Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Empirate" data-source="post: 6152930" data-attributes="member: 78958">The operative word in the sentence you quoted is &quot;or&quot;. The ability provides a fixed bonus to you if one of certain conditions is met: if any (i.e., at least one) of the mentioned descriptors apply, you get the bonus. If none apply, you don't. It's not implied anywhere that the bonus might be multiplied if multiple descriptors apply. Usually, WotC source material makes pretty sure to explicitly spell these things out.As for this part: &quot;It's strong but seems like its intended and I can't find an argument against it...&quot; How does it seem like it's intended? If it were intended, it'd be spelled out. Arguments against are not needed; in fact, to me it looks like somebody first needs to come up with a compelling argument FOR it. After all, it's a rather heavy rules &quot;interpretation&quot; we're talking about here.In short: Somebody just pulled the idea out of a hat. Leave it. Stormcaster is good enough.EDIT: Just had an idea for an argument, should you still need one: Rogues do sneak attack bonus damage against opponents that are flat-footed, or whom they flank. Would you argue that Rogues do double SA damage if they flank a flat-footed opponent? No? Same principle.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Empirate, post: 6152930, member: 78958"] The operative word in the sentence you quoted is "or". The ability provides a fixed bonus to you if one of certain conditions is met: if any (i.e., at least one) of the mentioned descriptors apply, you get the bonus. If none apply, you don't. It's not implied anywhere that the bonus might be multiplied if multiple descriptors apply. Usually, WotC source material makes pretty sure to explicitly spell these things out. As for this part: "It's strong but seems like its intended and I can't find an argument against it..." How does it seem like it's intended? If it were intended, it'd be spelled out. Arguments against are not needed; in fact, to me it looks like somebody first needs to come up with a compelling argument FOR it. After all, it's a rather heavy rules "interpretation" we're talking about here. In short: Somebody just pulled the idea out of a hat. Leave it. Stormcaster is good enough. EDIT: Just had an idea for an argument, should you still need one: Rogues do sneak attack bonus damage against opponents that are flat-footed, or whom they flank. Would you argue that Rogues do double SA damage if they flank a flat-footed opponent? No? Same principle. [/QUOTE]

Verification