Have you ever wanted to carry around your rhinoceros? Talisman of the Disk

[Nebuul]

So I was planning a mad npc bandit king today, and I came upon a little gem hidden deep within the description of Talisman of the Disk from Magic Item Compendium:


If you are also wearing a magic item that provides an enhancement bonus to Strength, the disk’s carrying capacity increases by 100 pounds per point of bonus granted by the item.

That means that it does not care what your enhancement bonus to strength may be. In fact, it explicitly does not care what your enhancement bonus to strength is. All it cares about are the enhancement bonuses to strength on any items you are wearing. You can wear 12 slots of items. So, although it costs more to get strength bonuses on slots not intended for strength, it's still allowed at greater expense.

So I present to you the Mad Bandit King of the Disk with +72 different enhancement bonuses to strength on his items. With that, he can forge Tenser's Disks capable of carrying 7500 lbs. That's enough to have a full-grown Rhino sit on a disk and still have room for a good 2,000 lbs of more stuff.

What would you do as a mad bandit king with the ability to lift 7500 lbs per disk that you can create every 6 seconds and that last for 3 hours?

[Long_shanks]

So I was planning a mad npc bandit king today, and I came upon a little gem hidden deep within the description of Talisman of the Disk from Magic Item Compendium:



That means that it does not care what your enhancement bonus to strength may be. In fact, it explicitly does not care what your enhancement bonus to strength is. All it cares about are the enhancement bonuses to strength on any items you are wearing. You can wear 12 slots of items. So, although it costs more to get strength bonuses on slots not intended for strength, it's still allowed at greater expense.

So I present to you the Mad Bandit King of the Disk with +72 different enhancement bonuses to strength on his items. With that, he can forge Tenser's Disks capable of carrying 7500 lbs. That's enough to have a full-grown Rhino sit on a disk and still have room for a good 2,000 lbs of more stuff.

What would you do as a mad bandit king with the ability to lift 7500 lbs per disk that you can create every 6 seconds and that last for 3 hours?

Enhancement bonuses don't stack with themselves...

[Jowgen]

Enhancement bonuses don't stack with themselves...

I believe the point is that the Talisman does not care about whether the enhancement bonuses come from one source or multiple sources that don't stack. Two concurrently worn +1 Str items do still respectively "grant" a +1 Enhancment bonus, as the Talisman requires), regardless of those two +1s not stacking.

Unless one can formulate a convincing argument that the extra capacity of the disk somehow constitutes a bonus for the purposes of stacking, I believe that the OP's argument remains RAW-sound.

[Nebuul]

I believe the point is that the Talisman does not care about whether the enhancement bonuses come from one source or multiple sources that don't stack. Two concurrently worn +1 Str items do still respectively "grant" a +1 Enhancment bonus, as the Talisman requires), regardless of those two +1s not stacking.

Unless one can formulate a convincing argument that the extra capacity of the disk somehow constitutes a bonus for the purposes of stacking, I believe that the OP's argument remains RAW-sound.

Yup, and I just figured out how he abuses it - he's built a giant levitating battering ram supported by 4 disks weighing in at 25,000 lbs. He doesn't even need men to operate it - he just moves the disks to-and-fro

[Jowgen]

Yup, and I just figured out how he abuses it - he's built a giant levitating battering ram supported by 4 disks weighing in at 25,000 lbs. He doesn't even need men to operate it - he just moves the disks to-and-fro

Not going to touch the commoner-rail-gun-variety physics assumptions here, but one practical issue to keep in mind regardless: the disks aren't permanent (3 hours at a time), so any massively heavy objects to be transported do need to somehow be lifted somehow.

[flappeercraft]

Not going to touch the commoner-rail-gun-variety physics assumptions here, but one practical issue to keep in mind regardless: the disks aren't permanent (3 hours at a time), so any massively heavy objects to be transported do need to somehow be lifted somehow.

And the perfect way to lift them is more disks

[Nebuul]

And the perfect way to lift them is more disks

Yup, or you just construct it with elevated mounting framework and you lift by that. Nothing says it can't rest in the ground and be lifted by another point 6" off the ground.

[Long_shanks]

I believe the point is that the Talisman does not care about whether the enhancement bonuses come from one source or multiple sources that don't stack. Two concurrently worn +1 Str items do still respectively "grant" a +1 Enhancment bonus, as the Talisman requires), regardless of those two +1s not stacking.

Unless one can formulate a convincing argument that the extra capacity of the disk somehow constitutes a bonus for the purposes of stacking, I believe that the OP's argument remains RAW-sound.

Ah, I get it now. It ends up costing a whole lot for a flying rhino though.

[Nebuul]

Ah, I get it now. It ends up costing a whole lot for a flying rhino though.

Ah, but it isn't "a" flying rhino. It's up to 1800 flying rhinos :smallbiggrin:

[tiercel]

I suppose if you wanted to be books-get-thrown-at-you literal-minded, you could note that the talisman technically gets an increase in carrying capacity for "per point of bonus granted by the item."

Thus, by a mind-numbingly-literal interpretation, it could be argued that any bonus contributes as long as the contributing item has an enhancement bonus to Strength since the description doesn't take pains to specifically say "per point of Strength enhancement bonus granted by the item."

OTOH, if you enjoy this kind of twisty lawyering you should maybe consider being a lawyer instead of folding, spindling, and mutilating an adventure game about killing monsters and taking their loot.

[Nebuul]

I suppose if you wanted to be books-get-thrown-at-you literal-minded, you could note that the talisman technically gets an increase in carrying capacity for "per point of bonus granted by the item."

Except you left off the first half of the sentence where it explicitly defines the bonus as strength. But nice try :smallsmile:

[Calthropstu]

Air walk on a rhino is better.

[Uncle Pine]

Consider this: one +6 enhancement Str item costs 6*6*1,000 = 36,000 gp. One +1 enhancement Str slotless item costs 1*1*1,000*2 = 2,000 gp. This means that for the same price, your mad bandit king should be able to afford 18 different +1 Str slotless items instead of any single +6 Str item.

[tiercel]

Except you left off the first half of the sentence where it explicitly defines the bonus as strength. But nice try :smallsmile:

Actually...


If you are also wearing a magic item that provides an enhancement bonus to Strength, the disk’s carrying capacity increases by 100 pounds per point of bonus granted by the item.

It is a silly interpretation, but the first part of the sentence specifies that the item must provide an enhancement bonus to Strength, and the second part only says "per point of bonus," not "per point of that bonus" or "per point of enhancement bonus to Strength."

I would openly mock anyone who seriously made this argument for an actual game, but as long as we are talking about twisting the arguably obvious intent of the wording for the item....

[Euclidodese]

If you are also wearing a magic item that provides an enhancement bonus to Strength, the disk’s carrying capacity increases by 100 pounds per point of bonus granted by the item.

This seems to explicitely allow you to get one bonus from one singular item IMO.

[Nebuul]

This seems to explicitely allow you to get one bonus from one singular item IMO.

It is not exclusive. So if you are wearing a belt, and it provides a strength bonus of +2, then it will add 200 lbs. If you are wearing a ring, and it provides +1, it will add 100 lbs. You now have +300 lbs. It does not even hint that the two are mutually exclusive.

[Euclidodese]

It is not exclusive. So if you are wearing a belt, and it provides a strength bonus of +2, then it will add 200 lbs. If you are wearing a ring, and it provides +1, it will add 100 lbs. You now have +300 lbs. It does not even hint that the two are mutually exclusive.Apart from where it says 'A MAGICAL ITEM,' not 'ANY MAGICAL ITEMS.'
And the part where it says the bonus from 'THE ITEM,' and not 'THESE ITEMS.'


Sorry dude, but it seems very clear that it's opening up the option to gain the benefit from ONE item.

[lord_khaine]

This seems to go against the stacking rules though.
If you got a +4 str belt it adds 400 to the carrying capacity.
And if you then also got a +2 str gauntlet it adds another 200 pound, is the argument.

But that would be bonuses from the same type, and only the highest would count.

[fire_insideout]

This seems to explicitely allow you to get one bonus from one singular item IMO.

So, if you saw a sign that said:

Having a dog in this apartment is forbidden. The owner of the dog will be fined 100$ if found breaking this rule.
Would you argue that having two dogs is fine, or would you expect to be fined 200$?

[Vaz]

Apart from where it says 'A MAGICAL ITEM,' not 'ANY MAGICAL ITEMS.'
And the part where it says the bonus from 'THE ITEM,' and not 'THESE ITEMS.'


Sorry dude, but it seems very clear that it's opening up the option to gain the benefit from ONE item.

If I pick up a banana, am I carrying a banana? Yes. If I pick up 2 bananas, am I carrying a banana? Yes, I am.

Sorry dude, but it seems very clear you're wrong.

[Euclidodese]

If I pick up a banana, am I carrying a banana? Yes. If I pick up 2 bananas, am I carrying a banana? Yes, I am.

Sorry dude, but it seems very clear you're wrong.I'm not sure that proved what you think it proved.

Let me demonstrate a more appropriate banana analogy:

If I say: ‘I will give £100 to anyone carrying a banana’ and you are carrying 1 banana, you get £100.
If I say: ‘I will give £100 to anyone carrying a banana’ and you are carrying 2 bananas, you STILL get £100.

If I say: ‘I will give £100 per carried banana, to anyone carrying bananas’ and you are carrying 1 banana, you get £100.
If I say: ‘I will give £100 per carried banana, to anyone carrying bananas’ and you are carrying 2 banana, only then, would you get £200.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now read the spell text again:

"If you are also wearing a magic item that provides an enhancement bonus to Strength, the disk’s carrying capacity increases by 100 pounds per point of bonus granted by the item."


The disk’s spell text is more like my first banana offer than my second. It says that if you are wearing ‘A magical item,’ not if you are wearing ‘any magical items.’ And that you can receive a bonus from ‘The Item,’ not ‘Those items.’

Twice in that small piece of text it uses singular language that explicitly refers to you being able to make use of the bonus from one, singular item… Just one, not multiple items.

Literally no part of that text implies that you can get multiple bonuses from multiple items.

In other words: You only get £100, no matter how many bananas you hold, (as long as you don’t hold 0 bananas of course :smallsmile:)

If the writers had wanted to say that you get multiple bonuses from multiple items, they would have needed to write something more along the lines of:

‘If you are wearing any magical items that provide enhancement bonus’s to Strength, the disk’s carrying capacity increases by 100 pounds per point of bonus granted by these items.’



If you want to interpret singular as multiple, up and down and blue as green go ahead, but I'm sorry.... That’s clearly not what it says.

[Celestia]

Throwing in my two coppers here. The language does seem to exclusively refer to one item. However, it does not specify bonus type for the effect. Therefore, wearing two +2 Str items would give an additional 200 lbs. Wearing a +2 Str item that also gives +2 Dex would give an additional 400 lbs. I can see this working really well with some Boots of Swiftness you stuck a strength bonus onto. That's an extra 8,600 lbs right there.

[Jowgen]

I think at this point it is worth noting that the proposed exploit costs dozen of times more than the actual talisman, and that potentially being able to carry a lot of weight is arguably the least (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?385848-Disciple-of-Tenser-A-Guide-to-Maximum-Tenser-s-Floating-Disk-Utility)abuseable thing about that item. In a world of cheese, it is basically soymilk.

That being said... what if you were wearing a magic item that normally provides an enhancement bonus to Strenght, but wasn't actually do so in this instance?

Lets say the magic item has a racial requirement where the enhancement bonus is only granted to Orcs (which you are not baring a UMD check).
Or lets say you have Str as a non-ability, so the item does nothing for you.

Does the disk's load go up?

[Celestia]

I think at this point it is worth noting that the proposed exploit costs dozen of times more than the actual talisman, and that potentially being able to carry a lot of weight is arguably the least (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?385848-Disciple-of-Tenser-A-Guide-to-Maximum-Tenser-s-Floating-Disk-Utility)abuseable thing about that item. In a world of cheese, it is basically soymilk.

That being said... what if you were wearing a magic item that normally provides an enhancement bonus to Strenght, but wasn't actually do so in this instance?

Lets say the magic item has a racial requirement where the enhancement bonus is only granted to Orcs (which you are not baring a UMD check).
Or lets say you have Str as a non-ability, so the item does nothing for you.

Does the disk's load go up?
I don't see why it wouldn't.

[Nebuul]

‘If you are wearing any magical items that provide enhancement bonus’s to Strength, the disk’s carrying capacity increases by 100 pounds per point of bonus granted by these items.’



If you want to interpret singular as multiple, up and down and blue as green go ahead, but I'm sorry.... That’s clearly not what it says.

No. If the item were limited, it would say one of these things:

1. If you have an enhancement bonus to strength, the disk's capacity increases by 100 lbs for each point of that bonus.
2. If you have any items with an enhancement bonus to strength, the disks capacity increases by 100 lbs for each point of the largest bonus.
3. If you have an item with an enhancement bonus to strength, increase the disk's capacity by 100 lbs for each point of bonus. If carrying multiple items with enhancement bonuses to strength, use only the largest bonus.

This item goes out of its way to make sure you don't get a benefit from your enhancement bonus to strength and instead to add weight based only off items worn. The language is perfectly clear that it is not exclusive since, well, there is no exclusive language.

"If I have a dollar in my pocket, I can buy an ice cream cone." That doesn't mean I can't buy 10 of them if I have 10 dollars. That's why they put "limit one per customer."

[Euclidodese]

No. If the item were limited, it would say one of these things:

1. If you have an enhancement bonus to strength, the disk's capacity increases by 100 lbs for each point of that bonus.
2. If you have any items with an enhancement bonus to strength, the disks capacity increases by 100 lbs for each point of the largest bonus.
3. If you have an item with an enhancement bonus to strength, increase the disk's capacity by 100 lbs for each point of bonus. If carrying multiple items with enhancement bonuses to strength, use only the largest bonus.

This item goes out of its way to make sure you don't get a benefit from your enhancement bonus to strength and instead to add weight based only off items worn. The language is perfectly clear that it is not exclusive since, well, there is no exclusive language.Nope. It would only say one of those things if the bonus was related to the enhancement bonus your character actually recieves, I am not arguing that it does, I agree with you that it does not.

Regardless of this, and back on the point which we're actually debating: The language relates unambiguously to the bonus coming from a singular magical item.
Literally three times in the space of that very short paragraph singular terms are used that would be grammatically inappropriate if referring to multiple objects.

The literal reading of the text screws your rhino-carrying plans I'm afraid, but I'm sure it will never come up in a real life situation, so feel free to smudge it, and I'm sure no one will say yee nay.

The test says that if you are wearing a magical item (exclusively singular term explicitly used) which provides an
(exclusively singular term explicitly used) enhancement bonus to strength, you may apply the bonus of the item (exclusively singular term explicitly used) to the disk's capacity.

As helpfully confirmed above: If you pick up two bananas, you qualify as someone who is carrying a banana.
If you are wearing ten magical items which each provide a +2 enhancement bonus to strength then congratulations, that means you qualify as someone who is wearing a magical item which provides an enhancement bonus to strength. Reading the spell text confirms that, by lucky chance, a person who has A magical item can apply the +2 bonus of the item to the disk's capacity. You now have a 300lb capacity, lucky you.



Again... It really doesn't matter though.

[Nebuul]

stuff

Look, by your reading, if a person wears two items, each with an enhancement bonus, then the disk will receive no increase in strength at all. Which is obviously incorrect. Are you not seeing that fallacy?

Go look up XOR. Then try to show where the sentence they use grants any exclusivity whatsoever. Regardless, it's obvious at this point that we aren't going to change each others' minds.

[Jay R]

I cannot imagine any DM actually letting you do this.

Suppose you are wearing 72 +1 STR items. They still don't stack. Your disk's STR bonus, like your own, goes up by +1, even if there are 72 reasons why it goes up by +1.

[Nebuul]

I cannot imagine any DM actually letting you do this.

Suppose you are wearing 72 +1 STR items. They still don't stack. Your disk's STR bonus, like your own, goes up by +1, even if there are 72 reasons why it goes up by +1.

It would be 12x +6 str items. You are not allowed to wear more than 1 magic item per slot.

The item does not use your enhancement bonus to strength to increase its capacity. When you put on an item, it simply looks if that item has an enhancement bonus to strength on it. If it does, it increases its weight by 100 lbs/point of that bonus. So while you are correct in saying that if a character wears 12 +1 str items, they will still just receive +1 strength, that rule is not being applied here. Each +1 strength item is evaluated separately to augment this item by its own specific rules.

[Jay R]

It would be 12x +6 str items. You are not allowed to wear more than 1 magic item per slot.

The item does not use your enhancement bonus to strength to increase its capacity. When you put on an item, it simply looks if that item has an enhancement bonus to strength on it. If it does, it increases its weight by 100 lbs/point of that bonus. So while you are correct in saying that if a character wears 12 +1 str items, they will still just receive +1 strength, that rule is not being applied here. Each +1 strength item is evaluated separately to augment this item by its own specific rules.

I repeat: I cannot imagine any DM actually letting you do this. There is nothing in the rule stating that more than one item will be added together. Nothing. The rule you quoted states: "per point of bonus granted by the item".

The.
Item.

If you are carrying 12 +6 items, then I, and virtually any other DM, would say, "Your disc can carry an additional +600 pounds. There are twelve reasons why you would get this +600 pounds, but you only get it from one item. There is no item that gives a 7th point of bonus."

I simply do not believe that any competent DM would let your word game work.

But feel free to prove me wrong. Prepare the items and ask your DM if it works. That's the only opinion that matters. Not mine. Not yours. Not anybody else's on this forum.

[Nebuul]

I repeat: I cannot imagine any DM actually letting you do this. There is nothing in the rule stating that more than one item will be added together. Nothing. The rule you quoted states: "per point of bonus granted by the item".

The.
Item.

If you are carrying 12 +6 items, then I, and virtually any other DM, would say, "Your disc can carry an additional +600 pounds. There are twelve reasons why you would get this +600 pounds, but you only get it from one item. There is no item that gives a 7th point of bonus."

I simply do not believe that any competent DM would let your word game work.

But feel free to prove me wrong. Prepare the items and ask your DM if it works. That's the only opinion that matters. Not mine. Not yours. Not anybody else's on this forum.

Ok, thought experiments:


If a character has this disk and they have a belt +2 str, and someone casts Bull's Strength on the character, how much bonus weight does their disk hold?
If a character has no strength, as in it lacks the stat completely, and they are somehow able to use this item while wearing an ethereal item that grants +6 strength, how much bonus weight can the disk hold?


By your logic, it grants 0 bonus weight in both those scenarios. The first is because once Bull's Strength is cast on the character, the character is no longer receiving bonus strength from the item since enhancement bonuses don't stack and the character only uses the largest bonus. The second is because the character is incapable of has no strength score to be enhanced in the first place.

But in both of those cases, your logic fails. Because the item does not care what enhancement bonus is active on a character. The item cares only what bonus each item on a character gives (yes, each item). The only things that matter:


Is an item being worn?
Does that item grant an enhancement bonus to strength?
How much enhancement bonus does that item grant?


That's it. There is no comparison to other items. There is no checking for biggest or smallest bonuses. There is no checking to see if a character is eligible for the bonus. There is nothing beyond those three very simple questions. This is not "word games" by me, this is basic logic. This is the actual rule as-written in the item's description without any sort of conniving or leaps of logic.

If you are also stuck with a knife that provides a penalty to hit points, your life reduces by 1 point per penalty granted by the knife.
If you are also wearing a magic item that provides an enhancement bonus to Strength, the disk’s carrying capacity increases by 100 pounds per point of bonus granted by the item.

You don't take only the most damage dealt by a knife, you take damage for each and every knife that sticks you. Because each knife doesn't care about the other knives already stuck in you.

Finally, as a competent dm, do you actually see anything in this that breaks the game in any way? In order to achieve large numbers on this, a character has to spend a lot of extra money. To even get 400 bonus pounds (slightly-more-than-doubling the default weight), you have to spend a minimum of, what, 16x the cost of the talisman in strength buffs to items for two +2 str slots? Are you concerned that your mid-to-high-level campaign where people can plop down an instant fortress for 10d10 damage every 2 rounds are going to break the game with over-strong tenser's floating disks? They literally wasted 4000 gold to get +2 str for which the literal only purpose is to grant 200 lbs weight to a floating disk. This item is such a specific case, it does not have repercussions to other things. It's a quirky rule that affects literally one item in the entire game. Why on earth would anyone not "let" this happen in their game? Especially since you cannot point to any ruling that would prevent it other than "you just don't think it should"-type of stuff.

[Vaz]

It would be 12x +6 str items. You are not allowed to wear more than 1 magic item per slot.

So make them slotless.

[fire_insideout]

I cannot imagine any DM actually letting you do this.

Suppose you are wearing 72 +1 STR items. They still don't stack. Your disk's STR bonus, like your own, goes up by +1, even if there are 72 reasons why it goes up by +1.

Why not? If a player wants to spend a significant part of their wealth on having super-strong disks floating around let them. It's not like there aren't easier ways of breaking 3.5...

[weckar]

I do enjoy myself a couple Talisman of the Disk. They can make for efficient impromptu - if slow to set up - force cages. Moreso if you can get past the ruling of whether one disk can or cannot support another disk.

[Jay R]

By your logic, ...

I would not rule that way. That is not my logic. You applied a sentence I wrote about a single situation to a context I had not yet considered, in order to get something I had not decided. That's the same thing you're doing with the rule. The only difference is that I'm here and the rules-writer isn't, so you can't get away with it with my words.


(yes, each item).

Even if you put it in italics, there is nothing in the rules that says that this applies to more than one item, or that bonuses that don't stack elsewhere do stack here.


That's it. There is no comparison to other items. There is no checking for biggest or smallest bonuses. There is no checking to see if a character is eligible for the bonus. There is nothing beyond those three very simple questions. This is not "word games" by me, this is basic logic. This is the actual rule as-written in the item's description without any sort of conniving or leaps of logic.

The actual rule says "the item" It does not say "each item". It does not imply that more than one item applies.


Finally, as a competent dm, do you actually see anything in this that breaks the game in any way?

A.Since my argument has nothing to do with breaking the game, how is this relevant?

B. After a player gets away with finding the first way to make enhancement bonuses stack, it's easier for him to use that as a tool to come up with another - and another. The only valid place to stop that train is at the start - enhancement bonuses don't stack, no matter what you're trying to do with them.

C. I think that approach to reading rules hurts the game, yes. I would stop that approach as soon as it appears, whether that particular aspect clearly breaks the game or not - partially because I can't always predict in advance what might hurt the game, and partially because I want players more interested in exploring the Mystic Forest of Sredni Vashtar than exploring rules books for unintended consequences from skewed readings.


Especially since you cannot point to any ruling that would prevent it other than "you just don't think it should"-type of stuff.

The ruling I have pointed to more than once is "the item". I also point to the principle in general that enhancement bonuses never stack.

[Nebuul]

A.Since my argument has nothing to do with breaking the game, how is this relevant?

B. After a player gets away with finding the first way to make enhancement bonuses stack, it's easier for him to use that as a tool to come up with another - and another. The only valid place to stop that train is at the start - enhancement bonuses don't stack, no matter what you're trying to do with them.

C. I think that approach to reading rules hurts the game, yes. I would stop that approach as soon as it appears, whether that particular aspect clearly breaks the game or not - partially because I can't always predict in advance what might hurt the game, and partially because I want players more interested in exploring the Mystic Forest of Sredni Vashtar than exploring rules books for unintended consequences from skewed readings.



The ruling I have pointed to more than once is "the item". I also point to the principle in general that enhancement bonuses never stack.

See, this is the whole crux. This item does not care about stacking or not stacking enhancement bonuses. At no point does anything attempt to stack one enhancement bonus with another. If this item functioned off of enhancement bonuses as a bonus then the argument would be over -- nothing would stack. Anyhow:

A) It just seems you feel very strongly against this being allowed in your games. But, it's not that important.
B) I feel hopeless even attempting this because I already have proven to be an insufficient teacher to explain inclusive vs. exclusive statements, but here is a page on the logical fallacy of the slippery slope: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
C) You must ban wizards above level 6 at your table. I agree, they are probably the most broken thing in D&D with their unintended power via rules abuse! :smallwink:

I will say it again: This item does not make enhancement bonuses stack, and the "skewed reading" here is really basic reading comprehension and logic. This item does not receive, obtain, grant, or whatever an enhancement bonus. It is like a spreadsheet: You put on an item. The talisman examines the item for an enhancement bonus. Found? Power up. Not? Do nothing. Multiple items don't matter. Single items don't matter. The level of enhancement bonus active on the character doesn't matter.


By the way, regarding this:

If I say: ‘I will give £100 to anyone carrying a banana’ and you are carrying 1 banana, you get £100.
If I say: ‘I will give £100 to anyone carrying a banana’ and you are carrying 2 bananas, you STILL get £100.

You are wrong. You would have to say: "I will give £100 to anyone carrying a banana, limit one offer per person."
And you cannot honestly say you haven't seen a similar statement to know I'm correct.

[Jay R]

That's an awful lot of words trying to make "the item" mean "all the items".

And you're not merely trying to say that "the item" could be interpreted to include many items in a way items with the same kind of bonus never worked together before. You're trying to say that there is no possible way to interpret the phrase "the item" as referring to a singular item.

Your ruling can make sense. But we aren't disagreeing on that point, We are disagreeing over whether no other ruling could make sense, such as a ruling that "the item" means a singular item.

I don't think it is so unambiguously clear that it intends these bonuses to be added together. I see no reference to adding bonuses from separate items anywhere in the description. Frankly, it reads to me like the author never even considered the possibility. So in a case in which "a situation will arise that isn't explicitly covered by the rules", such as whether the Talisman of the Disk can add multiple identical bonuses together, what are we supposed to do?


Look to any similar situations that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate frm what you see presented there and apply it to the current situation.

I have done this, and discovered that in any other context, wearing two or more identical +6 items has the same effect as wearing just one. Thus, I extrapolate that approach to this situation.

That's not the only way to rule either, of course. This is still something the DM will rule on, and I still suspect that most DMs would agree with me. But feel free to use it in your games.

[Pux]

There are much easier ways to carry around many rhinoceroses especially with that sort of investment.

Second, Does the enhancement bonus improving carrying capacity need to be to Strength. The item certainly must grant an enhancement bonus to strength. Could you also benefit from the fact that it also grants an enhancement bonus to speed, armor, natural armor, weapon, or different ability?

In fact, the item even says per point of bonus, not per point of enhancement bonus. Could an item that grants a +1 enhancement bonus to strength, +3 competence bonus to 25 different knowledge or craft skills result in a much less expensive way to shenanigans this item?

Finally, I absolutely would not allow this unless you first spend the time to train the rhinoceros to balance on a 3 foot diameter platform, this will likely take one of his trick slots. I understand that the rules for balance only have a DC for balancing on objects under 12 inches in width, but this is one of those times I would rule a check is needed. But forcing them into a space that is less than half their space also requires a escape artist check, this will also likely take one of its trick slots. Fortunately a Rhinoceros has a 0 dex mod and 8 hit dice. I don't see any reason that if you reared the rhinoceros that you could not also have trained it to place skill points in balance and escape artist.

[Jowgen]

Second, Does the enhancement bonus improving carrying capacity need to be to Strength. The item certainly must grant an enhancement bonus to strength. Could you also benefit from the fact that it also grants an enhancement bonus to speed, armor, natural armor, weapon, or different ability?

In fact, the item even says per point of bonus, not per point of enhancement bonus. Could an item that grants a +1 enhancement bonus to strength, +3 competence bonus to 25 different knowledge or craft skills result in a much less expensive way to shenanigans this item?

Alright, now we're talking actual, delicious dairy cheese. :smallbiggrin:

Terribly abusive RAW wise, I believe this holds up. For simplicity, lets say you're wearing a Belt of Priestly might. It is "a magic item that provides an enhancement bonus to Strength", but in addition to +2 strenght also grants a +1 enhancement bonus to Natural Armor.

Can someone provide a RAW argument for why the +1 NA bonus wouldn't count as a bonus granted by the item for the purposes of the "100 pounds per point of bonus granted by the item"?

[Nebuul]

Alright, now we're talking actual, delicious dairy cheese. :smallbiggrin:

Terribly abusive RAW wise, I believe this holds up. For simplicity, lets say you're wearing a Belt of Priestly might. It is "a magic item that provides an enhancement bonus to Strength", but in addition to +2 strenght also grants a +1 enhancement bonus to Natural Armor.

Can someone provide a RAW argument for why the +1 NA bonus wouldn't count as a bonus granted by the item for the purposes of the "100 pounds per point of bonus granted by the item"?

If you are also wearing a magic item that provides an enhancement bonus to Strength, the disk’s carrying capacity increases by 100 pounds per point of bonus granted by the item.

Any attempt to say that the definition of "bonus" is anything but "enhancement bonus to Strength" is ignoring the general usage of the English language. For example, try this:

If you are also carrying a specially-marked bottle cap with a green number stamped inside, the grocery store's donation to your school increases by the amount of the stamped number

In this case, if there were three numbers inside the bottle cap: red, black, and green, you would know (as would everyone else) that the donation will only increase by the amount of the green-stamped number. Even though the other numbers are technically "stamped numbers," the English language has certain implications. Trying to use other bonuses is just dishonest :-)

[ben-zayb]

How about items that grant enhancement bonus to STR and also other bonus elsewhere? Say, Belt of Magnificence?

[Nebuul]

How about items that grant enhancement bonus to STR and also other bonus elsewhere? Say, Belt of Magnificence?

It doesn't matter. See my bottle cap example. When the sentence goes from specific to general, it is establishing the contextual definition of general. If it were a legal contract, they would say:
An item with An Enhancement Bonus To Strength, hereafter referred to as the Bonus . . .

But this is not legalese, so that little tidbit is already understood by all parties. It's similar to how commands have an understood "you" at the start:
"Open the door."
Is understood to really be: "You open the door."

I suspect the folks trying to misappropriate bonuses know this already, which is why they feel sneaky/like it is some kind of a legal cheat.

[Vaz]

It doesn't matter. See my bottle cap example. When the sentence goes from specific to general, it is establishing the contextual definition of general. If it were a legal contract, they would say:
An item with An Enhancement Bonus To Strength, hereafter referred to as the Bonus . . .

But this is not legalese, so that little tidbit is already understood by all parties. It's similar to how commands have an understood "you" at the start:
"Open the door."
Is understood to really be: "You open the door."

I suspect the folks trying to misappropriate bonuses know this already, which is why they feel sneaky/like it is some kind of a legal cheat.

I bet you're fun at parties.

[Thurbane]

Apart from where it says 'A MAGICAL ITEM,' not 'ANY MAGICAL ITEMS.'
And the part where it says the bonus from 'THE ITEM,' and not 'THESE ITEMS.'


Sorry dude, but it seems very clear that it's opening up the option to gain the benefit from ONE item.

I agree with this. The wording fairly specifically refers to a singular item - and since we're rules lawyering to go around the (IMO) obvious RAI, you can't just pick and choose which bits to include and which to ignore.