RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Darkvision: Though uncommon, some groups of elves
are born with darkvision, rather than low-light vision. In
many cases this is taken as a sign of a drow in the elf ’s
ancestry, and can lead to persecution within the elf ’s home
community. Elves with this racial trait gain darkvision
with a range of 60 feet, but also gain sensitivity to light and
are dazzled in areas of bright light or within the radius of
a daylight spell. This racial trait replaces low-light vision.
(Emphasis mine.)
Lightbringer: Many elves revere the sun, moon, and
stars, but some are literally infused with the radiant power
of the heavens. Elves with this racial trait are immune to
light-based blindness and dazzle effects, and are treated
as one level higher when determining the effects of any
light-based spell or effect they cast (including spell-like
and supernatural abilities). Elves with Intelligence scores
of 10 or higher may use light at will as a spell-like ability.
This racial trait replaces the elven immunities and elven
magic racial traits.
(Emphasis mine.)
So if you want a darkvision elf without the drawback, just take Lightbringer. ;)
I would consider that a fair trade for the loss of immunity to magical sleep, +2 vs. enchantments, +2 on CL vs. SR (a feat normally), and +2 on a skill for a specific use (spellcraft on magic items).
That's a pretty bad trade. I only consider it cheesy when there's a net gain involved...
No caster will ever make that trade, and any non-caster would be better served just being a Half-Orc or Dwarf and not sucking down a -2 Con, or being any of the other races w/ darkvision, rather than elf with this combo. (optimization-wise; I'm sure people will make elves with this combo just as surely as they make str 10 con 8 elven greatsword fighters)
Bah! I will show you the TRUE cheese of the Advanced Race Guide!
Half-Orcs have a natural Darkvision of 60 feet.
The Skilled racial trait allows you to trade this Dark Vision for the human skill point progression; 1 bonus skill point per level. Accute Darkvision, another racial trait, allows you to trade Orc Ferocity (the once-per-day 1 round Diehard ability) for 90 foot Darkvision without requiring that you possess the Darkvision trait in the first place.
Essentially, you trade Orc Ferocity for 1 skill point per level and +30 feet to your Darkvision. I'd personally make that trade in a heartbeat, but that's just me.
I'd take that trade too :-)
Real Diehard is nice (albeit 2 Feats sucks), once/day Orc Ferocity = MEH...
IMHO Orc Ferocity should let you qualify for real Die-Hard, i.e. without Endurance.
Maybe even with a bonus rule that once/day you can treat your STR (/WIS/CHA?) as your CON for purposes of your Death Point (-CON hp).
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Bah! I will show you the TRUE cheese of the Advanced Race Guide!
Half-Orcs have a natural Darkvision of 60 feet.
The Skilled racial trait allows you to trade this Dark Vision for the human skill point progression; 1 bonus skill point per level. Accute Darkvision, another racial trait, allows you to trade Orc Ferocity (the once-per-day 1 round Diehard ability) for 90 foot Darkvision without requiring that you possess the Darkvision trait in the first place.
Essentially, you trade Orc Ferocity for 1 skill point per level and +30 feet to your Darkvision. I'd personally make that trade in a heartbeat, but that's just me.
I would never allow that, as you're enhancing a trait you gave up.
I would never allow that, as you're enhancing a trait you gave up.
Where does it say that?
You're not enhancing anything. You are gaining an ability in exchange for another.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where does it say that?
You're not enhancing anything. You are gaining an ability in exchange for another.
It's improving an ability a dwarf normally has. Take that original ability away, and I, as a GM, am not going to let you improve on it, because the base is gone.
Rule entries wind up much longer if every little "loophole" like that needs to get annotated to prevent people from abusing the rules. Long rules entries means less cool stuff for us to use. So as a player, and as a GM, exercise a little restraint on trying to rules lawyer an unfair benefit, and enjoy the better (as in more content-rich) rulebooks we get as a result.
It's equivalent to trying to get to the +6 Str level of rage without passing through the +4 level on the way.
It's kind of a pointless argument, because people who read rules are either capable of seeing this sort of cheese for what it is and behaving, or aren't capable of understanding why anything that appears to be written in a book isn't ok to abuse.
Well, you can trade that Ferocity for actual nice things like +1 on saves, so it's actually somewhat costly to do so. I'd allow it. Not my or my players' fault paizo can't coordinate rules within the same friggin' book. And it's still not that bad. And I'm a big fan of anything that makes playing Human less appealing. Seriously, they're like 80-90% of all the PCs I ever see in play... PF really needs UA-style flaws (pick a disadvantage and in return gain a feat; max of 2 flaws) to devalue the effect of human's bonus feat a bit....
|
|
It's improving an ability a dwarf normally has. Take that original ability away, and I, as a GM, am not going to let you improve on it, because the base is gone.
Not having access to the book, I can't say for sure. But if Accute Darkvision doesn't say it improves existing darkvision, then the character is getting new darkvision, not improving old darkvision.
You're better off just saying 'I am not going to let you make that trade.'
|
It sounds to me like the improved darkvision is intended to be an upgrade to the existing darkvision, not a whole new power, and leaving out the part about only being able to take it if you have darkvision was an oversight. I'd say this is a case of RAW and RAI obviously disagreeing, and as a GM, I'd go by the obvious intent, unless a Paizo employee pops into this thread to tell us I'm wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The books are written assuming that players are going to be decent with the rules, not with the assumption that every Pathfinder player is a Card Carrying Cheese Weasel that has to be slapped on the wrist with every other paragraph.
+1
Whenever someone posts a new epic build, combination or anything else you can bet the developers were probably not aware of the combination, or the disillusioned reading of the rule. Many times when we write these rules, we think they're clear as day. Sometimes you feel any feat requires 2-pages of additional content just so that others don't purposely bend the meaning of any word or phrase.
There's always little white lies, small leaps in logic, minor added phrases, little overlooked sentences or otherwise ignorance of intent in so many posts and builds. This is why we have a GM though, a neutral arbiter that knows when the wool is being pulled.
I prefer a GM that will be fair but firm. If they have a GM that allows such loose interpretations, more power to them. If they're having fun, go ahead. I'm just glad I'm not them.
