Bruno Scarpachi's page

Kalyth , please do not preach "intent". This ability has the capability of being done this way from first print to current print rules. It has gone from first print and first print errata to now second print. If you still believe "intent" after 3 prints have been done, then you need to step outside your box. I show you rules in print, you show me factless fantasy. Take intent else where.

Ok shar tahl, i have shown you how the ability does not give 1/4point each time you take it. Where is your information that contradicts mine?

Now before any flamers jump in here, the issue of the paladin. The human paladin gives a +1. This is not a plus one per level. This is a +1 just like a statistic modifier. A 12 str does not give you +20 dmg /attack over 20 levela. Now for the sorcerer, the sorcerer text staes you get to add 1 spell to your known chart. This is in effect the saem as a +1 str, it is not per level. Bard and barby are the same as the str and paladin as described here.

Ok deussu and sunset here is one for you:

After reading the second print rules many times that some was kind enough to post. The +1/4 as described in the half elf summoner section is clear. 1/4 in word form is " 1 point every 4 levels". Now the text for the half elf says +1/4. It does not say +1/4 pt. So as per the stacknig rules most of the people here say 1/4 plus 1/4 = 2/4. Now thats 2 points every 4 levels.NOT 2/4 pts. Even with the plus level and plus level taken out of the paladin text, The abilities still stack. Had the half elf been written +1/4 pt there would be no issue here.The plus to level in text format is irrelevant here because the level aspect is build into the fractional rate of increase.

This is obviously the way the devs wanted it. I do not see how they could have "misprinted again", or "they did not intend it that way in second print as well".

Aye, deussu and sunset each get a gold star.

@chris mortika... Thank you for sitting down and reading the posts and the books objectively. This forum is twice as long as it needs to be from the flamers and the ones who dont fully comprehened what im saying. In my first post , I even said this is broken, but its what the rules say.I also had in a previous post , that this was a warning cause rule mongers like me are going to push for this. And yet there are still people saying thing like "intended" and "common sense" and "insert anything but the rules in here". Now, even after we figured out the errata did not bring 1st print up to second print rules, morons are still arguing old points( because they are not reading all the posts objectively, and reading the books). And even with a 4 day post gap for me, they still argue and flame what they cannot comprehend. Flame all you want too, I dont care. The guys here who took the time to research and look at this objectively, saw what I was seeing. Those are the guys who get gold stars for critical logical thinking. The rest get frowny faces next to their names. This is the exact reason why I usually do not even touch message boards. People with no factual support,or lack of critcal thinking ability, resort to factless flaming when they do not understand or dont even try to understand something.

Shadowknight, man that brings back memories. Probably copyrighted though. The agonizing pain of a 60% exp penalty. Heh can we rename lizard man to Iksar as well?:P

No I really dont see how this is anymore broken than any other min/maxed character. Its a little harder in pathfinder , then "the other gaming system", but as more books come out and feats and prestige classes, this "broken " aspect will seem trivial. The newer combos are always better than the stuff in previous books.

Any character class can be built to be unkillable. Feats, gear, etc.

For example I just built a cleric for my GM to run against are party.
Lvl 15 with item creation feats and craft golem, and summon feats. He comes on the board with 5 lvl 15 skeletons and 2 flesh golems. And thanks to item creation he had some money left over to equip the skeletons with. Undead lord archtype helped. 1 lvl 15 character starts with 7 cr 7 creatures, and has feated out summoning ability with full CLR casting abilty. Now he can summon creatures and never break invis.Now if invis fails he falls back on his 41 ac vs med or bigger and 39 AC vs small.

Now the summoner when he has his pet out has the distance to hp penalty, as well as he cannot do his summon abilities. so all he is left with is his spells most of which are buffs.

I dont really think its a question of what i want. Its more of a question of the way its supposed to be. I can only speculate what or how a Dev thinks, and nor will I assume anything, However , what i do have is rules infront of me that they release for me to use. Printed rules are the only way i know what s dev is thinking.

The general view of most people is that the 2nd print overrides the 1st print errata.They are supposed to be the same, and they are not. I guess the true measure will be the second print errata. But for now yes 2nd print is not broken and seems more than fair with the rules printed in it.

Honestly as a player, what i think never matters. What does matter is the information the devs put out, as well as what GM's decide is OP.

Ogre, you are correct the text says to a DICE ROLL and summoners do not roll dice to figure evo points. the words "to a dice roll" or "to a roll" is stated more than once in that sentence, not 100% sure how people were overlooking that.

Aye deinol, i agree with your errata statement which is why the question. The errata changes nothing , and if "its the way it should be". Then 2nd print is in error.

"as per rules" dang dude fully read the first post or my second post

MDT the issue is not the core rule book its the apg , and pdf's we have are 1st print and errata to first print, now the other side we have 2nd prine which does not match the errata to the first print. So 1st print +errata does not = second print

wraithstrike read and fully understand the whole post before you flame

i understand what you are saying mdt

no it is a rule issue. 1st print rule did not get changed in the errata package, however second print is different. Errata is supposed to bring first print to 2nd print standards and it does not. so the question still stand which is the real rule.

The errata does not fix the cumulative stacking of the 1/2 summoner alternate favored class. There are 2 rules in the first print for stacking Alternative favor class bonuses. The first is the cumulative as per the paldin example of points stacking PER LEVEL. Second is the non cumulative as referenced by the rogue skill example. But here is where it gets tricky. The rogue example is for anything and everything that involves dice rolling.Summoners do not roll dice for evolution points. Therefor they apply there bonus as cumulative stacking as per the paladin example.

Now for a "As per rules game" - the errata does not change the stacking rules. However the second print does. They both are printed at the same time, and thus they both are most current print.

Which rules is one person supposed to follow?

1st print with errata or 2nd print?

This issue has come up in another forum. The errata and 2nd print conflict. They both are printed at same time and both have different rules(or lack thereof) for the same thing.They are both newest print,so which is the official way to do something?

This is not a thread for flaming people to say broken, blah blah blah.Or its not intended blah blah blah.
This is a thread to figure out which ruleset trumps the other.

DO NOT quote the PRD because the 3rd line specifically states it is NOT official.

This is brought up for a "as per rules" game that might take place.

If you choose to respond and use the words common sense, or no one would ever really play that way, do not even bother posting.
This is a straight up look at the rules as they are printed.

Should you be curious as to the root cause of this post, please do a search for my name in message boards, it is related to 1/2 elf summoner alterative favored class.

No there is a question of the current set of rules because the errata bring 1 print to second print standards and the errata does not change the ability.1st print with errata is just as good as second print. And they conflict.I do not see how second print trumps errata. Basically its a I have 2 printed books vs your 1 printed book and the errata is printed at same time 2nd print is released.

prd link - http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

3rd sentence from the top "This compendium is NOT the official Pathfinder Roleplaying Game!"
Do not quote PRD as being official in any manner.

First print says its uberstack. Errata does not fix.
Second print is the only thing out of whack, because it does not align with the errata. And the PRD as stated above is not a official source for rules. More than likely the second print is the error (not the first) because the errata does not fix the issue, and PRD was updated to match the error in second printing.

And that would be the assumption that the second printing is not an error

I agree sunset it doesnt really sound like we have a player issue here.......... ok so I need to go spend money and get a second print book cause my errata did not really bring me up to date... or i have to get internet so I can consult the PRD for officially rules changes. Oh wait changes that arent public yet, but they still count. That has to be the biggest load of garbage I have ever heard. Guess its time to burn some pathfinder stuff and never look back.

Ok so its official but not public? Its in the second printing but not the errata extension to the first printing?
Ok so the PRD is updated, but the books are not because they forgot to change it in the errata book to update people books to second print from first. So anyone with a first print and errata book is going to be in the same boat I am, unless the consult the PRD frequently. Yeah ok this is turning out to be the same Charlie-Foxtrot that the "other game company" did with 3.5 and shapechanging.

close sunset but not quite, i believe. 1/4 at level 1 is 1/4. lvl 2 would be 1/4+1/4=1/2. so 1/2 for 2 lvls is 1pt. I thiink im reading yours right and your new total is with previous amount subtracrted if im reading it right. I tried not to do it by individual level . I did it by every 4lvls bonus pts assesed for easy math. so at lvl 4 i got 4 bonus pt, and at 8 is 16 pts but i already recieved 4 pts so i would get a new 12 pts at lvl 8. I tried to stay away from the individual level,some people go fraction!!! and their brains melt.

Correct sunset this bonus does not aply to HP because when you level you first have to roll a dice to determine how many you get for your class.Then u select a alternate class feature , then you add your 1 bonus point.And only 1 point because it is a modifier of a dice roll.

Is there more than 1 version of the pdf book? i directy copy and pasted my pdf.

Thats the whole point to my post that everyone seems to be ignoring. The stacking rule the way you guys want to do it is for DICE ROLLS!!! The summoner DOES NOT roll a dice for evolution points!

Therefor he gets to stack as per the paladin example of: 10times =10 pts energy resistance PER LEVEL! 10pts/lvl x 10 levels=100 pts of energy resistance 10 10th, its cumulative.

Now the summoner: 1/4 pt x10=10/4=2.5ptsx 10 levels is 25 pts total bonus at 10th level.Yes it stacks this way as per the paladin example, because there is NO DICE ROLLING.
You guys keep saying it stacks the other way when the rule specifically states FOR DICE ROLLING! Please show me where the summoners rolls for evo points per lvl. You cant because they get 1-2 pts per level as a set progression. So the stacking rule you guys are trying to use is invalid because it is for dice rolls features only.

"Unless otherwise
noted, these benefits always stack with themselves. For
example, a human with paladin as a favored class may
choose to gain 1 point of energy resistance each time she
gains a level; choosing this benefit twice increases this
resistance bonus to 2 per level, 10 times raises it to 10 per
level, and so on." pg9 advanced book."Cumulative Rule".

Finally, some of these alternate favored class benefits
only add +1/2, +1/3, +1/4, or +1/6 to a roll (rather than +1)each time the benefit is selected; when applying this result
to the die roll, round down (minimum 0)." Single Stack Rule"

Now Hp's, skills, cmd,cmb,attack,dmg, mag dmg,SR, all use a DICE ROLL(DICE ROLL<-- important part) and therefor do not cumulative stack

Bard songs/day, barby rage/day, summoner evo pts,AC,energy resistance etc etc ALL do not use DICE.The single stack rule specifically says for bonuses applied to DICE ROLLS!AND these do not require a DICE ROLL( sorry for caps, not sure how to underline here).

Do not get hooked on the fraction. The fraction only tells you the rate of increase, it does not tell you which rule.The key here is the dice roll. I say again , the Rogue example rule is for dice rolls.

This is not a stretch, usually as a rule monger, I have to read between the lines. However this one is in plain text. Which threw me off for a bit.

golem 101: you got the calculation right. take the ability 4 times you get 1 point now factor the cumulative as per the paladin example, and you get 1pt/lvl, so at 4th level you would have a grand total of 4pts for this ability 4 times.At 8th level you would have 8/4=2 per lvl is 16 total bonus points - 4(from 4th lvl)=12 more bonus pts at 8th lvl

Sincerely,

Bruno "Leg Snapper" Scarpachi

I'm not sure of any errata, but....
As per print rules, when u select summoner as favored class for 1/2elf, technically you qualify for the cumulative rule.You actually recieve for 1/4pt per lvl x20= 5/level. after 20 levels it comes to 100 pts bonus on top of the 26 on the class table. for a grand total of 126 evolution points!
Why does this not stack like the gents above stated? Well mainly because the paragraph talking about the stacking, the way they say to do it, specifically states these rules are for dice rolling. Summoners do not roll dice for evo points, therefor their stacking rules for this ability are in line with the example of the paladin for the accumulative.
I dont know if these rules have been erratad or not, they should be. By the print rules bard and barby, could have 400+ rds of song/rage per day. As well a a ranger with dodge to favored enemy at 1/3 lvls, after 18 lvls he cummulative adds 108 dodge bonus to AC vs favored enemy.
Also dont forget just because a summoner pet cant wear armor.. doesnt mean it cant wear bracer of defense like a monk :D

Sincerely,

Bruno "Leg Snapper" Scarpachi