Isn't the bonus to Survival from the tracker's goggles supposed to be an item bonus?
Bonuses can't be untyped, so yes, the bonus given from Tracker's Goggles would be an item bonus.
It should definitely have said it's an item bonus, though. I never noticed that before, and I was literally just looking at tracker's goggles yesterday, lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bonuses can't be untyped, so yes, the bonus given from Tracker's Goggles would be an item bonus.
It should definitely have said it's an item bonus, though. I never noticed that before, and I was literally just looking at tracker's goggles yesterday, lol.
Where in the rules does it say that bonuses have to be assigned a type? There are types, and the means of which that the bonus comes from determines the type of bonus it should be, but that's neither a guarantee nor spelled out in the rules as an absolute.
Where in the rules does it say that bonuses have to be assigned a type? There are types, and the means of which that the bonus comes from determines the type of bonus it should be, but that's neither a guarantee nor spelled out in the rules as an absolute.Bonuses can't be untyped, so yes, the bonus given from Tracker's Goggles would be an item bonus.
It should definitely have said it's an item bonus, though. I never noticed that before, and I was literally just looking at tracker's goggles yesterday, lol.
Closest rule to that would be on pg.444 CRB
“There are three other types of bonus that frequently appear: circumstance bonuses, item bonuses, and status bonuses. ”The first types the rule was referring were ability score and proficiency bonuses.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Where in the rules does it say that bonuses have to be assigned a type? There are types, and the means of which that the bonus comes from determines the type of bonus it should be, but that's neither a guarantee nor spelled out in the rules as an absolute.
Bonuses absolutely MUST have one of the established types, penalties on the other hand are allowed to be untyped, seems pretty cut and dry here, this is missing a type for the bonus, Item does seem the most logical to me as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where in the rules does it say that bonuses have to be assigned a type? There are types, and the means of which that the bonus comes from determines the type of bonus it should be, but that's neither a guarantee nor spelled out in the rules as an absolute.Bonuses can't be untyped, so yes, the bonus given from Tracker's Goggles would be an item bonus.
It should definitely have said it's an item bonus, though. I never noticed that before, and I was literally just looking at tracker's goggles yesterday, lol.
"Unlike bonuses, penalties can also be untyped, in which case they won’t be classified as “circumstance,” “item,” or “status.”"
So what type of bonus is Weapon Specialization, Attributes, and some others are? Circumstance, Status, or Item?
Correct. It's a little weird that additional doesn't equal bonus, but that has actually been confirmed. And Tracker's Goggles specifically mention gaining a +1 or +2 "bonus", so it is meant to be a bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not a "bonus" to your damage, that's additional damage that is added. It's weird that it's different but it is what it is.
I mean, I guess the proper term is "modifier," but it seems really stupid and arbitrary that a "modifier" and a "penalty" can be untyped, but a "bonus," which a modifier can certainly be, can't. What distinguishes a modifier from a bonus, then?
Also, there is more than 3 bonuses, since the rules do state proficiency is a bonus.
I don't think there are untyped penalties (and if there are, I don't think there's supposed to be).
I don't think there are untyped penalties (and if there are, I don't think there's supposed to be).
Multiple Attack Penalty is the specific example given in the CRB.
Another one is the AC penalty from Rage for Barbarians.
They are few, but the fact they exist and other ones cannot is, again, arbitrary.
You say that as if everything in a TTRPG isn't arbitrary to some extent XD
Well, some things more than others, but still
You say that as if everything in a TTRPG isn't arbitrary to some extent XD
Well, some things more than others, but still
There's arbitrary to make the game work, and arbitrary just to be arbitrary. I feel this is more on the latter than the former.
Consider the following two sentences: "I have a modifier of +4 to my check." "I have a bonus of +4 to my check."
Fundamentally, these are no different to the result. Both, when considered separately, add +4 to my check.
But because one is a bonus and one is a modifier, one of these things have to be specifically typed to something. There is no apparent distinction from the above two statements that warrants a type specification of one and not the other. Ergo, arbitrary.
Look at the alternative of the previous sentences: "I have a modifier of -4 to my check." "I have a penalty of -4 to my check."
As with above, they are fundamentally no different from one another. Both add -4 to my check when considered separately. Being called a modifier or a penalty in this case is equally meaningless as with the above examples.
However, as one is a penalty, it may be typed instead of untyped, determining whether it stacks with other penalties, or other modifiers, which can serve a purpose, I won't deny. But it doesn't have to be, even though very much like the previous example, it's an identical scenario of two things being identical providing the same function, but one being limited even though, despite inversion, they are the same. There shouldn't be a problem with an untyped Bonus existing compared to an untyped Penalty, when the only differences between them are the positive/negative value adjustments.
Granted, we can sit there and say "Well, there aren't that many untyped penalties in the game now, so why do we need untyped bonuses when they don't exist?" To that, I say it's for the same reasons we have existing non-functioning rules to begin with: Future-proofing. Maybe there will be a class or feat or something in a later book that requires this very thing to function. Maybe the Inventor will get a +1 Bonus to attacks or something while dealing with the finalized Unstable rules. Maybe the Summoner will get the ability to grant his summons (via a "summon pool") a +1 to AC. It would make more sense to permit it to work than it would to deny it's appearance to begin with, especially if they may decide to engage in that concept down the line.