Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Knight-Triumphant 11-12-04, 10:11 PM	If you were two weapon fighting, flurry-of-blows-ing, and were using two monk weapons with speed enchantments, all the extra attacks would count right?
Norseman 11-12-04, 11:55 PM	The speed enchantments are like haste so I don't think they would stack. Otherwise, I think that's all correct (but your attack bonus will be horrible).
Zariell 11-12-04, 11:58 PM	Best thing to do is to run this over with your DM. Each DM stacks things differently. If your DM is willing to stack a speed enchantment with a flurry move you'll get (Which, personally, I don't see why he wouldn't, considering the +3 mod on them): Level 8 with improved Two Weapon Fighting: +4/+4/+3/+3/+3/+3/-2 And that breaks down to: Speed/Speed/Two hand/Two hand/Flurry/Flurry/Flurry Oh and btw, Speed weapons are +3, which is 18,000 gold market price. Earilest you can afford two is level 12. Level 10 if you can get them PC crafted, and thats only if you save all of your gold. It would be much cheaper to get a ring of activated haste or something similar. You would lose 1 attack, but you'd also get AC and run speed from that.
TyraaloftheFist 11-13-04, 12:02 AM	Yeah, I think that would work, because speed says nothing I can remember about Flurry of Blows. If you're a monk, however, that would'nt work with Imp.TWF, if you have it, and you don't need TWF anyway, because FoB is the monk's version of TWF. :cool:
Zariell 11-13-04, 12:11 AM	Yeah, I think that would work, because speed says nothing I can remember about Flurry of Blows. If you're a monk, however, that would'nt work with Imp.TWF, if you have it, and you don't need TWF anyway, because FoB is the monk's version of TWF. :cool: In 3.5 TWF stacks with Flurry, only rule is that the TWF negatives apply to the Flurry as well.
Zherog 11-13-04, 09:43 AM	You can only gain one extra attack from speed - even if you wield two speed weapons.
PhaedrusXY 11-13-04, 10:14 AM	You can only gain one extra attack from speed - even if you wield two speed weapons.This is debateable. There was an example of a double weapon in the Epic Level Handbook with Speed on both ends. And the way the text is worded leaves it a bit open to debate. But there are other threads where that's all been done already...
masterofmayhem 11-13-04, 12:35 PM	Nowhere does it say that speed weapons do not stack with TWF/Flurry. It would be totally and utterly wrong to disallow it. On another note, two speed weapons do give two attacks, just as one speed weapon and a haste spell would give two attacks. From the 3.5 SRD Speed: When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.) Moderate transmutation; CL 7th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, haste; Price +3 bonus. [i]From the Haste spell: When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. The attack is made using the creature’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a weapon of speed, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can’t use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.) What the part in parentheses means is that you cannot have two haste effects on a single weapon. You can, however, choose where the haste goes if you have two weapons. This lets you use a speed weapon in ine hand and a weapon under the effect of a haste spell in the other. Keep in mind that items only simulate a spell if they specifically say so, like an amulet of natural armor. There are many items that have a certain spell used for it but do not duplicate that spell, like the vicious property (or the speed property). It is not correct to assume that these items function like the spell that created them. If speed weapons were meant to not give two extra attack if two are wielded, it would say so in their text.
Nom 11-13-04, 02:32 PM	Level 8 with improved Two Weapon Fighting: +4/+4/+3/+3/+3/+3/-2 And that breaks down to: Speed/Speed/Two hand/Two hand/Flurry/Flurry/FlurryI don't get this attack bonus progression. Level 8 monk: BAB +6, attacks +6/+1. Flurry (level 8): 1 extra attack at highest bonus, all attacks at -1. TWF (light secondary, TWF feat): 1 extra attack with off hand weapon, all attacks with primary weapon at -2, all attacks with off-hand weapon at -2. Speed: extra attack with weapon at highest bonus. So, allowing that speed applies per-weapon, we get 4 (primary) attacks at full BAB plus two extra off-hand attacks at full BAB plus 1 iterative (primary) attack at -5. And all are penalised by -3 (flurry -1, twf -2). Thus attack sequence is primary +3/+3/+3/+3/-2 off-hand +3/+3, including only modifiers for BAB and multiple attacks. Exact order of resolution subject to full attack rules, pg 143. Note that if you had Improved TWF, you could add an additional off-hand attack, also at -2.
fawr 11-13-04, 06:50 PM	8th level monk flurry (from PHB): 5/5/0 flurry & TWF (-2 To Hit, one extra attack): 3/3/-2 (Right) + 3 (left) haste & flurry & TWF (one extra attack per weapon): 3/3/3/-2 (Right) + 3/3 (left) I suspect that Nom applied the haste bonus twice to the right hand.
Zherog 11-13-04, 08:51 PM	MasterofMayhem - you're ignoring the most important part of the quote you posted: (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.) Haste and a Speed weapon are not cumulative.
Thorak 11-13-04, 11:56 PM	MasterofMayhem - you're ignoring the most important part of the quote you posted: Haste and a Speed weapon are not cumulative. And MasterofMayhem's implication that this is because the weapon isn't subject to two effects is erroneous; Haste is cast on a creature, not a weapon, and so the weapon will never be under the effect of a Haste spell; that line only makes sense if it's talking about the wielder.
Zariell 11-14-04, 08:51 AM	I don't get this attack bonus progression. Level 8 monk: BAB +6, attacks +6/+1. Flurry (level 8): 1 extra attack at highest bonus, all attacks at -1. TWF (light secondary, TWF feat): 1 extra attack with off hand weapon, all attacks with primary weapon at -2, all attacks with off-hand weapon at -2. Speed: extra attack with weapon at highest bonus. So, allowing that speed applies per-weapon, we get 4 (primary) attacks at full BAB plus two extra off-hand attacks at full BAB plus 1 iterative (primary) attack at -5. And all are penalised by -3 (flurry -1, twf -2). Thus attack sequence is primary +3/+3/+3/+3/-2 off-hand +3/+3, including only modifiers for BAB and multiple attacks. Exact order of resolution subject to full attack rules, pg 143. Note that if you had Improved TWF, you could add an additional off-hand attack, also at -2. Yea I was slowly appying my sequences and forgot to go back and change those +4's to +3's - You have it right, which is: +3/+3/+3/+3/+3/+3/-2 Speed/Speed/Two hand/Two hand/Flurry/Flurry/Flurry The order of the attacks really dosn't matter, since you can assign abilities as you go along. (Attack once, see what happens, apply stun to next, ect ect.) On the issue of a Double speed weapon - Again i'd just run that over with my DM, (Same excuse here as eariler) - and again I Don't see why he'd so no as speed is a +3 mod, so your wasting valuable mods that could go elsewhere. On the issue of Haste + Speed, I never said they stacked I simply remarked that it would save him lots of cash if he completely forget about speed and just used an activated item of Haste (I think theres boots that are already made that do this, but he may prefer Boots of striding and sprining, so a ring may be his best bet). Furthermore i'd imagine its much easier to find a ring of haste rather then 2 unique monk weapons of Speed.
masterofmayhem 11-14-04, 02:06 PM	MasterofMayhem - you're ignoring the most important part of the quote you posted: (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.) Haste and a Speed weapon are not cumulative. I did not ignore it. What the part in parentheses [The part you posted] means is that you cannot have two haste effects on a single weapon. You can, however, choose where the haste goes if you have two weapons. This lets you use a speed weapon in one hand and a weapon under the effect of a haste spell in the other.
Thorak 11-14-04, 03:34 PM	I did not ignore it. You're right. You didn't ignore it. You just, as I pointed out, erroneously tried to connect it to the weapon itself. Haste doesn't affect weapons, it affects creatures. The line in question, referencing Haste as it does, can only apply to the creature as a whole, not to only one of his weapons.
Naaman 11-14-04, 05:40 PM	What he's saying is that if in your primary hand you have a normal weapon and in your off hand you have a speed enchanted weapon, Haste grants you and additional attack with the normal weapon. And you can attack with the off hand weapon using it's speed enchantment. If you were using just the speed weapon, then you'd get no additoinal attack, since the hast spell can't stack with speed.
masterofmayhem 11-15-04, 10:19 AM	You're right. You didn't ignore it. You just, as I pointed out, erroneously tried to connect it to the weapon itself. Haste doesn't affect weapons, it affects creatures. The line in question, referencing Haste as it does, can only apply to the creature as a whole, not to only one of his weapons. If I did, that was not my intention. What Naaman said is what I meant to say. . . . . Too tired . . . Must play more Halo 2. :P ;)
Thorak 11-15-04, 11:59 AM	What he's saying is that if in your primary hand you have a normal weapon and in your off hand you have a speed enchanted weapon, Haste grants you and additional attack with the normal weapon. And you can attack with the off hand weapon using it's speed enchantment. If you were using just the speed weapon, then you'd get no additoinal attack, since the hast spell can't stack with speed. Why on earth does it make a difference which hand the Speed weapon is in? Haste lets you make an extra attack with either weapon. Speed lets you make an extra attack with that weapon. And both abilities state clearly they're not cumulative with similar effects. If you're wielding two Speed weapons, you pick which one you make the extra attack with. If you're Hasted, and have a primary Speed weapon and a normal offhand weapon, you can either use the Speed or Haste for an extra primary hand attack, or Haste for an extra offhand attack. And if you have an offhand Speed weapon and Haste, you can again choose which one weapon gets the extra attack; the off-hand weapon could get it for two reasons, the primary for one, but the reasons are not cumulative. Regardless of how many of these kinds of effects you have, you get one extra attack total.
Dracspero 11-15-04, 12:33 PM	Why on earth does it make a difference which hand the Speed weapon is in? Haste lets you make an extra attack with either weapon. Speed lets you make an extra attack with that weapon. And both abilities state clearly they're not cumulative with similar effects. But two speed weapons do not affect each other, and so it could be argued that their effects are not cumulative. Enhancement bonuses aren't cumulative, so does that mean if you use two +5 weapons you can only get the bonus for one of them? Now, if the speed from one allowed you to make an extra attack with any wielded weapon it would be a different story. From a strictly flavor point of view, I don't see why someone using two weapons of speed SHOULDN'T be a mulinex in a fight. You'd expect both weapons to be blurs. Unfortunately the wording is so ambiguous it's hard to even determine the designer's intentions.
OrbitalB 11-15-04, 01:54 PM	It's not ambiguous at all. Haste 'allows you' to make an extra attack. Speed 'allows you' to make an extra attack with that weapon. And in case it wasn't clear Speed is a similar effect to Speed, and thus is not cumulative. So, if you are under the effects of Haste, and wielding a couple Speed weapons... pick which one will 'allow you' to make an extra attack... which may or may not dictate which weapon you must make that extra attack with.
Thorak 11-15-04, 02:09 PM	But two speed weapons do not affect each other, and so it could be argued that their effects are not cumulative. Enhancement bonuses aren't cumulative, so does that mean if you use two +5 weapons you can only get the bonus for one of them? Now, if the speed from one allowed you to make an extra attack with any wielded weapon it would be a different story. From a strictly flavor point of view, I don't see why someone using two weapons of speed SHOULDN'T be a mulinex in a fight. You'd expect both weapons to be blurs. Unfortunately the wording is so ambiguous it's hard to even determine the designer's intentions. OrbitalB already covered this, but I'll try different wording to see if it sticks. Two Speed weapons' effects are cumulative. They don't affect the weapon, they affect the wielder. There's only one of them to affect. So wielding two Speed weapons just means you get to pick which of the two you'll benefit from each round. And add Haste to the mix, and you've got a third noncumulative effect to pick from. Being able to do the same thing for three different reasons doesn't mean you can do it three times. That's why these are non-cumulative.
Naaman 11-15-04, 03:04 PM	Two weapons of speed are independant of each other. You get both "speeds." In the case of Haste + Speed on your off-hand weapon... if you choose not to use the "haste" effect to gain the extra attack, then the speed still applies (the off-hand weapon gets it's extra attack). The fact that your off hand weapon gained an extra attack because of one of it's properties does not mean that the Haste spell can't be used to grant you a "normal" extra attack. Haste is not cumulative with the speed enchantment, meaning that the same weapon cannot get two extra attacks due to it's speed and the character being hasted. The speed enchantment doesn't actually "haste" the character, so having a non-speed weapon gain the benefit of haste is not really a "cumulative" effect. Speed and haste are not cumulative for attacks with the speeded weapon. Otherwise, they can be used together.
Thorak 11-15-04, 03:48 PM	Speed and haste are not cumulative for attacks with the speeded weapon. Otherwise, they can be used together. Despite both Speed and Haste stating that they're mutually exclusive and non-cumulative? I don't think so. Speed increases the attacks of the wielder. It in no way affects the weapon itself. Kindly support your position with actual quotations, rather than claims that have been soundly shown to be incorrect by those of us who are going by the actual rules, as written.
OrbitalB 11-15-04, 03:49 PM	Two weapons of speed are independant of each other. You get both "speeds." No, you don't. 'You getting both' is the definition of cumulative. In the case of Haste + Speed on your off-hand weapon... if you choose not to use the "haste" effect to gain the extra attack, then the speed still applies (the off-hand weapon gets it's extra attack). Yes, that's correct. The fact that your off hand weapon gained an extra attack because of one of it's properties does not mean that the Haste spell can't be used to grant you a "normal" extra attack. Your offhand weapon didn't gain any attacks, as weapons don't attack. The property of the Speed weapon allows 'YOU' an extra attack. Haste is not cumulative with the speed enchantment, meaning that the same weapon cannot get two extra attacks due to it's speed and the character being hasted. Haste is not cumulative with speed (or other similar effects), meaning that YOU don't get more than one extra attack. Again, Speed weapons don't GET extra attacks, they GIVE extra attacks to the wielder. The speed enchantment doesn't actually "haste" the character, so having a non-speed weapon gain the benefit of haste is not really a "cumulative" effect. The Speed enhancement has a 'similar' effect on the character (and thus isn't cumulative), and a non-speed weapon (or any weapon for that matter) never gains the benefit of haste... haste doesn't target a weapon, it targets a creature, just as the wielder of the speed weapon gains the effect... not the weapon.
Naaman 11-15-04, 04:28 PM	Despite both Speed and Haste stating that they're mutually exclusive and non-cumulative? I don't think so. Speed increases the attacks of the wielder. It in no way affects the weapon itself. Kindly support your position with actual quotations, rather than claims that have been soundly shown to be incorrect by those of us who are going by the actual rules, as written. What you guys are describing is not a "cumulative" effect. A weapon of speed that is dropped by it's original weilder is still a weapon of speed. If someone else picks it up, it still grants an extra attack. It is a property of the weapon, not the weilder. If someone else picks up my speeded sword, I don't retain the extra attack just because it's my sword. Haste on a person who is weilding a speeded weapon does not grant them more attacks with THAT weapon than the speed enchantment already does. The effect is not cumulative with haste. You can't use haste and speed to gain two extra attacks with the speeded weapon. That's ALL the rules say.
primemover003 11-15-04, 04:55 PM	If you have two speed weapons you do not gain two extra attacks... only one. That's how it's always been. No matter what you use (not counting the ridiculous...er Epic level stuff), Speed weapon or Haste spell, you can gain at MOST, one extra attack from a magical source. If I can make 2 attacks and I have a speed weapon I get one extra attack (total of 3 in the round) with that weapon... but in all respects it is a Haste-like effect. That's why Haste is the base spell!
masterofmayhem 11-15-04, 06:32 PM	Haste 'allows you' to make an extra attack. Speed 'allows you' to make an extra attack with that weapon. And in case it wasn't clear Speed is a similar effect to Speed, and thus is not cumulative. TWF 'allows you' to make an extra attack. FoB 'allows you' to make an extra attack. And in case it wasn't clear, TWF is a similar effect to FoB, and thus is not cumulative. Oh, wait, it is. My mistake. ;) Two Speed weapons' effects are cumulative. They don't affect the weapon, they affect the wielder. There's only one of them to affect. So wielding two Speed weapons just means you get to pick which of the two you'll benefit from each round. But that's just it. Speed does affect a weapon, not the wielder. If I can make 2 attacks and I have a speed weapon I get one extra attack (total of 3 in the round) with that weapon... but in all respects it is a Haste-like effect. That's why Haste is the base spell! Is that also why enervation is the base spell for the vicious property? Also, it is not like haste in all effects. It is considerably weaker. . . . +3 weapon enhancement for something that's not even as useful as 12,000 gp boots of speed? Heh. :rolleyes: Well, it would seem that arguing will not change your minds, so I won't bother anymore. Good day. :tiphat:
OrbitalB 11-15-04, 08:02 PM	TWF 'allows you' to make an extra attack. FoB 'allows you' to make an extra attack. And in case it wasn't clear, TWF is a similar effect to FoB, and thus is not cumulative. Oh, wait, it is. My mistake. ;) Yes it is your mistake, and a big one at that. TWF says nowhere that it does not stack with similar effects... haste and speed do. And, extra attacks encurring penalties to all attacks until the following turn fall into a different 'similar effect' catagory... just in case you thought you might go there. Besides, making an off-hand attack isn't an effect of anything... it's a game mechanic. It's not a feat, skill, spell, item, class ability, or anything of the sort... it's nothing more or less than a game mechanic, like tripping or fighting defensively. But that's just it. Speed does affect a weapon, not the wielder. Not on this planet. It is a property of the weapon, and if you read the text again you'll see it bestows an effect upon the wielder. It clearly says 'the wielder may', thus the effect is on the wielder. If it said, the weapon makes an extra attack all on its lonesome... it would be the weapon's effect. Or if it said the weapon does X fire damage on a critical hit... it would be the weapon's effect. But it's not... it's the weapon's special ability. Also, it is not like haste in all effects. It is considerably weaker. . . . +3 weapon enhancement for something that's not even as useful as 12,000 gp boots of speed? Heh. :rolleyes: If you'd be so kind as to go read haste. Directly following the 'extra attack' effect, it says "this effect is not cumulative... etc". It then goes on to state the other effects haste has... the only effect that falls under the 'doesn't stack' rule is the extra attack [such as those from a speed weapon]. Well, it would seem that arguing will not change your minds, so I won't bother anymore. Good day. :tiphat: Arguing never changes minds... but if you'd like to back up you falacies with reason, my mind is open... no matter how wrong you may be.
masterofmayhem 11-15-04, 08:11 PM	Yes it is your mistake, and a big one at that. TWF says nowhere that it does not stack with similar effects... haste and speed do. And, extra attacks encurring penalties to all attacks until the following turn fall into a different 'similar effect' catagory... just in case you thought you might go there. I didn't. I was just joking with you. ;) :P If you'd be so kind as to go read haste. *Sigh* If you'd be so kind as to read my earlier posts . . . Directly following the 'extra attack' effect, it says "this effect is not cumulative... etc". It then goes on to state the other effects haste has... the only effect that falls under the 'doesn't stack' rule is the extra attack [such as those from a speed weapon]. . . . then you'll see that I have not only already done so, but have also already posted my opinion on this point.
OrbitalB 11-15-04, 08:26 PM	I didn't. I was just joking with you. ;) :P Jokin with me?!? Ohhh, I'll show you jokin with me... no, er... wait a minute :thinks: ... I need more coffee.
Thorak 11-15-04, 08:39 PM	TWF 'allows you' to make an extra attack. FoB 'allows you' to make an extra attack. And in case it wasn't clear, TWF is a similar effect to FoB, and thus is not cumulative. Oh, wait, it is. My mistake. ;) The difference being that TWF and Flurry never once state or imply that they aren't cumulative. Speed and Haste, however, do. But that's just it. Speed does affect a weapon, not the wielder. Really? Let's check that. From the SRD, emphasis mine (color used to avoid too many extra quote blocks); "When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it." Speed clearly does not state the weapon gains an extra attack, but that the wielder gains an extra attack with it. It affects the wielder. As does any other Speed or Haste effect. Well, it would seem that arguing will not change your minds, so I won't bother anymore. Good day. :tiphat: Just for clarity, from the SRD for the Speed property, and the Haste spell, respectively; "This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell." "This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a weapon of speed..." Speed states it's not cumulative with Haste, or similar effects. Haste states it's not cumulative with Speed weapons, or similar effects. So why on earth would you think they're cumulative? It's spelled out about as black and white as it possibly could be, with those two quotes. Arguing won't change our minds because we actually have evidence to back up our claims, while you neither have evidence nor can respond to the points we're leveling at you.
thepuregamer 11-15-04, 09:05 PM	Man you guys get vicious. Mostly orbital B actually. Anyway, you guys aren't argueing points that are important to his side. What masterofmayhem is saying is that the effects are seperate. Speed gives the weapons wielder an extra attack with the speeded weapon. If you have two speeded weapons, the extra attacks are independent of each other. That is what he is saying. I agree, they are similar effects. They don't stack with each other. So you couldn't gain 2 attacks with the same weapon. Anyway, that is what he is saying and you aren't showing anything to take his arguement away from him.
masterofmayhem 11-15-04, 10:15 PM	Finally, someone understands my point. You guys didn't think I was arguing for speed and haste to give two attacks with one weapon, did you?
primemover003 11-15-04, 10:34 PM	It doesn't matter if a Marilith has 6 speed weapons... she will only EVER get a SINGLE extra attack per full attack action. You cannot gain more than ONE extra attack from a Haste or Speed enhancement or spell per round.
Thorak 11-15-04, 11:22 PM	Man you guys get vicious. Mostly orbital B actually. Anyway, you guys aren't argueing points that are important to his side. What masterofmayhem is saying is that the effects are seperate. Speed gives the weapons wielder an extra attack with the speeded weapon. If you have two speeded weapons, the extra attacks are independent of each other. That is what he is saying. I agree, they are similar effects. They don't stack with each other. So you couldn't gain 2 attacks with the same weapon. Anyway, that is what he is saying and you aren't showing anything to take his arguement away from him. The problem is that multiple Speed effects, and Haste, don't stack. The wielder gets one extra attack, regardless of how many sources he may get it from. If you have 2 Speed weapons, you get one extra attack, with either one. The second Speed has no effect, since it isn't cumulative with the first one's effect. Which is on the wielder. I can't emphasize that enough. Speed weapons don't affect the weapon; weapons don't determine your number of attacks. They affect the wielder, and what masterofmayhem is implying is that two Speed effects can apply to the wielder at once, entirely contradicting the line that's been quoted at least twice now saying that doing so is impossible. His point that it means you can't have two Speed effects on the same weapon is irrelevant, since you can't double enchantments anyway. No Flaming Flaming longswords. So the Speed Speed weapon he's claiming it refers to is impossible for other reasons, so the line can't apply to it. Nor is Haste cast on the weapon, so that's a null point as well. They all affect the wielder, who can only benefit from one of them. Period.
masterofmayhem 11-15-04, 11:39 PM	I guess that's where we differ in our opinions, then.
Thorak 11-16-04, 01:00 AM	I guess that's where we differ in our opinions, then. If by this you mean, I'm right and you're wrong, okay then. This isn't a matter of "opinion". This is a matter of evidence; namely, that myself and others can provide it, and you can't. Your "opinion" is baseless and wrong. I challenge you to prove otherwise. If you can't, it's because you're wrong, not because we "differ in our opinions".
Naeron 11-16-04, 05:41 AM	Despite both Speed and Haste stating that they're mutually exclusive and non-cumulative? I don't think so. Speed increases the attacks of the wielder. It in no way affects the weapon itself. Kindly support your position with actual quotations, rather than claims that have been soundly shown to be incorrect by those of us who are going by the actual rules, as written. He is validly interpreting the RAW, although probably against the intention of the rules. Speed: When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.) Having 2 speed weapons can be read as not strictly a cumulative effect because Speed is specific to the weapon. If the wielder was granted "an extra attack (their choice)" that would be cumulative. We do not consider other weapon enhancements cumulative as long as they specifically affect the weapon on which it is placed so why should Speed be different. However Haste would always be cumulative if an extra attack was made with the weapon. Multiple haste effects don’t stack. Haste dispels and counters slow. Easy, multiple haste effects don't stack, however haste affects the person and allows them an extra attack with any weapon. Therefore it is a valid way of interpreting the rules to say that 2 speed weapons would give an extra attack with each weapon and that when Hasted you cannot make an extra attack from haste if the weapon has the speed enchantment. Really? Let's check that. From the SRD, emphasis mine (color used to avoid too many extra quote blocks); "When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it." Speed clearly does not state the weapon gains an extra attack, but that the wielder gains an extra attack with it. But it is semantically valid to say that to be cumulative it would need to be granting an extra attack "with it".
OrbitalB 11-16-04, 06:46 AM	He is validly interpreting the RAW, although probably against the intention of the rules. He's misinterpreting the RAW. Originally Posted by Thorak Really? Let's check that. From the SRD, emphasis mine (color used to avoid too many extra quote blocks); "When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it." Speed clearly does not state the weapon gains an extra attack, but that the wielder gains an extra attack with it. But it is semantically valid to say that to be cumulative it would need to be granting an extra attack "with it". It's also semantically valid to say that the "it" they are refering to is your full-round attack action and not the weapon at all... but that would be equally silly. It makes it's intention quite clear when it goes on to say that the speed effect isn't cumulative. It is irrelevant what it says it's not cumulative with, as (like Thorak said previously) weapons cannot be enhanced with the same special ability multiple times... which means, therefore, they are refering to other things giving haste speed and similar effect not being cumulative. So, what does this tell us?: A) The effects of speed are not cumulative. B) One weapon can't grant the effects of speed twice. C) So, the effects of speed from multiple weapons are not cumulative. The only remaining arguement to try to get it to work is to say 'what they meant was that the speed effects of your dagger doesn't cumulatively grant you a second extra attack with you longsword of speed'... which was already removed as an option when they added the with it to the effect description.
Thorak 11-16-04, 08:10 AM	He is validly interpreting the RAW, although probably against the intention of the rules. No, he's not, as I'll again try to show. Having 2 speed weapons can be read as not strictly a cumulative effect because Speed is specific to the weapon. If the wielder was granted "an extra attack (their choice)" that would be cumulative. We do not consider other weapon enhancements cumulative as long as they specifically affect the weapon on which it is placed so why should Speed be different. However Haste would always be cumulative if an extra attack was made with the weapon. It's cumulative because the number of attacks a weapon can make is not dependent in any way on the weapon, but on the wielder. And therefore, the effects don't stack. Since you can't enchant a weapon more than once with Speed, how is Speed not cumulative with itself, which it specifically mentions in the text? That line only makes sense under the interpretation I'm arguing. Easy, multiple haste effects don't stack, however haste affects the person and allows them an extra attack with any weapon. Therefore it is a valid way of interpreting the rules to say that 2 speed weapons would give an extra attack with each weapon and that when Hasted you cannot make an extra attack from haste if the weapon has the speed enchantment. But it is semantically valid to say that to be cumulative it would need to be granting an extra attack "with it". No, because "with it" is a limitation. It restricts the benefit. It doesn't mean the benefit is then separate from other similar benefits. The Speed ability grants the wielder an extra attack. It requires that the attack be with the Speed weapon. Granting the wielder an extra attack is the part that's not cumulative and doesn't stack; two Speed weapons each grant the wielder an extra attack, one with each. But the effect, granting an extra attack, isn't cumulative, and so the wielder, the target of both effects, can only benefit from one of them. Weapons don't get attacks. Wielders do. The ability affects the wielder, and that's why the effects aren't cumulative, even with different weapons.
MaverickWolf 11-16-04, 08:28 AM	If by this you mean, I'm right and you're wrong, okay then. This isn't a matter of "opinion". This is a matter of evidence; namely, that myself and others can provide it, and you can't. Your "opinion" is baseless and wrong. I challenge you to prove otherwise. If you can't, it's because you're wrong, not because we "differ in our opinions".And just because this whole argument is ******* me off due to the extreme immaturity involved, I challenge you to prove he's wrong. Nowhere in the description for the speed enhancement does it say that the enhancement affects the wielder, beyond granting it an additional attack with said weapon. Interpretting this to say that the weapon itself is affected by the enchantment, and not the wielder, as with other enchantments, is a perfectly valid interpretation of the way it is written, and I'd allow it. If you really want to prove yourself, try e-mailing customer service (though they've been known to be wrong also).
OrbitalB 11-16-04, 09:33 AM	I challenge you to prove he's wrong. How exactly would you like that done any more effectively than it has already been done?
MaverickWolf 11-16-04, 09:54 AM	How exactly would you like that done any more effectively than it has already been done?You have yet to prove him wrong. What you have proven is that there are multiple complete legitimate ways to interpret the enhancement and how it works. A difference in interpretation does not make someone wrong.
pyk 11-16-04, 10:15 AM	SPECIAL SPELL EFFECTS Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus works (see Combining Magical Effects, below). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one. COMBINING MAGICAL EFFECTS Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place: 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). Different Bonus Names: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus. Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies. Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts. 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Speed: [/b]When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation.[/b] (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Haste Transmutation Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Targets: One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart Duration: 1 round/level Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects. When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. The attack is made using the creature’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a weapon of speed, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can’t use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.) A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses. All of the hasted creature’s modes of movement (including land movement, burrow, climb, fly, and swim) increase by 30 feet, to a maximum of twice the subject’s normal speed using that form of movement. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus, and it affects the creature’s jumping distance as normal for increased speed. Multiple haste effects don’t stack. Haste dispels and counters slow. Material Component: A shaving of licorice root. emphasis mine This is silly. Look at all the above quotes together. The language between the speed enhancement and the haste spell is the same. Therefore, haste and speed do not stack, haste makes the speed enhancement irrelevant. Likewise, the speed enhancement is applied to the wielder, as the language states "the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it". Broken down into the simplest of sentence, including just the subject, verb and object, and this becomes obvious. The part of the sentence "of a speed weapon" is describing who the wielder is, and "with [the weapon of speed]" describes how the attack may be made. Therefore, two [different] weapons of speed provide the same benefit, an extra attack for the wielder, and do not stack. One weapon makes the other weapon speed enhancement irrelevant.
OrbitalB 11-16-04, 10:16 AM	What you have proven is that there are multiple complete legitimate ways to interpret the enhancement and how it works. I have proven nothing of the sort. "When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it." How is 'interpreting' that as anything but an effect on the wielder, and not an effect on the weapon, a legitimate interpretation? Does it change how many attacks the weapon can make? No, it can still make zero attacks. Does it change the options the weapon has during a full attack action? No, the weapon still can't make one of those. Does it increase the damage the weapon inflicts? No, that would be a completely different special ability which the weapon may or may not have. Now... does it have an effect on the wielder? Yes, they gain the option to make one extra attack when they are making a full attack action. Does it have any other special qualifyers on that effect? Yes, the extra attack the wielder may make must be with the weapon that has the speed special ability, and it is an effect which is not cumulative with any similar effect being bestowed upon the wielder.
Harliquinn 11-16-04, 10:26 AM	Oh and btw, Speed weapons are +3, which is 18,000 gold market price. Earilest you can afford two is level 12. Level 10 if you can get them PC crafted, and thats only if you save all of your gold. Just wanted to clarify, Speed is a +3 equivalent enhancement, meaning that a weapon of Speed is a +4 (Need to be +1 to have any specials put on it). That is a cost of 32,000 GP market price, and means a character couldn't technically afford it until later.
Sarhuin 11-16-04, 10:27 AM	Hello! I had some more things that I think should be taken into consideration that might help to clear this up. It seems that a big question here is whether or not the 'Speed' enhancement actually enhances the wielder or the weapon. While the majority of enhancements do affect the weapon (all elemental damages) and not the wielder (Hey I have a shocking burst dagger in my off hand so then I headbutt you and you should be shocked!... uh, no!) it could be argued from a consistancy point that the speed enhancement affects only the weapon and weaponhand wielding it. That is just one possible view. Something I would like to bring to light that I think may be more revealing is: Mun Chi the monk has a +3 dancing kama of speed. Lets just say for simplicity sake he's level 1 and has all 10's for stats. Mun Chi is wielding his kama and attacks a foe normally. He should get two attacks at +3 +3 (for enhancement only, he has no BaB) one for his normal attack and one for speed. Next Round, Mun releases his weapon to fight for him. How many attacks does the weapon get? One or two? Mun Chi has loosed his sword and it is fighting on its own. Now Mun gets the haste spell cast on him. He gets 2 attacks per round now at +0 +0. How many attacks does the sword get? Still one or two? Or is it three now? Maybe cogitating on that scenario might bring some more light to the situation! Another way to look at this too: Wielder's has base 'Fastness' of 0. This 'Fastness' applies to his entire being. If wielder has a weapon of speed, his being's 'fastness' increases to 1. What the rules seem to imply is that the absolute maximum 'Fastness' of an entire creature is 1. That is the speed beyond which nothing can go. What some other folks are arguing is that: A creature's 'Fastness' can be broken down into component parts. Human has a base 'Fastness' of 0 for each hand, his general being and both feet. And that a weapon of speed does not increase the general being's fastness at all, but rather it increases the 'fastness' of the hand that is wielding it. As we know, a speed weapon does nothing more than increase the attack rate of that weapon. So a human with one speed weapon would have an overall 'fastness' of 0, but would have a '1' in regards to the weapon in his hand. A Haste spell cast on the human's 'being' would increase his entire 'fastness' speed to 1, but could not push the weapon/weapon hand to 2 because the limit of 'fastness' is 1. With haste the rest of the body catches up to 1 (can move faster, better AC, etc.) and brings the 'off hand' up to speed so to speak, to be able to make another independent speed attack. Finally (sorry to be so long winded) It could be argued that a mortal sentient humanoid's brain can only process fast enough to equate to one extra attack per round from enhanced speed. There are a few more bits to chew over. I don't really have a feeling either way, I just wanted to try to contribute to the conversation =) Thanks! ~S
thepuregamer 11-16-04, 10:49 AM	Fastness...hmmm. My fastness is better than yours...hmmm. well anyway. I never thought about a dancing speed weapon. Does it get the extra attack? Anyway, I agree. Speed effects do not stack. So there is no two speed effects on one weapon. Now I don't mean a double enchantment. I mean a character couldn't get 2 extra attacks with a weapon if it were speeded and they had haste. But The speed effect is weapon specific. That makes them rather seperate. Pretty much all weapon effects are weapon specific. An enhancement bonus is specific to the weapon it comes from. So 2 +4 daggers would use their own enhancement score. There is no stacking these enhancements. You do not get their enhancement bonus doubled. What you do get is the enhancement bonus to each weapon. Speed is the same way. There is no issue of stacking because the effects are seperate. Anyway, that is how I see it. If I stop posting after this one it doesn't mean the other arguement is right and I am wrong. It most likely means that there is nothing new to give to this arguement and thus I am done posting here.
mattmurdock 11-16-04, 10:56 AM	Something I would like to bring to light that I think may be more revealing is: Mun Chi the monk has a +3 dancing kama of speed. Lets just say for simplicity sake he's level 1 and has all 10's for stats. Mun Chi is wielding his kama and attacks a foe normally. He should get two attacks at +3 +3 (for enhancement only, he has no BaB) one for his normal attack and one for speed. Next Round, Mun releases his weapon to fight for him. How many attacks does the weapon get? One or two? Mun Chi has loosed his sword and it is fighting on its own. Now Mun gets the haste spell cast on him. He gets 2 attacks per round now at +0 +0. How many attacks does the sword get? Still one or two? Or is it three now? Strictly by the RAW, a Dancing weapon attacks at the BAB of the owner and does not count as being wielded by the owner, with the exception of maneuvers and effects that target items (such as disarm or sunder). As such the weapon itself would attack with a +3 to hit [+0 BAB, +3 enhancement], and only get one attack, as the weapon cannot benefit from the Speed enhancement (only the wielder benefits from the Speed enhancement). If the wielder is then hasted, he gains an extra attack, but his BAB doesn't change, so the Dancing weapon still only has one attack.
Thorak 11-16-04, 11:26 AM	And just because this whole argument is ******* me off due to the extreme immaturity involved, I challenge you to prove he's wrong. Nowhere in the description for the speed enhancement does it say that the enhancement affects the wielder, beyond granting it an additional attack with said weapon. If you insist I do this for the second time I've done so, and the third time someone's done it in the thread, fine. From the SRD for the Speed weapon enchantment, pay attention to the emphasized bits; "When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it." I don't have to prove that it affects the wielder "beyond granting it an additional attack with said weapon", because that's the entire effect of the ability. Asking me to do so is like asking me to prove that Flaming doesn't affect the damage dealt, 'beyond the 1d6 extra Fire damage'. I've proven him wrong, twice now. And there's been a complete lack of evidence to support his argument. I don't think it's immature of me to say he's wrong and demand he provide evidence if he wishes to argue otherwise. Considering I can and have backed up my argument with evidence. Interpretting this to say that the weapon itself is affected by the enchantment, and not the wielder, as with other enchantments, is a perfectly valid interpretation of the way it is written, and I'd allow it. Except that the enchantment specifically talks about how it affects the wielder in all ways, not the weapon. Unlike most other enchantments, admittedly. If you really want to prove yourself, try e-mailing customer service (though they've been known to be wrong also). Customer service isn't there to answer rules questions, and they're notoriously bad at it. Not to mention, I have proven myself. No one has posted an argument as to how it's possible to interpret "the wielder of a speed weapon" as the speed weapon itself. Which they'd have to do to try and show that Speed affects the weapon, rather than the wielder. To reiterate; the line in question is "When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it." It is impossible to interpret this line to see it as referring to the weapon as the subject, grammatically. The subject is "the wielder". The description of the Speed enchantment thus cannot grammatically be interpreted as affecting the weapon itself. In addition, weapons don't make attacks. Their wielders do. So it would make absolutely no sense for the enchantment to affect the weapon. And as a finale, you can't enchant the same weapon with Speed twice. So the line about Speed not being cumulative with itself would be utterly meaningless, unless it refers to other Speed weapons wielded at the same time. And it states very specifically that they're non-cumulative. None of this is new. And it's very, very definitive. If you disagree, kindly find something that actually supports your case and quote it. Or at least try and argue how you think the sentence can be interpreted multiple ways. At the moment, your arguments are utterly useless, because they're entirely without any given basis.
Dragonspirit 11-16-04, 05:26 PM	Thorak: Your "opinion" is baseless and wrong. I challenge you to prove otherwise. If you can't, it's because you're wrong, not because we "differ in our opinions". Chill!! No need to go off just because someone has a different interpretation of the rules than you do. I agree with your interpretation FWIW, but there is a way to present your argument in a more mature manner.
thepuregamer 11-16-04, 07:26 PM	That is how he always is. It isn't likely to change anytime soon.
primemover003 11-16-04, 08:40 PM	You can only tell a person so many times "the sky is blue," listen to them say it's orange and not get a little miffed... When in fact the sky is BLUE. Even when you show them.
Thorak 11-16-04, 09:02 PM	Chill!! No need to go off just because someone has a different interpretation of the rules than you do. I agree with your interpretation FWIW, but there is a way to present your argument in a more mature manner. I have presented my argument in a mature manner. And the bit you quoted was just using some admittedly stronger language to get the, repeatedly ignored, point across. I don't believe it's immature to state when someone else is wrong. Or to demand that they prove their claims, when they have repeatedly avoided doing so. It's not like I'm calling him a poopyhead or something. I'm just requiring that he pony up actual evidence, and refusing the "draw" he offered. Because, frankly, I don't see how he can possibly be right, or that he can support his case. So I see no reason to admit he might be right. That's not being immature; that's being demanding and perhaps a bit of an arse about it. If you're going to insult me, at least insult how I am acting.
Dracspero 11-16-04, 09:17 PM	Okay. You're acting like a poopyhead :D
Naeron 11-17-04, 05:53 AM	To reiterate; the line in question is "When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it." It is impossible to interpret this line to see it as referring to the weapon as the subject, grammatically. The subject is "the wielder". The description of the Speed enchantment thus cannot grammatically be interpreted as affecting the weapon itself. In addition, weapons don't make attacks. Their wielders do. So it would make absolutely no sense for the enchantment to affect the weapon. And as a finale, you can't enchant the same weapon with Speed twice. So the line about Speed not being cumulative with itself would be utterly meaningless, unless it refers to other Speed weapons wielded at the same time. And it states very specifically that they're non-cumulative. It is irrelevant that only wielders "make attacks" not weapons (and not always true). And the sentence can be parsed to include that most important clarification "with it". Two speed weapons are not giving a cumulative effect because each extra attack is granted with different weapon (a different "it"). Thats a valid english language interpretation. The reason that the "not cumulative" sentence needs to be there is due to the prescence of haste, a very widely used spell, the decision was made that speed should not stack with the new haste spell. However it has never been clarified that 2 speed weapons cannot operate together because each weapon is gaining a single non-cumulative speed benefit from a valid interpretation of the statement under the english language. BTW a dancing speed weapon does get an extra attack by a strict reading of the rules "In all other respects, it is considered wielded or attended by the creature for all maneuvers and effects that target items." Speed targets its effects on the item (due to the "with it" clause) so is considered wielded. Simply put one argument is that a similar effect is something that "grants the wielder an extra attack" the other is that a similar effect is something that "grants the wielder an extra attack with it".
mattmurdock 11-17-04, 06:15 AM	Oh no, no, no...a Dancing weapon is only considered wielded for effects that explicitly target the weapon. The Speed enhancement causes a magical effect that allows the wielder to gain an extra attack during a full round action provided the attack is made with the weapon. There is no way in the English language that you can interpret the 'effect' of the Speed enhancement to target the weapon (and the normal rules for Speed effects such as haste do not allow them to target objects), hence no extra attack whilst dancing. In fact, the 'with it' clause is explicitly a restriction on the normal rules for extra attacks through a Speed effect - it in no way absolves the Speed effect from being non-culmulative with other Speed effects. For example, the Frenzied Berserker can gain an extra attack during their frenzy, which is in no way caused by any form of magical effect. Yet that extra attack 'effect' is still not culmulative with haste or with a Speed weapon. This gives a good indication that the designers did not intend for any effect that specifically grants a single extra full BAB attack during a full-round action without penalty to stack. The only exceptions I can find to this rule are either the high-level monk, who can gain up to two extra full BAB attacks without penalty during a Flurry (but initially started with a penalty to attacks), and the epic level character with Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting (who effectively gains one extra full BAB attack with their off-hand). Any other effect that works in a similar way to the Speed effect is restricted to a single extra attack regardless of how many different sources of the same effect you have.
Thorak 11-17-04, 07:19 AM	It is irrelevant that only wielders "make attacks" not weapons (and not always true). And the sentence can be parsed to include that most important clarification "with it". Two speed weapons are not giving a cumulative effect because each extra attack is granted with different weapon (a different "it"). Thats a valid english language interpretation. It's a valid english language interpretation of that one line. The next, the one that states multiple Speed effects aren't cumulative, however, is what voids the possibility of them stacking. The point regarding that first line is that the weapon affects the wielder, and thus the effects have the potential to be cumulative, rather than being distinct, as those suggesting they affect the weapon alone are incorrectly claiming. They have the potential to stack, but the text specifically forbids it. The reason that the "not cumulative" sentence needs to be there is due to the prescence of haste, a very widely used spell, the decision was made that speed should not stack with the new haste spell. However it has never been clarified that 2 speed weapons cannot operate together because each weapon is gaining a single non-cumulative speed benefit from a valid interpretation of the statement under the english language. If the phrase were only included for Haste, it would only reference Haste. It also references other Speed effects, very specifically. The only way another Speed effect could even possibly be cumulative is if you're wielding a second weapon, since it's impossible to enchant a single weapon to be Speed Speed. And that possibility, very specifically, is said to not be cumulative. BTW a dancing speed weapon does get an extra attack by a strict reading of the rules "In all other respects, it is considered wielded or attended by the creature for all maneuvers and effects that target items." Speed targets its effects on the item (due to the "with it" clause) so is considered wielded. Yes, it's considered wielded, as is the dancing weapon. This is irrelevant. The effect is still on the wielder. It has to be considered wielded, obviously, for there to be a wielder. Simply put one argument is that a similar effect is something that "grants the wielder an extra attack" the other is that a similar effect is something that "grants the wielder an extra attack with it". It's the former, because it includes Haste as an example of a "similar effect". And Haste "grants the wielder an extra attack". Not with anything in specific. The only way you could possibly have two Speed effects to possibly be cumulative is to be wielding two Speed weapons. Therefore, the fact that Speed specifically states it's not cumulative with itself would make no sense, unless it was referring to that exact possibility.
Mediator 11-17-04, 07:52 AM	It very much comes down to 2 positions: 1.) Speed is a weapon enhancement that effects the wielder and enables him to make an extra attack. This effect is similar to a haste spell and does not stack with itself, no matter from where a possible additional effect comes. 2.) Speed is a weapon enhancement that is a property of the weapon (like magical enhancements, elemental damage, etc.). It effects all attacks made with this weapon and it does not stack with itself on the same weapon or with similar effects affecting attacks with this weapon. Now let's compare the economy: For a speed weapon you need a +4 enhancement equaling 32000 GP giving in total +1 to attack and damage (due to the +1 base enchantment) and one extra attack at highest BAB. Boots of Speed (CL 5, useable 5-times per day for 5 rounds each for a total of 25 rounds) 30000 GP plus a +1 weapon for 2000 GP, giving a +2 to attack, +1 to damage +1 to AC and +1 to reflex saves, up to +30 feet movement rate (plus an effective immunity against slow). I leave it up to you to judge the balance.
thepuregamer 11-17-04, 08:40 AM	They don't care about item pricing issues or balance. The point is whether it is legal or not. That is how most of these threads go. I think that is what it comes down to Mediator.
mattmurdock 11-17-04, 08:41 AM	I leave it up to you to judge the balance. OK...Boots of Speed and a +1 weapon are about balanced with a +1 weapon of Speed. Yes you gain a number of extra benefits (an extra +1 to hit, +1 to AC, +1 to Ref saves and +30ft movement), but that is counterbalanced by the fact that it only lasts for 5 rounds at a time, requires a standard action to activate and has a maximum of 25 rounds of use a day. The +1 weapon of Speed, on the other hand, is always good to go, no matter how many encounters you end up in. If your gaming style is short combats and/or few encounters a day, go for the Boots...if your gaming style is long combats and/or many encounters a day, go for the +1 weapon of Speed. And yes, the Speed enhancement is a property of the weapon, just as any weapon enhancement is. However, the benefit given by the enhancement (the effect) is to give the wielder an extra attack, not the weapon. And as I have laid out, effects that give the wielder an extra full BAB attack as part of a full-attack action do not stack, except in two specific cases, one of which is epic, and therefore designed to break the rules, and one of which is a special class feature that does not have the same mechanics to begin with.
Mediator 11-17-04, 08:50 AM	Well, my SRD tells me that activating boots of speed is a free action. And 25 rounds of combat per day is already quite combat heavy.
mattmurdock 11-17-04, 09:00 AM	Fair enough, having just checked they do only require a free action to activate...however my SRD limits them to 10 rounds of use (which does not have to be consecutive) and gives their price as 12,000 gp. So unless you are carrying lots of pairs of boots, the Speed weapon may be more expensive but it is always on.
Naeron 11-17-04, 09:08 AM	It's the former, because it includes Haste as an example of a "similar effect". And Haste "grants the wielder an extra attack". Not with anything in specific. But if you have a speed weapon haste's extra attack would be "with it" if you tried to make that extra attack with the speed weapon, so the cumulative effect rule kicks in. By reading speed's effect as "an extra attack with it" the cumulative rule just, quite correctly, prevents any other effect granting "an extra attack with it". Semantically and logically consistent. Perhaps we'll have an official ruling on this, I don't remember seeing one so far.
Mediator 11-17-04, 09:37 AM	Fair enough, having just checked they do only require a free action to activate...however my SRD limits them to 10 rounds of use (which does not have to be consecutive) and gives their price as 12,000 gp. So unless you are carrying lots of pairs of boots, the Speed weapon may be more expensive but it is always on. You are aware that those boots of speed are calculated: CLxSLx2000GP/5(for 1 use per day) = 10x3x2000/5=12000 nowwhere it is written that you can't craft boots with CL 5 useable 5 times per day coming to 5x3x2000GP/1 = 30000. But let's make a comparison: a lvl. 14 fighter with 18+3+4=25 strength, TWF, ITWF, Weapon Focus Short Sword, Weapon Specialisation Short Sword and the Greater version of the two has with standard short swords in both hands: 21/16/11 (d6+11) and 21/16 (d6+7) Now the first variant goes with the boots/sword combo from above in the off hand and a +2 flaming/shock short sword in the other hand, so we get: 24/24/19/14 (3d6+13) and 23/18 (d6+8) The second variant goes with 2 speed short swords (assuming they give an extra attack to each hand). 22/22/17/12 (d6+11) and 22/22/17 (d6+8) Assuming both attack AC 27: Av. Damage for Var. 1: 2*0,9*23,5+0,65*23,5+0,4*23,5+0,85*11,5+ 0,6*11,5=83,65 Av. Damage for Var. 2: 2*0,8*14,5+0,55*14,5+0,3*14,5+2*0,8*11,5 +0,55*11,5=60,25 Av. Damage for Var. 2a (not allowing the speed effect on the 2nd weapon): 2*0,8*14,5+0,55*14,5+0,3*14,5+0,8*11,5+0 ,55*11,5=51,05 Besides Speed being a lousy enchantment for a +3 cost, I don't see the point in using it at all and even less when the additional attack is not counted for each weapon individually. So I really don't mind how the rules are since I wouldn't use a speed weapon at all.
Thorak 11-17-04, 09:44 AM	But if you have a speed weapon haste's extra attack would be "with it" if you tried to make that extra attack with the speed weapon, so the cumulative effect rule kicks in. By reading speed's effect as "an extra attack with it" the cumulative rule just, quite correctly, prevents any other effect granting "an extra attack with it". Semantically and logically consistent. Perhaps we'll have an official ruling on this, I don't remember seeing one so far. By "similar effect", it means anything that "grants the wielder/user/target/etc an extra attack". Because that's how Haste is phrased. The limitations placed on Speed, namely "with it", referring to the weapon, are not limiting factors; the similar effect part that doesn't stack is the extra attack, regardless of what might limit the outlet of that attack. It's only semantically and logically consistent if you're not looking at Haste as well, which you certainly should be doing since it's what's cited as the type of "similar effect" Speed doesn't stack with.
Naeron 11-17-04, 10:25 AM	By "similar effect", it means anything that "grants the wielder/user/target/etc an extra attack". Because that's how Haste is phrased. The limitations placed on Speed, namely "with it", referring to the weapon, are not limiting factors; the similar effect part that doesn't stack is the extra attack, regardless of what might limit the outlet of that attack. So now a Speed Weapon cannot be used with TWF and Flurry as they grant the wielder an extra attack? I know you don't mean to imply that but you just have :) Again you are arguing interpretation, which is noy absolute proof, if the "with it" is a limitation of the speed enhancement then it is a limitation of the enhancement it is not possible to ignore it because it does not support a point of view, if speed is defined as being "extra attack with the speed weapon", which is what the sentence is saying, then a second speed weapon gives "an extra attack with a completely different weapon". That is not a cumulative effect if the sentence is read that way, which I am arguing is a valid way of reading it. It's only semantically and logically consistent if you're not looking at Haste as well, which you certainly should be doing since it's what's cited as the type of "similar effect" Speed doesn't stack with. But I'm not saying that the extra attacks from Speed and Haste stack, and have never said that, in fact I have said they don't. That is covered by the similar effect not being cumulative ruling, what I am saying is that two speed weapons can be read to each give an extra attack with the specific weapon so enchanted because although it is similar effect it is not being applied in a cumulative manner. Weapon A's speed enhancement operates completely independently of weapon B's speed enhancement because each has the "with it" limitation so they are not being twice to the same thing but once each to different things. If the "with it" limitation was not there then the rules would be absolutely clear, speed, haste and similar effects would be giving an extra attack plain and simple and would not stack. The addition of that limitation changes the way that speed can be read so as to allow an interpretation that 2 speed weapons operate as independent effects.
masterofmayhem 11-17-04, 10:34 AM	You can only tell a person so many times "the sky is blue," listen to them say it's orange and not get a little miffed... When in fact the sky is BLUE. :rofl: Boots of Speed (CL 5, useable 5-times per day for 5 rounds each for a total of 25 rounds) 30000 GP plus a +1 weapon for 2000 GP, giving a +2 to attack, +1 to damage +1 to AC and +1 to reflex saves, up to +30 feet movement rate (plus an effective immunity against slow). Well . . . I think the sword is better! :crazy: :doh: ;) Well, I don't have the time (or ability) to quote the 30 some posts since I left to play Halo 2, but, I must say, this little conversation here is getting rather repetitive. We're all wasting our time arguing about the color of the sky (;)), and no one seems able to convince anyone else of its true color. So if it will make you feel better, just assume that I don't think that this is how speed weapons work and that it was all just a houserule on my part. ;) *End dream sequence, fade out* :angel:
OrbitalB 11-17-04, 11:02 AM	Weapon A's speed enhancement operates completely independently of weapon B's speed enhancement because each has the "with it" limitation so they are not being twice to the same thing but once each to different things. How is 'the wielder of a speed weapon' and 'the wielder of a speed weapon' two different things? Regardless of any 'limitation' placed on an ability... the target of the ability's effect remains the same. The 'limitation' can, at most, change the effect itself... not the recipient of the effect. So, some might claim that the 'with it' limitation changes it into a different effect and therefore shouldn't be considered 'similar' enough to not be cumulative. That's why they put haste in the part about what is 'similar'... so nobody could be confused about it. The effect of the Haste spell, and the effect of the speed weapon special ability are 'similar' effects. The 'limitation' on speed does not change the target of the effect. The wielder can't be cumulatively effected by these 'similar' effects... So, the sky's blue.
Naeron 11-17-04, 12:19 PM	How is 'the wielder of a speed weapon' and 'the wielder of a speed weapon' two different things?. Because its "the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it". It is just as valid to read that sentence that as "an extra attack with that specific weapon" (which is reading no limitation in the sentence but only a definition) rather than "an extra attack by the wielder that in this case must be with the speed weapon". Attacks are made by wielders as a general rule so the use of the word wielder can be taken as conforming to the attack mechanic just as it can be taken as defining who the magic is actually affecting. Thus it becomes "an extra attack with weapon A" and "an extra attack with weapon B" in the case of 2 speed weapons, this is not then a cumulative effect. Only something that would give an extra attack with the speed weapon is then a cumulative similar effect, such as the haste spell. Just be state the obvious yet again nowhere am I saying that the rules can be read to give more than 1 extra attack (from magical effects) with any given weapon, just that 2 different speed weapons are not giving a cumulative effect if you read that sentence one way rather then the other.
Thorak 11-17-04, 12:26 PM	So now a Speed Weapon cannot be used with TWF and Flurry as they grant the wielder an extra attack? I know you don't mean to imply that but you just have :) Again you are arguing interpretation, which is noy absolute proof, if the "with it" is a limitation of the speed enhancement then it is a limitation of the enhancement it is not possible to ignore it because it does not support a point of view, if speed is defined as being "extra attack with the speed weapon", which is what the sentence is saying, then a second speed weapon gives "an extra attack with a completely different weapon". That is not a cumulative effect if the sentence is read that way, which I am arguing is a valid way of reading it. TWF grants an extra attack, yes. As does Flurry, the Spinning Halberd feat, and all kinds of other things. This doesn't mean it's a "similar effect" to Speed though. Because those extra attacks are given for different reasons that have nothing to do with having your movement speed increased. You're confusing the benefit of something with it's effect. But I'm not saying that the extra attacks from Speed and Haste stack, and have never said that, in fact I have said they don't. That is covered by the similar effect not being cumulative ruling, what I am saying is that two speed weapons can be read to each give an extra attack with the specific weapon so enchanted because although it is similar effect it is not being applied in a cumulative manner. Weapon A's speed enhancement operates completely independently of weapon B's speed enhancement because each has the "with it" limitation so they are not being twice to the same thing but once each to different things. If the "with it" limitation was not there then the rules would be absolutely clear, speed, haste and similar effects would be giving an extra attack plain and simple and would not stack. The addition of that limitation changes the way that speed can be read so as to allow an interpretation that 2 speed weapons operate as independent effects. If you're gaining the benefit of two speed weapons, then it's a cumulative effect. Because the weapon doesn't benefit, it's wielder does. For the umptee-billionth time. The "with it" limitation has no bearing on the second sentence, because the second sentence cites Haste as an example of a "similar effect", an example that does not specify a specific weapon to get the extra attack. This means the second sentence's statement that Speed doesn't stack with "similar effects" means it doesn't stack with anything that provides an extra attack due to increased speed. Including another speed weapon. That the attack the second speed weapon could provide would be limited to that weapon is entirely irrelevant. The wielder, the wielder, the wielder. The wielder. The wielder is the one the effect is applied to. It doesn't matter how many sources he gets similar effects from, or how they may be limited, they don't stack.
GeNemesis 11-17-04, 03:51 PM	I know it's been a long time since this discussion was held, but check out the Quarterstaff of Alacrity from Bastion Press' Arms & Armor. It's a quarterstaff of speed which has the same enhancements on both ends, and therefore allows and extra attack with each end every round. If it works there, then it must work on two speed swords too, right?
Lord Schpungus 11-17-04, 04:24 PM	3rd party. Irrelevant.
OrbitalB 11-17-04, 06:21 PM	Because its "the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it". It is just as valid to read that sentence that as "an extra attack with that specific weapon" (which is reading no limitation in the sentence but only a definition) rather than "an extra attack by the wielder that in this case must be with the speed weapon". Attacks are made by wielders as a general rule so the use of the word wielder can be taken as conforming to the attack mechanic just as it can be taken as defining who the magic is actually affecting. "a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding." "the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it." "the wielder of a speed weapon may fart twice in the wind." "the hasted creature may spit fire through a straw on wednesdays between the hours of 3:00 and 5:30." In ALL the above cases... the target of the effect is the same (either the wielder or the hasted creature). The 'limitations' of a property do not change the target of the effect of the property. Your arguement is the same as saying that if the speed weapon read "When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with any weapon other than the speed weapon itself."... then the effect of the speed weapon's speed property would be on the 'other weapon' and not on the wielder [nor on the speed weapon itself, for that matter]. It's also the same as saying "When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack next friday." means that the speed weapon has not magically enhanced me nor itself... but has magically enhanced the day of friday itself to have the property of 'me attacking an extra time'.
Kilamar 11-17-04, 08:19 PM	Speed, Haste and Multiple Speed Weapons given one extra attack in total. This was discussed a zillion times. For 3.0 there was even a FAQ. Looks like the designers hoped for 3.5 tha people would finally get it, they were apparantly wrong. Hopefully they will include that in the next FAQ update Kilamar
ryanroyce 11-17-04, 08:57 PM	The wielder, the wielder, the wielder. The wielder. The wielder is the one the effect is applied to. It doesn't matter how many sources he gets similar effects from, or how they may be limited, they don't stack. Incorrect. The speed effect is applied to BOTH the wielder AND "it", not just one or the other. The "it" is the wielded weapon. THAT is the RAW. If, as you say, the "with it" limitation has no bearing on the cumulative effect rules, and the speed effect is indeed bestowed upon the wielder *alone*, then a character could wield a +1 speed dagger in her offhand while making a full attack with the longsword in her primary hand. No one is arguing that ludicrous position. Look at it this way: In order for the cumulative effect rules to even be triggered in the first place, the secondary effect must attempt to grant a benefit that is identical to the primary effect. The speed properties of two different speed weapons do not attempt to provide a cumulative effect since their effects are *not* identical. Breaking it down, a +1 longsword of speed has an effect that grants that "the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with (the wielded longsword)." Thus, the cumulative effect rules would be triggered if another effect (such as haste) attempted to grant that "the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with (the wielded longsword)." However, the cumulative effect rules would NOT be triggered by a +1 shortsword of speed wielded in the off-hand, since that weapon does NOT attempt to grant that "the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with (the wielded longsword)". It attempts to grant that "the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with (the wielded shortsword)" instead. Therefore the effects are not attempting to be cumulative at all. Ryan
Thorak 11-17-04, 09:29 PM	Incorrect. The speed effect is applied to BOTH the wielder AND "it", not just one or the other. The "it" is the wielded weapon. THAT is the RAW. If, as you say, the "with it" limitation has no bearing on the cumulative effect rules, and the speed effect is indeed bestowed upon the wielder *alone*, then a character could wield a +1 speed dagger in her offhand while making a full attack with the longsword in her primary hand. Right, she could. And she would then be two-weapon fighting, and get an extra attack with the dagger due to Speed. There's no "similar effect" to not stack with in this example. No one is arguing that ludicrous position. How is it ludicrous? Character wields an off-hand speed weapon. Character gains an extra attack with said weapon due to the Speed enchantment. How is this hard? Look at it this way: In order for the cumulative effect rules to even be triggered in the first place, the secondary effect must attempt to grant a benefit that is identical to the primary effect. The speed properties of two different speed weapons do not attempt to provide a cumulative effect since their effects are *not* identical. Breaking it down, a +1 longsword of speed has an effect that grants that "the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with (the wielded longsword)." Thus, the cumulative effect rules would be triggered if another effect (such as haste) attempted to grant that "the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with (the wielded longsword)." Limitations on effects do not change the nature of the effect. In other words, the effect of Speed is to grant the wielder an extra attack. The limitation, which doesn't change the nature of the effect, is that it must be with that weapon. Anything else that provides an extra attack, limited or not, because of increased speed won't stack, because that's a "similar effect". Look at Armor bonuses. Specifically, a character with Full Plate, and Bracers of Armor +8 on at the same time. He doesn't get a +16 AC. He gets +8 from two sources. One, the full plate, is only valid against corporeal creatures. Just because there's a limitation on it doesn't mean it's somehow now a 'different' bonus than the force-type armor bonus provided by the bracers; they still don't stack even though they're limited differently. However, the cumulative effect rules would NOT be triggered by a +1 shortsword of speed wielded in the off-hand, since that weapon does NOT attempt to grant that "the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with (the wielded longsword)". It attempts to grant that "the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with (the wielded shortsword)" instead. Therefore the effects are not attempting to be cumulative at all. Ryan Yes they are. Because, again, the effects are on the wielder. The effect in each case is to grant him an extra attack. The limitations are irrelevant, because they don't make it a different kind of effect, and because by citing haste, the text is clearly stating that by "similar effect", it means "grants an extra attack", regardless of limitations, and caused by increased speed. Otherwise, I could use your argument to state that I could use a Haste spell to get an extra attack with my offhand weapon while getting the extra attack from the Speed weapon I'm using as the primary. Which is a clear violation, and it's the exact same spurious logic you're trying to use.
OrbitalB 11-17-04, 10:01 PM	The speed properties of two different speed weapons do not attempt to provide a cumulative effect since their effects are *not* identical. Yeah. Nice try. Do we really need to post the speed weapon special property again? Similar, is the word you're looking for... and the effects of two weapons with identical special properties are, at the very least, similar. (I'd say they were in fact identical, but then you'd go on about how the limitation 'with it' on the item property, somehow changes the effect to be dissimilar than that of an item with the identical property, as long at that identical property had the same identical 'limitation')
Thorak 11-17-04, 11:33 PM	Yeah. Nice try. Do we really need to post the speed weapon special property again? Similar, is the word you're looking for... and the effects of two weapons with identical special properties are, at the very least, similar. (I'd say they were in fact identical, but then you'd go on about how the limitation 'with it' on the item property, somehow changes the effect to be dissimilar than that of an item with the identical property, as long at that identical property had the same identical 'limitation') Exactly. If Haste is "similar" (and it is, it's used as an example), then any other Speed weapon would be "similar". Because "wielder gets an extra attack with it" is similar to "target gets an extra attack", which then would be similar (since it was last time) to "wielder gets an extra attack with (a different) it". If Haste is similar to Speed, Speed is similar to Haste. Therefore, Speed is similar to Speed, and they can't stack.
ryanroyce 11-17-04, 11:41 PM	Right, she could. And she would then be two-weapon fighting, and get an extra attack with the dagger due to Speed. There's no "similar effect" to not stack with in this example. How is it ludicrous? Character wields an off-hand speed weapon. Character gains an extra attack with said weapon due to the Speed enchantment. How is this hard? You misunderstood: If you are right and the speed effect is bestowed upon the wielder ONLY, then she could make an extra attack with her longsword without ever attacking with the dagger. That is a ludicrous position, but a viable one if your assertion is true. The effect is granted to both the wielder and the weapon. Ryan
ryanroyce 11-17-04, 11:56 PM	Yeah. Nice try. Do we really need to post the speed weapon special property again? Similar, is the word you're looking for... and the effects of two weapons with identical special properties are, at the very least, similar. (I'd say they were in fact identical, but then you'd go on about how the limitation 'with it' on the item property, somehow changes the effect to be dissimilar than that of an item with the identical property, as long at that identical property had the same identical 'limitation') %50 isn't similar enough for me. The effect is bestowed upon the wielder and the weapon, but only the wielder is common to both the speed longsword and the speed shortsword. Not to mention that Speed is similar to TWF and Flurry, too... Regardless, I run a cinematic game. If a PC wants to be Don Juan de Ginzu with 2 speed weapons and is willing the speed the money on it, I LET THEM. Life is too short and gaming is too recreational to get bent out of shape over. Ryan
Thorak 11-18-04, 02:09 AM	You misunderstood: If you are right and the speed effect is bestowed upon the wielder ONLY, then she could make an extra attack with her longsword without ever attacking with the dagger. That is a ludicrous position, but a viable one if your assertion is true. The effect is granted to both the wielder and the weapon. Ryan No, it's not a viable position. The effect is bestowed upon the wielder, but it grants an extra attack with the dagger. Perhaps you think I'm saying something I'm not, because I have absolutely no idea where you're getting this from. The effect is granted to the wielder, and it is restricted to the weapon. Small, but significant, difference.
primemover003 11-18-04, 03:18 AM	I can't beleive this is still being discussed... you may only ever gain ONE single extra attack from either a haste or speed effect... done, end of discussion It's been quoted a zillion times.
thepuregamer 11-18-04, 05:02 AM	I can't beleive this is still being discussed... you may only ever gain ONE single extra attack from either a haste or speed effect... done, end of discussion It's been quoted a zillion times. Primemover, this is not an arguement but an opinion. Things don't become true just because someone says its true. Anyway, I think this is how I see it. The effect of speed on a weapon is similar no matter which weapon it is on. But it is also seperate. If a person if using two weapons of speed, they gain an extra attack with each weapon. The wielder gains a benefit in general but specifically he gains an attack with a certain weapon. The effect is specific to the weapon. Meaning there is no issue of stacking or the effects being cumulative. The wielder gains an extra attack with it. So it is not just the wielder but specifically a certain weapon the wielder is using. It is very much the same as any effect on a weapon. Lets say you had a +1 long sword. If you cast magic weapon on this longsword, the +1 enhancement bonus does not increase to +2 because it is the same bonus. You do not get the same bonus twice in the same area. So enhancement bonii don't stack with themselves. But if you have a +1 longsword and a nonmagical longsword, you can cast the magic weapon of the nonmagical longsword and the longsword will gain an +1 enhancement bonus. It is the same kind of bonus and it does effect the wielder but only with that weapon. This comparison is very similar to speed. A +1 enhancement bonus does not stack with other enhancement bonii but when you have a two +1 enhancement bonii on different weapons there is no issue of stacking because they are seperate. This is exactly the same as speed. The wielder gains an extra attack with it(a specific weapon). The bonus is weapon specific so there is no issue of stacking or cummulative effects. They are seperate effects.
Kilamar 11-18-04, 05:44 AM	Primemover, this is not an arguement but an opinion. This is a fact and denial will not help. Kilamar
thepuregamer 11-18-04, 05:56 AM	Kilamar, when you post things without backing them up on a thread it doesn't lead to anything useful. Sayings like, "I'm right and you're wrong" Don't do anything for an arguement. You can say I am in denial but you haven't shown me to be in denial. That is what I meant. Your post is worthless. It has no value on the boards. You might as well have not posted at all.
Naeron 11-18-04, 06:05 AM	TWF grants an extra attack, yes. As does Flurry, the Spinning Halberd feat, and all kinds of other things. This doesn't mean it's a "similar effect" to Speed though. Because those extra attacks are given for different reasons that have nothing to do with having your movement speed increased. You're confusing the benefit of something with it's effect. No, I'm not. I was pointing out that you said 'anything that "grants the wielder/user/target/etc an extra attack".' which you meant as "any effect". If you're gaining the benefit of two speed weapons, then it's a cumulative effect. Because the weapon doesn't benefit, it's wielder does. For the umptee-billionth time. And for the umpteenth-billionth time that supposition that the wielder is benefitting from the effect directly is only an interpretation of a sentence. The is no categorical statement that the wielder is affected in any way. You state that the wielder is because that word are mentioned in the sentence. However that does not have to be true because the use of the world wielder can be purely descriptive without the implication of any effect on the wielder being conferred. Weapons do not, in and of themselves make attacks - they are attacked with. So any description of how a speed weapon works would have to include some form of "you can make an extra attack with the weapon" or it would become incredibly stilted. The implication is in fact that the wielder is not affected. If Speed made the wielder move faster why would it not just grant an extra attack, why does this faster wielder not gain any other bonuses from moving faster (such as even one of those that Haste grants). So deciding that the way that a speed weapon functions is that the weapon itself moves faster (thus allowing one of those "missed swings" to become a possible hit) is a validf interpreation grammatically and by inference. I am not saying that you are wrong in your interpretation Thorak, only that there are 2 ways of interpreting the sentence and that neither can be proven to be correct with the information available thus far. The "with it" limitation has no bearing on the second sentence, because the second sentence cites Haste as an example of a "similar effect", an example that does not specify a specific weapon to get the extra attack. This means the second sentence's statement that Speed doesn't stack with "similar effects" means it doesn't stack with anything that provides an extra attack due to increased speed. Including another speed weapon. That the attack the second speed weapon could provide would be limited to that weapon is entirely irrelevant. If you could prove that "with it" is an additional limitation then you would indeed have a point, however it can also be read as just being part of the definition of what a speed weapon does, if its not a limitation then a similar effect is one that that includes "with it" because that is part of the definition of how it works. The wielder, the wielder, the wielder. The wielder. The wielder is the one the effect is applied to. It doesn't matter how many sources he gets similar effects from, or how they may be limited, they don't stack. Unproven as being only the sole valid interpreation of the sentence. The weapon is the thing the effect is applied to, the fact that the word wielder is there is only because it conforms to combat mechanics and due to the inclusion of "full-attack action" you must have a being mentioned in the sentence. Try "When making a full attack action, a speed weapon gains an extra attack." That is stilted because weapons don't take full-attack actions.
Kilamar 11-18-04, 06:56 AM	Kilamar, when you post things without backing them up on a thread it doesn't lead to anything useful. I did, no need to repeat it a second time. Additionally, the others posted all relevant information. If you cannot accept the rules as they are, reptition of that information will not help either. Kilamar
OrbitalB 11-18-04, 06:57 AM	If you could prove that "with it" is an additional limitation then you would indeed have a point, however it can also be read as just being part of the definition of what a speed weapon does, if its not a limitation then a similar effect is one that that includes "with it" because that is part of the definition of how it works. No, an Identical effect would be one that includes "with it", a Similar effect (like haste) could quite probably omit that specific limitation.
mattmurdock 11-18-04, 07:06 AM	Has no-one arguing that Speed weapons stack bothered to read my posts? Naeron, your argument is not consistent, in one breath you say that you can ignore the use of the word 'wielder' as it is just 'stating the obvious' to prevent the text being stilted and difficult to read, and then in the other breath ignore the fact that the words 'with it' could just as easily be 'stating the obvious' in order to prevent people applying the extra attack to other weapons. As per the examples in my previous posts, the general game mechanics for adding a single extra full BAB attack during a full-attack action are consistent across the whole of the core rules. All of the effects are 'similar', despite the minor differences in flavour. And if you add in other WOTC concepts such as the Frenzied Berserkers Frenzy ability, you see that any effect that gives the wielder an extra full BAB attack during a full-attack action does not stack, regardless of the actual source or the limitations of that source. You cannot claim that the fact that the extra attack with a Speed weapon is limited to using that weapon supports it being able to stack. Each of the effects I have mentioned have limitations i.e. you only get the attack from Frenzy during the frenzy, you only get the attack from haste during the spell duration and you only get the attack from a speed weapon whilst you wield it. All three have limitations specified in the description of each ability or enhancement, and all three mention that they do not stack with similar effects...how much more rules based evidence is required? Flurry and TWF have a different mechanical base (they give extra attacks, but at a penalty to attack), and neither ability states they are not culmulative with similar abilities. This is why they stack.
Thorak 11-18-04, 07:43 AM	I'll repeat my last point, in nice easy-to-read point form and without quoting anyone else, to make it absolutely crystal clear. Emphases are mine, and are the important terms to keep track of. Speed doesn't stack with similar effects. Haste is listed as a similar effect. Speed's effect is "grants the wielder an extra attack with it." Haste's effect is "a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding." Therefore, "grants the wielder an extra attack with it" is similar to "a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding." Haste also states, for rock-solid logic, that the reverse is true; the effect of Speed is a "similar" effect as Haste. Therefore, Speed's effect is similar to Haste's, and Haste's is similar to Speed's. Therefore, Speed's effect is similar to Speed's. And, a person benefiting from Speed (since it benefits the wielder, very specifically) can't benefit from a second similar effect cumulatively. Therefore, since Speed is similar to Speed, a single person can't benefit from two Speed weapons. Because their effects are similar. And both effects affect the wielder. What the specific wording of the effect is, really, irrelevant, because Speed is listed as "similar" to Haste, regardless of specific wording. As Haste lists Speed. Which, through the wonder of logic, means Speed is similar to Speed. Edit: Gack, forgot to lose my list tag. Sorry folks, should be easier to read now.
Naeron 11-18-04, 07:59 AM	Has no-one arguing that Speed weapons stack bothered to read my posts? Naeron, your argument is not consistent, in one breath you say that you can ignore the use of the word 'wielder' as it is just 'stating the obvious' to prevent the text being stilted and difficult to read, and then in the other breath ignore the fact that the words 'with it' could just as easily be 'stating the obvious' in order to prevent people applying the extra attack to other weapons. No its entirely consistent because I am also saying that you can read it the other way. Because wielder may or may not mean that the enchantment affects the person and "with it" may be a limitation or entirely part of the definition. So reading the sentence one valid way arrives at one result (no stacking of speed weapons) and reading another valid way gets you to a different result (2 speed weapons both operate). I am not arguing that I am definitely right, I am arguing that both are valid interpretations because the definition of what a speed weapon is can be read in more than one way because of how it is phrased. "Wielder" can both define who the effect affects or can just be there to provide a semantically correct sentence. I believe the latter because nothing says the wielder gets faster and they gain no benefits that might be associated with moving faster. "with it" could be a limitation applied to something that affects the wielder or it could be defining how a speed weapon works, in that the enchantment affects the speed weapon. I prefer the latter. No absolute proof exists to support either argument, only interpretation and inference. As this is coming down to "my english fu is stronger than yours" I don't think there is much use in continuing this debate.
pyk 11-18-04, 08:48 AM	"Wielder" can both define who the effect affects or can just be there to provide a semantically correct sentence. I believe the latter because nothing says the wielder gets faster and they gain no benefits that might be associated with moving faster. "When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it." Okay, first, the subject of the sentence is always who or what the sentence is about. In this case, the subject of the sentence is "The wielder". No one can argue this position, just go to any grammer website to find out. The wielder has a limitation to describe which wielder the sentence is talking about, or "of a speed weapon". By the way, prepostional phrases are never used as the subject, FYI. The action is always the verb, and what the subject does. In this case, the action is "may make". The adverb "one extra attack" is describing what the subject is to make. Does the "speed weapon" make the attack in this sentence? No, because it is not the subject of the sentence. The object of the sentence is always what the subject applys the action to. In this case, the object is "with it", or with "the speed weapon". Taking the sentence fully now, we see that the wielder (subject) of a speed weapon may make (action) one extra attack with [the speed weapon] (object). Can it be validly interpreted another way? Let's see. The speed weapon grants an extra attack to the wielder of the speed weapon, but only with said speed weapon. No, shoot, that's the same thing, but reworded. Ummm, The speed weapon may make one extra attack, as long as someone is wielding it. No, that's just something completely different. The hand of the wielder that is holding the speed weapon may get one extra attack, provided this attack is with said speed weapon. Hmmm, interesting, but, in what part of the original sentence is the wielder's hand mentioned? Oh, yeah, no where, so this can't be valid. "with it" could be a limitation applied to something that affects the wielder or it could be defining how a speed weapon works, in that the enchantment affects the speed weapon. I prefer the latter. Cool, no one says you cannot rule your games as such. You're simply trying to make your ruling as part of the RAW, yet no such ruling exists. And, your interpretation of the sentence, as it goes against true grammatical usage of the sentence structure, therefore is not part of the RAW, and is a houserule. No absolute proof exists to support either argument, only interpretation and inference. Here is the absolute proof, straight from the 3.0 Game Rules FAQ: The description for the speed weapon property says it is not cumulative with the haste spell, but exactly how this applies in the game seems unclear, especially when two weapons of speed are involved. Can you use two speed weapons at the same time? What, exactly, is meant when the rules say haste and speed don’t stack? Does it mean you can use the speed property during the normal portion of your turn, but not during the “extra” partial action you get from haste? You can use two weapons of speed at a time all right, but you still only get one extra attack, from one weapon or the other, not both. If you are under the effects of a haste spell, you can use the extra attack action from one weapon of speed, or the extra partial action from the haste spell, but not both.
Thorak 11-18-04, 09:21 AM	Pyk, I'll just note that your "absolute proof" is irrelevant, since 3.0 rules have no bearing on 3.5 rules, especially since they changed Haste between the two version. IMHO, the best argument is the one I used in my last post. It doesn't even matter what the specific wording of the effect is. It's similar to Haste, and Haste is similar to Speed, so any second Speed effect will fall under that blanket of a similar effect.
Kilamar 11-18-04, 10:20 AM	Pyk, I'll just note that your "absolute proof" is irrelevant, since 3.0 rules have no bearing on 3.5 rules, especially since they changed Haste between the two version. That might be, but the important factor is the Speed enhancement and that did not change much, got even more limiting. Kilamar
Mediator 11-18-04, 10:36 AM	That might be, but the important factor is the Speed enhancement and that did not change much, got even more limiting. Kilamar and a bit expensive (+3) for what it does....
Thorak 11-18-04, 11:02 AM	That might be, but the important factor is the Speed enhancement and that did not change much, got even more limiting. Kilamar I agree, I'm just pointing out what the naysayers will eventually point out if I don't.
Kilamar 11-18-04, 11:08 AM	and a bit expensive (+3) for what it does.... But cheaper than 3.0. An extra attack at the highest attack bonus is very powerful, therefore I do not think it is too expensive. Kilamar
Mediator 11-18-04, 11:39 AM	But cheaper than 3.0. An extra attack at the highest attack bonus is very powerful, therefore I do not think it is too expensive. Kilamar When you go back one page and have a look at the average damage calculation I did, you will notice that it IS expensive.
thepuregamer 11-18-04, 11:56 AM	Flurry and TWF have a different mechanical base (they give extra attacks, but at a penalty to attack), and neither ability states they are not culmulative with similar abilities. This is why they stack. Question. Do flurry or TWF stack with haste? Haste does not stack with similar effects. Both flurry and TWF gives extra attacks. That is a similarity. Do they stack with haste?
Kilamar 11-18-04, 11:57 AM	When you go back one page and have a look at the average damage calculation I did, you will notice that it IS expensive. *Snicker* You should not forget that you need a Standard Action to activate Flame and Frost Enchantments. The calculation would be a bit different. Apart from the fact that the Boots were always very fine deal. Kilamar
thepuregamer 11-18-04, 12:07 PM	A questions people need to be asking themselves is: Is the benefit of speed weapon specific? I think it is. The benefit does not affect the whole character. It just affects the character in terms of that specific weapon. I interpret these things this way because this is how special effects work on all magical weapons. The effects are seperate.
Mediator 11-18-04, 12:19 PM	*Snicker* You should not forget that you need a Standard Action to activate Flame and Frost Enchantments. Kilamar Which you could have done well before the combat in the morning when you stand up and take the weapon.
Thorak 11-18-04, 02:59 PM	Question. Do flurry or TWF stack with haste? Haste does not stack with similar effects. Both flurry and TWF gives extra attacks. That is a similarity. Do they stack with haste? They're similar benefits. Not similar effects. Because the cause of the effect is part of it's definition; Haste and Speed weapons provide extra attacks due to magically increased speed. Therefore, they don't stack with other magical sources of attack speed. Take armor bonuses, as a clearly defined example of this. The benefit, in all cases, is points of AC. The AC bonuses, however, don't necessarily stack; same-named ones typically do not. So, you can't stack an Armor bonus with another Armor bonus because, essentially, they're similar. You can, however, stack an Armor bonus with a shield bonus, even though both provide the same benefit, because they come from different types of sources. Same with Haste, Speed, Flurry, and TWFing. The latter two aren't similar to the former two; they provide extra attacks, certainly, but for entirely different reasons. A questions people need to be asking themselves is: Is the benefit of speed weapon specific? I think it is. The benefit does not affect the whole character. It just affects the character in terms of that specific weapon. I interpret these things this way because this is how special effects work on all magical weapons. The effects are seperate. It doesn't matter. Like I've shown, if Speed is similar to Haste, and it explicitly is, and Haste is similar to Speed, as it explicitly is, then Speed is surely similar to other Speed effects as well. Since they have even more in common with each other than Haste. Therefore, they aren't cumulative. And since they provide the wielder with extra attacks, that they restrict those attacks to the specific weapon is irrelevant; he can only benefit from one of these noncumulative effects at one time.
GeNemesis 11-21-04, 08:02 AM	Sorry to have started this discussion up again. Guess it would be easier if the wording was more like the "skillful" enhancement found in Complete Arcane: "... though he gains no such bonus with any other weapon, even if a skillful weapon is wielded at the same time". Well, thank God for house rules. If my players want to pay the cost of two speed weapons, fine by me :)
pyk 11-21-04, 08:59 AM	Pyk, I'll just note that your "absolute proof" is irrelevant, since 3.0 rules have no bearing on 3.5 rules, especially since they changed Haste between the two version. IMHO, the best argument is the one I used in my last post. It doesn't even matter what the specific wording of the effect is. It's similar to Haste, and Haste is similar to Speed, so any second Speed effect will fall under that blanket of a similar effect. Except the FAQ is the FAQ, and remains the same unless trumped by the 3.5 FAQ. And the important part is the first line of the official answer: "You can use two weapons of speed at a time all right, but you still only get one extra attack, from one weapon or the other, not both."
thepuregamer 11-21-04, 09:09 AM	except thorak is right pyk, 3.0 faq's and 3.0 rulings don't matter in 3.5. Would you take the rulings on 3.0 damage reduction in the new 3.5 DR system? Haste which is the base spell for the speed special ability is way different than it was in 3.0. So a 3.0 faq has little or to no say here.
pyk 11-21-04, 11:15 AM	Whatever. I forgot I was talking to a group that doesn't like the Sage in the first place.
Thorak 11-21-04, 03:03 PM	Whatever. I forgot I was talking to a group that doesn't like the Sage in the first place. We don't "like" him because he, quite frankly, often contradicts or makes up rules. This is probably due to the fact that he's one of three main designers, and his personal vision is slightly different than the other 2 individual's. I don't hold it against him, but often what he quotes as hard rules have no basis, or flagrantly contradict, the core rules. If he could get an Errata issued, fine. We'd adjust our statements. There haven't been, though. The FAQ often suffers from this too, unfortunately. Yes, WotC isn't perfect. Neither are any of it's employees. Does this mean they're bad people? Not at all. Love the system, respect their thoughts. Doesn't mean I'll agree when they discuss what they suggest as houserules. And I fail to see how the 3.0 FAQ could possibly be relevant, even though it supports my position. It's a FAQ based on the last version of the system. A system which changed a lot, including specifically things having to do with Haste and similar effects.
primemover003 11-21-04, 04:53 PM	However, unless the 3.5 FAQ specifically contradicts the 3.0 FAQ it still holds true.
Thorak 11-21-04, 11:21 PM	However, unless the 3.5 FAQ specifically contradicts the 3.0 FAQ it still holds true. How do you figure? The 3.0 FAQ was made to answer questions about 3.0. It wasn't made as a rule addition, and didn't have that power. The 3.0 FAQ is irrelevant, because it was designed to answer questions regarding a different system, and specifically on this point the rules have changed.
OrbitalB 11-21-04, 11:49 PM	Yeah, well... this is where our opinions would differ. And they are just that. Opinions. So, don't start shouting "3.0 faqs are irrelevant" like it's a fact because you feel that way. 3.5 is exactly that, an extention of 3.0. Else, it would have been called 4.0. Unless contradicted, the 3.0 faq is a great guide to 3.5. Almost as much as the 3.5 faq is a great guide. And they are just that... Guides, not Errata. Faqs don't set rules, however. This particular delema, thankfully, doesn't need a rule set... only, possibly, clarified. The 3.0 Faq should help clarify the interactions of at least speed upon itself.
thepuregamer 11-22-04, 12:14 AM	You do know OrbitalB that a 3.0 faq is answers to frequently asked questions about 3.0 rules. They answer questions about things that deal specifically with 3.0. When you use books from 3.0, very often the material inside them has to be updated to match the 3.5 system. Damage reduction has been changed, the weapon system has been changed, and haste the spell has been changed. Speed is based off of haste. I do not see how you can say that a FAQ that pertains to an old system is relevant to a new system. If this were a thread about damage reduction, would you quote 3.0 faq's about 3.0 damage reduction to answer questions about 3.5 DR? They don't match. Haste in 3.0 gives you an extra partial action. In 3.5 there are no partial actions. I would think that this makes 3.0 haste and 3.5 haste incomparable but I guess you just plan on disagreeing. I agree, this is just my opinion but it is an opinion that makes sense.
Ertai, sorcerer adept 11-22-04, 04:12 AM	(skipped a few posts) So, nobody mentioned two-headed weapons have nothing to do with each other? That it's legal to have a +2 speed vorpal holy head and another common (not even masterwork) head? Two headed weapons are to be treated like two separate weapons. So, the rules aren't explicit about this, but I'd adjudicate, as a DM, that you speed gives you an extra attack with a weapon, non-stackable with haste, and leave it at that. Something like: calculate your BAB without speed. Now, does head n1 have speed? Yes? One extra attack, sonce speed says one extra attack with that weapon. Now, does head n2 have speed? Yes? One extra attack, sonce speed says one extra attack with that weapon. Hey, you just comboed to get to ewtra attacks! You're really smart (even though I'm not sure it's worth it compared to a two-handed weapon, with all that extra money and those extra feats, but that's another discussion). And besides, it's so cool. Could someone tell me the problem? I didn't stumble into any.
OrbitalB 11-22-04, 05:44 AM	I'm quite aware of the differences between 3.0 and 3.5. Speed is based off of haste. What spell is used to create an item is Irrelevant unless that item generates the effect of that spell. Speed special quality says nowhere that 'the wielder is treated as under the effects of a haste spell'. The speed special quality hasn't changed the way haste has. So, the 3.0 faq regarding 'haste' is irrelevant, because it has changed. But it is not irrelevant in regards to speed which has not. I would think that this makes 3.0 haste and 3.5 haste incomparable but I guess you just plan on disagreeing. Well, no... i don't plan on disagreeing, that is correct. But 3.0 speed and 3.5 speed haven't changed (regardless of the base spell to create the item) and thus faq entries regarding speed's intereaction with speed still holds true. In summary, the 3.0 faq entry clarifying haste and speed can, mostly, be disregarded. Specifically the parts refering to haste (as haste has changed). But the part clarifying that two speed weapons may not give cumulative effects, is still applicable.
RaspK FOG 11-22-04, 08:03 AM	OK, people,calm down and take a step back; allow yourselves another perspective. A magical item bears an enchantment (NOT "Enchantment"; I mean "enchantment" as in "magic") that somehow produces an additional attack should someone make a full attack action. Who would be affected by this magic? The weapon? Hardly logical: the weapon is the bearer of the magic, yet it is the wielder of the weapon who makes the attacks, not the weapon itself. Even weapon-producing spells and dancing weapons require you make the attack roll for them: see a pattern here? It is only natural, then, that, like any magical item, speed weapons are sources of magic that affect their wielder/bearer, not themselves. Can you imagine what would a periapt of health be if the whole things was the other way around? A periapt that would never catch a cold! :P Seriously, though, you all missed something BIG! here: two speed weapons don't cost 18.000 gp each for a total of 36.000 gp, but 32.000 gp each for a total of 64.000 gp (unless I am mistaken, the speed special weapon ability has a market price of +3). Oh, and the reason for a double weapon to bear speed on both ends is obvious: to make an additional attack with that end, whatever the end may be (for example, if you wielded only one end [the other might be inefficient or susceptible to an attack form the creature you attack has], you would still like to get that additional attack for whatever end of the weapon you used, right?). So, this means: apply any penalties for two-weapon fighting, apply any and all penalties for the flurry, then add the speed attack.
Thorak 11-22-04, 11:35 AM	Yeah, well... this is where our opinions would differ. And they are just that. Opinions. So, don't start shouting "3.0 faqs are irrelevant" like it's a fact because you feel that way. 3.5 is exactly that, an extention of 3.0. Else, it would have been called 4.0. Unless contradicted, the 3.0 faq is a great guide to 3.5. Almost as much as the 3.5 faq is a great guide. And they are just that... Guides, not Errata. Faqs don't set rules, however. This particular delema, thankfully, doesn't need a rule set... only, possibly, clarified. The 3.0 Faq should help clarify the interactions of at least speed upon itself. Meh. Just checked the 3.5 FAQ, to see what I could see. And I'm changing my opinion (and thankfully, to a position which gives my original argument greater support, since the 3.0 FAQ backs me up). The 3.5 FAQ clearly states; "This version of the D&D FAQ uses the 3.5 revision of the core rules and also contains questions covering material from a variety of books (such as Savage Species and Epic Level Handbook). If you haven’t yet adopted the revision, don’t worry—in the rare instance that the answer is different between 3rd edition and the 3.5 revision, we’ll bring it to your attention with a call out that says “Revision Alert.”" The clear implication being that 3.5 is a revision, not a separate system (as I was erroneously implying), and that 3.0 rulings should still hold valid unless the 3.5 rules change in that specific case, which they don't, regarding Speed weapons. Two speed weapons = one extra attack, with either of them. By the RAW, and by the FAQ.
thepuregamer 11-22-04, 12:30 PM	Well, if speed weapons are much the same as they were in 3.0. Are they? I have no 3.0 core books. But if they are, I am willing to agree with thorak and orbital B. A 3.0 faq about speed works for me if speed hasn't been changed.
OrbitalB 11-22-04, 01:40 PM	Well, if speed weapons are much the same as they were in 3.0. Are they? Speed: When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.) Speed: A weapon of speed allows the wielder one single extra attack each round at the wielder’s highest bonus. It is not cumulative with haste. The extra attack must be with this weapon. The weapon does not grant the benefits of a haste spell, simply an extra single attack with this weapon. The only difference is that the 3.0 version only specifically excludes haste, where the 3.5 version includes mention of 'similar effects'.
thepuregamer 11-22-04, 02:04 PM	Does the 3.0 version require a full attack?
OrbitalB 11-22-04, 03:16 PM	Full attack [Full][AoO: No] Description: If a character gets more than one attack per action, the character must use the full attack action to use those additional attacks. The only way to get an extra attack from the speed weapon, outside of a full attack, would be if it provided an extra partial (or standard) action, which it doesn't.