| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, we have an answer, though it's not the one the majority went for:
How come no one ever uses actual rules text as an indication of a writer's intent?
Personal experience.
If a thread starts off like "This sounds too good to be true. Is it supposed to work this way?", the answer is usually "No, that was not the intent". There are a few exceptions, of course.
@ Dabbler - It seems pretty clear cut. If someone is going to argue Rules as Written, they cannot edit out pieces of information that are given in the description. Take it as a whole. It's like taking comments in the news out of context.
I merely point out that the section of the feat that describes the rule's mechanics does not state this. Personally, I think that getting both Str and Dex mod to CMB is what the intent is, and adding Str mod if you already have Dex mod is exactly how I would house-rule it as a DM. But this is not about my house-rules...
That said, JJ has spoken and I think that ruling suits me just fine - for my monk with Agile Maneuvers, it's a feat I can ignore.
So I would edit the feat to say:
Fury's Fall (Combat)
You can use Strength and agility to send foes crashing to the ground.
Prerequisites: Improved Trip.
Benefit: When making a trip attack, use your combined strength and dexterity modifiers instead of either modifier alone to calculate your CMB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James Jacobs is not a developer.
I respect his opinion, but his answers have no real bearing on RAW.This does mean someone at Paizo is aware.
Perhaps SKR or another developer will chime in.
I bet James Jacobs will be happy to read such a nice commentary. Developer or not, he is doing the FAQ and everything. Don't wait for another answer; this thing is settled. If you want to play it the other way, do it. I think you are misinformed if you think his answers have no real bearing on RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I bet James Jacobs will be happy to read such a nice commentary.
He's read things like that before, and it's a large part of why he doesn't post in the rules forum anymore. A vocal minority is quite happy about this. The rest of us get screwed.
Developer or not, he is doing the FAQ and everything. Don't wait for another answer; this thing is settled. If you want to play it the other way, do it. I think you are misinformed if you think his answers have no real bearing on RAW.
SKR does the FAQ, Jason does errata. James don't write or modify the rules, he just gives his interpretation of them. The upshot is, it's probably more fun to play at James' table than any of ours, so most of us gladly take his freely offered advice.
|
While I don't always agree with James Jacobs' rules interpretations, I'll always go by them if he posts and there's nothing contradicting him. I'm of the opinion that Finesse replaces strength, while Fury's merely adds dexterity, and so they should stack; however, for the purposes of something like PFS, unless something changes or an official FAQ is made, I will be disappointing someone who wants to use this.
EDIT: However, I did post my interpretation of the feat interactions to him, because I believe blue_the_wolf did not give the other side's argument in an adequate fashion.
Developer or not, he is doing the FAQ and everything. Don't wait for another answer; this thing is settled. If you want to play it the other way, do it. I think you are misinformed if you think his answers have no real bearing on RAW.SKR does the FAQ, Jason does errata.
I think he means the "Ask James Thread" not the official FAQ.
By James's interpretation, the answer is "no".
Personally, I still think that burning 2 feats to get an advantage should grant an advantage.
|
@ Dabbler - It seems pretty clear cut. If someone is going to argue Rules as Written, they cannot edit out pieces of information that are given in the description. Take it as a whole. It's like taking comments in the news out of context.I merely point out that the section of the feat that describes the rule's mechanics does not state this. Personally, I think that getting both Str and Dex mod to CMB is what the intent is, and adding Str mod if you already have Dex mod is exactly how I would house-rule it as a DM. But this is not about my house-rules...
That said, JJ has spoken and I think that ruling suits me just fine - for my monk with Agile Maneuvers, it's a feat I can ignore.
So I would edit the feat to say:
Fury's Fall (Combat)
You can use Strength and agility to send foes crashing to the ground.
Prerequisites: Improved Trip.
Benefit: When making a trip attack, use your combined strength and dexterity modifiers instead of either modifier alone to calculate your CMB.
I don't see the reason to house rule anything. Just because you have Weapon Finesse or Agile Maneuvers means that you are required to use it. Adding your Strength is basically performing the maneuver as normal, and using Fury's Fall as normal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the player in question has a negative STR and an amazing dex which means using their STR is a pretty big penalty.
I tried to ask the question in an unbiased manor because while I felt one way about it I felt that some people had raised fair points particularly with the bonus type, which i was wrong about it IS untyped but right in that it still does not stack.
I honestly thing that at this point any one who intends to use the double dex interpretation is simply hell bent on using it that way and they are not going to listen to any one. even if the piazo god of rules and fair play chimed in they would say something like "well that's not the way it SHOULD be and will likely argue over it."
so im moving on from this one.
great debate.
I don't see the reason to house rule anything. Just because you have Weapon Finesse or Agile Maneuvers means that you are required to use it. Adding your Strength is basically performing the maneuver as normal, and using Fury's Fall as normal.@ Dabbler - It seems pretty clear cut. If someone is going to argue Rules as Written, they cannot edit out pieces of information that are given in the description. Take it as a whole. It's like taking comments in the news out of context.I merely point out that the section of the feat that describes the rule's mechanics does not state this. Personally, I think that getting both Str and Dex mod to CMB is what the intent is, and adding Str mod if you already have Dex mod is exactly how I would house-rule it as a DM. But this is not about my house-rules...
That said, JJ has spoken and I think that ruling suits me just fine - for my monk with Agile Maneuvers, it's a feat I can ignore.
So I would edit the feat to say:
Fury's Fall (Combat)
You can use Strength and agility to send foes crashing to the ground.
Prerequisites: Improved Trip.
Benefit: When making a trip attack, use your combined strength and dexterity modifiers instead of either modifier alone to calculate your CMB.
This is true. It does curtail the advantage of the feat somewhat though.
Searched the pages of all the authors of that book, nothing on that feat. Based on the fluff, the intent seems pretty clear. If someone normally used Dex instead of strength, I'd let them add their Str mod too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I asked the question to begin with I figured I would hop in here at the end as well.
For the record a few points.
1. The character in question did not dump strength, so does have a bonus. What does this have to do with the question? Not a thing.
2. Thank you to JJ for the anwser, tho no he is not the FAQ, I for one plan to use what he said in my games.
3. And on a more personal note.
There has been a trend latley that frankly sucks.
When someone comes into the rules area to ask a question (much like I did) it is for clarity.
The PF rules are complex, a word one way or another can be the difference between something working and something not.
Yet a lot of the time, the person asking the question seems to get branded as a Munchkin, Cheessy, Insert-Insult-Here.
It seems that some people take it as a person affront that we would even ask such a thing.
Honestly it makes me for one want to stop posting or at least stop asking questions.
I am not just speaking of this thread, but many that have come about latley.
Thank you all for your oppinions, thank you to JJ for his anwser. Thank you to all who know how to be civil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When someone comes into the rules area to ask a question (much like I did) it is for clarity.
It seems that some people take it as a person affront that we would even ask such a thing.
I think there are generally two major groups of people who post in the rules forum.
Group A just wants to get on with things, they want a quick easy guideline on what to allow at the table. These people are fine with house rules, or developer guidance, or whatever, they just want it to work.
Group B wants to figure out how exactly it works, within (and limited to) the existing rules as written. How it works in a practical sense, or which way would be more fun at the table, or how it was originally intended doesn't matter. It's like math, you're working the equation to see what you end up with. These are, more often than not, entirely intellectual exercises, rule-parsing-robots compiling what's written to see a result.
Group A is often frustrated at members of Group B for continuing to discuss what the rules actually say after a reasonable interpretation or compromise has been proposed. They see people arguing and being silly when it's so obvious how the rule should be. Group B can get annoyed when a member of Group A enters a thread, disregards all the posts above them, makes a blanket statement with no citation or reference to the rules, and feels they've contributed or even finished the discussion.
The key is to differentiate argument (the proposal of a conclusion supported by evidence) from bickering (anger, insults, dismissal) which can be difficult in a text-based medium. Yes, some people are jerks, but I think the majority here are not. Most of us welcome questions and discussion, and it's a shame to lose people because of that.
|
does anyone know a page in the CRB or any official rueling (other then the above link) that says ability score bonuses are an exception to the "untyped bonuses stack" rule?
if no one can find one then i would agree that this dex+dex dosent stack opinion is just that, an opinion of how someone thinks things should work.
Sidekick - doesn't exist. I posted every possible link relating to bonuses upthread, and I will hold my hands up and freely admit that +Dex and +Dex don't stack as untyped bonuses, because the bonus is from the same source.
I will still contend that the CMB calculation under Weapon Finesse BAB + Dex Mod + SSM = CMB results in its own untyped bonus which has no reason not to stack with a Dex bonus, especially since it's taken 2 feats to get there, however I do understand the arguments against, even if I don't agree with them.
Design Manager
|
does anyone know a page in the CRB or any official rueling (other then the above link) that says ability score bonuses are an exception to the "untyped bonuses stack" rule?
if no one can find one then i would agree that this dex+dex dosent stack opinion is just that, an opinion of how someone thinks things should work.
Part of the issue here, is that the use of the word "bonus" and the word "modifier". When referencing stats, these are the same thing (see blue_the_wolf's MANY citations). Your CMB is a number derived from a cumulative set of modifiers, it IS NOT a black box as suggested by some. Since this combination involves a feat that already allows you to use your DEX bonus in conjunction with your weapon-based CMB checks, you cannot add that SAME bonus again. If you had two feats that, say, allowed you to add your shield bonus to your FORT save, taking both feats would not allow you to add your shield bonus twice. They give you access to the same thing. Also, I would probably lend some credit to information James Jacobs chooses to share. Posters can argue his right to make an authoritative statement all they want, but he certainly has more investment and thus, credibility, on the subject than most anyone else you might see posting here ;)
|
Design Manager
|
So what determins a "source". Seems like 2 different feats adding the same bonus ARE from different sources.
But i guess my english skills are failing me...
The feat is not the "source" of the bonus in this instance, since the feat does not give you a set number. The "source" is your Dex mod, which was added into the equation already via another feat. Two bonuses from the same source can't stack like this, specifically because the sheer size of available material means there will be at least some feats with inherent redundancies.
It seems that the "source" is "Bonus from Dex", so that if "Bonus from Dex" as an untyped bonus would be added twice into any calculation, it can't be.
Made-up example: I create a spell called "Awesome Power" that provides a +4 (untyped) bonus to all ability scores.
If I cast Awesome Power on myself twice, I only have a +4 bonus to all ability scores, but if I have the (also utterly made up) spell Phenomenal Agility that grants a +6 (untyped) bonus to Dex, I would have +4 to Str, Con, Int, Wis and Cha, but +10 to Dex.
The "sources" here are the Awesome Power spell and the Phenomenal Agility spell.
I'm actually very interested in Wraithstrike's thread about "replace vs add", since that is actually at the core of the problem.
|
|
see im confused right now...
the definition of source
"1.origin: the place, person, or thing through which something has come into being or from which it has been obtained"
the "thing" in this case is the dex modifier while the source of obtaning is the feat. so this means the feat is the source.
am i missing something?
so im reading it like this :
the source of the dex mod to attack is from 2 different feats meaning 2 different sources...
even though the unknown (dex mod x) number in question is the same, its comming from 2 different sources.
i may just be going crazy...
Made-up example: I create a spell called "Awesome Power" that provides a +4 (untyped) bonus to all ability scores.
If I cast Awesome Power on myself twice, I only have a +4 bonus to all ability scores, but if I have the (also utterly made up) spell Phenomenal Agility that grants a +6 (untyped) bonus to Dex, I would have +4 to Str, Con, Int, Wis and Cha, but +10 to Dex.
The "sources" here are the Awesome Power spell and the Phenomenal Agility spell.
I'm actually very interested in Wraithstrike's thread about "replace vs add", since that is actually at the core of the problem.
see my issue withyour post, is that they are from a spell named "awesome power" but in this debate the sources are "weapon finesse" and "fury's fall" both different named sources of the dex modifier.
|
Design Manager
|
see im confused right now...
the definition of source
"1.origin: the place, person, or thing through which something has come into being or from which it has been obtained"the "thing" in this case is the dex modifier while the source of obtaning is the feat. so this means the feat is the source.
am i missing something?
so im reading it like this :
the source of the dex mod to attack is from 2 different feats meaning 2 different sources...
even though the unknown (dex mod x) number in question is the same, its comming from 2 different sources.
i may just be going crazy...
see my issue withyour post, is that they are from a spell named "awesome power" but in this debate the sources are "weapon finesse" and "fury's fall" both different named sources of the dex modifier.
Made-up example: I create a spell called "Awesome Power" that provides a +4 (untyped) bonus to all ability scores.
If I cast Awesome Power on myself twice, I only have a +4 bonus to all ability scores, but if I have the (also utterly made up) spell Phenomenal Agility that grants a +6 (untyped) bonus to Dex, I would have +4 to Str, Con, Int, Wis and Cha, but +10 to Dex.
The "sources" here are the Awesome Power spell and the Phenomenal Agility spell.
I'm actually very interested in Wraithstrike's thread about "replace vs add", since that is actually at the core of the problem.
In Chemlak's example, he had two different spells offering two different untyped bonuses. You are misconstruing the way those feats are worded. They specifically allow you to use your DEX bonus. Both feats give you access to the SAME bonus. Dex is the source, not your two feats. If one of the feats read "You get a bonus EQUAL TO your Dex bonus" then they would, in fact stack, as the feat that read that way would be the source of a new bonus. However, that is not the way they read and work. Both feats give you access to the SAME bonus, which is why they don't stack.
|
|
As I asked the question to begin with I figured I would hop in here at the end as well.
For the record a few points.
1. The character in question did not dump strength, so does have a bonus. What does this have to do with the question? Not a thing.
2. Thank you to JJ for the anwser, tho no he is not the FAQ, I for one plan to use what he said in my games.
3. And on a more personal note.
There has been a trend latley that frankly sucks.
When someone comes into the rules area to ask a question (much like I did) it is for clarity.
The PF rules are complex, a word one way or another can be the difference between something working and something not.
Yet a lot of the time, the person asking the question seems to get branded as a Munchkin, Cheessy, Insert-Insult-Here.
It seems that some people take it as a person affront that we would even ask such a thing.
Honestly it makes me for one want to stop posting or at least stop asking questions.
I am not just speaking of this thread, but many that have come about latley.
Thank you all for your oppinions, thank you to JJ for his anwser. Thank you to all who know how to be civil.
I actually really appreciate you responding. Which is why I tried not to assume that you dumped Strength. Which means, in my scenario you would still have an advantage in taking the feat, just not to the extent that you had asked. Please do not let a few bad experiences stop you from asking for clarification, or advice. You just have to be a little more selective in whose advice or knowledge you heed. These boards are the source of a wealth of information and ideas.
It is easy for misunderstandings to take place here, just be careful to read a post twice before responding... (I should really take my own advice!) ^_^
Good luck and thank you for being civil too!
1. The character in question did not dump strength, so does have a bonus. What does this have to do with the question? Not a thing.
I didnt say you did. I said I THINK that you did. mostly because some one along the lines used an example of a person with a -2 to str and a +4 to dex and I didnt look back to see if it was you or not.
and no where did i brand you any sort of derogatory term I said that the rules are one way and some people said I was wrong, I tried to explain more clearly and even got clarification from a respected piazo employee and some people still insist on reading the rules a certain way. which I think is totally fine as long as you realize your running a house rule not the actual game rules.
I did my best to be polite and respectful at every turn in this thread. I posted links or quotes, I explained myself many times and when arguments were made that I could not solidly define (like the bonus TYPE issue) I posted it to JJ in the most balanced way that I could.
looking back the only thing that I said that can possibly be deemed impolite would be when I said some people just want to play the way they want to play. which is true. some people just want to do what they want to do and are only here to justify it no matter what the rules, intention or people who actually work for Piazo say.
with that in mind if your statement was directed at me I dont really appreciate the implication. You posted a question and I attempted to help If you feel that that is insulting I apologize but I would suggest that in the future you post in the HOUSE RULE/HOMEBREW section so that its not a Rrles question so much as 'a do you think if I do it this way it will work fine' question.
once again no disrespect intended so don't read it that way. but I feel a bit of resentment that I did my best to answer the OPs question and it seems as if that person is coming down on me as a bad person.
|
|
@Wolf - Don't worry about it buddy... I wouldn't. In a forum such as this, there are all kinds of color that you can read into something posted. It kind of feels like however you might be feeling at the time. I.E - If you are feeling attacked, then it might read like someone is attacking you when they might simply be trying to provide generic examples from their own experience.
I appreciate what you posted, even if I was trying to tackle the issue another way. In my mind, I try to figure out what the original intent was behind the feat or ability before figuring our how it works mechanically, then impose limits on what I can and can't do with it from that point. Not everyone does that, as is apparent from some of the responses that I got.
I sometimes get negative, because I have seen people that munchkin out just because they see an ability that they want... (Especially in the case of "dipping" and Prestige Classes) To me the flavor is more important than the actual rules.
Anyway, enough of my threadjacking. Nevertheless, it seems the OP is satisfied with the answers he got.
|
|
Some thread necromancy here, just adding a further point to clarify how the rules are not at all consistent across the board:
Further, you can add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on the damage roll for your first unarmed strike on a given round.
While using Dragon Style, you gain a bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls equal to half your Strength bonus.
Both of these feats use the pretty much the same wording, but there's no way to interpret them consistently.
The first one is 'obviously' intended to replace the standard 1x Strength bonus on unarmed strikes to be 1.5x, not 2.5x, whereas the latter is 'obviously' intended to add 0.5x Str bonus, not to replace.
The 'source of bonus' is also poorly defined. As far as I know, nowhere does it define whether a feat, ability or spell that gives an attribute bonus to something is the source or whether the attribute itself is the source.
As far as I can tell, there's no RAW here. Even RAI is kinda fuzzy, I'm quite sure the designer just didn't think of this possibility.
I come from the land of warhammer, where uncertainty and gaping black holes in the rules are everyday life. You learn to accept it. It would seem like PF is spoiled by the much more consistent rules and despair abounds if a solution can't be inferred from the rules. ;)
Hope for FAQ ruling. PFS at least is destined to doubt and GM arbitration which it loathes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
um, actually Dragon Style and Dragon Ferocity can work together:
dragon style just states that you get 1.5xstr on your first attack in the round. if you've got 6 attacks and 18 str, you get +6, +4, +4, +4, +4 , +4.
dragon ferocity, the next feat in the chain, gives you a bonus on unarmed strike damage for all of your attacks. with an 18str, you'd get a +2 bonus on all of those attacks if they hit.
how do you see a contradiction when they're explicitly stating what happens?
Weapon Finesse allows you to apply your dexterity modifier instead of your strength modifier
Fury's Fall adds your dexterity bonus to trip checks, but since your strength bonus is being replaced by your dexterity bonus, and you are adding your dexterity bonus to your replaced strength bonus, which is equal to your dexterity bonus. you are effectively adding dexterity twice. this is hardly an issue, because dexterity is hardly the "God Stat" people assume it is.
AC bonus? generally fixed by wearing heavier armor. touch AC is laughable anyway. unless you use snake style or crane style in the case of melee touch attacks.
Ranged Attacks? these only tide you until you can fly the majority of the encounters.
Reflex Saves? there are no reflex based spells that can reliably remove a character from a fight. and the pits are overcome by anyone with a climb or fly speed. fly speeds are achievable as early as 5th level.
Dexterity Based Skills? most of the skills are highly situational, the relevant ones can be fixed by skill ranks, and they aren't going to be very high due to check penalties.
Initiative: while great for archers and for casters with fight changing spells, it isn't quite so important for melee combatants who would rather have their enemy approach their full attack range,or reactive healers who need someone to get hurt before they can use their healing.
|
Reflex Saves? there are no reflex based spells that can reliably remove a character from a fight. and the pits are overcome by anyone with a climb or fly speed. fly speeds are achievable as early as 5th level.
Re: fly speed - Sure, if you can reliably hit a DC 20 fly check. (Note that the maneuverability bonus isn't that much. A fly spell only grants you +4 + caster level/2, so a potion of fly only gives you a +6 to a skill you're not allowed to put ranks into. Also it'll take you a full round to get out of the pit since you're flying up at half speed (and according to the earlier part of your post, you're wearing medium/heavy armor.) That being said, if you're flying every encounter - congrats! You beat a pit spell! You also must either have a caster who is really nice and makes you fly every encounter even if there aren't flying enemies or that's a lot of potions...
Re: climb speed - Eh, not as auto as you think. Climb speed gives you a +8 racial bonus and lets you take 10 all the time. To get out of a basic create pit, you need a DC 25 and you start out at a 18 for having the climb speed, so you need a +7 from other places including Armor Check Penalty. +7 is doable though. It's when you start running into the DC30 and DC35 checks of the other pits where the +12 and +17 hurts. But then again, if you are investing a lot into climb with your climb speed, then congrats. You deserve to get out of that pit easily. I don't see a lot of PCs with climb speeds in general.
TL;DR - create pit and it's ilk are harder to get out of than most people realize. Climb speeds and fly speeds are not the auto pass that everyone wants them to be.
Reflex Saves? there are no reflex based spells that can reliably remove a character from a fight. and the pits are overcome by anyone with a climb or fly speed. fly speeds are achievable as early as 5th level.Re: fly speed - Sure, if you can reliably hit a DC 20 fly check. (Note that the maneuverability bonus isn't that much. A fly spell only grants you +4 + caster level/2, so a potion of fly only gives you a +6 to a skill you're not allowed to put ranks into. Also it'll take you a full round to get out of the pit since you're flying up at half speed (and according to the earlier part of your post, you're wearing medium/heavy armor.) That being said, if you're flying every encounter - congrats! You beat a pit spell! You also must either have a caster who is really nice and makes you fly every encounter even if there aren't flying enemies or that's a lot of potions...
Re: climb speed - Eh, not as auto as you think. Climb speed gives you a +8 racial bonus and lets you take 10 all the time. To get out of a basic create pit, you need a DC 25 and you start out at a 18 for having the climb speed, so you need a +7 from other places including Armor Check Penalty. +7 is doable though. It's when you start running into the DC30 and DC35 checks of the other pits where the +12 and +17 hurts. But then again, if you are investing a lot into climb with your climb speed, then congrats. You deserve to get out of that pit easily. I don't see a lot of PCs with climb speeds in general.
TL;DR - create pit and it's ilk are harder to get out of than most people realize. Climb speeds and fly speeds are not the auto pass that everyone wants them to be.
the climb DC decreases by either 5 or 10 if you can brace yourself between the corners.
|
|
the climb DC decreases by either 5 or 10 if you can brace yourself between the corners.
Good call, it does decrease by 5 if you use perpendicular walls to help you. So it's not that hard with a climb speed assuming that you made sure to still invest in climb/don't have a terrible bad ACP. That being said - note that you still have to:
- Get the climb speed. Some characters will have this up all the time, but as a magic item the slippers of spider climbing take up the same item slot as boots of speed and winged boots and the only class-based ways to have a climb speed up long-term that I can think of is to be a synthesist, one alchemist archetype or to cast spider climb (again, friendly wizard who casts that on you all the time). Even the slippers might not be activated beforehand if there wasn't any interesting terrain up until now. Most of the time, this will cost an action.- Put away your weapon(s). You need both hands free to climb, whether or not you have the climb speed. (This is where the slippers come in handy, you don't need to put your weapons away.) Of course, this doesn't take an action if you're fine leaving your weapons at the bottom of a pit.
- Stand up.
So sure, I'm willing to concede that if you have a climb speed, then it's not the hardest thing in the world to get out of a create pit or its ilk as long as you weren't stupid and invested in your climb skill. However, I just gave you some okay damage and made you waste a bunch of turns to get out of the pit because you failed a Reflex save. I'm pretty sure I accomplished what I wanted out of that spell.
EDIT: spoiler'd because it's getting off topic...
|
|
um, actually Dragon Style and Dragon Ferocity can work together:
This is obvious and was part of my intended point. However, see below.
I'd also point out that there's a difference between "add your STR modifier" and "add a bonus [i]equal to[/url] your STR modifier". One is adding a specific bonus, the other is adding a new untyped bonus determined by a specific value.
Good catch, I must be blind. This would also lend credence to the interpretation that direct attributes bonuses don't stack even if they're untyped, seeing how Dragon Style doesn't mention anything about replacing the ordinary bonus.
|
Design Manager
|
**lots of stuff**
"Agile Maneuvers (Combat)
You've learned to use your quickness in place of brute force when performing combat maneuvers.Benefit: You add your Dexterity bonus to your base attack bonus and size bonus when determining your Combat Maneuver Bonus (see Combat) instead of your Strength bonus."
"Weapon Finesse (Combat)
You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.
Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons"
Weapon Finesse gives you the option to use your Dex mod instead of your STR mod on attack rolls within the given the given parameters. Agile maneuvers flat out replaces your STR mod with your DEX mod in its own specific parameters. The two feats have overlap, but would not stack since they're doing the exact same thing in the areas where they overlap, i.e. Replacing your STR mod with your DEX mod.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I agree. WF and AM don't stack. Not a question about it. But they(either one) -will- stack with Fury's Fall.
So, WF/FF will be effective dex x2 on trips, and AM/FF effective dex x2 on trips, but WF/AM/FF will still only be effective Dex x2, not x3.
...Unless 'dexterity' is a bonus type (like 'circumstance' or 'competence'), in which case they don't stack because bonuses of the same type don't stack unless otherwise specified. Not sure why you ignored that issue.
|
Design Manager
|
Your CMB is a collection of values. It is not its own thing. Fury's Fall adds your DEX to your CMB, but if you've already taken Weapon Finesse or Agile Maneuvers, you've already done that. Just because they exempted your option to use something else doesn't mean they magically get counted as something other than what they are. Fury's Fall is wasted on someone with no STR bonus who is already using Agile Maneuvers or Weapon Finesse, because they're all adding the exact same thing in. That's fine. Lots of feats are better for certain builds and do nothing for others.
|
|
a trip with a light mace does not get Dex x2 due to Agile Maneuvers and Weapon Finesse. They overlap and don't stack.
both Agile Maneuvers and Fury's Fall have text that state that they "add your Dexterity bonus". Which, like Weapon Finesse, overlaps, and does not apply both. you only get your Dexterity once, without specific text to let you apply the same bonus twice.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Ok...
Oracle of Lore1/Paladin 2Str 16 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 16
With the Revelation ** spoiler omitted **
What is this character's total Reflex Save?
You're obviously trying to show a situation where someone's getting their CHAmod twice, but all you've actually shown is that you don't read abilities carefully before deciding how they work (in this case, Divine Grace).
|
Design Manager
|
Ok...
Oracle of Lore1/Paladin 2Str 16 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 16
With the Revelation ** spoiler omitted **
What is this character's total Reflex Save?
Divine Grace actually says "At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws." They are not adding their Charisma bonus to their saving throws, they are adding a new untyped bonus equal to their Charisma bonus. This was actually already discussed earlier in this thread.
So this character has a total reflex saving throw of +6.