So Ashiel's argument boils down to: They should stack because this other item does the same thing cheaper.
Not at all. I've already put forth an argument grounded in the RAW. The fact that the alternative to my argument also requires you to break the value and usefulness of a core option is merely icing on the cake so to speak. Further evidence that even if the RAW can be interpreted two ways with the same text (because my interpretation, as well as Azaelas Fayth I believe, is firmly grounded in the text) then it's probably correct because the alternative interpretation leads to an absurdity or additional or new problem within the rules.
A masterwork weapon and boots of speed actually gives you more than a speed weapon does for all practical purposes.
Aside from overcoming DR/magic...
You do read what you write don't you? Is it just easier for you to argue if you change the scenario during your argument?
The two don't stack. And they don't stack because in the line about "This does not stack with similar effects" it makes zero reference to what you are actually using to make the extra attack with. Ergo, what weapon actually used to make the extra attack does not matter, only that an extra attack was made. This whole thread is ridiculous.
They never answer that point, do they?
[sarcasm]Now here is something. If it doesn't stack with something that grants extra attacks, as they are technically similar in that respect, then you legally can't even TWF while using Haste or Speed.[/sarcasm]
Great... Now some idiot will come along and say that is correct and such.
[sarcasm]Now here is something. If it doesn't stack with something that grants extra attacks, as they are technically similar in that respect, then you legally can't even TWF while using Haste or Speed. [/sarcasm]
Okay, so let's turn this around: What doesn't stack with speed? You've said speed stacks with speed, you've said haste stacks with speed even when the rules specifically call that out as not stacking. What doesn't stack? Or was the "similar abilities don't stack" line meaningless?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[sarcasm]Now here is something. If it doesn't stack with something that grants extra attacks, as they are technically similar in that respect, then you legally can't even TWF while using Haste or Speed. [/sarcasm]Okay, so let's turn this around: What doesn't stack with speed?
Haste clearly doesn't stack with speed. You can't make an extra attack with that weapon twice. Covered that already. Sorry you missed it all these times.
A masterwork weapon and boots of speed actually gives you more than a speed weapon does for all practical purposes.Aside from overcoming DR/magic...
You do read what you write don't you? Is it just easier for you to argue if you change the scenario during your argument?
Dude, wait a moment, pause, hold up on that car wash, let's take a few steps back, and so forth.
A masterwork weapon is 300 gp. Boots of speed is 12,000 gp. Where I come from, the argument that "DR 5/magic" is pretty asinine at that point. However, if it makes you happy I'll revise the point. A +1 weapon and boots of speed gives you MUCH more than a +1 speed weapon INCLUDING DR X/magic. While still being almost a third of the price of the other.
You can buy two magic weapons and a pair of boots of speed for about the same cost as a single +1 speed weapon, and the boots are giving you bonus attacks with both of them. And speed. And bonus to hit. And Reflex saves. And Armor Class. And awesome acrobatics bonuses.
Haste clearly doesn't stack with speed. You can't make an extra attack with that weapon twice. Covered that already. Sorry you missed it all these times.[sarcasm]Now here is something. If it doesn't stack with something that grants extra attacks, as they are technically similar in that respect, then you legally can't even TWF while using Haste or Speed. [/sarcasm]Okay, so let's turn this around: What doesn't stack with speed?
I agree it doesn't stack with haste. I also said it doesn't stack with speed. Azaleas has said both. That's why I asked him.
I agree it doesn't stack with haste. I also said it doesn't stack with speed. Azaleas has said both. That's why I asked him.Haste clearly doesn't stack with speed. You can't make an extra attack with that weapon twice. Covered that already. Sorry you missed it all these times.[sarcasm]Now here is something. If it doesn't stack with something that grants extra attacks, as they are technically similar in that respect, then you legally can't even TWF while using Haste or Speed. [/sarcasm]Okay, so let's turn this around: What doesn't stack with speed?
Of course it doesn't stack with speed. It's impossible to stack with speed. How on earth would you expect a speed weapon to give you an extra attack with a completely different weapon? O.o
That's just dumb. >.>
A masterwork weapon and boots of speed actually gives you more than a speed weapon does for all practical purposes.Aside from overcoming DR/magic...
You do read what you write don't you? Is it just easier for you to argue if you change the scenario during your argument?
Dude, wait a moment, pause, hold up on that car wash, let's take a few steps back, and so forth.
A masterwork weapon is 300 gp. Boots of speed is 12,000 gp. Where I come from, the argument that "DR 5/magic" is pretty asinine at that point. However, if it makes you happy I'll revise the point. A +1 weapon and boots of speed gives you MUCH more than a +1 speed weapon INCLUDING DR X/magic. While still being almost a third of the price of the other.
You can buy two magic weapons and a pair of boots of speed for about the same cost as a single +1 speed weapon, and the boots are giving you bonus attacks with both of them. And speed. And bonus to hit. And Reflex saves. And Armor Class. And awesome acrobatics bonuses.
I understand you don't like the price of the speed ability but that doesn't change it's rules.
I agree it doesn't stack with haste. I also said it doesn't stack with speed. Azaleas has said both. That's why I asked him.Haste clearly doesn't stack with speed. You can't make an extra attack with that weapon twice. Covered that already. Sorry you missed it all these times.[sarcasm]Now here is something. If it doesn't stack with something that grants extra attacks, as they are technically similar in that respect, then you legally can't even TWF while using Haste or Speed. [/sarcasm]Okay, so let's turn this around: What doesn't stack with speed?Of course it doesn't stack with speed. It's impossible to stack with speed. How on earth would you expect a speed weapon to give you an extra attack with a completely different weapon? O.o
That's just dumb. >.>
That's the way you house rule it your games, that's fine. I'll keep that in mind if you're ever my DM.
Ok you can't use the Abilities on the Same weapon. That is confirmed. We are talking 2 different weapons getting the effects.
I understand you don't like the price of the speed ability but that doesn't change it's rules.
Oh no, I'm fine with the price of speed because of the rules. I've already broken down the rules as written in this very thread, word for word, and showed how by RAW haste and speed do not stack but you still get to take your attack with your speed weapon and your haste weapon. I've no problems with the RAW. I agree with the RAW. The only issue that arises at this point is if there is a competing interpretation. When presented with two interpretations that could perhaps be correct in the wording, you look to see the outcome of each example. Since one causes the rules to remain both consistent and balanced, and the other creates imbalance within the rules to function, it seems logical to conclude it is the former rather than the latter. Which is what happened here.
Ok you can't use the Abilities on the Same weapon. That is confirmed. We are talking 2 different weapons getting the effects.
Man, if that was legal, what would you even call such a weapon? +1 speed speed speed longsword "The Mach III"? XD
Great know I wanna make a +6 Speed Bastard Sword Artifact that doubles your attacks, halves your equipment & your own weight, and increases your base Land Speed while it is wielded. I shall call it Silfarion!
Great know I wanna make a +6 Speed Bastard Sword Artifact that doubles your attacks, halves your equipment & your own weight, and increases your base Land Speed while it is wielded. I shall call it Silfarion!
Clearly it must use 2E haste. Modern haste is so nerfed compared to pre-3E it's crazy (and it's STILL the best buff). Old haste was like 1 target / level, doubled your speed and number of attacks. OMGWTF! XD
Missed the Name didn't you... And I was thinking something like:
"Silfarion"/Quicksilver: This +6 Speed Mithril Bastard Sword Halves your Weight and the weight of all other items you carry and increases your Base Speed by 50%. In addition you double all your attacks. Even on a Standard Attack Action.
Missed the Name didn't you... And I was thinking something like:
"Silfarion"/Quicksilver: This +6 Speed Mithril Bastard Sword Halves your Weight and the weight of all other items you carry and increases your Base Speed by 50%. In addition you double all your attacks. Even on a Standard Attack Action.
Haha, ohhh. XD
If you put speed on two blade ends of the same weapon, do they stack? What if you break it in half to make two weapons?
Seriously though, if haste doesn't allow two-weapon fighters to gain two extra attacks instead of one, why would speed break that rule? Sure you can rules finagle, but if your reasoning is that you can interpret the rules in such a way you may find backing from the text and it may sit fine amongst the power level in your particular situation, that doesn't stop it from being cheese.
If your reasoning is cost. Yeah, the cost for a speed weapon is silly. Having a second attack is still better than +3 attack and damage in many cases if your attack roll and damage dealt is good enough. If you ask me, it should only count as a +2 at most since it doesn't give any of the other benefits of haste (+1 attack, +1 dodge, +30 ft move). It's also more beneficial to heavier weapons. Speed on a dagger is a waste of money when for the same exact cost you could put it on a greatsword for far greater efficiency.
Part of the game is figuring out how to budget your money. Some things are just not worth it, for example a +1 half-plate.
If you put speed on two blade ends of the same weapon, do they stack? What if you break it in half to make two weapons?
Because each end is counted as a separate weapon. So they don't stack, they apply to a different weapon. Just like how you can have a staff with +1 holy flaming on one end and +1 unholy frost on the other. Double weapons are interesting like that (and you have to pay masterwork costs for each end separately). If you wanted an extra swing with both ends you'd need speed/speed.
I was being entirely serious and was agreeing with you. What you said coincides with what I've said as well.Word your opinion clearly, because I know you aren't agreeing with me, but its better if you don't try to hide it with smugness.Of course speed does not stack with speed. Having a +1 speed shortsword and a +1 speed longsword doesn't mean you get to make two extra attacks with your longsword. That would be silly good sir.Yeah, I still have never found an argument that relies on grammatical analysis to be very convincing.
Speed does not stack with speed. You get your normal number of attacks (as determined by your weapon style/natural attacks) +1. If you get a value of +2 attacks, you did it wrong.
Than you misunderstood my point.
The question is: how many extra attacks can you have in a round?
Answer: 1
You are using grammatical and logical manipulation to arrive at other answers. I understand you feel that you are correct, but it's not the intent of how the rules were made.
If two bonuses don't stack, they can't be added together to achieve a value higher than either.
A fighter has X attacks. Haste and Speed both add +1 attacks, but cannot stack. Therefore the highest value you can achieve is X +1. You can only achieve X+2 if the bonuses stack.
There is no statistic "attacks per round". You have iterative attacks and other effects that give you attacks. There is no limit to the number of attacks you can make other than the number of attacks you can get.
Otherwise a fighter couldn't have natural attacks (these add attacks), nor could a fighter use two-weapon fighting (also add an additional attack with a particular weapon), nor could a monk use flurry of blows (more than one additional attack).
You aren't even using the rules to argue it. You're making up make-believe statistics. :\
"Don't ask me where in the rules it says you cannot do something, your job as the player is to show me in the rules where it says you CAN do it."
That line is awesome and if this forum allowed sigs it would be in mine.
|
Unfortunately, you didn't quote the relevant part of the AoMF description that pertains to my initial statement that you are trying to refute.Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.So, as far as the Marilith and her slam/tail attacks are concerned: no, she does not get an extra attack while wearing an AoMF that is enhanced with the speed ability. Whether or not this is the way it's supposed to be intended, I don't know, but that's the way it's currently written (and quite honestly, I'm ok with the way it is currently written). That being said, the Marilith would get the enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls to her slam/tail attacks, though the best she would get would be a +2 because that is the max that an AoMF could have while also having the speed ability.
I don't know what point you're trying to make here, but Speed is perfectly eligible for adding on an AoMF and will apply to all unarmed strikes or natural attacks. It just won't give more than one extra attack. Your quote isn't "relevant" to anything that I can see. Maybe elaborate on the point you're trying to make?
There is no statistic "attacks per round". You have iterative attacks and other effects that give you attacks. There is no limit to the number of attacks you can make other than the number of attacks you can get.
Otherwise a fighter couldn't have natural attacks (these add attacks), nor could a fighter use two-weapon fighting (also add an additional attack with a particular weapon), nor could a monk use flurry of blows (more than one additional attack).
You aren't even using the rules to argue it. You're making up make-believe statistics. :\
Yes, there is a statistic of attacks per round, it isn't named as such though. If I give you a stat block, but without the attacks filled, but it includes level (or HD), BAB, feats, whether they have natural attacks, class, etc, you can figure out the number of attacks in a round. It isn't something that we just guess at, the rules tell us how many we get.
Speed gives a BONUS attack.
Haste gives a BONUS attack.
The rules specifically say they don't stack. Therefore you cannot arrive at a number higher than either individual bonus. If you arrive at a higher number than either individual bonus, you did it wrong.
You are arguing for arriving at a number higher than either bonus. You are saying that they stack, even though they clearly say they don't. The rules for bonuses are discussed in other areas of the book, unfortunately I'm traveling and posting this on a mobile device so that's kinda difficult for me to dig up right now.
The designers have stated their intent of adding one bonus attack per round. If you want to play differently, fine.
There is no statistic "attacks per round". You have iterative attacks and other effects that give you attacks. There is no limit to the number of attacks you can make other than the number of attacks you can get.
Otherwise a fighter couldn't have natural attacks (these add attacks), nor could a fighter use two-weapon fighting (also add an additional attack with a particular weapon), nor could a monk use flurry of blows (more than one additional attack).
You aren't even using the rules to argue it. You're making up make-believe statistics. :\
Yes, there is a statistic of attacks per round, it isn't named as such though. If I give you a stat block, but without the attacks filled, but it includes level (or HD), BAB, feats, whether they have natural attacks, class, etc, you can figure out the number of attacks in a round. It isn't something that we just guess at, the rules tell us how many we get.
Speed gives a BONUS attack.
Haste gives a BONUS attack.The rules specifically say they don't stack. Therefore you cannot arrive at a number higher than either individual bonus. If you arrive at a higher number than either individual bonus, you did it wrong.
You are arguing for arriving at a number higher than either bonus. You are saying that they stack, even though they clearly say they don't. The rules for bonuses are discussed in other areas of the book, unfortunately I'm traveling and posting this on a mobile device so that's kinda difficult for me to dig up right now.
The designers have stated their intent of adding one bonus attack per round. If you want to play differently, fine.
I read it like this:
Speed gives 1 BONUS attack with a speed weapon.
Haste gives 1 BONUS attack to any one Manufactured or Natural weapon.
You cannot stack them, but if you have 2 speed weapons and 1 natural attack Haste will give you an extra natural attack while the speed weapons will give you an extra attack from each speed weapon.
However, what Haste will not do, is allow you to take two extra attacks with that speed weapon.
However, if you have ONLY 1 speed weapon and no natural attacks. You would get 1 extra attack from Haste (Haste's bonus to attack makes it superior) but no extra attack from speed.
As for the AoMF. You get 1 extra attack with one of your natural attacks since it is the amulet that is providing the speed bonus, not the attacks themselves.
|
|
***As for the AoMF. You get 1 extra attack with one of your natural attacks since it is the amulet that is providing the speed bonus, not the attacks themselves.
I won't touch the preceding portion of your post other than to say that it directly contradicts the Paizo staff clarifications given at the beginning of this thread; However-
The amulet grants its enhancement and abilities to all unarmed strikes and natural attacks. Under your assertion here, a character with a Flaming AoMF would only apply the Flaming property to a single limb, or would only apply the Enhancement bonus to a single attack, which is clearly not the way it works. The Amulet grants its properties and enhancement bonuses to all unarmed strikes and natural attacks of the creature wielding it. A bear Animal Companion wearing a +1 Flaming Amulet of Might Fists now has a +1 Flaming Bite, and 2 +1 Flaming Claws. Similarly, the same bear with a +1 Speed AoMF has a +1 Speed Bite, and 2 +1 Speed claws, but still only gets one bonus attack total, because Speed and Haste do not stack to grant more than one additional attack in total.
There is no statistic "attacks per round". You have iterative attacks and other effects that give you attacks. There is no limit to the number of attacks you can make other than the number of attacks you can get.
Otherwise a fighter couldn't have natural attacks (these add attacks), nor could a fighter use two-weapon fighting (also add an additional attack with a particular weapon), nor could a monk use flurry of blows (more than one additional attack).
You aren't even using the rules to argue it. You're making up make-believe statistics. :\
Yes, there is a statistic of attacks per round, it isn't named as such though. If I give you a stat block, but without the attacks filled, but it includes level (or HD), BAB, feats, whether they have natural attacks, class, etc, you can figure out the number of attacks in a round. It isn't something that we just guess at, the rules tell us how many we get.
Speed gives a BONUS attack.
Haste gives a BONUS attack.The rules specifically say they don't stack. Therefore you cannot arrive at a number higher than either individual bonus. If you arrive at a higher number than either individual bonus, you did it wrong.
You are arguing for arriving at a number higher than either bonus. You are saying that they stack, even though they clearly say they don't. The rules for bonuses are discussed in other areas of the book, unfortunately I'm traveling and posting this on a mobile device so that's kinda difficult for me to dig up right now.
The designers have stated their intent of adding one bonus attack per round. If you want to play differently, fine.
I read it like this:
Speed gives 1 BONUS attack with a speed weapon.
Haste gives 1 BONUS attack to any one Manufactured or Natural weapon.You cannot stack them, but if you have 2 speed weapons and 1 natural attack Haste will give you an extra natural attack while the speed weapons will give you an extra attack from each speed weapon....
To benefit from two sources of the same kind of bonus, they have to stack.
Ie. dodge bonuses to AC stack, deflection bonuses do not.
You are trying to rationalize that two bonus attacks are different because they use different weapons to make the attack. Except they're still bonus attacks, so it's the same kind of bonus. To benefit from both, they have to be allowed to stack. Speed cannot stack with Haste.
Non-stacking +1's always result in +1. If you are adding non-stacking +1's to arrive at +2, you are doing it wrong. End of story. Especially when the bonuses are explicitly called out as non-stacking.
Speed/Haste don't say "doesn't stack with Two Weapon Fighting" and since they're untyped bonuses, viola, they stack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speed/Haste don't say "doesn't stack with Two Weapon Fighting" and since they're untyped bonuses, viola, they stack.
The extra attack from haste is an untyped bonus, you also get an untyped +1 attack bonus, as well as a dodge bonus and an enhancement bonus to movement.
The only thing preventing Haste from Stacking with a speed weapon is the special circumstance wording in the spell, but that is not the argument I'm making here.
The argument is in the isolationist properties of the weapon vs the spell.
Now, if you have a +1 weapon and a +2 weapon, Does that mean I get to swing both weapons at a +3? No because they are both enhancement bonuses and don't stack. Does that mean I get to use the greater enhancement and swing both at a +2? No, because they are isolated bonuses each applying to a separate weapon.
Now, if I have a speed weapon in one hand but not the other, can I apply my speed bonus to the other weapon? No because the weapons are isolated from each-other.
Now, because of this, I argue that the isolationist aspect of enhancement bonuses on weapons allows you to use the speed property on each separate weapon or use a haste effect for one while speed for the other.
And, despite what the devs may have said. I will rule as such, because RAW, is written as such. If they don't want it that way, then they need to release an errata.
I completely understand what your point is. You are saying that each effect is independent of each other.
But that isn't how the game works. You can use grammar and rationalizations all you like. Non-stacking bonuses don't stack.... that is what it means to be non-stacking. You can't benefit from two things at the same time when they don't stack. If you are, you are doing it wrong.
|
|
Speed/Haste don't say "doesn't stack with Two Weapon Fighting" and since they're untyped bonuses, viola, they stack.The extra attack from haste is an untyped bonus, you also get an untyped +1 attack bonus, as well as a dodge bonus and an enhancement bonus to movement.
The only thing preventing Haste from Stacking with a speed weapon is the special circumstance wording in the spell, but that is not the argument I'm making here.
The argument is in the isolationist properties of the weapon vs the spell.
Now, if you have a +1 weapon and a +2 weapon, Does that mean I get to swing both weapons at a +3? No because they are both enhancement bonuses and don't stack. Does that mean I get to use the greater enhancement and swing both at a +2? No, because they are isolated bonuses each applying to a separate weapon.
Now, if I have a speed weapon in one hand but not the other, can I apply my speed bonus to the other weapon? No because the weapons are isolated from each-other.
Now, because of this, I argue that the isolationist aspect of enhancement bonuses on weapons allows you to use the speed property on each separate weapon or use a haste effect for one while speed for the other.
And, despite what the devs may have said. I will rule as such, because RAW, is written as such. If they don't want it that way, then they need to release an errata.
They don't need to release an errata, they specifically told you in both the spell and the weapon abilities that they don't stack, and then came out and said that they really don't stack, just like it says in the property. They generally don't issue errata for things that they've clarified when they should have been self explanatory in the first place.
Non-stacking bonuses don't stack.... that is what it means to be non-stacking. You can't benefit from two things at the same time when they don't stack. If you are, you are doing it wrong.
Dr Grecko's enhancement bonus example is really excellent.
An enhancement bonus to attacks (with the +2 longsword) doesn't trigger stacking rules with an enhancement bonus to attacks (with the +1 dagger).
So a speed bonus to number of attacks (with the +2 speed longsword) doesn't trigger stacking rules with a speed bonus to number of attacks (with the +1 speed dagger).
Can you rebut?
And remember, the argument is specifically rules as written, Dev input and FAQ don't count (for some reason).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Non-stacking bonuses don't stack.... that is what it means to be non-stacking. You can't benefit from two things at the same time when they don't stack. If you are, you are doing it wrong.Dr Grecko's enhancement bonus example is really excellent.
An enhancement bonus to attacks (with the +2 longsword) doesn't trigger stacking rules with an enhancement bonus to attacks (with the +1 dagger).
So a speed bonus to number of attacks (with the +2 speed longsword) doesn't trigger stacking rules with a speed bonus to number of attacks (with the +1 speed dagger).
Can you rebut?
And remember, the argument is specifically rules as written, Dev input and FAQ don't count (for some reason).
Enhancement bonuses allow the weapon to provide a +1 (or greater) bonus to hit and damage. Speed on the other hand, gives the character an extra attack, which must be used with that weapon. A plus one weapon dropped from a roof is going to apply its enhancement damage to whomever it lands on, but a Speed weapon isn't going to make an extra attack on the way down. In fact, it will never attack on its own. It has to be wielded by a character who gains an extra attack that has to be used with the weapon. Since the character has already gained an extra attack from the Speed property, he is ineligible to stack any additional attacks from other Speed properties or the Haste spell.
Enhancement bonuses confer a benefit upon the weapon. The Speed property, much like the Dueling or Defending properties, confer their benefits upon the wielder. If the argument is that Speed instead grants the weapon an extra attack, then the property never does anything unless it is also on a Dancing weapon since weapons are incapable of making attacks. That stance also contradicts the text in the Speed weapon property, which states "When making a full-attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it". The wielder has been granted an extra attack, and is ineligible to take another per the text in the weapon ability and haste effects which specifically calls them out as non-stacking.
Enhancement bonuses confer a benefit upon the weapon. The Speed property, much like the Dueling or Defending properties, confer their benefits upon the wielder.
The weapon is not making an attack roll, the creature wielding it is.
"A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls."
"The wielder of a speed weapon gains an extra attack with that weapon."
Both are properties granted to the wielder by the weapon.
|
|
A speed weapon gives an extra attack with a weapon with that property. Another speed weapon gives you an extra attack with a different weapon, a different effect.
Weapons cannot have extra attacks. Weapons do not make attacks. Characters can have extra attacks. A character cannot make more than one extra attack as a result of Haste or Speed properties, since they specifically state that they don't stack.
|
|
Enhancement bonuses confer a benefit upon the weapon. The Speed property, much like the Dueling or Defending properties, confer their benefits upon the wielder.The weapon is not making an attack roll, the creature wielding it is.
"A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls."
"The wielder of a speed weapon gains an extra attack with that weapon."
Both are properties granted to the wielder by the weapon.
"A magic weapon is enhanced to strike more truly and deliver more damage. Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat."
We're talking about magic weapons, not masterwork weapons. A masterwork bonus is not the same thing as a magic enhancement bonus and thus has no bearing on the conversation.A +1 weapon is inherently keener and sharper than a normal weapon. It is still keener and sharper whether held in hand or dropped from a roof, or sitting on a shelf. Speed does nothing until a wielder picks up the sword, at which point the wielder is granted the ability to make an extra attack. Since he has been granted an extra, once he takes it he is ineligible to take any further extra attacks since the effects of Speed, Haste, and similar effects are specifically called out as not stacking.
|
|
Dr Grecko's enhancement bonus example is really excellent.
An enhancement bonus to attacks (with the +2 longsword) doesn't trigger stacking rules with an enhancement bonus to attacks (with the +1 dagger).
So a speed bonus to number of attacks (with the +2 speed longsword) doesn't trigger stacking rules with a speed bonus to number of attacks (with the +1 speed dagger).
Can you rebut?
And remember, the argument is specifically rules as written, Dev input and FAQ don't count (for some reason).
Actually, that's not an excellent example. Since we're ignoring common sense and developer input, I'd like you to show me where in the book it says that if I'm holding a +5 Longsword in my left hand, all of the daggers I'm throwing in my right hand don't get a +5 bonus to attack and damage. After all the Magic weapons section states " Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat." Nothing says that the bonus is specific to that weapon.
And as you so clearly pointed out Grick"The weapon is not making an attack roll, the creature wielding it is.
"A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls."
"The wielder of a speed weapon gains an extra attack with that weapon."
Both are properties granted to the wielder by the weapon."
[/snark] (I hope I'm not offending you Grick. I assume at this point you're largely just playing the game for the sake of playing devil's advocate and enoying the mental/verbal exercise.)
|
|
If we go off of this logic then that means that the wielder of the Speed weapon is gaining the benefits of Speed. Because he is gaining the benefits of Speed he cannot gain the benefits of Speed from another weapon because it is a similar effect to Speed that the wielder is already benefiting from. A Speed weapon is in effect a continuous use item that casts a limited version of Haste on the target with the caveat that it can only be used with that weapon. The character not the weapon is gaining the benefits of Speed, and therefore is not allowed to gain the benefits of Speed again, or Haste.The weapon is not making an attack roll, the creature wielding it is.
"A masterwork weapon is a ... Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls."
"The wielder of a speed weapon gains an extra attack with that weapon."
Both are properties granted to the wielder by the weapon.
Exactly right Shinigaze. If the property grants the effect to the wielder, it is the wielder who is gaining extra attacks, and thus the wielder who is subject to stacking.
Non-stacking bonuses don't stack.... that is what it means to be non-stacking. You can't benefit from two things at the same time when they don't stack. If you are, you are doing it wrong.Dr Grecko's enhancement bonus example is really excellent.
An enhancement bonus to attacks (with the +2 longsword) doesn't trigger stacking rules with an enhancement bonus to attacks (with the +1 dagger).
So a speed bonus to number of attacks (with the +2 speed longsword) doesn't trigger stacking rules with a speed bonus to number of attacks (with the +1 speed dagger).
Can you rebut?
And remember, the argument is specifically rules as written, Dev input and FAQ don't count (for some reason).
When you make an attack, you check all the variables relevant to that attack.
When you are counting how many actions, and what kind of steps you can take within those actions, you check all the variations relevant to those actions for that round.
Speed/Haste get checked when you make a Full Attack. When taking the full attack, you get your normal number of attacks +1. If you arrive at +2, you did it wrong because that would be stacking.
|
I don't know what point you're trying to make here, but Speed is perfectly eligible for adding on an AoMF and will apply to all unarmed strikes or natural attacks. It just won't give more than one extra attack. Your quote isn't "relevant" to anything that I can see. Maybe elaborate on the point you're trying to make?
I wasn't trying to make a point, originally. Rather, it was more of an aside. Anyways, the description for AoMF differentiates between the enhancement bonuses and melee weapon special abilities added to an AoMF.
First, it states that the enhancement bonus may be used by both unarmed attacks and natural attacks for attack and damage rolls. Conversely, the description goes on to state that an AoMF may have melee weapon special abilities added to it, but only if they are used with unarmed attacks.
So, as far as the AoMF description is concerned, a creature may not use a speed AoMF to gain an extra natural attack, though such a creature would still be able to use the enhancement bonus.
That's why I felt that SKR's FAQ was a moot post. Admittedly though, it's quite possible that the AoMF is intended to be used completely by all creatures and not just monks, but the current description says otherwise.
Shinigaze makes a compelling counterargument to Dr Greko's and Ashiel's excellent postings on this topic.
I must side with Ashiel on this. +3 bonus is far in excess for the benefit granted. An unhasted fighter should take steps to disengage, as he is obviously ambushed, or separated from his good friend Mr. Wiz.
Besides, the mind boggling investment of 2 speed weapons should count for something...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what point you're trying to make here, but Speed is perfectly eligible for adding on an AoMF and will apply to all unarmed strikes or natural attacks. It just won't give more than one extra attack. Your quote isn't "relevant" to anything that I can see. Maybe elaborate on the point you're trying to make?
I wasn't trying to make a point, originally. Rather, it was more of an aside. Anyways, the description for AoMF differentiates between the enhancement bonuses and melee weapon special abilities added to an AoMF.
First, it states that the enhancement bonus may be used by both unarmed attacks and natural attacks for attack and damage rolls. Conversely, the description goes on to state that an AoMF may have melee weapon special abilities added to it, but only if they are used with unarmed attacks.
So, as far as the AoMF description is concerned, a creature may not use a speed AoMF to gain an extra natural attack, though such a creature would still be able to use the enhancement bonus.
That's why I felt that SKR's FAQ was a moot post. Admittedly though, it's quite possible that the AoMF is intended to be used completely by all creatures and not just monks, but the current description says otherwise.
This is completely wrong. The Amulet of Mighty Fists doesn't say that the weapon properties can only be used with unarmed strikes, it says that weapon properties added to an Amulet of Mighty Fists must be ones that can be used with an unarmed strike.
"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks."This is there to clarify that you can't have a Distance Amulet of Mighty Fists for example. The properties added have to be compatible with an unarmed strike, but are not limited to one. Nothing in the entry contradicts the statement that the Amulet applies its bonuses to natural attacks.
So once again, a bear with a +1 Speed Amulet of Mighty Fists has a +1 Speed Bite, and two +1 Speed Claws, but only gets one extra attack.
|
|
Shinigaze makes a compelling counterargument to Dr Greko's and Ashiel's excellent postings on this topic.
I must side with Ashiel on this. +3 bonus is far in excess for the benefit granted. An unhasted fighter should take steps to disengage, as he is obviously ambushed, or separated from his good friend Mr. Wiz.
Besides, the mind boggling investment of 2 speed weapons should count for something...
An item being a sub-par option doesn't weigh against rules as written. Not every party has a wizard, and Speed is a good option then. Maybe the wizard is out of spells. Speed still works.
Hmmm... that's kind of hazy, because while it's written "When making a full-attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it.", it is applied that it allows the wielder to make 2 extra attacks if he's wielding 2 speed weapons, but he wouldn't benefit from the extra attack granted by Haste.
The weapon itself allows me to make an extra attack with it, so 2 weapons would allow me to make 2 extra attacks, because while Haste and Speed don't stack with each other, surely 2 speed weapons can work in a full-attack action.
|
|
This is completely wrong. The Amulet of Mighty Fists doesn't say that the weapon properties can only be used with unarmed strikes, it says that weapon properties added to an Amulet of Mighty Fists must be ones that can be used with an unarmed strike.
"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks."
This is there to clarify that you can't have a Distance Amulet of Mighty Fists for example. The properties added have to be compatible with an unarmed strike, but are not limited to one. Nothing in the entry contradicts the statement that the Amulet applies its...
I can buy that. Thanks for the clarification.
Not to get detracted from my original points (there's not really much I have to say further since at this point until someone actually presents some evidence to the contrary), I have two things to say.
Ashiel - your "black and white" rules as written arguement is anything but. If you have to argue points of grammar in order for your arguemnt to hold water, then the issue isn't clear. Saying otherwise doesn't add to your credibilitiy.
How you say it is everything in the written word. It's how we understand something. It is why we have grammar rules. When my friend plays a card in Magic the Gathering, I can read that card and tell you EXACTLY what it does with no confusion. When you are writing - especially rules - you can write words one way and say one thing, or another and say something completely different.
The idea that grammar doesn't aid an argument is...well it's just stupid to me. Sorry, I apologize if that makes you feel uncomfortable, but to me it sounds very stupid. It literally determines point for point what is said. Things like order, punctuation, sentencing structure. All of these things are critical when it comes to instructions and details.
My reading of it resolves with no conflict within the texts. The text seems to go hand in hand in this case.
When making a full-attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)
My reading says that speed gives an extra attack with it (that weapon). Haste grants an extra attack with a natural or manufactured weapon (but not a speed weapon, clearly). Ergo, you could not make 3 attacks with a speed weapon while hasted (1 normal, 1 speed, 1 haste), but you could make an extra natural attack or perhaps an attack with a second weapon (such as when dual-wielding or an armor spike or shield bash). This reading is in keeping with the text as presented.
The reason I mentioned the speed weapon cost is that it is an indicator that this is the correct path. In my opinion, the alternative reading requires you to add text to achieve the the desired outcome, but I've already picked the alternative apart to death (mostly problems within the wording which is not present in this interpretation). But just pretending that the two readings are equal, then we move to step 2.
If two readings are otherwise equal, which one appears to be correct based on consistency within the system. Consistency is a very, very important thing in the system and when determining the right vs wrong in a situation where the answer is not 100% known. So we look to see which reading results in a more consistent system?
Well, reading #1 looks at the speed enhancement. It sees that it is considered a major boon. It is the only +3 weapon enhancement on the weapon chart, more valuable than even the holy weapon enhancement. It is below only brilliant energy and vorpal on the list of weapon powers, with one ignoring the two main forms of improvement to AC (armor & shield) and the latter instantly slaying almost everything on a successful natural critical. Ergo, it seems this weapon enhancement is supposed to be incredibly good. Even better than +2d6 untyped damage and DR penetration vs evil creatures.
Meanwhile, items granting haste with all the trimmings on demand are significantly cheaper and more powerful in an extreme way. Since speed doesn't simply turn-off the moment you are under the effects of the most common buff in the game it seems that the +3 enhancement is justifiable as you can acquire multiple attacks. Ergo, it appears that the design of the system is consistent in this case.
The alternative creates and inconsistency elsewhere in the overall system, creating an both between different magic items with similar purposes in terms of cost, and an inconsistency between weapon enhancement power. So we have a valid reading of the text that fits grammatically and retains consistency, then we also have one that (maybe) does and creates inconsistency, we must deduce that the former is the more correct of the two.
==========================
The second thing I wanted to say was: Someone - likely meaning well - misunderstood the difference between unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes and natural weapons are both unarmed attacks (as detailed in the core rulebook under combat), but unarmed strikes are not natural weapons.
For the record you may also deliver a touch spell through an unarmed attack (and if you miss the spell isn't discharged) which may be either an unarmed strike or natural weapon or gauntlet attack.
I'm going to take a break from this topic. I've pretty much put up the RAW and the reasoning behind the conclusion I (and others) have gained from it and why. Since my posts remain up, including my criticism of FAQs in both 3.x and PF and my explanation for not having an absolute-acceptance of something merely because it's something a developer said, there seems to be little more for me to say on the matter. I don't really want to continue recycling posts around. I've got better things to do currently.
It's been good chatting with all of you. Have a good day and a better week. :)