Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 2675693" data-attributes="member: 18549">That's...amazing.  Attempting to pretend that an entire clause isn't there because it modifies the first clause in a way that's disagreeable to the poster's argument.  And claiming that everyone else must also ignore the modifying clause simply because he doesn't want to admit it's there...It states that, for the purposes of class abilities that depend on armour use, you are considered to be wearing heavy armour.  This does not mean that you are wearing heavy armour, only that you count as wearing heavy armour for some purposes, but not others, the latter part being implied by the mention of the purposes for which you are considered to be wearing heavy armour.Edit:And as a bit of a reducio, they could make a feat called Armour Hat which reads "When wearing a hat, you are considered to be wearing heavy armour for the purposes of class abilities that depend on armour use."If such a feat existed, and a character took the feat, and stripped naked except for a straw hat, would you claim that the character was in fact literally wearing heavy armour, as you do for the warforged?...isn't it funny how flavour and descriptive text has absolutely no effect on mechanics in D&D?</blockquote>