But the source of your caster level is your wizard level so it's the same source in the end, under your interpretation.
Its not.
Wizard level gives caster level. When you get a wizard level you get a wizard level AND a caster level. 2 different lakes that you can increase or decrease on their own a few ways.
Small but very important difference. (still less fine than the charisma bonus equal to thing though)
This makes caster level a value derived from specific class level.
It is not. Traits, feats, prestige classes can all boost your caster level above your wizard level.
|
It is not. Traits, feats, prestige classes can all boost your caster level above your wizard level.
This makes caster level a value derived from specific class level.
Yes, and they're just boosting one source in a line of sources. One of the main sources is your class level, which cannot stack with itself even if it is a boost-able source down the line of sources, under your interpretation.
Edit: words are hard
Yes, and they're just boosting one source in a line of sources. One of the main sources is your class level, which cannot stack with itself even if it is a boost-able source down the line of sources, under your interpretation.
They're not the same lake. Otherwise when you boosted your caster level you'd boost your wizard level for spells per day or hand of the apprentice and whatnot.
Orange prism ioun stone: woot! 4 more hit dice!
This really is not the contradiction you were hoping for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caster level does not exist independently from class levels in classes with spell casting resulting in caster level derived from a class level.
Sure it does. Prestige classes that skip caster levels for one instance.
Spell like abilities for another usually give you your HD as a caster level.
I think that tangent has been more than shot down.
|
|
Yes, and they're just boosting one source in a line of sources. One of the main sources is your class level, which cannot stack with itself even if it is a boost-able source down the line of sources, under your interpretation.They're not the same lake. Otherwise when you boosted your caster level you'd boost your wizard level for spells per day or hand of the apprentice and whatnot.
Orange prism ioun stone: woot! 4 more hit dice!
This really is not the contradiction you were hoping for.
Caster level is not the original source, just one source on the line of sources. It traces back to your class level, that is THE source as it's the last cell you can trace things back to on your sheet, as you said. Modifying one source doesn't mean the sources before it vanish. Getting a +2 on my caster level doesn't mean my caster level isn't based on my class level any more.
The dead horse is thinking that, somehow, you can make up a rule and extrapolate from there,but we are,somehow, forbidden from extrapolating from a VERY similar rule.
The FAQ does exist. It killed the already questionable argument that the source MUST only be special ability. You keep using that idea and its not true. It never was.
Proving that dolphins are sentient does not prove that porpoises are sentient but it does debunk the argument that they're not sentient because animals can't be sentient.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ ONLY applies to untyped bonuses equal to an ability score modifier. You are the one that is extrapolating from the FAQ that it also applies to level, when that is outside the scope of the FAQ.
Source is not a clearly defined game term and the have been non-official dev comments that specifically state that sources outside the FAQ are not covered by it.
The FAQ proves that an untyped bonus equal to an ability modifier counts the ability as a source. It does not prove that an untyped bonus equal to an class level counts the level as a source.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the source of your caster level is your wizard level so it's the same source in the end, under your interpretation.Its not.
Wizard level gives caster level. When you get a wizard level you get a wizard level AND a caster level. 2 different lakes that you can increase or decrease on their own a few ways.
Small but very important difference. (still less fine than the charisma bonus equal to thing though)
I am not sure they are separate thing, a multiclass of different casters maintains separate caster levels for each class.
"A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell."
This makes caster level a value derived from specific class level.
I actually read that initially as you proving BNW's point. "A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell."
That rules quote makes it clear that class level and caster level are two separate and distinct pools, and things that effect one do not necessarily affect the other. PrCs that increase caster level at a staggered rate, like Dragon Disciple, will increase their class level at a different pace than caster level, and feats which improve caster level do not affect class level.
Compare to the vigilante talents- anything that affects your vigilante level affects both Fist of the Avenger and Lethal Grace. Vigilante level goes up, the bonuses offered by both go up. Vigilante level goes down, bonuses offered by both go down. They are drawing from the same source, unlike abilities that draw on caster level and class level separately, and which can be affected at different rates depending on affects that change your class level or your caster level (which are each changed and affected separately, even if they normally scale at the same rate).
The FAQ ONLY applies to untyped bonuses equal to an ability score modifier. You are the one that is extrapolating from the FAQ that it also applies to level, when that is outside the scope of the FAQ.
Source is not a clearly defined game term and the have been non-official dev comments that specifically state that sources outside the FAQ are not covered by it.
The FAQ proves that an untyped bonus equal to an ability modifier counts the ability as a source. It does not prove that an untyped bonus equal to an class level counts the level as a source.
No, but if you assume the design team is comprised of logical and sane people, it shows a logical and consistent chain of thought. Given the nearly identical wording at play, that means it would still be logical and sane to apply the same reasoning.
There are points of evidence that are not proof
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually read that initially as you proving BNW's point. "A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell."
That rules quote makes it clear that class level and caster level are two separate and distinct pools, and things that effect one do not necessarily affect the other. PrCs that increase caster level at a staggered rate, like Dragon Disciple, will increase their class level at a different pace than caster level, and feats which improve caster level do not affect class level.
Things that affect your effective wizard class level will always affect caster level for wizard spells. They are linked in a chain of sources that leads to the untyped bonus. That is how BNW is asking us to look at sources, as a line of sources back as far as you can go, a chain of numbers that effect each other as you go down it.
Caster level and class level are two sources, but the source of caster level is class level so untyped bonuses derived from either come from the same source somewhere on the line, in this case it is class level.
No, but if you assume the design team is comprised of logical and sane people, it shows a logical and consistent chain of thought. Given the nearly identical wording at play, that means it would still be logical and sane to apply the same reasoning.The FAQ ONLY applies to untyped bonuses equal to an ability score modifier. You are the one that is extrapolating from the FAQ that it also applies to level, when that is outside the scope of the FAQ.
Source is not a clearly defined game term and the have been non-official dev comments that specifically state that sources outside the FAQ are not covered by it.
The FAQ proves that an untyped bonus equal to an ability modifier counts the ability as a source. It does not prove that an untyped bonus equal to an class level counts the level as a source.
And those logical and sane people told us not to do what you're doing, which is extending a ruling outside the scope of the FAQ.
|
|
Things that affect your effective wizard class level will always affect caster level for wizard spells.I actually read that initially as you proving BNW's point. "A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell."
That rules quote makes it clear that class level and caster level are two separate and distinct pools, and things that effect one do not necessarily affect the other. PrCs that increase caster level at a staggered rate, like Dragon Disciple, will increase their class level at a different pace than caster level, and feats which improve caster level do not affect class level.
- "Oracle's Curse: An oracle's curse is based on her oracle level plus one for every two levels or Hit Dice other than oracle"
Effective class level increases without affecting caster level. - Haunts have a caster level that is determined completely separately from any class levels they may have.
- Monsters frequently have a caster level totally independent of class level.
- Magical items have a caster level but no class levels.
- The Divine Strategist archetype offers a boost to caster level that in no way affects class level.
- Sylphs with the Sylph Magic racial trait have a caster level regardless of whether or not they have any class levels in a spell granting class.
- Spell Penetration increases caster level, has no effect on class level.
I could go on for a super long time, but the point is, caster level and class level can be affected separately without affecting each other, and both can exist without the other, so they're two separate sources.
They are linked in a chain of sources that leads to the untyped bonus. That is how BNW is asking us to look at sources, as a line of sources back as far as you can go, a chain of numbers that effect each other as you go down it.
Anything that affects a source, should affect everything that stems from that source, as I discussed in my previous post. You can affect class level without affecting caster level, and vice versa, and more than that you don't even need to have one to have the other. Anything that affects your vigilante level directly affects Fist of the Avenger and Lethal Grace every single time. The same is not true of caster level and class level.
Caster level and class level are two sources, but the source of caster level is class level so untyped bonuses derived from either come from the same source somewhere on the line, in this case it is class level.
Caster level can often be determined based on class level, but is not solely derived from class level, and in fact, doesn't even always require a class level. Two separate sources.
And those logical and sane people told us not to do what you're doing, which is extending a ruling outside the scope of the FAQ.
No they didn't. Mark's post was included earlier in this thread, and what he did was refuse to say anything one way or another. He definitely didn't say that they were insane and their logic wasn't logical, so no one should ever look at it when it provides a clear analogue to a discussion point in a rules grey area.
More than that, the FAQ just serves to show the natural logic behind the rules. It doesn't change anything about the argument itself, other than providing a concrete example that shows that the designers of the game have used the exact same logic people are using here to make other rulings.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ssalarn, I remained specific to our example of an evoked wizard. You've done a fine job of showing examples where a caster level is the last source in the chain-line-whatever.
For our evoker wizard, his wizard class level is a source for his class abilities and his caster level. Using BNW's interpretation, the evoker wizard can't add a fraction of his caster level (which is sourced by his wizard level) and a fraction of his wizard level. They stem from the same source, the wizard level. This is an outcome of BNW's interpretation.
I would think that the writers and developers, if this outcome were intended, would have written it into the Core Rulebook.
|
|
Ssalarn, I remained specific to our example of an evoked wizard. You've done a fine job of showing examples where a caster level is the last source in the chain-line-whatever.
For our evoker wizard, his wizard class level is a source for his class abilities and his caster level. Using BNW's interpretation, the evoker wizard can't add a fraction of his caster level (which is sourced by his wizard level) and a fraction of his wizard level. They stem from the same source, the wizard level. This is an outcome of BNW's interpretation.
I would think that the writers and developers, if this outcome were intended, would have written it into the Core Rulebook.
You picked one example where the two happen to move in perfect unison. I showed you that outside of your narrow, cherry-picked example, the two terms can and do exist completely separately and thus are two separate sources, which, coincidentally, starts right in the CRB, so your statement that they would have written it in had it intended to be interpreted that way doesn't really wash. They did.
More than that, the Pathfinder design team didn't write all that much (on a comparative scale) of the CRB since much of ti was copy/pasted from 3.5, and they've changed it many, many times since its release. There are 9 pages of errata for the CRB, affecting over 100 pages of the book itself, as well as many FAQs not covered by the errata, so clearly the writers didn't think of everything as they were converting it over from 3.5.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course I picked the one example that doesn't work with BNW's interpretation, I'm trying to show that it is incorrect.
I'm not asserting that caster level = class level in all cases, just that it does in this case.
And since it does in this case, they must not stack in this case.
But rather than accepting this as an outcome of BNW's view, you claim it must not be so? Why? Perhaps you think the Evoker should be able to use his class abilities with those evocation spells. Similar to how many of us think that the Vigilante should be able to use his class abilities on his gauntlet and fist attacks.
|
|
***
But rather than accepting this as an outcome of BNW's view, you claim it must not be so? Why? Perhaps you think the Evoker should be able to use his class abilities with those evocation spells. Similar to how many of us think that the Vigilante should be able to use his class abilities on his gauntlet and fist attacks.
I'm saying that the Evoker gets to add half his wizard level to certain things he normally gets to add his caster level to as well, and that caster level and class level are two different things. An Evoker who takes Spell Penetration doesn't improve the benefits of Intense Spells beyond what's specifically spelled out in the feat, because Spell Penetration affects caster level, not class level. The two are spelled out as different sources, and the fact that they align in one instance doesn't change their essential nature.
Anything that changes a character's Vigilante level will always affect Fist of the Avenger and Lethal Grace. Look at the Shielded Fighter's "Shield Ward" class feature as an example.
[...]a shielded fighter [...] adds his shield bonus to his AC (not including enhancement bonuses) on Reflex saves and to his touch AC.
Shield Ward adds the Fighter's shield bonus to AC to his Reflex saves and touch AC. The source of this bonus is not the Shield Ward class feature, it's the Fighter's shield. If I take away the shield, Shield Ward does nothing. It's a conduit for Reflex and touch AC to the bonus provided by the shield. Similarly, if you take away the Vigilante's class levels, Fist of the Avenger and Lethal Grace do nothing.
How about another example from the same book? The Phantom Thief rogue archetype failed to include the phrase "The Phantom Thief's rogue level counts as her vigilante level for the purposes of qualifying for social talents". Because of this, the phantom thief couldn't use or qualify for most social talents, so they had to FAQ it in. The phantom thief may have had the Broad Study class feature to act as the channel, but without an effective vigilante level, a source if you will, for that channel to draw on, the ability did almost nothing.
I believe my view of things has hit at least "as consistent and working as the rest of the unwritten rules of the game" low of a bar as that is to hop...
Which leads us to is there ANY reason, at all, to believe that the class feature and feat are themselves the source, except where the class feature or feat attach an ability score to something that they usually don't?
|
|
I believe my view of things has hit at least "as consistent and working as the rest of the unwritten rules of the game" low of a bar as that is to hop...
Which leads us to is there ANY reason, at all, to believe that the class feature and feat are themselves the source, except where the class feature or feat attach an ability score to something that they usually don't?
I'd say most people interpret "source" as the thing that gives you the untyped bonus. That stems from a common sense reading of the rules.
The only thing that suggests otherwise is a FAQ about ability scores. I can see the reasoning behind the FAQ, it stops "double dipping" which can be powerful. It, unfortunately to your view, doesn't cover adding fractions of level as an untyped bonus.
If the PDT released a FAQ extending it to bonuses equal to level or fraction of level, I'll start ruling that way.
Your view is an interpretation, a complicated one extrapolated from a FAQ on something else. That's all it is, an interpretation. You haven't proven it, and we've tried to show how it may be wrong, but you're resilient in your view. That's fine, rule not that way in your games.
Asking if there is any reason behind common sense won't really lead you anywhere.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ssalarn Well, that's an interestingly narrow way of trying to determine source. Without Lethal Grace, Lethal Grace does nothing. Without a Vigilante level, Lethal Grace does nothing. Without an attack roll with a light weapon, Lethal Grace does nothing. Without a character, Lethal Grace does nothing. All of these things must be sources since Lethal Grace depends on them.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ssalarn Well, that's an interestingly narrow way of trying to determine source. Without Lethal Grace, Lethal Grace does nothing. Without a Vigilante level, Lethal Grace does nothing. Without an attack roll with a light weapon, Lethal Grace does nothing. Without a character, Lethal Grace does nothing. All of these things must be sources since Lethal Grace depends on them.
Not sure I appreciate the constant attempts to take my research and examples and try to reduce them argumentum ad absurdum. I'm unclear of if you're being intentionally obtuse, or... Whatever else.
Anyways, I've shown plenty of rules references, rules interactions, rulings on rules elements that use similar or identical wording, etc. You... Belittle my points while offering nothing in return, other than to latch onto some small aspect and see how far you can contort it with unrelated and illogical equivocations. I'm not leaving the thread, but I think I'm good on talking to you.
@Ssalarn Well, that's an interestingly narrow way of trying to determine source. Without Lethal Grace, Lethal Grace does nothing. Without a Vigilante level, Lethal Grace does nothing. Without an attack roll with a light weapon, Lethal Grace does nothing. Without a character, Lethal Grace does nothing. All of these things must be sources since Lethal Grace depends on them.
First, I have to second what Sslarn said. Its REAALLY annoying getting a reducto ad absurdum for everything with no positive argument for your position in return. You're immune to your own tactic because you seem to think that if the idea has any argument against it its inverse automatically becomes true.
Secondly you keep denying even the possibility that the feat is a connector, not the only source. This was arbitrary before the faq, and it doesn't matter what topic the faq was on,the FAQ destroyed it.
It is possible for things to connect a source with a place it doesn't normally go. What the faq doesn't do is specifically say that he vigilantes level is a source, but it severely undermines your argument.
"There's no Koala bear in your room because koala bears don't exist.
"Holds up a picture of a koala bear in my yard
I haven't proved that there's a koala bear in my room but I have shown that the argument being presented against it is bunk. You're not addressing that at all you just keep saying it.
Thirdly..
The only thing that suggests otherwise is a FAQ about ability scores.
This is not true, at all. The rules that suggested the FAQ in the first place are still there. As much as you like to think so, the faq didn't not create rules ex nilo it clarified already existing rules. The faq should not have been a surprise by any stretch of the imagination because people were telling you the exact same thing before it.
*the australian board of tourism wouldlike to remind everyone NOT to pick up the koalas. They're cute and cuddly looking but are actually pretty mean.
|
|
@Ssalarn Admittedly, my last few posts haven't helped construct a good rules interpretation, but have been focused on bringing down yours and BNW's. I didn't mean for it to become unconstructive in that way.
So the FAQ:
Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?
No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions..
What I gain from this is that ability modifiers can be considered sources in addition to what we normally considered sources. Just as Weapon Focus is the source of a +1 bonus, Divine Grace is the source of the bonus to saves and so is the Charisma modifier, according to this FAQ.
Source isn't really defined in the rules, so up until that FAQ we always took the source as the thing giving you the bonus, whether it was an item, a trait, a feat, a class feature, a spell. These are all sources, and it is common sense to identify them because they are the thing giving you the bonus.
Now the FAQ gave us another idea: if the bonus is based on an ability modifier, the modifier also counts as a source. BNW extended that idea to variable bonuses based on other things, in this case "half your vigilante level." Many disagreed, stating the scope of the FAQ is limited to its contents. I'm with this group, holding to the classic unwritten definition of sources (items, feats, traits, etc).
So we are left with whether to interpret other variable untyped bonuses in the same way the FAQ was ruled. We cant use the FAQ as the reason, but that doesn't change that it opened up some eyes to a new method of viewing "source."
Many are satisfied with the common sense, unwritten way of looking at sources, keeping the FAQ in mind when dealing with ability mods. Some are not. There aren't rules defining it either way. How can we come to a conclusion? We tried testing both methods using examples, but every example can be pulled apart and twisted around anyway, such is the narrative rules format we have.
All we have is interpretation, and it isn't clear what the developers would have us do until it's spelled out for us. Follow the trend of the FAQ? Use the common sense view? An absolute truth doesn't exist yet.
Source isn't really defined in the rules, so up until that FAQ we always took the source as the thing giving you the bonus, whether it was an item, a trait, a feat, a class feature, a spell. These are all sources, and it is common sense to identify them because they are the thing giving you the bonus.
Now the FAQ gave us another idea: if the bonus is based on an ability modifier, the modifier also counts as a source
the FAQ.
The FAQ endorsed that idea.
You're rewriting history
|
|
Source isn't really defined in the rules, so up until that FAQ we always took the source as the thing giving you the bonus, whether it was an item, a trait, a feat, a class feature, a spell. These are all sources, and it is common sense to identify them because they are the thing giving you the bonus.
Now the FAQ gave us another idea: if the bonus is based on an ability modifier, the modifier also counts as a source
from
the FAQ.
The FAQ endorsed that idea.
You're rewriting history
Not my intention.The FAQ is the first time I had considered it as a way of looking at sources. I haven't been on the forums as long as you, it looks like.
Sans the FAQ, are there rules behind what a source is? Or is it really just left up to our interpretations?
Sans the FAQ, are there rules behind what a source is? Or is it really just left up to our interpretations?
Its open to interpretation but not all interpretations are equal. This is a pretty good one. The hard part is accepting that the rules are not an absolutely perfectly clear logic problem to solve but something gray and fuzzy where you're going to have to a good thing rather than a perfect one.
Since source is kinda vague as far as raw goes the other factors in how to look at it are
1) RAI: a dirty word on rules forums i know
2) Power and balance
3) Language stuff
4) Grab bag
First off, the intent is to prevent double dipping. Str str or dex dex or wis wis (the latter two are what spawned the faq in the first place - sacred fist monks getting wis wis and some weird gunslinger archtypes getting dex dex) Your level and Your level seems to be double dipping.
This isn't just a power issue its also a design issue. You want to be able to put these things in the game without worrying about what unholy combination some geek is going to come up with them and put on the web for everyone to pester their DMs with. With the RAI in place you can do cool things like that without worrying about the combination of them getting out of hand.
Powerwise, stacking can obviously get out of hand very quickly. It quickly becomes THE option to take if you can, and thats a bad thing.
Source means where something comes from. How far you can track something back before its no longer that thing is a problem for philosophers (ship of Theseus), But a str bonus is definitely your str bonus and your level is definitely your level.
Its VERY hard to double dip off of the same feat or ability twice because its rather hard/rare to get the same ability twice. the rule would be almost un needed if that was all that it was for.There are a LOT of other ways to get an atribute or other variable to go somewhere: You can get dex to hit with 3 levels of rogue, an agile weapon, weapon finesse, or being tiny. You certainly don't want a tiny unchained rogue with an agile amulet of natural armor getting +32 to hit: you obviously need to regulate where the number is coming from,not each individual avenue of getting there
|
|
1) RAI: a dirty word on rules forums i know
2) Power and balance
3) Language stuff
4) Grab bag
RAI is a dirty word. We don't know the intention with the level stuff because it doesn't happen hardly ever that you have a bonus that is untyped and based on level. It could be argued the FAQ and the double dipping comes into play, but should it?
Power wise, I don't think it is overpowered in this instance. It's similar in power to Swashbucklers, but Swashbucklers can add dex to that damage which puts them in a better situation.
I understand how you've come to your definition of source, but your definition doesn't by virtue of itself show that the common sense way of thinking the talent is the source is incorrect. Comparisons to pipes and lakes are still just metaphors and don't actually determine truth between the two interpretations, the metaphors just help form the interpretations.
Yeah, there are abusable things out there. Is there a way to abuse my interpretation concerning sources and levels? If so, that is indeed another reason that it may be wrong. There was a lot of room for abuse with ability mods, so it was clarified. I don't think my interpretation leaves much to be abused, especially not this combination.
We are arguing this in terms of a specific combo: Lethal Grace and Fist of the Avenger. With it being generally unclear but surely balanced, I don't think this should be the reason we fight for a FAQ on the issue, it isn't necessary for the game to stay good. This combination isn't crazy, so let the players have it and use it and cherish it.
|
|
***
Power wise, I don't think it is overpowered in this instance. It's similar in power to Swashbucklers, but Swashbucklers can add dex to that damage which puts them in a better situation.
***We are arguing this in terms of a specific combo: Lethal Grace and Fist of the Avenger. With it being generally unclear but surely balanced, I don't think this should be the reason we fight for a FAQ on the issue, it isn't necessary for the game to stay good. This combination isn't crazy, so let the players have it and use it and cherish it.
Of note-
Swashbucklers need to keep one point of their itty bitty panache pool unused to gain their bonus damage, and it's precision damage, which won't work in a variety of situations and isn't multiplied on a crit. The vigilante powers are always on, always work, are multiplied on a critical hit, and come with a selection of other benefits as well. Pound for pound, the vigilante abilities are arguably much better, plus they're on a better class chassis.
Also, I appreciate you acknowledging that your earlier posts were rather churlish, which is one of the reasons I'm choosing to continue our conversation. Thank you.
RAI is a dirty word.
Much like other dirty words, its going to happen. Its an inevitable fact of life. (or not having a life in this case) You HAVE to be prepared for it.
We don't know the intention with the level stuff because it doesn't happen hardly ever that you have a bonus that is untyped and based on level.
But we do know that some sources track backards. Once you get it out of your head that the FAQ created that, it becomes pretty obvious that sources track backwards because its a general rule about what source means, not a one time thing.
If you see the faq as creating a rule then you have "i don't know" as the answer to talent stacking, which you somehow argue to be yes. As a clarification and verification of existing rules the existing rules clearly say no to stacking.
It could be argued the FAQ and the double dipping comes into play, but should it?
The FAQ did not create double dipping.
You keep steering the rationale into the faq, and then trying to say that the FAQ doesn't apply so the rationale doesn't: that only works if the faq created the rationale ex nilo, which I think i've proven it didn not (baring blueboxes that are bigger on the inside)
Power wise, I don't think it is overpowered in this instance. It's similar in power to Swashbucklers, but Swashbucklers can add dex to that damage which puts them in a better situation.
Vigilantes have roughly the same dex to damage options that swashbuicklers do. Its a major problem with the swashbuckler.
I understand how you've come to your definition of source, but your definition doesn't by virtue of itself show that the common sense way of thinking the talent is the source is incorrect.
What makes your way the common sense way? you're doing a lot of these metaargument declarations to put the burden of proof elsewhere and that doesn't work. Common sense is a subjective declaration, it isn't raw either.
I'm using it the same way you would in english.
Comparisons to pipes and lakes are still just metaphors and don't actually determine truth between the two interpretations, the metaphors just help form the interpretations.
It lets you see how words are meant and what words ARE. It makes RAQ raw. "source" is not "smurf". It means something.
We are arguing this in terms of a specific combo: Lethal Grace and Fist of the Avenger.
You're arguing the bigger picture about stacking, which is what I have more of an exception to. The selective epistemic nihlism in particular gets my hackles up.