Sidestep replaced dex with CHA. So dex is gone and you're using charisma. Then it says to add charisma, that charisma doesn't add anything. SO yes at lv 20 with sidestep you'll have a lower reflex than if you didn't have sidestep secret. Retrain it or deal with it. You had a better reflex for 19 lvs and it's not going any lower at lv20. You miss out on 1 part of that ability. tough. Maybe don't take that option, or not get to lv20
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Tough shit it's your fault for not dying before you reach the max level in your class"
Okay
|
| 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.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).
Oh, listen to yourself. "It's a flat out LIE!" Congressional hearing! Impeach!
I'm actually not against the notion that this was a rules change. What I'm not getting is why it's supposed to matter. Again, other rule changes in FAQ have been embraced. Yeah, I disagreed with the Crane Wing nerf too, but ultimately it does not a thing to affect the price of cheese. 90% of the time if they make a ruling I agree with it, including the Magus haste thing, and the weapon cords thing, and the Pummeling Style thing etc.
The fact of the matter is that their job is to err on the side of DM power, not player power. It's easy for a DM to say "this seems weak, let me buff it." But if something is too strong, they're more likely to say "this game is too broken" and throw it out altogether. And that would be the worse result between the two for everyone involved.
As for this specific ruling, I fail to see how doubling and trebling your stats is necessary to be competent or even adroit at any maneuver in this game. There are more than enough other sources of bonuses without doing something as difficult to regulate as that.
Their job is not to err on any one person's side of power, it is to balance the game, and make the rules internally consistent.
This does nothing to balance the game (nothing was particularly overpowered with this) and actually HARMS internal consistency.
Even if it isn't a big deal, it's a bad trend to start for yourself, and they started it several rulings ago.
Any patch you make has to have a point. Otherwise it seems like you're just patching to make yourself look busy.
Quite a few threads have asked this questions. This was a main one. And look at the title "What is the meaning of 'source' in regards to bonus stacking?" So the FAQ that answered this say, "if untyped and from an ability then the source comes from two parts to determine if allowed to stack or not."
So it was asked enough that they answered. They chose the answer that would be easier to keep control in the future, knowing now any ability doesn't stack unless it says so. Now they can create stuff that adds bonuses elsewhere and be safe it wont be abused as much. Yes it wasn't "broken" or "overpowered" but it was asked and they decided and gave their answer.
Quite a few threads have asked this questions. This was a main one. And look at the title "What is the meaning of 'source' in regards to bonus stacking?" So the FAQ that answered this say, "if untyped and from an ability then the source comes from two parts to determine if allowed to stack or not."
So it was asked enough that they answered. They chose the answer that would be easier to keep control in the future, knowing now any ability doesn't stack unless it says so. Now they can create stuff that adds bonuses elsewhere and be safe it wont be abused as much. Yes it wasn't "broken" or "overpowered" but it was asked and they decided and gave their answer.
Which is not consistent with what the rule was previously. The answer that is better for the game where balance isn't in question is the one that aligns with how things previously worked.
When you require 2 rules changes to "clarify" a rule, you would have been better off going the other way on said rule (i.e. how it already worked until you changed it).
...Which the devs claim to agree with. Unless it suits them to ignore it. Which is irritating.
When your change breaks a Feat (Dragon Ferocity) and multiple statblocks (Undead with Cha to save abilities), and who knows what other corner cases people haven't found yet, to balance a mechanic that isn't unbalanced...you shouldn't have made that change when the other, simpler, less game changing thing would have worked better.
|
Quite a few threads have asked this questions. This was a main one. And look at the title "What is the meaning of 'source' in regards to bonus stacking?" So the FAQ that answered this say, "if untyped and from an ability then the source comes from two parts to determine if allowed to stack or not."
So,. . . what exactly is a Source then?
|
When you require 2 rules changes to "clarify" a rule, you would have been better off going the other way on said rule (i.e. how it already worked until you changed it).
Except that "going the other way on said rule" would mean allowing double dipping of ability modifiers. It's pretty clear that the dev team's goal is to only allow this in finite, explicitly listed situations (such as perfect recall, and honestly probably undead anti-paladins) rather than let this be the default behavior anytime someone let's an editing error/wording ambiguity slip through that allows ability modifier double dipping (sacred fist + monk AC bonus, pre-errata Pistolero).
Realistically, the content that was impacted by this faq/errata/whathaveyou is still a minority of the class options. Any problems caused by the FAQ are easy to solve in home games by just ignoring it or making exceptions as they come up. Unfortunately it's going to be a little bit tough in PFS for some things, but there aren't a lot of these conflicts. At least for PFS, nobody has to worry about the undead antipaladin issue.
EDIT: Let me also apologize for the snarky, smartass response earlier.
EDIT 2: I still think the wording could be improved.
Which is not consistent with what the rule was previously. The answer that is better for the game where balance isn't in question is the one that aligns with how things previously worked.When you require 2 rules changes to "clarify" a rule, you would have been better off going the other way on said rule (i.e. how it already worked until you changed it).
When your change breaks a Feat (Dragon Ferocity) and multiple statblocks (Undead with Cha to save abilities), and who knows what other corner cases people haven't found yet, to balance a mechanic that isn't unbalanced...you shouldn't have made that change when the other, simpler, less game changing thing would have worked better.
Look Mark said that those feats were already poorly worded and were valid candidates for clearer language regardless of this FAQ. So them fixing them now isn't bad. And so yes, undead anti-paladin's need a change, and maybe a few other statblocks. If they had ruled the other way, but then made specific exceptions that A,B,C...Z all don't follow the double stacking rule people would still be upset. They decided they didn't want all the double dip options to work and stopped it. I bet not all of them were aware of all the ways to double dip, and that makes it hard to move forward needing to be concerned about the possible abuse case. Now it's easier to imagine an abuse case.
Quite a few threads have asked this questions. This was a main one. And look at the title "What is the meaning of 'source' in regards to bonus stacking?" So the FAQ that answered this say, "if untyped and from an ability then the source comes from two parts to determine if allowed to stack or not."So,. . . what exactly is a Source then?
The source is the feat/ability/spell but if it's granting an untyped bonus tied to one of your stat attributes, like add charisma to all saves the paladin has, these types of bonuses have two sources. The feat/ability/spell and the ability. Thus if you have a feat that adds charisma to saves, and an ability that adds charisma to saves. they both have source charisma, and thus the untyped bonuses wont stack because it's now from the "same source"
A developer said that this in effect makes abilities a type. So you could read the paladin as adding a charisma typed bonus to all saves. This works the same way as the source wording does. They just didn't want to make a new type for some reason.
| 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.
Yeah... I don't think ANYONE ran it like the FAQ even if they didn't allow ability stacking. There are multiple things that are bothersome here Artanthos.
#1 I didn't see an issue that needed to be fixed.
#2 even is they had to 'fix' it, the way they fixed it is a train wreck.
I find it very hard to believe that even if you where fine with reason behind the fix, that you find the actual fix the easiest and most understandable method that could have been used to get to that fix into play.
A developer said that this in effect makes abilities a type. So you could read the paladin as adding a charisma typed bonus to all saves. This works the same way as the source wording does. They just didn't want to make a new type for some reason.
Yeah, it totally a type except for some reason it's NOT a type, even though it's be easier as a type. So it's a source of a source of a type of untyped bonus. See it makes TOTAL sense is you stand on your head... and squint really hard...
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.Yeah... I don't think ANYONE ran it like the FAQ even if they didn't allow ability stacking. There are multiple things that are bothersome here Artanthos.
#1 I didn't see an issue that needed to be fixed.
#2 even is they had to 'fix' it, the way they fixed it is a train wreck.I find it very hard to believe that even if you where fine with reason behind the fix, that you find the actual fix the easiest and most understandable method that could have been used to get to that fix into play.
1) They didn't do this to "fix" something that was "broken" or "overpowered". This was a frequently asked question. They decided to give it an answer. There would have been issues for either choice.
2) Why do you feel it's a "train wreck"? This does what they want, stopping doubling of stats to something. What would you suggest have been a better way to fix this, that doesn't include making them typed bonuses?
Chess Pwn: So it's totally NOT a nerf to fix something "broken" or "overpowered" but it's stopping doubling of stats.
My suggestion is to not fix it if you aren't going to do it right. If they can't make it a type, which I can't figure out any good reason for, then leave it alone. Shouldn't be an issue since it wasn't a 'fix' and just a answer. ;)
Look Mark said that those feats were already poorly worded and were valid candidates for clearer language regardless of this FAQ. So them fixing them now isn't bad. And so yes, undead anti-paladin's need a change, and maybe a few other statblocks. If they had ruled the other way, but then made specific exceptions that A,B,C...Z all don't follow the double stacking rule people would still be upset. They decided they didn't want all the double dip options to work and stopped it. I bet not all of them were aware of all the ways to double dip, and that makes it hard to move forward needing to be concerned about the possible abuse case. Now it's easier to imagine an abuse case.
Which is not consistent with what the rule was previously. The answer that is better for the game where balance isn't in question is the one that aligns with how things previously worked.When you require 2 rules changes to "clarify" a rule, you would have been better off going the other way on said rule (i.e. how it already worked until you changed it).
When your change breaks a Feat (Dragon Ferocity) and multiple statblocks (Undead with Cha to save abilities), and who knows what other corner cases people haven't found yet, to balance a mechanic that isn't unbalanced...you shouldn't have made that change when the other, simpler, less game changing thing would have worked better.
Here's a novel idea...don't write Feats that do things you don't intend them to.
That solves all "possible future abuse cases".
If you don't want something to stack, a simple line saying "This does not stack with other attribute increases" works if it would be unbalanced.
If it wouldn't, give it a pass.
Look Mark said that those feats were already poorly worded and were valid candidates for clearer language regardless of this FAQ. So them fixing them now isn't bad. And so yes, undead anti-paladin's need a change, and maybe a few other statblocks. If they had ruled the other way, but then made specific exceptions that A,B,C...Z all don't follow the double stacking rule people would still be upset. They decided they didn't want all the double dip options to work and stopped it. I bet not all of them were aware of all the ways to double dip, and that makes it hard to move forward needing to be concerned about the possible abuse case. Now it's easier to imagine an abuse case.
Which is not consistent with what the rule was previously. The answer that is better for the game where balance isn't in question is the one that aligns with how things previously worked.When you require 2 rules changes to "clarify" a rule, you would have been better off going the other way on said rule (i.e. how it already worked until you changed it).
When your change breaks a Feat (Dragon Ferocity) and multiple statblocks (Undead with Cha to save abilities), and who knows what other corner cases people haven't found yet, to balance a mechanic that isn't unbalanced...you shouldn't have made that change when the other, simpler, less game changing thing would have worked better.
Here's a novel idea...don't write Feats that do things you don't intend them to.
That solves all "possible future abuse cases".
If you don't want something to stack, a simple line saying "This does not stack with other attribute increases" works if it would be unbalanced.
If it wouldn't, give it a pass.
You see none of the folks have any idea that what they wrote might stack... Boy, I can't even say that with a straight face... :P
Here's a novel idea...don't write Feats that do things you don't intend them to.That solves all "possible future abuse cases".
If you don't want something to stack, a simple line saying "This does not stack with other attribute increases" works if it would be unbalanced.
If it wouldn't, give it a pass.
Thing is they want to make cool and interesting feats. While yes your suggesting works, making everything allowed and then expressly saying "This does not stack with other attribute increases". But then they'd have to go modify divine grace, sidestep secret, monk's ac, sacred fist's ac, traits that swap ability scores, some inquisitor stuff, etc...
Limiting and making exceptions, like dragon ferocity increasing str, or the mind chemist adding int twice. Nets the same result. The way they did it makes it easier to not have to worry about as many abuse cases. They can still makes exceptions for when they want it.
I suggest that if you have actual questions, or helpful comments to share, but just ranting at this isn't helpful or nice. We get that you're upset with this and don't agree.
Chess Pwn: So it's totally NOT a nerf to fix something "broken" or "overpowered" but it's stopping doubling of stats.
My suggestion is to not fix it if you aren't going to do it right. If they can't make it a type, which I can't figure out any good reason for, then leave it alone. Shouldn't be an issue since it wasn't a 'fix' and just a answer. ;)
I'm confused at what you're trying to say in your first line.
I said that yes, this wasn't a big issue, but it was something quite a few people wanted answered officially. So Paizo obliged and answered.What part of the FAQ wasn't done right? They already fixed tiger claws and dragon ferocity. We have questions at to whether or not undead anti-paladins were meant to be hit by this. So yes, there's potentially some more work to be done with this. But had they ruled the other way and still wanted to stop most double dipping, they'd have to go change all those options to say, this doesn't stack.
I don't see why you'd be okay with making it a type, but you're not okay with this ruling. It works the same either way. Would you say that making it a type wasn't a 'fix' but just a ruling? I feel you're not being clear at what you're trying to get at. Do you mean leaving it alone as in not giving an answer? Because then we'd still have people asking for an official answer to the question.
lots of their FAQ aren't a 'fix' but clarifying how they want stuff done. Like the Two-hands wielding a weapon and two-weapon fighting. Like the cleric channel energy stacking. Etc... Yes this was a big issue and would have had consequences and changes needed for either choice picked.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a novel idea...don't write Feats that do things you don't intend them to.That solves all "possible future abuse cases".
If you don't want something to stack, a simple line saying "This does not stack with other attribute increases" works if it would be unbalanced.
If it wouldn't, give it a pass.
Thing is they want to make cool and interesting feats. While yes your suggesting works, making everything allowed and then expressly saying "This does not stack with other attribute increases". But then they'd have to go modify divine grace, sidestep secret, monk's ac, sacred fist's ac, traits that swap ability scores, some inquisitor stuff, etc...
Limiting and making exceptions, like dragon ferocity increasing str, or the mind chemist adding int twice. Nets the same result. The way they did it makes it easier to not have to worry about as many abuse cases. They can still makes exceptions for when they want it.
I suggest that if you have actual questions, or helpful comments to share, but just ranting at this isn't helpful or nice. We get that you're upset with this and don't agree.
This isn't a rant (my rants generally have much more profanity in them), and it is helpful advice.
This is a bad change, since it was made with no purpose (if the purpose was simply to provide an answer, not making a rules change would be better. If it was to balance, it was pointless. Neither reflects well), and increasingly the FAQs are becoming this.
My helpful advice to Paizo is that they not do this going forward (I get the feeling undoing it is out of the question). Rules changes for the sake of rules changing is both contradictory to their stated design philosophy and bad for the game over time.
Pathfinder's ruleset is already kinda flimsily put together. Poking even small holes in it adds up.
You see none of the folks have any idea that what they wrote might stack... Boy, I can't even say that with a straight face... :P
It's not an issue that they don't have any idea. But lets take sacred fist for an example. Perhaps the editor/(whatever guy decided the final meaning) thought that same ability bonuses couldn't stack, so he didn't say clearly that it doesn't stack, because he assumed it couldn't. But then you have people checking for it's limits (I feel this is fine and good, I do it to), and figure out that since it's EX instead of SU that they could stack. So they guy assuming it doesn't stack doesn't think of things that could stack because he feels it's not a legal option. Similar issue, look at the inquisition that gives wis to init. The inquisitor already gets wis to init, but this is an option available for clerics and druids, both have high wis and maybe might pick this up.
Look at guided and Erastils boon, and zen archer. Maybe they overlooked something, maybe it's 1 use case that they didn't think to check out of all the other use cases. So they could have changed it to not give wisdom to attack and damage, because "don't write Feats that do things you don't intend them to." Even though they meant to add wisdom once, just not twice with the (as far as I know) 1 or 2 abuse cases that can get it twice.
It's not an issue that they don't have any idea. But lets take sacred fist for an example. Perhaps the editor/(whatever guy decided the final meaning) thought that same ability bonuses couldn't stack, so he didn't say clearly that it doesn't stack, because he assumed it couldn't. But then you have people checking for it's limits (I feel this is fine and good, I do it to), and figure out that since it's EX instead of SU that they could stack. So they guy assuming it doesn't stack doesn't think of things that could stack because he feels it's not a legal option.
The guy who wrote it thought they SHOULD stack, actually.
Chess Pwn: So it's totally NOT a nerf to fix something "broken" or "overpowered" but it's stopping doubling of stats.
My suggestion is to not fix it if you aren't going to do it right. If they can't make it a type, which I can't figure out any good reason for, then leave it alone. Shouldn't be an issue since it wasn't a 'fix' and just a answer. ;)
I'm confused at what you're trying to say in your first line.
I said that yes, this wasn't a big issue, but it was something quite a few people wanted answered officially. So Paizo obliged and answered.What part of the FAQ wasn't done right? They already fixed tiger claws and dragon ferocity. We have questions at to whether or not undead anti-paladins were meant to be hit by this. So yes, there's potentially some more work to be done with this. But had they ruled the other way and still wanted to stop most double dipping, they'd have to go change all those options to say, this doesn't stack.
I don't see why you'd be okay with making it a type, but you're not okay with this ruling. It works the same either way. Would you say that making it a type wasn't a 'fix' but just a ruling? I feel you're not being clear at what you're trying to get at. Do you mean leaving it alone as in not giving an answer? Because then we'd still have people asking for an official answer to the question.
lots of their FAQ aren't a 'fix' but clarifying how they want stuff done. Like the Two-hands wielding a weapon and two-weapon fighting. Like the cleric channel energy stacking. Etc... Yes this was a big issue and would have had consequences and changes needed for either choice picked.
It wasn't answered or simply clarified, it was errata'd. So I don't agree with your starting premise that this was a simple answer. This as actual new rules being put in place. Nowhere before was their even a hint of multiple sources.
What part wasn't done right? Sources should have NEVER been brought into it. If it HAD to be done, the abilities should have just been made types. It's, again, new rules and NOT a clarification or answer.
On a personal note on stacking stats. I'd be happier if they make an allowance for replacement stats and added stats being able to stack. This is of course a separate issue from the incredibly horrible, overcomplicated and unneeded method of making abilities not stack.
This isn't a rant (my rants generally have much more profanity in them), and it is helpful advice.This is a bad change, since it was made with no purpose (if the purpose was simply to provide an answer, not making a rules change would be better. If it was to balance, it was pointless. Neither reflects well), and increasingly the FAQs are becoming this.
My helpful advice to Paizo is that they not do this going forward (I get the feeling undoing it is out of the question). Rules changes for the sake of rules changing is both contradictory to their stated design philosophy and bad for the game over time.
Pathfinder's ruleset is already kinda flimsily put together. Poking even small holes in it adds up.
How would you suggest they answer no it can't stack without "making a rules change"? People wanted an official answer to this, and now we have one. They aren't changing rules to change rules, they are clarifying and answering things so people can understand. (at least that's the hope). And if the rules are flimsy, making clearer rules, like if bonuses can stack or not, help strengthen them. Now this is a "rule" that is stronger and easier to support.
Also for people thinking that nobody thought that the ability was a "nested source", the OP's question was this very thing.
Is
The ability modifier itself is the source of the bonus; therefore, they would not stack because they are from the same source.
turns out the answer was yes, the ability modifier itself is the source of the bonus. So for some people this was already the intent and meaning. That the ability was the source of the bonus.
They answered this with similar wording as this question. So because some people perceived the rules this way it's not "necessarily" a rules changed.NOW I agree that I would have rather them say it was a change, but I'm not disagreeing with it just for that preference.
The guy who wrote it thought they SHOULD stack, actually.
It's not an issue that they don't have any idea. But lets take sacred fist for an example. Perhaps the editor/(whatever guy decided the final meaning) thought that same ability bonuses couldn't stack, so he didn't say clearly that it doesn't stack, because he assumed it couldn't. But then you have people checking for it's limits (I feel this is fine and good, I do it to), and figure out that since it's EX instead of SU that they could stack. So they guy assuming it doesn't stack doesn't think of things that could stack because he feels it's not a legal option.
I'm aware the guy who wrote it thought it should or could stack. BUT he's not in charge of deciding things. Paizo's editor, or developer, or whoever OKAY's it is the one's whose opinion matters the most. He's the one that if he thought it can't stack, doesn't stack, that he'd okay it thinking that it wasn't going to be stackable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The guy who wrote it thought they SHOULD stack, actually.
It's not an issue that they don't have any idea. But lets take sacred fist for an example. Perhaps the editor/(whatever guy decided the final meaning) thought that same ability bonuses couldn't stack, so he didn't say clearly that it doesn't stack, because he assumed it couldn't. But then you have people checking for it's limits (I feel this is fine and good, I do it to), and figure out that since it's EX instead of SU that they could stack. So they guy assuming it doesn't stack doesn't think of things that could stack because he feels it's not a legal option.
It's NOT only the writer but everyone else who's hands it passed through to get into print. I have a VERY hard time thinking that NONE of them thought about it. And as Rynjin points out, some DID think about it and thought staking would be work but it wasn't an issue. In fact, looking at all the undead stat blocks, it seems that it was not only known but EXPECTED to work and stacking was the norm.
It wasn't answered or simply clarified, it was errata'd. So I don't agree with your starting premise that this was a simple answer. This as actual new rules being put in place. Nowhere before was their even a hint of multiple sources.
What part wasn't done right? Sources should have NEVER been brought into it. If it HAD to be done,...
I reference to the OP's post. Where he's asking if the source was the ability modifier. Paizo's answer is yes the source comes also from the ability modifier. So some people thought the rules already supported stats being a source.
Again, if it HAD to be done, and without using types, how do you recommend them doing it?
How would you suggest they answer no it can't stack without "making a rules change"? People wanted an official answer to this, and now we have one. They aren't changing rules to change rules, they are clarifying and answering things so people can understand.
You're working backwards.
You see it as "How do we make sure they don't stack?" and work from there.
I see it as "How do we clarify what the rules ACTUALLY SAY so it makes sense?".
At which point "changing the rule to say something else" is the most convoluted way you could do that, and ultimately serves no purpose.
It's NOT only the writer but everyone else who's hands it passed through to get into print. I have a VERY hard time thinking that NONE of them thought about it. And as Rynjin points out, some DID think about it and thought staking would be work but it wasn't an issue. In fact, looking at all the undead stat blocks, it seems that it was not only known but EXPECTED to work and stacking was the norm.
Right, and if the upper levels assumed that stat's can't stack. Like most people assume gravity work, they don't really stop and think, "but what if it doesn't work?" Maybe some of them realized how similar it was to the monks, and was glad that stats already don't stack. thus they don't think there's anything to address. And the people who saw it thinking it would stack were okay with that, thus they didn't feel a need to bring it up either. I bet they were surprised when they finally made this ruling of who thought differently about stacking stats.
I haven't looked myself, but I feel that not ALL the undead stat blocks were using charisma twice to fort save. If they are,I'm mistaken and apologize now ahead of time. But if not it's again a few stat blocks that are "wrong" now. I hope that Paizo decides how they want to handle it. But this is something where people probably just never thought to bring it up because, according to how they were thinking, it was okay.
You're working backwards.You see it as "How do we make sure they don't stack?" and work from there.
I see it as "How do we clarify what the rules ACTUALLY SAY so it makes sense?".
At which point "changing the rule to say something else" is the most convoluted way you could do that, and ultimately serves no purpose.
Except that some people already thought or considered that the ability bonus was the source of the bonus. This is the very way the OP posted his question. Which being so heavily faq'd was perhaps the main one they were looking at when deciding how to answer this questions. And now if the asks are abilities the source, saying yes is answering and apparently not "changing" rules.
Again though, I want to point out that I agree I feel it's more of a rules change than a clarification. But upon seeing that some people considered it to work this way already, I feel that Paizo could be fine in saying it's not a rules change. Also I feel that since they aren't changing the wording of something, it's harder to say it's an Errata, since it's not going to be changing any text. And they seem to want to change or add words as little as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, if it HAD to be done, and without using types, how do you recommend them doing it?
AGAIN, I wouldn't have done it if I couldn't use the established rules like going with type. Do it right or not at all. That FAQ wasn't done right IMO.
I reference to the OP's post. Where he's asking if the source was the ability modifier. Paizo's answer is yes the source comes also from the ability modifier. So some people thought the rules already supported stats being a source.
There was NEVER any indication of multiple sources in the rules. Type could have made sense as an argument and I assumed that the argument was that the 'source' here meant that abilities had a type.
To be crystal clear, this ruling makes 0% sense to me. I see nothing beneficial out of adding multiple sources but I can see many detrimental things. I'll complain about it as long as it exists. What gets me is I really haven't heard #1 why they thought that abilities shouldn't stack and #2 why making abilities a type is some kind of paizo kryptonite.
AGAIN, I wouldn't have done it if I couldn't use the established rules like going with type. Do it right or not at all. That FAQ wasn't done right IMO.
There was NEVER any indication of multiple sources in the rules. Type could have made sense as an argument and I assumed that the argument was that the 'source' here meant that abilities had a type.
To be crystal clear, this ruling makes 0% sense to me. I see nothing beneficial out of adding multiple sources but I can see many detrimental things. I'll complain about it as long as it exists. What gets me is I really haven't heard #1 why they thought that abilities shouldn't stack and #2 why making abilities a type is some kind of paizo kryptonite.
Sources are an established rule, and saying that the stat was the source is a clear way to stop stacking. And just because you feel it's clear there is no support for multiple sources, doesn't mean that others didn't think that it was meaning multiple sources. Also because you disagree with how they did it doesn't mean that they didn't do it "right". Many people seem okay or supportive of their answer. And if you have no suggestions of how to do it better without using types then I feel you don't have a lot to complain about.
Is the FAQ not making sense to you of what it's saying it's doing or does the fact they made a FAQ the thing that's confusing you? I really suggest not complaining about it forever. It's tiresome to others and really get's you no where and aggravates people.
Well, maybe you should make a thread asking them that, so it can get faqs and get an answer. or maybe email them or a letter, I don't know how often they respond to those but those can get you want you want. But they aren't required to explain everything they do, or why they do it. There's tons of questions that I feel effect game play that I'd rather have answered then having an essay explaining why and everything about one of their decisions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any patch you make has to have a point. Otherwise it seems like you're just patching to make yourself look busy.
The fact that this question has been coming up nonstop for 4+ years without any side considering it definitively settled until today proves that they are NOT just "patching to make themselves look busy."
No, this is just a few people getting whiny about the verdict not going their way. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
Being pleased that "double dip" is gone, does not make this a good, or clear FAQ(errata).
We could rid the world of Down Syndrome, which would make many happy.
Now, if we did it by sterilizing every person with Down Syndrome, and those whose genetics could produce a Down Syndrome child, along with regulated testing of children, to sterilize those who show genetic predisposition to Down Syndrome, some might still be happy with the results, but not everyone would agree with the method in which it rid us of it.
Not everyone needs to agree with this, and they should feel no shame for sharing this opinion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being pleased that "double dip" is gone, does not make this a good, or clear FAQ(errata).
We could rid the world of Down Syndrome, which would make many happy.
Now, if we did it by sterilizing every person with Down Syndrome, and those whose genetics could produce a Down Syndrome child, along with regulated testing of children, to sterilize those who show genetic predisposition to Down Syndrome, some might still be happy with the results, but not everyone would agree with the method in which it rid us of it.Not everyone needs to agree with this, and they should feel no shame for sharing this opinion.
Good job keeping things in perspective.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just for reference, "source" in regards to stacking, is mentioned only 1 time in the entire Core Book.
Here is where source can be found:
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties — a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Please note, this section is found on page 208. That's notable because the section it is in, and when taken out of context sounds like it might actually go along with ability scores being a source. But, it's talking about stacking magic spells and spell effects (only).
Here are the actual rules on staking. This can be found on page 13, under the Common Terms portion.
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
No mention of sources. Why is that? Because "source" is refereeing specifically to the spells that are being talked about later in the combining magic spell and effects stacking portion.
Odd, as in Pathfinder, a modifiers "source" is actually 100% irrelevant. Well, unless you are using the 3.5 rules, (but then, why would you do that and ignore everything that contradicts Ability Score/Modifier = a Source?
Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?
No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.
|
|
Good job keeping things in perspective.Being pleased that "double dip" is gone, does not make this a good, or clear FAQ(errata).
We could rid the world of Down Syndrome, which would make many happy.
Now, if we did it by sterilizing every person with Down Syndrome, and those whose genetics could produce a Down Syndrome child, along with regulated testing of children, to sterilize those who show genetic predisposition to Down Syndrome, some might still be happy with the results, but not everyone would agree with the method in which it rid us of it.Not everyone needs to agree with this, and they should feel no shame for sharing this opinion.
I suppose I could have used a different example of consequentialism.
Being pleased that "double dip" is gone, does not make this a good, or clear FAQ(errata).
We could rid the world of Down Syndrome, which would make many happy.
Now, if we did it by sterilizing every person with Down Syndrome, and those whose genetics could produce a Down Syndrome child, along with regulated testing of children, to sterilize those who show genetic predisposition to Down Syndrome, some might still be happy with the results, but not everyone would agree with the method in which it rid us of it.Not everyone needs to agree with this, and they should feel no shame for sharing this opinion.
Skirting dangerously close to Godwin's Law there, my friend. Eugenics is at least tangential, I'd say.
So if I am reading this FAQ correctly, dragon ferocity's main effect doesn't work.
...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a separate FAQ for Dragon Style.
Oh man this doesn't sound convoluted at all.
EDIT: I am of the opinion that this FAQ causes a needless general rule override of potential specific rule combos.
IMO you should clean up the specific rules instead of adding more rule clout.
(Although nice to see that dragon style worked like I thought it did. The rewrite is cleaner)
Still order of precedence is important here?
If we can only count Charisma once, which one counts?
If Side Step Secret is the one that counts his Reflex save is 6 + 13 for 19.
If his Capstone counts instead it is 6 + 1 + 13 for 20.
No, the checking for duplicate ability score modifiers is done last, after you have calculated all modifiers. You have already given up your dexterity modifier at that point.
On the other hand, if you are able to check for duplication earlier, that would be a way to avoid some of the weirder interactions, as you could then decline to apply the less advantageous of the two features (thus replacing the dexterity modifier if it is negative or not replacing it if it is positive).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The developer said that Dragon ferocity could have used a rewording even without this FAQ to make it clearer.
And there were a handful of "specific rule combos" and instead of changing each of those they made a rule to effect all of those "special cases" and also now they don't have to worry about future cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And there were a handful of "specific rule combos" and instead of changing each of those they made a rule to effect all of those "special cases" and also now they don't have to worry about future cases.
Instead they made an exception so that more abilities don't do what they say they do.
GENIUS!
Still order of precedence is important here?
If we can only count Charisma once, which one counts?
If Side Step Secret is the one that counts his Reflex save is 6 + 13 for 19.
If his Capstone counts instead it is 6 + 1 + 13 for 20.
No, the checking for duplicate ability score modifiers is done last, after you have calculated all modifiers. You have already given up your dexterity modifier at that point.
On the other hand, if you are able to check for duplication earlier, that would be a way to avoid some of the weirder interactions, as you could then decline to apply the less advantageous of the two features (thus replacing the dexterity modifier if it is negative or not replacing it if it is positive).
Theory:
If you replace dex with cha, then it is still a dex bonus. Therefore cha could still add to it from another effect.
|
|
Still order of precedence is important here?
If we can only count Charisma once, which one counts?
If Side Step Secret is the one that counts his Reflex save is 6 + 13 for 19.
If his Capstone counts instead it is 6 + 1 + 13 for 20.
No, the checking for duplicate ability score modifiers is done last, after you have calculated all modifiers. You have already given up your dexterity modifier at that point.
On the other hand, if you are able to check for duplication earlier, that would be a way to avoid some of the weirder interactions, as you could then decline to apply the less advantageous of the two features (thus replacing the dexterity modifier if it is negative or not replacing it if it is positive).
Theory:
If you replace dex with cha, then it is still a dex bonus. Therefore cha could still add to it from another effect.
Unless untyped, then you apply the multt-source method, following the metaphorically typed theory.
Still order of precedence is important here?
If we can only count Charisma once, which one counts?
If Side Step Secret is the one that counts his Reflex save is 6 + 13 for 19.
If his Capstone counts instead it is 6 + 1 + 13 for 20.
No, the checking for duplicate ability score modifiers is done last, after you have calculated all modifiers. You have already given up your dexterity modifier at that point.
On the other hand, if you are able to check for duplication earlier, that would be a way to avoid some of the weirder interactions, as you could then decline to apply the less advantageous of the two features (thus replacing the dexterity modifier if it is negative or not replacing it if it is positive).
Theory:
If you replace dex with cha, then it is still a dex bonus. Therefore cha could still add to it from another effect.
No, that specific combination was already disallowed by the FAQ.