wraithstrike |
29 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The specific FAQ question is bolded at the bottom.
The entry in the APG says that "Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a "trait" bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack".
However, there are traits such as Ease of Faith which do not specifically call out a bonus given by a trait as a trait bonus.
Your mentor, the person who invested your faith in you from an early age, took steps to ensure that you understood that what powers your divine magic is no different than that which powers the magic of other religions. This philosophy makes it easier for you to interact with others who may not share your views. You gain a +1 bonus on Diplomacy checks, and Diplomacy is always a class skill for you.
Are we to assume that all bonuses given by a trait or trait bonuses unless specifically called out as untyped or another type of bonus?
Or, is a bonus given by a trait not a trait bonus unless it is specifically identified as a trait bonus in the rules text?wraithstrike |
I am of the opinion all traits default to being typed as a 'trait bonus' unless explicitly typed otherwise.
In the other thread Turin the Mad said it was bad editing, and I agree. Since most of them do call out a trait bonus
However, in order to avoid someone forgetting one word the author should just have to specifically call out the exception if Paizo takes "many" as the default method.
As a more general thing since people are getting more nitpicky about the rules stating when ____ is the default/standard may also need to be done at times.
wraithstrike |
For those who are wondering why I made this post it is because there was a thread on getting a caster to level 32, and a sub-topic came up about whether or not all trait bonuses were trait bonuses by default.
Going by the most literal reading of the rules all of them are not identified as trait bonuses, but the intent seems to be that they are according to various other post made on the site.
So I thought it was a good idea to go ahead and get a final answer.
Nefreet |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find this one to be a tough call.
There are a handful of Traits that provide non-"Trait" bonuses.
There are a handful of Traits that provide untyped bonuses.
And, as you quoted, "Many" (not "All") Traits provide "Trait" bonuses.
Some Traits even provide no Bonuses. Like the one that allows you to withdraw from two squares without provoking AoOs.
I'm leaning towards allowing the types or untypes as they lay.
But I wouldn't mind if there was a clarification. FAQ'd.
David knott 242 |
It has occurred to me that there could be an ugly rule writing issue if it is ruled that all bonuses granted by traits are trait bonuses unless otherwise specified. Currently, as best I can tell, the word "untyped" is never used by Paizo in their game rules. That means that, if at some future date they want to create a trait that explicitly grants an untyped bonus via that trait, they would have to add a rather wordy sentence like "This bonus is not a trait bonus and thus stacks with all other bonuses to <whatever>."
Nefreet |
Currently, as best I can tell, the word "untyped" is never used by Paizo in their game rules.
The word "untyped" exists in Pathfinder. It's mentioned at least in regards to the bonuses that Story Feats grant.
The section on Combining Magical Effects refers instead to "A bonus that doesn't have a type".
Gisher |
David knott 242 wrote:Currently, as best I can tell, the word "untyped" is never used by Paizo in their game rules.The word "untyped" exists in Pathfinder. It's mentioned at least in regards to the bonuses that Story Feats grant.
The section on Combining Magical Effects refers instead to "A bonus that doesn't have a type".
The Threefold Aspect spell description.
As enhancement bonuses, these stack with any bonuses or penalties you may have from your actual age (which are untyped bonuses)—the bonuses granted by this spell represent your idealized form in this threefold aspect rather than simply duplicating your ability scores at any one particular age.
CBDunkerson |
I don't think it makes sense to try to apply a single rule for all traits with unspecified bonus types.
Those that were released before the introduction of the 'trait' bonus type seem more likely to be 'trait' bonuses than those released afterwards.
Thus, I'd examine each unspecified trait bonus on its own to try to determine whether it is more likely to be a 'trait' or 'untyped' bonus.
Cevah |
Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a "trait" bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack—they're intended to give player characters a slight edge, not a secret backdoor way to focus all of a character's traits on one type of bonus and thus gain an unseemly advantage. It's certainly possible, for example, that somewhere down the line, a "Courageous" trait might be on the list of dwarf race traits, but just because this trait is on both the dwarf race traits list and the basic combat traits list doesn't mean you're any more brave if you choose both versions than if you choose only one.
As I wrote in the spawning thread:...
Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a "trait" bonus.
We know many bonus types: enhancement, circumstance, inherent, and so on. The bonus given by many of these are a new kind called "trait". There is no changing of the rule that a bonus that does not list a type is untyped.
Consider also that there are numerous traits that specify the bonus is a "trait" bonus while numerous others give no listed type. If the rule was unlisted became "trait", then why list "trait" in so many of them? That does not make sense, so the premise must be wrong.
Trait bonuses do not stack
Like most other bonuses, ones classed as "trait" bonuses do no stack. So a +1 trait added to a +1 trait is still only a +1 trait.
/cevah
dragonhunterq |
In principle traits are designed to be non-stacking, so I would rule that you should assume they are trait bonuses unless specifically stated otherwise.
Where it doesn't mention a type, contrary to my usual stance on similar matters, I would assume it is intended to be a trait bonus rather than an untyped bonus.
FAQ'd because it is not clear though.
wraithstrike |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I wrote in the spawning thread:...Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a "trait" bonus.
We know many bonus types: enhancement, circumstance, inherent, and so on. The bonus given by many of these are a new kind called "trait". There is no changing of the rule that a bonus that does not list a type is untyped....If the rule was unlisted became "trait", then why list "trait" in so many of them? That does not make sense, so the premise must be wrong.
/cevah
We all know this. The point of the thread is to know if not mentioning it is on purpose or an editing error. If they say ____ is the default then we know it was an error. If they say "trait" has to be mentioned then we know it was not an error, and that future traits that don't mention the "trait bonus" are also not an error.
Considering the many errors and unclear rules in the game it is not logical to assume the premise must be wrong...edit: If that logic held then haste would not have been errata'd to no longer say "held weapons" which by that wording meant it was not meant for natural attacks when it actually was.
Another example of this is that most rings that use command words say "on command", but the ring of invisibility does not. <--An FAQ will eventually show that also.
Cevah |
Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not "stack")—only the greater bonus granted applies.
Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a "trait" bonus.
Most bonuses have a type, and this can now include the type "trait". If they do not list a type, then they are not the type "trait".
This means that the default in the trait section is traits are type "trait" only if called out as "trait".
To default to something else, you break the rule about bonuses linked above. That means you must explicitly state the exception, since the general rule is clear.
Since this typing is used all over the game system, I can only assume the writers know of it. If the writers fail to adhere to the general rule's requirement of calling a trait bonus by explicitly calling it out, that is a failure at writing/editing, and not the rule.
/cevah
wraithstrike |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are speaking as if there is a 0% chance this is not an error. Maybe that is not what you meant to do, but that is how it comes across. To say there is a high chance they intended it is one thing. To speak as if there is no way there didn't get past the editors when so many other things have just makes no sense at all especially since the books are not written with the precision of a technical manual, and the number of FAQ's and erratas that have been done, to include the ones that need to be done right now.
I will admit that it could be possible, but to say "this can't not be an error because they didnt' do it this way with any other traits" is not something that makes sense to me. That is like saying they will never miss anything when it comes to a trait bonus, not even if they write 1000000000 books.
Also the wording the book could be read as:
"most bonus will be "trait bonuses" which equates to the bonus may or may not be a trait bonus.
It could also be read as:
"the function provided most of the time will be to give a trait bonus", which equates to "sometimes we will give you a trait bonus, but other times we may give you something else besides a trait bonus."
As an example there is a trait raises your CL when casting a certain spell. It is not a "bonus" though. Another example is the trait which lowers the cost of using metamagic when using a specific spell. This is also not a bonus.
Chess Pwn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to hold that Paizo meant what they said and said what they meant. I no longer hold this to be true. I have little idea if they purposely left things off or not.
Like take archetypes and the line "this changes/alters/replaces/modifies X" which is not needed to count as modifying. So clearly not having that line isn't intentional to allow it to stack. But investigators don't have the line about using wands and that was intentional.
David knott 242 |
I don't think it makes sense to try to apply a single rule for all traits with unspecified bonus types.
Those that were released before the introduction of the 'trait' bonus type seem more likely to be 'trait' bonuses than those released afterwards.
Thus, I'd examine each unspecified trait bonus on its own to try to determine whether it is more likely to be a 'trait' or 'untyped' bonus.
Then the cutoff date would be approximately August 2010, when the Advanced Player's Guide was published. I am not sure what the assumed rules would have been for any traits published before that date.
Cevah |
Many =/= Most.
Simplistic counting goes: One, Two, Many or One, Two, Three, Many, even if there are dozens or more.
Many is thus a non trivial amount, but does not carry the connotation of a majority. You can have many of several things in the same set. Each one is less than half, yet use the description of many.
Using Many are X to make the default X is thus incorrect, especially when there is already a general rule covering the situation.
As to saying there is zero chance of a mistake, that is clearly not the case:
If the writers fail to adhere to the general rule's requirement of calling a trait bonus by explicitly calling it out, that is a failure at writing/editing, and not the rule.
Can they make a mistake? Sure. Did they? I don't know.
Since we have a general rule, and no specific rule, I go by the general rule. This is RAW.
If they want to change the default type of bonus of a trait to "trait", then they need to make a special rule that overrides the general rule. Until they do, the default untyped trait is untyped.
/cevah
PS: I FAQed this before my first post.
PPS: Did you mistype the FAQ text? Perhaps you meant:
Are we to assume that all bonuses given by a trait are trait bonuses...
Drahliana Moonrunner |
The specific FAQ question is bolded at the bottom.
The entry in the APG says that "Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a "trait" bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack".
However, there are traits such as Ease of Faith which do not specifically call out a bonus given by a trait as a trait bonus.
Quote:Your mentor, the person who invested your faith in you from an early age, took steps to ensure that you understood that what powers your divine magic is no different than that which powers the magic of other religions. This philosophy makes it easier for you to interact with others who may not share your views. You gain a +1 bonus on Diplomacy checks, and Diplomacy is always a class skill for you.Are we to assume that all bonuses given by a trait or trait bonuses unless specifically called out as untyped or another type of bonus?
Or, is a bonus given by a trait not a trait bonus unless it is specifically identified as a trait bonus in the rules text?
If trait bonuses were meant to be stacked they'd be called out specifically as untyped.