Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 3142080" data-attributes="member: 31734">But, for these "bonuses" to a bonus to stack, you have to rule one way or the other as follows:1. The 'normal' enhancement bonus includes the increase from other banes, or any other sources.  For this, you need to apply some rules of precedence.2. The word 'normal' is a red herring and these bane increases are actually bonuses and were intended to stack because they are unnamed and unnamed bonuses stack.I reject #1 because I don't think 'normal' for X-Bane would include Y-Bane.  It is illogical.I reject #2 because the +2 extra for X-Bane is not a bonus to an enhancement bonus.  It's a different enhancement bonus.  All of the rules on stacking bonuses for #2 don't apply because you're not adding +2 to +2 to +1.  You're adding +3 to +3 and coming up with +5. You're probably right about most people.  I would not, however, because the people in this thread keep referring to them as bonuses, and they're not.  They're merely different enhancement bonuses.  It's not +1 and +2 to get +3, it's simply either +1 or +3.  For it to be +5 like you suggest, you must be ordering the banes and assuming that one of the banes forms the 'normal' enhancement bonus.  I cannot agree with that because such ordering is not used anywhere in the rules and, in fact, it is usually contrary to the rules (e.g. AC, enfeeblement+poison).Disclaimer: I called them bonuses to the enhancement bonuses in previous posts, but that was wrong.  They are not bonuses, which is a clearly defined term.</blockquote>

Verification