Wis to attack twice?

[stuart haffenden]

It's soooooo bloody obvious that they stack, I'm staggered as to why any sane person would argue anything else.

Just my 2 pence.

[Tacticslion]

seebs wrote:

Uh. Well, the good news is I'm getting the 1s out of my d20 before I make any important perception checks.

Yeah, you gotta be sure to roll them all out first. :D

(I do it too. We're cool.)

[stuart haffenden]

Tacticslion wrote:

seebs wrote:

Uh. Well, the good news is I'm getting the 1s out of my d20 before I make any important perception checks.

Yeah, you gotta be sure to roll them all out first. :D

(I do it too. We're cool.)

One of my players sets all his dice to 'one's' based on the understanding that they are less likely to be one again after rolling them...

But hey, we're way off topic here so...

They stack! They stack! They stack! They stack! They stack! They stack! They stack!

There, that's better

[seebs]

BigDTBone wrote:

Ughbash wrote:

To those who say while quoting JJ that you can not use the same ability twice, how do you feel about a level 2 paladin (charisma to all saves) who is also a level 1 Lore oracle with the mystery (Charisma to reflex saves instead of Dex). Lets say 20 charisma and 10 in all other stats.

Is reflex save +5 or +10?

According to JJ (who is not the rules guy) it is +10. This is an example of the same stat double stacking.

So if you wish to quote him saying that same stat does not stack, you should also quote him saying the same stat DOES stack.

James Jacobs

That is an exact perfect analogy. One is "replace" and one is "add."

Good find.

The problem is, he gave that response to someone who was asking about the fury's fall/agile maneuvers answer he previously gave.

But they are identical rules-wise, so far as I can tell!

At this point, my only coherent conclusion is that he misunderstood the original agile maneuvers/fury's fall question and thought that they were both "add", not that one was "replace" and the other was "add", or something like that.

[Krodjin]

stuart haffenden wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

seebs wrote:

Uh. Well, the good news is I'm getting the 1s out of my d20 before I make any important perception checks.

Yeah, you gotta be sure to roll them all out first. :D

(I do it too. We're cool.)

One of my players sets all his dice to 'one's' based on the understanding that they are less likely to be one again after rolling them...

But hey, we're way off topic here so...

They stack! They stack! They stack! They stack! They stack! They stack! They stack!

There, that's better

I do that with my dice too!

And after reading the wording I think they stack in this case.

[James Risner]

Imbicatus wrote:

No, you are not tapping the same Source. Wisdom is not a source, it is a value.

See this bantered about a lot lately, but there is no rule that says that. There is no rule either way. All of this is our interpretation. So whether or not Wisdom is a source or a value depends on your reading of the RAW.

[seebs]

James Risner wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

No, you are not tapping the same Source. Wisdom is not a source, it is a value.

See this bantered about a lot lately, but there is no rule that says that. There is no rule either way. All of this is our interpretation. So whether or not Wisdom is a source or a value depends on your reading of the RAW.

Well, what we have is:

1. There are two FAQs which identify the "source" of a bonus. In each case, that source is a feat or class ability.
2. The only examples we've ever seen in the rules text as such were "the same spell" (although I think that wording is only in the 3.5 rules, not in the SRD).
3. There is exactly one thing, ever, anywhere, suggesting that a stat itself could be a "source". That thing is a post by someone who admits he is not a rules guy.
4. Also, that same guy clearly acknowledges that the paladin save buffs and an oracle thing letting you sub your cha modifier in on a save obviously stack, indicating that in the case where it's two class abilities granting your cha modifier to a single d20 roll, he doesn't consider charisma a "source".

Which leads me to: We have a whole lot of things all of which consistently demonstrate that stats are not the "source" of anything, because the only sources are spells, feats, class abilities, and other powers/abilities, and a single off-the-cuff opinion from someone who is not a rules guy saying that he thinks dexterity is a "source" in one single context.

In the absence of any evidence whatsoever supporting the "wisdom is a source" ruling, I'm going to disregard it. And you can't claim the JJ post as "evidence" given that he's directly contradicted that claim while talking about an equivalent case. You'd need at least some kind of differentiation between the oracle/paladin case and the fury's fall/agile maneuvers case.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Divine Grace doesn't add your Cha. It adds a bonus "equal to" your Cha bonus. It is similar to Dragon Style.

[kyrt-ryder]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Divine Grace doesn't add your Cha. It adds a bonus "equal to" your Cha bonus. It is similar to Dragon Style.

Talk about splitting pubic hairs on a simple issue.

[seebs]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Divine Grace doesn't add your Cha. It adds a bonus "equal to" your Cha bonus. It is similar to Dragon Style.

That's a fascinating distinction, but I put it to you that there's not much prior art in the game for claiming that this is a meaningful distinction -- there's nothing that indicates that the writers intentionally make a distinction like that, I think it's just wording differences that appear to have no semantic distinction.

[seebs]

Tacticslion wrote:

It's in the link he provided at the bottom of his post, seebs.

EDIT:

Sorry, I forgot to respond to this:

seebs wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

What about the inability to have a feat more than once unless it specifies otherwise?

It's not an inability to have the feat more than once, it's an inability to take the feat more than once. The ioun stone doesn't say anything like "grants you the benefits of alertness if you don't already have it".

That makes sense, but what, functionally, is the difference between take and have?

Does it explicitly note that you cannot "take" the feat "more than once due to level up" or does "taking" the feat apply to everything, even when granted by other sources?

This is not an argument - I'm actually asking.

(And before, I was just guessing off the top of my head - I actually had in mind the take v. have wording, but, since I wasn't looking at the rules, I went ahead and asked anyway.)

Citation, if possible, please. I'm really interested in this.

If no one provides citation, I'll at least go looking for the ioun stone - that one's easy enough feat wording is a little trickier, I'd guess to find.

I haven't got a clue.

Wording is:

Ioun Stone wrote:

Dark blue Rhomboid Alertness (as the feat) 10,000 gp

That's all it says.

I can find nothing actually stating that you can't take a feat more than once, the closest we get is that some feats say things like "you can take this feat more than once. each time it applies to a different X."

So I don't even know whether the limit exists per se, or whether it's just assumed.

I also realized: The rule stating that untyped bonuses don't stack from the same source doesn't do anything about things which grant dodge bonuses, a point alluded to in one of the FAQ responses, except they assume the rule is just that bonuses in general don't stack if they're from the same source. But the actual text of the one and only copy of that rule they didn't edit out in the 3.5->Pathfinder updates is: "Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source."

So actually, typed bonuses of certain specific types stack, and that means that if you have a source which grants a bonus of such types, it stacks with itself, because the limit is only on untyped bonuses.

Note: This is obviously wrong.

[Michael Sayre]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Divine Grace doesn't add your Cha. It adds a bonus "equal to" your Cha bonus. It is similar to Dragon Style.

This was my understanding of the distinction as well. Divine Grace creates a new bonus that is equal to your Charisma bonus. The Oracle ability lets you use your CHA modifier instead of your DEX modifier to determine the save, so there's no actual overlap.

Consider if you had two abilities that read

Shielded Saves
Benefit: You may add your shield bonus to armor class to your saving throws as well.

Reflective Shield
Benefit:You may add your shield bonus to armor class to your reflex saving throws as well.

I would think that general consensus would be that these don't stack. They're doing the same thing, that is, allowing you to apply your shield bonus to your save(s). The source of the bonus is pretty clearly your shield, IMHO.

Now if instead the second feat read:

Reflective Shield
Benefit:You gain a bonus to reflex saving throws equal to your shield bonus to armor class.

Then it would stack with the first feat. It isn't granting you access to the same bonus anymore, the feat itself is providing a new bonus whose value is equal to the bonus provided by your shield (but not actually your shield bonus).

[seebs]

I would consider those to be exactly equivalent.

What I think is not equivalent is:
1. Replacing one value with another.
2. Adding a new value.

These are two different things. I don't care what the bonuses are that you are adding or replacing. So if we change it to:

Shielded Saves:
You may replace your dexterity modifier with your shield bonus to armor class when making reflex saves.

Reflective shield:
You may add your shield bonus to armor class to your reflex saves.

I would consider these to stack for the same reason that divine grace and the oracle ability stack; one is replacing an existing value, the other is giving you a new bonus to add to the other values.

And heck, consider:

Shielded Saves, Stacking:
Benefit: You may add your shield bonus to armor class to your reflex saves. You may take this feat more than once; the benefits stack.

That would obviously stack, and I don't think it's obvious that it's any less balanced than the original wording was. The marginal benefit of overspecializing on reflex saves are small.

(And actually, the original is pretty ridiculously good for a feat; divine grace is a top-tier class ability, and way too good for a feat.)

[Sitri]

I have tried to read most of this thread, and correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell one side's only argument is "JJ says." On its own, you can't even really invoke RAW with this. Once he was quoted as saying the opposite, it sounds like there is really nothing left to argue. Am I missing something?

[graystone]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Divine Grace doesn't add your Cha. It adds a bonus "equal to" your Cha bonus. It is similar to Dragon Style.

But following the logic from before, would the 'new' bonus also have the stat as it's source and NOT stack by JJ's other quote?

[Michael Sayre]

Sitri wrote:

I have tried to read most of this thread, and correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell one side's only argument is "JJ says." On its own, you can't even really invoke RAW with this. Once he was quoted as saying the opposite, it sounds like there is really nothing left to argue. Am I missing something?

He wasn't quoted as saying the opposite, and there's still no formal definition of "source" so this one is still kind of hanging. It's one of those things that comes up with pretty consistent regularity, but for some reason it never seems to get enough FAQ clicks to stick.

Maybe the problem is that it hasn't been presented in a concise and accurate enough FAQ request? Or that, due to the inconsistency in various abilities that do similar things, it's a little too complex for a FAQ?

graystone wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Divine Grace doesn't add your Cha. It adds a bonus "equal to" your Cha bonus. It is similar to Dragon Style.

But following the logic from before, would the 'new' bonus also have the stat as it's source and NOT stack by JJ's other quote?

Nope.

One adds your CHA bonus. The source of the bonus is your CHA. ANything else that also applies your CHA bonus does not stack.

The other adds a new untyped bonus equal to your CHA modifier. The source of this bonus is the feat.

"Equal to" means you are creating a new thing that is the same as another thing "I gave Tommy a pile of apples equal to my own". I gave Tommy a pile of apples that was equivalent in value to my pile of apples, but I did not give Tommy my apples. This is different than saying "I gave Tommy a pile of apples. Then I gave Tommy that pile of apples again. Tommy now has twice as many apples".

[Belafon]

Yeah. I stopped posting in this thread shortly into he first page. Neither side is going to convince the other.

So I created a FAQ post instead. Hopefully Paizo will get to it sooner rather than later.

[graystone]

Ssalarn wrote:

Nope.

One adds your CHA bonus. The source of the bonus is your CHA. ANything else that also applies your CHA bonus does not stack.

The other adds a new untyped bonus equal to your CHA modifier. The source of this bonus is the feat.

Full stop. How is the feat the source for the one bonus that you get for having a feat and the other feat ISN'T the source of the bonus? They give different bonuses but they look at the same place for the number; the stat.

Bottom line, I'm not seeing how 'equal to' alters the source in ANY way. Both should have the feat as the source or neither should be the sourc.

[seebs]

Yeah, not seeing how a stat can be a source. Any citations other than the one JJ post that was later contradicted that would demonstrate a stat being a "source"?

[blackbloodtroll]

I actually feel pretty bad for JJ now.

[seebs]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I actually feel pretty bad for JJ now.

I don't really think it's his fault that people keep ignoring it when he says he's making off-the-cuff rulings and is not a rules guy.

[blackbloodtroll]

seebs wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I actually feel pretty bad for JJ now.

I don't really think it's his fault that people keep ignoring it when he says he's making off-the-cuff rulings and is not a rules guy.

Exactly.

That's why I feel bad for him.

His approach has always been "I am not a rules guy." and "Don't quote me as a rules source."

Then, people go out of their way to quote him as a rules source, and claim that he is a "rules guy".

[Kazaan]

Ssalarn wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Divine Grace doesn't add your Cha. It adds a bonus "equal to" your Cha bonus. It is similar to Dragon Style.

This was my understanding of the distinction as well. Divine Grace creates a new bonus that is equal to your Charisma bonus. The Oracle ability lets you use your CHA modifier instead of your DEX modifier to determine the save, so there's no actual overlap.

Consider if you had two abilities that read

Shielded Saves
Benefit: You may add your shield bonus to armor class to your saving throws as well.

Reflective Shield
Benefit:You may add your shield bonus to armor class to your reflex saving throws as well.

I would think that general consensus would be that these don't stack. They're doing the same thing, that is, allowing you to apply your shield bonus to your save(s). The source of the bonus is pretty clearly your shield, IMHO.

Now if instead the second feat read:

Reflective Shield
Benefit:You gain a bonus to reflex saving throws equal to your shield bonus to armor class.

Then it would stack with the first feat. It isn't granting you access to the same bonus anymore, the feat itself is providing a new bonus whose value is equal to the bonus provided by your shield (but not actually your shield bonus).

Those two don't stack, but not for the reason you think. They don't stack because they are the same type; they are both Shield bonuses. Additionally, the definition of Source doesn't need to be explicitly spelled out... one of the general assumptions made by the game is that players have at least half a brain. Source is the rules element that allows using a particular bonus. Wisdom is not the source of this bonus any more than 'the number 2' is the source of a +2 bonus from Power Attack. You won't find a sane person that claims the source of the bonus granted by Power Attack is anything other than the Power Attack feat. This same sane person would also concede that +2 would be the value (provided your BAB isn't high enough to bump that up to +4). It has no type so the de facto type is 'untyped'. So why would anyone claim that Erastil's 3rd boon isn't the "source" of a bonus equal to your Wisdom modifier in "value" added as an untyped bonus?

[Samasboy1]

Ssalarn wrote:

Consider if you had two abilities that read

Shielded Saves
Benefit: You may add your shield bonus to armor class to your saving throws as well.

Reflective Shield
Benefit:You may add your shield bonus to armor class to your reflex saving throws as well.

I would think that general consensus would be that these don't stack. They're doing the same thing, that is, allowing you to apply your shield bonus to your save(s). The source of the bonus is pretty clearly your shield, IMHO.

Nope, the source of the bonus is the feat. Shield is the bonus type for the first one, because Shield is actually a type of bonus, unlike Wisdom.

The second one is actually untyped, since it is a "bonus (unspecified) equal to your shield bonus."

[Shaheen]

Mindchemist 2 - Perfect Recall
When making a Knowledge check, he may add his Intelligence bonus on the check a second time.

How does a +7 bonus from a feat even compare with a total of +63 points worth of skill bonus? Yet, presumably this class feature is legal.