|
I just found out about it, and I'm a little bit freaking out. I'm playing a Barbarian right now, that completely carries my party. Everything seems like it's going to be different after this. It's just a big shock. Barbarian was always my favorite class, and I was in love with the Pathfinder barbarian. Now it's like sleeping with a woman for 3 months, then looking over at her and she's someone completely different.
So yeah.. over posted a little bit, sorry.
Hey, no worries. To be honest, I wouldn't get too worked up about it - you should consider some of the other Pathfinder changes. For a barbarian, your big winner is Power Attack. Pathfinder Power Attack is a massive power boost for all melee fighters, but barbarians in particular, since they're the quintessential two-handed weapon wielders. 3:1 Power Attack is huge for a barbarian. Sure, you can't try to Power Attack for 10 at a time these days, but the percentages on Pathfinder Power Attack rule. It's almost always worth your while power attacking with a two-handed weapon under Pathfinder. I suspect that you'll see an upswing in damage, since the penalties are small enough that second and third attacks still have manageable chances to hit, which was never the case under 3.5. In short: I think Pathfinder barbarians will be able to deal equal to or better damage than their 3.5 counterparts, and more reliably. And yes, I think they'll still outdamage fighters.
I dunno. The only constant powers I see there are defensive. Barbarians as a class are aggressive, that's why they get bonus' in light or medium armor and negatives to AC. I don't want to spend all my rage powers making them half at good at taking damage as a fighter in full plate, while dealing less damage and hitting less often.
Well defensive powers don't make them any LESS effective at offense (which they are quite good at already). IMO stuff like better DR and some light healing give them a little more staying power against high damage enemies. Fighters have their high ACs to lean on. Also, keep in mind that any feats which fighters can take to make them more effective in combat are also available to barbarians. So all the improvements to vital strike, TWF, Power Attack, most of the critical feats... all those improvements to offense help the barbarian also.
Well I agree the combination of weaker rage powers AND limited uses is not somthing I like. The rage powers in the beta was too powerful, but now they seam too weak. And limiting them is a bit strange. I mean +5 to damage once per rage is no big thing at level 15.
...One use per day? I'm not sure you are correct. Not all powers are "once per day". Some are once per round and others once per rage.
But what is "once per rage"? Is it once per fight?Of all her rage powers 2 are limited per day or per rage. I would have to agree that powerful blow is pretty limited in it's usefulness but almost all the rest are pretty handy. None of them things are super powerful but collectively it's a significant bump in power.
The barbarian was probably the best of the martial classes already, the ranger and the fighter both needed a lot more help than the barbarian anyhow.
Don't get me wrong. I like the new barbarian and with the new PA she no longer suffers from the BETA problem with PA canseling her to hit bonus from the strength bonus when ranging. There are just some stuff that worries me.
During the alternate rage system test I pointed some problems that I hope they corrected. Some of them were:Now with the nerfing of Powerful Blow I fear Guarded Stance, Rolling Dodg, Swift Foot and other powers will still be too weak. And possibly more of her powers will be nerfed.
Her powers were already nerfed in the alternate rage system so I don't get why they sould be nerfed even more....but I haven't read the final so I'll have to wait and see.
|
|
Zark, from the looks of the iconics so far, it doesn't seem to be an action to activate the Dodge feat. All the iconics with Dodge have it included in their regular AC calculation, suggesting that they may have changed the feat to grant a perpetual +1 dodge bonus to AC. Can't speak to your other misigivings, though.
Zark, from the looks of the iconics so far, it doesn't seem to be an action to activate the Dodge feat. All the iconics with Dodge have it included in their regular AC calculation, suggesting that they may have changed the feat to grant a perpetual +1 dodge bonus to AC. Can't speak to your other misigivings, though.
I hope so, the whole swift action to dodge thing was a PITA. Basically 'It's always on unless I...' In general there are a lot more things competing for swift actions in pfrpg than previously.
|
|
I hope so, the whole swift action to dodge thing was a PITA. Basically 'It's always on unless I...' In general there are a lot more things competing for swift actions in pfrpg than previously.
Yeah, my group's been playing it as 'always on, no action, adds to AC vs everyone' for the last 3 years. Nobody wants the hassle of taking a swift action to alter your AC by 1 point vs one opponent.
Zark, from the looks of the iconics so far, it doesn't seem to be an action to activate the Dodge feat. All the iconics with Dodge have it included in their regular AC calculation, suggesting that they may have changed the feat to grant a perpetual +1 dodge bonus to AC. [...]
I hope so too, but I'm not sure. They added Rage bonus in the stat block too so we can't be sure until we get the final.
But I agree if Dodge is always on then Guarded Stance and Rolling Dodge might be really good.[...]Nobody wants the hassle of taking a swift action to alter your AC by 1 point vs one opponent.
In the beta it wasn't just vs one opponent. I hope they haven't changed that. I mean shiled focus isn't vs. one opponent so why should dodge be. And defensive training doesn't give Dwarves a +4 dodge bonus to AC vs.one giant it's +4 against monsters of the giant type one or more.
Zark, from the looks of the iconics so far, it doesn't seem to be an action to activate the Dodge feat. [...]I hope so, the whole swift action to dodge thing was a PITA. Basically 'It's always on unless I...'
Yes PITA is the word, LOL.
In general there are a lot more things competing for swift actions in pfrpg than previously.
I hope they have changed some of that....at least dodge :-)
...and I hope they have changed Swift foot.
One part I've really liked about pathfinder is more options for spending swift actions for everyone. Swift actions are no longer mainly the domain of spell chuckers and the ability to consider how taking this swift action or that swift action can help break up some of the boredom of "I swing again" (for the players that haven't quite figured out how to get past that on their own).
It also means that some spell chuckers have a reason to NOT quicken a spell, or Dodge every round, especially the bard ("Do I dodge this round, or do I activate Arcane Strike?").
Speed? The Paladin has Speed of 20 ft in Full Plate but the barbarian has a speed of 40 feet in hide armor. So hide is no longer meduim armor or is this an error?
|
|
Speed? The Paladin has Speed of 20 ft in Full Plate but the barbarian has a speed of 40 feet in hide armor. So hide is no longer meduim armor or is this an error?
It's possible they may have beefed up what fast movement does for barbarians. Maybe it offsets movement penalties from armour now too. I'm just guessing, though.
One part I've really liked about pathfinder is more options for spending swift actions for everyone. Swift actions are no longer mainly the domain of spell chuckers and the ability to consider how taking this swift action or that swift action can help break up some of the boredom of "I swing again" (for the players that haven't quite figured out how to get past that on their own).
It also means that some spell chuckers have a reason to NOT quicken a spell, or Dodge every round, especially the bard ("Do I dodge this round, or do I activate Arcane Strike?").
Yes and no. I don't like stuff like do I activate dodge or Guarded Stance (or do I activate dodge or Rolling Dodge). The barbarian AC suck anyway. Why punish them more? As for Dodge, I truely think it should be always on. It's logical. ....but a condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonus.
Spell casters have quicken spell, I don't see melee characters have quicken melee attack. ...unless haste + full attack...so I'm not grateful my rogue, fighter, or barbarian have to waste a swift action on dodge.
Speed? The Paladin has Speed of 20 ft in Full Plate but the barbarian has a speed of 40 feet in hide armor. So hide is no longer meduim armor or is this an error?It's possible they may have beefed up what fast movement does for barbarians. Maybe it offsets movement penalties from armour now too. I'm just guessing, though.
If it's an error I hope Jason tells us. And if it's not I still hope he tells us ;-)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I just found out about it, and I'm a little bit freaking out. I'm playing a Barbarian right now, that completely carries my party. Everything seems like it's going to be different after this. It's just a big shock. Barbarian was always my favorite class, and I was in love with the Pathfinder barbarian. Now it's like sleeping with a woman for 3 months, then looking over at her and she's someone completely different.
So yeah.. over posted a little bit, sorry.
NP, we all do it.
You've never been married, have you ;-)
The 3.5 "or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands" part is imho purely redundant as the weapons chapter already states that you can wield one-handed weapons with two hands and gain the benefits, unlike wielding light weapons with two hands.
Well, the Weapons section only states that "If a onehanded weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls."
Not any other benefits. That's why the "weapon wielded in two hands" was included in Power Attack description, in 3.5.The opposite goes for two-handed weapons that can be wielded with only one hand, as the lance or the double weapons. If you use PA, do you have that +50% damage?
Finally, Light Weapons couldnt be used for Power Attack in 3.5; now they can. But Rapier, is a onehanded weapon to which you cant apply the 1-1/2 STR if you wield it two-handed (but what happen with PA?).
If the main distinction to apply 150% str and other effects (as PA) is the wielding, then it should be worded that way to avoid confusion.
Considering the changes to Vital Strike I wouldn't be suprised if the Overhand Chop-Backswing-Devastating Blow feat chain was scrapped or dramatically changed. Personally I don't like that feat chain as it begins with an rather sub-par feat and ends with something incredible powerful, provided you choose a x4 crit weapon.
We'll see, that's why I said before that I'd like to see those feats in the Barbarian preview, as a pure 2h warrior should have the feats.
The 3.5 "or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands" part is imho purely redundant as the weapons chapter already states that you can wield one-handed weapons with two hands and gain the benefits, unlike wielding light weapons with two hands.
Well, the Weapons section only states that "If a onehanded weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls."
Not any other benefits. That's why the "weapon wielded in two hands" was included in Power Attack description, in 3.5.
The opposite goes for two-handed weapons that can be wielded with only one hand, as the lance or the double weapons. If you use PA, do you have that +50% damage?
Finally, Light Weapons couldnt be used for Power Attack in 3.5; now they can. But Rapier, is a onehanded weapon to which you cant apply the 1-1/2 STR if you wield it two-handed (but what happen with PA?).
If the main distinction to apply 150% str and other effects (as PA) is the wielding, then it should be worded that way to avoid confusion.
Agree. And what about the bastard sword? The wording in the beta was messy and vague. Let's hope they changed the wording in the final.
Considering the changes to Vital Strike I wouldn't be suprised if the Overhand Chop-Backswing-Devastating Blow feat chain was scrapped or dramatically changed. Personally I don't like that feat chain as it begins with an rather sub-par feat and ends with something incredible powerful, provided you choose a x4 crit weapon.
I hope they haven't scraped it. Many will be upset if they have.
((As a small aside, lets not have anymore rants about changes in regards to what some playtesters wanted. Such posts break a couple of forum rules and are ultimately counter productive. Blaming playtesters, who did a stellar job, for a rules change that you do not agree with will not be tolerated. If you want to question the decisions, question me. Leave the playtesters out of it. Thanks))
I apologize for my comments. I am sorry to have caused problems. I will not make such unappropriated comments like that again.
Sorry
I beg to differ. If Devastating Blow would have a fixed multiplier or would take the thread range into account it would be fine, but the damage output of a x4 weapon is really scary [...]
It's the closest thing you get to iterative attacks, and such it's powerful. You dubble all damage you do, or tripple it. And that's NOT powerful?
Overhand Chop is not really feasible because ist is a 'as a standard action make one melee attack' type of feat which cant be combined with anything other(in Beta) than Power Attack and adds only a measly ammount of damage, even with very high str.
Again. The nice thing about these feats are they increase your damage when you can only perform a standard action. That happens all the time when foes move or when you charge. As for "measly ammount of damage". Let's take a look at
She's got a 24 str score thats +7. Str damage when using THW is +10. With OC its +10. When she rages the str goes up to 30, that is +10. Str damage when using THW is +15. With OC It's +20. That is no "measly ammount of damage". Wepon specialisation and greater wepon specialisation gives +4. That's two feats.
And with backswing you add triple str, but if these feat still are in the final we do not know.
To quote Caelic's 10th commandment of Practical Optimization: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
I hope they haven't scraped it. Many will be upset if they have.
Perhaps you are right :-(
all we can do now is to wait a few more weeks. *breaks down and cries* Me want's it NOW! ;)
Yes, me to. I really want it now.....4 Wednesdays to go, that is 4 more previews. Rogue, wizard and Seltyiel. Then what? Can we hope for a new playable Shadowdancer? :-)
Right, Power Attack 10 I've seen, often enough. But more than that and you are almost always digging into your BAB, not just your strength score. And I don't mean that you would be *always* missing, simply missing more than the extra damage you would be dealing from the extra power attack.
The variables are far too numerous to "prove" this, and it's not true (i.e. 3.5 power attack is stronger) in select cases.
It's a bit much though when you consider that the half-orc was only level 10 at the time. That's his entire BAB.
The Pathfinder version is, in terms of raw power, weaker. But I actually like this, Power Attack was too good before, and still too good in the Beta (the only real difference in the beta was that you had to do more than meet the prerequisites to be good with it).
The newer version actually keeps it useful without keeping it a "must-have" feat for most melee types.
I can't speak for others, but the reason I disliked it is because I've never heard of any barabrian myth in which the main character gains elemental attacks or nightvision simply by means of being a barbarian.In removing them, Paizo keep alot of folk happy since they can easily have non-magical barbarians in their game. Also, house-ruling a new rage power isn't as hard as house-ruling one out. I know plenty of folk who wouldn't discount any core ability for the simple fact that it's core (despite that most of the inbalancing factors featured in 3.5 were in core). Theres little to stop you house-ruling the power back in your games, but it'll be harder for some folk (like myself) to keep it out of mines if it was included in the main book.
Ranting emotions aside, and apologized form, I personally don't care if it has never been heard of before. This new fluff was perfect for growth of the concept differing it from other classes. Originally the class was just a fighter variant in 2nd E. This new fluff for me built on the concept I already had of the mirrored fantasy societies of the natural and urban. On one side you had the urban with the clerics and the paladins/fighters, and on the other you had the druids and the barbarians/rangers. With this depiction of A-typical stereotypes/icons of roles it is just a little expansion for the barbarian to start to gain druid-like traits with the elemental form wild shape ability in a lesser form drawing on elemental energies for attacks and the shape shifting in general gaining natural attacks.
I have no problem with specific GMs having their rule, so long as it is reasonable for the setting and not just a hatred of a balanced mechanic which wont disrupt the campaign; (on a side note, if they did we would need to respectfully talk). I have no problem with people not wanting to play these abilities for their character ether. I just see no reason for the option to not be there as it seems like a logical growth to the class, and it just seems that a specific group, perhaps the majority, has pushed the ability in, in my opinion, in a very counter productive manner of fluff and concept growth; and MOST of all is the fact that there is nothing I can do about it anymore as things are already set in stone with most GMs. I have been playing MANY years now of my life and have come across very few GMs or DMs that are willing to go outside the original publisher's books rules and options, and even fewer for personally written material; this coupled with my inability to run the game through personal ability, and free time available, has left me frustrated with rulings such as this.
Perhaps once I get out of school I will finally have the time to set up a campaign of my own properly in which I can give my players more freedom that I would like myself, because in the end it is not too much about what the GM wants the players to play, what the players want to play; so long as it does not break the mechanics of the game, the specific campaign being played, or the playing group itself (which I just don't see something like elemental strike doing).
stuff
I say the new version is very much a "must-have" feat for most melee types. At level eight a barbarian with a greatsword only get -3 on the attack and +9 to damage. That's great. And she gets to keep the boost to the attack when she rages.
Rage + PA was problematic with the Beta PA. Barbarians got punished because the PA was "digging into" their strength bonus to hit (and getting a str boost by bull's str or whatever was problematic to all melee types).
stuffI say the new version is very much a "must-have" feat for most melee types.
At level eight a barbarian with a greatsword only get -3 on the attack and +9 to damage. That's great. And she get a boost to the attack when she rages.
RAge + PA was problematic with the Beta PA. Barbarians got punished because the PA was "digging into" their strength bonus to hit.
I would have to agree, but every class has those must have feats. However with the CMB system being off of strength, I can see a barbarian going to TWF and doing combat maneuvers instead of just damage. A fighter with their new class abilities seem, over all, more able at doing damage than any barbarian build, and the barbarians more capable at combat maneuvers through strength and rage powers (if some are still kept in the game) have a nitch in this area. With CMBs not being effected by TWF minuses, and each attempt being in place attack, this could be very interesting alternative option for a barbarian build. This alternate build could also work with the lighter armor use and the high dex requirement of TWF.
[...]With CMBs not being effected by TWF minuses, and each attempt being in place attack, this could be very interesting alternative option for a barbarian build. This alternate build could also work with the lighter armor use and the high dex requirement of TWF.
Cool Idea.
With CMBs not being effected by TWF minuses, and each attempt being in place attack, this could be very interesting alternative option for a barbarian build.
Not so fast. The Bonus Bestiary says: "A combat maneuver is an attack and gains all of the benefits (and penalties) a creature might gain on attack rolls from spells, feats, magic items, and conditional modifiers." So presumably that'll be the way it works in the final rules.
With CMBs not being effected by TWF minuses, and each attempt being in place attack, this could be very interesting alternative option for a barbarian build.Not so fast. The Bonus Bestiary says: "A combat maneuver is an attack and gains all of the benefits (and penalties) a creature might gain on attack rolls from spells, feats, magic items, and conditional modifiers." So presumably that'll be the way it works in the final rules.
Obviously final rules awaiting, as we don't have them yet. Just making a point to look for that.
TWF Barbarian is still a Cool idea ;-)
....but a Barbarian with a two handed weapon is probably better.
... Originally the [barbarian] class was just a fighter variant in 2nd E. ...
Ah, no, originally the barbarian was its own class in 1e's Unearthed Arcana, not counting its original publication in - if memory serves correctly - the pages of Dragon magazine prior to that.
One part I've really liked about pathfinder is more options for spending swift actions for everyone.
I couldn't agree more. However I think swift "Actions" should be for exactly that, actions, not for an ongoing defensive state.
... Originally the [barbarian] class was just a fighter variant in 2nd E. ...Ah, no, originally the barbarian was its own class in 1e's Unearthed Arcana, not counting its original publication in - if memory serves correctly - the pages of Dragon magazine prior to that.
Ah, true enough. Always seem to forget 1e stuff.
One part I've really liked about pathfinder is more options for spending swift actions for everyone.I couldn't agree more. However I think swift "Actions" should be for exactly that, actions, not for an ongoing defensive state.
Agree
I kinda like that new Toughness tweak. +3 hp, +1 hp / level after 3rd. Not as crappy as +3 hp and nothing else, and not quite as awesome as the +3 hp *and* +1 hp / level of the Beta.
To me, at least it is a lot better than the original.
...Originally the class was just a fighter variant in 2nd E.
Correction, originally it was a completely new class in Unearthed Arcana in 1st Ed.
Ah, true enough. Always seem to forget 1e stuff.
"This is why you fail."
...Originally the class was just a fighter variant in 2nd E.Correction, originally it was a completely new class in Unearthed Arcana in 1st Ed.
Yes again, you are correct, I have been corrected. Point still stands though, and in 2nd E it was just a variant fighter.
Yes again, you are correct, I have been corrected. Point still stands though, and in 2nd E it was just a variant fighter....Originally the class was just a fighter variant in 2nd E.Correction, originally it was a completely new class in Unearthed Arcana in 1st Ed.
Never like 2nd ed.
But in 2nd ed they made a ton of mistakes with the classes that unfortunately got carried on to 3rd ed. The ranger get Drizzt'd, the barbarian became a beserker, and the bard lost his connection to the divine all thanks to a poorly put together edition.
To me the beserker is a fine type of barbarian but really doesn't fit my idea of a core barbarian. He's a specialist, like a Paladin compared to a Fighter, the fighter is the generalist the paladin the specialist. Just like the barbarian is the generalist and the beserker would be the specialist.
You are correct. "The Big, Bad Barbarian" by Gary Gygax, Dragon #63, pages 8-11. The class was a lot closer to the literary inspirations Thurgon mentions back on page 3 of this thread (Conan, Fafhrd et cetera) then the 3rd/4th edition version. It was based on wilderness skills, alertness, toughness and fighting skill and, most significantly, had nothing resembling a Rage ability.
Don't forget magic-hatin'!
:-)
Never like 2nd ed.
But in 2nd ed they made a ton of mistakes with the classes that unfortunately got carried on to 3rd ed. The ranger get Drizzt'd, the barbarian became a beserker, and the bard lost his connection to the divine all thanks to a poorly put together edition.
To me the beserker is a fine type of barbarian but really doesn't fit my idea of a core barbarian. He's a specialist, like a Paladin compared to a Fighter, the fighter is the generalist the paladin the specialist. Just like the barbarian is the generalist and the beserker would be the specialist.
That leads to the question: What is your conception of a barbarian? The 1e barbarian was ultimately little more than a fighter with his stat bonuses turned up to 11 and a lot of attitude. The attitude bit could certainly be conveyed by a kit in 2e. The way I see it, the barbarian did need more than that and being good at defending against backstabs to be really distinct.
I think 3e really could have named the barbarian something like berserker. Then it could cover the dwarven battle ragers, real semi-barbarian berserkers like Sláine (or Cú Chulainn) with his warp frenzy, or viking berserkers. But what essential niche would the barbarian class fill that can't be done by the fighter, ranger, or berserker?
Never like 2nd ed.
But in 2nd ed they made a ton of mistakes with the classes that unfortunately got carried on to 3rd ed. The ranger get Drizzt'd, the barbarian became a beserker, and the bard lost his connection to the divine all thanks to a poorly put together edition.
To me the beserker is a fine type of barbarian but really doesn't fit my idea of a core barbarian. He's a specialist, like a Paladin compared to a Fighter, the fighter is the generalist the paladin the specialist. Just like the barbarian is the generalist and the beserker would be the specialist.
That leads to the question: What is your conception of a barbarian? The 1e barbarian was ultimately little more than a fighter with his stat bonuses turned up to 11 and a lot of attitude. The attitude bit could certainly be conveyed by a kit in 2e. The way I see it, the barbarian did need more than that and being good at defending against backstabs to be really distinct.
I think 3e really could have named the barbarian something like berserker. Then it could cover the dwarven battle ragers, real semi-barbarian berserkers like Sláine (or Cú Chulainn) with his warp frenzy, or viking berserkers. But what essential niche would the barbarian class fill that can't be done by the fighter, ranger, or berserker?
** spoiler omitted **
The barbarian in my mind was a tough as nails guy who had some survival skills on top of it all. But I could agree he could be done with a fighter, almost. A fighter though implies a highly skilled warrior. A barbarian uses toughness and speed to overcome his lack of training and throw in some surivival skills and that fits it better to me at least.
((I am ok with the Bard being expanded to cover the other types, but to drop completely the orginal flavor does the class a disservice in my mind.))
The barbarian in my mind was a tough as nails guy who had some survival skills on top of it all. But I could agree he could be done with a fighter, almost. A fighter though implies a highly skilled warrior. A barbarian uses toughness and speed to overcome his lack of training and throw in some surivival skills and that fits it better to me at least.
I can see the current "barbarian" being re-named as a "berserker", with barbarians per se being more of a non-spellcasting Ranger.
Instead of a feat-laden Fighter, perhaps a hit point-laden Fighter, not only in terms of garnering survivabililty (d12 HD, good Fort, moderate Reflex and Will base save progression) but "bonus" Toughness feats at even levels and the 4-point skills set / armor / shields / weapons proficiencies of the current Barbarian? Oh, and a 'half Monk speed progression'?
The previously mentioned 'supernatural rage barbarians/berserkers' I agree would make excellent prestige classes, as long as they 're-tooled' the usually extraordinary class feature. Presumably compensated within the goodies of such prestige classes.
|
Zark, from the looks of the iconics so far, it doesn't seem to be an action to activate the Dodge feat. All the iconics with Dodge have it included in their regular AC calculation, suggesting that they may have changed the feat to grant a perpetual +1 dodge bonus to AC. Can't speak to your other misigivings, though.
Confirmed now with the rogue's preview: Dodge is now omnipresent +1 bonus to ACs. (barring flat-footed status).
So that should help put these concerns and the musings of the mechanics on your barbarian build in the bag.
Robert
Confirmed now with the rogue's preview: Dodge is now omnipresent +1 bonus to ACs. (barring flat-footed status).
Sorry, but the Rogue preview did not confirm dodge to be omnipresent, merely omni-target (as it was in the Beta). Fingers still crossed, but the language used doesn't support this yet.
|
|
Confirmed now with the rogue's preview: Dodge is now omnipresent +1 bonus to ACs. (barring flat-footed status).Sorry, but the Rogue preview did not confirm dodge to be omnipresent, merely omni-target (as it was in the Beta). Fingers still crossed, but the language used doesn't support this yet.
Bahhh! Once again your all too OCD-esque anal-retentive attention to detail debunks something that I had confidently thought put to rest......
Thanks for the clarifying, Majuba.
(so we meet again yet on another board, eh? Found a player for my game on the other board by the way...)
Robert
Confirmed now with the rogue's preview: Dodge is now omnipresent +1 bonus to ACs. (barring flat-footed status).Sorry, but the Rogue preview did not confirm dodge to be omnipresent, merely omni-target (as it was in the Beta). Fingers still crossed, but the language used doesn't support this yet.
It may not outright confirm it, but the previews strongly support the view that Dodge is in general, an "always-on" feat and doesn't need to be activated with a swift action. If it were otherwise, I believe Dodge would have been listed in Defensive Abilities instead of AC.
Bahhh! Once again your all too OCD-esque anal-retentive attention to detail debunks something that I had confidently thought put to rest......
Thanks for the clarifying, Majuba.
I.. um... you're welcome? ... :)