Untyped bonus stacking - ? about March errata

Badapple · Mar 4, 2010

I'm unable to download the errata from the Wizard's site currently, so I don't have the exact text before me. But from what I've gathered, there is a change that untyped bonuses that come from the same "source" no longer stack. Source is not precisely defined, they instead give the examples of source in parenthesis (class feature, power, etc.) or something to that effect.

So if Power X gives a +2 untyped bonus to attack rolls and Power Y gives a +2 untyped bonus to attack rolls do they still stack? They are both powers, but they are different powers.

A small nerf interpretation would be that since the sources are different attack powers they stack.

A big nerf interpretation would be the source of the +2 comes from attack powers, therefore they don't stack.

abyssaldeath · Mar 4, 2010

The word source is never used in the update. It says "if you gain multiple untyped bonuses from the same named game element (a power, a feat, a class feature, and the like), only the highest bonus applies, unless stated otherwise."

So, untyped bonuses don't stack if the bonus comes from the same exact power, feat or what ever. Example: If you have two Clerics in your group and they both give you a +5 bonus to all defenses, via Sanctuary, the bonuses won't stack because the bonus is coming from the same power.

Here is the official example.

From March update said:
Also, For example, if you spend an action point and
can see two warlords who have the Tactical Presence
class feature, you gain the bonus to attack rolls from
only one of the warlords, whichever one provides the
higher bonus.

DracoSuave · Mar 4, 2010

Badapple said:
I'm unable to download the errata from the Wizard's site currently, so I don't have the exact text before me. But from what I've gathered, there is a change that untyped bonuses that come from the same "source" no longer stack. Source is not precisely defined, they instead give the examples of source in parenthesis (class feature, power, etc.) or something to that effect.

So if Power X gives a +2 untyped bonus to attack rolls and Power Y gives a +2 untyped bonus to attack rolls do they still stack? They are both powers, but they are different powers.

A small nerf interpretation would be that since the sources are different attack powers they stack.

A big nerf interpretation would be the source of the +2 comes from attack powers, therefore they don't stack.

Okay, when you're saying that a game term use is ambiguous, please make sure the game term is actually -used- in the rule.

However, if you gain multiple untyped bonuses from the same named game element (a power, a feat, a class feature, and the like),

You'll find there's no question if you actually -read- the pertinent text.

abyssaldeath · Mar 4, 2010

I wish people would stop saying "same source" as it just confuses things. The only reference to "source" in 4E is Power Source.

Marshall · Mar 4, 2010

DracoSuave said:
Okay, when you're saying that a game term use is ambiguous, please make sure the game term is actually -used- in the rule.

However, if you gain multiple untyped bonuses from the same named game element (a power, a feat, a class feature, and the like),

You'll find there's no question if you actually -read- the pertinent text.

Its ambiguous as all get out.

Feats are a named game element
Powers are a named game element
Class Features are a named game element

named game element is NOT a 4e term and is NOT defined in the "clarification".
In fact, the simplest reading of what IS written is that you can gain only the highest bonus from any collection of applicable feats, any collection of applicable powers or any collection of applicable features. IOW, exactly what the OP asked.

The example given is worthless in explaining the intention of the "clarification" since it actually fits in both rulings and, again, the broader ruling IS the most obvious interpretation.

Maybe when the May errata comes out WotC will clarify their "clarification" until then you have to choose between your PP's action point benefit or the Warlords 'cause ya dont git both.

DracoSuave · Mar 4, 2010

Marshall said:
Its ambiguous as all get out.

Feats are a named game element
Powers are a named game element
Class Features are a named game element

named game element is NOT a 4e term and is NOT defined in the "clarification".

Boo. You're being willfully ignorant. Using your logic, nothing is a defined term because nothing can be defined except by game terms, which themselves cannot be defined.

So no.

Game element is pretty self explanatory. It means, well, anything in the game. 'Same named' is also pretty self explanatory. It means anything that shares the same name.

You're parsing it wrong. It's same-named game-element.

Unless you're going to start an argument that same-named can refer to differently named things.

Oh wait:

In fact, the simplest reading of what IS written is that you can gain only the highest bonus from any collection of applicable feats, any collection of applicable powers or any collection of applicable features. IOW, exactly what the OP asked.

The example given is worthless in explaining the intention of the "clarification" since it actually fits in both rulings and, again, the broader ruling IS the most obvious interpretation.

Maybe when the May errata comes out WotC will clarify their "clarification" until then you have to choose between your PP's action point benefit or the Warlords 'cause ya dont git both.

You do.

If you honestly think this is a valid interpretation, you're either trying to force an argument, or don't understand english, and honestly, I can't help you with either of those.

Marshall · Mar 5, 2010

DracoSuave said:
Boo. You're being willfully ignorant. Using your logic, nothing is a defined term because nothing can be defined except by game terms, which themselves cannot be defined.

So no.

Game element is pretty self explanatory. It means, well, anything in the game. 'Same named' is also pretty self explanatory. It means anything that shares the same name.

You're parsing it wrong. It's same-named game-element.

Unless you're going to start an argument that same-named can refer to differently named things.

Nope. You're parsing it wrong. Feat, Power, Class Feature are all same-named game-elements. Funnily enough, those are even the terms they use in the example text.

You do.

If you honestly think this is a valid interpretation, you're either trying to force an argument, or don't understand english, and honestly, I can't help you with either of those.

Its the only interpretation. Anything else ignores the scope of the text AND the example text.
Is it a drastic overreach to what isn't an issue to start with? Hell, Yes.
Is it consistent with the rest of the rulings in the doc? Hell, Yes.

There's no issue for this ruling to clarify in the first place, so why make it?

DracoSuave · Mar 5, 2010

Marshall said:
Nope. You're parsing it wrong. Feat, Power, Class Feature are all same-named game-elements. Funnily enough, those are even the terms they use in the example text.

'Feat' is not a game element. It's a game term for a series of elements.

You could claim that 'Weapon Focus' in Axe and 'Weapon Focus' in Heavy Blade are the same named game element, because they ARE. They have the same name: Weapon Focus.

You cannot make the claim that Weapon Focus and Two-Weapon Defense are same named game elements, because they are not.

Its the only interpretation. Anything else ignores the scope of the text AND the example text.
Is it a drastic overreach to what isn't an issue to start with? Hell, Yes.
Is it consistent with the rest of the rulings in the doc? Hell, Yes.

There's no issue for this ruling to clarify in the first place, so why make it?

Except it's not the only interpretation. It's inventing an interpretation that doesn't make sense just to prove that the rules don't make sense when interpreted in a back-assward manner.

So, to sum up your argument:

Rules don't make sense when interpreted in a way that is obvious nonsense because the rules don't make sense when interpreted in a way that is obvious nonsense.

To which, I welcome you to The Tautology Club

mkill · Mar 5, 2010

Marshall, cut it out. You act like an obnoxious prick, which would already be bad if you were right. And well, you're wrong. DracoSuave is right.

It's basicly the same rule as in 3rd edition, it's just that it was never included in the new rules because everybody assumed it's there.

And no, the example is not ambiguous, because it is talking about two game elements called Tactical Presence and Tactical Presence. Their same-name-ness is obvious.

EDIT: I do agree that the wording could be better. game element (a power, a feat, a class feature, and the like) with the same name would cause a lot less confusion.

Flipguarder · Mar 5, 2010

Calling "feats" a "named-game-element" Is like calling me "white guy" and expecting that to be my name.

Named game element requires a name, not just the same category.

And yes you should be more reasonable with your argument rather then your current discussion tactics. The word "named" means something.

Untyped bonus stacking - ? about March errata

Badapple

First Post

abyssaldeath

First Post

DracoSuave

First Post

abyssaldeath

First Post

Marshall

First Post

DracoSuave

First Post

Marshall

First Post

DracoSuave

First Post

mkill

Adventurer

Flipguarder

First Post

Similar Threads