|
No, because that's not what James or wraithstrike are saying.
Here's what they're saying:
A temporary bonus to an ability score increases all skills and statistics as if the ability score had increased. But it actually hasn't, because it's not a permanent ability score modifier (which definitively says that it actually increases the ability score). So the character with 13 Con who gets +1 temporary Con from some as-yet-unwritten item or ability (because all of them increase in increments of +2), is treated as though he has a Con of 14, for hp, for fort saves, for Con checks, whatever. But the character does not actually have a Con of 14. It's 13 with a +1 temporary that makes it behave like 14.
Likewise, and it's very clearly covered here, ability damage doesn't reduce the ability score, while ability drain does. So a Str 15 character with power attack and 6 points of Str damage can still use power attack.
The conclusion here is that it is not possible for a Str 9 character under the effect of Bull's Strength to select power attack as a feat, because his Str score is 9. It just happens to behave like a 13 right now. It's not actually 13, though, which it would be after 24 hours of wearing a belt of giant strength +4.
Space in the CRB was tight as all hell. If the designers could have completely cut the verbiage about permanent ability score bonuses (which they could do if temporary bonuses behave in all ways like an actual bonus), they would have. But for some reason they felt it necessary to tell us that 1) temporary ability bonuses modify all skill and statistics as if the ability score were increased, and 2) that a permanent ability score bonus is an actual change in the ability score. The clear implication being that a temporary score isn't an actual score, so when a feat's prerequisites require you to check your score, is the answer your actual score, or just the one you happen to have right now from a temporary effect?
I wasn't talking about the FAQ. Only the 1 single line in all of the CRB that describes what the temporary ability score bonus does. Since the apparent belief is that the FAQ agrees 100% with the CRB and is not a change from it. Which is impossible, considering the rule for temporary ability score bonus.
You wrote 12 sentences describing what 1 sentence supposedly said.... that had little to do with what that 1 sentence actually said.
Where do you get all this information from?
'For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.'
Does not contain ANY of what you just said. Other then that neither bonus or penalty actually increase or decrease the ability score.
According to this sentence, a character with anything less than a +2 ability score bonus gains no benefit.
I have 13 con. I gain a temporary ability score bonus to my CON. It is in the amount of 1.
Okay, the sentence says if it is in the amount of 2 I gain a bonus, regardless of how much CON I would currently have. Is my temporary bonus at least in the amount of 2? No? Then this sentence says I do not gain a +1 bonus....
SO, what sentence are you reading that gives you a mechanical advantage?
The sentence says what it says, not what you think it says, not what you want it to say. It is very short, and very specific.
Okay... how about we just do the math?
13 + 1 = 14 for <effects that you get to list as it counts for but not for others that you get to list,> This is what you are saying.
Yet, the sentence on temporary ability score bonus says
13 + 1 = 13 for all ability score-related effects.
As 1 point of ability score bonus give ZERO bonuses.
This functions EXACTLY like a penalty. Notice they are written almost exactly the same.
'For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.'
If I have 14 STR and get hit with 1 point of str penalty from a spell...
My strength for ALL considerations is still 14. I still have a +2 modifier and I have NO penalties to any strength-related ability.
So please, show me where in THAT ONE SENTENCE that has any bearing in on just what a temporary ability score bonus does... does what you say it does. Which is VERY DIFFERENT from what is being claimed it does.
Remember, don't bring up the FAQ as we are talking about the CRB and trying to see if there is a difference from what the FAQ says it does and what the CRB says it does. Fundamentally.
He is explaining that the FAQ is giving info that should have been in the CRB so of course some info is missing. Therefore it is a rules clarification, not a rules change. <---just in case you were missing his point.
You can also pop over into the Ask Mark thread if you don't believe us. He is a designer.
|
|
He is explaining that the FAQ is giving info that should have been in the CRB so of course some info is missing. Therefore it is a rules clarification, not a rules change. <---just in case you were missing his point.
You can also pop over into the Ask Mark thread if you don't believe us. He is a designer.
How can a rule clarification work completely different than the literal rule?
The literal rule does not care what your actual ability score total is.
The FAQ says that temporary ability score bonuses DO care what your actual ability score total is.
13 + 1 = 13 for all ability score-related effects. The rule says this.
With zero bonus to any ability score-related effects.
13 + 1 = 14 for all ability score-related effects. The FAQ says this.
With a modifier increased to +2.
If the FAQ completely changes how the rule works... it is NOT a clarification. It is a straight up change.
The FAQ, effectively, says to erase how temporary ability score penalties work. They are not +1 per two points... they now apply to all things that permanent ability score bonuses apply to.
And permanent ability score bonuses ONLY APPLY TO ONE THING... the actual ability score.
|
|
How can a rule clarification work completely different than the literal rule?When you read a rule and don't come to the conclusion that:
The developers came to.
An overwhelming majority of the forum posters.
The vast majority of tables of PF I've played and GM.
Okay... fine.
Then tell me how 1 temporary ability score bonus to con and a 13 con gives you a mechanical advantage... while adhering to the rule given in the crb.Oh, and also, you are wrong. Developers agree that ability score penalties of less than 2 do not cause any negative affects to a character. Penalties work EXACTLY, as per the book, in the same fashion as bonuses.
You can not read two systems that function in almost the exact way, only one being positive the other negative... and then get two completely separate conclusions.
Sorry, you are wrong. Just... completely wrong. Applying the rule comes to a different conclusion to the FAQ. Thus, can not be the same.
Seriously.... how do you read '+1 per two points' and get 1 point give you a +1?
You might as well say 2 means 1. Or that the sky is mauve with lime green polka dots.
It is just as absurd.
He is explaining that the FAQ is giving info that should have been in the CRB so of course some info is missing. Therefore it is a rules clarification, not a rules change. <---just in case you were missing his point.
You can also pop over into the Ask Mark thread if you don't believe us. He is a designer.
How can a rule clarification work completely different than the literal rule?
The literal rule does not care what your actual ability score total is.
The FAQ says that temporary ability score bonuses DO care what your actual ability score total is.13 + 1 = 13 for all ability score-related effects. The rule says this.
With zero bonus to any ability score-related effects.
13 + 1 = 14 for all ability score-related effects. The FAQ says this.
With a modifier increased to +2.If the FAQ completely changes how the rule works... it is NOT a clarification. It is a straight up change.
The FAQ, effectively, says to erase how temporary ability score penalties work. They are not +1 per two points... they now apply to all things that permanent ability score bonuses apply to.
And permanent ability score bonuses ONLY APPLY TO ONE THING... the actual ability score.
It's not different. The only think I can see that might be different is the carrying capacity, and I am chalking that up to lack of space.
Everything else looks the same to me.
Most of the people on these forums are not following your interpretation of this as a change.
You are misinterpreting how to apply the temporary ability score bonus. Go with what we have told you.
Trust the Wraith.
Like I said ask Mark who has his own Thread called "Ask Mark <whatever his last name> is".
He will tell you that we are right. It might take 2 or 3 days depending on how backed up he is.
PS: If it takes more than 3 days then I meant that many days. :)
How can a rule clarification work completely different than the literal rule?When you read a rule and don't come to the conclusion that:
The developers came to.
An overwhelming majority of the forum posters.
The vast majority of tables of PF I've played and GM. Okay... fine.
Then tell me how 1 temporary ability score bonus to con and a 13 con gives you a mechanical advantage... while adhering to the rule given in the crb.Oh, and also, you are wrong. Developers agree that ability score penalties of less than 2 do not cause any negative affects to a character. Penalties work EXACTLY, as per the book, in the same fashion as bonuses.
You can not read two systems that function in almost the exact way, only one being positive the other negative... and then get two completely separate conclusions.
Sorry, you are wrong. Just... completely wrong. Applying the rule comes to a different conclusion to the FAQ. Thus, can not be the same.
Seriously.... how do you read '+1 per two points' and get 1 point give you a +1?
You might as well say 2 means 1. Or that the sky is mauve with lime green polka dots.
It is just as absurd.
+1's are bad design rules* so that won't happen. That is why you don't see any magical items are spell that only add a +1 to the ability score.
*Certain internal rules are not to be broken when designing. This is one of them.
I failed my will save. I said I was going to agree to disagree. Hopefully they answer this one in an updated FAQ soon or hopefully Mark can help you out. I really don't think I can convince you.
|
|
How can a rule clarification work completely different than the literal rule?When you read a rule and don't come to the conclusion that:
The developers came to.
An overwhelming majority of the forum posters.
The vast majority of tables of PF I've played and GM. Okay... fine.
Then tell me how 1 temporary ability score bonus to con and a 13 con gives you a mechanical advantage... while adhering to the rule given in the crb.Oh, and also, you are wrong. Developers agree that ability score penalties of less than 2 do not cause any negative affects to a character. Penalties work EXACTLY, as per the book, in the same fashion as bonuses.
You can not read two systems that function in almost the exact way, only one being positive the other negative... and then get two completely separate conclusions.
Sorry, you are wrong. Just... completely wrong. Applying the rule comes to a different conclusion to the FAQ. Thus, can not be the same.
Seriously.... how do you read '+1 per two points' and get 1 point give you a +1?
You might as well say 2 means 1. Or that the sky is mauve with lime green polka dots.
It is just as absurd.+1's are bad design rules* so that won't happen. That is why you don't see any magical items are spell that only add a +1 to the ability score.
*Certain internal rules are not to be broken when designing. This is one of them.
Okay, opposite direction then. Since +1's are "bad design"
How about -1's? They work the same way, per the CRB. -1's are able to happen readily in the system.14 strength with 1 strength ability score damage... what happens?
How can a rule clarification work completely different than the literal rule?When you read a rule and don't come to the conclusion that:
The developers came to.
An overwhelming majority of the forum posters.
The vast majority of tables of PF I've played and GM. Okay... fine.
Then tell me how 1 temporary ability score bonus to con and a 13 con gives you a mechanical advantage... while adhering to the rule given in the crb.Oh, and also, you are wrong. Developers agree that ability score penalties of less than 2 do not cause any negative affects to a character. Penalties work EXACTLY, as per the book, in the same fashion as bonuses.
You can not read two systems that function in almost the exact way, only one being positive the other negative... and then get two completely separate conclusions.
Sorry, you are wrong. Just... completely wrong. Applying the rule comes to a different conclusion to the FAQ. Thus, can not be the same.
Seriously.... how do you read '+1 per two points' and get 1 point give you a +1?
You might as well say 2 means 1. Or that the sky is mauve with lime green polka dots.
It is just as absurd.+1's are bad design rules* so that won't happen. That is why you don't see any magical items are spell that only add a +1 to the ability score.
*Certain internal rules are not to be broken when designing. This is one of them.
Okay, opposite direction then. Since +1's are "bad design"
How about -1's? They work the same way, per the CRB. -1's are able to happen readily in the system.14 strength with 1 strength ability score damage... what happens?
If you have a score of 14 and you take 1 point of ability damage your ability modifier stays at +2 because you have to take 2 points of ability damage before you apply a -1 penalty. <---- I am 100% sure of this.
For carrying capacity I would assume that would be affected also, even though your actual(permanent) score has not changed.
|
|
How can a rule clarification work completely different than the literal rule?When you read a rule and don't come to the conclusion that:
The developers came to.
An overwhelming majority of the forum posters.
The vast majority of tables of PF I've played and GM. Okay... fine.
Then tell me how 1 temporary ability score bonus to con and a 13 con gives you a mechanical advantage... while adhering to the rule given in the crb.Oh, and also, you are wrong. Developers agree that ability score penalties of less than 2 do not cause any negative affects to a character. Penalties work EXACTLY, as per the book, in the same fashion as bonuses.
You can not read two systems that function in almost the exact way, only one being positive the other negative... and then get two completely separate conclusions.
Sorry, you are wrong. Just... completely wrong. Applying the rule comes to a different conclusion to the FAQ. Thus, can not be the same.
Seriously.... how do you read '+1 per two points' and get 1 point give you a +1?
You might as well say 2 means 1. Or that the sky is mauve with lime green polka dots.
It is just as absurd.+1's are bad design rules* so that won't happen. That is why you don't see any magical items are spell that only add a +1 to the ability score.
*Certain internal rules are not to be broken when designing. This is one of them.
Okay, opposite direction then. Since +1's are "bad design"
How about -1's? They work the same way, per the CRB. -1's are able to happen readily in the system.14 strength with 1 strength ability score damage... what happens?
If you have a score of 14 and you take 1 point of ability damage your ability modifier stays at +2 because you have to take 2 points of ability damage before you apply a -1 penalty. <---- I am 100% sure of this.
For carrying capacity I would assume that...
Okay... you are 100% sure that...
'For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.'means that for every two points, there is a -1.
So 14 - 1 = 14. With no penalties.
But you are ALSO 100% sure that... BEFORE the FAQ...
'For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.'
means that for every point, add it to your ability score and then see if you gained any bonuses?
But 13 + 1 = 14. With bonuses. (given an ability that grants +1 temporary ability score bonuses)
Why query something that (very intentionally) doesn't exist?
|
|
Why query something that (very intentionally) doesn't exist?
For the mere fact of showing how the rule works in the CRB. That's one of the many uses of hypotheticals.
If the belief is that the rule says what he has been saying it says... then he can answer 'yes' to my question.
Of course, to believe two rules working differently despite being written to do the same thing... just one in a positive manner and the other negative... is a little problematic, logically.
Oh, and also, it does exist. It is possible to get +1 temporary ability score bonuses. Check out Wish. Or any of the ability score tomes.
Those are bonuses, which are temporary the first 24 hours.
Okay... you are 100% sure that...
'For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.'
means that for every two points, there is a -1.
So 14 - 1 = 14. With no penalties.But you are ALSO 100% sure that... BEFORE the FAQ...
'For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.'
means that for every point, add it to your ability score and then see if you gained any bonuses?But 13 + 1 = 14. With bonuses. (given an ability that grants +1 temporary ability score bonuses)
I am sure that ability damage works just as I explain.
I am sure that your bonus example is never going to happen in game because Paizo made sure to design things so that they were gained in two so you got the positive modifier. Something that will never happen is nonfactor.
The rules don't intend for it to happen.
I have been here for a long time, and one thing I have learned is that repeating the same statement multiple times does not convince anyone.
Trust me on this, even if you don't believe I am correct about this rule.
At this point you have three real options.
1 Press the FAQ button in the opening post if you have not already done so, and wait for the PDT to answer.
2. Go to Mark's thread and ask, if you have not already done so. It won't be official, but it might give you something until an official answer comes up.
3. Do 1 and 2.
That inherent bonus has always been treated as a permanent increase at the table for actual gameplay, even though that may not be the rule. I guess those are also worth an FAQ.
If one were to go by the CRB as it currently is then you would not gain a +1 modifier to your score, but I see that as an oversight, just like how the haste spell once only referenced "held weapons", but it was never the intent.
|
|
That inherent bonus has always been treated as a permanent increase at the table for actual gameplay, even though that may not be the rule. I guess those are also worth an FAQ.
If one were to go by the CRB as it currently is then you would not gain a +1 modifier to your score, but I see that as an oversight, just like how the haste spell once only referenced "held weapons", but it was never the intent.
Then please tell me... does that match 100% with the FAQ as you have described the FAQ working?
That inherent bonus has always been treated as a permanent increase at the table for actual gameplay, even though that may not be the rule. I guess those are also worth an FAQ.
If one were to go by the CRB as it currently is then you would not gain a +1 modifier to your score, but I see that as an oversight, just like how the haste spell once only referenced "held weapons", but it was never the intent.
Then please tell me... does that match 100% with the FAQ as you have described the FAQ working?
Oh, and also, I only have to keep repeating myself because you keep ignoring a bunch of what I say.
I've been bringing up the point that has finally gotten you to agree the book says 13 + 1 = 13... for quite some time now.
I said in my previous post the inherent bonuses are an oversight, and they don't follow the normal +2 addition to get the +1 modifier.
So the FAQ is still not the designers trying to change a rule. It is an oversight, just like the haste spell was an oversight.
My understanding of your point was that the FAQ was intentionally changing a rule that was in the CRB. <----If that is your point then I still say you are incorrect.
In the past when an FAQ contradicted with the book they either fixed the FAQ or errata'd the book.
You are likely betting on errata to make the book match the FAQ. I am betting the FAQ being modified and/or errata being made to the inherent bonuses to ability scores.
|
|
That inherent bonus has always been treated as a permanent increase at the table for actual gameplay, even though that may not be the rule. I guess those are also worth an FAQ.
If one were to go by the CRB as it currently is then you would not gain a +1 modifier to your score, but I see that as an oversight, just like how the haste spell once only referenced "held weapons", but it was never the intent.
Then please tell me... does that match 100% with the FAQ as you have described the FAQ working?
Oh, and also, I only have to keep repeating myself because you keep ignoring a bunch of what I say.
I've been bringing up the point that has finally gotten you to agree the book says 13 + 1 = 13... for quite some time now.
I said in my previous post the inherent bonuses are an oversight, and they don't follow the normal +2 addition to get the +1 modifier.
So the FAQ is still not the designers trying to change a rule. It is an oversight, just like the haste spell was an oversight.
My understanding of your point was that the FAQ was intentionally changing a rule that was in the CRB. <----If that is your point then I still say you are incorrect.
In the past when an FAQ contradicted with the book they either fixed the FAQ or errata'd the book.
You are likely betting on errata to make the book match the FAQ. I am betting the FAQ being modified and/or errata being made to the inherent bonuses to ability scores.
That it is an oversight... even though perfectly covered in the rules... is your Opinion only. Completely unsupported.
We can only go by what is written... not what we want to believe should be written. The FAQ describes a different outcome than the CRB for temporary ability score bonuses.
You have been telling me the book is not changed by the FAQ, despite the fact that it DOES function differently if you follow the book or the FAQ. You even agreed as much, on what is currently written.
Your only lifeline to not agree with me completely is on the support of a 'well, I believe that despite the rules that this is not how the rule Should be written'.
And only on whether an inherit bonus can be temporary or not... it isn't even on 2 points for +1 bonus somehow can give you +1 despite being less than 2. That is rather flimsy.
Whereas I have the support of the written text, in the FAQ and CRB to back me up on every point.
You should probably just 'trust the Lorewalker'.
edit---
So you understand, the last line is sarcasm. I would never actually ask someone to trust another unconditionally. Everyone is wrong sometimes.
That it is an oversight... even though perfectly covered in the rules... is your Opinion only. Completely unsupported.
We can only go by what is written... not what we want to believe should be written. The FAQ describes a different outcome than the CRB for temporary ability score bonuses.
You have been telling me the book is not changed by the FAQ, despite the fact that it DOES function differently if you follow the book or the FAQ. You even agreed as much, on what is currently written.
Your only lifeline to not agree with me completely is on the support of a 'well, I believe that despite the rules that this is not how the rule Should be written'.
And only on whether an inherit bonus can be temporary or not... it isn't even on 2 points for +1 bonus somehow can give you +1 despite being less than 2. That is rather flimsy.Whereas I have the support of the written text, in the FAQ and CRB to back me up on every point.
You should probably just 'trust the Lorewalker'.
It is not completely unsupported since the CRB says to need the increase of 2 in order to get +1, and the inherent bonus only adds one, unless you really think the game intended for you to cast wish or buy an expensive magic item, and then wait 24 hours, even though it can't be removed like the belt of strength can.
Now if you want to say I don't have concrete proof I would agree, but you also have no proof this is an intentional change.
That does nothing to change the fact that you are not qualifying for a feat or PrC with a temporary boost to your abiity score.
At no point did I agree that the FAQ changes the book. That FAQ does not change anything.
You have done nothing other than show that inherent bonuses now have a waiting time if you want their full benefit.
24 hours later and the temp score of 14 becomes a permanent score of 14.
So like I said your options are still the ones I gave you before.
Repeated for you:
1 Press the FAQ button in the opening post if you have not already done so, and wait for the PDT to answer.
2. Go to Mark's thread and ask, if you have not already done so. It won't be official, but it might give you something until an official answer comes up.
3. Do 1 and 2.
So you understand, the last line is sarcasm. I would never actually ask someone to trust another unconditionally. Everyone is wrong sometimes.
I knew it was sarcasm. <thumbs up>
|
|
That it is an oversight... even though perfectly covered in the rules... is your Opinion only. Completely unsupported.
We can only go by what is written... not what we want to believe should be written. The FAQ describes a different outcome than the CRB for temporary ability score bonuses.
You have been telling me the book is not changed by the FAQ, despite the fact that it DOES function differently if you follow the book or the FAQ. You even agreed as much, on what is currently written.
Your only lifeline to not agree with me completely is on the support of a 'well, I believe that despite the rules that this is not how the rule Should be written'.
And only on whether an inherit bonus can be temporary or not... it isn't even on 2 points for +1 bonus somehow can give you +1 despite being less than 2. That is rather flimsy.Whereas I have the support of the written text, in the FAQ and CRB to back me up on every point.
You should probably just 'trust the Lorewalker'.
It is not completely unsupported since the CRB says to need the increase of 2 in order to get +1, and the inherent bonus only adds one, unless you really think the game intended for you to cast wish or buy an expensive magic item, and then wait 24 hours, even though it can't be removed like the belt of strength can.
Now if you want to say I don't have concrete proof I would agree, but you also have no proof this is an intentional change.
That does nothing to change the fact that you are not qualifying for a feat or PrC with a temporary boost to your abiity score.
At no point did I agree that the FAQ changes the book. That FAQ does not change anything.
You have done nothing other than show that inherent bonuses now have a waiting time if you want their full benefit.
24 hours later and the temp score of 14 becomes a permanent score of 14.
So like I said your options are still the ones I gave you before.
Repeated for you:
1 Press the FAQ button in the opening post if you have...
The FAQ says 13 + 1 = 14. We agree here. Just as if it were a permanent bonus.
"A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does."
"A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does."
That means exactly what it says. It affects the same stats and rolls no matter if the ability score bonus is temporary or permanent."
The only part we disagree on here is... when it says all does it mean all... or only some. Also you agree with me that +1 per 2 does not translate to carry capacity.. you would have to add the points directly to the ability score to get meaningful change in carry capacity.
The CRB says 13 + 1 = 13. We also agreed here. As +1 gives no bonus."For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability."
"If one were to go by the CRB as it currently is then you would not gain a +1 modifier to your score, but I see that as an oversight, just like how the haste spell once only referenced "held weapons", but it was never the intent."
But, 13+1=14 does not equal 13+1=13. Thus... the the FAQ cannot equal the CRB in rule.
In summary, per the CRB... a permanent +1 is meaningful if it is on strength or if it is on a stat that is odd. And, a temporary +1 is never meaningful.
Per the FAQ, a temporary +1 affects all stats and rolls a permanent ability score does. Thus a permanent or temporary +1 is meaningful if it is on strength or if it is on a stat that is odd.
And even though this is what it says... you still say the FAQ and CRB do not disagree on any points?
---------------
A point we disagree on though, is on whether per the CRB the temporary ability score bonus actually changes your ability score modifier. I say, as per how it is written, it does not change the modifier... it only affects "skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability". Though, the list is not an exhaustive list per the FAQ. This is mechanically the same thing, at the end of the day, but it is a technical point we do disagree on.
Let me explain it like this.
When you get a bonus to your ability score your permanent score does not change, but you get an "effective" score depending on the bonus.
So that +1 inherent bonus gives you a temp score of 14, but since it does not meet the prereq of 2 for 1 your modifier does not increase.
After 24 hours the temp 14 becomes a real(permanent) 14.
This is also what the other poster was explaining when I said "thanks".
The problem with the FAQ is this line --> A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.
Now that odd increasing number does not affect all of the same rolls because it is not permanent yet.
So now the PDT will have to alter the FAQ or inherent bonuses to make this a non-issue.
If they don't answer this by next Friday I will bring it to their attention.
Yes we agree that as the current rules are written that if you add a +1 a temp bonus is not affecting the rolls like a permanent bonus would.
What we don't agree on is this FAQ changing any rules. It is not the first time an FAQ had to be fixed. This is just the first time it took anyone this long to notice.
A point we disagree on though, is on whether per the CRB the temporary ability score bonus actually changes your ability score modifier. I say, as per how it is written, it does not change the modifier... it only affects "skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability". Though, the list is not an exhaustive list per the FAQ. This is mechanically the same thing, at the end of the day, but it is a technical point we do disagree on.
Could you explain the bolded area?
Use an in-game example where the difference matters if you don't mind.
I am just trying to be sure you understand me, and I understand you.
|
|
Let me explain it like this.
When you get a bonus to your ability score your permanent score does not change, but you get an "effective" score depending on the bonus.So that +1 inherent bonus gives you a temp score of 14, but since it does not meet the prereq of 2 for 1 your modifier does not increase.
After 24 hours the temp 14 becomes a real(permanent) 14.
This is also what the other poster was explaining when I said "thanks".
The problem with the FAQ is this line --> A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.
Now that odd increasing number does not affect all of the same rolls because it is not permanent yet.
So now the PDT will have to alter the FAQ or inherent bonuses to make this a non-issue.
If they don't answer this by next Friday I will bring it to their attention.
Yes we agree that as the current rules are written that if you add a +1 a temp bonus is not affecting the rolls like a permanent bonus would.
What we don't agree on is this FAQ changing any rules. It is not the first time an FAQ had to be fixed. This is just the first time it took anyone this long to notice.
Before I bring up anything else... what about skills? They are a function of how much modifier you have. They are something permanent ability score bonuses affect...
Does a temporary +2 int give you skill points?Remember, we are talking about what is written. Not intent.
As I agree that the FAQ should be changed to not give things like skill points or feat prereqs.
|
|
A point we disagree on though, is on whether per the CRB the temporary ability score bonus actually changes your ability score modifier. I say, as per how it is written, it does not change the modifier... it only affects "skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability". Though, the list is not an exhaustive list per the FAQ. This is mechanically the same thing, at the end of the day, but it is a technical point we do disagree on.Could you explain the bolded area?
Use an in-game example where the difference matters if you don't mind.
I am just trying to be sure you understand me, and I understand you.
You even quoted me where I said it does not mechanically matter. That it is only a technical point.
There are no points where (add ability score mod here) and (add ability score bonus bonus to all places ability score mod goes) can be shown as a meaningful difference from (add ability score mod plus ability score bonus bonus here). The net will always be the same.
It was merely a point of technical accuracy.
Let me explain it like this.
When you get a bonus to your ability score your permanent score does not change, but you get an "effective" score depending on the bonus.So that +1 inherent bonus gives you a temp score of 14, but since it does not meet the prereq of 2 for 1 your modifier does not increase.
After 24 hours the temp 14 becomes a real(permanent) 14.
This is also what the other poster was explaining when I said "thanks".
The problem with the FAQ is this line --> A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.
Now that odd increasing number does not affect all of the same rolls because it is not permanent yet.
So now the PDT will have to alter the FAQ or inherent bonuses to make this a non-issue.
If they don't answer this by next Friday I will bring it to their attention.
Yes we agree that as the current rules are written that if you add a +1 a temp bonus is not affecting the rolls like a permanent bonus would.
What we don't agree on is this FAQ changing any rules. It is not the first time an FAQ had to be fixed. This is just the first time it took anyone this long to notice.
Before I bring up anything else... what about skills? They are a function of how much modifier you have. They are something permanent ability score bonuses affect...
Does a temporary +2 int give you skill points?Remember, we are talking about what is written. Not intent.
As I agree that the FAQ should be changed to not give things like skill points or feat prereqs.
I think the words in the book support it, but I don't think it is the intent, and I see intent as the rule.
Once again I reference pre-errata haste.
edit: Do you think the intent is to give access to a feat via a temporary increase?
|
|
Let me explain it like this.
When you get a bonus to your ability score your permanent score does not change, but you get an "effective" score depending on the bonus.So that +1 inherent bonus gives you a temp score of 14, but since it does not meet the prereq of 2 for 1 your modifier does not increase.
After 24 hours the temp 14 becomes a real(permanent) 14.
This is also what the other poster was explaining when I said "thanks".
The problem with the FAQ is this line --> A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.
Now that odd increasing number does not affect all of the same rolls because it is not permanent yet.
So now the PDT will have to alter the FAQ or inherent bonuses to make this a non-issue.
If they don't answer this by next Friday I will bring it to their attention.
Yes we agree that as the current rules are written that if you add a +1 a temp bonus is not affecting the rolls like a permanent bonus would.
What we don't agree on is this FAQ changing any rules. It is not the first time an FAQ had to be fixed. This is just the first time it took anyone this long to notice.
Before I bring up anything else... what about skills? They are a function of how much modifier you have. They are something permanent ability score bonuses affect...
Does a temporary +2 int give you skill points?Remember, we are talking about what is written. Not intent.
As I agree that the FAQ should be changed to not give things like skill points or feat prereqs.I think the words in the book support it, but I don't think it is the intent, and I see intent as the rule.
Once again I reference pre-errata haste.
edit: Do you think the intent is to give access to a feat via a temporary increase?
Well... then we will always disagree. Because I see the rule as the rule... and when it does not match intent I seek to have the rule changed to match the intent.
Otherwise you will constantly be explaining to people that "the rule is wrong, here is how we are going to play it".
If you can agree with AS WRITTEN the FAQ allows skill point gains and feat prereqs... then that is all I was seeking.
Since I already agree with you that the intent does not include those things... since it goes against anything they've ever said on the subject.
In fact, my advice to you is to also see the rule as the rule... when someone is discussing the rule with you.
Otherwise you end up disagreeing for three days, when really you agree on most points of contention.
It also confuses those who may also be part of the conversation.
Intent is different from the rule... in that it is literally different from the rule. It informs on what the rule should be saying... but it does not change what the rule says.
Well... then we will always disagree. Because I see the rule as the rule... and when it does not match intent I seek to have the rule changed to match the intent.
Otherwise you will constantly be explaining to people that "the rule is wrong, here is how we are going to play it".
If you can agree with AS WRITTEN the FAQ allows skill point gains and feat prereqs... then that is all I was seeking.
Since I already agree with you that the intent does not include those things... since it goes against anything they've ever said on the subject.
In fact, my advice to you is to also see the rule as the rule... when someone is discussing the rule with you.
Otherwise you end up disagreeing for three days, when really you agree on most points of contention.
It also confuses those who may also be part of the conversation.
Intent is different from the rule... in that it is literally different from the rule. It informs on what the rule should be saying... but it does not change what the rule says.
However the game was meant to be ran is the rule. I am sure you don't let dead people walk around in your game because the dead condition, unlike the paralized condition, doesn't state they can't move.
Another example is the shield feat which said it removes penalties, but doesn't call out TWF penalties.
The difference between us is I take mine farther than you take yours. I tend to be right most of the time, and the devs tend to answer the FAQ's using the same wording I use.
There is only confusion when one person is discussing intent, and the other person is going by a very literal interpretation. So far I don't have too much trouble getting my point across.
I see no need to change things as long as I am getting those results.
For future reference:
The rules forum also tends to favor intent. People can read for themselves that the book says most of the time. What they can't always do is interpret things to figure out what was intended. Pero
That will save you a lot of time in the future if the words and the intention do not match up.
Now that I know you agree with me on intent for the feats I guess things are settled.
PS: I also think that the words as written don't support a temporary score giving the exact same thigns as a permanent one. There is nothing to support that.
|
|
PS: I also think that the words as written don't support a temporary score giving the exact same thigns as a permanent one. There is nothing to support that.
There is nothing supporting that in the crb. There is something supporting that in the FAQ.
'A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.'
As a temporary ability score bonus works fundamentally different than a permanent ability score bonus... as it NEVER could have given carry capacity. Since +1 per 2 points, without even a sudo increase to ability scores, can not change carry capacity.
If they had left off carry capacity in the FAQ, everything would have made sense. As, just like ability penalties, it never changed your ability score itself, not even effectively.
It just would have meant that you apply the +1 bonus you get per 2 points of temporary ability score bonus to everything that includes the abilities modifier. Instead of just those things listed(which were all modifier based effects). Even this sort of change still allows skill point gain, though. Which they have said they do not want.
But, it calls out carry capacity. Which is a function of your actual strength score. Thus, with that, and saying that the temporary ability score bonus(not the ability score bonuses '+1 per 2 points' bonus) gets added to all things that a permanent ability score bonuses gets added to... You get an actual ability score increase that is named 'temporary' instead of 'permanent'. Since the only thing permanent ability score bonuses apply to is the actual ability score itself.
Again, this is by the word of the CRB and FAQ. It is NOT intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Also... any one who says the dead can walk because the dead condition does not say they can not... apparently has not read enough of the rules. There are rules for souls. The dead condition states your soul is no longer in your body and your body is rotting.
You don't need 'logic' to tell you the body can not move. There are actually rules, which the dead condition references, that handle this.
You CAN still move, though. Wherever your soul is, your character is. It may still move and make decisions. Saying they can't move would be counter to the rules of the game.
But it is no longer attached to its body. The body may not move without some animating force.
The rules on souls are more fluffy than they are crunchy in places, but the text is still there.
----
Shield Master has been unfortunate for some time.
I'm surprised this one has not been fixed yet... though I have not checked in a while. Maybe it has been?
Nothing you said really disproves anything I said. That soul comment is reaching. We all know "you" refers to the body. It's not hard to say following the rules exactly as written doesn't work without context fails. It's not even a secret.
|
|
Nothing you said really disproves anything I said. That soul comment is reaching. We all know "you" refers to the body. It's not hard to say following the rules exactly as written doesn't work without context fails. It's not even a secret.
Other then the CRB temporary ability bonus could not do what the FAQ says it does now. *shrugs*
Anyway...
It is very true! If you always played by 100% RAW... Pathfinder would be no where near as fun.
The soul isn't reaching at all, actually. There is a specific disconnect between the body and the soul for many creatures in Pathfinder. Though, this does not hold for certain outsiders. They are specifically a blend of soul and body as one.
If you die, your soul goes on to... well it depends on what you believed in life to some degree.
Any which way, if someone casts Raise Dead on you... is it the body that gives permission to allow themselves to be raised? No, it is the soul. The soul of most creatures, there very life force, goes on after the body dies and continues to act.
This is often not played out in the game, but it is what happens.
There are even decisions that the soul makes which can affect the body. Such as when someone casts Raise Dead on a body the soul must agree to the process.
And since when did 'we all know' you means the body? I'm pretty sure you means the animating force of the being The part of the being which makes decisions. For many creature types, that means their soul.
This is made clear in the descriptions of certain undead, among other places.
Such as skeletons and zombies being soulless and thus have no ability to make decision. Being, more or less, necro powered biological constructs.
Whereas besouled undead can be affected by things that manipulate the soul.
Or, if not the soul... you more than likely means different things depending on the creatures physical/spiritual disposition.
If I was ghost, 'you' wouldn't work on me by your definition of it.
That reminds me of another example... there are spells that switch your soul with another being... if something says 'it does such and such to you'... does it do the thing to your real body? As you is your body?
Interestingly enough, there is even an archetype that has their soul haunt their own dead body!
-------
Now, of course, this must be flexible. The Dead condition only holds completely true for besouled creature types. Otherwise parts of it are nonsense. As some types do not have a separate soul.
The definition can not be too rigid nor can it be too lax. For a myriad of reasons. Between besouled beings, beings that are souls, beings that are soul/body blends, undead.... well, it's a whole grab bag of fun that could potentially need a whole chapter of text to describe.
Anyway... I seriously doubt that this has been brought up at a table as a serious issue... at least not more than once or twice, in all the time Pathfinder has been a game. So it isn't even really worth talking about.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Your only lifeline to not agree with me completely is on the support of a 'well, I believe that despite the rules that this is not how the rule Should be written'.
Or "I don't read the rules to say what you think and never did. I was in the original thread faq saying they work like permanent when the faq came down that they work like permanent.
|
So.. you guys seem to have gone round and round on this a good bit. Did you ever come up with a definitive answer.. I mean... one that I could apply in PFS?
Can a Barbarian with a 10 Base STR take Power Attack?
While Raging, his STR is 14.. obviously he could only use PA while raging.
This seems logical and restrictive... and fair really. The question is, is it PFS legal?
So.. you guys seem to have gone round and round on this a good bit. Did you ever come up with a definitive answer.. I mean... one that I could apply in PFS?
Can a Barbarian with a 10 Base STR take Power Attack?
While Raging, his STR is 14.. obviously he could only use PA while raging.This seems logical and restrictive... and fair really. The question is, is it PFS legal?
Expect table variation, and on something that fundamental I would assume the worst.
I'm still quite curious regarding Chemlak's original post in this thread.
Specifically, it raises the question: How long does a level up take to complete?
Does it take a week? A month? How about a day? An hour? After the battle? During the battle?
The rules aren't clear on this; they say experience is awarded at the end of a game session, but a game session could potentially end at any time, even in the middle of combat. Even in the middle of resolving an attack roll.
Let's say a fighter is in the middle of attacking an enemy, but while the GM is determining whether it hits or misses, the session is forced to be ended due to some real-life emergency.
As written, the game session has ended. Experience is awarded, and the fighter levels up immediately. He chooses to take the Weapon Focus feat for his current weapon.
And, when the combat is resumed next game session, it turns out that the +1 from Weapon Focus is just enough to turn a miss into a hit.
I expect how level-ups are handled vary significantly by GM. What constitutes a game session may also vary. But it's a pretty complicated issue, I feel.
|
And, when the combat is resumed next game session, it turns out that the +1 from Weapon Focus is just enough to turn a miss into a hit.
I expect how level-ups are handled vary significantly by GM. What constitutes a game session may also vary. But it's a pretty complicated issue, I feel.
It doesn't seem like that complicated an issue really, the example you are sighting should never happen. The GM should never allow it to occur... unless he's doing it for dramatic purposes and wants it to happen story wise. For 'official' play... as in PFS.. it couldn't happen since there is no XP in the middle of a scenario. For home games... it's the GMs world so the rules as written are somewhat irrelevant. A GM who wants to complicate his life in this way.. gets what he gets from it... but it's his option and not really an official rules question.
"Should never happen", I agree with, though it sadly does not mean "does not happen". And it's good to know PFS has rules regarding explicitly when experience is awarded, as a 'by the books' environment like that is expressly what I was concerned about.
If PFS has rules about when experience is awarded, and anything not PFS lets a GM Rule Zero experience distribution, it seems all problems that might arise can be solved diplomatically.