Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Maybe, but that's... how did you put it earlier, baseless assumptions?
I disagree. There's a clear ruling "bonuses from the same source don't stack" and then an unclear rules area "what is a source". There's also a consistent rules history of overly similar items not stacking- you can't stack size increases with size increases, you can't stack virtual size increases with virtual size increases, etc. There's also a FAQ referencing another situation that uses almost identical wording, and in that situation, the ruling is that the items don't stack. It's not a baseless assumption to say "Gee, if 1+1=2 here, than 1+1 should probably equal 2 there as well".
Ultimately you're saying that... because an FAQ made a ruling on a completely different topic, a vaguely similar ruling might also be applied to a different set of rules for completely different reasons at some undetermined time in the future.
I'm saying that because a FAQ says two items with specific wording in the same general rules area as the topic of discussion don't stack, two other items with nearly identical wording in a similar situation probably don't stack either.
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.
I actually agree. There was some attempt in the FAQ to make "source" and "type" equivalent, when that also isn't something that the rules really touch on. Type is specifically defined, source is not, and there are instances where they are definitely two different things (such as when seeing what temporary hit point sources stack).
Regardless of whether the FAQ could have been done better, the reality is that it exists, and the fact that it includes an example of non-stacking benefits that use nearly identical verbage to the ones under discussion makes it relevant. The only assumption made at any point is assuming that if one previously undefined source using the exact same wording as a currently undefined source doesn't stack, than the other one shouldn't either, and that's no greater a leap (markedly less so, I would say), than assuming that just because two things are presented in exactly the same way they should act differently with absolutely no reason why the behavior should change when the circumstances haven't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The source are the vigilante talents.
You don't know this. You have no evidence for this. This doesn't make sense. Stating it over and over does not make it true.
This didn't make sense when you tried the exact same argument for stat stacking and it doesn't make sense now either. The talent cannot be the sole source of the effect because the talent alone does not tell you anything. With the talent alone you have no idea what number to add.
The vigilante talents are letting you add damage. Level is not adding damage. Fist of the avenger and lethal grace are adding damage.
They are adding your level to damage. The level is the source. (or at least a source) Same as piping lake water into your house. The lake is a source.
It would be believable if one is untyped and one is precision. THAT would be a good argument. This? Not so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a baseless assumption to say "Gee, if 1+1=2 here, than 1+1 should probably equal 2 there as well".
But it's not 1+1 over there. it's 2+2, a similar question, but not the same. so 2+2 might be told to equal 4 or 2 like the first problem. But until they make a rule saying level is a source we're not to use the attribute stacking FAQ to rule anything but attribute stacking.
I'm done. I'm not going to get involved discussing this again, there's no point in going over the same arguments again. Create a thread for a FAQ, I'll click it and maybe get told I'm wrong. But I'm done.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does a Fighter Weapon Training bonus come from the Weapon Training ability or the (level based) formula? Because if the latter, any other ability that gave damage bonuses at levels 5, 9, 13, or 17 would be duplicative under the "level is the source" ruling. That would seem weird! And yet directly analogous to the straight "add half your level" calculation.
I happen to think Chess Pwn is right from a common sense standpoint, Ssalarn is right from a "what deeply flawed 'logic' would the PDT apply if forced to answer this question" view. The correct answer is to apply it the former way now and curse them later.
|
Design Manager
|
The source are the vigilante talents.You don't know this. You have no evidence for this. This doesn't make sense. Stating it over and over does not make it true.
This didn't make sense when you tried the exact same argument for stat stacking and it doesn't make sense now either. The talent cannot be the sole source of the effect because the talent alone does not tell you anything. With the talent alone you have no idea what number to add.
The vigilante talents are letting you add damage. Level is not adding damage. Fist of the avenger and lethal grace are adding damage.They are adding your level to damage. The level is the source. (or at least a source) Same as piping lake water into your house. The lake is a source.
It would be believable if one is untyped and one is precision. THAT would be a good argument. This? Not so much.
^^ Very much this. That's the question here, is "what is the source"? We know from page 208 of the CRB that "bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source".
So hypothetical- I have two feats, both of which allow me to add my shield bonus as an untyped bonus to my Reflex save. Do they stack? I would say no, because the shield is the source of the bonus, the feats are just the things giving me access to that bonus, in the same way that in BNW's example, the lake is the source of the water, not the pipes that carry the water from the lake. Anything that contaminates or changes the nature of the lake will affect every pipe running into the lake. Similarly, class level is the source of the bonus for the vigilante talents. The talents themselves don't give you +X to damage, they let you add 1/2 your class level to damage. That bonus goes or up or down dependent on your vigilante class level. If I am an 8th level vigilante, I get a +4 via that ability, but if I retrain two of those levels to wizard, my bonus goes down to +3. It's the class level that's the source, because it's the class level that determines the value. And if that's true, that the class level is the source, than the rules are very clear that the two abilities don't stack.
Does a Fighter Weapon Training bonus come from the Weapon Training ability or the (level based) formula? Because if the latter, any other ability that gave damage bonuses at levels 5, 9, 13, and 17 would conflict under the "level is the source" ruling. That would seem weird! And yet directly analogous to the straight "add half your level" calculation.
I happen to think Chess Pwn is right from a common sense standpoint, Ssalarn is right from a "what deeply flawed 'logic' would the PDT apply if forced to answer this question" view. The correct answer is to apply it the former way now and curse them later.
The big thing there is that the Fighter Weapon Training never says to add "[your Fighter] level" or even "a bonus equal to [your Fighter] level]" to damage, it gives you level markers for when a separately defined bonus increases. Lethal Grace is different, in that it is directly adding 1/2 level to damage, and Fist of the Avenger is adding "a bonus equal to 1/2 level". Weapon Training is clearly creating a new "pool" for the bonus, while the vigilante talents are drawing from the same existing pool.
Back in, oh, 2012, before the FAQ on ability bonuses, Weapon Finesse/Agile Maneuvers and Fury's Fall were a topic of discussion because they were abilities that all allowed you to do the same thing in one form or another- add your Dexterity to your CMB. In that argument, many noted that they don't stack because they're all giving you the same benefit. They were three different ways of accomplishing the same goal, though they did work a bit differently (one was specific to weapons, one was specific to maneuvers, one also let you keep your STR bonus to a specific type of maneuver check). It was the same argument there, that the "source" was your Dex bonus. The ability bonus FAQ unfortunately side-stepped the discussion entirely and created a ruling that largely sat apart from existing rules structures.
To clarify my stance real quick- I don't think there is a clear rules answer either way, and it seems that this is an area where the design team has preferred not to provide one. As such, whether they stack or not is currently in the hands of the individual GM. I suspect that an eventual ruling will be that they don't stack, because that's the logical understanding one would reach by looking at previous rulings and similar rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm done. I'm not going to get involved discussing this again, there's no point in going over the same arguments again. Create a thread for a FAQ, I'll click it and maybe get told I'm wrong. But I'm done.
You know I said back that the FAQ was made that it'd confuse everything and no one would EVER be sure what was a source ever again. But Mark assured me that the FAQ was ONLY about stats...
Now we have a thread about multiple sources again... Yeah, that FAQ needs burned with fire. This is exactly what I thought would happen. So I'm with you Chess Pwn. I'm just going to sit here, play my lyre and watch Rome burn as I say "I told you so"...
It's not even like the vigilante was the first class to have two separate +level to damage mechanics, Daring Champion Cavalier has had challenge + precise strike for two years.
These maybe have different types since the precise strike is precision damage.
|
Design Manager
|
It's not even like the vigilante was the first class to have two separate +level to damage mechanics, Daring Champion Cavalier has had challenge + precise strike for two years.
In that instance, you at least have the benefit of the two damage types being different, in that Challenge is untyped and Precise Strike is precision damage, so assuming they stack is consistent with the way things have been ruled thus far.
They're also both from limited resource pools, so they don't even provide a terribly good precedent for "balance" compared to the unlimited vigilante abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A developer clarified that at this time the FAQ applies only to what it covers (explicitly mentioning levels no less) so currently they are unnamed bonuses, which stack. We can spend days arguing whether they should or not, but as is thems the rules.
Think it shouldn't? Make a FAQ and I'll gladly hit it.
Personally I see no reason why they shouldn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A developer clarified that at this time the FAQ applies only to what it covers (explicitly mentioning levels no less) so currently they are unnamed bonuses, which stack. We can spend days arguing whether they should or not, but as is thems the rules.
Developer comments have no rules weight, thems actually the rules, unless in a FAQ or published by the PDT account. We can only interpret the FAQ in light of its own language and the other rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The source are the vigilante talents.You don't know this. You have no evidence for this. This doesn't make sense. Stating it over and over does not make it true.
If the talents aren't the source, why does taking them give you bonus damage? That doesn't make sense to me.
A developer clarified that at this time the FAQ applies only to what it covers (explicitly mentioning levels no less) so currently they are unnamed bonuses, which stack. We can spend days arguing whether they should or not, but as is thems the rules.
No. they're not.
You have two things from the same source. They don't stack unless they're different types of bonuses.
If the talents aren't the source, why does taking them give you bonus damage? That doesn't make sense to me.
Because they take something that doesn't normally give bonus damage and make it do so, just like the lake water doesn't normally run into my kitchen but will if i put in a pipe. Yes you can say the water is coming out of the pipe but thats not mutually exclusive with the water coming from the lake.
|
Design Manager
|
Do you have the text for these ? Having trouble with my google fu today
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.
It's not even like the vigilante was the first class to have two separate +level to damage mechanics, Daring Champion Cavalier has had challenge + precise strike for two years.
This has come up a couple times, so I thought I'd drop Precise Strike and Challenge in for reference-
At 3rd level, while she has at least 1 panache point, a swashbuckler gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon (though not a natural weapon), adding her swashbuckler level to the damage dealt. To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her off hand or use a shield other than a buckler. She can use this ability even with thrown light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, so long as the target is within 30 feet of her. Any creature that is immune to sneak attacks is immune to the additional damage granted by precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from the additional damage of a precise strike. This additional damage is precision damage, and isn't multiplied on a critical hit.
Once per day, a cavalier can challenge a foe to combat. As a swift action, the cavalier chooses one target within sight to challenge. The cavalier's melee attacks deal extra damage whenever the attacks are made against the target of his challenge. This extra damage is equal to the cavalier's level. The cavalier can use this ability once per day at 1st level, plus one additional time per day for every three levels beyond 1st, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level.
Challenging a foe requires much of the cavalier's concentration. The cavalier takes a –2 penalty to his Armor Class, except against attacks made by the target of his challenge.
The challenge remains in effect until the target is dead or unconscious or until the combat ends. Each cavalier's challenge also includes another effect which is listed in the section describing the cavalier's order.
Sslarn: And what about the vigilante talents?
|
Design Manager
|
Sslarn: And what about the vigilante talents?
The vigilante combines strength and speed into incredibly deadly attacks. He gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat, and if he already has the Weapon Finesse feat, he can immediately swap it for another feat for which he qualified at the level he chose Weapon Finesse. When using Weapon Finesse to make a melee attack using his Dexterity bonus on attack rolls and his Strength bonus on damage rolls, he also adds half his vigilante level on damage rolls. This bonus damage is not reduced or increased if the vigilante is wielding a weapon two-handed or in an off-hand.
And reposting for completeness sake-
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.
How does it not make sense that a class feature that grants you a bonus might very well be the source for the bonus it gives you?
It makes sense that its A source.
It does not make sense that its the ONLY source when it has to reference something else, get another number, or draw a little arrow from one part of your character sheet into another (or reference a different cel number in a spreadsheet for all you heathen computer using whippersnappers out there)
And as much as people try to pretend the other faq doesn't do anything but what it says it does, it does clarify that thats how sources work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does it not make sense that a class feature that grants you a bonus might very well be the source for the bonus it gives you?
It makes sense that its A source.
It does not make sense that its the ONLY source when it has to reference something else, get another number, or draw a little arrow from one part of your character sheet into another (or reference a different cel number in a spreadsheet for all you heathen computer using whippersnappers out there)
And as much as people try to pretend the other faq doesn't do anything but what it says it does, it does clarify that thats how sources work.
Except we've been told that FAQs only effect what they talk about and Mark specifically said to not extend this FAQ to other things like levels.
*note, this isn't about sources of things so it's okay :D
Well, as said before I'd argue it actually does a lot less to clarify how sources work. Because now suddenly source and bonus are the same things sometimes which is very messy and weird. But that's for another thread.
They've always been the same thing. It goes back to the tried and true rule of shared dipping sauce: NO double dipping. You can't get the same thing to the same thing twice.
|
Design Manager
|
Except we've been told that FAQs only effect what they talk about and Mark specifically said to not extend this FAQ to other things like levels.
Mark's quote actually was posted and responded to earlier, and he didn't actually say that. In fact, he made a very big point of not saying anything one way or the other, besides to note that the only question the design team was attempting to answer was the one about ability bonuses. He actually refused to take a stance one way or the other regarding levels as a source.
That doesn't mean the FAQ isn't a logical reference point or that it doesn't set a precedent, particularly for abilities using nearly identical wording to the example.***
I'll also say that I'll be really disappointed if they do make them nonstacking, since by all appearances it looks like they should stack. Pretty much everyone I've ever seen reading through the vigilante has more or less paired those two talents together in their head as what you pick to make an unarmed vigilante.***
I actually expected this come up the moment I read the Vigilante. It just took a while for the class to catch on enough for the question to hit the forums.
It all ties back to a basic unanswered rules question "what is a source?"
As long as that remains unanswered and they use the word source for describing stacking interactions, it's going to come up, particularly when you're putting out related FAQs that hint at an answer but refuse to actually address it directly.
*note, this isn't about sources of things so it's okay :D
You're trying to take "we don't absolutely know" and make it mean "we absolutely know the exact opposite of the direction that all the evidence is pointing." That doesn't work.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The source for damage is not your level, it is the ability or talent or [whatever].
The FAQ adds that ability modifiers count as the same source if the bonuses are untyped. This only extends to ability modifiers.
The reason we are even worried about this:
Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
So we have to determine whether two different talents are the same source... Are they the same talent? No. Are they the same numerical increase to damage? Yes.
What's more important to determining "source"ness? The amount or the talent? I'm inclined to say the talent, since we don't discriminate between untyped numerical increases in other cases such as whether the +1 of Weapon Focus stacks with the +1 of Weapon Training.
Its not the amount its where its from, which is what source means
If i'm an inquisitor with that archtype i'm too lazy to look up a +3 wisdom and +3 charisma i can stack them on diplomacy even though they're both +3 because my wisdom and charisma are differnt things.
Both talents give you a fraction of your vigilante level to damage. My vigilante level IS my vigilante level. Its the law of identity with or without the FAQ. The faq just ramps the evidence for it up to 11.
Why is it that using the faq as additional evidence is WORSE than just arbitrarily making up a rule that the source is the feat or feature UNLESS its an ability score? Or that this logic, which existed before the faq, is completely wrong but just HAPPENED to fit nearly perfectly with the faq anyway?
So how do you determine sourcyness? Look on your character sheet. Try to trace a number back as far as you can. Everything along that line is A source. When you can't track it back anymore, thats THE source.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both talents give you a fraction of your vigilante level to damage. My vigilante level IS my vigilante level. Its the law of identity with or without the FAQ. The faq just ramps the evidence for it up to 11.
The FAQ tells us about ability modifiers being added as bonuses, nothing else.
Why is it that using the faq as additional evidence is WORSE than just arbitrarily making up a rule that the source is the feat or feature UNLESS its an ability score? Or that this logic, which existed before the faq, is completely wrong but just HAPPENED to fit nearly perfectly with the faq anyway?
The FAQ tells us about what the FAQ tells us about, which isn't adding fractions of levels to anything.
So how do you determine sourcyness? Look on your character sheet. Try to trace a number back as far as you can. Everything along that line is A source. When you can't track it back anymore, thats THE source.
That's a way of looking at it, sure. The rules don't tell us to trace things like that. Seems like a complicated way of deciding something, why is it unwritten in the rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't see how the level is the source of the bonus when without the talents you don't ever get the bonus. Your level is merely how high or low said bonus is.
The FAQ on ability scores has no bearing on that, despite similarities, until someone at Paizo decides to make an FAQ.
The FAQ tells us about ability modifiers being added as bonuses, nothing else.
The FAQ tells us this idea that the source has to be the ability that gives you the bonus and nothing else, that was already unevidenced to start with, is false.
That's a way of looking at it, sure. The rules don't tell us to trace things like that.
They do. They use the word source, that's what it means in the dictionary. That's what it means in the faq.
Seems like a complicated way of deciding something
You literally cannot get simpler than than no double dipping. This is the easy part to understand. (the as if or an x bonus equal to is the hard part)
why is it unwritten in the rules?
It IS written in the rules.
I just don't see how the level is the source of the bonus when without the talents you don't ever get the bonus. Your level is merely how high or low said bonus is.
The FAQ on ability scores has no bearing on that, despite similarities, until someone at Paizo decides to make an FAQ.
It has every bearing on that because it confirms what a lot of people already knew about how sources work.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character’s class is one of his most defining features. It’s the source of most of his abilities, and gives him a specific role in any adventuring party.
So by tracing everything back to THE source...
bonus damage->Lethal Grace->Vigilante Talents class feature->Vigilante Class
...I end up with an interpretation where all untyped bonuses given to me by anything related to my class shouldn't stack, right? Doesn't matter if it's calculated using half my level or my charisma mod, if it's an untyped bonus from something class related, it doesn't stack with things from the same source, the same class in this example.
This is a nonsensical outcome.
.
This is a nonsensical outcome.
Look, you need to come to a genuine rules question with a QUESTION. Not an answer you want and any and all means to get there and not a predetermined outcome you want, especially when the result is the more powerful option.
RAI You can't double dip. getting your vigilante level twice is double dipping
RAW The word source may be vague, but its certainly a viable reading that something that references something else for a value that something else is also a source for that thing. Pretending the FAQ doesn't exist because it shuts down the answer you want, hard, rather than it just being probably wrong, is silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character’s class is one of his most defining features. It’s the source of most of his abilities, and gives him a specific role in any adventuring party.So by tracing everything back to THE source...
bonus damage->Lethal Grace->Vigilante Talents class feature->Vigilante Class
...I end up with an interpretation where all untyped bonuses given to me by anything related to my class shouldn't stack, right? Doesn't matter if it's calculated using half my level or my charisma mod, if it's an untyped bonus from something class related, it doesn't stack with things from the same source, the same class in this example.
This is a nonsensical outcome.
Don't forget if your class gives you bonus feats than any untyped bonuses THEY give would also wouldn't stack. So that Weapon focus and weapon specialization doesn't stack with weapon training if you get them with bonus feats. And no feat gotten from character levels could ever stack as the source of the feat is your levels...
BigNorseWolf: How are you figuring "vigilante level twice is double dipping" when the abilities in question don't add up to more than your level? 1/2 + 1/2 = 1.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My interpretation:
Untyped bonuses stack, unless they are from the same source.
"Source" is the means that gives you the bonus, such as a feat, class ability, trait, etc. Additionally, an ability modifier counts as a source of related to an untyped bonus.
A class level is not the means that gives you the bonus in this case, but rather Lethal Grace. The stalker talent is the source of the extra damage, it grants you untyped bonus damage.
/interpretation
@BNW What are your thoughts on this rules interpretation?
We KNOW that that definition is wrong. They specifically avoided making str dex con int wis charisma types of bonuses and called it the source. It would be very weird if a source was the means that gives you the bonus, such as a feat, class ability, trait, etc.EXCEPT ability score bonuses.
Also there's no reason something can't have two sources, the pipe that gets it there and the lake it comes from
Even without the FAQ that definition is arbitrary. If someone asks what the source of my water is i don't say "the sink" : they want to know if its river water or lake water. (lake by the way, you really really want lake)
What would the source on a strength bonus to attack be? That comes standard.
For me its "where is that number coming from" not "how did it get there" . I am from new york, not the highway that got me..wherever i am.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swoosh: a deflection bonus equal to your charisma modifier is not an untyped source.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your character level is not some lake of untyped bonus waiting to be tapped. It isn't a source.
The source is what generates the bonus. The vigilante talents generate the bonus, not your level. Weapon Focus generates the bonus, not the number 1 or the number system.
Even when you try to do your tracing method back as far is it can go, finding all of the sources, you end up matching sources on class abilities and the class itself and your level and even your experience pool. That creates a result where no untyped bonus derived from class related anything can stack.
@BNW: You can argue that your interpretation matches the RAI and RAW for the FAQ, but the rest of us aren't considering that to be a valid way of deciding because we've been told the FAQ only relates to the contents of the FAQ. You using it as an extrapolation for something separate and non-ability modifier related is not RAW or RAI. The developers explicitly do not intend for us to use FAQ's for subjects they don't cover. Adding a level as a bonus is not covered by the FAQ.
Your character level is not some lake of untyped bonus waiting to be tapped. It isn't a source.
Citation? What is the evidence for this statement?
The evidence to the contrary is that if i have 1/2 of 8 to damage , where does the 8 come from? My vigilante level. How did i get it? My vigilante level. What cel on my character sheet did i reference for the math? My vigilante level.
A fair examination says to pick the best explanation, not that one explanation has to be absolutely perfect and the other merely logically consistent.
There is nothing that prevents a feat or class feature from being a way to get from the source to a result it doesn't normally apply to: that is in fact what a lot of class features DO. Saying that it can't happen is unevidenced to start with, but when we know that that's what does happen with other class features and other numbers the idea that it can't happen is definitely bunk. Proving that Dolphins are conscious doesn't prove that porpoises are conscious but it DOES disprove the argument that porpoises can't be conscious because they're animals. That's what you're relying on: a disproven idea that only the most proximate step in the chain can be the source.
@BNW: You can argue that your interpretation matches the RAI and RAW for the FAQ but the rest of us aren't considering that to be a valid way of deciding because we've been told the FAQ only relates to the contents of the FAQ.
Without the FAQ it is still a valid interpretation, and the one with the most evidence. It fits the meaning of the word source and it fits the intent of the rule which is to avoid double dipping.
With the FAQ it is the valid interpretation. The idea that the source MUST be the feat or ability was completely unevidenced before the faq and it only got worse after. You keep arguing that the source is as you've defined it but that doesn't match the meaning of the word source, it doesn't match and most of all it opens up unintended exploits that the source rule exists to stop, has absolutely NO evidence for it, AND completely ignores why the rule exists in the first place. You are starting with NO evidence for a position and then ignoring any and all evidence that the position is wrong.
The rationale existed before the FAQ. The rationale was good then, the faq made it better, or do you think the rationale happened to be right on accident, at random, for no reason? That alone would be weird. Saying that the answer I'm giving MUST be wrong because the FAQ can't back it up is mindbogglingly random. There is no sane logic by which the FAQ means that everything not in the FAQ automatically works the exact opposite way that the faq works.
Without the FAQ you do not have "they stack" as an answer. Without the FAQ your answer is "there's a small chance they might stack" With the FAQ that small hope is gone.
I do not need to get an FAQ to change anything. They don't stack at the moment. If they intended them to work together, they need to change the wording.
An evoker wizard casting wall of fire. Wall of fire does 2d6+1/level. Intense spells would fail to function because you are already adding your level to damage.
Are there any other real conflicts that depend on level as a source?
Erm.. no.
Intensify lifts the level limit. So instead of topping out at 20, an intensified wall of fire cast by a 25th level wizard would do 2d6+25 damage. Changing the spell from 2d6+L and caping L at 20 to 2d6 +L cap L at 25 is not getting 2L.
|
An evoker wizard casting wall of fire. Wall of fire does 2d6+1/level. Intense spells would fail to function because you are already adding your level to damage.
Are there any other real conflicts that depend on level as a source?Erm.. no.
Intensify lifts the level limit. So instead of topping out at 20, an intensified wall of fire cast by a 25th level wizard would do 2d6+25 damage. Changing the spell from 2d6+L and caping L at 20 to 2d6 +L cap L at 25 is not getting 2L.
No, intense spells. Not Intensify metamagic, but the evoker school ability that adds +1/2 level to any spell that deals damage.
No, intense spells. Not Intensify metamagic, but the evoker school ability that adds +1/2 level to any spell that deals damage.
Whenever you cast an evocation spell that deals hit point damage, add 1/2 your wizard level to the damage
Your wizard level and your caster level are technically different things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Draconic Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell with an energy descriptor that matches your draconic bloodline's energy type, that spell deals +1 point of damage per die rolled.
Orc Bloodline Arcana: You gain the orc subtype, including darkvision 60 feet and light sensitivity. If you already have darkvision, its range increases to 90 feet. Whenever you cast a spell that deals damage, that spell deals +1 point of damage per die rolled
Would "per die rolled" count as a "source" and that means a crossblooded sorcerer using a specific dranonic element damaging spell wouldn't be able to stack the "+1 point of damage per die rolled"?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, intense spells. Not Intensify metamagic, but the evoker school ability that adds +1/2 level to any spell that deals damage.Whenever you cast an evocation spell that deals hit point damage, add 1/2 your wizard level to the damage
Your wizard level and your caster level are technically different things.
But the source of your caster level is your wizard level so it's the same source in the end, under your interpretation.