Gunslinger - Pistolero
Pistol Training (Ex)
Starting at 5th level, a pistolero increases her skill with one-handed firearms. She gains a bonus on damage rolls equal to her Dexterity modifier, and when she misfires with a one-handed firearm, the misfire value increases by 2 instead of 4. Every four levels thereafter (9th, 13th, and 17th), the bonus on damage rolls increases by +1. At 13th level, a pistolero never misfires with a one-handed firearm.
and
Fighter - Trench Fighter
Trench Warfare (Ex)
Starting at 3rd level, a trench fighter can select one specific type of firearm (such as a machine gun, revolver, or rifle). He gains a bonus equal to his Dexterity modifier on damage rolls when firing that type of firearm. Every 4 levels thereafter (7th, 11th, and 15th), the trench fighter picks up another type of firearm, gaining these bonuses for those types as well. Furthermore, when behind partial, normal, or improved cover, a trench fighter gains an additional +2 AC bonus from the cover.
They seem like untyped damage bonuses and pistol training aims to alter only one handed firearms while trench warefare alters one specific type which could be a one handed firearm. So @ level 8 could you have 2X dex to damage with one handed firearms?
Are there better things to do with your class levels, if so what (assuming you want to take 3 levels of trench fighter regardless)?
Edit: I did see the other threads from 2013 talking about it but there wasn't a consensus as to whether they actually stack...
There was an opinion from JJ that you can't get the same stat to something twice.
I assume you mean here?
Link to post in question
Modifiers from ability scores aren't actually bonuses, strictly speaking. If they are, they're untyped bonuses—which means they stack with all other bonuses except themselves. Thus, if you have multiple things that say "Add your Dex modifier to this roll," you only get to add your Dex modifier once.
He lost me at "aren't actually bonuses, strictly speaking"
1) In every instance I've read where you add your modifier to anything it specifically says "gains a bonus," how is a bonus not a bonus.2) "If they are, they're untyped bonuses—which means they stack with all other bonuses except themselves" I think what he meant to say was "Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source." He intentionally said it the way that he did to be misleading and to help validate his claim/position.
I would much rather he just said "the combination of effects such as this would be too powerful or may upset balance so it should be disallowed." This just sounds like twisting the RAW and trying to make it say something that it doesn't.
Oh, and I know some people see his word as the voice from on high and I will get some hate for saying this but what can you do.
i have never seen that anywhere, where fid you find this "startoweapondamage" bonus?
If you already knew the answer you wanted to hear and are just going to dismiss any opinions to the contrary out of hand, why did you bother to ask the question?
i have never seen that anywhere, where fid you find this "startoweapondamage" bonus?
Basically, it would work by RAW, but there's an "unwritten bonus type" that is the "stat to weapon damage bonus".
Unwritten, so, not written.
And it looks like someone already mentioned the source, and you are already aware of it.
Modifiers from ability scores aren't actually bonuses, strictly speaking. If they are, they're untyped bonuses—which means they stack with all other bonuses except themselves. Thus, if you have multiple things that say "Add your Dex modifier to this roll," you only get to add your Dex modifier once
What James is saying is that when something says you "gain a bonus equal to [attribute] modifier" that bonus is untyped, and so stacks with all other bonuses except those with the same source.
So you can't, say, add your Dex modifier to damage twice, because both would be untyped bonuses from the same source (your Dex).
As for stat modifiers not being bonuses, I suppose that is because you don't actually add the modifier. Rather you add a "bonus equal to your [attribute] modifier."
So the modifier itself isn't a bonus, the bonus (which is equal to the modifier) is the bonus.
Which you can't stack onto itself because the source (the attribute) is the same source for all such bonuses.
I don't know if I 100% agree with him, but his argument is perfectly valid.
i got two answers, one was about what jj said and i didn't just dismiss it out of hand, i took the time to point out why i disagree. if you don't want to debate it or think for your self and prefer to just take what people tell you as law that's fine, i like to think and discuss things because it brings about better understanding. I've been wrong before, and may be wrong now,but that remains to be seen. And i won't be frustrated if i am.
also, i didn't disagree with loneknave at all, i just asked for his source. how dare i do such a think on the internets?
You skimmed over the last sentence of JJ's post:
Thus, if you have multiple things that say "Add your Dex modifier to this roll," you only get to add your Dex modifier once.
In other words, stat modifiers are only ever calculated one time, though if you add separate stats to a given roll, they would stack. (For example, the Iaijutsu Strike or whatever it's called allows you to add your Int modifier in addition to your Dex modifier to Initiative.)
Since you get two bonuses "equal to your Dexterity modifier," from the two features in question, the corollary from JJ's post to this would only allow one to apply, meaning the better one is taken, and the other one is non-applicable.
Even if the former was not true, no sane GM would allow such a combination at his table for similar reasons listed above, as well as the insane power creep that would be generated.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
That's what "unwritten" means. It's not written anywhere, it is just assumed by everyone that it exists.
Then why even mention it? An unwritten/phantom rule that doesn't exist but people pretend does... what?
Which you can't stack onto itself because the source (the attribute)
Ok, I see where I am having trouble agreeing now. The problem is we see the "source" differently and it is not explicitly defined in the books/on the website.
I will break down my train of thought so that I don't look like a crazy person (moreso):
A belt of giant's strength gives X amount of (enhancement bonus) to strength.
The spell bull strength gives X amount of (enhancement bonus) to strength.
These two do not stack because the source (the belt and the spell) are different, but the type (enhancement bonus) is the same and bonuses from the same source do not stack.
I see this discussion as similar:
Pistol training gives an (untyped dex bonus) to damage
and
Trench warefare gives an (untyped dex bonus) to damage
The different bonus types are listed as follows: alchemical, armor, circumstance, competence, deflection, dodge, enhancement, insight, luck, moral, natural armor, profane, racial, resistance, sacred, shield, size, and trait.
Now, as "ability bonus" is not listed as a type so it is untyped. If it is untyped then it stacks which we agree on.
I guess you are seeing dex as the source and not the ability itself which is weird.
A source is: a place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained.
If you didn't have the technique then it wouldn't matter how high your dexterity is, your damage would be the same because dexterity is not the source of the bonus damage. Therefore, the source of the extra damage is not your dexterity, but the technique given by the class. If the source of the damage were dexterity then every character with high dexterity would get bonus damage. That is why I see the source as the technique.
These two classes both have different techniques. The techniques are the sources based on the above, and being as they are different they stack...
Also, this is not to say that I am right and you are wrong, it is simply to shed some light on why i see it my way.
Even if the former was not true, no sane GM would allow such a combination ... insane power creep that would be generated.
And I would be fine with that, above I even said "I would much rather he just said "the combination of effects such as this would be too powerful or may upset balance so it should be disallowed."
The source is the ability. The class feature allows you to use the source.
The source is the ability. The class feature allows you to use the source.
what/how/why?
I will break down my train of thought so that I don't look like a crazy person (moreso):
And I'll break it down with you.
A belt of giant's strength gives X amount of (enhancement bonus) to strength.
The spell bull strength gives X amount of (enhancement bonus) to strength.
These two do not stack because the source (the belt and the spell) are different, but the type (enhancement bonus) is the same and bonuses from the same source do not stack.
Correct. Source can mean from separate abilities, which is what you're assuming (and it's an honest mistake), though source, in terms of stacking, may also refer to the subject that's setting your modifier.
I see this discussion as similar:
Pistol training gives an (untypeddexbonus) to damage
and
Trench warefare gives an (untypeddexbonus) to damage
Yes, they are both an untyped bonus, and therefore would, by the book, stack. It's not a Dex bonus as you point out in your statement, and it conflicts with JJ's statement of them simply being untyped; removing that, it's correct. Moving on.
The different bonus types are listed as follows: alchemical, armor, circumstance, competence, deflection, dodge, enhancement, insight, luck, moral, natural armor, profane, racial, resistance, sacred, shield, size, and trait.
Now, as "ability bonus" is not listed as a type so it is untyped. If it is untyped then it stacks which we agree on.
Remember that even though there are specific types, some of those types stack with themselves (Dodge, some Circumstance bonuses, Racial, etc). Otherwise yes, that's correct.
I guess you are seeing dex as the source and not the ability itself which is weird.
Technically yes, as that's what the modifier being used in the ability is based off of, which JJ says won't stack with itself. Referring to JJ's post once again:
Modifiers from ability scores aren't actually bonuses, strictly speaking. If they are, they're untyped bonuses—which means they stack with all other bonuses except themselves. Thus, if you have multiple things that say "Add your Dex modifier to this roll," you only get to add your Dex modifier once.
Bolded part is a more defined answer. JJ's train of thought is that while yes, they are untyped, they are considered the same type of untyped bonus (Dexterity to X), which many correlate to being the "same source" of the bonus; you have to remember, where are you getting the X from? Your Dexterity score. And whatever is generating the X is the source. While yes, the feature is the source of what allows you to use Dexterity to X, it doesn't change that your X is keyed from your Dexterity score, and as such wouldn't stack with itself.
Also, he then uses the example of stating that multiple abilities allowing you to add a statistic modifier (Dexterity) to a specific type of roll only allows you to include only one set of that amount, since both sets of modifiers are keyed to the same source which sets that modifier, your Dexterity score.
It's a bit confusing, I know; I had to wrap my head around it a few times to understand it myself. Even this thread had me question the actual ruling of the matter, but I think that should answer it going "by-the-book".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess you are seeing dex as the source and not the ability itself which is weird.
I don't necessarily see it that way, I was explaining James' position, since you said it didn't make sense to you. I said James' argument was valid (meaning, if all his premises are true, the argument will be true). Not that I agree with the argument or premises.
Now you clearly understand the opposing argument, it makes a better discussion.
I personally agree that the ability (Pistol Training, for example) makes more sense as the source of the bonus. The ability is what provides the bonus, the size of that bonus is determined by your attribute modifier, but the attribute isn't the source of the bonus.
But James' position is the most commonly accepted, and for good reason, it is more balanced than the alternative.
So while I think saying your Dex modifier is the source of the bonus is ridiculous, I still play it that way to prevent unbalanced situations.
On the other hand, you could just combine Trench Fighter with Mysterious Stranger to add [bonus equal to] both your Dex and Cha modifiers to damage, and there isn't the same argument that they wouldn't stack, so.....