights as well. But, it probably quickly starts to lose its pazaz as you go up in level. I can't imagine it being very useful to characters who can afford to buy several of them at a time.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2007)

I think increasing it to a full-round action to add/remove the crystal also makes sense. That effectively makes it into a once-per-encounter thing.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Apr 9, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I think increasing it to a full-round action to add/remove the crystal also makes sense. That effectively makes it into a once-per-encounter thing.



 Aye.  Mistwell's 24-hour attunement suggestion is also a good one.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 9, 2007)

The requirement of a +3 enhancement on the armor is the biggest cost. That means your armor won't have +2 worth of abilities, which are often much better than +2 AC. The one that attaches to +1 armor grants DR of 3/- for 30 points per day and seems to be a much nicer buy to me.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 9, 2007)

Wow, those all really do seem too good. If they ran out (like _stoneskin_) then I wouldn't mind so much.

Hmm, how about a crystal thingy that slots into armor, costs 1000 gp, grants you DR 5/-- up to 50 points (total), and then burns out forever.

It's about the same price as a scroll of _stoneskin_, but it's use-activated and doesn't suck up your mage's action.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 9, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> The requirement of a +3 enhancement on the armor is the biggest cost. That means your armor won't have +2 worth of abilities, which are often much better than +2 AC. The one that attaches to +1 armor grants DR of 3/- for 30 points per day and seems to be a much nicer buy to me.




If it was a weapon I'd agree with you. But in general I like my armor to provide....AC While I'm  a fan of fortification as much as the next guy, usually my armor is always +1 to +5, while my weapons are +1 flaming, frost, deathing weapons.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 9, 2007)

MIC adds a lot of +1, +2, and cheap armor abilities that could be added instead, and your cleric friend can up the AC if needed. 

Also, the Greater crystal requires heavy armor too, making it useless to a lot of builds.

I guess it all boils down to preferences though. I personally would rather be immune to energy drain, get blur or displacement a few times a day, armor I can sleep in or that puts itself on as a command word, etc. than spend those two points on a couple of AC.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 9, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> MIC adds a lot of +1, +2, and cheap armor abilities that could be added instead, and your cleric friend can up the AC if needed.




Not having MIC, I'm not sure if it's covered... but is there anything preventing you putting the DR 5/- Ironward Crystal on +1 Heavy Armor that's been Magic Vestmented up to a +3 enhancement bonus?

-Hyp.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 9, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Not having MIC, I'm not sure if it's covered... but is there anything preventing you putting the DR 5/- Ironward Crystal on +1 Heavy Armor that's been Magic Vestmented up to a +3 enhancement bonus?
> 
> -Hyp.




It repeatedly uses the word "actual" bonus.  I'd say a temporary bonus is not an actual bonus, similar to an effective bonus not being an actual bonus.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 9, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It repeatedly uses the word "actual" bonus.




Cool.  Looks like the designers thought of that one too 

Unless they meant to distinguish an actual enhancement bonus (which Magic Vestment provides for a limited time) from a market price modifier...

-Hyp.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Apr 9, 2007)

Note that while I was involved in the book, I had nothing to do with this particular item.

I strongly suspect it's an answer to "What does a high-level fighter do?" builds. The DR 5/-- crystal is restricted to heavy armor. For the most part, it's only going to get used by fighters, paladins and clerics -- and if clerics use it they aren't boosting their spellcasting ability somehow.

I've now seen these crystals in play. Not only are they not unbalancing the game so far, there's some talk among players of selling them. DR 1/-- just isn't that useful to the light armor crowd, and even the heavy armor folk are balancing the value against half the cost of a +4 Con item, which grants similar hit point bonuses (at 15th it's +30 hp, but you don't have to get whacked 6 times for the benefit and they work against things like spells), and adds to Fort saves and Con skills.

I suspect the popular "tank" build which tends to fall apart at mid to high level just became viable again, but not overpoweringly so.

Of course a big part of the value is based on how often you get into fights in one day in your games. And that's difficult to quantify.

For games where I think 50 hp is too many for the cost, I'll just say it stops working after 40, or 30.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Apr 9, 2007)

This looks like a slightly weaker version of Stone Skin.

On the plus side:
Always on
Refreshes the next day
Stacks with other DR
Cannot be defeated by Adamantium
Cannot easily be dispelled, as most "Stone Skin, N per day" effects would be

On the minus side:
Must be applied to +3 armor
DR 5
50 point absorption limit (instead of 90+)

I can easily see my Wizard buying 4 of these and handing them to his dear meatshields as a token of friendship.  They would happy.  And I would not be spending precious 4th level spell slots for Stone Skin.  A single 4th level spell slot is roughly worth 16,000gp (Pearl of Power), after all.  

And I do think that a Lesser Stone Skin that accomplishes the above effect would make a reasonable 4th level spell, if it had no costly spell component.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 9, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> A single 4th level spell slot is roughly worth 16,000gp (Pearl of Power), after all.




Or it's worth 700 gp (4th level Scroll); 950 gp with _stoneskin_'s material component included.

Cheers, -- N

PS: Don't forget the other goodies that this one gets over _stoneskin_. Use-activation and duration of 1 day are both pretty sweet, and IMHO the effect balances out overall -- as a player, I'd happily accept a half-strength no-cost _stoneskin_ that lasted all day, so I wouldn't have to waste an action at the start of combat.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2007)

The really good one is the DR 3/- crystal, since that can be added to medium armour, and medium armour is usable by barbarians, and the DR stacks.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 9, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The really good one is the DR 3/- crystal, since that can be added to medium armour, and medium armour is usable by barbarians, and the DR stacks.




Also the DR 3/- crystal can be added to mithral fullplate, and virtually give you the effects of both adamantine and mithral armor.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 9, 2007)

OStephens said:
			
		

> I strongly suspect it's an answer to "What does a high-level fighter do?" builds. The DR 5/-- crystal is restricted to heavy armor. For the most part, it's only going to get used by fighters, paladins and clerics -- and if clerics use it they aren't boosting their spellcasting ability somehow.




Which class a given item is not useful for is irrelevant. The fact that it is useful for any class should determine the cost of the item for the classes that will use it.

And, there are Barbarians and such walking around with Mithral Full Plate in games.



			
				OStephens said:
			
		

> I've now seen these crystals in play. Not only are they not unbalancing the game so far, there's some talk among players of selling them. DR 1/-- just isn't that useful to the light armor crowd, and even the heavy armor folk are balancing the value against half the cost of a +4 Con item, which grants similar hit point bonuses (at 15th it's +30 hp, but you don't have to get whacked 6 times for the benefit and they work against things like spells), and adds to Fort saves and Con skills.




While this is true, you are comparing the cost of a +30 hp item with a +50 hp item. At 15th level, it is more compariable to a +6 Con item (45 hp) with limitations (i.e. no Fort save bonus and only works against physical attacks).

Granted, it should cost less than the +6 item since it does not work against most spells and is a gradual effect, but although it does not have the exact same utility, it has other benefits such as the ability to be replaced with a different crystal and it is still less that a quarter of the price: 8000 GP versus 36000 GP. Nor does it prevent a character from using it and using a + Con item at the same time. The protection stacks.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Apr 9, 2007)

OStephens said:
			
		

> Note that while I was involved in the book, I had nothing to do with this particular item.



Hey, you're the loot for less guy!  I was just reading those two PDFs the other day; all the low cost items in the MIC made me think of your work, and I went and looked them up. What parts did you work on?

[on-topic edit] I agree that he comparison between the greater crystal and a +4 Con item is illuminating: the crystal doesn't provide a bonus to fort saves, doesn't work against non-weapon attacks, and doesn't help much against one big attack.  I'd add that the hit points given by a Con boost can be reset by curative magic, which can happen between each battle; the crystal, however only resets once per day.  On the other hand, as has been noted, the crystal stacks with a Con booster.  The total hit points provided by the gem is more than the Con item would give; 50 vs 20 (for a 10th level character), but given the other factors I can't see that this is unwarranted.

I think it gives good value, but isn't overpowered.


----------



## Deset Gled (Apr 9, 2007)

I think the biggest problem I have with this item is how it interacts with other items.  It stacks with everything?  It takes up no slot?  You don't need to activate it?

All of the comparisons that I've seen in this thread are flawed because this item works with all of them.  Sure, you can get bonus HP from a Con boosing item, but then you can throw this on top.  Sure, you can cast Stoneskin, but then you can throw this on top.  If anything, this item is closest to an Ioun stone, but it's impossible for an enemy to break/steal it (also, note that there is an Ioun stone that grants a +2 enhancement bonus to Con also costs 8000gp).

The fact that the only cost of this item is GP is what makes it so good.  Make the item take up the amulet slot, remove the stacking (as normal with DR), and maybe make it a swift action to activate it, and I'll consider it.  Until then, I give it a huge thumbs down.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 9, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> While this is true, you are comparing the cost of a +30 hp item with a +50 hp item.




+50 hp and DR 5/- for 50 damage are quite different, though. Take two fighter 10s with 100 hp, one with an item that gives +50 hp and one that has this magic item. Both get hit three times in one round for 20 damage a pop, a fairly normal occurrence in a 10th level game for a fighter. 

The first guy is at 90 hp and can be healed back to 150 hp. The second is at 55 hp and can be healed back to 100, also he only gains the benefit of his items 7 more times while the first guy can be healed repeatedly to regain the benefit of his item throughout not only the encounter but the entire day. The first guy also always gains the full benefit of his boosted hp, while the second can die with charges remaining on his item. Not to mention that the +50 hp item works on spells and protects against power word spells.

This isn't anywhere near on par with a +50 hp item.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Apr 9, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Hey, you're the loot for less guy! .




Yep, that's me. :-D



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I was just reading those two PDFs the other day; all the low cost items in the MIC made me think of your work, and I went and looked them up. What parts did you work on?




All the authors worked some on all the sections, and a lot of things got shuffled around in development (rings became crystals, shirts became cloaks, regalia because separate items). As a result it's difficult to exlain exactly what I worked on without given a long, boring, list of items with a lot of foot-notes.

I'll do the same thig I do when my friends ask me what sectiosn I wrote. I'll list one item. I wrote the _bolt shirt_. 



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And, there are Barbarians and such walking around with Mithral Full Plate in games.




Let them. Mithral armor is treated as one level lighter for purposes of movement and "other limitations." The _greater iron ward diamond_ has the limitation it only functions when applied to heavy armor. Since, for purposes of limitations, mithral full plate is medium armor, the crystal doesn't work on it.

Owen K.C. Stephens
d20 Triggerman

Need better cheap magic options?
Get *Loot 4 Less II: Rods, Staves and Wands*


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 9, 2007)

OStephens said:
			
		

> Let them. Mithral armor is treated as one level lighter for purposes of movement and "other limitations." The _greater iron ward diamond_ has the limitation it only functions when applied to heavy armor. Since, for purposes of limitations, mithral full plate is medium armor, the crystal doesn't work on it.




The wording of mithral armor applies to the limitations of the armor, not the limitations of other magical items.



> Most mithral *armors* are one category lighter than normal *for purposes* of movement and other *limitations*.




Nowhere does this state that Mithral Full Plate Mail is not still a heavy armor for other purposes. For example, it still looks like Full Plate Mail (abet shiny).


Now, it's possible that the Greater Iron Ward Diamond (or other crystal rules) has explicit rules text that states that it does not work with lighter forms of heavy armor such as mithral full plate. If it does, that's fine. But your sentence here by itself does not illustrate the rule you are inferring. An explicit rule is needed for that.

If no such explicit rules text exists, then the crystal is not a limitation of the armor and the mithral rule would not apply. How can adding stackable DR be considered a limitation of the armor?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 9, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If no such explicit rules text exists, then the crystal is not a limitation of the armor and the mithral rule would not apply. How can adding stackable DR be considered a limitation of the armor?




Wait... the stackable DR isn't the limitation.  The "This crystal can only be applied to heavy armor" is a limitation.  "for the purposes of movement and other limitations" doesn't restrict it to the limitations of the armor itself; "of the armor" is a phrase you're adding.

For the purpose of limitations, the mithral plate is considered medium armor.  "This crystal can only be applied to heavy armor" is a limitation.  Therefore, for the purpose of "This crystal can only be applied to heavy armor", the mithral plate is considered medium armor.

Similarly, "This benefit applies only when he is wearing no armor, light armor, or medium armor and not carrying a heavy load." is not a limitation of the armor; it's a limitation of Fast Movement (Ex).  And yet the mithral clause applies, because the mithral plate treated as Medium armor for the purposes of limitations... and the restriction to no, light, or medium armor is a limitation, even though it's not a limitation inherent to the armor.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 9, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> I think the biggest problem I have with this item is how it interacts with other items.  It stacks with everything?  It takes up no slot?  You don't need to activate it?




It does not stack with another armor crystal, and the armor crystal is a new slot which can hold only one item.



> All of the comparisons that I've seen in this thread are flawed because this item works with all of them.




Most comparisons included cost as an element.  No flaw there - it still costs gold pieces.



> Sure, you can get bonus HP from a Con boosing item, but then you can throw this on top.




If you can afford it.



> Sure, you can cast Stoneskin, but then you can throw this on top.




If you can afford it.



> If anything, this item is closest to an Ioun stone, but it's impossible for an enemy to break/steal it (also, note that there is an Ioun stone that grants a +2 enhancement bonus to Con also costs 8000gp).




It's WHAT? Impossible to steal? Why on earth would you think that?  There is no special rule about only you being magically attuned to it.  It's a move action to remove a crystal.  It's just sitting there stuck to your armor or shield.  Seems like anyone can pull it off of you just as easily as an ioun stone.  Plus, it's a slotted item - for a new slot.  Ioun stones are a truly unslotted item, and stack with other ioun stones.



> The fact that the only cost of this item is GP is what makes it so good.  Make the item take up the amulet slot, remove the stacking (as normal with DR), and maybe make it a swift action to activate it, and I'll consider it.  Until then, I give it a huge thumbs down.




You just need to wrap your mind around there now being a new couple of slots - the armor crystal slot, and the weapon crystal slot.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 9, 2007)

Is there something in the description that makes it stack with Stoneskin? Shouldn't it overlap per the normal DR rules?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 9, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Is there something in the description that makes it stack with Stoneskin?




The bit where it says "stacks with all other DR", from the sounds of it.

-Hyp.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Apr 10, 2007)

What does it mean for DR 5/- to stack with DR 10/adamantine?  Does it make it into DR 15/adamantine or 15/-?  Or something else?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 10, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> What does it mean for DR 5/- to stack with DR 10/adamantine?  Does it make it into DR 15/adamantine or 15/-?  Or something else?




Normally, they'd overlap.  So you'd subtract 10 points from any attack with a non-adamantine weapon, and 5 points from any attack with an adamantine weapon.

If the 5/- stacks with everything else, however, you'd subtract 10 points _and also 5 points_ from any attack with a non-adamantine weapon, and 5 points from any attack with an adamantine weapon.

-Hyp.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The wording of mithral armor applies to the limitations of the armor, not the limitations of other magical items.
> 
> If no such explicit rules text exists, then the crystal is not a limitation of the armor and the mithral rule would not apply. How can adding stackable DR be considered a limitation of the armor?





The rule on Mithral is not solely about the armor's limitations. If it was, then bards with Battle Caster wouldn't be able to cast in Mithral Full Plate, as their limitation is class- and feat-based, not a function of the armor.

The crystal has a limitation. For purpose of limitations, mithral full plate is medium armor.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

It says "stacks with similar damage reduction from any other source" not "stacks with all other damage reduction." Looks like it's only meant to stack with DR of x/-, making it useful on adamntine armor or for barbarians (and a few other cases).


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Wait... the stackable DR isn't the limitation.  The "This crystal can only be applied to heavy armor" is a limitation.  "for the purposes of movement and other limitations" doesn't restrict it to the limitations of the armor itself; "of the armor" is a phrase you're adding.




It's pretty obvious that the phrase "for the purposes of movement and other limitations" is talking about limitations caused by the wearing of armor, not limitations caused by *not* wearing armor.

The limitation that a crystal can only be used in heavy armor is not a limitation of wearing heavy armor. It is can only be considered a limitation of "not wearing heavy armor" (or of wearing armor which is not heavy). But in reality, Mithral Full Plate is Heavy Armor. It just has some properties of Medium Armor "for the purposes of movement and other limitations".

A better way of saying it is that of "for the purposes of movement and other limitations (caused by wearing the specific type of armor)". Yes, I am adding this to the end of the sentence because that is implied by the sentence. One doesn't remove the limitation of spells per day when wearing Mithral Armor. One doesn't remove the limitation of total hit points when wearing Mithral Armor. The sentence only applies to limitations *caused by* the wearing of the armor, not any other limitations caused by anything else.

"This crystal can only be applied to heavy armor" is not a limitation when wearing heavy armor, it is an advantage when wearing heavy armor. It is a limitation when *not* wearing heavy armor, but one is wearing heavy armor when wearing Mithral Full Plate.



> Heavy armors *are treated as* medium, and medium armors *are treated as* light, but light armors are still treated as light.




"Are treated as" does not mean "are".


If it is not a limitation caused by the wearing of the armor, it is not a limitation affected by that sentence.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It's pretty obvious that the phrase "for the purposes of movement and other limitations" is talking about limitations caused by the wearing of armor, not limitations caused by *not* wearing armor.




D00d, stop it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> One doesn't remove the limitation of spells per day when wearing Mithral Armor.




No, indeed.  You don't remove it; rather, you use the limitation of spells per day while wearing Medium armor, instead of the limitation of spells per day while wearing Heavy armor.  Which happen to be identical.



> One doesn't remove the limitation of total hit points when wearing Mithral Armor.




No, indeed.  You don't remove it; rather, you use the limitation of total hit points while wearing Medium armor, instead of the limitation of total hit points while wearing Heavy armor.  Which happen to be identical.



> The sentence only applies to limitations *caused by* the wearing of the armor, not any other limitations caused by anything else.




I would say, rather, that the sentence only applies to limitations related to the category of the armor.

The limitation on which categories of armor a Greater Ironward Crystal can be applied to would be one such.



> "This crystal can only be applied to heavy armor" is not a limitation when wearing heavy armor, it is an advantage when wearing heavy armor. It is a limitation when *not* wearing heavy armor, but one is wearing heavy armor when wearing Mithral Full Plate.




For the purpose of limitations, one is not wearing heavy armor.  So if it's a limitation when not wearing heavy armor, that's what you're doing.



> If it is not a limitation caused by the wearing of the armor, it is not a limitation affected by that sentence.




It's a limitation caused by wearing medium armor.

-Hyp.


----------



## Deset Gled (Apr 10, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If you can afford it.
> If you can afford it.



I would consider 8000gp to be affordable around levels 12-13, and a drop in the bucket above level 17.


> It's WHAT? Impossible to steal? Why on earth would you think that?



 Sorry, my mistake.  Not impossible to steal.  Just much harder to steal than an ioun stone.




> It does not stack with another armor crystal, and the armor crystal is a new slot which can hold only one item.
> 
> ...
> 
> You just need to wrap your mind around there now being a new couple of slots - the armor crystal slot, and the weapon crystal slot.




Admittedly, this is a big part of it.  I'm not sold on it yet.  On paper, the mechanic of creating a new slot that works on top of another slot does not seem like a good idea to me.

Edit: /


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's a limitation caused by wearing medium armor.




But one is not wearing medium armor when wearing Mithral Full Plate.

One is wearing heavy armor "as if" it were a medium category. "as if" and "are" are two different things.

Mithral Full Plate looks like heavy. It sounds like heavy. Except for weight, it feels like heavy. It's AC (with also is not a limitation of wearing heavy) is like heavy.

Only *limitations* caused by wearing heavy armor are limitations that apply to heavy armor.


AC 8 applies to Full Plate. It does not apply to Medium Armors. Is this *ALSO* a limitation of medium armors? No. It is an *advantage* of Full Plate Armor, just like another advantage of full plate armor is that the greater iron ward diamond works with it.


A limitation in some other type of armor is not a limitation in heavy armor.


"John cannot legally vote for the President in the U.S. until he is 18.

John looks 16 and has the muscle reflexes "as if" he were 16 year olds.

If John is 18, he can still vote for President because although not voting at age 16 is a limitation of age 16, it is an advantage of age 18."


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> But one is not wearing medium armor when wearing Mithral Full Plate.




Yes, one is.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Apr 10, 2007)

This reminds me of the discussion about whether a monk's unarmed strikes meet the prerequisites for Improved Natural Attack!

Before we get into that, though; if someone has DR 3/- (adamantine armor, say) and has a crystal that grants 5/-, and takes 2 hp of damage from an arrow, is the reduction taken from the 3/- provided by the adamantine armor, or does it come from the crystal?


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> This reminds me of the discussion about whether a monk's unarmed strikes meet the prerequisites for Improved Natural Attack!
> 
> Before we get into that, though; if someone has DR 3/- (adamantine armor, say) and has a crystal that grants 5/-, and takes 2 hp of damage from an arrow, is the reduction taken from the 3/- provided by the adamantine armor, or does it come from the crystal?



 Actually, what the ironward diamond description says is "stacks with similar damage reduction granted by any other source". I would take "similar DR" to mean only DR X/-, like barbarian or adamantine DR.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Actually, what the ironward diamond description says is "stacks with similar damage reduction granted by any other source". I would take "similar DR" to mean only DR X/-, like barbarian DR. So adamantine DR wouldn't stack.




Adamantine armor DR is x/-.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> This reminds me of the discussion about whether a monk's unarmed strikes meet the prerequisites for Improved Natural Attack!
> 
> Before we get into that, though; if someone has DR 3/- (adamantine armor, say) and has a crystal that grants 5/-, and takes 2 hp of damage from an arrow, is the reduction taken from the 3/- provided by the adamantine armor, or does it come from the crystal?




The ruling in the FAQ regarding the order spells happen leaves it up to the character. I'd follow that with the crystal too, and let the player opt to have it come off the armor's DR first.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Adamantine armor DR is x/-.



 Yes, you have spotted my DELIBERATE MISTAKE!

... what were we talking about?


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes, one is.




Only for the purposes of movement and limitations, not advantages.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Admittedly, this is a big part of it.  I'm not sold on it yet.  On paper, the mechanic of creating a new slot that works on top of another slot does not seem like a good idea to me.




Most of the crystals are pretty good, and don't seem too cheap for the benefit. It's only a couple of problem children like this one, and the weapon crystal that lets you crit/SA undead for 10000 gp, that provoke debate.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Only for the purposes of movement and limitations, not advantages.



 The greater ironward diamond has the limitation that it's heavy armour only.

NEXT!


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Most of the crystals are pretty good, and don't seem too cheap for the benefit. It's only a couple of problem children like this one, and the weapon crystal that lets you crit/SA undead for 10000 gp, that provoke debate.




That one is definitely beefy, but in it's case that requirement for a +3 enhancement is a definitely drawback. There are countless +1 and +2 weapon enhancements better than a mere +1-2 to hit and damage.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Mithral Full Plate looks like heavy. It sounds like heavy. Except for weight, it feels like heavy. It's AC (with also is not a limitation of wearing heavy) is like heavy.
> 
> Only *limitations* caused by wearing heavy armor are limitations that apply to heavy armor.




Right.  And limitations caused by wearing medium armor are limitations that apply to medium armor.  For the purpose of limitations, Mithral Full Plate is Medium armor.



> AC 8 applies to Full Plate. It does not apply to Medium Armors. Is this *ALSO* a limitation of medium armors? No. It is an *advantage* of Full Plate Armor, just like another advantage of full plate armor is that the greater iron ward diamond works with it.




But couldn't it be said that Fast Movement is an advantage of no, light, or medium armor, rather than a limitation of heavy armor, and therefore a barbarian in Mithral Full Plate doesn't get it?  After all, the Mithral clause only applies to limitations, not advantages.  And Fast Movement explicitly phrases it in a positive form ("This benefit applies only when he is wearing no armor, light armor, or medium armor"), not in a negative form ("This benefit does not apply when he is wearing heavy armor"), which supports the idea that it is an advantage not a limitation.



> "John cannot legally vote for the President in the U.S. until he is 18.
> 
> John looks 16 and has the muscle reflexes "as if" he were 16 year olds.
> 
> If John is 18, he can still vote for President because although not voting at age 16 is a limitation of age 16, it is an advantage of age 18."




Certainly.  But muscles and looks are irrelevant.  If John, despite being 18, were legally considered to be 16 for the purpose of limitations, he would not be permitted to vote... because you-can't-vote is a limitation that applies to 16 year olds.

-Hyp.


----------



## brehobit (Apr 10, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> That one is definitely beefy, but in it's case that requirement for a +3 enhancement is a definitely drawback. There are countless +1 and +2 weapon enhancements better than a mere +1-2 to hit and damage.



Really?  In core I can't think of one that is better.  Bane is _really_ nice, but highly limited.  Flame and the other elemental damage are actually pretty weak.  Holy is nice, but again somewhat limited.

What's that good?  I always take the pure +'s when building a higher level character.

Mark


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 10, 2007)

Do you guys really think "can it be used with Mithral full plate" is the heart of this issue?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 10, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Do you guys really think "can it be used with Mithral full plate" is the heart of this issue?




Well, it's the Rules issue.

"Is the cost appropriate?" doesn't have a black and white answer.  "Can a Greater Ironward Diamond be used with Mithral Full Plate?" does... we're just arguing about what that answer is 

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Really?  In core I can't think of one that is better.  Bane is _really_ nice, but highly limited.  Flame and the other elemental damage are actually pretty weak.  Holy is nice, but again somewhat limited.
> 
> What's that good?  I always take the pure +'s when building a higher level character.
> 
> Mark




You can't just look at core. At the very least you should also consider the things that are in MIC. 

but looking at just core: Holy, in most situations, is better than +2 to hit and damage. For a rogue (the guy that likes to sneak attack undead) Bane (Undead) is better than +1 to hit and damage). For most folks Ghost Touch is better than +1 to hit and damage. All sorts of crazy combos work off of Spell Storing.

Moving to add in MIC: With the right build Charging is better than +1 to hit and damage. Hunting (again with the right build) is better than +1 to hit and damage. Impaling is better than +1 to hit and damage.If you've got more than one nuker in the party, Shattermantle is insanely better than +1 to hit and damage. Vampiric can be much better than +2 to hit and damage, trading 3 points of damage (assuming max power attack) for 3 points of healing. A Rod of Enervating Strike is better than a +3 Heavy Mace against most creatures, and insanely better than the mace if the wielder is undead.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 10, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, it's the Rules issue.
> 
> "Is the cost appropriate?" doesn't have a black and white answer.  "Can a Greater Ironward Diamond be used with Mithral Full Plate?" does... we're just arguing about what that answer is
> 
> -Hyp.




Don't get me wrong, I am enjoying the argument.  I think it's a weird and mostly pointless discussion, but it's still enjoyable.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Right. And limitations caused by wearing medium armor are limitations that apply to medium armor. For the purpose of limitations, Mithral Full Plate is Medium armor.




It doesn't matter how you slice it Hyp.

A limitation due to wearing medium armor (cannot be used with the crystal) is not a limitation due to wearing heavy armor.

I am stating that the sentence:



> Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations.




with reference to Mithral Full Plate means:



> Mithral full plate is one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations *caused by the wearing of full plate*.




No other limitations for no other reason. Only those limitations that occur to the wearer due to the fact that he is wearing full plate.


Use of the greater ironward diamond is not a limitation of wearing full plate (it's an advantage over medium armor if used).

AC 8 (for the armor alone) is not a limitation of wearing full plate (but is achieved by doing so and is an advantage over medium armor).


Lack of use of the greater ironward diamond is a limitation of wearing medium armor.

Lack of AC 8 (for the armor alone) is a limitation of wearing medium armor.


Taking your (inverted) interpretation (of what is an advantage and what is a limitation) to its semantical conclusion, the fact that medium armor has a max (mundane) AC of 5 is a limitation of medium armor and therefore, Mithral Full Plate does not have an AC of 8. Because according to you, "For the purpose of limitations, Mithral Full Plate is Medium armor.". Any limitation. Even those of medium armors.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Lack of use of the greater ironward diamond is a limitation of wearing medium armor.




The greater ironward diamond has the limitation that it's heavy armour only.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The greater ironward diamond has the limitation that it's heavy armour only.




Precisely.

But that is not a limitation of wearing heavy armor. It is an advantage of wearing heavy armor.

Just like AC 8 is an advantage of wearing full plate armor.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Precisely.




Precisely.



> But that is not a limitation of wearing heavy armor.




But it is a limitation of the ironward diamond.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> But it is a limitation of the ironward diamond.




So what? It's a limitation for non-heavy armor, not a limitation of wearing heavy armor.


What are the limitations of wearing heavy armor? x, y, z

Is the limitation of the ironward diamond a limitation of wearing heavy armor? No. It is an advantage of wearing heavy armor. If one wears heavy armor, he can use the diamond.

Then, it is not an aspect for which heavy mithral armor is considered medium.


The flaw in Hyp's (and your) logic is that you are assuming that Mithral Full Plate is Medium Armor in all ways, shapes, and forms, and hence, a limitation to medium armor applies to this armor. But, Mithral Full Plate is not medium armor. It is still full plate. It is treated as medium armor for the purposes of movement and limitations of wearing heavy armor, but it is not medium armor.

For example, it is not medium armor with regard to AC since AC is not a limitation of wearing full plate.


It amazes me that people think an advantage of wearing heavy armor like the diamond is a limitation.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So what? It's a limitation for non-heavy armor, not a limitation of wearing heavy armor.




No, it's a limitation of the ironward diamond.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, it's a limitation of the ironward diamond.




Yes it is. Again, so what?

Mithral Full Plate is not Medium Armor.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Yes it is. Again, so what?
> 
> Mithral Full Plate is not Medium Armor.



 Yes it is, for the purpose of limitations.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes it is, for the purpose of limitations.




For the purposes of limitations of wearing heavy armor.

Not for the purposes of limitations of wearing medium armor.

AC is a limitation of wearing medium armor. Are you claiming that (non-magical) Mithral Full Plate has a max AC of 5?


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> For the purposes of limitations of wearing heavy armor.
> 
> Not for the purposes of limitations of wearing medium armor.




Nobody said anything about limitations of wearing medium armour.



> AC is a limitation of wearing medium armor.




No, AC is a property of armour.


----------



## MarkB (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> For the purposes of limitations of wearing heavy armor.



No, for the purposes of _any_ limitations applicable to the wearing of that armour - and the limitation on the Ironward crystal is quite certainly applicable.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> AC is a limitation of wearing medium armor.




No, it isn't.  There's no rule that says "Medium Armor may not have an armor bonus greater than +5".

There's a rule that says Hide Armor has an armor bonus of +3, that Scale Mail has an armor bonus of +4, and that Chainmail and Breastplates have an armor bonus of +5.  But no rule saying that no Medium Armor could exceed this.

The absence of a Medium Armor in the PHB that _does_ is not a limitation of the category.



> I am stating that the sentence:
> Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations.
> with reference to Mithral Full Plate means:
> Mithral full plate is one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations caused by the wearing of full plate.




And I'm stating that you're making that up, because "and other limitations" is not so restricted.

"A Greater Ironward Diamond may only be applied to heavy armor" is an other limitation.  For the purposes of other limitations, mithral full plate is not heavy armor; therefore for the purpose of the "Greater Ironward Diamond may only be applied to heavy armor" limitation, it is not heavy armor.

Do you feel that a Barbarian wearing Mithral Full Plate benefits from Fast Movement (Ex)?  Do you feel that an Bard suffers Arcane Spell Failure while wearing Mithral Scale Mail?  Do you feel that a Ranger retains his Combat Style while wearing a Mithral Breastplate?

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Do you feel that a Barbarian wearing Mithral Full Plate benefits from Fast Movement (Ex)? Do you feel that an Bard suffers Arcane Spell Failure while wearing Mithral Scale Mail? Do you feel that a Ranger retains his Combat Style while wearing a Mithral Breastplate?




Those are limitations of the normal versions of those armors.

Greater Ironward Diamond is not a limitation of the normal version of heavy armor. It's actually an advantage.


I understand how you are getting to where you are getting, but I do not quite understand how to explain how backwards that is.

If one were to write a computer program to handle mithral armor, one would list all of the limitations of full plate armor and adjust those limitations accordingly when applying mithral.

One would not convert full plate armor to medium armor first, check the list of limitations of medium armor, and then put those down as the list of limitations.


The word "limitations" in the rule refers to the original category of the armor, not the new category of armor. The limitations being modified by all of the mithral rules are the original limitations.

For example, one adds two to the max dex bonus of the original armor's max dex bonus when making it mithral.



From my perspective, your interpretation is a semantical game on the word "limitation". Greater Ironward Diamond is not a limitation when applied to Full Plate Armor, hence, that rule does not apply. It's a limitation to wearing light or medium armor, but that's irrelevant to whether it is a limitation to wearing Full Plate Armor. It's not.

Instead of:

List limitations of heavy armor. Adjust all of those to medium armor values as per rules.

Your interpretation is:

Adjust all aspects of heavy armor to medium armor values. Check to see if any are limitations of medium armor as well. If so, adjust them again.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Greater Ironward Diamond is not a limitation of the normal version of heavy armor. It's actually an advantage.




No, it's a limitation of the ironward diamond.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

Karinsdad, beyond "I'm adding this phrase" which you've already admitted to doing, do you have anything? If not, you're not going to change anyone's minds by repeating yourself when the arguments didn't work the first time around.


----------



## boolean (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Mithral Full Plate is not Medium Armor.



Many sources indicate that WotC disagrees with you.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, it's a limitation of the ironward diamond.




With respect to non-heavy armor. Not with respect to heavy armor.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> With respect to non-heavy armor. Not with respect to heavy armor.



 No, it's a limitation of the ironward diamond.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

boolean said:
			
		

> Many sources indicate that WotC disagrees with you.




Many?

Could you perhaps list 3? Preferably from WotC themselves?


Where is there a stance by WotC that mithral full plate is medium armor?


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Where is there a stance by WotC that mithral full plate is medium armor?




Where is there a stance by WotC that it isn't?


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Where is there a stance by WotC that it isn't?




RAW. Core rules state that it is treated as medium under certain circumstances. It does not state under all circumstances.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

I'll ask again, since it seems to have been lost in the back and forth repetitiveness:



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> Karinsdad, beyond "I'm adding this phrase" which you've already admitted to doing, do you have anything?


----------



## Cheiromancer (Apr 10, 2007)

Say a greater ironward diamond is applied to a set of mithral full plate.  The question is, what DR does the wielder get?  The possible answers are

1. DR 5/-.  The mithral full plate retains the advantages of being heavy armor, and one of those advantages is getting full DR from the GID.

2. DR 3/-. The mithral full plate has the limitations of medium armor, and one of those limitations is that you get DR 3/- from the GID (it acts like a lesser ironward diamond when attached to medium armor).

Is this a correct summary?  If so, what about this third possibility:

3. DR 8/-.  The benefit of being heavy armor stacks with the limitation of being medium armor.  Both 1 and 2 are simultaneously true.  Since the DR of a GID stacks with comparable DRs, both 1 and 2 apply.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 10, 2007)

Well even if you can't attach the GIWD, you can always do the next one down, and have mithral full plate with 3/- DR...the best of both materials.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Well even if you can't attach the GIWD, you can always do the next one down, and have mithral full plate with 3/- DR...the best of both materials.




And the base armor (not including the +3 enhancement bonus) is comparable in price to adamantine armor by itself. No MIC handy to tell the exact price on the middle level crystal, so I don't know how close to equal they are.


----------



## MarkB (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Many?
> 
> Could you perhaps list 3? Preferably from WotC themselves?
> 
> ...



From the 3.5 FAQ:

*Is a character proficient with light armor, such as a
rogue, considered to be proficient with mithral breastplate?
What about a character proficient with medium armor,
such as a barbarian—is he considered proficient with
mithral full plate armor?*
The description of mithral on page 284 of the Dungeon
Master’s Guide is less precise than it could be in defining how
it interacts with armor proficiency rules. The simplest answer—
and the one that the Sage expects most players and DMs use—
is that mithral armor is treated as one category lighter *for all
purposes*, including proficiency. This isn’t exactly what the
Dungeon Master’s Guide says, but it’s a reasonable
interpretation of the intent of the rule (and it’s supported by a
number of precedents, including the descriptions of various
specific mithral armors described on page 220 of the Dungeon
Master’s Guide and a variety of NPC stat blocks).​
I've highlighted the relevant part of the answer.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

MarkB said:
			
		

> From the 3.5 FAQ:
> 
> Is a character proficient with light armor, such as a
> rogue, considered to be proficient with mithral breastplate?
> ...




I've highlighted the relevant part of the answer.

The point is that RAW does not directly support this interpretation and WotC has yet to errata it. Your own quote here even admits to that.

And the NPC stat blocks and the specific mithral armors described in the DMG support RAW as much as they support this interpretation (i.e. there is no differences between the two for what is written for these).


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

LOL, another "Sure, WotC added it to the official FAQ, as their official response to a frequently asked question, but it's not really official" post.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 10, 2007)

Yeah I am also getting tired of the "If it's not in a core book or errata, it doesn't count" response.

We are discussing an item in a new book.  The book is not a core book.  If the FAQ isn't official, then neither is this item.  If this item is official, then so is the FAQ.  We are fortunate to be playing in a game that is actively supported with a FAQ.  We can discuss when the FAQ is clearly contradictory to a core rule, but in this case it isn't clear (because the core rule is vague).  I really wish everyones default would be to agree with the FAQ unless there is a clear contradiction.  If it's a vague rule, and the FAQ settles the vagueness, we should go with the FAQ.  There should be a presumption that the FAQ is correct on a given ruling until proven otherwise, and not the other way around.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 10, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I really wish everyones default would be to agree with the FAQ unless there is a clear contradiction.  If it's a vague rule, and the FAQ settles the vagueness, we should go with the FAQ.  There should be a presumption that the FAQ is correct on a given ruling until proven otherwise, and not the other way around.




Amen!! If the FAQ comes out with something blatantly wrong, the rule bloodhounds on these boards will sniff it out within 2 days of it coming out. But for a situation that is vague, I think it makes more sense to trust in something created by the people who made the game then just toss it out as irrelevant.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Amen!! If the FAQ comes out with something blatantly wrong, the rule bloodhounds on these boards will sniff it out within 2 *minutes* of it coming out.




Fixed it for you.


----------



## Deset Gled (Apr 10, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> LOL, another "Sure, WotC added it to the official FAQ, as their official response to a frequently asked question, but it's not really official" post.






			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yeah I am also getting tired of the "If it's not in a core book or errata, it doesn't count" response.




This arguement would probably work a lot better if the FAQ didn't specifically say that it was not giving a hard answer in this case.  The FAQ was, by it's own admission, merely stating one possible interpretation.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 10, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> This arguement would probably work a lot better if the FAQ didn't specifically say that it was not giving a hard answer in this case.  The FAQ was, by it's own admission, merely stating one possible interpretation.




The FAQ says it is:

1) The simplest answer;
2) The answer that the Sage expects most players and DMs use;
3) A reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rule;
4) An interpretation supported by a number of precedents, including the descriptions of various
specific mithral armors described on page 220 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide and a variety of NPC stat blocks.

Baring clear evidence to the contrary, we should just go with this intepretation of a vague rule.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The FAQ says it is:
> 
> 1) The simplest answer;
> 2) The answer that the Sage expects most players and DMs use;
> ...




1 is probable
2 is irrelevant
3 is reasonable
4 is not supportable (the alternative interpretation is supported by those examples as well)

and

5 Not what the DMG says

Effectively what the FAQ is saying is that it is making a slight adjustment to the DMG rules for the following reasons, the most important of which the author did not even list. The most important reason is so that people consider it medium armor in order to quickly adjudicate armor limitation questions.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Baring clear evidence to the contrary, we should just go with this intepretation of a vague rule.




I do not disagree given a FAQ ruling. I just happen to think that this interpretation is not what RAW states. It is, however, a ruling that makes adjudication consistent.

And, original RAW does not seem that vague (until the diamond question came up). Sure, someone asked the Sage about it for other reasons, but were you really confused about any aspect of it before then?


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

Nope, and I wasn't confused by any aspect of it afterwards either.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

I will ask a third time though, after which I give up: do you have anything beyond your admitted adding of a phrase that doesn't exist which backs your claim that "limitations" only means "limitations naturally inherent to heavy armor"?


----------



## IcyCool (Apr 10, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yeah I am also getting tired of the "If it's not in a core book or errata, it doesn't count" response.




Wouldn't it make sense to lobby for WotC to remove the primary source rule rather than get frustrated with the people who are trying to follow the rule?



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Baring clear evidence to the contrary, we should just go with this intepretation of a vague rule.




Why?  If I'm playing by the rules, and this rule is vague (with no official errata), are my own judgements not to be trusted?  Why is the Sage's house rule any better than mine?


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 10, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it make sense to lobby for WotC to remove the primary source rule rather than get frustrated with the people who are trying to follow the rule?




We are talking about a vague rule.  No need to be obtuse about it.



> Why?  If I'm playing by the rules, and this rule is vague (with no official errata), are my own judgements not to be trusted?  Why is the Sage's house rule any better than mine?




Your own judgement is definitely to be trusted for your game.  But I think if the question is "what is the official rule on this question" then the answer should be the FAQ instead of your own judgement unless there are two CLEAR (not vague) official rules that also clearly (not vaguely) contradict each other.

In this case, the sage is not offerring a house rule in my opinion.  I understand that KarinsDad has taken "not what the DMG says" to mean "not what the DMG means", but I disagree on that count.  The DMG says something vague, and that is what I think was meant by the "not what the DMG says".  I do not think "not what the DMG says" meant "I am intentionally contradicting what the DMG says".  Do you?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If one were to write a computer program to handle mithral armor, one would list all of the limitations of full plate armor and adjust those limitations accordingly when applying mithral.




Would one?

I'd write a list of all the limitations of heavy armor, and a list of all the limitations of medium armor, and switch the armor from looking at the first list to looking at the second list.

Since it stops being treated as heavy armor for the purpose of limitations (so the first list is no longer relevant), and starts being treated as medium armor for the purpose of limitations, only the limitations of medium armor are relevant.  And one of the limitations of medium armor is that the Greater Ironward Diamond doesn't work.

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

I'd just typecast the limitations object to Heavy instead of Medium and avoid the need for pointers altogether.


----------



## IcyCool (Apr 10, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> We are talking about a vague rule.  No need to be obtuse about it.




That certainly seems like a non-answer.  Maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying though.  The Errata is separate from the FAQ, and WotC themselves tell us to value the Errata and primary source over other sources (of which the FAQ would be one).

I don't understand the obtuse comment.  From my understanding of the definitions of the word, you are either calling me "an angle between 90 to 180 degrees", "rounded at the tip", or insulting me.  If it is one of the first two, could you explain what you meant?



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Your own judgement is definitely to be trusted for your game.  But I think if the question is "what is the official rule on this question" then the answer should be the FAQ instead of your own judgement unless there are two CLEAR (not vague) official rules that also clearly (not vaguely) contradict each other.




Well, if the FAQ is the primary source for the rule, then most certainly it should be used.  Otherwise it is merely the "official clarification", which may or may not be useful to some folks.  In some cases, it's highly useful.  In others, where the FAQ calls out that it is merely making an educated recommendation, it may be less useful.

YMMV, as always.

_Edit - Btw, I believe that the armor table in Races of the Wild includes mithril armor on it, and each of the mithril armors is listed under the category one lower than it's normal type (mithril plate is listed under medium armor, etc).  So if you are looking for a hard and fast rule on it, that might be a stronger approach.

Edit, the second - Yep, it's on page 168 in Races of the Wild.  Of course, Skip Williams was a major contributor to that book, so those who dislike him personally still might not listen to you. _


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I will ask a third time though, after which I give up: do you have anything beyond your admitted adding of a phrase that doesn't exist which backs your claim that "limitations" only means "limitations naturally inherent to heavy armor"?




My exact words were "limitations of wearing heavy armor".

Do you have anything to back up an interpretation that "limitations" means "any limitations in the entire game system"?


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> That certainly seems like a non-answer.  Maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying though.




I believe the point was that primary source rules can't apply when asking a question that isn't clearly answered by the primary source.


----------



## IcyCool (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> My exact words were "limitations of wearing heavy armor".
> 
> Do you have anything to back up an interpretation that "limitations" means "any limitations in the entire game system"?




KarinsDad, if you take the Armor chart on page 168 of Races of the Wild into account, does that change anything for you?

_Edit:_



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> I believe the point was that primary source rules can't apply when asking a question that isn't clearly answered by the primary source.




I agree with this statement.

However, my comment (the one that Mistwell quoted) was in reference to Mistwell's "frustrated with people who dismiss the FAQ" comment.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 10, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> That certainly seems like a non-answer.  Maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying though.  The Errata is separate from the FAQ, and WotC themselves tell us to value the Errata and primary source over other sources (of which the FAQ would be one).




I think you are being intentionally obtuse, as in intentionally not getting it.  You know a core rules and primary sources argument is only useful if those rules are not vague, but clear.  If there is a question about those rules, you go to the FAQ.  Which is why it is a subject that needs clarification.  That's the purpose of turning to a frequently asked questions list - it's something that has raised a question often, and could use clarification.

If the core rules primary source arguement were valid in these kinds of cases, you would never, EVER, be able to refer to the FAQ.



> I don't understand the obtuse comment.  From my understanding of the definitions of the word, you are either calling me "an angle between 90 to 180 degrees", "rounded at the tip", or insulting me.  If it is one of the first two, could you explain what you meant?




Perfect example of what I mean when I say you are being intentionally obtuse.  You know I am not calling you an angle.  I was not insulting you, just pointing out I think you are intentionally not discussing the issue at hand to be cutesey about it.  Much like the "angle" comment you just made - cutsey.

I appreciate that you are trying to keep things lighthearted.  But there was no reason for the "people are just trying to follow the rules and maybe you should lobby WOTC to change thing" comment.  That was a dig, and you know it.



> Well, if the FAQ is the primary source for the rule, then most certainly it should be used.  Otherwise it is merely the "official clarification", which may or may not be useful to some folks.  In some cases, it's highly useful.  In others, where the FAQ calls out that it is merely making an educated recommendation, it may be less useful.
> 
> YMMV, as always.




The FAQ is an official source.  It is no more or less official than the source that gives that primary source rule you like so much.  It is not written by different people, or intended to have a different hierarchy of meaning to players and DMs.  Both sets of writings are intended to be helpful to players and DMs in figuring out the rules.  When a rule in a source is vague, the FAQ tries to clarify it.  You are of course always free to use your own judgement, but I think when people ask "What is the official ruling on this issue" we should go with what the FAQ suggests unless there is a clearly contradictory rule in the books, as opposed to in our personal opinions.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 10, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> However, my comment (the one that Mistwell quoted) was in reference to Mistwell's "frustrated with people who dismiss the FAQ" comment.




Woah now, that is out of context.  I was specific.  I said:



> Yeah I am also getting tired of the "If it's not in a core book or errata, it doesn't count" response....We can discuss when the FAQ is clearly contradictory to a core rule, but in this case it isn't clear (because the core rule is vague). I really wish everyones default would be to agree with the FAQ unless there is a clear contradiction. If it's a vague rule, and the FAQ settles the vagueness, we should go with the FAQ. There should be a presumption that the FAQ is correct on a given ruling until proven otherwise, and not the other way around.




I am not frustrated with people who dismiss the FAQ, when such dismissal is appropriate (like when the rule was clear all along).  I am tired of people dismissing the FAQ in situations where the FAQ is most useful, which is when we have a rule that is vague and not easily resolved by the rules as written.


----------



## IcyCool (Apr 10, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If the core rules primary source arguement were valid in these kinds of cases, you would never, EVER, be able to refer to the FAQ.




Agreed.  It also has very little to do with my comment.  Perhaps you missed the comment of yours that I responded to?



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Perfect example of what I mean when I say you are being intentionally obtuse.  You know I am not calling you an angle.




I had gathered.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I was not insulting you, just pointing out I think you are intentionally not discussing the issue at hand to be cutesey about it.  Much like the "angle" comment you just made - cutsey.




Actually, I had to look up "obtuse", because I couldn't think of any other definition other than "angle" at the time.  That's where I noticed that it also means "lacking insight" or "lacking intellectual acuity".  I couldn't tell from your tone if you were being insulting, or playing with the word.  Being cutesy, if you will.  At any rate, that confusion is now past, and hopefully you will see that I was addressing your comment about being frustrated with people who dismiss the FAQ.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I appreciate that you are trying to keep things lighthearted.  But there was no reason for the "people are just trying to follow the rules and maybe you should lobby WOTC to change thing" comment.  That was a dig, and you know it.




No, it wasn't a dig.  I didn't say "people are just trying to follow the *rules*" (implying that you weren't following any rules), I said they were "trying to follow the *rule*" (specifically referring to the primary source rule).  You stated that you were getting tired of people dismissing the FAQ.  I suggested a way to get what you seemed to want, people to stop dismissing the FAQ.  I did not state or imply that you don't follow the *rules*.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> The FAQ is an official source.  It is no more or less official than the source that gives that primary source rule you like so much.  It is not written by different people, or intended to have a different hierarchy of meaning to players and DMs.  Both sets of writings are intended to be helpful to players and DMs in figuring out the rules.  When a rule in a source is vague, the FAQ tries to clarify it.  You are of course always free to use your own judgement, but I think when people ask "What is the official ruling on this issue" we should go with what the FAQ suggests unless there is a clearly contradictory rule in the books, as opposed to in our personal opinions.




Agreed.  And the primary source rule doesn't take effect unless the FAQ disagrees with a primary source.  

As has been pointed out *in this case*, the FAQ doesn't make a "ruling", it makes a suggestion.  So if someone were to ask, "What is the official ruling on this issue", we should state that there isn't an official ruling, but the FAQ has a good/bad suggestion on the matter.


----------



## IcyCool (Apr 10, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I am not frustrated with people who dismiss the FAQ, when such dismissal is appropriate (like when the rule was clear all along).  I am tired of people dismissing the FAQ in situations where the FAQ is most useful, which is when we have a rule that is vague and not easily resolved by the rules as written.




Well heck.  That's totally my bad.  You're right, I yanked that comment out of context.

Actually, I suspect you and I agree on the matter.

_Edit - I think it was the fact that the "dismiss the FAQ" comment was an entirely separate paragraph that threw me._


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 10, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> KarinsDad, if you take the Armor chart on page 168 of Races of the Wild into account, does that change anything for you?




Sorry IC. I don't have that book. What are you referring to?


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Sorry IC. I don't have that book. What are you referring to?




It is a chart that lists various unusual armors.  It is organized like the PHB armor chart (Light armor, and a listing of those armors, Medium armor and a listing of those, and heavy armor and a listing of those).

Mithril full plate is listed under the Medium armor category.  So is Mithril half-plate, splint mail, and banded mail.


----------



## IcyCool (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Sorry IC. I don't have that book. What are you referring to?




On that page, it lists a number of new armors, as well as mithril versions of all the armors in the PHB.  Each of the mithril armors are listed under the category one lighter than normal.  So, the list of light and medium armors includes the following:

*LIGHT ARMOR*:
Mithril Chain Shirt
Mithril Scale Mail
Mithril Chainmail
Mithril Breastplate

*MEDIUM ARMOR*:
Mithril Splint Mail
Mithril Banded-Mail
Mithril Half-Plate
Mithril Full-Plate


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

Sounds like a clencher to me.


----------



## IcyCool (Apr 10, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Sounds like a clencher to me.




A clincher even.


----------



## Wish (Apr 10, 2007)

*redacted*


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> A clincher even.




Aren't they the same thing?


----------



## IcyCool (Apr 10, 2007)

I may have had some word trouble in this thread thus far, but I'm not completely off my rocker just yet. 



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> Aren't they the same thing?




Similar.  But clench sounds more like a bathroom function than clinch. 

And a clincher is:

"a statement, argument, fact, situation, or the like, that is decisive or conclusive"

But the Races of the Wild Armor Chart is hardly conclusive evidence.  Especially if Karin'sDad doesn't think there is ambiguity in the mithril rule.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2007)

That he has to add words that don't exist point fairly strongly towards ambiguity.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 10, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> My exact words were "limitations of wearing heavy armor".
> 
> Do you have anything to back up an interpretation that "limitations" means "any limitations in the entire game system"?




The thing is, if we apply it to "any limitations in the entire game system", it has zero effect in all cases except where "a limitation related to heavy armor" and "a limitation related to medium armor" are different.  So there's no problem with assuming that "limitations" means "limitations", and not "limitations of wearing heavy armor but not limitations of wearing medium armor", because taking it to mean "limitations", as it says, automatically includes the limitations that matter, and has no effect on the limitations that don't.

A good cleric cannot cast an [Evil] spell.  This is a limitation.

If he's wearing heavy armor, he cannot cast an [Evil] spell.  If he's wearing medium armor, he cannot cast an [Evil] spell.  It doesn't matter whether his armor is considered heavy or medium, the limitation is unaffected.

A barbarian cannot use Fast Movement in heavy armor.  This is a limitation.  A barbarian can use Fast Movement in medium armor.  It matters whether his armor is considered heavy or medium for the purpose of this limitation.  It is considered Medium, as Mithral Full Plate, so the limitation does not apply.

A Greater Ironward Diamond cannot be applied to medium armor.  This is a limitation.  A Greater Ironward Diamond can be applied to heavy armor.  It matters whether the armor is considered heavy or medium for the purpose of this limitation.  It is considered Medium, as Mithral Full Plate, so the limitation applies.

-Hyp.


----------



## MarkB (Apr 11, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The point is that RAW does not directly support this interpretation and WotC has yet to errata it. Your own quote here even admits to that.



The RAW don't directly substantiate this interpretation, but they certainly provide support for it. The point is, that line is open to interpretation, and even WotC's own staff think it's more reasonable to interpret it as widely as possible - that mithral medium and heavy armour is considered one step lighter _for all purposes_ - than to interpret it as narrowly as possible, as you are doing.

Either interpretation requires that one extrapolates from the bare "for purposes of movement and other limitations" line.

WotC's interpretation has the advantage of causing fewer inconsistencies, and being far easier to use in actual play.

Your interpretation has the advantage of... letting you use this particular item on mithral full plate. That aside, it's hard to see any merit in it - it doesn't seem to make gameplay any smoother, nor does it seem - to the majority of posters in this thread, or to the people who wrote the game - to be a logical and consistent extrapolation of the rules.


----------



## Wish (Apr 11, 2007)

Didn't we have this argument back in 2004 when Races of Stone was published with its "Heavy Armor Optimization" feats?


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> RAW. Core rules state that it is treated as medium under certain circumstances. It does not state under all circumstances.



 Where is there a stance by WotC that it isn't, as opposed to a not-stance that it is?


----------



## Cheiromancer (Apr 11, 2007)

Wish said:
			
		

> Didn't we have this argument back in 2004 when Races of Stone was published with its "Heavy Armor Optimization" feats?




Here's a pretty complete discussion: Mithral Armor


----------



## epochrpg (Apr 11, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> It's an armour crystal, which means it sits on your armour. You can only use one armour crystal at a time, but you can swap them in and out.




The way I am handling it, is that the armor crystals must be worn for 24 hours before they give their benefit.  Thus, a person could not use up their 10 attacks worth of the ironward diamond, then change the batteries on their armor by swapping it out for a fresh IWD.  If they take their IWD off, and put on another armor crystal, that crystal doesn't take effect for 24 hours-- and the IWD they took off won't for another 24 hours after they put it back on.  So there won't be too much munchkining of the IWD.

One of my players has the Lesser IWD btw, and has been grateful for it!


----------



## glass (Apr 11, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Unless they meant to distinguish an actual enhancement bonus (which Magic Vestment provides for a limited time) from a market price modifier...



That would be my reading of it. Under a magical vestment spell cast at the relevant level, its actual bonus is +3.


glass.


----------



## glass (Apr 11, 2007)

Lots of replies. FWIW, I don't consider the DMG remotely vague on this issue.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yeah I am also getting tired of the "If it's not in a core book or errata, it doesn't count" response.



But it doesn't! And I am getting tired of people insisting that it does.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I am not frustrated with people who dismiss the FAQ, when such dismissal is appropriate



I'll leave people to make up their own punchlines... 



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> Sounds like a clencher to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd say JM has it right... Using a non-primary-source 3.0 book isn't going to clinch anything.


glass.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 11, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> I'd say JM has it right... Using a non-primary-source 3.0 book isn't going to clinch anything.




Please don't take the use of an e instead of an i as a complete reverseal of position. 

It's completely and utterly plain from the FAQ combined with RotW that WotC deems Mithral Full Plate as medium armor. There's no primary source concerns because there's no contradiction: the FAQ says it's vague and offers an official way out, and RotW makes it fully official by outright declaring that mithral full plate is medium armor.

And again, what's the difference other than making a crystal that a lot of people seem to think is too powerful even more powerful by letting you wear it with mithral full plate?


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 11, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> I'd say JM has it right... Using a non-primary-source 3.0 book isn't going to clinch anything




Races of the Wild is a 3.5 book.

The Magic Item Compendium also lists Mithral Full Plate as a medium armor, in the very beginning of the armor section.


----------



## IcyCool (Apr 11, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> I'd say JM has it right... Using a non-primary-source 3.0 book isn't going to clinch anything.




What 3.0 book?  Races of the Wild is one of the 3.5 "Races of" books.  _Masters_ of the Wild was the 3.0 Druid/Ranger/Barbarian book.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 11, 2007)

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> The Magic Item Compendium also lists Mithral Full Plate as a medium armor, in the very beginning of the armor section.




And the evidence mounts. LOL


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 11, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> But it doesn't! And I am getting tired of people insisting that it does.




So in your games, if a person loses a prerequisite to a prestige class they already have levels in, they do not lose any abilities of the prestige class?  Because that isn't a rule in any core rulebook or errata.  It is only in the Complete Warrior and books that came after that.

And while we are at it, I guess you have no swift or immediate actions in your games as well, because that too isn't in core or errata.

I am betting you DO count those rules, and hence don't actually agree with your own statement.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 11, 2007)

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> The Magic Item Compendium also lists Mithral Full Plate as a medium armor, in the very beginning of the armor section.




Then I think for the purpose of evaluating the behaviour of _an item in the MIC_ - like the Greater Ironward Diamond, to pick a random example - it's sensible to consider it medium armor.

Which would mean, in this case, no GID for mithral full plate.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Apr 12, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> PS: Don't forget the other goodies that this one gets over _stoneskin_. Use-activation and duration of 1 day are both pretty sweet, and IMHO the effect balances out overall -- as a player, I'd happily accept a half-strength no-cost _stoneskin_ that lasted all day, so I wouldn't have to waste an action at the start of combat.




Exactly my point.  To many melee characters, this item would be a bargain at 20,000gp.


----------



## glass (Apr 12, 2007)

*lots and lots of replies*



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> Please don't take the use of an e instead of an i as a complete reverseal of position.



I was joking. You know, toilet humour... 



			
				chaotix42 said:
			
		

> Races of the Wild is a 3.5 book.



Of course it is. Sorry, I was thinking of Masters of the Wild for some reason.  

None the less, we still have the primary source issues: both core vs supplement and table vs text.



			
				James McMurray[QUOTE=chaotix42 said:
			
		

> The Magic Item Compendium also lists Mithral Full Plate as a medium armor, in the very beginning of the armor section.



]And the evidence mounts. LOL[/QUOTE]Another supplement, which also can't override the core. It's not evidence, its a mistake.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> And while we are at it, I guess you have no swift or immediate actions in your games as well, because that too isn't in core or errata.



Yes, I do. Where in the PHB does it say that swift actions don't exist? It doesn't. Where is the contradiction?

If you use swift actions, then the description of them is part of the RAW. If you don't it is irrelevant. Either way, that has no bearing on what I said.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> So in your games, if a person loses a prerequisite to a prestige class they already have levels in, they do not lose any abilities of the prestige class?  Because that isn't a rule in any core rulebook or errata.  It is only in the Complete Warrior and books that came after that.



Again, the core is silent on what happens, so there is no contradiction. I do use the CW16 rule (more or less), but there is a reason why it is called the CW16 rule (rather than just 'the rule').



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I am betting you DO count those rules, and hence don't actually agree with your own statement.



Thankfully that doesn't follow. Supplements provide their own RAW, which if you choose to use them become part of the whole of the RAW. However, they can't override the RA-already-W in the core (except in the form of an optional variant). Do you see the distinction?



glass.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 12, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> None the less, we still have the primary source issues: both core vs supplement and table vs text.
> 
> Another supplement, which also can't override the core. It's not evidence, its a mistake.




Can you point me to the spot where the RAW declares that mithril full plate is heavy armor? If not, there's no contradiction.


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 12, 2007)

I fail to see how we are not following the RAW - we are considering mithral full plate to be medium armor for the purposes of movement and other limitations. When something in the game is limited to being used with only certain armors, that is one of those limitations. Can a bard or warlock take the Battle Caster feat and ignore ASF in mithral full plate? I'm pretty sure they can.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 12, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> Yes, I do. Where in the PHB does it say that swift actions don't exist? It doesn't. Where is the contradiction?
> 
> If you use swift actions, then the description of them is part of the RAW. If you don't it is irrelevant. Either way, that has no bearing on what I said.
> 
> ...




You must think you were responding to something different than what you actually responded to.

You dismissed the FAQ, and all non-core books, for all purposes, across the board.  Not just for this topic.  Not just for core vs. non-core sources.  But for all topics of any kind, even if non-core vs. non-core, and even if all we are talking about is a vague rule.  

Here is what I said: "Yeah I am also getting tired of the "If it's not in a core book or errata, it doesn't count" response."

And here is your response: "But it doesn't! And I am getting tired of people insisting that it does."

Really?  You are tired of people insisting that non-core publications have value of any kind?  Then why are you using the Complete Warrior rule?  Why are you using swift and immediate actions.  Why are you even engaging in a discussion of a MIC item when in your opinion "If it's not in a core book or errata, it doesn't count"?


----------

