Font of Inspiration grants less points than people think

[SorO_Lost]

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?

(click to show/hide)

Can't wait to see what wrong conclusion you also jump to.

Great point!

Haha, just kidding. 
Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.

Behold: Psionic Talent [Psionic]
You gain additional power points to supplement those you already had.

You haven't proved Hidden Talent stacks with it's self in order to use as proof for this discussion.
Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

The true failing of the feat is that it doesn't increase your refresh-able pool at all.  It just says "have some points" and by the rules once you use them they vanish and all you have to show is an empty feat.  If the OP had said that, I'd have nothing to say.  As it is, and as you further elaborated on, the grammar supports the current handling of the feat the same as it does psionic talent.

The Feat doesn't say "have some points", please refrain from using your own words based on grossly incorrect interpretation and stick to the actual rules used.
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample

Also
Appeal to flattery – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support.
No one really cares if you'd think he would be right in another matter, please stay on topic.

(click to show/hide)

That's part of why I'm having trouble following his logic.  I've been playing so long that when I look at something that obviously stacks, it never occurs to me that someone would say "it doesn't stack".

The funniest part is, if they don't stack...you can retrain the under font to a top font.  The game never goes back to look because they don't stack, now does it?  That is to say:
Font 1 gives you 1 point
Font 2 gives you 2 points, never cares about Font 1 again
retrain Font 1 to Font 3
Font 3 gives you 3 points, never cares about Font 2 again
retrain Font 2 to Font 4
....
profit.

That's the most obvious reason to me why stacking is important.  It's so devastating that the whole int max font thing has no bearing on it at all.

*Ding* *ding* Your "obvious reasoning" or your appeal that it isn't how you imagined things isn't a supporting point.
Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.
Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.

There is more, quite a few more but you get the point. ~Through every example of who you are in this thread suggests you won't.

Anyway, on to something that does matter.

"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?

So the debate is centered not around this

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.

The discrepancy is in weather or not that initial +1 stacks with the second granted +2 and there is nothing in the passage that goes either way. Truly, there isn't. Everything else spoke about that Feat is either a lie or made up through faulty generalization being repeated as fact rather than using the original printing. Like at some point Soft said "It's so devastating that the whole int max font thing has no bearing on it at all." but this is highly incorrect.

Taken as none-stacking x1 Feat grants +1 point, x2 Feats grant a total of +2 point, and x3 Feats grant a total of +3 points and so on. It provides a continued progression that will, most likely, hit it's intended cap. Like the starting example Factotum cannot take it more than twice and it's 6th level version cannot exceed three. The idea the IntMod cap is irrelevant stems from optimizing your character's Intelligence to super high values, which is just yet another fallacy. Maybe it's the Stormwind one, through I don't fully understand that one beyond it's based on using optimization vs standard to make a point. Well the exact name side, the cap has relevance and Soft claiming it don't as a reason to disbelieve it is just another fallacy on his part.

So if things could go either way - Ignoring the fact the burden of proof always lies with the person saying something can and not the one saying you cannot - with no indication one which, how does Robby know he's not misinterpreting?

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.

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

[RobbyPants]

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.

 
I didn't address them because they were red herrings. I was able to figure out my argument was bad by sticking to the topic at hand.

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?

I concede my argument, and you're still bickering.

[SorO_Lost]

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.

[RobbyPants]

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.

What are you citing? The Rules Compendium?

[SorO_Lost]

RC 137 says

What are you citing? The Rules Compendium?

Yep. Rules Compendium.

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.

The 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).

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.

It's easy to lump say Feats & Spells together along with the rules on say Concealment/Cover/DR/SR/etc which all boil down to nonstacking and then later recall from memory that the Spell rules are the prime source since they are more wildly applicable. But Feats as you know already don't stack by default through a separate ruling. The application, or lack of, the Stacking Effects rules are technically a separate argument and really not all that different than claiming DR doesn't stack so Concealment doesn't stack. I mean yeah they don't stack but the reason why is they have their own separate entries that say they don't which is better than a false attribution point even if the end result is the same.

[RobbyPants]

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?

There's a difference between stacking/overlapping bonuses/penalties vs stacking/overlapping quantities. I haven't found a rule for the latter.

[linklord231]

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, Extra Rage, Extra Slot, Epic Essentia, Improved Damage Reduction, Extra Wild Shape, or any of the dare I say dozens more similar feats. 

[Amechra]

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 

Fastforward a month or two from now, where every one of his posts uses the Socratic Method.

Honestly, reading it the way that RobbyPants does makes a little more sense within the general framework of 3.5. It's a pretty common thing for you to get a frontloaded benefit that then slowly goes up from there - in that context, having a feat give you 1 Inspiration point each time you took it, with a special one-time +1 the first time, would not be out of place.

Now, whether or not trading feats 1-for-1 with Inspiration would be a good idea is a different question - by RobbyPant's interpretation, you basically never want to take it more than twice (so you can pay for Cunning Surge an extra time).

I leave it to the audience to determine which reading I agree with.

[ketaro]

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, Extra Rage, Extra Slot, Epic Essentia, Improved Damage Reduction, Extra Wild Shape, 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.

[SorO_Lost]

(click to show/hide)

All known and provable Feats that stack with them selves use the phase "it's effects stack" or something very close to that.

This isn't true.  See Extra Music, Extra Rage, Extra Slot, Epic Essentia, Improved Damage Reduction, Extra Wild Shape, or any of the dare I say dozens more similar feats.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say the wording used in 3.0 was different the 3.5 (see Ketro's post how wording was revised in a 3.5-updated feat) or how the rules say Epic Essentia shouldn't stack with it's self either.

But I realize that's another fucking failed attempt to give me an aneurism so let's start here

Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

And read the red lettering from before.

And you should probably try reading the first post in this thread.

This is explained in the "benefit" section where feats are explained (emphasis mine):

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.

Because the point isn't about if you can take a Feat more than once, it fact it seems you can without needed special notation anyway, it's whither or not the provided benefits stack with it's self and according to the rules they don't, and all your little examples prove precisely how little you've paid attention to the entire thread.

But I'll take it to heart that you think I'm improving, I just wish I could say the same thing about you.

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?

[RobbyPants]

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?

I don't own the RC. Is there more to the rules than what you quoted that you are using?

[Zionpopsickle]

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).

Here's the actual quote of the RC without Soro's editorializing. 

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.

[Amechra]

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. 

[SorO_Lost]

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.

So he didn't waste his time, I'm sure he felt amazing after his post. And you're totally cheapening it for him 

[Zionpopsickle]

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.

I also love how your response is specifically designed to shield you from criticism, because if I take a position then you claim its a backhanded way to make my way appear correct and if I don't take a position you make it seem like I have no capability to comment about the behavior of various posters in rules debates on this board. 

Frankly, all I was going to do was post a copy-paste of the section on pg. 137 of RC because the literally wording seemed germane to the debate.  It then became clear how much interpretation you actually performed and left out (which leads to me having a suspicion about why you selectively quoted the section) which is very hypocritical given how often you chide others for doing the same thing. 

Basically, every element of this whole thread has been the kind of pathetic bullshittery that has become far too common on this board.  Robby thought he discovered some rule interpretation being off base.  And from there everything descended into the kind of childishness that seems commonplace now when any rules discussion begins. 

[Satori]

Oh, for crying out loud.

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.  And even if I misremember, it's a solid bet that the purpose of the feat is exactly that.

Now which interpretation actually works as a fix?

Use that one. 

Because I'd like to actually have fun playing this game.

[SorO_Lost]

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.

[linklord231]

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, Extra Rage, Extra Slot, Epic Essentia, Improved Damage Reduction, Extra Wild Shape, 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.

I will gladly concede the first two, because I didn't realize I was linking the older versions.  Apparently dndtools displays the first printing at the top of its search results, rather than the most recent printing.  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. 

[Jackinthegreen]

You know, it'd be less common if you didn't contribute to it.

You know, it'd be even less common if you weren't such a boneheaded twat in the first place.

[SorO_Lost]

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.

(click to show/hide)

Special: 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.

Benefit: You gain damage reduction 1/adamantine or improve your existing damage reduction by 1.

It explicitly states you improve your existing value by +1.

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 others are 3.0 and covered by Ketro with the sole exception of Epic Essentia which is the only one that doesn't explicitly say it stacks. So now you're finally caught up to my earlier post.

(click to show/hide)

All known and provable Feats that stack with them selves use the phase "it's effects stack" or something very close to that.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say the wording used in 3.0 was different the 3.5 (see Ketro's post how wording was revised in a 3.5-updated feat) or how the rules say Epic Essentia shouldn't stack with it's self either.

And just like before, in order to use Epic Essentia as a supporting point you have to prove it does stack, which I also already covered (twice, one of those was even directed at you).

You haven't proved Hidden Talent stacks with it's self in order to use as proof for this discussion.
Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

So I guess that puts you 2~3 days behind this conversion?

Also it's not a theory, an explicit statement is required by the PHB's chapter on Feats. A theory is what you had, and it was a theory based on you finding another Feat that you think stacks without using any explicit wording somehow creates an exception for ALL things to ignore the base/general rules which is highly misguided. Well, no it wouldn't and no it doesn't stack unless you can prove it can, which is obviously done through an explicit statement somewhere for fairly obvious reasons. Obviously. Do you realize the cache-22 you've chosen to set your self up for there?