PDA

View Full Version : Rings of Wizardry question



Aerlock
2007-08-10, 01:18 PM
If a character were to wear 2 rings of wizardry of the same level would they get extra spells/day from the second ring? For example would a lvl 20 Sorc with 2 Rings of Wizardry IV have 18 (2 doubles = a triple in DnD remember and 3*6=18) 4th level spells before bonus spells from his CHA?

Aerlock

Duke of URL
2007-08-10, 01:20 PM
There's nothing in the RAW that would forbid it, but as a GM, I'd probably frown on it.

Tyger
2007-08-10, 01:21 PM
Interesting question. There aren't any rules to say that it wouldn't work as there is no bonus type here that is doubling, so one coudl argue that is untyped, which does stack...

Yes. I'd say it does. But that's opinion, not RAW, as I don't think the RAW really speaks to this issue.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 01:22 PM
This would fall under the "same effect, differing sources," stacking effects clause. No.

Telonius
2007-08-10, 01:24 PM
I would say no. Bonuses generally don't stack when they're coming from the same source. A character wearing two Rings of Protection +3 wouldn't get a +6 to deflection.

Tyger
2007-08-10, 01:25 PM
I would say no. Bonuses generally don't stack when they're coming from the same source. A character wearing two Rings of Protection +3 wouldn't get a +6 to deflection.


But that's because those are named bonuses.

Fax makes a good point. Not sure its 100% right, but its swaying me a bit.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-10, 03:56 PM
I'm with Fax. SRD says:


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. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.

The benifits of the ring are I would think most close to the 'two diffrent spells cast in sucession' example. They are the same magical item after all and the 'magical effect' they produce (doubling the 4th spells of the wearer) is the same.

It's not crystal clear, and open for debate, but I interpret the RAW as no on that basis.

Aquillion
2007-08-10, 04:16 PM
But that wording is very, very straightforward on when it applies, and it clearly doesn't apply here:

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).Extra spells are not a "modifier to a check or roll" by any stretch of the imagination. The text cited would be a good basis to houserule that the rings don't stack, but as it's written it very clearly does not apply to them directly.

Unless someone can find similar, more broad wording elsewhere, I'd say that per RAW there's nothing forbidding the two rings from stacking, so they probably keep working as described.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-10, 04:22 PM
Unless someone can find similar, more broad wording elsewhere, I'd say that per RAW there's nothing forbidding the two rings from stacking, so they probably keep working as described.

That raises the age old question of if raw not forbidding something means it's ok or if raw permitting something (it's specific about where it does apply too) does. The spirits of all the derailed threads cry out for vengance so I'm going to drop it and like with all somewhat ambigous issues revert to: Ask your DM.

Telonius
2007-08-10, 04:25 PM
But that wording is very, very straightforward on when it applies, and it clearly doesn't apply here:
Extra spells are not a "modifier to a check or roll" by any stretch of the imagination. The text cited would be a good basis to houserule that the rings don't stack, but as it's written it very clearly does not apply to them directly.

Unless someone can find similar, more broad wording elsewhere, I'd say that per RAW there's nothing forbidding the two rings from stacking, so they probably keep working as described.

Huh. By that logic, the two Rings of Protection would stack too, since AC is neither a check nor a roll.

Reinboom
2007-08-10, 04:30 PM
Huh. By that logic, the two Rings of Protection would stack too, since AC is neither a check nor a roll.

Not quite, the SRD describes why

Deflection Bonus

A deflection bonus affects Armor Class and is granted by a spell or magic effect that makes attacks veer off harmlessly. Deflection bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except other deflection bonuses. A deflection bonus applies against touch attacks.

Jack Mann
2007-08-10, 04:30 PM
Rings of protection don't stack because they give bonuses of the same type, not because they come from the same source.

TheOOB
2007-08-10, 04:33 PM
Something never stacks with itself unless it specifically says otherwise. Thats why, for example, you can't stacks ray of enfeeblement on someone a dozen times even though its an untyped penalty.

Aerlock
2007-08-10, 04:34 PM
Huh. By that logic, the two Rings of Protection would stack too, since AC is neither a check nor a roll.

Except that the AC granted by the Rings is a named bonus and it is stated in other sections of the rules that named bonuses also do not stack no matter the source.

After thinking it over and reading the responses here I guess it comes down to the same thing as the 2 Speed weapon argument. Either you interpret the effect of the items to be stacking or not. Since I'm in the camp that argues for 2 extra attacks from 2 Speed weapons that explains why, were I the DM, I'd be inclined to rule that yes two Rings of Wizardry would both give extra spells/day.

Aerlock

P.S. Damn Ninjas! I need to work on my Spot check.

Edit:

Something never stacks with itself unless it specifically says otherwise. Thats why, for example, you can't stacks ray of enfeeblement on someone a dozen times even though its an untyped penalty.
Why does Ray of Enfeeblement not stack? It is an unnamed penalty, which by definition is just a negative bonus.

my_evil_twin
2007-08-10, 04:39 PM
My instinct is that if a PC wants to sink 200,000 gp into casting 4th-level spells all day, there are more game-breaking things he could be doing with the money.

It seems to me that a proto-epic caster depending on 4th-level spells is going to have a hard time with level-appropriate encounters.

The new limiting factors become actions and spells known. Casting three 4th-level spells, while it could be more effective than a 9th-level spell, takes three times as long as a 9th-level spell, and so is likely to get you killed. Second, IIRC a level-20 sorc can still only know 4 4th-level spells, and most will only be useful once an encounter anyway.

A wizard might be able to exploit this by overlapping an obscene number of stackable 4th-level buffs, but that's a stretch to my mind.

Reel On, Love
2007-08-10, 05:15 PM
Except that the AC granted by the Rings is a named bonus and it is stated in other sections of the rules that named bonuses also do not stack no matter the source.

After thinking it over and reading the responses here I guess it comes down to the same thing as the 2 Speed weapon argument. Either you interpret the effect of the items to be stacking or not. Since I'm in the camp that argues for 2 extra attacks from 2 Speed weapons that explains why, were I the DM, I'd be inclined to rule that yes two Rings of Wizardry would both give extra spells/day.
No, it's not the same thing as the 2-Speed-weapon argument, because the whole crux of the speed weapon argument is that the enhancements are affecting different weapons.

The two rings have the SAME effect. Same effect, same source even (a ring of wizardry)... SRY, NO, LOLZ.


Why does Ray of Enfeeblement not stack? It is an unnamed penalty, which by definition is just a negative bonus.

Because the rules say that penalties (and bonuses) from the same source don't stack. Otherwise I could cast a spell that gives me an unnamed bonus 5 times and have 5 times the bonus.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-10, 05:15 PM
Why does Ray of Enfeeblement not stack? It is an unnamed penalty, which by definition is just a negative bonus.

Because bonuses or penalties from the same source do not stack.

EDIT: I see Ninjas all over the place. (You are all off the popcorn list)

2nd EDIT:

Oh, wow, that avatar is stylin'. Edubeholder!

Well thank you my dear Rhine Maiden. The very talented Ink (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1518335) did my portrait. (I was actually afraid that I was smiling too much)


Beware the popcorn tyrant!

You make me feel like a true Aberration. :smallamused:

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-10, 05:17 PM
Because bonuses or penalties from the same source does not stack.

Oh, wow, that avatar is stylin'. Edubeholder!

Arbitrarity
2007-08-10, 05:19 PM
Oh, man, that avatar is fully sweet.

Beware the popcorn tyrant!

I'm inclined to say they shouldn't stack, but it's not a major issue. If someone wants to get 2 of them for "Incredible ownage!" I'll try and find out their "trick", and then either laugh hysterically, and allow it, or block it.

Laesin
2007-08-10, 07:03 PM
Aerlock thankyou. I'm going to use your argument to justify two RoW I-IX stacking in the epic game I'm about to start playing with a 21sor//21 wiz.

Only in my wildest dreams do I think it will work but I'm willing to try.

Arang
2007-08-10, 07:09 PM
If you want to cheese it to the limit, pick up a Hand of Glory as well, and have three.

Clove
2007-08-10, 11:49 PM
I would allow it. These aren't bonuses. They are bonus spell slots.

Karsh
2007-08-11, 12:43 AM
The real question is: Why do you want 14+ 4th level spells? What are you going to do with all them?

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-08-11, 01:59 AM
Considering you're shelling an absolute fortune to wear two identical rings of wizardry, and the fact that you're only doubling (actually trippling) low level spells, I don't see it as unbalancing. But the time you can afford or can find two rings of wizardry, 1st-3rd spells are not all that necessary.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-08-11, 02:00 AM
Aerlock thankyou. I'm going to use your argument to justify two RoW I-IX stacking in the epic game I'm about to start playing with a 21sor//21 wiz.

Only in my wildest dreams do I think it will work but I'm willing to try.

No such ring. A RoW which increases all spells? No. Hell no. Not even in epic. OMFG you must be on something strong to think it is even remotely likely to happen.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-11, 03:24 AM
No such ring. A RoW which increases all spells? No. Hell no. Not even in epic. OMFG you must be on something strong to think it is even remotely likely to happen.

Well as long as you price it appropriately I do not see much of a problem with such an item.
By the time you can afford to pay almost 3.765 million gp for a ring I doubt it will be an issue.

If someone wanted it this badly I would even house rule that they would stack.


Price: SUM(20,000 gp (I), 40,000 gp (II), 70,000 gp (III), 100,000 gp (IV), 250,000 gp (epic wizardry V), 360,000 gp (epic wizardry VI), 490,000 gp (epic wizardry VII), 640,000 gp (epic wizardry VIII))x1.5 + 810,000 gp (epic wizardry IX) = 3,765,000 gp

Aquillion
2007-08-11, 09:13 PM
Because bonuses or penalties from the same source do not stack.

EDIT: I see Ninjas all over the place. (You are all off the popcorn list)Could you quote the section from the RAW that says this? So far only one section has been quoted, and it's something that could easily be confused as saying that "no bonuses stack", but very clearly did not really say that.

Maybe there's a rule I've overlooked, but this looks like one of those things that lots of people misread. This is every single relevant occurrence of the word "stack" I could find in the SRD (all emphasis mine):

This was covered again, but from "the basics":
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.This applies only to modifiers to checks and rolls. Spells are not modifiers to checks and rolls (note that things like AC and to-hit bonuses do ultimately modify checks and rolls; that's their real purpose. Spell slots don't.)

From the section on spells (of debatable applicability in any case):

Bonus Types

Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus works (see Combining Magical Effects, below). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one.Typed bonuses don't stack. This doesn't apply here, since the bonus in this case is not typed.

Finally, this is probably the best support for your argument you'll find in the SRD:

Stacking Effects
Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above). This isn't a spell, so it's highly debatable whether this applies in any case... but spell slots are not attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, or attributes. If they'd meant to say that "spells never stack with themselves, period, fullstop", it would have been much simpler to say that. They didn't; instead, they listed an extremely limited set of spells that don't stack. All other spells stack with themselves unless the spell description notes otherwise (or they provide typed bonuses, which never stack). This one is open to some interpretation (since it says "other attributes", not "attributes"), but, again, it applies to spells and not magic items... even if you take that route, it is only an interesting justification for house-ruling that the rings don't stack. It clearly doesn't forbid it directly, since rings and spells are different things.

There are also numerous places where specific effects are noted as stacking or not stacking; none of those matter so much here.

...what all of this comes down to is that, per RAW, it is extremely clear that multiple untyped bonuses from magical items of the same type will stack, as long as they aren't bonuses to a check or die roll. Arguing "well, it doesn't say yes or no..." is absurd. It does say yes, very clearly. It says that Rings of Wizardry give you extra spell slots. There is absolutely no wording anywhere in the SRD that suggests that if you wore a ring of Wizardry on each hand, one would mysteriously stop doing what its description says it does. Ergo, Rings of Wizardry stack, absent a houserule otherwise. It's still worth asking about, since I'd imagine the expansion of the "check or roll" restriction is commonly houseruled to be broader than it is per RAW, but I think it's very straightforward... the only reason people are arguing about this is because they skimmed the rules in question and ended up mis-remembering them. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no other reason, anywhere in the rules, why two rings of wizardry would not continue to function the way their text says they should.

Also, one other item of note (which, while only tangentially related, might explain why some people are so determined to invent rules to forbid this.) Two rings of Wizardry do not quadruple your spells per day; they only triple it instead, per the default rules for multiplying:
Multiplying

Sometimes a rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply the number normally. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll), however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (×2) and a double (×2) applied to the same number results in a triple (×3, because 2 + 1 = 3).Note that the wording here is more broad than above, so it applies even to spell slots. And, of course, the extra slots from sources that the Ring of Wizardry specifically exempts from being doubled are still not calculated into the increase.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-12, 02:23 AM
Could you quote the section from the RAW that says this? So far only one section has been quoted, and it's something that could easily be confused as saying that "no bonuses stack", but very clearly did not really say that.

You quoted the relevant section of the SRD yourself. If you still are not convinced that Ray of Enfeeblement does not stack with itself after rereading your own quotes I will be happy to argue the point further.


[Comments about the stacking of bonuses and penalties and rules about multiplying]

The Ring of Wizardry does not give a bonus (or penalty), so while the rules for stacking of such may be relevant when considering the RAI, because of the similarities, it does not pertain directly to the rules for applying several magical effects from the same source.

This is a case where the same magical effect from the same source is applied to the same target.


Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.

However, the SRD quote only mentions spells, so ignoring that spell and effect are used interchangeable (even in the headline of this quote) an argument for the two rings stacking could still be made.

Aquillion
2007-08-12, 01:13 PM
Whoops! For some reason I misread your post and thought you were still talking about Rings of Wizardry, not Rays of Enfeeblement. Ray of Enfeeblement clearly doesn't stack.