Actually, as written, that clause is only invoked if you have Charisma to all saves, not just one of them.This was already handled before the FAQ based on Divine Protections wording:
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).
Hmm, you are right. That is an oddity then.
This was already handled before the FAQ based on Divine Protections wording:
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).
It's not covered - Divine Protection spells out that the bonus must apply to *all* saves. Sidestep only works on Reflex saves.
Edit: Ninjaed :)
I am sure this new FAQ will require a deeper explanation and maybe some examples.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am sure this new FAQ will require a deeper explanation and maybe some examples.
LOL It's kind of sad but this FAQ is going to need a FAQ. :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sure this new FAQ will require a deeper explanation and maybe some examples.LOL It's kind of sad but this FAQ is going to need a FAQ. :P
I wouldn't call it sad at all! I'd say it's evidence that the process is working as intended, and doing pretty well, too.
The FAQ goes up, the forums hunt for unintended consequences and other challenges to the new rule and point out ways in which the language of the ruling is or could be confusing, the design team addresses those and adjusts the ruling as needed in light of the discussion. Everybody wins.
Sounds healthy to me.
See, for example, this series of posts from Mark that have this sort of process comment: <here>, <here>, <here>, <here>, <here>, and <here>.
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).
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.
[...] 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).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would an Undead Antipaladin no longer get charisma to his Fort saves from Unholy Resilience because he already gets charisma (in place of constitution) to his Fort save, as an undead?
It would seem that would be the case, Squirrel_Dude. That does make Knight of the Sepulcher a less desirable archetype to play.
Nein. Paladins/Antipaladins get "a bonus equal to their Charisma bonus" while Undead replace Con with Cha. They stack.
I don't think they do Rynjin. Unless the bonus equal to their Charisma bonus is given a specific type, then it doesn't stack. If no type is mentioned, then "a bonus equal to their X bonus" is now considered the same as "their X bonus".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)"
They are both Cha bonuses. They don't stack.
For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)"They are both Cha bonuses. They don't stack.
Not quite. Rereading the rules, they would stack. Unholy resilience doesn't grant the Charisma bonus to saving throws, it grants "a [untyped] bonus equal to his Charisma bonus," so it stacks like the Paladin's ability would. I think.
And people thought we had to painstakingly parse rules text before.
The FAQ calls out the Paladin's Divine Grace and all other "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" as the same as "[Ability Score] bonus" which do not stack with each other as per the first part of the FAQ.
Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?
No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.
The FAQ calls out the Paladin's Divine Grace and all other "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" as the same as "[Ability Score] bonus" which do not stack with each other as per the first part of the FAQ.
Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?
No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.
Ah right, the Paladin is the exception to the rule.
This ruling and the discussion around it is mind-bottling.
|
|
Would an Undead Antipaladin no longer get charisma to his Fort saves from Unholy Resilience because he already gets charisma (in place of constitution) to his Fort save, as an undead?
I believe that is correct.
No Constitution score. Undead use their Charisma score in place of their Constitution score when calculating [...] Fortitude saves.
Unholy Resilience (Su): At 2nd level, an antipaladin gains a bonus equal to his Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws.
[...] the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.
By the "effective rule" here, all "[Ability] bonus" and "bonus equal to" constructions are treated as typed bonuses of a type corresponding to the ability score. So here you have, effectively, two "Charisma-type" bonuses applying to the same score. By usual stacking rules, those don't stack.
See <here> and <here> for relevant posts from Mark.
In your example, "a deflection bonus equal to your charisma modifier", you imply it is different than "a bonus equal to charisma modifier", even if both are from different class abilities, but the former considers the class ability as the source, and the latter considers the ability score as the source, even though they are nearly identical in wording.Correct. Essentially "bonus equal to your Charisma modifier" was meant as a stand-in for "your Charisma modifier", and they came out worded differently due to imprecision. This FAQ, then, corrects that imprecision as part of explaining how it applies, since one victim of that imprecision was a very common ability in the CRB (divine grace).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, made the mistake of assuming this FAQ worked logically. =/
Mark, this is the second time this has happened in the new wave of FAQs (a billion unintentional changes). I get that you guys are trying to get more FAQs out, which is admirable, but I'd suggest you spend a little more time thinking about these big ones before pushing them out.
You can shove small clarifications like "Pummeling Style only works with Unarmed Strikes" at a rapid pace with little to no consequence, since at worst it messes up a single ability, but rushing these huge pseudo-Errata without fully mapping out potential consequences is more harmful than helpful.
In short, big, general sweeping FAQs should be the result of more than just "It was at the top of the FAQ queue and we (The PDT) all agreed on some course of action".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, made the mistake of assuming this FAQ worked logically. =/
Mark, this is the second time this has happened in the new wave of FAQs (a billion unintentional changes). I get that you guys are trying to get more FAQs out, which is admirable, but I'd suggest you spend a little more time thinking about these big ones before pushing them out.
You can shove small clarifications like "Pummeling Style only works with Unarmed Strikes" at a rapid pace with little to no consequence, since at worst it messes up a single ability, but rushing these huge pseudo-Errata without fully mapping out potential consequences is more harmful than helpful.
In short, big, general sweeping FAQs should be the result of more than just "It was at the top of the FAQ queue and we (The PDT) all agreed on some course of action".
I think you'll find, if you read through Mark's contributions to this thread, that the process was not the sort you're fearing (especially re "unintentional"). See generally my above process post (this is a healthy process), and I refer you to these in particular: <here> and <here>:
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.
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.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think that it's very important to keep in mind that of course FAQs will require some adjustment after initial release. With such a complex game and with so much material any given ruling might affect, we shouldn't expect the initial release to be perfect or account for all cases.
Instead of getting upset that there is that period of adjustment and catching cases that hadn't caught PDT's eye, we should strive to be helpful for the process of generating rulings and clarifying any ripple effects.
What's the alternative? — That there are no FAQs. If we get upset every time there are ripple effects, that just discourages PDT from bothering.
See e.g. the horrible example from earlier in the summer with the mounted FAQs. There was a good faith effort to fix some of the issues with mounted combat, Stephen stepped into the discussion thread to engage with the posters on possible ripple effects, and instead of being helpful everybody pitched a fit about the ruling and heaped insults upon him. Notice what happened next—he stepped away from the counterproductive mess (which is *entirely* understandable and justifiable), those ripple effects never got resolved, and we didn't see another FAQ for months.
Mark has proven himself to be very good at going through a healthy forum process. And I trust that he's an advocate for getting the ripple effects accounted for and doing whatever adjusting needs to be done.
But this attitude that you're displaying here, Rynjin, and the attitude in your earlier posts of "how pissed off should I be?" is one of the main problems that works against us having a fully functioning, healthy FAQ system.
So instead of focusing on griping and throwing insults, why don't you focus on how you can help keep the process healthy and keep it moving along? As my father is so fond of saying, "progress, not perfection"—let's focus on making that progress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't call it sad at all! I'd say it's evidence that the process is working as intended, and doing pretty well, too.
When I see an FAQ go up, I expect it to clarify an issue, not bring up a pile of other questions. This one really NEEDS an extensive explanation AND it'll have to lead to several other abilities needing fixed/patched or left to not work. it seems to be doing the opposite of it's purpose: to clarify. That's what I mean by "It's kind of sad but this FAQ is going to need a FAQ."
Instead of getting upset that there is that period of adjustment and catching cases that hadn't caught PDT's eye, we should strive to be helpful for the process of generating rulings and clarifying any ripple effects.
The reason people are 'upset' is that the explanation/reason for the FAQ is counter intuitive. No one's saying 'NO FAQ'S', just this one seems to generate more issues that it could possibly solve. A FAQ that seems to NEED an FAQ seems to most anyone that looks at it as one that maybe needed more time/thought/ect. It's understandable if people are scratching their heads and are frustrated by that fact.
I give Mark a LOT of credit for coming in and trying to sort things out. I REALLY hope they go back to the drawing board on this one but I've got nothing but good thing to say about him and his efforts. Frustration over a new ruling isn't a sign of animus with the DEV's.
Remember the ruling is basically untyped bonus that is equal to charisma is now a charisma type bonus. They had some issue with calling it a type, but the DEV said that if you treated it as a type it would all work like the FAQ wants. So I don't know what issue they had with calling it a type, so they used some strange wording and adding of sources to make it work like it was a type of bonus.
Remember the ruling is basically untyped bonus that is equal to charisma is now a charisma type bonus. They had some issue with calling it a type, but the DEV said that if you treated it as a type it would all work like the FAQ wants. So I don't know what issue they had with calling it a type, so they used some strange wording and adding of sources to make it work like it was a type of bonus.
If it WAS types, that'd solve a lot of it but it isn't. Now things can have multiple sources and who knows what will,will not or already IS a source. Before you knew what a source was. Now anything and everything could be a nested source. Race, class, level, stat, spell, feat, ability could all be simultaneously sources and have some kind of stacking hierarchy we don't know about. And the DEV said pretending it was a type was the way HE thought about it to make sense of it. It wasn't a ruling or anything.
yeah, so much better than types... :P
I think what's missing is a clear explanation of why the simpler answer from other FAQs ("the source is the feat, effect, or ability which grants you the bonus") isn't acceptable. What goes wrong? It's pretty clear that the intent is not to give antipaladin undead a penalty to fortitude saves, obviously they were supposed to get good bonuses there. Fury's fall/agile maneuvers isn't a good enough combination to need a nerf. Where's the case where the simpler ruling doesn't work?
Well the first issue with this is I'm trying to figure out what this is fixing. I'm unaware of anything that that was broken with the available 'double dipping' options. Seems like a big wrench to throw into the works to fix something that isn't broken.
Second the way it's 'fixed' (source vs type) problematic a best.
Third the source 'fix' seems to be made out of new unwritten rules that don't mesh well with the old ones. Multiple nested sources is the way of madness as anything and everything could now be a source.
So a lot of this isn't sitting well/making sense to me.
|
|
When I see an FAQ go up, I expect it to clarify an issue, not bring up a pile of other questions. This one really NEEDS an extensive explanation AND it'll have to lead to several other abilities needing fixed/patched or left to not work. it seems to be doing the opposite of it's purpose: to clarify.
Think of it as the opening step then, and look forward to the final result—whatever the ruling ends up as in the next couple weeks, after the (necessary and unavoidable) initial period of adjustment. :-)
And, of course, we did learn something important here. That as a general rule, you aren't supposed to be able double-dip on an ability score. I agree the ruling needs clarification and that an example or two would help. I agree that, as far as I can tell, the "effective rule" on typing makes much more sense and that it would be better of that were the official rule. But we are making progress here, and I hope that, a month from now (say), the issue will be wrapped up, adjustments made, and the game will be better for having gone through the process.
so far the rule is there is only source changing if something is giving an untyped ability bonus so that it's not a ability source instead of what it was previously. There are no unwritten rules, and there are no other source hierarchy. Unless they say something this is the only time the source can change. So there aren't multiple nested sources, and no other sources have changed. Stop trying to make this seem like a bigger issue than it is. I feel like you're just trying to cause problems by willfully "misunderstanding" what is being said. If this isn't the case it's how you're coming off. So if you have unaddressed concerns please share those.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think that it's very important to keep in mind that of course FAQs will require some adjustment after initial release. With such a complex game and with so much material any given ruling might affect, we shouldn't expect the initial release to be perfect or account for all cases.
Instead of getting upset that there is that period of adjustment and catching cases that hadn't caught PDT's eye, we should strive to be helpful for the process of generating rulings and clarifying any ripple effects.
What's the alternative? — That there are no FAQs. If we get upset every time there are ripple effects, that just discourages PDT from bothering.
I honestly don't thing this should be how it works.
A FAQ or Errata should be a finished work, not a work in progress, since it becomes an official ruling the moment it's written down in the big ol' FAQ list.
Like I said, for smaller things this is fine, but for big general rules changes, there should be a discussion process BEFORE the ruling is "set in stone" as it were.
Essentially it would work the same as it's working now, but less "Here's the FAQ, tell us what's wrong with it" and more "Here's a proposed change, tell us how to streamline it and make it as clear as possible".
I think a Stickied thread for potential FAQs might be very useful if the PDT wants to involve the community in catching any problems with big FAQs. It keeps everything on a more casual level until it's fully published. At that point, it IS a work in progress, and everyone's contributing to finishing it...not a finished work that everybody's helping to correct. A small distinction, but there would likely be a big change in how people responded.
See e.g. the horrible example from earlier in the summer with the mounted FAQs. There was a good faith effort to fix some of the issues with mounted combat, Stephen stepped into the discussion thread to engage with the posters on possible ripple effects, and instead of being helpful everybody pitched a fit about the ruling and heaped insults upon him. Notice what happened next—he stepped away from the counterproductive mess (which is *entirely* understandable and justifiable), those ripple effects never got resolved, and we didn't see another FAQ for months.
But this attitude that you're displaying here, Rynjin, and the attitude in your earlier posts of "how pissed off should I be?" is one of the main problems that works against us having a fully functioning, healthy FAQ system.
That was more sour grapes about another Style Feat being possibly nerfed than anything. I think the FAQ as a whole isn't a bad idea, but it was certainly handled poorly when the response to "We fixed this" is "Yeah but these things no longer function" and "Whoops. You're right." being the follow-up.
A good rule of thumb for making a change to a game (any kind of game) is if your change breaks something else, it's probably not ready to ship.
Essentially the backlash to this FAQ is the exact same backlash a videogame company would get for a patch that fixed a bug, but created several new ones.
A frequent offender is Team Fortress 2, due to the new team working on it having little forethought go into their patches (and a complete lack of knowledge of the metagame, but taht's another discussion). Every patch fixes one major problem and creates 10 new ones, that then take another several months to fix.
Faith has understandably been lost in that team, and is one of the main reasons I stopped playing despite having loved the game when it came out, and still consider it to have been one of the best multiplayer FPSes ever made at one point in its lifespan.
I don't want the same thing to happen here.
Thing is, he very quickly acknowledged that dragon ferocity wording would need to change and what it would be. And then he said that everything else brought up is intended. So I feel unless we do find something that stopped working but should, they thought through this pretty well. And 1 or 2 cases that we find that they didn't think of is fine in my opinion, there are lots of rules, and getting all but 1 or 2 to work fine with this doesn't seem bad. Some people are mentioning that "this ruins everything" or something like that, but so far Mark has said, that was intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Think of it as the opening step then, and look forward to the final result—whatever the ruling ends up as in the next couple weeks, after the (necessary and unavoidable) initial period of adjustment. :-)
You see things differently than I. I expect new rulings like FAQ's to be the final step, not a first step on a ruling.
And, of course, we did learn something important here. That as a general rule, you aren't supposed to be able double-dip on an ability score
There are SO many ways to do that if it was in fact needed. So far, I'm not even sure of that. IMO this could have been a small patch on a few things deemed 'too good' instead of using a hatchet.
so far the rule is there is only source changing if something is giving an untyped ability bonus so that it's not a ability source instead of what it was previously. There are no unwritten rules, and there are no other source hierarchy. Unless they say something this is the only time the source can change. So there aren't multiple nested sources, and no other sources have changed. Stop trying to make this seem like a bigger issue than it is. I feel like you're just trying to cause problems by willfully "misunderstanding" what is being said. If this isn't the case it's how you're coming off. So if you have unaddressed concerns please share those.
What this ruling does is tell us that anything can be a source and if you use math with your character, it may change at some time in the future. Before I knew what a source was and what it's type was. Now that could change at ANY FAQ in the future. They added a new dimension to the rules: Nested Sources.
See if ability is a source, then Race, class and level are JUST as logical and viable sources. Why should two bonuses from class stack when two abilities from a stat don't? It's a road that I'd rather Paizo didn't turn unto.
Thing is, unless they do make another FAQ or errata changing things anymore, there's nothing else changed. So quit making a problem of something that hasn't happened and might never happen. The rule does not say anything can be a source, but that the ability mod is the source of untyped ability bonuses, regardless of what is giving you that bonus.
Also things change, crane wing was something you could use and count on and now it's changed. As this is a game that is still being worked on and changed, yes, ANY rule could change if they thought it was the best thing to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The part that gets my goat about it is they steadfastly REFUSE to change things people have requested for YEARS because they don't want to introduce "incremental change via errata" and then turn around and make stuff like the Crane Wing FAQ and this one which are flat out rules changes.
I don't like being lied to.
What this ruling does is tell us that anything can be a source and if you use math with your character, it may change at some time in the future. Before I knew what a source was and what it's type was. Now that could change at ANY FAQ in the future. They added a new dimension to the rules: Nested Sources.
See if ability is a source, then Race, class and level are JUST as logical and viable sources. Why should two bonuses from class stack when two abilities from a stat don't? It's a road that I'd rather Paizo didn't turn unto.
I have read the FAQ multiple times and I am not seeing how you can be reading it that way. Can you give some examples of what would cause nested sources?
The way I read it the FAQ is simply saying that if you have two different abilities that give you an untyped attribute bonus from the same attribute those bonuses are considered to be from the same source and don't stack. That is it.
It actually implies stats are a source. Which means likely that level is a source so you can never add level to damage twice.What this ruling does is tell us that anything can be a source and if you use math with your character, it may change at some time in the future. Before I knew what a source was and what it's type was. Now that could change at ANY FAQ in the future. They added a new dimension to the rules: Nested Sources.
See if ability is a source, then Race, class and level are JUST as logical and viable sources. Why should two bonuses from class stack when two abilities from a stat don't? It's a road that I'd rather Paizo didn't turn unto.
I have read the FAQ multiple times and I am not seeing how you can be reading it that way. Can you give some examples of what would cause nested sources?
The way I read it the FAQ is simply saying that if you have two different abilities that give you an untyped attribute bonus from the same attribute those bonuses are considered to be from the same source and don't stack. That is it.
But unless they come out with another FAQ saying such it isn't. And nothing else works differently than what this FAQ directly covers.
It actually implies stats are a source. Which means likely that level is a source so you can never add level to damage twice.
That seams a reasonable conclusion, and one that I don't have a problem with but I don't see how that has anything to do with nested sources. If you have two abilities that both let you add your level to damage and level is considered the source that is a single source not nested sources.
But unless they come out with another FAQ saying such it isn't. And nothing else works differently than what this FAQ directly covers.
Not necessarily true. The reason the FAQ was requested is because no one knew before how any of bonuses of this kind worked in the first place. So to say that nothing else works differently is just to say we still don't know how other similar bonuses work.
While it is true this FAQ doesn't explicitly refer to other bonuses like a level bonus there is no reason to think they should not be handled consistently with the way we now do know that ability scores work.
But we don't have anything to indicate that they'd be different now then they were before. So unless they address such it works as it currently does. If level was a stat I agree it would fall under this and work likewise. But we don't have anything tying level to stat that would indicate that we should treat level as a level bonus source. So until the devs say so it isn't.
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.
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.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.
Mark, I want to thank you for putting out this FAQ!
I will state that I don't like it: point in fact it runs contrary to all sorts of things that I like about Pathifinder/3.X system, and it makes a huge mess, to the point of killing a few character concepts I've been building for a while.
But I really appreciate the FAQ being made. It's going to be a tough row to hoe, this idea, and I want you to know that even though it's a frustrating decision from my perspective and personal enjoyment, I appreciate that the design team (and you!) are tackling such contentious and requested issues; whether I personally like the answer or not it's still good to get it out there, and I'm sure there are a number of players who will benefit greatly from this ruling.
I wish to take this moment to request, however, a set of notes to be written on the myriad of (now-overlapping) sets of abilities. These need to be reduced in future publications, as, overlapping as they do, they are now anti-synergistic. Thanks!
It would be exceedingly helpful if the compiled overlap list was officially listed and updated somewhere for clarity, as diving through pages on a contentious thread is very likely frightening/boring/impossibly long for newer players, GMs, or similar looking for something similar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But we don't have anything to indicate that they'd be different now then they were before. So unless they address such it works as it currently does. If level was a stat I agree it would fall under this and work likewise. But we don't have anything tying level to stat that would indicate that we should treat level as a level bonus source. So until the devs say so it isn't.
I'm just following the logic and not liking the precedent it seems to set. Making stat bonuses doesn't rock the boat[I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't make many waves].
New nested sourcing does. IMO it means that I can never again be positive I know if something untyped stacks/doesn't again as it may lead to a before unmentioned sub-source I've never thought of before. It used to be that knowing type and source (now primary source) was enough but not anymore.
The part that gets my goat about it is they steadfastly REFUSE to change things people have requested for YEARS because they don't want to introduce "incremental change via errata" and then turn around and make stuff like the Crane Wing FAQ and this one which are flat out rules changes.
I don't like being lied to.
I can understand this. The 'hands of effort' FAQ was that really got MY goat as it seemed started the trend of 'unwritten rules'. It seems we're getting farther away from rules I'm ok with but rules I don't like don't get the same treatment. it's frustrating when something new out of left field is used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That fails to fix the in class daring champion issue.Could you explain that?
They get two abilities to add their level in damage. Neither one says it stacks/adds with other such abilities.
well it's a good thing there's no rule yet saying you can't get level to damage twice. So until there is it works and you can. If they want to change that as part of this faq, then they can address this issue. just like their addressing dragon ferocity.
Why is level implied as a source bonus? The only thing this FAQ addresses was untyped stat bonuses. nothing about level. If you guys keep this up you'll derail this and people will get confused. I can understand if you're upset at the ruling, I don't like it, I felt double dipping was fine. But there's no reason to say that this makes a rule that it doesn't talk about at all. Up until they say level is a source or a type it's not.