I need your help /tg/. I'm trying to explain to a dirty

Post this in the 5e general. Also you're obviously the correct one here (any combination of shield and armor will make it not work) but I don't think he's gonna agree with you. Humans are hardwired to not accept their mistakes.

>>53001829
I'm unclear on what you guys are disagreeing on. Unless you're trying to say that using a shield or armor EVER disqualifies you from the AC bonus, in which case the retard is you .

>>53001861
>hurr durr goe too thuh genurulls
Fuck off you cocksucking shitstain

>>53002862
I'm saying:
A) using armor disqualifies him
B)using a shield disqualifies him
C) using armor and a shield disqualify him

He's saying:
I am only disqualified from this way of calculating AC if I use armor and a shield at the same.

He thinks only C matters.

I've used examples like a casino owner says "If you don't cheat or steal you can stay and gamble as much as you want."

His logic would be "I can cheat or I can steal and I'll be allowed to stay. If I cheat AND steal I'll be unwelcome. I can commit one crime and still be welcome. I'm only unwelcome if I commit both types of crime."

File: UAD.png (7KB, 840x72px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 840x72px

>>53002936
I posted this in the general too but I guess you missed it. Point out that the Barbarian's Unarmored Defense specifically mentions that he can use a shield, while Immortal Durability and the Monk's Unarmored Defense do not. So, he can't.

>>53002936
It says "OR" not "AND".

File: Dude, calm your ordning.jpg (17KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 320x320px

>>53002862
>You should go ask about it in the place where the largest amount of people who know and play this ruleset congregate.

>Fuck off you cocksucking shitstain

Really?

>>53002936
Oh, then he's clearly wrong. Get an english dictionary and shove his face in the 'Or' definition

>>53003049
Generals are a goddamn cancer killing this board, and encouraging their growth makes you an enemy of /tg/

>>53003118
Oho no I know how the fuck this goes
Without a 5e general we get endless metathread shitposting about how D&D IS RUINING THIS BOARD AND CLOGGING UP THE FRONT PAGE AND OH MY FUCKING GOD MODS DO YOUR JOBS FOR ONCE etc. etc.

File: bait_ghost_rider.gif (1MB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 625x626px

>>53003118
>le generals are killing le board meem

>>53002936
>or
You're obviously right.
A = wearing armor
B = wielding shield
C = modified Armor Class
!(A|B) = C (equals instead of implies because we're excluding other sources of modified armor class)
!(1|0) = 0
!(0|1) = 0
!(1|1) = 0
!(0|0) = 1

>>53003118
Generals are great, and only newfags would think otherwise. Once, the thread was 40% DnD and 40% Warhams 40kek, and endless shitposts and spam of both. So fuck you.

>>53002936
This is his Brazilian logic:
That second statement just proves how you really don't know what you're talking about.
> if you don't cheat or steal

A = Cheat
B = Steal
C = go to jail

Statement:

A /\ B -> C
!A + B -> C
!A + !B -> !C
A + B -> C
A + !B -> C

By this logic, then yeah, if I cheat but didn't steal, I wouldn't go to jail. You're associated an implied knowledge to something that reads with a different meaning, if it was a judge reading a law that said that, he would let a guy that cheated but didn't steal walk away, and vice-versa
you're saying I think that !A + B and A + !B -> !C
Which is not the case, what I'm saying is what is above
But let's go back to the original statement for Immortal Durabilty
> if you don't use a shield or wear armor, you get a bonus AC
A = don't use armor
B = don't use shield
C = get bonus
Statement can be summarized as:

A /\ B -> C
Therefore,

!A + B - > C
If you use armor, but don't use a shield, you get a bonus, because you have chosen one between the other
A + B -> C
If you use both, you don't get it, because it was only one or the other.

Alternatively, the monk's Unarmed defense states that You have to not be wearing armor and not using a shield to get the bonus.

The logical connective changes, and the statement as well. As such:

A \ / B -> C

Different from /, both conditions HAVE TO BE MET

RAI indicates that he doesn't get the bonus since or in the English language can be inclusive or exclusive.

By default, it's exclusive but you can infer when it's inclusive based on context. Doesn't make sense that he gets the bonus if he wears the shield and armor but not if he wears one or the other.