|
Kinda like the defending property from two different weapons wielded by the same person also affects the same target? One haste does affect two (or more) of your party.Excepting on two different weapons, where as the haste spells are cast on the same target. And actually, I would see no problem stacking those bonuses either. Less effective than hasting two of your party.Two haste spells are the same spell.And two defending weapon enchantments are the same weapon enchantment.
Only the defending property is not cast directly on the target but the individual weapons.
Only the defending property is not cast directly on the target but the individual weapons.
So what? The bonus, which is the only thing we care about, is on the player, not the weapon. Where does the bonus come from? The defending weapon enchantment. The fact that it comes from two weapons with the same enchantment doesn't invalidate the fact that it's the enchantment providing the bonus. Since it's the same enchantment, it's the same source, and same sources do not stack.
Taking your "the spell/property isn't cast on the player, so it stacks" to its logical conclusion, you could invent a spell, area haste, that affects a 30' diameter area, cast it twice centered 5' apart so that they mostly overlap, and any ally standing in the overlap area would get doubled dodge and untyped bonuses (since dodge bonuses DO stack, if they aren't from the same source). After all, the spell is not cast directly on the player, it's cast on the ground the player's standing on. Totally different!
|
|
So what? The bonus, which is the only thing we care about, is on the player, not the weapon. Where does the bonus come from? The defending weapon enchantment. The fact that it comes from two weapons with the same enchantment doesn't invalidate the fact that it's the enchantment providing the bonus. Since it's the same enchantment, it's the same source, and same sources do not stack.
Taking your "the spell/property isn't cast on the player, so it stacks" to its logical conclusion, you could invent a spell, area haste, that affects a 30' diameter area, cast it twice centered 5' apart so that they mostly overlap, and any ally standing in the overlap area would get doubled dodge and untyped bonuses (since dodge bonuses DO stack, if they aren't from the same source). After all, the spell is not cast directly on the player, it's cast on the ground the player's standing on. Totally different!
Yeah, wouldn't have a problem with that. The character isn't receiving the spell, he's receiving the spells bonus, and it is from two different spells. But then, this is why we don't allow lots of different bonuses or lots of untyped bonuses.
You'd be better off convincing me that the bonus is actually an enhancement bonus because you're shifting the weapons enhancement bonus to the characters AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. :P
The character isn't receiving the spell, he's receiving the spells bonus, and it is from two different spells.
That's exactly it -- the character is receiving the spell's bonus. The character is the one with the bonus. When the character has the bonus twice, and both are from the same source, the bonuses do not stack regardless of their type. Furthermore, I have no clue how you can claim that two area hastes targeting very slightly different areas is any different than two hastes targeting two very slightly different sets of characters (just the fighter for the first cast and the fighter and the wizard for the second cast).
The target of the spell is irrelevant for the purpose of bonus stacking. Hell, whether it's a spell at all is irrelevant. It could be a natural ability for all it matters. For example, you cannot get Wisdom to AC twice by taking 1 level of Monk and 2 levels of Swordsage; both bonuses come from the "AC Bonus" class ability.
|
|
You're arguing that the bonuses come from the same source, which I find untrue due to the fact that it is two separate enchantments.
And I'm not sure why you think I was claiming the two area hastes were different from the two hastes. I already said I would allow the two hastes. Probably why you had no clue about it.
Your second argument fails in the face of my monk getting her Wisdom bonus twice due to the Saint template. I think the target and what type of bonus are the relevant items.
You're arguing that the bonuses come from the same source, which I find untrue due to the fact that it is two separate enchantments.
It isn't two different enchantments. It's the same enchantment applied to two different weapons, which are applying their bonuses to the same character. The enchantment is the source of the bonus; the bonus is applied to the character; two bonuses from the same source do not stack.
Your second argument fails in the face of my monk getting her Wisdom bonus twice due to the Saint template.
Did you bother READING my post before you spat that out? I don't think you did, because your example has no bearing whatsoever on the point I was making.
The Wisdom bonus to AC from Saint A) isn't the same type of bonus as that provided by Monk (Saint is an Insight bonus, Monk is untyped), and B) isn't from a feature called "AC Bonus".
Thus, it has no bearing on the stacking of AC bonuses from two classes with the same class feature. You're not even comparing two classes, you're comparing a class and a template. You're also not comparing two bonuses of the same type.
Just because I'm using two flaming weapons does not mean the enemy only takes 1d6 of fire damage.
Damage isn't a bonus to a stat. This is a spurious analogy.
Wearing 100 different orange prism ioun stones doesn't increase your caster level by 100. Take a look at the BBEG from PF#6 for a specific example of this: he has ioun stones that stack, and they all specifically state that they stack with themselves, even the one that gives an untyped bonus to maximum hit points. That would be irrelevant if different magic items already stacked.
You're right, it's a penalty to a stat.
No, it isn't. It's damage. Damage is neither a bonus nor a penalty. Furthermore, there's not even a question of it stacking, because it's not being applied twice simultaneously. You can't get +2d6 damage from making a flaming flaming longsword, which is the closest relevant comparison using your example.
So you quote a magic item that states it stacks to prove a magic quality that states it stacks with all other bonuses doesn't stack?
I quote a magic item that specifically states that it stacks with itself to prove that a magic item that states it stacks with everything but itself doesn't stack with itself, yes.
If you're not convinced by the rules in the book, the definitions in the book and the dictionary, and examples from the company that wrote the book, then no, I've got nothing else, because there's no possible way to convince you.
Willful ignorance irritates me. It's not a question of "playing the game wrong", it's a question of choosing to be blind to what the rules state. Playing the game the way you describe doesn't bother me at all. Claiming that the way you play is perfectly within the rules as written, despite all evidence to the contrary, is just being willfully ignorant.
EDIT: To be clear, I don't mean "ignorant" as in "ignorant unwashed savage" or any other derogatory term. I'm talking dictionary definition here. I'm ignorant of all kinds of things. It's the willful that bothers me.
|
|
Then I apologize for stringing you along for my amusement. I can go back and delete it if you like.
Although I was totally imagining this as we were 'discussing'.
Haha. xkcd is great.
No worries about deleting posts or anything. That won't "fix" anything, not that there's really anything to "fix". You're entitled to play the rules your own way.
Then I apologize for stringing you along for my amusement. I can go back and delete it if you like.
Although I was totally imagining this as we were 'discussing'.
Funny. I had an inkling you were 'poking the bear' a little.
And I prefer 'deliberately obtuse' to 'willfully ignorant'. It just sounds nicer.
Edit: This thread also serves as an excellent rules recap for stacking, so your efforts have not been in vain!
I would like to point out, for better or for worse, that identical spell effects would stack if cast on the same character multiple times if the COMBINING MAGIC EFFECTS in the magic chapter didn't exist.
I would also like to point out that, those rules are a distinctive set from those that say the same sources don't stack. Though they are related and rather similar, they are two different rules sets and as such don't really apply to one another.
That makes me think that two speed weapons or two defending weapons might still work with the same character. After all, if we didn't have that text in the magic section, which explicitly makes spell stacking (or rather the lack there of) the exception to the norm, then Zurai's argument wouldn't hold any water at all. Due to the same source rule, haste's bonuses still wouldn't stack, but the extra attack on a full attack might have (assuming the Combining Magic Effects rules didn't exist to prevent it that is).
I'm beginning to wonder if the argument Zurai presented me (about haste) actually does hold water. From a game balance standpoint it makes perfect sense. From a strict rule perspective, it's not nearly as strong a stance.
RD, don't push the reset button! I don't want to argue for another page just to come to the same conclusion that either way is fine depending on how you want to interpret it! :P
But, um, either way IS fine depending on how one wants to interpret it.
I would like to point out, for better or for worse, that identical spell effects would stack if cast on the same character multiple times if the COMBINING MAGIC EFFECTS in the magic chapter didn't exist.
Actually, this is false. My source for "bonuses with the same source don't stack" is not in that section.
I would also like to point out that, those rules are a distinctive set from those that say the same sources don't stack. Though they are related and rather similar, they are two different rules sets and as such don't really apply to one another.
This is just silly logic. So Base Attack Bonus doesn't apply to Combat Maneuver Bonus because they're defined in different places in the rule book?
Due to the same source rule, haste's bonuses still wouldn't stack, but the extra attack on a full attack might have (assuming the Combining Magic Effects rules didn't exist to prevent it that is).
Or, y'know, the wording on haste and speed weapons that states you can't get more than one hasted attack...
Well, since the thread is already shambling about and looking for brains, I've got a question along the lines of the discussion as well. What happens if a meteor hammer, with one end enchanted with the defending property, is used in fortress style?
The fortress combat style allows one end of the double weapon to be used for attacks, while the other is spun defensively to generate a shield bonus. If the defensive end is the one possessing the defending weapon property, can it be utilized when the weapon is wielded in this way? That end isn't used for attack, but it is used in a manner that the weapon was designed for.
I just haven't seen somebody post a ruling that said named bonuses which say they stack don't stack if they're from the same source that isn't a spell. If I misread something please post a link to the internet or a page number and book title.
Err... bonuses from the same source never stack regardless if the source is a spell, magic item or mundane item. You can't wear two pieces of armor for a double Armor Bonus. Likewise, activating more than one Defending weapon will only give you one Defending bonus.
Well, since the thread is already shambling about and looking for brains, I've got a question along the lines of the discussion as well. What happens if a meteor hammer, with one end enchanted with the defending property, is used in fortress style?
The fortress combat style allows one end of the double weapon to be used for attacks, while the other is spun defensively to generate a shield bonus. If the defensive end is the one possessing the defending weapon property, can it be utilized when the weapon is wielded in this way? That end isn't used for attack, but it is used in a manner that the weapon was designed for.
Nope. You need to make an attack roll with the weapon. You'll notice that a defending shield does not gain the Defending Bonus unless you attack with it. Merely holding and wielding a defending shield does not qualify in this instance, although the shield was designed to be used in this manner.
[...]Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.
—Sean K Reynolds, 06/06/11
Thanks, that's pretty straightforward then. Though I think I'll ask my GM to bend the ruling a tad bit; it makes sense in general, but it severely limits the functionality of fortress style in the upper levels; its usage can be compared to that a shield, but the end of a meteor hammer can't be enchanted as armor.
This made me curious about something. If I equipped my fighter with a spike gauntlet of defending +5 and attack with my great sword, before I attack I can allocate the +5 enhancement bonus of spiked gauntlet to my AC, since I technically am wielding the spiked gauntlet, and attack with my great sword and still receive that AC bonus?
This made me curious about something. If I equipped my fighter with a spike gauntlet of defending +5 and attack with my great sword, before I attack I can allocate the +5 enhancement bonus of spiked gauntlet to my AC, since I technically am wielding the spiked gauntlet, and attack with my great sword and still receive that AC bonus?
No. It's really very simple. If you aren't taking a penalty on an attack roll, you don't get the AC bonus.
This made me curious about something. If I equipped my fighter with a spike gauntlet of defending +5 and attack with my great sword, before I attack I can allocate the +5 enhancement bonus of spiked gauntlet to my AC, since I technically am wielding the spiked gauntlet, and attack with my great sword and still receive that AC bonus?
Nope. According to the FAQ response, you have to actually attack with the weapon to gain any benefit from the defending property.
This made me curious about something. If I equipped my fighter with a spike gauntlet of defending +5 and attack with my great sword, before I attack I can allocate the +5 enhancement bonus of spiked gauntlet to my AC, since I technically am wielding the spiked gauntlet, and attack with my great sword and still receive that AC bonus?
Just piling on...
No, thankfully the FAQ cleared up this cheese.
This made me curious about something. If I equipped my fighter with a spike gauntlet of defending +5 and attack with my great sword, before I attack I can allocate the +5 enhancement bonus of spiked gauntlet to my AC, since I technically am wielding the spiked gauntlet, and attack with my great sword and still receive that AC bonus?Just piling on...
No, thankfully the FAQ cleared up this cheese.
Thank god, my player brought this up to me and show'd me this thread, so I thought I would have asked, because that would be as stated "cheese"
Do you guys realize what you've done with your ridiculous need to nerf a hugely expensive armor bonus?
Wizard with a bonded dagger.... figure out why he can never cast.
stupid.