| 4 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.
It's pretty incredible how often things like "the people" and "the media" and "twitter" can be construed as hypocritical when you ignore that they are made up of different persons and journalists at different times each saying different things, and instead treat them as giant hive-minds that exist to disagree with you.
| 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.It's pretty incredible how often things like "the people" and "the media" and "twitter" can be construed as hypocritical when you ignore that they are made up of different persons and journalists at different times each saying different thing, and instead treat them giant hive-minds that exist to disagree with you.
but then where does honey come from!
the world i knew is gone!
|
Which options?
Houserules.
It's pretty incredible how often things like "the people" and "the media" and "twitter" can be construed as hypocritical when you ignore that they are made up of different persons and journalists at different times each saying different thing, and instead treat them giant hive-minds that exist to disagree with you.
Yes, you're right, we are made up of a variety of people. Many of whom were actively in favor of this ruling even back when JJ supplied it, and see minor inconveniences like Dragon Ferocity and a level 20 class feature as acceptable collateral damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty incredible how often things like "the people" and "the media" and "twitter" can be construed as hypocritical when you ignore that they are made up of different persons and journalists at different times each saying different thing, and instead treat them giant hive-minds that exist to disagree with you.Yes, you're right, we are made up of a variety of people. Many of whom were actively in favor of this ruling even back when JJ supplied it, and see minor inconveniences like Dragon Ferocity and a level 20 class feature as acceptable collateral damage.
It's also incredible how often that post is brought up even though he later gave the opposite answer to a similar question.
|
|
It's also incredible how often that post is brought up even though he later gave the opposite answer to a similar question.
And? All that did, if anything, was make the issue more ambiguous. It's not anymore - the PDT have spoken.
And? All that did, if anything, was make the issue more ambiguous. It's not anymore - the PDT have spoken.
They have. And until they did, it didn't make sense to use to use James's posts as a source for anything, since he gave two contradictory answers.
|
|
Ah, the ever popular 'bad rules aren't a problem because you can houserule them' defense.Houserules.
What bad rule? I don't see any.
They have. And until they did, it didn't make sense to use to use James's posts as a source for anything, since he gave two contradictory answers.And? All that did, if anything, was make the issue more ambiguous. It's not anymore - the PDT have spoken.
Eh, it seems the second was much more narrow in application than the first, referring to a class feature that replaces one stat calculation with another while a second is already applying that stat to the same calculation... meh. Again, that Gordian Knot has been cut, and good riddance.
For what it's worth I'd like this FAQ reversed. I am really sick of FAQ's changing rules. (yes it is a rule change) They could have made it errata, if necessary. It may be a narrow application, but for a seeming majority it is non-intuitive. There are a few vocal supporters of the change, but it really overcomplicates things.
FAQ's should make things more confusing. Ever.
The FAQ is as confusing as you want to make it.
The FAQ stops untyped bonuses from the same ability stacking.
While I feel that before this the wording was clear that it could stack, there were a number of people saying that you couldn't "Double dip". Both felt the rules supported them, now the rules clearly support 1 side. So taking RAW, yeah I feel it's a change, taking Rules as meant, it isn't a change. Also the bonus source thing is letting them have it be a type while not actually being a type.
| 7 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.
A few things on this.
When an option is buffed, it is usually one that was necessary due to said option being far too weak (See: Amulet of Mighty Fists price drop, Flurrying with one weapon) or doesn't change a whole lot in the game/simply clarifies unclear language by taking the stronger of two interpretations (See: Haste with Spell Combat, Half-Humans taking Human race restricted options), which is not a buff. Nobody denies that there was a rues change in the first instance.
When an option is nerfed, the PDT has usually done one of two things as well. They have, for the most part, either nerfed an option that didn't need it (Crane Wing/Riposte) or outright changed the rules based around nebulous "unwritten rules" (See: This ruling, Metaphorical Hands, and the like). It is in this latter case that there is much wailing and gnashing of the teeth because the PDT and players on their side ADAMANTLY DENY that there was a rues change at all.
This is coupled with an intense dislike of the PDT nerfing options that don't need it (Crane Wing) and when asked to nerf options that are too strong (Many spells, such as Simulacrum) they use the excuse "we want to avoid introducing incremental rules change via errata".
Which is a flat out LIE given the number of times it's been done in supposed FAQs (which are really errata).
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.
This one actually drew my attention partly because it will likely feature for a PC in our Way of the Wicked game.
(and, I would imagine, a lot of other Way of the Wicked games as well).
And even if we discount a third party AP, it also directly contradicts every single undead anti-paladin build that Paizo has done to date.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So that way it can be done one way and clear up all the different ideas. Now there's a clear standard. Now they don't have to worry about future abilities if those abilities/options need to be decided on an individual basis. Instead of having to think of all the different ways something could be stacked to double dip, to see if they need to be handled or not. Now they don't have to worry and can make exceptions if they are okay with those exceptions rather than being aware of possible combos.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also incredible how often that post is brought up even though he later gave the opposite answer to a similar question.And? All that did, if anything, was make the issue more ambiguous. It's not anymore - the PDT have spoken.
The interesting thing about that answer is that it perfectly explains the undead antipaladin -- clearly most things written by Paizo were consistent with that answer and not the current FAQ ruling. Most of the existing issues appear to be with combinations where ability score modifiers get replaced.
At least in regard to the feats that apparently make characters worse, I think it is easy to predict that there must ultimately be a ruling that all replacements are optional, even if the authors of a given feat or class feature forgot to include the word "may".
yes. If it is unclear at first, once it is understood it's clear. And once you know the rule you know what it allows and what it doesn't allow.
blackbloodtroll, if you are still lacking understanding, perhaps you can try to say what you're having trouble understanding and we can try and clear it up for you.
|
yes. If it is unclear at first, once it is understood it's clear. And once you know the rule you know what it allows and what it doesn't allow.
blackbloodtroll, if you are still lacking understanding, perhaps you can try to say what you're having trouble understanding and we can try and clear it up for you.
Okay:
1) When does a single bonus have multiple sources?
2) How do I determine when a single bonus has multiple sources?
3) How do I find rules within the core that note a single bonus can have multiple sources?
4) How can I tell when the type of bonus, alters what is considered the source of a bonus?
5) Where can I find in the core, or other official rules sources, outside this FAQ(errata), noting a change in source, due to the type of bonus provided?
6) How will I know the difference between an ability modifier determining the value of a bonus, and the bonus being the ability modifier itself?
7) How will I know when an ability, prior to this FAQ(errata), was meant to stack, or meant not to stack?
8) How will I handle "replace" abilities, especially those that give no choice?
9) How will I handle other situations like Dragon Ferocity?
10) How will I handle all the monsters whose statblocks are now "wrong", due to this FAQ(errata)?
| 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.
I did not like it, for the same reason I don't like this decision which is the logic behind it. The decision itself is not the problem, but the logic of it. If the magus ability was a full attack, and not a specific full round action I would not have cared.
I don't mind the denial of double dipping and many other don't. Many of us dont like how unclear a source is now, and Paizo still has not cleared that up yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which options?Houserules.
He was asking about official options. Many GM's don't like to make things up, and some are not qualified to do so.
yes. If it is unclear at first, once it is understood it's clear. And once you know the rule you know what it allows and what it doesn't allow.
blackbloodtroll, if you are still lacking understanding, perhaps you can try to say what you're having trouble understanding and we can try and clear it up for you.
Okay:
1) When does a single bonus have multiple sources?
2) How do I determine when a single bonus has multiple sources?
3) How do I find rules within the core that note a single bonus can have multiple sources?
4) How can I tell when the type of bonus, alters what is considered the source of a bonus?
5) Where can I find in the core, or other official rules sources, outside this FAQ(errata), noting a change in source, due to the type of bonus provided?
6) How will I know the difference between an ability modifier determining the value of a bonus, and the bonus being the ability modifier itself?
7) How will I know when an ability, prior to this FAQ(errata), was meant to stack, or meant not to stack?
8) How will I handle "replace" abilities, especially those that give no choice?
9) How will I handle other situations like Dragon Ferocity?
10) How will I handle all the monsters whose statblocks are now "wrong", due to this FAQ(errata)?
1) When it is untyped bonus and tied to an ability. Example add a bonus equal to your charisma bonus to whatever.
2) When it is untyped bonus and tied to an ability. Example add a bonus equal to your charisma bonus to whatever.
3) Is there a rule saying it can't have multiple sources? Other than that, I don't know since I don't believe it said so, but maybe someone else knows the answer to it. Now I feel this doesn't have anything to do with understanding the FAQ but more on if it's just a FAQ or an ERRATA.
4) When it is untyped bonus and tied to an ability. Example add a bonus equal to your charisma bonus to whatever.
5) Can you find anything that that says otherwise? Also it's not changing the source, but adding a source. for more see #3
6) I'm not sure I understand what you're asking on this one. Or what the difference between the two are. If you could show an example of what you're asking here it would be helpful.
7) Any increase still works. If 1 ability says add twice it works. If two abilities each say add once it doesn't work. If it gets it's own FAQ or ERRATA follow that.
8) You will get the ability once, this could lead to a lower value than before. I suggest trying to avoid these choices, unless you have a reason to do so.
9) I'm confused what you're asking here. What is your issue with Dragon Ferocity? It says increase your strength bonus, so the value of your str bonus goes up. It's not adding again so you're fine. If I haven't answered your question here please say so and clarify more what you're asking.
10) If this is for PFS, follow their rule. If there isn't a rule, or you're doing a home game. Figure out what you want to do, probably talk with your group before a decision. But I'd suggest changing the statblocks to be correct.
|
|
Dragon Ferocity needed to be errata'd, to function under the new FAQ(errata).
How will I handle similar situations, in which prior to this, worked as written, but no longer function correctly?
How will I know when an additional source is added, to a bonus as presented, creating a multiple source bonus?
I definitely feel that the "replace and add" clause should stack. As someone running Way of the Wicked with an antipaladin who will likely become undead at some point, I'm definitely going to let him get Charisma to Fort twice. And I let my Inquisitor get Wisdom to Diplomacy twice in the same way.
But I also definitely always thought that "Add Dex to this" and "Add Dex to the same thing" were not meant to stack. So it's nice to have confirmation on that.
Also, to BBT: The simple answer to most of those questions is exactly what Mark said earlier - the FAQ does not affect anything other than exactly what the FAQ says it affects. You don't need to go digging for other rules elements that are affected by the FAQ because there aren't any.
Is it a question about how to apply multiple untyped ability score modifiers from the same ability score to the same thing? Refer to the FAQ. Is it a question about anything else? Don't refer to the FAQ.
Seems straightforward to me.
Dragon Ferocity needed to be errata'd, to function under the new FAQ(errata).
How will I handle similar situations, in which prior to this, worked as written, but no longer function correctly?
They no longer work in this aspect. And unless they get an errata they don't function. The ability/feat/whatever is intended to not function with this FAQ(errata) and if it is intended to still work they will write another for the exception item.
How will I know when an additional source is added, to a bonus as presented, creating a multiple source bonus?
They will issue another FAQ for you to know. Until then you can guess about it or think about it or not worry about it at all, your choice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't worry.
Someone will be sure to be there to say "Nothing has changed!" "Nothing is confusing!" "Nothing is effected!" "Nobody will disapprove!".
Just be sure to not disagree with any of those statements, as that means you are a soulless, idiotic, cheating monster, and don't deserve to speak.
ಠ_ಠ
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It all kind of seems like pointless confusion and complication for, as far as I have seen, no apparent benefit.
That pretty much sums up my feelings on this.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does it really matter if it was a change or not? Some people were unclear on how to run it and the FAQ (whether you consider it a change or not) did make a definite ruling.
Yes.
I don't like being lied to, and I hate it even more, when others jump in on the lie, because they like the results.
If you make errata, then call it errata.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which feats were rewritten here? Which class features where changed?
The ruling on Haste was reversed when the same logic was applied to pouncing barbarians.
Don't worry.
Someone will be sure to be there to say "Nothing has changed!" "Nothing is confusing!" "Nothing is effected!" "Nobody will disapprove!".
Just be sure to not disagree with any of those statements, as that means you are a soulless, idiotic, cheating monster, and don't deserve to speak.
ಠ_ಠ
The FAQ resolved things in the exact manner I always interpreted the rules. For me, nothing has changed and there is no confusion.
Which feats were rewritten here? Which class features where changed?The ruling on Haste was reversed when the same logic was applied to pouncing barbarians.
The FAQ resolved things in the exact manner I always interpreted the rules. For me, nothing has changed and there is no confusion.Don't worry.
Someone will be sure to be there to say "Nothing has changed!" "Nothing is confusing!" "Nothing is effected!" "Nobody will disapprove!".
Just be sure to not disagree with any of those statements, as that means you are a soulless, idiotic, cheating monster, and don't deserve to speak.
ಠ_ಠ
I have to agree with Artanthos.
This is, quite simply, a non-issue at every PF table that I have ever played at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a non-issue in nearly all of my tables too, but only because double-stacking so rarely came up.
That doesn't make it a design issue that shouldn't be addressed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You always ran bonuses with simultaneous multiple sources, and determined sources by bonus type?
The FAQ resolved things in the exact manner I always interpreted the rules. For me, nothing has changed and there is no confusion.
I never agreed with applying the same stat to an action more than once, unless it was an ability that explicitly called out the stacking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't worry.
Someone will be sure to be there to say "Nothing has changed!" "Nothing is confusing!" "Nothing is effected!" "Nobody will disapprove!".
Just be sure to not disagree with any of those statements, as that means you are a soulless, idiotic, cheating monster, and don't deserve to speak.
ಠ_ಠ
Since some people already believed that double dipping wasn't allowed now that it's not allowed they say nothing's changed. They don't care "how" it works, just that the rule says it can't stack. So yes, adding sources is new, but that's just a way to explain you can't double up which they think was the rule. This is why they are saying that "Nothing has changed!".
As I said above, it's as confusing as you want to make it. I feel it does a good job at explaining what it does. This is why "Nothing is confusing!"
I don't think anyone has said "Nothing is effected!" but it's true that a very small pool of options have been effected, options that most people never saw, or naturally stayed away from because of the double dipping and not knowing if it was allowed.
And I don't think anyone said "Nobody will disapprove!" I think people were well aware that making a decision on this would get one side or the other unhappy.
We don't care if you what you think about this. We don't care if you disagree, it's how you're portraying your disagreement. We care about you trying to blow it out of proportion. That it's the end of all things or something. Like I said above, instead of running around saying it's so confusing, ask the questions you still have about it and clear up that confusion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
If his Capstone takes precedence his reflex save is 6 -2 (dex) + 13 (charisma) for a 17 reflex save.
No. Dexterity would never be looked at for this character's reflex save. The bonus remains +13, but is applied only once.
If you are of this opinion, you deserve to suffer the consequences of your choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Precedence does not apply here. You get both effects, but then lose one charisma bonus since you cannot get the charisma bonus more than once. That would mean that you lose the dexterity modifier, which is a desired result since it is a penalty. So that capstone ability would have no effect on your reflex save.
Now we would have an issue if the dexterity modifier were a bonus but still smaller than your charisma bonus.