Swim skill/armor prof feats

[Hellefire]

So, my wife asked if she could hold a shield and cast a spell with her sorceress if it was stilled. Because I am still a relative new-comer to 3.x, I told her to hold that thought and looked it up. As I'm sure all of you know, armor check penalties for arcane spells only apply if there is a somantic component - which is removed by applying the still spell metamagic feat to the spell. So I explained that, blah blah blah.

As I was thinking about it, I decided to look up all the rules for her wearing armor if she decides she wants to. First I went to the armor proficiency feats, and checked what they said. Medium and Heavy refered to the info under Light Armor, so I checked that. There was a list of skills that receive an armor check penalty even with proficiency, with a glaring hole. Swim is not listed as a skill that takes an armor check penalty if you have armor feats (under armor feats anyway). I checked under equipment - armor, and under skills. Skills list the proper (armor check penalty) for each skill in the list under Armor Proficiency Feat, plus of course Swim (which has double armor check penalty).

OK, so obviously they just missed putting Swim in the list under Armor Proficiency Feats. No problem, but it still bothers me. I looked in Errata and the SRD, and this was not corrected in either. Is there any place I can report it to WotC so they can let my overly-organized-anal-mind rest and put it in the Errata/SRD?

Aaron

 

[Bad Paper]

Swim takes twice the AC penalty. It's in chapter 7.

 

[Hellefire]

Yeah, I saw that. It's very clear in the skills and equipment chapters what effect armor has on swimming. In chapter 5 - feats, however, it states 'When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Pick Pocket, and Tumble checks.'

While I would always go with the rules stated in 2 other places that armor check penalties count, and doubled at that, for swimming - due to the fact that it's stated in 2 other places, seems to be what was intended, and makes logical sense - there is still a place that states something contrary. This gives room for interpretation, my rules lawyer players something to argue about, etc, etc.

So, I was just curious, is there a place where I can request they post an official clarification/put it in errata/etc?

Aaron

 

[irdeggman]

A specific rule (or condition) should take precedence over a general one for that condition.

In this case the specific rule on how to handle swim and armor (from Ch 7) should take precedence over the general rule on AC penalties to using skills. Also if you'll notice the general rule only covers the AC penalty while the specific rule has twice the AC penalty (which can't readily be included in the general statement).

In fact under the swim skill itself the entry talks about twice the AC penalty - so that is the precedent ruling.

 

[Hellefire]

Yeah, I understand how the rule is meant to work, it just annoys me when there are contradictory/hazy rules like that. To be honest, I LOVED it in 1E and 2E. But 3.xE seems to be about specifying rules to be as unambiguous as possible, and I would rather they do that completely if that's the idea.

Aaron

 

[irdeggman]

Yeah, I understand how the rule is meant to work, it just annoys me when there are contradictory/hazy rules like that. To be honest, I LOVED it in 1E and 2E. But 3.xE seems to be about specifying rules to be as unambiguous as possible, and I would rather they do that completely if that's the idea.

Aaron

Again it is clearly specified under the skill description iteself. Since that is what covers using the skill (and what it does) - it is really unambiguous.

Now, if you actually mean that every reference should contain the "same amount of detail" when describing something that is a horse of a different color and I really don't think you want to see a PHB that is over 400 pages long as a result.

 

[Hellefire]

Actually, it would involve adding the words 'Swim (see Swim skill, page xxx)' to the list of skills affected by armor check penalties under armor feats. A bit less than 400 pages. And I do notice they listed the other skills affected by armor.

Aaron

 

[irdeggman]

Actually, it would involve adding the words 'Swim (see Swim skill, page xxx)' to the list of skills affected by armor check penalties under armor feats. A bit less than 400 pages. And I do notice they listed the other skills affected by armor.

Aaron

For this case specifically. I was making an extrapolation of what could happen if this logic is extended to all things in the rules.

 

[ValhallaGH]

If you look up a d20 rule in less than three seperate entries then you didn't actually look it up.

It's not a convenient truth but it is a truth none the less.

 

[Hellefire]

Sorry if my last reply seemed hostile. While I agree with you in general (despite the inconvenient truth of having to look something up in multiple places as ValhallaGH mentioned), I do notice that they repeat information in various places for clarity's sake. I don't oppose that per say, clarity is good, but I think it's not such a great idea to include a list for clarity's sake and leave 1 item out of the list. It's like saying 'There are magic books to add inherent bonuses to all attributes (STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS).' Of course, we know that there is another attribute, but leaving it out an otherwise all-inclusive list makes me wonder why it was left out. In this case, it was either a random typo/mistake to leave it out, or they left it out because of the special rules regarding armor and swim skill.

In any case, this has become something of a discussion of semantics. I looked up the armor feats first (before skills and equipment) and swim was not mentioned at all as a skill affected by wearing armor under the armor proficiency feats. If I had not looked up the information in other places (and had a red flag go off for logic's sake), I would have to infer that swim is not affected by wearing armor.

Aaron