
![]() |
30 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With FAQ requests not getting a lot of traction these days, I asked JJ the following question and received his response HERE! However, his response suggested a FAQ, so here it goes.
I'll just quote myself:
James,
You have, on several occasions, answered questions about doubling up on a stat to CMB, CMD, etc. Your answers have been focused on examples where things are usually a straight replacement, such as DEX for STR with Weapon Finesse.
Here's a question relative to the Inquisitor Class, which involves one of its Archetypes and one of the Inquisitions.
Infiltrator Archetype wrote:Guileful Lore (Ex): At 1st level, the infiltrator's will is bent toward subterfuge and deception. She adds her Wisdom modifier on Bluff and Diplomacy skill checks in addition to the normal ability score modifiers. This ability replaces monster lore.Conversion Inquisition wrote:Charm of Wisdom (Ex): You use your Wisdom modifier instead of your Charisma modifier when making Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate checks.The archetype clearly has you able to double up on CHA and WIS bonuses. The Inquisition just swaps WIS in for CHA.
So, the question is relative to Bluff and Diplomacy, is an Inquisitor in this niche position able to double tap their WIS modifier given the peculiar wording of the Archetype that obviously intends for you to have two ability score modifiers being added together?
Emphasis added to highlight the formal question.

![]() |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

A bit of common sense will tell you that both those things are just different ways of doing the same thing
Whereas a bit of reading comprehension will tell you that "add this on top of your normal bonus" and "add this instead of your normal bonus" are two very different things, not different ways of doing the same thing.
I'm not sure of the final answer to the OP's question, but you should at least read the question before declaring it's a matter of "common sense", lest you just embarass yourself.

![]() |
A bit of common sense will tell you that both those things are just different ways of doing the same thing and will not stack.
So no you cannot double up on ability bonus's from 1 ability.
I disagree. Conversion inquisition replaces Cha with Wis, while Guileful Lore adds Wis to Cha. I don't see any reason why you couldn't add Wis twice if you were an infiltratror inquisitor with the Conversion inquisition.

wraithstrike |

I do vaguely recall that in some other cases it's been ruled that you can't add abilities to themselves though. It might have been in the context of adding Cha to Dex, while also replacing Dex with Cha, for some oracle or something.
It's a legitimate question.
I am sure they were not added in the same manner either so this would not apply to those rulings, not that I can recall any, but if you have any quotes would be nice.

wraithstrike |

Fury's Fall "adds your Dexterity bonus to CMB", and CMB is normally STR+BAB+Size, yet plenty of people argue that it won't stack with Agile Maneuvers, which replaces STR with DEX for CMB, citing the nonexistent "double tap" rules.
I knew about that one also, but I thought Asc(cant not spell your name) was claiming to have seen an official ruling on something.

![]() |
As I stated above, JJ has discussed similar things in his "ask me anything" thread before, but he has also disclaimed numerous times to be the rules monkey and specifically directed me to FAQ this as of yesterday.
If it was clearly described somewhere, I would think JJ being the meticulous and helpful guy that he is would have directed me right to it.
So, please, for the love of the Dawnflower, hit the FAQ button above.

![]() |
If the rule against double dipping is being derived from the posts by James Jacobs, then it should be noted that he specifically made an exception for the case of a paladin/lore oracle with Sidestep Secret in the case of Reflex saves.
That seems a reasonably equivalent example. Still, as JJ says over and over, he's not the rules authority, so a FAQ would be nice.
Anyone else willing to bandwagon and push the FAQ button?

MechE_ |

Off Topic: As someone who made this mistake in the past, I'll inform the OP that the Devs have stated that they do not like to see the words "FAQ Request" in the thread title. I think even "FAQ" is supposed to be avoided.
On topic: There are a few instances where it's possible to double stack ability modifiers - some require a few abilities added together (Fury's Fall + Agile Maneuvers, Guileful Lore + Charm of Wisdom, etc.), and at least one (the Mindchemist archetype's Perfect Recall ability) that is a single ability.
Were it my game, I'd allow skill bonuses to be stacked, using the Mindchemist's Perfect Recall ability as a basis for not breaking RAI. I would not, however, allow someone to add dexterity twice to their CMB through Fury's Fall and Agile Maneuvers, as there is no precedent for this ability on an attack roll. Skill checks and attack rolls are VASTLY different things - there is a favored class bonuses (for Catfolk Bards) which gives +1/2 per level to all knowledge skill checks, but there are not any favored class bonuses (same ability power) which give anywhere near such a boost to attack rolls.
That said, I'll hit the FAQ button on this one. Though I hope the FAQ answer isn't a single word and gives a bit of explanation as to the rationale/design intent of the ruling.

Bobson |

I would not, however, allow someone to add dexterity twice to their CMB through Fury's Fall and Agile Maneuvers, as there is no precedent for this ability on an attack roll.
Then you ought to be banning Fury's Fall, not the combination. There's no precedent for adding a second stat into your CMB, but there is precedent for using a different stat in the first place (Weapon Finesse).
As Jiggy said:
"add this on top of your normal bonus" and "add this instead of your normal bonus" are two very different things, not different ways of doing the same thing.
That said, you are free to do whatever you want in your home game, whether or not your reasoning makes sense to the rest of us.

![]() |
Off Topic: As someone who made this mistake in the past, I'll inform the OP that the Devs have stated that they do not like to see the words "FAQ Request" in the thread title. I think even "FAQ" is supposed to be avoided.
As the OP, I have to ask, where did you get this? I've seen quite a few threads started with this that actually got FAQs eventually.
Of course, I've seen quite a few threads with this sort of label demanding a ruling on what seems a very simple question, "No! You can't still act when you have the DEAD condition, even though the CRB doesn't state otherwise!."
Should I put "FAQ request" or “Designer response needed” in my post or thread?
No.
Doing so suggests that your post or thread is more “worthy” of staff attention than someone else’s thread which doesn’t include this text.
Also, because having more FAQ clicks doesn’t make a thread more likely to be answered, doing this to encourage more FAQ clicks doesn’t help you.
Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.

![]() |
Alrighty then, so we've got a FAQ Response out on this one now that seems to be trying to answer this question! and it appears to still be as clear as mud.
Thoughts?

Pupsocket |

Alrighty then, so we've got a FAQ Response out on this one now that seems to be trying to answer this question! and it appears to still be as clear as mud.
Thoughts?
Wow.
Just....Wow.

![]() |

Alrighty then, so we've got a FAQ Response out on this one now that seems to be trying to answer this question! and it appears to still be as clear as mud.
Thoughts?
Seems fairly clear to me unless I'm missing something. Guileful Lore adds Wis mod. Charm of Wisdom also adds Wis mod. Per the FAQ you cannot add Wis mod more than once so they will not stack. Seems pretty straightforward.

ZanThrax |

Before the thread descended into pointless bickering about semantics and b!&~%ing about the FAQ, I started compiling examples of double dipping that the FAQ addressed. Including the specific issue of the Inquisitor Archetypes and Inquisitions that definitely don't work together now. Mark confirmed that that was as intended.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Basically, you have bonuses with multiple sources now, that are determined by the type of bonus it provides.
So, "a bonus equal to your <relevant modifier>" is a meaningless statement, and all should be "add your <relevant modifier>".
This also means untyped bonuses sometimes do stack, and sometimes they don't, depending on whether or not, one of the multiple sources of each bonus, are the same source.