The monk gets it in no armor.
If your a monk swordsage with 18 wisdom and not wearing armor (or carrying anything) do you get +8 to you armor class from your wisdom or just +4?
I don't believe they stack since they are technically the same bonus but hey, nothing in the game really makes sense
Swordsage only gets their ability only in L. Armor. Not without armor. Strange, eh?
Wasn't that clarified as a typo though?
Wasn't that clarified as a typo though?
Sort of?
No official errata has been released on the ToB, so while I have seen sources saying basically that it was a typo (CustServ and even the actual author), they don't really count.
There are plenty of context clues to suggest it should work. For example, the unarmed variant mentions removing the armor proficiency, but says nothing about altering the AC bonus in anyway. Regardless, this is officially an, "Ask your GM" situation.
Now, lets assume the Swordsage AC bonus works when unarmored. Does it stack with Monk?
RAW? Incontrovertably, yes.
RAI? /shrug
I think still yes, but you're going to have 5187961786 angry people insisting it shouldn't because of this and that.
Ninja doesn't stack with Monk!? So? Swordsage isn't a ninja, and they could have easily used the same wording to prevent it.
Its got the same name. So? The ability has the same name, but the bonuses are unnamed. Plus an argument can be made that the ability names are not both "AC Bonus," but rather "Monk AC Bonus" and "Swordsage AC Bonus."
Anyway, unless you're playing a RAW game that agrees it was a typo, the answer is simple: "Ask the GM."
You can have RAW, or you can have "spirit"/RAI.
RAW = Swordsage bonus in light armor only. Typically doesn't apply at the same time as a monk (or the ninja) so they don't come into play at the same time. If you get your monk bonus to work in light armor (there are ways to do this), then they'd both work.
Spirit/RAI = Swordsage works in both light OR unarmored, but it doesn't stack with monk or ninja.
That's the way it breaks in my opinion. Assuming the Swordsage works unarmored varies from RAW ... and its my belief that on issues like this you either need to be firmly on the side of RAW or acknowledge you're in the realm of RAI. Sneaking in half of of the issue under RAI without addressing the other side is where folks get the most cranky.
If it were named it'd be along the lines of "When unarmoured and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) as a competence bonus to her AC."
Named bonuses apart from dodge do not stack.
Unnamed bonuses stack if they're not from the same class ability/feat. So in this case we have to go by the name of the class ability, since class abilities can show up in more than one class.
We know it's unnamed because there are only so many named bonuses. They don't keep making up new ones. "Wisdom" is not one of these. See Bonus Types, page 21 of the DMG.
The Monk's AC bonus is Wis to AC only if unarmoured and unencumbered, and the Monk get extra level dependent bonuses on top of just Wis.
The Swordsage's AC bonus is Wis to AC in light or lighter armour (the writer's ruling trumps anything anyone else says, IMO, as he wrote it, so he knows what it is supposed to do, and anyone else is just guessing). He also does not get a level dependent bonus to that AC.
So, in the final analysis, although they share the same name, they are not the *same ability*. The bonuses stack.
I don't believe they stack since they are technically the same bonus but hey, nothing in the game really makes sense
They don't stack because they are from the same source (namely "AC Bonus" class ability.)
They don't stack because they are from the same source (namely "AC Bonus" class ability.)
Wrong. It is not the same source. The abilities are different. For something to be same, it must have the same parameters as each other. Monk and Ninja will not stack because they get the same parameters (does not work in any armour). Swordsage is patently different.
Monk and Ninja will not stack because they get the same parameters (does not work in any armour).t.
Monk and Ninja don't stack only because the text explicitly says they don't (CA p8) not because they are similar.
If having the same parameters were the criteria, they would not needed to state they do not stack.
FIRST
The main reason Monk and Ninja do not stack is that they are SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT AS NOT STACKING WITH EACH OTHER.
This ability does not stack with the monk’s AC bonus ability (a ninja with levels of monk does not add the bonus twice).
That's the only defensible RAW reason the two (Monk and Ninja) do not stack.
SECOND
Whether or not the (or "an") author has an opinion about something they were involved with writing and how it should work is nice, but that doesn't make it so. There are "designers", "developers", "editors" and all sorts of other people who, at the end of the day, produce the written stuff we all use as a basis. If one of them says it should work a different way ... that's awesome. That doesn't mean it reflects the opinions of everyone else and/or will ever make it to errata / FAQ.
Again, I think people are trying to have their cake and eat it too here. Be literal with your reading if you want to argue the actual letter of the rules ... if you're picking and choosing to handle one part based on "should" and then getting all specific about why something should work or not based on something else, understand you're already on shakey ground with "should".
Anyway, regarding the writer's opinion, I didn't want to say this in such a blunt manner and thought that I would be able to avoid it, but I guess not:
"The CREATOR of the class/ability, the person that wrote it and came up with it, knows what he intended. He may make mistakes and not think of *everything* (like Planar Shepherd and the Sarrukh going together), but he is the *only* person that knows exactly what the class was meant to be. Anyone else is just making (at best) educated guesses. Thus, anything he says regarding that class GOES. WotC has proven time and again that they have crappy editors (see DMG, Epic Druid section), and so, while they might generally get the basic game framework right (see Grapple/Polymorph rules for when they do screw up), WotC products can and should be subject to closer scrutiny and be amended as needed. That is what Erratas, FAQs and stuff like that are about. In the scheme of things, words and opinions straight from the creator's mouth should be treated as the the word of God. There may be multiple people working on the BOOK, but there might not be multiple people working on the CLASS/ABILITY. I am not saying that the creator would not have a brain fart and come up with something stupid (see Vigilante). What I am saying is that if the creator says there should be correction, then there should be a correction, regardless of what you think, because, quite frankly, your opinion don't mean jack when compared to his. This is just basic respect for the creator, something that I find utterly lacking in today's me-me-me "I know everything" gamers."
In my games I generally let it go this way:
You can have RAW, or you can have "spirit"/RAI.
RAW = Swordsage bonus in light armor only. Typically doesn't apply at the same time as a monk (or the ninja) so they don't come into play at the same time. If you get your monk bonus to work in light armor (there are ways to do this), then they'd both work.
Spirit/RAI = Swordsage works in both light OR unarmored, but it doesn't stack with monk or ninja.
That's the way it breaks in my opinion. Assuming the Swordsage works unarmored varies from RAW ... and its my belief that on issues like this you either need to be firmly on the side of RAW or acknowledge you're in the realm of RAI. Sneaking in half of of the issue under RAI without addressing the other side is where folks get the most cranky.
100% agree with this post.
"The CREATOR of the class/ability, the person that wrote it and came up with it, knows what he intended.
Yes and no. Remember that nothing produced is a singular effort. There are designers ... who hand it to developers to tweak it ... playtesters ... editors ... who is the creator? Is there a sole creator?
Maybe Swordsage is one of those rare classes where the original inspiration-provider was also the designer and developer and editor of both that section and the key author on the book as a whole. Could be.
How was this singular person's opinion made public? The point of official channels isn't just "blessing the writing such that it is canon" ... it's also to ensure it can make it into general distribution. Was this some dude's personal website or blog? A forum post?
I am being a bit sticky on this, mostly because my primary involvement w/ WOTC folks is on the competitive play side.
If it isn't in an official channel, you can't have the reasonable assumption and guarantee that everyone is going to see it or has the right opportunity to see it. Thus, it isn't official ... and the only official thing we all have we can work with is the written text.
Now if rules were more wiki-fied and someone had a running thing they updated pointing back to the sources and we had a community understanding of when we agree with which writers and when we don't agree with others that was well understood ... we'd have at least a common ground upon which to stand.
Until then, it might be what someone involved in the process intended, but it still doesn't make it what is written ... and that means that joe-other-gamer who doesn't read this thread will have a completely different interpretation about what should or shouldn't happened. Interpretation.
Until it's written down clearly, that's where we are. The only standard (again, I stress standard) we can all use uniformly is the published text(s).
If you are not, then kindly please stop making sly aspersions on the integrety of the person in question. Once again, no respect.
I'm making no judgements at all about who may or may not have written something.
I don't know who that is.
Joe-other-gamer doesn't know who that is.
The Swordsage entry doesn't say "Mr. Doe is the sole author so anytime he says anything, anywhere it over-rides what is written here".
Since I don't know that and it isn't in any of the official places I know to look, the only common ground there is that we the community can use is what is written in the book.
I'm not making apsersions, sly or otherwise, about anyone's integrity. I still dont' know who the singular author is, nor do I know anything about this statement he's made that it wasn't intended to work a certain way ...
... because it isn't in my book ... isn't on the official channels.
So, if you want to debate why something does or doesn't work ... great. Provide a source.
Right. I suppose you know everything there is to know about the Tome of Battle, then? Who did what, who corroborated with what, etc.? Seems that way with the way you are saying things.
Do you? Of course not, and neither does ChristopherGroves, and neither do I. But the fact remains, nothing is published by wizards that hasn't been exhaustively edited and playtested. Did you ever wonder why so many third party sources contain over or under powered material, and are generally shunned by these boards? If the same person who originally wrote the ToB, or any other book, were to write an independent sourcebook unaffiliated with WotC, it would still be an unreliable third party book, as it would lack the army of editors and playtesters employed by WotC.
The point is, the writer's view on how an ability should work has no impact in RAW, and unless your DM houserules this (and make no mistake, any change to an official sourcebook, even something as small as this, is a houserule), and until/if WotC releases an official errata, a swordsage's wis bonus to AC does not apply unless he is wearing light armor.
That being said, its perfectly reasonable to houserule that the bonus applies in no armor, and if the issue ever comes up in one of my games, I would make such a houserule. If this is the case with your DM, then its his decision to let it stack or not.
If you are not, then kindly please stop making sly aspersions on the integrety of the person in question. Once again, no respect.
Enjoying your moral high ground?
ChocoJeez, definitely. Makes my day much brighter.
ChocoJeez, definitely. Makes my day much brighter.
I'm glad for you.
ChrisGroves, I'll just leave it at that and let others judge for themselves. Your posts have been quite telling and proves my rant above quite succintly.
Seriously? Instead of defending your position, you just write off the other guy's?
Its the unjustified smugness of your comment that got to me, really.
Whether or not the sole-writer-person is the most awesome person in the world doesn't mean that everyone who has the book will read it the same way.
The only common ground is what is written. Provide the reference.
It has nothing to do with whether or not this reference you keep yapping about but not providing a link to is real or not or if the person who wrote it is the greatest person in the world. It has everything to do with the fact that said reference isn't in one of the channels that everyone knows about, so it's not something we can all use as common ground.
How you keep getting from there to some supposed lack-of-respect I don't know. I can't fathom how you're getting there.
Hmm.
Although, really, now that I think about it I guess I can see how you reach that conclusion.
You say it, so it must be true. Facts aside.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=683775
========
AC Bonus (Swordsage 2) - clarification
Q Alright, so the Swordsage's AC Bonus ability states "Starting at 2nd level, you can add you Wisdom modifer as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light armor, are encumbered, and do not use a shield."
Does this mean that you can't use this ability when you are unarmored, ONLY in light armor? By RAW it does but... is it a mistake for errata, should I inform my DM that it works with no armor as well?
A The intent is that you get this benefit whether you are wearing light armor or are unarmored. I will pass this issue along to the appropriate departments for potential errata treatment. Of course your DM is allowed to rule however he/she wishes. Thank you for bringing this to our attention!
========
Someone's already beaten me to it.
Oh, by the way, my dear friend, do you allow Swordsages to get (6+int mod)x6<- skill points at first level? Or is that a typo in your opinion?
Wrong. It is not the same source. The abilities are different. For something to be same, it must have the same parameters as each other. Monk and Ninja will not stack because they get the same parameters (does not work in any armour). Swordsage is patently different.
You are wrong.
They have the same name.
They function identically.
They don't stack because Wizards says they don't stack in Ask Wizards.
They both function in no armour because Wizards says they do in Ask Wizards.
In short, they are the same source and they don't stack. If you disagree, that is fine, but that is your house rule.
Complete Champion shows that these two bonuses (with the same name) do in fact stack.
And they actually don't function identically. Congratulations on once again having a narrow mind while performing something as simple as reading.
If a DM didn't read AskWizards, they wouldn't know that they don't stack, and could rule that they do in their games.
AskWizards is not the end-all-be-all for rules questions.
~P_X~
Complete Champion shows that these two bonuses (with the same name) do in fact stack.
Complete Divine show Sacred Fist AC Bonus stacks with Monk AC Bonus also in a stat block, so using "in a stat block it shows this or that" isn't a good proof.
If they have the same name and same source, they don't stack. That is a primary rule. If you choose to ignore it, fine. But it is ignoring a rule prohibiting stacking.
If you allow multiple "AC Bonus" abilities to stack, you have no legitimate case to prohibit Bracers of Armour and Full Plate from stacking.
If you allow multiple "AC Bonus" abilities to stack, you have no legitimate case to prohibit Bracers of Armour and Full Plate from stacking.
Man, I was trying to stay out of this, but that's just stupid.
Bracers of Armor, Mage Armor, Full Plate, and Studded Leather all provide an armor bonus to AC. Armor bonuses are clearly a bonus type.
All those other bonuses (monk, swordsage, whatever) are UNNAMED bonuses, just like the barbarian's strength bonus during a rage. You can tell they're unnamed bonuses because they have no names. Look at Mage Armor: "+4 armor bonus to AC." You see the word between +4 and bonus? That's the NAME of the bonus. Look at the monk: "monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC". Replacing the words "wisdom bonus (if any) with the number that the words stand in for, you get the same phrasing as with mage armor. The bonus is derived from wisdom, int or whatever, but is not named.
What is known is that unnamed bonuses from different sources stack, and from the same source do not stack. All we're debating here is whether or not these "AC Bonus" class features are the same source or whether they're different.
That armor analogy was just plain egregious. Risner, you've stepped over the line here. Go back on the other side.
But at the end of the day: I can't believe I stepped into this. Aren't some of you the ridiculous people arguing in the Tank-PrC Deepwarden thread?
But at the end of the day: I can't believe I stepped into this. Aren't some of you the ridiculous people arguing in the Tank-PrC Deepwarden thread?
At least two of them are the same.
When I DM games, I don't allow it. Neither do my friends who DM. But there are obviously reasonable arguments to support it. So buy your DM a beer and see what he thinks.
Complete Divine show Sacred Fist AC Bonus stacks with Monk AC Bonus also in a stat block, so using "in a stat block it shows this or that" isn't a good proof.
If they have the same name and same source, they don't stack. That is a primary rule. If you choose to ignore it, fine. But it is ignoring a rule prohibiting stacking.
If you allow multiple "AC Bonus" abilities to stack, you have no legitimate case to prohibit Bracers of Armour and Full Plate from stacking.
You really must like to argue pointlessly.
I didn't even use the stat block as my proof. So you are jumping to a false conclusion here. And the stat block doesn't even specify how the AC is allocated in the Sacred Fist entry (as it does in the Fist of the Forest entry). So once again, you are wrong.
How many times does someone have to tell you that you are wrong before you finally shut up?
~P_X~
So buy your DM a beer and see what he thinks.
This, right here, is the best option.
Not only are you bribing the DM, but you're getting him drunk at the same time! Genius!
...
Also, as an occasional DM, I wholeheartedly support this approach.
Now everyone can debate the merits of "Ask Wizards" ... but that is a written standard.
Exactly. Written, objective and published.
Now everyone can debate the merits of "Ask Wizards" ... but that is a written standard.
Do you allow 1st level Swordsages to have (6+Int mod)x6 skill points?
Here they say it doesn't stack. Is it official enough for you guys?
And it's trash for a number of reasons.
- Its reasoning is faulty; stacking is not determined by effect or by ability name, but by source. They haven't demonstrated that the latter follows from the former (taken as a set). Any number of classes have some ability called "AC Bonus". That doesn't mean that it's the same ability, and I suspect most folks would argue that the monk's version is entirely different from the dwarven defender's version. Yet they're still called "AC Bonus".
- Various class features and feats refer to specific versions of this ability. There are (AFAIK) at least ten classes that advance the monk's version, and two feats (Carmendine Monk and Tashalatora) that specifically affect the monk's version.
- The effects are in fact not identical either; the monk's version increases by +1 every five levels, while the swordsage's doesn't. Additionally, the swordsage's version functions in light armor, while the monk's doesn't.
- The ninja's version actually does have the same effect as the monk's (unlike, as above, the swordsage's). But the designers saw fit to expressly make them not stack. This implies that they would stack otherwise, had the designers not stepped in.
- Customer Service ruled otherwise in a previous thread on this topic. (Actually, they've ruled both ways, but they're about as official as Ask Wizards.)
- Wizards has implicitly noted that if such a ruling is made but shown to have faulty reasoning, then it is improper. This occurred with the Sage ruling that stated that you could become a templated creature.
Its reasoning is faulty; stacking is not determined by effect or by ability name, but by source. They haven't demonstrated that the latter follows from the former (taken as a set). Any number of classes have some ability called "AC Bonus". That doesn't mean that it's the same ability, and I suspect most folks would argue that the monk's version is entirely different from the dwarven defender's version. Yet they're still called "AC Bonus".
Just to reiterate this point, the ability is not actually called "AC Bonus." It is more properly called "Monk's AC Bonus" and "Swordsage's AC Bonus." There are a number of places (that I could list if I weren't so lazy) that actually refer to the ability in that manner: "Monk's AC Bonus."
People asked who wrote the rules how they're supposed to work, and they answered.
We're in the CO boards; we interpret the rules when it's necessary, but when they officially come out and state how things are supposed to work, that's all that matters.
If they put the clause "this doesn't stack with a monk's AC bonus" in the description of the ability, would you question it? It may be arbitrary, but it's official. End of the story.
Now, you can houserule it. That's fine.
But if someone asks if they stack, we give the official answer.
"No, they don't stack".
Ask wizards and custserve is about as reliable as a chocolate teapot.....nothing they say is considered official around here.
Cust serv is often messy, specifically 'cause they often give different answers to the same questions.
Ask wizards, however, is quite official (as is the sage), and it's often used to update the game FAQs.
If you don't like it, it's fine.
But since we're discussing the official ruling here, you're wrong.
If you want to discuss the merits of a rule rather than the rule itself, I believe the rules forum would be more appropriate.
Cust serv is often messy, specifically 'cause they often give different answers to the same questions.
Ask wizards, however, is quite official (as is the sage), and it's often used to update the game FAQs.
If you don't like it, it's fine.
But since we're discussing the official ruling here, you're wrong.
If you want to discuss the merits of a rule rather than the rule itself, I believe the rules forum would be more appropriate.
Honestly, your view is not going to be taken well here. Ask Wizards and the Sage are not official rules. The FAQ is not official either. Those columns/whatever the FAQ is, are designed to help remove conflict in a game. Someone sends in a question thats messing up their game, and they get an answer to help them solve it.
It is not more or less "official" than anything else on the internet. Its as "official" as any stickied FAQ on any forum here. It provides advice and houserules to remedy problems, not "this is the rules." If it was, then they'd use quotes and page numbers. More often than not, the Sage especially, just gives a houserule, but never indicates that what he's saying is not anywhere in actual RAW.
For example, one of the things that always gets me is the tangent in the FAQ about tripping snakes. It claims that creatures with no limbs can drop prone or stand up as a free action because they don't really have to "stand." Please show me where that's a rule. Show me even where it tells you how many limbs (if any) a creature has in the rules.
Anyway, the RAW rules are:
1) D&D Books published by Wizards of the Coast (and by extension the SRD)
2) Errata
Thats it. Dragon Magazine offers houserules and other (relatively) balanced options. The FAQ is the same. His advice is often good, but not always correct. If the stuff covered in the FAQ were official, it'd become errata.
Besides, the overwhelming opinion here on whether they stack or not is:
"Ask your DM."
Those columns/whatever the FAQ is
This is what I see as the relevant text. The FAQ is an official document released by Wizards of the Coast to answer rules questions. Now how is that not official?
This is what I see as the relevant text. The FAQ is an official document released by Wizards of the Coast to answer rules questions. Now how is that not official?
Its purpose is to clear up murky rules, not replace them. If you want replacement rules, look at the errata. That is what it is for.
Thus, if the FAQ contradicts existing rules, it MUST be ignored. However, if the original rules was not clear, then you follow the FAQ the best you can.
The Errata, however, means you follow it regardless of existing rules. Period.
[The FAQ's] purpose is to clear up murky rules, not replace them. If you want replacement rules, look at the errata. That is what it is for.
Thus, if the FAQ contradicts existing rules, it MUST be ignored. However, if the original rules was not clear, then you follow the FAQ the best you can.
The Errata, however, means you follow it regardless of existing rules. Period.
QFT. As above, they've been expressly wrong before, in which case folks (especially those here) corrected them and ignored the improper rulings. Such as with the debate about whether Polymorph could make you into a templated being or not.
However, if the original rules was not clear, then you follow the FAQ the best you can.
Again, relevant text. If the rules were clear, debates about them wouldn't pop up.
Again, relevant text. If the rules were clear, debates about them wouldn't pop up.
Actually, the rules are pretty clear. Its just that a lot of people aren't sure about what stacks with what.
These 2 abilities have different names, and their bonuses are both unnamed, so by RAW (in the books, discounting Ask Wizards), they stack.
However, it is completely up to your DM. If they want to trust Ask Wizards, thats fine, but if they don't, thats also fine. Personally, when I DM, I stick to books/errata only, and make judgment calls on anything that isn't perfectly clear, but if you're DM disagrees with this method, its his choice.
The end to this entire argument should be:
Ask your DM
Actually, the rules are pretty clear. Its just that a lot of people aren't sure about what stacks with what.
These 2 abilities have different names, and their bonuses are both unnamed, so by RAW (in the books, discounting Ask Wizards), they stack.
However, it is completely up to your DM. If they want to trust Ask Wizards, thats fine, but if they don't, thats also fine. Personally, when I DM, I stick to books/errata only, and make judgment calls on anything that isn't perfectly clear, but if you're DM disagrees with this method, its his choice.
The end to this entire argument should be:
Ask your DM
They have EXACTLY THE SAME name. "AC Bonus".
They have EXACTLY THE SAME name. "AC Bonus".
So does the bonus provided by Fist of the Forest.
And yet it stacks with the bonus provided by Monk.
This only shows that AskWizards is once again mistaken.
~P_X~
The Ninja's ability has the same name too. However, for some strange and wonderous reason, the people who wrote it decided they needed to call out specifically that it does not stack with Monk.
Tome of Battle has no such claim, with either monk, nor ninja.
Fist of the Forest has the same name, and it stacks... doesn't call out that it doesn't.
Bottom Line: Ask Wizards is wrong.
Solution: Ask your DM
They have EXACTLY THE SAME name. "AC Bonus".
There are any number of distinct abilities called "AC Bonus", some of which belie this by specifically naming their bonuses. Dwarven Defender, for instance, has a class feature called "AC Bonus", but it's a dodge bonus to AC rather than an "AC Bonus" bonus to AC. "AC Bonus" itself is just a convenient shorthand for representing, well, a miscellaneous bonus to AC.
Again, relevant text. If the rules were clear, debates about them wouldn't pop up.
What relevant text? The one stating that they are NOT THE SAME???
There are any number of distinct abilities called "AC Bonus", some of which belie this by specifically naming their bonuses. Dwarven Defender, for instance, has a class feature called "AC Bonus", but it's a dodge bonus to AC rather than an "AC Bonus" bonus to AC. "AC Bonus" itself is just a convenient shorthand for representing, well, a miscellaneous bonus to AC.
The big difference there is the ability may have the same name (see below), but not the same source (and they don't work the same.) So even if they have the same name, they wouldn't interfere.
I suppose the debate centers on what exactly is the name of the Monk's AC bonus?
If it is called "AC Bonus", then it doesn't stack with any other similar "AC Bonus" class ability of which the Ninja, FotF, and Swordsage are examples by RAW.
If it is called "Monk's AC Bonus", then they stack unless otherwise stated by RAW.
Which side you fall on this debate, will dictate which stance you take.
What relevant text? The one stating that they are NOT THE SAME???
The relevant text where you say the rules are clear. They're no, otherwise this thread and all others like it wouldn't exist. Clear to you != Clear.
The relevant text where you say the rules are clear. They're no, otherwise this thread and all others like it wouldn't exist. Clear to you != Clear.
This thread exist because some people have got... 'creative' interpretation of every day words. For example, the word "same". To me, for two things to be the "same", they would have to be identical in all respects (restrictions, abilities, bonuses, penalties, name, etc.). To some people, as long as ONE of those is the same, the whole thing is considered the same.
And therein lies the bone of contention.
This thread exist because some people have got... 'creative' interpretation of every day words. For example, the word "same". To me, for two things to be the "same", they would have to be identical in all respects (restrictions, abilities, bonuses, penalties, name, etc.). To some people, as long as ONE of those is the same, the whole thing is considered the same.
And therein lies the bone of contention.
To you same means identical, to others it doesn't. Looks to me like everything isn't completely clear.
To you same means identical, to others it doesn't. Looks to me like everything isn't completely clear.
If not identical, then what, exactly? Would you say that a bat is the same as a bird because both have 2 wings?
Where in PHB or DMG does it state that the same bonus stacks but not from the same source?
All i get when reading through is the section under Combining Magical Effects. Which talks about stacking of spells and magical effects which does no apply to abilities. Everything about whether it came from the same source, they are refering to spells. So it would not be RAW to extrapolate this to abilities, as they are neither spells nor magical effects. But of course, I might have missed some entries somewhere in other rulebooks. If so please do let me know. Also, it is only here that they mentioned that unnamed bonus stacks with one another, but once again, this is under a section that describes how spells interact with one another and not abiilities.
In DMG, there is clearly a specific list of bonus types. IIRC, they have been consistent and there are no other bonus types introduced anywhere. Meaning that, any bonus are either one of these or unnamed (which is not one of the bonus types in DMG).
It is also my belief that the bonus stacking is based on what type of bonus it is and not the name of the ability that gives the bonus. The DMG as I mentioned earlier states spcifically what types of bonuses they are.
Looking at my findings, there is nowhere in the rules that specify how abilities that provide an unnamed bonus interact with one another, other than what is stated in the ability entry itself. This means that it is up to DM interpretation or Wizards clarification.
In that aspect, I respect WotC's ruling through FAQ, Ask Wizards and the Errata since if I don't trust the makers of the game who else should I trust? In fact, I have always thought the FAQ as an official ruling. Even though they were wrong about some things a few times, and was clarified later on, they are after all human. If one day, they made a wrong errata entry, would we stop relying on the errata as well? Honestly, they made this game, let's give them the respect that is due, and honor their answers and clarifications. If we see that there might be a blatant error in printing, point it out to them and use our common logic to house rule it first. If rules need to be clarified, ask Wizards and get their latest answers. If they contridict with past answers, point it out to them and get an answer.
We should not be here arguing, when it is clear that neither one of us will be the official ruling anyway.
If not identical, then what, exactly? Would you say that a bat is the same as a bird because both have 2 wings?
Are all of one species of bat the same even though they're not identical?
Are all of one species of bat the same even though they're not identical?
Ah, and so out comes the "let's split hairs until I can catch you out" line of argument. Pfft! Sorry, not playing. Just answer the question.
In that aspect, I respect WotC's ruling through FAQ, Ask Wizards and the Errata since if I don't trust the makers of the game who else should I trust? In fact, I have always thought the FAQ as an official ruling. Even though they were wrong about some things a few times, and was clarified later on, they are after all human. If one day, they made a wrong errata entry, would we stop relying on the errata as well? Honestly, they made this game, let's give them the respect that is due, and honor their answers and clarifications. If we see that there might be a blatant error in printing, point it out to them and use our common logic to house rule it first. If rules need to be clarified, ask Wizards and get their latest answers. If they contridict with past answers, point it out to them and get an answer. (Emphasis Mine)
If they made a "wrong errata entry," I think the world would implode. Errata can't be wrong. Thats what makes it errata. Errata are rules. They are 100% ironclad and official. As official as the books themselves. They can't be wrong, because they are what we use to judge right and wrong.
On the other hand, ask wizards, the FAQ, and Rules of the Game all can be wrong, and have been in the past.
Here's an example:
Ask Wizards: 04/15/2008
"Q: Can a ring of counterspells counter a fireball spell or other area effect if the wearer is in the area of effect itself?
A: The ring of counterspells only counters spells that are cast on you, not necessarily a spell that you are affected by. So if you were the target of a fireball, then the ring would counter it; however, if you were just standing too close to the intended target, you would be affected normally and the ring of counterspells would not come into play."
Uh, how can you be the target of a spell with no target entry? It affects an area. What makes you the target if it hits a 20' burst? Furthermore, we know this because of a rule (and I can link you to the relevant SRD sections or refer you to PHB pages if you insist). This answer is just beyond ridiculous, and I can't understand how people could defend rulings that come from a source like this.
Anyway, as for asking CustServe for their "latest answer," every answer they give includes the line "Ask your DM." Every single one. I've never seen a controversial CustServe that didn't include some line about DM's having final say.
In other words, hopefully, the guy who actually needs to know the answer to this has long since asked his DM and made plans accordingly, while everyone else left is:
1) Enjoying arguing RAW/RAI by looking for references and whatnot in the actual rules and talking about semantincs and fun debate stuff like that.
2) Going down in a blaze of painful to watch glory as they argue about bats and other such nonsense.
I am just saying that sometimes they are human. Like us, we sometimes unknowingly overlook the rules during character creation or makes mistakes in interpreting certain abilities when DMing. Sometimes, they just try too hard or give the wrong examples to give an explanation. Like that example, they are right on the ruling of the ring of counterspells (wrt only on spells cast on you), but are just wrong in terms of the example or explanation used. The guy could have forgotten about the fact that fireball has no target entry, or overlooked it. But that doesn't mean that they are wrong all the time.
Look, all I am saying here is that as a DM i would feel what Ask Wizards say should hold more water over other players in an optimization board simply because they created the game and should have the utmost neutrality, and at least more official.
Countless times I have seen DM vs Player incidents where the player will quote what happens in these boards or other boards in order to present their case that a certain certain ability/combo work and refuses to budge from his position. But they are forgetting two things, 1) the DM decides as it is his story and only he knows the full extent of letting that ability/combo go the way it is supposed to and 2) things on the board aren't official but are just opinions on what things are supposed to be.
Perhaps, when CustServ tells you to refer to your DM, there is some truth in that. In a role-playing game driven by the DM, isn't that the correct solution? Isn't D&D supposed to be imaginative and mostly makeshift with the rules as guidelines to follow? Heck, if you refer to the prestige class section general text in DMG, it states that not all PrCs are available and it should be up to the DM to restrict and alter to suit their campaigns.
In a nutshell, we as optimizers, should be able to be mature enough to recognise that certain rules are not clear and there will be others who will interpret them differently. Those rules need to be highlighted to the masses if the build/suggestion includes them and sidenoted that these are liable for rule interpretation variation and asking your DM first should be encouraged.
Our priority should be optimizing and not rules lawyering. If interpretation of rules is questioned as we optimize, then let them consult their DM instead of trying to convince them that our interpretation of the rules are correct.
I sincerely apologize if this post offends anyone. And as a disclaimer, these are all my opinions and I do not expect anyone to believe the same things as I do, but I do hope it makes sense to some.
At least two of them are the same.
I'll come in, just for completeness' sake.
I'm gonna agree with the RaI/RaW posted early in the thread.
You can either be RaW about it, and you don't get the Swordsage bonus unless you're in light armor, thus making it very difficult to stack, but able if you can pull off getting your monk bonus while wearing light armor.
Or you can go RaI, and get Swordsage while in light or no armor, but they don't stack.
Ah, and so out comes the "let's split hairs until I can catch you out" line of argument. Pfft! Sorry, not playing. Just answer the question.
They're the same in that they are both flying animals creatures, and they're different in that they're different species.
This answer is just beyond ridiculous, and I can't understand how people could defend rulings that come from a source like this.
Because noone is infallible, no matter how much they might believe otherwise.
They're the same in that they are both flying animals creatures, and they're different in that they're different species.
So you are saying a bat is a bird. Right...
So you are saying a bat is a bird. Right...
Oh yes, that's exactly what I said.
What an interesting way of interpreting things that you have.
Oh yes, that's exactly what I said.
What an interesting way of interpreting things that you have.
Of course it is. You said they were the same. Can it be anything else?
[sidenote: I can play the "stoopid game" too, you know]
Of course it is. You said they were the same. Can it be anything else?
[sidenote: I can play the "stoopid game" too, you know]
If you treat the relationship between birds and bats the same as the relationship between the abilities of the Monk and Swordsage of course you're not going to get a straight answer. It's absurd.
I gave a perfectly logical reasoning as to why it is not the same as the word "same" is defined, and all I get from the other camp is the above type of drivel.
A Risner by any other name...
I rest my case.
I gave a perfectly logical reasoning as to why it is not the same as the word "same" is defined, and all I get from the other camp is the above type of drivel.
A Risner by any other name...
I'm not in any camp. When have I argued a side? I haven't. You say it's clear, I say it obviously isn't.
And I don't care what you think about your "perfectly logical resoning" in all honesty.
A Risner by any other name...
:heehee
And I don't care what you think about your "perfectly logical resoning" in all honesty.
Precisely why I didn't bother answering you with the novel I am quite capable of writing on the subject. It was obvious from your very first "refutation" that this was your attitude. I have no desire to create another Deepwarden thread for you to troll.
Winning an argument over the internet is like winning the special olympics, no matter who wins, your still retarded.
FACT: The ONLY solution to this problem, that both sides will accept, is to ask your DM
FACT: No matter HOW MUCH you believe they should, or should not stack, people will still argue, making this exercice base and pointless
FACT: We should really agree that both sides have points and let it be that.
ALso: While they are sometimes wrong, we will try to abide by ask wizards, custserv, and the sage. They are officials who help with rules, and i respect their advice a lot. Even when their wrong, it diminishes the work they do when you guys react that way. this is a variation of one of the 10 commandments of practical optimisation.
Now if you believe that I should shut up, because YOU are RIGHT, and THEY aren't, than by all means flame away, i don't think I'll read this thread again anyways.
After 1 1/2 pages of people calling each other various things and arguing about a pointless thing. I decide to write this:
Winning an argument over the internet is like winning the special olympics, no matter who wins, your still retarded.
FACT: The ONLY solution to this problem, that both sides will accept, is to ask your DM
FACT: No matter HOW MUCH you believe they should, or should not stack, people will still argue, making this exercice base and pointless
FACT: We should really agree that both sides have points and let it be that.
ALso: While they are sometimes wrong, we will try to abide by ask wizards, custserv, and the sage. They are officials who help with rules, and i respect their advice a lot. Even when their wrong, it diminishes the work they do when you guys react that way. this is a variation of one of the 10 commandments of practical optimisation.
Now if you believe that I should shut up, because YOU are RIGHT, and THEY aren't, than by all means flame away, i don't think I'll read this thread again anyways.
+1
I only got involved because I hate bad argumentation. Obviously that makes me a troll, even though I'm not involved with the Deepwarden thread as noone in it will listen to this kind of reason.
I don't have a dog in this fight and I haven't read through every post once things started getting testy, but I was wondering if this link has any relevance? http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060904a
Hope this helps!
Hi,
I don't have a dog in this fight and I haven't read through every post once things started getting testy, but I was wondering if this link has any relevance? http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060904a
Hope this helps!
That was already mentioned, and (as earlier) the reasoning is flawed in multiple ways (the names may not be identical, and the effects definitely are not). It's like using "1=2" to prove something; whether the end result is correct or not, faulty reasoning nullifies the validity of your proof.