Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Numataro-Sama

Andrew Christian's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 2013 Dedicated Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul. 2,213 posts (6,265 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 16 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

But in the absense of language that specifically defines the word bonus as different in the context of abilities, how should it be interpreted then?

As written, or as many believe is intended?

Level is used many times in many different contexts, yet in each context its clear what the fundamental difference is.

If there is a fundamental difference in the word bonus when looking at luck bonus and dexterity bonus, where is the language clarifying that?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thankyou Redward for actually discussing the merits of my argument. We may disagree, but I really appreciate you taking the time to go over my points one by one.

Honestly, we wouldn't have a thread almost 400 posts long if there wasn't a chance I was wrong. I believe I'm right

Hopefully this will be answered soon

I'm about to go to bed soon. I'll address your post directly tomorrow.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The fact that the previous version of this game had a chart of bonus types, and included ability modifiers as a bonus type, I think is quite telling.

Any argument that Pathfinder has changed this, can only point to what you feel is intended by the developer/designers of Pathfinder based on rules sets that are not part of the Core Rulebook.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
redward wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
redward wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

"A sacred bonus equal to your Charisma modifier/bonus" means it's a sacred bonus, and no longer a Charisma-typed bonus because the bonus type was overwritten.

Is there any precedent for such a thing? Like "a luck bonus equal to your morale bonus"?
Not that I know of, but then is there any precedent for a bonus having two types at the same time?
Not that I know of, but that was kind of my point.

Ability bonuses are a unique animal to the game. You can't apply the exact same precedent found for other typed bonuses to ability bonuses. Because they inherently work differently.

As you pointed out, most feats and class features say, "<value> <type> bonus".

or

<value> Bonus, which would be an untyped bonus.

As I noted above, the ability bonus has a variable bonus when not applied to a specific character. It happens to be based on whatever that character's ability score is. So it would be written like...

<value|unwritten> <type|ability> bonus.

The fact that there are 10 different ways to write out the bonus is more a testament to a writer trying to write something pretty, rather than functional. Paizo does not do a good job of making sure all developer/designers are making their freelancers use a central language bible for how to refer to various different rules sets.

That is why you have some confusing language like, "bonus equal to ability bonus" instead of just calling it out as that ability bonus or calling it out as a different type of bonus.

None of those rules consistency issues should be used as proof that ability bonuses are untyped.

There are no actual rules that support them being untyped, and plenty of rules that support them being typed.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
redward wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

No. The one references Cha bonus for how to get the value. But Sacred is a different type than Cha.

So when something says "a bonus equal to its Charisma modifier/bonus" it's a typed Charisma bonus unless it specifies otherwise?

I am not 100% certain on the following phrase:

"You receive a bonus equal to your charisma bonus"

If you take SKR's post that I've quoted way above, I think there could be a legitimate argument to say that the phrase above is just a different way of saying, "you get a Charisma bonus to...".

However, if the phrase is, "you get a <typed> bonus equal to your charisma bonus." Then the bonus is typed per the <type> called out. In this example, it would be a sacred bonus.

All its doing is using your Charisma ability score to inform you what the value of your <type> bonus is.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Seranov wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

I shouldn't have to own Ultimate Magic to determine what is, or is not, a typed bonus.

The Core Rulebook is all I should need, and the Core Rulebook doesn't define every typed bonus as being typed. It assumes we know how descriptive words work in the English language.

There is no difference in language construct from Inherent Bonus to Wisdom Bonus.

This is 100% your opinion and not something that the rules are based on. The CRB is not the only rule book in Pathfinder, and as such, is not an exhaustive source for every rule in the game.

I believe most of us realize you're going to stay solidly rooted in your belief, but you're the one making the opposing claim without solid proof to back it up. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Ability scores are their own type of bonus, and you have no managed to do so in anything resembling a conclusive manner.

With a complete lack of anything suggesting that an "Ability bonus" exists in Pathfinder your argument is, at best, a passionate house-rule. But it is not RAW, and likely not RAI, either.

HERE

You'll note that there is a link to the v3.5 SRD here, that shows that in the predecessor rules set, ability bonuses are considered typed.

You'll also note that I was the first one to call out the chart in Ultimate Magic. But unlike many of you who just look it up on the PRD and claim it as a iron clad list, I looked a bit further and realized it came from Ultimate Magic.

Additionally, on page 2, I also posted this

HERE.

That is my list of rules references from the Core Rulebook that support my stance.

The Core Rulebook is called "core" for a reason. Because it has all the core rules sets in the game. It defines the game. Additional books can

...

Your logic doesn't follow. An untyped bonus does not have a type. Otherwise if it were a type, it wouldn't stack with itself.

So why would you put a non type bonus on a list of typed bonuses?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No. The one references Cha bonus for how to get the value. But Sacred is a different type than Cha.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
prototype00 wrote:

When I saw that Andrew Christian had chosen this as his hill that he wanted to die on, I basically lost all interest in the conversation.

Either I'm right, and he has lost all that time and effort he invested into it. (and if time and effort made one right, Andrew would be right 10 times over in this thread)

Or he is right, in which case we get a lot of new rules to clarify things (because frack me, if that isn't a can of wriggly worms, ability typed bonuses).

Either way, win win, and I have expended as little of my valuable (heh) posting time and effort as possible.

prototype00

I wouldn't say that I lost all my time and effort.

I fully acknowledge that should Paizo decide to answer this question, they may answer it in a way that does not coincide with my belief.

But if they do, it isn't time wasted. But rather I hope that by bringing constant attention to the issue by my constant argument, that it allows Paizo to determine that this is a question that needs answering.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seranov wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

I shouldn't have to own Ultimate Magic to determine what is, or is not, a typed bonus.

The Core Rulebook is all I should need, and the Core Rulebook doesn't define every typed bonus as being typed. It assumes we know how descriptive words work in the English language.

There is no difference in language construct from Inherent Bonus to Wisdom Bonus.

This is 100% your opinion and not something that the rules are based on. The CRB is not the only rule book in Pathfinder, and as such, is not an exhaustive source for every rule in the game.

I believe most of us realize you're going to stay solidly rooted in your belief, but you're the one making the opposing claim without solid proof to back it up. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Ability scores are their own type of bonus, and you have no managed to do so in anything resembling a conclusive manner.

With a complete lack of anything suggesting that an "Ability bonus" exists in Pathfinder your argument is, at best, a passionate house-rule. But it is not RAW, and likely not RAI, either.

HERE

You'll note that there is a link to the v3.5 SRD here, that shows that in the predecessor rules set, ability bonuses are considered typed.

You'll also note that I was the first one to call out the chart in Ultimate Magic. But unlike many of you who just look it up on the PRD and claim it as a iron clad list, I looked a bit further and realized it came from Ultimate Magic.

Additionally, on page 2, I also posted this

HERE.

That is my list of rules references from the Core Rulebook that support my stance.

The Core Rulebook is called "core" for a reason. Because it has all the core rules sets in the game. It defines the game. Additional books can enhance old rules (i.e. Advanced Players Guide Traits or additional combat maneuvers--you'll note that the base way the additional combat maneuvers work is the same as the other combat maneuvers) or add new rules (i.e. Ultimate Combat with firearms.) But you can't use one of the new books to comprehensively define a core rule concept.

That can only be defined by the Core Rulebook.

In this case, it is quite clear, that strictly RAW, ability bonuses are typed.

Any other argument is based on how you interpret the intent of the rule.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I shouldn't have to own Ultimate Magic to determine what is, or is not, a typed bonus.

The Core Rulebook is all I should need, and the Core Rulebook doesn't define every typed bonus as being typed. It assumes we know how descriptive words work in the English language.

There is no difference in language construct from Inherent Bonus to Wisdom Bonus.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Undone, you have yet to present anything in the rules that actually refutes the post of rules language I presented.

That chart is far from exhaustive or conclusive. If it were exhaustive it would include trait bonuses as well as ability bonuses.

That chart is nothing more than a distraction.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
someweirdguy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Undone wrote:

Normal: You cannot add your wisdom modifier to AC.

AC Bonus (Su): You can add your wisdom modifier to AC.
AC Bonus (Ex): You can add your wisdom bonus to AC.

The abilities behind the colon are different.
The abilities violate the rule you can't add your wisdom modifier and bonus to AC.

I read your evidence and the evidence you presented if interpreted the way you want it to be would literally fundamentally break the game. Two handers wouldn't get str 1+1/2, dragon ferocity wouldn't work, Pistelaro and mysterious stranger wouldn't have needed errata, along with a dozen other feats and abilities.

You are wrong and the evidence is massive. Your interpretation assumes the game is broken and everyone who has ever swung a two handed weapon has screwed up the math.

The evidence is absolutely massive that you are incorrect. You have yet to actually post any rules support to your argument. I keep asking for it, but you keep not doing so.

Obviously if one rule says one thing in a general sense, but another more specific rule seems inconsistent with that, then the specific rule will trump the general rule.

This is a concept you keep missing when arguing your point. I think you are purposefully missing it, because it has been stated often enough and you haven't directly refuted it. You keep saying the same thing over and over again without directly discussing this point.

Two Handed weapons work they way they work, because the rule on two-handed weapons is more specific than the general rule on bonus stacking.

Same as every other rule that you say "breaks" the bonus stacking rule when it comes to ability bonuses.

There is no preponderance of evidence on your side of the argument. The only thing you have to hang your hat on, is the fact that there is an obscure list in Ultimate Magic that discusses how to design a spell.

Otherwise, there is no list of

...

Several folks have tried to use this table as proof. With just a bit more looking, you'll note its from Ultimate Magic, and a chapter on spell design. This is not an exhaustive list. It just discusses bonuses that spells can grant. The very nature of ability bonuses makes it absurd for a spell to grant them, thus why that bonus is not on the list.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote:

Sir there has NEVER been an Ability Bonus type anywhere in 3.5 or Pathfinder. Your comment is foolish.

There has never been that Type of Bonus before, just because YOU and only you consider it a bonus type that makes it your own personal Homebrew.

Even if Paizo where to release a statement saying there is no such thing as an Ability Bonus. I can safely assume you would reply with "Till its in a book it doesn't matter"

They could put it in a book and you likely would say that you are not buying that book and because you didn't see it in the book it still exists.

Fact is google search Ability Bonus, you will find nothing on it. It does not exist.

Actually if you go back to page two or three where I posted a link you'll see that the 3.5 SRD has a table of bonus types that includes ability bonuses.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Congrats Rob!!

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Undone wrote:

Normal: You cannot add your wisdom modifier to AC.

AC Bonus (Su): You can add your wisdom modifier to AC.
AC Bonus (Ex): You can add your wisdom bonus to AC.

The abilities behind the colon are different.
The abilities violate the rule you can't add your wisdom modifier and bonus to AC.

I read your evidence and the evidence you presented if interpreted the way you want it to be would literally fundamentally break the game. Two handers wouldn't get str 1+1/2, dragon ferocity wouldn't work, Pistelaro and mysterious stranger wouldn't have needed errata, along with a dozen other feats and abilities.

You are wrong and the evidence is massive. Your interpretation assumes the game is broken and everyone who has ever swung a two handed weapon has screwed up the math.

The evidence is absolutely massive that you are incorrect. You have yet to actually post any rules support to your argument. I keep asking for it, but you keep not doing so.

Obviously if one rule says one thing in a general sense, but another more specific rule seems inconsistent with that, then the specific rule will trump the general rule.

This is a concept you keep missing when arguing your point. I think you are purposefully missing it, because it has been stated often enough and you haven't directly refuted it. You keep saying the same thing over and over again without directly discussing this point.

Two Handed weapons work they way they work, because the rule on two-handed weapons is more specific than the general rule on bonus stacking.

Same as every other rule that you say "breaks" the bonus stacking rule when it comes to ability bonuses.

There is no preponderance of evidence on your side of the argument. The only thing you have to hang your hat on, is the fact that there is an obscure list in Ultimate Magic that discusses how to design a spell.

Otherwise, there is no list of bonus types. And as such, you have nothing in the rules that even remotely

...

This is not a Paizo source. The list of bonus types are those inferred by those who put d20PFSRD.com together. They apparently are working under the same incorrect assumption you are.

Find me a source that actually shows up in Paizo published material that says the same thing and I'll change my stance.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkholme wrote:

This post is just so that I can FAQ this question:

"Are ability bonuses that do not specify type untyped, or is there some kind of implied type going on?"

I don't understand this question.

There is no implied type going on. Its quite explicit.

The type is the Ability the modifier comes from.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Undone wrote:

Normal: You cannot add your wisdom modifier to AC.

AC Bonus (Su): You can add your wisdom modifier to AC.
AC Bonus (Ex): You can add your wisdom bonus to AC.

The abilities behind the colon are different.
The abilities violate the rule you can't add your wisdom modifier and bonus to AC.

I read your evidence and the evidence you presented if interpreted the way you want it to be would literally fundamentally break the game. Two handers wouldn't get str 1+1/2, dragon ferocity wouldn't work, Pistelaro and mysterious stranger wouldn't have needed errata, along with a dozen other feats and abilities.

You are wrong and the evidence is massive. Your interpretation assumes the game is broken and everyone who has ever swung a two handed weapon has screwed up the math.

The evidence is absolutely massive that you are incorrect. You have yet to actually post any rules support to your argument. I keep asking for it, but you keep not doing so.

Obviously if one rule says one thing in a general sense, but another more specific rule seems inconsistent with that, then the specific rule will trump the general rule.

This is a concept you keep missing when arguing your point. I think you are purposefully missing it, because it has been stated often enough and you haven't directly refuted it. You keep saying the same thing over and over again without directly discussing this point.

Two Handed weapons work they way they work, because the rule on two-handed weapons is more specific than the general rule on bonus stacking.

Same as every other rule that you say "breaks" the bonus stacking rule when it comes to ability bonuses.

There is no preponderance of evidence on your side of the argument. The only thing you have to hang your hat on, is the fact that there is an obscure list in Ultimate Magic that discusses how to design a spell.

Otherwise, there is no list of bonus types. And as such, you have nothing in the rules that even remotely agrees with you that ability bonuses are untyped.

The fact that a Wisdom Bonus has a name, makes it typed. Its type is Wisdom.

That is the most literal reading of the rules as you can have. Everything else is conjecture on RAI and how Wisdom Bonus doesn't actually mean Bonus Typed as Wisdom.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seranov wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Seranov wrote:
If you just admitted that "abilities and feats often break the rules of the game", how can you possibly then segue directly into "but this rule is ironclad"?

That comment makes no sense.

Perhaps I should have been clearer when I said abilities. Class abilities is what I was referring to. Not ability scores or ability modifiers.

Ability Modifiers are the rule.

Feats and class abilities would need to specifically say they break the rule, otherwise the rules about Ability modifiers is pretty iron clad.

Specific trumps general. The ability to add a bonus to your AC based on your Wisdom is a specific ability that overrides the general rule of "you only add your Dex to AC." There is no specific rule that even remotely claims that you cannot add that number twice if you have two completely separate abilities that do so, unless they specifically call out that you cannot (like how Divine Protection does, with the caveat that it only gives +1 to saves if you have something like Divine Grace).

Actually there is a rule that more than remotely claims that you cannot add that bonus twice.

Its called the stacking rule. Its quite explicit.

If you have two named bonuses, and that name is the same, you can't stack said bonuses.

The argument then becomes, are ability bonuses typed or not typed.

I'm in the camp that says they are typed.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Mike more or less has said many times, that they have no intention of ever opening up evil or monster races (which he included Orc and Hobgoblin) to play.

Now he's also said, never say never.

But I wouldn't stand around naked on a street corner through winter hoping I didn't freeze first.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

It's not hard for me to envision a druid sect who believe that their companions are spirits who reincarnate from one beast to another.

When their companion dies, they eat the meat of the animal, so that they might carry within them the companion spirit. Then they allow some other wild animal to bite them and take the companion spirit.

That's certainly one of many possible explanations why a druid-like PC would treat their AC that way. All I'm asking is that *you* actually play the character that way. Too often I see tree-hugging nature-freak PCs who still treat their AC with indifference simply because it benefits them mechanically. Sort of a have your cake and eat it too thing. I don't want to see specific rules in game forcing players to treat their AC a certain way. I just think that the character should have a theme and stick to it. But I guess that is just the old 'role' vs. 'roll' argument that is just a waste of time

*sigh*

I am currently replaying Eyes of the Ten with a fellow player who has a ranger. He has an animal companion. He actually roleplays like his character gives two wits about his animal companion's life, and thus makes decisions (sometimes even taking a move action to command the animal) for the life safety of the animal.

Its refreshing to see.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
redward wrote:


    Wisdom bonus
    <value> bonus This, to me, is obvious, as it is otherwise without meaning
    vs.
    Wisdom bonus
    <value AND type> bonus This, to me, is starting to read intention that is not necessarily there
    vs.
    Wisdom bonus
    <value AND type AND source> bonus[ooc]

I disagree with this.

Wisdom bonus
<value{unwritten|variable based on Wisdom Score}> <type> bonus

The value is unwritten because it doesn't need to be written. You know what your Wisdom bonus is based on your Wisdom score.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Undone wrote:
Stephen Ede wrote:
Seranov wrote:
If you just admitted that "abilities and feats often break the rules of the game", how can you possibly then segue directly into "but this rule is ironclad"?

I think his point is that they state how they Break the game.

So the the Sacred Fist AC from Wisdom ability would need to say "even if you are gettuing a AC bonus from Wisdom bonus already. Given that they don't then the ability doesn't stack.

Assuming I'm correct in my interpretation of what he was saying. :-)

Except that's not true. As an untyped bonus it would have to explicitly not stack.

That's making the assumption that ability modifiers are considered untyped.

The rules do not support this assumption.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Stephen Ede wrote:
Seranov wrote:
If you just admitted that "abilities and feats often break the rules of the game", how can you possibly then segue directly into "but this rule is ironclad"?

I think his point is that they state how they Break the game.

So the the Sacred Fist AC from Wisdom ability would need to say "even if you are gettuing a AC bonus from Wisdom bonus already. Given that they don't then the ability doesn't stack.

Assuming I'm correct in my interpretation of what he was saying. :-)

You are correct.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seranov wrote:
If you just admitted that "abilities and feats often break the rules of the game", how can you possibly then segue directly into "but this rule is ironclad"?

That comment makes no sense.

Perhaps I should have been clearer when I said abilities. Class abilities is what I was referring to. Not ability scores or ability modifiers.

Ability Modifiers are the rule.

Feats and class abilities would need to specifically say they break the rule, otherwise the rules about Ability modifiers is pretty iron clad.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

David Bowles wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Yeah, and if the pet dies, the free replacement pet gets all the goodies from the first one. It's a fire-and-forget meatbag. If Paizo intended something else, they would have attached real penalties to animal companions dying.

...or maybe you could, oh, I don't know, actually take an interest in the theme of the character instead of just treating it like numbers on a page. This is supposed to be a ROLE-playing game. If you think animal companions are intended to be disposable just because the designers didn't attach real penalties to losing one, you just don't "get it."

Sorry for the passive/aggressive, but IMO my response is nothing more than equal to this ridiculous commentary. YMMV

I agree with Bob.

It is everyone's right to play this game the way they have fun playing it. But lets please not confuse playing the role of a caricature and a character.

It's not a caricature when I've met druid players who have pets named "Meat Shield Number One". Literally.

That's my point. That literally is a caricature.

Some people enjoy playing caricatures instead of characters. That's their right.

I just didn't want people to confuse the two.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Bob Jonquet wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Yeah, and if the pet dies, the free replacement pet gets all the goodies from the first one. It's a fire-and-forget meatbag. If Paizo intended something else, they would have attached real penalties to animal companions dying.

...or maybe you could, oh, I don't know, actually take an interest in the theme of the character instead of just treating it like numbers on a page. This is supposed to be a ROLE-playing game. If you think animal companions are intended to be disposable just because the designers didn't attach real penalties to losing one, you just don't "get it."

Sorry for the passive/aggressive, but IMO my response is nothing more than equal to this ridiculous commentary. YMMV

I agree with Bob.

It is everyone's right to play this game the way they have fun playing it. But lets please not confuse playing the role of a caricature and a character.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Protoman wrote:
They're proficient with shields as weapons. So one could bash with them without readying it for an AC bonus (otherwise that would lead to armor check penalty to attacks due to non-proficiency).

This. Seems a bit counterintuitive I know, but this.

I believe this was discussed during the playtest, and the consensus was exactly this.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

congrats!

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Driver 325 yards wrote:

What about Clustered Shots? If you shot 5 arrows into someones chest with Clustered shots you then add up all of the damage from the various arrows. Would you not add up all of the ability damage from the various arrows.

What about Pummeling Style? Is this not another example of ability bonuses stacking?

Heck, there are even times when the rules will say add twice your Cha or 1 and 1/2 times your Str. Is this not also the explicit stacking of ability bonuses.

The difference is this:

Abilities and Feats often break the rules of the game. That is pretty much the entire function of various class abilities and feats. They give you the ability to do something that the base rules don't allow you to do or they change how the base rules work in a specific way.

So if an ability says, "you get to add your Charisma twice," or "add 1-1/2 times your strength damage" then those obviously stack, because the rule breaking item (feat or ability) says you can break the standard stacking rules.

As for Clustered Shots, those are 5 separate actions, so the Strength damage and/or Dex damage is not stacked. It applies individually, once, to each shot. The feat allows you to stack all the damage from all your individual attacks you made during a full attack routine. So it works.

But if you have two separate abilities that each give you a Resistance Bonus to your Will Save, you don't get that Resistance bonus twice.

Similarly, if you have two separate abilities that each give you a Wisdom bonus to your AC, you don't get the Wisdom bonus twice.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

KestlerGunner wrote:

The typical PFS player:

-Min-maxes their stats
-Plays a Paladin, Summoner, Witch or a Touch-Attacker
-Cherry picks the very best feats out of 10+ Player Companions
-Plays in a party of 6

Then goes onto the boards and complains about how the scenarios are too easy.

You set difficulty when you make your character. The problem is so many of our player base are unconsciously clicking 'Can I Play Daddy?' when they make their characters.

Typical?? That's a bit of a way overgeneralization.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

Got it. And the oil of magic weapon and unique arrows weren't enough? The magic bow doesn't have +1 to hit over a MW bow. If it did, it would surely be worth the price!

The menacing amulet is meant to help Leryn and the melee PCs, not Adowyn herself. +2 to hit is quite a boon. Adowyn could be more personally effective if she focused all her gear on herself, but with the +2 (CL 8) wand of greater magic fang and the amulet, Leryn should be an effective force against DR/magic foes. The character was built around working in a team, so agreed that the amulet is definitely really bad in the case thar the team had no one but Leryn who wanted to melee.

From what I understand, the Hunter's schtick is to be a team with their animal companion. So wouldn't it make more sense to either design the Hunter character itself as melee so she can take advantage of the menacing item, or buy a different item for the animal companion that compliments the hunter?

Buying an item that overall helps the pathfinder team, but makes the character itself less effective at what they are supposed to do is an interesting tradeoff. But not one that I feel is a good one. You gotta be good at what you do before you can really think about how to help your other teammates. And if you don't really get to explore what the hunter is good at, then you are not really playing a Hunter, right?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Negative Zer0 wrote:

Sean says

"As for question #2, the stone-wayfinder resonant power only works on said effects from an evil source, because the resonant power specifically cites protection from evil."

however as the poster claims the writer did not intend for that restriction to carry over He merly wanted to refernce how the ability worked just like protection from chaos states it wors like protection from evil. Basically he just dropped the ball on adding a clarification the same way protection from chaos clarifies that evil sources is chaos sources.

This is by no means absolute proof it just shows the amount of confusion even by pathfinder staff (assuming you believe the poster to be genuine) on how this item works.

It could be that the Design Team left it the way it was fully intending that it only worked against evil.

The Design Team's job is to make sure that stuff submitted by freelancers works within the balance and scope of the rules (albeit not always successfully--but that's part of their job.)

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
As long as the GM rules the same way for harpies' songs as he does for hold person, I'd be cool with either interpretation.
Not the same thing. "You come to me" is mental control. Shutting down someone's connection between their brain and their nervous system is not.

That's not what hold person does. If it did, you'd collapse. Instead, it's a mind-affecting effect that compels you to hold still.

So just like Captivating Song is a mental influence that continually compels you to walk, hold person is a mental influence that continually compels you to freeze. They most definitely fall on the same side of the PfE divide, whichever side that might be.

I'd rule them both the same way that sleep is ruled in the FAQ.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

My opinion is that it doesn't work on Harpy Song.

Why?

Because if you use the statement, "If the control is an effect of the spell, protection from evil does nothing, while if the caster can exert control, then it helps," and apply it to Harpy Song, you'll find that the ability has an effect and that's what is exerting the control.

The harpy cannot mentally control you to do anything.

If you ask me, this is more where a DM does not liek a effect and choose to read what they want into rukles instead of what is there.

I have no problem with the effect. I feel my interpretation is just.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Morphling wrote:

I would laugh and never stop laughing if I actually sat down at a table with a GM who tried to twist the words to allow a harpy's song to bypass the stone. That's a baseless house rule.

Now, there's no way this item should exist at all - permanent immunity to a very common and dangerous effect? C'mon, that's ridiculous. But it does exist, and GMs are compelled to allow it to work properly, even if it does wreck certain encounters and force writers to make the sadistic, mass-murdering, demon-worshipping mentalist Chaotic Neutral.

This is a very one-sided, aggressive, and argumentative stance to take. Just because you feel it works that way, does not mean that your interpretation is the only correct one.

Before the FAQ, there were many people who adamantly felt that if the spell said [compulsion] or [charm] it was blocked. Period. The FAQ obviously made a very careful distinction.

In this case, I feel there is enough ambiguity to justify allowing Harpy Song to get through protection from evil. I respect that your interpretation is different, and I'd abide by your ruling if I was sitting at your table.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

My opinion is that it doesn't work on Harpy Song.

Why?

Because if you use the statement, "If the control is an effect of the spell, protection from evil does nothing, while if the caster can exert control, then it helps," and apply it to Harpy Song, you'll find that the ability has an effect and that's what is exerting the control.

The harpy cannot mentally control you to do anything.

How would a spell like murderous command, how would these interact?

Murderous command would not be blocked, as the spell is telling the target what to do, not the caster.

whereas

forbid action would be blocked, because the caster gets to determine what specific action is forbidden.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

I think it'll counter a harpy's song, based on the relevant FAQ;

Quote:

Protection From Evil: Does this work against all charm and compulsion effects? Or just against charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as charm person, command, and dominate person (and thus not effects like sleep or confusion, as the caster does not have ongoing influence or puppet-like control of the target)?

The latter interpretation is correct: protection from evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it doesn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep is a border case for this issue, but the designers feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")

The harpy clearly has an ongoing influence over the subject.

Arguably, also "puppet-like control", because if the harpy moves, you start moving towards the harpy's new position, like a puppet pulled by a string.

The sleep spell and confusion spell both have some level of ongoing influence.

The statement I listed is one that I think Jiggy came up with to help differentiate what spells are and are not considered blocked by protection from evil.

It works very well within the FAQ examples.

The Harpy song is the only one that I can see that would not fit well into the statement. But I believe that the Harpy is not exerting ongoing influence anymore than the sleep pr confusion spells and it certainly is not "puppet-like control" since the Harpy cannot make them do anything other than stand around and move toward the sound of the song.

Its definitely ambiguous enough that I would not argue with a GM who made the call either way.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My opinion is that it doesn't work on Harpy Song.

Why?

Because if you use the statement, "If the control is an effect of the spell, protection from evil does nothing, while if the caster can exert control, then it helps," and apply it to Harpy Song, you'll find that the ability has an effect and that's what is exerting the control.

The harpy cannot mentally control you to do anything.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No. It isn't.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:

I think saying 'Dexterity bonus' with no type stated is essentially shorthand for 'a typeless bonus equal to your Dexterity bonus', otherwise it would say 'A (type) bonus equal to your Dexterity bonus' or 'add your Dexterity bonus as a (type) bonus', myself.

The feat is the source of the bonus, because without that feat, you wouldn't get the bonus.

The term "source" is meaningless in the rules. There is nothing within the rules that tell you to determine the type of bonus it is based on the source of the bonus.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For those discussing specific instances of ability score stacking, why don't we ask the question for all instances.

Please FAQ first post.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

trollbill wrote:
So your solution is that if we don't like it we should stop buying new books? Somehow I don't think that is a solution Paizo would approve of.

Now you are just trolling me.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

I personally don't feel its a problem.

I personally feel that fantastic and powerful characters can be created from the Core Rulebook alone.

I personally feel that every player should know the rules of the campaign before they start playing. But I'll give people the benefit of the doubt that sometimes they hear about it, show up, and expect they will learn this information on their first night. That's fair. I don't mind teaching.

But at some point, a player is going to learn that they need to actually have some version of the book, and with them, for it to be legal.

I feel that if the player chooses to use so many books that it becomes difficult for them to tote their books around with them, then that is a choice they made. There are many options to alleviate this difficulty.

I feel that if a player is unwilling* to avail themselves of the other options, that is also their choice.

*Even when I was incredibly poor (I would often have $5 to eat for a week--try it, that doesn't go very far), if I really wanted something, I'd find a way to save up the money to pay for it.

Making suggestions you think will help the campaign is laudable.

Villainizing Paizo, Paizo's employees, or their volunteer representatives is, however, not ok.

Some of the language in this thread is becoming awful close to villainizing.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
redward wrote:


And if you insist on applying SKR's 'duck' analogy, don't you think that "equal to your Strength Bonus" and "Strength bonus" would qualify as 'similar enough that they probably mean the same thing?'

You'll note I've been fairly consistent ni saying that "equal to your Strength Bonus" and "Strength Bonus" are the same thing and they are both considered a typed bonus called Strength.

I did have one post where I said I wasn't 100% sure that this alternate wording was actually equal. But since re-reading SKR's post and finding for this thread, I am more convinced now than ever that they work the same. Both are typed.

The only rules that discuss stacking, is discussing not being able to add multiple positive numbers from the same bonus type.

And your comment about "additional" and "+1" being bonus types is a nice deflection. You are better than that.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Acedio wrote:
Loengrin wrote:

Uh ? Note that a Magus Eldritch Scion Capenia Dancer / Duelist can add his CHA and his INT to his AC while a Magus not Eldritch Scion can't... And if you take this one with monk you can add Wis...

But you find strange that you can't add two time your Wis ac bonus with a monk and Warpriest ?

I'm honestly having some trouble parsing your post.

Quote:
But you find strange that you can't add two time your Wis ac bonus with a monk and Warpriest ?

I find it strange that you can double up on your wisdom bonus to AC with this combination. I think it's cheesy, probably not intended, and likely to be errata'd. But it's probably not that huge of a deal because most monks have absurd AC anyway.

Let's not be condescending. We've yet to be had any posts removed by a mod.

Mike Brock made an off the cuff irritated post. He doesn't state that Dex bonuses stack. He made no declaration of the kind. To use his admonishment of players arguing for extreme cheese as a declaration if how the rules work us a stretch at best.

The developers made the errata, because they realized they forgot to add a line. Again, making the assumption that this means they advocate stat stacking is ludicrous.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Multi-classing and the game itself was never designed for that level of class dipping.

To try and base your rules understanding on what's possible in the most cheesiest circumstances is very suspect.

@redward: we will have to agree to disagree I fear. Because we have fundamentally different understanding of how thus works. I can't even follow your logic.

@ David Bross: Mike did not make a ruling. He made an irritated comment.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree Acedio. If the vast majority of my Pathfinder involvement was not PFS, I'd probably be much kinder (and use) d20PFSRD.com.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Acedio wrote:

I'm pretty sure the logic that it's typed as a bonus of a particular ability score stems from the fact that it says "[ABILITY] Bonus".

Trying to dismantle that by pulling "Feat Bonus" or "Class Bonus" is grasping at straws.

I could say the same of ability modifiers being a typed bonus.

Explain.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
redward wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

No. As they both add Int. Bonus.

Kirin Strike does break the standard stacking rules within itself though as it does double the Int bonus in damage.

But they don't. They both add the Int modifier. And modifiers aren't bonuses. This text: "A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty" is from the Ability Score section. I don't believe those terms are interchangeable across the entire system. There's no such thing as a Morale modifier or a Profane modifier.
PRD: Strength wrote:

You apply your character's Strength modifier to:

Melee attack rolls.
Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
Climb and Swim checks.
Strength checks (for breaking down doors and the like).

It shows that modifier and bonus are used interchangeably. We all know that if using a light weapon, and your Strength is less than 10, you get a penalty. Thus the word modifier. However, if you want to make the word modifier and bonus completely different terms as far as how to define one or the other from each other, then you would never get a penalty for swinging a light weapon in the off-hand, and we know this is simply not true.

I also point you to this post by Sean K. Reynolds:

HERE

That discusses how the game is written and why trying to parse literal meaning out of slight differentiation in language is not how to interpret the rules.

I feel this post actually supports my stance that ability bonuses are typed by the ability they come from.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thorin001 wrote:
If you want to be hyper literal, and if you are treating stat bonuses as a type you are being hyper literal, then everything that is not a spell stacks because the only place that mentions stacking is in the spell section.

Nope. Page 13 to 15 also discusses stacking.

1 to 50 of 2,213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.