|
...Normal: You cannot add your wisdom modifier to AC.
AC Bonus (Su): You can add your wisdom modifier to AC.
AC Bonus (Ex): You can add your wisdom bonus to AC.The abilities behind the colon are different.
The abilities violate the rule you can't add your wisdom modifier and bonus to AC.I read your evidence and the evidence you presented if interpreted the way you want it to be would literally fundamentally break the game. Two handers wouldn't get str 1+1/2, dragon ferocity wouldn't work, Pistelaro and mysterious stranger wouldn't have needed errata, along with a dozen other feats and abilities.
You are wrong and the evidence is massive. Your interpretation assumes the game is broken and everyone who has ever swung a two handed weapon has screwed up the math.
The evidence is absolutely massive that you are incorrect. You have yet to actually post any rules support to your argument. I keep asking for it, but you keep not doing so.
Obviously if one rule says one thing in a general sense, but another more specific rule seems inconsistent with that, then the specific rule will trump the general rule.
This is a concept you keep missing when arguing your point. I think you are purposefully missing it, because it has been stated often enough and you haven't directly refuted it. You keep saying the same thing over and over again without directly discussing this point.
Two Handed weapons work they way they work, because the rule on two-handed weapons is more specific than the general rule on bonus stacking.
Same as every other rule that you say "breaks" the bonus stacking rule when it comes to ability bonuses.
There is no preponderance of evidence on your side of the argument. The only thing you have to hang your hat on, is the fact that there is an obscure list in Ultimate Magic that discusses how to design a spell.
Otherwise, there is no list of bonus types. And as such, you have nothing in the rules that even remotely
This is not a Paizo source. The list of bonus types are those inferred by those who put d20PFSRD.com together. They apparently are working under the same incorrect assumption you are.
Find me a source that actually shows up in Paizo published material that says the same thing and I'll change my stance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sir there has NEVER been an Ability Bonus type anywhere in 3.5 or Pathfinder. Your comment is foolish.
There has never been that Type of Bonus before, just because YOU and only you consider it a bonus type that makes it your own personal Homebrew.
Even if Paizo where to release a statement saying there is no such thing as an Ability Bonus. I can safely assume you would reply with "Till its in a book it doesn't matter"
They could put it in a book and you likely would say that you are not buying that book and because you didn't see it in the book it still exists.
Fact is google search Ability Bonus, you will find nothing on it. It does not exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in short, the Wis to AC should stack just because the secondary part of AC Bonus does (Dodge and Deflection are not in conflict) and since we do not break up a class feature it would right?
|
|
Sir there has NEVER been an Ability Bonus type anywhere in 3.5 or Pathfinder. Your comment is foolish.
There has never been that Type of Bonus before, just because YOU and only you consider it a bonus type that makes it your own personal Homebrew.Even if Paizo where to release a statement saying there is no such thing as an Ability Bonus. I can safely assume you would reply with "Till its in a book it doesn't matter"
They could put it in a book and you likely would say that you are not buying that book and because you didn't see it in the book it still exists.
Fact is google search Ability Bonus, you will find nothing on it. It does not exist.
Actually if you go back to page two or three where I posted a link you'll see that the 3.5 SRD has a table of bonus types that includes ability bonuses.
|
|
...Normal: You cannot add your wisdom modifier to AC.
AC Bonus (Su): You can add your wisdom modifier to AC.
AC Bonus (Ex): You can add your wisdom bonus to AC.The abilities behind the colon are different.
The abilities violate the rule you can't add your wisdom modifier and bonus to AC.I read your evidence and the evidence you presented if interpreted the way you want it to be would literally fundamentally break the game. Two handers wouldn't get str 1+1/2, dragon ferocity wouldn't work, Pistelaro and mysterious stranger wouldn't have needed errata, along with a dozen other feats and abilities.
You are wrong and the evidence is massive. Your interpretation assumes the game is broken and everyone who has ever swung a two handed weapon has screwed up the math.
The evidence is absolutely massive that you are incorrect. You have yet to actually post any rules support to your argument. I keep asking for it, but you keep not doing so.
Obviously if one rule says one thing in a general sense, but another more specific rule seems inconsistent with that, then the specific rule will trump the general rule.
This is a concept you keep missing when arguing your point. I think you are purposefully missing it, because it has been stated often enough and you haven't directly refuted it. You keep saying the same thing over and over again without directly discussing this point.
Two Handed weapons work they way they work, because the rule on two-handed weapons is more specific than the general rule on bonus stacking.
Same as every other rule that you say "breaks" the bonus stacking rule when it comes to ability bonuses.
There is no preponderance of evidence on your side of the argument. The only thing you have to hang your hat on, is the fact that there is an obscure list in Ultimate Magic that discusses how to design a spell.
Otherwise, there is no list of
Several folks have tried to use this table as proof. With just a bit more looking, you'll note its from Ultimate Magic, and a chapter on spell design. This is not an exhaustive list. It just discusses bonuses that spells can grant. The very nature of ability bonuses makes it absurd for a spell to grant them, thus why that bonus is not on the list.
|
|
I shouldn't have to own Ultimate Magic to determine what is, or is not, a typed bonus.
The Core Rulebook is all I should need, and the Core Rulebook doesn't define every typed bonus as being typed. It assumes we know how descriptive words work in the English language.
There is no difference in language construct from Inherent Bonus to Wisdom Bonus.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I shouldn't have to own Ultimate Magic to determine what is, or is not, a typed bonus.
The Core Rulebook is all I should need, and the Core Rulebook doesn't define every typed bonus as being typed. It assumes we know how descriptive words work in the English language.
There is no difference in language construct from Inherent Bonus to Wisdom Bonus.
This is 100% your opinion and not something that the rules are based on. The CRB is not the only rule book in Pathfinder, and as such, is not an exhaustive source for every rule in the game.
I believe most of us realize you're going to stay solidly rooted in your belief, but you're the one making the opposing claim without solid proof to back it up. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Ability scores are their own type of bonus, and you have no managed to do so in anything resembling a conclusive manner.
With a complete lack of anything suggesting that an "Ability bonus" exists in Pathfinder your argument is, at best, a passionate house-rule. But it is not RAW, and likely not RAI, either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I saw that Andrew Christian had chosen this as his hill that he wanted to die on, I basically lost all interest in the conversation.
Either I'm right, and he has lost all that time and effort he invested into it. (and if time and effort made one right, Andrew would be right 10 times over in this thread)
Or he is right, in which case we get a lot of new rules to clarify things (because frack me, if that isn't a can of wriggly worms, ability typed bonuses).
Either way, win win, and I have expended as little of my valuable (heh) posting time and effort as possible.
prototype00
|
|
I shouldn't have to own Ultimate Magic to determine what is, or is not, a typed bonus.
The Core Rulebook is all I should need, and the Core Rulebook doesn't define every typed bonus as being typed. It assumes we know how descriptive words work in the English language.
There is no difference in language construct from Inherent Bonus to Wisdom Bonus.
This is 100% your opinion and not something that the rules are based on. The CRB is not the only rule book in Pathfinder, and as such, is not an exhaustive source for every rule in the game.
I believe most of us realize you're going to stay solidly rooted in your belief, but you're the one making the opposing claim without solid proof to back it up. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Ability scores are their own type of bonus, and you have no managed to do so in anything resembling a conclusive manner.
With a complete lack of anything suggesting that an "Ability bonus" exists in Pathfinder your argument is, at best, a passionate house-rule. But it is not RAW, and likely not RAI, either.
You'll note that there is a link to the v3.5 SRD here, that shows that in the predecessor rules set, ability bonuses are considered typed.
You'll also note that I was the first one to call out the chart in Ultimate Magic. But unlike many of you who just look it up on the PRD and claim it as a iron clad list, I looked a bit further and realized it came from Ultimate Magic.
Additionally, on page 2, I also posted this
HERE.
That is my list of rules references from the Core Rulebook that support my stance.
The Core Rulebook is called "core" for a reason. Because it has all the core rules sets in the game. It defines the game. Additional books can enhance old rules (i.e. Advanced Players Guide Traits or additional combat maneuvers--you'll note that the base way the additional combat maneuvers work is the same as the other combat maneuvers) or add new rules (i.e. Ultimate Combat with firearms.) But you can't use one of the new books to comprehensively define a core rule concept.
That can only be defined by the Core Rulebook.
In this case, it is quite clear, that strictly RAW, ability bonuses are typed.
Any other argument is based on how you interpret the intent of the rule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I saw that Andrew Christian had chosen this as his hill that he wanted to die on, I basically lost all interest in the conversation.
Either I'm right, and he has lost all that time and effort he invested into it. (and if time and effort made one right, Andrew would be right 10 times over in this thread)
Or he is right, in which case we get a lot of new rules to clarify things (because frack me, if that isn't a can of wriggly worms, ability typed bonuses).
Either way, win win, and I have expended as little of my valuable (heh) posting time and effort as possible.
prototype00
I wouldn't say that I lost all my time and effort.
I fully acknowledge that should Paizo decide to answer this question, they may answer it in a way that does not coincide with my belief.
But if they do, it isn't time wasted. But rather I hope that by bringing constant attention to the issue by my constant argument, that it allows Paizo to determine that this is a question that needs answering.
I shouldn't have to own Ultimate Magic to determine what is, or is not, a typed bonus.
The Core Rulebook is all I should need, and the Core Rulebook doesn't define every typed bonus as being typed. It assumes we know how descriptive words work in the English language.
There is no difference in language construct from Inherent Bonus to Wisdom Bonus.
This is 100% your opinion and not something that the rules are based on. The CRB is not the only rule book in Pathfinder, and as such, is not an exhaustive source for every rule in the game.
I believe most of us realize you're going to stay solidly rooted in your belief, but you're the one making the opposing claim without solid proof to back it up. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Ability scores are their own type of bonus, and you have no managed to do so in anything resembling a conclusive manner.
With a complete lack of anything suggesting that an "Ability bonus" exists in Pathfinder your argument is, at best, a passionate house-rule. But it is not RAW, and likely not RAI, either.
You'll note that there is a link to the v3.5 SRD here, that shows that in the predecessor rules set, ability bonuses are considered typed.
You'll also note that I was the first one to call out the chart in Ultimate Magic. But unlike many of you who just look it up on the PRD and claim it as a iron clad list, I looked a bit further and realized it came from Ultimate Magic.
Additionally, on page 2, I also posted this
HERE.
That is my list of rules references from the Core Rulebook that support my stance.
The Core Rulebook is called "core" for a reason. Because it has all the core rules sets in the game. It defines the game. Additional books can enhance old rules (i.e. Advanced Players...
On your 3.5 compiled list, I don't seem to see Untyped Bonus, and yet we all know there is such a thing as an Untyped Bonus. This list is therefore not a COMPLETE compilation and according to you has no merit on the discussion because it does not have every bonus type listed.
Also those a Glossary terms, Ability Modifier does not actually talk about naming type bonuses to other things. It says what that little + or - beside your ability score is called and what generally it does. (Specific beats general)
|
I'd like to put in that (from what I've seen here), there is implied evidence supporting both cases, and thus everyone who keeps saying "there is no evidence to support your claim, and you are wrong" is not correct.
The explicit rule here, is that bonuses from the same source stack, and bonuses of the same type stack. That is pretty much all of what we can explicitly say is RAW, and irrefutable.
Now, consider the following cases:
1:Wisdom bonus is a typed bonus. Supported by the fact that it is referenced in several places throughout the rules(see Monk AC bonus class feature).
2:Wisdom Bonus is not a typed bonus. Supported by the fact that Pathfinder 1st party has officially released a hardback book called the Ultimate Magic that included a list of typed bonuses, and ability score bonuses weren't included.
3:The table presented in the Ultimate Magic is not exhaustive, and instead merely presents some options for bonus types. This is supported by claim 1 that Wisdom bonus is a type of bonus, which is supported by the fact that Wisdom Bonus is referenced in several places in the rules.
4:The table presented in the Ultimate Magic is in fact exhaustive. This is supported by the text of the Designing Spells section on bonuses, which implicitly states that the table Bonus Type and Effects contains all typed bonuses. This is not explicitly stated in the rules, but
Not all bonus types are equal within the game, and many bonus types are only meant for certain things. See Table 2–7: Bonus Types and Effects.
This line infers that Table 2-7 contains all bonus types.
Now, all of these claims have evidence supporting them. So, could we stop calling others out as wrong because no evidence supports them please?
I shouldn't have to own Ultimate Magic to determine what is, or is not, a typed bonus.
The Core Rulebook is all I should need, and the Core Rulebook doesn't define every typed bonus as being typed. It assumes we know how descriptive words work in the English language.
There is no difference in language construct from Inherent Bonus to Wisdom Bonus.
The Core Rulebook is all that you need to play the game. And if you follow the Core RuleBook, then you never run into this problem. Because the Sacred Fist is not a part of the Core Rulebook. It was added later, and thus doesn't only follow the Core Rulebook's rules, but also the rules presented in other books between the Core Rulebook and Advanced Class Guide, to an extent.
The explicit rule here, is that bonuses from the same source stack, and bonuses of the same type stack. That is pretty much all of what we can explicitly say is RAW, and irrefutable.
I'm assuming you meant don't stack in both of those cases. Here's the actual text:
Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
So most bonuses have a type. This means that there is the possibility of bonuses not having a type. Not relevant to what you're saying, but it refutes the idea that Ability bonuses must be a type because bonuses must have a type unless they're specifically untyped.
Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. 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.
That last quote is from the section on Special Spell Effects. If a section on spell creation in Ultimate Magic isn't relevant to the core ruleset, a section on Spell Effects is no more relevant to the basic principle of how bonuses work. That source language is only relevant to Special Spell Effects. It's so that spells that give an untyped bonus can't be cast on the same target to stack effects.
Several folks have tried to use this table as proof. With just a bit more looking, you'll note its from Ultimate Magic, and a chapter on spell design. This is not an exhaustive list. It just discusses bonuses that spells can grant. The very nature of ability bonuses makes it absurd for a spell to grant them, thus why that bonus is not on the list.
You channel the power of good and law into the target, temporarily giving it powers similar to those of a paladin. The target gains the ability to use detect evil at will as a spell-like ability, immunity to disease (suppressing any diseases currently affecting it), and immunity to fear (ending any fear effects currently affecting it); can lay on hands (on itself only) once as a paladin of 1/2 your caster level; and can smite evil once as a paladin of 1/2 your caster level. It adds its Charisma bonus to all its saving throws. It can use spell completion, spell trigger, or other magic items that require the ability to cast spells as a paladin. Any abilities not used by the time the spell expires are lost. This spell has no effect if cast on a paladin.
This is a spell that adds an Ability bonus, found in Ultimate Magic, the same book that doesn't list Ability Bonuses as a type.
With this spell you can bestow your divine grace on another good creature for a short amount of time, infusing that creature with a portion of your holy virtue. When you touch the subject, you grant that creature a sacred bonus to its saving throws equal to its Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws.
This is a spell that grants an 'equal to its Charisma bonus' bonus, only it's typed as Sacred. Does this mean its type is both Sacred and Charisma? Just Sacred? If it's just Sacred, does that mean 'equal to...' is not a typed bonus?
|
|
...I shouldn't have to own Ultimate Magic to determine what is, or is not, a typed bonus.
The Core Rulebook is all I should need, and the Core Rulebook doesn't define every typed bonus as being typed. It assumes we know how descriptive words work in the English language.
There is no difference in language construct from Inherent Bonus to Wisdom Bonus.
This is 100% your opinion and not something that the rules are based on. The CRB is not the only rule book in Pathfinder, and as such, is not an exhaustive source for every rule in the game.
I believe most of us realize you're going to stay solidly rooted in your belief, but you're the one making the opposing claim without solid proof to back it up. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Ability scores are their own type of bonus, and you have no managed to do so in anything resembling a conclusive manner.
With a complete lack of anything suggesting that an "Ability bonus" exists in Pathfinder your argument is, at best, a passionate house-rule. But it is not RAW, and likely not RAI, either.
You'll note that there is a link to the v3.5 SRD here, that shows that in the predecessor rules set, ability bonuses are considered typed.
You'll also note that I was the first one to call out the chart in Ultimate Magic. But unlike many of you who just look it up on the PRD and claim it as a iron clad list, I looked a bit further and realized it came from Ultimate Magic.
Additionally, on page 2, I also posted this
HERE.
That is my list of rules references from the Core Rulebook that support my stance.
The Core Rulebook is called "core" for a reason. Because it has all the core rules sets in the game. It defines the game. Additional books can
Your logic doesn't follow. An untyped bonus does not have a type. Otherwise if it were a type, it wouldn't stack with itself.
So why would you put a non type bonus on a list of typed bonuses?
No. The one references Cha bonus for how to get the value. But Sacred is a different type than Cha.
So when something says "a bonus equal to its Charisma modifier/bonus" it's a typed Charisma bonus unless it specifies otherwise?
|
"A sacred bonus equal to your Charisma modifier/bonus" means it's a sacred bonus, that happens to be equal in size to your Charisma bonus. So it's not a Charisma bonus, it's a sacred bonus only. It means the same thing as saying "A sacred bonus equal to 5"; that doesn't make the number 5 the type of the bonus.
"A sacred bonus equal to your Charisma modifier/bonus" means it's a sacred bonus, and no longer a Charisma-typed bonus because the bonus type was overwritten.
Is there any precedent for such a thing? Like "a luck bonus equal to your morale bonus"?
|
|
Is there any precedent for such a thing? Like "a luck bonus equal to your morale bonus"?"A sacred bonus equal to your Charisma modifier/bonus" means it's a sacred bonus, and no longer a Charisma-typed bonus because the bonus type was overwritten.
Not that I know of, but then is there any precedent for a bonus having two types at the same time?
Not that I know of, but then is there any precedent for a bonus having two types at the same time?Is there any precedent for such a thing? Like "a luck bonus equal to your morale bonus"?"A sacred bonus equal to your Charisma modifier/bonus" means it's a sacred bonus, and no longer a Charisma-typed bonus because the bonus type was overwritten.
Not that I know of, but that was kind of my point.
|
|
So when something says "a bonus equal to its Charisma modifier/bonus" it's a typed Charisma bonus unless it specifies otherwise?No. The one references Cha bonus for how to get the value. But Sacred is a different type than Cha.
I am not 100% certain on the following phrase:
"You receive a bonus equal to your charisma bonus"
If you take SKR's post that I've quoted way above, I think there could be a legitimate argument to say that the phrase above is just a different way of saying, "you get a Charisma bonus to...".
However, if the phrase is, "you get a <typed> bonus equal to your charisma bonus." Then the bonus is typed per the <type> called out. In this example, it would be a sacred bonus.
All its doing is using your Charisma ability score to inform you what the value of your <type> bonus is.
|
|
Not that I know of, but that was kind of my point.Not that I know of, but then is there any precedent for a bonus having two types at the same time?Is there any precedent for such a thing? Like "a luck bonus equal to your morale bonus"?"A sacred bonus equal to your Charisma modifier/bonus" means it's a sacred bonus, and no longer a Charisma-typed bonus because the bonus type was overwritten.
Ability bonuses are a unique animal to the game. You can't apply the exact same precedent found for other typed bonuses to ability bonuses. Because they inherently work differently.
As you pointed out, most feats and class features say, "<value> <type> bonus".
or
<value> Bonus, which would be an untyped bonus.
As I noted above, the ability bonus has a variable bonus when not applied to a specific character. It happens to be based on whatever that character's ability score is. So it would be written like...
<value|unwritten> <type|ability> bonus.
The fact that there are 10 different ways to write out the bonus is more a testament to a writer trying to write something pretty, rather than functional. Paizo does not do a good job of making sure all developer/designers are making their freelancers use a central language bible for how to refer to various different rules sets.
That is why you have some confusing language like, "bonus equal to ability bonus" instead of just calling it out as that ability bonus or calling it out as a different type of bonus.
None of those rules consistency issues should be used as proof that ability bonuses are untyped.
There are no actual rules that support them being untyped, and plenty of rules that support them being typed.
|
|
The fact that the previous version of this game had a chart of bonus types, and included ability modifiers as a bonus type, I think is quite telling.
Any argument that Pathfinder has changed this, can only point to what you feel is intended by the developer/designers of Pathfinder based on rules sets that are not part of the Core Rulebook.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that the previous version of this game had a chart of bonus types, and included ability modifiers as a bonus type, I think is quite telling.
Any argument that Pathfinder has changed this, can only point to what you feel is intended by the developer/designers of Pathfinder based on rules sets that are not part of the Core Rulebook.
I think the fact that the previous version of a game had a chart that included ability modifiers as a typed bonus, combined with the fact that the current version of the game has a chart that does not include ability modifiers as a typed bonus is quite telling.
As for rules sets that are not part of the Core Rulebook, technically, I think every instance of double-dipping an ability modifier has to include rules beyond the Core Rulebook, be it archetypes, feats, new classes, traits, or other abilities. The Warpriest is a new rules set, in the form of a class.
It was not in the Core Rulebook. Archetypes were not introduced in the Core Rulebook, they were a new rules set introduced in later books. The Sacred Fist Archetype is the product of the Warpriest class ruleset, and the Archetype rule sset, both introduced in books published after the Core Rulebook. The only thing in this thread's question(Do Sacred Fist and Monk AC bonus class features stack) is the Armor Class rules set and the Monk class rules set.
So yes, interpreting the answer as "they stack" is using Rules sets beyond the Core Rulebook. Because if you only use Rules sets in the Core Rulebook, the only real accurate answer you can get is:What is the Sacred Fist?
The fact that the previous version of this game had a chart of bonus types, and included ability modifiers as a bonus type, I think is quite telling.
Any argument that Pathfinder has changed this, can only point to what you feel is intended by the developer/designers of Pathfinder based on rules sets that are not part of the Core Rulebook.
I don't think the chart from Ultimate Magic is particularly compelling for an argument against typed ability bonuses.*
I don't think a chart from 3.5 belongs in the conversation at all. I don't know why you think it does.
*As you say, they left off Trait bonuses. Of course, a Trait bonus can't really be granted by a spell unless it grants a Trait, so there's that. Meanwhile there are spells that do specifically grant Ability bonuses, such as Bestow Grace.
There are no actual rules that support them being untyped, and plenty of rules that support them being typed.
As far as I can tell, the only rule (actual PFRPG rule) that you've quoted to support Ability bonuses as typed is this:
"Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies."That's it. And I don't think "most" is a compelling way to start your case.
CRB, Page 12 wrote:
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
Again, "most." Not all.
CRB, Page 13 wrote:
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
No one's arguing that typed bonus don't generally stack. The question is whether Ability bonus is a type.
CRB, Page 15 wrote:
Determine Bonuses
Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from –5 to +5. Table 1–3 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.
Yes, for Abilities, a positive modifier is called a bonus. But there is no rule that says modifiers have a type. There was in that 3.5 chart. In logical terms:
Bonus is a subset of Modifier. Most bonuses have a type. This does not mean that most Modifiers have a type. I can not find a rules that says that Modifiers have a type. I can find one that says that Penalties do not have a type. It's in the same list of Common Terms. This is contradicted in your next quote.CRB, Page 208 wrote:
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.
This is in the Magic section. It's specific to Spell Effects. Even so, it only says "usually, a bonus has a type." Usually is not always. Nothing here indicates Ability bonuses have a type.
CRB,Page 208 wrote:
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.
Again, spells. Again, nothing specific to Ability bonuses.
Ultimate magic, Page 131, however, has a chart of bonus types under Designing spells. It includes Alchemical, Armor, Circumstance, Competence, Deflection, Dodge, Enhancement, Inherent, Insight, Luck, Morale, Natural Armor, Profane, Resistance, Sacred, Shield, Size.
We're supposed to ignore this now.
Sets the precedence that any list of bonus types that you might find are not exhaustive. (I swear I saw a list of bonus types, but that may actually be from 3.5--someone help me!) In any case, if there is a list of bonus types, the above precedence should show that it is not exhaustive.
FAQ for CRB wrote:
...
Yes, more bonuses can be introduced after the fact. It seems odd that the first bonuses introduced in the game rules (Ability bonuses) do not appear on any Paizo lists.
Third:
The Advanced Players Guide introduced traits. Many (dare I say most) traits grant some form of bonus that is labeled as a Trait Bonus. Nobody here is going to argue that even if you find a list of bonuses from the core rulebook, that Trait Bonuses stack. They don't. Because they are a like bonus.
Fourth:
Do a search in the PDF of your Core Rulebook. In almost 100% of the iterations of <name your ability> Bonus, it lists it as <ability> Bonus (i.e. Dexterity Bonus, Wisdom Bonus, etc.)
If that isn't typing the bonus, then what is? Why is saying Trait Bonus typing the bonus, but saying Dexterity Bonus not?
Because Ability bonus would be the only iteration that includes a value and a type. That is unique. That indicates that bonus is special, and not necessarily the same as other bonuses. It could be a type. It could not. Your interpretation is valid but does not invalidate mine.
|
|
Thankyou Redward for actually discussing the merits of my argument. We may disagree, but I really appreciate you taking the time to go over my points one by one.
Honestly, we wouldn't have a thread almost 400 posts long if there wasn't a chance I was wrong. I believe I'm right
Hopefully this will be answered soon
I'm about to go to bed soon. I'll address your post directly tomorrow.
FWIW, I don't think this particular combination should stack. I just think it currently does according to the RAW. And while I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the PDT say Ability is a type of bonus, I do think it will have far messier consequences than if they say it isn't. But they went that way with the SLA/PrC-early-entry thing, so what do I know?
The sensible middle ground for me is if "<Ability> bonus" is typed and "equal to ..." is not, but I don't know if (and I doubt that) everything written to date was subject to that level of precision.
|
|
I agree Redward. I'm not saying this combo SHOULD stack (from an intent/balance perspective). I'm saying that I'm pretty sure, RAW, it currently does.
I also agree with you that if they change the general rule, rather than providing errata specific to this case, that opens a whole mess of consequences they'll also have to figure out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is like "wielding"; that different authors have held different views. Some probably thought ability bonuses were a thing, others didn't. So if you make a general ruling, some of them will turn out to have been wrong.
However, if you don't make a ruling, you will continue to have more and more confusing situations like this, so I don't think doing nothing is the better option. I think it's better to bite the bullet, institute a general rule and clean up the powers that turn out to be written wrong.
And when a general rule is settled on, I think it'll work better to actually have Ability-type bonuses, because it just makes it easier to write these kinds of powers to not stack unless you expressly want them to.
---
Also, I agree with Andrew that ability bonuses most likely do exist as a type, based on CRB p. 15-16:
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.
Further, "Dexterity bonus" is used dozens of times in the CRB, in sentences like "a situation that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC also makes you lose your dodge bonus to AC". That sort of language makes it look to me like Dexterity is a bonus type just like dodge, because it's used in much the same way.
In the CRB, there's no power or combination of powers that would let you add an ability bonus to something twice, so the issue of typing doesn't ever really come up. But the way it's written, it looks like it's already typed because there was really no reason for a "Dexterity bonus" not to be Dexterity-typed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Further, "Dexterity bonus" is used dozens of times in the CRB, in sentences like "a situation that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC also makes you lose your dodge bonus to AC". That sort of language makes it look to me like Dexterity is a bonus type just like dodge, because it's used in much the same way.
To me, that sentence is meant to differentiate between positive and negative modifiers. It's so that someone with a DEX penalty doesn't lose it do to being flatfooted NOT that it somehow makes it a type for stacking rules.
|
|
Further, "Dexterity bonus" is used dozens of times in the CRB, in sentences like "a situation that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC also makes you lose your dodge bonus to AC". That sort of language makes it look to me like Dexterity is a bonus type just like dodge, because it's used in much the same way.To me, that sentence is meant to differentiate between positive and negative modifiers. It's so that someone with a DEX penalty doesn't lose it do to being flatfooted
It also does that.
NOT that it somehow makes it a type for stacking rules.
Further, "Dexterity bonus" is used dozens of times in the CRB, in sentences like "a situation that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC also makes you lose your dodge bonus to AC". That sort of language makes it look to me like Dexterity is a bonus type just like dodge, because it's used in much the same way.To me, that sentence is meant to differentiate between positive and negative modifiers. It's so that someone with a DEX penalty doesn't lose it do to being flatfooted
It also does that.
NOT that it somehow makes it a type for stacking rules.
We differ on that then. This game tends to use the same term for different things (character level vs spell level for example) and IMO that quote is JUST about filtering out the penalties not about setting up a new type of bonus for stacking. For that, I expect something explicit like trait bonuses. "Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a “trait” bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack"
|
|
But in the absense of language that specifically defines the word bonus as different in the context of abilities, how should it be interpreted then?
As written, or as many believe is intended?
Level is used many times in many different contexts, yet in each context its clear what the fundamental difference is.
If there is a fundamental difference in the word bonus when looking at luck bonus and dexterity bonus, where is the language clarifying that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But in the absense of language that specifically defines the word bonus as different in the context of abilities, how should it be interpreted then?
As written, or as many believe is intended?
Level is used many times in many different contexts, yet in each context its clear what the fundamental difference is.
If there is a fundamental difference in the word bonus when looking at luck bonus and dexterity bonus, where is the language clarifying that?
In the Ability Scores section, under Determine Bonuses:
"A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty."'called a bonus' vs. 'is a bonus'
Believe it or not, I do see that as a fundamental difference. "Is" would imply looking back to an earlier definition of a term. "Called" implies the introduction of a new term, or that it is some kind of short-hand for a longer term.
Now, again, I'm not going to claim that level of precision of language is actually being used here. But were I writing these rules, I would not say "called" when I meant "is the same as this thing with the same name". But I would also be using capital letters and bold text to indicate keywords and avoid a lot of this nonsense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But in the absense of language that specifically defines the word bonus as different in the context of abilities, how should it be interpreted then?
IMO "in the absense of language that specifically defines the word bonus as different in the context of abilities" you treat it as "A positive modifier" and not a new type of bonus.
As written, or as many believe is intended?
Both IMO, and that's as I said above.
Level is used many times in many different contexts, yet in each context its clear what the fundamental difference is.
Really? Lets take race traits and racial traits. You know how many times I see people confusing those two things?
If there is a fundamental difference in the word bonus when looking at luck bonus and dexterity bonus, where is the language clarifying that?
It's under luck bonus. The generic is an untyped positive modifier. If it has a type it's got language clarifying it. The onus is on saying something is a type not the reverse. In pathfinder, nothing in the rules points to ability being it's own type of bonus. It just points to the positive modifier you get by looking at the ability score modifier chart.
|
|
But in the absense of language that specifically defines the word bonus as different in the context of abilities, how should it be interpreted then?IMO "in the absense of language that specifically defines the word bonus as different in the context of abilities" you treat it as "A positive modifier" and not a new type of bonus.
As written, or as many believe is intended?Both IMO, and that's as I said above.
Level is used many times in many different contexts, yet in each context its clear what the fundamental difference is.Really? Lets take race traits and racial traits. You know how many times I see people confusing those two things?
If there is a fundamental difference in the word bonus when looking at luck bonus and dexterity bonus, where is the language clarifying that?It's under luck bonus. The generic is an untyped positive modifier. If it has a type it's got language clarifying it. The onus is on saying something is a type not the reverse. In pathfinder, nothing in the rules points to ability being it's own type of bonus. It just points to the positive modifier you get by looking at the ability score modifier chart.
I completely disagree.
The onus is on proving that the intent of the rules is that Ability Bonuses work differently than other bonuses.
There is no language in the game that even hints that ability bonuses are untyped or generic positive modifiers.
That is a huge assumption that folks have made (that really didn't matter until new archetypes, classes and feats started allowing for the opportunity of stacking ability modifiers).
v3.5 considered ability modifiers as typed by the ability.
Pathfinder is built on the v3.5 chassis.
And if they changed any rules from 3.5, they actually tell you what the rule is.
There is no specific language telling you that this has changed, and as such, the default assumption should be that it works like it did in v3.5 until specifically told otherwise.
Pathfinder is built on the v3.5 chassis.
And if they changed any rules from 3.5, they actually tell you what the rule is.
There is no specific language telling you that this has changed, and as such, the default assumption should be that it works like it did in v3.5 until specifically told otherwise.
I've never so much as cracked a 3.5 book. Are they required resources for playing PFRPG?
Again, you're making assumptions and passing them off as fact. You cannot RAW use 3.5 to cover a gap in the PFRPG ruleset, because that is no longer RAW, it is RAWI3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On 3.5: There IS specific language telling you that this has changed. The Ability Modifier was removed from the list of types. So I can toss out 'legacy' from any reason for it being a type.
On general language: By your logic Attack Bonus is it's own type as opposed to the modifier to your attack roll. Base save bonus and BAB means that they are a type too so you can't add them together as they are the same type. They aren't called out as stacking just that you add everything together when you multiclass but since they don't stack you're stuck with the highest total.
SO I'll go back to my original point. A bonus is a generic modifier unless it calls out as a type. If not, you just broke multiclassing. BAB and dexterity bonus are as generic as +5. Bonus can refer to math (positive modifier), how you figure out the modifier or a specific type for stacking. For it to be a type it has to come out and say so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why doesn't everyone who has a positive wisdom bonus get a wisdom bonus to AC? Is it because the monk special ability gives them that ability? Why yes it does. Hmm then it is a fair conclusion that the source of their wisdom bonus to AC comes from a power or else silly old fighters would be running around with a wisdom bonus to AC. We couldn't have that now could we.
|
|
Pathfinder is built on the v3.5 chassis.
And if they changed any rules from 3.5, they actually tell you what the rule is.
There is no specific language telling you that this has changed, and as such, the default assumption should be that it works like it did in v3.5 until specifically told otherwise.
I've never so much as cracked a 3.5 book. Are they required resources for playing PFRPG?
Again, you're making assumptions and passing them off as fact. You cannot RAW use 3.5 to cover a gap in the PFRPG ruleset, because that is no longer RAW, it is RAWI3.5.
A lot of the things the designers removed as either extraneous or redundant text was done under the assumption that folks knew the rules already.
While you don't need a 3.5 book to understand Pathfinder, to ignore past precedent in seemingly ambiguous cases is just being obstinant.
Each version of the game in some way informs all future versions.
|
|
On 3.5: There IS specific language telling you that this has changed. The Ability Modifier was removed from the list of types. So I can toss out 'legacy' from any reason for it being a type.
On general language: By your logic Attack Bonus is it's own type as opposed to the modifier to your attack roll. Base save bonus and BAB means that they are a type too so you can't add them together as they are the same type. They aren't called out as stacking just that you add everything together when you multiclass but since they don't stack you're stuck with the highest total.
SO I'll go back to my original point. A bonus is a generic modifier unless it calls out as a type. If not, you just broke multiclassing. BAB and dexterity bonus are as generic as +5. Bonus can refer to math (positive modifier), how you figure out the modifier or a specific type for stacking. For it to be a type it has to come out and say so.
Except there is no list of types.