What does "does not stack with" mean?

[kreynolds]

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.

I agree Cal, that's why I'm really hoping for a Sage response.

But you still didn't reply to my previous post. Unless you are posting at the same time that I am posting this, if you don't respond to it, I take that to mean that you bow down before me in defeat (only in regards to my prior post to You).

Edit: I'm an idiot. Case of mistaken identity...you don't wanna know.

 

[Caliban]

But you still didn't reply to my previous post. Unless you are posting at the same time that I am posting this, if you don't respond to it, I take that to mean that you bow down before me in defeat (only in regards to my prior post to You).

Once again, I have no clue as to what you are referring to.

I'm pretty sure I've answered all the questions that have been addressed to me on this thread.

 

[kreynolds]

I'm referring to this post:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CRGreathouse
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.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CRGreathouse
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come on, Cal. Don't shy away from me.

Edit: Case of mistaken identity...you don't wanna know.

 

[Caliban]

I'm referring to this post:


Come on, Cal. Don't shy away from me.

What exactly are you talking about? Nothing in that post was addressed to me.

In cased you missed it, I'm Caliban, not CRGreathouse.

 

[kreynolds]

In cased you missed it, I'm Caliban, not CRGreathouse.

Oh, man...you don't wanna know why I missed that...trust me.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What exactly are you talking about? Nothing in that post was addressed to me.

In cased you missed it, I'm Caliban, not CRGreathouse.

Now I'm . What, exactly, do you want me to respond to, kreynolds?

 

[Number47]

I am on the side that Speed weapons cannot be used in the same round as Hasting. I read "not cumulative" or "does not stack" to mean that "these are the same kind of bonus". The Speed weapon is very, very, very poorly thought out. The one thing I can say is, at least they didn't make anything this poorly thought out in the core rules, as far as I know.

Of course, if you're with me that these are the same kind of bonus (and only the better one, Haste, would work), then it would have to be clarified whether two Speed weapons cannot both function on a character at the same time, or if there is a special circumstance for them to stack (for instance, armor and shield both stack, but neither stack with Mage Armor).

My personal opinion is to not allow Speed weapons at all. The ability of "adding an extra attack, but not taking an extra action, but not stacking with Haste" is muddled at best, broken at worst. Of course, I play core-rules only for reasons like this.

 

[kreynolds]

Now I'm . What, exactly, do you want me to respond to, kreynolds?

I was hoping to get at least a little input from you regarding that sizeable post of mine, in hopes to better get to know how you think so that I can better understand where you are coming from, thus eliminating some possible misunderstandings. Bah...I should wait until tomorrow before continuing with this. Night folks!

 

[CRGreathouse]

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.

Good for you.

My point was that the rules are unclear, not that I am (or was) confused. It's hard to teach newbies such a needlessly complex system.

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.

I agree. Were you going somewhere with this? I don't catch your implication...

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.

Yes, DMs have to make snap judgements and must deal with these after the fact, either by sticking to it or retro-editing.

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.

This isn't the House Rules forum, I agree. DM judgement calls are important in-game but not on a Rules forum.

 

[reapersaurus]

Whoa.

kreynolds - drop the crack pipe and back away from the keyboard.
Seldom if ever on these boards have i read a person;s posts who was so trapped in his own mind.

Caliban - impressive patience displayed.

CR - VERY nice paragraph dezscribing the difficulty of understanding the BASIC mechanics of 3E combat! GReat point.

Caliban - I agree with the others that the INTENT of the speed enchantment is fairly clear - they don;t want a hasted person benefitting from the Speed ability.

I really think you're looking TOO far into an undescriptive sentence.

Caliban - on a side note, have you ever studied Micro Economics?
Because with this interpretation, it seems to me that you have a knack for looking so close at something to understand the mechanics, yet unfortuntaely, when looking at a system that close, there's always the danger of losing sight of the overall picture.
I think you very well may turn out right, but I believe that the original author of that sentence was not thinking as deeply as you are when writing that short sentence.

3E Rules are not written with that in-depth of perspective.
They are more often quite general in context, and detail something multiple times if it applies in that case.