I don't think it's such a big deal
Bonuses can be confusion, but penalties are much more clearly defined in the rules:
Ability Drain is permanent - you actually reduce the ability score. Ability Damage is not permanent - you don't reduce the ability score, you just take a penalty on rolls.
I see the official reply above as referencing adjusted modifiers.
Why?
Obviously, if you actually MUST change the ability score and recalculate your character sheet, well, then everything works fine, no need for any clarification, just recalculate with your new ability score.
So the only confusion is the temporary modifier for ability damage.
Now, the Feat section says: "A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself. "
So if you have a DEX of 15 and take the Two Weapon Fighting feat, and then later you suffer 2 points of Ability Damage, your DEX is still 15 and you now have a penalty of -1 on all the associated rolls and calculations (per the PDT's response, applied to penalties as well as bonuses). Since your DEX is still 15 and there is no roll that needs to be penalized to use the TWF feat, you can keep using your feat. But if you take 2 points of Ability Drain, you actually change your DEX to a 13 and recalculate everything. With a 13 DEX, you don't lose your TWF feat, but you cannot use it until you meet the prerequisite.
That seems pretty straight forward. The same logic should apply to class features - damaging CHA or INT or WIS won't cause casters to lose spellcasting ability (heck, draining their levels doesn't cause them to lose class features so why should damaging their ability scores be worse?). Other class features cannot be lost, but if they have values calculated (such as Save DCs, channeling damage, etc.) then those get recalculated as per the PDT's response, reversed to apply to penalties.
As for everything else, all the calculated stuff, well, I suppose the PDT's response works just fine in reverse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fomsie, much of the time on these boards there is a misconception regarding people's understanding of the rules and the actual wording of the rules.
Most of us understand the intent behind the rules even if the wording is confusing or contradictory. However, in the rules forum many of us do not discuss what we think the RAI is or the understanding are, only the actual wording.
There are a couple reasons this happens.
1) If you do not discuss the actual wording someone is going to come along and tell you that you are wrong, and they will be correct.
2) By discussing the actual wording this (hopefully) helps to clean up the language.
Now, there are two ways to clean up rules that immediately come to mind. Simplify them or make them legalistically complicated. Personally, I think many rules are contradictory because they are legalistically complicated. Example: Two-handed weapon vs wielding/using a weapon in two hands is an unnecessary distinction imo.
3) Multiple interpretations of the same passage. This has happened any number of occassions.
The temporary increase to strength *could* be understood to mean "use common sense you dolt and just apply it to things that are not X/day". But, that is not what the rules stated. Now, the FAQ cleaned that up but it still leaves penalties and maybe a few other grey areas debatable. Edit: Rereading the FAQ and looking through the rules the FAQ has left open the X/day issue. It is going to need to be fixed unless the intent is to allow X/day increases via temporary ability scores.
We *could* use this FAQ as a general guidepost to deal with those grey areas but the Devs have stated that using a FAQ to generalize a concept beyond the specifics of the FAQ is NOT something they endorse or intend.
Thus, those grey areas will remain.
Ultimately, it is the hope (of at least some of us) that FAQ attempts will eventually result in a cleaner game system as those FAQs are accrued and someday, hopefully, included into the printed rules.
- Gauss
| 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.
Honestly, I am not intentionally looking for ways to misread the rules.
The rules on temporary Ability Score Increases and temporary Ability Score decrease has always been muddy.The new answer says that temporary Ability Score Increases should be treated as permanent temporary Ability Score Increases. This will probably cause confusion.
It is also not farfetched that people will apply the same rules to temporary Ability Score decreases.
Again, I’m not going to create a new FAQ and press the issue, but my fear is that the ruling will cause more problems.
@ BigDTBone : There is no rule and no FAQ stating that: abilities must be active for 24 hours before granting extra times per day. The rules state that magic items that grants an ability bonus must be worn for 24 hours before they become permanent bonuses. Problem is now temporary bonuses grants the same bonuses as permanent bonuses.
edit
@Fomsie: Yes, I missed the part that "The barbarian class already states that temporary increases to constitution do not affect uses of rage per day, but there is no rule or FAQ answer stating that temporary loss does not remove access to feats.
Now, there are two ways to clean up rules that immediately come to mind. Simplify them or make them legalistically complicated. Personally, I think many rules are contradictory because they are legalistically complicated. Example: Two-handed weapon vs wielding/using a weapon in two hands is an unnecessary distinction imo.
I totally agree. If you use a weapon with one hand treat it as a one handed weapon. Use it with two hands treat it as a two handed weapon.
Either the lance should be treated the same way, or the Lance should be an explicit exception from that rule.I think there are ways of making the rules on temporary Ability Score Changes really simple. Just as I agree that a pathfinder 1.5 should simplify the rules regarding Two-handed weapon vs. using a weapon in two hands.
The “lance FAQ” opened a can of worms and I fear now another can of worms have been opened for the same reason. Even though I personally wouldn’t mind making the bastard sword a Two-handed weapon (making it far more powerful if you are a sword and board character) it would only complicate matters more. I rather see more simple rules on this subject. Just as I would like to see simpler rules regarding Two-handed weapon and one-handed weapon I would also like to see simpler rules regarding temporary changes to Ability Scores.
The most simple fix would be treat temporary changes to Ability Scores just as permanent changes to Ability Scores except for:
Simple and clean.
Hey guys, the FAQ posted is about bonuses, not modifiers. Bonuses are always plusses, and can't be penalties.
Penalties are always negatives.
'Modifiers' can be both.
|
Temporary ability bonuses should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses do.
Okay, so now I am confused as to what the difference between temporary and permanent ability score bonuses is.
Is the only difference that when looking at changes to the modifier, i.e. the Dex Modifier, Str Modifier etc, you get a +1 per 2 points of Ability Bonus, regardless of what the character's original score is?
E.g. A character with Strength 13 (+1 bonus) with a temporary +3 Ability Bonus to Strength would have an effective Strength Bonus of +2 (+1 from Strength 13 +1 from the +3 Ability Bonus)
Whereas with a permanent +3 Ability Bonus to Strength the character's Strength Bonus would be +3 (Ability Score is 16)
When looking at carrying capacity even a +1 Ability Bonus to Strength (that would not provide any bonus to the effective strength modifier) would have a benefit to how much you can carry yes?
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.
Unfortunately the way it is written IMHO makes it read like an exhaustive list. It would have been better to have added an "etc" after the list of items given, or an "e.g." at the beginning of the list. At least that way it would have made it seem like the list was not exhaustive.
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.
So if the list is not exhaustive can I confirm that if a 5th level wizard with Intelligence of 15 put on a Headband of Vast Intelligence +2, slept for 8 hours, and then spent an hour preparing spells he would be able to prepare two 3rd levels spells rather than the normal one? I.e. does his effective Intelligence score of 17 now provide a bonus 3rd level spell?
As the headband won't have been on for 24 hours the bonus is temporary, but that is still plenty of time to rest for 8 hours, prepare for 1 hour and then still have 14 hours 59 minutes in which to cast both 3rd level spells.
Also what about this scenario? A party has two clerics, both with a Charisma of 16 (and thus normally able to channel 6 times per day). They both use all of their channelling uses. They have a Headband of Alluring Charisma +4. Can one cleric put on the headband, Channel twice more (for the effective +2 Charisma Modifier, albeit temporary) then take it off and hand it to the other cleric who then does the same?
And another scenario.
Adam has Dexterity 14 (+2) and is wearing Half Plate (+8 AC, Max Dex Bonus of Zero); his AC is 18 as his Dexterity Bonus of +2 exceeds the Max Dex Bonus and is thus not applied.
Blaze has Dexterity 8 (-1) and is also wearing Half Plate (+8 AC, Max Dex Bonus of Zero); his AC is 17 as his Dexterity Penlaty does apply.
If both are then subjected to a Cat's Grace spell, does the +4 Ability Bonus to Dexterity result in a temporary +2 to AC to both Adam and Blaze; pushing their ACs up to 20 and 19 respectively.
Or is the +2 to AC from the temporary +4 Ability Bonus to Dexterity considered part of each character's Dex Bonus and thus subject to the Max Dex Bonus limit of the armour? If so, Adam would get no benefit whilst Blaze would - but only a +1 to AC, not the full +2.
The former seems to better fit the idea of being a "short cut to speed up gameplay" but does mean a temporary bonus is better than a permanent one in this case.
The latter seems more consistent (though not totally consistent) with how the permanent bonus would work, but it seems to require as much effort of recalculating as a permanent bonus would as well.
On a related note, do ability penalties and ability damage work in the same way? E.g. will 2 points of Strength damage affect carrying capacity? What about Ability Score pre-requisites?
Finally, will this section of the CRB be re-written to be clearer in future printing?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The most simple fix would be treat temporary changes to Ability Scores just as permanent changes to Ability Scores except for:
Already addressed in a way, as they say the bonus is only temporary. They discuss these types of things in the "Permanent Bonuses:" section on page 555.
I get that you would prefer it is all spelled out, but the space available doesn't afford covering every corner case.
This is an area that they really want the GM to step up and adjudicate what seems reasonable. Maybe the definition of reasonable is different at each table. That may not be such a bad thing. For example, I can take the discussion on permanent bonuses (but keep separate in case I lose it) as advice I shouldn't grant additional spells per day, additional rounds of rage, etc until it becomes a permanent bonus.
Zark raises some good points, but I believe they can all be handled without further FAQ'ing. I like his last summary (treat as permanent, except...):
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.
A) This is just a worry.
B) Temp Decreases should be treated just as Temp Increases - shouldn't be a problem.Some examples:
A)
Temporary bonuses to constitution would grant barbarians more rage rounds per day.
A) Pretty clear here in the text - the number of rounds is determined when they are refreshed after resting:
The total number of rounds of rage per day is renewed after resting for 8 hours, although these hours do not need to be consecutive.
Temporary bonuses to charisma would grant casters using charisma bonus spells, Bards would get more rounds per day, Clerics more channeling per day, Paladins more lay on hand per day, Sorcerers that gets Bloodline Powers based on the formula 3 + your Charisma modifier will get more uses, etc.
Spells are refreshed each day when preparing, not much issue there really. You'd need at least a 15-minute buff for spontaneous casters, an hour buff for prepared, before it would even come up as a question.
The rest don't specify when they refresh, so you'd have to just recognize the general rule. Otherwise you'd have to track, for example, uses from a combat at noon until you hit noon the next day and separately a combat at 5pm until then the next day. Also, even if you don't go by that, all "uses" are counted for the day - you can't ever generate "temporary uses" to use up.
B)
Spells like ray of enfeeblement would become real killer spells. Ray of enfeeblement affecting carrying capacity and access to feats like power attack, cleave would be a hassle at the table. The carrying capacity issue is actually far more complicated than it may seem at first glance since it affect max dex bonus and can lead to characters being unable to move (or being staggered and only more 5 feet per round).
Carrying Capacity: Yes, this would be affected. However you can't be paralyzed by it, nor are you "staggered", you "stagger around" at 5' per full-round action. That doesn't mean you can't fight where you're standing though, unless your weapon is more than your heavy load.
Feats: It still doesn't actually change the ability score, so feat prereq's would not be affected.A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.
Stat and rolls, not feat prereqs. Note: The ability score itself is not one of those stats - an ability score does not "affect" itself after all.
Similar problems would arise with Touch of Gracelessness affecting feats like Spring Attack, TWF Chain, Weapon finesse, etc.
Feats: Won't actually change the ability score, so feat prereq's would not be affected.
Monster Abilities that hits casters with damage to their casting stat would also be a problem. Charisma damage would affect: clerics channeling per day and access to channeling feats; access to spells for Sorcerers and other casters using charisma; the Bards abilities; etc.
Using the general rule of "refresh in the morning", no problem with channels or access, again no change to spell access as the ability score isn't changing. I don't know of any bard abilities that require a charisma score.
Overall, using "refreshes in the morning or when spells are readied" fixes any open questions. Probably need to put the same "Any uses used in the last 8 hours count against..." language that spells have. I think the majority of GMs run things this way already.
Any issues that aren't "use based"? AoOs with Combat Reflexes would adjust I'd think.
Temporary ability bonuses should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses do.And another scenario.
Adam has Dexterity 14 (+2) and is wearing Half Plate, Blaze has Dexterity 8 (-1) and is also wearing Half Plate (+8; both are then subjected to a Cat's Grace spell. Does the +4 Ability Bonus to Dexterity result in a temporary +2 to AC to both Adam and Blaze; or is the +2 to AC from the temporary +4 Ability Bonus to Dexterity considered part of each character's Dex Bonus and thus subject to the Max Dex Bonus limit of the armour?
It's an ability bonus, so should certainly count to the Max Dex limit. (I think the silliness of taking a belt off each day to keep the bonus temporary has already been discussed).
|
|
It's an ability bonus, so should certainly count to the Max Dex limit. (I think the silliness of taking a belt off each day to keep the bonus temporary has already been discussed).
Fair enough, but then I am failing to see how the temporary rules are "shortcuts for quick play" as you effectively have to work out a new ability modifier but in a slightly different way.
I still prefer the 3.5 method where an ability bonus is an ability score increase.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@James Risner and Majuba. I know what the rules say and I’m pretty sure both me and my GM know RAI, but you both sort of argue in circles.
The thing is: Now FAQ says Temp bonus and permanent bonus should be tread the same. This has blurred the rules.
If temp decreases are read as working the same as temp Increases ad if temp changes should work the same as permanent changes then there is nothing in the rules saying that prereq's would not be affected if you are hit with temp decrease. And what if you are hit with permanent decrease and then try to compensate that with a temp Increase?
We all know RAI because we have been reading these message boards for years. Is that what it takes to understand the rules?
Anyway, I won’t bother with a new FAQ. They have answered and they got better things to do then mess with this. I rather they focus on the Advanced Class Guide :)
……or any bard related questions ;)
|
|
I have just realised that I am going to have to update my PFS Druid character's wild shape stats in light of this FAQ.
Could someone check whether the following is the correct in light of the new FAQ?
Grelow has a natural Strength of 16 (+3)
When wildshaped into a Medium animal he gets a temporary +2 Ability Bonus to Strength.
For animal forms with multiple primary attacks, e.g. a Cheetah with 2 claws plus a bite, the damage is dN +4 (+3 for natural strength +1 for the temporary Ability Bonus to Strength) - correct?
For animal forms with only a single primary attack however the strength bonus to damage is multiplied by 1.5. When Grelow wildshapes into such a creature is his damage bonus...
+6; this being 1.5 x (+3 natural strength bonus plus +1 temporary bonus)
...or...
+5; this being (1.5 x +3 natural strength bonus, rounded down) + (1.5 x +1 temporary bonus, rounded down)?
If its the former it sounds like we there is no real distinction between temporary and permanent ability bonuses other than the results may differ if the original score is an odd number and the bonus is the odd number - which IMHO is more confusing than helpful.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
@James Risner and Majuba. I know what the rules say and I’m pretty sure both me and my GM know RAI, but you both sort of argue in circles.
Let me uncircle myself.
Temp bonuses are just like Permanent bonuses except they don't effect things that require 24 hours to be effected like:
Spell slots
/day abilities
etc (GM's will "know it when they see it")
But otherwise they work just the same. But if you keep the Temporary bonus for 24 hours you get all the benefits.
I've not deviated from this view from the start, before and after the FAQ.
@DigitalMage. Just as James Risner, Majuba and the Devs have explained. Treat it just as a Permanent bonus.
Stat and rolls, not feat prereqs. Note: The ability score itself is not one of those stats - an ability score does not "affect" itself after all.
I still think this is a valid question: what if you are hit with permanent decrease and then try to compensate that with a temp Increase? Fighter 14 str. He is hit with -2 str drain then cleric cast bull’s strength. Can the fighter use power attack? My answer is no, but how come carrying capacity is affected if the actual stat isn't affected?
Let me uncircle myself.
Temp bonuses are just like Permanent bonuses except they don't effect things that require 24 hours to be effected like:
Spell slots
/day abilities
etc (GM's will "know it when they see it")But otherwise they work just the same. But if you keep the Temporary bonus for 24 hours you get all the benefits.
Where in the FAQ does it become clear what happens after 24 hours?
You said it: "GM's will "know it when they see it." and I add: if she/he has followed the posts on the messageboards the last 5 years.
I've not deviated from this view from the start, before and after the FAQ.
True, and I agree with your reading. Not because of the FAQ, but because of all the posts I've read on the messageboards the last 5 years.
Anyway, we are not going to solve this.
8b]I want my Swashbuckler and I want my Bloodrager and my Warpriest,[/b] ....and all of them will use bastad swords and armor spikes. :)
.....yes my Swashbuckler will use a sun blade ;)
Swashbuckler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
So, does fox's cunning grant you two temporary skill points per class level now, if you're willing to do a "full rebuild and recalculate", as opposed to the "quick" method? I am! Because that is still kinda easy, and temporary skill points sound like a powerful tool.
There are other related questions, but this seems like a good "counterpoint" argumentative type thing to ask about. I would say the intent is probably "no", but this FAQ makes things weird, in my view.
It changes things for me. Before, it was absolutely clear to me that those specific things on the list happened, that's it. There wasn't even a hint of "maybe other things, this is just for speed". Nope, nothing. No carrying capacity. No ability score checks. Now, those new specific things are obvious, as they are in the FAQ explicitly, but other things I may have to ask my GM about.
Stat and rolls, not feat prereqs. Note: The ability score itself is not one of those stats - an ability score does not "affect" itself after all.I still think this is a valid question: what if you are hit with permanent decrease and then try to compensate that with a temp Increase? Fighter 14 str. He is hit with -2 str drain then cleric cast bull’s strength. Can the fighter use power attack? My answer is no,
I agree, no. Sucky for the Fighter, but that's how it works. I guess it would be like... feeling the 'adrenaline rush' of bull's strength, but still having an underlying weakness that keeps you from fully engaging in a power attack.
but how come carrying capacity is affected if the actual stat isn't affected?
Good question. Simple answer, from the FAQ, is that carrying capacity is a 'stat' affected by Strength. It's not a threshold (like feat prereq's), nor something accrued/earned over time like rage rounds, spells per day, or skill points.
Temporary Ability Score changes do not give or take things, they only change your modifiers.
but how come carrying capacity is affected if the actual stat isn't affected?Good question. Simple answer, from the FAQ, is that carrying capacity is a 'stat' affected by Strength. It's not a threshold (like feat prereq's), nor something accrued/earned over time like rage rounds, spells per day, or skill points.
Temporary Ability Score changes do not give or take things, they only change your modifiers. That's where the 'easier' than a permanent change comes in. Very encouraging that they are tackling this tough issue.
My bold.
I agree they only change your modifiers, but carrying capacity isn't based on you modifier, it is based on the actual stat.Crazy, LOL.
|
|
Temp bonuses are just like Permanent bonuses except they don't effect things that require 24 hours to be effected like:
Spell slots
/day abilities
Why does an Intelligence bonus have to be in effect for 24 hours for it to provide extra spell slots? See my example above where a wizard puts on a headband before sleeping for 8 hours and then preparing spells?
ditto for Channelling etc, where does it say the bonus had to be permanent?
Say you have metamagic or something, or just repeatedly recast the buff, and keep Fox's Cunning up for >24 hours. Do you get fixed skills from that?Except Fox Cunning says "This spell doesn't grant extra skill ranks."
+1
Same goes with bonus language.
Also, you are not wearing the same Fox's Cunning spell for 24 hours.
I forgot about the Int in my own suggested fix.
Suggested fix 2nd edition. Pardon the lousy English but you get the idea ;)
Treat temporary changes to Ability Scores just as permanent changes to Ability Scores except for:
|
|
Why does an intelligence bonus have to be in effect for 24 hours? To prevent abuses like three wizards sharing a headband, each wearing it for just the time they are resting.
I understand that may be a good reason for why such a clause should exist, but I am trying to determine with this new FAQ whether such a clause exists within the rules - as far as I can see it doesn't.
|
|
So, if I ever GM for PFS again, I think I am just going to tell the players up front that I will treat temporary ability bonuses, penalties and damage as permanent bonuses and penalties and ignore the page of text on pages 554 and 555, because I am struggling to understand what the difference is now and the FAQ now seems to contradict that text.
But to be honest this is another factor putting me off ever GMing PFS again.
But even when I play my characters I am going to have to ask how the GM will be handling such penalties, because when I play my grappling Druid I will want to know when he Pins an opponent whether the -4 Dex Penalty and loses Dex bonus to Ac (and thus CMD) stack:
Grelow has BAB of +4, Str 16 (+3), Dex 14 (+2) and Improved Grapple, his CMD when grappling is 19 (including the -4 Ability Penalty to Dexterity for grappling).
Now, if the -4 Ability Penalty to Dexterity doesn't actually change the Dex Score or Modifier but applies a -2 AC (and thus CMD) then losing Dex Bonus to AC (and thus CMD) would mean both apply - and CMD when pinning would become 17.
However, as it seems now, we treat the temporary bonuses (and thus presumably penalties) as permanent, Grelow's Dex Bonus becomes +0 with the -4 Ability Penalty to Dexterity for grappling. Thus losing Dex Bonus to AC (and thus CMD) does not make a difference; therefore when Pinning his CMD stays at 17.
That is great for me, but is that correct? And is that how PFS GMs will rule it now?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
page 554/555 ... FAQ now seems to contradict that text.
In all my playing, I've yet to run into a person who ran a game like has been suggested in this thread. Everyone has ran it with Temp bonuses actually raising (but not granting the /day type things), temp damage not actually lowering but applying a penalty (like negative levels do), and drain actually lowering.
You are mixing Damage, Penalties, and Drain. Damage and Penalties "does not actually reduce an ability" but a Bonus does actually raise.
Damage and Penalties only apply static penalties to Stat related things.
|
|
You are mixing Damage, Penalties, and Drain. Damage and Penalties "does not actually reduce an ability" but a Bonus does actually raise.
Damage and Penalties only apply static penalties to Stat related things.
This is my problem though, the FAQ addressed bonuses only and for me has only confused me more. I still don't know whether a -4 Ability Penalty to Dexterity results in a -2 to the Dexterity Modifier, and thus indirectly to all the things that is used to calculate, or whether it results in a -2 to specific stats, e.g. AC. It makes a difference (see my grappling example).
I am really struggling to see how the PF changes work better than the simple 3.5 rule.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
-4 Ability Penalty to Dexterity
The Damage and Penalties only apply to the listed items. Specifically for Dexterity:
skill checks, ranged attack rolls, initiative checks, and Reflex saving throws ... Armor Class, your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Tiny or smaller), and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.
|
FYI James Jacobs has mentioned in other threads that one of the easiest ways to think about temporary penalties and presumably bonuses to your ability scores is that they grant bonuses to your MODIFIER, not the score itself. It's why (according to him) you don't lose access to feats with ability score prerequisites. A fighter with 14 Strength that has 2 points of Strength damage from poison would still have a Strength of 14, but his modifier would go from +2 to +1, and he could still use his Power Attack feat (since his score didn't actually fall below 13). Drain, however, is a whole different story.
One thing to point out that I haven't seen anybody mention is that the glossary specifically says for every 2 points your ability fluctuates, you take a +1 bonus or -1 penalty on the related stat. This is important when considering that the score itself isn't actually affected, but rather the modifier. A Ranger with a Dex of 14 who takes 1 point of Dex damage doesn't take a penalty to any of his Dex-based abilities until he receives another point of Dex damage. Likewise, a barbarian with a 13 Strength who somehow gets a temporary +1 bonus to Strength won't gain any bonuses until they somehow raise that bonus from a +1 to a +2.
EDIT: with the exception of carrying capacity it seems now, which I suppose would change even with odd-numbered bonuses and penalties to Strength
This thread even more reinforces my view that ability scores should go away, leaving just the modifier.
Fox's Cunning explicitly states that it doesn't provide extra skill points.
Okay, so fox's cunning was a bad example; I haven't read it in a while. It was more of a "provoke discussion" type of question (you seem to be on the same page as me with respect to the FAQ making things muddy).
(The rest of this is directed to the thread in general.)
Better example, maybe eagle's splendor mixed with the feat leadership (*reads both things* yep, nothing there that says "no")? It would be absolutely ridiculous to get additional followers for a few minutes, but that's what happens if temporary bonuses are no different from permanent ones, apart from how much time you want to spend doing math.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
the FAQ making things muddy).
From your view, but form mine the new FAQ makes it clear the very strange interpretation used in this thread is not correct.
So it simply brought us back to where most people have been for years. Temporary bonuses raise the score. The language to deal with long duration bonuses are treated as permanent while continually present and begin to help with /day abilities.
|
There's nothing muddy about it. It's common sense. If I'm stronger (even temporarily) I should be able to lift more for that duration. If my strength is penalized I am weaker. If my con is boosted I'm harder to kill. If it's penalized it's easier to kill me. If Rays of Enfeeblement bring me down to 1 Str and I'm wearing full plate, I should be immobilized until I can somehow get it off. Common sense.
The only slight drawback to this is recalculating things like encumbrance on the fly, and that's easy enough with a simple spreadsheet even if groups are tracking it moment to moment rather than approximating.
|
|
-4 Ability Penalty to DexterityThe Damage and Penalties only apply to the listed items. Specifically for Dexterity:
skill checks, ranged attack rolls, initiative checks, and Reflex saving throws ... Armor Class, your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Tiny or smaller), and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.
So are you suggesting that, because the FAQ about temporary ability bonuses says "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 text below is not to be considered an exhaustive list, but just some examples?
Dexterity: Temporary increases to your Dexterity score give you a bonus on Dexterity-based skill checks, ranged attack rolls, initiative checks, and Ref lex saving throws.
The bonus also applies to your Armor Class, your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Tiny or smaller), and your Combat Maneuver Defense.
However, for temporary ability penalties you believe the following text is meant to be an exhaustive list (i.e. you said "only apply to the listed items"):
Dexterity: Damage to your Dexterity score causes you to take penalties on Dexterity-based skill checks, ranged attack rolls, initiative checks, and Ref lex saving throws.
The penalty also applies to your Armor Class, your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Tiny or smaller), and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.
Considering how very close, i.e. consistent, those two paragraphs are (ditto for the paragraphs about the other abilities) that seems a very odd way of reading it.
|
|
the FAQ making things muddy).From your view, but form mine the new FAQ makes it clear the very strange interpretation used in this thread is not correct.
Which "very strange interpretation" is that? That the bonuses applied only the the specific list of statistics the rules listed and did not actually affect the score or modifier? Because I don't think that is a strange interpretation but a very fair reading of the RAW.
So it simply brought us back to where most people have been for years. Temporary bonuses raise the score.
So a character with a Strength of 13 who somehow gains a +3 Ability Score bonus to Strength would have a Strength score of 16 and a Strength Bonus of +3? So how does that reconcile with the text "For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus"?
The language to deal with long duration bonuses are treated as permanent while continually present and begin to help with /day abilities.
Are you referring to stuff like Spells per Day here? If so could you cite the exact "language" you are referring to? Either in the FAQ or the CRB? Thanks!
|
|
There's nothing muddy about it. It's common sense. If I'm stronger (even temporarily) I should be able to lift more for that duration. If my strength is penalized I am weaker. If my con is boosted I'm harder to kill. If it's penalized it's easier to kill me. If Rays of Enfeeblement bring me down to 1 Str and I'm wearing full plate, I should be immobilized until I can somehow get it off. Common sense.
The only slight drawback to this is recalculating things like encumbrance on the fly, and that's easy enough with a simple spreadsheet even if groups are tracking it moment to moment rather than approximating.
What you are describing is basically the 3.5 method. So is your common sense saying to basically ignore the text on pages 554 and 555 of the CRB - i.e. all the text Paizo specifically added when creating Pathfinder?
I do agree that the 3.5 method (which seems to be what you are describing) is common sense, what I don't agree is that the PF rules use the 3.5 method, and that FAQ does indeed muddy the water more - especially as it only talks about bonuses and not penalties.
This thread even more reinforces my view that ability scores should go away, leaving just the modifier.There are still things that depend on score, such as carrying capacity and the HP at which you die.
Yes of course, this was more of a dream for a next edition. The few things that depend on score could easily be changed; up until Pathfinder, what HP you died at was in no way tied to constitution. And carrying capacity should reaaaaally be remade, IMO.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
not to be considered an exhaustive list, but just some examples?
Yes exactly, as most of us have read it until this thread appeared and educated us on this faction of people who didn't read it like those that agree with the FAQ have read it.
Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores.
So a bonus increase it for things that are not /day type abilities.
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours
Covers long duration things where you gain everything associated with the increase, but note in case you lose the bonus.
Ability Damage: 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.
Works like level loss, only apply penalties. Don't actually lower the score.
Ability Drain: Ability drain actually reduces the relevant ability score.
For Drain, actually lower it.
Yes this section was condensed for brevity. Had they had more space, they would have used it or dedicated it to other things.
This can be summed up this way:
Temporary Ability Boost: Actually increase score except for /day things like spells, skill points, channel energy, and other similar.
Permanent Ability Boost: Work as if score higher for all things, but note changes just in case.
Ability Damage/Penalty: Apply penalties to everything Temp boost does.
Ability Drain: Work as if score lower for all things.
|
|
What you are describing is basically the 3.5 method. So is your common sense saying to basically ignore the text on pages 554 and 555 of the CRB - i.e. all the text Paizo specifically added when creating Pathfinder?
Their intent there - as the FAQ ruling proves - was not the functionally change the way stats worked but to try and save some space. Obviously they didn't present it as cleanly as they could have, so they're correcting it now. And good on them I say.
While they may not specifically call out penalties that is common sense too. If you're weaker you carry less.
|
|
not to be considered an exhaustive list, but just some examples?Yes exactly, as most of us have read it until this thread appeared and educated us on this faction of people who didn't read it like those that agree with the FAQ have read it.
But you seemed to be saying (by using the phrase "The Damage and Penalties only apply to the listed items") that the very similar list in reference to penalties [i]was[i] an exhaustive list - is that correct?
Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores.So a bonus increase it for things that are not /day type abilities.
How do you get that from the text you quoted? I am not seeing the logic.
Ability Damage: 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.Works like level loss, only apply penalties. Don't actually lower the score.
So you believe temporary bonuses do actually increase the score (and everything that entails, just like a permanent ability bonus) but that temporary penalties and damage do not actually change the score, but apply penalties instead?
If that is the case, I really don't like it as there is an inconsistency between how bonuses and penalties work - hardly a shortcut to making these things work quicker in play!
Yes this section was condensed for brevity. Had they had more space, they would have used it or dedicated it to other things.
I am curious what the original text for this section was before it was edited then, because the 3.5 section on ABility Score bonuses and penalties used less words than the final PF section and IMHO is much clearer on how they operate - having no issues that PF doesn't.
This can be summed up this way:
Temporary Ability Boost: Actually increase score except for /day things like spells, skill points, channel energy, and other similar.
The FAQ does indicate that temporary bonuses actually increase the score, but I am still struggling to see where the ruling that it doesn't affect spells slot, channelling uses etc is.
Some sources of temporary bonuses rule some stuff out (e.g. Fox's Cunning specifically saying it doesn't give skill ranks), but I am not seeing a general rule.
As far as I can see, if temporary bonuses do indeed increase the score as the FAQ now seems to indicate, then everything related to that score should increase unless explicitly stated otherwise - and I am not seeing that explicit statement.
Ability Damage/Penalty: Apply penalties to everything Temp boost does.
Including stuff not related to the ability modifier, e.g. Carrying Capacity, or just things that involve a d20 check?
Seriously, I find the FAQ had just made this whole area even more confusing than it was previously.
|
|
I have been reading the FAQ about this again, and I am beginning to wonder whether there are actually two sets of rules to handle Ability Bonuses.
Think of it in the same way that a simple template has "quick rules" and "rebuild rules;"
So are the rules presented on pages 554 and 555 of the CRB the "Quick Rules", and are they the quick alternative to having ability bonuses actually increase the score and everything that affects (including losing feat pre-requisites, carrying capacity etc)?
If so, which should be used for PFS play? Is it up to the GM? How does that work with players who have pre-calculated their stats for wild shaped forms etc?
And does that mean ability damage and penalties should be considered to work the same way - they do actually reduce the score and all that entails, but if you want a quicker way use the rulings on page 555 of the CRB?
I want to add that it makes sense to me, but man, this FAQ completely disrupted the subtext of the entire section.
When I first started playing, I didn't recognize there being such a thing as "temporary" or "permanent" bonuses (apart from duration). Then I learned of the section discussing temporary bonuses. So I took it as them being weaker versions, same as damage and drain being weakened a little as well (from 3.5e of "the world's most popular RPG"). The fact the FAQ states that all along that this is a matter of "quick application", it completely disrupted my understanding of this section.
I didn't play 3.5e D&D (very slight familiarity through NWN and OOTS), but it sounds like the temporary/permanent thing was part of improvements, along with negative levels not actually being the loss of levels (similar veins, anyway), and it was just worded (very) inaccurately.
I'm more shocked/jarred than anything. I think it's kind of cleared up for me, though I still don't like it (and I'm almost sure there's going to be a weird case that causes this to break; gut feeling, though, not actual knowledge). I find the "quick" rules to be nice and clean. Slightly annoyed I have to fix my character spreadsheet, though...
Edit: I know this doesn't mean that anything "has" to change, rather that it's more beneficial to do it than not. But still, I'd feel like I wasn't doing my best if I didn't consider cases not in the enumerated list of example changes due to bonuses.
It's a bit strange. In the past, usually when this question has come up and a developer has commented on it, the answer has been that the temporary bonuses apply to everything except things like bonus spells per day and "x+Modifier/day" abilities (because of issues like "when you lose the temporary bonus, what happens to remaining uses/spells per day"). The new FAQ, however, doesn't have similar exceptions.
|
|
It's a bit strange. In the past, usually when this question has come up and a developer has commented on it, the answer has been that the temporary bonuses apply to everything except things like bonus spells per day and "x+Modifier/day" abilities (because of issues like "when you lose the temporary bonus, what happens to remaining uses/spells per day"). The new FAQ, however, doesn't have similar exceptions.
So you read the FAQ as also implying that Spells per Day, Channelling per Day etc will all benefit from an Ability Bonus too? Its glad that I am not the only one :)