Divine protection stack with prophetic armor?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Turin the Mad wrote:

The simplest solution would be to classify Dexterity and any analogous bonuses as a dodge bonus to AC and be done with it. That would have been too easy. ;)

Instead of worrying about 'denying Dex bonus to AC', one needs to deny 'dodge bonus to AC'. *pouf*, problems solved.

I am the only one who brought up denying Dex bonus to AC, so it is not a major point of concern. Nevertheless, your suggestion of saying "deny dodge" instead of "deny Dex bonus to AC" is a great idea. By putting the emphasis on the real reason the sneak attack would succeed, that the target cannot move to spoil the precise strike, it avoids unrelated issues about Dexterity.


shroudb wrote:
I know. I was just addressing the poster above me who thought that it would be simpler to make stat bonuses named as "dexterity bonus" and etc instead of untyped

How is typing untyped dex bonuses as the dex bonus type interfering anything?

James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
I expect ruling to be made WITH the rules or new rules be printed
This is really where you and I are playing a different game. I don't agree they made up something new on this. I think the rules always told us they didn't stack prior to the FAQ. The FAQ just makes it abundantly clear and tries to explain it a little better with some hand waving.

You ignored my question. "They said that the bonus had multiple sources. Please point out ANYPLACE in the rules that is possible or even hinted at as possible" It didn't matter that you thought that the abilities already didn't stack, it was WHY they said it didn't stack that was made up and totally new in the rules. As I pointed out, my issue isn't with the abilities stacking or not. it's with the reason given for them not doing so.

"In 2009, some felt that when Ability A said "Cha to AC" the source was Cha.": When they said so, did they say that the ability was ALSO the source of the ability? I don't recall anyone thinking so and that's where the issues start. These abilities now both have the same and different sources. The idea of different nested sources are purely a construct of the FAQ and not in the rules.


Archaeik wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
You keep saying this, except the FAQratta had to explicitly change Divine Grace to also not stack.

I can't even follow what you are saying. I'm not entirely sure you followed what I said either. I'll try again.

In 2009, some felt that when Ability A said "Cha to AC" the source was Cha. So when some other ability said "Cha to AC", the same source didn't stack.

The distinction is specifically about "a bonus equal to".

The FAQ redefined untyped bonuses of this description to no longer stack with other untyped of the same description or direct modifier bonuses.

and

Turin the Mad wrote:
The trick is that Dexterity bonus to AC effectively is a typed bonus. Prophetic Armor changes the source of "Dexterity bonus to AC". Untyped bonuses always stack, as do dodge bonuses, circumstance bonuses and racial bonuses (this last is caveated by 'if memory serves').

Simply, typing bonuses by ability, such as "Dex bonus," is not as good as typing bonus by type names, such as "luck bonus."

In theory, the type of a bonus defines a common source and theme for all bonuses of that type. Sacred bonus comes from a good god's favor. Profane bonus comes from an evil god's favor. Morale bonus come from encouragement from other party members. Insight bonuses come from intellectual deduction. Shield bonuses are bonuses to AC from blocking with a shield. Dodge bonuses are bonuses to AC from skillful movement to dodge.

In general, things like morale do not add linearly, i.e. stack. A person who is encouraged twice is not able to summon twice the extra effort. A person who has his god's favor for two reasons does not get twice the perks from the god. Circumstances, on the other hand, are often independent and do contribute linearly. Dodging is much like a skill, so it acts linearly too. We can determine stacking or not by type.

On the other hand, ability bonuses reveal not the source of the effect but the source of the number. The Dexterity modifier to AC is from untrained movement to dodge and Dexterity measures how good that movement is. The Charisma bonus to AC is from precognitive reflex due to the Prophetic Armor revelation, or from a god's protection due Divine Protection or Divine Grace. Charisma measures the degree of precognition or the favor of the god. Dexterity bonus to attack rolls is from precise aim with a ranged weapon or quick hand maneuvers with a light melee weapon due to Weapon Finesse. Dexterity measures the quality of the aim or the deftness of the hand maneuvers.

Unlike typed bonuses, the ability bonus gives a less definite clue whether a pair of matched bonuses realistically stack or not. Paizo decided that the general rule is not stacking. Because of the less definite clue, we can find more examples where this clue is wrong, i.e. rules as written violates rules as intended.

Shadow Lodge

At this point an "add and replace" rules change request should be adressed more than a clarification, the clarification has been given, even tought its stupid and invalides undead antipaladins

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Archaeik wrote:
The FAQ redefined untyped bonuses of this description to no longer stack with other untyped of the same description or direct modifier bonuses.

Does it? Or does it state that when you apply an ability to something, the source is the ability not the ability that allowed you to apply your ability?

graystone wrote:
"They said that the bonus had multiple sources. Please point out ANYPLACE in the rules that is possible or even hinted at as possible"

You have asked an unanswerable question. The rules not directly addressing something doesn't mean that someone (they) don't feel it was covered.

The two source thing I imagine is related to the source of the ability is "Divine Grace" and divine grace allows you to add Charisma. So the two sources are now Divine Grace and Charisma. Since Divine Grace and some other CHA to Saves ability also provides Cha to AC they are simultaneously same (Cha) source and different (Divine Grace and something else).


James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
"They said that the bonus had multiple sources. Please point out ANYPLACE in the rules that is possible or even hinted at as possible"

You have asked an unanswerable question. The rules not directly addressing something doesn't mean that someone (they) don't feel it was covered.

The two source thing I imagine is related to the source of the ability is "Divine Grace" and divine grace allows you to add Charisma. So the two sources are now Divine Grace and Charisma. Since Divine Grace and some other CHA to Saves ability also provides Cha to AC they are simultaneously same (Cha) source and different (Divine Grace and something else).

Making an FAQ with an "unanswerable question" is about as bad as you can make one. They just told people that both sides where right (they source was charisma AND the ability) and somehow that makes them not stack. We now can't trust that different sources of untyped bonuses will stack. if they can pull stats out of the air as a source, then feats, classes and other categories are now in play as a possible source. You now have no way of knowing your math will ever be correct again if you use more than 1 untyped bonus.

it'd be different if it was something concrete, but it's something rules don't address and the inference is that things have ONE source. And if they truely thought "it was covered", they wouldn't put out the FAQ "directly addressing" it with new rules. This is the second ruling based on things not in the books and points to them using a different playbook than the rest of us. That's not cool.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Obfuscation of the rules sucks. Eschew obfuscation!

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:
This is the second ruling based on things not in the books and points to them using a different playbook than the rest of us. That's not cool.

I get that you think of it as a different playbook, but much of that comes from you looking at the rules in a different way than they do and many other players do.

I've been surprised on very few FAQ. The only one I can remember is taking free actions during AoO. I thought you could always take free actions because you are doing another action (the AoO.)

Ravingdork wrote:
Obfuscation of the rules sucks. Eschew obfuscation!

+1

More FAQs!


James Risner wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
The FAQ redefined untyped bonuses of this description to no longer stack with other untyped of the same description or direct modifier bonuses.
Does it? Or does it state that when you apply an ability to something, the source is the ability not the ability that allowed you to apply your ability?

Yes it does, if the "bonus equal to" is a typed bonus of some kind it still stacks with an ability modifier according to the FAQ.

So either it changed what I said, or it changed this.
You can argue that everything in the FAQ was "always intended to be be this way" but I see nothing to support that there was not some kind of fiat here.

Part of the issue is that in the case of Divine Grace specifically, it was incorrectly written to convey the actual source of the bonus in the first place. There was no need to carpet bomb every similar untyped bonus (but as another poster pointed out, it's easier than adjudicating each separately).


I thought the clarification was premised on the following (from this section):

Quote:

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths

In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.

The effect being "add charisma bonus to reflex save throw"

You have that ability twice, once from divine protection and once from prophetic armor. So that part doesn't happen twice.

I can understand some argument with the "replace dex portion" though.

Basically if I understand that argument correctly it would be:

Normal:

reflex_save == base_bonus + dex_mod_bonus + (other)

How ravingdork would like them to work:

if prophetic_armor then
dex_mod_bonus == cha_mod_bonus
end if

if divine_protection then
reflex_save == base_bonus + dex_mod_bonus + cha_mod_bonus + (other)
else
reflex_save == base_bonus + dex_mod_bonus + (other)

How the rules actually work

if divine_protection
reflex_save == base_bonus + dex_mod_bonus + cha_mod_bonus + (other)
elseif prophetic_armor
reflex_save == base_bonus + cha_mod_bonus + (other)
end if

Because both of the abilities add the same effect.

****************CONTINUATION*********************************

I believe this is consistent with another FAQ they put up too:

On the alternate ability modifier on check specifically, where they stated changing the ability that is applied means the check becomes the new ability modifier type of check.

FAQ:

Alternate Ability Score-Based Checks: If I change the key ability score of a skill (or other check), for example, if I change Knowledge from Intelligence to Charisma, is it no-longer an Intelligence-based check? Is it now a Charisma-based check?

Generally yes—at the time of rolling a check, if you substitute the ability score, the check is now based on the new ability score. In the example, at the time of rolling, Knowledge would now be a Charisma-based skill and not an Intelligence-based skill for you, which would affect things like feats, spells, or items that grant bonuses on checks based on their key ability score (like circlet of persuasion). However, if you are adding a second ability modifier to a check, this is not the case. For instance, when adding both Wisdom and Dexterity on initiative checks, initiative is still a Dexterity check, not a Wisdom check. Also, this changes the check only at the time of rolling, so this does not change static class features or options made during character building such as your class’s class skills. Classes that receive “all Intelligence-based skills” as class skills, for instance, are the victim of sloppy writing, and furthermore sometimes effects might muddy the water by only changing the ability dependency sometimes and not others, which is why you check the new dependency only for a specific given roll.

The prophetic armor ability makes it a charisma check. You can't add your charisma ability modifier to the same check twice without something explicit saying you can. You could add a deflection bonus equal to your charisma ability modifier, or add an enhancement bonus equal to your charisma ability modifier, but you cannot straight up add your charisma ability modifier to the roll twice.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Archaeik wrote:
You can argue that everything in the FAQ was "always intended to be be this way" but I see nothing to support that there was not some kind of fiat here.

Let's pretend I'm not saying it was always this way.

There are countless posts from JJ and others that it worked this way before the FAQ. So most people using these rules should be aware of how the rules worked for "ability mod to thing" twice before the FAQ. The fact the FAQ came down to support all the previous posts shouldn't come as a surprise should it?


James Risner wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
You can argue that everything in the FAQ was "always intended to be be this way" but I see nothing to support that there was not some kind of fiat here.

Let's pretend I'm not saying it was always this way.

There are countless posts from JJ and others that it worked this way before the FAQ. So most people using these rules should be aware of how the rules worked for "ability mod to thing" twice before the FAQ. The fact the FAQ came down to support all the previous posts shouldn't come as a surprise should it?

I feel like you're ignoring the specific complaint I've brought up, which was not about multiple instances of ability mods stacking, but 'mod + an untyped bonus equal to mod'.

I readily accept that the PDT interpretation was always that mod + mod didn't stack. But I don't consider the above to fall under mod+mod in any case; and given that the FAQ also needs to expressly equivalate 'mod+untyped' with 'mod+mod', it seems neither did they.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Archaeik wrote:
the FAQ also needs to expressly equivalate 'mod+untyped' with 'mod+mod', it seems neither did they.

Maybe I didn't address it because I felt the FAQ addressed it.


James Risner wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
the FAQ also needs to expressly equivalate 'mod+untyped' with 'mod+mod', it seems neither did they.
Maybe I didn't address it because I felt the FAQ addressed it.

The FAQ doesn't address whether you or they consider it a change. It certainly seems like it is.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Archaeik wrote:
The FAQ doesn't address whether you or they consider it a change. It certainly seems like it is.

Every time they change something they say "will be reflected in errata." This doesn't say that, so they explicitly are saying "this is how it has always been". That is backed up by every single time this question has been previously answer by a developer or staff, they didn't stack.


I don't remember much argument about Oradin builds that relied on SAD optimization before this.

And I find it unintuitive to automatically consider all untyped 'bonus equal to mod' abilities as synonymous with 'mod', and I think a lot of other detail oriented people read the rules as I do in this regard. It probably should be added to the book.

Also, regarding errata, there is a distinction between actually changing a rule and cleaning up language to prevent misinterpretation, even if you won't acknowledge that distinction.

ps you meant implicitly saying


Archaeik wrote:

I don't remember much argument about Oradin builds that relied on SAD optimization before this.

And I find it unintuitive to automatically consider all untyped 'bonus equal to mod' abilities as synonymous with 'mod', and I think a lot of other detail oriented people read the rules as I do in this regard. It probably should be added to the book.

Also, regarding errata, there is a distinction between actually changing a rule and cleaning up language to prevent misinterpretation, even if you won't acknowledge that distinction.

ps you meant implicitly saying

There is a distinct difference between a Two level dip and simply picking up one feat.

With each book that comes out more and more "equal to mod" abilities come out.

There was a need for paizo to draw a line.

At this state of the game, given the huge volume of such abilities (especially regarding Charisma stacking), a carpet bombing nerf was the most efficient way to do this (and to free up text from new books as they come out)


shroudb wrote:

There is a distinct difference between a Two level dip and simply picking up one feat.

With each book that comes out more and more "equal to mod" abilities come out.

There was a need for paizo to draw a line.

At this state of the game, given the huge volume of such abilities (especially regarding Charisma stacking), a carpet bombing nerf was the most efficient way to do this (and to free up text from new books as they come out)

I don't disagree with the need, but I do think the untyped equivalency was a change to existing rules and is very hard to infer by a simple reading of the rules without also bothering to read the FAQ.


Unless one pays attention to the "same effect different source/strength" stacking rule I've already pointed out.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shroudb wrote:

With each book that comes out more and more "equal to mod" abilities come out.

There was a need for Paizo to draw a line.

And that line should have been drawn in a similar fashion to the size increase FAQratta:

Ability score bonuses from the same ability score don't stack with themselves (they are considered to be from the same source). Ability score bonuses that replace other ability score bonuses don't stack with themselves either (in the case of two different ability scores vying to replace the same stat, use whichever is most beneficial). However, the former will stack with the latter (once).

Such a clarification would solve nearly all of the problems in their rules.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Archaeik wrote:

And I find it unintuitive to automatically consider all untyped 'bonus equal to mod' abilities as synonymous with 'mod', and I think a lot of other detail oriented people read the rules as I do in this regard.

I do think the untyped equivalency was a change to existing rules and is very hard to infer by a simple reading of the rules

I'm not sure there are many people more detail oriented than me. Building a character is a 50+ hour task.

I've always understood that untyped equal to seemed to be the same as mod equal to. There have been a lot of detail oriented people that agree. You happen to disagree. That is fine, you are entitled. But this isn't something there should have been little doubt on, as this has came up more times than just about anything else and it has been well known and understood by most that the position of all comments by Paizo is that they don't stack.


Ravingdork wrote:
shroudb wrote:

With each book that comes out more and more "equal to mod" abilities come out.

There was a need for Paizo to draw a line.

And that line should have been drawn in a similar fashion to the size increase FAQratta:

Ability score bonuses from the same ability score don't stack with themselves (they are considered to be from the same source). Ability score bonuses that replace other ability score bonuses don't stack with themselves either (in the case of two different ability scores vying to replace the same stat, use whichever is most beneficial). However, the former will stack with the latter (once).

Such a clarification would solve nearly all of the problems in their rules.

i don't agree with that.

add+replace, while mechanically different, can be easily abused by the players (like with dropping dex to 7 and getting a 20 on cha, to get a +10 reflex save from just the same stat)

i agree with their decision to not have add+replace stack, i just think they do need to make exceptions when something is FORBITEN to actually have the original stat (like in the undead), maybe rename the undead to a "racial bonus" would make it easier..


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shroudb wrote:


i don't agree with that.

add+replace, while mechanically different, can be easily abused by the players (like with dropping dex to 7 and getting a 20 on cha, to get a +10 reflex save from just the same stat)

Yeah, but most stat replacements don't replace everything. He may end up with killer Reflex saves, but is likely lacking elsewhere with that 7 Dexterity.


Ravingdork wrote:
shroudb wrote:


i don't agree with that.

add+replace, while mechanically different, can be easily abused by the players (like with dropping dex to 7 and getting a 20 on cha, to get a +10 reflex save from just the same stat)

Yeah, but most stat replacements don't replace everything. He may end up with killer Reflex saves, but is likely lacking elsewhere with that 7 Dexterity.

in general charisma swaps are way, WAY, overdone.

a lunar oracle could have p.e. cha to ac, cha to init, cha to saves, cha to mind affecting.
all those by like lvl5 and all those legal.

so, having a little lower cmd than usual (assuming an average 14dex on an oracle, you would only be like 4 lower than standard) isn't that big of a deal.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes, but what they gain in focus, they lose in resources. That's a VERY specific build you got going.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Yes, but what they gain in focus, they lose in resources. That's a VERY specific build you got going.

still doesn't change the fact that there are tools there to already get a single stat to do everything.

and for the most part, 2 feats and a revelation you would take either way, isn't that much of an investment (the feats for initiative and for saves). The rest is just overkill to showcase my point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
This is the second ruling based on things not in the books and points to them using a different playbook than the rest of us. That's not cool.

I get that you think of it as a different playbook, but much of that comes from you looking at the rules in a different way than they do and many other players do.

I've been surprised on very few FAQ. The only one I can remember is taking free actions during AoO. I thought you could always take free actions because you are doing another action (the AoO.)

Lets assume for a moment that I agreed that stats never stacked and that's always been the intent. Even given that, I'd say that they used a different rulebook in their FAQ. Nothing in the game ever had multiple sources before this and nothing had hands of effort. It's opened a Pandora's box where people now think hands of effort stops shield use in TWF and pole arm use stops armor spikes from threatening.

A simple 'untyped stat bonuses are now typed' and 'Two handed weapons can't be used in TWF' could have fixed the issues they wanted to fix without bringing in the extra baggage/confusion of new unwritten rules by making sensible WRITTEN rules. I'm not complaining about what they meant to fix, just how it's fixed. So how I'm looking at the rules is really irrelevant when talking about the FAQ that don't use the actual rules.

If they always intended hands of effort and multiple sources to be a thing, I'd ask they just put those rules in print and explain them. That puts everyone on the same page without having to go through all the years old DEV posts that gave you the point of view you have on the rules.


Ravingdork wrote:
Does the charisma bonus from the Divine Protection feat stack with the Charisma bonus from the lunar oracle's Prophetic Armor revelation? Or does this particular oracle get screwed on his Reflex saves?

I haven't read other than this post, but BBT asked about the inquisitor that can replace wis for initiative and gains their wis bonus to initiative and Mark or the PDT said that it was one of the cases where you'd lose out. Instead of having dex and wis you'd only have wis since you can't have wis twice.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:

Nothing in the game ever had multiple sources before this and nothing had hands of effort.

If they always intended hands of effort and multiple sources to be a thing, I'd ask they just put those rules in print and explain them.

I'm not sure if you are not getting what I'm saying or you are just refusing to acknowledge?

What I'm saying is despite you not believing the rules to support the position you disagree, other have believed the rules supported the two positions.


shroudb wrote:
add+replace, while mechanically different, can be easily abused by the players (like with dropping dex to 7 and getting a 20 on cha, to get a +10 reflex save from just the same stat)

What's so bad about that? The combination of a powerful revelation and a powerful feat is powerful. That is not abuse. Many characters have great reflex saves.

If that same lunar oracle with Dex 7 and Cha 20 and the Prophetic Armor revelation took Lightning Reflexes instead of Divine Protection, she would have a +7 reflex save with no non-stacking rule to shrink it down to +5. Rolling twice, granted by Improved Lightning Reflexes, raises a d20 roll by an average of +3, to get an effective +10 again, for only one additional feat.

Replacement abilities, such as Prophetic Armor, are powerful and designed to be powerful. Their purpose is to reduce the number of good attributes necessary for a class to function as intended. Just like a high-Dex rogue or magus would take Weapon Finesse in order to not need good Strength in order to hit with his melee attacks.


Mathmuse wrote:
shroudb wrote:
add+replace, while mechanically different, can be easily abused by the players (like with dropping dex to 7 and getting a 20 on cha, to get a +10 reflex save from just the same stat)

What's so bad about that? The combination of a powerful revelation and a powerful feat is powerful. That is not abuse. Many characters have great reflex saves.

If that same lunar oracle with Dex 7 and Cha 20 and the Prophetic Armor revelation took Lightning Reflexes instead of Divine Protection, she would have a +7 reflex save with no non-stacking rule to shrink it down to +5. Rolling twice, granted by Improved Lightning Reflexes, raises a d20 roll by an average of +3, to get an effective +10 again, for only one additional feat.

Replacement abilities, such as Prophetic Armor, are powerful and designed to be powerful. Their purpose is to reduce the number of good attributes necessary for a class to function as intended. Just like a high-Dex rogue or magus would take Weapon Finesse in order to not need good Strength in order to hit with his melee attacks.

it is intended to be able to use some, but not all. as clearly shown by the faq (which show us what is the actual intent of the developers)

and the reson for that is how those feats progress. because while at lvl 5 it would cost one extra feat for the same result. at lvl 12 having +16 to reflex just from your high charisma isn't something "easily" obtainable.

as you said yourself, they are powerful feats.
so there needs to be moderation.
and moderation is this case is a hard limit of NO stacking (at least when they are untyped)
working as intended


Chess Pwn wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Does the charisma bonus from the Divine Protection feat stack with the Charisma bonus from the lunar oracle's Prophetic Armor revelation? Or does this particular oracle get screwed on his Reflex saves?
I haven't read other than this post, but BBT asked about the inquisitor that can replace wis for initiative and gains their wis bonus to initiative and Mark or the PDT said that it was one of the cases where you'd lose out. Instead of having dex and wis you'd only have wis since you can't have wis twice.

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the issue specifically with the Tactics inquisition and the Cunning Initiative ability?

More specificially, since no inquisitor archetype (to my knowledge) trades out Cunning Initiative, it seems like a very non-comprehensive choice that, if combined with the Tactics inquisition (which also adds wisdom to initiative at L8), for some reason the abilities specifically designed for the class does not provide any benefit whatsoever to the inquisitor himself.

That, and there's the Infiltrator archetype with the Conversion / Reformation inquisitions, that also ceased to function as seemingly designed.

As a personal big fan of the inquisitor, I'm not happy about this, as you can probably tell, but eh, I'm just a grain of sand on a massive beach.


James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:

Nothing in the game ever had multiple sources before this and nothing had hands of effort.

If they always intended hands of effort and multiple sources to be a thing, I'd ask they just put those rules in print and explain them.

I'm not sure if you are not getting what I'm saying or you are just refusing to acknowledge?

What I'm saying is despite you not believing the rules to support the position you disagree, other have believed the rules supported the two positions.

I have never seen any evidence of multiple sources outside of the FAQ. I see nothing in the current rules set to support them. I have NEVER seen DEV posts that have said that something can have multiple sources[pre-faq].

So I have to fall back on what I've seen. That the FAQ was made out of new cloth. I've seen people say that stats are the source of stat fbonuses but NEVER saw anyone say the source was both the stat and something else. Assuming they do exist, I'm still not seeing anything other than those random forum posts, that even infers multiple sources exist.

Can YOU post something from the actual rules that mentions multiple sources? Even something that hints of it? And what the heck, post any DEV posts previous to the FAQ that mention multiple sources.

To be clear again, I could care less if someone thought that a stat was the source of the bonus. My issue is with multiple sources, so anything else is moot.

Best case scenario, you dig up some well hidden DEV quote and you'll prove that someone that's read the whole forum had a clue about it. Jason himself said a while ago, we shouldn't have to dig through every thread and post to get all the rules when he made forum posts unofficial. However, I be curious to read a multiple source quote from a dev as no one has posted one before and I'd have expected someone to post one before now.


Combining effects wrote:

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths

In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.

here.

I've pointed it out multiple times. From the core rule book we have same effect from multiple sources, which doesn't allow that.

This FAQ is simply an extension (at the worse) of what is already explicitly ruled out in the core rule book.

Namely you can't (normally) have the same effect multiple times.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Combining effects wrote:

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths

In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.

here.

I've pointed it out multiple times. From the core rule book we have same effect from multiple sources, which doesn't allow that.

This FAQ is simply an extension (at the worse) of what is already explicitly ruled out in the core rule book.

Namely you can't (normally) have the same effect multiple times.

Who are you replying to? If it's me, I don't see how this applies to an effect having multiple sources as your post is about multiple sources doing the same effect. Those are different things. I'm talking about bonus from divine protection having both the stat AND the feat as a source and NOT prophetic armor and divine protection both having Charisma as a source.


graystone wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Combining effects wrote:

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths

In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.

here.

I've pointed it out multiple times. From the core rule book we have same effect from multiple sources, which doesn't allow that.

This FAQ is simply an extension (at the worse) of what is already explicitly ruled out in the core rule book.

Namely you can't (normally) have the same effect multiple times.

Who are you replying to? If it's me, I don't see how this applies to an effect having multiple sources as your post is about multiple sources doing the same effect. Those are different things. I'm talking about bonus from divine protection having both the stat AND the feat as a source and NOT prophetic armor and divine protection both having Charisma as a source.

Source doesn't matter -- effect does. What is the effect?

Obviously we have multiple sources -- there would be no question if we didn't.

It isn't charisma as a source -- it's the effect that divine protection has -- namely "add charisma to save throws". Anything else that has "add charisma to save throws" is the same effect and therefore won't stack no matter if it's a feat, spell, or class feature.

If it instead said, "Add a sacred bonus equal to your charisma modifier to the save throw" that would be a different effect since you are adding a specific type of bonus and not your charisma modifier.

We have had multiple sources before -- for example you could have a luck bonus from a stone and a luck bonus from your race. The effect is the same -- a luck bonus to (x). That effect regardless of its multiple sources doesn't stack, unless specifically granted.

It's the same with the multiple ki pools FAQ -- the class feature gives you a ki pool (the effect of the class feature) if another one gives you a ki pool you follow the rules involved in combining the two as you can't have two.

The weird exception to this is channel energy, which you can have from multiple sources.

Heck even the animal companion points to this -- if you have multiple sources of an animal companion unless one of the gives you two specifically you don't get two you stack the levels.


Abraham spalding, I'm not talking about or caring that untyped charisma bonuses stacks or not. You are NOT, NOT, NOT getting what I'm saying. I am NOT talking about "a luck bonus from a stone and a luck bonus from your race". I don't care about that in the least.

I'm talking about a 1 single bonus coming from two different things. SO it's not 2 luck bonuses but 1 bonus that is from two places at once. To be clear AGAIN, the untyped charisma bonus from divine protection comes from the stat AND the feat. JUST that bonus. Nothing else included.

So not the same kind of bonus from multiple places but you get THIS +1 untyped bonus from class AND feat and NO other bonus is in the equation. So no multiple bonuses. None. Zero. JUST one bonus talked about. That's it. IS there anything talking about one single, solitary bonus having multiple sources?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:
Can YOU post something from the actual rules that mentions multiple sources?

Sorta of irrelevant.

It comes down to these three ways to look at it:

Your Way)
When you have 20 WIS and a rule saying "Funky (Su) Add Wis to AC" and a rule saying "Dilly (Ex) Add Wis to AC" you see this as Funky adding 5 to AC and Dilly adding 5.

My Way)
I see this is Wis (5) added to AC and Wis (5) added to AC. Two 5's from the same source. The developers see it this way and explained it as "multiple sources."

Abraham way)
He sees it as multiple abilities (Funky and Dilly) adding Wis to AC (effect).


graystone wrote:

Abraham spalding, I'm not talking about or caring that untyped charisma bonuses stacks or not. You are NOT, NOT, NOT getting what I'm saying. I am NOT talking about "a luck bonus from a stone and a luck bonus from your race". I don't care about that in the least.

I'm talking about a 1 single bonus coming from two different things. SO it's not 2 luck bonuses but 1 bonus that is from two places at once. To be clear AGAIN, the untyped charisma bonus from divine protection comes from the stat AND the feat. JUST that bonus. Nothing else included.

So not the same kind of bonus from multiple places but you get THIS +1 untyped bonus from class AND feat and NO other bonus is in the equation. So no multiple bonuses. None. Zero. JUST one bonus talked about. That's it. IS there anything talking about one single, solitary bonus having multiple sources?

It actually is the same thing.

I fully agree they flubbed the wording here very badly, and should have used the term "type of bonus" instead of "source of bonus" as that seems to be the source of your confusion (in retrospect understandably).

If you read the FAQ you'll see they've simply used the wrong word -- what they are saying is bonuses of the same type don't stack. Instead of using the word they should have though they called it the 'source' of the bonus. Using that wording it would be accurate to say that the luck stone gives a bonus with a 'source' of luck while the racial ability gives a bonus with a 'source' of luck.

In the way the wording the FAQ each bonus has the "source" that gives it and the "source" that it is (aka type that it is) and that is very poor wording in this case.


The same-source rule in the Core Rulebook is a non-stacking rule that does not rely on bonus types.

Core Rulebook: Magic wrote:

Under Special Spell Effects

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.

Same source means another spell or class feature of the same name, even if provided by different people. For example, if a character had a Shield of Faith cast by a first-level cleric for an untyped +2 bonus and a Shield of Faith cast by a sixth-level cleric for an untyped +3 bonus, then they combine to give the better bonus, +3, not the sum.

Pounce's comment above provides a good example of a class feature source.

Ultimate Magic: Inquisitor wrote:

From Tactics Inquisition

Grant the Initiative (Ex): At 8th level, you and all allies within 30 feet may add your Wisdom bonus to your initiative checks.

A character traveling with a group of three eighth-level Tactics-Inquisition Inquisitors with Wisdom 14, 16, and 18 among them, would get only a +4 bonus to initiative checks, the best of the three bonuses, because of the same-source rule.

What graystone objects to is that the FAQ answer used the same-source argument for ability score bonuses not stacking rather than the same bonus-type argument. An ability score counts as a source if it provides the number.

For example, the AC Bonus class feature of the monk gives two bonuses to AC:

Core Rulebook: Monk wrote:
AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every four monk levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.

By the FAQ its source is both Wisdom, which provides the number and flavor, and the AC Bonus class feature. This is what graystone means by multiple sources.

But where do multiple sources end? The monk AC bonus also gives +1 for every four levels. Does level count as a source for this AC bonus, too, because that is where the number and flavor came from? The cleric spell Shield of Faith is a +2 untyped bonus with an additional +1 for every six levels. Does level count as a source of this AC bonus, too, so that it would not stack with the monk AC bonus?

To avoid this path of madness, I follow graystone's suggestion:

graystone wrote:
It's best not to think too hard on the explanation given for the FAQ. It's nonsensicalness will make your brain hurt because of the mental gymnastics you have to do to understand it. Best to just pretend that they are the same typed bonus.
Abraham spalding wrote:

It actually is the same thing.

I fully agree they flubbed the wording here very badly, and should have used the term "type of bonus" instead of "source of bonus" as that seems to be the source of your confusion (in retrospect understandably).

We want to believe this. It would explain why the FAQ said a "a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and "your Charisma modifier" would stack, since they differ only in type. But it used the word "source" twice in the first sentence and called it an "untyped" bonus twice in the last sentence.


For me, this FAQ marks/marked a fundamental and flawed change in the function of the underlying system.

Namely, that bonus type is what matters, not the bonus source save for overlapping strengths of source.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:

For me, this FAQ marks/marked a fundamental and flawed change in the function of the underlying system.

Namely, that bonus type is what matters, not the bonus source save for overlapping strengths of source.

Agreed.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ravingdork wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
this FAQ marks/marked a fundamental and flawed change in the function of the underlying system.
Agreed.

For me it was one of many important FAQ that addressed a point that had serious divide on the forums with people on both sides adamantly supporting their position.

My favorite FAQ's:
Ability score stacking (This one)
The damage dice progress (long overdue)
The archetype stacking with add and replace (clarifies that adding is altering)
The Alternate Ability Score-Based Checks (swapped abilities are now the new type checks)
Mithral One Category lighter (cleared up confusion)
Size increases and effective size increases (my druids deal less damage but makes sense)
Ring of Invis/Hat of Disguise duration (only way I've seen the item used in games)
10 ft reach diagonals (got us back 3.5 exception)
New Spells known (makes sense)
Spontaneous casting and multiple classes (no silliness)


If they're going to 'type' bonuses sourced from ability scores, they don't need to reinvent the wheel, let alone shoehorn a square with a hole in the middle onto the axle.

It should be pretty easy to match bonus types to the six ability scores. The remainder would require new round wheels.

Examples:

(Normal Rules) Dodge bonuses to AC always stack. The standard rule is that all creatures apply a dodge bonus or penalty to their AC and CMD equal to their Dexterity modifier.

(Prophetic Armor) Your dodge bonus to AC and CMD is sourced from your Charisma modifier instead of your Dexterity modifier.

(Sneak Attack/Feint/Flat-footed) Your dodge bonus to AC and CMD is denied by being caught flat-footed/ a foe successfully performing a Feint in combat against you/ being [qualified to light you up with a sneak attack].

Possibilities of bonus types by ability scores:

Charisma - luck. Change 'deflection' bonuses to 'luck' bonuses. Undead don't deflect a thing, they are the undead, watched out for by the nebulous powers of death. Paladins' and anti-paladins' and other creatures that have a mysterious knack for avoiding the otherwise avoidable are inherently fortunate. They simply aren't in the way of the blade/blah de blah when their enemies' rays/blades/bullets are flying in.

Wisdom - insight. Monks' balance with the existential energies that bind everything together protect them from the blades and arrows of assassins and Things Man Was Not Meant to Fight. It works even when all else fails to do so.

Intelligence - competence. You know stuff, you've studied at the feet of the masters. As a bonus to AC/CMD this should be subject to the dodge bonus rules: can be denied by feint, caught flat-footed, etc. Uncanny Dodge protects.

Dexterity - dodge bonus to AC and CMD. Deniable as per the usual 'Dexterity bonus' rules. Uncanny Dodge protects.

Constitution (new bonus type) - stamina bonus for Fortitude saves and additional hp/HD.

Strength (new bonus type) - brawn. Shouldn't be available except as an alternate source or additional source of hit points and on Fortitude saving throws.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Does the charisma bonus from the Divine Protection feat stack with the Charisma bonus from the lunar oracle's Prophetic Armor revelation? Or does this particular oracle get screwed on his Reflex saves?

If they apply the same bonus to the same thing, then yes, the do NOT stack. And I'm very sure you know how the stacking rules operate.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:
(Prophetic Armor) Your dodge bonus to AC and CMD is sourced from your Charisma modifier instead of your Dexterity modifier.

I don't believe Prophetic Armor lets you add anything to your CMD, just your AC and Reflex saves (as unintuitive as that sounds).

LazarX wrote:
If they apply the same bonus to the same thing, then yes, the do NOT stack. And I'm very sure you know how the stacking rules operate.

I'm beginning to think nobody really does, not anymore.


Ravingdork wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
(Prophetic Armor) Your dodge bonus to AC and CMD is sourced from your Charisma modifier instead of your Dexterity modifier.

I don't believe Prophetic Armor lets you add anything to your CMD, just your AC and Reflex saves (as unintuitive as that sounds).

LazarX wrote:
If they apply the same bonus to the same thing, then yes, the do NOT stack. And I'm very sure you know how the stacking rules operate.
I'm beginning to think nobody really does, not anymore.

Last I recall, anything that adds to touch AC adds to CMD.

As far as stacking rules, they've been broken so many times the past few years, it's ceased to be amusing.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:
Last I recall, anything that adds to touch AC adds to CMD.

I'm afraid not.

CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier

The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Defense is as follows: Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8. Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMD when resisting specific maneuvers. A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.

If it isn't on that list, or isn't specifically described as adding to CMD, then it doesn't.


Given that all of those add to touch AC as well ... and that the item in question replaces the "dexterity modifier" ... *shrugs*

That's what we do at our games. Works fine for us. ;)


Turin the Mad wrote:

Given that all of those add to touch AC as well ... and that the item in question replaces the "dexterity modifier" ... *shrugs*

That's what we do at our games. Works fine for us. ;)

Unfortunately "that's what we do/works fine for us" doesn't cut it in PFS where the rules are more strictly adhered to.

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Divine protection stack with prophetic armor? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.