Confusion in Monk's Belt

[Jack Simth]

Need I point out that a Sorcerer/Wizard loses absolutely nothing by equipping a Monk's belt, and easily gains several points of AC?

A +3 Mithral Buckler costs less, has no ACP and no ASF for when you can't really afford to load up on Quickened Shield spells, and the two are incompatible.

 

[mvincent]

Doesn't the RPGA treat all FAQ answers as canon?

Note that the RPGA ruling was made before the FAQ ruling (and was essentially given as a 'house rule' anyway... and it might have been just for Living Greyhawk). I reckon it might even be changed by now in many LG groups (now that the FAQ has provided a ruling).

 

[Caliban]

Doesn't the RPGA treat all FAQ answers as canon?

-Hyp.

All FAQ answers are canon, except that the current LGCS (Living Greyhawk Campaign Sourcebook) takes precedence. If the LGCS gives a different ruling than the FAQ, the LGCS wins.

This ruling was made before the FAQ addressed the issue, so the "official for LG" ruling technically the one in the LGCS, but it may change to match the FAQ at any time.

 

[moritheil]

But my point was that if you did put other items to the same question you would find that a great deal of the items out there would also need to be removed or changed. This item is not special or unique in that way.

Those items don't need to be removed or changed at all. The players just get screwed when they run into intelligent monsters capable of using them. Which is as it should be.

I do not mind a dungeon master making houserules in general, although there are some exceptions.

Fair enough, though this is not a houserule at all. It's an interpretation that is supported by RAW. The issue can be interpreted either way; thus, I asked the players how they'd like it handled. Heck, you admit that it's an interpretation (as is your take on it) here:

For this though I do not see any other interpretation having all that much weight. Much like I do not see a lot of weight for the interpretation that a +1 sword only gets the +1 to attack or +1 to damage but not both.

Totally misleading as well as irrelevant; neither I nor anyone else have asserted that that is a valid interpretation of a +1 enhancement bonus on a weapon. This is colloquially known as a "straw man."

Like I said though, I do not mind houserules but I do like there to be a good reason for it. Saying that the houserule is there because the item could be abused if placed into the hands of monsters

You haven't gamed with me, so I'll spell it out for you. My players made the decision that this item should be adjucated this way. What could possibly be fairer? And for some incredible reason you continue to imply that something is unfair about this.

 

[hong]

Yeah, but those items aren't in question. Said monsters (assuming they equip gear) are going to be using those to full effect regardless of what the players would like. (Do you not optimize your encounters? If you don't, you're not allowing your players a chance to really test their builds.)

Who cares about testing builds?

 

[Evilhalfling]

Its really all about the wild shaped druid. nearly anything can wear a magic belt.
my games end by 12th level, and the belt is doable for the last 3-4 levels.

 

[Slaved]

Those items don't need to be removed or changed at all.

It is the same with the monks belt.

neither I nor anyone else have asserted that that is a valid interpretation of a +1 enhancement bonus on a weapon.

I did not say that anyone did. It was phrased as an anology.

This is colloquially known as a "straw man."

You might want to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

What I said and what a strawman arguement is are actually completely different things.

You haven't gamed with me, so I'll spell it out for you. My players made the decision that this item should be adjucated this way. What could possibly be fairer? And for some incredible reason you continue to imply that something is unfair about this.

If what you said was exactly what happened then you actually threatened the players. You pulled out some creatures that would benefit from it and asked them if they would want to deal with that. It seems implied to me that you would not change the creatures challenge rating even though you changed the creatures statistics to make it tougher which further pushes the threat.

The point I was making was that if you used exactly the same threat with many other items then a lot of them would be modified or dropped as well because the very same threat still applies.

I am fine with people choosing what they will for their own games but if you are going to use Logical Premise A to ban or change something then why should someone not point out that using the same logical premise in exactly the same way would cause many other things to be banned or changed exactly the same reasons?

 

[moritheil]

It is the same with the monks belt.

But I'm not removing or changing it - I'm interpreting an ambiguously worded item.

I did not say that anyone did. It was phrased as an anology.

What I said and what a strawman arguement is are actually completely different things.

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

That is exactly what it seemed like you were doing, until you clarified. That is exactly what I meant to accuse you of. I am not in need of edification on that subject. But thank you for clarifying.

If what you said was exactly what happened then you actually threatened the players. You pulled out some creatures that would benefit from it and asked them if they would want to deal with that. It seems implied to me that you would not change the creatures challenge rating even though you changed the creatures statistics to make it tougher which further pushes the threat.

You are confusing CR with power level. Now, I know that WoTC sold CR as an estimate of power level, so it's an easy mistake to make. However, by the rules and the rules alone, CR really represents a fixed amount of resources that can be poured into making something, just as player levels represent a fixed amount of resources that can be put into making a character. What you can buy with those resources can be optimal or suboptimal. RAW, it's still the same CR as long as you follow the CR rules. If CR really was power level, you wouldn't get these truisms about dragons and demons often being more powerful than their CR.

I know some DMs like to use "handwaving CR," where they look something over and say, "This looks like a CR so-and-so to me." That's their prerogative. I don't do things that way.

And for the record, every monster I put into play has its feats and skills reworked. Of course there's no change in CR. I'm just making the monsters not suck because whoever wrote them couldn't be bothered to do it right.

Who cares about testing builds?

I do, and my players do.

 

[Slaved]

But I'm not removing or changing it - I'm interpreting an ambiguously worded item.

I am still a little lost on the ambiguity part.

That is exactly what it seemed like you were doing, until you clarified.

I do not see how, but lets drop it ok?

You are confusing CR with power level. Now, I know that WoTC sold CR as an estimate of power level, so it's an easy mistake to make. However, by the rules and the rules alone, CR really represents a fixed amount of resources that can be poured into making something, just as player levels represent a fixed amount of resources that can be put into making a character. What you can buy with those resources can be optimal or suboptimal. RAW, it's still the same CR as long as you follow the CR rules. If CR really was power level, you wouldn't get these truisms about dragons and demons often being more powerful than their CR.

If you take the monster as presented in the manual and change it in some way this can effect its challenge rating.

Some of these effects are better defined than others though. Some of them are not done very well even while defined.

If you put a creature in a situation advantageous to it you change the amount of experience that you should award. The challenge rating is not actually changed but the challenge itself was.

But if you change the creature itself then it is no longer a certainty that its new abilities leave its actual challenge rating the same.

If you were to take a hill giant, for example, and give it better armor and some magical equipment then you could easily make the challenge for fighting it much harder. It could suddenly be several points higher in the armor class department and possibly do even more damage than it does not. The same as if you had just suddenly given it +4 to all of its statistics. The creature is no longer the same as the one in the manual and so the challenge rating given is no longer appropriate.

No, challenge rating is not an exact science. It has a lot of issues in fact.

But I would still argue that by changing the creature as presented then you have a very good chance of changing its challenge rating.

And for the record, every monster I put into play has its feats and skills reworked. Of course there's no change in CR. I'm just making the monsters not suck because whoever wrote them couldn't be bothered to do it right.

This looks to me like you are saying that you change monsters to be better but that does not actually make them a tougher challenge?

You are not actually saying that right? If you are then I can only say that I disagree with your conclusion.

If you change a creatures skill focus (profession (dairy farmer)) into melee weapon mastery, since it happens to qualify for it somehow, you have definately changed the strength of that creature! We can change that hill giant around to make him a whirlwind master who trips everyone who comes within 20 feet as well, all it takes is a little boost to intelligence and changing his feats around. I would imagine that its challenge rating would be different however.

 

[javcs]

Moritheil's tweaking creatures by altering skill sets and feats don't change the CR, they might change the Encounter Level, but not the CR, CR is altered by altering stats, abilities and HD.

He's altering the creatures to make them better, but not altering the net sum of resources used to create that creature. That is what keeps CR the same, it does however alter the Encounter Level.


EDIT: By abilities, I mean special abilities/qualities not from feats or equipment, but racial characteristics or those gained from a template.