Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TrackStar 08-01-06, 12:05 AM	A couple things have come up during a game where I am playing a DeepWarden. "Stone Warden (Ex): Beginning at 2nd level, a deepwarden knows how to use his strengths to compensate for his weaknesses. He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character's Constitution bonus is higher. The deepwarden loses this bonus to his Armor Class whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC. In such a situation, the deepwarden would still be considered flat-footed." 1. Does the touch AC include your con? (I think it does, especially using common sense about the way it is written and also looking at the example character given in Races of Stone you can do a little math and realize it does.) 2. Do armor caps to dexterity also apply to con? (I say no because it does not address this issue in the wording of the ability but does address other issues that would be affected, such as the one above. Sadly, the sample character given in Races of Stone does not supply a definitive answer because the dex cap is equal to the con modifier of the sample DW. However, I see the Con bonus as being an alternative to not being able to move fast and since armor is stopping you from moving fast it has nothing to do with being able to just take a beating like the con bonus is meant for. ) So what do you guys think?
TrackStar 08-01-06, 12:10 AM	A thread for consideration: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=290184
Puca 08-01-06, 12:36 AM	I find it funny that you find it perfectly reasonable that the bonus applies to touch attacks, but then argue that it shouldnt be capped by max dex on the basis that it has nothing to do with movement. There is a whole list of types of bonuses to AC: Armor, shield, Dex, deflection, Dodge, etc. Does the Stonewarden ability create another? The Con bonus? A new special type of bonus that precludes the use of your Dex bonus? Somehow, I doubt it. I think that this ability does nothing more than what it says: Use your Con bonus instead of your Dex bonus for AC. Whatever the flavor, it doesnt chance the type of the bonus to AC or how it works.
TrackStar 08-01-06, 06:03 AM	Laugh at me, but if you look at that link I posted there are many others who believe the same as I and are respected members of the dnd community. Besides, I never said I was right, thats why I posted this. I wanted opinions.
Silverthumb128 08-01-06, 07:49 AM	There is a whole list of types of bonuses to AC: Armor, shield, Dex, deflection, Dodge, etc. The Dex bonus is a Dodge bonus, though, isn't it? Does the Stonewarden ability create another? The Con bonus? A new special type of bonus that precludes the use of your Dex bonus? Going by what it says in the book, no. Taking the text literally, you're correct in saying that all you're doing is using the higher of the two numbers. No bonus is changed, no new bonus is added, you're just using your Con mod if it is higher than your Dex mod. And if your Dex mod is, at any point, higher than your Con mod, you'll go back to using Dex. By this reasoning, then it would apply to Touch AC. And also for your second question with this understanding, it is capped by armor. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=290184 Without bumping that thread, it is not the best Tanking PrC "evar." Dwarven Defender is a far better choice, as it will actually increase your AC as you progress in level, offers Damage Reduction, and an ability to increase Strength Constitution and AC all at the same time. Deepwarden gives you a little critter buddy, helps you find traps, and makes you better at Ranger stuff.
Puca 08-01-06, 09:24 AM	Laugh at me, but if you look at that link I posted there are many others who believe the same as I and are respected members of the dnd community.Im not laughing. But I do think you should look at that. Does your resoning match in your points 1 and 2? It doesnt matter how many people believe it. Besides, I never said I was right, thats why I posted this. I wanted opinions. But come now, you do have a belief. It was pretty clear where you stand. The Dex bonus is a Dodge bonus, though, isn't it?No. It isnt. Its a Dex bonus. By this reasoning, then it would apply to Touch AC. And also for your second question with this understanding, it is capped by armor.Which is what I believe to be true.
EjoThims 08-01-06, 09:32 AM	A deepwarden adds his Con bonus to AC whenever it is higher than his Dex bonus, and loses the Dex bonus when he does. That Con bonus to AC is unnamed and untyped. It therefor applies to touch and is not limited by an armor's Max Dex bonus. And yes, two levels in Deepwarden is just about the best thing any tank character that qualifies can take.
Silverthumb128 08-01-06, 09:33 AM	Which is what I believe to be true. You don't think I was trying to disprove your statement did you? I'd hoped that you're correct in saying would dissuade any confusion that my quoting you meant disagreement.
Puca 08-01-06, 11:14 AM	No, I was pretty sure we held the same position. That Con bonus to AC is unnamed and untyped.And on what authority do you make this claim? Does it say that in the Stonewarden ability description? No. It says you get to use one stats bonus in the place where another stats bonus usually goes. Any suggestion that it changes the nature of the original bonus is not derived from the text in any way. Wouldnt you think that a radically new type of bonus, one that not only follows its own rules but also has the effect of rendering another type of standard bonus non-functional, would merit at least a single line of description? But it doesnt have one. Because it isnt a new type of bonus. Its the same old Dex bonus, following all the rules of the Dex bonus, just using a different stats modifier in that place.
TrackStar 08-01-06, 11:14 AM	A deepwarden adds his Con bonus to AC whenever it is higher than his Dex bonus, and loses the Dex bonus when he does. That Con bonus to AC is unnamed and untyped. It therefor applies to touch and is not limited by an armor's Max Dex bonus. And yes, two levels in Deepwarden is just about the best thing any tank character that qualifies can take. Its that whole unnamed bonus among other things that makes me wonder. To clearify a bit: It applies to touch because it isn't an armor or shield bonus. (To name one reason) But at the same time its still not very clear as to whether the Con is nerfed by the dex caps on some armor. Going by the above quote, you could easly make an argument that the Con is unnamed and untyped and therefor wouldnt be held by the dex constraints. Or you could go the other way and say that it is named and typed since it says it replaces the dex. (I find that alot less likely) And yes, 2 levels of DW are wonderful. It allows you to multiclass your way to ultimate tankdom.
Seerow 08-01-06, 11:23 AM	Wouldnt you think that a radically new type of bonus, one that not only follows its own rules but also has the effect of rendering another type of standard bonus non-functional, would merit at least a single line of description? But it doesnt have one. Because it isnt a new type of bonus. Its the same old Dex bonus, following all the rules of the Dex bonus, just using a different stats modifier in that place. Funny thing about unnamed bonuses. They tend to not be named.
danielinthewolvesden 08-01-06, 11:23 AM	It's just a Dex bonus. That's all. Whatever limitations and bennies a DEX bonus gets you. It's just that a Dwarven Ranger will likely have a higher CON than Dex, so he gets a small bonus.
Puca 08-01-06, 11:26 AM	You do have a good point on the touch AC. Rereading the rules, it does say, “All other modifiers … apply normally.” Going by the above quote, you could easly make an argument that the Con is unnamed and untyped and therefor wouldnt be held by the dex constraints. Or you could go the other way and say that it is named and typed since it says it replaces the dex. (I find that alot less likely) You could argue it, but it is wishful thinking. Stone Warden (Ex): Beginning at 2nd level, a deepwarden knows how to use his strengths to compensate for his weaknesses. He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character's Constitution bonus is higher.Thats it. You add one bonus instead of another. Wouldnt a whole new bonus take a lot more clarification than what they offer: that it functions like the Dex bonus? And, you get something that no one denies is, at best, really, really, really powerful. There are even guys over on the CO boards calling it broken. Wouldnt the perfectly consistent, non-wacky-new-rule-creating, still-good-but-not-broken interpretation be the better one to use?
Puca 08-01-06, 11:29 AM	Funny thing about unnamed bonuses. They tend to not be named. :rofl: Thats funny. But seriously: the burden is on you to argue that it creates a new bonus at all. The language doesnt support that. It leaves you a little crack to try to push your argument through; I wont deny that. But again, why?
Puca 08-01-06, 11:36 AM	It's just a Dex bonus. That's all. Whatever limitations and bennies a DEX bonus gets you. It's just that a Dwarven Ranger will likely have a higher CON than Dex, so he gets a small bonus.Its actually a pretty decent bonus. Dwarves are going to (very likely) have a higher Con than Dex. In addition, most dwarves are inclined toward heavy armor since it doesnt slow them down. But this class is clearly designed for a dwarf in lighter armor. This lets you wear the lighter armor without giving up the high Con that is not only objectively good, but the hallmark of your race. Doesnt that seem more on par with what youd expect (not wish for) in a level-two PrC ability? As opposed to becoming the Uber Tank?
EjoThims 08-01-06, 11:54 AM	And on what authority do you make this claim? On the authority of the description of the ability. It gives no name and no type. It does not say "He adds his Constitution bonus as a Dex bonus to his AC in place of his true Dexterity bonus." It says "He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character's Constitution bonus is higher." Does it say that in the Stonewarden ability description? No. Exactly. And since it doesn't list the type or name of the bonus, and there is nothing else to infer those from, the bonus is unnamed and untyped. Wouldnt you think that a radically new type of bonus ... would merit at least a single line of description? Indeed I would. But unnamed and unntyped bonuses are neither new nor radical. Its the same old Dex bonus, following all the rules of the Dex bonus, just using a different stats modifier in that place. Nowhere does it say that. It in fact says this bonus works in place of the Dexterity bonus if it is higher. It makes no mention that this bonus suffers the same restrictions that the Dex bonus suffers, just that you lose it whenever you would lose your Dex bonus. Armor does not make you lose your Dex bonus. It merely caps it. The Stonewarden's ability make no mention of the Con bonus to AC being capped in a similar manner. the burden is on you to argue that it creates a new bonus at all. The language doesnt support that. No one is arguing that a new type of bonus is being created. We are agreeing with you on how little is said about the bonus. Mainly that it never says this bonus is a Dexterity bonus, as it in fact never says what kind of bonus it is at all. Without a name or type, it is unnamed and untyped. And those bonuses already exist. They stack with everything otherwise noted and are unrestricted otherwise noted. The only note the Deepwarden makes restricting this bonus is that it is lost when the Dexterity bonus to AC is lost. This is similar to the Monk's AC bonus.
Puca 08-01-06, 12:28 PM	It does not say "He adds his Constitution bonus as a Dex bonus to his AC in place of his true Dexterity bonus." It says "He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character's Constitution bonus is higher."If it did say that, would you concede my point of view is the better? What do your changes really change? It is there a “false” dexterity bonus? Do you add your Dexterity to your AC normally, or just the Dex bonus? Your “alteration” to the text, which I believe would be sufficient for you to accept my point of view, includes no real changes in what the sentence means. Exactly. And since it doesn't list the type or name of the bonus, and there is nothing else to infer those from, the bonus is unnamed and untyped. Indeed I would. But unnamed and unntyped bonuses are neither new nor radical.But, you have to demonstrate there is a new bonus. Or all of that is irrelevant. Nowhere does it say that.I said that. And it is completely and in all ways consistent with the ability as described in the text. Armor does not make you lose your Dex bonus. It merely caps it. The Stonewarden's ability make no mention of the Con bonus to AC being capped in a similar manner.But sense you are merely using one bonus in place of another, it doesnt have to. No one is arguing that a new type of bonus is being created. We are agreeing with you on how little is said about the bonus. Mainly that it never says this bonus is a Dexterity bonus, as it in fact never says what kind of bonus it is at all. Without a name or type, it is unnamed and untyped. And those bonuses already exist. They stack with everything otherwise noted and are unrestricted otherwise noted. The only note the Deepwarden makes restricting this bonus is that it is lost when the Dexterity bonus to AC is lost.But there is something radically different: the fact that the use of this bonus is only at the expense of another standard bonus. Is there any precedent for this? The monks bonus is added. It replaces nothing. Quite different. From a balance perspective, the monks bonus is also very conditional. This is not.
EjoThims 08-01-06, 12:56 PM	Your lack of understanding simply astounds me! Do you add your Dexterity to your AC normally, or just the Dex bonus? Just the Dexterity bonus of course. Otherwise you'd be adding 18 if you had a Dex of 18. The Dexterity bonus is one of the types of bonuses that affect your Armor Class in special ways, just as your Strength bonus affects your chance to hit and your damage. It never says that Deepwardens add their Constitution bonus as a Dexterity bonus, and it therefor is not restricted like the dexterity bonus is. Your “alteration” to the text, which I believe would be sufficient for you to accept my point of view, includes no real changes in what the sentence means. That you can't see how the two are different under the rules is why you continue not to understand the issue here at all. But, you have to demonstrate there is a new bonus. Or all of that is irrelevant. No. The bonus comes his Constitution. It is not given a name or type. Therefor it follow the same rules that every single other bonus without a name and a type follow. Mainly that they stack with everything else unless stated otherwise (Deepwarden states it doesn't stack with Dex) and that it is always in effect unless stated otherwise (Deepwarden states it is lost whenever Dex would be lost). There is no "new bonus" here. I said that. You are not the text of the book. What you say has no bearing on it's meaning. And it is completely and in all ways consistent with the ability as described in the text. Except that it's not. The text never states that the bonus Deepwardens receive from their Constitution is applied as a Dex bonus. But sense you are merely using one bonus in place of another, it doesnt have to. Except that it does, since the only restrictions on unnamed and untyped bonuses are those given in their own text. Sigh... I'll try to make this even simpler for you. Perhaps then you will finally understand. Each ability score has a bonus assosciated with it base on what the score is. This bonus carries that score's name. Strength bonus, Dexterity bonus, etc. There are certain bonuses that affect Armor Class. There is a Dexterity bonus that affects Armor Class. It is not the same as the bonus assosciated with the ability score. This is why a fighter in full plate can have a +1 Dex bonus to AC but a +4 Dex bonus to his Reflex Saves. The Deepwarden's ability gives a bonus to AC equal to the character's Constitution bonus instead of giving them a Dexterity bonus if it's higher. This is what you don't understand I think. It is not "Uses Constitution in place of Dexterity for determining Dexterity Bonus to Armor Class." It is "If Constitution Bonus is higher than Dexterity Bonus, Deepwarden gets Constitution Bonus to Armor Class." Now, as there is no such thing as a Constitution Bonus to AC, this bonus is unnamed and untyped, and except where it's own entry states otherwise, it stacks with everything and always applies. Just like the Monk's AC bonus. It is untyped and therefor stacks with everything and applies at all times, except as noted differently in it's own text. The Deepwarden's ability is limited only by it's own text. It's own text makes no mention of if it works against touch attacks or not, so it does (since all AC except shield, armor, and natural armor do). It also makes no mention of if it is capped by armor, so it is not.
Puca 08-01-06, 02:02 PM	Just the Dexterity bonus of course. Otherwise you'd be adding 18 if you had a Dex of 18. The Dexterity bonus is one of the types of bonuses that affect your Armor Class in special ways, just as your Strength bonus affects your chance to hit and your damage.Um, it was rhetorical genius. Look at your, astoundingly unnecessary insertion of the word “bonus” after the word “Dexterity” in the post you made describing how the ability would have to read were my position correct. It is "If Constitution Bonus is higher than Dexterity Bonus, Deepwarden gets Constitution Bonus to Armor Class." Now, as there is no such thing as a Constitution Bonus to AC, this bonus is unnamed and untyped, and except where it's own entry states otherwise, it stacks with everything and always applies. Just like the Monk's AC bonus. It is untyped and therefor stacks with everything and applies at all times, except as noted differently in it's own text. Thats your position? If I have, say, a 16 Con and 14 Dex. I get to add +3 as an unnamed bonus to my AC, and, like the monk, keep my +2 Dex bonus? (I quoted you. You actually wrote this. Crazy. That "instead" in the text means nothing?) Sorry Im done. If anyone agrees with you there, well. Good gaming.
EjoThims 08-01-06, 02:24 PM	"Now, as there is no such thing as a Constitution Bonus to AC, this bonus is unnamed and untyped, and except where it's own entry states otherwise, it stacks with everything and always applies.." It's own entry states that if it is higher you get it in place of your dexterity bonus. It's own text does neither names it as a Dexterity Bonus, nor gives it any limitations of a Dexterity Bonus beyond those which fully deny a character their Dexterity Bonus. {WizO_Cat: Now, now ... let's play nice ...}
danielinthewolvesden 08-01-06, 04:43 PM	You're just reading far too much into what is a pretty normal class ability. It's only munchkin if you allow an overly literal reading of it. If you assume (like I did, and I play a Deepwarden) that's it's just a Dex bonus, then all is well with the world. For Dwarven rangers, who are what the class is designed for, it gives a bonus of a couple points. I mean if you really get hyper literal about it, once could say that since this line "He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character's Constitution bonus is higher." doesn't include the word "bonus" after Dexterity, then the Deepwarden gets to add either his Constituion bonus or his entire Dexterity score! :rolleyes: The meaning is clear from the context, no matter how literal you get about the wording. Geez crikeys, guys. If you get a DM to allow this as an unnamed bonus (so it works in heavy armour) then your DM is a real naif.
bitnine 08-01-06, 05:11 PM	It's quite possible they meant for it to work as a dexterity bonus. Granted, that's certainly not what it says. In fact, particularly given the line "The deepwarden loses this bonus to his Armor Class whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC." it's apparent that 'this bonus' is not somehow considered or typed as a Dexterity bonus to AC. So if your DM wants to run with the literal interpretation, roll with it, but I think that you should probably be understanding in the case that he does not.
TrackStar 08-01-06, 06:20 PM	No. The bonus comes his Constitution. It is not given a name or type. Therefor it follow the same rules that every single other bonus without a name and a type follow. Mainly that they stack with everything else unless stated otherwise (Deepwarden states it doesn't stack with Dex) and that it is always in effect unless stated otherwise (Deepwarden states it is lost whenever Dex would be lost). Quote: Originally Posted by Puca But sense you are merely using one bonus in place of another, it doesnt have to. Except that it does, since the only restrictions on unnamed and untyped bonuses are those given in their own text. Sigh... I'll try to make this even simpler for you. Perhaps then you will finally understand. Each ability score has a bonus assosciated with it base on what the score is. This bonus carries that score's name. Strength bonus, Dexterity bonus, etc. There are certain bonuses that affect Armor Class. There is a Dexterity bonus that affects Armor Class. It is not the same as the bonus assosciated with the ability score. This is why a fighter in full plate can have a +1 Dex bonus to AC but a +4 Dex bonus to his Reflex Saves. The Deepwarden's ability gives a bonus to AC equal to the character's Constitution bonus instead of giving them a Dexterity bonus if it's higher. This is what you don't understand I think. It is not "Uses Constitution in place of Dexterity for determining Dexterity Bonus to Armor Class." It is "If Constitution Bonus is higher than Dexterity Bonus, Deepwarden gets Constitution Bonus to Armor Class." Now, as there is no such thing as a Constitution Bonus to AC, this bonus is unnamed and untyped, and except where it's own entry states otherwise, it stacks with everything and always applies. Just like the Monk's AC bonus. It is untyped and therefor stacks with everything and applies at all times, except as noted differently in it's own text. The Deepwarden's ability is limited only by it's own text. It's own text makes no mention of if it works against touch attacks or not, so it does (since all AC except shield, armor, and natural armor do). It also makes no mention of if it is capped by armor, so it is not. I think those 2 quotes win it despite puca's attempt to miss understand what he wrote. I mean, this reads pretty convincingly. And for those of you who have been around for awhile and roam these boards often, there are debates like this quite often and know that sometimes rules are a little tricky due to the way they are written. And sometimes need debates like this to clear it up... and sometimes leave it in complete disarray which may also be evident here.
TrackStar 08-01-06, 06:55 PM	Here we go: i asked customer service the following question hi question about the deepwarden ability the level 2 ability Stone Warden (Ex): Beginning at 2nd level, a deepwarden knows how to use his strengths to compensate for his weaknesses. He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character's Constitution bonus is higher. The deepwarden loses this bonus to his Armor Class whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC. In such a situation, the deepwarden would still be considered flat-footed. how does this work say i had a con of 18 (+4 bonus) and was wearing a breast plate what would my AC be? and what about if i was wearing full plate? thanks in advance and i got the following response Armor only has a Maximum Dex bonus restriction. It does not have a Maximum Con bonus restriction. So if you are using the Deep Warden's Stone Warden ability, then you are applying the Con bonus to armor class and the Dex restriction doe snot apply. In your example, the Dwarf's armor class would 19 (10+5 from the armor+4 from the con bonus). And again, this is because the Con bonus is not restricted by the maximum dexterity bonus of an armor. Full Plate with this character would have an armor class of 22. I hope this clears things up. Have fun and good gaming!
danielinthewolvesden 08-01-06, 08:42 PM	Here we go: In the linked thread to the CO boards, there is also another response from WotC. which answers as i claimed. So, that's nice, and if you can get your DM to buy it fine. But then there's no reason for every dwarven warrior type not to take a 2 level dip into this class, and it simply wasn't made to be used like that.
Seerow 08-01-06, 08:45 PM	True, but it does prove that CustServ proves nothing, as there's two different official answers from them.
Khan the Destroyer 08-01-06, 09:24 PM	and it simply wasn't made to be used like that. You forgot to add 'that I know of' at the end of that sentnece ;).
Seerow 08-01-06, 09:31 PM	Khan, you ended the last topic so effectively, why didn't you do it here? =(
TrackStar 08-01-06, 10:08 PM	Here we go... Only my contribution to this thread, which is.... *drum roll* That the constitution bonus is not limited by your Max Dex Bonus. And I'm pretty official. I mean... Khan means leader, you know. And so, I pretty much have the authority to do what I just did, which is, clear up this whole debacle. So, if this discourse continues elsewhere, just point people to this thread, and this post in particular. And, they should pretty much just stop arguing, right then. Unless they want to disobey a khan, which is dangerous. Especially when that khan is also a destroyer. And also... I know this has been done to death, and there's no clear answer for either argument, but I figure I might as well give my 2cp. It's my belief that the last two sentences of the Stone Warden description are there for the sole purpose of indicating that the Stone Warden ability does not provide immunity to being caught flat-footed. ie Since you're applying Con to AC instead of Dex to AC, any situation where you'd be considered flat-footed, still applies, even though you're no longer relying on your Dex to avoid being hit/damaged (and instead are relying on your toughness). The last sentence indicating "In such a situation, the deepwarden will still be considered flat-footed" qualified the preceeding sentence as relating to the deepwarden still being able to be caught flat-footed, and has nothing to do with wearing armor. If only they had written it better, or errata'ed it, or CustServ would be consistent in their responses. In the end, it's up to the DM, but I'd rule that Max Dex has no relationship to being sturdy enough to avoid damage through this ability.
Khan the Destroyer 08-01-06, 10:19 PM	Khan, you ended the last topic so effectively, why didn't you do it here? =( Dude, I've done this dance before. It got a little nasty last time, so I didn't feel like revisiting it. Besides, TrackStar provided a quote, which should be all that is needed to prevent further time wasteage ;). Just sit back, and watch the masses be swayed.
Seerow 08-01-06, 10:55 PM	Well you can always sick pun-pun on naysayers, can't you?
Khan the Destroyer 08-02-06, 03:04 AM	Well you can always sick pun-pun on naysayers, can't you? I wish! But that would probably start another debate, even more heated than the original. A titanic clash of RAW vs. RAI that can only end in bloodshed. There would be no winners... and no survivors.
Puca 08-02-06, 09:58 AM	I think those 2 quotes win it despite puca's attempt to miss understand what he wrote. I mean, this reads pretty convincingly.It wasnt an attempt to miss read his post. It was an attempt to mock it. The absurdity of adding both is perfectly consistent with what he posted. Sigh... I'll try to make this even simpler for you. Perhaps then you will finally understand. It is "If Constitution Bonus is higher than Dexterity Bonus, Deepwarden gets Constitution Bonus to Armor Class." Notice, no instead. If this were the class ability, you would add both. Now, as there is no such thing as a Constitution Bonus to AC, this bonus is unnamed and untyped, and except where it's own entry states otherwise, it stacks with everything and always applies. Just like the Monk's AC bonus. Which as we all know, allows both Wis and Dex. Anyone who found this ludicrously self-serving paraphrase convincing, was already convinced or has his reason clouded in a fog of hope. Both of his attempts to “paraphrase” have been so bad that I strongly suggest that, even if you agree with his conclusion, you check every rule this guy cites very carefully. The facts of this debate are that the text is ambiguous and poorly written whatever you think the ability is supposed to do. There is, to my knowledge, no errata or FAQ, and there really should be. As far as official responses, the best people can offer is CustServ, and fortunately I dont need to impugn the credibility of them or call into question just how “official” any response from them truly is as they have kindly provided both possible answers. As a result, this has to be a DM call. I clearly think “instead” means, ya know, instead, not a different unnamed bonus. It is obvious to me that this is not a tanking PrC but one for ranger-types. I make no bones about my opinion that anyone coming to the opposite conclusion really, really wants an uber tank and when you want something bad enough, the reasons start “becoming” very clear. But, its a DMs call, and will remain so until there is a FAQ or Errata. When you go to make that call, you really should consider the fact that the other-sides conclusion results in an incredibly powerful ability, bordering on broken, that will be combined with other abilities, such as that of the Dwarven Defender or the rage of a barbarian. My conclusion results in a very good ability that suits the flavor of the PrC perfectly and breaks nothing.
Pyke_Moonshadow 08-02-06, 10:21 AM	Just to chime in... My group of DM friends (there are 4 of us) all concurred that it is supposed to act in ALL ways like a dex bonus and would be capped by armor. Since the ability does say "instead of" we all agreed that it is restricted in every way as a Dex bonus to AC would be restricted.
SlagMortar 08-02-06, 10:45 AM	The Deepwarden's ability gives a bonus to AC equal to the character's Constitution bonus instead of giving them a Dexterity bonus if it's higher. (emphasis mine) If this is true, then a Deepwarden who is using this ability is always vulnerable to a sneak attack. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. If the Constitution bonus is not a Dexterity bonus, then the Deepwarden's ability denies them their Dexterity bonus and thus the Deepwarden is vulnerable to sneak attack.
Pyke_Moonshadow 08-02-06, 10:51 AM	(emphasis mine) If this is true, then a Deepwarden who is using this ability is always vulnerable to a sneak attack. If the Constitution bonus is not a Dexterity bonus, then the Deepwarden's ability denies them their Dexterity bonus and thus the Deepwarden is vulnerable to sneak attack. The ability doesn't deny it, it replaces it. Basically for a character with this ability you cut and paste constitution over dexterity in any instance where it applies to AC. so in the sneak attack entry would read "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Constitution bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Constitution bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target."
SlagMortar 08-02-06, 10:56 AM	Ok. Then the same is true for max dex bonus from armor: Maximum Dex Bonus: This number is the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that this type of armor allows. Heavier armors limit mobility, reducing the wearer’s ability to dodge blows. This restriction doesn’t affect any other Dexterity-related abilities. If it replaces it then this would say Maximum Con Bonus: This number is the maximum Constitution bonus to AC that this type of armor allows. Heavier armors limit mobility, reducing the wearer’s ability to dodge blows. This restriction doesn’t affect any other Constitution-related abilities. Edit: I see that you agree it should be limited by max dex bonus. My previous post was directed at those who think it is a different kind of bonus.
Puca 08-02-06, 11:09 AM	If the Constitution bonus is not a Dexterity bonus, then the Deepwarden's ability denies them their Dexterity bonus and thus the Deepwarden is vulnerable to sneak attack. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: You know, I just became a lot more open to allowing a player to use this interpretation. (Not really, but thats funny.)
EjoThims 08-02-06, 11:55 AM	It wasnt an attempt to miss read his post. It was an attempt to mock it. The absurdity of adding both is perfectly consistent with what he posted. I've said nothing absurd. You are either intentionally twisting what I say because you cannot argue againt it or because you still fail to understand it. As for my multiple "paraphrases," each one was to emphasis a different part in a hope to get you to understand each individually and finally together. It obviously wasn't simplistic enough for you, but I, unfortunately, don't know how to dumb it down any further.
EjoThims 08-02-06, 11:56 AM	If the Constitution bonus is not a Dexterity bonus, then the Deepwarden's ability denies them their Dexterity bonus and thus the Deepwarden is vulnerable to sneak attack. Ah... finally someone who not only understand the only way the Deepwarden's ability would be limited by armor but who can also give a good argument as for why it is. However... The Dex bonus is still there. If the Deepwarden's Con were to drop lower it would take affect. It's not denied him, it's just not in effect because the specific limitations of the ability. They still have a Dexterity bonus to AC, it's still there. It's just not applied at all. Just like having a Dex bonus of zero or even a penalty doesn't open one up for sneak attacks. The key word is denied. He's not being denied the bonus. He's not having it taken away from him. He's simply not using it.
SlagMortar 08-02-06, 12:06 PM	To argue further would just be quibbling over the definition of denied which I am not going to do. The two interpretations have been discussed. One interpretation makes the Deepwarden a good PrC for dwarf rangers, while the other interpretation makes the it a no-brainer decision for a two level dip for nearly any non-caster dwarf character. Either interpretation could be supported by the rules. I prefer the first interpretation.
Puca 08-02-06, 12:19 PM	You are either intentionally twisting what I say because you cannot argue againt it or because you still fail to understand it.But I quoted it, with explanatory notes. (In red, by the way. They reference those parts I placed in bold font.) A grade-five grammarian can tell you that the literal reading of what you posted allows for something even more broken than what even you believe. Dont get me wrong. I know exactly what you believe. I know how you justify it to yourself and those who already agree with you. But you cant paraphrase your way through a Dick and Jane book. As for my multiple "paraphrases," each one was to emphasis a different part in a hope to get you to understand each individually and finally together.Right, break it to parts omitting problematic words. A self-serving paraphrase. When your result is absurd, blame it on the readers intelligence. Its like I have your playbook. Now, you wanna pretend Im simple, fine. But I have your words. Every time you tried to restate it, to clarify it for me, you ended up with a result that even you cant argue is consistent with your own interpretation. While this argument may be moot, I assume you will wade in on another in the future, and I would advise others to pay close attention to the way you word your gratuitous “assistance” to all of us simpletons. Im done.
EjoThims 08-02-06, 12:33 PM	Every time you tried to restate it, to clarify it for me, you ended up with a result that even you cant argue is consistent with your own interpretation. Not at all. I have said nothing that goes against what I have said in the past. You have attempted to twist those ideas to do so, however. Like the false attempt to claim I compared the end results of the Deepwarden's feature and a Monk's AC bonus as being similar, when it was quite apparent that I compared the core of their nature (unnamed, untyped bonuses with limitations providing in their own text) as being similar. You lost as soon as you began tossing out insults and trying to twist my words to attack me instead of my arguments. You do it in all the threads you debate in, and you bring nothing but shame to the side you intend to support. As for assuming you were simple, that was merely giving you the benefit of the doubt. Because the only other conclusion is that you are simply foolish and pathetic.
Khan the Destroyer 08-02-06, 12:42 PM	Pssst... hey, Seerow. This is exactly what I was talking about. It starts out as a rules debate...
Pyke_Moonshadow 08-02-06, 12:55 PM	Pssst... hey, Seerow. This is exactly what I was talking about. It starts out as a rules debate... I agree. Even perfectly valid points can be obscured by harsh tone and are made virtually powerless by namecalling.
Puca 08-02-06, 02:45 PM	You lost as soon as you began tossing out insults and trying to twist my words to attack me instead of my arguments. And when you started them, was that point where you consider yourself to have won? Your lack of understanding simply astounds me! Sigh... I'll try to make this even simpler for you. Perhaps then you will finally understand. {WizO_Cat: Now, now ... let's play nice ...} Oh, yeah, I freakin started it. Im perfectly willing to admit that I have no problem responding to flame with flame, and condescension with condescension. If you take something I say as an insult when it is a critique of your argument, Ill set you straight, as I did with TrackStar when he said I was laughing at him. (Posts #3, 4, & 6). I wasnt. I thought his reasoning on the two points was inconsistent. I told him that was what Id meant. And, I might add, I conceeded his point when he explained his reasoning later (post #13.) But you come back with condescending crap, calling me stupid for disagreeing with your interpretation, sorry but I no longer feel an obligation to treat you civility. I have nothing but contempt for those of you who sling your own mud and then act like victims when you get treated the same way. I have a harsh tone; I know it comes off as hostile when I dont mean it to be that way. Sorry. If you dont appreciate something I said or the way I say it, tell me so and Ill make amends. You decide to explicitly insult me instead, dont cry about how you are then treated in turn.
Seerow 08-02-06, 03:05 PM	Pssst... hey, Seerow. This is exactly what I was talking about. It starts out as a rules debate... But it's so much fun to watch...
EjoThims 08-02-06, 06:36 PM	Oh, yeah, I freakin started it. Your open hostility started early, and first came towards me in post 17. I tried to remain mostly civil, but you moved completely away from saying anything about my arguments to making comments about me directly.
Silverthumb128 08-02-06, 07:07 PM	But it's so much fun to watch... It can be a drinking game. Everytime someone says something along the lines of "I didn't say that!" take a drink. :D
Seerow 08-02-06, 07:09 PM	It can be a drinking game. Everytime someone says something along the lines of "I didn't say that!" take a drink. That'd be no fun. We need everyone in a big chat for that to work. Otherwise we're taking single shots days apart. You'll get drunk about a week after we die from old age.
Khan the Destroyer 08-02-06, 08:52 PM	Plus, I don't drink alcohol. Though I have played drinking games being the only person drinking water. And let me tell you... drinking a lot of water may not get you drunk (at least not immediately), but it sure does make you run to the bathroom. A lot. It's fun either way though, so I'm game. (I get everyone back when we ante up at the beginning of the game. Everyone pours their drink into the pot, and I water it down with my delicious Poland Spring. It's priceless to watch them gulp it down at the end :evillaugh.)