Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Semana" data-source="post: 6385746" data-attributes="member: 6763088">Thanks for agreeing that it makes sense, but I'm not sure about the 'in itself' part. Given the fact that the interpretation works mechanically, against the text of the spell description, AND it actually makes sense within the narrative, I'm not sure why that isn't &quot;compelling in context of the game&quot;. What other contexts of the game is there? &quot;It's unclear because it's different&quot; is a confusing position given the above.Here's my answer to why it wouldn't work like armor: Because thick skin is skin and armor is armor, and therefore they would and do work differently. Why? Because THIS spell has described how thick skin works. Specific trumps general. The spell does nothing to change the way armor calculations are done. So again: What's my AC? Does X attack roll hit? NO? yay!!! Yes? Does X attack roll get past AC16 of my barkskin? No? yay!! Yes? ouch!!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Semana, post: 6385746, member: 6763088"] Thanks for agreeing that it makes sense, but I'm not sure about the 'in itself' part. Given the fact that the interpretation works mechanically, against the text of the spell description, AND it actually makes sense within the narrative, I'm not sure why that isn't [I]"compelling[/I] [I]in context of the game"[/I]. What other contexts of the game is there? "It's unclear because it's different" is a confusing position given the above. Here's my answer to why it wouldn't work like armor: Because thick skin is skin and armor is armor, and therefore they would and do work differently. Why? Because THIS spell has described how thick skin works. Specific trumps general. The spell does nothing to change the way armor calculations are done. So again: What's my AC? Does X attack roll hit? NO? yay!!! Yes? Does X attack roll get past AC16 of my barkskin? No? yay!! Yes? ouch!! [/QUOTE]

Verification