Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9560222" data-attributes="member: 6801228">A new DM isn't someone who owns and read the 2014 MM and has the 2024 MM and is comparing them side by side to see that the information was removed.If the rules for shields apply... then apply them to the shield. You say you don't "know" the impact of the shield, but that is my entire point. It could be reasonably interpreted either way. Either they have a +1 Natural Armor or a +3 Natural Armor. Considering their appearance as thinly scaled fish, and their status as low CR enemies, and the fact that they DO have a shield in their statblock, well, I lean towards them having either a +1 or leather armor. If you want the shield to not matter, then it doesn't matter. But you are looking for an objective truth, and that is not what I am proposing.No, because that isn't how antimagic fields function. But that's a problem with that spell. (See Also: Why does a skeleton animated by magic still function in an antimagic field at all)1) Most PC's don't have horses2) Scraps of barding are not barding and not appropriate equipment. They can work on a skeleton horse, because the pain of such poorly fitted and wrecked gear does not hinder them.  I'm sure if you sat down in the meeting room where they had the discussion to decide to take out the information, then you would know. I don't understand what answer you expect me to give. I wasn't there, I don't know why they decided the way they decided. Did they decide based on internal playtest data? Did they decide off of deadlines for writing? Did they decide just to upset you personally because they knew they could ruin your life? I don't know. Why would I know? My claim isn't that I perfectly understand the decisions they made. My claim is that this is really a molehill, because it just isn't going to cause the issues you are worried about.</blockquote>

Verification