TOPIC: Contradiction question

When two items contradict each other which one takes president?

Cooks hat says you can’t equip more than 4 IS but arcane bracelets says 2 more. So does the original equip max get bumped down to 4 then the bracelets give you two more? Or does the hat take over no. After what

Or the hand of glory says that you can equip 3 rings but the ring of fateful Heroism says you can’t equip any more rings?

Per TokenDB for Ring of Fateful Heroism:

"Items or effects which grant additional ring slots (e.g., Gloves of Glory or Hand of Glory) do not bypass this item’s ring prohibition."

Mike Steele wrote: Per TokenDB for Ring of Fateful Heroism:

"Items or effects which grant additional ring slots (e.g., Gloves of Glory or Hand of Glory) do not bypass this item’s ring prohibition."

So is this a per item kinda thing that all should be looked up on token dB?

Steven wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Per TokenDB for Ring of Fateful Heroism:

"Items or effects which grant additional ring slots (e.g., Gloves of Glory or Hand of Glory) do not bypass this item’s ring prohibition."

So is this a per item kinda thing that all should be looked up on token dB?

It's always a good idea to look things up, but I suspect all similar situations will have the same ruling.

Steven wrote: Cooks hat says you can’t equip more than 4 IS but arcane bracelets says 2 more.

In this example, assuming Cook's Hat does not change, your total ioun stone cap would be 4. If Cook's Hat winds up being printed as is, that cap would be clearly spelled out in the TDb. As Mike Steel said, when in doubt, check the TDb. There simply isn't enough room to print all the nuances and interactions of some tokens on the tokens themselves.

Druegar wrote:

Steven wrote: Cooks hat says you can’t equip more than 4 IS but arcane bracelets says 2 more.

In this example, assuming Cook's Hat does not change, your total ioun stone cap would be 4. If Cook's Hat winds up being printed as is, that cap would be clearly spelled out in the TDb. As Mike Steel said, when in doubt, check the TDb. There simply isn't enough room to print all the nuances and interactions of some tokens on the tokens themselves.

We could make the tokens bigger to fit all the print. How about coaster size? I'm sure that will make life easier for everyone!

Think of it this way, if cooks hat intends to allow players to increase their ioun stone slots beyond 4, it will say '-1 ioun stone slot' or something to that effect. Being worded as a hard limit means that you cannot increase that number. In that sense, cooks hat does not actually create any contradiction at all: you can increase your number of ioun stone slots to 7 or 9, but cooks hat will only let you equip 4.

For general guidance on this kind of thing:

1. When there is a contradiction between the rules and a token, the token is right (many tokens exist solely to modify rules, like all slot manipulation ones).

2. TokenDB has the authoritative rules for a token. When there is a contradiction between a token's text (or the interpretation thereof) and the TDb entry, the TDb entry is right.

3. As a rule of thumb, "can't" overrides "can." If one token says "character may not frobulate" and another token says: "frobulate as a free action" the interaction is very likely going to be ruled that the character may not frobulate.

Matthew Hayward wrote: For general guidance on this kind of thing:

3. As a rule of thumb, "can't" overrides "can." If one token says "character may not frobulate" and another token says: "frobulate as a free action" the interaction is very likely going to be ruled that the character may not frobulate.

I usually like it in games when it goes the other way. It requires another token to counter the defect of the first one instead of the defect of the first making its counterpart useless because lest be honest who would want the ability to frobulate taken away?

Matthew Hayward wrote: If one token says "character may not frobulate" and another token says: "frobulate as a free action" the interaction is very likely going to be ruled that the character may not frobulate.

Well, thanks, now I want a token that specifically allows frobulating.

Singsalot wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: If one token says "character may not frobulate" and another token says: "frobulate as a free action" the interaction is very likely going to be ruled that the character may not frobulate.

Well, thanks, now I want a token that specifically allows frobulating.

Frobulating is a perfectly cromulent action.

Would it Embiggen you? I need to know!