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.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.
I agree Anthony - most likely it's constant - however many things have been included in the stat blocks, including spells, rage, etc., so just can't be sure.
|
I.. um... you're welcome? ... :)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.
After re-reading what I wrote I couldn't blame you if you found it insulting - to which I hope your response and subsequent :) meant that you did take it for what it was meant as - mirthful jab and jest; but no less so than a compliment at your continued excellent attention to the details that many of us miss.
You always seem to pay attention.
Cheers
Robert
AgreeOne 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.
Maybe a swift attack that's taken at -4 to hit and damage (not all attacks for the round, simply the swift attack... it's too quick, not properly aimed or with full force behind it... yada yada)? To 'oppose' quicken spell?
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.
As you seem to have missed a few things Sir Ineptus, a reply seems in order.
- Did you notice the "Superstitious" class feature? I am amazed no one has commented on that in this thread (so far), not just you.
- Sir Bulmahn clearly stated that the plan is to at a later point to produce an "elemental bubba". The alternative class feature(s) you desire could not be shoehorned into the core rules book, as explained previously, without doing the concept a disservice.
- Fluff is flavor text, not "crunch" which is what comprises the game mechanics you have desired to see retained.
The statements you make as follows seem to be aimed at both myself and Da Fighter as your Game Masters these past 2 1/2 years: "...the fact that there is nothing I can do about it ... as things are already set in stone with most GMs. I have ... come across very few GMs ... that are willing to go outside the original publisher's ... rules and options, and even fewer for personally written material... this coupled with my inability to run [a] game ... has left me frustrated with rulings such as this."
This is about as rude as you can get. There are often good reasons for not permitting certain things in the game or enforcing certain house rules. As I recall, your barbarian was never denied the ability to acquire the elemental weapon rage ability you so loudly pined over earlier in this thread. Instead you perceived it as "too weak" during the Beta play test we did for the Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign. I will not even get into the games before and after that. As far as your personally written material goes ... you have seen fit to post some ideas on this and other boards. Then received the relevant feedback. You can't get much better than that kind of responsiveness to concepts you want to field and get feedback on. That your current GMs are unwilling to permit your home-brewed material into play is not a personal insult. As you seem to be eager to start up a campaign of your own - I suggest getting your players to play-test such concepts for you when the time comes.
Yeah, Don't playtest your own material -- that's like reading your own poetry in public. Just Don't. You'll never see what's wrong with it until you see someone else doing it.
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.As you seem to have missed a few things Sir Ineptus, a reply seems in order.
- Did you notice the "Superstitious" class feature? I am amazed no one has commented on that in this thread (so far), not just you.
- Sir Bulmahn clearly stated that the plan is to at a later point to produce an "elemental bubba". The alternative class feature(s) you desire could not be shoehorned into the core rules book, as explained previously, without doing the concept a disservice.
- Fluff is flavor text, not "crunch" which is what comprises the game mechanics you have desired to see retained.
The statements you make as follows seem to be aimed at both myself and Da Fighter as your Game Masters these past 2 1/2 years: "...the fact that there is nothing I can do about it ... as things are already set in stone with most GMs. I have ... come across very few GMs ... that are willing to go...
Well NO it is not really targeted at you. I have been with one GM a lot longer. Sorry if it seemed like that. Also I have been in other games on the side with other GMs. I know you guys are alright, and I wanted to make sure right now that you know that. It was not targeted at you two.
I'll address the rest of your statement in a little if I have anything to really reply.
P.S.
As everything I seem to be saying is pissing people off on these boards I think it is time I take a long break from posting.
P.P.S. Also keep in mind I have been role playing for 14 of my 26 years of life.
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.
Actually, there is an official answer to this question in the Rogue's Preview thread...
And apparently no more need to burn a swift every round to dodge WOOT!
No more need to declare a dodge buddy !
I'm not sure. It only says: Never again will you need to remember to designate a single foe.
In 3.5 i was vs. one foe. In beta it was vs. all foes.
Can we get a yes on "no swift action"?
You could.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
So, yes, it appears that Dodge is effectively 'always on'.
Umm... not quite.
Actually, there is an official answer to this question in the Rogue's Preview thread...
I'm not sure. It only says: Never again will you need to remember to designate a single foe.
In 3.5 i was vs. one foe. In beta it was vs. all foes.
You could.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingSo, yes, it appears that Dodge is effectively 'always on'.
No, Jason is toying with us :)
We *could* get a yes on "no swift action", but he's not giving it to us.
HA! Take that Majuba! ;-) hehe.
It's that attention to detail again...