My Self |
So let's say you've got a half-orc with the human-raised alternate trait, which replaces orc ferocity and weapon proficiencies. Then you take the skilled alternate trait, which replaces darkvision. And you still have your intimidating trait left. So is that right, that you could be a half-orc with +2 skills/level, a floating +2 stat bonus (let's say intelligence), and +2 to intimidate? Or, perhaps, the Endurance feat instead of the +2 to intimidate?
Is this right? Is this broken, relative to Humans?
Mark Seifter Designer |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The human-raised alternate racial trait specifically gives you the skilled racial trait as its benefit. Both of these are the skilled racial trait (Advanced Race Guide page 226), and you can't have the same racial trait twice unless stated otherwise (as per Advanced Race Guide page 220).
EDIT: Also incidentally for Kerney, who mentioned PFS, I believe that the ISR one isn't PFS-legal.
Kerney |
The human-raised alternate racial trait specifically gives you the skilled racial trait as its benefit. Both of these are the skilled racial trait (Advanced Race Guide page 226), and you can't have the same racial trait twice unless stated otherwise (as per Advanced Race Guide page 220).
EDIT: Also incidentally for Kerney, who mentioned PFS, I believe that the ISR one isn't PFS-legal.
Hadn't looked it up yet.
Ravingdork |
The human-raised alternate racial trait specifically gives you the skilled racial trait as its benefit. Both of these are the skilled racial trait (Advanced Race Guide page 226), and you can't have the same racial trait twice unless stated otherwise (as per Advanced Race Guide page 220).
EDIT: Also incidentally for Kerney, who mentioned PFS, I believe that the ISR one isn't PFS-legal.
Technically, one gives you the Skilled racial trait. The other specifically states it gives you +1 rank per level. Why would they be worded differently if they weren't meant to stack? If they both said they gave you the Skilled racial trait, then you'd be totally right, but as written I see absolutely nothing indicating that you couldn't take both and have +2 ranks per level.
It's not like they're bonuses, so stacking rules wouldn't even apply here anyways.
Also, at the time of my writing, both appear to be legal for PFS.
Mark Seifter Designer |
Mark Seifter Designer |
I still fail to see how that means they can't both be taken. Using that same logic, things like Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration wouldn't stack.
ARG 220 "Unless stated otherwise, all racial traits are extraordinary abilities, and each racial trait can only be taken once." Taking human-raised means you now have skilled and so you can't take skilled again. It wouldn't stop you from taking a hypothetical feat that gave you 1 extra skill point per level, though, or a feat that required skilled and doubled the benefits (this latter is akin to your comparison to Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus).
Ravingdork |
Except one gives you skilled and the other does not. If they both said they gave you skilled, then you'd have a point.
They are not named the same. They are not written the same. They are not the same source. They are different abilities and thus ARG 220 does not apply. Aside from your own assertion, there is absolutely nothing indicating that they don't work fine together.
If you wrote one or both of those rules, or have it on good authority from those that did, that it is supposed to function as you claim, then it should probably be errata'd to fit the intent. As the rules are written now, your assertion is just that, an assertion, not a rule.
Serisan |
Except one gives you skilled and the other does not. If they both said they gave you skilled, then you'd have a point.
They are not named the same. They are not written the same. They are not the same source. They are different abilities and thus ARG 220 does not apply. Aside from your own assertion, there is absolutely nothing indicating that they don't work fine together.
If you wrote one or both of those rules, or have it on good authority from those that did, that it is supposed to function as you claim, then it should probably be errata'd to fit the intent. As the rules are written now, your assertion is just that, an assertion, not a rule.
So, what I'm reading here is that the ISR alternate racial, which gives you "the human's skilled racial trait" is not the same thing as the half-orc skilled racial trait from ARG, which is virtually identical writing? I'm gonna have to leave this old SKR post here for why I disagree.
Mark Seifter Designer |
Except one gives you skilled and the other does not. If they both said they gave you skilled, then you'd have a point.
They are not named the same. They are not written the same. They are not the same source. They are different abilities and thus ARG 220 does not apply. Aside from your own assertion, there is absolutely nothing indicating that they don't work fine together.
If you wrote one or both of those rules, or have it on good authority from those that did, that it is supposed to function as you claim, then it should probably be errata'd to fit the intent. As the rules are written now, your assertion is just that, an assertion, not a rule.
I feel that just calling them "the first one" and "the second one" is making it harder for us both to communicate, so I'll include the names in parenthesis. The first one (human raised) gives you skilled. The other one (skilled) is skilled. It doesn't need to say it gives you skilled because it is skilled. Similarly, the dwarf ability unstoppable gives you Toughness. You could not also take Toughness as your first level feat because you have Toughness.
Cavall |
Cavall wrote:I think this is the 3rd thread I've seen like this and the current note is they do not stack they were alternatives to the same end.But it's not even a new thread. Somebody dredged it up from last year.
Oh yes, I've never said this one was new. Just that it's the 3rd I've seen. Recently too.
CWheezy |
I gotta agree with ravingdork here
Human-Raised: Some half-orcs raised as humans lack their cousins' ferocity and training in orc weapons, but pick up a bit of their human parents' skills. They gain the human's skilled racial trait. This racial trait replaces orc ferocity and weapon familiarity.
Skilled: Second- and third-generation half-orcs often favor their human heritage more than their orc heritage. Half-orcs with this trait gain 1 additional skill rank per level. This racial trait replaces darkvision.
Skilled: Humans gain an additional skill rank at first level and one additional rank whenever they gain a level.
half orc skilled and human skilled are different traits, the half orc one does not say you gain the human skilled trait, you gain 1 skill point per level
Mark Seifter Designer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I gotta agree with ravingdork here
Quote:Human-Raised: Some half-orcs raised as humans lack their cousins' ferocity and training in orc weapons, but pick up a bit of their human parents' skills. They gain the human's skilled racial trait. This racial trait replaces orc ferocity and weapon familiarity.Quote:Skilled: Second- and third-generation half-orcs often favor their human heritage more than their orc heritage. Half-orcs with this trait gain 1 additional skill rank per level. This racial trait replaces darkvision.Quote:Skilled: Humans gain an additional skill rank at first level and one additional rank whenever they gain a level.half orc skilled and human skilled are different traits
It's the "skilled" racial trait from Advanced Race Guide page 226 (the race builder); it's available on both half-orc and human, and a character can't have the same racial trait twice.
Diminuendo |
Why call the two traits different names if they are not ment to be used togeather? I dont see how having both Human Raised and Skilled is any different from having two classes with Channel Energy; they are two seperate instances of the same ability.
There is a diffence between taking the same Racial Trait twice and taking two seperate Racial Traits, one of which granting an identical ability to the other.
graystone |
Why call the two traits different names if they are not ment to be used togeather? I dont see how having both Human Raised and Skilled is any different from having two classes with Channel Energy; they are two seperate instances of the same ability.
There is a diffence between taking the same Racial Trait twice and taking two seperate Racial Traits, one of which granting an identical ability to the other.
I agree. With all the confusion with reusing the same names for other things, like traits or levels, why reinvent the wheel and make new names for the same thing? Or for that matter, why reference the human trait if the 1/2 orc trait is identical?
Say "Human Raised: Human-Raised: Some half-orcs raised as humans lack their cousins' ferocity and training in orc weapons, but pick up a bit of their human parents' skills. They gain the half orc's skilled racial trait. This racial trait replaces orc ferocity and weapon familiarity." Either that or say for the 1/2 orc "Skilled: Second- and third-generation half-orcs often favor their human heritage more than their orc heritage. They gain the human's skilled racial trait. This racial trait replaces darkvision."
In both cases you use the same amount of text and you're actually clear that it's the same trait gained.
graystone |
gaining half orc skilled as your worded it might make someone think that they have to give up darkvision too for human raised like they would for the skilled trait.
I don't see why/how. It's like saying that people would think a bonus feat costs you one of your normal feats...
Or for that matter, why doesn't the original wording of Human Raised make people think they can use an alternate trait humans can take instead of the human skilled trait? The confusion should be the same but I haven't seen any one confused on the existing trait.
Basically, you get what it says and lose what it says. Additionally, only one of those wording fixes would be needed to make it clear that they don't stack, so you wouldn't have to have the ambiguity you see. [note I said "Either that or"] So it's really an illusionary problem. Change the first and you gain two of the same 1/2 orc traits. Change the second and you have 2 human skilled traits... [again, note I never said do both edits]
Chess Pwn |
Human raised. "Gain the half-orc skilled trait for ferocity and wt"
okay I get half-orc skilled, let me read that now. "...Half-orcs with this trait gain 1 additional skill rank per level. This racial trait replaces darkvision."
Okay, so human raised gives me skilled, but skilled needs to get rid of darkvision. So when I take human raised I have to give up darkvision too since I"m getting skilled?
getting the human skilled has no trade off so it's clear that you don't have to give up more.
Your second proposed changed is good, but the reason it's not that now is skilled was from an older book, so it couldn't be written again in the new book that brought up this issue.
But I feel it's clear now, skilled is skilled regardless of race. Just like anything else that can be obtained by two options. Because you'd have skilled racial traig obtained from human raised and also skilled racial trait from half-orc. But you can't have the same racial trait work twice.
graystone |
But I feel it's clear now, skilled is skilled regardless of race.
And I feel either of the differently worded ways I mentioned would be greatly less confusing than having differently worded traits doing the same thing when they could easily call out them being the same thing.
To put it another way, if I follow your thinking, a fighter wouldn't be able to switch classes to a monk and take a monks bonus feats because he already got a class feature called bonus feats from the fighter... Naming things the same doesn't mean they can't work together and the game is full of identical effects that stack so the game should be super clear when it doesn't want things to stack.
Your second proposed changed is good, but the reason it's not that now is skilled was from an older book, so it couldn't be written again in the new book that brought up this issue.
It sure CAN be altered/changed, as we've seen in the pages of ACG errata. They also can make a FAQ that says 'it should be worded like this and it'll be reflected in the reprint' and HAS been done in the past.