Monk's Belt help

[Philip]

No, I must respectfully disagree with you there. (Respectfully only because I like you personally. ) The presence of an argument does not indicate the validity of the argument. If the argument was "the monk's belt is too powerful if it grants Wis +1 AC", that would be a valid argument. But that's not the argument at hand. The argument is that the belt grants only a +1 AC bonus, which is not correct. It gives the AC bonus of a 5th level monk, which is Wis +1 AC. No amount of argument makes the other position correct.

The presence of an argument usually indicates that something is unclear. I always have a hard time that some people can think they can 'be correct' or 'right' in something, like 'the truth' is out there, when doing such requires LOTS of personal interpretation. Most of your interpretation is often so implicit and unconscious that you take it for granted, but let me assure you, it is not. When reading the D&D rulebooks you are constantly using designer intent to interpret the rules.

Point in case (for I think you will disagree), the SRD text for Monk's Belt:

This simple rope belt, when wrapped around a character’s waist, confers great ability in unarmed combat. The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher. If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the belt lets her make one additional stunning attack per day. If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk. This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus.

Where does it say that it refers to the monk class mentioned the PHB? It doesn't. It doesn't and it shouldn't, because almost everyone would assume they meant the monk class from the PHB. It does not say it explicitily, and in fact, none of the books say make statements like 'when we say monk, we mean the character class of the PHB, page x'. They assume 99.9% of the readers will get it. More often than not the writers also say something that only 99% agree on, some other times only 95% agrees on what the designer 'meant', etc. etc.

Back on topic: You say that the words 'AC bonus' refer to the paragraphs describing the class features of the monk. I think they refer to the 'AC bonus' (and also unarmed damage) mentioned in the level progression table. Both are valid interpretations.

My argument is certainly not about "the monk's belt is overpowered". For example: I had no problem at all in assuming that they actually meant for hasted people to get an extra partial action with the 3.0 haste, even though I might argue that it was overpowered. To me the rules of getting an extra partial action with haste was crystal clear, 100%. The Monk's Belt AC bonus rule to me is not that clear.

I have had a similar argument about sundering magical weapons some time ago on these boards. There I argued that even though the DMG literally said that you needed a weapon with an equal or higher enchantment bonus to damage, this was not the intention of the designers, and was IMO a result of bad editing. This I argued from the spirit of the 3.5 rules change about DR and a note found in the armor rules. People kept coming back that my standpoint was somehow invalid because the rules simply said differently. Some people just couldn't wrap their head round the fact that an actually text could be 'mistyped', 'badly worded' or 'badly edited'. They kept hammering: 'but that's what the rules say'. Then the errata come out, which said what I told people all along, and suddenly its become a non-issue among those same people.

Personally, I welcomed 3rd edition, because I hate memorizing rules, but I love remembering logic structures. 3rd edition had lots of internal logic, and made it a lot easier for me to memorize. I love the fact that I could correctly explain 90% of the Grappling rules without needing to memorize anything, because I 'understood' the grappling rules. I don't 'understand' the Monk's Belt from a internal game logic point of view, and thus favor other interpretations of the RAW as most people.

And last: as a lawyer I can assure you there is much more about rules than what the literal texts says.

 

[Seeten]

You'll note I explicitly noted that it may indeed be errata'd. The piece of equipment is basically the only one of its kind, as written. Intent is not something I am interested in divining, Phillip. According to the RAW, for the reasons I wrote, its wis +1 ac. If it gets errata, great. It looks like it needs it.

In a court of law, you can argue intent. In the RAW, you cannot.

 

[Plane Sailing]

No, I must respectfully disagree with you there. (Respectfully only because I like you personally. ) The presence of an argument does not indicate the validity of the argument.

No disagreements there! I didn't intend to imply that the presence of an argument meant it was always a valid argument. The point that I was failing to make was that the presence of an argument often indicates that a rule might be read in more than one way. Nobody debates whether fighters get d10's for their HD because that rule is crystal clear; people ask questions about and debate the finer details of overruning charging grapplers (or monks belts!) because it doesn't have that same crystal clarity.

n.b. it is interesting to see what a dramatic change they made in the monks belt between 3.0 and 3.5. In 3.0 the monks belt looked like this:

Belt, Monk’s
This simple rope belt, when wrapped around a character’s waist, confers great ability in unarmed combat. Any time the wearer engages in unarmed combat, the belt grants him or her the ability to use both hands as though the wearer possessed the Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting feats. The wearer may also make a stunning attack (as a monk) once per day. If donned by a monk, the belt grants one additional stunning attack per day and allows the monk to haste him or herself once per day for up to 10 consecutive rounds.
Caster Level: 12th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, haste, righteous might or transformation; Market Price: 9,000 gp; Weight: 1 lb.

Much less to confuse people with there! I'd love to know who made this actual change, and why.

Cheers

 

[Vurt]

In a court of law, you can argue intent. In the RAW, you cannot.

Why not? Aren't we discussing this ultimately to make our games better?

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[Caliban]

In a court of law, you can argue intent. In the RAW, you cannot.

Oh yes you can. Anyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves.

 

[Squire James]

Sure you CAN argue! In fact, that appears to be a favored pasttime for many Internet posters. It's like someone saying "I don't believe in beer!"... I assure you beer exists!

 

[Seeten]

You can argue intent, but you cant get anywhere unless you have a way to get the devs to comment directly.

 

[Seeten]

Why not? Aren't we discussing this ultimately to make our games better?

Not me, since I make rulings not based on the RAW, but based on what makes the game better. I dont personally care what the designer intended. I care about rules that make logical sense, and that have internal balance and consistency, and will happy overturn the RAW at a moments notice, on the fly, even, for a better rule, or even a better dramatic moment.

When answering rules questions that the questioner wants based on RAW, though, I'll use the text strictly.

If I were house ruling the monk's belt, here is what I'd do.

Monk's Belt: This item doesnt exist.

That problem: Solved.

 

[Philip]

In a court of law, you can argue intent. In the RAW, you cannot.

Is this a proposal to shut down the D&D Rules section of these boards?

The basis for most of the most lively discussions here is all about intent. What do the rules intend, what did the designers intend?

One things that comes to mind is shilelagh, which as Hypersmurf often points out, invalidates itself by the RAW. Mind Blank, Cleave on AoO, all good debates about intent and interpretation of the RAW, and the consequences of following a particular interpretation.

The is just no such thing as an intent and interpretation-less RAW.

 

[BAW]

Well

With the thread having moved onto philosophical and theoretical tangent I just wished to say thank you to everyone that's posted.

It's been amusing me no end as well as making me think.