There was the response about Nightsticks and how they wouldn't stack (due to being Bonuses from the Same Source). There was a big discussion here about it, with the general consensus (ie, everyone but risner) being that they didn't actually grant bonuses, but they still might not stack. (Don't post about it here; it already has a thread.)
Then there was today's response, which not only employs some doublespeak but also uses some unsubstantiated claims.
Q: Does a monk with a monk’s belt and the Superior Unarmed Strike feat benefit from both, or does just the highest benefit apply?
A: In this case, the better benefit will prevail. These effects technically do not have a bonus, so they would not use the stacking rules. One effect will end up overshadowing the other.
Target my FIREBALLS!
Edit: I think the 'S' on his shirt is for 'Sage.'
Sounds fishy with respect to the Nightsticks, then, doesn't it?
Yes.
There is a weak argument based on the "as a monk of 5 levels higher" text implying "than your normal level" at the end. They know how to write this logic (see all the undead "x levels higher than your actual level") so I think there is firm ground to suggest the RAW more likely means they stact (SUS & Monk Belt.)
the most recent Arcane Thesis answer, which provides no actual answers to the real debate on whether the restriction against "negative metamagic"
This is what I find most sad about their attempt to answer the questions put to them. They don't seem to understand the question being asked. This isn't the only one they answered a different question than was being asked. At last count there were 4 answered that didn't address the question.
Sanctum Spell was shot down in
So was Precocious Apprentice, though
But there's also the Versatile Spellcaster response
The dichotomy of these positions are just bizarre.
the sloppy responses that look like they were dashed off in five minutes
It doesn't appear they care about 3.5 now, so I wouldn't be surprised if weren't fired off in 5 minutes. I've toyed with the thought of asking them directly at a Gencon (say august) if they would entertain being contracted to supply proper errata at the hourly rate of their choice. I honestly don't care how they rule, I just wish some of these issues would get a ruling that is solid and direct while being true to the question.
There was the response about Nightsticks and how they wouldn't stack (due to being Bonuses from the Same Source).
Clearly the Sage believes a bonus is defined as anything that gives extras no matter what the forum members think. Which in a way, means he accepts points as well as a few people in here do >.>
today's response, ... Apparently these effects don't grant bonuses. Despite using very similar language to Nightsticks.
Step back and reread.
1. The Sage said nightstick + nightstick don't stack because they are the same source.
2. The Sage claims A & B overlap and thus one is ignored.
The Monk's Belt item effect is not in anyway related source wise to Superior Unarmed Strike's feat based effect so you cannot compaire his reasons like you are trying.
There's the Strongheart Vest/Hellfire Warlock deal, which has already been established to be a ham-handed stealth nerf more than a discerning look at the rules. (Again, it already has a thread.)
I missed the "The strongheart vest protects you from attacks that would reduce your ability scores." part my first time around too. The attack part is RAW and the Sage stuck to it. Just take a level of Binder to make up for it ;)
There's the most recent Arcane Thesis answer, ... It instead just answers something that derives trivially from the errata.
Quoting the errata is bad? For such a RAW claiming guy, you seem to want more than rules & errata as reasons...
Sanctum Spell was shot down in a shoddily written response. (The text given talks about a spell called Sanctum instead of the Sanctum Spell feat.)
I don't know where Sanctum Spell is found so I can't look this one up fully. However, It would seem anything with a caster level can take Extra Spell. Some monsters can take this and learn a spell of a lower level than none, or maybe pick up a new SP ability, idk. It needs Errata.
So was Precocious Apprentice, though that response leaves a GIANT loophole around. (What if you can always hit the CL check with, say, Arcane Mastery?)
The Sage spoke of the inherent ability to cast rather than your casting chances while wearing armor. Making the check all the time changes nothing. While I don't agree with the reason, this one and Extend Spell both follow the train of thought that only class levels, not items or spells can be used to meet class or feat prerequisites. Is there a rule supporting this at all somewhere?
But there's also the Versatile Spellcaster response, which says that you can effectively gain higher-level spell slots despite your progression not going that high at the time.
No it don't. Versatile Spellcaster grants the ability to burn level lever spell slots to cast a higher level spell. Not once in any of its text does it say it gives you a higher level spell slot.
people who still care what the sage says are living in some kind of bizarro world
But... in the Bizarro World, the Sage makes sense, right?
So his logic goes like this:
A is C, even though the rules say it isn't.
B isn't C, even though it's the same as A.
A follows C rules, because it's C.
B doesn't follow C rules, because it's not C, even though it's the same as A, which is the same as C.
B is limited exactly as if it was C, but it's not. Seriously.
The answers he has given recently...
It would literally take effort to make them any more nonsensical and baseless.
But... in the Bizarro World, the Sage makes sense, right?
But since it's the Bizarro world, he probably talks like a cave man, so his rulings only make sense if you are a caveman. Which still wouldn't help most of us.
Clearly the Sage believes a bonus is defined as anything that gives extras no matter what the forum members think. Which in a way, means he accepts points as well as a few people in here do >.>
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say with the last part of that, but fact is that the nightstick providing a bonus is - at best - an interpretation and should be acknowledged as such.
The attack part is RAW and the Sage stuck to it. Just take a level of Binder to make up for it ;)
The attack part is flavor text, not rules text.
Quoting the errata is bad? For such a RAW claiming guy, you seem to want more than rules & errata as reasons...
That tone is unnecessary. The complaint was not that he is quoting rules, but that he is not addressing the key issue, but instead focuses on a triviality that is already explained in the errata.
The sage's answer: You could house-rule it. It seems drastic to give a character free equipment at first level...
Needless to say, my brain exploded and I haven't been the same since...
people who still care what the sage says are living in some kind of bizarro world, you folks need to spend less time reading the intraweb and more time actually playing d&d
This
I think threads like this are just wholly some form of mental masturbation now. Of course, one could say the same thing about posting on these forums at all, or even about playing D&D.
I've been ignoring the sage for years. I think most other people who post on here have too.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there a disclaimer in the text of Superior Unarmed Strike that says it does not stack with a Monk's Belt? I seem to recall that text being in the effect and have always made my rulings based on that memory...
There is no such disclaimer. And, in fact, ruling they don't stack is akin to ruling that improved turning and an item that raises your effective turning level don't stack, which, frankly, is Bull.
There is no such disclaimer. And, in fact, ruling they don't stack is akin to ruling that improved turning and an item that raises your effective turning level don't stack, which, frankly, is Bull.
That isn't an identical comparison, because the wording of the various turning abilities ("turn as one level higher than your actual level") do have a reasonable case to show they could be similar to Monkey Grip/Powerful Build stacking issues.
In the case of SUS/Monk's Belt, there is no overt working such as "than your actual level".
How's this.
Don't read him.
Seriously, reading him gives him power, like using Voldemort's name.
If you want a serious answer to rules questions, debate their facts, citing sources. When there's something like Stone Warden or Nightsticks, both sides are going to houserule/LGS argue it anyway, so if we can't come to a clear debate, have a final post or a new thread stating "These are the two sides, we cannot come to a clear consensus, this is the pro/con on each" and close the threads.
Seriously, 3.5 game balance is an oxymoron. The point of 3.5 is that there's so much splat you can do damn near anything, with the backlash being 4th, and the inability to not follow one of a set number of talent trees, though you have the option to "respec DPS" if you need for your guild later.
I mean, uh, retrain your ineffective/unwanted powers to conform with your paragon path/epic destiny so that they have a greater degree of synergy.
Right.
Look, 3.5 will only be as balanced as we make it. We all know that nightstick stacking is an abuse, even though it's RAW (and by abuse, I mean broken. CoDzilla didn't need this, and frowns on our shenanigans even as it reaps the benefits). We all know that Hellfire Warlock/Strongheart Vest is a very strong combo to use with an otherwise lackluster class (and before you start arguing the warlock abuses and endurance vs. versatility, warlock vs. straight caster at most levels above 5, 7 if you're really hard up, loses out on both fronts given your typical encounter structure), bordering on broken. But it's RAW. Monk's Belt + Superior Unarmed Strike? 9 levels above normal Monk level? I get 2d10 at 11th-20th level (and before I get flamed on this, if there is some variety of post-20th monk damage progression, I haven't seen it, though I admit to be thinly read on epic monk progresssion)? Woo. Throw me a parade. It's an abuse, but it's an acceptable abuse based on the fact that straight monk, for the most part, tends to suck. We tolerate it, because it makes for interesting concepts, and that's what 3.5 is about.
If you want balance, rule the other way, and state that you're doing so for your vision of 'balance'. Every GM has a different tolerance for 'brokenness' and every GM draws the line a different way and in a different place.
Our biggest problem was, when we put the book together, we didn't ask for the RAW interpretation, and the balanced interpretation separately. We just asked for the answers, and that's what the Sage gave us. His answers.
Stop listening to his answers. Simple. Easy. Concise.
Lost, the point made in the OP is that neither SuS/belt nor nightsticks grant bonuses per the rules (don't start Risner, res the thread if you must, but you're the only one still finding fault with the rules in that regard), yet he limits them each by the stacking rules while at the same time specifically saying that one is not a bonus.
Neither of these items provides extra bonuses in multiples.
So all things are a bonus in his mind, but nightsticks don't have a numbered bonus.
The rules for stacking (Rules Compendium p21) do not allow untyped bonuses to stack if they come from the same source. However, this does lead to an interesting question: could a character use a nightstick and then grab a second nightstick to use?
Fluff that explains same stacking rules ending with a 'does it stack since the stick don't provide a numbered bonus?' comment.
The Sage recommends Dungeon Masters limit the nightstick and similar items to one a day.
His ruling in the end is a suggestion to DMs, not a "They don't stack its RAW!" like many of you are trying to claim he said.
Next his monk's belt answer.
These effects technically do not have a bonus,
Agrees with the same concept from the nightsticks, they both lack a numbered bonus.
so they would not use the stacking rules.
It seems like he answered his own question since from before.
One effect will end up overshadowing the other.
This part has nothing to do with bonuses. Same effect spells, and that is effect (if it helps, think double reverse gravity), overlap each other rather than enhancing the first (outside exceptions).
My point on disagreeing is one is a feat based and does not use spell rules at all. Yours seems to be claiming he said Nightstacks are a bonus (he didn't) and he some how said by RAW Nightsticks don't stack (he suggested, therefore, he didn't) which means his SuS ruling is against everything he said before (it don't).
***
@ Tytalus, both parts on the vest people use to argue with are part of the rules text. It is an even argument, you as a player (or DM) favors one side, and WotC favors the other. Both are right, but it is not enough for you since your side is not on the main page receiving official recognition so you have to post about it all the time...
***
@FloatLikeABee, see above image, They can't stop. They have to find something to correct and in the poor Sage's case, he is effectively telling them they are reading it wrong which only makes it worse.
Plus, there's the small chance that someone at WotC may actually pay attention. Though I'm not holding my breath there.
LPWDNW, the regulars here understand that the Sage is just some guy on the Internet with a bit more clout than we do but rather less respect for consistency and professionalism.
More than one person acts as the Sage, and he is far more professional than the people that post threads like this.
The issue is that many folks out there DON'T know this and are apt to treat the Sage's word as law by default.
If I were new, or had a good DM, I'd have to treat my DMs word as law, not a single thing said by this forum, or the Sage says matters. A good DM would place running his game smoothly ahead of wanting to act like a lawyer. And I'm too distracted to go anywhere with this right now. Maybe later.
Point summery, not everyone cares to play lawyer instead of a good D&D game, the Sage, like a DM, tends to not follow things to the letter because, quite frankly, most do not have a degree in law or care to. Nor is 3E even made in a way to do so.
Plus, there's the small chance that someone at WotC may actually pay attention. Though I'm not holding my breath there.
Good, since you would die if you did >.>
I'm sure that I could do a better job on many of those responses and at less pay. Hell, I'm sure that many of the CO folks could!
I think threads like this are just wholly some form of mental masturbation now.
Linked
If I were new, or had a good DM, I'd have to treat my DMs word as law, not a single thing said by this forum, or the Sage says matters. A good DM would place running his game smoothly ahead of wanting to act like a lawyer. And I'm too distracted to go anywhere with this right now.
It's not about what the Sage says. Or about what the people on this forum say. It's about being logically consistent with reality. Be that the rules of the game or of the (presumably) English language. If my DM tried to give me a +chair bonus to attack or called out my fireballs as targetting (or did any number of other nonsensical things the Sage has done), I would not regard his word as law. The DM cannot override the English language or the rules of reality.
And what does, "A good DM would place running his game smoothly ahead of wanting to act like a lawyer." mean?
You're making a truth statement based on your own subjective opinion. Those two things together don't jive with me.
All I heard was "Waaaahhhhhhh". Did the Sage take away your broken toy?
Fireballs. They target.
Edit: Things that we know:
The Sage cannot change the rules.
The Sage often says things that contradict the rules.
The Sage can only be correct when the answers he gives are already found in the rules.
All I heard was "Waaaahhhhhhh". Did the Sage take away your broken toy?
And we have Troll.
And a poor one at that.
I wish that the Sage(s) took these answers seriously still.
I wish that from the beginning answers were clearly denoted as given 'per the rules' and 'per recommendation/intent.'
I wish that all the answers that claimed to be by the rules were actually correct.
Now if only I had a CoI so I could call that Djinn...
If my DM tried to give me a +chair bonus to attack or called out my fireballs as targetting (or did any number of other nonsensical things the Sage has done), I would not regard his word as law. The DM cannot override the English language or the rules of reality.
Are you serious? The DM is god in his world and can change/manipulate anything he wants. The way you phrase this makes you sound like a spoiled child.
If you don't like what the sage says, don't pay attention. No one does anyway. But be serious, if you disregard your DMs word, you are a pitiful player. Whatever happened to flexible, adaptable players? Sounds like too many D&D people play those silly online games and forget what D&D is really about.
Just in case you were wondering, no I'm not going to tell you what its about.
-AS-
Are you serious? The DM is god in his world and can change/manipulate anything he wants. The way you phrase this makes you sound like a spoiled child.
He can also sit at an empty table, while his players all go find a good DM. I've seen just as many, or more, DMs who act like "spoiled children" as I have players.
I simply don't play with people that act like jerks and try to ram their own agendas down my throat, or lord some kind of "authority" over me, whether they are DMs or players.
It's a freakin' game. I have to deal with enough power-tripping BS in my real life with bosses, the government, etc. I don't have to put up with that crap in things I do for fun.
He can also sit at an empty table, while his players all go find a good DM. I've seen just as many, or more, DMs who act like "spoiled children" as I have players.
I simply don't play with people that act like jerks and try to ram their own agendas down my throat, or lord some kind of "authority" over me, whether they are DMs or players.
It's a freakin' game. I have to deal with enough power-tripping BS in my real life with bosses, the government, etc. I don't have to put up with that crap in things I do for fun.
Omg +2
You are exactly right. The Dm isn't GOD the God mentality would make me just not play with you, people have lost friend because of this.
FYI--I haven't been doing Sage Advice for several months. It's handled mostly via Game Support, with occasional requests to R&D for info.
What exactly "Sage Advice" will look like for 4E has been under discussion for quite some time, but I don't expect it to be the same as it's been before. Keep your eyes on the D&D site in upcoming weeks.
Perhaps this is the reason the answers have been increasingly ill-conceived.
Seriously, reading him gives him power, like using Voldemort's name.
Random sidenote: But actually NOT using his name gives him power.
It's just like words that we refer by their first letter-word. I'm sure you all can think of a few of them. By not saying them, we give the word more power. By not using his name, they gave his name power and him more power by causing fear. Something unnamed is unknown and thus scary.
Less Random Aside: Though not reading the Sage is good advice on all accounts. I really hated that the "lol look at these stupid questions" article actually had a few good questions that should have been addressed.
And if I had not disliked the sage before, his ruling on warmage/rainbow servant made me hate him even more.
I simply don't play with people that act like jerks and try to ram their own agendas down my throat, or lord some kind of "authority" over me, whether they are DMs or players.
So DMs cannot make rulings that infringe upon their players sensitive feelings? Its a shame that DMs have to make rulings that affect the entire game world they play in. If 1 player loses out on something or 1 scenario is ruled against, does that now mean the DM is acting like a jerk and ram agendas down your throat? Perhaps the DM simply wants to make the game fun for everyone and hopes to remove certain features from the game that do not enhance it. The DM should be more concerned about the overall world and adventure than a single player using a poorly/incompletely worded/designed feature. 3.5 is full of garbage that seems designed by a 9 year old, is it really the DMs fault for checking those problems? Sure the Sage has some pretty crappy rulings, but are they so much more ridiculous than some of the erratas and FAQ entries?
-AS-
So DMs cannot make rulings that infringe upon their players sensitive feelings? Its a shame that DMs have to make rulings that affect the entire game world they play in. If 1 player loses out on something or 1 scenario is ruled against, does that now mean the DM is acting like a jerk and ram agendas down your throat? Perhaps the DM simply wants to make the game fun for everyone and hopes to remove certain features from the game that do not enhance it. The DM should be more concerned about the overall world and adventure than a single player using a poorly/incompletely worded/designed feature. 3.5 is full of garbage that seems designed by a 9 year old, is it really the DMs fault for checking those problems? Sure the Sage has some pretty crappy rulings, but are they so much more ridiculous than some of the erratas and FAQ entries?
-AS-
I think you're trying to start an arguement for the sake of arguing. He was talking about DMs that make sweeping changes that don't make sense. If my DM told me Nightsticks don't stack, then Nightsticks don't stack and I'll just find another way to get Extra Turn Undeads.
There is a vast difference between being a dungeon master and having a superiority complex. Let's examine the two.
A dungeon master wants to involve his friends in a game where they make characters to kill monsters and take their stuff according to a set of rules published in a plethora of books; occasionally, something that creates a vast power difference pops up and decides how to best handle it, taking the group's feelings and the game into consideration.
A person with a superiority complex wants to involve his friends in a game where he is a god and have his friends play out a story he created to a T by employing heavyhanded and abritary rule changes; killing monsters and taking their stuff may or may not apply here as sometimes the monsters kill you and take your stuff. He thinks it's ironic role-reversal.
This is what PXY is talking about.