| 21 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Inquiring minds want to know.
In #5 of the Wrath of the Righteous AP, the Warden Yleshka uses a bunch of +1 Defender weapons. It is explicitly stated in her tactics that she will sacrifice the bonuses on her weapons to gain AC bonuses if she doesn't have her armor.
Since when do the bonuses from multiple Defender weapons stack?
I need to know if this is an official rules update or was simply missed and should be written up as a special ability of the warden. Because as of right now this would seem to me to be an impossible tactic in the same way no other bonuses stack with themselves.
==Aelryinth
Probably just a mistake on the module writer's part. Does it specifically show them to stack? She could still totally sacrifice the bonus on all of them to little effect (since they don't stack).
I would go with what the module wrote. Many times the baddies in modules have items or special rules that are not RAW. But just because the Warden doesn't follow the rules doesn't mean your PCs can do the same.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The defending property specifically says its bonus stacks with all others; why wouldn't that include other defending weapons?
But in any case, even if that doesn't work, it wouldn't be the first time a module had an NPC doing something that doesn't actually work. Sometimes the author is just wrong, other times it's a way to create something cool and unique.
Just go with it; NPC tactics are not rules sources.
Also, now that I am thinking about it. There hasn't been any FAQs since Nov! What's the hold up?
Not to mention that they're probably working on finalizing the ACG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that they're probably working on finalizing the ACG.
Shhh! Nobody bother them!
"Never mind--we don't need any FAQs right now. Continue working on the ACG!" :-)
No bonuses stack with themselves. Defender is not an 'other bonus' to itself, even if it comes from a different weapon.
And yes, it specifically says she uses the bonuses on all her weapons for an AC bonus if she has to lose her armor.
==Aelryinth
Bonuses of the same type normally do not stack. Unnamed bonuses generally do stack.
Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
I'm not sure "the defender property" is a "source."
|
Each individual weapon, in this case, would be a "source".
If you had a BAB of +6, and two-weapon fighting, and were performing a full attack with a +1 Defending Longsword, a +1 Defending Short Sword, and +1 Defending Armor Spikes (as your iterative attack), you could add all of them together for a total of +3 to your Armor Class.
Um, no, Nefreet.
Unnamed bonuses or no, effects from a singular source-type are considered same source, even if there are multiple instances of the source.
Example: Monk's Belt. If you get Wis to AC from the Belt, and Wis to AC from being a ninja, the bonuses are unnamed, the 'sources' of Wis to AC are different, but they don't stack...Wis is the actual source of the effect.
Likewise, trying to get multiple bonuses from Defender to AC just don't wash, either.
A better example might be a spell that granted an untyped +2 bonus to a Stat. If you cast it multiple times on yourself, the untyped bonuses do NOT stack...the last one replaces the first one.
That's clear precedent, and Defender should be following it. The fact the bonus originates off different objects is irrelevant... the source is still the Defender enhancement.
But If Paizo wants to make an official ruling in the other direction, that's fine. I just want to make sure it's official, and not an editing error.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Um, no, Nefreet.
Um, yes. (see what I did there?)
Unnamed bonuses or no, effects from a singular source-type are considered same source, even if there are multiple instances of the source.
You're going to have to show where in the rules it says that.
Example: Monk's Belt. If you get Wis to AC from the Belt, and Wis to AC from being a ninja, the bonuses are unnamed, the 'sources' of Wis to AC are different, but they don't stack...Wis is the actual source of the effect.
Ninjas don't get a Wis bonus to AC, and I am unfamiliar with this "Monk's Belt".
Likewise, trying to get multiple bonuses from Defender to AC just don't wash, either.
They are different sources, and Defending specifically calls out that its bonus "stacks with all others". (that would mean it stacks with other Defending weapons)
A better example might be a spell that granted an untyped +2 bonus to a Stat. If you cast it multiple times on yourself, the untyped bonuses do NOT stack...the last one replaces the first one.
I am unaware of any such spells. Do you have an example?
That's clear precedent, and Defender should be following it. The fact the bonus originates off different objects is irrelevant... the source is still the Defender enhancement.
Except it's not.
But If Paizo wants to make an official ruling in the other direction, that's fine. I just want to make sure it's official, and not an editing error.
Hmm... if only we had a statblock where it was listed as a valid tactic...
Yay, another bonus source question! Mind if I plug my FAQ post related to the question?
Although this actually adds a third possibility to the FAQ question: Is the source in this case the particular weapon enhancement, or is it the weapon itself? The stat block seems to indicate that it's the weapon itself, but personally I'd lean toward it being from the particular enhancement (which would mean the stat block is in error).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unnamed bonuses or no, effects from a singular source-type are considered same source, even if there are multiple instances of the source.
Example: Monk's Belt. If you get Wis to AC from the Belt, and Wis to AC from being a ninja, the bonuses are unnamed, the 'sources' of Wis to AC are different, but they don't stack...Wis is the actual source of the effect.
Likewise, trying to get multiple bonuses from Defender to AC just don't wash, either.
Actually the Monk Belt and Wis to AC ability isn't really a great example. Both effects are trying to tap the same source material; namely the Wisdom Bonus. So it makes sense that this doesn't work since you can't apply the same bonus twice.
Two Defending Weapons, however, are each bringing their own source material to the table. A +3 Defending Longsword and +2 Defending Shortsword aren't trying to access the same +3 or +2. They each have their own to contribute to the AC; sort of like two wizards each casting Bull's Strength on you. Now in the case of the wizards, the rules are clear that enhancement bonuses don't stack. But the CRB text is also very clear to point out that the AC bonus from the Defending ability "...stacks with all others." This suggests that the bonuses will in fact stack just fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting Defender from two weapons would be no different from getting the same spell cast on you by two different casters and having the benefits stack. The Source is still Defending, regardless of which Defender effect it comes from, and sources don't normally stack with themselves.
It's just a shift of precedent, and I'd like to see an official ruling that it works, and not a potential editing error.
==Aelryinth
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the dilemma. If a character is using two speed weapons, that character only gets one extra attack, not one extra attack for each weapon. On the other hand, the defending ability does say that it stacks with all others, meaning it always stacks, no matter what. I think this is a case of "Specific trumps General" and the defending ability from multiple weapons are able to stack.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If a character is using two speed weapons, that character only gets one extra attack, not one extra attack for each weapon.
With a key difference being that the speed ability explicitly states that it doesn't stack with anything, while (as you noted) defending states the exact opposite.
Originally I was on the fence about this, but the more Aelryinth argues for non-stacking, the more convinced I become that they should stack. :/
I don’t see the issue in the scenario outlined in the OP.
As long as the NPC is actively attacking with both weapons and has used their free action to assign the bonus to their AC, both untyped AC bonuses will apply.
They aren’t the same source (as they are two different weapons) and they aren’t typed bonuses, so they can’t be the same type. Even if “defender” was a type of bonus, the ability specifically calls out that it is “a bonus that stacks with all others”. I’m not sure how much more clear the devs can get than “a bonus that stacks with all others”. Mechanically it’s effectively a magical version of a dodge bonus.
If other folks want to give it a glance, here’s a quick link to the prd on them: Defending Property
-TimD
The argument that two instances of the defending property are two different sources and therefore stack is identical to the argument that two instances of the haste spell are two different sources, so the untyped bonus to hit and the dodge bonuses to AC/Reflex saves stack. The rules are I think pretty clear that this isn't the case:
Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:
<snip>
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
It's clear that the "same spell" here is not limited to the "same casting." If a character is hasted four times by four different casters, he still only has a +1 bonus to hit (even though haste gives an untyped bonus to hit) and a +1 bonus to AC/Reflex saves (even though haste gives dodge bonuses to these and dodge bonuses stack).
It's also clear from the whole section on combining magical effects that this isn't a property of spells per se but of magical effects in general. And the AC bonuses from the defending property are surely a magical effect. Given the clause above, I think Aelryinth is right here.
But there's a marked difference you're ignoring: The Haste spell and the Speed effect both explicitly state that they do not stack with other similar effects. This is of course a reiteration of a general rule.
The Defending property explicitly states that it does stack, with all other effects. It doesn't say "all other effects except itself".
To me, it's notable that the defending property allows the user to choose the amount of bonus. So, the "same source" rule only seems to apply to trying to get the bonus twice from one weapon. The bonus itself seems to be "colorless." The impression I have is that it's intended to work all the time (unlike dodge) and stack with other stuff (unlike deflection). It may not have been intended that it stack with other defending weapons, or it may be someone thought, "Oh, heck, what's two or three untyped bonuses for someone on the defensive?" Plus, free actions are under the purview of the GM. The GM could say one, two, or six are the allowable number of defending bonuses.
I think this is a FAQ/errata candidate.
My suggestion? "... to a maximum of +5 for all defending weapons, total."
The crux is whether you're applying the benefits of defending more than once (I don't think so), or generating a type-less bonus more than once using the defending property as a free action (that's what I think happens).
|
|
Here's the catch in this whole conversation, though.
If I cast a spell, although I may create a better version than another caster, my casting is not generating the bonus, the spell is. And it is thus the same spell. A belt of strength and bull's strength are negated differently because they are the same "type" of bonus.
Defending in this case is an untyped bonus that has multiple sources (each weapon). As a GM, I would not allow a single weapon to be used multiple times to grant the defending bonus (unless specifically called out in the rules), but multiple weapons would be fine.
I would add that it's not really a cost-effective way to get more ac unless you're really high level. And even then, hp > ac imo
-Michael
Excellent arguments, btw. I still think they should stack based on the fact that the property specifically calls it out as a "bonus that stacks with all others", but can see your POV.
-TimD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting Defender from two weapons would be no different from getting the same spell cast on you by two different casters and having the benefits stack.
Except that...
the defending ability does say that it stacks with all others, meaning it always stacks, no matter what.
...and...
With a key difference being that the speed ability explicitly states that it doesn't stack with anything, while...defending states the exact opposite.
...AND...
I’m not sure how much more clear the devs can get than “a bonus that stacks with all others”. Mechanically it’s effectively a magical version of a dodge bonus.
|
Specific (Bonus stacks with ALL others) > General (Bonuses from the same source-type don't stack).
Seems to me that it's specifically called out in the rules as stacking with ALL other bonuses because the Devs wanted it to stack with... well, all other bonuses (which would obviously include multiple Defender sources).
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Meanwhile, everyone hit that FAQ button so we get a definitive answer!!!
And keep in mind that the precedent and extremely valid interpretation of 'all other bonuses' is 'all other bonuses that do not come from use of Defender'.
Which follows precedent for sources of effects not stacking with themselves. Defender is the source, the weapon just provides the number, in the same way a stat does.
The counter-argument is 'all other bonuses that do not come from use of Defender on this particular weapon', which is something VERY different.
I'm not OPPOSED to opening it up, but it is quite different then what I believe most people interpret it as.
==Aelryinth
I'm of the opinion that it should be one of the two following:
1) You don't need to attack with a defending weapon in order to get it's AC bonus, you merely need to be wielding it (that is, have it at the ready and be threatening squares). In this case, I don't think multiple defending weapons should stack as a matter of balance.
2) Per the current official stance, you DO need to attack with a defending weapon to get its AC bonus, but now multiple defending weapons stack, again, as a matter of balance.
Put me in the camp that believes that "as a bonus that stacks with all others." does actually mean "with all others, where other means bonuses other than defending". I believe this was done to avoid creating another bonus type. Rather than call it "untyped" (that would have allowed it to stack with itself), they called out "others".
YMMV
|
Isn't the bonus an untyped bonus (no type is specified after all) and I'm pretty sure the rules don't always specify "this is an untyped bonus'. They may I just can't recall it. I'm under the impression untyped bonuses DO stack. As long as she attacks with the swords all of their bonuses could apply
They don't stack. I am 99.999% sure I saw a developer or an FAQ on this.
Time for me to search. I won't bother arguing the point because it keeps coming up. If I can't find someone from the rules team then I will simply press the FAQ button and hope it gets resolved this time.
Oh well, I guess I was thinking of the FAQ on attacking with a defending weapon..
Time for me to press the FAQ button.
3.5 they stacked.
|
|
The argument that two instances of the defending property are two different sources and therefore stack is identical to the argument that two instances of the haste spell are two different sources, so the untyped bonus to hit and the dodge bonuses to AC/Reflex saves stack. The rules are I think pretty clear that this isn't the case:
Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:
<snip>
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
It's clear that the "same spell" here is not limited to the "same casting." If a character is hasted four times by four different casters, he still only has a +1 bonus to hit (even though haste gives an untyped bonus to hit) and a +1 bonus to AC/Reflex saves (even though haste gives dodge bonuses to these and dodge bonuses stack).
It's also clear from the whole section on combining magical effects that this isn't a property of spells per se but of magical effects in general. And the AC bonuses from the defending property are surely a magical effect. Given the clause above, I think Aelryinth is right here.
The rule that say that haste effect don't stack is the spell itself:
Multiple haste effects don't stack.
Without that rule, the AC and Reflex save would stack, ad they are dodge bonuses
and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves.
and dodge bonuses stack.
What you cite would apply to haste+haste, but not to haste+Blessing of fervor. The specific limitations on the haste effect instead apply both to Haste and BoF.
3.5 they stacked.
They did?
Do you have a source for this. I know 3.5 is not Pathfinder, but I often use 3.5 rulings if the words are the same.
I remember this coming up on the old 3.5 boards also.
Meh, in 3.5 they didn't even bother to define what 'wield' meant for defender, i.e. in PF it means attacking with it.
So you had the same arguments.
Also, keep in mind that the reason the Haste spell has the language is because of similar effects, not because of Haste itself, pertaining mostly to the extra attacks.
In other words, it was put in there to stop parallel effects, like Speed. Nobody thought it stacked with itself, i.e. they went with precedent. But as soon as the 'other source' door was opened, stacking was on the table, and the munchkins really wanted it.
==Aelryinth
Wielding SHOULD mean "at the ready and able to threaten squares." To use the official definition of "attacking with it" breaks SO many things in this game.
I don't know what the developers were thinking when they made that ruling.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wielding SHOULD mean "at the ready and able to threaten squares." To use the official definition of "attacking with it" breaks SO many things in this game.
I don't know what the developers were thinking when they made that ruling.
I can only guess they were thinking "Some doofus is going to have two +1 defending short swords, +1 defending armor spikes, two +1 defending spiked gauntlets, a +1 defending boot blade, a +1 defending boulder helmet, and get like a bajillion AC because he's 'wielding' all of them. Better redefine 'wielding' to stop that."
Which of course would in turn imply that they all stack.
Alternatively, perhaps they were just thinking that some doofus was going to grab +5 defending armor spikes and just call it a permanent untyped +5 AC bonus, as was the conventional wisdom for years on the WotC boards.
Well, the mages preferred the spiked gauntlets, but yes, that's what they tried to do.
I haven't seen anyone try to use the tactic on the ops boards for years, tho.
One thing that is used is Defender on Shields, because 'wielding' a shield is carrying it to gain AC, somewhat unlike a normal weapon.
Too, 'threatening' is also a stretch for Defender. Exactly why wouldn't a Defender weapon defend you from missile weapons, just because you aren't fighting someone?...
==Aelryinth