|
If I'm immune to something, am I allowed to select Traits, and such, that are balanced by a penalty that I'm immune to?
Example, Elf with Lightbringer Racial trait:
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.
and the Surface Stranger regional Trait:
Surface Stranger (Region)
Requirement(s) Underground
You were born and raised in a subterranean home with little or no bright light. Your miss chance for concealment or total concealment due to either mundane or magical darkness decreases by 10%. You are dazzled for 1 round when you are suddenly exposed to bright light.
Just an example, but it illustrates my quandary.
If I were GM, I would ban this combination, as it's clearly intended to be balanced by this penalty, so being innately immune defeats the point. Not really that it would horribly unbalanced, but that the ability is clearly intended to function with the penalty.
But in PFS, this isn't up to a GM, so I'm wondering what others think regarding immunities and things balanced by penalties of which you are immune to.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
In general if you gain something in exchange for some penalty you don't gain the something if you are immune to the something.
It isn't spelled out often when the writer doesn't think of it, look at ring of inner fortitude how it was changed to block using it to negate penalties of abilities.
In general if you gain something in exchange for some penalty you don't gain the something if you are immune to the something.
It isn't spelled out often when the writer doesn't think of it, look at ring of inner fortitude how it was changed to block using it to negate penalties of abilities.
That's only applicable if it actually states it. Like how the ring of inner fortitude now specifically states it after errata (which probably got errata'd due to unforeseen usage by alchemists), or how with kineticist rules state that if one is immune to nonlethal damage then can't accept burn.
For another example besides rage cycling on why being immune to something doesn't stop one from benefiting from something, there's the vest of stable mutation: it prevents one from taking mental ability score penalties, but still expects the mutagen-imbiber to benefit from the mutagen (typically physical ability score bonuses).
I have no idea where the unfairness or lack of balance is supposed to be here. The penalty from Surface Stranger is applied as normal, and is only negated because the character is spending a separate resource to do it. Having low DEX is generally supposed to mean weak initiative, but that doesn't mean that taking Improved Initiative to counter it is somehow cheating the system. Taking Improved Initiative doesn't mean that someone is 'getting away with' dropping DEX by 8 points without a penalty any more than taking Lightbringer means that someone is 'getting away with' taking Surface Stranger without a penalty. The penalty is there, but another spent resource is covering it.
If the problem is supposed to be conceptual, then: "Character X grew up in dark places and so got used to them; X would have been unaccustomed to bright light if it they weren't able to channel it themselves." Shockingly succinct.
|
Just because they haven't yet errata rage to block rage cycling doesn't mean they haven't spoken out that rage cycling shouldn't be a thing.There's a wondrous item called "Cord of Stubborn Resolve" (in Ultimate Equipment). Its effect is to replace fatigue with nonlethal damage (in addition to a +2 CON). In his guide, Jolly refers to it as "Belt of Rage Cycling". If Paizo had spoken out against rage cycling, I expect they wouldn't have made such an item.
Emphasis on the bold.
Emphasis on the bold.Just because they haven't yet errata rage to block rage cycling doesn't mean they haven't spoken out that rage cycling shouldn't be a thing.There's a wondrous item called "Cord of Stubborn Resolve" (in Ultimate Equipment). Its effect is to replace fatigue with nonlethal damage (in addition to a +2 CON). In his guide, Jolly refers to it as "Belt of Rage Cycling". If Paizo had spoken out against rage cycling, I expect they wouldn't have made such an item.
Yep and after the Flurry requires 2 hands debacle I often wonder just how long anything mundane shall last.
i dont think it will be errat'd, considering rage cycling is built into the base class at level 17.
Still have to assume that we are doing it wrong. We thought that Monks could flurry with one weapon until it was "Clarified" in the middle of AoMF discussion. After a lengthy back and forth it was settled that enough people had been doing it "wrong" that it shouldn't be changed to needing two weapons.
|
|
i dont think it will be errat'd, considering rage cycling is built into the base class at level 17.Still have to assume that we are doing it wrong. We thought that Monks could flurry with one weapon until it was "Clarified" in the middle of AoMF discussion. After a lengthy back and forth it was settled that enough people had been doing it "wrong" that it shouldn't be changed to needing two weapons.
That and 3.5 Barbarian's didn't have rage "rounds" or Rage Powers.
Tireless Rage was implemented so that in the endgame the Barbarian could rage in fights back to back.
i dont think it will be errat'd, considering rage cycling is built into the base class at level 17.Still have to assume that we are doing it wrong. We thought that Monks could flurry with one weapon until it was "Clarified" in the middle of AoMF discussion. After a lengthy back and forth it was settled that enough people had been doing it "wrong" that it shouldn't be changed to needing two weapons.That and 3.5 Barbarian's didn't have rage "rounds" or Rage Powers.
Tireless Rage was implemented so that in the endgame the Barbarian could rage in fights back to back.
Yep thus possibly now having unforeseen consequences. But we can hope that it holds. At least until we have a several thousand post thread in which it gets repeatedly brought to the Dev teams attention.
|
|
Yep thus possibly now having unforeseen consequences. But we can hope that it holds. At least until we have a several thousand post thread in which it gets repeatedly brought to the Dev teams attention.i dont think it will be errat'd, considering rage cycling is built into the base class at level 17.Still have to assume that we are doing it wrong. We thought that Monks could flurry with one weapon until it was "Clarified" in the middle of AoMF discussion. After a lengthy back and forth it was settled that enough people had been doing it "wrong" that it shouldn't be changed to needing two weapons.That and 3.5 Barbarian's didn't have rage "rounds" or Rage Powers.
Tireless Rage was implemented so that in the endgame the Barbarian could rage in fights back to back.
Pretty much.
|
|
There are many well-known and long established ways to rage cycle before level 17. Eg, dip lame oracle at level 9; take 5 levels of martial artist monk; use the flawed ioun stone that converts fatigued to sickened with the level 8+ rage power that makes you immune to sickened.
"early" rage cycling is far too well established to be nerfed. The "solution", if one is needed, is that used with the furious finish feat: you are fatigued "even if you would not otherwise be".
Also, by level 2 the Scarred Rager Archetype that rages for their turn and then shuts it off is only fatigued until the start of their next turn.