MIC: Ironward Diamond....Overpowered?

[James McMurray]

The Magic Item Compendium also lists Mithral Full Plate as a medium armor, in the very beginning of the armor section.

And the evidence mounts. LOL

 

[Mistwell]

But it doesn't! And I am getting tired of people insisting that it does.

So in your games, if a person loses a prerequisite to a prestige class they already have levels in, they do not lose any abilities of the prestige class? Because that isn't a rule in any core rulebook or errata. It is only in the Complete Warrior and books that came after that.

And while we are at it, I guess you have no swift or immediate actions in your games as well, because that too isn't in core or errata.

I am betting you DO count those rules, and hence don't actually agree with your own statement.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The Magic Item Compendium also lists Mithral Full Plate as a medium armor, in the very beginning of the armor section.

Then I think for the purpose of evaluating the behaviour of an item in the MIC - like the Greater Ironward Diamond, to pick a random example - it's sensible to consider it medium armor.

Which would mean, in this case, no GID for mithral full plate.

-Hyp.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

PS: Don't forget the other goodies that this one gets over stoneskin. Use-activation and duration of 1 day are both pretty sweet, and IMHO the effect balances out overall -- as a player, I'd happily accept a half-strength no-cost stoneskin that lasted all day, so I wouldn't have to waste an action at the start of combat.

Exactly my point. To many melee characters, this item would be a bargain at 20,000gp.

 

[glass]

lots and lots of replies

Please don't take the use of an e instead of an i as a complete reverseal of position.

I was joking. You know, toilet humour...

Races of the Wild is a 3.5 book.

Of course it is. Sorry, I was thinking of Masters of the Wild for some reason.

None the less, we still have the primary source issues: both core vs supplement and table vs text.

The Magic Item Compendium also lists Mithral Full Plate as a medium armor, in the very beginning of the armor section.

]And the evidence mounts. LOL[/QUOTE]Another supplement, which also can't override the core. It's not evidence, its a mistake.

And while we are at it, I guess you have no swift or immediate actions in your games as well, because that too isn't in core or errata.

Yes, I do. Where in the PHB does it say that swift actions don't exist? It doesn't. Where is the contradiction?

If you use swift actions, then the description of them is part of the RAW. If you don't it is irrelevant. Either way, that has no bearing on what I said.

So in your games, if a person loses a prerequisite to a prestige class they already have levels in, they do not lose any abilities of the prestige class? Because that isn't a rule in any core rulebook or errata. It is only in the Complete Warrior and books that came after that.

Again, the core is silent on what happens, so there is no contradiction. I do use the CW16 rule (more or less), but there is a reason why it is called the CW16 rule (rather than just 'the rule').

I am betting you DO count those rules, and hence don't actually agree with your own statement.

Thankfully that doesn't follow. Supplements provide their own RAW, which if you choose to use them become part of the whole of the RAW. However, they can't override the RA-already-W in the core (except in the form of an optional variant). Do you see the distinction?



glass.

 

[James McMurray]

None the less, we still have the primary source issues: both core vs supplement and table vs text.

Another supplement, which also can't override the core. It's not evidence, its a mistake.

Can you point me to the spot where the RAW declares that mithril full plate is heavy armor? If not, there's no contradiction.

 

[chaotix42]

I fail to see how we are not following the RAW - we are considering mithral full plate to be medium armor for the purposes of movement and other limitations. When something in the game is limited to being used with only certain armors, that is one of those limitations. Can a bard or warlock take the Battle Caster feat and ignore ASF in mithral full plate? I'm pretty sure they can.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, I do. Where in the PHB does it say that swift actions don't exist? It doesn't. Where is the contradiction?

If you use swift actions, then the description of them is part of the RAW. If you don't it is irrelevant. Either way, that has no bearing on what I said.

Again, the core is silent on what happens, so there is no contradiction. I do use the CW16 rule (more or less), but there is a reason why it is called the CW16 rule (rather than just 'the rule').

Thankfully that doesn't follow. Supplements provide their own RAW, which if you choose to use them become part of the whole of the RAW. However, they can't override the RA-already-W in the core (except in the form of an optional variant). Do you see the distinction?



glass.

You must think you were responding to something different than what you actually responded to.

You dismissed the FAQ, and all non-core books, for all purposes, across the board. Not just for this topic. Not just for core vs. non-core sources. But for all topics of any kind, even if non-core vs. non-core, and even if all we are talking about is a vague rule.

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

And here is your response: "But it doesn't! And I am getting tired of people insisting that it does."

Really? You are tired of people insisting that non-core publications have value of any kind? Then why are you using the Complete Warrior rule? Why are you using swift and immediate actions. Why are you even engaging in a discussion of a MIC item when in your opinion "If it's not in a core book or errata, it doesn't count"?