Second level 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.
+2 Dexterity, +2 Constitution, -2 Strength, -2 Charisma are nice ability mods (what ever happened to a Cha penalty not being worth anything?),.
Whisper gnome base land speed is 30 feet, despite their size.
Low-Light Vision: A whisper gnome can see twice as far as a human in starlight, moonlight, and similar conditions of poor illumination. He retains the ability to distinguish color and detail under these conditions.
Darkvision: Whisper gnomes can see in the dark out to 60 feet. Darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and whisper gnomes can function just fine with no light at all.
+4 racial bonus on Hide and Move Silently checks: Whisper gnomes have an uncanny knack for stealth.
+2 racial bonus on Listen and Spot checks: Whisper gnomes have keen eyes and ears.
Spell-Like Abilities: 1/day -- silence (must be centered on whisper gnome's body). A whisper gnome with a Charisma score of at least 10 also has the following spell-like abilities: 1/day -- ghost sound, mage hand, message. Caster level 1st; save DC 10 + whisper gnome's Cha modifier + spell level.
Ya, these guys are on the Lesser Svirfneblin level.
Originally posted by fruits and vegetables
i do not understand why you say the PrC is 2 levels long. The Deepwarden i linked to from you is 9 levels long. Are implying that the first 2 levels are the only ones worth taking?
since this is the CO board, I guess so
---
umm, that gnome race seems to be +1 LA (maybe they forget to add it)... In my books, a guy with unbalanced stats and being able to cast a powerful level 2 spell must have LA.
Just a thought.
- Dain
Me Likey! Me Likey Much! This'll show my DM for making us all play Dwarves...
Happy Gaming!
Mainly for the Kensai ability to do concentration checks instead of reflex saves.
Deepwardens get good Will & Fort saves, so if you can replace their Reflex save with a Concentration check, they're set.
And Concentration happens to be a class skill that they can spend those lovely 6+Int skill points on. (Oh yeah, and is Con based, and Deepwardens should have a good Con.)
Cheers,
=Blue
Oh, and I love that Whispering Gnome! I'm going to play one if my current character dies
Originally posted by catharz
Deepwarden
Of course, the PrC is just two levels long
You're saying you'd bail before Stubborn Mind? Most tanks would give their arm for that ability.
This class seems really, really good. I like the Kensai and Bbn combinations -- the concentration skill inclusion also helps if you include psionic classes, letting you keep that skill maxxed out.
Additional -2 AC, +2 str, +2 con. That works out to only a -1 AC for more Hps and +1 atk/dam.
Although I would have liked they move the Stone Warden class ability into the position of being a keystone acquisition (at the higher levels of the PrC). For hard-core combat jockeys, Catharz is right on ... it's a 2 level dip class. For folks who want a more viable in-and-out-of-combat versatility tank, the PrC is fabulous all the way through.
Originally posted by rilem
You're saying you'd bail before Stubborn Mind? Most tanks would give their arm for that ability.
Yeah, that ability is quite good. In fact, it's just a renamed Slippery Mind. Then it might be possible to convince your DM that you can use it to qualify for the Void Incarnate in epic levels, because that's like a requirement for non-spellcasters to survive in epic.
And hooray for a class that lets you get Con to AC that isn't Forsaker! Now if only there was a way to get Con to saves... <_< >_>
Ranger3/Fighter2/DwarfParagon3/Deepwarden2
That's a solid 10 level Dwarf Tank build. I would take the Ranger virtual feat as an archery feat (for well-roundedness) ... or TWF if you plan on fighting with Greataxe/Armor Spikes or Dwarven Battleaxe/Spiked Shield (with Imp. Shield Bash feat) style.
That build also allows you to max out Survival ... making you a strong Tracker to boot.
Fighter can be subbed out for Barbarian-2 also ... to get the Wolf Barbarian sub-type from UA. Which makes you an awesome tripper!
XO,
Snow
Kalamar feat grants you your con as a luck bonus to saves but you have to be Dejy (Human) : /
isn't there a ritual you can do in SS that would allow you to change from a human (after getting feat) to a dwarf (to enter the class etc) that still lets you use what you had before?
I thought i read something like this a while back...?
Ranger, Paladin, Deepwarden, Pious Templar, Hammer of Moradin, dwarf paragon, (maybe fighter for feats...)
Paladin gives you all the paladin abilities plus Knowledge religion to enter pious templar. Pious templar gives you mettle, weapon spec and 2nd level spells to enter hammer of moradin. Combine the rangers two weapon fighting with the hammer of moradins powerful grip ability...not sure if it will work out but it could be awesome.
The only problem I see is the high dex/light armor needed for twf feats would not work well with the con to ac ability...hmmm.
G23armani
Originally posted by EatFlan
isn't there a ritual you can do in SS that would allow you to change from a human (after getting feat) to a dwarf (to enter the class etc) that still lets you use what you had before?
I thought i read something like this a while back...?
The problem I have with the SS rituals is that they turn you into an average specimen of the species. So it's like a permanent polymorph that can't be undone :/. I don't think that occurs when you use wish to do it, but I'm not sure.
And Con as luck to saves is just disgusting.
I understand a giant turning into an elf shouldn't have giant strength, but shouldn't/couldnt it just be what you would have had w/out the giant bonuses. Hope i'm making sense here...
Your character's new physical ability scores and faculties are average ones for the chosen creature. You do not modify them using elite ability score modifiers, nor do you reroll them from scratch.
Yes, it's really stupid and lame. Obviously, WotC wants to punish you for not being one of their "classic" character races.
Whisper gnomes, con to ac from prc (at level 2!!), and weapons like the great crossbow that do i think 2d6 or 2d8 damage but for sure has a 18-20 crit range.
Yowza
Well, at least it steers the flak away from elves.Whisper gnome had better be +1 LA; if not, welcome to my Races of Stone House Rule #1.
Just curious, Snow: Why not a level or two of Dwarven Defender? You hit the requirements practically without blinking anyway, and defensive stance meshes really nicely with this class (especially if you're doing a ranged combat thing anyway).
Originally posted by Kyndig
Yeah Snow, that is a really strong build. Gah, if they're coming out with classes like this for Dwarves, I hope they bring out comperable classes/abilities for the Elves.
The Elf paragon gives an unnamed bonus to dexterity and 2/3 caster progression as a wizard plus medium BAB. It just does not synergize as well as the Dwarf (which is awesome).
Human Paragon is pretty decent as well . . .
~hf
Lots of goodies here. We end up with something like:
BAB +20, FORT +18, REF +8, WILL +14, weapon focus/weapon specialization, mettle, trap sense, track, smiting and all the Hammer of Moradin goodies.
;)
If you go Hammer of Moradin instead of DD this may work, but you need 3 levels of Pious Templar for that
maybe something like that:
Ranger2/Babarian1/Fighter2/Pious Templar3/Deepwarden2/Hammer of Moradin 9/ xx1
Originally posted by lonewolf
nice lawful - Chaotic dwarf you have there Catharz
;)
Actually it is a lawful good or neutral dwarf. The alignment change from neutral good represents the build's change of focus from a pure tank to a sworn defender. I like the dichotomy of the dwarf: Rager vs. Law.
Unfortunately, they loose the ability to rage
.I don't really like Hammer of Moradin. As a good PrC, it is only 4 levels long, and I can't understand the desire to invest 5 more empty levels in it.
Originally posted by catharz
I don't really like Hammer of Moradin. As a good PrC, it is only 4 levels long, and I can't understand the desire to invest 5 more empty levels in it.
Because the prestige class is cool. If you don't like investing more levels in it, replace the "extra" five with dwarven defender levels. I think that a Ranger 3/ Dwarf Paragon 3/ Deepwarden 2/ Pious Templar 3/ Hammer of Moradin 4/ Dwarven Defender 5 is solid build that is really dwarf-tastic. It's so iconic dwarf to me. He worships Moradin, fights with a big hammer, and smites his enemies to protect his homeland. Hmm...makes me want to play one.
Rgr 2 gives actually nothing if you're not light-armored.
rgr1/ bar1/ ...3/ DW2/ Frenzy ->
For IUD:
rgr1/ bar2/ ...2/ DW5/ Whatever-you-like 10
where ... should be a +1 bab class and have
1 rank know(dungeon), 1 rank heal and endurance.
maybe fighter and take the skills cross-class
or pious warrior (don't know if it requires lawful)
with the combo of barb and the ninja you'd have the fastest stub of a tank on the planet.
Duergar (bought off)
Ranger3/DwarvenParagon3/Deepwarden5/Bbn2/WarMind7
BAB: 20, Fort+18, Ref +10, Will +8 (get +2 racial vs. magic/spell-like)
+4 Str and Con from War Mind
+2 AC from War Mind
+4 Str and Con from Bbn
Plus 3rd level powers, Sweeping Strike, DR2/-, Uncanny Dodge (improved if you don’t want Wolf Totem Bbn), and Stubborn Mind, which I seem to be the only one who likes. I kept it b/c of this build’s lower overall Will save than some others.
Required Feats:
Education
Other nifty feats
Various Psionic Wpn feats, Axethrower (to really make Dex irrelevant)
Alternately, you could add levels of Defender of Sealtiel (which I prefer to Dwarven Def. in this case b/c of the constant Magic Circle ability at level 2). Use the remaining 3 levels for more WarMind or Fighter
Ranger3/DwarvenParagon3/Deepwarden2/DefenderofSealtiel2/WarMind10
BAB: 20, Fort+19, Ref +11, Will +11 (get +2 racial vs. magic/spell-like)
+4 Str and Con from War Mind
+4 AC from War Mind
+4 Con, +2 Str from DoS
+4 Dodge from DoS
_____
+12 to AC when you need it.
Plus Magic Circle; Level 5 Psionic Powers, Sweeping Strike and Chain of Overwhelming Force from War Mind.
Three levels of exotic weapon master with Dwarvenwaraxe would add to your tanking abilities.
exotic sunder works well with the Combat Brute feats sundering cleave ability and a adamantine waraxe.
Originally posted by Nazzareth
Three levels of exotic weapon master with Dwarvenwaraxe would add to your tanking abilities.
Uncanny Blow + Powerful Grip = 2.5x STR to damage.
Mineral Dwarf
Ranger 3/ Dwarf Paragon 3/ Deepwarden 2/ Pious Templar 3/ Hammer of Moradin 4/ Dwarven Defender 4
Uncanny blow rocks, if you fight with your axe two handed and TWF with your armour spikes.
Originally posted by nullex Uncanny Blow + Powerful Grip = 2.5x STR to damage.
But you can't do that, because Powerful Grip only applies to using the warhammer, which is a martial weapon, while Uncanny Blow only applies to exotic weapons. Perhaps a heavy warhammer?
Originally posted by AlienFromBeyond
Perhaps a heavy warhammer?
Precisely. Sorry, I forgot to include that in my previous post. Good eye.
Alternative tank build (int of about 14 needed for skills to pan out):
Dwarf Paragon 3
Fighter 2 (take the dwarf 1st level option for wpn focus with all axes)
Pious templar 1 (mettle)
Exotic weapon master 1 (uncanny blow)
Deepwarden 2 (dump skill into know(geography))
Horizon walker 1 (desert)
Dwarven Defender 10
You get:
BAB 20
HP: 12d12+7d10+1d8
Base saves 22, 4, 13
No fatigue after defensive stance
Con to AC
Dwarven axe focus and x2 str bonus
5 free feats
Dwarven defender goodies.
You could go for 5 kensai levels to compensate for the bad reflex save but with this HP total you can handle extra damage from spells...
Originally posted by Oh Well...
If you want a tank the ranger levels may be suboptimal because of the unnecessary feat duplication (track) and the possibly unused 2nd level feat.
Alternative tank build (int of about 14 needed for skills to pan out):
Dwarf Paragon 3
Fighter 2 (take the dwarf 1st level option for wpn focus with all axes)
Pious templar 1 (mettle)
Exotic weapon master 1 (uncanny blow)
Deepwarden 2 (dump skill into know(geography))
Horizon walker 1 (desert)
Dwarven Defender 10
You get:
BAB 20
HP: 12d12+7d10+1d8
Base saves 22, 4, 13
No fatigue after defensive stance...
Good suggestion on an alternative into DW, but check the rules for defensive stance again. You aren't fatigued (as a barbarian is) but are simply winded and have -2 strength. So the Horizon Walker doesn't help you.
Dwarf Paragon 3/ Paladin 2
qualifies, with int 12 you'll have 1 DP skill short
and 1P skill free, so you'll need int 14
Why not just go for a mineralized Barbarian 2 / Dwarf Paragon 3 / Deepwarden 2? Only the Heal skill needs cross class ranks, and though darkvision is duplicated, the CON boost/DR/AC is definitely worth it. At ECL 8, the character's AC bonus while raging can be as high as +11, or even +12-13 if he has a CON boost item. Throw in some nice armor/shield and you're looking at 30+ AC. And on top of that, there's always the DR 8/adamantine. :D And of course, having ~30 CON gives other obvious benefits as well (FORT saves and HP, anyone?).
Deepwarden = powerhouse must have
Originally posted by Kylian
I agree that the Ranger class's duplication of Track and the potentially useless second level combat style makes it suboptimal for a Deepwarden build.
My concern with non-ranger prefixes is twofold -- If you're having to blow a feat on endurance, that makes avoiding the track redunancy much less appealing. And if you're having to pump your Int to 14 or higher (more than a tank should need) to make the requirements, you've got MAD all over again. The point was to reduce the need for high attributes.
That said, a Horse Totem BBN (UA) also gets Endurance at fifth level, and has skills enough that he should be able to qualify beyond that. The other bonuses (Run feat, handle animal bonus) aren't much help, but it sets you up for battlerager.
some combo of ranger/fighter/deepwarden as a starting point since Deepwardens reminded him of the Hill Dwarfs he had read about and fit with the world. I can't wait to bust out with a sudden two or three points of AC jump at seventh level when the stonewarden ability kicks in. Can anyone confirm that the CON bonus doesn't conform to the maximum Dex rules of armor?
And Endurance, while not being the best of feats, is a small price to pay for the abilities relevant to the tank concept that the barbarian and dwarf paragon classes offer.
For this build, a 25 pt. buy of Str 14, Dex 10, Con 18, Int 12, Wis 11, Cha 6 works fine.
Originally posted by Abraxos
...Can anyone confirm that the CON bonus doesn't conform to the maximum Dex rules of armor?
The excerpt can certainly be interpreted to mean that. I do not have the book (do not know if it is out yet either) so it may go into further detail.
On a personal note i would not care if it even stated that the max DEX penalty did not apply i would still say that it does in my games.
As i said on another thread. This PrC goes good with Dwarven barbarian builds anyway so max DEX (or in this case CON) will not be a big problem here.
For those that may not understand what i mean (hey, there may be some newbies that do not know!).....
-Deepwarden2 adds CON to AC.
-Barbarian has Rage: -2 AC, +4 STR and CON.
= no penalty to AC in Rage.
-Now, add that feat in the excerpt that gives you an added -2 AC and an extra +2 STR and CON that is stackable with Raging then you only net a -1 to AC in exchange for a +6 STR and +6 CON.
See i can permit the above combo. I can not permit the max DEX penalty that armor has not be applied. But also as stated, it matters little to Barbarians anyway.
Monk 3
Fighter 2
Dwarf Paragon 3
Stone Warden 2
Pious Templar 1
Kensai 6
Stone Warden (cont) 3
Monk should provide ample skill slots to get to stone warden even without int bonus.
You can get 2 free feats from UA variants.
Take wpn focus unarmed and use Kensai ability to make your fists +5 defending. Because monks are armed even with hands full you have a constant +5 to AC.
By level 20 Con should easily be 30 (+10)...
Consequently AC should easily reach the 50s or with some effort the 60s.
BAB +17
Avg HP > 300
Mettle
Evasion
Fort 18 + Con
Reflex (replaced by conc check) 23 + Con
Will 17 + Still mind + Wis / reroll after one round...
Tankish...
Skill pre-reqs for the Deepwarden shouldn't be a problem - remember that barbarians get 4 skill points per level, and you only need 5 ranks in each of the 5 skills. Combined with the paragon, only Heal is cross class, which means that you need a total of 30 effective ranks
and you need to be level 7 to get 5 ranks cross-class
Originally posted by catharz
Oh ya, and Whisper gnomes , as well as being almost as bad as the 10,000 other subraces out there, ROCK.
These guys look like a great spellcasting race. The penalties to Str and Cha are of little consequence to a wizard or psion, and the bonuses to Dex and Con shore up their weaknesses.
Originally posted by rilem
Ranger3/DwarvenParagon3/Deepwarden2/DefenderofSealtiel2/WarMind10
BAB: 20, Fort+19, Ref +11, Will +11 (get +2 racial vs. magic/spell-like)
+4 Str and Con from War Mind
+4 AC from War Mind
+4 Con, +2 Str from DoS
+4 Dodge from DoS
_____
+12 to AC when you need it.
Plus Magic Circle; Level 6 Psionic Powers (incl. mind blank), Sweeping Strike and Chain of Overwhelming Force from War Mind.
This is a great build. Don't forget the DR from War Mind. Hard to hit, hard to hurt, what's not to like?
Take wpn focus unarmed and use Kensai ability to make your fists +5 defending. Because monks are armed even with hands full you have a constant +5 to AC.
can you really do that? that is pretty neat if you can...toss on some bracers too.
It sounds to me that the deepwarden prc works best w/raging for sure, these builds really remind me of the GutBuster Brigade in all those RA Salvatore books. I love those guys.
now if they only had the cutting armor and helmet w/the huge spike stats out...yum.
But, I've never really liked the defending enchantedment as compared to the expertise feat. Both effectively take away from your bonus to hit, but defending also takes away from your bonus to damage. My only real exception is using a defending weapon in the off-hand (defending sheild-spikes, anyone?)
edit: y'know ... this looks like a decent lead-in to frenzied berzerker, what with that willsave, 'n all.
If you have a monk level you are always considered "armed" even when your hands are full - sword, armor, shield, and your +5 defending fists.
While you are doing sword and board style you get to keep the +5 AC.
Now if you add imp expertise or greater expertise too...
B/c then the xp cost is only marginally higher (20%?) to get 2x the benefit.
I'm not sure about two but I would be very happy if it did pan out.
:D :D
Sounds good for a monk. Now, think how a kensai mind-flayer (4 tentacles) feels about having 4 +5 defending tentacles! Or an avolakai (MMII) with 8! +5 defending tentacles!
Baleen whale will be replaced w/Giant Squid Kensais w/legs...they squirt cheese instead of ink.
I do remember the kensai referring specifically to fists, though, so this may be a conflict between the general rules and the kensai rules. Is kind of awkward.
If you can enchant more than just one fist (ie, two fists), what about enchanting a monk's feet?
[Funny hypothetical situation]
How about their Knees? You could put Sonic and Icy Burst on each of your knees, respectively? You could have brilliant energy put on a Monk's forehead and Corkscrew opponents!
[/Funny hypothetical situation]
The only reading of the Monk text that I think is plausible says that the Monk only has 1 weapon, his unarmed strike. However, the Kensai text very specifically mentions a monk enchanting both of his fists, seperately, and needing to pay extra for it. I think it's hogwash.
Originally posted by michael_noah
You're completely right about the monk, however, the Kensai text directly contradicts this.
The only reading of the Monk text that I think is plausible says that the Monk only has 1 weapon, his unarmed strike. However, the Kensai text very specifically mentions a monk enchanting both of his fists, seperately, and needing to pay extra for it. I think it's hogwash.
I see it this way: The "human kensai who has Weapon focus (Unarmed strike)" in Complete warrior saw his fists as his weapons, and had only them enchanted.
This carries some benefits: If he had really imbued his unarmed strike, and then made himself Flaming, he would have run into problems fighting in the woods.
However, as a Monk really has weapon focus (unarmed strike), they should imbue their unarmed strike (of which they have only one), and the samlpe character be damned.
For another example of a poorly thought out sample character, the Mindspy doopleganger dosen't qualify for the PrC
Ah yes, and the final blow to the fists: The core rule books always take precidence over suppliments.
[Edit] Oh ya, and the Unarmed strike example comes under the "natural weapons" heading. Unarmed strikes aren't natural weapons. [/Edit]
Something is obviously screwy somewhere.
-Skulan
Originally posted by Skulan
The Kensai ability mainly says that when imbuing such a natural weapon (and a monk's unarmed strike counts as both a natural and a manufactured weapon in 3.5, I believe), you have to enchant every weapon of that type on your person. So an illithid going for tentacles would have to do four. The crazy thing is, since monk can strike with any part of their body, they'd have to enchant their fists, feet, head, elbows, knees, and every other nameable part to get the Kensai ability.
Something is obviously screwy somewhere.
-Skulan
An Illithid has four tentacles, and four tentacle attacks. So they enhance each tentacle.
A Monk has one unarmed strike, and iterative unarmed strike attacks. So they enhance their single unarmed strike.
Originally posted by michael_noah
You're completely right about the monk, however, the Kensai text directly contradicts this.
I was afraid of that.
So it sounds like all of the DMs out there are just going to have to decide how to rule it in their own campaigns, huh?
Originally posted by Nazzareth
Uncanny Blow + Powerful Grip works with the maul and warmace.
Uh... Thanks for sharing...? :D
Originally posted by fruits and vegetables
For those that may not understand what i mean (hey, there may be some newbies that do not know!).....
-Deepwarden2 adds CON to AC.
-Barbarian has Rage: -2 AC, +4 STR and CON.
= no penalty to AC in Rage.
-Now, add that feat in the excerpt that gives you an added -2 AC and an extra +2 STR and CON that is stackable with Raging then you only net a -1 to AC in exchange for a +6 STR and +6 CON.
Also a lot of people seem to forget a feat from unapprochable east that you might be able to take. I believe its called ice troll beserker and nets you +2 natural ac when raging.
This would all combine then to give you +1 ac +6 STR and +6 CON.
EDIT: being natural armor makes it even more craptastic for a feat. No flame intent to the guy suggested this on the 1st place, though.
Something like
Mineral Warrior Ranger 3/Fighter 1/Barbarian 2/ Deep Warden 2/ Battle Rager 5/Dwarven Paragon 3/Deep Warden 3
Now I'm not sure about the last 3 levels of Deep Warden. But without my books in front of me I'm not sure What else you could qualify for.
You could also dump one level of Ranger and pick up another level of fighter but that would require you to pick up the endurance feat rather than getting it for free.
I'd also put my free ranger weapon feat into archery. Gives you more versatility. Fight Two Handed and if you want to spent a feat use a buckler with Improved Buckler Defence.
Max out on your Con and your Str is a good second attribute. Your Will Save will get a boost due being a dwarf, and the Battle Rager will make you Fearless. Dex not so important from level 8 on due to Stone Warden.
Let me know if I've missed or screwed anything up.
Also, I liked the warmind/kensai idea, and so came up with this (disclaimer : got ideas from other posts in this thread).
Duergar (LA buy out)
Barbarian 2, Fighter 1, Warmind 2, Deepwarden 2, Defender of Sealtiel 2, Deepwarden 3-5, Kensai 5, Warmind 3-5 (for sweeping strike).
It gives great Fort saves, great Reflex saves with the Kensai, and gives the Stubborn Mind for extra will save from Deepwarden.
It also gives improved uncanny dodge from barb and deepwarden.
You can no longer rage, as you become lawful after two levels of barb, but you keep the uncanny dodge and fast movement.
And for those that don't care about the Kensai ability, you can just take Warmind 6-10 instead of Kensai 1-5.
Comments? (My first contribution to CO board. Previously just asked questions.
:D
Originally posted by hanbalfrek
You can no longer rage, as you become lawful after two levels of barb, but you keep the uncanny dodge and fast movement.
:D
raging is problematic for psi characters anyway. It's doubtful a DM would let you use powers while raging, and you can't use the concentration skill (no gaining Psi Focus)
The deepwarden loses this bonus to his Armor Class whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC.
In heavier armors you are denied some or all of your dexterity bonus. The class ability states that the deepwarden loses the bonus to AC whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus. Seems to me they could only use the max dex bonus on the armor they are wearing...
G23armani
With disable device and search clas skills i thought this guy would make a good trap finder on top of everything else.
Even 1 lvl of rogue for the trapfinding ability, all the skill points this class gets just rocks.
Thoughts, opinions?
Originally posted by g23armani
I am wondering how those who have decided the Deepwardens abilities allow CON to AC even in heavier armors interpret this sentance:
In heavier armors you are denied some or all of your dexterity bonus. The class ability states that the deepwarden loses the bonus to AC whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus. Seems to me they could only use the max dex bonus on the armor they are wearing...
G23armani
Are you suggestion that the DeepWarden would lose his Con bonus to AC when wearing heavier armors, since it is replacing Dexterity?
That just doesn't make a lick of sense of you ask me...
Obviously, from a logical standpoint, it doesn't make much sense; on a level, in fact, with firebreathing dragons and magic.
I tend to agree with the poster above who said it was obviously written to synergize with rangers and their requirement for low armor.
But as I said, it's obviously ambiguous.
If heavy armor truly denied Dex to AC, then a rogue could sneak attack a heavy-armor opponent anytime, anywhere, without exception.
Originally posted by Dark151
What books are, Inspired Strike Feat, Mineral Warrior Template, War Mind (PrC), Battle Rager (PrC) from?
1) No clue, Races of Stone, maybe?
2) Underdark, can be found on Wizards site, search for mineral warrior
3) XPH
4) Silver Marches
Can't claim much of this build as my idea, but it looks like a nice fleshed out build that incorporates most of the ideas thrown about this thread. A classic Dwarven Warrior if ever there was one.
1.Barbarian – Fast Movement, Illiteracy, Rage 1/day, Extra Rage
2.Barbarian – Uncanny Dodge
3.Dwarf Paragon – Craft Expertise, Stonecutting +4, Endurance
4.Dwarf Paragon – 90 Ft. Darkvision, +3 vs. Poison & Spells
5.Dwarf Paragon - +2 Constitution
6.Stone Warden – Track, Trap Sense +1, Weapon Focus
7.Stone Warden – Stone Warden (Con to AC)
8.Stone Warden – Animal Messenger
9.Stone Warden – Trap Sense +2, Improved Uncanny Dodge, True Believer
10.Stone Warden – Stubborn Mind
11.Pious Templar – Mettle
12.Pious Templar – Smite 1/day, Iron Will
13.Pious Templar – DR 1/-, Weapon Specialization
14.Hammer of Moradin – Aura of Courage, Hammer Throw
15.Hammer of Moradin – Goblin Killer, Hammer Return, Reckless Rage
16.Hammer of Moradin – DR 2/-, Powerful Grip
17.Hammer of Moradin – Far Shot, Quake
18.Hammer of Moradin – Drowbasher, Power Strike 2/day, Extra Rage
19.Hammer of Moradin – DR 4/-
20.Hammer of Moradin – Chaos Crusher, Stalwart
BAB +20; Base Saves 18/5/15 (Including Iron Will)
Requires shift from CG to NG between level 3 and 10
Originally posted by g23armani
I am wondering how those who have decided the Deepwardens abilities allow CON to AC even in heavier armors interpret this sentance:
In heavier armors you are denied some or all of your dexterity bonus. The class ability states that the deepwarden loses the bonus to AC whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus. Seems to me they could only use the max dex bonus on the armor they are wearing...
G23armani
Heavy armor does not deny you your Dex bonus, it reduces the amount of Dex you can apply to AC. This is an important distinction because as Rilem stated, anyone wearing Half-Plate could be SA'd at anytime.
I do wonder though if any of the author's could be emailed to find out if the Con bonus is meant to be limited or not? Does anyone know the email address for David Noonan, Jesse Decker, or Michelle Lyons?
Dark151, the Battlerager PrC is in Races of Faerun not in Silver Marches. Insatium was probably thinking of Hordebreaker, an honest mistake.
Incidently, I intend to apply Deepwarden to my Battlerager Build. DW really seems to synergize well with Battlerager, even though both are skill intensive. With the Barbarian base Climb, Jump, and Survival are class skills for a straight Bar/Brg, and both PrCs share Endurance as a requirement. Plus most Barbarians (mine included!) welcome the Will Save boost. Now I just need to figure out how to work the needed skills into my existing build.
But can anyone tell me where Inspire Strike Feat comes from?
Where does the Hammer of Moradin PrC come from?
Player's Guide to Faerûn, IIRC.
What about the People's Champion? Sounds like a perfect tank PrC for a dwarf..
i can't get that link to work can you tell me where to find it?
Secondly, you can't qualify with Barb 2/Dwarf Paragon 3 - neither class has got heal as a class skill.
The build is broken.
Armour spikes!
A character can make, and I quote, "... a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case..."
Furthermore, grab a Tsurichi greatsword (and armour spikes) from Magic of Rokugan, and with an 18 Strength and 20 Con, you're looking at an attack damage of 2d6+11/1d6+7. It also allows use of the Ranger's weapon style feats without being required to use classic less-than-ideal, no-extra-damage-dice two-weapon fighting.
This is, of course, assuming that Con is limited by armor. And a reasonably high stat buy.
I'm beginning to think that an unarmored Monk/Deepwarden/People's champion/Hammer of Moradin could actually make a pretty sweet tank.
This is, of course, assuming that Con is limited by armor. And a reasonably high stat buy.
Combine with Shou Disciple for flurry madness with Hammers. Not sure whether the 5 levels will fit into that build, but it looks enticing.
Combine with Shou Disciple for flurry madness with Hammers. Not sure whether the 5 levels will fit into that build, but it looks enticing.
Wow, no kidding!
People's Champion ... ?
Look 8 posts up ;)
:D
Ninja(CV)2/Barbarian(Bear Totem)5/DeepWarden2/Bear Warrior5/Battlerager(Races of Faerun)5/Warshaper2
Wis to AC, Con to AC(synergy with Bear Warrior and Warshaper Con increase), nice grappling ability, invisibility.
Pump con and wis, dump cha, int, and dex. There's nothing like an invisible raging brown bear.
-AS-
Of note, an area that has been neglected for the Ranger's weapon style is the use of heavy weaponry in two-weapon fighting. How, you ask?
Armour spikes!
A character can make, and I quote, "... a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case..."
Furthermore, grab a Tsurichi greatsword (and armour spikes) from Magic of Rokugan, and with an 18 Strength and 20 Con, you're looking at an attack damage of 2d6+11/1d6+7. It also allows use of the Ranger's weapon style feats without being required to use classic less-than-ideal, no-extra-damage-dice two-weapon fighting.
It has been neglected, but it's a fun way to look at TWF builds. About a month back, I suggested a Greatsword TWF build that used Shou Disciple for the 'offhand' attacks. There's nothing wrong with the concept in general. In fact, if built right, it adds to the versatility of the character.
Never unarmed; choose to ignore TWF if you need every last bit of hit bonus; many attacks that deal good damage if fighting the lower AC opponents.
However, using armor spikes does cause a problem. If you look up the equipment, it's very specific about only getting one extra attack with the armor spikes. Now, it may be reasonable to assume that it follows the normal TWF rules, but there it is in print, "You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice vesa."
Using a monk or other unarmed class can usually make up for the difference quite nicely. After all, the 1d6 for armor spikes is easily matched by other class abilities.
I like Cobra Strike Monk 2 or 3 / Ranger 2 / Fighter 2 / Shou Disciple 5 ... then proceed from there. On topic, the Deepwarden wouldn't be a bad thing to add to a build like this.
Cheers
Otto
race Changeling (MM3)
Barbarian 1
Fighter 2
Stoneblessed 3
Warshaper 4
Pious templar 4
Deepwarden 2
Hammer of morardin 4
it has all the nice warshaper goodies and the con to ac.
regards deDuke
If a changeling qualifies for deepwarden then I qualify for an African American. Sup my nikkas.
this changeling does by taking the stoneblessed prestige class, he can take feats and prestige classes which have prereq dwarf.
So now you can become an African American next lvl ;)
28 Point buy (str 17, Dex 8, Con 16(18 race), Int 13, Wis 8, Cha 8(6 race)
01 Ranger - Feat (Jotenbrud)
02 Fighter - Ftr Feat (EWP Spiked Chain)
03 Ranger - Feat (Combat Expertise) (Meet Skill requirements for Deepwarden)
04 Fighter - Ftr Feat (Improved trip) (+1 str)
05 Ranger - Endurance
06 Deepwarden - Feat (Heavy Armor Optimization)
07 Deepwarden - Stone Warden
08 Dwarven Paragon (+1 str)
09 Dwarven Paragon
10 Dwarven Paragon +2 Con
Trip Modifiers by level 10
+4 for Jotenbrud
+4 str
+10 BAB
AC
+4 Con
+8 Full Plate
+1 Hvy Armor Optimization
Is it good enough...
Dwarven Paragon.................. where i can find information still not found it (damn search not working)
Unearthed Arcana. Also, you can use google to search the message boards. I know if you have the toolbar installed, you just click on the button next to where you type in what to search for and hit "current site". You can do it from the main google page also, but I don't know how. (I use the toolbar :D )
Not sure if it can be done effectively, but I'd like to try a Spiked Chain-tripper with uber AC build...
28 Point buy (str 17, Dex 8, Con 16(18 race), Int 13, Wis 8, Cha 8(6 race)
01 Ranger - Feat (Jotenbrud)
02 Fighter - Ftr Feat (EWP Spiked Chain)
03 Ranger - Feat (Combat Expertise) (Meet Skill requirements for Deepwarden)
04 Fighter - Ftr Feat (Improved trip) (+1 str)
05 Ranger - Endurance
06 Deepwarden - Feat (Heavy Armor Optimization)
07 Deepwarden - Stone Warden
08 Dwarven Paragon (+1 str)
09 Dwarven Paragon
10 Dwarven Paragon +2 Con
Trip Modifiers by level 10
+4 for Jotenbrud
+4 str
+10 BAB
AC
+4 Con
+8 Full Plate
+1 Hvy Armor Optimization
Is it good enough...
Perhaps you should post this in a different thread? That might get you some more attention.
You need Combat Reflexes if you want to ba any good as a Spiked Chain wielder, BTW. Otherwise it looks pretty good. I'd finish off with the last 8 Deepwarden levels.
:D
laak
Unearthed Arcana. Also, you can use google to search the message boards. I know if you have the toolbar installed, you just click on the button next to where you type in what to search for and hit "current site". You can do it from the main google page also, but I don't know how. (I use the toolbar :D )
I've used the google site to search, but I've noticed it doesn't always show the newer posts, sometimes only threads days old or older. But it's useful looking for old threads.
also Jotenbrud is only for Humans,IIRC
:D
Ah bugger.
Perhaps you should post this in a different thread? That might get you some more attention.
You need Combat Reflexes if you want to ba any good as a Spiked Chain wielder, BTW. Otherwise it looks pretty good. I'd finish off with the last 8 Deepwarden levels.
Yeah, and with this guy's 8 dex, combat reflexes aren't useful... I guess a Str/Con trippper is just naturally non-optimized. Dagnabbit.
I could keep an enemy down, but would have limited ability to smack them while they are down...
ok i've lost where this info is stored i found it once.......... but i've lost it can someoine give me a pointer?
edit: found them in races of stone ;)
And you can't really infer otherwise from the class description - I'd actually argue that their clarification of flat-footed situations but NOT max dex bonus suggests that the latter doesn't apply. Unless it was simply an oversight, which I could definitely believe.
On a slight tangent, what's a dwarf barbarian's movement in medium armour? The SRD isn't quite explicit:
"Dwarf base land speed is 20 feet. However, dwarves can move at this speed even when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load (unlike other creatures, whose speed is reduced in such situations)."
If you interpret "this speed" to mean 20 feet, well, they're clearly stuck at 20'. If "this speed" means whatever the base speed is, then you could argue they get 30'. I'm leaning towards the former myself, disappointing as it is...
From a strictly RAW perspective, there's nothing stating that this Con bonus is affected by max Dex bonus, which of course only affects Dexterity: "This number is the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that this type of armor allows."
And you can't really infer otherwise from the class description - I'd actually argue that their clarification of flat-footed situations but NOT max dex bonus suggests that the latter doesn't apply. Unless it was simply an oversight, which I could definitely believe.
Losing the AC bonus to AC because you're flatfooted is something that only goes for dexterity. This tells us that the Stonewarden ability makes constitution supersede dexterity when it comes to AC in all ways - thus you have to abide the rule that goes for deterity to AC: You're limited by the max dex mod to armor.
The argument above is just as valid as yours. You can't "prove" anything when it comes to the Stonewarden ability by the RAW. You can, however, ask yourself this question: Did they want to make the ultimate 2 level dip for any dwarf tank, or did they want to make a fun, stealthy and hardy type prestige class that would be fun to play for all ten levels? The answer to that question alone makes me certain that the AC bonus is indeed limited by your armor.
- Dain
Side 1) Constitution isn't movement, so it shouldn't be limited by Armor Dexterity modifiers.
Side 2) It uses the higher modifier, not a different AC bonus.
"The deepwarden loses this bonus to his Armor Class whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC. " - Races of Stone
I think this implies that your Con bonus is limited in the same manner as Dex by your armor. Keeps it from being too unbalanced (I mean come on, you're still getting AC and HP from one stat).
I think all Deepwarden topics need to die until WoTC gives the official ruling. Otherwise, you end up with 10+ pages of this:
Side 1) Constitution isn't movement, so it shouldn't be limited by Armor Dexterity modifiers.
Side 2) It uses the higher modifier, not a different AC bonus.
That was the point I was trying to make.
I just stated that it should be clear what they meant when they created the PrC as well.
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!
----------------
so how does that sound ;)
i asked customer service the following question
hi question about the deepwarden ability
the level 2 ability
(...)
Someone already did that - and they answered the same thing last time, surprisingly. However, Customer Service aren't exactly known for their consistent rules-lawyering. Sometimes they answer opposite answers to the same questions.
Although they are meant to be an official source of rules-clarifications, they don't do the job very well. You're free to accept this ruling, but I'm taking it with a grain of salt.
- Dain
However many DMs will listen to reasonable arguments, so be able to point to some proof in books to back you up and they will often side with you.
But short of it being in errata there is no "proper answer", you just have to read it for yourself in the book.
so how do we get a proper answer?
I'd say that we wait for further erreta or clarifications from the designers of the PrC. Until then the DM has the final word (ok, he's got the final word anyway, but you know what I mean), as pointed out above.
- Dain
I'd say that we wait for further erreta or clarifications from the designers of the PrC. Until then the DM has the final word (ok, he's got the final word anyway, but you know what I mean), as pointed out above.
I thought with as long as Races of Stone has been out we won't see any more errata on it.
"All the Stone Warden ability does is allow you to transpose your
(better) Con modifier to your AC to replace a poorer Dex modifier. The
same limitations to this AC modifier apply, including the Max Dex (Con)
modifier of armor.
I hope this clears things up. Good gaming!"
I'm not sure how these answers clear things up.
-- Atherlos
Any up to date ruling on the Con to AC issue?
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.
Cleric 4/Dwarven Paragon 3/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 1/Hammer of Moradin 10
Some considarations:
- Cleric could have Travel domain (Survival as a class skill amongst other things), though there is obvious problem of how a Cleric of Moradin gets the Travel domain.
- Dwarven Substititions Level at fourth level to make that warhammer even better.
- Spirit Shaman get's the survival skill for free is that is more your thing, (I would still like that Dwarven Cleric substitusion level)
- Favored Soul, you get Weapon Focus for free with the warhammer nothing wrong with that.
- If you have low skill points, (because of MAD or to many cross-class skills), you could use Cloistred Cleric from UA. (Though the loss of 2 BAB is huge not to mention HP).
- Battlesmith make YOUR OWN hammer better. (Wis from Cleric doesn't look so bad now I hope).
- Your craft skill with metal items should be awesome by now.
- Maybe you could even use Item familiar to have a warhammer more like Thor's
(As in loads of magical power, though in between the Hammer of Moradin's abilities and that feat it could get really close).- There aren't that many feats free, flaws might be needed.
I am sure I have missed something, cross class skills, the requirements of all the PRC's. etc...Please point out any errors there might be, maybe the build is imposible, (the caster level from HoM really hurts, it's a shame I cannot add People's Champion to this build).
However, using armor spikes does cause a problem. If you look up the equipment, it's very specific about only getting one extra attack with the armor spikes. Now, it may be reasonable to assume that it follows the normal TWF rules, but there it is in print, "You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice vesa."
Wait... Am I missing something? That line says that you can't attack with armor spikes if you've attacked with another off-hand weapon, which wouldn't include the selfsame armor spikes.
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.
isn't there a ritual you can do in SS that would allow you to change from a human (after getting feat) to a dwarf (to enter the class etc) that still lets you use what you had before?
I thought i read something like this a while back...?
Not sure...
But there is a PrC in Races of Stone that lets you count as a dwarf after taking 3 levels of it.
Not sure...
But there is a PrC in Races of Stone that lets you count as a dwarf after taking 3 levels of it.
Are you sure? Theres one at lvl 3 that lets you count as a goliath... I don't think theres one for dwarf.
Are you sure? Theres one at lvl 3 that lets you count as a goliath... I don't think theres one for dwarf.
Stoneblessed allows you to qualify as your patron race at the 3rd level.. Goliath, Dwarf, or Gnome.
Stoneblessed allows you to qualify as your patron race at the 3rd level.. Goliath, Dwarf, or Gnome.
This would be, if not powerful, funny to play a Goliath-obsessed Half-giant, a dwarf-obsessed human, or a gnome-obsessed hafling who insisted that you were in fact born with the soul and mind of your chosen race.
This would be, if not powerful, funny to play a Goliath-obsessed Half-giant, a dwarf-obsessed human, or a gnome-obsessed hafling who insisted that you were in fact born with the soul and mind of your chosen race.
Just to be silly with races, play a Changeling Stoneblessed (Goliath)/Renegade mastermaker with the feat Racial emulation and use your Minor change shape ability to appear as a halfling. You technically are now a Changeling/Goliath/Warforged/Halfling, as far as requirements go :D
As near as I can tell, he'd get the full Con bonus, since CON doesn't have limitations. !
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.
Hmmmm...
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.
Even if a character’s Dexterity bonus to AC drops to 0 because of armor, this situation does not count as losing a Dexterity bonus to AC.
Your character’s encumbrance (the amount of gear he or she carries) may also restrict the maximum Dexterity bonus that can be applied to his or her Armor Class.
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.
Even if a character’s Dexterity bonus to AC drops to 0 because of armor, this situation does not count as losing a Dexterity bonus to AC.
just go ranger3/deepwarden2/barbarianX (rage! extra con = extra ac :P) and after that go dwarven defender that should make a pretty nice character right :p
Defender is lawful only, barb is non-lawful only, if you are a barb and change align to lawful, you lose rage. A good build is Ranger 1/Fighter 4/Deepwarden 2 then defender to however high you want.
Human Paragon 3 (Class skills needed for Deepwarden, +2 Con)
Stoneblessed 3 (count as dwarf, dwarven abilities, another +2 Con)
Dwarven Paragon 3 (a few abilities, yet another +2 Con [do they all stack?])
and now enter the Deepwarden...
Haven`t thought this through yet but sounds pretty funny to me, if it works...
What do you lads and ladies think of it?
(PS: Would it be possible to use the Stoneblessed Prc with a Whispergnome to get into Dwarven Prc´s ?
)PS: Would it be possible to use the Stoneblessed Prc with a Whispergnome to get into Dwarven Prc´s ?
Yup, that would work. And: Yup, the various Con bonusses stack.
Try mineral warrior mongrelfolk dragonborn of bahamut as a base for your stoneblessed/deepwarden builds... a whooping +10 Con (not including any class-boosts) should be good enough, at least for a LA of +1.
EJ
Wow that would be one badass Gnome, tough as nails and hard to hit. Maybe i should look what i can make of it. A Gnome adopted in a dwarven clan would be more realistic roleplaying-wise too, i think.
Swordsage3 /Psychic Warrior3 /Fighter2 /Deepwarden2 /Dwarven Defender10
Build:
1: Swordsage 1: (take the Stone Mountain stance that adds to AC vs larger creatures), Toughness
2: Fighter 1: Combat Focus
3: Psychic Warrior 1: Endurance, Dodge
4: Swordsage 2
5: Psychic Warrior 2: (Open feat)
6: Psychic Warrior 3: Stone Power
7: Fighter 2: (Open Feat)
8: Deepwarden 1
9: Deepwarden 2: Combat Dodge
10: Dwarven Defender 1
11: Dwarven Defender 2
12: Dwarven Defender 3: Combat Vigor
13: Dwarven Defender 4
14: Dwarven Defender 5
15: Dwarven Defender 6: (Open feat)
16: Dwarven Defender 7
17: Dwarven Defender 8
18: Dwarven Defender 9: (Open feat)
19: Dwarven Defender 10
20: Swordsage 3
While it hits its stride a little late, you end up with Wisdom to AC (w/ light or unarmored), some minor psychic powers (primarily Shield so you can use a two-handed weapon), can use Stone Power to generate 10 temporary hit points per round, once you hit someone in combat, you get fast healing 4 for 13 rounds, and also has damage reduction 6/-.
That means if you are getting hit for 20 points of damage in one attack per round, you don't take any actual damage. DR will reduce it by 6, you'll soak 10 on temporary hit points, and you will heal 4 points back on your turn.
It is a pretty solid defensive tank, I think. There are probably better ways to do it, overall.
With 32 point buy, I'd get stats as follows:
Str: 16 (10)
Dex: 13 (5)
Con: 14+2 (6)
Int: 13 (5)
Wis: 14 (6)
Cha: 8-2 (0)
Psychic Warrior powers I'd recommend taking Force Screen and Expansion.
Which is it?
Con limited by max dex... or no?
The intent is likely for it to be capped by Max Dex, the RAW is quite vague.
Fist of the Forest on the other hand, from Complete Champion, adds Con to AC the way a monk adds Wis to AC.
I did however just get an email from Chuck @ CustServ that states:
"The Deepwarden's ability to substitute his Constitution for his Dexterity bonuses to his Armor Class is effected by the max Dexterity bonus of the armor that he is wearing. This effect just substitutes the number's nothing else. When I image this effect in play I think of the Deepwarden turning to take blows where they hurt less, so he does not really dodge just does not get hit anywhere that really counts."
So now we have two conflicting responses from the same source.
I think there needs to be an official ruling. Not saying that CustServ isnt official, but since there has been conflicting responses from the same source, I do not think they necessarily qualify to be able to answer this ruling question. I really would like to see a response or email from a Game Designer or some official errata. Something to make it set in stone. pun intended.
Nathan
My renewed vigor towards this subject is because I made a build that relies on this concept to work (to its maximum potential) I would just like to see an actual official ruling from a higher up source.
The build looks something like this:
Garden Variety Gnome with good Str and Con
Barbarian 1 (extra rageCW)
Fighter 2 (Dodge)(Titan Fighting)(Endurance)
Stoneblessed (dwarf type) 3 (+2 con, +4 additional dodge bonus vs giants which stacks with similar racial bonus from gnome)
(I believe these stack as one is from a prc and the other is racial after all they are dodge bonuses)
Then after a few levels they get the skills to qualify for deepwarden, take two levels and become insanity personified.
The Resultant gnome could have +1 size, +9 con +14 (+5 full plate) +9 shield (+5 tower shield) +5 natural, +5 Deflection, =53 AC, with a dodge feat that grants an extra +8 bonus so long as your fighting medium creatures or better. for around 61 vs the big bad. Add a decent defending weapon and you can force your great wyrm reds to roll 20s to hit you. Oh and you take no AC penalty for rage :P
As I'm the DM there are a few foils for this build:
A Lack of a good damage source, essentially invulnerable but not much to do.
B Low Will save (so Nice to have a metal coated meat shield volunteer to protect my lich :P)
C Low movement rate
Most of these can be countered with
I can't take credit for this, one of my players came up with it.
All this is of course contingent on the deepwarden AC bonus not being limited by armor. Otherwise you're down 9 points with Bracers of armor +8 and a +5 heavy steel shield. As the DM in my campaign I'm going to use Khan as an official source
power attack. :P
But I am going to summarize the points made so far:
Supporting Max Dex applying to Stonewarden:
1. The line that states the AC bonus is still lost when flat-footed.
Counterpoint to 1: The Deepwarden gets Uncanny Dodge @ 4th level. Making earlier level abilities better.
2. How would CON improve AC? Also, see Counterpoint 2 below, it makes sense.
Counterpoint to 2: The description says "Using their strengths to make up for their weaknesses" To me (and to Chuck at CustServ) this says they use their toughness to take the hits where it doesn't hurt, or where their body would absorb it without damage. The fact that the dwarf cannot be flat footed to do this makes sense. How are you going to take a hit where it will hurt you the least if you are not ready to react? Armor AC and Natural Armor AC and (In my Opinion) toughness AC don't mean the enemy misses, it means the hit glanced off or hit and did not penetrate. But it all doesn't matter once the Deepwarden gets Uncanny Dodge at 4th, as they now retain whichever bonus anyways. Coincidence? I think not!
3. You are just changing which modifier to use, not how it works.
Counterpoint to 3: Not true. the text states they use their strengths to make up for their weaknesses. Con is a dwarf's strength. Dex is not. Dex is your ability to dodge something or do something that requires agility or how quickly you react to something. Con is your ability to absorb something without suffering negative effects. (whether its is poison, or to tough out holding your breath, etc.) Notice Reflex saves are also Dex based, but that doesn't change. Just goes to show the intentional isolation of this instance to AC. If stonewarden changed the reflex save to con based too, then I would assume this was still agility based. But it is not... anymore. The text also says Max Dex.
Points supporting that Max Dex DOES NOT apply to Stonewarden
1. The Deepwarden gets Heavy Armor Proficiency. Considering the build of the class looks like a prime ranger entrance, and it then gives that same ranger entrant heavy armor... don't you think they are intended to use it?
2. The text does not state that the Max Dex of the armor still applies.
Counterpoints?
WotC... please release official errata on this, as the CustServ responses are conflicting.
Nathan
B Low Will save (so Nice to have a metal coated meat shield volunteer to protect my lich )
Take Steadfast Determination and apply your Con bonus to your will saves instead of Wis bonus.
C Low movement rate
Take the "quick" trait to increase your base movement speed by 10' (should stack with Barb fast movement). It costs you 1hp per level, but with that sort of con, you can afford it.
Barbarian requires nonlawful and both dwarven defender and kensai require lawful. You'd have to play an ex barb, which is useless because of the racial fighter substitutions in races of stone. And whisper gnome is PiMP, because no LA!
I don't think the RAW is that vague really. I think by RAW it wouldn't be limited. All official answers on this have been consistent though saying that armor does limit the AC bonus, and it's more balanced that way.
The RAW doesn't say that it's limited, so where is the discrepancy?
If it was intended to be limited by Max Dex they would have put it in the text.
As stated before the fact you get Heavy Armor Proficiency upon entering the PrC kind of supports this, but this could also be looked at as a case of RAI just like limiting with Max Dex.
It doesn't really help that they give the sample in RoS a +1 Chain Shirt...This is more for the TWFing than anything.
The RAW doesn't say that it's limited, so where is the discrepancy?
If it was intended to be limited by Max Dex they would have put it in the text.
As stated before the fact you get Heavy Armor Proficiency upon entering the PrC kind of supports this, but this could also be looked at as a case of RAI just like limiting with Max Dex.
It doesn't really help that they give the sample in RoS a +1 Chain Shirt...This is more for the TWFing than anything.
I'm not telling you how to run your game, but claiming that there is no discrepancy while using an interpretation at odds with "official" sources such as custserv.
making statements like statements like "If it was intended to be limited by Max Dex they would have put it in the text." is problematic in debates. It's obviously untrue and tends to cause debates to degenerate into arguments. Debating RAI is problematic enough without such hyperbole.
It's Max Dex not Max Con. Just because it replaces Max Dex, doesn't mean that it is limited in the same way.
Yeah, it's still limited by the state of being flat-footed. But that's about it.
Fighter 2 (Dodge)(Titan Fighting)(Endurance)
I would have taken PsiWar 2/Fighter 1 instead. Three feats that are nice for this: Speed of Thought and Deflective Armor (needs Heavy Armor Optimizaion, which isn't bad). You wouldn't have to take all these levels before Deepwarden, just eventually work them into the build.
If you are going to rely on heavy armor, Deflective Armor is as nice as feats come. Getting your armor bonus to you Touch AC is always nice. Add Shield Specialization and Shield Ward, and your character has everything but natural armor to his/her Touch AC.
I get the sense you're getting defensive Taureus. There's no need to be. Like I said before noone telling you how to play your game.
And the fact that CustServ gives contradictory information quite a bit, I have seen it on other threads, makes them less "official" than you seem to think.
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!
----------------
so how does that sound ;)
Here is the post that got the answer that goes along with the Stone Warden ability RAW. You claim that RAI shouldn't be debated, but you are trying to say that the Con bonus is limited in the same way Dex is.
Thanks for finding that post. I never said RAI shouldn't be debated (although others have gone that far), I just pointed out that it could be problematic debating it. The same in true in US Jurisprudence. The supreme court has often had to debate the intent of legislators or the framers of the constitution. It's tricky, and never subject to absolute conclusions, but is still often worth debating.
I'm not claiming that the con bonus is absolutely limited the way dex is, in fact I agree that if you just look at the text of the ability without taking into account factors such as game balance, RAI, or "official" sources such as RPGA, Custserv, and that online chat with I forget who the only reasonable conclusion is that it isn't.
I am saying that if you do include some of those other factors there is room for debate and you should make a judgement with your gaming group as to how it works in your game.
p.s. if anyone can point me to the text of that online chat I'd appreciate it. (I think it took place slightly before spell compendium came out)
I'm not saying they haven't given contradictory answers anymore, but could you or monkman please point to the post with the pasted answer from custerv that says it's not affected by max dex? I've seen several independent replies that have all said that it does ("including one I sent"). I searched this thread and didn't find the post monkman is referring to.
I get the sense you're getting defensive Taureus. There's no need to be. Like I said before noone telling you how to play your game.
Here's one with a CustServ response from Chris: (supporting Con NOT restricted by Max Dex)
http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-335621.html
And I got one that says it IS restricted. It seems to me that either side of the argument technically has 100% proof. LOL!
So the jist of this is:
It needs OFFICIAL ERRATA! Not a CustServ decision.
What about something in between? What about it still applying with limitations? Such as:
In light armor: Max Dex +1
In medium armor: Max Dex +2
In heavy Armor: Max Dex +3
This still makes a character choose between heavy armor and medium armor... also, makes the decision to go from heavy armor made of mithril (making it medium in ALL respects) and forgoing the heavy armor optimization/ deflective armor fetas. Makes it a decision that must be tailored to the purpose of the character.
Something in between "It applies", and it "doesn't apply" seems to me to be the more balanced decision overall. I think my idea is pretty decent for a compromise.. if I am allowed to pat my own back a bit.
However, the more a character concentrates on con, the more his reflex saves and skills based on dex will suffer. not a whole lot of skills based on con, and fort saves are already good... along with dwarves getting +2 vs poison on top of that.
The ability would be underpowered if it did not offer some sort of benefit on top of just using con mod instead of dex mod with all restrictions still applying. It needs SOMETHING more.
Edit-
The reason I think my option is more balanced than a straight yes or no is this: It gives the deepwarden a bit more AC, but, it takes away the ability to PUMP the AC with things like Dwarven Defender's Defensive Stance, Pumping the heck out of Con, raging (actually, it would help with raging anyways, since they dont wear armor, so it keeps that mechanic balanced in any decision), or anything else that would boost con through the roof. It keeps that route in check, but makes the ability work for the deepwarden's ultimate benefit. especially since they get uncanny dodge at 4th level. makes the class worth sticking with longer. My option gives it a cap. and not only does it give it a cap, but then allows a character to go multiple routes to get the most out of the ability (medium or heavy armor... or heck, even light armor for those that don't wear heavy or medium armor. And it keeps unarmored combatants in the exact same position they were in before.
Dont you think someone who needs to be the warning system for their city should be able to survive just a bit better? at least to make it back to warn their fellow citizens? Something to keep in mind is this class has survivability in mind. Sorry to bring the argument of intent back into lay, but consistency is something that makes sense to me. The Deepwarden does not have a ton of offensive abilities... matter of fact, aside from Full BAB, they get NO SPECIAL ATTACK ABILITIES. None! Zero. Zilch. Nada. The Deepwarden class is Clearly a defensive early warning system. not a damage dealer.
Just something to think about.
This is a reply email I got back from custServ.. however, it is said that the response is from Mr. Noonan. Pretty sure this counts as Officially Official.
"Hi there Nathan,
Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast game support.
I am the senior D&D rules representative for the Customer Service/Game Support team. I have gone to R&D and gotten an answer from Dave (aka Mr. Noonan) stating that Chuck is indeed correct. The Maximum Dexterity Bonus of armor still applies to the Deepwarden's Stone Warden ability.
Unfortunately we cannot transfer customer emails to the designers or developers, as they are quite busy designing and developing. The Customer Service/Game Support department also cannot perform the function of debating the rules with customers. We can only clarify to customers how the official rules are intended to be interpreted. Of course any DM has the right to make a house rule that better suits their campaign or play style!
If you have seen a conflicting answer from one of our representatives, we are sorry for the confusion. We are going to provide the correct information to our representatives so we can try to avoid something like this in the future.
Take Care and Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you.
Sam
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST"
Guess that settles the debate. I also just found that Living Greyhawk has the same class and it does specify that Max Dex is limited. Makes that easy.
Guess that settles the debate. I also just found that Living Greyhawk has the same class and it does specify that Max Dex is limited. Makes that easy.
'tis sad because it was an amazing feature but it did kind of the make the Deepwarden the best melee class of all time to a rather amazing degree if one did not apply the max dex bonus to con.
I do wish they had put out errata, however, as this was a clear point of confusion and very reasonable people debated both sides!
Like the post above shows, CustServ only clears up RAI...which is totally pointless since they don't print what's important in the book like it should be.
This might only be my opinion, but if they truly intended certain things to be defined, they need to actually print it in the books.
Maybe they didn't think it would be a problem when they printed the book. But the sample NPC in the book wasn't a very good example at all. I mean, come on, giving the NPC a chain shirt, gimme a break.
Dave Noonan: "Yes. It still applies"
I am pretty sure that you can consider this official since it came from the person that will most likely have a hand in the official errata. Plus, Living Greyhawk has the exact same class and exact same ability and it does clarify.
I wish more than anything that it didnt though. since I just finished up a build in a gestalt game the utilized this to every extent of brokenness.
However, I am going to keep bantering for an official "from the horses mouth " response. To me, an "I asked and he said this" doesn't cut the mustard.... completely. just smears it... with an air of authority.I will persist untill we get something SOLID!!!!!!!
Mix Deep Warden with Fist of the Forest and Primeval.. I wonder if wearing a "wild" armor while in Primeval form (similar to wild shape) would still have a max dex bonus, or impact the Fist's "no armor" policy..
I've got to re-work the build in my sig to include FotF.. It would be nasty :P It would be nasty even without wearing wild armor..
And Living Greyhawk changes a lot of things just to make everything more streamlined. I shouldn't need to come up with anything to back this up, all you have to do is compare what they allow with what's written in the various books. They change it so there can be no interpretations.
Any reprinting or update of a previous ability, class, spell, or item supercedes the old version.
This is why many spells and magic items are not as powerful now that Spell COmpendium and Magic Item Compendium have been printed.
He is the Chuck Norris of the D&D production aspect.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Deepwardens are proficient with all types of simple and martial weapons, all types of armor, and shields (except tower shields).
ALL types of armor, including Exotics, like Mountain Plate and Interlocking Plate?
Interlocking Plate would be good for a Deepwarden/Dwarven Defender build... Since you can't move more than 5ft in a Defensive Stance, you should always get +10 AC.
Edit: Well, I guess those armors would be good if Max Dex doesn't apply, or in this case, Max Con.
Actually, the fact that it's been reprinted ina newer book is the only :solid and official" answer anyone needs.
Any reprinting or update of a previous ability, class, spell, or item supercedes the old version.
This is why many spells and magic items are not as powerful now that Spell COmpendium and Magic Item Compendium have been printed.
Where exactly?
Where exactly?
Living Greyhakw
Same Prc, Same Ability, updated text. Sucks, I know.
Living Greyhakw
Same Prc, Same Ability, updated text. Sucks, I know.
Living Greyhawk is one big houserule, though.
As long as it's DnD and WotC made, newer material of the same priority trumps older material.
A reprinted PHB (not PHB2, but PHB 3.5.1 or so) would trump the 3.5 PHB just like 3.5 PHB trumped 3.0.
As could be said about every single splat, about every book except for the core three.
As long as it's DnD and WotC made, newer material of the same priority trumps older material.
A reprinted PHB (not PHB2, but PHB 3.5.1 or so) would trump the 3.5 PHB just like 3.5 PHB trumped 3.0.
No, it wasn't an expression. Living Greyhawk really IS one big houserule. There's a ton of stuff changed, or banned, to maintain the balance of such a widespread campaign, and pointing to those changes and claiming they should carry over to non-LG is weak.
I mean, I think LG bans the Shadowcraft Mage, but as far as I know it's still legal everywhere else.
Is that so hard to agree with?
I agree. Just because LG is put out by WOTC, doesn't make it so the Races of Stone version of Stone Warden doesn't work the way it reads. The ability description in the book doesn't mention anything about applying Max Dex. If that was the intent of the author, it should have been put in the text.
Is that so hard to agree with?
Yes ... in fact it's provably impossible. Language is imperfect. Now in this case it clearly could have been phrased better, but asking for a rule set as complex as DnD without ambiguities, misleading phrasing, and even outright contradictions is frankly too much to ask. That's why we need DMs.
It still doesnt change the fact that the head of custserv asked David noonan and David noonan said it still applies. That is as good as it gets.
And a "he said it so it's so" email if official material?
Not quite.
And a "he said it so it's so" email if official material?
Not quite.
Dude, read all of my posts before negating what I say.
Aside from a pdf being released, that is as official as it gets. call cust serv and ask to talk to the same guy i named in the posts.
not that friggin hard. they work in the same building. David Noonan writes these books. stonewarden was printed in a newr book. and it states in that newer book:"the Maximum Dex of the armor still applies"
Aside from mr. noonan taking your copy of races of stone and writing it in there for you... it is as good as it gets.
If you wish to houserule differently, nothing is stopping you. but if you wish to go off rulings of the people that make the game, then call them for yourself. It is obvious to me that you feel I just fabricated this. I'm done.
And a "he said it so it's so" email if official material?
Not quite.
Seriously, stop jerking off. You can **** and moan about official sources all you want, but you know how it's supposed to work. Either man up and admit you're going to house rule it or abide by the intent, which is crystal clear. Either way, stop trying to cloak your objections in an air of legitimacy.
It's not so hard to say, "I don't like it." Go on, give it a shot.
I agree. Just because LG is put out by WOTC, doesn't make it so the Races of Stone version of Stone Warden doesn't work the way it reads. The ability description in the book doesn't mention anything about applying Max Dex. If that was the intent of the author, it should have been put in the text.
Is that so hard to agree with?
And what part of "reprinted material is considered the updated material" did you miss?
You seriously need to stop arguing on false premises. You have this grasp on something because you desperately wish that this ability worked in favor of broken-ness.
Go read the living greyhawk version. it is identical except for ADDING a sentence that states that max dex still applies.
How friggin hard is that to understand? if you don't like it, houserule it. I am done with this thread.
Just curious, but can anyone put together a comparison of 20th level gear optimized for AC on a traditional tank type (Full Plate +5 / Tower Shield +5 sort of thing) vs. a Fisting Deepwarden type (Maxed Con / Bracers of Armor / Wis bonuses, etc.)? Generic Dwarf with 20 base Con +5 levels +5 Inherent +6 item = 36, for a +13 bonus or +26 to AC. Monk's Belt would be 1 + Wis bonus. Bracers +8. Ring of Deflect +5. Natural Armor +5. That about 55 + Wis bonus right there. Mithral Full Plate +5 = 13, Tower Shield +5 = 9, Dex = 3, Deflect 5, Natural 5, so about 40. (Note these calcs are AFB spitballing, either could probably be seriously beefed up. Also, I don't have MIC.)
Seriously, stop jerking off. You can **** and moan about official sources all you want, but you know how it's supposed to work. Either man up and admit you're going to house rule it or abide by the intent, which is crystal clear. Either way, stop trying to cloak your objections in an air of legitimacy.
It's not so hard to say, "I don't like it." Go on, give it a shot.
Not quite sure how you read the description of the ability, but there is no intent for the Max Dex of an armor to apply to it. Even reading the description of the class ability itself you can't (sure you could, but what's the point of arguing) honestly say it's meant to be limited.
I already have it HRed to stand as it reads in RoS.
I am not playing in an LG game, so it has no bearing whatsoever. LG rules don't apply to the rest of D&D games being played, so what's being called "updated" in the LG rulebook, doesn't apply to the rest of D&D.
I am thinking Crusader 5/Deep Warden 2/Dwarven Defender 8/Deepstone Sentinal 5.
I may end up shaving off a few levels of Dwarven Defender for more levels of crusader (like 2). Only reason for going that far is for the mobile stance.
Still, I think it could be a tough nut to crack. With the Crusaders delayed damage pool, ability to heal, combined with all the bonuses from the PrC, it makes for a very nice tank.
Not quite sure how you read the description of the ability, but there is no intent for the Max Dex of an armor to apply to it. Even reading the description of the class ability itself you can't (sure you could, but what's the point of arguing) honestly say it's meant to be limited.
I already have it HRed to stand as it reads in RoS.
I am not playing in an LG game, so it has no bearing whatsoever. LG rules don't apply to the rest of D&D games being played, so what's being called "updated" in the LG rulebook, doesn't apply to the rest of D&D.
Oh, you're confusing me with someone else. I'm not talking about LG or how to read the ability printed in the original RoS. I'm pointing out that the designer's crystal clear stated intent is for the ability to be limited by Max Dex. You know this. You've read the thread, you've read the email, and you've acknowledged that it was stated so. You can drone on and on about what's printed in the book, and which source counts, and blah blah blah. It's all a smoke screen.
You know how it's supposed to work. Playing it any other way is just you saying, "I'm throwing away designer intent here, because I want it to work this way." You could at least have the juevos to admit it instead of hiding behind arguments about sources etc.
Guess that settles the debate. I also just found that Living Greyhawk has the same class and it does specify that Max Dex is limited. Makes that easy.
No, not really.
It wasn't stated in book that Max Dex affects it.
The errata didn't fix it.
It does, however, seem like this statement was an amendment for all the balance concerned players and not their prior answer.
So, it's still up in the air.
So, it's still up in the air.
WRONG!
Did you not read the email from head of Cust Serv? Dave Noonan.. (the guy that writes the rules..For those who don't look at the cover or first 2 pages in EVERY BOOK) has stated that Maximum Dex STILL APPLIES!!!! What part of that is "still in the air" Sheesh people. I understand trying to have a debate, but the debate is over. I even started on your side and bugged Wotc untill I got to the top with an answer. Get over. We lost this one. find a new argument or go get a girlfriend. Anything to get your mind off a losing battle.
Heh, I have been thinking about making a total tank Dwarf build, and this article may have convinced me to take a 2 level dip into Deep Warden.
I am thinking Crusader 5/Deep Warden 2/Dwarven Defender 8/Deepstone Sentinal 5.
I may end up shaving off a few levels of Dwarven Defender for more levels of crusader (like 2). Only reason for going that far is for the mobile stance.
Still, I think it could be a tough nut to crack. With the Crusaders delayed damage pool, ability to heal, combined with all the bonuses from the PrC, it makes for a very nice tank.
It would have to be a houserule for Max Dex NOT to apply. Dave Noonan has stated that Maximum Dex still affects the AC bonus, essentially making it a Maximum Con mod.
Not quite sure how you read the description of the ability, but there is no intent for the Max Dex of an armor to apply to it. Even reading the description of the class ability itself you can't (sure you could, but what's the point of arguing) honestly say it's meant to be limited.
I already have it HRed to stand as it reads in RoS.
I am not playing in an LG game, so it has no bearing whatsoever. LG rules don't apply to the rest of D&D games being played, so what's being called "updated" in the LG rulebook, doesn't apply to the rest of D&D.
There is no interpretation needed. Dave Noonan cleared it up. If you do not wish to take that as official, then you might as well put a petition together to get rid of ALL ruling clarifications from WOTC. Basically demand that they ONLY release PDF's and official errata EVERY time.
You admit that you Houseruled it. Since that is how it would have to be done for it to be effective... since Max dex still applies.
I found a pdf of LG and i read in it that max dex still applied. maybe it was an edited file. if I can find the link, I will post it up. But it doesn't matter. Dave Noonan has answered the question. If you dont believe me, I copy and pasted the email further up. If you think I faked it (since that wouldn't exactly help me... because I WANTED MAX DEX NOT TO APPLY) then call them yourself and email them over and over and over and call them repeatedly like I did. Perhaps you could write a letter to Dave Noonan himself. Get over it. this argument is closed.
Official: Max Dex still applies
House Rule: Max Dex does not apply
Oh, you're confusing me with someone else. I'm not talking about LG or how to read the ability printed in the original RoS. I'm pointing out that the designer's crystal clear stated intent is for the ability to be limited by Max Dex. You know this. You've read the thread, you've read the email, and you've acknowledged that it was stated so. You can drone on and on about what's printed in the book, and which source counts, and blah blah blah. It's all a smoke screen.
You know how it's supposed to work. Playing it any other way is just you saying, "I'm throwing away designer intent here, because I want it to work this way." You could at least have the juevos to admit it instead of hiding behind arguments about sources etc.
If the intent was so clear, why isn't there Official Errata out yet.
We are sitting here, almost 3 years after this thread was started, and what is there? An email from the "official" CustServ, who's answer on this subject has changed twice.
Nothing is going to stop me from having the ability stand as it reads in RoS, because that's how it's supposed to work.
And what about all the people who don't rely on CustServ and the Sage for questions that should have errata. Are you saying all the DMs who don't read this thread are severely mistaken about how the ability is supposed to work.
find a new argument or go get a girlfriend.
That was random! :heehee
But I do wonder why it takes a letter to get an answer for this question, when any other issue to date answered in an errata hasn't. That's one other factor that leaves it a little suspect.
I even started on your side and bugged Wotc untill I got to the top with an answer.
Just based on this statement alone, don't you think that it's possible they got tired of people asking for clarification, and just gave an answer that would appease those people out there who are looking for balance?
You keep arguing that because Dave Noonan "said" it, it's official. Why can't you just go with what you want, and follow the ability as it stands in Races of Stone.
After all, do you think there would have been an argument if Noonan had ruled in for Max Dex to not apply? I think not, it's just because you lost the argument that you are so vehement about making sure everyone else knows what this thread says.
How about this then:
interpret as you wish. I have my answer from dave noonan. Have a nice day.
Just based on this statement alone, don't you think that it's possible they got tired of people asking for clarification, and just gave an answer that would appease those people out there who are looking for balance?
Someone (it could have been noonan, it was definatly an author), said so in an online chat more than a year ago. Custserv has been consistant in their answers for over two years now.
It's also important to note that the official interpretation does not contradict the text of the ability. It's not the most intuitive way to read the text, but it doesn't contradict it.
Wouldn't you agree that if they really meant for the answer Noonan gave the CustServ guy to be official, that they would have put out errata by now?
Do you really need one though? Go ask your DM what he thinks. If he allows it, it's in, if he doesn't, it's out. That's what a DM is for.
As a DM (and a player), I'm satisfied that Con to AC is limited by armor (I previously wanted it to be unbound, but it isn't).
This discussion is really bordering on the pointless. Official Errata aside, we've had an answer that's as official as it gets. Beyond that, it's up to your DM whether he thinks it's going to break his game.
"Alright... We'll call it a draw"
Hope I didn't make anyone angry through all of this.
Hope I didn't make anyone angry through all of this.
Gods above, below, and everyone between or not so between!
I HATE draws!
How could you do this!
;)
I just don't want to argue anymore.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the Stone Warden ability. Given, the "official" answer from David Noonan is that Mas Dex applies. Although I don't agree with this based on my interpretation of how the ability reads, I am not going to argue about the validity of this anymore.
If it weren't for this thread, there probably never would have been an argument about it. People would have just gone on with the fact that, RAW there is no limitation by armor.
Like you said a little earlier:
Official: Max Dex still applies
House Rule: Max Dex does not apply
As a general statement, I feel that people will just continue to let it not be limited. IMHO it honestly doesn't make it too game breaking.
Perhaps wotc will release official errata ... someday... err year..
But as you say... current RAW does not specify that max dex becomes max con.
So many nuances...
Like I said, this thread has been going for almost 3 years now.
Wouldn't you agree that if they really meant for the answer Noonan gave the CustServ guy to be official, that they would have put out errata by now?
I had to post (and resurrect an old thread) because I saw this common confusion that must be corrected.
They explicitly say they don't put most of the clarifications in Errata. Errata is only for text that can only be read differently than designed. For text printed that can be read to agree with the design, they never publish errata. In short if they read it and come to the intended interpretation, you shall never see errata published.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the Stone Warden ability. Given, the "official" answer from David Noonan is that Mas Dex applies.
People would have just gone on with the fact that, RAW there is no limitation by armor.
They likely read the ability like I do, and that is that it is RAW to be explicitly limited by Dexterity. So you can not assert that it is RAW to be unlimited, since you can easily read it to be limited by DEX as written. You may also be able to read it as unlimited (if you choose to ignore Max Dex rules in the PHB), but this is an example of Rules as I would Like them To Be or Rules as I Interpret Them.
Frankly, neither of us can claim RAW on this issue (because the ability doesn't discuss it), but since it replaces DEX I think I am closest to RAW to say it is limited by DEX.
There's no amount of 'common confusion' here that needs to be 'corrected'. You just feel the need to 'flex' your veteran mind, and try and show once again that one person (myself) has to listen you all.
Being that it's not against the CoC for one person to express his own opinion about something that isn't up for debate anymore, you're violating my rights on this board by trying to force me to believe an *un*official non-errata document.
I had to post (and resurrect an old thread) because I saw this common confusion that must be corrected.
They explicitly say they don't put most of the clarifications in Errata. Errata is only for text that can only be read differently than designed. For text printed that can be read to agree with the design, they never publish errata. In short if they read it and come to the intended interpretation, you shall never see errata published.
The only reason any 'clarification' was meted out, is because people overreacted to the utility of the ability, and someone ended up asking David Noonan what he "should have written but didn't" about the ability. Like I said before, the email from the person who spoke with Noonan means absolutely nothing to those DMs out there who don't read these boards, and means nothing in terms of codifying the intent of the writer into making the rule official.
There's no sense trying trying to beat it into me what you (and a select few others) believe.
They likely read the ability like I do, and that is that it is RAW to be explicitly limited by Dexterity. So you can not assert that it is RAW to be unlimited, since you can easily read it to be limited by DEX as written. You may also be able to read it as unlimited (if you choose to ignore Max Dex rules in the PHB), but this is an example of Rules as I would Like them To Be or Rules as I Interpret Them.
Frankly, neither of us can claim RAW on this issue (because the ability doesn't discuss it), but since it replaces DEX I think I am closest to RAW to say it is limited by DEX.
The text reads that Stone Warden replaces Dex to AC with Con. Armor is limited by Max Dex. Where's the issue there? Con replaces Dex to armor -> Armor limits what Con is now replacing...And no, I am not defeating my own argument by saying that. Just because David Noonan says (paraphrasing): Oh yeah, we meant for it to be limited, but didn't put it in the text. That doesn't change how the ability reads.
I know I am not the most adept person in the english langauge (native speaker yes, doctorate degree no), but in the terms of D&D just because one thing is replaced with another, that doesn't mean it follows the same restrictions. Every DM I have personally sat down with and asked has said it would be ridiculous to have the Max Dex of armor limit a different ability modifier.
They likely read the ability like I do, and that is that it is RAW to be explicitly limited by Dexterity. So you can not assert that it is RAW to be unlimited, since you can easily read it to be limited by DEX as written. You may also be able to read it as unlimited (if you choose to ignore Max Dex rules in the PHB), but this is an example of Rules as I would Like them To Be or Rules as I Interpret Them.
Frankly, neither of us can claim RAW on this issue (because the ability doesn't discuss it), but since it replaces DEX I think I am closest to RAW to say it is limited by DEX.
It is certainly not limited by Maximum Dexterity Bonus according to RAW. That much is obvious.
Given how literal people interpret the text on these boards, I'm surprised this is an issue. There is literally no mechanic that limits your constitution bonus to AC by wearing armor. The ability states that you can still be caught flat-footed. Nowhere does it say that your constitution bonus is limited by max dex bonus. And by RAW, I can't see how someone can make the case that it is.
You can say 'it replaces dexterity, therefore it should be limited as dexterity', but that is not RAW. According to RAW, there is no mechanic that limits a constitution bonus to AC.
That makes two people IIRC who can actually go by the RAW for this case.
Be aware for someone to quote the "But David Noonan Said:" email.
~Taureus
But going by the text, which is all we had in the beginning, I can't see how anyone can make the case that by RAW, maximum dexterity bonus applies to your Stonewarden ability.
Even now, the email is from someone who says he got a chance to ask Noonan about what the intent of the ability was. Still doesn't change what the text says.
With Stone Warden: Con = Dex in terms of applying to AC (and losing it from surprise, etc) But Con =/= Dex in terms of the limitation an armor poses on Dex.
~Taureus
Given how literal people interpret the text on these boards, I'm surprised this is an issue. There is literally no mechanic that limits your constitution bonus to AC by wearing armor. The ability states that you can still be caught flat-footed. Nowhere does it say that your constitution bonus is limited by max dex bonus. And by RAW, I can't see how someone can make the case that it is.
That fine statement of Khan's sums it up perfectly and follows RAW completely.
Being that it's not against the CoC for one person to express his own opinion about something that isn't up for debate anymore, you're violating my rights on this board by trying to force me to believe an *un*official non-errata document.
Okay, stop. I agree with you and Khan about how to read the ability as written, but playing the "wah wah I'm a victim" card just weakens your position. The above quote is, frankly, trash and I'm disappointed that you'd actually write something like that. I almost took up the opposite position because the mentality you put on display there irked me so.
Try to refrain from abusing the CoC and whining on the boards, thanks.
It is certainly not limited by Maximum Dexterity Bonus according to RAW. That much is obvious.
By RAW, it absolutely is limited by the Max Dex of armour. For the purpose of DEX to AC, you use your CON score as you DEX score. For example:
10 DEX
18 CON
Full Plate with Max Dex +2
You have +2 from DEX.
They never errated this text because they never needed to do so. I don't care what was said about how they wished this worded it a different way, what it says limits it to Max DEX.
Granted, I do understand the other position (that it isn't limited.) My primary point is neither side can claim RAW is theirs and theirs alone, since it can easily be read to support both positions.
Also you need to read my post again. The common confusion is this:
"It has been X days/weeks/years, if they had meant for this to be that way they would have issued an errata."
That is trying to win an argument by bringing up an irrelevant (and most of the time false) assertion to explain why it was left alone. I posted to this thread ONLY because you made that assertion.
For the purpose of DEX to AC, you use your CON score as you DEX score.
False Risner.
That is nothing but an interpretation of the ability, and is not how the ability reads.
The actual rule, as written, states "He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity..." This is subtle but important, namely in that one sore is not replacing another, you are now using a different bonus entirely.
And as Khan has already mentioned, there is no limit to Con bonus to AC.
The problem here is that you are interpreting this ability to change the Dex bonus that the Deepwarden gets. This is not the case. The Deepwarden uses an entirely different bonus instead of using the standard Dex bonus.
So please. Stop attempting to pass off your poor misinterpretation of this ability as either RAW or official. Neither is the case.
False Risner.
The actual rule, as written, states "He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity..."
So please. Stop attempting to pass off your poor misinterpretation of this ability as either RAW or official. Neither is the case.
False EjoThims
You use your CON modifier instead of Dex for the purpose of AC.
You can not claim RAW is on your side, period. RAW doesn't discuss either side explicitly, so it is a DM call what it means. The only thing we know for sure is that RAW absolutely without a doubt doesn't say "you have no limit".
If you can't see the distinction, then you can continue to assert you are right. But it doesn't make you right.
Con-to-ac limited by max dex? Hmm.... And the answer is:
Show
Nobody cares.
You'll never be in a game together, and one DM can rule it one way and another can rule it the other. The world won't end if this happens. All this RAW-arguing does is make everyone look petty.
Nobody cares.
You'll never be in a game together, and one DM can rule it one way and another can rule it the other. The world won't end if this happens. All this RAW-arguing does is make everyone look petty.
False EjoThims, again, you come up pretty regularly on these types of discussions.
You use your CON modifier instead of Dex for the purpose of AC.
You can not claim RAW is on your side, period. RAW doesn't discuss either side explicitly, so it is a DM call what it means. The only thing we know for sure is that RAW absolutely without a doubt doesn't say "you have no limit".
If you can't see the distinction, then you can continue to assert you are right. But it doesn't make you right.
Of course I come up often in these threads. Though, I must admit, it would happen a lot less often if you weren't spouting misinformation all the time.
And while yes, the rule does not say that the Con bonus is uncapped, it is the case, in fact, that unless stated otherwise, all bonuses are limited only by the respective modifiers. In this case, your Con score, and nothing else, as the ability lists no other modifiers. When something is breaking the trend of all the other rules, no matter what the intent, it must be stated explicitly. Otherwise words like 'bonus' automatically follow all those other trends and definitions.
And there is no trend to limit Con bonus applied to anything without explicit text stating so.
Or does the next two-handed weapon they come out with have to state in it's description that it gets 1.5 Str bonus when using it two-handed? By your logic with this ability, it would have to, where by mine (and the proper and accepted), it would only have to state if it had some different modifier when being used two-handed.
Also you need to read my post again. The common confusion is this:
"It has been X days/weeks/years, if they had meant for this to be that way they would have issued an errata."
That is trying to win an argument by bringing up an irrelevant (and most of the time false) assertion to explain why it was left alone. I posted to this thread ONLY because you made that assertion.
Um... maybe you're mistaking me for someone else. What assertion did I make that forced you to respond earlier?
You said that your position was RAW and that the uncapped con position was Rules As I Interpret Them. I am disagreeing obviously, but I never stated anything about intent.
You can not claim RAW is on your side, period. RAW doesn't discuss either side explicitly, so it is a DM call what it means. The only thing we know for sure is that RAW absolutely without a doubt doesn't say "you have no limit".
If you can't see the distinction, then you can continue to assert you are right. But it doesn't make you right.
Of course there is a distinction. But you are incorrect in saying that the RAW doesn't say there is no limit.
Because we already know that before Deepwarden, there was no limit on how much of your constitution bonus you can add to AC while wearing armor. Regardless of the fact that we couldn't add constitution to armor class at the time, this is true.
Now we have an ability that lets us add constitution to our armor class instead of AC. However, the ability doesn't say that the constitution bonus is limited by the maximum dexterity bonus.
Since we know there was no limit before, and the ability doesn't say there is now, we know that there continues to be no limit to your constitution bonus to AC.
You can argue intent all you want, and that this rule wouldn't have existed before Stonewarden, but it is RAW.
Or does the next two-handed weapon they come out with have to state in it's description that it gets 1.5 Str bonus when using it two-handed? By your logic with this ability
Not by my logic, since it is a Two Handed weapon it gains 1.5x Str.
Back to the topic, we both can claim RAW depending on the way we interpret the rules. Both interpretations are RAW, so a DM must adjudicate for his world. Neither of gets to claim their side is RAW and the other side is not RAW without looking foolish.
Um... maybe you're mistaking me for someone else. What assertion did I make that forced you to respond earlier?
Of course there is a distinction. But you are incorrect in saying that the RAW doesn't say there is no limit.
Now we have an ability that lets us add constitution to our armor class instead of AC.
You can argue intent all you want, and that this rule wouldn't have existed before Stonewarden, but it is RAW.
First, reread my posts. I have said nothing about any assertion you made. I have said nothing about intent. Intent can go flew into the ocean for all I care.
Second, the ability is limited by Max DEX because Dexterity to AC is limited by Max DEX. This ability allows you to use your CON modifier instead of your DEX modifier for your DEX to AC. Thus you can't claim RAW is on your side.
Third, will you please leave RAI out of it. I simply don't care. I care about RAW.
The Rules as Written say armor limits mobility (max dex). The Stonewarden ability replaces Dex with Con in respect to which bonus is used to calculate AC.
The email from the person who talked to David Noonan says that the intent of the rule was to have the bonus be limited by the armor. So quit beating us around saying that RAW, the Con bonus is limited by the Max Dex of the armor.
~P_X~
@ risner: If you are going to argue for the RAW, Con to AC is not limited by Max Dex.
Again, RAW does not say that.
You can't assert that RAW says either. RAW doesn't say one way or another.
They didn't write "You gain CON to AC. You lose DEX to AC."
If they did, then you could claim RAW supports your position.
They didn't write "You may use CON instead of DEX to AC for your DEX to AC with all the same limitations."
If they did, then I could claim RAW supports my position.
But they wrote a phrase that can equally support both interpretations as valid and reasonable. Several of you lean toward it isn't limited by Max DEX. I lean toward it being more reasonable it replaces DEX and is bound by the same restrictions as DEX.
Neither position can claim RAW, without being stretching the facts.
Neither position can claim RAW, without being stretching the facts.
Stop saying this.
It is simply wrong.
A Deepwarden is no longer receiving a Dex bonus at all to armor class. Instead, they use Con bonus. This is not only a different ability score or a different modifier, but a different bonus, and therefor follows its own set of rules. Con bonuses do not adhere to the same limitations as Dex bonuses, and the ability in question makes no mention of this being a special case in which it would.
That is the important distinction, and the one that you either fail to grasp, or are intentionally ignoring.
Stop saying this.
It is simply wrong.
A Deepwarden is no longer receiving a Dex bonus at all to armor class. Instead, they use Con bonus.
Stop saying that, you are wrong and beginning to be rude about it.
Stop saying that, you are wrong and beginning to be rude about it.
You have to yet to show that using a separate bonus is in any way like using a different ability score to determine the pre-existing bonus, and establishing that they are 100% identical is the only way your interpretation could be seen as RAW.
So until you manage this, your position is simply wrong and false and incorrect (and any other synonyms I have to use to get you to understand that), as you yourself state that you care not for RaI and want to speak solely of the RaW.
Yet you continue to ignore this point and stubbornly misinform others.
You're also inconsistent in your own points, as following your example for this ability, every two-handed weapon would have to explicitly state they gain 1.5x Str or they would not. Failing to see this parallel is another glaring oversight in your rather pig headed refusal to see this for what it is instead of what you would like it to be.
Again, RAW does not say that.
You can't assert that RAW says either. RAW doesn't say one way or another.
They didn't write "You gain CON to AC. You lose DEX to AC."
If they did, then you could claim RAW supports your position.
They didn't write "You may use CON instead of DEX to AC for your DEX to AC with all the same limitations."
If they did, then I could claim RAW supports my position.
But they wrote a phrase that can equally support both interpretations as valid and reasonable. Several of you lean toward it isn't limited by Max DEX. I lean toward it being more reasonable it replaces DEX and is bound by the same restrictions as DEX.
Neither position can claim RAW, without being stretching the facts.
Actually, RAW does support the Con bonus not being limited by Max Dex. It does mention that you would lose your Con bonus in the same ways you would lose your Dex bonus (flat-footed/helpless).
The RAI, as taken directly from the email from the person who asked Dvid Noonan, shows it would support your interpretation (and now you are contradicting yourself). You claim to support RAW, and yet you have come up with your own interpretation of how the rules affect an ability. Sure, it's a view shared by others, but it's an interpretation nonetheless.
Stop changing your argument to make yourself sound right. Don't say you support RAW, but then use your interpretation of the rules to support what you think the ability does/doesn't allow.
~P_X~
Neither position can claim RAW, without being stretching the facts.
Then why have you been claiming that your position is RAW?
your position is simply wrong and false and incorrect
Yet you continue to ignore this point and stubbornly misinform others.
You are wrong, and if you think this thread needs 99 pages of this debate, fine. But the facts are your position is something that can not be proved by the text written. The ability can be read either way equally (tho I do not comprehend how on first read you wouldn't come to my way.)
Then why have you been claiming that your position is RAW?
Because my position is supported by the text also. In short, both ways can claim RAW depending on how you interpret what is written. This means neither side should claim RAW, as there is no clear rule.
An example of a rule not in dispute is how much damage does a Medium Longsword deal with a Medium PC. RAW is 1d8.
This rule has two perfectly reasonable interpretations that come to different conclusions. In this instances anyone who claims RAW is wrong, period.
Saying that you interpret it to be limited by the text (which it in fact is not), isn't using RAW. The text for the Stonewarden ability does not in any way say it follows the same limitations as Dex, just that you lose it if you would normally lose your Dex (such as being flat-footed). Being limited by Mex Dex is not losing it. It even says this in the PHB.
There is no mention of Con to AC (even instead of Dex) being limited by the Max Dex of the armor.
Stop arguing you are following RAW, when in fact you aren't.
~P_X~
The ability can be read either way equally (tho I do not comprehend how on first read you wouldn't come to my way.)
If they're equally valid, then why can't you comprehend someone supporting the other position?
Because my position is supported by the text also. In short, both ways can claim RAW depending on how you interpret what is written. This means neither side should claim RAW, as there is no clear rule.
But you are claiming RAW. In fact, by answering with "because" you are implicitly accepting the premise of his question which is that you claim RAW for your side. The first sentence of this quote equates to "I claim RAW because..." but the quote goes on to state that neither side should claim RAW.
Really, you're getting more incoherent as this drags on.
To throw a little fuel on the fire: if it's so obvious that CON is limited in every way DEX is, why did they explicitly state that you lose CON to AC when you would lose DEX to AC? That's a natural consequence of it working as you say and a redundant statement if you're correct. If, however, CON to AC does not inherit all the limitations of DEX to AC, then it makes sense to point out the situation where it does. The fact that they did not go on to state that it is also limited by Max Dex implied that it should not be.
From a purely fluff viewpoint, I see no reason for it to be limited by what it essentially a mobility penalty. And from a game balance standpoint, AC just isn't that big a deal. This ability is almost worthless with a Max Dex limit and useful but not broken without.
@ risner: If you are going to use any amount of interpretation, you can't claim to be using RAW. Can't you see that?
Stonewarden ability does not in any way say it follows the same limitations as Dex
Stop arguing you are following RAW, when in fact you aren't.
That is funny when your position uses (in my opinion) more interpretation. In this case anyone suggesting that they are not limited by Max DEX is interpreting, period.
DEX to AC is limited by Max DEX.
DEX to AC is still limited by Max DEX when you can choose to use your CON mod instead of your DEX mod for your DEX to AC.
it's so obvious that CON is limited in every way DEX is, why did they explicitly state that you lose CON to AC when you would lose DEX to AC?
This ability is almost worthless with a Max Dex limit and useful but not broken without.
Pretty much all of that post was RAI based. If they had wanted it to be the way you interpret it (your version of the "RAW") then they would have written it differently.
RAW doesn't care if it is useful or broken and there is no need to choose to interpret it in an unusual way to make it 'useful'.
I'm an AC harlot and I know just how great it can be. After maybe 17/18, AC become less important as the difference in AC between you and your teammates becomes much smaller, and creatures have much higher attack rolls, but even then, the 10% miss chance difference between you and your teammates can keep you alive that much longer.
Making Con a main stat, means you may realistically have 30-32 con at 20, meaning an extra 200-220 hp. Even for full HP games, that's approximately double what you would have without it.
So what was the best, ie the most defensive tank build that you guys have made yet, using this?
Pretty much all of that post was RAI based.
Or, you know, the last paragraph. The one that began, "From a purely fluff viewpoint..." Hey, if you can convince yourself that 25% is "pretty much all" then I begin to see why your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent and self-contradictory.
If they had wanted it to be the way you interpret it (your version of the "RAW") then they would have written it differently.
Actually, the entire point of the second to last paragraph was that the way it's written adds support to my version over yours. Your interpretation requires that one sentence be redundant, whereas mine gives them all a purpose. I think it's reasonable to assume that said sentence is necessary to determine the workings of the ability, instead of completely unnecessary. That doesn't make it the indisputable RAW, just more likely to be correct.
BTW,
DEX to AC is still limited by Max DEX when you can choose to use your CON mod instead of your DEX mod for your DEX to AC.
I must be a terrible reader. Can you show me where the ability in question explicitly states that you "choose to use your CON mod instead of your DEX mod for your DEX to AC." I just can't seem to find the passage that says your CON becomes part of your DEX to AC instead of replacing it entirely.
edit:
Making Con a main stat, means you may realistically have 30-32 con at 20, meaning an extra 200-220 hp. Even for full HP games, that's approximately double what you would have without it.
If Big Stupid Fighters whittling down your HP are the big killers at level 20, your DM's doing something wrong.
That is funny when your position uses (in my opinion) more interpretation. In this case anyone suggesting that they are not limited by Max DEX is interpreting, period.
DEX to AC is limited by Max DEX.
DEX to AC is still limited by Max DEX when you can choose to use your CON mod instead of your DEX mod for your DEX to AC.
I am not arguing that Dex to AC is limited by the Max Dex of armor.
However, when you substitute Con in for Dex, it is not limited by Max Dex. They even said, after the fact, that the intent was for it to be limited.
That alone shows that, RAW, any armor is in no way limiting on how much of your Con modifier you get to AC.
Just keep going along with your own Rules_As_I_Would_Like_Them_To_Be. Using your interpretation of an ability is fine, no one is saying that you can't. But to say you are supporting RAW, but using what you interpret it to be is self-contradictory.
Just stop saying you are following RAW with this ability, and people will stop arguing with you.
Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, just don't say two things at once and expect people to listen to you seriously.
Pretty much all of that post was RAI based. If they had wanted it to be the way you interpret it (your version of the "RAW") then they would have written it differently.
RAW doesn't care if it is useful or broken and there is no need to choose to interpret it in an unusual way to make it 'useful'.
By your own interpretations, you are claiming your version of RAW is the right one.
~P_X~
2) Would a Crusader 14/Deepwarden 6 work well?
You are wrong, and if you think this thread needs 99 pages of this debate, fine. But the facts are your position is something that can not be proved by the text written.
You still have not shown any support for your position. You still have not in any way proven that using two separate bonuses is the same as using a different ability score for the already existing bonus.
Until you can make that connection with rules that already exist, you cannot claim that your interpretation is RaW.
End of story. Further restating your interpretation without this support will only continue to embarrass yourself.
I would just like to say that the Max Dex on armor changing to Max Con, basically, is not that logical. Armor has a max dex bonus because it is harder to move around in armor, but not being able to withstand a blow better because you have heavier armor does not make sense.
The dwarven defender is better, even if you never use defensive stance.
How do you figure? Both have full BAB. Both have good Fort/Will saves. Both grant Uncanny (-> Improved) Dodge.
Deepwarden trumps Dwarven Defender in terms of skills.
Beyond Defensive Stance, what does Dwarven Defender have over Deepwarden?
If you mean the dodge bonus, that's laughable. Seriously.
Now, if you were to combine the two, and get Goad and or Knight's Challenge, then you would be talking.
Otherwise, all you are getting is some DR.
~P_X~
First, reread my posts. I have said nothing about any assertion you made. I have said nothing about intent. Intent can go flew into the ocean for all I care.
Perhaps you should reread your post. Here is what you said to me...
Also you need to read my post again. The common confusion is this:
"It has been X days/weeks/years, if they had meant for this to be that way they would have issued an errata."
That is trying to win an argument by bringing up an irrelevant (and most of the time false) assertion to explain why it was left alone. I posted to this thread ONLY because you made that assertion.
In the bolded text, you are clearly accusing me of making some assertion. Hence the confusion and why I asked if you were mistaking me for someone else.
And in the first paragraph, you are indeed referring to intent.
Second, the ability is limited by Max DEX because Dexterity to AC is limited by Max DEX. This ability allows you to use your CON modifier instead of your DEX modifier for your DEX to AC.
That's an addition to the text. It doesn't say that the constitution bonus you are adding is still considered your dex bonus to AC. In fact, it doesn't seem that you have a dexterity bonus to AC, since you are adding your constitution instead.
Third, will you please leave RAI out of it. I simply don't care. I care about RAW.
Where did I argue intent? I demonstrated that there was, and still is, nothing in the rules limiting your constitution bonus to AC. Since the Stonewarden abilities doesn't add any such limitations, it is RAW that your constitution bonus to AC is not limited.
You want to claim that the constitution bonus still counts as dex bonus to AC and is therefore limited in all ways, but that is not RAW. You are no longer adding your dexterity, but your constitution. There is no dex bonus to AC. That's RAW. Instead, you have a con bonus to AC (which is not limited by anything in the rules) and why they have to clarify that you can still be caught flat-footed.
incoherent and self-contradictory.
Nothing I have said is contradictory, my position hasn't changed from the beginning. If it is incoherent, it is due to the attacks from all angles from others on mostly irrelevant points.
where the ability in question explicitly states that you
Look at above posts, or check out the word "instead."
That alone shows that, RAW, any armor is in no way limiting on how much of your Con modifier you get to AC.
No that shows they felt it was clear, but now see it not as clear as intended.
By your own interpretations, you are claiming your version of RAW is the right one.
No, I am saying RAW is not clear and there is two ways of reading the rules written. Because of this neither side gets to say "my RAW is right." In other words, as many times as someone posts "CON not limited by Max Dex is RAW", I will assert that "CON is limited by Max DEX is RAW". The fact is the RAW doesn't say which way and anyone asserting their way is the right and only true way, is wrong.
You still have not shown any support for your position.
End of Story
I have shown my way. You have shown your way. Neither way proves. To quote you, "End of Story".
Perhaps you should reread your post. Here is what you said to me...
In the bolded text, you are clearly accusing me of making some assertion.
Oops. I responded to you and since you asked something that made me want to reiterate why I posted in the first place, I put in the lines. I thought I had made them clear that the came from Taureus Drakken's post, but used "you" instead of his name. I even failed to notice this when you first pointed it out.
Recap: PosterA says "my RAW is the only correct way" because there is no Errata is flawed when WotC has publicly stated they will never post errata for something that can be interpreted to read their way. Example, Extra Spell has no Errata (it is a FAQ), but Abjurant Champion has Errata (Mage Armour.)
why they have to clarify that you can still be caught flat-footed.
The clarification is still required regardless of which RAW is "right".
I have shown my way.
Wrong again Risner. You have shown your interpretation, but you have shown nothing in the working of the rules to back up your claims that your interpretation is indeed what the written rules state.
Your opponents have done so on multiple occasions.
Nothing I have said is contradictory, my position hasn't changed from the beginning. If it is incoherent, it is due to the attacks from all angles from others on mostly irrelevant points.
You can't start out claiming to follow RAW, and then start using an interpretation of what you feel is RAW. That's where you are being contradictory.
No, I am saying RAW is not clear and there is two ways of reading the rules written. Because of this neither side gets to say "my RAW is right." In other words, as many times as someone posts "CON not limited by Max Dex is RAW", I will assert that "CON is limited by Max DEX is RAW". The fact is the RAW doesn't say which way and anyone asserting their way is the right and only true way, is wrong.
Read the Stonewarden ability again. You won't find where it says the Con bonus uses every limiting factor Dex would when determining AC. It only says you would still lose the bonus when caught flat-footed (otherwise it would indeed be broken). I will say it again: losing the Con bonus because of being flat-footed does not correlate to being limited by Max Dex of the armor.
Stop arguing for RAW if you keep using your interpretation of the rules.
~P_X~
No, I am saying RAW is not clear and there is two ways of reading the rules written. Because of this neither side gets to say "my RAW is right." In other words, as many times as someone posts "CON not limited by Max Dex is RAW", I will assert that "CON is limited by Max DEX is RAW". The fact is the RAW doesn't say which way and anyone asserting their way is the right and only true way, is wrong.
How do you explain that you have been doing exactly this?
Stop saying that, you are wrong and beginning to be rude about it.
"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."
INSTEAD. He won't get his Dex bonus as long as his Con score is higher than Dex score. Capish?
Your opponents have done so on multiple occasions.
Again, that isn't true. They have shown nothing to disprove my position.
You can't start out claiming to follow RAW, and then start using an interpretation of what you feel is RAW.
That is where you are wrong. There are two types of rules:
1) Longsword deals 1d8 for Medium (indisputable RAW.)
2) Stonewarden ability when it comes to Max DEX (RAW that requires interpretation to use, period.)
The RAW doesn't contain a line that says what to do with Max DEX (apply it or ignore it) and without this, the rules require DM adjudication (interpretation.)
INSTEAD. He won't get his Dex bonus as long as his Con score is higher than Dex score. Capish?
Thanks for the support of my position.
Again, that isn't true. They have shown nothing to disprove my position.
No one is saying that you aren't entitled to your own interpretation of the ability. You just seem to have the idea that your interpretation is RAW, which it isn't. Any amount of interpretation, either by a DM or a player, make it Rules_As_I_Want_To_Read_Them. Stop saying that your interpretation is RAW.
That is where you are wrong. There are two types of rules:
1) Longsword deals 1d8 for Medium (indisputable RAW.)
2) Stonewarden ability when it comes to Max DEX (RAW that requires interpretation to use, period.)
The RAW doesn't contain a line that says what to do with Max DEX (apply it or ignore it) and without this, the rules require DM adjudication (interpretation.)
Armor has Max Dex, If you replace your Dex to AC, with Con, Max Dex has no effect on the Con bonus. Replacing one ability modifier with another doesn't place all the limitations the first one had on the second. It denotes what limitations do carry over (flat-footedness). Like has been shown time and again, if the intent for the ability was to be limited by Max Dex, it would say so.
It's like comparing apples and oranges. Even if you painted an orange red, and told someone it's an apple; it still wouldn't be an apple.
~P_X~
Dex to AC is limited by Max Dex bonus.
Stonewarden allows you to add Con to AC instead of Dex to AC.
When you put on armor, the Max Dex bonus tries to limit your Dex to AC. But there is no Dex to AC. There is Con to AC.
No limit.
And we all lived happily ever after.
Again, that isn't true. They have shown nothing to disprove my position.
So do you truly not understand the difference between using two different types of bonuses and using a different ability score than normal for a bonus?
The first is what the ability in question does, and why it is not limited by max dex.
The second is what it would have to do to be limited by max dex.
No one is saying that you aren't entitled to your own interpretation of the ability. You just seem to have the idea that your interpretation is RAW, which it isn't.
My interpretation is as much RAW as your interpretation is RAW, period.
My interpretation is as much RAW as your interpretation is RAW, period.
So stop insulting his interpretation.
So stop insulting his interpretation.
I never have, they have insulted mine.
I began posting and did insulted the "I win because they would have posted errata if you were right" statement. That simply isn't true because they only post errata for things that have only one possible interpretation and it is not their intent.
I never have, they have insulted mine.
I began posting and did insulted the "I win because they would have posted errata if you were right" statement. That simply isn't true because they only post errata for things that have only one possible interpretation and it is not their intent.
As I said before, you've been claiming that your side is RAW and the other side isn't, and at the same time you've been saying that neither side can claim RAW. Heck, you've said that a few times in the same post.
As to insulting, multiple times you have insinuated that only a moron would believe any interpretation that wasn't yours.
As I said before, you've been claiming that your side is RAW and the other side isn't
At no point have I said anything like that, you need to reread my posts. I have said from the beginning (and many times over) that both sides are RAW.
What I reject (aggressively) is anyone saying my position isn't RAW.
They likely read the ability like I do, and that is that it is RAW to be explicitly limited by Dexterity. So you can not assert that it is RAW to be unlimited, since you can easily read it to be limited by DEX as written. You may also be able to read it as unlimited (if you choose to ignore Max Dex rules in the PHB), but this is an example of Rules as I would Like them To Be or Rules as I Interpret Them.
Then explain this. You go on later in the same post to say that neither side can claim raw, completely contradicting what you said in this paragraph.
Then explain this. You go on later in the same post to say that neither side can claim raw, completely contradicting what you said in this paragraph.
That was in response to someone essentially saying "my RAW is the only way this can be read."
That was in response to someone essentially saying "my RAW is the only way this can be read."
That was the first post in this thread in over half a year. What was the point in dredging up this old argument to respond to someone in an insulting manner when so much time has past? They weren't even talking to you in the first place.
my position isn't RAW.
It's not Risner, because you interpret there to be a link between two words that is not there in the rules, neither in the ability nor anywhere else in the game.
reason I as is (to quote from the wiz.com site)
"
Sending (Sp): Beginning at 6th level, a deepwarden can contact a particular creature with which he is familiar and send a short message of twenty-five words or less. This ability functions as the sending spell (see page 275 of the Player's Handbook), with a caster level equal to the deepwarden's class level.
"
no listing of how often it can be used.... sooo can i sending all day long?
It's not Risner, because you interpret there to be a link between two words that is not there in the rules, neither in the ability nor anywhere else in the game.
Again, there you go asserting "only my way is RAW."
OK.. rules question here. If an ability is listed as (SP) but has no conditions on how often it can be used...
Unlisted, it defaults to MM p315 "no limit". In other words, it is at will.
If you use any amount of interpretation, you are using Rules_As_You_Interpret_Them. Doing so is not RAW.
No one is saying you can't have your own opinion about the ability. If you are the DM, then in your games the Max Dex of armor limits the Con bonus.
But you can't go on, continuously, saying that you are using RAW. If armor limited Con from the Stonewarden ability, it would say so.
You are replacing Dex to AC with Con to AC. You aren't using your Con bonus as your Dex bonus. You lose the Con bonus when flat-footed, just like you would lose your Dex bonus. The replacement effect ends there. Max Dex does not automatically relegate how much of the Con bonus you gain the benefit from.
~P_X~
RAW needs no interpretation. Whatever you might like to think otherwise.
If you use any amount of interpretation, you are using Rules_As_You_Interpret_Them. Doing so is not RAW.
What you speak of is Rules as I would Like Them. It isn't RAW.
RAW is rules as written. When a rule does not specify how things interact, you must interpret what the rule means.
In this case, the RAW absolutely doesn't say how to handle this situation. So for you to say what you said means you are using your interpretation, period.
The only reason this thread hasn't been archived is because of this argument.
That's not fair; it could serve as a warning to our descendants.
my position isn't RAW
Victory!
n this case, the RAW absolutely doesn't say how to handle this situation.
It doesn't have to. We already have a set of rules on what limits Con bonuses, and Max Dex to AC is not one of them. Sine this ability introduces no new rules limiting it, we use the ones that already exist.
That's how RaW works.
What you speak of is Rules as I would Like Them. It isn't RAW.
RAW is rules as written. When a rule does not specify how things interact, you must interpret what the rule means.
In this case, the RAW absolutely doesn't say how to handle this situation. So for you to say what you said means you are using your interpretation, period.
And again, I will say it: RAW needs no interpretation. You don't have to read the entry for Longsword, and think about what kind of damage it deals, or what rolls will threaten a critical hit with it. It tells you right there in the entry.
Stop saying your interpretation is RAW.
Replacing Dex to AC with Con does not mean the Con bonus is limited by Max Dex. Con =/= Dex, regardless of the replacement factor.
~P_X~
It doesn't have to. We already have a set of rules on what limits Con bonuses
Translation, EjoThims says "rules as I made them up just now."
And again, I will say it: RAW needs no interpretation.
I can't help you if you believe that, since you are wrong.
Translation, EjoThims says "rules as I made them up just now."
Actually, EjoThims is right. There is no rule already written that limits Con bonuses to AC.
You keep arguing that the RAW distinctly says that the Max Dex of your armor will limit the Con bonus. Where does it say that?
I can't help you if you believe that, since you are wrong.
Actually I am correct. What's there to interpret about the entire combat section of the PHB?
Combat engages. People take actions. Encounter ends.
You read the rules, and do what they say. Most, if not all, of them are fairly clear.
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.
Show me in that quote, how it says Max Dex limits the Con bonus. Don't quote the PHB/SRD for Max Dex, because you aren't using your Dex bonus anymore.
You have made your point about what you think is the correct way to interpret the rules. No one who has posted since you res'd this thread has agreed with you. Doesn't that tell you something?
No one is saying you can't have your own opinion about the ability. You just can't say that RAW, the Max Dex of the armor limits the Con bonus to AC. Because it doesn't.
~P_X~
Actually, EjoThims is right.
You keep arguing that the RAW distinctly says that the Max Dex of your armor will limit the Con bonus. Where does it say that?
You just can't say that RAW
EjoThims is wrong, period. You are wrong if you reject my reading as valid RAW.
You keep inserting your interpretations with no basis in the rules to support them. There is no place where it explicitly states which way to operate:
1) You use your Con bonus as your Dex bonus and are bound by Max Dex.
2) You add your Con bonus, are not bound by Max Dex and you lose your Dex bonus.
You can't prove (with the RAW) that #2 is the way it reads and without proof it is #2 via a clear rule, you can't assert (or it is wrong to do so) that #1 isn't equally valid.
EjoThims is wrong, period. You are wrong if you reject my reading as valid RAW.
You keep inserting your interpretations with no basis in the rules to support them. There is no place where it explicitly states which way to operate:
1) You use your Con bonus as your Dex bonus and are bound by Max Dex.
2) You add your Con bonus, are not bound by Max Dex and you lose your Dex bonus.
You can't prove (with the RAW) that #2 is the way it reads and without proof it is #2 via a clear rule, you can't assert (or it is wrong to do so) that #1 isn't equally valid.
Yeah...
And the fact that armor has Max Dex, not Max Con isn't a valid argument because why exactly? With the Stone Warden ability, you replace Dex with Con; if it was supposed to be limited by Max Dex, it would say so. Why do you keep ignoring that fact?
Should I quote the ability yet again so that you can see that it doesn't say Max Dex limits the Con bonus?
Use whatever "Rules_As_I_Want_Them_To_Read", no one is saying that you can't.
Just don't keep telling us that you support RAW (which you aren't), but are using a very vague correlation between replacing Dex, and having all the limiting factors carry over to the Con modifier.
I am not going to argue this point anymore. You are welcome to have your own opinions, and I don't agree with them.
But I am not wrong if I don't agree with them. So stop telling everyone else they are wrong for having their own opinions, just like you have yours.
~P_X~
Unlisted, it defaults to MM p315 "no limit". In other words, it is at will.
25 words or less...I can just imagine it now...
A older female dwarf, in her kitchen washing the dishes, receives a message:
Hey Ma', sorry I haven't sending'ed you a message in a while. I've been really busy here adventuring with my group. I've killed a lot
Just then another message comes in:
of orcs. This one time, we were going through the mountains and were ambushed by a group of them, and I finished three of them
And another:
in about six seconds. Make sure to tell Dad. Got to go. Love, Udolamin.
Stop saying this.
It is simply wrong.
A Deepwarden is no longer receiving a Dex bonus at all to armor class. Instead, they use Con bonus. This is not only a different ability score or a different modifier, but a different bonus, and therefor follows its own set of rules. Con bonuses do not adhere to the same limitations as Dex bonuses, and the ability in question makes no mention of this being a special case in which it would.
That is the important distinction, and the one that you either fail to grasp, or are intentionally ignoring.
So, effectively, if you are now denied your dex bonus to AC, then a rogue will sneak attack you with every attack, in the face, everytime?
So, effectively, if you are now denied your dex bonus to AC, then a rogue will sneak attack you with every attack, in the face, everytime?
That's like trying to argue that anyone wearing Half-Plate can be sneak-attacked all the time.
Replacing Dex with Con is not denying Dex to AC.
~P_X~
That's like trying to argue that anyone wearing Half-Plate can be sneak-attacked all the time.
Replacing Dex with Con is not denying Dex to AC.
~P_X~
I merely thought it was an amusing comment to add to it - since you no longer have your dex bonus to AC, but your con, and sneak attack considers dex.
EDIT: What I mean is, you can have a +0 Bonus to Dex from Half-Plate, but with the Con to AC instead of Dex, you now have -no- bonus (positive or negative) from Dex, as if you had no dex modifier to begin with (unless your con drops below your dex or your dex exceeds your con)
~P_X~
I probably have no other point commenting though. Good luck.
I merely thought it was an amusing comment to add to it - since you no longer have your dex bonus to AC, but your con, and sneak attack considers dex.
EDIT: What I mean is, you can have a +0 Bonus to Dex from Half-Plate, but with the Con to AC instead of Dex, you now have -no- bonus (positive or negative) from Dex, as if you had no dex modifier to begin with (unless your con drops below your dex or your dex exceeds your con)
An interesting point indeed.
However, if you approach it RaW ultra-literally, you aren't really being denied your Dex bonus in this situation; you are choosing to use an ability which overrides it. From a more liberal, RaI viewpoint, it's pretty obvious that all the normal sneak attack conditions would have to be met (flat-footed, entangled, etc).
So I 'counter' that with 'well if you dont have a dex bonus to AC, and arent limited by max dex, then that means I can sneak attack you in the face repeatedly now, doesnt it?
1) Just don't keep telling us that you support RAW (which you aren't), but are using a very vague correlation between replacing Dex, and having all the limiting factors carry over to the Con modifier.
2) But I am not wrong if I don't agree with them. So stop telling everyone else they are wrong for having their own opinions, just like you have yours.
1) My reading doesn't provide Con to AC, it provides Dex to AC (using your Con bonus if it is higher.) Your reading uses Con to AC and removes Dex from AC.
2) You are wrong when you assert only your reading is correct. Ironically you acuse me of doing what you are doing. You tell me my reading isn't RAW and only yours is RAW. I tell you they both are and you again tell me only yours is RAW. So stop doing to me what you say I am doing, because I have never told you that your DM can't read it to agree with your interpretation.
On KazumoShun's post, that isn't a problem for my RAW. You are never denied you Dex by using the ability. By the the other interpretation, you run into those types of nuggets that EjoThims says you may need to go back to RaI to reconcile the inconsistency of the position.
Alright, so Risner, in your RAI you arent 'denied' your dex bonus, unless it was a situation where you'd normally be denied it to thus be sneak attacked, right? Just making sure.
In my RAW, yes.
Kind of the point I mentioned that - since you all were arguing about 'if Dex to AC is replaced by Con to AC, I must not be restricted by Max Dex since it isnt Dex anymore!)
So I 'counter' that with 'well if you dont have a dex bonus to AC, and arent limited by max dex, then that means I can sneak attack you in the face repeatedly now, doesnt it?
But you are falsely assuming that being denied your dex bonus is the same as not having a dex bonus. Having this ability is indeed like having a 0 as your dex bonus (if you con bonus is higher).
1) My reading doesn't provide Con to AC, it provides Dex to AC (using your Con bonus if it is higher.)
Your reading is entirely wrong. The ability flat out states that you use Con bonus to AC and no longer use your Dex bonus. The rules abound with many examples of simply using a different bonus (weapon finesse, monk's ac bonus, and many others), and this ability follows their precedent.
You have not shown anywhere that using a whole different ability to decide an existing bonus (like you claim you now use your Con mod to decide your Dex bonus) is similar at all, much less that it exists in the rules with the wording of this ability.
Until you do, you are wrong.
The ability flat out states that you use Con bonus to AC and no longer use your Dex bonus. The rules abound with many examples of simply using a different bonus (weapon finesse, monk's ac bonus, and many others), and this ability follows their precedent.
That's an excellent point. Let's pretend for a moment that there is an effect that limits how much of your STR bonus you can apply to melee attack rolls. Both mechanically and fluffily, it's specifically a limit on STR. Let's say it's limited to +1 for our hypothetical character. This person also has Weapon Finesse and a DEX bonus of +3. By Risner's "logic", he would only be able to apply +1 DEX to his attack rolls with a light weapon. I think we can agree that this effect, which is in every way STR related, should not hinder the character who has learned to use his DEX instead.
Your reading is entirely wrong.
Until you can show errata or a reason why your reading is correct and my reading is not possible, you don't have the luxory of saying my RAW isn't as much correct as yours.
By Risner's "logic", he would only be able to apply +1 DEX to his attack rolls with a light weapon.
No, it would depend on how the ability is written. I create no logic, I follow the RAW's instructions in this case.
Until you can show errata or a reason why your reading is correct and my reading is not possible
We have all done that multiple times, and you have still to post anything that either refutes that logic or supports your own.
We have all done that multiple times, and you have still to post anything that either refutes that logic or supports your own.
I've seen no errata posted by you and I've seen nothing to clears up the difference in the text, so again. Until you can post something that proves your way is the only valid way, you are just being stubborn.
I've seen no errata posted by you and I've seen nothing to clears up the difference in the text, so again.
The text is very clear that you now use Con bonus. Con bonus is not limited by max dex anywhere in the rules.
Until you can post something that proves your way is the only valid way, you are just being rude.
Our way is the only valid way until you can provide another rules sources that refutes it or that backs up your interpretation that instead of using a different bonus you use a different ability to determine the value of the bonus that is already in place.
The only rude action in this thread is you continuing to repeat your misguided opinions without showing us the respect of even attempting to actually support them (or at the very least actually try to show that we are in err).
The text is very clear that you now use Con bonus. Con bonus is not limited by max dex anywhere in the rules.
Our way is the only valid way
The text is not as clear as you suggest, or I wouldn't be posting.
You are wrong, and you can not show any reason why your position is more valid.
You are both correct and both wrong!
Because there are no rules to support either argumentation, they are both valid and invalid.
So use which one you like best, bury the issue, dance on it, go home and play the game you like it
The text is not as clear as you suggest,
I'm not aware of any way to be more clear than stating something directly, which is exactly what the text does.
"He adds his Constituion bonus to AC" really can't mean anything else.
"instead of his Dexterity" means exactly what it says.
", if the character's Constitution bonus is higher" puts a conditional on it and doesn't change the meaning. Note, this is the only conditional put on the application of the Con bonus to AC. Nowhere else does this ability state a single limit to the way in which Con bonus to AC is applied.
The only, only, only wiggle room at all in it is that it says "dexterity" and not "dexterity bonus." However, since it specifically says "constitution bonus" both times, it becomes pretty clear that they are talking about dexterity bonus. It would be incredibly absurd to think that the conditional was if the character's Constitution bonus was higher than his Dexterity Score.
And even then, the ability wouldn't play out how you want it to, as Con bonuses are not limited by Max Dex anywhere in the rules (including in this ability).
And don't repeat that same old excuse fallback line you use: "It doesn't say you can."
That's no more valid than me going around saying: "It doesn't say I can't."
You have to actually support your position with the rules, both in the ability and in the others that exist.
You continue to be remarkably lacking in any ability to do that for your position.
(However I do support EjoThims in his reasoning)
You are both correct and both wrong!
Because there are no rules to support either argumentation, they are both valid and invalid.
I've already said that, but EjoThims rejects that reality and substitutes his own.
So since he is so stubborn that he is right and no other possibility exists, I suspect he will keep posting ad nausea without ever proving his side.
I've already said that, but EjoThims rejects that reality and substitutes his own.
So since he is so stubborn that he is right and no other possibility exists, I suspect he will keep posting ad nausea without ever proving his side.
I would be content with you providing any rules source, logic string, or even mincing of definitions that even remotely supported your position on the mechanics of this ability, much less actually showed the opposing view as mistaken.
We've posted both rules sources and logic strings to do both, but you have yet to grace us with anything other than your stubborn clinging to an unsupported interpretation and you unfounded comments that it's as RaW sound as the actual RaW.
There are parts of the rules that arent clearly regulated and require interpretation to work.
Example:
Usage of Magic Jar on an Outsider
Magic Jar says you replace the targets soul with your own and force its soul out of its body to take control of it.
An Outsiders soul and body are a union that cannot be seperated.(MM page 313)
There is simply no RAW way how to handle this since there are 2 rules that contradict each other.
In D&D interpretation of the rules is necessary for a game to work. Unlike many other games, roleplaying games dont even try to have rules that cover every possible situation since the number of possible situations is just too big to cover.
I would be content with you providing any rules source, logic string
We've posted both rules sources and logic strings to do both
I have done that several times, go look at my previous posts again.
You have done nothing to show your rules supporting your position is the only valid one.
I have done that several times, go look at my previous posts again.
You have done nothing to show your rules supporting your position is the only valid one.
The only thing you have done is show that if the ability works the way you interpret it, it would be limited by max dex.
But you have done nothing to show that the ability can work the way you interpret it.
Proving that if I could fly, I wouldn't have to walk is all well and good... Except that it's moot, because I can't fly.
The same is true for you proving that your interpretation would be limited by max Dex. It doesn't matter, because you can't show that your interpretation is valid with any kind of rules support or even logical progression from what rules there are.
The only thing you have done is show that if the ability works the way you interpret it, it would be limited by max dex.
But you have done nothing to show that the ability can work the way you interpret it.
Look, you can't say my interpretation is wrong since it is based on the text of the ability.
Feel free to show me any text anywhere that says anything to prove my interpretation isn't perfectly valid using the text and I will concede. Continuing to keep saying the same thing over and over again doesn't further the debate.
Continuing to keep saying the same thing over and over again doesn't further the debate.
The only thing I've stated over and over again is the RaW meaning of the entry (which is what is at question, not the intended or interpreted) because you have yet to respond to it in a meaningful way, instead simply restating (incorrectly) "the way I choose to interpret this ability is just as valid a reading of what's actually written as actually reading the written words!!!"
I have even told you the things you need to find rules support form other places for to actually make a RaW case for your interpretation... But I take it from your lack of even acknowledging that (much less actually being able to do it) that I am right to believe it impossible.
Oh, and lonewolf... That situation doesn't require interpretation... Just like thicket of blades versus tumble, official clarification is that the specific overrides the general, so Outsiders can't be magic jarred and tumbling through ToB still provokes AoOs.
The only thing I've stated over and over again is the RaW meaning of the entry
My meaning matches RAW, but you keep posting without showing any ruling to override my meaning.
My meaning matches RAW, but you keep posting without showing any ruling to override my meaning.
Unless you can post sources showing how a new bonus is limited in the same way as the old or to set up a link saying that using a new bonus works the same as using a the same bonus but with a different ability mod, your meaning does not, in fact, match the raw.
See, because we've posted multiple times about how a bonus is different from an ability score and we've continuously posted the lack of a limit anywhere in the rules on con to AC based on max dex, but you have done nothing to support your own claims. Those two things are all we need to defend our own position and shoot down yours until you actually start showing some support for yourself other than your own misguided interpretations.
but you have done nothing to support your own claims.
I like how you conveniently ignore the fact that I have posted plenty of evidence.
You still have Dex to AC and you have the ability to use your Con bonus as you Dex bonus.
You do not have the authority to reject my position, because you are not an errata writer. Until you can change the text of the book, your position is a valid reading of the text but is not the only reading of the text provided.
I like how you conveniently ignore the fact that I have posted plenty of evidence.
Restating your interpretation that is not listed in the rules is not posting evidence.
You still have Dex to AC and you have the ability to use your Con bonus as you Dex bonus.
Except the ability specifically states you use your Con bonus instead of your Dex bonus, not as your Con bonus. We've already gone over the differences in these approaches with you.
See, because that's how Rules as Written works... One tiny little subtle word can entirely alter the mechanical application of the ability.
You do not have the authority to reject my position, because you are not an errata writer. Until you can change the text of the book, your position is a valid reading of the text but is not the only reading of the text provided.
There is no change in the text needed to show others how wrong you are in claiming that the RaW of this ability works as you say.
The rules apply specific meanings to words used in the ability, and while some abilities are indeed worded in such a way that the exact written words can mean multiple things even within the rules, you have yet to show that this is one of them.
There is no change in the text needed to show others how wrong you are in claiming that the RaW of this ability works as you say.
There isn't anything in the text or any in post you have made that invalidates my position, yet you continue to fill this thread with your assertions (without proof) that your position is right.
It seems pretty obvious that the limit should apply, con replaces dex, it doesn't change the entire mechanic.
-AS-
Also, Living Greyhawk limits the con to AC to work exactly as dex to AC.
It seems pretty obvious that the limit should apply, con replaces dex, it doesn't change the entire mechanic.
-AS-
The way it's written, it does. I have no issues (nor have I ever claimed to) with this being interpreted to be limited by max dex.
I just can't bear to listen to Risner misinforming people by saying that that's actually how the ability was written all along, especially when he resurrects an old, dead thread on a topic the the rest of us had long ago come to terms with the RaW/RaI differences of to do so.
But any more I'm just going to see if he is actually capable of providing any kind of solid back up within the actual rules as to his position. Of course... That would first require him to understand the misconception he's had up to this point (he still thinks that per RaW replacing one bonus with another and changing which modifier a bonus uses are the same thing) and so far that seems beyond him.
The way it's written, it does. I have no issues (nor have I ever claimed to) with this being interpreted to be limited by max dex.
I just can't bear to listen to Risner misinform
The misinformation comes from you EjoThims. Your continued insistence that your are right beyond reproach without anything to prove your side makes me determined to continue to correct your misinformation as often as you would like to continue.
The misinformation comes from you EjoThims. Your continued insistence that your are right beyond reproach without anything to prove your side makes me determined to continue to correct your misinformation as often as you would like to continue.
...EjoThims... your are right beyond reproach...
Awww... <3 you Risner.
Nice pic, but It doesn't apply to me. EjoThims is the one who will not concede that the RAW isn't as clear as he says.
I'd imagine being his DM is rather miserable, since he seems to believe that anyone that doesn't agree with him is wrong.
Nice pic, but It doesn't apply to me.
lol
I'd imagine being his DM is rather miserable, since he seems to believe that anyone that doesn't agree with him is wrong.
Even when they're wrong, the DM is always right.
Nice pic, but It doesn't apply to me. EjoThims is the one who will not concede that the RAW isn't as clear as he says.
Thanks for proving my point!
Wow, this thread is the best trainwreck of the month !
*finishes bucket of popcorn*
Wow, this thread is the best trainwreck of the month !
It's cause the rest of you are slackers!
Reading this threadcanWILL result in severe brain damage!
;)
Seriously if you pulled this stuff at my gaming table, or practically -any- gaming table where you are not the DM, this is what would happen.
"...But the RAW says this!"
DM: "Where? Show me."
"Here."
DM: "Hmm. Nah, that's not ho--"
"But it's RAW! This is how it works! You ha--"
DM: "Stop right there. No. It works like this, you can deal with how it works, or you can find a new game. Now with that out of the way.."
Queue Theme Music.
It was a dark and stormy night... you're all at a bar...
Put the dice down. Put. The dice. Down.
Seriously if you pulled this stuff at my gaming table, or practically -any- gaming table where you are not the DM, this is what would happen.
"...But the RAW says this!"
DM: "Where? Show me."
"Here."
DM: "Hmm. Nah, that's not ho--"
"But it's RAW! This is how it works! You ha--"
DM: "Stop right there. No. It works like this, you can deal with how it works, or you can find a new game. Now with that out of the way.."
Queue Theme Music.
It was a dark and stormy night... you're all at a bar...
But we're not at a gaming table, there is no DM here. Doesn't really matter what would happen at a gaming table now does it?
But we're not at a gaming table, there is no DM here. Doesn't really matter what would happen at a gaming table now does it?
Actually yes, there is. If you couldnt feasably get the DM to allow something to work like that, why would you kick and scream to be right? The point is you're arguing rules to a -game- which you -play at a table- (or online). That's the whole POINT.
Actually yes, there is. If you couldnt feasably get the DM to allow something to work like that, why would you kick and scream to be right? The point is you're arguing rules to a -game- which you -play at a table- (or online). That's the whole POINT.
Actually, the whole point is arguing over the rules in a vacuum, with no tale, no DM, no rule 0. What happens at an individual table is of no consequence, because there is no guarantee that it will happen at the table you are at now, nor at the next.
But for the purpose of this board, there has to be a standard. And that standard is (usually) the rules as they are literally written (no matter how absurd they may be).
There are many times that the rules as they are written are very ambiguous, and could allow multiple ideas even when just looking at what they do and not trying to look at what they should mean.
This, however, is not one of them (despite Risner's misleading claims), as there is not a single thing in the rules of the quoted ability that breaks that standards nor changes the definition of a Con bonus.
Actually yes, there is. If you couldnt feasably get the DM to allow something to work like that, why would you kick and scream to be right? The point is you're arguing rules to a -game- which you -play at a table- (or online). That's the whole POINT.
But both sides can find DM's that would agree with them. As a DM, in my games Con isn't influenced by max Dex. In other people's games it is. That's the point.
This, however, is not one of them (despite Risner's misleading claims), as there is not a single thing in the rules of the quoted ability that breaks that standards nor changes the definition of a Con bonus.
There isn't anything in the rules for that ability that says it works the way you say. No matter how many times you say it in matter of fact tones, it doesn't change the text of the book.
Dwarf Poison Use* Wilderness** Rogue 2/Trapfinding*** Spiritual Companion**** Ranger 3/Trapsmith*** 5/Deepwarden 10. The fightingest Rogue there ever was. ;) Skills are really annoying to work out though.
*Drow of the Underdark
**Unearthed Arcana
***Dungeonscape
****Complete Champion
There isn't anything in the rules for that ability that says it works the way you say. No matter how many times you say it in matter of fact tones, it doesn't change the text of the book.
The text of the book very explicitly gives Con bonus without stating it's limited by max Dex, and Con bonus is not limited by max Dex anywhere else in the rules either.
If you would stop making up rules based on what you think should apply, this discussion would have been resolved 15 pages ago.
When I read the rules I agreed that there is no max limit to con, and the I wanna jack my ac through the roof agrees with me. The horrible game balance side of me goes "man that can't be right". Cust service seems to have agreed after they got their act together on the question, (bet I can ask again and phrase it differently to get a different response though srewing with cust serv is fun.).
Risner almost needs support for his side of the fight but the only thing admirable about it is his unwavering ability to demand he is right when he is self contradictory in the face of the masses disagreeing. The other side seems bandwagoning.
In short seems to me that cust server was divided on this they read it thought about the possibilities said this can't be right and twisted a response with "game author" backing into something balanced. Personally in my game I'm going to stick with that (or house rule it a bit so its logical) but in games I am a player fight for reading explicitly what is there.
I interpret that as roll 1d8 that number is now your con bonus score apply that to armour class only when flat footed. It ahs no effect on hit points.
I also think that it is obvious that the con bonus is supposed to limited just as dex is. It would be great from an optimization standpoint for it not to be, but anyone who dismisses the other side of the argument out of hand is being disingenuous. Risner says that both perspectives are viable, while the other side says he is simply wrong without acknowledging that what he is saying makes the most sense.
If a DM allowed there to be no max for con to apply that would be great and I would love it, but I can't see any way in which the ability addresses max dex bonus or anything like that, which, for me, means that every other existing mechanic remains unchanged.
-AS-
Risner says that both perspectives are viable, while the other side says he is simply wrong without acknowledging that what he is saying makes the most sense.
I think you are confusing RAW with RAI. Of course, the LG ruling (and actually simply some basic reasoning about game balance) is a strong indicator that the rule was intended to work by limiting the CON bonus by max-dex.
The rules as written however, which is what is being discussed here, do not provide any indication that such a limitation should apply - despite Risner's assertions. Ergo, there is no limit.
Anecdotal evidence ("in MY gaming group we do it this way...", opinions ("I think it SHOULD work like this...", or Risner's interpretation), and unproven claims ("MOST DMs would rule...") are not relevant for a RAW discussion.
The text of the book very explicitly gives Con bonus without stating it's limited by max Dex, and Con bonus is not limited by max Dex anywhere else in the rules either.
If you would stop making up rules based on what you think should apply, this discussion would have been resolved 15 pages ago.
To respond to your matter of fact statements, I'll make another one.
The text of the ability explicitly says you use your con modifier (if larger) as your dex to AC thereby explicitly limiting you to max dex to ac. There isn't a single rule stated that exempts you from continuing to have to follow the standard max dex based on your dex mod.
You don't have any evidence it works your way other than your beliefs. Beliefs and rules as I see them is not how RAW works. RAW works what rules are written and in this case the RAW does not address one way or another whether you are limited explicitly. Without explicit rules, you can't assert it is your way.
The ONLY thing relevant for a RAW discussion is the text, and there is absolutely nothing in the RAW that says you now have no limit to dex to AC. So anyone saying the RAW is there is no limit is absolutely not talking about RAW but rather RAIS (rules as I see.)
And since that bonus is no longer a dec bonus, it's no longer limited by the written text of armor or the max dex abilities of armor, as they say nothing of con (and there is nothing else to point to the con using those limitations of dex).
I am 100% talking about RaW because there is nothing in the raw itself (regardless of how you interpret it, as that is not RaW) to even imply that the con is limited in this way, but there is plenty of evidence and imlpication that it is not limited.
the only thing in the text that says you apply the limitations of a Dex bonus to a Con bonus
You assume it is a Con bonus to AC. I see it as still Dex bonus to AC.
And since that bonus is no longer a dec bonus
Another assumption of yours.
it's no longer limited by the written text of armor or the max dex abilities of armor
Requires there to no longer be a Dex to AC, when the text seems pretty clear to me you retain your Dex to AC but may use your Con bonus as your Dex bonus if it is higher.
I am 100% talking about RaW
No, you are talking about your extrapolated version of RAW. You are not talking RAW, because RAW doesn't say what you say it says.
because there is nothing in the raw itself
That is your opinion, and I assert you are either unwilling or incapabile of reading the text as written.
You assume it is a Con bonus to AC. I see it as still Dex bonus to AC.
You see falsely. The text clearly states it is a Con bonus.
Every one of your points thus far has been based on your very flawed reading of the rule in this regard.
You see falsely. The text clearly states it is a Con bonus.
Every one of your points thus far has been based on your very flawed reading of the rule in this regard.
You believe that is so, but it isn't. I read the text and come to a RAW based conclusion. You come to a different conclusion without any text to back that up as the only legal way to read the text.
You believe that is so, but it isn't.
adds his Constitution bonus... character's Constitution bonus...
I could quote the entire text for you, yet again, if you'd like.
Hell, even the last line (saying 'this bonus when dex bonus'*) shows that it is not a Dex bonus, as, if it were, the entire sentence would be superfluous.
*Note, however, that per the raw on max dex, the max dex of armor never denies dex bonus, only limits it, which is why this line was long ago discredited as limiting this ability to max dex of armor.
I could quote the entire text for you, yet again, if you'd like.
You have quoted it several times, as have I.
It doesn't change the fact that the text doesn't support your claims. The text doesn't settle the matter one way or the other. The text fully supports the theory you still have a Dex to AC and that Dex to AC is limited by Max Dex.
It doesn't change the fact that the text doesn't support your claims.
For the rules, words have a very particular meaning. There is nothing in this ability other than your interpretation of it to suggest that it works the way you think it does.
Now, if it said things like 'Constitution score" while still saying 'Dexterity Bonus,' or you were actually able to provide evidence of the chains of logic I told you many, many posts ago that you'd have to, it would be a different matter entirely.
But this is not the case.
For the rules, words have a very particular meaning. There is nothing in this ability other than your interpretation of it to suggest that it works the way you think it does.
You don't have anything in the words that say it works your way. You just keep insisting it is crystal clear. Without words saying which way it works definitively, there is no RAW on this subject.
there is no RAW on this subject.
then why continue this epic battle?
You don't have anything in the words that say it works your way. You just keep insisting it is crystal clear. Without words saying which way it works definitively, there is no RAW on this subject.
I'm not going to go over it again. If you still fail to understand, reread the thread The key is the difference between a bonus and a score, and the fact that 'Constitution bonus' means avery particular thing within the rules.
I'm not going to go over it again. If you still fail to understand, reread the thread The key is the difference between a bonus and a score, and the fact that 'Constitution bonus' means avery particular thing within the rules.
You believe your interpretation is the only way to read the rules provided. The fact is the rules don't cover your the situation. So by using just the RAW the matter isn't settled.
then why continue this epic battle?
Because Ejo keeps saying the RAW does cover the situation.
Because Ejo keeps saying the RAW does cover the situation.
It does. Your personal belief that it is still a Dex bonus has no grounds in the RaW. And since Con bonus is not limited by max dex anywhere else in the rules, nor in the ability in question, it's not limited.
I still don't understand how you fail to realize that you are interpreting every other conclusion here. There is no other end point to this if all you follow is the written rules.
Because Ejo keeps saying the RAW does cover the situation.
And you'll never change his mind, so let it go. Everyone should just go find something new to fight about.
If an ability says, "If your Con bonus is greater than your current Dex bonus to AC, add your Con bonus to your AC instead of your Dex" then that is what it does. If that ability further says, "Treat this as if it were your Dex bonus to AC" then you would refer to how a dex bonus is applied to AC. If that provision does not exist, then the ability is telling you to remove your Dex bonus to AC, and add your Con bonus to AC. It is not telling you anything about limiting that bonus, negating that bonus, losing that bonus, enhancing that bonus, except that it is a bonus, based on your con score [more specifically, =ROUNDDOWN((Con-10)/2)]. In the same way that the ability doesn't cause you to move only 5ft per round, it also doesn't limit this bonus unless it says so. This is what RAW means.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to make a basic D&D gamelogic arguement here. The text for Fighter doesn't say they can't make fireballs fly out of their eyes, or lightning from their arse. It also doesn't say that their feats are unlimited use. We know that they are because the abilities that fighters get are defined by text. This text tells us precisely what the ability does, no more, no less.
If an ability says, "If your Con bonus is greater than your current Dex bonus to AC, add your Con bonus to your AC instead of your Dex" then that is what it does. If that ability further says, "Treat this as if it were your Dex bonus to AC" then you would refer to how a dex bonus is applied to AC. If that provision does not exist, then the ability is telling you to remove your Dex bonus to AC, and add your Con bonus to AC. It is not telling you anything about limiting that bonus, negating that bonus, losing that bonus, enhancing that bonus, except that it is a bonus, based on your con score [more specifically, =ROUNDDOWN((Con-10)/2)]. In the same way that the ability doesn't cause you to move only 5ft per round, it also doesn't limit this bonus unless it says so. This is what RAW means.
You put it ever so much more eloquently than I could have.
Queen Bee has spoken! :embarrass
King bee.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to make a basic D&D gamelogic arguement here. The text for Fighter doesn't say they can't make fireballs fly out of their eyes, or lightning from their arse. It also doesn't say that their feats are unlimited use. We know that they are because the abilities that fighters get are defined by text. This text tells us precisely what the ability does, no more, no less.
If an ability says, "If your Con bonus is greater than your current Dex bonus to AC, add your Con bonus to your AC instead of your Dex" then that is what it does. If that ability further says, "Treat this as if it were your Dex bonus to AC" then you would refer to how a dex bonus is applied to AC. If that provision does not exist, then the ability is telling you to remove your Dex bonus to AC, and add your Con bonus to AC. It is not telling you anything about limiting that bonus, negating that bonus, losing that bonus, enhancing that bonus, except that it is a bonus, based on your con score [more specifically, =ROUNDDOWN((Con-10)/2)]. In the same way that the ability doesn't cause you to move only 5ft per round, it also doesn't limit this bonus unless it says so. This is what RAW means.
Thank you. Hopefully this concise and eloquent reiteration of the idea of RaW will allow Risner to come to his senses.
Thank you. Hopefully this concise and eloquent reiteration of the idea of RaW will allow Risner to come to his senses.
RAW is rules as written.
There is no text in this ability that states you lose your Dex to AC in the way you suggest.
There is no text or rule stating your opinion.
In short, it is nothing more than an opinion.
Opinions are not RAW, rules are and you have no rules to support your theory.
Thank you. Hopefully this concise and eloquent reiteration of the idea of RaW will allow Risner to come to his senses.
apparently not.... *sigh* some people......
I really don't feel like digging through all 13 pages of arguing you guys have drummed up in the lifetime of this thread.
RAW: Con is different from Dex, and thus has no limitation of armor
CustServ: Con is limited in the same way as Dex, thus armor restricts the Con bonus to AC
[RAIITAYCPIWN]: Con is different from Dex, and thus has no limitation of armor
First, thanks for the note.
Second, please read the Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization linked from my sig. It will explain the paraphrase I put into your quote.
Second, please read the Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization linked from my sig. It will explain the paraphrase I put into your quote.
From that same 'Commandment.'
If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim...
The rules specifically uphold what we're talking about here. I well know the abuses some (including Risner with his wild interpretations) level against RaW, but just because CustServ says something does not change what is written in the book.
Many will never see the CustServ entry, so we go right back to the only general guidelines for how to carry the ability from game to game being the actual written word and a general idea of what people think should apply, the RaW and the RaI.
here is no text in this ability that states you lose your Dex to AC.
No there isn't, but there is text saying it's replaced by your Con if it's higher, and lists only one limitation of Dex bonus that the Con bonus also gets. None of the other limitations of Dex bonus are adopted by the Con bonus, because it tells you specifically which one is.
An interesting side effect of this is that if you have a Con bonus of 3, a Dex bonus of 4, and are wearing Chainmail, you use your Con instead of your Dex, as for the purposes of AC at that time, your Con (which is unimited by max Dex to AC) is higher than the max Dex bonus of 2 while wearing the chainmail. It also means that if you have a Con bonus of 14 and are wearing full plate, you get the full 14 Con bonus to your AC.
This is the only conclusion a literal reading of all the rules present can give without insisting your own limitations and ideals of how the ability should work.
Unless you have some other rule somewhere that contradicts this that you still have yet to show us.
This is the only conclusion a literal reading of all the rules present can give without insisting your own limitations and ideals of how the ability should work.
Unless you have some other rule somewhere that contradicts this that you still have yet to show us.
That is your "rules as I interpret them", but again it isn't RAW. RAW does not address the issue. Whichever way you wish to interpret the text, it is an interpretation because there is no RAW on this issue.
RAW does not address the issue.
But it does.
It tells you exactly what to do in relation to the ability.
Limiting the con bonus based off of max dex is not something it tells you to do. Nor is it something any other rules tell you to do.
So you don't do it.
But it does.
It tells you exactly what to do in relation to the ability.
Says you but not the text of the rule.
The rules specifically uphold what we're talking about here. I well know the abuses some (including Risner with his wild interpretations) level against RaW, but just because CustServ says something does not change what is written in the book.
Irrelevent Conclusion Fallacy (specifically ad hominem).
Many will never see the CustServ entry, so we go right back to the only general guidelines for how to carry the ability from game to game being the actual written word and a general idea of what people think should apply, the RaW and the RaI.
Popular Knowledge Fallacy.
No there isn't, but there is text saying it's replaced by your Con if it's higher, and lists only one limitation of Dex bonus that the Con bonus also gets. None of the other limitations of Dex bonus are adopted by the Con bonus, because it tells you specifically which one is.
Converse Accident Fallacy.
This is the only conclusion a literal reading of all the rules present can give without insisting your own limitations and ideals of how the ability should work.
Unless you have some other rule somewhere that contradicts this that you still have yet to show us.
Negative Proof Fallacy.
No legitimate argument.
No legitimate argument.
I decided to only quote the only part of your post that listed your own position, so that people wouldn't get it confused with the part where you used some big words to hide the fact that you have no substance.
Regardless of any 'logical fallacies' I used for items that weren't even attempts to prove the position, you contribute nothing until you can actually back up your own stance.
So again, I say to you and Risner, since the ability itself does not limit the Con bonus by max Dex, the burden is on you to find anywhere else the rules where it states or even sets a precedent that it be.
I eagerly await such passages as you can dig up.
Remember, "CustServ says so" is not a legitimate argument when discussing the RaW of the ability (the RaI is not what is being questioned here, once the author spoke, it became set what the intended function was).
I decided to only quote the only part of your post that listed your own position, so that people wouldn't get it confused with the part where you used some big words to hide the fact that you have no substance.
Funny, because my big words are saying the same thing about you.
Regardless of any 'logical fallacies' I used for items that weren't even attempts to prove the position, you contribute nothing until you can actually back up your own stance.
I fail to see the need when all of your arguments are guilty of logical fallacy, but I'll indulge you after discrediting your "arguments" some more.
So again, I say to you and Risner, since the ability itself does not limit the Con bonus by max Dex, the burden is on you to find anywhere else the rules where it states or even sets a precedent that it be.
I eagerly await such passages as you can dig up.
Remember, "CustServ says so" is not a legitimate argument when discussing the RaW of the ability (the RaI is not what is being questioned here, once the author spoke, it became set what the intended function was).
Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy and Negative Proof Fallacy. Two-fer.
Unfortunately for you, "CustServ says so" is a legitimate argument when discussing how the ability actually works. Dungeons and Dragons is a brand name owned by Wizards of the Coast, and the people we refer to as "CustServ" is short for Wizards of the Coast Customer Service. In other words, CustServ represents the people who make the game. When answering questions about the rules of the game their words carry the same weight as RAW. Therefore, adding your Constitution bonus to your AC with the Stone Warden ability is limited by the max dex bonus of your armor.
That's how you structure an argument.
So again, I say to you and Risner, since the ability itself does not limit the Con bonus by max Dex, the burden is on you to find anywhere else the rules where it states or even sets a precedent that it be.
I eagerly await such passages as you can dig up.
The ability is inherently limited by Max Dex, since the ability allows you to substitute your Con mod for your Dex mod when it is higher for your Dex to AC.
I also eagerly await you finding a rules reference for your way. In short I am waiting for you to find something that says you no longer need to worry about Dexterity to AC being limited by Max Dex of your armour.
When answering questions about the rules of the game their words carry the same weight as RAW.
Not at all, though if you truly were of that opinion, it would explain the source of all your confusion. Per the rules themselves (read up on primary sources secondary sources), CustServ cannot change or contradict the written rules. They can talk about the RaI and clarify confusing or contradictory rules, but there's nothing in this ability that contradicts other rules or is unclear, despite the wording of the ability not matching the intent of the ability.
The ability is inherently limited by Max Dex, since the ability allows you to substitute your Con mod for your Dex mod when it is higher for your Dex to AC.
Max Dex cannot limit your Con bonus to AC based on the rules of Max Dex, and the rules of this ability does not give it the power to do so.
Concluding that it is limited by Max Dex is nothing short of an interpretation. An adding of rules that do not exist.
They can talk about the RaI and clarify confusing or contradictory rules, but there's nothing in this ability that contradicts other rules or is unclear, despite the wording of the ability not matching the intent of the ability..
If nothing about the ability was unclear this thread wouldn't exist.
If nothing about the ability was unclear this thread wouldn't exist.
This thread is here for two reasons. Firstly, people were earlier discussing the RaI. Secondly, throughout the thread, people have been getting RaW and RaI confused, just like Risner is now.
RAW is rules as written.
There is no text in this ability that states you lose your Dex to AC in the way you suggest.
There is no text or rule stating your opinion.
In short, it is nothing more than an opinion.
Opinions are not RAW, rules are and you have no rules to support your theory.
Actually, when the word "replace" is used, I would assume that the word "replace" is agreed upon enough by those of us in this country that speak english (i.e. all of us) and would refer to other instances where 'replace' is used as well.
However, if you disagree, I can continue my arguement with support, as opposed to merely dismissing yours. I have put forth the point that your interpretation of the rules as written differs from mine, and that I believe that mine is closer to the RAW for the following reason: My interpretation (or so I understand it) directly applies the text with no addition of words or phrases beyond that which is printed in the ability. Replace, in this case, means to remove one thing and insert another where the original had existed. I state to remove the Dex bonus to AC (as limited by all the rules stated in the PHB relating to adding Dex to AC, losing Dex to AC and limiting Dex to AC), and add the Con bonus to AC (limited as stated in Races of Stone, and lost in a situation where the character would be denied a Dex bonus to AC [such as flat footed, balancing, climbing, swimming, et al, though these are not spelled out in the book, they are referred to individually in their descriptions in the RAW as causing a loss of dex bonus to AC] as this is the only place where Con to AC for the ability Stone Warden is mentioned; the ability Stone Warden is not mentioned in the PHB, nor any other supplement).
However, this may not be enough. If you wish, I will continue in another direction regarding application and limitation of stat-based bonuses to AC.
Not at all, though if you truly were of that opinion, it would explain the source of all your confusion. Per the rules themselves (read up on primary sources secondary sources), CustServ cannot change or contradict the written rules. They can talk about the RaI and clarify confusing or contradictory rules, but there's nothing in this ability that contradicts other rules or is unclear, despite the wording of the ability not matching the intent of the ability.
Very true, however, there is no rule saying that Stone Warden's Constitution bonus to AC isn't limited by Max Dex, therefore CustServ's ruling does not change or contradict the written rules.
Very true, however, there is no rule saying that Stone Warden's Constitution bonus to AC isn't limited by Max Dex, therefore CustServ's ruling does not change or contradict the written rules.
There is a rule that states the only limitation on the ability. You are right that it does not contradict the rules, but this very much classifies as changing the rules, as text must be added to the existing limitations to include Max Dex.
By the rules themselves, this is not within CustServ's power, and therefor the RaW remains solely as written in the ability itself. The RaI is irrelevant in this context.
There is a rule that states the only limitation on the ability. You are right that it does not contradict the rules, but this very much classifies as changing the rules, as text must be added to the existing limitations to include Max Dex.
By the rules themselves, this is not within CustServ's power, and therefor the RaW remains solely as written in the ability itself. The RaI is irrelevant in this context.
Can we leave RAI out of the picture when discussing RAW?
The ability (as written) is limited to Max Dex because Dex is limited.
Nothing you have show proves this isn't what the rules are saying, other than your interpretation of the rules.
There is a rule that states the only limitation on the ability. You are right that it does not contradict the rules, but this very much classifies as changing the rules, as text must be added to the existing limitations to include Max Dex.
Converse Accident Fallacy. Just because a single limitation is listed doesn't mean that the other normal limitations are ignored.
By the rules themselves, this is not within CustServ's power, and therefor the RaW remains solely as written in the ability itself. The RaI is irrelevant in this context.
Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy and pure, simple personal beliefs. The rules don't explicitly say one way or another whether or not the Con bonus is limited by Max Dex, therefore CustServ can say whether or not they are and their ruling will carry the same weight as RAW. Also, you're forgetting Caelic already: Intent matters. No matter what you think, Intent matters.
I gave up trying to argue what is RAW for the ability because it ended up being futile to try and get risner or anyone else to concede.
The argument has only continued because everyone feels like arguing for the sake of arguing. This thread would be pages deep in the forum if risner hadn't of decided to open things back up, and as the topic hasn't been on ways to utilize (consistently) the ability, there is really no point to continue arguing here.
Yes, the WizOs could just close this thread, and the argument would be started anew in a thread started by whomever wants to keep letting out their hot air.
Since neither of you will admit that the other is entitled to their own opinion, why continue? Everyone reads something differently, and since the arguments for both sides are equally tangential, it's pointless to keep beating this thing on and on like it has been.
@ risner: If you are waiting for "proof" from Ejo, I would say that you are hoping in vain. He's not going to concede to you, just as you aren't going to concede to him. I respect you and your opinion, even if I don't agree with you.
You guys just need to let this one rest already, it's gone from optimization of an ability to a mud-slinging wordfest.
~P_X~
You guys just need to let this one rest already, it's gone from optimization of an ability to a mud-slinging wordfest.
~P_X~
I only just started yesterday, and the argument goes on for one simple reason: if people think it works then they're going to take it and recommend it to everyone wanting to play a tank on the CO boards.
I only just started yesterday, and the argument goes on for one simple reason: if people think it works then they're going to take it and recommend it to everyone wanting to play a tank on the CO boards.
Whether it works or not (I don't really care to try and argue anymore, so please don't say anything along the lines of: "RAW of the ability is..."), I could really care less if people are running around screaming: OMFG!!!1!! USE THIS!!!
Before risner "res'd" the thread, there hadn't been many mentions of it since it "died." And mentions of it usually carried the disclaimer: "Stonewarden will need a DM decision" because the argument can (as we can see here) be taken either way with force.
What works (better I might add): Chaos Monk 1/ Barbarian 6/ Battlerager 5/ Deepwarden 2/Fist of the Forest 3/ Dwarf Paragon 3, and use the feat Reckless Rage. You get Wis & Con (twice) to AC (and don't have to worry about the Max Dex argument), and your AC actually increases when you rage. Use bracers of armor, and every other item that boosts AC/Con/Wis, and you will be good to go.
~P_X~
Converse Accident Fallacy. Just because a single limitation is listed doesn't mean that the other normal limitations are ignored.
The are no normal limitations for Con bonus to AC. So the only listed limitations is the only limitation, as far as the actual rules are concerned.
Intent matters. No matter what you think, Intent matters.
For being practical, perhaps. But that is neither here nor there, as what was being discussed was not the use of this ability, practical or otherwise. What was being discussed was simply the words of the book.
The ability (as written) is limited to Max Dex because Dex is limited.
As written, the Con bonus only picks up one limitation of a Dex bonus. The others do not affect Con bonus anywhere in the rules, including in this ability.
Now, if this ability used your Con score to determine your Dex bonus to AC, then you would be spot on. But it doesn't and you're not.
Please, at least attempt to comprehend the difference in the two.
Please, at least attempt to comprehend the difference in the two.
There it is, Argumentum ad Hominem.
You can have your argument, because now I'm done. I won't continue here to be insulted by someone, backhanded or otherwise, for the purposes of a purely academic argument. By RAW, it works as you said. In every single practical application of the class, it works according to CustServ's ruling. Therefore, since these boards create builds for actual games, we should abide by CustServ's ruling when recommending the class to people seeking build advice. Even when you win, you lose.
Now, someone without a warning please come in and flame someone so this thread can get reported and locked.
I won't continue here to be insulted by someone, backhanded or otherwise, for the purposes of a purely academic argument.
That was specifically for Risner, who has stated multiple times he feels it works as if someone with the ability is still using a Dex bonus when gaining it's benefits.
By RAW, it works as you said.
In every single practical application of the class, it works according to CustServ's ruling.
Not true. Many here have been in games where it has been done as RaW, either through never having seen the CustServ ruling or by not trusting it (they are still notorious for their contradictory answers).
This is why, while does intent matter when making builds, it's used as a caveat more than a standard on this boards.
Edit: Just to clarify... I was one of the ones talking about the RaI limiting it or being unclear, but I came back to the thread when Risner brought it back after many, many months to misinform people that the RaI was actually the RaW as well.
There it is, Argumentum ad Hominem.
You can have your argument, because now I'm done. I won't continue here to be insulted by someone, backhanded or otherwise, for the purposes of a purely academic argument. By RAW, it works as you said. In every single practical application of the class, it works according to CustServ's ruling. Therefore, since these boards create builds for actual games, we should abide by CustServ's ruling when recommending the class to people seeking build advice. Even when you win, you lose.
Now, someone without a warning please come in and flame someone so this thread can get reported and locked.
wow, that seems a bit petty.
This thread is a HEADACHE. Agree to disagree and walk away.
Irrelevent Conclusion Fallacy (specifically ad hominem).
Really? It addresses specifically your implicit claim that a CustServ ruling is RAW. The point he makes ("just because CustServ says something does not change what is written in the book") is not invalidated by the first part of the sentence in question.
Popular Knowledge Fallacy.
Read a website on fallacies lately? Are you really intending to imply that RAW includes all CustServ rulings? After all, CustServ responses don't go to the general populace, and they occasionally even contradict each other.
Converse Accident Fallacy.
Does not apply here. A proper Converse Accident Fallacy would, in fact, be just the opposite (e.g., "since the RAW says you loose the CON bonus just like a dex bonus when flatfooted, you should treat the CON bonus as a DEX bonus in all respects"). See also: an explanation.
Negative Proof Fallacy.
Also doesn't apply here. If he had said there's no rule against it, so it applies, it would be a Negative Proof. Here, he states that the rules support his position - he merely acknowledges that if there is an additional rule he is not aware of, it might support Risner's. Again, to read up on it: some information.
No legitimate argument.
Isn't using too many fallacies to criticize someone's argument a fallacy in itself?
There it is, Argumentum ad Hominem.
You can have your argument, because now I'm done. I won't continue here to be insulted by someone, backhanded or otherwise, for the purposes of a purely academic argument. By RAW, it works as you said. In every single practical application of the class, it works according to CustServ's ruling. Therefore, since these boards create builds for actual games, we should abide by CustServ's ruling when recommending the class to people seeking build advice. Even when you win, you lose.
Now, someone without a warning please come in and flame someone so this thread can get reported and locked.
It's been pointed out before, this seems a bit petty - and the perceived Ad Hominem was not directed at you in the first place.
It's been pointed out before, this seems a bit petty - and the perceived Ad Hominem was not directed at you in the first place.
It seems petty, but it drives home one of my points: the argument over what the RAW is is irrelevant, the ability's bonus to AC is limited by Max Dex as clarified by CustServ. That said, I've heard CustServ being discredited because of contradictory rulings (some of which I have seen), but nobody posted one for this situation. It's fair to say that when CustServ says one thing consistently then they're right, so send another message to CustServ asking again. Hell, send 3, then if any of them contradict, copy/paste them into a single message and send *that* in. That will get the attention of someone with a decent brain in their head to settle it one and for all.
(*Note, throw out any "the ability does not specify so it should be adjudicated by your DM" crap. That seems to be CustServ's new favorite line.*)
Strawman arguement. You're attacking the words and losing the meaning. You're also attacking the weakest part of the arguement, and ignoring the substance.
I thought you were advocating RAW, which is kind of all about the words and less about their interpretation. If you want to look for meaning, then everyone agrees that the ability was meant to be limited by con just as it is normally limited by dex. Even Ejothims acknowledges that.
-AS-
That said, I've heard CustServ being discredited because of contradictory rulings (some of which I have seen), but nobody posted one for this situation.
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!
----------------
so how does that sound ;)
Does this help?
Furthermore, once we actually stop and smell the roses on what each of the big words X-Codes has been throwing around actually means, we can identify from risner, "You haven't said anything that says it's not limited by Max Dex, so it is" or Negative Proof Fallacy...
If he had said there's no rule against it, so it applies, it would be a Negative Proof. [...] some information
As well as "It lists losing dex to ac when flat footed as a limitation, so it must be limited just like dex," or Converse Accident Fallacy...
A proper Converse Accident Fallacy would, in fact, be just the opposite (e.g., "since the RAW says you loose the CON bonus just like a dex bonus when flatfooted, you should treat the CON bonus as a DEX bonus in all respects"). See also: an explanation.
I'm trying not to be petty here and regurgitate the fallacy war, but given that we've had 2 pages of "Fallacy fallacy fallacy," I'm jumping the cliff too.
We discredited CustServ because we got 2 rulings from them, one which supports our side, one which supports Risner's side but claimed to have spoken to a Developer (which is, btw, VERY NOT COOL within CustServ), so it was given more weight. The only developer that we know of that may give official rulings is The Sage, last I checked (I believe it was during the Miracle trick threads that we discovered this, but I may be mistaken), and it should and does fall to CustServ itself to give the ruling, however this does not invalidate it, it merely allows for two contradictory rulings in the same issue, making CustServ not proof for or against.
Our side has shown RAW to prove that the Con bonus is not a Dex bonus by saying, "Hey, it's a Con bonus." Tautology, inherantly true. Risner has yet to sufficiently prove that the Con bonus is a Dex bonus beyond opinion.
Our side has shown RAW to prove that the Stone Warden ability does not limit the Con bonus to AC beyond losing it when flat footed logically based on D&D game precedent for every rule to have it's place and it's text. No more, no less. Risner has yet to raise contrary proof.
I believe that these are the two points that have been raised against 'our side' that are logically grounded, and that refuting these points causes our position to be correct within the boundaries of the logical exercise, which states that the Rules As Written, or RAW do not support limiting the Con bonus to AC of the Deepwarden class feature, Stone Warden, to the Max Dex of any heavy armor that the character may be wearing.
I thought you were advocating RAW, which is kind of all about the words and less about their interpretation. If you want to look for meaning, then everyone agrees that the ability was meant to be limited by con just as it is normally limited by dex. Even Ejothims acknowledges that.
-AS-
Just because we advocate RAW doesn't mean that our arguments are lifeless text. I was referring to attacking the words being used in our arguments and ignoring the substance of those words. I make an Argument as Interpreted as much as I make an Argument as Written.
Furthermore, once we actually stop and smell the roses on what each of the big words X-Codes has been throwing around actually means, we can identify from risner, "You haven't said anything that says it's not limited by Max Dex, so it is" or Negative Proof Fallacy...
Now you're using the Strawman argument. I never said "It doesn't say either way therefore it is," I said "CustServ says it is, therefore it is, and CustServ can say that it is because it doesn't say either way."
As for the CustServ response, now go on to stage two: Send that CustServ letter in with the one saying that it doesn't work and post /that/ response. If it comes back saying that Con isn't limited, then you'll have convinced me.
Risner brought it back after many, many months to misinform people that the RaI was actually the RaW as well.
It is rather frustrating when you put words in my mouth to try to win your side.
I don't care about RAI, I only care about RAW.
By RAW, the ability doesn't address the issue in question. It doesn't say one way or another whether it is limited by Max DEX (if read to be allowing Con to be used as your Dex) or if there is no limit (if read to be removing Dex and adding Con to AC.)
So you keep saying by "RAW" it works the way you say, but it doesn't. RAW doesn't address the issue.
If you want to play a game, you then care about RAI. But here on the forums, all you have is RAW. You need to limit your discussion to RAW and what is written in the ability.
You no longer have a dexterity bonus to AC. You have a constitution bonus to AC. Since there is no RAW concerning that, and the ability doesn't address it, I don't see how RAW goes any other way than 'it is not limited'.
The issue seems to be that you interpret the ability as replacing the dexterity part of your dexterity bonus to AC with your constitution, as opposed to no longer having a dexterity bonus to AC, hence the clarification about being flat-footed.
Would that be correct? If so, then I think everyone should stop arguing, because we think the ability does something different from the start, even before we get to the armor limitations.
(if read to be allowing Con to be used as your Dex)
Reading it this way is 100% interpretation, as this would then mean it was a Dex bonus using your Con score, and not a Con bonus. Yet the text very, very clearly states Con bonus multiple times.
The issue seems to be that you interpret the ability as replacing the dexterity part of your dexterity bonus to AC with your constitution, as opposed to no longer having a dexterity bonus to AC, hence the clarification about being flat-footed.
Wanted to emphasize that for you Khan, as that is exactly what he has previously said he thinks the ability does.
Sadly, the ability is very clear that you use a Con bonus in place a Dex bonus, and not your Con score to determine what your Dex bonus is.
He refuses to acknowledge this though, and has yet to show any rule that would link the text of the ability to the way he thinks it works.
Now that is funny
a mechanic that limits constitution by maximum dexterity bonus, isn't it RAW then that the constitution bonus is not limited?
Only if you assume (interpret) the RAW to mean you have Con to AC instead of Dex to AC with the ability to use your Con as your Dex for AC purposes.
You no longer have a dexterity bonus to AC. You have a constitution bonus to AC.
Again, you would be right if that is what it says. But since it doesn't say that, you are making an interpretation.
Reading it this way is 100% interpretation, as this would then mean it was a Dex bonus using your Con score, and not a Con bonus. Yet the text very, very clearly states Con bonus multiple times.
Not true, your way is interpretation as well. The rules are absolutely not clear which way it is to be performed, at least not the english language version.
So you have an ability that allows for rogues to sneak you all the time since you dont have your dex to AC ?
That is one of the side effects of EjoThim's interpretation. If you interpret the ability the way I see it written, this isn't a problem.
So you have an ability that allows for rogues to sneak you all the time since you dont have your dex to AC ?
Now that is funny
Not at all.
You're no more denied your Dex by this ability than someone who only has a score of 10.
You're bonus is just effectively 0 as long as your Con bonus is higher.
Not true, your way is interpretation as well. The rules are absolutely not clear which way it is to be performed, at least not the english language version.
The ability specifically states you get your Con bonus to AC.
Con bonus has a very particular meaning by the rules.
A Con bonus cannot be a Dex bonus.
You substitute which stat you use for AC and since sneak attack dont care wether or not you got CON, but only looks for dex(which you dont have since now you use CON), for AC, by RAW you should be sneakable when using this ability.
Adding CON to AC instead of DEX means not having DEX for AC which again would mean that a rogue could sneak you.
You substitute which stat you use for AC and since sneak attack dont care wether or not you got CON, but only looks for dex(which you dont have since now you use CON), for AC, by RAW you should be sneakable when using this ability.
But you aren't denied your dex. That's the point.
Adding CON to AC instead of DEX means not having DEX for AC which again would mean that a rogue could sneak you.
You substitute which stat you use for AC and since sneak attack dont care wether or not you got CON, but only looks for dex(which you dont have since now you use CON), for AC, by RAW you should be sneakable when using this ability.
You still get your Dex bonus to AC. It just doesn't stack with the Con bonus.
At least that is how I read it.
Adding CON to AC instead of DEX means not having DEX for AC which again would mean that a rogue could sneak you.
"Not having" is different from "being denied" a Dex bonus. The former is internal; the latter is an externally enforced condition.
The ability specifically states you get your Con bonus to AC.
Con bonus has a very particular meaning by the rules.
A Con bonus cannot be a Dex bonus.
It specifically states you can use your Con bonus as your Dex bonus if your Con is higher.
You bring up an irrelevant point (the meaning of the words "Con Bonus") as if that is to help your position?
By RAW, there is no indicators as to how this is to be handled.
"Not having" is different from "being denied" a Dex bonus. The former is internal; the latter is an externally enforced condition.
By choosing to use your CON instead of DEX you deny yourself your DEX bonus.
Instead quite clearly mean not getting DEX anymore. It doesnt mean your dex bonus is dropped to zero. Not getting DEX mean something is dening you your DEX bonus to AC. Now who that is doesnt really matter, that can be yourself, a classmechanic or some other outside status effect.
It specifically states you can use your Con bonus as your Dex bonus if your Con is higher.
No, that's not what it says. It says you can add your CON bonus instead of your Dexterity (note: not DEX bonus) to AC, if CON is higher. Perhaps your interpretation stems from a simple misreading?
You are not using your CON bonus as your DEX bonus. Granted, if it were that way, you would be correct. As is, the RAW clearly doesn't support your claim.
As for the CustServ response, now go on to stage two: Send that CustServ letter in with the one saying that it doesn't work and post /that/ response. If it comes back saying that Con isn't limited, then you'll have convinced me.
Has anyone actually done this yet?
It allows you to use your CON BONUS for AC instead of your DEX (not DEX BONUS). Since you dont get DEX but DEX BONUS to AC this ability doesn't do anything at all.
Also it would require you to have higher CON BONUS then DEX which is rather difficult at lvl 5
It specifically states you can use your Con bonus as your Dex bonus if your Con is higher.
No. It states instead.
Instead =/= as.
The are two very different words with very different meanings.
Not getting DEX mean something is dening you your DEX bonus to AC.
Not at all.
When you have a Dex bonus of zero (or less), you are not denied your dexterity.
When you use armor with a max Dex of zero, you are not denied your dexterity.
When you use this ability, you are not denied your Dexterity, as it a) does not state you are and b) follows precedent that only outside sources or circumstances can 'deny' a dex bonus, even if you are not getting all or any of your usual dexterity bonus.
Not at all.
When you have a Dex bonus of zero (or less), you are not denied your dexterity.
Well this ability doesnt state: "your dex bonus is zero". It says that you use your con bonus instead of dex. Using con bonus instead of dex is as I see it dening yourself of your dex to be able to use con instead.
But like I said earlier, it doesnt really matter since you would need alot of con to get a higher con bonus then dex, and you dont get your dex to ac in the first place.
It says that you use your con bonus instead of dex. Using con bonus instead of dex is as I see it dening yourself of your dex to be able to use con instead.
But the rules don't state such, and they show a very strong precedent that not only is there a difference between having no dex bonus (no matter the reason) and being denied it, that only certain conditions or abilities that themselves state they deny dex actually 'deny' it to you.
And having a higher Con than dex is actually very easy, and if you're going to be wearing heavy armor anyway, is preferable.
Has anyone actually done this yet?
I don't believe in exactly that way, but the last 'official' response anyone got about the RaI was when one of the CustServ guys supposedly asked the author and he said that it was intended to be limited by max dex. But that is neither here nor there in my attempts to get Risner to understand the words that are actually printed and to stop spouting misinformation about what they mean.
I long ago acknowledged that the intended function of this ability was likely to be limited, but that does not change that, by the RaW, it is not.
But the rules don't state such, and they show a very strong precedent that not only is there a difference between having no dex bonus (no matter the reason) and being denied it, that only certain conditions or abilities that themselves state they deny dex actually 'deny' it to you.
Okies I understand what you mean and I can see the point.
And having a higher Con than dex is actually very easy, and if you're going to be wearing heavy armor anyway, is preferable.
It doesnt say if your con bonus is higher then your dex bonus. It says if you con bonus is higher then your dex (the stat not the bonus).
Also replacing a bonus you dont get to ac with a new bonus doesnt help you get that bonus to ac in my book. You dont get your dex to ac, you only get you dex bonus.
It doesnt say if your con bonus is higher then your dex bonus. It says if you con bonus is higher then your dex (the stat not the bonus).
Also replacing a bonus you dont get to ac with a new bonus doesnt help you get that bonus to ac in my book. You dont get your dex to ac, you only get you dex bonus.
You are severely mistaken on the first point. It does not mean that you Con bonus has to be higher than your Dex score.
And what exactly do you mean in that second paragraph? The ability replaces your Dex bonus with your Con bonus. So where is the confusion in that?
~P_X~
Basically, the text says something along the lines of "...apply your Con bonus instead of your Dexterity."
His argument is, "Well, I don't provide my Dexterity to AC, I provide my Dexterity bonus. Clearly, then, this ability is worthless, since it only replaces a non-existent value."
Like I said, it's a dumb argument. It's like reading something that says "You can pick one of these red apples. And hey, if you want, you can pick the green apple, instead of the red," and assuming that means I can't have a green apple, because I am not getting a "red", I'm getting a "red apple".
Perhaps your interpretation stems from a simple misreading?
There is no misreading to be worried about here. There isn't enough information to be sure how to read it. So if there is misreading involved, it is on both our sides.
my attempts to get Risner to understand the words that are actually printed and to stop spouting misinformation about what they mean.
Ironically, you are the only person spouting misinformation. You try (valiantly) to pass off your interpretation as RAW, when the RAW simply doesn't support your line of reasoning without applying a dash of interpretation. It is you that is aggressively trying to spout misinformation by asserting your way of thinking is the only way to read the text. I completely wish the text were more clear, but I am not about to let misinformation go uncorrected.
I don't believe in exactly that way, but the last 'official' response anyone got about the RaI was when one of the CustServ guys supposedly asked the author and he said that it was intended to be limited by max dex. But that is neither here nor there in my attempts to get Risner to understand the words that are actually printed and to stop spouting misinformation about what they mean.
I long ago acknowledged that the intended function of this ability was likely to be limited, but that does not change that, by the RaW, it is not.
I invoke Caelic: RAW isn't everything. The ability is limited by Max Dex and even you agree on this, so why are we still arguing!?
Now I understand why other people hate this thread, this argument is utterly pointless and now I'm actually feeling embarassed for having contributed to the chaos.
Now I understand why other people hate this thread, this argument is utterly pointless and now I'm actually feeling embarassed for having contributed to the chaos.
Hate ? The word is weak. This thread is a gaping abyss that you can't help but look into. I can't sleep anymore.
;)
Also:
(C) xkcd.com
You are severely mistaken on the first point. It does not mean that you Con bonus has to be higher than your Dex score.
They are discussing RAW. By RAW it's not referring to dex bonus but dex. If you start interpreting dex into dex bonus then its bot RAW anymore.
(I'm not saying that is how i would play it, but these people want to discuss RAW and I'm more then happy to point out how I see this working RAW)
I see what he's implying, but it's an inane argument.
Basically, the text says something along the lines of "...apply your Con bonus instead of your Dexterity."
His argument is, "Well, I don't provide my Dexterity to AC, I provide my Dexterity bonus. Clearly, then, this ability is worthless, since it only replaces a non-existent value."
Like I said, it's a dumb argument. It's like reading something that says "You can pick one of these red apples. And hey, if you want, you can pick the green apple, instead of the red," and assuming that means I can't have a green apple, because I am not getting a "red", I'm getting a "red apple".
Yes its very stupid I would be the first to agree. Which is why I dont use RAW for anything, but these people wanted to discuss it and like I said I dont mind butting in with my view of RAW.
You cant go argue that you cant interpret this in anyway so it would limit the con bonus by armor and then turn around claiming that dex doesnt mean dex but dex bonus. They clearly write con bonus when referring to that so if they dont write dex bonus then if you talk RAW they are not talking bonus but dex.
Also if you want to really be laming it you could go look in your PHB and see that you actaully dont get your dex bonus but your dex modifier (dex bonus modified for armor penalty and other things) to AC.
Embrace the chaos
+1
There is no misreading to be worried about here. There isn't enough information to be sure how to read it. So if there is misreading involved, it is on both our sides.
Of course there's a misreading: you talked about the text (RAW) of the ability and misrepresented it. In case you forgot what you said:
It specifically states you can use your Con bonus as your Dex bonus if your Con is higher.
Which is not what the ability's text (RAW) says.
The problematic points (and the reason why I suggested that you are misreading the text (RAW)) are that you (1) use the word "specifically" and then still give a wrong representation of the text, and (2) the wrong representation you give actually supports your position.
I invoke Caelic: RAW isn't everything.
But it is what was being discussed.
The ability is limited by Max Dex and even you agree on this, so why are we still arguing!?
Because I don't want to be a part of why someone may be misinformed on the subject.
They are discussing RAW. By RAW it's not referring to dex bonus but dex. If you start interpreting dex into dex bonus then its bot RAW anymore.
RaW states things implicitly often. It is implied, by both precedent in the rules (nothing adds an ability score to anything, always a bonus) and by the intricacies of our language, that it is read 'dex [bonus].'
But it is
RaW states things implicitly often. It is implied, by both precedent in the rules (nothing adds an ability score to anything, always a bonus) and by the intricacies of our language, that it is read 'dex [bonus].'
So its okies to say that by RAW dex means dex bonus - but not that the follow change would call for the con bonus to be limited by armor ? I dont see how you can make the conclusion about dex meaning something else then written and still claim that because this is not a dex bonus it wouldnt be limited by armor ?
ARMOR CLASS
Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It’s the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you. Your AC is equal to the following:
10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier
Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if you’re wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole Dexterity bonus to your AC.
Sometimes you can’t use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC. (If you don’t have a Dexterity bonus, nothing happens.)
See you dont get dex bonus but dex modifier to ac. Now this ability allows you to change dex bonus for con bonus for AC. Since dex bonus isnt used in the quation to calculate AC but your dex modifier is then you would have to exchange dex bonus for con bonus in that part. That would mean that con bonus according to this would be limited by armor because that is the only place in AC calculation dex bonus is mentioned.
Sorry if its too confusing- not sure how to put it more clear
So its okies to say that by RAW dex means dex bonus - but not that the follow change would call for the con bonus to be limited by armor ? I dont see how you can make the conclusion about dex meaning something else then written and still claim that because this is not a dex bonus it wouldnt be limited by armor ?
The words mean what they mean. Context and precedent are not absent in RaW.
See you dont get dex bonus but dex modifier to ac. Now this ability allows you to change dex bonus for con bonus for AC. Since dex bonus isnt used in the quation to calculate AC but your dex modifier is then you would have to exchange dex bonus for con bonus in that part. That would mean that con bonus according to this would be limited by armor because that is the only place in AC calculation dex bonus is mentioned.
Ah, finally an attempt at arguing with RaW logic and how it defines the words.
This is what Risner has been needing to try for pages now.
Sadly, you are still mistaken, since the PHB glossary defines a positive modifier (which it would have to be to benefit from this ability) as a bonus. So when the rules say 'bonus' it is one the same as saying 'modifier that happens to be positive.'
So the meaning of the ability is not changed, as if you have a positive Dexterity modifier, the AC entry reads thusly:
"10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity bonus + size modifier"
Of course... If you had a negative modifier, it would read as so:
"10 + armor bonus + shield bonus - Dexterity penalty + size modifier"
Note that the rest of the entry specifies bonus, so being caught flat footed while having a negative modifier will not increase your AC.
Of course there's a misreading.
Then there are two misreadings. The one I have and the one you and EjoThims share.
The text of the ability fully supports both interpretations. The ability is not clear enough to honestly assert there is only one way to read the ability by RAW.
The text of the ability fully supports both interpretations. The ability is not clear enough to honestly assert there is only one way to read the ability by RAW.
This seems to be the most likely answer.
This seems to be the most likely answer.
It is the answer, and it's exactly why CustServ got brought in on this and it's exactly why the RAW shouldn't be worshipped and it's exactly why this argument is utterly and entirely pointless.
Just shut up and play D&D already.
The text of the ability fully supports both interpretations.
It does not. The actual written text in no way supports you still using your Dex bonus if your Con bonus is higher, which is the only way it could be limited by max Dex.
The answer is this:
The ability should be limited by max Dex, but by the written text it is not.
It does not. The actual written text in no way supports you still using your Dex bonus if your Con bonus is higher, which is the only way it could be limited by max Dex.
The answer is this:
The ability should be limited by max Dex, but by the written text it is not.
Even I will agree with Ejo here.
And again: Con bonus from Stonewarden =/= a Dex bonus in any way shape or form.
What an ability should say, and what the ability actually does say are two very different things.
~P_X~
It does not. The actual written text in no way supports you still using your Dex bonus if your Con bonus is higher, which is the only way it could be limited by max Dex.
According to you, but until you can manage to get WotC to publish an errata to make the text say what you believe it says, you are wrong.
The text of the ability is in no way as clear as you say.
I am not about to let misinformation go uncorrected.
Because I don't want to be a part of why someone may be misinformed on the subject.
Then how about both of you bookmark this thread, and when the topic comes up elsewhere you can simply say, "This has been hotly debated. See this thread for arguments from both sides, and check with your DM."
Neither of you seems to want to back down here because you're afraid the other side will then trumpet their view as indisputable fact whenever applicable. Just point to the argument and let people make up their own minds, since you both fail utterly to convince anyone yourselves.
edit: Not to mention it should be obvious by now that neither of you is going to bring any more productive debate to the table. There is nothing left to be said.
According to you, but until you can manage to get WotC to publish an errata to make the text say what you believe it says, you are wrong.
The text of the ability is in no way as clear as you say.
And now you are going to argue the clarity of the ability?
You claim he, as well as myself, are mistaken that the ability clearly does not limit the Con bonus with the Mex Dex of the armor.
And yet you cannot show, with clarity, that armor does in fact limit the bonus.
As HotSake has said, neither of you wants to admit the other could possibly be right, but yet you keep arguing for the sole sake of it.
I said it before, and i will say it again: you cannot use your own interpretation of the ability to argue the RAW of the ability. Otherwise, it's no longer RAW; it becomes RAI(nterpreted).
And once again, stop waving around 'RAW', and claiming that your interpretation of the ability is such.
RAW: armor limits the amount of your DEX bonus that is applied toward AC. The CON bonus you replace it with in the Stonewarden ability is not a DEX bonus, and is therefore not limited. Even with the two opposing 'rulings' from CustServ, there will be no end to the debate as to whether or not the ability should/shouldn't limit the Con bonus.
But arguing the intent of the ability is not what you and Ejo keep throwing back and forth. You keep claiming that your interpretation of the ability is RAW, when in fact it is not. How you read the ability is not how anyone else is obligated to do so.
~P_X~
And now you are going to argue the clarity of the ability?
I said it before, and i will say it again: you cannot use your own interpretation of the ability to argue the RAW of the ability. Otherwise, it's no longer RAW; it becomes RAI(nterpreted).
How you read the ability is not how anyone else is obligated to do so.
How about you go read page 5, I've not changed my position.
RAW can only be rigid as you suggest when there is no room for interpretation. A medium longsword deals 1d8, there is no room for interpretation in that RAW. In this ability, there is substantial room for interpretation. It is dishonest to suggest otherwise. It is also rude to assert that "if you don't agree with me, then you are pushing RAI", when I don't care about RAI. I care about RAW and by RAW there isn't enough information to claim either side. There simply isn't any text in the rule to be sure what the rule is saying.
I like your last point, how EjoThims interprets the ability is not how I am obligated to read the ability by RAW.
But arguing the intent of the ability is not what you and Ejo keep throwing back and forth. You keep claiming that your interpretation of the ability is RAW, when in fact it is not.
False. That is what Ejo is doing. I keep claiming the ability doesn't say either way and I keep pointing out that both are valid from the rules written.
Neither of you seems to want to back down here because you're afraid the other side will then trumpet their view as indisputable fact whenever applicable. Just point to the argument and let people make up their own minds, since you both fail utterly to convince anyone yourselves.
edit: Not to mention it should be obvious by now that neither of you is going to bring any more productive debate to the table. There is nothing left to be said.
+1
As HotSake has said, neither of you wants to admit the other could possibly be right, but yet you keep arguing for the sole sake of it.
Actually, if Risner even attempted to actually start quoting text, making connections between one rule and another and setting up even a flimsy string of logic from one statement in the RaW to another that suggests his interpretation is actually supported... Then we would have something productive to talk about here.
One tried something similar earlier today, but alas, they went down a bad vein with it.
But all Risner will say is "it doesn't say it's NOT limited either, so you can't judge."
Which is rather ridiculous, as it is unsupported, progressions no discussion, and is horrible, horrible logic to boot.
Actually, if Risner even attempted to actually start quoting text, making connections between one rule and another and setting up even a flimsy string of logic from one statement in the RaW to another that suggests his interpretation is actually supported... Then we would have something productive to talk about here.
[...]
But all Risner will say is "it doesn't say it's NOT limited either, so you can't judge."
Which is rather ridiculous, as it is unsupported, progressions no discussion, and is horrible, horrible logic to boot.
+1.
The problem is not so much the difference of opinion, but rather the lack of (accurate!) rule quotes and related reasonings. Also, ignoring someone's argument and simply stating it's invalid is not helpful for a discussion.
It is also rude to assert that "if you don't agree with me, then you are pushing RAI"
I find it highly amusing that you bring that up, given that this is what you've been doing since you resurrected this thread.
I said it before, and i will say it again: you cannot use your own interpretation of the ability to argue the RAW of the ability. Otherwise, it's no longer RAW; it becomes RAI(nterpreted).
If you go stickly RAW and dont interpret in any way this ability doesnt do anything like I said. For this ability to actually have an effect you would have to make the assumption that when they write dexterity they mean dexterity bonus.
The problem with them not writing dex bonus is that dex is a term already stricktly defined in the game used for various purposes. So when they choose to write dex RAW must assume that is what they meant. This ofcause would mean waiting for an ability that allowed you to use your dex instead of dex modifier for AC.
And once again, stop waving around 'RAW', and claiming that your interpretation of the ability is such.
Well you are not using strickt RAW anyways.....
Please show me a diffinition af RAW used on these boards that mean anything else then rules as written.
RAW: armor limits the amount of your DEX bonus that is applied toward AC. The CON bonus you replace it with in the Stonewarden ability is not a DEX bonus, and is therefore not limited. Even with the two opposing 'rulings' from CustServ, there will be no end to the debate as to whether or not the ability should/shouldn't limit the Con bonus.
But arguing the intent of the ability is not what you and Ejo keep throwing back and forth. You keep claiming that your interpretation of the ability is RAW, when in fact it is not. How you read the ability is not how anyone else is obligated to do so.
~P_X~
It goes like this:
You use con bonus instead of dex bonus(you claim this one as it is not what raw says) for AC. So now we look at how dex is used in ac:
10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier
So we use con instead of dex:
10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + constitution modifier + size modifier
Also under the rules for AC we have the following:
Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if you’re wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole Dexterity bonus to your AC.
Sometimes you can’t use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC. (If you don’t have a Dexterity bonus, nothing happens.)
So now we use con instead of dex for ac - which would mean in this part of the rules too so we get:
Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if you’re wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole Dexterity bonus to your AC.
Sometimes you can’t use your Constitution bonus (if you have one). If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your Constitution bonus to AC. (If you don’t have a Constitution bonus, nothing happens.).
Now this part of the rules for AC tells us to go look armors to see if they limit Con. We all now that in the book they dont. But this ability have told me to use con instead of dex for AC and since this is a part of the rules for calculating AC you would have to use con here too. So a fullplate would change from max dex 1 to max con 1, because the rules asked me to use con instead of dex for ac.
Actually, if Risner even attempted to actually start quoting text, making connections between one rule and another and setting up even a flimsy string of logic from one statement in the RaW
I have already done all that, look back a few pages.
How about you go read page 5, I've not changed my position.
RAW can only be rigid as you suggest when there is no room for interpretation. A medium longsword deals 1d8, there is no room for interpretation in that RAW. In this ability, there is substantial room for interpretation. It is dishonest to suggest otherwise. It is also rude to assert that "if you don't agree with me, then you are pushing RAI", when I don't care about RAI. I care about RAW and by RAW there isn't enough information to claim either side. There simply isn't any text in the rule to be sure what the rule is saying.
I like your last point, how EjoThims interprets the ability is not how I am obligated to read the ability by RAW.
You are lying already. You say you haven't changed your position, but claim in this post that both sides can be valid. Stop changing your mind if you want to keep arguing for your original view.
And yet you are trying to get everyone else to concede you your interpretation? You keep missing the point that the Con bonus is in no way treated as a Dex bonus; aside from losing it when flat-footed. This doesn't mean that the bonus is limited by the Max Dex of the armor. Max Dex limits Dex to AC; how much more clear does it have to be?
False. That is what Ejo is doing. I keep claiming the ability doesn't say either way and I keep pointing out that both are valid from the rules written.
Actually, you are not saying his stance is valid. You keep saying that he has yet to bring any solid proof that the ability is not limited by Max Dex (even though he has). So how can you say you feel either view is valid?
Stop contradicting yourself. It's getting bothersome that you keep doing so. If you want to argue for RAW, do so; but you can't use any amount of interpretation with this ability. Max Dex limits DEX, not anything else.
~P_X~
If you go stickly RAW and dont interpret in any way this ability doesnt do anything like I said. For this ability to actually have an effect you would have to make the assumption that when they write dexterity they mean dexterity bonus.
The problem with them not writing dex bonus is that dex is a term already stricktly defined in the game used for various purposes. So when they choose to write dex RAW must assume that is what they meant. This ofcause would mean waiting for an ability that allowed you to use your dex instead of dex modifier for AC.
Again, you are using an empty argument. Show another confusing ability that does not have the word "modifier" in it, and you might have something to continue arguing with.
If you have a -1 from Dex it wouldn't be a bonus. So by your logic, you could only switch the two scores around if you had a positive Dex bonus; even if your Con bonus was bigger.
Well you are not using strickt RAW anyways.....
Show me how so. The ability replaces Dex with Con; Max Dex only limits Dex.
It goes like this:
You use con bonus instead of dex bonus(you claim this one as it is not what raw says) for AC. So now we look at how dex is used in ac:
10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier
So we use con instead of dex:
10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + constitution modifier + size modifier
Also under the rules for AC we have the following:
Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if you’re wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole Dexterity bonus to your AC.
Sometimes you can’t use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC. (If you don’t have a Dexterity bonus, nothing happens.)
So now we use con instead of dex for ac - which would mean in this part of the rules too so we get:
Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if you’re wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole Dexterity bonus to your AC.
Sometimes you can’t use your Constitution bonus (if you have one). If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your Constitution bonus to AC. (If you don’t have a Constitution bonus, nothing happens.).
Now this part of the rules for AC tells us to go look armors to see if they limit Con. We all now that in the book they dont. But this ability have told me to use con instead of dex for AC and since this is a part of the rules for calculating AC you would have to use con here too. So a fullplate would change from max dex 1 to max con 1, because the rules asked me to use con instead of dex for ac.
Again, you are wrong. There is nowhere that says to change armor from having Max Dex to Max Con. Replacing an ability does not replace all rules governing the original ability with the new one. It tells you in the ability which limits carry across for the Con bonus.
The developers of the ability already stated that the abilty should be limiting, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't.
~P_X~
You are lying already.
Stop contradicting yourself.
If you want to argue for RAW, do so
Nice and rude there. You are welcome to believe I have contradicted myself, but I have not even once. Despite being called names and other inappropriate things.
The RAW of the ability does not prove how the ability is to be handled, period. I know you disagree with me, but your interpretation is not the only way the words can be interpreted. There is no direct RAW and anyone that claims that by RAW it works with no limit (or is limited) is applying a fair bit of interpretation. This is one case were there is no direct RAW to prove how the ability is to be handled, period.
Again, you are using an empty argument. Show another confusing ability that does not have the word "modifier" in it, and you might have something to continue arguing with.
I don't need to show another ability that doesn't have modifier in it. I need to show that they write modifier when they mean it.
WEAPON FINESSE [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
Special: A fighter may select Weapon Finesse as one of his fighter bonus feats.
Natural weapons are always considered light weapons.
See that one clearly specifies modifier on both stats.
Another one is Steadfast Determination. In that feat they also wrote modifier after both constitution and wisdom.
Now if you want to argue that RAW allways without a doubt mean dexterity modifier when they write dexterity you have to come up with an exsample to back it up ?
Also please stop callling it RAW if you have to make the assumption that dexterity means something else then written. Then we should call it "Rules as written and often interpreted" or something to that extend.
If you have a -1 from Dex it wouldn't be a bonus. So by your logic, you could only switch the two scores around if you had a positive Dex bonus; even if your Con bonus was bigger.
Well for starters you can, by RAW, only use your constitution bonus (note that it doesnt say modifier so you cant use your penalty even if it is smaller then your dex penalty) if it is higher then your dexterity. Not the modifier but the stat. If you claim that reading dexterity as dexterity modifier is right, because that is what logicaly fits best, then in my book, you are out of RAW.
Show me how so. The ability replaces Dex with Con; Max Dex only limits Dex.
Ok, well try atleast put together an arguement and show me where in my assumption Im wrong ? Saying "No you are wrong isnt really that constructive. In my brief time in this thread I've tried to argue and also admitted when I could see the point of other people.
Again, you are wrong. There is nowhere that says to change armor from having Max Dex to Max Con. Replacing an ability does not replace all rules governing the original ability with the new one. It tells you in the ability which limits carry across for the Con bonus.
The developers of the ability already stated that the abilty should be limiting, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't.
~P_X~
This is not rules governing the original ability this is the rules about AC. Look it up, they are in the chapter clearly marked ARMORCLASS. Unless you agree that we need to put Constitution bonus in that equation to get AC with this ability it doesnt do anything.
Now my arguement is that if you use that equation to calculate AC then you have to use the rules marked by that equation to govern it.
Also do you now that by RAW a monk can wear armor and use his evasion as long as another monk isnt wearing any armor
If you go stickly RAW and dont interpret in any way this ability doesnt do anything like I said.
I covered this already.
Remember, RaW does follow precedent and the English language, unless the defined terms specify otherwise. The wording of the ability does not make it invalid as the 'bonus' attached to dex is assumed, just as it is in many other rules.
On top of that, a bonus is a positive modifier, so it fulfills the 'modifier' type, negating the rest of your idea, as I (once again) previously stated.
But Risner can't even post a chain of support or ideas as flimsy as this one.
The wording of the ability does not make it invalid as the 'bonus' attached to dex is assumed, just as it is in many other rules.
Please show me these rules ? I have provided exsamples of my statement that they will write dexterity modifier when talking about the modifier. So it should now be up to you to atleast back up the arguement that the modifier is implicit because it is in other rules by atleast a few exsamples.
But Risner can't even post a chain of support or ideas as flimsy as this one.
I have a solid chain of support. You can't prove that the meaning of of the ability via English or other identical rules. It is you who can't put forth a solid chain of support to uphold your claim the text can only mean one thing.
I have a solid chain of support. You can't prove that the meaning of of the ability via English or other identical rules. It is you who can't put forth a solid chain of support to uphold your claim the text can only mean one thing.
Hotsake said it best:
NO U
I don't need to show another ability that doesn't have modifier in it. I need to show that they write modifier when they mean it.
But you are saying that if it doesn't have 'modifier' in the ability, it doesn't mean for the player to use the modifier.
See that one clearly specifies modifier on both stats.
I clearly said use one that doesn't state modifier. This proves nothing.
Now if you want to argue that RAW allways without a doubt mean dexterity modifier when they write dexterity you have to come up with an exsample to back it up ?
Also please stop callling it RAW if you have to make the assumption that dexterity means something else then written. Then we should call it "Rules as written and often interpreted" or something to that extend.
The following quote shows that any mention of 'Dexterity' and 'AC' refers to the modifier.
You apply your character’s Dexterity modifier to:
* Ranged attack rolls, including those for attacks made with bows, crossbows, throwing axes, and other ranged weapons.
* Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.
Well for starters you can, by RAW, only use your constitution bonus (note that it doesnt say modifier so you cant use your penalty even if it is smaller then your dex penalty) if it is higher then your dexterity. Not the modifier but the stat. If you claim that reading dexterity as dexterity modifier is right, because that is what logicaly fits best, then in my book, you are out of RAW.
Right...Because you are obviously going to build a character with an inferior Con score to use this PrC. Heads up everyone, the optimized thing to do with Deepwarden is to have Con 8, and Dex 6 at level twenty. Don't be foolish in your assumptions.
Ok, well try atleast put together an arguement and show me where in my assumption Im wrong ? Saying "No you are wrong isnt really that constructive. In my brief time in this thread I've tried to argue and also admitted when I could see the point of other people.
Maybe you could proofread, and use proper English, too. So now you are just arguing for the hell of it?
This is not rules governing the original ability this is the rules about AC. Look it up, they are in the chapter clearly marked ARMORCLASS. Unless you agree that we need to put Constitution bonus in that equation to get AC with this ability it doesnt do anything.
Now my arguement is that if you use that equation to calculate AC then you have to use the rules marked by that equation to govern it.
Heaven forbid that they introduce something new to the equation. You sound like you have been living under a rock since 1st Edition. I might be hasty in the following statement, so bear with me; but do you honestly think they would make a useless ability? And then go to great lengths to actually ask the designer at some point what the intent of the ability was if there wasn't any way to actually replace Dex to AC with any other ability modifier.
Also do you now that by RAW a monk can wear armor and use his evasion as long as another monk isnt wearing any armor
The ability does state that the monk still benefits from Evasion if wearing light armor...What 'loop hole' are you trying to get at? Because you will once again lose that argument.
~P_X~
You are lying already.
NO U
Maybe you could proofread, and use proper English, too.
In summary, there isn't enough information written in the ability to clearly adjudicate how it is to be handled. No amount of name calling will fix that problem.
So is this how it goes? If you can't win an argument with logic or proof, you decide the next move is to go on the attack?
Showing someone that they are wrong is hardly an attack. As you and TunFiskeMad have both shown, you won't stop arguing when you are wrong, regardless of the rules disagreeing with you. If you feel like you are being attacked, no one is forcing you to continue posting in this thread. And since you won't admit that you are wrong, you aren't going to get anywhere in anymore arguments. Your original stance was that the ability limits Con to AC, you can't all of the sudden change that (saying Ejo is as right as you are, which you weren't saying) just to suit your fancy, and than in the same breath say that you haven't changed your stance.
In summary, there isn't enough information written in the ability to clearly adjudicate how it is to be handled. No amount of name calling will fix that problem.
You are still using the argument that "it doesn't say it's unlimited, therefore it must be limited". Which is not the RAW of the ability. Armor does not have a Max Con entry, and you aren't using your Con bonus as if it were a Dex bonus. You are replacing your Dex bonus with your Con bonus. The only relation between the two, is that you lose the Con bonus if caught flat-footed or flanked.
~P_X~
The ability does state that the monk still benefits from Evasion if wearing light armor...What 'loop hole' are you trying to get at? Because you will once again lose that argument.
~P_X~
We'll take this for starters, because it is totally unrelated to the discussion at hand. I do apologize for not including light armor. What I meant was a monk can use evasion even in heavy armor
Evasion (Ex): At 2nd level or higher if a monk makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if a monk is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless monk does not gain the benefit of evasion.
Note the use of a monk, meaning any monk.
As long as any monk somewhere is using light or no armor, this monk, the one I'm playing, can use evasion while using heavy armor. That's RAW.
We'll take this for starters, because it is totally unrelated to the discussion at hand. I do apologize for not including light armor. What I meant was a monk can use evasion even in heavy armor
Note the use of a monk, meaning any monk.
As long as any monk somewhere is using light or no armor, this monk, the one I'm playing, can use evasion while using heavy armor. That's RAW.
You are once again mistaken. Just as you were for originally thinking that using Con instead of Dex meant that you were open for sneak attack.
Evasion under the monk (and ranger/rogue sections) only works in light or no armor. Stop twisting abilities so that you can try (and fail) to flaunt your superior (yet inept) knowledge.
Under your logic, a monk (any monk) could make a Ref save somewhere else for any effect, and yours would always take no damage from the effect you are supposed to be making a save against. This is not that case in this instance of using a monk; and therefore your example of using a monk is incorrect.
Stop trying to argue with misinformation, and an overall flawed outlook on abilities.
~P_X~
Please show me these rules?
I'm sorry, I phrased that improperly. While I'm sure there is some other ability where 'bonus' specifically is assumed, I'd rather not trawl through every book for an example. I meant, only, that the rules still follow standard conventions of the English language, especially when the only way for the ability to make sense is to do so. Like your rather foolish monk example. It is obvious that "Evasion can be used only if a monk..." refers to the example "A monk of 2nd level or higher..." in the opening sentence of the ability. This isn't interpreted, it's the meaning of the words because of the way the English language works.
So is this how it goes? If you can't win an argument with logic or proof, you decide the next move is to go on the attack?
It's what you've done. And no, you haven't put any rules support out for it being limited to Max Dex, which is needed to back up your interpretation.
Your original stance was that the ability limits Con to AC, you can't all of the sudden change that
Armor does not have a Max Con entry, and you aren't using your Con bonus as if it were a Dex bonus.
Look dude, I have not changed my stance period. Go back and read my posts and cease outright lying.
As often as you say "Armor does not have a Max Con entry" I will repeat that as I read the rules, you don't have Con to AC, you have Dex to AC using your Con score.
It's what you've done. And no, you haven't put any rules support out for it being limited to Max Dex, which is needed to back up your interpretation.
It isn't what I have done and I have solid support that the text says it allows you to use your Con instead of your Dex for your Dex to AC. It is you who can't support it being Con to AC.
Look dude, I have not changed my stance period. Go back and read my posts and cease outright lying.
As often as you say "Armor does not have a Max Con entry" I will repeat that as I read the rules, you don't have Con to AC, you have Dex to AC using your Con score.
You can't say you are arguing for RAW when the ability does not say what you think it does. I said you lied because you did at one point agree that Ejo could possibly be right (even though, from your perspective, he hasn't shown you that you are wrong); but then almost immediately said you haven't changed your stance about the ability.
You can't be anymore wrong...You don't use Con as Dex. You use Con in place of Dex. It remains a Con modifier. The "rules as you read them" is not RAW.
It isn't what I have done and I have solid support that the text says it allows you to use your Con instead of your Dex for your Dex to AC. It is you who can't support it being Con to AC.
I will quote the ability again, and bold the proof that you are mistaken.
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.
Nowhere in the ability does it read that you retain Dex to AC, but use your Con score as Dex.
~P_X~
You can't say you are arguing for RAW when the ability does not say what you think it does.
The ability does in fact say what I say, at least you can use the text as instructing you to do so.
I said you lied because you did at one point agree that Ejo could possibly be right but then almost immediately said you haven't changed your stance about the ability.
I've been saying the whole time the ability can be read both ways, but for Ejo or I to assert the ONLY way to read the ability as our respective ways is violating RAW. The RAW of the ability doesn't say which way to interpret it. As often as someone would like to assert their way is the only way, I will assert my way is the only way to show that the RAW of the ability doesn't say either way.
You can't be anymore wrong...You don't use Con as Dex. You use Con in place of Dex.
That is your belief, but you don't have anything other than your interpretation of the ability to prove it works that way and not mine.
Until you can change the text of the book to reflect what you are saying, you can't prove it works the way you say and my position remains just as valid as yours.
The ability does in fact say what I say, at least you can use the text as instructing you to do so.
You can use the text as instructing anything, with varying degrees of plausibility, if you simply ignore or redefine grammar, context, and word definitions.
You can use the text as instructing anything, with varying degrees of plausibility, if you simply ignore or redefine grammar, context, and word definitions.
Exactly, which is precisely what Ejo is doing.
The ability does in fact say what I say, at least you can use the text as instructing you to do so.
You have yet to show where in the text it says (as you want to read it) "You use your Con score to determine your Dex bonus to AC."
I've been saying the whole time the ability can be read both ways, but for Ejo or I to assert the ONLY way to read the ability as our respective ways is violating RAW. The RAW of the ability doesn't say which way to interpret it. As often as someone would like to assert their way is the only way, I will assert my way is the only way to show that the RAW of the ability doesn't say either way.
You have not been saying the whole time that it reads both ways. Don't try to mislead people into siding with you in this part of your argument. When you 'resd' this thread, you were the only one on the side for limiting Con to AC. You said that I could not claim my view was RAW because your RAW was the only way to read the ability.
That is your belief, but you don't have anything other than your interpretation of the ability to prove it works that way and not mine.
See both above and below.
Until you can change the text of the book to reflect what you are saying, you can't prove it works the way you say and my position remains just as valid as yours.
The text of the ability does not say that you use your Con score to determine Dex to AC. Stop trying to argue that it does, because no one will agree with that. Con replaces Dex in the ability. It isn't used to calculate it.
~P_X~
You have yet to show where in the text it says
The text of the ability, namely the word "instead". All this was hashed out earlier if you bothered reading my earlier posts.
The text of the ability does not say that you use your Con score to determine Dex to AC.
As long as you keep misrepresenting what is printed I will keep correcting your mistakes. You seem to be so arrogant and belligerent as to keep trying to bully your way into winning (by saying I am lying), that I am afraid we may achieve 99 pages of this before you accept the fact there is no proof of your side in the text of the ability.
I generally ignore bullies and I am not here to win a popularity contest. I don't like seeing flawed interpretations of RAW bantered around as "the one true RAW" when the text doesn't clearly say what is being advanced.
I'm making a 2nd character in my friends campaign because character life expectancy is pretty low. I wanted to build a tank so I figured this is a good place to start. This is the build i'm looking at:
Dwarf
Ranger 1- TrackB, Imp. Shield Bash, Shield Specilization
Ranger 2- Two Weapon FightingB
Ranger 3- EnduranceB, Agile Shield Fighter
Crusader 1
Crusader 2
Deep Warden 1- Diehard
Deep Warden 2
Deep Warden 3
Deep Warden 4- Servant of the Heavens
Deep Warden 5
Defender of Sealtiel 1
Defender of Sealtiel 2- Armor Specilization (heavy)
Defender of Sealtiel 3
Defender of Sealtiel 4
Defender of Sealtiel 5- Open Feat
Defender of Sealtiel 6
Defender of Sealtiel 7
Defender of Sealtiel 8- Open Feat
Defender of Sealtiel 9
Defender of Sealtiel 10
Now, our DM agrees with me that the Con bonus isn't restricted by Armor. Any other feats I should look into? Maybe another class selection besides the ones i've already chosen? I got an extra feat by taking a flaw and my Stats are Str 15 (17 with gauntlets), Dex 14, Con 20, Int 13, Wis 15, Cha 9. There's no restriction on books, though I don't have any psionics, so they're probably out. Anything else goes and he's allowing Campaign books such as FR and Eberron as long as we can explain how it would effect Greyhawk ie. Initiate of Lathander could be Initiate or Pelor, etc... Thanks for any suggestions.
Crusader 1
Crusader 2
Defender of Sealtiel 1
Maybe another class selection besides the ones i've already chosen?
What are you picking up via Crusader?
Why DoS? You gain 6 AC during your Defense Stance (2+4), but you have a limited number a day (5) and you may find opponents forcing more mobility requirements to get you out of that stance.
Why not something built around Fist of the Forest, Barbarian, Bear Warrior, and War Shaper?
What are you picking up via Crusader?
Why DoS? You gain 6 AC during your Defense Stance (2+4), but you have a limited number a day (5) and you may find opponents forcing more mobility requirements to get you out of that stance.
Why not something built around Fist of the Forest, Barbarian, Bear Warrior, and War Shaper?
Crusader=
Counterstrike (Ex): Crusader's can channel their pain into a boiling rage that gives them a +1 to attack and damage for 1 round if he has 1 point or more in their delayed damage pool.
Steely Resolve (Ex): Crusader's have a delayed damage pool that can soak up to 9 points of damage every round. At the end of the round, the damage goes through and it resets back to 0.
Plus, 5 maneuvers and 2 stances, 4+int skills, d10, and full BAB.
Defender of Sealtiel=
Defensive Stance 5/day (+2 str, +4 con (ie. +2 more to AC), +2 resistance to saves, +4 dodge bonus to AC all for 10 rounds per day.
Shield of Faith 3/day (CL equals DoS class lvl)
Magic Circle constant magic circle against evil
Shield Other 1/day (CL equals DoS class lvl and would've saved one of our party member's lives the other day
)Blood of the Martyr 1/day
Protective Aura 1/day; 3/day at 10th lvl
Glory of the Martyr 1/day
That's alot of Spell-Like Abilities I gain plus full BAB, d12 HD, and 2 good saves.
I've never cared for the Bear Warrior and the job of this character is to just stand there like a big wall and soak up attacks and/or damage that would've been directed at other party members. This is where the stances comes in, healing myself and party members with Martial Spirit or giving my opponents a -4 to their attacks iron guard's glare. Stonebones strike gives me limited DR 5/adamantine while douse the flames negates any AoO's my opponent has for a round.
I've never cared for the Bear Warrior and the job of this character is to just stand there like a big wall and soak up attacks and/or damage that would've been directed at other party members.
While that is an excellent plan and a great build to accomplish it, it may be hard if you don't do a lot of dungeon crawling (if you are in an open space.) You may find intelligent opponents avoiding you to get to softer targets.
Also being more good than Paladin good (due to Exalted) may be needlesome, but if you are prepared for it, it isn't so bad.
I can't think of anything else to make your build better.
While that is an excellent plan and a great build to accomplish it, it may be hard if you don't do a lot of dungeon crawling (if you are in an open space.) You may find intelligent opponents avoiding you to get to softer targets.
Also being more good than Paladin good (due to Exalted) may be needlesome, but if you are prepared for it, it isn't so bad.
I can't think of anything else to make your build better.
Thanks, I appreciate that! :D
I forgot to mention though that we're running the Temple of Elemental Evil campaign, and i'd say 90% of our exploration has been in dungeons. Mostly in cramped hallways that lead to big rooms where multiple BBEG's await us. This past week, we had 8 party members (I know alot) ranging from lvl 5-7 take on a huge air elemental, 1 lvl 7 evil cleric, 4 huge skeletons, and another lvl 5 cleric (the cleric's apprentice).....all at once!!
The text of the ability, namely the word "instead". All this was hashed out earlier if you bothered reading my earlier posts.
Yes, the ability says you use Con instead of Dex. Not that your Con score determines your Dex bonus.
As long as you keep misrepresenting what is printed I will keep correcting your mistakes. You seem to be so arrogant and belligerent as to keep trying to bully your way into winning (by saying I am lying), that I am afraid we may achieve 99 pages of this before you accept the fact there is no proof of your side in the text of the ability.
I generally ignore bullies and I am not here to win a popularity contest. I don't like seeing flawed interpretations of RAW bantered around as "the one true RAW" when the text doesn't clearly say what is being advanced.
You can't even admit that you are wrong. And you say I am belligerent? How can you honestly read that you use your Con score to calculate a Dex bonus to AC?
The text does not support what you are claiming. So either stop claiming it does, and admit you are delusional.
~P_X~
Yes, the ability says you use Con instead of Dex. Not that your Con score determines your Dex bonus.
According to you, but the text doesn't make that clear.
The text does not support what you are claiming. So either stop claiming it does, and admit you are delusional
I can assure you, I won't be bullied into stopping correcting your unfounded assertions.
According to you, but the text doesn't make that clear.
The text is clear about the fact that Con replaces Dex. It does even come close to saying that Con is used to calculate a Dex bonus to AC.
If you honestly have that much of a difficulty with the English language, you should seriously think about coming on this forum, and spewing forth you fallacies.
I can assure you, I won't be bullied into stopping correcting your unfounded assertions.
But yet you are trying to be a bigger bully, and continuing to argue with your empty assumptions?
My assertions are hardly unfounded. Unlike you, I don't have a problem reading the English language.
I have shown you how the ability does not support your (seriously flawed) reading of it.
If you can show somewhere else where replacing one ability score means that you use it to calculate a bonus for a different ability score, then I will concede to your argument. But you aren't going to find any such text to back up what you are claiming.
So once again, stop being delusional and accept the fact that you are, in fact, wrong.
~P_X~
It does even come close to saying that Con is used to calculate a Dex bonus to AC.
Exactly, Con is used to calculate Dex to AC.
If you honestly have that much of a difficulty with the English language
Unlike you, I don't have a problem reading the English language.
So once again, stop being delusional and accept the fact that you are, in fact, wrong.
Your rude and crass behaviour is going to get this thread closed if someone complains about your posts. Maybe that is your intent.
I don't have any problems with English, it is you who seems to believe the text is clearer than it actually is.
I have brought this thread to the attention of Community Management.
Thanks.
Hey all,
I'm making a 2nd character in my friends campaign because character life expectancy is pretty low. I wanted to build a tank so I figured this is a good place to start. This is the build i'm looking at:
Well firstly, Deepwarden is really only good to take for 2 levels, the others are... Well... Taking 3 fighter levels would probably do you more good...
For the Ranger levels, it'd likely be more beneficial to take a few fighter levels or fill out some more Crusader. Crusader 8/Deepwarden 2/DoS 10 would work just about perfectly, and give you much better maneuvers without losing anything vital to being a sturdy wall.
I'll 2nd Risner on the tank build though, Barb->Fist of the Forest->Deepwarden (who doesn't love con to AC twice?)->Bear Warrior->War Shaper nets you a crazy high Str and Con, plus extra reach and some crazy natural attacks (taking the Quick Change feat from Savage Species can make your Morphic Weapons a free action, meaning you get the size bonus to all natural attacks in the round). This path is great as well for an AC grappler, and that's just about the best battlefield control you can get.
Though Risner, I will remind you again, it says you use Con bonus instead of Dex, not Con score. Con bonus is a particular type of bonus, and it is impossible to reasonably read that as using your con bonus in place of your dex as if it was still a dex bonus without inserting words that simply aren't in the text.
Though Risner, I will remind you again, it says you use Con bonus instead of Dex, not Con score. Con bonus is a particular type of bonus, and it is impossible to reasonably read that as using your con bonus in place of your dex as if it was still a dex bonus without inserting words that simply aren't in the text.
As you point out, it also says use your Con bonus instead of Dex, instead of Dex bonus(as has been pointed out already). So the same thing you are saying about risner's argument applies to your own. You can't read this ability as straight uninterpreted words because the wording is vague and non-specific. That is what risner is saying. He is saying that the wording is poorly done and it is impossible to get an actual RAW from what is written.
You should also check out the Rules of Practical Optimization. There is some interesting commentary in there that could be used in this dispute.
In situations like the Fist of the Forest/Deepwarden synergy, this issue doesn't even come up (due to the armor restrictions of FotF).
-AS-
Risner, I will remind you again, it says you use Con bonus instead of Dex, not Con score. Con bonus is a particular type of bonus, and it is impossible to reasonably read that as using your con bonus in place of your dex as if it was still a dex bonus without inserting words that simply aren't in the text.
You are reminding me of something you believe, but has not been proved yet. You are only right about one thing in that paragraph, it doesn't say Con score. The text does not say how it is to be handled directly, so you can not assert your reading is the one and only way to read the text.
2nd- I've been reading, and re-reading through the argument and i've come to a conclusion. If your Con Bonus is restricted by armor, then what the heck is the point of taking the class? It would be far beneficial just to buy a magical item to pump up your Dex to the max limit of your armor than waisting 2 levels in this class. Furthermore, armor specifically states that it can restrict your Dex modifier, not Con modifier. So a dwarf wearing full plate with a Con modifier of say +5 would have an AC of 23= 10 + 8 armor +5 Con. Basically the Deepwarden is trading this sturdiness for his quickness. Instead of dodging a blow, he's relying on his stamina to shrug the blow off, which I couldn't see cumbersome armor imparing him in anyway.
People will have their disagreements, that's life. Heck, i'm sure people don't agree with the above statements i've made, but oh well. It's the way i've interpreted the rules in the book. Can't we just agree to disagree?
1st- Thanks for the advice. I'll keep both builds in mind when I make the character.
2nd- I've been reading, and re-reading through the argument and i've come to a conclusion. If your Con Bonus is restricted by armor, then what the heck is the point of taking the class? It would be far beneficial just to buy a magical item to pump up your Dex to the max limit of your armor than waisting 2 levels in this class. Furthermore, armor specifically states that it can restrict your Dex modifier, not Con modifier. So a dwarf wearing full plate with a Con modifier of say +5 would have an AC of 23= 10 + 8 armor +5 Con. Basically the Deepwarden is trading this sturdiness for his quickness. Instead of dodging a blow, he's relying on his stamina to shrug the blow off, which I couldn't see cumbersome armor imparing him in anyway.
People will have their disagreements, that's life. Heck, i'm sure people don't agree with the above statements i've made, but oh well. It's the way i've interpreted the rules in the book. Can't we just agree to disagree?
I assume the class was designed for dwarven rangers, whose Combat Style keeps them in light armor. By being able to use your con bonus instead of dex you are getting at least an extra few points of AC, and can pretty much dump dex entirely.
-AS-
2nd- I've been reading, and re-reading through the argument and i've come to a conclusion. If your Con Bonus is restricted by armor, then what the heck is the point of taking the class?
A Dwarf Ranger with no Dex, but high Con/Wis (the sample DeepWarden was a Ranger)
A Dwarf Monk with no Dex, but high Con/Wis.
You assume someone would be wearing Heavy Armour, but heavy armour isn't mentioned during the whole Deepwarden's writeup.
I've no problem with you playing with it unlimited, that is entirely your business. I only take exception to others (not you) in this thread that assert that it being unlimited is the only RAW way to read the ability.
He is saying that the wording is poorly done and it is impossible to get an actual RAW from what is written.
But it's not. There's a difference between a word omitted because of habits in the language and an idea omitted that would change the way the thing works entirely.
"Dexterity [bonus]" is implied of the way the language works. "Using your con bonus in place of your dex as if it was still a dex bonus" cannot even be implied from what is written by any standards of the language it is written in without outside input.
That is the difference and why your babbling about this makes no more sense than when you went on about the Monk's ability.
See... it works like this... If I said, for example:
"When you walk with two legs, you do this. But if you walked with a third leg, you'd do that instead."
It is implied, by the very language in which we speak, that the meaning of that sentence is:
"When you walk with two legs, you do this. But if you walked with a third leg, you'd do that instead of this."
It is not implied by the nature of our language that the meaning of that sentence would be:
"When you walk with two legs, you do this. But if you walked with a third leg, your third foot would have to fit in the same shoe."
While, sensibly, all three of your feat are likely the same size, there's no reason, logically or reasonably, that your third foot would be necessarily have to be the same size. It could be cut off, or swollen from damage or a sting, or simply misshapen because it's a third foot and doesn't work like the others anyway.
The Con bonus is like the third foot. It works entirely different from the Dex bonus you normally get, so there's no reason, logically or reasonably, to assume that it is limited (per RaW) in the same way as a Dex bonus unless it is stated specifically that it is.
I will remind you again, it says you use Con bonus instead of Dex, not Con score. Con bonus is a particular type of bonus, and it is impossible to reasonably read that as using your con bonus in place of your dex as if it was still a dex bonus without inserting words that simply aren't in the text.
Quoting this back to you to show your own emphasis on the exact wording regardless of interpretation. I didn't edit your words at all, the italics/underlining are yours. The very last statement seems to contradict what you are saying now.
You can't have it both ways.
-AS-
But it's not. There's a difference between a word omitted because of habits in the language
"Dexterity [bonus]" is implied of the way the language works.
The Con bonus is like the third foot. It works entirely different from the Dex bonus you normally get, so there's no reason, logically or reasonably, to assume that it is limited (per RaW) in the same way as a Dex bonus unless it is stated specifically that it is.
You seem to think a missing word is the convincing part. It isn't. The whole paragraph and the included words (like "instead") are the convincing parts.
Your whole position is based on you believing it works the way you think, and you are requiring that as a basis before attempting to discredit alternate views. Well the text doesn't clearly assert what you believe and because of that your whole position is an interpretation.
You can't have it both ways.
No one is trying to. I'm simply not intentionally misinterpreting the meaning of the words. There's a difference between literal and twisting what is written to try and show that it means something other than what is standard. I am doing the former. You are doing the latter.
You seem to think a missing word is the convincing part. It isn't. The whole paragraph and the included words (like "instead") are the convincing parts.
Not at all. I think the word which is implied by the language itself is still there, and that's Ander's warping of the language is nothing but a mere distraction.
Well the text doesn't clearly assert what you believe and because of that your whole position is an interpretation.
The text clearly asserts it is a Con bonus. There is nowhere in the rules (that I can find at least) any kind of statement or link to suggest that a Con bonus could in any way actually be a Dex bonus that uses your Con score.
That is what is required for this ability to work the way you think it does, and you have yet to show anything of the sort.
Because, without showing us such, it defaults to the fact that individual bonus types are very unrelated and don't share each other's limitations.
And once more, the ability very clearly says that this is a Con bonus. It does so on more than one occasion.
A Dwarf Ranger with no Dex, but high Con/Wis (the sample DeepWarden was a Ranger)
A Dwarf Monk with no Dex, but high Con/Wis.
You assume someone would be wearing Heavy Armour, but heavy armour isn't mentioned during the whole Deepwarden's writeup.
I've no problem with you playing with it unlimited, that is entirely your business. I only take exception to others (not you) in this thread that assert that it being unlimited is the only RAW way to read the ability.
Bolded the part you are once again wrong about. The deepwarden grants proficiency with Heavy Armor. Are you saying that they would pointedly make a PrC do things that don't follow the rules on purpose? Wow, you seem to be winning all sorts of awards based upon your many assumptions.
Am I that exception? Because you are just as stubborn to admit you are wrong as I am to admit that your RAI is(not) RAW.
Misinterpreting the ability does nothing to further your argument. Changing the wording of how you are reading the ability doesn't either.
The ability changes the bonus used to calculate AC. It carries across one, single limitation. This doesn't mean that every other limitation carries across as well. If they did, and this has been clarified, the ability would say so.
You seem to think a missing word is the convincing part. It isn't. The whole paragraph and the included words (like "instead") are the convincing parts.
Your whole position is based on you believing it works the way you think, and you are requiring that as a basis before attempting to discredit alternate views. Well the text doesn't clearly assert what you believe and because of that your whole position is an interpretation.
It not only works the way Ejo and I both think, but your new idea about the Con bonus being a Dex bonus is altogether wrong. Yes, it's a new idea because it wasn't in your original post. So you can actually stop claiming that you haven't changed your stance one bit.
You use your Con bonus instead of your Dex, to calculate AC. Nowhere in the ability does it make it even remotely believable that the Con bonus becomes a Dex bonus in any way.
Stop telling everyone that your deliberate interpretation of the ability is even close to being RAW. Because it's not, simply on the way the words are written in the ability.
~P_X~
There is nowhere in the rules (that I can find at least) any kind of statement or link to suggest that a Con bonus could in any way actually be a Dex bonus that uses your Con score.
Except, of course, the ability itself. The ability absolutely doesn't "clearly" state which way it works. No matter how many times you say so.
The deepwarden grants proficiency with Heavy Armor. Are you saying that they would pointedly make a PrC do things that don't follow the rules on purpose?
You can't win by RAW, so you want to introduce some fabricated RAI? Odd, since the intent is known in this instances and it doesn't match your "intent" you just tried to express.
Yes, it's a new idea because it wasn't in your original post.
I am really getting tired of your belligerent accusations. I have not changed my position in this thread once, period. I appreciate the fact you think you can win points by showing I have changed my position, but frankly you are the only one saying my position has changed and if you bothered reading the thread for the 5 pages before you came along you would realize you are wrong about me changing my position (that is of course if you honestly believe I've changed my position.)
I have always maintain the RAW of the ability does not clearly indicate which way to handle the ability. There is not enough information written to come to an unambiguous ruling.
Except, of course, the ability itself. The ability absolutely doesn't "clearly" state which way it works. No matter how many times you say so.
I'm sorry if you spilled coffee on your copy of the book, but everyone else's copy very clearly uses the words 'Con bonus' without giving any rules to make it any different from every other Con bonus in the game.
A Con bonus, by definition within the rules, cannot be a dex bonus, and especially not a dex bonus that you determine using your con score, the mechanics of which exist absolutely nowhere in the rules in any way, shape, or form.
I'm sorry if you spilled coffee on your copy of the book...
that totally made my day (even if its only 8:45am over here)I have long given up on this thread, because I also believe Ejo Thims and him comrades are right, but Risner is too stubborn to accept his loss....
Ah well, at least this thread makes me laugh everyday :D
Every time I see it pop up on the first page it makes me cringe
It does?
Every time I see it pop up on the first page it makes me cringe
It also makes me wonder that you can argue over this for 400 posts, but I think the similarity between this discussion and the regular discussions I have with a fellow player are stunning. Although the main difference is that I give up after 3min, and this thread goes on until eternity
A Con bonus, by definition within the rules, cannot be a dex bonus, and especially not a dex bonus that you determine using your con score, the mechanics of which exist absolutely nowhere in the rules in any way, shape, or form.
Really? Can you show me the text of the rule supporting that claim? Because it isn't in RoS.
As near as I can tell, he'd get the full Con bonus, since CON doesn't have limitations. Just imagine this guy with a Tower Shield....man...welcome to the newest BROKEN CLASS.
Me Likey! Me Likey Much! This'll show my DM for making us all play Dwarves...
Happy Gaming!
Armor limitations end up restricting the fighters in the end rather than helping. Personally I think that they should only apply if they are NOT proficient with the armor.
Really? Can you show me the text of the rule supporting that claim? Because it isn't in RoS.
RoS does not say that the Con bonus becomes a Dex bonus. It says you use your Con bonus instead of your Dex bonus. How does that even hint that the Con bonus becomes a Dex bonus? Show us your logic behind that misconstrued fallacy, and people might respect you even a little bit.
Once again, you are showing your grasp of the English language, or the lack thereof as it rests. The use of the word 'instead' does not mean that your Con score is used to calculate your Dex bonus. But since no one can convince you otherwise, and you can't show how it does, there is no argument anymore.
You are wrong. No matter how many times you turn it back asking for a rule to support what is clear in the text (CON SCORE = CON BONUS; DEX SCORE = DEX BONUS).
Your original posts do not use this argument about the bonus being a Dex bonus (even though it is in fact a Con bonus), so once again, you have changed from your original argument.
~P_X~
RoS does not say that the Con bonus becomes a Dex bonus. It says you use your Con bonus instead of your Dex bonus.
Says you, but this isn't clear on the ability.
Really? Can you show me the text of the rule supporting that claim? Because it isn't in RoS.
They're bonuses from different sources and with different names. Or are you next going to tell me that a circumstance bonus is automatically limited the same way as an enhancement bonus? After all, it never says they're not.
Says you, but this isn't clear on the ability.
It's what the ability states. You might as well try to argue that Weapon Finesse (it also says instead) lets you use your Dexterity score to determine your Str bonus.
This is, however, not the case. It's very clear that you use your Dexterity modifier (bonus or penalty) and no longer use your Strength modifier.
Says you, but this isn't clear on the ability.
Do you honestly think that anyone agrees with your false idea that the bonus changes from a Con bonus to a Dex bonus?
No one has agreed with that yet. And do you want to know why? Because it's wrong. Plain and simple.
There's no precedence for one ability score to determine the bonus for a different ability score.
And since you can't admit you are wrong, that's your problem. But don't keep telling everyone else on the boards that the way you (wrongly I might add) are reading the ability is the right way. Much less that the way everyone who disagrees with you is wrong (based on your original posts).
~P_X~
Do you honestly think that anyone agrees with your false idea that the bonus changes from a Con bonus to a Dex bonus?
No one has agreed with that yet. And do you want to know why? Because it's wrong. Plain and simple.
There's no precedence for one ability score to determine the bonus for a different ability score.
And since you can't admit you are wrong, that's your problem. But don't keep telling everyone else on the boards that the way you (wrongly I might add) are reading the ability is the right way. Much less that the way everyone who disagrees with you is wrong (based on your original posts).
~P_X~
+1
And to be perfectly frank, a defense of, "Well, I may be wrong, but you're wrong too" and circular arguing are just making this thread longer.
Here's what we have to prove for our interpretation to be valid by RAW:
A constitution score grants a constitution bonus/ability modifier.
Here's what you have to prove for your interpretation to be valid by RAW:
A constitution score grants a dexterity bonus/ability modifier.
As yet, we have proven our end. Otherwise, state what we have to prove for you to be wrong, as we've already stated what you have to prove for us to be wrong, and even occam's razor supports adding one word (bonus) rather than several (as if it were a dexterity bonus) into an ability, for those who want to quibble over the semantics of the ability not inserting the word bonus, when we can all reasonably infer the word bonus there, as adding a full ability score to AC is more absurd than adding an entire clause to an ability.
It's what the ability states.
According to you.
Here's what we have to prove for our interpretation to be valid by RAW:
No, if that were true I would have admitted I was wrong. To prove your case you need to show text in RoS that says the ability isn't limited to Max Dex. Since you can't show that you can't assume it is unlimited. If you do, then you are interpreting it that way (adding something that isn't clear) or you are inserting intent (assuming they intended to have it be unlimited and ruling that way because you want to honor their intent.)
I don't care about intent, I care about RAW. At least on these boards. And there is no proof on the RAW of the ability which way it is to be handled.
1 read the text in RoS p105
"He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character’s Constitution bonus is higher."
So you add your constitution bonus to AC, plain and simple.
Does it infer anywhere that the constitution bonus is a dexterity bonus? NO
Is armor limitation mentioned anywhere in the text? NO
Is there any ground whatsoever to assume that the constitution bonus is limited by max dex on armor? NO
>> Why not? Because it doesn't say, infer, hint or even come close to stating that the con bonus equals the dex bonus.
Conclusion:
Everyone (-1) is right, Risner is Wrong
To prove your case you need to show text in RoS that says the ability isn't limited to Max Dex. Since you can't show that you can't assume it is unlimited.
False. All we have to do to show that by RaW it is unlimited by Max Dex is show that there is no rule stating it is. You see, because, to have something already granted to us in the rules be limited in any way, there has to be a rule that does so.
There is no such rule anywhere in the game that limits Con bonus by Max Dex.
I care about RAW.
You obviously don't, or else you'd stop inserting whole ideas that don't exist anywhere else in the rules into this ability.
RAW: it's a Con bonus.
RAW: armor only limits Dex to AC.
RAW: this ability is not limited by Max Dex.
ok, final try... lets go through this step by step;
1 read the text in RoS p105
"He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character’s Constitution bonus is higher."
So you add your constitution bonus to AC, plain and simple.
Does it infer anywhere that the constitution bonus is a dexterity bonus? NO
Is armor limitation mentioned anywhere in the text? NO
Is there any ground whatsoever to assume that the constitution bonus is limited by max dex on armor? NO
>> Why not? Because it doesn't say, infer, hint or even come close to stating that the con bonus equals the dex bonus.
Conclusion:
Everyone (-1) is right, Risner is Wrong
+1
False. All we have to do to show that by RaW it is unlimited by Max Dex is show that there is no rule stating it is. You see, because, to have something already granted to us in the rules be limited in any way, there has to be a rule that does so.
There is no such rule anywhere in the game that limits Con bonus by Max Dex.
You obviously don't, or else you'd stop inserting whole ideas that don't exist anywhere else in the rules into this ability.
+1
~P_X~
So you add your constitution bonus to AC, plain and simple.
It isn't plain and it isn't simple. You are interpreting it in a way that is advantageous to your side.
There is no such rule anywhere in the game that limits Con bonus by Max Dex.
That includes an assumption, which isn't clearly stated in the text.
@ Risner: You seem to continue to blindly go forward claiming that the ability says a great many things that it doesn't.
I am not the one claiming it says something it doesn't say. Anyone who claims there is enough information to derive the only meaning of the ability is doing so.
STOP BUMPING THIS DISCUSSION!
Seriously, no one still cares if the right interpretation is this or that way. Everyone will houserule it as he damn please.
This sensless flame war has gone out of hand and is time to stop it.
click here, then just take a few seconds to realize how stupid this is.
It isn't plain and it isn't simple. You are interpreting it in a way that is advantageous to your side.
And you aren't interpreting it in a way that's advantageous to your own arguments? Your logic here is self-defeating. If, by your logic we can't have our own interpretations of the ability, then neither can you. Don't tell us one thing, and then do that very thing yourself.
That includes an assumption, which isn't clearly stated in the text.
Your whole argument includes a gross assumption on your part. So stop arguing that you can make assumptions, but we can't.
I am not the one claiming it says something it doesn't say. Anyone who claims there is enough information to derive the only meaning of the ability is doing so.
See above. And furthermore, to make interpretations, and discredit everyone else for making different interpretations about the ability: Is wrong. You can't argue the fact that you are being a hypocrite.
@ Shigunaru: No matter how many times risner has been proven wrong, or told to stop arguing pointlessly, he keeps on making senseless rebuttals. So as funny as that comic is, it's pointless to try and tell him to once again stop arguing. He thinks that his reading is the only way, otherwise he would calmly accept the fact that other people are entitled to their own interpretations of the ability, and move on.
~P_X~
@ Shigunaru: No matter how many times risner has been proven wrong, or told to stop arguing pointlessly, he keeps on making senseless rebuttals. So as funny as that comic is, it's pointless to try and tell him to once again stop arguing. He thinks that his reading is the only way, otherwise he would calmly accept the fact that other people are entitled to their own interpretations of the ability, and move on.
~P_X~
Let him think whatever he wants, right or wrong, and do just the same yourself. No harm's done this way.
EDIT: this is my last try. I, for one, won't bump this 5 years old thread no more.
Let him think whatever he wants, right or wrong, and do just the same yourself. No harm's done this way.
The only problem is that he (for almost 300 posts-worth of arguing) has been telling everyone that they can't have their own interpretations that are RAW.
I tried to give up arguing, but being told that I am not entitled to my own thoughts about the ability rubs me the wrong way.
EDIT: He is purposefully choosing to disregard the proof against his argument, so there's pretty much no hope of him changing his mind. He asked for proof on many occasions, and when the burden of proof showed he was wrong, all he did was quote single lines from other peoples posts, and continue down his self-defeating argument.
~P_X~
I tried to give up arguing, but being told that I am not entitled to my own thoughts about the ability rubs me the wrong way.
when the burden of proof showed he was wrong
Well that makes two of us. Being told that "the RAW" says such and such from a block of text that is so ambiguous that no one can be sure what it says rubs me wrong.
I've seen no proof whatsoever that clears this matter up.
I don't care how you play the ability (limited or unlimited), and I'm not here to tell you how you should play it.
Well that makes two of us. Being told that "the RAW" says such and such from a block of text that is so ambiguous that no one can be sure what it says rubs me wrong.
I've seen no proof whatsoever that clears this matter up.
I don't care how you play the ability (limited or unlimited), and I'm not here to tell you how you should play it.
The text isn't as ambiguous as you are claiming; Con Score = Con Bonus. Nowhere else in the rules is one ability score used to calculate the bonus of a different score. Having one limitation that balances the ability doesn't mean that every other limitation carries across for using a different ability bonus.
As you say: your claims only back up what you are misinterpreting in the text.
I could go back and quote each and every instance of where you have been proven wrong, but frankly judging by your vehemence that your interpretation is close to being RAW, it wouldn't do a bit of good to once again prove you wrong.
And you are once again wrong about your stance. You started out "resolving confusion" about the ability. There was no confusion. The last posts by either side of the argument showed that it could read either way. Now you are saying something entirely different from that: "The con bonus becomes a dex bonus with this ability, and therefore becomes limited by the max dex of the armor."
Stop arguing a losing battle
~P_X~
The text isn't as ambiguous as you are claiming; Con Score = Con Bonus.
The text isn't as clear as you wish it to be and continuing to post adamantly that there is only one way to read the ability is wasting pages on this thread.
The text isn't as clear as you wish it to be and continuing to post adamantly that there is only one way to read the ability is wasting pages on this thread.
The ability is very clear, even though you choose to alter its meaning in such a way that you can convince yourself it could maybe mean something other than what it does.
The ability is very clear, even though you choose to alter its meaning in such a way that you can convince yourself it could maybe mean something other than what it does.
You accuse me of doing precisely what you yourself have done.
Is this about who gets the last word?
Con to Ac limited by dex?
No clear answers here folks! You decide, whats best for your game.
The text isn't as clear as you wish it to be and continuing to post adamantly that there is only one way to read the ability is wasting pages on this thread.
We have shown you proof that the bonus does not become a Dex bonus. But you have yet to show how it, by your reading of the ability, does.
We have given you proof time and again to show back up our reading of the ability. But when you were asked to show proof that it in fact reads how you claim, you brushed aside those requisitions of proof and continued on the path you have set before yourself.
The only reason you keep arguing is because you simply cannot grasp the concept of being wrong. If this isn't the case, then show us how the ability changes the Con bonus to a Dex bonus. Because, as of right now, you have only kept repeating it over and over, but you have yet to show how it reads this way.
Quoting the ability won't help you, because the ability does not state what you are claiming. So you have to show us by some other means that the ability would even remotely suggest that the Con bonus becomes a Dex bonus. The word "instead", in and of itself does not mean what you are claiming.
So either stop arguing without proof, or show us what we all seem to be missing.
Ejo and I are not altering words to suit our fancy. The ability says to use your Con bonus instead of your Dex to calculate AC. Plain and simple.
To claim that it says that the Con bonus becomes a Dex bonus is false. Without proof, you won't be correct, no matter how many times you keep repeating yourself.
~P_X~
We have shown you proof that the bonus does not become a Dex bonus.
Because, as of right now, you have only kept repeating it over and over, but you have yet to show how it reads this way.
You have not shown any proof whatsoever. You have stated your belief, but it lacks proof.
The wording of the ability can clearly be read to allow you to use your Con as your Dex score for Dex to AC. There isn't anything in the ability that clearly indicates doing it another way is the only meaning possible.
I can't help that you believe your way is the only way and you "just can't be wrong." I don't care how you play the ability and I don't care if you believe it is unlimited. I do care that you assert your reading (interpretation) is the only viable interpretation. This thread keeps going because you can't grasp the possibility you may be adding meaning where none is clear.
You have not shown any proof whatsoever. You have stated your belief, but it lacks proof.
The wording of the ability can clearly be read to allow you to use your Con as your Dex score for Dex to AC. There isn't anything in the ability that clearly indicates doing it another way is the only meaning possible.
I can't help that you believe your way is the only way and you "just can't be wrong." I don't care how you play the ability and I don't care if you believe it is unlimited. I do care that you assert your reading (interpretation) is the only viable interpretation. This thread keeps going because you can't grasp the possibility you may be adding meaning where none is clear.
The ability says that you use your Con bonus (not any form of Dex bonus), how is that not proof for my argument?
The word "instead" still hasn't changed its meaning to the extent you are claiming.
You sir, are the one who is adding meaning. By the ability itself, you use a Con bonus to calculate AC. Your claim that it changes the Con bonus to a Dex bonus has yet to be proven. You say that I can't grasp the possibility of adding meaning where it isn't clear, and yet your whole argument needs to add more meaning to the text than mine does. Do you honestly live in a world where only your thoughts/arguments are the ones that are important?
I am not the only one who has asked you to prove your assumptions about this ability, so you can't say that it's just because I am asking that you keep choosing not to do so.
Instead of bringing any amount of proof for your argument, you once again just say that I have not proved anything. I have proven that a Con score provides a Con bonus. If you cannot prove what you are arguing for by what is stated in the text, you can't hope to win this argument.
Instead of continuing to ask for proof (which has already been given, numerous times, by numerous posters), why don't you do some proving of your own and show us how the bonus changes from a Con bonus to a Dex bonus.
If you can't to do that, then stop arguing for it. Saying "well the ability could be read to provide for my argument" isn't enough. We (the posters who disagree with you) have collectively proven our points. You have done nothing to prove how your reading is close to being RAW. And I will say again, using your interpretation of the ability to measure everyone else's arguments is flawed. You accuse the rest of us of having closed minds in regards to our arguments, but you can't accept the fact that no one else is reading the ability the way you are.
No one else agrees with the ability changing the Con bonus to a Dex bonus. Some of the other posters agree that the ability might limit the bonus, even if I don't. But over the course of the 300 posts you have been arguing for, you have changed what you read the ability as saying. Don't continue to deny it, or I can quote both the posts that show your different readings of the ability.
~P_X~
Your claim that it changes the Con bonus to a Dex bonus has yet to be proven.
Instead of continuing to ask for proof (which has already been given, numerous times, by numerous posters), why don't you do some proving of your own and show us how the bonus changes from a Con bonus to a Dex bonus.
[...] over the course of the 300 posts you have been arguing for, you have changed what you read the ability as saying. Don't continue to deny it, or I can quote both the posts that show your different readings of the ability.
+1.
I'm paring this down to what we're actually asking Risner for as he has shown a tendancy in the past to ignore this and attack the soft, squishy underbelly of a post instead.
We have proven what the ability says and does not say.
We have proven that the words CONSTITUTION BONUS and AC are in the same ability and relative, and with an inference of basic engilsh grammar (constitution bonus instead of dexterity bonus) add the least amount to the RAW to support our claim. The ability specifically states that you are adding a Constitution bonus to AC.
We have proven that the words "AS A DEXTERITY BONUS" "LIMITED BY MAX DEX" or "LIMITED BY XYZ RULE" do not exist in the ability.
You have proven that the words "instead" and "dexterity [bonus]" exist in the ability, and claim their meaning to include the transformation of a Constitution bonus into a Dexterity bonus or the substitution for all purposes the Constitution bonus for the Dexterity bonus to AC, even though the text of the ability does not specifically state this. As of yet you have not proven how and to what extent the word 'instead' affects this ability, if it is the crux of your arguement.
Is that enough of a proof for you?
We have proven what the ability says and does not say.
No I am afraid you have done no such thing.
Is that enough of a proof for you?
No, since it isn't a proof nor is it unambiguous evidence.
No, since it isn't a proof nor is it unambiguous evidence.
Even if that where the case (and it's not, but just pretend), you have yet to offer even a single % of the proof that we have.
As soon as you actually offer anything within the rules that supports your claim (and no, blind misreading of an ability is neither support nor based in the rules), then you can being to actually refute claims anyone else makes.
We'll be over there, waiting...
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.
That bold part (for me) makes all the difference in the world, because it specifies in the situation the dwarf is denied dex (i.e. flat-footed or helpless for that matter) this con bonus doesn't work, yet says nothing about armor.
And with this post I wash my hands of this thread but would like the thank the posters of the original 5 pages for the build ideas they gave me :D
No I am afraid you have done no such thing.
No, since it isn't a proof nor is it unambiguous evidence.
Once again, instead of proving your points, all you do is deny that we have shown you the support of our reading of the ability.
Since you have yet to prove yourself, stop denying that we haven't proven anything to you.
The ability does not lend itself to the Con bonus becoming a Dex bonus. Until you prove otherwise, you have no argument to keep bringing against us.
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.
The bolded sections, once again prove you wrong.
To reiterate the points against you:
- The ability adds Con instead of Dex to AC.
- It would say it becomes a Dex bonus, but it doesn't.
You still have yet to bring one ounce of proof to this argument that the Con bonus does in fact become a Dex bonus.
~P_X~
Since you have yet to prove yourself
Just look at some of the earlier posts.
The ability does not lend itself to the Con bonus becoming a Dex bonus.
The ability doesn't modify any existing rules on Dex to AC, it simply allows you to use Con instead of Dex.
ok, final try... lets go through this step by step;
1 read the text in RoS p105
"He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character’s Constitution bonus is higher."
So you add your constitution bonus to AC, plain and simple.
Does it infer anywhere that the constitution bonus is a dexterity bonus? NO
Is armor limitation mentioned anywhere in the text? NO
Is there any ground whatsoever to assume that the constitution bonus is limited by max dex on armor? NO
>> Why not? Because it doesn't say, infer, hint or even come close to stating that the con bonus equals the dex bonus.
Conclusion:
Everyone (-1) is right, Risner is Wrong
any comments?
any comments?
Other than a post full of assumptions that can't be proved via the text?
Other than a post full of assumptions that can't be proved via the text?
these are not assumptions
The text in RoS p105
"He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character’s Constitution bonus is higher." No assumption, is written text
Does it infer anywhere that the constitution bonus is a dexterity bonus? NO > not an assumption, it does not say it anywhere
Is armor limitation mentioned anywhere in the text? NO > not an assumption, just an observation
Is there any ground whatsoever to assume that the constitution bonus is limited by max dex on armor? NO > not an assumption
So where exactly are all these assumptions??
I think you are not trying to prove your point, but to disprove anything by dislodged logica
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.
So this states that you use your constitution score instead of dexterity. This indicates that constitution is not used as a dexterity modifier. The reason for this is the fact that they used the word "instead". Had they used the word "as" then it would have been more clearly in favor of having all the limitations of dexterity in regards to max dex for armor, but as it is not worded this way currently no limitation can be placed on the ability. So we must look further in the ability for any limitations.
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.
This segment, at first seems to limit the constitution bonus but as I said earlier wording in DnD is tricky. As such, rather than allowing the application of the max dex of armor to the constitution bonus granted, this section of text indicates one specific limiter on the bonus, that being the flat footed condition. In all, through any reading of the ability as written I see no way of inferring any interaction with max dex of armor.
On the other hand, the placement of text indicating a situation that would limit the bonus indicates that other limitations would also have been listed, though this is an assumption on my part, it is an assumption made in reading every rule of the game, specifically that in providing a set of rules both the functions and limitations of abilities will be spelled out adequately.
Perhaps a heavy warhammer?
where can one find this heavy warhammer?i looked and found no such weapon
but i can live with out it, it would just be nice :DJust look at some of the earlier posts.
None of your earlier posts show that, within the rules, the ability changes the Con bonus to a Dex bonus.
Saying "by my reading it does everything I claim" is not proof.
Your entire argument is based solely upon your own personal interpretation (not any amount of RAW) of the ability; which, unfortunately you can't see, is irrevocably flawed.
The ability doesn't modify any existing rules on Dex to AC, it simply allows you to use Con instead of Dex.
And yet, it remains a Con bonus. No matter which way you read it. You just defeated your own argument by saying this. The ability replaces Dex to AC entirely.
Other than a post full of assumptions that can't be proved via the text?
Your entire argument is one big assumption. So you can't deny the facts, and substitute your own form of 'truth' here.
The text reads that the bonus remains a Con bonus. If you can't admit that, then that's your problem. But if you go as far as to interpret the ability to read that the Con bonus becomes a Dex bonus, then you have crossed over from any amount of RAW into R(ules) A(s) R(isner) R(eads) T(hem).
Once again, you haven't proven anything, except for the fact that you can't admit you are wrong.
~P_X~
The ability doesn't modify any existing rules on Dex to AC, it simply allows you to use Con instead of Dex.
And yet, it remains a Con bonus. No matter which way you read it. You just defeated your own argument by saying this. The ability replaces Dex to AC entirely.
Exactly.
Risner, we have all known from the very beginning that this ability does nothing to change any existing rules on Dex to AC. And it doesn't have to.
Because as long as your Con bonus is higher than your Dex bonus, you use Con to AC instead of Dex to AC. And Con bonuses to AC are not, anywhere in the rules, limited by anything other than conditions which would leave you flat-footed.
Yo momma is so short she poses for trophies.
There it is,a yo momma joke..now let this old thread die with some peace and quiet.
(btw,I am in no way idirectly speaking about or tyring to insulting anyones mother...)
Does it infer anywhere that the constitution bonus is a dexterity bonus? NO
Dex to AC is well known in the core rules. The ability allows you to use Con instead of Dex for this core feature. You are making an asumption if you conclude what is written that the ability is or is not limited by Max Dex. There isn't anything in the ability that resolves exactly how this is to operate.
Is armor limitation mentioned anywhere in the text? NO
Your assumption is that no mention means it doesn't come into play. There needs to be no mention if you still retain Dex to AC (using your Con for Dex.)
Is there any ground whatsoever to assume that the constitution bonus is limited by max dex on armor? NO
You make an assumption that it isn't limited, but you don't have a rule that says you no longer need to worry about Max Dexterity penalties.
This indicates that constitution is not used as a dexterity modifier. The reason for this is the fact that they used the word "instead". In all, through any reading of the ability as written I see no way of inferring any interaction with max dex of armor.
On the contrary the use of the word "instead" is very telling. Had them intended to convey your interpretation a more eloquent way would be to say "You lose Dexterity to AC. You gain Con to AC with this single limitation."
an assumption made in reading every rule of the game, specifically that in providing a set of rules both the functions and limitations of abilities will be spelled out adequately.
I agree with you there, you are making an assumption based on your desired reading of the ability. You are wrong however if you believe WotC often or even occasionally spell out limitations of abilities adequately. I'd say the proper word is "rarely" do the properly spell out all their intended limitations.
Your entire argument is based solely upon your own personal interpretation (not any amount of RAW) of the ability;
The ability replaces Dex to AC entirely.
My view is based on RAW and I sorely wished they had written the text in such a way that we could all agree on what it means.
Because as long as your Con bonus is higher than your Dex bonus, you use Con to AC instead of Dex to AC.
But Dex to AC is limited by Max Dex and you are using Con instead of Dex for this AC.
Alternately, you could add levels of Defender of Sealtiel (which I prefer to Dwarven Def. in this case b/c of the constant Magic Circle ability at level 2). Use the remaining 3 levels for more WarMind or Fighter
Ranger3/DwarvenParagon3/Deepwarden2/DefenderofSealtiel2/WarMind10
BAB: 20, Fort+19, Ref +11, Will +11 (get +2 racial vs. magic/spell-like)
+4 Str and Con from War Mind
+4 AC from War Mind
+4 Con, +2 Str from DoS
+4 Dodge from DoS
_____
+12 to AC when you need it.
Plus Magic Circle; Level 5 Psionic Powers, Sweeping Strike and Chain of Overwhelming Force from War Mind.
How would one go about getting the Power points pool needed as the requirement for War Mind? (sorry if this was answered before, I tried looking, but the mess of the AC argument numbed my brain)
How would one go about getting the Power points pool needed as the requirement for War Mind? (sorry if this was answered before, I tried looking, but the mess of the AC argument numbed my brain)
Wild Talent LoM
Please.. Please.. WOTC..Hurry and release 4E, so this debate can die ;)
Do you really think you're making points that haven't been made 100 times already?
It's badly worded. So.. Ask your DM, case closed.
Dex to AC is well known in the core rules. The ability allows you to use Con instead of Dex for this core feature. You are making an asumption if you conclude what is written that the ability is or is not limited by Max Dex. There isn't anything in the ability that resolves exactly how this is to operate.
Your assumption is that no mention means it doesn't come into play. There needs to be no mention if you still retain Dex to AC (using your Con for Dex.)
You make an assumption that it isn't limited, but you don't have a rule that says you no longer need to worry about Max Dexterity penalties.
On the contrary the use of the word "instead" is very telling. Had them intended to convey your interpretation a more eloquent way would be to say "You lose Dexterity to AC. You gain Con to AC with this single limitation."
I agree with you there, you are making an assumption based on your desired reading of the ability. You are wrong however if you believe WotC often or even occasionally spell out limitations of abilities adequately. I'd say the proper word is "rarely" do the properly spell out all their intended limitations.
My view is based on RAW and I sorely wished they had written the text in such a way that we could all agree on what it means.
But Dex to AC is limited by Max Dex and you are using Con instead of Dex for this AC.
And you are making the assumption that I have the same DnD books as you do, you make the assumption I even play DnD at all, you make the assumption that someone will reply to your post, you make the assumption that the earth wont explode tomorrow by scheduling workload and free time....
The world is full of assumptions, if it wasn't we would do nothing all day besides sitting on the ground and questioning everything in the universe!
The trick is to understand what a real and valid assumption is, you clearly have not mastered that skill
But Dex to AC is limited by Max Dex and you are using Con instead of Dex for this AC.
Yes.
You use your "Con bonus instead of your Dex."
The words Con bonus do not, anywhere in the rules, at all, mean "Use your Con score to determine your bonus of another type."
Nor does this ability say that's what it means in this particular case.
So that is not what it means, because it does not say that is what it means.
It means the same as it means when you see "Con bonus" anywhere else in the rules.
Which is...
And this might be hard for you to understand...
But wait for it...
And try your best, please...
Keep waiting...
IT IS A CON BONUS
And Con bonuses (or boni, depending on which way you want to go) are never limited by the Max Dex of armor anywhere in the rules, including the sole limitation listed for this ability.
It's badly worded. So.. Ask your DM, case closed.
I can't agree more.
IT IS A CON BONUS
According to you, but the text isn't that clear. It could be a Dex bonus using your Con.
It could be a Dex bonus using your Con.
No.
It could not.
Because there are no rules, anywhere, in the game for such a thing to happen.
For that to be the case, the ability would have to be very, explicitly clear that that was indeed how it worked.
The ability is not, so it defaults to "Con bonus = Con bonus" like we have everywhere else in the rules.
Because there are no rules, anywhere, in the game for such a thing to happen.
On the contrary, there are rules for this. In Races of Stone.
For that to be the case, the ability would have to be very, explicitly clear that that was indeed how it worked.
You are talking about a 3rd party game company? WotC rarely (if ever) write explicitly clear rules.
On the contrary, there are rules for this. In Races of Stone.
Not that are stated clearly anywhere.
You are talking about a 3rd party game company? WotC rarely (if ever) write explicitly clear rules.
Not my fault.
But to contradict so strongly already existing rules, especially when the most sensible and simplest way of understanding supports those existing rules, the exception must be very explicit.
Otherwise it's not an exception at all, just a poorly worded variety.
Without explicitly stating the introduction of a whole new mechanic to the system, this ability defaults to following the already established one.
Not that are stated clearly anywhere.
Exactly, good to see you coming around to agree with me.
Not my fault.
Without explicitly stating the introduction of a whole new mechanic to the system, this ability defaults to following the already established one.
Wow, you really have came along and found wisdom. Yep, I agree with you that without rules stating it is unbound by Max Dex (which would be a whole new mechanism) it could be bound by Max Dex via RAW.
In short, It is poorly worded; it can be read both ways; the DM is the adjudicator as to which way is RAW in his game since both views can be considered RAW.
On the contrary, there are rules for this. In Races of Stone.
The text in RoS does not state this. You are inserting meaning where there is none just to make your argument plausible.
The Con bonus remains a Con bonus, unless you can show how (without just denying the facts like you have been doing this whole time) it becomes a Dex bonus. Using your "Con bonus instead of Dex" is very clear, you are just choosing to deny the fact that you are wrong.
You are talking about a 3rd party game company? WotC rarely (if ever) write explicitly clear rules.
So you're saying we should just throw out out PHB/DMG and just "wing it"? The PHB/DMG are very clear about a great many things. Only when the reader chooses to insert words to make their own interpretation correct do things get muddled, as they are in your mind because you have inserted whole paragraphs into the ability, just to show that your reading is RAW (which it isn't).
~P_X~
I agree with you there, you are making an assumption based on your desired reading of the ability. You are wrong however if you believe WotC often or even occasionally spell out limitations of abilities adequately. I'd say the proper word is "rarely" do the properly spell out all their intended limitations.
I was going to make a longer reply but there really isn't a point to it. I will say 2 things prior to being done with this thread. My desired reading of the ability is to pose a restriction on it, though my DM has entirely changed the ability it hasn't come up yet so I can't really comment on the changes and whether or not they are balanced.
The second thing I'd like to say is that based on your argument above, there is "rarely" ever any RAW, therefore there is no point discussing anything with you ever in regards to RAW, as there is no conclusive RAW.
unbound by Max Dex (which would be a whole new mechanism)
Wrong.
The mechanic for Con bonuses being unbound by Max Dex has been in the rules, because Con bonuses have always been in the rules and have never been limited by Max Dex.
And the mechanic for changing bonus types has been in the rules already as well.
So again, the default for a poorly worded ability that fails to explicitly state any new mechanics it might be trying to introduce is to default to those mechanics which already exist.
Without explicitly stating that this creates a whole new way of doing things, it falls back on the already existing uses for bonus swapping and bonus identity.
A con bonus is a con bonus, and con bonuses aren't limited by max dex.
There is nothing in this ability to suggest that this precedent is broken.
Wrong.
The mechanic for Con bonuses being unbound by Max Dex has been in the rules, because Con bonuses have always been in the rules and have never been limited by Max Dex.
And the mechanic for changing bonus types has been in the rules already as well.
So again, the default for a poorly worded ability that fails to explicitly state any new mechanics it might be trying to introduce is to default to those mechanics which already exist.
Without explicitly stating that this creates a whole new way of doing things, it falls back on the already existing uses for bonus swapping and bonus identity.
A con bonus is a con bonus, and con bonuses aren't limited by max dex.
There is nothing in this ability to suggest that this precedent is broken.
+1
@ risner: There is more than one example of using one ability modifier in place of another, and that don't use one ability score to calculate the modifier for another ability score.
Examples:
- The feat Steadfast Determination doesn't use Constitution to calculate your Wisdom bonus to Will saves.
- The feat Weapon Finesse doesn't use Dexterity to calculate you Strength bonus for attacks.
- The feat Insightful Reflexes doesn't use Intelligence to calculate your Dex bonus to Reflex saves.
- The feats Kung Fu Genius/Carmedine Monk don't use Intelligence to calculate your Wisdom bonus to AC.
You won't find any instances to support your claim that the ability can be read to have your Constitution score calculate your Dexterity bonus.
~P_X~
+1
@ risner: There is more than one example of using one ability modifier in place of another, and that don't use one ability score to calculate the modifier for another ability score.
Examples:
- The feat Steadfast Determination doesn't use Constitution to calculate your Wisdom bonus to Will saves.
- The feat Weapon Finesse doesn't use Dexterity to calculate you Strength bonus for attacks.
- The feat Insightful Reflexes doesn't use Intelligence to calculate your Dex bonus to Reflex saves.
- The feats Kung Fu Genius/Carmedine Monk don't use Intelligence to calculate your Wisdom bonus to AC.
You won't find any instances to support your claim that the ability can be read to have your Constitution score calculate your Dexterity bonus.
~P_X~
+1
Those feats also use practically the same wording as the ability in question, using 'use this instead' in their descriptions.
You are inserting meaning where there is none
No, that is what you are doing.
So you're saying we should just throw out out PHB/DMG and just "wing it"?
No, but I am saying they do on many occasions write rules that have multiple meanings. They do so even in the PHB, just ask about Gauntlets and Monks if you want some examples. So it is absurd for you to say they never write rules with multiple meanings.
Without explicitly stating that this creates a whole new way of doing things, it falls back on the already existing uses for bonus swapping and bonus identity.
Except there are no rules for bonus swapping. So you have no rules to fall back onto except your interpretation of a corner case with no rules to express how to handle them.
@ risner: There is more than one example of using one ability modifier in place of another, and that don't use one ability score to calculate the modifier for another ability score.
Examples:
- The feat Steadfast Determination doesn't use Constitution to calculate your Wisdom bonus to Will saves.
- The feat Weapon Finesse doesn't use Dexterity to calculate you Strength bonus for attacks.
- The feat Insightful Reflexes doesn't use Intelligence to calculate your Dex bonus to Reflex saves.
- The feats Kung Fu Genius/Carmedine Monk don't use Intelligence to calculate your Wisdom bonus to AC.
These examples don't prove your side, but they served as a good distraction to the meat of the debate?
Steadfast Determination doesn't help the debate, since there is no limit on Will Saves. Also it is worded slightly differently ("in place"), but should have the same meaning.
Weapon Focus doesn't help either, since there is no limit on attack rolls or Str.
Insightful Reflexes doesn't help, since there is no limit on Reflex saves.
Carmedine Monk doesn't help, since there is no limit on Monk AC Bonus or Stunning Fist DCs.
Kung Fu Genius doesn't help, since there are no limits on Monk Wisdom abilities. This also uses a slightly different wording ("rather than").
If any of these did have restrictions, and there was no text to detail how to handle the restriction then the restriction would remain in place. Doing otherwise is changing core rules without text to do so.
Except there are no rules for bonus swapping.
Plain, dead, wrong. There are feats for modifier swapping, and a positive modifier is a bonus. Thusly, if both modifiers swapped are positive, you have swapped bonuses, by the rules.
These examples don't prove your side
They set a precedent showing that one bonus is very often switched for another, while you have not provided even one example of one score being used to determine another's bonus.
And you are right, nothing can change the fact that max dex on armor applies to dex without explicitly saying so.
It would similarly have to explicitly say so to limit your con bonus to armor by max dex.
The ability does not explicitly say it does this, and it therefor does not.
No, that is what you are doing.
Again, you come forth with no proof of your own. Only a post full of attempts to discredit the proof against you.
No, but I am saying they do on many occasions write rules that have multiple meanings. They do so even in the PHB, just ask about Gauntlets and Monks if you want some examples. So it is absurd for you to say they never write rules with multiple meanings.
Again, you have shown zero proof that the ability can be read the way you are purporting, other than "that's how I read it, so that's all that matters". No one agrees with your reading of the ability, at least not in terms of Con calculating the Dex bonus.
Except there are no rules for bonus swapping. So you have no rules to fall back onto except your interpretation of a corner case with no rules to express how to handle them.
Congratulations on being wrong, yet again. See below.
These examples don't prove your side, but they served as a good distraction to the meat of the debate?
Steadfast Determination doesn't help the debate, since there is no limit on Will Saves. Also it is worded slightly differently ("in place"), but should have the same meaning.
See, you have trapped yourself. There's no limit to how much Con bonus you can get to AC either. Because the rules don't deal with it. There is no current rule that deals with having a Con bonus to AC instead of a Dex bonus.
Weapon Focus doesn't help either, since there is no limit on attack rolls or Str.
Way to misread something, yet again. It's Weapon FINESSE in the example. Stop spouting your fallacies, and accept the fact that you are wrong. Or is that humanly impossible for you to do?
Insightful Reflexes doesn't help, since there is no limit on Reflex saves.
Carmedine Monk doesn't help, since there is no limit on Monk AC Bonus or Stunning Fist DCs.
Kung Fu Genius doesn't help, since there are no limits on Monk Wisdom abilities. This also uses a slightly different wording ("rather than").
If any of these did have restrictions, and there was no text to detail how to handle the restriction then the restriction would remain in place. Doing otherwise is changing core rules without text to do so.
These all prove that there is already instances of using one ability modifier in place of another. And the new ability score is not used to calculate the bonus for the original score.
Are you even reading what you post before you hit the "Submit Reply" button? Or are you just spouting nonsense to make it look like the rest of us have no clue what we are talking about?
The proof has been brought against you, yet again. And instead of being mature, and accepting the facts, all you can do is claim that the rules are non-existent from your point of view. When in fact they are not. The rules that relate to ability switching are right there, plain as day. You just once again show your lack of reality, by denying the self-evident.
~P_X~
Thusly, if both modifiers swapped are positive, you have swapped bonuses, by the rules.
It would similarly have to explicitly say so to limit your con bonus to armor by max dex.
Show me a rule that explicitly says if you swap a Stat modifier, the restrictions on the previous stat are no longer present.
You lack explicit rules saying the swapped mod isn't still bound by restrictions on the original.
Again, you come forth with no proof of your own. Only a post full of attempts to discredit the proof against you.
There is no current rule that deals with having a Con bonus to AC instead of a Dex bonus.
And instead of being mature, and accepting the facts, all you can do is claim that the rules are non-existent from your point of view.
You have no proof. You only have your beliefs.
There is no rule saying the Con to AC isn't limited. There is no rule saying the existing limitations in the PHB should be dropped.
I am very mature, but when there are no facts I don't accept beliefs. You can't convert me to your religion because I don't have your faith.
Show me a rule that explicitly says if you swap a Stat modifier, the restrictions on the previous stat are no longer present.
The restriction are still present.
They just don't apply.
You lack explicit rules saying the swapped mod isn't still bound by restrictions on the original.
And you lack any showing that the restrictions change at all. And without the restrictions being changed, they fail to apply when the bonus changes types.
You have no proof. You only have your beliefs.
We have precedent. We have logic.
You have neither.
There is no rule saying the Con to AC isn't limited.
And there is no rule saying it is.
Precedent and logic, however, show us, quite clearly, that for it to be limited, something beyond the ability itself would have to apply.
Since that is not the case, it is not limited.
The restriction are still present.
They just don't apply.
And you lack any showing that the restrictions change at all. And without the restrictions being changed, they fail to apply when the bonus changes types.
But yet you can't show me a rule backing up your belief.
But yet you can't show me a rule backing up your belief.
We have shown you dozens of examples.
Until you can find a rule which states "replacing one bonus with another causes the new bonus to be restricted as the old," the default is that the restrictions apply only to what they state they apply to.
This means that when replacing bonuses (unless the new bonus already has those same restrictions or the ability explicitly tells us to apply them), the new bonus does not follow the restrictions of the old.
But yet you can't show me a rule backing up your belief.
Wow. I just joined this thread, read up to find out what all the fuss is about, and can not understand why the debate persists!
Dude, think about it. Usually, these types of discussions fall into the "real world" debates where someone pre-supposes "realistic" physics on a D&D scenario. But in this case, even that doesn't apply.
There are no rules, common sense, or sound logic to back up what Risner is saying. But to possibly get this across using the same anti-logic, I'll pose this scenario:
The THING from the Fantastic Four has a high CON, yes? We can say that his DEX is low (can't use forks). In his case, his skin is so tough, that his AC is modified by his ability to withstand the elements around him, not his ability to DODGE them. Therefore, his AC is increased by CON, not DEX, and has NO LIMIT due to his inability to nimbly dodge or use forks.
Risner, you lost. The THING has beaten you with his rocky goodness. Don't try to claim that this argument has no bearing on the discussion because I'm only using your own weapons against you.
But yet you can't show me a rule backing up your belief.
This 'sword' has two-edges. You can't call foul on us for not proving our point (even though we have), and continue to just make empty claims and baseless arguments.
No one is trying to get you to convert. You just lack the maturity to accept the fact that you are wrong. You show your lack of intelligence as well, by claiming that we haven't shown you any proof (even with multiple quotations of other abilities that follow the ability-switch).
The ability doesn't say any of the things you are claiming it does, except by your own personal interpretations of it. Which are not the RAW of the ability.
If you have to insert whole paragraphs of text to show how the ability could be read like you are saying it does, then you are no longer going by the ability as it's written.
Until you can take off your 'blinders', and see what we have shown you on multiple occasions, the argument is just going to continue.
You cannot continue to keep telling us that we aren't proving anything when you haven't proved that the Constitution score is being used to calculate the Dex bonus. The ability does not do what you think it does, and for you to continue to be as stubborn as you are to admit you are wrong, it's just sad.
~P_X~
Until you can find a rule which states "replacing one bonus with another causes the new bonus to be restricted as the old," the default is that the restrictions apply only to what they state they apply to.
This means that when replacing bonuses (unless the new bonus already has those same restrictions or the ability explicitly tells us to apply them), the new bonus does not follow the restrictions of the old.
There is no rule proving your interpretation. You still can't show any evidence it works they way you say.
No one is trying to get you to convert. You just lack the maturity to accept the fact that you are wrong. You show your lack of intelligence as well, by claiming that we haven't shown you any proof
Is the only thing you have available to help your side insults?
Which are not the RAW of the ability.
If you have to insert whole paragraphs of text to show how the ability could be read like you are saying it does
Like you are doing? Inserting a paragraph saying the same restrictions on Max Dex don't also apply?
Risner, you lost. Don't try to claim that this argument has no bearing on the discussion because I'm only using your own weapons against you.
It has no bearing, since there is no text in the ability that details whether or not the existing limitations on Dex to AC are not preserved. Whether or not they intended to limit it or leave it unlimited doesn't matter. Whether or not it makes sense to be limited or not doesn't matter. All that matters it the RAW of the ability. How the DM chooses to implement the ability doesn't matter. The RAW of the ability doesn't address which way it is to be handled, so any assertion that one way or the other is "RAW" is false and is inserting text into the ability.
ENOUGH ALREADY!!! Yesh...this is a DM ruling pure and simple,I can see both sides of the arguement being valid and at the same time completely skewed.
There is no text saying whether it can or can't,so swing whichever way your monkey hearts prefer,but add a little bit of common sense in and it goes in favor of the Con is unlimited by armor.
Simply put,Con is how tough you are,plain and simple. It has nothing to do with how kung-fu you can move around. I mean think about it,how does a dwarf fighter typically fight? He stands,get's hit,and laughs as he swings back. Armor hinders your abilility to move around,not your ability to take a butt whoopin'. Which is what this ability does,the Deepwarden learns that moving around is not always the best scenario,if your tough,you just need to learn to make yourself that much tougher. Oh and in reference to you lose this bonus whenever you would lose your Dex bonus. It's the same thing really,if you can't brance yourself your not able to properly defend yourself,whether your trying to dodge out of the way,or just bouncing the blow off of your unaturally hard forehead. However like I said I can see the otherside of the arguemnt so please don't attack me with reckless abandon like some rapid badger...
so any assertion that one way or the other is "RAW" is false and is inserting text into the ability.
You have just defeated yourself (once again).
You have claimed this entire time, that your interpretation of the ability is RAW. And now you are saying that RAW can't have any insertion of outside text...
If inserting paragraphs of text (by either side of the debate) is taking it away from RAW, then you have proven that you are no longer using any amount of RAW.
This argument is over. No one has anything else to prove to you, because every time something was brought against you as proof, all you did was throw it aside saying that because it doesn't agree with you, it's not proof.
~P_X~
You have just defeated yourself (once again).
You have claimed this entire time, that your interpretation of the ability is RAW. And now you are saying that RAW can't have any insertion of outside text...
Once again, you are being rude by saying things that you know are not true.
I have always said there isn't anything in the RAW that proves one way or the other. As strongly as you (or anyone) wants to stomp a foot saying the RAW says it is unlimited, I will stomp saying it is limited. There is no RAW on the matter, and both ways involve inserting text or interpretation to your liking.
both ways involve inserting text or interpretation to your liking.
Wrong.
One way involves following precedent and not adding any text to any other existing abilities. This way leads to it being unlimited by max dex.
The way that limits it to max dex, involves creating whole new mechanics that aren't listed anywhere in the rules, ignoring precedent, and inserting slews of interpretation and text that does not exist.
Once again, you are being rude by saying things that you know are not true.
I have always said there isn't anything in the RAW that proves one way or the other. As strongly as you (or anyone) wants to stomp a foot saying the RAW says it is unlimited, I will stomp saying it is limited. There is no RAW on the matter, and both ways involve inserting text or interpretation to your liking.
Okay, risner. Which way is it?
Your original position claimed, by the RAW, that the ability limited the Con bonus with Max Dex from armor.
Now you are saying that there was never any RAW to begin with for your argument? And that since both sides (yourself included) are inserting text to prove their interpretations (see below), there clearly (though not for everyone but you) can be no RAW on the matter...
Your circle of logic has once more collapsed on itself. Stop running around in circles changing your stance, and people might take you more seriously.
Saying that a Con bonus isn't limited by the Max Dex of armor doesn't involve any insertion of text. Max Dex limits the Dex bonus to AC. Plain and simple, or do I need to quote the SRD yet again for you?
~P_X~
So any good builds using this with the Knight class?
Human Paragon 3/Stoneblessed 3/Deepwarden 2/Kinght X
I'm not too familiar with the Knight class,but the fact they get to ignore movement penalties for armor is a good thing. Human Paragon can easily take care of skills before it is even a challenge. As for the whole Knight thing,I am not too sure how the Knight class works. But I do know a good idea is to take Martial study and stance and pick from the Crusaders personal adept list as they have some of,if not the best tanking abilities.
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.
Emphasis mine.
The bold sections show that they opted to explicitly show when the deepwarden would be denied his constitution bonus to AC. With this in mind, since they have explicitly not placed a clause saying that armour interferes with this bonus, armour does not interfere with his con bonus to AC.
And also to prove that you can't use the empasised clause as a means to state that Max Dex Bonus is a denial of dex to AC:
Even if a character’s Dexterity bonus to AC drops to 0 because of armor, this situation does not count as losing a Dexterity bonus to AC.
- http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#maximumDexBonus
Wrong.
You say wrong, but you offer no evidence other than your stern belief.
Your original position claimed, by the RAW, that the ability limited the Con bonus with Max Dex from armor.
Now you are saying that there was never any RAW
No, again, my original is there is no RAW. If you assert there is RAW, I will assert that there is equal RAW of the opposite.
Emphasis mine.
You have shown some text, but you can't show that the text means what you suggest. You need direct quotations of text saying it is limited or unlimited to come to an unambiguous conclusion of what the RAW really means.
You say wrong, but you offer no evidence other than your stern belief.
No, again, my original is there is no RAW. If you assert there is RAW, I will assert that there is equal RAW of the opposite.
You have shown some text, but you can't show that the text means what you suggest. You need direct quotations of text saying it is limited or unlimited to come to an unambiguous conclusion of what the RAW really means.
How long do you two intend to keep this up? come on man don'tyou guys have anything better to do with your time than to **** eachother off?
You say wrong, but you offer no evidence other than your stern belief.
You have, as of yet, not shown with any quotations that your reading is RAW.
No, again, my original is there is no RAW. If you assert there is RAW, I will assert that there is equal RAW of the opposite.
For the sake of showing you that you are honestly/truly mistaken about even your own stance when you res'd the thread, I give you the following quote:
They likely read the ability like I do, and that is that it is RAW to be explicitly limited by Dexterity. So you can not assert that it is RAW to be unlimited, since you can easily read it to be limited by DEX as written. You may also be able to read it as unlimited (if you choose to ignore Max Dex rules in the PHB), but this is an example of Rules as I would Like them To Be or Rules as I Interpret Them.
Frankly, neither of us can claim RAW on this issue (because the ability doesn't discuss it), but since it replaces DEX I think I am closest to RAW to say it is limited by DEX.
I bolded the points of contention within your post that res'd the thread. Your original statement is that the RAW of the ability limits the bonus. You can't say "well mine is closer to RAW, so yours is wrong". It doesn't work like that. An argument can't be more RAW than another. It either is RAW or (in the case of your argument) isn't RAW.
I honestly don't know who you are trying to fool here. You have changed your stance on this ability. To even attempt to say otherwise any longer, you are lying. And yes, as long as you continue to purport that your stance hasn't changed, I will keep telling you that it has. You can't win this argument, much like you can't win the argument that your interpretation of the ability is RAW in the slightest.
You have shown some text, but you can't show that the text means what you suggest. You need direct quotations of text saying it is limited or unlimited to come to an unambiguous conclusion of what the RAW really means.
See, some of us have actually proven you wrong. Time and again. You just chose not to acknowledge any of it because we disagree with your opinion (which you can't keep arguing is RAW).
Since the bonus granted to AC by the ability is not a Dex bonus (regardless of what you, and you alone think), as the ability stands (by itself, disregarding the intent declared after the fact) Max Dex does not limit the Con bonus.
~P_X~
You have changed your stance on this ability. To even attempt to say otherwise any longer, you are lying.
See, some of us have actually proven you wrong. Time and again.
I have not changed my opinion.
I have not change my stance.
You are welcome to keep saying I am lying, but you are wrong.
Nothing about the ability clearly indicates if it is unlimited or limited. You keep saying it is unlimited, and I will keep saying that it could be limited.
How long do you two intend to keep this up? come on man don'tyou guys have anything better to do with your time than to **** eachother off?
I have plenty to do, but I am done with bogus "only my reading is correct" stances. This RAW isn't clear and I'm not about to sign off on a reading of RAW that isn't written in a rule, but rather in someone's personal interpretation.
I have not changed my opinion.
I have not change my stance.
You are welcome to keep saying I am lying, but you are wrong.
Nothing about the ability clearly indicates if it is unlimited or limited. You keep saying it is unlimited, and I will keep saying that it could be limited.
Did you even bother reading the entire post? Or are you so obstinate, that nothing else, anyone says that proves you wrong, matters?
THESE ARE RISNER'S EXACT WORDS, I AM NOT MAKING THEM UP: "They likely read the ability like I do, and that is that it is RAW to be explicitly limited by Dexterity."
"...but since it replaces DEX I think I am closest to RAW to say it is limited by DEX."
If you didn't say those words, then who hacked your account and typed them in for you?
You are clearly picking and choosing what parts of peoples' posts you read.
You have changed your stance, because nowhere in that post I just quoted do you make any mention of the ability 'changing the Con bonus to a Dex bonus'. Or did you just forget that part of your argument for 300-ish posts, and insert it when you remembered it?
You are entitled to your own opinion of the ability, you just can't say that your opinion is RAW. You haven't showed how it is, and we have already shown how you are wrong. What more do you need? Someone to come and beat you senseless with a PHB, until you understand that a Con score doesn't make a Dex bonus?
~P_X~
You are clearly picking and choosing what parts of peoples' posts you read.
You have changed your stance
I read all parts of all posts.
I have not changed my stance, but would you like to make 99 pages of you belligerently shouting I have? Sure, fine, be my guest.
None of your grand standing changes the fact the ability doesn't say enough to come to an unambiguous opinion, so your show boating and shouting that "by RAW" it is unlimited is frankly wrong.
Also these are also my words in that post you have taken to keep posting.
Frankly, neither of us can claim RAW on this issue
Nevermind that fact you say? It doesn't matter that you (Panserbjorn) are distorting my words? No.... You must "prove" I have changed my stance. Can you not sleep if you feel I have been solid as a rock?
I read all parts of all posts.
I have not changed my stance, but would you like to make 99 pages of you belligerently shouting I have? Sure, fine, be my guest.
None of your grand standing changes the fact the ability doesn't say enough to come to an unambiguous opinion, so your show boating and shouting that "by RAW" it is unlimited is frankly wrong.
Are you daft? Are you honestly denying that you made the post I quoted? You own words say that you believe the (closest to, or otherwise) RAW should be that Max Dex explicitly limits the Con bonus. If someone keeps hacking into your account, you should notify the Admins, and make it known that someone is spreading all sorts of lies while using your name
Your narrow view of the ability makes it impossible for you to see that you are mistaken in what you keep claiming.
Even if a truce were reached, in 3-4 months you would come back and res' the thread saying "I need to clear up some confusion...Blah, blah, blah."
Yes, the ability is ambiguous. But that doesn't mean that by inserting all sorts of rules of your own design (Con being used to calculate the Dex bonus, etc) that the ambiguity is gotten rid of. We have shown you that the rules disagree with you countless times, and all you can do is push them aside, and continue to make up whatever rules you see fit. As long as they agree with you, nothing else matters.
But you seem to enjoy ignoring the fact that the bonus remains a Con bonus, and is not (by any current rules) limited by Max Dex of armor.
You cannot continue to say, at all, that the ability does things that it clearly does not. You have been shown that you are mistaken, you just chose to ignore the facts, and live in a surreal world of your own making.
~P_X~
Also these are also my words in that post you have taken to keep posting.
Nevermind that fact you say? It doesn't matter that you (Panserbjorn) are distorting my words? No.... You must "prove" I have changed my stance. Can you not sleep if you feel I have been solid as a rock?
Then why exactly do you keep arguing for RAW? If neither of use can claim RAW, why have you been arguing for the past 300+ posts?
Your opinion is not the majority on this forum, so if you (and you alone) have an opinion about how this ability works, it doesn't matter.
If the RAW isn't clear, isn't it up to the DM of each individual game to make a decision about the ability? You aren't in control of things around here, and to think that your opinion is the 'meat and potatoes' of the CO boards is sadly mistaken.
You miss the part of your post that I bolded. The "but" in the rest of that sentence. "RAW isn't clear, but my reading of the ability is closer to it than anyone else's." You can't add qualifiers if you think something is as ambiguous as you are purporting.
~P_X~
You say wrong, but you offer no evidence other than your stern belief.
Wrong again.
We have posted much evidence.
Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't make it any less valid.
Yes, the ability is ambiguous.
Progress
But you seem to enjoy ignoring the fact that the bonus remains a Con bonus, and is not (by any current rules) limited by Max Dex of armor.
Recession, if the rules are ambiguous then your claim isn't fully supported by the rules. You don't have a rule to fall back onto to support that as the only meaning.
Then why exactly do you keep arguing for RAW? If neither of use can claim RAW, why have you been arguing for the past 300+ posts?
Because you won't accept that the ability doesn't clearly say your view or my view is right.
Wrong again.
We have posted much evidence.
Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't make it any less valid.
No, all your posts have been bullish shouting with no rules to support your position.
No, all your posts have been bullish shouting with no rules to support your position.
Bullish, perhaps, but evidence and support has been shown again and again.
Just like a dinosaur trying to pretend the meteor isn't there, your argument is still made extinct.
Bullish, perhaps
Progress
Just like a dinosaur trying to pretend the meteor isn't there, your argument is still made extinct.
Recession, my argument isn't made extinct, since you can't show any place where the rules clearly and unambiguously say your view or my view is right.
But I guess someone is wrong on the internet so you MUST prove them wrong. Wait, scratch that, you all feel you've proven the other wrong but you must get them to ADMIT they are wrong, which aint....gonna...happen. So cant you all just shut up, please?
Progress
Recession, my argument isn't made extinct, since you can't show any place where the rules clearly and unambiguously say your view or my view is right.
Then what are you still arguing for?
If we can't show you where the rules agree with us.
And, if you can't show us where the rules agree with you.
There has to be some sort of truce that can be had. Because, honestly, I don't have the energy to keep arguing over a pointless, and probably endless, debate. Your opinion is your own. And even if I don't agree with it, (or even if some of the rules don't agree
) opinions aren't something that you can make people change.Since the ability truly is as ambiguous as you say, regardless of what any of us thinks (personally, shared, or otherwise), it's up to each individual DM to decide how he/she is going to read the ability (limited or not, for whatever reason).
Besides, this argument has gone on for far too long. It's time to sit back, and just think up builds for people.
Depending on how each person's DM reads the ability, we can say "wear the heaviest armor possible" or "wear armor with the highest Max Dex possible". Aside from that, we can't tell people who are on one side or the other how they have to play anymore.
*extends hand towards risner* All differences aside, I should hope that we can agree to disagree.
~P_X~
If we can't show you where the rules agree with us.
And, if you can't show us where the rules agree with you.
There has to be some sort of truce that can be had.
Since the ability truly is as ambiguous as you say, regardless of what any of us thinks (personally, shared, or otherwise), it's up to each individual DM to decide how he/she is going to read the ability (limited or not, for whatever reason).
*extends hand towards risner* All differences aside, I should hope that we can agree to disagree.
Great post, I agree 100% with your last post.
Why did I bumped this thread at all? Because I didn't like someone that essentially saying:
I am right because if I were wrong they would have published Errata.
I continued to post as long as anyone kept saying RAW says blah, because the ability is ambiguous enough neither position could claim unambiguous rules.
3 pages on discussion of the class, builds, thoughts, and other intelligent discourse.
17 pages of rules debates and flaming.
Can't we just ask our DMs and move on?
Can't we just ask our DMs and move on?
Well we had moved on until you bumped it.
move on?
...
/facepalm
/sigh
No... ? Thank you.
So... do I need to go through and explain why constitution is not dexterity?
You can if you like, but depending on how you explain it you may or may not be going beyond what the rules says.
You can if you like, but depending on how you explain it you may or may not be going beyond what the rules says.
Please, for the sake of mankind, let this stupidity die.
So... do I need to go through and explain why constitution is not dexterity?
No... ? Thank you.
Bad! Bad DJ! No turntable for you!
Bad! Bad DJ! No turntable for you!
BUT YOU'LL NEVER TAKE MY HARMONICA!
Well, here goes:
Different things cannot be the same thing. Dexterity and Constitution are not the same thing. Hence they are different things and max dex only applies to Dexterity, not things other than Dexterity. That work?
Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.
Different things cannot be the same thing. Dexterity and Constitution are not the same thing. Hence they are different things and max dex only applies to Dexterity, not things other than Dexterity. That work?
That doesn't work because you can't show a rule that states that. What you have written is your interpretation and there are alternate interpretations including the one I hold and the one the developers assumed their text said, namely that you use Con to power your Dex to AC.
Until you can find a rule stating it works your way, your way is simply a valid interpretation but is not "RAW" any more than my interpretation is "RAW".
I'm still looking for a way to help Risner understand such basic concepts.
I am still looking for a way to make Ejo understand basic concepts like "if there isn't a rule for your interpretation, then you have a view of the RAW but not The RAW."
"if there isn't a rule for your interpretation, then you have a view of the RAW but not The RAW."
Simply false. I refer you again to the square.
A square is a rectangle with all four sides of equal length.
If we had a rule saying that 'rectangles can X,' then square can also X even if there is no rule stating they can, unless the rules specifically mention that squares cannot X.
The same principles apply to all implicit rules (such as the fact the Deepwarden's AC is not limited by max dex and the fact that nightsticks don't stack), and the implicit conclusion of the rules is just as RaW as the explicit.
Again, I will reiterate:
An explicitly written rule is not needed when the conclusion follows from the rules that have already been presented. Variance from the conclusion that follows from the already written rules, however, always requires explicit text.
What you have written is your interpretation and there are alternate interpretations including the one I hold and the one the developers assumed their text said, namely that you use Con to power your Dex to AC.
No. Some things are not interpretations. If I have a dollar in my left hand and a dollar in my right, would it be an interpretation to say that I have two dollars?
Is max dex limited by things other than Dexterity? Yes or no?
Is Constitution the same thing as Dexterity (Do they have differing properties? An answer of 'yes' would give you a 'no' to the main question.)?
Is interpreting required to answer those two questions?
1) Is max dex limited by things other than Dexterity? Yes or no?
2) Is Constitution the same thing as Dexterity
1) Yes if you have an ability that allows you to use another stat for Dex to AC and the ability doesn't say you are exempt from Max Dexterity.
2) They are not the same thing.
1) Yes if you have an ability that allows you to use another stat for Dex to AC and the ability doesn't say you are exempt from Max Dexterity.
2) They are not the same thing.
Correct.
Fortunately, there is no ability that 'allows you to use another stat for Dex to AC.' The one this thread was created about lets you add a Constitution bonus to AC instead of a Dexterity bonus.
Two similar but very different things.
Yes if you have an ability that allows you to use another stat for Dex to AC and the ability doesn't say you are exempt from Max Dexterity.
So, what you're saying is, "I'll ignore your question and answer this one instead:
If something other than Dexterity was Dexterity, would the maximum Dexterity apply to the new thing that is Dexterity?"
But that's not what I asked. Let us try again.
If I had an ability that's text read: "Add your Constitution modifier to your Armor Class." Would that be limited by the max dex of your armor?
What if it said this: "Do not apply your Dexterity to your Armor Class.
'Add your Constitution modifier to your Armor Class."
(I find the way paragraphs work on this thing disconcerting.)
And, EjoThims, I want to go first next time.
And, EjoThims, I want to go first next time.
I let you get in a few without even stepping up myself (mainly cause I can only post '+1' so many times a day without feeling like a tool).
:P
Fortunately, there is no ability that 'allows you to use another stat for Dex to AC.' The one this thread was created about lets you add a Constitution bonus to AC instead of a Dexterity bonus.
Two similar but very different things.
According to you, but you can't show a rules text blurb that says it works your way.
1) If I had an ability that's text read, "Add your Constitution modifier to your Armor Class. Would that be limited by the max dex of your armor?
2) What if it said this: "Do not apply your Dexterity to your Armor Class.
1) No (example Fist of the Forest)
2) Possibly, but since what you have written doesn't exist in any printed book, there is too little to make that call. As written in the RoS, the ability can easily be read to be both limiting and unlimited depending on your interpretation.
You (and Ejo) don't have a rule to present that proves your case. I appreciate your passion, but quite simply you can't find any substance to back up your firm beliefs.
You (and Ejo) don't have a rule to present that proves your case.
It's not needed.
I will point out, once more, the example of rules affecting rectangles automatically also affecting squares.
You see, a square is a special type of rectangle. All rules affecting rectangles also affect squares, even if the rule doesn't say that it affects squares, unless it specifically says that it doesn't affect squares.
This is obvious and apparent by premises of logic and the language the rules are written in. These simple premises apply to the rules as a whole, in all aspect, not just when talking about squares and rectangles.
So once more, I will remind you:
When things follow logically from the rules that are given, there is no need for an explicit rule restating them.
It's not needed.
I will point out, once more, the example of rules affecting rectangles automatically also affecting squares.
You see, a square is a special type of rectangle. All rules affecting rectangles also affect squares, even if the rule doesn't say that it affects squares, unless it specifically says that it doesn't affect squares.
This is obvious and apparent by premises of logic and the language the rules are written in. These simple premises apply to the rules as a whole, in all aspect, not just when talking about squares and rectangles.
So once more, I will remind you:
When things follow logically from the rules that are given, there is no need for an explicit rule restating them.
Makes sense to me, but I'm me and not Risner....
Ranger (Wildshape Variant) 5 / Deepwarden 2 / Master of Many Forms X
If so, how did it work out? What forms worked well? If not, how can we best optimize something like this?
Has anyone attempted a build that looks something like this yet:
Ranger (Wildshape Variant) 5 / Deepwarden 2 / Master of Many Forms X
If so, how did it work out? What forms worked well? If not, how can we best optimize something like this?
That looks like a pretty good set up.
I'm interested in if anyone has any Dwarven Crusader/Paragon/Deepwarden builds.
When things follow logically from the rules that are given, there is no need for an explicit rule restating them.
I am The Risner. Logic and Reason are my enemies. I will find them. I will kill them.
I will point out, once more, the example of rules affecting rectangles automatically also affecting squares.
Another one of your +1 posts, but nothing to prove your point.
Nothing you can show proves your point.
Nothing you can show will convince me to accept your point; no matter the evidence.
Fixed.
Fixed.
The problem is you have the opinion the text clearly says what you believe, and you are unwilling to accept the fact that it isn't clear (which is all I am saying), nor do you (or ejo) accept that WotC thought it was clear until Ejo's interpretation was brought to their attention.
You can't show a shred of evidence that proves your point, you are just full of bluff. Does that make you a 20th level Rogue?
What the Sage has to say on the matter.
Just in case you guys missed it.
What the Sage has to say on the matter.
I want X. X must be true! Flawless logic, there, Sage.
And, no, Risner. I do not believe the text clearly says what I believe. It clearly says nothing on the matter of Constitution being the same thing as Dexterity. And since they each have different properties, I have deduced that they are not, in fact, the same thing and hence only apply them as adjucated by the rules. What text leads you to believe Constitution (Clearly, explicitly, not Dexterity) would be treated as such?
Would it be this: He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character's Constitution bonus is higher.
INSTEAD OF HIS DEXTERITY. He is not adding his Dexterity. He is adding something else. There is no passage, at least that I have seen, that even remotely hints at the maximum Dexterity of armor applying to anything other than DEXTERITY.
Please, fiddle with the words on this one. Because I really, honestly, even switching around definitons using dictionary words instead of rules terms, cannot see how max dex can apply to Constitution.
You can't even make a game balance argument for this one, not when you have stated that Ice Assassin Corellons aren't even broken. I'm sorry, but the Sage is wrong here. It seems obvious to me that he didn't believe his answer either. If he had, he'd have quoted rules text and pretended, like he did with the strongheart vest question.
I want X. X must be true! Flawless logic, there, Sage.
Actually, it's more like "Hi guys. I'm one of the guys who wrote the rules. Since this bit is a little unclear, this is how it was intended to work: _________".
These are not the TO boards, these are the pratical opt boards. And I'd have a hard time believing that the average DM would consider the opinion of a random guy on the CO boards as viable as the opinion of one of the guys who actually wrote the game.
This board's purpose is to give good advice to whomever comes here asking for help.
Thus, if the official stance of WotC is that it doesn't work how you say, your advice cannot be used in most games and you're missing the purpose of this board.
So you're wrong, IMO.
These are not the TO boards, these are the pratical opt boards. And I'd have a hard time believing that the average DM would consider the opinion of a random guy on the CO boards as viable as the opinion of one of the guys who actually wrote the game..
Because sure you can Shapechange into templated creatures...
Actually, it's more like "Hi guys. I'm one of the guys who wrote the rules. Since this bit is a little unclear, this is how it was intended to work: _________".
Firstly, that's not how he presented it.
As Sage, he's supposed to be clarifying what the actual rules say and then offering opinions on the intent. He does this very well sometimes. Other times he attempts to change the rules, which is not in his power as a secondary source (as established in the rules themselves).
Not to mention that if you follow this decision, EVERY attribute you ever add to AC for any reason is now limited by max Dex, even if you still apply your Dex. This idea for what Max Dex 'really is' has absolutely no grounds in the rules.
Remember, I've known (and argued for) what the INTENT of this ability was from the start. That doesn't change the fact of what the actual rule on it is, however.
The maximum ability bonus in his ruling is ... well ... it's strongheart-vest odd. But hell, D&D hates armor in 3.x. Plate armor makes incoporeal crittes easier to hit because it limits their CHA? Is that the follow-on from this precedent?
Plate armor makes incoporeal crittes easier to hit because it limits their CHA? Is that the follow-on from this precedent?
Yes, yes it is.
And I'm sure I've seen his name on quite a bit of official books.
So, the fact that the title of "sage" itself doesn't give him the power to change the rules per se, he's one of the guys who write said rules ( or helps developing those rulebooks, if you prefer ), and I'd argue that he has a first hand knowledge of what said rules were intended to mean in the first place.
And I'm not saying that he can never be wrong: I'm saying that in the average game, his opinion will be held in higher regard than the opinion of a guy on an internet board; since we're meant to help in that "average game", that's what we should adopt as a standard.
At least, if any player in my group pointed my DM to the "Sage Advice" to solve a debate, and someone else directed him to the CO boards, I have a feeling that he'd choose the sage's ruling.
YMMV, of course...
He is an employee; his opinion has great value. he may even have a chance to review it with the specific class/feat/sections author ... all goodness. but there is not one singular author who has time to respond to sage questions.
And the answers certainly do not go through intensive design and development themselves.
It clearly says nothing on the matter of Constitution being the same thing as Dexterity. I have deduced that they are not, in fact, the same thing and hence only apply them as adjucated by the rules.
So you admit you are interpreting ("deduce"), and there is no rules text guiding you?
INSTEAD OF HIS DEXTERITY. He is not adding his Dexterity. He is adding something else. There is no passage, at least that I have seen, that even remotely hints at the maximum Dexterity of armor applying to anything other than DEXTERITY.
It is in the PHB under "Armour Bonus" where it says the Dexterity is limited by Max Dex. If you have an ability that uses Con "instead" of Dex, then you are limited in the PHB by Max Con bonus at that point. Why? Because nothing in the Deepwarden's ability hints otherwise and concluding you are not limited is an interpretation.
You can't even make a game balance argument for this one
I care about RAW, I don't care about balanced, intent, or any other mechanic other than simply what the rules say. In the case of the Deepwarden ability, the rules don't say either way and you or anyone else saying otherwise isn't helping the matter.
It seems obvious to me that he didn't believe his answer either.
On the contrary, he stated you are limited to Max Con in a "matter of fact" way. He seemed very confident the rules backed his position, as there was no "strictly speaking" nor "in the sages opinion" trash as in previous answers.
Other times he attempts to change the rules, which is not in his power as a secondary source (as established in the rules themselves).
He isn't changed the rules in these cases, he is reading and interpreting the rules. If you share a different interpretation, that is fine but it in no way invalidates his (the Sage) interpretation as both valid and "the official" interpretation. Like it or not, you can't win a RAW debate by saying a rule that can be interpreted multiple ways has only one meaning.
Not to mention that if you follow this decision, EVERY attribute you ever add to AC for any reason is now limited by max Dex, even if you still apply your Dex. This idea for what Max Dex 'really is' has absolutely no grounds in the rules.
That is false and is a strawman argument. It is false because there is only one Max Dex limiter in game (namely on Dex to AC from the AC formula.) It is a strawman because you wish to allege this leads us down a road to devastation. It doesn't because you can only ever have one ability contributing to your Dex to AC function. If it is Dex like most people, you are normal. If it is Con from a Deepwarden, then your normal is to use Con to AC and Max Con. If you had some other ability that allowed you to use Wis instead of Dex for Dex to AC and you were a Deepwarden you still wouldn't have Con and Wis to AC. You would need to pick one and the one chosen would be limited by Max Dex.
Plate armor makes incoporeal crittes easier to hit because it limits their CHA? Is that the follow-on from this precedent?
Again, strawman. Incorporeal creatures do not have a "Use Cha instead of Dex for Dex to AC", so your point is invalid. Nothing will limit Cha to AC if you have Cha to AC except an ability that replaces Dex in the Dex to AC formula.
Because sure you can Shapechange into templated creatures...
And fire off targeted fireballs.
And I'd have a hard time believing that the average DM would consider the opinion of a random guy on the CO boards as viable as the opinion of one of the guys who actually wrote the game.
This board's purpose is to give good advice to whomever comes here asking for help.
Thus, if the official stance of WotC is that it doesn't work how you say, your advice cannot be used in most games and you're missing the purpose of this board.
Please, point out a flaw in my reasoning. I may be 'random guy on the CO boards,' but I think I have a firm grasp of logic.
The 'official stance' of WotC is that the rules, in print, cannot be changed by Mr. Sage. If he says something contrary to the rules, well... he's wrong. Shapechange doesn't grant templates and fireball sure as . . . doesn't target. As for the Deepwarden AC bonus, well, that case looks to be the same to me. If I have missed something, point it out. I would love to be proven wrong here. It would require finding a passage of which I am not aware, though, I think.
Please, point out a flaw in my reasoning.
The 'official stance' of WotC is that the rules, in print, cannot be changed by Mr. Sage. If he says something contrary to the rules, well... he's wrong.
The flaw in your reasoning is that you conclude the Sage's stance that you now have a Max Con to AC (the same as Max Dex was) isn't following the rules. You can't prove your side other than the strength of your conviction.
In this case the Sage isn't wrong, he is following the rules. The rules are telling us something different than your prefer or different than you can stretch your imagination to dream. But they are the rules.
The flaw in your reasoning is that you conclude the Sage's stance that you now have a Max Con to AC (the same as Max Dex was) isn't following the rules.
See, that is a load of bull. The conclusion is not the same thing as the reasoning used to reach that conclusion. You cannot use the conclusion to determine the validity of the reasoning used to reach that conclusion. Your post makes no sense at all.
In this case the Sage isn't wrong, he is following the rules.
Let us see what the rules say on the matter. I'll edit in the stuff in a minute. I checked the Rules Compendium and it didn't have anything to say on the matter of ability scores, so here you go from the PHB:
DEXTERITY (DEX)
Dexterity measures hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance. This is the most important ability for rogues, but it's also high on the list for characters who typically wear light or medium armor (rangers and barbarians) or no armor at all (monks, wizards, and sorcerer), and for anyone who wants to be a skilled archer.
You apply you character's dexterity modifier to:
Ranged attack rolls, including those made with bows, crossbows, throwing axes and other ranged weapons.
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.
Reflex saving throws, for avoiding fireballs and other attacks that you can easily escape by moving quickly.
Balance, Escape Artist, Hide, Move Silently, Open Lock, ride, Selgith of Hand, Tumble, and Use Rope checks. These are the skills that have Dexterity as their key ability.
CONSTITUTION (CON)
Constitution represents your character's health and stamina. A Constitution bonus increases a character's hit points, so the ability is important for all classes.
You apply your character's Constitution modifier to:
Each roll of a Hit Die (though a penalty can never drop a result below 1--that is, a character always gains at least 1 hit point each time he or she advances in level).
Fortitude saving throws, for resisting poison and similar threats.
Concentration checks. This is a skill, important to spellcasters, that has Constitution as its key ability.
If a character's Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character's hit points also increase or decrease accordingly.
It seems explicit to me that Constitution and Dexterity are not the same. No interpreting required there, right? If you think that is not true, let me know.
Keep in mind, I am quoting directly from the Player's Handbook here.
Maximum Dex Bonus: This number is the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that this type of armor allows. Heavier armors limit your mobility, reducing your ability to dodge blows. For example, chainmail permits a maximum Dexterity bonus of +2. A character with a Dexterity score of 18 normally gains a +4 bonus to his AC, but wearing chainmail drops that bonus to +2. Such a character's final Armor Class would be 17 (10 base +5 armor bonus, +2 Dex bonus), assuming he has no other modifiers. This restriction doesn't affect any Dexterity-related abilities (such as Reflex saves and skill checks).
Even if a character's Dexterity bonus to AC drops to 0 because of armor, this situation does not count as losing a Dexterity bonus to AC. For example, a rogue can't sneak attack a character just because you're wearing half-plate.
Your character's encumbrance (the amount of gear he or she carries) may also restrict the maximum Dexterity bonus that can be applied to her Armor Class; see Encumbrance by armor, page 166, for details.
Shields: Shields do not affect a character's maximum Dexterity bonus.
That's what the PHB has to say. Here is what the Rules Compendium says:
DEXTERITY MODIFIER
If your Dexterity is high, you're adept at dodging blows. If your Dexterity is low, you're inept at this task. That's why you apply your Dexterity modifier to your AC. Armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if you're wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole Dexterity bonus to your Ac.
Sometimes you can't react to a blow, so you're denied your Dexterity bonus to AC, but any Dexterity penalty still applies. You lose your Dexterity bonus when, for example, an invisible opponent attacks you, you're climbing, or you're stunned. Being caught flat-footed at the beginning of combat is also this sort of situation--see Flat-Footed, below.
Clearly no reference to anything other than Dexterity. But, you say, he replaces his Dexterity with his Constitution!
That is not the case. Here is the Stone Warden ability, copied directly from Races of Stone:
Stone Warden (Ex): Beginning at 2nd lecel, a deepwarden knows how to use his strengths to compensate for his weaknessess. 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 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.
What do we learn from reading the ability? Well, the first thing we learn is that the character stops adding his Dexterity bonus and starts adding his Constitution bonus. These are two seperate and unrelated things. How do we know that? Well, look at what else it says: "The deepwarden loses this bonus to Armor Class whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC."
That passage clearly indicates that he is not adding his Dexterity to AC. He is adding his Constitution modifier. I quoted every rule related to maximum Dexterity. And it only ever mentions Dexterity. There is not a single word that implies otherwise. What rule is the Sage following? Becuase I sure couldn't find it. Maybe he scribbled it down. Maybe if they errata the errata rules, the Sage could matter.
I thought of an example. If I walk instead of riding a horse, do the mounted combat rules apply to me?
the character stops adding his Dexterity bonus and starts adding his Constitution bonus.
Interpretation, it could also mean he is adding his Con instead of his Dex to his Dex to AC.
These are two seperate and unrelated things.
Interpretation, there is no rule stating this as fact.
What rule is the Sage following?
Dexterity to AC rules found in the PHB and your previous post, of course.
I thought of an example. If I walk instead of riding a horse, do the mounted combat rules apply to me?
Are you mounted? No
Do you have an ability that says you can perform mounted combat while walking? No
The answer then to your question is then: No
the character stops adding his Dexterity bonus and starts adding his Constitution bonus.
Interpretation, it could also mean he is adding his Con instead of his Dex to his Dex to AC
Are you saying he doesn't stop adding his Dexterity bonus?
It seems clear that he's using it instead, since that word is found in the actual text.
These are two seperate and unrelated things.
Interpretation, there is no rule stating this as fact.
Are you saying they are related? What in the wording leads you to that conclusion?
Dexterity to AC rules found in the PHB and your previous post, of course.
Point out the specific rules for me, pretend I'm as dense as a black hole and need to have it showed to me.
Are you mounted? No
Do you have an ability that says you can perform mounted combat while walking? No
The answer then to your question is then: No
Are you using your Dexterity to your AC? No.
Does max Dex limit things other than Dex? No.
The answer, then, to your question is? No.
Are you saying he doesn't stop adding his Dexterity bonus?
No, of course not. Stay focused, you are using Con to power your Dex to AC.
Are you saying they are related? What in the wording leads you to that conclusion?
"Instead" means you use Con instead of Dex in the Dex to AC formula. That formula is limited by Dex to AC (in your case when using Con, it is limited by Max Con of armour.) Related.
Point out the specific rules for me, pretend I'm as dense as a black hole and need to have it showed to me.
Don't be lazy, read this thread.
Are you using your Dexterity to your AC? No.
According to you, but that isn't exactly what the rules say. You still have the Dex to AC (now power by Con.)
Does max Dex limit things other than Dex? No.
According to you, but you can't show where a rule states as such. In this case it isn't limited other things, you have the ability to use Con in the formula and the formula is limited by Max Dex in the Armour. Therefore your Con to AC is now limited by Max Con to AC of Armour.
No, of course not. Stay focused, you are using Con to power your Dex to AC.
Then explain what you meant when you said that was an 'interpretation.' If 'of course' they have stopped adding their Dex to AC.
"Instead" means you use Con instead of Dex in the Dex to AC formula. That formula is limited by Dex to AC (in your case when using Con, it is limited by Max Con of armour.) Related.
And if I use my feet instead of my horse, I use the mounted combat rules. Instead of my horse. Instead of my horse. Instead, instead, instead. In his stead.
Don't be lazy, read this thread.
I just manually copied all that text from the PHB, Rule's Compendium, and Races of Stone and you're calling me lazy? I have no idea what text you're talking about. I could reread every book and it won't make me into a telepath. And unless Pazuzu decides to help, I won't have any way of knowing unless you tell me.
According to you, but that isn't exactly what the rules say. You still have the Dex to AC (now power by Con.)
How do you still have the Dex to AC? You just said he has stopped adding his Dex to AC. Here's the text: "He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity" Seems to me like he's not adding his Dex any more.
What does that mean, "powered by Con?"
you have the ability to use Con in the formula and the formula is limited by Max Dex in the Armour. Therefore your Con to AC is now limited by Max Con to AC of Armour.
What 'formula?' I haven't a clue what you mean when you say, "the formula is limited by Max Dex in the Armour." And you go on to say 'therefore,' as if you have made some sort of logical argument, but I don't see any rules quotes or anything. All you have is a reference to some mystical 'formula,' that as far as I can tell, is mentioned nowhere in the rules.
I just manually copied all that text from the PHB, Rule's Compendium, and Races of Stone and you're calling me lazy?
What 'formula?' I haven't a clue what you mean when you say
You are bringing up points and none are new. They have already been said in this thread 20+ pages back.
The AC formula in the PHB adds Dexterity to AC.
You still use that formula, but a Deepwarden uses it by substituting his Con for Dex in the formula. In the formula, the value being added (normally Dex) is limited by Armour Max Dex. In the Deepwarden formula, it is limited to Max Con in that formula.
You and Ejo reject this line of thinking, but you can't show any logical or rules basis for rejecting this concept. Your welcome to play it any way you wish, I don't care, but your not welcome to stomp your foot and say a vague passage works only the way you wish it to work when it could work either way. Especially when WotC believes it is limited by Max Con and they believe they have firm footing in the rules (which is why they didn't use "strickly speaking" or "in the Sage's opinion")
You are bringing up points and none are new. They have already been said in this thread 20+ pages back.
And they keep being brought up if you choose to ignore them on the grounds that they were brought up and ignored already.
The AC formula in the PHB adds Dexterity to AC.
To what page are you referring?
You still use that formula, but a . . .
I'll get back to that when I see the 'formula.'
Deepwarden uses it by substituting his Con for Dex in the formula. In the formula, the value being added (normally Dex) is limited by Armour Max Dex. In the Deepwarden formula, it is limited to Max Con in that formula.
You're just making things up, changing them to what you want, or adding words, whichever you want to call it. It used the word 'instead,' not 'substitutes.'
This seems to be what you are saying:
If you use your Con bonus instead of your Dex bonus to your AC, the rules for Dex to AC then apply to your Con bonus. Is that what you're trying to say?
Well, let us look at what that means.
If I use my sword instead of my mace, I will get to use lightning mace with it.
If I wear my chain shirt instead of going unarmored, I will get my monk bonus to AC.
If I fire my bow instead of swinging my sword, I use the attack bonus of my sword.
Here is my point. Ignore it, you shall, but say it again I must.
If I use X instead of Y, I am no longer using Y. The rules for Y do not apply to X. There does not need to be proof for this. It is self evident. The rules for casting spells do not apply to my spot checks. The rules for pounce don't have a damned thing to do with rolling my attributes. X and Y are totally seperate. The rules in no way imply what you are saying.
If the rules don't say anything about my spot check having to do with my teleport spell, then, guess what? They don't.
You and Ejo reject this line of thinking, but you can't show any logical or rules basis for rejecting this concept.
I just did.
X is not the same as Y. If I use X instead of Y, the rules for Y do not apply.
Especially when WotC believes it is limited by Max Con and they believe they have firm footing in the rules (which is why they didn't use "strickly speaking" or "in the Sage's opinion")
I don't understand this. What does WotC have to do with it? Do you really think they believe it works that way? I don't. They are a business. I don't think they want Mr. Sage to point out their shoddy work that requires combing through multiple books and scrutinizing the definitions of every word in the text to try and figure out its garbled meaning. That would not benefit them. Instead, they say what they want it to be, while ignoring the actuality of the situation.
The errata rules are clear. The Sage cannot changes the rules. Of either the game, the English language, or of logic. His 'clarifications,' as they are called, hold no weight. He is completely and totally irrelevant insofar as this conversation is concerned.
So you admit you are interpreting ("deduce"), and there is no rules text guiding you?
They are not the same. The rules never tell us that 2 + 2 equals 4, and it is also not a matter of interpretation that we know that it still is.
If you have an ability that uses Con "instead" of Dex, then you are limited in the PHB by Max Con bonus at that point.
Where do the rules say anything about Max Con to AC?
Oh... That's right.
Nowhere.
Like it or not, you can't win a RAW debate by saying a rule that can be interpreted multiple ways has only one meaning.
There is only one way to interpret the rules in question unless you change them or add rules that don't exist.
That is false and is a strawman argument. It is false because there is only one Max Dex limiter in game (namely on Dex to AC from the AC formula.) It is a strawman because you wish to allege this leads us down a road to devastation. It doesn't because you can only ever have one ability contributing to your Dex to AC function. If it is Dex like most people, you are normal. If it is Con from a Deepwarden, then your normal is to use Con to AC and Max Con. If you had some other ability that allowed you to use Wis instead of Dex for Dex to AC and you were a Deepwarden you still wouldn't have Con and Wis to AC. You would need to pick one and the one chosen would be limited by Max Dex.
This is the most absurd thing I have heard from you yet, Risner. There is nothing to even hint that any other ability but dexterity can add a dexterity bonus to your AC, and the Sage's article mentions that max Dex should be looked at as a limit on attributes to armor. It never mentions that it should only limit other attributes if they are replacing Dex. If you follow the Sage's advice on this issue, all attributes that you add to AC, no matter how or why you add them and no fatter if you still get Dex or not, they are limited by the Max Dex of your armor. This is, of course, ridiculous.
Do you honestly, truly believe that you are making sense Risner? If so, I would very much wish that you donate your body to science (hopefully after a long and healthy life), as the study of the unique and bizarre thought patterns you use could one day be useful.
(hopefully after a long and healthy life)
I fear it may already be too late.
And they keep being brought up if you choose to ignore them on the grounds that they were brought up and ignored already.
I'm not ignoring your points, it is just that your points don't prove your case. This whole argument is about what the RAW says and you can't prove your side, period. If you can find some other rule that hasn't been presented, you have a chance of proving your side.
To what page are you referring?
End of page 134 continued on page 136.
It used the word 'instead,' not 'substitutes.'
Funny, but doesn't disprove the fact that Con is used whenever Dex would have normally be used in a Dex to AC formula.
If I use my sword instead of my mace, I will get to use lightning mace with it.
Strawman, there is no rule that says "use a sword instead of a mace" for you to make that argument. Please don't use strawman arguments.
Do you really think they believe it works that way? I don't.
You have no idea how funny that is. You must be desperate to win this?
The errata rules are clear.
Irrelevant, because the rules themselves limit you to Max Con bonus on armour. So it honestly doesn't matter what the Sage said, I'd still be saying the same thing.
There is only one way to interpret the rules in question unless you change them or add rules that don't exist.
That is where you are clearly and undeniably wrong, period.
This is the most absurd thing I have heard from you yet, Risner.
Funny since I've been saying it since day one. Have you not been paying attention in class?
If you follow the Sage's advice on this issue, all attributes that you add to AC, no matter how or why you add them and no fatter if you still get Dex or not, they are limited by the Max Dex of your armor. This is, of course, ridiculous.
You are wrong, you are grasping at straws to make a strawman here. The sage never said that all stats applied to AC would be limited, only that an ability that is used instead of Dex for Dex to AC would in turn continue to be limited by Max Dex. A very different thing indeed. I suspect you know this, but your intense desire to be "right" is blinding you.
That is where you are clearly and undeniably wrong, period.
Strong words, but that doesn't make your position any more correct.
Have you not been paying attention in class?
You really think of yourself as the teacher and everyone else as students?
Talk about conceited...You are wrong, you are grasping at straws to make a strawman here. The sage never said that all stats applied to AC would be limited, only that an ability that is used instead of Dex for Dex to AC would in turn continue to be limited by Max Dex. A very different thing indeed. I suspect you know this, but your intense desire to be "right" is blinding you.
That's not what the sage said at all. I suggest you re-read his position, especially before suggesting someone hasn't read the quote properly. The sage clearly states that "The maximum Dexterity bonus should be treated as the maximum ability bonus given by the armor", i.e., the max Dex is the max ability bonus you can get to AC while wearing an armor.
Also not that you are misquoting/misrepresenting the sage ruling (in a way that is indeed "a very different thing").
The logical consequences (i.e., not a strawman) include that plate armor makes incoporeal crittes easier to hit because it limits their CHA (as has been posted alread), as well any other ability bonus to AC being limited in this fashion. Clearly, this is neither RAW nor RAI.
You are wrong, you are grasping at straws to make a strawman here. The sage never said that all stats applied to AC would be limited, only that an ability that is used instead of Dex for Dex to AC would in turn continue to be limited by Max Dex. A very different thing indeed. I suspect you know this, but your intense desire to be "right" is blinding you.
The maximum Dexterity bonus should be treated as the maximum ability bonus given by the armor
You obviously didn't actually read the Sage's answer.
It says nothing about replacing Dexterity.
Following the Sage's advice on this issue limits all abilities not matter their source by the Max Dex of the armor.
And there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the rules to support it, nor your claims that an ability can count towards Dexterity to armor without being Dexterity.
That's not what the sage said at all.
You are intentionally misinterpreting what he said to a position you can attack. That is called strawman debate. Please refrain from using strawmen. It is very clear he is referring to Dex to AC being limited and not any stat that provides AC. So your strawman of an Incorporeal having his deflection limited is absurd.
Clearly, this is neither RAW nor RAI.
Clearly, but since what you present isn't what the Sage said I'd have to say you are just grasping for something to stick even when you know it is bogus? Or are you just genuinely confused about what the Sage said?
You obviously didn't actually read the Sage's answer.
Following the Sage's advice on this issue limits all abilities not matter their source by the Max Dex of the armor.
You need to read the Sage advice again, since you like Tytalus above are either willfully misreading or utterly failing to read the text. It doesn't even remotely or slightly read the way you suggest, period.
The Sage rather explicitly is referring to Max Dex and Max Dex only being limited and if you sub out Dex (via "instead") the new ability continues to be limited the same as Dex to AC limited Dex. Nothing more, as anything more is a strawman.
You are intentionally misinterpreting what he said to a position you can attack. That is called strawman debate. Please refrain from using strawmen.
Don't you do that. Don't.
Not only are you ignoring what is being said, but you are labelling it as a strawman so you can continue to ignore it.
For anyone just now stepping into look at this, here is what's happened: The Sage says all creatures have a fly speed equal to their Hit Points.
We say, "Hey, wait! That means gnomes can fly! But... we know gnomes can't fly. The Sage is wrong!"
You say, "RAWWWWWRRR STRAWWWWWMAN! HE DIDN'T EVEN SAY GNOMES CAN FLY! HE CLEARLY MEANT TO SAY THAT BIRDS CAN FLY! DON'T ATTACK THE WORDS HE SAID, JUST LOOK AT THE WORDS THAT MIGHT BE IN HIS BRAIN!"
We say, "But that's not what he said. Look: *quote of what he said*"
You say, "RAWWWWWRRR! IN... HIS... BRAIN!!!"
The Sage rather explicitly is referring to Max Dex and Max Dex only being limited and if you sub out Dex (via "instead")
It says no such thing. Please stop making things up and attempting to convince others that they are true.
The exact text has been quoted to you several times. It makes no mention, anywhere, of replacing Dex, simply that attributes are limited by Max Dex.
Please stop posting.
I will only stop posting when I see that others have stopped posting false or unproven points.
Don't you do that. Don't.
I did and I shall, so long as you make pointless statements or (like this time) misrepresent what was said by the Sage.
It says no such thing.
It makes no mention, anywhere, of replacing Dex, simply that attributes are limited by Max Dex.
You need to read it again, since it does explicitly say you are replacing dex. Unless you are misreading it on purpose?
Why do we keep going on about the Sage? Nothing he says matters. He can't change the rules. His 'interpretations' have no sway over the rules.
He didn't change the rules, but he is an example of how your interpretation of the rules is neither widespread or the "only" interpretation.
You need to read it again, since it does explicitly say you are replacing dex. Unless you are misreading it on purpose?
A: The maximum Dexterity bonus should be treated as the maximum ability bonus given by the armor, so if you were playing a deepwarden wearing full plate. you would only add 1 to your AC from your Constitution.
That is the entirety of his answer. It never mentions replacing Dex, just that Max Dex should = max ability. Which is absurd.
And it's still being discussed because some believe it actually has an effect (it doesn't) on changing or deciding what the actual written rules say.
He didn't change the rules, but he is an example of how your interpretation of the rules is neither widespread or the "only" interpretation.
So? How is that supposed to help your case? "Other people believe me! Look!" That is not a valid way to determine the validity of a truth statement.
It does not matter one bit. If the Sage is wrong, and we can demonstrate the fault in his 'reasoning' as well as the fault(s) in yours, then... why would we care?
The only valid way to determing what the rule is... is to... try and wrap your head around this... look at what the rules say. The Sage is not the rules.
If you and everyone else in the world believe that one plus one is equal to three, I STILL WON'T CARE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRUTH. The only way the truth can be gauged is by comparing it to some sort of objective standard. In this case, that would be the rules of the game.
Bringing in what the Sage says is disingenuous. The only possible purpose it can serve is to distract us from the rules debate.
That is the entirety of his answer. It never mentions replacing Dex, just that Max Dex should = max ability. Which is absurd.
And it's still being discussed because some believe it actually has an effect (it doesn't) on changing or deciding what the actual written rules say.
Do you honestly believe that?
I believe you choose to interpret his message (the Sage's) in a way that is beneficial to your cause. You choose to interpret it in a strange and unusual way, one clearly to most that is counter to his message.
I see that he was clearly saying that if you replace your Dex with Con in the AC formula, then your Con is in turn limited just as Dex was limited.
If the Sage is wrong, and we can demonstrate the fault in his 'reasoning' as well as the fault(s) in yours, then... why would we care?
The sage isn't wrong and there is no fault in reasoning. It doesn't matter how many people believe 1+1=99, if you believe the rules say something they do not (which is what you have said over and over), then you are wrong.
The rules don't say explicitly one way or the other, as such any belief in what the rules say is an interpretation. Both ways (limited or unlimited) are RAW. I don't care how you play it in your game, I simply care whether or not you wish to propagate unprovable statements (and making the statement that it is unlimited and can't be limited is unproven.)
While true that the Sage get's his own fancy column, the bottom line is that his "rulings" are not Errata, or in any other way Canonical in nature. They are purely the way he would rule them if he were the DM, and his thoughts on why.
For example, if I were to write a column and rule in the exact opposite, it would be no more a validation. It is a person's own house rule, meant to give you a jumping off point. It is again, Not Canonical, and Not Errata Wizards, while not always timely, has a set system for fixing misprinted information. It is called Errata. While it is unlikely we will ever get Errata for the Races of series, it is still not the same.
I am not disagreeing with your, or Ernham's points in the matter, frankly I can see both sides, but seriously, the Sage is not a end all be all. He is just a schmuck, who, like all of us has his own opinion on the rules. He is not the all might Rules God, sitting on is mountain top giving us the Holy Commandments of D&D. Personally, without actual errata this issue is best left on a case by case consult your DM basis.
The rules don't say one way or the other
Then it is not limited. It would have to say that Con to AC is limited. It doesn't. I quoted everything relating to the matter from both the PHB and the Rules Compendium.
Both ways (limited or unlimited) are RAW.
You sure do hate quoting text, don't you? If they are both written, then I would ask you to provide the text that limites Con to AC.
the statement that it is unlimited and can't be limited is unproven.
I have shown that the rules do not limit Con to AC (nowhere in the rules is it limited). The absence of the limitation is the proof. When working within a limited rules set (which can all be taken into consideration, as I have done), the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.
A bonus from Constitution is not limited by the maximum Dexterity of armor. There is no passage that would lead you to believe it is so.
You are intentionally misinterpreting what he said to a position you can attack. That is called strawman debate.
I'll have to agree with EjoThims: You obviously didn't actually read the Sage's answer. The sage said: "The maximum Dexterity bonus should be treated as the maximum ability bonus given by the armor".
Clearly, but since what you present isn't what the Sage said
Note that I used an actual quote. That's exactly what the sage said.
You need to read it again, since it does explicitly say you are replacing dex.
That is simply untrue. The sage's answer doesn't even use the word "replace".
Risner, the point that I think Ernham is trying to get across is that the sage's ruling, regardless of interpretation,
That isn't his point. His point (from what I can tell) is that his interpretation is the only valid interpretation. I reject that viewpoint, since this issue isn't clear from the text.
Personally, without actual errata this issue is best left on a case by case consult your DM basis.
I agree with this one hundred percent.
Then it is not limited. It would have to say that Con to AC is limited. It doesn't.
It does, in the PHB page 134.
I have shown that the rules do not limit Con to AC (nowhere in the rules is it limited).
You have not proven any such thing. You can't prove your side (due the the ambiguities in the text) without an explicit statement in the rules, and there is none.
I'll have to agree with EjoThims: You obviously didn't actually read the Sage's answer. The sage said: "The maximum Dexterity bonus should be treated as the maximum ability bonus given by the armor".
Then you choose to misinterpret what the Sage said? It does not limit all abilities scores to AC, only the Dex to AC one in the PHB p134 calculation.
That is simply untrue. The sage's answer doesn't even use the word "replace".
He'll just ignore that. I already tried.
Then you choose to misinterpret what the Sage said? It does not limit all abilities scores to AC, only the Dex to AC one in the PHB p134 calculation.
Let's try this again: the sage says "The maximum Dexterity bonus should be treated as the maximum ability bonus given by the armor".
In other (equivalent) words: 'the max Dex of an armor should be treated as the maximum ability bonus given by the armor'.
This means that an armor's max Dex limits all ability bonuses that apply to AC. Including the problematic platemail-wearing incorporeal creature example.
He'll just ignore that. I already tried.
Perhaps English is not his first language.
Although he has misquoted rules and misrepresented the RAW, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he really didn't understand or simply misread the sage's response.
1: Max dex AC being limited by armor is logical as you can imagine one cant move as quickly when inside of a full plate.
2: Deepwarden gives an ability which replaces your Dex by you Con to determine what AC you get. Now how on earth could somebody be hindered by heavy armor when he or she uses his or her “inherrent toughness” (Con) to avoid being hit (where it hurts)? That makes just as little sense as the ability itself. So, should the perhaps somewhat illogical ability be complemented with even more illogical rulings?
Personally I don’t think Con should be limited by armor, why did they give the Deepwarden Heavy Armor prof. in the first place?
My "simplistic" view on the matter:
1: Max dex AC being limited by armor is logical as you can imagine one cant move as quickly when inside of a full plate.
2: Deepwarden gives an ability which replaces your Dex by you Con to determine what AC you get. Now how on earth could somebody be hindered by heavy armor when he or she uses his or her “inherrent toughness” (Con) to avoid being hit (where it hurts)? That makes just as little sense as the ability itself. So, should the perhaps somewhat illogical ability be complemented with even more illogical rulings?
Personally I don’t think Con should be limited by armor, why did they give the Deepwarden Heavy Armor prof. in the first place?
Totally agree. As I said, a dozen pages back or more, that the ability exemplifies dwarves "sturdiness" than any agility a typical dwarf might possess and gains a benefit because of that sturdiness. From personal experiences with full plate, it's very cumbersome. Now if I were to say, trade any agility i possess and instead rely on my toughness instead of dodging around, I wouldn't be encumbered at all, because the plate's restrictions don't apply to being "sturdy". Of course people are going to disagree with me, but that's fine, I use my way, they use theirs and eveyones cool.
Do you honestly believe that?
I believe you choose to interpret his message (the Sage's) in a way that is beneficial to your cause. You choose to interpret it in a strange and unusual way, one clearly to most that is counter to his message.
I believe words mean what they say.
I see that he was clearly saying that if you replace your Dex with Con in the AC formula, then your Con is in turn limited just as Dex was limited.
I wish I was as psychically gifted as you Risner, but I'm not. All I have to go by are the words that are there, and they mention nothing about only applying when replacing Dex.
The sage isn't wrong and there is no fault in reasoning.
Yes he is, and yes there is.
He is wrong because there is no rules text to support his claim, but he didn't offer it 'in opinion' or 'should be changed by the DM' like in most of his other houserule responses. The reasoning behind changing it in the first place to suit his answer, even as a houserule, has been pointed out several times.
It doesn't matter how many people believe 1+1=99, if you believe the rules say something they do not, then you are wrong.
I'm glad we got that out of the way. Do you finally understand, then, why a Con bonus is not a Dex bonus?
The rules don't say explicitly one way or the other, as such any belief in what the rules say is an interpretation.
They don't need to be explicit. Or is it interpretation to think that spiders aren't dragons and that a square follows the rules for rectangles? Implicit rules are just as valid when they are the only logical conclusion that follows from the sum of the rules as a whole without modification or addition. Both my examples and both of our recent discussions fall into that category. In both cases, you are wrong.
Both ways are RAW.
No.
He is wrong because there is no rules text to support his claim, but he didn't offer it 'in opinion' or 'should be changed by the DM' like in most of his other houserule responses. The reasoning behind changing it in the first place to suit his answer, even as a houserule, has been pointed out several times.
Although, to be fair, he does say "should be" instead of "is". A very generous interpretation could be that he meant it as a suggestion, rather than a ruling.
Although, to be fair, he does say "should be" instead of "is". A very generous interpretation could be that he meant it as a suggestion, rather than a ruling.
You have a point. But in the past he's usually taken the time to make it clear that it is a suggestion when that is what he is offering.
Since neither side will accept the other sides' argument, what is the sense of continuing a senseless debate?
@ Ejo: Arguing for the sake of arguing just shows the senselessness of continuing things. Risner already said (pages ago) that he didn't have a problem letting the debate rest.
@ Everyone else: It's pointless to continue arguing. The ability is ambiguous, and to continue saying 'my side is ineffably right' and 'your side is ineffably wrong' will get you nowhere.
@ the Sage 'ruling': The Sage is not the 'DM god'. His word is purely a suggestion. His 'rulings' carry no more weight than the arguments/opinions of those who populate the various forums here on WizComm. The fact that some of his 'rulings' in the past have been wrong give little credence to this most recent suggestion.
I am not back to continue arguing, I just want people to know that they aren't going to gain any ground either way trying to belabor the opposition. I know it's not my place anymore than anyone short of a Wiz_O, but seriously people, enough is enough. It's time to stop.
~P_X~
In other (equivalent) words: 'the max Dex of an armor should be treated as the maximum ability bonus given by the armor'.
This means that an armor's max Dex limits all ability bonuses that apply to AC. Including the problematic platemail-wearing incorporeal creature example.
That is an absolute twisting and seemingly willful misinterpretation of what was said. What he said specifically referred to replacing Dex with Con in the formula. You choosing to interpret it so broad as to make it silly doesn't help this debate.
Personally I don’t think Con should be limited by armor, why did they give the Deepwarden Heavy Armor prof. in the first place?
This is a rules debate. Intent, flavor, and other things don't come into play.
I believe words mean what they say.
Yet you choose to interpret them in your special way and not the most likely way?
He is wrong because there is no rules text to support his claim
Again, he can't possible be wrong (the Sage) because he has rules to back up his statements.
Do you finally understand, then, why a Con bonus is not a Dex bonus?
In the case of the Deepwarden ability, the Con bonus is a Dex bonus. Yes. Success?
They don't need to be explicit.
They do if you have an interpretation that isn't the most straightforward nor simplest.
I myself believe it makes no sense to be limited, and would rule it not even if the RaW was that it should be.
You are entitled to that opinion, but you are not entitled to claim RAW when you can't prove it.
seriously people, enough is enough. It's time to stop.
I agree completely, but alas I suspect there are 2 others that can't let this issue die.
That is an absolute twisting and seemingly willful misinterpretation of what was said. What he said specifically referred to replacing Dex with Con in the formula. You choosing to interpret it so broad as to make it silly doesn't help this debate.
But it IS so broad as to be silly. That's the whole point.
Yet you choose to interpret them in your special way and not the most likely way?
It requires no interpretation to be unlimited.
Again, he can't possible be wrong (the Sage) because he has rules to back up his statements.
He does not. There are no rules that support his decision.
In the case of the Deepwarden ability, the Con bonus is a Dex bonus. Yes. Success?
Wrong. Failure. The rules never state any such thing. The rules state it's a Con bonus, not a Con bonus that acts like a Dex bonus, not a Dex bonus that uses your Con score.
They do if you have an interpretation that isn't the most straightforward nor simplest.
It requires no interpretation to be unlimited, simply a direct and unaltered reading of the rules given.
You are entitled to that opinion, but you are not entitled to claim RAW when you can't prove it.
I am not claiming it is RaW because of my opinion. It is RaW because of what the rules say.
I agree completely
Then stop posting your nonsense.
or, yaknow, you could let it die too.
No, I shall never do so, since it is not supported by rules text and someone claiming it is fully supported is going to confuse others.
But it IS so broad as to be silly. That's the whole point.
Only when view through your rose coloured glasses. What he said is quite clear that it is limited to Dex to AC using Con.
It requires no interpretation to be unlimited.
According to you, but you can't show how or why in black and white rules. You only have your interpretation.
I am not claiming it is RaW because of my opinion. It is RaW because of what the rules say.
It does no such thing. There isn't anything in the rules that is remotely as clear as you suggest. You can't claim RAW without supporting the RAW of it being limited as well, since both are possible interpretations.
Only when view through your rose coloured glasses. What he said is quite clear that it is limited to Dex to AC using Con.
Then why did make a general statement and then a specific involving Deepwarden without even mentioning the word replace?
OTE]you can't show how or why in black and white rules..
We have over and over again.
There isn't anything in the rules that is remotely as clear as you suggest.
Again, we have shown you many times.
You can claim the Earth is flat as long as you'd like, but we've shown you more than evidence to prove otherwise.
Again, he can't possible be wrong (the Sage) because he has rules to back up his statements.
This is nonsense. The Sage can most certainly be wrong. Look at the targetted fireballs. Or will you fight for that too?
In the case of the Deepwarden ability, the Con bonus is a Dex bonus. Yes. Success?
No, you're wrong there. You use you Con instead of your Dex.
If I use my sword instead of my fist, I am not using my fist.
In the same way, if I use my Con instead of my Dex, I am not using my Dex.
Since Con is not the same as Dex, and I am not using Dex, the rules for Dex do not apply. I have quoted and I have showed. Do you really not understand this position? What part of this argument is interpretation or ignoring of the printed rules? I have read them, I have typed them up and quoted them here. You can go look at all of them right now.
you are not entitled to claim RAW when you can't prove it.
I have proved it. You just ignore it when I post it.
I agree completely, but alas I suspect there are 2 others that can't let this issue die.
Me and EjoThims? Your suspicions will most likely prove to be founded in reality.
Then why did make a general statement and then a specific involving Deepwarden without even mentioning the word replace?
Because in the context of the question, he would need to be explicit if he meant it to be a general rule (like for example incorporeal's Cha to AC.)
In the same way, if I use my Con instead of my Dex, I am not using my Dex.
But you are still being limited to Max Con because PHB p134 limits the Dex (now Con) to AC.
Do you really not understand this position?
I understand you perfectly, but your evidence to prove your side is lacking. You simply can't show proof and as such your view is RAW the same as mine (and the Sage.)
What part of this argument is interpretation or ignoring of the printed rules?
It is an interpretation on whether or not Con is limited. Both are interpretations, since neither can be proven in the rules.
But you are still being limited to Max Con because PHB p134 limits the Dex (now Con) to AC.
No, I am not. I have shown this. Nothing in the rules limits Con to AC. If you would show me the text stating it does, I will cede this point, but it doesn't. I have copied and pasted it all. That passage does not exist.
I understand you perfectly, but your evidence to prove your side is lacking. You simply can't show proof and as such your view is RAW the same as mine (and the Sage.)
What is lacking is anything to limit Con to AC. Since no such thing exists, it is not limited.
It is an interpretation on whether or not Con is limited. Both are interpretations, since neither can be proven in the rules.
An interpretation of what? There's nothing to interpret. Is it an 'interpretation' to say that my attack bonus is not limited by the phase of the moon? That's pretty much your position here.
No, I am not. I have shown this.
You have not shown this. I get that you believe it with all of your heart, but you have no shown text that clearly articulates this as fact. You can only show text that if interpreted to you liking would provide he benefit as you desire. I can also show the opposite interpretation.
What is lacking is anything to limit Con to AC. Since no such thing exists, it is not limited.
Except PHB p134 using a straightforward interpretation of the text in the Deepwarden ability.
That's pretty much your position here.
According to you, but I'd say it is your position as well.
Except PHB p134 using a straightforward interpretation of the text in the Deepwarden ability.
It's hardly straightforward, since you'll have to make up rules that do not even have a precedent elsewhere (i.e., using CON for calculating DEX to AC).
The ability simply replaces the DEX bonus for a CON bonus, which cannot be limited by Max DEX unless explicitly ruled to do so.
Interestingly, the sages' ruling doesn't support your position either (despite what you claim), otherwise it would not be "The maximum Dexterity bonus should be treated as the maximum ability bonus given by the armor" but something like: "Since the bonus to AC is still a Dex bonus (although Con is actually used to calculate it), max Dex still applies".
This debate is STILL going on?
Cant we simply agree that there is no Deepwarden in 4E and move on?
It's hardly straightforward, since you'll have to make up rules that do not even have a precedent elsewhere (i.e., using CON for calculating DEX to AC).
The ability simply replaces the DEX bonus for a CON bonus, which cannot be limited by Max DEX unless explicitly ruled to do so.
Interestingly, the sages' ruling doesn't support your position either
There is no made up rules needed. You are reading more more from the ability than what is written if you conclude it isn't limited by Max Dex.
You also choose to misread the Sage to your advantage.
There is no made up rules needed.
Post the passage that leads you to believe max Dex limits Con. Unless you do, this is my last post in this thread. I've proved that it's not limited. If you (or anyone else) has any questions, they're all answered in my previous posts.
He cant because there isnt one. Its just his interprepation which is why its futile to argue with him.
Yes.
But at the same time we can't let him mislead anyone who comes here looking for a proper answer.
Yes.
But at the same time we can't let him mislead anyone who comes here looking for a proper answer.
They can hardly fail to see the debate. Either they'll agree with you or they won't. If there are no new arguments to be made, then rehashing these "nuh uh, yeah huh" exchanges helps no one. The greatest danger to the uninitiated is someone asking about Deepwarden in another thread and Risner popping in to say it's limited by max dex, without acknowledging the debate. The best (and truthful) thing you can do is watch for these questions elsewhere and point out that there was heated debate on it which can be found in this thread, and by the way, the majority of posters said it wasn't limited. Link here, and you're done.
No one can force someone else to agree with his/her reading, so why continue arguing for the sole purpose of "making sure no one gets confused by the content of this thread."
It's pretty easy to see that the two sides of the argument are pretty heavily entrenched, and won't possibly cede to the other if people keep waving around the "I am not wrong, you have to be wrong" argument.
Neither side wants to accept whatever amount of proof the other side shows (who cares if you don't want to accept it as proof), so the debate is just going to continue until the thread is *hopefully* locked.
Arguing the way the ability reads has nothing to do with optimizing ways to use the Deepwarden PrC.
If you want to be totally honest, the 'optimal' way to read the ability is for the Con bonus to be unlimited. Because, and both sides will certainly agree, a tank wants all the AC they can get. And if the tank can run around in full plate armor, and have a better AC than a non-Deepwarden, it's highly preferable.
I have nothing more to say, besides the fact that I don't see the sense in arguing this anymore. It's no longer helpful, and people could honestly care less about the 'crack-induced' "rulings" by the Sage.
~P_X~
Post the passage that leads you to believe max Dex limits Con.
Deepwarden ability plus the PHB p134.
Risner popping in to say it's limited by max dex, without acknowledging the debate.
Not acknowledging the debate would be out of character. I fully admit there is debate on this issue, but the official stance is that it is limited (which may disagree with the majority opinion if in fact the majority does believe it is unlimited.) Sometimes (especially on the Internet) a vocal minority can seem to be an overwhelming majority.
If you want to be totally honest, the 'optimal' way to read the ability is for the Con bonus to be unlimited.
I don't see the sense in arguing this anymore. It's no longer helpful, and people could honestly care less about the 'crack-induced' "rulings" by the Sage.
I haven't understood the intense need to argue this point past page 7 or so. Are you saying that one of the reasons the thread has continued is to preserve the "optimal" way as the only valid RAW for optimized character beneficial reasons above all else?
The Sage's opinion only helps in two cases. When the rule can be read to mean multiple things and when the DM wishes to follow RAI not RAW.
Deepwarden ability plus the PHB p134.
If I use my sword instead of my club, I use the rules for clubs?
No.
Try again. Or don't. I'd prefer the latter.
the official stance is that it is limited
Was there an errata that I missed? If so, please provide a link.
They can hardly fail to see the debate. Either they'll agree with you or they won't. If there are no new arguments to be made, then rehashing these "nuh uh, yeah huh" exchanges helps no one. The greatest danger to the uninitiated is someone asking about Deepwarden in another thread and Risner popping in to say it's limited by max dex, without acknowledging the debate. The best (and truthful) thing you can do is watch for these questions elsewhere and point out that there was heated debate on it which can be found in this thread, and by the way, the majority of posters said it wasn't limited. Link here, and you're done.
You actually make a very valid point. Earlier when there was more participation in this thread, that was a risk. And I let it die once already since his necromancy, but after the second time I failed to realize how long it had gone on with simply the same people over and over.
It just became a habit to open the window and go over how terribly wrong he was, yet again. :embarrass
If I use my sword instead of my club, I use the rules for clubs?
Funny, but no. You can't show a rule that says "you may use a sword instead of a club can you? No. I didn't think so. Nice straw man.
Was there an errata that I missed? If so, please provide a link.
Funny again, but the Sage is an official answer. Since it doesn't modify a rule (just interprets the ones written) it is official and valid.
Funny, but no. You can't show a rule that says "you may use a sword instead of a club can you? No. I didn't think so. Nice straw man.
Straw man? No, and you obviously don't know what that actually means.
What he is using is proof by contradiction.
It doesn't matter that there is no rule for what he is stating. The idea
of it is absurd and would not work even if there was a rule that let you use a sword when you normally could use a club, as even in that case it would not still do bludgeoning damage (though by your absurd ideas it would).
Funny again, but the Sage is an official answer. Since it doesn't modify a rule (just interprets the ones written) it is official and valid.
Wrong. To arrive at the sage's conclusion new rules must be made and existing ones must be changed. Text that does not currently exist in the required form must be made to exist in the required form. This is a modification, and the Sage does not have the power to do that.
Straw man? No, and you obviously don't know what that actually means.
What he is using is proof by contradiction.
Funny, but thanks for the links to prove that he was using a Strawman.
I have position X (Dex to AC limits by Max Dex; Use Con instead of Dex and you have Max Con now.)
He states a distorted position Y (use a sword instead of club.)
He attacks position Y because it is absurd.
He then concludes position X is absurd.
He has presented a Strawman. There is no rules that he has presented that allows someone to use a sword instead of a club, so his position is different than my position.
Wrong. To arrive at the sage's conclusion new rules must be made and existing ones must be changed.
That is simply not true, since there doesn't need to be new rules if you don't interpret the rules in an odd manner.
He states a distorted position Y (use a sword instead of club.)
He attacks position Y because it is absurd.
He then concludes position X is absurd.
No, position X and Y are the same here. It's not about clubs instead of sword or Con instead of Dex.
It is about whether you use the rules for Y if you use X instead. I was attacking the same position you had put forward, not making up something and shoving it into your mouth.
There is no rules that he has presented that allows someone to use a sword instead of a club, so his position is different than my position.
It doesn't matter. It's a hypothetical using the same model you are presenting. And it shows quite clearly that the model does not work.
He is not using a Strawman at all. You obviously, still, do not at all understand what a Strawman is.
A Strawman would be if I said:
"Risner thinks Con to AC could be limited. This is because he thinks that's dwarves have too much AC. Here's a list of why dwarves need more AC to prove that he is wrong about Con to AC being limited."
A strawman prevents a false claim by the person being attacked and links it to the person's actual stance. It then tries to disprove the actually held stance by disproving the made up one.
Proof by contradiction (which Ernham is doing), however, takes the model of your argument. In this case it's "A rule allowing one thing to replace another causes the new thing to follow the rules of the old." He then applies a new situation to that model, in this case, replacing a club with a sword. We know that if such a rule did exist (it's a hypothetical, remember), that swords would not becoming bludgeoning when use with this ability, which contradicts the model. Since the model is wrong, your stance based on it is also wrong.
That is simply not true, since there doesn't need to be new rules if you don't interpret the rules in an odd manner.
There is also no need to interpret the rules at all, because the sane, logical, unmodified conclusion they point to is quite clear.
It doesn't matter. It's a hypothetical using the same model you are presenting.
It isn't the same model at all, because my model is based on a rule and his model (swords & clubs) isn't based on a rule at all.
He is not using a Strawman at all. You obviously, still, do not at all understand what a Strawman is.
You need to go back to debate class, because you are woefully confused about what a strawman is.
There is also no need to interpret the rules at all, because the sane, logical, unmodified conclusion they point to is quite clear.
Your interpretation may be sane (meaning your not insane for believing in it.)
But it certainly isn't logical. It requires modification of existing rules.
No, position X and Y are the same here. It's not about clubs instead of sword or Con instead of Dex.
It is about whether you use the rules for Y if you use X instead. I was attacking the same position you had put forward, not making up something and shoving it into your mouth.
That is entirely bogus. Position X is based on rules. Position Y (clubs/swords) is purly made up with no rules framework and no support. You didn't attack my position, you attacked your absurd extrapolation. You can't show a rule for substituting swords for clubs. It is the same as someone saying "I have a ring of protections +4, it is now limited by Max Dex."
It isn't the same model at all, because my model is based on a rule and his model (swords & clubs) isn't based on a rule at all.
You really don't understand
No seriously.
That's like saying, "No, they're not the same model car. This one is blue and cost 12 grand, that one is red and cost 10 grand."
But really, they're both '86 Ford Ranger trucks with no special options. They are exactly the same basic model, even if some of the details like color or cost are different.
But it certainly isn't logical. It requires modification of existing rules.
It requires nothing but the logical progression of what is already there. That is the point. We know that X becomes Y. We have no rules that tell us Y is limited in any way, and a rule telling us it should follow one of X's limits when being used in it's stead. So that one limit is the only limit on Y when being used in the place of X.
(clubs/swords) is purly made up with no rules framework
That's why it a hypothetical.
It still follows the sub Y for X model that Deepwarden is using.
The swords and clubs example is not straw man. Why?
You can have both a sword and a club, correct?
You can wield a sword instead of a club, or a club instead of a sword, correct? This is perfectly within the rules.
The point of pointing out wielding a sword instead of a club is showing something here. The Strawman fallacy is based off an opinion, and a wildly innaccurate statement that makes no sense. For example - 'I think dwarves AC isn't high enough. You don't agree, and this ability makes their AC higher, so why would you come up with this rule? Dwarves should have higher AC, so you are wrong.'
Swords versus clubs uses a valid arguement instead.
"My fighter has a sword and a club. He can use one instead of the other. If he uses a sword, he uses the rules for swords, including the damage dice, crit range, weight and damage type. He does not use any rules or statistics for using a club, if he chooses to use a sword instead of his club."
They are trying to show you the connection in a logical manner, by not attacking a ridiculous theory like 'you don't think dwarves should have higher AC', nor is it thinly veiled to be such. Please do not plainly refute attempts to demonstrate your error by resorting to a poorly understood 'Fallacy' as your defense. I am sure you can come up with a better response than that, or at least some kind of comment on how these are not related in any way shape or form.
"My fighter has a Con score and a Dex score. For AC, he can use one instead of the other. If he uses his con score, he uses the rules presented for Con scores/bonuses, including any restrictions placed upon Con. He does not use rules or statistics for using his Dex score, if he chooses to use his Con instead of Dex."
Both of these statements use two subjects that can be used instead of one another. Both of these subjects have their own rules pertaining to them. The -only- exception to these two rules would be if there is an explicitly printed exception in the rules which details that the previous would be compromised.
Such is the case of the Deepwarden ability, where it states that the AC bonus is lost if they are caught flat footed or helpless. It does not state that he has to follow any other rules that limit or restrict Dexterity.
This is the clarity in the arguement that the numerous people in this thread that have been speaking against you are trying to help you see. There is not a vocal minority of people, there have been more than five people who have posted constantly in this thread, and there are a few who have added their two cents as well if not in so much detail, because getting into the arguement probably seemed like a waste of time for them. Sorry if I speak for them, but based on the exasperation of some of the people in the 600+ posts (which I have read every single one of) I believe this conclusion to be correct.
We know that X becomes Y. We have no rules that tell us Y is limited in any way, and a rule telling us it should follow one of X's limits when being used in it's stead. So that one limit is the only limit on Y when being used in the place of X.
The rule limiting it is in the PHB p134. You have no text exempting you from obeying this rule. Without a specific exemption, you can't conclude without a shadow of doubt (as you have done) that it isn't limited. This is an ask your DM question, as it matter on how he interprets the rules.
You can wield a sword instead of a club, or a club instead of a sword, correct? This is perfectly within the rules.
The distinction that you and others conveniently fail to acknowledge is there is no rules that allow you to use a sword instead of a club. You may choose to use a sword instead of a club, but in that case you are using the rules for swords and not the rules for clubs. It isn't logical and it isn't the same as using Con instead of Dex.
It does not state that he has to follow any other rules that limit or restrict Dexterity.
So you are trying the "it doesn't say I can't" optimization? To conclude it is RAW would require a rule saying the Con is unlimited, otherwise the logical conclusion is you still must obey Dex to AC's Max Dex limit.
I can't say that that is a good way to debate something. It's not debating at all. It's called 'Stonewalling'. I can only hope -someone- can get through or this topic will continue until there is an end, or it is locked (more likely).
There is no debate here, this is stonewalling. A vocal group chooses to ignore evidence there position isn't solid and continues to affirm their position is unassailable. I've shown that it has flaws and I'm certainly not the only person that believe the rules say what I show they can say. Mob justice often isn't just. I see no point in allowing unproven illogical conclusions advanced, so I continue to post in hopes that there can be a conclusion.
Edit: Fixed typo
Risner, look at this passage:
"The deepwarden loses this bonus to Armor Class whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC."
Would that statement still be true if it was not included in the text?
"The deepwarden loses this bonus to Armor Class whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC."
Would that statement still be true if it was not included in the text?
Using my interpretation, yes it would still be in effect.
It isn't all that uncommon of WotC to put extra text that is redundant.
Yes, they do add irrelevant text; that's not to be my argument.
Does the bolded word reference the Dex bonus, then?
The rule limiting it is in the PHB p134. You have no text exempting you from obeying this rule. Without a specific exemption, you can't conclude without a shadow of doubt (as you have done) that it isn't limited. This is an ask your DM question, as it matter on how he interprets the rules.
That rule affects Dexterity, not Constitution.
The distinction that you and others conveniently fail to acknowledge is there is no rules that allow you to use a sword instead of a club. You may choose to use a sword instead of a club, but in that case you are using the rules for swords and not the rules for clubs. It isn't logical and it isn't the same as using Con instead of Dex.
Risner... Do you know what a hypothetical is?
]To conclude it is RAW would require a rule saying the Con is unlimited, otherwise the logical conclusion is you still must obey Dex to AC's Max Dex limit.
False. Blatantly false. Nowhere do the rules support adding limits where none are stated.
A vocal group chooses to ignore evidence there position isn't solid and continues to affirm their position is unassailable.
Despite your other oddities, Risner, you alone do not constitute a 'group.'
Despite your arrogance, Risner, you alone do not constitute a 'group.'
Maybe with certain mental conditions?
Does the bolded word reference the Dex bonus, then?
Yes, the Dex to AC bonus power by Con.
Nowhere do the rules support adding limits where none are stated.
Except of course on PHB p134.
Except of course on PHB p134.
Where? Maybe if you use some Da Vinci Code style reading...
Post edit: before it was removed, I had pasted PHB page 134 in its entirety here.
Where? Maybe if you use some Da Vinci Code style reading...
"Dexterity Modifier: If you Dexterity is High ... Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus"
"Dexterity Modifier: If you Dexterity is High ... Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus"
You realize you just said the word 'Dexterity' and not 'Constitution,' right?
You realize you just said the word 'Dexterity' and not 'Constitution,' right?
Yes
You realize that is my point right? You can't prove it doesn't follow the rules for Dexterity by any text in the PHB, DMG, nor the RoS book. Because the text isn't clear, your stern insistence that it is clear is why I continue to post here.
You won't accept that it isn't clear or proven beyond any doubt. You won't accept that I'm saying your position is valid and possible, but not the only way to read the text. The fact that this debate started when the book was released and the Sage came out confirming the limitation is proof enough that it can be read the alternate way (with it being limited.)
You realize that is my point right? You can't prove it doesn't follow the rules for Dexterity by any text in the PHB, DMG, nor the RoS book.
You realize that the "you can't prove it doesn't follow the rules" thinking is exactly what gets us illogical arguments like dead people being able to take actions (your favorite example)?
Let's just look at the RAW at leave it at that, please.
You won't accept that it isn't clear or proven beyond any doubt.
Because nothing in any of the text even remotely implies that Constitution follows the rules for Dexterity. Nowhere. I've quoted all of it. I've read it all fifteen times. It's just not there.
Because nothing in any of the text even remotely implies that Constitution follows the rules for Dexterity. Nowhere.
This.
Let's just look at the RAW at leave it at that, please.
RAW in this case isn't clear. It is my opinion that RAW in the case of dead people is clear. Dead people can't take actions because being dead is a state of being unable to think, act, or otherwise effect your environment. In other words, using the English definition of "dead" prohibits you from taking actions.
Because nothing in any of the text even remotely implies that Constitution follows the rules for Dexterity. Nowhere. I've quoted all of it. I've read it all fifteen times. It's just not there.
That is blatantly false. I read it my way. Others read it my way. WotC read it my way until it was explained to them there was an alternate reading. The Sage read it my way. For you to be right, no one should have ever read it differently than you.
I read it my way. Others read it my way. WotC read it my way until it was explained to them there was an alternate reading. The Sage read it my way. For you to be right, no one should have ever read it differently than you.
Able to be read as X and the rules as a whole actually implying X are two very different things.
Otherwise you have to accept that spiders are dragons because someone, somewhere could misconstrue the written rules in such a way just as you are misconstruing these.
That is blatantly false. I read it my way. Others read it my way. WotC read it my way until it was explained to them there was an alternate reading. The Sage read it my way. For you to be right, no one should have ever read it differently than you.
What are other people reading that way? What passage leads these mythical legions to conclude that the rules for Constitution apply to Dexterity?
I mean, really. I've looked and looked. I've kept up with this thread since it started and no one has ever posted any text that could even be misconstrued as leading to that belief. None. Nada. Not that I've seen. I've quoted the PHB, the Rules Compendium, and Races of Stone. All of them. I've read everything. And I have yet to see a single passage that is even as vague as the nightsticks bonus stacking is (which did, at least, require some effort to disprove. I had to go to Wikipedia for that. And it could honestly be misread the way you did. If English wasn't someone's first language, they had a concussion, and weren't wearing their glasses. Maybe). But there's literally nothing here that supports your position. Not a single word.
Able to be read as X and the rules as a whole actually implying X are two very different things
The difference is that you allow for the rules implying X, so do I. But you discount the possibility that the rules imply Y, which I do not. That doesn't mean that I say the rules can only mean Y, just that I accept that as a valid reading. That combined with the fact I am not alone in this view, means your position is weaker.
But there's literally nothing here that supports your position. Not a single word.
I applaud your vigor, but you are entirely wrong and have no grounds for the strength of you conviction. The meaning of the Con to AC is absolutely not air tight as you suggest. That should be self evident. I simply can't be idle while someone propagates false information, period.
you are entirely wrong
If there are words that indicate the maximum Dexterity of armor also limits Constitution, I will gladly admit to being wrong. All you have to do is show me those words (or word).
If there are words that indicate the maximum Dexterity of armor also limits Constitution, I will gladly admit to being wrong. All you have to do is show me those words (or word).
Done, you just stubbornly continue to say "those don't apply" with no proof or reason other than "I say on my, ErhnamDJ's authority, these mean X and can not mean Y."
You don't have the right to assert words mean something when they can and do have alternate interpretations.
Unless you have the Errata pen, your continued posting is just wasting space.
Either anything that can be possibly be read by anyone applies always, or you are wrong.
There is no middle ground, because attempting to make a middle ground means you are making arbitrary decisions with no basis and end up being wrong.
As RAI thinking is required to reason out dead people cannot take actions normally, simply allow player or GM to reason that a CON bonus is more similar to Natural Armour than a Dodge bonus. Then reason if armour penalties effect it.
And maybe this thread will end, perhaps?
Rays just bounce off them? I know this doesn't speak to the rules, I just had an amusing mental image.
Risner:
- Would you agree that every game that will use Deepwarden must decide for itself how to implement the Con bonus?
- Would you agree that no new positions are being advanced here, nor are they likely to be?
- Given 1 and 2, wouldn't the best use of all our time be let this thread rest and answer any references to Deepwarden, appearing elsewhere, with a link to this thread and a suggestion to read the arguments presented before deciding for one's self?
Done
Does that mean you're working up the post that shows where the rules apply max Dex to the attack bonus from Strength? Err... I mean the AC bonus from Constitution.
you just stubbornly continue to say "those don't apply" with no proof or reason other than "I say on my, ErhnamDJ's authority, these mean X and can not mean Y."
What? What cannot mean Y? Post the text.
You don't have the right to assert words mean something when they can and do have alternate interpretations.
Wow. Do you own this board? Or do you somehow mean to imply that because nothing in the rules apply the max Dex of armor to Constitution, and I continue to espouse that position, that I am doing something immoral? Is that what you're saying?
This is laughable. I am laughing right now.
You started out making 'arguments' that were as confusing as possible (through not directly quoting text so you don't have to aknowledge it later to misdirecting the conversation by bringing up the Sage). But now you're just bullying. You don't try and refute the reasoning I apply to the situation, you ignore my posts with actual context, you accuse me of using logical fallacies (for what purpose, I do not know. Since if they were fallacious arguments, someone would surely point them out), you make things up, insert new words into text, and refuse to allow your own methodologies when applied by others.
This has to be a joke.
Risner, with your idea, you have to accept that spiders are dragons because someone, somewhere could read the ability that way.
No, of course not. That is absurd (and you likely know it.)
So if Con acts in all ways like Dex, that means they get their Con bonus to touch AC, right?
Absolutely, was it in doubt? It is still Dex to AC and works the same in all ways by my reading.
[*]Would you agree that every game that will use Deepwarden must decide for itself how to implement the Con bonus?
Which is exactly what I'm saying. The RAW isn't clear and the only one that can bring light to the darkness is the DM based on how he interprets the RAW.
[*]Would you agree that no new positions are being advanced here, nor are they likely to be?
Unless someone can find a rules passage or con WotC into making some errata, then there is very little likelihood of new positions being advanced.
[*]Given 1 and 2, wouldn't the best use of all our time be let this thread rest and answer any references to Deepwarden, appearing elsewhere, with a link to this thread and a suggestion to read the arguments presented before deciding for one's self?
Exactly the thing I wish to see happen, but I'm continually deprived of my wish.
You started out making 'arguments' that were as confusing as possible (through not directly quoting text so you don't have to aknowledge it later to misdirecting the conversation by bringing up the Sage).
I haven't changed my position from the first day.
You don't try and refute the reasoning I apply to the situation. This has to be a joke.
I've often wondered if you were joking or if you just decided to be disruptive to this thread, because you haven't shown any reasonable proofs nor have you shown anything that helps advance your position.
No, of course not. That is absurd (and you likely know it.)
No more absurd than your own position that just because something can be read, even though it's not the words mean, that it is valid.
you haven't shown any reasonable proofs nor have you shown anything that helps advance your position.
Derrrr. What?
My position is that the max Dex of armor does not apply to attack rolls. Why is that my position? Because nothing in the rules limits attack rolls such.
And it is also my position that the max Dex of armor does not apply to Constitution. Why? For the same reason.
Look at post #630 of this thread. I quoted everything. Nothing limits Constitution. That's my proof: that the limiting factor does not exist.
And, yet, I have not shown anything that advances my position?
My first position is that things aren't limited unless the rules state they are. Is this unreasonable? Do I need to show a proof for this? If you say, "Yes," then I hope you're willing to accept the consequences (one of which is that HP is limited by the number of pink bunnies dancing in a circle).
My second position merely follows from the first: If the rules must limit things for them to be limited, then something in the rules must limit Constitution to AC for there to be such a thing. I have shown that there is no such limiting by quoting every relevant piece of text. You must find fault with the first position to find fault with this one. So, go ahead. Quote the text that shows that the maximum Dexterity of armor applies to Constitution.
Show me the text or show me a flaw in my reasoning. Or admit that the max Dex of armor does not limit Constitution. Your only other options are to ignore this post or ramble on about 'interpretations.' THERE IS NO INTERPRETING HERE.
No more absurd than your own position that just because something can be read, even though it's not the words mean, that it is valid.
My reading is a reasonable interpretation and just because you don't like it doesn't make it not mean what I say nor does it make it invalid.
Look at post #630 of this thread. I quoted everything. Nothing limits Constitution. That's my proof
Thanks for proving my point, you somehow think that post is proof.
And, yet, I have not shown anything that advances my position?
You haven't proven your point. You have shown supporting information, but no proof.
My first position is that things aren't limited unless the rules state they are. Is this unreasonable?
That is reasonable, the key difference between us is that I see that the rules state they are limited and you do not.
Or admit that the max Dex of armor does not limit Constitution.
There is a 0 percent chance of that when you simply can't prove your position with the rules. You have shown evidence, but there is no proof.
My reading is a reasonable interpretation and just because you don't like it doesn't make it not mean what I say nor does it make it invalid.
It has nothing to do with whether or not I like it.
It's all about spiders not being dragons, no matter how much anyone might think they are.
Con is not Dex in the same way, and it follows the rules for Con, not for Dex, unless specifically stated otherwise.
And guess what? The only specific statement is that you lose it when flatfooted, not that Max Dex applies to it.
And guess what? The only specific statement is that you lose it when flatfooted, not that Max Dex applies to it.
Guess what, that is your opinion. Your strong opinion doesn't make it so.
the key difference between us is that I see that the rules state they are limited and you do not.
You agree that something in the rules has to apply the rules for Dex to Con for it to be so, yes? If you show me the text that indicates that to be the case, I will admit that it is limited.
I only think it's not limited because nothing I've seen shows that it is. If there is text I've missed, please show me. I don't want to be wrong here. Just show me how I am.
Guess what, that is your opinion.
Actually no Risner, it is fact that the only limitation of Dexterity to AC specifically listed by the ability as carrying over for the Con bonus is that you lose it when you're flat footed.
If you show me the text that indicates that to be the case, I will admit that it is limited.
You keep asking for that which I have shown and you have ignored. Why waste the post? The text of deepwarden itself is limiting by allowing you to use Con instead of Dex. If you look on PHB p135/136 Dex is added to AC. If you replace Con instead of Dex in that formula, you get Dex to AC power by Con (as the Deepwarden indicates) with limitations based on Max Dex (now Max Con.)
I don't want to be wrong here. Just show me how I am.
No, you just like being a smarty pants by asking for something you know can't be produced (since this is a debate about what the rules mean and not what the rules say.)
The rules mean you are limited to Max Dex on your Con. They could also (depending on your interpretation) mean that you can ignore the Max Dex when using the deepwarden ability. They don't say either way (limited or unlimited.)
Actually no Risner, it is fact that the only limitation of Dexterity to AC specifically listed by the ability as carrying over for the Con bonus is that you lose it when you're flat footed.
Funny, but you have absolutely no (zero) proof of your fact. You are not using that word ("fact") correctly in that sentence.
You keep asking for that which I have shown and you have ignored. Why waste the post? The text of deepwarden itself is limiting by allowing you to use Con instead of Dex. If you look on PHB p135/136 Dex is added to AC. If you replace Con instead of Dex in that formula, you get Dex to AC power by Con (as the Deepwarden indicates) with limitations based on Max Dex (now Max Con.)
No, you just like being a smarty pants by asking for something you know can't be produced (since this is a debate about what the rules mean and not what the rules say.)
The rules mean you are limited to Max Dex on your Con. They could also (depending on your interpretation) mean that you can ignore the Max Dex when using the deepwarden ability. They don't say either way (limited or unlimited.)
Funny, but you have absolutely no (zero) proof of your fact. You are not using that word ("fact") correctly in that sentence.
Ok, so you admit that they rules do not SAY you are limited? Isn't it telling that it tells you that you lose the CON bonus to armor any time you would be denied your DEX bonus, yet it doesnt give any indication that it uses the rules for dex in any other instance? Is a Sword Sage's Wis to AC limited by Dex to AC as well?
this is a debate about what the rules mean and not what the rules say
No. It's not.
...I must be mad...
What disturbs me somewhat is that none of you seem to understand what the other part is actually saying, or why. So, I'm gonna try and play diplomat here by rephrasing your arguments and use a fictious example. You'll all probably scream at me and say "No, that's not what I think at all, stop putting words in my mouth (or is it text in my posts?)!" but hopefully we can get some message across, at least.
If nothing else, I enjoy the mental exercise!
Here's the example:
The Fate of Willy the Wise
The cleric Willy "the Wise" (Con 18, Wis 24) has a heart disease which makes him extra vulnerable to extreme physical hardships. Whenever Willy makes a Con check to avoid damage (lethal or non-lethal), for example if starving or drowning, his Con bonus is limited to 1.
One day, while searching the ruins of an old town, Willy finds a magic item: "The Amulet of the Enduring Mind". While wearing this item, Willy may use his Wis bonus instead of his Con bonus whenever he rolls a Con check to avoid damage. Willy quickly identifies the item and puts it around his neck.
Unfortunately, while dancing of joy and laughing at his luck, Willy falls into an old well hidden among the debris. The fall only gives him a few bruises but brings him several feet below the surface, and Willy cannot swim. By clinging desperately to a small crack he finds between two stones in the wall, Will barely manages to keep himself from sinking further into the dark murky water. A while later (36 rounds, actually), his friend the athletic fighter Filly "the Fit", understands that Willy has fallen into to the well and hurries to help him up. But Filly's rescue may be to late, because Willy is out of air and about to start sinking beyond any rescue...
Willy must make a Con Check DC 10 to avoid dropping to 0 HP and becoming unconscious. The player of Willy rolls a 4 which nets him a total of...?
Risner, in your opinion, what is the RAW result in the above example - is Willy lost? Or rather, what bonus should be applied to Willy's Con check and why?
DJ/tdsaw/EjoThims, what are your opinion(s)?
Please answer without making any assumptions about where I'm heading or questioning the validity of the example. You'll get to bash me later when I explain, I promise... ;)
Whenever Willy makes a Con check to avoid damage (lethal or non-lethal), for example if starving or drowning, his Con bonus is limited to 1.
Willy may use his Wis bonus instead of his Con bonus whenever he rolls a Con check to avoid damage.
what is the RAW result in the above example?
He's not using his Con bonus, he's using Wisdom. It says nothing about his Wisdom bonus being limited. Only his Con. He rolled a four? And has plus seven from Wisdom? That would be an eleven on the result.
Of course, I've already tried a similar scenario. Which Risner refused to aknowledge, saying something alone the lines of, "But that thing isn't in the rules. Only comparisons that are found in the rules (and, hence, non-existent, so I don't have to accept such a thing) are valid."
He's not using his Con bonus, he's using Wisdom. It says nothing about his Wisdom bonus being limited. Only his Con.
Answer noted.
Of course, I've already tried a similar scenario.
Yupp, I know. But I'm not done yet...
Hopefully, when we get a bit further, you'll view his reasoning as more valid as well. But we need an answer and motivation from Risner first.
Which Risner refused to aknowledge, saying something alone the lines of, "But that thing isn't in the rules. Only comparisons that are found in the rules (and, hence, non-existent, so I don't have to accept such a thing) are valid."
Yes, it seems he sure can have an inflexible attitude towards "legitimate/illegitimate" reasoning - which usually leads to the impossibility of actually understanding what the other part is saying - which in turn inevitably makes it impossible to get anything useful out of the discussion. But, IMHO, so do you sometimes, judging from a few of your posts. I think it's a bit like playing tennis: you play better against a good opponent than against someone that sucks. I hope it gets easier when neither of you have to convince me, as I believe I can clearly see the validity of both sides' arguments.
Funny, but you have absolutely no (zero) proof of your fact. You are not using that word ("fact") correctly in that sentence.
The proof is right there in the text.
The only explicit limitation is that it's lost when you are flatfooted.
If you read my original post you will note that I said outright that I can see both sides to this arguement as it refers to a DM houseruling it. However, by the text, it is not supported to be limited.
I agree with Ernham.
If you read my original post you will note that I said outright that I can see both sides to this arguement as it refers to a DM houseruling it. However, by the text, it is not supported to be limited.
Answer noted.
It seems you all can see both sides. What I meant with in my last post - "I believe I can clearly see the validity of both sides' arguments" - was in reference to your RAW discussion and the arguments you've been using. I'm sorry, I made that come out unclear. I definitely wasn't trying to be patronizing or saying you didn't use your brains or anything. (I wouldn't even be posting if I didn't believe that...)
Ok, so you admit that they rules do not SAY you are limited?
Yes from day one I've said this. The rules don't say you are unlimited either and that is the point. Without a firm reason to rule one way or the other, all of this is up to the DM and as a result not consider RAW.
Is a Sword Sage's Wis to AC limited by Dex to AC as well?
No, obviously not. No where in the Swordsage's ability does it say it replaces or otherwise interacts with Dex to AC. This is a prime example of bringing up something that is unrelated (and irrelevant.)
Willy the Wise (Con 18, Wis 24) when rolling a Con check (DMG p304) to avoid damage, his Con bonus is limited to 1.
Willy may use his Wis bonus instead of his Con bonus whenever he rolls a Con check to avoid damage.
what bonus should be applied to Willy's Con check and why?
He is making a Con check in this example. He is limited to 1 using either Con or Wis because he is "using Wis instead of Con whenever he rolls a Con check".
Now, if the item instead allowed him to make a Wisdom check whether he needs to make a Con check to avoid damage, then he would no longer need to be limited to 1.
This was a related and relevant example.
Originally Posted by tdsaw111
Ok, so you admit that they rules do not SAY you are limited?
Yes from day one I've said this. The rules don't say you are unlimited either and that is the point. Without a firm reason to rule one way or the other, all of this is up to the DM and as a result not consider RAW.
I see that the rules state they are limited
Fun fact: Risner has also always, from day one, been at war with Eastasia.
Yes from day one I've said this. The rules don't say you are unlimited either and that is the point. Without a firm reason to rule one way or the other, all of this is up to the DM and as a result not consider RAW.
No, obviously not. No where in the Swordsage's ability does it say it replaces or otherwise interacts with Dex to AC. This is a prime example of bringing up something that is unrelated (and irrelevant.)
He is making a Con check in this example. He is limited to 1 using either Con or Wis because he is "using Wis instead of Con whenever he rolls a Con check".
Now, if the item instead allowed him to make a Wisdom check whether he needs to make a Con check to avoid damage, then he would no longer need to be limited to 1.
This was a related and relevant example.
What of the fact that the only limiting text given for the Con to AC is that it is lost if you are flat-footed, etc. Seems this is the perfect place to add the line, "This bonus is also limited to MAX DEX benefit by armor" yet it is not there.
So, if I use Steadfast Determination, it allows me to use my CON bonus instead of Wisdom for Will Saves. Is the bonus I apply to my Will Saves limited by what I would normally be granted from my wisdom? I am using CON INSTEAD, and normally you add your Wis Bonus, so since the rules dont say, even if my con is higher I get the full benefit, I must ONLY get a bonus equal to my normal bonus from Wisdom right?
What of the fact that the only limiting text given for the Con to AC is that it is lost if you are flat-footed, etc. Seems this is the perfect place to add the line, "This bonus is also limited to MAX DEX benefit by armor" yet it is not there.
You are bringing up things that have been brought up before now. Reasons this isn't proof:
1) They have been known to add things that are assumed, but this in no way obligates them to always needing to state all things clearly. I wish they would write things with less assumptions, but I don't always get my wishes.
2) At no point does it say that is the only limitation that needs to be observed.
So, if I use Steadfast Determination, it allows me to use my CON bonus instead of Wisdom for Will Saves. Is the bonus I apply to my Will Saves limited by what I would normally be granted from my wisdom?
Are you joking? You can't be serious can you? Assuming you are serious and you don't see how this is night and day different, here goes:
No, because no rule limits your Wis bonus to Will saves therefore no rule limits your Con bonus to Will saves.
Ok so in the hierarchy of rules, you generally apply basic rules unless a more specific one is given. Basic Rules for figuring AC require you to add your dex with all limitations that implies. Now along comes a specific rule, with a specific limitation about addig your Con instead. That means you follow the specific rules for Con to AC, not the general ones for Dex.
But no rule limits Con bonus to ANYTHING there is no text.
it from rules based on a completely different stat, however, that is again, MAKING UP A RULE WHERE NONE IS WRITTEN.
Now along comes a specific rule, with a specific limitation about addig your Con instead. That means you follow the specific rules for Con to AC, not the general ones for Dex.
RAW shouldn't be soiled by "It doesn't say I can't" reasoning, because if you do you ruin RAW and end up with all manner of odd problems.
There is a specific rule for limiting Dex by Max Dex. There is a specific rule that allows you to use Con instead of Dex. There is no specific rule that says your Con is now no longer limited by Max Dex and there is a general rule that Dex to AC is limited.
You can't show any text that supports your "matter of fact" interpretation of the rules, because you can't show a specific rule that negates or overrides the general "Dex limited by Max Dex" rule when using Dex or Con.
This isn't a RAW issue (because RAW doesn't cover the question.) This is a WWMDD (What Would My DM Do) question, meaning the only real answer is "ask your DM" since there is no way to be sure with the text of the ability.
Risner, if I use my sword instead of my club, am I using my club?
There is a specific rule for limiting Dex by Max Dex. There is a specific rule that allows you to use Con instead of Dex.
No Risner, RAW doesn't say that. It allows you to use your Con bonus instead of your Dex [bonus].
That is a considerable difference, since the max Dex limitation applies only in the calculation of the dex bonus to AC. If the entire bonus (with limitation) is replaced by another bonus, the former limits do not apply anymore.
There is no specific rule that says your Con is now no longer limited by Max Dex
No longer?
Con has never been limited by max Dex.No longer?
Been there, done that, got the scars.
Risner, if I use my sword instead of my club, am I using my club?
Again, the joke is waning. No you are not using a Club, at least not unless you can show an ability that says as written "you may use a sword instead of a club".
Until you do so, you make yourself look bad by continuing to post an unrelated dissimilar unsupported example that bears no relevance to the topic at hand.
No Risner, RAW doesn't say that. It allows you to use your Con bonus instead of your Dex [bonus].
False, that is what you interpret it to say, but that isn't what it says.
False, that is what you interpret it to say, but that isn't what it says.
No Risner.
That is a direct quote (with emphasis added).
Constitution bonus is explicit in the ability.
There is no interpretation. There is no need for interpretation.
It is right there, plain as day or the nose on the face of someone who was born with a nose and has not lost it in any way.
No Risner. That is a direct quote (with emphasis added).
Which doesn't prove your point, but instead proves mine.
There is no interpretation. There is no need for interpretation.
Patently false since a significant number of people differ with your view.
Which doesn't prove your point, but instead proves mine.
What? How does the text stating it is a Constitution bonus prove your point that isn't not a Constitution bonus?
Patently false since a significant number of people differ with your view.
Many say it should be limited. And it should. But it isn't.
Yet you are the only one I know blind enough to think that the ability doesn't use your Constitution bonus.
Non-offensive, non-trolling material key to my understanding of the way others approach their own understanding of what is happening is being removed, with no warning and no notice.
At least KiRin was able to send a note when this was done so anyone involved could go back and reword valid points that where made instead of them just disappearing into the ether.
1.) You claim:
There is a specific rule for limiting Dex by Max Dex. There is a specific rule that allows you to use Con instead of Dex.
2.) This is simply wrong, so I point it out, providing an almost verbatim quote from the rules with added emphasis:
No Risner, RAW doesn't say that. It allows you to use your Con bonus instead of your Dex [bonus].
That is a considerable difference, since the max Dex limitation applies only in the calculation of the dex bonus to AC. If the entire bonus (with limitation) is replaced by another bonus, the former limits do not apply anymore.
3.) This clearly shows that your initial argument (see above), that CON replaces DEX is wrong, since we are instead replacing bonuses.
4.) Despite the quote you claim it to be false (!)
False, that is what you interpret it to say, but that isn't what it says.
5.) When it is pointed out that you are in the wrong, you instead declare the quote to support your stance (which is, of course, ridiculous, since you just claimed the opposite):
No Risner.
That is a direct quote (with emphasis added).
Constitution bonus is explicit in the ability.
There is no interpretation. There is no need for interpretation.
Which doesn't prove your point, but instead proves mine.
Are you really interested in a discussion with actual arguments, or are you grasping at straws because you just don't want to admit being wrong?
Furthermore, not only in the sake of logical argument, Tytalus presents a reason as to why the CON bonus to AC is not limited. The CON bonus replaces the DEX bonus to AC. DEX bonus is limited by max dex. Therefore, even if the DEX bonus is limited, the CON bonus completely overrides it.
Yet you are the only one I know blind enough to think that the ability doesn't use your Constitution bonus.
That isn't true, but I may be one of the few willing to go toe to toe with the vocal group with your view on this issue.
Are you really interested in a discussion with actual arguments, or are you grasping at straws because you just don't want to admit being wrong?
I grasp at nothing, I have firm ground. You can't show it isn't using PHB p134/136 AC calculation allowing a player to use his Con bonus instead of his Dex bonus as his Dex bonus in his Dex to AC function. Doing so, he is still limited to Max Dex regardless of which bonus (Dex or Con) he uses for this AC bonus.
The CON bonus replaces the DEX bonus to AC. DEX bonus is limited by max dex. Therefore, even if the DEX bonus is limited, the CON bonus completely overrides it.
You can't prove that it works your way and not my way (Dex to AC power by Con) via anything in the text of the ability. I know you believe very strongly like others do on this issue, but a strong believe doesn't make it so.
He is making a Con check in this example. He is limited to 1 using either Con or Wis because he is "using Wis instead of Con whenever he rolls a Con check".
Now, if the item instead allowed him to make a Wisdom check whether he needs to make a Con check to avoid damage, then he would no longer need to be limited to 1.
Answer noted.
This was a related and relevant example.
I know. I'm using it because I believe it minimizes the amount of confusion, as opposed to the rules governing armor and Max Dex bonus to AC which includes tons of irrelevant information but says the same thing RAW.
No you are not using a Club, at least not unless you can show an ability that says as written "you may use a sword instead of a club".
So, if I use a sword instead of a club and I choose to do it on my own, I am not using a club.
But if I use a sword instead of a club and it's because the rules told me to do so, then I am using a club?
So, if I use a sword instead of a club and I choose to do it on my own, I am not using a club.
But if I use a sword instead of a club and it's because the rules told me to do so, then I am using a club?
Risner, this isn't a joke. This is a simplified example of the arguement, basically asking the meaning of 'instead'. This is totally relevant. This is just english language.
In the last second, Willy discovers that the crack he's clinging to is actually widening! Or is it Willy that is shrinking...? Suddenly, Willy is sucked into the crack and complete darkness. With a sense of falling tumbling through the void, Willy screams, but no sound can be heard. Then, as suddenly as he was sucked into the void, he's brutally forced out. For a moment bright light blinds his eyes, but then Willy takes in his new environment. He's in a beautiful garden of some sort, laying on soft grass and surrounded by magnificent flowers and large trees of a kind he has never seen before. In the clear blue sky above him, three suns are shining pleasantly down on him. The air is easy to breathe and willy feels stronger than he ever has, despite his confusion and recent close brush with death.
Willy has been sucked through a portal and traveled to the (NG) plane called Feel Better. Here, Willy is free of his heart disease. Unfortunately, the travel was all but gentle, and Willy must make a Con check DC 30. For every point he fails the check, he takes one point of nonlethal damage.
The player of Willy rolls 17, which nets him a total of...?
Your answers please.
Is Willy still wearing that amulet from before?
Well, did the text say anything about Willy not wearing it anymore? Remember: RAW.
;)
EDIT: Example #2 continues from where the first example ended. Sorry, should've said that in the first place...
The player of Willy rolls 17, which nets him a total of...?
Seventeen rolled plus the seven from his wisdom equals twenty-four. So, twenty-four.
Seventeen rolled plus the seven from his wisdom equals twenty-four. So, twenty-four.
Thanks!
So, if I use a sword instead of a club and I choose to do it on my own, I am not using a club.
But if I use a sword instead of a club and it's because the rules told me to do so, then I am using a club?
Yes, if you have a rule that says "use a sword instead of a club when making a melee attack" for example, you would be considered using a club for the attack and anything that triggers off using a club, would fire.
Willy has been sucked through a portal and traveled to the (NG) plane called Feel Better. Here, Willy is free of his heart disease. Unfortunately, the travel was all but gentle, and Willy must make a Con check DC 30. For every point he fails the check, he takes one point of nonlethal damage.
Let me see if I understand. He no longer has his heart condition?
So he is no longer limited to 1 on Con checks?
He still has the item that allows him to use his Wis bonus on his Con check?
Then he uses his Wis bonus and isn't limited to 1 because the limit was applied by his heart condition which is no longer present (and thus no longer limiting.)
Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ
So, if I use a sword instead of a club and I choose to do it on my own, I am not using a club.
But if I use a sword instead of a club and it's because the rules told me to do so, then I am using a club?
Yes, if you have a rule that says "use a sword instead of a club when making a melee attack" for example, you would be considered using a club for the attack and anything that triggers off using a club, would fire.
Why? Why does the same word have different meanings? Is there any possible explanation other than: "I am Risner. The rules do what I say. Not just the rules of the game, but of the English language. And of the very fabric of reality itself!" ?
Then he uses his Wis bonus and isn't limited to 1 because the limit was applied by his heart condition which is no longer present (and thus no longer limiting.)
Thanks! My next post will include the "breakdown" and clarification of my example and your answers. Be patient, I might not have the time needed to write this right now.
Your rebuttal to EjoThims:
Yet you are the only one I know blind enough to think that the ability doesn't use your Constitution bonus.
That isn't true, but I may be one of the few willing to go toe to toe with the vocal group with your view on this issue.
Yet just before you claimed the opposite:
No Risner, RAW doesn't say that. It allows you to use your Con bonus instead of your Dex [bonus].
False, that is what you interpret it to say, but that isn't what it says.
Again I question your desire to have an actual discussion.
Armor specifically limits the max Dex bonus that can apply to AC, thus it is part of the formula for calculating the max dex bonus. [See PHB, p. 136, first paragraph]. If said bonus is replaced by another bonus, the dexterity-bonus-specific limitation naturally doesn't apply.
You can't prove that it works your way and not my way (Dex to AC power by Con) via anything in the text of the ability.
The quote has been given several times. A "Dex to AC powered by Con" interpretation is only possible if the ability would replace Dex with Con, not Dex bonus with Con bonus (which happens to be the case).
Why? Why does the same word have different meanings? Is there any possible explanation
Do you even know what you are going on about there? I sure don't know what you are saying. The same word doesn't have a different meaning.
Why is the difference between dex and dex bonus important?
It is the same (Dex and Dex bonus) and isn't important, why did you ask?
Because it has a big impact whether the Deepwarden ability replaces DEX with CON in the calculation, or whether it replaces the DEX bonus to AC with the CON bonus to AC.
Results are the same.
Armor specifically limits the max Dex bonus that can apply to AC, thus it is part of the formula for calculating the max dex bonus. [See PHB, p. 136, first paragraph]. If said bonus is replaced by another bonus, the dexterity-bonus-specific limitation naturally doesn't apply.
According to you, but you absolutely don't have any rule or text to back that interpretation up other than "you believe it is so." Belief doesn't make blank ink appear on a page.
According to you, but you absolutely don't have any rule or text to back that interpretation up other than "you believe it is so." Belief doesn't make blank ink appear on a page.
And nor do you, so give it a rest already. Both sides have their own interpretation, each a possibly valid one. Everyone has agreed on this, thus there is nothing more to discuss.
Do you even know what you are going on about there? I sure don't know what you are saying. The same word doesn't have a different meaning.
Would someone else help me with this one? EjoThims? Anyone. I don't know what I can say.
It is the same (Dex and Dex bonus) and isn't important, why did you ask?
Dex and dex bonus are not the same. Please read the PHB.
According to you, but you absolutely don't have any rule or text to back that interpretation up other than "you believe it is so." Belief doesn't make blank ink appear on a page.
Please stick to the discussion; your ramblings about beliefs and blank (!) ink do not belong here.
I've provided the location of the rules.
"Armor specifically limits the max Dex bonus that can apply to AC, thus it is part of the formula for calculating the max dex bonus. [See PHB, p. 136, first paragraph].", is what I said. Please look it up if you don't believe it.
Note that in the actual formula for determining AC (PHB, p. 134), which you refer to so much, max dex is not explicitly mentioned. Instead, the explanation referenced above explains that max dex is a limiting factor for the dex bonus in the formula. As such, max dex is part of / a restriction for the dex bonus.
Would someone else help me with this one? EjoThims? Anyone. I don't know what I can say.
Nope. I'm out until I don't have to reread my posts each day to make sure each point I made still stands intact.
So you're on your own for now.
Risner, using your argument, you can't prove that we can't prove that it is limitless. And just because you strongly believe that we can't prove it, doesn't make it true.
The cleric Willy "the Wise" (Con 18, Wis 24) has a heart disease which makes him extra vulnerable to extreme physical hardships. Whenever Willy makes a Con check to avoid damage (lethal or non-lethal), for example if starving or drowning, his Con bonus is limited to 1.
In other words, RAW:
Willy is a Cleric with a heart disease which limits his Con bonus to 1 whenever he applies it to a Con check to avoid damage (lethal or non-lethal). The disease does not affect or limit anything else but Willy's Con bonus when this is applied to a Con check made to avoid damage. If Willy had been healthy, his Con bonus to a Con check would be limited to 4, because his Con is 18 and there is absolutely nothing other than the disease affecting his Con bonus. If Willy does NOT apply his Con bonus to a Con check, his Con check is subsequently unaffected by his disease. Willy's Wis bonus is unaffected by the disease or anything else, and is only limited by his Wis score of 24.
You all agree?
While wearing this item, Willy may use his Wis bonus instead of his Con bonus whenever he rolls a Con check to avoid damage. Willy quickly identifies the item and puts it around his neck.
In other words, RAW:
The amulet replaces Willy's disease-limited Con bonus with his healthy Wis bonus whenever Willy makes a Con check to avoid damage. When using the amulet, Willy does NOT apply his Con bonus to a Con check or any factor that affects his Con bonus. Instead, Willy DOES apply his Wis bonus and any factor that affects his Wis bonus.
Willy must make a Con Check DC 10 to avoid dropping to 0 HP and becoming unconscious. The player of Willy rolls a 4 which nets him a total of...?
In other words, RAW:
The player rolls a 4 and applies Willy's Wis bonus of 7 instead of Willy's disease-limited Con bonus of 1. This nets a result of 11.
And Willy lives! Hurray!!!
Continuing:
Here, Willy is free of his heart disease. Unfortunately, the travel was all but gentle, and Willy must make a Con check DC 30. For every point he fails the check, he takes one point of nonlethal damage.
The player of Willy rolls 17, which nets him a total of...?
Here, Willy's Con bonus, when applied to Con checks to avoid damage, is not limited to 1. Instead, the normal Con bonus of 4, limited only by Willy's Con, is added whenever Willy applies his Con bonus to a Con check to avoid damage. But, as Willy is still wearing his amulet, again his Wis bonus, limited by his Wis score of 24, is added to any Con check to avoid damage, instead of his Con bonus that is now limited by his Con score of 18.
Let’s put this up in a logical chain:
A = Disease (limits X to 1)
B = Wis bonus (a constant of 7)
X = Con bonus (from Con score, w/o any modifiers)
Y = Bonus applied to Con Check
Z = Ability score (a function of B or X according to table 1:1, PH p8)
First, Willy with disease, without amulet (excluding B):
X + A = Y, or Z = 18, Y = 1
Then with disease and amulet (replacing X with B):
B + A = Y, or Z = 24, Y = 7
On the plane Feel Better (replacing X with B, excluding A):
B = Y, or Z = 24, Y = 7
And finally, if Willy removes the amulet while still on the plane Feel Better (excluding A and B):
X = Y, or Z = 18, Y = 4
Try and replace the factors with:
A = Max Dex to AC (limits X to 1)
B = Con bonus (a constant of whatever)
X = Dex bonus
Y = Ability bonus to AC
Z = Ability score (a function of B or X according to table 1:1, PH p8)
(B and X remains mutually exclusive)
DJ/tdsaw: your answers are based solely on RAW (and core rulebooks). Just as expected.
Risner: your answers include assumptions/conclusions that is not found in, the text:
He is making a Con check in this example. He is limited to 1 using either Con or Wis because he is "using Wis instead of Con whenever he rolls a Con check".
The text does not say that Willy is limited to 1 on a Con check. It says his Con bonus is limited to 1 whenever he applies his Con bonus to a Con check to avoid damage. It doesn’t say a thing about any limitations on the actual Con check.
“Whenever Willy makes a Con check to avoid damage (lethal or non-lethal), for example if starving or drowning, his Con bonus is limited to 1.”
Where does the text say his Con check is limited to 1? Where does the text say his Wis bonus is limited to 1 (if applied to a Con check)?
Now, if the item instead allowed him to make a Wisdom check whether he needs to make a Con check to avoid damage, then he would no longer need to be limited to 1.
It’s irrelevant whether he makes a Con or a Wis check, because the text does not place any limitations on any of Willy’s checks (be they Con checks, Wis checks, Jump checks or Brain checks). The text only places a limitation on Willy’s Con bonus, which in turn may/may not result in a limited check.
Let me see if I understand. He no longer has his heart condition?
So he is no longer limited to 1 on Con checks?
He still has the item that allows him to use his Wis bonus on his Con check?
Then he uses his Wis bonus and isn't limited to 1 because the limit was applied by his heart condition which is no longer present (and thus no longer limiting.)
But, shouldn’t he still be limited by his Con bonus (but now to 4 instead of 1), as before? Why does the removal of the Con bonus limitation remove your Wis bonus limitation? In the name of logic and consistency: if you say that modifiers to Con bonus when applied to Con checks should also modify Wis bonus when applied to Con checks, the Wis bonus in the above Con check is limited to 4. I mean, nowhere in the text does it say that his heart disease affects his Wis bonus. But perhaps you can show me? And explain? Please?
Enjoy!
And nor do you, so give it a rest already. Both sides have their own interpretation, each a possibly valid one. Everyone has agreed on this, thus there is nothing more to discuss.
I've agreed on that 100%, but you need to be asking Ejo/Eham to agree on that, since they do not agree with your post and continue posting.
Please stick to the discussion; your ramblings about beliefs
I'm the one rambling? No, hardly. I'm also not the only one with beliefs.
I've provided the location of the rules.
As such, max dex is part of / a restriction for the dex bonus.
Thanks for the help, that is a clear and concise posting of the evidence for my side. Nothing explicitly says you no longer need to worry about Max Dex on your bonus to AC, therefor to conclude you are somehow no longer limited when you can use your Con instead of your Dex isn't supported with a direct rules quotation. This is my whole point.
However, Tytalus has provided quotes that directly say that the CON bonus replaces the DEX bonus.
Which is exactly what I've been saying the whole time. You still are limited by Max Dex on your Con unless you can show a rule exempting you from that limitation in the AC formula in PHB p134.
If Willy does NOT apply his Con bonus to a Con check, his Con check is subsequently unaffected by his disease.
You all agree?
That is the source of your leap and is the assumption/interpretation everyone here that believes the Con is not limited by Max Dex is using to come to their conclusion. I support this interpretation, but I don't agree it is the only interpretation.
Risner: your answers include assumptions/conclusions
Agreed, but so do your basis for concluding the opposite.
I've agreed on that 100%, but you need to be asking Ejo/Eham to agree on that, since they do not agree with your post and continue posting.
Yet you continue to post, and this thread continues to hang on the edge of life via life support. Pull the plug already. You do realize that it only takes one side of the argument to stop debating and the debate dies right? If you stopped posting so would they, and vice versa. This won't end until one side of this decides to just stop posting, but it appears that neither side is going to do so because of their determination to get the last word. Seems rather childish to me.
While the deepwarden ability is arguably very powerful, it is no different than Insightful reflexes, Steadfast Determination or Force of Personality. Was it poorly thought out? Probably. Does that mean that the rules are changed? No.
Example 2: The Zen Archery Feat allows you to use your Wisdom modifier instead of Dexterity Modifier in determining ranged attack bonus. Does this mean that armor affects how insightful you are in firing your weapon if your wisdom exceeds the maximum dexterity modifier in scale mail? No. That is silly. In point in fact, I believe this to be the basis of many of the powerful Cleric/Archer builds on the CharOp forum and nobody seems to be arguing them. If an armor's max dex modifier affected Your chance to hit with a bow when using Zen Archery, then that Plate Toting Cleric Archer is going to have a hard time.
Example 2: The Zen Archery Feat allows you to use your Wisdom modifier instead of Dexterity Modifier in determining ranged attack bonus. Does this mean that armor affects how insightful you are in firing your weapon if your wisdom exceeds the maximum dexterity modifier in scale mail? No. That is silly.
Your Max Dex doesn't affect ranged attack rolls normally, only AC.
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.
That is the source of your leap and is the assumption/interpretation everyone here that believes the Con is not limited by Max Dex is using to come to their conclusion. I support this interpretation, but I don't agree it is the only interpretation.
As we're talking RAW here, how else can my text be read? My text clearly states that the disease affects his Con bonus (in certain circumstances). It never mentions that the disease has any other effect, whatsoever. How does that, RAW, create the addition:
"The limitation of the disease also applies to any other bonus that is used to make a Con check in the same circumstances."?
And if that is what the RAW might say, then why not:
"The limitation of the disease applies to any Con check in these circumstances, regardless of whether the Con check has been replaced by another type of check through magic, items, feats or similar."
If any of those two sentences had been included in my text, then I would understand you completely.
As we're talking RAW here, how else can my text be read? How does that, RAW, create the addition:
The replacement ("use Con instead of Dex") can be read one of two ways. One way agrees with your line of thinking. The other way to read that text is that you are still making a Con check, but you get to use your Wis instead of your Con. If your Con check is limited, your Wis will be limited in the same way.
"The limitation of the disease applies to any Con check in these circumstances, regardless of whether the Con check has been replaced by another type of check through magic, items, feats or similar."
I'm not 100% sure what you mean, so I will respond to the two possibiites:
1) You are saying that even if you are using a Con check, if an item allows you to make Con checks with a different stat than Con (say like your Wis ability bonus), your Con check would still be limited to 1. Isn't that what I am saying?
2) You may be instead saying this text would be required for it to operate as I said. I don't agree this is a required rules passage. The rules already cover what happens when you make Con checks. If you are making a Con check for damage as laid out in the DMG rules for the situation, there is no rule needed to be written overtly that would require it to continue if an item changed it slightly. Having a rule for this written help, but isn't required.
In essence, an undefined situation isn't something someone can claim RAW. If RAW doesn't cover how two things interact with their respective rules text, then the way they interact is dependant on the interpretations of the RAW available.
In both the Deepwarden example and your Heart Trouble example, the RAW doesn't cover these corner cases. It becomes a job of the Judge to interpret the RAW and determine what the rules say.
The replacement ("use Con instead of Dex") can be read one of two ways. One way agrees with your line of thinking. The other way to read that text is that you are still making a Con check, but you get to use your Wis instead of your Con.
So far this is what my text says, RAW (but I don't think you intended to write "Dex"... ;) ). This does in no way contradict my text (or "my line of thinking").
If your Con check is limited, your Wis will be limited in the same way.
Of course! But the text DOES NOT say that your (Willy's) Con CHECK is limited, it says your Con BONUS is limited. Two different things. If your reading (above) were to be correct, the text would say: "Whenever Willy makes a Con check, the highest number he can apply to his Con check is 1".
How is it that my text with a bonus-limitation, can be read as if it contains a check-limitation? Please answer this direct question first.
EDIT: removed less important answers/questions
Do you even know what you are going on about there? I sure don't know what you are saying. The same word doesn't have a different meaning.
Here is your reasoning:
If the rules say I use a sword instead of a club, I am using a club.
If I say I am using a sword instead of a club, I am using a sword.
We get different outcomes here. Something has to be different. If it's something other than your using different definitions for the word 'instead' for each of the seperate cases, then, please, explain that one to me.
If it is 'intead,' then you certainly are applying different definitions here.
In the first example, it's something along the lines of, "Using one thing and not another."
I'm using my sword instead of my club, so I am not using a club. We both agree that I am not using a club in this first example. I want to apply this same usage to the Deepwarden example. You do not. You wish to apply a new (totally seperate) definition. And you get to decide when that definition is applied.
In the second example, you give a definition like this: "Replacing, yet 'counting as,' for all intents and purposes, what it is replacing."
I don't know of any other possible example where this sort of definition applies. If I take the bus instead of the car, I'm not riding the car. If I eat pizza instead of chicken, I'm not eating chicken. The rules for chicken do not apply.
What scenario does your definition apply under in actual usage (which doesn't seem to exist at all, since you made it up)?
RAW shouldn't be soiled by "It doesn't say I can't" reasoning, because if you do you ruin RAW and end up with all manner of odd problems.
So everything your character can do must be explicitly stated in the RAW? Show me a quote from the PHB that allows characters to chop down trees. Nothing? I wonder why they bothered to include rules for breaking through wooden doors if carpentry is impossible in Greyhawk.
There is no interpretation. There is no need for interpretation.
Patently false since a significant number of people differ with your view.
A significant number of people believe the Earth is flat and orbited by the sun. That doesn't mean we have to take them seriously.
However, Tytalus has provided quotes that directly say that the CON bonus replaces the DEX bonus.
Which is exactly what I've been saying the whole time.
Patently false. You've been saying that he uses his Constitution score to compute his Dexterity bonus to AC. Tytalus has shown that the Dexterity bonus to AC no longer exists. Since the effect of an armor's Max Dex was accounted for while calculating the Dexterity bonus to AC, it is skipped entirely when you drop the Dexterity bonus.
Updated D&D 3.5 FAQ:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv06302008.zip
Page 31. Left Column. Bottom of Page.
Quote:
Does the deepwarden’s Stone Warden ability (RS 105)
still have a maximum Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class,
and does that maximum still apply to his Constitution?
The maximum Dexterity bonus should be treated as the
maximum ability bonus given by the armor, so if you were
playing a deepwarden wearing full plate, you would only add 1
to your Armor Class from your Constitution.
You may hate me for kicking this back to the first page, but:
Thanks for the information.
However, the issue is that the RAW do not support this reading. Also note that the FAQ (or Sage Advice) is not an errata, unfortunately, so it's not an official rule. That this interpretation is the RAI has never been disputed.
However, the issue is that the RAW do not support this reading.
That's issue #1 with it.
Issue #2 is that, if you follow the FAQ, max dex now limits all abilities modifying AC, no matter what their source.
And as you say, Ejo, it also nerves other classes, such as the Swordsage.
~Bowen
Thanks for the information.
However, the issue is that the RAW do not support this reading. Also note that the FAQ (or Sage Advice) is not an errata, unfortunately, so it's not an official rule. That this interpretation is the RAI has never been disputed.
Actually, the FAQ is considered offical Rules Text by Wizards. While the Sage is not official, the FAQ represents what Wizards considers to be "official" rulings.
Actually, the FAQ is considered offical Rules Text by Wizards. While the Sage is not official, the FAQ represents what Wizards considers to be "official" rulings.
It still can't contradict RaW, only clarify it.
It still can't contradict RaW, only clarify it.
As rules text, yes it can. If two different sources contradict each other, you refer to the latest source. In this case, the FAQ ruling is the most recent bit of rules text on the issue. While disappointing, that's the way it is.
As rules text, yes it can. If two different sources contradict each other, you refer to the latest source. In this case, the FAQ ruling is the most recent bit of rules text on the issue. While disappointing, that's the way it is.
While true for sources of the same nature, no seconday can contradict the primary rules sources. They can only clarify and add.
This is attempting to contradict the max dex rules in the PhB, though if it said to only cap any abilities that replaced dex, it would only be contradicting another secondary source, and would thus be the new RaW.
Funny how that works, the second clarifies what to do when you swap your dexterity with another ability, the first tells you that maximum dexterity really equals maximum ability.
Actually, the FAQ is considered offical Rules Text by Wizards. While the Sage is not official, the FAQ represents what Wizards considers to be "official" rulings.
I'm curious: what do you base this on?
If a changeling qualifies for deepwarden then I qualify for an African American. Sup my nikkas.
I'll ignore my initial shock at this statement, and go on the LMAO-ness that welled up in my soul immediately afterward. Consider it sigged.
Oh yeah, and
Either way, what I'd go for in a personal game is to allow the con bonus to supercede the max dex bonus. I know, it may seem crazy for someone to be joining that side of the argument, but think about it like this, shall we?
Dex to AC: in something like track clothes, you are pretty mobile. You aren't limited by your ability to dodge someone trying to punch you. You put on a bunch of steel plating, and it makes it harder to do that. You'll fumble, perhaps even fall over, but thats just cuz which one of us honestly puts on lots of metal and dances around all day?
Con to AC: you're in the same track pants, someone punches you in the chest, in my understanding, you're using your con to sort of shrug off the hit in a way, or just have your own bones/muscles act like an exoskeleton. So yes, in those track clothes, you'll be able to shrug it off, put on the steel and guess what, you still have the same physical attributes, but your ability to flex your muscles is limited? Helllz no. Anyone ever played shot for shot? bare arm or if for some reason you have a layer of your shirt over top, you still flex, and it helps the same amount.
Dex to AC, part 2: You're caught off guard, lets say by someone behind you. You can't really dodge that, can you?
Con to AC, part 2: You're caught off guard, lets say by someone behind you (sound familiar?). Well you don't have time to flex, meaning you won't be ready for the hit, meaning you don't get con to AC when flat footed.
All in all, I'm just saying that the way they put it in the original text 'does' make sense when you think about it, and yes, having your attribute to AC not limited by the armor your wearing is a big buff, but to get 'to' that ability, you first need to last for 6 levels without it, and once you finally get it, you've wasted 2 levels in the PrC that will prevent you from getting as good abilities from another one, PLUS its dwarf specific, preventing you from further things, not to mention its what dwarfs are known for.
Anyways, just a humble opinion. Maybe it will sway the argument, maybe stop it (doubt it), maybe we can all just wait till we get an official errata, and until then all just chill out with our personal house rules set out by the DM
Oh yeah, and
You are a terrible person. :P
And no, the FAQ replaces nothing. The FAQ cannot change rules at all. It can only clarify them. For the 'ruling' in the FAQ on the issue to be true would require PHB errata. Until that happens, Max Dex still only applies to Dex, not to any ability you add to AC.
IT'S ALIVE!!!
I know... Why I said I hated the guy...
It has been derailed into a discussion of FAQ validity, thought, and Risner's stubborness has yet to resurface.
As for the FAQ thing, the errata thing is set up quite clearly with regards to primary and secondary sources. The FAQ isn't a source of any kind. It would be like if I were to make up some rules changes (or clarifications as they are usually called): it would have no bearing over the actual game, other than what I could talk people into playing, but that would not be The Game, that would be Whatever I Made Up. The two are not the same.
The Game
I hate you.
:P
Show
Because we all just lost the game.
I've got totally lost in reading all 80 pages of this thread (mainly the Dex Mod arguments...)... so I was wondering..
what's the latest thoughts on the "best tank ever?" for a Whisper Gnome?
thanks!
Does the deepwarden’s Stone Warden ability (Races of Stone, pg. 105) still have a maximum Dexterity bonus to his AC, and does that maximum still apply to his Constitution?
The maximum Dexterity bonus should be treated as the maximum ability bonus given by the armor, so if you were playing a deepwarden wearing full plate. you would only add 1 to your AC from your Constitution.
So max Dex = max Con bonus in armor for Deepwarden.
one would think though that you would not suffer if using con since the armor doesnt just care about your + to AC but to your reflex rolls and such. as the armor type impedes your mobility and since con has nothing to do with mobility one would think that con should not be affected.
If you're the DM, and feel that way, you have the right to rule that way.
If you're a player, respectfully present your argument to your DM, let them decide.
There's no such thing as right or wrong, it's 100% up to your DM.
Here's my $0.02 on it;
1) For balance issues they decided "we should limit the effect that your stats have on your AC"
2) 99.9% of ACs are effected by Dex.
3) Let's call it Max Dex
If it helps you, simply rename it to "Max Stat Bonus".