What is the meaning of 'source' in regards to bonus stacking?


Rules Questions

1,051 to 1,084 of 1,084 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Are all untyped bonuses assumed to have multiple sources?

Are there typed bonuses with multiple sources?

Typed bonuses don't have multiple sources.

Only untyped that are from a stat have multiple sources.

How do you know that?

How do I show evidence of either, within the rules?

How do I show evidence that only ability modifiers can be part of a mulit-source bonus?

Could there not be a level+feat, or feat+class ability multi-source single bonuses?

If ability scores are the only source, that can be part of a multi-source single bonus, then how do I prove it as an exception?


blackbloodtroll wrote:


How do you know that?

How do I show evidence of either, within the rules?

How do I show evidence that only ability modifiers can be part of a mulit-source bonus?

Could there not be a level+feat, or feat+class ability multi-source single bonuses?

If ability scores are the only source, that can be part of a multi-source single bonus, then how do I prove it as an exception?

Because I'm smart and intelligent and read the FAQ and Marks commentary about the faq I figured it out. I bet you're a smart and intelligent person too and will be able to figure things out well enough, and asking for help along the way is great.

Untyped bonuses are the only bonuses that care about source, so you can add as many sources to typed bonuses as you want.

If you can show me a level+feat that might lead to double sources, or a feat+class that could be a double source like this, please share.

Abilities granted you the ability to add an untyped bonus of your charisma. There was a question whether the charisma was the source as it was providing the bonus, or if it only from the ability, this faq clears that it is both as a source.

Now, I want to share that I am getting the feeling that you're not really interested in answers to these questions, but that you just want to try and sow confusion or cause trouble and headache for people. If you don't mean to do this, I suggest trying to word your posts differently to not come off this way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Is an explanation really a good one if it requires extra explanation to be understood.


WWWW wrote:
...if you really believe in the benevolence of corporations then it's not like anything I say is going to change your opinion.

Corporations are of course completely neutral. The people who run them? I find they are just like people everywhere. Some are great people, some are filthy liars. Having never personally met any of the staff at Paizo, I'm not prepared to make any kind of judgement call on that.

The corporations are simply a reflection of the values of those who operate them.

Your general cynicism however is duly noted. :)


WWWW wrote:
Is an explanation really a good one if it requires extra explanation to be understood.

What are you getting at?

Are you talking about the FAQ? Because some people understood it without needing extra explanation.


bbangerter wrote:
WWWW wrote:
...if you really believe in the benevolence of corporations then it's not like anything I say is going to change your opinion.

Corporations are of course completely neutral. The people who run them? I find they are just like people everywhere. Some are great people, some are filthy liars. Having never personally met any of the staff at Paizo, I'm not prepared to make any kind of judgement call on that.

The corporations are simply a reflection of the values of those who operate them.

Your general cynicism however is duly noted. :)

I feel I may have been unclear. When I say that the Colorado bird watcher's society likes birds I do not actually mean the various mental construct that various individuals associate with that group have suddenly gained separate consciousness and started forming opinions. I apologize for causing you to believe such a thing.

But yes thank you for noting my previously stated opinion that there is not enough evidence either way given the conflict of interest inherent in the situation.

Chess Pwn wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Is an explanation really a good one if it requires extra explanation to be understood.

What are you getting at?

Are you talking about the FAQ? Because some people understood it without needing extra explanation.

Hmm, so are you one of those people or did you require some clarifying forum posts?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hear 'the less unwritten rules the better" but this was always a case of unwritten rules, it's just some people wanted the unwritten rule interpreted one way instead of another way and are annoyed that their unwritten interpretation didn't win out.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
blahpers wrote:
You're conflating "type" and "source" again.
To be fair, so are the devs.

No they're not. You are just having a hard type seeing the distinction.


Ravingdork wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Devs be makin' up rules again. *rolls eyes*
Devs laying down the law of identity oldschool yo.

Yeah...

"Why you be arrestin' me bro'?"

"Because you were eating carrot cake on a Sunday."

"What? That's not a law!"

"It is now!"

The. devs. are. making. up. new. rules.

It has been repeatedly shown in this thread and elsewhere that there is nothing in the established literature that so much as hints at what the devs are suggesting. Ergo, the FAQ is making a change to the existing rules and the expectations that come with them.

yeah because those of us who thought this is is how the rules worked all along and have beenarguing so for years don't fit your narrative of "devs be makin new rules yo" so you dismiss that minor detail

Shadow Lodge

Well, to be honest, it is not how it has ever worked. In 3E source had been more defined and multiple other official FAQs/explanations did explain it. Pathfinder, like many things did not copy over the entire text, but also did not include the many notes on things that 3E did.

So it really matter if by "for many years" you are referring to the d20 system or the not so many years ago Pathfinder rules. There are two issues here. The PF ruling is counter to everything that has been put out on the subject previous to it, but it also fails to use what what is actually written to explain itself, either before PF or within PF up until this point.

Not arguing that the FAQ/Errata is non-existent, but rather that its very poorly sone and implemented, and counter to everything else. This isnt an interpretaion issue, but rather one where A is used to justify B while A and B are two different and unrelated things. It would be better to leave out completely any mention of either Type or Source, remove the FAQ/Errata, and simply state that unless it says otherwise, you can not double-dip ability mods. No confusion, no possibility of screwing up other things, it sets a clear presidents, and basically it covers what looks to be the actual goal of answering the FAQ.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Secondly you're ignoring arguments that have been made for YEARS now that fit the FAQ like a glove.

What arguments? I've been here for nearly 20,000 posts and have not seen a SINGLE ONE on ability score double dipping before the one FAQ thread appeared. And that's not counting my time with previous editions (bringing my total forum activity to over 100,000 posts) where I've also not seen a single argument on this issue.

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Well, to be honest, it is not how it has ever worked. In 3E source had been more defined and multiple other official FAQs/explanations did explain it. Pathfinder, like many things did not copy over the entire text, but also did not include the many notes on things that 3E did.

So it really matter if by "for many years" you are referring to the d20 system or the not so many years ago Pathfinder rules. There are two issues here. The PF ruling is counter to everything that has been put out on the subject previous to it, but it also fails to use what what is actually written to explain itself, either before PF or within PF up until this point.

Not arguing that the FAQ/Errata is non-existent, but rather that its very poorly done and implemented, and counter to everything else.

Quite right.


Ravingdork wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Secondly you're ignoring arguments that have been made for YEARS now that fit the FAQ like a glove.

What arguments? I've been here for nearly 20,000 posts and have not seen a SINGLE ONE on ability score double dipping before the one FAQ thread appeared. And that's not counting my time with previous editions (bringing my total forum activity to over 100,000 posts) where I've also not seen a single argument on this issue.

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Well, to be honest, it is not how it has ever worked. In 3E source had been more defined and multiple other official FAQs/explanations did explain it. Pathfinder, like many things did not copy over the entire text, but also did not include the many notes on things that 3E did.

So it really matter if by "for many years" you are referring to the d20 system or the not so many years ago Pathfinder rules. There are two issues here. The PF ruling is counter to everything that has been put out on the subject previous to it, but it also fails to use what what is actually written to explain itself, either before PF or within PF up until this point.

Not arguing that the FAQ/Errata is non-existent, but rather that its very poorly done and implemented, and counter to everything else.

Quite right.

It has come up numerous times in discussions about various feats and abilities. That is why this thread was created, because it was a frequently asked and debated issue. Also I'm not talking about just on these boards. I have only been on these boards since earlier this year. However, this is something I have debated in several of my game groups and other message boards since 3.0.

As for DA's posts he is being disingenuous again and bringing up arguments that he and I had an exchange about in this very thread like two weeks ago. Now that those pages are buried he is making the same discredited arguments as if they were never answered.

There was a debate in 3.0/3.5 about this. Some of us believed that the stats were the source of their respective bonuses and when PF came out we believed that the PF devs agreed and so that was how PF was intended to work as well.

Others, probably even a majority of others, in 3.0/3.5 didn't think the stats were the source of the bonuses. So when PF came out they believed the PF devs agreed with them and that stats were not sources in PF.

Now the devs have clarified which side of that debate they fell on. They consider the stats to be sources. That was their intent when importing these rules. However, you and others are basically saying to the devs "No that wasn't your intent. We know what you were thinking better than you do and that wasn't it. You are just making new rules."


OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
blahpers wrote:
You're conflating "type" and "source" again.
To be fair, so are the devs.
No they're not. You are just having a hard type seeing the distinction.

Well if stats are an untyped bonus, then you can think of typed bonuses as another kind of untyped bonus.

They really are not that different. One is passed a multiple, the other passed a number.


There is one situation I'm unlear abourt - I haven't waded through the last 200 posts so apologies if this has been covered.

Undead use their Charisma rather than Con for calulating Fortitude Save bonus.

Does an Undead Paladin add is Charisma bonus to his Fort Save twice, once for been undead and once for Divine Grace, or would that be considered Charisma untyped bonus stacking?


OK lets start looking at AC rather then saving throws.

Lets take our Classic 20th level enlighten Philosopher with a 12 dex and a 36 charisma. He has Side Step secret so he uses Charisma instead of dex for AC. He is also a devout worshiper of Arshea and has her second blessing. Charisma to ac as an ARMOR bonus.

Is this double dipping Charisma as one is untyped and one is armor?

IF he Smites a target thus getting Charisma as a Deflection bonus is he triple dipping charisma to AC?

Lets add Osyluth Guile which is a DoDGE bonus based on Charisma?

The SOURCE of all these, per the fact is Charisma, but they are all differnt types.

Is his AC 24, 37, 50 or 63? (agiant the single bad guy these are all in effect against)*

*AC is one higher due to prequisite dodge feat.


Stephen Ede wrote:
Does an Undead Paladin add is Charisma bonus to his Fort Save twice, once for been undead and once for Divine Grace, or would that be considered Charisma untyped bonus stacking?

There is a thread about it. I assume the paladin thing will be errata'd as a divine bonus to saves based on cha.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Stephen Ede wrote:
Does an Undead Paladin add is Charisma bonus to his Fort Save twice, once for been undead and once for Divine Grace, or would that be considered Charisma untyped bonus stacking?
There is a thread about it. I assume the paladin thing will be errata'd as a divine bonus to saves based on cha.

Thanks


Ughbash wrote:

OK lets start looking at AC rather then saving throws.

Lets take our Classic 20th level enlighten Philosopher with a 12 dex and a 36 charisma. He has Side Step secret so he uses Charisma instead of dex for AC. He is also a devout worshiper of Arshea and has her second blessing. Charisma to ac as an ARMOR bonus.

Is this double dipping Charisma as one is untyped and one is armor?

IF he Smites a target thus getting Charisma as a Deflection bonus is he triple dipping charisma to AC?

Lets add Osyluth Guile which is a DoDGE bonus based on Charisma?

The SOURCE of all these, per the fact is Charisma, but they are all differnt types.

Is his AC 24, 37, 50 or 63? (agiant the single bad guy these are all in effect against)*

*AC is one higher due to prequisite dodge feat.

This one is more straight forward. The Stat is passing the number to a type bonus. Types are effectively sources, so the source in this case is the type OR it is both the stat and the type. Neither possibility is just the stat as the source, so it all stacks.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Stephen Ede wrote:
Does an Undead Paladin add is Charisma bonus to his Fort Save twice, once for been undead and once for Divine Grace, or would that be considered Charisma untyped bonus stacking?
There is a thread about it. I assume the paladin thing will be errata'd as a divine bonus to saves based on cha.

Assuming you mean Sacred or Unsacred (forget their wording) rather than divine (I do not think there is a divine bonus). That means Paldins Divine grace will no longer stack with "Tough of Good".


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Ughbash wrote:

OK lets start looking at AC rather then saving throws.

Lets take our Classic 20th level enlighten Philosopher with a 12 dex and a 36 charisma. He has Side Step secret so he uses Charisma instead of dex for AC. He is also a devout worshiper of Arshea and has her second blessing. Charisma to ac as an ARMOR bonus.

Is this double dipping Charisma as one is untyped and one is armor?

IF he Smites a target thus getting Charisma as a Deflection bonus is he triple dipping charisma to AC?

Lets add Osyluth Guile which is a DoDGE bonus based on Charisma?

The SOURCE of all these, per the fact is Charisma, but they are all differnt types.

Is his AC 24, 37, 50 or 63? (agiant the single bad guy these are all in effect against)*

*AC is one higher due to prequisite dodge feat.

This one is more straight forward. The Stat is passing the number to a type bonus. Types are effectively sources, so the source in this case is the type OR it is both the stat and the type. Neither possibility is just the stat as the source, so it all stacks.

By the letter of the law yes, but by the intent "Thou Shall Not Doulbe DIP it is in Gross Violation"

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ughbash wrote:
Assuming you mean Sacred or Unsacred (forget their wording) rather than divine (I do not think there is a divine bonus). That means Paldins Divine grace will no longer stack with "Tough of Good".

I've always thought the division of sacred/profane bonuses was rather unneeded. They're both divine.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ughbash wrote:
Assuming you mean Sacred or Unsacred (forget their wording) rather than divine (I do not think there is a divine bonus). That means Paldins Divine grace will no longer stack with "Tough of Good".
I've always thought the division of sacred/profane bonuses was rather unneeded. They're both divine.

I agree, but if they switched all cases of Sacred/Profane to Divine then Touch of Good would still conflict (and I am sure other things also).


Ughbash wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Stephen Ede wrote:
Does an Undead Paladin add is Charisma bonus to his Fort Save twice, once for been undead and once for Divine Grace, or would that be considered Charisma untyped bonus stacking?
There is a thread about it. I assume the paladin thing will be errata'd as a divine bonus to saves based on cha.
Assuming you mean Sacred or Unsacred (forget their wording) rather than divine (I do not think there is a divine bonus). That means Paldins Divine grace will no longer stack with "Tough of Good".

Exactly. Divine is an unused bonus and can mean either good or evil.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

One 3pp used "divine" to mean "sacred or profane, whichever is applicable". That would have been a good idea if it had caught on. After all, if you are playing a paladin with a sacred bonus to something, should you really be seeking a profane bonus that stacks with it?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ughbash wrote:
I agree, but if they switched all cases of Sacred/Profane to Divine then Touch of Good would still conflict (and I am sure other things also).

I'm not terribly concerned about those not stacking. If it is more widespread, maybe there would be a problem.


TOZ wrote:
So what you're saying is that it's about ethics in game journalism.

Not funny.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
TOZ wrote:
So what you're saying is that it's about ethics in game journalism.
Not funny.

Sorry, not sorry.


Ughbash wrote:

OK lets start looking at AC rather then saving throws.

Lets take our Classic 20th level enlighten Philosopher with a 12 dex and a 36 charisma. He has Side Step secret so he uses Charisma instead of dex for AC. He is also a devout worshiper of Arshea and has her second blessing. Charisma to ac as an ARMOR bonus.

Is this double dipping Charisma as one is untyped and one is armor?

IF he Smites a target thus getting Charisma as a Deflection bonus is he triple dipping charisma to AC?

Lets add Osyluth Guile which is a DoDGE bonus based on Charisma?

The SOURCE of all these, per the fact is Charisma, but they are all differnt types.

Is his AC 24, 37, 50 or 63? (agiant the single bad guy these are all in effect against)*

*AC is one higher due to prequisite dodge feat.

It's not double dipping. 1 is boosting your dex. 1 is boosting your AC directly. 1 is a deflection bonus so it doesn't care about source. 1 is dodge that doesn't care about source. The faq is clear that the source is only from the stat if it's an untyped bonus. And untyped stacking bonuses only care about source if they are modifying the same thing. Since 1 is to your dex and the other a direct to AC it's not going to the same target.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ughbash wrote:
I agree, but if they switched all cases of Sacred/Profane to Divine then Touch of Good would still conflict (and I am sure other things also).
I'm not terribly concerned about those not stacking. If it is more widespread, maybe there would be a problem.

What I am saying is one "little clarification" caused several changes.

I SUSPECT this came to a head because of double dipping with Sacred Fist and Monk... I am sort of agnostic as to that. The person who created Sacred fist said it was fine with him, but it seems a bit cheesy to me.

Anyways the Undead Antipaladins caught them by surprise and there were several of them in previously published Paizo sources, as recently as Monster Codex.

The 4x charisma to AC which I posted a little above this does not seem to be effected by the faq (same source different types) though it is exactly the double dipping they seemed to be trying to stop.

Cha to all Saves and Cha replacing Dex are also acheivable without dipping on what is a standard mystery, for an archetype (Enlightend Philosopher) so no obscue tricks involved.

So it seems this little change had lots of ramifications.

I am quite sure that the devs are following this thread, while I often disagree with them I do respect them and know they want what is best for the game. They walked back Monk Flurry, and I imagine unbeknownst to us they are discussing this FAQ. While I don't expect them to walk it all the way back, I imagine it will be tightened up a lot.

After all I do not think they ever intend for a capstone to make someone worst at what they do.

Heck just rambling off the top of my head, here are a couple ways they could fix it.

Defining a primary and seconday stat as sources would do it.

There is likley some corner cases it would not effect.

But Sacred Fist and Monk both have a Primary Source of Wisdom to AC so it would not stack.

Undead Antipaladins have a Primary source of Charisma to Fort (as it replaces con) and a secondary source of Charisma to All Saves from Anti-paladin.

This would give Oradin Primary source of Chaisma to Reflex and Secondary source of Charsima to All Saves.

This would work for all Replace + Add situations (including Fury's fall which I do not think they want it to).

Another fix they could do is say in the case of Oradin or Undead Antipaladin, it is not double stacking because one modifies a specific save, while the other modifies ALL saves.

There are options, and I believe that the Devs are discussing it. While we don't always agree with their decisions and/or Changes, I am consider them to usually be reasonable people (all of us are unreasonable some of the time).


Ughbash wrote:


The 4x charisma to AC which I posted a little above this does not seem to be effected by the faq (same source different types) though it is exactly the double dipping they seemed to be trying to stop.

No this is something they expressly allow. If you look at Marks example feat, it's giving 4 typed bonuses(2 of two different types) and 2 untyped bonues. half are equal to his wisdom, he then explains how you'll be getting three of them, the better one, so if your wisdom is high you'd get three different bonuses to AC.

I feel if the 4x charisma was to be banned then his example feat would have been different and not doing exactly what the 4x charisma is doing.

Sovereign Court

TOZ wrote:
blahpers wrote:
TOZ wrote:
So what you're saying is that it's about ethics in game journalism.
Not funny.
Sorry, not sorry.

I thought it was funny.

The posts where people talk about things that this FAQ/Errata/Whatever broke are cool and useful. Those things should be fixed!

Complaining about the wording the dev team used to characterize this FAQ/Errata/Whatever is completely useless. And nobody is going to get anything out of it. If anything, the only subjectively "productive" thing that we could possibly get out of that debate is for devs to ignore this thread. That seems to be what most people that are still lingering here want.

EDIT:

Also

Quote:
What arguments? I've been here for nearly 20,000 posts and have not seen a SINGLE ONE on ability score double dipping before the one FAQ thread appeared. And that's not counting my time with previous editions (bringing my total forum activity to over 100,000 posts) where I've also not seen a single argument on this issue.

Apparently, there are a bunch of Inquisitor abilities that also allowed ability modifier double dipping.

The newest example which somewhat revivified the discussion was Sacred Fist AC Bonus with Monk AC Bonus.

An older example which was corrected with an errata was Pistolero + Mysterious Stranger getting double dex modifier to damage. I don't know much about that combo, but I believe it was actually just Pistolero providing that.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The wording of the FAQ is a little round about in it's wording, but the concept (not the wording) is in fact a decent approach to the problem. It allows writers to decide whether or not their new ability should or should not stack with with abilities that do similar things, such as getting charisma to saves two or more times. (My brother is a fan of getting Charisma to will saves 3 or more times in DnD 3.5).

The problem is, previous writers didn't have access to that, and so to provide for the new functionality of the game system, errata will need to be made to fix any situations where it was allowed. It's a patch, and unlike a video game, it's not so easy to change your game and have every one on board at once using the same rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Secondly you're ignoring arguments that have been made for YEARS now that fit the FAQ like a glove.

What arguments? I've been here for nearly 20,000 posts and have not seen a SINGLE ONE on ability score double dipping before the one FAQ thread appeared. And that's not counting my time with previous editions (bringing my total forum activity to over 100,000 posts) where I've also not seen a single argument on this issue.

And this one faq was the second most frequently asked question. Do you think it got to be that way out of the blue?

The whole trench fighter thing

Double dipping from a year ago

Agile manuvers and furry's fall, with the right answer. From 2012

Paizo Glitterati Robot

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this thread has run its course and has strayed pretty far from a rules question. Further discussion is likely better off in another thread in another forum. Locking.

1,051 to 1,084 of 1,084 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What is the meaning of 'source' in regards to bonus stacking? All Messageboards