Monk's Belt help

[Mekabar]

Wouldn't the belt also change subdual damage to normal damage?

No. That's not a Monk Class feature, but part of the Improved Unarmed Strike, which the belt doesn't grant.

 

[KarinsDad]

And here we are with KD being antagonistic. Again.

What is it with you these days?

I prefer people to be honest.

If it is your interpretation of RAW, fine. Say so.

If it is "designer intent", leave it on the general discussion boards. None of us know designer intent on the not so well written rules unless an actual designer tells us. By placing the "intent" or "designer intent" label on a rule, you are backhandedly and arrogantly pretending that your interpretation is correct and superior whereas everyone else's is incorrect and inferior. And of course, this is a subtle way of doing this where you can pretend that you did not (That was not my "intent". ).

Caliban is not correct merely because he says "I don't believe that is the intent. I believe the intent is that you just get the +1 AC.".

Designer intent has no place on the rules forum (IMO) unless you can back up such a claim with Emails from the designers or quotes from the FAQ. Otherwise, it is YOUR interpretation being hidden behind the label of "intent". That's an invalid debating technique.

If you would drop the "this is not the intent" from your posts, I would not have any problem with you giving your opinion about the rules. You have quoted "intent" on virtually every ruling that you have made in the past few weeks where you and I have disagreed.

But this pretending that you have the designers behind you in your interpretations when you do not is lame.

And yes, every time you quote "intent" when you do not have really have FAQ to back it up, I am going to quote "the mystical divination of designer intent". If it is ok for you to make this stuff up, it is ok for me to call you on it.

 

[apesamongus]

Wouldn't the belt also change subdual damage to normal damage?

Nope, not as written. Nor does it remove the AoO from attacking unarmed.

 

[robberbaron]

In my campaign I would rule that it gives +1AC.

Don't know if that is what the designer intended and I don't particularly care.

Have a nice day.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Happily (since RobberBaron and I coexist in the same campaigns) I would take exactly the same line as him here.

Cheers

 

[Caliban]

I prefer people to be honest.

If it is your interpretation of RAW, fine. Say so.

If it is "designer intent", leave it on the general discussion boards. None of us know designer intent on the not so well written rules unless an actual designer tells us. By placing the "intent" or "designer intent" label on a rule, you are backhandedly and arrogantly pretending that your interpretation is correct and superior whereas everyone else's is incorrect and inferior. And of course, this is a subtle way of doing this where you can pretend that you did not (That was not my "intent". ).

Caliban is not correct merely because he says "I don't believe that is the intent. I believe the intent is that you just get the +1 AC.".

Designer intent has no place on the rules forum (IMO) unless you can back up such a claim with Emails from the designers or quotes from the FAQ. Otherwise, it is YOUR interpretation being hidden behind the label of "intent". That's an invalid debating technique.

If you would drop the "this is not the intent" from your posts, I would not have any problem with you giving your opinion about the rules. You have quoted "intent" on virtually every ruling that you have made in the past few weeks where you and I have disagreed.

But this pretending that you have the designers behind you in your interpretations when you do not is lame.

And yes, every time you quote "intent" when you do not have really have FAQ to back it up, I am going to quote "the mystical divination of designer intent". If it is ok for you to make this stuff up, it is ok for me to call you on it.

I am being honest. That is not what I believe the intent is. I'm not making anything up, and I wasn't quoting anything. I didn't say I was "correct". I just stated my opinion.

I clearly indicated that is is my opinion, I did not imply it was anything else. I did not state "that is not the intent", I said "I don't believe that is the intent" .

My opinions are just as valid as your's KD. And that is in fact what you post here: your opinion of how the rules should be read and interpreted.

Just because you are of the opinion that "designer intent" has no place here, doesn't make it true. I certainly don't agree with that opinion, and I will bring in designer intent whenever I see fit. You're just going to have to deal with it.

Just because you disagree with me does not make my opinion or interpretation any less valid, and it does not make it alright for you to take a condescending and antagonistic tone. You are not a moderator, and if you keep it up, you'll just get banned. Again.

So, I'm politely asking you:

Please stop putting words in my mouth, it's extremely impolite and innaccurate. You're better than that. At least, I remember you being better than that.

Please stop pretending you can tell me how I can and cannot post.

And a final plea: If you feel that you can't respond to my posts without being antagonistic and condescending, please feel free to put me on ignore. That way you don't have to read my posts, much less respond to them.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Dear KarinsDad and Caliban,

As I'm sure you both recognise, at the moment there is something that rubs you each the wrong way about the other. Heck, I've had that problem in the past with people too.

Perhaps it would be worth just putting each other on ignore for a few weeks - ignoring isn't a permanent thing, and it can be turned off at any time in the future. There have been times in the past when I've found that has given me a chance to not get het up about people (all kinds of people have spent time on my ignore list, although they are all back visible again now).

As a reminder of part of "the rules"

Keep it civil: Don't engage in personal attacks, name-calling, or blanket generalizations in your discussions. Say how you feel or what you think, but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others or telling others how they "should" think. People seeking to engage and discuss will find themselves asking questions, seeking clarifications, and describing their own opinion.

You are both valuable members of the community, each with your own perspective that you bring to questions. There are people here who are helped by both of you, and that's great.

So lets keep it cool and ignore each other for a while if you think it might help.

As always, please email me or one of the other moderators to discuss this further.

Regards,

 

[KarinsDad]

I am being honest. That is not what I believe the intent is.

"If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk."

"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."


The +1 bonus to AC is not even the first point of the AC bonus mentioned in the Monk class. The Wisdom bonus is.

If you ask the question: "What is the AC of a fifth level Monk?", the answer has to be:

1 + Dexterity bonus + Wisdom bonus + any bonuses due to magic.

If you ask the question: "What is the AC of a non-Monk wearing a Monk's belt?", the answer has to be:

1 + Dexterity bonus + Wisdom bonus + any bonuses due to magic.

How can you just haphazardly drop any of these and state that this was the intent? The Monk AC rules give a Monk an increasing AC bonus. The rules for a Monk's belt for non-Monks gives a non-Monk the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level Monk, not a fraction of the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level Monk.

Explain where in the rules it indicates that a wearer of a Monk's belt does not get ALL of the benefits of it.

Otherwise it's not really a Monk's Belt, it's the "Overpower the divine caster" belt.

Druid's become absolutely broken with one of those and a wilding clasp.

So, it seems clear that the "intent" is that a Monk's AC is based on several factors (Dex bonus, level bonus, Wis bonus), none of which you can just drop on the floor merely because the item is powerful for Druids as well.

You appear to be basing a portion of your position here off of game balance and what can happen if you get a certain magic item from a non-core book that was written years after the core rules on this, not based on what is actually written in the rules.

 

[monboesen]

I repeat my question. Would you then think that this item was ok as well.

Belt of canny defense: Gives the wearer a bonus to his AC equal to his Int bonus+1. These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when flat-footed. These bonuses are lost when immobilized or helpless, when wearing any armor, when carrying a shield, or when carrying a medium or heavy load.

Price 12.000 GP.

I do not disagree that by RAW it looks as the monks belt gives wis to AC. I'm just saying that IMO thats a very bad idea and a badly designed item that gives to much for its price for certain classes/combinations. The RAW does not cover all circumstances and neither do I think that designers have found (or could/should find) all loopholes. To me this is one of those loopholes.

 

[KarinsDad]

I do not disagree that by RAW it looks as the monks belt gives wis to AC. I'm just saying that IMO thats a very bad idea and a badly designed item that gives to much for its price for certain classes/combinations. The RAW does not cover all circumstances and neither do I think that designers have found (or could/should find) all loopholes. To me this is one of those loopholes.

Why?

The point you forgot in your description is that this does not work if armor is worn or a shield is used. So, great for a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Monk, not so great for anyone else.

Now, what you have done here is say "But if I change it from a Wisdom bonus item for a Druid to an Intelligence bonus item for a Wizard, it can be even more powerful."

Well, sure it can. But, Druids have a hard time getting an Armor (or shield) bonus without wearing armor (or using a shield). Wizards do not.

So, you change the entire balance equation completely.

6th level Druid: +3 AC Barkskin, +5 AC Monk's Belt (18 Wis), +2 AC Dex

6th level Wizard: +4 AC Mage Armor, +4 AC Shield spell, +5 AC Belt of Canny Defense (18 Int), +2 AC Dex

Druid: AC 20
Wizard: AC 25

The Wizard can easily get an armor bonus and a shield bonus to add to this. The Druid can only get a natural armor bonus to add to this.

So, you are comparing apples to oranges and saying that since you think that apples are imbalanced, oranges must be imbalanced as well.


Also, for a comparison of apples and apples, the druid could be wearing +3 leather armor (9K GP) and carrying a +2 wooden shield (4K GP) for the same 13K GP as the Monk's Belt and his AC would be 24 (above) instead of 20.

So, how is AC 20 broken at 6th level or higher (according to the wealth charts), but AC 24 NOT broken?


The broken argument is specious. I can get to AC 24 easier than AC 20 for the same amount of money.