Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Philip" data-source="post: 2086458" data-attributes="member: 10993">The presence of an argument usually indicates that something is unclear. I always have a hard time that some people can think they can 'be correct' or 'right' in something, like 'the truth' is out there, when doing such requires LOTS of personal interpretation. Most of your interpretation is often so implicit and unconscious that you take it for granted, but let me assure you, it is not. When reading the D&D rulebooks you are constantly using designer intent to interpret the rules.Point in case (for I think you will disagree), the SRD text for Monk's Belt: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.Where does it say that it refers to the monk class mentioned the PHB? It doesn't. It doesn't and it shouldn't, because almost everyone would assume they meant the monk class from the PHB. It does not say it explicitily, and in fact, none of the books say make statements like 'when we say monk, we mean the character class of the PHB, page x'. They assume 99.9% of the readers will get it. More often than not the writers also say something that only 99% agree on, some other times only 95% agrees on what the designer 'meant', etc. etc.Back on topic: You say that the words 'AC bonus' refer to the paragraphs describing the class features of the monk. I think they refer to the 'AC bonus' (and also unarmed damage) mentioned in the level progression table. Both are valid interpretations.My argument is certainly not about "the monk's belt is overpowered". For example: I had no problem at all in assuming that they actually meant for hasted people to get an extra partial action with the 3.0 haste, even though I might argue that it was overpowered. To me the rules of getting an extra partial action with haste was crystal clear, 100%. The Monk's Belt AC bonus rule to me is not that clear. I have had a similar argument about sundering magical weapons some time ago on these boards. There I argued that even though the DMG literally said that you needed a weapon with an equal or higher enchantment bonus to damage, this was not the intention of the designers, and was IMO a result of bad editing. This I argued from the spirit of the 3.5 rules change about DR and a note found in the armor rules. People kept coming back that my standpoint was somehow invalid because the rules simply said differently. Some people just couldn't wrap their head round the fact that an actually text could be 'mistyped', 'badly worded' or 'badly edited'. They kept hammering: 'but that's what the rules say'.  Then the errata come out, which said what I told people all along, and suddenly its become a non-issue among those same people.Personally, I welcomed 3rd edition, because I hate memorizing rules, but I love remembering logic structures. 3rd edition had lots of internal logic, and made it a lot easier for me to memorize. I love the fact that I could correctly explain 90% of the Grappling rules without needing to memorize anything, because I 'understood' the grappling rules. I don't 'understand' the Monk's Belt from a internal game logic point of view, and thus favor other interpretations of the RAW as most people.And last: as a lawyer I can assure you there is much more about rules than what the literal texts says.</blockquote>

Verification