Anyone know where they are? Can't seem to find them. I remember them saying that named bonuses didn't stack with themselves (except dodge and racial), but I can't seem to find that rule now.
That's an unreliable 3rd party site. Where is this mentioned on the official PRD site or in the book?
Wow. I have never heard anyone not refer to d20PFSRD as a valid resource.
Neither have I...
Anyway, I did a couple quick searches on the official PRD and found a reference to the information:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.html
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.
Here is one place where stacking is mentioned, but it is very general:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/gettingStarted.html#stacking
Here is another one which is also general:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/gettingStarted.html#bonus
and here is a table of all the bonus types (stacking is only mentioned in regard to dodge)
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/magic/designingSpells.html #bonus-types
Also, if you search for the word "stack" on the Combat page of the CRB in the online, you'll find all sorts of relevant mentions.
|
That's an unreliable 3rd party site. Where is this mentioned on the official PRD site or in the book?
Wow really? What in particular do you find unreliable? If there is anything that does not match the official rules please do let us know RD and one of the 200+ collaborators should have it fixed within moments.
@d20pfsrd.com
I find the site to be quite reliable, but I do have a request: Please have the designer take a look at making the site able to format well for mobile devices. I often use d20pfsrd.com on my computer, but on my phone, I have to avoid it, because it formats poorly, with some table items overlapping other table items, thus making the text of many rules get covered over by tables, or by navigation elements.
|
|
@Mabven the OP healer: We use Google Sites for hosting the site and while it offers an automatic "format for mobile devices" option its certainly not perfect. I have an HTC Evo 4g and the site seems to be acceptable on it. However, granted, its certainly not ideal or perfect. Sorry but that's about the best we can do given the technical structure we're using.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't call it unreliable exactly, but it's kind of like Wikipedia. It's usually right, but it could be wrong at any given point.
What it is is unofficial. Like Wikipedia it's fine to refer to as an easy to use and very extensive resource, but then it's best to confirm with official sources.
If one is looking for an official answer to begin with, I can see dismissing a reference to d20pfsrd and insisting on an official source (i.e. a rulebook page or link to the PRD).
I wouldn't call it unreliable exactly, but it's kind of like Wikipedia. It's usually right, but it could be wrong at any given point.
Honestly I've seen d20pfsrd updated with new content/rules changes released in official Paizo pdf's prior to when the official PRD has been updated. Not only is it easier to get to, navigate, and use, but it also includes a lot more information than the official PRD (links to errata, comments, etc.).
Not once have I ever considered using the official PRD over d20pfsrd.
|
|
@Talon Stormwarden: Oh I/we certainly do not call ourselves "official" though I think we'd all take a bit of umbrage at the suggestion of being "unreliable." I suppose if one were to use the definition you used then its not offensive, though said by itself it infers or implies a demonstrated history of unreliability or mistakes. I'd suggest that in most cases we're usually more "up to date" than the PRD itself in that we have errata posted often the same day as its available, not to mention adding clarifying statements and such from the developers. Anyway, sorry for the momentary threadjack, I just got a bit defensive when I saw RD call us "unreliable."
That is all :)
|
I wouldn't call it unreliable exactly, but it's kind of like Wikipedia. It's usually right, but it could be wrong at any given point.
What it is is unofficial. Like Wikipedia it's fine to refer to as an easy to use and very extensive resource, but then it's best to confirm with official sources.
If one is looking for an official answer to begin with, I can see dismissing a reference to d20pfsrd and insisting on an official source (i.e. a rulebook page or link to the PRD).
Its not like wikipedia. Not just anyone can edit the pages. I've also never found anything wrong beyond some formatting issues in paragraphs.
The only thing you can say about it is it isn't run by Paizo staff.
|
NO offense, but nothing is 100% reliable on the internet, even the PRD. Typos and mistakes happen all the time. I have been using d20pfsrd for years now and never had a question or problem. Even in this case, the answer could have been lifted from either source as it was the exact same verbage. I find d20pfsrd to be a better reference here because they gave the big break down of all the bonuses along with the rule whereas the PRD only stated the rule and moved on.
Ultimately I didn't take offense as to my reference being not what the OP wanted, but by the fact that he had an answer...the correct one...within in like 11 minutes and not even a "Thank you, but I prefer the PRD."
As I stated, if that is what you prefer....go to the link yourself. It has a search feature. Put some effort in to it and then you will be happy with the results because you did the work.
That's an unreliable 3rd party site. Where is this mentioned on the official PRD site or in the book?Wow really? What in particular do you find unreliable? If there is anything that does not match the official rules please do let us know RD and one of the 200+ collaborators should have it fixed within moments.
I've noticed that your 200+ collaborators like to reword things to better fit your own interpretations of the rules. Most often these are very MINOR changes to the wording (leaving the intent intact), but at times, they can have a sizable impact.
Said contributors also have a bad habit of making assumptions where the official rule falls short, and then presenting it as RAW fact.
I've seen more than one poster over the years (though admittedly not many) that have been lead astray due to your site, having posted rules quotes on these forums whose phrasing doesn't actually exist in the official rules. That makes already complex rules discussions on the RAW even more unlikely to reach a happy consensus.
Your contributors also re-arrange things, like in the above link to bonuses on your site. You took several different references to bonuses from all across the rule book, and put them in the same place. That's dangerous as it can potentially change the context of the rule.
Make no mistake, I DO find your site VERY useful, and am grateful it exists, but only for finding things that aren't in the PRD (like many campaign feats, magic items, and other character resources). For everything else though, I default to the PRD since it's (1) generally easier to find things and (2) is presented in the manner the developers wanted it to be without any of the above occasional problems.
Most of the d20's stuff is copied and pasted correctly. Having an occasional error is not what I would call unreliable.
The PRD does not have all the bonuses in one place.
I actually wish the core book did not have me skipping around the book to put together sentences to make one ruling. <--Not a fault in my eyes. I don't know how having it on separate pages make is better.
Years from now when PF2 comes out I will probably push hard for that.
The dodge bonus is in the combat chapter. As for other bonuses not stacking that information is for some reason in the magic chapter. The dodge bonus thing might be in the magic chapter also, but know it is in the combat chapter because I am looking at it.
I don't see anything giving a racial bonus an exception to the rule like dodge bonuses have so by default they don't stack, unless it is stated otherwise.
edit:Racial bonuses do stack, and so do some circumstance bonuses. It is in the magic chapter.
NO offense, but nothing is 100% reliable on the internet, even the PRD. Typos and mistakes happen all the time.
True. However, swap "on the internet" with "in print" and it's still true. That's why the 100% official Paizo core rules have errata.
I think d20PFSRD is about as good as it gets. I believe I did try using the feat database on that site recently and found it was missing stuff from either Ultimate Magic or the APG. Can't remember now which feat it was, though.
See Bonus, Core Rulebook page 11.
|
|
I don't want to get into a massive tit-for-tat with RD here but I feel compelled to respond anyway :(
I've noticed that your 200+ collaborators like to reword things to better fit your own interpretations of the rules. Most often these are very MINOR changes to the wording (leaving the intent intact), but at times, they can have a sizable impact.
To be clear, I personally review or write 99%+ of all changes such as you are describing. In virtually all cases if something is reworded a note is added explaining why it was changed and then recommending if the reader prefers the original wording to either purchase the printed product or find it in the PRD.
Said contributors also have a bad habit of making assumptions where the official rule falls short, and then presenting it as RAW fact.
If you have an example of such I'd like to see it so I can remove it.
I've seen more than one poster over the years (though admittedly not many) that have been lead astray due to your site, having posted rules quotes on these forums whose phrasing doesn't actually exist in the official rules. That makes already complex rules discussions on the RAW even more unlikely to reach a happy consensus.
Your contributors also re-arrange things, like in the above link to bonuses on your site. You took several different references to bonuses from all across the rule book, and put them in the same place. That's dangerous as it can potentially change the context of the rule.
Again, the "contributors" in this case are me, aka jreyst. I personally do the vast majority of the changes you mention. And in such cases as this one (the bonuses) they are scraped from the 200 different places they occur in the rules to be easily accessible from one spot. There are even many examples of specific rules that were left out of the core rules for various reasons that we had to go back to d20srd.org to retrieve. This is all done with the intent of making the rules easier to find/reference. I challenge you to prove that having all of the various bonus types in one location changes the context or makes things HARDER to find or understand.
Make no mistake, I DO find your site VERY useful, and am grateful it exists, but only for finding things that aren't in the PRD (like many campaign feats, magic items, and other character resources). For everything else though, I default to the PRD since it's (1) generally easier to find things and (2) is presented in the manner the developers wanted it to be without any of the above occasional problems.
I'm glad we can be of help to you then.
See Bonus, Core Rulebook page 11.
That was the first place I checked, but it didn't say anything about racial bonuses stacking.
I knew that they did, and have said as much many a time on these forums, but I was troubled by the fact that I could no longer find the reference for it.
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.
It is from the special spell effects section of the Core Rulebook (page 208 of my copy).