|2 people marked this as a favorite.|
OldSkoolRPG wrote:I don't think this is the case. The design team has reached the conclusion that they don't intend double-dipping except when they do, but that doesn't mean that the "source" language was actually intended to mean that originally."Devil's Advocate" wrote:Source has always referred to the specific spell, feat, class/racial ability, not the some undefined broad category.You start off admitting that there have been a small group that disagrees but then say your view is just how it has always been. A majority of people holding an incorrect view doesn't magically make that view correct. The FAQ just confirmed that the majority was wrong all along, at least with regards to PF, not that they were right and now it has changed.
Eh, given such as the monk flurry ruling I wouldn't say that. Who can know what the developers intended to change in the move from 3.5. Plus with multiple people on the project there might not have even been a concrete intention. In any case, it does not seem unreasonable that they might have wanted to change the source of a bonus from the effect that grants the bonus to the appropriate ability modifier derived statistic, especially given the number in this thread that desired that when the situation had no ruling.
Anyway, that really doesn't matter. Developer intent is not necessarily the right or wrong choice to use. In this case it seems to me like an overly complicated and confusing choice for no apparent gain, and thus what I would consider a poor choice.