| 18 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
That is, the Stonelord gains DR/adamantine, while the Stalwart feat grants DR/--, but the feat states that it stacks with DR from class features, without specifying what that DR has to be.
So, do they stack?
I would be inclined to say that you get your Stonelord DR + Stalwart DR against anything that doesn't bypass the former, given the wording of the feat, but I can't think of any example in PF or 3.5 of different DRs stacking.
You would get both DR X/Adamantine and DR Y/-. If you were hit by an adamantine weapon, you'd reduce the damage by Y. If you were hit by a normal weapon, you'd reduce the damage by X or Y, whichever was higher.
Under no circumstances would you reduce the damage by (X+Y).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You would get both DR X/Adamantine and DR Y/-. If you were hit by an adamantine weapon, you'd reduce the damage by Y. If you were hit by a normal weapon, you'd reduce the damage by X or Y, whichever was higher.
Under no circumstances would you reduce the damage by (X+Y).
Why?
Honestly, by RAW for Stalwart, they WOULD stack. Stalwart states that it stacks with other DR from class abilities (this would be a class ability), but does not make any other specification regarding stacking or other DR.
If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation.
Stalwart then says it stacks with existing DR, however the type of DR stalwart gives is DR / -. Saying it would stack with DR/adamantine is like saying casting resist fire should stack with your cold resist. It does the same thing, but catches different abilities.
If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation.Stalwart then says it stacks with existing DR, however the type of DR stalwart gives is DR / -. Saying it would stack with DR/adamantine is like saying casting resist fire should stack with your cold resist. It does the same thing, but catches different abilities.
Not quite.
Logically, different resistances apply to different things. Two different types of DR don't apply to different things. They apply to the same thing (physical damage), but are bypassed differently.
I think it's important to point out that nowhere is there any language regarding different types of DR not stacking. The baseline DR rules say that different sources don't stack, while Stalwart is a specific exception to that general rule, but Stalwart doesn't make any other indication about the nature of that stacking.
I would assume that if Stalwart wasn't meant to stack with other sorts of DR, the description would say so since, after all, there are core class abilities that confer forms of DR other than DR/-- (both the paladin and monk capstone do), as well as other, non-core abilities that came out concurrently with Stalwart.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Why?
Honestly, by RAW for Stalwart, they WOULD stack. Stalwart states that it stacks with other DR from class abilities (this would be a class ability), but does not make any other specification regarding stacking or other DR.
Your argument is like claiming a scoop of chocolate ice cream on top of a scoop of vanilla ice cream stacks to make two scoops of vanilla ice cream.
Stalwart grants DR/-, and it stacks with other DR, but it has to be DR /- or "stacking" is meaningless.
As written, you'd have some DR/- and some DR/Adamantine. I can't figure out how you'd have anything else by any reading of the rules.
|
You take the "stacks with everything" DR, and reduce the damage by that amount. You then take all other DR (that doesn't stack) and (if not bypassed) reduce by that amount as well.
In short, stacking DR means you apply all of them separately, reducing the damage multiple times. How the DR is bypassed has no implications in this stacking (it simply determines whether or not that particular DR also reduces the damage). The non-stacking rules are actually the more complicated case as they ask you to actually evaluate all DRs to find the one that would reduce by the most, then apply only that one.
This is the same way any other damage resistance works: You apply each in turn, until either the damage is gone or the resistances are expended (thus dealing damage). Assuming they stack, of course, which isn't usually true. Protection from Energy and Resist Energy would be an example of weird but legal stacking, though I believe that explicitly notes its method of stacking.
EDIT: Note that when DR overlaps you only compress the notation if it happens to be conveniently the same value, such as 5/cold iron and 5/bludgeoning being compressed to 5/cold iron and bludgeoning. This is only a notational shortcut, however; you still have two separate DRs, one of which is ignored with cold iron, and the other with bludgeoning. If they were unequal you wouldn't compress the notation, but would still compare against each separately and apply the best for that situation.
Why?
Honestly, by RAW for Stalwart, they WOULD stack. Stalwart states that it stacks with other DR from class abilities (this would be a class ability), but does not make any other specification regarding stacking or other DR.
Your argument is like claiming a scoop of chocolate ice cream on top of a scoop of vanilla ice cream stacks to make two scoops of vanilla ice cream.
Stalwart grants DR/-, and it stacks with other DR, but it has to be DR /- or "stacking" is meaningless.
As written, you'd have some DR/- and some DR/Adamantine. I can't figure out how you'd have anything else by any reading of the rules.
Actually, it's more like saying you have a scoop of vanilla ice cream on top of a scoop of chocolate, and that gives you two scoops of ice cream, both good, yet different that make you feel good when consumed.
Normal rules:
DR 5/-- from source A and DR 3/-- from source B don't stack; you just have DR 5/-- unless you lose that for some reason, in which case you still have your DR from source B.
DR 5/-- from source A and DR 10/adamantine from source C don't stack; you just have the highest DR that applies (DR 10), unless it gets bypassed (by an adamantine weapon), and then you're left with your DR 5/--.
Normally, a barbarian with DR 3/-- wearing adamantine full-plate (DR 3/--) just has a DR of 3, because they don't stack.
Stalwart rules: (the DR from Stalwart stacks with DR from class features).
Your barbarian with DR 3/-- and Stalwart at DR 4/-- can have them stack up to DR 7/--.
Nothing in the way the rules are written prohibits Stalwart's DR 4/-- from stacking with DR 5/adamantine, 10/chaos, or 10/evil. You would have, essentially, DR 9/adamantine or --, where an adamantine weapon would drop your DR to 4/--; DR 14/chaos or --, DR 14/evil or --.
Now, I'm not necessarily arguing that this SHOULD be the case, and the RAI isn't clear here, but the RAW supports this interpretation, because Stalwart says one thing, and nothing at all, anywhere, contradicts it.
I'm leery to call for a FAQ for this, only because I don't want to see another fiasco like what we had with armor spikes, but it could use clarifying if it isn't intended to work as I've outlined.
I BELIEVE that in 3.5 there was specific language indicating that different types of DR didn't stack, in addition to the bit about not stacking from more than one source, but that isn't true in Pathfinder as far as I've been able to tell.
|
|
Evaluate the best legal combination and use that.
If you have DR3/- from a class feature, 6/- from race and 4/- from stalwart, then you would apply 7/- (class + stalwart) rather than 6/- (from race). If the class feature was bypassable with cold iron, you would have 7 versus any attack that isn't cold iron, then 6 against those that are (as the racial DR then takes over as stalwart, on its own, would be lower). If both the racial and the class DR are bypassed, you still get to fall back on the 4/- from stalwart.
Anyone else going to weigh in?
I am sorry Yeti, but mplindustries has it correct. DR 5/adamantine will never stack with DR 3/- according to the rules. If that was all that you had, then you would take the 5 points off each hit unless it was adamantine, then you would take off the 3 points.
If you had the barbarian build that you described with DR 4/- along with the Stalwart DR 3/-, then you would indeed have DR 7/- and you could just ignore the adamantine DR.
I am sorry, I know you don't want to hear it but that is the way it is. Now, you can rule it some other way if you are the DM or ask your DM if you are a player, but that would be a houserule.
mplindustries, hendlebolaf are right.
The DR would stack if it was DR/-, but it does not since it's DR adamantine.
I am sorry Yeti, but mplindustries has it correct. DR 5/adamantine will never stack with DR 3/- according to the rules. If that was all that you had, then you would take the 5 points off each hit unless it was adamantine, then you would take off the 3 points.
If you had the barbarian build that you described with DR 4/- along with the Stalwart DR 3/-, then you would indeed have DR 7/- and you could just ignore the adamantine DR.
I am sorry, I know you don't want to hear it but that is the way it is. Now, you can rule it some other way if you are the DM or ask your DM if you are a player, but that would be a houserule.
According to WHAT rules? If you can quote me a passage, please do so, or a quote from the development team, or a FAQ, because I haven't seen any that address this whatsoever.
Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.
The numerical part of a creature's damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks. Usually, a certain type of weapon can overcome this reduction (see Overcoming DR). This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic. If a dash follows the slash, then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
Attacks that deal no damage because of the target's damage reduction do not disrupt spells.
Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.
Sometimes damage reduction represents instant healing. Sometimes it represents the creature's tough hide or body. In either case, other characters can see that conventional attacks won't work.
If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation.
Emphasis, mine.
You adopt a defensive stance that allows you to absorb and redirect hits.
Prerequisites: Diehard, Endurance, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: While using the total defense action, fighting defensively action, or Combat Expertise, you can forgo the dodge bonus to AC you would normally gain to instead gain an equivalent amount of DR, to a maximum of DR 5/—, until the start of your next turn. This damage reduction stacks with DR you gain from class features, such as the barbarian's, but not with DR from any other source. If you are denied your Dexterity bonus to AC, you are also denied this DR.
Again, Emphasis, mine.
While I agree with mpl and the rest that different types of DR do not stack, I see a way to interpret it as stacking... Since it says "to a maximum of DR 5/-", it could be argued that DR 5/Adamantium is simply a LESSER damage reduction, in a similar way DR 4/- would be a lesser damage reduction, except in the former case, it's lesser in quality and in the later case, it's lesser in quantity. Unfortunately, this is a stretch of the reading of the rules, and since we are in the rules forum, not really worth delving into any deeper.
Were this not a "rules forum" discussion, I would suggest that while this was probably never really the intention of the Stalwart Feat, I don't think it would be game breaking, so talk to your GM and see what he thinks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think many are misinterpreting what stacking means. The argument that 5/cold iron and 3/- can't stack even when the rules say that they stack is like saying that a +2 bonus on will saves doesn't stack with a +2 bonus versus spells because "they aren't the same thing; one only helps against spells, the other against will saves". Just because you don't have a separate "Will Saves (non-spell)" and "Will Saves (spell)" entry does not mean that they do not effectively exist.
How stacking works is very simple: You evaluate all the numbers that apply, then evaluate the best legal combination of those bonuses. If all things stack, then it is simply a matter of applying all numbers that say they work in that situation. If nothing does, you simply use the largest. When some stack and some don't you have a bit of a combinatorics problem: you have to evaluate all legal combinations to determine the best. Often this can be simplified heavily. In the case of stalwart you would add your single best class feature (that applies) + stalwart, and compare that to your highest source that is neither a class feature nor stalwart. Whichever is higher from those two stacks is how much DR you get against that particular attack.
DR is allowed to be more complicated than a single number or a list of non-stacking numbers, just as saves, attacks, AC and all other statistics are allowed to do the same. The only reason that DR does not have a more in-depth entry on the character sheet is that more complicated DR combinations were not possible in the base game, and having even one DR source was considered unusual.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Emphasis, mine.
If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation.
Specific trumps general. Stalwart explicitly says it stacks, which means it stacks. Nothing ever describes the manner of stacking because the method was assumed obvious (see my previous post). It may not be obvious, but it was obviously assumed so.
EDIT:
While I agree with mpl and the rest that different types of DR do not stack, I see a way to interpret it as stacking... Since it says "to a maximum of DR 5/-", it could be argued that DR 5/Adamantium is simply a LESSER damage reduction, in a similar way DR 4/- would be a lesser damage reduction, except in the former case, it's lesser in quality and in the later case, it's lesser in quantity. While this was probably never really the intention, I don't think it would be game breaking.
The maximum is likely to keep people from combining fighting defensively (+4 if you have the style feats) with combat expertise (up to +6) to get ridiculous DR quantities (up to 10/-), not to limit the final stacked value.
To be clear, I am not trying to be obtuse, nor am I trying to game the system. I'm taking a strict reading of RAW, and wondering about RAI, since the wording on Stalwart doesn't give any indication one way or the other.
|
|
RAW does not spell things out well enough to convince everybody that what I have described is how this would play out.
It is my opinion that RAI is with what I described, and I offer as evidence that it is the most dumb and obvious way to do it and matches with how other things in the system stack (i.e. use all valid bonuses for the given circumstances except where noted as not stacking, such as due to bonus types). Since there is no rule that says DR/cold iron and DR/- can't stack when the general "DR doesn't stack" rule is overridden, I feel there is no reason that you shouldn't apply both.
Stacking, by the way, has nothing to do with writing down a single number that applies in all circumstances. Stacking limitations need to be evaluated for each specific circumstance separately. Since this is usually easy (i.e. most bonuses aren't particularly circumstantial), it's not usually a problem.
|
|
Having Stalwart not stack with Heartstone does not make sense to me.
Say that Bob and Roy are both 10th level Dwarf Stonelord (DR 5/adamantine).
Bob has an amulet that grants DR 3/adamantine.
Roy has the Stalwart feat that grants DR 3/-.
If Heartstone does not stack with any DR...
Bob's DR vs a steel sword is DR 8/adamantine.
Roy's DR vs a steel sword is DR 5/adamantine.
Why would DR that is vulnerable to adamantine weapons be more effective against steel than DR that is not vulnerable at all? Against steel, they should be equally effective.
now, in most cases, DR does not stack...but Stalwart specifically states that it stacks with DR from other class features. It does not say that it must be DR/-.
Having Stalwart not stack with Heartstone does not make sense to me.
Say that Bob and Roy are both 10th level Dwarf Stonelord (DR 5/adamantine).
Bob has an amulet that grants DR 3/adamantine.
Roy has the Stalwart feat that grants DR 3/-.If Heartstone does not stack with any DR...
Bob's DR vs a steel sword is DR 8/adamantine.
Roy's DR vs a steel sword is DR 5/adamantine.Why would DR that is vulnerable to adamantine weapons be more effective against steel than DR that is not vulnerable at all? Against steel, they should be equally effective.
now, in most cases, DR does not stack...but Stalwart specifically states that it stacks with DR from other class features. It does not say that it must be DR/-.
Yet they give an example that uses DR/- which is the DR granted by the feat...
Saying it stacks with other types of DR because 'it says it stacks' would only hold water if the example used something other than DR/-. There is no precedent set anywhere for two completely differing DR types stacking and the feat doesn't create one, using the same type of DR in example. It stacks with class features that grant DR/- like the barbarian or fighter armor training. It doesn't stack with other DR types because there isn't anything in the game that does that normally and the feat doesn't say it specifically does by showing it in an example.
If anything it is a 'specific rule' allowing itself to stack with similar DR, because that isn't normally allowed.
|
|
Having Stalwart not stack with Heartstone does not make sense to me.
Say that Bob and Roy are both 10th level Dwarf Stonelord (DR 5/adamantine).
Bob has an amulet that grants DR 3/adamantine.
Roy has the Stalwart feat that grants DR 3/-.If Heartstone does not stack with any DR...
Bob's DR vs a steel sword is DR 8/adamantine.
Roy's DR vs a steel sword is DR 5/adamantine.Why would DR that is vulnerable to adamantine weapons be more effective against steel than DR that is not vulnerable at all? Against steel, they should be equally effective.
now, in most cases, DR does not stack...but Stalwart specifically states that it stacks with DR from other class features. It does not say that it must be DR/-.
Yet they give an example that uses DR/- which is the DR granted by the feat...
Saying it stacks with other types of DR because 'it says it stacks' would only hold water if the example used something other than DR/-. There is no precedent set anywhere for two completely differing DR types stacking and the feat doesn't create one, using the same type of DR in example. It stacks with class features that grant DR/- like the barbarian or fighter armor training. It doesn't stack with other DR types because there isn't anything in the game that does that normally and the feat doesn't say it specifically does by showing it in an example.
If anything it is a 'specific rule' allowing itself to stack with similar DR, because that isn't normally allowed.
There is no rules weight to anything you just said. Stalwart does not say it stacks only with "similar DRs", it says it stacks with "DR you gain from class features". Full stop. No other qualifiers given. The barbarian is only used as an example because it is the only class that iconically possesses the feature. Using a non-exclusive examples list as support is completely facile.
What you describe is exactly like saying that a +2 morale bonus versus fear doesn't stack with a +2 trait bonus versus necromancy due to "not being the same thing". However, both work against necromancy[fear], and the system says "they stack", therefor you apply both.
It works the same for DR. If both would be applicable, and the system says they stack, you apply both. This isn't that complicated.
There doesn't need to be precedent set for a rule to be true. There is no precedent (that I'm aware of) either way on non-similar DR types that stack. Stalwart would be the one establishing precedent, and it does so by giving no restriction against it.
Having Stalwart not stack with Heartstone does not make sense to me.
Say that Bob and Roy are both 10th level Dwarf Stonelord (DR 5/adamantine).
Bob has an amulet that grants DR 3/adamantine.
Roy has the Stalwart feat that grants DR 3/-.If Heartstone does not stack with any DR...
Bob's DR vs a steel sword is DR 8/adamantine.
Roy's DR vs a steel sword is DR 5/adamantine.Why would DR that is vulnerable to adamantine weapons be more effective against steel than DR that is not vulnerable at all? Against steel, they should be equally effective.
now, in most cases, DR does not stack...but Stalwart specifically states that it stacks with DR from other class features. It does not say that it must be DR/-.
Yet they give an example that uses DR/- which is the DR granted by the feat...
Saying it stacks with other types of DR because 'it says it stacks' would only hold water if the example used something other than DR/-. There is no precedent set anywhere for two completely differing DR types stacking and the feat doesn't create one, using the same type of DR in example. It stacks with class features that grant DR/- like the barbarian or fighter armor training. It doesn't stack with other DR types because there isn't anything in the game that does that normally and the feat doesn't say it specifically does by showing it in an example.
If anything it is a 'specific rule' allowing itself to stack with similar DR, because that isn't normally allowed.
An example doesn't carry the weight you're giving it.
There is no precedent (that I'm aware of) either way on non-similar DR types that stack.
There is one precedent that I am aware of and it gives a specific example to make itself clear:
PRD under Stalwart Defender
"Damage Reduction (Ex): At 5th level, a stalwart defender gains DR 1/—. At 7th level, this DR increases to 3/—, and at 10th level it increases to 5/—. Damage reduction from different sources does not stack; however, a stalwart defender of 5th or higher level that gains DR from armor (but not from any other source) increases his class-based DR by the value of the armor's DR. Thus a 7th-level stalwart defender wearing adamantine full plate (DR 3/—) has DR 6/—."
This gives an example of two diverse types that specifically stack so long as the second is from armor. It would have been nice for the Stalwart feat (really they need to get a Thesaurus) to have laid it out so plainly as well. Then I could see your point without trouble.
Anyway, this may clear it up for some but muck it up more for others.
|
|
There is no precedent (that I'm aware of) either way on non-similar DR types that stack.There is one precedent that I am aware of and it gives a specific example to make itself clear:
PRD under Stalwart Defender
"Damage Reduction (Ex): At 5th level, a stalwart defender gains DR 1/—. At 7th level, this DR increases to 3/—, and at 10th level it increases to 5/—. Damage reduction from different sources does not stack; however, a stalwart defender of 5th or higher level that gains DR from armor (but not from any other source) increases his class-based DR by the value of the armor's DR. Thus a 7th-level stalwart defender wearing adamantine full plate (DR 3/—) has DR 6/—."This gives an example of two diverse types that specifically stack so long as the second is from armor. It would have been nice for the Stalwart feat (really they need to get a Thesaurus) to have laid it out so plainly as well. Then I could see your point without trouble.
Anyway, this may clear it up for some but muck it up more for others.
The quoted comment was about precedent for non-similar DRs. This is a case of two identical types of DR. When I say non-similar, I mean /cold iron versus /bludgeoning or some other mismatched pairing. For similar DRs, your example and that of the Armor Master fighter both work as precedent.
Interestingly, the way that the DR ability for Stalwart Defender is worded would make the Class+Armor+Stalwart combination legit, as the ability says that it "increases his class-based DR". This converts the armor DR into class-based DR, allowing it to stack with stalwart.
And yes, a thesaurus would be nice. Maybe some other languages too. Bleach pulled this trick, using Spanish to name all the Hollow moves. I suppose that plays hell with localization, though.
There is no precedent (that I'm aware of) either way on non-similar DR types that stack.There is one precedent that I am aware of and it gives a specific example to make itself clear:
PRD under Stalwart Defender
"Damage Reduction (Ex): At 5th level, a stalwart defender gains DR 1/—. At 7th level, this DR increases to 3/—, and at 10th level it increases to 5/—. Damage reduction from different sources does not stack; however, a stalwart defender of 5th or higher level that gains DR from armor (but not from any other source) increases his class-based DR by the value of the armor's DR. Thus a 7th-level stalwart defender wearing adamantine full plate (DR 3/—) has DR 6/—."This gives an example of two diverse types that specifically stack so long as the second is from armor. It would have been nice for the Stalwart feat (really they need to get a Thesaurus) to have laid it out so plainly as well. Then I could see your point without trouble.
Anyway, this may clear it up for some but muck it up more for others.
Well, the RAI leans slightly toward only permitting similar DRs to stack, HOWEVER, again, it isn't ever spelled out, and only implied via examples given.
Note that by the wording of the Stalwart Defender's DR description, if there were armor that provided a type of DR that wasn't DR/--, it would stack with the Stalwart Defender's DR as well, since the only stipulation is that the armor must be providing the DR. This opens up a separate issue, wherein I wonder whether the DR from Stalwart, Stalwart Defender, and adamantine armor would all stack: A stacks with B, and B stacks with C, but I don't know (and I don't think) that A, B, and C can all stack together.
An example doesn't carry the weight you're giving it.Having Stalwart not stack with Heartstone does not make sense to me.
Say that Bob and Roy are both 10th level Dwarf Stonelord (DR 5/adamantine).
Bob has an amulet that grants DR 3/adamantine.
Roy has the Stalwart feat that grants DR 3/-.If Heartstone does not stack with any DR...
Bob's DR vs a steel sword is DR 8/adamantine.
Roy's DR vs a steel sword is DR 5/adamantine.Why would DR that is vulnerable to adamantine weapons be more effective against steel than DR that is not vulnerable at all? Against steel, they should be equally effective.
now, in most cases, DR does not stack...but Stalwart specifically states that it stacks with DR from other class features. It does not say that it must be DR/-.
Yet they give an example that uses DR/- which is the DR granted by the feat...
Saying it stacks with other types of DR because 'it says it stacks' would only hold water if the example used something other than DR/-. There is no precedent set anywhere for two completely differing DR types stacking and the feat doesn't create one, using the same type of DR in example. It stacks with class features that grant DR/- like the barbarian or fighter armor training. It doesn't stack with other DR types because there isn't anything in the game that does that normally and the feat doesn't say it specifically does by showing it in an example.
If anything it is a 'specific rule' allowing itself to stack with similar DR, because that isn't normally allowed.
The example has more 'weight' than you have with your belief that you can stack DR/- with DR/Adamantine, with no examples.
The DR/- given from the feat is STATED to stack with DR/- from the barbarian or other class features in the example. That is it. No example of stacking with any other type of DR. Saying it says it stacks with other DR from class features, then giving an example of it stacking with the same type of DR is all we have to go with RAW. If you want to get into RAI, ok maybe it is different. But that isn't shown to be the case in the example given. And the example is how they show us 'intent' for what is written. If it was supposed to stack with any DR, you would probably have seen multiple examples or an example with a DR that wasn't the same as the feat.
RAW all we have is DR/- stacking with the feat, for certain. Anything else is speculation on intent, however you want to argue or reason it.
|
|
The example has more 'weight' than you have with your belief that you can stack DR/- with DR/Adamantine, with no examples.
The DR/- given from the feat is STATED to stack with DR/- from the barbarian or other class features in the example. That is it. No example of stacking with any other type of DR. Saying it says it stacks with other DR from class features, then giving an example of it stacking with the same type of DR is all we have to go with RAW. If you want to get into RAI, ok maybe it is different. But that isn't shown to be the case in the example given. And the example is how they show us 'intent' for what is written. If it was supposed to stack with any DR, you would probably have seen multiple examples or an example with a DR that wasn't the same as the feat.
RAW all we have is DR/- stacking with the feat, for certain. Anything else is speculation on intent, however you want to argue or reason it.
No, RAW is that the feat stacks with all types of DR, as long as it's from a class.
Let me put it in bold for you: The feat never restricts the type of DR it can stack with, only its source! It even explicitly uses the term "source"!
Equally Important: You cannot use an example as proof against other examples! The list isn't exhaustive and the feat includes no text to hint that it might be. Unless the example list is exhaustive (i.e. it includes every possible example), you CANNOT use examples of what is allowed to prove that something is disallowed, only to prove that something is allowed. This is why it has been stated by both myself and yeti that the argument-via-example holds no weight for what you are trying to argue.
EDIT: Note that the converse is also true; You cannot use examples of what is disallowed to prove that something is allowed.
Also, the argument is made all-the-weaker by the fact that the feat lists only a single example, from which it is impossible to make any extrapolations. You can't extrapolate from a sample size of one.
The example has more 'weight' than you have with your belief that you can stack DR/- with DR/Adamantine, with no examples.
The DR/- given from the feat is STATED to stack with DR/- from the barbarian or other class features in the example. That is it. No example of stacking with any other type of DR. Saying it says it stacks with other DR from class features, then giving an example of it stacking with the same type of DR is all we have to go with RAW. If you want to get into RAI, ok maybe it is different. But that isn't shown to be the case in the example given. And the example is how they show us 'intent' for what is written. If it was supposed to stack with any DR, you would probably have seen multiple examples or an example with a DR that wasn't the same as the feat.
RAW all we have is DR/- stacking with the feat, for certain. Anything else is speculation on intent, however you want to argue or reason it.
I think you're confusing RAI and RAW.
Stalwart says that it stacks with DR from class abilities. It does not impose any further restriction or caveat.
It then goes on to illustrate a case using the most common CRB class ability DR--that from a barbarian, which is the same type.
You say that they would have included other examples if it could stack with other forms of DR, but can you point out any feats or abilities that include multiple examples to illustrate their point? Other than a few spells (which are far more complex to begin with) I can't think of any. Normally, you have rules text, and one example to illustrate the point, often with the most common usage or interaction. Should they have listed every source for the DR that it can stack with? Or every source it doesn't?
If they had only wanted it to stack with DR of the same type, could have included one line of text to specify that. Heck, they could have added just a few words to the existing text. It's a lot easier to simply add such modifiers to a description than it is to enumerate examples, especially when you consider the possible introduction of more materials that may or may not interact with something published after the fact.
Now, like I said, the RAI lean SLIGHTLY toward only DR of the same type stacking, since the two examples we can find (in the descriptions for Stalwart and Stalwart Defender) are constructed as such, but the descriptions are also left open-ended. Is that purposeful? Is it meaningful that the same DRs were selected for their respective examples, or was it a matter of picking the most obvious cases? Or the cases most easily displayed in a small section of text?
Again, this comes back to what I said earlier: that a FAQ is probably needed here, even at risk of hurting some folks in PFS who may be using this "incorrectly." You can bring out examples of possible RAI, but there is no RAW to support the claims that it doesn't work.
So, the feat states it only stacks with DR from class abilities, we have an example of it stacking with a simililar DR (-) and the two classes that provide DR (Fighter and Barbarian) in the CRB provide DR/-.
But because it doesn't say we can't, it should? I always love that argument.
Personally I could care less, but when one of the points is way outside where the others lie, I don't tend encourage that it means anything when trying to have a rules discussion or figure out what the rules do. K.I.S.S, tends to lead to the 'right' or 'intended' answer the vast majority of the time. I'll click the FAQ just because I'm curious at this point.
Stacking DRs is probably a mess that shouldn't be made. Does the DR stay the same as the one the feat is augmenting, do both the DRs combine to be - or adamantine, is it both - and adamantine? Etc.
|
|
So, the feat states it only stacks with DR from class abilities, we have an example of it stacking with a simililar DR (-) and the two classes that provide DR (Fighter and Barbarian) in the CRB provide DR/-.
But because it doesn't say we can't, it should? I always love that argument.
Personally I could care less, but when one of the points is way outside where the others lie, I don't tend encourage that it means anything when trying to have a rules discussion or figure out what the rules do. K.I.S.S, tends to lead to the 'right' or 'intended' answer the vast majority of the time. I'll click the FAQ just because I'm curious at this point.
Stacking DRs is probably a mess that shouldn't be made. Does the DR stay the same as the one the feat is augmenting, do both the DRs combine to be - or adamantine, is it both - and adamantine? Etc.
To counter with snark:
So the feat states it only stacks with DR from class abilities, and we have an example of it stacking with a similar DR (-), but no examples indicating any of the properties of that DR other than the fact that it comes from a class are relevant? Wow, I guess every single little property of how the barbarian DR works must be required for the Stalwart feat to work. I guess Fighter is out of luck since his is conditional on wearing armor, but the Barbarian's isn't. So is the stalwart defender's DR since it's from a prestige class, but Barbarian is a base class. That's obviously important too.
</snark>
Seriously. You cannot extrapolate from a sample size of one! You are attempting to add text to the feat that is not there. You can argue RAI all you want, but the feat says what is says, and therefor that's how it works. Even RAI arguments hold little weight since there is not enough information in the feat to extrapolate intent, and there are no counter-precedents to work with.
TL;DR - There is nothing that says it doesn't stack with DRs other than /-. There is no example of a feat or ability that stacks DR, but explicitly disallows stacking dissimilar DR types that might serve as counter-example (weak though it may be). The feat gives one example, but no intent can be drawn from it as the example given is for the most iconic possible class-based DR source, making it the most generic example possible, not to mention the low sample size. Final verdict: Only defensible ruling is to declare that stalwart DR stacks with any and all class-feature DRs, regardless of type, just as the text indicates. All arguments presented to the contrary relied on flimsy evidence or were otherwise facile.
So, the feat states it only stacks with DR from class abilities, we have an example of it stacking with a simililar DR (-) and the two classes that provide DR (Fighter and Barbarian) in the CRB provide DR/-.
But because it doesn't say we can't, it should? I always love that argument.
Personally I could care less, but when one of the points is way outside where the others lie, I don't tend encourage that it means anything when trying to have a rules discussion or figure out what the rules do. K.I.S.S, tends to lead to the 'right' or 'intended' answer the vast majority of the time. I'll click the FAQ just because I'm curious at this point.
Stacking DRs is probably a mess that shouldn't be made. Does the DR stay the same as the one the feat is augmenting, do both the DRs combine to be - or adamantine, is it both - and adamantine? Etc.
Actually, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, both the core paladin and core monk provide DR (/evil and /chaos respectively) as their capstone abilities. So, if the writer had intended for the feat to only stack with similar DR, it would have made sense to indicate that, since there are as many core class abilities that provide a different type of DR as their are that provide the same.
K.I.S.S. is irrelevant here. I'm reading (for the purpose of this discussion) the rules as written without muddying them with interpretations drawn from limited examples, or personal bias. The feat ONLY states that its DR stacks with that of class abilities. Which of us is taking the simpler view?
As for how they would stack, that has been covered earlier in the thread as well.
I do appreciate your hitting the FAQ button.
How about we all just FAQ it?
I hate to tell you though Stabbity and Yeti that I'm 99% certain you are wrong.
|
|
How about we all just FAQ it?
I hate to tell you though Stabbity and Yeti that I'm 99% certain you are wrong.
Even if we are right, the FAQ can make us wrong by changing the rule. That happens sometimes too.
I'm 100% confident that RAW I'm correct. I don't pretend to know intent, however, which can lead to changes at FAQ time (as can balance concerns).
I've hit FAQ. I doubt we'll see a response, though.
How about we all just FAQ it?
I hate to tell you though Stabbity and Yeti that I'm 99% certain you are wrong.
Even if we are right, the FAQ can make us wrong by changing the rule. That happens sometimes too.
I'm 100% confident that RAW I'm correct. I don't pretend to know intent, however, which can lead to changes at FAQ time (as can balance concerns).
I've hit FAQ. I doubt we'll see a response, though.
Ditto, mostly.
I don't care if I'm right as far as RAI (and rules as FAQed) goes. The RAW is pretty straightforward (unless you start taking limited examples to be additional rules text). I'm not playing a character using this, not GMing a character using this, and I've got plenty of other characters higher up on my list that I'd like to play before getting to anything that touches on this. I merely came across it and noticed the interaction as made possible by the RAW and wanted a clarification.
I kind of expect that a FAQ, if we get one, will change the rule, although I really don't believe it needs to be. It's not like the combination is over-powerful in any way. Other characters can get higher DR on a better character for the same (or lesser) investment and they aren't breaking anything.
|
|
I kind of expect that a FAQ, if we get one, will change the rule, although I really don't believe it needs to be. It's not like the combination is over-powerful in any way. Other characters can get higher DR on a better character for the same (or lesser) investment and they aren't breaking anything.
Sadly, I have the same expectation. When it comes to martial feats/abilities they tend to knee-jerk nerf anything that *might* be imbalanced. I find the "no THF+TWF" ruling to be one of those as I couldn't come up with a reasonable build that would break anything using that pattern.
At worst, an invulnerable rager barbarian might stack this up to beat the 20 DR mark by 20th level, but at that point the biggest danger isn't HP damage anyway, and even when it is a danger it's not from attacks that any DR applies to.
The issue becomes though, how do you add to two different DR types? There really aren't rules for it and it doesn't make sense.
Does your DR adamantine become DR/-?
Does DR/- become DR adamantine?
Under the interpretation of 'RAW it stacks with everything' we have no way of understanding how this would actually work because it simply doesn't make sense.
|
|
The issue becomes though, how do you add to two different DR types? There really aren't rules for it and it doesn't make sense.
Does your DR adamantine become DR/-?
Does DR/- become DR adamantine?
Under the interpretation of 'RAW it stacks with everything' we have no way of understanding how this would actually work because it simply doesn't make sense.
It's simple, you don't "add them". You apply the ones that would apply, in whatever order, as long as the rules say it's okay that they stack.
This is the same way that bonuses to saves work. You don't add your morale bonus versus fear to your trait bonus to necromancy, you add them to a specific saving throw (a specific roll) if they happen to be relevant.
So if I took an attack and had both my class DR and stalwart, I would subtract stalwart automatically (as it's /-), then compare the attack's qualifiers to my class DR to see if it bypasses. If it bypasses, it doesn't reduce the damage further. If it doesn't bypass, the damage is reduced by a further amount equal to the class DR (for a total reduction of Stalwart + Class).
Multiple people have expressed confusion on this topic, and my best guess as to why is the assumption that a given creature can only have one final DR number. This is not true, though. It's just that it is very rare to have multiple DR sources, and nearly unheard of to have stacking DR sources (one fighter archetype, one prestige class and one feat that I know of).
The issue becomes though, how do you add to two different DR types? There really aren't rules for it and it doesn't make sense.
Does your DR adamantine become DR/-?
Does DR/- become DR adamantine?
Under the interpretation of 'RAW it stacks with everything' we have no way of understanding how this would actually work because it simply doesn't make sense.
Say you have DR 5/-- and DR 4/adamantine. You get hit by an attack that deals 10 damage (not adamantine).
Apply it against both DRs. So, -5, and -4 (the order is irrelevant); you take 1 damage.
You get hit by an attack that deals 10 damage using an adamantine weapon.
Apply it against both DRs. So, -5, because it doesn't bypass DR/--, but it DOES bypass your other DR, so you took 5 damage.
Honestly, it's not that difficult to figure out or adjudicate.
Except for the fact that never does it say that DR works like that.
You keep using the stacking bonuses to save to show the same effect, but what you are saying is more like make a save with the +2 bonus to necromancy and if that fails make another with the +2 bonus to spells.
I am not 100% convinced that they do not somehow stack, but it can't be the way that Yeti just put forward.
If I have DR 3/- and DR 4/- and you say they stack, then that will be 7/-.
Nowhere would any rules support 3/- and 4/adamantine to equal 7/ - and/or adamantine which seems to be what you are suggesting. Again, we can argue and debate until we are blue in the face, but there are so many questions that an FAQ is the best solution here.
Except for the fact that never does it say that DR works like that.
You keep using the stacking bonuses to save to show the same effect, but what you are saying is more like make a save with the +2 bonus to necromancy and if that fails make another with the +2 bonus to spells.
I am not 100% convinced that they do not somehow stack, but it can't be the way that Yeti just put forward.
If I have DR 3/- and DR 4/- and you say they stack, then that will be 7/-.
Nowhere would any rules support 3/- and 4/adamantine to equal 7/ - and/or adamantine which seems to be what you are suggesting. Again, we can argue and debate until we are blue in the face, but there are so many questions that an FAQ is the best solution here.
Uh...how do DR 3/-- and DR 4/-- stack? You say they become DR 7/--, but you could also just apply them as DR 3/-- and DR 4/-- separately, and get the same result. That's how stacking works.
Example of non-stacking DR: DR 3/-- and DR 4/adamantine: someone hits you with a non-adamantine weapon, and you reduce 4 damage, because they don't stack, so you only get the highest value.
Example of stacking DR: DR 3/-- and DR 4/adamantine: someone hits you with a non-adamantine weapon, and you reduce 4 damage and then reduce 3 damage (total 7), because they stack. It doesn't get any more complicated than that. And if the attack can bypass part of your DR, it would work the same way the non-stacking DR would--you just ignore that portion of DR.
Nowhere do any rules contradict that interpretation or adjudication, either. We have general rules that say DR from different sources don't stack, and we have a specific rule, which trumps the general, that says THIS DR (whether we're looking at Stalwart or Stalwart Defender) stacks with class abilities or armor, depending on which we're looking at. There are NO OTHER RULES that govern the way DR works when they do stack. None. So any claims to the contrary are strictly a case of personal bias--how you THINK the rules should work--and not founded in the actual game rules at all.
|
|
Except for the fact that never does it say that DR works like that.
You keep using the stacking bonuses to save to show the same effect, but what you are saying is more like make a save with the +2 bonus to necromancy and if that fails make another with the +2 bonus to spells.
That's not at all what it's like. That's two rolls. The DR stacking is only protecting against one roll, I have no idea where the heck you pulled your assertion from. What I'm suggesting is the equivalent of getting +4 to one roll due to two +2 bonuses stacking, it is NOT the equivalent of getting +2 to two rolls where you would only normally get one.
I am not 100% convinced that they do not somehow stack, but it can't be the way that Yeti just put forward.
If I have DR 3/- and DR 4/- and you say they stack, then that will be 7/-.
Nowhere would any rules support 3/- and 4/adamantine to equal 7/ - and/or adamantine which seems to be what you are suggesting. Again, we can argue and debate until we are blue in the face, but there are so many questions that an FAQ is the best solution here.
What we're suggesting is that the 3/- portion stays /-, and the 4/adamantine portion stays /adamantine. DR doesn't have to "combine" into one number before being applied and I really really REALLY don't get why everyone seems to insist that it should.
Let's walk through a thought exercise here. Let's say that you rolled a will save against Fear (the spell) before calculating your total bonus. Your normal will save bonus is +8 and you roll a 13, for a total of 21, but the save was DC 24. Not good, right? Luckily you have a +2 versus fear effects, which bumps that up to 23. You also have a +2 versus necromancy effects, which the system says will stack, so you get a total of 25. Awesome, this is now enough to pass the save and are only shaken for one round. Lucky you! Had either of those bonuses not applied you would have been panicked, and that wouldn't have been fun.
Later, you get attacked by a melee weapon and the foe dealt 34 damage. You only had 29 HP left, but luckily have two sources of DR that the system says stack: one that is 4/adamantine, another that is 3/good. Their damage is reduced by the 3/good DR to 31 damage (no holy weapons). The foe's weapon is not adamantine, nor is it a +4 or higher weapon, so your 4/adamantine also counts reducing it by another 4, for a total of 27 damage. This is enough that you remain conscious. Lucky you! If he had an adamantine or good weapon you would be unconscious right now.
What do the two above examples have in common? Nearly everything, actually. For one, no additional rolls were made by anyone. In both cases you had multiple sources of protection against the same effect. In both cases the sources of protection stack. In both cases it took the combined effort of both protections to pass some important threshold of effectiveness. In both cases the protections were circumstantial, but happened to apply in the given circumstance. In neither case was it unclear whether or not the bonus applied, and in neither case was it unclear how the application of the bonus would resolve.
The reason this method of DR stacking seems the most obvious to me is because it requires no additional rules, it requires relatively little thought (no more than similar rules), and it mirrors how other stacking benefits work. Attempting to combine multiple DRs into a single number ahead of time would create all sorts of headache that is entirely unnecessary, much the same way that forcing various circumstantial save bonuses to combine ahead of time would create an entirely unnecessary headache.
And if that doesn't convince you that it at least might be right, then I guess you'll just have to wait for the FAQ to change the rules so that I become wrong (because it probably will).
You two seem to be on a crusade, so good luck! I don't have a dog in the fight so I will just check out and see what becomes of it!
So long and thanks for all the fish!
You two seem to be on a crusade, so good luck! I don't have a dog in the fight so I will just check out and see what becomes of it!
So long and thanks for all the fish!
It's not a matter of a crusade. Like I said, I don't really care what the result is, as far as a FAQ would go, but the RAW looks rather clear to me, and none of the detractors who have posted here have been able to provide any RAW to support their points.
RAW (according to the feat and prestige class):
-this DR stacks with DR from class abilities/armor
That's it. There's no word about how the stacking works, whether the types of DR stacked have to be the same, or whether they can be different, so arguments to the contrary are conjecture, or personal opinion about things SHOULD work, which may be correct as far as RAI goes, but that's not clear. Hence, this thread.
|
You seem to have your answer yeti. Stalwart does stack with stonelord DR. Ignoring RAI, the DR stacks and if you got DR3/- from stalwart and 5/adamantine you would have DR 8. If you got attacked by an adamantine weapon, you would have DR 3/- still, but not DR 5 because of the adamantine. RAI is not clear until the writer of the feat says what RAI is, but I see no confusion RAW, so use it RAW until the GM says no, which he has the right to do, or until Paizo decides to nerf it thinking it is to powerful (How, I don't know, but they might).
|
|
I also do not have skin in this game. I can't even remember the last time I played a character with DR, much less multiple sources that would necessitate stacking calculations.
My posts here are merely my attempt to describe what I feel is the most sensible ruling given the information we have. If a FAQ adds new information, or changes existing information, that ruling could easily change.
The OP needs more FAQ pushes.
