Regarding Periapts of Wisdom, Headbands of Intellect, and Cloaks of Charisma

[Jhaelen]

1) As you may know, a lot of people (including me) think the FAQ's rulings are crap. At the very least, they are not RAW.

Yep, however, there's also a lot of people (including me and _maybe_ including the OPs DM) that consider the FAQ being just as good as RAW.

I think the best approach for a player is to gather all available evidence pointing one way or the other and present it to the DM to decide.

 

[Dandu]

Yep, however, there's also a lot of people (including me and _maybe_ including the OPs DM) that consider the FAQ being just as good as RAW.

What about when the FAQ contradicts itself?

 

[irdeggman]

What about when the FAQ contradicts itself?

Go with Jhaelen's 2nd sentence.

I think the best approach for a player is to gather all available evidence pointing one way or the other and present it to the DM to decide.

Which is what I do. I look for a preponderance of evidence and always try to not rely on a single source.

If, as in this case, I can't find something that contradicts it - then that is what I use.

But regardless - it is always up to the DM as to how he/she rules on things - regardless of whether or not they are RAW. Every game is different, that is part of the reason why D&D has lasted so long.

 

[Sil]

I go with the "Persistence Theorem". (Bonuses have a persistent memory) Only because it solves other problems like a player casting all spells, and then removing and replacing the item. The slots, or really any and every losable advantage, has a memory of how it was used. This also stops night stick abuse and other potential abuses.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I go with the "Persistence Theorem". (Bonuses have a persistent memory) Only because it solves other problems like a player casting all spells, and then removing and replacing the item. The slots, or really any and every losable advantage, has a memory of how it was used. This also stops night stick abuse and other potential abuses.

I stop Night Stick abuse by banning Night Sticks.

If any player tried to abuse how i rule with regards to the stat boosters and bonus spells by using up the spells it grants and then putting on something more useful, I'd handle it the same way I handle most abuses of basic kindness: talk to him out of game and tell him to knock it off or I'll drop Texas on his character. That said, considering the int/wis/cha items are also adding to save DCs when you cast, I don't see it being a common issue for those items that players would actually switch them out mid day anyway. Swapping between 5 different Healing Belts (for example) would be far more common a rules abuse.

 

[irdeggman]

I go with the "Persistence Theorem". (Bonuses have a persistent memory) Only because it solves other problems like a player casting all spells, and then removing and replacing the item. The slots, or really any and every losable advantage, has a memory of how it was used. This also stops night stick abuse and other potential abuses.

You still only get "spells per day" - it will not matter how many times you get a stat boost.

All spells must have a rested mind and a certain type of preparation (albeit only resting).

But no matter how much you "re-rest" or "re-pray" you still only get a certain number of spells per day.