|
First spell I came across was
Bestow Grace of the Champion
School transmutation [good, law]; Level cleric 7, paladin 4
Components V, S, DF
Casting Time 1 standard action
Range touch
Target lawful good creature touched
Duration 1 round/level (see text)
Saving Throw yes (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
You channel the power of good and law into the target, temporarily giving it powers similar to those of a paladin. The target gains the ability to use detect evil at will as a spell-like ability, immunity to disease (suppressing any diseases currently affecting it), and immunity to fear (ending any fear effects currently affecting it); can lay on hands (on itself only) once as a paladin of 1/2 your caster level; and can smite evil once as a paladin of 1/2 your caster level. It adds its Charisma bonus to all its saving throws. It can use spell completion, spell trigger, or other magic items that require the ability to cast spells as a paladin. Any abilities not used by the time the spell expires are lost. This spell has no effect if cast on a paladin.
Ostensibly this spell grants a Charisma bonus to all saving throws. But that isn't what the spell is really doing. The spell is essentially making you a Paladin for 1 round/level. All the language within is essentially just reiterating what being a Paladin grants you (or rather what elements of being a Paladin this spell grants you).
Are there any others you can think of?
|
|
No, it doesn't surprise me at all.
I hate to say it, but Paizo has proven time, and time again, that their developers are not careful when it comes to rules continuity. They get freelancers that write things for them, that aren't fully aware of the rules. And the developer doesn't always vet the ability the way it should be vetted.
Now if you want to argue that the Wisdom Bonuses are untyped, I'll cede that point for just a moment to make another argument...
Untyped bonuses from the same source do not stack.
The source, in this case, is Wisdom.
Sounds to me like you have been singing it from the rafters in this thread. You need convoluted logic to justify your position. You have been shown example after example of stat bonuses being added more than once, yet claim it is all some giant conspiracy. You have exactly no proof other than some 3.5 mumbo-jumbo.
Congrats. You have spoken the most, yet have said almost nothing.
Is there a specific reason you are being rude to me when I haven't been to you?
My logic is sound.
Folks have listed many examples of redundant ability bonuses. Showing that two abilities can be gained by the same class that grant the same bonus doesn't prove that the bonuses are supposed to stack.
All you are showing is that two bonuses are redundant.
|
|
It's either a feature of the ability or wisdom.
If its wisdom then I can add my wisdom bonus to all init rolls.
If its the ability I can stack different abilities.
That again makes no sense.
There is no language in the core rules of the game that grants one the ability to add their Wisdom bonus to initiative. You need a class feature or inquisition (or possibly a domain or feat or something such like that) to do so.
Whether Wisdom is considered a source or typed or neither, does not change that.
Your logic doesn't follow.
Otherwise, by your logic, you get to add all your ability bonuses to all rolls.
|
|
My logic is sound.So many people say this but because it's not science it's no more than belief.
That said I've never come so close to laughing out loud in a situation where it would be inappropriate than when I read those four words.
uh huh... from someone who just said:
It's either a feature of the ability or wisdom.
If its wisdom then I can add my wisdom bonus to all init rolls.
If its the ability I can stack different abilities.
Which certainly shows you don't have a grasp on how stacking rules work. Even if I conceded that ability bonuses were not typed (which I'm certainly not willing to do at this point), your statement above is nonsensical.
Are there any others you can think of?
Smite Abomination: "Your melee attacks against that target gain a bonus equal to your Charisma or Wisdom modifier, whichever is higher, on your attack rolls..."
A Cleric with Guided Hand could use this to add his Wisdom bonus twice to attack rolls.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's either a feature of the ability or wisdom.
If its wisdom then I can add my wisdom bonus to all init rolls.
If its the ability I can stack different abilities.That again makes no sense.
There is no language in the core rules of the game that grants one the ability to add their Wisdom bonus to initiative. You need a class feature or inquisition (or possibly a domain or feat or something such like that) to do so.
Whether Wisdom is considered a source or typed or neither, does not change that.
Your logic doesn't follow.
Otherwise, by your logic, you get to add all your ability bonuses to all rolls.
What you are being purposefully obtuse about is this:
If this "ability bonus" is the source, then it's something everyone has access to. Because if it is not the "source" (such as in the case that you require a class ability or feat to get that bonus) then you would be able to just use it as a matter of fact.
But in reality, you need that feat or class ability to use that "ability bonus". And feats and class abilities are specific examples that trump the general rule (ex: you can only add Dex to AC or Initiative). So when you have 2, or 3, or 15 feats/class abilities that add a stat to another stat, and none of them say anything about interactions with out such feats or class abilities (like Divine Protection does, for example), then they all stack. If this was not the case, then entire abilities would do absolutely nothing. But since you need those feats or class abilities, they are the "source."
The Inquisitor Wis-to-Initiative thing is the most damning proof I think anyone could provide. Are you seriously going to claim that this ability does absolutely nothing? That Paizo's developers didn't look at the class they were building/had built and said "let's give them an ability that doesn't do anything!"
Strangling Hair (also from Ultimate Magic): "Make a grapple check against the target using your caster level as the base attack bonus plus a bonus equal to your Intelligence bonus (if a witch or wizard) or Charisma bonus (if a sorcerer)..."
|
|
Are there any others you can think of?Smite Abomination: "Your melee attacks against that target gain a bonus equal to your Charisma or Wisdom modifier, whichever is higher, on your attack rolls..."
A Cleric with Guided Hand could use this to add his Wisdom bonus twice to attack rolls.
I disagree.
You could add Wisdom Bonus twice whether its typed or not.
Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn’t have a type stacks with any bonus.
and
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. 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 (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Whether Wisdom Bonus is typed or not, its the same source. Wisdom.
It wouldn't stack with itself, either because typed bonuses do not stack, or because both bonuses come from the same source (wisdom).
|
|
It's either a feature of the ability or wisdom.
If its wisdom then I can add my wisdom bonus to all init rolls.
If its the ability I can stack different abilities.That again makes no sense.
There is no language in the core rules of the game that grants one the ability to add their Wisdom bonus to initiative. You need a class feature or inquisition (or possibly a domain or feat or something such like that) to do so.
Whether Wisdom is considered a source or typed or neither, does not change that.
Your logic doesn't follow.
Otherwise, by your logic, you get to add all your ability bonuses to all rolls.
What you are being purposefully obtuse about is this:
If this "ability bonus" is the source, then it's something everyone has access to. Because if it is not the "source" (such as in the case that you require a class ability or feat to get that bonus) then you would be able to just use it as a matter of fact.
But in reality, you need that feat or class ability to use that "ability bonus". And feats and class abilities are specific examples that trump the general rule (ex: you can only add Dex to AC or Initiative). So when you have 2, or 3, or 15 feats/class abilities that add a stat to another stat, and none of them say anything about interactions with out such feats or class abilities (like Divine Protection does, for example), then they all stack. If this was not the case, then entire abilities would do absolutely nothing. But since you need those feats or class abilities, they are the "source."
The Inquisitor Wis-to-Initiative thing is the most damning proof I think anyone could provide. Are you seriously going to claim that this ability does absolutely nothing? That Paizo's developers didn't look at the class they were building/had built and said "let's give them an ability that doesn't do anything!"
Something being the source does not equate to "everyone gets it."
How is that even part of the rules? Where in the rules does it say, "If something is considered a source, everyone gets it."
The one being obtuse is the one trying to use this logic.
The ability does plenty without allowing the Inquisitor to stack their Wisdom bonus. It allows them to grant all their allies within 30' a Wisdom Bonus to Initiative. That's pretty sweet!
|
|
Strangling Hair (also from Ultimate Magic): "Make a grapple check against the target using your caster level as the base attack bonus plus a bonus equal to your Intelligence bonus (if a witch or wizard) or Charisma bonus (if a sorcerer)..."
This isn't unique to Ultimate Magic. This is pretty standard language for how spells get their attack bonus. Both spiritual weapon and black tentacles use this type of language.
I don't agree that this is granting you an ability bonus.
The chart in the designing spells, I believe, is specifically referring to spells that grant a specific bonus type to the caster. Such as, "this spell grants you a +1 morale bonus to hit and will saves vs. fear"
But spells that define how that spell gets its attack bonus is not granting ability bonuses to anything. Its just telling you how to derive the attack bonus for that spell.
The Inquisitor Wis-to-Initiative thing is the most damning proof I think anyone could provide. Are you seriously going to claim that this ability does absolutely nothing? That Paizo's developers didn't look at the class they were building/had built and said "let's give them an ability that doesn't do anything!"
You mean like giving inquisitors a spell that relies on having the Aura class feature?
You do realize there is no such thing as a "feat" bonus right?Like bonuses dont stack.... ok.. so a bonus from a feat doesnt stack with other feat bonuses. Trait bonuses doesnt stack with other trait bonuses. Why is a feat bonus to initiative called a feat bonus? OMG is it because it is from a feat, and everyone who has this feat gets this bonus. Why is a trait bonus to initiative called a trait bonus? OMG Is it because it is from a trait, and everyone who has this trait gets this bonus. So if I am understanding this simple logic, then if there was a such a thing as a wisdom bonus to initiative, then it would stand to reason that everyone who has this thing called wisdom would also have this bonus to initiative. Guess what it doesn't work that way because wisdom is not a source.No it really doesn't. The source is meaningless when discussing bonus stacking. Like bonuses don't stack. It doesn't matter the source.It has everything to do with the conversation. The source of Wisdom to AC is the Monk or Sacred Fist ability, not the Wisdom score.Why doesn't everyone who has a positive wisdom bonus get a wisdom bonus to AC? Is it because the monk special ability gives them that ability? Why yes it does. Hmm then it is a fair conclusion that the source of their wisdom bonus to AC comes from a power or else silly old fighters would be running around with a wisdom bonus to AC. We couldn't have that now could we.This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.
Yes there is, it is right next to "ability" bonus in the list of bonus types.
|
|
Ok smart alecs.
You know there is no such thing as a feat bonus, because there isn't anything called out anywhere in the language that says...
"feat bonus"
But you know there is a phrase often used in the rules called
"ability bonus".
But since you guys have decided to turn this discussion pretty nasty, I'm out. I've said what I had to say, but I don't need to start taking abuse.
I'd love to continue the discussion, but not when folks are getting downright mean and degrading.
Ok smart alecs.
You know there is no such thing as a feat bonus, because there isn't anything called out anywhere in the language that says...
"feat bonus"
But you know there is a phrase often used in the rules called
"ability bonus".
But since you guys have decided to turn this discussion pretty nasty, I'm out. I've said what I had to say, but I don't need to start taking abuse.
I'd love to continue the discussion, but not when folks are getting downright mean and degrading.
You have traits that give trait bonuses and racial bonuses given by races. A feat bonus seems right in line with the others. In fact it makes more sense than an ability bonus for types...
|
Ah, but "ability bonus" is only used in regards to a ability modifier being a plus, or minus.
Of course, that's meaningless, right, along with the bonus type list.
All that matters, is that the term "<blank> bonus" is used, no matter the context.
So, that must mean, that without being noted as untyped, it must be typed.
Which, means the feat type bonus must exist.
I mean, feats can provide a bonus, and look at the Log Walk ability of the Wanderer Monk ability:
Long Walk (Ex)
At 3rd level, the wanderer gains Endurance as a bonus feat, and the feat bonus doubles when he makes Constitution checks because of a forced march. In addition, a wanderer gains a +2 bonus on saving throws against spells and effects that cause exhaustion and fatigue.
This ability replaces still mind.
This is the path you are walking.
Not just having two abilities not stacking, but breaking down the game, as whole, to what, prove a point?
I have totally forgot who is on what side... How about we just have a straight up vote to see who is winning this bar brawl. simple one word post.
Does Sacred Fist AC Bonus stack with Monks AC Bonus ?
My Vote
No
I have totally forgot who is on what side... How about we just have a straight up vote to see who is winning this bar brawl. simple one word post.
Does Sacred Fist AC Bonus stack with Monks AC Bonus ?
My Vote
No
Are you voting no do to RAW? RAI? You feel it's too OP?
The reason you're seeing some confusion is there are three different questions/answers.
Do you think it's RAW?
RAI?
Would you allow it even of it's RAW/RAI?
Me
RAW? yes
RAI? who knows. After all the metaphorical hand crap I have no idea what they're thinking.
Would I allow it? Yep. I see nothing bad that'd happen.
LOL Graystone... dude one word no Qualifiers.
LOL Graystone... dude one word no Qualifiers.
Dude, it's more complicated than one word. If three words are too much for you, I'm sorry. But somehow you just managed 6 whole ones in your last post. I think you can do it if you try. :)
|
|
I have totally forgot who is on what side... How about we just have a straight up vote to see who is winning this bar brawl. simple one word post.
Does Sacred Fist AC Bonus stack with Monks AC Bonus ?
My Vote
No
Most of the votes are "no", but the reasons why, are hotly being debated.
That is the focus.
We have 10 page of debate. Lets get a head count on what people think. Its not that hard to type one word. LOL.
We have 10 page of debate. Lets get a head count on what people think. Its not that hard to type one word. LOL.
22 words that time. Keep it up and you be able to answer those three questions in no time! ;)
A head count of reasons is much more useful than a simple yeah or nay.
|
|
We have 10 page of debate. Lets get a head count on what people think. Its not that hard to type one word. LOL.
You must understand, that so much more than the "yes, or no", is the "why".
Without that, any answer is meaningless.
The "why", is what is all that is in debate, and is the all-consuming issue at hand.
Wow please never let me be on a jury with you guys. Everyone is going to die of old age. BBT sometime you have to just step back and see where everyone stands. Forget I said anything and go back to the pointless back and forth. Please make sure to add the same points over and over again. At this point no one is going to change anyone ones view. /shrug
Vote: Hell to the no.
At this point no one is going to change anyone ones view. /shrug
Yeah, just having people say yes or no is MUCH better at getting people to change their view... *rolls eyes*
Vote: Hell to the no.
The strong feeling that this particular question has garnered is a never-ending source of amusement and wonderment to me.
And for the record, yes, of course they stack, thats the way the rules-as-written work!
prototype00
|
|
Vote: Hell to the no.
For them to stack?
I agree.
This, foolish thought, that some game-breaking idea is the reason why, I disagree, passionately.
These two abilities, should be noted as functioning the same.
A line, such as, "as the Monk feature", or something the like, is all that is needed to accomplish this.
Not this other nonsense.
Vote: Hell to the no.The strong feeling that this particular question has garnered is a never-ending source of amusement and wonderment to me.
You're trying to munchkin the system for a mechanical advantage and using some absolutely horrible arguments to do so. You deny that ability bonuses exist despite clear multiple uses of them and then make up a definition of source out of whole cloth specifically to exclude the ability modifiers.
When in doubt the answer is no, not attempt to rules lawyer it for more power.
|
Ascalaphus: The point is that searching the PRD for bonus types does indeed come up with a list of bonuses. We can argue about it's usefulness but saying it doesn't exist is a blatant lie.
I was responding to the argument that a given thing is THE source because it just so happened to be at the top of the PRD search engine.
The order of those search results is pretty random. If you're looking for an ability you're more likely to find a monster ability with the same name than an ability of a core class. If you're looking for a spell the mythic version tends to top the list, and often as not then a monster that has it as an SLA.
|
|
Okay, I want to go on a short derail (although given the type of discussion, it's actually frightfully on-topic) about how to read and argue about rules.
First. I think we can all agree that although Paizo does its best, there are actual errors in the books. Some abilities are just plain broken, as in they just don't work. And this can take a long time to fix. There are many reasons for this, among the main of which are:
A consequence of this is, that it's quite possible that a certain power contradicts RAW and/or RAI. But of course at least someone will raise that power as an argument about how the RAW must mean something different. For example: Dragon Ferocity consumed several pages in this thread. But suppose that that feat was just sloppy writing? Several of the other style feats have confusing writing, like Boar Style causing 2d6 bleed damage at level 3 (ouch!). So why not Dragon Ferocity? The writer thought he was clear, but now it turns out he wasn't clear enough after all.
Likewise with the Tactics inquisition: how likely is it that the writer of that power just messed up? We can't agree on whether Wisdom bonuses can stack, so maybe the writer wasn't on the same page as the CRB writer either.
My point here: it's very dangerous to take a couple of powers as proof that a general rule was meant to work in a particular way. Even more if those powers don't come out of the CRB. The CRB is the most-revised Paizo book and should, in the end, be the primary authority on the rules.
Second. It's my opinion that the core rules of the game are in the CRB. Other books expand on those rules, like APG adding a few more maneuvers. Sometimes they explicitly change those rules, like UM does on spell design. But the CRB remains the primary source of the rules.
When you use another book, it's pretty clear what books it relies on. If the ACG uses something from the APG, that's pretty clear. When for example a new class like the Bloodrager is introduced, in its spell list every spell not from the ACG or the CRB is marked with a superscript abbreviation denoting what book it comes from. When Chapter 2 includes archetypes, it clearly attributes that these rules come from the APG originally, as well as some of the classes for which the ACG introduces new archetypes. When an ACG feat has an APG feat as prerequisite, that feat's name gets the APG superscript so you know you need that book.
You're not left guessing which other books you need to consult. If you need a book other than the CRB or the one you're holding, that's explicitly mentioned.
This is why I reject the idea that a chart from UM should be needed to figure out how a CRB and ACG class interact. When you need a third book, that's explicitly mentioned.
the designers are already aware of the issue.
|
|
Okay, I want to go on a short derail (although given the type of discussion, it's actually frightfully on-topic) about how to read and argue about rules.
First. I think we can all agree that although Paizo does its best, there are actual errors in the books. Some abilities are just plain broken, as in they just don't work. And this can take a long time to fix. There are many reasons for this, among the main of which are:
Multiple writers not all being on the same page
Rush to get a book out the door in time for Christmas or a convention
Paizo is generally overworked so fixing things takes a while
Paizo prefers to change rules during the next printing of the thing. Some things never get reprinted so they never get fixed (paperbacks).
The FAQ process is rather bogged down. A couple of bad decisions that had to be reversed have made the developers a bit shy about fixing things fast.
Sometimes later products refine a rule so that something published earlier is now broken.
Sometimes things are written in "natural English" as opposed to water-tight legalese. This goes well for a while, but then a new power comes out that's written a little bit differently, and all hell breaks loose because do they do they same thing or not? Do they now stack or not? A consequence of this is, that it's quite possible that a certain power contradicts RAW and/or RAI. But of course at least someone will raise that power as an argument about how the RAW must mean something different. For example: Dragon Ferocity consumed several pages in this thread. But suppose that that feat was just sloppy writing? Several of the other style feats have confusing writing, like Boar Style causing 2d6 bleed damage at level 3 (ouch!). So why not Dragon Ferocity? The writer thought he was clear, but now it turns out he wasn't clear enough after all.
Likewise with the Tactics inquisition: how likely is it that the writer of that power just messed up? We can't agree on whether Wisdom bonuses can stack, so...
Very well put. This pretty succinctly says what I've been trying to say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damn, some of you guys should take up a hobby and relax a little.
|
This is a revisionist viewpoint though. You have access to all this information currently.But when the Core Rulebook was the only book that existed, there had to be a way to determine what bonuses had types and what didn't.
Actually, there absolutely didn't have to be a way. Simply look at the faq system. It clarifies plenty of rules elements from the core rulebook where there was no definitive ruling.
Tons of things in there that, when the core rulebook existed alone, there was no way to determine the correct choice beyond dm abjucation.
The fact that we have errata and a faq for the crb should be proof enough that not all answers fall between those pages.
Not Munchkin
Sacred fist X/ Monk 1Munchkin [/1uote]
Munchkin is more about how much you try to wriggle through the rules than your power level.
I missed the quote by the writer of the archetype.
Does anyone have a link?
The writer was Dale McCoy Jr, who seems like an all-round awesome guy. :)
The post can be found here.
I'd just like to note that the post comes with the standard "this is how I'd handle it at my table"-clause and is not rules-binding. While I personally don't think it's an unreasonable ruling, I wouldn't expect it to automatically fly in PFS or with stickler GMs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Munchkin is more about how much you try to wriggle through the rules than your power level.
The issue I have with this comment is that it seems that to you, Munchkin = someone that is disagreeing with you as opposed to a "try to wriggle through the rules".
I don't agree with you on a fundamental level, that abilities are a type or source. This isn't for my personal power or my trying to 'get one over on 'the man''. I just don't agree with you on that the basic rules say.
So can the 'Munchkin' crap please.