| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
These two traits are very similar (although Wayang Spellhunter is more limited). While most traits don't stack by virtue of having "trait bonus" in the text, it's not so clear in this case.
As written, these two traits could both be taken and applied to the same spell (of 3rd level or lower), with the following result:
"When you apply metamagic feats to this spell, treat its actual level as 2 lower for determining the spell's final adjusted level."
I don't think that this was Paizo's intent.
This combo has been popping up more and more in optimization threads in the Advice forum.
The full text regarding trait stacking is this: "Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a “trait” bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack—they're intended to give player characters a slight edge, not a secret backdoor way to focus all of a character's traits on one type of bonus and thus gain an unseemly advantage. It's certainly possible, for example, that somewhere down the line, a “Courageous” trait might be on the list of dwarf race traits, but just because this trait is on both the dwarf race traits list and the basic combat traits list doesn't mean you're any more brave if you choose both versions than if you choose only one." (emphasis mine).
As far as I can tell, this means that Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter shouldn't stack. But of course, that doesn't mean that they don't by RAW. The problem that this requires DM interpretation, even if that interpretation seems obvious.
It'd be great to get an official response. Intensified Burning Hands as a 0th level spell? Bouncing Blindness/Deafness as a 1st level spell? Persistent Glitterdust as a 2nd level spell? Dazing Scorching Ray as a 3rd level spell? Etc. Seems overpowered to me.
It IS a general rule that no cost modifying of metas can reduce the level of a modified spell below its original level.
Ergo, no 0 level burning hands spells.
But yes, these traits do stack.
==Aelryinth
This combo has been popping up more and more in optimization threads in the Advice forum.
The full text regarding trait stacking is this: "Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a “trait” bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack—they're intended to give player characters a slight edge, not a secret backdoor way to focus all of a character's traits on one type of bonus and thus gain an unseemly advantage. It's certainly possible, for example, that somewhere down the line, a “Courageous” trait might be on the list of dwarf race traits, but just because this trait is on both the dwarf race traits list and the basic combat traits list doesn't mean you're any more brave if you choose both versions than if you choose only one." (emphasis mine).
As far as I can tell, this means that Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter shouldn't stack. But of course, that doesn't mean that they don't by RAW. The problem that this requires DM interpretation, even if that interpretation seems obvious.
It'd be great to get an official response. Intensified Burning Hands as a 0th level spell? Bouncing Blindness/Deafness as a 1st level spell? Persistent Glitterdust as a 2nd level spell? Dazing Scorching Ray as a 3rd level spell? Etc. Seems overpowered to me.
Neither trait uses the phrase 'trait bonus', or provides a bonus in game terminology (a numerical increase). There's no reason that they shouldn't combine.
Where is Wayang Spellhunter found? can't seem to find it in any books i own...
|
I was told that it does not stack. It is like having the Impact enchant and Lead Blades spell on a weapon. The weapon can not have both of those, as it applies the same non-type bonus. Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage does the same. So yes, you can have both, but you can only apply each to a different spell, not the same.
I was told that it does not stack. It is like having the Impact enchant and Lead Blades spell on a weapon. The weapon can not have both of those, as it applies the same non-type bonus. Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage does the same. So yes, you can have both, but you can only apply each to a different spell, not the same.
Neither trait applies a bonus of any kind.
I was told that it does not stack. It is like having the Impact enchant and Lead Blades spell on a weapon. The weapon can not have both of those, as it applies the same non-type bonus. Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage does the same. So yes, you can have both, but you can only apply each to a different spell, not the same.
Zhayne is correct. You can have both and on the same spell. The reason impact and lead blades do not stack is because of the wording, saying "weapons are considered one size larger" but they both reference the original size of the weapon. So they overlap, not stack.
Note that it was clarified that you may NEVER reduce a spell's level past its original spell level. So you can't make Magic missile a 0 level spell by taking wayang spell hunter and magical lineage together.
From merriam-webster.com - bonus: "something in addition to what is expected or strictly due"
Also, people are ignoring the following phrase about stacking traits, "...and thus gain an unseemly advantage".
Anyway, I would argue its absolutely a bonus if a character can reduce the effective level of his spell when applying a metamagic feat, because this would be something in addition to what is expected.
Reducing the effective level of the spell by two levels would seem like an "unseemly advantage".
If we are nitpicking over the meaning of the word bonus, we are clearly ignoring the intent of what a trait is meant to be in the game and how they are intended to function:
"Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a “trait” bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack—they're intended to give player characters a slight edge, not a secret backdoor way to focus all of a character's traits on one type of bonus and thus gain an unseemly advantage..."
I think a character can take both traits, but need to apply then to two different spells. He can't reduce one spell by two levels when using metamagic.
Those traits reduce something that is expected or strictly due.
If you want to house rule it, feel free, but RAW, absolutely nothing prevents them from combining.
Whether or not the advantage gained from this is 'unseemly' is a purely subjective matter.
Unless you're a telepath, or have explicit communication from the devs, you cannot possibly know their intent. This is why I say RAI stands for 'Rules as Interpreted'.
And as stated, previously, repeatedly, either trait includes the phrase 'trait bonus' in any capacity, so the 'trait bonuses do not stack' text is irrelevant.
Those traits reduce something that is expected or strictly due.
If you want to house rule it, feel free, but RAW, absolutely nothing prevents them from combining.
Whether or not the advantage gained from this is 'unseemly' is a purely subjective matter.
Unless you're a telepath, or have explicit communication from the devs, you cannot possibly know their intent. This is why I say RAI stands for 'Rules as Interpreted'.
And as stated, previously, repeatedly, either trait includes the phrase 'trait bonus' in any capacity, so the 'trait bonuses do not stack' text is irrelevant.
Then I must be a telepath, because anyone with any shred of common sense would know that these traits grant a bonus, the intent behind trait bonuses not stacking is clear, and these traits don't stack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
traits specifically state if they grant a trait bonus.
These traits remove or lower a cost. They stack.
Whether you can justify it to the DM is a different matter.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As per the earlier quote, "many traits" does not mean all traits. While the two traits do provide a bonus for the character, it is not a typed bonus, which means that it stacks. Had the traits listed that the effect should be considered a "trait bonus", then you'd have an argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this question was asked before in another thread. The dev team went in and saw all the questions, both whether these two traits stacked and whether you could lower a spell under its original level.
Note they only clarified the second, and the first was left as not a problem. I'm sure that if they had problems with them stacking it would have been added to the FAQ.
Once again, I agree with all the other posters that by RAW, they stack. I have seen this combo in PFS many times (not by me) and noone has had an issue with it.
In a home game, I can see many GMs house ruling that they do not stack. But it is a house rule.
