Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 3208092" data-attributes="member: 31734">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. 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. 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.)</blockquote>

Verification