Reved-up Ioun Stone...

[Three_Haligonians]

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

-Hyp.

Hypersmurf approved is good enough for me!

J from Three Haligonians

 

[glass]

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

Thank goodness for that. I didn't think I would have fabricated a rule from whole cloth, but I was beginning to wonder...


glass.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

Well, that suddenly makes the double sword +1 defending / +1 defending I gave out last adventure mostly useless. *cough*

I have to wonder, though, how you can tell if something is "same source." If I want a spell to stack with itself, I just research another spell with slightly different qualities and suddenly it stacks (or maybe just change the name). It seems like such would work for this. Now its like a luck stone, it goes in your pocket instead of floating around your head giving a +1 caster level, and it stacks.

 

[ARandomGod]

...except that Ioun stones provide "+1 caster level" with no "does not stack" clause.

It's not bonuses from similar sources that don't stack; it's bonuses with similar names. A cloak that gives a +1 resistance bonus to saves and a +1 luck bonus to saves would give the character wearing it a net +2 bonus to saves.

Two Ioun stones, as far as I can tell, would each give their unnamed +1 bonus to caster level, for a net +2 bonus.

--If I'm wrong, I'm certain Patryn and/or Hyp will jump in and post the relevant quotes. : )

Yea, I remember that they stack too. Take especial note that an Ioun stone is priced as a slotless item... and so there's nothing against making a very similiar slotless item that does NOT circle in an inane fashion around your head.

Technically two bonuses from the same source also don't stack.

For instance, you can't cast the same spell (that has a duration) on yourself multiple times, even if the bonus it grants is unnamed.

Fortunately for the interpretation of this instance, two different ioun stones are considered two different sources.

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

I dunno about him, but I'd not only allow it, I'd laugh at anyone who suggested NOT allowing it, and then point out that having alertness twice has no net effect.

ON the Gripping hand, however, I dissallow that type of thing stacking, even if I do think that the RAW provides that they stack. Whereas I would allow stacking if you made the +2 item (with the normal exponential costs involved).

I have to wonder, though, how you can tell if something is "same source." If I want a spell to stack with itself, I just research another spell with slightly different qualities and suddenly it stacks (or maybe just change the name). It seems like such would work for this. Now its like a luck stone, it goes in your pocket instead of floating around your head giving a +1 caster level, and it stacks.

Heh. Yea. But clearly they intend to have the GM discression in allowing new spells/items to account for this.

Now it's a luck stone, +1 luck bonus to caster level
Now it's a Dragon Stone. +1 unnamed* bonus to caster level
Now it's an Energy Stone. +1 Energy bonus to caster level
Now it's an Amplifier stone. +1 Amplification bonus to caster level

* Since it's a different stone, and unnamed sources stack, it'll stack this way. I named the other sources for ... Um. ... Balance.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

"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.

This is my biggest concern about allowing Ioun stones to stack. Those extra levels could really add up.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Fortunately for the interpretation of this instance, two different ioun stones are considered two different sources.

How is it that if a wizard casts a spell on you, and a cleric casts another instance of the same spell on you, those are considered 'the same source', but one ioun stone and another instance of the same ioun stone are considered different sources?

So you have an explicit statement differentiating the two circumstances?

In the absence of one, I'd think that the fact that two applications of the same spell are treated as a single source would indicate that two ioun stones of the same type would also be treated as a single source...?

-Hyp.

 

[ThirdWizard]

In the absence of one, I'd think that the fact that two applications of the same spell are treated as a single source would indicate that two ioun stones of the same type would also be treated as a single source...?

What if during creation I just called the item a noui stone instead?

It's kind of interesting, because in the video game Oblivion, it uses this same source rule. If I cast a spell that raises my defense 10 and then cast it again, I only get the 10 increase even though I cast it twice. If I research another spell that adds defense 10 and cast both of them, then I raise my defense 20.

It's a similar situation in D&D. Sure, you can say that two ioun stones that add +1 caster level don't stack or two spells that give unnamed bonuses don't stack, but it seems to be a trivial matter to get around that as soon as one introuduces the optional rules for making magical items or a wizard decides to research a spell.

So then I have to wonder what's the point of the rule in the first place? Why create a system with unnamed bonuses that always stack, then add in an unless they don't clause?

 

[IndyPendant]

What if during creation I just called the item a noui stone instead?

Well, Hyp would probably argue that what you call it does not matter; the item would still be an Ioun Stone once created, and would not stack. Kind of like if you'd called the thing 'Ralph'. Ralph still would not stack with other +1 CL Ioun Stones.

However, let's extend this example.

In the magic item creation rules, it says you multiply the cost of creation by 1.5 for abilities that are placed in items in the wrong 'body slot'. You multiply the cost by 2 for abilities that are placed in items that do not take up a body slot at all. In Complete Arcane there is a Ring of Arcane Might that gives +1 CL that costs 20kgp. Since the Ioun Stone does not take up a slot, and therefore both magic items seem to follow the formula, we can assume that any +1CL item created that does not take up a body slot would cost 30kgp.

So my question then becomes: if I purchase a Ring of Arcane Might and an Orange Ioun Stone, and then create a Pearl of Arcane Might, a Cube of Arcane Might, and an ArcaneMightStone, will I then gain +5 CL? --At the cost of 140,000 gp, note.

And if so, Hyp, is this one of those cases where you're arguing "This is what RAW says, not what I say RAW should be"? : )

--And for those screaming "THIS IS BORKN!!!!!!eleven" --Remember two things: 1) multiple 30kgp purchases are not insignificant at any sub-epic level. You're giving up a *lot* of options to get, what? +2-5 CL? --I'd rather have the bonus spells, DC increase, skill boosts, etc etc from a permanent Ability Enhancement Item and the relevant Tome or Manual, myself. Or a Con-boost item. Or a Robe of the Archmagi. Or...etc etc. *shrug* 2) Multiple Ioun Stones whizzing around the wizard? He can't afford them until higher levels, so a fighter-type with at least 3 attacks by then comes along and sunders three of them in one round with very little chance of failure. That would be 90kgp and +3CL gone. Oops. : )

 

[Bront]

I remember that it was ruled that the ioun stones stack. So you could have three +1 ioun stones to get a +3 total bonus to caster level. This seems to me to violate the same source rule, and I really wish that I had a link.

Otherwise, the normal rule is that you have to square the bonus. So if +1 is 30 000, then +2 would be four times as much (120 000), +3 would be nine times as much (270 000) and so on. You obviously wouldn't use this rule if you allow +1 stones to stack. There you might even give a small discount for having a combined stone than if they were separate (it can be undesirable to have all the eggs in one basket).

Pricing of magic items is to be discussed in the Rules Forum. This was hashed out a while ago in Meta, and the policy remains unchanged.

Bonuses only stacks if it's an unnamed or dodge bonus (Dodge bonus to spell casting, LOL). Technicaly it's an unnamed bonus, but I wouldn't let it stack.

 

[ARandomGod]

How is it that if a wizard casts a spell on you, and a cleric casts another instance of the same spell on you, those are considered 'the same source', but one ioun stone and another instance of the same ioun stone are considered different sources?

So you have an explicit statement differentiating the two circumstances?

In the absence of one, I'd think that the fact that two applications of the same spell are treated as a single source would indicate that two ioun stones of the same type would also be treated as a single source...?

-Hyp.

Mainly I'd call the difference in the word "spell", and I wouldn't consider the stone casting a spell. Sure, an odd quirky difference, and one that I can fully see an arguement against (it's indeed equally valid to say this should go the other way), but still a difference and magic is quirky.

The explicit statement is the word spell. Two casters cast spells, two stones have magical non-spell effects. Effects that are, indeed, similiar to spells.

I do indeed see that "two applications of the same spell" as an inherent weakness of spells in general, and not of all magics. Permanent items work in a different way than spells, even if they are powered by the same base source.