|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I believe the impetus for the ruling was the Monk/sacred fist trying to double up on their wisdom bonus to AC.
As a clarification rather than a change, this will take PP to get rid of if it cost you something.
The main problem here is you have three variables:
1) Shiny New system vs old system
So in that mix it makes it hard to tell if the quest system is something to expand on.
Keep in mind that you don't just need water to drink, you need water mostly to grow food: and a LOT of it. I had a brief stint in africa, and comparing the amount of water even a small villiage needed for agriculture vs what a low level cleric can get with create water had the cleric orders of magnitude from where they needed to be.
There are also a lot of legitimate reasons for it, before our admittedly well based stereotype for poor social skills.
I read a rule this way, the dm read it that way, am I right? am I wrong? Or is that one of those many gray areas of interpretation/ common practice?
I don't have the scenario. Is the thing that irks me in there?
Graarrrrrrrg! (letting it out before a bunch of strangers will have less impact than venting it with the people you have to game with next week)
Stephen Ede wrote:
On thge other hand if the Animals Int score reaches 10+ I think you have to be kidding yourself to think it wouldn't be perfectly capable of acting on conversational suggestions, even if not directed at them. Handle Animal is a moot skill requirement at that point.
How often did wilbur get mr ed to do what he wanted though?
Well, even taking in multiple locations its still one week. There's a huge difference between getting people to play for a few hours and getting them to make it a hobby if not a part time job.
I haven't seen any organized play for it here but I'm kind of out in the middle of nowhere as far as gaming goes.
Every build draws complaints. People complain about the sort of damage that folks do with a 18 strength and two handed weapon is OVERPOWERED!. People also complain that the sort of damage you do with an 18 strength and a two handed weapon are insufficiently powered for scenarios and not pulling their weight. I don't think that you can listen to every complaint.
Optimization is like driving. Anyone going faster than you is a freaking lunatic, but anyone going slower than you needs to learn how to drive. You of course drive "just right" and that holds for most values of you.
"Well, there are already OP builds available, so what's the harm in one more?
I think that the argument "this feat is not as good as using a 700 gp item from the core rule book thats been in the game for 15 years" is about as good as its possible to make in favor of the option NOT being over powered. High strength, two handed weapon and guy with bow are not overpowered options, they're the standard.
" and "Monks should be able to solo combat encounters, too" are not compelling arguments for legalization. And even if that's not exactly what's being said, I think that's what a lot of people are reading between the lines.
You cannot stop someone from misreading an argument so that they only hear what speaks to their preconceptions.
Monks should have an option to be relevant damage dealers in encounters. I do not think that they are unless they do some very unmonk like things, like swing a temple sword to go through DR or become a zen archer. DR is almost constant after level 7 in many scenarios and monks can't have a golfbag full of fists.
Encounters at most levels tend to be very mobile, making it almost impossible for the monk to combine their two main assets: the ability to flit quickly around the battlefield and to open a can of whoopass while standing still.
The idea of banning MoMS seems to have been dropped from the conversation. I don't know if it's because the reality of that would be a much bigger hit to power builds than the loss of Pummeling Charge or if it's just not considered a realistic possibility.
It would require a major re write of many, many characters at this point and I don't think that its a reasonably likely outcome, especially as I haven't seen a peep of complaint about MoMS until now.
Jeff Merola wrote:
You added the word "just" there. Take that out and try again.