Wis to attack twice?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 275 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

17 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.

Zen Archer monk has: At 3rd level, a zen archer may use his Wisdom modifier instead of his Dexterity modifier on ranged attack rolls when using a bow.

Erastil's 3rd boon is: Wisdom to attack rolls and damage to enemies within 30 feet when using a longbow.

My question, assuming the enemy is within 30 feet do you get wisdom to attack twice?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If Erastil's says you add Wisdom in addition to the regular modifier, then I would say yes. If it says you may use Wisdom, then no. What is the exact wording on the boon?


"You are particularly skilled at using
Erastil's favored weapon. When using a long bow, you add
your Wisdom bonus on attack and damage rolls against
targets within 30 feet."


I would say yes, they do double stack then. Zen Archer replaces Dex entirely and then the Boon gives you a bonus equal to your Wisdom; as long as they weren't both trying to replace Dex there is no conflict.


Seconded.

Scarab Sages

I wouldn't allow it, because it's coming from the same source (wisdom). But I had the same opinion about the gunslinger thing (was it pistelero plus mysterious stranger? Some combination) that let you get dex to damage twice, and there were plenty who fell on the other side of the fence. And as I recall, Paizo errata'ed that to make it clear that you didn't get to add it twice in that case, so my guess is that if you got an official ruling it would say no in this case as well.

Talk to your DM though, see what he or she thinks.


Has Paizo said anything one way or the other? I haven't been able to find anything.


Rowe wrote:
Has Paizo said anything one way or the other? I haven't been able to find anything.

James Jacobs has given his opinion as no, using almost the exact argument as Duiker, in a post.

Conversely, I disagree with that argument, as I don't see Wis as the source of the bonus. The class feature/boon is the source of the bonus, so they are different sources.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

With the usual "James is the creative director, not a design (rules) guy" caveat:

Modifiers from ability scores aren't actually bonuses, strictly speaking. If they are, they're untyped bonuses—which means they stack with all other bonuses except themselves. Thus, if you have multiple things that say "Add your Dex modifier to this roll," you only get to add your Dex modifier once.

So, to answer the actual question:

1) Nope; it's not a typed bonus. It stacks with all other modifiers, but can't stack with itself.

2) If you have Fury's Fall and Weapon Finesse, you've basically got two feats with overlapping effects. You don't get to add your Dexterity modifier more than once to CMB if it's already been included due to any other effect. SO! If you have Weapon Finesse... you'll only want to look at taking Fury's Fall if you're expecting to be using weapons you can't modifier via Weapon Finess to make trip attacks. Otherwise, Fury's Fall is a waste for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Only, he's completely wrong, because the stat is not the source of the bonus, the feat or ability is.

The sources of the bonuses are (1) zen archer, (2) erastil's boon. Those are two different sources.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

*shrug* I agree with James Jacobs' take. As has been argued to death in the pistolero double dex-to-damage threads, to me (and others) whether it's coming from a feat or not, the root benefit is coming from the ability modifier. Getting two different ways to apply the same ability mod to the same thing seems to me to be stacking things from the same source. It seems like the only intuitive way to read it to me (you're only as wise as you are, having different approaches to applying your wisdom to a situation doesn't make you twice as wise), but I understand that a lot of other people disagree.

But the other time this happened (with double dex to damage), Paizo said it was not supposed to work that way, and eventually issued an errata that fixed the loophole (errata in question is linked here).

So yeah, you can end up with a thirty page thread of the two sides yelling the same arguments from the pistolero argument, or see that is Paizo didn't intend the doubling in that case, they probably will errata it out of this case too.


The problem I have with the fury's fall/agile maneuvers case is that this is a case where taking an additional feat can lower your results. It's not that it's "preventing you from doubling"; you start being able to add two stat mods to an ability, then you add a feat and you lose one of them.

I don't know about the pistolero case, and it's entirely possible that, like basically every other gun-related rule in Pathfinder, it was horribly broken. But in general, if a thing says it adds a modifier to another thing, it should work consistently. Having little traps like this where you can add any two stat modifiers to a value, as long as they don't start out as the same stat, is highly counterproductive.

The Exchange

seebs wrote:

Only, he's completely wrong, because the stat is not the source of the bonus, the feat or ability is.

The sources of the bonuses are (1) zen archer, (2) erastil's boon. Those are two different sources.

So if I take a level of cleric and pick up Guided Hand I can use triple my wisdom bonus to hit?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Belafon wrote:
seebs wrote:

Only, he's completely wrong, because the stat is not the source of the bonus, the feat or ability is.

The sources of the bonuses are (1) zen archer, (2) erastil's boon. Those are two different sources.

So if I take a level of cleric and pick up Guided Hand I can use triple my wisdom bonus to hit?

1. Guided Hand says you may use Widsom instead of Dex/Str to hit. It replaces it.

2. Zen Archer says you may use Wisdom in place of Dex to hit. You now have two things that say you can replace Dex. They do the exact same thing and overlap.

3. The boon says you may add your Wisdom in addition to the other modifiers. This is an "extra" not a replacement, therefore it stacks.

So with all three you get to use Wisdom instead of Dex and then get to add your Wisdom again if within 30 feet. Seems clear to me, but obviously that's just me. That's my take anyway.


Belafon wrote:
seebs wrote:

Only, he's completely wrong, because the stat is not the source of the bonus, the feat or ability is.

The sources of the bonuses are (1) zen archer, (2) erastil's boon. Those are two different sources.

So if I take a level of cleric and pick up Guided Hand I can use triple my wisdom bonus to hit?

No, and there's no possible reason anyone would think that.

"Replace X with Y" and "add Y" are two different things. Any number of "add Y to rolls to do this" should stack if they are of different bonus types.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:

Only, he's completely wrong, because the stat is not the source of the bonus, the feat or ability is.

The sources of the bonuses are (1) zen archer, (2) erastil's boon. Those are two different sources.

You have no basis for this. There is no game definition for source. You could just as easily say the source is the Wisdom modifier... more easily in fact, because its a + X. If zen archer and erastil's boon are the source they don't give you a number, at all.

Saying that the source is the modifier is just as consistent with the raw, consistent with the rest of the game, and enables far, FAR less cheese.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I see "use in stead of" and "add in addition to" as two separate things regardless. As a site note how do you interpret an Infilitrator Inquisitor with the Conversion Inquisition when it comes to Bluff and Diplomacy? Do you think they use Wisdom once or twice?

Grand Lodge

I don't see how what determines a bonus, rather than the bonus type, is relevant for stacking issues.

Elastril's Boon could say "When using a long bow, you add
your <insert ability modifier here> bonus on attack and damage rolls against targets within 30 feet".

It doesn't matter what ability is determining the amount of bonus being applied, as it is only being referenced in regards to what the total number of that bonus is.

So, it could say Wisdom, Intelligence, or Charisma, and it would not change a thing.


seebs wrote:

Only, he's completely wrong, because the stat is not the source of the bonus, the feat or ability is.

The sources of the bonuses are (1) zen archer, (2) erastil's boon. Those are two different sources.

What he said.

If you don't like it, house rule it.


Zhayne wrote:
seebs wrote:

Only, he's completely wrong, because the stat is not the source of the bonus, the feat or ability is.

The sources of the bonuses are (1) zen archer, (2) erastil's boon. Those are two different sources.

What he said.

If you don't like it, house rule it.

You don't need a house rule to override an idea that doesn't exist in the books and is only interpreted that way for the mechanical advantage it provides.


Uh, no.

The sources of the bonuses are the Zen Archer, and the Boon. A class and a feat. The 'untyped bonuses from the same source' rule does not apply.

Your Wisdom is not the source of the bonus; it merely sets the value.


Zhayne wrote:

The sources of the bonuses are the Zen Archer, and the Boon.

Citation needed if you're going to call the other interpretation a house rule.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
graystone wrote:
It's those pesky unwritten rules that keep popping up...

So what i want to see in pathfinder 2 e is the following written on the inside cover

-If its too good to be true it probably is
-If one way of reading it is good and the other is either useless or incredibly overpowering go with the reading thats good.
-Don't try to cheeseweasel the system.

I'd prefer one that says

-points of view may vary. Don't assume a different outlook is an attempt to 'try to cheeseweasel the system'.
-what may look too good to you may not look like that to another.
-Cheese isn't a defined term and no two people will ever agree what is 100% of the time.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The RAW and RAI are open to interpretation, that makes it firmly DMs call terrtory. That's a part of the job.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say the two don't stack based off the devs' comments and previous rulings but you should be able to use whichever is most beneficial. So if you're attacking someone more than 30ft away, use your zen archer ability to use Wis instead of Dex. If you're shooting at someone within 30ft, use Dex as normal and the boon to add your Wis.

Grand Lodge

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I would say the two don't stack based off the devs' comments and previous rulings but you should be able to use whichever is most beneficial. So if you're attacking someone more than 30ft away, use your zen archer ability to use Wis instead of Dex. If you're shooting at someone within 30ft, use Dex as normal and the boon to add your Wis.

So, if you have a penalty to Dex, this high level boon actually harms you?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I would say the two don't stack based off the devs' comments and previous rulings but you should be able to use whichever is most beneficial. So if you're attacking someone more than 30ft away, use your zen archer ability to use Wis instead of Dex. If you're shooting at someone within 30ft, use Dex as normal and the boon to add your Wis.
So, if you have a penalty to Dex, this high level boon actually harms you?

I would say you could continue to use your Wis but not add it twice. That appears to be the general ruling we get from the devs. Without their comment on this specifically, that is how I would rule.


Duiker wrote:


But the other time this happened (with double dex to damage), Paizo said it was not supposed to work that way, and eventually issued an errata that fixed the loophole (errata in question is linked here).

I'm not seeing the related errata. Or I'm overlooking it. Help?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no errata. No FAQ.

Just one quote, from a Dev who goes out of his way, all the time, noting he is not a "rules guy", saying how he would run it in his games.

So, unless it is an "unwritten rule", that not even one Dev has referenced, that someone has decided is RAW, based solely on some strange sense of authority, then it works.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Yeah I know man, why should high level options provide actual benefits?

Unless they're spells

Shadow Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

There is no errata. No FAQ.

Just one quote, from a Dev who goes out of his way, all the time, noting he is not a "rules guy", saying how he would run it in his games.

So, unless it is an "unwritten rule", that not even one Dev has referenced, that someone has decided is RAW, based solely on some strange sense of authority, then it works.

I believe the previously mentioned errata was the one that said Pistolero's Pistol Training replaces Gun Training. Because Paizo stated this isn't supposed to work and it was clear that it wasn't supposed to work. Even that was a specific case and not a general rule.


EvilPaladin wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

There is no errata. No FAQ.

Just one quote, from a Dev who goes out of his way, all the time, noting he is not a "rules guy", saying how he would run it in his games.

So, unless it is an "unwritten rule", that not even one Dev has referenced, that someone has decided is RAW, based solely on some strange sense of authority, then it works.

I believe the previously mentioned errata was the one that said Pistolero's Pistol Training replaces Gun Training. Because Paizo stated this isn't supposed to work and it was clear that it wasn't supposed to work. Even that was a specific case and not a general rule.

Oh, it's related to that? Back when people thought Pistol Training didn't replace Gun Training because they accidentally left that out? I don't think that applies here at all.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

There is no errata. No FAQ.

Just one quote, from a Dev who goes out of his way, all the time, noting he is not a "rules guy", saying how he would run it in his games.

So, unless it is an "unwritten rule", that not even one Dev has referenced, that someone has decided is RAW, based solely on some strange sense of authority, then it works.

I believe the gunslinger errata was to the pistolero archtype. People argued that since Pistol Training lacked the "this replaces gun training" line that pistoleros got both and could add Dex to damage twice (or stack it with mysterious stranger but that is not relevant to this discussion). Admittedly that was more to correct the doubled class ability than denying double Dex to damage. However we know of at least one Dev saying ability modifiers don't stack. Are there examples of devs saying they can?


Rowe wrote:
Oh, it's related to that? Back when people thought Pistol Training didn't replace Gun Training because they accidentally left that out? I don't think that applies here at all.

Once again there is a pretty big difference between "you can use it in PLACE OF" and "you can use this in ADDITION TO" and there is no reason why those two statements are automatically mutually exclusive.

The two abilities in question do different things. If they did the same thing then I would agree that they don't stack (Zen Archer and Guided Hand for instance, in addition to the Pistolero controversy brought up), but they don't do the same thing.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
However we know of at least one Dev saying ability modifiers don't stack. Are there examples of devs saying they can?

Right now we have one Dev, who has said many times he's NOT the rules guy, that it's not how he'd do it. So we've found out how he'd rule it in his game. That's pretty much it...

1 to 50 of 275 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Wis to attack twice? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.