Sea-souled Trait and combat


Rules Questions


So I'm about to be start playing in the Ruins of Azalant AP. I know there is going to be a lot of time in the water so I was going to take the sea-souled trait

Benefits: You receive a +1 trait bonus on Swim checks, and you can always take 10 while Swimming.

As I read it that means even in combat I can take 10 on swim. My GM says no it doesn't. While I have no problem with that (cause it is pretty OP for a trait in this campaign), was I insane to think it would?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber

Always means always, which includes combat. Rules as Written and Rules as Intended say your GM is incorrect.

And if your GM still disagrees, then tell him that all creatures with swim speeds need to constantly make swim checks in combat as well, otherwise he's breaking his own ruling.

Swim wrote:
Swim Speed: A creature with a swim speed can move through water at its indicated speed without making Swim checks. It gains a +8 racial bonus on any Swim check to perform a special action or avoid a hazard. The creature can always choose to take 10 on a Swim check, even if distracted or endangered when swimming. Such a creature can use the run action while swimming, provided that it swims in a straight line.


But I don't have a swim speed


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber

That has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the interpretation of the same rule that's shared by creatures with a swim speeds and those that take the Sea-Souled trait.
That rule being they can take 10 on all swim checks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The point of the sea souled trait is to enable you to always take 10, including combat. Yes it's good, but everyone has access to it. It's supposed to make one of the more troublesome aspects of in water/underwater combat less troublesome. It's very intentional. Yes, the trait is very good for the campaign, but that's the point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The entire purpose of that clause is to allow you to take 10 even when you normally couldn't. Your GM is incorrect.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

blahpers wrote:
The entire purpose of that clause is to allow you to take 10 even when you normally couldn't. Your GM is incorrect.

+1

But, it's his rules to interpret. Even if it isn't how we'd interpret it as a GM.


Naturally.


Taking into account he's removing an important part of the trait under arbitrary reasons not based on the actual rules, ask for a "refund".

I had a GM that forced me to attack with both hand and offhand attacks if I wanted to get the benefit from TWDefense, because that went against the feat benefit and description I asked to change it, he didn't allow it so I left (there were other things going on but that was the last straw), I don't have a problem with a GM who in session 0 states his personal changes in the rules, as long as they have some ground and isn't over petty things, out of spite or to screw players, but when they don't say anything and then counter you with "in my games this doesn't work like that, and no you can't change it now" really grinds my gears.


That's a lot of pettiness over a +1 AC bonus

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I think the pettiness is over the "take 10 in combat".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Claxon was referring to Kageshira's post. The GM in question's interpretation does mesh with the design team's ruling on defending weapons and "wield". I think that ruling is garbage and happily ignore it, but it's not as though there's no basis for it.

The OP's GM, however, has no basis at all for his ruling apart from Rule Zero.


We haven't started​ session 1. I've been burned by rdm house rules from a GM before(not this one), so I pretty much let them know my plans early so there isn't any surprises


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know I would definitely be asking my GM for a rationale as to why "always" doesn't actually mean "always". And I would swap out the trait.


blahpers wrote:

I think Claxon was referring to Kageshira's post. The GM in question's interpretation does mesh with the design team's ruling on defending weapons and "wield". I think that ruling is garbage and happily ignore it, but it's not as though there's no basis for it.

The OP's GM, however, has no basis at all for his ruling apart from Rule Zero.

Can you explain me why this exist then?

"When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2."

If designers think you have to attack with both weapons, I can't never get the +2 bonus when I'm in total defense action, nor when I charge (because I don't attack with both weapons) or when I make a standard action single attack. I don't think RAI was that you had to attack with both weapons to get the benefit.


Kageshira wrote:
blahpers wrote:

I think Claxon was referring to Kageshira's post. The GM in question's interpretation does mesh with the design team's ruling on defending weapons and "wield". I think that ruling is garbage and happily ignore it, but it's not as though there's no basis for it.

The OP's GM, however, has no basis at all for his ruling apart from Rule Zero.

Can you explain me why this exist then?

"When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2."

If designers think you have to attack with both weapons, I can't never get the +2 bonus when I'm in total defense action, nor when I charge (because I don't attack with both weapons) or when I make a standard action single attack. I don't think RAI was that you had to attack with both weapons to get the benefit.

I agree, would rule in your favor, and would love to see design's answer to that question.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Sea-souled Trait and combat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.