|
This arbitrary limit will also lead to other weird situations (though not precisely broken ones). I presume that when epic level rules come out that the limits on magic items will be increased. This would mean that a paladin couldn't make their weapon go above +10, until the gain one level (21st) and can put it to +16. Similarly with arcane archer. Or a person shooting the +10 bow with +10 arrow has magic "trimmed" (despite the lack of rules for this), unless of course they are 21st level or higher, in which case whatever can stack does so.
This last scenario seems especially odd because shooting the bow/arrow, an act that normally has nothing to do with the character as far as how the magic behaves now intrinsically depends on their level.
Basically, either a) add trimming rules or b) allow temporary abilities and spells to bypass the +10 limit (but not the +5 enhancement limit).
What is the point of beating this horse again?
Really, it's only because it makes very little sense that they have an absolute rule that cannot be implemented without making up a new rule and negating a good portion of the (perceived) benefit of certain abilities, spells and items (but not other abilities/spells/items that mimic those same enhancements without calling them that).
We've already had the Word From God answer on this question in that the +10 total is the absolute limit, and if you don't like that answer houserule away.
What is the point of beating this horse again?
I'm still waiting for it to be fixed. As stated they broke one class ability and one entire class, aside from other things like the questions the OP has. Saying +10 is the hard limit is all good an nice, but some back rules are necessary to abide by this, not to mention the rewrite of an entire prestige, or just saying they do add it above +10, which is the point anyhow.
One way or another, this still needs fixing, so that's the reason we beat this horse.
|
|
Arcane archer's primary ability is to add magical enhancements to otherwise non-magical arrows. If the archer already has a +10 weapon, then this class feature is useless. Since this class feature makes up half the usefulness of the class, it makes the entire class almost completely undesirable (similar to the undesirability of mutagens before they made them stack with magic items by changing them to alchemical bonuses).
Also, the divine bond is good for flexibility, sure, but how do you determine what abilities get overridden? Doesn't a permanent enchantment generally overpower a temporary one?
Basically, I don't like a major class feature being nullified by a single item. That is, without house-ruling how those "overriding" interactions work (any ruling would be house-ruling as there is no rule for it). I'd rather house-rule stacking and make it a bit more than just versatility.
Eh it's not nullified. IF ya don't like it houserule it I for one would not allow a pc to make a +16 weapon so I do not see the big deal with them not being able to create a +16 weapon on the fly
I was amazed folks thought that power broke the standard rules really. Still a bit amazed by that.
I was amazed folks thought that power broke the standard rules really.
It doesn't. The standard rules aren't broken by it, because they refer to permanent bonuses. Paizo's position is counter to the ruling of the exact same rule in 3.5 and 3.0, breaking backwards compatibility and their own rules for no good reason whatsoever.
The thing is Wotc chose to make an exception to the written rules in a FAQ. Paizo did not. In both cases the RAW worked the same way, but an exception was made in a FAQ in the first case.
I for one agree with paizo standing behind what was written as I can see issues popping up with it. And had seen them in 3.5 but ruled as written not what the FAq wrote.
Everyone outside of ORG play can always do the same.
The thing is Wotc chose to make an exception to the written rules in a FAQ. Paizo did not. In both cases the RAW worked the same way, but an exception was made in a FAQ in the first case.
I for one agree with paizo standing behind what was written as I can see issues popping up with it. And had seen them in 3.5 but ruled as written not what the FAq wrote.
Everyone outside of ORG play can always do the same.
Stop saying that your interpretation of what is writen RAW, just because its your way of interpreting it.
It is NOT what's writen, even if one of paizo staff agrees with you, it doesn't mean that's what is writen on the book.
And the issues you are refering to, only arise if people interpret that part of the rules as you do, we can see many problems arising now, diferently than before, regarding that rule.
The fact it states {twice} you can not have a total enhancement over +10 is written in the book
You can choose to ignore the rule, but please stop acting like it's not in the book.
|
|
The fact it states {twice} you can not have a total enhancement over +10 is written in the book
You can choose to ignore the rule, but please stop acting like it's not in the book.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not in the book, only that it is written in a particular circumstance that doesn't necessarily apply to the situations being discussed. In other words, that the limit applies to the permanent item's bonuses, not the temporarily enhanced version. This is supported by the fact that it appears in the magic item section, but never in the descriptions of abilities that enhance a magic item further temporarily.
<class time></argument>
It never states that. It gives you a limit you can not go past. It does not say "You may exceed the normal limit for enhancement"
It has zero support as anyone making magic items"permanent or temporary" would need to look in the magic item chapter to see the rules for such items.
If you try a combat manver what section do you read? If you cast a spell what chapter covered spell casting? If you wish to bump up an items enhancement you would check the chapter covering that to see how it works.
Really guys if it does not say "This may exceed the normal limit for enhancement" then it does not.
Anyhow I am done auguring with folks who wish to hunt loopholes in what is a cut and dry issue. You can handle it how you like in your games after all.
Really guys if it does not say "This may exceed the normal limit for enhancement" then it does not.
You are free to THINK like that, but it doesn't mean you are right. Normaly if it doesn't say you CAN't then you can.
As a REALLY simple example, sneak attack doesn't state what weapon you can use, so you assume it's any weapon, and so on and so forth. If you need to state on every rule that "you can do something" then the book would have 3 times it's size, at most part of the book it says when you CAN'T do something, how am I supposed to know this time is diferent?
I was amazed folks thought that power broke the standard rules really.It doesn't. The standard rules aren't broken by it, because they refer to permanent bonuses. Paizo's position is counter to the ruling of the exact same rule in 3.5 and 3.0, breaking backwards compatibility and their own rules for no good reason whatsoever.
I totally agree.
The fact it states {twice} you can not have a total enhancement over +10 is written in the book
You can choose to ignore the rule, but please stop acting like it's not in the book.
The thign you are missing is that, that section is inclusive. It is referring only to permanent magic item enhancements and as such doesn't apply to temporary effects like those from a spell or class ability.
Paizo's rulign is counter-inuitive. Also, don't tell me about Paizo's intent. Paizo did not write the rule, WotC did. Paizo is now opting to change the way it works, which would be fine but for three things: (1) they haven't put it in the errata or otherwise made it official, (2) it breaks several classes and prestige classes by making some of their core class abilities useless, and (3) the change was neither asked for nor is it wanted by most roleplayers who buy their products.