If you had one spell that read:
Name: Foo
Effect: You get +2 to Handle Animal checks concerning pet rocks.and another:
Name: Bar
Effect: Whenever you you eat an apple, you have +1 bonus to hit dinosaurs for 1 minute. This spell does not stack with Foo.If you have both Foo and Bar cast on you, Bar's not going to work. Whether they provide the same or different effects is irrelevant.
What you don't know is that the playtest draft of Pathfinder's Ultimate Dinosaur contained the following feat:
We Will Rock You
Prerequesite: Rock Taming, Halfling Rockthrower alternative racial trait
Benefit: When you throw a pet rock, you may use your Handle Animal skill check bonus in place of your Base Attack Bonus.
This overpowered feat was dropped from the published version of Ultimate Dinosaur. The line about Foo and Bar not stacking was the initial attempt to reduce the strength of this feat and the editors forgot to remove it.
A belt that gives you a +2 enhancement bonus to Strength does not stack with a headband that gives you a +2 enhancement bonus to Wisdom, since enhancement bonuses do not stack with one another. Does that mean I can't benefit from both at once?These is a different requirement. Enhancement bonuses of the same type don't (normally) stack. Thus, the above two actually do stack.
Um, the bonuses do have the same type, because "enhancement" is a bonus type.
For those quoting the rules for bonus stacking: the rules absolutely apply. However, they only discuss the stacking of "bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic". While this is fine to clarify the concept, it's obviously not covering other cases of stacking.
This should be immediately obvious when we look at our Blessing of Fervor/Haste example. Even if we allowed the spells to stack (which they don't!), using only the glossary's strict definition of Stacking would allow BoF's "Make one extra attack as part of a full attack action, using its highest base attack bonus" to stack with Haste, as neither is a bonus or penalty to a check/stat.
Where is 'statistic' defined? I would take 'statistic' to be any number, such as the number of times you can attack in a round.
The Foo/Bar thing is just an example. However, it still stands. Foo and Bar would -normally- stack as they have no conflicting bonuses. However, by adding that line about not stacking to Bar, they can no longer be used together.
The issue starts here. Foo and bar don't stack, normally or otherwise. As they grant different bonuses it's not that they don't stack, they CAN'T stack by the rules. Stacking is about the bonuses and penalties on a single stat or roll: full stop. The line "This spell does not stack with Foo" LITERALLY holds no meaning as spells themselves never stack only the bonuses they provide. In Blessing of Fervor, it must be read as "The effects of Blessing of Fervor do not stack with haste" because there is no mechanism in the game for "The entire spell is being taken as a single entity" in stacking, only "its individual effects".
Look at the stacking section in the magic section. It talks about three things: "Different Bonus Types", "two or more identical spells" and "One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant". Nothing in that section says "The entire spell is being taken as a single entity rather than being broken down into its individual effects." Please make a rules quote that you think says that as I'm curious how you came to that conclusion.
"Different Bonus Types": is already about the individual parts.
"Same Effect": are about "two or more identical spells"
"One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant": different bonuses wouldn't be "Irrelevant".
I don't see anything about "The entire spell is being taken as a single entity".
EDIT: there IS a part that talks about spells as a whole: "Spells with Opposite Effects": ["Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell's description"] If there isn't a special effect noted you check for "all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply".
While this is fine to clarify the concept, it's obviously not covering other cases of stacking.
The game HAS no other cases stacking. Hastes add 1 to the number of attack. Multiplier to crit adds one to that.
In no way is stat stretched into an entire effect but it looks just a one single thing at a time. If you can break something into smaller parts, then it isn't "one particular check or statistic".
For those quoting the rules for bonus stacking: the rules absolutely apply. However, they only discuss the stacking of "bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic". While this is fine to clarify the concept, it's obviously not covering other cases of stacking.
This should be immediately obvious when we look at our Blessing of Fervor/Haste example. Even if we allowed the spells to stack (which they don't!), using only the glossary's strict definition of Stacking would allow BoF's "Make one extra attack as part of a full attack action, using its highest base attack bonus" to stack with Haste, as neither is a bonus or penalty to a check/stat.
It should quickly become clear that the glossary's definition is not all encompassing, and only covers a subset of possible stacking case, specifically those dealing with bonuses and penalties. We can, however, use it as a guide on how to cover other stacking situations.
I agree that the definition of stacking in the Getting Started chapter of the Core Rulebook discusses only bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic and the Pathfinder game uses stacking and not-stacking in more contexts than that. For example the stacking rules also apply to size increases, which affect a combination of properties: squares occupied, height, weight, reach, weapon damage, and size modifiers to AC, attack rolls, CMB, and CMD. I can't find the rules about size stacking in the rulebooks, but they are mentioned in the Core Rulebook FAQ.
However, stacking means adding together, which for spells would mean the full effect of each, and not-stacking means taking the higher value, which is often difficult to judge for combined objects, such as a multifaceted spell or a threat-range-and-critical-multiplier pair. Though size is a combined object, it is linear and always has a clear highest value.
Byakko:
Stunning fist: a single escalating condition. Works in my favor. Also can fall under "two or more identical spells".
Divine bond: falls under "Same Effect": are about "two or more identical spells". You cant benefit from two bless spells and you can't benefit from two flaming either. Works in my favor.
Feats: see above but replace flaming with dodge.
Grappling: see stunning fist.
Thank you for proving my points. Nothing you posted is new ground that's not covered by the stacking in the magic section.
Also: "If more than one condition affects a character, apply them all. If effects can't combine, apply the most severe effect." Sounds a lot like a stat to me, like size and strength.
Also, for the record: The wording you'd be looking for to cover this rules interpretation is not: X does not stack with Y.
The wording you're looking for is: A subject/target cannot be affected by both X and Y simultaneously. If they would be, (X or Y) takes precedence.
This. BoF would say you "can't benefit from this spell and haste simultaneously."
Ugh... Rules forum.
I don't understand the issues. While this spell is working, keen or improved critical isn't.
Doesn't matter how YOU define it. The spell has its own definition and it's quite clear.
The spell doesn't define 'stack'. The book does. 'Stack' means that you use the better of two numbers instead of adding them. So if you had a bow with a natural 20 crit, and Improved Critical, that would give you a 19-20. The spell cannot increase that number further because the bonuses do not stack.
A bonus that does not stack cannot reduce an second bonus, like a crossbow-user with Improved Critical who has a 17-20 critical range. You use the better of the two.
Stunning Fist is not a single escalating condition. Nor is it a spell.
The conditions are. You can't increase conditions but you sure can apply more conditions. As far a spells, I think applying it to identical effects is less of a stretch that stacking things other than individual stats/checks.
Divine Bond is not a spell. Nor are magic items.
See above. You don't benefit from multiply instances of the same effect, spell or not. That's what it means by not stacking.
Feats have more complex rules surrounding them, but looking only at the specific rule I quoted, the intent of the stated rule is obvious: if you do, somehow, have the same feat more than once, it doesn't stack with itself.
Wow... Just like "two or more identical spells"... It's shocking how that worked...
Grappling/Pinned: these are two distinct conditions.
No they aren't. "Pinned is a more severe version of grappled" If they where truly distinct, the benefits of both would stack.
Your quote actually works in my favor. It's saying that you generally apply everything to a character, except when it can't combine, in which case you only apply one. When something says it doesn't stack it's essentially saying it can't combine.
Can't combine the "bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic". You ignore:
"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)."
"spells (or from effects other than spells;": This section may say spell but applies to other effects. "Spells or magical effects" are also brought up. So the whole 'it's not a spell' argument it out the door.
Being pinned is a complex state with many sub-parts.
Dexterity is a complex stat that has many subparts, such as ranged attack bonus, AC ref save and dex skill checks. Complexity and subparts are all linked together into "one particular check or statistic" unlike a spell that just gives out bonuses that aren't linked.
Secondly, pinned is clearly a "more severe version" of a condition so it's easy and simple to say it's the " Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths" that requires "only the one with the highest strength applies".
A spell that gives a +1 to hit and +3 to damage that doesn't stack with a +3 to hit has no such clear "highest strength" so there is not true way to figure out which applies. Note that with stacking, no effect ever becomes inactive. When "One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant" "Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion." How is either the +3 damage or the +3 hit ever Irrelevant? Both spells are active and working as per the rules...
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This is curious as this is what I'm seeing from your side."I'm right and you wrong, just cause, no proof needed".
Nope. What you are seeing from my side is me objecting to anyone asserting "I'm right and you are wrong".
If your reply is essentially saying "Expect Table Variance", then we are in total agreement.
But to this point, it comes down to a rules interpretation of RAW. You can't prove your side. The other can't prove their side. We are at an impasse and this thread will degenerate.
This is curious as this is what I'm seeing from your side."I'm right and you wrong, just cause, no proof needed".
Nope. What you are seeing from my side is me objecting to anyone asserting "I'm right and you are wrong".
If your reply is essentially saying "Expect Table Variance", then we are in total agreement.
But to this point, it comes down to a rules interpretation of RAW. You can't prove your side. The other can't prove their side. We are at an impasse and this thread will degenerate.
I can agree with "Expect Table Variance" but I also enjoy a rules debate. As long as people are willing to make their points I'm willing to counter it with my own points. ;)
PS: as to your side I don't mean you in particular but those that count spells as blocks for stacking purposes.
As to the original post, at the time I was seeing a lot of 'no it isn't' from your side while we [our side] where posting rules and quotes. Now while I don't agree with Byakko, he's posted things he thinks back his position. I appreciate his doing so as without that, the debate stagnates.
As to proof, I highly doubt one side will completely win over the other. As such, we'll never "prove" a side 100%. This doesn't mean the thread is a waste though. People may be swayed to one side or another and even if no one does, we still get to see each others positions and anyone that's unsure can browse the thread to get all the info and can make an informed decision for themselves.
What you haven't shown is the word 'stack' used for dissimilar effects.
Yes, it has been shown multiple times. Most notably is haste and blessing of fervor.
You ask for proof that stack can be used for dissimilar effects. We show you proof of stack being used for dissimilar effects. Then you say "but those are dissimilar effects".
We know. That's why we used it as an example.
I knew I shouldn't have come back for another round of bashing my face into a brick wall. I'm not sure if it's just the same wall or if they keep building the exact same wall right behind it.
Haste and BoF specifically call out similar effects that don't stack (the extra attacks), and then go on further to say the entirety of the spells do not stack with each other. Was this just poor writing on the part of the developers? Possibly. But I believe that last line actually means something that is more relevant than "normal stacking rules apply".
But I'm done bashing my face into the brick wall. I take my view with a grain of salt that I could be wrong and that there needs to be an FAQ to clear it up, because my understanding of it as both RAW and RAI is that they never stack (under my understanding of what the stacking rules means when specifically called out in contexts other than normal stacking rules).
But I'm definitely done now. I've said my peace, let readers decide their view from what is already given because we are doing nothing but presenting the exact same arguments over and over. I'm going to go ice my face.
But I'm definitely done now. I've said my peace, let readers decide their view from what is already given because we are doing nothing but presenting the exact same arguments over and over. I'm going to go ice my face.
I had hoped that you would add some explanation of your views relevant to my logic, because you had a consistent logic to your postings. I am still on the fence, feeling that neither viewpoint has solid evidence about RAW. But as a GM, I am happy to follow a good explanation that lets me run the game well despite ambiguity in the rulebook.
Nevertheless, a lot of the arguments here are people yelling past each other, claiming the others' words don't mean anything. That usually means that they have different definitions of the words, but repeating over and over again does not clarify definitions.
But I'm definitely done now. I've said my peace, let readers decide their view from what is already given because we are doing nothing but presenting the exact same arguments over and over. I'm going to go ice my face.I had hoped that you would add some explanation of your views relevant to my logic, because you had a consistent logic to your postings. I am still on the fence, feeling that neither viewpoint has solid evidence about RAW. But as a GM, I am happy to follow a good explanation that lets me run the game well despite ambiguity in the rulebook.
*Reluctantly returns with an ice pack on his face*
I appreciate the compliment. For the sake of you and others like you, I will continue the face bashing.
Nevertheless, a lot of the arguments here are people yelling past each other, claiming the others' words don't mean anything. That usually means that they have different definitions of the words, but repeating over and over again does not clarify definitions.
*Sigh* yes, this is the main reason I originally left the conversation. It simply wasn't going anywhere. I believe stacking can mean more than just what is defined by that one line that the opposition so feverishly keeps quoting from the general stacking rules. The problem with that line is that it is not all-inclusive. The quote itself comes with a grain of salt because it even says "generally this is what happens" (paraphrasing). The fact is that general rules (such as the quote listed) is what you generally use to determine what happens. However, specific rules (such as spell descriptions) can override general rules. For example:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.
What the opposition is essentially doing is saying "Nothing outside of what is listed here can make a rogue able to do sneak attack damage because this is the general rule for it". Except we know that is not true because there are many abilities/feats/items that allow you to get sneak attack damage without denying dex bonuses to AC or flanking.
Because of this structure of their argument, they cannot be proven wrong. They rely on the foundation of the rules while ignoring the rest of the floors, and then say "Well since you can't disprove me that means you're wrong". We are not saying their general rules statement is wrong. We are saying there are times when that is overridden by specific rules statements.
Where I think their arguments are incredibly weak is when it comes to specific lines of rules that they ignore because they believe that general overrides specific. In the haste and blessing of fervor example, why is the last line even there? We already know extra attacks and similar bonuses don't stack. That line is not meaningless like they are claiming it to be. It has a purpose there, and that purpose it to show that the general stacking rules do not cover it, as they do not cover every single aspect of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, I believe I've shown that:
1) There are multiple examples in the CRB where the word "stack" refers to things which are not numeric bonuses or penalties, despite the glossary.
I agree that you have shown this.
2) When these things say they don't stack, they are referring to the entire entity, and not the individual sub-components of the effect.
I believe this is a possibility, but it is not yet a practical possiblilty. I want to follow the rule that says to use the highest value, but for non-numerical objects such as spells, highest value is often meaningless. How can I make that work?
In addition, I am accustomed to "does not stack" meaning "does not boost equal or better benefits" rather than "is totally suppressed by equal or better benefits."
Examples:
...
D) A creature who has both Aspect of the Falcon and Improved Critical only gains the benefit of one or the other, not both. You do not look at the individual parts of the Aspect of the Falcon and Improved Critical and only exclude those which overlap.
That one makes me laugh. I played a gnome ranger-monk who liked the spell Aspect of the Falcon. He thought the feathers from the spell were fun. Now imagine that he acquires a small +1 keen crossbow. He casts Aspect of Falcon, grows feathers, draws his new crossbow, loses his feathers, puts the crossbow on the ground, grows feathers, picks up the crossbow, loses feathers, drops the crossbow, grows feathers, etc. He is a gnome, he will repeat this a few dozen times, yelling, "Hey! Look at this! Feathers. No feathers. Feathers. No feathers. I wonder why the crossbow gets rid of the feathers. And the good eyesight, too." That lawful good gnome was a load of innocent fun.
That one makes me laugh. I played a gnome ranger-monk who liked the spell Aspect of the Falcon. He thought the feathers from the spell were fun. Now imagine that he acquires a small +1 keen crossbow. He casts Aspect of Falcon, grows feathers, draws his new crossbow, loses his feathers, puts the crossbow on the ground, grows feathers, picks up the crossbow, loses feathers, drops the crossbow, grows feathers, etc. He is a gnome, he will repeat this a few dozen times, yelling, "Hey! Look at this! Feathers. No feathers. Feathers. No feathers. I wonder why the crossbow gets rid of the feathers. And the good eyesight, too." That lawful good gnome was a load of innocent fun.
Yes, I've had similar scenarios enter my mind. Personally, I would houserule that you can keep the feathers, perception bonus, and bonus to ranged attack rolls while under the effects of both AotF and another crit range expanding effect. I don't think it's overpowered to let that stack, so I would houserule it otherwise. But there would be no chance in hell I would ever let the critical aspects of them stack.
I believe stacking can mean more than just what is defined by that one line that the opposition so feverishly keeps quoting from the general stacking rules. The problem with that line is that it is not all-inclusive. The quote itself comes with a grain of salt because it even says "generally this is what happens" (paraphrasing). The fact is that general rules (such as the quote listed) is what you generally use to determine what happens. However, specific rules (such as spell descriptions) can override general rules.
Byakko believes that the spell groups together all the effects. But you, CampinCarl9127, appear to take the view that the grouping is accomplished through the specific words, "This effect," in the sentence, "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."
That one makes me laugh. I played a gnome ranger-monk who liked the spell Aspect of the Falcon. He thought the feathers from the spell were fun. Now imagine that he acquires a small +1 keen crossbow. He casts Aspect of Falcon, grows feathers, draws his new crossbow, loses his feathers, puts the crossbow on the ground, grows feathers, picks up the crossbow, loses feathers, drops the crossbow, grows feathers, etc. He is a gnome, he will repeat this a few dozen times, yelling, "Hey! Look at this! Feathers. No feathers. Feathers. No feathers. I wonder why the crossbow gets rid of the feathers. And the good eyesight, too." That lawful good gnome was a load of innocent fun.Yes, I've had similar scenarios enter my mind. Personally, I would houserule that you can keep the feathers, perception bonus, and bonus to ranged attack rolls while under the effects of both AotF and another crit range expanding effect. I don't think it's overpowered to let that stack, so I would houserule it otherwise. But there would be no chance in hell I would ever let the critical aspects of them stack.
It would be believable that the gnome has to wrestle against the keen enchantment to get the particular falcon-eyed aim that gives him the x3 crit multiplier, and thus lost the expanded threat range. But what if he relaxed and let the crossbow's enchantment help his aim? Would he get a 17-20/x2 critical?
Byakko believes that the spell groups together all the effects. But you, CampinCarl9127, appear to take the view that the grouping is accomplished through the specific words, "This effect," in the sentence, "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."
I suppose that is a good way to put it. I would not automatically group all of the spells effects together, because I believe in certain circumstances there would be aspects of a spell that would stack with other abilities while other aspects would not stack.
I keep referring to that line thought because the opposition's viewpoint is that the entire sentence is worthless. Why is it even there if the spell can stack? We already know multiple critical range expanding effects cannot stack, that's defined very clearly. I don't think that line has no purpose at all. The developers may not be English professors, but their writing is a far call from being poorly done.
It would be believable that the gnome has to wrestle against the keen enchantment to get the particular falcon-eyed aim that gives him the x3 crit multiplier, and thus lost the expanded threat range. But what if he relaxed and let the crossbow's enchantment help his aim? Would he get a 17-20/x2 critical?
Eh, we're going into very dodgy territory here. I don't believe you should be able to (or can) change what non-stackable effects are effecting with with a free action. The choice should be made when both effects come into existence, and my personal view (quite possibly a houserule instead of RAW) is that the recipient chooses which buff effects him (to prevent shenanigans like enemies buffing you to force you to lose a more powerful buff).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep referring to that line thought because the opposition's viewpoint is that the entire sentence is worthless. Why is it even there if the spell can stack? We already know multiple critical range expanding effects cannot stack, that's defined very clearly. I don't think that line has no purpose at all. The developers may not be English professors, but their writing is a far call from being poorly done.
The rules often repeat stuff we already know from other sections of the rules (despite developer claims in various statements that 'word count' was a concern in putting the books together). That fact that it does so again here does not, necessarily, mean anything different.
Ah I'm sorry. In my most recent post, the quotes were from Mathmuse, not Byakko. I actually type out my quotes instead of clicking reply. My bad.
The rules often repeat stuff we already know from other sections of the rules (despite developer claims in various statements that 'word count' was a concern in putting the books together). That fact that it does so again here does not, necessarily, mean anything different.
Perhaps. Perhaps it's just a completely unnecessary statement that means nothing. But it's from the Advanced Player's Guide, not exactly a poorly done or recent book. I give them the benefit of the doubt on their writing effectiveness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some say that the spell (or all its effects) is counted as a whole.
Per CRB p13, stacking is concerned with bonuses of the same type. Clearly the set of effects of Aspect of the Falcon is different to the set of effects of the Improved Critical feat. Therefore, the rules on p13 do not apply.
Per CRB p208, Combining Magical Effects is about bonuses of the same type. Again, the two sets are clearly different, so this text does not apply.
What rules do we have left about stacking in the CRB?
We have lots of specific rules that say X does not stack with Y, found in various spells, feats, magic items, and class features. I know of no other general rules about stacking.
All these specific rules say "you can't do something you can normally do". Where is the rule that tells me what I can normally do? The only two I can find have been deemed not-to-apply by the assumption above.
The basic result of this viewpoint is that these specific rules refer to some rule that does not exist.
Compare that with: Spells (and all their effects) are treated as a series of simple effects, that are dealt with one at a time.
Per CRB p13, stacking is concerned with bonuses of the same type. Aspect of the Falcon has a number of effects. Improved critical has one effect. In every possible match-up save one, the bonuses are different, rendering p13 and 208 irrelevant. The one relevant on is the increased threat range that both mention. Both p13 and 208 indicate that when you have the same bonus type that you only get the best and not both.
The basic result of this viewpoint is that the specific rules can be evaluated by the known general rules.
Given these two possible viewpoints, which do we choose? The one that leaves more questions than before, or the one that gives a clear answer?
I choose for the clear answer.
Back in post 79, I gave an answer to those who kept telling me they don't stack. I showed what would happen if they did stack, and said I agreed that they do not stack. Yet this post was ignored. Why?
----
Some have said that one spell or effect suppresses a second one. How? Where are the rules citation that show this. We have a counter example of a gnome using a spell and turning it on and off just by picking up and putting down a weapon to illustrate the absurdity of this viewpoint. We have the counter example of using a buff spell (BoF) to strip another spell (Haste) on an enemy again showing the absurdity of this viewpoint.
----
Some have said that "fatigued" and "shaken" are not numerical effects to dealt with by the stacking rules. Add to that a number of other condition words.
While they are words and not numbers, they are usually a set of ordered conditions. This order defines the properties of lesser, equal, and greater for every pair within the series. Fear has shaken < frightened < panicked. There is a clear ordering here. Given this, you can determine the highest of any two of these conditions. This permits using stacking rules since you can evaluate comparative numerical value.
----
Cite us the GENERAL rule of how things should work when p13 and p208 are disqualified. Please. We would love to see it.
/cevah
The basic result of this viewpoint is that these specific rules refer to some rule that does not exist.
False. It refers to the specific rules that are written under the spell. Those rules to not refer to something else. Here again, for your convenience.
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.
This effect. Singular. The singular effect (Aspect of the Falcon) does not stack with keen and friends. It does not specifically call out the range increasing portion of the spell nor even calls out "these effects" so that you check each effect individually. This effect is singular, which refers to the effect of the spell. So the only thing you check is the effect of the spell versus the effects of other abilities. If you have another critical range expanding ability active, the effect of Aspect of the Falcon does not stack with it. The entire effect of Aspect of the Falcon.
I choose for the clear answer.
That is an appeal to simplicity, which is a logical fallacy. The easy answer isn't necessarily the right one.
Some have said that one spell or effect suppresses a second one. How? Where are the rules citation that show this. We have a counter example of a gnome using a spell and turning it on and off just by picking up and putting down a weapon to illustrate the absurdity of this viewpoint. We have the counter example of using a buff spell (BoF) to strip another spell (Haste) on an enemy again showing the absurdity of this viewpoint.
Irrelevant to the argument at hand. Exactly how it manifests has no relevance to whether it should manifest or not. An appeal to ridicule, another logical fallacy. Absurdity does not prove falseness.
Some have said that "fatigued" and "shaken" are not numerical effects to dealt with by the stacking rules. Add to that a number of other condition words.
While they are words and not numbers, they are usually a set of ordered conditions. This order defines the properties of lesser, equal, and greater for every pair within the series. Fear has shaken < frightened < panicked. There is a clear ordering here. Given this, you can determine the highest of any two of these conditions. This permits using stacking rules since you can evaluate comparative numerical value.
Well said. The stacking rules indeed cover much more than just simple numerical values.
Cite us the GENERAL rule of how things should work when p13 and p208 are disqualified. Please. We would love to see it.
This question makes no sense. The argument is that the specific rule is what is taking precedent over the general rules. To respond to an opponent claiming specific rule interpretations with "well what's the general rule for your specific rule?" makes no sense. The lack of a general rule to cover what is happening is intrinsic to the existence of the specific rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The basic result of this viewpoint is that these specific rules refer to some rule that does not exist.False. It refers to the specific rules that are written under the spell. Those rules to not refer to something else. Here again, for your convenience.
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.This effect. Singular. The singular effect (Aspect of the Falcon) does not stack with keen and friends. It does not specifically call out the range increasing portion of the spell nor even calls out "these effects" so that you check each effect individually. This effect is singular, which refers to the effect of the spell. So the only thing you check is the effect of the spell versus the effects of other abilities. If you have another critical range expanding ability active, the effect of Aspect of the Falcon does not stack with it. The entire effect of Aspect of the Falcon.
So the general rule referred to by the specific rule in the spell is the specific rule in the spell?
Sorry, no. Circular logic here.
I choose for the clear answer.That is an appeal to simplicity, which is a logical fallacy. The easy answer isn't necessarily the right one.
The simplicity of a rule that comes up with an answer over a rule that does not. Easy and/or popular does not come into the choice at all. Right only applies in that the one I did not choose cannot be right.
An appeal to something that provides an answer vs. something that can not provide an answer, is not a logical fallacy, but an appeal for common sense.
Cite us the GENERAL rule of how things should work when p13 and p208 are disqualified. Please. We would love to see it.This question makes no sense. The argument is that the specific rule is what is taking precedent over the general rules. To respond to an opponent claiming specific rule interpretations with "well what's the general rule for your specific rule?" makes no sense. The lack of a general rule to cover what is happening is intrinsic to the existence of the specific rule.
The point of a specific rule is to override a general rule. This is what I am asking for. The two I and others keep saying work, you and others keep saying don't apply. So what rule is the general rule.
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have a counter example of a gnome using a spell and turning it on and off just by picking up and putting down a weapon to illustrate the absurdity of this viewpoint. We have the counter example of using a buff spell (BoF) to strip another spell (Haste) on an enemy again showing the absurdity of this viewpoint.Irrelevant to the argument at hand. Exactly how it manifests has no relevance to whether it should manifest or not. An appeal to ridicule, another logical fallacy. Absurdity does not prove falseness.
Have you never heard of Reductio ad absurdum? These are two such examples.
/cevah
So the general rule referred to by the specific rule in the spell is the specific rule in the spell?
Sorry, no. Circular logic here.
No, they don't refer to each other at all, nor was any part of my argument having the rules refer to each other. This is a strawman.
The simplicity of a rule that comes up with an answer over a rule that does not. Easy and/or popular does not come into the choice at all. Right only applies in that the one I did not choose cannot be right.
An appeal to something that provides an answer vs. something that can not provide an answer, is not a logical fallacy, but an appeal for common sense.
How does my argument not provide an answer? I very clearly have stated how the effects play out, and it is in fact simpler than checking every single relevant ability. Either the spell functions or it does not. There is no partial functioning.
You can disagree with my viewpoint, but don't disrespect it by saying there's no possible way it can be right. Even I go into this argument with a grain of salt knowing that I could possibly be misreading the RAI or that there was a writing error. Both of our views are possible and both can fully function in a very understandable manner. Even if you can have a stronger argument for your side than mine, that doesn't prove that there is a 0% chance that my side is right because the wording is ambiguous; otherwise this thread wouldn't have gone on for so long.
The point of a specific rule is to override a general rule. This is what I am asking for. The two I and others keep saying work, you and others keep saying don't apply. So what rule is the general rule.
The general stacking rules which have been quoted at least a dozen times on this thread already.
Have you never heard of Reductio ad absurdum? These are two such examples.
Except that you have proven no such thing. Not to mention that in the world of Pathfinder, we don't have to follow the regular laws of physics and reality. What is absurd in our minds can be commonplace in a world of magic.