Wisdom to AC ... twice?

[lottrbacchus]

Some of us don't consider the FAQ/Sage to resolve anything, because it is subservient to the actual text of the rules.

glass.

Aha!!! Now THAT is information which would have been worth mentioning before, methinks.

 

[glass]

Aha!!! Now THAT is information which would have been worth mentioning before, methinks.

How have you been here since Dec 2006 and not heard that mentioned before?

The primary-source rules and the FAQ's position within them seemed to come up about 10 times a week at one point (although rules debates seems to have slowed down a lot recently).


glass.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Aha!!! Now THAT is information which would have been worth mentioning before, methinks.

Not necessarily directing this at you, but rhetorically speaking, why/how could you trust any document or ruling which shows (a) inconsistancies (b) blatant contradictions with ITSELF and (c) disregarding the actual rules of the Core text (ie making up 'replacement' rules)???

Grant it, not every ruling in the FAQ is wrong, but I think it shows enough inconsistancies to bring it into question. So if you agree with one ruling from the FAQ, but not another, what use is it serving? Basically, you are picking and choosing your rules anyway, so why even use an FAQ at that point?

Anyway, just a rhetorical question for anyone that wants to respond...

 

[Slaved]

@Slaved:
A 1st level Rogue, who has +1d6 sneak attack, is flanking an opponent that is also flat-footed (thus, do not have Dex to AC). Does the Rogue get to apply +1d6 sneak attack damage twice? Once for the opponent being flanked, and once for the opponent being denied their Dex bonus to AC?

This example does not resemble the one in question in this thread.

A closer example would be getting Sneak Attack +1d6 from Class 1 and Sneak Attack +1d6 from Class 2 and asking if they would stack when Sneak Attack applies.

If you are flanking a Large creature with two of your friends (you are on one side of the large creature, you friends are on the opposite side of the large creature), do you get a +4 flanking bonus to hit the Large creature? Since you are effectively flanking it twice (once for each ally)?

This is again not talking about two separate abilities with different conditions that provide different bonuses. As such it does not relate to the topic.

 

[eamon]

Grant it, not every ruling in the FAQ is wrong, but I think it shows enough inconsistancies to bring it into question. So if you agree with one ruling from the FAQ, but not another, what use is it serving? Basically, you are picking and choosing your rules anyway, so why even use an FAQ at that point?

It's interesting, I use the converse argument to consider the FAQ as indicative unless flawed: clearly, many rules in primary sources are (or were) erroneous. Some rules lead to inconsistencies, and others are ill-considered, and probably unplayable by the letter. I think of the rules as a whole as a explanation about how to best play D&D - occasionally wrong, and sometimes corrected (erratad), and sometimes forced into inconvenient compromises due to badly thought out rules. I don't trust the rules to be error-free, nor for them to describe best-practice very well.

The FAQ's not much different in this regard. Generally, it aims to answer questions in which there is no very definitely answer - issues which require combining multiple rules, reading between the rules, inferring intent, and using common sense. Such rulings you can make based on the rule mechanics too, but the descriptive text is often lacking, and the rule mechanics not always well defined enough to do so.

So unless a rule question is clear cut - i.e. it's simply a matter of knowing where to look it up, essentially - why would the FAQ be any worse than other rules? The advantage of the FAQ above my own judgement is that it allows me to refer to it, and that it's published and open to my players. Unless there's a reason otherwise, I tend to follow the FAQ, and consider it's statement no different than rule-book interpretive statements (i.e. it's not a primary source, but it is a valid source).

Edited to add: Not that it's a bad idea to critically examine the rulings - they're definitely no less broken than much other WotC published material - i.e. most of it's fine, but some of it is questionable

 

[moritheil]

But if you are following, WOTC rules...Sage ruled on it.

You should be aware that many in the Rules community consider the Sage's rulings dubious because some of them have contradicted rules (and some, if memory serves, have been self-contradictory.)

 

[eamon]

Anyways, completely irrespective of whatever the rule-text of the two blurbs say, don't forget the "behind the curtains" on DMG page 21:

BEHIND THE CURTAIN: STACKING BONUSES

Balance: [sblock]The main reason to keep track of what stacks and what doesn’t stack is to keep total bonuses from getting out of hand. If a character wears a belt of giant Strength, it’s unbalancing to allow the cleric to cast bull’s strength on her as well and allow both bonuses to add up. [...etc...][/sblock] Summary: Disallowing stacking avoids easy loopholes that might provide wildly different power levels.


Consistency and Logic: "The system of bonus types provides a way to make sense out of what can work together and what can’t. At some point, when adding types of protection together, a reasonable player realizes that some protections are just redundant.
This system logically portrays how it all makes sense together." This is the big issue - what's the sense? The swordsage's and the monk's AC bonus seem to model almost the same thing in-game. That you can find similar in-game events modelled by differing game mechanics in the tens of thousands of pages of rules published by WotC does not surprise me. They try to bunch similar concepts into similar "named modifier" buckets. But the in-game world is a little fuzzy and the rules aren't perfect. If you're trying to perform to model the same thing twice, and the mechanics happen to grant different modifiers, that doesn't mean they shouldn't overlap nevertheless.


Encouraging Good Play: [sblock]Categorizing bonuses by type allows players to put together suites of effects that do work in conjunction in a consistent manner—encouraging smart play rather than pile-it-on play.[/sblock] Trying to find multiple rules with the same source (your wisdom) and the same effect (your AC gets better) is definitely pile it on play.


Even if the class abilities had a name, the fact that the in-game justification is so similar, and the fact that the source is similar (your wisdom, presumably due to spot/listen/insight/sense motive/etc) and the effect is identical, should make it clear that these effects are too similar to stack.

 

[lottrbacchus]

How have you been here since Dec 2006 and not heard that mentioned before?

The primary-source rules and the FAQ's position within them seemed to come up about 10 times a week at one point (although rules debates seems to have slowed down a lot recently).


glass.

I mean in a particular argument, it is worth stating somewhere near the start what your position is on the various WotC online "help".

..."and I don't buy any of that hooey they are dishing up at Sage Advice" or whatever.

It's possible I've seen you say that in a bazillion other threads, but I rarely remember who said what in other threads.

 

[eamon]

An unarmored sword sage can remain unarmored and gain benefit from the ability - that makes the most sense, and doesn't contradict the text.

How does it not contradict the text? The text says Light Armor specifically!

The text doesn't mention the absence of armor. The text should have been more explicit, outlining exactly when the character can gain the bonus, but fails to do so. It does provide other hints as to why the armor is relevant: you lose the ability when you're encumbered or wear a shield, or immobilized, or helpless. Presumably, you need to be able to move relatively freely to gain the described benefit. In that context, the wearing of light armor is the utmost limit of what you can wear, not a minimum prerequisite.

There's also other context which is relevant. The swordsage entry suggests: "To create a monk-like character with a tremendous array of fantastic moves and strikes, give the swordsage the monk's unarmed strike progression and remove his light armor proficiency." That context also suggests that the removal of the light armor proficiency poses no great impact on the swordsage's abilities.

To be explicit, that context, including the FAQ's statements, influence the interpretation.

 

[Slaved]

Actually the text does not say that you lose the bonus if you wear a shield. As such I assume you allow the Swordsage to wear a shield and retain the bonus?

The extra suggestions at the end of the class entry are very loose and poorly defined. I do not feel that using them as a rules source for the main part of the entry is helpful.