at the top of pg 208 in the crb it says circumstance bonuses stack...

[Ishpumalibu]

Is this right? I've heard it's a typo meant to be competence bonuses.

[wraithstrike]

No. Circumstance bonuses and competence bonuses are different.

Circumstance bonuses stack sometimes, but not all the time. That is why it say "most circumstance bonuses stack" in the magic chapter.

[Ishpumalibu]

wraithstrike wrote:

No. Circumstance bonuses and competence bonuses are different.

Circumstance bonuses stack sometimes, but not all the time. That is why it say "most circumstance bonuses stack" in the magic chapter.

Thanks, I had just heard it was a typo, and wanted to make sure.

[James Risner]

If it were a typo, it would have been fixed on the way to what? 7th printing?

[Claxon]

Yeah, competence bonuses are definitely not intended to stack

[Ishpumalibu]

Cool, thanks guys, the argument I heard for competence bonuses stacking was that inspire courage is competence and they wanted other bard spells and abilities to work with it as well.

[Claxon]

That would have specifically been the example I would have provided as to why it shouldn't stack.

Because otherwise you could have two bards in a party and both of them having inspire courage running to give you double bonuses from Inspire Courage.

[Deadmanwalking]

Ishpumalibu wrote:

Cool, thanks guys, the argument I heard for competence bonuses stacking was that inspire courage is competence and they wanted other bard spells and abilities to work with it as well.

They thought of this. It's why, if you look at it, very few Bard buff spells add competence bonuses, giving morale or other benefits instead.

[Gilfalas]

Claxon wrote:

Because otherwise you could have two bards in a party and both of them having inspire courage running to give you double bonuses from Inspire Courage.

Would also mean you would want as many bards as possible in a standing army. Bards on the battlefield would be the equivalent of nuclear escalation.

[Kchaka]

The army with more Bards wins.

Sounds about right.

[Gilfalas]

Kchaka wrote:

The army with more Bards wins.

Sounds about right.

Enough bards on each side and everyone loses. In one round. Hehe.

[blood_kite]

Gilfalas wrote:

Enough bards on each side and everyone loses. In one round. Hehe.

Not if they hide behind the mound of dead bards. .

[Gwen Smith]

We have an Archivist bard in our area who gives out insight bonuses that stack with normal bard competence bonuses. You could probably dovetail 3 or 4 bard archetypes with stacking bonuses.

And man, the after party would be awesome.

[Ishpumalibu]

Thanks for the info guys.

[Imbicatus]

Gilfalas wrote:

Kchaka wrote:

The army with more Bards wins.

Sounds about right.

Enough bards on each side and everyone loses. In one round. Hehe.

Only until the army travels to the frozen land of Nador, when they will be forced to eat the minstrels.

[FLite]

Actually, you probably need about 50/50 bards/whatever to get the maximum benefit. Would need to sit down and do the math. Maybe 75% bards, 25% summon casters.

[Arachnofiend]

Gilfalas wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Because otherwise you could have two bards in a party and both of them having inspire courage running to give you double bonuses from Inspire Courage.

Would also mean you would want as many bards as possible in a standing army. Bards on the battlefield would be the equivalent of nuclear escalation.

On the other hand, a campaign where wars are more like a Battle of the Bands would be awesome.

...So basically a Brutal Legend campaign.

[PokeyCA]

Imbicatus wrote:

Gilfalas wrote:

Kchaka wrote:

The army with more Bards wins.

Sounds about right.

Enough bards on each side and everyone loses. In one round. Hehe.

Only until the army travels to the frozen land of Nador, when they will be forced to eat the minstrels.

But then there will be much rejoicing.