you seem to be declaring that the spell has a secondary rule stating that it "does not function while under the effects of Improved Critical."
I'm saying it does what it says it does, not stack with Improved Critical.
Let me be blunt, there would be absolutely no discussion of this point at any table I'm playing or GM. If I'm a player and someone didn't take "they don't stack" and the GM didn't reject that, I'd excuse myself from the table. If I'm a GM, I'd excuse the player asserting it works from the table. Clear enough?
How come you think the word 'stack' means something different than how it is defined in the rules?
Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic.
The X3 bonus and the 17-20 bonus both apply to criticals so I can imagine someone might think that those are similar enough that they are both 'one check' or 'one statistic' (though I don't see how they're "added together") in the same way they might (wrongly) think that a weapon with a +2 enhancement bonus and the enhancement bonus from Bull's Strength don't stack.
you seem to be declaring that the spell has a secondary rule stating that it "does not function while under the effects of Improved Critical."
I'm saying it does what it says it does, not stack with Improved Critical.
Let me be blunt, there would be absolutely no discussion of this point at any table I'm playing or GM. If I'm a player and someone didn't take "they don't stack" and the GM didn't reject that, I'd excuse myself from the table. If I'm a GM, I'd excuse the player asserting it works from the table. Clear enough?
How come you think the word 'stack' means something different than how it is defined in the rules?
This. I agree that Improved Critical and Aspect of the falcon don't stack but stacking checks "bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic" and not an entire effect.
I know that if we FAQ this, any possible combos will be nerfed into oblivion, but at least we have some clarity and end any arguments.
I don't know if I can take any more 'clarity'. Sensitive parts of my body are still stinging from the last series of FAQ's/errata. I can't afford to take any more low blows. Paizo's PDT seems to have maxed out it's dirty trick combat maneuvers...
Every one of those cited rules either lists the exact thing that doesn't stack by separating the effects or goes on to list how the two effects would interact.
For Haste, the effects and restrictions are listed together with unrelated effects in separate paragraphs.
For Double Jeopardy, it has separate sentences listing the effects. Sentence one states you can use it on two weapons, each of which gets one ability. Sentence two states you can put both on one weapon, in which case it increases the threat range. Sentence three says "this effect" (meaning the immediately preceding effect) doesn't stack with Keen/Improved Critical.
For Armor Master, it states that the fortification doesn't stack.
Furs explicitly states what it doesn't stack with.
Etc. down the list.
Then you look at Aspect of the Falcon. The entire effect is listed in a single sentence and not broken into pieces. The exclusionary sentence is "This effect does not stack" not "The increase in critical threat range does not stack". It is explicitly stating what it doesn't stack with.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't actually change your threat range for a crossbow. It matters that "This effect" is "the critical multiplier for your bows and crossbows becomes 19–20/×3" and it doesn't stack with anything that increases threat range.
If the spell read "the damage for your weapon becomes 200d500. This effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as the Improved Critical feat or a keen weapon." you couldn't add on Improved Critical or keen. It doesn't matter what the actual effect is when it explicitly states that it doesn't stack with something else.
Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic.
The X3 bonus and the 17-20 bonus both apply to criticals so I can imagine someone might think that those are similar enough that they are both 'one check' or 'one statistic' (though I don't see how they're "added together") in the same way they might (wrongly) think that a weapon with a +2 enhancement bonus and the enhancement bonus from Bull's Strength don't stack.
The thing is, we're talking about a specific situation and not a general.
In general, different things stack.
In this specific situation, they do not because the spell specifically says they do not.
It lists an effect - "the critical multiplier for your bows and crossbows becomes 19–20/×3" - and then says immediately afterwards - "This effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as the Improved Critical feat or a keen weapon."
If the spell read "the damage for your weapon becomes 200d500. This effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as the Improved Critical feat or a keen weapon." you couldn't add on Improved Critical or keen.
That rule would be gibberish. "Does not stack" means you don't add two numbers to the same dice roll, you just use the highest of the two.
2. Stack is often used in reference to increasing critical threat range, and that is not a number added to the roll. The exact wording of Stacking Effects in the SRD is as follows:
Quote:
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).
3. The SRD states:
Quote:
One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.
If you had cast Keen Edge on a pile of Crossbow Bolts, the effect would be rendered irrelevant by Aspect of the Falcon because Aspect of the Falcon states that the critical "becomes 19-20/x3" and does not stack. Therefor, for the duration of Aspect of the Falcon, Keen Edge is irrelevant.
How come you think the word 'stack' means something different than how it is defined in the rules?
Because some read it var more restrictively than it is written and there are countless developer comments why it is more broad than is advocated here. This fact should be very well known, as it comes up frequently.
someweirdguy: the critical is made up of two "particular check[s] or statistic[s]". This can be seen by just looking at things like keen edge and improved critical. both are checked for stacking. In the case of crossbows, nothing is gained with a crossbow but something IS gained from keen/improved critical. Therefor no issues with stacking and neither is irrelevant as both provide something the other didn't (improved threat range and multiplier).
So Stacking checks individual rolls/checks and neither effect makes the other irrelevant. Irrelevant would be a +2 luck bonus to AC from one effect and another giving a +4 luck bonus to AC. The +2 is luck bonus is irrelevant in that case.
The specific wording of the spell overrides the general stacking rules. It doesn't matter if a spell said "You gain +1 to hit. This does not stack with invisibility." You would not be able to stack that spell with invisibility even though the abilities do not overlap.
The specific wording of the spell overrides the general stacking rules. It doesn't matter if a spell said "You gain +1 to hit. This does not stack with invisibility." You would not be able to stack that spell with invisibility even though the abilities do not overlap.
Once it uses stack you have to follow the rules for that. Stacking is about only the highest bonus/minus being added. In your example is it was a +2 will save that didn't stack with invisibility then nothing is checked because there is nothing to stack. The same case happens with keen/improved critical and aspect of the falcon on a crossbow. the spell doesn't effect the threat range (+2 will) and the other keen/improved critical does (inv).
You are literally making a apples vs oranges argument. If it's not affecting the same stat/check, it's not stacking. Nothing in the "specific wording of the spell overrides" that. Nothing alters the general rule by making crit the same stat/check instead ot threat range and multiplier.
James Risner: It doesn't have to. Luck bonuses have that line by default. Secondly, you don't check 'things' for stacking, you check an individual "stat/check as per the rules.
The specific wording of the spell overrides the general stacking rules. It doesn't matter if a spell said "You gain +1 to hit. This does not stack with invisibility." You would not be able to stack that spell with invisibility even though the abilities do not overlap.
Once it uses stack you have to follow the rules for that. Stacking is about only the highest bonus/minus being added. In your example is it was a +2 will save that didn't stack with invisibility then nothing is checked because there is nothing to stack. The same case happens with keen/improved critical and aspect of the falcon on a crossbow. the spell doesn't effect the threat range (+2 will) and the other keen/improved critical does (inv).
You are literally making a apples vs oranges argument. If it's not affecting the same stat/check, it's not stacking. Nothing in the "specific wording of the spell overrides" that. Nothing alters the general rule by making crit the same stat/check instead ot threat range and multiplier.
Stacking is generally about using the highest bonus/penalty being applied. Normally you would be correct that the effects have to be of the same type. You are also correct in saying that the spell does not change what kind of bonus the spell applies. However you are incorrect in saying that the wording of the spell doesn't prevent them from stacking.
Aspect of the Falcon wrote:
You take on an aspect of a falcon. Your eyes become wide and raptor-like, and you grow feathers on the sides of your head. You gain a +3 competence bonus on Perception checks, a +1 competence bonus on ranged attacks, and the critical multiplier for your bows and crossbows becomes 19-20/x3.
This effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as the Improved Critical feat or a keen weapon.
If they only wanted the effects to not stack on bows where the crit range would be quadrupled, they wouldn't need that last line at all, because it would be covered under the general stacking rules as well as the specific rules of improved critical and keen weapons. However they specifically call out the entire effect of the spell (regardless if it actually increased crit range or not) not stacking with improved critical of keen weapons or similar effects. The spell specifically calls out this exact scenario and overrides the general rules on stacking.
The specific wording of the spell overrides the general stacking rules. It doesn't matter if a spell said "You gain +1 to hit. This does not stack with invisibility." You would not be able to stack that spell with invisibility even though the abilities do not overlap.
Once it uses stack you have to follow the rules for that. Stacking is about only the highest bonus/minus being added. In your example is it was a +2 will save that didn't stack with invisibility then nothing is checked because there is nothing to stack. The same case happens with keen/improved critical and aspect of the falcon on a crossbow. the spell doesn't effect the threat range (+2 will) and the other keen/improved critical does (inv).
You are literally making a apples vs oranges argument. If it's not affecting the same stat/check, it's not stacking. Nothing in the "specific wording of the spell overrides" that. Nothing alters the general rule by making crit the same stat/check instead ot threat range and multiplier.
James Risner: It doesn't have to. Luck bonuses have that line by default. Secondly, you don't check 'things' for stacking, you check an individual "stat/check as per the rules.
Again, you can have two different things that invalidate one another, and it is still covered in the stacking section.
Example: If you cast Resist Energy selecting Fire, and then cast Resist Energy selecting Cold, you would have cold resistance but not fire resistance per the Same Effect Differing Result.
Thus, you have an instance of Stacking having nothing to do with a bonus type, and in fact being two different bonuses.
This means that when you have a single effect (the change of critical due to Aspect of the Falcon) and it states that the effect doesn't stack with something, then you cannot benefit from both the original effect and the thing that it does not stack with.
you seem to be declaring that the spell has a secondary rule stating that it "does not function while under the effects of Improved Critical."
I'm saying it does what it says it does, not stack with Improved Critical.
Let me be blunt, there would be absolutely no discussion of this point at any table I'm playing or GM. If I'm a player and someone didn't take "they don't stack" and the GM didn't reject that, I'd excuse myself from the table. If I'm a GM, I'd excuse the player asserting it works from the table. Clear enough?
I am surprised by the strength of your reaction to this combination, do you have it come up that often at the table?
The specific wording of the spell overrides the general stacking rules. It doesn't matter if a spell said "You gain +1 to hit. This does not stack with invisibility." You would not be able to stack that spell with invisibility even though the abilities do not overlap.
The abilities do overlap, you get a bonus to hit for being invisible. Your example would mean that those to hit bonuses would not stack.
The specific wording of the spell overrides the general stacking rules. It doesn't matter if a spell said "You gain +1 to hit. This does not stack with invisibility." You would not be able to stack that spell with invisibility even though the abilities do not overlap.
Once it uses stack you have to follow the rules for that. Stacking is about only the highest bonus/minus being added. In your example is it was a +2 will save that didn't stack with invisibility then nothing is checked because there is nothing to stack. The same case happens with keen/improved critical and aspect of the falcon on a crossbow. the spell doesn't effect the threat range (+2 will) and the other keen/improved critical does (inv).
You are literally making a apples vs oranges argument. If it's not affecting the same stat/check, it's not stacking. Nothing in the "specific wording of the spell overrides" that. Nothing alters the general rule by making crit the same stat/check instead ot threat range and multiplier.
James Risner: It doesn't have to. Luck bonuses have that line by default. Secondly, you don't check 'things' for stacking, you check an individual "stat/check as per the rules.
Again, you can have two different things that invalidate one another, and it is still covered in the stacking section.
Example: If you cast Resist Energy selecting Fire, and then cast Resist Energy selecting Cold, you would have cold resistance but not fire resistance per the Same Effect Differing Result.
Thus, you have an instance of Stacking having nothing to do with a bonus type, and in fact being two different bonuses.
This means that when you have a single effect (the change of critical due to Aspect of the Falcon) and it states that the effect doesn't stack with something, then you cannot benefit from both the original effect and the thing that it does not stack with.
From the rules:
Quote:
Blessing of fervor does not stack with haste.
Does this mean that if you are hasted, you can get NO benefit from blessing of fervor? Or does it mean that only the overlapping effects don't stack and you can still stand up as a swift action without provoking an attack of opportunity?
Does this mean that if you are hasted, you can get NO benefit from blessing of fervor? Or does it mean that only the overlapping effects don't stack and you can still stand up as a swift action without provoking an attack of opportunity?
The spell says blessing of fervor does not stack with haste. They do not call out specific aspects of each spell, they very specifically say that the spells do not stack. So no, they do not stack, as per the specific wording of blessing of fervor.
For another example, the ability to fly does not grant a bonus to hit. However, having high ground does. Does that mean that fly grants a bonus to hit? No, it does not, although it does indirectly allow a bonus to occur.
But we're getting too stuck up on the specifics of the example. Let's use this one instead.
"This spell gives the recipient darkvision 60 ft. This effect does not stack with fly."
It doesn't matter that darkvision and flying are completely unrelated, because of the wording they do not stack.
Darkvision can never stack with flight. An increase in speed can never stack with invisibility. A bonus on perception checks can never stack with an improved threat range. An improved critical multiplier can never stack with an improved threat range.
These things are completely incapable of stacking with each other, because they provide completely different effects.
They're just different things that happen at the same time.
That's not stacking.
Text saying "You gain darkvision 60 ft. This does not stack with flight." would be incredibly poorly written and would affect absolutely nothing under the rules. Darkvision and flight never stack.
And you'll notice that the rules don't normally say this sort of thing. Instead, they use the phrase "does not stack" to describe related affects that have the theoretical potential of stacking or not stacking, e.g. multiple changes in threat range.
Every one of those cited rules either lists the exact thing that doesn't stack by separating the effects or goes on to list how the two effects would interact.
For Haste, the effects and restrictions are listed together with unrelated effects in separate paragraphs.
For Double Jeopardy, it has separate sentences listing the effects. Sentence one states you can use it on two weapons, each of which gets one ability. Sentence two states you can put both on one weapon, in which case it increases the threat range. Sentence three says "this effect" (meaning the immediately preceding effect) doesn't stack with Keen/Improved Critical.
For Armor Master, it states that the fortification doesn't stack.
Furs explicitly states what it doesn't stack with.
Etc. down the list.
Then you look at Aspect of the Falcon. The entire effect is listed in a single sentence and not broken into pieces. The exclusionary sentence is "This effect does not stack" not "The increase in critical threat range does not stack". It is explicitly stating what it doesn't stack with.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't actually change your threat range for a crossbow. It matters that "This effect" is "the critical multiplier for your bows and crossbows becomes 19–20/×3" and it doesn't stack with anything that increases threat range.
If the spell read "the damage for your weapon becomes 200d500. This effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as the Improved Critical feat or a keen weapon." you couldn't add on Improved Critical or keen. It doesn't matter what the actual effect is when it explicitly states that it doesn't stack with something else.
Let's look at how this would work as you're describing it.
Some Weird Alternate Universe:
Blessing of Fervor and Haste would be entirely incompatible in any way, because Blessing of Fervor makes the same blanket statement about stacking as Aspect of the Falcon does.
The Armor's Fortification says that "this fortification does not stack in any way with armor that has these special abilities." In your interpretation, completely unrelated effects are considered to stack with each other. So you can't benefit from your Fortification ability and the armor bonus from your +5 light fortification full plate at the same time - it says it can't stack with your armor in any way, and having fortification and an armor bonus at the same time are apparently stacking.
Furs explicitly state that they don't stack with any bonuses from Survival. They provide a +2 bonus to saves against cold weather. One might hope that they can also use Survival to get a +2 to saves against strong winds...but wait, that would be stacking! Who cares that they're being added to different things - as you have explained, getting two things at the same time is stacking, no matter what they are.
Horrifying Visage wouldn't be able to work at the same time as any other fear effects. What if they don't add the shaken condition or interact with Horrifying Visage in any way? Nope, still don't work, because existing and stacking are the same thing.
Inspiring Assault would be impossible to combine with any benefit of Haste just like Blessing of Fervor.
A Hot Weather Outfit would be impossible to combine with any bonus from Survival, just like Furs.
Shared Defense, Slowing Mud, and Stoneblood all make similar blanket statements about what "this ability" or "this effect" stacks with. And if we go with your definition of "stack" as "exist at the same time as," then any and all aspects of the abilities will be simply unable to combine with the listed effects. Save bonuses and fortification? Can't stack, so nope. Being blinded and being slowed? Can't stack, so nope. A bonus on stabilization checks and fortification? Can't stack, so nope.
Sorry, looks like you're out of luck.
At some point I think you just have to acknowledge that two completely separate effects happening to a creature at the same time is not stacking. It's just things happening independently, and should be treated as such.
Ah, good find Cevah! You learn something new everyday. I stand corrected.
_Ozy_ was using the two as an example as if they don't stack. Let's use a clearer example. Say an enemy has blessing of fervor active and you caste haste on him. What happens?
Avaron "Don't normally" are your key words here. Again, you are defaulting to general rules to cover specific abilities. Specific overrides general.
The specific rule is that "this effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as the Improved Critical feat or a keen weapon."
But the general rule is that bonuses to Perception checks or critical modifier never stack with changes to the threat range of a weapon.
They just happen at the same time.
The specific rule doesn't contradict the general rule at all.
The general rule says that +3 Perception doesn't stack with Improved Critical, and so does the specific rule.
The general rule says that +3 Perception doesn't stack with Improved Critical, and so does the specific rule.
They don't stack.
They happen independently at the same time.
Nowhere in the rules is "two things happening" equated with "two things stacking."
Like I said, darkvision never stacks with flight.
Ah, good find Cevah! You learn something new everyday. I stand corrected.
Some rules are hard to find. You would think the vertical distance of a jump would be listed under the Acrobatics skill. It is instead listed in parentheses (p437) in the Urban Adventures section of the CRB. :-)
Avaron, again you ignore specific rules and you are using a strawman.
I quoted most of the relevant rules, and am unsure of what I am leaving out of my description.
If I am in any way using a strawman argument, it is out of a misunderstanding of your position, and I apologize. I was under the impression (based originally somewhat off of this post) that one part of it is something along the lines of this:
"Normally, when you are benefiting from two separate effects, such as +3 bonus on Perception checks and a keen weapon, the two effects are considered to be "stacking." Therefore, when something states that two effects "do not stack," this prevents you from continuing to benefit from every part of both effects, even parts that are completely independent from one another."
Does that seem to be an appropriate characterization?
Just to clarify, I am disputing that a Perception check bonus (or an increase in critical multiplier) is ever considered to be "stacking" with the benefit of a keen weapon in the first place and asserting that the relationship between the two remains unaffected by text stating that the effects do not "stack."
Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modif iers) multiple times and total the results.
Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage. So if you are asked to double the damage twice, the end result is three times the normal damage.
Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
