Wis to attack twice?


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 275 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

There's two things here. One is the term "bonus" as in "a modifier but only if it is not negative". The other is the term "bonus" as in "a thing which you add to a die roll". For instance, an ability could say "usable a number of times per day equal to your Wisdom bonus, with a minimum of 1". That is obviously "your wisdom bonus", but it is not a "bonus" in the sense of the stacking rules.

The boon says you add your wisdom bonus, but does not say what you add it *as*. It's not an enhancement bonus, or whatever. And I would tend to say that this makes it an untyped bonus.

Come to think of it. Let's just ponder a thing. Say you are the worst character optimizer EVER. And you build a monk who has a dex of 6 and a wisdom of 8, with intent to play a zen archer.

At first level, your ranged attack rolls will be at -2 (0 BAB, -2 dex modifier), plus any size modifiers (which may be negative) and also adding in any range penalties.

At third level, your BAB will be 2, and you get the option of using your wisdom modifier. That gets you to a total of 1; 2 BAB, -1 wisdom modifier. If your wisdom modifier were lower, you could stick with the dex modifier, since you may use your wisdom modifier instead of dex.

Then we add the boon. What happens? Well, nothing. Your wisdom bonus is zero. If the boon said your wisdom modifier was to be added, though, your attack rolls would take an additional -1 penalty. And I think the penalties just stack. So...

If it said "modifier", I'd be inclined to say that you could indeed end up with -2x your wisdom modifier to attack rolls, although it'd be a pretty stupid build. Since it says bonus, I think the boon can only affect you if it's at least not making things worse.

But say we adopt the "you only get one" rule.

Well, in that case, I say take the wisdom bonus, not the wisdom modifier, because if your wisdom modifier is -1, and your wisdom bonus is +0, you're better off with the bonus instead of the modifier. :)


sorry to interupt but how do you get Erastil's 3rd boon, google fu hasnt helped me.


Ok, now I'm a little confused. Not sure why JJ said "Modifiers from ability scores aren't actually bonuses, strictly speaking." when the PRD text says "A positive modifier is called a bonus". Heck, the section is even called "Determine Bonuses"...

Shrug... Maybe bonus is like level or wield and it's meaning changes depending on what you're talking about.


Diminuendo wrote:
sorry to interupt but how do you get Erastil's 3rd boon, google fu hasnt helped me.

Inner sea gods.


Diminuendo wrote:
sorry to interupt but how do you get Erastil's 3rd boon, google fu hasnt helped me.

It's from Inner Sea Gods. It takes a feat [http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/deific-obedience]

a daily obedience, which for Erastil is planting seeds in his holy symbol or leaving arrows to help people. With just the feat you'll get it at level 20. To get it sooner you have to use the prestige class in the new book, Evangelist. There are two other prestige classes Exalted, which is very divine caster-friendly or Sentinel which is more for martials, but they get different sets of boons.


graystone wrote:

Ok, now I'm a little confused. Not sure why JJ said "Modifiers from ability scores aren't actually bonuses, strictly speaking." when the PRD text says "A positive modifier is called a bonus". Heck, the section is even called "Determine Bonuses"...

Shrug... Maybe bonus is like level or wield and it's meaning changes depending on what you're talking about.

As I said, I think there's a distinction between "bonuses, as in typed or untyped things" and "bonuses, as distinct from penalties or modifiers", except there's a lot of category overlap going on.

Scarab Sages

seebs wrote:
graystone wrote:

Ok, now I'm a little confused. Not sure why JJ said "Modifiers from ability scores aren't actually bonuses, strictly speaking." when the PRD text says "A positive modifier is called a bonus". Heck, the section is even called "Determine Bonuses"...

Shrug... Maybe bonus is like level or wield and it's meaning changes depending on what you're talking about.

As I said, I think there's a distinction between "bonuses, as in typed or untyped things" and "bonuses, as distinct from penalties or modifiers", except there's a lot of category overlap going on.

I'd say it's more an issue of James Jacobs not being a rules guy.


Imbicatus wrote:
seebs wrote:
graystone wrote:

Ok, now I'm a little confused. Not sure why JJ said "Modifiers from ability scores aren't actually bonuses, strictly speaking." when the PRD text says "A positive modifier is called a bonus". Heck, the section is even called "Determine Bonuses"...

Shrug... Maybe bonus is like level or wield and it's meaning changes depending on what you're talking about.

As I said, I think there's a distinction between "bonuses, as in typed or untyped things" and "bonuses, as distinct from penalties or modifiers", except there's a lot of category overlap going on.
I'd say it's more an issue of James Jacobs not being a rules guy.

There IS that, but several people are holding up his post as proof of how things work. I'm finding it more confusing than helpful.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

The fundamental misunderstanding that several (including JJ) are making here is conflating "source", "value", and "type".

"Source" is which rules element allows you to add the bonus. In the case of adding Dex to your ranged attack rolls, the "Source" is the default combat rules. The Power Attack feat is the "Source" of its bonus. Bonuses from the same "Source" don't stack which is why you can't take double the Power Attack penalty in order to get double its bonus.

"Value" is the amount assigned to the bonus. In some cases, it's a fixed value (ie. +1 bonus). Power Attack's "Value" is a function of BAB. In the case of the standard adding of Dex to your ranged attack rolls, your Dex modifier is the "Value". Zen Archer allows you to change the Value from your Dex modifier to your Wis modifier. Same goes for Weapon Finesse and the like. The ability score isn't the "source" of the bonus, it's the value of the bonus. There are no rules as to stacking Value so if two bonuses from different sources add a bonus of the same Value (either flat or based on a particular ability score), nothing prevents them from both being used.

"Type" is the designator of the bonus; sacred, dodge, shield, enhancement, natural armor, deflection, luck, etc. Bonuses from different sources, but the same type, won't stack save for specific exceptions (ie. dodge type).

Thus, the Dex bonus added to ranged attacks is an Untyped (type) bonus equal to your Dex modifier (value) which comes from default combat rules (source). The bonus coming from Estaril is an Untyped (type) bonus equal to your Wis modifier (value) which comes from the pertinent boon (source). Zen Archer has an ability that changes the Type of your bonus from Dex to Wis, but that has nothing to do with the Source nor the Type; thus the two values stack.


Kazaan wrote:

The fundamental misunderstanding that several (including JJ) are making here is conflating "source", "value", and "type".

"Source" is which rules element allows you to add the bonus. In the case of adding Dex to your ranged attack rolls, the "Source" is the default combat rules. The Power Attack feat is the "Source" of its bonus. Bonuses from the same "Source" don't stack which is why you can't take double the Power Attack penalty in order to get double its bonus.

"Value" is the amount assigned to the bonus. In some cases, it's a fixed value (ie. +1 bonus). Power Attack's "Value" is a function of BAB. In the case of the standard adding of Dex to your ranged attack rolls, your Dex modifier is the "Value". Zen Archer allows you to change the Value from your Dex modifier to your Wis modifier. Same goes for Weapon Finesse and the like. The ability score isn't the "source" of the bonus, it's the value of the bonus. There are no rules as to stacking Value so if two bonuses from different sources add a bonus of the same Value (either flat or based on a particular ability score), nothing prevents them from both being used.

"Type" is the designator of the bonus; sacred, dodge, shield, enhancement, natural armor, deflection, luck, etc. Bonuses from different sources, but the same type, won't stack save for specific exceptions (ie. dodge type).

Thus, the Dex bonus added to ranged attacks is an Untyped (type) bonus equal to your Dex modifier (value) which comes from default combat rules (source). The bonus coming from Estaril is an Untyped (type) bonus equal to your Wis modifier (value) which comes from the pertinent boon (source). Zen Archer has an ability that changes the Type of your bonus from Dex to Wis, but that has nothing to do with the Source nor the Type; thus the two values stack.

Excellent synopsis. Exactly how I see it.


Kazaan wrote:

The fundamental misunderstanding that several (including JJ) are making here is conflating "source", "value", and "type".

"Source" is which rules element allows you to add the bonus. In the case of adding Dex to your ranged attack rolls, the "Source" is the default combat rules. The Power Attack feat is the "Source" of its bonus. Bonuses from the same "Source" don't stack which is why you can't take double the Power Attack penalty in order to get double its bonus.

"Value" is the amount assigned to the bonus. In some cases, it's a fixed value (ie. +1 bonus). Power Attack's "Value" is a function of BAB. In the case of the standard adding of Dex to your ranged attack rolls, your Dex modifier is the "Value". Zen Archer allows you to change the Value from your Dex modifier to your Wis modifier. Same goes for Weapon Finesse and the like. The ability score isn't the "source" of the bonus, it's the value of the bonus. There are no rules as to stacking Value so if two bonuses from different sources add a bonus of the same Value (either flat or based on a particular ability score), nothing prevents them from both being used.

"Type" is the designator of the bonus; sacred, dodge, shield, enhancement, natural armor, deflection, luck, etc. Bonuses from different sources, but the same type, won't stack save for specific exceptions (ie. dodge type).

Thus, the Dex bonus added to ranged attacks is an Untyped (type) bonus equal to your Dex modifier (value) which comes from default combat rules (source). The bonus coming from Estaril is an Untyped (type) bonus equal to your Wis modifier (value) which comes from the pertinent boon (source). Zen Archer has an ability that changes the Type of your bonus from Dex to Wis, but that has nothing to do with the Source nor the Type; thus the two values stack.

That's how I originally thought it worked. Thank you for putting it eloquently.


Tacticslion wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I will say regardless of whatever FAQ or developers say, I will not ever allow the same stat to be applied twice to excepting the Inquisitor's abilities that double dip of wis to some skills.

... I'm curious why the distinction? What's the idea behind it? Why Inquisitors specifically?

Also, are you including the abilities that double the bonus or not?

(I suspect you are not including those, since their language is slightly different, but I am simply curious.)

If I recall correctly it's because built into the class are some bonuses that directly say to add wisdom again to certain skills, and some are wisdom based. Because it's built into the class in that manner it is clearly intentional, and as such should bypass any sort of "source" issue. However, I believe it's too powerful to allow the stat to be applied twice in the case of zen archer or others (those using crusaders flurry). In general I wouldn't allow the same stat to be applied twice to something, like the fury's fall/agile maneuvers issue. I also don't think that it's the RAW, but I simply won't allow it.

Tl;dr: Inquisitor gets a pass because the ability is baked into the class, and you don't have a choice of not getting it.

Scarab Sages

Claxon wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I will say regardless of whatever FAQ or developers say, I will not ever allow the same stat to be applied twice to excepting the Inquisitor's abilities that double dip of wis to some skills.

... I'm curious why the distinction? What's the idea behind it? Why Inquisitors specifically?

Also, are you including the abilities that double the bonus or not?

(I suspect you are not including those, since their language is slightly different, but I am simply curious.)

If I recall correctly it's because built into the class are some bonuses that directly say to add wisdom again to certain skills, and some are wisdom based. Because it's built into the class in that manner it is clearly intentional, and as such should bypass any sort of "source" issue. However, I believe it's too powerful to allow the stat to be applied twice in the case of zen archer or others (those using crusaders flurry). In general I wouldn't allow the same stat to be applied twice to something, like the fury's fall/agile maneuvers issue. I also don't think that it's the RAW, but I simply won't allow it.

Tl;dr: Inquisitor gets a pass because the ability is baked into the class, and you don't have a choice of not getting it.

It's an ability that most people will only ever get at 20, unless they take a prestige class in which cast they can get it at 15. Even then, it's based on completing an hour long daily obedience that cannot be done depending on where you are.

If you are in a dungeon delve, in the darklands, on on an elemental plane, you cannot complete Erastil's obedience, and you cannot have the benefits of the feat (Or the entire benefits of you prestige class if you got it early.)

Getting double wisdom to hit under these requirements at this level unbalances nothing.

Digital Products Assistant

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed quite a few derailing/personal insult laden posts. Some of these may have been best handled through private messages, or in other threads entirely. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

Sczarni

Wow... what page are we on already? I opt for the one is a "replace" and one is a "add." If I "added" dex donus to damage while "replacing" WIS it would stack... so if I "add" wis bonus while "replacing" WIS it SHOULD stack. Also, what happened to "untyped bonuses" always stacking...

"Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source."

Isn't that the same as saying "untyped bonuses" all have "types" (sources) that don't stack? Add versus replace... I still agree with that logic.

(and not to get tooooo nit-picky, but those rules quoted above are for MAGICAL AFFECTS and say NOTHING about skills/feats/ex abilities... just saying... all skills could conceivably stack, no matter the source. As point of discussion)


I'd allow it for reasons already explained in the thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I will say regardless of whatever FAQ or developers say, I will not ever allow the same stat to be applied twice to excepting the Inquisitor's abilities that double dip of wis to some skills.

... I'm curious why the distinction? What's the idea behind it? Why Inquisitors specifically?

Also, are you including the abilities that double the bonus or not?

(I suspect you are not including those, since their language is slightly different, but I am simply curious.)

If I recall correctly it's because built into the class are some bonuses that directly say to add wisdom again to certain skills, and some are wisdom based. Because it's built into the class in that manner it is clearly intentional, and as such should bypass any sort of "source" issue. However, I believe it's too powerful to allow the stat to be applied twice in the case of zen archer or others (those using crusaders flurry). In general I wouldn't allow the same stat to be applied twice to something, like the fury's fall/agile maneuvers issue. I also don't think that it's the RAW, but I simply won't allow it.

Tl;dr: Inquisitor gets a pass because the ability is baked into the class, and you don't have a choice of not getting it.

This strikes me as an excellent argument for the exact opposite of the conclusion you appear to draw from it.

Inquisitor makes it completely clear that using the same stat twice is not inherently disallowed or prohibited, and there is no generic rule against it.

All you've got left is the "too powerful", but you haven't really established that it's all that powerful compared to other options, such as the inquisitor's abilities, which are obviously explicitly allowed.

We're talking about things that require you to be at a level outside what PFS covers because the rules are already unbalanceable at those levels (you can't get the third boon of erastil before level 14, so far as I can tell), and which have the amazing and terrifying power of being as good as what another class already does all the time.

Similarly, have you seriously looked at fury's fall/agile maneuvers? This is a combination which, at a cost of four feats (you need improved trip, too, and that means you need combat expertise), lets you get one single combat maneuver buffed up... some. Most combatants will need to have decent strength anyway for damage, so the str->dex conversion isn't necessarily huge, so the marginal advantage of agile maneuvers over just fury's fall is not necessarily a lot.

Look at a few of the feats involved:

Improved trip: +2 on trip rolls, also you don't take an AoO.
Fury's fall: +dex on trip rolls; might be what, +4-+5? But no other benefit.
Agile maneuvers: +dex, -str, on all combat maneuvers. Probably the largest change in overall value, but the only way this is a bigger bonus than +dex is if your str modifier is negative. In which case you have no business being in melee.

None of these are particularly insanely high bonuses. The combination of all three put together, if you have 12 str and 18 dex, is +2, +4, and +3 for a total of +9 on one single combat maneuver which doesn't affect all opponents.

And this requires an int of 13, which reduces the range of bonuses you can have in your other stats, since you can't treat int as a dump stat.

Overpowered? No, really, it's not.


Basically, it comes down to this; if you think that Ability-A that gives you Wis to attack in place of Str doesn't stack with Ability-B which gives you Wis to attack on top of Str, simply because both bonuses are Wis modifier, you must also assert that Ability-C which gives +2 (untyped) to attack doesn't stack with Ability-D which also gives +2 to attack because both bonuses are +2. And I challenge anyone to assert that with a straight face.


Kazaan wrote:
Basically, it comes down to this; if you think that Ability-A that gives you Wis to attack in place of Str doesn't stack with Ability-B which gives you Wis to attack on top of Str, simply because both bonuses are Wis modifier, you must also assert that Ability-C which gives +2 (untyped) to attack doesn't stack with Ability-D which also gives +2 to attack because both bonuses are +2. And I challenge anyone to assert that with a straight face.

That doesn't follow at all. I'm surprised you would use such faulty logic, Kazaan. You're usually better than that.

If Ability-A gave you an enhancement bonus to attack, would it stack with Ability-B that gave you an enhancement bonus to attack? No? Well then you must think Ability-C and Ability-D don't stack. Doesn't really follow, does it?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Basically, it comes down to this; if you think that Ability-A that gives you Wis to attack in place of Str doesn't stack with Ability-B which gives you Wis to attack on top of Str, simply because both bonuses are Wis modifier, you must also assert that Ability-C which gives +2 (untyped) to attack doesn't stack with Ability-D which also gives +2 to attack because both bonuses are +2. And I challenge anyone to assert that with a straight face.

That doesn't follow at all. I'm surprised you would use such faulty logic, Kazaan. You're usually better than that.

If Ability-A gave you an enhancement bonus to attack, would it stack with Ability-B that gave you an enhancement bonus to attack? No? Well then you must think Ability-C and Ability-D don't stack. Doesn't really follow, does it?

The bonuses are untyped! Stop using enhancement bonuses as an example!


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Basically, it comes down to this; if you think that Ability-A that gives you Wis to attack in place of Str doesn't stack with Ability-B which gives you Wis to attack on top of Str, simply because both bonuses are Wis modifier, you must also assert that Ability-C which gives +2 (untyped) to attack doesn't stack with Ability-D which also gives +2 to attack because both bonuses are +2. And I challenge anyone to assert that with a straight face.

That doesn't follow at all. I'm surprised you would use such faulty logic, Kazaan. You're usually better than that.

If Ability-A gave you an enhancement bonus to attack, would it stack with Ability-B that gave you an enhancement bonus to attack? No? Well then you must think Ability-C and Ability-D don't stack. Doesn't really follow, does it?

Only it totally does follow, because these appear to be untyped bonuses.

Well, sort of. Erastil's boon is just saying you "add your wisdom bonus", but your wisdom bonus isn't a typed bonus, it's a number. The use of the word "bonus" in two different senses here creates confusion.

Sczarni

I would like to point out AGAIN: That these "double dipping sources" ONLY APPLY to MAGICAL affects... and mundane (non-magical) sources all stack and ignore these rules (or rather are not governed by them). Throwing that out there... Feats that add and replace would Stack (unless they say the don't) because they are not magical. All these "rules for sources" are under the MAGIC EFFECTS and that is the only place in the book they technically apply to. (RAW)


maouse wrote:
I would like to point out AGAIN: That these "double dipping sources" ONLY APPLY to MAGICAL affects... and mundane (non-magical) sources all stack and ignore these rules (or rather are not governed by them). Throwing that out there... Feats that add and replace would Stack (unless they say the don't) because they are not magical. All these "rules for sources" are under the MAGIC EFFECTS and that is the only place in the book they technically apply to. (RAW)

I think I'm the person who first spotted that this is the only instance of that rule in the books, and honestly, I think that's very clearly purely an editing error. I don't think for a minute that they intended to create such an exception.

That said, outside of magical effects, I'm not sure there are any ways to get untyped bonuses from "the same source" more than once. The majority of bonuses specify a type, or come from something like a feat which you can only take once to begin with.

Hmm.

Well, there's an interesting case: Consider an ioun stone which grants alertness, and a character who already has alertness. Does the ioun stone grant you the benefits of the feat again? I mean, obviously the intent is "no", but I don't immediately see what stops it.


What about the inability to have a feat more than once unless it specifies otherwise?

Sczarni

Yes, but feats that allow you to take them more than once allow the abilities to stack (mostly). Even though they are obviously "from the same source (stats)." So there is that obviously out there... if you have something that ADDS and something that REPLACES, I don't see why it would be a problem "just because it is "from" the same stat's bonus"? Well, if it were two separate stat bonuses that were equal it would 100% stack (say they were playing a balanced stat character). So what is the complaint? That people don't like someone loading on a stat and then taking a FEAT (read "ability that allows you to bend the rules somehow") to allow the addition and replacement with one stat? I don't see why this is a problem for non-magical FEATS that are (written) designed to break the otherwise normal rules. One says it ADDS, ADD it. One says it REPLACES, replace it. RAW, unless you magically make up "sources" for non-magical effects.

I don't see how a feat would basically make you get WORSE, simply because someone decided they were going x far towards whatever a "source" is. Example. I have a Dex +2, INT +5 and a WIS +5, - I can take a INT replacing FEAT that gives me +5 instead of +2. But from some twisted logic you say I can't take a FEAT that gives me a WIS +5 instead of +2? Why? Makes little to ZERO sense. And now, under that logic, if I use this WIS feat, I basically LOSE +2? Zero, no, negative two sense.


Tacticslion wrote:
What about the inability to have a feat more than once unless it specifies otherwise?

It's not an inability to have the feat more than once, it's an inability to take the feat more than once. The ioun stone doesn't say anything like "grants you the benefits of alertness if you don't already have it".


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
graystone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

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.
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?
"Replace" and "Add" are not the same. "Wis bonus" and "Wis bonus" are the same.

wis bonus is not a bonus type so the "Same type" rule does not apply.

The only thing left is the same source, which would be there the bonus is coming from ie... magic item, feat, etc.

In this case the source is also different.

PS: One of the official PF books does list every bonus type. This came up in a similar thread.


Kazaan wrote:

The fundamental misunderstanding that several (including JJ) are making here is conflating "source", "value", and "type".

"Source" is which rules element allows you to add the bonus. In the case of adding Dex to your ranged attack rolls, the "Source" is the default combat rules. The Power Attack feat is the "Source" of its bonus. Bonuses from the same "Source" don't stack which is why you can't take double the Power Attack penalty in order to get double its bonus.

"Value" is the amount assigned to the bonus. In some cases, it's a fixed value (ie. +1 bonus). Power Attack's "Value" is a function of BAB. In the case of the standard adding of Dex to your ranged attack rolls, your Dex modifier is the "Value". Zen Archer allows you to change the Value from your Dex modifier to your Wis modifier. Same goes for Weapon Finesse and the like. The ability score isn't the "source" of the bonus, it's the value of the bonus. There are no rules as to stacking Value so if two bonuses from different sources add a bonus of the same Value (either flat or based on a particular ability score), nothing prevents them from both being used.

"Type" is the designator of the bonus; sacred, dodge, shield, enhancement, natural armor, deflection, luck, etc. Bonuses from different sources, but the same type, won't stack save for specific exceptions (ie. dodge type).

Thus, the Dex bonus added to ranged attacks is an Untyped (type) bonus equal to your Dex modifier (value) which comes from default combat rules (source). The bonus coming from Estaril is an Untyped (type) bonus equal to your Wis modifier (value) which comes from the pertinent boon (source). Zen Archer has an ability that changes the Type of your bonus from Dex to Wis, but that has nothing to do with the Source nor the Type; thus the two values stack.

Very well phrased. Thanks for this Kazaan. ^.^


seebs wrote:
We're talking about things that require you to be at a level outside what PFS covers because the rules are already unbalanceable at those levels (you can't get the third boon of erastil before level 14, so far as I can tell), and which have the amazing and...

Couldn't you get it by like, 12 or so?

Aasimar @1st
Deific Obedience @3rd
Evangelist @4-12th gaining divine boon 3 at character level 12.

That works, no?


Remy Balster wrote:
seebs wrote:
We're talking about things that require you to be at a level outside what PFS covers because the rules are already unbalanceable at those levels (you can't get the third boon of erastil before level 14, so far as I can tell), and which have the amazing and...

Couldn't you get it by like, 12 or so?

Aasimar @1st
Deific Obedience @3rd
Evangelist @4-12th gaining divine boon 3 at character level 12.

That works, no?

Ah, another interesting SLA early entry. Very interesting actually.


Oooh, that's a good catch. I was assuming you would qualify through BAB or skill ranks. Yeah, seems like you could just make it at 12.

I... don't actually think that matters much. Although this may be a stronger argument against the "SLAs count" ruling than the other prestige classes, because evangelist isn't obviously weak, unlike mystic theurge and such.


seebs wrote:
maouse wrote:
I would like to point out AGAIN: That these "double dipping sources" ONLY APPLY to MAGICAL affects... and mundane (non-magical) sources all stack and ignore these rules (or rather are not governed by them). Throwing that out there... Feats that add and replace would Stack (unless they say the don't) because they are not magical. All these "rules for sources" are under the MAGIC EFFECTS and that is the only place in the book they technically apply to. (RAW)

I think I'm the person who first spotted that this is the only instance of that rule in the books, and honestly, I think that's very clearly purely an editing error. I don't think for a minute that they intended to create such an exception.

That said, outside of magical effects, I'm not sure there are any ways to get untyped bonuses from "the same source" more than once. The majority of bonuses specify a type, or come from something like a feat which you can only take once to begin with.

Hmm.

Well, there's an interesting case: Consider an ioun stone which grants alertness, and a character who already has alertness. Does the ioun stone grant you the benefits of the feat again? I mean, obviously the intent is "no", but I don't immediately see what stops it.

Power attack isn't magical. What stops you from using it twice?

Quote:
You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.

What if I simply choose to take that penalty a couple times?

What stops me, is that you don't get to stack bonuses from the same source. Power Attack is the source of this bonus, of course, and so can only provide this bonus one time.


Well, that's sort of the issue: Paizo's editing of the core rules resulted in there not actually being a "same source" rule anymore except for magical effects.

Probably unintentional, but there it is.


seebs wrote:

Oooh, that's a good catch. I was assuming you would qualify through BAB or skill ranks. Yeah, seems like you could just make it at 12.

I... don't actually think that matters much. Although this may be a stronger argument against the "SLAs count" ruling than the other prestige classes, because evangelist isn't obviously weak, unlike mystic theurge and such.

Yeah, my jaw dropped when I first read it. It seems absurdly powerful. But, then again, a lot of things in that book do.

Scarab Sages

Remy Balster wrote:
seebs wrote:

Oooh, that's a good catch. I was assuming you would qualify through BAB or skill ranks. Yeah, seems like you could just make it at 12.

I... don't actually think that matters much. Although this may be a stronger argument against the "SLAs count" ruling than the other prestige classes, because evangelist isn't obviously weak, unlike mystic theurge and such.

Yeah, my jaw dropped when I first read it. It seems absurdly powerful. But, then again, a lot of things in that book do.

Which is why PFS explicitly stated no one can take a level of Evangelist before 6.

I know a lot of People don't like PFS, but they are pretty much dead on in this.


Yeah, I'm playing a small home game and the GM doesn't allow SLAs to qualify for anything.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post. This kind of thing is just not OK here. Please revisit the messageboard rules.


Rowe wrote:

Zen Archer monk has: At 3rd level, a zen archer may use his Wisdom modifier instead of his Dexterity modifier on ranged attack rolls when using a bow.

Erastil's 3rd boon is: Wisdom to attack rolls and damage to enemies within 30 feet when using a longbow.

My question, assuming the enemy is within 30 feet do you get wisdom to attack twice?

No. You don't get to use the same bonus twice since two abilities are tapping the same source. So no. You do get to use both your DEX and your WIS, since the key word is "may" in the 3rd level zen archer ability.

Scarab Sages

Vanykrye wrote:
Rowe wrote:

Zen Archer monk has: At 3rd level, a zen archer may use his Wisdom modifier instead of his Dexterity modifier on ranged attack rolls when using a bow.

Erastil's 3rd boon is: Wisdom to attack rolls and damage to enemies within 30 feet when using a longbow.

My question, assuming the enemy is within 30 feet do you get wisdom to attack twice?

No. You don't get to use the same bonus twice since two abilities are tapping the same source. So no. You do get to use both your DEX and your WIS, since the key word is "may" in the 3rd level zen archer ability.

No, you are not tapping the same Source. Wisdom is not a source, it is a value.

Zen archery is the source of your ability to substitute the value of your wisdome modifier for the value of your dexterity modifier on ranged attacks with a bow.

Erastil's boon is the source of and ability to add the value of your wisdom modifier to hit and damage on bow attacks against targets within 30 feet.


Vanykrye wrote:
Rowe wrote:

Zen Archer monk has: At 3rd level, a zen archer may use his Wisdom modifier instead of his Dexterity modifier on ranged attack rolls when using a bow.

Erastil's 3rd boon is: Wisdom to attack rolls and damage to enemies within 30 feet when using a longbow.

My question, assuming the enemy is within 30 feet do you get wisdom to attack twice?

No. You don't get to use the same bonus twice since two abilities are tapping the same source. So no. You do get to use both your DEX and your WIS, since the key word is "may" in the 3rd level zen archer ability.

This is incorrect. The two are tapping the same value, not the same source. The source of one is the Zen Archer class feature while the source of the other is Erastil's boon. They share the same value (Wis modifier) and they are both untyped bonuses (which stack with no issue). Seriously, I explained this up-thread. Go back and read the full thing.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Here's how I see it:

Normally you add Dex to hit and maybe Str to damage. We'll presume a bow that allows Str bonuses.

Normal: Dex to hit, str to damage
Normal+Erastil: Dex+wis to hit, Str+wis to damage

Zen: Wis to hit, str to damage
Zen+Erastil: Wis+wis to hit, Str+wis to damage

Either way you are getting two to hit bonuses, and two damage bonuses. I don't see how changing which ability scores they come from affects anything. So what if you are a little less MAD with the Zen archer example?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To those who say while quoting JJ that you can not use the same ability twice, how do you feel about a level 2 paladin (charisma to all saves) who is also a level 1 Lore oracle with the mystery (Charisma to reflex saves instead of Dex). Lets say 20 charisma and 10 in all other stats.

Is reflex save +5 or +10?

According to JJ (who is not the rules guy) it is +10. This is an example of the same stat double stacking.

So if you wish to quote him saying that same stat does not stack, you should also quote him saying the same stat DOES stack.

James Jacobs


Citation on that? Because that certainly does sound like a direct contradiction to his quasi-ruling on the fury's fall case.


It's in the link he provided at the bottom of his post, seebs.

EDIT:

Sorry, I forgot to respond to this:

seebs wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
What about the inability to have a feat more than once unless it specifies otherwise?
It's not an inability to have the feat more than once, it's an inability to take the feat more than once. The ioun stone doesn't say anything like "grants you the benefits of alertness if you don't already have it".

That makes sense, but what, functionally, is the difference between take and have?

Does it explicitly note that you cannot "take" the feat "more than once due to level up" or does "taking" the feat apply to everything, even when granted by other sources?

This is not an argument - I'm actually asking.

(And before, I was just guessing off the top of my head - I actually had in mind the take v. have wording, but, since I wasn't looking at the rules, I went ahead and asked anyway.)

Citation, if possible, please. I'm really interested in this.

If no one provides citation, I'll at least go looking for the ioun stone - that one's easy enough feat wording is a little trickier, I'd guess to find.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Uh. Well, the good news is I'm getting the 1s out of my d20 before I make any important perception checks.


Ughbash wrote:

To those who say while quoting JJ that you can not use the same ability twice, how do you feel about a level 2 paladin (charisma to all saves) who is also a level 1 Lore oracle with the mystery (Charisma to reflex saves instead of Dex). Lets say 20 charisma and 10 in all other stats.

Is reflex save +5 or +10?

According to JJ (who is not the rules guy) it is +10. This is an example of the same stat double stacking.

So if you wish to quote him saying that same stat does not stack, you should also quote him saying the same stat DOES stack.

James Jacobs

That is an exact perfect analogy. One is "replace" and one is "add."

Good find.

201 to 250 of 275 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Wis to attack twice? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.