Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7915370" data-attributes="member: 6857506">I'm not entirely sure what you mean by &quot;not supported by the rules&quot;.&nbsp; If you mean that the rules don't define the term &quot;armor-based AC&quot;, well, yes, that's true, but I don't understand what difference that alone would make.The concept of calculating an AC value based on the armor you are wearing most certainly is in the rules, and all that I did was invent a term for that because I needed to refer to it several times.&nbsp; And at any particular time, a character's AC is not necessarily the same as the AC value calculated on the basis of what armor it is wearing, so there certainly is that distinction.I don't see how my invention and use of the term, per se, in anyway invalidates any of what I said.&nbsp; It's true that it turns out that it's not pertinent to the intent of Barkskin, but that's not the same as &quot;not supported by the rules&quot;.&nbsp; Maybe I'm missing what you meant. (?)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Harzel, post: 7915370, member: 6857506"] I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "not supported by the rules". If you mean that the rules don't define the term "armor-based AC", well, yes, that's true, but I don't understand what difference that alone would make. The concept of calculating an AC value based on the armor you are wearing most certainly is in the rules, and all that I did was invent a term for that because I needed to refer to it several times. And at any particular time, a character's AC is not necessarily the same as the AC value calculated on the basis of what armor it is wearing, so there certainly is that distinction. I don't see how my invention and use of the term, per se, in anyway invalidates any of what I said. It's true that it turns out that it's not pertinent to the intent of Barkskin, but that's not the same as "not supported by the rules". Maybe I'm missing what you meant. (?) [/QUOTE]

Verification