| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Colette:
This game has always, for 20 years or so, had a written rule (not sure if PF2e wrote it in the playtest book or not) that says: Specific rules always override general rules.
For a simple example, in PF1e, the general rule is that everybody gets a feat at every odd level, but the Fighter has a specific rule that lets them get extra feats at certain levels. If we tried to say "Hey, I thought the rule is that we only get one feat on every odd level" then the fighter class wouldn't be possible.
Same thing here. The general rule is that Conditional Modifiers are between +1 and +4. But the specific Barbarian rule overrides that in that one specific case.
I would apply this logic to EVERYTHING in this game. Every time you know of a general rule (Humans don't fly) but then a specific rule gets applied in a specific situation (Some wizard casts the Fly spell on a human), then go with the specific rule, not the general rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would disagree that the rules on page 291 constitute a cap. If that's the intent, the phrasing needs to be made explicit.
Specific rules always override general rules.
The difference here is that we're trying to determine if the general rule even exists in the first place. No one would seriously argue that barbarian rage is capped (it's clearly intended to give you that bonus) but rather the casual existence of abilities that ignore the implicit cap lends credence to the notion that the "cap" is a guideline and not a rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fine, call it a guideline, call it a rule, either way it informs a GM about what to do.
If a GM is sitting wondering how much bonus AC an orc gets from hiding behind a picket fence, it may be helpful to remember the conditional modifier should be between +1 and +4. Consider other things he could hide behind (a bush, a low wall, a tree, a broomstick) and think: which is the most cover (+4), least cover (+1 - might not count the broomstick), and where should this picket fence sit between those extremes?
And, if the orc has a specific situation (he's hiding behind a magical tree of super cover that grants +8 to AC), then follow the rule that "Specific overrides General" and assign the specific value without worrying about the General rule/guideline for conditional bonuses.
I would disagree that the rules on page 291 constitute a cap. If that's the intent, the phrasing needs to be made explicit.
I agree. I always just interpreted as "conditional bonuses generally range from +1 to +4."
No one would seriously argue that barbarian rage is capped
Except:
Is a barbarian still capped at +4?
So I was trying to answer that in with a guideline that would apply here and in every other case where a Specific situation conflicts with a General rule (or guideline).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would disagree that the rules on page 291 constitute a cap. If that's the intent, the phrasing needs to be made explicit.I agree. I always just interpreted as "conditional bonuses generally range from +1 to +4."
Mark just said in another thread that the penalty is capped at -4. This isn't directly stated anywhere in the book though, except the line about bonuses and penalties ranging from 1 to 4. So if that's true, it can be taken as a hard cap, and the question about the Barbarian still remains.
That is a lot of enfeeble! At least the paladins hit the cap on the actual conditional penalty after the -4, but still.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if that's true, it can be taken as a hard cap, and the question about the Barbarian still remains.
No, not really.
The higher level barbarian rage is a specific rule that overrides (replaces) the general cap in this instance.
Use the general cap of +4 in all cases where there is no overriding specific rule, but when there is an overriding specific rule, use that rule instead.
But why is being enfeebled 5 not a specific rule as well overriding the general rule? If the barbs numbers going up indicate an exception then the enfeelbed number going up should do likewise right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Page 291 says, "Conditional bonuses range from +1 to +4."
Page 291 also says, "Conditional penalties range from –1 to –4."
Barbarians have a +2 conditional bonus to damage rolls. +3 at 3rd, +4 at 7th, +5 at 11th, +6 at 14th, +7 at 17th, +8 at 20th. This is doubled, in the case of the titan mauler. Is a barbarian still capped at +4?
Similarly, suppose a character becomes drained 5, or enfeebled 5. Can they have a conditional penalty of -5?
As per Page 299:
Specific Overrides General
One of the core tenets of Pathfinder is that specific rules
override general ones. If two rules conflict, the more
specific one takes precedence. If there’s still ambiguity,
the GM determines which rule to use. For example, when
attacking a concealed creature you must attempt a flat
check against DC 5, and flat checks never have modifiers,
bonuses, or penalties, but an ability specifically designed
to overcome concealment might still alter your odds.
The rule is saying they range from 1 to 4 is a general rule. Any rule that says they go higher is a specific rule (or can stack to reach a higher value) and overrides the general rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but Mark said in the other thread that enfeebled 5 would only apply a -4 as that's a cap.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a64?Greater-Shadow-Shadow-steal
The penalties ARE capped on checks, but the larger bonuses/penalties still apply to damage rolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But why is being enfeebled 5 not a specific rule as well overriding the general rule? If the barbs numbers going up indicate an exception then the enfeelbed number going up should do likewise right?
Being enfeebled over 4 (9 in the case of the paladin in question) was in fact a case of a general rule being over ridden by a specific as greater shadows emfeebled condition stacks with that of ones applied other shadows (greater or otherwise).
No and no.
Mark seems to have clarified that there is, in fact, a cap at +4 and -4 for conditional modifiers.
The Barbarian has a specific rule, written in black ink on (mostly) white paper that lets them exceed this cap when raging at higher levels.
The assumption that being hasted for an extra action that would then cause Enfeebled 5 is not explicitly stated in black and white, right? There is a general rule that the actions you take when Enfeebled will increase your Enfeebled number by 1 for each action, but there is another general rule that this value is capped at Enfeebled 4. There is no specific rule here that is explicitly written in the rulebook which overrides these general rules, so both general rules are enforced: Add 1 to the Enfeebled condition for each action taken but do not exceed Enfeebled 4.
As for the Greater Shadows and Lesser Shadows, they don't have a specific rule explicitly written in the rulebook that lets them exceed the cap of 4, right? So none of the shadows can cause you to be Enfeebled by more than 4. Following the rules on page 319, Redundant Conditions, it's clear you can only have a given condition, Enfeebled, only once at a time. They don't stack. That section even gives an example of getting Enfeebled 2 and then a different Enfeebled 2 from a completely different source and still only being Enfeebled 2 for a duration equal to the longest duration of the two sources.
Note: The Shadows DO, in fact, have a specific rule that overrides part of the above. Their Enfeebled conditions DO stack cumulatively which is different from the general rule under Redundant Conditions. So yes, the Shadows can stack Enfeebled on the same target, up to the hard cap of Enfeebled 4. If the value is 3 or more (3 or 4) then the target's shadow is is torn free.
It's all pretty clear. The cap is a hard cap of +/-4 and cannot be exceeded even with multiple applications of different sources unless there is a black-and-white explicit Specific Rule to allow the cap to be exceeded.
In the above, I will accept that I am making one assumption. Clearly, random conditional modifiers are limited to a cap of +/-4 but it's not quite as clear that conditions with values are limited to that same cap.
Maybe it's possible within the rules to be Enfeebled 5 or Enfeebled 6 or Enfeebled 666 for that matter, but the Conditional Modifier is still limited to the cap of -4.
I wouldn't mind some clarity on that. Maybe Mark has already phrased it exactly this way, so maybe that's been clarified too.
Most of the time it won't matter. Being Enfeebled 4 or being Enfeebled 1,000 still means you are -4 on those stipulated rolls. But if some effect somewhere says anything like "Reduce your Enfeebled condition by 2), suddenly it matters if you become Enfeebled 2 or Enfeebled 998. I really don't know if there are effects like that so maybe it doesn't matter at all.
I had this question as related to Forceful and Charge weapons.
Forceful This weapon becomes more dangerous when you build up momentum. When you attack with it more than once on your turn, the second attack adds a circumstance bonus to damage equal to the number of weapon damage dice, and each subsequent attack adds a circumstance bonus to damage equal to double the number of weapon damage dice.
So... at high levels with a +5 weapon that's a +6 circumstance bonus to damage on 2nd attack and +12 circumstance bonus to damage on 3rd attack.
Would Forceful be the specific overriding the general?
Mark seems to have clarified that there is, in fact, a cap at +4 and -4 for conditional modifiers.
Then the text needs to be improved. As it stands I would not interpret that as a cap. It also means we need clarification on the Enervated condition, which has a different cap.
The Barbarian has a specific rule, written in black ink on (mostly) white paper that lets them exceed this cap when raging at higher levels.
Not quite; it's implicit that the barbarian exceeds the cap, because it provides numbers that are above the cap. It doesn't explicitly say that it ignores the cap.
The Shadow in question very explicitly has the ability to stack more severe versions of conditions than are normally possible, and we run into the exact same problem of whether this also means the penalty can get worse.
Personally, given how rare stacking penalties are in PF2, I think the cap should be mentioned in the ability and there is no need for a global cap at all.
I had this question as related to Forceful and Charge weapons.
Forceful This weapon becomes more dangerous when you build up momentum. When you attack with it more than once on your turn, the second attack adds a circumstance bonus to damage equal to the number of weapon damage dice, and each subsequent attack adds a circumstance bonus to damage equal to double the number of weapon damage dice.So... at high levels with a +5 weapon that's a +6 circumstance bonus to damage on 2nd attack and +12 circumstance bonus to damage on 3rd attack.
Would Forceful be the specific overriding the general?
Good question.
For one thing, all this discussion has been about Conditional and/or Circumstantial modifiers on d20 checks, based on the rules on page 291 where this cap of +/-4 is found, under the section "Checks".
Which means that none of this capping might apply to damage rules since rolling damage dice is not the same as making a d20 check.
Or maybe it does apply. Seems unclear to me.
Assuming the cap applies to damage just like it applies to checks, Forceful would be capped at +4. It has NO specific rule that states it can exceed the cap nor does it explicitly describe any specific values higher than the cap (the Barbarian rage, by way of comparison, explicitly describes bonuses higher than the cap with exact values stated in the rule).
So, the general rule about the cap is not overridden by anything stipulated in the Forceful description.
It confuses me sometimes until I think it through. The key to getting through the confusion is to ask yourself: "Does the rule I'm questioning specifically and explicitly contradict the general rule?" If yes, then you have a specific override for the general rule. If no, then the general rule is applied ALONG WITH the rule you're wondering about. For Forceful, saying I get a bonus equal to some other value doesn't ALSO specifically or explicitly say that you can have values greater than the general cap of +/-4, so I get my bonus up to but not greater than the general cap.
The Barbarian has a specific rule, written in black ink on (mostly) white paper that lets them exceed this cap when raging at higher levels.Not quite; it's implicit that the barbarian exceeds the cap, because it provides numbers that are above the cap. It doesn't explicitly say that it ignores the cap.
You are correct. I should have read the barbarian before posting. My bad. I thought it stated the values explicitly but it does not.
See my previous post immediately before this one. Maybe the cap of +/-4 only applies to d20 checks. If so, the barbarian's modifier to damage is uncapped anyway.
If the cap applies to other things beyond d20 checks (specifically if it applies to damage rolls), then the barbarian would not get more than +4 to damage rolls which he gets at level 7. It would not improve beyond this value.
Maybe that's intended or maybe it isn't. If not, then the Rage ability should call out explicitly that it goes above the cap. For example, it could say "This bonus increases by 1 at level 3 and every 4 levels thereafter to a maximum of +7 at level 19". This would be an explicit specific override of the cap.
Or maybe the cap only applies to d20 checks and this is a moot point because damage rolls are not checks.
Paizo should clarify whether the cap Mark alluded to applies to all rolls or only to checks and maybe clarify in writing that the cap is really a cap. Also, if it applies to all rolls, then barbarian rage is limited to +4 damage unless that ability is updated too.
Mark Seifter has addressed this issue on the aforementioned Steal Shadow thread
The rule should limit the bonuses and penalties on checks (and thus DCs), but the limit needs to not apply to damage rolls (otherwise just the simple benefit from a charge or forceful weapon would exceed the cap eventually, not to mention giant totem barbarians breaking it as soon as level 3).
Thus, since barbarian gets a conditional bonus to DAMAGE rolls (which are not CHECKS), they are not capped at +4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool. It's definitely good to know what the devs are thinking.
Now, if we could get that in print so we can read one rulebook, or at least, one rulebook and one errata document.
I don't want to be held accountable to know what every dev has said in every post on every forum and/or every blog comment since the playtest began.