Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

[Rutee]

They also happen to be things I did not say. Please restrict your comments to me to things I actually say, mmk?

It would also be within the DM's purview to alter the weight or cost of specific items, but that would be a deviation from RAW. Thus, it has no place here. I will not make any other statements about this, as it is completely irrelevant to the discussion in this thread.

As is, there is a listed cost and weight for an item that provides a +2 to a skill. It is up to the DM to disallow some skills to be used, if no common sense item can be found, or if another item exists in the book (such as Alchemy)

The crystal is made up, true. It is an idea which encompasses a descriptive or fluff reasoning for the crunch, or mechanical benefit, of using a generic tool for UMD. The ability to use it is there, unless disallowed. As this isn't a discussion of what isn't allowed in your home game, but what IS allowed by RAW. As such, you're targeting the wrong section of the rules with your arguments.

Don't you know we're recording this stuff? Sure, I exaggerated your point, but you are clearly exalting the RAW here.

In other words, just because one thing isn't perfect in RAW (which there are logical inconsistencies, I grant you), does not mean that you can apply the argument for those things to EVERYTHING you don't like in RAW. You must provide a concrete reasoning behind each point on why it and it specifically is unbalanced, broken, or too outlandish to be believable.

No, it means "It's RAW" is not sufficient qualification for believability. The onus is on you, if something within RAW doesn't seem to make sense, to explain it. Your tool was explained in such a way as to be believable. It would remain this way whether or not it was allowed by RAW or not.

And bear in mind, when discussing unbelievable, we're discussing a world where 200 foot long lizards breath fire and men in robes can turn golems into cupcakes.

It's quite a feat to be less believable then any of that, isn't it?