Is there a definitive answer about dodge bonus stacking?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

10 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Is still the RAW reading of the rules "Dodge bonuses stack with other dodge bonuses even if they are from the same source" still correct with the exception of "offensive defense"?

So if a PG with outslug style makes two 5-foot steps (with an advancing weapon or in enother legal way) does she gets two times the dodge bonus?

Am I missing any rule update?


I cannot find the rule that says "even if they are from the same source". Could you provide it?

The closest I have is the "Common Terms" page on the PFSRD that says "Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC, even other dodge bonuses."


Ok, the problem arises from the rules wording:

"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."

From this we have that bonuses do not stack with the exception of "dodge", "circumstance", "racial" and "un-named/without a type".
Then it is specified that bonuses without a type and circumstance bonuses do not stack with the same source ("Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source." / "Circumstance bonuses stack with all other bonuses, including other circumstance bonuses, unless they arise from essentially the same source.")

This leaves two types of bonuses that stack with each other even if they are from the same source.

To prove that in the "offenive defense" (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9p1m) errata the designer team said that this is "creates a strange place in the rules where bonuses don’t stack from the same source but dodge bonuses always stack".

Before this piece of errata my reading of dodge bonus rules was "Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC, even other dodge bonuses." stress on OTHER.

I really wish they said in the general ruling that no bonus from the same source stacks.


Indeed, there is no ruling (that I know of). The Offensive Defense FAQ acknowledges the problem, even though they get the exact rules wrong, says they are working on it, and gives a potential errata - but it does not actually answer the question or change anything. The FAQ literally does nothing.

Since the FAQ doesn't actually give any ruling ("working on it" for three years - way to go, Paizo!), the CRB rules on stacking (which, as you said, only prevent stacking due to same source for untyped bonuses and circumstance bonuses) is still valid. The "non stacking for same source" rule isn't permissive but restrictive and therefor only applies to what it mentions.

Yes, they could have prevented the whole mess, but the CRB is chock full of overly narrow wording. Also, the whole thing has absoluty no right be in the magic chapter of the rules.

They could simply change
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.

to
The same principle applies to penalties—a
character taking two or more penalties of the same type
applies only the worst one. Bonuses and penalties
without a type generally stack. Unless otherwise noted,
bonuses and penalties from the same source never stack.

They wouldn't even have the change the formatting.


I was about to ask the same question.
But looking at your FAQ source it suggests techically Dodge Bonuses do statc, even when they are from the same source. But the rules team is probably going to officially rule they don't.

Which would rather leave it up to GM/Players whether to use the rule that is likely to be or use it as it technically is.


Definitive answer? No.

But I would strongly suggest that the final reading be:
All dodge bonuses stack, except in the case of bonuses from the same source (which never stack, regardless of dodge bonus or other type of bonus).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"But the rules team is probably going to officially rule they don't"
I really do not know, it is a, like Derklord said, three years old question with a simple answer and there is still no official statement covering the issue, unlike I was hoping.

@Claxon yea, I just see this like you do. But one thing is imposing MY authoritah on the table and another thing is saying rules say so.


I mean, the general rules are:

1) Bonuses of the same source never stack

2) Dodge bonuses always stack

These are two separate rules, but creates the point of contention that we don't know what we should do with dodge bonuses from the same source.

The easiest thing (and the obviously intended thing) and the only way that doesn't create more rules contradictions, is that you say "dodge bonuses always stack, except from the same source."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And yes, this is exactly my view on the point.
But the designer team with the "offenive defense" FAQ make clear that the fact that dodge bonuses from various proc of offensive defense do not stack is an EXCEPTION to the general rule.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amage wrote:

And yes, this is exactly my view on the point.

But the designer team with the "offenive defense" FAQ make clear that the fact that dodge bonuses from various proc of offensive defense do not stack is an EXCEPTION to the general rule.

I read it as an exception to the general rule that "dodge bonuses always stack". Not implying that there is a general rule that 'dodge bonuses usually stack even with themselves... except for Offensive Defense'.

Basically, to me, Offensive Defense seems to confirm that 'dodge bonuses always stack, except with themselves' is the correct rule.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In case you want some specific rules about dodge bonuses, there are a few places you can look.

Combat Chapter, page 179 wrote:
Dodge Bonuses: Dodge bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other.
Magic Chapter, Bonus Types, page 208 wrote:
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).

My reading of the FAQ is basically that Offensive Defense is an exception to the dodge stacking rule. I don't see that as that big of a precedent, though. I can't think of any other instances where it would be possible to stack up dodge bonuses from the same source.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amage wrote:
So if a PG with outslug style makes two 5-foot steps (with an advancing weapon or in enother legal way) does she gets two times the dodge bonus?

The FAQ clarifies that when they changed it from circumstance to dodge, they left out additional words that would clarify anomalies like this.

They were also aware of the interesting rules disagreements. Nothing stacks with itself. Dodge bonuses always stack. Which rule wins.

In general, any rule with a dodge bonus should answer that question and this rule will be answered in errata. The current thinking is that it only applies to the attacked target and doesn't stack with itself.


Claxon wrote:

I mean, the general rules are:

1) Bonuses of the same source never stack

2) Dodge bonuses always stack

These are two separate rules, but creates the point of contention that we don't know what we should do with dodge bonuses from the same source.

The easiest thing (and the obviously intended thing) and the only way that doesn't create more rules contradictions, is that you say "dodge bonuses always stack, except from the same source."

Yeah, just acknowledge that the "source" rule is more specific, essentially. I don't honestly think the intent is particularly unclear. But ambiguous wording leads to uncertainty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

I mean, the general rules are:

1) Bonuses of the same source never stack

There is no rule that says this. That's the whole source of the problem. There's a rules that untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack, and a rule that bonuses form multiple instances of the same spell never stack. There's a rule that circumstance bonuses from the same source don't stack on d20pfsrd.com, but I can't find it in the CRB. I think that's copied from the 3.5 SRD and thus not actually true for Pathfinder.

There isn't actually anything unclear, because there is no rule text that can be interpreted to mean that dodge bonuses from the same source don't stack.

To prevent any misunderstanding, I don't think that dodge bonuses form the same source should stack. It's obviously an oversight. But RAW, they do.

@donato: Amage gave an example, Outslug Style if you can somehow make two 5-foot steps in a single round.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It gets worse when you realize that they ruled that Defender bonuses have the language 'stack with all other bonuses', and so stack with other Defender bonuses!

==Aelryinth


Actually, there is an FAQ that says that bonuses from the same source don't stack, which became clear when people were using Oracle Paladin multiclass to get Charisma to saves multiple times or something like that. It was at that time that they clarified what sources were and that things from the same source never stacked.

I will try to find the FAQ.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Claxon, that ruling is directed at stats. I.e. two abilities that grant Charisma to saves do not stack, unless they grant different bonuses (i.e. one typeless, one a resistance bonus).

The Defender ruling just irked me.

==Aelryinth


I was responding to Derklord, not you Aelryinth.

The ruling I agree is directed at stat based bonuses, and establishes stats as a source of a bonus if untyped but the way it's written also establishes (IMO) that you cannot have two bonuses from the same source, regardless of other considerations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Claxon, that ruling is directed at stats. I.e. two abilities that grant Charisma to saves do not stack, unless they grant different bonuses (i.e. one typeless, one a resistance bonus).

The Defender ruling just irked me.

==Aelryinth

Sure, but when taken in conjunction with the rest of the rules (untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack, enhancements from gear don't stack with similar enhancements, multiple instances of a spell don't stack, etc.), the general trend becomes pretty clear: things don't stack with themselves unless you're explicitly told otherwise.

FAQ wrote:
No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking.
FAQ wrote:
Generally, effects do not stack if they are from the same source (Core Rulebook page 208, Combining Magical Effects). Although temporary hit points are not a "bonus," the principle still applies.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

ehhhh couldn't find the ruling where they ruled Defender as an exception and it stacked.

anyone got better search fu then me?

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

Actually, there is an FAQ that says that bonuses from the same source don't stack, which became clear when people were using Oracle Paladin multiclass to get Charisma to saves multiple times or something like that. It was at that time that they clarified what sources were and that things from the same source never stacked.

I will try to find the FAQ.

You mean this FAQ. But that FAQ does not say that bonuses from the same source never stack - it only references the bonus type rules, it doesn't alter them.

Indeed, the way I see it, all the FAQ does is state that the source of these (no bonus type given, therefor per definition untyped) bonuses is not the class feature or the like, but rather the ability score itself. From that point on, the existing rules prevent the stacking.

I do agree that both that FAQ and the FAQ on Offensive Defense act like there was a general rule that bonuses from the same source don't stack. That does not mean there is.

@fretgod99: The second FAQ is really really problematic. There are two possible ways to interpret this FAQ: Either the FAQ references a rule that does not exist. Which means that the FAQ answers the question because of the first two letters, and those two letters alone, with a reasoning that's not compatible with the rules. At this point, the "FAQs only apply to the question given and nothing else" doctrine kicks and the question in this thread is still unanswered.
Or, since the FAQ references a ruleset that only applies to effect of spells, temporary HP from a single non spell (or magical) source do stack, even with this FAQ. The referenced "Combining Magical Effects" rules applies to "Spells or magical effects", which I think would include the supernatural Energy Drain ability used as an example.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
rule that circumstance bonuses from the same source don't stack on d20pfsrd.com, but I can't find it in the CRB. I think that's copied from the 3.5 SRD and thus not actually true for Pathfinder.
Core p208 wrote:

two bonuses of the same type don’t

generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses
Aelryinth wrote:
It gets worse when you realize that they ruled that Defender bonuses have the language 'stack with all other bonuses', and so stack with other Defender bonuses!

Without answering that question (and I know the answer will be they don't stack), you wouldn't be able to have two since you'd need to attack with two every time.

In general the spell and magic effects rules prohibit the same source stacking. Most forum posters would prefer it spelled out more clearly, but they answer FAQ in general with the mindset that same source never stacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All I'm saying is that the PDT appears to follow the general principle that things from the same source do not stack, unless you are specifically told otherwise. The example FAQs simply support the general proposition. I'm not saying they actually address this specific scenario.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ James Risner: Er, why are you quoting the CRB? What you quoted only says that circumstance bonuses from the same source do stack.

And yes, defending weapons stack with each other if you are TWF, but that's from a different problem: "as a bonus that stacks with all others" is simply a stupid wording. The weapon could have said "As a free action at start of his turn, a wielder of a defending weapon can lower the weapon's enhancement bonus until his next turn. When he makes an attack roll with the defending weapon, he gains a bonus to his AC of an equal amount until his next turn. This ability can only be placed on melee weapons." That way it would be an untyped bonus and stack with everything but itself. Seriously writer, this isn't Start Trek. You don't have to explicitly state that you transfer energy from the weapons to the shields!

Note that I don't disagree with you two - the PDT guys probably think that there's a general rule against same source stacking. But unless they actually make one, there is none.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:

. But unless they actually make one, there is none.

Well, considering they believe there is a rule. The rules is in combining effects. It doesn't matter if others believe it exists, it becomes RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You mean the "Combining Magic Effects" rules they reference in the Temporary HP FAQ? That one only applies to Spells or magical effects. The "Stackign Effects" part explicitly in that rules section refers to the other rules (the "Bonus Types" part of "Special Spell Effects" on the same page) for non-spell effects.

Also, if a writer gets the rules wrong, the rules don't change. Drinking potions isn't suddenly a move action just because whoever wrote that part of Inner Sea Gods screwed up the normal text for Potion Glutton.

The way FAQs work, the PDT has to actually say that they change the stacking rules. As long as they don't do that, the text in the CRB is the only general rule regarding this topic.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Derklord wrote:
The way FAQs work, the PDT has to actually say that they change the stacking rules. As long as they don't do that, the text in the CRB is the only general rule regarding this topic.

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the stacking they refer to doesn't matter because they don't say they are changing the rules?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. I'm saying the stacking rules they refere to don't matter for this thread's topic because they only apply to spells.

Let me gather the facts to make this clear:
- The Temporary HP FAQ doesn't try to change any rules (nor does the Offensive Defense FAQ).
- The FAQ refers to the "Combining Magic Effects" rules (*1), which only apply to spells.
- For non-spell effects, these (*1) rules refer to the "Bonus Types" part of "Special Spell Effects" rules (*2).
- These (*2) rules basically say two seperate things:
-- 1. Multiple bonuses of the same type dont stack, with the exception of dodge, race and circumstance bonuses.
-- 2. Untyped bonuses always stack (unless specifically noted), exept those from the same source.
From these facts, I draw the conclusion that the FAQ has no effect on the topic of stacking dodge bonuses from the same source. In order to have an effect, a FAQ would require to explicitly change the (*2) rules.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
No. I'm saying the stacking rules they refere to don't matter for this thread's topic because they only apply to spells.

if you believe that, expect table variance and know that you are not of the same mindset of the developers. So in effect, you are not following the rules as written. At least how we know they rules are supposed to be interpreted.


James Risner wrote:
if you believe that, expect table variance and know that you are not of the same mindset of the developers. So in effect, you are not following the rules as written. At least how we know they rules are supposed to be interpreted.

This... this isn't what RAW means. If it's not written, it's not RAW.

Man, I'd forgotten - if I have time, I have to go find those other threads, now, from a few days ago and respond from that time I just got busy and forgot. Sorry, for leaving off like that in the other thread - I'd totally forgotten about it until now.

I would agree that it might lend itself to the weight of RAW (i.e. there's lots of circumstantial evidence that points to this), and is a valid presumption of RAI from that, but the original FAQ linked suggests against that very interpretation.

"Mindset" =/= RAW, it equals RAI.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

RAW does not mean "to the letter of..." and RAI does merit some influence when there is an instance that would clarify the rule in question.

To be fair, one has to take into account the way the rules are written and how it interacts with the rest of the game. It is likely, as intended, that Dodge bonuses to AC do not stack when from the same source, even though they do stack otherwise.

Liberty's Edge

James Risner wrote:
Derklord wrote:
No. I'm saying the stacking rules they refere to don't matter for this thread's topic because they only apply to spells.

if you believe that, expect table variance and know that you are not of the same mindset of the developers. So in effect, you are not following the rules as written. At least how we know they rules are supposed to be interpreted.

Hooray Risner! I think you have the correct interpretation.


thaX wrote:
RAW does not mean "to the letter of..."

It... it actually does. Literally.

thaX wrote:
and RAI does merit some influence when there is an instance that would clarify the rule in question.

This I grant.

This doesn't always follow as the best way to make decisions, but in some cases, it's a good idea.

In this case, there's enough doubt caused by the very FAQ that hypothetically addresses the same issue as is being discussed, as it definitively implies that such dodge bonuses do stack.

That said, it's to be expected that people read it differently - and there's nothing wrong with that.

thaX wrote:
To be fair, one has to take into account the way the rules are written and how it interacts with the rest of the game. It is likely, as intended, that Dodge bonuses to AC do not stack when from the same source, even though they do stack otherwise.

This is more along the lines of what I was talking about - the weight of RAW can often point either to the RAI or the RAtT (Rules According to Tendencies) or the RAU (Rules As Understood {by the developers}).

Those are all things that are exceptionally valid elements to base concepts and gameplay on - but it should be clarified that they are what they are, instead of what is written; by doing so, you validate more people and more styles - making the game inclusive and allowing playstyles other than your own to hold equal weight.

To be clear, I'd probably not really run or interpret it as Dodge bonuses stacking - but I recognize the difference between my understanding and the text. This is an important skill, as it applies to things substantially beyond the rules of a game, as well.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
This... this isn't what RAW means. If it's not written, it's not RAW.

If your RAW doesn't match your GM and/or Paizo's interpretation, then adjust your interpretation. Otherwise you are using a house rule and calling it your RAW interpretation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
This... this isn't what RAW means. If it's not written, it's not RAW.
If your RAW doesn't match your GM and/or Paizo's interpretation, then adjust your interpretation. Otherwise you are using a house rule and calling it your RAW interpretation.

Not true, it just means that the GM and/or Paizo' is using unwritten rules to come up with their interpretation. If anything is a houserule, it's things that step outside the rules as written to come to a conclusion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
This... this isn't what RAW means. If it's not written, it's not RAW.
If your RAW doesn't match your GM and/or Paizo's interpretation, then adjust your interpretation. Otherwise you are using a house rule and calling it your RAW interpretation.

As previously discussed, this isn't necessarily true (though it could be).

RAW is what is written. If what is written can be taken in more ways than one, so be it - RAW, the , is subject to variation. Sometimes the RAI can be considered clear, sometimes it cannot be. Sometimes the RAI matches the RAW and sometimes it does not.

As a perfect example of this: do you recall the feat Prone Shooter? Though it has subsequently been fixed, when first released, it did nothing... and there was no way to derive its current abilities from that original. There was RAW, there was RAI, and these things vastly diverged - to the point where it was questionable if the author knew the rules they were creating a feat for*. Was RAI even compatible, not just with the specific rules, but with any of them?

Beyond that, the developers are not a monolith - they have disagreements and play things differently from their own printed products.

As a fine example, I'm going to point to James Jacobs. He has noted that, for the most part, he doesn't have house rules anymore... because most of his house rules made it into the actual rules. But... he does still tweak things; as an example he mentioned, breath of life is, in his game, cure deadly wounds - a change made so that clerics can spontaneously cast it (and, I presume, though I think he didn't mention, oracles automatically receive it).

So again... which RAI are we following? Whose concepts? Are we limiting it to the PDT? Not a bad idea... accept they change their mind in more than a few cases, and done so on the same issue on occasion, more than once (I am not saying this is a bad thing, but noting that it occurs). Remeber SLA entry qualification? That was noted as being probationary while they examined it - and was, eventually changed. This isn't a bad thing, but championing their RAI means championing how it is felt currently, and, like pretty much any human, they are prone to change their mind on things - even important things. They make mistakes - even large ones. They make statements that directly contradict the rules. Those statements aren't RAW - and that's okay. That their RAI isn't RAW is also okay. Coming up with a house rules to cover gaps or tweak to desired taste, or interpreting ambiguous RAW differently from anyone else is okay - and necessary. But it should be noted.

And in this case, the linked FAQ does not necessarily put any ambiguity to rest. Could be that the RAI is clear. Could be that it's not. Could be that English is a deceptive beast that does it's best to point and get you to look in one direction, then sucker-punch you when you do ('cause English totally does that... metaphorically).

But if we say, "RAW doesn't mean what is written" we are effectively saying "word don't mean what they literally, actually, factually do mean" in which case we don't need the books at all, because we're now going off of opinions... which are awesome! ... just not the written rules.

If a GM comes up with something - even something backed up by developer posts - that differs from the RAW, that thing is a house rule. Abide by it, or respectfully disagree (and discuss so long as it's not haranguing), or play in a different game, sure - but it is not automatically valid RAW due to being a GM's take.

More, it's not automatically RAW due to being a developer's take: that's why they've stated that it's not a rule, no matter who's posting; it's only in the FAQ and erratas.

* For the record, it seems was Ross Byers who wrote the original. What he wrote and turned in did not match what was published: somewhere along the editing process a feat that granted bonuses was turned into a feat that took away penalties that didn't exist. Which, of course, begs the question: who's RAI should we be following?

EDIT: Urg. Phone autocorrect and accidental submission prior to completion (or, in one case, ADD making me forget/drop a line entirely - and EDIT 2: 'dat word choice was awful! And not what I meant! Arg!) makes it look like I'm saying something other than what I am. Blarg. Read mind, dang it! ;D

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
If your RAW doesn't match your GM and/or Paizo's interpretation, then adjust your interpretation.
Not true, it just means that the GM and/or Paizo' is using unwritten rules

Unwritten rules is a forum created complaint. It actually means that some forum posters would rather assert that there is no way to read the rule the way the designers do. I'm someone who also frequently reads the rules the way they do. I'm rarely ever on the wrong side of the FAQ answers and I don't have an inside track to the "unwritten" rules as you say. I simply understand the game and can often predict the meaning of a debated rule. I'm not alone in this skill. The majority of players and GM's I've seen possess this ability.

Tacticslion wrote:

As previously discussed, this isn't necessarily true (though it could be).

RAW is what is written. If what is written can be taken in more ways than one, so be it - RAW, the , is subject to variation.

If you are willing to accept, in this case, that RAW allows me to reject stacking dodge bonuses from the same source due to the stacking rules. Then sure, we can call it RAW.

If you assert that by RAW they can only be interpreted to stack, then I'll say your not using RAW but some "only my interpretation matters" slanted house rule.

Which is it?

I ignored a lot of that post that involved actual house rules (Breath of Life -> Cure Biggie Wounds, Prone Shooter, etc) since they didn't involve a rule that means something and wasn't changed after a FAQ. Which is the root of this thread (a request to have the writing changed when the developers believe it is clear as is.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

A FAQ usually is a clarification of a rule. There are some that are N.E.R.F.s {tm} and others that sometimes limit something that didn't seem to have a limit before, but most are just clarifying what the rule actually is, or how it should be effected.

Now, I fully understand one's take that FAQ's and Errata makes a particular rule something it was not before, or into something else that seems anathema to how it was. The Stealth Rules went through a lot of change before the current (sixth printing) phrasing. The main point of each is to clarify particulars and clear up muddled phrasing from a variety of issues, from editing woes to unforeseen interactions.

Whatever the case, the rules themselves stay relatively the same.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
If your RAW doesn't match your GM and/or Paizo's interpretation, then adjust your interpretation.
graystone wrote:
Not true, it just means that the GM and/or Paizo' is using unwritten rules
James Risner wrote:
Unwritten rules is a forum created complaint. It actually means that some forum posters would rather assert that there is no way to read the rule the way the designers do. I'm someone who also frequently reads the rules the way they do. I'm rarely ever on the wrong side of the FAQ answers and I don't have an inside track to the "unwritten" rules as you say. I simply understand the game and can often predict the meaning of a debated rule. I'm not alone in this skill. The majority of players and GM's I've seen possess this ability.

It's still a legitimate complaint - and it definitely wasn't forum-created, as I'd heard of it in other contexts from those who perused magazines long before I (or they) ever joined in such discussions.

It, then, is less a "skill" (though it can be a skill - a skill to translate an alien pattern of thinking), and more a way of thought.

The notion that anyone happens to always come down on the "right" side is, thus, always right is flawed and speaks of hubris - they may well be, and might have a track record thereof, but, barring some unusual psychic power or control over the dev team, there is no way to continually guarantee correctness.

Tacticslion wrote:

As previously discussed, this isn't necessarily true (though it could be).

RAW is what is written. If what is written can be taken in more ways than one, so be it - RAW, the , is subject to variation.

James Risner wrote:

If you are willing to accept, in this case, that RAW allows me to reject stacking dodge bonuses from the same source due to the stacking rules. Then sure, we can call it RAW.

If you assert that by RAW they can only be interpreted to stack, then I'll say your not using RAW but some "only my interpretation matters" slanted house rule.

Which is it?

That is literally exactly what I said.

me wrote:
RAW is what is written. If what is written can be taken in more ways than one, so be it - RAW, the , is subject to variation. Sometimes the RAI can be considered clear, sometimes it cannot be. Sometimes the RAI matches the RAW and sometimes it does not.

[sic]

Bold added, now, for emphasis.

Hey, let me quote myself from the post before that, too:

me, again wrote:

In this case, there's enough doubt caused by the very FAQ that hypothetically addresses the same issue as is being discussed, as it definitively implies that such dodge bonuses do stack.

That said, it's to be expected that people read it differently - and there's nothing wrong with that.
<snip>

To be clear, I'd probably not really run or interpret it as Dodge bonuses stacking - but I recognize the difference between my understanding and the text. This is an important skill, as it applies to things substantially beyond the rules of a game, as well.

See? There's a difference between the way I choose (voluntarily) to interpret things and what it says in the text itself. Those are different. I base my interpretation off the text, and weigh it within the context of the rest of it, but then I make my decision - and that decision is not the text.

That's the point: RAW is, on occasion, ambiguous, because English is ambiguous as a language - sometimes even and sometimes especially when you try to avoid that thing.

English does that. It creates tricks and deceptions, and, on occasion, creates vagueness where specificity is intended. This is actually a pretty cool thing about our language - and it's one of the reasons lawyers are so often successful in arguing cases in two, mutually contradictory ways.

But look here.

The FAQ wrote:

One, in the first printing it provided a +1 circumstance bonus against the attacked target, which was a very weak ability. The second printing update changed it from a circumstance bonus to a dodge bonus, but accidentally omitted the “against that creature” text, which made it a very strong ability.

Two, it doesn’t specify whether the dodge bonus stacks with itself, and because this creates a strange place in the rules where bonuses don’t stack from the same source but dodge bonuses always stack. While we haven’t reached a final decision on what to do about this talent, we are leaning toward this solution: the dodge bonus only applies against the creature you sneak attacked, and the dodge bonus does not stack with itself. This prevents you from getting a dodge bonus to AC against a strong creature by sneak attacking a weak creature, and prevents you from reaching an absurdly high AC by sneak attacking multiple times in the same round.

See that first bold part? Two rules. They conflict. They are presented as absolutes by the Devs themselves. That means the Devs - the people who are being talked about in third person, to whom all of our back-and-forths are comparing ourselves and our opinions to their own - state that they recognize that there is a conflict within the RAW.

That second bold part indicates the way the RAI - or at least the current RAU or RAtT-apparent (to them) - "leans"... which is vague term that has the same authority of, "Yeah, this sounds kind of legit, I guess, for now." does.

It's the same kind of ambiguous "maybe" languages used in the SLA-as-prerequisites FAQ I references - "this is our current solution, but it might be subject to change, if we realize there's a problem" - i.e. the Dev team hasn't come down definitively one way or the other, even though they kind of think the listed suggestion is a good one.
I'll go on record as noting, by the way, that this is one of the best FAQs I've ever seen out of them. "This is the way it looks to us; this is what we'd do, though this is what's written, which is different." is about the most honest and clear thing any of them could do. It's pretty perfect over-all.

This is their RAW - this is what they've written, and they've been very explicit about their own intent (that it was, prior to this FAQ, absolute and unyielding, but as of this FAQ, maybe not so much, perhaps, they're kind of sort of thinking, for now).

So, yeah, interpret away. You have the RAW (that two, mutually exclusive things are correct) and the RAI (go with this one).

James Risner wrote:
I ignored a lot of that post that involved actual house rules (Breath of Life -> Cure Biggie Wounds, Prone Shooter, etc) since they didn't involve a rule that means something and wasn't changed after a FAQ. Which is the root of this thread (a request to have the writing changed when the developers believe it is clear as is.)

(Aside: Cure Biggie Wounds would be a hilariously awesome spell. I want that, now.)

By ignoring the rest of the post, you're purposefully ignoring the point of the debate (the equivalent of shutting ears and going, "Nope - can't hear you.") because it applies to the arguments you've put forth about being on the side of the Devs.

This is a FAQ request, yes, and that's not what we're talking about.

James Risner wrote:
Well, considering they believe there is a rule. The rules is in combining effects. It doesn't matter if others believe it exists, it becomes RAW.

This is demonstrably untrue.

What it's talking about is the difference between RAW and RAI.

James Jacobs generally considers the RAW the equivalent of his house rules... but he still has them, as a GM, meaning they don't quite perfectly align with his intent or desires. The Dev team argues that "As written, it looks like <a> and <b>, but we're going to lean <a> instead, ignoring the RAW <b>." and change their mind, and incorporate rules elements that have never been written and had zero weight prior to a particular FAQ/errata (and are demonstrably different than in previous editions, published works, or art - three things that are often cited as sources for similar decisions). When Sean K. Reynolds was here, he was an official spokesmen for Paizo on the forums, and had a loooooooooonnnnnnnnng thread (in which I participated) about how the diamond component cost for the various raise dead/resurrection things were entirely unnecessary. That was his RAI, even though in conflicted with RAW in a pretty major way. He has a (pretty great) blog entry that talks, at-length, about how and why keen and improved critical can and should stack. I had a fun, short PM-conversation with a staff member who'd managed to get a weapon's critical range down to something like 13-20... something that is impossible by the current tendencies and understandings of the current rules (which he mentioned to me).

I've argued "weight of RAW" myself before, and I generally stand by that - this is the RAtT, i.e. the rules tend to go in <X> direction, so <X> is probably the direction they meant in cases of ambiguity" -, but it's important to note the difference between "weight of RAW" (that is RAtT, or Rules According to Tendencies) and actual "RAW" - because the former is a well-educated guess that is (occasionally) bucked by the PDT or seem irreconcilable (hence FAQs), but the latter is definitive... but sometimes bucked by the PDT (hence errata).

I'm not arguing that anyone is wrong to choose to interpret things in a given way... I'm arguing the opposite. Within the direct statements of the rules themselves, if something is said, it is RAW - but sometimes in reading it, you may logically deduce two (or more) sometimes-mutually-exclusive interpretations.

Table variance arises from this.

As another example: over the course of a semester, I took an online English test for a professor of mine. As I was looking at the question, something struck me... I had no idea what he was actually asking. He'd written questions, and they were sensible sentences, but each of them could have been asking me almost a half a dozen different things, to which you'd have a lot of different answers. As it was timed, I didn't really have the chance to write all the possible answers to the test. So I did my best, and made little notes under it, clarifying that this was one interpretation of the question, but there were also <X> and <Y> and "agh, I'm being timed!" and so on, and it led to interesting conversations, later. Turns out, I wasn't the only one in that course who'd had a similar experience. The professor certainly thought it was clear - and it was, in hindsight, when he explained his logic, and many even took it exactly correctly... but others took it incorrectly (answering the "wrong" question) or couldn't fathom what, exactly, he was asking, even though he was using plain English. This is a perfect example of how language is contextual to various people in various ways - we'd all talked with the guy, spend a semester with the guy, and done well by him - most of us understood him quite well in-person, and had followed the lessons. Those questions just completely flummoxed a few of us, though, 'cause... English (and language in general).

EDIT: fixed a coding issue; blarg, dyslexia suuuuuuucks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Unwritten rules is a forum created complaint. It actually means that some forum posters would rather assert that there is no way to read the rule the way the designers do. I'm someone who also frequently reads the rules the way they do. I'm rarely ever on the wrong side of the FAQ answers and I don't have an inside track to the "unwritten" rules as you say. I simply understand the game and can often predict the meaning of a debated rule. I'm not alone in this skill. The majority of players and GM's I've seen possess this ability.

That is 100% incorrect as the member of the PDT himself said that the rules they where using where unwritten. It was brought out in the 'hands of effort' FAQ thread.

Secondly, the designers aren't always right. I recall a protracted debate I had with Baker, the creator of eberron. We had a LONG back and forth until I got him to understand his entire debate hinged on a house-rule he'd had in place SO long he'd forgotten it wasn't an actual rule. He'd built the entire setting based on his faulty memory of RAW which meant things didn't actually work the way he thought because he never wrote the rule changes needed to make everything work that way into print. Human error is a thing.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

That's the point: RAW is, on occasion, ambiguous, because English is ambiguous as a language - sometimes even and sometimes especially when you try to avoid that thing.

What it's talking about is the difference between RAW and RAI.
I'm not arguing that anyone is wrong to choose to interpret things in a given way... I'm arguing the opposite.

That was a wonderfully funny and helpful post. Thank you. I especially like the humorous words video.

Now, it seems we have nearly identical views on everything related to this.

I agree that RAW isn't one time, but many interpretations. Especially enhanced when humorous words or even more specific words are used. More straight forward thing have less interpretations, often just one. Like Longsword deals 1d8 if made for Medium.

I don't like to see a person assert that they are in possession of the only way to interpret a rule, especially one with an existing FAQ.

I believe I witness this when I seem someone point to a FAQ that references a rule and someone asserts there is no such rule. This is often done by saying the FAQ is bad, wrong, using a house rule, using an unwritten rule, dumb, stupid, or just bad. This is usually something I speak out against.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:

That is 100% incorrect as the member of the PDT himself said that the rules they where using where unwritten. It was brought out in the 'hands of effort' FAQ thread.

I recall a protracted debate I had with Baker

I'm aware of that thread. I'm also aware that when having a debate on how a rule works if it becomes a protracted debate humans tend to fall back to non-debatable things. Things like "fine it's an unwritten rule" or "fine I'll rule 0 it away". Whether or not it's unwritten in truth depends on your interpretation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The FAQ states "we haven’t reached a final decision". That is to say, they may indicate a possible RAI, but they have NOT ruled it as RAI yet.

It explains the situation, but does not provide definitive clarification or ruling.

Another curious note: O.D. does not need to stack.

Offensive Defense** (Ex): wrote:
When a rogue with this talent hits a creature with a melee attack that deals sneak attack damage, the rogue gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each sneak attack die rolled for 1 round.

Lets say my sneak attack is 5d6, and I hit three times with sneak attack:

First time I hit in the round, I roll 5d6 sneak attack damage.
Second time I hit in the round, I roll 5d6 sneak attack damage.
Third time I hit in the round, I roll 5d6 sneak attack damage.

Q: On that last hit, how many d6 have I rolled for 1 round? Not rolled for 1 attack, but for one round?
A: 15. [Assuming past and not future round, since the latter is difficult to determine.]
And on the 2nd hit, I will have rolled 10 so far.
If they stacked, I could get SUM(5,10,15) = +30 AC.
If I use the skill as written, but no stacking, I get MAX(5,10,15) = +15 AC.

And since, as written, and NOT changed by FAQ, this bonus applies to all opponents, not just the one attacked.

Is this what is intended? Probably not. But it IS what is written.

/cevah


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just had a thought on yet more possible interpretations:

1) First hit gets none, since there has not yet been any sneak attack rolled. Second gets number from first hit, and third gets number from first and second.

2) Each hit counts the full current round. Bonus is not determined until round is done. First hit, second hit, and third hit all get 15. Stacked is 45, non-stacked is 15. AoOs count toward the next round, but don't actually change AC until the next round is over. Ditto interrupts.

Gee, it pays to give a lot of hits.

/cevah

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Huh.

That is a very condensed feat, trying to put a lot into a very small sentence. I assume that the full feat has more, but the jist of this is in the quoted section.

To me, it seems a "common sense" type of thing, where the sneak attack is considered the attack as a whole, using the x sneak dice that one hit would provide instead of counting multiple attacks, such as the Rogue using flank and TWF.

Seeing how it is being interpreted differently, and by the letter, I can see how this would get silly. The fact that it would up the AC for all creatures instead of the target (as intended), doing the effects as per hit seems a bit much even for an unintended side effect.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not going to try to convince anyone of the correct answer, but what I did do was press the FAQ button on the opening post so that this can finally get an answer. :)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I am not going to try to convince anyone of the correct answer, but what I did do was press the FAQ button on the opening post so that this can finally get an answer. :)

+1

Me too.

As is often in these things, the two sides can't convince the other side that their interpretation of the rules is the "right one".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cevah wrote:

If they stacked, I could get SUM(5,10,15) = +30 AC.

If I use the skill as written, but no stacking, I get MAX(5,10,15) = +15 AC.

­That's not the way I read it. "for 1 round" is seperate from the "for each sneack attack die rolled". Otherwise, the whole effect would have no duration, which means that you would have those dodge bonuses from that on until you die, and maybe even after that. Basically, the feat says "the rogue gains a +X dodge bonus to AC for one round, where X is the amount of sneak attack die he rolled for that attack."­ English is not my native language, but I think "for 1 round" is an adverbial, and thus modifies the verb, i.e. "gains".

@James Risner: First, let my clarify something: As I already said in this very thread, I don't think Dodge bonuses should stack from the same source. I have no doubt that the Devs do not want them to stack from the same source. Which is why in my first post in this thread I posted a version of the rules that would fix the problem.
That said, because this is the "Rules Questions" forum and not the "Homebrew" forum, I'm discussion the rules as written. I see two occurences of a "non stacking from same source" kind of rule: First in the "bonus types" section on CRB p208, in a sentence that explicitly only applies to untyped bonuses, and second in the "stacking effects" section on the same page, in a sentence that explicitly only applies to spells. Since a dodge bonus from a feat or rogue talent is neither a spell (or other magical effect) nor an untyped bonus, I see absolutly no possible way to interpret the rules as written in a way that would prevent dodge bonuses from the same source to stack.
You say otherwise, so can you please quote the rule(s) which prevents dodge bonuses from stacking?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Derklord wrote:

this is the "Rules Questions" forum

"stacking effects" section on the same page, in a sentence that explicitly only applies to spells. Since a dodge bonus from a feat or rogue talent is neither a spell (or other magical effect) nor an untyped bonus, I see absolutly no possible way to interpret the rules as written

Yes we are talking RAW and yes the developers don't entirely agree with your position that the rules don't apply. They gave you a nod by saying the rules foundation wasn't as solid as you'd like it to be. So either this ability is likely to be errata to make it easier to interpret to match the RAI or they may expand the spells and magical effects to non magical things such as feats and rogue talents.

None of this involves house rules.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I R pressed FAQ!!

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is there a definitive answer about dodge bonus stacking? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.