|
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.
|
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.
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.
Except there is no list of types.On 3.5: There IS specific language telling you that this has changed. The Ability Modifier was removed from the list of types. So I can toss out 'legacy' from any reason for it being a type.
On general language: By your logic Attack Bonus is it's own type as opposed to the modifier to your attack roll. Base save bonus and BAB means that they are a type too so you can't add them together as they are the same type. They aren't called out as stacking just that you add everything together when you multiclass but since they don't stack you're stuck with the highest total.
SO I'll go back to my original point. A bonus is a generic modifier unless it calls out as a type. If not, you just broke multiclassing. BAB and dexterity bonus are as generic as +5. Bonus can refer to math (positive modifier), how you figure out the modifier or a specific type for stacking. For it to be a type it has to come out and say so.
Really?...
I go to the PRD and type bonus types into the search and guess what! Bonus types comes up. Click on it and you get a list of bonus types. And it's missing what the 3.5 list had; ability bonuses. Since ability bonuses are in core, they picked that bonus out of the pile to not reprint. That means 'legacy' means nothing as they chose to not reprint it.
And I know you're going to cry "it's not an exclusive list!" and you'd be right but that proves nothing as they can always add new bonus types but the one you're talking about are core rulebook items and it's one that's used in spells (unlike trait bonuses) so the only reason I see for it's absence from the list is their deliberately deviating from the 3.5 material.
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 does not follow. At all.
|
|
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 does not follow. At all.
Does Wisdom increase your AC on its own? Nope.
Does the Monk or Sacred Fist ability allow you to add Wisdom to your AC? Yep.
What's the source of that Wisdom to your AC? The class ability.
Is there creek water in your kitchen? No.
Does the pipe put creek water in your kitchen? Yup
Whats the source of that creek water? The pipe.
The first question is answered wrong. Water from a creek is creek water. Water from a well is well water. Tap water is from the tap (Municipal Water).
No one calls water in your house house water...
|
|
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.
No it really doesn't. The source is meaningless when discussing bonus stacking. Like bonuses don't stack. It doesn't matter the source.
|
|
Except there is no list of types.On 3.5: There IS specific language telling you that this has changed. The Ability Modifier was removed from the list of types. So I can toss out 'legacy' from any reason for it being a type.
On general language: By your logic Attack Bonus is it's own type as opposed to the modifier to your attack roll. Base save bonus and BAB means that they are a type too so you can't add them together as they are the same type. They aren't called out as stacking just that you add everything together when you multiclass but since they don't stack you're stuck with the highest total.
SO I'll go back to my original point. A bonus is a generic modifier unless it calls out as a type. If not, you just broke multiclassing. BAB and dexterity bonus are as generic as +5. Bonus can refer to math (positive modifier), how you figure out the modifier or a specific type for stacking. For it to be a type it has to come out and say so.
Really?...
I go to the PRD and type bonus types into the search and guess what! Bonus types comes up. Click on it and you get a list of bonus types. And it's missing what the 3.5 list had; ability bonuses. Since ability bonuses are in core, they picked that bonus out of the pile to not reprint. That means 'legacy' means nothing as they chose to not reprint it.
And I know you're going to cry "it's not an exclusive list!" and you'd be right but that proves nothing as they can always add new bonus types but the one you're talking about are core rulebook items and it's one that's used in spells (unlike trait bonuses) so the only reason I see for it's absence from the list is their deliberately deviating from the 3.5 material.
Guess I'll repeat myself for the nineteenth time since you obviously haven't read the whole thread.
That list comes from Ultimate Magic. And is not comprehensive since it also does not include trait bonuses.
The language for typed or not needs to come from the Core Rulebook, else a new player can't just pick up one book and play the game.
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.
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.
What about a base class with two base class features that each provide Wisdom to the same stat?
Cunning Initiative (Ex): At 2nd level, an inquisitor adds her Wisdom modifier on initiative checks, in addition to her Dexterity modifier.
[Tactics Inquisition] Grant the Initiative (Ex): At 8th level, you and all allies within 30 feet may add your Wisdom bonus to your initiative checks.
Under the idea that ability bonuses don't stack, then this Inquisition would be worded very poorly for normal everyday Inquisitors, which is who Inquisitions are designed for.
Note:This doesn't require anything beyond taking the Inquisitor class from the APG and the Inquisition from UM.
How now brown cow?
What about a base class with two base class features that each provide Wisdom to a stat?
** spoiler omitted **
How now brown cow?
Oiii. You stole my thunder! I Was gearing up for huge tadah!
|
Wisdom would be water in general. Water from the creek? Comes from rain, or ice melt, or a spring, ect. Stopping at the creek is arbitrary. The origin of the water from your tap can be called tap water, pipe water, creek water, rain water, or just water. It really has no meaning.
Except there is no list of types.Apart from the one that you Keep ignoring.
The one which is first in a list of results when you search the PRD for "Bonus Types".
Except that the list, as has been stated before, is a: part of the spell creation section which means it's specifically relevant to spells and not everything, and b: not comprehensive since it's obviously missing the trait bonus type, and thus probably missing other types that wouldn't be appropriate for a spell to provide.
As such, the list cannot be used as a definitive bonus list since it's from a specific subset of rules and already proven to be incomplete.
There is no good comparison chart to put against the 3.5 chart. Even if there were, pathfinder isn't 3.5 and in vague situations it makes no more sense to assume 3.5 applies than it does to assume pathfinder intentionally changed it. Either is possible, so neither is relevant to a rules argument.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that wisdom is not a source, because I haven't seen anything in pathfinder that says wisdom is a source. So I go to the class abilities to see if they're the same. Since there is a difference between them, (Su vs Ex), they are not the same. So at default they should stack. That is how I see the raw in this case.
Now, in the game that I run, I'd look at the intent (unclear) and then determine whether or not it would be unbalanced for the type of game I run. (Probably unbalanced for a low magic campaign, less so for a high magic one.)
But that part is interpretation and application. Nothing else to do but wait for the faq response.
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.
I think the idea that "AC Bonus (Su)" would stack with "AC Bonus (Ex)" may be exactly where we are going astray. If we assume that the developers did not intend for these class features to stack (quite reasonable since otherwise a one level dip into Sacred Fist by nearly any Monk becomes a no-brainer), the question becomes one of how did they intend for such stacking to be prevented? Enough cases have been cited to show that the simple fact that both add the same ability score bonus to AC is not enough to prevent such stacking on its own. However, "untyped" bonuses from the same source do not stack -- and two class features that have the same name can be argued to be the "same source" in spite of differences in the details. If we go with that argument, then a multiclassed Monk/Sacred Fist would have two overlapping AC Bonus class features and would naturally use whichever one grants a higher AC. Since these feature don't stack, multiclassing between these two classes would actually be discouraged.
|
|
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.
That's incorrect, though. The rule is that bonuses from the same source don't stack. But this is very specifically an issue of abilities from different sources (Monk and Sacred Fist class abilities that do very similar things, BUT NOT THE SAME THING) stacking.
The Inquisitor bit is another nail in the coffin. If it can be done in-class, with no multiclassing, where is the evidence that it can't be done otherwise?
Magicdealer and Andrew Christian: When Andrew says "Except there is no list of types" I'm calling shenanigans because there IS a list. You may not like the list but it exists. If Andrew is tired of making "Guess I'll repeat myself for the nineteenth time since you obviously haven't read the whole thread" then maybe he shouldn't make incorrect statements like "there is no list of types".
Magicdealer: As I said, it's not an exclusive list but it does have the major and most used types on it. Excluding ability from that list while having spells before that book and in that book that use then seems like a deliberate exclusion. It's not the same as a trait bonus that would be strange to have in a spell.
Andrew Christian: What book a rule comes in is meaningless. A rule DOESN'T have to come from the core rulebook. I could care less if you need more than the corebook for a complete view of the rules. As you have access to the internet, the PRD is right there and it's got a nifty list of bonuses. The reason you have to "repeat" yourself is that NO ONE else is going along with the "corebook only" view as it makes no sense. I've read the whole thread, I just don't agree with your arguments and the artificial limitations you put on where you look for rules.
Undone: Yep Attack bonus, BAB and save bonus. When you multiclass you would have to take the highest ammount when you add them when multiclassing. Somehow breaking multiclassing if fine as long as you can't add wisdom twice...
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.
The language for typed or not needs to come from the Core Rulebook, else a new player can't just pick up one book and play the game.
How can you make this argument after saying you need 3.5 to understand the rules of the game?
I should also point out that ability bonus does show up in pathfinder. In the magic creation section Ability Bonus (enchantment) with an example as +2 gloves of dexterity. So it seems that in pathfinder an ability bonus is to the stat and not the modifier from the ability chart. ;)
|
|
Except there is no list of types.On 3.5: There IS specific language telling you that this has changed. The Ability Modifier was removed from the list of types. So I can toss out 'legacy' from any reason for it being a type.
On general language: By your logic Attack Bonus is it's own type as opposed to the modifier to your attack roll. Base save bonus and BAB means that they are a type too so you can't add them together as they are the same type. They aren't called out as stacking just that you add everything together when you multiclass but since they don't stack you're stuck with the highest total.
SO I'll go back to my original point. A bonus is a generic modifier unless it calls out as a type. If not, you just broke multiclassing. BAB and dexterity bonus are as generic as +5. Bonus can refer to math (positive modifier), how you figure out the modifier or a specific type for stacking. For it to be a type it has to come out and say so.
Apart from the one that you Keep ignoring.
The one which is first in a list of results when you search the PRD for "Bonus Types".
I'm not ignoring it at all. But it is not comprehensive. It can't be.
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.
Racial bonus is not on that list either. And there isn't any language like Trait Bonus has in the Advanced Players Guide.
|
|
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.
You do realize there is no such thing as a "feat" bonus right?
|
|
I find this hilarious because I could make the same game breaking argument that "Attack bonus" Is a type of bonus and as such you can only have one source (The highest) of attack bonus. As such only BAB, Str, Or weapon enhancement could ever be added to attack bonus since "Attack bonus" is the source.
You can't say that, because the rules of leveling and multiclassing is more specific than stacking, and as such, specific trumps general.
Lets get back on track here.
|
|
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.That's incorrect, though. The rule is that bonuses from the same source don't stack. But this is very specifically an issue of abilities from different sources (Monk and Sacred Fist class abilities that do very similar things, BUT NOT THE SAME THING) stacking.
The Inquisitor bit is another nail in the coffin. If it can be done in-class, with no multiclassing, where is the evidence that it can't be done otherwise?
Actually, that isn't the rule. I'll requote the rule that I quoted back on page 2, and linked at least twice since.
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
The only time that the word "source" is used, is when the bonuses are untyped.
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.
This is the only place the word "source" is used. And this is in the magic chapter of the book.
So "source" only matters when both bonuses are untyped.
If the bonus has a type, the "source" has absolutely no bearing whatsoever.
|
|
Magicdealer and Andrew Christian: When Andrew says "Except there is no list of types" I'm calling shenanigans because there IS a list. You may not like the list but it exists. If Andrew is tired of making "Guess I'll repeat myself for the nineteenth time since you obviously haven't read the whole thread" then maybe he shouldn't make incorrect statements like "there is no list of types".
Magicdealer: As I said, it's not an exclusive list but it does have the major and most used types on it. Excluding ability from that list while having spells before that book and in that book that use then seems like a deliberate exclusion. It's not the same as a trait bonus that would be strange to have in a spell.
Andrew Christian: What book a rule comes in is meaningless. A rule DOESN'T have to come from the core rulebook. I could care less if you need more than the corebook for a complete view of the rules. As you have access to the internet, the PRD is right there and it's got a nifty list of bonuses. The reason you have to "repeat" yourself is that NO ONE else is going along with the "corebook only" view as it makes no sense. I've read the whole thread, I just don't agree with your arguments and the artificial limitations you put on where you look for rules.
Undone: Yep Attack bonus, BAB and save bonus. When you multiclass you would have to take the highest ammount when you add them when multiclassing. Somehow breaking multiclassing if fine as long as you can't add wisdom twice...
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.
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.
Read my post above as to why the list can't be comprehensive.
When I say there is "no list". I mean that there is no "comprehensive" list. Because that list from page 131 of Ultimate Magic doesn't include racial either. And that's a Core Rulebook bonus type.
|
|
The language for typed or not needs to come from the Core Rulebook, else a new player can't just pick up one book and play the game.How can you make this argument after saying you need 3.5 to understand the rules of the game?
Again, I think you are trying to troll me here.
You know darn tootin well that I never said that.
You can use the 3.5 rules to inform you when you are unclear on what the core rulebook is saying.
But you don't need (and shouldn't have to use) the 3.5 book.
I am using the 3.5 information I've found (which apparently we've discovered is not a WotC source, so may be moot anyways) to help the argument, because 3.5 is the chassis by which Pathfinder was built.
|
|
I should also point out that ability bonus does show up in pathfinder. In the magic creation section Ability Bonus (enchantment) with an example as +2 gloves of dexterity. So it seems that in pathfinder an ability bonus is to the stat and not the modifier from the ability chart. ;)
I would list that as an enhancement bonus, not an ability bonus.
Enhancement is the type.
What about a base class with two base class features that each provide Wisdom to the same stat?
** spoiler omitted **
How now brown cow?
I don't see the problem. There isn't any like stacking going on.
Dexterity and Wisdom represent different bonuses.
Did you even read what I posted? A Tactics Inquisition Inquisitor adds his Wisdom to Initiative twice. Once from Cunning Initiative and once from the Tactics Inquisition.
A non-archetype class with two basic class abilities can add their Wisdom twice to their Initiative. The Inquisition was even made knowing that the Inquisitor could do this because Inquisitions are specific to Inquisitors. Additionally, they are both from Hardcovers and not splats.
This is the only place the word "source" is used. And this is in the magic chapter of the book.
So "source" only matters when both bonuses are untyped.
You and I agree on this matter, though I would extend it to say that source only matters in the context of special spell effects, since that's the section that text is from.
|
|
Did you even read what I posted? A Tactics Inquisition Inquisitor adds his Wisdom to Initiative twice. Once from Cunning Initiative and once from the Tactics Inquisition.What about a base class with two base class features that each provide Wisdom to the same stat?
** spoiler omitted **
How now brown cow?
I don't see the problem. There isn't any like stacking going on.
Dexterity and Wisdom represent different bonuses.
No he doesn't. The only way you can read that he's doing that, is that creatures act as their own ally.
Wisdom bonuses don't stack with Wisdom bonuses, so he couldn't get that double up anyways.
EDIT: Read it more carefully. I see what you are saying.
All that means is that the Tactics Inquisition is redundant with Cunning Initiative as far as the Inquisitor is concerned.
I don't know if there is an archetype that swaps out Cunning Initiative or not, but if there is, then the Tactics Inquisition would then help out the Inquistor.
|
|
You and I agree on this matter, though I would extend it to say that source only matters in the context of special spell effects, since that's the section that text is from.This is the only place the word "source" is used. And this is in the magic chapter of the book.
So "source" only matters when both bonuses are untyped.
One thing I accidentally omitted from my comment.
If the bonus is typed and can normally stack, "source" also matters.
You can't get two dodge bonuses to stack if they are from the same source either.
No he doesn't. The only way you can read that he's doing that, is that creatures act as their own ally.
Wisdom bonuses don't stack with Wisdom bonuses, so he couldn't get that double up anyways.
Clearly you didn't read it... Let me spell it out for you in chapter and verse.
Cunning Initiative (Ex): At 2nd level, an inquisitor adds her Wisdom modifier on initiative checks, in addition to her Dexterity modifier.
[Tactics Inquisition] Grant the Initiative (Ex): At 8th level, you and all allies within 30 feet may add your Wisdom bonus to your initiative checks.
I am using the 3.5 information I've found (which apparently we've discovered is not a WotC source, so may be moot anyways) to help the argument, because 3.5 is the chassis by which Pathfinder was built.
I'm not trolling you. You're saying that you're using 3.5 to inform the discussion. Others are saying they're using the chart from Ultimate Magic to inform the discussion. You're dismissing that out of hand as incomplete and irrelevant since it's in a section for spell effects.
I agree that it is incomplete. I agree that since it's in a section for spell effects, it's not something you can say represents the totality of bonus types for all of Pathfinder.
I do think it's telling that in a section listing bonus types, the very first bonus type introduced (by your reckoning), Ability bonuses, are glaringly absent from the list of typed bonuses, despite the fact that this book contains spells that grant Ability bonuses.
Not binding. Not authoritative. But informative. And I think that since it's from a Paizo RPG source book, it's a lot more relevant than anything from WotC.
|
|
No he doesn't. The only way you can read that he's doing that, is that creatures act as their own ally.
Wisdom bonuses don't stack with Wisdom bonuses, so he couldn't get that double up anyways.
Clearly you didn't read it... Let me spell it out for you in chapter and verse.
Cunning Initiative (Ex): At 2nd level, an inquisitor adds her Wisdom modifier on initiative checks, in addition to her Dexterity modifier.
[Tactics Inquisition] Grant the Initiative (Ex): At 8th level, you and all allies within 30 feet may add your Wisdom bonus to your initiative checks.
Yeah, I went and reread it. Read my Edit above.
To reiterate, its a redundant ability. The Inquisitor cannot add their Wisdom bonus twice to Initiative, because Wisdom Bonuses don't stack with other Wisdom Bonuses.
|
|
I am using the 3.5 information I've found (which apparently we've discovered is not a WotC source, so may be moot anyways) to help the argument, because 3.5 is the chassis by which Pathfinder was built.I'm not trolling you. You're saying that you're using 3.5 to inform the discussion. Others are saying they're using the chart from Ultimate Magic to inform the discussion. You're dismissing that out of hand as incomplete and irrelevant since it's in a section for spell effects.
I agree that it is incomplete. I agree that since it's in a section for spell effects, it's not something you can say represents the totality of bonus types for all of Pathfinder.
I do think it's telling that in a section listing bonus types, the very first bonus type introduced (by your reckoning), Ability bonuses are glaringly absent from the list of typed bonuses, despite the fact that this book contains spells that grant Ability bonuses.
Not binding. Not authoritative. But informative. And I think that since it's from a Paizo RPG source book, it's a lot more relevant than anything from WotC.
I'm not denying that.
But lets stop trying to paint me into a corner here. If you go back to page 2, I legitimately tried to do research to come up with some answers. I did like 2 to 3 hours of research for that post. And I mentioned page 131 from Ultimate Magic in that post. So I wasn't being dishonest with the information I was presenting.
But how do you explain that the Ultimate Magic list also excludes racial bonuses as well?
Could it be because ability and racial bonuses are not appropriate for spells?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I went and reread it. Read my Edit above.
To reiterate, its a redundant ability. The Inquisitor cannot add their Wisdom bonus twice to Initiative, because Wisdom Bonuses don't stack with other Wisdom Bonuses.
By your logic, the creators of the Inquisitions in Ultimate Magic didn't know enough about Inquisitors to know that giving them Wisdom to Initiative AGAIN wouldn't stack? Don't you find this a bit of a stretch?
Other alternative is Occam's Razor: They stack and your argument is invalid.
|
|
Yeah, I went and reread it. Read my Edit above.
To reiterate, its a redundant ability. The Inquisitor cannot add their Wisdom bonus twice to Initiative, because Wisdom Bonuses don't stack with other Wisdom Bonuses.
By your logic, the creators of the Inquisitions in Ultimate Magic didn't know enough about Inquisitors to know that giving them Wisdom to Initiative AGAIN wouldn't stack? Don't you find this a bit of a stretch?
Other alternative is Occam's Razor: They stack and your argument is invalid.
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.
And could you please be a bit less condescending and vitriolic in tone? I'm trying to be civil here with you but you are making it difficult.
But how do you explain that the Ultimate Magic list also excludes racial bonuses as well?
Could it be because ability and racial bonuses are not appropriate for spells?
Well, first, I'm not claiming that table is exhaustive. Second, sure. But if your argument is that Ability bonuses were left off the list because they're not appropriate for spells, I have to again point out that there are spells--including at least one from that same book--that grant them.
|
|
Considering the game literally breaks if you can't I'm inclined to say they do.Yeah, I went and reread it. Read my Edit above.
To reiterate, its a redundant ability. The Inquisitor cannot add their Wisdom bonus twice to Initiative, because Wisdom Bonuses don't stack with other Wisdom Bonuses.
By your logic, the creators of the Inquisitions in Ultimate Magic didn't know enough about Inquisitors to know that giving them Wisdom to Initiative AGAIN wouldn't stack? Don't you find this a bit of a stretch?
Other alternative is Occam's Razor: They stack and your argument is invalid.
The game doesn't break. I'll reiterate... specific trumps general.
But you can keep saying that if you like. Won't make it true, though, no matter how many times you say it.
|
|
I was unaware characters without cunning initiative received wisdom as a bonus to init. I will modify my sheets accordingly.Yeah, I went and reread it. Read my Edit above.
To reiterate, its a redundant ability. The Inquisitor cannot add their Wisdom bonus twice to Initiative, because Wisdom Bonuses don't stack with other Wisdom Bonuses.
By your logic, the creators of the Inquisitions in Ultimate Magic didn't know enough about Inquisitors to know that giving them Wisdom to Initiative AGAIN wouldn't stack? Don't you find this a bit of a stretch?
Other alternative is Occam's Razor: They stack and your argument is invalid.
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.
Huh?! that makes no sense...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
|
Well, first, I'm not claiming that table is exhaustive. Second, sure. But if your argument is that Ability bonuses were left off the list because they're not appropriate for spells, I have to again point out that there are spells--including at least one from that same book--that grant them.But how do you explain that the Ultimate Magic list also excludes racial bonuses as well?
Could it be because ability and racial bonuses are not appropriate for spells?
That grant ability bonuses?
Or that grant the ability to use an ability bonus for something?
Or that grant an untyped bonus to an ability?
or that grant an enhancement bonus to an ability?
Without seeing the text of the spell you are specifically referring to, I can't really respond intelligently to this point.