Ioun stones

[sithari]

The ioun stone that gives you +1 caster level does it stuck with it self?

[Fiberfar]

I think Mr.Waesel was talking about taking numerous of those stones. Since they give a nameless bonus, they stack. I might be completely wrong though

[Grimar]

If i remember correctly, it dont.. but i could be wrong!

but i doubt it, 'couse that would make them to powerful...

[Mr.Waesel]

They do, since the bonus is nameless. However, you can also get a point of SR in an unslotted item for 15,000 so it's not so bad. (except for those holy word type spells, but they were an awful idea anyway.)

[asdfjklsemi]

I have serious doubts that those are intended to stack, and I certainly wouldn't allow it in my game.

First, the DMG's illustration notwithstanding, it's pretty clear you should only be able to use one ioun stone at a time. (See the restrictions on magic item wearing by body part, which specifically avoid "doubling up" on items.) There's never been clarity in the D&D rules all the way back to 1E on how many ioun stones a single character could equip, but the effects of most of them clearly would not stack, and I see no reason for the caster-level-increase one to stack, either. When in doubt, do not overpower.

Second, unnamed or not, the caster-level increase is coming from the same magic item. That inarguably means multiple effects are coming from the same source, which is generally frowned upon as unbalanced. The point of the system isn't whether the bonuses share names or have names or whatever--that's just memorization devices--but whether the same type of bonus is stacking up and unbalancing things. If the name is a big deal, let's call it an enhancement bonus, just like other ioun stones give enhancement bonuses to ability scores; and we know those don't stack.

There's a lack of clarity in the rules on caster levels and room for interpretation; the caster level bonuses for the Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration feats stack with each other, for example. But those are specialized uses of caster levels, not a general, overall bonus. A caster level increase is signficantly powerful, and I think it's plain that allowing such stacking, particularly via magic items, would get unbalanced very quickly. I believe it's likely against the rules of the game system, and certainly against its spirit.

[Mr.Waesel]

[QUOTE=asdfjklsemi]I have serious doubts that those are intended to stack, and I certainly wouldn't allow it in my game.

<and more stuff>[/QUOTE]

That's all very much irrelevant. They stack.

[Fiberfar]

So this is down to if the DM will allow it or not.... again

[asdfjklsemi]

Irrevelant?! That's a pissy way of saying you disagree, that's all. If you had 10 magic rings that had stackable bonuses, you still couldn't wear them all.

This has really convinced me that 3E has successfully corrupted the game into a Diablo-style overpowering frenzy. Kids can't control themselves--despite the clear balance intentions laid out in all the rule books (including in the bonus-stacking discussion, if anybody cares to read it).

[Grimar]

ok... since there is no rule that say that you cant you can, BUT, if you dont do powergaming, you shouldnt allow it. i would never allow it!

(ps. @fiber: too bad for jormund/eirik aye? )

[asdfjklsemi]

I would echo that and also emphasize that in D&D there is no rule the DM can't change. So the whole point is for the DM to exercise judgement and keep balance strongly in mind.

My overarching point remains: I think this is still against the published rules, not because of bonus-stacking, but because of limits on wearable magic items.

The idea of "unnamed bonuses" comes from a very specific section of the Player's Handbook, in the discussion of spells and stacking their effects. Nonetheless, there are extremely few spells with "unnamed bonuses"; Hypnotism comes to mind. The bonuses are typically generic boosts to saving throws or skill checks that occur under special circumstances. An across-the-board +1 caster level is something much more significant than that. It seems likely to me that the DMG merely makes an omission in not calling that an enhancement bonus.

The whole problem here lack of information. The ioun stones description doesn't make it clear if multiple stones can be used simultaneously. The description also doesn't make it clear whether the +1 caster level is an "unnamed" bonus by intent or by accident.

Given the lack of information in the rulebooks, I think it's completely wrong to read between the lines to find an excuse for overpowering.

The right thing to do is to default to the game's core balance concepts. We don't know if you're allowed to use multiple ioun stones, but we do know there are limits on the number of magic items you can equip on the head area--so I would default to that. We don't know whether the +1 caster level is truly an "unnamed bonus" as described in the spell effects section of the Player's Handbook, but we certainly know it's a signficant, potent bonus--so I would default to the "behind the curtain" explanation of bonus-stacking in the DMG, which makes it totally clear that the entire point is to avoid overpowering. I think it is possible the caster level is intended to stack with metamagic effects, not with other ioun stones (very few other magic items result in caster level increase benefits--it's a weird, obscure bonus).

If you are unconcerned with overpowering as a DM, then why not just stack everything all the time? The math would be a heck of a lot easier, at least.

[Mr.Waesel]

[QUOTE=asdfjklsemi]Irrevelant?! That's a pissy way of saying you disagree, that's all.[/QUOTE]

No. Nameless bonusses always stack.

[Aramant]

My Dungeon Master's Guide doesn't even mention a +1 Caster Level Ioun Stone. Where is this from?

[Grimar]

DMG i think

[Mr.Waesel]

[QUOTE=Aramant]My Dungeon Master's Guide doesn't even mention a +1 Caster Level Ioun Stone. Where is this from?[/QUOTE]

The most recent edition DMG.

[Demortis]

[QUOTE=asdfjklsemi]I would echo that and also emphasize that in D&D there is no rule the DM can't change. So the whole point is for the DM to exercise judgement and keep balance strongly in mind. [/quote]

From what I under stand, its up to the DM to say what goes or doesnt, and the books are more like guide lines from what I understand aswell.

[QUOTE=asdfjklsemi]My overarching point remains: I think this is still against the published rules, not because of bonus-stacking, but because of limits on wearable magic items. [/quote]

Look at the picture of the Ioun Stones. It shows atleast six of them, circling the persons head. That, and the text states that they circle the head from no more then three feet away, so, in therie(sp?) you could hold up to what? 100 of them? And since it does not state that it takes up an item slot, you can still wear a hat or other item with it.

[QUOTE=asdfjklsemi]The idea of "unnamed bonuses" comes from a very specific section of the Player's Handbook, in the discussion of spells and stacking their effects. Nonetheless, there are extremely few spells with "unnamed bonuses"; Hypnotism comes to mind. The bonuses are typically generic boosts to saving throws or skill checks that occur under special circumstances. An across-the-board +1 caster level is something much more significant than that. It seems likely to me that the DMG merely makes an omission in not calling that an enhancement bonus.[/quote]

Again, this is also up to the DM, as everyone here has stated.

[QUOTE=asdfjklsemi]The whole problem here lack of information. The ioun stones description doesn't make it clear if multiple stones can be used simultaneously. The description also doesn't make it clear whether the +1 caster level is an "unnamed" bonus by intent or by accident. [/quote]

When in doubt, follow the pictures.

[QUOTE=asdfjklsemi]Given the lack of information in the rulebooks, I think it's completely wrong to read between the lines to find an excuse for overpowering. [/quote]

Again, guide lines. Sure, there are rules, but in the DM's world, he is God.

[QUOTE=asdfjklsemi]The right thing to do is to default to the game's core balance concepts. We don't know if you're allowed to use multiple ioun stones, but we do know there are limits on the number of magic items you can equip on the head area--so I would default to that. We don't know whether the +1 caster level is truly an "unnamed bonus" as described in the spell effects section of the Player's Handbook, but we certainly know it's a signficant, potent bonus--so I would default to the "behind the curtain" explanation of bonus-stacking in the DMG, which makes it totally clear that the entire point is to avoid overpowering. I think it is possible the caster level is intended to stack with metamagic effects, not with other ioun stones (very few other magic items result in caster level increase benefits--it's a weird, obscure bonus).[/quote]

Sure, we think its unnamed because it doesnt state, and as an unnamed bonus as Mr.Waesel stated, they stack.

[QUOTE=asdfjklsemi]f you are unconcerned with overpowering as a DM, then why not just stack everything all the time? The math would be a heck of a lot easier, at least.[/QUOTE]

Something easier, why not just get rid of all magic items from your world?

[Nekasrof]

There's a 1-800 number printed on the inside of every book, and if you call it they will give you a straight answer on things like this... sometimes.

If it isn't clearly covered in the books or on-line anywhere, the official help line says, "DM's disgression." That's the golden rule of the game anyway.

But if a player really wants them to stack and insists that they do because of the rulebook, and the DM still won't allow it... the player is out of luck and the DM wins, which is perfectly fair.

Here, the ultimate solution:

Try it out. Let them stack. If it makes the characters too overpowered and the game becomes too easy for the players, take them away.

Have them get stolen, or make it so people refuse to make or sell them, or have them get destroyed in combat, or simply have the stones' magic power vanish after one or two days campaign time, explaining that the powers did stack, but only for a short time, and every time they buy more stones and try equiping multiples at the same time, let the power stay for a day, and then make the stone useless.

[Mr.Waesel]

Hoo boy, there's some bad advice in this post.

[QUOTE=Nekasrof]If it isn't clearly covered in the books or on-line anywhere, the official help line says, "DM's disgression." That's the golden rule of the game anyway.[/quote]

Except that this is clearly covered.

[QUOTE=Nekasrof]But if a player really wants them to stack and insists that they do because of the rulebook, and the DM still won't allow it... the player is out of luck and the DM wins, which is perfectly fair.[/quote]

The DM wins? How old are you, 13?

[quote="Nekasrof]Here"]

The "ultimate solution" is to be an a-hole? Yeah, you're 13. Please don't post again until you reach the top shelves in the supermarket, thank you very much.

[Fiberfar]

[QUOTE=Mr.Waesel]
The DM wins? How old are you, 13?



The "ultimate solution" is to be an a-hole? Yeah, you're 13. Please don't post again until you reach the top shelves in the supermarket, thank you very much.[/QUOTE]

I wonder how long you're going to stay on this forum if you continue making such replies.

I'd rather see him post posts here than you if you're going to insult other members. This is a friendy advice from a member to another: This is a discussion forum. You're here to discuss, not insult.

But to stay on topic:

The DM is the one who gets the final word in the end. A player can argue with the DM as much as he likes, but the DM is the master of the game.

[Demortis]

Aside from the amusing distractions. Didnt I already say that the DM was the final say already? So we are mostly agreed then? The DM has the final rule on that one?

[Grimar]

jepp! DM always win