Magic Vestment

[Mike Sullivan]

There are lots of different bonus types, most of which do not stack with themselves. Non-epic armor is limited to a +5 enhancement bonus to AC. This is clearly written in the rules. However, a suit of armor with a +5 enhancement bonus, a +5 deflection bonus, and a +5 luck bonus, all to AC, still has only a +5 enhancement bonus. Therefore, even with a total of +15 to AC, it does not violate the rules.

Dude, I don't need a lecture on how D&D stacking rules work.

That is simple fact, and I think the intent of the spell is quite clear in that it is not meant to violate the rules in such a poorly worded manner, rather it is meant to remind you of them. It just so happens that it failed pitifully.

I don't argue intent, because, first, it's impossible to take a well-supported opinion on, and, second, why should I care what the designer's intent is?

My intent is that the "no stacking beyond +5" rule is stupid, and I'd ignore it (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) in my games. I note, as a matter of academic interest, that by the unambiguous (whether intentional or no) phrasing of the rules of Magic Vestment, the only supported reading of those rules is that it will not stack past +5 with any kind of bonus, enhancement or no.

I don't advocate that anybody follow that rule. Nor do I advocate that anybody not follow that rule, because what y'all do in your own games is really a big pile of None of My Business.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There are lots of different bonus types, most of which do not stack with themselves. Non-epic armor is limited to a +5 enhancement bonus to AC. This is clearly written in the rules.

I'm just going to clear my throat, muse "So what about Divine Shield, then?" in whimsical fashion, and then sit back and eat my popcorn

-Hyp.

 

[kreynolds]

I'm just going to clear my throat, muse "So what about Divine Shield, then?" in whimsical fashion, and then sit back and eat my popcorn

Sorry to interrupt your popcorn , but where is that spell from? DotF?

 

[kreynolds]

Dude, I don't need a lecture on how D&D stacking rules work.

My intention wasn't to give you a lecture. My intention was to provide a simple rebuttal. There's no reason to get upset about it.

I don't argue intent, because, first, it's impossible to take a well-supported opinion on...

So far, my argument of intent is heavily supported by the rules, at least, it is from my point of view.

...and, second, why should I care what the designer's intent is?

Because the point of a discussion is to get the input of others thoughts on the matter? It makes me wonder if you may not be interested in anyone's thoughts on the subject beside your own, even those that designed the rules themselves. If that's the case, why are you here?

My intent is that the "no stacking beyond +5" rule is stupid...

Well, that's the rule. Nonepic armor simply can't have an enhancement bonus beyond +5 (unless its an artifact, of course).

...and I'd ignore it (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) in my games.

That's fine, but that would be a house rule, and not applicable to the discussion at hand.

I note, as a matter of academic interest, that by the unambiguous (whether intentional or no) phrasing of the rules of Magic Vestment, the only supported reading of those rules is that it will not stack past +5 with any kind of bonus, enhancement or no.

I know what you note. I just disagree with you.

I don't advocate that anybody follow that rule. Nor do I advocate that anybody not follow that rule, because what y'all do in your own games is really a big pile of None of My Business.

Of course. I understand that. But we aren't talking about anyone's particular games. We're just talking about the rules here.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sorry to interrupt your popcorn , but where is that spell from? DotF?

It's a feat from DotF.

Spend a turn attempt to give your shield an enhancement bonus equal to your Cha bonus for a number of rounds equal to your Cha modifier.

So with a 22 Cha, some people argue that you can break the +5 cap on enhancement bonuses.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

At this point I'm agreeing with JChung and Mike Sullivan. This is one of those frustrating cases where the precise wording is actually very specific and clear, but such an odd exception to the normal rules that no one wants to believe what it actually says. It's entirely explicit that this particular language is placing a limit on how its enhancement bonuses combines with other, non-enhancement bonuses (an exceptional case outside of normal stacking rules).

There's some history to back this up, because the original AD&D 1st Ed. Magical Vestment spell (Unearthed Arcana p. 36) in fact failed to function if armor was being worn, and only worked on normal clothes. It's at least conceivable that the designers did this intentionally, mostly keeping the tradition but opening it up to a low-level of armor stacking as well (up through light armor).

I agree that this is a pretty poor way of getting it done. Ideally it should be a straight armor bonus applied only to normal clothes (if keeping tradition), or a straight enhancement bonus following normal stacking rules (if making it purely 3rd Ed.).

 

[dcollins]

Re: old religious texts

I haven't found it yet, but I wouldn't be surprised it there was a heated thread here somewhere whose whole basis was a misplaced comma ...

As an aside, the best example of this is probably the bless weapon debate... "is the '+1' attached to both 'and' clauses or just the last one?". This required a ruling in the last FAQ on how to parse the conjunction in a single sentence.

 

[kramis]

Re: Re: old religious texts

Well, I take comfort in the fact that my argument leans towards intent then.

They're not about misplaced commas, but find the threads about Mind Blank protecting against True Strike. Those are frickin' hysterical.

Man, you weren't kidding. Unbelievable. That bless thing is hysterical too.

You know these boards use to actually be mostly useful ... about one or two years ago? I don't remember exactly ... I do remember being away from them for a little while and then coming back and the entire character of all the discussions had changed dramatically. It went from being a useful discussion about the rules and HOW TO APPLY THEM to nitpicking over how to parse conjunctions.

Now if you try and actually apply a rule and the commas and "ands" don't line up you are banished to the House Rules forum, which isn't quite the same thing.

Maybe we need a new forum? The House Rules can stay what it is, a place where people make up DRASTICALLY NEW RULES, and then this forum can be separated into two forums. The Rules Laywer forum, where everyone can argue about the commas and conjunctions to their hearts content, and the Advice on Playing the Game Mostly by the Letter of Rules forum where people who are confused about some seemingly ambiguous or just lame rules can get useful suggestions on how to apply it in their campaigns.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: old religious texts

That bless thing is hysterical too.

The "bless thing" isn't a good example of your complaint.

It's not just a grammatical debate. It's not a "Well, I'm sure they meant to say this, but the wording doesn't support it" like several, admittedly, are.

People's opinions differ as to whether a 1st level spell should bypass DR 30/+5. Those who believe it should can point to the wording. Those who believe it shouldn't... can point to the wording.

It's not a grammatical argument; it's an argument over the power of the spell, which the wording fails to answer.

It's like the Boccob's Blessed Book arguments

-Hyp.

 

[kramis]

Re: Re: Re: Re: old religious texts

The "bless thing" isn't a good example of your complaint.

It's not just a grammatical debate. It's not a "Well, I'm sure they meant to say this, but the wording doesn't support it" like several, admittedly, are.

People's opinions differ as to whether a 1st level spell should bypass DR 30/+5. Those who believe it should can point to the wording. Those who believe it shouldn't... can point to the wording.

It's not a grammatical argument; it's an argument over the power of the spell, which the wording fails to answer.

It's like the Boccob's Blessed Book arguments

-Hyp.

This is a perfect example of my more general point. What the thread should be about with regard to this is "in my campaign we play it this way and it seems ok" and then someone says "we tried it this way in our campaign, but it seemed a little overpowered so we changed it after a while", then someone could ask "do you play a more plot based or fighting based campaign" and voila! actual useful information has been exchanged and someone reading the thread wondering how they should use the spell in their game has a good resource for helping them make that decision for the enjoyment of all involved.

"Should" is completely stupid in non-tournament games, it's meaningless. People play different styles of games ... some people play 26 point buy characters and some play 38, some people find +3 swords at first level and like it just fine, others have trouble getting a +1 by 5th.

Some guy on one of these posts said something really cool (and really pissed off all the rules lawyers) ... he said ALL the rules in a rollplaying game are intended as guidelines.

The big advantage I see with getting some sort of "official" ruling on a quibble is that some players are more comfortable if the DM can say "well, it's a rule, that's the way it is" in regard to something that negatively effects them ... this way they don't feel like the DM is picking on them or anything. And sometimes the situation is so confusing you don't want to spend the time to sort out some house rule when someone else has already tried several variations on it and there's plenty of good advice to get.