PDA

View Full Version : Ability to AC stacking.



Chuckthedwarf
2011-02-22, 10:16 PM
I'm not sure X Ability to AC thing ever stacks from different classes.
Unless there's some errata I'm not aware of, I'm pretty sure Constitution wouldn't apply to your AC twice. There's a pretty good precedent in cases of Monk, Ninja and Swordsage - it always says that it doesn't stack, so there's no good reason to believe that it would in other cases where it's not noted, in my honest opinion. That just reeks of cheese, it's like saying that you can have a magic rocket launcher because nowhere in the rules it says that you can't.

Yet a lot of people in the forums claim that it should work.

So, who's right?

And I'm only talking about the cases where the same ability is supposedly added to AC more then once.

Curmudgeon
2011-02-22, 10:23 PM
The ability used isn't relevant. It's always the name which determines the source. From Dungeon Master's Guide on page 21:
Different named bonus types all stack, but usually a named bonus does not stack with another bonus of the same name, except for dodge bonuses and some circumstance bonuses. So AC Bonus is what doesn't stack with itself; the fact that there's an ability behind that name is just a mechanical detail.

The Dark Fiddler
2011-02-22, 10:23 PM
...it's like saying that you can have a magic rocket launcher because nowhere in the rules it says that you can't.


I don't follow, what's stopping you from working with the DM to get a magic rocket launcher?

Anyway, I think is depends on the name of the ability granting the bonus. The Wis-to-AC fall under, "Bonuses from the same named ability don't stack," if I recall. Plus they're specifically called out, so specific trumps general applies anyway. I think otherwise they might stack, though it depends a lot on the specific abilities.

Chuckthedwarf
2011-02-22, 10:31 PM
So that would mean things like Deephome Warden (The dwarf PrC giving Con to AC) and Fist of The Forest (Con to AC) wouldn't stack?


I don't follow, what's stopping you from working with the DM to get a magic rocket launcher?


Okay, so it wasn't the best metaphor. I'm just frankly pissed at builds you see crop up occasionally that claim to have 2 or 3X of one stat to AC... Probably I should care less.

sonofzeal
2011-02-22, 10:31 PM
Ninja says it doesn't stack with Monk.

Swordsage doesn't say anything about stacking with Monk, but bonuses "from the same source" don't stack; it's unclear what the limits of that are, and there's certainly shades of grey here.

Curmudgeon's argument is that abilities with the same name don't stack, which would prevent Monk's AC Bonus (wis-to-AC) from stacking with Fist of the Forest's AC Bonus (con-to-AC). I think this is bunk, and based on an awkward and unsupported reading of the text. Curmudgeon is very good at finding the literal meaning of the text even when it disagrees with common sense, but I think he's departed from a strictly literal meaning in this case. I can spell the whole argument out in greater detail if you want. Suffice it to say that I believe the "from the same source" is the only relevant requirement, and that I personally would consider "AC Bonus (wis-to-AC)" and "AC Bonus (con-to-AC)" as different sources, but not two wis-to-AC abilities.

sonofzeal
2011-02-22, 10:33 PM
The ability used isn't relevant. It's always the name which determines the source. From Dungeon Master's Guide on page 21: So AC Bonus is what doesn't stack with itself; the fact that there's an ability behind that name is just a mechanical detail.
Ah, there you are. You left our last thread on the subject (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180432&page=2), and I wasn't sure where you went. Care for round 2?

Curmudgeon
2011-02-22, 11:30 PM
Curmudgeon's argument is that abilities with the same name don't stack, which would prevent Monk's AC Bonus (wis-to-AC) from stacking with Fist of the Forest's AC Bonus (con-to-AC). I think this is bunk, and based on an awkward and unsupported reading of the text.
How is a cited rule which plainly says "a named bonus does not stack with another bonus of the same name" being read awkwardly here? AC Bonus is obviously a named bonus; its name is right there in bold in the class tables of Monk, Ninja, and Swordsage, and the word "bonus" is included in the name itself. "WIS-to-AC" is just some forum shorthand to describe the mechanics behind the bonus named AC Bonus, so "WIS-to-AC" isn't a named source.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2011-02-22, 11:30 PM
Precedent:
A Druid/Ranger doesn't get two Animal Companions, even if the class feature is slightly different for each class. He would simply total his effective class level for the total benefits it gets. One animal companion, add the levels for the level progression.

A Wizard/Sorcerer doesn't get two Familiars, even if the same class feature is slightly different for each class. He would simply total his effective class level for the total benefits it gets. One familiar, add the levels for the level progression.

A Cleric/Sacred Exorcist doesn't get two separate Turn Undead abilities or two separate pools of uses, even if the ability is slightly different for each class. He would simply add his total effective class level for the total power of that ability. One pool of turning attempts, add the levels for the level progression.

A Monk/Swordsage doesn't get two AC Bonuses, even if the same class feature is slightly different for each class. He would simply total his effective class level for the total benefits he gets. One AC bonus, Wisdom to AC once, and add the levels for the +1/5 levels progression.


I think the named ability argument is a misquote. It specifically says named bonuses, referring to bonus types, so that quote has nothing to do with unnamed bonuses, and has nothing to do with the names of bonus sources. However, multiple unnamed bonuses from the same source don't stack, and as I just pointed out, gaining multiple class features of the same name doesn't give a character that class feature multiple times, he just totals his levels for how powerful that class feature is.

Curmudgeon
2011-02-22, 11:56 PM
I think the named ability argument is a misquote. It specifically says named bonuses, referring to bonus types
Why would you think that bonus types (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#modifierTypes) is what's intended when the rule instead uses the phrase named bonus? It's only a two word phrase, so it's obviously very easy to use that phrase when referring to the associated concept in the rules. I can see no basis for making your logical leap that this must be "a misquote" rather than that two different phrases each mean what they say.

"Named bonus" must refer to a bonus with a name. The convention in the rules is to highlight names of things in class tables, so AC Bonus is a name of a bonus for the Monk class, as specified on page 40 of the Player's Handbook. It's pretty straightforward to read the stacking rule and follow the words ─ certainly much simpler than trying to determine what someone might have intended instead and then somehow inserted "a misquote" in the rules.

herrhauptmann
2011-02-23, 12:09 AM
So that would mean things like Deepwarden and Fist of The Forest (Con to AC) wouldn't stack?

Names
Deepwarden2: Stone warden
FotF1: AC Bonus
Effects
DW2 gives you con to AC instead of dex, and is lost at any time you would lose your dex bonus.
FotF1 gives you con to AC as a bonus. It also tells you to see the rules for the Monks AC bonus.
Cross reference
When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level).

These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. She loses these bonuses when she is immobilized or helpless, when she wears any armor, when she carries a shield, or when she carries a medium or heavy load.
Since the FotF doesn't get wisdom to AC, we exchange the word Wisdom for Constitution and with that, we should be done.

Beyond monk/ninja, Deepwarden/FotF, and monk/swordsage, I'm not really aware of common instances where you might/might not get the same stat bonus to AC twice. What other ones were you thinking of?

VirOath
2011-02-23, 12:41 AM
Why would you think that bonus types (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#modifierTypes) is what's intended when the rule instead uses the phrase named bonus? It's only a two word phrase, so it's obviously very easy to use that phrase when referring to the associated concept in the rules. I can see no basis for making your logical leap that this must be "a misquote" rather than that two different phrases each mean what they say.

"Named bonus" must refer to a bonus with a name. The convention in the rules is to highlight names of things in class tables, so AC Bonus is a name of a bonus for the Monk class, as specified on page 40 of the Player's Handbook. It's pretty straightforward to read the stacking rule and follow the words ─ certainly much simpler than trying to determine what someone might have intended instead and then somehow inserted "a misquote" in the rules.

You are misquoting what Named Bonuses are, because there are untyped bonuses in D&D.

Named bonuses are Listed Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#modifierTypes), if it is missing one of those key words, it's an untyped bonus.
Attack, Damage, AC and such are all values. Any value bonus that does not give a name is untyped. Because that list is the list of Names for Named Bonuses.


What this means is: If you have the feat Two Weapon Defense and the feat Superior Buckler Defense, the bonuses do not stack. This is because the Buckler itself is Shield Bonus to AC, and the Two Weapon Defense is a Shield Bonus to AC. They don't stack but rather overlap, you get the higher of the two. Another example is Mage Armor, Bracers of Armor, and Armor itself, all three provide an Armor Bonus to AC.

Now, you can have stacking named bonuses of the same type so long as they enhance different named bonuses. Enhancement bonuses on Armor directly increase the Armor Bonus to AC, so the Enhancement Bonus on the Shield does apply because you are directly increasing the Shield Bonus to AC. Neither of these Enhancement bonuses go directly to AC, as such they can stack due to increasing two different bonuses instead.

Now, specific always trumps general. This is why the Defending weapon enchant always works. It provides an Enhancement Bonus to Armor that states it stacks with all other sources. So this means that if you have +5 Armor, and a +5 Defending weapon, you can choose to have up to the equivalent of a +10 Armor.

AC Bonus is just that, an AC bonus. It doesn't name the type of bonus, so it's untyped, and so long as it is from a different source then they always stack. Specific Trumps General again, the sources for these features are the classes, different classes means different sources, so normally they would stack. But the simple matter that it explicitly calls out that they don't stack, means in that one case they don't. You could include that any features that have that line don't stack with classes printed later, since ninja calls out Monk directly, you could assume it would also count against Swordsage AC bonus since the abilities are similar.

In all cases of Familiars and Animal Companions, it again calls out that if you have one of them from another source that the levels just stack instead of getting another. Specific Trumps General again, this line is needed otherwise a Ranger/Druid would get two animal companions.

Another example is Factotum's AC bonus and the Iaijutsu Master AC Bonus. Bother provide Int to AC, and they both stack with each other since neither calls out not stacking with similar sources. Since nether of the these are similar to Monk's AC Bonus, they stack with that as well.

To argue otherwise would be to argue that the Weapon Spec feat line or any other feats that provide a flat bonus to damage do not stack with the bonus damage from Strength. Because both are a Damage Bonus.

Vangor
2011-02-23, 01:09 AM
Precedent:
A Druid/Ranger doesn't get two Animal Companions, even if the class feature is slightly different for each class. He would simply total his effective class level for the total benefits it gets. One animal companion, add the levels for the level progression.

Except the ranger explicitly says this functions identically to the druid version with the only difference being effective druid level calculations.


A Wizard/Sorcerer doesn't get two Familiars, even if the same class feature is slightly different for each class. He would simply total his effective class level for the total benefits it gets. One familiar, add the levels for the level progression.

Again, the ability is rather explicit. To begin, the sorcerer description says "a character with more than one class that grants a familiar may have only one familiar at a time." Further, the wizard description says you obtain a familiar exactly as a sorcerer does and to see the rules under sorcerer.


A Cleric/Sacred Exorcist doesn't get two separate Turn Undead abilities or two separate pools of uses, even if the ability is slightly different for each class. He would simply add his total effective class level for the total power of that ability. One pool of turning attempts, add the levels for the level progression.

Sacred exorcist explicitly mentions stacking for effective turning level if the ability is received from another source, plus refers to the cleric ability.


A Monk/Swordsage doesn't get two AC Bonuses, even if the same class feature is slightly different for each class. He would simply total his effective class level for the total benefits he gets. One AC bonus, Wisdom to AC once, and add the levels for the +1/5 levels progression.

The abilities are different. Sure, both provide Wis to AC, but the monk version offers additional AC based on level whereas the swordsage does not. Further, another example is ninja which explicitly mentions not stacking and offers additional AC based on level in the same manner as monk.


and as I just pointed out, gaining multiple class features of the same name doesn't give a character that class feature multiple times, he just totals his levels for how powerful that class feature is.

All examples which absolutely do not duplicate the feature are explicit in mentioning this lack of duplication and/or stacking. Rangers use EDL, the description for familiars says they stack, SE says to stack for ETL. One cannot assume totaling levels because of the aforementioned ninja. Certainly the Wis to AC does not duplicate since this is explicitly mentioned, but nothing suggests, to my knowledge, the 1/5lvl to AC stacks. Against this is how both features mention monk or ninja levels being the determining factor.

Which way this works should depend on the DM as neither duplicate features nor lack of duplicate features is highly supported.

ZombyWoof
2011-02-23, 01:31 AM
My personal ruling would be as follows: "Wis to AC is called a "Wisdom Bonus" and it applies to your AC. It would not stack with another source of Wis to AC, but would stack with Dex to AC or any other type."

There is no such thing as an "AC bonus" no matter what Crum wants to say. You get things as a bonus to AC, and that means it's a bonus, and that bonus applies to your AC. For an actual example of how Crum is completely wrong, examine the following from the SRD:


Each armor grants an armor bonus to AC, while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesnít stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus. Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesnít stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus.
So you get your armor... as a bonus to AC. That doesn't make it some kind of "AC bonus" it is specifically an "Armor bonus." Similarly, Shields do not provide "AC Bonus" they provide a "Shield Bonus" which applies to AC.

Crum is either clearly wrong or it's a rule where literally every other time it comes up in D&D there is an exception. And if you find that you're making an exception to a rule every time you're applying it, you should probably just get rid of the rule. So either Crum is wrong or he's effectively wrong.

Also from the bonus description under a Monk's ability,
the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC., it does not replace the dex bonus. So either (again) Crum is right, in which case lol monks, you just got screwed, or Crum is wrong. But since all sample monks add their dex and wis to AC...

Anyways the point of quoting the monk's entry is this: notice how it doesn't say "in addition to your dex bonus" and assumes that you can continue to add your dex bonus to AC. I believe that's the answer to your question there: each time you get "Ability to AC" it's an [ability] Bonus that applies to your AC. And those [ability] Bonuses may stack with other [ability] Bonuses, but may not stack with themselves. That is to say that you can have Dex, Wis, and Con to AC (if you manage it), but not Dex, Dex, Wis and Wis to AC. Because the higher of the two Dex bonuses and the higher of the two Wis bonuses trump each other.

Curmudgeon
2011-02-23, 03:18 AM
You are misquoting what Named Bonuses are, because there are untyped bonuses in D&D.

Named bonuses are Listed Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#modifierTypes), if it is missing one of those key words, it's an untyped bonus.
Attack, Damage, AC and such are all values. Any value bonus that does not give a name is untyped. Because that list is the list of Names for Named Bonuses.
I didn't misquote anything, but your link is to the material from Dungeon Master's Guide on page 21, where the heading is Bonus Types, not Named Bonuses. Bonus types and bonus names are different terms and different concepts.

Bonuses of different types always stack.
...
Different named bonus types all stack, but usually a named bonus does not stack with another bonus of the same name, except for dodge bonuses and some circumstance bonuses.
These are two different rules, not the same rule repeated in two successive paragraphs. There's a rule for bonus types, and another rule for named bonuses. (And an exception, because some bonuses always stack regardless of type or name.)

VirOath
2011-02-23, 03:25 AM
Bonuses of different types always stack.
...
Different named bonus types all stack, but usually a named bonus does not stack with another bonus of the same name, except for dodge bonuses and some circumstance bonuses.
These are two different rules, not the same rule repeated in two successive paragraphs. There's a rule for bonus types, and another rule for named bonuses. (And an exception, because some bonuses always stack regardless of type or name.)

Right there though, it's giving what you are calling Bonus Types, yet describing Bonus Names. Every Type has a Name, they are the same thing, even supported by the text you are misquoting.

The two are interchangeable. And if you want to prove otherwise then provide a list where it tells you Bonus Names. Because the names of class features aren't Bonus Names, those are Class Features.

Curmudgeon
2011-02-23, 04:45 AM
And if you want to prove otherwise then provide a list where it tells you Bonus Names. Because the names of class features aren't Bonus Names, those are Class Features.
The term used in the rules is named bonus, so there certainly is no requirement that there be a list of bonus names, nor that any such list be exclusive of class features. If it's a bonus which is named, it meets the criteria. AC Bonus is one such named bonus.

sonofzeal
2011-02-23, 08:49 AM
How is a cited rule which plainly says "a named bonus does not stack with another bonus of the same name" being read awkwardly here? AC Bonus is obviously a named bonus; its name is right there in bold in the class tables of Monk, Ninja, and Swordsage, and the word "bonus" is included in the name itself. "WIS-to-AC" is just some forum shorthand to describe the mechanics behind the bonus named AC Bonus, so "WIS-to-AC" isn't a named source.
Let's look at the entire quote, not just that piece of a sentence,

"Different named bonus types all stack, but usually a named bonus does not stack with another bonus of the same name, except for dodge bonuses and some circumstance bonuses."


Named Bonus Types obviously refers to the "name of the bonus type", not the "name of the ability that grants the bonus". You agreed to this in the other thread, so this point is not in contention.

Bonus of the Same Name is explicitly in reference to Dodge and Circumstance, and hence refers to the "name of the bonus type", not the "name of the ability that grants the bonus".

To then interpret Named Bonus as "name of the ability that grants the bonus" instead of "name of the bonus type"? Yeah. That's awkward.

You're taking one line in the middle of the paragraph out of context, when the entire rest of the paragraph is obviously talking about the names of bonus types, both before and after the line you quote.



From the Rules Compendium:

"Bonuses of different types always stack. Bonuses that have identical types donít stack, except for dodge bonuses and some circumstance bonuses. Untyped bonuses stack unless the bonuses come from the same effect."

This appears to be a rewording of the same paragraph. It parallels nicely, both in placement and tone, and in actual content. Both are spelling out the general rule on stacking, and both get into the nitty gritty of "dodge" and "circumstance" exceptions. But the RC rewording is much more careful in how it's phrased, and doesn't leave any possibility of your interpretation. If we follow your argument, then there's something critically missing in the RC rules on stacking. If we follow my argument, the two gel perfectly and the RC is merely clearer and more precise. We know WotC is not above a stealth-errata, but this isn't it.

VirOath
2011-02-23, 08:57 AM
The term used in the rules is named bonus, so there certainly is no requirement that there be a list of bonus names, nor that any such list be exclusive of class features. If it's a bonus which is named, it meets the criteria. AC Bonus is one such named bonus.

Your argument would hold water, if the Types was missing from that line. The reality is it is two separate instances building upon the same ruleset.


Bonuses of different types always stack.
...
Different named bonus types all stack, but usually a named bonus does not stack with another bonus of the same name, except for dodge bonuses and some circumstance bonuses.

The first puts into existence that Bonus Types exist and always stack with different ones. The second refines that to allow Dodge Bonuses to stack and states that bonuses of the same name do not.

By this text, by RAW, Dodge is a Bonus Type.
By this text, by RAW, Dodge is a Named Bonus Type.

The Named Bonus Types are the same list, the same thing and this is supported by the passage you provided. You've shot your own argument in the foot and it won't be a valid point until you can provide evidence to the contrary.

Douglas
2011-02-23, 09:25 AM
From the Rules Compendium:

"Bonuses of different types always stack. Bonuses that have identical types donít stack, except for dodge bonuses and some circumstance bonuses. Untyped bonuses stack unless the bonuses come from the same effect."
This means it all comes down to the definition of what exactly qualifies as "the same effect". I don't think anyone's going to seriously argue that two abilities that are identical in both name and effect don't count as the same effect. If you get Divine Grace from both Paladin and Holy Liberator, for example, they're the same ability and they don't stack.

If two abilities have different names, I think it's pretty generally accepted that that means they're different abilities and can potentially stack, subject to bonus type rules.

If two abilities have the same name but completely different effects, I think most people would also rule that the abilities are different and could stack. This is rather unusual, however, and I can't think of any examples offhand.

The gray area comes in with abilities that have the same name and similar but not quite identical effects. Curmudgeon holds that these are considered the same effect and therefore don't stack by RAW. I'm not convinced this is completely correct, but I think it probably does match RAI - cases like this are almost certainly two abilities implementing the same concept, and if the abilities are that closely conceptually the same then they should be considered the same effect and not stack.

In the case of Monk and Swordsage, they're both called "AC Bonus", they both give wisdom to AC, and they both represent using your superior senses and perception to improve your dodging, subject to the limitations on mobility imposed by armor. They differ in two details of implementation (Swordsage can use light armor, Monk scales slowly with level), but these are minor differences that do not meaningfully affect the concept of the ability. Thus, they should be considered the same effect and do not stack.

Asheram
2011-02-23, 09:29 AM
In the case of Monk and Swordsage, they're both called "AC Bonus", they both give wisdom to AC, and they both represent using your superior senses and perception to improve your dodging, subject to the limitations on mobility imposed by armor. They differ in two details of implementation (Swordsage can use light armor, Monk scales slowly with level), but these are minor differences that do not meaningfully affect the concept of the ability. Thus, they should be considered the same effect and do not stack.


Does the Armor Class bonus ability from the monk, swordsage, and ninja stack?

No, each of these abilities provides the same bonus. You are not able to benefit from multiple sources that have the same name more then once.

This is from the 3.5 FAQ, v06302008

Obviously this excludes such things as dodge. But in this case of the monk/swordsage. They're both tapping the same well, the Wisdom modifier, and doesn't give a suffix to it. (as, say.. Wisdom as a dodge bonus)

sonofzeal
2011-02-23, 10:41 AM
This means it all comes down to the definition of what exactly qualifies as "the same effect". I don't think anyone's going to seriously argue that two abilities that are identical in both name and effect don't count as the same effect. If you get Divine Grace from both Paladin and Holy Liberator, for example, they're the same ability and they don't stack.

If two abilities have different names, I think it's pretty generally accepted that that means they're different abilities and can potentially stack, subject to bonus type rules.

If two abilities have the same name but completely different effects, I think most people would also rule that the abilities are different and could stack. This is rather unusual, however, and I can't think of any examples offhand.

The gray area comes in with abilities that have the same name and similar but not quite identical effects. Curmudgeon holds that these are considered the same effect and therefore don't stack by RAW. I'm not convinced this is completely correct, but I think it probably does match RAI - cases like this are almost certainly two abilities implementing the same concept, and if the abilities are that closely conceptually the same then they should be considered the same effect and not stack.

In the case of Monk and Swordsage, they're both called "AC Bonus", they both give wisdom to AC, and they both represent using your superior senses and perception to improve your dodging, subject to the limitations on mobility imposed by armor. They differ in two details of implementation (Swordsage can use light armor, Monk scales slowly with level), but these are minor differences that do not meaningfully affect the concept of the ability. Thus, they should be considered the same effect and do not stack.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. That's almost exactly what I was saying up here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10430065&postcount=5) and over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180432&page=2).

Curmudgeon has argued that two abilites with the same name and significantly different effects won't stack. The easiest example is Monk AC Bonus (wis-to-AC), and Fist of the Forest AC Bonus (con-to-AC). I argue they stack, as they're different sources. Curmudgeon argues they don't, as they have the same name. I'm trying to counter that and show that it's unsupported by the very rules he's trying to quote.



This is from the 3.5 FAQ, v06302008

Obviously this excludes such things as dodge. But in this case of the monk/swordsage. They're both tapping the same well, the Wisdom modifier, and doesn't give a suffix to it. (as, say.. Wisdom as a dodge bonus)

None of us here consider the FAQ a credible source on rules questions.

dextercorvia
2011-02-23, 11:24 AM
None of us here consider the FAQ a credible source on rules questions when it disagrees with our reading.

Emphasized clause: Mine.

Asheram
2011-02-23, 11:37 AM
None of us here consider the FAQ a credible source on rules questions.

May I ask why? As I see it, they should know, if any.

Ganurath
2011-02-23, 11:44 AM
Am I the only one that remembers that the swordsage's AC bonus is only while wearing light armor, and the monk's bonus is while unarmored? I'm pretty sure that those are mutually exclusive bonuses by merit of the armor prerequisites.

That being said: Bracers of armor does not stack with studded leather, because they both provide armor bonuses to AC. Either one can stack with a buckler, though, as that provides a shield bonus to AC, and shield is a different word from armor. You get a +5 dodge bonus to AC against attacks of opportunity from your Dodge target while moving from their threatened square if you have the Mobility feat, because dodge bonuses are a specific exemption from the name rule. Swarmfighting characters with White Raven Defense, a White Raven stance, and a style weapon stacked up in adjacent squares could have hypothetically infinite AC, because the +1 AC bonus from White Raven Defense to adjacent allies is an untyped bonus and thus stacks with itself.

Ossian
2011-02-23, 11:51 AM
Aye, I support the stacking of abilities.

A Monk with WIS to AC who become a duelist gets INT to AC too (on top of DEX).

Besides, I don't see how it is fair to allow Tier 1 to re-write the fabric of reality 7 times a day, and to deny a guy who goes barehanded in a sword fight to modestly raise his chance of avoiding a direct hit.

Havelock
2011-02-23, 12:01 PM
Different named bonus types all stack, but usually a named
bonus does not stack with another bonus of the same name,
except for dodge bonuses and some circumstance bonuses.

The bolded part would indicate that "named bonus"="bonus type".

Anyway, I would invoke the rule that bonuses from the same source doesn't stack in the case of monk/swordsage, as the source in both cases is wisdom.

sonofzeal
2011-02-23, 12:03 PM
Emphasized clause: Mine.
FAQ is not RAW. Skip Williams (the guy responsible for much of it) has very little credibility in the broader D&D community. Apparently he's a pretty cool fellow, but no more authoritative on the rules than your local DM.


May I ask why? As I see it, they should know, if any.
FAQ is regularly blatantly false, just plain bizarre, or outright contradicts previous rulings.


To put it another way - the FAQ has about the same credibility as NPC statblocks, and the statblock for Fist of the Forest has AC Bonus (con-to-AC) stacking with AC Bonus (wis-to-AC).

dextercorvia
2011-02-23, 12:13 PM
FAQ is not RAW. Skip Williams (the guy responsible for much of it) has very little credibility in the broader D&D community. Apparently he's a pretty cool fellow, but no more authoritative on the rules than your local DM.

Yeah, the FAQ contradicts itself, and is filled with houserules. I just have noticed that folks will reference it if it supports their view, and refute it if doesn't. I do the same thing. It isn't authoritative.



To put it another way - the FAQ has about the same credibility as NPC statblocks, and the statblock for Fist of the Forest has AC Bonus (con-to-AC) stacking with AC Bonus (wis-to-AC).

It came up in another thread, but I tend to agree that FotF AC Bonus should stack with Monk's. I think that is why they changed the ability score. This is a sticky issue that we can't work out. I can totally see a designer thinking he knows how the stacking thing works, and just not quite getting it. Or, possibly more likely, getting it and calling it Weathering the Storm. Then some editor comes a long and says, hey this is just like the Monk's AC Bonus, it should be called the same thing....

sonofzeal
2011-02-23, 12:20 PM
Yeah, the FAQ contradicts itself, and is filled with houserules. I just have noticed that folks will reference it if it supports their view, and refute it if doesn't. I do the same thing. It isn't authoritative.
Which is, I believe, and to his credit, why Curmudgeon hasn't been quoting it.


It came up in another thread, but I tend to agree that FotF AC Bonus should stack with Monk's. I think that is why they changed the ability score. This is a sticky issue that we can't work out. I can totally see a designer thinking he knows how the stacking thing works, and just not quite getting it. Or, possibly more likely, getting it and calling it Weathering the Storm. Then some editor comes a long and says, hey this is just like the Monk's AC Bonus, it should be called the same thing....
Which is why I haven't been quoting it. Our disagreement centres around the DMG, and I'm using the RC as supporting evidence, but that's as far as it goes. I think those two sources are enough to establish my case that Curmudgeon's reading is unwarranted. He evidently thinks the DMG supports his interpretation. Let's just leave it at that. ;)

Havelock
2011-02-23, 01:22 PM
Also observe that "AC bonus" is a class feature name, not the name of the bonus, regardless of how you interpret the DMG passage.

The faq didn't help much because it has the same ambiguity as the DMG.

Still, they come from the same source (Wis modifier) and thus shouldn't stack (like an effect from multiple castings of the same spell).

dextercorvia
2011-02-23, 01:28 PM
No, the source is the class feature. That is the problem. They are untyped bonuses from Sources of the same name. Is that exactly the same as the same source?

sonofzeal
2011-02-23, 01:41 PM
No, the source is the class feature. That is the problem. They are untyped bonuses from Sources of the same name. Is that exactly the same as the same source?
Well, that's the question. It never says "untyped bonuses from sources with the same name". It just says "same source", which is ambiguous, and "named bonus", which from the context we can easily infer refers to the name of the type.

As to "same source", certainly two abilities with the same name are more similar than two abilities with different names. Certainly two abilities with the same function are more similar than two abilities with different functions.

From The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/same):

same (sm)
adj.
1. Being the very one; identical: the same boat we rented before.
2. Similar in kind, quality, quantity, or degree.
3. Conforming in every detail: according to the same rules as before.
4. Being the one previously mentioned or indicated; aforesaid.

Fist of the Forest's AC Bonus (con-to-AC) and Monk's AC Bonus (wis-to-AC) are not "same" by definitions #1, #3, or #4. As for #2, that's a matter of degree; there are ways in which they're similar (the name; they both apply an ability score modifier as an untyped bonus to AC), and ways in which they're dissimilar (the class that grants them; the ability score modifier in question).

If we go with definition #2, there's a debate that could be had there, but name alone is not enough to cinch it. If we go with any of the other definitions, and #1 or #3 sound perfectly viable to me, then they stack without question.

Person_Man
2011-02-23, 02:25 PM
X stat to Y bonus (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125732)

I'm in the camp that believes that the determining factor is the name of the class ability that grants it, and the wording of the ability itself. If either is identical, then it doesn't stack. There's also the "DMG Forehead" rule. If your interpretation of a rule makes the DM want to percussively apply his DMG to any forehead, it's probably wrong.

In the case of Con to AC, it's actually possible to get it 3.5 times, via Fist of the Forest, Deepwarden, Forsaker, and the Dahlver-Nar Vestige (via a level of Binder or 2 feats). Each class ability has a different name, and adds your Con bonus to your AC in slightly different ways under slightly different circumstances.

Curmudgeon
2011-02-23, 02:26 PM
Which is, I believe, and to his credit, why Curmudgeon hasn't been quoting it.
I'll reference the FAQ if I think it explains something well. (After all, it's a publicly available source, and cutting and pasting is easy.) In this case it's not saying anything different than I've been saying and (most importantly) isn't citing a rule to back up the answer.

Which is why I haven't been quoting it. Our disagreement centres around the DMG, and I'm using the RC as supporting evidence, but that's as far as it goes. I think those two sources are enough to establish my case that Curmudgeon's reading is unwarranted. He evidently thinks the DMG supports his interpretation. Let's just leave it at that. ;) If we leave it at that, you've now shouldered the burden of defining what "the same effect" (Dungeon Master's Guide) and "same source" (Player's Handbook) mean, as douglas has pointed out.

This means it all comes down to the definition of what exactly qualifies as "the same effect". ...

The gray area comes in with abilities that have the same name and similar but not quite identical effects. Curmudgeon holds that these are considered the same effect and therefore don't stack by RAW. I'm not convinced this is completely correct ... From the definition of bonus (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_bonus&alpha=B):

In most cases, multiple bonuses from the same source or of the same type in effect on the same character or object do not stack; only the highest bonus of that type applies.
Other than being another example which distinguishes source from modifier type in the rules, this doesn't help much in defining what "same source" refers to. My reading of the stacking rules (and the FAQ author's, FWIW) gives us a simple tool for determining these issues. Absent that explanation we're running on rules with undefined terms, as Havelock (for example) unintentionally illustrates by leaping to a conclusion in that regard.

Still, they come from the same source (Wis modifier) ... If you can supply a rule citation which says "Wis modifier" is a source, you'd be helping us all out here. Please do.

Also observe that "AC bonus" is a class feature name, not the name of the bonus, regardless of how you interpret the DMG passage. Placing AC Bonus in the class feature name category doesn't exclude it from also being the name of the bonus (unless you know of a rule source which I've overlooked). The name of a class feature is clearly something that's named, and the word "bonus" is right there in that name. So it's a class feature and a named bonus.

sonofzeal
2011-02-23, 02:39 PM
Curmudgeon, I would appreciate a response to this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10431966&postcount=17), since it was my comment directly to you and contains the heart of my argument as I see it.

Pasted here for your convenience:

Let's look at the entire quote, not just that piece of a sentence,

"Different named bonus types all stack, but usually a named bonus does not stack with another bonus of the same name, except for dodge bonuses and some circumstance bonuses."


Named Bonus Types obviously refers to the "name of the bonus type", not the "name of the ability that grants the bonus". You agreed to this in the other thread, so this point is not in contention.

Bonus of the Same Name is explicitly in reference to Dodge and Circumstance, and hence refers to the "name of the bonus type", not the "name of the ability that grants the bonus".

To then interpret Named Bonus as "name of the ability that grants the bonus" instead of "name of the bonus type"? Yeah. That's awkward.

You're taking one line in the middle of the paragraph out of context, when the entire rest of the paragraph is obviously talking about the names of bonus types, both before and after the line you quote.



From the Rules Compendium:

"Bonuses of different types always stack. Bonuses that have identical types donít stack, except for dodge bonuses and some circumstance bonuses. Untyped bonuses stack unless the bonuses come from the same effect."

This appears to be a rewording of the same paragraph. It parallels nicely, both in placement and tone, and in actual content. Both are spelling out the general rule on stacking, and both get into the nitty gritty of "dodge" and "circumstance" exceptions. But the RC rewording is much more careful in how it's phrased, and doesn't leave any possibility of your interpretation. If we follow your argument, then there's something critically missing in the RC rules on stacking. If we follow my argument, the two gel perfectly and the RC is merely clearer and more precise. We know WotC is not above a stealth-errata, but this isn't it.

I also already discussed "same" with regards to "same source" up here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10433141&postcount=32). Unfortunately, english is ambiguous enough that there is room to disagree on which definition of "same" is in effect. However, three of the four definitions given would allow for FotF and Monk abilities stacking, and the fourth has room for debate either way.