+4 temporary increases to Strength: How does it work? FAQ or Errata in the Core book or NPC Codex?

[seebs]

Except that the thing listed for Strength that you get a bonus to is "weapon damage for weapons which use Strength for damage", not "your Strength modifier".

So you are adding a separate bonus to those things, which is distinct from the base modifier.

[BigNorseWolf]

So you can't actually define it then, but you're hung up on the definition as the raw answer.

[Psyren]

If you get stronger (temporarily/permanently), you can hit harder and carry more stuff (temporarily/permanently.) I guess that makes too much sense?

I really hope the FAQ team doesn't waste time on this, there are much more important questions out there.

[Kazaan]

James Risner wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

100% crystal clear as is and needs no change in language?

Yes it is 100% crystal clear:

"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."

It makes no distinction about whether it is Temporary or Permanent, if you get +2 to STR you 18 STR goes to 20 STR. It only limits the benefit of Temporary bonuses to things that are stats based to prevent the weird mess that is a STAT based use per day effect taking advantage of an increase to a stat.

Hah hah. Ok, let me get this straight...

"Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses."

Further down the same section, it has a sub-section on Permanent Bonuses and how they work, stating that they "Actually increase the relevant stat"

"It makes no distinction about whether it is Temporary or Permanent..."

I award you no points, and may God have mercy upon your soul.

[Urath DM]

Actually, Psyren, you are incorrect. A temporary bonus to any statistic only increases the mofifier for that statistic. Other effects, such as additional skill points and carrying capacity are not affected. This is described in the Core Rulebook.

The spell Ant Haul in the Advanced Players Guide exists to specifically enhance carrying capacity without affecting the attack and damage modifiers gained from Strength, the complement to Bull's Strength in the Core.

Pathfinder Reference Document 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.

I think it is more intuitive to increase the modifier, but unfortunately, it does not say "apply a +1 bonus to the modifier", it says "apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed", and then specifically lists melee attack and damage rolls for Strength.

[thejeff]

Urath DM wrote:

Actually, Psyren, you are incorrect. A temporary bonus to any statistic only increases the mofifier for that statistic. Other effects, such as additional skill points and carrying capacity are not affected. This is described in the Core Rulebook.

The spell Ant Haul in the Advanced Players Guide exists to specifically enhance carrying capacity without affecting the attack and damage modifiers gained from Strength, the complement to Bull's Strength in the Core.

Pathfinder Reference Document 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.

I think it is more intuitive to increase the modifier, but unfortunately, it does not say "apply a +1 bonus to the modifier", it says "apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed", and then specifically lists melee attack and damage rolls for Strength.

And the list of statistics given has some strange exceptions. Example: A temporary increase to Dex does not give an attack bonus to someone using Weapon Finesse, but a temporary increase to Str would. If you're Dervish Dancing or using an Agile weapon you don't get a damage bonus either way.

The intent seems clear though and has been confirmed by developers in previous discussions. Temporary stat increases should boost all the bonuses as if the stat had gone up permanently, but you don't get more uses of abilities based on that. Nor do you get new skills with Int boosts.

[Majuba]

Zark wrote:

The Core rule book and NPC Codex is contradicting each other. We need an answer.

I don't believe we need an answer - the rules are clear (+3 bonus is appropriate). I think this is simply a case, much like the "Quick Rebuild" rules of templates, where fast and easy 'rules' are listed to speed play, not to redefine the way things work really.

[Kazaan]

Another matter to consider is stat damage which works, fundamentally, the same way. If you took 1 point of damage to your Str, as it's written now, it would not affect your damage output whether your starting Strength were even or odd. To illustrate; say you have 14 Strength and take 1 point of Str damage. By the reading that Str damage affects the ability score, your effective Strength would drop to 13 which, in turn, drops your Str mod from +2 to +1. By contrast, if your Strength were 13, it would drop to 12 which results in no drop of Str mod. But this is not the way it actually works; you need 2 full points of Str damage, regardless of where you start from, to lose a single point of the relevant statistics. Also, suffering Strength Damage doesn't reduce your carrying capacity so you don't have to re-calculate your load thresholds in the middle of combat to determine if you suffer load-based penalties as an added burden (no pun intended). Stat Damage and Drain function in exact mirror to Temporary and Permanent bonuses to stats.

[thejeff]

Majuba wrote:

Zark wrote:

The Core rule book and NPC Codex is contradicting each other. We need an answer.

I don't believe we need an answer - the rules are clear (+3 bonus is appropriate). I think this is simply a case, much like the "Quick Rebuild" rules of templates, where fast and easy 'rules' are listed to speed play, not to redefine the way things work really.

I love it when people say the "rules are clear" in the middle of a long discussion about what the rules actually mean.

[James Risner]

Majuba wrote:

Zark wrote:

The Core rule book and NPC Codex is contradicting each other. We need an answer.

rules are clear (+3 bonus is appropriate). I think this is simply a case, much like the "Quick Rebuild" rules of templates, where fast and easy 'rules' are listed to speed play, not to redefine the way things work really.

I don't think the +2 crowd can find a single example of an NPC built using their interpretation in any Paizo book.

Your way of describing the "Quick" rules is basically how I think about it, but I didn't think of a succinct way to say it like you did.

[Gauss]

James Risner, this would not be the first time where the rules contradicted the (sometimes many) examples. I seem to remember examples of Monks have been incorrect for years until they FAQ'd it to match how monks were being written and run (FoB with one weapon or did it take two).

As it stands, right now the bonus is not added to your strength modifier. It is a separate bonus.

While many people, including myself and obviously Paizo, interpret it that it is added to the Strength modifier that is not what is actually written. Good thing I don't play PFS much. :)

- Gauss

[seebs]

Psyren wrote:

If you get stronger (temporarily/permanently), you can hit harder and carry more stuff (temporarily/permanently.) I guess that makes too much sense?

Heh. That was pretty much my exact response when I first encountered this: "Why are you doing this, this is insane." But on seeing some of the arguments about the problems created by the straightforward interpretation ("your strength is higher, so your strength modifier is higher, act accordingly") I am willing to concede that the fancy "temporary bonuses give bonuses to..." wording is serving a purpose.

I just think it's got bugs, and I am not sure it's worth trying to fix. It might be easier to just special-case the exceptions in the other direction.

[wraithstrike]

Psyren wrote:

If you get stronger (temporarily/permanently), you can hit harder and carry more stuff (temporarily/permanently.) I guess that makes too much sense?

I really hope the FAQ team doesn't waste time on this, there are much more important questions out there.

So do I got by the rule saying to add a +1 to damage when my strength score increase by 2 or do I go pretend my score actually increased and go by that, even though the rules say my score did not actually increase because the bonus is not permanent?

Cite rules when answering, and explain it like you would to someone that was new.

[Sloanzilla]

I guess the basic argument is that the rule as described is assuming a single one handed swing with a single weapon.

The multiplier rule- X1.5 (two handed) or X.5 (twf) is assumed to be outside of the parentheses and subsequently applied to the final result of the equation.

The temporary stat increase rule didn't bother to address two handed or off hand attacks because it was only modifying the base number and assumed the rules would remain consistent for other outside variables (such as the multiplier, or for that matter, damage reduction or any other variables)

Anyway, I agree 100% that clarification is needed. Claiming otherwise in a heated dispute doesn't really help either argument.

[Psyren]

thejeff wrote:

The intent seems clear though and has been confirmed by developers in previous discussions. Temporary stat increases should boost all the bonuses as if the stat had gone up permanently, but you don't get more uses of abilities based on that. Nor do you get new skills with Int boosts.

This.

wraithstrike wrote:

So do I got by the rule

Your emphasis of that word to the exclusion of all common sense makes me wonder why you're bothering to ask me at all. Make it as needlessly complicated as you wish; again, my hope is that the Devs don't waste their time on it.

[LazarX]

Zark wrote:

Since the rules say nothing of granting a bonus to Carrying Capacity I will also ask:

•Does a temporary increases to Strength (be it an enhancement bonus, size bonus or moral bonus) grants a bonus to Carrying Capacity?

yes for the few seconds that such increases last. If you get a +2 enhancmeent bonus for strength, it's the same as if your STR score went up two points. there's no difference whether it was temporary or permanent.

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

Zark wrote:

Since the rules say nothing of granting a bonus to Carrying Capacity I will also ask:

•Does a temporary increases to Strength (be it an enhancement bonus, size bonus or moral bonus) grants a bonus to Carrying Capacity?

yes for the few seconds that such increases last. If you get a +2 enhancmeent bonus for strength, it's the same as if your STR score went up two points. there's no difference whether it was temporary or permanent.

Few seconds or minutes or even up, but not including 24 hours.

And the whole point of this discussion is that the rules are pretty clear that it's not the same. This also applies to ability Damage, but not Drain. Drain reduces everything based on the stat. Damage applies specific penalties.

[Zark]

Diego Rossi wrote:

For the damage dealt when using a weapon:

PRD wrote:

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

PRD wrote:

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.

It is a bonus? yes.

It is based on strength? yes.
So it is multiplied by 1-1/2 multiplier to damage (and the corresponding modifier fo your off hand weapon).

If you first multiply, then add up all the strength modifier to damage and then you round them you avoid problems with having a odd modifier for your permanent strength bonus and your temporary strength bonus and losing 1 point of damage because you have rounded down two times.

My point is the rules are vague. There is nothing in the rules saying you should calculate attack and damage normally. Nor is there any text saying that damage should be multiplied by 1-1/2. I’m not saying you are wrong RAI, but RAW it doesn’t say so. It is the same thing with carrying capacity. There is nothing about carrying capacity.

Normally +4 to strength would increase you carrying capacity and if you use a THW you would get +3 to damage, but this isn’t a permanent increase of strength so normal rules don’t apply.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Nothing about carrying capacity, so apparently a temporary bonus to strength don't increase it. There is a important reason for that:

It is done to avoid penalizing the character (yes really!) when they suffer a temporary reduction in strength. If your carrying capacity was modified by temporary effects like Ray of enfeeblement it would be very easy to immobilize a character relying on the sue of heavy armor.
If you have a strength of 20 your light load is 133 lbs, with a strength of 12 (8 point of negative modifier are an average result for a 10th level caster) your maximum load become 130 lbs.
Welcome to the world above heavy encumbrance.
Even with lesser level casters it would become very easy to severely hinder dexterity based builds with moderate strength. They generally hover near the limit of the light encumbrance and have more than +3 as the limit of their dexterity bonus.
Another factor in that decision, probably, is to avoid the need to recalculate what your character can carry every time it use a spell to change shape or use/suffer any other temporary effect that increase/decrease his strength.

Yes, I know this too.

The reason I know this is that a few years back I had this question regarding temporary reduction in strength. Does it affect carrying capacity and feats? If my Paladin with strength 16 gets hit with a -4 strength reduction from poison, spell or some ability can he still use power attack?
One of the Developers (along with people from the community) explain that unless you are hit with strength drain you only suffer the effects from temporary reduction in strength and that does not affect access to feats or carrying capacity.
The reason for this decision was what you have stated above.

So yes, I know carrying capacity isn’t affected, but apparently there still is confusion on this subject and now apparently SKR says something different so not even the Developers have the same reading of the rules.

I don’t know the answer to any of the three questions I have asked, and from reading this thread (and others), there seem to be confusion on the subject so I hope you all hit the FAQ on all three questions.

Kind regards Zark.

[Psyren]

Screwing someone over who relies on heavy equipment by damaging/penalizing their strength seems a legitimate tactic to me. Ability penalties and damage are supposed to be serious threats, and beings capable of inflicting such damage (like necromancers) are supposed to be feared.

Put another way, if you can lower someone's strength below that of a child while they're clad in heavy steel and it doesn't slow them down at all, that's a pointless blow against verisimilitude.

[Zark]

And yet one of the Devs has said that carrying capacity isn’t affected. Nor is it stated in the rules that carrying capacity is affected.

You hope the Design theam don't waste their time on it? What FAQ questions should they answer?

[Psyren]

My post was more responding to Diego's quote than yours, but since you ask: no, I personally don't consider this question to be important or worthwhile. The common sense response here is clear as good glass - more strength means you're stronger and less strength means you're weaker. It's that simple. So, no matter which side they actually rule on, the RAW in this instance can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned, because verisimilitude makes my own approach clear.

[Zark]

verisimilitude don't fly. The game is not a simulation. It is an abstraction.

Again: What FAQ questions should they answer?

[Diego Rossi]

Psyren wrote:

My post was more responding to Diego's quote than yours, but since you ask: no, I personally don't consider this question to be important or worthwhile. The common sense response here is clear as good glass - more strength means you're stronger and less strength means you're weaker. It's that simple. So, no matter which side they actually rule on, the RAW in this instance can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned, because verisimilitude makes my own approach clear.

So, if the strength penalty is a -1 and you have a strength characteristic with a even value you get penalized, while a character with an odd value strength isn't?

And a character with a odd value strength characteristic that, thank to some unusual effect, get a temporary +1 in strength get a benefit, while a character with a even value don't get it?

The +1 every 2 point of temporary bonus/penalty rule was introduced to avoid affecting in a different way people with even and odd values in a characteristic.

[Gauss]

Psyren, 3.5 had ability score bonuses and penalties actually affect the scores. If you had a strength penalty you were forced to recalculate EVERYTHING. Mid-game.

GM: The monster hits you and you take 3 points of strength damage. Your turn.
Player: ok, give me 10 minutes while I recalculate everything.
GM: !!!! Just uh, is your strength odd? Is it even?
Player: odd
GM: Ok, take a -2 penalty to all die rolls based on strength.
Player: Ok...

This is one reason why Paizo changed it (odd vs even ability scores were another). Even with the flaws in the new wording it speeds things along GREATLY and is vastly superior.

- Gauss

[Ilja]

Honestly, the issue is that they made the rule "for temporary bonuses, add this to these specific things related to your ability scores", when it should have been "for temporary bonuses, add this to everything except these listed exceptions".

And then just list uses/day, skill points and whatever else they want to not affect

[seebs]

Ilja wrote:

Honestly, the issue is that they made the rule "for temporary bonuses, add this to these specific things related to your ability scores", when it should have been "for temporary bonuses, add this to everything except these listed exceptions".

And then just list uses/day, skill points and whatever else they want to not affect

Pretty much agreed.

Heck, they could have gone with "do either of these, whichever you feel like spending the time on", or put in a special case that if you had a frequently-recurring temporary bonus, you could go ahead and compute everything for that case.

[DigitalMage]

Psyren wrote:

The common sense response here is clear as good glass - more strength means you're stronger and less strength means you're weaker. It's that simple.

So basically the common sense response is to ignore the changes the Paizo developers specifically from 3.5 when they made Pathfinder and continue to run it like 3.5? And you don't think that is worthy of a FAQ?

Psyren wrote:

So, no matter which side they actually rule on, the RAW in this instance can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned, because verisimilitude makes my own approach clear.

I take it you don't play in PFS then, yes?

[DigitalMage]

Ilja wrote:

Honestly, the issue is that they made the rule "for temporary bonuses, add this to these specific things related to your ability scores", when it should have been "for temporary bonuses, add this to everything except these listed exceptions".

And then just list uses/day, skill points and whatever else they want to not affect

Exactly, simple! So simple in fact that it makes me think maybe the intention wasn't to exclude just a few things; I mean surely the Paizo devs are smart enough to realise what you just said is infinitely superior to the rules that made it into the core rulebook if the RAI is just to not allow extra uses of abilities and extra skill points for intelligence.

[Ilja]

DigitalMage wrote:

Ilja wrote:

Honestly, the issue is that they made the rule "for temporary bonuses, add this to these specific things related to your ability scores", when it should have been "for temporary bonuses, add this to everything except these listed exceptions".

And then just list uses/day, skill points and whatever else they want to not affect

Exactly, simple! So simple in fact that it makes me think maybe the intention wasn't to exclude just a few things; I mean surely the Paizo devs are smart enough to realise what you just said is infinitely superior to the rules that made it into the core rulebook if the RAI is just to not allow extra uses of abilities and extra skill points for intelligence.

Honestly, considering the comments made in the Cha-to-DC thread, I think the whole temp bonus section was just a big screw-up. That doesn't mean I think the paizo devs are dumb, just that in this case they made a bad call and didn't think things through.

I do not think all the weirdness of the RAW - such as temporary dex bonuses not adding to Touch AC or Weapon Finesse but adding to Flat-footed AC and AC when helpless - are intended. It's really bad design, and I'd be much more inclined to believe that paizo failed in system execution than system design. It is my experience that paizo is very good at system design but on and off screws up the implementation.

[Crash_00]

I love how people are completely ignoring exactly what an ability bonus is. Ability modifier, ability bonus, and ability penalty are all defined terms in the rules.

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.

Our definitions are as follows:

Ability Modifier = the number you to a roll from the ability (positive or negative).
Ability Bonus = A positive ability modifier.
Ability Penalty = A negative ability modifier.

So, what does the temporary ability bonus section actually say?

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.

Now, let's read this section with the actual definitions that we have been given by the rulebook.

First bolded section. Some spells increase your ability scores. This is a really simple concept. Nothing needs to be discussed here. Everyone should understand this.

Italics section. If the duration is less than 1 day (24 hours) the increase is a temporary bonus. Ok. That's simple. What is a bonus? A bonus is a, as defined in the rules, positive modifier to the ability score.

You could try to claim that this is just a random nameless bonus to rolls instead of to the ability modifier, but that ignores the context of the section and the header of Ability Score Bonuses. This temporary bonus is a positive modifier to the ability modifier. There is no wiggle room here for alternate interpretation. These terms are clearly defined.

Second bolded section. Every two points of increase give a +1 bonus. This tells us that these bonuses work slightly different than one might think. It isn't tied to the actual score itself. It doesn't matter if the initial score is odd or even, because you only get a benefit from a temporary bonus to an ability if there is an even number applied (divisible by two). Remember, it's an ability score bonus which means that it is a positive ability modifier.

So where are we at so far?

Temporary bonuses increase the modifier for every two points of the bonus, by the definitions we are given in Chapter 1 of the CRB.

Let's go further, and look at the strength section in particular:

Quote:

[bStrength:[/b] 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.

If you look at the bolded part as a part of the rules above (which it is directly tied to), it is clear that the bonus given by a strength increase is a positive modifier, not just a nameless bonus to the roll. Strength is an ability, the piece is under the same section Ability Score Bonuses, and a Strength bonus is a positive strength modifier (important because THW and TWF off-hand attack modify the strength bonus).

Where does the confusion stem from?
I'm guessing that there are two places people manage to get confused. Some seem to have missed the original definition that a positive modifier is called a bonus (it's on page 16 of the CRB). Similarly, some people seem to mistakenly think that the heading Ability Score Bonuses is only speaking of the temporary bonus to the stat rather than the bonus granted to the modifier by that temporary bonus to the stat.

The only way it is ambiguous is if you ignore part of the rules as they are laid out.

[Psyren]

Zark wrote:

verisimilitude don't fly. The game is not a simulation. It is an abstraction.

It's not a binary equation - there are degrees. Verisimilitude is not an "on/off" switch. Yes, the game is abstract, but it does try to model things we would expect, like encumbrance affecting speed, or being less able to defend yourself while climbing, or a stronger person being a better swimmer than a weak one etc.

Zark wrote:

Again: What FAQ questions should they answer?

I already answered this question multiple times: The ones that don't have simple common-sense responses, like "having more strength should make you stronger." Put it on a t-shirt if you like.

Diego Rossi wrote:

So, if the strength penalty is a -1 and you have a strength characteristic with a even value you get penalized, while a character with an odd value strength isn't?

There are some (admittedly few, but some) effects that care about your score rather than your modifier. Those would be affected by even vs. odd, while effects that rely on modifier wouldn't be.

[Blackstorm]

I'm a bit perplexed. Seebs wrote:

Quote:

So if your Strength is 14, your Strength modifier is +2. A normal attack with a 1H weapon will do [W]+2 damage, because your Strength modifier is applied to your weapon damage. If you get a +4 temporary bonus to Strength, though, that applies another +2 bonus. But it doesn't increase your existing bonus by +2. It gives you a separate bonus. If it was increasing your existing bonus, it would say "increases your existing bonus". But it doesn't. So when you have that +4, you now do [W]+2+2 damage. Which is similar to [W]+4, but not quite the same, because the new bonus is not your Strength bonus, it's a distinct bonus that you got by some other means.

The thing that leave me some doubt is that if you read the rules that way, a ranger with twf and, let's say, Str 13, would deal +3 damage with primary weapon and +3 with off hand. Weird: a temp bonus seems more efficient than a permanent one.

Again, seebs said:

Quote:

Note that even if you assert that the new bonus is affected by the same multipliers, that doesn't make it behave the same way. Consider a character whose Strength modifier is currently +3, who gets a +2 temporary Strength bonus (giving them another +1 on weapon damage). Their damage with a 2H sword is now +5, not +6. (+3*1.5)+(+1*1.5) = 5, because each value is rounded.

But that's not necessarily true. One could argue that 3*1.5+1*1.5=4.5+1.5=6, as the round down is on the final count, not in middle count. AFAIK there's no evidence of one way or anoother. It just seems strange that an increase act different wheter it's temp or permanent, aside the long time bonuses (like channel uses, bonus spells, and so on). The carryng capacity should increase as well, to me, because if I get a temp enlarge person, my carrying capacity increase for the size, but not for str? Seems strange.

So, errata or not, I simply imply that str increase, wheter temporary or permanet, give normal advantage of a higher strenght.

[Psyren]

Blackstorm wrote:

So, errata or not, I simply imply that str increase, wheter temporary or permanet, give normal advantage of a higher strenght.

This is apparently too logical and straightforward an approach to take.

[Diego Rossi]

Ilja wrote:

Honestly, the issue is that they made the rule "for temporary bonuses, add this to these specific things related to your ability scores", when it should have been "for temporary bonuses, add this to everything except these listed exceptions".

And then just list uses/day, skill points and whatever else they want to not affect

Doing it that way would mean that when new class or archetype X add a new ability that can be used a number of days based on a characteristic it would benefit from a temporary characteristic increase.

the developers would have to add "a temporary increase in [appropriate characteristic] would not affect the number of uses of [ability X]" to each new ability.
You would end with a list of exceptions several pages long.

As the effect of temporary/permanent characteristic increases is defined in the CRB the APG, only looking the classes, we would have added at least:
2 exceptions for the alchemist (number of extracts and number of bombs);
1 exceptions for the inquisitor (Cunning Initiative [probably an temporary increase in wisdom should affect this ability, but it don't do that currently])
21 for oracle mysteries
1 exceptions for the summoner (summon monster)

25 exceptions in 1 section of a book.

[Diego Rossi]

Ilja wrote:

I do not think all the weirdness of the RAW - such as temporary dex bonuses not adding to Touch AC or Weapon Finesse but adding to Flat-footed AC and AC when helpless - are intended. It's really bad design, and I'd be much more inclined to believe that paizo failed in system execution than system design. It is my experience that paizo is very good at system design but on and off screws up the implementation.

PRD wrote:

Dexterity:

...
The bonus also applies to your Armor Class, your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Tiny or smaller), and your Combat Maneuver Defense.

When something change your armor class, it change all the aspect of your AC.

PRD wrote:

Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.

Touch armor class specify what is not applied. Temporary bonuses to AC aren't on the exclusion list, so they apply.

[Sloanzilla]

Also, if you have weapon finesse, wouldn't this cause to-hit to stack? Could I give myself +4 to hit by casting bull's strength and cat's grace if I have weapon finesse. (Each one gives me a +2)

The counter point is no, because you only use the highest stat, but that's opening the door to the same type of arguments (outside of the specific rule) that are made against the interpretation.

There's a good argument being made that +2 is RAW, and that's fine, but it does seem like a few people are also defending RAW as the best option, when that just doesn't seem to be the case. It doesn't make it an easier modifier when it is counter to common sense and the other rules in the game.

[Blackstorm]

Psyren wrote:

Blackstorm wrote:

So, errata or not, I simply imply that str increase, wheter temporary or permanet, give normal advantage of a higher strenght.

This is apparently too logical and straightforward an approach to take.

Obviously, a temp bonus will not increase daily uses or spell or wathever similar.

[seebs]

Crash_00, your reading strikes me as incorrect. The bonus described in temporary ability scores is clearly stated as a bonus to damage and skill checks, not a bonus to your ability modifier. Your reading seems contingent on the assumption that, if your ability modifier is applied to certain things, then whatever is applied to those things is your ability modifier. That's not how it works.

[Psyren]

Blackstorm wrote:

Psyren wrote:

Blackstorm wrote:

So, errata or not, I simply imply that str increase, wheter temporary or permanet, give normal advantage of a higher strenght.

This is apparently too logical and straightforward an approach to take.

Obviously, a temp bonus will not increase daily uses or spell or wathever similar.

Agreed - at least, not unless the bonus lasts longer than 24 hours.

[seebs]

Sloanzilla wrote:

Also, if you have weapon finesse, wouldn't this cause to-hit to stack? Could I give myself +4 to hit by casting bull's strength and cat's grace if I have weapon finesse. (Each one gives me a +2)

The counter point is no, because you only use the highest stat, but that's opening the door to the same type of arguments (outside of the specific rule) that are made against the interpretation.

There's a good argument being made that +2 is RAW, and that's fine, but it does seem like a few people are also defending RAW as the best option, when that just doesn't seem to be the case. It doesn't make it an easier modifier when it is counter to common sense and the other rules in the game.

I would argue that if you are using weapon finesse, then bull's strength still gives you +2 to hit with melee weapons, and cat's grace doesn't give you a +2 to hit, because a temporary dex bonus specifically only gives you a +2 to hit on ranged attacks.

Which is... stupid, really, and I'm certainly not going to use the rule as written, because it makes no sense.

[Kazaan]

Blackstorm wrote:

The thing that leave me some doubt is that if you read the rules that way, a ranger with twf and, let's say, Str 13, would deal +3 damage with primary weapon and +3 with off hand. Weird: a temp bonus seems more efficient than a permanent one.

That's basically the point. As written, that's exactly what it means, a +4 temporary bonus to Strength adds +2 damage whether it's a one-handed or two-handed, whether it's main-hand or off-hand. But it really shouldn't work that way. The bonus should be applied to the Strength Modifier specifically applied to your damage roll (as opposed to your Str Mod in general which may affect ability use governed by stat modifier). As per my example up-thread, there is clear precedent for the "bonus to a bonus" terminology used in the interactions of Natural Armor and bonuses applied to it (and, for that matter, enchanted armor provides an "enhancement bonus to your armor bonus to AC").

In other words, for a fully streamlined section, it should read as:
"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 that ability's modifier when applied to dice rolls or DCs (including AC and CMD which are, essentially, DC to hit or succeed at a maneuver). Do not apply the increase to ability use per day based on an ability modifier nor to derivatives of the raw score such as carrying capacity for Strength or how many negative hit points before death for Constitution."
Or something comparable. This would cover instances not currently covered such as Dragon Ferocity's bonus and raw Strength checks (ie. to burst a rope), but also apply the bonus directly to the modifier when used in specific situations. It also associates the bonus directly with the modifier actually used so no confusion involving Weapon Finesse or similar "stat-swapping" abilities.

[seebs]

Blackstorm wrote:

The thing that leave me some doubt is that if you read the rules that way, a ranger with twf and, let's say, Str 13, would deal +3 damage with primary weapon and +3 with off hand. Weird: a temp bonus seems more efficient than a permanent one.

RAW, yes. You get more benefit for TWF, and less benefit with a two-hander. I think this is probably a bug.

[Blackstorm]

Sure it makes no sense. Obviously the intent of designers is not that, or at least I hope, so I think we can assume a more senseful reading. The only point remains, for stranght, carrying capacity. I don't see why bonus or penalties shouldn't modify the carrying capacity. You temporary grows your muscle/size, so why you shouldn't carry more than usual? Same for penalties, as well.

[Ilja]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Doing it that way would mean that when new class or archetype X add a new ability that can be used a number of days based on a characteristic it would benefit from a temporary characteristic increase.

the developers would have to add "a temporary increase in [appropriate characteristic] would not affect the number of uses of [ability X]" to each new ability.
You would end with a list of exceptions several pages long.

No you wouldn't? Current wording:

Ability Score Bonuses 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.

Temporary Bonuses

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.

Dexterity: Temporary increases to your Dexterity score give you a bonus on Dexterity-based skill checks, ranged attack rolls, initiative checks, and Reflex saving throws. The bonus also applies to your Armor Class, your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Tiny or smaller), and your Combat Maneuver Defense.

Constitution: Temporary increases to your Constitution score give you a bonus on your Fortitude saving throws. In addition, multiply your total Hit Dice by this bonus and add that amount to your current and total hit points. When the bonus ends, remove this total from your current and total hit points.

Intelligence: Temporary increases to your Intelligence score give you a bonus on Intelligence-based skill checks. This bonus also applies to any spell DCs based on Intelligence.

Wisdom: Temporary increases to your Wisdom score give you a bonus on Wisdom-based skill checks and Will saving throws. This bonus also applies to any spell DCs based on Wisdom.

Charisma: Temporary increases to your Charisma score give you a bonus on Charisma-based skill checks. This bonus also applies to any spell DCs based on Charisma and the DC to resist your channeled energy.

My suggestion is to rewrite it so the exceptions are listed rather than what it does add, so that it works more similar to actual increases. Now this is just a draft and you can probably find loopholes in it, but what I was aiming for was something more like this:

Suggested wording wrote:

Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses. When scores are temporarily increased, the increase in ability score modifier applies to checks, rolls, DCs, and any other derivative stat, except where noted below:
- It does not add to the amount of uses or rounds per day of abilities limited by ability scores. For example it does not increase the amount of rage rounds, channel energy attempts or spells per day.
- It does not add to any abilities where an exception has been noted in the text.

In some cases, DM adjudication might be needed.

(then, depending on what's now excluded and what is wanted to be excluded, the following could also be mentioned - I don't think it should but some, including the devs, very well may)
- It can not be used to meet the prerequisites of feats, prestige classes or abilities.
- It does not add to carrying capacity.

And there you have it. No need to add specific exceptions to alchemist or oracle or anything, except maaaaybe note that alchemist extract counts as spells for this purpose. But not even that should be needed.

You don't even need specific sections for the different ability scores. And word count is reduced, though my wording is kinda hand-waved and there might be need for some extra words to close any loopholes I might have left.

Of course, something similar would be needed in the ability damage section.

Diego Rossi wrote:

When something change your armor class, it change all the aspect of your AC.
Touch armor class specify what is not applied. Temporary bonuses to AC aren't on the exclusion list, so they apply.

Right, sorry about that. Didn't read carefully enough. Still, temporary dexterity bonuses still give you extra AC when you're flat-footed, which is really weird.

[seebs]

Blackstorm wrote:

Sure it makes no sense. Obviously the intent of designers is not that, or at least I hope, so I think we can assume a more senseful reading. The only point remains, for stranght, carrying capacity. I don't see why bonus or penalties shouldn't modify the carrying capacity. You temporary grows your muscle/size, so why you shouldn't carry more than usual? Same for penalties, as well.

Well, the obvious reason is that encumbrance calculations suck, and also having a character incapacitated by a slight strength drain is pretty overpowered.

[James Risner]

seebs wrote:

RAW, yes. You get more benefit for TWF, and less benefit with a two-hander. I think this is probably a bug.

No chance you are just reading the rules wrong? Right?

[seebs]

James Risner wrote:

seebs wrote:

RAW, yes. You get more benefit for TWF, and less benefit with a two-hander. I think this is probably a bug.

No chance you are just reading the rules wrong? Right?

Well, there's always a chance, but it seems pretty clear that a thing which gives you a bonus to melee attack damage does not in general participate in the multipliers applied only to your Strength bonus.

It seems clear that what we almost certainly want as a result is that this "bonus" is actually processed as a change to your effective Strength modifier. Meaning that, if you have a Strength of 4, a +4 temporary strength bonus from Bull's Strength still only gives you +2 damage with two-handers, because it moves you from -3 to -1, but penalties aren't multiplied by 1.5, only bonuses. :)

But I think that, right now, the rules-as-written do not do what everyone knows we presumably want. And I think there's reasons for that (simplicity, having a single point of strength damage not have different effects on some players than on others, etcetera), but it does create some undesireable effects.

[wraithstrike]

Psyren wrote:

thejeff wrote:

The intent seems clear though and has been confirmed by developers in previous discussions. Temporary stat increases should boost all the bonuses as if the stat had gone up permanently, but you don't get more uses of abilities based on that. Nor do you get new skills with Int boosts.

This.

wraithstrike wrote:

So do I got by the rule

Your emphasis of that word to the exclusion of all common sense makes me wonder why you're bothering to ask me at all. Make it as needlessly complicated as you wish; again, my hope is that the Devs don't waste their time on it.

You have yet to cite why you are correct, so I am assuming you are admitting the RAW and RAI don't match up, when it would be better to just delete that line saying every +2=+1 to the modifier. <----That is all it takes to require errata.

[wraithstrike]

Psyren wrote:

Zark wrote:

verisimilitude don't fly. The game is not a simulation. It is an abstraction.

It's not a binary equation - there are degrees. Verisimilitude is not an "on/off" switch. Yes, the game is abstract, but it does try to model things we would expect, like encumbrance affecting speed, or being less able to defend yourself while climbing, or a stronger person being a better swimmer than a weak one etc.

Zark wrote:

Again: What FAQ questions should they answer?

I already answered this question multiple times: The ones that don't have simple common-sense responses, like "having more strength should make you stronger." Put it on a t-shirt if you like.

Diego Rossi wrote:

So, if the strength penalty is a -1 and you have a strength characteristic with a even value you get penalized, while a character with an odd value strength isn't?

There are some (admittedly few, but some) effects that care about your score rather than your modifier. Those would be affected by even vs. odd, while effects that rely on modifier wouldn't be.

In case you missed a dev disagrees with your interpretation of how strength capacity would be affected. Are you going to stick with your "common sense" argument?

edit:We are looking for rules not what someone may think is logical. It is not "logical" to give a reflex save to a paralyzed person, but the rules allow it.

[wraithstrike]

James Risner wrote:

seebs wrote:

RAW, yes. You get more benefit for TWF, and less benefit with a two-hander. I think this is probably a bug.

No chance you are just reading the rules wrong? Right?

Going strictly by RAW he is correct. I think most of us agree that is not the RAI, but just like people ignoring the odd number because the RAW is written that way, it is a valid point, and it should be reworded.