Bardic knowledge too powerful? A mathematical analysis.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 61 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

He specifically calls it out there, you are correct, and that's a good thing. Not everyone who plays visits the boards though, and I still say the RAW reading is that the ability no longer functions. As has been brought up countless times before one Dev post in a big thread does not a FAQ make, and may even be wrong. I'm not saying this is that situation (fairly certain RAI is for it to work), but if someone called me for it in PFS I wouldn't have much to stand on based on a RAW argument. And I have had PFS gms tell me on several occasions "if it's not in a FAQ, it's not the rules." Often even if the obvious intent is written by the person who madethe class or feat.


Your standing on a RAW argument is specific vs. general. Pretty straightforward, honestly.

Cases that it solves-- Irrepressible + Charmed Life, for example-- are consistently those of stacking two different abilities together to produce a result. Nothing in either one of those says "these will work together". But with a Mindchemist's ability, "a second time" pretty clearly indicates "we know this is not the general case, here is a specific exception".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly if you think this ability doesn't work then you better tell us that evasion doesn't work, that diehard doesn't work, and combat reflexes doesn't work.

Because that's the same path you are going down.


It is common knowledge that when an ability says it does X, and X contradicts a general rule then X wins. Maybe some people need an FAQ asking if specific overrules general.

Most likely they are just being jerks because they dont like the rule in PFS, if they try to say "I know what it means, but the RAW says differently". I am sure they dont have dead people walking around.


Anzyr wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
The alchemist (Mindchemist) gets double his intelligence to knowledge skills and an ability to increase his intelligence. Combined with Breadth of Experience (I think that's the feat) and you don't even have to put skill points into any knowledge skills.
Not any more.
Yes it still does. It's explicit in the ability. I'm sorry your feelings are hurt with the new FAQ but don't run around to different threads putting forth bad information.

At 2nd level, a mindchemist has honed his memory. When making a Knowledge check, he may add his Intelligence bonus on the check a second time.

It says "add a second time" not "double his Int mod". Adding a second time is explicitly forbidden. So who is putting forth bad information?

You.
Nope, I am following the rules as (re)written. You seem to want there to be exceptions for the rule when convenient to your purposes.

Ok... I'm going to break this down for you.

The FAQ is a general rule.
The Mindchemist is a specific rule.
Specific rules should be followed over general rules.
Therefore, even with the new FAQ, Mindchemist can add their INT bonus twice to knowledge checks.
That's RAW.

Same applies with any class ability or feat that double dips, so that means that the FAQ has no meaning.

What is it about THIS ability that allows double dipping that the others do not have?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:


What is it about THIS ability that allows double dipping that the others do not have?

The fact that it explicitly allows double-dipping as part of the wording of a single ability, as opposed to an unexpressed implication of how two abilities (e.g. Irrepressible and Charmed Life) interact?


^this, the 1 ability gives twice, where the others are 2 abilities that each give once.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thorin001 wrote:


What is it about THIS ability that allows double dipping that the others do not have?

The fact that it explicitly allows double-dipping as part of the wording of a single ability, as opposed to an unexpressed implication of how two abilities (e.g. Irrepressible and Charmed Life) interact?

It says add a second time. That is explicitly forbidden by the FAQ. There is nothing rules wise to differentiate it from any other double dipping example. If it said to add double your Int modifier it would be exempt. But it doesn't. At least until they come out with yet another FAQ to fix the damage caused by the main one.


thorin001 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thorin001 wrote:


What is it about THIS ability that allows double dipping that the others do not have?

The fact that it explicitly allows double-dipping as part of the wording of a single ability, as opposed to an unexpressed implication of how two abilities (e.g. Irrepressible and Charmed Life) interact?

It says add a second time. That is explicitly forbidden by the FAQ. There is nothing rules wise to differentiate it from any other double dipping example. If it said to add double your Int modifier it would be exempt. But it doesn't. At least until they come out with yet another FAQ to fix the damage caused by the main one.

The thing that differentiates it is that it says to add it twice. Please show me where it says that in Divine Grace. Please show me where it says that in Sidestep Secret. Or any other example. The words "add your int modifier twice" is a specific rule, much like Evasion is a specific rule that changes how Reflex saves work. Thus even though normally you take half damage on a successful Reflex save a person with Evasion takes none and even though normally you can't add an ability modifier to the same stat twice, the Mindchemist can add their INT modifier twice to knowledge checks. If you don't understand that's one thing and the new FAQ is rather confusing. But I get the impression you understand and just don't like it.


DrSwordopolis wrote:

Cheesing Pageant of the Peacock? (Side note: Banned in PFS)

It's been discussed quite a bit - Pageant's a tad OP, but if your GM lets you run with it, then it's likely the single best performance you can choose, and lets you get rid of Bardic Knowledge with no downside.

B-b-but, Pageant of the Peacock used to be PFS kosher. DANGNABIT. I hate having to adjust my cheesy builds because they update Additional Resources, especially after I originally created the character. SIGH. Good thing she hasn't taken it yet, though I was willing to do Lotus Geisha and lose Bardic Knowledge for the very reason you could get it back in spades with Pageant of the Peacock. Oh well...at least I decided against going for Pageant of Peacock with my Dawnflower Dervish...

Thanks for the heads up, Dr Swordopolis. Guess it's a good thing I did some threadomancy (though perhaps I should've spent the time reading the Add Resources updates more closely. lol.)

Liberty's Edge

No worries, I had a bard who had Pageant too - it was too good not to pass up. Fortunately, he's a GM credit baby, so swapping the piece out was a matter of clicking an "X" on Herolab and replacing it with Suggestion.

PFS doesn't do the best job in the world of putting up "Patch Notes". I've been half tempted to write a bot to do the job for some time.

51 to 61 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Bardic knowledge too powerful? A mathematical analysis. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.