Do penalties from the same source stack?

[Rikkan]

I always thought penalties from the same source stacked, because of this:

Quote:

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.

But since the ability score FAQ I'm not that certain anymore and this feat (riving strike) seems excessively strong if they do:

Riving strike wrote:

If you have a weapon that is augmented by your Arcane Strike feat, when you damage a creature with an attack made with that weapon, that creature takes a –2 penalty on saving throws against spells and spell-like abilities. This effect lasts for 1 round.

But if penalties from the same source don't stack, I run into issues with ability damage:

Quote:

Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.

For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.

If penalties from the same source don't stack, then if say if I have 4 ability damage, I'd apply two -1 penalties, which don't stack.

I don't think that is intended either. Anyone got any insight?

[blackbloodtroll]

Depends on the type of penalty, and if it's a multi-source penalty.

[Blakmane]

The answer is: no easy answer.

In terms of your examples: ability modifiers are a summed modifier, not a separate set of individual bonuses or penalties. Ability damage doesn't directly reduce the relevant stat but it follows a similar logic. By this I mean: gaining 4 ability damage is a -2 penalty, not two -1 penalties. These are mathematically distinct concepts in pathfinder rules.

[wraithstrike]

If it is from the same magical source they won't stack. If they are from different sources then they stack generally speaking. The section on spells and how they interact helps break this down.

[blackbloodtroll]

wraithstrike wrote:

If it is from the same magical source they won't stack. If they are from different sources then they stack generally speaking. The section on spells and how they interact helps break this down.

Does that have meaning anymore?

[Avoron]

This comes from page 208 of the core rulebook:
"Spells that provide bonuses or penalties...usually do not stack with themselves."

A careful reading of an earlier section on the same page will show that this can probably be extrapolated to all penalties that come from the same source.

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.

Emphasis mine. So if bonuses without a type always stack unless they are from the same source, and the same principle applies to penalties, then we can conclude that penalties from the same source do not stack.

[blackbloodtroll]

Yes, but how does anyone determine penalty source anymore?

[Rikkan]

Avoron wrote:

A careful reading of an earlier section on the same page will show that this can probably be extrapolated to all penalties that come from the same source.

Spoiler:

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.

Emphasis mine. So if bonuses without a type always stack unless they are from the same source, and the same principle applies to penalties, then we can conclude that penalties from the same source do not stack.

The same principle is talking about 'typed' bonuses and that typed penalties behave similarly.

While this part: although most penalties have no type and thus always stack., seem to indicate they do stack.

Blakmane wrote:

Ability damage doesn't directly reduce the relevant stat but it follows a similar logic. By this I mean: gaining 4 ability damage is a -2 penalty, not two -1 penalties. These are mathematically distinct concepts in pathfinder rules.

The text says this: For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.

So you do apply two -1 penalties.

[blackbloodtroll]

Don't forget about "typed" Untyped penalties, having simultaneous multiple sources.

Those may have criss-crossing similar multisources, and therefore, not stack.

[wraithstrike]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Don't forget about "typed" Untyped penalties, having simultaneous multiple sources.

Those may have criss-crossing similar multisources, and therefore, not stack.

That FAQ did not change the magic section rules. I still think they should rework the reasoning so it is easier to understand though.

[blackbloodtroll]

Ah, but they did apply the magic section rules, to various other places, and then, made additions to how those rules are applied.

[Blakmane]

Rikkan wrote:

Avoron wrote:

A careful reading of an earlier section on the same page will show that this can probably be extrapolated to all penalties that come from the same source. ** spoiler omitted **

Emphasis mine. So if bonuses without a type always stack unless they are from the same source, and the same principle applies to penalties, then we can conclude that penalties from the same source do not stack.

The same principle is talking about 'typed' bonuses and that typed penalties behave similarly.

While this part: although most penalties have no type and thus always stack., seem to indicate they do stack.

Blakmane wrote:

Ability damage doesn't directly reduce the relevant stat but it follows a similar logic. By this I mean: gaining 4 ability damage is a -2 penalty, not two -1 penalties. These are mathematically distinct concepts in pathfinder rules.

The text says this: For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.

So you do apply two -1 penalties.

This is a willfully poor interpretation and you know it. The rules on ability modifiers state "A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty." This makes it clear that the usage in ability damage is functionally identical to saying 'apply a -1 modifier..' in this case. Clearly modifiers stack, or else you could never gain any bonus to a positive ability score or penalty to a negative ability score. Thus, penalties from ability damage stack.

[bbangerter]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Don't forget about "typed" Untyped penalties, having simultaneous multiple sources.

Those may have criss-crossing similar multisources, and therefore, not stack.

BBT, while your ranting is somewhat amusing, please take it up with Paizo directly, not clutter the boards for random posters asking sincere questions and trying to find answers - you are not contributing in a helpful way here.

(And BTW, you forgot to talk about "hands" in this post too :).
(And of course, really do whatever you want on these boards, it's not my domain - I offer the above only for your consideration).

[blackbloodtroll]

Okay, we are talking about sources here.

There is a new FAQ about single bonuses having multiple sources now.

So, why would there not be multiple sources, for a single penalty now?

That's not a stretch. Bonus and Penalties follow almost the exact same rules.

We were also told, that type, effects what we determine to be one of the multiple sources of Bonuses.

So, why would not the type of penalty, alter what is considered one of the sources of the penalty?

What makes these not viable questions to be asked here?

[GM Lamplighter]

Because everyone else gets what the rules mean, and willfully looking for loopholes to question isn't really helpful to anyone. No one has been unable to resolve this issue at their table, so why cast doubt into people's minds now?

[blackbloodtroll]

No.

We don't always know what the rules mean. Not even Developers.

Many FAQs, and Errata, have caught us off guard.

So many, are so sure, they know exactly how things work.

Then, we are told we are wrong, and even proven so, sometimes.

What if we are wrong here? I could be you, or me, or anyone.

Are you afraid of questioning that?

[Kazumetsa Raijin]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Don't forget about "typed" Untyped penalties, having simultaneous multiple sources.

Those may have criss-crossing similar multisources, and therefore, not stack.

I really hate those two words together. It's a bunch of nonsense. "Typed" Untyped XXX. /sigh

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Also bastard swords. Don't forget about bastard swords...

[Chess Pwn]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Okay, we are talking about sources here.

There is a new FAQ about single bonuses having multiple sources now.

So, why would there not be multiple sources, for a single penalty now?

That's not a stretch. Bonus and Penalties follow almost the exact same rules.

We were also told, that type, effects what we determine to be one of the multiple sources of Bonuses.

So, why would not the type of penalty, alter what is considered one of the sources of the penalty?

What makes these not viable questions to be asked here?

BBT, the FAQ only applies to what it references. So if a penalty is untyped and based off of a stat then it would fall under the FAQ. If it's not being based off of a stat and untyped then the source is the same as it was before the faq came out. Other than untyped from stats, there's no ruling for anything else to have multiple sources.

[GM Lamplighter]

BBT: Yes, I might be wrong - maybe a FAQ comes out later and I have to change my rulings. Until then, I'm not wrong if I rule the obviously-intended example that 4 ability score damage means a -2 penalty and not two -1 penalties which suddenly wouldn't stack.

It seems people are more afraid of just making a ruling and getting on with the game, so that they spend endless time looking for "official" ruling. Guess what - as a GM, you are an "official" as well. The game is based on this - this is why "RAW ONLY" is an illusion. Yes, we want to eliminate as much variation as we can - but I submit that GMs who will use this to exploit corner cases and just going to find another way to beat their PCs anyway. Bad GMs don't need the rule clarified, and neither do good GMs.

[Avoron]

The word "thus" in "most penalties have no type and thus always stack" seems to imply that the reason untyped penalties stack is that they are obeying the rules for bonuses, not that the sentence is stating a new rule.