claudekennilol |
The question for your and your gm is "what is the same source?" Is the "same source" literally the one copy of an item so that two separate copies are two separate sources? Or is the "same source" mean these two things are the same magic item so the benefits are from the same source because they provide the exact same bonus?
LazarX |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this case, I'd probably say that the two separate rings stack (they're not the same source, and untyped bonuses from different sources stack.) I don't see this as being particularly gamebreaking.
And I'd say they overlap, because you can't get any more "same source' than two copies of the same magic item.
"Not gamebreaking is not a sufficient reason to break general rules.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Louis IX |
No stacking, never stacking, no double dipping, can't favor players, don't leave the sandbox, no fun allowed... *sigh*
Is that your only reason? That some rulebreakers, when reaching level 20, might suddenly have a litteral cloud of ioun stones giving them such a high CL?
Remember, the GM is there to adjudicate such a ridiculous scenario. For a character who happens to fill his two ring slots with the aforementioned rings, I'd allow it. Two items, two sources.
The items are not the same. If a character has two wands of Fireball, would you decrease the number of charges of both when he uses one?
And, for the record, there are more "same source" than two copies of the same item. What about the same feat?
There are precedents in Law, where restrictive bills pass because of a few troublemakers. I don't want my favourite tabletop game to act like a trial of my players.
Claxon |
tonyz wrote:In this case, I'd probably say that the two separate rings stack (they're not the same source, and untyped bonuses from different sources stack.) I don't see this as being particularly gamebreaking.And I'd say they overlap, because you can't get any more "same source' than two copies of the same magic item.
"Not gamebreaking is not a sufficient reason to break general rules.
Claxon |
Think of it like this, do you let two rings of protection stack?
Clearly no, because they give the same bonus type, deflection.
Now imagine the rings gave an untyped bonus to AC, would you let them stack?
The answer should still be no because they're same source of magic. Both are rings of protection, untyped sources usually do stack, but if the untyped bonus is from the same source I'm pretty sure they don't. I believe we have an FAQ to that effect somewhere.
Otherwise, you could have a spell cast on you multiple times that gave an untyped bonus of some sort and just continually stack it. I can't think of a spell that gives an untyped bonus at this time, but I sure there is one.
Now, I don't think this particular example is a problem power wise. Giving up both rings slots (rings have some pretty awesome stuff) to do this isn't going to cause many problems, but I don't think it's permissible under the current rules. I do definitely agree with the sentiment though that letting things work just because it isn't overpowered isn't really a good reason to let it do so.
It wouldn't be overpowered if a fighter got a SLA to cast any 1st level wizards spells for a total of 5 times per day. It'd be really awesome, and wouldn't break the game. But still not in the rules.
Archaeik |
I disagree that this "isn't game breaking" (well, maybe not breaking, but problematic)...
30ft on an optimized Channel Negative Energy is already fairly powerful for a number of reasons (regardless of your opinion on the merits of such a build). 1 ring makes this better than it should for the cost, but 2 starts to get silly since the total area is going up geometrically.
Now, realistically it is taking up the ring slots, but experienced players will still be able to work within that limitation, if only situationally, to optimize performance (especially given how cheap the item is).
And if you're letting 2 stack, how about 2 more ring slot tattoos for a total of +20ft? (all for 54k gp)
Chris Lambertz Community & Digital Content Director |