| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
132 FAQ requests! Hopefully we get an answer soon! Keep FAQing please people! Regards!
Well of course; that goes without saying. If Feat A replaces Str with Dex for attack rolls and Class Ability B replaces Str with Wis, of course you couldn't say, "Ok, I get both Dex and Wis because I replaced Str with both of them." It's either or in that case. Were... were people really trying to do that? Like, not as a joke?FAQ'd.
For what it is worth, I'm a follower of School of Thought 2, with the caveat that wording could prevent it.
For instance, if something replaces X with Y, you can't benefit from another ability stating it replaces X with Y, but you can benefit from another ability stating it adds X to Y (which would effectively give you 2X).
The scenario mentioned came up somewhere recently. . . I forget where though.
Yes.
But, by the same token, some people have stacked Bull's Strength on top of a Belt of Giant Strength and then wondered why a particular AP was so underpowered...
The issue isn't really with stacking replace abilities like 2 enchantment bonuses. Its with something like this:
Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses apply to the roll.
So this one REPLACES strength with Dex.
When making a trip attack, add your Dexterity bonus to your CMB.
And this one ADDS Dex to CMB.
There are multiple abilities (especially after the last year) that can add the same attribute twice to a skill, attack roll, damage roll, etc.
The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
The problem is what is SOURCE: I think Kazaan nailed it on the head here, but its still rather ambiguous. Is the ability score the SOURCE or is the class feature, feat, ability that grants the bonus the SOURCE? If you look under sources, there is no SOURCE: Ability Score.
Some people say the Source is the ability score.
Others say the source is the ability that grants it.
I'm about 50/50 on how they rule it, and either way breaks some components of how certain abilities work, or have been thought to work for a long time. This has been an issue for years, but a slew of new abilities has made this problem compacted so we now need an answer.
Well of course; that goes without saying. If Feat A replaces Str with Dex for attack rolls and Class Ability B replaces Str with Wis, of course you couldn't say, "Ok, I get both Dex and Wis because I replaced Str with both of them." It's either or in that case. Were... were people really trying to do that? Like, not as a joke?FAQ'd.
For what it is worth, I'm a follower of School of Thought 2, with the caveat that wording could prevent it.
For instance, if something replaces X with Y, you can't benefit from another ability stating it replaces X with Y, but you can benefit from another ability stating it adds X to Y (which would effectively give you 2X).
The scenario mentioned came up somewhere recently. . . I forget where though.
No, they have one ability that replaces Str with Dex and a second ability that adds Dex to Str. (Or similar such language, there are many examples, and more get created every time a new book comes out.) I'm not aware of anyone who's trying to replace an ability twice.
Hmm, while not quite the same its also interesting to note this:
Grit, Luck, and Panache
Grit, luck, and panache represent three different means by which heroes can gain access to the same heroic pool, using it to accomplish fantastic feats. For characters with a mix of grit, luck, and panache, they pool the resources together into a combined pool. (Those who use panache and luck gain twice their Charisma bonus in their pool.) For feats, magic items, and other effects, a panache user can spend and gain luck points in place of grit or panache points, and vice versa.
Almost at 150 hits!
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
As more abilities like this come into the game, I feel this is something that will ultimately need to be answered.
More examples:
Monk & Warpriest (sacred fist) = add Wisdom to AC twice
Zen Archer & Evangelist of Erastil = add Wisdom to attack twice (and to damage once)
+1 and FAQ'ed I'd really like to know since I was planning on doing something similar as my next character I.e. monk/warpriest (sacred fist ACL)
Another one I found:
Alchemist + Rogue (Underground Chemist). Each Add Intelligence to damage with splash weapons.
170 Faq Hits now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this does fall into the "does not stack" camp officially with a FAQ I hope they cover weird corner cases too. Not to mention the Dragon Ferocity errata they would need for it to do anything.
Stacking bonuses from stats is powerful, but not inherently so.
Most of the powerful options have the "Add x INSTEAD of y to whatever" language. Weapon Finesse, for example. Adding int to certain skills twice is nice, but not game breaking. Neither is adding dex to trip twice with Weapon Finesse and Fury's Fall.
Edit: Deleted bit about Divine Favor feat because I have terrible reading comprehension.
Do you realize how low that is? That's worth 200 gp. TWO HUNDRED GP worth of armor.
Depends on how much armor you already have. That could also be worth 125,000 gp worth of armor if you're already sitting on a lot of +s.
To be honest stat stacking is cool to me at least the WP/SF. The problem is when you deviate from the elite array the game is intended to be played on. When you start with 15 in your primary 16 at level 4 you'd have +6 armor from wisdom. Do you realize how low that is? That's worth 200 gp. TWO HUNDRED GP worth of armor. It's still less than a full plate on +4. It's equal to a +1 full plate if you have +5. That's fairly weak for losing a BAB considering +1 to hit is 4000 gold. Not even counting the loss of iterative hits + PA progression + feats.
Really depends on where your +1 to hit is coming from.
Mwk Weapon? 300gp.
+1 weapon upgraded to +2? 6000gp (and uncludes a damage boost as well)
Weapon Focus? Cost of a feat
But as BigNorseWolf pointed out, the same applies to +3 armor. If that's the first +3 armor you got it isn't worth much. If it's the last 3 its worth a ton.
So if you want to take the baseline of 200gp worth of armor, the appropriate comparison is 300gp for Mwk weapon.
You can't even compare it with losing BAB because of multiclassing since by multiclassing you've also picked up a host of new class abilities you wouldn't otherwise have - the value of which many are subjective and contextual.
Trying to find a formula between static bonuses and gold is going to be tricky, considering it doesn't scale linearly.
The best way to make comparisons is to compare things at the same level and the CR of monsters they would be expected to face at that level.
If you do that, the monk falls REAL short in AC, and doesn't excel at anything else to make up for that. Even stacking Sacred Fist and Monk makes your armor comparable to other front line fighters, not insanely high.
Meanwhile, Oracles are getting Charisma to saves, AC, and casting. Poor monks.
Yeah, having the stack makes a monk/sacred fist have the same amount of AC as a regular front line fighter. Which is what I was saying. It's not overpowered, it's about the same as a fighter or ranger at the same level. Maybe even slightly higher, but their HP is lower so it's probably close to a wash.
Regular monks, however, are going to have around a 16-19 at level 5. That's.... almost the same as a wizad. In fact, maybe even less. Ouch.
Double stacking stats leads to abuse quickly, simply because such things are targets for those who realize how powerful they are.
A monk who can start with 18 Wis and double stack AC has an AC benefit equal to wearing plate mail. On top of this, he can grab bracers of +AC for the same price as the fighter gets magic armor, meaning he'll pace the fighter in AC on that end: he gets full Dex to AC, which might be better then the fighter; he can buy + Prot items and + Nat AC items.
His class provides him a scaling +1 AC every 5 levels, in addition, which sort of reflects a shield AC.
As soon as the monk's AC is 20, his base AC is better then any armor the fighter can buy (+9 for Full Plate), but with no dex limit and no movement limit.
At 22, he is now +12, equal to +3 Plate, and He can still use bracers to supplement for the same price the fighter does (except the monk doesn't have to spring for mithral armor).
By the time the Fighter has a 30 Str and +5 armor, the Monk has +20 to his AC from Wis and +5 Bracers. His base AC is going to be 10 points above the Fighter's and drawing away faster then the Fighter can possibly keep up. A Guided Weapon means he's getting +10 th/dmg on attacks, so his attack power is up there nicely, too, and he still doesn't have to worry about dex limits on his armor...the majority of his AC is Touch AC.
No, double-stacking mods off ANY stat are ripe for abuse.
==Aelryinth
Another tendency of lots of double stacking:
Loradins... Cha for everything! Oh and double Cha for reflex saves xD and AC (when smiting)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, as stated above, such a designation doesn't counter the position that it's allowed by the rules; those who think it isn't don't fully understand the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses.Unless, you know, a leading paizo employee had made a flat out statement disagreeing with you on what the source was.
JJ has both
- declared that he is not a rules guy, and is just going with how he'd run things in his games
- said that certain things do in fact stack when adding from the same stat
so I wouldn't exactly take the example you're alluding to as gospel.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the only thing we have to go on is the word of a paizo employee.
I do take his word; The word I follow if the one where he says he's not the rules guy. That and Stephen Radney-MacFarland saying that non-FAQ/errata posts aren't RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, and once again, we have no RAW stating what a source is. Its not even defined in common terms. It's not located in core or any splat. You have virtually nothing stating one way or another except for the paizo employee that has made a statement one way.So the only thing we have to go on is the word of a paizo employee.I do take his word; The word I follow if the one where he says he's not the rules guy. That and Stephen Radney-MacFarland saying that non-FAQ/errata posts aren't RAW.
Actually he has made the statement both ways: here
True, and once again, we have no RAW stating what a source is. Its not even defined in common terms. It's not located in core or any splat. You have virtually nothing stating one way or another except for the paizo employee that has made a statement one way.So the only thing we have to go on is the word of a paizo employee.I do take his word; The word I follow if the one where he says he's not the rules guy. That and Stephen Radney-MacFarland saying that non-FAQ/errata posts aren't RAW.Actually he has made the statement both ways: here
Exactly. James is saying what feels right in his games. In some situations, he feels it's cool to stack and others it's not. I don't see how you're getting anything to go on Thomas Long 175, as the 'word' is contradictory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, as stated above, such a designation doesn't counter the position that it's allowed by the rules; those who think it isn't don't fully understand the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses.Unless, you know, a leading paizo employee had made a flat out statement disagreeing with you on what the source was.
Ok? So would you take the word of a senior advisor in the PR department as to how the iPhone works?
JJ is NOT a rules guy. In fact, I would reckon that many of the posters on here actually know the rules better than he does. He is teh LORE guy. He know Golarian inside and out.
Double stacking stats leads to abuse quickly, simply because such things are targets for those who realize how powerful they are...That's the Slippery Slope fallacy. It doesn't dismiss the principal that the bonuses stack so long as they follow the normal rules for stacking bonuses and doesn't change the fact that the value is what comes from the attribute score; it is not the source of the bonus. Otherwise, Dragon Ferocity is broken because you could never add half your Str bonus to your Unarmed Strikes because they already get your Str bonus added by default. The default Str bonus added is sourced from the default combat rules while the bonus provided by Dragon Ferocity is sourced from that feat.
Additionally, in your example of the Monk and Fighter, it doesn't take into consideration that a Monk, ultimately, has less damage output than a Fighter so being able to get more armor is washed by the ability of the Fighter to drop the enemy faster (dead opponents usually don't hurt you). The Fighter will usually pick armor that lets him use most of his Dex bonus anyway as he will not over-invest in Dex if he also intends to wear Dex-restricting armor. Moreover, due to the Monk's heavy reliance on Flurry of Blows, the difference in movement between a Monk and a heavily armored Fighter isn't all that significant. Calling it "abuse" is misleading on two fronts; one, it presumes that it wasn't intended to be allowed from the start and two, it exaggerates the strength of such a build. Also, as stated above, such a designation doesn't counter the position that it's allowed by the rules; those who think it isn't don't fully understand the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses.
Ah, don't get me started on comparison arguments.
I was refuting someone's earlier post that a Monk with double stacking will have Inferior AC. He's catastrophically wrong.
Secondly, your damage comparison is irrelevant. The monk will have superior defenses in all areas. If the enemy can't hit him, the monk will win in the end eventually...and you didn't pick up on the use of the Guided enhancement. If he can flurry, he isn't going to have any problems in the damage outlay department with that little enhancement helping him.
thirdly, a fighter with no dex is penalized by not being able to use his own class abilities...i.e. Armor Training. so a fighter WILL invest in dex. However, he's also got to invest in str, con and wis. The monk with double stacking needs his wis, and can be balanced in con and dex as he sees fit...he has no other needs for Int, Str or Cha to be above 10. Unlike a fighter, he never has a cap on max dex, and can invest to his heart's content in it as he wishes, and at only 1 hp/level behind the fighter in hit points, that isn't going to be an issue, either.
So, no, I don't agree with that argument.
As for sourcing the stat bonus...that's a tangled mess. I personally rule that you can't get the same bonus twice from the same stat, so it stops this whole type of discussion. It's especially true when a stat for saves AND AC becomes the stat for TH/DMG...like Wis and Dex can be. Try to make that argument for Str doing the same thing and you get outrage.
==Aelryinth
To be fair, guided has never made it int PF, so it really would still be weaker than dexterity if they stacked armor from the attack/damage/ac/saves stand point. I still think it could go either way, both sides have strong arguments. If they rule against it there are some abilities that are just (very nearly) pointless. If they rule for it there are some potentially powerful combos, though I haven't seen anything that seems overly broken than the system already has built into it. I also think the attribute being the source makes less sense than it being the ability (See Kazan's post on Page 1, about #40ish)
We have broken 200 FAQ requests though. Hopefully soon we have an answer!
and you didn't pick up on the use of the Guided enhancement. If he can flurry, he isn't going to have any problems in the damage outlay department with that little enhancement helping him.You mean that property that isn't even in PF?
Curse of the Crimson Throne: A History of Ashe Page 22. Guided Enchantment.
Aura moderate evocation; CL 7th
Slot weapon quality; Price +1 bonus
Descript ion
A weapon with the guided property allows its wielder to use
his instinct when striking blows with it. Attacks from a guided
weapon generally don’t strike hard, but they strike at precisely
the right moment to maximize damage if in the hands of
a particularly wise wielder. A character who attacks with a
guided weapon modifies his attack rolls and weapon damage
rolls with his Wisdom modifier, not his Strength modifier.
This modifier to damage is not adjusted for two-handed
weapons or off-hand weapons—it always remains equal to
the wielder’s Wisdom modifier. A guided weapon may be
wielded as a normal weapon, using Strength to
modify attack and damage rolls, but this goes
against the weapon’s nature and
imparts a –2 penalty on all attack
rolls made in this manner.
Construction
Requirements Craft
Magic Arms and Armor,
spiritual weapon
Totally exists in Pathfinder.
Pathfinder's 3.5 rules are considered to be 3.5 rules made by Paizo. They do not count as current Pathfinder rules.
But pathfinder was created to be played with the 3.5 rules right?
Nope. PF is its own rule set. It is largely backwards compatible, but I believe less people allow 3.5 than those who do. Your not REALLY playing the same game if you allow 3.5 stuff in. As upset I've been with Paizo's balance decisions over the last year, its still better than 3.5 was at the end, IMO.