InversionComplex's page

Please: no fluff reasoning. This is the Rules Questions section. I ask this because fluff is not rules, and has no impact on RAW.

Using your example: the Speed property isn't a spell effect, it's a property of the weapon. So they are different. This is the whole 'similar' thing again. Not the core of my problem with this.

Here is my problem: the Paizo crew has had many chances to address this, both errata cycles and through FAQ. They have not errata'd it at all, and their only FAQ only states the reason "It's too powerful". Nowhere did they state that it doesn't work because they can't stack. There is an implication of other answers, but they arn't stated. Why not? That FAQ entry has been edited before for a tangential numerical error, so why not an actual rule saying it doesn't work? Do the devs know something we don't? It can't be errata; they had a chance to put that in with the last set. We got a FAQ that was 100% opinion. The best/most common answer is based on subjective interpretation.

EDIT: I have no idea where I'm going with this anymore.

If this was the advice section, I wouldn't make more than one post in a thread like this(unless asked to). This is the Rules Questions section. I will go back and forth until every possible reasoning path has been tested, or the answers found. In particular, I am dissatisfied/dissapointed with how the Paizo crew handled this. So I will ignore the Errata in FAQ clothes and slam my head against this until my head breaks or the answers form from the aether and splashes of blood from head trauma.

I *Hate* this FAQ. It is a blatant attempt to issue errata without it being official. The argument can be made that having multiple weapons with speed grants multiple additional attacks. If the rules completely disallowed that, SKR would have said so in the FAQ. That would have been an undebateable statement of the rules, but he didn't. It also doesn't clarify what you DO get for additional attacks. There hasn't been an errata for the AoMF, so the RAW for it hasn't changed. If the devs thought it needed fixing, it would have gotten changed in the last cycle of errata.

Also: The original FAQ has been edited. It quoted the price of a +4 amulet as 45,000 GP. It now reads 80,000, as it should. This mistake makes me think that the FAQ was issued as a knee-jerk reaction.