| Tanis |
I'd agree with that except that's the same feat (or source). It's definetely up to your DM ultimately, OP.
I should also add that one of my players in 3.0 had a Half-Giant with the Large feat (it meant that your size increased by one) - & Monkey Grip. Horribly broken. Thereafter i disallowed that feat (Large, and most other things from SS).
*Especially if the said character was a Druid who had a fetish with Shillelagh - Colossal Clubs anyone?*
Which is essentially the same as a permanent Enlarge Person.
In the end, i still think that by RAW, it's fine. But that will depend on your DM's interpretation.
| MaxAstro |
True, stack isn't the word to use I guess. It's like taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) twice. You have the same benefit twice.
More accurately, it's like casting Darkvision on a Dwarf - it doesn't give them darkvision out to 120 feet, it just gives them darkvision twice, to no mechanical benefit.
I definitely agree that they shouldn't stack.
| Tanis |
If they aren't both applied, that's fine, but can anyone say where it actually says this.
It was recently asserted in this forum that if you had 2 ioun stones that increase your caster level by one, they stack with each other because they're unnamed. Apparently unnamed bonuses from the same source stack now. This is a divergence from 3.5 where unnamed bonuses stack unless they are from the same source.
I know this isn't stacking exactly, but as we're discussing RAW, can anyone point out where it's written?
| Majuba |
It was recently asserted in this forum that if you had 2 ioun stones that increase your caster level by one, they stack with each other because they're unnamed. Apparently unnamed bonuses from the same source stack now. This is a divergence from 3.5 where unnamed bonuses stack unless they are from the same source.
Whomever asserted that is mistaken.
I know this isn't stacking exactly, but as we're discussing RAW, can anyone point out where it's written?
In this case, it's in the feats and abilities themselves.
Powerful Build: "Allows them to function in many ways as if one size category larger". However: "A half-giant can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty."Monkey Grip: "You can wield a weapon one size larger without increasing the effort needed,"
Combined, there is no penalty or increased effort to use/wield a weapon one size larger. Nothing needs to explicitly say they don't "stack", because they provide the same benefit.
And..
Going two-handed doesn't actually let you wield a weapon that's a size category larger than you.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, yes it does. A Large one-handed weapon is two-handed to a medium creature (who also takes a -2 penalty to wield a weapon not made for his size).
| Tanis |
Tanis wrote:It was recently asserted in this forum that if you had 2 ioun stones that increase your caster level by one, they stack with each other because they're unnamed. Apparently unnamed bonuses from the same source stack now. This is a divergence from 3.5 where unnamed bonuses stack unless they are from the same source.Whomever asserted that is mistaken.
Core p.208: "A bonus that doesn’t have a type stacks with any bonus".
In this case, it's in the feats and abilities themselves.
Powerful Build: "Allows them to function in many ways as if one size category larger". However: "A half-giant can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty."
Monkey Grip: "You can wield a weapon one size larger without increasing the effort needed,"
Combined, there is no penalty or increased effort to use/wield a weapon one size larger. Nothing needs to explicitly say they don't "stack", because they provide the same benefit.
If that's the case then why does Enlarge Person specifically say that effects that increase size do not stack. Likewise, Haste and the Speed property. Are you talking about the rules of combining magic effects? If so, they shouldn't apply here, IMO.
And..
Going two-handed doesn't actually let you wield a weapon that's a size category larger than you.Unless I'm misunderstanding you, yes it does. A Large one-handed weapon is two-handed to a medium creature (who also takes a -2 penalty to wield a weapon not made for his size).
I stand corrected on this point. Don't know why i thought this was the case.
Magicdealer
|
I think the point is that they specify that you can wield a weapon one size category larger than yourself.
Now, if they just said one size category larger, there would be more discussion room. But the feats effects are tied to the characters size, and not anything that would play off of each other. It's the characters size, not the size of weapon the character can currently wield. If that makes sense. You can get one size increase from enlarge, and then the feats allows you to use one size category higher.
THe mattock of the titans is a gargantuan warhammer, which is a one-handed weapon. It's effectively a 2-handed weapon for a huge creature.
medium
large
huge
gargantuan
colossal
Starting with a large creature, enlarge brings you up to huge, which allows you to use it as a 2-handed weapon, taking the penalties listed on page 144 of the core rulebook.
Starting with a goliath, enlarge brings you effectively up to huge, which allows you to use it as a 2-handed weapon.
Starting with a medium creature, enlarge brings you up to large. Monkey grip allows you to go to huge 2-handed weapons, which allows you to use it as a 2-handed weapon.
Page 144 also talks about weapon sizes a bit.
"The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is light, one-handed, or two-handed for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.
For example, a small creature would wield a medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon.