Benefits: When you take this feat for the first time, you gain 1 inspiration point.
Special: You can take this multiple times. Each time you take this feat after the first time, the number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1 (for example, you gain 2 inspiration points if you take the feat a second time). The maximum number of times you can take this feat is equal to your Intelligence modifier.
What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.
A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack.
Holy cow I've been replaced!
Seriously through, you went against common forum misconception and read the material and drew your own conclusions, and found appropriate inherited rules to back the interpretation. And then shared it publicly, even knowing it's a nerf which generally less than well reachieved by any user base.
Great job Robby, both on the research and the step forward.
The failing of the wording of the feat is in that it does not directly say "taking this feat multiple times stacks", but instead says it through the description of granting additional inspiration points per successive selection of the feat.
Except somebody emailed the author and asked him how it works. Basically, it works like everybody has been using it. (I'm too lazy to link it because I don't have to, but it's out there) He then said something along the line of if you don't like it, don't use it.There's a big difference between what the author meant and what the author wrote. If there hasn't been an errata issued, then the author was wrong (at least in how it was written).
It's not the only feat that works using the (N^2+N)/2 formula either.That VERY OLD feat also works the same way. There is nothing in there saying it stacks; only that it can be taken multiple times. This feat is not a counter example to what I posted, earlier.
Behold:
Psionic Talent [Psionic]
You gain additional power points to supplement those you already had.
Prerequisite
Having a power point reserve.
Benefit
When you take this feat for the first time, you gain 2 power points.
Special
You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you take the feat after the first time, the number of power points you gain increases by 1.
The difference being the formula is now (N^2+N+2)/2
For some strange reason, that VERY OLD feat has worked the same way and had the same wording and never gets discussed because it's not as important as Font. I wonder why nobody ever brought it up before font was a thing...I mean there were only years in between.
Oh, yeah "unless indicated otherwise in the description." Both of them make use of that clause. Now it all makes sense....Except that it never states that it stacks. The feat rules say very clearly that they don't unless the feat says. All both of these feats say is that the number you gain is increased once for each additional time you take the feat. If it doesn't stack, it overlaps. So, a gain of +2 overlapping a gain of +1 is still... +2.
Either that or your very poorly arguing that the words "they stack" MUST be added to ANY feat regardless of wording or it cannot stack with itself even if the grammatical text indicates otherwise.
Robby - Your completely ignoring the rule that states specific text trumps general rules in all cases. The non-stacking clause about feats is a general rule whereas the wording of the feat is specific text that overrules.
Either that or your very poorly arguing that the words "they stack" MUST be added to ANY feat regardless of wording or it cannot stack with itself even if the grammatical text indicates otherwise.
Robby - Your completely ignoring the rule that states specific text trumps general rules in all cases. The non-stacking clause about feats is a general rule whereas the wording of the feat is specific text that overrules.The general rule is "they don't stack", and this is explicitly stated that this general rule is overcome by explicitly stating they stack. Guess what's lacking from FoI and Psionic Talent? That explicit wording.
Either that or your very poorly arguing that the words "they stack" MUST be added to ANY feat regardless of wording or it cannot stack with itself even if the grammatical text indicates otherwise.It's not "very poorly" when the rules state that. Explicitly (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#featDescriptions).
But there is no specific text in the feat that actually says "this feat stacks with itself", like every other feat that actually stacks with itself includes.Yes, this. This is what I'm saying.
At the end of the day, if you don't like font of inspiration
What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.Actually, looking back on it, the point I was making about overlapping vs stacking probably isn't as good as I was stating. The overlapping/stacking rules only apply to bonuses/penalties, and IPs/PPs wouldn't count as that. So, I'm going to drop that part of the argument.
"Indicated Otherwise" is not the same as "it says so". If they want it to be "it says so" they would have wrote that, going along with your whole what the author says and means argument. See how that turns around on you when pointing to any rule and not just the one you're misinterpreting?
At the end of the day, if you don't like font of inspiration, don't question how people read it...just say "it works this way in my game" and be done with it. While you're at it I suggest just upping the inspiration points for the factotum to something reasonable, limiting the extra standard actions to 1 per turn, and still telling players it's a complete waste of a class for anything more than 3 levels. Let's be honest, Brains over Brawn is the real star of the class.Whether or not I like FoI has nothing to do with the basis for my argument. You're deliberately mischaracterizing what I'm saying and questioning my motives in a feeble attempt to dismiss what I'm saying.
Whether or not I like FoI has nothing to do with the basis for my argument. You're deliberately mischaracterizing what I'm saying and questioning my motives in a feeble attempt to dismiss what I'm saying.
Except somebody emailed the author and asked him how it works.Yeah, I did and he said it dosen't stack, he also said that if Soft Insanty ever tried using hearsay and alledged claims to prove a point you should never listen to him. :p
Yeah, I did and he said it dosen't stack, he also said that if Soft Insanty ever tried using hearsay and alledged claims to prove a point you should never listen to him. :p
Actually, looking back on it, the point I was making about overlapping vs stacking probably isn't as good as I was stating. The overlapping/stacking rules only apply to bonuses/penalties, and IPs/PPs wouldn't count as that. So, I'm going to drop that part of the argument.Just to throw fuel on the fire ... the effect of Toughness is also a "gain" rather than a bonus/penalty, so it shouldn't be necessary to say that the effects of taking it multiple times stack. Unless that rule does apply to gains as well. ;)
You never bothered to address my prior points because you already dismissed them even tho they are all perfectly valid. Honestly, would you rather have to remove the retraining rules from your game, or have the feat stack as intended?
"Indicated Otherwise" is not the same as "it says so". If they want it to be "it says so" they would have wrote that, going along with your whole what the author says and means argument. See how that turns around on you when pointing to any rule and not just the one you're misinterpreting?
Special: You can take this multiple times. Each time you take this feat after the first time, the number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1 (for example, you gain 2 inspiration points if you take the feat a second time). The maximum number of times you can take this feat is equal to your Intelligence modifier.Because both sides are in full agreeance that the 1st time you take the Feat it gives +1 and the second time it gives the Feat you gain +2.
Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description. In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.Well he has a rules quote saying the Feat doesn't stack unless it says otherwise.
Which is why I was trying to give you an out but you eventually saw the same thread I saw from 2013. You know, the one where everybody changed their mind like you just did.No, I didn't. I reread the actual rules, and realized that what I was going to cite only applied to bonuses and penalties, and not to what I was talking about. I redacted my own argument by looking at it's merit. I don't know anything about this 2013 thread.
Well, imagine that thread from 2013 as it was in 2009, except now imagine someone actual told the truth about what the author said in the email (that it is triangular).It doesn't matter what the author meant if that's not what he wrote. Still, the point is moot, as I realized that's not what the rule says.
You never bothered to address my prior points because you already dismissed them even tho they are all perfectly valid.
Honestly, would you rather have to remove the retraining rules from your game, or have the feat stack as intended?I don't use the retraining rules, but that's a different topic. The point isn't whether or not rules can be effectively fixed with house rules; it was whether or not a common interpretation was correct. I turned out to be wrong, but this would be a completely different topic.
If you're running a game with your interpretation, you might as well give up on any sort of fair play once a player realizes you only need 2 fonts, downtime, and a few gold to get as much inspiration as they desire. My point remains...the system never bothers to go back and check if something overlaps, ONLY IF IT STACKS.No, see, I redacted my point precisely because the stacking/overlapping rules don't apply. Why are you bringing them up again?
No, see, I redacted my point precisely because the stacking/overlapping rules don't apply. Why are you bringing them up again?Doesn't really matter does it? Those are the rules on Magical Effects* and you initially used Feat's rules on Feat stacking. Causation in one doesn't equal causation in the other, that's a fallacy too and a formal one at that (implying it's worse than all the rest Soft did).
What are you citing? The Rules Compendium?No, see, I redacted my point precisely because the stacking/overlapping rules don't apply. Why are you bringing them up again?Doesn't really matter does it? Those are the rules on Magical Effects* and you initially used Feat's rules on Feat stacking. Causation in one doesn't equal causation in the other, that's a fallacy too and a formal one at that (implying it's worse than all the rest Soft did).
* Through in all actuality, RC 137 says stacking rules apply to all alternative power sources. Feats don't make the cut so to speak in it's limited example list. But it does very much lay the law of "the stacking rules for effects and bonuses apply, regardless of an effect’s or bonus’s source." so you can actually quote the rules of stacking magical effects to a massive range of subjects. Including all Martial Powers and they are, unless noted otherwise, none-magical to begin with. So page 137 makes a great RAI point that nothing can stack with it's self unless noted otherwise.
Yep. Rules Compendium.Quote from: MeRC 137 saysWhat are you citing? The Rules Compendium?
Other Power SourcesThe list of materials at the bottom of the section "Here’s a list of power sources and where you can find more information about them." includes breath effects (untyped, mods an su), draconic auras (untyped), soulmelds (cast as magic items), infusions (as spells but not a spell), invocations (sla), martial powers (defaults to ex), mysteries (sla/su), psionic powers (pla), Shadow Weave spells (spells), utterances (sla), & vestiges (su).
The D&D game includes a wide array of supplements that enable you to incorporate different power sources into your game. Rules Compendium doesn’t include material from all these sources, since you need the supplement the power source appears in to use that power source effectively. Here are some general concepts that apply to these power sources with respect to other effects and abilities in the game.
I suppose paying attention to the bottom part (see italic) there is an argument from ignorance, an informal fallacy, as well as the counter that the top says the RC doesn't include the material from all the sources. But RAI is pointing to anything that could be an alternative power source falls into it's rules, like the Factotum's Inspiration which powers it's literally-casts-spells Arcane Dilettante ability is a very massive candidate for inclusion.What is it applying to those? Stacking/overlapping rules? Do you have a citation for those?
All known and provable Feats that stack with them selves use the phase "it's effects stack" or something very close to that. So Soft's little debate is also based on all examples confirming the expectation of the default phasing D&D uses cannot be used to prove him wrong. And I believe that is a form of cherry picking.
Oh God, not this thread again. Oh well, at least it looks like SorO is learning how to debate properly and recognize logical fallacies. That should make engaging him a lot more entertaining, and I do mean that genuinely :)
Oh God, not this thread again. Oh well, at least it looks like SorO is learning how to debate properly and recognize logical fallacies. That should make engaging him a lot more entertaining, and I do mean that genuinely :)All known and provable Feats that stack with them selves use the phase "it's effects stack" or something very close to that. So Soft's little debate is also based on all examples confirming the expectation of the default phasing D&D uses cannot be used to prove him wrong. And I believe that is a form of cherry picking.
This isn't true. See Extra Music (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/feats/deities-and-demigods--39/extra-music--1026/index.html), Extra Rage (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/feats/masters-of-the-wild-a-guidebook-to-barbarians-druids-and-rangers--44/extra-rage--1029/index.html), Extra Slot (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/feats/ghostwalk--94/extra-slot--3494/index.html), Epic Essentia (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/feats/magic-of-incarnum--74/epic-essentia-1--913/index.html), Improved Damage Reduction (http://dndtools.pw/feats/eberron-campaign-setting--12/improved-damage-reduction--1464/), Extra Wild Shape (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/feats/underdark--34/extra-wild-shape--1053/index.html), or any of the dare I say dozens more similar feats.
There's a difference between stacking/overlapping bonuses/penalties vs stacking/overlapping quantities. I haven't found a rule for the latter.Not really, try reading my post, or page 137 like I'd told you several times already. You can also cross reference the FAQ's entry on Improved Unarmed Strike and learn what the difference between a bonus and a benefit is contextually too.
I don't own the RC. Is there more to the rules than what you quoted that you are using?There's a difference between stacking/overlapping bonuses/penalties vs stacking/overlapping quantities. I haven't found a rule for the latter.Not really, try reading my post, or page 137 like I'd told you several times already. You can also cross reference the FAQ's entry on Improved Unarmed Strike and learn what the difference between a bonus and a benefit is contextually too.
And I'd also like to note that's a dumb way to go about things. You should change your entire method from splitting hairs on language and deciding to find ways to prove it with the current understanding that there is nothing support it. Don't be a Link. Please?
The D&D game includes a wide array of supplements that enable you to incorporate different power sources into your game. Rules Compendium doesn’t include material from all these sources, since you need the supplement the power source appears in to use that power source effectively. Here are some general concepts that apply to these power sources with respect to other effects and abili- ties in the game.
• If an ability provided by the power source functions like a spell, it follows the rules for spells. For example, a psionic power functions like a spell.
• If an ability has a type—extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural—it follows the rules that apply to that type of special ability. For instance, a warlock invocation is considered a spell-like ability.
• The stacking rules for effects and bonuses apply, regard- less of an effect’s or bonus’s source.
• In all cases, any specific rules supplied in the power source’s supplement take precedence over these general rules. Here’s a list of power sources and where you can find more information about them.
Breath effects (Dragon Magic); draconic auras (Player’s Handbook II); soulmelds (Magic of Incarnum); infusions (EBERRON Campaign Setting); invocations (Complete Arcane, Dragon Magic); martial powers (Tome of Battle); myster- ies (Tome of Magic); psionic powers (Expanded Psionics Handbook); Shadow Weave spells (FORGOTTEN REALMS Campaign Setting); utterances (Tome of Magic); vestiges (Tome of Magic).
These rules arguments would go a lot more smoothly if you guys could stop taunting each other like a bunch of overgrown children, stop resorting to disingenuousness to "win", and be willing to accept that the rules (both of the game and the English language) are not precise, technical rules.
Sadly, I think you're wasting your time. :(Nah, he's just like everyone one and wants to "win" too. His method however is to play the condescending outsider, show up when a debate is essentially over as not to attract too much confrontation, insult everyone for good measure, and proclaim that the true right way of doing things wasn't even mentioned until he stepped in proving how mature and an out-of-the-box thinker he is.
Basically, every element of this whole thread has been the kind of pathetic bullshittery that has become far too common on this board."I also love how your response is specifically designed to shield you from criticism but"
Oh grow the fuck up Soro. It is interesting to read your takes on the game (especially classes and their usefulness) but the fact that you have become such a condescending little shit makes any thread where you have a rules disagreement with anyone, no matter how minor, impossible to read because of your pathetic, self-congratulatory snark and insistence to go down with the ship about how you are right and winning the argument and the others are all stupid illiterate cheaters who want to... something... because frankly I don't know what you and Link and others are so fucking snippy about.You know, it'd be less common if you didn't contribute to it.
Oh God, not this thread again. Oh well, at least it looks like SorO is learning how to debate properly and recognize logical fallacies. That should make engaging him a lot more entertaining, and I do mean that genuinely :)All known and provable Feats that stack with them selves use the phase "it's effects stack" or something very close to that. So Soft's little debate is also based on all examples confirming the expectation of the default phasing D&D uses cannot be used to prove him wrong. And I believe that is a form of cherry picking.
This isn't true. See Extra Music (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/feats/deities-and-demigods--39/extra-music--1026/index.html), Extra Rage (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/feats/masters-of-the-wild-a-guidebook-to-barbarians-druids-and-rangers--44/extra-rage--1029/index.html), Extra Slot (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/feats/ghostwalk--94/extra-slot--3494/index.html), Epic Essentia (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/feats/magic-of-incarnum--74/epic-essentia-1--913/index.html), Improved Damage Reduction (http://dndtools.pw/feats/eberron-campaign-setting--12/improved-damage-reduction--1464/), Extra Wild Shape (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/feats/underdark--34/extra-wild-shape--1053/index.html), or any of the dare I say dozens more similar feats.
Not to nitpick but isn't it cherry picking as well to link 3.0 versions of feats that have updates?
Extra music for examplehttp://alcyius.com/dndtools/feats/complete-adventurer--54/extra-music--1024/index.html
Explicit use of "its effects stack" in most updated version.
You know, it'd be less common if you didn't contribute to it.
However, the others should serve to highlight the absurdity of SorO's claim that an explicit "the effects stack" clause is required, when a callout saying 'here's what happens when you take this feat multiple times' is clearly enough.:eh
Well yes, that's exactly my point. They obviously stack, but don't use the magic words "its effects stack." If what you're claiming is true, then Improved Damage Reduction would give you a non-stacking +1 to your DR because it doesn't say "its effects stack."Quote from: Extra Wild ShapeSpecial: You can take this feat multiple times, gaining two additional wild shapes of your usual type and one additional elemental wild shape (if you have this capability) each time.It explicitly states you gain +2/+1 each time you take the Feat.Quote from: Improved Damage ReductionBenefit: You gain damage reduction 1/adamantine or improve your existing damage reduction by 1.It explicitly states you improve your existing value by +1.Quote from: Extra Spell (the 3.5 version)Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time, you gain an extra spell slot at any level up to one lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast.It explicitly states you gain +1 each time you take the Feat.
The FoI feat was explicitly stated, IIRC to be a sort of patch/fix for Factotum after some dev realized that the class really didn't have enough inspiration points.So coming back to fix some wording I realized I missed that post. I just want to add and point out there is a large difference between claiming the author intended some extra points vs a godawful overkill amount of extra points.
Quote from: PHB pg89Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description. In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.Well he has a rules quote saying the Feat doesn't stack unless it says otherwise.
So people like Soft moved to the language debate of what constitutions saying otherwise. Now language debates are about as tasteless as you can go, but this one is fairly special. All known and provable Feats that stack with them selves use the phase "it's effects stack" or something very close to that. So Soft's little debate is also based on all examples confirming the expectation of the default phasing D&D uses cannot be used to prove him wrong. And I believe that is a form of cherry picking.
Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position
OTHER POWER SOURCES
The D&D game includes a wide array of supplements that enable you to incorporate different power sources into your game. Rules Compendium doesn’t include material from all these sources, since you need the supplement the power source appears in to use that power source effectively. Here are some general concepts that apply to these power sources with respect to other effects and abilities in the game.Breath effects (Dragon Magic); draconic auras (Player’s Handbook II); soulmelds (Magic of Incarnum); infusions (EBERRON Campaign Setting); invocations (Complete Arcane, Dragon Magic); martial powers (Tome of Battle); mysteries (Tome of Magic); psionic powers (Expanded Psionics Handbook); Shadow Weave spells (FORGOTTEN REALMS Campaign Setting); utterances (Tome of Magic); vestiges (Tome of Magic).
- If an ability provided by the power source functions like a spell, it follows the rules for spells. For example, a psionic power functions like a spell.
- If an ability has a type—extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural—it follows the rules that apply to that type of special ability. For instance, a warlock invocation is considered a spell-like ability.
- The stacking rules for effects and bonuses apply, regardless of an effect’s or bonus’s source.
- In all cases, any specific rules supplied in the power source’s supplement take precedence over these general rules. Here’s a list of power sources and where you can fi nd more information about them.
All known and provable Feats that stack with them selves use the phase "it's effects stack" or something very close to that.
Okay, looking at the text of the RC, I'm seriously not seeing how this applies to quantities. It very specifically says "effects and bonuses"; those aren't quantities.:eh
You're equivocating. Gaining an increase of a quantity is not the same as gaining a bonus to that quantity. The verbiage is specific for a reason.(click to show/hide)Okay, looking at the text of the RC, I'm seriously not seeing how this applies to quantities. It very specifically says "effects and bonuses"; those aren't quantities.:eh
It doesn't really matter if you want to split hairs and think multiple +1s are quantities. Think of it like you have two piles of coins. One of those piles is imaginary and is made out of unattached +1s floating about and if they were real you might be able to stack them and climb out of any hole. The other pile is a bunch of Spells/Feats/Special Abilities/etc that grant the effect of X, in this case a bunch of +1s, except they are all made out of neodymium magnets. Nearly every single time you try to stack these coins to pay for a five cent piece of gum they fly off from each other so you learn how to flip them around applying them in specific orders & amounts.
FoI it's self doesn't stack with another FoI Feat, the better one (the +2 upon taking a second time) prevails.
If I may interrupt for a moment, what is the point of this, amusing as it may be?Which part?
The FoI feat was explicitly stated, IIRC to be a sort of patch/fix for Factotum after some dev realized that the class really didn't have enough inspiration points.So coming back to fix some wording I realized I missed that post. I just want to add and point out there is a large difference between claiming the author intended some extra points vs a godawful overkill amount of extra points.
Remember, the Factotum only obtains 10 Inspiration over twenty levels. So to scale all seven standard Feat Slots taking FoI means a +70% increase but when deliberately misreading things the +28 points is +280%. Imagine claiming Barbarians are front liners but Breastplate sucks so it should give them a +19 bonus to AC or a Favored Soul's dual score casting sucks so your starting 14s should be flipped to 53s. Maybe a +280% increase would work fine with the Toughness Feat, but the Factotum is a very solid class that does just fine without any terrible logic & bad readings to support it.
Psionic TalentThis needs highlighted. The language is exactly the same. So the question becomes: Is Psionic Talent an even worse feat than we thought before, ie taking it twice only gives 2+1pp rather 2+3pp?
I thought I had asked this before, but what about preparing metamagic on an SLA or other factotum abilities require houserules? Plenty of things basically require 3e to have house rules (thought bottle, incantrix, etc), but I don't think factotum is an offender. I'm interested, though.
I thought I had asked this before, but what about preparing metamagic on an SLA or other factotum abilities require houserules? Plenty of things basically require 3e to have house rules (thought bottle, incantrix, etc), but I don't think factotum is an offender. I'm interested, though.
A cursory search of this thread shows no one talking about metamagic requiring houserules, so I'm going to assume this is directed at me.
I'm not claiming that the metamagic being applied to SLAs requires houserules (it may or may not, but I haven't looked at it).
What I'm saying is that the Factotum's entire inspiration mechanic is garbage writing that requires houserules to function at all, much less in a way that wouldn't cause the entire game to become literally the dumbest thing ever.
I mean, by RAW, you rest for 8 hours and then wake up, and prepare divination, how much IP do you have? And if the answer is "It depends on what you did yesterday afternoon" do you see how incredibly dumb that is?
Next step, you walk up to a locked door, how many IP do you have now by RAW?
Next you find another locked door, how many IP?
Then you leave the town (because you were just wandering around town) and go to a dungeon an the door is locked, IP?
Then you run into a monster, IP? Then the monster getting murdered alerts enemies some of whom run through the complex alerting other enemies and some who come straight into the room and fight you, IP?
Finally, after murdering everything in the complex, the party rests, and you wake up tomorrow, IP?
And how are any of those answers RAW and not "just whatever I feel like, because the Factotum class doesn't give any fucking direction at all on when the Factotum gains IP."
And even if the Factotum class did give any fucking help at all, you'd still have a bunch of Factotums just storing up larger and larger piles of IP and/or bag of rats/locked door tricking themselves into unfathomably huge piles of IP so that they can defeat the BBEG with 847 consecutive standard actions from banked IP.
At the beginning of each encounter, he gains a number of inspiration points determined by his level (see Table 1–1).
If you wish to enhance a spell with a metamagic feat, you must apply the feat when you prepare the spell. In addition, you must be capable of using a spell of the modified spell’s level.
What I'm saying is that the Factotum's entire inspiration mechanic is garbage writing that requires houserules to function at all, much less in a way that wouldn't cause the entire game to become literally the dumbest thing ever.
I mean, by RAW, . . .
This makes me question if you've even actually read the factotum's abilities...
Do those same questions baffle you when applied to Barbarian rage or Tome of Battle Maneuvers? Skill Tricks must be completely unusable as well.
If by RAW you have THAT much trouble defining an "encounter", then you probably shouldn't be playing this game in the first place, no matter how broadly the term is used without any specific RAW definition.
Do those same questions baffle you when applied to Barbarian rage or Tome of Battle Maneuvers? Skill Tricks must be completely unusable as well.Does ToB even mention "encounter" as a rules term? Actual initiator classes don't do anything per-encounter, they have specific amounts of time / actions required to replenish or change their maneuvers. If you get it from a feat, you have to rest for a certain amount of time - one minute, I think - to recover it.
I mean, by RAW, you rest for 8 hours and then wake up, and prepare divination, how much IP do you have? And if the answer is "It depends on what you did yesterday afternoon" do you see how incredibly dumb that is?You wake up with a full pool of 10 IP
Next step, you walk up to a locked door, how many IP do you have now by RAW?Since you already cast Divination and you havn't yet entered an encounter, you've got 9 IP. If opening this door will trigger an encounter then the DM could rule the act of opening the door as the first action of the encounter thus resetting you to 10 before you pick the lock. There are no rules to say if the act of opening the door is the first action in an encounter or merely a trigger. Generally it's accepted as a trigger though meaning if opening this door triggers an encounter you'll return to 10 IP after you opened it.
Next you find another locked door, how many IP?That depends, did you trigger an encounter upon opening the previous locked door? Based on the pattern of your quesions I'll presume no. Did you spend IP to use Cunning Knowledge for a bonus on your skil check to unlock the previous door? Yes, 8 IP. No, 9 IP still. If you triggered an encounter previously then you have the remainder from that encounter.
Then you leave the town (because you were just wandering around town) and go to a dungeon an the door is locked, IP?See Above... 7 IP, 8 IP, 9 IP or remainder from prior encounter
Then you run into a monster, IP?Start combat encounter, roll initiative and reset IP to 10.
Then the monster getting murdered alerts enemies some of whom run through the complex alerting other enemies and some who come straight into the room and fight you, IP?Your still in the same combat encounter, your IP does NOT reset until you roll initiative for the next combat encounter or enter into another encounter. Combat encounters always begin with rolling initiative so you have no excuse for misinterpreting the rules on this one.
Finally, after murdering everything in the complex, the party rests, and you wake up tomorrow, IP?Rest for 8hours, all resources are restored, 10 IP.
If that action lead to an event that could be considered an encounter then that action would indeed start an encounter. Tell me, why on earth would you allow a player to declair their action of attempting to open a locked chest as an encounter? The only valid answer is if the chest is trapped and will alarm nearby NPCs
You want to wake up in the morning and prepair then cast divinaiton before the first encounter of the day? There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to. You start your day off with a fresh pool of IP via resting for 8 hours (which restores ALL resources, IP and other per-encounter resources are no exception to this).
upon entering your first encounter your IP will reset to 10 (it won't add 10 to your remaining IP, you have a MAX on your IP pool defined by your level and the FoI feat). You will NOT stack you iP into 9000. If IP stacked the way you claim it does then the factotum would be absurldy over powered, especially if you misdefined encounters the way you seem to be.
You wake up with a full pool of 10 IP
Since you already cast Divination and you havn't yet entered an encounter, you've got 9 IP. If opening this door will trigger an encounter then the DM could rule the act of opening the door as the first action of the encounter thus resetting you to 10 before you pick the lock. There are no rules to say if the act of opening the door is the first action in an encounter or merely a trigger. Generally it's accepted as a trigger though meaning if opening this door triggers an encounter you'll return to 10 IP after you opened it.
Start combat encounter, roll initiative and reset IP to 10.
QuoteThen the monster getting murdered alerts enemies some of whom run through the complex alerting other enemies and some who come straight into the room and fight you, IP?Your still in the same combat encounter, your IP does NOT reset until you roll initiative for the next combat encounter or enter into another encounter. Combat encounters always begin with rolling initiative so you have no excuse for misinterpreting the rules on this one.
Just FYI, he wakes up in the morning and prepares Divination because he wants to cast it. So if your answer is "Zero because no encounters yet!" then say that so I can point out how stupid that is. (that that would be the rule, not that that would be your answer, it's as good as the other answers, 10 because he's in the "encounter" of wanting to cast Divination, and 567, because he's been saving up.)
Are the Barbarian's Rage mechanics and the ToB mechanics that also poorly written garbage? Sure.
But at least ToB has the two classes that aren't extra stupid always prepare all their maneuvers well before encounters, such that you could play the entire class ignoring the dumb encounter rules completely and never need them.
At least the Barbarian usually has a Rage last long enough that it doesn't need to address the dumb encounter rules.
Both of those are better than the Factotum which always needs you to decide the start of an encounter (unlike the Barbarian and Warblade and Swordsage) and on top of that needs you to decide if minor things like "wanting to cast Divination right now" and "approaching a door I want to unlock" count as encounters.
I mean, think about the last adventure you DMed,
how often would you have told a Barbarian he can't rage again (never)
how often would you tell a swordsage/warblade that their unprepared maneuvers come back (never, maybe if they literally woke up to the sound of an ally being eaten by a monster)
how many times would you would you tell a Factotum that he gains IP (some nonzero number).
upon entering your first encounter your IP will reset to 10 (it won't add 10 to your remaining IP, you have a MAX on your IP pool defined by your level and the FoI feat). You will NOT stack you iP into 9000. If IP stacked the way you claim it does then the factotum would be absurldy over powered, especially if you misdefined encounters the way you seem to be.
So you are making up a houserules because the IP rules are dumb. Okay, and this leads you to claim that no houserules are needed why exactly?
When playing a factotum (Dungeonscape, page 14), what
happens to inspiration points unspent at the end of the
encounter?
Unspent inspiration points are replaced when the factotum
returns to his full number of points once an encounter ends.
DUNGEONS AS SYSTEMSAccording to that definition each level of the dungone is 1 encounter. So... enter dungeon/change dungeon level = refill inspiation points.
Many dungeons consist of rooms that exist in isolation. Even if a few chambers are connected by a theme or a group of
monsters, these are separate areas that happen to be near other, unrelated parts of the dungeon.
Treating a dungeon as a system turns this idea on its head. In this model, you consider an entire level, or even the layers of a multilevel dungeon, as one large connected "encounter" with which the PCs interact. They must solve problems presented by different parts of the dungeon to proceed through it.
DUNGEON ROOMSThat opens up individual Combat Encounters within the greater Dungeon Encounter. Which in-turn creates 3 possible interpretations of how to handle the Factotum's inspiration between combat encounters. 1) Refill per combat encounter and use remainder outside combat encounters. 2) refill per combat encounter & per return to dungeon encounter. 3) use a seperate pool of IP for combat encounters and dungeon encounter, dungeon encounter refills only upon entering a dungeon level.
The most basic features of a dungeon are its passages and, above all, its rooms. After spending so much time making the overall theme of your dungeon exciting and unique, don't forget these basic elements. Not every room needs to offer a combat encounter, but a diverse selection of room types helps to illustrate how the dungeon's inhabitants go about their lives, what they value, and how they might be defeated. Linking rooms logically adds internal consistency to the dungeon environment and helps to bring it alive. Each of the following room types provides a general account of the room's purpose and design, as well as how such rooms differ according to a dungeon's overall function. Some entries have additional rules pertinent to the room's contents.
ENCOUNTER RANGEThere's a pretty solid definition for encounters. So if you kill everything in the room you've successfully ended an enounter, if another enemy enters the room after that then you will at that point begin a new encounter.
In a wilderness encounter, combat can begin whenever one side becomes aware of the other. Battles between forces that are more than 100 feet apart are common, and long-range spells such as fireball (PH 231) allow engagements to begin at a distance of 600 feet. But in a dungeon, encounters
begin at whatever distance the current room or corridor allows. Low ceilings can prevent adventurers and monsters from flying out of range. Furthermore, the lack of visibility limits the functional range of most encounters. Lanterns throw clear light only 30 feet and shadowy light only 60 feet, and darkvision extends farther only rarely. As a result, most dungeon encounters begin with less than 100 feet between the PCs and their enemies.
This closeness does not mean that ranged attacks are useless; it is always nice to be able to attack from afar. But melee does become far more likely, which places more of a spot light on barbarians, monks, and other classes that might otherwise feel left out when a battle turns into a long-distance sniper fight. In addition, many melee-oriented monsters become viable threats to high-level parties, who normally might fly up and out of range to rain death from above. And as the DM, you gain more control over how the battle begins and how it can (and cannot) proceed.
First, to adress you absurd misreading about the dungeon complex. If you kill off every enemy that is engaged in combat with you before more reinforcements arive (which odds are you will unless your DM hates you) then you will be rolling initiative again when the next wave of reinforcements find you (which you could potentially avoid by moving to a different location between combat encounters. The act of rolling initiative is done at the begining of each combat encounter. The whole dungeon being alerted will not circumvent this unless you are unlucky enough to have new waves of reinforcements constantly arive before you kill the last enemy (or your DM hates you).
...
Typically your going to clear the first wave of reinforcements before the next wave arrives. In a properly structured dungeon you will begin a new encounter with each new wave of reinforcements after the first if you managed to alarm the whole dungeon. You should find yourself with on average 2-3 rounds of actions between each wave, which may be enough time to move to a different room, depending on how your party moves you could even extend thhe time between waves or successfully hide from the enemies fooling them into beliving that you may have fled the dungeon. If you find yourself facing seemingly endless waves with no break between them, then you should take the que to flee, in a situation like that the Factotum is not the only one screwed over, ANY CLASS would be screwed over for resources in that situation.
As for your IP refilling per encounter... this is a RAW vs RAI argument. RAW you add to your remaining pool, RAI you REFILL your pool. If Factotum added IP to their remaining pool at the start of every encounter with no cap, then the class would be banned at nearly every DnD table. Many of the mistakes in RAW have pretty basic common sense RAI corrections. Take some time to browse boards and guides about the Factotum, you'll find that the common sence RAI interpretation is indeed REFILL IP.
Starting the day with a full pool of IP is not a houserule, name one resource (besides health) that you do not begin the day with a full pool of after a full 8 hours rest. There are none. Additionally your morning routine can be defined as a Miscelaneous Encounter.
The DM determining if your action counts as triggering an encounter or the first action of an encounter is not a houserule by any stretch of the mind. That is blatently an open rules interpretation, when the rules do not properly define something it is the DMs responsibility to make a call on how to proceed. If you take the time to read you DMG you'll find this is spelled out to you in black and white.
Are you seriously trying to call rolling initiative at the start of a combat encounter a houserule now? How dense can you be to belive that one? When you enter combat, you roll initiative and the encounter begins... look at that an enounter began so YES your IP refills to full. You encountered a monster, you began an encounter at that moment weither the combat started that turn or 2-3 turns later you began the combat encounter when you ENCOUNTERED the foe.
So the rules are so bad that the designers had to pretend errata because they refuse to ever correct anything with errata and this means the rules are perfect? Yeah, spoiler alert, that means the rules are garbage and need to be houseruled.upon entering your first encounter your IP will reset to 10 (it won't add 10 to your remaining IP, you have a MAX on your IP pool defined by your level and the FoI feat). You will NOT stack you iP into 9000. If IP stacked the way you claim it does then the factotum would be absurldy over powered, especially if you misdefined encounters the way you seem to be.So you are making up a houserules because the IP rules are dumb. Okay, and this leads you to claim that no houserules are needed why exactly?
No need. That clarification appears in the FAQ.
D&D® Frequently Asked Questions
Version 3.5: Date Updated 3/14/08
page 17QuoteWhen playing a factotum (Dungeonscape, page 14), what
happens to inspiration points unspent at the end of the
encounter?
Unspent inspiration points are replaced when the factotum
returns to his full number of points once an encounter ends.
Yes, yes, I know that's not RAW in the book, or "official" errata, and what not, but it is actually not "just" someone's houserule, unlike your issues with defining "encounters".
So the rules are so bad that the designers had to pretend errata because they refuse to ever correct anything with errata and this means the rules are perfect? Yeah, spoiler alert, that means the rules are garbage and need to be houseruled.
"I can totally go online and find a non rules sources that tells me to ignore all the actual rules and use something else because the rules are ass, therefore the rules are perfect" wasn't true the last 400 times people pulled out WotC dumb attempts at stealth errata in the FAQ to defend the rules in the books, why would it now?
"also Houserule 2" means both go back to houserule 2, and that it is a different statement separate from the thing before also. I'm not calling DMs deciding what are encounter a houserule, but I am pointing out, (in the first part, before the "also") that if the answer to the question "is this and encounter" is "Yes and No, Both Neither, Whatever the DM decides" that the rules are vague and unhelpful, and you could totally write better rules by just not being an idiot, like this:
"A Factotum can refresh his IP pool to his maximum based on level by spending 3 consecutive full round actions doing nothing else." Then the answer is never yesno, it's just yes or no.Are you seriously trying to call rolling initiative at the start of a combat encounter a houserule now? How dense can you be to belive that one? When you enter combat, you roll initiative and the encounter begins... look at that an enounter began so YES your IP refills to full. You encountered a monster, you began an encounter at that moment weither the combat started that turn or 2-3 turns later you began the combat encounter when you ENCOUNTERED the foe.
Look, if you can't read, that's really not my fault, take it up with your elementary school teachers. I never claimed that rolling init was a houserule, I said "Houserule 2 again" Which even if the fact that I'm specifically numbering the houserules didn't tell you that I was referring to the same houserule I had already labeled as 2, the part where I said "again" should have triggered some basic level of reading competence to figure out that I was referring to something I had previously called a houserule.
There is zero houseruling involved in determining the start of a combat encounter.
So Houserule 2 again.Then you run into a monster, IP?Start combat encounter, roll initiative and reset IP to 10.
For example, there are these lines on page 22 of the DMG:You ran into a monster, atleast one (you or the monster) is at this point aware of the other, thus the conditions to begin a combat encounter are met. If you were not arguing against this then either A) correct your mistake or B) properly explain your standing on the quote in question. As it stands you are making an argument where there was none and attempting to strawman your way out of it upon being corrected.
STARTING AN ENCOUNTER
An encounter can begin in one of three situations.
• One side becomes aware of the other and thus can act first.
• Both sides become aware of each other at the same time.
• Some, but not all, creatures on one or
both sides become aware of the
other side.
Red indeed does not equal blue... but what you replied to as "so houserule 2 again" is black and white start of combat encounter. Stop trying to strawman me, when you were the one who made this blatant error. Perhaps you meant to quote a different part of my post, if so you may wish you may wish to try to correct that mistake. In what way does "so houserule 2 again" have any baring on the FACT that you began an encounter and thus regain your IP? (seriously, answer this question)
upon entering your first encounter your IP will reset to 10 (it won't add 10 to your remaining IP, you have a MAX on your IP pool defined by your level and the FoI feat). You will NOT stack you iP into 9000. If IP stacked the way you claim it does then the factotum would be absurldy over powered, especially if you misdefined encounters the way you seem to be.
So you are making up a houserules because the IP rules are dumb. Okay, and this leads you to claim that no houserules are needed why exactly? Do you have any rules site that you have a max IP. The factotum rules don't have one.Since you already cast Divination and you havn't yet entered an encounter, you've got 9 IP. If opening this door will trigger an encounter then the DM could rule the act of opening the door as the first action of the encounter thus resetting you to 10 before you pick the lock. There are no rules to say if the act of opening the door is the first action in an encounter or merely a trigger. Generally it's accepted as a trigger though meaning if opening this door triggers an encounter you'll return to 10 IP after you opened it.
So Whatever the DM wants, yes and no both, and also Houserule 2.Start combat encounter, roll initiative and reset IP to 10.
So Houserule 2 again.
You asked "Then you run into a monster, IP?" the answer is black and white, you encountered a monster thus an encounter began so you do indeed get your IP refreshed.
If you were not arguing against this then either A) correct your mistake or B) properly explain your standing on the quote in question. As it stands you are making an argument where there was none and attempting to strawman your way out of it upon being corrected.
That way of going about it is nonsensical in practice because it incentivizes the player to get the character into as many encounters as possible while using as little of the IP in order to eventually pool it up to whatever arbitrary amount they want. It's also a pain in the ass to track including the possibility of being lied to about how many IP the character currently has.
Friendly reminder that the only time I've ever seen Kaelik come to post here is to act abusively to others.
Friendly reminder that I wasn't acting abusively to anyone until they started abusing my sanity by trolling me by pretending they can't read so they could accuse me of strawmanning while strawmanning, and you were explicitly warned by a mod to stop doing this last time you did it you troll.
I have not been trolling you and as I and others have already said multiple times now, Resetting IP is not a houserule it is RAI.
The DM determining if your action counts as triggering an encounter or the first action of an encounter is not a houserule by any stretch of the mind. That is blatently an open rules interpretation, when the rules do not properly define something it is the DMs responsibility to make a call on how to proceed. If you take the time to read you DMG you'll find this is spelled out to you in black and white.
Are you seriously trying to call rolling initiative at the start of a combat encounter a houserule now? How dense can you be to belive that one? When you enter combat, you roll initiative and the encounter begins... look at that an enounter began so YES your IP refills to full. You encountered a monster, you began an encounter at that moment weither the combat started that turn or 2-3 turns later you began the combat encounter when you ENCOUNTERED the foe.
There is zero houseruling involved in determining the start of a combat encounter.
but what you replied to as "so houserule 2 again" is black and white start of combat encounter. Stop trying to strawman me, when you were the one who made this blatant error. Perhaps you meant to quote a different part of my post, if so you may wish you may wish to try to correct that mistake. In what way does "so houserule 2 again" have any baring on the FACT that you began an encounter and thus regain your IP?
I have not been trolling you and as I and others have already said multiple times now, Resetting IP is not a houserule it is RAI.Is it also RAW? Something that is RAI but not RAW is exactly a houserule.
Not at all Robby, words are a means to encode an idea and transmit it to another, whom in turn must decipher the words back into an idea. RAI is truly the purest form of interpretation, but people like you and Kelik use what I like call "RAW". And yes those quotation marks are intentional, I rarely ever dignify a fallacy or incorrect opinion as RAW nor do I wish to insult the rulebook's RAW text by assuming they were written with such a unique IQ level.I have not been trolling you and as I and others have already said multiple times now, Resetting IP is not a houserule it is RAI.Is it also RAW? Something that is RAI but not RAW is exactly a houserule.
I have not been trolling you and as I and others have already said multiple times now, Resetting IP is not a houserule it is RAI.Is it also RAW? Something that is RAI but not RAW is exactly a houserule.
Is it also RAW? Something that is RAI but not RAW is exactly a houserule.
You know, I hadn't looked that carefully at the Factotum before, so I hadn't realized that it wasn't just a 4E style encounter mechanic - ie., you can recharge IP with a few minutes rest. If encounter is supposed to be meta, like an entire day of investigating crime in a city might be a single encounter, then ugh, that's terrible, it encourages stupid tricks to recharge.
Not at all Robby, words are a means to encode an idea and transmit it to another, whom in turn must decipher the words back into an idea. RAI is truly the purest form of interpretation, but people like you and Kelik use what I like call "RAW". And yes those quotation marks are intentional, I rarely ever dignify a fallacy or incorrect opinion as RAW nor do I wish to insult the rulebook's RAW text by assuming they were written with such a unique IQ level.
How many times in the last year have you seen that come up in a pointless language debate? And how many times have I popped in telling you are stupid it is? And how many times must I do so again before people finally learn to grasp the concept?
Yeah, most people who spend any serious amount of their time professionally reading or writing quickly learn that this is nonsense, there are often multiple possible interpretations to something written, and to claim that yours is always write and that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot basically just proves that you are rejecting what is actually said in favor of your conception of it.
Yeah, most people who spend any serious amount of their time professionally reading or writing quickly learn that this is nonsense, there are often multiple possible interpretations to something written, and to claim that yours is always write and that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot basically just proves that you are rejecting what is actually said in favor of your conception of it.
I don't mean any offense by this, but do you not see how you are doing this exact same thing right now? All of us have admitted that by RAW the rule is non-sense, but your the only one rejecting the RAI, or well not really rejecting it but insisting that it's not RAI but instead a houserule. When everyone is aginst you it's time to swallow your pride and aaccept it or agree to disaagree insteaad of constantly rejecting the notion.
Factotum
When playing a factotum (Du 14), what happens to
inspiration points unspent at the end of the encounter?
Unspent inspiration points are replaced when the factotum
returns to his full number of points once an encounter ends.
Does the factotum (Du 14) meet the requirements for
activating spell trigger or spell completion items, such as
wands and scrolls?
The factotum lacks a spell list. While he chooses spells
from the sorcerer/wizard lists, this is not the same as having a
true class spell list. Thus, a factotum cannot use spell trigger or
spell completion items without Use Magic Device or some
similar ability.
Can a factotum (Du 14) use his “cunning insight” to
boost his save outside of combat (for example, against a
poison trap)?
Yes, you can use such abilities outside of combat. An
“encounter” is more than a combat, but it also includes any
other significant event in the game such as stopping to bash
down a door, navigating a rickety bridge, or dealing with a trap.
If the characters have a minute or two to catch their breath and
rest, assume that the last encounter has ended and all per
encounter abilities refresh.
I have two questions related to the factotum (Du 14) and
sneak attack:
1. Can a factotum spend more than one inspiration
point on cunning strike to gain more than 1d6 points of
sneak attack damage?
2. Can a factotum of 19th level use cunning brilliance to
emulate a rogue’s sneak attack ability?
Answering your questions in order:
1. Yes, you can use multiple inspiration points to gain
additional sneak attack damage.
2. It’s reasonable to assume that sneak attack is an
extraordinary ability. When in doubt, the DM should decide if
an unmarked ability qualifies. Anything that lacks a clear,
supernatural element should be fair play.
How many spells does the factotum (Du 14) get per day?
The table seems to list just the maximum spell level he can
prepare/cast, but not the number of spells that can be
prepared or cast per day.
The wording of text for arcane dilettante seems to imply
that the factotum can prepare and cast each spell chosen no
more than once per day but that he gets to use the spell as a
spell-like ability if he chooses to use 1 inspiration point. Is this
correct?
The factotum gains 1 spell per day at 2nd level, 2 at 4th,
and so on. The number of spells is hidden under the Special
header of table 1-1, page 15 of Du. The arcane dilettante ability
is listed again each time the factotum gains another spell.
To use a spell, you must spend 1 inspiration point. Once
you use a spell in this manner, you cannot use it again for the
day. A factotum always uses his spells granted by arcane
dilettante as spell-like abilities.
Can a character with spell-like abilities, such as a
warlock or factotum, craft alchemical items as if they were
a spellcaster?
The rules are a bit vague on this point, but it’s easiest to
treat a character with spell-like abilities as a spellcaster for this
purpose.
Yes, the original printed rule is poorly written. No one is arguing over that.
Resetting IP is not a houserule it is RAI.
If you now admit that you do and have to houserule the factotum to function, that's great, but that also makes me right and you wrong from two pages ago, so don't start whining about how no one ever said the things you said yesterday.
If you now admit that you do and have to houserule the factotum to function, that's great, but that also makes me right and you wrong from two pages ago, so don't start whining about how no one ever said the things you said yesterday.
You know, this is the thing that really pisses me off about rules arguments like this. The bolded section is what you actually care about. Its not about the rules or the game or the hobby. Its about being right in the rules argument and the other person being wrong.
The bolded section is what you actually care about.I honestly doubt Kaelik really cares about what or who is right or wrong. For him, it's purely about the pointless arguing.
The bolded section is what you actually care about.I honestly doubt Kaelik really cares about what or who is right or wrong. For him, it's purely about the pointless arguing.
Consider a tangent observation of Minecraft, some online FPSes, or probably the single largest example Ultima Online. The ability to grief people, to bully with the dual excuse of anonymity to both prevent reprisals (you don't know me!) and to argue you're better than that (I'm not picking on you, I do this to all), is the driving force of those games. Like it or not, people are addicted to the emotions they feel from those games. Like they'll rage quit when losing not because they are losing but because they need to exaggerate the emotion because their rage feels like an amazing upper and when winning tell you it's the best game ever because they genuinely feel like they are winning at something, even if it's an fabricated reality of their situation. And since they can't experience these feelings in any other way in life so they indulge in it again and again like any other form of addiction.
Tl;dr: Kaelik wants you to feed the troll, but you should just give him a pity hug.
I'm not talking about in context of what is or isn't a round. I'm talking about those two terms specifically, in any context. I'm not talking about whether or not we can unambiguously interpret RAI or even RAW.Is it also RAW? Something that is RAI but not RAW is exactly a houserule.
Not at all.
By that standard, every non-combat encounter is a houserule, even though by RAW you can have non-combat encounters. Actual creativity rates even worse.
Go down that path too far and you wind up with 4E's attempt at mathematical perfection of combat, encounter and monster design, and treasure assignment by lots.
You know, the weird thing is that I think this is the first large-ish, virulent argument we've had on these boards in... I dunno, a year or two?You're welcome. :p
I just thought I'd bring that up.
I'm not talking about in context of what is or isn't a round. I'm talking about those two terms specifically, in any context. I'm not talking about whether or not we can unambiguously interpret RAI or even RAW.Is it also RAW? Something that is RAI but not RAW is exactly a houserule.
Not at all.
By that standard, every non-combat encounter is a houserule, even though by RAW you can have non-combat encounters. Actual creativity rates even worse.
Go down that path too far and you wind up with 4E's attempt at mathematical perfection of combat, encounter and monster design, and treasure assignment by lots.
I'm talking about if people can agree what RAW says and what RAI is, and those two differ, then RAI, by definition, isn't the rules as written. So, using RAI would, by definition, be a houserule.
If you grant yourself the power to selectively ignore the written bits you don't like, then you're most definetely not following RAW.
But the FAQ are a rules interpretation that are also written.Two things:
...
If you grant yourself the power to selectively ignore the written bits you don't like, then you're most definetely not following RAW.
2) FAQ rulings have a habit of being flat-out wrong,Having a habit of disagreeing with you doesn't mean something is wrong.
Two things:
1) You're shifting the goal posts. I didn't mention the FAQ at all, so it's possible they could be taken into account.
2) FAQ rulings have a habit of being flat-out wrong, and they aren't considered errata. How are we to consider them when in direct contradiction of the texts? If they take precedent, then they would be the new RAW (and my point stands). If they do not supersede the rules texts and can only further explain, the old RAW is still the official rules (and my point stands).
2) FAQ rulings have a habit of being flat-out wrong,Having a habit of disagreeing with you doesn't mean something is wrong.
I was going to say exactly what Oslecamo said in response.
From there:Two things:
1) You're shifting the goal posts. I didn't mention the FAQ at all, so it's possible they could be taken into account.
Actually that is you trying to impose a limit after the fact.
You want to limit RAI to only what players think.
There are several sources of RAI for what the writers meant, one of them being the FAQ.
...and you left out all the relevant parts of what I said in the rest of the post.2) FAQ rulings have a habit of being flat-out wrong,Having a habit of disagreeing with you doesn't mean something is wrong.
Actually that is you trying to impose a limit after the fact.Where did I say that RAI is only limited to player interpretation?
You want to limit RAI to only what players think.
There are several sources of RAI for what the writers meant, one of them being the FAQ.That is true... and none of those would be RAW. RAW would only be the actual texts and any official errata. The fact that RAI can come from any number of different sources is in no way a contradiction of what I said.
Granted, many of them are limited access, or even lost with the WotC forums gone, but they really are what the writers intended, and have at least a modicum more legitimacy than the random ramblings of a bunch of players with their own optimization exploits to promote.
And,
Which can be said to be the same problem with the RAW in the rules books.Again, this in no way contradicts what I originally said. I never said that RAW was always in agreement with itself. All I said is that if RAW and RAI aren't in agreement, then that makes RAI a houserule, by definition. You haven't refuted that. You've just said that RAI can come from a number of places and that RAW isn't always non-contradictory.
If one rule book is in direct contradiction of another, which takes precedence as the new RAW?
Aren't there a multitude of screaming matches about that all over these forums?This is true. I already noted that we all play houseruled D&D in some way or another.
Isn't that the core (as it were) of all the Core Books versus Splat Books versus Rules Compendium versus Errata arguments?
And above all that, you are still left with dealing with those elements of RAW that pretty much just say "make it up yourself", creating something between a Catch-22 and a zen koan:
"If it is RAW to houserule it, is your version a houserule or RAW?"
...and you left out all the relevant parts of what I said in the rest of the post.Yeah, but that's pretty much you on the rules in the first place so meh.
That is true... and none of those would be RAW. RAW would only be the actual texts and any official errata. The fact that RAI can come from any number of different sources is in no way a contradiction of what I said.No, RAW would be when the official rules say. Your false premise of only certain sources are allowed is why your a failure.
ORDER OF RULES APPLICATIONSo if A says B, C says D, and E says B interacts with D as F, it doesn't even matter what the A or C says to being with.
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45).
...and now I have three different people telling me that RAI comes from different places, and that RAW doesn't always agree with itself, and that just because the FAQ can be wrong doesn't mean it always is. I never argued against any of those points.Sure you did, you just suck at it.
Yeah, but that's pretty much you on the rules in the first place so meh....
You mean "you're"?That is true... and none of those would be RAW. RAW would only be the actual texts and any official errata. The fact that RAI can come from any number of different sources is in no way a contradiction of what I said.No, RAW would be when the official rules say. Your false premise of only certain sources are allowed is why your a failure.
Like what does RAW say? RAW says this.You're at least explaining yourself here, rather than insulting, so that's a plus...QuoteORDER OF RULES APPLICATIONSo if A says B, C says D, and E says B interacts with D as F, it doesn't even matter what the A or C says to being with.
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45).
That is the Rules As Written, and branching form that point is a subjective opinion on the matter.
......and now I have three different people telling me that RAI comes from different places, and that RAW doesn't always agree with itself, and that just because the FAQ can be wrong doesn't mean it always is. I never argued against any of those points.Sure you did, you just suck at it.
The FAQ has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, and you'll mention it again right away. Just as planned.But the FAQ are a rules interpretation that are also written.Two things:
...
If you grant yourself the power to selectively ignore the written bits you don't like, then you're most definetely not following RAW.
1) You're shifting the goal posts. I didn't mention the FAQ at all, so it's possible they could be taken into account.
2) FAQ rulings have a habit of being flat-out wrong, and they aren't considered errata. How are we to consider them when in direct contradiction of the texts? If they take precedent, then they would be the new RAW (and my point stands). If they do not supersede the rules texts and can only further explain, the old RAW is still the official rules (and my point stands).
Actually he specifically said "Is it RAI that isn't RAW? Then it's a houserule." So if FAQs are RAW, then he's not saying they aren't houserules, and if they aren't RAW, then he's saying they are houserules.
Actually he specifically said "Is it RAI that isn't RAW? Then it's a houserule." So if FAQs are RAW, then he's not saying they aren't houserules, and if they aren't RAW, then he's saying they are houserules.
Am I the only one who caught this? You just literally claimed "If FAQ is RAW it's a houserule, and if FAQ isn't RAW it's a houserule."
"not saying they aren't houserules" is a double negative, you've literally just said "saying they are houserules"... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on an honest typing error... if that really is what it was... but that's honestly a bit suspicious... I really would hope your not trying to claim that it's a houserule regardless of if FAQ can or can't be considered RAW.
Actually he specifically said "Is it RAI that isn't RAW? Then it's a houserule." So if FAQs are RAW, then he's not saying they aren't houserules, and if they aren't RAW, then he's saying they are houserules.
Am I the only one who caught this? You just literally claimed "If FAQ is RAW it's a houserule, and if FAQ isn't RAW it's a houserule."
"not saying they aren't houserules" is a double negative, you've literally just said "saying they are houserules"... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on an honest typing error... if that really is what it was... but that's honestly a bit suspicious... I really would hope your not trying to claim that it's a houserule regardless of if FAQ can or can't be considered RAW.
Yeah it's really suspicious that my evidence completely contradicts the entire point of the post I made... Or you know, in the alternative, it is a typo, and you are a fucking troll who is doing that stupid "I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, then immediately say that I really think you are being deceptive on purpose in the same post!" bullshit.
No I said I hope that you are NOT trying to be deceptive on purpose. Do not misquote me, and I'm not trolling. All you needed to do was simply say "yes it was a typo" but instead of just doing that you continue to try and twist my words.
"not saying they aren't houserules" is a double negative, you've literally just said "saying they are houserules"... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on an honest typing error... if that really is what it was... but that's honestly a bit suspicious... I really would hope your not trying to claim that it's a houserule regardless of if FAQ can or can't be considered RAW.
I said and I quote:"not saying they aren't houserules" is a double negative, you've literally just said "saying they are houserules"... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on an honest typing error... if that really is what it was... but that's honestly a bit suspicious... I really would hope your not trying to claim that it's a houserule regardless of if FAQ can or can't be considered RAW.
Notice the last part... If I were to have said what you are claiming I said, then that would not be there... Yes I said it's suspicious, because it is given the arguments you have made prior. But I did state very clearly that I do honestly hope that it truly was just a typo and not an attempt at being deceptive.
Where did I say that RAI is only limited to player interpretation?
That is true... and none of those would be RAW. RAW would only be the actual texts and any official errata. The fact that RAI can come from any number of different sources is in no way a contradiction of what I said.
Again, this in no way contradicts what I originally said. I never said that RAW was always in agreement with itself. All I said is that if RAW and RAI aren't in agreement, then that makes RAI a houserule, by definition. You haven't refuted that. You've just said that RAI can come from a number of places and that RAW isn't always non-contradictory.
This is true. I already noted that we all play houseruled D&D in some way or another.
And that's the problem.
IF RAI is what the RAW should have been so everyone could have clearly understood it the first time, THEN it isn't really RAI at all, but RAW.
IF RAI isn't, but is instead some kludge because someone polled didn't actually like the original rule and decided to just make something up on his own, THEN it isn't actually RAI at all, but purely a houserule.
The problem in that case is that what people call RAI is really a conglomeration of "What I Think Is The RAI" (WITITRAI), "What The Writer/Editor Said Is The Rule As Intended" (WTW/ESAITRAI), and "What Someone Else Wants The Rule To Be So He Can Get Over" (WSEWTRTBSHCGO).
The FAQ has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, and you'll mention it again right away. Just as planned.
You seem to be implying that the rules on the printed books never seem to contradict themselves in several places already. But they do, so that's not an obstacle for RAW.I never said that. I can't help what intent you read into my posts. I will not respond to strawmen.
Where did I say that RAI is only limited to player interpretation?
When you tried to exclude including the FAQ as a source.
2) FAQ rulings have a habit of being flat-out wrong, and they aren't considered errata. How are we to consider them when in direct contradiction of the texts? If they take precedent, then they would be the new RAW (and my point stands). If they do not supersede the rules texts and can only further explain, the old RAW is still the official rules (and my point stands).
And that'd be the second time I quoted you. Like I said, you suck at this.Also... what sources did I say don't count as RAW? Please quote me on this before you put words in my mouth, because I think you're yet another person arguing against a stance I didn't make. I never said FAQ can't be RAW. If you feel this is in error... quote me on it.That is true... and none of those would be RAW. RAW would only be the actual texts and any official errata. The fact that RAI can come from any number of different sources is in no way a contradiction of what I said.No, RAW would be when the official rules say. Your false premise of only certain sources are allowed is why you're a failure.
That was one of the two things I said in my post.
I also left the option that it could supersede the rules texts... in which case it'd be RAW. My post totally left the posibilty open that FAQ can count as RAW and that it wouldn't contradict my stance.