Slippers of Battledancing

[Mordante]

Snowflake Wardance adds your Charisma modifier to attacks with any slashing melee weapon wielded in one hand, explicitly stacking with other bonuses.
Gauntlets of Heartfelt Blows add your Charisma modifier as damage on any melee attacks you make.
Slippers of Battledancing replaces your Strength/Dexterity to attacks and damage with Charisma.


They all stack just fine with each other. You end up with +2x Cha to attacks and no Strength, and +Str+Cha to damage. There is no restriction on how many times a stat can be added to something by effects and abilities.


That is a quote from an old topic. I understand the Cha + Cha for to hit. It is the snowflake + Slippers. I dont understand the +Str +Cha for damage. The slippers replaces the damage stat as far as I know. So I don't see where the +Str to damage comes from.

Can someone explain?

[Saintheart]

That is a quote from an old topic. I understand the Cha + Cha for to hit. It is the snowflake + Slippers. I dont understand the +Str +Cha for damage. The slippers replaces the damage stat as far as I know. So I don't see where the +Str to damage comes from.

Can someone explain?

Gauntlets of Heartfelt Blows add your CHA in [fire] damage. Add, not substitute. STR adds to damage normally, the Gauntlets give you [fire] damage as a bonus.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Gauntlets of Heartfelt Blows add your CHA in [fire] damage. Add, not substitute. STR adds to damage normally, the Gauntlets give you [fire] damage as a bonus.

No, he's right, slippers of battledancing replace Str to damage, so it should be Cha (snowflake)+Cha (slippers) to hit, and Cha (weapon, slippers)+ Cha (Fire, Gauntlet) to damage.

[Darg]

Modifiers don't stack if they are of the same type. Snowflake and slippers don't stack because they use your charisma modifier to do the same thing. If it said it gave "a bonus equal to your charisma modifier," it would be saying that the bonus is a separate bonus from your charisma modifier. But it doesn't do that so they don't stack for +hit.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Modifiers don't stack if they are of the same type. Snowflake and slippers don't stack because they use your charisma modifier to do the same thing. If it said it gave "a bonus equal to your charisma modifier," it would be saying that the bonus is a separate bonus from your charisma modifier. But it doesn't do that so they don't stack for +hit.

"Charisma modifier" is not a bonus type. SFWD doesn't "add a Charisma bonus to attack rolls", it adds your Charisma modifier. It's untyped, the same way your regular Str bonus to attack rolls has no type. Untyped bonuses stack from different sources, here the slipper and the SFWD.

[Mordante]

I would love to get hold of the slippers of battle dancing. Then I would drop weapon finesse for Chaos Music. If the DM allows it.

[Ramza00]

Modifiers don't stack if they are of the same type. Snowflake and slippers don't stack because they use your charisma modifier to do the same thing. If it said it gave "a bonus equal to your charisma modifier," it would be saying that the bonus is a separate bonus from your charisma modifier. But it doesn't do that so they don't stack for +hit.

That is a Pathfinder addition, also Spheres of Might and Power did something similar.

In 3.5 it is up to your DM to say no, and sometimes a psychic drama occurs when the player says the rules allow it, and the DM who must jury rig a game of parts plus duct tape says I do not care :smalltongue:

[Darg]

"Charisma modifier" is not a bonus type. SFWD doesn't "add a Charisma bonus to attack rolls", it adds your Charisma modifier. It's untyped, the same way your regular Str bonus to attack rolls has no type. Untyped bonuses stack from different sources, here the slipper and the SFWD.

Neither item gives a bonus. They only allow you to use your modifier for a purpose under certain conditions. "adds your charisma modifier" and "can use his Charisma modifier" is very different from "gain a bonus to your attack rolls equal to your charisma bonus." Notice how the first two aren't giving a bonus and the latter is giving a bonus separate from the modifier itself? You can't stack them because they do the same thing, just under different conditionals.


That is a Pathfinder addition, also Spheres of Might and Power did something similar.

In 3.5 it is up to your DM to say no, and sometimes a psychic drama occurs when the player says the rules allow it, and the DM who must jury rig a game of parts plus duct tape says I do not care :smalltongue:

I had meant to delete the first sentence, but the rest still stands. The items themselves simply don't give you a bonus.

[icefractal]

You can only replace it once, but you can add extra multiple times.

PF1 did add a rule against that (in a FAQ, I think?), although there are ambiguous edge cases. But in 3.5 you can add a stat modifier as many times as you have ways to add it, unless the bonus is typed (ex: Ghost gives +Cha to AC as a deflection bonus, so doesn't stack with other deflection bonuses)

Although in the OP's case it's not even multiple times, it's one replacement and one addition.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You can only replace it once, but you can add extra multiple times.

PF1 did add a rule against that (in a FAQ, I think?), although there are ambiguous edge cases. But in 3.5 you can add a stat modifier as many times as you have ways to add it, unless the bonus is typed (ex: Ghost gives +Cha to AC as a deflection bonus, so doesn't stack with other deflection bonuses)

Although in the OP's case it's not even multiple times, it's one replacement and one addition.That basically makes using 2-handed weapons useless, since you can no longer add your Str mod more than once to damage.

[Darg]

You can only replace it once, but you can add extra multiple times.

PF1 did add a rule against that (in a FAQ, I think?), although there are ambiguous edge cases. But in 3.5 you can add a stat modifier as many times as you have ways to add it, unless the bonus is typed (ex: Ghost gives +Cha to AC as a deflection bonus, so doesn't stack with other deflection bonuses)

Although in the OP's case it's not even multiple times, it's one replacement and one addition.

"adding" a modifier is the base assumption of a modifier. Mechanically, that is exactly how it works regardless of source. So the line saying "adds your charisma modifier" is literally telling you what it does, not that you additionally add your charisma modifier on top of your charisma modifier. Wardance tells you to add x to your attack roll. Slippers tell you to add x to your attack roll. They are the same thing. So the end result is d20 + x.

Maybe this would be easier to understand. You have ability A that lets you add your bonus from weapon focus to any weapon. You also have item B that lets you benefit from weapon focus for x specific weapon with y weapon. Would you get +2 or +1? The answer is +1 because both the ability and item aren't giving you a bonus, they are just allowing you to use the bonus from weapon focus in different ways. Thus it is the exact same source.

If using that example but we change the ability A to add an attack bonus equal to the modifier you receive from weapon focus, it changes the source of the bonus from weapon focus to the ability itself. Wardance and the slippers don't do this.

[Gruftzwerg]

Neither item gives a bonus. They only allow you to use your modifier for a purpose under certain conditions. "adds your charisma modifier" and "can use his Charisma modifier" is very different from "gain a bonus to your attack rolls equal to your charisma bonus." Notice how the first two aren't giving a bonus and the latter is giving a bonus separate from the modifier itself? You can't stack them because they do the same thing, just under different conditionals.


I hate to say it (since my El Mariachi build tries to stack multiple DEX modifiers), but RAW doesn't seem to support your argument.
Sadly "modifier" is defined as...


Modifiers

A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty

Modifiers are either bonuses or penalties and we have specific stacking rules for em...


Do I suggest to rule this way at your table?
Hell no. It's a stupid rule where even the authors didn't care about:

class: Marshall
ability: Minor Aura
aura: Motivate Charisma
aura effect: Bonus on Charisma checks and Charisma-based skill checks

Marshall gives CHA bonus on skill checks that already have a CHA bonus. The same goes for CHA checks..!

So there is that...

(reminds me that I should put a disclaimer into my El Mariachi build about this..)

[Mordante]

I hate to say it (since my El Mariachi build tries to stack multiple DEX modifiers), but RAW doesn't seem to support your argument.
Sadly "modifier" is defined as...



Modifiers are either bonuses or penalties and we have specific stacking rules for em...


Do I suggest to rule this way at your table?
Hell no. It's a stupid rule where even the authors didn't care about:

class: Marshall
ability: Minor Aura
aura: Motivate Charisma
aura effect: Bonus on Charisma checks and Charisma-based skill checks

Marshall gives CHA bonus on skill checks that already have a CHA bonus. The same goes for CHA checks..!

So there is that...

(reminds me that I should put a disclaimer into my El Mariachi build about this..)

Bonus on Cha checks and and Cha-based skill checks are two very different things. Under normal circumstances attack bonus is a modified by strength. But it is not a strength check. Skills are modified by charisma but are not charisma checks.

[Gruftzwerg]

Bonus on Cha checks and and Cha-based skill checks are two very different things. Under normal circumstances attack bonus is a modified by strength. But it is not a strength check. Skills are modified by charisma but are not charisma checks.

In both cases you try to add two CHA modifier on an single roll. That was what I was pointing out there.

1) Bonus to CHA checks
A CHA check already adds your CHA modifier by default

2) CHA based skill checks
CHA based skills already adds your CHA modifier by default.

In both cases a strict RAW reading would imply that you are trying to add the same bonus (CHA bonus) twice on a single roll. The problem is that it never calls out an exception to be able to do so.

Marshal's Minor Aura ability stays:

minor aura lets allies add the marshal's Charisma bonus (if any) to certain rolls.

This is sole a problem for "Motivate Charisma" since here the regular rolls already have a CHA bonus.
Strict RAW would imply that Motivate Charisma basically sole allows the marshal's allies to choose between the marshal's CHA bonus and their own modifier for the roll (and the the marshal has to stick to his own CHA bonus).

[Darg]

I hate to say it (since my El Mariachi build tries to stack multiple DEX modifiers), but RAW doesn't seem to support your argument.
Sadly "modifier" is defined as...



Modifiers are either bonuses or penalties and we have specific stacking rules for em...


Do I suggest to rule this way at your table?
Hell no. It's a stupid rule where even the authors didn't care about:

class: Marshall
ability: Minor Aura
aura: Motivate Charisma
aura effect: Bonus on Charisma checks and Charisma-based skill checks

Marshall gives CHA bonus on skill checks that already have a CHA bonus. The same goes for CHA checks..!

So there is that...

(reminds me that I should put a disclaimer into my El Mariachi build about this..)

I'm not responsible for your build.

Also, a Marshall's aura itself gives a bonus. It does not apply your charisma modifier directly to the checks:


All bonuses granted by a marshal's auras are circumstance bonuses that do not stack with each other.

Your charisma modifier is not a circumstance bonus.

[Gruftzwerg]

I'm not responsible for your build.

Also, a Marshall's aura itself gives a bonus. It does not apply your charisma modifier directly to the checks:



Your charisma modifier is not a circumstance bonus.

Good point. That solves the problems I did see with Marshall.

But stacking the same Ability modifiers still doesn't get a pass here (unless we are missing out on rules regarding this topic, but I don't think so).

[Chronos]

Bonuses don't stack if they have the same type, or they're from the same source. All of these bonuses are untyped, and Snowflake Wardance and Slippers of Battledancing are two different sources. So they stack.

[Darg]

Bonuses don't stack if they have the same type, or they're from the same source. All of these bonuses are untyped, and Snowflake Wardance and Slippers of Battledancing are two different sources. So they stack.

The argument is that they aren't different sources because they don't actually give you a bonus. They just let you use a bonus you already have in a different way.

[Bucky]

Even with that strict of an interpretation, Snowflake Wardance stacks because it explicitly says so, and Gauntlets of Heartfelt Blows stack because the bonus is [fire] type instead of the weapon's damage type like the Slippers.

[Gruftzwerg]

Even with that strict of an interpretation, Snowflake Wardance stacks because it explicitly says so, and Gauntlets of Heartfelt Blows stack because the bonus is [fire] type instead of the weapon's damage type like the Slippers.

Snowflake Wardance allows you to stack multiple different ability scores. Something you can already do by default.
But it still doesn't allow you to stack multiple CHA bonuses to a single roll.