PFRPG Ability Effects

[scottbrown]

Applied an ability effect to a character directly in the combat tracker in a PFRPG campaign I set up. The character has a 16 Charisma. When I applied a "CHA: -1" modifier, it had no effect when rolling a Charisma ability check (rolled 1d20+3). But when I applied a "CHA: -2" it indeed did apply a -1 modifier to the roll (rolled 1d20+2). When I applied the same effects to an ability score that was odd (Strength 13 in this case), it did the same thing--subtracting nothing with the "-1" ability modifier and a -1 penalty with the "-2" ability modifier. This works for the Strength ability score, but is not correct for the Charisma score according to Pathfinder rules. If the character has a 16 Charisma, reducing the ability score by 1 should give them a 15 Charisma, which would be a +2 ability modifier instead of the normal +3 modifier for 16. It appears that FGU is dividing the ability score modifier from the effect by two (round down) and applying that to the ability modifier rolls. Instead, it should subtract the penalty from the actual ability score and then check the score again for the proper ability modifier.

[Kelrugem]

Applied an ability effect to a character directly in the combat tracker in a PFRPG campaign I set up. The character has a 16 Charisma. When I applied a "CHA: -1" modifier, it had no effect when rolling a Charisma ability check (rolled 1d20+3). But when I applied a "CHA: -2" it indeed did apply a -1 modifier to the roll (rolled 1d20+2). When I applied the same effects to an ability score that was odd (Strength 13 in this case), it did the same thing--subtracting nothing with the "-1" ability modifier and a -1 penalty with the "-2" ability modifier. This works for the Strength ability score, but is not correct for the Charisma score according to Pathfinder rules. If the character has a 16 Charisma, reducing the ability score by 1 should give them a 15 Charisma, which would be a +2 ability modifier instead of the normal +3 modifier for 16. It appears that FGU is dividing the ability score modifier from the effect by two (round down) and applying that to the ability modifier rolls. Instead, it should subtract the penalty from the actual ability score and then check the score again for the proper ability modifier.

Actually, this is correct for PF1; beware that the rules about such things differ from 3.5e. PF1 introduces a new type of ability bonus: Temporary. In 3.5e, permanent and temporary bonusses worked the same, just the duration was different. In PF1 though the temporary ones work differently than the permanent ones in how they affect the ability. The behaviour you expect are the permanent bonusses. The temporary bonusses and penalties only affect for each even degree So, +/-1 temporary does nothing, but +/-2 temporary adds/subtracts 1 to the ability mod; similarly for other odd and even numbers, and it is independent of the actual score, it just matters whether the bonus is odd/even The effects are like temporary ones in FG

[darrenan]

It's actually ability damage vs. ability drain which accounts for the difference. See https://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-abil...bility-scores/, the two types are described at the bottom of the page.

The STR:, DEX:, CON:, INT:, WIS:, and CHA: effects use the ability damage rules.

[Kelrugem]

It's actually ability damage vs. ability drain which accounts for the difference. See https://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-abil...bility-scores/, the two types are described at the bottom of the page.

The STR:, DEX:, CON:, INT:, WIS:, and CHA: effects use the ability damage rules.

ah, thanks, yeah, for penalties it is damage vs. drain While for bonusses it is then temporary vs permanent (I just used the latter terminology, also for penalties, because of the similar behaviour in how they apply to the ability mod)

[superteddy57]

Moved to PF1e forum

[Zygmunt Molotch]

This question is answered above, and the solution for Fantasy Grounds, can be found in Bmos' extension!

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...manent-Bonuses

if you play PF1e, it should be an auto-include!