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.
But power attack is not really open to interpretation.
Replace X with Y, and Add Y to the total are not even close to being the same.
And for those using James as a reference he has said many posters know the rules better than he does.
PS: He does know the rules well, but he admittedly says how he does things in his game which is "what he would/would not" allow.
Replace X with Y, and Add Y to the total are not even close to being the same.
And for those using James as a reference he has said many posters know the rules better than he does.
PS: He does know the rules well, but he admittedly says how he does things in his game which is "what he would/would not" allow.
No one is arguing they are the same. Some are saying they don't stack. One of these being someone who works on the actual game in question. I agree his comments are not The Law but as far as I know they are the only comment we have in regards to this situation. Do you know of anything that specifically disagrees?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one is arguing they are the same. Some are saying they don't stack.Replace X with Y, and Add Y to the total are not even close to being the same.
And for those using James as a reference he has said many posters know the rules better than he does.
PS: He does know the rules well, but he admittedly says how he does things in his game which is "what he would/would not" allow.
But that doesn't track. If they are different, then what makes them not stack? Isn't the rule that only like bonuses don't stack? But you just said no one was arguing that they where the same?
But that doesn't track. If they are different, then what makes them not stack? Isn't the rule that only like bonuses don't stack? But you just said no one was arguing that they where the same?No one is arguing they are the same. Some are saying they don't stack.Replace X with Y, and Add Y to the total are not even close to being the same.
And for those using James as a reference he has said many posters know the rules better than he does.
PS: He does know the rules well, but he admittedly says how he does things in his game which is "what he would/would not" allow.
"Replace" and "Add" are not the same. "Wis bonus" and "Wis bonus" are the same.
Fighters have a class feature that says
Starting at 5th level, a fighter can select one group of weapons, as noted below. Whenever he attacks with a weapon from this group, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.
What is the source of the bonus? It would seem to be the class feature, wouldn't it?
Now, Zen Archer Monks have a class feature that says
At 3rd level, a zen archer may use his Wisdom modifier instead of his Dexterity modifier on ranged attack rolls when using a bow.
What is the source of the bonus? To me, it would still be the class feature.
Why would one class feature be the source of the bonus, but the other not be?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters have a class feature that says
Starting at 5th level, a fighter can select one group of weapons, as noted below. Whenever he attacks with a weapon from this group, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.What is the source of the bonus? It would seem to be the class feature, wouldn't it?
Now, Zen Archer Monks have a class feature that says
At 3rd level, a zen archer may use his Wisdom modifier instead of his Dexterity modifier on ranged attack rolls when using a bow.What is the source of the bonus? To me, it would still be the class feature.
Why would one class feature be the source of the bonus, but the other not be?
Because of this
use his Wisdom modifier
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If ability scores count as sources for bonuses and therefore can't be added more than once to any given roll, how does Wrecking Wrath work?
Requirement(s) Rovagug
Your ferocity is devastating, sometimes even to your own weapons. Once per day, after successful hitting a foe with a melee weapon, you can add your Strength modifier to the damage roll a second time (your Strength Modifier is not doubled if you are using a two-handed weapon). Doing so has a 25% chance of giving your weapon the broken condition.
Or Dragon Style and Dragon Ferocity (they stack fractional Strength bonus all over the place)?
Or Kirin Strike (it 'stacks' 2 x your Int mod to damage)?
Or Targeted Bomb Admixture (see above)?
If ability scores count as sources for bonuses and therefore can't be added more than once to any given roll, how does Wrecking Wrath work?
** spoiler omitted **
"you can add your Strength modifier to the damage roll a second time"
Or Dragon Style and Dragon Ferocity (they stack fractional Strength bonus all over the place)?
"You gain a bonus equal to"
Or Kirin Strike (it 'stacks' 2 x your Int mod to damage)?
"You can add twice your Intelligence modifier"
Or Targeted Bomb Admixture (see above)?
"Plus double your intelligence modifier"
Seems they all explicitly state what they do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems they all explicitly state what they do.
Yes, which is to add fractions or multiples of the same ability score bonus to an ability (in this case, damage). Which some posters are saying is something without precedent.
The ability score modifier isn't a source. It's a value.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems they all explicitly state what they do.
The same thing can be said with the abilities the OP asked about. One replaces dex with wisdom and one adds wisdom. It "explicitly state"s what they do too.
When someone can list a handful of examples, it's less convincing that they're all exceptions and the few other examples aren't.
That's a good point redward. Similarly the Perfect Recall of the mindchemist (and a few other things; I think maybe the guild poisoner/Daggermark Poisoner PrC allows for something to double INT too, though I don't recall), though I suspect that it would fall under "specific exception" to overcome the "general rule". Still, excellent find. EDIT: Ninja'd a couple times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems they all explicitly state what they do.
The same thing can be said with the abilities the OP asked about. One replaces dex with wisdom and one adds wisdom. It "explicitly state"s what they do too.
When someone can list a handful of examples, it's less convincing that they're all exceptions and the few other examples aren't.
And then there is this...
Modifiers from ability scores aren't actually bonuses, strictly speaking. If they are, they're untyped bonuses—which means they stack with all other bonuses except themselves. Thus, if you have multiple things that say "Add your Dex modifier to this roll," you only get to add your Dex modifier once.
So, to answer the actual question:
1) Nope; it's not a typed bonus. It stacks with all other modifiers, but can't stack with itself.
2) If you have Fury's Fall and Weapon Finesse, you've basically got two feats with overlapping effects. You don't get to add your Dexterity modifier more than once to CMB if it's already been included due to any other effect. SO! If you have Weapon Finesse... you'll only want to look at taking Fury's Fall if you're expecting to be using weapons you can't modifier via Weapon Finess to make trip attacks. Otherwise, Fury's Fall is a waste for you.
Except for the places in the rules that explicitly allow stacking.
James isn't a rules guy, no matter how awesome he is (and he is).
Citing his view doesn't make it correct - at best it makes it correct in canon Golarion (by intent, at least), instead of Pathfinder RAW (two very different and oft-differing things, though they are related).
Seems they all explicitly state what they do.Yes, which is to add fractions or multiples of the same ability score bonus to an ability (in this case, damage). Which some posters are saying is something without precedent.
The ability score modifier isn't a source. It's a value.
There is a difference between having a +2 sword and a +1 sword with an Oil of Magic Weapon.
Having an ability that says add X twice is different than two abilities that say add X.(Yes I understand one ability says replace and one says add, but according to the only response we have gotten from anyone working at Paizo is that they are effectively the same. I have seen nothing that would contradict that statement.)
|
When it come to knowing the interworkings of Golarion politics, or where in Golarion you can get cocaine, James is the word of god.
Otherwise, he is just talking about how he would likely run things in his home games.
Also, as noted in many posts, by many posters, including James himself, he is not a rules guy.
Except for the places in the rules that explicitly allow stacking.
James isn't a rules guy, no matter how awesome he is (and he is).
Citing his view doesn't make it correct - at best it makes it correct in canon Golarion (by intent, at least), instead of Pathfinder RAW (two very different and oft-differing things, though they are related).
Show me where it's explicitly stated these two abilities work together. I've said many, Many times that James isn't RAW. I have said that on this topic, his statements are all we've got. I put more weight on something than nothing.
And then there is this...
Yep, that's how he'd rule in his game. It in no way reflects what the RAW is or the RAI of the actual rules guys.
He also would rule differently than the current SLA FAQ. That shows that how he'd do it doesn't always match the people that post the FAQ and print the rules.
Show me where it explicitly says the two abilities don't work together.
I'll take that as a no.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Show me where it's explicitly stated these two abilities work together. I've said many, Many times that James isn't RAW. I have said that on this topic, his statements are all we've got. I put more weight on something than nothing.Except for the places in the rules that explicitly allow stacking.
James isn't a rules guy, no matter how awesome he is (and he is).
Citing his view doesn't make it correct - at best it makes it correct in canon Golarion (by intent, at least), instead of Pathfinder RAW (two very different and oft-differing things, though they are related).
Shouldn't we start with the abilities actually doing what they SAY they do unless you can point to something overrule it?
Show me where it explicitly says the two abilities don't work together.I'll take that as a no.I say they work exactly as they state they do.
No alterations.
You say they function differently, if used together.
Nothing suggests that happens.
I also say they work exactly as they say they do, with the caveat you cannot stack the same ability modifier twice. Because that is my understanding of how the rules work. Because someone who works on the game in question explained it that way. And I give more weight to his opinions than I give to yours.
Shouldn't we start with the abilities actually doing what they SAY they do unless you can point to something overrule it?Show me where it's explicitly stated these two abilities work together. I've said many, Many times that James isn't RAW. I have said that on this topic, his statements are all we've got. I put more weight on something than nothing.Except for the places in the rules that explicitly allow stacking.
James isn't a rules guy, no matter how awesome he is (and he is).
Citing his view doesn't make it correct - at best it makes it correct in canon Golarion (by intent, at least), instead of Pathfinder RAW (two very different and oft-differing things, though they are related).
Modifiers from ability scores aren't actually bonuses, strictly speaking. If they are, they're untyped bonuses—which means they stack with all other bonuses except themselves. Thus, if you have multiple things that say "Add your Dex modifier to this roll," you only get to add your Dex modifier once.
So, to answer the actual question:
1) Nope; it's not a typed bonus. It stacks with all other modifiers, but can't stack with itself.
2) If you have Fury's Fall and Weapon Finesse, you've basically got two feats with overlapping effects. You don't get to add your Dexterity modifier more than once to CMB if it's already been included due to any other effect. SO! If you have Weapon Finesse... you'll only want to look at taking Fury's Fall if you're expecting to be using weapons you can't modifier via Weapon Finess to make trip attacks. Otherwise, Fury's Fall is a waste for you.
Show me where it's explicitly stated these two abilities work together. I've said many, Many times that James isn't RAW. I have said that on this topic, his statements are all we've got. I put more weight on something than nothing.Except for the places in the rules that explicitly allow stacking.
James isn't a rules guy, no matter how awesome he is (and he is).
Citing his view doesn't make it correct - at best it makes it correct in canon Golarion (by intent, at least), instead of Pathfinder RAW (two very different and oft-differing things, though they are related).
I put weight on "replace X with Y" and "add Y" as two different things.
Allow me to propose this to you, taking us to basic algebra:
X+Y = ?
If X=Y, what is the most simple equations of determining what X+Y equals?
(If you answer "Y" you're doing it wrong.)
Now, obviously, we aren't doing basic algebra. Instead, we're playing a game that uses basic algebra (plus exceptions). What we're haggling over is the specifics of those exceptions.
If James states that, in his home games, he rules it in a way that's opposed to the above, that's fine. Similarly, he's noted that he adds the material component (removed in Core RAW from the 3.5 RAW) back into simulacra, and other non-RAW decisions. These are things he's stated with equal conviction.
Does this make him a bad source? No.
In fact, taking his ruling into account is a good thing, not bad.
But there are several places where the same bonus used doubled - the same bonus is tapped more than once for the total increase.
There are other places where you can add ability scores as bonuses they have no place in being (composite bows, for example).
Similarly, there are other ways of acquiring the same bonus to things more than once (as has been shown earlier in this thread). There's even language to cover that - it's called stacking rules.
The only other thing people have cited is a developer going, "Oh, oops, we accidentally left out a line." which, as you've noted (I think it was you), has little bearing in this discussion.
Thus, in the face of that combined evidence, we have something akin to 2.5 : 2 ratio of how the developers intend for these sorts of things to combine.
Neatly enough, the slim majority lines up with basic algebra and basic English without relying on obscure rulings. Further, this applies to assist a class or group that generally needs it.
I am probably not going to play a monk of this kind.
However, if someone ran it in one of my games, I'd most certainly give him the bonus. That's my call as a GM.
There is rules evidence to weigh toward that.
EDIT: What I'm trying to say that there is sufficient evidence to presume either way. I lean toward one - one that so happens to disagree with Mr. Jacobs'. The fact that Mr. Jacobs commented on his opinion on the matter is worth considering for any given person's interpretation, but shouldn't inform their interpretation - instead, it should be considered along with all the other things that are presented.
Ah.
You added a caveat.
Using James Jacobs, who, although a great guy, has the same weight when it comes to rules issues, as say, Wayne Reynolds, also a great guy.
Other than that comment, there is no precedence to add that caveat.
I don't know who Wayne Reynolds is (no offense to Mr Reyonds). I do recognize the name James Jacobs.
Shouldn't we start with the abilities actually doing what they SAY they do unless you can point to something overrule it?Show me where it's explicitly stated these two abilities work together. I've said many, Many times that James isn't RAW. I have said that on this topic, his statements are all we've got. I put more weight on something than nothing.Except for the places in the rules that explicitly allow stacking.
James isn't a rules guy, no matter how awesome he is (and he is).
Citing his view doesn't make it correct - at best it makes it correct in canon Golarion (by intent, at least), instead of Pathfinder RAW (two very different and oft-differing things, though they are related).Modifiers from ability scores aren't actually bonuses, strictly speaking. If they are, they're untyped bonuses—which means they stack with all other bonuses except themselves. Thus, if you have multiple things that say "Add your Dex modifier to this roll," you only get to add your Dex modifier once.
So, to answer the actual question:
1) Nope; it's not a typed bonus. It stacks with all other modifiers, but can't stack with itself.
2) If you have Fury's Fall and Weapon Finesse, you've basically got two feats with overlapping effects. You don't get to add your Dexterity modifier more than once to CMB if it's already been included due to any other effect. SO! If you have Weapon Finesse... you'll only want to look at taking Fury's Fall if you're expecting to be using weapons you can't modifier via Weapon Finess to make trip attacks. Otherwise, Fury's Fall is a waste for you.
Note I said overrule. James has been quite clear that he's not the rules guy and his answers are for his game. So his statements shouldn't have more weight than the actual rules.
SO looking at it from RAW, his quote really doesn't add anything.
Looking at it from RAI, his quote really doesn't add anything other than the RAI for HIS game. (Or your game if you wish to follow his lead)
Show me where it's explicitly stated these two abilities work together. I've said many, Many times that James isn't RAW. I have said that on this topic, his statements are all we've got. I put more weight on something than nothing.Except for the places in the rules that explicitly allow stacking.
James isn't a rules guy, no matter how awesome he is (and he is).
Citing his view doesn't make it correct - at best it makes it correct in canon Golarion (by intent, at least), instead of Pathfinder RAW (two very different and oft-differing things, though they are related).I put weight on "replace X with Y" and "add Y" as two different things.
Allow me to propose this to you, taking us to basic algebra:
X+Y = ?
If X=Y, what is the most simple equations of determining what X+Y equals?
(If you answer "Y" you're doing it wrong.)
Now, obviously, we aren't doing basic algebra. Instead, we're playing a game that uses basic algebra (plus exceptions). What we're haggling over is the specifics of those exceptions.
If James states that, in his home games, he rules it in a way that's opposed to the above, that's fine. Similarly, he's noted that he adds the material component (removed in Core RAW from the 3.5 RAW) back into simulacra, and other non-RAW decisions. These are things he's stated with equal conviction.
Does this make him a bad source? No.
In fact, taking his ruling into account is a good thing, not bad.
But there are several places where the same bonus used doubled - the same bonus is tapped more than once for the total increase.
There are other places where you can add ability scores as bonuses they have no place in being (composite bows, for example).
Similarly, there are other ways of acquiring the same bonus to things more than once (as has been shown earlier in this thread). There's even language to cover that - it's called stacking rules.
The only other thing people have cited...
(You and Weirdo with your long posts..). When has Pathfinder ever been as simple as algebra?
Since this has mainly become attacking my position, allow me to clarify. I, personally, have no problem with this working either way and without that comment from James would say they stack (because I agree that replacing and adding are different). I would also allow this in a home game (I also allow vital strike on a charge and using a two-handed weapon with armor spikes) but that has little bearing on a rules discussion.However, James makes a very valid argument against ability score modifiers stacking. There are rules that state certain bonuses stack, others don't. His interpretation is ability modifiers don't. The only exceptions are clearly stated in their descriptions. (Targeted Bomb Admixture is really a perfect example as it says add twice your Int modifier instead of your Int modifier. If they automatically stack, then why that caveat?) The only argument against his statement is James isn't God. Which I agree with, I just don't think that invalidates his opinion.
People seem to assume that every single rule is written with every single other written rule in mind. I don't believe that to be the case. Some abilities are not meant to be combined.
He's one of Paizo's primary artists.Yeah. Basically, every iconic is his design.
Love Paizo art? Then you know Wayne Reynolds.
Does he have a thread where people ask him for Rules advice?
|
|
Does he have a thread where people ask him for Rules advice?He's one of Paizo's primary artists.Yeah. Basically, every iconic is his design.
Love Paizo art? Then you know Wayne Reynolds.
James doesn't have a thread dedicated to rules questions.
Wayne Reynolds does have a website, and you can ask him any question you like.
Does he have a thread where people ask him for Rules advice?He's one of Paizo's primary artists.Yeah. Basically, every iconic is his design.
Love Paizo art? Then you know Wayne Reynolds.
James doesn't have a thread dedicated to rules questions.
Wayne Reynolds does have a website, and you can ask him any question you like.
Still, a little bit of difference. Don't cha think?