Bonespike Boots

[John Cena]

This item is supposed to give +1 bonus to AC if a character isn't holding a shield OR wearing armor.

So why isn't it giving my Laezel a +1 to AC when she is wearing an armor but not using a shield?!?!

Is it bugged? Is this happening to anyone else?

EDIT: I am retarded

[BigAlzBub]

It is in the description. You are wearing armour, so you don't qualify.

[John Cena]

Originally posted by BigAlzBub:

It is in the description. You are wearing armour, so you don't qualify.

It's an or statement. I can either not hold a shield OR not wear armor. Right?

EDIT: Here's the full text:

You have a +1 bonus to Armour Class and Saving Throws as long as you are not wearing armour or holding a shield.

[Gaius]

Luke Skywalker no speak english, only Jedi language

[Hobocop]

Yes, it's either or, not both. So Lae'zel doesn't qualify.

Monk's unarmored defense has the same wording.

[Ghostorias]

Man your IQ is low if you can't read and this might not be the game for as it requires a functioning brain

[BigAlzBub]

It isn't that kind of OR statement. If you wear either, no soup for you....

[Razorblade]

Originally posted by Luke Skywalker:

It's an or statement. I can either not hold a shield OR not wear armor. Right?

EDIT: Here's the full text:

You have a +1 bonus to Armour Class and Saving Throws as long as you are not wearing armour or holding a shield.

If that was the case, the description would be "You have a +1 bonus to Armour Class and Saving Throws as long as you are not wearing armour and holding a shield."

The "or" implies wearing armor and holding a shield are two separate fail states.

[John Cena]

Originally posted by BigAlzBub:

It isn't that kind of OR statement. If you wear either, no soup for you....

Then it should be a AND statement.

OR implies one or the other.

[Hobocop]

Originally posted by Luke Skywalker:

Originally posted by BigAlzBub:

It isn't that kind of OR statement. If you wear either, no soup for you....

Then it should be a AND statement.

OR implies one or the other.

That's the point. AND would imply that you must not be wearing armor AND holding a shield to benefit, which is clearly not the intent.

[BigAlzBub]

Originally posted by Luke Skywalker:

Originally posted by BigAlzBub:

It isn't that kind of OR statement. If you wear either, no soup for you....

Then it should be a AND statement.

OR implies one or the other.

You would be correct if this were boolean logic, but it isn't.

[John Cena]

ok ok i am retarded thanks every1

[Razorblade]

Originally posted by Luke Skywalker:

OR implies one or the other.

Right, you enter a fail state if you wear armor or if you use a shield.

The problem seems to be that you think the description is a logical OR, when it's actually logical NOR. The statement is structured "You will not get the benefit if A or B."

With a NOR statement:

• A and B is false
  
• A or B is false
  
• B or A is false
  
• not A and not B is true