Bonus Equal Too Question


Rules Questions


Ok so Trench Fighter gets a Bonus Equal to her Dex to damage with a firearm of her choice. But so do Gunslingers, would these stack as they are Unnamed Bonuses equal to her Dex but not her Dex score exactly?

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

See this FAQ.

FAQ wrote:


Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?

No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.


No. There is a specific erratum addressing this exact query, which was included in all printings after it was spotted. The pfsrd also shows the corrected text on the Trench Fighter page.

Edit: that's odd. The post I replied to has disappeared.


It's a general rule, the call out of the paladin is simply an example.

Dex is the same source in both cases, so it will not stack regardless of the classes involved.

You should also know that the trench fighter shouldn't be openly allowed to players because it is assumed to exist only in a "guns everywhere" setting as the archetype is particular to the Reign of Winter campaign and used by NPCs only because

Spoiler:
the PCs end up time traveling and planar hopping to Earth where they fight the Russian army.


Spoiler:
Actually, they neither time travel nor plane hop. Golarion and Earth are both on the Prime Material Plane, and the year 4713 AR on GOlarion is equivalent to 1918 AD on Earth.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Hmmm, I mispoke when I said

Spoiler:
plane hop, I truly did mean teleport. I did however think there were some time travel shenanigans involved. I haven't actually played RoW, but just know some of the general details.

The greater point about trench fighter not being an archetype that players should have access to stands though.


I'm relieved that ability score was confirmed as a source. So many stupid threads over so many years.

Grand Lodge

It's a multisourced ability, that creates a "typed" untyped bonus.

Most single bonuses have a single source, but some have simultaneous multiple sources.

This creates a "typed" untyped bonus, as, unlike other untyped bonuses, will not stack with other untyped bonuses, as they may share the same multisource pool.

This is not actually called out in the written rules, but is covered extensively in the the unwritten rules, which I highly suggest you read, as some FAQs reference them heavily.

You should be able to instantly understand this, and have no dissatisfaction, or confusion. Those are the sign of being a horrible person, and I don't think that's the case.

Just unquestioningly accept, deny any confusion, and all will be fine.


blackbloodtroll, deliberately increasing the level of confusion is rather unnecessary.

There is no need to consider "typed" untyped bonuses of any sort.

The written rules clearly state that multiple untyped bonuses from the same source do not stack. This FAQ is merely clarifying that a certain ability score is considered a source for this purpose.

This in no way goes against the standard rules for typed and untyped bonuses.

Grand Lodge

Ah, but is the class ability the source, the ability score, or both?

It would seem, although not what is written, it is both, according to the FAQ.

Or maybe, even though the class ability gives the bonus, it's not the source?

Simple!


Avoron wrote:

blackbloodtroll, deliberately increasing the level of confusion is rather unnecessary.

What else would he do?

Grand Lodge

Pointing out the existence of something, is not increasing it.


Ability scores are not sources until that FAQ came up. It is basically what BBT said it was even though I think he was being sarcastic to an extent.

Just to be clear i think no double dipping is good. It is just that based on previous mechanics the explanation is unfounded.


Avoron wrote:

blackbloodtroll, deliberately increasing the level of confusion is rather unnecessary.

There is no need to consider "typed" untyped bonuses of any sort.

The written rules clearly state that multiple untyped bonuses from the same source do not stack. This FAQ is merely clarifying that a certain ability score is considered a source for this purpose.

This in no way goes against the standard rules for typed and untyped bonuses.

What BBT said is true. It was conferred, by a dev, that for some inexplicable reason that stat bonuses have multiple sources. So, for instance, the bonus from a paladins Divine Grace has the ability AND the stat as sources. For some reason it was deemed simpler to do that than just make stat bonuses a type.

wraithstrike wrote:

Ability scores are not sources until that FAQ came up. It is basically what BBT said it was even though I think he was being sarcastic to an extent.

Just to be clear i think no double dipping is good. It is just that based on previous mechanics the explanation is unfounded.

Yep, pretty much this. The fact that they made a ruling on double dipping didn't bother me, but the explanation makes no sense to me.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:
but the explanation makes no sense to me.

To you and BBT. To me it made perfect sense, and I'm pretty sure to all the other people over the years that said they don't stack together.


James Risner wrote:
I'm pretty sure to all the other people over the years that said they don't stack together.

ALL the other people over the years thought that stat bonuses had two sources? I call shenanigans.


OK as was mentioned many times in the very long thread, even PAIZO thought that you could double dip Charisma to saves for all their undead anti-paladins.

And the FAQ only applies to UNTYPED Bonuses.

If you had for example (making stuff up here to prove a point).
A Feat that added your Charisma as a LUCK bonus to your saves, Divine grace as a paladin (Charisma to saves UNTYPED), a feat that added your Charisma as a SACRED bonus to saves, and a race that had a RACIAL bonus of Charisma to save.

By the rules you would now have 4x Charisma to saves.

The FAQ very specifically only changed UNTYPED bonuses.


Ughbash wrote:


The FAQ very specifically only changed UNTYPED bonuses.

Ah, but it DIDN'T. That was the point. Had they just gone the simple path and made stat bonuses typed, THAT would have been a change. They made up something not in the rules, two(multiple) sources, so that they didn't have to changes any rules. They picked the most convoluted way to 'fix' the issue so they could say 'that was the way it ALWAYS was' so they don't have to errata it.


graystone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
I'm pretty sure to all the other people over the years that said they don't stack together.
ALL the other people over the years thought that stat bonuses had two sources? I call shenanigans.

I can't say I thought about it explicitly in those terms but I always considered the stat to be the source of the bonus.


Well Luck bonuses never stacked, higher took effect.
Sacred never stacked, Higher took effect.

You are correct that stats do not stack within the same bonus (any bonus not just untyped) however they DO still stack with different bonuses.

So the point I made that if you had Charisma to save via, Racial, Sacred, Luck and Untyped you would still have 4x charisma to save.

If you get Charisma to AC as a Racial bonus, as a Sacred bonus, as a Dodge bonus, as an untyped bonus you will still have 4x charisma to AC.

However if you then found another way to get an untyped bonus or a dodge bonus to AC from Charisma, even though untyped and dodge usualy stack they would not in this case.


And yet you can have 3xcharisma to your Panache pool.


NikolaiJuno wrote:
And yet you can have 3xcharisma to your Panache pool.

How?


Swashbuckler1/Investigator(Sleuth)1/Gunslinger(Wandering Stranger)1


Wow! So I guess that works because the amount of panache pool given by CHA isn't applied to any rolls and so isn't considered a bonus?

Grand Lodge

Gisher wrote:
Wow! So I guess that works because the amount of panache pool given by CHA isn't applied to any rolls and so isn't considered a bonus?

It works because the book has a section that explicitly says it works.


Jeff Merola wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Wow! So I guess that works because the amount of panache pool given by CHA isn't applied to any rolls and so isn't considered a bonus?
It works because the book has a section that explicitly says it works.

Oh. You mean that sidebar about shared pools? Interesting.

I suppose that Swashbuckler (Inspired Blade) 1/Investigator(Sleuth) 1/Gunslinger(Wandering Stranger) 1 would get you INT+(CHAx3). That's a lot of Panache!


Gisher wrote:
I suppose that Swashbuckler (Inspired Blade) 1/Investigator(Sleuth) 1/Gunslinger(Wandering Stranger) 1 would get you INT+(CHAx3). That's a lot of Panache!

It's a lot of multiclassing but add to that ninja2/Magus6 with Ki Arcana and flamboyant Arcana/Arcane Deed and you have even more points, although some of them can only be used on some things. But all can be used on Magus granted deeds.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
I'm pretty sure to all the other people over the years that said they don't stack together.
ALL the other people over the years thought that stat bonuses had two sources? I call shenanigans.

There have been more than I can count on fingers and toes of debates over things like Double Dex to Damage, Double Wis to AC, etc. over the years. James Jacobs has answered it many times and was rejected as "not a rules guy" every time by the folks that believed it worked.

You can't have a debate without people on both sides. So the "all those people" and "over the years" is the most correct and acceptable words to use to indicate them.


James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
I'm pretty sure to all the other people over the years that said they don't stack together.
ALL the other people over the years thought that stat bonuses had two sources? I call shenanigans.

There have been more than I can count on fingers and toes of debates over things like Double Dex to Damage, Double Wis to AC, etc. over the years. James Jacobs has answered it many times and was rejected as "not a rules guy" every time by the folks that believed it worked.

You can't have a debate without people on both sides. So the "all those people" and "over the years" is the most correct and acceptable words to use to indicate them.

There is a difference in thinking that stats don't/shouldn't stack and the fact that stats are now dual-sourced. I have NO issue with stat stacking not functioning. Dual-sourced is the issue for me and THAT is the point I'm making. You're implying that "all the other people over the years" thought that stats where dual-sourced and I still call shenanigans on that.

I've seen maybe 2 people that said anything about multiple sources in the past. I mainly saw #1 the actual source was the stat (just 1 source) or #2 that stats where a type of bonus. My issue is that the dev team picked #3 that isn't covered in the rules or even hinted at. 'Tiered' sources show up nowhere...


James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
I'm pretty sure to all the other people over the years that said they don't stack together.
ALL the other people over the years thought that stat bonuses had two sources? I call shenanigans.

There have been more than I can count on fingers and toes of debates over things like Double Dex to Damage, Double Wis to AC, etc. over the years. James Jacobs has answered it many times and was rejected as "not a rules guy" every time by the folks that believed it worked.

You can't have a debate without people on both sides. So the "all those people" and "over the years" is the most correct and acceptable words to use to indicate them.

James also in the same thread talking about Fury's fall and 2x dex said that Oracle side step secret and Paladin Divine Grace DID work. Which the FAQ now says does not.

James Jacobs wrote:
Ughbash wrote:

With not being able to count a stat twice.

I am curious how that interacts with a Paladin/Oracle or Lore.

Example Paladin 3/ Oracle 3 and the Oracle has the mystery "side Step secret" which has him use his Charisma instead of dex for refelx saves.

Lets say the paladin has a dex of 12 and a charisma of 18.

What is his reflex save from stat mods.

The way I had read it before, he got +8 (Charisma from divine grace +4 and Charism INSTEAD of DEx from Side Step Secret +4.)

Now I can see it as +4 (divine grace but he can not add his charisma again) or +5 (Divine grace +4, but he can not add his charisma as base stat but instead still gets his dex). If the latter is the case the Mystery will actually make his save worse.

Divine grace grants an untyped bonus to all saving throws equal to the paladin's Charisma modifier—in this case, the ability specifically calls this bonus a bonus, and by leaving it untyped, the bonus from divine grace stacks with everything. It does not replace existing modifiers to saving throws gained from stats.

A paladin/oracle with that combination would indeed replace his Dex modifier with his Cha modifier for Reflex saves, and then when he gains divine grace, adds a bonus equal to his Cha modifier to all his saves.

It's not technically adding the ability score modifier twice, in any case.

A paladin/oracle with that combination would indeed replace his Dex modifier with his Cha modifier for Reflex saves, and then when he gains divine grace, adds a bonus equal to his Cha modifier to all his saves.

It's not technically adding the ability score modifier twice, in any case.

That, and Undead Anti Paladins are two instances that show it was not quite as clear cut as you indicated with the comment

Quote:
To me it made perfect sense, and I'm pretty sure to all the other people over the years that said they don't stack together.

I was, obviously, on the other side of the argument, I assuemed that they DID stack in some cases (Where one replaced a stat and one added to a stat). Example would be again undead anti-paladin and Fortitude save or Lore Oracle/Paladin and Reflex save.

While the FAQ has now answered the question and agrees with you, it seemed that MANY people wanted to take a victory lap and say it was always this way and perfectly clear to anyone who was not purposely misreading the rules. I was not purposely misreading the rules, there WAS legitimate reason to view it that way. The rules now changed (my view) or has been interpretted (I assume your view) to clarify it.

Your view is now correct but please do not insult those of us who had a legitimate reading of the rules before the faq by implying our view was a tortured representation of something very clear.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ughbash wrote:
While the FAQ has now answered the question and agrees with you, it seemed that MANY people wanted to take a victory lap and say it was always this way and perfectly clear to anyone who was not purposely misreading the rules. I was not purposely misreading the rules, there WAS legitimate reason to view it that way

I'm always the champion of legitimately reading the rules. I assert in most threads that there are two RAW's.

You really need to tell the people that shared your view to quite coming into threads and saying "it makes no sense", which is basically bemoaning the fact they were wrong. That type of behavior begs someone to come in and correct them by saying there were a lot of people who it did make sense.

This isn't a victory lap, this is a correction of a statement.


James Risner wrote:
Ughbash wrote:
While the FAQ has now answered the question and agrees with you, it seemed that MANY people wanted to take a victory lap and say it was always this way and perfectly clear to anyone who was not purposely misreading the rules. I was not purposely misreading the rules, there WAS legitimate reason to view it that way

I'm always the champion of legitimately reading the rules. I assert in most threads that there are two RAW's.

You really need to tell the people that shared your view to quite coming into threads and saying "it makes no sense", which is basically bemoaning the fact they were wrong. That type of behavior begs someone to come in and correct them by saying there were a lot of people who it did make sense.

This isn't a victory lap, this is a correction of a statement.

I probably did come off as harsh and sarcastic, I quite often agree with you, though not always. I agree that RAW can be vauge (as I assume you are saying with 2 RAW'S).

What set me off this time was the remark that paraphrasing here, everyone else saw it was obvious.

Kain Darkwind and a few others made some well reasoned points for the other side. Kain is someone I consider a thoughtful poster and often contributes well. The examples I showed at least showed some "confusion" of the issue within Paizo in order to show it was not a OBVIOUS misreading by people on the other side.

In that VERY long thread, there were people on both sides who tried to argue the other side was stupid. While I disagree with the conclusion, and think it was an over-reaction to "monk/sacred fist" that creates more problems then it fixes I can see the other sides point of view.

I would have preferred a more limited answer which showed a distinction between stacking a stat as a bonus (Monk/Sacred fist), and useing one as a bonus and one as a replacement (Undead AntiPaladin, Paladin/Oracle and several others).

But you are quite correct on two things.

1) The FAQ has been done and answered the question so now it is RAW. (home games can do what they want with it and we do).

2) There were many on both sides who argued incessantly and immaturely both before and after the FAQ, and that detracts from everyones enjoyment of the message board.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ughbash wrote:

1) The FAQ has been done and answered the question so now it is RAW. (home games can do what they want with it and we do).

2) There were many on both sides who argued incessantly and immaturely both before and after the FAQ, and that detracts from everyones enjoyment of the message board.

+1 /hugs

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Bonus Equal Too Question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.