| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does it seem like most people think it is ok that an undead antipaladin can have a double-dipping on a stat, but a [Lore Oracle/Paladin]/[Enlightened Philosopher Lore Oracle]/[Tactics Inquisition Inquisitor] can't? Is it because we deem it too powerful? Is it because undead antipaladin won't see play in PFS? Why does one seem acceptable while the others are unacceptable?
Also, does this still work?
Explosive Missile Discovery with Conductive Weapon and Kirin Strike
Standard Action to fire an arrow/bullet with a bomb attached and then free action to channel the bomb through the attack with the Conductive property. (Two Bomb attacks each with +Int to damage)
How does this interact with Kirin Strike for an additional Int x 2 damage as a swift action?
My interpretation:
-Kirin Strike is a separate action, thus is immune to this double-dipping nonsense.
-Conductive bomb looks like it might run afoul since the extra Int to damage is part of the same action as the attack, but it is a separate expenditure of resources. (I honestly have no idea on this one. I think it should work because you are hitting someone with two bombs and not double-dipping on the same attack, but it comes across as probably being double-dipping since it is the same action.)
Still order of precedence is important here?
If we can only count Charisma once, which one counts?
If Side Step Secret is the one that counts his Reflex save is 6 + 13 for 19.
If his Capstone counts instead it is 6 + 1 + 13 for 20.
No, the checking for duplicate ability score modifiers is done last, after you have calculated all modifiers. You have already given up your dexterity modifier at that point.
On the other hand, if you are able to check for duplication earlier, that would be a way to avoid some of the weirder interactions, as you could then decline to apply the less advantageous of the two features (thus replacing the dexterity modifier if it is negative or not replacing it if it is positive).
Theory:
If you replace dex with cha, then it is still a dex bonus. Therefore cha could still add to it from another effect.
No, that specific combination was already disallowed by the FAQ.
So what you are saying is that the new FAQ isn't even clear enough to address the issues they wanted to address.
I for one am not going to pretend that a dex bonus is a cha bonus just because it uses the cha mod to set it's value.
Why does it seem like most people think it is ok that an undead antipaladin can have a double-dipping on a stat, but a [Lore Oracle/Paladin]/[Enlightened Philosopher Lore Oracle]/[Tactics Inquisition Inquisitor] can't? Is it because we deem it too powerful? Is it because undead antipaladin won't see play in PFS? Why does one seem acceptable while the others are unacceptable?
Also, does this still work?
Explosive Missile Discovery with Conductive Weapon and Kirin StrikeStandard Action to fire an arrow/bullet with a bomb attached and then free action to channel the bomb through the attack with the Conductive property. (Two Bomb attacks each with +Int to damage)
How does this interact with Kirin Strike for an additional Int x 2 damage as a swift action?
My interpretation:
-Kirin Strike is a separate action, thus is immune to this double-dipping nonsense.
-Conductive bomb looks like it might run afoul since the extra Int to damage is part of the same action as the attack, but it is a separate expenditure of resources. (I honestly have no idea on this one. I think it should work because you are hitting someone with two bombs and not double-dipping on the same attack, but it comes across as probably being double-dipping since it is the same action.)
I think we can safely ignore the double dipping FAQ outside of PFS, since there is no way a GM who has not read the FAQ could ever come to that conclusion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Congrats guys. I'm done responding to your posts. I'm sick of you all complaining and whining. You shouldn't be doing that in the rules forum. Make a thread in some discussion forum about how you hate this FAQ. But I'm tired of you all saying it's a big issue, and then not having much to back it up. All you say is that you don't like it. But that there's nothing actually wrong with it. And that a lot of you are the same folk that complain about other faqs too that you didn't like the ruling of, makes it seem like you're not out to help or contribute or learn, but to complain and fuss and make a mess of things.
Now to answer GM Bold Strider as it seems like an honest question.
Why does it seem like most people think it is ok that an undead antipaladin can have a double-dipping on a stat, but a [Lore Oracle/Paladin]/[Enlightened Philosopher Lore Oracle]/[Tactics Inquisition Inquisitor] can't? Is it because we deem it too powerful? Is it because undead antipaladin won't see play in PFS? Why does one seem acceptable while the others are unacceptable?
Also, does this still work?
Explosive Missile Discovery with Conductive Weapon and Kirin StrikeStandard Action to fire an arrow/bullet with a bomb attached and then free action to channel the bomb through the attack with the Conductive property. (Two Bomb attacks each with +Int to damage)
How does this interact with Kirin Strike for an additional Int x 2 damage as a swift action?
My interpretation:
-Kirin Strike is a separate action, thus is immune to this double-dipping nonsense.
-Conductive bomb looks like it might run afoul since the extra Int to damage is part of the same action as the attack, but it is a separate expenditure of resources. (I honestly have no idea on this one. I think it should work because you are hitting someone with two bombs and not double-dipping on the same attack, but it comes across as probably being double-dipping since it is the same action.)
Undead paladin shouldn't get their CHA twice, but the statblocks for them have them getting it twice, and some people are using that as an example of this FAQ being "wrong, stupid, broken, not finish, etc." All cases so far of double dipping like that are prohibited.
All them stack and work fine as far as I can tell. Explosive missile says "deals damage normally and detonates" so the arrow deals damage normally, which then gets the kirin style of double int to it. And then they get hit with two bombs. I don't see you trying to add int twice to the same thing.
Sources are an established rule, and saying that the stat was the source is a clear way to stop stacking. And just because you feel it's clear there is no support for multiple sources, doesn't mean that others didn't think that it was meaning multiple sources. Also because you disagree with how they did it doesn't mean that they didn't do it "right". Many people seem okay or supportive of their answer. And if you have no suggestions of how to do it better without using types then I feel you don't have a lot to complain about.
Multiple sources in in NO way an established rule. I haven't been able to find any inference of it's possibility in any of the rule books. If you believe I'm incorrect, then please quote me something that you think proves that wrong. Many people thinking something doesn't magically make it a rule.
Is the FAQ not making sense to you of what it's saying it's doing or does the fact they made a FAQ the thing that's confusing you?.
Both. I don't understand either decision and we haven't heard anything that explains either well.
I really suggest not complaining about it forever. It's tiresome to others and really get's you no where and aggravates people.
What really aggravates people is when you brush someone's concerns aside because you're fine with the way it is. You seem to think that because 'many people' are ok with the FAQ I should just follow the herd even though is doesn't make the least amount of sense to me. Even Mark agreed that this ruling was confusing and wasn't the way he wanted to do it. Why are you a better authority than him?
Well, maybe you should make a thread asking them that, so it can get faqs and get an answer. or maybe email them or a letter, I don't know how often they respond to those but those can get you want you want. But they aren't required to explain everything they do, or why they do it. There's tons of questions that I feel effect game play that I'd rather have answered then having an essay explaining why and everything about one of their decisions.
No, they don't have to do a thing if they don't want to. That's true. But it's in their best interest to keep the people that buy their products happy. There have been several FAQ that got changed/altered and I'm hoping that when they see enough people not liking it that they think about how they did this one.
On your overall point, I too would rather they start getting through the backlog of things that need an FAQ. However, this FAQ has ALREADY taken time away as they've already put out one other FAQ because of it and from what Mark said, there was some other things he thought would need FAQs so MORE time away from other FAQ's. That's why I said, if I'd have done it I'd have done it right first. First do what's best for the game, then do it with the least amount collateral damage.
I'm not convinced on the first and I'm SURE they didn't manage the second.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm responding to you because you say that you're seeking help and clarification.
What really aggravates people is when you brush someone's concerns aside because you're fine with the way it is.
You had just said you'd complain about this forever, that is something that isn't needed. I haven't brushed off your concerns, I've tried to address the issues you bring up. The thing is you don't state clearly what your question is. It really helps us to give you answers if you help us know what your question is rather than just complaining that it's confusing and unliked by you..
Multiple sources in in NO way an established rule. Many people thinking something doesn't magically make it a rule.
Are single sources an established rule in any of the rule books? If not it was just a popular opinion that was wrong. As you said " Many people thinking something doesn't magically make it a rule."
Also what difference does it make if they add "this is future errata" or leave it off? It's still a clear stance now of how things work. If there's some major difference please share.
I don't understand either decision and we haven't heard anything that explains either well well.
so lets make this clearer. do you have questions on
1) the FAQ and how it worksor
2) these questions "#1 why they thought that abilities shouldn't stack and #2 why making abilities a type is some kind of paizo kryptonite"
If it's 2, I can't help you. I can give you my ideas on why they chose the answer they did, and if you'd like I'll share those. But that information isn't needed to have the FAQ work as they intend it to.
First do what's best for the game, then do it with the least amount collateral damage.
Them saying things stacked and then needing to change all that the didn't want stacked would lead to as much if not more FAQ as this choice will make. Because, assuming everything Mark said was intentionally changed by this faq, all those options would have needed to be changed to say "this doesn't stack though the general rule is things can stack." We'd have at least the paladin divine grace, monk/sacred fist AC bonus, erastils boon/guidence, some inquisitions, some oracle revelations, traits and abilities that replace one stat for another, etc to change. I say that's a lot more collateral damage than the 2 we've had, that could have used clearer wording anyways.
Also it's something they'd continue to need to worry about in future
when creating any ability or feat, "does this need to be an exception and not stack or can it stack?" As it is now they can think about it if they wish, "I want this to be stackable so I'll make an exception"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would imagine this could effect resource pool as well, yes? Or would the bonuses survive the combination of pools, as it's a "larger pool of both grit points and panache points?" Or do these intended to stack abilities run into trouble with this new FAQ? I'm legitimately not sure of whether or not these might be effected by it. I may be missing something, but I'm really not sure.
(Inspired Blade/Siege Gunner, Swashbuckler/Mysterious Stranger, Mysterious Stranger/Sleuth, Swashbuckler/Sleuth, or Kata Master/Sleuth)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those are fine with this FAQ. They stack full bonus. If there's wording in the ability that refers to doubling, adding twice, or intended to combine, then they stack and work with this faq.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the issue of the bombs, you are firing an arrow/bullet laced with a Bomb that does +Int to damage. The Conductive property allows you to channel an additional bomb through the attack, thus gaining another +Int to damage on the same attack.
It is two separate expenditures of resources, but the same action, thus I am unsure of if the +Int stacks. The two bombs are based off of the same attack roll. I guess the closest comparison is Manyshot and you get to add any Strength bonuses to arrows to each arrow, thus it seems the bombs should work.
I think I worked it out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Had a thought in the shower.
If any bonus that is related to an ability score is considered a source, then it follows that any check using said ability bonus should be affected by items that increase those types of checks.
I was under the impression that Circlet of Persuasion only factored into things like Charisma-based skills or checks altered to use Charisma with no other adjustment. (E.g. Diplomacy and Initiative (with Noble Scion)) In my mind, it did not affect Paladin saves, Lore/Nature/Lunar Reflex saves, Undead Fort Saves, Smite Evil/Good attack rolls, etc. as these scores were based off of other attributes and Charisma merely assisted these scores. (Attack rolls were BAB-based checks and Paladin/Oracle/Undead saves were Base Save-based checks.) The stat was only added to the basis.
Under this new ruling, doesn't a Noble Scion of War Paladin get an automatic +3 to all saves, +3 to attack rolls while smiting, +3 to Initiative?
Does a Mysterious Stranger using Focused Aim add +3 to damage on all shots with a Circlet of Persuasion?
This either means that the Circlet needs to be vastly reworked or something needs to be changed in the FAQ, I think.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was under the impression that Circlet of Persuasion only factored into things like Charisma-based skills or checks altered to use Charisma with no other adjustment. (E.g. Diplomacy and Initiative (with Noble Scion)) In my mind, it did not affect Paladin saves, Lore/Nature/Lunar Reflex saves, Undead Fort Saves, Smite Evil/Good attack rolls, etc. as these scores were based off of other attributes and Charisma merely assisted these scores. (Attack rolls were BAB-based checks and Paladin/Oracle/Undead saves were Base Save-based checks.) The stat was only added to the basis.
Under this new ruling, doesn't a Noble Scion of War Paladin get an automatic +3 to all saves, +3 to attack rolls while smiting, +3 to Initiative?
Does a Mysterious Stranger using Focused Aim add +3 to damage on all shots with a Circlet of Persuasion?
This either means that the Circlet needs to be vastly reworked or something needs to be changed in the FAQ, I think.
It would help the discussion a lot if you would provide links to the relevant rules when you bring them up, since the question will turn on how the rules are worded and by not providing links you increase the cost on anyone who wants to engage in the discussion with you (because every person has to go look up each rule themselves). Thanks! :-)
To answer your question. The <Circlet of Persuasion> "grants a +3 competence bonus on the wearer's Charisma-based checks." So to answer your question we need to know what a "Charisma-based check" is.
By the usual language of the game, a Charisma-based check is a check that uses Charisma as its primary stat modifier. E.g., Diplomacy, a Sorcerer's concentration check.
So the Lore Oracle's <Sidestep Secret> does change the Reflex save to be Charisma-based: "Add your Charisma modifier (instead of your Dexterity modifier) to your Armor Class and all Reflex saving throws." So the Circlet will add +3 to it. Same thing with <Undead> Fortitude saves (since Fortitude saves just are Charisma-based for Undead) and (as you correctly suggest) with <Noble Scion (War)> Initiative checks (because the feat makes your initiative checks Charisma-based).
On the other side, the Paladin's <Smite Evil> ability does not change the roll to a Charisma-based check, but adds Charisma on top of what is, in essence, a Strength- or Dexterity-based check: "the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls."
Basically, then, your first paragraph is on track, but not correct for every case you list—it's not a Base-Save-based check for the same reason that a skill check isn't a skill-rank-based check and a concentration check isn't a caster-level-based check.
But none of this is new information or caused by the FAQ. It's always been like this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. Where do you see that X-based check is defined in such a way? It's a perfectly fine way of looking at it, but your comparisons aren't equal. Each one of these abilities means that you add your Charisma bonus to a type of check. Why do some become Charisma-based and some not?
For Sidestep Secret, Undead or Noble Scion of War, you are defining it as a check that uses Charisma as its primary stat modifier.
For Smite Evil (and by extension Divine Grace), you are defining the checks as not using Charisma as its primary stat despite adding your Charisma to your Strength and BAB (among other things). If a stat, such as an attack roll, can have multiple sources, then why can't it be both a Strength-based check and a Charisma-based check. Especially with the FAQ, it opens the doors to adding the +3 competence bonus to things like Smite Evil, Divine Grace, and Focused Aim from Mysterious Stranger.
Checks are distinct from saves and attacks I think.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And there were a handful of "specific rule combos" and instead of changing each of those they made a rule to effect all of those "special cases" and also now they don't have to worry about future cases.Instead they made an exception so that more abilities don't do what they say they do.
GENIUS!
You're ignoring the second part of that, that now everyone (designers included) know clearly how this kind of double- and triple- dipping will work going forward. (i.e. that it won't.) That clarity is worth the very miniscule broken eggs of Dragon Ferocity (which itself was fixed) and undead antipaladins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Breaking little things to fix nothing is still a net loss. It doesn't matter if all I chopped in half was a penny, it's still wasteful.
This FAQ is just backwards, which is why it's vexing. It's not terribly significant, but it works the exact opposite fo how a FAQ should work.
How it should work:
--Q: "How does this work?"
--A: "It works this way because of these rules."
How this FAQ works:
--Q: "How does this work?"
--A: "It works this way because of these rules. Now it doesn't because we just changed it."
That's not answering the question, that's changing the answer and calling it correct.
It'd be like if I answered a math problem incorrectly and started changing the given problem piece by piece until my answer fit.
Good try, but my teacher would still give me an F.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Checks are distinct from saves and attacks I think.
The Paizo PRD states that "Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws." LINK
|
|
Interesting. Where do you see that X-based check is defined in such a way? It's a perfectly fine way of looking at it, but your comparisons aren't equal. Each one of these abilities means that you add your Charisma bonus to a type of check. Why do some become Charisma-based and some not?
For Sidestep Secret, Undead or Noble Scion of War, you are defining it as a check that uses Charisma as its primary stat modifier.
For Smite Evil (and by extension Divine Grace), you are defining the checks as not using Charisma as its primary stat despite adding your Charisma to your Strength and BAB (among other things). If a stat, such as an attack roll, can have multiple sources, then why can't it be both a Strength-based check and a Charisma-based check. Especially with the FAQ, it opens the doors to adding the +3 competence bonus to things like Smite Evil, Divine Grace, and Focused Aim from Mysterious Stranger.
I wish I had a clear citation for my claim, but it's based not on a specific location in the text but on my general impression of how the game works and some past discussions of the Circlet, especially re concentration checks, that I'm pretty sure had designer input.
BNW may also be correct that attacks and saves are not considered "checks" here, though the text you cite leans against that. See <this flippant comment> by SKR from 4 years ago:
What kinds of d20 rolls does the game have you make that (1) are called "checks" rather than saves or attacks, and (2) involve your Charisma modifier?
I suspect that this is a topic that folks with a longer history on the messageboards can help you with more than I can for specific support, but I'm certain (or, as certain as I can be here) that I've got the right take on it (except for the question of whether attacks & saves count as "checks" for this purpose).
In any case, this might profit from its own thread. I suspect there's a pretty clear answer out there and that might draw folks in a bit more than this one, which unfortunately descended into circular argument & complaining several pages ago (and I imagine folks stopped bothering after a while).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Breaking little things to fix nothing is still a net loss. It doesn't matter if all I chopped in half was a penny, it's still wasteful.
As opposed to doing it the other way, which would allow them to stack, which would open up a lot of broken combinations.
Nothing being broken was not an option. This broke...a literal reading of dragonstyle (which was wonkily worded anyway) and undead antipaladins in a third party campaign?
How it should work:
--Q: "How does this work?"
--A: "It works this way because of these rules."
Which has been done. Source was vague. The source has now been clarified to be the stat, just like half the people have been doing it. This is not faqratta in the least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Check" is a defined term within the game. In short, it's any d20 roll. Proof.
EDIT: For it to be Charisma-based, Charisma would have to be the primary ability modifier applied to it. For example, Diplomacy is a Charisma-based check, as is a Charisma ability check. Smite Evil, however, is not (an attack roll's primary stat is generally Strength or Dexterity, smite adding Charisma in addition does not change that).
Sorry if that only obfuscates the issue.
"Check" is a defined term within the game. In short, it's any d20 roll. Proof.
Like i keep telling you, how the rules are intended to work winds up being the right way a lot more than how the often contradictory way the rules say they work when under a microscope.
Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws.
Now do they mean check as defined above, or the checks that are called checks like ability checks and skill checks?
BNW, I've always considered the latter to be the case, actually.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Breaking little things to fix nothing is still a net loss.
If the FAQ was to "fix nothing", then why did everyone tap on that FAQ button like a well conditioned hamster after a food pellet?
I will say it again.
Be Careful What You Wish For
BNW, I've always considered the latter to be the case, actually.
Ok, so why all the hue and cry of change? If they can have you write a check to buy a book where a check isn't a check but a check check is a check what possible complaint is there when they say that a completely undefined term like a "source" is the stat?
The idea that it broke everything, or even a lot of things, is objectively unfounded hyperbole.
The idea that this is nowhere in the rules means I've been having a particularly accurate hallucination for 15 years. (Not the first time mind you...)
If NPCs are messed up... have you SEEN npcs? Animals from the npc codex got an extra attack because someone reaaaally didn't read multi attack in on the differences between 3.5 and pathfinder, some of the pregens have feats they don't qualify for, numbers don't add up...
And the hyper technical arguments that they're a bonus not a bonus is a horrible argument. What drives me nuts is that its a horrible argument that you're trying hold up as an argument that is so good that it overrides not only all of the arguments in the other direction, but apparently even official clarification. None of the arguments given for stacking are so good as to warrant the hue and cry of -worst faq ever!-
You're ignoring the second part of that, that now everyone (designers included) know clearly how this kind of double- and triple- dipping will work going forward. (i.e. that it won't.) That clarity is worth the very miniscule broken eggs of Dragon Ferocity (which itself was fixed) and undead antipaladins.And there were a handful of "specific rule combos" and instead of changing each of those they made a rule to effect all of those "special cases" and also now they don't have to worry about future cases.Instead they made an exception so that more abilities don't do what they say they do.
GENIUS!
I think the idea that two or more abilities doing what they say they as "double or triple dipping" is ludicrous.
Abilities should just do what they say they do, creating general rules to override specific rules is needlessly confusing.
BNW, I've always considered the latter to be the case, actually.Ok, so why all the hue and cry of change? If they can have you write a check to buy a book where a check isn't a check but a check check is a check what possible complaint is there when they say that a completely undefined term like a "source" is the stat?
The idea that it broke everything, or even a lot of things, is objectively unfounded hyperbole.
The idea that this is nowhere in the rules means I've been having a particularly accurate hallucination for 15 years. (Not the first time mind you...)
If NPCs are messed up... have you SEEN npcs? Animals from the npc codex got an extra attack because someone reaaaally didn't read multi attack in on the differences between 3.5 and pathfinder, some of the pregens have feats they don't qualify for, numbers don't add up...
And the hyper technical arguments that they're a bonus not a bonus is a horrible argument. What drives me nuts is that its a horrible argument that you're trying hold up as an argument that is so good that it overrides not only all of the arguments in the other direction, but apparently even official clarification. None of the arguments given for stacking are so good as to warrant the hue and cry of -worst faq ever!-
The pregens do qualify for their feats. You can use items to qualify for feats.
Abilities should just do what they say they do, creating general rules to override specific rules is needlessly confusing.
Its very necessary. You can't keep watching every combination of specific rules that the game has now or may ever have. In fact thats the entire point of the no stacking rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Check" is a defined term within the game. In short, it's any d20 roll. Proof.
EDIT: For it to be Charisma-based, Charisma would have to be the primary ability modifier applied to it. For example, Diplomacy is a Charisma-based check, as is a Charisma ability check. Smite Evil, however, is not (an attack roll's primary stat is generally Strength or Dexterity, smite adding Charisma in addition does not change that).
Sorry if that only obfuscates the issue.
First, what if your Charisma is higher than your Str/Dex? Would that not make Cha your primary ability for the check?
Second, if an ability can have multiple sources, then why can a check not have multiple primary abilities?
If NPCs are messed up... have you SEEN npcs? Animals from the npc codex got an extra attack because someone reaaaally didn't read multi attack in on the differences between 3.5 and pathfinder, some of the pregens have feats they don't qualify for, numbers don't add up...
This is a pretty good strawman, but ultimately still composed of a hay bale.
See, mistakes in NPCs are inconsistent. It happens, human error creeps in. But not all 1st level investigators have weapon focus. Not all druids have too many high level feats.
That is not the case for the undead antipaladins. Every time, they have been done in the same manner. Consistent. In accordance with the rules.
How many undead anti paladins are there?
Also, while MOST of the faq was pretty straitforward in my opinion, the last bit about paladins counting as a charisma bonus even though it was the funny "bonus equal to their charisma bonus" was more of a gray area.
|
|
"Check" is a defined term within the game. In short, it's any d20 roll. Proof.
EDIT: For it to be Charisma-based, Charisma would have to be the primary ability modifier applied to it. For example, Diplomacy is a Charisma-based check, as is a Charisma ability check. Smite Evil, however, is not (an attack roll's primary stat is generally Strength or Dexterity, smite adding Charisma in addition does not change that).
Sorry if that only obfuscates the issue.
First, what if your Charisma is higher than your Str/Dex? Would that not make Cha your primary ability for the check?
Second, if an ability can have multiple sources, then why can a check not have multiple primary abilities?
(1) I wouldn't think so. The base ability (hence, "Charisma-based") is the main ability score the check relies on. Other ability scores added to the basic check are just bonuses, in addition, extras, not fundamental to the check. Again, not new since the FAQ.
(2) Because the FAQ doesn't say anything at all about checks and what they're based on—it only touches on bonuses and their sources. (I see the similarity that gives rise to the question, but the two questions aren't dealing with the same thing.)
Abilities should just do what they say they do, creating general rules to override specific rules is needlessly confusing.
Its very necessary. You can't keep watching every combination of specific rules that the game has now or may ever have. In fact thats the entire point of the no stacking rule.
** spoiler omitted **
What I don't like is how stat bonus is an untype typed bonus. They don't stack, even though they are an untyped bonus. Different ability scores can stack, but if you use your cha mod for dex, then your dex and cha could not stack. But if you uses your strength for dex or dex for dex THEN your dex and cha bonus could stack. So what is it? Is each stat it's own type of bonus, or are stats in general a kind of bonus? Why does using another stat mod for a different kind of stat mod mean that they don't stack? It is still a dex mod plus a cha mod, it is just that the dex mod is using the cha number.
But if the dex mod used the cha mod and then the cha mod added a deflection bonus, then they could stack. So that means stat bonuses are not different types based on attribute. But yet divine grace depends on two stat bonuses stacking, so that means that they are different types based on stat.
You know what would make sense? If stat bonuses were untyped like they have always been.
At least four, Taker of Eyes, the ghoul from Monster Codex, the graveknight from Undead Unleashed, and the vampire from AP 48.
I'm guessing a few more. If you wanted to include ones from the game's myth, many of the deathknights of Oerth are, and Soth.
But go ahead and answer the question in reverse. How many double dipping NPCs are there? Who even have builds close to the jury rigged ones that are designed to take advantage?
"Check" is a defined term within the game. In short, it's any d20 roll. Proof.
EDIT: For it to be Charisma-based, Charisma would have to be the primary ability modifier applied to it. For example, Diplomacy is a Charisma-based check, as is a Charisma ability check. Smite Evil, however, is not (an attack roll's primary stat is generally Strength or Dexterity, smite adding Charisma in addition does not change that).
Sorry if that only obfuscates the issue.
First, what if your Charisma is higher than your Str/Dex? Would that not make Cha your primary ability for the check?
Second, if an ability can have multiple sources, then why can a check not have multiple primary abilities?
(1) I wouldn't think so. The base ability (hence, "Charisma-based") is the main ability score the check relies on. Other ability scores added to the basic check are just bonuses, in addition, extras, not fundamental to the check. Again, not new since the FAQ.
(2) Because the FAQ doesn't say anything at all about checks and what they're based on—it only touches on bonuses and their sources. (I see the similarity that gives rise to the question, but the two questions aren't dealing with the same thing.)
1) That is one way to look at it. I happen to concur, but the bigger bonus determining primary is equally valid given the language used.
2) It was stated that multiple sources were always part of the rules, just that nobody ever knew about them, so it is my contention that multiple primaries were always part of the rules. It is just that nobody knew about them before. The FAQ changed nothing, it just made me aware of things.
You know what would make sense? If stat bonuses were untyped like they have always been.
It would get you the same answer though. Untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack.
The funky use x stat for y stat would then be an identity crisis: Are you X stat or Y stat. X stat is still x stat, and you'd wind up with the same answer.
But yet divine grace depends on two stat bonuses stacking, so that means that they are different types based on stat.
THAT part was confusing. I'm guessing they don't want to errata the CRB to just flat out say "charisma bonus"
I think the idea that two or more abilities doing what they say they as "double or triple dipping" is ludicrous.
Abilities should just do what they say they do, creating general rules to override specific rules is needlessly confusing.
You're right. I should have my ring of protection, paladin smite evil, and any other deflection bonus to AC stack together, since they all say add to AC, and even though I'm double or triple dipping into the same type, It should all do what the ability says it does. Since it's needlessly confusing to have a general rule saying same type bonuses don't stack ot override teh specific rule that I'm getting a bonus to my AC.
Also I should let untyped bonuses from a spell stack, since it's needlessly confusing to have a general rule override the specific rule of the spell adding an untyped bonus.
actually you're not right and my previous words are not a proper approach to this game.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
But yet divine grace depends on two stat bonuses stacking, so that means that they are different types based on stat.THAT part was confusing. I'm guessing they don't want to errata the CRB to just flat out say "charisma bonus"
I find that's often a problem with Paizo's rules clarifications. Because of their baffling policy of only issuing errata when a new print run of the dead-trees format book comes out, there are way too many cases of the devs trying to issue de-facto errata while bending over backwards to change as little rules language as possible. Which just leads to more problems as we get random new rules cobbled together out of existing terms that previous works all used interchagably.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the idea that two or more abilities doing what they say they as "double or triple dipping" is ludicrous.
Abilities should just do what they say they do, creating general rules to override specific rules is needlessly confusing.
You're right. I should have my ring of protection, paladin smite evil, and any other deflection bonus to AC stack together, since they all say add to AC, and even though I'm double or triple dipping into the same type, It should all do what the ability says it does. Since it's needlessly confusing to have a general rule saying same type bonuses don't stack ot override teh specific rule that I'm getting a bonus to my AC.
Also I should let untyped bonuses from a spell stack, since it's needlessly confusing to have a general rule override the specific rule of the spell adding an untyped bonus.
actually you're not right and my previous words are not a proper approach to this game.
So are stat bonuses typed or untyped? Are there 6 kinds of stat bonuses or one?
No matter how you answer that, there are exceptions. Hence a needlessly confusing rules addition.
Because stat are unlike the other kinds of bonuses, rarely do you ever treat your natural armor as deflection bonus or your AC bonus as a resistance bonus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Glad to see the FAQ tackling at least one of the more contentious issues kicking around. I can't speak to the subtle rules implications because I can't keep track of all the fiddly little areas that might be affected - there's so many rules in print now I barely try to keep up - but I am happy to see life in the FAQ.
So I think over the intervening eleven days of following this thread I've learned enough to conclude that this FAQ ought not to have been applied to instances where one ability score replaces another (with the undead being the #1 case study). Kain et al. have established, to my satisfaction, that the FAQ's explanation in this case runs directly counter to the way the rules were consistently applied by Paizo prior to the FAQ.
Alas.
However, it does seem like a relatively minor change to make to bring the FAQ more or less into harmony with precedent.
So are stat bonuses typed or untyped? Are there 6 kinds of stat bonuses or one?
No matter how you answer that, there are exceptions. Hence a needlessly confusing rules addition.
Because stat are unlike the other kinds of bonuses, rarely do you ever treat your natural armor as deflection bonus or your AC bonus as a resistance bonus.
There are no stat bonuses in the sense you're trying to use it. A stat bonus is a positive mod or 0 value, like the reference to charisma bonus for smite evil.
What you're referring to are untyped bonuses coming from, or in other words the source of the bonus being, 1 of the 6 stats. So in smite evil, you have an untyped bonus from (charisma and smite evil). In sidestep secret you replace the untyped bonus from dex to reflex saves with an untyped bonus from charisma. Thus if you go paladin to get another untyped bonus from charisma they don't stack.
Does this clear things up for you? If not, what still doesn't make sense for you?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Check" is a defined term within the game. In short, it's any d20 roll. Proof.
EDIT: For it to be Charisma-based, Charisma would have to be the primary ability modifier applied to it. For example, Diplomacy is a Charisma-based check, as is a Charisma ability check. Smite Evil, however, is not (an attack roll's primary stat is generally Strength or Dexterity, smite adding Charisma in addition does not change that).
Sorry if that only obfuscates the issue.
First, what if your Charisma is higher than your Str/Dex? Would that not make Cha your primary ability for the check?
Second, if an ability can have multiple sources, then why can a check not have multiple primary abilities?
(1) I wouldn't think so. The base ability (hence, "Charisma-based") is the main ability score the check relies on. Other ability scores added to the basic check are just bonuses, in addition, extras, not fundamental to the check. Again, not new since the FAQ.
(2) Because the FAQ doesn't say anything at all about checks and what they're based on—it only touches on bonuses and their sources. (I see the similarity that gives rise to the question, but the two questions aren't dealing with the same thing.)
1) That is one way to look at it. I happen to concur, but the bigger bonus determining primary is equally valid given the language used.
2) It was stated that multiple sources were always part of the rules, just that nobody ever knew about them, so it is my contention that multiple primaries were always part of the rules. It is just that nobody knew about them before. The FAQ changed nothing, it just made me aware of things.
@Thorin001: For what it's worth, I've asked Mark about this one and <he concurs> with the general understanding of what it means to be Charisma-based that RD and I have suggested. The usual qualifications—his own opinion not an official rules response—, but I've learned to trust his long experience with the game and his impressive knowledge of the rules and of various conversations that have come up on the boards over the years.
Yeah, that's the part I agree with. But I didn't want to fully say I agree in case I didn't agree with other nuances, since it might be misleading.I think, based on what I think you think, that you're right—however this probably means a Noble Scion of War counts initiative as a Charisma-based check.Makes sense to me.
To clarify, I take it that a check is X-based when X is the ability score that the basic formula relies on (though other ability scores may be added as bonuses). So Initiative is a Dexterity-based check until Noble Scion of War replaced Dex with Cha, which makes it a Charisma-based check.
But, e.g., an Inquisitor with Cunning Initiative adding Wisdom to Init does not render Init a Dex-AND-Wis-based check, because the Wis is a bonus added after rather than the ability the basic check is based on.
That's good enough for me on the specific question of "X-based," but the attacks/saves question is still open. I suggest that anyone interested in continuing discussion of either question open a separate thread for it so that we can hash it out more fully in a dedicated space. If you do, drop a link here and I'll join you.
So are stat bonuses typed or untyped? Are there 6 kinds of stat bonuses or one?
No matter how you answer that, there are exceptions. Hence a needlessly confusing rules addition.
They are untyped and there are six of them. Whats the exception there? If you use your charisma bonus for your dex bonus its still your charisma bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So are stat bonuses typed or untyped? Are there 6 kinds of stat bonuses or one?
No matter how you answer that, there are exceptions. Hence a needlessly confusing rules addition.They are untyped and there are six of them. Whats the exception there? If you use your charisma bonus for your dex bonus its still your charisma bonus.
So six different sources of an untyped bonus.
So if you use cha in place of dex and then add cha to that roll then they should stack since one bonus is coming from dex and the other is coming from cha.
Just because you change how the dex bonus is calculated does not mean it stops being a dex bonus.
Saying otherwise is like saying that if I have a moral bonus to-hit based on the enhancement bonus of my weapon, then the two could not stack(courageous weapon barbarian). Half the enhancement bonus becomes a moral bonus to strength which increases to hit. The enhancement bonus already increases to hit. By this FAQ logic, since both were sourced from enhancement then neither should stack since you are double dipping enhancement bonus. Now these are typed bonuses, but you are saying it doesn't matter if cha is being added to the roll via dex mod, since the original source of the number is the same.
So if you use cha in place of dex and then add cha to that roll then they should stack since one bonus is coming from dex and the other is coming from cha.
No.
There is no contradiction here.
If you use charisma in place of your dex bonus its still your charisma bonus. It never stopped being your charisma bonus.
So if you use cha in place of dex and then add cha to that roll then they should stack since one bonus is coming from dex and the other is coming from cha.No.
There is no contradiction here.
If you use charisma in place of your dex bonus its still your charisma bonus. It never stopped being your charisma bonus.
I guess I just find it odd to have 6 untyped bonus sources that routinely replace each other and constantly run into situations where they may or may not stack.
Seems like that was the reason to have typed bonuses in the first place so that you wouldn't have to guess at the source.
Essentially each stat is now a typed bonus when it comes to distinguishing them, but are untyped bonuses when it comes to stacking rules. So when they may or may not stacks you have to ask where the source was instead of what kind of bonus they are.
Essentially each stat is now a typed bonus when it comes to distinguishing them, but are untyped bonuses when it comes to stacking rules. So when they may or may not stacks you have to ask where the source was instead of what kind of bonus they are.
There's been no change. Either they're a singular instance of a typed bonus and won't stack with itself, or they're an untyped bonus that still won't stack with itself because they're from the same source.
That your charisma bonus becomes your dex bonus when it replaces it isn't a rule so there's no contradiction with existing rules when that's not how it works.
This is much easier than you're making it. You put down all the numbers that go into a roll. If the same thing is there twice you can't do it unless its that funny "your [str dex con int wis cha] bonus as a [blue] bonus. (Paladin is FAQratta'd to be "Your cha bonus)
This is much easier than you're making it. You put down all the numbers that go into a roll. If the same thing is there twice you can't do it unless its that funny "your [str dex con int wis cha] bonus as a [blue] bonus. (Paladin is FAQratta'd to be "Your cha bonus)
And it is that exception where everything breaks down.
Also, you can argue that the source of the untype bonus is the ability not the stat. So even if you replaced dex with cha and then another ability added cha. Then the ability is the source of the untyped bonus not the stat.
Untyped bonuses can't really appeal to a type to have a source. The ability is the source, and stats themselves add to certain rolls. You can't say that they are untyped, but at the same time say that the ability is providing a stat bonus. The ability is the source of the untyped bonus. You couldn't clarify that untyped bonus as something without making it typed.
By saying the ability is conferring a stat bonus, you are saying that stat is a type of bonus, but then you are saying they follow untyped source bonus stacking rules.
I guess I just find it odd to have 6 untyped bonus sources that routinely replace each other and constantly run into situations where they may or may not stack.
Seems like that was the reason to have typed bonuses in the first place so that you wouldn't have to guess at the source.
Essentially each stat is now a typed bonus when it comes to distinguishing them, but are untyped bonuses when it comes to stacking rules. So when they may or may not stacks you have to ask where the source was instead of what kind of bonus they are.
Stat bonuses are not typed, are never considered typed, and have never been considered typed. Also the way untyped bonuses work has not changed at all. You have always had to determine the source of untyped bonuses to see if they stack.
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
All the FAQ has done is clarified that the source of the bonus granted by an ability score really is that ability score. Which seems like it should just be understood but for some reason many people didn't.
Without any feats, features or other abilities the source of the +4 untyped bonus granted by an 18 Strength is, and has always been, the Strength score.
A hypothetical feat that lets you add your Strength bonus to Knowledge checks doesn't change the source of that bonus. The feat doesn't suddenly replace the Strength score as the source of the bonus. It just allows you to apply that bonus, which you still get from your Strength score, in a new way.
Intimidating Prowess lets you replace your Charisma bonus with your Strength bonus for Intimidate checks. Charisma is still the source of your Charisma bonus, that doesn't change. Strength is still the source of your Strength bonus, that doesn't change. The source of the bonus applied to Intimidate Checks doesn't suddenly become the feat either. All that changes is which of those untyped bonuses is applied to Intimidate checks.
I really don't get why that is so hard for people to understand or why it is considered such a huge problem.
Also, you can argue that the source of the untype bonus is the ability not the stat. So even if you replaced dex with cha and then another ability added cha. Then the ability is the source of the untyped bonus not the stat.
You could have argued that before, and many people did. Now the FAQ says that is incorrect that the stat is indeed the source.
Untyped bonuses can't really appeal to a type to have a source. The ability is the source, and stats themselves add to certain rolls. You can't say that they are untyped, but at the same time say that the ability is providing a stat bonus. The ability is the source of the untyped bonus. You couldn't clarify that untyped bonus as something without making it typed.
By saying the ability is conferring a stat bonus, you are saying that stat is a type of bonus, but then you are saying they follow untyped source bonus stacking rules.
Until you get past considering the ability as the source you will continue to be confused. The ability (such as a feat, spell, class feature, etc...) does not "provide" the bonus in the way you are meaning it. The ability, i.e. feat, spell, class feature, etc..., merely allows you to apply the untyped bonus which is provided, i.e. sourced, by the stat, i.e. Str, Dex, Con, etc..., to something it didn't previously apply to.