Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6386839" data-attributes="member: 42582">What frustrates me is that the rules aren't all that simple - AC is a function of armour, shield, DEX (but only sometimes), cover, etc. Contrast the much simpler rules in (say) B/X.And then the wording is not simple or uniform either - sometimes it talks about Base AC, sometimes not.If you are going to write &quot;plain language&quot; rules, it is helfpful to (i) use words and phrases consistently (because in plain English, a difference of language is often taken to signify a difference of meaning), and (ii) to have simple rules!It's not as if using a shield with Barkskin, Mage Armour etc is a corner case. It's going to come up at nearly every table!That's fine by me. Most discussions of RAW (especially when contrasted with RAI) rely on poor interpretive methodologies in any event.But I don't think that's an excuse for poor drafting.For instance, &quot;while under the effect of this spell your AC cannot be less than 16, regardless of armour worn&quot; is not a clearly written spell. That is not simple or plain language, because it introduces the idea of the spell setting a floor rather than a value, and it introduces the comparison to armour worn in a subordinate clause rather than as a self-standing exception.Contrast: &quot;This spell toughens your skin and gives you AC 16. If your AC from armour worn would be higher, use that AC instead.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6386839, member: 42582"] What frustrates me is that the rules aren't all that simple - AC is a function of armour, shield, DEX (but only sometimes), cover, etc. Contrast the much simpler rules in (say) B/X. And then the wording is not simple or uniform either - sometimes it talks about Base AC, sometimes not. If you are going to write "plain language" rules, it is helfpful to (i) use words and phrases consistently (because in plain English, a difference of language is often taken to signify a difference of meaning), and (ii) to have simple rules! It's not as if using a shield with Barkskin, Mage Armour etc is a corner case. It's going to come up at nearly every table! That's fine by me. Most discussions of RAW (especially when contrasted with RAI) rely on poor interpretive methodologies in any event. But I don't think that's an excuse for poor drafting. For instance, "while under the effect of this spell your AC cannot be less than 16, regardless of armour worn" is [I]not[/I] a clearly written spell. That is not simple or plain language, because it introduces the idea of the spell setting a floor rather than a value, and it introduces the comparison to armour worn in a subordinate clause rather than as a self-standing exception. Contrast: "This spell toughens your skin and gives you AC 16. If your AC from armour worn would be higher, use that AC instead." [/QUOTE]

Verification