|
Can someone point me to the right pages that describe what does stack / and what doesn't.
This got inspired by a build using Inspire Courage and Good Hope together.
Reading the Bard entry I can't even find anything that prevents 5 bards level 5 going into battle to get a +10 attack/damage if they sing together.
If someone can point out page number CRB where to read it up. I'm sure it must be somewhere but just didn't find it.
First: Inspire Courage does not provide a "Morale Bonus" to attack. It provides a "Competence Bonus." Not that it terribly matters in this case, as they function the same in relation to stacking bonuses of the same type.
Bonuses are explained on page 11 of the CRB. It says:
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
EDIT:Oh, and Good Hope and Inspire Courage do stack, as one is competence and one is morale. Without that, Good Hope wouldn't be nearly as good.
EDIT EDIT:Except the save bonus from Inspire Courage, as that is Morale. Bit weird, I know.
Bonuses of the same type do not stack unless there is specific wording to state otherwise.
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
- Gauss
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
Inspire Courage gives a morale bonus on saving throws and a competence bonus on attack and damage rolls. Good hope gives a morale bonus on attack and damage rolls, skill and ability checks, and saving throws. A character under the influence of both would gain the benefit of both on attack and damage rolls, but only take the higher bonus in any given situation on saving throws.
Basically, bonuses of the same type do not stack, with the exceptions of dodge and circumstance, I believe.
EDIT: Freaking ninja's today... Here is a link to the relavent section of the PRD.
Dodge bonus stack
Untyped bonuses from different sources stack
Some circumstance modifiers stack
Here is an online page with a list of all the bonuses. bonuses
The CRB does not have a list of all the bonuses.
The stacking rules in general are in the magic chapter.
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). 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.
|
|
Thanks everyone. Page 13 was what I was looking for. I was close but didn't find the entry.
And indeed - reading it quickly I saw the morale bonus on the saving throws and didn't see that it is a competence bonus on attack and damage.
Just trying to decipher a very high bonus and this was only part of it. But it frustrated me when I couldn't find in the glossary any entry to stacking as I was sure it was somewhere.
Racial bonuses stack? How I hadn't noticed that before?
Me neither.
I wish the bonuses stacked from multiple bards!
Dude, a 5 bard party would be FREAKING AMAZING!
If bonuses from multiple bards stacked you could have a party of half-orc bard-barians and call yourselves the ORC-hestra, or better yet, of tieflings, and be the SIN-phony.
I wish the bonuses stacked from multiple bards!
Dude, a 5 bard party would be FREAKING AMAZING!
Check out the Freebooter Ranger archetype. Sweet, sweet untyped bonuses.
Can someone point me to the right pages that describe what does stack / and what doesn't.
This got inspired by a build using Inspire Courage and Good Hope together.
Reading the Bard entry I can't even find anything that prevents 5 bards level 5 going into battle to get a +10 attack/damage if they sing together.
If someone can point out page number CRB where to read it up. I'm sure it must be somewhere but just didn't find it.
Many of the stacking rules make no sense to me. So if I have a shield on my arm and a floating magical shield to protect me, its not better than just having a shield on my arm? If I have been heartened with a morale bonus no one can possibly inspire me more?
There are exceptions, but for the most part all bonuses SHOULD stack. They justy don't for whatever reason.
Dodge bonuses
Shield bonuses
Armor bonuses
Natural Armor bonuses
bonuses to Natural Armor (seriously)
Trait bonuses
Feat bonuses
Morale bonuses
Competence bonuses
Divine bonuses
Racial bonuses...
...and I'm sure there are a lot I'm leaving out. Talk about cumbersome, and PF's entire schtick is that its supposed to simplify overly complicated rules. I'd simply say that bonuses from the same source do not stack, but otherwise everything else does. It would make life a hell of a lot easier.
My gf has the same problem you do Mercurial. She doesn't understand it either. I have tried to explain to her (in the case of shields) that both shields are working to intercept the same strike. As a result they are doubling up the effort.
Example:
Scenario 1: Heavy Shield+3 and Shield (spell). The heavy shield and the shield spell both move to intercept a blow. The shield spell fails to arrive on time (by 1) and the blow gets through but then the heavy shield intercepts the blow.
Scenario 2: Heavy Shield +2 and Shield (spell). They both arrive at exactly the same place and either one intercepts (or fails to intercept) the blow.
- Gauss
Mecurial, the reason is for balance, kind of like how improved critial and keen don't stack. Many times rules are made in the interest of balance that don't make sense otherwise.
Realistically trying to use a shield to block an attack from a giant or dragon if they existed would probably leave you with a broken arm, and armor would probably provide DR instead of AC.
edit:It now reads better.
|
|
Mecurial, the reason are for balance reason, kind of like how improved critial and keen don't stack. Many times rules are made in the interest of balance that don't make sense otherwise.
Realistically trying to use a shield to block an attack from a giant or dragon if they existed would probably leave you with a broken arm, and armor would probably provide DR instead of AC.
Exactly this. Otherwise the bonuses just spiral out of control.
Yes - it sometimes will hamper some synergy that would make sense. But it also stops the 5 bards venturing together that I knew couldn't work but had trouble to find the paragraph in the book.
Look at power builds. The trick is to get as many bonuses - but to do it in a way to never fall foul of the stacking rules. I agree that it some circumstances stacking a non-stackable bonus seems to make more sense then stacking all allowed bonuses that seem contrieved at best. But you can't have a constant case-by-case ruling that is simple and takes care to limit ridiciolous builds.
Mecurial, the reason are for balance reason, kind of like how improved critial and keen don't stack. Many times rules are made in the interest of balance that don't make sense otherwise.
Realistically trying to use a shield to block an attack from a giant or dragon if they existed would probably leave you with a broken arm, and armor would probably provide DR instead of AC.
Exactly this. Otherwise the bonuses just spiral out of control.
Yes - it sometimes will hamper some synergy that would make sense. But it also stops the 5 bards venturing together that I knew couldn't work but had trouble to find the paragraph in the book.
Look at power builds. The trick is to get as many bonuses - but to do it in a way to never fall foul of the stacking rules. I agree that it some circumstances stacking a non-stackable bonus seems to make more sense then stacking all allowed bonuses that seem contrieved at best. But you can't have a constant case-by-case ruling that is simple and takes care to limit ridiciolous builds.
I suppose in my mind 'limiting ridiculous builds' has never been at the forefront of my priorities as a player or a GM. Such a small percentage of players actually obsess over uber-builds - most are simply trying to make characters that seem cool and fun to them, and they are the ones who's ideas are most often interfered with by stacking rules that make little sense. In my opinion, emphasis on endlessly 'balancing' the game is always to that game's detriment. We ARE talking fantasy role-play, and those relentless efforts at balance in truth are only for the benefit/detriment to a small percentage of players with the vast majority innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.
Moreover, its not as if a GM can't rule that a particular stack is a bad idea or can't simply make encounters harder so that even their uber players are always challenged. My philosophy when it comes to game design is that when in doubt, always leave it to the GM's to make the call.
Personally, I think a fair compromise would be to say that when two bonuses of the same type apply, you take the higher and then add +1 for each additional bonus, somewhat similar to the aid another rules. Imagine a party of five Bards - one gets the full benefit of his Inspire Competence while the other four involved add +1 each to it regardless of what the normal bonus would have been. That allows them to combine their abilities into something greater than the individual but at the same time less than each would have been seperately added together. As for critical threat ranges, I've always been of the opinion that weapon critical threats should be modified by +1 rather than doubled, and every instance of expanded critical range should stack... i.e a scimitar with a threat range of 18+, Keen makes it 17+ and Imrpoved Critical makes it 16+.
Since those types of rules already exist within the system, it would make more sense to have a more universal applicability to them, rather than the conflicts we have at the momemnt (dodge bonuses stack but natural armor bonuses don't but bonuses to natural armor do stack with natural armor bonuses, etc.)
I suppose in my mind 'limiting ridiculous builds' has never been at the forefront of my priorities as a player or a GM. Such a small percentage of players actually obsess over uber-builds - most are simply trying to make characters that seem cool and fun to them, and they are the ones who's ideas are most often interfered with by stacking rules that make little sense. In my opinion, emphasis on endlessly 'balancing' the game is always to that game's detriment. We ARE talking fantasy role-play, and those relentless efforts at balance in truth are only for the benefit/detriment to a small percentage of players with the vast majority innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.
The devs have to consider many possiblities though, not just one group's playstyle. The dev's can't always keep the game balanced. There are always loopholes, but the game falls apart if you try to use "real life" logic to make rules for it. The game being a fantasy game does not make things better when a player is legally curb stomping encounters. I think the attempt benefits everyone. It shows intent to a very large extent, and it has helped me explain to players why certain things should not be done. It really helps newer GM's out. Trying to figure the game out is hard enough, and most of the work is already done for us.
Moreover, its not as if a GM can't rule that a particular stack is a bad idea or can't simply make encounters harder so that even their uber players are always challenged. My philosophy when it comes to game design is that when in doubt, always leave it to the GM's to make the call.
When you have players of various abilities what will kill one player will not bother another if you ignore certain rules. Even now it is hard at times. Nothing is in doubt though. The rules are in place. The GM is still free to remove those rules he thinks does not make sense whether it be for balance or immersion reasons. Not all GM's can make these calls correctly either. The less we have to do as GM's the better. It is also a good thing that if I have to move half-way across the country that I can join a new group without worrying about a complete character rebuild in most cases. That is definitely a bonus.
Standardisation is never a fault, and rule 0 still allows you to change things as you see fit for your table.
Personally, I think a fair compromise would be to say that when two bonuses of the same type apply, you take the higher and then add +1 for each additional bonus, somewhat similar to the aid another rules. Imagine a party of five Bards - one gets the full benefit of his Inspire Competence while the other four involved add +1 each to it regardless of what the normal bonus would have been. That allows them to combine their abilities into something greater than the individual but at the same time less than each would have been seperately added together. As for critical threat ranges, I've always been of the opinion that weapon critical threats should be modified by +1 rather than doubled, and every instance of expanded critical range should stack... i.e a scimitar with a threat range of 18+, Keen makes it 17+ and Imrpoved Critical makes it 16+.
I can see how this would give most GM's headaches also. It is definitely not a good idea to have bonuses keep stacking. I can also see how trying to track 3 different morale bonuses, 4 luck bonuses, etc, can become a problem logistically on top of other issues. As it is, you take the highest and move one, and the game stays playable for most groups. As for crit rules, I like them the way they are. Mathematically it works out well enough.
Since those types of rules already exist within the system, it would make more sense to have a more universal applicability to them, rather than the conflicts we have at the momemnt (dodge bonuses stack but natural armor bonuses don't but bonuses to natural armor do stack with natural armor bonuses, etc.)
There is no real conflict. Only 4 bonuses stack at the moment.
As far as the natural armor issue, it depends on how it is worded. It has nothing to do with the type of bonus. A "bonus to natural armor" is just an "add on". It is not a natural armor bonus. It is no different than saying you get a "bonus to attack rolls" such as the one haste grants.
edit:bad wording
Threat ranges vs critical multipliers are balanced to be statistically equal within the same damage dice. 18-20/x2 is the same as 20/x4 while 19-20/x2 is the same as 20/x3. If you start adding in +1 threat range increases that will disproportionally help the higher multipliers.
- Gauss
Threat ranges vs critical multipliers are balanced to be statistically equal within the same damage dice. 18-20/x2 is the same as 20/x4 while 19-20/x2 is the same as 20/x3. If you start adding in +1 threat range increases that will disproportionally help the higher multipliers.
- Gauss
I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.
I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.Threat ranges vs critical multipliers are balanced to be statistically equal within the same damage dice. 18-20/x2 is the same as 20/x4 while 19-20/x2 is the same as 20/x3. If you start adding in +1 threat range increases that will disproportionally help the higher multipliers.
- Gauss
I missed it also. That is why I made the same comment he did in my last post. Could you further explain it?