Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sekhmet" data-source="post: 5866581" data-attributes="member: 97602">In D&amp;D, because there is such a wide variety of explanations and items and wording variations, it is important to pay attention to the rules as written, not as implied. &nbsp;If you wanted to use this Ring of Force Shield as an example, rules as written state you get a small Wall of Force that acts as a special Heavy Shield with no encumbrance or weight. &nbsp;While it does say &quot;as if it were a Heavy Shield&quot;, and you infer that it means &quot;Shield Bonus&quot;, you would also infer that it meant you were effectively wearing armor (no Monk bonus to AC, among other things), you would also have to infer that it meant the majority of users would not be proficient with it. While it wouldn't cause any penalty to occur, it would indeed raise many other questions regarding similar such &quot;as if it were&quot; spells and items, which would then need to be reevaluated and reruled. Far better to adhere to the rules there were written, rather than the rules that were left open to interpretation. At least then, everyone is working with the same material.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sekhmet, post: 5866581, member: 97602"] In D&D, because there is such a wide variety of explanations and items and wording variations, it is important to pay attention to the rules as written, not as implied. If you wanted to use this Ring of Force Shield as an example, rules as written state you get a small Wall of Force that acts as a special Heavy Shield with no encumbrance or weight. While it does say "as if it were a Heavy Shield", and you infer that it means "Shield Bonus", you would also infer that it meant you were effectively wearing armor (no Monk bonus to AC, among other things), you would also have to infer that it meant the majority of users would not be proficient with it. While it wouldn't cause any penalty to occur, it would indeed raise many other questions regarding similar such "as if it were" spells and items, which would then need to be reevaluated and reruled. Far better to adhere to the rules there were written, rather than the rules that were left open to interpretation. At least then, everyone is working with the same material. [/QUOTE]

Verification