Keen stacking

[Kraedin]

If the spell and the weapon quality did stack, these class abilities would also have to state if they stack with that.

But they wouldn't have to say that. Things (usually) stack unless a rule says they don't.

Where's that class from, anyway? I'm not familar with it.

In any case, using supplements as a premise isn't the best way to argue. There's some pretty gruesome mistakes in there. Take, for example, Eagle Claw Attack, the feat that gives you an ability you already have.

 

[Crothian]

But they wouldn't have to say that. Things (usually) stack unless a rule says they don't.

But in the class ability it specifically says what it stacks with, and what it does not. It wouldn't list something it stacks with, something it doesn't, and then just not mention a third.

 

[Kraedin]

Both of us know that WotC editing in the supplements is pretty poor. They just might.

 

[Crothian]

Both of us know that WotC editing in the supplements is pretty poor. They just might.

Actually, the editing in BoVD where I'm quoting, is pretty impressive. This is no Sword and Fist.

 

[kreynolds]

Things (usually) stack unless a rule says they don't.

You've got that backwards.

• Magical bonuses don't stack unless they say otherwise.
• Magical effects don't stack unless they say otherwise.
• Bonuses from feats don't stack unless they say otherwise.
• Class abilities don't stack unless they say otherwise.

 

[Kraedin]

PHB, pg. 153

Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipients.

Sure?

 

[Kraedin]

So it's from BoVD, then? I don't own that one. All I can offer up is this post from the WotC message boards about that book.

Not even the **** -poor job he did on the item creation system made me want to beat Monte savagely with a Half-Ice Element Hezrou and a +1 Flaming Burst Lance the way those particular mechanics did.

All I needed to do was open the book to a single item, and LO AND BEHOLD one of my personal pet peeve 3e rules failures is made WORSE on the first entry I look at.

Once again, for the game designers from the short bus (which on 3e is apparently everybody save for Johno, Eddy-Baby and Skip):

What does bother me is that the editors apparently feel that including the words "impregnate", "necrophilia", "writhing", "fluid", and "tendrils" absolves them of any duty to tjeck for playability, game balance or even comprehensibility.

I suggest you take some of that time wasted writing pointless disclaimers to try maybe RUNNING SOME OF YOUR MECHANICS PAST A FRIEND OR ROOMATE WHO ACTUALLY KNOWS THE RULES!!!!!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipients.

That refers to magical effects in general. Meaning that your protection from good will work even though someone has put up his magic circle against law, another cast a stinking cloud, the whole area has endure elements because of a mythal, and seven wizards are raining fireballs down on the very same spot.

 

[Crothian]

So it's from BoVD, then? I don't own that one. All I can offer up is this post from the WotC message boards about that book.

Is there any substance to this rant? I see a lot of complaining, but no reasons for the complaints. Sounds like someone who just likes to, well, complain.

 

[Kraedin]

Here's a link if you want to see the context of the rant.