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


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 1,084 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

It was created to be backwards compatible, which is not the same as "3.5 items and rules are automatically Pathfinder rules and items". That way 3.5 adventures, classes, items, and so on can be converted if the GM wants to allow it, and it was a good marketing strategy to pull in players.

However if an item/feat/etc is not specifically a Pathfinder(pathfinder ruleset) ____ then it is not official.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On top of which,

Why are you using the fighter as a baseline??? Really??? Last I checked, Fighters and Rogues are literally the bottom of the barrel. That is like using the Gangster wanna-be kidn who never shows up to school as the base line for GPA... or the scrawny twig kid as the base line for athletic ability...

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

LoneKnave wrote:
Quote:
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...

It's literally impossible to make a build that never gets hit, nevermind that "has better AC than the Fighter" is nowhere near the level where that would be an issue.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

This is ridiculous. First you point out that the fighter actually HAS the advantage that the Monk has (namely, getting Dex to AC), but then you somehow turn it into a downside by saying the fighter HAS to take that option, nevermind that fighters can, and 99% of them do trade out armor training for actual class features. And even if they didn't, Celestial/Mithral exists.

Then you use that as an argument to make Fighters look more MAD than monks. When the monk here is borderline SAD not because of the double dipping, but because of guided (which, again, is not even in PF). A fighter with Guided could dump his STR just like a monk. So could a fighter with agile, or, since this is about dipping classes, his DEX with a swash or aldori dip.

"never gets hit" is a euphemism for 'gets hit so seldom that it really doesn't matter." Stop taking things literally in your nerdrage, please.

Guided is in a PFS AP, which is official enough for me and a lot of others.

Ridiculous? are you the one claiming the fighter didn't need his Dex? And excuse me, the fighter does not 'get his Dex to AC' unless his dex is high enough to do so, i.e. he invests in Dex. So Saying a fighter can dump his dex score and get his dex to AC in armor is comparing apples and oranges.

And no, actually, most fighters don't trade out the armor training feature for 'actual class features'. Because a lot of the 'replacements' are even worse.

And yes, Celestial can sub for some armor training (mithral can't, but litte bits help). And guess what? To take advantage of celestial...the fighter needs a high dex!
But, no, the fighter doesn't need a high dex? Please, keep your argument straight.

A fighter with Guided wouldn't be strong enough to wear his own armor. And he doesn't get Wis to AC.

And now you're bringing in Dex builds to further prove MY point...the double-stacking stats starts breaking the game with SAD. That's not a counter argument, that's supporting me!

So, could you make up your mind which side of the argument you are on?

==Aelryinth


If fighters were SAD... wouldn't they just be the equivalent of every caster ever?


I don't think the monk is ending up with all that incredible an AC, though. Not enough to be game-breaking, really. And I think there's enough cases where it's clearly intended that we consider two different abilities which add a given stat to a given roll to be "different sources" that I don't buy the argument that "source" suddenly means something totally different from what it's stated to mean in the other FAQs that talk about sources.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Clearly we need to stop double stacking of strength to damage via Dragon Style

Oh wait...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

"never gets hit" is a euphemism for 'gets hit so seldom that it really doesn't matter." Stop taking things literally in your nerdrage, please.

Guided is in a PFS AP, which is official enough for me and a lot of others.

Just to respond to these two comments:

Hit seldom means that you have to be able to survive it when it happens. Never gets hit was what you said, which never happens, no matter your AC.

And, on Guided: Yes, it is in an AP segment which has some material that is PFS sanctioned for use. Guided, however, is not one of those pieces. Guided has, so far, not made it into any Pathfinder source, and, since it is not sanctioned for PFS, please leave out arguments of, "If it is good enough for PFS, it is good enough for me.", since it isn't PFS sanctioned material.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow, this is getting convoluted for something so simple. A stat modifier is not a SOURCE. By gaining experience in a class you unlock more powerful abilities. These abilities are the SOURCE. Just because they require "something" to reflect a fluctuating bonus doesn't mean one trumps another.

Another ability with a different name, gained from gaining experience in another class is 100% a different SOURCE despite using the same "something" to determine how powerful the bonus is.

Grand Lodge

FrozenLaughs wrote:

Wow, this is getting convoluted for something so simple. A stat modifier is not a SOURCE. By gaining experience in a class you unlock more powerful abilities. These abilities are the SOURCE. Just because they require "something" to reflect a fluctuating bonus doesn't mean one trumps another.

Another ability with a different name, gained from gaining experience in another class is 100% a different SOURCE despite using the same "something" to determine how powerful the bonus is.

That is what the fundamental question for this thread is all about.

Is adding X from Y per Feat Z considered to be coming from the same source if you also get to add X from Y per feat AA, or are Feats Z & AA considered the source for the modifier, rather than the stat/function it is modeled after?

Classic example:
Agile Maneuvers or Weapon Finesse and Fury's Fall for trip maneuvers.

Note that this is also, indirectly, related to the question about whether changing the stat a check is based changes the type of check it is.

Classic example:
Noble Scion of War (IIRC) changes Initiative form being a Dex-based check to being a Char-based check.
Which raises the question of whether equipment like the Circlet of Persuasion would then modify your Charisma-based Initiative, where it wouldn't affect your Dexterity-based Initiative...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:

Classic example:
Noble Scion of War (IIRC) changes Initiative form being a Dex-based check to being a Char-based check.
Which raises the question of whether equipment like the Circlet of Persuasion would then modify your Charisma-based Initiative, where it wouldn't affect your Dexterity-based Initiative...

It's the wording of the item that makes it ambiguous in this case, as it doesn't specify Cha *skill* checks. Initiative straight out says it is a Dexterity check. Specific rules trump general, so a class ability that substitutes Cha is going to make it a Cha check. Gaining exp and learning new feats/abilities that improve Cha even further will increase this characters initiative checks as a byproduct of the substitution.

Even if it were an ability that added Cha on top, if another class or feat added the ability again it would be allowed as long as they aren't the same type (Extraordinary, Spell Like or Supernatural) or share the same name. Take for instance the Monk/Warpriest(Sacred Fist) debate going on now:
Both receive the identical ability: AC Bonus (SU). This ability is the SOURCE of adding Wis to AC. They cannot add it twice because they are from the same source: Supernatural Ability. If either was an extraordinary (EX) ability the source would be different and stacking would be allowed.

Cha for initiative? How weird lol - "I can see you're in a rush, old chap, but I respectfully ask that you wait your turn."

Dark Archive

FrozenLaughs wrote:

Even if it were an ability that added Cha on top, if another class or feat added the ability again it would be allowed as long as they aren't the same type (Extraordinary, Spell Like or Supernatural) or share the same name. Take for instance the Monk/Warpriest(Sacred Fist) debate going on now:

Both receive the identical ability: AC Bonus (SU). This ability is the SOURCE of adding Wis to AC. They cannot add it twice because they are from the same source: Supernatural Ability. If either was an extraordinary (EX) ability the source would be different and stacking would be allowed.

This is patently incorrect, by the way: link.

Shadow Lodge

High dex doesnt mean higher armor, it means same armor bonus, there are caps which cannot be crossed. Besides AC is the worst type of defense, it only helpos for about 3 levels.

However double stacking wis does break the cap


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ElementalXX wrote:
Besides AC is the worst type of defense, it only helpos for about 3 levels.

This is blatantly false. There are a great many things that bypass AC, but not so many that it warrants not keeping it high at all levels of play.

Silver Crusade

Ravingdork wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:
Besides AC is the worst type of defense, it only helpos for about 3 levels.
This is blatantly false. There are a great many things that bypass AC, but not so many that it warrants not keeping it high at all levels of play.

Precisely.

One great motivation to aim to keep it higher at all costs, is if you have Snake Style/Fang.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

kinevon wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

"never gets hit" is a euphemism for 'gets hit so seldom that it really doesn't matter." Stop taking things literally in your nerdrage, please.

Guided is in a PFS AP, which is official enough for me and a lot of others.

Just to respond to these two comments:

Hit seldom means that you have to be able to survive it when it happens. Never gets hit was what you said, which never happens, no matter your AC.

And, on Guided: Yes, it is in an AP segment which has some material that is PFS sanctioned for use. Guided, however, is not one of those pieces. Guided has, so far, not made it into any Pathfinder source, and, since it is not sanctioned for PFS, please leave out arguments of, "If it is good enough for PFS, it is good enough for me.", since it isn't PFS sanctioned material.

'Never gets hit' is directly impossible in this game, so when someone says it, they mean 'gets hit so rarely I basically ignore the enemy's attacks against AC'.

Not interpreting it that way is 'taking things too literally.'

And whoops, a PF AP, not a PFS, which is its own animal and can make its own judgments on what to include and what not to.

And what Ravingdork said: The vast majority of monsters in PF have attacks that go against AC. Conversely, AC is actually more relevant at higher levels, because the concealment effects that sub for it become almost useless at higher levels with the senses of the enemy.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seranov wrote:
FrozenLaughs wrote:

Even if it were an ability that added Cha on top, if another class or feat added the ability again it would be allowed as long as they aren't the same type (Extraordinary, Spell Like or Supernatural) or share the same name. Take for instance the Monk/Warpriest(Sacred Fist) debate going on now:

Both receive the identical ability: AC Bonus (SU). This ability is the SOURCE of adding Wis to AC. They cannot add it twice because they are from the same source: Supernatural Ability. If either was an extraordinary (EX) ability the source would be different and stacking would be allowed.
This is patently incorrect, by the way: link.

Hmmm, rereading I see that Monks AC bonus is in fact EX not SU, making them stackable as different sources.

Shadow Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:
Besides AC is the worst type of defense, it only helpos for about 3 levels.
This is blatantly false. There are a great many things that bypass AC, but not so many that it warrants not keeping it high at all levels of play.

Im not saying its useless, im saying many type of defenses are better, for instance more hitpoints are much better that higher ac on the long run, thats why con is never a dump stat


FrozenLaughs wrote:
Even if it were an ability that added Cha on top, if another class or feat added the ability again it would be allowed as long as they aren't the same type (Extraordinary, Spell Like or Supernatural) or share the same name.

The idea that this type might be the "source" is a fascinating and new one to me. Any citations?


FrozenLaughs wrote:
Seranov wrote:
FrozenLaughs wrote:

Even if it were an ability that added Cha on top, if another class or feat added the ability again it would be allowed as long as they aren't the same type (Extraordinary, Spell Like or Supernatural) or share the same name. Take for instance the Monk/Warpriest(Sacred Fist) debate going on now:

Both receive the identical ability: AC Bonus (SU). This ability is the SOURCE of adding Wis to AC. They cannot add it twice because they are from the same source: Supernatural Ability. If either was an extraordinary (EX) ability the source would be different and stacking would be allowed.
This is patently incorrect, by the way: link.
Hmmm, rereading I see that Monks AC bonus is in fact EX not SU, making them stackable as different sources.

This is not a thing. Ex, Su, and Sp are not sources.


ElementalXX wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:
Besides AC is the worst type of defense, it only helpos for about 3 levels.
This is blatantly false. There are a great many things that bypass AC, but not so many that it warrants not keeping it high at all levels of play.
Im not saying its useless, im saying many type of defenses are better, for instance more hitpoints are much better that higher ac on the long run, thats why con is never a dump stat

That is not true at all. If you get your AC at +25 beyond your character level, and yes it is possible, you will not have to worry much about healing during of after the battle. However if you have only decent AC things like giants and elementals which do damage above their CR could have you healing during the fight, and might kill you despite your extra hit points if they get into melee range with you.

Yes I am well aware that good saves matter, and that miss chance is another defense that is good to have, if you can get it.

I do agree about not dumping con, but hit points go fast if you are being hit on a regular basis, or even semiregular depending on the enemy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
FrozenLaughs wrote:
Seranov wrote:
FrozenLaughs wrote:

Even if it were an ability that added Cha on top, if another class or feat added the ability again it would be allowed as long as they aren't the same type (Extraordinary, Spell Like or Supernatural) or share the same name. Take for instance the Monk/Warpriest(Sacred Fist) debate going on now:

Both receive the identical ability: AC Bonus (SU). This ability is the SOURCE of adding Wis to AC. They cannot add it twice because they are from the same source: Supernatural Ability. If either was an extraordinary (EX) ability the source would be different and stacking would be allowed.
This is patently incorrect, by the way: link.
Hmmm, rereading I see that Monks AC bonus is in fact EX not SU, making them stackable as different sources.
This is not a thing. Ex, Su, and Sp are not sources.

No, I'm saying that the source of the wisdom bonus is in fact typed: an ability of SU or EX origin. Another SU or EX ability providing an identical bonus does not stack as the benefit is already provided via another SU or EX source.

It's just another example of how we interpret "source" differently.

Sczarni

(Su) and (Ex) are not "bonus types".

Things like Dodge, Alchemical, Deflection, Size, etc. are "bonus types".

Liberty's Edge

Reading through this thread I would like to throw the following Inquisitor class features in to the mix:

Cunning Initiative (Ex): wrote:
At 2nd level, an inquisitor adds her Wisdom modifier on initiative checks, in addition to her Dexterity modifier.

and

(From the Tactics Inquisition) Grant the Initiative (Ex): wrote:
At 8th level, you and all allies within 30 feet may add your Wisdom bonus to your initiative checks.

Do people think that the Inquisitor should gain his Widom bonus twice to initiative in this case.

PS. FAQd as well


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite.

But we actually have FAQ answers that talk about "sources".

Two on this page.

"Two, it doesn’t specify whether the dodge bonus stacks with itself, and because this creates a strange place in the rules where bonuses don’t stack from the same source but dodge bonuses always stack. While we haven’t reached a final decision on what to do about this talent, we are leaning toward this solution: the dodge bonus only applies against the creature you sneak attacked, and the dodge bonus does not stack with itself. This prevents you from getting a dodge bonus to AC against a strong creature by sneak attacking a weak creature, and prevents you from reaching an absurdly high AC by sneak attacking multiple times in the same round."

"This doesn't violate the general rule for stacking penalties--each evil eye effect is basically a different source, even though they stem from the evil eye hex (the evil eye hex is much like 5 separate weak hexes under a common umbrella). In the same way that multiple castings of bestow curse on the same target should stack as long as they do different things (penalize Strength, penalize Dex, penalize attack rolls, take no action, and so on), multiple uses of the evil eye hex stack as long as they're targeting different game statistics."

In each case, it is the class feature or specific ability which is the "source" of the bonus. So, bestow curse is a source. The evil eye hex is a source. The "offensive defensive" rogue talent is a source.

These are not types (like "dodge" or "alchemical"), they are not basic ability categories (like "exceptional" or "supernatural"). And, with the single exception of one offhand remark from James Jacobs, I have never seen anything in 3.0, 3.5, or PF rules which suggests otherwise.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have been following this with some interest, and have a fairly entrenched opinion. However I recently read one contrary post that made me look at this afresh and one thing I have been using myself is the term 'source', but a thorough search of the CRB and nothing uses this term. So I head to the FAQ's. Here I can only find it used in reference to temporary hit points. hmmm! But it does direct me to p208 of the CRB. This particular section refers to how bonuses from spells interact. It states that "spells that provide bonuses...usually do not stack with themselves". It goes onto say "(or from effects other than spells)".

Ok, so for a minute let's go back to temporary hit points (bear with me, I have a point I promise) temp HP this refers to different sources naming 2 spells, and a special ability.

Now imagine a spell that adds your charisma modifier to your saving throws -convenient- I think we can all agree that the 'source' of the charisma modifier is the spell.

I turn back to the the little sentence in brackets on p208. It should be clear I hope that if a feat allows you to add your charisma to your saves - wow! handy - the feat is the source of that bonus as an 'effect other than a spell'.
therein lies my point. The bonus granted isn't the source, the ability granting it is.
thanks for sticking with me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

(Su) and (Ex) are not "bonus types".

Things like Dodge, Alchemical, Deflection, Size, etc. are "bonus types".

Im not talking about the typing. I'm referring to the SOURCE of what provides the bonus. Are you saying that Supernatural Abilities are not provided by a Supernatural Source?

You are receiving a specific bonus (we'll say Wis mod to AC), the source is a Supernatural source.

Getting the exact same specific bonus from another Supernatural ability does not stack, you already have an unknown mystical Supernatural power giving you that ability. You can't double dip.

Getting the ability via an Extraordinary ability does stack. The source this time is from sheer force of physical and mental training, not a mystical source. While the benefit remains the same (X stat to AC) the value is simply defined by Wisdom, Wisdom is not the SOURCE of the ability/bonus.

Both abilities are gained via different sources and are therefore typed differently, allowing stacking. One provides a wisdom mod bonus to AC from a SU source and the other EX source.

Again, you interpret source in one way, I another. I'm simply trying to highlight another example of why this needs resolved


2 people marked this as a favorite.

(Su), (Ex), and (Sp) are not, and cannot be, sources. They don't, in and of themselves, grant any abilities. They merely describe how the various abilities interact with the world.

In your example the source is the class ability granting the wisdom modifier to AC.

Sczarni

"Sources" include things such as Class Features, Feats, Traits, Spells, Items, Hexes, and so on.

(Su), (Sp), and (Ex) are labels we give to sources.

They are not sources in and of themselves.


dragonhunterq wrote:

(Su), (Ex), and (Sp) are not, and cannot be, sources. They don't, in and of themselves, grant any abilities. They merely describe how the various abilities interact with the world.

In your example the source is the class ability granting the wisdom modifier to AC.

And the type of source is Extraordinary, otherwise it would not require a label. If another EX ability grants the same bonus it does not stack, unless otherwise stated, such as cases of uncanny dodge or evasion.

All abilities have a source and a type, just as all bonuses have a source and a type. You cannot stack bonuses of the same type unless they are from different sources and you cannot stack abilities of the same type, unless they too are from different sources.

Hence why SU and SLA abilities are shut down by an antimagic field. Your connection to the source of the ability is severed, it is not an innate physical ability.


FrozenLaughs wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

(Su), (Ex), and (Sp) are not, and cannot be, sources. They don't, in and of themselves, grant any abilities. They merely describe how the various abilities interact with the world.

In your example the source is the class ability granting the wisdom modifier to AC.

And the type of source is Extraordinary, otherwise it would not require a label. If another EX ability grants the same bonus it does not stack, unless otherwise stated, such as cases of uncanny dodge or evasion.

All abilities have a source and a type, just as all bonuses have a source and a type. You cannot stack bonuses of the same type unless they are from different sources and you cannot stack abilities of the same type, unless they too are from different sources.

Hence why SU and SLA abilities are shut down by an antimagic field. Your connection to the source of the ability is severed, it is not an innate physical ability.

I'm sorry but I fear you are mistaken. I suppose easiest way to show you is to direct you here. Ok, read that? now assume you have a class ability that grants you aid 1/day as a (Sp). And you grab an awesome feat that grants you vampiric touch 1/day (Sp). That is no different than actually casting the two spells. By your ruling they don't stack. But the FAQ clearly indicates they do. The temporary HP's stack because the Spells are the sources, not whether they are (Sp) or (Su) or (Ex).


dragonhunterq wrote:
I'm sorry but I fear you are mistaken. I suppose easiest way to show you is to direct you here. Ok, read that? now assume you have a class ability that grants you aid 1/day as a (Sp). And you grab an awesome feat that grants you vampiric touch 1/day (Sp). That is no different than actually casting the two spells. By your ruling they don't stack. But the FAQ clearly indicates they do. The temporary HP's stack because the Spells are the sources, not whether they are (Sp) or (Su) or (Ex).

The bonus is temp HP, the sources are two different abilities. No argument?

Now let's say that (for example) your class gave you... Let's call it Vampiric Aid (SU) and you wanted that sweet feat that also provides the Vampiric Aid(SU) ability. Do they stack without a special descripor stating so? (# per day, usually) the answer should be no. You already have a connection to a mystical/supernatural/other-worldy source providing you that power. You don't get to connect to it again and get it again (presumably you would just buff what you already have)

Now if that same feat provides Vampiric Aid (EX) then you now have two completely different sources providing the same version of the ability, allowing them to be used separately and apply their bonuses separately. In the case of temp hit points, some would be from one ability source and some from the other.


Im not sure what you mean by stacking when talking about two SLA's. They obviously would not grant double the temp hp if used in a short time but the number of times per day would stack. otherwise you are saying that a aasimar lantern bearer would not get the daylight SLA from both race and class. Sp Su and Ex are not sources they describe sources but are not the source them self.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
FrozenLaughs wrote:
Seranov wrote:
FrozenLaughs wrote:

Even if it were an ability that added Cha on top, if another class or feat added the ability again it would be allowed as long as they aren't the same type (Extraordinary, Spell Like or Supernatural) or share the same name. Take for instance the Monk/Warpriest(Sacred Fist) debate going on now:

Both receive the identical ability: AC Bonus (SU). This ability is the SOURCE of adding Wis to AC. They cannot add it twice because they are from the same source: Supernatural Ability. If either was an extraordinary (EX) ability the source would be different and stacking would be allowed.
This is patently incorrect, by the way: link.
Hmmm, rereading I see that Monks AC bonus is in fact EX not SU, making them stackable as different sources.
This is not a thing. Ex, Su, and Sp are not sources.

No, but one being EX and the other being SU shows that they are different sources despite having the same name.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

you know how i keep out of these can of worms, i don't try to be OP.


Bandw2 wrote:
you know how i keep out of these can of worms, i don't try to be OP.

You can easily be far more OP than double stacking a stat with existing unambiguous rules.

Dazing spell, Leadership, Crafting, Deep Slumber hex, Lesser dazing rod, Summoner... really the entire class, even just the base cleric/druid/wizard with a 20 in the casting stat are more powerful than stat stacking could ever hope to be.

That's why I hate hearing things like this from people who really don't understand the point of the question.


FrozenLaughs wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

(Su) and (Ex) are not "bonus types".

Things like Dodge, Alchemical, Deflection, Size, etc. are "bonus types".

Im not talking about the typing. I'm referring to the SOURCE of what provides the bonus. Are you saying that Supernatural Abilities are not provided by a Supernatural Source?

Well, yeah, actually? We are talking game rules here, and you're substituting in a different sense of the word "source", but that's not a sense that the rules have ever used or supported.

Quote:
Again, you interpret source in one way, I another. I'm simply trying to highlight another example of why this needs resolved

It would help if you could provide a single citation to actual rules text or examples showing a ruling that two different exceptional abilities can't stack.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Undone wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
you know how i keep out of these can of worms, i don't try to be OP.

You can easily be far more OP than double stacking a stat with existing unambiguous rules.

Dazing spell, Leadership, Crafting, Deep Slumber hex, Lesser dazing rod, Summoner... really the entire class, even just the base cleric/druid/wizard with a 20 in the casting stat are more powerful than stat stacking could ever hope to be.

That's why I hate hearing things like this from people who really don't understand the point of the question.

sure but it STILL keeps me out of these kind of can of worms.


seebs wrote:
It would help if you could provide a single citation to actual rules text or examples showing a ruling that two different exceptional abilities can't stack.

Hmmmm well... Notice that uncanny Dodge states that it stacks with itself if from another class and becomes improved uncanny dodge, but evasion does not become improved evasion. Not sure that qualifies though.

My best example was just that; only an example. The Monk/Warpriest combo of the AC Bonus ability stacking. I was simply trying to illustrate that the bonus is "+Wis mod to AC" but that the source is from two different things because I interpret an EX and an SU ability with identical names to be from two sources/types.

I didn't mean to derail the discussion. I simply meant to chime in with an example of why I would like the definition of Source clarified a bit better too. Apparently I'm the only person who takes Source one layer deeper and tries to define the Source of the Source.


FrozenLaughs wrote:
seebs wrote:
It would help if you could provide a single citation to actual rules text or examples showing a ruling that two different exceptional abilities can't stack.
Hmmmm well... Notice that uncanny Dodge states that it stacks with itself if from another class and becomes improved uncanny dodge, but evasion does not become improved evasion. Not sure that qualifies though.

Not even a tiny little bit. That's not even bonuses at all, let alone untyped bonuses!

Quote:


My best example was just that; only an example. The Monk/Warpriest combo of the AC Bonus ability stacking. I was simply trying to illustrate that the bonus is "+Wis mod to AC" but that the source is from two different things because I interpret an EX and an SU ability with identical names to be from two sources/types.

Right, but why do you interpret it that way? Where does anything in any book in the history of D&D suggest that "source" means ex-vs-su rather than, say, "a specific ability or trait"?

Quote:

I didn't mean to derail the discussion. I simply meant to chime in with an example of why I would like the definition of Source clarified a bit better too. Apparently I'm the only person who takes Source one layer deeper and tries to define the Source of the Source.

Partially, I think, that's an issue because I'm pretty sure we've got examples available where it's absolutely clear that dodge bonuses stack with each other even if they are all from Ex abilities, as long as they're from different Ex abilities.


Mmmh as I have said this ability things is strange, whan you make a skill check you do this : 1d20 + skill ranks + ability modifier + racial modifier.
Let's take Bluff which use Charisma Bonus, I can have a "add your int to Bluff skill" but not a "add Cha to your Bluff skill" ?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Loengrin wrote:

Mmmh as I have said this ability things is strange, whan you make a skill check you do this : 1d20 + skill ranks + ability modifier + racial modifier.

Let's take Bluff which use Charisma Bonus, I can have a "add your int to Bluff skill" but not a "add Cha to your Bluff skill" ?

You already have a "add Cha mod to your Bluff skill" as a default.

Now, is there a feat, trait, class ability or anything else that gives the ability to "Add your Charisma modifier to your Bluff skill" out there?

Not for that specific thing, but you get a few things for other checks.

CMB, for instance, normally uses BAB and Str mod.
Weapon Finesse lets you use your BAB and Dex mod, instead of Str mod, for CMB when using a combat maneuver with a Finesseable weapon.
Agile Maneuvers lets you do the same thing, but doesn't require a Finesseable weapon, or even a weapon-based maneuver.

Fury's Fall, a feat from the Cheliax book, lets you add your Dex mod to your CMB when making a trip combat maneuver.

Now, the question that comes up is whether the Dex mod added from Fury's Fall has Dex as the source, or Fury's Fall as the source. If it is Dex, many feel that you cannot use it in combination with the Dex substitution provided by Weapon Finesse or Agile Maneuvers, as Dex would be the source for the mod in both cases. Others look at it as the bonus comes from Fury's Fall, in which case it doesn't matter that the user's Dex provides the numeric value, as the source is Fury's Fall, rather then Dex, and it would stack.

Which is what the whole question for this thread is, is what defines source for this kind of thing, as that defines what can stack,m and what cannot.

FrozenLaughs: Su, Sp, and Ex are not really sources, they simply give some rules for interactions between those abilities and certain other game effects, like whether the ability functions in a no magic zone, and whether it provokes an attack of opportunity by default.

Yes, two abilities, with the same name, but with different types (Su, Sp and/or Ex) will qualify as different abilities, but that is the whole thing taken together. Two different abilities, with different names, but the same type (Su, Sp, and/or Ex) can still stack, if their bonus type allows it.

The Dodge feat, for example, gives a +1 Dodge bonus to AC.
The Mobility feat gives a +4 Dodge bonus to AC in certain circumstances. In those circumstances, you would have a +5 Dodge bonus to AC, not a +4.

Now, if it were possible to take either feat twice, the bonus provided would not stack, since they would be a +x Dodge bonus from source feat X, even though, normally, Dodge bonuses stack. The feat, in this case, would obviously be the source of the bonus.
The type is Dodge, the source is the Dodge feat.

Hope that makes sense, and explains where some of us are coming from, and why we are confused when some people say that Dex is the source of the bonus from Fury's Fall...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:
Quote:
"This doesn't violate the general rule for stacking penalties--each evil eye effect is basically a different source, even though they stem from the evil eye hex (the evil eye hex is much like 5 separate weak hexes under a common umbrella). In the same way that multiple castings of bestow curse on the same target should stack as long as they do different things (penalize Strength, penalize Dex, penalize attack rolls, take no action, and so on), multiple uses of the evil eye hex stack as long as they're targeting different game statistics."
In each case, it is the class feature or specific ability which is the "source" of the bonus. So, bestow curse is a source. The evil eye hex is a source.

I might be misunderstanding it, but the faq says each evil eye effect is a different source. So evil eye is not a source. The effect that is applied appears to be the 'source'?


Rikkan wrote:
seebs wrote:
Quote:
"This doesn't violate the general rule for stacking penalties--each evil eye effect is basically a different source, even though they stem from the evil eye hex (the evil eye hex is much like 5 separate weak hexes under a common umbrella). In the same way that multiple castings of bestow curse on the same target should stack as long as they do different things (penalize Strength, penalize Dex, penalize attack rolls, take no action, and so on), multiple uses of the evil eye hex stack as long as they're targeting different game statistics."
In each case, it is the class feature or specific ability which is the "source" of the bonus. So, bestow curse is a source. The evil eye hex is a source.
I might be misunderstanding it, but the faq says each evil eye effect is a different source. So evil eye is not a source. The effect that is applied appears to be the 'source'?

That is correct. Evil eye is the holder for various effects, and each effect is the source, but in any event you still have a class feature as the source.

FAQ wrote:
This doesn't violate the general rule for stacking penalties--each evil eye effect is basically a different source, even though they stem from the evil eye hex (the evil eye hex is much like 5 separate weak hexes under a common umbrella). In the same way that multiple castings of bestow curse on the same target should stack as long as they do different things (penalize Strength, penalize Dex, penalize attack rolls, take no action, and so on), multiple uses of the evil eye hex stack as long as they're targeting different game statistics.

Notice that it also mentions bestow curse as source showing proof that spells and class features are sources.


To be honest, the bestow curse part confused me.
It seems to contradict :

Quote:
Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.


Rikkan wrote:

To be honest, the bestow curse part confused me.

It seems to contradict :
Quote:
Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

That is referring to spells such as polymorph. As an example if you cast polymorph, and then you are also subject to polymorph any object the original spell is still in affect. So if PaO is dispelled then you can still benefit from polymorph.


I thought the next paragraph was for cases like that:

Quote:
One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.

Silver Crusade

Bandw2 wrote:
Undone wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
you know how i keep out of these can of worms, i don't try to be OP.

You can easily be far more OP than double stacking a stat with existing unambiguous rules.

Dazing spell, Leadership, Crafting, Deep Slumber hex, Lesser dazing rod, Summoner... really the entire class, even just the base cleric/druid/wizard with a 20 in the casting stat are more powerful than stat stacking could ever hope to be.

That's why I hate hearing things like this from people who really don't understand the point of the question.

sure but it STILL keeps me out of these kind of can of worms.

It may keep you out of those "cans of worms", but it's still wise to question it and make the combination so that in the future there is discussion, FAQs, RAW data, Erratas, etc that are very much needed.

There is nothing wrong with taking the RAW data and combining what you need to combine, to make what you want to make. Sometimes, those options just happen to be "OP". It happens. This is the whole point of these discussions, to prevent that through the methods mentioned above, so that people can still be cool or make what they want to, but hopefully not be OP yet still have an Edge in battle or RP. It's the compromise we should be after.


For those of you who are still trying to harp the whole "Well JJ said this!!!" train, I would like to introduce you to his opinion on using him for rules issues

He said he should not be referenced for things regarding rules and this should be taken care of between you and your GM

Your welcome and good night :)

Grand Lodge

PIXIE DUST wrote:

For those of you who are still trying to harp the whole "Well JJ said this!!!" train, I would like to introduce you to his opinion on using him for rules issues

He said he should not be referenced for things regarding rules and this should be taken care of between you and your GM

Your welcome and good night :)

This has been mentioned, many, many, many, times.

Some people just don't care.


Rikkan wrote:
I thought the next paragraph was for cases like that:
Quote:
One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.

Nope. Someone under a polymorph spell being affected by flesh to stone would cover that. If you are stone that polymorph does not matter until you are flesh again.

101 to 150 of 1,084 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What is the meaning of 'source' in regards to bonus stacking? All Messageboards