MIC: Ironward Diamond....Overpowered?

[Hypersmurf]

If one were to write a computer program to handle mithral armor, one would list all of the limitations of full plate armor and adjust those limitations accordingly when applying mithral.

Would one?

I'd write a list of all the limitations of heavy armor, and a list of all the limitations of medium armor, and switch the armor from looking at the first list to looking at the second list.

Since it stops being treated as heavy armor for the purpose of limitations (so the first list is no longer relevant), and starts being treated as medium armor for the purpose of limitations, only the limitations of medium armor are relevant. And one of the limitations of medium armor is that the Greater Ironward Diamond doesn't work.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

I'd just typecast the limitations object to Heavy instead of Medium and avoid the need for pointers altogether.

 

[IcyCool]

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

That certainly seems like a non-answer. Maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying though. The Errata is separate from the FAQ, and WotC themselves tell us to value the Errata and primary source over other sources (of which the FAQ would be one).

I don't understand the obtuse comment. From my understanding of the definitions of the word, you are either calling me "an angle between 90 to 180 degrees", "rounded at the tip", or insulting me. If it is one of the first two, could you explain what you meant?

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.

Well, if the FAQ is the primary source for the rule, then most certainly it should be used. Otherwise it is merely the "official clarification", which may or may not be useful to some folks. In some cases, it's highly useful. In others, where the FAQ calls out that it is merely making an educated recommendation, it may be less useful.

YMMV, as always.

Edit - Btw, I believe that the armor table in Races of the Wild includes mithril armor on it, and each of the mithril armors is listed under the category one lower than it's normal type (mithril plate is listed under medium armor, etc). So if you are looking for a hard and fast rule on it, that might be a stronger approach.

Edit, the second - Yep, it's on page 168 in Races of the Wild. Of course, Skip Williams was a major contributor to that book, so those who dislike him personally still might not listen to you.

 

[KarinsDad]

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"?

My exact words were "limitations of wearing heavy armor".

Do you have anything to back up an interpretation that "limitations" means "any limitations in the entire game system"?

 

[James McMurray]

That certainly seems like a non-answer. Maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying though.

I believe the point was that primary source rules can't apply when asking a question that isn't clearly answered by the primary source.

 

[IcyCool]

My exact words were "limitations of wearing heavy armor".

Do you have anything to back up an interpretation that "limitations" means "any limitations in the entire game system"?

KarinsDad, if you take the Armor chart on page 168 of Races of the Wild into account, does that change anything for you?

Edit:

I believe the point was that primary source rules can't apply when asking a question that isn't clearly answered by the primary source.

I agree with this statement.

However, my comment (the one that Mistwell quoted) was in reference to Mistwell's "frustrated with people who dismiss the FAQ" comment.

 

[Mistwell]

That certainly seems like a non-answer. Maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying though. The Errata is separate from the FAQ, and WotC themselves tell us to value the Errata and primary source over other sources (of which the FAQ would be one).

I think you are being intentionally obtuse, as in intentionally not getting it. You know a core rules and primary sources argument is only useful if those rules are not vague, but clear. If there is a question about those rules, you go to the FAQ. Which is why it is a subject that needs clarification. That's the purpose of turning to a frequently asked questions list - it's something that has raised a question often, and could use clarification.

If the core rules primary source arguement were valid in these kinds of cases, you would never, EVER, be able to refer to the FAQ.

I don't understand the obtuse comment. From my understanding of the definitions of the word, you are either calling me "an angle between 90 to 180 degrees", "rounded at the tip", or insulting me. If it is one of the first two, could you explain what you meant?

Perfect example of what I mean when I say you are being intentionally obtuse. You know I am not calling you an angle. I was not insulting you, just pointing out I think you are intentionally not discussing the issue at hand to be cutesey about it. Much like the "angle" comment you just made - cutsey.

I appreciate that you are trying to keep things lighthearted. But there was no reason for the "people are just trying to follow the rules and maybe you should lobby WOTC to change thing" comment. That was a dig, and you know it.

Well, if the FAQ is the primary source for the rule, then most certainly it should be used. Otherwise it is merely the "official clarification", which may or may not be useful to some folks. In some cases, it's highly useful. In others, where the FAQ calls out that it is merely making an educated recommendation, it may be less useful.

YMMV, as always.

The FAQ is an official source. It is no more or less official than the source that gives that primary source rule you like so much. It is not written by different people, or intended to have a different hierarchy of meaning to players and DMs. Both sets of writings are intended to be helpful to players and DMs in figuring out the rules. When a rule in a source is vague, the FAQ tries to clarify it. You are of course always free to use your own judgement, but I think when people ask "What is the official ruling on this issue" we should go with what the FAQ suggests unless there is a clearly contradictory rule in the books, as opposed to in our personal opinions.

 

[Mistwell]

However, my comment (the one that Mistwell quoted) was in reference to Mistwell's "frustrated with people who dismiss the FAQ" comment.

Woah now, that is out of context. I was specific. 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....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.

I am not frustrated with people who dismiss the FAQ, when such dismissal is appropriate (like when the rule was clear all along). I am tired of people dismissing the FAQ in situations where the FAQ is most useful, which is when we have a rule that is vague and not easily resolved by the rules as written.

 

[IcyCool]

If the core rules primary source arguement were valid in these kinds of cases, you would never, EVER, be able to refer to the FAQ.

Agreed. It also has very little to do with my comment. Perhaps you missed the comment of yours that I responded to?

Perfect example of what I mean when I say you are being intentionally obtuse. You know I am not calling you an angle.

I had gathered.

I was not insulting you, just pointing out I think you are intentionally not discussing the issue at hand to be cutesey about it. Much like the "angle" comment you just made - cutsey.

Actually, I had to look up "obtuse", because I couldn't think of any other definition other than "angle" at the time. That's where I noticed that it also means "lacking insight" or "lacking intellectual acuity". I couldn't tell from your tone if you were being insulting, or playing with the word. Being cutesy, if you will. At any rate, that confusion is now past, and hopefully you will see that I was addressing your comment about being frustrated with people who dismiss the FAQ.

I appreciate that you are trying to keep things lighthearted. But there was no reason for the "people are just trying to follow the rules and maybe you should lobby WOTC to change thing" comment. That was a dig, and you know it.

No, it wasn't a dig. I didn't say "people are just trying to follow the rules" (implying that you weren't following any rules), I said they were "trying to follow the rule" (specifically referring to the primary source rule). You stated that you were getting tired of people dismissing the FAQ. I suggested a way to get what you seemed to want, people to stop dismissing the FAQ. I did not state or imply that you don't follow the rules.

The FAQ is an official source. It is no more or less official than the source that gives that primary source rule you like so much. It is not written by different people, or intended to have a different hierarchy of meaning to players and DMs. Both sets of writings are intended to be helpful to players and DMs in figuring out the rules. When a rule in a source is vague, the FAQ tries to clarify it. You are of course always free to use your own judgement, but I think when people ask "What is the official ruling on this issue" we should go with what the FAQ suggests unless there is a clearly contradictory rule in the books, as opposed to in our personal opinions.

Agreed. And the primary source rule doesn't take effect unless the FAQ disagrees with a primary source.

As has been pointed out in this case, the FAQ doesn't make a "ruling", it makes a suggestion. So if someone were to ask, "What is the official ruling on this issue", we should state that there isn't an official ruling, but the FAQ has a good/bad suggestion on the matter.

 

[IcyCool]

I am not frustrated with people who dismiss the FAQ, when such dismissal is appropriate (like when the rule was clear all along). I am tired of people dismissing the FAQ in situations where the FAQ is most useful, which is when we have a rule that is vague and not easily resolved by the rules as written.

Well heck. That's totally my bad. You're right, I yanked that comment out of context.

Actually, I suspect you and I agree on the matter.

Edit - I think it was the fact that the "dismiss the FAQ" comment was an entirely separate paragraph that threw me.