Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So, Divine Grace is not the source, but if it added a competence bonus, it would be the source.
Right?
Yes
Our side wasn't vocal enough when they were debating the issue, and we lost.
I'd bet a better the answer was predetermined regardless of the vocality (is that a word?) of either side.
don't tell it is in the written rules, and obvious.
I have been playing Pathfinder since Alpha Playtest
Don't tell me how superior your understanding of the rules
I didn't say it was obvious and I never said my understanding of the rules was even good. I only said it had been discussed by WotC developers in 3.5 era regarding Monk Wis to AC stacking with other Wis to AC effects and that it had been discussed by multiple Paizo staff to not stack.
Does that make my position clear?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
a nonsensical rule is nonsensical. Period.
Ok, how about this. I get it. You don't like it.
Can we stop bringing it up in every thread? You may not but many threads have these types of things brought up.
It's like going to a party, to socialize and have some drinks. Then FredJohn tells everyone he got a flat, got robbed of all his CDs, cut his foot on a nail. How long does it take others to try to leave the conversation with FredJohn?
It would be nice if we didn't bring the party down by complaining about things that happened in the past?
they don't like it so they voice their complaint. Voicing a view is how we can potentially see change. So whenever somebody asks about stacking and abilities scores this issue comes up and people express they are unhappy with it. Just like 2wf with 2hw.
I was, and still am, on the side that says Divine Grace is the source.
Otherwise, if you take Sidestep Secret (or any similar ability), it would lower your save. Taking abilities should never hamper your character.
Our side wasn't vocal enough when they were debating the issue, and we lost. Now that the FAQ is issued, the other side has respectability and precedent, and we're always seen as rigidly-thinking reactionaries.
I agree with the class feature being the source, but that's not the problem, nor is it the reason why it doesn't stack. The problem is not "Same source". Same Source would result in trying to stack the Haste spell on top of itself with effects that are derived from or function very similar to it (and it's generally called out if it does). Because the benefits are from the same source (the Haste spell), they don't stack; otherwise, the Dodge and Untyped Bonuses you would receive from Haste would stack with themselves, because they are said to.
The problem stems from the factor that anything that provides an increase from an attribute (which are keyed to 1 of the 6 stats each creature possesses), is actually a Typed Bonus. Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, these modifiers are all a specific kind of Bonus that you add to various things. This means they fall under the same restrictions as any other Typed Bonus, such as Deflection or Enhancement bonus: If you try to add multiple bonuses of the same type, only the highest applies. If they're equal, then only the most recent one applies.
Divine Grace grants you a Charisma Bonus to all of your Saving Throws. Charisma is the Type of Bonus (which is derived from your statistics) that you add to your Saving Throws, Divine Grace is the source that allows you to do that. Similarly, the pre-errata Divine Protection feat granted you to add your Charisma Bonus to all of your Saving Throws. Charisma is the Type of Bonus (which is derived from your statistics) that you add to your Saving Throws, Divine Protection is the source that allows you to do that.
The source is irrelevant, because one is a Class Feature, the other is a Feat, and are achieved through separate means; it's what the effects of the source is the problem. Both add a Charisma Bonus to one or more effects. Because Charisma is the typed bonus, and they are both typed the same, the effects do not stack, and only the strongest (or if they're equal, most recent) one applies. It's that simple.
|
So there are these three things providing charisma to AC, and I'm just here to confirm if they stack.
Smite Evil
Osyluth Guile
Sidestep SecretSmite Evil provides a deflection bonus to AC equal to your charisma modifier.
Osyluth Guile provides a dodge bonus to AC equal to your charisma modifier.
Sidestep Secret provides a dex bonus to AC equal to your charisma modifier.These all stack, no?
Sounds about right. Then keep in mind that the bonus from Smite Evil wouldn't stack with Shield of Faith or a ring of protection. Both of those are Deflection too.
Osyluth's Guile should stack with other dodge bonuses to my knowledge. Dodge bonuses are one of the few that do stack.
If I'm reading it right, Sidestep Secret wouldn't let you add your dex bonus and cha bonus, just your cha bonus. And if your dex was higher then cha for some reason, er, oops bad decision?
I was, and still am, on the side that says Divine Grace is the source.
Otherwise, if you take Sidestep Secret (or any similar ability), it would lower your save. Taking abilities should never hamper your character.
Our side wasn't vocal enough when they were debating the issue, and we lost. Now that the FAQ is issued, the other side has respectability and precedent, and we're always seen as rigidly-thinking reactionaries.
I agree with the class feature being the source, but that's not the problem, nor is it the reason why it doesn't stack. The problem is not "Same source". Same Source would result in trying to stack the Haste spell on top of itself with effects that are derived from or function very similar to it (and it's generally called out if it does). Because the benefits are from the same source (the Haste spell), they don't stack; otherwise, the Dodge and Untyped Bonuses you would receive from Haste would stack with themselves, because they are said to.
The problem stems from the factor that anything that provides an increase from an attribute (which are keyed to 1 of the 6 stats each creature possesses), is actually a Typed Bonus. Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, these modifiers are all a specific kind of Bonus that you add to various things. This means they fall under the same restrictions as any other Typed Bonus, such as Deflection or Enhancement bonus: If you try to add multiple bonuses of the same type, only the highest applies. If they're equal, then only the most recent one applies.
Divine Grace grants you a Charisma Bonus to all of your Saving Throws. Charisma is the Type of Bonus (which is derived from your statistics) that you add to your Saving Throws, Divine Grace is the source that allows you to do that. Similarly, the pre-errata Divine Protection feat granted you to add your Charisma Bonus to all of your Saving Throws. Charisma is the Type of Bonus (which is derived from your statistics)...
The Official FAQ actually went far out of it's way to say that Charisma isn't a type, but a source for untyped bonuses. And that since it's the same source it doesn't stack.
|
Yes, but to get there, they needed the bonus to switch sources, by type.
So, ability/feat grants an untyped bonus based off charisma, then charisma is the source, but if the ability/feat grants a typed bonus based off charisma, then the ability/feat is the source.
None of that is covered anywhere, but the FAQ, and in fact, conflicts with what is written in all other rules sources.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will go farther.
You have ability/feat A, and B, which both grant a Dodge Bonus to AC, based off of Charisma. They stack, as they are separate abilities, thus separate sources, and Dodge Bonuses stack.
Now, you have ability/feat A, and B, which both grant an Untyped Bonus to AC, based off of Charisma, and now neither of the ability/feats are the source, but rather Charisma itself, and thus they do not stack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is to say (if I'm understanding things right) that a paladin can add his charisma to his saves due to Divine Grace. But if he took a feat such as Forceful Personality (not sure if it's in Pathfinder) that lets him add charisma to will saves instead of wisdom... They don't stack together. Thus if his charisma was 18 he'd get a +4 to all saves from charisma in addition to the dex/con bonus to fortitude and reflex... But not get any extra to his will save. Er, let me exemplify that better. Say the paladin has the following stats:
Str: 12
Dex: 14
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 14
Cha: 18
Before adding his saves from his current level, with divine grace he would have saves of:
Fortitude: +6 (+4 Cha, +2 Con)
Reflex: +6 (+4 Cha, +2 Dex)
Will: +6 (+4 Cha, +2 Wis)
A feat like Forceful Personality would replace Wis with Cha for will saves. But this wouldn't stack with Divine Grace. Thus his saves would be:
Fortitude: +6
Reflex: +6
Will: +4
Thus the feat would not only be a waste of time, but actually hurt your saves.
Is this reading correct?
Yes.
...I was, and still am, on the side that says Divine Grace is the source.
Otherwise, if you take Sidestep Secret (or any similar ability), it would lower your save. Taking abilities should never hamper your character.
Our side wasn't vocal enough when they were debating the issue, and we lost. Now that the FAQ is issued, the other side has respectability and precedent, and we're always seen as rigidly-thinking reactionaries.
I agree with the class feature being the source, but that's not the problem, nor is it the reason why it doesn't stack. The problem is not "Same source". Same Source would result in trying to stack the Haste spell on top of itself with effects that are derived from or function very similar to it (and it's generally called out if it does). Because the benefits are from the same source (the Haste spell), they don't stack; otherwise, the Dodge and Untyped Bonuses you would receive from Haste would stack with themselves, because they are said to.
The problem stems from the factor that anything that provides an increase from an attribute (which are keyed to 1 of the 6 stats each creature possesses), is actually a Typed Bonus. Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, these modifiers are all a specific kind of Bonus that you add to various things. This means they fall under the same restrictions as any other Typed Bonus, such as Deflection or Enhancement bonus: If you try to add multiple bonuses of the same type, only the highest applies. If they're equal, then only the most recent one applies.
Divine Grace grants you a Charisma Bonus to all of your Saving Throws. Charisma is the Type of Bonus (which is derived from your statistics) that you add to your Saving Throws, Divine Grace is the source that allows you to do that. Similarly, the pre-errata Divine Protection feat granted you to add your Charisma Bonus to all of your Saving Throws. Charisma is the Type of Bonus
They said that because the actual statistic is used to derive for XYZ. In cases of Strength, it's for melee to-hit and damage rolls (and thrown/ranged damage rolls), for Dexterity, it's AC, Reflex Saves, ranged to-hit, the list goes on.
Because in those cases, the source is the statistic, since there is no other thing, ability or otherwise, that says you add your X modifier to Y.
That's not the case when a class feature breaks the standards listed in the statistics section, in this case Divine Grace. Charisma to All Saves (which stacks with the respective attribute sets) doesn't really follow the standards given for each statistic, nor does it support the "same source" argument, especially when "source" is given a different meaning across the book, whether it's from a spell that is very similar, if not identical, or a feat that provides the same function as a spell (Improved Critical V.S. Keen/Aspect of the Falcon?)
Therefore, it's makes more sense for the RAI to be "Adding Attributes to a statistic is Typed to that Attribute, and therefore subject to the rules of Stacking Bonuses," and it conveys the result in a better way, because "Same Source" would refer to the likes of trying to stack Haste or Improved Critical with itself, and that has zero relevance to Attributes stacking together.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is to say (if I'm understanding things right) that a paladin can add his charisma to his saves due to Divine Grace. But if he took a feat such as Forceful Personality (not sure if it's in Pathfinder) that lets him add charisma to will saves instead of wisdom... They don't stack together. Thus if his charisma was 18 he'd get a +4 to all saves from charisma in addition to the dex/con bonus to fortitude and reflex... But not get any extra to his will save. Er, let me exemplify that better. Say the paladin has the following stats:
Str: 12
Dex: 14
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 14
Cha: 18Before adding his saves from his current level, with divine grace he would have saves of:
Fortitude: +6 (+4 Cha, +2 Con)
Reflex: +6 (+4 Cha, +2 Dex)
Will: +6 (+4 Cha, +2 Wis)A feat like Forceful Personality would replace Wis with Cha for will saves. But this wouldn't stack with Divine Grace. Thus his saves would be:
Fortitude: +6
Reflex: +6
Will: +4Thus the feat would not only be a waste of time, but actually hurt your saves.
Is this reading correct?
If you are reading the FAQ, yes.
If you just delved through all the rulebooks, including the latest printings, you would come to a very different conclusion.
|
|
If you are reading the FAQ, yes.If you just delved through all the rulebooks, including the latest printings, you would come to a very different conclusion.
Which is why the FAQ, because people were coming to the wrong conclusion based on the wording in the book. Thus "Frequently Asked Question". This was a question asked a lot, so they added a FAQ so they don't have to keep answering it over and over, you can just be directed to the FAQ document.
|
|
The book's wording on stacking of bonuses apparently is confusing to a number of people regarding if two or more untyped bonuses that use an attribute bonus, Charisma bonus for example, stack or not. Such as "Can you stack attribute bonus from this feat that lets you use an alternate attribute for your save with this class ability that adds the same attribute to the save".
As the book is written, both sides of the ruling could be equally justified. Thus confusion. People repeatedly ask for a developer to make an official ruling, they do. It's STILL asked, so they add it to the FAQ.
The FAQ isn't creating a new rule. It's merely clarifying how "untyped" bonuses work in regards to stacking effects.
EDIT: Never was an issue for me. I've never tried to stack an attribute bonus multiple times via untyped bonuses. If by some strange reason I'm playing a paladin, I'm not taking Force of Personality for instance. My low wisdom sorcerer though will seriously consider that feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you see what he's saying Daniel? You say it's clarifying the rules except the rules the FAQ is clarifying don't exist. If that FAQ didn't exist, un typed bonuses from different sources stack. The source has always been the ability or feat that gives the bonus not the stat. There is no confusion there at all it's pretty straight forward. The FAQ didn't clarify anything, it changed the rules. That makes it not a FAQ but errata.
My question for BBT, and this is just a curiosity thing, is it the ruling that bothers you (if bothers is the right word)or is it the fact the put the ruling in a FAQ?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you see what he's saying Daniel? You say it's clarifying the rules except the rules the FAQ is clarifying don't exist. If that FAQ didn't exist, un typed bonuses from different sources stack. The source has always been the ability or feat that gives the bonus not the stat. There is no confusion there at all it's pretty straight forward. The FAQ didn't clarify anything, it changed the rules. That makes it not a FAQ but errata.
My question for BBT, and this is just a curiosity thing, is it the ruling that bothers you (if bothers is the right word)or is it the fact the put the ruling in a FAQ?
Give me a bit to check through my pdf of the core book. Kinda eating supper and unwinding after the con. That, and my tablet ran out of juice partway through the session.
|
|
Okay, here is what I found. And it's the only place in the core rule book stacking is talked about. it's on page 208.
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.Combining Magic Effects
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no
matter how many other spells or magical effects happen
to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient.
Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way
another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific
effect on other spells, the spell description explains that
effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or
magical effects operate in the same place:Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or
penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws,
and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves.
More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack
even if they come from different spells (or from effects
other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).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.
I bolded the parts that may seem contradictory. This is where the confusion probably stems from, and thus why the same question got asked often enough to get a clarification in the FAQ. The information under Bonus Types says two bonuses of the same type generally don't stack, then gives specific examples of when they do. This then is expanded upon in the Stacking Effect section a bit further in on the same page.
But the section on Different Bonus Types specifically says that a bonus without a type stacks with any bonus. The confusion apparently is that things like Divine Grace are untyped, when they are typed as Attribute Bonus. And since you can only apply a given attribute bonus once to a statistic, they don't stack with other feats and abilities that give the same Attribute bonus to that statistic.
If the feat or ability just says "you get a +1 to attack and damage" like Point Blank Shot does then it's untyped. If it mentions a specific source to determine the bonus such as Charisma it's typed. This is what the FAQ is clarifying.
For another example Skilled Kineticist says:
You gain a bonus equal to 1/2 your kineticist level on skill checks with the skills your primary element added to your class list, and you can use the knowledge skill associated with your primary element to identify elements of your primary element's subtype.
This one's ambiguous now due to the FAQ establishing that some things we thought were untyped are actually typed. But this bonus to the skills is probably an untyped bonus, so stacks with everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ATTRIBUTE SCORES AREN'T A TYPE!!!
Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?
No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.
Notice how they never say TYPE in the FAQ. It's because they very specifically wanted it to not be a type, (clarified that by them in comments on it.) Thus nothing makes it a type, so it's not a type. It was an untyped bonus from a feat or a class ability that was equal to a stat. This is why RAW it stacked and nothing in the rules indicated it wouldn't stack. Since it was an untyped bonus from different things. But now if something gives an untyped bonus tied to an ability score then the ability is also the source of the bonus along with whatever was giving the bonus. Thus the reason they don't stack is because it's now the same source.
The reason BBT and others have an issue with this FAQ is that the idea of a double source, or sources changing, was NEVER done before. And as a FAQ that isn't going to be an ERRATA that means the rules ALWAYS said this, which wasn't the case. And that nothing in the books change to indicate that this is how it should be handled. So we're more upset about HOW they did this than that they did it.
|
|
Indeed. My biggest problem, is outside the FAQ, I have no rules wording to effectively come to such a conclusion.
In fact, the conclusion in the FAQ, seems contradictory to what is written.
This means, I have to have access to a series of "unwritten rules".
If there was a change, perhaps in a new printing, I would be fine with it.
I find it insulting, when it is expected of me to know, and understand, rules not written.
Further, I find it insulting that there must be some sort higher level of understanding, that pieces together different lines of rules, to create something not written in any of those lines, but supposedly, knowing just the right way to piece these random rules lines, to come to such a conclusion, is not only possible, but probable.
If probable, I, or the many people I have played with over the years, should have at least suspected such a conclusion.
None did.
Now, this means I have to wait, for the next hidden, unwritten rule, to drastically change the game I love.
I have to be Nicolas Cage in National Treasure, putting together random bits of knowledge together, to come to radical conclusions, to find the hidden treasure, that is the one true rule.
|
|
If the ability specifically cites that it's a "deflection" bonus, then it's deflection. If it doesn't list a specific type of bonus but cites an attribute bonus, that becomes the type. Why do I assume this? Because Untyped bonuses stack with everything, including each other. But an 'untyped' ability or feat that gives an attribute bonus to a statistic doesn't stack with another 'untyped' ability or feat that gives the same attribute bonus to that statistic.
Thus those must actually be a typed bonus.
EDIT: At least this is how in retrospect the rules were intended to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget the random guesses. You'll need some of those too to guess the unwritten rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the ability specifically cites that it's a "deflection" bonus, then it's deflection. If it doesn't list a specific type of bonus but cites an attribute bonus, that becomes the type. Why do I assume this? Because Untyped bonuses stack with everything, including each other. But an 'untyped' ability or feat that gives an attribute bonus to a statistic doesn't stack with another 'untyped' ability or feat that gives the same attribute bonus to that statistic.
Thus those must actually be a typed bonus.
EDIT: At least this is how in retrospect the rules were intended to work.
Well it's not how they were intended since
1) the FAQ means it was always meant to be this way and was this way2) They are clearly untyped, and ability scores never have been types and seems like they never will.
Thus they should have stacked, and that's why stat blocks had them stack, until this FAQ changed the rules.
|
|
Weirdly enough, reading over the text in the core rule book, the FAQ's explanation makes perfect sense. The only thing whoever wrote that part of the book forgot to include was mention that 'untyped' attribute based bonuses actually are typed attribute bonuses.
Then again, I blame this on 3.5 which didn't even go this far into explaining how bonus stacking works. While 9 times out of 10 this wont be an issue, there clearly are corner cases where it crops up. I personally have never had a character who ran afoul of it, but obviously someone has. A great number of someones too. I'd always just assumed 2 attribute bonuses wouldn't stack unless they specifically called out that they are different types (Enhancement, Extraordinary, Walla Walla Washington, and so forth). Thus I didn't try to combine stuff like a paladin's Divine Grace and the Forceful Personality feat.
Weirdly enough, reading over the text in the core rule book, the FAQ's explanation makes perfect sense. The only thing whoever wrote that part of the book forgot to include was mention that 'untyped' attribute based bonuses actually are typed attribute bonuses.
Emphasis mine
They aren't typed bonuses. The FAQ made clear to make them not a type. So they never are or were TYPED bonuses. Thus your idea and understanding that they are actually typed bonuses is completely wrong.
The fact that you came to that understanding though shows that the FAQ isn't intuitive and that the core rule book doesn't indicate that they ability score becomes a source.
|
|
If the ability specifically cites that it's a "deflection" bonus, then it's deflection. If it doesn't list a specific type of bonus but cites an attribute bonus, that becomes the type. Why do I assume this? Because Untyped bonuses stack with everything, including each other. But an 'untyped' ability or feat that gives an attribute bonus to a statistic doesn't stack with another 'untyped' ability or feat that gives the same attribute bonus to that statistic.
Thus those must actually be a typed bonus.
EDIT: At least this is how in retrospect the rules were intended to work.
Well it's not how they were intended since
1) the FAQ means it was always meant to be this way and was this way
2) They are clearly untyped, and ability scores never have been types and seems like they never will.Thus they should have stacked, and that's why stat blocks had them stack, until this FAQ changed the rules.
Except this is something people have apparently been asking about since 3.5. And they've been getting told since 3.5 "no, they don't stack". Thus Rules As Intended is that somehow, even if the devs aren't never realized it, untyped attribute bonuses are actually typed attribute bonuses. You know, since untyped bonuses stack with each other and everything else.
No two bonuses of the same type stack regardless of how many sources they come from. Shield of Faith, Ring of Protection, and Protection From Evil are 3 different sources that all give the same type of bonus. They don't stack because they are the same type.
Untyped attribute bonuses treat that attribute as a source? Where is this ever mentioned? It's not mentioned in any printing of 3.5 or Pathfinder I've seen. It's not in a single errata that I can find. Thus RAW it doesn't happen. That might have been the intention, but it's mentioned nowhere in the actual rules or errata.
So since each feat and ability is a different source, clearly the bonus must be the same type if they aren't able to stack.
This is Rules As Written.
Of course, regardless of if you say "attribute X bonus is the type" or "attribute X is the source" it functionally works the same. It doesn't stack.
Except this is something people have apparently been asking about since 3.5. And they've been getting told since 3.5 "no, they don't stack". Thus Rules As Intended is that somehow, even if the devs aren't never realized it, untyped attribute bonuses are actually typed attribute bonuses. You know, since untyped bonuses stack with each other and everything else.
No two bonuses of the same type stack regardless of how many sources they come from. Shield of Faith, Ring of Protection, and Protection From Evil are 3 different sources that all give the same type of bonus. They don't stack because they are the same type.
Untyped attribute bonuses treat that attribute as a source? Where is this ever mentioned? It's not mentioned in any printing of 3.5 or Pathfinder I've seen. It's not in a single errata that I can find. Thus RAW it doesn't happen. That might have been the intention, but it's mentioned nowhere in the actual rules or errata.
So since each feat and ability is a different source, clearly the bonus must be the same type if they aren't able to stack.
This is Rules As Written.
Of course, regardless of if you say "attribute X bonus is the type" or "attribute X is the source" it functionally works the same. It doesn't stack.
Thank you for exemplifying the problem BBT has with the FAQ. The source to find out that the ability score is the source is the FAQ, which means that it was always the case, and "you were just unable to see it". This is the main reason BBT has a problem with the FAQ.
And since attributes aren't a TYPE that means they should have stacked as you point out they were clearly different sources, and they are untyped since no type was listed and attributes aren't types.EDIT: and Pathfinder has never said they don't stack until the FAQ that says they are the same source and that that's what stops them from stacking.
|
|
Whoa.
Suggesting not only that ability bonuses are typed, but somehow suggested in both written rules, but also in the FAQ, is beyond even the skills of Nick Cage.
I don't know where that was pulled from.
That, is a massive game changing suggestion, that I don't think you have any idea how much it would affect.
Seriously, they at least avoided doing something that, grand-scale nuts.
|
|
Whoa.
Suggesting not only that ability bonuses are typed, but somehow suggested in both written rules, but also in the FAQ, is beyond even the skills of Nick Cage.
I don't know where that was pulled from.
That, is a massive game changing suggestion, that I don't think you have any idea how much it would affect.
Seriously, they at least avoided doing something that, grand-scale nuts.
It's a logical progression from the following facts:
1. No documentation at all before the FAQ that attribute is "source"
2. With attribute not being a source, the feat or ability is "source"
3. Rules say Untyped bonuses from different sources stack
4. Word From Above says "Untyped Attribute Bonuses don't stack" multiple times over the years
5. See fact 3
6. If Untyped bonuses from different sources stack, and attribute is never mentioned as being a source anywhere, then if an attribute bonus is specifically given and no other type such as Deflection, Natural, or other known types is mentioned, but it doesn't stack then Attribute Bonus must therefore actually be a type of it's own.
Functionally, it'd be the exact same as saying "all untyped attribute bonuses treat that attribute as the source". Either way the end result is "These two abilities don't stack together". It's just the mechanics of why they don't stack that would change. That, and the process to reach the conclusion.
One mechanic is a logical extrapolation from Rules As Written once given the information "These don't stack".
The other comes completely out of left field, from another state, when you're playing Baseball and the other state was playing Soccer, and suddenly changes the game into Quiddich using the exact same printed rules as Baseball.
Okay, maybe that last analogy is a bit over the top.
|
|
Wait, you changed your mind?
On if the feat Magical Tails would give a human with Racial heritage: Kitsune the spell like abilities? Yeah, evidence pointed to "no". But I'd still allow taking it if you have the heritage. And it's still give you up to 8 tails (at the cost of 8 feats). Just no SLA since you don't have the Kitsune Magic racial trait, which is required to get the SLA. So in summery:
Yes to allowing the human to spend feats to get kitsune tails
No to the tail granting any spell-like abilities, after all if a kitsune who traded Kitsune Magic so they can use Change Shape as a move action doesn't get them then why would a human who never had the Kitsune Magic trait?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Divine Grace grants you a Charisma Bonus to all of your Saving Throws. Charisma is the Type of Bonus ... Divine Grace is the source that allows you to do that.
Well said, it is always how I imagined it. It also seems to be a better way they could have explained in the FAQ.
|
|
How do things like Overhand Chop work?
Nowhere does it ever mention ability bonuses are typed bonuses.
I am even more willing to accept the sliding multi-source, then suddenly adding a whole new type of bonus.
They list, all types of bonuses. No where is your mystery new bonus type.
You can't just make up new types of bonuses.
You can't just conjure rules, to support unwritten rules, and say how dang right you are.
What, now there is the "double feat", that is one feat, that takes up two feat slots, because I damn well so, blah, blah, blah, prove me wrong, here is two lines about things totally not mentioning anything mentioning a "double feat", but if squint your eyes, refer to unwritten rules, and just take my word for it, then everything makes sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder never officially had a rule that an attribute couldn't be added twice. I feel that some devs posted yes sometimes and no sometimes and that maybe it was case specific or something. But nothing had ever indicated that attribute was a type, nor that attribute was a source. Now there's a FAQ saying the latter which goes out of it's way to not say the first.
|
Pathfinder never officially had a rule that an attribute couldn't be added twice. I feel that some devs posted yes sometimes and no sometimes and that maybe it was case specific or something. But nothing had ever indicated that attribute was a type, nor that attribute was a source. Now there's a FAQ saying the latter which goes out of it's way to not say the first.
Shoot, I can't find the source, but they did come out and say that similar abilities don't stack.
So, a Monk's Wisdom to AC doesn't stack with a Sacred Fist's Wisdom to AC, (and neither stack with the Elemental Aesetic's Wisdom to AC) because they are all essentially the same type of bonus, even if they are 'untyped.'
Similarly a Duelist (prestige class)'s Canny Defense (Int to AC) doesn't stack with a Kensai's Int to AC, because they are essentially the same bonus.
Otherwise I'd make a character with 18 widsom, 1 level Monk, 1 sacred fist, 1 Aesetic Magus, 2 Elemental aesetic. He would really suck on offense, but he'd get his wisdom to AC 4 times!
Otherwise I'd make a character with 18 widsom, 1 level Monk, 1 sacred fist, 1 Aesetic Magus, 2 Elemental aesetic. He would really suck on offense, but he'd get his wisdom to AC 4 times!
How... how would you do that? Sacred fist had pretty rough prerequisites, as I recall.
Actually, looking it up now...
*cracks open his Complete Divine*
... so, +4 BAB (6th level), 8 ranks in knowledge (religion)*, the ability to cast 1st level divine spells**, and four feats, two of which you have to pay for if you're not a monk***.
That doesn't look like a solid character build, or easy to pull off?
* Surely that will come in handy, as an unarmored tank who dumped most things to pump up your wisdom?
** So, taking a level of cleric, or druid. Or four of ranger or paladin.
*** We're presuming you are a monk, so you need combat casting and combat reflexes, and you get improved unarmed strike and stunning fist for free. Combat reflexes sucks, but is necessary for everything. Combat casting is a wasted feat, unless you plan to focus on your spellcasting, in which case your monk levels and anything other than your spellcasting levels are wasted levels.
Anyway, I don't actually recall the other two classes. Where were they found?
ATTRIBUTE SCORES AREN'T A TYPE!!!
Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?
No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.
Notice how they never say TYPE in the FAQ. It's because they very specifically wanted it to not be a type, (clarified that by them in comments on it.) Thus nothing makes it a type, so it's not a type. It was an untyped bonus from a feat or a class ability that was equal to a stat. This is why RAW it stacked and nothing in the rules indicated it wouldn't stack. Since it was an untyped bonus from different things. But now if something gives an untyped bonus tied to an ability score then the ability is also the source of the bonus along with whatever was giving the bonus. Thus the reason they don't stack is because it's now the same source.The reason BBT and others have an issue with this FAQ is that the idea of a double source, or sources changing, was NEVER done before. And as a FAQ that isn't going to be an ERRATA that means the rules ALWAYS said this, which wasn't the case. And that nothing in the books change to indicate that this is how it should be handled. So we're more upset about HOW they did this than that they did it.
Attribute Scores actually are a type if you read the FAQ closely:
An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking.
It's only treated as the same source for the purposes of not being able to stack them. It actually solves nothing in accordance to their RAI, since this would actually address if a character has two different sets of attribute scores that he possesses, and wonders if they add together.
The FAQ is, in fact, broken and doesn't work, because the issue is not the source of the benefits. Nobody is getting two sets of benefits from the same source; the issue is multiple benefits of the same kind stacking together.
There is a difference between getting 2 Haste spells, versus a Haste spell and making use of a Speed Weapon, and that's because the sources, as well as their underlying benefits, although uncannily similar, are still different. One's a Spell. The other is a Weapon property. Two entities that are completely separate from each other. When the two entities are one and the same (such as using 2 Haste spells), that's when the "Same Source" clause kicks in, and only the most recent one applies (since they're of equal power-ish).
Taking Divine Grace and pre-errata Divine Protection as the key example, Divine Grace is a source that states you add your Charisma bonus to your Saving Throws. pre-errata Divine Protection does the same damn thing, if not moreso. But one is a Class Feature. The other is a Feat. Entities that are completely separate from each other. No "Same Source" argument could possibly apply here aside from the FAQ, because "Same Source" refers to abilities and effects being the same damn thing. There is no 2 Divine Graces or Divine Protections going on here, they are separate sources, meaning no Same Source rules applies. In other words, as written, the FAQ changes NOTHING in relation to how these two subjects interact with each other.
The only feasible way to get their rules point across would have been to say "Attribute Modifiers provide a Type Bonus keyed to the respective attribute," because saying it's a "same source" subject makes no sense in accordance with their other game terms, when source commonly refers to an ability, spell, feat, or other such subject that provides the benefit given, and if said benefit can actually stack together in the first place.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Otherwise I'd make a character with 18 widsom, 1 level Monk, 1 sacred fist, 1 Aesetic Magus, 2 Elemental aesetic. He would really suck on offense, but he'd get his wisdom to AC 4 times!How... how would you do that? Sacred fist had pretty rough prerequisites, as I recall.
Actually, looking it up now...
*cracks open his Complete Divine*
... so, +4 BAB (6th level), 8 ranks in knowledge (religion)*, the ability to cast 1st level divine spells**, and four feats, two of which you have to pay for if you're not a monk***.
That doesn't look like a solid character build, or easy to pull off?
* Surely that will come in handy, as an unarmored tank who dumped most things to pump up your wisdom?
** So, taking a level of cleric, or druid. Or four of ranger or paladin.
*** We're presuming you are a monk, so you need combat casting and combat reflexes, and you get improved unarmed strike and stunning fist for free. Combat reflexes sucks, but is necessary for everything. Combat casting is a wasted feat, unless you plan to focus on your spellcasting, in which case your monk levels and anything other than your spellcasting levels are wasted levels.Anyway, I don't actually recall the other two classes. Where were they found?
I meant the warpriest archetype: Sacred fist, sorry.
|
|
You can only add your Constitution bonus once to your hit points?
A 20th level PC, with 12 Con, only adds +1 Hit Point, and none for consecutive levels?
Now, that there is the brand new, pulled from, who knows where, bonus type, because, you damn well feel like what, it is typed when it makes you feel like you have discovered the new totally awesome hidden rule, and totally awesome new bonus types, that don't stack, but it sometimes stacks, when it would otherwise interfere with your fantasy of a great new discovery?
This, must be some kind of elaborate joke.
I am sorry if that sound condescending, but I am flabbergasted by this "revelation".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would have been easier to say that untyped bonuses equal to an attribute count as [Attribute]-typed bonuses, thus not stacking with similar [Attribute]-typed bonuses.
Of course, this would also be an Errata, rather than a FAQ, since untyped bonuses are called out to specifically stack. Attempting to pussyfoot around that issue is what caused this incredibly annoying mess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, without the "FAQ", where would one find the rules that suggest such a ruling?The problem with your question, is different people are reading the same sentences and coming to a different interpretation.
Because that is happening, there will be no change to the rules to accommodate the FAQ. Why? Because the developers believe it is in the rules and the FAQ is there to cover the case of miss interpretation of the rules.
IMHO that was a cop out.
The examples I gave in the thread on the FAQ were "James Jacobs who is not a developer saying that for a level 2 paladin who had side step secret he added his charisma twice to the save.
And every undead anti-paladin they produced even those in the most recent Monster Codex using charisma twice on fortitude save.
They have said it was always that way however the evidence does not support it.
With that said, while I disagree with the FAQ, I play by the NEW rules.
To tell me they are the old rules is "pissing on my leg and telling me it is raining".
Anyone remember the monk?
Remember how Jason said Flurry worked, yet every example from their own games didn't follow it? He really believed flurry worked differently.Eventually, he relented and reversed it back to 3.5 wording though.
wWait I have it still:
Flurry allows you to make multiple attacks as if using Two Weapon Fighting. You can substitute any of these attacks with an unarmed strike if you choose, up to all of them. If a weapon or attack is different than the others, it was the intent to limit that to the maximum number of attacks you could normally take with said weapon while utilizing Two-Weapon Fighting (ie 2 at +6BAB, 3 at +11BAB and so on), with all of those attacks falling into the standard chain of reducing attack bonus (-5 cumulative for each additional attack). It was not the intent to allow you to make more than this using one specific weapon (not unarmed strikes), or to take all of the highest attack bonus attacks with that weapon. This makes the monks attacks, from a baseline perspective significantly better than that of a fighter, who must invest in twice the number of weapon to gain a similar benefit.That said.. this causes some problems that came to light today as this bounced around the office, namely that it was not common knowledge that it was supposed to work this way and has gone to print without this change. This is obviously a concern and one that I intend to investigate. There is also the problem of the Zen Archer, which clearly does not work with these rules (or rather, it clearly, as its intent, violates these rules). There is also the concern that this system is a bit of a pain to figure out, which is something that does concern me greatly.
We will be evaluating this situation a bit further in the coming days and I would like to thank everyone here for pointing out some of the problems with this ruling.
I hope that clears this up a little for folks. I will see to it that we get to the bottom of this soon.
Very similar to the Divine Grace scenario.
I meant the warpriest archetype: Sacred fist, sorry.
Oh! PF classes! My bad - I thought we were still discussing the ruling going back to 3.5, which I'd not seen.
I'm not familiar enough with the war priest to comment too much... but you'd get, at most, a +20 to your AC. While that +20 might seem like a lot, you've sacrificed everything to get that - you will not be acquiring lots of feats that require BAB (you've dropped four points), you're not going to have good status with a point-buy, you're going to lose out on a lot of important class features (effectively treat any level you have as -3, which is pretty harsh for most things), and that's pretty much your defining characteristic.
"Walk up and don't get hit."
Basically, your AC goes up, but it's not going to matter in the end, because you'll often be caught flat-footed, negating said advantage, and you're going to be missing out on most everything else. That's only if you maximize that one thing.
It's cool - don't get me wrong - but it's so costly in terms of character potential as to have most people not really find it all that compelling.
In games, what that usually amounts to, is having one guy or so attack you for a bit, and then ignore you and go for the others, because he can't hit you and you're not going to successfully do anything anyway.
... but as I said, since I've not examined everything in depth, who knows? Maybe all those dips actually produce something decent instead of a bunch of overlapping abilities that don't synergize (except for the AC - which, as of this ruling, don't synergize either).