Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pyk" data-source="post: 1433040" data-attributes="member: 14254">[RANT]Sorry, disrespect taken. As this is the way I define the rule as written. The inherent bonus is a permanent bonus, therefore has different properties than any temporary bonuses, therefore the adjudication of whether the inherent bonus stays with the base or not is based on this. I said:Defined, not houseruled. I use the rules as written to justify my rulings. And, guess what? The players at my table agree.Apparently, when one disagrees with how a rule works as written, then this is just a houserule? Since when? In that case, why have rules discussions at all, since we're apparently all just playing our own set of houserules.[/end rant]Right there in the DMG. Does not say the actual words as I laid them out, but it's common sense. Otherwise, by your definition, if a character received temporary Con damage, enough to be reduced to 0 and died, applying the Amulet of Health after would bring the character back to life as this would raise the Con to 4, because a Con of 0 is different from no Con at all. This would apply to any temporary bonuses applied to any ability. Permanent bonuses, no matter if it is called a bonus or not, would and should be handled differently. It is called a bonus so the stacking and capping rules can apply, and not confuse everyone.At least, the way I read them. But, everyone is free to read the rules, as written, with their own interpretation.Enough of this. I believe the rules say one thing, ya'll agree the rules say many different things. I agree to disagree with all this.Peace.</blockquote>

Verification