
Michael Grate |
Horseshoes of Crushing Blows
Body Wrap of Mighty Strikes
Amulet of Mighty Fists
Assume this is the start of the round and it my turn to strike and my horse is using his hoof attacks to begin (this way makes it simple so the horseshoes and bodywraps both have the chance to work).
Equipment:
Horseshoes of the Crushing Blows-+1 enhancement bonus
Flaming, frost, corrosive and keen special abilities
Body Wrap of Mighty Strikes-+4 enhancement bonus
Ghost Touch, shock and Menacing special abilities
Amulet of Mighty Fists-+3 enhancement bonus
Defending and guarding special abilities
So, the confusion is pretty how this would or even could work together.
1. Do the enhancement bonuses add? Would my horse have a +5 enhancement (I read that this is the highest that it can go on a few threads) or would it be the highest one (+4)?
2. With guarding/defending, can I only draw from the AoMF enhancement bonus or can I take from any of them since they enhance the same thing. How would this affect the overall enhancement bonus I could get?
3. Do the special abilities stack (Ie I use all of them at the same time when applicable)? If not then which do I use? Would it be the Body Wrap abilities because it has the highest enhancement bonus or can I choose any that total out to +5? If I choose and I decide to use defending and/or guarding, does this count toward the number I can use that round or can I still choose between the rest available?
Any ideas or information would be much appreciated, thanks.

chuffster |

I'm pretty sure of two things:
(1) The enhancement bonuses do not add. You use the highest one.
(2) All of the enhancements added together can't exceed +10 in value.
I'm not sure there's a concrete rule regarding how to fit under the +10 cap. If I were making a ruling I would say:
(1) Pick an enhancement bonus. Here you could choose +1, +3, or +4.
(2) Add in the non-optional enhancements (e.g. vicious). If this takes the bonus over +10 you can choose which ones to exclude. I would put guardian and defending in this category. My inclination would be to only count the one that you allocated the bonus for in a given turn, but I could see that going both ways.
(3) If your bonus is still under +10, pick and choose optional enhancements to include until you reach +10.
I don't think the rules spell out a procedure, but this seems like a reasonable way of handling it to me. Looking at it from the reverse perspective, the player is required to comply with the +10 cap by first turning off abilities that are usually under his control and then turning off abilities that are usually not under his control, without allowing fine grained control of the enhancement bonus since it's the most fundamental.

Archaeik |

chuffster |

I'd allow it in a home game just because picturing a regular horse in a bathrobe sounds hilarious.
It's all fun and games until you have a flaming (cruel, vicious, +5, flaming, freezing, bane, merciful) hoof coming at your head.
More seriously, you can create the same basic problem with just the amulet and the body wrap.

Scythia |

Scythia wrote:I'd allow it in a home game just because picturing a regular horse in a bathrobe sounds hilarious.It's all fun and games until you have a flaming (cruel, vicious, +5, flaming, freezing, bane, merciful) hoof coming at your head.
More seriously, you can create the same basic problem with just the amulet and the body wrap.
At that point, just play a horse monk as a character.

Scythia |

chuffster wrote:At that point, just play a horse monk as a character.Scythia wrote:I'd allow it in a home game just because picturing a regular horse in a bathrobe sounds hilarious.It's all fun and games until you have a flaming (cruel, vicious, +5, flaming, freezing, bane, merciful) hoof coming at your head.
More seriously, you can create the same basic problem with just the amulet and the body wrap.
Note to self: idea for next cohort.

Dallium |

So I've thought about it, and I've decided that, at my table, in absence of concrete rules, the horseshoes work on hoof attacks, and what ever rules you use to decide which two of the three magic rings a character is wearing works (absent anything that would allow the character to make use of more than two magic rings at once) determines which of the other items is active on the bite. The remaining item is suppressed.

Archaeik |
chuffster wrote:Yeah - I don't think that's true. You can houserule it that way - but it's just that - a houserule.
(2) All of the enhancements added together can't exceed +10 in value.
The +10 bonus-equivalent limitation is a hard cap for all weapons; you can't exceed that even with class abilities or other unusual abilities.

![]() |

Charon's Little Helper wrote:chuffster wrote:Yeah - I don't think that's true. You can houserule it that way - but it's just that - a houserule.
(2) All of the enhancements added together can't exceed +10 in value.
Quote:The +10 bonus-equivalent limitation is a hard cap for all weapons; you can't exceed that even with class abilities or other unusual abilities.
That's a different situation. The FAQ is referring specifically to a single weapon's enchantment going over +10.
The above example is different weapon enchantments which just happen to affect the same attacks.
Admittedly - it's close, but we've been told before to construe FAQ narrowly.

Dallium |

Man the number of people who miss the point of the whole "interpret FAQs narrowly" thing drives me bonkers. The language of the line is CLEARLY meant to be wide. It's impossible for the statement (paraphrased) "you can't ever have more that +10 total ever," to be narrow.
NOT OK:
The slashing grace FAQ says I can use the feat with a swordsman's flair, therefore I can use a swordsman's flair with dervish dance, because the feats are similar
(I don't actually know that you can't do that, but using the FAQ for a different feat as justification is EXACTLY the kind of thing the devs want us to avoid.)
TOTALLY OK:
The slashing grace FAQ says bucklers don't take up a hand period all stop, therefore bucklers don't take up a hand.
The "can I get +6 from these specific class abilities" FAQ says, "no, you can never get more than +10 even from class or unusual abilities"
As a rule of thumb, the FAQs mean EXACTLY what the FAQs say. If they say something broad, it's broad. You aren't allowed to swap around feats/spells/abilities just because they are mechanically or thematically similar.
/rant
The way I see it, if you allow multiple items to apply to the same attack, they all apply all their properties, except that you just take the highest enhancement bonus (they presumably don't stack, being the same bonuses).
In this case, the +10 limit would apply to each item separately, so if a GM allowed them all at once, you would take the single highest enhancement for attack and damage and apply all other properties, potentially giving up to +5 with +23 worth of special properties. For the one's that operate based on an enhancement bonus, they would use the one of the item they're enchanted on.
It's also possible the +10 limit would apply to the natural weapon itself, with anything going over the +10 being lost. Assuming you allowed all of them to be active at once, I don't now how you'd decide which ones actually work, other than I know I wouldn't allow the player to decide moment to moment which ones are on with zero action cost.
I think the easiest and closest to RAI solution is to have 1 item active and all the others suppressed.

Archaeik |
+10 to each item separately is moot, AoMF caps at +5 and the Wrap at +7.
Each, however, is not a weapon even though they modify natural attacks, so it's the individual natural weapons which are capped "as normal".
I've found no restrictions on combining such things, save that like abilities overlap (and the +10 hard cap).
Regarding how to handle which abilities are active.
A lot of weapon properties are a standard action to toggle (although the wrap is strange, so you probably can't actually toggle those).
After that, I'd use the random item generation "overflow" rules, to determine what falls off for that round (or combat if you prefer).

![]() |

I'm not sure how to read the FAQ on +10 cap as not applying.
Suffice it to say I'd never allow past +10 using these items in any home game or PFS game without thinking of it as a house rule.
If someone reads the rules and the FAQ to allow it, I'm not sure how they read it that way. Your welcome to come to that interpretation, just not in a game I'm running.

Dallium |

Dallium wrote:The buckler rules say that the buckler doesn't take up a hand. The FAQ was unneeded.TOTALLY OK:
The slashing grace FAQ says bucklers don't take up a hand period all stop, therefore bucklers don't take up a hand.
I agree with you, but there are a number of people on this board who feel differently.

Claxon |

Have stacking rules ever been established for multiple items that can enhance something?
For instance, if you were bracers of armor (enchanted with some defensive abilities beyond the +1) and armor do you get both the armor and enhancement of your armor as well as the special abilities of the bracers?
I think the answer is no.
And subsequently, the answer for stacking weapons should also probably be no.
Edit: Nevermind, bracers have a specific caveat about turning off.
What about armor coat? That has a similar caveat though doesn't it.

graystone |

Charon's Little Helper wrote:I agree with you, but there are a number of people on this board who feel differently.Dallium wrote:The buckler rules say that the buckler doesn't take up a hand. The FAQ was unneeded.TOTALLY OK:
The slashing grace FAQ says bucklers don't take up a hand period all stop, therefore bucklers don't take up a hand.
There was a time hand only meant one thing in the rules. Those days have passed though. Then we keep adding rules with different wording. Carrying, wielding, occupying, worn, ect that may or may not have the same meaning.
It was so much easier when you could read the buckler and say "the buckler doesn't take up a hand".

![]() |

What about armor coat? That has a similar caveat though doesn't it.
I know that you can do that trick when you dual wield shields. Or with an armored kilt. (It's why PFS banned the armored kilt, since besides that it's no different from a hamaraki.)
The straight AC bonuses don't stack - but everything else does.

![]() |

Charon's Little Helper wrote:The straight AC bonuses don't stack - but everything else does.Source?
Logic?
Pathfinder is a generally inclusive system - there would have to be a rule against it. It's a much cheaper way to get fortification etc. (To the level of OP - since there's no drawback.)
Besides - there would be no purpose for the ability to wear the armored kilt in addition to other armor if it couldn't stack somehow.

Claxon |

Claxon wrote:Charon's Little Helper wrote:The straight AC bonuses don't stack - but everything else does.Source?Logic?
Pathfinder is a generally inclusive system - there would have to be a rule against it. It's a much cheaper way to get fortification etc. (To the level of OP - since there's no drawback.)
Besides - there would be no purpose for the ability to wear the armored kilt in addition to other armor if it couldn't stack somehow.
It being cheaper is the exact reason I can't see it stacking. Why even buy +5 heavy fortification armor if you can instead buy one set of +5 and one set of +1 heavy fortification.
For the first you would pay 100,000 gold. For the second you would pay 25,000 gp and 36,000 gp for total of 61,000 gp. An almost 40% discount. That does not seem to be intentional to me at all. In fact, it seems down right abusive.
Oh, and as has been said before Pathfinder is not an inclusive system, it is very much an exclusive system. You can only do what the rules say you can. If the rules don't say you can, then you cannot do so.
And the purpose of the armored kilt is to attach an kilt to your armor and increase the AC of your total ensemble.

![]() |

Charon's Little Helper wrote:Claxon wrote:Charon's Little Helper wrote:The straight AC bonuses don't stack - but everything else does.Source?Logic?
Pathfinder is a generally inclusive system - there would have to be a rule against it. It's a much cheaper way to get fortification etc. (To the level of OP - since there's no drawback.)
Besides - there would be no purpose for the ability to wear the armored kilt in addition to other armor if it couldn't stack somehow.
It being cheaper is the exact reason I can't see it stacking. Why even buy +5 heavy fortification armor if you can instead buy one set of +5 and one set of +1 heavy fortification.
For the first you would pay 100,000 gold. For the second you would pay 25,000 gp and 36,000 gp for total of 61,000 gp. An almost 40% discount. That does not seem to be intentional to me at all. In fact, it seems down right abusive.
Oh, and as has been said before Pathfinder is not an inclusive system, it is very much an exclusive system. You can only do what the rules say you can. If the rules don't say you can, then you cannot do so.
And the purpose of the armored kilt is to attach an kilt to your armor and increase the AC of your total ensemble.
How would an armored kilt boost your Armor Class? It gives an armor bonus - and armor bonuses don't stack. (That is a specific rule.)
When you add an armored kilt to a suit of light armor, the set counts as medium armor. Likewise, a kilt and medium armor counts as heavy armor. Adding an armored kilt to heavy armor has no effect.
It says nothing about the AC stacking.
And yes - it is cheaper/OP for anyone who already wears heavy armor. Hence both PFS and my home game banning it.

Claxon |

The armored kilt is made of a thick cloth skirt with bars of steel hanging down from the waist and a ring of horizontal steel plates just above the hem. An armored kilt can be worn separately as light armor, or it can be added to other suits of light or medium armor. Adding an armored kilt increases a suit of armor’s armor bonus by +1, but it adds 15 pounds to the armor, lowers the maximum Dex bonus by 1, and increases the armor’s weight category (from light to medium and from medium to heavy). Adding an armored kilt to heavy armor does not provide an armor bonus increase.
It doesn't give a separate armor bonus, it increases the armor bonus of the armor you're wearing by 1. So a breastplate would give 7 AC instead of 6. It would also make it heavy armor, reduce the max dex bonus by 1, and increase the armor check penalty by 1.