Speed enchant stacking - Ever been a consensus?

[Kittenwolf]

Just wondering if there's ever been a consensus or FAQ ruling on this one.
If you're dual wielding weapons with the Speed property, do you get two extra attacks on a full attack or just one?

And drawn out from that, if I have the Speed property on all my natural weapons, do I get an extra attack with each natural weapon on a full attack?

[Keld Denar]

Haste attacks don't stack. All sources of Haste attacks (Snakes Swiftness, Valiant Fury, Righteous Wrath, Speed, Haste) include this language. The only source that has an example that breaks this rule is an artifact from the ELH (a 3.0 source) that is a quarterstaff that claims it gets an attack with both ends.

The only other point of ambiguity is the phrase "with this weapon", which some people take to believe that indicates that each weapon can benefit from it. I personally believe that that descriptor is a simply a limiter on which weapon can be used to make the extra attack. This would prevent a player from having a +10 equivalent sword without Speed and a +1 dagger of Speed offhand from making his Haste attack with the +10 sword. You have to make the Haste attack with the weapon with the of Speed enhancement. If you have two weapons with the of Speed enhancement, you'd still only get 1 extra attack, but you could freely choose which of the two weapons you want to make the extra attack with. Likewise, if you put of Speed on your Necklace of Natural Attacks, it would give you one extra Haste attack, but that Haste attack could be with any of the natural weapons affected by your Necklace.

[Kittenwolf]

Haste attacks don't stack. All sources of Haste attacks (Snakes Swiftness, Valiant Fury, Righteous Wrath, Speed, Haste) include this language. The only source that has an example that breaks this rule is an artifact from the ELH (a 3.0 source) that is a quarterstaff that claims it gets an attack with both ends.


There's also a book reference for the Quarterstaff of Battle (cannot remember which book) that was a +1 Speed/+1 Speed Quarterstaff that stated it granted you an attack with each end, but for the life of me I can't find that version (only the +3 version on Realmshelps).

Seems an expensive enchant if it doesn't stack with itself.

[Draz74]

There's also a book reference for the Quarterstaff of Battle (cannot remember which book) that was a +1 Speed/+1 Speed Quarterstaff that stated it granted you an attack with each end, but for the life of me I can't find that version (only the +3 version on Realmshelps).

Seems an expensive enchant if it doesn't stack with itself.

Magic Item Compendium, a relatively late-issued and well-edited splatbook.

[tyckspoon]

Magic Item Compendium, a relatively late-issued and well-edited splatbook.

The MIC version just says "when you activate this power the Quarterstaff gets Speed on each end for five rounds (see DMG page with Speed property.)" Which is entirely useless for resolving the question; you can probably assume whoever copied it in there thought they would both apply, but it's not a direct statement that they do.

[Keld Denar]

As I said, IMO, with of Speed on both ends, the only thing that gives you is the ability to choose which end to make the attack with. This is useful if you plan on further enhancing your Quarterstaff of Battle...

That, and about 40% of the time, the writers of any given book have no idea what they are talking about. I present to you the fact that in almost every book published, there is one example character that doesn't qualify for the PrC its supposed to be showcasing.

[Socratov]

As I said, IMO, with of Speed on both ends, the only thing that gives you is the ability to choose which end to make the attack with. This is useful if you plan on further enhancing your Quarterstaff of Battle...

That, and about 40% of the time, the writers of any given book have no idea what they are talking about. I present to you the fact that in almost every book published, there is one example character that doesn't qualify for the PrC its supposed to be showcasing.

wait what? can I see list of those?

[noparlpf]

Personally, I'd let you make an extra attack with each weapon that has Speed. After all, it is pretty expensive, and when you're attacking with multiple weapons you can sometimes strike with both at once.

Oh, I saw a Druid NPC in one book whose alignment was (I think) CE.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

That, and about 40% of the time, the writers of any given book have no idea what they are talking about. I present to you the fact that in almost every book published, there is one example character that doesn't qualify for the PrC its supposed to be showcasing.

Oh, I saw a Druid NPC in one book whose alignment was (I think) CE.
DMs can ignore the rules. <= Strawman. >.>

[noparlpf]

Strawman => DMs can ignore the rules. >.>

I've always thought examples were supposed to exemplify the rules. Not show how you can maybe bend them with a nice/lenient DM.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

I've always thought examples were supposed to exemplify the rules. Not show how you can maybe bend them with a nice/lenient DM.
Players should follow the rules. DMs don't have to. Example NPCs aren't for player use, so their rules don't have to be perfectly exact. I would only scoff at an NPC who doesn't actually meet the requirements of the PrC that he showcases (like the drow who is an example of a Cavestalker >.>).

[panaikhan]

A long long time ago, I let a player with multiple sources of such a mechanic have them stack.
I also stated that every instance after the first required a System Shock Survival role, or the character died of a heart attack.
Guess how many times he used it? :smallamused:

[Gullintanni]

Players should follow the rules. DMs don't have to. Example NPCs aren't for player use, so their rules don't have to be perfectly exact. I would only scoff at an NPC who doesn't actually meet the requirements of the PrC that he showcases (like the drow who is an example of a Cavestalker >.>).

This just sounds like bad editing to me. Example NPCs don't have to follow rules, but by that logic, nothing in D&D really has to follow any rules. Rule Zero wins all.

The point of example NPCs is to provide an example for players to reference that shows how their character would appear when statted out with the showcased PrC. In that case, ignoring the pre-reqs when drafting the example NPC is pretty irresponsible.

I've had it happen in more than one of my games that my players have said, "Hey that character looks neat and I'd like to use that for my character." It's not very user friendly to have to say, "Sorry, that build is illegal, you're going to have to qualify for that PrC some other way."

...but I suppose if you want user friendly, 3.5 D&D really isn't the game for you anyway.

[Keld Denar]

Strawman => DMs can ignore the rules. >.>

Keld's Falacy: Shouting Strawman! at any arguement you don't like is not a valid arguement.

My point was that the writers who create examples sometime have no idea how the mechanics work. Just because there is an example of a quarterstaff that has of Speed enchanted on both ends doesn't mean that it conforms with the rest of the ruleset, especially when there are multiple ways to interpret the rule.

Off the top of my head, Greenstar Adept in Complete Arcane and Master of Nine in Tome of Battle. I'd have to delve a little deeper, I don't have an eidetic memory, but I do remember there being a half a dozen more or so.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Keld's Falacy: Shouting Strawman! at any arguement you don't like is not a valid arguement.
Reading fail? I was shouting Strawman! at my own argument, if you didn't notice, thus the "=>" pointing at it. :smallannoyed:

[Gullintanni]

Reading fail? I was shouting Strawman! at my own argument, if you didn't notice, thus the "=>" pointing at it. :smallannoyed:

TBH, this kind of read more like you were accusing Keld of presenting a straw man argument and then pointing "=>" at your own version of what you believed correct. I think that's how Keld read it...I know that's how I read it.

In any case, thanks for the clarification :smallsmile:

[Keld Denar]

Yea...you quoted two people who were citing examples that didn't follow the rules, and then mentioned that DMs don't have to follow the rules. I took it from there that you indicating that my arguement was invalid because it was a strawman, which it was not. I see what you were saying now...it just wasn't that...clear.

[noparlpf]

TBH, this kind of read more like you were accusing Keld of presenting a straw man argument and then pointing "=>" at your own version of what you believed correct. I think that's how Keld read it...I know that's how I read it.

In any case, thanks for the clarification :smallsmile:

Yeah, that's also how I read it. That makes more sense now.

[Big Fau]

Off the top of my head, Greenstar Adept in Complete Arcane and Master of Nine in Tome of Battle. I'd have to delve a little deeper, I don't have an eidetic memory, but I do remember there being a half a dozen more or so.

Hell, this could apply to some monsters too (that Rakshasa in the Bo9S has a pretty big error).