|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
BigNorseWolf wrote: seebs wrote: Only, he's completely wrong, because the stat is not the source of the bonus, the feat or ability is.
The sources of the bonuses are (1) zen archer, (2) erastil's boon. Those are two different sources.
You have no basis for this. There is no game definition for source. You could just as easily say the source is the Wisdom modifier... more easily in fact, because its a + X. If zen archer and erastil's boon are the source they don't give you a number, at all.
Saying that the source is the modifier is just as consistent with the raw, consistent with the rest of the game, and enables far, FAR less cheese. First off, what exactly is the "cheese" that's at issue?
I mean, look at the specific case. You have a thing that lets you add your wisdom modifier instead of your dex modifier. This is clearly not overpowered. You have a thing that lets you add your wisdom modifier to the attack roll, in addition to whatever you already had (usually dex). This is clearly not overpowered. If you had a thing that substituted strength for dex, you could have strength+wisdom, no problem.
But suddenly if it's wisdom+wisdom, it's "horrible cheese"?
Secondly, there's a ton of things that strongly suggest that "source" means the spell or ability or whatever that is giving you the bonus. If you're going to play the "we don't know what source means" card that badly, why not just go all the way and say that no two bonuses can ever stack, because they all come from the source "the rules of the game" and thus are two bonuses from the same source?
My interpretation is consistent, and doesn't create situations where two powers, either of which would give you a bonus, combine to give you lower stats than you would have had from either of them individually. I consider that a big plus, because any situation where two feats give you worse stats than either feat alone is clearly busted.
Tarkeighas wrote: I suspect this is going to devolve into a "rules as intended vs rules written (read as what I can interpret them to say with my own value set)" argument.
I agree with Norse. It's a cheezy way of getting a single stat to stack with itself.
Why is adding your wisdom bonus twice in some very limited circumstances a horrible dire monstrosity that can never be allowed, but adding your wisdom bonus to your dex bonus is fine, and swapping your wisdom bonus for your dex bonus is fine?
There are lots of things which let you add the modifiers from two stats together. What is it about them being the same stat that's a horrible problem, while all the other dual-modifiers are fine?
Monks get to add their wisdom bonus to AC. Imagine a feat that lets you replace your dex bonus with your wisdom bonus. It might be that this feat would give a monk one or two points of AC, if interpreted my way. Under your ruling, it'd cut their AC. Why is that better? The underlying decision to let them add wis and dex both to AC is where the "two modifiers at once" comes from.
I guess that's the really fundamental thing I'm not seeing: How does it matter which two stat modifiers you're allowed to add to a single roll? I suppose if you're really really specialized in one stat, maybe the difference between the modifiers is large enough that 2x one modifier is that much better than 1x each of them... But then, at that point, the "swap A for B" feat is just as overpowered.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
kyrt-ryder wrote: chaoseffect wrote: Yeah I know man, why should high level options provide actual benefits? Unless they're spells Funny thing is I don't necessarily disagree with you.
This is the system that brought us OP casters vs hapless Martials. It brought Martials that are massively feat taxed and underpowered unless they run 2hd Str builds.
This system is not balanced. But it's the system we play.
It's full of high level options that are underpowered, highly situational or downright useless.
What in all your experience with this system or on these boards makes you think that the rules will allow you to stack the same stat bonus twice? Ask yourself, will they ever publish a feat that gives fighters the chance to get their Str bonus again on an attack under any circumstances? Of course they won't.
If two disparate abilities appear to stack the same stat twice you can bet they were not tested in that manner and not intended to do so. I submit they are both separately intended to offer alternatives to the normal manner in which hit bonuses are calculated, with the presumption they are modifying standard core rules mechanics rather than altering already altered mechanics.
Asking out of limited experience is one thing (OP for instance), but trying to find new ways around the dreaded "unwritten rules" is entirely another.
If it seems too good to be true...it almost certainly is
Seebs wrote: First off, what exactly is the "cheese" that's at issue? +7 or possibly higher to all attack rolls. Thats way, waaaay too good
Quote: I mean, look at the specific case. You have a thing that lets you add your wisdom modifier instead of your dex modifier. This is clearly not overpowered. Its.. very powerful.
Quote: ]You have a thing that lets you add your wisdom modifier to the attack roll, in addition to whatever you already had (usually dex). Incorrect. The ability (if the posters quote is accurate) doesn't appear to specify instead of or in addition to.
Quote: Secondly, there's a ton of things that strongly suggest that "source" means the spell or ability or whatever that is giving you the bonus. Such as? You can't just tell me there;s a ton of evidence that X is true and then not show any.
Quote: If you're going to play the "we don't know what source means" card that badly, why not just go all the way and say that no two bonuses can ever stack, because they all come from the source "the rules of the game" and thus are two bonuses from the same source? Slippery slope much?
Give me an argument, not a fallacy and an insult.
See, that's what I don't get. How is this particularly good?
I'll grant that working at all is better than not working or actively penalizing you for taking a feat, but really, is this even particularly good, let alone "too good to be true"? If so, how? I'm not seeing it.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Simply put: Unwritten rules aren't rules at all, they're guidelines certain people try to impose on everyone else.
It doesn't 'seem too good to be true.' It is what it is and its that simple.
'Replace X with Y' and 'Add Y to X' are distinct things.
Gaining a bonus equal to wisdom modifier is distinct from replacing your Dexterity with your Wisdom.
Simple and clean.
Tarkeighas wrote:
If it seems too good to be true...it almost certainly is
I think what you're missing is that to the people you're debating with it doesn't seem to be "too good to be true".
@seebs
I don't claim to be a developer, but I suspect it has to do with MAD. Stacking disparate abilities requires you to have multiple abilities with high values to gain benefit. Assuming abiding by core rules there is an inherent limit to this.
If on the other hand you had abilities and stats that allowed same stat stacking you could just put all your resources into exploiting a single stat.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
BigNorseWolf wrote: Seebs wrote: First off, what exactly is the "cheese" that's at issue? +7 or possibly higher to all attack rolls. Thats way, waaaay too good "all" attack rolls?
I must be missing something. I thought we were talking exclusively about ranged attacks within thirty feet. I also thought the majority of the extra plusses came from the ability that lets you add your wisdom on top of your normal modifiers. In short, if you don't combine them, and just add your wis and dex modifiers, is that really going to be much lower?
Quote: Quote: I mean, look at the specific case. You have a thing that lets you add your wisdom modifier instead of your dex modifier. This is clearly not overpowered. Its.. very powerful.
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone claim that zen archery is "very powerful".
Quote: Quote: ]You have a thing that lets you add your wisdom modifier to the attack roll, in addition to whatever you already had (usually dex). Incorrect. The ability (if the posters quote is accurate) doesn't appear to specify instead of or in addition to.
Which means it is of course "in addition to" because that is how bonuses work. Go look at the hundreds of other feats in the game that give bonuses, and tell me how many of them state explicitly "in addition to other bonuses you may already have".
Quote: Quote: Secondly, there's a ton of things that strongly suggest that "source" means the spell or ability or whatever that is giving you the bonus. Such as? You can't just tell me there;s a ton of evidence that X is true and then not show any.
FAQ. "This doesn't violate the general rule for stacking penalties--each evil eye effect is basically a different source, even though they stem from the evil eye hex (the evil eye hex is much like 5 separate weak hexes under a common umbrella)."
This clearly indicates that in general, a given hex is "a source". There are similar responses on things like a rogue talent which gives a dodge bonus, and the rogue talent is considered the "source".
In every case I can find where Paizo has issued a ruling which identifies the "source" of a bonus for purposes of "bonuses from the same source", it has meant "spell, supernatural ability, exceptional ability, feat, or other power", and I can't find anything except one single James Jacobs post which claims that Wisdom is a "source".
Quote: Quote: If you're going to play the "we don't know what source means" card that badly, why not just go all the way and say that no two bonuses can ever stack, because they all come from the source "the rules of the game" and thus are two bonuses from the same source? Slippery slope much?
Not at all. It's a reductio ad absurdum. The claim that we have no idea what a source is, therefore we must assume it to be exactly the one and only thing that would give you the result you want, is ridiculous on its face. If you're going to claim that the lack of a definition should be read as restrictively as possible, "the rules of the game" is the best reading. If you're going to try to find a meaningful answer, the fact that the FAQ has several examples which clearly indicate that a feat or class ability is a "source" ought to settle it.
I can find the original text in the older d20 SRD:
d20 wrote: In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). That clearly indicates that "source" means the spell or ability used (not in the sense of "ability score", but "exceptional or spell-like or supernatural or whatever").
Paizo appears to have dropped the "same source" language from this:
PRD wrote: Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa. ... In fact, I actually can't find the "same source" language in the PRD at all. It's on d20pfsrd, but it's not in the Paizo document.
d20pfsrd:
d20pfsrd wrote: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
PRD:
PRD wrote: Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies. The second paragraph isn't in the PRD pages, nor in the physical Core book.
A search of the PRD on Paizo's page for "same source" turns up nothing. They refer to that rule in the FAQ, but I think they forgot to actually put it in the books at all. Still searching.
seeb wrote: This is the first time I've ever heard anyone claim that zen archery is "very powerful". Ok, you're new here. Linky
Tarkeighas wrote: @seebs
I don't claim to be a developer, but I suspect it has to do with MAD. Stacking disparate abilities requires you to have multiple abilities with high values to gain benefit. Assuming abiding by core rules there is an inherent limit to this.
If on the other hand you had abilities and stats that allowed same stat stacking you could just put all your resources into exploiting a single stat.
Okay, I will agree that this is a plausible argument, although the term "MAD" is not clear to me in context.
My main thought would be that, by the time you've spent enough feats to get such bonuses all lined up nicely, you may or may not be that much better off than someone who has broader pools, especially since most of these stats have multiple effects. You may be able to get to use your wisdom bonus on attack rolls, but you're still using dex for reflex saves.
I also feel I should point out that the PRD search page comes up with only a handful of results for either "same source" or "different source" in the PRD, and not one of them relates to bonus stacking. I think that even the "same source" rule itself became an unwritten rule through Paizo's famously careful editing.
BigNorseWolf wrote: seeb wrote: This is the first time I've ever heard anyone claim that zen archery is "very powerful". Ok, you're new here. Linky Not the archetype as a whole, just the specific power of swapping wisdom for dex on attack rolls with a bow. That doesn't seem huge to me.
graystone wrote: Tarkeighas wrote:
If it seems too good to be true...it almost certainly is
I think what you're missing is that to the people you're debating with it doesn't seem to be "too good to be true". I understand "good" is a matter of perspective. I also understand that when you want something to be so, it instantly seems "reasonable" that it could or should be.
What I'm talking about is what we perceive to be developer perspective.
Stacking hit bonuses from the same stat, even if one is partially limited (30 ft range is not a difficult condition to meet), is simply not something that is perpetuated in the rules.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong by anyone who can quote any feat or ability that allows Str bonuses to hit a second time in partially limited circumstances (equivalent of 30 ft range for example).
It is "too good to be true" because it is being interpreted to offer an advantage that historically has not been supported by the rules. It would go against the trends in rules interpretations to date. It would be a first, and with all "discoveries" of this nature I'd suggest it was likely unintentional rather than intentional.
Wanting it to be so does not make it so. An official ruling would make it so
seebs wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: seeb wrote: This is the first time I've ever heard anyone claim that zen archery is "very powerful". Ok, you're new here. Linky Not the archetype as a whole, just the specific power of swapping wisdom for dex on attack rolls with a bow. That doesn't seem huge to me. It has nice synergy, with Monks using Wisdom for Ki and all, and it reduces MAD; it's quite good I think, but perhaps others have overstated it.
seebs wrote:
Not the archetype as a whole, just the specific power of swapping wisdom for dex on attack rolls with a bow. That doesn't seem huge to me.
Zen archer handbook If you google zen archer and MAD thats what you get. Note the purple (better than great) rating. The ability to not care about your dex in your pointbuy/dice allocation and race choice is good, but for a martial who can buy a headband and a belt instead of a double belt the savings are spectacular
Monk with +4 head band of wisdom and +4 strength belt= 32,000
Monk with +4 belt of strength/dex =64,000
Tarkeighas wrote: graystone wrote: Tarkeighas wrote:
If it seems too good to be true...it almost certainly is
I think what you're missing is that to the people you're debating with it doesn't seem to be "too good to be true". I understand "good" is a matter of perspective. I also understand that when you want something to be so, it instantly seems "reasonable" that it could or should be. Do you understand how incredibly insulting it is to immediately leap to the assertion that no one could ever, possibly, disagree with you unless they are dishonest cheaters who want to gain advantage from being wrong?
Because I don't think you do, because you keep doing it.
I have no dog in this fight. I have absolutely no interest in ever playing any of the archetypes or characters whose feat or ability trees appear to allow you to do something that could possibly be affected by this rule.
I just think that it's been pretty consistently the case that, insofar as this rule about sources exists at all, each feat or class ability is a distinct "source", as is each different spell, thus the 3.5e example of "the same spell cast twice in succession".
Quote: What I'm talking about is what we perceive to be developer perspective. Which is to say, a single quote from a single guy who says he is not a rules guy. In which he argues, based on nothing but a vague handwaving appeal to a revolutionary new understanding of the term "same source", that an ability which says it adds your dex modifier to another roll should do that if and only if there is nothing else that could add your dex modifier to that roll.
Quote: Stacking hit bonuses from the same stat, even if one is partially limited (30 ft range is not a difficult condition to meet), is simply not something that is perpetuated in the rules.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong by anyone who can quote any feat or ability that allows Str bonuses to hit a second time in partially limited circumstances (equivalent of 30 ft range for example).
I'm not sure that's a good example, because str is already double-dipping on melee attacks -- you get to use it for both to-hit and damage.
Wouldn't it be more reasonable and fair to look for any examples of the game allowing you to add any stat modifier twice to any roll? And furthermore, isn't it begging the question if you're going to point at the obvious examples (like fury's fall/agile maneuvers), and declare that they can't be allowed because of this rule, and that the fact that they aren't allowed is the proof that this rule exists?
Quote: It is "too good to be true" because it is being interpreted to offer an advantage that historically has not been supported by the rules. It would go against the trends in rules interpretations to date. It would be a first, and with all "discoveries" of this nature I'd suggest it was likely unintentional rather than intentional.
Wanting it to be so does not make it so. An official ruling would make it so
But wanting it not to be so doesn't make it not-so, either, and we have no official rulings. What we do have is a long history of rules interpretation and FAQs, both from WotC and Paizo, in which the term "same source" refers to feats, class abilities, spells, and suchlike. And a single post, ever, that uses it to refer to a stat modifier in a way that produces a result which strikes me as blatantly broken.
I am inclined to say that a ruling that "if you take this feat to improve your combat maneuvers, your CMB for some combat maneuvers will drop by several points" manages to rise to the level of "too bad to be true". It's like declaring that merely being in-combat enough to have an initiative count counts as stressful circumstances requiring concentration checks to cast even if no one is threatening you or damaging you; yes, you could maybe argue for it, but it would make no sense and sound like you were just being punitive.
BigNorseWolf wrote: seebs wrote:
Not the archetype as a whole, just the specific power of swapping wisdom for dex on attack rolls with a bow. That doesn't seem huge to me.
Zen archer handbook If you google zen archer and MAD thats what you get. Note the purple (better than great) rating. The ability to not care about your dex in your pointbuy/dice allocation and race choice is good, but for a martial who can buy a headband and a belt instead of a double belt the savings are spectacular
Monk with +4 head band of wisdom and +4 strength belt= 32,000
Monk with +4 belt of strength/dex =64,000
That's a problem with Paizo screwing martials over in general by moving all the boosts onto the same item while retaining the x1.5 pricing in those instances.
There's no good reason that a belt of +4 Strength and Dex should cost any more than a belt of +4 and headband of +4.
(Yes I know what the reason is, and it's a shitty reason.)
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Tarkeighas wrote:
It is "too good to be true" because it is being interpreted to offer an advantage that historically has not been supported by the rules.
Wanting it to be so does not make it so. An official ruling would make it so
Paladin/lore oracle add cha and replace dex for cha to Ref. Nature Shaman/monk adds wis and replace dex with wis for AC. It's hardly new ground or "historically has not been supported".
BigNorseWolf wrote: seebs wrote:
Not the archetype as a whole, just the specific power of swapping wisdom for dex on attack rolls with a bow. That doesn't seem huge to me.
Zen archer handbook If you google zen archer and MAD thats what you get. Note the purple (better than great) rating. The ability to not care about your dex in your pointbuy/dice allocation and race choice is good, but for a martial who can buy a headband and a belt instead of a double belt the savings are spectacular
Monk with +4 head band of wisdom and +4 strength belt= 32,000
Monk with +4 belt of strength/dex =64,000
Because, as we all know, reflex saves, AC (and in particular touch AC), and initiative are never considerations in Pathfinder?
I mean, yeah, it's decent, but if it's all that great, then I don't think the problem is that it might stack with another ability, the problem is that this one is already too good.
graystone wrote: Tarkeighas wrote:
It is "too good to be true" because it is being interpreted to offer an advantage that historically has not been supported by the rules.
Wanting it to be so does not make it so. An official ruling would make it so
Paladin/lore oracle add cha and replace dex for cha to Ref. Nature Shaman/monk adds wis and replace dex with wis for AC. It's hardly new ground or "historically has not been supported". Any rulings on either of those? I haven't heard of any, but I guess it wouldn't occur to me to worry about it since it's pretty harmless and specialized.
That said, outside of this forum, I've never met anyone who thinks that combining agile maneuvers and fury's fall was a problem either.
From the glossary on Bonuses
Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
The source is either the wisdom or the feat.
In favor of the (lets say) +4 comming from your wisdom is...
There is the wisdom score on your sheet with a +4 next to it. That same +4 goes into your hit. You can't get a number out of a class ability.
The developer clarification on whats clearly an unclear issue
The huge mechanical advantage of this easily outstrips most other similar abilities in the game.
In favor of the source being the feat is... what exactly? Its not so isn't an argument. Insisting i must combine ALL bonuses as one thing if i consider a wisdom bonus and a wisdom bonus doesn't logically follow at all.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: chaoseffect wrote: seebs wrote: I mean, yeah, it's decent, but if it's all that great, then I don't think the problem is that it might stack with another ability, the problem is that this one is already too good. I'm going to slap you over the internet if you seriously just suggested Monks having a good, nice thing is bad. I just like how fast he went from "doubled is no way overpowered" to "even once is too much!" I did nothing of the sort.
My argument is that I don't think it is overpowered to let them stack, but:
IF it is too powerful, THEN the existing abilities must be too powerful. Either one of them is way too good, or both of them are a fair bit too good.
But if you don't think there's anything wrong with being able to swap wisdom for dex, and you don't think there's anything wrong with being able to unconditionally add wisdom to some attack rolls, then I don't see any argument at all for saying that it's too powerful to have both of them.
There's tons of cases in which you add a stat modifier to a roll which normally wouldn't use that stat. There's tons of cases where you change which stat you use for a given roll. I don't see a problem with the possibility that sometimes this will mean adding the same stat twice instead of two different stats once. Especially not for characters like monks, who already have a pretty significant pool of ability scores they sometimes need. Mitigating that a bit is not going to create a problem for anyone.
Rowe wrote: do you get wisdom to attack twice? Old question, never officially answered in FAQ/Errata. But JJ has answered multiple times no.
You will have table variance on this, as there will be a lot of tables that say no.
James Risner wrote: Rowe wrote: do you get wisdom to attack twice? Old question, never officially answered in FAQ/Errata. But JJ has answered multiple times no.
You will have table variance on this, as there will be a lot of tables that say no.
This is a different issue; it is not adding wisdom in place of a stat twice, it is replacing a stat and having another ability that says to add a stat in addition. It is (base stat) + (bonus stat) except the base stat has already been replaced by another ability.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
BigNorseWolf wrote: From the glossary on Bonuses
Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
The source is either the wisdom or the feat.
In favor of the (lets say) +4 comming from your wisdom is...
There is the wisdom score on your sheet with a +4 next to it. That same +4 goes into your hit. You can't get a number out of a class ability.
The developer clarification on whats clearly an unclear issue
The huge mechanical advantage of this easily outstrips most other similar abilities in the game.
In favor of the source being the feat is... what exactly? Its not so isn't an argument. Insisting i must combine ALL bonuses as one thing if i consider a wisdom bonus and a wisdom bonus doesn't logically follow at all.
I have a feat that gives me a bonus equal to allies adjacent to me. Are my allies the source or the feat. I have an ability that 1/2 my level to disable device checks. Is my level the source?
For me, it's clearly the ability or feat.
chaoseffect wrote: James Risner wrote: Rowe wrote: do you get wisdom to attack twice? Old question, never officially answered in FAQ/Errata. But JJ has answered multiple times no.
You will have table variance on this, as there will be a lot of tables that say no.
This is a different issue; it is not adding wisdom in place of a stat twice, it is replacing a stat and having another ability that says to add a stat in addition. It is (base stat) + (bonus stat) except the base stat has already been replaced by another ability. That's actually precisely what he was addressing. A feat that let you replace Str with Dex and a feat that added Dex. He said no. I understand he is not "the rules guy" but it is the closest thing I know of to an official answer.
seebs wrote:
Do you understand how incredibly insulting it is to immediately leap to the assertion that no one could ever, possibly, disagree with you unless they are dishonest cheaters who want to gain advantage from being wrong?
Because I don't think you do, because you keep doing it.
Ease up there friend. That's a lot of emotion for someone with no apparent stake in the argument.
I have also done nothing of the sort. If you are going to accuse me of something kindly keep your own values out of it.
I have never used the words cheat or dishonest. Those are your words. "Cheese" is a general term applied to concepts or interpretations of the rules designed to elicit internal mechanic advantage over substance or intent. I have already stated that I believe the OP to want an honest answer.
I apologize if you feel me clarifying a phrase to another poster is somehow a personal insult. It was not even directed to you.
But I cannot help it if you are so thin skinned as to be offended by what are relatively innocuous comments. I shudder to think how you perceive the rest of the content of the internet. I will not stop contributing to this or any other topic however because of your massive overreaction.
I'm entitled to my opinion as you are yours. I have not asserted anything negative about you, save voicing a counter argument. Making it a personal attack on me won't change my position
1. This - "Add Stat Y as a bonus to X rolls" combined with "Add stat Y to X rolls instead of stat Z" - comes up fairly often.
2. It would be trivially easy to prevent this with a general ruling: "No stat may be added twice to the same roll".
3. Multiple rulings have been made on 1). See: Fury's Fall, Pistolero + Mysterious Stranger, etc.
4. In none of those cases were 2) used.
Therefore, I put it to you that "replacement + bonus" is legit. Also, not even remotely cheesy.
Cheesy is a loaded term but the mechanical value is clear. It is much easier to raise one stat than two stats.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: chaoseffect wrote: James Risner wrote: Rowe wrote: do you get wisdom to attack twice? Old question, never officially answered in FAQ/Errata. But JJ has answered multiple times no.
You will have table variance on this, as there will be a lot of tables that say no.
This is a different issue; it is not adding wisdom in place of a stat twice, it is replacing a stat and having another ability that says to add a stat in addition. It is (base stat) + (bonus stat) except the base stat has already been replaced by another ability. That's actually precisely what he was addressing. A feat that let you replace Str with Dex and a feat that added Dex. He said no. I understand he is not "the rules guy" but it is the closest thing I know of to an official answer. What ability are we talking about that lets add Dex damage in addition to strength damage? From what I saw here people were saying he was referring to a Gunslinger oversight of two "add dex to damage" class features which really wouldn't apply to the current discussion for previously mentioned distinctions.
Tarkeighas wrote:
I'm entitled to my opinion as you are yours. I have not asserted anything negative about you, save voicing a counter argument. Making it a personal attack on me won't change my position
No issue with your position. The issue is labeling people that disagree with you as trying to get an 'elicit internal mechanic advantage over substance or intent'.
We disagree on intent: ( only one dev has said how HE would do it )
We disagree with elicit internal mechanic advantage: We see it as legit.
We disagree with what the source is.
For the record, we find what you've been saying insulting by disregarding our argument by dismissing it as 'cheese'.
chaoseffect wrote: Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: chaoseffect wrote: James Risner wrote: Rowe wrote: do you get wisdom to attack twice? Old question, never officially answered in FAQ/Errata. But JJ has answered multiple times no.
You will have table variance on this, as there will be a lot of tables that say no.
This is a different issue; it is not adding wisdom in place of a stat twice, it is replacing a stat and having another ability that says to add a stat in addition. It is (base stat) + (bonus stat) except the base stat has already been replaced by another ability. That's actually precisely what he was addressing. A feat that let you replace Str with Dex and a feat that added Dex. He said no. I understand he is not "the rules guy" but it is the closest thing I know of to an official answer. What ability are we talking about that lets add Dex damage in addition to strength damage? From what I saw here people were saying he was referring to a Gunslinger oversight of two "add dex to damage" class features which really wouldn't apply to the current discussion for previously mentioned distinctions. The JJ quote is discussing Fury's Fall and Weapon Finesse. One replaced Str with Dex, one added Dex to Str. His answer was no, you cannot add the ability twice. Granted not as official as a FAQ or errata but it is the closest thing we have to an official answer.
Edit:changed agile manuevers to weapon finesse
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
The JJ quote is discussing Fury's Fall and Agile Manuevers. One replaced Str with Dex, one added Dex to Str. His answer was no, you cannot add the ability twice. Granted not as official as a FAQ or errata but it is the closest thing we have to an official answer.
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I still disagree with his assessment, but I'm no longer confused :D
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: Cheesy is a loaded term but the mechanical value is clear. It is much easier to raise one stat than two stats. No one's denying that there's any mechanical value at all.
But...
Say there's two feats, A and B. I have a +N bonus total when rolling to trip. If I take feat A, I get +N+4. If I take feat B, I get +N+2. And if I take feat A, and then take feat B, I go down from +N+4 to +N+2, rather than up to +N+6.
Is that a good outcome? Is the mechanical value of being able to specialize in one stat for one function some of the time really so large that we should produce severely counterintuitive results like that?
I don't really think so. I figure if you are spending two feats on something and ending up with a +6 bonus on one combat maneuver, or whatever... Okay, fine. More power to ya. I wouldn't waste the feats on that.
The case with the zen archery feature plus the other bonus combining to give you 2x wisdom bonus, instead of +wis and +dex, is pretty good, but... That's two class features, which require you to have at least three monk levels and also have at least nine levels of evangelist (erastil). You need at least 5th level to qualify for evangelist, so this will be 14th level.
So already we're talking something that can't be done PFS at all, because it's outside the level range. And at 14th level, having devoted your entire career to specializing, you're getting a pretty good bonus to hit with your bow when within 30' of a target.
That's... Really not that amazing.
Also, compare general martial MAD to general caster SAD (EDIT: with a hint of BAD, if they're not INT-based crafters). I don't find making martials less MAD a bad thing in that case.
seebs wrote:
Say there's two feats, A and B. I have a +N bonus total when rolling to trip. If I take feat A, I get +N+4. If I take feat B, I get +N+2. And if I take feat A, and then take feat B, I go down from +N+4 to +N+2, rather than up to +N+6.
No one is making you take feat B.
Tacticslion wrote: Also, compare general martial MAD to general caster SAD (EDIT: with a hint of BAD, if they're not INT-based crafters). I don't find making martials less MAD a bad thing in that case. Fair point but does that mean rules should apply differently.
Invisibility gives a bonus to stealth so rogues should be able to stack circumstance bonuses?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
ShadowcatX wrote: The RAW and RAI are open to interpretation, that makes it firmly DMs call terrtory. That's a part of the job. That is a lie. RAW is the actual word. RAI is how the rule is supposed to work. The GM has the right to change the rule, and the final arbitrator of how things work at his table no matter what Jason B says, but that is entirely different from a "a GM call".
Example: If I say power attack only adds a +1 bonus to damage rolls no matter what, that is not a GM call, that is me being wrong as a GM.
|
