Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Corwin" data-source="post: 64758" data-attributes="member: 1560">Here we go again. If you go to Artoomis' new thread, Icebear gets into this as well. I will probably post something there in a bit, once I decide what I want to say.Anyway, it is never explicit that shields don't stack with mage armor. Like I said, read the other thread, I don't need to parrot everything over there.[mini rant on]Sheesh, you try reading the PHB. If it is so darn clear cut, why must it be clarified in the FAQ? Everyone must be so much more dense than you since none of these types of issues ever bollix you in the least. It must be nice to see everything so clearly.[mini rant off] - OK, sorry about that, I just needed a tiny vent.In some ways, I think many clarifications are more a matter of game balance and not the wording of the books. Something comes up that may make things difficult, and so an &quot;interpretation&quot; is given that corrects the problem. This has happened in the past (shield spell anyone?). It will surely happen again. I'm not even saying it is a bad thing to do. I'm just saying that just because it's an Official Clarification (tm) doesn't mean it is verbatim facts from the book. Sometimes things have to be nipped in the bud to prevent abuse.For the same reason Icebear gives in the other thread. A matter of power balance. That is a separate issue from what the rules in the book say.I'm out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Corwin, post: 64758, member: 1560"] Here we go again. If you go to Artoomis' new thread, Icebear gets into this as well. I will probably post something there in a bit, once I decide what I want to say. Anyway, it is never explicit that shields don't stack with mage armor. Like I said, read the other thread, I don't need to parrot everything over there. [mini rant on] Sheesh, [i]you[/i] try reading the PHB. If it is so darn clear cut, why must it be clarified in the FAQ? Everyone must be so much more dense than you since none of these types of issues ever bollix you in the least. It must be nice to see everything so clearly. [mini rant off] - OK, sorry about that, I just needed a tiny vent. In some ways, I think many clarifications are more a matter of game balance and not the wording of the books. Something comes up that may make things difficult, and so an "interpretation" is given that corrects the problem. This has happened in the past (shield spell anyone?). It will surely happen again. I'm not even saying it is a bad thing to do. I'm just saying that just because it's an Official Clarification (tm) doesn't mean it is verbatim facts from the book. Sometimes things have to be nipped in the bud to prevent abuse. For the same reason Icebear gives in the other thread. A matter of power balance. That is a separate issue from what the rules in the book say. I'm out. [/QUOTE]

Verification