For those too lazy to click the above links:
Would you get an increase to DC's of class abilities not specifically mentioned here? (ie. it specifies Channel Energy DC's, but says nothing about Oracle Mysteries, or Bard's Suggestion(Sp) ability.)
The reason I ask is because of this phrase in the second sentence of the ability score bonuses: "apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability." What exactly qualifies as a statistic in this case? Is it only the things listed after each ability score in the paragraph, or is it more inclusive than that?The term "statistics" in this case refers to the things called out in the stuff I quoted for Strength, Dexterity, and so on. That intro paragraph is explaining how to do the general math when you get an ability score increase, the paragraphs beneath are explaining exactly what gets boosted when you boost that ability score.
I spoke with Jason and he says that the Charisma section's failure to mention Cha-based saves that aren't spells (such as bard performance DCs) is an oversight and it should apply to Charisma-based DCs. Likewise, an Int boost affects Int-based DCs, and so on.
We can't give an exhaustive list of every single ability in the game and whether or not a temporary boost affects it, but we can give you these two guidelines:
(1) It should affect DCs based on that ability score modifier.
(2) It should affect rolls modified by that ability score modifier, such as Str mod affecting melee attack rolls and Wis mod affecting Will saves.
(3) It should not affect abilities that treat an ability score modifier as a "consumable." In this context, a "consumable" is one where your number of uses per round/day/week/whatever is based on the ability score or its modifier, such as channel energy uses per day, wizard school abilities usable {Int bonus} per day, bardic performance rounds per day, barbarian rage rounds per day, and so on.Everything else is on a case-by-case basis up to GM discretion, but avoiding (3) is much more important than limiting it to (1) and (2).
This means you could eagle's splendor to temporarily improve a paladin's divine grace ability, because that falls under the category of (2). Likewise, this means a temporary bonus to an oracle's Charisma should increase the DC of the oracle's revelations (even though oracle revelations weren't invented at the time the Core Rulebook was written).
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You guys are using messageboard commentary from 2 and 4 years ago to overturn an official FAQ that's less than a year old and flatly contradicts those old posts?
EDIT: For some posters on these boards, that wouldn't surprise me. But for some of you, I've lost a lot of faith because of this.
You guys are using messageboard commentary from 2 and 4 years ago to overturn an official FAQ that's less than a year old?
Also don't forget that Sean himself recently posted that anything not officially posted in the FAQ or in the Errata should not be taken as official. He himself specifically declared message board posts by devs as unoffical.
And yet people still say I'm "wrong."
|
You guys are using messageboard commentary from 2 and 4 years ago to overturn an official FAQ that's less than a year old and flatly contradicts those old posts?
EDIT: For some posters on these boards, that wouldn't surprise me. But for some of you, I've lost a lot of faith because of this.
Maybe you should read the tread that stemmed that FAQ.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You guys are using messageboard commentary from 2 and 4 years ago to overturn an official FAQ that's less than a year old and flatly contradicts those old posts?
There are less embellished posts from late last year in the thread that spawned that FAQ that say the same thing, I just picked the earlier one which was far longer and more explanatory.
Do you really need me to find more recent posts just so your road block of "hey dude they changed their mind when this FAQ came out" problem?
Basically, this concept seems to be immensely complex to convey since they have not yet found words to get everyone on the same page despite the core rules, a FAQ, and countless forum posts.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Do you really need me to find more recent posts just so your road block of "hey dude they changed their mind when this FAQ came out" problem?
Yes.
Because the FAQ says, quite explicitly, that temporary bonuses affect EVERYTHING, not just some particular category. It says that ANYTHING related to the stat is affected. It even says "just like permanent ability bonuses".
If you're going to try to convince me that "everything, just like permanent bonuses" really means "only certain things, unlike permanent bonuses", you're going to need much more solid proof than outdated messageboard posts.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Do you really need me to find more recent posts just so your road block of "hey dude they changed their mind when this FAQ came out" problem?Yes.
If you're going to try to convince me that "everything, just like permanent bonuses" really means "only certain things, unlike permanent bonuses", you're going to need much more solid proof than outdated messageboard posts.
I'll let others google for them, but the FAQ came about as a result of a few different threads where they were passionately argued that the only things that changed were the things spelled out on page 554. So I can see how the FAQ could answer only one aspect of it and not the other.
Go with the meaning. That is the entire point of saying.
I'll let others google for them, but the FAQ came about as a result of a few different threads where they were passionately argued that the only things that changed were the things spelled out on page 554. So I can see how the FAQ could answer only one aspect of it and not the other.Do you really need me to find more recent posts just so your road block of "hey dude they changed their mind when this FAQ came out" problem?Yes.
If you're going to try to convince me that "everything, just like permanent bonuses" really means "only certain things, unlike permanent bonuses", you're going to need much more solid proof than outdated messageboard posts.
There is literally no way for the FAQ to be more explicit in its phrasing other than actually going through every ability check in every rule book, splat book, module, and adventure path and listing them all. Temporary bonus = permanent bonus.
So where do daily resources come into this? Most daily resources require you to rest or require a certain time to pass to replenish them. We can say that temporary bonuses grant additional daily uses, sure, but those uses haven't been rested up, so if the GM decides that they are acquired but not ready to use, it makes little difference until the character rests or the appropriate time passes. So even with the FAQ, it is a valid interpretation (that is, it does not require the GM to contradict the FAQ) to disallow daily use shenanigans by wearing/removing items with temporary bonuses. For this reason, I don't really think much about this issue any more--temporary = permanent, period. Enfeeble the cavalier until he can barely move in his armor, or use bull's strength to lift the fallen statue out of the way, but don't juggle headbands trying to get infinite spells.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Go with the meaning. That is the entire point of saying.
Exactly. They wouldn't have gone to the trouble of being so incredibly explicit and spending multiple paragraphs in the FAQ trying to say "No really, we were just short on space, temp bonuses are just like permanent ones" if they didn't mean it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
don't juggle headbands trying to get infinite spells.
No one really cares how it plays out except when someone tries to do that.
They wouldn't have gone to the trouble of being so incredibly explicit and spending multiple paragraphs in the FAQ
So I take it you are fine with the juggling above? You don't think it was explicit to block the crowd of people saying "only the explicit stuff listed get bonuses and they get them in awkward ways" problem? Because I participated in the threads that were rampant just before the FAQ landed and I left thinking "wow the FAQ brought back sanity to the world".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
They wouldn't have gone to the trouble of being so incredibly explicit and spending multiple paragraphs in the FAQSo I take it you are fine with the juggling above?
The juggling still isn't a thing even when you don't ignore the plain-English meaning of the FAQ. I don't understand how so many people don't get that.
You don't think it was explicit to block the crowd of people saying "only the explicit stuff listed get bonuses and they get them in awkward ways" problem? Because I participated in the threads that were rampant just before the FAQ landed and I left thinking "wow the FAQ brought back sanity to the world".
I vaguely remember something about that, like trying to say bull's strength boosted attack/damage on a Dervish Dancer, right?
I believe the thread exists. I believe that it spawned the FAQ to answer that issue. I'm skeptical than any claims of exclusions (i.e., temp bonuses don't apply to X) were actually included in that thread. More likely you're either just remembering the very old statements and didn't catch the reversal in the FAQ, or something kind of related was said and you misinterpreted it.
Hence the requests for links; so I know whether or not there really is a good reason to ignore plain English in an official, binding FAQ.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The juggling still isn't a thing even when you don't ignore the plain-English meaning of the FAQ. I don't understand how so many people don't get that.
Ok time for me to be plain English.
If the juggling cheese to exploit per day things like spell slots and channels per day is close off in your reading of the FAQ, then I fully support your reading. I just misunderstood your reading of it. In short, it sounds like we share identical readings of the FAQ now and have always?
Going by my hazy recollection of some old designer posts, the only things intended to be left out during those first 24 hours are skill ranks and daily resources (such as bonus spells or rage rounds).Skill ranks are an interesting one. If you had an item that grants an intelligence bonus and doesn't specifically state that it doesn't grant skill ranks. The headband of vast intelligence has a special rule about skill ranks, as does the fox's cunning spell. But the Crimson Sphere Ioun Stone does not. It's just an enhancement bonus to intelligence.
If you could toggle a bonus to intelligence off and on at will, and it granted skill ranks, you could potentially pick and choose new skills to max out with full ranks each time, allowing you to situationally have any skill with max ranks temporarily.
Relevant info:
JJ on skillpointsWe wanted it to also grant skill points, since that's what increased intelligence scores do. What we DIDN'T want was a situation where you get an item that grants an INT bonus and put it on your head and get to pick where those extra skill ranks go there and then...
So the solution was to "hard code" the skill ranks into each item.
Intelligence: If my Intelligence modifier increases, can I select another bonus language?
Yes. For example, if your Int is 13 and you reach level 4 and apply your ability score increase to Int, this increases your Int bonus from +1 to +2, which grants you another bonus language.
Technically, Int-enhancing items such as a headband of vast intelligence should grant a specific language (in the same way they do for skill ranks).
[italics added]
This FAQ implies all Int boosting items behave this way, not just headbands. [I.e. that Crimson Sphere Ioun Stone.]
/cevah
|
In 3.5 they didn't have a temporary/permanent dichotomy (and after the FAQ there is no longer a dichotomy in PF).
As for 'juggling headband cheese', there was a Sage Advice FAQ which addressed this issue for daily resources. Basically, simply note how many of that resource that you've use today (like Turn Undead, for example). If you can Turn 5/day, then get +4 Wis, then you can Turn 7/day. If you've actually used it six times today, taking advantage of the Wis boost to go over your normal limit, if the spell wears off, nothing happens. If Wis is boosted again later in the same day then your limit becomes 7/day again, but you've already used it six times so you have one left, if you use it before the boost runs out.
Tracking daily uses by 'how many used' is no more or less complex than tracking it by 'how many left'.
|
|
Go with the meaning. That is the entire point of saying.Exactly. They wouldn't have gone to the trouble of being so incredibly explicit and spending multiple paragraphs in the FAQ trying to say "No really, we were just short on space, temp bonuses are just like permanent ones" if they didn't mean it.
So you claim that instead they have gone to the trouble to say "they are different" for no reason?
The FAQ states the reason. The designers were trying to save players and GMs time by providing quick rules for handling ability score modifications on the fly without having to recalculate a ton of stats (similar to the quick rules for simple-templating a monster, rules that only remain consistent if you don't examine them too closely). What they ended up doing is making it more complicated instead, having the opposite effect.
A truism attributed to William James is
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all."
It is a truism because it is inarguable. That being the case, what conceivable reason could there be for saying that certain items grant "temporary" ability bonuses when worn less than 24 hours, but grant "permanent" bonuses if worn 24 hours or longer, if there is in fact supposed to be no difference at all between the two types of bonus? Especially when it is made perfectly clear that any such bonus, of either type, lasts only as long as the item in question is worn. There either must be some difference, or the designers have wasted their time and ours in this. If there is no difference, they might as well have written of "green" bonuses and "red" bonuses and then clarified that of course by "green" and "red" they meant the exact same thing!
But that's not the reason they've given on other occasions, when pointing out the specific things they did not want temporary bonuses to apply to!
It's the reason given in the most recent official word on the matter. Good enough for me.
A truism attributed to William James is"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all."It is a truism because it is inarguable. That being the case, what conceivable reason could there be for saying that certain items grant "temporary" ability bonuses when worn less than 24 hours, but grant "permanent" bonuses if worn 24 hours or longer, if there is in fact supposed to be no difference at all between the two types of bonus? Especially when it is made perfectly clear that any such bonus, of either type, lasts only as long as the item in question is worn. There either must be some difference, or the designers have wasted their time and ours in this. If there is no difference, they might as well have written of "green" bonuses and "red" bonuses and then clarified that of course by "green" and "red" they meant the exact same thing!
Dude. We just covered this. : (
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If someone explains in great detail that the purpose of a rule is X, and then later writes up a new thing which doesn't accomplish X, and explains that actually the purpose of the rule is Y, my first interpretation is not that the long and detailed explanations repeated over a year or two never happened.
I believe it was designed to fill both of these:
- Allow only stats (like carry capacity, to hit, etc) and rolls while block daily resources and the like.
- Make it quick and easy for paper players
Then during a couple blowup threads where people said ridiculous things like bonuses to str would always add +1 even when on a boundary where you would get +2 from 1.5 STR and that it would add when adding to STR when using a DEX weapon. They decided to FAQ away the "quick paper rules" but failed to address what wasn't touched much on in the threads. Specifically the daily resource issues.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The juggling still isn't a thing even when you don't ignore the plain-English meaning of the FAQ. I don't understand how so many people don't get that.Ok time for me to be plain English.
If the juggling cheese to exploit per day things like spell slots and channels per day is close off in your reading of the FAQ, then I fully support your reading. I just misunderstood your reading of it. In short, it sounds like we share identical readings of the FAQ now and have always?
Well, I dunno now. :)
Here's where I'm at:
The FAQ, when taken with a straightforward, common-sense reading, says pretty explicitly that temporary bonuses affect EVERYTHING that a permanent bonus does. Any reasonable person who's not carrying prior assumptions into it would come to that conclusion from reading it.
Previously, this had not been the case. I think we're all on the same page there; used to be, there was a substantial difference between temp/perm bonuses. This is further verified (as if it needed to be, lol) by those old messageboard posts from SKR that were linked earlier.
But that was then. Now, we have a new, official FAQ that explicitly contradicts old, unofficial commentary.
That's what's in front of me. That's what I'm looking at.
Now, we have some folks (which I thought included you) saying "But if the FAQ means what it plainly says, then HATSWAPCHEESE! happens, so it has to mean something other than what it plainly says."
My response is that no, what the FAQ plainly says (i.e., that temp/perm bonuses are identical) doesn't actually produce HATSWAPCHEESE! (for reasons I can lay out again if you like), so there's no reason to start throwing plain-English common sense out the window.
The FAQ says something quite plainly, it's a change from how things used to be, and that change is nothing to panic about.
The only reason THIS thread exists is because stat-boost items contain language that used to mean something pre-FAQ that it no longer means post-FAQ. So what I'd like addressed is whether those items should still function like they used to (in which case they need additional language) or if they should function like the FAQ now causes them to (in which case the 24-hour temp line could just be deleted to prevent confusion).
Was that follow-able?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think I basically agree with you. But!
Given the huge gap between RAW and stated developer intent in the past, I genuinely can't tell whether the FAQ is intended to be a change to the semantics of the rules, or is an attempt to clarify that overlooks that key consideration. Because the people writing the words are not perfect machines who always do everything perfectly...
Well, if the FAQ's contradiction of previous intent is indeed an accident, then this thread won't exactly get in the way of getting that fixed. :)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Was that follow-able?
Mostly, yes
Given the huge gap between RAW and stated developer intent in the past, I genuinely can't tell whether the FAQ is intended to be a change to the semantics of the rules, or is an attempt to clarify that overlooks that key consideration.
My view didn't change on the RAW before or after the FAQ, so maybe I'm in the minority. I've always looked at the examples on page 554 as more of a here is a list of things that you can remember when doing paper games if you don't have an electronic sheet as opposed to a only these change list.
That coupled with the various hints and developer comments that /day things shouldn't be helped by temporary bonuses leaves me with the same opinion on RAW and RAI from 2009 to now.
My response is that no, what the FAQ plainly says (i.e., that temp/perm bonuses are identical) doesn't actually produce HATSWAPCHEESE! (for reasons I can lay out again if you like), so there's no reason to start throwing plain-English common sense out the window.
I actually missed how you explained that even if Temporary Bonuses function identical to Permanent Bonuses, that it doesn't equate to HATSWAPCHEESE. Reviewing the Headband language again:
This intricate gold headband is decorated with several small blue and deep purple gemstones.
The headband grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Intelligence of +2, +4, or +6. Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the headband is worn. A headband of vast intelligence has one skill associated with it per +2 bonus it grants. After being worn for 24 hours, the headband grants a number of skill ranks in those skills equal to the wearer's total Hit Dice. These ranks do not stack with the ranks a creature already possesses. These skills are chosen when the headband is created. If no skill is listed, the headband is assumed to grant skill ranks in randomly determined Knowledge skills.
This actually sounds like it grants 2 sets of skills (one set applied to a skill upon creation, the other granted from an increased Intelligence score, which also allows you to learn a language, of course). The only thing is the set skill increase only applies after you wear it for 24 hours, a factor set apart from it granting a temporary bonus for being worn pre-24 hours.
That aside, there is no language present that I see which disregards it from granting spell slots per day, if we take the interpretation of the FAQ.
Seems my read of the rule is vastly different to a lot of folks.
My take on it is (for example), a guy with 18 Intelligence who gets a +4 temporary boost to Int has a +4 bonus from Intelligence and a +2 bonus to all Intelligence derived statistics. His spells per day (if an Intelligence-based caster) continue to derive from his actual Intelligence score. So do his skills.
If he wears a +4 headband for 24 hours or more, his Intelligence actually increases to 22. All of those derived statistics are at the same bonus as they were while it was temporary, but he now gets the headband's skill ranks and bonus spells per day.
Heck, all the rules need to say is "per round/hour/day/week abilities based on an ability score use the permanent ability score to calculate their uses".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually missed how you explained that even if Temporary Bonuses function identical to Permanent Bonuses, that it doesn't equate to HATSWAPCHEESE.
I think it was actually in a different thread, come to think of it.
Anyway, let's start with X/day abilities, like Channeling. We'll start with the (frankly, ridiculous) fear of "each time you put it on you get an extra usage!".
So a cleric wakes up with 16 CHA, so he can channel 6/day. He hasn't used any.
Current status: Channel 6/day, 0 used.
He goes out adventuring, uses 5 channels.
Current status: Channel 6/day, 5 used.
He puts on a +2 headband.
Current status: Channel 7/day, 5 used.
He channels once more.
Current status: Channel 7/day, 6 used.
He takes the headband off.
Current status: Channel 6/day, 6 used. Now he can't channel.
He puts the headband back on.
Current status: Channel 7/day, 6 used.
Now he channels one last time.
Current status: Channel 6/day, 7 used. He's right back to not being able to channel.
Now he flips the headband off and on and off of his head over and over.
Current status: Channel flipping between 6/day and 7/day, but still 7 used no matter how many times that headband moves.
In short, the first fear falls apart because taking the headband off doesn't erase your earlier usages of the ability.
-----
Still with X/day abilities, now looking at the "communal headband" fear, where a group of PCs pass it around so they can wear it, use the ability an extra time, then pass it to the next person. Keep the above in mind when thinking about how this plays out, as any "extra" ability uses would have to be at the end of the day when you're otherwise dry.
Now, let's look at this closely. They're sharing a headband, so that means they HAVE a headband. This means that PC1 isn't getting anything "extra", because in a "normal" situation he'd have that headband all to himself anyway. So we're not even looking at an issue until we get to PC2.
Furthermore, PC2 needs to be someone who will get value out of the same mental stat. So, like maybe a cleric (channeling) and a sorcerer (1st-level bloodline power, i.e. claws)? Or a cleric (domain powers) and a non-animal-companion-using druid (domain power)? There's a few combinations, but it's by no means a guarantee in a given party. And that's to get ONE character to get a benefit out of this. If you want to claim that a whole party is going to do this, you start having to look at a really weird party.
Also, let's look at actions. Most X/day abilities like this are in-combat things. What stat-based X/day ability is so powerful that it's worth a couple of characters spending actions passing the headband around? Fire bolt for an extra chance at 1d6+half level damage? Really?
Okay, so maybe let's look at non-combat X/day abilities. Maybe a cleric's channeling? Okay, so at the level where a party can buy that 4k headband, they'd rather get one extra end-of-the-day (because that's the only time it works, remember) channel out of combat? Instead of using that 750gp wand of CLW? Really?
So for PCs "sharing" a headband so that one of them gets one extra use of a (typically 1st-level) X/day ability at the end of the day, it actually does work, but is such an incredibly weak and situational option that no one's actually going to do it. In short, there's no problem here.
-----------
Now for spells per day. Just like with X/day abilities, taking the headband off and on repeatedly does not give you infinite spells. The number of spells of a given level that you've cast today doesn't go down when you take the headband off. So if you're wearing a +2 headband that takes you from 18 to 20, you have 2 bonus 1st-level spells from a high stat. If your normal allotment of 1st-level spells is 4, then in total you get 6 1st-level spells per day.
If you've cast 6 1st-level spells today, no amount of headband-flipping is going to change that fact, so you will never be casting any more spells than if you just kept the headband on all day.
So just like with X/day abilities, hat-flips don't gain you anything.
----------
Okay, now spells and headband sharing. At first this seems more dangerous because spells can be stronger than most X/day abilities. But on further examination, that doesn't even matter. Why? If you look at what level you can expect to aquire a headband, look at what spell levels you can cast at that character level, look at what your pre-headband casting stat probably is at that level, and then look at which spell levels the headband will actually get you bonus spells for; it turns out you're usually looking at a single bonus spell a level or three below their highest spell level.
For instance, a 5th-level cleric who started with an 18 WIS would only gain an extra 1st-level spell from a +2 headband, compared to 3rd-level spells he's able to cast. If he instead only has 16 WIS, he literally gains nothing.
So even if worst comes to worst, you're typically looking at gaining a single low-level spell. That's not very bad for a worst-case scenario.
Now, let's see if that even happens realistically. Let's go ahead and assume (though this won't always be the case) that our party has two casters with the same casting stat (let's say sorc and oracle). Remembering the things we've already learned about how your number of spells already cast doesn't change, you won't actually gain any benefit from being passed the headband unless you're otherwise out of spells.
So at the end of the day, after you and your fellow are both already out of spells, you could pass the hat along so they can cast one more low-level spell. Thus, by sharing a headband, the party as a whole nets one extra low-level spell per redundant caster each evening.
This is scary?
Also, why would a party do this in the first place? To save money? What did the second caster want to spend 4k on that was worth NOT getting +1 to save DCs (and whatever else their casting stat affects) and having to wait until the end of the day to cast their final low-level spell? In what situation would doing this instead of just buying your own headband actually be the more powerful choice?
=================================================
TLDR: Basically, the genuinely-broken versions of HATSWAPCHEESE (infinite spells/abilities, or prep-time sharing) don't actually function at all, and the versions that DO function are worthless options that no one would actually choose over simply wearing their own headband all day.
So even taking the FAQ to mean what it plainly says (that temp/perm bonuses are identical), HATSWAPCHEESE is still not a thing.
I'll take it step by step.
So a cleric wakes up with 16 CHA, so he can channel 6/day. He hasn't used any.
Current status: Channel 6/day, 0 used.He goes out adventuring, uses 5 channels.
Current status: Channel 6/day, 5 used.
Makes sense and doesn't break mechanics so far.
He puts on a +2 headband.
Current status: Channel 7/day, 5 used.
This is where the problem begins: When they first put on a headband and/or not wear it consistently, it's a Temporary Bonus until 24 hours elapse while the headband is worn.
According to the FAQ, Temporary Bonuses behave all the same as Permanent Bonuses. So if Temporary Bonuses are, for every instance and functionality of intent, a Permanent Bonus, why even use the term "Temporary Bonus"? Because it's a game term? If it has the same parameters and definition of a different game term, why not just use the other, more consistent game term instead?
The problem the FAQ presents (if it wasn't obviously stated already in this thread) is that it essentially removes "Temporary Bonus" from being its own game term, because it's the same thing as a "Permanent Bonus," with no key differences.
But that is just one of a few problems with enforcing it, and for simplicity and completeness of evaluation, I'll skip over it and say it's plausible.
He channels once more.
Current status: Channel 7/day, 6 used.He takes the headband off.
Current status: Channel 6/day, 6 used. Now he can't channel.
In mathematical terms, this makes sense. Moving on.
He puts the headband back on.
Current status: Channel 7/day, 6 used.Now he channels one last time.
Current status: Channel 7/day, 7 used. He's right back to not being able to channel.Now he flips the headband off and on and off of his head over and over.
Current status: Channel flipping between 6/day and 7/day, but still 7 used no matter how many times that headband moves.In short, the first fear falls apart because taking the headband off doesn't erase your earlier usages of the ability.
This is physically impossible by Pathfinder mathematics, and is exactly why the old intent regarding Temporary Bonuses needs to be enforced. You have people who are able to use abilities more than they otherwise are normally able to use, and because it's not a Permament Bonus, it shouldn't apply to something that is based off of an increase of something permanent.
Don't get me wrong, it's not incorrect in the real world to calculate it that way, but in Pathfinder, you can't, and aren't supposed to, because the game wasn't intended to work that way.
If I see that sort of stuff happening in PFS, then fine, you win and I concede. But any PFS GM, or whatever sane GM you come across would take your proposal of "It's not broken to allow more than what I otherwise normally could because the FAQ is stupid like that," and throw it out the window, maybe along with you.
I'll also point out that the intent of attribute-enhancing items, similar to other items permanently granting the effects of spells, generally follow the same limitations set by those spells unless stated otherwise. The clause of "Treat this as a Temporary Bonus" was meant to enforce that it has those limitations for the first 24 hours you wore the attribute item.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'll take it step by step.
No, by the end it's clear you didn't.
This is where the problem begins: When they first put on a headband and/or not wear it consistently, it's a Temporary Bonus until 24 hours elapse while the headband is worn.
According to the FAQ, Temporary Bonuses behave all the same as Permanent Bonuses. So if Temporary Bonuses are, for every instance and functionality of intent, a Permanent Bonus, why even use the term "Temporary Bonus"? Because it's a game term? If it has the same parameters and definition of a different game term, why not just use the other, more consistent game term instead?
The problem the FAQ presents (if it wasn't obviously stated already in this thread) is that it essentially removes "Temporary Bonus" from being its own game term, because it's the same thing as a "Permanent Bonus," with no key differences.
That is the whole point of this thread.
Back when these headbands' descriptions were written, there was a difference between temp/perm bonuses. The FAQ removed that difference. That's why the first post of this thread is basically asking whether the "old way" is still supposed to be present in the items' functionality (in which case we need either a revised FAQ or revised item descriptions) or whether we just accept them under the light of the new FAQ (which makes the line about the first 24 hours pointless).
This thread exists specifically to get Paizo to address the very thing you just tried to alert me to. So, congrats on starting to catch up, I guess?
This is physically impossible by Pathfinder mathematics, and is exactly why the old intent regarding Temporary Bonuses needs to be enforced. You have people who are able to use abilities more than they otherwise are normally able to use, and because it's not a Permament Bonus, it shouldn't apply to something that is based off of an increase of something permanent.
First, I don't think you know what "physically impossible" means. You appear to mean "wouldn't be how things worked pre-FAQ", but I can't really be sure, so I'll ignore that sentence as it makes no sense.
Additionally, you cite an example of how removing your headband and putting it back on does NOT give you anything more than if you just wore it all day, and label it as "able to use abilities more than they otherwise are normally able to use", which tells me you're not even really reading.
And finally, you're talking about "should" in response to hypothetical about what happens "if", which shows me you also don't understand the basic context of what my post was even talking about.
Don't get me wrong, it's not incorrect in the real world to calculate it that way, but in Pathfinder, you can't, and aren't supposed to, because the game wasn't intended to work that way.
Sometimes they change how the game works. The FAQ is an example. Another would be the "SLA as prereqs" FAQ. Another would be the rogue's ability to Sneak Attack undead. "The game wasn't intended to work that way" only lasts until Paizo says otherwise.
If I see that sort of stuff happening in PFS, then fine, you win and I concede.
Whether your local PFS GMs run something correctly or not has no bearing on whether or not it's correct in the first place. They're no more official than you or me.
But any PFS GM, or whatever sane GM you come across would take your proposal of "It's not broken to allow more than what I otherwise normally could because the FAQ is stupid like that," and throw it out the window, maybe along with you.
This is where you move out of "I'm explaining my position" and into "I'm being a jerk".
I'll also point out that the intent of attribute-enhancing items, similar to other items permanently granting the effects of spells, generally follow the same limitations set by those spells unless stated otherwise.
Those items don't say "you gain the effects of owl's wisdom" or some such. An item's construction requirements don't dictate its function. You don't carry the effects of fireball into how a flaming weapon works. The spell matters only if the item says it casts or acts as that spell.
The clause of "Treat this as a Temporary Bonus" was meant to enforce that it has those limitations for the first 24 hours you wore the attribute item.
Originally. It was meant to do that originally.
The FAQ changed that.
This thread asks "Hey, we sticking with that for these items, or what?"
Are you up to speed yet?
Back when these headbands' descriptions were written, there was a difference between temp/perm bonuses. The FAQ removed that difference. That's why the first post of this thread is basically asking whether the "old way" is still supposed to be present in the items' functionality (in which case we need either a revised FAQ or revised item descriptions) or whether we just accept them under the light of the new FAQ (which makes the line about the first 24 hours pointless).
This thread exists specifically to get Paizo to address the very thing you just tried to alert me to. So, congrats on starting to catch up, I guess?
Considering everyone is going into semi-off-topic discussions about carrying capacity, whether Finesse should be applicable from Temporary Bonuses (which doesn't even matter by the FAQ), I don't think there was much to catch up on, since nothing ever really happened from Point A to Point B that made a difference. And if this is like any of the other touchy subjects (I assure you that it is), they're not going to answer it (anytime soon), in hopes that the community of players/consumers learn to take matters into their own hands and behave like grownups.
Of course, then we forumites get into scuffles like these, and it doesn't really seem like Paizo's faith is well managed.
First, I don't think you know what "physically impossible" means. You appear to mean "wouldn't be how things worked pre-FAQ", but I can't really be sure, so I'll ignore that sentence as it makes no sense.
It makes enough sense. What I'm saying is by Pathfinder mathematics and mechanics, the physicality that we're discussing, that's first class shenanigans you're pulling. If I spent all of my spells for the day, with no Pearls of Power or what have you to replenish those spell slots, logically I'm not able to cast more than that until I can prepare/rest for those slots, or acquire an item which does what Pearls of Power can do.
Additionally, you cite an example of how removing your headband and putting it back on does NOT give you anything more than if you just wore it all day, and label it as "able to use abilities more than they otherwise are normally able to use", which tells me you're not even really reading.
Actually, I am. By this logic then, Ability Damage and Ability Penalties should function exactly the same as Ability Drain, the direct opposites of what we're dealing with. So if I have 14 Strength and take 2 Strength damage or penalty, I can't Power Attack until that's healed/returned to normal. The street goes both ways, and if you're going to apply it to one, it makes no sense to not apply the same mechanics to the other.
And finally, you're talking about "should" in response to hypothetical about what happens "if", which shows me you also don't understand the basic context of what my post was even talking about.
The context of your post is that even if it functions as a Permanent Bonus, it doesn't change anything. I disagree because it leads to mathematical shenanigans, but the end result doesn't really matter, since you'll never come across an instance of not wearing attribute-enhancing abilities.
Whether your local PFS GMs run something correctly or not has no bearing on whether or not it's correct in the first place. They're no more official than you or me.
I'd beg to differ, since PFS GMs are required to follow the RAW and RAI to the T, and do not change between tables. That being said, PFS is a joke of a gamemode with a bunch of silly houserules and is the cause of why martials are garbage. So I concede this point...
This is where you move out of "I'm explaining my position" and into "I'm being a jerk".
So I'm a jerk for telling you what people are most likely going to do when you try and pull the wool over their eyes while you try to pull potentially-gamebreaking shenanigans?
I guess you must be the biggest a**hole on the planet for telling me "I'm not up to speed."
Those items don't say "you gain the effects of owl's wisdom" or some such. An item's construction requirements don't dictate its function. You don't carry the effects of fireball into how a flaming weapon works. The spell matters only if the item says it casts or acts as that spell.
There is a difference when an item calls out for separate mechanics and follows the same (or very similar) mechanics of the spell being used to enchant the item. I might as well stack Lead Blades and the Impact Property if that's the case.
Playing devil's Advocate: Owl's Wisdom (and the other casting stat buff spells) specifically say "do not gain any additional bonus spells". Obviously that implies that without such a qualifier, temporary boost do give you additional bonus spells.
There;s a special level in hell for that level of devils advocacy... :)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Obviously that implies that without such a qualifier, temporary boost do give you additional bonus spells.
The game is riddled with qualifiers stating the obvious that is well stated elsewhere. So you can't assume something stated is a deviation from the norm or a restatement of the default.
Just to be 100% sure I follow your reasoning, Jiggy, I believe you are saying
- that a cleric without a currently applied Charisma enhancer who casts Eagle's Splendor upon himself would be thereby enabled to channel two more times that day than his normal Charisma-determined allotment, so long as the final two channels take place within the duration of the spell and the cleric hasn't already made use of a spell or item that day that increased Charisma and made use of those extra channels at that time.
- This is canon and game designer intent.
- No dairy products would be involved.
Is that right?
|
|
The spell has an extra rule which prevents this.
Bards, paladins, and sorcerers (and other spellcasters who rely on Charisma) affected by this spell do not gain any additional bonus spells for the increased Charisma.
This special, written exception applies to the spell. It doesn't apply to other things. It doesn't alter the fact that Jiggy is correct here.