Does a worn Holy Symbol take up an Item Slot?
Particle_Man
Explorer
So there is really no reason to hold a holy symbol in one's hand? It seems that wearing it frees up the hand for other things.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
More broadly, the program features are someone's interpretation of the game rules. When they get things wrong in there, it's not necessarily a bug, it's just that someone who wrote it misinterpreted the rules. So saying "character builder has a slot for holy symbols, therefore they don't require a slot" is as weak an argument as "character builder says that greatswords are free".
Majushi
First Post
Except one is a rules interpretation and the other is an error in the program.
And for that matter, the same people made both the rules and the program (Wizards)
They're interpreting their own rules.
and the argument isn't; "character builder has a slot for holy symbols, therefore they don't require a slot"
the argument is; "character builder has a seperate slot for holy symbols, thereby indicating that there is a rule stating they do not take up a neck or hand slot."
CapnZapp
Legend
Don't use the Character Builder as a rules reference. Simple huh?
Whenever it differs from the rulebooks, the rulebooks take precedence.
So, in short, mistakes happen. When it happens to the CB, it's an error, we'll notice and it gets fixed. When it happens to the rules, it's a feature, we can't know anything's wrong, and it may or may get changed later.
Whenever it differs from the rulebooks, the rulebooks take precedence.
So, in short, mistakes happen. When it happens to the CB, it's an error, we'll notice and it gets fixed. When it happens to the rules, it's a feature, we can't know anything's wrong, and it may or may get changed later.
Nail
First Post
Exactly.
As has been pointed out, the RAW specifically says Holy Symbols are worn (unlike other implements, which must be carried in your hand to function). Since the RAW does not specify where you must wear your holy sysmbol, holy symbols do not occupy one of the standard "item slots".
{EDIT} ...and what the Character Builder says is - quite frankly - irrelevant. It's not a source book, so it is literally not RAW.
At a certain level of abstraction, yes. But I really doubt that the designers and the programmers are the same individuals, or even overlap. And if there weren't a clear rule for this in the PH, I don't think I'd be comfortable taking the decision of the programmers as official, even given that they work for WOTC.
Maybe I'm just oversensitive to this. I've been struggling with this at my place of employment, where applications I designed are most employees' general interaction with certain company policies. I've found a regrettable tendency amongst the users to start treating the program as if it's the company president--as if the program determines the policy. The program implements the policy; if you don't agree with the policy, arguing with the program or the programmers is not a productive strategy. And it's perfectly possible that the policy it implements is a mistake or a bug--if there's a conflict between the written SOP and what the program allows, then it's the program that's wrong.
Anyway, the point is, the programmers could have implemented this as some kind of workaround in the absence of a printed rule. (If there weren't a printed rule.) And this can conceivably slip past QA and into production. It shouldn't happen, but it does, even at companies with very solid software development practices. And that makes me reluctant to treat the software as a definitive rules source. It's a great and useful tool, but nothing more.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Exactly christian. There will be some degree of disconnect between those writing the program and those creating the rules, so no matter the difficulty apparent in implementing a rule in the program, we cannot assume that it is correct according to the intent of the rules designers, merely that it is intended by the programmer.
Majushi
First Post
Don't get me wrong.
I'm not saying that the Builder is to be used as a rulebook.
What I am saying that the Builder should (in theory) be following the rules correctly.
If you wonder about something, you can check the Builder and see what it says.
Not once have I said that it's a replacement for cracking open a book to check the actual rules.
As for the game designers versus program designers. Of course they're not the exact same individuals.
But the programmer must take their information from the rules to make the program. Otherwise the program itself wouldn't be usable in any capacity, because it simply would not be correct.
I'm not saying that the Builder is to be used as a rulebook.
What I am saying that the Builder should (in theory) be following the rules correctly.
If you wonder about something, you can check the Builder and see what it says.
Not once have I said that it's a replacement for cracking open a book to check the actual rules.
As for the game designers versus program designers. Of course they're not the exact same individuals.
But the programmer must take their information from the rules to make the program. Otherwise the program itself wouldn't be usable in any capacity, because it simply would not be correct.
CapnZapp
Legend
Well, if you or I personally need to check something up, that's a reasonable course of action.
It's like asking your geek buddy who have memorized all the books.
However, don't bring up the CB (or your buddy!
) in rules discussions on a forum like this one. Neither source is reliable or official.Please, when referencing rules, use the rulebooks and only the rulebooks.
