Maybe I'm missing something. As I recall, the main question was whether something like Bolt Ace could increase the critical multiplier from x3 to x4 when combined with Falcon's Aim. The FAQ seems to sidestep that issue. Its focus is on the threat range not stacking, which I thought was already the overwhelming consensus. So does the FAQ answer the questions posed on this thread?"Does not stack with" and spells with effects other than bonuses: What does it mean if a spell tells me it doesn’t stack with another spell or "similar effects" if some of the effects aren't bonuses?
If you have two spells with effects other than bonuses and those spells or effects are called out not to stack, that means that the effects that apply to the same rules component or situation do not stack, so if they apply different non-bonus effects to the same rules component, the most recent spell takes precedent. For example, aspect of the falcon specifically doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as Improved Critical or keen. This means that the part of aspect of the falcon that applies to criticals doesn't stack with those effects, but it doesn't prevent someone with Improved Critical from receiving the competence bonuses on attack rolls and Perception checks. If a character with Improved Critical (light crossbow) cast aspect of the falcon, his criticals would change from 17–20/x2 to 19–20/x3. Similarly, blessing of fervor does not stack with haste, which means that the increased speed, extra attack, and attack roll/AC/Reflex save bonuses wouldn't stack between the two spells, but if you had both spells active, you could still get those three benefits from haste while choosing to stand up as a swift action or apply metamagic to a low-level spell.
It seems like no, it doesn't stack, as they seem to treat rage and multiplier as one thing for 'stacking'. Now just HOW you figure out which is 'better' for stacking is anyone's guess.
Wait, so your opinion is that not only does it not stack but they get the worse of the two?!
Contributor
|
Wait, so your opinion is that not only does it not stack but they get the worse of the two?!
It's in the most recent FAQ. ^_^
Wow, so contrary to everything else in Pathfinder where what doesn't stack takes the higher bonus this situation is uniquely opposite because the new rules team said so?
Man, this is really making me want to ignore any new rulings made. Also getting very frustrated about what such rulings mean for PFS.
It's saying that things that aren't a bonus don't have the "choose the best" you get the most recent. And because their is no bonus it wouldn't fall under the rule about how bonuses work.
So anything that is changing the crit range and/or modifier are affecting a non-bonus rule element and you go with the newest. So if you added badger's cunning, or something else that gives keen like a magus, afterwards then you'd have the expanded crit range.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Maybe I'm missing something. As I recall, the main question was whether something like Bolt Ace could increase the critical multiplier from x3 to x4 when combined with Falcon's Aim.
The OP questions didn't involve Bolt Ace, that was added later.
HOW you figure out which is 'better' for stacking is anyone's guess.
That is simple math:
1d8 * (1 + (thread-1)/20)4.5 * (1 + (2-1)/20) = 4.5 * 1.05 = 4.725 average for 1d8 x2
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
this situation is uniquely opposite
You see it as opposite, I see it as inline with expected.
You are totally free as always to play the game any way you choose from Rule 0.
afterwards then you'd have the expanded crit range.
I'd actually say it doesn't stack. If a new effect came along to try to modify the threat range, it wouldn't stack.
Generally when things don't stack, order applied matters. When things stack, order generally doesn't matter.
Those thing expand the weapons crit range. The crit range was changed to 19-20. If you apply the expanding ability afterwards then it should expand the weapons current crit range. nothing is "stacking." If you had them before the spell then they'd be overwritten, like the FAQ says. The FAQ specifically says that order does matter for things that aren't bonuses.
James, you are incorrect. Per the ruling order is the only thing that matters.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The FAQ specifically says that order does matter for things that aren't bonuses.
Maybe I misunderstood your point.
If you have Aspect of the Falcon and then apply Keen to your weapon, which of these interpretations are your understanding:
You would no longer have the benefits of Aspect of the Falcon and just Keen
You would have Aspect of the Falcon with increased threat from Keen
I edited my post above, as it absolutely wasn't clear what I was saying.
You would have Aspect of the Falcon, minus the critical threat / multiplier effects of AotF, plus the Keen. I think.
I say a keen added after the AotF is affecting the "new" critical range that AotF set to the weapon. Since it's not setting a crit range, but modifying the current range.
So you want my opinion of how it should work or the new ruling of how it does work?
The new ruling is that the newest effect overrides. There is no stacking for things that aren't considered a "bonus".
My opinion is that is silly. It also still leaves a lot of room for what is considered a "bonus".
After rereading the FAQ I realize I am in the wrong. Thanks James. :)
So you want my opinion of how it should work or the new ruling of how it does work?
The new ruling is that the newest effect overrides. There is no stacking for things that aren't considered a "bonus".
My opinion is that is silly. It also still leaves a lot of room for what is considered a "bonus".
a bonus is a +Number. Anything that isn't a +Number isn't a bonus.
So what happens if I have simultaneous spells? I step into an anti-magic cloud. I step out and now my Bracers of Aspect of the Falcon come back on at the same time as my crossbow's improved crit.
How about I put on the bracers THEN pick up the crossbow? Isn't the crossbow the newest effect on me?
And the FAQ only states that the most recent spell takes precedent. What about non-spell effects? Which takes precedence or do you try to figure out stacking again?
So what happens if I have simultaneous spells? I step into an anti-magic cloud. I step out and now my Bracers of Aspect of the Falcon come back on at the same time as my crossbow's improved crit.
How about I put on the bracers THEN pick up the crossbow? Isn't the crossbow the newest effect on me?
And the FAQ only states that the most recent spell takes precedent. What about non-spell effects? Which takes precedence or do you try to figure out stacking again?
In the examples used the bracers win, as they are changing the weapons crit. So doesn't matter if you pick up the weapon later, the only crit changing effect are the bracers.
Do you have an example of non-spell effects that have this problem?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
a bonus is a +Number. Anything that isn't a +Number isn't a bonus.
Which isn't how WotC and PDT has interpreted bonuses, but is how people who only look at the glossary define bonuses.
For example, the night sticks from 3.5 that gave you an additional 3 turns a day was explicitly in FAQ considered a bonus and multiple night sticks don't stack from bonus stacking rules. The Same for Orange Ioun Stones, not stacking due to bonus stacking rules.
FAQ only states that the most recent spell takes precedent. What about non-spell effects?
Again on this one, spell covers effects. The whole Spells sections groups magic effects into spells and for the rest of the chapter uses the term spells to refer to both.
Are things that increase your movement speed a bonus?
I feel like every time the PDT makes an FAQ they quickly run for cover in their anti-peanut gallery bunker.
I feel like every time the PDT makes an FAQ they quickly run for cover in their anti-peanut gallery bunker.
I don't know about the others, but I read all the comments. However, it's usually not really helpful to post in response. I mean, designer posts aren't official anyway, so there's no making an official clarification; it would just stir people up, I've found, when I would post commentary and thought process from our discussions back in my early days here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like every time the PDT makes an FAQ they quickly run for cover in their anti-peanut gallery bunker.I don't know about the others, but I read all the comments. However, it's usually not really helpful to post in response. I mean, designer posts aren't official anyway, so there's no making an official clarification; it would just stir people up, I've found, when I would post commentary and thought process from our discussions back in my early days here.
And I think that is truly a shame. While I realize comments from you and other designers/developers/etc. aren't official rulings, I believe you have a better understanding of the rules than most and I value your opinions highly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like every time the PDT makes an FAQ they quickly run for cover in their anti-peanut gallery bunker.I don't know about the others, but I read all the comments. However, it's usually not really helpful to post in response. I mean, designer posts aren't official anyway, so there's no making an official clarification; it would just stir people up, I've found, when I would post commentary and thought process from our discussions back in my early days here.
See forum, this is why we can't have nice things.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
it would just stir people up, I've found, when I would post commentary and thought process from our discussions back in my early days here.See forum, this is why we can't have nice things.
+1
It almost feels like a strategy. If I keep yelling that the rules don't say X the developers will get my message and change the FAQ.
That isn't the way it works. They just stop clarifying.
I feel like every time the PDT makes an FAQ they quickly run for cover in their anti-peanut gallery bunker.I don't know about the others, but I read all the comments. However, it's usually not really helpful to post in response. I mean, designer posts aren't official anyway, so there's no making an official clarification; it would just stir people up, I've found, when I would post commentary and thought process from our discussions back in my early days here.
Sorry, Mark, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I think they are official. I mean, unless you are specifically pointing out that what you are sharing is only personal opinion or something...
I mean it is right there in your own guide:
The Pathfinder Society Community
You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made
by the campaign leadership, including the campaign
coordinator and campaign developer, at http://paizo.
com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/
pathfinderSociety . GMs are not required to read every
post on the messageboards, but GMs familiar with rules
clarifications made by the campaign leadership (which
have not been superseded by the Guide to Pathfinder Society
Organized Play or FAQ) must abide by these clarifications
or rulings. If it is a significant clarification, it will be
updated in the FAQ, and later in the Guide to Pathfinder
Society Organized Play if necessary.
There are several GMs both in PFS and in home games that take Developer posts as law. Myself included to a large extent, honestly. Can you think of a better source outside of something printed in a book to get an official answer?
On this perhaps my personal opinion comes across as harsh but you said yourself at Gencon that the rules team has recently been getting a lot of backlash at some of their rulings. Maybe there is something causing that?
On this particular topic I think this is a short sited ruling that leaves as many new questions unanswered as those it answered. My feeling is that the spell text should have just been cleaned up and perhaps "bonuses" defined. But I'm not a Dev. I just have to live by the rules that you make/change/alter even if taking an option meant to improve a character actually makes them worse.
In that quote, from the PFS guide (not the PDT's guide), campaign leadership is John, Linda, or Tonya. As to backlash, it isn't recent, really. The design team has been getting backlash for rulings pretty much as long as I can remember. It's inevitable, as I've mentioned in the past; there wouldn't be a need for a FAQ if there weren't two or more opinions, so some opinion won't have the FAQ going that way, and there's backlash. You can even predict who will be part of the backlash before the FAQ goes up by looking through the thread and noting the posters that wanted the other ruling and have backlashed in the past on other FAQ threads.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just so you know Mark, even if I can't speak for the others, I personally appreciate your presence here and your efforts to provide clarification. I am still hopeful to one day have a rules community that welcomes the opinions of the designers in response to rules questions, even if they are just casual posts that are not official.
Mark: Despite who is considered "campaign leadership" (because that is left undefined in the guide) I think you know as well as I do that people use Developer posts to make rulings in both home games and in PFS. So when you say they aren't "official" it really makes me confused as that is official as things get without being printed in a book. Am I really wrong here? I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Of course, any decision will have backlash. It is inevitable as you say. But that isn't a reason not to make decisions much less a reason not to make a post on the topic if people still have questions after a new ruling. It is really not just a personal choice but a responsibility. I'm not trying to convince you because I already know that you agree. I'm just stating it here because I personally would not be interested in supporting a product by buying it if the Developers are not supporting it by providing clarifications. That, IMO, is one of the things that makes Paizo great. So please just let me know if that is due to change ...
The only advice I can offer is don't let personal opinions rattle you. Hell, I think that goes for anyone who comes to these boards (or any boards, really). That, and I guess maybe giving meaningful replies that focus on clarification of rules rather than excuses (ok, fine... reasons) why Devs don't post. ;)
|
Besides, for every time there is someone who complains on a ruling, there are others who support it and the job you guys are doing. I chipped in for the baked goods package a few months back, and I know someone sent you BBQ in thanks for the Boar Shred fix.
While I have felt that some faqs/errata have gone too far, on the whole they are making things better for the game.
Mark: Despite who is considered "campaign leadership" (because that is left undefined in the guide) I think you know as well as I do that people use Developer posts to make rulings in both home games and in PFS. So when you say they aren't "official" it really makes me confused as that is official as things get without being printed in a book. Am I really wrong here? I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Of course, any decision will have backlash. It is inevitable as you say. But that isn't a reason not to make decisions much less a reason not to make a post on the topic if people still have questions after a new ruling. It is really not just a personal choice but a responsibility. I'm not trying to convince you because I already know that you agree. I'm just stating it here because I personally would not be interested in supporting a product by buying it if the Developers are not supporting it by providing clarifications. That, IMO, is one of the things that makes Paizo great. So please just let me know if that is due to change ...
The only advice I can offer is don't let personal opinions rattle you. Hell, I think that goes for anyone who comes to these boards (or any boards, really). That, and I guess maybe giving meaningful replies that focus on clarification of rules rather than excuses (ok, fine... reasons) why Devs don't post. ;)
Honestly, it's company policy that Designer and Developer posts aren't official, and that includes PFS (aside from the campaign staff, the trio I mentioned).
I do promise to do my best to not allow the certainty of backlash to sway me into failing to pursue more FAQs as assiduously as I have been, and it hasn't so far. It's more of the fact that, by my observations, further clarification has tended not to be helpful and instead fan the flames, even when it's an attempt to be helpful or just chat. I'm not sure why, but it's possible that it's because the presence of a member of the PDT in the thread puts people who supported another ruling back into a more active debate mode rather than posting once less backlashy and leaving the thread. That's just a guess I've thought of.
It is company policy? Really? Is that in print somewhere? I do not disbelieve you and I'm not trying to come across as combative but that is news to me. If it is in print I would love to show it somewhere for all of the people I have spoke to that are mistaken. Also, as I pointed out before, the Roleplaying Guild Guide does not define who "campaign leadership" is. So it is entirely possible there are people mistaken about who that is.
Perhaps on the taking sides thing maybe it would be effective to pose things as a question to the community. I mean, from Developer's perspectives that is why you read the comments here, I'm sure. Maybe something like this:
So what happens if I have simultaneous spells? I step into an anti-magic cloud. I step out and now my Bracers of Aspect of the Falcon come back on at the same time as my crossbow's improved crit.How about I put on the bracers THEN pick up the crossbow? Isn't the crossbow the newest effect on me?
And the FAQ only states that the most recent spell takes precedent. What about non-spell effects? Which takes precedence or do you try to figure out stacking again?
*Me, roleplaying as a Dev*
Well, graystone, would you tell us how you think it SHOULD work in that scenario? We would like to consider your opinion to allow us to make a sound ruling as this does seem like a complicated situation to rule on.*end roleplay*
Then when you want to make an actual clarification you do it as the PDT account so it doesn't have your name tied specifically to it. That way the backlash isn't directed at "Mark" and it is less personal.
That's just an idea that I've thought of. ;P
Anything the PDT posts is Official. Anything a Designer or Developer posts is just them posting. I remember seeing where this was said but I didn't mark it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one place I remember seeing it from back when I was just another fan trying to figure out mounted charges (I'm even in there a few times as Rogue Eidolon, hehe).
Wow. I am slow on the uptake. I didn't realize that was you until just now.