Wraithstrike, you see it as new rules. I saw it as obvious and covered by the rules.
Nobody was ever able to quote a rule that covered it. The FAQ couldn't do it either. They had to try to count ability scores as a source which is not listed as a source, and reimagine how the book says things.
It certainly doesnt fall under a certain bonus type.
|
That was Paizo making up new rules. It still annoys me that they didnt just say "we dont like it for balance reasons".People said RAW that double Dex to Trip attempts stacked also, when it didn't make sense and developers said it didn't.
So often what is "RAW" isn't what the rules says. It takes reading the rules and understanding what they really say to understand that profane and sacred bonuses shouldn't ever be on the same PC.
"Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
...
Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source."
What is a, "add bonus equal to dexterity?" Notice the lack of bonus type? It is an untyped bonus.
Is your ability score modifier a source? Yes. Also, the CRB directly calls a positive ability modifier a 'bonus'. Adding it twice would be adding an untyped bonus twice from the same place. In fact, you are trying to add the same exact bonus more than once.
Are you trying to add the same untyped bonus more than once? Yes.
Is there a rule that covers attempts to add the same untyped bonus more than once? Yes.
"Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source."
It's in the CRB, Wraith. I'm all for pointing out band-aids slapped onto the rules to patch up something the DEV team doesn't like. This isn't one of those times.
Wraitstrike, the rule was same source. It's the rule we all thought prevented it and it's what the FAQ used to block it also.
When referring to sources the game talks about things such as spells and feats....
That is what I am talking about.
Nothing in the book had the modifier as coming from a certain place when it was untyped.
Ability scores are not sources just because the bonus is not typed.
As an example if I get +6 enhancement bonus to strength, and an +6 untyped bonus to strength there is nothing that says the source goes back to being the ability score if that enhancement bonus is replaced by another untyped bonus.
Lorewalker see my above post, and then show me a rule that says the ability score is the default for untyped ability score bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a paladin who has both a sacred and a profane bonus to fortitude saves because he got an evil tattoo while trying to infiltrate and bring down a cult. That cost me an atonement, but didn't get rid of the tattoo.
I'm not sure you're meeting the requirements of atomement if you're not getting rid of the thing you're atoning for.
|
|
Lorewalker see my above post, and then show me a rule that says the ability score is the default for untyped ability score bonuses.
"Determine Bonuses (or Penalties)
Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from –5 to +5. The modifier is the number you apply to the die roll when your character tries to do something related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some numbers that aren't die rolls. A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty."
A positive ability score modifier is an untyped bonus that gets applied to certain things.
I think you are being confused by using language like, "ability score is a source", when you never add an ability score. You add the modifier. Which is either a bonus or a penalty. Adding it more than once would be adding the same bonus more than once, not just same source but the same exact bonus. Being the same bonus it must also be from the same source.
Now, if your feat, ability or what have you, changes the bonus type then it will stack. As I've said in this thread, there is a paladin monk build that can add CHA three times to AC and it legally stacks as it changes the modifier into three different types. Untyped, Deflection and Dodge.
Honestly, it seems your preferred view is that the bonus comes from nowhere allowing it to be the only bonus which does not have a source. This is obviously not the view of the Paizo DEVs.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
When referring to sources the game talks about things such as spells and feats....
As an example if I get +6 enhancement bonus to strength, and an +6 untyped bonus to strength
Nothing defines source, so you can't make a statement that source only refers to spells and feats.
Also your enhancement to str is a bonus added to your str, which is different than sourcing your str to add to something else. So irrelevant to double dex to trip.
|
I have a paladin who has both a sacred and a profane bonus to fortitude saves because he got an evil tattoo while trying to infiltrate and bring down a cult. That cost me an atonement, but didn't get rid of the tattoo.I'm not sure you're meeting the requirements of atomement if you're not getting rid of the thing you're atoning for.see my post upthread.
PFS like any campaign has it's own rules. GMs act as as sub-GMs following the lead GM's direction(add'l resources, campgn clarifications, etc).
The game is not rigorously consistent so there will be a (gaussian?) distribution of differing opinions as to what means exactly what. Fuzzy logic and probability of interpretation(meaning, reading comprehension) tells you that. In reality it's all Imaginary, so much ado about nothing.
Um, they didn't say anything about PFS.
As for the tattoo giving him a profane bonus, yeah I would have him fall if he used it again, or is currently benefiting from it.
|
|
I have a paladin who has both a sacred and a profane bonus to fortitude saves because he got an evil tattoo while trying to infiltrate and bring down a cult. That cost me an atonement, but didn't get rid of the tattoo.I'm not sure you're meeting the requirements of atomement if you're not getting rid of the thing you're atoning for.see my post upthread.
PFS like any campaign has it's own rules. GMs act as as sub-GMs following the lead GM's direction(add'l resources, campgn clarifications, etc).
The game is not rigorously consistent so there will be a (gaussian?) distribution of differing opinions as to what means exactly what. Fuzzy logic and probability of interpretation(meaning, reading comprehension) tells you that. In reality it's all Imaginary, so much ado about nothing.
Um, they didn't say anything about PFS.
As for the tattoo giving him a profane bonus, yeah I would have him fall if he used it again, or is currently benefiting from it.
RealAlchemy didn't mention PFS but that description matches a possibility in PFS. My comment implies that it is legal in PFS, which it is.
In PFS there is an appeals process for players and GMs. Overturned decisions just create more paperwork and bad feelings and sometimes empower people's ego in a bad way. It's something to be avoided.
Um, don't really care about this appeals thing or whatever is that's about that you just now brought up, but if a Paladin willing uses an item that gives them a profane bonus, they're probably on the fast track to falldom.
A profane bonus (or penalty) stems from the power of evil. Multiple profane bonuses on the same character or object do not stack. Only the highest profane bonus applies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using the power isn't an evil act. It cannot be fall-worthy.
Another simple, easy rules based answer to people's gut feeling houserules.
63 posts arguing about whether two things with different names and clearly delineated as stemming from different sources are different is one of the silliest arguments I've seen in the rules forum.