Charisma AC

[Darksol the Painbringer]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

You can only add your Constitution bonus once to your hit points per level?

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".

FTFY. Considering the Getting Started section says you add your Constitution modifier to your Hit Dice rolls, and your Hit Points can be altered retroactively based upon your current Constitution Modifier in relation to your Hit Dice that were rolled, it's not really breaching anything that I said.

That grammar in the 3rd paragraph is an eyesore. I don't even properly comprehend it, probably because you were flabbergasted; some fixing up would be appreciated so that I could respond to it correctly.

If you think rules lawyering is a joke, then it's a correct assumption to say it as such. But by the RAW of the FAQ, it changes nothing, since it's already been quite established that an Attribute Score and what it entails is the source of an Attribute Modifier, and that the FAQ says it's "considered to be the same source for the purposes of bonuses from the same source not stacking." It doesn't really change Two-Handing or anything like that either, since the benefit you receive specifically states your Strength modifier (which uses your Strength score as its source) is increased by 50%, and similar language is used for Power Attack.

This isn't really a "revelation," the big point is that the FAQ, as it sits, doesn't really solve the problem it was supposed to solve, because "source" has always been defined from this community and the wide range of players that I've played with as an ability, feat, or similar such subject that provides a listed benefit, and not a type of bonus to stack. Which, ironically enough, is not defined as a game term; I wonder why that is, since it should be quite obvious at this point in the game what a "source" is defined as.

This is exactly why Haste and Speed and Improved Critical and Keen, and many other abilities, all have clauses of not stacking with themselves, because by RAW, they're separate sources, and they're not typed, meaning they're untyped, and would otherwise stack together.

[blackbloodtroll]

Yes, it may seem nonsensical, as I was honestly flabbergasted.

You will notice, that that the FAQ does not mention a new bonus type, Developer comments have shown, specifically, they did not want to create a new "ability" bonus type.

So, it's why they created the floating source FAQ, more or less, to stop the "double dipping".

It's exactly why I was dumbfounded by the "it's a type", as if we should all known all along, but not only is the "revelation" of the "ability" bonus type false, but the idea we should have come to such a conclusion, is false.

In the end, the FAQ is there to stop "double dipping", avoid creating a new bonus type, and just sort of pretending that it exists between the lines of the written rules.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Yes, it may seem nonsensical, as I was honestly flabbergasted.

You will notice, that that the FAQ does not mention a new bonus type, Developer comments have shown, specifically, they did not want to create a new "ability" bonus type.

So, it's why they created the floating source FAQ, more or less, to stop the "double dipping".

It's exactly why I was dumbfounded by the "it's a type", as if we should all known all along, but not only is the "revelation" of the "ability" bonus type false, but the idea we should have come to such a conclusion, is false.

In the end, the FAQ is there to stop "double dipping", avoid creating a new bonus type, and just sort of pretending that it exists between the lines of the written rules.

And if that's the case, then they would have to reinstate SLAs qualifying for PRCs, as well as them not being any different from spells at all. Because that's essentially what this does (though it's more of a reverse thing).

I'm sure the reason they did not want to create an "attribute type" is because of the further confusion it would cause, since it would then require a specific parsing of the rules.

My points still stand, in that source isn't properly used or referenced in the FAQ, and that by RAW, it doesn't change how anything currently interacts. Let's just hope the RAI is obvious enough for folks to understand it. (Unfortunately, since I still see several threads like these pop up over the course of the week, chances are, it's not that obvious.)

[blackbloodtroll]

Well, I am at least happy that we can agree that there is no "ability" bonus type, and that it is not obvious about the rules pertaining to source, when it comes to untyped bonuses based off of ability scores.

[Ravingdork]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

The explanation behind the "FAQ" was very complicated, and contrived.

If a FAQ says "That line there, it means this." then it is fine.

If a FAQ says "It's not written anywhere, but you need to add these additional rules, including ones that conflict with what is written." then it is not good.

THIS! SO MUCH THIS!!!

Kalindlara wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I had honestly never seen it referenced that way, all the way from 3.5 on. Ability mods were never typed bonuses, and always stacked with whatever you were adding. There just wasn't anything that would allow you to add the same ability score twice. (Save for monk/ninja/saint Wis bonus to AC.)

Pretty much the same here. The discussion that led to the FAQ was the first disagreement about this I'd ever seen.

Same here. And I've been AROUND.

Kazaan wrote:

They changed the "effects related to race" error...

What error is this referencing exactly?

[Kazaan]

Ravingdork wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

They changed the "effects related to race" error...

What error is this referencing exactly?

Originally, Racial Heritage was FAQ'ed to count for taking a racial archetype while Half-Elf and Half-Orc was FAQ'ed to not count for the same, nor for alternate favored bonus, despite both using the same phrase, "effects related to race". Myself, and many others, brought the issue up, they realized their error, and they changed all FAQs that involved rules elements concerned with "effects related to race" (also including qualifying for alternate favored bonus) such that "effects related to race" counts for everything based on being said race; i.e. racial heritage, hybrid humanoids, Scion of Humanity, etc. all count to satisfy alternate favored bonus, racial feats, race traits, racial archetypes, racial items, etc.

[Ravingdork]

Nice. Thanks for the explanation. Now, back to our regularly schedule programming...

[thorin001]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.

You are just upset because they did not share the secret decoder ring with you. :P

[thorin001]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Daniel Myhre wrote:

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.

And the PDT has yet to issue errata for all of the stat blocks which have changed due to this ruling. So apparently they are okay with the bad guys doing it, just not the PCs.

[Skylancer4]

thorin001 wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Daniel Myhre wrote:

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.

And the PDT has yet to issue errata for all of the stat blocks which have changed due to this ruling. So apparently they are okay with the bad guys doing it, just not the PCs.

I am 100% "okay" with them spending time making material that keeps them in business opposed to fixing old stats blocks because people don't like an FAQ and want to call them "inconsistent"(to put it politely) for not doing so. It isn't like it would help, the people would just find something else to complain about once they did, all the way up until it was reversed. That is what people are like.

[thorin001]

Skylancer4 wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Daniel Myhre wrote:

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.

And the PDT has yet to issue errata for all of the stat blocks which have changed due to this ruling. So apparently they are okay with the bad guys doing it, just not the PCs.

I am 100% "okay" with them spending time making material that keeps them in business opposed to fixing old stats blocks because people don't like an FAQ and want to call them "inconsistent"(to put it politely) for not doing so. It isn't like it would help, the people would just find something else to complain about once they did, all the way up until it was reversed. That is what people are like.

So you are okay with shoddy quality control and rampant errors in the books. I guess that is good for you, but I demand a higher standard when I spend my money

[bookrat]

There's a concert called 80% Perfection. This means than when you're 80% ready, you move forward. Trying to make it perfect and getting to 100% ends up being more costly and can slow down production, thereby reducing profitability. Reduced profits means fewer products and fewer employees. If you try to keep the same pace with fewer employees, it means even more mistakes. So it's ok that a product isn't perfect if it means a company I like can stay in business and continue to produce products I enjoy. (It does not have to be set at 80%, that's just what the concept is called).

Likewise, if you spend much of your effort and time fixing old mistakes, it takes away from developing new products. You can spend some time fixing old mistakes, but not a lot of it.

Mistakes here and there are ok with me.

Remember, we're all human, and we all make mistakes. It's ok. And while a lot of us would like to see things get fixed, a company must balance the value of fixing and old mistake over the value of designing a new product. Value loss --> reduced profits --> reduced company performance --> worse products --> company eventually going out of business. and hey, I like this game, so I prefer that they stay in business. Especially with the ethics that this company has.

If you ever have the opportunity to get into a business that does product creation and production, you'll likely see similar concepts applied.

[CBDunkerson]

thorin001 wrote:

So you are okay with shoddy quality control and rampant errors in the books. I guess that is good for you, but I demand a higher standard when I spend my money

So you've never played any of the 'D&D family' of games then? :]

Because as 'quality control' goes, Pathfinder is pretty much the best of the lot.

[James Risner]

CBDunkerson wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

So you are okay with shoddy quality control and rampant errors in the books. I guess that is good for you, but I demand a higher standard when I spend my money

So you've never played any of the 'D&D family' of games then? :]

Because as 'quality control' goes, Pathfinder is pretty much the best of the lot.

In terms of RPG games with the best quality, I'd put Paizo at the top. My guess is so would thorin001. At least that would explain why he wants better than any other performance to be better.

[shroudb]

going a bit away from "quality control" and trying to go back into the faq thingy.

to me at least, when someone publishes several books and monsters, where they double stack stats, like the undead paladins and whatnot.
and then they put a faq which basically says:
"we CLARIFY that you aren't supposed to put double stat."

that's plainly wrong.

Balance wise, i agree, MOST things shouldn't double stack (some things still should), but calling it a faq, when you yourself publishes things that aren't according to that, smells like... well something. :P

next we go to the actual wording. To showcase how stupid the actual wording of the faq is, i'm gonna create two abilities:
a)Paizo haste. Paizo haste grants a movement speed bonus equal to your dexterity.
b)Paizo rush. Paizo rush grants a movement speed bonus equal to your dexterity as insight.

Now, according to the faq:
the source of movement speed bonus of "Paizo haste" is "Dexterity".
the source of movement speed bonus of "Paizo rush" is "Paizo rush".
wut?

so, to conclude my opinion:
a)they could call it errata.
b)they could have worded it much better (because the wording simply, still, doesn't make sense)

[Finlanderboy]

James Risner wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

So you are okay with shoddy quality control and rampant errors in the books. I guess that is good for you, but I demand a higher standard when I spend my money

So you've never played any of the 'D&D family' of games then? :]

Because as 'quality control' goes, Pathfinder is pretty much the best of the lot.

In terms of RPG games with the best quality, I'd put Paizo at the top. My guess is so would thorin001. At least that would explain why he wants better than any other performance to be better.

Tell that to my advanced class guide adventure path!

[Rio Mylandra Brennen]

I'm coming into this discussion late, but I just wanted to check. I have a paladin with the Amateur Swashbuckler feat and one level of Hooded Champion. Presently he can get ChaMod x2 on AC.

So...
Smite Evil - Deflection Bonus
Dodging Panache - Dodge Bonus
Osyluth Guile - Dodge Bonus

By the rule Dodge bonus's stack, so it looks like he could get x3 ChaMod to AC. Add in the pereq of Dodge that's 1+(ChaMod x 3) as a bonus.

So the flavor text on the last feat suggests it's from a devil. Would that matter?

[thorin001]

Rio Mylandra Brennen wrote:

I'm coming into this discussion late, but I just wanted to check. I have a paladin with the Amateur Swashbuckler feat and one level of Hooded Champion. Presently he can get ChaMod x2 on AC.

So...
Smite Evil - Deflection Bonus
Dodging Panache - Dodge Bonus
Osyluth Guile - Dodge Bonus

By the rule Dodge bonus's stack, so it looks like he could get x3 ChaMod to AC. Add in the pereq of Dodge that's 1+(ChaMod x 3) as a bonus.

So the flavor text on the last feat suggests it's from a devil. Would that matter?

Should work because they are all typed bonuses. It is the untyped bonuses that cause fits.

[nicholas storm]

One thing is the amateur swashbuckler feat gets converted to extra panache.

[Secane]

For the purpose of stacking, as per thorin001 said, typed bonuses will stack.

So using all 3 will make your AC really high vs 1 target.

Rio Mylandra Brennen wrote:

I'm coming into this discussion late, but I just wanted to check. I have a paladin with the Amateur Swashbuckler feat and one level of Hooded Champion. Presently he can get ChaMod x2 on AC.

So...
Smite Evil - Deflection Bonus
Dodging Panache - Dodge Bonus
Osyluth Guile - Dodge Bonus

By the rule Dodge bonus's stack, so it looks like he could get x3 ChaMod to AC. Add in the pereq of Dodge that's 1+(ChaMod x 3) as a bonus.

So the flavor text on the last feat suggests it's from a devil. Would that matter?

Do note, you can't take Amateur Swashbuckler with Hooded Champion.

Hooded Champion gives Panache (Ex) as a class feature. (Archetypes can change or give class features.)

The moment you pick up Hooded Champion, Amateur Swashbuckler gets traded for the Extra Panache feat.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Advanced Class Guide wrote:

Hooded Champion

Panache (Ex)
At 1st level, the hooded champion gains the swashbuckler’s panache class feature.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Advanced Class Guide wrote:

Amateur Swashbuckler (Combat)

Though not a swashbuckler, you have and can use panache.

Prerequisite(s): No levels in a class that has the panache class feature.

Special: If you gain levels in a class that has the panache class feature, you can immediately trade this feat for the Extra Panache feat.

[Rio Mylandra Brennen]

Secane wrote:

Do note, you can't take Amateur Swashbuckler with Hooded Champion.

Hooded Champion gives Panache (Ex) as a class feature. (Archetypes can change or give class features.)

The moment you pick up Hooded Champion, Amateur Swashbuckler gets traded for the Extra Panache feat.

Yes. I'm aware. First level Paladin with Amateur Swashbuckler then a level dip into Ranger to get Hooded Champion. This Paladin has a really strong CHA so his AC is epic when smiting. Without magic he's getting +10 AC against his opponent. The DM has given him some buffing equipment so his bonus is much higher than that. I think it's +14 now at 6th level and he has a +2 Chain Shirt. 10+14(Cha-Smite/Panache)+3(Dex)+6(Armor)=33.