|
Necro, but there's now a faq on this issue:
Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?
No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.
Link to thread is here.
Necro, but there's now a faq on this issue:
Link to thread [url=http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qe32&page=last?What-is-the-meaning-of-source-in-regards-to[/url]Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?
No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.
Did you know that there were four different threads on this topic (the monk/warpriest one specifically, including this one) that each had 40 or more FAQ requests? If they weren't the same people, they could have teamed up and had quite the giant number of flags. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haha yeah I did notice that! I posted this here because this one seemed to have the most posts.
FWIW, thanks for giving this issue attention. It was (clearly) important to a lot of people :). Also, this looks like a very reasonable change.
Thanks. I'm glad that people have been listening to my advice so far about how to get more FAQs. Even the people who have complained about these "FAQ Friday" FAQs have been complaining to ask for more, not to tell us not to make them or rail against them. This has been helping a bunch to grease the wheels!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds like a good FAQ in general, though I wonder how this applies to Dragon Ferocity?
Dragon Ferocity should be worded to say it increases rather than adds anyway (and thus still work the same), and it'll say that when we FAQ it. The current wording has confused a few newer players I talked to into thinking they would add half instead of full and become weakened.
|
Umm, does this not make just about every Inquisitor option redundant?
Really, it will take a serious effort just to not have abilities that now do nothing.
Could this not have just been handled on a case by case basis?
I think this will lead to even more errata/FAQ, handled this way, instead of by each case.
A number of these seem purposefully created to stack.
How are we to handle ablities that change the base stat?
Well that makes a lot of stuff not work anymore...
So far, just Dragon Ferocity was affected in a way that it shouldn't have been, and that's because it could have used a rewording for clarity anyway. However, if you're aware of more potential errata, let me know! I'm always happy to get all you guys' finds in the queue.
So far, just Dragon Ferocity was affected in a way that it shouldn't have been, and that's because it could have used a rewording for clarity anyway. However, if you're aware of more potential errata, let me know! I'm always happy to get all you guys' finds in the queue.
I'm just floored that abilities and feats aren't sources but stats are... it kind of kicks out one of the bases the games build on. I think a "what is a source" FAQ is needed now...
So far, just Dragon Ferocity was affected in a way that it shouldn't have been, and that's because it could have used a rewording for clarity anyway. However, if you're aware of more potential errata, let me know! I'm always happy to get all you guys' finds in the queue.I'm just floored that abilities and feats aren't sources but stats are... it kind of kicks out one of the bases the games build on. I think a "what is a source" FAQ is needed now...
Why would a feat or spell not be a source?
Why would a feat or spell not be a source?So far, just Dragon Ferocity was affected in a way that it shouldn't have been, and that's because it could have used a rewording for clarity anyway. However, if you're aware of more potential errata, let me know! I'm always happy to get all you guys' finds in the queue.I'm just floored that abilities and feats aren't sources but stats are... it kind of kicks out one of the bases the games build on. I think a "what is a source" FAQ is needed now...
Ah... A feat/spell/ability that grants a stat bonus to something isn't a source, the stat is.The FAQ stated that the STAT is the source. So that why. If a feat/spell/ability WHERE a source, then the fact that it involves a stat shouldn't matter.
Ah... A feat/spell/ability that grants a stat bonus to something isn't a source, the stat is.The FAQ stated that the STAT is the source. So that why. If a feat/spell/ability WHERE a source, then the fact that it involves a stat shouldn't matter.Why would a feat or spell not be a source?So far, just Dragon Ferocity was affected in a way that it shouldn't have been, and that's because it could have used a rewording for clarity anyway. However, if you're aware of more potential errata, let me know! I'm always happy to get all you guys' finds in the queue.I'm just floored that abilities and feats aren't sources but stats are... it kind of kicks out one of the bases the games build on. I think a "what is a source" FAQ is needed now...
They are all sources for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking.
They are all sources for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking.Ah... A feat/spell/ability that grants a stat bonus to something isn't a source, the stat is.The FAQ stated that the STAT is the source. So that why. If a feat/spell/ability WHERE a source, then the fact that it involves a stat shouldn't matter.Why would a feat or spell not be a source?So far, just Dragon Ferocity was affected in a way that it shouldn't have been, and that's because it could have used a rewording for clarity anyway. However, if you're aware of more potential errata, let me know! I'm always happy to get all you guys' finds in the queue.I'm just floored that abilities and feats aren't sources but stats are... it kind of kicks out one of the bases the games build on. I think a "what is a source" FAQ is needed now...
So you can have multiple sources? I have to say it doesn't make sense to me. If they'd have said stat bonuses where typed bonuses that didn't stack, THAT would make sense. If they had just left out sources, that too would have made sense. This bonus comes from various places?
So how many places do/will things come from? Is the source your level? Feat? Class? Spell? Maybe all the above? And if any of them match with something else, they don't stack? Sigh... Things just got really complicated from when there was just one source. :(
PS: Thanks for the replies Mark. I don't mean to seem b$~~@y but I'm really scratching my head on this new multiple source thing.
They are all sources for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking.Ah... A feat/spell/ability that grants a stat bonus to something isn't a source, the stat is.The FAQ stated that the STAT is the source. So that why. If a feat/spell/ability WHERE a source, then the fact that it involves a stat shouldn't matter.Why would a feat or spell not be a source?So far, just Dragon Ferocity was affected in a way that it shouldn't have been, and that's because it could have used a rewording for clarity anyway. However, if you're aware of more potential errata, let me know! I'm always happy to get all you guys' finds in the queue.I'm just floored that abilities and feats aren't sources but stats are... it kind of kicks out one of the bases the games build on. I think a "what is a source" FAQ is needed now...So you can have multiple sources? I have to say it doesn't make sense to me. If they'd have said stat bonuses where typed bonuses that didn't stack, THAT would make sense. If they had just left out sources, that too would have made sense. This bonus comes from various places?
So how many places do/will things come from? Is the source your level? Feat? Class? Spell? Maybe all the above? And if any of them match with something else, they don't stack? Sigh... Things just got really complicated from when there was just one source. :(
I actually was in favor of them being typed bonuses myself too, but lots of good reasons were brought up why it was the source instead (frex, they aren't on the list of typed bonuses, and in general there's a paradigm of avoiding adding new typed bonuses).
In the case of the two sources, it's really more of nested sources. For instance, you might read an article on newyorktimes.com that came from the Associated Press. Or you might cite a textbook as your source (a secondary source) that itself cites a primary source. So in this case, I guess, the feat or power is the secondary source, and the ability score is the primary source. Does that make sense?
PS: Thanks for the replies Mark. I don't mean to seem b!~+$y but I'm really scratching my head on this new multiple source thing.
Oh, no problem--I could tell you're just trying to work it out. Trust me, in coordinating these FAQs, I have been there too!
I'm of the opinion that you guys are going to run into more issues with sources vs types. One makes intuitive sense while the other doesn't (IMO). Between people confused as I am to people trying to use the FAQ to make other things sources (if these can have multiple, why only one for non-stat abilities?), it just seems a kettle of fish I wouldn't want to open.
Well good luck Mark. I'll bow out for a bit and see how the community feels about it before I comment again. Maybe I'm the strange one and everyone else gets it. ;)
I'm of the opinion that you guys are going to run into more issues with sources vs types. One makes intuitive sense while the other doesn't (IMO). Between people confused as I am to people trying to use the FAQ to make other things sources (if these can have multiple, why only one for non-stat abilities?), it just seems a kettle of fish I wouldn't want to open.
Well good luck Mark. I'll bow out for a bit and see how the community feels about it before I comment again. Maybe I'm the strange one and everyone else gets it. ;)
I don't think you're the strange one--I also personally think that bonus type is easier to wrap my head around. The fact that I think your questions/concerns might be more common is one of the reasons I'm answering you here in case people with the same questions check out this thread.
I still feel that this destroys one of my favorite classes, the Inquisitor, as the class is just riddled with "double dips".
For what it's worth, given that the only word on it until now, while unofficial since it wasn't a FAQ, unilaterally weighed in that double-dips don't stack, I've never met a GM who ruled that they stacked even before this FAQ. And the inquisitors I've seen have generally been rock-solid.
|
I actually was in favor of them being typed bonuses myself too, but lots of good reasons were brought up why it was the source instead (frex, they aren't on the list of typed bonuses, and in general there's a paradigm of avoiding adding new typed bonuses).
There really isn't a list of typed bonuses though. At least not a published one.
|
|
On page two of this thread, and I'll link to it tomorrow if you like, I posted up my reasoning why ability bonuses are already considered typed by existing rules.
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.
|
|
There really isn't a list of typed bonuses though. At least not a published one.
I actually was in favor of them being typed bonuses myself too, but lots of good reasons were brought up why it was the source instead (frex, they aren't on the list of typed bonuses, and in general there's a paradigm of avoiding adding new typed bonuses).
Is the revelation that ability modifiers are not typed bringing you down?
|
|
There literally is no reason to make them typed, and drastically alter the game.
There literally is no reason not to call them typed. It requires no further errata than you already are doing.
Not sure how calling them typed drastically alters the game.
This FAQ essentially is making them function, in all cases, as though they were typed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There literally is no reason to make them typed, and drastically alter the game.
There literally is no reason not to call them typed. It requires no further errata than you already are doing.
Not sure how calling them typed drastically alters the game.
This FAQ essentially is making them function, in all cases, as though they were typed.
Did you just totally miss how Mark Seifter noted it was not an option?
|
|
Did you just totally miss how Mark Seifter noted it was not an option?There literally is no reason to make them typed, and drastically alter the game.
There literally is no reason not to call them typed. It requires no further errata than you already are doing.
Not sure how calling them typed drastically alters the game.
This FAQ essentially is making them function, in all cases, as though they were typed.
Nope. I saw it. Which is why I posted what I did.
I disagree with him that it would cause more trouble than its worth. I feel the FAQ as currently worded will cause more confusion than just clarifying that ability bonuses are typed.
There is literally no language in any published material that would need to be altered if you declare ability bonuses typed above and beyond the language already needing errata due to the current FAQ.
Its cleaner, and less confusing.
|
|
Umm, does this not make just about every Inquisitor option redundant?
I don't think so. It makes the combination of some inquisitions (Conversion for example) with some archetypes (Heretic, Infiltrator) somewhat redundant, although not totally. The archetypes do more than just alter the abilities, and the inquisition changes some skills that the archetypes don't.
There is literally no language in any published material that would need to be altered if you declare ability bonuses typed above and beyond the language already needing errata due to the current FAQ.
Note sure about this.
Its cleaner, and less confusing.
Agree with this.
|
|
I do think Andrew has a point about the typed ability bonuses. They aren't defined anywhere except in the Ultimate Magic section, so you're not actually changing an explicit list of bonus types that people at large have been using. (Although now might be a good time to make such a list).
I also think that typing them "strength bonus" is less confusing than the nested sources technique. I think people don't know or expect nested sources to exist; it's not written anywhere and it's not intuitive. So if you want to base rulings on it you need to make it a lot more well-known.
If they are not going to stack then they might as well be typed bonuses. My RAW reading of them before was the only reason I said they were not typed, but they are behaving that way. I would rather see them as a typed bonus, than as a source.
I guess the PDT team does not want to do it because an errata in the CRB may cause problems with keeping things on the same page. <---just a guess on my part.
This ruling is not as intuitive as many of us were used to dealing with. If I get a new player I will probably explain them as behaving like a typed bonus to avoid confusion.
NOOooooooOOO!!! MY BUILD IS RUINED! Ruined I say!
No not really, the Monk/Sacred Fist is still the most powerful iteration of the Unarmed style fighter-ish. It was a nice bonus, but now that it is settled, most DMs won't take as much umbrage when it is brought to their table.
I do feel sorry for all the Inquisitors though, but judging from how people were constantly comparing them favorably in role to the Warpriest, they needed to be taken down a peg.
prototype00
NOOooooooOOO!!! MY BUILD IS RUINED! Ruined I say!
No not really, the Monk/Sacred Fist is still the most powerful iteration of the Unarmed style fighter-ish. It was a nice bonus, but now that it is settled, most DMs won't take as much umbrage when it is brought to their table.
I do feel sorry for all the Inquisitors though, but judging from how people were constantly comparing them favorably in role to the Warpriest, they needed to be taken down a peg.
prototype00
I still think they are better than the warpriest overall, and that is before I started to stack ability scores. :)
I still think they are better than the warpriest overall, and that is before I started to stack ability scores. :)NOOooooooOOO!!! MY BUILD IS RUINED! Ruined I say!
No not really, the Monk/Sacred Fist is still the most powerful iteration of the Unarmed style fighter-ish. It was a nice bonus, but now that it is settled, most DMs won't take as much umbrage when it is brought to their table.
I do feel sorry for all the Inquisitors though, but judging from how people were constantly comparing them favorably in role to the Warpriest, they needed to be taken down a peg.
prototype00
Hey, Base Warpriest I'm inclined to agree with you. But Sacred Fist? I think the damage output is at least even, if not better (Inquisitor might still edge out in non-combat situations).
prototype00
|
|
It's really only a few corner cases in the inquisitor that get hit by this. And if you were using those to double-stack Wisdom to some abilities, I personally think you had it coming because you should've known that was a little cheesy.
I think wraithstrike's points are good: typed bonuses are easier to understand than nested sources, but page concerns are of course a real thing. I think it could be solved with a CRB FAQ titled "so what is the exhaustive list of bonus types, and which ones stack with themselves?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's really only a few corner cases in the inquisitor that get hit by this. And if you were using those to double-stack Wisdom to some abilities, I personally think you had it coming because you should've known that was a little cheesy.
I personally do not appreciate the accusation that you leveled there against me. Calling someone's ideas cheesy when they are based on a strict reading of the rules is quite insulting. You wouldn't want me to name you a Grognard Neckbeard would you? (Hypothetically of course :P)
What is one build's corner case is another build's bread and butter. Personally I like to refer to the RAW as much as possible.
prototype00
So.. Monk AC and Sacred Fist AC stack? Confirmed?
I have never heard of splitting abilities or class features into pieces to define if they stack or work.
Sacred Fist AC Bonus does indeed grant a Deflection Bonus, now this is due to the +1 at 3rd level or so on but it is the class feature of AC Bonus. Monk's AC Bonus has untyped, which always stack unless stated they done.
|
So.. Monk AC and Sacred Fist AC stack? Confirmed?
Nope. Confirmed that the Wis-to-AC does not stack. Going by the language as it's currently being used, the "source" of both is your Wisdom score and since untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack, they don't. Going by the "effective rule," they're both "Wisdom-typed" bonuses and so, by normal stacking rules, don't stack with each other (since bonuses of the same type don't stack).
However, the scaling bonuses will stack with each other, since one (Monk) is an untyped bonus and the other (Sacred Fist) is a deflection bonus.
AC Bonus (Su): A deity protects her sacred fist as long as he is unarmored and unencumbered. A sacred fist adds his Wisdom modifier (minimum 0) to his AC and his CMD. In addition, a sacred fist gains a +1 deflection bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every 4 levels thereafter (to a maximum of +5 at 20th level)
AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every four monk levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?
No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier.
For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.