The source he just quoted you pretty much answers your question. Constitution Damage affects hit points, and saving throws. What other difference are you looking for?Source: PRD
Constitution: Damage to your Constitution score causes you to take penalties on your Fortitude saving throws. In addition, multiply your total Hit Dice by this penalty and subtract that amount from your current and total hit points. Lost hit points are restored when the damage to your Constitution is healed.It's pretty clear that LazarX is correct. Constitution damage lowers your current and total hit points.Whether or not it lowered your hit points was not in question. The question was does ability damage affect you just like drain or does it follow RAW which say -2 reduction=-1 penalty for affected stats.
Lazar..I said we already agreed that it affected those. That was never in dispute. The dispute was when whether the RAW worked or your version worked. According to your argument you drop from a 14 to 13 and lose hp. By the book you have to loose to 2 con no matter what your score is to gain any penalties.
Temporary Ability Score Increases vs. Permanent Ability Score Increases...
I'm not sure what relevance this has to the thread. LazarX is incorrect. See the first paragraph of the PRD when it talks about ability damage:
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.
Your ability scores do not change when you receive damage, so temporary vs permanent never enters the equation.
the Relevance is that increase and decrease of ability score depends on play style.
The point of contention is not the increase or decrease of an ability score.
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.
Ability damage DOES NOT change an ability score. There is no rebuild required.
Ability damage just gives you an negative modifier on everything involving that ability, in addition to your bonuses from having a high ability score.
Looking at the rules text does confirm that its a 2 for -1 deal. However that makes no sense to me and I do it the logical way of working with actual Con [or whatever] scores. Always have and haven't had any player issues with it ever.
|
Ability damage DOES NOT change an ability score. There is no rebuild required.
Ability damage just gives you an negative modifier on everything involving that ability, in addition to your bonuses from having a high ability score.
And yet Ability Bonuses had almost the same text "For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability." and never listed Carrying Capacity in the list of Statistics affected, and yet the recent FAQ response from the designers implies that those are just Quick Rules but that the intention is that you can use Rebuild Rules.
That FAQ ruling, while not mentioning Ability Damage does open up the debate on what was meant by the Ability Damage and Penalties section.
I say again - the whole Ability Bonuses, Penalties and Damage "rules" are pretty screwy anyway, and the recent FAQ now muddies the waters even more by implying that those "rules" are an optional Quick Build rule, and that Rebuild Options (ala 3.5) is also valid. Its a mess!
Personally, everytime I play PFS from now on, the first thing I will be doing is asking how the GM will run Ability Bonuses and Penalties as that will dictate which character sheet I will use (Druid Wildshaping has both temporary Bonuses and Penalties to stats).
|
|
You are absolutely right. The FAQ ruling does open up a debate about the intent. But that is still not RAW.
I agree, but for Ability Bonuses at least that FAQ has to be taken as what should be used in PFS rather than the RAW. I suspect that if enough people query ability damage and penalties then Paizo may make a similar FAQ for them as well effectively overriding the RAW.
The FAQ (referencing "Quick Rebuild" rules) was talking about what an ability score bonus (or penalty) affects. The scope was clarified, as well as the way the bonus/penalty was applied.
This discussion is about when ability score damage affects someone. The answer is clear, and does not need a FAQ: for every 2 points of ability damage, apply a -1 penalty.
Not that I'm condoning slamming people but you did state yourself in the referenced post in a very absolute and unquestionable manner which is sort of insulting to people who are disagreeing with you.Except for the part where you ignored EXACTLY why that doesn't prove your point, sure.
"In addition, multiply your total Hit Dice by this penalty and subtract that amount from your current and total hit points. Lost hit points are restored when the damage to your Constitution is healed."
"For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty"
This was posted what, 2 posts above you?
I missed that post. And I did not ignore something to "prove a point" about Con damage rules. I read the text and drew a conclusion, figuring that if I missed something that someone would correct me in a polite and reasonable manner. Apparently I was mistaken more than once.
Regarding the thread: So far, it parallels the discussions about temporary bonuses. Those were rendered moot by the FAQ. I wonder how ability damage will fare in the long run.
Sorry if that's how it appears, but . . .
It's pretty clear that LazarX is correct. Constitution damage lowers your current and total hit points.
. . . how is that insulting?
|
|
The FAQ (referencing "Quick Rebuild" rules) was talking about what an ability score bonus (or penalty) affects. The scope was clarified, as well as the way the bonus/penalty was applied.
This discussion is about when ability score damage affects someone. The answer is clear, and does not need a FAQ: for every 2 points of ability damage, apply a -1 penalty.
Okay, but the FAQ did make it clear that an Ability Bonus to strength should affect Carrying Capacity - but Carrying Capacity is not based on Strength Modifier (i.e. would not increase or decrease in groups of two) but on the Strength Score itself, so even a +1 Strength Ability Bonus (that would not give any bonus to rolls) would presumably increase Carrying Capacity.
So, if that FAQ is considered to set a precedent that the list of "statistics" on pages 554/555 of the CRB are not exhaustive, would it make sense that Strength Damage would also affect Carrying Capacity?
If you agree with that, my next question is what if you only suffer 1 point of Strength Damage would your carrying capacity decrease straight away?
For example,
Adam has Strength 13 (Carrying Capacity of 50/100/150 lbs)
Blaze has Strength 12 (Carrying Capacity of 43/86/130 lbs)
Both suffer 1 point of Strength Damage.
Do either of them suffer a reduction to Carrying Capacity? If we go by your reasoning that Statistics are only affected for every 2 full points of ability damage then Carrying Capacity should not change yet, correct?
Adam now suffers an extra point of Strength Damage (so Adam now has 2 points of strength damage whilst Blaze still only has 1). If this were Strength Drain, their Strength scores would now both be the same at 11, but this is just damage.
Does just Adam now suffer a reduction in carrying capacity? If so, is that based on now having a Strength score of 11 (Carrying Capacity 38/76/115 lbs)? If so that would mean, despite appearing to now have the same effective strength as Blaze, Adam has a worse Carrying Capacity. Weird!
* * *
Basically, the Ability Bonus FAQ makes it clear that the following text is not meant to be an exhaustive list:
Strength: Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The bonus also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.
Which given the similarity, would seem to imply that the following text is also not meant to be an exhaustive list and likewise should include Carrying Capacity:
Strength: Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense.
If you accept that the list of statistics for Ability Penalties / Damage is also not meant to be exhaustive and should include statistics derived from the Ability Score (i.e. Carrying Capacity) as well as Stats derived from the Ability Modifier, then it has to be conceded that the original score does matter when determining the effects of Ability Damage / Penalties.
So if we are going to the trouble of working out how the original ability score is affected (e.g. to calculate Carrying Capacity) and not just applying some flat modifier for every two points of ability damage (i.e. we do not simply say something like "Reduce Carrying Capacity by 10/20/30 lbs per two points of Strength Damage") then it is not completely unreasonable to recalculate all Statistics affected in the same manner.
So if a character with a Constitution of 12 takes 1 point of Con damage presumably he now dies at -11 Hit Points rather than -12 (death threshold being calculated based on Constitution Score, not Con Modifier).
So if we are adjusting some statistics related to Constitution even if there is only 1 point of Con damage, then wouldn't it be reasonable to
a) recalculate all statistics at the same time rather than just some, and
b) use the original score to determine what the new statistics should be?
TL;DR
Basically, in Pathfinder Society a FAQ answer overrides RAW. In this instance it would appear that the Ability Bonus FAQ is similar enough to Ability Damage /Penalties that it can raise doubt on how the Ability Damage / Penalties should be run in PFS games.
If the FAQ says "Temporary ability bonuses should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses do." then surely there is an argument that "Temporary ability damage / penalties should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score damage (i.e. drain) does."
Basically, before the FAQ came out I would have been in complete agreement with you (and I would still run it that way myself), but I feel the FAQ now raises doubt on how the the RAW should be used (in PFS games at least) so that interpretations such as LazarX cannot outright be said to be incorrect; after all his seems most consistent with the FAQ for Ability Bonuses.
|
|
@Digital Mage: You make a very good case for RAI. But sentences such as: "In this instance it would appear that the ability bonus FAQ is similar enough to Ability Damage /Penalties that..." isn't really a good way to make your case for RAW.
Well, technically RAW IMHO contradict the Ability Bonuses FAQ, so yes, in that sense I agree with you - FAQ seems to be indicating what was meant (though how they managed to so badly implement that I don't understand) whereas the core rulebook remains the RAW.
However, for Pathfinder Society play many people say that you have to play by RAW, yet the guide to organised play states
This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com.
Emphasis is mine.
So yeah, by RAW 1 point of Con damage would not affect anything at all - not even death threshold. Equally 1 point of strength damage wouldn't affect carrying capacity. But for PFS play, the FAQ comes into play and effectively overrides RAW, and it can then be argued, that although the FAQ is in relation to Ability Bonuses it sets a precedent that can be interpreted as overriding the RAW for Ability Damage & Penalties.
Unfortunately, its a complete mess IMHO requiring me to potentially maintain three different versions of my character sheet* for PFS, and keep them all in synch during a convention. I have even considered stopping playing PFS (and thus PF) altogether, though I probably won't as I like my characters too much. :)
*One for RAW, ability bonuses and penalties only affecting the exhaustive list of stats defined on pages 554 and 555 of the CRB.
One for RAW re ability penalties but for taking into the FAQ for ability bonuses.
And finally one taking into account the FAQ for ability bonuses and penalties should the GM interpret the FAQ as impacting ability penalties as well.
|
|
@Digital Mage... We seem to be in complete agreement. It would be very helpful with an extended FAQ on this that tells us how to handle Ability Damage, not just Ability Bonuses. This could be as simple as saying that they work the same way (if that is the intent)
yeah, Paizo need to put together a cohesive FAQ that explains clearly how Ability temporary Bonuses, Penalties and Damage are meant to work. And also ideally indicate, if that differs from the RAW on pages 554/555 whether the 554/555 rules are alternative Quick Rules.
Chapter 1 Getting Started:
"If a character's Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character's hit points also increase or decrease accordingly."
Until seeing this thread just now, I had never heard of this argument before. It seems like the most rules-lawyery, nit-picky thing.
Remember in the old 3.5 DMG where there's a sidebar about keeping track of ability score bonuses/penalties and it says that to be quick with the math in your head, you can just assume it's a + or - 1 for every two you take? And that was basically the way for non-mathletes to do it.
I think they just basically skipped to that way when they explained it in PFRPG, because they realized they had to write for the lowest common denominator (as is evidenced by some of the REALLY terrible FAQ questions I see from people).
I mean, wow. I can't believe this thread has gone on this long. If you have 100 hit points, and you get popped for 40, then you operate as if you have 60 hit points 'til you get healed. 'Cause, guess what, you do.
If you have a 10 Con, and you get popped for 1, you operate as if you have a 9 Con. 'Cause, guess what, you do. Each GM can run it at his own table. At my table, if you have an even-numbered Con score, and you get popped for one point, get ready to do some subtraction. And if multiplying your HD x the penalty you took is too hard, bring a calculator.
Boom.
|
|
Chapter 1 Getting Started:
"If a character's Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character's hit points also increase or decrease accordingly."
However...
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.
Emphasis mine.
So basically, your quote is true, but irrelevant as by RAW Ability Damage does not actually change a character's Constitution score.
Until seeing this thread just now, I had never heard of this argument before. It seems like the most rules-lawyery, nit-picky thing.
What you see as "rules-lawyery, nit-picky" I see as just a reasonable interpretation of the rules as written.
Remember in the old 3.5 DMG where there's a sidebar about keeping track of ability score bonuses/penalties and it says that to be quick with the math in your head, you can just assume it's a + or - 1 for every two you take?
No I don't recall that, but I will go look it up - thanks!
However, the point is some PF players have never played 3.5 and therefore how the rules worked in 3.5 have no influence over how they interpret the PF text.
If you have a 10 Con, and you get popped for 1, you operate as if you have a 9 Con. 'Cause, guess what, you do.
No you don't though! By RAW you still have 10 Con score.
Only Ability Drain actually reduces your Con score.However the latest FAQ re Ability Bonuses does seem to imply that your way is valid as well and that the page 554/555 rules are effectively Quick Rules as you said. But the RAW does not make that clear and presents the Quick Rules as the only way of handling Ability Damage.
Each GM can run it at his own table. At my table, if you have an even-numbered Con score, and you get popped for one point, get ready to do some subtraction.
Which is why this whole mess is a pain for people playing PFS where their GM can change on a game by game basis.
If its any consolation though, I prefer the 3.5 way of doing things, which is one of the reasons why I still play 3.5 and not PF for anything other than PFS.
Not that I'm condoning slamming people but you did state yourself in the referenced post in a very absolute and unquestionable manner which is sort of insulting to people who are disagreeing with you.Except for the part where you ignored EXACTLY why that doesn't prove your point, sure.
"In addition, multiply your total Hit Dice by this penalty and subtract that amount from your current and total hit points. Lost hit points are restored when the damage to your Constitution is healed."
"For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty"
This was posted what, 2 posts above you?
I missed that post. And I did not ignore something to "prove a point" about Con damage rules. I read the text and drew a conclusion, figuring that if I missed something that someone would correct me in a polite and reasonable manner. Apparently I was mistaken more than once.
Regarding the thread: So far, it parallels the discussions about temporary bonuses. Those were rendered moot by the FAQ. I wonder how ability damage will fare in the long run.
Sorry if that's how it appears, but . . .
It's pretty clear that LazarX is correct. Constitution damage lowers your current and total hit points.. . . how is that insulting?First of let me just say that I think Rynjin was out of line. And I'll follow up with stating that I myself have a tendency to sound a bit like I'm the judge when I believe I'm right. I'll also say that I wasn't insulted myself.
But I get why people could get upset by it, because in context it seems like you are setting yourself up as the supreme judge on the matter, and in this case people had brought up very valid points that supported their interpretation. Whether or not they are right or you are is a bit more difficult to be absolutely certain about. Personally speaking I tend toward thinking that RAW supports...
If a reader is sensitive enough to see a straightforward assertion as assuming ultimate authority, then that reader is going to have a hard time getting by in this forum (or others; this is a relatively polite forum). There's no "Designer" field by my name. Unless I'm GMing a particular game, I'm no authority on anything PF-related except my own understanding of Pathfinder's rules--same as nearly every poster here. Such a reader would do well to either point out the error or simply ignore the offending assertion.
But I'm not going to hem and haw with "Well, maybe it's like this" every time I state something that I believe to be true. That would be unreasonable. : D
10th level wizard with 10 constitution takes one point of constitution damage from a wraith. Does he lose 10 hit points or zero?
Looking at the core book and need a second opinion.
Thanks, BaronJett
Whether it is right or wrong, I always used the ability score chart in the core rule book to it kept it simpler(it could get confused on subsequent sessions - for us we play twice a month). So, in the case above going from Con=10 to Con=9 he would have taken 10 points in our game(Con=9 has a -1 modifier); Con=11 to Con=10 he wouldn't have taken any damage but would have the B'Jeezees scared out of him.
For the sake of RAW, you were right; I/We prefer the ability chart style/method.
Just our preference - cheers!
Point 1: By RAW you need to suffer 2, 4, 6 etc. Ability score damage to have a -1, -2, -3 etc. modifier.
You multiply that modifier against your number of Hit Dice to determine how many current and maximum hitpoints you lose.
Point 2: The FAQ does not address the RAW of point 1.
2A) The FAQ states that you can treat temporary ability score increases the same as permanent ability score increases for a number of purposes that are not spelled out in the rules (such as carrying capacity).
While that is provocative it does not have any bearing on Ability Score Damage (see 2C) which is a separate section of the rules.
2B) The FAQ does not address (in any way) the +2 bonus = +1 modifier aspect of Temporary Ability score increases. Thus, for a Temporary Ability score increase with an odd value you would need to make a houserule for it to have a greater effect than normal.
Example: A temporary ability score increase of +3 is no different than a temporary ability score increase of +2 according to RAW.
2C) The Devs have stated in the past that FAQs should not be extended to cover things they are not addressing.
Point 3: Back in D&D 3.5 you rebuilt your ability scores when you suffered Ability Score Damage. This is not the case in Pathfinder.
The rule was changed in Pathfinder so that Ability score damage is an increasing value that gives you a penalty. You do not adjust your ability scores in any way.
If you choose to houserule things back to the 3.5 style then you can but it is a houserule.
Summary: Con Damage from a Wraith does not cost you any HPs if it is only 1 point. The FAQ does not change this and the RAW is clear.
|
|
2A) The FAQ states that you can treat temporary ability score increases the same as permanent ability score increases for a number of purposes that are not spelled out in the rules (such as carrying capacity).
While that is provocative it does not have any bearing on Ability Score Damage (see 2C) which is a separate section of the rules.[...]
2C) The Devs have stated in the past that FAQs should not be extended to cover things they are not addressing.
Yeah, hopefully PFS GMs will take the FAQ ruling and only apply it re temporary Ability Bonuses and not penalties / damage - at least that way I will know where I stand.
However it does make the whole area even more confusing and inconsistent.
Strength Bonus/Damage example
Temporary Strength Bonus RAW
Cyrn has a Strength of 14 (+2) and gains a +4 temporary Ability Bonus to Strength. His Strength is still 14 (+2) but he now gains a flat +2 to damage, meaning...
Wielding a 2 handed weapon his damage bonus would be +5 ([+2 x 1.5] +2)
Wielding an off-hand weapon his damage bonus would be +3 ([+2 x 0.5] +2)
Temporary Strength Bonus After FAQ
Cyrn has a Strength of 14 (+2) and gains a +4 temporary Ability Bonus to Strength, effectively he has a strength of 18 (+4).
Wielding a 2 handed weapon his damage bonus would be +6 (+4 x 1.5)
Wielding an off-hand weapon his damage bonus would be +2 (+4 x 0.5)
I.e. due to the FAQ, the +1 bonus per +2 Ability Bonus to Damage is actually not a flat modifier as RAW would indicate, instead you ignore that section as being "Quick Rules" and instead rebuild and work out the final strength modifier and multiply as appropriate.
Strength Damage RAW
Draven has a Strength of 22 (+6) and suffers 4 points of Strength Damage. His Strength is still 22 (+6) but he now suffers a flat -2 to damage, meaning...
Wielding a 2 handed weapon his damage bonus would be +7 ([+6 x 1.5]-2)
Wielding an off-hand weapon his damage bonus would be +1 ([+6 x 0.5]-2)
So here we have a situation where theoretically the two characters have the same temporary Strength - Cyrn having been buffed and Draven having been damaged - and yet just by RAW you end up with two different results for damage bonus for 2-handed and off-handed weapons.
And if you take into account the FAQ but apply it only to Ability Bonuses and not Damage/Penalties, then it changes the results from RAW for Bonuses, but still not so it is in synch with Ability Damage / Penalties.
I really feel Paizo would be best off just admitting that the rules are screwey and that the 3.5 method should be used. Maybe in a Pathfinder Revised edition eh?
DigitalMage, while 3.5 may have been more accurate I find the PF version of Temporary Ability bonuses (pre-FAQ) and Ability Score Damage to be quick and easy.
The 3.5 way of accounting for temporary ability score bonuses and ability score damage usually brought the game to a screeching halt while people tried to figure out all the effective changes.
Computerized character sheets can bypass the time it takes to recalculate things it should not be the assumption for a Pen and Paper game that people will use computerized character sheets. Thus, the current rules make sense to me as a reasonable compromise.
|
|
DigitalMage, while 3.5 may have been more accurate I find the PF version of Temporary Ability bonuses (pre-FAQ) and Ability Score Damage to be quick and easy.
That's cool, I just find the PF rules lead to odd results, e.g. a character with 14 Dex who is pinning an opponent suffers a -4 Ability Penalty to dexterity (and thus a -2 AC) and also loses their Dex bonus to AC (a further -2 which stacks because the Ability Penalty does not affect the Dexterity score itself).
|
|
That was actually awesome spotted.DigitalMage, while 3.5 may have been more accurate I find the PF version of Temporary Ability bonuses (pre-FAQ) and Ability Score Damage to be quick and easy.That's cool, I just find the PF rules lead to odd results, e.g. a character with 14 Dex who is pinning an opponent suffers a -4 Ability Penalty to dexterity (and thus a -2 AC) and also loses their Dex bonus to AC (a further -2 which stacks because the Ability Penalty does not affect the Dexterity score itself).
There are plenty of stuff like that too. Like a character having Dexterity of 12 (+1) wearing Banded Mail has an AC of 18 (10 + 1 dex +7 Armour). If he puts on a Belt of Incredible Dexterity +4 he gains a +2 AC for the +4 temporary Ability Bonus to Dexterity, making his AC 20.
Ater 24 hours the bonus becomes permanent making his Dexterity 16 (+3), however as the Max Dex Bonus of Banded Mail is +1, only +1 of that counts towards AC, so his AC is 18 (the same as if he were not wearing the Belt of Incredible Dexterity!)
In this instance a temporary bonus is better than a permanent bonus and such a character would be encouraged to take off the belt every day.
That is RAW, however the new FAQ for Ability Bonuses makes the rules more vague and so many argue the scenario above is not valid, but IMHO its RAW.
|
|
I like your first find better because it was based on Ability Damage, and not Ability Bonus.
You could reverse that last example to work with Ability Damage.
Eric has Dexterity 16 (+3) and is wearing Banded Mail, because the armour has a Max Dex bonus of +1 his AC is 18 (10 +1 dex +7 armour).
He takes 4 points of Dexterity damage which doesn't actually reduce his dexterity but instead imposes a -2 AC, so his AC is 16 (10 +1 dex +7 armour -2 for dexterity damage).
However if instead Eric had taken 4 points of Dexterity drain which does reduce his dexterity, to 12 (+1), his AC would have remained at 18 (10 +1 dex +7 armour).
Purely for AC purposes Ability Damage is worse than Ability Drain - and if that lack of damage leads to Eric's death, its a moot point whether it was Drain or Damage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see a whole bunch of half-truths being written in this thread.
First, the recent FAQ on Temporary vs. Permanent Ability Score Increases has absolutely nothing to do with Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain. They are different headings. The FAQ affects Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain as much as it affects Aflictions, Damage Reduction, or Invisibility.
Just because ability damage can be healed naturally "at a rate of 1 per day" does not mean that you interpret that to be a "temporary" ability bonus from a different glossary entry.
Second, Ability Score Damage is a cumulative penalty to the modifier of any die roll that is associated with that Ability Score. It does not reduce the associated Ability Score in any way. You still have access to feats that require a certain Ability Score. You're carrying capacity is not reduced. You don't lose spell slots or memorized spells. It only affects die rolls.
For those that saw Hero Labs reduce the Ability Score with damage, you're doing it wrong: click on the "Adjust" tab, select "Add New Adjustment" under the "Other Adjustments" heading, select "Ability Score Damage", select the appropriate ability score from the drop-down menu, use the arrows to set the appropriate amount of damage, and make sure the selection box is checked.
Third, when calculating Ability Score Damage, start from "0" and work your way up, don't subtract away from your Ability Score. This is likely where all of the confusion about Ability Score Damage is coming from. For every "2" points of damage, it is a -1 to the associated die roll. In the case of Constitution, every "2" points of damage also imparts -1 hp/level.
So, as far as the OP is concerned, a 10th Level Wizard that takes 1 point of Constitution damage does not lose any hp. He will when he takes another point of Constitution damage (10 hp).
Yes, PF made a change from 3.5 and it can be easily overlooked, but it's actually quite simple in the way it works. Just remember: start at "0" and work up. For every two points of damage, it's a -1 to the associated die roll. That's it. There is nothing more to worry about.
|
|
Strength Damage RAW
Draven has a Strength of 22 (+6) and suffers 4 points of Strength Damage. His Strength is still 22 (+6) but he now suffers a flat -2 to damage, meaning...
Wielding a 2 handed weapon his damage bonus would be +7 ([+6 x 1.5]-2)
Wielding an off-hand weapon his damage bonus would be +1 ([+6 x 0.5]-2)
Actually, you're doing your math wrong.
Per the PRD: "For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability." Emphasis mine. It's not a modifier that's tacked on to the end of every other modifier. It's a modifier that only modifies the relevant modifier from the Ability Score.
So, the 2 handed weapon damage bonus would be: +6 ([+6-2] x 1.5) while the off-hand weapon damage bonus would be: +2 ([+6-2] x 0.5).
|
|
I like your first find better because it was based on Ability Damage, and not Ability Bonus.You could reverse that last example to work with Ability Damage.
Eric has Dexterity 16 (+3) and is wearing Banded Mail, because the armour has a Max Dex bonus of +1 his AC is 18 (10 +1 dex +7 armour).
He takes 4 points of Dexterity damage which doesn't actually reduce his dexterity but instead imposes a -2 AC, so his AC is 16 (10 +1 dex +7 armour -2 for dexterity damage).
However if instead Eric had taken 4 points of Dexterity drain which does reduce his dexterity, to 12 (+1), his AC would have remained at 18 (10 +1 dex +7 armour).
Purely for AC purposes Ability Damage is worse than Ability Drain - and if that lack of damage leads to Eric's death, its a moot point whether it was Drain or Damage.
This is really the only situation with the damage/drain system that is wonky, and quite honestly, I don't think it's worth upsetting the apple cart over it. It comes up in play, but it's still a corner-case.
Sure, it could be clarified (and really, this is all that would need to be clarified), or we could accept it as an insignificant casualty to the bigger picture known as the compromise of game rules design.
EDIT: Per The Shamrock's thread below, this response is retracted (if the damage modifier is applied to the DEX modifier, as the PRD states it is supposed to, there is no disparity in the example provided).
I like your first find better because it was based on Ability Damage, and not Ability Bonus.You could reverse that last example to work with Ability Damage.
Eric has Dexterity 16 (+3) and is wearing Banded Mail, because the armour has a Max Dex bonus of +1 his AC is 18 (10 +1 dex +7 armour).
He takes 4 points of Dexterity damage which doesn't actually reduce his dexterity but instead imposes a -2 AC, so his AC is 16 (10 +1 dex +7 armour -2 for dexterity damage).
However if instead Eric had taken 4 points of Dexterity drain which does reduce his dexterity, to 12 (+1), his AC would have remained at 18 (10 +1 dex +7 armour).
Purely for AC purposes Ability Damage is worse than Ability Drain - and if that lack of damage leads to Eric's death, its a moot point whether it was Drain or Damage.
This is really the only situation with the damage/drain system that is wonky, and quite honestly, I don't think it's worth upsetting the apple cart over it. It comes up in play, but it's still a corner-case.
Sure, it could be clarified (and really, this is all that would need to be clarified), or we could accept it as an insignificant casualty to the bigger picture known as the compromise of game rules design.
It's not an issue if you treat it like your STR example above. Apply the penalty to the Dex modifier (since that's what it is) before limiting the contribution Dex can give you due to armor restrictions. You're left with the same AC afterwards, just like it should be.
4 points of Dexterity damage don't give you a -2 AC penalty. They give you a -2 Dex Modifier penalty. So apply it to the Dex Modifier. Easiest way to think about it and handle the situation.
|
|
It's not an issue if you treat it like your STR example above. Apply the penalty to the Dex modifier (since that's what it is) before limiting the contribution Dex can give you due to armor restrictions. You're left with the same AC afterwards, just like it should be.
4 points of Dexterity damage don't give you a -2 AC penalty. They give you a -2 Dex Modifier penalty. So apply it to the Dex Modifier. Easiest way to think about it and handle the situation.
Yup. Should have stick to my guns in that the modifier affects the relevant ability only, not tacked on to the end of the calculation.
GRRRRR. I got sucked in to the faulty logic!
|
|
Strength Damage RAW
Draven has a Strength of 22 (+6) and suffers 4 points of Strength Damage. His Strength is still 22 (+6) but he now suffers a flat -2 to damage, meaning...
Wielding a 2 handed weapon his damage bonus would be +7 ([+6 x 1.5]-2)
Wielding an off-hand weapon his damage bonus would be +1 ([+6 x 0.5]-2)Actually, you're doing your math wrong.
Per the PRD: "For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability." Emphasis mine. It's not a modifier that's tacked on to the end of every other modifier. It's a modifier that only modifies the relevant modifier from the Ability Score.
I don't believe I am doing it wrong
For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability,apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
[...]
Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength).
I read that as "For every 2 points of damage you take to strength apply a -1 penalty to weapon damage rolls (if they rely on strength)". IMHO that penalty is a flat penalty, not a penalty to your Strength Modifier for purposes of determining damage bonus, but instead a penalty to the damage roll itself.
Apply the penalty to the Dex modifier (since that's what it is) before limiting the contribution Dex can give you due to armor restrictions. You're left with the same AC afterwards, just like it should be.
But my reading of the RAW is that you don't apply the modifier to the Ability Modifier for purposes of calculating all the stats and skill checks listed for each ability, rather you apply the penalty directly to the skills and statistics listed:
apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
I.e. apply the penalty from Dexterity Damage directly to Armour Class, apply the penalty from Strength Damage directly to Weapon Damage Rolls.
I am really not seeing in RAW where it says to apply the penalty to the ability modifier and use the adjusted modifier to calculate the stats. Most of the time doing that does give the same results as applying it to the stats directly, but in some cases (like those I gave) it leads to different results.
|
|
First, the recent FAQ on Temporary vs. Permanent Ability Score Increases has absolutely nothing to do with Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain. They are different headings.
Technically true, but IMHO it can be argued that because the two sections are so very similarly worded (seriously they are practically identical except replacing bonus with penalty) the FAQ for Ability Bonuses sets a precedent for interpreting how Ability Damage & Penalties should be run.
For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
Strength: Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The bonus also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.
For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability. [...]
Strength: Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense.
The FAQ states that for a Strength Temporary Ability Bonus Carrying Capacity is increased, despite that not being listed on page 554.
Yet because there is no FAQ that explicitly says the same about Strength Temporary Ability Penalties and Damage we are expected to read practically the same words but not also believe that Carrying Capacity is decreased? Really? Does that seem reasonable?
Personally I would tend to ignore the FAQ and rule as RAW. But in reality I tend to play 3.5 where none of this discussion would even be taking place!
That's the thing, though. If there's one way to read something that leads to wonky results and one way to read something that leads to expected or ordinary results, you should err on the reading that doesn't cause weird things to happen.
RAW just says make an adjustment to the skill or statistic that uses the relevant ability. If it's a penalty to your ability score modifier, it makes the most sense to include it at the point you use the ability score modifier. Most of the time, it won't make a difference. But when you have other factors in play that alter how the ability score modifier impacts everything else, it will (Power Attack and Dexterity restrictions for armor being two already mentioned).
You shouldn't have a lower AC after taking Dexterity Damage than you would after taking Dexterity Drain. That result is utter nonsense, as you've noted. But you only get that result if you apply the penalty after everything else takes effect. If you apply it to the Dexterity modifier itself, things workout as expected. So, if there's one valid reading that leads to unexpected or weird results and one valid reading that doesn't, typically it's more logical to go with the reading that doesn't.
One person's "wonky results" is another person's "easier to figure out without slowing down the game", though. It's a matter of preference whether RAW is preferred or actual ability score reduction is preferred. I tend toward the latter because there are enough effects out there that actually apply penalties or reductions to ability scores that using RAW would require me to remember both rules and figure out which one applies at any given moment. I prefer to treat all ability score reductions the same way save for how to get rid of them. RAW doesn't support that, therefore I cheerfully ignore it. Since the ability score bonus FAQ seems to indicate that the design team is steering back toward that direction for bonuses, I can feel justified in house ruling reductions to work the same way. I understand the problem that RAW tried to solve and the motivation behind their solution; I just don't agree that their solution is better than the original problem.
Edited for clarity.
One person's "wonky results" is another person's "easier to figure out without slowing down the game", though. It's a matter of preference whether RAW is preferred or actual ability score reduction is preferred. I tend toward the latter because there are enough effects out there that actually apply penalties or reductions to ability scores that using RAW would require me to remember both rules and figure out which one applies at any given moment. I prefer to treat all ability score reductions the same way save for how to get rid of them. RAW doesn't support that, therefore I cheerfully ignore it. Since the ability score bonus FAQ seems to indicate that the design team is steering back toward that direction for bonuses, I can feel justified in house ruling reductions to work the same way. I understand the problem that RAW tried to solve and the motivation behind their solution; I just don't agree that their solution is better than the original problem.
Edited for clarity.
The wonky results was in response to DigitalMage specifically, not the overall issue of disparate treatment for damage and drain. Throwing the penalty from the damage at the end of the equation (for instance, for AC or Power Attack) creates weird results. Calculating the penalty as a part of the ability modifier does not.
|
|
That's the thing, though. If there's one way to read something that leads to wonky results and one way to read something that leads to expected or ordinary results, you should err on the reading that doesn't cause weird things to happen.
But that's part of my issue, for me at least I can only read it one way (the way that leads to "wonky results").
It says "apply a [...] penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability" and with the Strength ability it lists "weapon damage rolls" - I can only read that as "apply the penalty to weapon damage rolls" - I would apply that directly to the roll result, not the Strength Modifier and multiply for off hand weapon etc.
I mean for magic weapons the core rulebook (page 467) states "apply these bonuses to [...] damage rolls when used in combat." You don't multiply the bonus from magic weapons by 1.5 for two handed weapons and halve it for off hand weapons do you?
Similarly with the Weapon Specialisation feat it states (CRB p137) "gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls" - you don't multiply or halve that either.
So I cannot see why I would read the rules for Ability Bonuses (ignoring the FAQ for now) and Ability Damage / Penalties to multiply the bonus or penalty either.
Ditto for Dexterity, I read it as "apply the penalty to Armour Class", I read that in just the same way I read the Blinded condition: "It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC". That -2 penalty to Armour Class for being blinded has no relation to what the character's Dexterity is, or the fact that they also lose their Dex Bonus to AC.
In effect pinning an opponent gives much the same effect IMHO: -2 to AC and lose your Dex Bonus to AC (both of which stack, just like the Blinded condition).
Agreed, but it does create more effort to get the results, because then you have to go look at all the things that might or might not have that ability modifier, and recalculate them.
Yep, more effort than what I think were meant to be "quick rules". Applying it to the modifier and then re-calculating seems like the worse of both worlds, a halfway house between quick rules and rebuild rules.
If I was going to the effort of recalculating stuff again, I would rather go the whole hog and reduce or increase the Ability Score directly and re-calculate all that entails (i.e. do it the 3.5 way).
Nonetheless, I think it's a better solution, and I would be super happy if they changed to that method in errata.
If they did, then I would hope that they would also make it clear whether the bonus/penalty applies to just those statistics listed, or to all related stats.
If they rule all related stats should be affected (as they seem to imply in the Ability Bonus FAQ) I would hope that they would indicate how to calculate stats that are derived from the ability score (not the modifier) e.g. Carrying Capacity, Death Threshold for Con, Holding Your Breath etc. And whether these should be recalculated for every +1/-1 Ability Bonus/penalty/damage, or only recalculated in steps of two like things affected by modifiers.
Then again, personally I wish they would just officially revert back to the 3.5 method and add some clarification on how some things are calculated that 3.5 didn't (i.e. if you suffer INT damage, does a wizard lose spell slots, and what happens if spells prepared in those slots have been used). At least that would be an overall improvement over 3.5, whereas now I feel Paizo just took a massive step backwards (though their intentions were good).
It's a penalty to your ability modifier. It effects things which are based on that ability modifier. The rule says to apply it to things that benefit from that ability modifier. The penalty scales in the exact same manner as an ability modifier. To me, the most natural reading is that the penalty then applies to the ability modifier. But even if it's not the most natural reading, it certainly is a legitimate one (which is what I was getting at above), meaning there are at least two legitimate readings.
Damage: For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
Drain: Ability drain actually reduces the relevant ability score. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability.
Drain doesn't tell you to go back and apply any change directly to your ability (and thus your ability modifier) either, but that's how everybody naturally does it because it makes the most sense. It says the ability is reduced, so modify skills and statistics. Similarly, damage says the ability is damaged, so apply the penalty to skills and statistics.
In neither case does it say where to apply the change; it's simply more obvious in the case of drain because there's only one place you can apply it. Why treat drain and damage differently in terms of how they interact with the skills and statistics the related abilities influence?
You're altering other checks which are based on that ability because your ability now suffers a penalty. Why would you not apply that penalty to the modifier, which is how that ability actually interacts with the skill or statistic? Especially if doing so does not lead you to unexpected and contradictory results (like damage being a more immediately disadvantageous penalty than drain).
Damage should never leave you in an immediate sense worse off than a similar level of drain leaves you. Drain is uniformly the harsher penalty of the two.
Ultimately, if we all recognize that the "modify" in the drain entry means you modify the skills and statistics by changing the ability modifier that goes into their calculation, why cannot "apply" in the damage entry mean apply the penalty to the skills and statistics by reducing the ability modifier that goes into their calculation? You're then still applying that Strength damage to weapon attack and damage rolls. You're then still applying that Dexterity damage to your armor class. But, you're not doing so in a way that leads to results which contradict logic.
Getting "Wonky" results out of RAW doesn't magically change RAW into something "non-wonky". If you go by RAW and get "wonky" results then you take it up on a rules question board and try to either get a FAQ or an errata.
Now there has certainly been a rather lengthy discussion of what RAW really is on this subject, but I think most can agree that the subject is so hazy and non transparant that we actually want a clarification via FAQ or an errata.
You're missing the point. This is statutory construction thing. If a court is in the position where it has to interpret a statute and two possible interpretations exist, the obligation is to interpret the statute in the way that does not contradict the Constitution (or whatever other relevant higher authority is in play). Same idea here.
If there are two legitimate readings of the RAW, and one leads to weird results while the other does not, why would we assume that the one that leads to the weird results is the intended reading of the rules?
That certainly could be how this was intended to work. However, with an equally legitimate reading available, I'll opt for the reading that does not contradict logic every time, until explicitly told otherwise.
The wonky results was in response to DigitalMage specifically, not the overall issue of disparate treatment for damage and drain. Throwing the penalty from the damage at the end of the equation (for instance, for AC or Power Attack) creates weird results. Calculating the penalty as a part of the ability modifier does not.Agreed, but it does create more effort to get the results, because then you have to go look at all the things that might or might not have that ability modifier, and recalculate them.
Nonetheless, I think it's a better solution, and I would be super happy if they changed to that method in errata.
Not really. The only time it creates more work (and barely that) is if the ability modifier is multiplied or capped for some reason (like Power Attack or Max Dex Bonus on armor). So, see if something like that is in play. If not, then it really doesn't technically matter at what point you apply the penalty because everything involved is addition, which is commutative.
|
Well this is undoubtedly the most surprising Rules thread I've ever seen. Reading the rules, it's quite clear what RAW is, which for PFS I will utilize and completely ignore for any and all home games. It makes no sense to have a constitution of 12, 1 constitution damage, and still have a +1 constitution bonus. That's definitely what RAW says, though.