FG Spreadshirt Swag
Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Zygmunt Molotch View Post
    hmm
    it's more fundamental than that

    it's about not size bonus or subtypes of natural armor



    (it's in the description of Enlarge Person and in the FAQ regarding size and spells)

    The text calls out no multiple size effects (regardless is it's 'size bonuses' or 'naturalsize', no two size 'modifiers), of any form, presumably to stop this exact min-maxing occuring

    ergo, those two spells will not stack in anyway, neither will any other two size related spells (as Thaymor said too)



    hmm, this specifically could not happen to begin with, both spells increase size by one step, this is not allowed to exist on the same victim (and you dont get partial spell effects)


    I get the feeling this is one where we are going to have to end up agreeing to disagree. But I'm happy to continue to discuss if you are? Having said that, I am aware of my propensity to over debate something so I won't be offended if you decide this debate it going no where and just want it to end

    I concur with you 100% that size bonuses do not stack. But, the way I read it, the bonus from the Legendary Proportions spell is a bonus to natural armor (with a size descriptor which is used to identify that it will stack with other natural bonuses. such as enhancement bonuses to natural armor) not a size bonus. But I can definitely see your view interpreting it as a size bonus.

    Perhaps somewhat ironically, this whole discussion pertains to 1 single spell (Legendary Proportions) and represents a total difference of 1 point of AC. There may be other spells that have a size modifier to armor or to natural armor but i haven't seen them.

    I also agree with bmos that you would never cast Enlarge Person and Legendary Proportions on the same target. It would be a complete waste of the Enlarge Person spell as the Legendary Proportions spell has all the effects of Enlarge Person and more.

    So with that in mind, let's limit the discussion to the Legendary Proportions spell which has 2 modifiers to AC. The inherent 'AC:-1 size' modifier that comes from 'increasing in size by one category' and the specifically called out '+6 size bonus to its natural armor'.
    In my mind, to get the correct results I think you have to use a 'natural' effect of some kind for the +6 modifier, because a size adjustment to AC applies to all AC's (AC, Touch and Flat-Footed) while a natural armor adjustment would not effect Touch AC.

    • Making the natural armor bonus a 'AC:6 size' effect doesn't work because it then applies that to Touch AC, which it shouldn't. In this case, in FG the 'AC:-1 size' effect and 'AC:6 size' effect offset each other and we would end up with a +5 AC; +5 Flat-Footed and +5 Touch AC. In my mind that is wrong as a change to natural armor (no matter the source) should not affect Touch AC. But it is correct if the bonus is a size adjustment not a natural armor adjustment.
    • Making the natural armor bonus a 'AC:6 natural' effect correctly, in my opinion, applies the natural armor modifier but then it won't stack with other natural armor modifiers (Amulet of Natural Armor, Barkskin, a creatures base natural armor, etc.) -- In this case we would end up with a +5 AC; +5 Flat-Footed and -1 Touch AC
    • Making the natural armor bonus a 'AC:6 naturalsize' effect applies the modifier correctly, in my opinion, and also allows it to stack with other natural armor modifiers. -- In this case we would end up with a +5 AC; +5 Flat-Footed and -1 Touch AC

    How would you handle these 2 effects?

    Regardless of the discussion above, we still need a way successfully stack different types of natural bonuses. 'naturalenhancment' does that. From my point of view 'naturalsize' is also needed. Just adding it in doesn't mean anyone has to use it. They can always use the 'size' effect instead.

  2. #12
    Interesting size note to this is that positive and negative effects of the same type do stack.

    Two positive effects of the same type do not stack
    • 'Effect;AC:6 size;AC:3 size' will give a +6 to AC
    • Two separate effects - 'Effect;AC:6 size' and 'Effect;AC:3 size' will give a +6 to AC.

    Two negative effects of the same type do not stack
    • 'Effect;AC:-6 size;AC:-3 size' will give a -6 to AC
    • Two separate effects - 'Effect;AC:-6 size' and 'Effect;AC:-3 size' will give a -6 to AC.

    Positive and Negative effect of the same type do stack
    • Combining a positive and negative modifier in a single effect with stack them. 'Effect;AC:6 size;AC:-1 size' will give a +5 to AC
    • Having a positive modifier in one effect and a negative modifier in another effect will stack them. 'Effect;AC:6 size' and 'Effect;AC:-1 size' will give a +5 to AC.
    • Multiple positive and negative modifiers in separate effects will take the highest positive effect and the lowest negative effect and stack them (also works the same if you have all the modifiers in a single effect). 'Effect;AC:6 size', 'Effect;AC:3 size', 'Effect;AC:-1 size' and 'Effect;AC:-2 size' will give +4 to AC.

  3. #13
    Kelrugem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland, and Lyon, France
    Posts
    3,207
    Quote Originally Posted by dllewell View Post
    Interesting size note to this is that positive and negative effects of the same type do stack.

    Two positive effects of the same type do not stack
    • 'Effect;AC:6 size;AC:3 size' will give a +6 to AC
    • Two separate effects - 'Effect;AC:6 size' and 'Effect;AC:3 size' will give a +6 to AC.

    Two negative effects of the same type do not stack
    • 'Effect;AC:-6 size;AC:-3 size' will give a -6 to AC
    • Two separate effects - 'Effect;AC:-6 size' and 'Effect;AC:-3 size' will give a -6 to AC.

    Positive and Negative effect of the same type do stack
    • Combining a positive and negative modifier in a single effect with stack them. 'Effect;AC:6 size;AC:-1 size' will give a +5 to AC
    • Having a positive modifier in one effect and a negative modifier in another effect will stack them. 'Effect;AC:6 size' and 'Effect;AC:-1 size' will give a +5 to AC.
    • Multiple positive and negative modifiers in separate effects will take the highest positive effect and the lowest negative effect and stack them (also works the same if you have all the modifiers in a single effect). 'Effect;AC:6 size', 'Effect;AC:3 size', 'Effect;AC:-1 size' and 'Effect;AC:-2 size' will give +4 to AC.
    I didn't read all of your conversation, but about your stacking thing here: In FG size is a stacking bonus type; that is on purpose by expectation how users apply size modifieres (in increments of size changes instead of one effect summarising all steps) There is a comment about that in the code mentioning that it is on purpose that it stacks

    (it could also be that penalties simply don't support bonus types , but about that I am currently not sure about FG's implementation; one would need to test)

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelrugem View Post
    I didn't read all of your conversation, but about your stacking thing here: In FG size is a stacking bonus type; that is on purpose by expectation how users apply size modifieres (in increments of size changes instead of one effect summarising all steps) There is a comment about that in the code mentioning that it is on purpose that it stacks

    (it could also be that penalties simply don't support bonus types , but about that I am currently not sure about FG's implementation; one would need to test)
    Yep, I think that makes perfect sense. For FG, size modifiers should absolutely be treated as a stacking bonus type.

    I checked and penalties do support bonus types (at least in the Pathfinder ruleset).

    I created this effect 'Effect;AC:-1 size;AC:-2 natural;AC:-3 enhancement' and it applied a -6 to AC

  5. #15
    The biggest thing I have found with Pathfinder, is that there will always be exceptions to the rules, since someone out there will see a rule and then make a spell/item that is an exception, and Paizo likes the idea, then publishes it.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by DCrumb View Post
    The biggest thing I have found with Pathfinder, is that there will always be exceptions to the rules, since someone out there will see a rule and then make a spell/item that is an exception, and Paizo likes the idea, then publishes it.
    Yup. It does make automation pretty interesting!
    bmos' extensions
    he/him | Discord Tag: wil.thieme#3396

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by dllewell View Post
    I get the feeling this is one where we are going to have to end up agreeing to disagree. But I'm happy to continue to discuss if you are? Having said that, I am aware of my propensity to over debate something so I won't be offended if you decide this debate it going no where and just want it to end

    I concur with you 100% that size bonuses do not stack. But, the way I read it, the bonus from the Legendary Proportions spell is a bonus to natural armor (with a size descriptor which is used to identify that it will stack with other natural bonuses. such as enhancement bonuses to natural armor) not a size bonus. But I can definitely see your view interpreting it as a size bonus.
    we can always argue god damn it!

    it's my default state

    actually, sipping my sunday coffee, I actually think I'm a little off kilter here, those two spells cannot or would not be cast on the same target (EP LP),(no partial effects, effect redundancy anyway and an argument about whether they could be applied to the same thing to begin with, only a cursory google shows a reddit thread say 'they can't', but that's as quotable as Boris, and not something to invest in..) so that's waste of time...

    I hadn't been considering the Touch AC side of things

    now I see and I agree with the last bullet point!

    Making the natural armor bonus a 'AC:6 naturalsize' effect applies the modifier correctly, in my opinion, and also allows it to stack with other natural armor modifiers. -- In this case we would end up with a +5 AC; +5 Flat-Footed and -1 Touch AC

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Zygmunt Molotch View Post
    we can always argue god damn it!

    it's my default state

    actually, sipping my sunday coffee, I actually think I'm a little off kilter here, those two spells cannot or would not be cast on the same target (EP LP),(no partial effects, effect redundancy anyway and an argument about whether they could be applied to the same thing to begin with, only a cursory google shows a reddit thread say 'they can't', but that's as quotable as Boris, and not something to invest in..) so that's waste of time...

    I hadn't been considering the Touch AC side of things

    now I see and I agree with the last bullet point!
    Wait a minute. We had a civil discussion where we both reflected on the other persons point of view without calling each other names? That can't possibly be right ... I think the internet must be broken.

    And sorry to you bmos for derailing your thread.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by dllewell View Post
    Wait a minute. We had a civil discussion where we both reflected on the other persons point of view without calling each other names? That can't possibly be right ... I think the internet must be broken.

    And sorry to you bmos for derailing your thread.
    not at all, I learned something too

    Quote Originally Posted by dllewell View Post
    I think we definitely need to add shieldenhancement. I'm not sure if we need armorsize but it doesn't hurt to leave it in. If it's never used, its never used.
    Quote Originally Posted by bmos View Post
    Extended Natural, Shield, and Armor AC Bonus Types v1.1
    * removed size bonus to armor bonus
    * added enhancement bonus to shield bonus
    Last edited by bmos; May 7th, 2021 at 22:54.
    bmos' extensions
    he/him | Discord Tag: wil.thieme#3396

  10. #20
    Is this good enough and small enough change to hope to get it merged with the fantasy grounds code?
    If so we should inform someone since devs cant read every thread we make ��

    Is this also valid for 5e ruleset or other rulesets? Because if it is there might be better possibilities that it gets implemented

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Joshua Stream Pre

Log in

Log in