He can speak for himself, of course, but in the RAW, not everything with +6 BAB has iterative attacks.
Sorry to get everyone worked up; in this case, Blake has gauged my intent correctly. I wanted to avoid monsters randomly giving up really weak secondary attacks in order to get super-bites and the like.
I probably would have specified that in the body of the feat ("you must do this to use the feat"), rather than in the prerequisites ("you must have this to take the feat"). Like I said, lots of creatures have the option of natural attacks OR a standard iterative spread.
But yea, that makes sense.
Occorse, I forgot to mention it, but I'm actually using one "Skill Application" feat (ala AE) in place of all those. Basically you get to pick two skills, and can invent whatever thematic connection you want between them.
I have no idea why Pathfinder didn't do this other than for needless filler in the feat lists, and/or for adding further combinations in future supplements.
A key rule for backwards compatibility is that you can't turn old terms and keywords into gibberish.
If "Stealthy" is the name of a feat in 3.5, it really needs to be the name of a feat in Pathfinder, too, even if it doesn't do exactly the same thing.
If "Stealthy" is the name of a feat in 3.5, it really needs to be the name of a feat in Pathfinder, too, even if it doesn't do exactly the same thing.
On one level I agree, but unfortunately Pathfinder has already turned previously clear terms into gibberish again. For example, in 1e, "enchant" meant either cast an enchantment, or cast any spell of any kind on, or sometimes it referred to crafting magic items. In 3.0/3.5, this was thankfully clarified; "enchantment" was re-defined to refer strictly to the school of magic. This one change was probably my favorite thing about 3e. Unfortunately, in the Pathfinder core rules the term has apparently gone back to being used indiscriminately to mean the school of magic, or the addition of magical properties to items (as in the wizard's bonded item description). So clarity of terms and language is a lost cause.
Personally, I'm lumping Stealthy, Deft Hands, and all those together under the heading of "Skill Synergy" -- I always liked the term, and have no qualms about re-defining it as something else.
If you use retraining rules (or just don't game past 6th or 7th level or so), this is an absolute must-have. Everyone will take it at low levels then retrain when it becomes useless at high levels.
what are the retraining rules? are these in the pathfinder core book? I kind of like that idea.
Also, you make good points on each of the feats I posted.
If you use retraining rules (or just don't game past 6th or 7th level or so), this is an absolute must-have. Everyone will take it at low levels then retrain when it becomes useless at high levels.what are the retraining rules? are these in the pathfinder core book? I kind of like that idea.
Also, you make good points on each of the feats I posted.
I think they were in the PHB II? They involved spending time and money to swap your feats out.
Also, when I first read that post for some reason I thought it said "+10 hitpoints". Level+5 has the same issues, but to a lesser degree.
If you use retraining rules (or just don't game past 6th or 7th level or so), this is an absolute must-have. Everyone will take it at low levels then retrain when it becomes useless at high levels.what are the retraining rules? are these in the pathfinder core book? I kind of like that idea.
Also, you make good points on each of the feats I posted.
I think they were in the PHB II? They involved spending time and money to swap your feats out.
Also, when I first read that post for some reason I thought it said "+10 hitpoints". Level+5 has the same issues, but to a lesser degree.
HD+5 does seem a bit too much at 1st level. Although considering 2 extra hit points is so insignificant (maybe providing enough spread for a mook's stab with a dagger and a 10 str at low levels), I didn't think it would be a big deal. I was thinking maybe a prerequisite of Con 11 would make a bit of sense. You'd have to be hardy to have a feat like toughness make sense, but it would kind of screw over the folks that the feat probably looks most attractive to at 1st level (ie: wizards, sorcerers), since Con isn't usually even a secondary attribute for these folks.
as for the extra bonuses for fighters, I do like the idea but you're right in that every combat feat would need to be covered, or else there would be obvious choices and more scrapped feats that become worthless at higher levels.
As Sean Reynolds says on his website, modern uses of "enchant" to mean imbuing an item with magic is simply a careless writer or editor (not) at work. Enchanting should now apply only to effects relating to that school of magic.
As Sean Reynolds says on his website, modern uses of "enchant" to mean imbuing an item with magic is simply a careless writer or editor (not) at work. Enchanting should now apply only to effects relating to that school of magic.
And I agree with him wholeheartedly! Unfortunately, to paraphrase SKR, Jason Bulmahn is a careless writer, and Paizo neglected to put an editor to work.