Wisdom to AC ... twice?

[Quartz]

This is one reason I dislike untyped bonuses.

 

[moritheil]

This is one reason I dislike untyped bonuses.

To be fair, reading closely would have revealed that one only works in light armor and one only works in no armor. The other example of wis to AC, the ninja, says in the text that it doesn't stack with Monk or other similar wis to AC.

 

[Gloombunny]

AC Bonus: Starting at 2nd level, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light armor, are unencumbered, and do not use a shield.

That... has to be a typo. Why on earth would it work in light armor but not in no armor? Especially when there's a no-armor class variant suggested right there in the writeup?

Anyway, even aside from that point I'd agree that they don't stack.

 

[moritheil]

That... has to be a typo. Why on earth would it work in light armor but not in no armor? Especially when there's a no-armor class variant suggested right there in the writeup?

Anyway, even aside from that point I'd agree that they don't stack.

Why wouldn't it work like that? Maybe it's something about optimizing the armor you have, but heavier varieties aren't flexible enough to do the trick.

Why does everyone assume that something has to make sense to them in order for it to be valid? It's a rule. Rules tend to be arbitrary.

 

[Nifft]

That... has to be a typo. Why on earth would it work in light armor but not in no armor? Especially when there's a no-armor class variant suggested right there in the writeup?

There are a bunch of typos in that book. They kinda rushed it, which detracts from an otherwise excellent product.

The other blatant error in the Swordsage write up is the 1st level skill points.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Jhulae]

Why wouldn't it work like that? Maybe it's something about optimizing the armor you have, but heavier varieties aren't flexible enough to do the trick.

Why does everyone assume that something has to make sense to them in order for it to be valid? It's a rule. Rules tend to be arbitrary.

Gloombunny isn't asking why it shouldn't work in heavier armor than light. Gloombunny is asking why it doesn't work *without* armor. Using your example, no armor should be more 'flexible' than light armor is.. after all, no armor allows more freedom of movement than even leather..

That said, I do think the swordsage's ablility would work unarmored or in light armor - but, again, without stacking with wisdom bonuses to AC.

 

[moritheil]

Gloombunny isn't asking why it shouldn't work in heavier armor than light. Gloombunny is asking why it doesn't work *without* armor. Using your example, no armor should be more 'flexible' than light armor is.. after all, no armor allows more freedom of movement than even leather..

But if you're using my example, there's no material at all there to optimize the use of, unless you're wearing armor.

Still, that's a rationale I thought up in two seconds. Someone can probably think of a better one. My basic point is this: why should your interpretation of the rules depend on the completely unrelated factor of whether or not you happen to be able to think up a good rationalization?

 

[Elethiomel]

Still, that's a rationale I thought up in two seconds. Someone can probably think of a better one. My basic point is this: why should your interpretation of the rules depend on the completely unrelated factor of whether or not you happen to be able to think up a good rationalization?

It shouldn't.

On the other hand, I regard that entry as a typo and in all my games swordsages will get WIS to AC if they wear no armor.

Rules must make a certain amount of sense; they must at least be consistent. DnD is clearly intended to emulate fantasy fiction, it is not merely a collection of rules. It's a collection of rules with a unifying purpose.

 

[Gloombunny]

But if you're using my example, there's no material at all there to optimize the use of, unless you're wearing armor.

Still, that's a rationale I thought up in two seconds. Someone can probably think of a better one. My basic point is this: why should your interpretation of the rules depend on the completely unrelated factor of whether or not you happen to be able to think up a good rationalization?

Because typos happen, and sometimes the writers' actual intent is pretty obvious despite them, and some of us prefer to go with what makes sense and is clearly intended rather than slavishly follow the printed text.

Being a stickler for the exact written rules doesn't make any more sense than interpreting them with an eye towards what makes for a better game - quite a bit less, in my opinion.

 

[eamon]

That... has to be a typo. Why on earth would it work in light armor but not in no armor? Especially when there's a no-armor class variant suggested right there in the writeup?

Well, I wouldn't call it a typo, but I agree, it's plain common sense. An unarmored sword sage can remain unarmored and gain benefit from the ability - that makes the most sense, and doesn't contradict the text. The wealth of prior rules on similar matters all follow the same pattern that lighter armor is less encumbering and this ability perfectly fits that pattern.