Blackbloodtroll: So untyped bonuses don't have a primary source anymore???
What from his posts makes you think that he's saying that? He's saying that they now have 2 "sources" instead of 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel I must give an example how this creates confusion:
A PC has an ability that notes "you gain a Dodge Bonus equal to your Dexterity Modifier".
This PC also has a feat, that notes "you gain a Dodge Bonus equal to your Dexterity Modifier".
Now, you have two abilities, that give the same type of Bonus, and the value of said Bonus, is determined by the same ability score.
These are considered to be two different sources, as the ability/feat is the source, and they provide a type of Bonus noted to stack.
Now, the same PC has an ability that notes "you gain a Bonus equal to your Dexterity Modifier".
This PC also has a feat that notes "you gain a Bonus equal to your Dexterity Modifier".
These are both untyped bonuses, and untyped bonuses are noted to stack.
Now, in this case, we no longer consider the ability/feat the source, but both the ability/feat, and the ability score.
Before, we would assume that both cases should be treated the same, and that is a reasonable, logical, conclusion.
This has now changed.
This post I'll agree with. If it was necessary to treat ability score based bonuses as if they were typed, then it would have been much cleaner to declare that ability scores based bonuses are a bonus type. Unfortunately, the dev team is allergic to altering the text of the CRB.
|
Seriously all this confusing rules precedent of "source is a source but can also not be a source sometimes, but some other things can also be sources at the same time" could be entirely avoided if it just gave a type to ability score bonuses.
But probably people would still be complaining , yeah no way to please everybody.
This post I'll agree with. If it was necessary to treat ability score based bonuses as if they were typed, then it would have been much cleaner to declare that ability scores based bonuses are a bonus type. Unfortunately, the dev team is allergic to altering the text of the CRB.I feel I must give an example how this creates confusion:
A PC has an ability that notes "you gain a Dodge Bonus equal to your Dexterity Modifier".
This PC also has a feat, that notes "you gain a Dodge Bonus equal to your Dexterity Modifier".
Now, you have two abilities, that give the same type of Bonus, and the value of said Bonus, is determined by the same ability score.
These are considered to be two different sources, as the ability/feat is the source, and they provide a type of Bonus noted to stack.
Now, the same PC has an ability that notes "you gain a Bonus equal to your Dexterity Modifier".
This PC also has a feat that notes "you gain a Bonus equal to your Dexterity Modifier".
These are both untyped bonuses, and untyped bonuses are noted to stack.
Now, in this case, we no longer consider the ability/feat the source, but both the ability/feat, and the ability score.
Before, we would assume that both cases should be treated the same, and that is a reasonable, logical, conclusion.
This has now changed.
Agreed on all counts.
If they defined "ability" as a bonus type then you could not stack any two stat bonuses. If you have an class feature that lets you add your wisdom to AC and another that lets you add your intelligence to AC those would both be bonuses with the "ability" type and would not stack. So you go from ability bonuses can't be stacked with themselves to no two ability bonuses stack.
Each ability is its own bonus. A strength bonus is a strength bonus. A Wisdom bonus is a wisdom bonus. Ability is just a category.
By the way, I sued the word "his" instead of "this" in this post several times. I am on an iPad, and this make that mistake. My apologies: "his FAQ" is not meant to claim that this FAQ belongs to any given entity, nor is someone being referred to; instead all instances are supposed to be "this" instead of "his" - sorry!
EDIT: are you serious. I really did that. Wow. Changed "his" to... "this" in this post. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, I sued the word "his"That is going to be one interesting court case.
I am curious as to who will represent the defendant. Are all men in the world being sued?
Sigh. *shakes fist impotently at Dyslexia*
|
If they defined "ability" as a bonus type then you could not stack any two stat bonuses. If you have an class feature that lets you add your wisdom to AC and another that lets you add your intelligence to AC those would both be bonuses with the "ability" type and would not stack. So you go from ability bonuses can't be stacked with themselves to no two ability bonuses stack.
Each ability is its own bonus. A strength bonus is a strength bonus. A Wisdom bonus is a wisdom bonus. Ability is just a category.
Mark just noted these bonuses are untyped, and there is currently no bonus of the "strength" type, or any other type of the "Ability Category".
They simply don't stack, because bonuses that have simultaneous multiple sources, that are determined by bonus type.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, now that checks that have been changed to use charisma, are now considered charisma based, would a Circlet of Persuasion, add to these?
Such as:
Skills changed to now use charisma.
Oracles with the Sidestep Secret, or Prophetic Armor Revelation, Reflex Saves.
PCs with the Irrepressible trait, making Will saving throws against charm and compulsion effects.
PCs with the Planar Savant trait, making Knowledge (planes) checks.
Etc.
So, now that checks that have been changed to use charisma, are now considered charisma based, would a Circlet of Persuasion, add to these?
Such as:
Skills changed to now use charisma.
Oracles with the Sidestep Secret, or Prophetic Armor Revelation, Reflex Saves.
PCs with the Irrepressible trait, making Will saving throws against charm and compulsion effects.
PCs with the Planar Savant trait, making Knowledge (planes) checks.
Etc.
It should, as Circlet of Persuasion is just a +3 flat competence bonus to those skills, and not an ability score bonus in any way.
|
|
The main disconnect is this "ability scores are a nested source, but only for untyped bonuses". If ability scores are a source, being untyped or typed shouldn't make a difference. If you have a feat as a source with your Dexterity score as a "secondary source" contained within the feat, why should it matter whether it's a typed bonus or an untyped bonus? Bonuses from the same source don't stack whether or not they are different types. So if an ability score like Dexterity is a "secondary source" contained within the feat as the "primary source", their explanation still makes no sense. Yo dawg, I heard you like bonus sources... so I put bonus sources in yo bonus sources so you can source yo bonuses while you source yo bonuses.
Too bad, by simply having this disconnect, or even addressing the possibility of it, you are now a munchkin, and you are dim-witted, as you cannot see that it always worked this way. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, now that checks that have been changed to use charisma, are now considered charisma based, would a Circlet of Persuasion, add to these?
Such as:
Skills changed to now use charisma.
Oracles with the Sidestep Secret, or Prophetic Armor Revelation, Reflex Saves.
PCs with the Irrepressible trait, making Will saving throws against charm and compulsion effects.
PCs with the Planar Savant trait, making Knowledge (planes) checks.
Etc.
Yes. And initiative checks for PCs with noble scion (war)
I was just re-reading on metamagic feats, and found the following text: "use the spell level or the spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster"
This rejoins the topic of making the game less and less fun to play, as more and more rulings like this topic-induced FAQ reduce the usefulness of its myriad of options.
If you find it fun, fine. Don't expect me to. No fun, no play, no buy, bye.
The main disconnect is this "ability scores are a nested source, but only for untyped bonuses". If ability scores are a source, being untyped or typed shouldn't make a difference. If you have a feat as a source with your Dexterity score as a "secondary source" contained within the feat, why should it matter whether it's a typed bonus or an untyped bonus? Bonuses from the same source don't stack whether or not they are different types. So if an ability score like Dexterity is a "secondary source" contained within the feat as the "primary source", their explanation still makes no sense. Yo dawg, I heard you like bonus sources... so I put bonus sources in yo bonus sources so you can source yo bonuses while you source yo bonuses.
The part I quoted is wrong. Same source doesn't matter for anything other than untyped sorces. Only untyped from the same source doesn't stack. If you read Marks example feat, Mark's gone wild, you can get 3 +4 bonuses to your AC, 1 being an insight, 1 a deflection, 1 untyped. All three can work from the feat since they are different types.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No stacking is a pretty basic rule of the game, and if you're deep enough "under the hood" to be trying to hotwire dex to dex you should have figured out that this MIGHT come back to bite you in the but.
Concluding that our aiming-for-vampirism antipaladin in Way of the Wicked would eventually use base+cha+divine grace once he becomes undead, pretty much mirroring his living use of base+con+divine grace, does not require going deep under the hood of anything.
Like I said, that was easily the most surprising result of the FAQ to me. No build shenanigans, just an antipaladin (which the AP encourages) becoming undead (which the AP encourages).
I would certainly not have maintained that the undead replacement of Con with Cha and the antipaladin's class feature were the same source, before this FAQ. I would not have even suspected it, it was not on my radar at all even as a potential gray area.
YMMV I suppose.
I am not sure I have been shown just cause to object to any of the FAQ's other specific ramifications. Tacticslion said something about nymphs, I dunno, that case seems different.
It was. I was wrong because she gets a racial bonus to saves - different type, thus they stack despite being the same source.
EDIT: But woe betide ghost nymph anti paladins with a ring of protection!
(Only one of those things is the result of this FAQ.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Source has always referred to the specific spell, feat, class/racial ability, not the some undefined broad category.You start off admitting that there have been a small group that disagrees but then say your view is just how it has always been. A majority of people holding an incorrect view doesn't magically make that view correct. The FAQ just confirmed that the majority was wrong all along, at least with regards to PF, not that they were right and now it has changed.
Actually, no. We are speaking about 3.0 - PF here. Until now, Source has always been the specific thing, (Feat, Trait, Class Feature, Spell, etc. . .) that altered or granted the modification. Remember, Paizo didnt make the rules, they took them, but even in PF, there is no indication that anyone was changing this aspect until the FAQ/Errata, (again specifically about what a Source is). So its not that everyone, majority or minority, that said differently than what the current ruling is was wrong. Its that it just now changed, if that makes sense. In the practical sense doesnt really matter, as we have a ruling now. It may change, it may not.
ctually, no. We are speaking about 3.0 - PF here. Until now, Source has always been the specific thing, (Feat, Trait, Class Feature, Spell, etc. . .) that altered or granted the modification
That's a mite circular. It assumes that the source was the feat in question, which was one of the points of contention. Source was vague until the clarification.
I haven't seen anything that would indicate that what you're saying was how it worked in 3.5 either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, no. We are speaking about 3.0 - PF here. Until now, Source has always been the specific thing, (Feat, Trait, Class Feature, Spell, etc. . .) that altered or granted the modification.
No, you and many others claim that it has always been the case. I and a few others, apparently including BNW, been arguing since 3.0 that this interpretation is wrong. That when something says "you add your <insert ability> bonus to X" that the ability, i.e. str, dex, con, etc... is the source.
So don't keep telling me it has always been that way. That is what we (not you and I personally but the 3.0-PF communities) have been arguing about for all of these years. Here you are saying that those holding to my position were wrong all along and your view was correct until the PF dev team came along and changed the rules. Because it seems to be just unthinkable to you that those of us saying that the claim "Source has always been the specific thing, (Feat, Trait, Class Feature, Spell, etc. . .)" is wrong were actually correct and the dev team has just confirmed that.
Edit: There's also this bit from the "Does it stack? (Part Four)" article from Skip Williams:
Quote:Unnamed Bonuses
A bonus that doesn't have a name stacks with anything except itself.
But strength bonus, constitution bonus etc have names (strength bonus, constitution bonus etc).
Concluding that our aiming-for-vampirism antipaladin in Way of the Wicked would eventually use base+cha+divine grace once he becomes undead, pretty much mirroring his living use of base+con+divine grace, does not require going deep under the hood of anything.
The rules are written largely for (and occasionally by) living, breathing creatures with bilateral symmetry, 4 limbs, a head, and opposable thumbs. The further away from that assumption you get, the wonkier the rules are going to become. That there's no speed bumps in between dragonstyle and a vampire paladin is a pretty good track record for a rules clarification. Most other clarifications have reacted wonkily with far more.
Well, given what I posted above, the fact that I can point out a hell of a lot more threads online agreeing with the interpretation of "the ability isn't the source" than I can to the contrary for 3.5, and the fact that it took the PDT 6 years to come out and say that this has apparently always been their rule...
Well, it seems pretty likely that in 3.5 at least, the source wasn't the ability modifier.
That's just a bandwagon fallacy. Once again it seems that the idea that the majority opinion has been incorrect all along and the PF dev team is just confirming that is unthinkable.
Well, given what I posted above
Which is hardly conclusive. Its a very hyper literal argument to try to claim that your constitution bonus is only CALLED a constitution bonus but not defined as a bonus type. Similar word play could break just about any rule in the game. Sometimes the game is that literal and you have to do that, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
the fact that I can point out a hell of a lot more threads online agreeing with the interpretation of "the ability isn't the source" than I can to the contrary for 3.5, and the fact that it took the PDT 6 years to come out and say that this has apparently always been their rule...
Which is at best an appeal to the masses. It doesn't mean anything, particularly when the option that gives people more abilities and more pluses usually garners a lot of support from people that want more pluses.
Well, it seems pretty likely that in 3.5 at least, the source wasn't the ability modifier.
It was unclear then but its clear now.
So the fact that they're not listed in the two big lists of "here are all the bonus types in the game" doesn't mean anything?
Is it called the big list of all the bonus types in the game or are you inferring that?
The basic rule to remember when combining two or more bonuses is this: two or more bonuses of different type stack, and two or more bonuses of the same type overlap. In general, a bonus's name indicates its type. A bonus with no name has no type and it stacks with any other bonus, but not with itself.
If the name is constitution bonus it doesn't need to be spelled out that its type is constitution bonus.
If its unnamed then it still doesn't stack with itself.
You also previously claimed that it wasn't the majority held community opinion in 3.5
I said you haven't shown that it was, you haven't, and if you do its still irrelevant: that 51% of community thought you could would not mean that you could.
From your wording it seems that you are seeing some posts that say "it doesn't stack" ? If so this shouldn't come out of the blue.
It was unclear then but its clear now.I disagree on the unclear before, but I do agree it's most definitely clear now that a ruling has been made. And while it may always have intended to be this way for Pathfinder, they really should've made it clear a long time ago.
It took a while for the system expansion to get to the point that they had to watch this carefully. one funny build getting 4x dex to one saving through is one thing, but the new cookie cutter pouncemonk with 2x wisdom to ac is a little harder to ignore.
That's just a bandwagon fallacy. Once again it seems that the idea that the majority opinion has been incorrect all along and the PF dev team is just confirming that is unthinkable.Well, given what I posted above, the fact that I can point out a hell of a lot more threads online agreeing with the interpretation of "the ability isn't the source" than I can to the contrary for 3.5, and the fact that it took the PDT 6 years to come out and say that this has apparently always been their rule...
Well, it seems pretty likely that in 3.5 at least, the source wasn't the ability modifier.
I'm pretty sure it's not the bandwagon fallacy when it's, y'know, combined with other evidence. Like the FAQ mentioned, the article mentioned, and the fact that "ability", "strength", "dexterity", "constitution", "intelligence", "wisdom", and "charisma" are not defined as bonuses in either the DMG's or Rules Compendium's list of bonuses.
Edit: Given the other bits, you're actually invoking a fallacy yourself. Specifically argument from fallacy.
That is a separate argument for the same conclusion. Just because you make a second argument doesn't make the first one non-fallacious. Also your second argument is an equivocation between "types" and "sources". You are arguing that since they have never been defined as types that it proves that they aren't a source when those are two different things.
Also please note a fallacy fallacy is when you claim that the conclusion of an argument is false solely because it contains a logical fallacy. That is not what I did, I made no reference to the truthfulness of your conclusion, only that the argument you are trying to use is fallacious and does not prove your conclusion.
|
|
No, you and many others claim that it has always been the case. I and a few others, apparently including BNW, been arguing since 3.0 that this interpretation is wrong. That when something says "you add your <insert ability> bonus to X" that the ability, i.e. str, dex, con, etc... is the source.
I'm sorry, but it has never been that way. But, I'm not going to argue with you about it.
So don't keep telling me it has always been that way. That is what we (not you and I personally but the 3.0-PF communities) have been arguing about for all of these years. Here you are saying that those holding to my position were wrong all along and your view was correct until the PF dev team came along and changed the rules. Because it seems to be just unthinkable to you that those of us saying that the claim "Source has always been the specific thing, (Feat, Trait, Class Feature, Spell, etc. . .)" is wrong were actually correct and the dev team has just confirmed that.
Ok, you are right. Everyone, including the guys that actually wrote the rules is wrong, (ie, not Paizo), and everyone is happy you and Paizo where here to set them straight. Good job. :P
No, you and many others claim that it has always been the case. I and a few others, apparently including BNW, been arguing since 3.0 that this interpretation is wrong. That when something says "you add your <insert ability> bonus to X" that the ability, i.e. str, dex, con, etc... is the source.I'm sorry, but it has never been that way. But, I'm not going to argue with you about it.
So don't keep telling me it has always been that way. That is what we (not you and I personally but the 3.0-PF communities) have been arguing about for all of these years. Here you are saying that those holding to my position were wrong all along and your view was correct until the PF dev team came along and changed the rules. Because it seems to be just unthinkable to you that those of us saying that the claim "Source has always been the specific thing, (Feat, Trait, Class Feature, Spell, etc. . .)" is wrong were actually correct and the dev team has just confirmed that.Ok, you are right. Everyone, including the guys that actually wrote the rules is wrong, (ie, not Paizo), and everyone is happy you and Paizo where here to set them straight. Good job. :P
The original authors never explicitly defined the source and never bothered to clarify so implying they did is disingenuous. So the question becomes how did the PF design team interpret it and what was their intent when they imported those rules into PF.
Your claim is that the PF devs always interpreted those rules in the same way as the majority of players in 3.0-3.5 and when importing those rules intended the individual feat, feature, spell, etc... to be the source. So your claim is that in PATHFINDER, you know the game we are actually discussing, that is how it has always worked.
My argument is that there was a minority that disagreed and when the PF dev team imported those rules, regardless of what the original 3.0-3.5 authors intended, they always interpreted it along with that minority view and imported them with that intent. So my argument is that in PATHFINDER, again the game we are actually talking about, it has never been intended to work as you say. My argument is that in PATHFINDER, the game for which this rules forum applies, your position has been incorrect all along rather than it was correct in PATHFINDER and suddenly the devs changed it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OldSkoolRPG, chill out man. You've made your point, thing is it doesn't really matter if you're right or not. I really feel you're getting too heated about this and everyone's posts are just declining in value as emotions get heated. So drop this, everyone else drop this. the points have been made.
OldSkoolRPG, chill out man. You've made your point, thing is it doesn't really matter if you're right or not. I really feel you're getting too heated about this and everyone's posts are just declining in value as emotions get heated. So drop this, everyone else drop this. the points have been made.
I must really need to start interspersing smileys throughout my posts because people keep thinking I am upset or something. I'm not at all upset at Devil's Advocate, Jeff Merola, or anyone else here. We may get a bit sarcastic or whatever with our posts but its all good. I spend 90% of my work time at my desk so a lively rules debate helps the day go faster. For me at least it is all in good fun.
|
|
is that in PATHFINDER, you know the game we are actually discussing, . . .
is that in PATHFINDER, again the game we are actually talking about. . .
is that in PATHFINDER, the game for which this rules forum applies. . .
your position has been incorrect all along rather than it was correct in PATHFINDER and suddenly the. . .
?
You do realize that you replied to my post specifically discussing 3.0. 3.5, and PF?
:)
We may get a bit sarcastic or whatever with our posts but its all good. I spend 90% of my work time at my desk so a lively rules debate helps the day go faster. For me at least it is all in good fun.
Same here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are written largely for (and occasionally by) living, breathing creatures with bilateral symmetry, 4 limbs, a head, and opposable thumbs. The further away from that assumption you get, the wonkier the rules are going to become. That there's no speed bumps in between dragonstyle and a vampire paladin is a pretty good track record for a rules clarification. Most other clarifications have reacted wonkily with far more.
Concluding that our aiming-for-vampirism antipaladin in Way of the Wicked would eventually use base+cha+divine grace once he becomes undead, pretty much mirroring his living use of base+con+divine grace, does not require going deep under the hood of anything.
Bodak antipaladin 8 from undead revisited. Fort +23. Charisma 24.
+7 Cha modifier +3 racial HD base, +6 class base +7 unholy resilience = +23Vampire antipaladin 17 from Pathfinder 48. Fort +24. Charisma 20.
+5 Cha modifier, +10 class base +5 unholy resilience, cloak of resistance +4 = +24.
I'd say that the obvious answer is that no matter what convolutions one does via this FAQ and bonus stacking to arrive at a different answer, undead antipaladins have been adding their Charisma bonus twice due to the lack of a Constitution modifier.
My suggestion is that if a bonus replaces a typical bonus (ie Weapon Finesse attack rolls, undead Fort saves, etc) and encounters a bonus that is intended to stack with the old bonus (ie Weapon Focus attack rolls, Unholy resilience Fort saves, etc), the stacking still occurs.
Because it is quite obvious that real stats have been doing it this way for awhile now.
|
|
Are there really people still arguing that an ability modifier is a typed bonus?
There were Devs, here, in this thread, saying they were untyped.
When an ability has the language of "add your <relevant ability> bonus" or similar, they mean the modifier, if positive.
When it has the language of "add your <relevant ability> modifier" or similar, they mean it will add the modifier, be it positive, or negative.
Ability score modifiers are not typed bonuses, or penalties.
It is a simpler way of saying "add your <relevant ability> modifier if positive".
If you look at this way, which, as SKR noted, is the proper way, you would not have any allusions to a "typed" ability score bonus.
So, if looking to Devs, and specifically Devs who helped in rules creation, is a bad way to interpret the rules, then there is no help, for anyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly it seems the DEVs are done witb this thread.
The kind of debate happening now does not seem to interest them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, how can anyone, who read the Dev explanation on what "Bonus" means, in regards to things like "Wisdom Bonus", and then decide that it was wrong, but then say this confusing explanation of "source", is totally right, and we should have seen it all along.
Seriously, I can find no justification for the self-righteous assertiveness of such posts.
This is a "I am right, even when I am wrong, and even then, I am still right" stance, that I just can't get behind, or even understand.