Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxim Machinery" data-source="post: 4405873" data-attributes="member: 74579">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.  You are correct, but the absolute RAW, wearing cloth under (or over, either's good) plate armour would allow you to add your Dex or Int bonus to AC, along with the +8 armour bonus for the plate. Nothing in the rules prohibits this, in spite of your continued twisting of the intent behind page 224. Yes, it is perfectly rules legal to do this, but do you honestly think you'll get away with it at a table?  What you both need to understand is that D&D's rules are not iron-clad, nor watertight nor inviolable nor any other metaphor for absolute be-all and end-all you wish to come up with. This is not WoW, where the rules of the universe are hard coded, and HoJ works one one particular boss because of a bug. This is not Magic: the Gathering, where every piece of non-italicised text is law. Now, you can claim all you want on this board that plate + cloth = profit, but it won't mean you can get away with it at a real table (I point you to the Dragon Disciple). If you think you can divorce intent and implied grammatical follow-through from the rules, you're sorely mistaken. The ONLY limitation on what you can use, by RAW, is one magic item per slot (clearly stated on the very page you keep bringing up to support your argument, see the implied grammatical followthrough of the words 'magic item' early in the section), and as much mundane equipment as it makes sense for you to be toting around (see the section on encumbrance). Yes this means, by RAW, that you can wear plate and cloth and have an AC of DOOM. It is within the purview of each individual GM as to exactly how, and to what extent, they say 'no.' In summation:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Page 224, if read by an english speaker (the intended audience, and thus the prosaic format to which the paragraph was tailored), reads that you may only benefit from one magic item per slot, but multiple mundane ones are fine.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">According to this, you may continue freely with your ploth (clate?) armour, unhindered by ethical constraints about 'breaking rules.'</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> </ul>It is possible that there are DMs who would be aghast at the notion of having a bracer's daily power while still gaining a bonus to your AC and reflex defences, and those individuals are free to house-rule it out, but it is not, in any way, shape or form disallowed by RAW, and from a purely common-sense perspective works fine.</blockquote>

Verification