Reved-up Ioun Stone...

[Hypersmurf]

Unless they come from the same source. In which case they overlap in the same manner as circumstance bonuses.

Can you provide a quote to support this?

-Hyp.

 

[Kieperr]

From Rules of the Game, Does it Stack, Part 1.

"Rules Governing Bonuses

The basic rule to remember when combining two or more bonuses is this: two or more bonuses of different type stack, and two or more bonuses of the same type overlap. In general, a bonus's name indicates its type. A bonus with no name has no type and it stacks with any other bonus, but not with itself."

 

[Hypersmurf]

From Rules of the Game, Does it Stack, Part 1.

I meant a quote from the rules, not from Rules of the Game

But even if we assume the article to have some basis in the published rules, does that wording prevent two ioun stones from both having their effect?

Let's take the example of two Defending weapons. A Defending weapon provides a bonus to AC "that stacks with all others". If I transfer one point of enhancement bonus from each of two Defending weapons, would you say my AC increases by +1 or by +2?

As far as I can tell, it's +2. The bonus from one weapon stacks with all others, and the bonus from the other weapon stacks with all others, so they both apply.

Likewise, the unnamed bonus to caster level from one ioun stone, according to Rules of the Game (for what it's worth) stacks with any other bonus, but not itself. And the bonus from the other ioun stone stacks with any other bonus, but not itself.

-Hyp.

 

[Kieperr]

Without any discussion on unnamed bonuses within the rules saying whether or not they stack with themselves, the Rules of the Game is the only published source available that addresses this subject. A bonus with no name does not stack with itself, which follows the rules on bonuses within the rules.

As for two Defending weapons, it basically comes down to how you interpret the word "others", used as a noun in this case. Webster's, and myself, inerpret it as meaning different or additional. So "that stacks with all others" means that the AC bonus from the Defending special ability stacks with all effects that are different from or additional too the AC Bonus from the Defending special ability. So two different defending weapons used to add +1 to AC are duplicating the effect so they are not different from nor additional too the AC bonus from Defending. This also applies to duplicate Ioun Stones. You are not gaining different bonuses to caster level, you are using two different items to gain the same bonus.

Would you allow two dark blue rhomboids to grant Alertness twice to the same character?

 

[the Jester]

I'm with Hyp on this one; there is actually no rule prohibiting bonuses from multiples of the same magic item from stacking with each other.

Two ioun stones, therefore, would stack to give a +2 CL.

I also agree that you need to square the bonus to cost out a more powerful stone; so one that gave +2 to CL would cost 120,000 gp, etc.

Which brings up the question- why get a +2 CL ioun stone (assuming they even exist) rather than two stones of CL +1? As near as I can tell, other than the fact that you would then have one stone instead of two, there is no real reason to do so. The benefits of having a single stone are marginal at best (only need to release one stone to get your full bonus, er, slightly higher saves, ummm... harder to dispel? -can't think of much else).

 

[Hypersmurf]

A bonus with no name does not stack with itself, which follows the rules on bonuses within the rules.

No, it doesn't; the rules on bonuses not stacking refer to named bonuses.

As for two Defending weapons, it basically comes down to how you interpret the word "others", used as a noun in this case. Webster's, and myself, inerpret it as meaning different or additional. So "that stacks with all others" means that the AC bonus from the Defending special ability stacks with all effects that are different from or additional too the AC Bonus from the Defending special ability.

I'd say the AC bonus from the Defending special ability of the longsword in your primary hand stacks with all effects that are different from or additional to the AC Bonus from the Defending special ability of the longsword in your primary hand... like the AC Bonus from the Defending special ability of dagger in your off-hand.

So two different defending weapons used to add +1 to AC are duplicating the effect...

It's not duplicating the effect. It's an additional effect.

You've got one Defending effect; I've got two Defending effects. Two Defending effects that each provide a bonus that stacks with all others.

Would you allow two dark blue rhomboids to grant Alertness twice to the same character?

Certainly.

If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description. In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Interesting - the Glossary contains a potentially critical bit of wording not found elsewhere in the rules.

PHB p313, stack:
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different descriptors (or no descriptor at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession).

It looks like the non-existent 'same source rule' is, in fact, the existent 'same source rule' once the Glossary is included

With this taken into account, I'd have to agree that two ioun stones are similar to two instances of the same spell, since we're no longer looking at a spell-specific rule and generalising with no basis. Which means I'd rule that two ioun stones (or, indeed, two Defending weapons!) count as "the same source" for purposes of determining stacking.

-Hyp.

 

[Jack Simth]

Which brings up the question- why get a +2 CL ioun stone (assuming they even exist) rather than two stones of CL +1? As near as I can tell, other than the fact that you would then have one stone instead of two, there is no real reason to do so. The benefits of having a single stone are marginal at best (only need to release one stone to get your full bonus, er, slightly higher saves, ummm... harder to dispel? -can't think of much else).

Keeping them unseen for wearing around town - Permanently Invisible Ioun Stones are a little bit harder to steal/damage.

Granted, it only costs 1,000 xp to make an item permenently invisible, while the difference between a bonus squared*base +2 Orange Prisim Ioun Stone and two +1 Orange Prisim Ioun Stones is over the 2,000 xp needed to make both Permanently Invisible (and gold besides).....

Occasionally a DM will house-rule that you can only have as many currently active Ioun stones as you have orbits 3 (or that only a particular number will fit into any given orbit; perhaps 1 in the one foot orbit, two in the two foot orbit, and three in the three foot orbit, for a total of six). In such a case, once you've filled all available Ioun Stone Slots, all that's left is to improve the value of the ones you have.

"Occasionally" a DM will rule that Orange Prism Ioun Stones don't stack with each other, just to prevent the sort of munchkinism inherent in using lots of them at once. In such a case, of course you want one +2 Ioun stone rather than two +1 Ioun stones.

 

[Three_Haligonians]

Ok then, no using multiple Orange Ioun Stones for extra caster levels. That leaves us with a pricing system of the bonus squared x 30,000gp for anything above a +1 caster level which, I guess, is pricy enough to be fair.

Thanks folks!

(Though I still feel that the "stacks with all others" part of the Defending weapon is a specific case that trumps the otherwise general "no stack" rule.. but.. that's for a different thread!)

J from Three Haligonians

 

[Hypersmurf]

(Though I still feel that the "stacks with all others" part of the Defending weapon is a specific case that trumps the otherwise general "no stack" rule.. but.. that's for a different thread!)

The general rule does say "In most cases", so there's room for it

-Hyp.