Untyped bonus stacking - ? about March errata

[Marshall]

You all might have a point, if you had a point. The fact of the matter is that the only definition of the term "named game element" is in the example after the term is used and its defined as a feat, a power or a class feature.

WotC just has a bad habit of making their clarifications more confusing then the confusing text in the first place. Or, as in this case, where there was no confusion to start with.

I hope its supposed to be the same rule as in 3e, but I can easily see where they would want to limit the effect of untyped bonuses and where all the other rulings in this document follow the same theme.

On top of that, Dracos interpretation makes NO rules sense. Its not a very strong argument since WotC is losing track of where game balance lies, but why is a party with two TacLords gimped by this ruling, yet a party with a TacLord and ResLord or InsLord not? Where is the fun in telling one of the players that his PC is now down one class feature?

For that matter, Is either party better off? Both "Tactical Presence" and "Inspiring Presence" are aspects of the class feature "Commanding Presence".
Whats the "named game element" here?

Sorry, dudes. You all got this one wrong.

 

[DracoSuave]

On top of that, Dracos interpretation makes NO rules sense. Its not a very strong argument since WotC is losing track of where game balance lies, but why is a party with two TacLords gimped by this ruling, yet a party with a TacLord and ResLord or InsLord not? Where is the fun in telling one of the players that his PC is now down one class feature?

Well I can see why it is that way, if for no other reason than +lots to attack and +lots more to damage gets PRETTY damn retarded.

For that matter, Is either party better off? Both "Tactical Presence" and "Inspiring Presence" are aspects of the class feature "Commanding Presence".
Whats the "named game element" here?

Tactical Presence has the same name as Tactical Presence. This is obvious.

And, besides that, even if it were based on 'Commanding Presense', it's moot. Hitpoints and attack bonuses aren't the same thing.

Neither is shifting, temporary hitpoints, or free attacks.

The only reason you're confused by it tho, is because you're TRYING to be confused. It's pretty obvious by the examples what it means. This level of confusion requires an act of will. Either that, or...

...take your choice.

Sorry, dudes. You all got this one wrong.

 

[Flipguarder]

and its defined as a feat, a power or a class feature.

Yes, All feats is not a feat. All class features is not a class feature, and all powers is not a power.

You claim that its confusing that plural is different from singular. I don't buy it.

 

[Marshall]

Well I can see why it is that way, if for no other reason than +lots to attack and +lots more to damage gets PRETTY damn retarded.

So? Your team has set up a tactical situation where its favorable to you. Isn't that the point of the game?
You still haven't explained why this is so much more damning than a TacLord+Righteous Brand or Vicious Mockery+Your PP ability that gives bonuses to-hit.

It doesn't accomplish anything ruling it your way, other than spoiling someones fun.

Tactical Presence has the same name as Tactical Presence. This is obvious.

Yes, Class Feature and Class Feature. You're not going to get away from what they printed.

And, besides that, even if it were based on 'Commanding Presense', it's moot. Hitpoints and attack bonuses aren't the same thing.

Neither is shifting, temporary hitpoints, or free attacks.

Oh, so it ONLY applies to TacLords now? If we had two BravLords in the party I can still get two free swings? SkirmishLords, two shifts? Double Healing?
Not only is it unreadable, it doesn't do what they think it does and its a targeted failure.

The only reason you're confused by it tho, is because you're TRYING to be confused. It's pretty obvious by the examples what it means. This level of confusion requires an act of will. Either that, or...

...take your choice.

I'm not confused by anything other than their intent and their utter failure to demonstrate it. If they really feel that TacPres shouldnt stack with TacPres then make them Ally or Aid bonuses and make a clear ruling instead of this garbage.

 

[Legildur]

...You'll find there's no question if you actually -read- the pertinent text.

You do realise that the OP states (in his opening sentence, no less) that: "I'm unable to download the errata from the Wizard's site currently, so I don't have the exact text before me."?

 

[fuzzlewump]

Bonuses and Penalties
Page 275: Replace the last paragraph of the Bonuses
section with the following text. This change reflects
revisions in Player’s Handbook 3. It is intended to limit
bonuses from stacking in unintended ways, such
as from feats like Echoes of Thunder or Oncoming
Storm used in conjunction with close or area attacks.
Some bonuses are untyped. Bonuses that have
no type add together. However, if you gain multiple
untyped bonuses from the same named game element
(a power, a feat, a class feature, and the like),
only the highest bonus applies, unless stated otherwise.
For example, if you spend an action point and
can see two warlords who have the Tactical Presence
class feature, you gain the bonus to attack rolls from
only one of the warlords, whichever one provides the
higher bonus.”

Grandmothers are watching, my friends, let's cool it down from 11 to 0 please.

@Marshall

What's the difference between a named game element and a game element if a 'named game element' is meant to be the broad term?

The examples they give are clearly identifying specific feats as 'named' elements. The examples would be entirely different if they meant anything else. Something like, "If you are going to gain an attack bonus from two class features then only the highest applies." Why would they, on both of their examples, provide specific named examples if they just meant general things?

Replacing one of the terms: "If you gain multiple untyped bonuses from a power, only the highest bonus applies, unless stated otherwise." I see it's definitely ambiguous based on this alone. It depends on, as I say it out loud, whether you emphasize the letter "a." You can either get the bonuses from a power, or get it from a power. One is general, one is specific. There's probably some english mumbo jumbo that supports that, but I don't know, that's just how it seems to me. Since that can go either way, though, the two clear examples seem to be the best thing to go with. Oh well, happy gaming in any case.

 

[N0Man]

When I first skimmed the update, I misread this too. However, I wasn't reading closely. I read it again, and it was perfectly clear (especially with examples).

As it was pointed out, as it has been pointed out it says "the same named game element". This implies a specific item in a subset, because that's what an element is. For example, a chemical element isn't the entire Period Table, or a grouping of elements such as Metals, but a specific item such as Hydrogen.

Also, it says "a power", "a feat", "a class feature", etc. As pointed out, this is singular and shows that it must be unique to a single item of that type, not all items of that type.

They also gave 3 examples, so that you can see how it applies:

Echos of Thunder (with a Close or Area Attack) - This is obviously means that you can't use the feat, "When you hit with any thunder attack power, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls until the end of your next turn." to add a cumulative untyped +1 damage for each target you hit with a thunder power and rack up +5 Damage by hitting a bunch of targets in an area attack.

Oncoming Storm (with a Close or Area Attack) - Like Echoes, this means you can't use the feat, "When you hit with any lightning attack power, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with thunder powers until the end of your next turn" to add a cumulative +5 to your attack by hitting a bunch of targets with an area attack.

Tactical Presence (with 2 different Warlords) - You obviously can't get the same untyped bonus from 2 warlords using the exact same named power.

Their choice of examples is what makes it most obvious.

 

[Badapple]

You do realise that the OP states (in his opening sentence, no less) that: "I'm unable to download the errata from the Wizard's site currently, so I don't have the exact text before me."?

Thank you Legildur. And thank you to the others that responded politely.

As someone who simply was looking for the answer to a rules question it's always frustrating when I'm met with a condescending answer from someone that didn't bother to read my post... doubly frustrating when the
same poster berates me that I should simply -read- the text when he himself doesn't bother to read my words.

FWIW I do agree with DracoSuave's answer to my question, now that I have the text before me. It sure would be nice if he wasn't such a jerk about it though. Perils of the internet I guess.

I do agree with Marshall that the wording could have been a lot better from Wizard's end though. Especially when printing a rules clarification. Thank you all again for the quick responses.

 

[MrBeens]

Thank you Legildur. And thank you to the others that responded politely.

As someone who simply was looking for the answer to a rules question it's always frustrating when I'm met with a condescending answer from someone that didn't bother to read my post... doubly frustrating when the
same poster berates me that I should simply -read- the text when he himself doesn't bother to read my words.

FWIW I do agree with DracoSuave's answer to my question, now that I have the text before me. It sure would be nice if he wasn't such a jerk about it though. Perils of the internet I guess.

I do agree with Marshall that the wording could have been a lot better from Wizard's end though. Especially when printing a rules clarification. Thank you all again for the quick responses.

I was also confused initially - I thought it meant you could only have 1 untyped bonus from a feat, 1 from a class feature etc.
It took a whole bunch of re reading for me to realise that you cannot benefit from the same thing twice, but you can still stack untyped bonuses from 2 different feats for instance.

It is badly worded, and they should also give an example where untyped things do stack to complement the example where they do not.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The simplest argument in any case would be what makes sense. It would be idiotic for them to make a rule that says "no untyped feat bonuses ever stack with each other" as this would obviously be an insane alteration of the rules. Even 3 seconds of reflection if there is some doubt in your mind will tell you what the right answer is.

Sheesh