|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking the reason it is not clarified is because it says "Acute Darkvision Some half-orcs have exceptionally sharp darkvision, gaining darkvision 90 feet. This racial trait replaces orc ferocity."
Your friend no longer has darkvision if he takes the Skilled Alternate Racial Trait. You can rules lawyer it, but then your running face first into being 'That Guy'.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no ambiguity in the text: possessing the Acute Darkvision racial trait grants the PC darkvision out to a range of 90ft. End of story.
And let's please avoid making judgments against the moral character of those who presume that rules do what they clearly state. We're not talking about dubious interpretations of gray areas here, so let's leave the labels and attacks out of it.
Clearly they forgot to add the "This trait replaces Orc Ferocity and Darkvision" section into that trait. FAQ'd to kill munchkins.
|
|
There is no ambiguity in the text: possessing the Acute Darkvision racial trait grants the PC darkvision out to a range of 90ft. End of story.
And let's please avoid making judgments against the moral character of those who presume that rules do what they clearly state. We're not talking about dubious interpretations of gray areas here, so let's leave the labels and attacks out of it.
Not attacking him. Simply stating if you rules lawyer it you are running face first into being 'that guy'.
I don't mind 'that guy' sitting at my table as usually learn some obscure rule I didn't know, a lot of people do mind 'that guy' though. Just trying to help him Jiggy, not put him down as you obviously suspect.
|
Clearly they forgot to add the "This trait replaces Orc Ferocity and Darkvision" section into that trait. FAQ'd to kill munchkins.
I don't view this as a real issue. Orc ferocity is a very powerful ability, and allowing a switch of Orc Ferocity for a skill point and an extra 30 ft. of darkvision does not seem at all gamebreaking IMO.
|
|
Clearly they forgot to add the "This trait replaces Orc Ferocity and Darkvision" section into that trait. FAQ'd to kill munchkins.I don't view this as a real issue. Orc ferocity is a very powerful ability, and allowing a switch of Orc Ferocity for a skill point and an extra 30 ft. of darkvision does not seem at all gamebreaking IMO.
I don't know many people who stay up in pfs after a hit drops them to negative, most people want to fall down so they don't take the next attack which will kill them.
My stance on it is that you take Acute Darkvision, it modifies the Darkvision Racial Trait. Then you take Skilled, and you lose Darkvision.
The question whether this really belongs in PFS, or in Rules Questions occurred to me...
But things in Rules Questions don't have a terribly good history of being answered or seeing Errata,
so perhaps leaving it to PFS staff to forward rules issues to Paizo could be equally/more effective...?
Or you could report it for the ARG Errata thread, although Errata isn't usually done until a re-print,
so PFS making a temporary ruling could be preferred... That is also in the realm of Paizo Rules FAQs,
also not that reliable of a result from Rules Question threads, but hey...
I hit FAQ here anyways.
Your friend no longer has darkvision if he takes the Skilled Alternate Racial Trait.
You're right. He no longer has Darkvision. He has Acute Darkvision. Two completely different things.
This is cheese. This isn't particularly powerful cheese, but it is cheese.
Normally I have no problem with cheese.
But keep in mind cheese tends to get errata'd, so if you do decide to use a given bit of cheese, please have the good grace not to whine when you later have to change your character - or worse, have your character made useless because the amount of change allowed won't change the fact that the rest of your character may have been built around the cheese.
I for one powergame and optimise, but I generally stick to stuff that is clear with no rules-grey elements.
As I said, I have no problem with cheese, which I define as using technicalities and wording to get around restrictions. I just don't feel the need to use it. Even without it, you can make enormously powerful characters.
-k
Re: cheese - Please tell me how this is in any way different than interpreting Archetypes.
You only replace what is explicitly stated in the text. If there's conflict in replacements, you can't do them both. There is no conflict between the removal of Darkvision for Skilled and the removal of Orc Ferocity for Acute Darkvision. They are all distinct, individual abilities.
What is the problem here?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One man's cheese is another man's bread and butter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It gets into intent vs wording. Yes, this is a RAI vs RAW judgement call.
"Acute Darkvision" is pretty clearly an improved version of Darkvision. One option says you have really good darkvision, the other says you never *had* darkvision.
Yes, if you look at it purely as "Option A grants Ability A, and Option B removes Ability B, since the two abilities have different names they don't interact and it's legal", the combo works.
But that is classic cheese, using wording to get around intent.
If you want to cheese, have at it. Have fun. Whatever. Just please don't pretend it's anything but cheese.
As I said, I actually enjoy cheese, especially when it's particularly clever. Trying to claim that "Acute Darkvision" has nothing to do with "Darkvision" isn't particularly clever. In fact in my opinion, insisting such is borderline insulting the intelligence of the people you are speaking to.
-k
It gets into intent vs wording. Yes, this is a RAI vs RAW judgement call.
"Acute Darkvision" is pretty clearly an improved version of Darkvision. One option says you have really good darkvision, the other says you never *had* darkvision.
Yes, if you look at it purely as "Option A grants Ability A, and Option B removes Ability B, since the two abilities have different names they don't interact and it's legal", the combo works.
But that is classic cheese, using wording to get around intent.
If you want to cheese, have at it. Have fun. Whatever. Just please don't pretend it's anything but cheese.
As I said, I actually enjoy cheese, especially when it's particularly clever. Trying to claim that "Acute Darkvision" has nothing to do with "Darkvision" isn't particularly clever. In fact in my opinion, insisting such is borderline insulting the intelligence of the people you are speaking to.
-k
Moralizing over what is most likely a design decision and assuming it's bad design is just as much an insult.
From a non-mechanical perspective, think about it like this: A generic Half-Orc ferocious (Orc Ferocity) and can see well in the dark (Darkvision). There is a subset of Half-Orcs that can't see better in the dark than the average Human, but is just as skilled (Skilled swapout), but still rather ferocious. There's a subset within those skilled Half-Orcs that lost their feral streak, but have a honed sense of sight in the dark (Acute Darkvision).
At the same time, consider what Acute Darkvision (1 feat equivalent) is competing against.
-Beastmaster: 2 good EWPs (Whip and Net) and +2 Handle Animal. (~2.5 feat equivalent)
-Bestial: +2 Perception (~.5 feat equivalent)
-Gatecrasher: +2 STR checks to break things and +2 Sunder CMB/CMD (~1.5 feat equivalent)
-Sacred Tattoo: +1 all saves (~1.5 feat equivalent)
-Toothy: Bite attack (1 feat equivalent)
If we average that out, we see that Orc Ferocity is the rough equivalent of a feat (really, closer to 1.33 feats). If you compare to actual existing feats, your nearest competition is Diehard, which requires Endurance, which makes Orc Ferocity closer to 2 feats of investment. If you wanted your regular Darkvision to be just as strong as Acute Darkvision, you could save yourself the Orc Ferocity for the cost of Deepsight from the APG.
So, in what world is this cheese? You are at a mechanical disadvantage to select Acute Darkvision over Orc Ferocity unless you have specific reasons to select something that drops Darkvision.
Would you call it cheese if the player chose to take Forest Walker (drops Darkvision to get Low-light Vision and +2 Climb) and grabbed Acute Darkvision because they wanted their character themed a certain way?
I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around this argument other than "I think the designer is wrong." And not just in a typical right/wrong meaning, but in a moral judgment sense.
So, you do not see the logic problem with having both 'better darkvision than normal' and 'no darkvision at all'?
Note that nowhere in my comments do I call it overpowered. In fact I specifically called it a not particularly powerful. I merely gave my definition of cheese, which is simply the use of wording to overcome intent.
There is powerful cheese and cheese that has no game benefit. I don't address that at all.
I merely point out that the only way you can have "improved darkvision" and "no darkvision" at the same time is to cheese the wording.
-j
The issue here is the definition of cheese.
My definition of cheese definately does not match Mr Wu's. I feel that Serisan sahres my definition of cheese as well.
I feel when you call something cheese you refer to it as something too good, or too powerful. Calling something mildly decent cheese goes against the value that we place on the word cheese.
Although I would disagree with your definition of cheese as using rules against RAI. I do not believe in RAI. That is an opinion of the reader to define what rules "should" be like. Should is subjective and RAW is not. They have someone write this stuff, most likely multiple people edit it, people game test it, people rewrite it, and someone re-edit it. To assume that many people missed it is too large for me. If it was wrong they would errata it.
So, you do not see the logic problem with having both 'better darkvision than normal' and 'no darkvision at all'?
Note that nowhere in my comments do I call it overpowered. In fact I specifically called it a not particularly powerful. I merely gave my definition of cheese, which is simply the use of wording to overcome intent.
There is powerful cheese and cheese that has no game benefit. I don't address that at all.
I merely point out that the only way you can have "improved darkvision" and "no darkvision" at the same time is to cheese the wording.
-j
You're using the mechanics process chain to bypass the logical existence of the subset. As I said earlier:
A generic Half-Orc ferocious (Orc Ferocity) and can see well in the dark (Darkvision). There is a subset of Half-Orcs that can't see better in the dark than the average Human, but is just as skilled (Skilled swapout), but still rather ferocious. There's a subset within those skilled Half-Orcs that lost their feral streak, but have a honed sense of sight in the dark (Acute Darkvision).
This is no different than any other trait swap, and certainly no different than any archetype. Overlay the fluff on top of the mechanics, not the other way around.
Regarding power level, which I know we're basically on the same page with, I mentioned earlier that Acute Darkvision vs regular Darkvision is a 1 feat equivalent. This was incorrect. Deepsight is 60', not 30'. That makes AD = .5 feats. If you use the Race Builder, the jump from 60' to 120' is 1 additional RP (Darkvision 60' is 2, Darkvision 120' is 3). Picking Acute Darkvision, then, is really not a power level thing. If AD required you to replace both Orc Ferocity AND Darkvision, the only way to be even remotely balanced is to put it at 120' OR give See In Darkness 60' (which is 4 RP and equivalent to Orc Ferocity + Darkvision 60', but scaled out of the Advanced category by having a range limit).
I think you're misunderstanding my point, I wasn't debating the legality of the option up until now. Just warning folks that you can take it, but don't be surprised if it gets errata'd. This is true of ANY build that uses grey or debatable rules interpretations to work.
But actually, now that I am re-reading the content in question... people keep arguing you are not getting back "darkvision", you are getting a new ability called "acute darkvision".
However, the ability you gain from taking the Acute Darkvision alternate racial trait is NOT called "Acute Darkvision". Really. Read it.
It is simply "darkvision", with a range of 90 feet.
Arena Bred/Skilled states that the ability "darkvision" is removed.
-j
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're misunderstanding my point, I wasn't debating the legality of the option up until now. Just warning folks that you can take it, but don't be surprised if it gets errata'd. This is true of ANY build that uses grey or debatable rules interpretations to work.
But actually, now that I am re-reading the content in question... people keep arguing you are not getting back "darkvision", you are getting a new ability called "acute darkvision".
However, the ability you gain from taking the Acute Darkvision alternate racial trait is NOT called "Acute Darkvision". Really. Read it.
It is simply "darkvision", with a range of 90 feet.
Arena Bred/Skilled states that the ability "darkvision" is removed.
-j
Skilled states that the racial trait called Darkvision is removed. That doesn't mean that all instances of darkvision ever are removed. If the half-orc in question picks a class feature that nets him darkvision, then Skilled doesn't get rid of that. Similarly, if he gets the racial trait called Acute Darkvision, he gets darkvision.
Darkvision and Acute Darkvision are two different abilities that happen to do similar things. Getting rid of the former does not make it impossible to get the latter, and I don't think there's need for errata.
one person's cheese may be another person's character concept.
and on a mostly unrelated note, everyone should try this cheese because it's delicious :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're misunderstanding my point, I wasn't debating the legality of the option up until now. Just warning folks that you can take it, but don't be surprised if it gets errata'd. This is true of ANY build that uses grey or debatable rules interpretations to work.
But actually, now that I am re-reading the content in question... people keep arguing you are not getting back "darkvision", you are getting a new ability called "acute darkvision".
However, the ability you gain from taking the Acute Darkvision alternate racial trait is NOT called "Acute Darkvision". Really. Read it.
It is simply "darkvision", with a range of 90 feet.
Arena Bred/Skilled states that the ability "darkvision" is removed.
-j
Another point to consider is that, if Acute Darkvision were intended to modify the existing Darkvision racial trait, it would read similar to Sneak Stab on the Knife Master Rogue archetype:
Sneak Stab (Ex): A knife master focuses her ability to deal sneak attack damage with daggers and similar weapons to such a degree that she can deal more sneak attack damage with those weapons at the expense of sneak attacks with other weapons. When she makes a sneak attack with a dagger, kerambit, kukri, punching daggers, starknife, or swordbreaker dagger (Advanced Player's Guide 178), she uses d8s to roll sneak attack damage instead of d6s. For sneak attacks with all other weapons, she uses d4s instead of d6s. This ability is identical in all other ways to sneak attack, and supplements that ability.
There are very, very few things in the rules as written that have this language, and for good reason, too. There simply aren't that many things that function in this fashion.
We also have examples like this:
Smite Evil (Su): This functions as the paladin ability, but the sacred servant can smite evil one additional time per day at 7th level, and every six levels thereafter (instead of 4th level and every three levels thereafter). This replaces smite evil.
Channel Positive Energy (Su): When a hospitaler reaches 4th level, she gains the ability to channel positive energy as a cleric equal to her paladin level –3. She can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier. Using this ability does not expend uses of lay on hands, as it does with other paladins. This replaces the standard paladin's channel positive energy ability.
Smite Evil (Su): This functions as the paladin ability of the same name, but the undead scourge does not deal 2 points of damage per level on the first successful attack against evil dragons and evil outsiders. She does deal 2 points of damage per level on all smite attacks made against evil undead creatures.
These are all variations of the same theme: a modification of an existing class feature with a different set of mechanics. If we were to expect Acute Darkvision to modify the Darkvision racial, we sould have to see something similar in the language.
Regarding this particular bit...
However, the ability you gain from taking the Acute Darkvision alternate racial trait is NOT called "Acute Darkvision". Really. Read it.
It is simply "darkvision", with a range of 90 feet.
You receive a racial trait called Acute Darkvision. It has the effect of darkvision: 90'. Similarly, when you have Darkvision as a racial trait, you have darkvision: 60'. Just like an archetype, you wouldn't record what was replaced. It's not that you had Darkvision and cross it off your character sheet. You simply never put it on there, just like you wouldn't put Bombs as a class feature on a Vivisectionist Alchemist.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd point out that we have race abilities that modify the original.
For example:
World Walker: Fetchlings who have spent most of their lives on the Material Plane can become more acclimated to their new environments. Instead of gaining a +2 racial bonus on Knowledge (planes) checks, these fetchlings gain a +1 racial bonus on Knowledge (nature) and Knowledge (local) checks. This racial trait modifies the
skilled racial trait.
While Acute Darkvision says:
Acute Darkvision: Some half-orcs have exceptionally sharp darkvision, gaining darkvision 90 feet. This racial trait replaces orc ferocity.
IF Acute Darkvision was truly to 'just' increase the darkvision to 90' it should say "This racial trait replays orc ferocity and modifies the darkvision racial trait."
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I would also advise caution using this (or any vaguely questionable interpretation) in PFS. You never know when your character might suddenly no longer work as intended(see apes with polearms for example).
For those saying this isn't a rules loophole (btw RAW I fully agree the combo works), please explain in what circumstance it makes sense to take just Acute Darkvision? Why shouldn't every character who chooses Acute Darkvision also take an alternate trait that removes darkvision? False choices like that are usally indications that something is not working as intended.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why shouldn't every character who chooses Acute Darkvision also take an alternate trait that removes darkvision? False choices like that are usally indications that something is not working as intended.
Why shouldn't every tiefling who isn't a sorcerer take Prehensile Tail (replacing a sorcerer-only bonus)? False choices like that are usually indications that something is not working as intended... right?
Seems pretty simple. Does it work RAW? Yes. Should you be prepaired for sideways glances? Sure. Should you be surprised if at some point in the future it gets errata'd? Nope.
Sometimes poor wording just slips through the cracks. Was this RAI? Probably not but it's really not breaking anything big so...
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Why shouldn't every character who chooses Acute Darkvision also take an alternate trait that removes darkvision? False choices like that are usally indications that something is not working as intended.Why shouldn't every tiefling who isn't a sorcerer take Prehensile Tail (replacing a sorcerer-only bonus)? False choices like that are usually indications that something is not working as intended... right?
I'll see your saracasm and answer you with a "yep!" Taking a nonexistent "penalty" for a usable bonus isn't a real trade; nor is trading a worthless ability for a usuable one. Just because these are minor holes in the system doesn't make them not holes. If there were alternate traits that let, say, wizards, trade out racial weapon familiarity for something else I would think those were poorly thought out design choices as well. At the very least it's a rules mastery trap for those who don't see the automatic choice right away.
Btw, this is really a very minor bonus. I'm mostly arguing as an exercise in thinking. Honestly if I trade away ferocity I'd rather have the save bonus trait anyhow.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If there were alternate traits that let, say, wizards, trade out racial weapon familiarity for something else I would think those were poorly thought out design choices as well.
Then I think you and I have fundamentally different understandings about how the game is meant to work. If we take your rationale of "If it would be an automatic choice for certain categories of builds, then it's either not how it was intended or was a poor design choice", then we end up having to label lots of things as unintended or poorly-designed, from Weapon Finesse (it's an 'automatic choice' for every DEX-based melee build ever) to choosing chainshirt/breastplate/fullplate instead of leather/scalemail/splintmail (always an 'automatic choice' - no build would choose the latter over the former).
Applying your reasoning results in labeling things as "not working as intended" that clearly are working as intended; thus, I can't accept that reasoning.
Granted, if you ARE comfortable with all the results of your rationale, then at least you're being internally consistent, and that's good. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Then I think you and I have fundamentally different understandings about how the game is meant to work. If we take your rationale of "If it would be an automatic choice for certain categories of builds, then it's either not how it was intended or was a poor design choice", then we end up having to label lots of things as unintended or poorly-designed, from Weapon Finesse (it's an 'automatic choice' for every DEX-based melee build ever) to choosing chainshirt/breastplate/fullplate instead of leather/scalemail/splintmail (always an 'automatic choice' - no build would choose the latter over the former).
Applying your reasoning results in labeling things as "not working as intended" that clearly are working as intended; thus, I can't accept that reasoning.
Granted, if you ARE comfortable with all the results of your rationale, then at least you're being internally consistent, and that's good. :)
I wouldn't say "not working as intended" so much as I may disagree with the intentions at times. Weapon Finesse is sort of the basis of playing a melee DEX build; I see a difference between that and "all non-sorcerer tieflings should have prehensile tails." I do see a flaw in melee DEX builds that so many basically must use scimitars and take Dervish Dance; perhaps I have an (admittedly arbitrary) level of graininess to my forced chocies that I don't like. You could choose not to be a DEX based melee, and thus get around Weapon Finesse, but if you choose to take one racial option and not the other, despite the fact that no link is explicitly drawn between them, then you've made a poorer choice than you could have. You could have had the other bonus with no negative consequence. That's a system trap and I don't care for those.
Actually the fact that there is a "best" armor in each weight class does bother me. I beleive there should be a leather/cloth equivalent for mithril in case you have a super-high Dex character.
Edit: thought of an example of exactly why these thing bug me. This is like having a social trait whose benefit is "pick two more traits." Every build not using their social trait for something else would take it. That level of no-brainer choice is not what I consider good design.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure why this even a question...well, I do...it's because of the system-gaming word-nazis.
Acute Darkvision does say that the half-orc gains darkvision 90. The intention of the trait is to increase a half-orc's natural darkvision from 60 to 90, not intended to 'give' the half-orc the darkvision ability. The darkvision ability would 'cost' more than one trait.
Skilled Second says it replaces darkvision, so no more darkvision.
Acute Darkvision and Skilled Second just don't work together and if a player takes both, they have no darkvision.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The intention of the trait is...
...something you wouldn't know unless you wrote it yourself or have heard from the one who did. If either of those is the case, then please share, as that would be sufficient resolution for a LOT of interested parties. Otherwise, you're being really presumptuous to declare what the intent is when you have no more information than anyone else, and are no more credible than someone who declares the intent to be exactly what's written.
Does it really break the game if someone gets their darkvision back after giving it up? I don't have a problem with it myself. At worst you get skill points, which have caps and really don't hurt anyone(at least shouldn't...)
|
|
So wait, there is an alternate racial trait(s) that are better for some builds, and worse for others? Must be a conspiracy or an error. No chance the designers would write something into the rules which gives a player viable options. None.
Is there a rule that states that all alternate racial traits and or racial or class archetypes MUST be a less viable option than the base class/trait they replace?
|
|
The intention of the trait is......something you wouldn't know unless you wrote it yourself or have heard from the one who did. If either of those is the case, then please share, as that would be sufficient resolution for a LOT of interested parties. Otherwise, you're being really presumptuous to declare what the intent is when you have no more information than anyone else, and are no more credible than someone who declares the intent to be exactly what's written.
I do, because I went to Paizo and took a poll. Not surprisingly, everyone was of the same opinion. ;)
Ok, seriously. The devs have commented in other threads that the concept of getting something for nothing is not what they intended.
- Taking Skilled gets you skill points and costs you darkvision.
- If you take Acute Darkvision, you get a boost in darkvision and it costs you Orc Ferocity.
- Skilled says it replaces darkvision, so it is replaced.
- If Acute Darkvision granted you darkvision 90', it would nullify the cost of Skilled and you would come out of it with a gain greater than the individual traits.
I am not even going to put forward that at best, taking Skilled and Acute Darkvision might allow you to have 30' darkvision. Not going to happen. That would be creative interpretation that is beyond what I think is reasonable.
I empathize with where you are coming from. The idea of not speaking for others has long been my philosophy (until recently). How can I speak to what is in the mind of the paizo devs? I will ask you this. Why are there so many posts on these boards asking the devs to give their opinions on every little nuance of the game? I think too many players depend on them to work things out. I wish more would take up the GM philosophy of looking a problem over, making a decision, and then move on with playing the game.
Anyway, no insult intended towards you. I appreciate your presence on these boards. You continue to provide many great ideas and insights in many, many threads. :)
I don't see how it's giving up something for nothing.
What you start with:
-60 ft. Darkvision
-Ferocity
What you end up with:
-90 ft. Darkvision
-+1 skill per level
You gave up Ferocity (2 Feat equivalent) for +30 ft. Darkvision and +1 skill per level (2 Feat equivalent).
You end up with the same amount of stuff on any scale you wish to slice it.
|
|
Ok, seriously. The devs have commented in other threads that the concept of getting something for nothing is not what they intended.
- Taking Skilled gets you skill points and costs you darkvision.
- If you take Acute Darkvision, you get a boost in darkvision and it costs you Orc Ferocity.
- Skilled says it replaces darkvision, so it is replaced.
- If Acute Darkvision granted you darkvision 90', it would nullify the cost of Skilled and you would come out of it with a gain greater than the individual traits.I am not even going to put forward that at best, taking Skilled and Acute Darkvision might allow you to have 30' darkvision. Not going to happen. That would be creative interpretation that is beyond what I think is reasonable.
I think you are undervaluing Orc Ferocity, or at least you are undervaluing the other alternate racial traits you can swap orc Ferocity for.
An example is Toothy. You can swap Orc Ferocity and get a primary bite attack that is far more beneficial than Acute Darkvision and a skill point...
Consider that a half Orc Ranger can have 3 primary natural attacks by level 2 that use full BAB and full STR mod to damage. The character doesn't need TWF, UAS, or Double Slice, and doesn't suffer TWF penalties and can't be disarmed... And he gets an additional attack over and above TWF... Or he could have 90' Darkvision and a skill point.
Something for nothing indeed...
That not true Rynjin.
Acute Darkvision gives a 30 ft boost to darkvision on a race that (normally) already has darkvision.
A boost to an existing ability is not equal to gaining a new ability (at a higher than normal level).
I said it was a Feat equivalent. That's not quite true.
Deepsight give you 120 ft., so you're trading a 2 Feat equivalent ability (Ferocity) for a 1.5 Feat equivalent.
Still not seeing the "something for nothing" here.
Ferocity is a good ability. Skilled is alright, but not as good.
|
|
I think you are undervaluing Orc Ferocity, or at least you are undervaluing the other alternate racial traits you can swap orc Ferocity for.
An example is Toothy. You can swap Orc Ferocity and get a primary bite attack that is far more beneficial than Acute Darkvision and a skill point...
Consider that a half Orc Ranger can have 3 primary natural attacks by level 2 that use full BAB and full STR mod to damage. The character doesn't need TWF, UAS, or Double Slice, and doesn't suffer TWF penalties and can't be disarmed... And he gets an additional attack over and above TWF... Or he could have 90' Darkvision and a skill point.
Something for nothing indeed...
I'm not undervaluing Orc Ferocity. Paizo valued Orc Ferocity to be worth Acute Darkvision and Skilled to be work Darkvision. I am using those 'values'.
..
Just to reiterate, my opinion (several post above) is that Acute Darkvision and Skilled don't work together. If I had a player that wanted to take Acute Darkvision and Skilled, I would have them choose differently.
The rest of my posts in this thread are about why they don't work together.
|
|
But they do work together if you read/use the rules as written. If you want to house rule it that's okay too.
If Paizo errata'd the combo by saying they don't work in the future, I'm fine with that.
If Acute Darkvision + Skilled become the new norm for all the Half orcs I meet in PFS I'm okay with that too.
The only point I'm trying to make is that they are a legal combo by RAW, and not even close to being unbalanced or overpowered.