For the full text, mine has:
Many special spell effects are handled according to the school of the spells in question. Certain other special spell features are found across spell schools.
<snip "Attacks">
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
<snip "Bringing Back the Dead" and the subheadings under it>
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).
Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn't have a type stacks with any bonus.
That hardly makes a solid argument one way or the other, though it certainly seems to lean against same-source stacking (which is the most common interpretation of the wording). Interesting.
EDIT:
Upon re-reading it, though, it's interesting. The second entry notes magical effects (applying more broadly than to just spells)... and then goes on to explicitly cite that bonuses without a type stacks with any bonus for magical effects which, based on normal English use would indicate that the latter (the second) over-rules the former (the first) by being more specific... except that the latter would invalidate the implication of the former and is (technically speaking) more broad than the former.
Thus, I suspect that the intent is that the same source does not stack, but the rules don't back that up at all. They kind of half imply it ("always stack unless they're from the same source") but they don't explicitly note that it's true, whereas they later explicitly note that bonuses without types always stack, by RAW.
Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Note this is under spell effects. For all I know, it's only a rule about bonus types from spells...
I'm almost positive the Divine Favor and Prayer do NOT stack.
I am curious on if the +1 to saves Halfling get as a racial feature would stack with Prayer as it is stated it's a Luck Bonus.
Again, I would suggest that RAW it does not, but RAI it's () supposed to - or, quite possibly (and, even more likely, I suspect) it's supposed to according to some designers and not supposed to according to others.
Stacking and same source are different things. Dodge and untyped bonuses stack, otherwise the don't (without some exception). This is more about the untyped bonuses and same source.
Stacking and same source are different things. Dodge and untyped bonuses stack, otherwise the don't (without some exception). This is more about the untyped bonuses and same source.
Agreed that they are definitely different, but also related.
"Same Source" doesn't matter without "Stacking Effect" (or bonus) being added. :)
EDIT: Also, I noted and read the thread that started this conversation - interesting, and very useful.
Heh. Funny, guys. :)
Clarifying what I mean by,
Upon re-reading it, though, it's interesting. The second entry notes magical effects (applying more broadly than to just spells)... and then goes on to explicitly cite that bonuses without a type stacks with any bonus for magical effects which, based on normal English use would indicate that the latter (the second) over-rules the former (the first) by being more specific... except that the latter would invalidate the implication of the former and is (technically speaking) more broad than the former.
Thus, I suspect that the intent is that the same source does not stack, but the rules don't back that up at all. They kind of half imply it ("always stack unless they're from the same source") but they don't explicitly note that it's true, whereas they later explicitly note that bonuses without types always stack, by RAW.
What I mean by this is that, if something is the same source, so long as it doesn't have a type, if it's not a spell, it definitively stacks by RAW. If it is a spell, it's implied that it might not stack by RAW (as "always"/"unless" language), but it gives no hard-line ruling - only soft language implying that the case might happen (and leading me to guess that the RAI is that they do not stack).
But let's go on to quote the rest of the rules on pg 209. I'll restart with the stuff on pg. 208 because it's all one heading.
For the even more full text, mine has:
Many special spell effects are handled according to the school of the spells in question. Certain other special spell features are found across spell schools.
<snip "Attacks">
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
<snip "Bringing Back the Dead" and the subheadings under it>
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).
Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn't have a type stacks with any bonus.
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
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.
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.
Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject’s ability to act. Mental controls that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.
Spells with Opposite Effects: Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply. Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell’s description.
Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous duration work cumulatively when they affect the same target.
EDIT: See, the problem is that, despite the title being "Combining Magical Effects" and the use of "Spell or Magical Effect" within some parts of the text, much of the rest of it is explicitly limited to "spell" or "spells", despite the fact that several of these issues would apply to other magical effects as well.
A less standard use of English is that when several things are referenced and then, in the future, only one is referenced, it can be inferred that the latter elements apply to the formerly mentioned things just as much to the explicitly mentioned things but, in a RAW-based format, that doesn't work out as well.
I would suggest, again, that RAI is it's supposed to apply equally, RAW it doesn't, and it could be more clear.
Several developers have gone on record as stating that they don't want the rules to be a legalese-based inviolable codex, despite having strong opinions on how they are intended to be used - something that (on the surface, at least) doesn't seem like a terribly great dynamic to me, but then again the guys work really hard on this stuff, and have to deal with pedants and sophonts (such as myself) soapboxing about, "If this were me..." with precious little genuine experience there; further, I can see the desire to ensure that the rules are malleable to the whims of a given GM. I may suggest that such goals be set about in different ways with different wordings, but it's certainly an admirable goal (encouraging people, "Rule it in the way that works best for your table.")
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Does this rule apply to bonuses from anything other than spells?
There are pedantic people that take that stance, but to do so you must ignore the fact the rules are purposefully not written to be interpreted that way and the developers have expressed frustration when interpretations ignore this fact.
So to confirm, all magical effects are bound by the combining effects rules. Not just spells. This has been confirmed by many devs, but it is not explicitly described that way in the books to a level that the pedantic readers accept.
That's a pretty good point, Thomas.
Do you have links/citation for this thread to clarify for this specific conversation?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a pretty good point, Thomas.
Do you have links/citation for this thread to clarify for this specific conversation?
With the usual "James is the Creative Director, not a Designer" 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. |
Do Luck Bonuses stack if they're from a different source?
Example -
Halfling +1 to all saves is a racial luck bonus.
Clerics Divine Favor (1st level spell) is a Luck Bonus.
Clerics Prayer (3rd level spell) is a Luck Bonus.
Although the racial trait is called "Halfling Luck:"
Halfling Luck: Halflings receive a +1 racial bonus on all saving throws.
So the Halfling ability doesn't factor in with the rest of those spells. If it did matter, racial bonuses are called out in TacticsLion's first post as specifically stacking.
Luck bonuses do not stack, so divine favor does not stack with prayer. Note, however, that when two bonuses of the same type overlap you take the higher of the two. So a CL 9 divine favor would give you +3 to weapon attack and damage rolls. A CL 9 prayer would give you a +1 to attack, damage, saves, and skill checks. If your character was under both you would have +3 attack, +3 damage, +1 saving throws, +1 skill checks.
That's a pretty good point, Thomas.
Do you have links/citation for this thread to clarify for this specific conversation?
With the usual "James is the Creative Director, not a Designer" 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.
Ah, I thought he meant an actual FAQ or Errata, not James' statements about his own rulings.
Don't forget that James Jacobs contradicts himself in that quote and his logic only tracks if you make logical leaps not in the rules.
#1 "Modifiers from ability scores aren't actually bonuses, strictly speaking.: He starts off by admitting that they aren't bonuses( and I haven't found any rules for stacking modifiers...)
#2 "If they are, they're untyped bonuses:" : They aren't, but lets say they are so we can use the rule for bonuses...
#3 "if you have multiple things that say "Add your Dex modifier to this roll," you only get to add your Dex modifier once." and "If you have Fury's Fall and Weapon Finesse, you've basically got two feats with overlapping effects." : The first quote, even if true, isn't what is happening in the second. The first is stacking the exact same ability (Add your Dex modifier) and the second is adding your dex modifier and adding a bonus equal to it.
Really, even if same source affects all bonuses in the game, stat modifiers aren't bonuses so the only issue would be adding two bonuses equal to the same stat together...
The reason I'd let you stack agile maneuvers with a thing that lets you add dex, or the boon of erastil with zen archery, is that one is adding a modifier, and the other is replacing one modifier with another. They're doing different kinds of things.
This is it for me. I wouldn't even look at it twice because it's doing two different things. Now if it was two adding, I'd have to look at the sources. Even then, I'd have a hard time wrapping my head around seeing the stat as the source. I understand some think that way, but I can't see it.