Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawken" data-source="post: 3067251" data-attributes="member: 23619">No, it's not. It was an example I used to illustrate a point. Nothing more. You're trying to sidetrack away from the point I made. My example has nothing to do with DMs. You're putting DMs into the mix to try to invalidate one of my examples, which doesn't work. As many DMs would allow it as not, if not more. Also, keep in mind that the things in the back of the DMG, like everything else in the DMG (and PHB, and MM I-IV, etc.) are ALL guidelines. Magic Item creation rules, costs, etc. are as much rules as anything else in the PHB or DMG. You are trying to make them appear as optional. They are no more or less optional than the abilities a Druid or Rogue get at each level, or effects of spells that are cast or the damage done by an attack with a longsword. And of course a Shield Cloak provides access to a spell most characters cannot have. That is what ALL magic items do! And don't bring DMG costs into it. You know as well as everyone else that the prices listed there do not make any sense or have any logic to them and they more often than not do not even follow the pricing formula. If you want to make it cost 20,000gp, you go right ahead and see if you can convince your players that you're not insane.  Again, you're trying to detract from my example by saying it cannot be done. In your game, obviously not. However, as I have mentioned, as many DMs are open to new things as there are ones that shun creativity and cling to the items listed in the DMG and PHB as if that is all there is. Nowhere did I say anything about a player telling a DM what to do or allow. Nor did I mention anything about a player winning any argument with a DM. Once again, you are trying to make your position seem better by inserting things I did not mention and going off on tangents that were never brought up. As for your 'second place', it is your assumption and your interpretation of the core rules what they presume. Don't try to enforce your ideas on me and my arguments, they don't apply. I'm not one of your players and I am not bound by your assumptions or interpretations and what happens in your campaign is immaterial and irrelevant to my point of view and any examples I make to support my points of view. If you want to charge your players more for doing something they should be able to do already, fine, the loss is theirs if they go along with your rules.  I made no assumptions. I made an argument and posted valid information that supported my position. You can believe my argument (again, I made no assumptions) is unreasonable all you want, but if you're going to use my argument, you use all of it, not picking and choosing what you want and expressing it as though it were my idea and not your alteration. Also, a 20 in any ability score may be high compared to a 10 being average, but it is hardly a game or even world breaking event. Elves can have 20 Dex at 1st level, as can Halflings, Half-Orcs can have a 20 Str, Dwarves a 20 Con, etc. That hardly disrupts a game and with a 1st level range of 4-17 hit points where a single critical hit (or even a few weak hits) can kill that person with the 20 stat, it is something that is even far less disruptive than you make it out to be. Again, if you do not allow your players to have 20s or think that they somehow overpower a game, that's fine as long as your players are fine with you cheating them out of some fun in the game and not letting them do what the RAW allows them to do. And rules of engagement assume both parties agree to them. Again, you just assumed I'd agree. Initially, there was no such rule. You posted something. I challenged it and then you tried to break down my point using your own assumptions. And while you may think an elite array is powerful (borderline too powerful from your posted reaction to a single score of 20), I disagree and have seen players in my games consistently roll better enough that the 'elite' array is rather mundane in comparison.  Munchkinism is the word, I think. And I wasn't talking about twinking out AC either. I just used an example that I came up with off the top of my head. Anyone with enough time and research could come up with much better, as could I, but that wasn't my intention. And, NO, you weren't talking about character builds either. Your premise was that someone in +5 full plate and +5 shield was spending less and getting more out of his armor than someone with Bracers of Armor +8. I posited an example of how your statement was not correct. It had nothing to do with character builds. Your statement about most wizards is also fallible and cannot be proven. It should actually be most wizards you could imagine. You're not speaking for everyone else playing a wizard in D&D, so don't try to come across like you are. And with AC being a direct link between a long life and a short one for the wizard, I believe that there are many that would invest in something unconventional to boost their AC. If you would rather not trade a caster level, that's fine, for you, don't assume anyone else agrees with you.  No, it didn't because I didn't posit what the character's levels were in the example I used. And from 1 to 20, there are many ways to get an 18. You just assumed--again. I will agree with you that most characters do not start play with two 18s, although instances of characters having an 18 and a 16, and a +2 bonus to make the 16 a second 18 are more frequent than just having two rolled 18s. Again, your inserting your own assumptions that this is a 'starting' score, and you're applying your standards of what a high powered campaign is to the example I submitted. Neither of which have any place or validity in my example. It wasn't about campaigns and their power levels, it was about proving that your statement was not entirely true. And if you want to give Armor Guy two 18s, go ahead. In neither of your examples would Armor Guy benefit from a Dex higher than 10, and if you take a similar tack and give an example of Armor Guy using one of those 18s to increase his AC (as the Monk class could do), then you are only supporting my point.  Sacrifice is your word, not mine. I don't view multi-classing as a sacrifice. It is not. Sacrifice implies a loss. Multi-classing is not a loss but a trade. The exact value of that trade can only be determined by the person making the trade. And it wouldn't be missing out on higher level spells. You make it sound as if multi-class wizards won't ever get their high level spells. They may not get it as soon as a wizard that does not multi-class, but they still get it, and the extra HP or AC or saves or whatever from multi-classing could easily mean the difference between gaining a level and gaining a newly chiseled tombstone. And as for what I play (and even how), anything you say is just a guess or yet another of your seemingly endless assumptions (as is assuming most spellcasters are loathe to multi-class). Aside from my example, there are plenty of prestige classes that result in a lower spellcasting level anyway and there are still plenty of players that take those classes for their character.  Anyone could debate that to the end of time. And not all 9th level spells allow the wizard to kill everyone around him. Actually none of them do unless he finds himself surrounded by low level people alot. And I never stated it was 'chump-change', again, stop putting words in my mouth. If a character gets more use out of another class's abilities, then yes, it does mean they are more effective in accomplishing the wizard's goals.  No, I'm not assuming--that's your bag. I stated. My example, I stated it. Period. And even if, using my example, Bracer Guy didn't have a Shield Cloak (for lack of a better name), his AC would still come out to 41, which is still better than Armor Guy's AC.  Indirectly it does. An enemy with a much higher AC, is more dangerous than a similar enemy with a lower AC. Higher AC = harder to hit = harder to hurt = harder to kill = more dangerous than an enemy with similar power but lower AC.  What's there to concede? The point is not debatable nor open to (mis)interpretation. The PHB states in an extremely clear manner, "...the Monk adds her Wisdom bonus...to her AC. In addition, the Monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level...," and it goes on to say that the 5th level bonus increases at 10th, 15th, and 20th. It is not possible for that to be any more clear. Monks get a Wisdom bonus to AC and a level based bonus to AC. If you've never seen it used that way then you either have not played a monk, played with someone else playing a monk or you've never learned to accurately and correctly establish their AC or witness it accurately and correctly established. As for the rest, make all the examples you want. I've stated my point. I defended my point against each of your arguments and negated your assumptions and other flaws either in your own reasoning against my point or your attempts to make my point appear invalid through flawed interpretation of my point.</blockquote>

Verification