Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Majick 04-25-08, 09:07 AM	Hello all. It' been a while. Nice to see you are well. I have a somewhat interesting predicament at the moment: Would Elegant Strike (class ability for CoCL from RotW) and Shadow Blade (feat from ToB) stack for the purposes of getting your dexterity modifier to damage? I was planning on making a dexy fighter type and this was the onlyway i could see of keeping up with the Barbarian's Rage or Paladin's Charging Smite varient (from PHB2) It's acheivable as a straight Fighter by lvl 9 (which is thankfully the lvl of the campaign currently) with the right choice of Forgotten Realms feats. So what do you guys/gals think?
aelryinth 04-25-08, 11:31 AM	Feats that confer the same bonuses from an ability score usually do not stack. So, no, getting Dex to damage twice probably is not going to happen. ==Aelryinth
StruckingFuggle 04-25-08, 02:36 PM	On the one hand: they're different abilities, and don't even work the same way. On the other hand: they plain don't work because they both work with specific weapons, and there's no overlap between them.
Lotus Crane 04-25-08, 04:57 PM	It depends on how your DM interprets things. Some people, like aelryinth, believe that ">insert name of ability score< bonus to >insert name of affected characteristic<" counts as a named bonus, and therefore does not stack, because except for Dodge (and occasionally circumstance) bonuses, named bonuses do not stack. Other people, like myself, believe that there is no such thing as "ability bonus to characteristic," because they are not listed as specific named bonus types in the PHB or DMG, the way that enhancement, insight, luck, sacred, etc. bonuses are. I believe that the correct way to interpret such class abilities is to say that they grant an unnamed/typeless bonus equal to the corresponding ability score bonus, and thus all such instances stack, because unnamed/typeless bonuses always stack. Then again, as StruckingFuggle pointed out, it's a moot point in this case, because Shadow Blade requires Shadow Hand weapons, and Elegant strike requires elven weapons; the two sets do not overlap and therefore the abilities are incompatible by default. The best way to keep up DPS as a CoCL is to maintain both Strength and Dexterity, and to definately go with the courtblade. Str>Dex as always, even for a CoCL, especially if you're using the two-handed courtblade. Trying to play a low Strength CoCL who relies on Weapon Finesse is a bad idea even though elven weapons are finessable; Strength is still your most important ability score, it's just that Dexterity provides a secondary bonus that compensates for your lack of rage or other damage-boosters. As a swordsage, if you're going Shadow Blade anyway, take assassin's stance and use a shadow hand discipline weapon. The first will boost your damage; the second will boost both attack and damage.
aelryinth 04-26-08, 12:57 PM	It depends on how your DM interprets things. Some people, like aelryinth, believe that ">insert name of ability score< bonus to >insert name of affected characteristic<" counts as a named bonus, and therefore does not stack, because except for Dodge (and occasionally circumstance) bonuses, named bonuses do not stack. Other people, like myself, believe that there is no such thing as "ability bonus to characteristic," because they are not listed as specific named bonus types in the PHB or DMG, the way that enhancement, insight, luck, sacred, etc. bonuses are. I believe that the correct way to interpret such class abilities is to say that they grant an unnamed/typeless bonus equal to the corresponding ability score bonus, and thus all such instances stack, because unnamed/typeless bonuses always stack. Then again, as StruckingFuggle pointed out, it's a moot point in this case, because Shadow Blade requires Shadow Hand weapons, and Elegant strike requires elven weapons; the two sets do not overlap and therefore the abilities are incompatible by default. The best way to keep up DPS as a CoCL is to maintain both Strength and Dexterity, and to definately go with the courtblade. Str>Dex as always, even for a CoCL, especially if you're using the two-handed courtblade. Trying to play a low Strength CoCL who relies on Weapon Finesse is a bad idea even though elven weapons are finessable; Strength is still your most important ability score, it's just that Dexterity provides a secondary bonus that compensates for your lack of rage or other damage-boosters. As a swordsage, if you're going Shadow Blade anyway, take assassin's stance and use a shadow hand discipline weapon. The first will boost your damage; the second will boost both attack and damage. Actually, your interpretation of my statement is flawed. It counts as 'same source', and so does not stack with itself. I did not conjure a 'name' out of thin air. WoTC has ruled similarly on stacking bonuses from stats in the past, regardless of the name of the ability (i.e. Monk and Swordsage Wis bonus to AC do not stack, and they have different names and features. Same source overrides differences.) Allowing double Dex to damage is the same as allowing double Str to damage...it's just not going to fly. Really, I'll make up a class called the Ultimate Flexer, who gets to add his Str to his dmg as an insight bonus, and then at PrC level 10 gets to add his Str bonus to dmg as a circumstance bonus! woo hoo! totally balanced because now they are 'named', and you can stack them! Right. ===Aelryinth
StruckingFuggle 04-26-08, 03:38 PM	Uhm, Shadow Blade and Elegant Strike are different sources. Allowing double Dex to damage is the same as allowing double Str to damage...it's just not going to fly. It's not so bad with Dex, with all the resources it takes to get dex twice to damage it's not that far removed from Strength 1.5x normally or 2x with a single PrC weapon and a Feat (for everyone except Dwarves), eh? Really, I'll make up a class called the Ultimate Flexer, who gets to add his Str to his dmg as an insight bonus, and then at PrC level 10 gets to add his Str bonus to dmg as a circumstance bonus! woo hoo! totally balanced because now they are 'named', and you can stack them! In that case, they should stack, because they are named bonuses from different sources.
Lotus Crane 04-26-08, 07:36 PM	Actually, your interpretation of my statement is flawed. It counts as 'same source', and so does not stack with itself. I did not conjure a 'name' out of thin air. WoTC has ruled similarly on stacking bonuses from stats in the past, regardless of the name of the ability (i.e. Monk and Swordsage Wis bonus to AC do not stack, and they have different names and features. Same source overrides differences.) ===Aelryinth Hmm, I apologize for misinterpreting your statement, and so shall present an argument to counter what I believe was your true intention. I do not believe that Dexterity can rightfully be considered to be the source of the extra damage granted by Elegant Strike and Shadow Blade; Elegant Strike and Shadow Blade are the sources, while Dexterity is merely a secondary factor. If Dexterity itself was the source of the extra damage, then it should apply automatically, without the need for abilities like Elegant Strike and Shadowblade. Mathematically, I would argue that B=aS, where: B=bonus to be provided to a characteristic, such as AC, damage, saves, etc. (the mathematical dependent value) a=ability score that is used as a multiplier (the mathematical coefficient) S=the special ability or abilities that are the actual source (the mathematical independent value) At any given point in time, "a" can be considered to be a static, constant value. In most cases, S=0 because most characters do not have special abilities (or sources) to affect the value "B," which leads to B=aS => B=a(0) => B=0. In the classic case of a Duelist or Invisible Blade, B=aS => AC bonus=Int(special ability) => AC bonus=Int(1) => AC bonus=Int bonus, where this bonus can be interpreted to be an unnamed/typeless bonus with a value equal to Int bonus. For a character who has levels in both PrC's, B=as => AC bonus=Int(special abilities) => AC bonus=Int(2) => AC bonus=2*Int bonus, where this bonus can be interpreted to be an unnamed/typeless bonus with a value equal to Int bonus. So in summary, I believe that special abilities that state "add 'a' to 'B'" are themselves the direct (independent value) "sources" of said bonuses, while the ability score that they key off of are merely system coefficients. Using the monk and swordsage bonuses as a comparison is a strawman, because by the RAW, those two bonuses are incompatible on the basis of being mutually exclusive due to monks having to be unarmored, and swordsages having to wear light armor. That being said, if ToB errata rewords the swordsage ability to say "light or no armor," then the monk and swordsage bonuses will stack when wearing no armor, unless the errata also explicitly adds "monk and swordsage bonuses to AC do no stack." On a related note, monk and ninja bonuses to AC do not stack only because the ninja ability entry explicitly states that they do no stack; it can be most accurately inferred from that statement that the monk and ninja special abilities (which themselves are the source or independent value) are to be considered the same thing, not that Wis itself should be considered a "source" and/or named/typed bonus. Allowing double Dex to damage is the same as allowing double Str to damage...it's just not going to fly. Really, I'll make up a class called the Ultimate Flexer, who gets to add his Str to his dmg as an insight bonus, and then at PrC level 10 gets to add his Str bonus to dmg as a circumstance bonus! woo hoo! totally balanced because now they are 'named', and you can stack them! Apples and oranges. Logical interpretation/implementation of the rules, and actual mechanical balance, are not intrinsically tied to each other. Your "Ultimate Flexer" is broken by inherent design, rather than by the (correct in this case) way you're applying the rules. As StruckingFuggle seems to agree, nobody with a reasonable eye for overall balance is going to argue that a swordsage/CoCL who can (somehow, through another special ability or houserule) add a total unnamed bonus equal to 2*Dex bonus to damage, is going to threaten breaking the game anymore than a purely Strength-based ubercharger or chaingun-tripper (and chaingun-tripping Large or larger monsters is still viable with 3.0 Knock-Down and the right magic items). IIRC, you yourself a long time ago agreed that a Duelist/Invisible Blade who was allowed to add double Int to AC probably was not actually broken, just that you felt it went against the RAW and/or RAI.
aelryinth 04-27-08, 07:04 PM	Hmm, I apologize for misinterpreting your statement, and so shall present an argument to counter what I believe was your true intention. I do not believe that Dexterity can rightfully be considered to be the source of the extra damage granted by Elegant Strike and Shadow Blade; Elegant Strike and Shadow Blade are the sources, while Dexterity is merely a secondary factor. If Dexterity itself was the source of the extra damage, then it should apply automatically, without the need for abilities like Elegant Strike and Shadowblade. Mathematically, I would argue that B=aS, where: B=bonus to be provided to a characteristic, such as AC, damage, saves, etc. (the mathematical dependent value) a=ability score that is used as a multiplier (the mathematical coefficient) S=the special ability or abilities that are the actual source (the mathematical independent value) At any given point in time, "a" can be considered to be a static, constant value. In most cases, S=0 because most characters do not have special abilities (or sources) to affect the value "B," which leads to B=aS => B=a(0) => B=0. In the classic case of a Duelist or Invisible Blade, B=aS => AC bonus=Int(special ability) => AC bonus=Int(1) => AC bonus=Int bonus, where this bonus can be interpreted to be an unnamed/typeless bonus with a value equal to Int bonus. For a character who has levels in both PrC's, B=as => AC bonus=Int(special abilities) => AC bonus=Int(2) => AC bonus=2*Int bonus, where this bonus can be interpreted to be an unnamed/typeless bonus with a value equal to Int bonus. So in summary, I believe that special abilities that state "add 'a' to 'B'" are themselves the direct (independent value) "sources" of said bonuses, while the ability score that they key off of are merely system coefficients. Using the monk and swordsage bonuses as a comparison is a strawman, because by the RAW, those two bonuses are incompatible on the basis of being mutually exclusive due to monks having to be unarmored, and swordsages having to wear light armor. That being said, if ToB errata rewords the swordsage ability to say "light or no armor," then the monk and swordsage bonuses will stack when wearing no armor, unless the errata also explicitly adds "monk and swordsage bonuses to AC do no stack." On a related note, monk and ninja bonuses to AC do not stack only because the ninja ability entry explicitly states that they do no stack; it can be most accurately inferred from that statement that the monk and ninja special abilities (which themselves are the source or independent value) are to be considered the same thing, not that Wis itself should be considered a "source" and/or named/typed bonus. Apples and oranges. Logical interpretation/implementation of the rules, and actual mechanical balance, are not intrinsically tied to each other. Your "Ultimate Flexer" is broken by inherent design, rather than by the (correct in this case) way you're applying the rules. As StruckingFuggle seems to agree, nobody with a reasonable eye for overall balance is going to argue that a swordsage/CoCL who can (somehow, through another special ability or houserule) add a total unnamed bonus equal to 2*Dex bonus to damage, is going to threaten breaking the game anymore than a purely Strength-based ubercharger or chaingun-tripper (and chaingun-tripping Large or larger monsters is still viable with 3.0 Knock-Down and the right magic items). IIRC, you yourself a long time ago agreed that a Duelist/Invisible Blade who was allowed to add double Int to AC probably was not actually broken, just that you felt it went against the RAW and/or RAI. The Dexterity IS the source of damage. The ability is what allows you to redirect it from Str to Dex, is all. There is no difference between them...it's a nameless bonus derived from your Dex score. The 'name' of the ability is irrelevant...exactly as the swordsage and monk bonus ruling proved (they have been errata'd, and they DO not stack. Nor, for instance, do the bonuses from ninja of the Crescent Moon and monk). Both those abilities are also 'different'...but they do not stack, and the reason is because they are all derived from Wisdom and are a nameless bonus. Same source applies. 'Current' ninja and monk wording was put in there because of the original class and people jumping to the conclusion they DID stack. In this case, it was just pre-emptive errata. As for the Blade/Duellist, the main reason they weren't broken is because the Int bonus was limited by levels in the class. It was still overpowered, as a Fighter/5 Duellist/5 combo would have less AC then an IB/5 Duellist/5, despite both being 'limited' to +5 by class levels...it was still +5, x2. The levels counted twice. It's a very bad thing and open to lots of abuse when you can double stack ability modifiers...it's how you break a lot of things wide open. ===Aelryinth
Lotus Crane 04-27-08, 10:47 PM	As for the Blade/Duellist, the main reason they weren't broken is because the Int bonus was limited by levels in the class. It was still overpowered, as a Fighter/5 Duellist/5 combo would have less AC then an IB/5 Duellist/5, despite both being 'limited' to +5 by class levels...it was still +5, x2. The levels counted twice. It's a very bad thing and open to lots of abuse when you can double stack ability modifiers...it's how you break a lot of things wide open. 3.5 Duelist on the whole is underpowered, and the question of whether or not Duelist/IB should gain 2xInt bonus to AC is another example of how (in)correct interpretation of the rules is apples, and actual game balance is oranges. For any sort of Duelist build to have competitive AC with regular fighters, or perhaps in more appropriate comparison, swashbucklers, they would need to have an inordinately high Dex and Int (both in the high 20's, if not 30). It's not that IB/Duelist is overpowered compared to fighter/Duelist; it's that both are underpowered compared to IB, fighter, or swashbuckler, and simply that IB/Duelist with 2xInt bonus to AC is less underpowered, approaching almost playable. Most CoDzilla builds are perfectly RAW/RAI, and yet still horrifically broken. Uberchargers, chaingun-trippers, two-handed Leap Attacking/Karmic Striking Frenzied Berserkers still won't have any problems consistently murdering a IB/Duelist who gets to add 2xInt bonus to AC, because with the inability to use armor and shield (and you won't always have enough gold to afford maxed out bracers, gloves, and headband). Martial adepts aren't broken, just merely good, but a swordsage who gets to wear armor, and also add Dex+Wis to AC, is going to have more AC than a Duelist/IB, and with much less effort. The main thing I dislike about your argument here, is that (at least how I perceive it) is that you seem to equate "proper interpretation of the rules" with "game balance," or at least attribute a correlation between them. In an ideal situation, that might be true, but 3.x was hardly perfect (good enough to be playable and even fun, but then again, most people consider life worth living even though there are tons of things wrong with this world). An IB/Duelist adding 2xInt to AC isn't broken, because it's still less cost efficient than being able to use armor and shield, and the opportunity cost (in having to ignore Str and Con in favor of Dex and Int) is too high. An "Ultimate Flexer" adding 3xStr to damage is broken, not because of the way the rules are being interpreted, but because of the overall design of the class, ease of the build, high cost efficiency, lack of opportunity cost, etc. Come now, I know you're capable of better analysis and arguments than this; I read your most excellent article on the warblade vs the fighter. Also, I've been around long enough that you ought to at least extend me the professional courtesy of countering with an actual investigation into the math theory I've presented with regards to how those variables work together. If, after all that, we still can't agree on this, the same way we couldn't agree on it more than a year ago, well, I suppose it won't matter once 4th edition arrives and I turn my attention over to that.
aelryinth 04-28-08, 01:48 PM	Well, the problem here is that you are automatically grabbing 'class balance' as the counterpoint to 'x2 Int to AC', and they are vastly different things. What happens is you are setting a precedent, and that gets really bad, really fast. x2 Int To AC isn't considered broken because the Duelist and IB aren't considered massively powerful classes. The biggest reason is because your Int by class level limits the bonus...the ONLY time such a bonus is limited, because of the power of abuse. An Int bonus to AC is intrinsically worth about the same as a Monk Bonus to AC...they both operate off a mental ability. However, the monk's ability is available by a dip in a class, a PrC, probably a feat somewhere, or with a Monk's Belt. The Int to AC ability is available with Keen Intellect/Carmedine Monk/Kung Fu Genius switching the monk bonus, and a couple PrC's, and that's about it, really. The Int to AC ability is seen as more 'balanced' and powerful because it is harder to get, and the level base on it restricts it's power admirably. Once you start allowing stacking, you have to allow it from all sources to keep the rules consistent. There's nothing that says another zillion PrC's aren't going to come out allowing Monk bonus to AC, but 'call it something different', so suddenly it stacks. You can't start down that road without throwing open the doors and allowing the abuse. As a side note, the only reason Duellist and IB's have level limits on their Int to AC effects is so that Wizards can't dip the class and get +5-15 Int bonuses to AC all of a sudden, which elven mages could almost 'fall into' with racial profs. Duellist builds are also designed to be Dex/Int heavy, as opposed to Str/Con heavy. I agree with the poor wording of the ability...they should be allowed light armor, and if they were remade today they doubtless would be for a balance standpoint. But that doesn't change the power of precedent, and shutting off the dipping meter. As an example of how abusive this can get, just start looking at the Deepwarden/Fist of the Forest/something builds. They get Con to AC, Con as Nat Armor to AC, and Con instead of Dex to AC, or somesuch stuff. A balanced +5-6 AC bonus explodes into a +18, and higher if they up Con (3 pts AC for every 2 pts Con, baby!). I've seen x3 AC to Cha builds (typeless/Monk, Deflection, Sacred) and so on. You just can't allow that stuff to proliferate. ===Aelryinth