New FAQ 23/11/06 [Merged]

[Felix]

They don't have the same limitations as the Monk's belt.

They both share the limitation of not stacking with an armor bonus provided by Armor. The bracers because the bonuses overlap, and the belt because the Wis bonus doesn't apply while wearing armor.

 

[Jhulae]

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.

Who's the one making the fallacious statements? Back in Post #27, I used Bracers of Armor in my example.

The monk's belt doesn't stack with the Armor bonus provided by a physical suit of Armor, or the shield bonus provided by a physical Shield. Two specific bonuses that the belt doesn't stack with. Therefore, it doesn't stack with *all* types of bonuses. My statement is true. Yes, other things *also* provide Armor bonuses (without being armor) and Shield bonuses (without being shields) that the belt will stack with. However, the belt does *not* stack with *everything*, which is my point.

They both share the limitation of not stacking with an armor bonus provided by Armor. The bracers because the bonuses overlap, and the belt because the Wis bonus doesn't apply while wearing armor.

But, the bracers *do* allow the use of a physical shield, something the Monk's belt does *not*, and therefore, again, is the better item.

And, *yet* again, to *fully* benefit from the AC bonus the belt provides (which seems to be the whole basis of Infiniti2000's arguments), a character has to be very *specifically* geared to using the belt for AC, and spend a *considerable* amount of wealth to come *close* to providing the benefits real armor would. Non Wis Prime spellcasters would have a *much* harder time getting the maximum benefit from the item. And, the benefit to monks has *nothing* to do with AC, so for monks, it's a non-issue as far as pricing goes.

 

[brehobit]

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.

OK, a little less heat would be nice.

Let me turn the argument back on you. You claim that I must find bracers +8 to be overpriced. I claim that you must find full plate to be broken. After all, it's a +8 armor bonus with only a few disadvantages: Movement (for a non-dwarf, it's really broken for a dwarf) and weight (which if you have enough STR is hardly a disadvantage). All for 1500 GP.

In any case, none of this matters. As I said before, my argument is that if it doesn't actually cause problems, it's not a problem. I claim that situation exists here. The only case I've seen where it _is_ broken is if you let a druid merge it into a shape-change (which isn't RAW at this point and the whole "merging items" thing was broken from the get-go IMO). Can you find another?

My rule of thumb on pricing (and the DMGs) is that it should cost what it's worth. And I don't think there are many cases where it is worth more than it costs.

An open ended INT bonus to AC would be broken. Given the classes that exist (AFAIK), an open-ended WIS bonus to AC isn't. IMO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

Perhaps you've forgotten the post you initially replied to. Let me quote them for you, in order, so we can restart this point if you want.

I2K: Now, this particular AC bonus stacks with all other types, so the insight equivalent is appropriate.

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

What types does the AC bonus granted by the monk's belt not stack with? Obviously, besides itself. You (now) seemingly agree that it stacks with armor and shield bonuses, so what other types are you arguing that would lend credence to your statement that my comparison is flawed?

 

[Infiniti2000]

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).

This is all fun and whatnot, but completely irrelevant. Are you suggesting that the bracers of armor are overpriced? In a discussion of the monk's belt, why would I give a flip if you think other items are broken (or overpriced)?

Also, that's not even taking in the cost of getting the wisdom up to 24.

The cost of getting the wisdom up to whatever number you want is also wholly irrelevant, even more so than the bracers' pricing. Unless you mean to argue that a spell caster based on wisdom would not otherwise pump up his wisdom, this line of thinking is completely immaterial.

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.

You still have not given me guidelines on how to price an AC bonus that stacks with all others. Until you do, you have IMO absolutely no ground to stand on.

 

[Infiniti2000]

OK, a little less heat would be nice.

My apologies. I will endeavor to be less heated in my replies and I apologize to both you and Jhulae for any negative tones in them.

Let me turn the argument back on you. You claim that I must find bracers +8 to be overpriced. I claim that you must find full plate to be broken. After all, it's a +8 armor bonus with only a few disadvantages: Movement (for a non-dwarf, it's really broken for a dwarf) and weight (which if you have enough STR is hardly a disadvantage). All for 1500 GP.

In point of fact, I do think that mundane armor is poorly priced. I absolutely hate medium armor because IMO it's completely worthless (all the disadvantages of heavy armor with a poorer AC bonus). I'd prefer a more generalized system where armor is, in fact, priced according to the bonus granted and possible disadvantages/advantages affecting the price. So, I can't argue with you because I agree with it. However, a poor system in one area (armor) does not make another area (excellent AC bonus stackable with all others) less broken or less poorly priced.

If you will, let me suggest what this argument is trying to do. I suggest that the monk's belt under your interpretation is broken. It does not follow any reasonably sane guidelines on pricing. In fact, no one from your side has even attempted to justify it based on that. The reason is obvious to me, because you can't. Trying to do so immediately shows you how ridiculously priced the belt would be. Instead, you point elsewhere and say, "Hey, but look at the pricing on armor." There's a term for this type of logical fallacy but the name escapes me at the moment.

An open ended INT bonus to AC would be broken.

There's a relatively common house rule that I have seen people use that remove Arcane Spell Failure from armor/shields. I'm not sure about the feats required but assuming that that isn't a problem, and given such a house rule, do you still think that the INT bonus to AC is broken? (Note: I do not have such a house rule.)

 

[Felix]

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

Who's the one making the fallacious statements?

Not me; I'm just quoting you. Inconvienient, is it?

The monk's belt doesn't stack with the Armor bonus provided by a physical suit of Armor, or the shield bonus provided by a physical Shield. Two specific bonuses that the belt doesn't stack with.

I don't argue that the belt stacks with armor; there is a difference between saying it doesn't stack with armor and saying that it doesn't stack with the armor type.

The monk's belt does stack with every armor type. The limitation is that it cannot be used with armor or a shield, but that does not in any way affect the belt's ability to stack with AC types.

But, the bracers *do* allow the use of a physical shield, something the Monk's belt does *not*, and therefore, again, is the better item.

And, *yet* again, to *fully* benefit from the AC bonus the belt provides (which seems to be the whole basis of Infiniti2000's arguments), a character has to be very *specifically* geared to using the belt for AC, and spend a *considerable* amount of wealth to come *close* to providing the benefits real armor would. Non Wis Prime spellcasters would have a *much* harder time getting the maximum benefit from the item. And, the benefit to monks has *nothing* to do with AC, so for monks, it's a non-issue as far as pricing goes.

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding this; perhaps you could emphasize your point? :\

 

[Nail]

Yep,
If you don't do the item merging, the monk's belt is great for a druid. But as that is now errata, it isn't so useful for a druid. Wild armor is the only way to go RAW.

So I've now seen one non-RAW use (assuming I understand the merging rules correctly...)

That's is such a cheap dodge!

As should be obvious, we played with that druid pre-wild shape errata. With a wilding clasp, we could do it post errata. Duh!

 

[brehobit]

That's is such a cheap dodge!

As should be obvious, we played with that druid pre-wild shape errata. With a wilding clasp, we could do it post errata. Duh!

I'm aware

But other than that case I don't think it shows up as broken.

 

[brehobit]

In point of fact, I do think that mundane armor is poorly priced. I absolutely hate medium armor because IMO it's completely worthless (all the disadvantages of heavy armor with a poorer AC bonus). I'd prefer a more generalized system where armor is, in fact, priced according to the bonus granted and possible disadvantages/advantages affecting the price. So, I can't argue with you because I agree with it. However, a poor system in one area (armor) does not make another area (excellent AC bonus stackable with all others) less broken or less poorly priced.

On this I mostly agree. Medium armor should have _something_ going for it. Even price. But it needs to be pareto optimal for something...

If you will, let me suggest what this argument is trying to do. I suggest that the monk's belt under your interpretation is broken. It does not follow any reasonably sane guidelines on pricing. In fact, no one from your side has even attempted to justify it based on that. The reason is obvious to me, because you can't. Trying to do so immediately shows you how ridiculously priced the belt would be. Instead, you point elsewhere and say, "Hey, but look at the pricing on armor." There's a term for this type of logical fallacy but the name escapes me at the moment.

I'm more-or-less in agreement with you here too. It is broken from the standard model viewpoint. But I think of that as a guideline in an attempt to get to good and fair pricing. The final goal is "not being broken" and I think a monk's belt does that.

There's a relatively common house rule that I have seen people use that remove Arcane Spell Failure from armor/shields. I'm not sure about the feats required but assuming that that isn't a problem, and given such a house rule, do you still think that the INT bonus to AC is broken? (Note: I do not have such a house rule.)

Yep, at that point I think it would work just fine. But the house rule is, IMO, a bit crazy unless there is a significant feat investment.