Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
but I also enjoy a rules debate
we'll never "prove" a side 100%.
I don't enjoy rules debates, and pretty much every regular player doesn't.
If you admit neither side will be swayed, then why continually hash out the same stuff? It isn't the first time stacking effects has been debated. In fact, it has been debated so many times I get sick to my stomach when I see another thread in the quagmire of what can and can not stack together.
When you start talking about an equivalent 20x7 weapon (17-20/x4) and how it is legal, you are ignoring a great deal of effort put into lines of text to block stacking of various effects that stack to improve a weapon's critical damage potential.
I appreciate that 20x7 is desirable, and how it is astonishingly easy to say "yeah it works right?" But to get there you must selectively ignore or alternatively interpret lines of text to be favorable.
They are both under the same column in the weapon table, namely "critical".
But anyway, critical multiplier and critical threat range are in no way the same check or statistic or "other thing" that stacking cares about. Getting a bonus to both still isn't stacking any more than it's stacking to get a bonus to Fortitude saves and a bonus to Will saves. They're just different things.
"Differently" interpret. Not "selectively."
Completely irrelevant if they're different things. According to the spell, the effect does not stack with any other effect that increases critical range. Why do you continue to ignore this line as if it means absolutely nothing.
This effect does not stack with any other effect that increases critical range.
That means having AotF active with a crit expanding effect makes one of the abilities irrelevant.
Saying they do not stack does not mean nothing just because they are not literally 100% the exact same thing is ridiculously restrictive and has been disproven by multiple examples. You are completely ignoring that line in the spell description because it's not crystal clearly defined in the general rules, but the general rules specifically mention that they only cover most circumstances. You are taking a statement that is generally true and saying it is always true, which is just false. Generally is not equal to always.
Since for the purposes of stacking with critical expanding abilities the spell is treated as one effect, you can either gain the benefits of the spell or the critical expanding ability. It is a binary, you cannot nitpick between them. You also cannot make the choice after an attack roll is made.
If you took the improved critical feat and were wielding your chosen weapon and then somebody cast AotF on you, you could only benefit from one of them. I would say that you keep the benefit of the feat, because as far as I know there is no way to make a creature's feats not function. Feats are something intrinsic to the creature.
That doesn't mean the spell does not function at all on them, it simply means it does not stack when they are using their chosen weapon for improved critical.
Personally I see no problem with having them both active. Have the ranger scout ahead and use the perception bonus while out of combat. But once he is in combat, every time he makes an attack roll he must either choose the benefit of the spell or the critical expanding ability before the attack roll is made and then they are forced to stick with that for the entire attack, including both the attack and damage rolls.
Edit: Expanded for clarity.
So you view the hit and critical aspects as separate elements? in that you could use the hit bonus of the spell but not the critical of the spell if you wanted to use the expanded threat range?
I have at least picked up on something new here, the crux of the stacking concerns lies with critical column being seen as one or two elements, yes? I can see the argument being threat range and multiplier are locked thus leading to stacking problems. Previously i was fixated on threat ranges alone.
Yes, the bonus to hit and the critical changing effects are different elements. However, for the purposes of stacking with effects that expand critical threat range the entirety of the spell is treated as one effect. That means you cannot use the bonus to hit of the spell while using a keen-type effect. It is a binary. When making an attack, you must either pick all of the effects of the spell and not the keen-type effect, or you pick none of the effects of the spell and you get the keen-type effect.
but I also enjoy a rules debate
we'll never "prove" a side 100%.
I don't enjoy rules debates, and pretty much every regular player doesn't.
If you admit neither side will be swayed, then why continually hash out the same stuff? It isn't the first time stacking effects has been debated. In fact, it has been debated so many times I get sick to my stomach when I see another thread in the quagmire of what can and can not stack together.
When you start talking about an equivalent 20x7 weapon (17-20/x4) and how it is legal, you are ignoring a great deal of effort put into lines of text to block stacking of various effects that stack to improve a weapon's critical damage potential.
I appreciate that 20x7 is desirable, and how it is astonishingly easy to say "yeah it works right?" But to get there you must selectively ignore or alternatively interpret lines of text to be favorable.
You only seemed to have read part of my post. Some MAY be swayed: You'll also never get 100% agreement on anything. I also doubt that 100% of people think there was a moon landing or there is a thing called evolution. If for no other reason, statistical anomalies will guarantee that you'll never get 100%
Secondly, if SO much effort was "put into lines of text to block stacking of various effects that stack to improve a weapon's critical damage potential", you'd think they'd have worded it right. Why talk about the whole crit as a threat and then later mention multiplier? They should have had plenty of warning after all those debates you can't stomach.
As to "selectively ignore or alternatively interpret lines of text to be favorable": Like before, I see this from your side. You ignore stacking rules that single elements are examined in stacking. You ignore that the threat range of a crossbow is unmodified for a crossbow so there is nothing to stack with Improved Crit. Somehow you "interpret lines of text" to mean whole effects turn off without any rulings on how this happens as there is NO way to determine which effect is greater. So if anything, my side is refusing to ignore what's in the stacking section and not finding new meaning not written in them.
I keep referring to that line thought because the opposition's viewpoint is that the entire sentence is worthless. Why is it even there if the spell can stack? We already know multiple critical range expanding effects cannot stack, that's defined very clearly. I don't think that line has no purpose at all. The developers may not be English professors, but their writing is a far call from being poorly done.
Can you help me, where is the bolded part defined?
But what about this brick wall?
This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing or slashing melee weapons can be keen. If you roll this special ability randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll. This benefit doesn't stack with any other effects that expand the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat).
This spell makes a weapon magically keen, improving its ability to deal telling blows. This transmutation doubles the threat range of the weapon. A threat range of 20 becomes 19-20, a threat range of 19-20 becomes 17-20, and a threat range of 18-20 becomes 15-20. The spell can be cast only on piercing or slashing weapons. If cast on arrows or crossbow bolts, the keen edge on a particular projectile ends after one use, whether or not the missile strikes its intended target. Treat shuriken as arrows, rather than as thrown weapons, for the purpose of this spell.
Multiple effects that increase a weapon's threat range (such as the keen special weapon property and the Improved Critical feat) don't stack. You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as a claw.
Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled.
Special: You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.
Feel free to list and link any more crit expanding abilities. I'm sure they all say the same thing. In fact the only one that I think is even vaguely ambiguous is the devastating brand ability from the kinslayer archetype.
I keep referring to that line thought because the opposition's viewpoint is that the entire sentence is worthless. Why is it even there if the spell can stack? We already know multiple critical range expanding effects cannot stack, that's defined very clearly. I don't think that line has no purpose at all. The developers may not be English professors, but their writing is a far call from being poorly done.Can you help me, where is the bolded part defined?
It is not defined per se as part of the rules, but instead added to the rules whenever a threat range is expanded. Thus, we can count it as consistently part of the rules.
Improved Critical (Combat)
Attacks made with your chosen weapon are quite deadly.
Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled.
Special: You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.
Keen: This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing or slashing melee weapons can be keen. If you roll this property randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll. This benefit doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat).
Mighty Charge (Ex): At 11th level, a cavalier learns to make devastating charge attacks while mounted. Double the threat range of any weapons wielded during a charge while mounted. This increase does not stack with other effects that increase the threat range of the weapon....
Hateful Attack (Ex): The ranger can use this trick as a free action when he makes an attack against one of his favored enemies. The ranger doubles the threat range of his weapon for this attack. This does not stack with other abilities that increase a weapon's threat range.
But what about this brick wall?Keen EdgeThis spell makes a weapon magically keen, improving its ability to deal telling blows. This transmutation doubles the threat range of the weapon. A threat range of 20 becomes 19-20, a threat range of 19-20 becomes 17-20, and a threat range of 18-20 becomes 15-20. The spell can be cast only on piercing or slashing weapons. If cast on arrows or crossbow bolts, the keen edge on a particular projectile ends after one use, whether or not the missile strikes its intended target. Treat shuriken as arrows, rather than as thrown weapons, for the purpose of this spell.
Multiple effects that increase a weapon's threat range (such as the keen special weapon property and the Improved Critical feat) don't stack. You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as a claw.
Man, somebody seems very edgy and antagonistic. I never questioned the validity of your statement or said that you were wrong. All I asked was where the source was, so I could use it myself. I really do appreciate you taking the time to share the rule, even if it was done defensively.
This is the only one of the ones you listed that makes a general rule that multiple effects increasing crit range don't stack. While it's clear that it was probably intended since everything that increases crit range says that it doesn't stack with out similar effects.Now I'm not sure if it applies to AotF since that sets the crit range and doesn't always increase it. But that's besides the point.
Man, somebody seems very edgy and antagonistic. I never questioned the validity of your statement or said that you were wrong. All I asked was where the source was, so I could use it myself. I really do appreciate you taking the time to share the rule, even if it was done defensively.
Not at all. The entire face against a brick wall metaphor is very tongue in cheek. Me and my roommate nearly died laughing about the whole thing and my suitemate keeps coming into the room and slamming his head against the wall to our amusement.
While I could simply end all of my sarcastic comments with a [/sarcasm], it takes out so much of the fun.
This is the only one of the ones you listed that makes a general rule that multiple effects increasing crit range don't stack. While it's clear that it was probably intended since everything that increases crit range says that it doesn't stack with out similar effects.
Now I'm not sure if it applies to AotF since that sets the crit range and doesn't always increase it. But that's besides the point.
So? Does it make the point any less valid? Why does a rule have to be "general" to be more valid? Specific rules are just as valid, they simply don't cover as much. As you say, it's crystal clear what the intention was.
It doesn't matter what AotF does. It doesn't matter if all that AotF did was give you darkvision. It specifically called out that the effects of the spell do not stack with any effect that increases crit. The actual effects of the spell are irrelevant at that point. If you are actively using any other effect that increases crit range, you cannot gain any benefits from AotF. Period.
Man, somebody seems very edgy and antagonistic. I never questioned the validity of your statement or said that you were wrong. All I asked was where the source was, so I could use it myself. I really do appreciate you taking the time to share the rule, even if it was done defensively.Not at all. The entire face against a brick wall metaphor is very tongue in cheek. Me and my roommate nearly died laughing about the whole thing and my suitemate keeps coming into the room and slamming his head against the wall to our amusement.
While I could simply end all of my sarcastic comments with a [/sarcasm], it takes out so much of the fun.
This is the only one of the ones you listed that makes a general rule that multiple effects increasing crit range don't stack. While it's clear that it was probably intended since everything that increases crit range says that it doesn't stack with out similar effects.
Now I'm not sure if it applies to AotF since that sets the crit range and doesn't always increase it. But that's besides the point.
So? Does it make the point any less valid? Why does a rule have to be "general" to be more valid? Specific rules are just as valid, they simply don't cover as much. As you say, it's crystal clear what the intention was.
It doesn't matter what AotF does. It doesn't matter if all that AotF did was give you darkvision. It specifically called out that the effects of the spell do not stack with any effect that increases crit. The actual effects of the spell are irrelevant at that point. If you are actively using any other effect that increases crit range, you cannot gain any benefits from AotF. Period.
I think you're missing what I'm saying. If there was no general rule that crit range increases don't stack then the general rule would be that they do and everything is a specific exception.
Since you insist on bring up the other argument you have going on with other I do have two questions for you.
What is your definition for "Stack" in a pathfinder rules sense
Where are you getting your definition for "Stack" in the pathfinder rules.
And be sure to remember, I'm not bashing your view or saying you're wrong. I've followed this thread and these question I think will help me in understanding your view.
I think you're missing what I'm saying. If there was no general rule that crit range increases don't stack then the general rule would be that they do and everything is a specific exception.
Ok. And that means what? Who cares if it's a specific rule or a general rule? That classification means nothing for how valid a rule is.
Also, keep in mind that the rules tell you what you can do. Not what you cannot do. The rules don't specifically say "A level 1 adept with an INT of 11 and STR of 12 can summon a Tarrasque but only on a Tuesday during a full moon". We know they can't do that, and there is no part of the rules saying they can. If it's not in the rules, the general assumption is that you cannot do it.
Irrelevant anyways because critical range stacking is in the rules.
Since you insist on bring up the other argument you have going on with other I do have two questions for you.
What is your definition for "Stack" in a pathfinder rules sense
Where are you getting your definition for "Stack" in the pathfinder rules.
Nope, logical fallacy. First question becomes completely irrelevant by the second. You are trying to set me up for either a strawman or a begging the question situation.
Not to mention that this is indeed slamming my face into a brick wall. The stacking rules have been quoted at least a dozen times in this thread already, both the general rules and the specific ones (for instances like grappling and fear conditions). My definition of stacking depends on those quotes that have already all been put up in this thread.
You see? That question was entirely pointless. If I had answered anything else, the response would be "well that isn't RAW".
Per CRB p13, stacking is concerned with bonuses of the same type. Aspect of the Falcon has a number of effects. Improved critical has one effect. In every possible match-up save one, the bonuses are different, rendering p13 and 208 irrelevant. The one relevant on is the increased threat range that both mention. Both p13 and 208 indicate that when you have the same bonus type that you only get the best and not both.The basic result of this viewpoint is that the specific rules can be evaluated by the known general rules.
Given these two possible viewpoints, which do we choose? The one that leaves more questions than before, or the one that gives a clear answer?
I choose for the clear answer.
Back in post 79, I gave an answer to those who kept telling me they don't stack. I showed what would happen if they did stack, and said I agreed that they do not stack. Yet this post was ignored. Why?
You have been arguing from a game-design perspective. You pointed out that the rules would work best a certain way. But this is a Rules Forum and the goal is to find out how the written rules work. If the written rules are unworkable, then I will adopt your ideas as good houserules.
At this point, I will settle for a good houserule.
Nope, logical fallacy. First question becomes completely irrelevant by the second. You are trying to set me up for either a strawman or a begging the question situation.Since you insist on bring up the other argument you have going on with other I do have two questions for you.
What is your definition for "Stack" in a pathfinder rules sense
Where are you getting your definition for "Stack" in the pathfinder rules.
It seems a perfectly valid set of questions for a Rules Forum to me. Many posters have been using different definitions of "stack" and "does not stack".
For example, suppose a wizard wears a Headband of Mental Superiority +2.
This ornate headband is decorated with numerous small white gemstones. The headband grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to all mental ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma) of +2, +4, or +6. Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the headband is worn. The headband also grants skill ranks as a headband of vast intelligence.
He is dueling with party that contains a cleric, and he wants the save on his next spell to be as high as possible. Therefore, he casts Fox's Cunning on himself.
The target becomes smarter. The spell grants a +4 enhancement bonus to Intelligence, adding the usual benefits to Intelligence-based skill checks and other uses of the Intelligence modifier. Wizards (and other spellcasters who rely on Intelligence) affected by this spell do not gain any additional bonus spells for the increased Intelligence, but the save DCs for spells they cast while under this spell's effect do increase. This spell doesn't grant extra skill ranks.
Both the headband and the spell give enhancement bonuses, so the bonuses do not stack. Yet the wording on the headband is that a single +2 enhancement bonus affects intelligence, wisdom, and charisma. What are the consequences of a +2 enhancement bonus to intelligence, wisdom, and charisma and a +4 enhancement bonus to intelligence not stacking? Does the wizard lose his +2 bonus to wisdom, which gives a +1 increase to Will saves? It matters because the cleric has enough spellcraft to notice this.
If they stacked, which they don't, then the wizard would have +6 to intelligence, +2 to wisdom, and +2 to charisma.
By one line of argument, not stacking is decided for each individual characteristic affected by the headband and spell. The result is +4 to intelligence, +2 to wisdom, and +2 to charisma.
By another line of argument, not stacking is decided for the entire effect of the headband and the entire effect of the spell. The result is the the wizard sacrifices his +2 to wisdom and charisma in order to gain +4 to intelligence.
Thus, we have three different possible combinations, stacking, not-stacking version 1, and not-stacking version 2. I think some people are calling not-stacking version 1 as "stacking" and therefore they keep saying, "It does not stack!" and the people who think of not-stacking version 1 as "not stacking" are saying, "I know that!"
Therefore, this thread needs the clarification that Chess Pwn asked for.
Mathmuse I agree that what you proposed is a very good and valid question. However, it's not the same question that Chess Pwn proposed. Your question is basically "How do the rules manifest in X scenario?"
When things stack, that means you can benefit or suffer from them both additively. When things cannot stack, you cannot benefit or suffer from them both at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When things cannot stack, you cannot benefit or suffer from them both at the same time.
That's not how I've ever thought of 'stacking'. If I have two non-stacking things increase my intelligence, it's not that I'm not benefiting from them both, it's just that they're giving me the same benefit, and wherever those benefits overlap I get the better one of the two rather some boosted combination of them both. It would never have occurred to me that there might be some other way of thinking of it.
Not stacking is not the same as overlapping. The confusion is because for more cases than not, they can be interchangeable. When two things cannot stack, you only gain the benefit or penalty of one of them (typically whichever is stronger). When two things overlap, they both remain in effect, but the less powerful effect just becomes irrelevant.
Not stacking is not the same as overlapping. The confusion is because for more cases than not, they can be interchangeable. When two things cannot stack, you only gain the benefit or penalty of one of them (typically whichever is stronger). When two things overlap, they both remain in effect, but the less powerful effect just becomes irrelevant.
Your clear explanation has provided us with a good vocabulary.
A Headband of Mental Superiority +2 and Fox's Cunning combining to give +4 to intelligence, +2 to wisdom, and +2 to charisma will be called overlapping.
A Headband of Mental Superiority +2 and Fox's Cunning combining to give the benefit of only one will be called excluding, because the stronger one gains exclusive rights to the bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not stacking is not the same as overlapping. The confusion is because for more cases than not, they can be interchangeable. When two things cannot stack, you only gain the benefit or penalty of one of them (typically whichever is stronger). When two things overlap, they both remain in effect, but the less powerful effect just becomes irrelevant.
I'm sorry you feel that I had ulterior motives in my question. I honestly did not. But the answers to those questions provides a nice base from which to understand your view. I don't care who's right or not in this debate. I'm just trying to facilitate actual communication instead of people talking past each other.
THIS is what I was asking for in question 1. THIS is your definition of (non)stacking. THIS is where lots and lots of confusion is coming from. No one on the side opposed to you has this distinction. Non-stacking to them is that you have both but they don't add together, your overlapping. I feel the reason they think this way is in the stacking rules how it says when 2 things don't stack they are both in effect but one is rendered irrelevant. Thus they don't have such a distinction between overlap and non-stacking.
Now for the second question still, are there places in the rules you know off-hand that support the distinction between overlapping and non-stacking? Or when it talks about overlapping?
Again, don't care about right or wrong, just trying to get a bases for WHY you see this distinction and which other game elements follow this rule you're using.
Not stacking is not the same as overlapping. The confusion is because for more cases than not, they can be interchangeable. When two things cannot stack, you only gain the benefit or penalty of one of them (typically whichever is stronger). When two things overlap, they both remain in effect, but the less powerful effect just becomes irrelevant.I'm sorry you feel that I had ulterior motives in my question. I honestly did not. But the answers to those questions provides a nice base from which to understand your view. I don't care who's right or not in this debate. I'm just trying to facilitate actual communication instead of people talking past each other.
Oh I didn't think you were either. Don't worry, we're all good.
THIS is what I was asking for in question 1. THIS is your definition of (non)stacking. THIS is where lots and lots of confusion is coming from. No one on the side opposed to you has this distinction. Non-stacking to them is that you have both but they don't add together, your overlapping. I feel the reason they think this way is in the stacking rules how it says when 2 things don't stack they are both in effect but one is rendered irrelevant. Thus they don't have such a distinction between overlap and non-stacking.
Now for the second question still, are there places in the rules you know off-hand that support the distinction between overlapping and non-stacking? Or when it talks about overlapping?
Again, don't care about right or wrong, just trying to get a bases for WHY you see this distinction and which other game elements follow this rule you're using.
Google is failing me at the moment and all of my hard copy books are back home. I believe one area that specifically mentions overlap rules is when you gain multiple resistances or spell resistences from templates and how they overlap instead of stack.
Edit: Hahahaha, good news everyone! In my searching for overlapping vs stacking, I've come upon at least half a dozen threads on this exact topic dating back as far as 2011. Either the developers don't care or are willfully ignoring us.
No, they don't refer to each other at all, nor was any part of my argument having the rules refer to each other. This is a strawman.So the general rule referred to by the specific rule in the spell is the specific rule in the spell?
Sorry, no. Circular logic here.
It is my argument that a specific rule that states something does not happen needs to have a general rule where normally, something does happen. Why else call out an exception?
How does my argument not provide an answer? I very clearly have stated how the effects play out, and it is in fact simpler than checking every single relevant ability. Either the spell functions or it does not. There is no partial functioning.The simplicity of a rule that comes up with an answer over a rule that does not. Easy and/or popular does not come into the choice at all. Right only applies in that the one I did not choose cannot be right.
An appeal to something that provides an answer vs. something that can not provide an answer, is not a logical fallacy, but an appeal for common sense.
By claiming the spell as a whole is what is stacked, you require the known stacking rules to not apply since they only deal with individual effects. Since there are no other known stacking rules, the exception "does not stack" does not make sense, since stacking is no longer defined. Thus you get no answer.
You can disagree with my viewpoint, but don't disrespect it by saying there's no possible way it can be right. Even I go into this argument with a grain of salt knowing that I could possibly be misreading the RAI or that there was a writing error. Both of our views are possible and both can fully function in a very understandable manner. Even if you can have a stronger argument for your side than mine, that doesn't prove that there is a 0% chance that my side is right because the wording is ambiguous; otherwise this thread wouldn't have gone on for so long.
No disrespect is meant.
I have said it cannot be without some rules support, and I have asked repeatedly for such a citation. If you cannot provide such a citation, I must therefor conclude you cannot prove me wrong.The point of a specific rule is to override a general rule. This is what I am asking for. The two I and others keep saying work, you and others keep saying don't apply. So what rule is the general rule.The general stacking rules which have been quoted at least a dozen times on this thread already.
First by me. :-)
Yet some people insist on interpretations that are incompatible with the quoted rules.
Have you never heard of Reductio ad absurdum? These are two such examples.Except that you have proven no such thing. Not to mention that in the world of Pathfinder, we don't have to follow the regular laws of physics and reality. What is absurd in our minds can be commonplace in a world of magic.
Do you mean to say that either, or both, examples are how things actually work? RAW or RAI?
Cevah, I like how you completely ignored the last 10 or so posts giving many examples of things that are described as not stacking, which are also not broken down into their individual sub-components.
Like it or not, something doesn't have to be an individual bonus or penalty to be subject to stacking limitations.
You mean all those examples that lumped the effects into a single thing? That was exactly what the first part of this post dealt with.
You want simplicity? It's far simpler to not allow two things to stack than examining the minutia of their effects to see where the clashes are. Fortunately, this is exactly what should be done when the rules call out two things as specifically not stacking.
I want the simplicity that comes from rules coming to an explicit answer. Doing things in aggregate does not provide explicit answers, thus it fails to be acceptable.
but I also enjoy a rules debateI don't enjoy rules debates, and pretty much every regular player doesn't.
Glad I'm not a regular player. :-)
Just FYI, 17-20/x4 (0.2x3) is actually equivalent to 20/x13 (0.05x12) or 9-20/x2 (0.6x1).
FYI, they are not the same. As soon as you have a requirement to hit that is higher than the lower limit of the larger range, the results skew, since the lowest number does not even hit.
They are both under the same column in the weapon table, namely "critical".
The "Special" column works the same way, right, since it is a single column?
A spell's saving throw and spell resistance are the same thing since they are listed on one line?
Sorry, you are confusing typographic shorthand for rules gruping.
I keep referring to that line thought because the opposition's viewpoint is that the entire sentence is worthless. Why is it even there if the spell can stack? We already know multiple critical range expanding effects cannot stack, that's defined very clearly. I don't think that line has no purpose at all. The developers may not be English professors, but their writing is a far call from being poorly done.Can you help me, where is the bolded part defined?
So far as I have seen, there is no "typed" increased threat range. Since all increases are "untyped", they normally stack. I think this is the general rule being rejected by the spell's call-out.
I think you're missing what I'm saying. If there was no general rule that crit range increases don't stack then the general rule would be that they do and everything is a specific exception.Ok. And that means what? Who cares if it's a specific rule or a general rule? That classification means nothing for how valid a rule is.
But it does have meaning by setting precedence. A general rule is followed unless a specific rule overrides.
Also, keep in mind that the rules tell you what you can do. Not what you cannot do. The rules don't specifically say "A level 1 adept with an INT of 11 and STR of 12 can summon a Tarrasque but only on a Tuesday during a full moon". We know they can't do that, and there is no part of the rules saying they can. If it's not in the rules, the general assumption is that you cannot do it.
Actually, there are places where the rules say you cannot do things rather than saying you can do things. This is why so many people try to claim "But the rules don't forbid X". If they were all "You can do X", that other claim would be laughed out immediately. Since there are such rules, such claims must be checked first.
Irrelevant anyways because critical range stacking is in the rules.
Really? There is no threat range stacking rule that I have seen. Only the general stacking rule.
You have been arguing from a game-design perspective. You pointed out that the rules would work best a certain way. But this is a Rules Forum and the goal is to find out how the written rules work. If the written rules are unworkable, then I will adopt your ideas as good houserules.
At this point, I will settle for a good houserule.
Actually, I have been arguing from RAW. Not what way works best.
Still, I will accept a convert. :-)
I do like your characterization of stacking/not-stacking-1/not-stacking-2.
Not stacking is not the same as overlapping. The confusion is because for more cases than not, they can be interchangeable. When two things cannot stack, you only gain the benefit or penalty of one of them (typically whichever is stronger). When two things overlap, they both remain in effect, but the less powerful effect just becomes irrelevant.Your clear explanation has provided us with a good vocabulary.
A Headband of Mental Superiority +2 and Fox's Cunning combining to give +4 to intelligence, +2 to wisdom, and +2 to charisma will be called overlapping.
A Headband of Mental Superiority +2 and Fox's Cunning combining to give the benefit of only one will be called excluding, because the stronger one gains exclusive rights to the bonus.
A great way to define the terms. Stacking vs. Overlapping vs. Excluding.
Either the developers don't care or are willfully ignoring us.
I fear you may be right. :-(
/cevah
It is my argument that a specific rule that states something does not happen needs to have a general rule where normally, something does happen. Why else call out an exception?
I never called it an exception. Stop labeling rules as either general or specific. It is meaningless. Rules are rules.
By claiming the spell as a whole is what is stacked, you require the known stacking rules to not apply since they only deal with individual effects. Since there are no other known stacking rules, the exception "does not stack" does not make sense, since stacking is no longer defined. Thus you get no answer.
By your definition of what stacking is, which is where the problem lies. I even wrote out exactly what happens in this exact circumstance given my understanding of the rules. If that isn't clear, I don't know what is.
I have said it cannot be without some rules support, and I have asked repeatedly for such a citation.
False. I have provided rules, you have ignored them.
If you cannot provide such a citation, I must therefor conclude you cannot prove me wrong.
Logical fallacy. Even if I failed to provide a citation (which I already have done so), that does not mean your point in infallible.
Do you mean to say that either, or both, examples are how things actually work? RAW or RAI?
I believe my example is how things work both RAW and RAI.
I want the simplicity that comes from rules coming to an explicit answer. Doing things in aggregate does not provide explicit answers, thus it fails to be acceptable.
Again, an appeal to simplicity is a logical fallacy. We would all love politics to be cut and dry, but it's just not how things work.
Actually, there are places where the rules say you cannot do things rather than saying you can do things. This is why so many people try to claim "But the rules don't forbid X". If they were all "You can do X", that other claim would be laughed out immediately. Since there are such rules, such claims must be checked first.
Just because there are certain rules that say you can't do things doesn't mean that they must explicitly call out every single thing you cannot do. If it's not covered in the rules somewhere, you cannot do it.
Really? There is no threat range stacking rule that I have seen. Only the general stacking rule.
See my trio of links above as well as the follow up post with several more.
I fear you may be right. :-(
I am an extremely calm and collected person, but I am pretty freakin' salty about so many FAQ requests going unanswered. Would it really be so hard to have a few people who check the forums for actual hard rule disagreements? They certainly seem to have enough moderators to make sure we don't get personal with each other. I guess censorship is more important than truth.
[/angryrant]
Probably 3. Runner up is 1. No way 2 or 4 will ever happen. Especially 4 apparently.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Not stacking is not the same as overlapping. The confusion is because for more cases than not, they can be interchangeable. When two things cannot stack, you only gain the benefit or penalty of one of them (typically whichever is stronger). When two things overlap, they both remain in effect, but the less powerful effect just becomes irrelevant.
Wow. Well written. Clearly and concisely illustrates the point.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'll ignore "which comes first" and respond with the likelihood of each:
65% 1) Hit 500 posts
35% (it calmed down, earlier it was a 94%) 2) Moderators close the topic
99% (but around 1100 posts) 3) Everyone becomes exhausted and the thread dies, only to see another similar one crop up in a few months
3% (not likely - too difficult to write up in 3 sentences) 4) We receive a FAQ
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell as written appears to be written incorrectly.
The spell says:
You take on an aspect of a falcon. Your eyes become wide and raptor-like, and you grow feathers on the sides of your head. You gain a +3 competence bonus on Perception checks, a +1 competence bonus on ranged attacks, and the critical multiplier for your bows and crossbows becomes 19-20/x3.
This effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as the Improved Critical feat or a keen weapon.
Emphasis mine -- I'm pretty sure the part in bold is flat-out wrong, making it impossible to interpret the rest of the text "correctly."
If you consider that it should say critical threat range and multiplier, and the designer who wrote this likely had a brain-fart that day, then suddenly it becomes much more clear: the spell is intended to increase the threat range and critical multiplier so that it benefits both bow and crossbow users -- otherwise it only benefits a crossbow user, by increasing the multiplier to x3. The intent is then, of course, that it should increase the threat range for bows and the multiplier for crossbows, giving a benefit to a user of either weapon type.
Unfortunately, that's not how it's written. In this case I say it needs errata to clarify how it should work, since the way it's written is actually broken. Why call out the threat multiplier for bows increasing to x3 when they are already at a x3? Probably because it was intended to increase the threat range for bows, as well. Again, not RAW, but the probable intent.
The other issue is what is referred to when we say "this effect does not stack."
If we say "this effect" is referring to the total spell effect, it means the effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon. Stacking refers to stacked bonuses -- it seems to me the intent is that the crit range and multiplier do not stack with similar effects, to say nothing about the bonuses to perception and ranged attack to-hit (which I believe should remain in effect, since they are not stacking with another effect).
And why shouldn't we let the spell continue to apply a +1 to-hit and a +3 to perception whilst not providing an increase to threat range/multiplier? RAW it can be interpreted either way.
The real crux of the problem is the spell is worded very poorly; we are all correct in how we interpret it because of its ambiguity. This is the equivalent of saying:
X * Y = 12
Solve for X and Y.
We could all come up with different answers for X and Y and still be correct. We need a normalized spell description that is unambiguous in every way in order to actually know what it should do.
That said, we could all argue our points until blue in the face and still never come to a concrete conclusion, because we lack the necessary information to make a determination about the truth of the spell. Until we receive a FAQ or errata regarding this, I would say we should expect table variation as there is currently not one true and correct interpretation of the spell.
Anyway, that's my opinion. YMMV. :)
I have created a FAQ post .
Since it is clear a number of us have strong opinions that don't agree, please click FAQ on that post. Add any additional thoughts you deem relevant.
Thanks
/cevah
I have created a FAQ post .
Since it is clear a number of us have strong opinions that don't agree, please click FAQ on that post. Add any additional thoughts you deem relevant.
Thanks
/cevah
I think that is a brilliant idea Cevah. Even though I have expressed a very strong opinion in how I think stacking words, I do believe it is possible that I'm wrong. I hope for once we actually get a response.
@CampinCarl9127:
Been thinking about doing it from page 2 or 3, but wanted to have a clear statement to be FAQed. AotF vs. Imp. Crit. is not as clear as BoF vs. Haste. Yet I also felt the flawed text of AotF needed to be mentioned. As usual, I tried to include all significant citations, and certain notable examples of possible results to show how wide the gulf in agreement was.
Since I don't seem to understand your all-effects-of-the-spell-at-once stacking, I think if you make a clear write-up in the FAQ thread, it could add to the understanding of multiple views on stacking.
@James Risner:
This goes for your viewpoint also, as I think it is similar yet not the same as CampinCarl9127's.
@Byakko:
You missed:
5) Moderator intervention telling us to calm down. :-)
/cevah
Something else has just occurred to me, so consider this an addendum to my last post. I know a FAQ thread has been created for the general question of stacking, but this post aims to address the OPs original question -- which parts of AotF would stack assuming each bonus provided by the spell is treated separately?
You take on an aspect of a falcon. Your eyes become wide and raptor-like, and you grow feathers on the sides of your head. You gain a +3 competence bonus on Perception checks, a +1 competence bonus on ranged attacks, and the critical multiplier for your bows and crossbows becomes 19-20/x3.
This effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as the Improved Critical feat or a keen weapon.
Take a look at those bolded parts. They seem to be at odds with each other, since one, the spell effect, says it increases crit multiplier, while the other says the effect doesn't stack with abilities that improve threat range. Why?
Why would it not stack with other things that improve threat range, if the text above says it "only" increases the critical multuplier, as those opposed to the OPs opinion claim it does? If the argument is that the spell only increases the crit multiplier and not the threat range, then the spell's language is conflating two separate concepts, threat range and crit multiplier. From that conflation we can decide one of two things: it is intentional, or it is unintentional. I'm leaning towards the side of an unintentional error and both parts should apply equally to threat range and critical multiplier. Why do I lean this way? Because it's very difficult for me to believe that a designer would intentionally conflate two different game terms, and even harder to believe that it would be done intentionally without realizing that it would lead to ambiguity and disagreement among the player base.
-----------
Part 2
-----------
I don't want to clutter the FAQ thread with minutiae and get it off track so here are my thoughts on stacking of spell effects/multiple effects from the same spell, specifically with regard to Aspect of the Falcon.
Re: stacking, we can and should refer to the rules on stacking regarding bonuses. The spell text for AotF doesn't provide a "bonus" in game terms, because modifying the threat range or crit multiplier isn't a "bonus" that can be counted such as a +2 bonus to your intelligence score or other similar bonuses granted by spells. AotF does grant two bonuses: +3 to perception and +1 to ranged attack. It also increases the crit multiplier (and the threat range, if you believe what I wrote above).
I believe the wording in the second paragraph of the text for AotF is meant to let the user know that, similar to the bonus stacking rules, AotF does not stack with other things that increase crit multiplier or threat range. Since these things aren't considered bonuses by game rules, the normal stacking rules would not apply so the text needs to make a specific declaration that the effect does not stack. However, if the user of the spell (or Bracers, as it may be) has no existing competence bonuses for perception or attack rolls, those effects of the spell would stay in effect per the regular bonus stacking rules. And if you switched to another bow or crossbow weapon that is not Keen or does not benefit from your improved critical feat, and are still be under the effect of the spell, your weapon would gain the increase in crit multiplier (and threat range, if you believe what I wrote above) from AotF.
Something else has just occurred to me, so consider this an addendum to my last post. I know a FAQ thread has been created for the general question of stacking, but this post aims to address the OPs original question -- which parts of AotF would stack assuming each bonus provided by the spell is treated separately?
Take a look at those bolded parts. They seem to be at odds with each other, since one, the spell effect, says it increases crit multiplier, while the other says the effect doesn't stack with abilities that improve threat range. Why?You take on an aspect of a falcon. Your eyes become wide and raptor-like, and you grow feathers on the sides of your head. You gain a +3 competence bonus on Perception checks, a +1 competence bonus on ranged attacks, and the critical multiplier for your bows and crossbows becomes 19-20/x3.
This effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as the Improved Critical feat or a keen weapon.
Covered in post 22. Also note that the numbers listed, 19-20/x3, is normal threat range for a crossbow, and normal crit multiplier for a bow. It is higher crit multiplier for a crossbow and higher threat range for a bow.
This is also mentioned in the FAQ post.I don't want to clutter the FAQ thread with minutiae and get it off track so here are my thoughts on stacking of spell effects/multiple effects from the same spell, specifically with regard to Aspect of the Falcon.
Re: stacking, we can and should refer to the rules on stacking regarding bonuses. The spell text for AotF doesn't provide a "bonus" in game terms, because modifying the threat range or crit multiplier isn't a "bonus" that can be counted such as a +2 bonus to your intelligence score or other similar bonuses granted by spells. AotF does grant two bonuses: +3 to perception and +1 to ranged attack. It also increases the crit multiplier (and the threat range, if you believe what I wrote above).
I mentioned in post 194:
Some have said that "fatigued" and "shaken" are not numerical effects to dealt with by the stacking rules. Add to that a number of other condition words.
While they are words and not numbers, they are usually a set of ordered conditions. This order defines the properties of lesser, equal, and greater for every pair within the series. Fear has shaken < frightened < panicked. There is a clear ordering here. Given this, you can determine the highest of any two of these conditions. This permits using stacking rules since you can evaluate comparative numerical value.
This also applies to things like a threat ranges and crit multipliers.
As to cluttering the FAQ thread, if it is relevant, it should be placed there.
/cevah
Man. Ninja'd by hours, even before I get a chance to crow. :-/
/cevah
"Does not stack with" and spells with effects other than bonuses: What does it mean if a spell tells me it doesn’t stack with another spell or "similar effects" if some of the effects aren't bonuses?
If you have two spells with effects other than bonuses and those spells or effects are called out not to stack, that means that the effects that apply to the same rules component or situation do not stack, so if they apply different non-bonus effects to the same rules component, the most recent spell takes precedent. For example, aspect of the falcon specifically doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as Improved Critical or keen. This means that the part of aspect of the falcon that applies to criticals doesn't stack with those effects, but it doesn't prevent someone with Improved Critical from receiving the competence bonuses on attack rolls and Perception checks. If a character with Improved Critical (light crossbow) cast aspect of the falcon, his criticals would change from 17–20/x2 to 19–20/x3. Similarly, blessing of fervor does not stack with haste, which means that the increased speed, extra attack, and attack roll/AC/Reflex save bonuses wouldn't stack between the two spells, but if you had both spells active, you could still get those three benefits from haste while choosing to stand up as a swift action or apply metamagic to a low-level spell.
Maybe I'm missing something. As I recall, the main question was whether something like Bolt Ace could increase the critical multiplier from x3 to x4 when combined with Falcon's Aim. The FAQ seems to sidestep that issue. Its focus is on the threat range not stacking, which I thought was already the overwhelming consensus. So does the FAQ answer the questions posed on this thread?