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="RLBURNSIDE" data-source="post: 5595212" data-attributes="member: 94650">no no noI 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.</blockquote>

Verification