What is the meaning of 'source' in regards to bonus stacking?


Rules Questions

551 to 600 of 1,084 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:
graystone wrote:
And that's explained where? How is an increased stat different than a permanent +2 stat bonus to your 16? Please give me an example of how they'd be treated differently.

It's explained by the language, as seebs very clearly explained. The difference is found in the answer to the question 'can you lose the bonus?'

You can't lose increases. You can lose bonuses.

You most certainly CAN lose an increase. As I pointed out Ability Increase, 2-Point Evolutions. You change the evolution, you lose the increase. So it's NOT something you can add and forget.

OldSkoolRPG wrote:


Not all increases to a stat are bonuses.

That didn't prove they weren't bonuses. The points are positive modifiers to stat. Positive modifiers are bonuses.


graystone wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
graystone wrote:
And that's explained where? How is an increased stat different than a permanent +2 stat bonus to your 16? Please give me an example of how they'd be treated differently.

It's explained by the language, as seebs very clearly explained. The difference is found in the answer to the question 'can you lose the bonus?'

You can't lose increases. You can lose bonuses.

You most certainly CAN lose an increase. As I pointed out Ability Increase, 2-Point Evolutions. You change the evolution, you lose the increase. So it's NOT something you can add and forget.

OldSkoolRPG wrote:


Not all increases to a stat are bonuses.
That didn't prove they weren't bonuses. The points are positive modifiers to stat. Positive modifiers are bonuses.

Each time you level up the eidolon you rebuild him from the ground up. Most the time you don't change previous choices, but it's rebuilding still. So changing the evolution doesn't cause you to lose the increase since you have a new base you're creating that never had the increase.

Liberty's Edge

They are not positive modifiers.

Once the increase happens, the ability score is no longer being modified. The ability score is now what it is.

If it is not currently being modified, then stacking no longer matters for hat increase.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

All this talk of bonuses and modifiers and conflicting terminology just reminds me of this...


graystone wrote:


Not all increases to a stat are bonuses.
That didn't prove they weren't bonuses. The points are positive modifiers to stat. Positive modifiers are bonuses.

Ok, wow, you really are going to argue that initial point buys are bonuses. Where do you get that points are positive modifiers? Show me a table that says 2 points gets you a +1 modifier to the stat or 4 points gets you a +4 modifier. That isn't the way the point buy works. 17 points doesn't translate into a +X modifier. It just increases the stat to 18. You have no basis for your claim.


Andrew Christian wrote:

They are not positive modifiers.

Once the increase happens, the ability score is no longer being modified. The ability score is now what it is.

If it is not currently being modified, then stacking no longer matters for hat increase.

To increase, you have to modify and it have to be in the positive direction. This modification doesn't have to be permanent and can be lost. So it has to be continuously modify the stat.

Chess Pwn: If what you said was true, you'd also lose the Ability score increase from level and as far as I know, that's static.


OldSkoolRPG wrote:


Ok, wow, you really are going to argue that initial point buys are bonuses. Where do you get that points are positive modifiers? Show me a table that says 2 points gets you a +1 modifier to the stat or 4 points gets you a +4 modifier. That isn't the way the point buy works. 17 points doesn't translate into a +X modifier. It just increases the stat to 18. You have no basis for your claim.

LOL People are saying that increase has some definition I don't know about but THEY aren't posting any rules about it.

I'll post my rule: Bonuses "Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores."
A stat is a statistical score.
SO it's down to the definition of increase vs add. I have as much proving add as you have with increase. I know when I make a character though, I ADD my points to the base stat to get my final number.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Not gonna lie, this argument doesn't seem to have any actual value to the discussion and is just coming off as being needlessly pedantic. Is there a point to this argument? Do you honestly believe the intention of this ruling is to make stat increases not stack?

If there's a point you are trying to make, please be forward with it so we can skip to talking about constructive solutions. Is there a way you would like to see this worded that would solve the problem you're identifying? How can we improve the FAQ to be more clear such that your problem doesn't exist?

Silver Crusade

graystone wrote:
Chess Pwn: If what you said was true, you'd also lose the Ability score increase from level and as far as I know, that's static.

The cases aren't analogous. Eidolons don't behave the same way PCs do, and the increase isn't from the same sort of thing. It's an evolution, not a permanent character choice. Evolutions are governed by specific rules:

Eidolon wrote:
Evolution Pool: The value given in this column is the total number of points in the eidolon's evolution pool. Points from this pool can be spent on a wide variety of modifications and upgrades that add new abilities, attacks, and powers to the eidolon. Whenever the summoner gains a level, the number in this pool increases and the summoner can spend these points to change the abilities of the eidolon. These choices are not set. The summoner can change them whenever he gains a level (and through the transmogrify spell).

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me that a lot of the issues with wording and with bonuses going down because of feats could be solved by revising the language such that ability score that are substituted for others can stack, as long as they substitute for different scores, while simply adding a flat bonus equal to an ability modifier should not stack.

So you could use "Cha instead of Dex" once and "add Cha" once each, for example.

Amusingly, Agile Maneuvers is always takeable-even when your Dex is less than your Str. A 18 Str, 8 Dex brute could take it and lose 5 points of CMB. Trap option indeed. Also stinks if your Dex gets too damaged. Really should be worded as "may use Dex instead of Str," IMO.

Designer

Rikkan wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
While that is a very interesting point of interest, it isn't relevant to the new FAQ because it would be a point of interest with or without that FAQ. Even if, for instance, we decided to release errata instead of a FAQ and errata away the fact that ability scores are a source, that point of interest remains.

Got it, but it did have me confused :).

Quote:
EDIT: Reply to your edit—If that was true, and different instances of the same spell or feat were different sources, then how would it even be possible to have more than one untyped bonus from the same source?

For example if an ability had a greater effect to certain enemies. Say you gain a +2 to AC while fighting evil creatures and a +4 to AC while fighting undead.

The same source rule would apply and say that against an evil undead you'd only gain a +4.

Side note: ** spoiler omitted **

Don't worry, I don't think you're being difficult at all. Rather, you're helping stress-test a challenging part of the rules that have been around since 2000 but which many people didn't care about as much until now (sources). The find vis-a-vis bestow curse, while not directly related to this FAQ, is related to that sources component, so it's actually a really good one completely agnostic of this FAQ. Thanks Rikkan!

Liberty's Edge

Acedio wrote:

Not gonna lie, this argument doesn't seem to have any actual value to the discussion and is just coming off as being needlessly pedantic. Is there a point to this argument? Do you honestly believe the intention of this ruling is to make stat increases not stack?

If there's a point you are trying to make, please be forward with it so we can skip to talking about constructive solutions.

He's trying to poke holes in the FAQ in the hopes that as he explains the FAQ fundamentally changes the way the game works and as such should be rescinded.

I don't hold that belief.

I, rather, feel that the ability bonuses should be considered typed, and then all this confusion on nesting sources goes away.

Designer

ryric wrote:

It seems to me that a lot of the issues with wording and with bonuses going down because of feats could be solved by revising the language such that ability score that are substituted for others can stack, as long as they substitute for different scores, while simply adding a flat bonus equal to an ability modifier should not stack.

So you could use "Cha instead of Dex" once and "add Cha" once each, for example.

Amusingly, Agile Maneuvers is always takeable-even when your Dex is less than your Str. A 18 Str, 8 Dex brute could take it and lose 5 points of CMB. Trap option indeed. Also stinks if your Dex gets too damaged. Really should be worded as "may use Dex instead of Str," IMO.

Yeah, I imagine that regardless of this FAQ, for exactly the reason of the Str 18 8 Dex brute (check your Bestiary 3, I think I remember one of the monsters in there inexplicably has Agile Maneuvers with a lower Dex and gets penalized, just as you mention), most if not all of those substitution abilities should say "may" like Weapon Finesse does.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
I, rather, feel that the ability bonuses should be considered typed, and then all this confusion on nesting sources goes away.

I think that would be a good start, however I think such a rewording would need to address the ambiguity of abilities that are worded in this way:

"add a bonus equal to your X modifier to Y"

Is this untyped, or typed as ability Y?

EDIT: Had an edit here but split it off into separate post.


Andrew Christian wrote:
Acedio wrote:

Not gonna lie, this argument doesn't seem to have any actual value to the discussion and is just coming off as being needlessly pedantic. Is there a point to this argument? Do you honestly believe the intention of this ruling is to make stat increases not stack?

If there's a point you are trying to make, please be forward with it so we can skip to talking about constructive solutions.

He's trying to poke holes in the FAQ in the hopes that as he explains the FAQ fundamentally changes the way the game works and as such should be rescinded.

I don't hold that belief.

I, rather, feel that the ability bonuses should be considered typed, and then all this confusion on nesting sources goes away.

No I asked a simple question How is increase different from add? If it was, where's the rule. The rest spiraled out of control. Still haven't seen any actual rules on increase just RAI inferences about it. I was poking holes in the arguments that increase is somehow a 'thing' even though it's undefined.

I'm perfectly willing to drop the whole thing but I WOULD really like to see something in actual print defining a difference between increase and add.

Sovereign Court

As far as the stat increase conversation goes, I'm failing to see how the FAQ causes that stacking issue at all. Can someone please point out to me where in the FAQ it says that untyped bonuses/increases that are applied TO a particular ability score are typed as that ability score? Not seeing anything in that FAQ that supports untyped bonuses/increases TO a stat not stacking.

EDIT: Perhaps I am misunderstanding the concern. I don't think it exists for stat increases.

Silver Crusade

Acedio wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I, rather, feel that the ability bonuses should be considered typed, and then all this confusion on nesting sources goes away.

I think that would be a good start, however I think such a rewording would need to address the ambiguity of abilities that are worded in this way:

"add a bonus equal to your X modifier to Y"

Is this untyped, or typed as ability Y?

It would be typed as ability X. "Add your X bonus to" and "add a[n otherwise not typed] bonus equal to your X modifier" are the same.

Under the "effective rule" of the FAQ, that Acedio (and I and others) thinks would work better as the official rule, both of these would add an X-type bonus.

So, e.g., <Divine Protection> would add a Charisma-type bonus to saving throws, and it would not stack with other Charisma-type bonuses to saves.


Acedio wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I, rather, feel that the ability bonuses should be considered typed, and then all this confusion on nesting sources goes away.

I think that would be a good start, however I think such a rewording would need to address the ambiguity of abilities that are worded in this way:

"add a bonus equal to your X modifier to Y"

Is this untyped, or typed as ability Y?

EDIT: Had an edit here but split it off into separate post.

The answer is sometimes.

When they say so. Like for example the FAQ.


Mark Seifter wrote:
ryric wrote:

It seems to me that a lot of the issues with wording and with bonuses going down because of feats could be solved by revising the language such that ability score that are substituted for others can stack, as long as they substitute for different scores, while simply adding a flat bonus equal to an ability modifier should not stack.

So you could use "Cha instead of Dex" once and "add Cha" once each, for example.

Amusingly, Agile Maneuvers is always takeable-even when your Dex is less than your Str. A 18 Str, 8 Dex brute could take it and lose 5 points of CMB. Trap option indeed. Also stinks if your Dex gets too damaged. Really should be worded as "may use Dex instead of Str," IMO.

Yeah, I imagine that regardless of this FAQ, for exactly the reason of the Str 18 8 Dex brute (check your Bestiary 3, I think I remember one of the monsters in there inexplicably has Agile Maneuvers with a lower Dex and gets penalized, just as you mention), most if not all of those substitution abilities should say "may" like Weapon Finesse does.

Agile Maneuvers shouldn't have an impact other than a lost feat as it only adds bonuses. An 8 dex has a minus that wouldn't get added.

Silver Crusade

graystone wrote:
I'm perfectly willing to drop the whole thing but I WOULD really like to see something in actual print defining a difference between increase and add.

The thing with moving to a "tighter language plan", as one poster put it early in the conversation, is that you're moving from a place where the language isn't as tight.

Or, what Mark said earlier.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Don't worry, I don't think you're being difficult at all. Rather, you're helping stress-test a challenging part of the rules that have been around since 2000 but which many people didn't care about as much until now (sources).

In other words, if you're expecting everything to be neatly written out in the rules then you're bound to be disappointed—that's why the FAQ/errata is needed!

But yes, let's let this drop. It's a distraction and not really to the point of the conversation.


graystone wrote:


Chess Pwn: If what you said was true, you'd also lose the Ability score increase from level and as far as I know, that's static.

The ability score increase from class level is to the base form and isn't an evolution. Thus it's permanently on the base form, if you were able to change the base form I'd probably think that you'd be able to change those choices too. Only evolutions change each level, so only the evolution stuff is rebuilt. Sorry it wasn't clear the first time. I hope this has helped clear it up for you.


Acedio wrote:

As far as the stat increase conversation goes, I'm failing to see how the FAQ causes that stacking issue at all. Can someone please point out to me where in the FAQ it says that bonuses/increases that are applied TO a particular ability score are typed as that ability score? Not seeing anything in that FAQ that supports untyped bonuses/increases TO a stat not stacking.

EDIT: Perhaps I am misunderstanding the concern. I don't think it exists for stat increases.

Ability bonuses are listed under the magic creation rules. With the FAQ. Ability bonuses aren't typed but have the ability as a source. In essence the term ability bonus is used for both ability modifiers and bonuses to the actual stat.

I assume the FAQ is meant for modifiers derived from a stat but it doesn't specify so it's possible to use it for the bonus to actual stat. It's really something that should have been edited out when pathfinder started if it was possible.

Joe M. wrote:


Mark Seifter wrote:
Don't worry, I don't think you're being difficult at all. Rather, you're helping stress-test a challenging part of the rules that have been around since 2000 but which many people didn't care about as much until now (sources).

In other words, if you're expecting everything to be neatly written out in the rules then you're bound to be disappointed—that's why the FAQ/errata is needed!

But yes, let's let this drop. It's a distraction and not really to the point of the conversation.

I understand and accept the level of writing. It was just when a distinction was made between increase/add that has rules implications it would be nice to see that distinction expressed someplace.

Chess Pwn wrote:
graystone wrote:


Chess Pwn: If what you said was true, you'd also lose the Ability score increase from level and as far as I know, that's static.
The ability score increase from class level is to the base form and isn't an evolution. Thus it's permanently on the base form, if you were able to change the base form I'd probably think that you'd be able to change those choices too. Only evolutions change each level, so only the evolution stuff is rebuilt. Sorry it wasn't clear the first time. I hope this has helped clear it up for you.

I understand what you're saying, I'm just taking something different from it. Since this debate isn't moving the actual FAQ debate lets leave it at that. ;)

Designer

graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
ryric wrote:

It seems to me that a lot of the issues with wording and with bonuses going down because of feats could be solved by revising the language such that ability score that are substituted for others can stack, as long as they substitute for different scores, while simply adding a flat bonus equal to an ability modifier should not stack.

So you could use "Cha instead of Dex" once and "add Cha" once each, for example.

Amusingly, Agile Maneuvers is always takeable-even when your Dex is less than your Str. A 18 Str, 8 Dex brute could take it and lose 5 points of CMB. Trap option indeed. Also stinks if your Dex gets too damaged. Really should be worded as "may use Dex instead of Str," IMO.

Yeah, I imagine that regardless of this FAQ, for exactly the reason of the Str 18 8 Dex brute (check your Bestiary 3, I think I remember one of the monsters in there inexplicably has Agile Maneuvers with a lower Dex and gets penalized, just as you mention), most if not all of those substitution abilities should say "may" like Weapon Finesse does.
Agile Maneuvers shouldn't have an impact other than a lost feat as it only adds bonuses. An 8 dex has a minus that wouldn't get added.

The "normal" section makes it clear that bonus is a stand-in for modifier here (ugh, more non-tight language), but the same would be true regardless for, say, someone with Str 18 and Dex 12. I think the B3 monster was like that.


Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
ryric wrote:

It seems to me that a lot of the issues with wording and with bonuses going down because of feats could be solved by revising the language such that ability score that are substituted for others can stack, as long as they substitute for different scores, while simply adding a flat bonus equal to an ability modifier should not stack.

So you could use "Cha instead of Dex" once and "add Cha" once each, for example.

Amusingly, Agile Maneuvers is always takeable-even when your Dex is less than your Str. A 18 Str, 8 Dex brute could take it and lose 5 points of CMB. Trap option indeed. Also stinks if your Dex gets too damaged. Really should be worded as "may use Dex instead of Str," IMO.

Yeah, I imagine that regardless of this FAQ, for exactly the reason of the Str 18 8 Dex brute (check your Bestiary 3, I think I remember one of the monsters in there inexplicably has Agile Maneuvers with a lower Dex and gets penalized, just as you mention), most if not all of those substitution abilities should say "may" like Weapon Finesse does.
Agile Maneuvers shouldn't have an impact other than a lost feat as it only adds bonuses. An 8 dex has a minus that wouldn't get added.
The "normal" section makes it clear that bonus is a stand-in for modifier here (ugh, more non-tight language), but the same would be true regardless for, say, someone with Str 18 and Dex 12. I think the B3 monster was like that.

True on the 12 dex guy.

It was my understanding that when it says bonus it's only positive added, penalty only adds minuses and modifier add regardless of +/-. Would that normal section alter those basic assumptions? Or am I wrong on the basic assumption?

Designer

graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
ryric wrote:

It seems to me that a lot of the issues with wording and with bonuses going down because of feats could be solved by revising the language such that ability score that are substituted for others can stack, as long as they substitute for different scores, while simply adding a flat bonus equal to an ability modifier should not stack.

So you could use "Cha instead of Dex" once and "add Cha" once each, for example.

Amusingly, Agile Maneuvers is always takeable-even when your Dex is less than your Str. A 18 Str, 8 Dex brute could take it and lose 5 points of CMB. Trap option indeed. Also stinks if your Dex gets too damaged. Really should be worded as "may use Dex instead of Str," IMO.

Yeah, I imagine that regardless of this FAQ, for exactly the reason of the Str 18 8 Dex brute (check your Bestiary 3, I think I remember one of the monsters in there inexplicably has Agile Maneuvers with a lower Dex and gets penalized, just as you mention), most if not all of those substitution abilities should say "may" like Weapon Finesse does.
Agile Maneuvers shouldn't have an impact other than a lost feat as it only adds bonuses. An 8 dex has a minus that wouldn't get added.
The "normal" section makes it clear that bonus is a stand-in for modifier here (ugh, more non-tight language), but the same would be true regardless for, say, someone with Str 18 and Dex 12. I think the B3 monster was like that.

True on the 12 dex guy.

It was my understanding that when it says bonus it's only positive added, penalty only adds minuses and modifier add regardless of +/-. Would that normal section alter those basic assumptions? Or am I wrong on the basic assumption?

You are correct that this is how it's supposed to be, but by that (correct) logic, the normal section there is also incorrect (since you add your Strength modifier, not bonus), so it seems to show it's a sign of being loose in the wording. It should probably say modifier both times. For instance, I suppose there's also there's the possibility of a Str 1 Dex 8 creature that would rather have that -1 than a -5.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I, rather, feel that the ability bonuses should be considered typed, and then all this confusion on nesting sources goes away.

I think that would be a good start, however I think such a rewording would need to address the ambiguity of abilities that are worded in this way:

"add a bonus equal to your X modifier to Y"

Is this untyped, or typed as ability Y?

EDIT: Had an edit here but split it off into separate post.

The part of the FAQ that makes those two phrases the same, I would leave untouched.

Essentially that "bonus equal to X added to Y" remains functionally the same as "add bonus X to Y."

Sovereign Court

Sorry guys I don't know how I missed that! Derp.


Mark Seifter wrote:
You are correct that this is how it's supposed to be, but by that (correct) logic, the normal section there is also incorrect (since you add your Strength modifier, not bonus), so it seems to show it's a sign of being loose in the wording. It should probably say modifier both times. For instance, I suppose there's also there's the possibility of a Str 1 Dex 8 creature that would rather have that -1 than a -5.

I can see pro's and con's both ways.

Str 1 Dex 8: they want the modifier to both sections.
str 12 dex 18[8 from drain]: they want it to stay bonus so negatives can't end up turning a bonus into a minus because of the bonus stopgap.

SO I can see ruling either way. Yeah loose language! :P

Thank's for the explanation though. I see what you're where getting at now. ;)


graystone wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:


Ok, wow, you really are going to argue that initial point buys are bonuses. Where do you get that points are positive modifiers? Show me a table that says 2 points gets you a +1 modifier to the stat or 4 points gets you a +4 modifier. That isn't the way the point buy works. 17 points doesn't translate into a +X modifier. It just increases the stat to 18. You have no basis for your claim.

LOL People are saying that increase has some definition I don't know about but THEY aren't posting any rules about it.

I'll post my rule: Bonuses "Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores."
A stat is a statistical score.
SO it's down to the definition of increase vs add. I have as much proving add as you have with increase. I know when I make a character though, I ADD my points to the base stat to get my final number.

No, when you make a character you do not ADD points to the base state. If you add your 17 points to the base stat of 10 you would get a stat of 27. The table says that you spend 17 points and your stat becomes 18 which an increase from 10. That isn't a numerical value that is added to the base score, it is a numerical value that REPLACES the base score. However, it is still called an increase.

So there is an example of an increase that is not a bonus plus you have a Dev in the thread saying that the word increase in game denotes something different than "add" or "gain" and yet you are still arguing that they are the same.

There is plenty of evidence that not all increases are bonuses and no evidence for your claim to the contrary.


OldSkoolRPG wrote:


So there is an example of an increase that is not a bonus plus you have a Dev in the thread saying that the word increase in game denotes something different than "add" or "gain" and yet you are still arguing that they are the same.

Please either post a definition of increase from a rule book or drop this. Telling me there is a difference between add and increase is super unhelpful if you don't back up those differences with explications + rules backup. Feel free to think you've 'one upped me' if you wish, but I'm trying to respect those that asked up to try to get back on point.

Liberty's Edge

Graystone, I think the onus is on you to provide rules language that backs up your assertion that an increase is the same as a bonus.

In this case neither side is going to find a rule.

All we have is the English language, context, and precedense.

I believe that RAW doesnt directly define it either way.

The context of the usage if increase and bonus clearly uses them differently. Orecedense says they are different as well.

Mechanically, they are not being used in the sane way either.

In instances where it uses increase, we are looking at a permanent change to the base value. The new number is the new base value. There is no modified result, as the increase is not ongoing. It happens, a new base value is created, and that informs everything else.

A bonus creates a modified number. In all cases you'd refer to that modified number as base + modifier.

You'd tell your GM, "I have a 26 Str right now."

GM: how?

You: well I have an 18, am raging for +4 morale bonus and drank my mutagen for a +4 alchemical bonus.

But you don't tell him that you started at 14 and used 4th and 8th level stat bumps and got the +2 increase from Dragon Disciple.

If you had a +4 belt you'd likely include that in your description on how you got a 30 STR.


Andrew Christian: Add and increase are equivalent words in the English language. A Synonym. The onus is on those saying it's not equivalent in the rules. As I've said several time, show an actual rule/definition/ect from a book or leave it alone.

I didn't read ANYTHING else as I've asked several times to let this drop as it's going off topic. If you all wish to continue this debate, make a new thread. Myself, I heading off to take a break from this debate again. Feel free to argue and debate about off-topic things without me. For some reason, several of you are quite insistent on dragging me back into this debate.

Liberty's Edge

If you didn't finish reading what I wrote, then you can't say my comments weren't convincing. In any case if this part of the conversation is becoming frustrating for you, probably a good idea to take a break.


Andrew Christian wrote:
If you didn't finish reading what I wrote, then you can't say my comments weren't convincing. In any case if this part of the conversation is becoming frustrating for you, probably a good idea to take a break.

Several people pointed out that this was off-topic and asked if we could get back on topic. I agreed and ask other that where debating it to stop as well. The content of the conversation isn't the frustrating point, it's the fact that I ask to stop/move it and people KEEP at it like a dog with a bone. At the very least keep me out of it as I've asked nicely to let it drop or make a new thread.

On your comment, you may have had very convincing ones. They would only matter is I planned to continue with this here. I do not.

Myself, I'm going to watch some anime and take a peek in here between shows. If someone starts debating the FAQ again, I may comment again.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Dragon Ferocity and Tiger Claws have been FAQed promptly.

FAQ wrote:

Dragon Ferocity and Tiger Claws: These feats both tell me to add 1/2 my Strength bonus to damage. How does that affect my damage? Does that reduce down to 1/2?

No, Dragon Ferocity should read "While using Dragon Style, increase your Strength bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, to a total of twice your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 your Strength bonus on the other attacks" and Tiger Claws should read "If you use Power Attack in conjunction with this attack, increase your Strength bonus on one of the damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, normally to a total of 1-1/2 your Strength bonus." These changes will be reflected in future errata.

Thanks to everyone for being part of the FAQ process!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I like this follow-up FAQ since it removes every shred of ambiguity on the way Dragon Ferocity affects the first attack.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
I like this follow-up FAQ since it removes every shred of ambiguity on the way Dragon Ferocity affects the first attack.

That was the plan. Fist of the Dragooooooon!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
I like this follow-up FAQ since it removes every shred of ambiguity on the way Dragon Ferocity affects the first attack.

Seconded.

If you go through and do this kind of thing for most of the things affected, the original FAQ will sit better with me.

And as a suggestion: the dev team should probably throw together a sort of "This is how to word feats/abilities" thing for people who work for you (and 3pp by extention, I suppose) when it comes to writing new stuff. If everyone is on the same page, it'll lead to a lot more useful abilities and not stuff that, through no fault of the writers, just plain doesn't work. I am fully aware this would be a huge amount of work, but I think it'd be for the best.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seranov wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I like this follow-up FAQ since it removes every shred of ambiguity on the way Dragon Ferocity affects the first attack.

Seconded.

If you go through and do this kind of thing for most of the things affected, the original FAQ will sit better with me.

And as a suggestion: the dev team should probably throw together a sort of "This is how to word feats/abilities" thing for people who work for you (and 3pp by extention, I suppose) when it comes to writing new stuff. If everyone is on the same page, it'll lead to a lot more useful abilities and not stuff that, through no fault of the writers, just plain doesn't work. I am fully aware this would be a huge amount of work, but I think it'd be for the best.

I've spent a lot of my weekend mining you guys' searches for abilities, and I haven't really seen anything else that needed clarification because it just simply didn't work.

Dark Archive

I'm asking so that we can get more consistent verbiage in the future. I really don't like looking at stuff and having to scratch my head at it.

Designer

Seranov wrote:
I'm asking so that we can get more consistent verbiage in the future. I really don't like looking at stuff and having to scratch my head at it.

Me neither! Sorry, I was responding to your first sentence, not the second.


So, if we are going to be patching all the stuff that this FAQ broke with more FAQ, wouldn't be simpler to have said that untyped bonuses always stack, and then patched the cases that were broken before? Like saying that "fury's fall does not stack with weapon finesse"?

Also, Mark, question about your hypothetical feat that let you add your charisma as a bunch of different bonuses: What would happen if two of the options were:
- You gain a bonus equal to your strength bonus to AC
- You gain a bonus equal to your Wisdom bonus to AC

Would taking both of those options let you have both your Strength and your Wisdom, because both of those are different sources, or is the feat also a source?

Designer

Knight Magenta wrote:

So, if we are going to be patching all the stuff that this FAQ broke with more FAQ, wouldn't be simpler to have said that untyped bonuses always stack, and then patched the cases that were broken before? Like saying that "fury's fall does not stack with weapon finesse"?

Also, Mark, question about your hypothetical feat that let you add your charisma as a bunch of different bonuses: What would happen if two of the options were:
- You gain a bonus equal to your strength bonus to AC
- You gain a bonus equal to your Wisdom bonus to AC

Would taking both of those options let you have both your Strength and your Wisdom, because both of those are different sources, or is the feat also a source?

As untyped bonuses from the same source, they wouldn't stack. The confusing nature of the feat, of course, is why that Special clause tongue-in-cheekly refers to the fact that the designer really needs to specify what happens if you take it multiple times.


Mark Seifter wrote:


As untyped bonuses from the same source, they wouldn't stack. The confusing nature of the feat, of course, is why that Special clause tongue-in-cheekly refers to the fact that the designer really needs to specify what happens if you take it multiple times.

But then this means that both the feat *and* the Attribute is the source.

This ruling bothers me a lot. I feel that this makes it hard to figure out what feats/abilities actually do by reading them. Cause now you have to keep in mind how that feat calculates its numbers. It just feels to me that it is needlessly constraining future design space. The bonus type-system is elegant and intuitive. You can tell what stacks and what does not just by reading a feat or ability. Making attributes sources means that you need to back track where modifiers come from.

A specific example is of Fury's Fall, where whether that feat does anything at all is dependent on if I have Agile Maneuvers or not. And that means that when I take Agile Maneuvers I need to now note on my sheet that my attack bonus now has a dex component.


The boost to Dragon Ferocity is welcome! 1.5xSTR+.5xSTR meant you lost damage from rounding down odd strength modifiers, compared to x2. So good news! I hope we can get more clarification on Tiger Claw down the road (multiple unarmed strikes as a single attack).

While on the subject of ability modifiers and stacking bonuses, do you have any input on conflicting modifiers? For instance, if one ability reduces your modifier and another increases it simultaneously (Flurry of Blows and the Two-Handed Fighter's backswing come to mind, though there might be other cases), which should take precedence?


Wow, another huge sweeping FAQ ruling. Is Mind Chemist affected?

"At 2nd level, a mindchemist has honed his memory. When making a Knowledge check, he may add his Intelligence bonus on the check a second time."

You're adding your intelligence bonus twice, from different sources.

Obviously, the intention of Mind Chemist is plenty clear, just playing devils advocate against this kind of generalizing FAQ.


Nardoz Zardoz wrote:

Wow, another huge sweeping FAQ ruling. Is Mind Chemist affected?

"At 2nd level, a mindchemist has honed his memory. When making a Knowledge check, he may add his Intelligence bonus on the check a second time."

You're adding your intelligence bonus twice, from different sources.

Obviously, the intention of Mind Chemist is plenty clear, just playing devils advocate against this kind of generalizing FAQ.

Since the ability specifically says do this a second time it works. It creates its exception.

Silver Crusade

Chess Pwn wrote:
Nardoz Zardoz wrote:

Wow, another huge sweeping FAQ ruling. Is Mind Chemist affected?

"At 2nd level, a mindchemist has honed his memory. When making a Knowledge check, he may add his Intelligence bonus on the check a second time."

You're adding your intelligence bonus twice, from different sources.

Obviously, the intention of Mind Chemist is plenty clear, just playing devils advocate against this kind of generalizing FAQ.

Since the ability specifically says do this a second time it works. It creates its exception.

Yup.

Confirmed upthread by Mark.

Mark Seifter wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, what about abilities, that explicitly state they add a modifier twice?
As above, those are specific overriding general. So like mindchemist's perfect recall, those all add it twice. And ones that say they add double the bonus aren't even specific overriding general, they're multiplying, rather than adding twice.

Grand Lodge

Just to confirm:

1) Bonuses can have multiple sources.

2) When determining source, the bonus type is a relevant factor.

Both true?


yes. An untyped bonus can be source "feat/ability" if either conflict with another untyped bonus than you can't stack it.

Type lets things "stack" from the same source.

551 to 600 of 1,084 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What is the meaning of 'source' in regards to bonus stacking? All Messageboards