When did deepwarden get nerfed and how?

[CyberThread]

When did deepwarden get nerfed and how?

[JaronK]

In the FAQ, they mention that because it swaps its Dex to AC for Con to AC, armor still limits the bonus to AC. So a Deepwarden in Masterwork Fullplate can only get +2 AC from that ability.

Of course, it's easy enough to get around that issue.

JaronK

[Metahuman1]

For example, don't wear armor.

[CyberThread]

So basically,if you are like any normal d&d group which never reads FAQ's, no such nerf exists ?

[TuggyNE]

So basically,if you are like any normal d&d group which never reads FAQ's, no such nerf exists ?

It's not in the errata, and it's not in a later publication, so I suppose so.

[JaronK]

So basically,if you are like any normal d&d group which never reads FAQ's, no such nerf exists ?

Intentionally avoiding the FAQ because you know a ruling makes your character weaker, however, is pretty poor form I'd say.

JaronK

[CyberThread]

That really depends, I payed for a book , not a FAQ. The book I payed for states the rules, and the errata to update it does not mention it either. An several times this forum has said that the FAQ is not abiding and actually been wrong in several scenarios.

So which would you rather follow, a potentially flawed FAQ , or a potentially flawed thing you payed for?

[bobthe6th]

Its more that you know something is there, yet you are ignoring it to gain benefit. Honestly, I would probably rule it as an additional natural AC bonus and have done.

[Gwendol]

Just make a decision. You have good arguments already. I think it's flavorful and fits the idea of the class to have insane AC.

[eggynack]

Intentionally avoiding the FAQ because you know a ruling makes your character weaker, however, is pretty poor form I'd say.

JaronK
Eh, it's not like it's even necessarily RAW. I don't think it is, and I think you do think it is, but it's at best some muddy territory. I would just ignore it, and then also ignore it when the FAQ would give me something good, and everything is satisfactual. I guess that it's a slimy maneuver if someone's been playing with the FAQ since time immemorial, and now that he's going to be nerfed by it, he starts arguing for its invalidity by RAW, but that situation isn't this situation, and this situation seems reasonable.

[CyberThread]

<-< not really, I have never looked at the FAQ; I honestly do not consider it a part of my game table. I have my books, I have my dice, and I have my wall to talk to when I get lonely DnDing by myself.


I am the great cyberdrag! Dm and player of one!




........


I miss my old avatar :(

[Melcar]

Personally I think that when it states that an armor have max dex and an ability says that you gain armor by you con instead, that armor still only limits dex. Nowhere in ANY armor discription does it say max con. So on that note screw the FAQ or any erreta. By RAW, amor only limits dex, not con! End of story in my book, at my table and for anyone that would deem my oppinion valid!!! :smallsmile:

[Fouredged Sword]

The wording on the ability is fuzzy, and can be read that you treat your con score are your dex score for defense, OR you ignore your dex and add your con modifier to def. Both readings are valid. I lean in the direction of melee should have nice things.

The FAQ was always intended to be more about clarification of existing rules rather than errata. It fails to do ether very well, so most groups ignore it.

[Chronos]

I wouldn't ignore it because it makes a character weaker. I would instead ignore it for the same reason I ignore all the rest of the FAQ.