| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
I posted about this more than once (for the core rules) and I will repeat it here one final time: Using "Modifier" instead of "Bonus" does not makes sense (in the APG, and any other rule book for that matter) in many circumstances. This is because a "Modifier" can be either a negative, zero, or positive number, while a "Bonus" is a positive number (usually above zero - you wouldn't want a nice pay bonus of 0$ would you? *grins*).
So here is one example where the use of "Modifier" is incorrect yet again. I have seen a ton of these while working to add the content of the APG to my tool:
Guiding Star (Su): Whenever you can see the open sky at
night, you can determine your precise location. When the
night sky is visible to you, you may also add your Charisma
modifier to your Wisdom modifier on all Wisdom-based
checks.
So if FOR ANY REASONS (spells/curses or whatever) you currently have a NEGATIVE modifier for your Charisma, this ability, as written, will add to your pain!!
Here are other instances where "Bonus" should have been used:
Firestorm (Su): ..... This fire lasts
for a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier
Cunning Initiative (Ex): At 2nd level, an inquisitor adds
her Wisdom modifier on initiative checks, in addition to
her Dexterity modifier.
This post is my personal opinion as a developer of a Product which requires exactitude regarding this topic. Since my product actually does the MATH for you AND allows you to apply effect DYNAMICALLY (which means that if you LOOSE STR/DEX/CON/INT/WIS/CHA, all the repercussions of this will be computed automatically), having a "negative" modifier will present the User with a NEGATIVE number - which does NOT make sense in many of these abilities. Hence this post, my attempt to notify the Paizo Powers about their continual misuse of the term "Modifier" when they should be using "Bonus" in some instances.
I acknowledge that "on paper", this may not be a big problem. But when this is implemented in a highly automated Tool that does all the computing work for you (like
TOS+),then this becomes an issue.
So please, use "Bonus" more often... instead of things like this:
Awesome Display (Su): ...Each creature
affected by your illusion (pattern) spells is treated as if its
total number of Hit Dice were equal to its number of Hit
Dice minus your Charisma modifier (if positive).
AMEN!
Nope, I am pretty certain they mean modifier.
|
HALLELUJAH, BROTHER! (Yes that was yelling. How can you not yell that phrase?)
At my table I don't allow abilities you must go out of your way to get to have "hidden" penalties. It just isn't cool. Unless I give warning and it's for a story, of course, but that stuff doesn't belong in a rule book anyway.
|
|
You make an interesting point, and I see where you’re coming from, but they are actually using the correct term as it has previously been defined in the game ... although I suppose using the term ‘bonus’ would also be technically correct under the definitions of ‘modifier’ and ‘bonus’ that follow.
In the ‘common terms’ section near the front of the core rule book it defines ‘bonus’ as ‘numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores’. This section does not define ‘modifier’, but ‘modifier’ is in the Ability Scores section soon after as ‘a number you apply to the dice roll when your character tries to do something related to that ability.’ Of course, it also goes on to add that ‘a positive modifier is called a bonus.’
I think the problem is that ‘bonus’ has two closely related but slightly different meanings. However, I don’t think it would be ambiguous if the term ‘Charisma bonus’ (for example) instead of ‘Charisma modifier’ – certainly it seems less clumsy than ‘Charisma modifier (if positive).
The potential problem is that most ‘bonuses’ (under the first definition) are ‘typed’ – so by saying ‘Charisma bonus’ it might infer that a charisma bonus is a typed bonus in the same way as say a morale bonus or a luck bonus, when in fact it is an un-typed bonus.
What is unclear in the first three examples you give, is if it is the intention of the developers that a negative modifier does in fact give you a penalty? Maybe it is actually supposed to, although I agree that this does not seem entirely fair.
Guess all your negative charisma oracles and negative wisdom Inquisitors are hosed now... oh... wait.
Guiding Star (Su): Whenever you can see the open sky at night, you can determine your precise location. When the night sky is visible to you, you may also add your Charisma modifier to your Wisdom modifier on all Wisdom-based checks.
Just sayin'.
But yes, I agree in general: it's best practice to only use "modifier" when you specifically intend to allow both positives and negatives. In particular, "modifier (if positive)" is spurious word count!
Yeah, I'm with Glutton. If you've got a negative charisma mod, then oracling is a bad business for you to be in. And the Inquisition isn't hiring the unwise.
As I specifically mentioned in the initial post, the negative modifier is the result of an unforeseen circumstance - you failed a saving throw or you picked up a cursed item
When you play with a Dynamic Tool that allows you to apply effects (both positive like Haste, Bless etc) and Negative (like ability Damage or Bane) then this situation CAN come up - EVEN if you started with a positive modifier... If you want an example, check this video of what dynamic play is. It might help you understand the circumstances under which this thread was posted (should you be curious).
I'm pretty sure that some of those instances of "modifiers" were intended to be bonus.
I flag it for FAQ/errata so the devs can read it.
It seems to me that you are presuming "bonus" is meant when it isn't a given, and I'm curious as to why.
Also...
In particular, "modifier (if positive)" is spurious word count!
...this is only true if you assume your readership is perfectly in tune with the distinction between "modifier" and "bonus." Out here in the real world, though, saying "bonus" and just leaving it at that inevitably provokes questions like, "but, what if my bonus is negative?" Additional clarity goes a long way; for proof, consider how incredibly valuable the word count on a typical TCG card is, and the fact that Magic often includes explanatory text anyway.
Some things need explaining. Trying to avoid excessive explanation is a good way to actually decrease clarity for the general readership.
It seems to me that you are presuming "bonus" is meant when it isn't a given, and I'm curious as to why.
In the context of an automated tool, this makes a big difference. Here is an example:
You may enter your focused trance a number of times per day equal to your Charisma modifier.
If you transpose this line of text into programming and do the Math for the user, this becomes:
You may enter your focused trance VALUE_CHA_MODIF times per day
where VALUE_CHA_MODIF is the variable holding the charisma modifier (i.e. any current value).
But with Dynamic play, where you can apply any effects to a Character, the charisma can become lower than 10. So your VALUE_CHA_MODIF could, at some point, become negative (like -1), thus giving incorrect output on screen:
You may enter your focused trance -1 times per day
Viewed through the eyes of a programmer, Modifier/Bonus has a big impact in this case. Since the program essentially computes the various numbers for the User, you want to avoid these "modifiers" when they do not make any sense.
Like I said initially, this is not a big problem for a book, which is static - Indeed we do not start out an Oracle with a charisma of 7 !!!
I hope this helps explain this thread...
I wasn't concerned about your particular issue - I got that - I meant, I don't understand why you are assuming so many of the citations you listed are actually intended to be "bonus" instead of "modifier." The only ones you've mentioned that genuinely can be forced to make no sense are the "rounds per day" ones, and even then, "bonus" would still be the wrong word, as +0 is neither a bonus nor a penalty, but it certainly is a modifier. (It should say, "equal to your [whatever] modifier (minimum 0)," I believe.)
But for the others, why would you automatically assume that sufficient Charisma damage wouldn't actually start penalizing an oracle used to relying on spiritual guidance for her perceptions, or that sufficient Wisdom damage wouldn't hamper the reactions of an inquisitor used to relying on instinct? Why "must" these be bonuses only, rather than penalties?
|
|
I wasn't concerned about your particular issue - I got that - I meant, I don't understand why you are assuming so many of the citations you listed are actually intended to be "bonus" instead of "modifier." The only ones you've mentioned that genuinely can be forced to make no sense are the "rounds per day" ones, and even then, "bonus" would still be the wrong word, as +0 is neither a bonus nor a penalty, but it certainly is a modifier. (It should say, "equal to your [whatever] modifier (minimum 0)," I believe.)
But for the others, why would you automatically assume that sufficient Charisma damage wouldn't actually start penalizing an oracle used to relying on spiritual guidance for her perceptions, or that sufficient Wisdom damage wouldn't hamper the reactions of an inquisitor used to relying on instinct? Why "must" these be bonuses only, rather than penalties?
Of course it would hamper them. That's what going from positive (which I presume it would be most of the time) to zero would do. Going from zero to negative means that it actually makes them *worse* than regular people in the same situation. This hardly seems like an intended consequence of these abilities.
Of course it would hamper them. That's what going from positive (which I presume it would be most of the time) to zero would do. Going from zero to negative means that it actually makes them *worse* than regular people in the same situation. This hardly seems like an intended consequence of these abilities.
I'm afraid I don't necessarily agree. I don't know what the "intended" consequence of these abilities are, but I see no particular reason for assuming that it is unintended either.
And, not to get too simulationist here, but yes, I would kind of think characters with those abilities would be worse off than regular people in the same context. They've got brain damage. Their highly trained senses/mystical insights on which they have relied for so long are actively misleading them.
|
|
Have to disagree with you TOS, in the examples you posted it appears as though they intended to use the word modifier in each instance.
The only instance in which bonus might be applied was worded as such that only a bonus would apply, so you'd be safe encoded the ability as though it were by RAW stating bonus.
But with Dynamic play, where you can apply any effects to a Character, the charisma can become lower than 10. So your VALUE_CHA_MODIF could, at some point, become negative (like -1)
Most dynamic effects in play will not actually have this effect.
Per pg. 555 of the Core Rulebook, on Ability Penalties, Damage, and Drain..
Ability Drain is the only one that actually affects the ability score. Penalties and Ability damage apply penalties to most checks, but do not affect other things like uses per day or carrying capacity.
I would agree that for things like lost uses per day, a minimum result of 0 makes sense, but otherwise I am not so sure the wording of the abilities is wrong.
Guiding Star (Su): Whenever you can see the open sky at
night, you can determine your precise location. When the
night sky is visible to you, you MAY also add your Charisma
modifier to your Wisdom modifier on all Wisdom-based
checks.
While working on the Battle Herald PrC, I noticed this:
Persistent Commands (Ex): At 8th level, a battle herald may allow her inspiring commands to persist even if she is incapacitated and unable to maintain them. If the player chooses, the effects of the battle herald's inspiring commands persist for a number of rounds equal to her Charisma bonus (these count toward her number of rounds per day limit). This ability does not apply if the battle herald intentionally stops maintaining an inspiring command—only if she is dazed, held, stunned, killed, and so on, and is unable to maintain them. If the battle herald recovers from incapacity while an inspiring command is ongoing, she may resume maintaining it as a free action.
The author finally went for 'bonus' instead of 'modifier' - as I have been suggesting from the start! Most refreshing...
I really don't get what the issue is. As long as the modifier is positive the affect on game play is exactly the same. With the use of modifier you can now becaffected by changes in play I don't see the issue.
|
|
I really don't get what the issue is. As long as the modifier is positive the affect on game play is exactly the same. With the use of modifier you can now becaffected by changes in play I don't see the issue.
The issue is only really there when the character is hit with ability drain. This drain can turn a class feature that is meant to be a boon into a penalty, which is against normal design patterns for these abilities.
The only time a penalty is normally imposed as a class feature is when that penalty is directly coupled with a benefit (such as the Oracle's curses or the Barbarian's rage). This means that there is a trade-off that is either constant or in your control, but never (to my knowledge) designed to be directly exploitable by foes. Even the wizard's arcane bond, which is exploitable to a degree, has no text to indicate that the item can be discerned for what it is without first-hand knowledge or high-level divination, making it a moot point.
I think it is supposed to be modifier when referencing the modifier you get from a Stat. It can be negative, zero, or positive. Chances are if your class gives an ability using a Stat modifier it's assuming you have positive value there. Though there are temporary effects that can give you negative value in stat so modifier in this case just makes sense.
I posted about this more than once (for the core rules) and I will repeat it here one final time...
You're wasting your breath. Clear rules language is NOT one of Pathfinder's selling points, and never will be. Jason Bulmahn simply has other priorities. Even other Paizo employees like SKR have pretty much given up asking for it.
I posted about this more than once (for the core rules) and I will repeat it here one final time...You're wasting your breath. Clear rules language is NOT one of Pathfinder's selling points, and never will be. Jason Bulmahn simply has other priorities. Even other Paizo employees like SKR have pretty much given up asking for it.
Watch out or people will make mad faces.
'Modifier' makes sense to me too.
Here is another entry in the APG showing the correct way to use Bonus versus Modifier (and NOT adding the "if any" tag!):
Ragecaster (Su): Starting at 4th level, a rage prophet's spells grow more potent when he rages. When using moment of clarity, he adds his barbarian level to his caster level. At 7th level, he adds his Constitution bonus to the save DC of any spells cast while raging.
It seems the Prestige Class uses more distinction between Modifier and Bonus (the way *I* like it). I wonder if the PrC were created by a different author... *grin*
Renewed Defense (Ex): As a standard action, the stalwart defender heals 1d8 points of damage + his Constitution modifier...
Another interesting one when suffering from CON damage - like from the Ghoul Fever! (hoping the player does not roll '1' on his d8)
Breaking news... Ability damage/drain is BAD. It may affect your PC in many varied adverse ways. All of which make perfect sense to me.
Ignoring the possibility that this functions as intented REALLY makes you look more convincing.
Already in the Core Rules, bonus and modifier are used as distinct terms, with distinct effects as you correctly note - AFAIK Jason even commented on distinctions like this during the Core Rules Playtest, or afterwards. So they are well aware of the distinction and CAN use it correctly. Who knows, MAYBE some of these cases don`t corespond to their RAI, but I don`t really see any evidence for that other than `you don`t like it`.
As mentioned, if you get used to trusting in your WIS, CHA, etc and then it starts giving sub-par results, you will get sub-par results beyond what you would get if you just relied on the standard senses, etc. At the very least, there IS definitely a possible ´fluff´ explanation for this functionality, even if ´ýou don`t like it´.
Also as mentioned, ONLY ´permanent` ability stat changes will be affecting this, due to how temporary stat modifiers work.
Renewed Defense (Ex): As a standard action, the stalwart defender heals 1d8 points of damage + his Constitution modifier...Another interesting one when suffering from CON damage - like from the Ghoul Fever! (hoping the player does not roll '1' on his d8)
Except the rules nowhere state that a negative amount of healing is equivalent to doing damage, or a negative amount of damage is equivalent to healing. That`s your reading into things. I find your take on this strange especially in the context of your (accurate) take on the distinction between bonus/modifier. Being told to apply ´healing´ or `damage´ is equivalent to using the phrase `bonus` or `penalty`, they are not `neutral` terms equivalent to `apply (+/-) X hp modification`.
Applying negative CON modifier due to permanent ability damage indeed can be relevant to that ability... when you roll anywhere from 1 to 8, you may not get anything out of it at all, rather than minimum 1. Again, your supposition that the ability should always result in minimum 1 healing, when in fact having a sickly CON could be in conflict with the ability consistently having a 1+ result. Just like dropping below 13 STR prevents use of Power Attack.
BTW, throwing your own website link as a sig goes against board guidelines AFAIK (???), and seems pretty cheesy IMHO... Most people here could probably throw self-promoting stuff out as a `sig`, but that detracts from the atmosphere of colaboration. Feel free to have your Username reflect your business, and put further information in your profile where people can look it up easily, but polluting discussion boards with that (repeated in every post) rubs me wrong. Obviously I can`t force you to stop doing that, but I can say that I`m definitely not wanting to purchase your product or recommend it to others, based on this.