| 12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The stipulations to gain both talents' on a single attack is easily done, however both add a fraction of your level to damage so I was wondering if this falls under the rule that the same thing can't be added to something more than once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yup they stack.
|
One adds "half his vigilante level", the other adds "a bonus equal to half his class level", so I believe they stack.
***EDIT***
Actually, if this FAQ is applicable, then it looks like they don't stack, since an untyped bonus equal to X is the same as adding X.
Every post I've seen about the two is saying they stack or a thread asking the question and being told they stack.
|
|
Every post I've seen about the two is saying they stack or a thread asking the question and being told they stack.
My inclination would be that they should, I just felt that it should probably be noted that if that FAQ is any precedent or indication, they may not. Probably worth FAQing in a proper post if the OP has any intention of using them in PFS or a similar environment.
|
|
I don't see how ability scores mods translates to class levels.
They're saying that an untyped bonus from X source counts as a bonus of that type and doesn't stack with itself, referencing abilities with wording almost identical to the ones under discussion. Can anyone actually provide a link to a developer discussing the vigilante abilities? There's a lot of "they said this" without any links or defining who "they" are, and I'd rather be working from some actual references than giving someone with an earnest rules question some baseless assurances that could come back to haunt him. I mean, Fist of the Avenger already has a (max +5) tag on it, so they clearly felt that even letting it stack all the way up on the 1/2 level scale was too much.
Essentially what I'm saying is, I personally think they should stack, but if I were the one asking the question, I'd want more than some vague assurances, particularly if the OP is asking this question for a character idea that may be played at PFS or some other public venue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ people have said more than once that FAQs only apply to what they are about and nothing more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ssalarn: I asked Mark on the scope of the FAQ at the time and he said it JUST covered ability scores and in general that FAQ's address ONLY the things in that FAQ. It seems that we aren't to draw ANY conclusions from FAQ's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ssalarn: I asked Mark on the scope of the FAQ at the time and he said it JUST covered ability scores and in general that FAQ's address ONLY the things in that FAQ. It seems that we aren't to draw ANY conclusions from FAQ's.
Right, that's why we shouldn't use the gang up FAQ to determine Ranged flanking... Oh wait.
Yeah, this "FAQ big" vs "FAQ small" I think depends on the day, the dev, the issue, and how hungry they are when they are posting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ssalarn: I asked Mark on the scope of the FAQ at the time and he said it JUST covered ability scores and in general that FAQ's address ONLY the things in that FAQ. It seems that we aren't to draw ANY conclusions from FAQ's.Right, that's why we shouldn't use the gang up FAQ to determine Ranged flanking... Oh wait.
Yeah, this "FAQ big" vs "FAQ small" I think depends on the day, the dev, the issue, and how hungry they are when they are posting.
LOL I know what you mean. At least on the FAQ in question, I can dig up a Mark post that says it's 'FAQ small'. In fact I recall my asking about things that reference your level specifically.
I think the moral is that they don't want US to draw conclusions but they don't follow those 'rules' themselves. ;)
Ssalarn: I asked Mark on the scope of the FAQ at the time and he said it JUST covered ability scores and in general that FAQ's address ONLY the things in that FAQ. It seems that we aren't to draw ANY conclusions from FAQ's.Right, that's why we shouldn't use the gang up FAQ to determine Ranged flanking... Oh wait.
Yeah, this "FAQ big" vs "FAQ small" I think depends on the day, the dev, the issue, and how hungry they are when they are posting.
LOL I know what you mean. At least on the FAQ in question, I can dig up a Mark post that says it's 'FAQ small'. In fact I recall my asking about things that reference your level specifically.
I think the moral is that they don't want US to draw conclusions but they don't follow those 'rules' themselves. ;)
I know, I remember you asking it and him saying to not apply it to other things. It just is hard that it's so difficult to know since the DEVs seemingly like unwritten rules.
|
|
and I'd rather be working from some actual references than giving someone with an earnest rules question some baseless assurances that could come back to haunt him.
I'd want more than some vague assurancesAt what point did reading what the actual rules say an ability does become vague and baseless?
When there is some question as to the interaction of the rules and a FAQ referencing a ruling that uses almost the exact same language to establish a possible precedent exists. And in all fairness, no one actually presented any rules evidence (other than the guy who posted the FAQ).
Have people become so skittish of FAQs that suddenly the books themselves don't matter because the developer bogeyman might change something sometime maybe?
Considering that that's exactly what happens over and over, yes. Particularly since this is an instance where they wouldn't need to "change" anything, just clarify intent to match up with existing rulings. More than that, the developers themselves have explicitly said that the things they say on the forums don't carry rules relevance unless they're in a FAQ, so Mark's assurances that it's a "small" FAQ as opposed to a "big" FAQ matter exactly as long as it takes the design team to change their mind or look for a precedent they've set when making another ruling. To be clear, I'm not impugning Mark's honesty or integrity, I'm saying you have a conservative design team who changes their mind or reacts to rulings differently as their mood, composition, and/or any of a number of other factors evolve and change. You have two abilities that use the same source to determine their advancement, both boost damage, and they're obviously tightly restricted already to limit how much bonus they can give. It's no stretch to expect that any clarification from the design team would be a ruling that they don't stack.
Right now there isn't even a proper FAQ post for the question under discussion and there aren't many people actually looking for an answer apparently, so I suppose it is whatever each group decides it is.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think the moral is that they don't want US to draw conclusions but they don't follow those 'rules' themselves. ;)
+1
get the general intent from one and extrapolate. In this case, its a mess because they couldn't alter the rules like they intended. Treating each attribute as its own bonus type is a much cleaner solution than the one they gave
Ability mods stacking has been a question for a while. Every developer (or even employee) response on here said they didn't stack. I always felt it came down to "same source" issues, where you had to deal with the ability (if you had the same ability twice) and the attribute (as a source if two different named abilities granted the same attribute.)
I'm not sure on this question. I could see it either way (different sources and it doesn't matter each uses a multiplication on your level) or that it's basically level to blah twice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't the Daring Champion Cavalier already add level to damage with Precise Strike and then level to damage again with Challenge? This seems to be following the same mold, two untyped bonuses to damage that scale off of character level.
I believe this was the example used when the FAQ came out asking if it extended to levels or not to which Mark responded to only use the FAQ with attributes.
I'm going to think no.
When you have X ability to add Y to damage, and Z ability to add Y to damage, Y is the source of that damage, not the things that let you get it there. Y is the lake, X and Z are the pipes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that is what the double dipping FAQ said for stats and we were told that it was only a rule for stats and not to extrapolate it to other things. So Level isn't a source.
Except that is what the double dipping FAQ said for stats and we were told that it was only a rule for stats and not to extrapolate it to other things. So Level isn't a source.
Even without the FAQ you can make the argument that level is the source.
Source is a vague term but its always applied to the thing you're using to get the number, not the thing that lets you use that number in a place you usually can't.
You can not definitively say that the level is not the source. You can try to argue that the feat or class feature orwhat have you is the source, but we do know that thats not always the case and it didn't work so well last time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
level isn't a source.
|
|
So to turn the rule around from the other side, can a Daring Champion not add challenge damage to attacks when using Precise Strike since while they come from different abilities the scaling source for both is level? Lethal Grace and Fist of the Avenger work the same as far as i can tell. The damage comes from different abilities but the scaling of the damage both look at the same source.Except that is what the double dipping FAQ said for stats and we were told that it was only a rule for stats and not to extrapolate it to other things. So Level isn't a source.Even without the FAQ you can make the argument that level is the source.
Source is a vague term but its always applied to the thing you're using to get the number, not the thing that lets you use that number in a place you usually can't.
You can not definitively say that the level is not the source. You can try to argue that the feat or class feature orwhat have you is the source, but we do know that thats not always the case and it didn't work so well last time.
If the ruling on the subject were to match the same formula as the ruling on ability score bonuses (and yes, it's possible that it may not, but it may), they should actually stack. Precise Strike is typed damage (precision) while challenge damage is untyped. In the ability score bonus FAQ, typed bonuses based on a metric (in that specific case, your ability bonus) specifically stack with untyped ones, it's only untyped bonuses that don't stack with each other.
So, if Fist of the Avenger is an untyped bonus to damage based on your class level, then Lethal Grace, which is also based on your class level, would need to be a typed bonus for them to stack. Since they're both untyped and arguably from the same source (class level), it's possible that they don't/won't stack.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The stipulations to gain both talents' on a single attack is easily done, however both add a fraction of your level to damage so I was wondering if this falls under the rule that the same thing can't be added to something more than once.
Normally for a FAQ request the design team asks that you put the actual question in the post people are supposed to be clicking on, preferably bolded. Like-
Do the damage bonuses from the vigilante talents Fist of the Avenger and Lethal Grace stack?
That may be one of the reasons this question seems to be gathering attention and divide opinions but few clicks.
level isn't a source.
Which we know because....?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ooh, i hadn't thought of that. Is there a better point of comparison to this situation then? Risky Striker and Power Attack perhaps?
Hmm... Maybe? Probably not. They both use BAB as a metric for advancement, but the bonus isn't actually coming from BAB, if you follow me.
For example, Risky Striker and Power Attack are both worded "[...]take a –1 penalty to [AC or attack rolls] to gain a +2 bonus on melee damage rolls [...]. When your base attack bonus reaches +4 and every 4 [levels or points] thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the damage bonus increases by 2."
The BAB is used to establish the formula for the advancement, but the bonus is pretty clearly coming from the feat. Contrast with Fist of the Avenger-
"[...]gains a bonus on melee damage rolls equal to half his vigilante level[...]"
and Lethal Grace-
"[...]also adds half his vigilante level on damage rolls[..]"
Where it's the vigilante level itself that is arguably the source of the bonus. The issue is that the only other mechanics I'm aware of that you really see using the same wording are abilities based on ability score bonuses, which wouldn't stack using the same wording, but which people are arguing (perhaps rightly) are unique in their ruling and shouldn't indicate precedent.
As an aside-
I actually just noticed something interesting about Risky Striker. Power Attack says "When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter..." while Risky Striker says ""When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 levels thereafter...". Anyone else catch that? So, RAW, a single classed Rogue gets -1/+2 from Risky Striker at 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th, instead of at 6th, 11th, and 16th like they would from Power Attack. I'd be curious to know if that was intentional.
|
|
But if we are splitting hairs that finely is it not then that Fist of the Avenger works as Risky Striker or Power Attack in that FotA itself is the source that just scales according to level whereas Lethal Grace is sourced straight from level?
This is focusing on FotA wording of bonus "equal to" whereas Lethal Grace uses "adds" such that one is a direct addition to damage whereas the other is a derivative that progresses based on level.
EDIT: uggh. Trying to parse out rules this finely is giving me headaches again.. :(
The issue is that the exact same wording for Fist of the Avenger and Lethal Grace, if they said "Charisma bonus" instead of "class level", would be clearly indicated by the FAQ to not stack. So the question is, is "class level" a source in the same way that "ability score bonus" is a source? This was something that was argued before the FAQ, and never really got answered except in the very narrow and specific instance of ability score bonuses. If so, then an untyped bonus equal to X, and just adding X, are the same thing from a rules perspective, whereas a typed bonus equal to X would be something different.
And agreed, it is a bit headachey.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark said to not extrapolate That FAQ to class levels.
|
|
Okay, lets make this a bit worse then. If there was a copy and paste of words from one ability to the next then i would agree with you on sourcing though still be uncertain if level dependent abilities use the same FAQ as ability score dependent sourcing. However these abilities use a close to the same but not exact wording which is enough to make me uncertain on both stacking and actual sources for damage.It is simply an assumption on my part that the authors would intend for these abilities to stack as they are both meant for the same class and work in such a similar way but one is restricted to a more heavily combat focused version of the class. That seems an ideal way to give both some combat power but the one who is meant to fight better still fights better.
Here's the relevant wording from the FAQ (note that I am only copying the bit specific to the wording under discussion)-
"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."
So, if the FAQ were to be any indication about how Fist of the Avenger and Lethal Grace would be ruled, "a bonus equal to half vigilante level" is the same thing as "adds half vigilante level".
Notice that the example wording of something that doesn't stack is identical in its structure and framing to the vigilante abilities.
|
|
Mark said to not extrapolate That FAQ to class levels.
Link it. I can't comment on what someone is saying someone else said. I can note, however, that the design team has specifically said that comments they make on the forums aren't binding unless they're in an FAQ.
Case in point-
No, and this is one of the points I want to make. Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.
Emphasis added and quote trimmed for space.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's not stating a rule, he's stating that this FAQ is only covering ability scores and not to extend it to things not directly in the scope of the FAQ.
|
|
He's not stating a rule, he's stating that this FAQ is only covering ability scores and not to extend it to things not directly in the scope of the FAQ.
He actually says "there's not some further scope that this FAQ is currently intended to reach", which to me comes off as "we're not saying this same logic won't be used in reference to level, but we're not saying it will just yet either". That looks more like the design team hadn't had time to specifically discuss where they wanted to go and were only willing to discuss that specific topic at that point in time. It definitely doesn't close the door on anything.
Sslarn, i see what you mean now by identical. Thanks for pointing it out :)
Yeah, no problem!
Looking at the quote from Mr. Seifter, "Agnostic of whether level might become a source (we didn't say it was)" is that an official "No Comment" on the issue? Effectively it is up to the table until such time as a FAQ is issued?
That's what I got out of it. He didn't really fall either way, he just said they haven't made a decision about it yet and the FAQ isn't specifically addressing that issue yet. It still may be relevant.
Just look at the way he responded:
Also, to everyone looking at "level as a source" and the swashbuckler's precise strike deed. Agnostic of whether level might become a source (we didn't say it was)
They didn't say it wasn't, either.
, the deed say it doubles the bonus, so it's a multiplier and would work regardless.
Rules neutral ruling that works whether or not level is a source
Anyway, there is not some further scope that this FAQ is currently intended to reach. It's more that there's a discipline about reducing (or not increasing) bonus types that I didn't know about.
So there's an outstanding policy of not increasing the number of bonus types, but...
Given the confusion with the sources explanation, we shall see if there might be a consensus that this time it's worth it.
So source =/= bonus type, but they created a tenuous tie between the two for the purposes of creating a FAQ that follows some form of logic. Given that they're sane people who try to make logically consistent rulings, and that they specifically avoided commenting either way on level as a source, I'd say that the best case scenario we can extract from Mark's statement is that they simply haven't dug into all the materials that might reference level as a source and didn't want to make an absolute ruling at the time. Future rulings could still go either way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's not stating a rule, he's stating that this FAQ is only covering ability scores and not to extend it to things not directly in the scope of the FAQ.
Which means that its not absolute proof that they don't stack.
But the options are not "absolute proof that it doesn't stack" or "I get to stack them".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
yes a future ruling could. But until then it's not. That this FAQ was only for stats. So if you can find one rule support, outside this FAQ to imply that level is a source then you have a stance for level being a source. But if the only support you have for the idea is this FAQ that we're told doesn't apply to level then level isn't a source. Yes a future rules change could make it one like it make stat a source. But I prefer to play the game as is, not as it might be in the future.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yes a future ruling could. But until then it's not. That this FAQ was only for stats. So if you can find one rule support, outside this FAQ to imply that level is a source then you have a stance for level being a source. But if the only support you have for the idea is this FAQ that we're told doesn't apply to level then level isn't a source. Yes a future rules change could make it one like it make stat a source. But I prefer to play the game as is, not as it might be in the future.
"Source" isn't actually a clearly defined game term, and Mark never said that the logic of the FAQ doesn't apply, just that addressing the specific question of whether or not level was a source was not something they were trying to address at that time. Mark essentially presented us with Schroedinger's source, which both is and isn't until an actual ruling is made.
In fact, they side-stepped having to address the question "what counts as a source" at all by creating the tie between ability bonuses and type, so if I had to guess, I'd hazard that the design team hasn't even reached a consensus on what counts as a "source", and by the sound of it, they don't really want to.
Bonuses from the same source don't stack, but whether or not "level" is a source is undefined in the rules, and could be ruled either way. If you happen to be looking for a direction on how to rule, the history and association with other rulings is pretty clearly heading in the opposite direction of them stacking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also on second glance, that FAQ isn't written very well. It should be referencing bonus type, not bonus source, but that's neither here nor there.
The problem was they couldn't make stat a type, as that apparently would mess up the CRB. So instead of doing the simple fix they made it behave as if it was a type by calling it a second source for untyped bonuses.
So if you treat it as untyped bonuses = stats are actually stat typed you successfully follow the FAQ. But they are actually still untyped that comes from both the feat Mark's awesome feat and from the stat. It's currently the only thing that has two sources, and the only place you'll find in the rules to do this is that FAQ. Otherwise you'd say the source was the feat, since that actually makes sense.
if you can find one rule support, outside this FAQ to imply that level is a source then you have a stance for level being a source
Source. Where it comes from. Where is that number coming from on your character sheet.
I'm adding 7 or half of seven. Where does the damage come from? Your level.
Where does the other damage come from? your level.
That's the source.
You don't get to claim absolute proof for the idea that gives you a mechanical advantage while playing epistemic nihilist with the opposing opinion. You take the evidence for the position and the evidence against it. Stacking has a lot of evidence against it BEFORE the FAQ weighs in and that pretty much buries it.
yes a future ruling could. But until then it's not
No. Until then you have to decide based on the best evidence available. That evidence does NOT point towards stacking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, these are both vigilante talents, that are clearly designed to be possible to be taken together. If they don't stack, it's a deliberate trap option. Absent any other ruling, I rule on the side that allows an ability to work.
Why is it clear that they are designed to be compatible? This is Pathfinder, deliberate trap options happen all the time.
If the ruling on the subject were to match the same formula as the ruling on ability score bonuses (and yes, it's possible that it may not, but it may), they should actually stack. Precise Strike is typed damage (precision) while challenge damage is untyped. In the ability score bonus FAQ, typed bonuses based on a metric (in that specific case, your ability bonus) specifically stack with untyped ones, it's only untyped bonuses that don't stack with each other.
Do you have the text for these ? Having trouble with my google fu today
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The source are the vigilante talents. The vigilante talents are letting you add damage. Level is not adding damage. Fist of the avenger and lethal grace are adding damage.