Nightstick Stacking...I apologize.

[NOhara24]

Hello all,

I was looking around for information on nightsticks and I couldn't find a straight answer if they stack or not. (Primary source of information was this thread (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19857542/No_more_Nightstick_stacking!?pg=1))

Can someone give me a simple yes or no? For example, does having two nightsticks (one in each hand) grant me eight turning attempts?

[Pigkappa]

There's a decently widespread answer to that.

By RAW, they stack. The bonus they give is unnamed.

By common sense, they shouldn't stack. If they do, you can easily pull out awfully broken characters.



So it is, as it always is, up to the DM.

[Elric VIII]

Well, I have found no definative answer about stacking, personally. However, what I have found is that unlike most rods, you do not need to wield Nightstick to gain their benefit. Many of the rods in the DMG/SRD reference the "wielder," but Nightstick only references the "anyone who posesses the rod." So, if you do end up deciding they stack, you can combine more than 2.

[Psyren]

As Elric stated, they stack by RAW. It's a good idea to limit them in your campaign though.

[Cog]

Nightsticks don't use the "bonus" language (which generally comes up in terms of measure of ability rather than spendable resources anyway), so it comes down to simple phrasing for me: it's "gains four more uses" and not "has four more uses per day than normal". Despite coming from another direction, that's another vote for stacking... not that it's good for them too.

It might be worth equating them to +X weaponry. A basic nightstick gets you 4 uses; a nightstick capable of granting 8 uses would cost four times as much; one granting 12 would cost *9, etc. These would not stack, naturally.

[Douglas]

However, what I have found is that unlike most rods, you do not need to wield Nightstick to gain their benefit. Many of the rods in the DMG/SRD reference the "wielder," but Nightstick only references the "anyone who posesses the rod." So, if you do end up deciding they stack, you can combine more than 2.
Yep. You could have your Nightstick(s) hidden in a bag of holding buried in a secret underground vault on a private demiplane while you go adventuring a dozen planes away, and as long as they still belong to you they still work.

For whether they stack or not, the only way you're going to get a reliable straight answer is by asking your DM, and his answer will only apply to his game. There is no general consensus on the issue.

[Zeta Kai]

Well, I have found no definative answer about stacking, personally.

1) What is your criteria for "definative" [sic]? A statement by WotC? 'Cause you're not gonna get that now; that ship sailed back in 2008.

2) The RAW is very clear: you get 4 more TU attempts just for possessing a nigthstick. That's it. That is the whole rule. Plain & simple. Own X to get +4 Y.

3) Does that mean that owning 2 nightsticks would give you 8 more TU attempts? And that owning 3 nightsticks would give you 12 more TU attempts? And so on & so forth? Well, give me one reason why it would not work like that. Tell me why this should not work that way, in such a manner as to be consistent with anything else in the game. It would be like saying that an object's weight wouldn't stack with itself, or its price. That way leads only to madness. If you cannot explain logically how it doesn't stack, then it does.

4) All that said, I understand that nightsticks are poorly written, that it is grossly unbalancing to allow stacking TU attempts so cheaply, & that no smart/sane DM should allow it. But RAW doesn't support that view. Which is just another reason to consider RAW as merely a starting point, for the same reason that I don't consider a pit full of poured concrete a building. It's a decent start, I guess, but you're gonna have to put some work into it if you're gonna live with the results.

[Gullintanni]

There's an argument* to be made that they don't stack in that any bonus from a source with the same does not stack (See: Monk and Ninja AC Bonus), but even then there's a convenient and very easy way around this.

Step 1 - Pick up Nightstick no.1, gain 4 bonus turn attempts.
Step 2 - Spend 4 bonus turn attempts. You are no longer under the benefit of Nightstick no.1
Step 3 - Pick up Nightstick no.2, since you're no longer benefiting from Nightstick no.1, gain 4 bonus turn attempts.

Repeat ad infinitum.

Really, no matter how you read this by RAW, you can stack Nightsticks. Either they stack directly, in which case, you can stack Nightsticks, or they don't stack directly and use the trick above to make them stack.

That being said, I'm going to echo the other posts here and say that limiting Nightsticks to one per customer is a fantastic idea if you want sanity in your game. Limit them if you allow them.

*This argument is fallacious in and of itself. When you pick up a Nightstick, the transfer of 4 Turn Attempts is an instantaneous effect. Once you receive those 4 Turn Attempts, you cease to be under the effect of the original Nightstick, so you're not under any effect that would prevent a second Nightstick from bestowing its bonus on you.

[claypigeons]

4) All that said, I understand that nightsticks are poorly written, that it is grossly unbalancing to allow stacking TU attempts so cheaply, & that no smart/sane DM should allow it. But RAW doesn't support that view. Which is just another reason to consider RAW as merely a starting point, for the same reason that I don't consider a pit full of poured concrete a building. It's a decent start, I guess, but you're gonna have to put some work into it if you're gonna live with the results.

Clerics don't need Nightsticks to be overpowered. It makes it easier, obviously... Nightsticks are the red paint on an ork vehicle. Sure, it works without it, but the red ones iz fasta. :smallamused:

As for no "smart/sane DM" allowing them... Do these same DMs allow Druids, wizards and clerics anyway? Because it's rather pointless to ban an item that isn't crucial to breaking the game. Those three classes do it in Core.

[NOhara24]

Well, if the RAW states they stack, then they stack. And at 4,000 GP a piece for something like turning attempts, it's not like they're what you would call "cheap". At least in our current game where our DM has thrown WBL out the window.

Our DM has been a bit conservative (read: hasn't used at all) with his banhammer, let's see if I can get him to drop it. Not that that was the point of the thread, I just wanted to know if they did. Thanks all.

[dextercorvia]

There's an argument* to be made that they don't stack in that any bonus from a source with the same does not stack (See: Monk and Ninja AC Bonus), but even then there's a convenient and very easy way around this.

Also, the stacking rule only applies to modifiers to a Roll or Check. Turn attempts are neither, so we have to look to the language of the item to determine whether or not they stack, and Cog has already addressed that.

[Douglas]

There's an argument* to be made that they don't stack in that any bonus from a source with the same does not stack (See: Monk and Ninja AC Bonus), but even then there's a convenient and very easy way around this.

Step 1 - Pick up Nightstick no.1, gain 4 bonus turn attempts.
Step 2 - Spend 4 bonus turn attempts. You are no longer under the benefit of Nightstick no.1
Step 3 - Pick up Nightstick no.2, since you're no longer benefiting from Nightstick no.1, gain 4 bonus turn attempts.

Repeat ad infinitum.
That is not the only way to interpret bonus uses per day, and it is not the way outlined by the FAQ.

The way of tracking this advocated by WotC goes like this:
You have two numbers, uses spent and maximum uses. Let's say you have 5 turn attempts per day normally. You use 3 of them. You have 2 left. You pick up Nightstick #1. This increases your maximum to 9, so now you have 6 left. You use all 6. You get rid of the Nightstick. You have spent 9 uses, and you have 5 maximum. You pick up another Nightstick, increasing your maximum to 9 again. Your spent uses is still at 9 from before, however, so you're still out.

The specific example that this was brought up to address was gaining extra Turn attempts by casting Eagle's Splendor, as I recall, but it applies equally well to Nightsticks. The only way to get around it would be if there were a way to specifically spend the turn attempts from the individual Nightstick, but that's not how Nightsticks work - they increase your pool of available turn attempts, they don't get used to Turn directly.

[Gullintanni]

That is not the only way to interpret bonus uses per day, and it is not the way outlined by the FAQ.

The way of tracking this advocated by WotC goes like this:
You have two numbers, uses spent and maximum uses. Let's say you have 5 turn attempts per day normally. You use 3 of them. You have 2 left. You pick up Nightstick #1. This increases your maximum to 9, so now you have 6 left. You use all 6. You get rid of the Nightstick. You have spent 9 uses, and you have 5 maximum. You pick up another Nightstick, increasing your maximum to 9 again. Your spent uses is still at 9 from before, however, so you're still out.

The specific example that this was brought up to address was gaining extra Turn attempts by casting Eagle's Splendor, as I recall, but it applies equally well to Nightsticks. The only way to get around it would be if there were a way to specifically spend the turn attempts from the individual Nightstick, but that's not how Nightsticks work - they increase your pool of available turn attempts, they don't get used to Turn directly.

1) FAQ is not RAW and;
2) Assuming that Nightsticks are a state based effect as per above then it breaks down like this;

a - You have 6/6 maximum attempts
b - Add Nightstick, you now have 10/6 maximum attempts.
c - Spend turn attempts. You now have 0/6 maximum attempts.
d - Discard Nightstick. You are no longer receiving the benefit of the Nightstick. Ergo, if you pop on an additional Nightstick, you will be at 4/6 attempts.

The equation for determining Maximum turn attempts, assuming RAW tracked Maximum attempts at all (which it doesn't) is 3+Cha/day. If you had a Cha mod of 3, then your max would be 6. Nightsticks don't, as written, increase that cap. They don't alter that equation 3+Cha/day. As written, you gain 4 turn attempts. That's it.

Accepting the FAQ reading though, this would still limit Eagle's Splendor and not Nightsticks. Eagle's Splendor directly interacts with the equation used for determining "max" attempts. 3+Cha(3)/day becomes 3+Cha(5) day.


Also, the stacking rule only applies to modifiers to a Roll or Check. Turn attempts are neither, so we have to look to the language of the item to determine whether or not they stack, and Cog has already addressed that.

Wasn't aware of that particular qualifier. But Like I said, the argument I made to qualify nightsticks as non stacking was fallacious out of the door. Would you happen to have a page number by any chance for the roll/check RAW? I'd like to do the reading.

[Slipperychicken]

Think of it like Everfull Mugs. One gives you an amount of water per day. Two gives you double that amount. Nightsticks work the same way, only they dispense Turn attempts each day instead of water.


Stacking rules only apply to bonuses. Nightsticks don't give a bonus, they give more attempts. Full stop.


You can possess (keep in your inventory) multiple nightsticks. They each give their benefit to the possessor. You get 4 additional turn attempts for each and every nightstick in your possession.

[Psyren]

Would you happen to have a page number by any chance for the roll/check RAW? I'd like to do the reading.

RC pg. 21:


Many racial abilities, class features, spells, and magic items offer bonuses on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, Armor Class, ability scores, or skill checks.

*stacking rules follow*

The only things there that aren't a roll or check are AC and ability scores. "Per day" counts or totals, like turn undead uses or spell slots, are not mentioned, therefore it falls to the individual item descriptions to cover such cases.

[Douglas]

1) FAQ is not RAW and;
No, but it is official WotC and in this case does not contradict RAW. I accept the "FAQ is not RAW" argument if and ONLY if you find clear RAW that unambiguously contradicts the specific ruling in question.

2) Assuming that Nightsticks are a state based effect as per above then it breaks down like this;

a - You have 6/6 maximum attempts
b - Add Nightstick, you now have 10/6 maximum attempts.
c - Spend turn attempts. You now have 0/6 maximum attempts.
d - Discard Nightstick. You are no longer receiving the benefit of the Nightstick. Ergo, if you pop on an additional Nightstick, you will be at 4/6 attempts.

The equation for determining Maximum turn attempts, assuming RAW tracked Maximum attempts at all (which it doesn't) is 3+Cha/day. If you had a Cha mod of 3, then your max would be 6. Nightsticks don't, as written, increase that cap. They don't alter that equation 3+Cha/day. As written, you gain 4 turn attempts. That's it.
Interpreting the bonus 4 as not affecting your maximum is disingenuous and highly subjective word-twisting that makes no logical sense and ignores the specific trumps general principle.

a - You have 6/6 maximum attempts
b - Add Nightstick, you now have 10/10 maximum attempts.
c - Spend turn attempts. You now have 0/10 maximum attempts.
d - Discard Nightstick. You now have -4/6 maximum attempts.
e - Ergo, if you pop on an additional Nightstick, you will be at 0/10 attempts.


Accepting the FAQ reading though, this would still limit Eagle's Splendor and not Nightsticks. Eagle's Splendor directly interacts with the equation used for determining "max" attempts. 3+Cha(3)/day becomes 3+Cha(5) day.
Any justification for excluding Nightsticks from the "max attempts" number is threadbare at best. That's like telling the DM "I can turn undead only 6 times per day", then using it 10 times and blithely asserting that this isn't a contradiction.

[Gullintanni]

RC pg. 21:

The only things there that aren't a roll or check are AC and ability scores. "Per day" counts or totals, like turn undead uses or spell slots, are not mentioned, therefore it falls to the individual item descriptions to cover such cases.

Very good, thanks.

Douglas, I'm really not up for debating the validity of the FAQ or getting into further debates over semantics. If you accept the FAQ, then so be it, and we'll agree to disagree.

Personally, I like my FAQ like I like the rules governing the use of my Credit Card. Either you acknowledge that they're all in effect, or they're all not. You don't get to pick and choose. Similarly, either the full FAQ is credible and in force, or it is entirely incredulous and non-applicable...and since the FAQ mangles so so many core pieces of RAW, I see no value in its existence. We'll agree to disagree.

Regardless, by RAW, per the RC as demonstrated, Nightsticks provide a per day untyped bonus which is permitted to stack with itself unlike those cases specifically mentioned therein. This seems pretty unambiguous to me.

[NOhara24]

Think of it like Everfull Mugs. One gives you an amount of water per day. Two gives you double that amount. Nightsticks work the same way, only they dispense Turn attempts each day instead of water.


Stacking rules only apply to bonuses. Nightsticks don't give a bonus, they give more attempts. Full stop.


You can possess (keep in your inventory) multiple nightsticks. They each give their benefit to the possessor. You get 4 additional turn attempts for each and every nightstick in your possession.

That's a good way to put it. It's not that they don't stack, just nothing prohibits them all from giving the +4 attempts. They all provide their bonuses immediately upon possession. If turning attempts had an inventory it would go something like:

Inherent attempts (3+CHA)
Nightstick attempts (+4)
Nightstick attempts (+4)

Instead of:

Inherent attempts (3+CHA)
Nightstick attempts x 2 (+8)

Is that what you were trying to convey?

[jiriku]

Continuing your line of reasoning, Douglas, there's no reason to believe that possessing negative turn attempts is any more valid than possessing more turn attempts than your maximum. Thus, the process can just as easily be read as:

a - You have 6/6 maximum attempts
b - Add Nightstick, you now have 10/10 maximum attempts.
c - Spend turn attempts. You now have 0/10 maximum attempts.
d - Discard Nightstick. You now have 0/6 maximum attempts.
e - Pick up Nightstick #2. You now have 4/10 maximum attempts.

Of course, the reason there's a debate is that there isn't a hard-and-fast answer to the question. If there was, it would have been settled years ago.

In my personal campaign experience, nightstick stacking hasn't been a problem. If a player uses nightsticks to DMM: persist a variety of party buffs, everyone is happy and everyone wins. If a player uses them to break party balance by making himself much more powerful than other PCs, I tell him that his character doesn't fit in the group and ask him to choose group buffs over self buffs. If your group is broken even when nightsticks/DMM are used in a gentlemanly way, then it's probably broken even if nightsticks are gone entirely. Otherwise, nightsticks are fine so long as the cleric player refrains from douchebaggery.

[Zeta Kai]

d - Discard Nightstick. You now have -4/6 maximum attempts.

This makes negative sense to me. It's the tortured interpretation of a reader in search of justification for a preconceived conviction. That's not RAW, that's RAYouWantThemToBe.

WotC made a dumb little mistake. Why is that so hard to believe? Two other examples of overly-vague rules with vast implications are IHS from ToB & that one Truenamer utterance that lets them dispel anything with no save (reverse Spell Rebirth, FTR). Their lazy editing & glaring omissions are the stuff of legendary cheese.

[Douglas]

Continuing your line of reasoning, Douglas, there's no reason to believe that possessing negative turn attempts is any more valid than possessing more turn attempts than your maximum. Thus, the process can just as easily be read as:

a - You have 6/6 maximum attempts
b - Add Nightstick, you now have 10/10 maximum attempts.
c - Spend turn attempts. You now have 0/10 maximum attempts.
d - Discard Nightstick. You now have 0/6 maximum attempts.
e - Pick up Nightstick #2. You now have 4/10 maximum attempts.

Of course, the reason there's a debate is that there isn't a hard-and-fast answer to the question. If there was, it would have been settled years ago.

In my personal campaign experience, nightstick stacking hasn't been a problem. If a player uses nightsticks to DMM: persist a variety of party buffs, everyone is happy and everyone wins. If a player uses them to break party balance by making himself much more powerful than other PCs, I tell him that his character doesn't fit in the group and ask him to choose group buffs over self buffs. If your group is broken even when nightsticks/DMM are used in a gentlemanly way, then it's probably broken even if nightsticks are gone entirely. Otherwise, nightsticks are fine so long as the cleric player refrains from douchebaggery.


This makes negative sense to me. It's the tortured interpretation of a reader in search of justification for a preconceived conviction. That's not RAW, that's RAYouWantThemToBe.

WotC made a dumb little mistake. Why is that so hard to believe? Two other examples of overly-vague rules with vast implications are IHS from ToB & that one Truenamer utterance that lets them dispel anything with no save (reverse Spell Rebirth, FTR). Their lazy editing & glaring omissions are the stuff of legendary cheese.
The negative uses remaining was merely an unfortunate artifact of copying the format of the poster I was replying to. In the manner of usage of the ruling I am referring to, it would not be "negative four uses remaining", but rather "ten uses spent", and the fact that maximum uses per day is only six just means you're that much more emphatically out of uses. Increasing maximum uses per day back to ten has no effect on whether you've already spent ten uses that day.

In any case, it's an argument that's only really relevant if Nightsticks are ruled to not stack and you're trying to circumvent that ruling. Checking the exact wording of the item, I agree that full stacking is the more likely correct RAW interpretation. You'll still find quite a few people argue the other way, and quite a few more explicitly house rule it.

[Curmudgeon]

Yep. You could have your Nightstick(s) hidden in a bag of holding buried in a secret underground vault on a private demiplane while you go adventuring a dozen planes away, and as long as they still belong to you they still work.
No, I don't think so. The requirement is that you "possess" a Nightstick. That's a stronger requirement than "own". Here's an example of what the rules mean by "possess" (in this case, with item familiars):
Special: If you ever lose the chosen item (have it removed from your possession for a continuous period of more than one day per level) or if the item is destroyed, you automatically lose 200 XP per level as well as all benefits derived from possessing the linked item (plus any resources you put into the item). If you recover the item, you regain these XP. If it's locked away in a vault, you no longer possess the Nightstick.

[Douglas]

Neither Nightsticks nor your Item Familiar quote define what they mean by "possess". Thus, we are left with the English definition, which is synonymous with "own".

[Curmudgeon]

Actually, we would use the English definition from the late Medieval/early Renaissance era which D&D attempts to emulate.
Word Origin & History

possess
mid-15c., "to hold, occupy, reside in" (without regard to ownership), from O.Fr. possessier (mid-13c.), from L. possess-, pp. stem of possidere "to possess." Meaning "to hold as property" is recorded from c.1500. Demonic sense is recorded from 1530s (implied in possessed). Possessive first attested 1520s

[Douglas]

Meaning "to hold as property"
Sounds to me like sticking it in a vault that belongs to you qualifies.

[JaronK]

Good luck arguing that drugs hidden in your house aren't your possessions when the police find them...

JaronK