Stacking of magical and mundane items (Forked Thread: Great weapon fighter...)

[Goumindong]

For those of you on the side of slots counting toward mundane as well as magical items, would you allow a character to wear a non-magical necklace/pendant and a non-magical cloak at the same time? Both items, when magical, take up the same 'item slot', so under your rulings about non-magical items using the 'slot' system, no person could ever wear both at the same time. Seems dumb to me.

We've been over this at least 10 times.

Nothing prevents you from wearing both items.

The rules prevent you from benefiting from both items. They both have no benefit so it doesn't matter. If one doesn't have a benefit it doesn't matter(so you could wear a magic pendant and a mundane cloak, since the cloak doesn't have a mechanical benefit it doesn't matter).

But what you cannot do is wear a mundane item that gives a benefit(like a shield) and a magical item that gives a benefit(like bracers) in the same slot and benefit from both of them. When wearing them in the same slot, you only benefit from one of them, even if the other is "worn". Just as you can "wear" a shield on your back, but you don't gain any benefit from it. You can "wear" a sword in a scabbard, but you won't gain any benefit from it. You can "hold" a dagger in your shield hand if its a slight shield. But you wont gain any benefit from it. You can hold a two handed sword in one hand, but you won't gain any benefit from it

Your first three sentences are absolutely correct, and I brought up this point in the first thread. In your third, however, you neglected to include the word 'magic' inbetween 'one' and 'item.' Page 224 is clearly referring to magical items, when it refers to slots, not every single item, ever - see below.

This was wrong the first time you said it and its still wrong now. I quoted the section verbatim. There is no word "magic" in between "the" and "item".

The first part where it talks about magic items is the general text. Its exactly like the rules pre-amble for shifting. Every single feat in the game. The text at the beginning of every single skill use description in the game.

Does the text at the top of page 190 mean that you gain a feat every level? No. Even though it says "as you advance in level you gain feats" that doesn't mean every level, because its the general rule. The specific rule is that you gain one feat at level 1, 11, 21, and every even numbered level.

The general introductory text says you can use one magic/item slot. Then the specific rule goes on to say exactly what the rules are. One benefit per slot with no recognition about whether or not the item is mundane or not.

Following on from that, page 224 was not written as a legal document, and thus is not bound by letter-of-the-law shennannigans, ergo distinctions between 'wield vs. carry' and 'wear vs. use' are irrelevant - it was written for laymen, not lawyers

No. DnD has always used specific language to make these differentiations. When there are problems because of using the wrong specific language Wizards will change the rules to reflect the right specific language.

Its why we have errata. Its why we differentiate between immediate interrupts and opportunity attacks and opportunity actions. Its why we differentiate between attacks and melee basic attacks, basic attacks, and ranged basic attacks.

As soon as you sit down at a table, a rational, intelligent DM, will rule that your clate (ploth?) armour is in violation of the spirit of the rules, and disallow it. Using a non-magical shield and magical bracers, however, would be seen as reasonalble, by this same individual.

Man what? So one rule violation that doesn't make sense is going to be obviously picked up on while another rule violation that doesn't make sense isn't going to be? I suppose you might say that one of them is more obvious, but it doesn't mean that once the rule is pointed out they will not both be ruled illegal.

Also, nice argument ad hominem.

 

[Maxim Machinery]

If Wizards (or, back in the day, TSR) wrote every single line of rules text as exactingly as the wrote their Magic cards, we wouldn't need errata. Errata are there to clear up the fuzzy parts of rules where they didn't use specific enough language.

An ad hominem? From me? Never! My mind merely boggles that any individual could be this dense. To be honest, I didn't really expect you to listen to reason, but I thought I should put forth my arguments as contrast to your righteous indignation so that others would not be misled by your attempts to shout down the opposition. If you truly want to convince me that your position is correct, you'll have to provide significantly more solid evidence than you have - especially with regard to the example of practically being able to wear bracers while holding a shield. I've told you why I think you're spinning bovine excrement, and your vague attempt to deconstruct that reasoning was, by my reckoning, insubstantial at best - merely drawing parrallels to a couple of other pieces of the text and assuming that, not only were they written by the same person, but that that person is infallible and could never write something even slightly less than the absolute truth is insufficient.

So I present you with a choice: construct a resoned and well-evidenced argument as to why your point is correct (something which you have spectacularly failed to do), in which case I will drop the sarcasm and ad-hominems and respond with logical reasoning in the spirit of discussion (I havent even delved into the evolution of systems and the 3.5 magic item system yet) -or- you may continue on your tirade, in which case I will now let you have whatever 'last word' you wish in this 'argument.'

 

[Goumindong]

especially with regard to the example of practically being able to wear bracers while holding a shield

You can hold it. You just cant use it. Just like you can hold a weapon in your shield hand if you are wearing a light shield. You just cant use it.

I have constructed a logical argument.

I have done so in two manners.

1. Definition: The Definition of the rules flows logically. Definition is a logical construct

2. Disproof of opposition by showing false results: I.E. i have shown how your premise and inference produce a known false conclusion. Such, either the premise must be false or the inference must be false.

That is logic.


fake edit: lets expand on this and what is allows a player to do if the DM is, by your definition "reasonable. A player constructs a suit of rubber insulation with metal rods extending from it and into the ground. The player rightly claims that such a mundane suit would protect him from electricity. The DM agrees and the player puts it on over his armor...

The player has now gained electricity resistance/immunity for free.

He attaches a pump that is powered by movement that circulates water though other portions of the suit and then sluffs heats, and coats the outside with thin layers of ceramic plates(pottery essentially). Now he has fire resistance.

And its all logical, these things will help protect him, and they aren't magical, so naturally he can just keep stacking them.

He creates a valve to turn the heat sinks off. Now he has cold resistance.

He puts a hand crossbow on the shoulder of the item, and ties control of aiming into his head movements by simple mechanical construction. He sets the trigger on a wire that triggers off his shield hands action. Now he has a shoulder cannon.

He puts long electrodes on the end and a basic battery in the back to be charged by static and now anyone that stands next to him takes electricity damage every round...

But its all retarded. Because these "reasonable" things which might make sense in the real world(or might not) fall apart when you are trying to play a game