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


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 1,084 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

132 FAQ requests! Hopefully we get an answer soon! Keep FAQing please people! Regards!


FAQ'd.

For what it is worth, I'm a follower of School of Thought 2, with the caveat that wording could prevent it.

For instance, if something replaces X with Y, you can't benefit from another ability stating it replaces X with Y, but you can benefit from another ability stating it adds X to Y (which would effectively give you 2X).

The scenario mentioned came up somewhere recently. . . I forget where though.


Legowaffles wrote:

FAQ'd.

The scenario mentioned came up somewhere recently. . . I forget where though.

Few AP characters, and a lot of combos with ACG classes/feats.


Legowaffles wrote:

FAQ'd.

For what it is worth, I'm a follower of School of Thought 2, with the caveat that wording could prevent it.

For instance, if something replaces X with Y, you can't benefit from another ability stating it replaces X with Y, but you can benefit from another ability stating it adds X to Y (which would effectively give you 2X).

The scenario mentioned came up somewhere recently. . . I forget where though.

Well of course; that goes without saying. If Feat A replaces Str with Dex for attack rolls and Class Ability B replaces Str with Wis, of course you couldn't say, "Ok, I get both Dex and Wis because I replaced Str with both of them." It's either or in that case. Were... were people really trying to do that? Like, not as a joke?


Kazaan wrote:
Legowaffles wrote:

FAQ'd.

For what it is worth, I'm a follower of School of Thought 2, with the caveat that wording could prevent it.

For instance, if something replaces X with Y, you can't benefit from another ability stating it replaces X with Y, but you can benefit from another ability stating it adds X to Y (which would effectively give you 2X).

The scenario mentioned came up somewhere recently. . . I forget where though.

Well of course; that goes without saying. If Feat A replaces Str with Dex for attack rolls and Class Ability B replaces Str with Wis, of course you couldn't say, "Ok, I get both Dex and Wis because I replaced Str with both of them." It's either or in that case. Were... were people really trying to do that? Like, not as a joke?

Yes.

But, by the same token, some people have stacked Bull's Strength on top of a Belt of Giant Strength and then wondered why a particular AP was so underpowered...


The issue isn't really with stacking replace abilities like 2 enchantment bonuses. Its with something like this:

Weapon finesse wrote wrote:
Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses apply to the roll.

So this one REPLACES strength with Dex.

Fury's Fall Wrote wrote:
When making a trip attack, add your Dexterity bonus to your CMB.

And this one ADDS Dex to CMB.

There are multiple abilities (especially after the last year) that can add the same attribute twice to a skill, attack roll, damage roll, etc.

Bonus Wrote wrote:
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. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

The problem is what is SOURCE: I think Kazaan nailed it on the head here, but its still rather ambiguous. Is the ability score the SOURCE or is the class feature, feat, ability that grants the bonus the SOURCE? If you look under sources, there is no SOURCE: Ability Score.

Some people say the Source is the ability score.

Others say the source is the ability that grants it.

I'm about 50/50 on how they rule it, and either way breaks some components of how certain abilities work, or have been thought to work for a long time. This has been an issue for years, but a slew of new abilities has made this problem compacted so we now need an answer.


Kazaan wrote:
Legowaffles wrote:

FAQ'd.

For what it is worth, I'm a follower of School of Thought 2, with the caveat that wording could prevent it.

For instance, if something replaces X with Y, you can't benefit from another ability stating it replaces X with Y, but you can benefit from another ability stating it adds X to Y (which would effectively give you 2X).

The scenario mentioned came up somewhere recently. . . I forget where though.

Well of course; that goes without saying. If Feat A replaces Str with Dex for attack rolls and Class Ability B replaces Str with Wis, of course you couldn't say, "Ok, I get both Dex and Wis because I replaced Str with both of them." It's either or in that case. Were... were people really trying to do that? Like, not as a joke?

No, they have one ability that replaces Str with Dex and a second ability that adds Dex to Str. (Or similar such language, there are many examples, and more get created every time a new book comes out.) I'm not aware of anyone who's trying to replace an ability twice.


Hmm, while not quite the same its also interesting to note this:

Grit, Luck, and Panache

Grit, luck, and panache represent three different means by which heroes can gain access to the same heroic pool, using it to accomplish fantastic feats. For characters with a mix of grit, luck, and panache, they pool the resources together into a combined pool. (Those who use panache and luck gain twice their Charisma bonus in their pool.) For feats, magic items, and other effects, a panache user can spend and gain luck points in place of grit or panache points, and vice versa.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Just because an ability score determines the value of a bonus, does not mean it is necessarily the source of the bonus.


Almost at 150 hits!


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

As more abilities like this come into the game, I feel this is something that will ultimately need to be answered.

More examples:
Monk & Warpriest (sacred fist) = add Wisdom to AC twice
Zen Archer & Evangelist of Erastil = add Wisdom to attack twice (and to damage once)


+1 and FAQ'ed I'd really like to know since I was planning on doing something similar as my next character I.e. monk/warpriest (sacred fist ACL)


Another one I found:

Alchemist + Rogue (Underground Chemist). Each Add Intelligence to damage with splash weapons.

170 Faq Hits now.


We could really use an answer on this. FAQ'ed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If this does fall into the "does not stack" camp officially with a FAQ I hope they cover weird corner cases too. Not to mention the Dragon Ferocity errata they would need for it to do anything.


stoolpigeon87 wrote:
If this does fall into the "does not stack" camp officially with a FAQ I hope they cover weird corner cases too. Not to mention the Dragon Ferocity errata they would need for it to do anything.

Oh Wow didn't even notice that.


I'm not master of info, but I think making the ability score/etc the source would negate more than a few base things, where as making the class/feat/etc be the source wouldn't negate much if anything. It would open the door to some stuff (sleepless investigator + empirc investigator would have int twice in some cases. one replaces and the other adds Int to various things)


Stacking bonuses from stats is powerful, but not inherently so.

Most of the powerful options have the "Add x INSTEAD of y to whatever" language. Weapon Finesse, for example. Adding int to certain skills twice is nice, but not game breaking. Neither is adding dex to trip twice with Weapon Finesse and Fury's Fall.

Edit: Deleted bit about Divine Favor feat because I have terrible reading comprehension.


The most powerful stat related abilities are the stat swappers not the stat stackers. CON BASED CASTING springs to mind. "Oh my casting stat HAPPENS to be the stat that makes me harder to kill". Or the guided weapon quality. "Oh my casting stat ALSO happens to be my attack and damage stat."

To be honest stat stacking is cool to me at least the WP/SF. The problem is when you deviate from the elite array the game is intended to be played on. When you start with 15 in your primary 16 at level 4 you'd have +6 armor from wisdom. Do you realize how low that is? That's worth 200 gp. TWO HUNDRED GP worth of armor. It's still less than a full plate on +4. It's equal to a +1 full plate if you have +5. That's fairly weak for losing a BAB considering +1 to hit is 4000 gold. Not even counting the loss of iterative hits + PA progression + feats.

As to the others Dragon's ferocity should function.

Double int to damage is fine by me.

I've got nothing against allowing double stats to anything (Except that divine protection just shouldn't exist. It's a terribly designed feat)


Undone wrote:
Do you realize how low that is? That's worth 200 gp. TWO HUNDRED GP worth of armor.

Depends on how much armor you already have. That could also be worth 125,000 gp worth of armor if you're already sitting on a lot of +s.


Undone wrote:

To be honest stat stacking is cool to me at least the WP/SF. The problem is when you deviate from the elite array the game is intended to be played on. When you start with 15 in your primary 16 at level 4 you'd have +6 armor from wisdom. Do you realize how low that is? That's worth 200 gp. TWO HUNDRED GP worth of armor. It's still less than a full plate on +4. It's equal to a +1 full plate if you have +5. That's fairly weak for losing a BAB considering +1 to hit is 4000 gold. Not even counting the loss of iterative hits + PA progression + feats.

Really depends on where your +1 to hit is coming from.

Mwk Weapon? 300gp.
+1 weapon upgraded to +2? 6000gp (and uncludes a damage boost as well)
Weapon Focus? Cost of a feat

But as BigNorseWolf pointed out, the same applies to +3 armor. If that's the first +3 armor you got it isn't worth much. If it's the last 3 its worth a ton.

So if you want to take the baseline of 200gp worth of armor, the appropriate comparison is 300gp for Mwk weapon.

You can't even compare it with losing BAB because of multiclassing since by multiclassing you've also picked up a host of new class abilities you wouldn't otherwise have - the value of which many are subjective and contextual.


Trying to find a formula between static bonuses and gold is going to be tricky, considering it doesn't scale linearly.

The best way to make comparisons is to compare things at the same level and the CR of monsters they would be expected to face at that level.

If you do that, the monk falls REAL short in AC, and doesn't excel at anything else to make up for that. Even stacking Sacred Fist and Monk makes your armor comparable to other front line fighters, not insanely high.

Meanwhile, Oracles are getting Charisma to saves, AC, and casting. Poor monks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
stoolpigeon87 wrote:

Trying to find a formula between static bonuses and gold is going to be tricky, considering it doesn't scale linearly.

The best way to make comparisons is to compare things at the same level and the CR of monsters they would be expected to face at that level.

If you do that, the monk falls REAL short in AC, and doesn't excel at anything else to make up for that. Even stacking Sacred Fist and Monk makes your armor comparable to other front line fighters, not insanely high.

Meanwhile, Oracles are getting Charisma to saves, AC, and casting. Poor monks.

Assuming you start with an 18 wis and a 12 dex at level 2 you have 19. That's NO where near a problem. Even at level say 4 assuming you bought a +2 wis item you'd have in the area of 22-23 AC which is FAR from excessive.

Pummeling style on the other hand is true offensive power. It's a good choice and honestly it's something I feel should have been baseline from the game's creation.


Yeah, having the stack makes a monk/sacred fist have the same amount of AC as a regular front line fighter. Which is what I was saying. It's not overpowered, it's about the same as a fighter or ranger at the same level. Maybe even slightly higher, but their HP is lower so it's probably close to a wash.

Regular monks, however, are going to have around a 16-19 at level 5. That's.... almost the same as a wizad. In fact, maybe even less. Ouch.


stoolpigeon87 wrote:

Yeah, having the stack makes a monk/sacred fist have the same amount of AC as a regular front line fighter. Which is what I was saying. It's not overpowered, it's about the same as a fighter or ranger at the same level. Maybe even slightly higher, but their HP is lower so it's probably close to a wash.

Regular monks, however, are going to have around a 16-19 at level 5. That's.... almost the same as a wizad. In fact, maybe even less. Ouch.

Do remember monks can trade out slow fall for bark skin at level 4. A ki point for +2 AC for 40 minutes at that level.

Not to mention they can UMD so a simple wand of mage armor will bump their AC by 4 more.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Double stacking stats leads to abuse quickly, simply because such things are targets for those who realize how powerful they are.

A monk who can start with 18 Wis and double stack AC has an AC benefit equal to wearing plate mail. On top of this, he can grab bracers of +AC for the same price as the fighter gets magic armor, meaning he'll pace the fighter in AC on that end: he gets full Dex to AC, which might be better then the fighter; he can buy + Prot items and + Nat AC items.

His class provides him a scaling +1 AC every 5 levels, in addition, which sort of reflects a shield AC.

As soon as the monk's AC is 20, his base AC is better then any armor the fighter can buy (+9 for Full Plate), but with no dex limit and no movement limit.

At 22, he is now +12, equal to +3 Plate, and He can still use bracers to supplement for the same price the fighter does (except the monk doesn't have to spring for mithral armor).

By the time the Fighter has a 30 Str and +5 armor, the Monk has +20 to his AC from Wis and +5 Bracers. His base AC is going to be 10 points above the Fighter's and drawing away faster then the Fighter can possibly keep up. A Guided Weapon means he's getting +10 th/dmg on attacks, so his attack power is up there nicely, too, and he still doesn't have to worry about dex limits on his armor...the majority of his AC is Touch AC.

No, double-stacking mods off ANY stat are ripe for abuse.

==Aelryinth


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Double stacking stats leads to abuse quickly, simply because such things are targets for those who realize how powerful they are...

That's the Slippery Slope fallacy. It doesn't dismiss the principal that the bonuses stack so long as they follow the normal rules for stacking bonuses and doesn't change the fact that the value is what comes from the attribute score; it is not the source of the bonus. Otherwise, Dragon Ferocity is broken because you could never add half your Str bonus to your Unarmed Strikes because they already get your Str bonus added by default. The default Str bonus added is sourced from the default combat rules while the bonus provided by Dragon Ferocity is sourced from that feat.

Additionally, in your example of the Monk and Fighter, it doesn't take into consideration that a Monk, ultimately, has less damage output than a Fighter so being able to get more armor is washed by the ability of the Fighter to drop the enemy faster (dead opponents usually don't hurt you). The Fighter will usually pick armor that lets him use most of his Dex bonus anyway as he will not over-invest in Dex if he also intends to wear Dex-restricting armor. Moreover, due to the Monk's heavy reliance on Flurry of Blows, the difference in movement between a Monk and a heavily armored Fighter isn't all that significant. Calling it "abuse" is misleading on two fronts; one, it presumes that it wasn't intended to be allowed from the start and two, it exaggerates the strength of such a build. Also, as stated above, such a designation doesn't counter the position that it's allowed by the rules; those who think it isn't don't fully understand the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses.


Another tendency of lots of double stacking:

Loradins... Cha for everything! Oh and double Cha for reflex saves xD and AC (when smiting)


Kazaan wrote:
Also, as stated above, such a designation doesn't counter the position that it's allowed by the rules; those who think it isn't don't fully understand the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses.

Unless, you know, a leading paizo employee had made a flat out statement disagreeing with you on what the source was.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Also, as stated above, such a designation doesn't counter the position that it's allowed by the rules; those who think it isn't don't fully understand the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses.
Unless, you know, a leading paizo employee had made a flat out statement disagreeing with you on what the source was.

You mean the same leading paizo employee who made a flat out statement that Vital Strike is fine to use on a Full-Attack? Guess what... leading Paizo employees aren't immune from not fully understanding the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses. Anyone can be in error, even in understanding the logic and internal consistency of a system they, themselves, created.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Also, as stated above, such a designation doesn't counter the position that it's allowed by the rules; those who think it isn't don't fully understand the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses.
Unless, you know, a leading paizo employee had made a flat out statement disagreeing with you on what the source was.

JJ has both

  • declared that he is not a rules guy, and is just going with how he'd run things in his games
  • said that certain things do in fact stack when adding from the same stat

so I wouldn't exactly take the example you're alluding to as gospel.


Kazaan wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Also, as stated above, such a designation doesn't counter the position that it's allowed by the rules; those who think it isn't don't fully understand the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses.
Unless, you know, a leading paizo employee had made a flat out statement disagreeing with you on what the source was.
You mean the same leading paizo employee who made a flat out statement that Vital Strike is fine to use on a Full-Attack? Guess what... leading Paizo employees aren't immune from not fully understanding the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses. Anyone can be in error, even in understanding the logic and internal consistency of a system they, themselves, created.

True, and we got an FAQ then to specify that as well. This one is vague enough, as a "source" is never clearly defined. So the only thing we have to go on is the word of a paizo employee.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Also, as stated above, such a designation doesn't counter the position that it's allowed by the rules; those who think it isn't don't fully understand the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses.
Unless, you know, a leading paizo employee had made a flat out statement disagreeing with you on what the source was.
You mean the same leading paizo employee who made a flat out statement that Vital Strike is fine to use on a Full-Attack? Guess what... leading Paizo employees aren't immune from not fully understanding the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses. Anyone can be in error, even in understanding the logic and internal consistency of a system they, themselves, created.
True, and we got an FAQ then to specify that as well. This one is vague enough, as a "source" is never clearly defined. So the only thing we have to go on is the word of a paizo employee.

JJ is pretty infamous for getting it wrong on controversial issues some coming to mind are the vital strike and SLA debates in which he was on the wrong side both times.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
So the only thing we have to go on is the word of a paizo employee.

I do take his word; The word I follow if the one where he says he's not the rules guy. That and Stephen Radney-MacFarland saying that non-FAQ/errata posts aren't RAW.


graystone wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
So the only thing we have to go on is the word of a paizo employee.
I do take his word; The word I follow if the one where he says he's not the rules guy. That and Stephen Radney-MacFarland saying that non-FAQ/errata posts aren't RAW.

True, and once again, we have no RAW stating what a source is. Its not even defined in common terms. It's not located in core or any splat. You have virtually nothing stating one way or another except for the paizo employee that has made a statement one way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
So the only thing we have to go on is the word of a paizo employee.
I do take his word; The word I follow if the one where he says he's not the rules guy. That and Stephen Radney-MacFarland saying that non-FAQ/errata posts aren't RAW.
True, and once again, we have no RAW stating what a source is. Its not even defined in common terms. It's not located in core or any splat. You have virtually nothing stating one way or another except for the paizo employee that has made a statement one way.

Actually he has made the statement both ways: here


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
So the only thing we have to go on is the word of a paizo employee.
I do take his word; The word I follow if the one where he says he's not the rules guy. That and Stephen Radney-MacFarland saying that non-FAQ/errata posts aren't RAW.
True, and once again, we have no RAW stating what a source is. Its not even defined in common terms. It's not located in core or any splat. You have virtually nothing stating one way or another except for the paizo employee that has made a statement one way.

Where in the rules does it define what Air is? It says that certain creature types either do or do not breathe air, but it doesn't qualify exactly what "air" is. What about legs? The rules state that a humanoid creature typically has two arms, two legs, and a head. But what, exactly, are "legs"? If I walk on my hands, do my arms now become legs or are they still arms? What about "is"? Where in the rules does it define what the meaning of the word "is" is? It's almost like they figured they could cut down on space necessary for the rules books if they didn't bother with things that anyone with half a brain could figure out for themselves. What is a "source"? It's the rules that give you permission to add the bonus. How do I know? For the same reason I know what Air and Legs are and the meaning of the word "is"; because I'm not a complete ponce.


thorin001 wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
So the only thing we have to go on is the word of a paizo employee.
I do take his word; The word I follow if the one where he says he's not the rules guy. That and Stephen Radney-MacFarland saying that non-FAQ/errata posts aren't RAW.
True, and once again, we have no RAW stating what a source is. Its not even defined in common terms. It's not located in core or any splat. You have virtually nothing stating one way or another except for the paizo employee that has made a statement one way.

Actually he has made the statement both ways: here

Exactly. James is saying what feels right in his games. In some situations, he feels it's cool to stack and others it's not. I don't see how you're getting anything to go on Thomas Long 175, as the 'word' is contradictory.


graystone wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
So the only thing we have to go on is the word of a paizo employee.
I do take his word; The word I follow if the one where he says he's not the rules guy. That and Stephen Radney-MacFarland saying that non-FAQ/errata posts aren't RAW.
True, and once again, we have no RAW stating what a source is. Its not even defined in common terms. It's not located in core or any splat. You have virtually nothing stating one way or another except for the paizo employee that has made a statement one way.

Actually he has made the statement both ways: here

Exactly. James is saying what feels right in his games. In some situations, he feels it's cool to stack and others it's not. I don't see how you're getting anything to go on Thomas Long 175, as the 'word' is contradictory.

Exactly, which is why when I say there is no RAW whatsoever and a paizo employee has stated that one way is a possibility as is the other we should get an FAQ. I'm not even suggesting I'm in favor of them using ability scores as sources.

But until they rule one way or another its best to shy away from Dragon Ferocity, monk + sacred fist combos, and charisma stacking saves in society play. Which is saddening because those are all things I'd like to play.

As for you, Kazaan. Yet you seem to not even understand what a ponce is. A source is whatever the developers state it is. It is not like air or legs, because its not a physical thing that "exists" per se in real life. We don't have feats. We don't have class features. We have ability scores because they're just an abstraction of human capabilities, but our modifiers are as unknown to us as our character's are.

Finally, stop being insulting just because you disagree. Flagging your posts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

As for you, Kazaan. Yet you seem to not even understand what a ponce is. A source is whatever the developers state it is. It is not like air or legs, because its not a physical thing that "exists" per se in real life. We don't have feats. We don't have class features. We have ability scores because they're just an abstraction of human capabilities, but our modifiers are as unknown to us as our character's are.

Finally, stop being insulting just because you disagree. Flagging your posts.

Stop being insulted by things that aren't insulting. If you mis-identified what I wrote as insulting, it's up to you to correct your error. The developers may design the system but there are still rules of internal consistency and logic that not even they can break. If they do, it ceases to be a system and, instead, becomes a hodgepodge. A "source" exists just as much as air or legs. I can readily conceive of the "source" of a river or the "source" of an electrical current. I can also conceive that the value of water flowing through the river or the value of electrical current flowing through a wire are distinct from, albeit related to, the source. But the water flowing in the river isn't the lake from which the river originates and the electrical current in a wire isn't the battery or generator from which it originates. Likewise, the bonus equal to your Strength modifier is not the combat rules that allow you to add your Strength modifier (or some factor thereof) to your damage rolls. The rules for the Power Attack feat that allow you to add +2 to damage with BAB between 4 and 8 is not the same source as the rules for Weapon Specialization which allow you to add +2 to your damage rolls, despite the fact that they share the same value. They write the rules based on a balance of what needs to be explicitly spelled out and what they can trust a reasonable person to figure out as a matter of common sense and correlation to things we already understand. They didn't feel the need to explicitly define "source" because they figured that a reasonable person would understand what a "source" is. The problem isn't that they were ambiguous, the problem is too many people fail to exorcise their reason and logic and, instead, come up with ridiculous conclusions like, "Dragon Ferocity gives you half your Strength bonus on damage rolls, but you already get a bonus from Strength so it effectively does nothing." That comes from a failure to comprehend what a "source" is using plain old common sense and rationality. By contrast, when they have something like Prone Shooter which removes a penalty that never existed in the first place, that is irreconcilable within the internal consistency of the rules. When they come up with contradicting FAQs saying that "effects related to race" means different things for Racial Heritage and half-breed races, that is irreconcilable within the internal consistency of the rules. But if the rule works fine with one understanding of what a "source" is and is non-functional with a different understanding, one can readily presume that the functional interpretation is the correct one. No rational person can refute this; it is a fundamental principal of logic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Also, as stated above, such a designation doesn't counter the position that it's allowed by the rules; those who think it isn't don't fully understand the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses.
Unless, you know, a leading paizo employee had made a flat out statement disagreeing with you on what the source was.

Ok? So would you take the word of a senior advisor in the PR department as to how the iPhone works?

JJ is NOT a rules guy. In fact, I would reckon that many of the posters on here actually know the rules better than he does. He is teh LORE guy. He know Golarian inside and out.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Kazaan wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Double stacking stats leads to abuse quickly, simply because such things are targets for those who realize how powerful they are...

That's the Slippery Slope fallacy. It doesn't dismiss the principal that the bonuses stack so long as they follow the normal rules for stacking bonuses and doesn't change the fact that the value is what comes from the attribute score; it is not the source of the bonus. Otherwise, Dragon Ferocity is broken because you could never add half your Str bonus to your Unarmed Strikes because they already get your Str bonus added by default. The default Str bonus added is sourced from the default combat rules while the bonus provided by Dragon Ferocity is sourced from that feat.

Additionally, in your example of the Monk and Fighter, it doesn't take into consideration that a Monk, ultimately, has less damage output than a Fighter so being able to get more armor is washed by the ability of the Fighter to drop the enemy faster (dead opponents usually don't hurt you). The Fighter will usually pick armor that lets him use most of his Dex bonus anyway as he will not over-invest in Dex if he also intends to wear Dex-restricting armor. Moreover, due to the Monk's heavy reliance on Flurry of Blows, the difference in movement between a Monk and a heavily armored Fighter isn't all that significant. Calling it "abuse" is misleading on two fronts; one, it presumes that it wasn't intended to be allowed from the start and two, it exaggerates the strength of such a build. Also, as stated above, such a designation doesn't counter the position that it's allowed by the rules; those who think it isn't don't fully understand the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses.

Ah, don't get me started on comparison arguments.

I was refuting someone's earlier post that a Monk with double stacking will have Inferior AC. He's catastrophically wrong.

Secondly, your damage comparison is irrelevant. The monk will have superior defenses in all areas. If the enemy can't hit him, the monk will win in the end eventually...and you didn't pick up on the use of the Guided enhancement. If he can flurry, he isn't going to have any problems in the damage outlay department with that little enhancement helping him.

thirdly, a fighter with no dex is penalized by not being able to use his own class abilities...i.e. Armor Training. so a fighter WILL invest in dex. However, he's also got to invest in str, con and wis. The monk with double stacking needs his wis, and can be balanced in con and dex as he sees fit...he has no other needs for Int, Str or Cha to be above 10. Unlike a fighter, he never has a cap on max dex, and can invest to his heart's content in it as he wishes, and at only 1 hp/level behind the fighter in hit points, that isn't going to be an issue, either.

So, no, I don't agree with that argument.

As for sourcing the stat bonus...that's a tangled mess. I personally rule that you can't get the same bonus twice from the same stat, so it stops this whole type of discussion. It's especially true when a stat for saves AND AC becomes the stat for TH/DMG...like Wis and Dex can be. Try to make that argument for Str doing the same thing and you get outrage.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Secondly, your damage comparison is irrelevant. The monk will have superior defenses in all areas. If the enemy can't hit him, the monk will win in the end eventually...

It's literally impossible to make a build that never gets hit, nevermind that "has better AC than the Fighter" is nowhere near the level where that would be an issue.

Quote:
and you didn't pick up on the use of the Guided enhancement. If he can flurry, he isn't going to have any problems in the damage outlay department with that little enhancement helping him.

You mean that property that isn't even in PF?

Quote:
thirdly, a fighter with no dex is penalized by not being able to use his own class abilities...i.e. Armor Training. so a fighter WILL invest in dex. However, he's also got to invest in str, con and wis. The monk with double stacking needs his wis, and can be balanced in con and dex as he sees fit...he has no other needs for Int, Str or Cha to be above 10. Unlike a fighter, he never has a cap on max dex, and can invest to his heart's content in it as he wishes, and at only 1 hp/level behind the fighter in hit points, that isn't going to be an issue, either.

This is ridiculous. First you point out that the fighter actually HAS the advantage that the Monk has (namely, getting Dex to AC), but then you somehow turn it into a downside by saying the fighter HAS to take that option, nevermind that fighters can, and 99% of them do trade out armor training for actual class features. And even if they didn't, Celestial/Mithral exists.

Then you use that as an argument to make Fighters look more MAD than monks. When the monk here is borderline SAD not because of the double dipping, but because of guided (which, again, is not even in PF). A fighter with Guided could dump his STR just like a monk. So could a fighter with agile, or, since this is about dipping classes, his DEX with a swash or aldori dip.


To be fair, guided has never made it int PF, so it really would still be weaker than dexterity if they stacked armor from the attack/damage/ac/saves stand point. I still think it could go either way, both sides have strong arguments. If they rule against it there are some abilities that are just (very nearly) pointless. If they rule for it there are some potentially powerful combos, though I haven't seen anything that seems overly broken than the system already has built into it. I also think the attribute being the source makes less sense than it being the ability (See Kazan's post on Page 1, about #40ish)

We have broken 200 FAQ requests though. Hopefully soon we have an answer!


LoneKnave wrote:

Quote:
and you didn't pick up on the use of the Guided enhancement. If he can flurry, he isn't going to have any problems in the damage outlay department with that little enhancement helping him.

You mean that property that isn't even in PF?

Curse of the Crimson Throne: A History of Ashe Page 22. Guided Enchantment.

Quote:

Aura moderate evocation; CL 7th

Slot weapon quality; Price +1 bonus
Descript ion
A weapon with the guided property allows its wielder to use
his instinct when striking blows with it. Attacks from a guided
weapon generally don’t strike hard, but they strike at precisely
the right moment to maximize damage if in the hands of
a particularly wise wielder. A character who attacks with a
guided weapon modifies his attack rolls and weapon damage
rolls with his Wisdom modifier, not his Strength modifier.
This modifier to damage is not adjusted for two-handed
weapons or off-hand weapons—it always remains equal to
the wielder’s Wisdom modifier. A guided weapon may be
wielded as a normal weapon, using Strength to
modify attack and damage rolls, but this goes
against the weapon’s nature and
imparts a –2 penalty on all attack
rolls made in this manner.
Construction
Requirements Craft
Magic Arms and Armor,
spiritual weapon

Totally exists in Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, Pathfinder 3.5, as Curse of the Crimson Throne is a 3.5 adventure path.


Pathfinder's 3.5 rules are considered to be 3.5 rules made by Paizo. They do not count as current Pathfinder rules.


But pathfinder was created to be played with the 3.5 rules right?


Rikkan wrote:
But pathfinder was created to be played with the 3.5 rules right?

Nope. PF is its own rule set. It is largely backwards compatible, but I believe less people allow 3.5 than those who do. Your not REALLY playing the same game if you allow 3.5 stuff in. As upset I've been with Paizo's balance decisions over the last year, its still better than 3.5 was at the end, IMO.

51 to 100 of 1,084 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What is the meaning of 'source' in regards to bonus stacking? All Messageboards