MIC: Ironward Diamond....Overpowered?

[Mistwell]

Yeah I am also getting tired of the "If it's not in a core book or errata, it doesn't count" response.

We are discussing an item in a new book. The book is not a core book. If the FAQ isn't official, then neither is this item. If this item is official, then so is the FAQ. We are fortunate to be playing in a game that is actively supported with a FAQ. We can discuss when the FAQ is clearly contradictory to a core rule, but in this case it isn't clear (because the core rule is vague). I really wish everyones default would be to agree with the FAQ unless there is a clear contradiction. If it's a vague rule, and the FAQ settles the vagueness, we should go with the FAQ. There should be a presumption that the FAQ is correct on a given ruling until proven otherwise, and not the other way around.

 

[Stalker0]

I really wish everyones default would be to agree with the FAQ unless there is a clear contradiction. If it's a vague rule, and the FAQ settles the vagueness, we should go with the FAQ. There should be a presumption that the FAQ is correct on a given ruling until proven otherwise, and not the other way around.

Amen!! If the FAQ comes out with something blatantly wrong, the rule bloodhounds on these boards will sniff it out within 2 days of it coming out. But for a situation that is vague, I think it makes more sense to trust in something created by the people who made the game then just toss it out as irrelevant.

 

[James McMurray]

Amen!! If the FAQ comes out with something blatantly wrong, the rule bloodhounds on these boards will sniff it out within 2 minutes of it coming out.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Deset Gled]

LOL, another "Sure, WotC added it to the official FAQ, as their official response to a frequently asked question, but it's not really official" post.

Yeah I am also getting tired of the "If it's not in a core book or errata, it doesn't count" response.

This arguement would probably work a lot better if the FAQ didn't specifically say that it was not giving a hard answer in this case. The FAQ was, by it's own admission, merely stating one possible interpretation.

 

[Mistwell]

This arguement would probably work a lot better if the FAQ didn't specifically say that it was not giving a hard answer in this case. The FAQ was, by it's own admission, merely stating one possible interpretation.

The FAQ says it is:

1) The simplest answer;
2) The answer that the Sage expects most players and DMs use;
3) A reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rule;
4) An interpretation supported by a number of precedents, including the descriptions of various
specific mithral armors described on page 220 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide and a variety of NPC stat blocks.

Baring clear evidence to the contrary, we should just go with this intepretation of a vague rule.

 

[KarinsDad]

The FAQ says it is:

1) The simplest answer;
2) The answer that the Sage expects most players and DMs use;
3) A reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rule;
4) An interpretation supported by a number of precedents, including the descriptions of various
specific mithral armors described on page 220 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide and a variety of NPC stat blocks.

1 is probable
2 is irrelevant
3 is reasonable
4 is not supportable (the alternative interpretation is supported by those examples as well)

and

5 Not what the DMG says

Effectively what the FAQ is saying is that it is making a slight adjustment to the DMG rules for the following reasons, the most important of which the author did not even list. The most important reason is so that people consider it medium armor in order to quickly adjudicate armor limitation questions.

Baring clear evidence to the contrary, we should just go with this intepretation of a vague rule.

I do not disagree given a FAQ ruling. I just happen to think that this interpretation is not what RAW states. It is, however, a ruling that makes adjudication consistent.

And, original RAW does not seem that vague (until the diamond question came up). Sure, someone asked the Sage about it for other reasons, but were you really confused about any aspect of it before then?

 

[James McMurray]

Nope, and I wasn't confused by any aspect of it afterwards either.

 

[James McMurray]

I will ask a third time though, after which I give up: do you have anything beyond your admitted adding of a phrase that doesn't exist which backs your claim that "limitations" only means "limitations naturally inherent to heavy armor"?

 

[IcyCool]

Yeah I am also getting tired of the "If it's not in a core book or errata, it doesn't count" response.

Wouldn't it make sense to lobby for WotC to remove the primary source rule rather than get frustrated with the people who are trying to follow the rule?

Baring clear evidence to the contrary, we should just go with this intepretation of a vague rule.

Why? If I'm playing by the rules, and this rule is vague (with no official errata), are my own judgements not to be trusted? Why is the Sage's house rule any better than mine?

 

[Mistwell]

Wouldn't it make sense to lobby for WotC to remove the primary source rule rather than get frustrated with the people who are trying to follow the rule?

We are talking about a vague rule. No need to be obtuse about it.

Why? If I'm playing by the rules, and this rule is vague (with no official errata), are my own judgements not to be trusted? Why is the Sage's house rule any better than mine?

Your own judgement is definitely to be trusted for your game. But I think if the question is "what is the official rule on this question" then the answer should be the FAQ instead of your own judgement unless there are two CLEAR (not vague) official rules that also clearly (not vaguely) contradict each other.

In this case, the sage is not offerring a house rule in my opinion. I understand that KarinsDad has taken "not what the DMG says" to mean "not what the DMG means", but I disagree on that count. The DMG says something vague, and that is what I think was meant by the "not what the DMG says". I do not think "not what the DMG says" meant "I am intentionally contradicting what the DMG says". Do you?