Ultimate Guide to Ambiguous/Problem Rules

[AGGEMAM]

The Sage said is attacks, if I recall correctly. Also, if I recall correctly, there is another contrary example.

You mean stacks, right? And no, he never (officially*) said that.

And, you know me, I have scanned all the books and I couldn't find any other example.



*by officially I mean anything that is published either in print or on the net. However, there are rumors of an e-mail response where he did say that. But you know rumors, and you know the Sage. Even if he did say that in one e-mail, he could come to another conclusion in another e-mail.

 

[AGGEMAM]

And just add fuel to the fire...

34. Is Mage Armor/Bracers of Armor considered armor for monks?

Since you haven't acted on this highly controversial point I'll explain the reasoning behind it.

Armor is by definition something that has an Armor Bonus, Max Dex Bonus, Armor Check Penalty, and Arcane Spell Failure. Any of those might have a value of zero.

PHB, page 223.

Mage Armor
Conjuration (Creation) [Force]
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, F
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 hour/level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of mage armor, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC. Unlike mundane armor, mage armor entails no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction. Since mage armor is made of force, incorporeal creatures can’t bypass it the way they do normal armor.
Focus: A piece of cured leather.

DMG, page 211.

Bracers of Armor
These items appear to be wrist or arm guards. They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor. Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective.
Caster Level: 7th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, mage armor, creator’s class level must be twice that of the bonus placed
in the bracers; Market Price: 1,000 gp (+1), 4,000 gp (+2), 9,000 gp (+3), 16,000 gp (+4), 25,000 gp (+5), 36,000 gp (+6), 49,000 gp (+7), or 64,000 gp (+8); Weight: 1 lb.

 

[Artoomis]

Highly controversial?

I'll be happy to add it, but I fail to see any serious controversy - those two things are not armor. Case closed.

I'll add it to the list, though.

 

[AGGEMAM]

And so did the Sage say in the D&D FAQ.

Happy April fool's day, Artoomis.



Don't bother putting on the list, although some people (myself included) believe that it should count as armor, the Sage has officially nixed it.

 

[Artoomis]

And so did the Sage say in the D&D FAQ.

Happy April fool's day, Artoomis.



Don't bother putting on the list, although some people (myself included) believe that it should count as armor, the Sage has officially nixed it.

Aaarrrggghhh!!

Man, you didn't even have to try very hard to get me, did you?

 

[Faragdar]

Artoomis,

#21) Is the text in "My Best Advice" the full text from the e-mail response from The Sage, or is that from memory?

#24) I thought the -4 to hit on the AoO was a suggestion from The Sage.

 

[cossakking]

where are the ambig rules???

it seems that it is no longer on the site so posted???

 

[IceBear]

Works for me:

http://hometown.aol.com/westronic/DnD.html

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

Artoomis,

#21) Is the text in "My Best Advice" the full text from the e-mail response from The Sage, or is that from memory?

It's more like a summary of various responses. I'm pretty certain it accurately represents the Sage's opinion. If you think I'm wrong, by all means correct me (you won't be the first).

#24) I thought the -4 to hit on the AoO was a suggestion from The Sage.

Quite right. A significant overisght, that one. I'll fix it when I get around to my next update. (Soon...)

Also, I'll try to make it clearer when I am quoting and when I am not. Say... I could use quotation marks!

Thanks.

 

[Faragdar]

It's more like a summary of various responses. I'm pretty certain it accurately represents the Sage's opinion. If you think I'm wrong, by all means correct me (you won't be the first).

No, I have no reason to think you're wrong. I just wondered because Skip Williams asked is that if Sage responses are posted on the internet, 1) he doesn't 'officially' know about it , 2) question and answer are posted in their entirety, to preserve context, and 3) they come with a disclaimer that the rulings do not appear in Sage Advice, the FAQ or any other official source and that they are subject to change. So, according to Mr. Williams' wishes, I don't want to transfer it to my archive unless it's the actual text from the original e-mail.

BTW, it was a bit of a revalation to me, but some e-mails from thesage@wizards.com are not written by Skip Williams. Dave Noonan and Dave Eckelberry help out responding to questions in The Sage's inbox. I imagine it's only from Skip if it has his "signature" at the end of the message. And he warned that folks should not take responses from The Sage as canon, as sometimes the questions are answered more or less "off the cuff". Most of the time I'm happy with responses from The Sage, but that certainly explains a few of the gaffes I've seen in the last year and a half.

#22) Check my archive: Archive - Sage Responses The Sage says tiny creatures threaten the space they are in. So he agrees that they get AoOs against anyone who shares a space with them and provokes an AoO. That would include AoOs for leaving a threatened space. Also, the rules say you threaten the area into which you can make a melee attack, and tiny and smaller creatures can certainly make melee attacks into their own space. Thus, they threaten and can make AoOs vs. opponents in the same space.