Do multiple AC bonus class features stack?

[WarKitty]

Had some debate about this in another thread. So the question is - do, say, monk and swordsage AC bonuses stack? And if not do monk and fist of the forest (same feature type but different attribute) stack?

[Andezzar]

Regardless of the stacking rules a character cannot be both unarmored and wearing light armor at the same time, so the bonuses do not apply at the same time. If you houserule that the swordsage class feature also works when unarmored, you can actually argue that they do stack because
AC Bonus: is not identical to
AC Bonus (Ex): I included the colon in the quotes to show where the name of the feature possibly ends.

Fist of the Forest and Monk are most likely intended to stack but they don't. Both have a class feature called AC Bonus (Ex).
The source of the bonus to AC is not the WIS or CON modifier itself, but the class feature that allows the character to use their CON/WIS modifier to improve the AC.

[Twurps]

Wel lets see:

General rule: Bonusses of different types stack. bonusses of the same type don't stack

Exeptions to general rule:
-Dodge bonusses do stack.
-Untyped bonusses do stack (maybe not an expetion, as untyped cannot be the same type, but lets not go into that)
-Circumstance bonusses do stack if from different circumstances (Again an argument can be made this is not really the same type, and thus not an exeption, but whatever).

Exeption to general rule and exeption above:
-Bonusses from the same source don't stack (2 castings of the same spell for example)


Applying that to the examples:
Monk: AC bonus(ex) untyped based on WIS vs Fist of the forest: AC bonus(ex) untyped based on CON.

General rule: same type, so no stacking.
Exeption: untyped, so they actually do stack.
Exeption to exeption: Names are equal, but one bonus is from WIS, other is from CON, so not the same source, this exeption doesn't apply.
Conclusion: bonusses stack.

RAW it is actually impossible to qualify for Monk an Swordsage bonusses at the same time, but just for the sake of argument.
Monk: AC bonus(ex) untyped based on WIS vs. Swordsage: AC bonus untyped based on WIS
General rule: same type, so no stacking.
Exeption: untyped, so they actually do stack.
Exeption to the exeption: Names are equal (Or are they? notice the (ex) missing from Swordsage) sources are equal (WIS) so they don't stack.

That last part is where most of the discussion comes from. Are they really the same source? RAW: the Swordsage bonus only applies in light armor. The monk bonus only apllies without Armor. So different sources? However that argument can be turned against you easily. Because if the distinction between no armor/light armor is really imposed, you cannot qualify for both at the same time. If the distintion is handwaved the bonusses are again from the same source.

My personal point of view on this last one: RAW you can't qualify for both at the same time. If you argue you can, you're in house-rule territory where everything goes and RAW can't help you.

[Troacctid]

Untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack. Assuming the source is identified by name, then if both abilities are named "AC Bonus", they won't stack with each other.

The rules don't actually say it's the name of the ability that determines whether it counts as the same source, and it's not unreasonable to argue otherwise. (For instance, Black Flame Zealot implies that the abilities need to come from the same class in order to count as the same source.) In either case, you're going to end up with weird interactions, just in different places. Talk to your DM.

[Red Fel]

Had some debate about this in another thread. So the question is - do, say, monk and swordsage AC bonuses stack? And if not do monk and fist of the forest (same feature type but different attribute) stack?

Short version: It depends.

First, starting principles. Bonuses of the same type do not stack. Bonuses from the same source (e.g. same ability name) do not stack.

Second, specific trumping general. If an ability says it stacks, it stacks. (E.g. dodge bonuses to AC stack.) If it increases something instead of adding something (for example, "You gain natural armor AC +2" versus "Your natural armor AC increases by 2"), it stacks.

Third, application. Bonuses of the same type don't stack, but untyped bonuses are not of the same type (even when both are untyped), and may stack, unless they come from the same source.

So the question is: Is a class feature called "AC Bonus" the "same source," even though it comes from a different class? There's no consensus, but here are some arguments that I've heard. Not between Monk, Swordsage, or FotF. All are "AC Bonus" and grant an ability score to AC, so they're the same source. Yes between FotF and Monk or FotF and Swordsage, but not between Monk and Swordsage, because FotF uses a different ability score and is therefore a different source. Yes between all of them, because they are different classes and therefore different sources. Yes between all of them, because the abilities are worded differently (Swordsage involves light armor instead of no armor, FotF involves Con instead of Wis).
The short answer is: Ask your DM.

[sovin_ndore]

Speaking generally, the only typed bonus that explicitly stacks are 'dodge' bonues. Other bonuses (deflection, enchancement, insight, etc) do not stack with themselves. Only the best bonus of each type applies. Some bonuses do not have a listed type and are sometimes referred to as 'untyped' bonuses. These also stack; both with each other and with other bonuses.

[Nerdguy88]

RAW it is actually impossible to qualify for Monk an Swordsage bonusses at the same time, but just for the sake of argument.
Monk: AC bonus(ex) untyped based on WIS vs. Swordsage: AC bonus untyped based on WIS
General rule: same type, so no stacking.
Exeption: untyped, so they actually do stack.
Exeption to the exeption: Names are equal (Or are they? notice the (ex) missing from Swordsage) sources are equal (WIS) so they don't stack.

That last part is where most of the discussion comes from. Are they really the same source? RAW: the Swordsage bonus only applies in light armor. The monk bonus only apllies without Armor. So different sources? However that argument can be turned against you easily. Because if the distinction between no armor/light armor is really imposed, you cannot qualify for both at the same time. If the distintion is handwaved the bonusses are again from the same source.


Per the book the unarmed sword sage variant is able to do it. Its in a grey houserule area on if it technically does allow it or not. IMO and quite a few others I've talked to it would work. They are both UNTYPED wisdom bonuses to AC so they would stack.

[tonberrian]

Monk and Swordsage both add your Wisdom modifier directly as a bonus to AC. Fist of the Forest adds an (untyped) bonus equal to your Constitution bonus to AC. It's a different phrasing.

Also, note that there are no circumstances where, RAW, you can have both the swordsage AC bonus and the Monk AC bonus active at the same time, because the former requires light armor and the latter no armor.

[Troacctid]

Per the book the unarmed sword sage variant is able to do it. Its in a grey houserule area on if it technically does allow it or not. IMO and quite a few others I've talked to it would work. They are both UNTYPED wisdom bonuses to AC so they would stack.

The unarmed variant says no such thing.

[Andezzar]

Monk and Swordsage both add your Wisdom modifier directly as a bonus to AC. Fist of the Forest adds an (untyped) bonus equal to your Constitution bonus to AC. It's a different phrasing.The stacking rules say no such thing.
Untyped bonuses stack unless they come from the same source.
What is the source of the improvement to AC? It is not the ability modifier, because those modifiers usually do not increase AC. Only through the class features are the ability modifiers granted that power. So the source is the class feature. Class features with the same name are indistinguishable sources. The description of the class feature is irrelevant.

[Nerdguy88]

The unarmed variant says no such thing.

The book stats that he loses his light armor prof. If this is the case it would make sense that his class ability to add wis to AC while in light armor would instead apply while unarmored. Otherwise it is a useless ability. Like I said its a grey houserule area.

If this is the case I do stand by the notion that they would stack as they are both untyped bonuses.

[Andezzar]

The book stats that he loses his light armor prof. If this is the case it would make sense that his class ability to add wis to AC while in light armor would instead apply while unarmored. Otherwise it is a useless ability. Like I said its a grey houserule area.Not a grey area as written, just a sensible houserule (like making monks proficient with unarmed strikes). The text mentions no change to the AC Bonus class feature.


If this is the case I do stand by the notion that they would stack as they are both untyped bonuses.As long as you decide that AC Bonus (Ex) =/= AC Bonus this makes sense.

[tonberrian]

The stacking rules say no such thing.
Untyped bonuses stack unless they come from the same source.
What is the source of the improvement to AC? It is not the ability modifier, because those modifiers usually do not increase AC. Only through the class features are the ability modifiers granted that power. So the source is the class feature. Class features with the same name are indistinguishable sources. The description of the class feature is irrelevant.

What are you disagreeing with? I made no statement about stacking or not stacking.

[Andezzar]

I disagree with the different phrasing in the description of the class features being relevant.

[Curmudgeon]

I included the colon in the quotes to show where the name of the feature possibly ends.

extraordinary ability

Extraordinary abilities (Ex) are nonmagical, don't become ineffective in an antimagic field, and are not subject to any effect that disrupts magic.
The (Ex) abbreviation is added for categorization purposes at first use, and is not part of any ability name. Unless, of course, you can cite a use of "AC Bonus (Ex)" as a name: i.e., with the "(Ex)" included at any time after the first appearance. Just a single citation would invalidate my claim. :smallamused:

[Jormengand]

Given that humans aren't humans but are humans and illumians are humans but aren't humans, I'd dispute whether or not the name of the source was at all relevant when deciding whether or not it's the same source.

[Twurps]

The (Ex) abbreviation is added for categorization purposes at first use, and is not part of any ability name. Unless, of course, you can cite a use of "AC Bonus (Ex)" as a name: i.e., with the "(Ex)" included at any time after the first appearance. Just a single citation would invalidate my claim. :smallamused:

But what if the swordsage's ability is (su)? We can't know, becease the description doesn't say. And I'm pretty sure there are more instances out there of abilities being (su) for one monster/class and being (ex) for another. (Though conveniently, I can't name one right now.. :( )

[Jormengand]

But what if the swordsage's ability is (su)? We can't know, becease the description doesn't say.

Yes, we can know.


Natural Abilities

This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

[Twurps]

Yes, we can know.

Ok, thanks!
However: I'm not sure a class can have natural abilities. being that the class has nothing to do with the physical nature of the creature. regardless the point is the same: AC bonus natural ability=/=ACbonus(ex) =/= ACbonus(su)

[Andezzar]

But what if the swordsage's ability is (su)? We can't know, becease the description doesn't say. And I'm pretty sure there are more instances out there of abilities being (su) for one monster/class and being (ex) for another. (Though conveniently, I can't name one right now.. :( )For something similar, a couple of creatures get Wish (Sp), the Zodar gets Wish (Su).

[charcoalninja]

Ok, thanks!
However: I'm not sure a class can have natural abilities. being that the class has nothing to do with the physical nature of the creature. regardless the point is the same: AC bonus natural ability=/=ACbonus(ex) =/= ACbonus(su)

Except that by not designating those abilties as Ex or Su the class is telling you that those abilities gain become part of your nature as cited earlier, all abilities that are not designated ex su or spla are natural.

[Curmudgeon]

But what if the swordsage's ability is (su)?
My point is that the categorization isn't part of the name, so the category doesn't matter as far as stacking is concerned.

[TypoNinja]

Class features with the same name are indistinguishable sources. The description of the class feature is irrelevant.

Disagree. They are distinguished by their source class. Wizards, Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers, ect, ect. All have "Spells" as class features, these are manifestly different abilities.

A Wizards Spellcasting is a distinct ability from a Clerics Spellcasting despite identical names, the description of the class feature in this case is the only things that's relevant because it tells you, well everything.

If you have Wisdom bonus to AC granted by X Class Feature, and Wisdom bonus to AC granted by Y Class Feature, then you have two different bonuses from two different sources. And if neither has a listed type, they'll stack.

[Andezzar]

Disagree. They are distinguished by their source class. Wizards, Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers, ect, ect. All have "Spells" as class features, these are manifestly different abilities.This is irrelevant, because those are not bonuses (i.e. positive modifiers to dice rolls) and what those features grant does not stack anyways. As you said they are different abilities. If they stacked levels in cleric would improve wizard spells and vice versa.


A Wizards Spellcasting is a distinct ability from a Clerics Spellcasting despite identical names, the description of the class feature in this case is the only things that's relevant because it tells you, well everything.I never said that they weren't distinct abilities but that the source of the bonus is the same. Look at two casters casting a spell that provides an untyped bonus on a target (can't think of an example right now). Those bonuses do not stack because they come from what is considered the same source. Still each casting is a distinct spell and must be dispelled or otherwise interacted with separately.


If you have Wisdom bonus to AC granted by X Class Feature, and Wisdom bonus to AC granted by Y Class Feature, then you have two different bonuses from two different sources. And if neither has a listed type, they'll stack.So how do you think class features that grant bonuses can ever be from the same source? There aren't many classes that grant the same feature more than once.

[Troacctid]

So how do you think class features that grant bonuses can ever be from the same source? There aren't many classes that grant the same feature more than once.

There are plenty of ways. For example, if a Ranger has both Outsider (Evil) and Outsider (Chaotic) as her favored enemies, the bonuses won't stack against an outsider with both subtypes. Similarly, if a Paladin uses Smite Evil twice on the same attack, the bonuses won't stack.

[Andezzar]

There are plenty of ways. For example, if a Ranger has both Outsider (Evil) and Outsider (Chaotic) as her favored enemies, the bonuses won't stack against an outsider with both subtypes.The don't stack because the rule says so
If a specific creature falls into more than one category of favored enemy, the ranger’s bonuses do not stack; he simply uses whichever bonus is higher. I know text is supposed to trump table, but I am not sure whether the the ranger only gets one favored enemy class feature or one 1st favored enemy CF, one 2nd favored enemy CF etc. If it is the former, the aforementioned line is superfluous because there is only one source, not two sources that can be the same, if it is the latter the line is actually necessary to disallow stacking.


Similarly, if a Paladin uses Smite Evil twice on the same attack, the bonuses won't stack.How can you even do that? You smite or you don't smite on an attack. The rules do not allow using more than one.
Also what does that have to do with stacking? If the character uses two smite evil attempts from the same class, there aren't even two sources that can be the same, there is only one source. If you are talking about smite evil from for example a class and a race (e.g. hound archon paladin), i cannot find two classes that do not have a rule how the smites interact), you are actually making my point. The class/race that grants the feature is irrelevant only the name of the class feature is of importance.

[Troacctid]

Those are just examples off the top of my head. I'm sure if you look around you can find more. Ordained Champion's Fist of the Gods ability, for instance, or Jade Phoenix Mage's Arcane Wrath.

[Jormengand]

So how do you think class features that grant bonuses can ever be from the same source? There aren't many classes that grant the same feature more than once.

Does it matter? All that matters is the possibility that untyped bonuses, not bonuses from class features, could be from the same source for the rule to be relevant.

Class features can have different names and the same effect or different names and the same effect. The name isn't particularly relevant.

[TypoNinja]

This is irrelevant, because those are not bonuses (i.e. positive modifiers to dice rolls) and what those features grant does not stack anyways. As you said they are different abilities. If they stacked levels in cleric would improve wizard spells and vice versa.


I used it as an example, identically named abilities, granting the same thing, that are indisputably separate things.



I never said that they weren't distinct abilities but that the source of the bonus is the same. Look at two casters casting a spell that provides an untyped bonus on a target (can't think of an example right now). Those bonuses do not stack because they come from what is considered the same source. Still each casting is a distinct spell and must be dispelled or otherwise interacted with separately.


I think that's the wrong comparison. The same spell is an extremely specific and narrow source. Contrast instead two casters each casting a different spell, each granting an untyped bonus.

Spellcasters all reference identical source material. Bestow Curse is Bestow Curse no matter who casts it, but no such merging of rules text exists for most other class features.

A Monk Class Feature is a distinct source from a Swordsage Class Feature. {Class Name} is the source, not {class features} as a general category.



So how do you think class features that grant bonuses can ever be from the same source? There aren't many classes that grant the same feature more than once.

Rarely if ever, I can't think of much off the top of my head. Why do they need to be? Is there some compelling rules reason that requires it be possible that class features conflict with each other in this way?

I think you are trying to draw the "source" category way too widely here is my point.

[Troacctid]

And recall the previously cited example of Black Flame Zealot.


Sneak Attack (Ex): At 3rd, 6th, and 9th level, a Black Flame Zealot deals additional sneak attack damage as the rogue ability. Since the Black Flame Zealot gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as rogue levels), the bonuses to damage stack.

[Andezzar]

A Monk Class Feature is a distinct source from a Swordsage Class Feature. {Class Name} is the source, not {class features} as a general category. No. The stacking rules speak of the source of the bonus not the source of the class feature (which gives a bonus). The sources for the class features are obviously different, whereas the source for the bonus is not, when the class features have the same name.


And recall the previously cited example of Black Flame Zealot.Exactly that line is necessary, because without it, having sneak attack several times would not add up the d6s but would only take the highest result on the rolls of each set of d6s into the damage calculation.

[Jormengand]

I think this argument sums up on both sides as:

"The source of the bonus" is badly defined, so I'm going to choose the interpretation that supports my preferred reading of the rule, and anyone who says different is wrong.

[Red Fel]

I think this argument sums up on both sides as:

"The source of the bonus" is badly defined, so I'm going to choose the interpretation that supports my preferred reading of the rule, and anyone who says different is wrong.

Technically, there are three sides of this argument. The "source of the bonus" is badly defined, so I'm going to choose the interpretation that supports my preferred reading of the rule, and anyone who says different is wrong. No, you are wrong, this other interpretation (which supports my preferred reading) is the right one. Yes, the "source" is badly defined, but how it works out is between you and your DM.
I tend to take the third position. But then, I have this obnoxious habit of being right.

[Twurps]

Technically, there are three sides of this argument. The "source of the bonus" is badly defined, so I'm going to choose the interpretation that supports my preferred reading of the rule, and anyone who says different is wrong. No, you are wrong, this other interpretation (which supports my preferred reading) is the right one. Yes, the "source" is badly defined, but how it works out is between you and your DM.
I tend to take the third position. But then, I have this obnoxious habit of being right.

You're right Red Fel :)

However: right as you may be, most DM's (at least the ones on forums like this) like to consider pro's/con's and RAW rules arguments before deciding. Option number 3 doesn't really help in making up your mind. (Though in this case, I'm not sure anything wil)

[TypoNinja]

I think this argument sums up on both sides as:

"The source of the bonus" is badly defined, so I'm going to choose the interpretation that supports my preferred reading of the rule, and anyone who says different is wrong.

No, I don't think the source is badly defined at all.

I think its manifestly obvious that "every class feature ever printed" is far too wide a category to be taken seriously as all being the same "source".

Conversely, I think that since when reading classes language like "A monk of 3rd level or higher gains a +2 bonus " is a very clear indicator that "Monk Level Three" is the source of that bonus. Its granted to you at level three. You don't have it at two, it is a product of the level of the class you have taken, not just the class, but individual levels in the class are different sources.

Some people are simply defining the source wrong, but the logic is obviously badly flawed. If every class feature from any class counts as the same source, then all spells from any spell caster count as the same source, since spell casting is a class feature. This is so obviously not the case that I shouldn't even have to justify the statement. Since applying that idea to class features other than just the monk/swordsage AC bonus quickly gives you ridiculous rulings, its obviously incorrect, since its being applied to a general rule that is supposed to cover everything.

[nedz]

Technically, there are three sides of this argument. The "source of the bonus" is badly defined, so I'm going to choose the interpretation that supports my preferred reading of the rule, and anyone who says different is wrong. No, you are wrong, this other interpretation (which supports my preferred reading) is the right one. Yes, the "source" is badly defined, but how it works out is between you and your DM.
I tend to take the third position. But then, I have this obnoxious habit of being right.

Or another way of putting it: The rule is dysfunctional so/because a house-rule is required.

[Jormengand]

I think its manifestly obvious that "every class feature ever printed" is far too wide a category to be taken seriously as all being the same "source".

Which is why it's just as well no-one's trying to claim that.

[Necroticplague]

Which is why it's just as well no-one's trying to claim that.

The closest anyone's come is 'all class features with the same name are the same class feature'. The Swordsage, Monk and Battledancer class feature are all 'AC Bonus', thus same source, thus don't stack. If they were Sublime Dodge, Perceptive Defence, and Battledancer's Footwork, they would be different class features, and thus stack.

[TypoNinja]

Which is why it's just as well no-one's trying to claim that.

Check again, Andezzar is.

By claiming they are indistinguishable simply because they have the same name, despite coming from two different classes, hes requiring we accept the premise that different classes don't count as different sources for class features.

Since its an untyped bonus, it has to stack, unless it comes from the same source. This part is not in dispute that's how stacking rules work.

So the entire dispute is down to what counts as a source. Class features, or individual classes. I use spellcasting as an example of class features with identical names that can be different things, the fact that they are bonuses or not is irrelevant, it establishes that rules text will use the same identifying title for separate abilities.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm with Andezzar here, because the preponderance of rules agrees with him. If every class constituted a different source, there would be no need for any of the following.

Sneak Attack: This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 every other level (2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th). If an arcane trickster gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as rogue levels), the bonuses on damage stack.

Sneak Attack: This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 every other level (2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th). If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as rogue levels), the bonuses on damage stack.

Sneak Attack: This ability, gained at 4th level, is like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage increases by +1d6 every third level beyond 4th (7th and 10th). If a blackguard gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as rogue levels), the bonuses on damage stack.
Those are from the DMG; I can come up with literally dozens of other citations just for Sneak Attack. If classes are separate sources, there's no need for any of these stacking statements. If instances of the named ability Sneak Attack are instead the sources, these stacking overrides are necessary because Sneak Attack provides a bonus to damage rolls.
Stacking

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies.

[Ruethgar]

Moon warded ranger and swordsage would stack if you wanted to triple up on armor.

[KingSmitty]

in our current campaign i was allowed to get the bonus from swordsage unarmored with the unarmed variant.
it was disallowed very close to the end, DM felt it was way too powerful to have +10 AC from wis alone. :(

[Troacctid]

Curmudgeon, all those passages you quoted refer to sneak attack from rogue levels as being from another source.

[Curmudgeon]

Curmudgeon, all those passages you quoted refer to sneak attack from rogue levels as being from another source.
That's shorthand for "from another instance of the source". If it weren't, then there would be no reason for the statement to exist; untyped bonuses from different sources always stack.

[Anlashok]

That's shorthand for "from another instance of the source". If it weren't, then there would be no reason for the statement to exist; untyped bonuses from different sources always stack.

But it doesn't say "another instance of this source". It says "another source". Declaring that it means the latter is purely supposition on your part. Probably justified supposition, but still supposition. The text as written clearly implies that an assassin's sneak attack and a rogue's sneak attack are different sources.

Plus it's not like WOTC has never written redundant text for clarification purposes before, so I'm not sure that argument is a particularly persuasive one either.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Let's take another example, the Desecrate spell, which adds an untyped bonus to hit points per hit die of any undead created or summoned within the area (doubled for the presence of an evil altar). Say a Cleric casts Desecrate as a 2nd level spell, and a Blighter casts Desecrate as a 3rd level spell, and someone has a Ring of Desecration (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20021031x), and something used a Desecrate spell-like ability. Despite the source of the spell being different each time, the effect won't stack to grant additional hp per hd to undead created or summoned in the area, because it's all from a spell of the same name. It doesn't matter that it's Desecrate (Cleric 2) and Desecrate (Blighter 3) and Desecrate (ring aura) and Desecrate (Sp), each source has the same name and so it won't stack with other effects from a source of that same name.

The same goes for an "AC Bonus" class feature, the same goes for the Aura of Despair of a Blackguard and a Paladin of Tyranny (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny) (but not Dark Blessing and Divine Grace, despite having an identical effect, they actually stack because they don't have the same name). The only class features of the same name that do stack in some way are specifically mentioned in the class feature itself (Sneak Attack) or in the multiclassing portion of the PHB on page 59 (Turn Undead, Uncanny Dodge, and Familiars). The AC Bonus class feature of the Monk, Ninja, Swordsage, Battle Dancer, and I'm sure there are a few others, make no such allowance for stacking with other instances of a class feature of the same name, thus they don't ever stack with other such class features, no matter how much you want them to.

[animewatcha]

To take this to an extremity ( I don't hold this view, but this debating thing is silly in my view considering its been what, years? ), when Power attack bonus damage to melee is higher than say insight bonus to damage, luck bonus, etc. than the PA bonus damage overrides them in that you only add PA bonus damage. This being because they all fall under the source name of 'damage to be added to melee.'


That is what I am seeing in this thread, in a way.

[Sacrieur]

To continue the sneak attack bit.

I mean do extra damage dice count as a modifier? I vaguely remember them being different and having different rules applied to them, but that was for pathfinder. It could have been carried over from 3.5, however. In addition, the class ability does say "it's the same as the rogue class ability..." so I mean they may have just wanted to add redundancy.

[Troacctid]

To take this to an extremity ( I don't hold this view, but this debating thing is silly in my view considering its been what, years? ), when Power attack bonus damage to melee is higher than say insight bonus to damage, luck bonus, etc. than the PA bonus damage overrides them in that you only add PA bonus damage. This being because they all fall under the source name of 'damage to be added to melee.'


That is what I am seeing in this thread, in a way.

No, that's never true, because bonuses of different types always stack, even if they're from the same source.

[TheifofZ]

A few brief points.

Rules as Written tend to be weird anyway, and open to some interpretation. See: Drowning people back to life, Death's exact effects, the Peasant Railgun.
Usually, when a class feature is similar to, or identical to, other class features, it lists in the text whether or not it stacks. See: Divine Grace, Turning Attempts, Sneak Attack, etc.
Most of the Stat-to-AC abilities inconveniently fail to mention if they stack with eachother, or can be used concurrently (Wis -and- Cha to AC, for instance).


These points come together to bring us the glory of 'This really needs to be looked at by your DM to determine how it functions in his campaign, and should be considered on a case-by-case basis.'
Because otherwise you get weird crap like party members performing emergency care on eachother by drowning them; dead Psion heads being the most dangerous things in a campaign; and items being passed from one end of a continent to another in a single second, which is then followed by a Frenzied Berserker using Great Improved Cleave.
Or in this case 'I stack my wisdom stat to my AC 5 times. I'm at +12 modifier, so... 70 total AC, plus Dex.'
And some DMs have the terrible habit of thinking things like this are unreasonable and, I don't know, bad.

[Necroticplague]

Or in this case 'I stack my wisdom stat to my AC 5 times. I'm at +12 modifier, so... 70 total AC, plus Dex.'
And some DMs have the terrible habit of thinking things like this are unreasonable and, I don't know, bad.

It is pretty bad. For all the effort you put into pumping up that one defence, you've likely neglected several other useful aspects of your character. Big numbers aren't intrinsically strong. Hheck, drudgin up an old charsheet let me find one with this ac line:

AC:10(base)+10(armor)+4(enhancement)+Wisx2+1(21)(h is monk+swordsage abilities)+26 (his natural armor+bonus to nat armor from my template)+CHAx2(58)(my class abilities)+17(dex)=146. And still managed to not break anything.

[TheifofZ]

Eh. You can get wis to ac from level dips into 2 classes, as we see from this discussion, and a couple PrCs.
It's not a big dip that would kill progression of everything else, and AC is still pretty strong in most non-max'd campaigns.

If we're talking games where everyone is building on the fine edge of Occam's Razor, so to speak, then yeah. That relatively large AC is kind of a joke, and the neglected portions of the build are going to be laughed at quietly behind his back.

But if we aren't talking super precise builds and are instead focused on more generalized stuff, AC above 60 or 70 come level 20 is actually pretty strong, given that Average Joe Fighter that hasn't traded away his ability to rhyme on purpose will likely see, if he's building into it, about 40 AC.
And I don't know many DMs that commit to playing a game where everyone considers 150~ AC to be kind of weak.

Also I can't help but notice that you have 44 Dex, 68 Cha, and a total of +26 Natural Armor... Which aren't exactly average late-game scores. So... I'd assume that the DM was running a campaign with a lot of extra power, or you guys were in epic levels.

[Jormengand]

there's no need for

The Utterance Keen Weapon reminds you what your caster level is even though you already know. There's no need for that statement, but it doesn't mean that it isn't true, or that something else isn't true, or that it means something other than what it literally says on the damned page.

[TypoNinja]

Let's take another example, the Desecrate spell, which adds an untyped bonus to hit points per hit die of any undead created or summoned within the area (doubled for the presence of an evil altar). Say a Cleric casts Desecrate as a 2nd level spell, and a Blighter casts Desecrate as a 3rd level spell, and someone has a Ring of Desecration (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20021031x), and something used a Desecrate spell-like ability. Despite the source of the spell being different each time, the effect won't stack to grant additional hp per hd to undead created or summoned in the area, because it's all from a spell of the same name. It doesn't matter that it's Desecrate (Cleric 2) and Desecrate (Blighter 3) and Desecrate (ring aura) and Desecrate (Sp), each source has the same name and so it won't stack with other effects from a source of that same name.

The same goes for an "AC Bonus" class feature, the same goes for the Aura of Despair of a Blackguard and a Paladin of Tyranny (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny) (but not Dark Blessing and Divine Grace, despite having an identical effect, they actually stack because they don't have the same name). The only class features of the same name that do stack in some way are specifically mentioned in the class feature itself (Sneak Attack) or in the multiclassing portion of the PHB on page 59 (Turn Undead, Uncanny Dodge, and Familiars). The AC Bonus class feature of the Monk, Ninja, Swordsage, Battle Dancer, and I'm sure there are a few others, make no such allowance for stacking with other instances of a class feature of the same name, thus they don't ever stack with other such class features, no matter how much you want them to.

This is a bad example since spells are specifically called out as not stacking despite being from different sources.

[Curmudgeon]

The Utterance Keen Weapon reminds you what your caster level is ...
Yes, D&D has lots of reminders. However, the Sneak Attack class feature nearly always (dozens of times) has statements stating that its damage stacks with other Sneak Attack, especially from Rogue levels. The original Sneak Attack Rogue class feature does not have any such stacking language. So either:

Sneak Attack is a damage source, and won't stack without override language; or
Sneak Attack isn't a source and the game authors somehow felt it was easier to state in several dozen places that other Sneak Attack would stack with Rogue Sneak Attack than to state in Rogue Sneak Attack that all Sneak Attack damage stacks.

If you pick the second one, you've also got to come up with a D&D definition of source. What part of the RAW defines that term?

[sovin_ndore]

I think regardless of the RAW, the balanced way to address this would be to allow Monk and Swordsage levels to stack for Monk powers once the Swordsage ability is gained. That is how it works in most every other instance that would grant Monk AC progression if you already have Monk levels.

[Jormengand]

Yes, D&D has lots of reminders. However, the Sneak Attack class feature nearly always (dozens of times) has statements stating that its damage stacks with other Sneak Attack, especially from Rogue levels. The original Sneak Attack Rogue class feature does not have any such stacking language. So either:

Sneak Attack is a damage source, and won't stack without override language; or
Sneak Attack isn't a source and the game authors somehow felt it was easier to state in several dozen places that other Sneak Attack would stack with Rogue Sneak Attack than to state in Rogue Sneak Attack that all Sneak Attack damage stacks.



Rogue level 1 is specifically stated to be a source. You do not get sneak attack because you have a class feature called sneak attack any more than being a human makes you a [human]. You get sneak attack because you are a rogue level 1 or an arcane trickster level 2 or a blackguard level 4. "Rogue levels" are specifically called out as being a source. The fact that the reminder persists on nearly every version of sneak attack is probably because of judicious use of ctrl-c.


If you pick the second one, you've also got to come up with a D&D definition of source. What part of the RAW defines that term?

Nothing actually defines what a source is, but there is one thing in the entire game that we know is a source: rogue levels. It's like how the Ending Everything (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?435730-Ending-Everything-%28TO-trick%29) trick, notwithstanding the argument over whether or not Truename Dispel can actually, y'know, do that, hinges not on a definition of "Effect" in the rules, but on a list of things which are stated to be, or have, effects. The idea that you can stack AC bonuses comes from there being clear precedent for class levels, not class features, being sources of abilities. I repeat, rogue levels are specifically called out as the source. Further, that is the only indication to my knowledge in the entire game of what a "Source" is except that instances of the same spell are the same source.

Also, the note is pointless anyway, because it's not a bonus to damage rolls of 1d6, but 1d6 extra damage. So it doesn't need to "Stack", the idea of "Stacking" is irrelevant. A rogue 5/assassin 2 deals, with a shortbow, 1d8 damage, and 3d6 damage, and 1d6 damage. All the note is there for is to say, in case it wasn't clear, that the damage is all added, rather than one sneak attack ability overriding the other.

Also, if "Sneak Attack is a damage source, and won't stack without override language", wouldn't it still be easier to "state in Rogue Sneak Attack that all Sneak Attack damage stacks"?

[Thurbane]

Speaking generally, the only typed bonus that explicitly stacks are 'dodge' bonues. Other bonuses (deflection, enchancement, insight, etc) do not stack with themselves. Only the best bonus of each type applies. Some bonuses do not have a listed type and are sometimes referred to as 'untyped' bonuses. These also stack; both with each other and with other bonuses.

Racial bonuses specifically stack. I can't find the rule right at the moment (it's buried somewhere stupid), but it does exist. Unless the Rules Compendium overturned it.

Not entirely relevant, as there aren't any racial bonuses to AC I can think of off the top of my head.

PHB p.171 "With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus works (see Combining Magical Effects, below).".

It might be repeated elsewhere.

[LooseCannoneer]

Regardless of the stacking rules a character cannot be both unarmored and wearing light armor at the same time, so the bonuses do not apply at the same time.

You could put levels in Argent Fist (FoE). That gives the Monk AC Bonus while wearing armor.

[TheifofZ]

Yes, D&D has lots of reminders. However, the Sneak Attack class feature nearly always (dozens of times) has statements stating that its damage stacks with other Sneak Attack, especially from Rogue levels. The original Sneak Attack Rogue class feature does not have any such stacking language.


A couple notes here: Most base classes don't indicate that they stack with other classes, especially not in the PH; this is partly because of time of release limitations on what was available (DMG only), but also because it's typically handled on a case by case basis, which is easily visible with casting progression, but also visible with Rogue Sneak Attack.
And I know I can recall several dozen other classes that grant Sneak Attack dice that make no mention of stacking with rogue, and also several that very specifically do not stack.

IMO, may it never be so humble, unless a bonus anything says it does stack/grant levels of/ et al, then it doesn't. But that does invalidate some of the wackier shenanigans out there, so...
Personal and DM discretion once again.

[Curmudgeon]

And I know I can recall several dozen other classes that grant Sneak Attack dice that make no mention of stacking with rogue, and also several that very specifically do not stack.
"Several dozen"? Please list them. Also I know of only a handful of classes with Sneak Attack which do not include stacking language; Rogue is one of them. I know of no classes which state that their Sneak Attack does not stack.

You appear to have information about Sneak Attack which we collectively do not. Please share.

[TheifofZ]

"Several dozen"? Please list them. Also I know of only a handful of classes with Sneak Attack which do not include stacking language; Rogue is one of them. I know of no classes which state that their Sneak Attack does not stack.

You appear to have information about Sneak Attack which we collectively do not. Please share.

Well, okay. Maybe not several dozen. I was being, what's the word, emphatic? Enthusiastic?
But there are a few out there. And I guess now I have to go binging through the books to find the class that did not stack again.
Been forever since I saw it, and the only reason I recall it being a thing at all was the sheer shock at seeing non-stacking sneak attack.

[rrwoods]

That's shorthand for "from another instance of the source". If it weren't, then there would be no reason for the statement to exist; untyped bonuses from different sources always stack.

IMO, the statement that they stack is one they use because they believe it increases clarity rather than because they believe it's necessary for the bonuses to stack. They're wrong, of course, but this isn't the only instance of that being the case.

EDIT: I'm not phrasing this well. To put it another way: I'm positing that class features from different classes are different sources, and the explication that sneak attack stacks with other sources of sneak attack is to clarify that is indeed the case.

I could be wrong, of course, but no sourcebook ever explicates the rule itself, only [examples of it / exceptions to it]. Whaddaya know, D&D rules are written poorly, who knew?!

[Andezzar]

Rogue level 1 is specifically stated to be a source. You do not get sneak attack because you have a class feature called sneak attack any more than being a human makes you a [human]. You get sneak attack because you are a rogue level 1 or an arcane trickster level 2 or a blackguard level 4. "Rogue levels" are specifically called out as being a source. The fact that the reminder persists on nearly every version of sneak attack is probably because of judicious use of ctrl-c.You are omitting the possibility that sources can have sources. The source of the extra damage is the class feature, but the source of the class feature is a rogue (or other class) level. We are discussing whether the extra damage stacks, not whether class features are stacked, which doesn't make sense anyways, because class features are not bonuses and stacking is only defined for bonuses.
If rogue levels were the source of the extra damage, wouldn't a rogue 5 (with the Feat ACF (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rogue))/Assassin 1 deal 4d6 extra damage instead of 1d6?

[tonberrian]

So what happens when I point out that Monk's Wis to AC isn't actually a bonus from the class feature? The class feature doesn't add a bonus equal to your wisdom bonus, but rather lets you apply your wisdom bonus in a new way.

[KingSmitty]

So what happens when I point out that Monk's Wis to AC isn't actually a bonus from the class feature? The class feature doesn't add a bonus equal to your wisdom bonus, but rather lets you apply your wisdom bonus in a new way.

I agree. It isn't a competence bonus or anything like that. Just a plain old wisdom to AC & +1 at level 5 if you get that far.


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).

it is very ambiguous. You're simply adding your wisdom bonus. Not a enhancement. Swordsage however, it says to add your wisdom modifier..which is the same thing. Two separate sources of AC bonus would stack if one was a named bonus, but since the abilities are both named AC Bonus...they don't. Or at least that's what the following article goes on to say.

Relevant (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040210a)

I would totally allow it, because you ARE multiclassing and because you are a monk after all.