Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Covent]

/ranton

I was just about to lose it while reading a thread about sources of damage stacking/not stacking due to them both being "equal to X fraction of your level" and some people claiming "your level" is the source so they don't stack.

It all goes back to a wonderful Paizo decision via FAQrrata.

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.

This means that if you were say a fighter who got your con mod to damage via a class feature named "unending bullshit feature" and took a feat that gave you 1/2 your con mod to damage that they would not stack as the feat and the class feature are not the source but the attribute is...

This is nowhere in the books and causes so many problems that they had to state over and over this is only true for ability scores as they are special bunnies and other things may or may not have such nested sources, but don't use this FAQ to draw conclusions.

*ARGGHHH*
/rantoff

Sorry just got reminded of that and it made me furious.

[saidoro]

It all goes back to a wonderful Paizo decision via FAQrrata.

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.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-cl ... indchemist

At 2nd level, a mindchemist has honed his memory. When making a Knowledge check, he may add his Intelligence bonus on the check a second time. Thus, a mindchemist with 5 ranks in Knowledge (history) and a +2 Intelligence bonus has a total skill bonus of +9 (5 + 2 + 2) using this ability. The mindchemist can also use this ability when making an Intelligence check to remember something.

Note that this says that you add the ability modifier two times, not that you add two times the ability modifier.

[Covent]

It all goes back to a wonderful Paizo decision via FAQrrata.

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.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-cl ... indchemist

At 2nd level, a mindchemist has honed his memory. When making a Knowledge check, he may add his Intelligence bonus on the check a second time. Thus, a mindchemist with 5 ranks in Knowledge (history) and a +2 Intelligence bonus has a total skill bonus of +9 (5 + 2 + 2) using this ability. The mindchemist can also use this ability when making an Intelligence check to remember something.

Note that this says that you add the ability modifier two times, not that you add two times the ability modifier.

Yep their FAQrrata breaks stuff all of the time. Then they hastily backpedal or ignore it. This one also broke undead + antipaladin.

[virgil]

Is it me, or do Paizo people like to make up what a "source" is to make the claim that two things don't stack?

[Kaelik]

Is it me, or do Paizo people like to make up what a "source" is to make the claim that two things don't stack?

It is a long and established tradition from the earliest days of D&D to say FUCK PLAYERS I HATE THOSE GUYS HOW CAN I RUIN ALL THEIR FUN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

And Paizo is a proud contributor to that tradition.

[MGuy]

Seems they are especially adamant about making sure non casters can't do anything. The handouts actual casters get seem to be pretty generous.

[Ice9]

I think they might be more "anti-synergy" than "anti-martial". For practical purposes it has the same result, since they insist on only giving martial characters incremental power-ups rather than standalone abilities though.

Also their focus on intra-class balance means that martial classes sucking in the past is now a design mandate for them to continue sucking.

[DSMatticus]

I think they're just reactionary. "If something makes you feel funny, nerf the shit out of it." So yeah, unexpected synergies are right the fuck out, but so is lots of other random shit - like anything that defies their 3.5-based expectations of what a martial is and does. "Martials aren't supported to be able to do things like that. Nerf it! Nerf it nerf it nerf it nerf it!"

I really don't think there's any thought to the process. It's just a reflex, and the reflex is "no." The thought comes later, once they have their answer and need to explain it.

[GâtFromKI]

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.

"Bonus written with formulation A don't stack, but bonus written using formulation B stack because reasons.

PS: each time you read formulation B in the rules, we instead meant formulation A."

wait; what? Why are they talking about some imaginary rule allowing bonus stacking, and then explains each we see that rule, we must use the non-stacking-bonus rule? The goal of a FAQ is to make the rules more clear, not to explain "the rules works like this, but each time you see that rule in play you must do the opposite".

[Koumei]

I can't remember an edition of D&D where you were better off reading the online FAQ than ignoring it, and seeing as 1st and 2nd editions were created in the 1800s when the Internet didn't exist, I'm still sure they released FAQs on stone tablets that were detrimental to the game.

I mean, Frank can tell you fun things from the 3.X FAQs (or indeed "Ask the Sage!"), which resulted in forum arguments that eventually led to him being banned from the WotC forums. Good times.

And 4E did a crazy thing with theirs, going less for "Occasional FAQ" and more for "Weekly patches where your rulebook doesn't automatically update and you don't automatically remember the changes because it's not actually a fucking video game" but that's basically the same, and was just worse for the game in general.

And then yes, here we are with Pathfinder, where the best you can get out of the FAQ is "Yes, if you have a BAB of +7, you meet the requirement of BAB +5, because your 7 includes a 5, with 2 left over" (ie "Nobody asked that, it's fucking obvious").

[Antariuk]

Well, it appears as if even a number of Paizo fans are losing their goodwill, if the rants about the latest errata for Ultimate Equipment are any indicator (a couple of moderately useful items were - unsurprisingly - nerfed into oblivion). I've glanced over a couple of recent threads on Paizo's current errata/FAQ policy, and it seems that people are getting really pissed about stuff being changed either for Pathfinder Society's 'benefit' or with just one glaring problem/build/power stack in mind, disregarding the rest of the game, which results in messy FAQs like the one about stacking ability modifiers (which was obviously written by someone with a burning hate for Oradins).

I'm only paying attention to the FAQ system when there's something useful, like the unification of the various existing damage dice progression charts, but those incidents are few and far between. Most of it is just a recipe for depression.

[rasmuswagner]

Well, it appears as if even a number of Paizo fans are losing their goodwill, if the rants about the latest errata for Ultimate Equipment are any indicator (a couple of moderately useful items were - unsurprisingly - nerfed into oblivion). I've glanced over a couple of recent threads on Paizo's current errata/FAQ policy, and it seems that people are getting really pissed about stuff being changed either for Pathfinder Society's 'benefit' or with just one glaring problem/build/power stack in mind, disregarding the rest of the game, which results in messy FAQs like the one about stacking ability modifiers (which was obviously written by someone with a burning hate for Oradins).

I'm only paying attention to the FAQ system when there's something useful, like the unification of the various existing damage dice progression charts, but those incidents are few and far between. Most of it is just a recipe for depression.

That errata was crazy. I mean, they have a giant thread of literal errata for the book, including gems like "armor spikes" instead of "shield spikes" on shields (and if you think that hasn't been used in multiple threads about "spiked shields" and "shields with spikes on them" being different things, congratulations on your faith in humanity). They applied about zero percent of that errata, and published only knee-jerk nerfs. And they didn't even do that competently (what is the price difference between a Jingasa with its once-in-a-lifetime crit negation spent vs. unspent?).

[Antariuk]

Oh yeah, that damn Jingasa...

The really sad, sad thing is that all the Paizo devs will be taking away from this incident is "Them optimizers sure cry a lot when we fix the game!", instead of looking why that Jingasa was so popular (it was one of the few items attractive enough that people left out one of the Big Six, which I thin is huuuge).

[ishy]

TL;DR Forgoing a saving throw because you are willing happens when you are willing, and you are willing when you are unconscious, so they have a 100% overlap.

Maybe I can explain this with Water breathing, when you are on a sinking shit, and someone is unconscious, you don't roll a saving throw to see if they resist Water Breathing, no matter how much you keep claiming that you do.

Buff spells, all of them, have saving throws. You don't roll those saving throws because people are foregoing saving throws.

Uhmm no they don't have 100% overlap, that is the point. You still get a saving throw vs say a fireball or death knell when you're unconscious.

Also, please don't lie about what I'm claiming about water breathing, thanks.

[Username17]

You still get a saving throw vs say a fireball or death knell when you're unconscious.

The problem is that that is stupid and insane and you haven't produced a shred of evidence for that assertion. I mean seriously, you are claiming that unconscious people get Reflex Saves. How fucking retarded would that be?

-Username17

[Antariuk]

You still get a saving throw vs say a fireball or death knell when you're unconscious.

Since paralyzed creatures drown or fall down then flying since they become immobile, and since the helpless condition includes the paralyzed condition, how to you figure than an unconscious lump of meat gets a Reflex save to avoid a fireball? I mean... really?

EDIT: Frank, ninjas, all that.

[Koumei]

I think the reason why Death Knell lists a saving throw is that the person who wrote that spell (or converted it forward from AD&D or whatever) didn't consider the fact that the rules already said they won't ever get a save. Because more than one person wrote the system and not everyone was necessarily on the same page as to how everything worked.

That's it. That's the reason why it says there is a saving throw despite targeting people who are unconscious and thus automatically considered willing recipients of any effect and thus automatically foregoing any saving throw. "Designers aren't omniscient perfect beings" is a fact of life, I hope that revelation doesn't destroy your world view.

[Kaelik]

TL;DR Forgoing a saving throw because you are willing happens when you are willing, and you are willing when you are unconscious, so they have a 100% overlap.

Maybe I can explain this with Water breathing, when you are on a sinking shit, and someone is unconscious, you don't roll a saving throw to see if they resist Water Breathing, no matter how much you keep claiming that you do.

Buff spells, all of them, have saving throws. You don't roll those saving throws because people are foregoing saving throws.

Uhmm no they don't have 100% overlap, that is the point. You still get a saving throw vs say a fireball or death knell when you're unconscious.

Also, please don't lie about what I'm claiming about water breathing, thanks.

You are such a lying piece of shit. I was attributing genuine belief to you before, but nope, this is definitely definitely you being a lying piece of shit.

You are seriously making a one man crusade for the idea that unconscious people get saving throws against spells, but then you deny that you are arguing for unconscious people getting saving throws against Water Breathing.

Why? Because you are a lying piece of shit. There is no other possible explanation.

You are the one arguing that unconscious people get saving throws against spells. That means you are the one who is arguing that unconscious people save against Water Breathing.

That is actually one part of your larger argument. Even if you deny it.

[maglag]

I think the reason why Death Knell lists a saving throw is that the person who wrote that spell (or converted it forward from AD&D or whatever) didn't consider the fact that the rules already said they won't ever get a save. Because more than one person wrote the system and not everyone was necessarily on the same page as to how everything worked.

That's it. That's the reason why it says there is a saving throw despite targeting people who are unconscious and thus automatically considered willing recipients of any effect and thus automatically foregoing any saving throw. "Designers aren't omniscient perfect beings" is a fact of life, I hope that revelation doesn't destroy your world view.

But then there's also Consumptive Field and its Greater version, published years later and then published again in a revision compendium both targeting creatures below 0 HP, and both allowing Will saves.

You still get a saving throw vs say a fireball or death knell when you're unconscious.

The problem is that that is stupid and insane and you haven't produced a shred of evidence for that assertion. I mean seriously, you are claiming that unconscious people get Reflex Saves. How fucking retarded would that be?

-Username17

Paralyzed creatures get a reflex save against Fireball.
Stunned creatures get a reflex save against Fireball.
Held creatures get a reflex save against Fireball.
Creatures under Hold Monster get a reflex save against Fireball.
Flatfooted creatures get a reflex save against Fireball.
Blinded deafened creature gets a reflex save against Fireball.
Creatures pinned down by magic indestructible tentacles while being raped on all orifices still get a reflex save against Fireball.

You could apply all of the above conditions to a creature and they would still be able to attempt a reflex save against Fireball. Someone caught completely by surprise, unable to see and hear, while under the combined effect of every immobilizing condition in the core game still gets a reflex save against Fireball. With no penalties.

Thus being able to move was never a requirement for attempting a Reflex save in D&D.

[Kaelik]

"you touch a living creature that has -1 or fewer hit points."

"When reduced to negative hit points, you may choose to act as if you were disabled, rather than dying. You must make this decision as soon as you are reduced to negative hit points (even if it isn’t your turn). If you do not choose to act as if you were disabled, you immediately fall unconscious."

If only there were some way for creatures targeted by Deathknell or effected by Consumptive Fields to be conscious...

[tussock]

Paralyzed creatures get a reflex save against Fireball.
Stunned creatures get a reflex save against Fireball.
Held creatures get a reflex save against Fireball.
Creatures under Hold Monster get a reflex save against Fireball.
Flatfooted creatures get a reflex save against Fireball.
Blinded deafened creature gets a reflex save against Fireball.
Creatures pinned down by magic indestructible tentacles while being raped on all orifices still get a reflex save against Fireball.

You could apply all of the above conditions to a creature and they would still be able to attempt a reflex save against Fireball. Someone caught completely by surprise, unable to see and hear, while under the combined effect of every immobilizing condition in the core game still gets a reflex save against Fireball. With no penalties.

Being Helpless (such as Paralyzed, which is what Hold spells do) causes you to have 0 Dex. That is normally a penalty on your Reflex saves (and your AC, with various further special modifiers). But that's an aside.

The Unconscious condition only makes you a "willing target", which does nothing for saves but does allow you to be targeted with spells which require a "willing target". That's one of those terms of art, only used for spell targeting.

Meanwhile, (harmless) spells you don't get a save unless you will it, that's what that flag says it does. Other spells you do get a save unless you will yourself not to, which is an option you will never use, left over from AD&D when you were doing that against Heal spells without knowing it. Because unconscious people cannot will anything, they take all (harmless) spells without a save and must save vs all other spells, just with a Dex of 0 because they're Helpless.

It's in the definitions for saving throws in the PHB, under Magic. "Willing target" has nothing to do with "Will saves" which has nothing to do with "wilfully forgoing your saving throw". These are all different terms of art.

[ishy]

You are such a lying piece of shit. I was attributing genuine belief to you before, but nope, this is definitely definitely you being a lying piece of shit.

You are seriously making a one man crusade for the idea that unconscious people get saving throws against spells, but then you deny that you are arguing for unconscious people getting saving throws against Water Breathing.

Why? Because you are a lying piece of shit. There is no other possible explanation.

You are the one arguing that unconscious people get saving throws against spells. That means you are the one who is arguing that unconscious people save against Water Breathing.

That is actually one part of your larger argument. Even if you deny it.

You fucking lying bastard.
Water breathing is a spell with the (harmless) tag. Exactly like I said before, what you're now lying about, this is what the harmless tag does: "(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires."
In other words, you don't get a save by default, but you can choose to make one. And while this is not 100% in the rules, it is my sincere belief that unconscious creatures cannot make a conscious decision to determine whether or not they desire a saving throw.

---

The problem is that that is stupid and insane and you haven't produced a shred of evidence for that assertion. I mean seriously, you are claiming that unconscious people get Reflex Saves. How fucking retarded would that be?

-Username17

Default rules tell you, you get a saving throw. There are no rules that state you don't get one if you can't move. You could DM fiat any reason to not allow a saving throw, like say you're in a 5x5ft room and therefore you don't get a saving throw vs fireball. But that is still DM fiat. Keep in mind reflex saves are not just dexterity, but also luck modifiers, cover, cloak of resistance etc.
Your effective dex while helpless is 0 though, so you'd make one at a significant penalty.

For example, last session I was reduced to -1 hp. And a monster casted cone of cold on me. My normal reflex save is +9 (+2 base,+3 dex, +1 luck, +3 cloak), while unconscious my reflex save is +1(+2 base -5 dex, +1 luck +3 cloak). I rolled a natural 20 and thus only took 7 damage from the cone of cold, keeping my character alive.

---

It seems many people here don't understand that rules that apply to A do not necessarily apply to B. If you have rules for melee attacks, rules that apply to your attack roll do not necessarily apply to to your damage rolls. Same thing for spells, rules that apply to your spell targeting do not necessarily apply to what effect that spells has on a creature that was successfully targeted by a spell.

[Rejakor]

I like how Kaelik is good enough at internet arguing to nearly silence all competition despite being provably wrong with less than a minute of looking at rules text to find the relevant examples.

The argument of 'willing' = 'willingly forgoing a saving throw' when the two terms are defined separately and not used in even a slightly adjacent way is absolutely retarded. It's like claiming that 'attack' and 'touch attack' are the same thing because they both contain the word 'attack'. Except those two things are actually more similar than willing and forgoing a saving throw.

[Kaelik]

I like how Kaelik is good enough at internet arguing to nearly silence all competition despite being provably wrong with less than a minute of looking at rules text to find the relevant examples.

The argument of 'willing' = 'willingly forgoing a saving throw' when the two terms are defined separately and not used in even a slightly adjacent way is absolutely retarded. It's like claiming that 'attack' and 'touch attack' are the same thing because they both contain the word 'attack'. Except those two things are actually more similar than willing and forgoing a saving throw.

Meanwhile, in reality, sets exist, and include the things in their set. So a touch attack is a subset of attacks, and willingly forgoing a save is a subset of being willing.

But you are right that argument skill is involved, because it would take me less than a minute to come up with three different analogies for your argument that don't actually support my argument and make you look like an idiot, but you came up with one that supports my argument and makes you look like an idiot.

[Ice9]

Yes, you get a save while unconscious; I didn't realize this was even under debate. "Willing" for spell purposes is about the target line ("one willing creature" for instance), not about the saving throws. Also, for (harmless) spells you only get a save if you ask for one, which won't happen when you're unconscious.

But, for example, you're unconscious and someone casts Dominate Person or Bestow Curse on you? You still get a save.

And since it's sort of on-topic ... "unconscious means willing" is the worst summary phrasing of a game rule I've ever heard. Many rules are awkward, but this one makes you sound like a rapist if you say it in public. Two thumbs down.