| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have already seen that like before in this thread.
It is not a ruling by the design team. It isn’t even a ruling by Sean. Even if it was a ruling from Sean it not very clarifying.
edit:
Questions regarding Ability Bonuses, Damage and Penalties resurface again and again so this:
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 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.
My bold
If you read a few posts up, you'll see that the design team did talk about it and that Sean was relaying what was said.
Should it be in the FAQ? Sure. Is there a post trying to get clicks about it rather than saying "nuh uh! The words aren't in the right place so I'm going to ignore them"? Maybe it's this one, but I skipped the first few pages because threads this long rarely stay on topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Impressive that it's stayed on topic this long.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not only does he rule it exactly like I wouldMe too, but unless I'm loopy this exact post was linked in this thread like 200 posts ago and universally ignored by the "do it this strange way that no one does" proponents.
How good of you to offer us ridicule and scorn. We clearly deserve it since the reason we ignore that post is because we are chaotic evil and not because we don’t think it is an official ruling ;-)
Or, the fact that official rulings by Sean usually looks like this could have something do with it (Good post by SKR BTW):
Here's the official word:
1. The game differentiates between permanent ability score bonuses (such as +1 every 4 character levels and wearing a +2 belt of giant strength for 24 hours) and temporary ability score bonuses (such as from barbarian rage, an alchemist mutagen, or a bull's strength spell).
2. Permanent ability score bonuses do count for the purpose of qualifying for feats.
3. If you lose a permanent ability score bonus, you still have the feat, you just can't use it until your ability score qualifies again.
4. Temporary ability score bonuses do not count for the purpose of qualifying for feats. (My earlier statement contradicting this point was my opinion of how it should work.)
5. I personally Believe that differentiating between permanent and temporary scores in this fashion is needlessly complex and only hinders player choices in a metagaming way.
6. I personally believe that you could revise the feat prerequisite system so characters could select feats before they actually meet the prerequisites, but wouldn't be able to use the feat until they do, which would allow (for example) monks and rogues to take Weapon Focus at level 1 in anticipation of having the required BAB +1 at level 2.
7. Implementing points 5 and 6 as official game rules would require making revisions to language elsewhere in the game (such as qualifying for a prestige class), similar to how the discussion about revising the Stealth skill is a significant change that affects other parts of the rules (such as scent and hide in plain sight).
8. The design team hasn't discussed implementing 5 and 6 as official game rules.
"needlessly complex" is bolded by me.
edit: Removed snark stuff
I've taken the comments here to mean that temporary changes to strength would affect carrying capacity.
No he doesn’t say that. He says it “makes sense to apply it to ability score penalties/damage/drain as well”. It is unclear if this is a ruling or just his opinion. Also he seems to miss that drain actually does reduce an ability score.
If you read a few posts up, you'll see that the design team did talk about it and that Sean was relaying what was said.
Unless I’ve missed something, they didn’t.
Sean only said this:
I spoke with Jason and he says that the Charisma section's failure to mention Cha-based saves that aren't spells (such as bard performance DCs) is an oversight and it should apply to Charisma-based DCs. Likewise, an Int boost affects Int-based DCs, and so on.
He is only talking about the Charisma section's failure to mention Cha-based saves etc.
Should it be in the FAQ? Sure. Is there a post trying to get clicks about it rather than saying "nuh uh! The words aren't in the right place so I'm going to ignore them"? Maybe it's this one, but I skipped the first few pages because threads this long rarely stay on topic.
Cheapy, I’m not being ironic. My English is not good enough to grasp what you are saying. You think it should be a FAQ, but?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good post by James Jacobs:
So I just sat down and read through the rules for Ability Score damage, penalty, and drain on page 555 of the core rulebook, and it does indeed look like the rules don't work exactly as I thought. Part of the problem is that ability damage doesn't actually reduce an ability score's actual total, which is counterintuitive on some level.
So here goes.
Ability damage only results in a penalty to actions associated with that ability score; it does NOT make you lose access to feats or spells that require ability score minimums, since your actual ability score does not lower. Only ability DRAIN can make you lose access to spells you can cast or feats that have prerequisites.
But it's not that simple. Some effects that cause ability damage or ability penalties DO have additional effects. Touch of idiocy is one such spell, since it says in the spell's description that it affects the target's ability to cast some or all of its spells if the penalty imparted to the ability score drops low enough. This is an exception to the general rule for ability scores and applies only to touch of idiocy (the point of the spell, really, is to be a lesser version of feeblemind that screws over spellcasters, after all).
Ray of enfeeblement, on the other hand, does NOT have this type of language. It merely works as a normal penalty to an ability score.
So taking it that way...
1a) A 12th-level wizard with a 16 Intelligence takes a 3 point Intelligence penalty from Touch of Idiocy. What is the highest level spell he can cast, sixth or third?Third.
1b) A 12th-level wizard with a 16 Intelligence takes 3 points of Intelligence damage. What is the highest level spell he can cast, sixth or third?Sixth.
1c) A 12th-level wizard with a 16 Intelligence takes 3 points of Intelligence drain. What is the highest level spell he can cast, sixth or third?Third.
2a) A fighter with 13 strength and the Power Attack feat takes a 3 point Strength penalty from Ray of Enfeeblement. Can he Power Attack?Yes.
2b) A fighter with 13 strength and the Power Attack feat takes 3 points of Strength Damage. Can he Power Attack?Yes.
2c) A fighter with 13 strength and the Power Attack feat takes 3 points of Strength Drain. Can he Power Attack?No.
My bold.
Link to the original thread:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kqm0?Ability-Score-Damage-Penal ty-and-Drain
Notice the Staff response: no reply required
Another good and helpful post from James Jacobs, picked from the same thread as the post above.
Touch of Idiocy confuesed me because it didn't fit with MY interpretation of the rules. As a result of that I also wondered how spells like Feeblemind, Bestow Curse and Blasphemy worked.
Will Bestow Curse prevent someone with a –6 decrease to an dex score of 18 using two weapon fighting, dodge etc?As I mentioned in the post above, touch of idiocy has a special additional effect written into its description that allows its ability score penalties to actually impact the highest level spell that a spellcaster can cast.
The three other spells you mention, feeblemind, bestow curse, and blashpemy, actually REDUCE ability scores. This isn't damage, drain, or a penalty. It's the worst case scenario for ability scores, since effects like these can't be healed naturally, nor can they be fixed by restoration (generally). These types of effects have to be cured by specific spells (heal, etc. for feeblemind or anything that removes a curse for bestow curse) or the reduction is temporary and not as big a deal (such as with blasphemy).
Feeblemind: This spell drops INT and CHA to 1. It spells out pretty succinctly what this means for victims of the spell. This isn't damage, drain, or penalty. It just resets those scores to 1. This spell is really bad news. It probably should have been given an expensive material component to keep folks from casting it all the time or something.
Bestow Curse: This spell decreases your ability score. This effect works more or less like ability drain.
Blasphemy: This spell decreases your Strength score. This effect works more or less the same as ability drain, but we don't actually call it ability drain because it only lasts for 2d4 rounds before fixing itself. Ability drain can't fix itself anymore than hp damage can fix itself.
All of this is a pretty confusing change, to be honest, especially if you're used to how it all worked in 3.5. My gut tells me that the Pathfinder version IS easier... but not for a while if you're used to the 3.5 method.
Edit: I Bolded some text in quote by JJ.
Link to the original thread:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kqm0?Ability-Score-Damage-Penal ty-and-Drain
Notice the Staff response: no reply required
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All these posts, including the quotes from SKR and JJ, just make me realise that this area is royally screwed up.
I really wish it had all been left as it was in 3.5 - it may not be as quick to adjudicate such temporary changes on the fly but I believe everyone would be clear what the changes would be.
Oh, well, I will just continue to GM PFS as best I can, and be thankful that I still run 3.5 outside of PFS.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
not because we don’t think it is an official ruling ;-)
Well my point is that you would consider it "not an official ruling."
The quoted but not linked SKR post is also pretty explicitly clear, but is also not considered an official ruling?
In that SKR post, the only thing he differentiates is the Feat Pre-Reqs. He doesn't say that it doesn't count for the other things a permanent bonus does.
So to be clear, I haven't seen anything from SKR or anyone else that isn't consistent with the theory that Temporary Bonuses raise the Score (and by that action the modifier) directly with the exception of qualifying for Feats and anything that is a consumable (like /day abilities.)
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In summary, here's how I'm going to rule it:
- Temporary changes do NOT affect "consumables" as defined above. (e.g. /day abilities.)
- Temporary changes do NOT affect your ability to retain/use feats you already know. (e.g. you can still use ITWF if a temporary decrease makes you fall below 17 Dex.)
- Temporary changes do NOT allow you to qualify for anything you don't already possess. (No using Cat's Grace to learn ITWF - you need a permanent bonus or naturally high score for that.)
- Temporary changes DO affect derivative "constant" statistics based on score (e.g. carrying capacity, the HP at which you die.)
- Temporary changes DO affect non-consumable statistics based on modifier as defined above. (e.g. current and maximum hitpoints, attack and damage rolls, save DCs and saving throws etc.)
---
My reason for leaving feats you already know unharmed - feats represent specific knowledge/training. Your clumsiness in applying the feat is already represented by the reduction to your attack/damage, so allowing you to attempt to apply the knowledge anyway isn't a problem for verisimilitude. For instance, if you have Dex damage, you're likely not hitting with your secondary attacks anyway, so keeping you from using ITWF creates unnecessary additional bookkeeping. Plus, most feats with an ability score requirement are designed for melee, so this would keep things fairer towards non-casters. (Metamagic feats don't have an Int or Wis requirement for instance.)
|
|
So to be clear, I haven't seen anything from SKR or anyone else that isn't consistent with the theory that Temporary Bonuses raise the Score (and by that action the modifier) directly with the exception of qualifying for Feats and anything that is a consumable (like /day abilities.)
What about the rule for Permanent Bonuses?
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours.
That to me, by implication, means that temporary bonuses, i.e. those with a duration less than 1 day, don't actually increase the relevant ability score.
|
|
That to me, by implication, means that temporary bonuses, i.e. those with a duration less than 1 day, don't actually increase the relevant ability score.So to be clear, I haven't seen anything from SKR or anyone else that isn't consistent with the theory that Temporary Bonuses raise the Score (and by that action the modifier) directly with the exception of qualifying for Feats and anything that is a consumable (like /day abilities.)What about the rule for Permanent Bonuses?
[quote = "PF core rulebook page 555"]Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours.
thats where it becomes a permanent bonus for effects like "consumables" , to increase your rage, to give you bonus spell slots, extra channels per day. thats all it needs to mean. its as if your score were higher. all those things temporary bonuses don't let you do.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
What about the rule for Permanent Bonuses?
That to me, by implication, means that temporary bonuses, i.e. those with a duration less than 1 day, don't actually increase the relevant ability score.
I read both as increasing, but the increase is limited to the things that change stats and not for things that change /day consumables.
This has been stated over and over again in this thread.
Core p554: "Some ... increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses.
Strength: Temporary increases to your Strength score"
All that language says the ability was increased. In order for your interpretation to be valid there would need to be a recipicle statement like this:
Core p555: "This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability."
That says something like:
"A temporary increase does not actually increase an ability, but it does apply a bonus to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability."
Without a line like this, you are left with it increased. The 5 ability stat sections that start with "Temporary increases to your X score give you a bonus on your Y" can be best thought of as reminder text.
The limiting text:
Core p554: "For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability." is the rule used to limit (restrict) increases to /day consumable abilities.
And yet the thread only has 28 FAQ requests. I guess everyone has gotten used to their own house rules.
|
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.
+1.
It prevents anyone creating a self-powering ability, such as you'd get if you allowed a PC to 'Spend one use of Channel Energy, to act as if under the effect of eagle's splendor.'.
"Oh, no, I need to clear this room of skeletons, and heal my allies, but I'm down to my last use of Channel. Hang on, I can use my holy awesome aura, to give myself +4 Cha. Now I've got two more Channels left."
It also prevents a wizard preparing fox's cunning at dawn, casting it, then continue preparing the rest of his spells, and getting bonus spells to two more spell levels.
If he wants those particular bonus spells, he needs to be under an effect that increases his Int over the whole day, not just for the single hour he spent preparing his spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In summary, here's how I'm going to rule it:
- Temporary changes do NOT affect "consumables" as defined above. (e.g. /day abilities.)
- Temporary changes do NOT affect your ability to retain/use feats you already know. (e.g. you can still use ITWF if a temporary decrease makes you fall below 17 Dex.)
- Temporary changes do NOT allow you to qualify for anything you don't already possess. (No using Cat's Grace to learn ITWF - you need a permanent bonus or naturally high score for that.)
- Temporary changes DO affect derivative "constant" statistics based on score (e.g. carrying capacity, the HP at which you die.)
- Temporary changes DO affect non-consumable statistics based on modifier as defined above. (e.g. current and maximum hitpoints, attack and damage rolls, save DCs and saving throws etc.)---
My reason for leaving feats you already know unharmed - feats represent specific knowledge/training. Your clumsiness in applying the feat is already represented by the reduction to your attack/damage, so allowing you to attempt to apply the knowledge anyway isn't a problem for verisimilitude. For instance, if you have Dex damage, you're likely not hitting with your secondary attacks anyway, so keeping you from using ITWF creates unnecessary additional bookkeeping. Plus, most feats with an ability score requirement are designed for melee, so this would keep things fairer towards non-casters. (Metamagic feats don't have an Int or Wis requirement for instance.)
[Off topic]
Not an unreasonable house ruling although here is how I would rule it.Temporary changes to your ability score work just like permanent changes except in the following cases:
The reason why I include carrying capacity and death threshold are two: Fun and simplicity.
Mostly con-damage will be something that will strike PCs not NPCs, so it kind of unfair to make a temp decrease so harsh. Taking a hit on HP and con saves is bad enough. Also, the rules state that temp decrease doesn’t actually decrease the score so it kind of makes sense.
Carrying capacity also kind of make sense since it is directly tied to the ability score. Also having to recalculate everything at the table will be boring both for the GM and for the players. Strength damage could mean the fighter or the rogue loose AC and speed, etc.
It makes the ruling simple:
[/Off topic]
And yet the thread only has 28 FAQ requests. I guess everyone has gotten used to their own house rules.
Only 28? It is not surprising at all. Most people seem to miss that there are two more post with questions and one of the things that seem to be a hot question is this thread is if a temporary increases to Strength (be it an enhancement bonus, size bonus or moral bonus) grants a bonus to Carrying Capacity. That post only have 5 FAQ requests.
These kind of questions aren’t sexy or player oriented. There are only 5 FAQ questions that are tied to GM in the Core book that are answered in the FAQ. The rest are tied to races, spells, feats, classes, toys, etc.
The simple truth is that players are more focused on their character and I guess that GM:s have been forced to use house rules or the 3.5 rules when dealing with Ability Bonuses, Damage and Penalties.
When it comes to something like strength damage and Carrying Capacity I think that in the end I think people want to have a fun game and play heroes and not have to bother with encumbrance.
Or as SKR put it once:
[…] If a rogue in light armor wants to carry a couple of masterwork short swords looted from an assassin so she can sell them later, I'm not going to bother with adding up that individual weight. If she wants to carry a couple of suits of masterwork full plate looted from some cultists so she can sell them later, yeah, I may want her to add up her gear.
Assuming she doesn't have a bag of holding, the smallest of which holds 250 lbs. (about a max load for a 17 Str character), and can therefore hold 5 suits of masterwork full plate. Nitpicking pounds like this just means that a bag of holding or a handy haversack becomes an "equipment tax" for anyone in your campaign who's carrying more than about 30 pounds.
If you're going to nitpick weight, fine. If you think that's fun. Track empty/full waterskin weight and empty/full potion weight. Figure out the weight of 250 gp worth of diamond dust for your stoneskin material component (house rule!). Track scroll weight. Track clothing weight. Weigh your hair when it grows. Weigh your food and ale before you eat it. Get a weight receipt when you use the outhouse. Track how much temporary weight you gain from water when you wade through a river. Track how much less weight you have after you've been suffering from filth fever for a week.
If you think that's fun, do it.
Of course, be sure to ignore all the other parts of the game where weights are just approximations, of course. Like how full plate always weighs 50 lbs. for any Medium character, from the fattest half-orc to the skinniest elf. You wouldn't want your calculations to be off by a pound.
Me, I think that level of calculation is pointless OCD and isn't important to the purpose of the game (fighting monsters and having epic adventures). But if you want to do that in your campaign, I won't stop you. […]
This is, BTW, one of my favorite quotes. :)
|
|
I read both as increasing, but the increase is limited to the things that change stats and not for things that change /day consumables.What about the rule for Permanent Bonuses?
That to me, by implication, means that temporary bonuses, i.e. those with a duration less than 1 day, don't actually increase the relevant ability score.
Ah, I am beginning to see where you are coming from, effectively you read it as "temporary bonuses increase the ability score but any bonuses that would normally result from that increase are limited to the specific list and calculated slightly differently (i.e. +1 per 2 ability bonus even if you had an odd Ability score to start with".
As carrying capacity is not a "bonus" derived from the ability score it is not limited and such would be calculated based on the increased score as normal.
I am still not sure I agree with that reading 100% (especially with the section on permanent bonuses I quoted) but I can definitely see that your reading is a valid alternative to mine.
With that reading though I am still not sure how ability modifiers would work. An increase in the strength ability score doesn't always result in a Strength bonus (positive modifier) and if you increase your score naturally you don't tend to say "add a bonus to your ability modifier" but rather "recalculate your ability modifier based on the new score".
So I am not sure how the word "bonuses" in the sentence "give only
temporary bonuses" relates to ability modifiers.
In order for your interpretation to be valid
I still believe my interpretation is a valid one, but I also am now seeing yours as valid too. I.e. the rules are ambiguous, vague and contradictory and therefore more than one reading of the rules can appear to follow RAW,such as it is.
In order for your interpretation to be valid there would need to be a recipicle statement like this:
Core p555: "This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability."That says something like:
"A temporary increase does not actually increase an ability, but it does apply a bonus to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability."
Okay, so are you saying that temporary ability bonuses work differently from ability damage / penalties?
So for example, Adam has a Strength of 12, this results in a carrying capacity of 43 lbs /86 lbs / 130 lbs.
Adam is subjected to a spell of Bull's Strength, according to you his Strength score does actually increase to 16 and as such his carrying capacity increases to 76 lbs / 153 lbs / 230 lbs. Correct?
Adam, whilst still under the effects of the Bull's Strength spell is hit by an attack that does 4 points of Strength damage. Now strength damage you feel does not reduce the score and so his Carrying capacity would remain based on a Strength of 16 (76 lbs / 153 lbs / 230 lbs) correct?
So although for purposes of bonuses and penalties the Bull's Strength spell and 4 points of Strength damage cancel each other out, for carrying capacity they don't, is that in line with your interpretation?
Without a line like this, you are left with it increased. The 5 ability stat sections that start with "Temporary increases to your X score give you a bonus on your Y" can be best thought of as reminder text.
So do you feel that the list of skill checks and stats that are affected by temporary bonuses / penalties to the specific abilities are not an exhaustive list?
If they are not an exhaustive list, then presumably bonus spells for a higher spellcasting score are increased as well?
The limiting text:
Core p554: "For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability." is the rule used to limit (restrict) increases to /day consumable abilities.
If the statistics listed with the relevant ability is treated as an exhaustive list then I agree for purposes of Bonus Spells because , they are "bonuses" and it seems your reading of the rules is that:
Mechanical ratings derived from an ability are recalculated based on the increased ability score (which happens whether the ability bonus is temporary or permanent). The exception is if those mechanical ratings are bonuses in which case only temporary bonuses are gained that are limited to a specific list and calculated slightly differently.
But what about Channeling uses for a cleric under a +4 Charisma bonus?
The extra number of Channelling uses a cleric gets a day based on his charisma is not termed as Bonus Channels (like Bonus Spells are), so is it increased? I guess it depends on whether the Charisma Modifier is deemed to be affected by a Charisma Ability Bonus - but as I said based on your reading I am still not sure how Ability Bonuses relate to Ability Modifiers.
TL;DR
Whilst I see that your reading of the rules is also a valid reading of the RAW (whilst still having my reading also remain as valid) I find your reading leaves some vague areas and is not as clear cut as my reading.
Basically, as I have said many times on this thread Ability Bonuses, Penalties and Damage rules are severely screwed up and desperately need a FAQ answer. To be honest IMHO even a FAQ answer is not enough and I really feel the whole section needs to be re-written for clarity and included in future printings of the core rulebook.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours.^-- why does this sentence even exist?
You now get more uses of per day abilities and languages and skill points (basically everything in addition to things that modify stats.)
Okay, so are you saying that temporary ability bonuses work differently from ability damage / penalties?
Bonuses and Drain work the same (increase or reduce) but the increases for Temporary are limited to stat stuff.
Penalties and Damage work the same but they ignore the actual score and only stair step in groups of 2 points.Why did they do this? Bonuses always come in multiples of two. Penalties/Damage can sometimes come in odd numbers.
The intended (or so I would assume) to limit work done unless there is a certainty of work needing to be done.
So limiting it to multiples of two insures this.
Adam is subjected to a spell of Bull's Strength ... 16 and as such his carrying capacity increases to 76 lbs / 153 lbs / 230 lbs. Correct?
Yes
Adam, whilst still under the effects of the Bull's Strength spell is hit by an attack that does 4 points of Strength damage. Now strength damage you feel does not reduce the score and so his Carrying capacity would remain based on a Strength of 16 (76 lbs / 153 lbs / 230 lbs) correct?
This isn't cut and dry. The same verbage is used for both, so you could say it is reduced (as Carry Capacity is a statistic to me. But I wouldn't because of the abstraction unconnected to the stat (the "for every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability" language.)
If they are not an exhaustive list, then presumably bonus spells for a higher spellcasting score are increased as well? But what about Channeling uses for a cleric under a +4 Charisma bonus?
Bonus spells are consumables, not statistics. So you wouldn't get more bonus spells from Temporary bonuses just like you wouldn't get any other similar type of additional thing.
IMHO even a FAQ answer is not enough and I really feel the whole section needs to be re-written for clarity and included in future printings of the core rulebook.
Well that isn't going to happen. There isn't enough space to cover all the corner cases you want covered without dedicating a few pages to it. I assume that is why they wrote it the way they did. Also for new players, the non-exhausted list will get them closest to intent. So dropping the list isn't a good idea for the community as a whole.
It seems like temporary bonuses ability damage do not change the score, but applied to score for purpose of calculating modifier.
This is of course not said anywhere and nothing else but my way to streighten up how rules work.
|
|
Death threshold should be affected. It makes sense to me that someone suffering from Con poison is easier to kill.
As for encumbrance, the answer there is simple to me too. If your group is bothering to track it at all, then it must matter to you, and therefore being weaker or stronger should also matter. I know I'd much rather prepare Bull's Strength than Ant Haul since the former has more practical applications.
Max spell level is a "consumable" to me since you have to rest to prep spells so I'm fine leaving that one out.
Well, hang on.
If temporary bonuses really increase the ability score, then:
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours.^-- why does this sentence even exist? What, exactly, is it communicating to us? Why the word "actually"? Doesn't that imply pretty strongly that there is something else, which isn't "an ability bonus with a duration greater than 1 day", which does not "actually increase the relevant ability score"?
This has been brought up before. It's simply a matter of inconsistent wording, because elsewhere it says that temporary boosts do increase the score.
|
|
You now get more uses of per day abilities and languages and skill points (basically everything in addition to things that modify stats.)Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours.^-- why does this sentence even exist?
How do you get that reading? What definition of "stats" are you using and why don't you feel per day abilities and skill points don't count as "stats"?
As far as I can see "stat" or "statistic" is not meant to be a clearly defined game term, and if it is it would include skill ranks; as an example:
A character’s class also determines a wide variety of other statistics used by the character, including hit points, saving throw bonuses, weapon and armor proficiencies, and skill ranks.
Okay, so are you saying that temporary ability bonuses work differently from ability damage / penalties?Bonuses and Drain work the same (increase or reduce) but the increases for Temporary are limited to stat stuff.
Penalties and Damage work the same but they ignore the actual score and only stair step in groups of 2 points.
Don't temporary bonuses also stair step in groups of 2 points?
Why did they do this? Bonuses always come in multiples of two. Penalties/Damage can sometimes come in odd numbers.
And yet Ability Penalties and Damage stair step in groups of 2 points as well, so I am not sure what you're saying here.
Adam, whilst still under the effects of the Bull's Strength spell is hit by an attack that does 4 points of Strength damage. Now strength damage you feel does not reduce the score and so his Carrying capacity would remain based on a Strength of 16 (76 lbs / 153 lbs / 230 lbs) correct?This isn't cut and dry. The same verbage is used for both, so you could say it is reduced (as Carry Capacity is a statistic to me. But I wouldn't because of the abstraction unconnected to the stat (the "for every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability" language.)
This is why I prefer my reading or the rules - it would be very clear cut, the only things that get the temporary +/-1 per 2 points of ability bonus or damage are the things explicitly listed with each ability and nothing more. So under my reading Carrying Capacity would not be affected by either the Bull's Strength or the Strength Damage.
Bonus spells are consumables, not statistics. So you wouldn't get more bonus spells from Temporary bonuses just like you wouldn't get any other similar type of additional thing.If they are not an exhaustive list, then presumably bonus spells for a higher spellcasting score are increased as well? But what about Channeling uses for a cleric under a +4 Charisma bonus?
Can I ask again, what definition are you using for "statistic" and also "consumable" as far as I can see the word "consumable" is not used anywhere in core rulebook and "statistic" doesn't have an explicit definition anywhere.
For me, the number of spells a Wizard can prepare each day (including his bonus spells for Intelligence) is a statistic, carrying capacity is a statistic, the number of times a Cleric can channel per day is a statistic of that character etc.
Basically I am using the term "statistic" in its general sense of "a fact or piece of data" because I am not aware of another stricter definition for it.
There isn't enough space to cover all the corner cases you want covered without dedicating a few pages to it. I assume that is why they wrote it the way they did.
I don't want a lot of corner cases covered though. I would either want the 3.5 rule put back, where in all cases the Ability score is actually increased or decreased and all associated stats including spells per day etc are affected (and the only difference between temporary and permanent bonuses is whether you can naturally recover from them or not).
The alternative if Paizo want a quick rule for temporary bonuses is to make it clear that temporary bonuses, penalties and damage do not change the score, but apply a +/-1 untyped bonus/penalty per 2 points of ability bonus/penalty damage to an exhaustive list of specific statistics listed with each ability. I would add to each list ability checks in addition to skill checks, so you get the bonus to raw Strength checks etc. Basically make it clear that my reading of the RAW is what is intended.
Also for new players, the non-exhausted list will get them closest to intent. So dropping the list isn't a good idea for the community as a whole.
So you feel the list isn't exhaustive but is a list of examples, yes? In which case I really don't see how you differentiate what things get affected by temporary Ability Bonuses if you feel the actual Ability Score is increased.
|
|
This has been brought up before. It's simply a matter of inconsistent wording, because elsewhere it says that temporary boosts do increase the score.Well, hang on.
If temporary bonuses really increase the ability score, then:
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours.^-- why does this sentence even exist? What, exactly, is it communicating to us? Why the word "actually"? Doesn't that imply pretty strongly that there is something else, which isn't "an ability bonus with a duration greater than 1 day", which does not "actually increase the relevant ability score"?
I don't see that as inconsistent wording, it is very consistent with the inverse equivalent, i.e. the Ability Drain sub-section of the Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain section, i.e.
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.
Ability Drain: Ability drain actually reduces the relevant ability score. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to lose skill points, hit points, and other bonuses.
I would actually see the inconsistent wording being in the initial text of the Ability Score Bonuses section:
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...
Consistent wording would be...
Some spells and abilities provide ability bonuses to your ability scores. An Ability bonus with a duration of 1 day or less does not actually increase a ability, but it does apply a bonus to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability. For every two points of ability bonus ...
This make the initial text for the Ability Score Bonuses section consistent with the inverse equivalent, i.e. the initial text for the Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain section:
Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability. For every 2 points of damage...
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Don't temporary bonuses also stair step in groups of 2 points? ... so I am not sure what you're saying here.
This is why I prefer my reading or the rules - it would be very clear cut
I don't want a lot of corner cases covered though. I would either want the 3.5 rule put back
I don't know a single example where there is a temporary bonus of a non-multiple of 2 but lots of things (like ability damage and ray of enfeeblement) all do damage or penalties in 1d6 which can be odd.
Your reading isn't clear cut or this thread wouldn't be this long.
The 3.5 rule was broken in every way to Sunday due to the consumables issue. Limiting the rule to things that are largely static values is what they tried to do in Pathfinder.
|
|
I don't know a single example where there is a temporary bonus of a non-multiple of 2 but lots of things (like ability damage and ray of enfeeblement) all do damage or penalties in 1d6 which can be odd.Don't temporary bonuses also stair step in groups of 2 points? ... so I am not sure what you're saying here.
This is why I prefer my reading or the rules - it would be very clear cut
I don't want a lot of corner cases covered though. I would either want the 3.5 rule put back
Yep, I agree, but I am still unclear what point you were/ are trying to make.
Your reading isn't clear cut or this thread wouldn't be this long.
No, I meant within my reading of the rules the question of whether carrying capacity is increased or not is clear cut. My reading is that temporary ability bonuses and ability penalties & damage only result in a +/-1 untyped modifier to the explicit list of things given in the book. Under Strength Carrying Capacity is not mentioned - so assuming my reading of the RAW is correct it is clear cut that Carrying Capacity is not affected.
However, assuming your reading of the RAW is correct, by your own admission whether Carrying Capacity is affected or not is not a clear cut thing.
The 3.5 rule was broken in every way to Sunday due to the consumables issue.
Fair enough, but the only thing about the 3.5 rules that isn't clear to me is what happens when loss of an Ability bonus, or suffering Ability Damage / Drain, reduces your Score and that score is used to determine Bonus Spells etc.
And that problem still persists in Pathfinder. What happens if a Wizard with a Headband of Vast Intelligence who has had it on for over 24 hours and benefited from extra Spells per day that morning takes the headband off?
But in addition the PF rules are not clear at all it seems on what is and isn't affected.
Limiting the rule to things that are largely static values is what they tried to do in Pathfinder.
Yep, but the implementation appears to be flawed judging by how many different readings of RAW there is, and even with my own reading of the RAW it produces even more broken behaviour (like it being easier to escape a grapple if you're pinned than if you aren't, being able to benefit from a +2 AC for a temporary +4 Dexterity bonus, even if your armour has a zero Max Dex bonus etc).
Personally I would prefer the consumables issue that might come up with the vagueness and peculiarities that will come up with the rules as they are.
The 3.5 rule was broken in every way to Sunday due to the consumables issue. Limiting the rule to things that are largely static values is what they tried to do in Pathfinder.
Oh really?
Give an example and prove this.
Fair enough, but the only thing about the 3.5 rules that isn't clear to me is what happens when loss of an Ability bonus, or suffering Ability Damage / Drain, reduces your Score and that score is used to determine Bonus Spells etc.
Nope, it was clear, lose the bonuses lose the bonus.
Unlike in PF, stat effect changes had direct meaning.
And that problem still persists in Pathfinder. What happens if a Wizard with a Headband of Vast Intelligence who has had it on for over 24 hours and benefited from extra Spells per day that morning takes the headband off?
Then he loses those bonus spells till he next rests. Remember you need to be wearing while resting.
|
|
Fair enough, but the only thing about the 3.5 rules that isn't clear to me is what happens when loss of an Ability bonus, or suffering Ability Damage / Drain, reduces your Score and that score is used to determine Bonus Spells etc.
Nope, it was clear, lose the bonuses lose the bonus.
Unlike in PF, stat effect changes had direct meaning.
While I get that, what isn't perhaps clear to me is which spells get lost and what happens if the wizard has already cast some spells.
E.g. Willy the 3rd level Wizard has a natural Intelligence of 14, this provides him 1 bonus 1st level spell and 1 bonus 2nd level spell for a total of 3 1st level spells and 2 2nd level spells.
He prepares the following spells:
1st level: Burning Hands, Magic Missile, Shocking Grasp
2nd level: Flaming Sphere, Scorching Ray
Now, in 3.5 or PF, if Willy suffers Intelligence Drain of -2, bringing his Intelligence down to 12 he loses the bonus 2nd level spell.
If Willy has not cast any 2nd level spells, which one does he lose? Is it randomly determined or player choice?
If Willy had cast Scorching Ray previously, would he lose Flaming Sphere when hit with the Intelligence Drain? Or could the player say that the previously cast Scorching Ray was the spell prepared in the bonus spell slot and thus he doesn't lose any spells?
Those are the things that aren't clear to me, but I am not that well read in either 3.5 or PF, so if it is spelt out somewhere do please let me know.
Cheers!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Death threshold should be affected. It makes sense to me that someone suffering from Con poison is easier to kill.
As for encumbrance, the answer there is simple to me too. If your group is bothering to track it at all, then it must matter to you, and therefore being weaker or stronger should also matter. I know I'd much rather prepare Bull's Strength than Ant Haul since the former has more practical applications.
Max spell level is a "consumable" to me since you have to rest to prep spells so I'm fine leaving that one out.
This has been brought up before. It's simply a matter of inconsistent wording, because elsewhere it says that temporary boosts do increase the score.Well, hang on.
If temporary bonuses really increase the ability score, then:
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours.^-- why does this sentence even exist? What, exactly, is it communicating to us? Why the word "actually"? Doesn't that imply pretty strongly that there is something else, which isn't "an ability bonus with a duration greater than 1 day", which does not "actually increase the relevant ability score"?
This has been brought up before. It is not simply a matter of inconsistent wording. It is actually consistent with:
PRD wrote
Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and DrainDiseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.
my bold
James Jacobs:
Part of the problem is that ability damage doesn't actually reduce an ability score's actual total, which is counterintuitive on some level.
My bold
Here's the official word:1. The game differentiates between permanent ability score bonuses (such as +1 every 4 character levels and wearing a +2 belt of giant strength for 24 hours) and temporary ability score bonuses (such as from barbarian rage, an alchemist mutagen, or a bull's strength spell).
[….]
4. Temporary ability score bonuses do not count for the purpose of qualifying for feats. (My earlier statement contradicting this point was my opinion of how it should work.)
5. I personally believe that differentiating between permanent and temporary scores in this fashion is needlessly complex and only hinders player choices in a metagaming way.
Bolded by SKR himself.
Some feats (Power attack, TWF, etc.), access to spells (highest spells you can cast), death threshold and carrying capacity are all based on the actual score. Not the modifier.
I’m not going to convince you. I just wanted to remind you that it isn’t as simple as you make it out to be :)
Ah, I see. Temp reduction doesn’t reduce an ability, but a temp increases does increase an ability.
An always win if you are a player.
I would not let that fly I if I GM and I am sure my GM would jnot let that fly.
It will be interesting to see how the Devs will reply/rule.
|
|
It is not simply a matter of inconsistent wording. It is actually consistent with:Except that it is, because the things you say it is consistent all say they don't reduce. But no where in the Increases section does it say it doesn't increase.
I think we all agree that there is some inconsistent wording, but what we don't seem to agree on is what wording is inconsistent and what it should be consistent with.
You feel the section on Permanent Bonuses is inconsistent as by implication it means temporary bonuses don't increase the ability score - which you feel is inconsistent with the start of the Ability Score Bonuses section where it says the ability score is increased.
I.e. you feel...
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.
...is inconsistent with...
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...
However, I and perhaps others, look at the Ability Score Bonuses and the Ability Damage, Penalties and Drain sections as a whole when looking for inconsistencies. I therefore feel (as I stated in my post here that it is the text at the start of the Ability Score Bonuses section that is inconsistent with the text at the start of the Ability Damage, Penalties and Drain section.
I.e. I feel...
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...
...is inconsistent with...
Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability. For every 2 points of damage...
I don't think either of us can say with certainty that our idea of what is inconsistent is correct - I of course feel the latter is the "correct" inconsistency as it would then fit my reading of the rules as a whole, and you no doubt feel that the former is the "correct" inconsistency as it presumably fits better with your reading of the RAW.
As I said Paizo need to provide a FAQ answer on this to clear up the ambiguity and ideally identify the inconsistent text and correct it in the errata and future printings (and while they are at it add some wordings to make the RAI clear).
|
|
So the Original Post is up to 32 FAQ requests - not much. I would be curious to know why so few people have FAQed it. Is it because they haven't seen / read the thread? Is it because they feel the rules are clear as they are (irrespective of how they read the rules)? Or is it because people feel the issue doesn't come up enough in their games to warrant their effort / interest?
Hmmm...
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Is it because they haven't seen / read the thread?
Is it because they feel the rules are clear as they are (irrespective of how they read the rules)?
Or is it because people feel the issue doesn't come up enough in their games to warrant their effort / interest?
I'd go with this percentage layout:
Unseen 70%Clear enough 25% (even if there are different versions of clear)
Doesn't come up enough 5 %
And the OP was not very good to begin with, bad English and all that. It seems that carrying capacity is one of the hotter topics, still it only have FAQ 5 requests.
32 or 102 FAQ requests don’t matter. If the Devs what to answer it/them they will.
You know, if the answer is "always +2 because that is easier"- honestly, the calculation is easier either way than applying a power attack bonus to a monster with a bunch of different primary and secondary attacks. That I DO find to be a pain.
Point being, this isn't a game whose designers ever typically go for easy, so I doubt they intended to do it this time.
Well the question is complicated and if the answer is that a temporary penalty to Strength does carrying capacity then this will have severe consciences to the game.
Here we have Walrus, the two weapon fighting fighter.
His stats: Str 14, dex 18 (15 +1 level increase +2 belt), con 13, int 10, wis 12, char 8.
He is level 7 and here are some of his feats: Power attack, Weapon focus short sword, Weapon specialization short sword, two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting.
He is wearing a full plate.
He is hit with a ray of enfeeblement and fails his save. The GM rolls 6 and the evil wizard is level 10 (or level 9, but have that feat that lets him count as level 10 when using necromantic spells).
So Walrus tales a penalty to Strength equal 11
What does happen?
Can he still use power attack?
How does the penalty to Strength affect attack and damage?
Does the penalty to Strength affect carrying capacity.
If the penalty to Strength would affect to hit, damage and carrying capacity the same way as drain Walrus would:
Let’s say that Wizard had rolled 5 and Walrus made the save. The spell would still have killed the fight. I don’t think a low level spell should be that powerful. Not at higher levels. Heck, that is why Glitterdust was nerfed in the first Place and it is still a good spell.
Messing with carrying capacity leads to grave consequences. You have to recalculate Everything: Attack, damage, CMB, CMD, AC, Movement. In bad cases you are staggered or possibly even paralyzed.
By the way, it's not just the NPC Codex contradicting RAW, it's every single barbarian statblock in over a hundred adventures Paizo has published. They all list actually increased Strength and Constitution scores. This rule is really worded poorly and need clearing up. FAQed.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
By the way, it's not just the NPC Codex contradicting RAW, it's every single barbarian statblock in over a hundred adventures Paizo has published. They all list actually increased Strength and Constitution scores. This rule is really worded poorly and need clearing up. FAQed.
It hasn't occurred to you that you are reading RAW in way other than it is written?
In other words, you are reading RAW but rather RARD (Rules as Read Differently)?
Official Rules Response
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9rbg
Temporary Ability Score Increases vs. Permanent Ability Score Increases: Why do temporary bonuses only apply to some things?
Temporary ability bonuses should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses do. The section in the glossary was very tight on space and it was not possible to list every single ability score-related game effect that an ability score bones would affect.
The purpose of the temporary ability score ruling is to make it so you don't have to rebuild your character every time you get a bull's strength or similar spell; it just summarizes the most common game effects relative to that ability score.
For example, most of the time when you get bull's strength, you're using it for combat, so the glossary mentions Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, Strength-based weapon damage rolls, CMB, and CMD. It doesn't call out melee attack rolls that use Dex instead of Str (such as when using Weapon Finesse) or situations where your applied Str bonus should be halved or multiplied (such as whith off-hand or two-handed weapons). You're usually not using the spell for a 1 min./level increase in your carrying capacity, so that isn't mentioned there, but the bonus should still apply to that, as well as to Strength checks to break down doors.
Think of it in the same way that a simple template has "quick rules" and "rebuild rules;" they're supposed to create monsters which are roughly equivalent in terms of stats, but the quick rules are a short cut that misses some details compared to using the rebuild rules. Likewise, the temporary ability score rule is intended as a short cut to speed up gameplay, not as the most precise way of applying the bonus.
A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.
Thanks, Pathfinder Design Team!
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9rbg
Temporary Ability Score Increases vs. Permanent Ability Score Increases: Why do temporary bonuses only apply to some things?
Temporary ability bonuses should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses do. The section in the glossary was very tight on space and it was not possible to list every single ability score-related game effect that an ability score bones would affect.
The purpose of the temporary ability score ruling is to make it so you don't have to rebuild your character every time you get a bull's strength or similar spell; it just summarizes the most common game effects relative to that ability score.
For example, most of the time when you get bull's strength, you're using it for combat, so the glossary mentions Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, Strength-based weapon damage rolls, CMB, and CMD. It doesn't call out melee attack rolls that use Dex instead of Str (such as when using Weapon Finesse) or situations where your applied Str bonus should be halved or multiplied (such as whith off-hand or two-handed weapons). You're usually not using the spell for a 1 min./level increase in your carrying capacity, so that isn't mentioned there, but the bonus should still apply to that, as well as to Strength checks to break down doors.
Think of it in the same way that a simple template has "quick rules" and "rebuild rules;" they're supposed to create monsters which are roughly equivalent in terms of stats, but the quick rules are a short cut that misses some details compared to using the rebuild rules. Likewise, the temporary ability score rule is intended as a short cut to speed up gameplay, not as the most precise way of applying the bonus.
A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.
Thanks PDT! I also what to thank you for answering all my three questions.
I do however fear that the answers may have opened up a can of worms if A) this ruling should be applied to all Ability Score Increases (say char or con) and not just strength, and B) if temporary Ability Score decrease should be treated the same way as a temporary Ability Score Increase.
Some examples:
Edit:
A)
B)
===================================================
I’m not going to press the issue, but I fear that you may have to address this issue eventually.
@Zark,
I thought (and I could totally be wrong) that ability bonuses which effect "times per day" abilities must be active for 24 hours before granting extra "times per day." This would seem to answer most of the extra concerns you bring up, with the exception of carry capacity, in which case I would just keep the encumbrance chart handy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fear that Zark is right. This reply will create at least as many problems as it resolve.
Only if people are intentionally trying to create them.
The barbarian class already states that temporary increases to constitution do not affect uses of rage per day. Not a stretch to state it is the same for all such abilities, but hardly game breaking. As for the rest I am pretty certain it has been stated already that temporary loss does not remove access to feats, so again not an issue. As for debuffing spells having an impact on encumberance and the like... that is kind of the point so again, not an issue.
I honestly think people intentionally look for ways to misread or over think far too many rules. Apply a common sense standard and take the entire set of rules as a whole and not isolating every blurb, and things generally work out pretty smoothly.