Stacking Modifiers

[Ravingdork]

It's widely known that modifiers of the same type don't stack. A +1 circumstance bonus from ability A and a +2 circumstance bonus from ability B results in a net +2, not a +3.

If two PCs Aid a third character on a skill check, and get a Critical Success (+2 circumstance bonus) and a Critical Failure (-1 circumstance penalty), then that results in a net +2, right? Since the rules is that the higher modifier overrides the lower?

Or is it a net +0? That seems like stacking the modifiers though which, as we've established is not how like modifiers work.

[Errenor]

Well, I don't know, what do you think:
"There are three other types of bonus that frequently appear: circumstance bonuses, item bonuses, and status bonuses. If you have different types of bonuses that would apply to the same roll, you'll add them all. But if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you can use only the highest bonus on a given roll—they aren't cumulative."
"Penalties work very much like bonuses. You can have circumstance penalties, status penalties, and sometimes even item penalties. Like bonuses of the same type, you take only the worst all of various penalties of a given type. However, you can apply both a bonus and a penalty of the same type on a single roll."
"Unlike bonuses, penalties can also be untyped, in which case they won't be classified as “circumstance,” “item,” or “status.” Unlike other penalties, you always add all your untyped penalties together rather than simply taking the worst one."
?

[Baarogue]

Ravingdork wrote:

It's widely known that modifiers of the same type don't stack. A +1 circumstance bonus from ability A and a +2 circumstance bonus from ability B results in a net +2, not a +3.

If two PCs Aid a third character on a skill check, and get a Critical Success (+2 circumstance bonus) and a Critical Failure (-1 circumstance penalty), then that results in a net +2, right? Since the rules is that the higher modifier overrides the lower?

Or is it a net +0? That seems like stacking the modifiers though which, as we've established is not how like modifiers work.

Nice straw man, except we don't lump them together as "modifiers"

Bonuses And Penalties, PC1 p.10 wrote:

Bonuses and penalties apply to checks and certain statistics. There are several types of bonuses and penalties. If you have more than one bonus of the same type, you use only the highest bonus. Likewise, you use only the worst penalty of each type.

In case that wasn't clear, how they work together is explicitly spelled out later in the book

Penalties, PC1 p.400 wrote:

However, you can apply both a bonus and a penalty of the same type on a single roll. For example, if you had a +1 status bonus from a heroism spell but a –2 status penalty from the sickened condition, you'd apply them both to your roll—so heroism still helps even though you're feeling unwell.

[Ravingdork]

Yeah, but in those examples the modifiers are from different sources.

Aid is one ability, one source. Would you not treat it differently then?

[Baarogue]

Ravingdork wrote:

Yeah, but in those examples the modifiers are from different sources.

Aid is one ability, one source. Would you not treat it differently then?

I would not because they are not the same thing. One is a bonus, the other a penalty

According to Duplicate Effects, "When you're affected by the same thing multiple times, only one instance applies, using the higher level or rank of the effects, or the newer effect if the two are equal."

It says "same thing" but doesn't define what a "thing" is. To me, same thing MEANS same thing, as in identical

So the best bonus and worst penalty both apply since they are not the same thing

and before you ask if the higher level PC's Aid overrides the lower level PC's, would you like that to apply if the higher level PC's Aid was a +1 bonus but the lower level one's bonus was +2? I doubt it

[NorrKnekten]

A bonus is a bonus,
A penalty is a penalty.

Bonuses does not stack with other bonuses of the same type.
Penalties does not stack with other penalties of the same type.

Duplicate effects has generally been intepreted as applying to effects that come from the same source, but it is likely closer to a guideline, making it probably more accurate to say that most benefits and drawbacks arent meant to stack.

I believe a paizo dev clarified that using resist energy as an example. in that you can benefit from two resist energy as long as they are granting different resistances, But I am unable to find the post.

[Plane]

Sounds like cheese when you apply the same logic to different scenarios.

You have an ability that imposes a -2 circumstance penalty to attacks against you for a round. An enemy attacks you with an ability that gives them a +1 circumstance bonus to hit. You think their +1 should be treated as the same thing as your -2 and nullify it?

No, it makes sense to treat penalties and bonuses as different things.

[Finoan]

I'm not sure why this is being discussed further after post #2.

Let me see if I can clear this up.

Penalties wrote:

Like bonuses of the same type, you take only the worst all of various penalties of a given type. However, you can apply both a bonus and a penalty of the same type on a single roll.

It doesn't matter if the bonus and penalty came from two instances of the same ability used by different allies/enemies or not.

And don't get started on the argument that "can" means that you don't have to if you don't want to because that is what the word means in formal language like design specifications for software. In this context, it very obviously means that it is possible that it is possible to have both a penalty and a bonus of the same type and that both will apply to the roll in that scenario.

So if one ally uses Aid and gives a +2 circumstance, another ally uses Aid and gives a +1 circumstance, and a 3rd ally crit fails Aid and gives a -1 circumstance penalty, the result is:

The +1 circumstance bonus does not stack with the +2 circumstance bonus.
Both the +2 circumstance bonus and the -1 circumstance penalty apply.
The net result is a +1 circumstance because +2 -1 = +1.

[Trip.H]

Plane wrote:

I hard agree, and do argue that the devs have written spells like Albatross Curse with this idea of ~"stacking indirectly via affecting the opposite side" in mind.

That spell grants a +1 circ bonus to those attacking the cursed target, and not impose a -1 circ penalty to the target's AC.

In my opinion, this was done because of how common / easy it is to inflict circ minuses to foe AC, such as via flanking, etc. This would hugely cripple the spell's value as it would not stack.

A circ bonus to attacks, meanwhile, is a much more rare bonus in the system, thereby allowing the spell to be useful more often due to that pseudo-stacking.

[Deriven Firelion]

The way I run it is penalties and bonuses of the same type don't stack, but penalties and bonuses do stack even if the same type. For example, a circumstance penalty does stack with a circumstance bonus when calculating total effectiveness.

[Tridus]

Ravingdork wrote:

Yeah, but in those examples the modifiers are from different sources.

Aid is one ability, one source. Would you not treat it differently then?

Two different people are doing Aid, otherwise you can't get this outcome since one Aid check can't give +2 and -1 at the same time.

The answer is pretty clear since the rules explicitly state that bonuses and penalties can both apply. You don't get to just ignore a critical failure on Aid because you allowed two people to attempt it when you wouldn't also ignore a critical success from the second person, that doesn't make any sense.

This is the correct answer:

Finoan wrote:

So if one ally uses Aid and gives a +2 circumstance, another ally uses Aid and gives a +1 circumstance, and a 3rd ally crit fails Aid and gives a -1 circumstance penalty, the result is:

The +1 circumstance bonus does not stack with the +2 circumstance bonus.
Both the +2 circumstance bonus and the -1 circumstance penalty apply.
The net result is a +1 circumstance because +2 -1 = +1.

[Ravingdork]

Thank you for your input everyone!