|
That is actually a very good catch and does act as a contradiction to the general rule of Ability bonuses.The subject becomes stronger. 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.This text can also be found in the PRD here.
It is quite explicit that the bonuses are calculated, as normal, based on the (increased) Strength modifier. That would include the 1.5x factor for two-handed weapon damage.
Only if you ignore common sense when reading the rule on temporary ability bonuses, and insist that for the first 24 hours you'll only get 1x the bonus on a two-handed weapon, and somehow still get 1x a bonus on an off-hand weapon.
I prefer to believe that the general rule on ability bonuses wasn't intended to be a complete list of every single possible variation, and just indicated what kind of things did change (to hit & damage bonuses, armour class, skill checks, etc.), and what didn't (such as once-per-day limits on numbers of spells). The mechanics of calculating the actual numeric value of each bonus remains unchanged.
|
*leans back and puffs on his pipe*
So, slight tangent, but what happens to your spellcasting ability if your primary stat suffers damage?
The minimum Wisdom score needed to cast a cleric, druid, or ranger spell is 10 + the spell's level.
Say a 5th level Cleric with a Wisdom of 13 suffers 3 points of Wisdom damage. Can he still cast 3rd level spells?
*leans back and puffs on his pipe*
So, slight tangent, but what happens to your spellcasting ability if your primary stat suffers damage?
The minimum Wisdom score needed to cast a cleric, druid, or ranger spell is 10 + the spell's level.Say a 5th level Cleric with a Wisdom of 13 suffers 3 points of Wisdom damage. Can he still cast 3rd level spells?Wisdom: Damage to your Wisdom score causes you to take penalties on Wisdom-based skill checks and Will saving throws. This penalty also applies to any spell DCs based on Wisdom. A character with a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious.It does not say "can't cast spells of a certain level" therefore you can still cast. Your DC drops, but that's all. You don't even lose bonus spells from your high Wisdom.
That's part of the reason this was changed from 3rd edition.
common sense says that they can’t cast spells. ;-)
Do you have any proof that it changed from 3.5? Forget RAW, use common sense. :P
|
|
No - logic says that they can't cast spells.
Common sense says that suddenly stripping a spellcaster of her most powerful spells (or having the party tank collapse because he can no longer carry the weight of his weapons and armour) is too powerful an effect for simple ability damage, so logic (or 'realism', if that word has any meaning in a fantasy setting) should be ignored in the interests of game balance.
From another thread, this:
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.
Strict RAW causes far, far more problems, like drowning to heal and monks being unproficient with unarmed strikes. I'll take common sense any day of the week.
As for X not making sense to the other guy, presumably you're playing with adults and can compromise if needed. But at my tables arguing with the DM is rare (and it's usually not even me.)
The question of temporary stat change and what it affects has come up many times, especially carrying capacity and temporary change to str so an answer would be welcome.
You said yourself that Verisimilitude is not an "on/off" switch. So it is not black or white. Sometimes there are shades of gray, but if I read you right, anyone not agreeing with you on when it is actually black or white they are incapable of logical and straightforward thinking.I’m not saying I’m right when it comes to reading the rules, I’m merely saying there is confusion that pops up again and again, so clarification would be good.
If you don’t need one, fine, but denying others help and calling them incapable of logical and straightforward thinking isn’t really fair.
You are certainly capable of logic. You know what the logical solution is. However, you're choosing to disregard logic for convenience, and that is where our impasse lies.
"Having more strength should make you stronger" is logical. Disregarding it may be easier, but it is not and never will be logical.
I’m choosing to disregard logic for convenience? Ah, more insults, am I not surprised.
So I stared this thread and spend time reading and posting because it is convenient?
“The logical solution”? Here is the deal; there is more than one solution, more than one truth.
Solution 1) Player ask you GM what rules fly at his/her table.
Solution 2) GM tell your player what rules fly at your table
Solution 3) GM: Ask for advice on the messageboard and make a ruling.
Solution 4) GM or a player: create a thread and ask for a clarification from the Developers.
I’m sure there are more Solutions.
“Having more strength should make you stronger is logical”` you say.
We have both seen the link to what SKR said, but let’s forget what he said and just use your logical and straightforward thinking, in my book it ends up with one thing: The 3.5 rules. If not:
A) Define having more strength.
B) Fighty fighter have str 16 and con 14
Sexy healer have str 14 and con 12. Who has more str? Obviously the fighter.
C) If Fighty fighter gets hit with -4 temp str damage he has by your logic less str?
D) So can he still use power attack?
E) If Sexy Cleric gets hit – 4 temp con damage does her death threshold drop from -14 or -8?
F) By the same logic: less charisma would mean less selective channeling and less channel per day, right? So char 14 and 4 temp char damage would mean no selective channeling, and 8 temp char damage would mean no channeling at all?
G) By the same logic a less intelligent would mean that smarty caster would have problem casting his high level spells or any spell if he has 9 int due to int damage.
Anyone not adherent to your logic is incapable of logical and straightforward thinking.
I recognize that kind of rhetoric, especially the straightforward thinking part; it is often used by racists, homophobic people or anyone with an extreme political or religious agenda.
I have no problem with you not sharing my reading of the rules. I’m not even saying I am right and you are wrong when it comes to carrying capacity or whatever. I do however find your rhetoric arrogant and condescending.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No - logic says that they can't cast spells.Common sense says that suddenly stripping a spellcaster of her most powerful spells (or having the party tank collapse because he can no longer carry the weight of his weapons and armour) is too powerful an effect for simple ability damage, so logic (or 'realism', if that word has any meaning in a fantasy setting) should be ignored in the interests of game balance.
Cool thing is that there are people that disagree with that will disagree with you on what you said. Same people say that I am incapable of logical and straightforward thinking would say that you are also incapable of logical and straightforward thinking.
Funny, right?Common sense and logical and straightforward thinking makes it obvious that less str means less carrying capacity.
To be clear, these are not my words. I’m just proving a point. What is Common sense and what is logical and straightforward thinking differ from person to person.
Going strictly by RAW he is correct.I going Strictly RAW I don't agree with you or him.
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.The bold is the relevant rules (increase it but only temporarily) and the italicized details for example the kinds of things changed. This section doesn't detail all changes that a temporary bonus changes (for example carrying capacity and DC for various things using strange abilities as clarified by SKR.)
The rules do increase the abilities both for temporary and permanent, you just don't get all the goodies on temp bonuses.
The rules say what they say. Now I think the RAW is incorrect, and I think we all(95%) agree on the RAI, but that does not mean the RAW is right. It should be rewritten.
I think it should apply to carrying capacity, but I dont think it does by RAW.
But they still allow a reflex save.
Your Dex score is treated as zero while paralyzed, which affects those same reflex saves and is again common sense.Right, but getting a positive reflex with 0 Dex basically requires magic anyway and so can be handwaved. Whereas getting stronger without actually getting stronger can't.
There's a line that can be drawn before things get too ridiculous and that is one of the places where I draw mine.
Sounds like he's in favor of common sense then.
He doesn’t say carrying capacity is affected by ability score penalties and damage, he just says that it make sense.
Common sense has nothing to do with the rules.
If you go by common sense, trying to block the attack of a large or bigger creature with a shield will leave you with a broken arm or worse. Sometimes the rules amount to "because the book says so".This is the rules section, not the "common sense" section, and while I ignore certain rules in my game if I dont think they make sense, that has no bearing on what the rules actually are.
|
What part of that paragraph says the bonus is applied to your ability modifier? It states that the bonus is applied to the skills and statistics listed.Your logic failed here
My logic did not fail, it may be different from yours, but it did not fail. Could I ask you not to use such phrases (you previously said I was mistaken too) - without knowing exactly what the intent of the developer who specifically wrote the section of rules was, we cannot know who is mistaken. Thanks.
, so I'm just going to start here. The part of the sentence that says the bonus is applied to the modifier is the "+1 bonus" because bonus is defined as a positive ability score modifier when we are talking in the context of ability scores.
Could you explain this a bit more, I am not understanding your logic here?
Going with your assumption that "bonus" in this sentence is referring to a "positive ability score modifier" that would make the sentence read as:
For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 positive ability score modifier to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
Is that how you are reading that sentence? If so, that doesn't make it say to increase your ability modifier by +1. If anything it says apply a +1 ability bonus when making skill checks etc which would seem to implicitly mean you would apply that +1 bonus in place of your normal ability modifier (which may be a penalty) - but I really don't think that is what you think that means. So, yeah, I am completely not following your logic.
we know that this positive modifier doesn't replace the normal modifier, because we are applying a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics, not using a +1 bonus for them.
Okay, so you seem to acknowledge that using "positive ability score modifier" instead of "bonus" in that sentence could be interpreted as meaning to use it in place of your regular ability modifier. But you say that would be an incorrect interpretation if you take into account that it then says to apply that "to the skills and statistics", correct?
So am I right in saying that you would read the full sentence as:
For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 positive ability score modifier to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability, in addition to the regular ability modifier of the character.
So basically you believe that sentence is instructing you to apply a second ability modifier (a positive modifier, aka a bonus) in addition to the normal modifier, correct?
Whilst I can sort of see where you are coming from now, I don't find that the most intuitive reading of that sentence as it
a) is reliant on the assumption that "bonus" is being defined as "positive ability score modifier" and not simply the more general definition of "numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores"
b) introduces a concept of applying an ability modifier twice (for the same ability!), the first from the PC's normal ability modifier and the second from the increase to the ability score. I don't believe this occurs anywhere else in the rules.
If however, that is not how you are reading that sentence, could you state how you are reading it?
So you feel the heading of "Ability Score Bonuses" is not meant to mean "Bonuses to the Ability Score" but rather "Bonuses derived from the Ability Score", yes?No. I believe that it means exactly what it says. Ability Score Bonuses. Which means positive modifiers from ability scores.
So, "Ability Score Bonuses" means "positive modifiers from ability scores" but not "Bonuses derived from the Ability Score"? I read those two as the same thing.
First paragraph is where you have gone wrong again.
You can objectively prove you are "right"? <rolls eyes>
Okay, I have done a search on the core rulebook PDF and there is only one mention of "score bonus" and that is in the heading of "Ability Score Bonuses" on page 554.
Doing a search for the text "ability bonus" reveals more results. Ignoring the result for "Special Ability" bonus for magic items, we get results that are in magic items such as Belt of Giant Strength where it says:
"grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to <Ability, e.g. Strength> of +2, +4, or +6. Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the belt is worn."
I read the "this" to mean the aforementioned enhancement bonus of +2, +4 or +6 i.e. the bonus to the ability score.
The other place we find the term "Ability bonus" is in Table 15–29: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values where it shows the following:
Effect: Ability bonus (enhancement)
Base Price: Bonus squared × 1,000 gp
Example: Belt of incredible dexterity +2
Cross referencing that with the description for a Belt of Incredible Dexterity it shows the costs as:
Price 4,000 gp (+2), 16,000 gp (+4), 36,000 gp (+6)
So again the term ability bonus is referring to the +2, +4, +6, i.e. the bonus to the ability score.
So actually it seems that apart from the one header of "Ability Score Bonuses" Paizo use the term "Ability Bonus" to mean a bonus to an ability score.
They don't seem to use the term to mean "a positive ability modifier"; although the specific terms of Strength Bonus, Dexterity Bonus etc are meant to refer to the positive ability modifiers from those specific abilities.
We as readers, I believe, have come to use the term "ability bonus" to collectively refer to such specific positive ability modifiers, but that isn't a term that is used in the core rulebook!!!
I want to point out just how illogical this is. Your theory is that:
The devs meant something other than what they actually said
With the above in mind, I retract my statement and think the devs did actually write what they meant:
"Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours."So when they say "Ability bonuses" they meant a "bonus to an ability score"
So my stance on how that sentence should be read hasn't changed, just that I now acknowledge that "Ability Bonus" is the correct term to refer to a bonus to an ability score.
An Ability Bonus is a a bonus to an ability. It has no link to the abilities score.
When you say "An Ability Bonus is a a bonus to an ability" could you clarify to what the bonus would apply? I believe it applies to the score of that ability, but your following sentence would imply you don't share that view.
An Ability Score Bonus is the bonus that an Ability Score grants. It is directly tied to the score of the ability.
Okay, I can see that Ability Score Bonus could be a term that is used to indicate the positive modifier derived from an ability score, but nowhere that I can see is that defined. Also I think it isn't the best term to use.
As I said the only place "Ability Score Bonus" is seen in the core rulebook is in the header of the section in page 554, and I am actually beginning to think that should really read as "Ability Bonuses" now as that seems to be the term Paizo use to refer to bonuses to ability scores.
So when you say you think they meant "ability score bonus" instead of "ability bonus", you would be wrong. Ability Bonus works with the sentence while Ability Score Bonus would not.
Okay I think our terms our confusing each other here and I actually think we agree. I believe the devs meant "bonuses to ability scores".
As for the Damage, Penalty, and Drain bit,
[...]
This is no different than the stance I had before. In reference to ability scores, penalty refers to a negative modifier.
A negative modifier to the score? I believe Penalty in this section refers to a penalty to the ability score is that your reading also?
TL;DR
So in summary I believe:
Ability Bonus means a bonus (i.e. an increase) to the Ability Score.
If an Ability Bonus is temporary (i.e. has a duration of 1 day or less) rather than actually increasing the ability score it provides an untyped bonus to certain skill checks and statistics.
The untyped bonus to skills and statistics is equal to +1 per 2 points of temporary Ability Bonus.
For Strength, the untyped bonus is applied to:
1) Strength-based skill checks
2) melee attack rolls (possibly only if they rely on Strength, interpretation may differ)
3) weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength)
4) Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger)
5) Combat Maneuver Defense
The untyped bonus to weapon damage rolls would not be multiplied if the weapon is being used in two hands, as the bonus is to the damage roll, not the Strength modifier used to calculate the damage.
Equally, the untyped bonus to weapon damage rolls would not be halved if the weapon is being used in the off-hand, as the bonus is to the damage roll, not the Strength modifier used to calculate the damage.
This may not be strictly consistent with how permanent ability bonuses work, but I believe it is a concession to speed up play.
If spell adds +2 STR it makes no sense to add +1 to attack if one uses weapon finesse as they are fencing using their DEX mod, no matter is temp or permanent STR it makes character STRONGER and not more agile.
Look here http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/advanced-creatu re-cr-1
(cant say page right now as i am at work, but i belive its at the end of bestiary), Quick Rules used to quickly adjust the monster enemy summoner summons or it will most likely not live for long to save time. Rebuild rules are the actual rules that have to be used, but it will be tedious and drag game down if someone will apply template to 10 different monsters and recalculate all their stats.
Quick rules say what effects Rebuild rules actually have on creature characteristics. But if creature have 1 primary natural attack then full rules will add +3 to damage (not +2 as quick rules say). If its animal companion you definetely want you wolf to have +3 dmg if it ever gets advanced simple template.
I geniunely believe that this is the same case here, as temp bonuses only temporary they have quick version of rules, yet even if barbarian rage is temporaty it uses very often and one of his key abilities, and it should be recalculated according to actual rules (and then written somewhere in char sheet as DMG (with rage): 12 or similar thing)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The rules say what they say. Now I think the RAW is incorrect, and I think we all(95%) agree on the RAI, but that does not mean the RAW is right. It should be rewritten.
Well actually the problem is I don't agree that the RAW says what you think it says. So at minimum we have two separate RAWs and a RAI.
|
Ah, more insults, am I not surprised.
How am I being insulting? I'm being completely serious here, my intent is not to insult. Stating an argument is illogical is not an insult. I'm not calling you stupid or anything like that - I acknowledge there are very legitimate reasons to not want to follow the logic of the situation. It IS a pain to recalculate encumbrance mid-combat.
But not doing so is still illogical. That is a completely factual statement, devoid of attacks. Strength should make you stronger, and damage/penalties to strength should make you weaker. You can take that personally if you want to, there's really nothing I can do about that, but logic is logic.
No - logic says that they can't cast spells.Common sense says that suddenly stripping a spellcaster of her most powerful spells (or having the party tank collapse because he can no longer carry the weight of his weapons and armour) is too powerful an effect for simple ability damage, so logic (or 'realism', if that word has any meaning in a fantasy setting) should be ignored in the interests of game balance.
Ability damage can be easily prevented though. Poison, disease, curses and negative energy are all threats adventurers can and should be prepared to deal with.
Common sense has nothing to do with the rules.
Believe me, I'm aware of that. See also drowning to heal. Or Defoliant Bomb being useless. Or Wordstrike working halfway around the world. Summon Good Monster doing nothing. Dropping Prone in midair to avoid falling damage. And so on.
That doesn't mean I have to be okay with things like that.
|
|
The "adrenaline rush" justification fails for two reasons:
- Your own example (lifting a car) is actually impossible using this rationale, since you're saying that temporary boosts don't affect encumbrance. So you're basically saying that your own rationale is illogical. And what's more, temporary boosts are either magical or extraordinary (e.g. rage), so after-effects like strain and injury don't enter into it to begin with.
- It doesn't address penalties, like poison, disease or negative energy, that sap your strength. Logically, such things should make you weaker - I would expect someone whose muscles are wasting away due to a horrible disease to not be able to carry as much. With this ruling that won't happen. Thus, illogical.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I am in the camp that suggests that the rules are not worded well enough to rely on.
"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 as appropriate. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed."
So, once your PC gets bear's endurance for 24 hours, it finally increases her hit points? Then what would be the point of the spell?
|
|
Not if you treat the burst lifting of an object as a raw Strength check.
Except "burst lifting" has no duration. Strength checks, by the rules, are for quick applications of force, like bending bars or bursting enclosures. So you would successfully hoist a car then immediately be crushed by it, despite the fact that the spell enabling you to do this lasts for several minutes. As I said - illogical.
Again, it's burst strength vs endurance strength. A person wasting from an illness may not be able to sprint a marathon, but I've run even while sick. I may not feel comfortable carrying my maximum capacity, but I can still physically lift and carry that amount over protracted lengths of time, even if I'm suffering from the dreaded Lurgy. And if the illness, poison, etc. is really so debilitating and horrible that it's affecting how much you can carry, it's causing Strength drain rather than Strength damage.
You've gone running with Typhoid Fever? Or was it Malaria? How about Tuberculosis? Were you wearing armor at the time? How about a backpack? Carrying a shield? And surely you got no treatment at all to properly test the effects on you? As I said - illogical.
FYI - none of those deal Str drain, just damage.
|
|
Check the rules for temporary bonuses to con. They give you a temporary bonus to current and max hit points. By contrast, a permanent bonus to con changes what your hit points are. A fine distinction, to put it mildly. (And not the same as temporary hit points, which are a different kind of extra hit points with a finite duration.)
Exactly, and this makes sense. Boosting Con temporarily gives you a temporary health boost, and boosting Con permanently gives you a permanent health boost.
Every derivation of every attribute should be treated this way. It's only logical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's ruling like this that drives me to play games other than Pathfinder.
The “quick rules” present a fast way to modify die rolls
made in play to simulate the template’s effects without
actually rebuilding the stat block—this method works
great for summoned creatures. The “rebuild rules” list
the exact changes you make to the base stat block if you
have the time to completely rebuild it—this method
works best when you have time during game preparation
to build full stat blocks. The two methods result in
creatures of similar, if not identical, abilities.
Its just quick rules used for temporary bonuses to run game faster.
I know its about templates but it seems logical that they used same system for abilities.
P.S. Or whatever, you can rule as you want. Let you fighter deal more damage with off-hand weapon by removing Belt of Giant Strenght once every 24 hours. For me it looks like abuse, for you its how mechanics should be interpreted.
|
|
Nothing says that the +1 replaces your normal modifier.
It could be inferred that it was, as nowhere else in the rule would you apply a Strength modifier to a skill or stat twice; once for the PC's natural Strength modifier and once for the Strength modifier (in this case a bonus) from a spell such as Bull's Strength. Its just such an alien concept that if that was what was intended I would have expected it to be much more explicit in the RAW.
But, let us for argument's sake say your reading of the RAW is correct...
In fact, if it is read in context with the entire section, the rules imply that you never recalculate you skills and statistics.
I never thought otherwise. In my reading of the RAW the untyped bonus would be applied to the existing calculated skills and stats.
Yes, but as I pointed out above, I don’t think that the extra text is needed because we aren’t recalculating the skill/statistic. It has to be in addition to the normal modifier, because the normal modifier is already calculated in to get the skill bonus.
As I mentioned above, if the rules were really wanting a second Strength modifier to apply, in addition to the normal one, I think extra words are needed because its a weird concept that is not seen elsewhere in the rules.
Are we not supposed to use special rules and definitions in place of general rules and definitions when they are being applied?
Yes, but I don't read the word "bonus" as meaning the specific, if it stated apply a +1 Strength bonus then yes, I would believe the specific rules should apply.
Is the ability score the subject referenced in the section? If so, then we should be using the definitions that are specified for ability scores.
Ability Bonuses (i.e. increases to ability scores) is the subject of the section and how that may lead to some sort of bonus to skills and stats.
Now with the word "bonus" being used in relation to Scores and Skills & Stats (ratings that are not on the same scale) I personally do not feel it would be appropriate to read anything more into the word "bonus" in the sentence "apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics" other than the general definition.
This causes the temporary bonus to act exactly as though the ability score had been actually increased for the specific skill/statistic without having to recalculate the ability score. I fail to see how “things working like normal,” can be used to think something is counterintuitive.
Things aren't "working like normal" though, you are applying two Strength modifiers to a skill or ability - something that happens nowhere else in the rules as far as I can see.
They can be, but are not always. “Positive modifiers from ability scores” is a statement limited to the positive modifiers. Bonuses derived from Ability Score could be taken to mean Bonus Spells as well.
Gotcha, and yes I agree there is a slight difference there.
I stated earlier that Ability Bonus is the bonus to an ability.
Yes, but when use said "bonus to an ability" I wasn't clear on what you meant by "ability" - whether you meant the score or modifier. I think you by default use the term Ability to refer to the Score, whereas I see Ability as a concept in the rules that has a rating both in terms of a score and a modifier.
But yes, I was using the term Ability Bonus incorrectly before and now recognise that such a bonus is in relation to the Ability Score. Alas, it took me a review of the PDF to work that out.
They don’t use Ability Bonus to mean “a positive ability modifier.” That is what Ability Score Bonus means. What is the meta-header over the quote I’ve provided from page 16 that defines what bonus means for ability scores? Ability Scores.
Okay, lets go with "Ability Score Bonus" being a game term even though it appears exactly once in the core rulebook and as a header in a section where it is actually talking about Ability Bonuses. Personally I think it is a really bad term as I was reading it as exactly the opposite, i.e. meaning a bonus to an Ability Score. But like I said, let's go with that for now.
A negative modifier to the score? I believe Penalty in this section refers to a penalty to the ability score is that your reading also?No. Damage to the ability score causes an ability score penalty (negative modifier due to ability score). Remember that damage does not actually change the ability score, just imposes a penalty per two points of damage.
So are you saying the word "Penalty" in the section header "Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain" on page 555 of the core rulebook is referring to "a negative ability modifier"?
I believe Damage, Penalty and Drain are all in reference to the numerical scale of the Ability Score, i.e. a -4 Damage to Strength would have the same effect as a -4 Penalty to Strength.
I feel this is backed up when it says "Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage"
Basically, Paizo haven't been consistent with their terminology - they aren't perfect, so whilst the header says "Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain" I think they likely mean "Damage, Penalties and Drain as applied to the Ability Score".
Which again makes me feel using the term "Ability Score Bonus" & "Ability Score Penalty" to refer to the Ability Modifier is not a good thing to do.
The rules have a general term of Ability Modifier, but don't have a general term for an Ability Modifier that is positive, ditto I don't believe the rules have a general term for an Ability Modifier that is negative. They do however have terms for positive ability modifiers and negative ability modifiers as they relate to specific abilities (e.g. Strength Bonus, Strength Penalty).
But as I said, for argument's sake lets go with your term "Ability Score Bonus" to be the general term for an Ability Modifier that is positive, and presumably likewise "Ability Score Penalty" to be the general term for an Ability Modifier that is negative. It does make the headers on pages 554 and 555 a bit unintuitive IMHO though.
This may not be strictly consistent with how permanent ability bonuses work, but I believe it is a concession to speed up play.Look at it from the way I am proposing for a moment, and tell me how my interpretation is any slower. The only difference I am seeing is that the second modifier could be modified by anything that modifies the modifiers. Such as THF and OHF with the Strength bonus.
Its slower because you the "bonus" has to be modified by "anything that modifies the modifiers". Now that may not be much slower, but "apply a +2 bonus to Damage" is quicker than "apply a +2 modifier to damage for one handed, +1 for off hand, +3 for two handed".
* * *
Anyway, lets go with your idea that the "+1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability" is an "ability score bonus" (as you use the term, i.e. a positive ability modifier).
Let us also go with the idea that the RAI is therefore to multiply the damage for Two Handed and Off Handed weapon damage.
So with the above in mind, is the following example a correct application of the rules to you?
Adam has a Strength of 7 (maybe it was a dump stat) and is using a Spear (a weapon that requires two hands).
His Strength Modifier is -2, thus the damage he does with a Spear is d8-2 (per the rules on page 179 a strength penalty is not multiplied when using a weapon two handed).
Adam now has a spell of Bull's Strength cast on him providing a +4 Ability Bonus. This +4 Ability Bonus results in a +2 bonus (strength bonus according to you) that is applied to weapon damage. Because it is a strength bonus and the weapon is being used in two hands, it gets multiplied by 1.5 resulting in a +3 to damage.
So Adam is now doing d8+1 damage with the spear (-2 for his natural Strength Penalty +3 for the Bull's Strength Strength Bonus, multiplied for two handed weapon use).
Is that correct under your reading of the RAW?
Lets say that Adam is now subject to an attack that inflicts 4 points of Strength damage, this results in a -2 penalty (a Strength Penalty according to you) that is applied to weapon damage. Because it is a strength penalty it doesn't get multiplied because the weapon is being used two handed, so it results in a -2 damage.
So Adam is now doing d8-1 damage (-2 for his natural Strength Penalty, +3 for the Bull's Strength Strength Bonus that gets multiplied by 1.5, -2 for the Strength Damage).
Is that correct?
If so it seems very weird that despite taking a +4 Ability Bonus and 4 Ability Damage, both to strength, Adam is doing more damage than he normally would do (d8-1 versus his normal d8-2).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So, just checking:
A 4th-level character with a Constitution of 14 is injured to -9, unconscious, and bleeding. He gets hit with bear's endurance.
* It does not provide a bonus to his Stabilization check, because that's not a Fortitude saving throw.
* It provides 8 temporary hit points. But the character is still unconscious at -1.
* (Does he still need to make a DC 19 Constitution check? Or only a DC 11?)
* He still dies at -14, not -18.
Yes?
--
If a character has a Constitution of 14, gets hit with CON-damaging poison, and takes 6 points of CON damage, does he die at -8 hp, or -14?
Does that stat damage affect his Constitution checks to stabilize?
--
And I gotta tell you, a couple years' ago, I came up with a sweet idea for a monster that attaches itself to prey and just burdens it down until the target can't move. I tried to find some way to disrupt a character's carrying capacity. Permanent strength drain seemed to be the only way.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
A 4th-level character with a Constitution of 14 is injured to -9, unconscious, and bleeding. He gets hit with bear's endurance.
This is how I rule in all Pathfinder games including PFS and I believe I'm following the RAW fully.
His Stabilization check would be at +4 and they would need to get a 7 to make it.
He dies at -18 and has 17 turns to make his stabilization check.
|
|
A 4th-level character with a Constitution of 14 is injured to -9, unconscious, and bleeding. He gets hit with bear's endurance.
Here is my reading of the RAW and its largely in line with what you said.
You get 8 HP so you're at -1 rather than -9. That still means you are dying though and need to make a stabilisation check.
Your stabilisation check is a Con check which gets no bonus from a temporary bonus to Con (like you said only Fortitude saves gain any benefit), so its a d20+1 roll (+2 for the natural Con bonus, -1 for the -1 HP) with a DC of 10, i.e. you need to roll a 9 or better to stabilise.
If you don't stabilise (or you suffer more damage) you will die when your current HP reaches -14 (as again a temporary Con bonus does not actually change your Con Score).
Be aware that if you don't initially stabilise but do so later you could potentially still die when Bear's Endurance spell runs out, e.g. stabilise on -6 HP, but then spell runs out and you lose 8 hp leaving you at -14 and dead!
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is how I rule in all Pathfinder games including PFS and I believe I'm following the RAW fully.
His Stabilization check would be at +4 and they would need to get a 7 to make it.
He dies at -18 and has 17 turns to make his stabilization check.
The fact that James Risner and I have completely opposite readings of the rules on this matter, both of us believe we are running it by RAW and both of us would rule like this in Pathfinder Society Organised Play (where rule variance really shouldn't happen) shows pretty clearly that Paizo could do with adding Ability Bonuses, Damage and Penalties to the FAQ.
This:
The “quick rules” present a fast way to modify die rolls
made in play to simulate the template’s effects without
actually rebuilding the stat block—this method works
great for summoned creatures. The “rebuild rules” list
the exact changes you make to the base stat block if you
have the time to completely rebuild it—this method
works best when you have time during game preparation
to build full stat blocks. The two methods result in
creatures of similar, if not identical, abilities.Its just quick rules used for temporary bonuses to run game faster.
I know its about templates but it seems logical that they used same system for abilities.
[....]
By bold (and my edit).
That is the whole Point with temp vs permanent. A template to speed up gameplay. It has nothing to do with common sense. We are talking rules.
|
|
It has nothing to do with common sense. We are talking rules.
The two are related for a reason though. Otherwise there would be no rules for things like drowning, suffocation or encumbrance at all. The idea is to model real-world or expected conditions within the framework of the game.
And gaining strength, even temporarily, making you able to carry more things makes sense.
I don't think we'll convince one another at this point, and I'm certainly willing to accept that my interpretation may not be RAW. The rules are likely the way they are for convenience. But I have no problem calculating encumbrance changes on the fly and will likely continue to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
I've taken the comments here to mean that temporary changes to strength would affect carrying capacity.
This is a great find. Specifically this guideline from SKR:
"We can't give an exhaustive list of every single ability in the game and whether or not a temporary boost affects it, but we can give you these two guidelines:
(1) It should affect DCs based on that ability score modifier.
(2) It should affect rolls modified by that ability score modifier, such as Str mod affecting melee attack rolls and Wis mod affecting Will saves.
(3) It should not affect abilities that treat an ability score modifier as a "consumable." In this context, a "consumable" is one where your number of uses per round/day/week/whatever is based on the ability score or its modifier, such as channel energy uses per day, wizard school abilities usable {Int bonus} per day, bardic performance rounds per day, barbarian rage rounds per day, and so on.
Everything else is on a case-by-case basis up to GM discretion, but avoiding (3) is much more important than limiting it to (1) and (2)."
Not only does he rule it exactly like I would (temporary boosts don't affect "consumables" like spell slots and channel energy rounds), he even ruled that everything not mentioned - like carrying capacity - needs to be up to GM discretion. So this is precisely the guideline I would ultimately follow. It's so great to have a forum where the designers can speak directly to the players like this!