Alex Freeman's page

For best designed I really like the ranger. A good selection of skills, a little bit of casting, a wide range of combat styles, and some really unique abilities.

For most fun, cleric.

How often does your group meet? And have you decided what you're going to do about the sword? I'm curious to see how this goes for you.

Alex Freeman wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Alex Freeman wrote:

I don't get it, why don't you guys just house rule it? As James has said, it's a great idea and it will most likely be implemented in Pathfinder 2e, it will probably not be errata'd anytime soon, so why not skip the justification, because I think everyone will agree that at some level the ranger deserves Acrobatics. Even if you disagree, the game is already set up for you! Maybe I'll never understand the dynamics of beating a dead horse or arguing on a forum...

What are we to talk about on this forum then? And who is to tell us what we can talk about?

I suppose it's just me. Sorry to interrupt the thread.

Beside, the "you can house rule it otherwise" is not a valid argument when criticizing a rule. If it was a valid argument, then Paizo could sell us a book containing 575 blank pages for 52,99$ and ask us to write our own rules in it.

Sure we can always modify the rules that we don't like, but that doesn't change anything about the quality of the rules as written.

I'm not arguing against it, I'm completely for it. I just figured since James stated it was something he'd consider for the next iteration that it wouldn't need to be justified as a skill for rangers anymore. It's not going to be modified any time soon in an errata, by the ways James posted, so I just didn't think it needed anymore convincing.

Also, I totally think "you can house rule it" is a valid argument for criticizing a rule. Some people think Leadership is broken and house rule it away. I don't think there is a problem with Leadership, I've never had a problem with it in play, but some people have different tastes. House rules are like cultural cousine, everyone has a style they use, each unique to the group.

Alex Freeman wrote:

I don't get it, why don't you guys just house rule it? As James has said, it's a great idea and it will most likely be implemented in Pathfinder 2e, it will probably not be errata'd anytime soon, so why not skip the justification, because I think everyone will agree that at some level the ranger deserves Acrobatics. Even if you disagree, the game is already set up for you! Maybe I'll never understand the dynamics of beating a dead horse or arguing on a forum...

What are we to talk about on this forum then? And who is to tell us what we can talk about?

I suppose it's just me. Sorry to interrupt the thread.

I don't get it, why don't you guys just house rule it? As James has said, it's a great idea and it will most likely be implemented in Pathfinder 2e, it will probably not be errata'd anytime soon, so why not skip the justification, because I think everyone will agree that at some level the ranger deserves Acrobatics. Even if you disagree, the game is already set up for you! Maybe I'll never understand the dynamics of beating a dead horse or arguing on a forum...

For reference there was a post about this before.

I smell what you're stepping in Quandary, good point. I was trying to connect the two and overlooked that. Personally, I've never had a player bring it up and never really thought about it, myself, but will definately keep weapon finesse in mind if I ever manage to find a game to play in.

Unarmed Attacks
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Since unarmed attacks are light weapons and a touch attack is considered an unarmed attack then I think it makes sense to be able to use weapon finesse.

OP asks the question "Is Total Concealment the same thing as invisibility?" It isn't the same thing, but in many situations, the result is effectively the same.

This. As written, they are different. You can interpret all day with specific scenarios and situations. What it comes down to is that the two effects are not identical.

Believe me, I'm not saying that's how it has to be. You can use whatever rules you want for the two, as long as everyone is having a good time.

I think the easiest way to differentiate the two is the RAW. If you're hiding in the dark and have total concealment, darkvision can still see you. If you're invisible and have total concealment, darkvision does nothing.

If we're talking about someone without darkvision it's not terribly different. Invisible is a status effect. You only get the +20/+40 Stealth bonus if you are invisible, not for total concealment, by RAW. So, invisibility and total concealment are fundamentally different.

Does the guard have any concealment from the fog? If so, sneak attack is a moot point.