|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
You get:
+2 strength bonus (+1 to mod)
-2 dexterity penalty (-1 to mod)
-1 to attacks ("due to its increased size")
-1 to AC ("due to its increased size")
All your gear grows (but shrinks if it leaves your possession)
Looking at AC - both dex and size mods drop by 1 giving you a -2 to AC, the spell says that you get a -1. Presumably the extra +1 you would get is because you got a little tougher (sort of a natural armor thing) when you got bigger.
The size modifiers on CMB and CMD are the opposite of AC. Small creatures get +1 to AC/attack but -1 to CMB/CMD. Large creatures get -1 to AC/attack but +1 to CMB/CMD. The changes in dex and strength would cancel each other out on CMD, the size mod would go to +1. Unless the -1 to attack means -1 to BAB then your CMD should actually increase by 1 with enlarge person. Even if a -1 to attack means -1 to BAB, then CMB should increase by 1 (increased size cancels out decreased BAB, increased strenth gives +1).
Is the -1 to attack just a component of the change to attack? -1 for increased size, but +1 for increased strength so no change, in most cases, for melee attacks.
I have a dex based fighter (weapon finesse, combat reflexes, agile maneuvers, etc.) that could completely dominate a room physically if someone cast enlarge person on her, but to figure out how much skill loss she would take I've got to deconstruct how Paizo interprets the effects of enlarge person (is -1 to attack due to increased size something that would translate to +1 CMB, etc.). The dex based feats are optional usage, so it's possible that using strength for attacks when enlarged would be equal to using dex while enlarged, but I'd want to be sure I was applying all the enlargement modifiers correctly before making assumptions.
How does the following look for enlarged characters (all other modifiers being equal):
Melee attacks (str based) - +1 str, -1 size = no change (+1 damage)
Melee attacks (dex based) - -1 dex, -1 size = -2 total (+1 damage)
Ranged attacks - -1 dex, -1 size, = -2 total (possible +1 damage, depending on weapon type)
CMB (str based) - +1 str, +1 size = +2 total
CMB (dex based) - -1 dex, +1 size = no change
AC - -1 (as stated in spell, I'll accept my above explanation on this one without going into to much thought)
Reflex saves - -1 dex = -1 total
Strength based skills - +1 str = +1 total
Dex based skills - -1 dex = -1 total
gnrrrg wrote: You get:
+2 strength bonus (+1 to mod)
-2 dexterity penalty (-1 to mod)
<Changed into size large, tall with gear while it remains in your possession>
You are over-thinking things.
The penalty to DEX might not alter your AC. Likewise the bonus to STR might not increase your ATTACK or Damage values, etc.
It's best to leave it as the above, and just understand that many times there are reminder texts in the rules to help people out.
-James
"The target gains a +2 size bonus to Strength, a -2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a -1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased size."
There are two different numbers being changed: Your stats are modified by +2 Strength and -2 Dex; you ALSO get -1 attack and -1 AC because you're large. This works out to +0 Attack, +1 damage, -2 AC. Now, your flat-footed AC only goes down by 1 because your dex is ignored.
So your calculations look good except for the AC, which should be -2.
Enlarge can actually give you +2 damage if you are going from an odd stat to even and two handing
EX: 20 str to 22 str would go from 7 damage to 9.
Love the spell, but it is a numerical pain for some of the newbies I game with.
But the big thing is reach and the extra D6 damage for two handed swords
Sloanzilla wrote: Enlarge can actually give you +2 damage if you are going from an odd stat to even and two handing
EX: 20 str to 22 str would go from 7 damage to 9.
That has recently come into question, given that temporary stat bonuses don't have direct relevance to the stat they are a bonus to. A bonus to Strength doesn't actually up your Strength; it ups your Attack and Damage with strength-based weapons. To illustrate:
18 Str (+4 mod) with a Greatsword: 2d6 +6 damage (1.5x Str mod)
A +2 temporary bonus to Str gives you +1 damage, not a +1 increase to your Str mod so with this bonus, you go to 2d6 +6 +1. I disagree with this stance, but there it is.
Kazaan wrote: Sloanzilla wrote: Enlarge can actually give you +2 damage if you are going from an odd stat to even and two handing
EX: 20 str to 22 str would go from 7 damage to 9.
That has recently come into question, given that temporary stat bonuses don't have direct relevance to the stat they are a bonus to. A bonus to Strength doesn't actually up your Strength; it ups your Attack and Damage with strength-based weapons. To illustrate:
18 Str (+4 mod) with a Greatsword: 2d6 +6 damage (1.5x Str mod)
A +2 temporary bonus to Str gives you +1 damage, not a +1 increase to your Str mod so with this bonus, you go to 2d6 +6 +1. I disagree with this stance, but there it is. False. The rules say:
Ability Score Bonuses
Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses. For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
Strength: Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The bonus also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.
That would be a pretty significant barbarian nerf if true, but I can't see it being true, as the 1.5 damage increase is due to swinging a two handed weapon. It's an actual in-game physical property.
Otherwise, an 18 str barbarian raging and with bull's strength would do 2D6+10 instead of 2D6+12.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You completely ignore the higher weapon damage dices and the higher natural reach.
Zark wrote: False. The rules say:
Ability Score Bonuses
Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses. For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
Strength: Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The bonus also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.
I'd almost say that's a non sequitor, but it actually illustrates exactly the point if you don't excise a single word and take it out of context. "Temporary increase to your Strength score" means +2 bonus to Strength. Now, read the rest of the line to find what a +2 bonus to Strength yields; "... a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength)..." It doesn't directly say that it increases the value of your Strength modifier in your damage calculation, it just says it gives you a bonus to damage. If something says it gives you "a bonus to damage", that's taken, by default, to mean a separate bonus to be taken on its own and doesn't carry the implication of increasing an existing bonus such as what exists between Natural Armor and [type] Bonus to Natural Armor. You can have a Natural Armor value of 5, and then an enhancement bonus to natural armor of +2 and a competence bonus to natural armor of +1 and the two will stack netting you +8 natural armor. But the bonus damage from temporary increases to Strength isn't denoted as a "[type] bonus to your Strength Modifier on Damage Rolls", it's just a "bonus to Damage Rolls (that rely on Strength)". That's the source of the debate and could be easily fixed to what it should be by making the change as I noted, making it a bonus to your Str Mod on damage rolls. In short, the RAW actually does say that you just add the raw bonus to your damage, not to your Str mod, but this is likely not RAI.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Eridan wrote: You completely ignore the higher weapon damage dices and the higher natural reach. Thank you good sir, because herein lies the beauty of Enlarge Person. If you have a two-handed reach weapon, armor spikes or some non-reach attack (like half-orc bite), Enlarge Person, and another effect like Impact or Lead Blades, then you can cover about 64 or so squares on the battlefield and do some massive damage. Throw Power Attack and Combat Reflexes in there and you can hold your end of the battlefield solidly depending on your build.
To the original poster, it is not as good for the finesse character but there are benefits. It is a no-brainer for the beefy tank who likes to dish out huge amounts of brute force style damage.
To Kazaan, I think you are way overthinking this. Add the bonus to the ability score and take whatever modifier that gives. Simple, end of story, keep playing.
Hendelbolaf wrote: To Kazaan, I think you are way overthinking this. Add the bonus to the ability score and take whatever modifier that gives. Simple, end of story, keep playing. Keep in mind that A) I didn't come up with all this, I'm just conveying it, B) I don't agree that it's how it should be, and C) Temporary attribute score bonuses, explicitly, do not change your ability score nor your modifier. They add a bonus directly to those things that the modifier controls with a few exceptions by omition. For example, a temporary bonus to Strength doesn't increase your carrying capacity or raw Strength checks (ie. lifting a heavy object or opening a stuck door). Temporary Con bonuses don't increase your Rage/round total. So on and so forth. And that's as it should be. But the way they wrote the Strength bonus section, a +2 attribute bonus to Strength increases your damage with strength based weapons by +1, not your Strength bonus to damage by +1. This means that, even if your baseline Str modifier is +3 which would only yield +4 damage with a 2-h weapon, +2 Str doesn't boost that modifier up to +4 which yields +6 damage on a 2-h weapon... it is a separate damage bonus in the same realm as the weapon bonus from Weapon Specialization. And, again, I think it should not be this way; it should be a "bonus to strength bonus to damage" rather than just a "bonus to damage (on strength-based weapons)".
You should read better. A strength check is a strength-based skill check and is therefor made by the increased strength. The spell specifically states this (CRB page 278) as does the strength chapter (CRB page 554). Thrown or projectile weapons are unnaffected because the projectile/thrown object will reduce to normal size as soon as it leaves the characters possesion and the increased strength only affects melee weapons.
So carrying capacity does not change, but opening a stuck door or lifting a heavy object does increase (strength based skill check)
So if you want to increase damage on your thrown weapons you need an enlarge person that lasts permanent or longer then 24 hours (and then your carrying capacity will also increase)
you could argue that a thrown weapon should have a +1 on damage because of the increased strength, but the rules specifically states 'melee weapons'.
But as a GM I would allow the +1 damage to strength, but not the encreased size modifier on a thrown weapon. And if someone actually had a strength bow that has a rating that is one higher then he/she might normally wield, I would allow the +1 damage there as well(if someone actually realised that, you should award it).
In short go for the belt of enlarge person as a permanent enchantment and don't forget one for your mount as well. ;)
And which strength-based skill are you using to open a stuck door? Swim or Climb? Or is there some other strength-based skill that I don't know about? Unless, of course, you were talking about a raw Strength check (d20 + str mod), which temporary attribute bonuses to Str don't include in their benefit.
Kazaan wrote: Hendelbolaf wrote: To Kazaan, I think you are way overthinking this. Add the bonus to the ability score and take whatever modifier that gives. Simple, end of story, keep playing. Keep in mind that A) I didn't come up with all this, I'm just conveying it, B) I don't agree that it's how it should be, and C) Temporary attribute score bonuses, explicitly, do not change your ability score nor your modifier. I asked before, but do you have a link where a developer confirmed what you are saying? This argument is new to me and runs counter to how I understand the rules for ability score increases as described in the CRB.
Nefreet wrote: I asked before, but do you have a link where a developer confirmed what you are saying? This argument is new to me and runs counter to how I understand the rules for ability score increases as described in the CRB. I said it was an ongoing debate, but you can check the PRD for the rules on stat bonuses Here and note that it does match up to the argument:
PRD wrote: Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses. For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
Strength: Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The bonus also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.
...
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.
You can see that if you get a "Strength Bonus", it's not actually affecting your strength modifier; "apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability." In the case of Strength, those skills and statistics are Strength-based skill checks (Swim and Climb), melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (not a bonus to your strength bonus to damage rolls). Later, the Permanent Bonuses subsection shows, explicitly, that the default rule is for ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after (they've been in effect for) 24 hours. It's either in error, on account of monster stat blocks not matching up, or the stat blocks are in error. I hold with the idea that this section is in error and it should be a bonus to your strength bonus to damage rather than just a bonus to damage which would fall outside of the 2-h and off-hand/secondary natural weapon factors on strength bonus to damage. We don't yet have a ruling one way or the other, but there's credible evidence on both sides.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I pretty sure you're overthinking all this. Especially given Sean's recent post about the difficulties involved in reading and comprehending the English language.
I'd love a link to that post...
Eridan wrote: You completely ignore the higher weapon damage dices and the higher natural reach. And the minor uses of:
(...) Carrying Capacity are for Medium bipedal creatures. A larger bipedal creature can carry more weight depending on its size category, as follows: Large ×2,(...)
Also:
(...)
Breaking Items
(...) Larger and smaller creatures get size bonuses and size penalties on Strength checks to break open doors as follows:(...) Large +4,(...)
And basic 10x10 blockzone with the reach that piles with Lunge (feat) and reach weapons.
Of course all of this is for a medium character.
All the rest is a interpretation that as a half-time/interpretation +1 for THW. An uneven str. dam. mod. might get a cool (+2) or OK (+1) bonus but an even bonus will only get +1 anyways.
DM_Blake wrote: I'd love a link to that post...
You mean THIS one?
Yep. That's the one. I have been away for a couple weeks and that post wasn't in the top-10 list so I had overlooked it. Thanks.
Sean has also talked about how, if you're going to make a new rule, you should either make it work exactly like old rules or nothing like the old rules to keep people from getting confused. I can't believe that he and the design team would throw that philosophy away with temporary bonuses to stats.
Nefreet wrote: Kazaan wrote: Hendelbolaf wrote: To Kazaan, I think you are way overthinking this. Add the bonus to the ability score and take whatever modifier that gives. Simple, end of story, keep playing. Keep in mind that A) I didn't come up with all this, I'm just conveying it, B) I don't agree that it's how it should be, and C) Temporary attribute score bonuses, explicitly, do not change your ability score nor your modifier. I asked before, but do you have a link where a developer confirmed what you are saying? This argument is new to me and runs counter to how I understand the rules for ability score increases as described in the CRB. Its the same reading that makes it so that an oracle of lore with sidestep secret (cha to ref and ac) will still gain AC and reflex save if they gain a temp bonus to their dex (and the opposite if they take dex damage). Reading wise, I agree with Kazaan. I don't ever play it like this though.
gnrrrg wrote: You get:
+2 strength bonus (+1 to mod)
-2 dexterity penalty (-1 to mod)
-1 to attacks ("due to its increased size")
-1 to AC ("due to its increased size")
All your gear grows (but shrinks if it leaves your possession)
Looking at AC - both dex and size mods drop by 1 giving you a -2 to AC, the spell says that you get a -1. Presumably the extra +1 you would get is because you got a little tougher (sort of a natural armor thing) when you got bigger.
The size modifiers on CMB and CMD are the opposite of AC. Small creatures get +1 to AC/attack but -1 to CMB/CMD. Large creatures get -1 to AC/attack but +1 to CMB/CMD. The changes in dex and strength would cancel each other out on CMD, the size mod would go to +1. Unless the -1 to attack means -1 to BAB then your CMD should actually increase by 1 with enlarge person. Even if a -1 to attack means -1 to BAB, then CMB should increase by 1 (increased size cancels out decreased BAB, increased strenth gives +1).
Is the -1 to attack just a component of the change to attack? -1 for increased size, but +1 for increased strength so no change, in most cases, for melee attacks.
How does the following look for enlarged characters (all other modifiers being equal):
Melee attacks (str based) - +1 str, -1 size = no change (+1 damage)
Melee attacks (dex based) - -1 dex, -1 size = -2 total (+1 damage)
Ranged attacks - -1 dex, -1 size, = -2 total (possible +1 damage, depending on weapon type)
CMB (str based) - +1 str, +1 size = +2 total
CMB (dex based) - -1 dex, +1 size = no change
AC - -1 (as stated in spell, I'll accept my above explanation on this one without going into to much thought)
Reflex saves - -1 dex = -1 total
Strength based skills - +1 str = +1 total
Dex based skills - -1 dex = -1 total
Yes from what I see most of what you wrote is correct, with 1 mistake and a few other things that I'll clarify for thoroughness:
- BAB is NOT increased. If it meant to increase BAB it would say BAB.
- Total AC loss is 2, not 1. An additional 1 is from lost dex; if you get an ability bonus/penalty, the game won't typically include what the ability modifier does because that would be a long list and wate of space. you need to translate and add the effects of ability modifiers separately.
- CMD goes up by 1. You mentioned that, but you didn't put it on either of your lists
- Creature typically gains 5 ft. more reach as it usually becomes a tall large creature (long ones won't from what I understand).
- as per "all your gear grows" you get higher melee attack damage.
I wouldn't say you were over thinking the AC thing, you were just thinking wrong.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kazaan wrote: Nefreet wrote: I asked before, but do you have a link where a developer confirmed what you are saying? This argument is new to me and runs counter to how I understand the rules for ability score increases as described in the CRB. I said it was an ongoing debate, but you can check the PRD for the rules on stat bonuses Here and note that it does match up to the argument:
PRD wrote: Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses. For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
Strength: Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The bonus also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.
...
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.
You can see that if you get a "Strength Bonus", it's not actually affecting your strength modifier; "apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.So a " In the case of Strength, those skills and statistics are Strength-based skill checks (Swim and Climb), melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (not a bonus to your strength bonus to damage rolls). Later, the Permanent Bonuses subsection shows, explicitly, that the default rule is for ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after (they've been in effect for) 24 hours. It's either in error, on account of monster stat blocks not matching up, or the stat blocks are in error. I hold with the idea that this section is in error and it should be a bonus to your strength bonus to damage rather than just a bonus to damage which would fall outside of the 2-h and off-hand/secondary natural weapon factors on strength bonus to damage. We don't yet have a ruling one way or the other, but there's credible evidence on both sides. I’m not as smart as Wraithstrike, but I say you are overthinking it.
Edit:
If we gonna play it the way you say, by the same logic a level 1 fighter with 14 str using two weapon fighting would also get +1 to damage with his off-hand attack even though he normally wouldn’t. Or do you mean that it’s only +1 to damage per round? So a hasted 16 level Barbarian would only get +1 do damage during that round even if she hit with all her five attacks?
Are you also meaning that if you cast Reduce Person on a THW barbarian she would only be hit with -1 to damage regardless of her str score? That would be awesome. Especially for those builds that need high dex and high AC.
The rules say: Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls. You don’t roll damage from a high strength score. It is a fixed bonus and you can’t calculate that bonus unless you have the total strength bonus.
Edit:
Why do you think Reduce Person says:
"a –2 size penalty to Strength (to a minimum of 1)".
My bold.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Can't speak for Kazaan, but I'm not saying this is RAI. Its written that temporary scores adjustments are tied to specific bonuses. Every 2 temporary increase/decrease nets a +1/-1 to certain abilities.
It leads to some nonsensical interactions (the game is full of those). For example, a weapon finesse dex based character would still gain +1 to hit with a temp 2 str increase. A TWF character will gain +2 damage on offhand weapons with a +4 giant's belt, until he wears it for 24 hours, in which case that damage increase reduces to +1.
But why does this matter so much? Nobody plays it this way, not even in PFS I'd imagine. Just file it under weird Pathfinder rules that everybody ignores.
RAW does not matter unless it it’s parried with good judgement. If we would stop using common sense and just stare blindly at RAW the game would fall apart. The rules can’t cover everything.
A raging barbarian that gets a +4 temporary moral bonus to strength would only get +2 do damage with her great sword and she would get no bonus on strength checks, but she would get a +2 bonus on strength based skills checks?
Again, The rules can’t cover everything.
Zark wrote: Again, The rules can’t cover everything. Yeah, but they shouldn't conflict with the way people play.
If they mean the rule to be X, but are saying instead Y... then there is a problem with the wording of the rules.
This is especially true in the case of rules that were changed from 3.5, as they should be highlighted as changes and what those changes are meant to accomplish.
-James
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Personally I think Kazaan is correct by RAW, but not RAI. Which also means I think the rule should be rewritten or an FAQ should be issued. Getting a +1 to the off-hand weapon damage, as an example, may not be game breaking, but I still doubt it is the intent of the rule.
Well, the thing I find most odd is that with a temporary Str bonus, by strict reading of RAW, you'd get +1 damage per 2 bonus Str in the first 24 hours for your off-hand attacks, but then once it becomes a permanent bonus, that benefit is incorporated into your Str mod and it gets the 0.5 factor, meaning if your mod was even before, it'd odd now and your whole bonus point of damage evaporates. In these cases, it'd be better to remove the piece of equipment granting the bonus and then put it back on to maintain it as a temporary bonus rather than letting it graduate to permanent bonus status.
As an aside, we hit the same issue regarding temporary modifiers, but in the other direction, several weeks ago in a game session. In that one, my character took CON damage and the question was whether the reduction to hit points should be calculated based on what my modified CON score after damage, or based on multiples of -2 CON damage.
eg. CON 10 takes one point of CON damage. Based on RAW, there's no loss of hit points because it's a -1 penalty for every two points of damage, and so one point isn't enough to trigger it. Based on CON score, however, the -1 CON dropped the character down to the 8-9 CON range, which is a -1 penalty.
I asked the question here on the forum after that event and the consensus was that you work off the accumulate modifier (ie. -1 CON does nothing and -3 CON would be a net -1 CON bonus). That agrees with what Kazaan has been saying.
It's the flip side of the discussion above, with similar wording as to the effect of ability damage not actually affecting the score (ie. a temporary modifier), but having an impact on associated skills.
If you rule one way on temporary ability increases, then you need to rule the same way on ability damage which is effectively a temporary ability decrease.
Also, I feel that the 1.5 multiple for two handed weapon damage should apply to the bonus. So a +2 temporary strength increase is only going to add +1 damage, but a +4 temporary strength increase (eg. a barbarian's rage) would add +3 damage to two handed weapons (+2 bonus times 1.5).
As stated, explicitly by RAW, attribute damage doesn't affect the stat nor the modifier itself. For example, Con Damage wouldn't reduce the number of rounds you can Rage. The Con section describes that for every 2 points of Con damage you suffer, you reduce your HP by 1 per HD, regardless of whether your Con score is even or odd. In other words, even with 10 Con and are Level 10, you need to take 2 points of Con damage before dropping by 10 HP (-1 HP * 10 HD), even though reducing your Con by a single point would, otherwise, drop your modifier by 1. By contrast, stat drain actually does affect the stat itself so if you're at 10 Con, and suffer 1 point of Con drain, your HP drops by 1 per HD because your actual Con Stat (and, by extension, your modifier) is going down and you'd also suffer fewer rounds of Rage (if you're one of those crazy barbarians with only 10 points of Con) along with any other detriments involved with dropping your Con modifier.
Kazaan wrote: As stated, explicitly by RAW, attribute damage doesn't affect the stat nor the modifier itself. For example, Con Damage wouldn't reduce the number of rounds you can Rage. The Con section describes that for every 2 points of Con damage you suffer, you reduce your HP by 1 per HD, regardless of whether your Con score is even or odd. In other words, even with 10 Con and are Level 10, you need to take 2 points of Con damage before dropping by 10 HP (-1 HP * 10 HD), even though reducing your Con by a single point would, otherwise, drop your modifier by 1. By contrast, stat drain actually does affect the stat itself so if you're at 10 Con, and suffer 1 point of Con drain, your HP drops by 1 per HD because your actual Con Stat (and, by extension, your modifier) is going down and you'd also suffer fewer rounds of Rage (if you're one of those crazy barbarians with only 10 points of Con) along with any other detriments involved with dropping your Con modifier. This makes sense and is also RAI. The Devs have stated that don’t want damage to mess to much with the game and they want to keep it simple not to bog down game play. That is why it str damage don’t affect carrying capacity, con damage don’t affect rage rounds, etc.
As for the temp bonus to str. You are right, but RAW don’t make sense and I doubt it is RAI since the The Iconic Amiri in NPC Codex gets +3 to damage when she is raging (and +5 and level 12).
I will try to get one FAQ post up this weekend ( I write really slowly) and PM you.
We will probably need one more FAQ for the “no bonus Strength checks” question. I will see if I can get that one up as well.
I really hope Paizo could rewrite the chapter on temporary modifiers. Energy Drain and Negative Levels is still confusing and so is the meaning of what “level-dependent variables” actually entails. I've seen different answers from different devs.
BTW, Great work Kazaan :-) No we may get a FAQ or an errata on this.
I'm pretty sure that "level-dependent variables" would be such as follows:
The Fire Bolt domain ability of the Fire domain deals 1d6 damage and +1 for every 2 levels in the class granting the domain. For example, a level 6 Cleric with Fire domain deals 1d6+3 damage with Firebolt. But if that Cleric suffered a negative level, their Firebolt would only deal 1d6+2 because their effective level for calculating level-based effects is now 5. Another example would be Cure Light Wounds which heals 1d8 (+1/CL). A lvl 5 Cleric would be healing 1d8+5, but with one negative level, he only heals 1d8+4. It doesn't affect prepared spells or slots so the lvl 5 Cleric with 1 negative level doesn't lose his single third level spell slot. I'm pretty sure that the Cleric would also still use Channel Energy at 3d6, though the Will Save to cause damage may be reduced. The real question is whether it follows the same pattern as Ability Damage; that if an ability gets +1 per 2 levels, do you require two negative levels regardless of whether you were even or odd before? Or does it work more like Ability Damage? Considering how you don't lose spell slots, I'd say it works like Ability Damage; your actual level isn't modified, you're taking a "-1 penalty" on all things granted by that level. So you'd keep any abilities you gain at certain levels such as Channel Energy, Spell Slots, etc. After all, if you were multi-classed, there's no mention of picking which class you lose the level from; if a negative level cut out abilities you gained, which class do you lose those abilities from? But when it calls for "caster level" or "save DC = 10 + (class_level)/2", those are examples of level-dependent variables. I don't think that's quite as unclear as people make it out to be.
I can see where you might get that with a rough reading of the rules, but it isn't the only reading of the rules.
You have this as your proof Kazaan:
Quote: Strength: Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The bonus also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and to your Combat Maneuver Defense. Let's look at the strength score in general:
[quoteYou apply your character’s Strength modifier to:
• Melee attack rolls.
• Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown
weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks
receive only half the character’s Strength bonus, while
two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength
bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to
attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.) So the word bonus is used to refer to a positive modifier for the attribute. Further proof of this from the ability section:
Quote: Determine Bonuses
Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a
modifier ranging from –5 to +5. Table 1–3 shows the modifier
for each score. The modifier is the number you apply to
16 the die roll when your character tries to do something
related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some
numbers that aren’t die rolls. A positive modifier is called
a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty. The
table also shows bonus spells, which you’ll need to know
about if your character is a spellcaster.
So, yes, temporary bonuses to an attribute give you a bonus on checks related to the attribute. Nothing makes this bonus any different than the bonus you already get from your attribute, unless you try to claim that the bonus granted by the temporary bonus to the attribute is not directly related to that attribute (I.E. The bonus from a temporary strength boost is not a strength bonus). That seems to be a fairly illogical leap.
So, let's point back at how two handed weapons work with a strength bonus:
Quote: two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus If a character has a 16 strength (a +3 strength bonus), and get's a +2 temporary boost to strength (giving a +1 bonus to strength related checks, skills, damage, etc.), that is a total of a +4 bonus on strength related checks, skills, damage, etc.
Two handed modifier would then be applied after that.
Counter-example:
PRD wrote: Amulet of Natural Armor:
This amulet, usually crafted from bone or beast scales, toughens the wearer's body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet.
Barkskin:
Barkskin toughens a creature's skin. The effect grants a +2 enhancement bonus to the creature's existing natural armor bonus. This enhancement bonus increases by 1 for every three caster levels above 3rd, to a maximum of +5 at 12th level.
The enhancement bonus provided by barkskin stacks with the target's natural armor bonus, but not with other enhancement bonuses to natural armor. A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0.
There's a clear and explicit difference between a natural armor bonus and a bonus to your natural armor bonus. You can't claim a natural armor bonus from two separate sources, since they are the same type of bonus. However, you could have an enhancement bonus to your natural armor bonus along with a sacred bonus to your natural armor bonus. To illustrate, say you have some feature that grants you +2 natural armor bonus to AC. You also have a feature that grants you +1 natural armor bonus to AC. You only benefit from the +2 because like bonuses don't stack. However, you also have an enhancement bonus to your natural armor bonus of +5. This is, effectively, increasing your +2 bonus to a +7 bonus and this does work. Lets say you also have a +2 sacred bonus to natural armor, that would also add in so you get +2 +5 +2 for a net of +9 natural armor bonus to AC.
Now, go to ability score bonuses. It doesn't say that for every +2 bonus to the Strength stat, you gain a bonus to Strength based skill checks, attack rolls, and damage rolls (with strength-based weapons). This is an untyped bonus and it is applied to the rolls themselves. Nothing states that the bonus actually applied to your rolls is an "ability bonus" nor a "strength bonus". Lets break it down; we'll say you have a character with a +4 Str mod, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, +4 BAB, and a 1d8 one-handed weapon.
Attack: d20 +4 (BAB) +4 (Str bonus) +1 (wFocus) = 1d20 + 9 to hit.
Damage: 1d8 +4 (Str bonus) +2 (wSpec) = 1d8 + 6 damage.
Now, lets say he gets hit with Bull's Strength for +4 Str bonus. As per the rules, +4 temporary Str bonus gives you +2 on attack and damage rolls and Str-based skill checks (Swim and Climb are the only Str-based skills). It's not a +2 (untyped) bonus to Strength bonus to hit and to damage like if it reflected the bonus to natural armor bonus, it's a +2 (untyped) bonus to hit and to damage, full_stop. So, it is not:
Attack: d20 + 4 (BAB) +(4 + 2) (Str bonus) + 1 (wFocus) = d20 + 11
Damage: 1d8 +(4 + 2) + 2 (wSpec) = 1d8 + 8 damage
but rather:
Attack: d20 + 4 (BAB) +4 (Str bonus) + 1 (wFocus) + 2 (from temporary ability bonus) = d20 + 11
Damage: 1d8 +4 (Str) + 2(wSpec) + 2(temporary ability bonus) = 1d8 +8 damage
This is a key distinction in the system and it probably should be giving a "bonus to strength bonus to damage" just as certain spells, abilities, and items give you a "bonus to natural armor bonus to AC". The point is that it doesn't. This is a fact so there's no more need to derail the thread on this topic coming up with refutations of explicit facts. It was a cautionary statement that the subject is under debate and the OP may encounter some other players who interpret the rule by strict RAW or by implicit RAI backed up by monster stat blocks and he should be clear with who he's playing with and how they're going to interpret things. So lets end that tangent here because everything that needs to be said has been said and then some.
Whether or not it doesn't is solely based on when you apply the bonus, Kazaan.
The fact that it is applied to the roll directly is not important, the normal Strength bonus is applied directly to the roll as well. It is inherently related to the character's strength (it stems from a Strength bonus).
The only way your position works is if you ignore where the bonus comes from, and apply it after applying the bonuses for two handed weapons (or one handed weapons).
Both are illogical. It does not need to be listed as a strength bonus. It is under the strength section and comes from a bonus to the strength score. secondly, if it is applied after the two handed modifier to damage, then the normal strength bonus would be as well, so the math would always be: 0 x 1.5 + Strength bonus + temporary bonus from strength modifiers.
I'm sure we can both agree that the second way does not work. Although it would be amazing for two weapon fighters (0 x .5 + strength bonus + temporary strength bonus). Yum.
Although we could also point out that your proposal leads to the following as well:
A two weapon fighter with a temporary strength bonus gets the full damage bonus on off hand weapons.
That is because the half strength modifier would not apply to the temporary strength bonus bonus to damage.
I guess if we ignore logic and every single example given following these regards and follow your flawed logic despite the fact that a valid reading exists that supports the the in game stats, then you may be right. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not the case.
If one reading is completely supported by the rules and the other reading is not supported at all, I'm going to go with the supported ruling. It tends to be right.
Well, at this point we're certainly overthinking it. But that is what this forum is for!
I was pretty surprised by the discovery that, RAW, things like bull's strength don't affect carrying capacity.
Okay, imagine two characters. Character A has a strength of 12, and is wielding a 2H weapon, so normally gets +1 damage (+1.5, rounding down). Character B has a strength of 14, and is dual-wielding, so character B gets +2 on primary hand damage, and +1 damage on off-hand. We now cast a spell on them which gives them each +2 strength.
Interpretation #1: +2 strength gives you a +1 bonus on weapon attack rolls. Character A now gets +2 damage (+1.5, rounding down, and +1). Character B now gets +3 primary hand, and +2 off hand.
Interpretation #2: +2 strength increases your strength modifier's bonus to attack rolls by 1. Character A now gets +3 damage (+2, *1.5, = 3). Character B now gets +3 primary hand, and +1 off hand. (+3/2 = +1.5, rounding down to +1).
Basically, which interpretation is better for you depends; if you're looking at the half-modifier for an off-hand weapon, it can be to your advantage to just get a +1 to both your attacks, while if you're looking at the modifier-and-a-half for a main-hand weapon, you're better off if the +1 is multiplied by that.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I don't think Interpretation #2 (Kazaan's proposal) is really valid by RAW.
His theory is that the bonus is untyped, but I would disagree. It is a typed bonus (most likely), because it comes from whatever the source of the temporary strength bonus is.
So the bonus to skill checks, strength checks, damage from bull strength's temporary strength bonus is from an "enhancement bonus to Strength" just like the spell states.
The spell states this explicitly:
"The spell grants a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, adding the usual benefits to melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls, and other uses of the Strength modifier."
The temporary bonus section cannot put a type on the bonus because it depends on what the source is. For example, if we look at Rage instead of Bull's Strength, the bonus is no longer an enhancement bonus to strength, but instead a "morale bonus to strength."
Every temporary bonus to an ability has a source. The bonus granted by the temporary bonus is, by nature, from that same source and, again by nature, of the same type.
To say otherwise would literally be saying the following:
Bull's Strength give a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength.
This bonus is a temporary bonus to Strength.
Temporary bonuses to strength give a bonus on strength checks, strength based skill checks, etc.
The temporary bonus is not linked in any way to Bull's Strength which is causing the temporary bonus to occur.
The last point is where things get illogical.
There's a parallel here to the way enhancement bonuses on armor and shields work. +5 armor doesn't have a +5 enhancement bonus to armor class; it has a +5 enhancement bonus to its armor bonus.
The question is, does a +1 bonus to melee and thrown weapon damage caused by increased strength mean a separate +1 bonus to damage, on top of whatever your (unmodified) strength modifier is, or is it really a +1 bonus to the bonus damage you get from strength?
Because it's only the strength bonus damage that's multiplied by 1.5 or 0.5.
Putting it another way, say you have strength 10, and a spell gives you a +8 bonus to strength. Is your melee damage with a short sword now:
1d6+4 ([W] plus your now-modified strength bonus to damage)
1d6+0+4 ([W] plus your strength modifier plus a separate +4 bonus)
And this becomes important because if it's an off-hand shortsword, the first of these becomes 1d6+(4/2) and the second becomes 1d6+(0/2)+4. And if you swap in a two-handed weapon, the first becomes 1d6+(4*1.5), and the second becomes 1d6+(0*1.5)+4.
So with an off-hand or double weapon, you get more benefit from a separate bonus to the same things that your strength modifier is added to, and with a two-handed weapon you get more benefit from an effective increase in strength modifier.
I can read it either way. I don't think it's totally obvious which is intended, but I would tend to favor the "treat it as though you had a higher strength modifier for these purposes" ruling, for much the same reason as the recent haste/full-attack ruling; it's silly to introduce an extra complexity.
I cannot speak for how it is intended, but most people, including module writers, interpret it as "treat it as though you had a higher strength modifier."
But thinking about it, I can see how a completely new group to Pathfinder could get confused by how its worded, so yeah, throw up the question in a new thread and I'll FAQ it.
I think a good fix would be something a long the lines of "treat as though you have a different ability score total with the exception of gaining new spell slots and per day abilities." This might be closer to how everyone plays it.
Quote: There's a parallel here to the way enhancement bonuses on armor and shields work. +5 armor doesn't have a +5 enhancement bonus to armor class; it has a +5 enhancement bonus to its armor bonus. That's not really a parallel at all. The fact that a temporary bonus is temporary does not change the fact that it is of a certain type. Much like the wrapper of a candy bar tells you what is underneath, the source of a temporary bonus tells you what kind of bonus it is.
What abilities state that they just give a +X temporary bonus to strength? The ones I am seeing brought up specifically say they give a +X typed bonus to strength. It is temporary due to the duration of the ability, but that doesn't mean the type goes away.
The bonus granted by a Bull Strength spells is not just a +2 un-named bonus to the rolls. It is a +4 enhancement to strength that causes a +2 bonus to damage, attack rolls etc. It's is all reliant on that +4 enhancement to strength, and therefore directly related to the strength bonus (which is the same thing as saying strength modifier the way the book uses it).
It is extremely clear from the books that it is treated as increasing your score for these purposes, because we are told so by the spell:"The spell grants a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, adding the usual benefits to melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls, and other uses of the Strength modifier."
What are the usual benefits of adding 4 to your strength? Is it a +2 to your strength bonus (modifier), or is it an un-named +2 bonus that comes into play after everything else?
Simple logic answers that question.
But the rules do seem to distinguish between a change to your strength modifier, and a bonus to certain things which are normally also modified by your strength modifier.
The benefit of changing your strength by 4 would be a +2 to your strength modifier. But a +2 to your strength modifier would affect everything governed by your strength modifier, and the effects of a +4 enhancement bonus to strength explicitly don't affect all those other things. (Heck, RAW, they don't even affect your carrying capacity.)
Which is to say, that's a separate +2 bonus to a bunch of things which are also affected by your strength modifier, not a change to your strength modifier. The analogy I'd use would be an armor enchantment which grants a +2 bonus to AC, rather than a +2 bonus to the armor's armor value.
The previous statements we've seen have indicated that the main thing they're trying to avoid is things like, say, "you get to use this ability X times per day, where X is your modifier from <stat>". So I wouldn't be at all surprised by a ruling that of course the damage modifier is just added to your existing strength damage modifier before any multipliers for things like 2H or dual-wield. But it's not obvious to me that it is the current state of RAW.
Quote: The benefit of changing your strength by 4 would be a +2 to your strength modifier. But a +2 to your strength modifier would affect everything governed by your strength modifier, and the effects of a +4 enhancement bonus to strength explicitly don't affect all those other things. (Heck, RAW, they don't even affect your carrying capacity.) Not true. A +4 enhancement bonus to strength can affect everything (such as carrying capacity). It just doesn't if it's temporary. Being temporary has no affect on what kind of bonus it is, it just limits what exactly that bonus applies to. A belt of strength, for example, becomes a permanent bonus after 1 day of being worn. The type of bonus it gives does not change, but what that bonus applies to does.
Quote: Which is to say, that's a separate +2 bonus to a bunch of things which are also affected by your strength modifier, not a change to your strength modifier. The analogy I'd use would be an armor enchantment which grants a +2 bonus to AC, rather than a +2 bonus to the armor's armor value. Again, false. What is a bonus when talking about attributes? I've already posted this back up the page, but here goes again (I'll go ahead and post the whole section):
Core Rulebook, pg. 15
Quote: Determine Bonuses
Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a
modifier ranging from –5 to +5. Table 1–3 shows the modifier
for each score. The modifier is the number you apply to
16 the die roll when your character tries to do something
related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some
numbers that aren’t die rolls. A positive modifier is called
a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty. The
table also shows bonus spells, which you’ll need to know
about if your character is a spellcaster.
When talking about the modifiers from an attribute, a positive modifier is called a bonus.
Core Rulebook, pg. 554
Quote: Ability Score Bonuses
Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores.
Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give
only temporary bonuses. For every two points of increase
to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics
listed with the relevant ability.
Ability Score Bonuses. This section only deals with increases (positive modifiers) to ability scores. We know from the section before that a positive modifier from an ability score is called a bonus. This positive modifier (bonus) is applied to whatever is listed under its ability.
Core Rulebook, pg. 554
Quote: Strength: Temporary increases to your Strength
score give you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks,
melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely
on Strength). The bonus also applies to your Combat
Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and to your
Combat Maneuver Defense.
Strength bonuses (positive modifiers) that are temporary only apply to strength skill checks, melee attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, CMB, and CMD. This bonus (positive modifier) is due to an increase to your strength.
The language of the rules is consistent. It is mildly ambiguous due to how many ways the game uses the word bonus, but it is clear that when regarding ability scores, the word bonus means positive modifier.
Therefore, a temporary bonus to strength would grant a positive strength modifier. To get to a point where the bonus from temporary increases is not a modifier, we have to ignore the quote from page 15 that defines a positive modifier from an ability score as a bonus.
Zark wrote: RAW does not matter unless it it’s parried with good judgement. If we would stop using common sense and just stare blindly at RAW the game would fall apart. I have seen more games run into problems or falling apart by using "common sense" than by following strict RAW.
Everyone has a different view on common sense. What one sees as common sense is absurd for the next guy.
gnrrrg wrote: +2 strength bonus (+1 to mod)
-2 dexterity penalty (-1 to mod)
-1 to attacks ("due to its increased size")
-1 to AC ("due to its increased size"
The net effect is as follows for Medium to Large:
You gain 10ft Reach.
Your melee attacks without Weapon Finesse is +0 and with it is -2.
Your melee damage is increased by 1 die step and +1 to damage.
Your two handed melee attacks may gain more damage from the increase in Strength as a result of the 1.5x STR being round down and you break the threshold for the next higher 0.5 point.
Your CMB is +2 change unless you have an effect that uses DEX for CMB, if so it is +0 to CMB.
Your CMD is +1 and your AC is -2.
You make no other changes.
James Risner wrote: your AC is -2.
You make no other changes.
It could be that you are wearing armor with a DEX cap lower than your DEX modifier, and thus the AC might just be -1. Likewise you might use another stat for AC (e.g. CHA) and then also the AC would just be -1.
Honestly, though it is not that hard to do. Because in practice you are not doing so for enlarging every single possible character in the game world, but rather just enlarging one. Whether they have say weapon finesse or not, is something known, etc.
-James
One thing to keep in mind is that enlarge person changes the creature's size, and as such the abilities are modified accordingly due to the change in size. The spell doesn't directly modify the abilities. These changes in abilities are not considered "temporary" because the spell is not directly modifying the abilities (unlike how, say, a belt of giant strength or a bull's strength spell directly modifies the ability—hence temporary modifiers).
james maissen wrote: Zark wrote: Again, The rules can’t cover everything. Yeah, but they shouldn't conflict with the way people play.
If they mean the rule to be X, but are saying instead Y... then there is a problem with the wording of the rules.
This is especially true in the case of rules that were changed from 3.5, as they should be highlighted as changes and what those changes are meant to accomplish.
-James You got a Point.
I've stared a thread on the subject of temporary increase to Strength.
Check out :
this thread.
HangarFlying wrote: One thing to keep in mind is that enlarge person changes the creature's size, and as such the abilities are modified accordingly due to the change in size. The spell doesn't directly modify the abilities. These changes in abilities are not considered "temporary" because the spell is not directly modifying the abilities (unlike how, say, a belt of giant strength or a bull's strength spell directly modifies the ability—hence temporary modifiers). The rules do not support this.
It only speaks of temporary increase to Strength. It does not list if it only applies size bonus, moral bonus, enhancement bonus otr some other bonus.
A temporary increase to Strength is a temporary increase to Strength.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
