|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
As a kid come here I'm going to hit you" was the prelude to me spending 5 or so hours in the woods, making my dad come in to find me, then not leading him home until he was too tired (not the best sense of direction)
As a teen hitting really wasn't on the table. I think i "tied" with dad when i was 12 by diving between his legs, letting him hit the nightstand instead of me and almost taking him out at the knees. By 14 it was shrug off punch, grab by dad by neck , throw dad into wall. Neither were a common occurrence thankfully.
But what about that time that..no wait. Demon.
Or the time that... no wait, devil.
Or when.. no wait that was just Osprey using a thousand faces.
OH! I know when they.. drat that was some sort of golem.
Dammt, will smith was right
Please kill the print paradigm. Something like the DM prep site shouldn't be necessary.
In the quest to make scenarios shorter for print space by saying things like "Goblin" or "Superstitious sailor" dms have to print out MORE pages, because of spacing, and then flip back and forth.
Have to print out two files instead of one (not that hard at home, slightly harder at the copy store)
Having to carry the core rule book, four bestiaries, the npc codex, and the monster codex just isn't practical, nor is flipping back and forth between them on a tablet.
Getting a new DM to "pay for scenario, download scenario, run game" is hard enough, "pay for scenario, download scenario, go through scenario, find monsters and npcs, template monsters and NPCS" is a lot harder.
Amara lee scarfs down dumplings like there's no tomorrow, and needs to use magic to maintain her girlish figure.
Durvin Gests statue points towards his greatest archeological find ever.
Grandmaster torch is going to use the whispering tyrants staff to try to inflict all pathfinders with a lethal disease.
If you rub Tahonikepsu's belly, her back claw will thump into the ground hard enough to cause a small earthquake.
Ollysta Zadrian once had to get an atonement for removing a mattress tag.
Seekers souls are consumed by the 10. In fact the entire point of the pathfinder society is to find individuals who would otherwise be capable of taking over the world and devouring their souls to prevent the competition and feed the ten's hunger for powerful souls.
Louis IX wrote:
A "strength bonus" is, in fact, a "strength modifier that happens to be positive". That's exactly how it is defined. It is not, and has never been, a typed "bonus".
And a bonus is defined as a modifier that happens to be positive. So thats like saying its not a bird its a a warm-blooded egg-laying vertebrate with feathers, wings, and a beak
It was possible that there was some hypertechnical distinction and artificial difference between the two but if you need to split hairs that finely then you know you're walking the razors edge.
What, now? Aren't the dice I rolled my ability scores with the real source of the bonus? Am I prevented from using the same dice to gain other (untyped) bonuses?
"Your dice" is not a usable number or value that you add to a d20 roll, just like rain isn't a usable thing to hook a water pipe up to, but a lake is.
Seriously, you've got to try this. Held action, creature charges you. It takes
DOUBLE damage from the weapon + your goodies, probably killing it before it reaches you.
Put it on a reach weapon. Then it gets
Double damage from the weapon + your goodies
Jeff Merola wrote:
So the fact that they're not listed in the two big lists of "here are all the bonus types in the game" doesn't mean anything?
Is it called the big list of all the bonus types in the game or are you inferring that?
Rules of the game wrote:
The basic rule to remember when combining two or more bonuses is this: two or more bonuses of different type stack, and two or more bonuses of the same type overlap. In general, a bonus's name indicates its type. A bonus with no name has no type and it stacks with any other bonus, but not with itself.
If the name is constitution bonus it doesn't need to be spelled out that its type is constitution bonus.
If its unnamed then it still doesn't stack with itself.
You also previously claimed that it wasn't the majority held community opinion in 3.5
I said you haven't shown that it was, you haven't, and if you do its still irrelevant: that 51% of community thought you could would not mean that you could.
From your wording it seems that you are seeing some posts that say "it doesn't stack" ? If so this shouldn't come out of the blue.
It was unclear then but its clear now.I disagree on the unclear before, but I do agree it's most definitely clear now that a ruling has been made. And while it may always have intended to be this way for Pathfinder, they really should've made it clear a long time ago.
It took a while for the system expansion to get to the point that they had to watch this carefully. one funny build getting 4x dex to one saving through is one thing, but the new cookie cutter pouncemonk with 2x wisdom to ac is a little harder to ignore.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Well, given what I posted above
Which is hardly conclusive. Its a very hyper literal argument to try to claim that your constitution bonus is only CALLED a constitution bonus but not defined as a bonus type. Similar word play could break just about any rule in the game. Sometimes the game is that literal and you have to do that, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
the fact that I can point out a hell of a lot more threads online agreeing with the interpretation of "the ability isn't the source" than I can to the contrary for 3.5, and the fact that it took the PDT 6 years to come out and say that this has apparently always been their rule...
Which is at best an appeal to the masses. It doesn't mean anything, particularly when the option that gives people more abilities and more pluses usually garners a lot of support from people that want more pluses.
Well, it seems pretty likely that in 3.5 at least, the source wasn't the ability modifier.
It was unclear then but its clear now.
The rules are written largely for (and occasionally by) living, breathing creatures with bilateral symmetry, 4 limbs, a head, and opposable thumbs. The further away from that assumption you get, the wonkier the rules are going to become. That there's no speed bumps in between dragonstyle and a vampire paladin is a pretty good track record for a rules clarification. Most other clarifications have reacted wonkily with far more.
Devils Advocate wrote:
ctually, no. We are speaking about 3.0 - PF here. Until now, Source has always been the specific thing, (Feat, Trait, Class Feature, Spell, etc. . .) that altered or granted the modification
That's a mite circular. It assumes that the source was the feat in question, which was one of the points of contention. Source was vague until the clarification.
I haven't seen anything that would indicate that what you're saying was how it worked in 3.5 either.
Each ability is its own bonus. A strength bonus is a strength bonus. A Wisdom bonus is a wisdom bonus. Ability is just a category.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Just a quick note guys: knock off the grar and accusations. There's absolutely no point in arguing over who was more rude or who insulted who (please utilize the flagging system). It has no place in the Rules forum or our messageboards in general. I would encourage you to discuss the question at hand here, or move on.
As far as I'm concerned, this thread is evidence enough that the new FAQ rule (and it IS a new rule) is quite confusing to the average roleplayer.
A positive modifier is a bonus.
The source is the number on the sheet.
Nothing here is new.
The FAQ itself is confusingly worded (mostly that they're not changing the wording on paladins divine grace, which would require an errata and errata are only done on new printings) but the end result is very clear and easy for new players to understand: Each of your ability bonuses is a bonus, bonuses don't stack with themselves.
And people are frustrating me when they say it was impossible to see coming. So THEY Should stop posting!
That doesn't work either.
To be clear (again) That this WAS coming wasn't clear. That this MIGHT be coming was.
It is not providing any benefit to this conversation. I'm sure that's not your intention but you might consider not doing that. Unnecessary friction is unnecessary.
It is necessary. This has happened before. It will happen again.
People think that the rules interact perfectly: that they never contradict, they never imply more than one thing, they never have more than one equally valid meaning.
What falls out of that philosophy is the idea that if you can make an argument by the rules that you can do something, then that thing is legal regardless of any other rules to the contrary, game balance, sense or logic.
This is an especially bad approach when an argument gives your character a mechanical advantage. Instead of comparing the relative merits for and against something in a holistic fashion, people focus in like a laser one the ONE thing saying that yes, they can get more +s and more monster decapitating goodness. Everything that says no gets ignored everything else that says no because the rules can't possibly contradict right?
Sense, reason, logic, and game balance are just as important considerations as raw when looking for the meaning of the words. This game doesn't run on raw and when people forget that weird things happen.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Okay, so you hung out on the charop boards, saw the builds that stacked the same stat to everything, and still came to the conclusion that none of it worked and that wasn't how the community assumed it worked? Help me out, I'm confused here.
Or just never saw those builds? Its not that confusing
Because this is a big design issue with far reaching effects and PFS tries very hard NOT to make rules rulings in that case. Its completely logical for the organized play section not to try to do the design teams job.
So no, I think you're incorrect about how obvious it was. Just because it was obvious to you does not mean it was obvious to everyone.
That I was right wasn't that obvious.
That this was a real possibility that I was right was.
No stacking is a pretty basic rule of the game, and if you're deep enough "under the hood" to be trying to hotwire dex to dex you should have figured out that this MIGHT come back to bite you in the but.
The rules are not written with objective, clear, consistent, and perfect terminology. They intersect, react weirdly, contradict, get nonsensical, and very often have two perfectly valid interpretations that force a human being into making a rational decision wherein either one could be the "correct" answer as decided by an all too human design team.
You have been here long enough to know that. You should not have any faith left in perfection of the rules to shake here.
(To be clear, the above is meant to be humorous and sarcastic.)
Whether or not it's your intent, you are arguing that people who don't think like you are foolish. Please stop that.
I can't stop people from reading into things. And I find your above insinuations against eggplant prices totally unconscionable.
Considering that it was not only banned, but banned with NO rewrite allowed it was a better indication that double dipping was against the intent of the rules.
Yes, but in specific topics on a forum that many people don't even bother visiting most of the time. It may certainly have been on your radar, but as we can see from this topic there are some people who have been blindsided by it. Let's not forget that not everyone reads these topics.
Its not a matter of the boards. Its a very well known and important rule that you can't stack the same thing with itself. If you were doing something that kinda sorta may have been that you should have known that you kinda sorta maybe might not ought to be doing that.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Perhaps then you shouldn't blame an entire side of an argument because you have a problem with what I said then?
As to the alleged borderline insult, I don't think there is a nice way to tell someone that they were munchkining, got busted, and can't complain that they didn't see it coming when people were standing out there with "the end is near!" warning signs.
I take it you never hung out on the charop boards, then, as dozens of builds were made around figuring out how you could get the same stat to as many possible things.
This would be incorrect.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Okay, borderline insulting people
As opposed to the folks a few pages back crossing the border and vacationing in Tijuana mexico for a week with you can't read, you didn't read my argument, you fail reading comprehension 101 comments that were not only insulting, but also the sole pretext for rejecting arguments that would have pointed them in the right direction.
who were operating under the same assumption that the community used since 3.5
I've seen nothing to suggest that this was the assumption that the community used.
of "the source is the class feature/feat/racial feature/spell that gives you the plus to something" is not exactly helping endear this argument to the people it affects.
Saying 'I got the wrong answer' is understandable. Saying 'there was no hint at this!' is not, since the source argument has been around literally for years. If you built your character on a foundation of sand...
Now the one with twice the same stat is worse.
There is no now. It never worked. The argument for it working had to resort to epistemic nihlism about a bonus being a bonus and arbitrarily decide what a source was. If you try to skate the bleeding edge of rules interpretation because it gives you a mechanical advantage you should expect to get nicked by the razor on occasion.
That is stupid. As I said if the ruling was that by stacking same stats you only get half the benefit from the second time I had lots less issues.
And would be completely arbitrary with no rules support. That's not how anything else stacks.
And multiclassing is a lot of investment. Considering that it's no big issue if the PC in question is a little better at something he does it for.
Its pretty easy for a lot of classes to multiclass.
Using multiple stats is still a really good deal when you build your character the way it was always intended to work. . Its a lot easier to have two good stats for +3 +3 than one huge stat for a whopping +6.
Why is it good to kill options and by that diversity?
Why do you need to phrase your argument against something that didn't happen?
Those characters were trying to do something that simply did not work by the rules. If you need to ask why that needed to be stopped, you're asking why there need to be rules rather than people doing whatever they wanted.
Because two stats are a harder investment than one. Multiple stats take up
1) either more point buy or two good dice rolls depending on character generation. An 18 and a 10 costs 17 points. Two 18's costs 34 points.
2) Much more expensive magical items that boost stats. a +4 headband is 16k. A +4/+4 headband is 40k.
3) Twice as long to increase via your level based stat increases. (8th level for a +1, 16th level for a +2)
Looks legal to me
With the -1 int mod, you get 2 for being a paladin, -1 skill point per level, so 1. If you put your favored class bonus into skills instead of hitpoint you can still get 2 skill points.
From a slightly min max point of view, if you drop your int down to 5 you still get the same number of skill points. But at that point you think forest gump is smrt so its up to you if you want to role play that.
If those characters were double dipping their stats they're not collateral damage they were the intended targets.
and undead anti paladins are still in question.
Really, really not worried there.
Dragonstyle, as you mentioned, needed to be FAQ'd
For the incredibly literal, yes.
and confidence in the rules as a readily-accessible straight-forward system has been deeply shaken.
Really, thats like shaking your beliefs in the government as a mom and apple pie organization. You really should have lost that belief before now.
Harumphs. Thats actually a pretty good argument for a moms ban.
it's pretty obvious that the dev team consulted only themselves on this matter rather than reach out to the community to harvest the broad base of research and opinions on the matter
What's your evidence of this? Because they agreed with the other half + of the community instead of the half you were in? Because you think your arguments are so good that they must have been ignored in order to reach an opposite conclusion? There's no other difference between the two except where YOU were standing.
Game balance and intent are legitimate methods of rules interpretation, and will get you what is ultimately the right answer far more often than a slavish devotion to a raw. Despite what raw only devotees say, raw is often ambiguous if not out right contradictory because it is the product of multiple people writing something that sounds good when you read it rather than a unified attempt at encoding law. There's a reason that law texts sound the way they do, and a book that read that way simply wouldn't sell. Not that the rules couldn't use a few tweaks here and there, but you can't read something written in plain English like a technical manual or vice versa without going off the rails on occasion.
So far the only collateral damage of this was dragonstyle, where the intent was pretty clear anyway. Everything else that was stopped from stacking was never intended to stack anyway. I think thats a very good indication that this was pretty clearly how it was intended to work all along.
Alright, so to clarify, I'd be able to ride the animal companion, and avoid penalties by having an exotic saddle or Trick Riding, yes?
A while back mike brock made some confusing posts about exotic saddles and magical saddles and belt(saddle slots). dig dig dig
I believe you're ok with just an exotic saddle. You may hit a small amount of table variance with it.
Game Master Scotty wrote:
Come on. You were a teenager once. The point of talking to an adult is not to give them information. The point of talking to them is to avoid being yelled at, which adults seem to think its acceptable to do to kids on a near constant basis and starts to grate after a while.