Defenders of the Faith question

[Artoomis]

Originally posted by reapersaurus
Anubis - A&EG is not DotF.

It only contains the corrected version, but if you are going to be anal about it, you can not have a competance bonus to a ability score, DMG, 3.0.

Otherwise it is a very broken power, because it is an item which gives a +4 boost to an ability score, on top of the other power (the bonus to fear saves), for half the cost of a +4 booster item (a "+2 enchantment" being equivalent to 4000gp, since the armor need to have at least +1 itself then it costs 9000gp, a +4 stat booster costs 16,000gp minimum, doesn't grant protection like armor, and has no bonus to fear saves).

- Ma'at

It is a power that should not be a +2 power in any case - it should be a fixed price.

That's because it's cost varies according to what else is on the armor. I don't think that makes sense for this sort of power.

Using the +2 cost:

Base weapon at at +1, this power costs 8,000, 1/2 of a stat boosting item.

At +2 it costs 12,000

At +3, it costs 16,000

At +4 it costs 20,000, MORE than a stat boosting item.

At +5, 24,000

At +6 28,000

At +7, 32,000, TWICE the cost of a stat boosting item.

I see no problem whatsoever in running it BOTH ways, just price it accordingly.

For the bonuses to checks only, it should be +21,000 gp (based upon Breastplate of Command, backing out the price of +2 Breatsplate). (It could also be a +3 bonus, as this prices out correctly)

For a bonus to Charisma I'd call it +32,000, twice the normal cost because it's stackable. Or, perhaps, call it a +4 bonus, which seems to price out about right (+24,000 at +1, + 40,000 at +3)

Note that the Breastplate of Command went UP 3,800 in 3.5e. I'd say that probably invalidates the DotF AND A&E entries for Command ability.

 

[LokiDR]

Note that the Breastplate of Command went UP 3,800 in 3.5e. I'd say that probably invalidates the DotF AND A&E entries for Command ability.

The unique item has a greater range and general effect than the general enhancement.

 

[Artoomis]

The unique item has a greater range and general effect than the general enhancement.

But it's only +2 instead of +4.

 

[drnuncheon]

Anubis - A&EG is not DotF.

I was under the impression that WOTC's errata policy is 'if we issue a book with another [thing] that has the same name, that new [thing] is the correct and errataed version."

Is it a silly way to do errata? Yes. But them's the rules if you're talking "official".

J

 

[LokiDR]

I was under the impression that WOTC's errata policy is 'if we issue a book with another [thing] that has the same name, that new [thing] is the correct and errataed version."

Is it a silly way to do errata? Yes. But them's the rules if you're talking "official".

J

Do you have a source on that statement? I could put this to rest once and for all.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do you have a source on that statement? I could put this to rest once and for all.

From memory, doesn't the Song and Silence Expert Tactician writeup have a note "this version supercedes the one published in Sword and Fist"?

If WotC had an official policy that later publication always supercedes, that note wouldn't be necessary...

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

It's an obvious typo in the original armor ability. Either reprice it the way Artoomis suggests or play it the way it was obviously meant to be played.

 

[LokiDR]

From memory, doesn't the Song and Silence Expert Tactician writeup have a note "this version supercedes the one published in Sword and Fist"?

If WotC had an official policy that later publication always supercedes, that note wouldn't be necessary...

-Hyp.

Well, there goes that theory.

It's an obvious typo in the original armor ability. Either reprice it the way Artoomis suggests or play it the way it was obviously meant to be played.

If it was obvious, why didn't it show up in the errata or FAQ?

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Why would they publish something, publish it again with different values, and _not_ intend for the new version to replace the old?

And as has been said before, a 'competence bonus' only ever applies to skills.

 

[The Souljourner]

Loki is just being ornery. Obviously the later publishing of the exact same ability overrides any earlier publishings, especially in cases such as this when the original ability is badly worded and too open to interpretation.

Just because it's not in the FAQ or errata doesn't mean it's not wrong.

-The Souljourner