|
.
I wasn't suggesting it did Dex to Damage, as much as simply making a comparison to other similar Feats. Dervish Dance does allow you to Weapon Finesse an otherwise non-Finessable Weapon.
Contributor
|
It's worded very specifically so that both are a single thing. Otherwise, it would split them up and/or explicitly say that you may deal piercing or slashing damage.
As for not changing the classification being a bonus... I dunno. I think being able to wield a shield would be a pretty big benefit - one which the feat does not grant. (See: Shield Brace.) And I would absolutely not rule that wielding a two-handed weapon one-handed reduces its hardness and/or hit points. That seems at odds with physics, to be honest.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's entirely possible that confusion about how the feat works, even more than fear of its power level, contributed to it being banned. There are long threads already devoted to trying to figure out how it works. Can a Magus use it? Does it work with Slashing Grace? Etc. Maybe when those things become clearer, PFS will issue a clarification and it might become legal. Right now it seems likely that it will work very differently (build negatingly differently) at different tables, and that alone might be enough to keep it out for the time being.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They make the rulings/clarifications when they have a sense of how the author meant it to work or when something is causing problems in actual play. I think it's fair to say there was pressure for them to get this additional resources update out (just see the start of this thread). It's entirely possible that they just didn't have enough information to make a ruling, but wanted to get the update out. So keep it illegal for now and look at it closer later. They are plenty of examples of that happening in the past, and there are plenty of examples of them making something legal, then having to backtrack when it caused problems, and that leading to a lot of upset players who built around a feat/ability/whatever only to have to change their character as a result.
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're posting gripes here...
What is up with the nagaji artwork in blood of the beast? Why in creations name does it have to have *boobs*. Its from species that does not lactate, but either lays eggs or does live birth without feeding its young! Its completely unnecessary and as a biologist it just makes me mad.
As the person who wrote that section, I can actually answer that!
The implication is that the Naga transformed humans into the first nagaji, and the nagaji retain many vestigial human characteristics to date. This is referenced in Blood of the Beasts on page 16 in the following quote:
and many display puzzling and often vestigial characteristics evocative of mammalian creatures.Hope this helps!
Applying real world logic to a magical world is of course a stretch. But if the naga's created the nagaji in their image, probably shifting the humans from live birth to egg laying as the nagas do themselves, they would probably do away with nursing young.
The long nursing period that humans have make the young very dependent on the mother or a nurse, reducing the effectiveness they would have as a servitor race.Having vestigial mammary glands would not be weird, but having them permanently expressed as in humans would be at least strange if the whole need for them would have been done away in the creating the nagaji.
Vestigial organs are by the way very interesting (the remnants of leg bones in snakes), and humans have a lot, but are generally near unnoticeable.
Unless you have back luck with your wisdom teeth. You'll notice those then.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
If we're posting gripes here...
What is up with the nagaji artwork in blood of the beast? Why in creations name does it have to have *boobs*. Its from species that does not lactate, but either lays eggs or does live birth without feeding its young! Its completely unnecessary and as a biologist it just makes me mad.
Devil's Advocate: While I agree with you regarding boob armour, I'm not sure if the depicted Nagaji is actually female (I think you're referring to page 17, right?). As seen on page 18, Nagaji are pretty buff, I can imagine them shaping their armour to suit their builds. Armour is generally bulky enough to suit more well-endowed people so they shouldn't have an increased chest-piece, but I've seen enough decorative armours that I think a more pronounced chest area wouldn't be too big of a stretch.
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*looks left*
*looks right*
*sees that no one is stopping her*
Large pectoral muscles can happen, but normally not on their own, unless you go form over function like in body building. If you gain a lot of upper body strength your abs will increase too. Not just your 'sixpack', but also the anterior muscles, making your upper body broader in general. You'd go towards a general broad upper body size, narrowing towards the hips.
You can often see it in the decorative armor: big pectorals, but also very pronounced abs, making for a broad figure with narrow hips. Just like the romans liked it ;)
|
"Pathfinder Player Companion: Bastards of Golarion
Archetypes: the archetype on page 9 is legal for play; Equipment: kin's face tattoo and ring of culturemeld are legal for play; Feats: all feats on pages 16-17 and pages 23-25 are legal, except the gillmen feat and dirty trick master; Misc.: the bard masterpiece on page 27 is legal; Traits: The traits on pages 4-13 and 28-29 are only legal if your character is of the same ethnicity as the section with the trait. All traits on pages 4-29 are legal, except azlanti inheritor, curse in the blood, evader, marked by unknown forces, mordant envoy, signature moves, and thinblood resilience."This entry is still missing information in regards to upheld bans and the heritages.
I looked through your older posts to figure out what you meant and I'm pretty sure it's covered.
All traits on pages 4–29 are legal, except azlanti inheritor, curse in the blood, evader, marked by unknown forces, mordant envoy, signature moves, and thinblood resilience.
Thinblood resilience is the Drow trait and it's illegal.
Venture-Lieutenant, California—Los Angeles (South Bay)
|
Perhaps in the case of the books on character races, mentioning the legality of the heritages might be a good approach. So, Heritages: The following heritages are legal except drow, duergar, etc. (I don't have the book, but it might help with any potential confusion.)
What I see on this thread, and the boards in general, are people who love a game and wish to see it better. Indeed, I think we tend to disagree more on how to do something than in our motives.
|
|
The heritage is also illegal, and it's not covered. I'd like to think I was very clear when I mentioned it.
OK I think I see the confusion here. If I'm understanding correctly you want a line added to the Additional Resources Entry for Bastards of Golarion that flat-out says "You can't play a half-Drow."
1) The "No Drow" is a general campaign rule. While it wouldn't hurt to put it in each and every book entry that mentions Drow, it isn't necessary if it's covered by an overarching rule.
2) Additional Resources deals with mechanics-related options ("crunch") that can and cannot be used. Hence the reason thinblood resilience is illegal. The "heritage" section for half-Drow doesn't have any material that makes a mechanical change (other than thinblood resilience); it describes a background for a character.
3) The Additional Resources for Bastards of Golarion tells you what IS legal. And it doesn't say anything about the heritages.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, California—Los Angeles (South Bay)
|
Perhaps under Additional Resources or Campaign Clarifications, we could have a few statements to clarify some issues. So, under races, perhaps a statement on what races are not allowed for those races that are closely related to a legal race. (Drow, duergar, and svirfneblin come to mind. None are legal in PFS.) It took a while on the boards to clarify that all drow options are and remain illegal. (Considering that drow on Golarion are hated and despised on the surface nations, I have a hard time believing that any would be welcomed other than with an order to shoot on sight.)
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Drow stuff is not allowed. No drow anywhere near PCs. That's been the rule for a long time now.
Anytime you see something become just about legal that smells strongly off drow, assume it's an error in the sanctioning process, not a move to make drow stuff legal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't really a need for the AR to call out the heritages in BoG. With the exception of the alternate racial traits (that are already in the AR) heritages don't alter anything mechanically about half-elves or half-orcs. I could get behind a general ruling in the FAQ or the Campaign Clarifications doc that says "No, you can't be half-drow or reskin your elf to look like a drow."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't really a need for the AR to call out the heritages in BoG. With the exception of the alternate racial traits (that are already in the AR) heritages don't alter anything mechanically about half-elves or half-orcs. I could get behind a general ruling in the FAQ or the Campaign Clarifications doc that says "No, you can't be half-drow or reskin your elf to look like a drow."
Just to verify, though... an Ekujae elf is legit?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Drow stuff is not allowed. No drow anywhere near PCs. That's been the rule for a long time now.
Just tell them that you can not in any way be a drow or drow-ish in PFS. And anything that looks like an opening to do it after all is probably a clerical error.
Blanket statements are overstatements. I have quite a few PCs that have found drow poison. And there's nothing from keeping someone with a +30ish disguise saying they're a drow and most PCs (and most NPCs barring magic/supernatural abilities) not being able to tell any difference.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And there's nothing from keeping someone with a +30ish disguise saying they're a drow and most PCs (and most NPCs barring magic/supernatural abilities) not being able to tell any difference.
The don't be a jerk rule, as you're instantly going to get half the NPCs trying to fireball you and the party.
Pathfinders need a trait "Never seen this guy before in my life" for a bluff bonus to pretend not to know other members of the party
|
|
There isn't really a need for the AR to call out the heritages in BoG. With the exception of the alternate racial traits (that are already in the AR) heritages don't alter anything mechanically about half-elves or half-orcs. I could get behind a general ruling in the FAQ or the Campaign Clarifications doc that says "No, you can't be half-drow or reskin your elf to look like a drow."
I think I agree. I think the problem is not the legality of individual options but rather finding the official word on the matter. My google-fu is relatively decent, I've been lurking around the forums for a little while, and I can't find the darned thing.
I can find lots of posts from people who don't work for Paizo saying you can't, but we've also been conditioning people to just trust the AR and CC documents over some random person on the internet. So someone who sees even this thread may not trust it because we've kind of told them not to.
In an ideal world they'd ask a VO about it and they're authoritative. But that doesn't always happen. Making it easy to find would be nice.
|
|
The one of the few explicitly drow thing that is generally legal is Flexible Half-Breed from Blood of Shadows, which allows half-elves to alter self into a human, elf, or drow form once per day as an SLA. Even that's not really anything over and above what was already allowed by the base spell.
I'm pretty happy with the "no drow" policy because there are lore oddities with the race, including the possibility of elves becoming so evil that they spontaneously change into drow, as described ever-so-briefly in the Advanced Race Guide.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty happy with the "no drow" policy because there are lore oddities with the race, including the possibility of elves becoming so evil that they spontaneously change into drow, as described ever-so-briefly in the Advanced Race Guide.
...as based on the events of an entire Adventure Path. It's not just a footnote. ^_^