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


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 1,084 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Dragon Ferocity will be unaffected when it gets a rewording to clarify it (it should have been worded as an increase to begin with so people could clearly see its interaction with original style). As far as I, and all the people looking for other exceptions so far, can tell, nothing else is affected except for exactly what was intended to be affected.

Oh good because I think if yet another Style Feat got nerfed I would have exploded.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Undone wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Just to clarify, from skimming the past page it looks like Dragon Ferocity was nerfed.

Is that correct? I want to know for sure so I know exactly how pissed off I should be.

Dragon ferocity no longer functions. The other examples with the inquisitor seem to be "Not as intended" even though they are worded with the clear assumption they stack.

Dragon Ferocity will not function, until another errata, which, is noted to happen soon.

Apparently, in spite of the Inquisitor class being filled to the brim, with "double dips", none of them were intended to do so, and every single writer, of every single Inquisitor option/class feature, totally didn't intend for any stacking, whatsoever.

I really doubt all these writers were ignorant of all these cases though.


What about Tiger Claws? Doesn't this FAQ mess with it as well?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paulicus wrote:

Those two were listed earlier as an example, they don't stack.

It sounds like, unless the ability specifically changes the 'type' of bonus granted by the ability modifier (i.e. paladins and their smite adding Cha to AC as a deflection modifier), then they don't stack.

Citation needed.

PS: I think you are correct, but I did not see an example that matched up with this one. I don't care if it does not stack, but now it seems they will need to clarify what the "source" is. By the rules this also seems like stealth errata, which I don't think is a bad term, but it should be noted as such officially. OK, I don't expect for them to say "stealth errata", but sometimes the FAQ is used to change rules so noting it as a "rules change" would be nice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

This "type changes source" thing just does not sit well with me, as nothing prior to this FAQ, even implies such a thing.

Is it in the "unwritten rules"?

It seems to be a "new unwritten rule".

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSpellblade wrote:
What about Tiger Claws? Doesn't this FAQ mess with it as well?

Looks like that one seems to have the same wording problem as Dragon Ferocity. I will add it to the list to get a fix.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
CrystalSpellblade wrote:
What about Tiger Claws? Doesn't this FAQ mess with it as well?

It does screw with it, along with Horn of the Criosphinx, Perfect Recall, and a number of other feats/abilities.


Andrew Christian wrote:
Undone wrote:
I find it funny that the chosen option causes multiple abilities not to function as intended instead.

Or rather, none of those abilities were intended to work the way you think they were supposed to work.

The FAQ just clarifies how everything was intended to work now.

There was never intended to be any double dipping of stat bonuses.

This I do agree with. It is one of those situations where the rules allows you to do something you are not supposed to be able to do. I just don't like the explanation for why it does not work.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Paulicus wrote:

Those two were listed earlier as an example, they don't stack.

It sounds like, unless the ability specifically changes the 'type' of bonus granted by the ability modifier (i.e. paladins and their smite adding Cha to AC as a deflection modifier), then they don't stack.

Citation needed.

PS: I think you are correct, but I did not see an example that matched up with this one. I don't care if it does not stack, but now it seems they will need to clarify what the "source" is. By the rules this also seems like stealth errata, which I don't think is a bad term, but it should be noted as such officially. OK, I don't expect for them to say "stealth errata", but sometimes the FAQ is used to change rules so noting it as a "rules change" would be nice.

Rules changes, as of late, have been noted with "This will be reflected in future errata". Or at least, we're trying to get better about that. You'll see it in the ACG FAQs. The result of this particular FAQ, however (that ability modifiers don't add in multiple times), was unanimous consensus among the Design Team of how the rules currently work, so it doesn't have that tag.

Paizo Employee Designer

blackbloodtroll wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:
What about Tiger Claws? Doesn't this FAQ mess with it as well?
It does screw with it, along with Horn of the Criosphinx, Perfect Recall, and a number of other feats/abilities.

Horn of the Criosphinx works perfectly out of the box. Perfect Recall specifically says you add it a second time, so specific overrides general and you add it twice. Heading to sleep now. I'll be back later to see if you guys find any more. I'm hoping to tackle the ones that we all find on Monday.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, what about abilities, that explicitly state they add a modifier twice?

EDIT: Ninja'd.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, what about abilities, that explicitly state they add a modifier twice?

As above, those are specific overriding general. So like mindchemist's perfect recall, those all add it twice. And ones that say they add double the bonus aren't even specific overriding general, they're multiplying, rather than adding twice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Paulicus wrote:

Those two were listed earlier as an example, they don't stack.

It sounds like, unless the ability specifically changes the 'type' of bonus granted by the ability modifier (i.e. paladins and their smite adding Cha to AC as a deflection modifier), then they don't stack.

Citation needed.

PS: I think you are correct, but I did not see an example that matched up with this one. I don't care if it does not stack, but now it seems they will need to clarify what the "source" is. By the rules this also seems like stealth errata, which I don't think is a bad term, but it should be noted as such officially. OK, I don't expect for them to say "stealth errata", but sometimes the FAQ is used to change rules so noting it as a "rules change" would be nice.
Rules changes, as of late, have been noted with "This will be reflected in future errata". Or at least, we're trying to get better about that. You'll see it in the ACG FAQs. The result of this particular FAQ, however (that ability modifiers don't add in multiple times), was unanimous consensus among the Design Team of how the rules currently work, so it doesn't have that tag.

So how are we supposed to know what a "source" is? I always thought it was a spell/feat/class feature, not the bonus itself. Just to be clear I am not upset, but unless I am reading the FAQ incorrectly I have no idea on how to identify a source. If that will be in another FAQ I will be happy with that answer.

From the way I read the FAQ a source is the ability score, not the feat/spell/etc that grants tells you to use the ability score, or are ability scores an exception to what the designers intend for us to use as sources?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also thanks for taking the time to answer questions Mark. <2 thumbs up>

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Also thanks for taking the time to answer questions Mark. <2 thumbs up>

+1

Paizo Employee Designer

wraithstrike wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Paulicus wrote:

Those two were listed earlier as an example, they don't stack.

It sounds like, unless the ability specifically changes the 'type' of bonus granted by the ability modifier (i.e. paladins and their smite adding Cha to AC as a deflection modifier), then they don't stack.

Citation needed.

PS: I think you are correct, but I did not see an example that matched up with this one. I don't care if it does not stack, but now it seems they will need to clarify what the "source" is. By the rules this also seems like stealth errata, which I don't think is a bad term, but it should be noted as such officially. OK, I don't expect for them to say "stealth errata", but sometimes the FAQ is used to change rules so noting it as a "rules change" would be nice.
Rules changes, as of late, have been noted with "This will be reflected in future errata". Or at least, we're trying to get better about that. You'll see it in the ACG FAQs. The result of this particular FAQ, however (that ability modifiers don't add in multiple times), was unanimous consensus among the Design Team of how the rules currently work, so it doesn't have that tag.

So how are we supposed to know what a "source" is? I always thought it was a spell/feat/class feature, not the bonus itself. Just to be clear I am not upset, but unless I am reading the FAQ incorrectly I have no idea on how to identify a source. If that will be in another FAQ I will be happy with that answer.

From the way I read the FAQ a source is the ability score, not the feat/spell/etc that grants tells you to use the ability score, or are ability scores an exception to what the designers intend for us to use as sources?

They are all sources of different kinds. As I posted in the other thread (or this one earlier, I can't remember and it's late, sorry) the feat/spell/etc is redirecting you to the ability modifier. So it's like primary and secondary sources for research papers. So while a feat that gives a "+2 bonus" is the primary (and only) source, in the case of a feat that adds your Charisma modifier, the feat is the secondary source and the ability modifier is the primary source. Or for computer science analogy, the feat source recursively calls the ability score source.

Or further alternately, it acts identically to if all untyped ability score bonuses had a type with the name of that ability score (that isn't the case for reasons I learned when I proposed that as the FAQ, but it is effectively equivalent in how to adjudicate it; then again, enough people are confused, we'll see what the others think on Monday about putting up this alternate explanation on the FAQ as well).

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Also thanks for taking the time to answer questions Mark. <2 thumbs up>

Thank you guys for making the FAQ explanation the best it can be by explaining the parts that were confusing to you. Some day down the road, players less experienced than pros like you and blackbloodtroll are going to need to reference this FAQ, potentially with time pressure in the middle of a game, and they all win when you guys help make it easier for them to understand by pointing out what you see (plus checking about whether any rules element was hit by this unintentionally means I can fix those swiftly).

Anyway, good night for real this time!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, the normal strength to damage dealt with a Shield Bash, does not stack with the damage done by Merciless Rush, when using Shield Slam, or are these considered separate attacks(Bull Rush/Shield Bash), and both damage is applied?


Mark Seifter wrote:


They are all sources of different kinds. As I posted in the other thread (or this one earlier, I can't remember and it's late, sorry) the feat/spell/etc is redirecting you to the ability modifier. So it's like primary and secondary sources for research papers. So while a feat that gives a "+2 bonus" is the primary (and only) source, in the case of a feat that adds your Charisma modifier, the feat is the secondary source and the ability modifier is the primary source. Or for computer science analogy, the feat source recursively calls the ability score source.

Or further alternately, it acts identically to if all untyped ability score bonuses had a type with the name of that ability score (that isn't the case for reasons I learned when I proposed that as the FAQ, but it is effectively equivalent in how to adjudicate it; then again, enough people are confused, we'll see what the others think on Monday about putting up this alternate explanation on the FAQ as well).

I think I get it, but I still expect for others to be confused. I know you are going to sleep so I wont expect an answer until tomorrow.

My interpretation of what you said:

Feats/spells/etc are normally the primary source however if the feat/spell/etc grants you access to an ability modifier that now becomes the primary source. That stops the same abilities such as fury's fall and agile maneuvers from being used together.

PS: I understanding "calling" in computer programming so I get it. I am trying to make it easier to understand in case someone else is having trouble understanding it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, the normal strength to damage dealt with a Shield Bash, does not stack with the damage done by Merciless Rush, when using Shield Slam, or are these considered separate attacks(Bull Rush/Shield Bash), and both damage is applied?

This is a good chance to test my knowledge so I will give you an answer and we will see if Mark agrees with me tomorrow.

The FAQ says " you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier."

Merciless Rush says "... you deal damage equal to your Strength modifier to that target."

A shield bash is a normal attack and the equipment chapter says.. "Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon"

Now going back to the FAQ you can add the modifier/bonus and a number equal to the bonus so these two should stack. Now if Merciless Rush said to add your strength bonus instead of "damage equal to" your strength bonus then they would not stack.


wraithstrike wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, the normal strength to damage dealt with a Shield Bash, does not stack with the damage done by Merciless Rush, when using Shield Slam, or are these considered separate attacks(Bull Rush/Shield Bash), and both damage is applied?

This is a good chance to test my knowledge so I will give you an answer and we will see if Mark agrees with me tomorrow.

The FAQ says " you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier."

Merciless Rush says "... you deal damage equal to your Strength modifier to that target."

A shield bash is a normal attack and the equipment chapter says.. "Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon"

Now going back to the FAQ you can add the modifier/bonus and a number equal to the bonus so these two should stack. Now if Merciless Rush said to add your strength bonus instead of "damage equal to" your strength bonus then they would not stack.

No, the FAQ considers "<untyped> bonus equal to Strength bonus" the same as Strength bonus. But Merciless Rush is just straight damage, not "a bonus to damage". So DR would apply to it separately to any other damage (such as from a Shield Bash).

I assume you're talking about the Shield Slam/Merciless Rush combo.

I'll add my voice to the chorus that believes typing the Ability bonuses is the more intuitive and elegant solution.


redward wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, the normal strength to damage dealt with a Shield Bash, does not stack with the damage done by Merciless Rush, when using Shield Slam, or are these considered separate attacks(Bull Rush/Shield Bash), and both damage is applied?

This is a good chance to test my knowledge so I will give you an answer and we will see if Mark agrees with me tomorrow.

The FAQ says " you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier."

Merciless Rush says "... you deal damage equal to your Strength modifier to that target."

A shield bash is a normal attack and the equipment chapter says.. "Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon"

Now going back to the FAQ you can add the modifier/bonus and a number equal to the bonus so these two should stack. Now if Merciless Rush said to add your strength bonus instead of "damage equal to" your strength bonus then they would not stack.

No, the FAQ considers "<untyped> bonus equal to Strength bonus" the same as Strength bonus. But Merciless Rush is just straight damage, not "a bonus to damage". So DR would apply to it separately to any other damage (such as from a Shield Bash).

I assume you're talking about the Shield Slam/Merciless Rush combo.

I'll add my voice to the chorus that believes typing the Ability bonuses is the more intuitive and elegant solution.

BBT did not ask about DR. He only asked if the two abilities stacks or if he would only get damage from one of them, and Merciless Rush adds damage equal to your strength mod. That is why I quoted since getting a bonus equal to an ability mod is a determination on whether or not something stacks.

Grand Lodge

wraithstrike wrote:
That is why I quoted since getting a bonus equal to an ability mod is a determination on whether or not something stacks.

The FAQ considers an untyped bonus equal to an ability modifier to be the same as adding that ability modifier and prevents these from stacking. If the bonus is typed (such as the paladin's deflection bonus quoted in the FAQ) it stacks in the normal way.


Starglim wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
That is why I quoted since getting a bonus equal to an ability mod is a determination on whether or not something stacks.
The FAQ considers an untyped bonus equal to an ability modifier to be the same as adding that ability modifier and prevents these from stacking. If the bonus is typed (such as the paladin's deflection bonus quoted in the FAQ) it stacks in the normal way.

I already know that. That is what my last two posts said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you PDT for answering this, again, but I truly don't know how you can call this anything but an errata. It may have been the intent all along, but nothing in the CRB supports an ability modifier being a type, which is the only way this new interpretation would have been the way this was read in the absense of this faq.


wraithstrike wrote:
BBT did not ask about DR. He only asked if the two abilities stacks or if he would only get damage from one of them, and Merciless Rush adds damage equal to your strength mod. That is why I quoted since getting a bonus equal to an ability mod is a determination on whether or not something stacks.

Gotcha. But Merciless Rush doesn't add damage. It says "dealing it a number of points of damage equal to your Strength modifier." So it's a discrete bit of damage separate from anything else and therefore not subject to stacking.


redward wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BBT did not ask about DR. He only asked if the two abilities stacks or if he would only get damage from one of them, and Merciless Rush adds damage equal to your strength mod. That is why I quoted since getting a bonus equal to an ability mod is a determination on whether or not something stacks.
Gotcha. But Merciless Rush doesn't add damage. It says "dealing it a number of points of damage equal to your Strength modifier." So it's a discrete bit of damage separate from anything else and therefore not subject to stacking.

which is just like the FAQ saying "a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier".

A "bonus equal to" and "a bonus equal to" are the same thing.

There is no difference between "dealing it a number of points of damage equal to your Strength modifier" and “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier.", for the purpose of stacking.

Both of them reference the ability score by using equal to, which according to the FAQ stacks with the ability modifier(which can be a penalty or bonus). For weapon damage it calls out the bonus.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, the normal strength to damage dealt with a Shield Bash, does not stack with the damage done by Merciless Rush, when using Shield Slam, or are these considered separate attacks(Bull Rush/Shield Bash), and both damage is applied?

The bull rush/merciless rush damage is separate from the shield slam damage, there are no stacking issues here.


wraithstrike wrote:

which is just like the FAQ saying "a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier".

A "bonus equal to" and "a bonus equal to" are the same thing.

There is no difference between "dealing it a number of points of damage equal to your Strength modifier" and “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier.", for the purpose of stacking.

Both of them reference the ability score by using equal to, which according to the FAQ stacks with the ability modifier(which can be a penalty or bonus). For weapon damage it calls out the bonus.

What I'm trying to say is Merciless Rush isn't adding damage to anything, it is just damage. The closest analogue to Shield Slam + Merciless Rush I can think of is Attack + Grab + Constrict. And it looks like you agree with me on that works (granted that is prior to this FAQ).

Or to answer BBT's original question, I believe they are considered separate attacks.


redward wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

which is just like the FAQ saying "a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier".

A "bonus equal to" and "a bonus equal to" are the same thing.

There is no difference between "dealing it a number of points of damage equal to your Strength modifier" and “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier.", for the purpose of stacking.

Both of them reference the ability score by using equal to, which according to the FAQ stacks with the ability modifier(which can be a penalty or bonus). For weapon damage it calls out the bonus.

What I'm trying to say is Merciless Rush isn't adding damage to anything, it is just damage. The closest analogue to Shield Slam + Merciless Rush I can think of is Attack + Grab + Constrict. And it looks like you agree with me on that works (granted that is prior to this FAQ).

Or to answer BBT's original question, I believe they are considered separate attacks.

ok. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is this FAQ purely for ability bonuses? Or does it include other referential bonuses as well?

Like say, if I play a daring cavalier, when I use challenge I add my level to damage and if I pick up precise strike I also add my level to damage. Are those considered to be the same source?

And what about orange ioun stones? They add an untyped caster level bonus. If I have multiple ioun stones are they considered to be different sources (different ioun stones) or the same source?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rikkan wrote:

Is this FAQ purely for ability bonuses? Or does it include other referential bonuses as well?

Like say, if I play a daring cavalier, when I use challenge I add my level to damage and if I pick up precise strike I also add my level to damage. Are those considered to be the same source?

And what about orange ioun stones? They add an untyped caster level bonus. If I have multiple ioun stones are they considered to be different sources (different ioun stones) or the same source?

It is clarifying when ability based bonuses don't stack, from what I understand, but the "level based damage" is a good question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's another FAQ/errata that I'm going to ignore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

So if I am playing an oracle/paladin character with the Sidestep Secret and Smite Evil class abilities (see below) does the Dexterity/Charisma replacement to AC and the Charisma/Deflection bonus to AC no longer stack? They appear to have different bonus types, but come from the same "primary" source.

Sidestep Secret:
Sidestep Secret (Su) Add your Charisma modifier (instead of your Dexterity modifier) to your Armor Class, CMD, and all Reflex saving throws. Your armor’s maximum Dexterity bonus applies to your Charisma instead of your Dexterity.

Smite Evil:
Smite Evil (Su) Once per day, as a swift action, you can choose one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, you add your Charisma bonus to your attack rolls and add your paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of your smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per paladin level you possess. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess. In addition, while smite evil is in effect, you gain a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier to your AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If you target a creature that is not evil, your smite is wasted with no effect. The smite evil effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time you rest and regain your uses of this ability.

I suspect that, at least in the short term, this FAQ is going to cause a lot more confusion than it clears up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

So if I am playing an oracle/paladin character with the Sidestep Secret and Smite Evil class abilities (see below) does the Dexterity/Charisma replacement to AC and the Charisma/Deflection bonus to AC no longer stack? They appear to have different bonus types, but come from the same "primary" source.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

I suspect that, at least in the short term, this FAQ is going to cause a lot more confusion than it clears up.

That ones nice and straightforward, it's pretty much called out in the FAQ. As smite evil grants a typed bonus (deflection) = to your charisma it will stack with the oracle abilities that replace dexterity with charisma.


. . .

*headdesk*


dragonhunterq wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

So if I am playing an oracle/paladin character with the Sidestep Secret and Smite Evil class abilities (see below) does the Dexterity/Charisma replacement to AC and the Charisma/Deflection bonus to AC no longer stack? They appear to have different bonus types, but come from the same "primary" source.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

I suspect that, at least in the short term, this FAQ is going to cause a lot more confusion than it clears up.

That ones nice and straightforward, it's pretty much called out in the FAQ. As smite evil grants a typed bonus (deflection) = to your charisma it will stack with the oracle abilities that replace dexterity with charisma.

This is correct, as in this case it isn't a result of a double-dip, which I will define as using the same modifier type derived from the same ability score to apply to the same statistic. You are simply using your ability score modifier and a deflection bonus that is equal to your ability score modifier, meaning they will stack.

If you were trying to use Divine Grace from the Paladin feature and Divine Protection feat simultaneously (excluding the written Special note that wasn't added until later), then it would not work as they are both the same modifier type (Untyped) derived from the same ability score (Charisma) that applies to the same statistic (Saving Throws).


Rikkan wrote:

Is this FAQ purely for ability bonuses? Or does it include other referential bonuses as well?

Like say, if I play a daring cavalier, when I use challenge I add my level to damage and if I pick up precise strike I also add my level to damage. Are those considered to be the same source?

And what about orange ioun stones? They add an untyped caster level bonus. If I have multiple ioun stones are they considered to be different sources (different ioun stones) or the same source?

As it sits, it is purely for ability scores, though I suspect it may extend to class/character level-based subjects. Simultaneously, you must understand that subject is not exactly a valid argument, as the Challenge feature adds equal to Cavalier levels, whereas the Precise Strike adds equal to Swashbuckler levels. Since those are two separate class level statistics and not your character level or the same class, they would stack.

As far as caster level is concerned though, when it comes to Ioun Stones, they don't stack unless otherwise stated, meaning if you had multiple CL-increasing Ioun Stones of the same type (Orange Prism), they won't stack with themselves, since that CL increase is from the same source of Ioun Stone. If they were separate types, they would stack. [Additionally, I don't think the level-based restriction that may come from the FAQ will apply to that statistic, simply because there are several subjects that increase CL which also have restrictions to that CL increase, so it checks itself (Magical Knack, for example).]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

So if I am playing an oracle/paladin character with the Sidestep Secret and Smite Evil class abilities (see below) does the Dexterity/Charisma replacement to AC and the Charisma/Deflection bonus to AC no longer stack? They appear to have different bonus types, but come from the same "primary" source.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

I suspect that, at least in the short term, this FAQ is going to cause a lot more confusion than it clears up.

This feels like the free actions/round FAQ, but that may just be me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Simultaneously, you must understand that subject is not exactly a valid argument, as the Challenge feature adds equal to Cavalier levels, whereas the Precise Strike adds equal to Swashbuckler levels. Since those are two separate class level statistics and not your character level or the same class, they would stack.

As far as caster level is concerned though, when it comes to Ioun Stones, they don't stack unless otherwise stated, meaning if you had multiple CL-increasing Ioun Stones of the same type (Orange Prism), they won't stack with themselves, since that CL increase is from the same source of Ioun Stone.

So if I understand it correctly, the Panache and Deeds (Ex) the daring champion archtype adds to the cavalier don't do anything, since the cavalier has no swashbuckler levels?

And yes that is one way to look at ioun stones, the other is that each ioun stone is a different source. And thus as untyped bonuses they do stack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So... a Lore Oracle with the sidestep secret revelation takes the Divine Protection feat.

Sidestep Secret:
Sidestep Secret (Su): Your innate understanding of the universe has granted you preternatural reflexes and the uncanny ability to step out of danger at the very last second. Add your Charisma modifier (instead of your Dexterity modifier) to your Armor Class and all Reflex saving throws. Your armor’s maximum Dexterity bonus applies to your Charisma instead of your Dexterity.

Divine Protection:
Divine Protection: You gain a bonus equal to your Charisma modifier on all saving throws. If your Charisma modifier is already applied as a bonus on all saving throw (such as from the divine grace class feature), you instead gain a +1 bonus on all saving throws.

According to the FAQ he doesn't add charisma to his reflex saves twice, but since Sidestep replaces dexterity with charisma he's potentially losing out on a modifier - with this combination the Sidestep Secret is suddenly penalizing the Reflex save rather than benefiting it.

Could he override Sidestep Secret and add his dexterity modifier to reflex instead of his charisma modifier? By itself Sidestep Secret doesn't offer the option to choose, it simply says that you use charisma instead of dexterity.


Kudaku wrote:

So... a Lore Oracle with the sidestep secret revelation takes the Divine Protection feat.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

I am also concerned whether this errata applies to instances of "replace" instead of just "add".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

This "type changes source" thing just does not sit well with me, as nothing prior to this FAQ, even implies such a thing.

Is it in the "unwritten rules"?

NO! there are no unwritten rules in the game that are rules players need to follow. If it's not a written rule it's not a rule

Shadow Lodge

This is probably the best and biggest errata ever. It solved like 999 faq questions at the same time.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

This "type changes source" thing just does not sit well with me, as nothing prior to this FAQ, even implies such a thing.

Is it in the "unwritten rules"?

NO! there are no unwritten rules in the game that are rules players need to follow. If it's not a written rule it's not a rule

The "unwritten rules" are indeed not meant for players. They are the guidelines that the developers follow to inform their rule decisions. That is what the PDT is trying to accomplish with this FAQ.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
There's another FAQ/errata that I'm going to ignore.

I'll handle it on a case by case basis. But I think there are some abilities that are just not worth it with this ruling.


Gingerbreadman wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
There's another FAQ/errata that I'm going to ignore.

I'll handle it on a case by case basis. But I think there are some abilities that are just not worth it with this ruling.

I don't really mind the intent of the ruling (to prevent double stacking) I'm more upset that there are a ton of abilities from a ton of different writers which seem to disagree with the FAQ.

I don't think it's fair to call it an FAQ even it's much closer to an errata.

I'd love to hear the logic behind nerfing mysterious stranger/pistilero if double dex to damage wasn't possible and this isn't something you only just now decided.

As to the paladin with all due respect you're changing the meaning of the actual text because it doesn't fit the FAQ. The actual text would explicitly allow stacking but you don't want it to stack so you're conveniently interpreting it different from the actual wording.

Considering that an entire class is riddled with double dipping, a feat which was written fairly on doesn't work, and a CRB phrasing doesn't work I'm highly inclined to believe that the only reason this ruling came about is that double stacking is something that is considered dangerous and there are now more basic problems of an entire class having some double dip abilities which clearly (The inquisitor AND his allies) double dip don't work but should.


Kudaku wrote:

So... a Lore Oracle with the sidestep secret revelation takes the Divine Protection feat.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

According to the FAQ he doesn't add charisma to his reflex saves twice, but since Sidestep replaces dexterity with charisma he's potentially losing out on a modifier - with this combination the Sidestep Secret is suddenly penalizing the Reflex save rather than benefiting it.

Could he override Sidestep Secret and add his dexterity modifier to reflex instead of his charisma modifier? By itself Sidestep Secret doesn't offer the option to choose, it simply says that you use charisma instead of dexterity.

This was already handled before the FAQ based on Divine Protections wording:

Divine Protection wrote:


Divine Protection: You gain a bonus equal to your Charisma modifier on all saving throws. If your Charisma modifier is already applied as a bonus on all saving throw (such as from the divine grace class feature), you instead gain a +1 bonus on all saving throws.

Sidestep Secret is also a class feature of the Lore oracle if she chooses that revelation (a benefit of the oracles mystery class feature). Divine protection then adds an additional +1 to reflex saves.

As written, no you may not use your dex instead. Either don't choose that revelation if you intend to take divine protection, or find a different feat than divine protection. (Or if you really really want that +1 reflex, then take them both and know it is a very suboptimal choice).

Sovereign Court

I don't know about "a ton" of abilities...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Paulicus wrote:

Those two were listed earlier as an example, they don't stack.

It sounds like, unless the ability specifically changes the 'type' of bonus granted by the ability modifier (i.e. paladins and their smite adding Cha to AC as a deflection modifier), then they don't stack.

Citation needed.

PS: I think you are correct, but I did not see an example that matched up with this one. I don't care if it does not stack, but now it seems they will need to clarify what the "source" is. By the rules this also seems like stealth errata, which I don't think is a bad term, but it should be noted as such officially. OK, I don't expect for them to say "stealth errata", but sometimes the FAQ is used to change rules so noting it as a "rules change" would be nice.
Rules changes, as of late, have been noted with "This will be reflected in future errata". Or at least, we're trying to get better about that. You'll see it in the ACG FAQs. The result of this particular FAQ, however (that ability modifiers don't add in multiple times), was unanimous consensus among the Design Team of how the rules currently work, so it doesn't have that tag.

I put it to you that if a FAQ requires more than one other thing to be errataed, you should consider it to be a "rules change" even if it was the intended rule, because clearly other rules were written with a different understanding of the intent.

I am still entirely unclear on this; so far as I can tell, the primary issue was agile maneuvers and fury's fall, and that is the only case I know of in PF where taking a feat can make you less good at something.

(Take fury's fall. Look at your CMB for trip attacks. Now take agile maneuvers, and look at what happened: You got worse.)

This ruling also seems to very confusingly conflate "type" and "source" in a way that I don't think does anything to make things clearer. It was previously consistent in FAQs that "source" referred to a feat, ability, spell, or whatever. We now have this very weird special case, and I can't see why. There is no evidence that there was a game balance problem with the extremely narrow cases in which people could get the same stat mod twice, and I've never seen an argument before that supported the notion of an ability score as a "source", really.

I don't know. I mean, obviously, no real effect on me, since I don't play PFS, and I'm free to ignore a ruling if I don't think it makes sense, but it's still a very strange answer.

351 to 400 of 1,084 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What is the meaning of 'source' in regards to bonus stacking? All Messageboards