|
I don't see how multiple sources, and determining source by the type of bonus, is somehow not a rules change.
I just can't find anything, outside this FAQ, that suggests either of these two.
I get real dang frustrated that there are these responses of "nothing has changed, you just didn't see the obvious".
That, above all else, in my opinion, is bullcrap.
Someone, must realize, how this can be frustrating, and belittling those who are frustrated, is serious jerk behavior, that should not be tolerated.
I don't disagree that this is a rules change. I very much agree that this is a rules change. But I don't mind accepting it under the wrong stance that it's "clarifying" because change or not it's a clear rule now.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer "Nothing has changed. However, the text involved was complicated and not at all obvious, so it is no fault of yours whether you saw it or not." I would honestly rather see people posting in anger about something I worked on (which obviously I don't enjoy) than see people posting the whole "It should have been obvious to you" thing, even if it's in support of something I worked on. It wasn't obvious, or there wouldn't have been need for an FAQ. There's no need to draw lines in the sand or pick sides and be "against" each other here. We're all people who enjoy playing Pathfinder, and we just want to have a great time in our games and figure out how the game works together.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is going to be a serious pain to explain in every game, to every player, and every DM.
I am know I am going get a bunch "where is that written?", and I have to explain, again, that it is in the unwritten rules, that the FAQ references, without really saying that.
This is going to be a serious pain to explain in every game, to every player, and every DM.
I am know I am going get a bunch "where is that written?", and I have to explain, again, that it is in the unwritten rules, that the FAQ references, without really saying that.
I shake my fist in the air over 'unwritten rules'! The 'hands of effort' one STILL gets me riled up! :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is going to be a serious pain to explain in every game, to every player, and every DM.
I am know I am going get a bunch "where is that written?", and I have to explain, again, that it is in the unwritten rules, that the FAQ references, without really saying that.
Me too. I understand how it works now, but I am trying to think of a way to explain it without creating more questions. I am thinking it is easier to houserule the "in place of" and " add X to___" as working together, while only not allowing it on a case by case basis. I will inform the players it is a houserule so they won't expect it to work under another GM however.
Dragon Ferocity and Tiger Claws have been FAQed promptly.
Thanks to everyone for being part of the FAQ process!Dragon Ferocity and Tiger Claws: These feats both tell me to add 1/2 my Strength bonus to damage. How does that affect my damage? Does that reduce down to 1/2?
No, Dragon Ferocity should read "While using Dragon Style, increase your Strength bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, to a total of twice your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 your Strength bonus on the other attacks" and Tiger Claws should read "If you use Power Attack in conjunction with this attack, increase your Strength bonus on one of the damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, normally to a total of 1-1/2 your Strength bonus." These changes will be reflected in future errata.
The good part about this FAQ is that people with a uneven strength bonus get much more out of twice strength than out of 1-1/2str + 1/2str.
Details...?Now Dragon Ferocity no longer works for flurry of blows.
This FAQ created far more problems than it solved.
Flurry states that you always to strength damage no matter what.
But I think this is a case of specific trumps general and it still works.
|
Details...?Now Dragon Ferocity no longer works for flurry of blows.
This FAQ created far more problems than it solved.
"While using Dragon Style, increase your Strength bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, to a total of twice your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 your Strength bonus on the other attacks"
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
Flurry of Blows was most probably the reason for Dragon Ferocity to be worded like it used to be.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the problem. The flurry language is clearly targeting off-hand/two-hand adjustments, and Dragon Ferocity is a different sort of adjustment.
EDIT. Plus, DF increases your Str bonus. So while using DF, your "full Strength bonus" = 1.5x your usual Str bonus. So no problem.
Right?
and it would have been far less trouble to just say that stacking the same stat from different sources is perfectly fine.
Is there any real doubt about that?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether or not you like the ruling, it's quite rude, and factually incorrect, to call it "a knee-jerk reaction with little to no foresight." Read the thread and see Mark's generous and extensive engagement here. Your language is rude, uncalled for, and unhelpful. Shame on you.
It's not that hard to be polite, and it's better for everyone to maintain norms of politeness here. So come on.
(And, from a purely instrumental side, do you think that kind of complaining and insulting is likely to help your case? — Probably not!)
|
|
Is there any real doubt about that?
and it would have been far less trouble to just say that stacking the same stat from different sources is perfectly fine.
Yes. Whether or not you share that doubt, it does exist. See Mark's confirmation upthread that the design team was unanimous that double-dipping (generally, not specific) was never intended to work.
Yes. Whether or not you share that doubt, it does exist. See Mark's confirmation upthread that the design team was unanimous that double-dipping (generally, not specific) was never intended to work.Is there any real doubt about that?
and it would have been far less trouble to just say that stacking the same stat from different sources is perfectly fine.
I really do not care whether it was intended but in my opinion it would be clearly better for the game if above ruling (that which I quoted) would have been made. There is no real problem with double dipping like there never was a problem with flurry with one weapon. But it was (for a short time) FAQed to be illegal.
And a lot of problems follow this new FAQ, as has been shown. Dragon ferocity needed to be reworded, now there is doubt if it still works for monks for whom it was written. And so on.What I would like to see is examples of problems the FAQ solved. Then we could better judge for ourselves whether it was worth the hassle. And I doubt it. I do not see a single occurrence of double dipping that needed to be fixed so badly it was worth the collateral damage.
Edit: Don't change a working system doesn't only apply to computers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether or not you like the ruling, it's quite rude, and factually incorrect, to call it "a knee-jerk reaction with little to no foresight." Read the thread and see Mark's generous and extensive engagement here.Incorrect. It may be blunt, but it is not rude and it is a highly probable assessment based on my objective observations. I have been reading the thread, paying specific attention to Mark's posts, and it is quite obvious to me that he is playing spin doctor on the matter. The tone of his posts is nearly identical to a political speech. This very thread was a long discourse on the nature of stacking bonuses and I, personally, along with many others, contributed significant analysis on the nature of stacking bonuses. None of that was addressed. It would have been a rather simple thing to take the two largest standing positions and explain exactly how and why they preferred one interpretation over the other but it's pretty obvious that the dev team consulted only themselves on this matter rather than reach out to the community to harvest the broad base of research and opinions on the matter. Additionally, the fact that there was so much collateral damage resulting from the FAQ signifies the lack of foresight; Mark himself stated that several of these issues they didn't foresee and would need to discuss how to fix them so the rules elements work as intended.
Your language is rude, uncalled for, and unhelpful. Shame on you.Incorrect. My language is objective, analytic, and succinct, with just a dash of cynicism for spice. It may be blunt and it certainly isn't sugar coated, but that, in no manner, makes it either uncalled for nor unhelpful. It is certainly called for and certainly helpful for anyone with a mind to pay attention to it and not dismiss it because it hurts their feelings.
It's not that hard to be polite, and it's better for everyone to maintain norms of politeness here. So come on.Your...
Whether blunt or rude you can hardly call your position and language objective. The first paragraph of this post is riddled with subjective claims. You accuse Mark of simply trying to spin the issues like a politician. Unless you can read Mark's mind that is just your subjective opinion of his posts. You claim the devs did not take into account the "significant analysis" provided by you and others. You have no way of knowing what they considered before producing the FAQ. They may have read your oh so wonderful and insightful analysis and carefully considered it then dismissed it. Furthermore, your assumption that the devs are somehow required to consult you or anyone else on these boards on how to develope their game is not objective. If they want to ignore what you so obviously believe to be your vast expertise in game design and development that is their prerogative.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's pretty obvious that the dev team consulted only themselves on this matter rather than reach out to the community to harvest the broad base of research and opinions on the matter
What's your evidence of this? Because they agreed with the other half + of the community instead of the half you were in? Because you think your arguments are so good that they must have been ignored in order to reach an opposite conclusion? There's no other difference between the two except where YOU were standing.
Game balance and intent are legitimate methods of rules interpretation, and will get you what is ultimately the right answer far more often than a slavish devotion to a raw. Despite what raw only devotees say, raw is often ambiguous if not out right contradictory because it is the product of multiple people writing something that sounds good when you read it rather than a unified attempt at encoding law. There's a reason that law texts sound the way they do, and a book that read that way simply wouldn't sell. Not that the rules couldn't use a few tweaks here and there, but you can't read something written in plain English like a technical manual or vice versa without going off the rails on occasion.
So far the only collateral damage of this was dragonstyle, where the intent was pretty clear anyway. Everything else that was stopped from stacking was never intended to stack anyway. I think thats a very good indication that this was pretty clearly how it was intended to work all along.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that you are quite mistaken as a matter of conversational ethics, Kazaan. So that we don't derail the thread further I'll leave it be after this brief message.
I think it's important to note that "polite" and "sugar-coating"/"dishonest" are not the same thing (as you seem to take them to be). Supposing that they are identical is a mistake, and a harmful one at that. Critical conversation is very helpful, but it is of course possible (and, I think, necessary and helpful) to have a politely critical conversation.
This both for moral reasons (treating other persons with respect) and for instrumental reasons: given the facts of human psychology, combative language tends to polarize a conversation into competitive debate rather than cooperative conversation and doesn't do much to help resolve the matter peacefully. (As I tell my students, "nobody wins in a fight.") Employing the rude style that you do makes it more difficult to maintain a healthy, helpful manner of cooperative conversation among friends that we ought to aim for in talking about this game that we're all here to enjoy.
That's my position. I'm more than happy to continue this conversation in another forum if you would like. But since we've articulated our beliefs about what we ought to be doing here, and since it doesn't seem likely that either of us will immediately persuade the other, I propose that we let the conversation about the rules move along in whatever disjointed fashion it manages.
:-)
So far the only collateral damage of this was dragonstyle, where the intent was pretty clear anyway.
I would like to say that this is untrue.
Quite a few character concepts have been broken, and undead anti paladins are still in question. Dragonstyle, as you mentioned, needed to be FAQ'd, and confidence in the rules as a readily-accessible straight-forward system has been deeply shaken. A question on the validity of Dragonstyle's interaction (by rules, not intent) with Flurry of Blows has come up (to me, it seems fine, as I thought like Joe, though that same clarity is not necessarily common to all who read it) as a direct result. Multiple instances of "non-tight language" have been brought up by Mark himself* that have worked to actively (if unintentionally) confuse the issue.
The rest of your post is mostly okay, however. :)
* This is not, in any way, going "Ahah!" at Mark, and should not be read by anyone as a "gotcha" type statement; instead, it's a way of answering BNG's point, and allowing him to quickly reference what I'm talking about.
A few other places wording may be leading (unintentionally) to confusing aspects.
An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score.
Adding a level generally gives you new abilities, additional skill points to spend, more hit points, and possibly an ability score increase or additional feat (see Table: Character Advancement and Level-Dependent Bonuses).
The spell grants a +4 enhancement bonus to Wisdom, adding the usual benefit to Wisdom-related skills. Clerics, druids, and rangers (and other Wisdom-based spellcasters) who receive owl's wisdom do not gain any additional bonus spells for the increased Wisdom, but the save DCs for their spells increase.
All of which use "bonus" and "increase" semi-interchangeably.
This is not a repudiation of their wording, but instead attempting to explain from where confusion may derive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quite a few character concepts have been broken
If those characters were double dipping their stats they're not collateral damage they were the intended targets.
and undead anti paladins are still in question.
Really, really not worried there.
Dragonstyle, as you mentioned, needed to be FAQ'd
For the incredibly literal, yes.
and confidence in the rules as a readily-accessible straight-forward system has been deeply shaken.
Really, thats like shaking your beliefs in the government as a mom and apple pie organization. You really should have lost that belief before now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. Everything else that was stopped from stacking was never intended to stack anyway.
The question that remains is why it is intended that one can not multiclass lore shaman and inquisitor to get twice wis to knowledge skills while it is possible to multiclass lore oracle and inquisitor to get cha + wis to knowledge skills?*
*wis from inquisitor only applies to checks for monster knowledge.
Why is it ok to get two different stats to something but not twice the same stat? Why not at least give half the bonus for the second time or something. Why is someone getting twice the same stat (that doesn't stack now) far worse than someone getting twice different stats.
There seems no balancing in this only a knee jerk reaction.
The above is just an example. There are several cases where it is hard to understand for some of us WHY it is bad if same stats stack but ok if different stats stack.
Why is it good to kill options and by that diversity?
Because two stats are a harder investment than one. Multiple stats take up
1) either more point buy or two good dice rolls depending on character generation. An 18 and a 10 costs 17 points. Two 18's costs 34 points.
2) Much more expensive magical items that boost stats. a +4 headband is 16k. A +4/+4 headband is 40k.
3) Twice as long to increase via your level based stat increases. (8th level for a +1, 16th level for a +2)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The above is just an example. There are several cases where it is hard to understand for some of us WHY it is bad if same stats stack but ok if different stats stack.
Kind of a bad example, since it is far easier to max one stat than two. Every +1 to a single stat would double the bonus for half the cost of bumping two.
Why is it good to kill options and by that diversity?
Pathfinder characters are staggeringly diverse. Anything lost by this ruling is a drop in the bucket.
The real concern is avoiding options that are so good, they reduce diversity because players would be foolish NOT to take it.
Why is it good to kill options and by that diversity?
Why do you need to phrase your argument against something that didn't happen?
Those characters were trying to do something that simply did not work by the rules. If you need to ask why that needed to be stopped, you're asking why there need to be rules rather than people doing whatever they wanted.
Now the one with twice the same stat is worse. That is stupid. As I said if the ruling was that by stacking same stats you only get half the benefit from the second time I had lots less issues.
And multiclassing is a lot of investment. Considering that it's no big issue if the PC in question is a little better at something he does it for.
Now the one with twice the same stat is worse. That is stupid.The PDT disagrees.
Considering that it's no big issue if the PC in question is a little better at something he does it for.Actually, it is an issue when the PC in question is a LOT better for much LESS cost.
The cost is only a lot less if you neglect the cost of multiclassing.
Is PDT the pathfinder design team? If so do they disagree that someone who should get two ability mods and now only gets one is worse than someone who should get two ability mods and now still gets two (if different ones) ? Or do they disagree that such a situation is stupid?
Now the one with twice the same stat is worse.
There is no now. It never worked. The argument for it working had to resort to epistemic nihlism about a bonus being a bonus and arbitrarily decide what a source was. If you try to skate the bleeding edge of rules interpretation because it gives you a mechanical advantage you should expect to get nicked by the razor on occasion.
That is stupid. As I said if the ruling was that by stacking same stats you only get half the benefit from the second time I had lots less issues.
And would be completely arbitrary with no rules support. That's not how anything else stacks.
And multiclassing is a lot of investment. Considering that it's no big issue if the PC in question is a little better at something he does it for.
Its pretty easy for a lot of classes to multiclass.
Using multiple stats is still a really good deal when you build your character the way it was always intended to work. . Its a lot easier to have two good stats for +3 +3 than one huge stat for a whopping +6.
|
|
The cost is only a lot less if you neglect the cost of multiclassing.
Is PDT the pathfinder design team? If so do they disagree that someone who should get two ability mods and now only gets one is worse than someone who should get two ability mods and now still gets two (if different ones) ? Or do they disagree that such a situation is stupid?
If you were going for double bonus on the check, you already didn't care about the cost of multi classing. You were way more interested in getting a +6 to the check for the price of a +6 stat boosting item, rather than having to pay for two +6 items.
And I imagine they disagree that it is stupid, since they never intended for getting twice the same stat to even be a thing.
The argument for it working had to resort to epistemic nihlism about a bonus being a bonus and arbitrarily decide what a source was.
Really from the rules there was not even a hint that something like agile maneuvers + fury's fall could be potentially something that was not intended. No riding the razor or something. The rules gave every indication that it works and is as intended.
Only after some paizo guy not in the rules team said that he subjectively thinks it should not stack was there the first doubt. For me at least.
Really from the rules there was not even a hint that something like agile maneuvers + fury's fall could be potentially something that was not intended.
The rules say that the same source doesn't stack with itself. That was more than a hint.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now the one with twice the same stat is worse. That is stupid.The PDT disagrees.
Considering that it's no big issue if the PC in question is a little better at something he does it for.Actually, it is an issue when the PC in question is a LOT better for much LESS cost.The cost is only a lot less if you neglect the cost of multiclassing.
Is PDT the pathfinder design team? If so do they disagree that someone who should get two ability mods and now only gets one is worse than someone who should get two ability mods and now still gets two (if different ones) ? Or do they disagree that such a situation is stupid?
I think one of their design decisions is to try and discourage multiclassing in general. So multiclassing can lead to redundant abilities and lots of weak abilities while missing out on stronger abilities of staying in class. If you feel the multiclass isn't worth it don't do it, if you still feel it's worth it then go for it. If you were REALLY wanting something bad enough that wasn't the double stat dip then you'll still go for it. If you were doing it for the double stat then yeah, it's not worth it anymore.
Okay, borderline insulting people
As opposed to the folks a few pages back crossing the border and vacationing in Tijuana mexico for a week with you can't read, you didn't read my argument, you fail reading comprehension 101 comments that were not only insulting, but also the sole pretext for rejecting arguments that would have pointed them in the right direction.
who were operating under the same assumption that the community used since 3.5
I've seen nothing to suggest that this was the assumption that the community used.
of "the source is the class feature/feat/racial feature/spell that gives you the plus to something" is not exactly helping endear this argument to the people it affects.
Saying 'I got the wrong answer' is understandable. Saying 'there was no hint at this!' is not, since the source argument has been around literally for years. If you built your character on a foundation of sand...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen nothing to suggest that this was the assumption that the community used.
Well, Michael Brock's comment on the Pistolero/Mysterious stranger combination is a pretty good indication that the there was merit in the assumption that untyped ability modifier bonuses stacked. Expecting people to come to the forums to be "enlightened" prior to the FAQ is pretty unreasonable. I mean, there was a, what, 400 post topic about whether Monk AC bonus and Sacred Fist AC bonus stacked. How can we say there was anything obvious about how ability modifier bonus stacking was "intended" to work?
It's pretty unproductive to combat someone's opinions of the FAQ with "you should have seen it coming." I don't agree with Umbranus's opinions, and in fact I personally think the impact of this FAQ has been far overstated (though I do acknowledge that it did have an impact on Inquisitors). But let's be nice to each other. Attack the idea, not the person.
Saying 'there was no hint at this!' is not, since the source argument has been around literally for years.
Yes, but in specific topics on a forum that many people don't even bother visiting most of the time. It may certainly have been on your radar, but as we can see from this topic there are some people who have been blindsided by it. Let's not forget that not everyone reads these topics.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, thats like shaking your beliefs in the government as a mom and apple pie organization. You really should have lost that belief before now.
I'm going to presume your (i.e. BNG's) usage of the word "you" is general rather than specific (unlike my usage in this sentence). This would allow you the maximum amount of accuracy.
In which case, excellent job displaying a lack of understanding of others' perspectives as well as a complete lack of interest in those things which may impact others' enjoyment of the game! Well done!
(To be clear, the above is meant to be humorous and sarcastic.)
But more seriously, the condescension that - intentionally or not - comes across in your posts, is unpleasant and does nothing to help make your case. Whether or not it's your intent, you are arguing that people who don't think like you are foolish. Please stop that.
Other questions include classed nymphs, ghosts (if I recall their natural AC becomes deflection, making any CHA-based bonuses overlap), and... something else, I've current forgotten. (Sorry, got distracted and forgot.)
The above is just an example. There are several cases where it is hard to understand for some of us WHY it is bad if same stats stack but ok if different stats stack.Kind of a bad example, since it is far easier to max one stat than two. Every +1 to a single stat would double the bonus for half the cost of bumping two.
This is a good point - in fact, it's a very good point.
The question, to me, is whether or not the idea of secondary sources is unique (the FAQ is currently the only instance of this) what, exactly, it fixes ("double-dipping" I'm aware, but where does this really become a problem?) and the changes in question necessitate rather large wording alterations and understandings in several cases.
To put it another way, his ruling - or, if one prefers, this clarification -, fundamentally shifts the way that the rules work from "take immediate source, add unless the same" to "take all possible sources into account, apply reductive reasoning, and apply unless the same in any category" which is more complicated and somewhat confusing.
While the FAQ only applies to one part of the rules system - the bonuses derived from ability scores - if it only ever applies to those, it creates an unpleasant dissonant feeling between intent and application, a seated aspect of inconsistency that makes it harder to accept the rules at face-value of being of value because of their inconsistency.
I like the complexity and granularity of Pathfinder. I value the internal consistency even more. Any time "the rules work differently here than there" is applied, it begins to erode my own sense of internal consistency within the rules, and takes the rules one step closer towards "complex fluff" which, ultimately, they are, but complexity only for it's own sake is boring and frustrating. This feels (a very subjective term, I know) much more like the latter than the former. It is not, but it still feels that way.
in his case, it is meant to help handle a balance issue that, to date, doesn't seem to be much like an issue and, where it does apply, seems to create a very un-obvious and un-intuitive rules-exception.
While PF is predominantly an exception-based game, the exceptions are (with the exception of this?) from my recollection there to do something.
This, on the other hand, feels like an exception for the sake of not doing something, as well as an exception to the exception. This tends to be boring and needlessly complex.
As we've seen demonstrated, there are quite a few people left going "wait, what?" at the implications thereof.
PF has done a reasonable job at being mostly internally consistent, with a few exceptions that are mostly errors or, at the least, narratively interesting. That creates the reasonable expectation that things will remain that way. An authorial "social contract" by implication, if you will. It is upon this foundation that the expectations of continued consistency are built.
Obviously, these expectations are errant... OR are lacking some vital pieces of information or thought-process in the formation thereof.
Though there are, as always, a few exceptions, for the most part, the results are:
- A: "I never liked the idea of double dipping, therefore am happy about this"
- B: "I always liked the idea of double dipping, therefore am not happy about this"
- C: "I am ambivalent about the idea of double-dipping, but am happy/not happy about this"
... which is really about what you could expect. There been a lot of "not my problem" or "you're intelligence is bad and you should feel bad" going 'round on both sides. There been a few (including Mark! Awesome!) who've gone, "Hey, stop being jerks, plskthnkbai" which is nice.
I'm in the camp that this ruling (obviously) creates more inconsistency than it resolves balance issues. But then again, I'm also in the camp that Paizo is in desperate need of consolidation and reorganization in terms of their products (especially feats and traits, but also things like glossary and Core Rulebook) for not only their own sake, but for the sake of new players. Rulings like this make the system ever-more opaque to those new players. This is, in my mind, not beneficial.
Despite that, I'm also in the camp that Paizo, whether it acts on it or not, listens to the input of it's fans and responds to it. That is good, and I appreciate that, even if I don't like the ruling.