Recent Pathfinder FAQs Pummeling gets Pummeled

[grarrrg]

Part 4 in the ongoing, infrequent series. 1st (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?312200-Recent-Pathfinder-FAQs-%28end-of-Oct%29) 2nd (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314867-Recent-Pathfinder-FAQs-%28Mid-Nov%29) 3rd (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?361574-Recent-Pathfinder-FAQ-Rulings-Tier-0-Paragon-Surge-is-Dead)

There have only been 3 recent updates, and all are from the ACG. So I'm just going to link the whole page (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gw) instead of individual rulings.

And as always, we save the most annoying best for last.

#1: Skalds get Perform (Wind) for all intents and purposes. This was overlooked (most likely due to the "editing quality" of the "impeccable" book it was published in...)

#2: A Slayer's Favored Target Skill Check bonuses scale with level, along with DC's and Attack/Damage rolls. (see also "impeccable editing quality")

#3: Pummeling Style is for Unarmed Strikes only. ([insert "witty" comment here])

EDIT!
LINK! (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9sgk)

Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack?
No.
Follow the link for the full rundown.

[Snowbluff]

#3: Pummeling Style is for Unarmed Strikes only. ([insert "witty" comment here])

Ugh, finally.

As an addendum, melee don't get nice things.

[137beth]

Ugh, finally.

As an addendum, melee don't get nice things.

Sure they do! Clerics, Druids, Summoners, and Shapechanging sorcerers with melee-enhancing bloodline abilities are all things in pathfinder:smalltongue:

[torrasque666]

Ugh, finally.

As an addendum, melee don't get nice things.

Well, to be fair, while it doesn't help all melee now, it does still help one of the harder-to-be-viable styles of melee.

[grarrrg]

Bumping thread due to an additional FAQ.
Link (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9sgk)

Here's the short version:

Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack?
No.

So apparently Paladin 2/Lore Oracle 1 for double CHA to REF saves is dead now? (along with a whole ton of other 'shifting'?)

[Raven777]

No Gunslinger/Trench Fighter anymore either.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Bumping thread due to an additional FAQ.
Link (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9sgk)

Here's the short version:


So apparently Paladin 2/Lore Oracle 1 for double CHA to REF saves is dead now? (along with a whole ton of other 'shifting'?)Correct. A poster on the Paizo forums is trying to go through and catalogue at least some of the changes. [link] (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qe32&page=6?What-is-the-meaning-of-source-in-regards-to#278) Spoilers: Not everyone on the Paizo boards is happy with the change because, stunningly, wording imprecision from the Core Rulebook has a massive, cascading effect when it's fixed 5 years later.

As for poor pummeling style: The most disappointing thing is that it is now explicitly only allowed with unarmed strikes, and not close weapons.

[Extra Anchovies]

Correct. A poster on the Paizo forums is trying to go through and catalogue at least some of the changes. [link] (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qe32&page=6?What-is-the-meaning-of-source-in-regards-to#278) Spoilers: Not everyone on the Paizo boards is happy with the change because, stunningly, wording imprecision from the Core Rulebook has a massive, cascading effect when it's fixed 5 years later.

As for poor pummeling style: The most disappointing thing is that it is now explicitly only allowed with unarmed strikes, and not close weapons.

Agreed and agreed. I think the only reason why that wasn't FAQ'ed earlier was that people were too afraid they'd get this answer, and lose their awesome X to Y builds :smalltongue: Pummeling Style with close weapons could be seen as a way to crit-fish, but the best you can get is a combined threat range of 19-20/x4, which isn't game-breaking, especially not on someone who only uses close weapons.

[Alleran]

Time to throw out my Dragon Style + Dragon Ferocity combination. Which seems to have been suddenly broken by the new FAQ.

At least a couple of my Inquisitor PCs, too.

[Extra Anchovies]

Time to throw out my Dragon Style + Dragon Ferocity combination. Which seems to have been suddenly broken by the new FAQ.

At least a couple of my Inquisitor PCs, too.

Yeah, this ruling is huge. And five years too late. There are a lot of builds based around getting multiples of X to Y. How does it kill your Dragon Style + Dragon Ferocity combo? Dragon Ferocity still lets the +1/2 Str from Dragon Style apply to all of your attacks. You lose... an extra +1/2 Str on the first attack. That's not very much.

[Alleran]

How does it kill your Dragon Style + Dragon Ferocity combo? Dragon Ferocity still lets the +1/2 Str from Dragon Style apply to all of your attacks. You lose... an extra +1/2 Str on the first attack. That's not very much.
Because of the way Dragon Ferocity is worded, it is now a dead feat, because it can't add damage (same source bonus, so it doesn't stack) to Dragon Style attacks.

I think Inquisitors are going to suffer the most.

[Sayt]

Agreed and agreed. I think the only reason why that wasn't FAQ'ed earlier was that people were too afraid they'd get this answer, and lose their awesome X to Y builds :smalltongue: Pummeling Style with close weapons could be seen as a way to crit-fish, but the best you can get is a combined threat range of 19-20/x4, which isn't game-breaking, especially not on someone who only uses close weapons.

If you throw DSP material into the mix, the UAS archetype for the Soulknife can get 17-20/3

[Squirrel_Dude]

Update on the errata/FAQ. There is a small but important exception to things not stacking twice. If the class feature/feat/spell etc. already says that you can add your modifier a second time, they do stack, and of course multiplying the bonuses works too. Question: Are there any abilities that let you stack morale/profane/sacred or other typed bonuses (besides dodge) on top of each other?

[link] (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qe32&page=8?What-is-the-meaning-of-source-in-regards-to#360)




So, what about abilities, that explicitly state they add a modifier twice?
As above, those are specific overriding general. So like mindchemist's perfect recall, those all add it twice. And ones that say they add double the bonus aren't even specific overriding general, they're multiplying, rather than adding twice.

[Psyren]

As for poor pummeling style: The most disappointing thing is that it is now explicitly only allowed with unarmed strikes, and not close weapons.

Pummeling Style is a combat feat, so Martial Versatility (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/racial-feats/martial-versatility-combat-human) fixes that. And for our woodland friends, Feral Combat Training (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/feral-combat-training-combat) lets you Pummeling Bite.


Update on the errata/FAQ. There is a small but important exception to things not stacking twice. If the class feature/feat/spell etc. already says that you can add your modifier a second time, they do stack, and of course multiplying the bonuses works too. Question: Are there any abilities that let you stack morale/profane/sacred or other typed bonuses (besides dodge) on top of each other?

[link] (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qe32&page=8?What-is-the-meaning-of-source-in-regards-to#360)

It's sad that they have to explicitly tell people specific trumps general. I mean really, it's the game's most basic rule.

There's always a flurry of people trying to find ways that a new ruling they don't like breaks something else, but this is a bit much.

[Squirrel_Dude]

It's sad that they have to explicitly tell people specific trumps general. I mean really, it's the game's most basic rule.

There's always a flurry of people trying to find ways that a new ruling they don't like breaks something else, but this is a bit much.Out of context, that's what it looks like he was doing. In context, he and another poser were just clarifying things about the FAQ so they could get a full understanding of how it worked. Again, a change to the CRB will have a lot of effects after all this time, and it's better to ask the obvious questions and make sure you're getting the expected answers.

[Snowbluff]

Pummeling Style is a combat feat, so Martial Versatility (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/racial-feats/martial-versatility-combat-human) fixes that. And for our woodland friends, Feral Combat Training (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/feral-combat-training-combat) lets you Pummeling Bite.


Let's get around this awful feat chain with a higher feat tax. That'll show em. :smalltongue:

[Extra Anchovies]

Let's get around this awful feat chain with a higher feat tax. That'll show em. :smalltongue:

Well, we have to make sure that martials are balanced with casters somehow.

[Lord_Gareth]

The bonus thing saddens me, not because it broke anything in particular for me but because it's...weasely. Those bonuses have been untyped for years, and now Paizo's trying to claim that they were always, clearly, a specifically-typed bonus that therefore cannot stack? Ugh. At least 4e was honest about its stream of errata and support.

[Psyren]

JJ has said it works this way for years. It should not be a surprise to anyone who was paying attention. But whenever someone brought it up before, the chorus of "he's only the fluff/setting guy!" would shout them down. Well, now the actual devs have backed him up.



Let's get around this awful feat chain with a higher feat tax. That'll show em. :smalltongue:

One extra feat is not going to break the bank. If you want to use a cestus that badly, which is cheaper and easier to enhance than a AoMF, that is one of the prices for entry.

[Lord_Gareth]

JJ has said it works this way for years. It should not be a surprise to anyone who was paying attention. But whenever someone brought it up before, the chorus of "he's only the fluff/setting guy!" would shout them down. Well, now the actual devs have backed him up.

I'm well aware of what JJ said and how long ago he said it. I dismissed it because it showed a basic lack of comprehension re: the bonus stacking/bonus type rules. The rest of the dev team backing him up just makes me sad, not educated.

[Psyren]

Gareth, I was speaking generally, not to you specifically. And it was a perfectly valid reading of the bonus type/stacking rules - just not the only one, thus the issue was still unclear. (Until now.)

[Squirrel_Dude]

JJ has said it works this way for years. It should not be a surprise to anyone who was paying attention. But whenever someone brought it up before, the chorus of "he's only the fluff/setting guy!" would shout them down. Well, now the actual devs have backed him up.You know when they could have backed him up, when they first printed the Core Rulebook. If that's how they thought it worked, which is contrary to how it was always understood to have worked, they should have made that clarification 5 years ago. They could have at least not continued to use that rules imprecision for a half decade. Pathfinder is not a new game, it's core rulebook is a revision of a revision of a previous game. There shouldn't be any rules imprecision with some of the game's basic rules, like bonus stacking, left. There especially shouldn't have been any left to linger for another 5 years.

I say all this, agreeing with the FAQ ruling. It makes sense to me. The "bonus equal to X ≠ X bonus" wording is a bit weird, and will cause some confusion in the short term, but I can live with that. Nonetheless, this is a problem Paizo created, and they can sit on it.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I'd have loved for them to clarify this earlier too. Maybe they were lurking in all the debates to better determine if it was necessary. Maybe they were just busy. Maybe they really did think JJ's post was good enough for most tables and were surprised that people were still expecting a ruling. My question is, who cares what the reason is? It's irrelevant; we got it now, and that's what counts. I'd rather them continue issuing FAQs on a 5-year-old book than none at all.

[Snowbluff]

One extra feat is not going to break the bank. If you want to use a cestus that badly, which is cheaper and easier to enhance than a AoMF, that is one of the prices for entry.Same weapon group? You know what, that combo has no value. Can't even be used with a real weapon. Why would anyone spend the extra feat? That's a horrible idea. The best option is the punching dagger, from what I can tell. :l

[The Insanity]

Good thing FAQs aren't rules and I can ignore it.

[Lord_Gareth]

Good thing FAQs aren't rules and I can ignore it.

Paizo's policy is that FAQs are official rulings. It's how they "avoid excessive errata". Despite, you know, many FAQs essentially being errata.

[torrasque666]

Not with Pathfinder you can't. Their FAQs are actually eratta.

Like I wish 3.5's had been.

[Psyren]

Good thing FAQs aren't rules and I can ignore it.

You can but ignoring them is basically a houserule. (They are also binding upon PFS.)


Same weapon group? You know what, that combo has no value. Can't even be used with a real weapon. Why would anyone spend the extra feat? That's a horrible idea. The best option is the punching dagger, from what I can tell. :l

Dan Bong is popular for the untyped grapple bonus. And again, pretty much any weapon has innate value over unarmed strike due to the ease of enhancement.

[Snowbluff]

Dan Bong is popular for the untyped grapple bonus. And again, pretty much any weapon has innate value over unarmed strike due to the ease of enhancement.
Okay, my question here is what's keeping you from just carrying one when you need to grapple? Nothing says you have to attack with it to have the benefit. :smallconfused:

[The Insanity]

Where can I see the rule that FAQs are official rules? Doesn't change a thing for me, I still will ignore it, but I'd like to know if I'm actually houseruling or just not following "unofficial official rules".
And PFS is full of houserules, so what's "binding" for them is of no relevance to me.

[Psyren]

Okay, my question here is what's keeping you from just carrying one when you need to grapple? Nothing says you have to attack with it to have the benefit. :smallconfused:

Nothing at all, but some do like to use it.


Where can I see the rule that FAQs are official rules? Doesn't change a thing for me, I still will ignore it, but I'd like to know if I'm actually houseruling or just not following "unofficial official rules".
And PFS is full of houserules, so what's "binding" for them is of no relevance to me.

This post (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qbfv?The-Rules-FAQ-and-How-to-Use-It#1) from the PDT back when they created it:


What’s the purpose of using the FAQ?
The FAQ system was built to allow players and GMs to draw attention to unclear, confusing, or incorrect parts of the game rules and get official answers from the designers.
It is not intended to create official rulings for every possible corner case or combination of the rules. Paizo firmly believes it is the privilege and responsibility of the GM to make rulings for unusual circumstances or unusual characters.

Bold mine.

[Raven777]

Nitpick: Official answers are still not rules. Is there anywhere where it says the FAQ overrides or extends printed content?

[The Insanity]

Ya, I'm going to go with "official answers =/= Official rules". Errata is for official rules changes, so unless it's errata, I'm threating it with the same "official rules" consideration as designer posts on the forums - none.

[Psyren]

Nitpick: Official answers are still not rules. Is there anywhere where it says the FAQ overrides or extends printed content?

"Draw attention to unclear, confusing, or incorrect parts of the game rules and get official answers from the designers."

The second part of that statement is modifying the first - the "official answers" pertain to the "game rules."

Regardless, I doubt anyone who is hell-bent on porting over the "FAQ is not RAW" mindset from 3.5 is going to be convinced by anything they or I say. All I can do is point to what they said.

[Sartharina]

I can't see where "Ability to X" is an 'untyped' bonus - it's clearly an Ability bonus. Untyped bonuses are static numbers.

[squiggit]

Is there anything in particular that's important that changing the ability mod stacking does? It stops trench fighter gunslinger stacking but that was kinda silly anyways and has other issues. The oradin stuff seems minor too.

Don't get me wrong, the way Paizo handled this is a bit silly and I don't like the ruling... but I'm not sure it ends up being a big deal either.

[geekintheground]

I can't see where "Ability to X" is an 'untyped' bonus - it's clearly an Ability bonus. Untyped bonuses are static numbers.

theres no such thing as an "ability bonus", otherwise NO "X stat to Y bonus" would work because abilities are already applied to everything. so no more divine grace for the paladin, or wis to ac for monks (since dex is already there).
or at least, thats how i see it. the counter argument would be that the base ability that gets applied isnt a bonus, its just the base.
and where does it say untyped bonuses are static numbers?

[Raven777]

Hey, I have a legitimate question. An undead's Fortitude Save is derived from his Base Save + his Charisma Modifier instead of Constitution. Would an undead Antipaladin's Unholy Resilience not add Charisma to Fortitude Saves anymore?

[Psyren]

theres no such thing as an "ability bonus", otherwise NO "X stat to Y bonus" would work because abilities are already applied to everything. so no more divine grace for the paladin, or wis to ac for monks (since dex is already there).

This would only make sense if characters already applied Cha to saves or Wis to AC baseline. They don't - Paladins and Monks get specific abilities that let them do that, and they won't stack with similar abilities from other sources like Divine Protection.


Hey, I have a legitimate question. An undead's Fortitude Save is derived from his Base Save + his Charisma Modifier instead of Constitution. Would an undead Antipaladin's Unholy Resilience not add Charisma to Fortitude Saves anymore?

Probably not, no. This in practice is not a big deal since there are so few fort saves undead need to worry about.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Hey, I have a legitimate question. An undead's Fortitude Save is derived from his Base Save + his Charisma Modifier instead of Constitution. Would an undead Antipaladin's Unholy Resilience not add Charisma to Fortitude Saves anymore?I would guess not. That's a problem IMO.



Hey, I have a legitimate question. An undead's Fortitude Save is derived from his Base Save + his Charisma Modifier instead of Constitution. Would an undead Antipaladin's Unholy Resilience not add Charisma to Fortitude Saves anymore?Actually, rereading the rules and FAQ, they would stack. Unholy resilience doesn't grant the Charisma bonus to saving throws, it grants "a [untyped] bonus equal to his Charisma bonus," so it stacks like the Paladin's ability would. I think.

And people thought we had to painstakingly parse rules text before.


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. Wrong again. Paladin like bonuses are the exception to the rule.

[BlackDragonKing]

It seems to make more sense to me that you can pummel with Close Weapons than JUST your fists. I mean, rattle off some of the first close weapons that come to mind.

The Gauntlet. Which you PUNCH PEOPLE WITH.
The SPIKED Gauntlet. Which you PUNCH PEOPLE WITH.
The Brass Knuckles. Which you PUNCH PEOPLE WITH.
The Punching Dagger. Which you PUNCH PEOPLE WITH.

I'm just saying, being able to pummel with a scythe would be stupid, but most close weapons are things you throw a punch to use anyhow.

[Raven777]

Wrong again. Paladin like bonuses are the exception to the rule.

They went out of their way to single out that corner case? Wat.

[Alleran]

But whenever someone brought it up before, the chorus of "he's only the fluff/setting guy!" would shout them down. Well, now the actual devs have backed him up.
They get shouted down because he already makes it very clear himself that he is not a rules person, and any time a question in his "Ask Me" thread veers too close to a rules question he tells them to go and get it FAQed because it isn't his area. One of the reasons he does that so often is precisely because people used to go to his thread, get his opinion on a rules interpretation, and then run off to tout it as unassailable fact in a rules argument elsewhere.

[TheMADMonk]

Paladin bonuses are the exception to what?
Paladin's Divine Grace is no longer Equal to Cha but is instead treated as Paladin adds his Cha to all Saves so anything that would add Cha to saves is not going to stack period.

Dex and Cha will stack into AC as they are different ability scores.

But say Battledancer was ported over and you tried to stack Monk using that feat that let you switch its Wis to Cha for AC bonus. Now this is coming from a different class through a feat. Which does not stack because Cha both to AC.

But of course AC is the obvious. You cannot stack Dex to Damage twice, Level might be a sourced bonus and likely is given this ruling so those features that say Add Level twice to damage now don't stack (Hey Swashbucklers out there.. save the Panache point.. you cannot double your precision damage anymore)

[Raven777]

Paladin bonuses are the exception to what?
Paladin's Divine Grace is no longer Equal to Cha but is instead treated as Paladin adds his Cha to all Saves so anything that would add Cha to saves is not going to stack period.

If they flat out override something's wording, then that's worth an Errata -_-

[Psyren]

Wrong again. Paladin like bonuses are the exception to the rule.


They went out of their way to single out that corner case? Wat.

What are you two talking about? Paladins aren't an exception to the rule.

The quoted phrase is allowing differently-typed bonuses that also depend on an ability score to set their value to stack. So an ability that said "You can add your Charisma bonus to AC" (Charisma type) and another that said "you can add a deflection bonus to your AC equal to your charisma modifier" (deflection type) would stack, because one is deflection even though it is using your Cha mod to determine the amount.

(Balance-wise, this is held in check because the latter bonus would not stack with any other deflection bonuses to your AC, e.g. from items or spells.)


They get shouted down because he already makes it very clear himself that he is not a rules person, and any time a question in his "Ask Me" thread veers too close to a rules question he tells them to go and get it FAQed because it isn't his area. One of the reasons he does that so often is precisely because people used to go to his thread, get his opinion on a rules interpretation, and then run off to tout it as unassailable fact in a rules argument elsewhere.

He doesn't say that because he doesn't consider himself a rules person. Rather, he... actually, I'll just let the guy speak for himself.

"One of the things that bothers me the most is the implication that I know the rules of the game less than the design team, despite the fact that I've been using the rules for longer than most of the design team, and AS long as Jason has been... and in fact have much more experience in implementing the rules into the form of adventures than the rules team does... but somehow, my input on rules is deemed/interpreted as faulty or flawed by some. It's frustrating and kind of insulting, but I try not to let it get to me. One of the ways I try to not let it get to me, frankly, is by avoiding getting embroiled in topics or threads that give folks opportunities to take this stance against me."

[Anlashok]

I don't think people call him faulty so much as that they just treat him as any other person offering a rules opinion.

Doesn't help that some of the rulings look contradictory on their face, but that's not entirely on him, the official dev team has some weird rulings (like asserting that you can still full-attack on a charge with pounce if you're slowed, even though you can't charge while slowed at all).

[kardar233]

Okay.... so there's effectively a new bonus type, the Attribute bonus, that comes up when something says "add your Strength modifier to your Intimidate check" or something to that effect, and follows normal stacking rules? Huh. Welp, there go those cool Int-to-X-stacking builds.

~EDIT~
Doesn't help that some of the rulings look contradictory on their face, but that's not entirely on him, the official dev team has some weird rulings (like asserting that you can still full-attack on a charge with pounce if you're slowed, even though you can't charge while slowed at all).

Unless it's been changed in Pathfinder, you can still charge while slowed under the Partial Charge rules (the same ones that allow you to charge in a Surprise Round).

[Psyren]

I don't think people call him faulty so much as that they just treat him as any other person offering a rules opinion.

Right, but even that implicitly ranks him below the design team. Even when the Design Team is wrong (i.e. when they make a ruling and later reverse it, like they did with the X-level SLAs qualifying for PrCs thing) their word is still considered law until they do so. It is not dismissed out of hand. People might argue against it but they will accept it.

So I don't blame him for referring people to the Rules forum when they ask questions - but when he does answer a question I consider it legitimate until the PDT overrule him, just like I would if the PDT issued a ruling and later reversed it.

[Squirrel_Dude]

What are you two talking about? Paladins aren't an exception to the rule.

The quoted phrase is allowing differently-typed bonuses that also depend on an ability score to set their value to stack. So an ability that said "You can add your Charisma bonus to AC" (Charisma type) and another that said "you can add a deflection bonus to your AC equal to your charisma modifier" (deflection type) would stack, because one is deflection even though it is using your Cha mod to determine the amount.

(Balance-wise, this is held in check because the latter bonus would not stack with any other deflection bonuses to your AC, e.g. from items or spells.)Paladin's bonuses to saves are the exception to the general rules that "bonus equal to Charisma modifier" style of wording does stack because it doesn't define a type of bonus for saves. It was more a reflection of me getting twisted up in that specific exception.

Abilities worded "a [type] bonus equal to your Cha Mod" do stack with your normal Cha mod, but abilities worded "a bonus equal to your Cha mod" do not. I had misremembered the rule to being that the latter case would still stack, reading it as "a [untyped] bonus equal to your Cha mod," forgetting that bonus type has to be clearly defined for that sentence structure to indicate modifiers can be stacked. "A bonus equal to your Cha mod" is now officially a wording imprecision that should be replaced with "your Cha bonus." The Paladin's Divine Grace ability was specifically chosen to highlight the difference.

[Raven777]

Thanks Squirrel_Dude.

Now I get it. But I still think all these twists are confusing as all getup.

[Alleran]

He doesn't say that because he doesn't consider himself a rules person. Rather, he... actually, I'll just let the guy speak for himself.
I've been in that thread too, I know what he's said on the topic. For example:

"It's because of that unfortunate truth about how parts of this messageboard's culture has developed over the past few years that I don't answer questions like these, and instead suggest you take the questions to the rules boards to ask them there so that they can be FAQed.

That process is MUCH SLOWER than getting an answer from me, it's true. I'm not part of the FAQ team though, so apart from making frowny faces in meetings and so on, there's not a lot I can do to solve rules arguments on the boards.

At least, not until the boards and/or the design team decides that my rulings carry as much weight as any FAQ answer, which is another way of saying "Not until I'm on the FAQ team helping answer questions," which isn't going to happen. Mostly because handling FAQ questions is a significantly sized job responsibility, and I've already more or less got two jobs already that I sometimes think I might be doing a disservice to by spending to long providing long-winded answers to questions on this thread! :-)"

Not a whole lot to dispute there.

[Psyren]

I'm not disputing that he's not on the FAQ team. I'm disputing that his answers mean nothing as a result.

That post, again, is him saying why he avoids answering these questions. But when he does answer there is no reason to throw it down the garbage chute.

[Lord_Gareth]

I will dispute the claim that his experience gives him knowledge of the rules. How long did it take WotC to grow a clue about 3.5? How many of those lessons did Paizo throw away, disregard, or actively spit in the face of those who tried to remind the team of them? Designing a game is not the same as comprehending it.

[Psyren]

To avoid derailing this further - regardless of how we feel about JJ's experience, the FAQ is what it is until they reverse it. But I for one agree with it, and I don't feel as though it came out of nowhere.

[Kraken]

Even when the Design Team is wrong (i.e. when they make a ruling and later reverse it, like they did with the X-level SLAs qualifying for PrCs thing)

Ooh, link?

[Sartharina]

Which means that, if we take the "Force of Personality" text in Path of War to be Reminder Text instead of Rules Text, a Warlord can get Triple CHA to Will Saves against fear when using the Unbreakable Gambit and the fear-resisting presence.

I like this ruling.

[Psyren]

Ooh, link?

This one (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow), though I misremembered - this one was a straight clarification, not a reversal. One that was a reversal was half-orcs being able to take Scarred Witch Doctor as well as human feats. (i.e. first they couldn't, then they could.)

[Kraken]

Huh, so level 3 eldritch knights, level 4 theurges, and so forth still live for now. Perhaps that'll also be changed 5 years down the line. :smallbiggrin:

[Alleran]

Huh, so level 3 eldritch knights, level 4 theurges, and so forth still live for now. Perhaps that'll also be changed 5 years down the line. :smallbiggrin:
I hope not. I like my zen-surfer attitude aasimar Sohei / Empyreal Sorc / E.K. multiclass.

[facelessminion]

I don't suppose any of their not-errata has updates for the Bolt Ace?

[Squirrel_Dude]

I don't suppose any of their not-errata has updates for the Bolt Ace?Not yet. There are apparently a ton of things on the FAQ pile, and the Advanced Class Guide being terrible hasn't pushed it's problems further up the line.

[Sayt]

Which means that, if we take the "Force of Personality" text in Path of War to be Reminder Text instead of Rules Text, a Warlord can get Triple CHA to Will Saves against fear when using the Unbreakable Gambit and the fear-resisting presence.

I like this ruling.

Except we have unambiguous RAI, from the Intender (so to speak) that Force of Personality doesn't stack with ****. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18124506&postcount=320)

Do I wish otherwise? Yeah. Is it otherwise? No.

[deuxhero]

Saw Pummeling Style coming. Would have prefered monk and/or close weapons, but I guess unarmed needs nice things.

Not too familiar with Slayer so can't comment

The FAQ on stacking X to Y is just weird. It actually doesn't do jack to Paladin/Oracle as everyone assumed it did, as it only covers bonuses while Oracle part isn't a bonus. Also while it kills Spirit Guide/multiclass Oracle/Shaman using Friend to Animal (the hex and revelation are slightly different abilities) twice, it leaves open if multiple such characters will boost an animal's saves twice.

[Psyren]

Saw Pummeling Style coming. Would have prefered monk and/or close weapons, but I guess unarmed needs nice things.

You can get close weapons with Martial Versatility if you really want them. I agree it would have been nice with monk weapons, nunchaku need love.

EDIT: Duh *slaps forehead* - US is in the monk group too, so yeah, you can get Pummeling Style with every monk weapon.


The FAQ on stacking X to Y is just weird. It actually doesn't do jack to Paladin/Oracle as everyone assumed it did, as it only covers bonuses while Oracle part isn't a bonus.

I'm confused on this one - what was it supposed to do to Paladin/Oracle? If you mean Divine Protection, that didn't stack with Divine Grace even before this FAQ.

[deuxhero]

You've never heard of how an Oracle can completely dump dex (well they lose CMD, but trying to keep that relevent is a loser's game, and ranged attacks) for 1 feat (Noble Scion (War) and a revelation?


Sidestep Secret (Su): Your innate understanding of the universe has granted you preternatural reflexes and the uncanny ability to step out of danger at the very last second. Add your Charisma modifier (instead of your Dexterity modifier) to your Armor Class and all Reflex saving throws. Your armor’s maximum Dexterity bonus applies to your Charisma instead of your Dexterity


Prophetic Armor (Ex): You are so in tune with your primal nature that your instincts often act to save you from danger that your civilized mind isn't even aware of. You may use your Charisma modifier (instead of your Dexterity modifier) as part of your Armor Class and all Reflex saving throws. Your armor's maximum Dexterity bonus applies to your Charisma, instead.

Neither effect is a "bonus".

[Squirrel_Dude]

Are people now reading "in place of" and "bonus" as separate things when it comes to that FAQ? I'm trying to keep up with the discussion around it,but it makes my head spin. It's hard enough to separate legitimate questions ( "what is a "source" in the game's terms?" ) from people trying to torture the FAQ into nerfing something legitimate ( "Do strength bonuses no longer stack on critical hits?"). I'd be in favor of "in place of" and "X bonus" being stackable because that makes sense to me, but people are assuming that they won't stack now when I last checked the thread.

This has lead to things like Fury's Fall + Agile Maneuvers not actually working anymore, and Undead AntiPaladins no longer getting their Unholy Resilience bonus to Fort saves.

[Kurald Galain]

Pummeling Style is a combat feat, so Martial Versatility (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/racial-feats/martial-versatility-combat-human) fixes that. And for our woodland friends, Feral Combat Training (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/feral-combat-training-combat) lets you Pummeling Bite.

Interesting. But FCT doesn't really work because if you're using a claw/bite/gore routine you'd need three separate Weapon Focus feats and probably FCT three times as well.

Martial Versatility works, but is annoyingly restricted to humans that have four levels in fighter. I wonder if there's some way around that? Of course half-orcs and half-elves qualify as human, and I think slayer levels qualify as fighter levels?

[Alleran]

Martial Versatility works, but is annoyingly restricted to humans that have four levels in fighter. I wonder if there's some way around that? Of course half-orcs and half-elves qualify as human, and I think slayer levels qualify as fighter levels?
Diverse Training for the Eldritch Knight would qualify you.

[Psyren]

Interesting. But FCT doesn't really work because if you're using a claw/bite/gore routine you'd need three separate Weapon Focus feats and probably FCT three times as well.

Nah, you only need one, just focus one natural weapon. (Of the three you listed, I would recommend the bite, since it is B/P/S.) Remember, FCT also lets you swap out any number of punches in your flurry with your focused natural weapon. So you can do a "flurry of bites," even though normally you would only get one attack per natural weapon. And since you get multiple attacks with that one natural weapon, you can use it with pummeling style.



Martial Versatility works, but is annoyingly restricted to humans that have four levels in fighter. I wonder if there's some way around that? Of course half-orcs and half-elves qualify as human, and I think slayer levels qualify as fighter levels?

Brawler levels count as Fighter levels too. Monks probably need a dip (or just stick with their fists.)

As for counting as human, there are one or two other options like Aasimar with Scion of Humanity I believe.

[deuxhero]

You can also take it as a bonus feat if you are a Warpriest.

[Squirrel_Dude]

So, I don't know if this had been brought up in this thread yet, but the new FAQ on bonus stacking has introduced a brand new trap feat to Pathfinder, as in one that actively makes you objectively worse, or at best do nothing, after you take it. Hell, it might even be the first one in Pathfinder that's so clear cut.

So let's say you have a +X (X can be anything above 0) Str Modifier and a +4 Dex modifier, and you take Fury's Fall. You will get a 4+X bonus on your trip attempts because FF allows you to add dexterity to strength on trip checks. Now, let's say you take Agile Maneuvers, which replaces your strength bonus with your dexterity bonus on trip attempts. Unlike with Weapon Finesse, Agile Maneuvers does not give you the option to replace Str with Dex, so once you take Agile Maneuvers your bonus on trip attempts changes from 4+X to 4.

To be forthcoming: Agile Maneuvers is already a trap feat for trip builds because trip attempts count as attack rolls, so you should just be using Weapon Finesse to add your trip modifier to them instead.



Sidenote: Raven777, I brought up your point about Undead Antipaladins not getting the Cha bonus twice to their Fort Save on the Paizo boards. Other posters have since found plenty of examples (all previously printed Undead Antipaladins?), where the stat blocks showed that they were stacking. Apparently this isn't how the rules always worked, or at least none of the other writers were ever told, or by chance none of the Undead Antipaladins had properly edited statblocks.

I honestly wouldn't rule that last one out.

[Psyren]

Agile Maneuvers is for maneuvers that don't use your weapon, like grapple and dirty trick. There's no reason ever to take it for trip.

As for undead antipaladins, I agree that whoever designed them didn't read this ruling this way, but that's irrelevant. It makes a handful of AP monsters a little easier and the effect on PCs is practically nonexistent. This is perfectly acceptable collateral damage.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Agile Maneuvers is for maneuvers that don't use your weapon, like grapple and dirty trick. There's no reason ever to take it for trip.Agile Maneuvers applies to every maneuver, not just trip. You'd take it if you were using a Polearm or some other weapon that Weapon Finesse wouldn't apply to.

[Psyren]

Agile Maneuvers applies to every maneuver, not just trip. You'd take it if you were using a Polearm or some other weapon that Weapon Finesse wouldn't apply to.

I know that AM applies to every maneuver. The question though is, why are you combining a non-finesseable weapon with agile maneuvers? It makes no sense. If you're using a polearm, wouldn't you be relying on strength, rather than a dex build?

Basically it's only a "trap" for folks who either aren't reading the feats they take or not reading the rules in general, and there are going to be lots of "traps" out there for people like that.

[Raven777]

As for undead antipaladins, I agree that whoever designed them didn't read this ruling this way, but that's irrelevant. It makes a handful of AP monsters a little easier and the effect on PCs is practically nonexistent. This is perfectly acceptable collateral damage.

Well, it does mean that a Knight of the Sepulcher (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/alternate-classes/antipaladin/archetypes/paizo---antipaladin-archetypes/knight-of-the-sepulcher) takes a hit to their Fort Save upon getting their capstone. But yeah, that is somewhat inconsequential.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I know that AM applies to every maneuver. The question though is, why are you combining a non-finesseable weapon with agile maneuvers? It makes no sense. If you're using a polearm, wouldn't you be relying on strength, rather than a dex build?Because most reach weapons are non-finesse, Dex is a better stat that Strength in general, and you're going all in on tripping/AC instead of doing damage to someone.


Basically it's only a "trap" for folks who either aren't reading the feats they take or not reading the rules in general, and there are going to be lots of "traps" out there for people like that.I keep reading Agile Maneuvers, and have yet to see the part where my CMB will get worse.

[Raven777]

I don't exactly count paying attention to the out-of-the-way FAQ as "reading the rules in general", though.

[Psyren]

Because most reach weapons are non-finesse, Dex is a better stat that Strength in general, and you're going all in on tripping/AC instead of doing damage to someone.

But that's what I don't understand - if all you want to do is trip, why would you take Fury's Fall and Agile Maneuvers? One or the other should be sufficient.

Long before this clarification people were asking about taking these two together and hearing endless arguing from both sides. At a minimum they should have known it was not a clear-cut issue. Now it is. If your DM was fine with you doing it before, they'll allow it now, and if they weren't they are more empowered to not be run roughshod over by the players. I fail to see the issue.

[Squirrel_Dude]

But that's what I don't understand - if all you want to do is trip, why would you take Fury's Fall and Agile Maneuvers? One or the other should be sufficient. 1. Because they would stack previously. 2. Because, c'mon now, you know you have to at least try and boost your CMB as high as possible to try and extend that style's lifespan of usefulness as long as you can.

[Psyren]

You don't need double your stat to be a good tripper. You never did.

As above, they only stacked previously if your DM came down on that side of the debate, and given that is the much more powerful option, if they were fine with that before they should be fine with it now (and therefore willing to houserule on your behalf.)

[Squirrel_Dude]

You don't need double your stat to be a good tripper. You never did.

As above, they only stacked previously if your DM came down on that side of the debate, and given that is the much more powerful option, if they were fine with that before they should be fine with it now (and therefore willing to houserule on your behalf.)Framing the discussion as one where the decision was left totally to DMs to interpret the rule is being shrewdly revisionist, when ability score bonuses had been, with the precedent of 3.5, stacking with themselves for close to 10 years.

[Psyren]

Framing the discussion as one where the decision was left totally to DMs to interpret the rule is being shrewdly revisionist, when ability score bonuses had been, with the precedent of 3.5, stacking with themselves for close to 10 years.

WotC's inability to clarify things properly isn't relevant to Pathfinder, no matter how long they've been failing to do it.

And it's still unnecessary. Are you saying it was impossible to build a tripper without double- and triple-dipping your stat mod in 3.5?

[Extra Anchovies]

And it's still unnecessary. Are you saying it was impossible to build a tripper without double- and triple-dipping your stat mod in 3.5?

I don't think it's quite fair to compare tripping in 3.5 to tripping in PF; the introduction of scaling CMB and CMD, rather than a simple opposed Strength check, was a pretty drastic change to how maneuvers worked. Tripping in PF is more difficult, and thus scavenging for loose modifiers to stack is more important.

[Raven777]

Framing the discussion as one where the decision was left totally to DMs to interpret the rule is being shrewdly revisionist, when ability score bonuses had been, with the precedent of 3.5, stacking with themselves for close to 10 years.

I side with the squirrel on that one. Ability modifier replacements have stacked with ability modifier bonuses since the dawn of 3.F. Changing that on a whim is not FAQ material, neither is it mere errata. It is a straight up game changer with pretty deep ramifications. Especially with previous content, both mechanics and monsters, both in house and third party, being printed assuming the old way.

Tabletop game rules are compelling to master in part because of the permanency of a system primarily conveyed in book form. This? This is MMO grade flavor of the month balancing, and it seems to become more and more frequent with the FAQ, and this is worrisome.

[Snowbluff]

Tabletop game rules are compelling to master in part because of the permanency of a system primarily conveyed in book form. This? This is MMO grade flavor of the month balancing, and it seems to become more and more frequent with the FAQ, and this is worrisome.

Mhm. 4e had this problem. I kept running face first into "that was nerfed" when building characters for fun over the summer.

[Psyren]

I don't think it's quite fair to compare tripping in 3.5 to tripping in PF; the introduction of scaling CMB and CMD, rather than a simple opposed Strength check, was a pretty drastic change to how maneuvers worked. Tripping in PF is more difficult, and thus scavenging for loose modifiers to stack is more important.

But anything that boosts attack rolls works now, including weapon bonuses, class features like favored enemy, flanking and true strike, which was not the case in 3.5. So while the target is harder to hit, you have more sources of bonuses too. I believe it evens out, or can with only moderate optimization.


I side with the squirrel on that one. Ability modifier replacements have stacked with ability modifier bonuses since the dawn of 3.F. Changing that on a whim is not FAQ material, neither is it mere errata. It is a straight up game changer with pretty deep ramifications. Especially with previous content, both mechanics and monsters, both in house and third party, being printed assuming the old way.

Tabletop game rules are compelling to master in part because of the permanency of a system primarily conveyed in book form. This? This is MMO grade flavor of the month balancing, and it seems to become more and more frequent with the FAQ, and this is worrisome.

That 3.5 was merely silent about it stacking doesn't mean those designers necessarily agreed with it.

And I'm not worried in the least. The sky hasn't fallen yet, nor will it.

[grarrrg]

Time to throw out my Dragon Style + Dragon Ferocity combination. Which seems to have been suddenly broken by the new FAQ.

And now it is specifically fixed with a NEW FAQ. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1g1#v5748eaic9sgz)

[Lord_Gareth]

And now it is specifically fixed with a NEW FAQ. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1g1#v5748eaic9sgz)

...Classic Paizo, I see.

[The Random NPC]

On the plus side, that FAQ says feats shouldn't have prerequisites that do nothing, so you can argue that removing the prerequisite is RAI.

[Thealtruistorc]

The one other question I have about advanced class guide is in regards to the Nature Fang archetype. Does its sneak attack ability scale like a rogue's, or does it only get 1d6 (if so that seems like a horrid trade for wild shape).

[grarrrg]

The one other question I have about advanced class guide is in regards to the Nature Fang archetype. Does its sneak attack ability scale like a rogue's, or does it only get 1d6 (if so that seems like a horrid trade for wild shape).

A: It doesn't list any kind of scaling, so you get _1_d6 of Sneak, ever.
B: Technically, you trade "Resist Nature's Lure" for the Sneak die, and "Wild Shape" for Slayer Talents every 2 levels.
2B: Even if it did trade Wild Shape for the Sneak die, you have to remember that archetypes are (ideally) balanced on the whole, NOT by each piecemeal trade. Empyreal Knight (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---paladin-archetypes/empyreal-knight) is a great example of this. The first archetype trade is losing Divine Grace, and gaining "Speak and Read Celestial Language"...despite this, the archetype (with enough levels) becomes fairly decent.

[torrasque666]

It does however specify that it "functions as the rogue (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue) sneak attack (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue#TOC-Sneak-Attack) ability." This implies that it also scales the same way given that the Rogue's Sneak Attack ability mentions scaling.(+1d6/2 levels)

[Divayth Fyr]

It does however specify that it "functions as the rogue (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue) sneak attack (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue#TOC-Sneak-Attack) ability." This implies that it also scales the same way given that the Rogue's Sneak Attack ability mentions scaling.(+1d6/2 levels)
It lacks a mention that your NF level counts as your rogue level - which is what makes normal sneak attack scale. By RAW it won't increase.

[torrasque666]

RAW-wise? Yes.
RAI-wise? Heavily implied. And/or reasonable houserule.

[grarrrg]

It does however specify that it "functions as the rogue (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue) sneak attack (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue#TOC-Sneak-Attack) ability." This implies that it also scales the same way given that the Rogue's Sneak Attack ability mentions scaling.(+1d6/2 levels)

It functions as Sneak Attack, because it is Sneak Attack. It only mentions "rogue" because that is the first place the Sneak Attack rules were written down, and Pharasma help they, they aren't going to type all that crap out a second time.

You will notice that every other archetype EVER that grants Sneak Attack mentions a progression of when you get the next die.
Strangler (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/brawler/archetypes/paizo---brawler-archetypes/strangler), specific levels mentioned
Bushwacker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-kobold/bushwacker-gunslinger-kobold), scales every 4 levels
Sandman (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/sandman), scales every 5 levels
Greensting Slayer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/greensting-slayer), every 4 levels
Vivisectionist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist/archetypes/paizo---alchemist-archetypes/vivisectionist), odd one out in that is _actually_ counts as Rogue levels for Sneak attack progression (meaning a Vivi 1/Rogue 1 only has 1d6 Sneak)

Nature Fang (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo---druid-archetypes/nature-fang) does not mention ANYTHING about a continued progression.

You'll notice that most Sneak archetypes reference the Rogue, but have a completely different scaling of Sneak dice.
You'll also note that every other archetype that gets Sneak dice trades away a scaling/recurring feature, but Nature Fang trades away a singe, one time feature.

Nature Fang = 1d6 Sneak dice, no scaling