A "strength bonus" is, in fact, a "strength modifier that happens to be positive". That's exactly how it is defined. It is not, and has never been, a typed "bonus".
Honestly, if the FAQ was only there to forbid double-dipping, it should have said so instead of muddling the waters with several levels of "source".
What, now? Aren't the dice I rolled my ability scores with the real source of the bonus? Am I prevented from using the same dice to gain other (untyped) bonuses?
EDIT: ninja'd on the first point. Sarcasm to be read on the second.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are there really people still arguing that an ability modifier is a typed bonus?
BBT, you seem to be a bit confused or to have forgotten some of the earlier conversation.
When talking about a "Charisma-type" bonus, we're talking about the "effective rule" of the FAQ. The official rule is, as you've been insisting, one about sources for untyped bonuses. But in the case of ability scores it's adjudicated *exactly* as if ability score bonuses are now typed by ability. Some of us find that explanation more intuitive and easier to understand.
In fact, Mark mentioned upthread that he thinks about the ruling in terms of this "effective rule." See <here>. Some of us just find that explanation more helpful, so we're using the language to discuss.
That is definitely how I am going to think of them in my own mind too, yes. But officially, they are still technically untyped.Looks like the effect of this may be to bring stat-based bonuses under normal bonus type stacking rules. All untyped stat based bonuses are treated as a bonus of that stat type. So you have your Dex bonus to init, and if something else gives you *another* Dex bonus to init, they don't stack (per usual stacking rules).
Sound right? (Haven't been following the issue closely, reading/writing from phone, may be off).
(Confusion may be thinking of this as question of untyped bonus source. Easier to think that those "untyped" bonuses now have a type: a Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha type bonus, depending.)
A "strength bonus" is, in fact, a "strength modifier that happens to be positive". That's exactly how it is defined. It is not, and has never been, a typed "bonus".
And a bonus is defined as a modifier that happens to be positive. So thats like saying its not a bird its a a warm-blooded egg-laying vertebrate with feathers, wings, and a beak
It was possible that there was some hypertechnical distinction and artificial difference between the two but if you need to split hairs that finely then you know you're walking the razors edge.
What, now? Aren't the dice I rolled my ability scores with the real source of the bonus? Am I prevented from using the same dice to gain other (untyped) bonuses?
"Your dice" is not a usable number or value that you add to a d20 roll, just like rain isn't a usable thing to hook a water pipe up to, but a lake is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone want to reply to Kane?
He has effectivley shown that at least in monsters they did Double Dip in Pathfinder and thus we were not ALWAYS at war with Eastasia.
He also proposed a reasonable solution?
Kain's solution is certainly how I'd like it to be, at least for the poor undead antipaladins.
It's entirely possible that it was oversight on Paizo's part. There are several cases of mistakes that made it through editing and into print. So unless a Dev or someone who wrote the book chimes in, we won't know.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your opinion, that, it seems.Prior to this FAQ, there was no error.
Are you saying that statblocks never have errors?
As many, as well as I.
I highly doubt any DM looked upon some Undead Antipaladin statblock, and said, "hrmm, this save should be lower" at any time, ever, before this FAQ.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you saying that statblocks never have errors?One more post about the war on Eurasia.....
From Monster Codex:
Ghoul Commander Fortitude save 13
2 Undead HD = +0
Good Save anti-Paladin = +5
Charisma to save Anti-Paladin = +4
Charisma to save rather then Con (Undead)=+4Total = 13
As was said by someone much earlier in this thread, I fail to see why Undead Antipaladins should OBVIOULSY get Charisma twice, while Paladin/Oracle or for that matter an Enligtened Philospher at 20 with Sidestep Secret OBVIOUSLY does not.
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence.
Three times is a trend.
We've reached three. I bet there're more.
Has anyone created an FAQ thread on the undead antipaladin situation?
|
Brothers Three
Antipaladin 11, Charisma 25, Fortitude +24 (7 base + 7 charisma + 7 charisma + 1 desecrate + 2 protection from good)
Does Undead Unleashed have any antipaladins?
Has anyone created an FAQ thread on the undead antipaladin situation?
How does the situation of undead antipaldins differ from Sidestep Secret and Divine Protection?
** spoiler omitted **
Does Undead Unleashed have any antipaladins?
Has anyone created an FAQ thread on the undead antipaladin situation?How does the situation of undead antipaldins differ from Sidestep Secret and Divine Protection?
I was just asking because it seems the published undead do not match the current clarification according to other posters.
Does Undead Unleashed have any antipaladins?
SELDEG BHEDLIS on page 53 is a 17th-level graveknight antipaladin.
His saves are Fort +22, Ref +13, Will +18. He has a Charisma of 22. He is definitely counting it twice.
It isn't even a trend. It's the way it was done by pretty much everyone. This isn't a clarification FAQ. It's a change to existing rules.
EDIT: It is also worth noting that if they don't stack, and aren't fixed, his saves would be far too low for his CR.
Your opinion, that, it seems.Prior to this FAQ, there was no error.
Are you saying that statblocks never have errors?As many, as well as I.
I highly doubt any DM looked upon some Undead Antipaladin statblock, and said, "hrmm, this save should be lower" at any time, ever, before this FAQ.
I know of multiple, multiple tables who have been handling these cases in this fashion for years.
I am a DM and I have looked at an undead anti-paladins statblock before and realized that the Fortitiude saves were too high.
I applaud the PDT's clarification of this issue and thank them for their time and patience on this matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the biggest problem with this ruling is that there are now character and creature options that actually make you WORSE at whatever they happen to affect, with no positive benefit, and at the cost of finite resources (i.e. feats, spells, what have you). Before, IN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, you wasted said resource for no gain, but no penaly either. Even Prone Shooter pre-errata did NOTHING, as opposed to costing you a feat to make you worse at shooting while prone.
Now, we have a situation where you can spend a feat and become worse at doing something than before you took that feat, such as the example of Fury's Fall and Agile Manuevers/Weapon Finesse if you had a positive Strength modifier.
Can anyone point to a feat, spell, class feature, or anything else that is a straight up penalty for no gain from before this rules change happened?
The problem this now creates is that some options are now traps within traps, because now not only are you wasting a finite resource for no/inconsequential gain, you're spending said resource to make yourself WORSE.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your opinion, that, it seems.Prior to this FAQ, there was no error.
Are you saying that statblocks never have errors?As many, as well as I.
I highly doubt any DM looked upon some Undead Antipaladin statblock, and said, "hrmm, this save should be lower" at any time, ever, before this FAQ.
I know of multiple, multiple tables who have been handling these cases in this fashion for years.
I am a DM and I have looked at an undead anti-paladins statblock before and realized that the Fortitiude saves were too high.
I applaud the PDT's clarification of this issue and thank them for their time and patience on this matter.
Did you also find it strange that monks were able to flurry with a single weapon?
Now, we have a situation where you can spend a feat and become worse at doing something than before you took that feat, such as the example of Fury's Fall and Agile Manuevers/Weapon Finesse if you had a positive Strength modifier.
Maybe I'm a little dense, but can you walk me through that one? Wouldn't the feats just not stack, basically meaning you wasted a feat for no benefit? (Which is what prone shooter used to be like.) I'm not seeing how it makes you worse (besides wasting a feat).
If you have a positive Strength modifier, say a +2, and a Dex modifier of say +4, with FF you have a +6 to trip because FF adds your Dex to trip in addition to Strength. If you were to take AM/WF, however, your Str is replaced by your Dex, and since same ability modifiers don't stack anymore, you now have a +4 on trip attempts since AM doesn't give you a choice on whether or not you substitute Dex for Str.
Ergo, you spent a feat to lose the +2 bonus on trip attempts from your Str.
Although, now that I think about it, WF still works because it does give you the option to not substitute, so take WF out of the equation. My bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the clarification, BobtheSamurai. That really is the suck.
If there's one thing I've learned about game designers over the years, it's that many of them tend to hold a "I'm always right, never admit your mistakes" kind of attitude.
When I was over on the Star Wars Saga forums a few years back, I pointed out a similar trap option only to have one of the lead designers tell me "Don't take that option if its so obviously injurious to your character" (paraphrasing from memory). I've seen that kind of thing a lot in my 20 years of roleplaying.
They all do it. What makes Paizo different, however, is sometimes they will listen to the community and backpedal on such decisions (such as with the monk clarification). That's one of the many reasons they've received more money from my wallet than any other roleplaying company. I hope they keep it up, and reverse their decision here (or somehow alter it for the better).
such as the example of Fury's Fall and Agile Manuevers/Weapon Finesse
Fury's Fall + Weapon Finesse isn't a problem though, because Weapon Finesse as written actually gives you the option not to use it, as opposed to Agile Maneuvers.
Yeah, Fury's Fall + Agile Maneuvers now being a combination that actively makes your worse at trip attempts is pretty awful. The latter is now clearly a trap feat in that situation, which is something 3.P doesn't need too many (see: more than 0) of.
Devil's Advocate: Agile Maneuvers is already a trap feat for Trip builds in most cases because Weapon Finesse also applies your dexterity bonus trip attempts
Unless you use a non-finesse weapon to trip, like some of the polearms that have the trip property, and thus seem geared for trip builds.
And Thymus, if you read the last sentance I wrote in my previius post, you'll note I caught the error I made with WF, and thus corrected myself.
So, you are happy with the change of rules.
That's nice.
That doesn't change the fact that so many writers, were working under different rules, and now there needs to be many updates.
I am happy with the clarification, if that is what you mean.
I am happy with the clarification, if that is what you mean.So, you are happy with the change of rules.
That's nice.
That doesn't change the fact that so many writers, were working under different rules, and now there needs to be many updates.
Why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why?I am happy with the clarification, if that is what you mean.So, you are happy with the change of rules.
That's nice.
That doesn't change the fact that so many writers, were working under different rules, and now there needs to be many updates.
Because it's nice to have an official "it works this way" to help keep people on the same page.
Now you don't have to worry about a build and wonder, "how many GM's will allow this and how many wont."
So even if it's a stance we don't agree with, we feel it's nice to have clarification and a rule to work with.
Now all right writers in the future will hopefully be aware of this rule and create creatures and stats with the "proper" rules and no one will have to question if it's supposed to double dip or not.
Why?I am happy with the clarification, if that is what you mean.So, you are happy with the change of rules.
That's nice.
That doesn't change the fact that so many writers, were working under different rules, and now there needs to be many updates.
Because it's nice to have an official "it works this way" to help keep people on the same page.
Now you don't have to worry about a build and wonder, "how many GM's will allow this and how many wont."
So even if it's a stance we don't agree with, we feel it's nice to have clarification and a rule to work with.
Now all right writers in the future will hopefully be aware of this rule and create creatures and stats with the "proper" rules and no one will have to question if it's supposed to double dip or not.
Sure you do. Plenty of GMs will say no to just about any combination to powers if they can find the slightest pretext.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's nice to have an official "it works this way" to help keep people on the same page.Now you don't have to worry about a build and wonder, "how many GM's will allow this and how many wont."
So even if it's a stance we don't agree with, we feel it's nice to have clarification and a rule to work with.
Now all right writers in the future will hopefully be aware of this rule and create creatures and stats with the "proper" rules and no one will have to question if it's supposed to double dip or not.
I can understand that.
Personally, though, I would never have clicked the FAQ button had I known this would be the result.
Now you don't have to worry about a build and wonder, "how many GM's will allow this and how many wont."
This line was only about double dipping, my bad for not clarifying that. Before this FAQ if you doubled on a stat, you had no proof and would get variance. Now there's a ruling and you have proof to back up that you can't have a double dip. So if you build a character with double dip, you can know that most wont allow it as it is clearly illegal. And if you want a legal character, you know this is something to stay away from. Now yes other things of it might still get variance, but not this aspect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's nice to have an official "it works this way" to help keep people on the same page.Now you don't have to worry about a build and wonder, "how many GM's will allow this and how many wont."
So even if it's a stance we don't agree with, we feel it's nice to have clarification and a rule to work with.
Now all right writers in the future will hopefully be aware of this rule and create creatures and stats with the "proper" rules and no one will have to question if it's supposed to double dip or not.I can understand that.
Personally, though, I would never have clicked the FAQ button had I known this would be the result.
Haha, why is that? You'd rather it continue on in ambiguity and uncertainty than being clarified? Or is it because you don't like how they ruled it and feel that 1 less FAQ request would have made them not realize this was a FAQ, thus them not answering it, meaning you could go on believing it did what you wanted it to?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A trend I've noticed around here and in other places is that nobody seems to care about Paizo "legislating from the bench" (i.e. issuing errata via FAQ) when doing so increases player power. For instance, where were all the complaints when Paizo ruled via FAQ that haste works with Spell Combat, despite the fact that by RAW this was simply not the case before? That was clearly "being at war with Eurasia" too. It's more than a little hypocritical to be fine with them doing it when it suits the player but not when it nerfs an option previously thought to have existed.
Why?I am happy with the clarification, if that is what you mean.So, you are happy with the change of rules.
That's nice.
That doesn't change the fact that so many writers, were working under different rules, and now there needs to be many updates.
Who wouldn't enjoy multiple sources to bonuses?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haha, why is that? You'd rather it continue on in ambiguity and uncertainty than being clarified? Or is it because you don't like how they ruled it and feel that 1 less FAQ request would have made them not realize this was a FAQ, thus them not answering it, meaning you could go on believing it did what you wanted it to?
I believe that not having an decision at all is better than a decision that makes the game worse. I think this decision makes the game worse and feel bad for contributing to it being reached.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A trend I've noticed around here and in other places is that nobody seems to care about Paizo "legislating from the bench" (i.e. issuing errata via FAQ) when doing so increases player power. For instance, where were all the complaints when Paizo ruled via FAQ that haste works with Spell Combat, despite the fact that by RAW this was simply not the case before? That was clearly "being at war with Eurasia" too. It's more than a little hypocritical to be fine with them doing it when it suits the player but not when it nerfs an option previously thought to have existed.
How many feats had to be rewritten for the haste change? How many class features were made pointless/harmful? How many stat blocks (some of them of recently released books) were made false?
|
|
How many feats had to be rewritten for the haste change? How many class features were made pointless/harmful? How many stat blocks (some of them of recently released books) were made false?
Which feats were rewritten here? Which class features where changed?
As for statblocks, I honestly don't care. The monsters are a bit easier, DMs who want to keep their saves the same have plenty of options to do that.
I believe that not having an decision at all is better than a decision that makes the game worse. I think this decision makes the game worse and feel bad for contributing to it being reached.
Worse for who, entitled players?
If you didn't FAQ it I would have. The only reason I didn't was because I considered JJ's earlier answer to be sufficient. I'm glad they've made this that much more official.
I believe that not having an decision at all is better than a decision that makes the game worse. I think this decision makes the game worse and feel bad for contributing to it being reached.Haha, why is that? You'd rather it continue on in ambiguity and uncertainty than being clarified? Or is it because you don't like how they ruled it and feel that 1 less FAQ request would have made them not realize this was a FAQ, thus them not answering it, meaning you could go on believing it did what you wanted it to?
I'm sorry you feel this makes the game worse. Personally I feel that most players wont notice this change. And yes, it now does make some options a little not good. But as far as I can tell here's what will effect players.
Being an undead anti-paladin. I don't know how common this is, but I feel it's not a popular PC idea right now.
Fury's fall and agile maneuvers, Okay this I feel is the "biggest" one, and yes, it's now a trap that will make you worse if you take both. Yes your trip will now be a little lower than it was before without this FAQ. I feel this doesn't "ruin" anything though, you can still make a "good" tripper.
The oradin now has an option that weaker, taking sidestep secret may lower your reflex to get your charisma to AC. If you feel it's still worth you can take, and if you don't, you don't need to take it.
Also various traits aren't as useful with some class features, and a couple inquisitions don't help yourself as much. Replacing a skill check with a good stat and adding your good stat don't work. So again, don't take 1 or the other if you don't want to "lose out".
And I feel that's about it. A limited pool of options were modified, and according to Mark, it was intentional to lower those options by this FAQ. But I feel nothing is "ruined", this game isn't "unplayable now" and for everyone not using one of these options, they don't really care because nothing changed for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a vampire paladin of a sun goddess in a less serious game. Apart from that, I've never used any of those options and still take issue with the FAQ.