Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arkhandus" data-source="post: 1640909" data-attributes="member: 13966">Aye, if the rules specify that Haste and weapons of Speed do not stack, why wouldn't it also specify that TWF and Flurry don't mix Jesuit, or TWF+Flurry+Rapid Shot don't mix?  Why would the rules specify only a few rare cases and not simply state "multiple sources of extra attacks don't work simultaneously"?  Because that's not the case, everything stacks unless it is explicitly restricted in a line of the rules.  Haste and Speed don't stack because there is a specific line of ruling that states they don't, but there is no such rule specifying that any part of the so-far-pointlessly-debated combo doesn't work.  Do you assume that Power Attack and a character's Strength bonus don't stack, or that Power Attack and Weapon Specialization don't stack, just because they don't state otherwise?  Where do you even get the idea that extra attacks are named bonuses somehow, let alone of the same name?  Only bonuses of the same specified name (like sacred, deflection, haste, enhancement, etc.) don't stack with other bonuses of the exact same named type.  And nowhere do the rules state the the extra attacks from Flurry, TWF, or the like are somehow "bonus" attacks. You're interpreting the rules your own way, and you're thinking that it's simply the way they are, rather than acknowledging that it is merely the (technically wrong) way you've personally interpreted it because of your own biases and inability to reason properly with the changes in 3.5.  3.0 material DOES NOT take precedence where 3.5 happens to not specify, generally because 3.5 doesn't specify clarifications of old rules that no longer apply; the rules assume that you see the lack of those old rulings and recognize that they were dumped because they were not liked by the designers of the revision.  The 3.5 books reprint plenty of text from the old 3.0 books, they obviously don't just print revised rules, they print the COMPLETE 3.5 rules. Anything that may have been in the 3.0 books but not in the 3.5 books is obviously something the designers ditched and SELECTIVELY discarded because it did not belong anymore, or it's something that will be updated in a later 3.5 book like Complete Arcane or whatever, in which case it should not be assumed that the designers simply chose to leave it alone; otherwise the 3.5 core rulebooks wouldn't reprint anything verbatim from the 3.0 books, they'd leave out anything redundant, wouldn't they?  Please try and process this and fix your logic.  So far you've been operating on a mere logical fallacy, which is fine for your own houseruled games, but you should not be trying to impose a fallacy upon others as though it were official truth.</blockquote>

Verification