Strictly speaking, these caster level bonuses don't declare a type. Untyped bonuses stack, so by RAW you can apply both to the same spell.
However, many GM's will rule that all bonuses from traits are implicitly trait bonuses, and in that case these would not stack. Talk to your GM.
Yeh. Strictly speaking they are untyped, and seeing as most traits specifically say something is a trait bonus, then this would stack.
By RAW, unless its stated a trait bonus, its not. SO yes. Should me allowed.
|
There are traits that provide non-trait bonuses.
Huldra’s Luck provides a Luck bonus.
Contagious Mettle provides a Morale bonus.
Deep Guardian provides a Morale, and Enhancement bonus.
So, this idea that traits provide only trait bonuses if false.
A trait provides a trait bonus, if the trait notes that it provides a trait bonus.
So, if doesn't state it is a trait bonus, then it isn't.
It is that simple.
He used the logic that they are traits and therefore are implicitly trait bonuses therefore they don't stack.
This is not true. If it doesn't say 'trait bonus', then it's not at trait bonus.
Here is the paragraph on the subject from the Traits web enhancement:
Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a “trait” bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack—they’re intended to give you a slight edge over the non-PCs of the world, not a secret backdoor way to focus all your traits on one type of bonus to gain an unseemly advantage over the rules. It’s certainly possible, for example, that somewhere down the line, a “Courageous” trait might be on the list of dwarf race traits, but just because this trait’s on the dwarf race traits list and the basic combat traits list doesn’t mean you’re any more brave if you choose both than if you choose only one.
If you're looking for home-game GM'ing advice, they probably shouldn't stack. There are several things (caster level being one of the biggest) that get bonuses so rarely, they rarely ever get a type assigned in the first place. So the times that they should (and from a trait is an obvious time), the designer doesn't think of it.
The same used to be the case for many speed boosts. It took quite a while for monk fast movement to have any limitations on stacking. In 3.5, by FAQ, it stacked up to +30. Now in Pathfinder it's purely an enhancement bonus, and stacks with very few things now. Leading to the middle ground by custom helps prevent overcompensation later.
I agree with Majuba. Despite not being listed as trait bonuses, all traits should probably be considered trait bonuses unless otherwise explicitly declared. Which would not stack. However, without their type being explicilty stated it is a house rule (albeit one that seems very common sense).
It says MANY traits grant a trait bonus, not ALL traits. Therefore, there is precisely zero reason not to read the traits as written. No 'trait bonus' text, not a trait bonus.
It says MANY traits grant a trait bonus, not ALL traits. Therefore, there is precisely zero reason not to read the traits as written. No 'trait bonus' text, not a trait bonus.
As I stated in my post there is the RAW of it, and I agree that by that interpretation you are correct.
Then there is also the idea that people will leave out the type of bonus a trait gives because fallible human beings write it.
Also, it could say many because some traits are explicilty not trait bonuses. That doesn't mean that the rest that aren't given a type are purposefully meant to be untyped.
I think A GM is justified with either interpretation, as there is always rule 0.
No, trait bonuses should not be automatically considered a trait bonus. Otherwise, they'd say they were a trait bonus. : / I doubt the editors were so starved for space that they left off one word.
As blackbloodtroll mentioned, many traits explicitly do not provide trait bonuses. And leaving off a qualifier for a bonus has a specific and intentional meaning in Pathfinder--it is untyped, and thus stacks with everything else.
We disagree. There is fundamental difference in our thinking and there is no resolution.
I think it is poor form to ever leave the bonus type unstated. Even if that type is suppose to be "untyped" which is an indicator to allow it to stack with everything. Rather, I would like to see the word untyped included for the sake of clarity. We can argue about this till we are blue in the face, this is my personal opinion. I've already stated in my first post that it works as you've described by RAW. I simply feel that it is equally presumptious to say it is intentionally untyped as it is to say that the type has been accidentally omitted and should be considered a trait bonus (as it makes sense that traits should provide a trait bonus unless contraindicated). Whenever there is ambiguity, I generally choose the least advantageous position.
It may be poor form, but that is RAW. The fact that you think its mechanically unviable is irrelevant.
There is a rule stating that Bonuses of same type cannot stack.
If bonus is untyped, then they CAN stack.
If you think that all trait bonuses should be "trait" type, that is up to you. But by RAW they are not.
We disagree. There is fundamental difference in our thinking and there is no resolution.
I think it is poor form to ever leave the bonus type unstated. Even if that type is suppose to be "untyped" which is an indicator to allow it to stack with everything. Rather, I would like to see the word untyped included for the sake of clarity. We can argue about this till we are blue in the face, this is my personal opinion. I've already stated in my first post that it works as you've described by RAW. I simply feel that it is equally presumptious to say it is intentionally untyped as it is to say that the type has been accidentally omitted and should be considered a trait bonus (as it makes sense that traits should provide a trait bonus unless contraindicated). Whenever there is ambiguity, I generally choose the least advantageous position.
I believe that one should presume that rules are written as intended unless there is a compelling reason to believe otherwise. I suppose that's "presumptuous" in that I'm presuming, but it's a reasonable presumption. No such compelling reason has been presented in this instance--only that you find the idea of untyped bonuses distasteful, particularly in the context of traits. And that's fine.
We disagree. There is fundamental difference in our thinking and there is no resolution.
I think it is poor form to ever leave the bonus type unstated. Even if that type is suppose to be "untyped" which is an indicator to allow it to stack with everything. Rather, I would like to see the word untyped included for the sake of clarity. We can argue about this till we are blue in the face, this is my personal opinion. I've already stated in my first post that it works as you've described by RAW. I simply feel that it is equally presumptious to say it is intentionally untyped as it is to say that the type has been accidentally omitted and should be considered a trait bonus (as it makes sense that traits should provide a trait bonus unless contraindicated). Whenever there is ambiguity, I generally choose the least advantageous position.
Except, of course, that there is no ambiguity at all. It doesn't say 'trait bonus', therefore it is not a trait bonus. Crystal clear.
Why is it so important to you that you convince me to change my view?
Why is it so important to you that you convince me to change my view?
Because you're wrong and what you say is ridiculous, and you could spread your wrongness to other players.
In a system with very specific rules on what can stack and what can't, we cannot assume that an untyped bonus is a specific type when there is no precedent. Otherwise every single untyped instance will need to be categorized into an existing one. Which would suck.
And I'm not saying all traits, or even all untyped bonus should be trait bonus. What I am saying, is that trait that that are not otherwise indicated as having a type bonus it seems bit presumptuous to assume that they are intended to be untyped rather than omissions. There are very few instances of untyped bonuses provided by traits. Some of them do make sense as untyped.
The ones mentioned specifically in this thread don't. Especially since Precocious Spellcaster is 3.5 material. And they never mention the word bonus either.
My point is I wish when these things were written that they would be written such that if it was supposed to be an untyped bonus, rather than not mentioning anything, simply call it an untyped bonus if it meant to stack with anything. In lieu of this, I will decide on a case by case basis for my games whether or not I think things like are really meant to be untyped and stack with everything else. And I want other people to know that they are not the only one who may question why or wonder if there is a different way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it so important to you that you convince me to change my view?You seem to be assured of RAI.
I disagree, as do others.
The very text that introduces the trait bonus does so with this stated purpose: "Trait bonuses do not stack—they're intended to give player characters a slight edge, not a secret backdoor way to focus all of a character's traits on one type of bonus and thus gain an unseemly advantage"
So yes I believe you are correct by RAW, but this statement strongly indicates the RAI was the other way around. Without any developer commentary on the subject we cannot know for sure, but I strongly agree with Claxon on this matter. At my table, traits do not give untyped bonuses; they always give trait bonuses if they state no other type.
Should all feats that grant an untyped bonus be a feat bonus?
|
|
You call out only one line.
The line "Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a “trait” bonus." does not say all do.
I also provided a number of example traits that provide a different typed bonus, other than a trait bonus.
I disagree with your version of RAI, and I have provided evidence to support this.
The ones mentioned specifically in this thread don't. Especially since Precocious Spellcaster is 3.5 material. And they never mention the word bonus either.
I don't know of a "Precocious Spellcaster" in 3.5. There is Precocious Apprentice, but that works completely differently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should all feats that grant an untyped bonus be a feat bonus?
The section describing feats doesn't go to lengths describing how feats shouldn't stack and establishing a bonus type for the explicit purpose of preventing feats from stacking in a single ability. There is no equivalent clause describing a feat bonus and explaining a conscious design decision that feats shouldn't stack.
The line "Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a “trait” bonus." does not say all do.
I am not arguing about whether all traits should be considered trait bonuses. This is specific to the case of conspicuously untyped bonuses and how they relate to the underlying rationale of traits not stacking.
Given the designers felt it important enough to actually give a diatribe explaining why traits as a general rule do not stack with each other, I would expect the exceptions to be explicitly typed otherwise. There's nothing special about caster level bonuses to say they should be treated differently from attack bonuses or damage bonuses. Rather to the contrary, I'd be more cautious of allowing caster level stacking than any of the other bonuses described in traits.
So yes, I find it far more likely that the caster level traits stack due to a designer oversight rather than a deliberate decision to treat them differently from other traits.
Should all feats that grant an untyped bonus be a feat bonus?The section describing feats doesn't go to lengths describing how feats shouldn't stack and establishing a bonus type for the explicit purpose of preventing feats from stacking in a single ability. There is no equivalent clause describing a feat bonus and explaining a conscious design decision that feats shouldn't stack.
The line "Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a “trait” bonus." does not say all do.I am not arguing about whether all traits should be considered trait bonuses. This is specific to the case of conspicuously untyped bonuses and how they relate to the underlying rationale of traits not stacking.
Given the designers felt it important enough to actually give a diatribe explaining why traits as a general rule do not stack with each other, I would expect the exceptions to be explicitly typed otherwise. There's nothing special about caster level bonuses to say they should be treated differently from attack bonuses or damage bonuses. Rather to the contrary, I'd be more cautious of allowing caster level stacking than any of the other bonuses described in traits.
So yes, I find it far more likely that the caster level traits stack due to a designer oversight rather than a deliberate decision to treat them differently from other traits.
Seeing as we can definitely quantify 2 traits as being worth a feat, I would go so far to say that we should treat traits as just being mini feats. And if feats don't require any explanation on why their bonuses stack, why in the gods names would miniature versions of them would?
Note that the designers explain out every bonus that doesn't stack. Traits also vary much in what kind of bonus they actually give.
Also note that the designer didn't drop a blanket statement saying that we should otherwise believe that all untyped bonuses of the traits should be considered trait bonuses unless otherwise written. So why your interpreting this that way I have no idea. Are you bothered by casters gaining a benefit to maybe one or 2 of their spells from traits?
I don't know of a "Precocious Spellcaster" in 3.5. There is Precocious Apprentice, but that works completely differently.
The ones mentioned specifically in this thread don't. Especially since Precocious Spellcaster is 3.5 material. And they never mention the word bonus either.
I looked for Precocious Spellcaster on the PRD and couldn't find it. When I looked on d20PFSRD it found the trait and indicated it was from the the Paizo book, Taldor Echoes of Legends. That book was written in 2009 for use with 3.5 material before Pathfinder RPG existed independently and was composed of setting material and adventure paths. It is possible that the feats name was changed on d20PFSRD for legal reasons but thats what I was basing my conclusion on.
If you read the text of the trait on the website it is very similar to Gifted Adept, excepting that it adds in a 0 level spell as well.
I see people arguing against RAW, stating intent.
You do realise that things like pun pun in 3.5 aren't intended?
Yet by RAW it works. Only reason people dont do it is the gentlemens code and GM houseruling it away.
Same here. It might well be an oversight, some untyped traits being meant to be trait bonus. But since its written as untyped, tough luck. Thats RAW
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know of a "Precocious Spellcaster" in 3.5. There is Precocious Apprentice, but that works completely differently.
The ones mentioned specifically in this thread don't. Especially since Precocious Spellcaster is 3.5 material. And they never mention the word bonus either.
In 3.5 there was
Choose a spellcasting class that you possess. Your spells cast from that class are more powerful.
Prerequisite: Spellcraft 4 ranks.
Benefit: Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by 4. This benefit can't increase your caster level to higher than your Hit Dice. However, even if you can't benefit from the full bonus immediately, if you later gain Hit Dice in levels of nonspellcasting classes, you might be able to apply the rest of the bonus.
For example, a human 5th-level sorcerer/3rd-level fighter who selects this feat would increase his sorcerer caster level from 5th to 8th (since he has 8 Hit Dice). If he later gained a fighter level, he would gain the remainder of the bonus and his sorcerer caster level would become 9th (since he now has 9 Hit Dice).
A character with two or more spellcasting classes (such as a bard/sorcerer or a ranger/druid) must choose which class gains the feat's effect.
This feat does not affect your spells per day or spells known. It increases your caster level only, which would help you penetrate spell resistance and increase the duration and other effects of your spells.
Special: You may select this feat multiple times. Each time you choose it, you must apply it to a different spellcasting class. For instance, a 4th-level cleric/5th-level wizard who had selected this feat twice would cast cleric spells as an 8th-level caster and wizard spells as a 9th-level caster.
/cevah
Precocious Spellcaster (PF trait) doesn't do that either.
Precocious Apprentice (3.5 feat) was a 1st level only feat that let a spellcaster cast a single 2nd level spell per day but you had to make a CL check to do so (kinda like a scroll).
Practiced Spellcaster (3.5 feat) raises your CL for one casting class by 4 up to a max of your character level.
Precocious Spellcaster (PF trait) increases you CL for one spell of 0 or 1st level by 1.
Now, Claxon's information about the publishing date of the source book for the trait was unknown to me. Well, it is shown on d20pfsrd but I didn't correlate the publishing date to "3.5 vs PF" material.