The types of bonuses are clearly defined within the game. In addition to the list linked to, there are also Racial and Trait bonuses.
To my knowledge, there are no other bonuses, and "Ability bonus" is not one of them.
Determine Bonuses
Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from –5 to +5. Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells shows the modifier for each score. The modifier is the number you apply to the die roll when your character tries to do something related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some numbers that aren't die rolls. A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty. The table also shows bonus spells, which you'll need to know about if your character is a spellcaster.
Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow
A Constitution bonus increases a character's hit points,
There is also no difference between "ability modifier" and ability bonus" if the number is positive.
Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells
You apply your character's Strength modifier to:
You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
You apply your character's Constitution modifier to:
You apply your character's Intelligence modifier to:ou apply your character's Wisdom modifier to:
You apply your character's Charisma modifier to:
|
No, the simplest thing is to follow the book/rules on what it calls out as a type. It's that was because we have bonus means multiple things (simply a positive modifier vs a type of modifier for stacking). The only way to know which is which is to let the rules tell you.
But the rules don't specifically tell you. How can that be Occam's
Razor when you have to interpret the rules. The rules are the cloth that Occam's Razor cuts.Is there a rule that you have to have something called out in multiple places for it to count? RAW, one is fine. It just so happens that ability bonuses don't have even that one instance.
This was a callback to past arguments about the Trait bonus not being on the chart from page 131 of Ultimate Magic. Someone pointed out to me that there is language in the Advanced Players Guide that specifically says that the Trait Bonus is a type of bonus.
And they were using that as part of their argument why ability bonuses are not typed. Because they aren't specifically called out for being so.
Thus why I bring up the racial bonus, and the other several bonuses that are never actually called out in the Core Rulebook as a typed bonuses.
It just happens that the racial bonus is also not on the chart from Ultimate Magic. Why is that?
|
Wait a second, someone is making the claim that X exists, so therefore Y must also exist?
Just because there are bonus types does not mean that there is an ability bonus type. Sure, the list we have is not exhaustive, nor will it ever will be so long as Paizo continues to publish books. However, if it's not defined in the rules, it's not a rule. How can one justify saying that there is such a thing as "bonus type: ability" when no such thing exists?
Is it RAI? Considering your HP, probably not. There is nothing to support that there is an ability type. Claiming that there is support because there's a non-exhaustive list of types is a logical fallacy.
|
|
Nope, the section on multiclassing say you add together your features. They never say they stack so you don't and you'd have to take the highest. Same with hp. you add with NOTHING about stacking. There IS no specific to trump general... or you accept that not everything that's a bonus is a type.
I'm really struggling to see what the difference between "add together your features" and "stack your features" is.
There is no language calling out Racial as a bonus type specifically (like for Trait bonus in the Advanced Players Guide).
It is not on the chart from Ultimate Magic for designing spells.
Only the paragraph above lets us know it is a bonus type.
There is a section in the rules that specifically calls it out as a bonus type AND states that racial bonuses stack with other racial bonuses.
I'll see if I can dig it up.
EDIT: Found it.
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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait a second, someone is making the claim that X exists, so therefore Y must also exist?
Just because there are bonus types does not mean that there is an ability bonus type. Sure, the list we have is not exhaustive, nor will it ever will be so long as Paizo continues to publish books. However, if it's not defined in the rules, it's not a rule. How can one justify saying that there is such a thing as "bonus type: ability" when no such thing exists?
Is it RAI? Considering your HP, probably not. There is nothing to support that there is an ability type. Claiming that there is support because there's a non-exhaustive list of types is a logical fallacy.
Give me language that supports that:
Racial Bonus is a typed bonus.
Inherent Bonus is a typed bonus.
Luck Bonus is a typed bonus.
HP's work the way they do, because you aren't stacking hit points per level. Its shorthand to say you get your Con Bonus each hit die. But that's short hand. The actual language says...
Each roll of a Hit Die (though a penalty can never drop a result below 1—that is, a character always gains at least 1 hit point each time he advances in level).
You essentially add your Con Bonus to a single die roll (your hit point die roll). So there is no stacking, because the die roll is a separate action at each level.
|
|
There is no language calling out Racial as a bonus type specifically (like for Trait bonus in the Advanced Players Guide).
It is not on the chart from Ultimate Magic for designing spells.
Only the paragraph above lets us know it is a bonus type.
There is a section in the rules that specifically calls it out as a bonus type AND states that racial bonuses stack with other racial bonuses.
I'll see if I can dig it up.
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.
Which is the paragraph above I was referring to.
EDIT: And when I was saying, "there is no language specifically calling out racial bonus as a type"... that is a callback to those who argued that the Advanced Player's Guide language on Trait Bonuses was enough and that it didn't need to be on the chart in Ultimate Magic.
So, there is only one place that racial bonus is called out as a bonus type. Its in that paragraph. And it is not on the chart in Ultimate Magic.
|
|
Here is definitive proof Constitution modifier stacks.
You apply your character's Constitution modifier to:
Each roll of a Hit Die
Your hit points get Constitution modifier to your hit points multiple times.
They stack.
No they don't.
You don't get your Con Modifier more than once per hit die roll.
you just roll the dice everytime you level.
But you are only adding your Con Modifier once per die roll.
That is the very definition of not stacking.
|
|
Except it's not. Your hit points are a single pool which contains multiple Constitution bonuses.Wait a second, someone is making the claim that X exists, so therefore Y must also exist?
Just because there are bonus types does not mean that there is an ability bonus type. Sure, the list we have is not exhaustive, nor will it ever will be so long as Paizo continues to publish books. However, if it's not defined in the rules, it's not a rule. How can one justify saying that there is such a thing as "bonus type: ability" when no such thing exists?
Is it RAI? Considering your HP, probably not. There is nothing to support that there is an ability type. Claiming that there is support because there's a non-exhaustive list of types is a logical fallacy.
Give me language that supports that:
Racial Bonus is a typed bonus.
Inherent Bonus is a typed bonus.
Luck Bonus is a typed bonus.HP's work the way they do, because you aren't stacking hit points per level. Its shorthand to say you get your Con Bonus each hit die. But that's short hand. The actual language says...
Each roll of a Hit Die (though a penalty can never drop a result below 1—that is, a character always gains at least 1 hit point each time he advances in level).You essentially add your Con Bonus to a single die roll (your hit point die roll). So there is no stacking, because the die roll is a separate action at each level.
No, each die roll gets a Con modifier.
The pool is a result of adding the die rolls together.
There is a huge difference between this paradigm and stacking.
|
|
There is no language calling out Racial as a bonus type specifically (like for Trait bonus in the Advanced Players Guide).
It is not on the chart from Ultimate Magic for designing spells.
Only the paragraph above lets us know it is a bonus type.
There is a section in the rules that specifically calls it out as a bonus type AND states that racial bonuses stack with other racial bonuses.
I'll see if I can dig it up.
EDIT: Found it.
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.
I'm not trying to jump down your throat here, but the paragraph you just quoted was in the post of mine that you quoted saying you thought there was a paragraph that said it.
Hit Dice (HD): Hit Dice represent a creature's general level of power and skill. As a creature gains levels, it gains additional Hit Dice. Monsters, on the other hand, gain racial Hit Dice, which represent the monster's general prowess and ability. Hit Dice are represented by the number the creature possesses followed by a type of die, such as “3d8.” This value is used to determine a creature's total hit points. In this example, the creature has 3 Hit Dice. When rolling for this creature's hit points, you would roll a d8 three times and add the results together, along with other modifiers.When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD.A sacred fist adds his Wisdom modifier (minimum 0) to his AC and his CMD. In addition, a sacred fist gains a +1 deflection bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level.I think any reasonable person can see for themselves it's the definition of stacking. Add being the key word in literally all cases.
If you cannot see that you're beyond reasoning.
True, if it works for multiclassing why not? ;)
|
|
True, if it works for multiclassing why not? ;)Hit Dice (HD): Hit Dice represent a creature's general level of power and skill. As a creature gains levels, it gains additional Hit Dice. Monsters, on the other hand, gain racial Hit Dice, which represent the monster's general prowess and ability. Hit Dice are represented by the number the creature possesses followed by a type of die, such as “3d8.” This value is used to determine a creature's total hit points. In this example, the creature has 3 Hit Dice. When rolling for this creature's hit points, you would roll a d8 three times and add the results together, along with other modifiers.When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD.A sacred fist adds his Wisdom modifier (minimum 0) to his AC and his CMD. In addition, a sacred fist gains a +1 deflection bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level.I think any reasonable person can see for themselves it's the definition of stacking. Add being the key word in literally all cases.
If you cannot see that you're beyond reasoning.
chuckle... can't see if you are being sarcastic or not here.
But multiclassing and hit dice have specific language that say how they work.
Without specific language like that, you then have to revert to the general rule of stacking.
True, if it works for multiclassing why not? ;)Hit Dice (HD): Hit Dice represent a creature's general level of power and skill. As a creature gains levels, it gains additional Hit Dice. Monsters, on the other hand, gain racial Hit Dice, which represent the monster's general prowess and ability. Hit Dice are represented by the number the creature possesses followed by a type of die, such as “3d8.” This value is used to determine a creature's total hit points. In this example, the creature has 3 Hit Dice. When rolling for this creature's hit points, you would roll a d8 three times and add the results together, along with other modifiers.When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD.A sacred fist adds his Wisdom modifier (minimum 0) to his AC and his CMD. In addition, a sacred fist gains a +1 deflection bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level.I think any reasonable person can see for themselves it's the definition of stacking. Add being the key word in literally all cases.
If you cannot see that you're beyond reasoning.
chuckle... can't see if you are being sarcastic or not here.
But multiclassing and hit dice have specific language that say how they work.
Without specific language like that, you then have to revert to the general rule of stacking.
And you know what that special wording is? "adds". The same thing you replied to me "I'm really struggling to see what the difference between "add together your features" and "stack your features" is." I'm struggling too... Just with your reply.
Your hitpoint total is neither a roll nor a check.
Ah. The difference is between specific language of multiclassing where it says everything adds specifically.
Without language that says you can add typed bonuses or untyped bonuses from the same source together, which neither ability does, you can't.
Two different situations.
WOW to you adds says a LOT more than it does to me...
|
|
WOW to you adds says a LOT more than it does to me...Ah. The difference is between specific language of multiclassing where it says everything adds specifically.
Without language that says you can add typed bonuses or untyped bonuses from the same source together, which neither ability does, you can't.
Two different situations.
You have to look at the two situations separately.
What is happening.
One says, "this is how Hit Points work" or "This is how Multiclassing works"
The other says, "This is how Stacking Works"
The Hit Point and Multiclassing rules are more specific rules that trumps the Stacking rule.
Thus why the two separate abilities that add the same bonus, would not stack. Even though they use the word "add."
While Multiclassing does "add" the bonuses together, because it specifically says it does.
Those two abilities do not say they are added together, which it would have to do for them to do so.
|
Considering there are situations when it needs to be specifically called out for things to not stack (such as Divine Protection) or that had to be changed to not stack (like the Gunslinger bit Undone has mentioned), what makes you think that it has to specifically say they can stack for it to be possible?
You're trying to shoehorn your personal opinion into the rules when it goes against a number of things that already exist and work, while offhandedly ignoring things because they come from 3pp websites (as if that somehow completely invalidates the information listed there) and then claiming that you have to consider ramifications of a completely different game that has absolutely nothing to do with PF anymore.
If your general assumption is going to be "PF's devs make abilities that don't work" then I don't really see why you're so hard up for an answer from them.
EDIT: I HAVE found one instance of Ability bonus but it's used differently that the ability modifier. Under magic creation I found Ability bonus (enhancement) as in Gloves of Dexterity +2. So an ability bonus seems to be a modifier to...
This is the most compelling example I've found, and I haven't seen a rational counterargument to it yet. "Ability bonus (enhancement)". The type is enhancement. Unless one wishes to argue that the bonus has two types, in which case . . . good luck with that.
|
|
@Andrew Christan
Rereading some of your posts, I think I understand a little better where your coming from. Correct if I'm wrong:
Your saying that the list in UM of bonus types is not exhaustive, and therefore cannot be used as solid proof that there is no ability bonus type.
Which you would be correct. Hopefully, your not saying that since the list of bonus types isn't comprehensive, there is an ability bonus type.
EDIT: I HAVE found one instance of Ability bonus but it's used differently that the ability modifier. Under magic creation I found Ability bonus (enhancement) as in Gloves of Dexterity +2. So an ability bonus seems to be a modifier to...This is the most compelling example I've found, and I haven't seen a rational counterargument to it yet. "Ability bonus (enhancement)". The type is enhancement. Unless one wishes to argue that the bonus has two types, in which case . . . good luck with that.Except that effects your ability score not your ability bonus. Unless you want to claim a +2 strength belt adds 2 to your modifier not your base numbers.
Ability scores and ability modifiers are significantly different.
The thing is that you have two thing called the same thing.
My dex is 12. So when I figure my ranged to hit I add my dex bonus of +1. Now I put on a magic belt that adds a +2 dex bonus and my dex goes to 14 changing my dex bonus to +2. Now I have a two separate and different dex bonuses of +2. It's pretty clear they can't BOTH be the same type as they're added to different things. How can someone say one is a type and the other isn't that type. The rules would have to SAY one is the type and the rules don't say that.
Nowhere is "ability bonus" named as a typed bonus. Every bonus is typed or untyped. Anything that is in the srd or prd is in a book assuming no copy and paste errors so name the book and page which calls out an ability bonus. There are no typed bonuses without names.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nowhere is "ability bonus" named as a typed bonus. Every bonus is typed or untyped. Anything that is in the srd or prd is in a book assuming no copy and paste errors so name the book and page which calls out an ability bonus. There are no typed bonuses without names.
It's listed next to the feat bonus type, and improbability bonus type.
|
|
@Andrew Christan
Rereading some of your posts, I think I understand a little better where your coming from. Correct if I'm wrong:
Your saying that the list in UM of bonus types is not exhaustive, and therefore cannot be used as solid proof that there is no ability bonus type.
Which you would be correct. Hopefully, your not saying that since the list of bonus types isn't comprehensive, there is an ability bonus type.
You are correct.
I'm not using the absence as proof of existence.
But on page two I posted a ton of nuggets from the core rulebook that I believe shows that <ability> bonus is a type of bonus.
We've gotten of on a distraction talking about that chart from page 131 of Ultimate Magic.
|
|
The rules would have to SAY one is the type and the rules don't say that.That's where implication comes in. There is no such thing as 100% explicit language; all language is going to involve implicit meaning in some manner. The most straightforward example is the sentence, "Sit." This is a full, grammatically correct sentence; so where, might you ask, is the subject? There's obviously a verb which also forms the predicate, but where is the noun that forms the subject? It is implied, "(You) Sit." Likewise, RAW isn't just what can be explicitly derived from what is written; people fail to realize that implications are just as much a part of the written rules as the explicit meanings. They often conflate 'implicit RAW' with "RAI". But just as how a Medium Longsword isn't a Medium sized object but rather a Small sized object designed to be handled by Medium creatures, and just as the Trait that gives Humans a bonus feat is not the same as the Trait that is equivalent to a half-feat and are separated into categories such as Social, Magic, Race, etc, so too is there a distinction between a Dodge Bonus indicating a Bonus of the Dodge type and a Dexterity Bonus which does not indicate a Bonus of the Dexterity type. We know this because [Dexterity Bonus] is equal to [Dexterity Modifier (minimum 0)] as defined in the section on Ability Scores. This removes the "<type> bonus" conflation since there aren't types for modifiers in general; just for bonuses. So it does, in fact, say in the rules that these are two different uses of the term "Bonus"; it's just that the reader needs to exorcise their logical faculties to comprehend it.
The issue with this logic, is that you are making a huge assumption that ability bonuses are not typed.
That indeed the part of the rule book that says modifiers that are positive are bonuses is defining a different type of bonus.
I don't believe this is how the rules are to be interpreted.
That when it says a typed bonus, it means a bonus with a name. Since Dexterity Bonus has a name (Dexterity), that is the type.
You are free to disagree with me, but I'd prefer if you didn't insult my intelligence while doing so.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I HAVE found one instance of Ability bonus but it's used differently that the ability modifier. Under magic creation I found Ability bonus (enhancement) as in Gloves of Dexterity +2. So an ability bonus seems to be a modifier to...This is the most compelling example I've found, and I haven't seen a rational counterargument to it yet. "Ability bonus (enhancement)". The type is enhancement. Unless one wishes to argue that the bonus has two types, in which case . . . good luck with that.Except that effects your ability score not your ability bonus. Unless you want to claim a +2 strength belt adds 2 to your modifier not your base numbers.
Ability scores and ability modifiers are significantly different.
The thing is that you have two thing called the same thing.
My dex is 12. So when I figure my ranged to hit I add my dex bonus of +1. Now I put on a magic belt that adds a +2 dex bonus and my dex goes to 14 changing my dex bonus to +2. Now I have a two separate and different dex bonuses of +2. It's pretty clear they can't BOTH be the same type as they're added to different things. How can someone say one is a type and the other isn't that type. The rules would have to SAY one is the type and the rules don't say that.
But that isn't what the actual magic item says.
This belt's golden buckle depicts a bear. The belt grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Constitution of +2, +4, or +6.Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the belt is worn.
You get an enhancement bonus to your actual ability score. You aren't getting a dexterity bonus to your dexterity.
But that isn't what the actual magic item says.
This belt's golden buckle depicts a bear. The belt grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Constitution of +2, +4, or +6.Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the belt is worn.You get an enhancement bonus to your actual ability score. You aren't getting a dexterity bonus to your dexterity.
And if you looked a little farther, you'd find that 3.5 and pathfinder define the effect of that magic item as an "Ability bonus (enhancement)". As such, it's JUST as valid a bonus type as the one you've been holding up. An ability bonus is both the modifier from the chart AND the modifier to the stat.
This removes the "<type> bonus" conflation since there aren't types for modifiers in general; just for bonuses.
The pnly issue with that is a bonus is defined as a positive modifier. This makes it impossible for some to separate the two.
|
|
But that isn't what the actual magic item says.
This belt's golden buckle depicts a bear. The belt grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Constitution of +2, +4, or +6.Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the belt is worn.You get an enhancement bonus to your actual ability score. You aren't getting a dexterity bonus to your dexterity.And if you looked a little farther, you'd find that 3.5 and pathfinder define the effect of that magic item as an "Ability bonus (enhancement)". As such, it's JUST as valid a bonus type as the one you've been holding up. An ability bonus is both the modifier from the chart AND the modifier to the stat.
Please cite the page where this is the case?
Please cite the page where this is the case?But that isn't what the actual magic item says.
This belt's golden buckle depicts a bear. The belt grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Constitution of +2, +4, or +6.Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the belt is worn.You get an enhancement bonus to your actual ability score. You aren't getting a dexterity bonus to your dexterity.And if you looked a little farther, you'd find that 3.5 and pathfinder define the effect of that magic item as an "Ability bonus (enhancement)". As such, it's JUST as valid a bonus type as the one you've been holding up. An ability bonus is both the modifier from the chart AND the modifier to the stat.
I used the PRD from this site so I don't have a page. Look in the magic item creation section, Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values. The first thing on the list is Ability bonus (enhancement).
You can have more than one type, the example that jumps to mind are the Shield enhancement bonuses and armor enhancement bonuses. The belt has an Ability bonus (enhancement).
Andrew are you saying that a strength score grants a bonus so that bonus is a "strength bonus"? ←←example
If so I misunderstood your other post. We still disagree because I still see it as an untyped bonus. I just think it is an unclear use of the word which Kazaan already explained.
For the sake of argument how does making it a typed bonus matter in actual game play?
|
|
Andrew are you saying that a strength score grants a bonus so that bonus is a "strength bonus"? ←←example
If so I misunderstood your other post. We still disagree because I still see it as an untyped bonus. I just think it is an unclear use of the word which Kazaan already explained.
For the sake of argument how does making it a typed bonus matter in actual game play?
The Monk Wisdom to AC bonus and Sacred Fist Wisdom to AX bonus don't stack.
|
|
I don't believe this is how the rules are to be interpreted.Pope Urban VIII didn't believe that Galileo's proposition that the Sun, rather than the Earth, was the center of the solar system either... but his beliefs on the matter were ultimately inconsequential. You may not believe this is how the rules are to be logically interpreted, but we aren't discussing your beliefs. I made a point, that Bonus and Bonus don't necessarily mean the same thing in this case, analogous to Trait and Trait and Medium and Medium. It is a valid and logical point. You have failed to counter that point using logic, ergo you have no leg to stand on in claiming that it's a "huge assumption" that ability bonuses are not typed. This isn't some wild stab in the dark, I read the pertinent rules, I searched for the connections and corroborations and parallelisms and you casually dismiss it with "I don't believe that," and then have the audacity, the chutzpah, to claim I am insulting your intelligence?
I'm making my points. If you disagree, that's fine. But I have not said can't thing to insult you. But you have directly insulted me twice now.
You use a lot of words and fancy language constructs to basically hide the fact that you really didn't say anything. I patently reject your assertion that bonus and bonus mean different things. And you certainly have not provided any language from the rules to support you.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside, I took a quick look through my pdf of the core rulebook for other words connected to the word bonus. We have:
base attack bonus (that'd suck if it didn't stack)
combat maneuver bonus
highest Bonus (strange bonus type)
of bonus
additional bonus
the bonus
a bonus
shows bonus
governs bonus
strength bonus
constitution bonus
and bonus
gains bonus
get bonus
dodge bonus
racial bonus
+1 bonus
+2 bonus
saving throw bonus
size bonus
his bonus
this bonus
morale bonus
enhancement bonus
I stopped at the top of page 34, out of 575 pages.
The point I'm making here is that just because the word bonus follows another word doesn't mean that the word that precedes it is a type of bonus, or the source of a bonus. You need more than that to prove it. And, in the case of ability scores, nothing so far in these discussions has made wisdom bonus look more like a bonus type than a governs bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You need more than that to prove it.
No. We don't.
Arbitrarily picking one side of the debate and insisting that that side requires absolute proof but the other side is just fine with some suggestion from how a spell might work is disingenuous bunk.
And, in the case of ability scores, nothing so far in these discussions has made wisdom bonus look more like a bonus type than a governs bonus.
Ok, I have officially lost any pretext that the stacking side even has a genuine point now. It is nothing less than epistemic nihilism to say that that you need to PROVE that a wisdom bonus is a bonus.
In this fallicious syllogism, the term 'nothing' is used to mean two separate and unrelated concepts
Disingenuous blatherskite.
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
Is your wisdom being added to your statistical score? In this case your armor class. Yes. It is a bonus in the same sense that dodge adds a +1 bonus to your ac. Calling it equivocation is sheer torture of the english language and logic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to chime in on this, I've always worked it like this:
1) Bonuses naturally generated by Stats have a Type that is determined by that Stat (i.e. Dex Bonus, Cha Bonus); these Types don't stack, especially since there's no natural way for them too (though abilities may allow two Stats to affect the same thing, in which case they stack because they're two different Types)
2) Bonuses that have a defined non-stackable Type, such as Enhancement, don't stack, and while both exist, only the largest bonus is calculated in.
3) Bonuses that have a defined stackable Type, such as Dodge, do stack, adding all instances together.
4) Bonuses which don't have a defined type are defined by the exact name of the ability which grants them. For example, 2 sources of Inspire Courage don't stack, because they're both +X (Inspire Courage); however, two abilities which both increase your AC by an amount based on your Wis that have two DIFFERENT names DO stack, because they're +X(nomen-) and +X(-clature).
To my group, as long as two abilities have different names (and are treated as such - "this functions as/is identical to" overrides this naming convention), any bonuses granted by those abilities, no matter how similar in form or function, do stack, unless otherwise stated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside, I took a quick look through my pdf of the core rulebook for other words connected to the word bonus. We have:
base attack bonus (that'd suck if it didn't stack)
combat maneuver bonus
highest Bonus (strange bonus type)
of bonus
additional bonus
the bonus
a bonus
shows bonus
governs bonus
strength bonus
constitution bonus
and bonus
gains bonus
get bonus
dodge bonus
racial bonus
+1 bonus
+2 bonus
saving throw bonus
size bonus
his bonus
this bonus
morale bonus
enhancement bonusI stopped at the top of page 34, out of 575 pages.
The point I'm making here is that just because the word bonus follows another word doesn't mean that the word that precedes it is a type of bonus, or the source of a bonus. You need more than that to prove it. And, in the case of ability scores, nothing so far in these discussions has made wisdom bonus look more like a bonus type than a governs bonus.
This is why I always capitalize important things, like +3 Enhancement Bonus, vs. "recieves a bonus".
When you capitalize something it gives the impression that it's either a proper noun or a codified thing. In this case, a Bonus Spell or an (X) Bonus are very important game mechanics.
This is a problem in Pathfinder, yes, but it's also endemic to nearly every RPG I've ever encountered. Grammatically, it's correct, but from a technical writing standpoint it's a god-awful nightmare that just creates issues like we're seeing here.