|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A few weeks ago, I wrote on here asking to confirm that the bonuses from Improved Overrun and Bulette Charge Style stack. I was assured that I am remembering correctly and that they do, in fact, stack. Thanks to all that replied!
However, my GM doesn't believe me! Its NOT that he is merely ruling against me, which I could accept (Rule Zero and all that)... No, the problem is that he disagrees with the notion, which I find so hard to accept. But I figured, hey, if I can show him the rule in the CRB, he will believe me, and may change his mind.
SO, I went to look up the general rule in the CRB on ArchivesofNethys and I found no such ruling! I searched for "stack" "stacking" "untyped"... Am I just looking past it? Is it maybe never explicitly stated? Any advice will be appreciated.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I should add that the phrase I am looking to find is that "untyped bonuses stack".
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
From the magic chapter of the CRB under spell effects:
"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."
Edit: frustratingly I cannot find this rule on Nethys, I had to go to the legacy PRD to pull it, if your GM is working of Nethys as a primary source that could be the cause of this issue.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
link to it on d20pfsrd
Bonus
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.
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. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Java Man wrote: From the magic chapter of the CRB under spell effects:
"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."
Edit: frustratingly I cannot find this rule on Nethys, I had to go to the legacy PRD to pull it, if your GM is working of Nethys as a primary source that could be the cause of this issue.
This is probably the issue (using Nethys). Thank you for researching it!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Name Violation wrote: link to it on d20pfsrd
Bonus
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.
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. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
"Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source." THATS the ticket! I hope he'll accept d20pfrsd. Thank you for hunting this down!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Well either source should work. For what it's worth I still have a physical copy of the original CRB. The quote you're looking for in in Chapter 9 "Magic", "Special Spell Effects" section, "Bonus Types", page 208, first continued paragraph of the second column, last sentence.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Sysryke wrote: Well either source should work. For what it's worth I still have a physical copy of the original CRB. The quote you're looking for in in Chapter 9 "Magic", "Special Spell Effects" section, "Bonus Types", page 208, first continued paragraph of the second column, last sentence. Oh, thank you so much for pointing out the exact location. I know that my GM has a hard copy of the CRB because I've seen it. This should settle the argument. Thanks again.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Note that the "same source" is a bit vague. Generally, it's assumed to mean that multiple castings of the exact same spell or effect can't benefit you more than once. But there is an FAQ that made it a little more vague:
https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9sgk
Quote: 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.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
That's because Paizo was bending the rules again in a FAQratta to impose a new restriction against stacking the same ability score multiple times. The most common scenario for this was a Paladin with one level of Oracle (using one of those many charisma-replaces-dex-for-AC-and-reflex revelations) adding charisma twice to reflex saving throws or someone with the Evangelist obedience of Desna adding charisma twice to concentration checks (which was actually intended at the time that the Obedience was released). You shouldn't really take that FAQ as suggesting a broader principle. It's just a specific nerf to stacking ability score bonuses.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Soapbox wrote: Sysryke wrote: Well either source should work. For what it's worth I still have a physical copy of the original CRB. The quote you're looking for in in Chapter 9 "Magic", "Special Spell Effects" section, "Bonus Types", page 208, first continued paragraph of the second column, last sentence. Oh, thank you so much for pointing out the exact location. I know that my GM has a hard copy of the CRB because I've seen it. This should settle the argument. Thanks again. ;)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Melkiador wrote: Note that the "same source" is a bit vague. Generally, it's assumed to mean that multiple castings of the exact same spell or effect can't benefit you more than once. But there is an FAQ that made it a little more vague:
"...made it a little more vague" ROFL
I'm dying to know Soapbox, did your GM finally concede the point?
Sysryke wrote: I'm dying to know Soapbox, did your GM finally concede the point? He DID! Just last night. Now my modifier for Overrun is +16 at 4th level (even more if I rage or use my mutagen)!
He was dubious about me using the internet and this chat forum as a source of knowledge, but couldn't deny the evidence from the core rulebook you all provided me!
He also warned me that now he will have to increase the challenge ratings of future battles because otherwise I will literally be bowling over his monsters.
In this party there is me, Barbarian/Fighter, then a straight up Fighter, a cleric, a druid, an alchemist, and a witch.
He said he will be forced to kill off the other players just to challenge me and the Fighter in an average combat.
But I plan to calm him down by how I play... Using my special attacks sparingly.
Lets hope that works!
Sounds like you need a better GM. Knocking the bad guys down reliably is hardly game breaking.
Soapbox wrote: Sysryke wrote: I'm dying to know Soapbox, did your GM finally concede the point? He DID! Just last night. Now my modifier for Overrun is +16 at 4th level (even more if I rage or use my mutagen)!
He was dubious about me using the internet and this chat forum as a source of knowledge, but couldn't deny the evidence from the core rulebook you all provided me!
He also warned me that now he will have to increase the challenge ratings of future battles because otherwise I will literally be bowling over his monsters.
In this party there is me, Barbarian/Fighter, then a straight up Fighter, a cleric, a druid, an alchemist, and a witch.
He said he will be forced to kill off the other players just to challenge me and the Fighter in an average combat.
But I plan to calm him down by how I play... Using my special attacks sparingly.
Lets hope that works! point out to the DM that a lot of the bonuses to AC also add to cmd. dodge, deflection, ect
Miscellaneous Modifiers
A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature’s AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.
Quote: When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack. If your target does not avoid you, make a combat maneuver check as normal. The enemies are only bowled over if they try to stop you.
But if you do succeed by 5 or more, you are just knocking them prone. It’s hardly combat ending. I don’t know why your GM thinks this has somehow broken his game.
Does seem like your GM needs to settle a bit, and get more comfortable with the rules, but I don't think it's unfair to up challenges to meet the PCs where they're at. I'd say if he's that worried about wiping out the other players, then group tactics and individual builds need to be examined.
The fighters SHOULD be the hardest characters to take down in combat, but that means that you two should be actively defending the other characters, using positioning and terrain to limit access to your casters as much as possible.
That said, clerics, druids, witches, and alchemists can all be absurdly badass. Those characters should be able to contribute to their own defenses in many ways, and their players should be doing their parts to contribute to good tactical play.
If there's a huge disparity in system mastery between you and the other players, see if your GM would be open to you helping your stablemates tweak their characters a bit (assuming your other players are open to that sort of help).
Melkiador wrote: Quote: When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack. If your target does not avoid you, make a combat maneuver check as normal. The enemies are only bowled over if they try to stop you.
But if you do succeed by 5 or more, you are just knocking them prone. It’s hardly combat ending. I don’t know why your GM thinks this has somehow broken his game. Well, I have the Improved Overrun feat as well, so the enemies cannot choose to avoid me and I do not provoke an attack of opportunity from them.
thorin001 wrote: Sounds like you need a better GM. Knocking the bad guys down reliably is hardly game breaking. He's just very old and set in his ways.
Name Violation wrote: Soapbox wrote: Sysryke wrote: I'm dying to know Soapbox, did your GM finally concede the point? He DID! Just last night. Now my modifier for Overrun is +16 at 4th level (even more if I rage or use my mutagen)!
He was dubious about me using the internet and this chat forum as a source of knowledge, but couldn't deny the evidence from the core rulebook you all provided me!
He also warned me that now he will have to increase the challenge ratings of future battles because otherwise I will literally be bowling over his monsters.
In this party there is me, Barbarian/Fighter, then a straight up Fighter, a cleric, a druid, an alchemist, and a witch.
He said he will be forced to kill off the other players just to challenge me and the Fighter in an average combat.
But I plan to calm him down by how I play... Using my special attacks sparingly.
Lets hope that works! point out to the DM that a lot of the bonuses to AC also add to cmd. dodge, deflection, ect
Miscellaneous Modifiers
A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature’s AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD. Thats right, thanks for bringing that up. I already mentioned to him that creatures with multiple sets of legs get bonuses for that (+2 per set), and creature bigger than Large I cant even try to Overrun.
Sysryke wrote: Does seem like your GM needs to settle a bit, and get more comfortable with the rules, but I don't think it's unfair to up challenges to meet the PCs where they're at. I'd say if he's that worried about wiping out the other players, then group tactics and individual builds need to be examined.
The fighters SHOULD be the hardest characters to take down in combat, but that means that you two should be actively defending the other characters, using positioning and terrain to limit access to your casters as much as possible.
That said, clerics, druids, witches, and alchemists can all be absurdly badass. Those characters should be able to contribute to their own defenses in many ways, and their players should be doing their parts to contribute to good tactical play.
If there's a huge disparity in system mastery between you and the other players, see if your GM would be open to you helping your stablemates tweak their characters a bit (assuming your other players are open to that sort of help).
1) Yeah, I dont think it unfair, Im just worried how the others will feel.
2) Yes, we try to shield our fellow players but the tend to spread out a bit making it difficult sometimes, lol.
3) Well some of our players arent really maximizing their potential (not that theres anything wrong with that).
4) Ive been waiting for a near TPK to suggest exactly that.
If a GM has problems with a build a player would be better off working with the GM to tone down the build. The GM has control over what is allowed in the campaign and can simply say no to a feat especially one from an obscure book. If I were the GM and this was giving me problems that would be what my response would be.
Personally, I don’t see this of being that big of a problem, but I am pretty well versed in the game and all my game are of my own creation so I can tailor the campaign to the players. If the GM is running a published AP and does not have complete mastery over the game or the time required to create a campaign from scratch it can be a lot more difficult.
From the sound of it the character is a one trick pony and that can be dangerous. Once your trick is nullified your character often becomes useless. Combat maneuvers tend to be fairly good at low level but become a lot less effective at higher level. Not only does the HD increase but so does the size. Trying to overrun a humanoid target at low level is not difficult but try doing that on a huge 4-legged creature and it is another story.
Soapbox wrote: thorin001 wrote: Sounds like you need a better GM. Knocking the bad guys down reliably is hardly game breaking. He's just very old and set in his ways. His name isn't Clyde, is it? :P
|
