Hide Expertise & Sentinel AC

[UngeheuerLich]

Barbarians and swarm druids, really.

Give it a scaling factor with tier and it would be fine. As it is, it's actively -bad- by epic, as nobody will have a bonus of less than +1.

this.

 

[knightofround]

Yeah the wording of those two features are confusing, although logically they exclude each other. I think a better way to phrase it is like this:

Sentinel: IF you are applying your Dex/Int Modifier to AC, THEN you can choose add your Con modifier to AC, INSTEAD of using your Dex/Int Modifier.

Hide Expertise: IF you are applying your Dex/Int Modifier to AC, THEN you can choose to gain +2 AC, INSTEAD of using your Dex/Int Modifier.

So that means that if you choose to use the Sentinel feature, you can't use Hide Expertise. And vice versua.

Yes, this means that that the Sentinel class feature makes Hide Expertise irrelevant. It's a silly feat to begin with because the characters who need it almost always have a class feature that compensates for not having Dex or Int. Personally I house rule the feat to give a +1 feat bonus to AC. So both Unarmored Agility and Plate Armor Specialization feats stay relevant.

 

[Gryph]

I think it's clear as is, if you aren't smoking with random hippies.

 

[Kzach]

I think it's clear as is, if you aren't smoking with random hippies.

Random hippies are a menace to society. You never know when they'll strike!

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

no no no

I don't smoke up and my logic is sound. I understand the transitive property and it doesn't apply here.

This is how I read it :
"While wearing hide armor, you can gain a +2 bonus to AC instead of using your Dexterity or Intelligence modifier to determine your AC." --> DEX or INT remain the key modifiers that would benefit your AC in general.

Similarly, Sentinel says, "While you are not wearing heavy armor, you can use your Constitution modifier in place of your Dexterity or Intelligence modifier to determine your AC."

--> Con can be used instead, but so can Dex or Int. Dex/Int didn't vanish, nor were they "swapped" per se. This is not an ability modifier swap feat, it's an ability modifier applying to your AC temporary exchange. You never lost the ability to trade in Dex or Int for something else. They still exist. It's NOT like power swap feats, at all, you do not trade in your power for another power, you agree to use one modifier instead of another, or to not use Dex Int modifiers to AC.

For Hide Expertise to prevent your Con from applying through the transitive property, it would need to read either:

A) "While wearing hide armor, you can gain a +2 bonus to AC instead of using your Dexterity or Intelligence or Constitution modifier to determine your AC."

or

B) "While wearing hide armor, you can gain a +2 bonus to AC instead of using any ability score modifier to determine your AC."


Hide Expertise prevents you ONLY from re-using DEXTERITY or INTELLIGENCE twice, to determine your AC as well as benefiting from a +2. Again, it says nothing about swapping CONSTITUTION modifier to determine your AC. "Instead of using your..." is no hindrance, if you had no intention of using it to begin with.

You're erroneously reading into the feat as stating something it isn't. You aren't swapping the use of any AC ability modifiers per se, you're suppressing the use of Dex or Int mods, specifically in the narrow case as they apply to determining your AC. The distinction is subtle, but it's there.

It's a rules loophole and they should probably plug it with B)

The mutual exclusivity idea is reminiscent of those who call copyright infringement "theft", when the two terms have very clear legal distinctions. E.g. theft deprives you of property, and benefits others mutually exlusively. On the other hand, you can make a million copies of an MP3 and literally cost nothing to the person or organization you copied it from.

Both these statements can be true at the same time:

-I am using my shiny Giant bike (Con mod) instead of my car (Dex/Int) to get to work, to save the environment and gas money.
-I agree to not use my old klunker car (Dex / Int) temporarily, in exchange I will get more exercise on the way to work. I could bike, or walk, or jog. Who knows?

I agree, you can't ride your bike AND drive your car at the same time, but this is different. You're merely trying to not drive your car twice, and benefit in a myriad number of ways from that decision. True && True && True == True. Each statement is true individually, and at the same time too. You can, literally, not benefit from Dex / Int to AC as many times as there are grains of sand on the beach.

There are two separate, untyped, benefits to not using your car (Dex / Int only), from different sources. Your car still exists, over there, in its driving lot, unused. It didn't disappear for your lack of use, or intention of use. It will even be there for you to use tomorrow if it rains. There is no reason you need to sell your car, to force yourself to ride your bike more often.

 

[bganon]

I think you're using a definition of "instead of" which is strange. It means "in place of".

You cannot gain a +2 to AC in place of adding your Dex/Int modifier to AC if you are not adding your Dex/Int modifier to AC!

Sure, your Dex and Int modifiers are still there. But if you're using Con for AC, you're not using Dex or Int for AC, and thus cannot trade such usage to gain the benefit of Hide Expertise.

More generally, "use A instead of using B" requires one to be using B to replace it with A. The wording of the feat specifically requires you to have been driving the car to switch to riding your bike.

 

[MrMyth]

I don't smoke up and my logic is sound. I understand the transitive property and it doesn't apply here.

This is how I read it :
"While wearing hide armor, you can gain a +2 bonus to AC instead of using your Dexterity or Intelligence modifier to determine your AC." --> DEX or INT remain the key modifiers that would benefit your AC in general.

Similarly, Sentinel says, "While you are not wearing heavy armor, you can use your Constitution modifier in place of your Dexterity or Intelligence modifier to determine your AC."

--> Con can be used instead, but so can Dex or Int. Dex/Int didn't vanish, nor were they "swapped" per se. This is not an ability modifier swap feat, it's an ability modifier applying to your AC temporary exchange. You never lost the ability to trade in Dex or Int for something else. They still exist. It's NOT like power swap feats, at all, you do not trade in your power for another power, you agree to use one modifier instead of another, or to not use Dex Int modifiers to AC.

You keep ignoring the terms "instead of" and "in place of". They are the relevant terms. As you say, you agree to use one modifier instead of another. You can't then use something else also instead of the first option, and suddenly be using both replacements at the same time.

Just to confirm - I noted above that, by your logic, someone with Melee Training (Charisma) and Combat Virtuoso would get to add Charisma twice on attacks with a dilettante melee basic attack power. Do you really believe this to be the case?

You're erroneously reading into the feat as stating something it isn't. You aren't swapping the use of any AC ability modifiers per se, you're suppressing the use of Dex or Int mods, specifically in the narrow case as they apply to determining your AC. The distinction is subtle, but it's there.

"Instead of" and "In place of" refers, yes, to swapping, the use. If it was simply suppressing the use of Dex or Int mods, then it would say so.

It's a rules loophole and they should probably plug it

It's not a loophole - both by the obvious intent and the strict wording, what you propose is not allowed by the rules.

I agree, you can't ride your bike AND drive your car at the same time, but this is different. You're merely trying to not drive your car twice, and benefit in a myriad number of ways from that decision. True && True && True == True. Each statement is true individually, and at the same time too. You can, literally, not benefit from Dex / Int to AC as many times as there are grains of sand on the beach.

Not by any logically sound process. Again, you are ignoring the fact that the options are not worded the way you are describing them. They don't say, "If you choose to not benefit from Dex or Int, you can get +2 to AC" and "If you choose to not benefit from Dex or Int, you can add Con to AC."

They, instead, refer to using gaining those benefits in place of the use of Dex or Int. You can choose with to replace them with, but you can't choose both.

There are two separate, untyped, benefits to not using your car (Dex / Int only), from different sources. Your car still exists, over there, in its driving lot, unused. It didn't disappear for your lack of use, or intention of use. It will even be there for you to use tomorrow if it rains. There is no reason you need to sell your car, to force yourself to ride your bike more often.

You are correct that you can always choose which option is in effect. You can choose to use Dex or Int, you can choose to use Con, or you can choose to just gain a flat +2.

You own a car, as well as a station wagon and a truck. You can drive the station wagon instead of the car. You can drive the truck instead of the car. Any given day, you can choose from all of these options.

But you can't stack these vehicles on top of each other and drive several of them at the same time.

 

[Neonchameleon]

[MENTION=94650]RLBURNSIDE[/MENTION], the word you are continually ignoring is the word "instead". Using dictionary.com, the primary meaning is below:

Instead
as a substitute or replacement; in the place or stead of someone or something: We ordered tea but were served coffee instead.


You have already replaced your Dex/Int with your Con. You can not replace your Dex/Int with +2 because it has already been replaced.