|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a case by case ruling is needed for the current "legacy" amount of abilities that already exist, because I don't think there was a consistent design philosophy followed in creating them. It just kinda grew and now it's coming to a critical point where we really need some sort of decision. Because now the advantages are very easily within reach, and sizeable enough not to ignore (double AC bonus, for example).
In the future, I think it'd be good to have a consistent design philosophy; to never stack unless explicitly allowed, or to stack unless explicitly forbidden.
In my opinion they have rules for how bonuses should work, and that's the bonus types system. Untyped bonuses shouldn't really be necessary.
|
What about Clustered Shots? If you shot 5 arrows into someones chest with Clustered shots you then add up all of the damage from the various arrows. Would you not add up all of the ability damage from the various arrows.
What about Pummeling Style? Is this not another example of ability bonuses stacking?
Heck, there are even times when the rules will say add twice your Cha or 1 and 1/2 times your Str. Is this not also the explicit stacking of ability bonuses.
The difference is this:
Abilities and Feats often break the rules of the game. That is pretty much the entire function of various class abilities and feats. They give you the ability to do something that the base rules don't allow you to do or they change how the base rules work in a specific way.
So if an ability says, "you get to add your Charisma twice," or "add 1-1/2 times your strength damage" then those obviously stack, because the rule breaking item (feat or ability) says you can break the standard stacking rules.
As for Clustered Shots, those are 5 separate actions, so the Strength damage and/or Dex damage is not stacked. It applies individually, once, to each shot. The feat allows you to stack all the damage from all your individual attacks you made during a full attack routine. So it works.
But if you have two separate abilities that each give you a Resistance Bonus to your Will Save, you don't get that Resistance bonus twice.
Similarly, if you have two separate abilities that each give you a Wisdom bonus to your AC, you don't get the Wisdom bonus twice.
AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus
A sacred fist adds his Wisdom modifier (minimum 0) to his AC and his CMD.
There is no difference between a wisdom modifier and a wisdom bonus.
A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty.
The monk is adding the same source (his wisdom bonus) to his AC twice by slightly different means. That is the same source.
Isn't the Sacred Fist AC bonus a deflection bonus? Seems like it would stack with the (untyped) Monk AC bonus, since it's called out as a specific type. It wouldn't stack with Rings of Protection/Shield of Faith/etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus
A sacred fist adds his Wisdom modifier (minimum 0) to his AC and his CMD.
There is no difference between a wisdom modifier and a wisdom bonus.
A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty.
The monk is adding the same source (his wisdom bonus) to his AC twice by slightly different means. That is the same source.
This is getting silly. Is Wisdom the source of the bonus. No. Wisdom doesn't add to your AC. You know what does? AC Bonus ((Ex) or (Su) your choice). The Source of the bonus is clearly AC Bonus. Without AC Bonus you get nothing. And since the sources are not the same (one is Ex and one is Su) it stacks. I really didn't want to post but seriously... the source of the bonus is the thing *that actually gives you it* and *wisdom does not give you your Wisdom to AC* AC bonus does.
This also would again for the 1000th time make dragon's ferocity non functional along side half a dozen other feats.
You keep saying that but its not remotely true, and its been shown why this isn't true.
Do you get water to your house without a pipe? Does that make the pipe the source of the water?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you get water to your house without a pipe? Does that make the pipe the source of the water?
So your argument is the water is the source of the water? Because clearly the water has a source and logically the source of the water is not... the water.
AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus
A sacred fist adds his Wisdom modifier (minimum 0) to his AC and his CMD.
There is no difference between a wisdom modifier and a wisdom bonus.
A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty.
The monk is adding the same source (his wisdom bonus) to his AC twice by slightly different means. That is the same source.
A deity protects her sacred fist as long as he is unarmored and unencumbered. A sacred fist adds his Wisdom modifier (minimum 0) to his AC
and his CMD. In addition, a sacred fist gains a +1 deflection bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every 4 levels thereafter (to a maximum of +5 at 20th level).
One thing we can hopefully all agree on:
- +1 deflection bonus
<value> <type> bonus
Some things we disagree on:
- Wisdom modifier == Wisdom bonus
vs.
Wisdom modifier (minimum 0) == Wisdom bonus
vs.
Positive Wisdom modifier == Wisdom bonus (distinct from the above because 0 is not a positive number and we're being very nit-picky on language here, are we not?)
- Wisdom bonus
<value> bonus
vs.
Wisdom bonus
<value AND type> bonus
vs.
Wisdom bonus
<value AND type AND source> bonus
---
When I see "Wisdom bonus" I read "a bonus equal to your Wisdom modifier (if positive)". I do not read "bonus with the type Wisdom equal to your Wisdom modifier (if positive)". If the value quotes up top were intended to be typed, I would expect it to read "a sacred fist adds a Wisdom bonus equal to his Wisdom modifier (minimum 0) to his AC."
And if you think the reason it is not written that way is to save word count, then I would ask why it does not simply read "a sacred fist adds his Wisdom bonus to his AC and his CMD"? That would also reduce word count.
So maybe "equal to Wisdom modifier (minimum 0)" and "Wisdom bonus" are used intentionally to indicate when something is intended to stack (equal to Wisdom modifier, untyped) and not intended to stack (Wisdom bonus, typed). Many have argued that.
So you'd have the Sacred Fist's "equal to Wisdom modifier to AC" and the Monk's "Wisdom bonus to AC" stacking, because one is typed and the other is untyped. And if one is typed and the other is untyped, would they not stack regardless of source? Especially since neither of those sources is a Special Spell Effect, the heading under which we find the rule about sources?
If it looks like I haven't arrived at any conclusions here, it's because I haven't. I don't think I know the answer. But I don't think you do either, nor do I think Andrew does. I have my best guess based on the rules, but I would never claim certainty in light of all that ambiguity.
What vexes me is that you seem to be hanging your entire argument on text that includes the words "usually", "generally" and "most". These are not ironclad statements.
Further, you are hand-picking rules text from specific areas of the book and then trying to apply them across the entire game system. You may be right. That may be the intent. But if so, it is really, really bad editing. I usually don't look in the Equipment section to find out how Grappling works. I don't expect to find Rule 0 in the Copyright notice. Usually rules are placed in specific sections for specific reasons. But I didn't write the book, so I can't say for sure.
Do you get water to your house without a pipe? Does that make the pipe the source of the water?So your argument is the water is the source of the water? Because clearly the water has a source and logically the source of the water is not... the water.
The lake river, or well would be the source.
So maybe "equal to Wisdom modifier (minimum 0)" and "Wisdom bonus" are used intentionally to indicate when something is intended to stack (equal to Wisdom modifier, untyped) and not intended to stack (Wisdom bonus, typed). Many have argued that.
Or because they don't use the exact same words at the same time for the same thing in the same product, much less across different products.
You aren't reading tea leaves at that point, you're reading the vacuoles.
|
I don't know BNW, I'm also in the camp that thinks "source" definitely means "Explicitly defined ability, feat, spell, trait, class feature, etc, with a specific name." Which means an untyped bonus from "AC Bonus (Su)" Doesn't stack with another "AC Bonus (Su)", regardless of what its adding to your AC, but that AC Bonus (Su) would definitely stack with AC Bonus (Ex), and the whole discussion becomes irrelevant if they are not both untyped, such as one being deflection.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So maybe "equal to Wisdom modifier (minimum 0)" and "Wisdom bonus" are used intentionally to indicate when something is intended to stack (equal to Wisdom modifier, untyped) and not intended to stack (Wisdom bonus, typed). Many have argued that.Or because they don't use the exact same words at the same time for the same thing in the same product, much less across different products.
You aren't reading tea leaves at that point, you're reading the vacuoles.
...but the tea leaves are meaningless. It's really the water, that interacted with the tea leaves, that is the source.
In fact, without water, to provide for the growth of the plants, that produce the tea leaves come from, there would be nothing to read.
So, it's all water.
All of it.
I thought the text of the Armor Class section would be useful:
Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It's the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you. Your AC is equal to the following:
10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + other modifiers
Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if you're wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole Dexterity bonus to your AC (see Table: Armor and Shields).
Sometimes you can't use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC. If you don't have a Dexterity bonus, your AC does not change.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must say, I am not against these particular two abilities not stacking, and a simple errata, such as noting the AC Bonus having additional wording "as the Monk ability".
Now, I strongly against the idea of ability modifiers providing a "typed" bonus.
Such a suggestion, has many repercussions, that we may not even be fully aware of yet.
Whatever your opinion, we must agree that the few word errata, is a much more elegant, and less controversial solution.
|
|
@blackbloodtroll: no, I disagree.
This isn't the only ability with potential double dipping into an ability score. Inquisitors and oracles have quite a few of those as well, and archetypes and multiclassing lead to even more.
At some point Paizo should start being more systematic about this; decide on a standard way to do things and maybe errata some abilities to get back in line.
Right now, there's not a clear line to get back into, and it's causing problems.
|
|
The Inquisitor is basically built with double-dipping an eventuality.
It's going to happen for most builds, unless you are going out your way to have it not happen.
I doubt that was unintentional.
Anyways, trying to make a flat ruling, across the board, without context, is just not a viable option.
Working more on a case by case, is easier to implement.
Demanding dramatic changes is a fools errand.
Do you remember the "only 4 free actions" fiasco?
Let's not go any where close to that.
Do you remember the "only 4 free actions" fiasco?
No, please enlighten me? In my homebrew I have several additional "free action" options so was going to limit them to 10 a round.
I'll be content with either ruling, so long as Paizo gets around to making one in a decent amount of time.
|
|
Do you remember the "only 4 free actions" fiasco?No, please enlighten me? In my homebrew I have several additional "free action" options so was going to limit them to 10 a round.
Well, it was actually 6.
There was a FAQ regarding the number of free actions per turn.
It noted 6, as a "reasonable limit".
People lost their sh*t, board blew up, and the line was soon removed from the FAQ.
What were the reasons as this may effect me?
Multiple free actions tied to multiple attacks could, if limited, prevent a character from getting all of his due attacks.
Such as archers. They need free actions to draw ammo. Anyway, back to why Sacred Fist and Monk stack fir AC bonuses. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I reckon since the Sacred Fist archetype was meant to make a monk-cleric blend (as opposed to be paladin-cleric blend), the SF's AC bonus was meant to mimic the monk's AC bonus, and was not intended to stack with it. This appears to be the ostensible intention and I'm guessing it will be errata-ed so that it will explicitly not stack with the monk's AC bonus (or only have the deflection-bonus portion stack with the monk's AC bonus).
I say errata because by RAW, as the abilities are currently written, the abilities should technically stack. They go by the same name, but are different types (extraordinary vs supernatural), and are also mechanically slightly different (SF's AC bonus is part-deflection and part-untyped, as opposed to the monk's which is completely untyped). This makes them distinct and different abilities, and thus different sources of AC bonus (notwithstanding that part of the bonus is modified by the same stat).
In short: intention is apparent, but wording needs errata.
|
|
If you just admitted that "abilities and feats often break the rules of the game", how can you possibly then segue directly into "but this rule is ironclad"?
That comment makes no sense.
Perhaps I should have been clearer when I said abilities. Class abilities is what I was referring to. Not ability scores or ability modifiers.
Ability Modifiers are the rule.
Feats and class abilities would need to specifically say they break the rule, otherwise the rules about Ability modifiers is pretty iron clad.
|
|
If you just admitted that "abilities and feats often break the rules of the game", how can you possibly then segue directly into "but this rule is ironclad"?I think his point is that they state how they Break the game.
So the the Sacred Fist AC from Wisdom ability would need to say "even if you are gettuing a AC bonus from Wisdom bonus already. Given that they don't then the ability doesn't stack.
Assuming I'm correct in my interpretation of what he was saying. :-)
You are correct.
|
|
Except that's not true. As an untyped bonus it would have to explicitly not stack.If you just admitted that "abilities and feats often break the rules of the game", how can you possibly then segue directly into "but this rule is ironclad"?I think his point is that they state how they Break the game.
So the the Sacred Fist AC from Wisdom ability would need to say "even if you are gettuing a AC bonus from Wisdom bonus already. Given that they don't then the ability doesn't stack.
Assuming I'm correct in my interpretation of what he was saying. :-)
That's making the assumption that ability modifiers are considered untyped.
The rules do not support this assumption.
|
|
Wisdom bonus
<value> bonus
vs.
Wisdom bonus
<value AND type> bonus
vs.
Wisdom bonus
<value AND type AND source> bonus[ooc]
I disagree with this.
Wisdom bonus
<value{unwritten|variable based on Wisdom Score}> <type> bonus
The value is unwritten because it doesn't need to be written. You know what your Wisdom bonus is based on your Wisdom score.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you just admitted that "abilities and feats often break the rules of the game", how can you possibly then segue directly into "but this rule is ironclad"?That comment makes no sense.
Perhaps I should have been clearer when I said abilities. Class abilities is what I was referring to. Not ability scores or ability modifiers.
Ability Modifiers are the rule.
Feats and class abilities would need to specifically say they break the rule, otherwise the rules about Ability modifiers is pretty iron clad.
Specific trumps general. The ability to add a bonus to your AC based on your Wisdom is a specific ability that overrides the general rule of "you only add your Dex to AC." There is no specific rule that even remotely claims that you cannot add that number twice if you have two completely separate abilities that do so, unless they specifically call out that you cannot (like how Divine Protection does, with the caveat that it only gives +1 to saves if you have something like Divine Grace).
|
|
Specific trumps general. The ability to add a bonus to your AC based on your Wisdom is a specific ability that overrides the general rule of "you only add your Dex to AC." There is no specific rule that even remotely claims that you cannot add that number twice if you have two completely separate abilities that do so, unless they specifically call out that you cannot (like how Divine Protection does, with the caveat that it only gives +1 to saves if you have something like Divine Grace).If you just admitted that "abilities and feats often break the rules of the game", how can you possibly then segue directly into "but this rule is ironclad"?That comment makes no sense.
Perhaps I should have been clearer when I said abilities. Class abilities is what I was referring to. Not ability scores or ability modifiers.
Ability Modifiers are the rule.
Feats and class abilities would need to specifically say they break the rule, otherwise the rules about Ability modifiers is pretty iron clad.
Actually there is a rule that more than remotely claims that you cannot add that bonus twice.
Its called the stacking rule. Its quite explicit.
If you have two named bonuses, and that name is the same, you can't stack said bonuses.
The argument then becomes, are ability bonuses typed or not typed.
I'm in the camp that says they are typed.
|
|
Normal: You cannot add your wisdom modifier to AC.
AC Bonus (Su): You can add your wisdom modifier to AC.
AC Bonus (Ex): You can add your wisdom bonus to AC.The abilities behind the colon are different.
The abilities violate the rule you can't add your wisdom modifier and bonus to AC.I read your evidence and the evidence you presented if interpreted the way you want it to be would literally fundamentally break the game. Two handers wouldn't get str 1+1/2, dragon ferocity wouldn't work, Pistelaro and mysterious stranger wouldn't have needed errata, along with a dozen other feats and abilities.
You are wrong and the evidence is massive. Your interpretation assumes the game is broken and everyone who has ever swung a two handed weapon has screwed up the math.
The evidence is absolutely massive that you are incorrect. You have yet to actually post any rules support to your argument. I keep asking for it, but you keep not doing so.
Obviously if one rule says one thing in a general sense, but another more specific rule seems inconsistent with that, then the specific rule will trump the general rule.
This is a concept you keep missing when arguing your point. I think you are purposefully missing it, because it has been stated often enough and you haven't directly refuted it. You keep saying the same thing over and over again without directly discussing this point.
Two Handed weapons work they way they work, because the rule on two-handed weapons is more specific than the general rule on bonus stacking.
Same as every other rule that you say "breaks" the bonus stacking rule when it comes to ability bonuses.
There is no preponderance of evidence on your side of the argument. The only thing you have to hang your hat on, is the fact that there is an obscure list in Ultimate Magic that discusses how to design a spell.
Otherwise, there is no list of bonus types. And as such, you have nothing in the rules that even remotely agrees with you that ability bonuses are untyped.
The fact that a Wisdom Bonus has a name, makes it typed. Its type is Wisdom.
That is the most literal reading of the rules as you can have. Everything else is conjecture on RAI and how Wisdom Bonus doesn't actually mean Bonus Typed as Wisdom.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
And one last one:
"(Assuming the class ability counts as the source) If two abilities have the same name, but different types and explanations on what they do, so they stack?"
"If neither of them provide bonuses in the same situation (and therefore it doesn't matter if they stack) - do you still get both of them, or does them having the same name throw a monkey wrench into that?"
Normal: You cannot add your wisdom modifier to AC.
AC Bonus (Su): You can add your wisdom modifier to AC.
AC Bonus (Ex): You can add your wisdom bonus to AC.The abilities behind the colon are different.
The abilities violate the rule you can't add your wisdom modifier and bonus to AC.I read your evidence and the evidence you presented if interpreted the way you want it to be would literally fundamentally break the game. Two handers wouldn't get str 1+1/2, dragon ferocity wouldn't work, Pistelaro and mysterious stranger wouldn't have needed errata, along with a dozen other feats and abilities.
You are wrong and the evidence is massive. Your interpretation assumes the game is broken and everyone who has ever swung a two handed weapon has screwed up the math.
The evidence is absolutely massive that you are incorrect. You have yet to actually post any rules support to your argument. I keep asking for it, but you keep not doing so.
Obviously if one rule says one thing in a general sense, but another more specific rule seems inconsistent with that, then the specific rule will trump the general rule.
This is a concept you keep missing when arguing your point. I think you are purposefully missing it, because it has been stated often enough and you haven't directly refuted it. You keep saying the same thing over and over again without directly discussing this point.
Two Handed weapons work they way they work, because the rule on two-handed weapons is more specific than the general rule on bonus stacking.
Same as every other rule that you say "breaks" the bonus stacking rule when it comes to ability bonuses.
There is no preponderance of evidence on your side of the argument. The only thing you have to hang your hat on, is the fact that there is an obscure list in Ultimate Magic that discusses how to design a spell.
Otherwise, there is no list of bonus types. And as such, you have nothing in the rules that even remotely agrees with you that ability bonuses are...
Bonus from the PFSRD Where is this Ability Bonus type you are talking about?