A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.

[OblivionSmurf83]

I was just thinking about nightsticks, as long as you're going to allow unlimited stacking, you might as well do it right. Make a custom nightstick, and put the extra turning ability on it twice, the second instance should cost 3/4 as much as the original. Now you've got an 8 extra turns per day nightstick for 1.75x cost. Now presumably its giving the extra turning feats 1/day, so multiply the cost by 5 and it provides unlimited uses of +8 turns per day.

Now you can persist 1000000000 spells for something like 66k gold. Fair and balanced, right? Its just as reasonable as infinite stacking nightsticks, without the retarded concept of a guy sticking a bunch of rods in his portable holes.

What's more, you can share this one rod of ultimate cheese with the rest of your cheese brigade, since you only have to possess the rod while buffing, so now you can split the cost with the cheater of mystra and twice betrayer and whoever else is rollin on the tier 1 cheesewheel with you.

Even if you don't go with the x5 for unlimited uses, you might as well get the 50% discount for stacking the same effect on a slotless item, and there's no raw problem with sharing the rod with your cohort and group either.

edit: wow, this argument is old, like 2-3 years old. best gem I found is this, if nightsticks stack infinitely, so do +1 caster level ioun stones

I just found that one too! I think a lot of the arguments there proceed to go on about how the nightsticks are not providing a bonus to turning. They're just providing extra turning.

The magical item idea is an interesting one, have to review the rules on magical item creation. I realise we shouldn't be talking about cheese in a game where we're using infinite nightsticks, but wouldn't that solution pose the same problems as creating a continuous true strike item? Namely that the item creation rules are horrendously broken, and therefore subject to DM fiat?

[spacemonkey555]

I just found that one too! I think a lot of the arguments there proceed to go on about how the nightsticks are not providing a bonus to turning. They're just providing extra turning.

The magical item idea is an interesting one, have to review the rules on magical item creation. I realise we shouldn't be talking about cheese in a game where we're using infinite nightsticks, but wouldn't that solution pose the same problems as creating a continuous true strike item? Namely that the item creation rules are horrendously broken, and therefore subject to DM fiat?

The rules don't say you can't! Infinite caster level, infinite buffs, with a discount. Nothing is subject to dm fiat when you're doing TO. If you can find a dm to run this with, I'm sure a custom item will come in under the radar if a 7 classed dmm persist planar shepherd abusing shapechange and wildshape (at the same time, lol) gets off the ground. Why hold back?

edit: Wish economy, forgot about that, ps can chain wish, so thats the reason you've got a great big sack full of rods, they have to cost less than 15k hehe. But now you have every item in the game under 15k right?

[AndyJames]

As silly an example as this is, how about equipment? You can buy 2 swords. They stack. This isn't in the rules, it's just assumed.

Similarly, you can buy two Nightsticks. Whatever we might say about the effect created, there's no question the physical presence of the nightsticks stacks.

So, items stack.

It seems though, that this argument is flawed. Let's assume I couldn't find a rule that said 'generally, things stack'. Instead, the rules either say things stack, or say they don't stack. Where the rules are silent, how would we adjudicate this? We can assume that there is no rule that says that generally things stack. However, can we assume there is a rule that says they don't? If so, why?

It seems in this situation, you need to make a decision about whether things stack when the rules are silent. Is there support in the rules about which way to go for this?

Two swords do not stack. Otherwise you'd be wielding an infinite number of swords per hand.

If you cannot come up with an example that shows "unless otherwise stated, things stack", then by definition it cannot be a general rule. A general rule is one which is so common, it need not be said and can be assumed to be in effect unless otherwise stated. If you cannot even find an example of this assumption, then it is not a general rule. Heck, I would go so far as to say that if an example doesn't immediately just leap out at you when you think about this, then it cannot be a general rule.

A general rule is something like "if you throw things up, it always comes back down". Examples are so abundant that I would just toss a coin in the air to prove my point. The exception comes in when you throw something hard enough to hit escape velocity (practically impossible on Earth, but on the moon, quite possible).

You just shot yourself in the foot and torpedoed your entire argument.

[OblivionSmurf83]

As silly an example as this is, how about equipment? You can buy 2 swords. They stack. This isn't in the rules, it's just assumed.

Similarly, you can buy two Nightsticks. Whatever we might say about the effect created, there's no question the physical presence of the nightsticks stacks.

So, items stack.

It seems though, that this argument is flawed. Let's assume I couldn't find a rule that said 'generally, things stack'. Instead, the rules either say things stack, or say they don't stack. Where the rules are silent, how would we adjudicate this? We can assume that there is no rule that says that generally things stack. However, can we assume there is a rule that says they don't? If so, why?

It seems in this situation, you need to make a decision about whether things stack when the rules are silent. Is there support in the rules about which way to go for this?

Two swords do not stack. Otherwise you'd be wielding an infinite number of swords per hand.

If you cannot come up with an example that shows "unless otherwise stated, things stack", then by definition it cannot be a general rule. A general rule is one which is so common, it need not be said and can be assumed to be in effect unless otherwise stated. If you cannot even find an example of this assumption, then it is not a general rule. Heck, I would go so far as to say that if an example doesn't immediately just leap out at you when you think about this, then it cannot be a general rule.

A general rule is something like "if you throw things up, it always comes back down". Examples are so abundant that I would just toss a coin in the air to prove my point. The exception comes in when you throw something hard enough to hit escape velocity (practically impossible on Earth, but on the moon, quite possible).

You just shot yourself in the foot and torpedoed your entire argument.

I am wiling to concede that this is not a general rule.

This isn't the same as admitting you're right. You seem to be arguing there is a general rule that things don't stack in D&D. That's not right either.

In the same respect that I could not find an example of a situation where things stacked without the rules saying that they do, you will not be able to find an example that they do not, without the rules stating they do not.

So, in a situation where the rules are silent; do we favour stacking, or not stacking?

EDIT: And while you're responding to that, you can respond to my comments about Shapechange to see why it wouldn't stack.

[betrayor]

My opinion is that by raw nightsticks stack....
Lets see a parallel with swords....
If  we have two flame tongue swords(they have the ability to use a fiey ray per day) we could use both in the same day....
Similarily for the night sticks....
Now I do think that this should not be premitted by the dm but by raw it works....

[OblivionSmurf83]

My opinion is that by raw nightsticks stack....
Lets see a parallel with swords....
If  we have two flame tongue swords(they have the ability to use a fiey ray per day) we could use both in the same day....
Similarily for the night sticks....
Now I do think that this should not be premitted by the dm but by raw it works....

This isn't necessarily stacking. This goes back to AndyJames original post about the Nightsticks being similar to an eternal wand. You could use the 4 turn attempts from each once per day, but you can't combine them to persist a spell.

[AndyJames]

I am wiling to concede that this is not a general rule.

This isn't the same as admitting you're right. You seem to be arguing there is a general rule that things don't stack in D&D. That's not right either.

In the same respect that I could not find an example of a situation where things stacked without the rules saying that they do, you will not be able to find an example that they do not, without the rules stating they do not.

So, in a situation where the rules are silent; do we favour stacking, or not stacking?

EDIT: And while you're responding to that, you can respond to my comments about Shapechange to see why it wouldn't stack.

There is a general rule that things don't stack. Examples to prove this?

1. Any form of bonus. Unless specifically noted, none of them stack.
2. Sneak Attack. Every instance of Sneak Attack ALWAYS has the line "if you gain Sneak Attack from any other source, they stack" (or words to that effect) which points to the fact that if the line isn't there, they automatic assumption is that they DON'T stack.
3. Certain DR sources specifically says that DR from multiple sources of the same type stack.

Those are just off the top of my head. DnD is rife with these. Just about every instance of stacking is clearly spelt out that they stack. It points to the fact that the general rule is the opposite of that (i.e., things do not stack).

This is QED.

[betrayor]

My opinion is that by raw nightsticks stack....
Lets see a parallel with swords....
If  we have two flame tongue swords(they have the ability to use a fiey ray per day) we could use both in the same day....
Similarily for the night sticks....
Now I do think that this should not be premitted by the dm but by raw it works....

This isn't necessarily stacking. This goes back to AndyJames original post about the Nightsticks being similar to an eternal wand. You could use the 4 turn attempts from each once per day, but you can't combine them to persist a spell.

That is what I meant...
Of course you can not combine them but you can use them in conjuction with your own turns if needed...
But if for example i am just empowering spell,I could only use the nightstick and not my own turn attempts..........

[OblivionSmurf83]

I am wiling to concede that this is not a general rule.

This isn't the same as admitting you're right. You seem to be arguing there is a general rule that things don't stack in D&D. That's not right either.

In the same respect that I could not find an example of a situation where things stacked without the rules saying that they do, you will not be able to find an example that they do not, without the rules stating they do not.

So, in a situation where the rules are silent; do we favour stacking, or not stacking?

EDIT: And while you're responding to that, you can respond to my comments about Shapechange to see why it wouldn't stack.

There is a general rule that things don't stack. Examples to prove this?

1. Any form of bonus. Unless specifically noted, none of them stack.
2. Sneak Attack. Every instance of Sneak Attack ALWAYS has the line "if you gain Sneak Attack from any other source, they stack" (or words to that effect) which points to the fact that if the line isn't there, they automatic assumption is that they DON'T stack.
3. Certain DR sources specifically says that DR from multiple sources of the same type stack.

Those are just off the top of my head. DnD is rife with these. Just about every instance of stacking is clearly spelt out that they stack. It points to the fact that the general rule is the opposite of that (i.e., things do not stack).

This is QED.

What? None of those examples work. By definition, a general rule wouldn't need spelling out. The reason why bonuses of the same type don't stack is because the rules say so. That's the same reason why bonuses of different types do stack, the rules SAY so.

Sneak attack stacks because the rules say so.

Multiple castings of spells don't stack because the rules say so.

Feats don't stack, because the rules say so.

Are you picking up the pattern yet? The rules always dictate whether something stacks or doesn't stack. For there to be a general rule that something doesn't stack, it would have to not stack by default, without the rules saying so.

[AndyJames]

I am wiling to concede that this is not a general rule.

This isn't the same as admitting you're right. You seem to be arguing there is a general rule that things don't stack in D&D. That's not right either.

In the same respect that I could not find an example of a situation where things stacked without the rules saying that they do, you will not be able to find an example that they do not, without the rules stating they do not.

So, in a situation where the rules are silent; do we favour stacking, or not stacking?

EDIT: And while you're responding to that, you can respond to my comments about Shapechange to see why it wouldn't stack.

There is a general rule that things don't stack. Examples to prove this?

1. Any form of bonus. Unless specifically noted, none of them stack.
2. Sneak Attack. Every instance of Sneak Attack ALWAYS has the line "if you gain Sneak Attack from any other source, they stack" (or words to that effect) which points to the fact that if the line isn't there, they automatic assumption is that they DON'T stack.
3. Certain DR sources specifically says that DR from multiple sources of the same type stack.

Those are just off the top of my head. DnD is rife with these. Just about every instance of stacking is clearly spelt out that they stack. It points to the fact that the general rule is the opposite of that (i.e., things do not stack).

This is QED.

What? None of those examples work. By definition, a general rule wouldn't need spelling out. The reason why bonuses of the same type don't stack is because the rules say so. That's the same reason why bonuses of different types do stack, the rules SAY so.

Sneak attack stacks because the rules say so.

Multiple castings of spells don't stack because the rules say so.

Feats don't stack, because the rules say so.

Are you picking up the pattern yet? The rules always dictate whether something stacks or doesn't stack. For there to be a general rule that something doesn't stack, it would have to not stack by default, without the rules saying so.

OK. You are either too obtuse for me to get through or you are baiting me. I suspected this when you kept reposting your Shapechange drivel. I am not going to go through the same thing again. This conversation is done.

[OblivionSmurf83]

I am wiling to concede that this is not a general rule.

This isn't the same as admitting you're right. You seem to be arguing there is a general rule that things don't stack in D&D. That's not right either.

In the same respect that I could not find an example of a situation where things stacked without the rules saying that they do, you will not be able to find an example that they do not, without the rules stating they do not.

So, in a situation where the rules are silent; do we favour stacking, or not stacking?

EDIT: And while you're responding to that, you can respond to my comments about Shapechange to see why it wouldn't stack.

There is a general rule that things don't stack. Examples to prove this?

1. Any form of bonus. Unless specifically noted, none of them stack.
2. Sneak Attack. Every instance of Sneak Attack ALWAYS has the line "if you gain Sneak Attack from any other source, they stack" (or words to that effect) which points to the fact that if the line isn't there, they automatic assumption is that they DON'T stack.
3. Certain DR sources specifically says that DR from multiple sources of the same type stack.

Those are just off the top of my head. DnD is rife with these. Just about every instance of stacking is clearly spelt out that they stack. It points to the fact that the general rule is the opposite of that (i.e., things do not stack).

This is QED.

What? None of those examples work. By definition, a general rule wouldn't need spelling out. The reason why bonuses of the same type don't stack is because the rules say so. That's the same reason why bonuses of different types do stack, the rules SAY so.

Sneak attack stacks because the rules say so.

Multiple castings of spells don't stack because the rules say so.

Feats don't stack, because the rules say so.

Are you picking up the pattern yet? The rules always dictate whether something stacks or doesn't stack. For there to be a general rule that something doesn't stack, it would have to not stack by default, without the rules saying so.

OK. You are either too obtuse for me to get through or you are baiting me. I suspected this when you kept reposting your Shapechange drivel. I am not going to go through the same thing again. This conversation is done.

Again with the obtuse. You're right, this conversation is over.

[JohnnyMayHymn]

  ummmmm. .... can we just do 2 builds? one where nightsticks stack(DM fiat or otherwise) and one that can't stack(DM fiat or otherwise)?