|
No, it's type is "Wisdom bonus" to AC. In both cases.
The Monk applies his Wisdom bonus.
The Sacred Fist applies his "Wisdom modifier (minimum 0)". But according to the definition in the CRB, an ability modifier that's always positive is a bonus, so the Sacred Fist's ability is equivalent to "Wisdom bonus".
So they're really the same thing.
Rules details, semantics, and proper readings aside, I'd be pretty disappointed if the Monk Wisdom to AC and Sacred Fist Wisdom to AC stacked (as in, gets applied twice).
It seems fairly clear (at least to me) that the Sacred Fist is supposed to be the "Monk" version of the Wrapriest. It'd be like if my table hit level 2, and my monk player said, "I'm gonna take another level in monk."
Me: "Great. Level 2 monk. Don't forget to add Evasion."
Monk Player: "No, I mean, I'm taking another of the monk's first level ... so i can get Wisdom to AC twice."
Me: ... blink ... blink ... "Get out of my house right now."
|
Rules details, semantics, and proper readings aside, I'd be pretty disappointed if the Monk Wisdom to AC and Sacred Fist Wisdom to AC stacked (as in, gets applied twice).
It seems fairly clear (at least to me) that the Sacred Fist is supposed to be the "Monk" version of the Wrapriest. It'd be like if my table hit level 2, and my monk player said, "I'm gonna take another level in monk."
Me: "Great. Level 2 monk. Don't forget to add Evasion."
Monk Player: "No, I mean, I'm taking another of the monk's first level ... so i can get Wisdom to AC twice."
Me: ... blink ... blink ... "Get out of my house right now."
Yet a Monk or Sacred Fist with 10 Mage Armor Potions is okay? Their AC will be stupid at low levels(mid levels too) regardless of what you do : P Especially once some very friendly Wizard casts Shield on them... then you'll have a level 1 Monk or Sacred Fist with 26 AC. Now what? D:
In the long-term(to level 15, 20 just doesn't seem likely or practical) their AC still comes out less than a Fighter with sword/board.
Yes, I can produce the math if you really want me to. I have it on-hand.
I'm not saying if they should stack or not, I'm just referring to your statement.
No, it's type is "Wisdom bonus" to AC. In both cases.
The Monk applies his Wisdom bonus.
The Sacred Fist applies his "Wisdom modifier (minimum 0)". But according to the definition in the CRB, an ability modifier that's always positive is a bonus, so the Sacred Fist's ability is equivalent to "Wisdom bonus".
So they're really the same thing.
No wisdom bonus is the value, not the type. It they want to add a type they specify it, just like with the Duelist.
Again, lack of a type does not mean you can make up your own, it means untyped.
|
|
No, it's type is "Wisdom bonus" to AC. In both cases.
The Monk applies his Wisdom bonus.
The Sacred Fist applies his "Wisdom modifier (minimum 0)". But according to the definition in the CRB, an ability modifier that's always positive is a bonus, so the Sacred Fist's ability is equivalent to "Wisdom bonus".
So they're really the same thing.
If they were the same thing, they'd list them as the same thing. They also should have just listed it as "as the Monk ability of the same name" like they did THREE other times in that Archetype. Wth. I don't know who wrote the archetype, but they must have been severely scatter-brained or a subcontractor of a subcontractor. They clearly had the Monk in mind when creating this Archetype... so why not look back and reference it 20 or 30 times to avoid this kind of complication? A lot of writings seem "clear" to certain people, but if it isn't written properly, it's not truly clear to Anyone.
I see what you're saying, and I think I understand better after you clarified, but I now feel more solid on what I stated previously.
Yet a Monk or Sacred Fist with 10 Mage Armor Potions is okay? Their AC will be stupid at low levels(mid levels too) regardless of what you do : P Especially once some very friendly Wizard casts Shield on them... then you'll have a level 1 Monk or Sacred Fist with 26 AC. Now what? D:
In the long-term(to level 15, 20 just doesn't seem likely or practical) their AC still comes out less than a Fighter with sword/board.
Yes, I can produce the math if you really want me to. I have it on-hand.
I'm not saying if they should stack or not, I'm just referring to your statement.
My post was about the fact that they seem to be intended to be basically the same mechanical concept, so it seems a bit ridiculous to let the same class feature be applied twice, even if the sources are detailed as being different.
My post was not about whether or not it's ridiculous how high a monk or sacred fist's AC can get with the help of magic or a magic buddy.
|
|
Yet a Monk or Sacred Fist with 10 Mage Armor Potions is okay? Their AC will be stupid at low levels(mid levels too) regardless of what you do : P Especially once some very friendly Wizard casts Shield on them... then you'll have a level 1 Monk or Sacred Fist with 26 AC. Now what? D:
In the long-term(to level 15, 20 just doesn't seem likely or practical) their AC still comes out less than a Fighter with sword/board.
Yes, I can produce the math if you really want me to. I have it on-hand.
I'm not saying if they should stack or not, I'm just referring to your statement.
My post was about the fact that they seem to be intended to be basically the same mechanical concept, so it seems a bit ridiculous to let the same class feature be applied twice, even if the sources are detailed as being different.
My post was not about whether or not it's ridiculous how high a monk or sacred fist's AC can get with the help of magic or a magic buddy.
The first part of your post, was about the fact they "seem to be intended to be basically the same mechanical concept, so it seems a bit ridiculous to let the same class feature be applied twice."; Yes.
The second part, was in regards to it being so ridiculous of them to do it, that you cast them away from your table. Thus, the reference I made, showing you that it's going to be that ridiculous anyways, and there is no reason to cast them away like that for that reason.
My response is relative.
The first part of your post, was about the fact they "seem to be intended to be basically the same mechanical concept, so it seems a bit ridiculous to let the same class feature be applied twice."; Yes.
Excellent. Glad we agree.
The second part, was in regards to it being so ridiculous of them to do it, that you cast them away from your table. Thus, the reference I made, showing you that it's going to be that ridiculous anyways, and there is no reason to cast them away like that for that reason.
My response is relative.
The part about me casting them from the table was hyperbolic. Maybe I should have used some kind of emote to show it. ;)
And I wouldn't allow it in my game not because they can attain ridiculous numbers, but because I consider it dumb. Regardless of them (from a rules standpoint) being different or the same type of ability, one is pretty clearly imitating the other. If someone wanted to play a Sacred Fist Monk multi class, I'd allow them to treat their Sacred Fist levels as Monk levels for adding the additional scaling AC bonus, but I wouldn't allow them to add the Wisdom twice.
|
|
The first part of your post, was about the fact they "seem to be intended to be basically the same mechanical concept, so it seems a bit ridiculous to let the same class feature be applied twice."; Yes.Excellent. Glad we agree.
The second part, was in regards to it being so ridiculous of them to do it, that you cast them away from your table. Thus, the reference I made, showing you that it's going to be that ridiculous anyways, and there is no reason to cast them away like that for that reason.
My response is relative.
The part about me casting them from the table was hyperbolic. Maybe I should have used some kind of emote to show it. ;)
And I wouldn't allow it in my game not because they can attain ridiculous numbers, but because I consider it dumb. Regardless of them (from a rules standpoint) being different or the same type of ability, one is pretty clearly imitating the other. If someone wanted to play a Sacred Fist Monk multi class, I'd allow them to treat their Sacred Fist levels as Monk levels for adding the additional scaling AC bonus, but I wouldn't allow them to add the Wisdom twice.
Fair response, my friend :)
IMO Sacred Fists are straight up Awesome even without the double-dip to AC. I just don't understand with all the playtesting, references to Monk, etc, how the developers/writers missed this... time and time again...
I do a lot of tedious SQL related data entry and scripting, along with ridiculously tedious tinkering with Propietary software for USPS through NG, and we have a lot of test environments/revisions to go through.
I compare that to what they're doing... and my mind is just boggled how they missed it. I could go on a rant right now... but I won't haha.
It would be good to have the dev's/writers weigh in on this (as well as a number of other ACG discussions). Maybe they actually do intend them to stack .. in which case I'll simply disagree that their decision is good for the game.
Agreed about Sacred Fists, so much so that I really just wish that were basically the way that monks operated. I hate that I have to choose between some of the monk's built-in doodads (built-in speed and what-not) and the all-around awesomeness of the Sacred Fist with their mega-self buffing and what-not, but it is what it is at this point.
EDIT: though at that point, the monk is altered thematically quite a bit, unless you can come up with a different/in-theme reason why they suddenly cast divine spells.
|
|
No, it's type is "Wisdom bonus" to AC. In both cases.
The Monk applies his Wisdom bonus.
The Sacred Fist applies his "Wisdom modifier (minimum 0)". But according to the definition in the CRB, an ability modifier that's always positive is a bonus, so the Sacred Fist's ability is equivalent to "Wisdom bonus".
So they're really the same thing.
No wisdom bonus is the value, not the type. It they want to add a type they specify it, just like with the Duelist.
Again, lack of a type does not mean you can make up your own, it means untyped.
Nuh-uh :P
the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD.
I contend that that means exactly the same thing as saying "gains a Wisdom bonus to AC equal to his Wisdom bonus", except the second sentence sounds really dumb (even if it is more explicit).
If you read the "Getting Started" chapter in the CRB, they talk a whole lot about "Strength bonus", "Wisdom bonus" and so forth. These are bonus types that really exist.
The Duelist has a Dodge bonus for a reason. He adds Intelligence to AC, but not all at once, and not as an Intelligence bonus. If you had a different ability that also added Intelligence to AC as an actual Intelligence bonus, they'd stack.
If you compare the Duelist to the Iroran Paladin's Confident Defence ability, the difference becomes obvious. Confident Defence is still limited by the maximum Dex bonus that your armor will let you add (as opposed to the Duelist's Dodge bonus). Also, if you dipped into Lore oracle for Sidestep Secret, you'd be first replacing Dex with Charisma for AC, then adding Charisma to Dex for AC, which most likely doesn't work. Because the Duelist has a Dodge bonus, it can't have that problem.
So the Duelist Dodge bonus doesn't prove that it's not possible to have an Intelligence bonus to AC, just that the author didn't want it to be an Intelligence bonus, for some reason. Perhaps to ensure that the bonus would be lost on flat-footedness, since that's a property of Dodge bonuses to AC, but such a standard rule doesn't exist for Intelligence bonuses to AC.
|
|
No, it's type is "Wisdom bonus" to AC. In both cases.
The Monk applies his Wisdom bonus.
The Sacred Fist applies his "Wisdom modifier (minimum 0)". But according to the definition in the CRB, an ability modifier that's always positive is a bonus, so the Sacred Fist's ability is equivalent to "Wisdom bonus".
So they're really the same thing.
If they were the same thing, they'd list them as the same thing. They also should have just listed it as "as the Monk ability of the same name" like they did THREE other times in that Archetype. Wth. I don't know who wrote the archetype, but they must have been severely scatter-brained or a subcontractor of a subcontractor. They clearly had the Monk in mind when creating this Archetype... so why not look back and reference it 20 or 30 times to avoid this kind of complication? A lot of writings seem "clear" to certain people, but if it isn't written properly, it's not truly clear to Anyone.
I see what you're saying, and I think I understand better after you clarified, but I now feel more solid on what I stated previously.
I don't think it's strange that they didn't use the exact same language, for at least 2 reasons;
1) It is NOT the monk ability of the same name. Monks get a bonus due to inner piece. Sacred Fists are protected by a god. One ability is extraordinary, the other magical. One leads to an untyped level-scaling bonus, the other to a deflection level-scaling bonus.
While writing the ability, new text was inserted to emphasize these differences ("divine protection"). At that point you're not just copy-pasting text anymore, and differences creep in.
2) If you've ever written a mass of house rules, you've noticed that even for a single person it's hard to be consistent with your terminology. "Modifier, at least 0" and "bonus" mean the same thing, so when you're proofreading, neither looks incorrect, because they aren't. Differences that aren't errors are REALLY hard to spot. The ACG was written years after the monk, probably by different people. Also, there was the rush for GenCon.
I can appreciate that there are justifiable conceptual differences between the Monk's AC bonus and that of the Sacred Fist. I still think it's clunky and unnecessary for them to stack that way.
I feel the same way about the double Charisma bonus to Reflex on the Nature Oracle with Divine Protection. Oddly enough, I don't feel the same way about the Dragon Style stacking ... as that seems like an intentional, incremental increase purchased through feat expenditure within a single thematic feat chain.
: shrugs :
|
|
Hey, I'm not saying that it's not clunky. I would've preferred more explicit wording. Heck, I'd have preferred if they'd made it (Ex) and stacking with the Monk, rather than the current "haha, it's redundant!" paradigm, wherein for example a Brawler's Unarmed Strike doesn't stack with the Monk's.
Dragon Style:
- The Style just shifts the Strength bonus from 1x to 1.5x; it's still the Strength bonus
- Ferocity gives you an untyped bonus that is equal to half your Strength bonus. Equal to, but not the same thing.
As is, I would prefer tighter wording, because these things take veeery careful reading to figure out.
|
|
Yeah, that's got to do with the wording of Divine Grace;
Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws.
The magic word here is "equal to", which means it's just as much, but not the same thing. If it had been like this:
Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin adds his Charisma bonus (if any) to all saving throws.
Then it wouldn't stack with Sidestep Secret, because that also adds the Charisma bonus.
So am I right to think that if you use this ruling an Order Of the Sword Cavalier 15 / Paladin 1 issuing a Knight's Challenge at an Evil badass can not use is Smite against this guy ?
The Knight's Challenge say :
the cavalier adds his Charisma bonus on all attack rolls and damage rolls made against the target of his challenge.
The Smite Evil state :
the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't read it that way at all, Andrew. The way you present your argument makes sense, but it hinges on the concept that each individual ability score is its own bonus, and this isn't stated anywhere in the rules. You can claim that the rules don't say that they aren't untyped, but it also doesn't claim they're typed, either.
Until Paizo claims otherwise, people are not incorrect as reading ability bonuses as untyped. There are a number of abilities that people have mentioned (like Dragon Style/Ferocity) that simply would not work if the rules worked as you claim. And that leads me to believe that it is fully intended to be able to double-dip, except when it specifically says otherwise.
The rules don't state anywhere a comprehensive list of any bonus types. There are like two bonus types mentioned in the rules about bonus types. So by your logic, because insight, inherent, and luck are not specifically called out as typed, they aren't.
We both know that isn't what you are saying.
But until Paizo clarifies otherwise, RAW, ability bonuses are typed, because the bonus has a name.
Feats and class abilities have to be read individually to determine how they work. We all know that Paizo uses imprecise language at times, and don't do a real good job of maintaining rules continuity when getting stuff written by freelancers. As for dragon style and ferocity, they work fine. On your first unarmed attack you get 1-1/2 strength damage instead of strength damage. With Ferocity, you need to look at its intent, understand the imprecise language issue, and realize you aren't stacking it with Dragon Style. It just makes all your attacks 1-1/2. The first does not become x2. Some classes can take feats without prereqs.
Insight, inherent, etc. are definitely codified bonuses. But <ability score> is not, because it's not a direct source, of which the Monk AC Bonus and various other abilities lead to this conclusion. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Dragon Ferocity (Combat)
You attack with the strength of a dragon, your telling blows striking fear into your enemies.
Prerequisites: Str 15, Improved Unarmed Strike, Dragon Style, Stunning Fist, Acrobatics 5 ranks.
Benefit: While using Dragon Style, you gain a bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls equal to half your Strength bonus. When you score a critical hit or a successful Stunning Fist attempt against an opponent while using this style, that opponent is also shaken for a number of rounds equal to 1d4 + your Strength bonus.
Special: Taking this feat allows you to qualify for the Elemental Fist feat (Advanced Player's Guide 158) even if you do not meet that feat's prerequisites. If you do not meet that feat's prerequisites, you must choose one of the damage types that feat offers, and you can use only that damage type with your Elemental Fist attacks until you meet the feat's normal prerequisites. A monk with this feat can use Elemental Fist as if he were a monk of the four winds (Advanced Player's Guide 112).
The bolded portion would simply not work according to your reading of the rules, because you are adding the 0.5x Strength Bonus to the 1x Strength Bonus that Unarmed Attacks get normally. That's obviously not the case.
|
|
Yes it would.
Divine grace is a BONUS over and above the stats.
That's what I just said.
(snip)
With your interpretation if he then took the mystery sidestep secret his reflex save bonus would DROP to 4.
No, my interpretation is that it works, because Divine Protection is not a Charisma bonus, it's an untyped bonus equal to your Charisma bonus. Sidestep Secret is a Charisma bonus. They're different, so they stack.
This is clearly not the intent nor is it the clear reading of the mystery.
I'm pretty sure there wasn't any developer intent at all here; developers didn't intend for you to make that particular build, or for it to work or not work. That's just something found by players making a build.
|
|
So am I right to think that if you use this ruling an Order Of the Sword Cavalier 15 / Paladin 1 issuing a Knight's Challenge at an Evil badass can not use is Smite against this guy ?
The Knight's Challenge say :
the cavalier adds his Charisma bonus on all attack rolls and damage rolls made against the target of his challenge.The Smite Evil state :
the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls
Yes, they don't stack. They're both Charisma bonuses.
|
|
@Seranov: <ability> bonuses do exist. They're all over the book. They're defined here:
Determine Bonuses
Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from –5 to +5. Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells shows the modifier for each score. The modifier is the number you apply to the die roll when your character tries to do something related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some numbers that aren't die rolls. A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty. The table also shows bonus spells, which you'll need to know about if your character is a spellcaster.
As for the Dragon Ferocity: you do add that bonus, because it is not a Strength bonus, it is a bonus equal to half your strength bonus.
"Equal to" means they're not the same thing, just equal.
Yes, they don't stack. They're both Charisma bonuses.So am I right to think that if you use this ruling an Order Of the Sword Cavalier 15 / Paladin 1 issuing a Knight's Challenge at an Evil badass can not use is Smite against this guy ?
The Knight's Challenge say :
the cavalier adds his Charisma bonus on all attack rolls and damage rolls made against the target of his challenge.The Smite Evil state :
the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls
But it's not logical why can't I do that while I can, with the same Knight's Challenge and Focused SHot add both my Charisma modifier and my intelligence modifier to damage and not the bonus from Smite and the bonus from the Knight's Challenge ?!?
|
|
But it's not logical why can't I do that while I can, with the same Knight's Challenge and Focused SHot add both my Charisma modifier and my intelligence modifier to damage and not the bonus from Smite and the bonus from the Knight's Challenge ?!?Yes, they don't stack. They're both Charisma bonuses.So am I right to think that if you use this ruling an Order Of the Sword Cavalier 15 / Paladin 1 issuing a Knight's Challenge at an Evil badass can not use is Smite against this guy ?
The Knight's Challenge say :
the cavalier adds his Charisma bonus on all attack rolls and damage rolls made against the target of his challenge.The Smite Evil state :
the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls
Because you can't stack bonuses with the same type unless specifically permitted (such as with Dodge).
So you can stack a Cha bonus with an Int bonus, because they're different, but can't stack Cha with Cha, because they're the same.
|
Yeah, I don't read it that way at all, Andrew. The way you present your argument makes sense, but it hinges on the concept that each individual ability score is its own bonus, and this isn't stated anywhere in the rules. You can claim that the rules don't say that they aren't untyped, but it also doesn't claim they're typed, either.
Until Paizo claims otherwise, people are not incorrect as reading ability bonuses as untyped. There are a number of abilities that people have mentioned (like Dragon Style/Ferocity) that simply would not work if the rules worked as you claim. And that leads me to believe that it is fully intended to be able to double-dip, except when it specifically says otherwise.
It doesn't have to state anywhere that the ability bonuses are typed per the ability.
It actually has to state that ability bonuses are different than any other named bonus.
Just because the large majority of the player base has learned this rule incorrectly, doesn't mean that ability bonuses are untyped.
|
|
So no, Divine Grace is the source. But the type of bonus Divine Grace grants to AC is a Charisma Bonus.
Just like you can't have two Morale bonuses that modify the same checks, regardless of whether they...
Err... Based on this principle I can't have anything adding "add your charisma bonus to bluff", since the bluff skill already have a Charisma bonus added... Or am I misreading something ?
Because I really think that you say that if my level 15 Order of the sword's Cavalier /level 1 paladin begin a Knight's challenge to an evil creature he gain "the cavalier adds his Charisma bonus on all attack rolls and damage rolls made against the target of his challenge."
And if in the fight I decide to Smite the Evil thing I will not gain the to-hit bonus from the Smite Evil because smite evil grant "the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls", is that it ?
What makes you think an Order of the Sword Cavalier's 15th level Knight's Challenge ability is supposed to stack with the Paladin's smite?
In a way the two abilities compliment one another, but in others they are redundant.
Knight's Challenge lets you add Charisma bonus to attack and damage rolls.
Smite lets you add charisma bonus to attack and Paladin level to damage.
So you would get Charisma one time to attack, and to damage rolls, and then the paladin level also to damage rolls.
|
|
That's the one that really cements it for me. The ability simply doesn't function as written if you don't read it as stacking.Yeah, I don't read it that way at all, Andrew. The way you present your argument makes sense, but it hinges on the concept that each individual ability score is its own bonus, and this isn't stated anywhere in the rules. You can claim that the rules don't say that they aren't untyped, but it also doesn't claim they're typed, either.
Until Paizo claims otherwise, people are not incorrect as reading ability bonuses as untyped. There are a number of abilities that people have mentioned (like Dragon Style/Ferocity) that simply would not work if the rules worked as you claim. And that leads me to believe that it is fully intended to be able to double-dip, except when it specifically says otherwise.
A function of the feat being written with an incorrect assumption.
You can't just rewrite RAW to accommodate one feat that was written imprecisely.
|
|
You don't even need to try to really optimize, to get a number of "double dips" when playing an Inquisitor.
Really, I think it should be handled on a case by case basis, or have a mass of dead abilities/feats.
What double dips are these?
And what makes you think you should be able to double dip at all?
Perhaps people who think ability bonuses are untyped are incorrectly double dipping, and this is why most people perceive the Inquisitor as being broken?
|
|
By that same logic, if Wisdom Bonus(Monk) is it's "type"(even though I'm fairly certain it's untyped), then Wisdom Modifier(Sacred Fist) is a "type"; wouldn't that make even more sense for them to stack? I may be interpreting what you're trying to say incorrectly, but people have been going nuts on this thread and it's becoming more hazy as I read.
I think everyone should just go to This specific FAQ thread on AC Bonus and click on the FAQ button. The more FAQs the better, and hopefully there will be an official answer soon.
Keep sharing opinions, comparisons, and views in the meantime!
There is no such thing as "Wisdom Bonus (Monk)". The monk ability allows you to add your Wisdom Bonus to your Armor Class. It is simply a Wisdom Bonus. The fact you get it from the Monk is immaterial.
The sacred fist ability that lets you add your Wisdom Modifier is simply saying that you could get a negative penalty if you have a Wisdom less than 10. But an Ability Modifier that is positive, is an Ability Bonus, per the definition of Ability Modifier that I quoted above.
|
|
No, it's type is "Wisdom bonus" to AC. In both cases.
The Monk applies his Wisdom bonus.
The Sacred Fist applies his "Wisdom modifier (minimum 0)". But according to the definition in the CRB, an ability modifier that's always positive is a bonus, so the Sacred Fist's ability is equivalent to "Wisdom bonus".
So they're really the same thing.
No wisdom bonus is the value, not the type. It they want to add a type they specify it, just like with the Duelist.
Again, lack of a type does not mean you can make up your own, it means untyped.
This is a ridiculous statement.
The value is the actual number.
The type of bonus is Wisdom.
Just like the value of your Insight Bonus to AC for having an Ioun Stone is +1. The type of bonus is still Insight.
I am really, really flabberghasted at the extreme lack of logic and supporting rules text indicating ability bonuses are not typed.
The bonus has a name? Its typed. If the bonus doesn't have a name. Its not.
In this case, the name of the bonus is Wisdom.
|
|
It would be good to have the dev's/writers weigh in on this (as well as a number of other ACG discussions). Maybe they actually do intend them to stack .. in which case I'll simply disagree that their decision is good for the game.
Agreed about Sacred Fists, so much so that I really just wish that were basically the way that monks operated. I hate that I have to choose between some of the monk's built-in doodads (built-in speed and what-not) and the all-around awesomeness of the Sacred Fist with their mega-self buffing and what-not, but it is what it is at this point.
EDIT: though at that point, the monk is altered thematically quite a bit, unless you can come up with a different/in-theme reason why they suddenly cast divine spells.
I too like the sacred fist because I like the fervor mechanic. After I was reminded about the mage armor on a monk by my friend I realized that the AC could be passable without 10,000 gold spent. I still feel the AC bonuses should stack.
That said as to this.
If you want to claim abilities dead, then post the abilities in question and why you feel they won't work. Just posting a name does not add to the discussion.Dragon Ferocity
** spoiler omitted **The ability literally cannot function if you cannot stack strength bonus with strength bonus.
As I stated in a previous post, the feat is imprecisely written, probably by a writer who was under the same misconceptions as you are. And the Developer didn't catch it.
Essentially, the way I read it, that Dragon Style allows you to do 1-1/2 times your strength on your first attack. Not 2-1/2 times.
Dragon Ferocity allows you to add that extra 1/2 strength bonus to the rest of your attacks. So now all your attacks are at 1-1/2 Strength bonus.
When there seems to be a feat or ability that simply won't function because the language is imprecise, its better to try and figure out the intent of the ability, rather than crap-can the entire rules on stacking.
|
|
Sorry can't edit... So I just wanted to ask what happen to my reflexe saves if I am a Paladin 2/Oracle with Sidestep secret ?You get your Charisma bonus and your Dexterity Bonus to reflex saves.
Since Divine Grace and Sidestep secrets do not stack, as they both are Charisma bonuses, you would not be disallowed to choose to use your Dexterity bonus in place of your Charisma bonus with Sidestep Secrets. Although since its a revelation, if you knew you were making this build, it would behoove you to not take Sidestep Secrets and not tank Dexterity as it would be redundant.
Now I realize JJ is not a rules guy, but you realize you are directly contradicting him here.
James answers this question
Yup, because James Jacobs statement is absolutely ludicrous.
"Its an untyped bonus that doesn't stack"
That doesn't even come close to following how the rules on bonuses and stacking works.
if its untyped, it stacks unless its from the same source.
If its typed, it doesn't stack with itself but for a couple explicit exceptions.
This is why JJ is not a rules guy. Because he doesn't actually know how the rules work.
|
|
Yes it would.
Divine grace is a BONUS over and above the stats.
Sidestep secret causes Charisma to be used instead of dex.
Lets take a look at an oracle/paladin with teh following stats.
Str 14
Dex 14
Con 14Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 18At this point the Oradin gets a bonus to his reflex save of +6 (4 from charisma and 2 from Dexterity) not counting whatever his class levels give him.
With your interpretation if he then took the mystery sidestep secret his reflex save bonus would DROP to 4. This is clearly not the intent nor is it the clear reading of the mystery.
"Used instead of" is not wording to get around stacking rules.
You can't add the same typed bonus twice. It doesn't matter if you are replacing another bonus or not.
It actually functions as 2x your Strength, as one is an untyped bonus equal to half your Strength mod, and one is 1.5x your Strength Modifier. They modify with different bonuses.
|
|
Yeah, that's got to do with the wording of Divine Grace;
Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws.The magic word here is "equal to", which means it's just as much, but not the same thing. If it had been like this:
Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin adds his Charisma bonus (if any) to all saving throws.Then it wouldn't stack with Sidestep Secret, because that also adds the Charisma bonus.
I disagree here.
Bonus equal to Charisma Bonus, is still adding your Charisma Bonus.
Sean K Reynolds had a long post that discussed how to interpret the rules. This was more specifically about the Life Oracle, Paladin, and Cleric channeling abilities and whether they stack or not. Because the language between then was not precisely the same.
Sean got quite testy, and basically said, that the wording was not precisely the same, because they are writing flavorful rules and not an encyclopedia of rules. He mentioned something about nobody wanting to read the books if they weren't flavorful in how they were written.
I disagree with him. People don't read the Core Rulebook, typically, for entertainment reading purposes. We want precise wording, because then we don't have arguments like this one.
This is just another way for them to word an ability differently than other abilities for flavor purposes. The fact is, its still a Charisma bonus, and as such will not stack with other Charisma bonuses.
|
|
So am I right to think that if you use this ruling an Order Of the Sword Cavalier 15 / Paladin 1 issuing a Knight's Challenge at an Evil badass can not use is Smite against this guy ?
The Knight's Challenge say :
the cavalier adds his Charisma bonus on all attack rolls and damage rolls made against the target of his challenge.The Smite Evil state :
the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls
You can still use your smite. You get to add your Paladin level to damage, and you get to ignore all DR. There are other benefits to smite than adding Charisma to Attack.
But adding Charisma to attack is redundant between the two abilities, and thus those aspects of the two abilities will not stack.
|
|
Insight, inherent, etc. are definitely codified bonuses. But <ability score> is not, because it's not a direct source, of which the Monk AC Bonus and various other abilities lead to this conclusion. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
How does that logic even follow?
Nothing is a codified bonus. There is literally no list of bonus types in the book.
All we have to go on is if the Bonus itself has a name or not.
Insight Bonus is not a direct source either. Typically you gain insight bonuses because you have some ability or magic that grants you an insight bonus.
Just like every other typed (named) bonus.
There is literally no difference (other than the type) between saying:
Dexterity Bonus
Luck Bonus
When determining if the bonus is typed or not.
Both are typed. One is typed Dexterity, and the other is typed Luck.
|
|
Umm.. do you realize there a list of bonus types on the PRD. While this is not all possible bonus types ever, insight, inherent and luck are listed. So they actually are called out to be typed by the book.Yeah, I don't read it that way at all, Andrew. The way you present your argument makes sense, but it hinges on the concept that each individual ability score is its own bonus, and this isn't stated anywhere in the rules. You can claim that the rules don't say that they aren't untyped, but it also doesn't claim they're typed, either.
Until Paizo claims otherwise, people are not incorrect as reading ability bonuses as untyped. There are a number of abilities that people have mentioned (like Dragon Style/Ferocity) that simply would not work if the rules worked as you claim. And that leads me to believe that it is fully intended to be able to double-dip, except when it specifically says otherwise.
The rules don't state anywhere a comprehensive list of any bonus types. There are like two bonus types mentioned in the rules about bonus types. So by your logic, because insight, inherent, and luck are not specifically called out as typed, they aren't.
We both know that isn't what you are saying.
But until Paizo clarifies otherwise, RAW, ability bonuses are typed, because the bonus has a name.
Feats and class abilities have to be read individually to determine how they work. We all know that Paizo uses imprecise language at times, and don't do a real good job of maintaining rules continuity when getting stuff written by freelancers. As for dragon style and ferocity, they work fine. On your first unarmed attack you get 1-1/2 strength damage instead of strength damage. With Ferocity, you need to look at its intent, understand the imprecise language issue, and realize you aren't stacking it with Dragon Style. It just makes all your attacks 1-1/2. The first does not become x2. Some classes can take feats without prereqs.
That's a list on how to design spells from Ultimate Magic. It is not part of the Core Rulebook.
You can't take a list on how to design spells as a codified list of exhaustive bonus types.
|
|
@Andrew: the inquisitor has unusually many ways to either add wisdom to charisma skills, or replace charisma with wisdom on those skills. It's really quite strange design.
Yup, but that isn't necessarily stacking. That just makes it easier to mono-stat an Inquisitor.
Adding Wisdom just means you get both Wisdom Bonus and Charisma bonus for the skills.
Replacing Charisma with Wisdom just means you are using your Wisdom Bonus, not your Charisma bonus.
If you had both abilities, you would not be able to add your Wisdom Bonus or Charisma Bonus twice to the same skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you are a sorcer and cast an Enchantement spell with a DC of 10+Spell level+ Charisma Modifier and an ability gives you "add your Charisma modifier to your Enchantment school spell" this will not work ?
But this will work if you are a Wizard because your DC will be 10+Caster level+ Intelligence modifier ?
|
|
An alternate and equally viable reading is that you are wrong the writers know it, the devs know it, the publishers know it, and the editors know it. Because "Stat bonus" is not a bonus type as such it stacks with everything. Similar to how the +1 to hit from haste stacks with the +2 from divine fervor even though the extra hit per turn doesn't stack.
Bonuses are not typed just because they have a source. They are typed when they are given a bonus type. It seems more likely to me you're reaching based upon what you've posted so far. There are plenty of examples in the game where they acknowledge or give a nod to the potential of stat stacking.
I'm not going to argue with you about this much further, until you start doing your research and posting up actual rules that support your argument.
Your logic is not sound. You keep using the word "source". And there is no basis in the rules for the word "source" to be used in the context you are using it.
The word Dexterity comes before the word Bonus in the phrase Dexterity Bonus, therefore Dexterity Bonus is typed as Dexterity.
The same way that Insight Bonus is typed as Insight and Dodge bonus is typed as Dodge.
If you can't see that logic, then there is no sense in arguing with you.
Just because there are plenty of circumstances where stacking could happen if stacking was allowed, does not then equal ability bonuses as being untyped. It just means that multiclassing to get those various different abilities is redundant.
|
|
So if you are a sorcer and cast an Enchantement spell with a DC of 10+Spell level+ Charisma Modifier and an ability gives you "add your Charisma modifier to your Enchantment school spell" this will not work ?
But this will work if you are a Wizard because your DC will be 10+Caster level+ Intelligence modifier ?
Pretty much.
But rather than discuss hypotheticals, why don't you actually post the abilities that do what you are suggesting above.
If they don't exist, then your question isn't really relevant other than to verify, once again, that bonuses of the same type don't stack.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Andrew, you're free to have your own interpretation. That doesn't mean you're right, though.
I will freely admit it doesn't mean we, with dissenting opinions, are right, either. But you cannot, in all good conscience, sit there and tell me that your reading is objectively right. Because without developer input on the matter, nobody knows for sure.
And the fact that my reading is not nearly as restrictive and allows things to work that just otherwise 100% would not (when they are pretty obviously intended to work) I'm going to err on the side of not trying to shut down options that aren't in any way overpowering. A MoMS 2/Sacred Fist X with Dragon Style/Ferocity and Pummeling Style/Charge is hardly an unstoppable, unmatchable goliath, even with double Wis to AC and Dragon Style/Ferocity stacking. It's probably on the level of a well-built Inquisitor or Bard.
|
|
Andrew, you're free to have your own interpretation. That doesn't mean you're right, though.
I will freely admit it doesn't mean we, with dissenting opinions, are right, either. But you cannot, in all good conscience, sit there and tell me that your reading is objectively right. Because without developer input on the matter, nobody knows for sure.
And the fact that my reading is not nearly as restrictive and allows things to work that just otherwise 100% would not (when they are pretty obviously intended to work) I'm going to err on the side of not trying to shut down options that aren't in any way overpowering. A MoMS 2/Sacred Fist X with Dragon Style/Ferocity and Pummeling Style/Charge is hardly an unstoppable, unmatchable goliath, even with double Wis to AC and Dragon Style/Ferocity stacking. It's probably on the level of a well-built Inquisitor or Bard.
The only thing I'm not 100% positive on, is whether the terminology "bonus equal to <ability modifier>" means that its an untyped bonus or not. I can see that interpretation working either way. I'm actually kinda leaning toward I'm wrong on this one, because the wording is very specific in this case.
However, nobody has actually posted any actual rules text that refutes that ability bonuses are typed.
And I've posted a ton of rules text, including a link from the d20 SRD for v3.5 (which pathfinder was based) that shows ability modifiers as being a typed bonus.
Since there is absolutely zero language in any Pathfinder rulebook (unless someone here can go research and find it--I couldn't, and I did check) that indicates ability bonuses are not typed by the ability, then I don't see any logic that would indicate otherwise.
Prove me wrong.
Simply saying, "I don't interpret it that way." Is like me saying, "I don't interpret Insight Bonuses as typed, because there isn't anything saying that an insight bonus is a type of bonus."
Or me saying, "I don't think halflings should be able to wear armor, because nothing in the rules actually says they can. Prove me wrong. You aren't 100% sure, because there isn't any language saying you are right."
Both of those arguments are quite ludicrous. We both know that an Insight Bonus is a typed bonus, and that halflings can wear armor.
So where is the language that even one iota supports your argument?
|
|
@ Seranov: When interpreting the rules, you can't use what may or may not be overpowering to influence you, unless there is some ambiguity in how the rule works.
In this case, there is no ambiguity (unless you agree that all bonuses specifically not called out in the rules about bonus stacking are ambiguous.)
If a bonus has a name, its typed.
Unless you can come up with actual rules language that supports you, there really is no other way to interpret the rules.