Half-orcs can trade their darkvision for the skilled trait, which grants them +1 skills per level. Human Raised gives you the same thing, specifically “the human’s skilled trait”. But since it’s under a different title, does this mean it stacks?
In a home game, IMHO, the GM would be perfectly justified in house-ruling that they don't stack. (I certainly would---why should a half-orc get more skilled-ness than a human?) But by strict RAW Cavall is correct.
I think I read a Dev post once that said they didn’t stack but I can’t find it.
If you do so the only orc racial traits you keep are intimidating and orc blood. Orc blood is often more of a hindrance than a help. That means you are a human with an extra skill point per level, but without the extra feat. You also have all the negative aspects of being a half orc and none of the positive ones.
What I am trying to figure out is why you would want to do this. Having skill points are valuable, but not that valuable. Considering how many skills can be boosted or replaced with magic you are giving up more than it is worth. Having an extra skill point per level is simply not that valuable.
To get the 16 skill points per level you have to short change yourself in too many other areas to make it worthwhile. Since a bard only gets 6 skill points per level they would be getting 14 instead of 16. In order to max out INT on a rogue or bard their other stats are going to be much lower. Doing so is going to make them ineffective both in and out of combat. The bard is going to be particular hampered and not really gain that much. Bards already have a huge advantage on skills because of bardic knowledge, and versatile performance. Once they reach 4th level and get access to heroism they rarely have any problem with making skill rolls.
No, they do not stack. One gives you the skilled trait and the other is the skilled trait, so the points would be coming from the same source. The dev post confirming this is here.
Thanks. I knew I read that somewhere. I don’t necessarily agree with the logic, but it’s as close to an official answer as we have.
That post is not official, though.
Okay? I was just linking to the post that Melkiador had mentioned.
He's also basing his argument on a sentence in an optional system.
Which is the same source as one of the alternate traits being asked about. In for a penny, in for a pound. But you don't even need to use Mark's reasoning. One explicitly gives you the skilled trait. The other is the skilled trait. And bonuses from the same source—e.g., the skilled trait—don't stack (no matter which optional systems you are including or excluding).
Also, if you have two reasonable interpretations of a rule and you know that one of those interpretations is intended, you should go with the intended interpretation.
It's like the mauler familiar's size change feature. It says to modify its strength for its size, but doesn't say which table to use. Either choice has equally valid points for and against it, but we know from another of Mark's posts that you are intended to use the polymorph table.
Which is the same source as one of the alternate traits being asked about. In for a penny, in for a pound.
No it's not. The Skilled racial trait appears on the normal list of alternate racial traits for half-orcs, on page 52 (the other being from Inner Sea Races). The "rule" Mark Seifter quotes comes from the optional race builder, on pages 214ff.
And bonuses from the same source—e.g., the skilled trait—don't stack (no matter which optional systems you are including or excluding).
The problem here being that skilled doesn't grant a "bonus" in the rules sense: "Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores."
Also, if you have two reasonable interpretations of a rule and you know that one of those interpretations is intended, you should go with the intended interpretation.
Intended by whom? Not only is that stance problematic when an FAQ goes against explicit writer intend (see Sohei or Invulnerable Rager), but in any case, knowing all the facts before making a descision is never a bad thing. Just because in this time important elections are decided by people believing some lie they read on facebook, it's still not a good thing to base a decision on what one single person without actual authority over the subject said, when you don't know the the circumstances. Which is why I provided them.
Seifter is one of the guys who sits in on those rules decisions. And he sounded super sure. He’ll usually couch his response when he isn’t sure
No it's not. The Skilled racial trait appears on the normal list of alternate racial traits for half-orcs, on page 52 (the other being from Inner Sea Races). The "rule" Mark Seifter quotes comes from the optional race builder, on pages 214ff.
I said "same source," not "same page." I also said that we don't need to use Mark's reasoning. In fact, you don't need any of the text from the ARG to recognize that you are never allowed to take the same option twice unless it is explicitly allowed (which also makes your next objection irrelevant). You can't get the skilled trait twice. Human-raised gives you the skilled trait, and the skilled trait is the skilled trait. Therefore, human-raised and skilled do not stack. QED.
Seifter is one of the guys who sits in on those rules decisions. And he sounded super sure. He’ll usually couch his response when he isn’t sure
He's actually a developer(helps make the rules). Just clearing things up so people don't think he just watches and isn't someone whose primary job is to make the rules.
I would still let this stack.
I might too, in a home game. In fact, there's all sorts of little changes I'd make in a home game. But I wouldn't pretend they were part of the standard rules, even if I thought they were better than the standard rules.
If invulnerable rager can't get improved damage reduction even though the thing says he gets it but the title under which he gets it isn't damage reduction, then a half orc can do both because it's under a different title and does the same thing.
I don't think this is comparable to the argument being presented on this thread. The argument being made here is that you can't take the same trait twice. The argument in the case of the Increased Damage Reduction rage power was that the words "damage reduction" in the power's description refer specifically to the standard (i.e., unarchetyped) class feature that grants DR 1/- at levels 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19. No one said that the invulnerable rager doesn't get damage reduction (just as no one said that wearing adamantine armor doesn't give you damage reduction). The clarification was that the power was only meant to be applicable to the standard class feature. We don't abide by this particular FAQ at my table, but the ruling is neither difficult to parse nor an attempt to have things more than one way.