Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9559956" data-attributes="member: 7037866">It will be confusing to some new DMs I imagine. If the information is there, you have it; when they remove it, you have indecision.Apparently it doesn't matter. Their AC is 13 always regardless of the sticky shield or not. Maybe the sticky shield isn't even actually a &quot;shield&quot;? I don't know if it impact their AC because it isn't there.It matters because it is how the rules for mechanics, shields, AC, etc. function. The justifcation for &quot;natural armor, shield&quot; was there in 2014, so why remove it?It isn't like this was a space saving decision or anything. Why have HP listed with dice and CON mod? We can all figure out what the HP come from just like the AC, right? So why have it??If it was like this...[ATTACH=full]393562[/ATTACH]which made a stat block shorter, then I could at least guess why they removed the AC &quot;notes&quot;. But, it isn't.Yes. Are they going through an antimagic field? Does their AC drop if it is &quot;reinforced with dark magic&quot;?I've had parties scrounge all sorts of things from creatures for numerous reasons and I am sure others have as well. Barding is expensive, so if a PC can equip his horse with &quot;scraps of barding&quot; to improve its AC, why wouldn't they???Of course, we don't know if there are scraps of bard or if they grant an AC 12 + Dex, do we?Yes, yes, yes... we can &quot;choose&quot; and &quot;decide&quot;, but frankly enough of 5E is already &quot;meh, we're just doing rulings over rules anyway... so&nbsp; let's go further and to &quot;you decide&quot; over mechanics.Who knows what new DMs will do? It isn't a pit of despair but it is, on the surface, nonsensical to make the change when the default from 2014 was to already have the info. No, it doesn't hurt anything (as far as I can see) to have it, so why take it out???</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ezo, post: 9559956, member: 7037866"] It will be confusing to some new DMs I imagine. If the information is there, you have it; when they remove it, you have indecision. Apparently it doesn't matter. Their AC is 13 always regardless of the sticky shield or not. Maybe the sticky shield isn't even actually a "shield"? I don't know if it impact their AC because it isn't there. It matters because it is how the rules for mechanics, shields, AC, etc. function. The justifcation for "natural armor, shield" was there in 2014, so why remove it? It isn't like this was a space saving decision or anything. Why have HP listed with dice and CON mod? We can all figure out what the HP come from just like the AC, right? So why have it?? If it was like this... [ATTACH type="full" width="362px" alt="1737316213319.png"]393562[/ATTACH] which made a stat block shorter, then I could at least guess why they removed the AC "notes". But, it isn't. Yes. Are they going through an antimagic field? Does their AC drop if it is "reinforced with dark magic"? I've had parties scrounge all sorts of things from creatures for numerous reasons and I am sure others have as well. Barding is expensive, so if a PC can equip his horse with "scraps of barding" to improve its AC, why [I]wouldn't they???[/I] Of course, we don't know if there are scraps of bard or if they grant an AC 12 + Dex, do we? Yes, yes, yes... we can "choose" and "decide", but frankly enough of 5E is already "[I]meh[/I], we're just doing rulings over rules anyway... so let's go further and to "you decide" over mechanics. Who knows what new DMs will do? It isn't a pit of despair but it is, on the surface, nonsensical to make the change when the default from 2014 was to already have the info. No, it doesn't hurt anything (as far as I can see) to have it, so why take it out??? [/QUOTE]

Verification