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. 2,106 posts (6,158 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 15 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,106 << 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

FYI:

The only time the "source" of a bonus is necessary, is when you start getting bonus types that do stack. Such as Dodge and some Circumstance and Racial bonuses.

If Untyped, Dodge, Circumstance or Racial bonuses come from the same source, then you cannot stack them. If they come from separate sources, then they can stack except for any special rules each type of bonus designates.

The confusion people are coming across here, is the assumption that ability bonuses are untyped, and so they go directly to the "source" rule.

There is absolutely nothing in the rules that says ability bonuses are untyped. Nothing that even remotely alludes to it.

The fact that there is no comprehensive list of bonus types in the Core Rulebook, any bonus that has a descriptor word before the word "bonus" would be of the type of that descriptor word (i.e. Inherent Bonus, Wisdom Bonus, Dodge Bonus.)

Literally, RAW, does not support, in any way, shape, or form, ability bonuses being untyped.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Loengrin wrote:
Sorry can't edit... So I just wanted to ask what happen to my reflexe saves if I am a Paladin 2/Oracle with Sidestep secret ?

You get your Charisma bonus and your Dexterity Bonus to reflex saves.

Since Divine Grace and Sidestep secrets do not stack, as they both are Charisma bonuses, you would not be disallowed to choose to use your Dexterity bonus in place of your Charisma bonus with Sidestep Secrets. Although since its a revelation, if you knew you were making this build, it would behoove you to not take Sidestep Secrets and not tank Dexterity as it would be redundant.

Andoran

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


This is a fair question:

Here goes...

Thank you, Andrew, for the time and research. The idea of a wisdom bonus type seems much more valid now.

no problems. I actually enjoy doing the research.

Andoran

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

Uh ?!?! I don't understand... What is the source of the "+1 bonus Will saves for fear effect" gained by the Fighter at level 1 ? Because I'm pretty sure the source is : "Bravery (Ex)"

SO based on that I was also pretty sure that source for the "all Saving Throws bonus equal to Charisma Bonus" of the level 2 paladin was : "Divine Grace (Su)"

And now the source is not "Divine Grace" but "Charisma" ???

May I ask since when the source of a bonus granted by a Class Ability is something else thant the Class Ability ?

People keep using the term "source". I don't know why.

The +1 bonus on Will saves vs. fear that Fighters get for Bravery is an untyped bonus. It will literally stack with everything other than another untyped bonus that is granted by another source of Bravery. How do I know this bonus is untyped? Because it doesn't have a descriptive word before the word "bonus". It just says, "+1 bonus."

The source of the bonus has no bearing on what type the bonus is.

If it says you get your Dexterity Bonus to AC, then the type of bonus you are adding to your AC is Dexterity. Why? Because its called Dexterity Bonus. It doesn't matter what the source that grants this is (in this case the source is the Core Rulebook, since its a standard bonus you get to your AC.)

Why is <ability> Bonus any different than any other type of bonus you receive? Dodge is a feat and it grants you a Dodge bonus. The source is the Feat called Dodge. Its convenient that the bonus and feat are the same, but is meaningless. The ability of inspire courage grants morale bonuses. Thy type of bonus is Morale. The source is the Bard ability Inspire Courage. But the fact it comes from inspire courage is meaningless to the type of bonus (other than Inspire Courage tells you its a morale bonus.)

So no, Divine Grace is the source. But the type of bonus Divine Grace grants to AC is a Charisma Bonus.

Just like you can't have two Morale bonuses that modify the same checks, regardless of whether they come from different or the same sources, you can't have two Charisma bonuses that modify the same thing.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Not by making skill checks, just by thinking. There is gameplay space available between "metagaming" and "making skill checks".
This, this, a thousand times this! All GMs and players should have this tattooed into their brain.

+2

Andoran

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


So in theory you could gain AC by having 7 wis and losing the ability.
Apart from the fact that (assuming we are talking about the monks AC class ability) it specifies a minimum of 0 (0 being neither a penalty or a bonus, but still applicable they have to use the all encompassing term 'modifier'). But if you were referring to another generic ability that didn't have that limit in, then yes. But as you would have to acquire the ability in the first place, being aware (on some level) that it would be crippling, I don't see the difficulty in 'getting better' if you lose it.

Exactly.

Losing a condition (or ability as it were) certainly causes either the penalty or bonus associated with that condition (or ability) to no longer be in effect.

That's how the rules work. So I'm unclear what the relevance of the comment is to the issue we've been discussing to this point.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Undone wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Undone wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Seranov wrote:
In this specific case, it doesn't matter if "Wisdom bonus" is the source of the Monk ability, because the Sacred Fist ability specifically calls out "Wisdom modifier" instead. This makes the two completely separate bonus types, even if they both from from Wisdom.

I wish it were that easy, but a modifier is a bonus or penalty. p16CRB "a positive modifier is called a bonus", "a negative modifier is called a penalty".

They use modifier when it applies whether it's positive or negative.

So in theory you could gain AC by having 7 wis and losing the ability.

It might behoove you to actually read the rules in the book, or the ones I called out above before you speak.

Penalties always stack, even if they are the same penalty type.

It might behoove you to read the ability in question. You lose the ability if you wear so much as a chain shirt.

And so what does that have to do with anything that has gone on in 82 posts to this point.

Was that just a comment from left field or is there some relevance to this entire thread?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Undone wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Seranov wrote:
In this specific case, it doesn't matter if "Wisdom bonus" is the source of the Monk ability, because the Sacred Fist ability specifically calls out "Wisdom modifier" instead. This makes the two completely separate bonus types, even if they both from from Wisdom.

I wish it were that easy, but a modifier is a bonus or penalty. p16CRB "a positive modifier is called a bonus", "a negative modifier is called a penalty".

They use modifier when it applies whether it's positive or negative.

So in theory you could gain AC by having 7 wis and losing the ability.

It might behoove you to actually read the rules in the book, or the ones I called out above before you speak.

Penalties always stack, even if they are the same penalty type.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seranov wrote:
In this specific case, it doesn't matter if "Wisdom bonus" is the source of the Monk ability, because the Sacred Fist ability specifically calls out "Wisdom modifier" instead. This makes the two completely separate bonus types, even if they both from from Wisdom.

The definition of Ability Modifier or Wisdom Modifier is that it is considered a Wisdom Bonus.

In this case, modifier and bonus are synonymous.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:
Actually as it was published after the CRB surely it would be more comprehensive. As far as I'm aware Ultimate Magic is just as authoritative a source as the CRB.

If that were the case, it would have listed Trait Bonus from the Advanced Players Guide.

Andoran

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

this list?

@ Andrew Christian
If it helps you've given at least one person pause for thought, I'm not convinced yet, but it does have me thinking hard.

Yup, that's the one I alluded to above from Ultimate Magic.

Being that its from Ultimate Magic, and not from the Core Rulebook, we can't really consider it a comprehensive list of bonus types.

Andoran

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

Interestingly enough:

Bonus Types

The 3.5 List

3.5 Bonus Types List

3.5 lists Ability Modifiers as a bonus type.

And

Players Compilation of Bonus Types

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Undone wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Undone wrote:
Louis Manko Levite wrote:

Wouldn't that example prove his point. Aren't they saying that since you couldnt get the bonus again you instead get a +1 so the feat is actually worth something?

I am not sure what the answer is, but I think Andrew has the right idea and one I am expecting them to go with. You can only stack attribute bonuses if they are different bonus types. So you could have Wis bonus to AC and a armor bonus to AC equal to your wisdom but not Wisdom bonus to AC twice.

Now an interesting case would be if they said add your Wisdom bonus to AC as an untyped bonus, which would technically fall into that category.

So what happens when he enteres an Anti magic field and the sacred fist turns off?

Personally what he's saying sounds to me like he'd rule they stack because EX and SU are difference types of bonuses and it's extremely significant given the nature of antimagic fields.

Another example of how you are misapplying the stacking rules. It is immaterial what source grants you the right to use an ability bonus.

The EX or SU of the class ability has no bearing on stacking. Just because you can't stack the two bonuses does not mean you lose one. Its still there. So if an antimagic field makes you lose the SU, you still have the EX. Its refundant, but under the right circumstances could prove useful.

Stacking only looks at the type of bonus. Not whether the class ability or feat is the same, EX or SU.

Does the bonus have a specific type (I.e. Trait, Deflection, Armor, Shield, Dodge, Insight, Dexterity, et. al.)

No because stat is not a specific type of bonus.

Find me a comprehensive list of bonuses and language or precedent that says that when you see in the book "Dexterity Bonus" that it is not a typed bonus, and I'll agree with you.

But as far as I can tell, there isn't a comprehensive list of bonus types (I tried to find one, but could not) and precedence says (RE: Paizo FAQ) that any lists they write in text are not exhaustive.

So what language are you using to show that Ability Bonuses are not typed?

Quote from the book please, don't just say it again.

Andoran

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

Andrew, your arguments and logic make sense but they are all predicated on this...

Andrew Christian wrote:
unless it gets ruled otherwise, I treat all ability modifier/bonuses as a typed bonus as per that ability.

The only justification I can see made for that decision is...

Andrew Christian wrote:

Paizo has already set the precedence that their "lists" in rules text are not exhaustive.

Additionally, the rule in the core rulebook that discusses what bonus types exist, does not list trait. And yet I don't think anyone would disagree that you can't stack trait bonuses.

If you look up the rules on Ability Scores, it defines Ability Modifier as a bonus. It doesn't say its an untyped bonus.

(The last line of this quote was responded to further down the page with a counter argument that seemed valid.)

I wanted to ask about the basis of your decision to treat all ability modifiers/bonuses as typed. Did you find some piece of the rules that led you to that conclusion, or was it a case of being on the spot as a GM and deciding that Wis should not stack with Wis and not finding anything that disagreed with that ruling?

(Please don't take the above question in a negative light. I am not trying to launch a subtle attack or impune Andrew in any way. As a GM, I've had to make the occassional call based on nothing more than my thoughts that such and such should not be so, and nobody could find a reason why such a such interpretation wouldn't work as a GM ruling, so we'd all just go with that. I'm just wondering if the basis of Andrew's arguments - which again seem very logical and well thought out - are on anything more solid than that on-the-spot GM feeling of 'things should not work this way.')

Personally, I'm watching the trending of this thread quite eagerly. I have a level 1 Sacred Fist that is getting ready to multiclass monk, so I'd really like this combination to work. I also know of 2 others in my area who are playing characters with this multiclass stacking...

This is a fair question:

Here goes...

First:

CRB, Page 12 wrote:
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
CRB, Page 13 wrote:
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
CRB, Page 15 wrote:

Determine Bonuses

Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from –5 to +5. Table 1–3 shows the modifier for each score. The modifier is the number you apply to the die roll when your character tries to do something related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some numbers that aren’t die rolls. A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty. The table also shows bonus spells, which you’ll need to know about if your character is a spellcaster.
CRB, Page 208 wrote:
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
CRB,Page 208 wrote:

Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn’t have a type stacks with any bonus.

So far, nothing is giving me an exhaustive list of bonus types. As a matter of fact, I could have sworn there was a section in the CRB that indicated a list of bonus types. But I cannot find it currently.

Ultimate magic, Page 131, however, has a chart of bonus types under Designing spells. It includes Alchemical, Armor, Circumstance, Competence, Deflection, Dodge, Enhancement, Inherent, Insight, Luck, Morale, Natural Armor, Profane, Resistance, Sacred, Shield, Size.

Second:

FAQ for CRB wrote:

LINK Temporary Ability Score Increases vs. Permanent Ability Score Increases: Why do temporary bonuses only apply to some things?

Temporary ability bonuses should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses do. The section in the glossary was very tight on space and it was not possible to list every single ability score-related game effect that an ability score bones would affect.

The purpose of the temporary ability score ruling is to make it so you don't have to rebuild your character every time you get a bull's strength or similar spell; it just summarizes the most common game effects relative to that ability score.

For example, most of the time when you get bull's strength, you're using it for combat, so the glossary mentions Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, Strength-based weapon damage rolls, CMB, and CMD. It doesn't call out melee attack rolls that use Dex instead of Str (such as when using Weapon Finesse) or situations where your applied Str bonus should be halved or multiplied (such as whith off-hand or two-handed weapons). You're usually not using the spell for a 1 min./level increase in your carrying capacity, so that isn't mentioned there, but the bonus should still apply to that, as well as to Strength checks to break down doors.

Think of it in the same way that a simple template has "quick rules" and "rebuild rules;" they're supposed to create monsters which are roughly equivalent in terms of stats, but the quick rules are a short cut that misses some details compared to using the rebuild rules. Likewise, the temporary ability score rule is intended as a short cut to speed up gameplay, not as the most precise way of applying the bonus.

A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.

Sets the precedence that any list of bonus types that you might find are not exhaustive. (I swear I saw a list of bonus types, but that may actually be from 3.5--someone help me!) In any case, if there is a list of bonus types, the above precedence should show that it is not exhaustive.

Third:

The Advanced Players Guide introduced traits. Many (dare I say most) traits grant some form of bonus that is labeled as a Trait Bonus. Nobody here is going to argue that even if you find a list of bonuses from the core rulebook, that Trait Bonuses stack. They don't. Because they are a like bonus.

Fourth:

Do a search in the PDF of your Core Rulebook. In almost 100% of the iterations of <name your ability> Bonus, it lists it as <ability> Bonus (i.e. Dexterity Bonus, Wisdom Bonus, etc.)

If that isn't typing the bonus, then what is? Why is saying Trait Bonus typing the bonus, but saying Dexterity Bonus not?

Hope all this helps you see my logic.

Andoran

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

Deflection Bonus.

Dodge Bonus.
Intuition Bonus.
Dexterity Bonus.

Why is one specifically different from the others?

Because it starts with an "I" instead of a "D"? That's what you meant, right? ;)

Snort... ok, that made me chuckle out loud. Thanks!

Andoran

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

Wouldn't that example prove his point. Aren't they saying that since you couldnt get the bonus again you instead get a +1 so the feat is actually worth something?

I am not sure what the answer is, but I think Andrew has the right idea and one I am expecting them to go with. You can only stack attribute bonuses if they are different bonus types. So you could have Wis bonus to AC and a armor bonus to AC equal to your wisdom but not Wisdom bonus to AC twice.

Now an interesting case would be if they said add your Wisdom bonus to AC as an untyped bonus, which would technically fall into that category.

So what happens when he enteres an Anti magic field and the sacred fist turns off?

Personally what he's saying sounds to me like he'd rule they stack because EX and SU are difference types of bonuses and it's extremely significant given the nature of antimagic fields.

Another example of how you are misapplying the stacking rules. It is immaterial what source grants you the right to use an ability bonus.

The EX or SU of the class ability has no bearing on stacking. Just because you can't stack the two bonuses does not mean you lose one. Its still there. So if an antimagic field makes you lose the SU, you still have the EX. Its refundant, but under the right circumstances could prove useful.

Stacking only looks at the type of bonus. Not whether the class ability or feat is the same, EX or SU.

Does the bonus have a specific type (I.e. Trait, Deflection, Armor, Shield, Dodge, Insight, Dexterity, et. al.)

Andoran

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


If you look up the rules on Ability Scores, it defines Ability Modifier as a bonus. It doesn't say its an untyped bonus.
Doesn;t thios mean it is untyped?

Yes. Which again means that something like the Monk/SF. Would stack.

Andrew let's look at this for a moment.

** spoiler omitted **

If you honestly believe that you cannot stack them I'd like an explanation for that line which explicitly calls out that you can stack them and instead you get +1.

How is this stacking? This ability specifically doesn't allow you to use Charisma twice. So your Charisma bonus is not stacking.

The abilities stack, in that one of them gives you something else if you have both abilities. But you don't add Charisma twice.

I'm trying not to get frustrated here, but feeling a bit like I'm in bizarro world as everyone seems to be misapplying the terms "stack" and "source".

Andoran

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


If you look up the rules on Ability Scores, it defines Ability Modifier as a bonus. It doesn't say its an untyped bonus.
Doesn;t thios mean it is untyped?

That makes no sense.

At the very least the type of bonus would be Ability. If it has a descriptor in front of the word bonus, that descriptor is the type.

Deflection Bonus.
Dodge Bonus.
Intuition Bonus.
Dexterity Bonus.

Why is one specifically different from the others?

Andoran

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

Andrew: The problem is that you are classifying several different things as the same thing.

If you get a bonus to initiative from a feat, is that a feat bonus? How about, if, instead of being a flat +4, like Improved Initiative, it gave a bonus to your initiative equal to your Dex mod?

Is the source of the bonus, in this case, the feat, call it "Greater Initiative", or your Dex mod? If it is your Dex mod, then it cannot add to Initiative, since your Initiative already uses your Dex mod to begin with.

So, is Initiative a Dex check or a Charisma check, if you have Noble Scion of War? Would a Circlet of Persuasion add to your Initiative if you had Noble Scion of War?

According to Andrew's definition as I understand it, Greater Initiative does nothing if it adds your Dex mod to initiative and you do not have Noble Scion(War) or a similar replacement.

Yes initiative is an ability check, yes Circlet applies to your initiative with the aforementioned feat. The part that doesn't stack as as I understand under Andrew's statements are the bonus types. So feats don't stack unless they state otherwise or obviously should, (In this case Greater Initiative seems the logical followup to Improved, perhaps a bit fancier), but if you named it something different and gave it a campaign specific flavor, perhaps it wouldn't. I don't know his exact thought process, this is as I understand it. Similarly, when you add an "untyped" ability score bonus to AC/Saves/Trip/etc., Andrew states that the type is the ability score providing the bonus. So the Paladin ability adds a "Charisma" bonus to saves, and thus would not stack with an ability that also added a "Charisma" bonus to saves. Fury's Fall and Weapon Finesse both add "Dexterity" bonuses to Trip, and thus would not stack under his apparent mindset.

Short of it: According to his mindset as I see it, and one that has been brought to me in game, like Insight, Competence, Dodge, Armor, Sacred, etc., Ability scores that do not grant those...

That's pretty much what I'm saying.

Andoran

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

Wasn't this explained before by Mike or some one else from Paizo in another post?

I remembered something about how adding CHA twice to dex works was explained using a paladin and oracle?

Something like if one ability says in place of and the other says add, they both work, but if both abilities say add, only the highest will work out?

Can't quite remember which thread...

Nobody from Paizo, as far as I'm aware, has clarified this.

Andoran

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

Andrew: The problem is that you are classifying several different things as the same thing.

If you get a bonus to initiative from a feat, is that a feat bonus? How about, if, instead of being a flat +4, like Improved Initiative, it gave a bonus to your initiative equal to your Dex mod?

Is the source of the bonus, in this case, the feat, call it "Greater Initiative", or your Dex mod? If it is your Dex mod, then it cannot add to Initiative, since your Initiative already uses your Dex mod to begin with.

So, is Initiative a Dex check or a Charisma check, if you have Noble Scion of War? Would a Circlet of Persuasion add to your Initiative if you had Noble Scion of War?

I'm not classifying things as the same thing.

You guys keep harping on source, and source doesn't matter as long as the bonus is a different type.

The same Monk ability adds both a dodge and an untyped bonus to AC. Those both come from the same source.

The only bonus that matters for what the source is, is Dodge. Because Dodge stacks with other Dodge bonuses, you can't gain multiple Dodge bonuses from the same source.

In this case, it doesn't matter if you have a feat, class ability, or other that grants you a Charisma bonus to AC.

All that matters is that if that bonus is a Charisma Bonus, it won't stack with other Charisma bonuses. If it says "Add your Charisma modifier as a bonus to AC," you are adding your Charisma modifier as a bonus, and it won't stack with another Charisma bonus to your AC. If it says, "Add your Charisma modifier as a Deflection bonus to your AC," then it would stack with the other bonus. Because this is not a Charisma bonus. It is now a Deflection bonus.

Andoran

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

I don't understand your logic. You seem to be mixing language and ignoring other specific language.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Undone wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Undone wrote:
Dylos wrote:
Acedio wrote:
All of those bonus combinations you provided have different bonus types, don't they? (Untyped + Dodge, Untyped + Deflection, Untyped + Armor)
They do, but surely someone is going to say "You can't have cha to AC four times."

Either Cha is the source or the class features are. Type of bonus does not matter, source does. There is no middle ground. Either that doesn't work or the monk/SF works. Either Dragon style gives you +half str damage or it doesn't.

If the stat bonus is the source and not the abilities then all of these including the ones where it seems clear how it should function (dragon ferocity) will fail to function.

If not they all work.

I disagree with your logic.

When you say, "you can add your Charisma modifier to your AC as a Deflection Bonus" Then the bonus being added is Deflection and won't stack with any other Deflection bonuses.

When you say, "you add your Charisma modifier to AC" then the bonus you are adding to AC is a Charisma bonus and is typed as Charisma.

When you say, "you can replace your Strength bonus with Dexterity Bonus" then you are adding your Dexterity Bonus and it will not stack with anything else that also allows you to use your Dexterity Bonus.

The bonus is still the stat bonus in different forms. You can't add your wisdom as a deflection bonus and a dodge bonus because it's your wisdom bonus. Even in 10 different ways the STAT is still the source and does not stack. There is literally no other way it can exist. The bonus is a CHARISMA deflection modifier and a CHARISMA dodge modifier and as such cannot stack with each other because the SOURCE is the same.

If the rule is "The stat is the source of the bonus" All stat stacking typed or untyped fails automatically.
If the rule is "The class feature/feat/item is the source of the bonus" then they all stack automatically.

It's a blanket rule which effects large swaths of the game...

I think where our disconnect here is, is where we are defining source and how that works with the statements that two bonuses with the same source can't stack.

You are saying its binary, either the source is the Ability score, or the source is not the Ability score.

I'm saying that's not true:

The source is where the bonus comes from. When you are talking bonuses like Deflection bonuses, they don't stack because they are both of a type called Deflection.

James Jacobs has tried to use crazy logic to disallow some stacking and allow other stacking based on what he prefers as a GM, not what makes sense from a rules logic standpoint.

You can't sit there and say that "Ability modifiers are untyped bonuses that don't stack with one another."

Because the untyped bonuses stack.

Typed bonuses do not.

So if an ability modifier is an untyped bonus, then it will stack with every other type of untyped bonus regardless the source.

Then you have the 3rd type of statement.

You can add X to Y as a Z type bonus.

The type of the bonus is Z. It doesn't matter that it comes from X, or that you have another bonus that also comes from X.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
But if I ask for how something works, and you can't provide me the source, and you don't have the book with you... then I gotta disallow you the use of it.

Right. As far as I understand, the reason we can't use online sources (such as archives of nethys and the paizo prd) is because that doesn't prove proof of ownership of those documents. This would allow someone to present you with those online documents, while also proving to you that they own these books, without having to have them with them at all times.

On the surface of it, I have no problem with coming up with a reasonable idea that allows people to show proof of ownership while also being willing to bring the actual rule to the table.

I just take umbrage with someone adding time to my day that I don't have, simply because its "voluntary" but "as a VO I should be willing to do it."

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Undone wrote:
Dylos wrote:
Acedio wrote:
All of those bonus combinations you provided have different bonus types, don't they? (Untyped + Dodge, Untyped + Deflection, Untyped + Armor)
They do, but surely someone is going to say "You can't have cha to AC four times."

Either Cha is the source or the class features are. Type of bonus does not matter, source does. There is no middle ground. Either that doesn't work or the monk/SF works. Either Dragon style gives you +half str damage or it doesn't.

If the stat bonus is the source and not the abilities then all of these including the ones where it seems clear how it should function (dragon ferocity) will fail to function.

If not they all work.

I disagree with your logic.

When you say, "you can add your Charisma modifier to your AC as a Deflection Bonus" Then the bonus being added is Deflection and won't stack with any other Deflection bonuses.

When you say, "you add your Charisma modifier to AC" then the bonus you are adding to AC is a Charisma bonus and is typed as Charisma.

When you say, "you can replace your Strength bonus with Dexterity Bonus" then you are adding your Dexterity Bonus and it will not stack with anything else that also allows you to use your Dexterity Bonus.

Andoran

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

an ability bonus turned into a different type of bonus is different.

The bonus type they have is deflection. There are no stacking issues here.

Multiclassing currently can be an issue when folks cherrypick level dips just so they can max out stacking and getting their character to only need one stat to do everything.

But if you are straight up adding Dex from one source and adding Dex from another source, that ability cannot be modified by a Dexterity bonus twice.

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

Acedio wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Perhaps the OP's definition of audit is different than mine?

I'm still not seeing how this idea will help make audits happen.

I think he's talking about the part of the audit where you prove that you've bought all of the source books your build comes from.

EDIT: I've only been asked that when I try to do something jenky.

EDIT 2: I'd also like to mention that I sympathize with the concern that this may be time consuming for the VOs.

So he's not really talking about an audit?

He's talking simply about verifying that players have their sources?

Frankly, I don't do this because I like to assume everyone is being honest unless they prove otherwise.

It has nothing to do with whether they bring bags of books or not.

But if I ask for how something works, and you can't provide me the source, and you don't have the book with you... then I gotta disallow you the use of it.

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

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:


Andrew Christian wrote:
I wouldn't have accepted promotion to VC in July if I didn't have the time or didn't want to do it.

A VO is an individual who spends time to make the Pathfinder Society better (you do not need to be a VO to do this, but that's a side topic). Given this formal declaration of offering their time to improve the game, they should be willing to do so if an opportunity to make things better does arise.

That's pretty much what I said, isn't it?

I also said that its awful presumptuous to impress extra time on other people when you haven't walked in their shoes.

Until you know how much time this volunteer job takes, please stop trying to add time to it.

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

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Can you explain to me in a step-by-step way, how this helps make sure audits happen more often?

If you lessen the negative stigma of audits by simplifying the process, then you will see an increase in their occurrence.

The current system requires individuals carry in their books. Rank and file GM's know this is absurd, and therefore do not do audits. No one wants to be a jerk. I have never - and I mean never - seen an audit at my friendly local hobby store, and I game there most Sundays. Nor even one at a convention! I've been to the last five (I believe) conventions near LAX in California, played nearly every day of all of those, and did not see a single audit.

However, if something like a Product Confirmation boon were available, this 'jerk' status would be removed. Suddenly, there is an alternative to carrying in your books. It is reasonable to carry a piece of paper, therefore it is reasonable for someone to ask to see it. The stigma of an audit is less, and therefore GM's will feel more inclined to do them.

I asked you to explain why your idea would promote audits. I did so before explaining why I felt audits aren't done regularly.

The main reason I feel audits are not done, is because generally nobody has time to do them. They take several minutes up to maybe half an hour depending on the level and complexity of the character.

It literally has nothing to do with whether people have books with them or not.

I run 4 game days a month. I GM at almost all game days I coordinate (and if I don't GM and rarely get a chance to play, I still am at the game day for the entire 5+ hours). I try to get there early to make sure all the tables are set to go and get people into their tables efficiently and answer any questions that need answering.

To do an audit of even one character I would need 2 things to happen. I would need to get to the game day about 30 minutes earlier than normal (on my Tuesday game day, this is often not possible as I work a regular 9-5 job) and I would need the players to arrive 30 minutes early (often not possible for them either for the same reason).

And this extra time to audit their character has nothing to do with whether they have a character built on just the core rulebook or 20 different sources.

So can you please explain to me why your idea would cause audits to happen more often?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
They could technically also rule that replaces stacks with adds. Like sidestep secret (which replaces) stacks with paladins Divine Grace (which adds). Thats also allows weapon finesse + furys fall to work and there is way to replace attribute modifiers on some skills and then add different modifiers on top.
I don't allow weapon finesse + fury's fall to work since its using Dex bonus twice. The bonus type is Dexterity, and like bonuses do not stack.

Well, bonuses from the same source do not stack, and there is no bonus type "dexterity" at this time. What the current debate is what is the source? Is the source the feat, class ability, trait or is it attribute?

Even if they decide the source is "attribute" they could rule "replacing" and "adding" still stack, though I find it more likely they rule either "attribute" is or isn't the source to keep things easier.

Paizo has already set the precedence that their "lists" in rules text are not exhaustive.

Additionally, the rule in the core rulebook that discusses what bonus types exist, does not list trait. And yet I don't think anyone would disagree that you can't stack trait bonuses.

If you look up the rules on Ability Scores, it defines Ability Modifier as a bonus. It doesn't say its an untyped bonus.

And since in all instances that I can recall, where you use a particular ability modifier or bonus to modify a particular roll, it specifically says add your <ability modifier/bonus> to your roll, then it seems clear to me that ability modifiers are typed bonuses.

Until something specifically clarifies that this is not the case, that is how I will be ruling it at my table.

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

Perhaps the OP's definition of audit is different than mine?

I'm still not seeing how this idea will help make audits happen.

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

Undone wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
andreww wrote:

Oh well, guess I continue to avoid season 6.

How many times do people have to say that Season 6 is not going to be 100% tech based. That there will just be a handful of scenarios that are tech based, and we saw a large portion of those with the first 3 scenarios?

It's more that season 6 is indescribably lethal for little reason other than lethality. It's not fun lethal like the waking rune or warned lethal like bonekeep. It's stupid under CR'ed monsters grindy dangerous 1 round to negative con encounters (Looking at you 6-01, 6-02) with weak RP attached to it.

The currently released Season 6s would be terrible if they had nothing to do with tech.

I haven't noticed Season 6 being particularly lethal.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
They could technically also rule that replaces stacks with adds. Like sidestep secret (which replaces) stacks with paladins Divine Grace (which adds). Thats also allows weapon finesse + furys fall to work and there is way to replace attribute modifiers on some skills and then add different modifiers on top.

I don't allow weapon finesse + fury's fall to work since its using Dex bonus twice. The bonus type is Dexterity, and like bonuses do not stack.

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

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
As a VO, I frankly wouldn't be doing my job if I chose to not give myself time to do this.

You don't sound like you want to be a VO, Andrew. Your primary complaint is that you don't have the time for it.

Andrew Christian wrote:
How is it insulting?

Because it is smug, arrogant, and dismissive of the actual problem. If you want to dismiss the problem, fine; but don't act surprised that no one does audits and Paizo's interests continue to not be upheld.

Chuckle... I've been a VO for 3 years now. I wouldn't have accepted promotion to VC in July if I didn't have the time or didn't want to do it. Ask my wife if she thinks I spend more time on this game than she would prefer.

I just think its very presumptuous to start adding time to anyone's docket without actually knowing how much time they already spend within the framework of the game and its rules as it currently sits.

An extra hour for you may not be that much. But not everyone's time availability will be the same as yours.

And I'll ask again.

How does your idea help make sure audits happen? I am failing to see how your idea has anything to do with audits at all.

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

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
I to believe something along these lines can work, but the first (and most difficult from what I have witnessed) hurdle is to convince our leadership and VO's to even entertain the possibility of something along these things.

Traditionally, people hate change. 'The rules are good enough for me; they should be good enough for you uppity kids!' seems to rule.

Personally, I think perfection comes from iterative improvements. This process can seriously be improved. As it is, it is a failure - audits are extremely rare and Paizo's interests are not being upheld. Sure - your lawful good VC type might do audits, but rank and file GM's never do, and the reason they do not is because they are currently unreasonable. This can be improved.

I'm not sure how your solution helps make sure audits happen.

Can you explain to me in a step-by-step way, how this helps make sure audits happen more often?

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


I am not a fan of creating something like this that will essentially require me to spend extra hours.
Optional. I said optional. Not required - optional. If you don't want to do it, then don't. I do not know how I can be clearer than 'optional'.

As a VO, I frankly wouldn't be doing my job if I chose to not give myself time to do this. Since you aren't a VO, then you likely don't know how much time an average VO already spends per week away from their family and other life loves and situations to help organize PFS for their community. Its quite bold to suggest adding more time to their schedule, when you don't know how much extra time they might actually have, or haven't personally experienced how much time it takes to be a VO.

I'm not complaining. I love what I do. But I don't think my wife (who participates in PFS with me--just not the same amount of time I participate) would appreciate me spending another 4 hours a week or so to do this.

But saying its optional is misrepresenting what you are suggesting. Because as a VO, I would feel obligated to do this for my community should it be offered up in the way that you've suggested. And while I can't speak for all the other VOs, I would wager that many of them would also feel obligated.

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


The solution is quite simple. If you don't want to go digital, and you don't want to lug lots of books around, then don't make a character using lots of books.
This is a terrible - even insulting - suggestion. If people paid for the books, then they have a right to use them. An even better 'simple' suggestion than yours is to not play games with GM's who are jerks.

How is it insulting? If you buy the books and you want to use them, and you make the choice to refuse all the other options available to you, then you are the one choosing to lug all those books around with you.

That's your choice. That isn't Paizo making you do anything.

And if you don't want to lug all those books around, and you refuse to entertain all the other options you have, then the solution is simple. Don't use all those books.

How is a GM being a Jerk by requiring you to follow the rules?

For me personally, I've only ever disallowed something at the table twice.

1) PaizoCon 2012 a guy had his buddy show up with him and they played at my table. He helped his buddy build a character with Hero Labs, which had all the options toggled. He helped him choose some options and didn't have a full understanding of how something worked. They also did not print out the descriptions of the options or even what book those options were in. I was like, "I can't let you use this if you don't know what it actually does. I can't just take a guess at what it does and go with that." Eventually we found the book it was in, and it didn't even come close to doing what the guy said it did. I was willing to allow it, based on the circumstances (brand new player, Hero Labs having all the options toggled, we were at a con), but if I'd allowed it based on his guess of what he thought he remembered it did, It would have changed the game.

2) This last Sunday. I had a guy who's grasp of the rules is growing, but being a relatively new player to this particular version of the game, doesn't know them real well yet. So when his 7th level character who had 6 Wizard caster levels was throwing out a Fireball for 8d6+19 damage, I had to have him explain that to me. Apparently Crossblooded sorcerer (orc/red dragon) + pyromancer gnome + evoker + Varisian Spell Tattoo allowed him to do this. But I wanted to read the text of the various abilities myself. I already knew about the crossblooded shenanigans and I also have a pyromancer gnome myself, but I wanted to read Varisian Spell Tattoo. He didn't have the book with him. He didn't even have a printed out copy. I might have allowed him to get away with it just that one time if he'd had anything that told me what the ability did and warned him that the next time he'd need to have a legal source with him. Since he plays at my table quite often, and all the GMs, coordinators, and VOs in my area talk to one another, he wouldn't have been able to get away with that again. I had to deny him the Varisian Spell Tattoo. He wasn't 100% happy, but he didn't argue and he accepted it and we moved on and fun was had for the rest of the scenario.

A GM following the rules does not make them a Jerk. The jerk is the person who puts their GM in a position where they have to make a choice to follow the rules or let someone get away with not following the rules.

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

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
Mazlith wrote:

How about you just take photos of all your books on your mobile device. Boom—proof.

I would agree with you - however, the powers above do not. They insist on players carrying weighty books around with them - for every single game. It doesn't matter if you were verified to own last week - you may have to verify again, and so you must lug those books around every single game you play.

This is silly, and it is why audits are rarely ever done. No GM wants to be a jerk. Simplify, improve the system, make it something that is reasonable - and you will improve the auditing system and thus increase the integrity of the society.

The number of books you have really has absolutely nothing to do with auditing a character.

Auditing doesn't happen, for the same reason that VOs won't want to spend an hour signing a paper. Very often they don't have the time to do an audit at all. And if they don't have the time to audit, they aren't going to have the time to do an audit in order to sign this paper.

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

Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
You are assuming a lot in that VOs just automatically have an extra hour to sign said boons.

What I am suggesting may take some time on the front end, but is a significant time saver for the remainder; plus, it encourages audits by simplifying the verification process. *No one* should grumble about producing a Product Verification boon - it is just a piece of paper. Given that grumbling is absurd over a piece of paper, *no one* should have a problem auditing their players either.

It is also optional for VO's - they do not have to do this. VO's are - by definition - a volunteer force. They may volunteer their time to sign off on Product Verification boons as they desire and in order to help their player base. Doing so is good for Paizo, and good for the players.

This plan can work.

Just like the ITS sheet didn't produce any grumbling?

I am not a fan of creating something like this that will essentially require me to spend extra hours per week of my time that I could be spending prepping a scenario, GM'ing, or otherwise doing other VO duties.

The solution is quite simple. If you don't want to go digital, and you don't want to lug lots of books around, then don't make a character using lots of books.

Until I got my tablet a couple years ago, I used to lug all my books all over the place. And I survived quite fine.

I'd probably actually do better at losing the weight I want to lose if I stopped using my tablet and started carrying my books everywhere again.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mazlith wrote:

How about you just take photos of all your books on your mobile device. Boom—proof.

This doesn't provide me with a verifiable source to look up the rule that you are presenting me with.

Despite my stars and longevity in PFS, there are still many splat books and rules that I have never read. I need a verifiable source to look up that rule.

Your printout of d20PFSRD.com and a picture of a book does me no good.

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

David Bowles wrote:
I thought season 5 backed it down to a party of five. Season 5 certainly SEEMED easier than season 4.

Overall I've noticed that the tier 1-5 were toned down in season 5 quite a bit, while the tier 7-11 were in some cases more difficult in season 5.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:

Oh well, guess I continue to avoid season 6.

How many times do people have to say that Season 6 is not going to be 100% tech based. That there will just be a handful of scenarios that are tech based, and we saw a large portion of those with the first 3 scenarios?

Andoran

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

unless it gets ruled otherwise, I treat all ability modifier/bonuses as a typed bonus as per that ability.

So regardless what ability or feat grants you the right to use some ability modifier as a bonus to modify something, you cannot stack two bonuses conferred from the same ability.

So you cannot get Dex to damage twice.

You cannot get Dex to Trip twice.

You cannot get Charisma to Saves twice.

You cannot get Wisdom to AC twice.

Unless there is some feat, ability or whatnot that specifically allows you to get the ability bonus twice.

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

You are assuming a lot in that VOs just automatically have an extra hour to sign said boons.

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

Congrats!

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

Please use spoiler tags in the future.

1. Is a module (Masks of the Living God), and so not a PFS scenario as best I can tell. So the only way you fail to get prestige in a module is by not finishing it.

2. I believe the GM was trying to make you buy stuff. If this is Among the Living, then there is no stipulation that you have to look pretty and can't bring your weapons. As a matter of fact, there is no social interaction in this one really.

3. I've played this one, and scanned it over just now. And I have no idea what you are talking about.

It sounds like you had a GM that was making stuff up.

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

Expect table variation.

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

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Benn Roe wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Giant killer robot with a glowy screen really ought to come under one of those obvious threats.
As has been repeatedly stated here, this particular killer robot has an explicit exception to this. It doesn't risk breaking fascination when it approaches, only when it attacks.
And only when it attacks the fascinated character.

I would argue that attacking my the party healer constitutes a pretty clear threat to me, especially if we are linked by a shield other.

The scarecrow entry only lists that the approach does not end the fascinated state, it does not seem to invalidate the other ways to end it.

Fascinated wrote:

A fascinated creature is entranced by a supernatural or spell effect. The creature stands or sits quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as Perception checks. Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect.
Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect.
A fascinated creature's ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action.

So at the very least, they should have gotten a new save, but I would argue it would end. Even if you remove the scarecrow from the equation, at the higher subtier, the encounter has another robot that is going to attack. This will definitely end the fascinated condition.

However the scenario writer might have a different understanding of the scarecrow ability, and thus listed the tactics in the scenario.

PRD: Scarecrow wrote:
Fascinating Gaze (Su) Target is fascinated, 30 feet, Will DC 14 negates. Fascination lasts as long as the scarecrow remains within 300 feet of the fascinated creature. The approach or animation of the scarecrow does not count as an obvious threat to the victim of this particular fascination effect (although the scarecrow's attack does count as an obvious threat and ends the fascination immediately). This is a mind-affecting effect. The save DC is Charisma-based.

I can see it interpreted either way. Basically the scarecrow fascinates you until it attacks you.

This specifically has slight differences in how it works to the standard way fascinate works.

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

Benn Roe wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Giant killer robot with a glowy screen really ought to come under one of those obvious threats.
As has been repeatedly stated here, this particular killer robot has an explicit exception to this. It doesn't risk breaking fascination when it approaches, only when it attacks.

And only when it attacks the fascinated character.

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

Trial by Machine:
To be fair, the stat block for the tech based scarecrow doesn't give you how the scarecrow abilities work. Its an easy mistake to make when, for whatever reason, I have to look up a statblock so that I know how the statblock presented to me works.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wanted to address the title of the post.

You can't "unintentionally" cheat.

Cheating means that you are purposefully not following the rules. This may also be considered malicious.

If you "unintentionally" don't follow the rules, that's called a mistake.

1 to 50 of 2,106 << 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.