"Treat this as a temporary bonus..."


Rules Questions

101 to 114 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

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.

Correct.

Quote:
  • This is canon and game designer intent.
  • It's what we get from the FAQ. Presumably, it's also the (current) intent because people usually say what they mean; but if it's not, then hopefully this thread will draw designer attention and get the wording changed. But until such a time, the FAQ (which is "canon") says temporary bonuses are identical to permanent ones.

    Quote:
  • No dairy products would be involved.
  • Nothing really worth doing is made possible, correct.


    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

    I don't disagree with your intent Jiggy, but I will go ahead and try to point out where other people are seeing the problem.

    Jiggy wrote:

    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.

    First, where in the rules does it say you should track X/day abilities (spells/powers/etc.) as how many you have used instead of how many you have left? If there is somewhere that specifies which to use, I missed it, meaning that either is just as potentially valid. In a way uses remaining seems to be the more valid approach, since in the case of prepared spells, its something you start out with X amount of and then reduce that amount as you use each cast.

    If we go with how many you have used, it works out perfectly as you have described. If however, a person goes by how many uses are remaining, it has the possible interpretation of HATSWAPCHEESE.

    The cleric starts off the day just as you described.
    Current status: Channel 6/day, 6 remaining (0 used)

    The cleric uses up all his channels.
    Current status: Channel 6/day, 0 remaining (6 used)

    The cleric throws on a +2 headband.
    Current status: Channel 7/day, 1 remaining (6 used)

    The cleric uses up his new channel.
    Current status: Channel 7/day, 0 remaining (7 used)

    The cleric takes off the headband.
    Current status: Channel 6/day, 0 remaining (7 used.

    The cleric throws on the +2 headband again.
    Current status: Channel 7/day, 1 remaining (7 used)

    The cleric uses up his new channel.
    Current status: Channel 7/day, 0 remaining (8 used)

    That's where people think the HATSWAPCHEESE exists. I think its perfectly understandable that a lot of players look at their abilities as how many uses they have remaining. It also is somewhat understandable that ability score increases immediately give you additional uses (even your example makes this assumption, in a way).

    IMHO, no additional uses of any abilities should be gained until you rest (or use some other ability-specific way of regaining them). I think the bonus ability score should only affect max uses, but that is never specified (again, at least as far as I have read), so there's the opening to assume that you get immediate extra uses. Which then leads to the possibility of constantly getting new uses by adding and removing score bonuses. Hence the confusion about the possibility of abuse.


    Jiggy wrote:

    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 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?

    Quite.

    And, on the surface, I agree with you -- the current wording in that FAQ literally means there's no difference, and it doesn't matter.

    However, I suspect that the wording of the FAQ was meant to stop the millions of "Do I get extra deflection on smite if I'm Eagle Splendoured? Can the cleric exclude more in selection channel? Does Fox's Cunning really increase the alchemists bomb damage *and* DC?" (insert the literally dozens or hundreds of such questions scattered about) -- and so, they created an FAQ where they dropped a blanket "Yes. It's all the same. Please stop asking." -- not quite thinking about the creation of new spell slots, new bombs, channels and other such daily things.

    And yes, I see how some people like the idea of just counting how many you've used 'em and that's it, but to all of those, I'd like to remind them of this:

    Rage wrote:
    Temporary increases to Constitution, such as those gained from rage and spells like bear's endurance, do not increase the total number of rounds that a barbarian can rage per day. A barbarian can enter rage as a free action. The total number of rounds of rage per day is renewed after resting for 8 hours, although these hours do not need to be consecutive.

    So, I'm saying that I suspect that the FAQ has, in fact, broken their intent (which I believe was closer to SKR's post) -- and so, they'll probably want to fix that (hence my FAQing this with you).

    Silver Crusade

    Since Rage increases your Con, the writers had to either key the duration to pre-Rage or post-Rage Con. Making that choice wasn't a binding restriction on how general stat increases work in the game.

    In 3.5 the duration of each Rage was modified by Con (they could only Rage a certain number of times per day, and each lasted 3+Con rounds), and the Rage increased Con was used to find the duration; any Con increase also increased the duration.

    As for tracking daily resources by #used or #remaining, there is no rule for that. But tracking it by #used is much less vulnerable to being messed up by stat increases; it's just a better method. You can use whichever you like....as long as you reach the correct answer! : )

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    zieretole wrote:
    First, where in the rules does it say you should track X/day abilities (spells/powers/etc.) as how many you have used instead of how many you have left?

    It says you get 3+CHA per day. Track that by whatever method you like, just as long as you're still abiding by it.

    Here's where you messed up:

    Quote:

    The cleric throws on the +2 headband again.

    Current status: Channel 7/day, 1 remaining (7 used)

    Where in the rules does it say that increasing your CHA mod gives you an additional channel?

    It doesn't. In fact, there's nothing about determining how many you have left at all.

    It says you get 3+CHA per day. So when you put the headband on, you don't just get an extra usage independently of everything else; that's something you invented yourself. What the rules actually say is that you have 3+CHA per day. That didn't stop being the rule just because your CHA changed. It is always the case that your daily allotment is 3+CHA. Just because the value of your CHA mod changes doesn't mean that stops being the formula for determining how many you get per day.

    At any given moment, your daily allotment is 3+CHA. Period.

    So if you start with 16 CHA, what's your daily allotment? Six. Period.

    If you go up to 18 CHA, what's your daily allotment? Seven. Period.

    If you go down to 16 CHA, what's your daily allotment? Six. Period.

    If it bounces back up to 18, what's your daily allotment? Seven. Period.

    It doesn't matter how many times you bounce up and down, it never stops being the rule that your daily limit is 3+CHA. So if the highest your CHA has ever gotten is 18, then the highest your daily allotment has ever gotten is 3+4=7. And if the highest your daily allotment has ever gotten today is 7, then you can never channel an 8th time today.

    That is what's in the rules. Describe your calculations however you like (used, remaining, whatever), but you still have to follow the rules: you get 3+CHA channels today. If you ever reach a point where the number of times you've channeled today is higher than 3+CHA has ever been today, then you have broken that explicit rule.

    HATSWAPCHESE doesn't work under the actual rules, because the actual rules are a static formula that sets your upper limit. It's only because some people mentally abbreviated the rules into an "add CHA, add uses" shorthand and decided to go by that instead of the actual rules that anyone ever thought HATSWAPCHEESE worked.

    But errors based on people going by their own mental shorthand instead of the actual rules is not the rules' fault, nor is it something that the rules need to work around.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    My issue with the "just count times per day" isn't how you handle it for powers (so much) -- it's spells.

    For example boosting your charisma from 18 to 22 will give someone a new level 1, 2, 5, and 6 slot - so I can use it to cast a bunch of powerful or long-lasting spells, then pass it along. That, to me, is bad.

    And, it gets even worse when we have prepared casters -- for example, wizard gets +4 int and now has 4 new spell-slots [the aforementionned 1,2,5 and 6]. He whips out his spellbook and memorizes those new spells. Later, he takes off the headband and gives it to the alchemist to give him more bombs ('cause he's out). Do we remove those spells from his memory? Do we let him pick which spells he forgets? What happens if he already cast 2 other spells -- can we assume those were the int-bonus spells and so he keeps the others in mind?

    And, to further the hedge case, what about an alchemist who prepares 2 new extracts or infusions? Do they lose their magic when the headband comes off?


    Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

    Since Rage increases your Con, the writers had to either key the duration to pre-Rage or post-Rage Con. Making that choice wasn't a binding restriction on how general stat increases work in the game.

    In 3.5 the duration of each Rage was modified by Con (they could only Rage a certain number of times per day, and each lasted 3+Con rounds), and the Rage increased Con was used to find the duration; any Con increase also increased the duration.

    As for tracking daily resources by #used or #remaining, there is no rule for that. But tracking it by #used is much less vulnerable to being messed up by stat increases; it's just a better method. You can use whichever you like....as long as you reach the correct answer! : )

    Correct. The same was also true for Smite (and I believe it still does in PF), though Smite only worked for a single attack.

    I do agree tracking uses is kind of easier, but the problem is that the game doesn't say that's how it is calculated, or how it's supposed to be calculated. It's simply "X per day." The factor that X can increase or decrease on a whim and very temporarily leads to (and since it's technically RAW, encourages) shenanigans; and everybody is saying that's correct, thanks to the poorly written/thought out FAQ.

    I'm probably the old man set in his ways sitting on the porch, yelling for you to get off my lawn when it comes to this, but quite frankly it's a lot less headache to deal with and it's something that's been precedented since 3.X; that a temporary bonus doesn't increase uses per day or spell slots or whatever else is similar to those subjects.

    But if shenanigans are going to be enforced that way, then Impact and Lead Blades will stack together.


    Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
    Since Rage increases your Con, the writers had to either key the duration to pre-Rage or post-Rage Con. Making that choice wasn't a binding restriction on how general stat increases work in the game.

    I wasn't treating it as such -- I was using that as an example -- and you'll note that it calls out all temporary bonuses (it even names Bear's Endurance!), not just the ones from rage (otherwise, it would say so) -- which is why I think there's some universality expected here.

    Because, otherwise, what we're saying is that temporary bonuses help all classes with powers/rounds per day (like bards) except barbarians. Seems a little unlikely to me.


    thejeff wrote:
    Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
    Quote:
    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.

    Not playing Devil's Advocate at all (unusual for me), but I don't see any reading of the FAQ that would suggest anything other than Owl's Wisdom granting bonus spells.

    I don't use the FAQ, but if I did I don't see a way around it.

    Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
    But if shenanigans are going to be enforced that way, then Impact and Lead Blades will stack together.

    *Makes Will Save*

    Yeah, I'm not biting on this one. :)

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    Tilnar wrote:
    My issue with the "just count times per day" isn't how you handle it for powers (so much) -- it's spells.

    Spells work the same way: they're X/day. Read the various classes' "Spells" class features when they talk about bonus spells per day. Just like channeling has a static rule of "your cap is always 3+CHA", bonus spells are a daily limit based on the sum of two charts. The same logistical basics apply.

    Quote:
    For example boosting your charisma from 18 to 22 will give someone a new level 1, 2, 5, and 6 slot - so I can use it to cast a bunch of powerful or long-lasting spells, then pass it along. That, to me, is bad.

    Couple of things:

    First, just like with other X/day abilities, having the headband on when you cast those spells means absolutely nothing unless you were already at your daily limit before you put it on. That means that you're worried about people casting a few buffs at the end of the day, planning to immediately burn 8 hours of duration off each of them.

    Second, you need to reality check your example. We're talking about a party that has two or more casters with the same casting stat, is high enough level to have 6th-level spells, yet for some reason hasn't spent the wealth on a second headband. What exactly did they need to spend that cash on at that level that was better than having +2 to save DCs and being able to cast those final spells on demand instead of at the end of the day when their buddy's done.

    No one will ever do that.

    Like I said before: stuff that would actually be broken (like infinite slots or casting buffs off of the "bonus" slots in the morning) doesn't actually work because of how spells per day work, and the little bit of stuff that does work costs way more than it gets you so no one will ever do it.

    Quote:

    Do we remove those spells from his memory? Do we let him pick which spells he forgets? What happens if he already cast 2 other spells -- can we assume those were the int-bonus spells and so he keeps the others in mind?

    And, to further the hedge case, what about an alchemist who prepares 2 new extracts or infusions? Do they lose their magic when the headband comes off?

    Like I said, spells are an X/day mechanic. You don't have your regular slots and your bonus slots as separate things; your casting stat is simply part of the equation for determining total spells per day: one singular pool. If at any point you're wanting to cast a spell - prepared or not - that would take you past your current daily limit, tough cookies, you're out.

    But how is all this so foreign to you? Have you never had a caster get stat drained? If your stat goes down, it goes down. Your number of spells per day changes according to where the new stat sets it, regardless of whether you gained a bonus or lost a bonus or took some drain or healed some drain.


    Well, sure, the 6th level is extreme, but the 1 and 2 are not -- and I've had more than one party with a Wizard and an Alchemist, or a Sorcerer and a Bard, or a Sorcerer and an Oracle.

    And, generally, ability damage is a lot more common than drain -- and it doesn't reduce spells memorized -- it just lowers the DC of the spells (so say the rules). Negative levels also don't remove slots.

    Ability damage, no, not so common... (Feeblemind obliterating all spells notwithstanding...). And, I'm serious -- if I mix up 6 level 1 extracts and then get stupider -- does one of the extracts suddenly lose its magic?

    Also, I return to my earlier statement: We're all supposed to accept that all classes except barbarians don't benefit from a temporary bonus -- or do we think this FAQ ruling overrides the text of the rage ability?

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    Tilnar wrote:
    Well, sure, the 6th level is extreme, but the 1 and 2 are not -- and I've had more than one party with a Wizard and an Alchemist, or a Sorcerer and a Bard, or a Sorcerer and an Oracle.

    Still goes back to the fact that you would only benefit if you borrow your buddy's headband at the end of the day. What real benefit is that? You're worse off trying to do this sharing trick (at least, the way it actually works) than you are just doing things "normally". An "exploit" that's a worse choice than the norm is not a problem.

    Quote:
    And, I'm serious -- if I mix up 6 level 1 extracts and then get stupider -- does one of the extracts suddenly lose its magic?

    That question is bigger than the issue of temp/perm bonuses, and so should probably be in its own thread. Personally, I'd lean toward leaving your preparations (whether spells or extracts) unchanged, and just cut you off when you hit your daily limit. Whatever's left is left. In the case of the alchemist, the extract just goes inert, just like it would if it left his possession.

    Quote:

    Also, I return to my earlier statement: We're all supposed to accept that all classes except barbarians don't benefit from a temporary bonus -- or do we think this FAQ ruling overrides the text of the rage ability?

    I think you might have an extra "don't" in there or something; doesn't quite make sense. In any case, specific trumps general: the FAQ tells us that temporary bonuses are identical to permanent ones in general, but specific class features or specific spells might have exceptions.


    Jiggy wrote:
    Tilnar wrote:

    Also, I return to my earlier statement: We're all supposed to accept that all classes except barbarians don't benefit from a temporary bonus -- or do we think this FAQ ruling overrides the text of the rage ability?

    I think you might have an extra "don't" in there or something; doesn't quite make sense. In any case, specific trumps general: the FAQ tells us that temporary bonuses are identical to permanent ones in general, but specific class features or specific spells might have exceptions.

    I did, yes, have an extra don't -- but the point remains -- this ruling benefits all classes save one. Unless the devs have suddenly developed a hate for that class, I'm thinking that the FAQ itself is poorly worded and we'll be seeing a correction.


    I'm in Jiggy's camp on this one.

    Regarding general vs specific:

    The limited number of things listed under Temporary/Permanent increases were admittedly not all inclusive (the Weapon Finesse issue being one). The FAQ solves this by including everything not otherwise specifically pointed out in Canon as NOT being affected. Eagle's Splendor increases spell DC and channels per day, but does NOT give bonus spell slots just like Rage does NOT give extra duration of itself. Why NOT? Because their descriptions specifically point this out.

    Edited because my memory is not as clear as I thought.

    101 to 114 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / "Treat this as a temporary bonus..." All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.