New FAQ 23/11/06 [Merged]

[brehobit]

It's actually very simple to prove how broken it is. The problem people can't see it as a bonus. What is the cost of a +5 insight bonus to AC for a slotted wondrous item (assume appropriate affinity)? The guideline is Bonus squared × 2,500 gp, so that would be 62,500 gp. Now, this particular AC bonus stacks with all other types, so the insight equivalent is appropriate. However, the restriction on armor and encumbrance should reduce it. To what? Being extraordinarily generous, say half? How about +6? +8? +12? Wait a minute, you mean increasing the bonus doesn't increase the cost?! Now, just compare the moderate +5 to the cost of the monk's belt, which grants additional abilities. The calculations are absurd.

I don't think something which doesn't break a game is broken.

The question is, "does there exist a build for which this is truly broken?" There may well be, but I don't have a clue what it looks like (unless you allow magic items like this to work while wild shaped...) As such, I don't have a problem with it...

Mark

 

[Jhulae]

It's actually very simple to prove how broken it is. The problem people can't see it as a bonus. What is the cost of a +5 insight bonus to AC for a slotted wondrous item (assume appropriate affinity)? The guideline is Bonus squared × 2,500 gp, so that would be 62,500 gp. Now, this particular AC bonus stacks with all other types, so the insight equivalent is appropriate. However, the restriction on armor and encumbrance should reduce it. To what? Being extraordinarily generous, say half? How about +6? +8? +12? Wait a minute, you mean increasing the bonus doesn't increase the cost?! Now, just compare the moderate +5 to the cost of the monk's belt, which grants additional abilities. The calculations are absurd.

Except that the Monk's belt AC Bonus doesn't stack 'with all other types', so that's a flawed comparison already.

 

[kerbarian]

It's ludicrous to even contemplate the pricing on an open-ended AC bonus, particularly one as powerful that affects touch AC and is not lost like dex/dodge bonuses. Stop trying to justify it for a cleric with respect to armor and shield for a second and just try to price the bonus.

Another way to look at it is that it's clearly no more powerful for a cleric than taking one level of monk (or even getting one level of monk abilities via gestalt). So it's not really opening up any new possibilities -- it's just letting you do so without taking a hit to caster level. Which is admittedly a huge benefit, but I don't think it's un-priceable.

Also worth noting is that sorcerers can spend two feats to use this for a Cha bonus to AC instead of Wis -- Improved Unarmed Strike and then Ascetic Mage. Two feats for a +8 or so bonus to AC seems like a powerful option, depending on your build.

 

[Felix]

Except that the Monk's belt AC Bonus doesn't stack 'with all other types', so that's a flawed comparison already.

Technically, it does.

The bonus will stack with Armor and Shield bonuses, it is simply the case that you can't be wearing armor or holding a shield and benefit from the Monk's Belt. But it is not the case that armor and shields are the only source of Armor or Shield bonuses.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I don't think something which doesn't break a game is broken.

Besides your interpretation being a self-fulfilling prophecy, you in no way, shape, or form, respond to my points.

Except that the Monk's belt AC Bonus doesn't stack 'with all other types', so that's a flawed comparison already.

It does stack. I have no idea why you think it doesn't.

 

[brehobit]

Besides your interpretation being a self-fulfilling prophecy, you in no way, shape, or form, respond to my points.

My point was that your measure of "broken" isn't the right measure IMO. The right measure isn't if the costs are within the guidelines, the right one is if it harms the game. I should have made that argument formally. My bad.

But if you disagree with the above, let me try this:
Full plate provides a +8 armor bonus. One could argue it is broken because it costs _much_ less than 64,000GP. It's minor disadvantages (speed, weight) _might_ reduce the cost to 32,000, but certainly not to 1,500...

If we treat armor as being special (which the above shows it is I think), the monk's belt doesn't stack with that _very cheap_ form of armor bonus. It should be weighted against that rather than the standard formulas.

Mark

 

[Jhulae]

It does stack. I have no idea why you think it doesn't.

It doesn't stack with actual armor or an actual shield, which doesn't make it optimal or anywhere near as optimal as you seem to be making it out.

 

[Felix]

It doesn't stack with actual armor or an actual shield, which doesn't make it optimal or anywhere near as optimal as you seem to be making it out.

No, but it does stack with armor and shield bonus types, which you fallaciously claimed it did not in post #42.

Yes, it would be far, far more powerful if it stacked with Armor, and not just armor bonuses other than that derived from wearing Armor; the fact that an open-ended AC bonus, which does stack with every other AC bonus type, is fixed at a relatively low price makes this item exploitable.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It doesn't stack with actual armor or an actual shield, which doesn't make it optimal or anywhere near as optimal as you seem to be making it out.

Why wouldn't it work with bracers of armor or a shield spell? Those produce 'armor' and 'shield' bonuses, which as I said, stack with the bonus based on wisdom. You seem to think they don't.

The right measure isn't if the costs are within the guidelines, the right one is if it harms the game.

While I agree that the cost of an item need not always been within the guidelines, this one (under your interpretation) breaks away SO far from those guidelines as to make the pricing impossible, if not plain ridiculous. I ask you again, please price an item with an open-ended AC bonus. This futile exercise will (I hope) help you see my point more clearly.

Full plate provides a +8 armor bonus. One could argue it is broken because it costs _much_ less than 64,000GP. It's minor disadvantages (speed, weight) _might_ reduce the cost to 32,000, but certainly not to 1,500...

One could argue anything, true. So, how do you explain this? Actually, let's continue with your example. The bracers of armor +8 (which is what I presume you are suggesting), do not stack with the full plate. Neither does the monk's belt (assume wisdom 26).

monk's belt: +8 bonus to AC (based on wisdom), applies to touch and not lost when flat-footed, does not stack with full plate
bracers: +8 armor bonus to AC, does not apply to touch (except incorporeal) and not lost when flat-footed, does not stack with full plate

Additionally, the monk's belt gives you "unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk." That has to be worth something, reducing the price of just the AC bonus. Actually, the additional stunning fist should be worth something, too.

Because you think the monk's belt is properly priced, surely you must think the bracers are WAY over priced. After all, the bracers have the same limitation and offer LESS (a worse AC bonus IMO plus none of the extra abilities).

If we treat armor as being special (which the above shows it is I think), the monk's belt doesn't stack with that _very cheap_ form of armor bonus. It should be weighted against that rather than the standard formulas.

So, if I create an item that doesn't stack with a very cheap source of an alternate bonus, that's okay? Even if I never plan to use that very cheap source? Your argument is a straw man and you are still avoiding the point.

 

[Jhulae]

Why wouldn't it work with bracers of armor or a shield spell? Those produce 'armor' and 'shield' bonuses, which as I said, stack with the bonus based on wisdom. You seem to think they don't.

Okay.. No clue where you're getting that from, as in my first post in this thread, I provided an example using bracers of armor. And yes, the shield spell would stack.

While I agree that the cost of an item need not always been within the guidelines, this one (under your interpretation) breaks away SO far from those guidelines as to make the pricing impossible, if not plain ridiculous. I ask you again, please price an item with an open-ended AC bonus. This futile exercise will (I hope) help you see my point more clearly.
One could argue anything, true. So, how do you explain this? Actually, let's continue with your example. The bracers of armor +8 (which is what I presume you are suggesting), do not stack with the full plate. Neither does the monk's belt (assume wisdom 26).

monk's belt: +8 bonus to AC (based on wisdom), applies to touch and not lost when flat-footed, does not stack with full plate
bracers: +8 armor bonus to AC, does not apply to touch (except incorporeal) and not lost when flat-footed, does not stack with full plate

Yeah, but at the level where you get Bracers +8 (which cost 64k!), you could have a suit of Mithril full plate +5 (with an extra +1 bonus ability) and a +5 mithril shield! Make that a +5 Mithril shield with a +1 bonus, because the monk's belt costs 13.5k. Reduce those bonuses and add extra abilities, if a cleric wants to use Magic Vestment to bump them up, or reduce them to straight +5 and add an amulet of natural armor or something (also usable with the belt, I know, but right now, we're talking straight GP value).

Also, that's not even taking in the cost of getting the wisdom up to 24. All in all, the wisdom, bracers, and shield spell provide a total bonus of 20.. AC 30. we'll go with a dex of 16 for +3. 33. The armor provides the exact same AC of 33 (not including other items). And, the cleric is *not* limited to a light load or less. And, the cleric has *other* abilities on the armor (maybe fortification). And, the cleric doesn't have to take UMD as a skill.

So, the belt gives a higher touch AC. Early on, that's a bonus, yes. But, at the place where the AC will be relatively equal (as cheaper bracers make wearing real armor still a better choice), most BBEGs and monsters have a pretty wicked bonus to make Touch aC of 18-21 Meh.

Additionally, the monk's belt gives you "unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk." That has to be worth something, reducing the price of just the AC bonus. Actually, the additional stunning fist should be worth something, too.

Because you think the monk's belt is properly priced, surely you must think the bracers are WAY over priced. After all, the bracers have the same limitation and offer LESS (a worse AC bonus IMO plus none of the extra abilities).

So, if I create an item that doesn't stack with a very cheap source of an alternate bonus, that's okay? Even if I never plan to use that very cheap source? Your argument is a straw man and you are still avoiding the point.

And, you're wrong about the bracers. They don't have the same limitations as the Monk's belt. I don't think the bracers are overpriced, because the bracers provide their AC *constantly*, not only at a light load.

And, so what about the unarmed attack? Yes, it gives the wearer a D8 for damage. But, it doesn't give the character improved unarmed attack, meaning without the feat, it'd draw an AoO when used. (the belt only increases the *damage* by 5 levels, nothing else). A real weapon is still better.

All in all, the belt really benefits the Monk, and for 13k, all the monk gets from the belt is the damage increase and extra stunning fist.

For everyone else, they get a bonus to their AC (which is variable, yes), but one that requires a *lot* more money to make competitive with real armor. And unarmed damage that they probably don't have a feat to use well, and that a real weapon is better than in almost every way.