for #2 id go with a no. reason is the feat say :
"If you have a weapon that is augmented by your Arcane Strike feat, when you damage a creature with an attack made with that weapon...(then apply feat effect),"
and while you do deal damage to the other targets, and even damage of the same kind of your weapons, you never did attack them. you attacked some1 else and the gloves effect dealt them damage. the main target got damaged by an attack augmented by arcane strike. the others got damaged by an effect from the gloves (augmented by arcane strike and the gloves)they were never directly attack (an attack by most need an attack roll)
On (1), the penalty is untyped (as usual), so it stacks. AFAIK there's no "unless it's from the same source" clause for untyped penalty stacking, only untyped bonus stacking.
On (1), the penalty is untyped (as usual), so it stacks. AFAIK there's no "unless it's from the same source" clause for untyped penalty stacking, only untyped bonus stacking.
So it never occured to me that it could stack, but as Fuzzy-Wuzzy points out there's no clause about penalties not stacking - in fact I believe it's been stated that intyped penalties DO stack.
I'll have to see if I can find where that was said, but this makes the feat significantly better than I thought it was.
(I will have to check this though, so don't get too excited yet.)
Here's another roving strike question to tag on. If you hit with roving strike at the same time as delivering a spell from using spell strike or a similar ability does the penalty apply to the spell you are delivering?
@#1, as written, the penalties do stack. That's because unlike what multiple posters in both threads say and contrary to what the FAQ blaphers linked states, there is no general rule that penalties from the same source don't stack (nor is there one for bonuses, which was likewise wrongly stated in a different FAQ). In my experience, a majority of players gets the stacking rules wrong, and presume a general "same source = doesn't stack" rule, but when you look it up in the CRB (pg. 208), there is none. Not for bonuses, not for penalties.
I have discussed the topic (well, the bonuses side) so often that I know the page number by heart and don't have to look it up. Is that a bad sign?
Edit: Refreshing before posting would have helped...
Some of us are only reading this thread, Derklord. Try to keep things relevant; for instance, absolutely no post here has claimed that the penalties don't stack, so don't rebut that. :-)
Did somebody call my name? : D
I believe the basis of the FAQ is this part of the Magic chapter of the Core Rulebook:
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).
Now, Riving Strike is not a spell, so there's an argument that the above doesn't apply, and I don't know of any rules text that states that one should treat it the same way. It might be the intent, and the FAQ offers some evidence in that direction, so if you're running the table, use your own judgment.
Some of us are only reading this thread, Derklord. Try to keep things relevant; for instance, absolutely no post here has claimed that the penalties don't stack, so don't rebut that. :-)
I'm sorry, but is responding to something the OP explicitly referred to, including with links, and even quoted from, a bad thing now?
The OP talked about (and linked) "two threads", I presumed that when I say "both threads", it's clear that I'm referring to those. As the OP has read those threads, he understands what I say about posts in them, so how could my answer possibly be irrelevant? My post was directed at the OP, I don't see what's so wrong with that.As I've said, I didn't refresh the thread; I wrote my post with only zza ni's answer in the thread.
@blahpers: The more I think about it, the more that makes sense (that they based their FAQ on usign that rules as general rules, I mean). Of course, the stacking rule have absolutely no business to be in the magic section to begin with, and I feel the section you quoted from only talks about spells, especially since where they mentioned non spells, they explicitly refer to using the other part of the rules: "(or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above)".
Ohhhh, so that's what you were referring to. I did see your note about refreshing but didn't clue in on just how early in the thread you were. You have my apologies.
It's all good! I was a little put off because your post didn't match what I'd have expected from you (unlike others who did meet my expectation spot on...). Apparently we simply both misunderstood the other, so sorry in turn for being overly defensive (and for not editing my first post to make it clear that I was strictly answering the original post). The time delay came from watching Zverev-Djokovic, by the way.
There's also the issue of the penalty being untyped - say you hit them with Evil Eye hex, Riving Strike, and Bestow Curse, and all of those target saves for some weird reason. Would you only take the worst penalty because they can only have one untyped penalty at a time?
In this case those would all stack either way because the come from different sources.
Bestow Curse - for example - doesn't stack with itself, but it does stack with Greater Bestow Curse. So you could cast both to give someone a -12 to attack-rolls/saves/etc.
You could use Evil Eye on your twice-cursed creature to lower their saves even more and that would stack with Bestow Curse/Greater, and Riving Strike would affect them as well.
So far that all works whether you allow penalty-stacking or not since they're all from different sources.
If you cast Bestow Curse on the same creature again then you'd have to choose a different effect (-6 to an ability score etc.), because there is an FAQ about spell-penalty-stacking.
Riving Strike isn't a spell so it doesn't necessarily follow the same rules. If it does then only one instance of Riving Strike can affect a creature at any time. This is how I'd play it since it's consistent with everything else, but since we have no RAW to support it I guess people can play how they like.