| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very forward thinking indeed; as far as I know there aren't any such archetypes as yet.I know, right? Whichever freelancer wrote that or designer developed that was really on top of their game. I love it when abilities are written so well to work easily with new abilities!
Sounds like you're in the know of who the really froody designers are Mark; maybe you could get one of them cracking on a new Inquisitor archetype for us? ;)
I actually don't mind this ruling all that much. In principle at least I'd prefer to see more benefits to balanced ability scores over hyper-specialized single-stat builds. I just hope that there aren't any surprises where this ruling breaks things.
Very forward thinking indeed; as far as I know there aren't any such archetypes as yet.As an aside, while your memory seems to be correct in this instance, there are also handy tables these days for these sorts of queries.
It wasn't actually by memory; I checked the page on archivesofnethys.com when bbt brought up the Tactics Inquisition and didn't see Cunning Initiative listed anywhere. The tables on d20pfsrd are a wonderful idea, unfortunately, they're too wide and too long to stay on one screen, so it's really easy to get lost while scrolling around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very forward thinking indeed; as far as I know there aren't any such archetypes as yet.I know, right? Whichever freelancer wrote that or designer developed that was really on top of their game. I love it when abilities are written so well to work easily with new abilities!Sounds like you're in the know of who the really froody designers are Mark; maybe you could get one of them cracking on a new Inquisitor archetype for us? ;)
I actually don't mind this ruling all that much. In principle at least I'd prefer to see more benefits to balanced ability scores over hyper-specialized single-stat builds. I just hope that there aren't any surprises where this ruling breaks things.
If there are and anyone lets me know, I will add them to my list to address and attempt to address them promptly.
|
So, things that say "a bonus equal to <relevant modifier>", stack with things that say "add your <relevant modifier>", as one is from an ability score, whilst the other is from the ability, that just happens to be based of the same ability score?It's a very good question, so the FAQ explicitly answers this.
If it says "a deflection bonus equal to <relevant modifier>" or something like that, then you're fine because they are different sources.
That exact construction you listed, however, with an untyped modifier is specifically called out by the FAQ to be equivalent to "add your <relevant modifier>" and thus same source, doesn't stack.
So, when the bonus has no type, it doesn't stack, as it changes the source, whilst typed bonuses, by simply being typed, no longer count the relevant ability score, as the source?
This is odd, as both use the same ability score to determine the value, and untyped bonuses are called out explicitly as stacking.
How are we to determine when the value of a bonus, determined by an ability modifier, considers the relevant ability score as the source, and when it considers the class ability/feat/etc. as the source?
In your example, "a deflection bonus equal to your charisma modifier", you imply it is different than "a bonus equal to charisma modifier", even if both are from different class abilities, but the former considers the class ability as the source, and the latter considers the ability score as the source, even though they are nearly identical in wording.
Would not the "a bonus equal to charisma modifier" wording, basically be "an untyped bonus equal to charisma modifier"?
In your example, "a deflection bonus equal to your charisma modifier", you imply it is different than "a bonus equal to charisma modifier", even if both are from different class abilities, but the former considers the class ability as the source, and the latter considers the ability score as the source, even though they are nearly identical in wording.
Correct. Essentially "bonus equal to your Charisma modifier" was meant as a stand-in for "your Charisma modifier", and they came out worded differently due to imprecision. This FAQ, then, corrects that imprecision as part of explaining how it applies, since one victim of that imprecision was a very common ability in the CRB (divine grace).
|
Looks like the effect of this may be to bring stat-based bonuses under normal bonus type stacking rules. All untyped stat based bonuses are treated as a bonus of that stat type. So you have your Dex bonus to init, and if something else gives you *another* Dex bonus to init, they don't stack (per usual stacking rules).
Sound right? (Haven't been following the issue closely, reading/writing from phone, may be off).
(Confusion may be thinking of this as question of untyped bonus source. Easier to think that those "untyped" bonuses now have a type: a Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha type bonus, depending.)
I'd rather they made stat bonuses a type that doesn't stack instead of getting source mixed into it.
Looks like the effect of this may be to bring stat-based bonuses under normal bonus type stacking rules. All untyped stat based bonuses are treated as a bonus of that stat type. So you have your Dex bonus to init, and if something else gives you *another* Dex bonus to init, they don't stack (per usual stacking rules).
Sound right? (Haven't been following the issue closely, reading/writing from phone, may be off).
(Confusion may be thinking of this as question of untyped bonus source. Easier to think that those "untyped" bonuses now have a type: a Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha type bonus, depending.)
That is definitely how I am going to think of them in my own mind too, yes. But officially, they are still technically untyped.
That is definitely how I am going to think of them in my own mind too, yes. But officially, they are still technically untyped.Looks like the effect of this may be to bring stat-based bonuses under normal bonus type stacking rules. All untyped stat based bonuses are treated as a bonus of that stat type. So you have your Dex bonus to init, and if something else gives you *another* Dex bonus to init, they don't stack (per usual stacking rules).
Sound right? (Haven't been following the issue closely, reading/writing from phone, may be off).
(Confusion may be thinking of this as question of untyped bonus source. Easier to think that those "untyped" bonuses now have a type: a Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha type bonus, depending.)
So could you have your DEX to init twice, assuming that some ability/spell/feat let you add your DEX to your init in addition to the base amount?
So, "bonus equal to your Charisma modifier" is now "add your Charisma modifier to", and as such, changes the source from say, the class ability itself, to the Charisma modifier?
Will this be change, in all cases, even when it would make no sense(such as the aforementioned Dragon Ferocity)?
As I mentioned, Dragon Ferocity will be altered to become clearer (and to work properly).
|
|
That is definitely how I am going to think of them in my own mind too, yes. But officially, they are still technically untyped.Looks like the effect of this may be to bring stat-based bonuses under normal bonus type stacking rules. All untyped stat based bonuses are treated as a bonus of that stat type. So you have your Dex bonus to init, and if something else gives you *another* Dex bonus to init, they don't stack (per usual stacking rules).
Sound right? (Haven't been following the issue closely, reading/writing from phone, may be off).
(Confusion may be thinking of this as question of untyped bonus source. Easier to think that those "untyped" bonuses now have a type: a Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha type bonus, depending.)
What's the reason to leave them officially untyped? Is it just a question of the errata needed to change that being too deep or too extensive?
In any case, the functional rule is clear enough now that I've put my finger on "they're effectively typed". Do you think it would be helpful to add a line to the FAQ pointing out the functional rule?
|
|
As I mentioned, Dragon Ferocity will be altered to become clearer (and to work properly).So, "bonus equal to your Charisma modifier" is now "add your Charisma modifier to", and as such, changes the source from say, the class ability itself, to the Charisma modifier?
Will this be change, in all cases, even when it would make no sense(such as the aforementioned Dragon Ferocity)?
That doesn't answer my first question.
I'd rather they made stat bonuses a type that doesn't stack instead of getting source mixed into it.I would rather never have that happen, and just have only the "add your <relevant modifier> to" worded abilities not stack.
At least it would require less additional errata.
That would be my thought's too but I was just commenting on the FAQ's wording (source vs type).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is definitely how I am going to think of them in my own mind too, yes. But officially, they are still technically untyped.Looks like the effect of this may be to bring stat-based bonuses under normal bonus type stacking rules. All untyped stat based bonuses are treated as a bonus of that stat type. So you have your Dex bonus to init, and if something else gives you *another* Dex bonus to init, they don't stack (per usual stacking rules).
Sound right? (Haven't been following the issue closely, reading/writing from phone, may be off).
(Confusion may be thinking of this as question of untyped bonus source. Easier to think that those "untyped" bonuses now have a type: a Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha type bonus, depending.)
What's the reason to leave them officially untyped? Is it just a question of the errata needed to change that being too deep or too extensive?
In any case, the functional rule is clear enough now that I've put my finger on "they're effectively typed". Do you think it would be helpful to add a line to the FAQ pointing out the functional rule?
The reason is similar to the one you stated. Essentially adding new types to the game right now (since those are not listed as types) would require extensive change. If there's enough support for that among everyone, I will bring up the possibility of adding something like "One way to think of it is that all untyped bonuses from or equal to a stat modifier were typed from that modifier. While that isn't exactly the case, this FAQ adjudicates identically to that situation".
So how about fury's fall and agile maneuvers? One replaces strength with dex and the other adds yourself dexterity to the combat maneuver check to trip someone.
Those two were listed earlier as an example, they don't stack.
It sounds like, unless the ability specifically changes the 'type' of bonus granted by the ability modifier (i.e. paladins and their smite adding Cha to AC as a deflection modifier), then they don't stack.
This "type changes source" thing just does not sit well with me, as nothing prior to this FAQ, even implies such a thing.
Is it in the "unwritten rules"?
That reminds me of the 'hands of effort' FAQ... That one didn't sit well either for the same reasons.
|
Mark,
I'm not sure why you just don't call ability bonuses typed. There is not really a list of bonus types anywhere published as far as I'm aware.
You'll note the only published list is from ultimate magic and it does not include trait or racial bonuses, therefore is not comprehensive.
Not sure why making this definition more complicated than it needs to be is a good idea. Using the source part of the rule is confusing. You are creating a new way of reading the rules (multiple sources for the same bonus) that never existed before.
There literally is no reason not to call them typed. It requires no further errata than you already are doing.
Here is the link to a post I did on another thread that includes all the research I did into this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it funny that the chosen option causes multiple abilities not to function as intended instead.
Or rather, none of those abilities were intended to work the way you think they were supposed to work.
The FAQ just clarifies how everything was intended to work now.
There was never intended to be any double dipping of stat bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I found one more Inquisition that switches some skills to Wisdom instead of Charisma - Reformation. Interestingly, it *could* be combined with the Heretic archetype without problems, as the Inquisition and the Archetype affect different skills. I couldn't find any other Archetypes that have any stacking conflicts with any of the Inquisitions.
So that's one archetype that has stacking issues with three Inquisitions, one archetype that has stacking issues with just two of those three, and one inquisition that grants more to allies than to the actual inquisitor.
BBT's Tactics Inquisition discussion has me wondering:
If I'm an eighth level Tactics Inquisitor and my teammate is also an Inquisitor, does my Wisdom modifier to his initiative stack with his Wisdom modifier to his initiative?
If so, I think they might make for an interesting group of NPCs to send against a high-initiative party. (You could play two tactics inquisitors in one party, but there's easier ways to get crazy good Initiative, and who would want to play something that similar to another party member?)
|
Luckily, I (and likely plenty of other DMs, as well) are free to houserule this errata away, and thus evade all the nonsense that is likely to come from this change.
It's futzy, it's vague, and it's going to require rewrites of stuff that worked just fine before. Perfect material to exert Rule Zero on.
|
|
You mean dragons ferocity or the inquisitor inquisitions which specifically state they work on him with his own class feature?I find it funny that the chosen option causes multiple abilities not to function as intended instead.Or rather, none of those abilities were intended to work the way you think they were supposed to work.
The FAQ just clarifies how everything was intended to work now.
There was never intended to be any double dipping of stat bonuses.
Mark has already explained that a feat that needed clarification without this FAQ will be clarified to work as intended.
The inquisition still works as intended. Mark explained all this. They were never intended to allow double dipping. You still get the bonuses, they just don't stack.
But since other classes can take inquisitions. So they'd get that bonus for themselves as there would be no stacking issues at that point.
|
|
What he's explained is he has to errata a minimum of two effects (Paladin's saves and dragon ferocity) and they haven't explained the reason for errating away double dex to damage which functions the same way and definitively functioned before which caused the errata. It seems the discussion they had came to the conclusion they couldn't function with the original wording of the rules so they changed them.You mean dragons ferocity or the inquisitor inquisitions which specifically state they work on him with his own class feature?I find it funny that the chosen option causes multiple abilities not to function as intended instead.Or rather, none of those abilities were intended to work the way you think they were supposed to work.
The FAQ just clarifies how everything was intended to work now.
There was never intended to be any double dipping of stat bonuses.
Mark has already explained that a feat that needed clarification without this FAQ will be clarified to work as intended.
The inquisition still works as intended. Mark explained all this. They were never intended to allow double dipping. You still get the bonuses, they just don't stack.
But since other classes can take inquisitions. So they'd get that bonus for themselves as there would be no stacking issues at that point.
I don't see where he said he'd have to errata Paladin's saves at all. They didn't errata away double dex to damage. They added a missed phrase to an ability that should have said "this replaces XXX."
Your comments are making it seem as though they are changing rules.
They aren't.
They are clarifying how the rule should have always been interpreted.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your comments are making it seem as though they are changing rules.They aren't.
They are clarifying how the rule should have always been interpreted.
They are.
Having a source change, depending on the type of bonus it gives, is a changing the rules.
Saying a bonus from feat/class feature/etc, comes from said the relevant feat/class feature/etc, even if the value is determined by an ability modifier, as long as it's typed, but if it's untyped, and an ability modifier determines it's value, then it changes the source, to the ability score determining the value, isn't a rules change, then I have no idea what rules you are reading.
|
|
PFS Does not permit rule zero.Luckily, I (and likely plenty of other DMs, as well) are free to houserule this errata away, and thus evade all the nonsense that is likely to come from this change.
It's futzy, it's vague, and it's going to require rewrites of stuff that worked just fine before. Perfect material to exert Rule Zero on.
PFS is, thankfully, far from the only option to play PF. So while PFS players are hosed, the non-PFS population has no such problems.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, I saw that.
It isn't errata'd.
Its clarified that those two phrases mean the same thing. He goes on to explain that the confusion about how those two could be read differently is because of the use of imprecise language.
But it isn't errata, just a clarification.
Really, because that is in conflict of your stance on ability modifiers being typed.
Are you saying, that even when you are wrong, you are still right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having Inquisitions that no longer function correctly, feats that need to be re-written due to a FAQ changing the printed rules, as well as admitting that a CRB class ability gets away with double dipping because the text was written slightly differently grammatically, means that this FAQ is about as good an idea as the Hands of Effort clarification, the original FOB ruling, and the magus haste examples.
I appreciate that there are FAQs coming, and that Paizo takes the time to respond to fans.
However, if a FAQ means that at least 5 sources of printed material need to be entirely re-written to function based on the new ruling, then perhaps it should still be on the table and not posted.
Unfortunately, this is one of the things that can and will happen when you have rules vagueness lasting multiple years mixed with many designers not always talking to each other, and an incredibly byzantine game system.
|
|
Nope, I saw that.
It isn't errata'd.
Its clarified that those two phrases mean the same thing. He goes on to explain that the confusion about how those two could be read differently is because of the use of imprecise language.
But it isn't errata, just a clarification.
Really, because that is in conflict of your stance on ability modifiers being typed.
Are you saying, that even when you are wrong, you are still right?
huh? Not sure where you are getting that comment based on what I just said. I don't see how anything I've said contradicts anything that I've said on this topic thus far.
But since you are deciding to be combative and aggressive with me, and my comment was to Mark Seifter, I'm done discussing this with you.
|
|
huh? Not sure where you are getting that comment based on what I just said. I don't see how anything I've said contradicts anything that I've said on this topic thus far.
But since you are deciding to be combative and aggressive with me, and my comment was to Mark Seifter, I'm done discussing this with you.
I apologize if that seemed combative.
|
|
I apologize if that seemed combative.huh? Not sure where you are getting that comment based on what I just said. I don't see how anything I've said contradicts anything that I've said on this topic thus far.
But since you are deciding to be combative and aggressive with me, and my comment was to Mark Seifter, I'm done discussing this with you.
Thank you for the apology.
To address what I think you are saying:
I have argued on many threads regarding ability bonuses, that they are typed.
The FAQ tells me I am wrong on that.
But Mark explains that there is no functional difference between them being considered a source for "same source not stacking" or being typed.
So I'm appealing to him to change that clarification to just say they are typed.
I frankly don't care that I was wrong about they being considered typed.
The fact that they functionally work as though they were typed clarifies the issue for me in at least a satisfactory way in that they don't stack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to clarify, from skimming the past page it looks like Dragon Ferocity was nerfed.
Is that correct? I want to know for sure so I know exactly how pissed off I should be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dragon Ferocity will be unaffected when it gets a rewording to clarify it (it should have been worded as an increase to begin with so people could clearly see its interaction with original style). As far as I, and all the people looking for other exceptions so far, can tell, nothing else is affected except for exactly what was intended to be affected.