| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Both the Monster Lore and Cunning Initiative say to "add the character's Wisdom MODIFIER to the relevant Knowledge/Initiative rolls."
Shouldn't this read as "add the character's Wisdom BONUS (if any)" ?
After all, an inquisitor could have their Wisdom lowered via poison/magic. As written, they would have to apply any Wisdom penalties if their Wisdom dropped below 10. I don't think that this was the intent.
Barring an errata (which hasn't happened yet), them's the brakes, I'm afraid. If you need a fluff reason to justify a potential penalty to wisdom lowering initiative and knowledge checks, you can try this one: your Inquisitor has become reliant on his deity (associated with wisdom) for information about creatures and upcoming combat that any hindrance to that would be almost like going blind or deaf. It's not a perfect fix but it works until an official errata comes out (or doesn't). Also, if you are the GM in a non-PFS game, you can houserule it to be "wisdom bonus (if any)" if you'd like.
Both the Monster Lore and Cunning Initiative say to "add the character's Wisdom MODIFIER to the relevant Knowledge/Initiative rolls."
Shouldn't this read as "add the character's Wisdom BONUS (if any)" ?
After all, an inquisitor could have their Wisdom lowered via poison/magic. As written, they would have to apply any Wisdom penalties if their Wisdom dropped below 10. I don't think that this was the intent.
I have been saying the same thing in this thread. I do not know why the term "bonus" is not used more often, for abilities that should not grant the 'penalty' part of a 'lowered' ability score. The APG is full of 'modifiers' that, in my humble opinion, should be renamed to 'bonus'. I tried to explain why in the thread I mentioned with mixed results.
Hey, they would even SAVE ink if they would use "Bonus" instead of "Modifier"!! LOL
admin
http://TheOnlySheet.com