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

wraithstrike's page

29,490 posts. Alias of concerro.


RSS

1 to 50 of 29,490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

It is common knowledge that when an ability says it does X, and X contradicts a general rule then X wins. Maybe some people need an FAQ asking if specific overrules general.

Most likely they are just being jerks because they dont like the rule in PFS, if they try to say "I know what it means, but the RAW says differently". I am sure they dont have dead people walking around.


Ughbash wrote:

You are correct, they are different things.

But they SHOULD in my opinion relate. CR is supposed give an estimate of a challenge for characters of a certain level. The different rules for calculating CR and Level annoy me :)

Example: Lets say a party of 4 people all made Serpentman Wizards.

10th level wizard + serpentman is level 12.

They gang up on a single 10 level wizard serpentman CR 14.

CR 2 levels above the party level should be a challenge, it obviously would not be. I would thus prefer a unified way of adding to the CR and to the player.

If you want a challenging fight then don't use one monster. A CR X fight using one monster, is easier than one with the same CR made up of multiple monsters.

Also the the creature roles are in the bestiaries, along with the rules for how they work. There is no need to explain it again in another book since they don't explain it in other published products.


Tormsskull wrote:
Snorter wrote:
I think some people are misinterpreting what is actually meant by those saying "That's just flavour", "Flavour can be changed.", and interpreting this to mean that the speakers want to play games with limited or no flavour.

I don't think it is that, I think its that some people place more importance on the descriptive text than others. I've never been a fan of "you can just ignore the descriptive text or make up your own, as long as you don't change the mechanics."

The descriptive text is usually a good summary of what the mechanics are supposed to represent. If the mechanics and the descriptive text are not in sync, I'd prefer to change the mechanics to match the descriptive text than the other way around.

But it really all comes down to your play style and preferences. A lot of things I hear people suggest on the forums would never fly at a real game.

Rynjin wrote:
I think you misunderstand what I mean.

Its probably due to the terminology you're using. Game engine versus "the game."

I would not say they would not fly in real game. They might not be the game everyone wants to play however depending on what the suggestion was. Many of these "suggestions" are taking place at someone's table, even the suggestions that won't fly at my table.


Whether it is worth keeping is up to you. Many people use hexes more than they use spells. If you feel like you cam make up the difference with spells I would not worry about it. However if your build is based around evil eye you might want to try to build something else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

This is going to be a serious pain to explain in every game, to every player, and every DM.

I am know I am going get a bunch "where is that written?", and I have to explain, again, that it is in the unwritten rules, that the FAQ references, without really saying that.

Me too. I understand how it works now, but I am trying to think of a way to explain it without creating more questions. I am thinking it is easier to houserule the "in place of" and " add X to___" as working together, while only not allowing it on a case by case basis. I will inform the players it is a houserule so they won't expect it to work under another GM however.


Level also influence things like BAB, base saving throws, skill ranks, and so on. By the time you are dealing with CR X your base number being off could work very much against you. This has been covered in depth in other threads, and it has never been seen as a good idea by the majority.


Driver_325yards wrote:
Antimony wrote:

I think you need to keep in mind that the poison will not remain viable indefinitely if you simply milk it from your pet snake. That's why they have a Craft (Poisonmaking) skill - it involves more than just squeezing a snake head or crushing up some apple seeds. You need stabilizing agents, air-tight containers, and so forth.

I would say that a character with ranks in Craft (Poisonmaking) would know how to milk a snake as a part of the process, and part of the gp cost would be provided by the viper, with the rest going towards other necessary physical and chemical materials.

You don't need craft (poisonmaking) to turn poison into poison. Where is that in the rules? You use craft poison to turn non-poison into poison.

Where in the world in the rules does it say that you need stablizing agents for poison? You are just making stuff up now.

Since poison is something that can be purchased you do have to be able to craft it. You show me the text that says something about "milking poison". I will wait.

However I do have this for you:

Quote:

Crafting Poison

You can make poison with the Craft (alchemy) skill. The DC to make a poison is equal to its Fortitude save DC. Rolling a natural 1 on a Craft skill check while making a poison exposes you to the poison. This does not consume the poison. If you have the poison use class feature, you do not risk accidentally poisoning yourself when applying poison.


Driver_325yards wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The rules do not allow for milking. You are intended to buy the poison.

Milking a snake is in the rules. Why does everyone keep saying that it is not? It is called the Handle Animal skill.

Handle Animal says, in part,

Quote:


Handle an Animal: This task involves commanding an animal to perform a task or trick that it knows. If the animal is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action.

Now, I can already imagine what those against this would say. "There is no trick that allows you to milk your snake." Now while I don't see any reason why you could not teach your snake a trick that is not on the list, I will not belabor the point because there is this

Quote:


Push an Animal: To push an animal means to get it to perform a task or trick that it doesn’t know but is physically capable of performing. This category also covers making an animal perform a forced march or forcing it to hustle for more than 1 hour between sleep cycles. If the animal is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action.
.

So, even if you animal does not know the "milk trick" - any PC with Handle Animal of 5 of higher will eventually be able to milk their snake with enough tries. After all, it only takes a 25 to push, releasing venom is clearly something that a snake is capable of, and retries are not an issue with Handle Animal

So there you have it, the milk your snake issue is solved, let the chatter begin. I should have put this in the next Optibuilds' Skills PDF, but oh well.

Milking the snake is something you do to the animal, not something the animal does, so it is not in the rules, and saying you can make an animal do something by pushing does not mean "it is in the rules".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

I guess we should first ask the question; are we playing a game because it's mechanics are fun or because it has a great story? If the mechanics are why you are playing that game then optimization is clearly not a bad thing... on the other hand if it's the story you wish to play through then yes optimization is horrible toward the experience.

I am reminded of Star Wars: the Old Republic MMO. It has eight fully developed story paths and it is built on a rather typical MMO mechanic system. I started playing it when it went free play and I fell in love with a couple of the excellent stories; BUT I always had the horrible grinding mechanic common to MMOs getting in my way of enjoying the story. Eventually I gave up trying to experience those stories and it makes me sad, but it wasn't worth it to plow through countless hours of grinding to level just so I could play through the next chapter. In this case you DEFINITELY have mechanics getting in the way.

In a game like Civilization V however the story is clearly NOT why I play the game; I play for the mechanics here. It really doesn't even have a story beyond the vague story of your civilizations rise or fall.

I agree. To me the game is the mechanics. You can attach a story to several different mechanics, and the story might need some tweeking, but on many occasions the story can remain true to itself. If I say we are playing Pathfinder people will assume I am using the d20 rule set. If I run the same story, and I say we are playing Pathfinder, but I use the ruleset for Shadowrun the players will likely accuse me of false advertising.

PS: I also hate grinding. I am playing final fantasy 1 for the NES, and I want to advance the plot. To make this easier I am using a cheat which gives me more XP than normal, and does not split XP between party members.


Nope. You will have to go through the GM.


The witchfire is strong for a CR 9 if you are not ready for an incorporeal flyer, but one fire resistant spell drops the average DPR by a lot.

Most groups however can handle a flying and invisible creatures by level 9.


This will need further explanation. I get the basic idea, but I still think, this is not clear enough for most people to understand..


I think the previous interpretation by many in the community was better. Just add in a special rule to stop double dipping. Yeah I know levels nor nothing has been identified as another source, but with this issue of unknown rules it just means they have not been noted yet.

If there are any other sources we don't know about I would like to have them noted now while this is still a hot topic. If another hidden/unknown source comes up I don't think it will go over well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dmchucky69 wrote:

So I keep reading other threads where folks keep trashing Pathfinder in their enthusiasm over the shiny new game that recently has taken the gaming community by storm. It's kind of like going to one friend's house for dinner and spending the entire meal talking about how much you like another friend's cooking. It seems kind of distasteful to me.

I don't want to use this thread to throw that gaming system under the bus. What I do want to do, is find other posters that are staying the course with Pathfinder rather than jumping ship for 5th.

The purpose of this thread is to say thanks to Lisa, Erik, James, Jason, the other James, Wesley and the rest by telling them how great their system still is and why you love it enough to stay faithful to her.

I love the complexity of the rules, the well-written plots of the Paths, and the level of discourse the Paizo staff has always shared with their website visitors.

Who is with me, and why did you choose to stay with Pathfinder?

And let's try to keep the thread positive if at all possible.

The system will always be criticized, especially by those of us that like it. I don't really worry about it. If they are on the Paizo boards instead of the other forums then they have not really left yet. :)


After seeing your link and each bullet getting its own attack roll, assuming I am not misreading the author, then I would give SA to both, but I would have also given Scorching Ray sneak attack to every ray. As for the the PDT team will do, they might also make the double barreled gun also only allow SA once. I am thinking that is what they will do once a ruling comes down.


ElementalXX wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:


If it is many "attacks" with one action then SA likely applies only once. That is how it is with scorching ray and manyshot.
You realize you are saying full attacks apply sneak attack only once?

I did not say when you use Manyshot every attack for that full round can not use sneak attack. I am saying that the "free" attack made as part of one attack roll would not count for sneak attack.


It depends on the creature. In these two cases they did not put the duration but they should have. They need to be FAQ'd so they can be fixed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bane Wraith wrote:
Sorry mate. Unconvinced, and thus at a standstill. By your logic, Anyone that Fails a saving throw should be able to identify whatever hit them every single time, regardless of knowledge checks, because there's no text that explicitly states they can't.

That is not his logic so that is not what he is saying. He actually said a knowledge check is needed. Yes, I am aware this wont change your mind, but this post should clear up any misunderstandings, and avoid derailing due to misapplications of ideas.


Bane Wraith wrote:


wraithstrike is right though; by RAW, you don't even need that to roll the knowledge(arcana) check. The player/GM can just roll, regardless of how much their character has witnessed, or hasn't witnessed.

I was not saying you dont have to roll the knowledge check. I was saying that you do not need to be aware of the spell being cast to make the knowledge check. Once you are targeted you can make the knowledge check.

PS: I think you just had a typo, now that I am reading it again, but I just want to be sure.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Why is level implied as a source bonus? The only thing this FAQ addresses was untyped stat bonuses. nothing about level. If you guys keep this up you'll derail this and people will get confused. I can understand if you're upset at the ruling, I don't like it, I felt double dipping was fine. But there's no reason to say that this makes a rule that it doesn't talk about at all. Up until they say level is a source or a type it's not.

This is a good point. The FAQ question specifically addresses ability bonuses, not other bonuses. Of course, it is reasonable to consider other bonuses also falling under this ruling, as there is little distinction between them.

I do note that Challenge says it causes extra damage equal to the cavalier's level, where as Precise Strike says it adds level to damage. Is this distinction important? Well, I can't say.

+1. That is why we need language that is more clear on what a source is. If they want to say spells/feats/etc can become secondary sources then they need to let us know what else can push them to be secondary sources. Is it levels, HD, etc etc?
Well, until they say anything other than your stats to become a secondary source nothing else is a secondary source.

The problem is that it won't be said, even if they see us constantly doing it incorrectly on the boards until someone makes an FAQ. The inquisitor double dipping was a common tactic here, and so was flurrying with a single monk weapon. They even had it in official products.

Since they are saying this is not a rule change, the ability stat taking over as a primary source was the rule before they said something, so them not saying does not mean it is not the rule. It just means we don't know about it.


Undone wrote:
Legowaffles wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I think you phrased the question incorrectly. What should be asked is "Do levels count as sources of a bonus like ability scores do?"

There is a big difference between the two questions and ability scores counting as a source now is why you can't stack them.

Sadly, given the new FAQ effectively gives Ability Score Modifiers a Bonus Type, I'd say this is actually a valid question.

I phrased it poorly.

Sorry.
My bad.

I still think the question is valid despite my poor phrasing.

Any bonus from a level is an untyped bonus, and a level itself is not a bonus. However any number you get by virtue of a level could possibly consider the level as a source, which is why I think that is the better question. Hopefully however when they (PDT) do an expansion on the FAQ they can answer that question also.


If it is many "attacks" with one action then SA likely applies only once. That is how it is with scorching ray and manyshot


Pendagast wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
The archaeologist archetype not getting disable device.
I did not like that either, but it was done on purpose by the person that created it.

explain 'on purpose'

not wanting to step on rogues toes?

Pretty much. Ah,I see TOZ had provided the link I was about to provide.


Why is that hostile tingle not grounds for a knowledge arcana check? So far by RAW it only comes from spells, and a knowledge check just means you know something. As an example if someone describes something in my field I can recognize it without being told what the topic is. Why would someone who is knowledgeable about magic need to see a spell being cast?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you phrased the question incorrectly. What should be asked is " Do levels count as sources of a bonus like ability scores do?"

There is a big difference between the two questions and ability scores counting as a source now is why you can't stack them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:

The whole "you can house rule it" is a cop out. If you have to house rule something to make the game work, the game is messed up to begin with. We didn't have to house rule anything to limit a magic user's impact in 1e, since the rules themselves, if followed, made casting in combat difficult.

3x, and, after they had a chance to fix it but didn't (and basically banned everyone who was mechanically correct but rude to the "we can just house rule it" cheerleading squad), Pathfinder, has the imbalance built in. 3x took away every mechanical limitation to spell casting AD&D contained, and took away a lot of what made non-magical characters competitive.

I hope they decide they don't need to be restrained by "backward compatibility" when Pathfinder 2e becomes necessary. Maybe they can actually fix everything (or at least a lot of) what was wrong with 3x.

I would not say it does not work. I would say it does not work for everyone's game. One also has to consider that PF changes at certain levels, and that is part of the problem. It needs to be the same game from 1 to 20 for the most part, if the intent is for it to work for more people's games, while still allowing for playstyle differences. However in its current state the game changes enough that certain people are better off not going above or below level ___ depending on what they want.


This is an interesting thread. I might use it to make some house rules.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
The archaeologist archetype not getting disable device.

I did not like that either, but it was done on purpose by the person that created it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Why is level implied as a source bonus? The only thing this FAQ addresses was untyped stat bonuses. nothing about level. If you guys keep this up you'll derail this and people will get confused. I can understand if you're upset at the ruling, I don't like it, I felt double dipping was fine. But there's no reason to say that this makes a rule that it doesn't talk about at all. Up until they say level is a source or a type it's not.

This is a good point. The FAQ question specifically addresses ability bonuses, not other bonuses. Of course, it is reasonable to consider other bonuses also falling under this ruling, as there is little distinction between them.

I do note that Challenge says it causes extra damage equal to the cavalier's level, where as Precise Strike says it adds level to damage. Is this distinction important? Well, I can't say.

+1. That is why we need language that is more clear on what a source is. If they want to say spells/feats/etc can become secondary sources then they need to let us know what else can push them to be secondary sources. Is it levels, HD, etc etc?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
so far the rule is there is only source changing if something is giving an untyped ability bonus so that it's not a ability source instead of what it was previously. There are no unwritten rules, and there are no other source hierarchy. Unless they say something this is the only time the source can change. So there aren't multiple nested sources, and no other sources have changed. Stop trying to make this seem like a bigger issue than it is. I feel like you're just trying to cause problems by willfully "misunderstanding" what is being said. If this isn't the case it's how you're coming off. So if you have unaddressed concerns please share those.

Questions have been popping up a lot, and with some abilities I definitely understand. This explanation(FAQ) is muddying the waters a lot. I understand that they don't want double dipping for an ability score, but I think there was another way to do it than by saying ____ is a source except for when ____, however a bonus equal to X stacks with a bonus from X.

I have a good idea for how this works out, but I still think it can be written so that it is easier to understand.


Bane Wraith wrote:

A kitsune with magical tails gains Charm Person and many other manipulative enchantment spells as spell-like abilities. NO components to them being cast. Yet still perfectly identifiable, as they are spell-like abilities, IF you manage to detect it.

Kitsune in human form enters a crowded bar. Sits in a corner. Does the poop-face for a brief moment, without anyone actually noticing. They're casting Charm Person on the bartender (no verbal/somatic components). They then approach the bar. To their dismay, it turns out the bartender actually has knowledge(Arcana). What happens?

If the bartender failed the throw, they're charmed. The game goes on as per usual. When that Charm Person finally expires, they might notice! Oh s&&#! Magic shenanigans have been at work here! They roll Knowledge(Arcana) and realize; That funny-looking human cast Charm Person on him. Maybe he should alert the authorities.

If the bartender Succeeded the saving throw, a little tingle goes off in their head, as per saving throw. They *know* that some malicious voodoo is going on. But they have absolutely Nothing else to go on. Based on that, they Cannot use Knowledge(Arcana) to identify the spell used, because they "cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack". For all they know, it could have been that Witch that passed through town the day before, somehow trying a hex. The kitsune manages to arouse no suspicion, and leaves.

My little post with the various scenarios was a way to clarify that. It was also my way to show it's a matter of specific vs. general.

Are we in full agreement, now?

Per RAW no. The knowledge arcana section only says that you have to be targeted. It does not say that you have to see the spell or SLA being cast. Maybe tje sensation you feel when you are targeted is enough to say what the spell is.

RAI, I am not sure if the limitation is supposed to be a general rule which is overwritten by knowledge arcana or if you can use knowledge arcana on mental, but not physical spells or something else.

I do think this is worth an FAQ however.


Carrion Crown


Ascalaphus wrote:
*shrug* There have been rumours that double-dipping the same ability wasn't kosher for years. If you do it anyway, you know you're in dubious territory.

There are always rumors (disagreements) about how a rule works so by that logic someone is always in dubious territory.


I am sure this new FAQ will require a deeper explanation and maybe some examples.


prototype00 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
prototype00 wrote:

NOOooooooOOO!!! MY BUILD IS RUINED! Ruined I say!

No not really, the Monk/Sacred Fist is still the most powerful iteration of the Unarmed style fighter-ish. It was a nice bonus, but now that it is settled, most DMs won't take as much umbrage when it is brought to their table.

I do feel sorry for all the Inquisitors though, but judging from how people were constantly comparing them favorably in role to the Warpriest, they needed to be taken down a peg.

prototype00

I still think they are better than the warpriest overall, and that is before I started to stack ability scores. :)

Hey, Base Warpriest I'm inclined to agree with you. But Sacred Fist? I think the damage output is at least even, if not better (Inquisitor might still edge out in non-combat situations).

prototype00

Fair enough. I was just thinking of the base warpriest.


Bane Wraith wrote:

...Are my communicative skills that poor?

The scenarios provided were to clarify whether or not it was possible to deduce the nature of the spell. In all scenarios a Knowledge(Arcana) check is needed to identify it afterwards.

The clause in the saving throw text, "but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack", DIRECTLY prevent the identification of spells via the aforementioned skill. You cannot know the nature of the spell, relying solely to a successful saving throw, Period.

The "overcomplicating things" is due to that one overlap; where a successful saving throw is made, and no other factor is present to use Knowledge(Arcana) on.

If you would argue that the clause in the saving throw text would Not prevent the identification of a spell based based solely on a successful saving throw, then I challenge you to present what you think it does prevent.

I thought I handled that in my last post, but I will try to explain it again in a slightly different manner. For knowledge arcana it does not say you have to witness the saving throw. It only says that you have to be targeted.

You know you are targeted when that hostile tingle comes into being.

Going back to the magic chapter the "can not deduce" restriction is only on spells that do not have physical affects. It is not on all spells.

The knowledge arcana check does not repeat this restriction so I can see it as intending to bypass it, but even if it works with the rule in the magic chapter then it only stops spell with no physical affect.

Restating a previous claim--> RAW you could not use knowledge arcana to identify a spell such as charm person since it does not have a physical affect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Each class will needs its own thread.

2. Do a forum search. All of those threads are just copies of any other thread on the same class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rikkan wrote:

Is this FAQ purely for ability bonuses? Or does it include other referential bonuses as well?

Like say, if I play a daring cavalier, when I use challenge I add my level to damage and if I pick up precise strike I also add my level to damage. Are those considered to be the same source?

And what about orange ioun stones? They add an untyped caster level bonus. If I have multiple ioun stones are they considered to be different sources (different ioun stones) or the same source?

It is clarifying when ability based bonuses don't stack, from what I understand, but the "level based damage" is a good question.


prototype00 wrote:

NOOooooooOOO!!! MY BUILD IS RUINED! Ruined I say!

No not really, the Monk/Sacred Fist is still the most powerful iteration of the Unarmed style fighter-ish. It was a nice bonus, but now that it is settled, most DMs won't take as much umbrage when it is brought to their table.

I do feel sorry for all the Inquisitors though, but judging from how people were constantly comparing them favorably in role to the Warpriest, they needed to be taken down a peg.

prototype00

I still think they are better than the warpriest overall, and that is before I started to stack ability scores. :)


I have always looked at knowledge arcana as you needing to see the spell in some form. If it was something like charm person you could not identify it. If it was a fireball then you would be able to identify it.

Also from way way I read the OP's question you could not identify the spell even if you saw the spell and had spellcraft, which is why I looked at it as a thought exercise.

I just noticed the "Identify a spell that just targeted you Arcana 25 + spell level" for knowledge arcana. I did not know the line existed until now. I only knew about the "Identify a spell effect that is in place".

The magic chapter says no if it has no obvious physical affect. The fact that you succeed on the spell does not mean that the spell does not do physical damage. It only means that you did not take any physical damage form the spell. As an example finger of death does physical damage whether you actually take damage from it or not. Before anyone reading this gets off topic I know that finger of death causes damage even if you make the save, but for this conversation I am pretending it does not have a secondary affect.

In addition on a made save you do feel something hostile so you should get a knowledge check. Now if the spell does no physical affect such as charm person, and it otherwise fits the 2nd to last condition set, then I agree that you do not get a knowledge check.


If they are not going to stack then they might as well be typed bonuses. My RAW reading of them before was the only reason I said they were not typed, but they are behaving that way. I would rather see them as a typed bonus, than as a source.

I guess the PDT team does not want to do it because an errata in the CRB may cause problems with keeping things on the same page. <---just a guess on my part.

This ruling is not as intuitive as many of us were used to dealing with. If I get a new player I will probably explain them as behaving like a typed bonus to avoid confusion.


redward wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

which is just like the FAQ saying "a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier".

A "bonus equal to" and "a bonus equal to" are the same thing.

There is no difference between "dealing it a number of points of damage equal to your Strength modifier" and “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier.", for the purpose of stacking.

Both of them reference the ability score by using equal to, which according to the FAQ stacks with the ability modifier(which can be a penalty or bonus). For weapon damage it calls out the bonus.

What I'm trying to say is Merciless Rush isn't adding damage to anything, it is just damage. The closest analogue to Shield Slam + Merciless Rush I can think of is Attack + Grab + Constrict. And it looks like you agree with me on that works (granted that is prior to this FAQ).

Or to answer BBT's original question, I believe they are considered separate attacks.

ok. :)


redward wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BBT did not ask about DR. He only asked if the two abilities stacks or if he would only get damage from one of them, and Merciless Rush adds damage equal to your strength mod. That is why I quoted since getting a bonus equal to an ability mod is a determination on whether or not something stacks.
Gotcha. But Merciless Rush doesn't add damage. It says "dealing it a number of points of damage equal to your Strength modifier." So it's a discrete bit of damage separate from anything else and therefore not subject to stacking.

which is just like the FAQ saying "a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier".

A "bonus equal to" and "a bonus equal to" are the same thing.

There is no difference between "dealing it a number of points of damage equal to your Strength modifier" and “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier.", for the purpose of stacking.

Both of them reference the ability score by using equal to, which according to the FAQ stacks with the ability modifier(which can be a penalty or bonus). For weapon damage it calls out the bonus.


The rule in the magic chapter means you dont automatically know it. The DC's for knowledge arcana and spellcraft allows you to know it, but with some effort.

For those who are new around here RD sometimes ask hypothetical questions when RAW does not agree with RAI, but he does not often(almost never) tell you that this is a thought experiment. So if you ever find yourself thinking, "This answer is common sense", then it is likely one of his thought experiments.


Starglim wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
That is why I quoted since getting a bonus equal to an ability mod is a determination on whether or not something stacks.
The FAQ considers an untyped bonus equal to an ability modifier to be the same as adding that ability modifier and prevents these from stacking. If the bonus is typed (such as the paladin's deflection bonus quoted in the FAQ) it stacks in the normal way.

I already know that. That is what my last two posts said.


redward wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, the normal strength to damage dealt with a Shield Bash, does not stack with the damage done by Merciless Rush, when using Shield Slam, or are these considered separate attacks(Bull Rush/Shield Bash), and both damage is applied?

This is a good chance to test my knowledge so I will give you an answer and we will see if Mark agrees with me tomorrow.

The FAQ says " you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier."

Merciless Rush says "... you deal damage equal to your Strength modifier to that target."

A shield bash is a normal attack and the equipment chapter says.. "Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon"

Now going back to the FAQ you can add the modifier/bonus and a number equal to the bonus so these two should stack. Now if Merciless Rush said to add your strength bonus instead of "damage equal to" your strength bonus then they would not stack.

No, the FAQ considers "<untyped> bonus equal to Strength bonus" the same as Strength bonus. But Merciless Rush is just straight damage, not "a bonus to damage". So DR would apply to it separately to any other damage (such as from a Shield Bash).

I assume you're talking about the Shield Slam/Merciless Rush combo.

I'll add my voice to the chorus that believes typing the Ability bonuses is the more intuitive and elegant solution.

BBT did not ask about DR. He only asked if the two abilities stacks or if he would only get damage from one of them, and Merciless Rush adds damage equal to your strength mod. That is why I quoted since getting a bonus equal to an ability mod is a determination on whether or not something stacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, the normal strength to damage dealt with a Shield Bash, does not stack with the damage done by Merciless Rush, when using Shield Slam, or are these considered separate attacks(Bull Rush/Shield Bash), and both damage is applied?

This is a good chance to test my knowledge so I will give you an answer and we will see if Mark agrees with me tomorrow.

The FAQ says " you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier."

Merciless Rush says "... you deal damage equal to your Strength modifier to that target."

A shield bash is a normal attack and the equipment chapter says.. "Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon"

Now going back to the FAQ you can add the modifier/bonus and a number equal to the bonus so these two should stack. Now if Merciless Rush said to add your strength bonus instead of "damage equal to" your strength bonus then they would not stack.


Mark Seifter wrote:


They are all sources of different kinds. As I posted in the other thread (or this one earlier, I can't remember and it's late, sorry) the feat/spell/etc is redirecting you to the ability modifier. So it's like primary and secondary sources for research papers. So while a feat that gives a "+2 bonus" is the primary (and only) source, in the case of a feat that adds your Charisma modifier, the feat is the secondary source and the ability modifier is the primary source. Or for computer science analogy, the feat source recursively calls the ability score source.

Or further alternately, it acts identically to if all untyped ability score bonuses had a type with the name of that ability score (that isn't the case for reasons I learned when I proposed that as the FAQ, but it is effectively equivalent in how to adjudicate it; then again, enough people are confused, we'll see what the others think on Monday about putting up this alternate explanation on the FAQ as well).

I think I get it, but I still expect for others to be confused. I know you are going to sleep so I wont expect an answer until tomorrow.

My interpretation of what you said:

Feats/spells/etc are normally the primary source however if the feat/spell/etc grants you access to an ability modifier that now becomes the primary source. That stops the same abilities such as fury's fall and agile maneuvers from being used together.

PS: I understanding "calling" in computer programming so I get it. I am trying to make it easier to understand in case someone else is having trouble understanding it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also thanks for taking the time to answer questions Mark. <2 thumbs up>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Paulicus wrote:

Those two were listed earlier as an example, they don't stack.

It sounds like, unless the ability specifically changes the 'type' of bonus granted by the ability modifier (i.e. paladins and their smite adding Cha to AC as a deflection modifier), then they don't stack.

Citation needed.

PS: I think you are correct, but I did not see an example that matched up with this one. I don't care if it does not stack, but now it seems they will need to clarify what the "source" is. By the rules this also seems like stealth errata, which I don't think is a bad term, but it should be noted as such officially. OK, I don't expect for them to say "stealth errata", but sometimes the FAQ is used to change rules so noting it as a "rules change" would be nice.
Rules changes, as of late, have been noted with "This will be reflected in future errata". Or at least, we're trying to get better about that. You'll see it in the ACG FAQs. The result of this particular FAQ, however (that ability modifiers don't add in multiple times), was unanimous consensus among the Design Team of how the rules currently work, so it doesn't have that tag.

So how are we supposed to know what a "source" is? I always thought it was a spell/feat/class feature, not the bonus itself. Just to be clear I am not upset, but unless I am reading the FAQ incorrectly I have no idea on how to identify a source. If that will be in another FAQ I will be happy with that answer.

From the way I read the FAQ a source is the ability score, not the feat/spell/etc that grants tells you to use the ability score, or are ability scores an exception to what the designers intend for us to use as sources?

1 to 50 of 29,490 << 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.