What does "does not stack with" mean?

[kreynolds]

God I wish we had a poll for this. I'm just curious as to what the outcome would be. There are so many rules in the books that are poorly stated, it's amazing how many of us just aren't quite sure what they meant.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't really think that's accurate - we mainly argure estoric questions like this one. 3E is far clearer than any previous edition.

 

[kreynolds]

I don't really think that's accurate - we mainly argure estoric questions like this one. 3E is far clearer than any previous edition.

I assume you mean esoteric. I have found that many, not most, of the misunderstandings of the rules are due to poor wording or poor organization of the information. I'm not saying all of the rules are like this, just some. Now, what I am going to do is fully explain why I am here. I am not trying to insult anyone, nor am I telling anyone what to do. I’m going to start with the basic definition of the word “esoteric”.

es·o·ter·ic
adj.

1. a. Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult.
1. b. Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.

2. a. Confined to a small group: esoteric interests.
2. b. Not publicly disclosed; confidential.

3. a. Designed for, and understood by, the specially initiated alone; not communicated, or not intelligible, to the general body of followers.
3. b. Confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle.

Now. What I am going to do is address each and every meaning of this word.

1. a. Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult.
This implies that certain rules were intended to be known only by certain members of these message boards, WotC employees, whatever. Thus, I don’t think this definition applies in any way, so I assume this is not what you meant when you stated “esoteric”.

1. b. Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.
This I understand. Basically, it could mean that a restricted number of people know what a given rule actually means. This is a good thing in the sense that these people are here on the message boards to help clear it up. Though this definition does not fully apply because it implies that the knowledge of how a rule works has been purposely restricted to a small number of people.

This definition is the most interesting one because it implies a business strategy of deliberate disinformation, causing dozens, if not hundreds of people, to gather to a given site’s message boards, a site that is strewn with advertisements for products related to the given rule or materials. This means that people who do not understand a rule will go to a given site for clarification, and while they are there, they will be bombarded with advertisements enticing them to purchase even more products. Though I’m 100% sure this is not the case, because I’m not paranoid, so I’m sure this is not the definition you implied. If it is, it doesn’t apply.

2. a. Confined to a small group: esoteric interests.
This I also understand. Quite simply it means that the knowledge of how a rule truly works is confined to a small group of people, meaning that fewer people understand a given rule as compared to those that do not understand a given rule. This definition means that the given rule was poorly stated, otherwise, the clarification would not be so widely necessary.

2. b. Not publicly disclosed; confidential.
Now this definition simply doesn’t apply at all and I don’t think I need to go into the reasons of why.

3. a. Designed for, and understood by, the specially initiated alone; not communicated, or not intelligible, to the general body of followers.
If this is the definition you implied, then you’re more paranoid than you think I am!

3. b. Confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle.
If this is the definition you implied, get off your high horse. But I know this isn’t the one you implied, CRGreathouse. So don’t worry. This isn’t an attack on you.

Now, why am I here? Simple. I want to know how certain rules were meant to work. I want to help others understand how certain rules were meant to work. Sometimes I’m wrong. Sometimes others are wrong. But the bottom line is that sometimes, we figure it out as a group. Other times, we run into a brick wall and end up emailing The Sage.

So what is the long post really all about? Quite simply, we gather here because many rules are not that clear. Also, none of us is infallible. If you need proof of either, simply look up the definition of “esoteric”.

If none of the above definitions apply to what you were trying to say, trying a different word.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Sorry for the typo. I make way too many of those, it seems... For the record, this is the meaning I intended:

1. b. Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.

Few people know about the exotic *situations* in which these rules situations apply. Most people don't play games with dual-wielded weapons of speed, for example, so a (very!) limited number of people consider the rules involved.

Edit: removed a typo in the second sentence.

 

[kreynolds]

Few people know about the exotic *situations* in which these rules situations apply. Most people don't play games with dual-wielded weapons of speed, for example, so a (very!) limited number of people consider the rules involved.

Edit: removed a typo in the second sentence.

LOL I don't want you to think that I'm picking on you because of typos. I make plenty of them. I was just making sure I understood what you meant.

However, that still implies that the rules are not clearly stated, which is why we are all here. Unless, of course, you are simply calling the rest of us stupid? DISCLAIMER: CRGreathouse HAS NOT EVER, NOR AS OF THIS TIME, CALLED ANYONE STUPID.

This discussion began because the weapon enhancement (not enchantment!) Speed is not clearly defined as far as how it functions in conjunction with the Haste spell. This is still perfectly open for discussion and is also a perfect example of how some of the rules are poorly stated.

Edit: Stupid mistake of identity on my part...trust me...you don't wanna know.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Speed is not clearly defined as far as how it functions in conjunction with the Haste spell. This is still perfectly open for discussion and is also a perfect example of how some of the rules are poorly stated.

I agree that the description of speed weapons was poorly written, but to me it's no big deal - it's a high-level ability and a quick DM call.

What really bothers me is the time division. I'm talking about actions: full-round, standard, partial, move, move-eq, and free. This is poorly explained and has led to many debates, some exotic (2 5-foot steps with haste) and some more realistic. Just imagine trying to teach your 15-year-old nephew about these terms:

"You take either a standard action or a full-round action. With a full-round action, you can make a 5-foot step but no other movement. That is, unless the action includes movement, in which case you can't make a 5-foot step. You can't make a 5-foot step if you refocus, either. Standard actions are like full-round actions, except you can move your normal speed during them. Instead of moving your normal speed, you can make a move-equivilent action such as standing from prone. In fact, you can make a move-eq instead of the normal part of a standard action - - that is, you can make two move-eqs instead of a standard action. Two moves are also allowed - this is called a 'double move' or 'hustle'. For example, you can move your speed and draw a weapon. Actually, if you have a base attack bonus of at least +1, you can do both of these during your move, allowing the rest of the standard action. If you don't move at all during your standard action, you can take a 5-foot step, too."

Nephew, after a moment of stunned silence:
"But what is 'Ready' and what are 'partial actions'? How does haste work?"

 

[kreynolds]

I agree that the description of speed weapons was poorly written, but to me it's no big deal - it's a high-level ability and a quick DM call.

That's true. But you still need to be careful about making a DM call. If you make the wrong call, you just stink at being a DM, plain and simple, but I'll explain this more later on. Also, these boards do not take place in game, thus they do not require DM calls. What they require is clarification.

What really bothers me is the time division. I'm talking about actions: full-round, standard, partial, move, move-eq, and free. This is poorly explained and has led to many debates, some exotic (2 5-foot steps with haste) and some more realistic. Just imagine trying to teach your 15-year-old nephew about these terms:

"You take either a standard action or a full-round action. With a full-round action, you can make a 5-foot step but no other movement. That is, unless the action includes movement, in which case you can't make a 5-foot step. You can't make a 5-foot step if you refocus, either. Standard actions are like full-round actions, except you can move your normal speed during them. Instead of moving your normal speed, you can make a move-equivilent action such as standing from prone. In fact, you can make a move-eq instead of the normal part of a standard action - - that is, you can make two move-eqs instead of a standard action. Two moves are also allowed - this is called a 'double move' or 'hustle'. For example, you can move your speed and draw a weapon. Actually, if you have a base attack bonus of at least +1, you can do both of these during your move, allowing the rest of the standard action. If you don't move at all during your standard action, you can take a 5-foot step, too."

I don't have a problem understanding the rules of time in relation to action types, as spending time on these message boards and with my DM group (all of us are players as well) has cleared this up.

What I do have a problem with is people saying "You can't do it." when they have no idea whether or not you really should be able to do something.

Obviously, there are times in a game when you don't want to stop the game to look up a rule, as that seriously destroys the continuity of the game. Sometimes, you have to make a ruling quickly just to keep the game going. Sometimes your ruling will end up being the correct one. Other times, your ruling will be a real screw-up on your, the DMs, part. When this happens, the DM should either approach the player and let them know that the DM was wrong and tell the player that they will endeavor to correct the problem before it happens in the future. Or, the DM should simply enforce the "new rule" and hope that nobody finds out how the rule "really works" and leaves the table, or hope that the players are happy with it.

My point is this: a good game requires consistency. DM calls help maintain consistency and I appreciate that (I've had to make a few myself), but they have absolutely no place what-so-ever on these message boards in regards to how a rule truly functions. Unless of course you are in the House Rules section, which we are not.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

My interpretation:

DMG p.187
A weapon of speed allows the wielder one single extra attack each round at his highest bonus. It is not cumulative with haste.
...
Caster level: 7th; Prerequisite: Craft magic arms and armor, Haste

It seems clear to me that it means you can't get an extra attack both from haste and from the weapon's enchantment. Otherwise this restriction would be meaningless.

Also, the fact that haste is part of the enchantment of the weapon seems to imply that the extra attack is linked to a very limited application of the Haste spell.

A restrictive interpretation would be that the Haste spell override the speed enchantment entirely. A more permissive interpretation would be that you can still gain an extra attack from your weapon as long as you don't gain an extra attack from haste. You could still use the partial action granted by Haste to move or draw something, for example.

But I don't believe that the rule as writen allows you to gain an extra attack from both the speed enchantment and the Haste spell.

 

[kreynolds]

That's sort of my view too, Mal. Though I hope I can get some Sage clarification on this. It's important to me because I have a player who just got 2 weapons of speed and a ring of haste recently. He hasn't gone into combat with them yet, but he will eventually.

 

[Caliban]

My interpretation:



It seems clear to me that it means you can't get an extra attack both from haste and from the weapon's enchantment. Otherwise this restriction would be meaningless.

Also, the fact that haste is part of the enchantment of the weapon seems to imply that the extra attack is linked to a very limited application of the Haste spell.

A restrictive interpretation would be that the Haste spell override the speed enchantment entirely. A more permissive interpretation would be that you can still gain an extra attack from your weapon as long as you don't gain an extra attack from haste. You could still use the partial action granted by Haste to move or draw something, for example.

But I don't believe that the rule as writen allows you to gain an extra attack from both the speed enchantment and the Haste spell.

The problem with this interpretation is that it means two weapons of speed would be cumulative with each other, but neither would be cumulative with haste.

That simply doesn't make sense to me, and I believe the contradiction can be cleared up if you realize that "not cumulative with haste" simply means that the extra attack can't be triggered a second time if you are hasted.

Also, I think the interpretation I have given is more in line with a +4 weapon ability (something that is supposed to be only slightly less powerful than the Vorpal ability).

Since I'm starting to repeat myself, I'll bow out of this discussion until some new information comes to light.

Good gaming everyone.