Monk's Belt help

[Dimensional]

Of course, the reason that this thread exists is that the RAW itself obviously isn't conclusively clear. If it was, there wouldn't be any discussion! In the spirit of this thread you might like to suggest why you think the RAW supports this particular interpretation - I'm sure that others here will be interested.

Cheers

Um. I hate to say this but thats a huge falicy - the precence of people arguing over an issue has no bearing on the Facts and or the clarity of them, I'm sure that with a moment or two You will be able to think of at least 2 or three issues, which though the facts on the matter are clear, yet have long flamey arguments over them.

as to the thread in question, I have to say the WIs +1 proponents have so far put forward a better argument for their case than the +1 only camp.

what the thread has done is make me realize that I'm never going to waste my money on a monks belt.

Jeremy

 

[Plane Sailing]

as to the thread in question, I have to say the WIs +1 proponents have so far put forward a better argument for their case than the +1 only camp.

Fallacy or not, I note that you have come to a different conclusion to Seeten, for whom the issue was apparently cut and dried. QED

 

[Dimensional]

Fallacy or not, I note that you have come to a different conclusion to Seeten, for whom the issue was apparently cut and dried. QED

Um...

Look again - Seeten sugested that Wis +1 was correct by the RAW and regardless the item was only limitedly useful

I said, That Wis +1 had put forward the better argument, and that I didn't think the item was worth my while.

so we agree on the rules and on using it (mostly)

and even if we were opossing each other, just because we might be arguing does not make the RAW any clearer or more ambiguous. an argument just means were arguing - and anyone who frequents Internet forums should be well aware that arguments and disagrements need little basis in fact and often run counter to it.

Jeremy

 

[Seeten]

Plane Sailing:

Belt, Monk’s: This simple rope belt, when wrapped around a character’s waist, confers great ability in unarmed combat. The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher. If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the belt lets her make one additional stunning attack per day. If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk. This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus.

AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level).

This is the two sections of the SRD that apply. RAW is crystal clear. Intent, poor design, ogre faces, none have any bearing on the RAW. If this belt does not work with wis +1 it needs errata, as the RAW is clear as is.

House rules are everyones own business, I think the RAW are wrong, clumsy and foolish in more than 1 spot, but they are still the RAW.

 

[Vurt]

This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus.

Please note the singular of AC bonus, as opposed to AC bonuses.

AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level).

You missed the next paragraph from the same source.

These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. She loses these bonuses when she is immobilized or helpless, when she wears any armor, when she carries a shield, or when she carries a medium or heavy load.

Seems to me there are two monk AC bonuses, the bonus from Wisdom, and the explicitly labeled AC bonus. The monk's belt seems to imply that only one applies, but which one?

And so, I, and many others still conclude, the RAW is simply not crystal clear on the matter.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if a monk gains an AC bonus of +1 by using a monk's belt, then so does everyone else since "This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus." Again, the language is ambiguous. Which "monk's AC bonus" are we talking about here?

And considering the added benefits of an extra stunning fist, and upping your unarmed damage 1-2 dice (depending on the level of the monk) or 3 dice (1d3 -> 1d4 -> 1d6 -> 1d8) for most everyone else, I think the magic item is reasonably priced for adding in only a +1 to AC.

So you see, there is still plenty room for debate on the subject.

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[Seeten]

Please note the singular of AC bonus, as opposed to AC bonuses.

From the SRD:

AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level).

That is a singular use of AC Bonus, from the SRD, which includes ALL of the monks AC Modifiers. It doesnt say: AC Bonus and then right below it, AC Bonus Part II. It lists it one time, and includes both mods in the one category, named AC Bonus. You can, quite clearly, as I stated above, say you dont like it, dont think its fair, or dont think its intended, but the rules themselves are clear. The SRD lists AC Bonus 1 time, and includes part a and part b with an inclusionary statement, "In addition, a monk gains". In english, if you were not including any part of this, it would be the +1 bonus per level, since it is the additive quality. The base quality of AC Bonus is "When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC."

By the RAW, the Monks AC Bonus is wis +1 per 5 levels. It states it as so in the SRD, in one neat and tidy paragraph labelled AC Bonus, which, probably not coincidentally, is the same wording as the "Monk's AC Bonus" listed in the Monk's Belt.

You missed the next paragraph from the same source.

I didnt miss it, I didnt include it because it is referring back to the original material, listed under "AC Bonus"

Seems to me there are two monk AC bonuses, the bonus from Wisdom, and the explicitly labeled AC bonus. The monk's belt seems to imply that only one applies, but which one?

There is one monk's AC Bonus, derived from 2 sources. If there were 2 monk's AC Bonuses, it would list them in 2 seperate headers in the SRD. The Monk's Belt doesnt say you get some of the monk's AC Bonuses it says you get the "AC Bonus" of a 5th level monk. AC Bonus is very neatly sectioned in the monk class, in one header, not two, with text stating you get wis to ac, and +1 per 5 levels.

And so, I, and many others still conclude, the RAW is simply not crystal clear on the matter.

It appears to me the RAW is quite clear, but you are interpreting it in a way that suits your purpose. I dont understand that, as a house rule in your own campaign solves the problem easily. We have a sheaf of house rules for all bad rules poorly worded rules, nonsensical rules, or just plain rules we dont like. I am not telling you I think the Monk's belt is cool and you ought to allow it, I am telling you that the english language text here is clear on what the bonus is.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if a monk gains an AC bonus of +1 by using a monk's belt, then so does everyone else since "This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus." Again, the language is ambiguous. Which "monk's AC bonus" are we talking about here?

The AC Bonus listed in the SRD. I'll repost it.

AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level).

And considering the added benefits of an extra stunning fist, and upping your unarmed damage 1-2 dice (depending on the level of the monk) or 3 dice (1d3 -> 1d4 -> 1d6 -> 1d8) for most everyone else, I think the magic item is reasonably priced for adding in only a +1 to AC.

Most people prior to you on the thread dont seem to agree with this point, but I certainly don't care, since as I stated in my first post on the thread, I dont have a monks belt, dont plan to get one, can get better ac on a cleric or druid without one, have better things to purchase for my monk, and have no players who would care either. Nor do I care if everyone and their mother House Rules it away into a +1 to AC only, or WOTC officially erratas it.

So you see, there is still plenty room for debate on the subject.

I don't see it as a debate that has any room to go anywhere, however, its more of an argument based on feeling and emotion. The RAW is still clear and only lists one monks ac bonus. The RAW uses the word in addition, which means the entirety of the text is all the monk's ac bonus. It has one section labelled ac bonus. There is nothing in your argument that remotely suggests there is 2 ac bonuses, and the SRD lists just one for a monk. Wisdom, and in addition, +1 to ac.

I don't mean to run you down here, certainly not my intent, but a lot of things can be controversial if you read something into the text. The text itself, taken on its own, is clear.

 

[Terath Ninir]

Of course, the reason that this thread exists is that the RAW itself obviously isn't conclusively clear. If it was, there wouldn't be any discussion! In the spirit of this thread you might like to suggest why you think the RAW supports this particular interpretation - I'm sure that others here will be interested.

Cheers

No, I must respectfully disagree with you there. (Respectfully only because I like you personally. ) The presence of an argument does not indicate the validity of the argument. If the argument was "the monk's belt is too powerful if it grants Wis +1 AC", that would be a valid argument. But that's not the argument at hand. The argument is that the belt grants only a +1 AC bonus, which is not correct. It gives the AC bonus of a 5th level monk, which is Wis +1 AC. No amount of argument makes the other position correct.

 

[Nail]

Yup => Re: Cyberzombie & Seeten

 

[Vurt]

I personally don't have a stake in the matter, either, Seetan.

My point was simply that the RAW on this is not clear, that it, in effect, the AW part of RAW contradicts itself or is ambiguous in several places, leaving plenty of room for discussion. Hence 4 pages worth of posts on the matter. Perhaps it is clear enough for you, to which I say good. But it is not clear enough for me, nor I suspect, for many other posters.

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[Seeten]

I guess we'll agree to disagree. Hopefully the people who needed help are helped. Those of us with strong opinions arent going to be swayed anyway.