# Wisdom to AC ... twice?



## AnonymousOne (Feb 18, 2008)

I'm helping a friend build a monk for our campaign and he wants to go Monk2/Swordsage2/Shadow Sun Ninja10

Now both the Monk and the Swordsage say to add the WIS modifier to AC but the bonus doesn't seem to be typed.  Do this bonus stack with itself from two different classes?  My gut tells me no, but I can't find an answer.

A little help?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Feb 18, 2008)

Wisdom modifier/bonus is the type of the bonus.  That said, if you are a bit sneakier, there are ways to add a stat bonus to AC multiple times.  Frex, Nymph (Cha bonus *as a Deflection Bonus* to AC) Battledancer (Cha bonus to AC) Mystic Wanderer (Cha bonus *as a Divine Bonus* to AC) will all stack.


----------



## Darklone (Feb 18, 2008)

Allowing both would be sick so I wouldn't even do it if it were by the rules


----------



## AnonymousOne (Feb 18, 2008)

Thanks you two.  I was thinking DAMN the monk has a +6 Wis ... he gets a +12 to AC at level 9?!?  

Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 18, 2008)

Strictly speaking, unnamed bonuses stack unless otherwise stated.  However, it is pretty clear in this case that they were not intended to stack.  Generally speaking, when two abilities have the same name and description in different classes, they are intended to reflect alternate paths to achieving the same identical ability.  This is made explict by WotC here.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060904a


----------



## Slaved (Feb 18, 2008)

How is the character managing to both be wearing light armor and not be wearing armor?


----------



## AnonymousOne (Feb 18, 2008)

... he's not.  I don't get the question.  He's completely unarmored.  I was asking fi the WIS applied once for a +6 to AC or twice from two different classes for +12


----------



## lottrbacchus (Feb 18, 2008)

I don't have the Swordsage info , but other people say the Swordsage needs to be in light armor to get the bonus, so check that.  But also, 
www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060904a
says they don't stack anyhoo.

So it looks like choose between no and nope.


----------



## Slaved (Feb 18, 2008)

I have the Swordsage information.



			
				Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords said:
			
		

> AC Bonus: Starting at 2nd level, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light armor, are unencumbered, and do not use a shield.


----------



## Storme (Feb 18, 2008)

It specificly states they do not stack.


Storme


----------



## Quartz (Feb 18, 2008)

This is one reason I dislike untyped bonuses.


----------



## moritheil (Feb 18, 2008)

Quartz said:
			
		

> This is one reason I dislike untyped bonuses.




To be fair, reading closely would have revealed that one only works in light armor and one only works in no armor.  The other example of wis to AC, the ninja, says in the text that it doesn't stack with Monk or other similar wis to AC.


----------



## Gloombunny (Feb 18, 2008)

> AC Bonus: Starting at 2nd level, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light armor, are unencumbered, and do not use a shield.



That... *has* to be a typo.  Why on earth would it work in light armor but not in no armor?  Especially when there's a no-armor class variant suggested right there in the writeup?

Anyway, even aside from that point I'd agree that they don't stack.


----------



## moritheil (Feb 18, 2008)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> That... *has* to be a typo.  Why on earth would it work in light armor but not in no armor?  Especially when there's a no-armor class variant suggested right there in the writeup?
> 
> Anyway, even aside from that point I'd agree that they don't stack.




Why wouldn't it work like that?  Maybe it's something about optimizing the armor you have, but heavier varieties aren't flexible enough to do the trick.

Why does everyone assume that something has to make sense to them in order for it to be valid?  It's a rule.  Rules tend to be arbitrary.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 18, 2008)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> That... *has* to be a typo.  Why on earth would it work in light armor but not in no armor?  Especially when there's a no-armor class variant suggested right there in the writeup?



 There are a bunch of typos in that book. They kinda rushed it, which detracts from an otherwise excellent product.

The other blatant error in the Swordsage write up is the 1st level skill points.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Jhulae (Feb 19, 2008)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't it work like that?  Maybe it's something about optimizing the armor you have, but heavier varieties aren't flexible enough to do the trick.
> 
> Why does everyone assume that something has to make sense to them in order for it to be valid?  It's a rule.  Rules tend to be arbitrary.




Gloombunny isn't asking why it shouldn't work in heavier armor than light.  Gloombunny is asking why it doesn't work *without* armor.  Using your example, no armor should be more 'flexible' than light armor is.. after all, no armor allows more freedom of movement than even leather..

That said, I do think the swordsage's ablility would work unarmored or in light armor - but, again, without stacking with wisdom bonuses to AC.


----------



## moritheil (Feb 19, 2008)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Gloombunny isn't asking why it shouldn't work in heavier armor than light.  Gloombunny is asking why it doesn't work *without* armor.  Using your example, no armor should be more 'flexible' than light armor is.. after all, no armor allows more freedom of movement than even leather..




But if you're using my example, there's no material at all there to optimize the use of, unless you're wearing armor.

Still, that's a rationale I thought up in two seconds.  Someone can probably think of a better one.  My basic point is this: why should your interpretation of the rules depend on the _completely unrelated_ factor of whether or not you happen to be able to think up a good rationalization?


----------



## Elethiomel (Feb 19, 2008)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Still, that's a rationale I thought up in two seconds.  Someone can probably think of a better one.  My basic point is this: why should your interpretation of the rules depend on the _completely unrelated_ factor of whether or not you happen to be able to think up a good rationalization?



It shouldn't.

On the other hand, I regard that entry as a typo and in all my games swordsages will get WIS to AC if they wear no armor.

Rules must make a certain amount of sense; they must at least be consistent. DnD is clearly intended to emulate fantasy fiction, it is not merely a collection of rules. It's a collection of rules with a unifying purpose.


----------



## Gloombunny (Feb 19, 2008)

moritheil said:
			
		

> But if you're using my example, there's no material at all there to optimize the use of, unless you're wearing armor.
> 
> Still, that's a rationale I thought up in two seconds.  Someone can probably think of a better one.  My basic point is this: why should your interpretation of the rules depend on the _completely unrelated_ factor of whether or not you happen to be able to think up a good rationalization?



Because typos happen, and sometimes the writers' actual intent is pretty obvious despite them, and some of us prefer to go with what makes sense and is clearly intended rather than slavishly follow the printed text.

Being a stickler for the exact written rules doesn't make any more sense than interpreting them with an eye towards what makes for a better game - quite a bit less, in my opinion.


----------



## eamon (Feb 19, 2008)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> That... *has* to be a typo.  Why on earth would it work in light armor but not in no armor?  Especially when there's a no-armor class variant suggested right there in the writeup?




Well, I wouldn't call it a typo, but I agree, it's plain common sense.  An unarmored sword sage can remain unarmored and gain benefit from the ability - that makes the most sense, and doesn't contradict the text.  The wealth of prior rules on similar matters all follow the same pattern that lighter armor is less encumbering and this ability perfectly fits that pattern.


----------



## eamon (Feb 19, 2008)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Still, that's a rationale I thought up in two seconds.  Someone can probably think of a better one.  My basic point is this: why should your interpretation of the rules depend on the _completely unrelated_ factor of whether or not you happen to be able to think up a good rationalization?



The two factors are not unrelated.  You're presumably using the D&D rules because you enjoy fantasy role-playing - the ruleset serves to provide a clear-cut basis for what flies and what does not - _in a fantasy setting_.  Your imagination is thus key to the selection of the rules, not vice-versa.

Of course, a certain about of arbitrariness is unavoidable, and that's actually part of the reason why you use _rules_ - you're trying to find a common ground and be consistent in your interpretations.  That implies that even more so than normally, when the rules make arbitrary decisions it's imperative they're consistent.

Finally, the rules support the DM in the role of the arbiter.  They should avoid conflict and where possible work the way expected - in other words, the consequences of the rules should be a setting and a mechanic which works like your mental model of it.  If a rule is arbitrary, it better be consistent and reasonable - but if a rule is surprising and actually works contrary to your expectations, it's a bad rule.

Considering these three guiding principles, and the fact that natural text is not precise and the semantic meaning of the rules cannot be derived unambiguously, when a rule is unclear, it's best to interprete it in such a fashion as to speak to the imagination, remain self-consistent with the rest of the rule set, and to avoid illogical, surprising rules.

So, given your imagination, the rest of the rule set, and your fellow players, which interpretation is better - that swordsages retain their Wisdom armor bonus to AC when unarmored, or that they do not?  It's not unambiguously derivable from the text, so you'll need to make a choice.


----------



## Kat' (Feb 19, 2008)

The issue with unarmored swordsages has been discuted in Wizard's FAQ, they said the Wisdom bonus applies and the book was poorly formulated, not reflecting the intent.

Nevertheless, Monk's and Swordsage's Wis bonus to AC do not stack, as it specifically says so in the class ability description... If you want Wis to AC twice, throw in a Saint template from BoED.


----------



## glass (Feb 19, 2008)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> That... *has* to be a typo.  Why on earth would it work in light armor but not in no armor?  Especially when there's a no-armor class variant suggested right there in the writeup?



I have always read that as light or lighter. Weird.



			
				Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Anyway, even aside from that point I'd agree that they don't stack.



Even more fundamantally, there is no 'they'.

You add your Wisdom bonus, or you don't. For stacking to be possible there would have to be a second bonus for it to stack with and there isn't.


glass.


----------



## lottrbacchus (Feb 19, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> Even more fundamantally, there is no 'they'.
> 
> You add your Wisdom bonus, or you don't. For stacking to be possible there would have to be a second bonus for it to stack with and there isn't.
> 
> ...



Hi glass and everyone.  What I find interesting about message boards is that I often wonder about seeming miscommunication.  This thread already has seen one poster talk about optimizing light armor for a bonus (for which you would have to HAVE light armor) which seems to have been missed by other posters.

Now, I can't quite make out if you mean there can't be 'they' because the two bonuses the OP was wondering about are the same, or if this thread has gone a bit off the rails, or if you were being somewhat sarcastic, or what.

At any rate, it seems settled that there is no double wisdom bonus here, and my bad mood from a bad day has been somewhat alleviated from reading the board.

Good work all!


----------



## Slaved (Feb 19, 2008)

eamon said:
			
		

> An unarmored sword sage can remain unarmored and gain benefit from the ability - that makes the most sense, and doesn't contradict the text.




How does it not contradict the text? The text says Light Armor specifically!

Also the Monk's AC Bonus and the Swordsage's AC Bonus may have the same name but they are not the same ability. Aside from working under different conditions the Monk's AC Bonus scales with level while the Swordsage's does not.

So they each work in slightly different ways under slightly different circumstances. Since those circumstances never align there is no need to worry about whether or not they would stack. But saying that if they could somehow be used at the same time they would not stack because they are the same ability is incorrect, they are not the same ability, they are merely very similar.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 19, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> So they each work in slightly different ways under slightly different circumstances. Since those circumstances never align there is no need to worry about whether or not they would stack. But saying that if they could somehow be used at the same time they would not stack because they are the same ability is incorrect, they are not the same ability, they are merely very similar.




Glass's point:

A character has a Wisdom bonus.  He normally does not add this bonus to his AC.

An unarmored monk has the ability to add his Wisdom bonus to his AC.

A lightly-armored swordsage has the ability to add his Wisdom bonus to his AC.

A multiclassed monk/swordsage who is somehow both armored and unarmored has the ability to add his Wisdom bonus to AC, and this ability derives from two different sources.

Either his Wisdom bonus is added to his AC, or it is not... but since it is only one bonus, it is only counted once no matter how many sources you receive that ability from.

Now, this is different to RangerWickett's reading above, where "Wisdom bonus" is a named bonus.  Under that reading, the two abilities both allow you to add a different Wisdom bonus to AC, but since the bonus is named, it does not stack.  Under RangerWickett's reading, "Add Wisdom bonus to AC" and "Add Wisdom bonus to AC as a deflection bonus" results in twice the improvement, since "Wisdom" and "deflection" are two different named bonuses.  I'm assuming glass would still not permit them to stack, since it is still the single Wisdom bonus being added in both cases; it's just that one of the abilities that permits it to be added also reassigns its type, which would prevent it stacking with any _other_ deflection bonus.

Then, of course, there is also the Divine Grace type of bonus - "a bonus equal to the paladin's Charisma bonus".  I assume both RangerWickett and glass would allow such a bonus to stack, since it is an unnamed bonus, and while it is equal to the Charisma bonus, it is not, in fact, the Charisma bonus.

-Hyp.


----------



## Slaved (Feb 19, 2008)

You are mixing and matching but I will answer anyway.

The abilities are applied under different conditions.
The abilities have a different set of bonuses.

If a character had two different feats which both granted a +2 bonus to the same skill and another +2 bonus to seperate skills I think that everyone would say that the character gained a +4 bonus in that skill. 

Since the Wisdom bonus is not named and they are different abilities I do not see why they would not stack.

Here are the two abilities again.



			
				Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords
> AC Bonus: Starting at 2nd level, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light armor, are unencumbered, and do not use a shield.





			
				System Resource Document said:
			
		

> AC Bonus (Ex)
> When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level).




Swordsages add their Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Armor Class while the Monk adds their Wisdom bonus to their Armor Class. So the wording on the abilities is also different.

If a character could find a way to both be Unarmored and wearing Light armor at the same time I would be hard pressed to tell them that they could not use both abilities.


----------



## lottrbacchus (Feb 19, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> You are mixing and matching but I will answer anyway.
> 
> If a character could find a way to both be Unarmored and wearing Light armor at the same time I would be hard pressed to tell them that they could not use both abilities.




Fear not!!!!  Even though this thread has reached the bizzaro-hypothetical realm of 'what would happen if two mutually exclusive states existed for a character on an ongoing basis' (after all, that is what DMs and magic are for), we STILL have the WotC coming to the rescue with their answer that the two bonuses DO NOT STACK in this case.  No hard-pressing needed in this case/non-case.


----------



## Hyperfist (Feb 19, 2008)

Wow....this was already resolved in one of the ask the sage things on WOTC. Basically those bonuses don't stack. They are derived from the same place. If you don't like it. House Rule. But if you are following, WOTC rules...Sage ruled on it. 

Check the site. You should be able to find it. 

I know...I was attempting to do that. But unfortunately, that ruling kept me from doing it.


----------



## Darklone (Feb 19, 2008)

Sooo ... "Much Ado about Nothing" ...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 19, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> If a character had two different feats which both granted a +2 bonus to the same skill and another +2 bonus to seperate skills I think that everyone would say that the character gained a +4 bonus in that skill.




That's right.

But consider the Defending magic weapon special ability, which allows you to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus as an unnamed bonus to AC.  Now let's posit a hypothetical "Resisting" magic weapon special ability, which allows you to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus as an unnamed bonus to saves.

If I have a +5 Defending Resisting longsword, can I transfer +4 to AC and +4 to saves in the same round?



> Since the Wisdom bonus is not named and they are different abilities I do not see why they would not stack.




Firstly, there's dispute as to whether or not the "Wisdom bonus" is unnamed - it's a bonus that is defined by a word that appears in front of it.  (This is where RangerWickett is coming from, I believe.)

Secondly, you're saying that if someone has a +4 Wisdom bonus, then "add your Wisdom bonus to AC" actually means "create an unnamed bonus to AC that's the same size as your Wisdom bonus, and add that to AC".  In this case, three abilities will sum to +12, because you're creating three different unnamed bonuses, each of +4.  Glass is saying that "add your Wisdom bonus to AC" means "Your Wisdom bonus can be included in that calculation of AC".  Three abilities all give you the same permission - you can include your Wisdom bonus when calculating AC.  So with permission from three sources, you add +4 to AC.



> Swordsages add their Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Armor Class while the Monk adds their Wisdom bonus to their Armor Class. So the wording on the abilities is also different.




The wording is different, but is it mechanically different?  As long as the number is positive, your Wisdom modifier _is_ a bonus... does "Add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to AC", when that modifier is positive, actually mean something other than "Add your Wisdom bonus to AC"?  Contrast with "Add a bonus equal to your Wisdom modifier", which unambiguously creates a separate modifier, with "Add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus", which does not - it's n ot a _different_ bonus being added... it is still your Wisdom bonus.

-Hyp.


----------



## Slaved (Feb 19, 2008)

So they are different abilities with different effects and use different wordings but they do not stack even though under other circumstances you allow other effects with the same type of circumstances to stack.

I suppose you could have saved time by just saying that you arbitrarily decided that they do not stack and are happy with it.


----------



## lottrbacchus (Feb 19, 2008)

Hyperfist said:
			
		

> Wow....this was already resolved in one of the ask the sage things on WOTC. Basically those bonuses don't stack. They are derived from the same place. If you don't like it. House Rule. But if you are following, WOTC rules...Sage ruled on it.
> 
> Check the site. You should be able to find it.
> 
> I know...I was attempting to do that. But unfortunately, that ruling kept me from doing it.



Considering I posted a WotC link at the very start of this thread saying they don't stack, one would hope that one should be able to find it.  Though I still find the ongoing debate to be enlightening on various ways to interpret the rules.


----------



## Jack Simth (Feb 20, 2008)

AnonymousOne said:
			
		

> Thanks you two.  I was thinking DAMN the monk has a +6 Wis ... he gets a +12 to AC at level 9?!?
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up.



Compare to the Cleric with Fullplate  (+8 AC) and a Large Steel Shield (+2 AC) casting Magic Vestments on both.  At 9th, that's +2 each - so +8 Armor, +2 Armor Enhancement, +2 Shield, +2 Shield Enhancement, for +14.  

Okay, the Monk/Swordsage can also pick up Bracers of Armor and such... but really, the Cleric is a Full caster; that won't hurt much.  For that matter, the Cleric can skip the armor, buy a Monk's Belt, and use Clerical AC buffs to do something very similar.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 20, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> So they are different abilities with different effects and use different wordings but they do not stack even though under other circumstances you allow other effects with the same type of circumstances to stack.




Hmm?  I explained a reading that says that two abilities from different sources that both grant you permission to do something doesn't mean that you double the effect of that something.

If someone gains the ability to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike from two different abilities, that doesn't mean he deals double damage.

If someone gains the ability to add his Wisdom bonus to his AC from two different sources, that doesn't mean he adds double the bonus.

-Hyp.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Feb 20, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Firstly, there's dispute as to whether or not the "Wisdom bonus" is unnamed - it's a bonus that is defined by a word that appears in front of it. (This is where RangerWickett is coming from, I believe.)




I don't see RW in this thread, and in your posts he seems to have the same position as me, so I think you mean me 


As for others who wants to know how to get the Monk and Swordsage bonuses at the same time (even though they still don't stack), the Shou Disciple PrC allows the Monk bonuses to apply in either Light Armour or Unarmoured.  So it is theoretically possible.


----------



## Slaved (Feb 20, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Hmm?  I explained a reading that says that two abilities from different sources that both grant you permission to do something doesn't mean that you double the effect of that something.
> 
> If someone gains the ability to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike from two different abilities, that doesn't mean he deals double damage.
> 
> ...




Except your explination is contradictory. It is also incorrect in the very basic sense since the abilities are not the same. In fact your comment about Divine Grace shows that you are accepting the contradictory nature of your own arguement and not batting an eye!

Also your examples here are no where near the same. Come on now, Unarmed Strike damage lethality abilities? I would assume you could come up with a better example in your sleep!

The abilities work in different ways and have sufficiently different wordings that other abilities with similar different wordings you have said they would stack but for some reason you will not allow the same for these abilities. Very strange.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 20, 2008)

@Slaved:



> Sneak Attack
> If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
> 
> The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.




A 1st level Rogue, who has +1d6 sneak attack, is flanking an opponent that is also flat-footed (thus, do not have Dex to AC).  Does the Rogue get to apply +1d6 sneak attack damage twice?  Once for the opponent being flanked, and once for the opponent being denied their Dex bonus to AC?



> Flanking
> When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.




If you are flanking a Large creature with two of your friends (you are on one side of the large creature, you friends are on the opposite side of the large creature), do you get a +4 flanking bonus to hit the Large creature?  Since you are effectively flanking it twice (once for each ally)?


----------



## glass (Feb 20, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Since the Wisdom bonus is not named and they are different abilities I do not see why they would not stack.



At the risk of repeating myself (and Hyp's excellent summary), what 'they'?

Lets say your Wisdom is 14, that means your wisdom bonus is +2 which your monk character can add to his AC. Now your character takes a couple of levels of swordsage (houseruled to work when unarmoured). What bonus does he add now?

_EDIT: Just like the sneak-attack situation. Thanks RM2._


glass.


----------



## glass (Feb 20, 2008)

Hyperfist said:
			
		

> Wow....this was already resolved in one of the ask the sage things on WOTC.



Some of us don't consider the FAQ/Sage to resolve anything, because it is subservient to the actual text of the rules.


glass.


----------



## lottrbacchus (Feb 20, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> Some of us don't consider the FAQ/Sage to resolve anything, because it is subservient to the actual text of the rules.
> 
> glass.




Aha!!!  Now THAT is information which would have been worth mentioning before, methinks.


----------



## glass (Feb 20, 2008)

lottrbacchus said:
			
		

> Aha!!!  Now THAT is information which would have been worth mentioning before, methinks.



How have you been here since Dec 2006 and not heard that mentioned before?

The primary-source rules and the FAQ's position within them seemed to come up about 10 times a week at one point (although rules debates seems to have slowed down a lot recently).


glass.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 20, 2008)

lottrbacchus said:
			
		

> Aha!!!  Now THAT is information which would have been worth mentioning before, methinks.




Not necessarily directing this at you, but rhetorically speaking, why/how could you trust any document or ruling which shows (a) inconsistancies (b) blatant contradictions with ITSELF and (c) disregarding the actual rules of the Core text (ie making up 'replacement' rules)???

Grant it, not every ruling in the FAQ is wrong, but I think it shows enough inconsistancies to bring it into question.  So if you agree with one ruling from the FAQ, but not another, what use is it serving?  Basically, you are picking and choosing your rules anyway, so why even use an FAQ at that point?

Anyway, just a rhetorical question for anyone that wants to respond...


----------



## Slaved (Feb 20, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> @Slaved:
> A 1st level Rogue, who has +1d6 sneak attack, is flanking an opponent that is also flat-footed (thus, do not have Dex to AC).  Does the Rogue get to apply +1d6 sneak attack damage twice?  Once for the opponent being flanked, and once for the opponent being denied their Dex bonus to AC?




This example does not resemble the one in question in this thread.

A closer example would be getting Sneak Attack +1d6 from Class 1 and Sneak Attack +1d6 from Class 2 and asking if they would stack when Sneak Attack applies.



			
				RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> If you are flanking a Large creature with two of your friends (you are on one side of the large creature, you friends are on the opposite side of the large creature), do you get a +4 flanking bonus to hit the Large creature?  Since you are effectively flanking it twice (once for each ally)?




This is again not talking about two separate abilities with different conditions that provide different bonuses. As such it does not relate to the topic.


----------



## eamon (Feb 20, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Grant it, not every ruling in the FAQ is wrong, but I think it shows enough inconsistancies to bring it into question.  So if you agree with one ruling from the FAQ, but not another, what use is it serving?  Basically, you are picking and choosing your rules anyway, so why even use an FAQ at that point?




It's interesting, I use the converse argument to consider the FAQ as indicative unless flawed:  clearly, many rules in primary sources are (or were) erroneous.  Some rules lead to inconsistencies, and others are ill-considered, and probably unplayable by the letter.  I think of the rules as a whole as a explanation about how to best play D&D - occasionally wrong, and sometimes corrected (erratad), and sometimes forced into inconvenient compromises due to badly thought out rules.  I don't trust the rules to be error-free, nor for them to describe best-practice very well.

The FAQ's not much different in this regard.  Generally, it aims to answer questions in which there is no very definitely answer - issues which require combining multiple rules, reading between the rules, inferring intent, and using common sense.  Such rulings you can make based on the rule mechanics too, but the descriptive text is often lacking, and the rule mechanics not always well defined enough to do so.

So unless a rule question is clear cut - i.e. it's simply a matter of knowing where to look it up, essentially - why would the FAQ be any worse than other rules?  The advantage of the FAQ above my own judgement is that it allows me to refer to it, and that it's published and open to my players.  Unless there's a reason otherwise, I tend to follow the FAQ, and consider it's statement no different than rule-book interpretive statements (i.e. it's not a primary source, but it is a valid source).

_Edited to add:_ Not that it's a bad idea to critically examine the rulings - they're definitely no less broken than much other WotC published material - i.e. most of it's fine, but some of it is questionable


----------



## moritheil (Feb 20, 2008)

Hyperfist said:
			
		

> But if you are following, WOTC rules...Sage ruled on it.




You should be aware that many in the Rules community consider the Sage's rulings dubious because some of them have contradicted rules (and some, if memory serves, have been self-contradictory.)


----------



## eamon (Feb 20, 2008)

Anyways, completely irrespective of whatever the rule-text of the two blurbs say, don't forget the "behind the curtains" on DMG page 21:

BEHIND THE CURTAIN: STACKING BONUSES

*Balance:* [sblock]The main reason to keep track of what stacks and what doesn’t stack is to keep total bonuses from getting out of hand. If a character wears a belt of giant Strength, it’s unbalancing to allow the cleric to cast bull’s strength on her as well and allow both bonuses to add up. [...etc...][/sblock] Summary: Disallowing stacking avoids easy loopholes that might provide wildly different power levels.


*Consistency and Logic:* "_The system of bonus types provides a way to make sense out of what can work together and what can’t. At some point, when adding types of protection together, *a reasonable player realizes that some protections are just redundant*. 
This system logically portrays how it all makes sense together."_ This is the big issue - what's the sense?  The swordsage's and the monk's AC bonus seem to model almost the same thing in-game.  That you can find similar in-game events modelled by differing game mechanics in the tens of thousands of pages of rules published by WotC does not surprise me.  They try to bunch similar concepts into similar "named modifier" buckets.  But the in-game world is a little fuzzy and the rules aren't perfect.  If you're trying to perform to model the same thing twice, and the mechanics happen to grant different modifiers, that doesn't mean they shouldn't overlap nevertheless.


*Encouraging Good Play:* [sblock]Categorizing bonuses by type allows players to put together suites of effects that do work in conjunction in a consistent manner—encouraging smart play rather than pile-it-on play.[/sblock] Trying to find multiple rules with the same source (your wisdom) and the same effect (your AC gets better) is definitely pile it on play.


Even if the class abilities had a name, the fact that the in-game justification is so similar, and the fact that the source is similar (your wisdom, presumably due to spot/listen/insight/sense motive/etc) and the effect is identical, should make it clear that these effects are too similar to stack.


----------



## lottrbacchus (Feb 20, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> How have you been here since Dec 2006 and not heard that mentioned before?
> 
> The primary-source rules and the FAQ's position within them seemed to come up about 10 times a week at one point (although rules debates seems to have slowed down a lot recently).
> 
> ...



I mean in a particular argument, it is worth stating somewhere near the start what your position is on the various WotC online "help".

..."and I don't buy any of that hooey they are dishing up at Sage Advice" or whatever.

It's possible I've seen you say that in a bazillion other threads, but I rarely remember who said what in other threads.


----------



## eamon (Feb 20, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Eamon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The text doesn't mention the absence of armor.  The text should have been more explicit, outlining exactly when the character can gain the bonus, but fails to do so. It does provide other hints as to why the armor is relevant:  you lose the ability when you're encumbered or wear a shield, or immobilized, or helpless.  Presumably, you need to be able to move relatively freely to gain the described benefit.  In that context, the wearing of light armor is the utmost limit of what you can wear, not a minimum prerequisite.

There's also other context which is relevant.  The swordsage entry suggests: "_To create a monk-like character with a tremendous array of fantastic moves and strikes, give the swordsage the monk's unarmed strike progression and remove his light armor proficiency._" That context also suggests that the removal of the light armor proficiency poses no great impact on the swordsage's abilities.

To be explicit, that context, including the FAQ's statements, influence the interpretation.


----------



## Slaved (Feb 20, 2008)

Actually the text does not say that you lose the bonus if you wear a shield. As such I assume you allow the Swordsage to wear a shield and retain the bonus?

The extra suggestions at the end of the class entry are very loose and poorly defined. I do not feel that using them as a rules source for the main part of the entry is helpful.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 20, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> This example does not resemble the one in question in this thread.
> 
> A closer example would be getting Sneak Attack +1d6 from Class 1 and Sneak Attack +1d6 from Class 2 and asking if they would stack when Sneak Attack applies.




Telling Blow feat from PHB2 allows you to apply Sneak Attack damage when you make a critical hit.

What happens if you make a critical hit against a flanked opponent?  Do you apply sneak attack damage twice?  Once for Telling Blow (the crit) and once for them being flanked?


----------



## Slaved (Feb 20, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Telling Blow feat from PHB2 allows you to apply Sneak Attack damage when you make a critical hit.
> 
> What happens if you make a critical hit against a flanked opponent?  Do you apply sneak attack damage twice?  Once for Telling Blow (the crit) and once for them being flanked?




I would certainly hope that the feat describes what to do under this circumstance as it could happen reasonably often with a build designed to do so.

But if worded properly I could certainly see it allowing for an effective doubling of Sneak Attack dice in a similar way that a Critical Hit multiplies extra damage from Power Attack.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 20, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I would certainly hope that the feat describes what to do under this circumstance as it could happen reasonably often with a build designed to do so.
> 
> But if worded properly I could certainly see it allowing for an effective doubling of Sneak Attack dice in a similar way that a Critical Hit multiplies extra damage from Power Attack.




But extra dice (which sneak attack is) is not 'doubled' when you score a crit.  Unlike a 'bonus to damage' which does not come in the form of dice.  That is why Power Attack damage can be doubled on a crit and sneak attack isn't.

(Sorry if you already know this, your response made it seem you might not)

And I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't confirm at this time, but I don't think the feat says one way or the other that you can (or can't) apply multiple sources of sneak attack (such as the example I propose above).

Anyway, it is my contention that despite the wording (or lack thereof) of the feat, you can't get sneak attack from Telling Blow and flanking the same creature.


----------



## Slaved (Feb 20, 2008)

I know that damage dice are not multiplied on a Critical Hit. That is why I mentioned doubling rather than multiplying by the critical number and said similarly instead of the same.   

Certainly a feat could be used to change the rules of the game though. If there was a feat that said Sneak Attack dice are multiplied on a critical hit by whoever has the feat then they would be.

I actually do have the feat wording with me and they could have worded it better.



			
				Players Handbook Two said:
			
		

> When you score a critical hit against a target, you deal your skirmish or sneak attack damage in addition to the damage from your critical hit. Your critical multiplier applies only to your normal damage, not your skirmish or sneak attack damage. This benefit affects both melee and ranged attacks.




I believe that the damage from your Critical Hit will already include any applicable sneak attack and skirmish damage. Which means I could see someone saying that once you find the damage from the Critical Hit you then add on damage for either Skirmish or Sneak Attack.

I am not sure if this feat allows the application of Skirmish without having moved at least 10' or if it allows either Skirmish or Sneak Attack at ranges farther than 30'. I can only assume that it does but I would have liked the way it is worded to have been better.


----------



## moritheil (Mar 21, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I believe that the damage from your Critical Hit will already include any applicable sneak attack and skirmish damage. Which means I could see someone saying that once you find the damage from the Critical Hit you then add on damage for either Skirmish or Sneak Attack.




But then it's already true that "you deal your skirmish or sneak attack damage in addition to the damage from your critical hit."  It doesn't say that you add it again; it just says that you add it.  I suppose I can see the argument that it doesn't say not to add it again in the case where your critical is a valid sneak attack, but really it doesn't address that case at all. 

So what is sneak attack?  It's precision damage that you add when you are able to fulfill conditions.  Telling Blow gives you another way to fulfill conditions.  If you fulfill sneak attack conditions twice, do you add it twice?  No.  (If I am flanking and invisible I don't add sneak attack twice; I just add it once.)


----------



## MaesterOlorin (Apr 25, 2009)

Forked from: Wisdom to AC ... twice? 



			
				eamon said:
			
		

> Anyways, completely irrespective of whatever the rule-text of the two blurbs say, don't forget the "behind the curtains" on DMG page 21:
> 
> BEHIND THE CURTAIN: STACKING BONUSES
> 
> ...




I would encourage simply thinking of the actually source of any bonus, if it comes from the character's will power in one class, divine inspiration another, and awareness in another, then yes while they all come from wisdom, they would and *should* stack. In this case I see that both classes are based on the oriental motief and similarly both character seem dedicated to avoiding damage throw awareness and withstanding damage or gaining some knowledge from psychic powers or divine insight, the bonues seem to be the same bonus, and an insight bonus at that.

Remember a bonus is almost one of the following

[sblock]
Alchemical:An alchemical bonus represents the benefit from​ 

a chemical compound, usually one ingested prior to receiving the

bonus. Antitoxin, for example, provides a +5 alchemical bonus on 
Fortitude saving throws against poison.​​
Armor: ​



This is the bonus that nonmagical armor gives a character.​ 
A spell that gives an armor bonus typically creates an invisible,

tangible field of force around the affected character. 
​​
Circumstance: ​



This is a bonus or penalty based on situational​ 
factors, which may apply either to a check or the DC for that

check. Circumstance modifiers stack with each other, unless they 
arise from essentially the same circumstance.​​
Competence: ​



When a character has a competence bonus, he​ 
actually gets better at what he’s doing, such as with the ​ 

_guidance_​ 
spell.

Deflection: ​



A deflection bonus increases a character’s AC by​ 
making attacks veer off, such as with the ​ 

_shield of faith _spell.​ 
Dodge: ​ 

A dodge bonus enhances a character’s ability to get out​ 
of the way quickly. Dodge bonuses do stack with other dodge

bonuses. Spells and magic items occasionally grant dodge bonuses. 
​​
Enhancement: ​



An enhancement bonus represents an increase​ 
in the strength or effectiveness of a character’s armor or weapon,

as with the ​




_magic vestment _and _magic weapon _spells, or a general​ 
bonus to an ability score, such as with the ​ 

_cat’s grace _spell.​ 
Inherent: ​ 

An inherent bonus is a bonus to an ability score that​ 
results from powerful magic, such as a ​ 

_wish _spell. A character is​ 
limited to a total inherent bonus of +5 to any ability score.​

Insight: ​



An insight bonus makes a character better at what he’s​ 
doing because he has an *almost* precognitive knowledge of factors

pertinent to the activity, as with the ​




_true strike _spell.​ 
Luck: ​ 

A luck bonus is a general bonus that represents good fortune,​ 
such as from the ​ 

_divine favor _spell.​ 
Morale: ​ 

A morale bonus represents the effects of greater hope,​ 
courage, and determination, such as from the ​ 

_bless _spell.​ 
Natural Armor: ​ 

A natural armor bonus is the type of bonus​ 
that many monsters get because of their tough or scaly hides. An

enhancement to natural armor bonus bestowed by a spell (such as 
​​
_barkskin_​



) indicates that the subject’s skin has become tougher.​ 
Profane: ​ 

A profane bonus represents the power of evil, such as​ 
granted by the ​ 

_desecrate _spell.​ 
Racial: ​ 

Creatures gain racial bonuses—usually to skill​ 
checks—based on the kind of creature they are. Eagles receive a

+8 racial bonus on Spot checks, for example. 
​​
Resistance: ​



A resistance bonus is a general bonus against​ 
magic or harm. Resistance bonuses almost always affect saving

throws. 
​​
Sacred: ​



The opposite of a profane bonus, a sacred bonus relates​ 
to the power of good, such as granted by the ​ 

_consecrate _spell.​ 
Shield:​ 

Much like an armor bonus, a shield bonus to AC represents​ 
the protection a nonmagical shield affords. A spell that gives

a shield bonus usually represents an invisible, tangible shield of 
force that moves to protect the character.​​
Size: ​



When a character gets bigger (such as through the effect​ 
of an ​ 

_enlarge person _spell), his Strength increases (as might his Constitution).​ 
That’s a size bonus.​[/sblock]


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 25, 2009)

If the phrase "unnamed Wisdom bonus" does not give you a headache, re-read it.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Apr 25, 2009)

AnonymousOne said:


> I'm helping a friend build a monk for our campaign and he wants to go Monk2/Swordsage2/Shadow Sun Ninja10
> 
> Now both the Monk and the Swordsage say to add the WIS modifier to AC but the bonus doesn't seem to be typed. Do this bonus stack with itself from two different classes? My gut tells me no, but I can't find an answer.
> 
> A little help?




Monk adds while unarmored and Swordsage while armored. THe two bonuses shall never meet.

Customer service says that Swordsage means light or no armor (even though it says only light armor), but they aren't reliable.


----------



## Drowbane (Apr 26, 2009)

Gloombunny said:


> That... *has* to be a typo.  Why on earth would it work in light armor but not in no armor?  Especially when there's a no-armor class variant suggested right there in the writeup?
> 
> Anyway, even aside from that point I'd agree that they don't stack.




Maybe so you don't take a dip into Monk and try to apply your Wis bonus twice?

If someone came to me with a swordsage and wanted to apply Wis to AC unarmored, I'd let it fly... but consider him a fool 

The text isn't too clear, and its easy to justify it either way.  Is the swordsage trained at fighting light in general (none to light armor) or specifically trained to optimize light armor?


----------



## risner (Apr 27, 2009)

Any class ability called "AC Bonus" doesn't stack with itself.  Most (not all) say this, but for a definitive answer look here:
Ask Wizards: 06/05/2008

If there were another class with say a "Hot Bonus" that provided Wis to AC, it would stack with Monk, Swordsage, or Ninja's AC Bonus.


----------



## Darklone (Apr 27, 2009)

Thread still running? Is actually someone willing to let the two class abilities stack?


----------

