Tiers at level 17+

[Little Brother]

Is there any real difference between any tier one and tier two class, assuming being well made? I mean, shapechange/wildshape alone gives everyone the Cleric and Wizard list...

[*.*.*.*]

Truenamer and healer are both tier 2, as they can break the game with Gate(truenamers can do it at will)

[JaronK]

Yeah, if you play by RAW a Sorcerer with Shapechange isn't much different than a Wizard. Basically, the T2s need to use one specific trick to gain T1 powers at that point... if your DM allows it, there won't be much difference between those two Tiers (and as pointed out, some other classes jump up like crazy too, notably the Factotum, Truenamer, and Healer).

JaronK

[Wyntonian]

Truenamer and healer are both tier 2, as they can break the game with Gate(truenamers can do it at will)

...starting at about level 17. Levels 1-16 (80% of them), they're much, much, much less useful, to put it mildly. Also, it's not "at-will". It's "assuming you make a check, which is only really viable if you optimize for it, and gets more difficult each time you use it" .

[Big Fau]

It's "assuming you make a check, which is only really viable if you optimize for it, and gets more difficult each time you use it" .

The DC of the Utterance in question is in the 30s, which is significantly lower than the DC of the Truenamer's more flawed lexicon. This check is trivial at 17th level. The Truenamer' bad reputation is because the abilities the class is supposed to use the most (Evolving Mind) have an absurdly high Truespeech check.

The ability in question is Gate nearly at will.

[Curious]

Factotum becomes tier 0, since it can use any spell or other Ex ability at will.

[Big Fau]

Factotum becomes tier 0, since it can use any spell, power, pact, or other Ex ability at will.

Assuming you interpet spells as Ex. Psionic powers, however, are SLAs (this is stated in the XPH). Soulbinding, likewise, is explicitly Su.

[Wings of Peace]

There is but it probably doesn't matter that much unless you're in a campaign aimed at challenging high-op characters. The tier system assumes equal levels of optimization so if a Sorcerer is using Shapechange to mimic Wizard casting then I'd say the Wizard is probably using Versatile Spellcaster to mimic the better part of Sorcerer casting thus maintaining a difference in versatility.


Factotum becomes tier 0, since it can use any spell, power, pact, or other Ex ability at will.

Can't it only do that a limited number of times per day? (Like 3?)

[Suddo]

Can't it only do that a limited number of times per day? (Like 3?)

Per Encounter I believe.

[Big Fau]

Per Encounter I believe.

Once per encounter, but only 3/day and you still have to prepare spell slots etc (which means you can't emulate it that well).

[Rubik]

Per Encounter I believe.Nope. Per day. And it has to choose which 3 it gets to use (for a minute each) at the beginning of each day.

[Psyren]

...starting at about level 17.

That's the premise of this thread, yes.

(Although Truenamers don't actually get Gate until 20.)


Incarnates get Gate too (1/week, or twice if they share with a familiar.)

[Big Fau]

Incarnates get Gate too (1/week, or twice if they share with a familiar.)

Incarnates cannot share Chakra Binds even with the Share Soulmeld feat. They get Gate, but only 1/week.

[Psyren]

Incarnates cannot share Chakra Binds even with the Share Soulmeld feat.

True, but you aren't actually sharing the chakra bind. You're sharing the soulmeld, which happens to gain increased benefits by being bound to one of your chakras.

The Share Soulmeld feat says:

"At your option, any soulmeld shaped by you and currently affecting you can also affect your familiar, animal companion, or mount."


And "Chapter 4 - Soulmelds," states:

"Chakra bind (chakra)
Binding a soulmeld to one of your chakras can significantly increase its effect. This entry describes the the additional power or powers granted by a soulmeld that is bound to the indicated chakra."


Thus it is the soulmeld that provides the benefits of being chakra bound, not the bind itself.

[Randomguy]

I thought it was versatility rather than power that determined tier. Sure, sorcerers can shapechange and get tons of powers that way, gate in superpowerful creatures or stop time, but just that. Wizards can learn 8 ninth level spells by level 20 without scrolls or feats that improve spell capacity, so they can do all that one day and use dominate monster to enslave a dragon that was beaten into unconsciousness the next day, and set up a teleportation circle to transport an army into another kingdom the next day, all while astral projecting from their private demiplane.

Sorcerers can do all this stuff as well, but they need to spend money on scrolls or spellstaffs.

Basically, at higher levels tier 1 and 2 can both break the game/be awesome, but tier 1's have more neat tricks.

[Piggy Knowles]

I thought it was versatility rather than power that determined tier. Sure, sorcerers can shapechange and get tons of powers that way, gate in superpowerful creatures or stop time, but just that.

Shapechange and Gate can both provide full access to the entire sorcerer, wizard or cleric spell list. The tiers ARE about versatility... but when a sorcerer is able to switch between, say, a black ethergaunt casting as a 17th level wizard or a solar casting as a 20th level cleric each round, I would absolutely say that qualifies as tier one versaitility.

[Infernalbargain]

Actually sorcerers can learn all spells on their list just by mindraping other sorcerers since mind rape says that you learn everything they know.

[Wings of Peace]

Shapechange and Gate can both provide full access to the entire sorcerer, wizard or cleric spell list. The tiers ARE about versatility... but when a sorcerer is able to switch between, say, a black ethergaunt casting as a 17th level wizard or a solar casting as a 20th level cleric each round, I would absolutely say that qualifies as tier one versaitility.

It qualifies as tier 2 power because a tier 1 like the Wizard can still do that but also many other things because they have more than a few 9th level spells per day.


Actually sorcerers can learn all spells on their list just by mindraping other sorcerers since mind rape says that you learn everything they know.

Your argument relies on the idea that Sorcerer's cast spells based on knowledge. Even if there were a mechanic for learning spells this way, Sorcerers are described as casting based on intuition and talent rather than study so it could easily be argued there is no knowledge of casting to learn from.

[Piggy Knowles]

It qualifies as tier 2 power because a tier 1 like the Wizard can still do that but also many other things because they have more than a few 9th level spells per day.

And again, I say that once Shapechange and Gate become available, the difference between tiers will start to break down. Shapechange is a 9th-level spell that can give you almost unlimited access to other 9th-level spells. Suddenly the fact that the wizard has a greater variety of spells doesn't really matter as much.

(I'm not arguing that sorcerers aren't tier 2 as a class, or that wizards aren't tier 1 as a class - just that an 18th level sorcerer with Shapechange as his spell known meets every definition I've seen of a tier 1. But of course this doesn't change the 17 previous levels where this isn't the case.)

[Infernalbargain]

Your argument relies on the idea that Sorcerer's cast spells based on knowledge. Even if there were a mechanic for learning spells this way, Sorcerers are described as casting based on intuition and talent rather than study so it could easily be argued there is no knowledge of casting to learn from.


He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time.


To learn or cast a spell

Seems that way to me.

[Randomguy]

Shapechange and Gate can both provide full access to the entire sorcerer, wizard or cleric spell list. The tiers ARE about versatility... but when a sorcerer is able to switch between, say, a black ethergaunt casting as a 17th level wizard or a solar casting as a 20th level cleric each round, I would absolutely say that qualifies as tier one versaitility.

Shapechange only grants Su and Ex abilities. Spellcasting is neither a Su nor an Ex ability, and neither are spell like abilities, so shapechanging into a solar wouldn't give you it's cleric spellcasting or it's spell like abilities.

[Curious]

Spellcasting is neither a Su nor an Ex ability

Incorrect; spellcasting is indeed an Ex ability, since it is not specified as being anything else.

[Randomguy]

My mistake.

[Flickerdart]

Incorrect; spellcasting is indeed an Ex ability, since it is not specified as being anything else.
Not the case. Per Rules Compendium, an ability that's not called out as anything is a natural ability, not an Extraordinary one.

[Draz74]

It qualifies as tier 2 power because a tier 1 like the Wizard can still do that but also many other things

If I'm reading this correctly (which I might not be, because this was only part of a sentence, and I didn't grok how the whole sentence was supposed to flow logically) ...

... then by that logic, Wizards are Tier 2, because Pun-Pun can do everything they can do, but also many other things. :smalltongue:

[Infernalbargain]

If I'm reading this correctly (which I might not be, because this was only part of a sentence, and I didn't grok how the whole sentence was supposed to flow logically) ...

... then by that logic, Wizards are Tier 2, because Pun-Pun can do everything they can do, but also many other things. :smalltongue:

Pun-Pun is a wizard though...

[Curious]

Not the case. Per Rules Compendium, an ability that's not called out as anything is a natural ability, not an Extraordinary one.

That doesn't make any sense though; spellcasting is not a natural ability, since it must be gained through class levels. Otherwise a Fighter's bonus feats would be natural, as would things like bardic knowledge.

[Big Fau]

Pun-Pun is a wizard though...

Traditionally, he's a Paladin. Wizard works too, but Paladin is faster access.


That doesn't make any sense though; spellcasting is not a natural ability, since it must be gained through class levels. Otherwise a Fighter's bonus feats would be natural, as would things like bardic knowledge.

Technically, spellcasting is intended to be magical (they just never made the category because it is supposed to be obvious and they didn't know they would make a class like the Factotum or Illithid Savant back in the day). Regardless, using the Factotum's capstone to copy spellcasting should not work at all because you don't have spells/day until you perpare them or meditate for 1 hour, and the Factotum's ability only lasts for one minute.

[Curious]

Technically, spellcasting is intended to be magical (they just never made the category because it is supposed to be obvious and they didn't know they would make a class like the Factotum or Illithid Savant back in the day). Regardless, using the Factotum's capstone to copy spellcasting should not work at all because you don't have spells/day until you perpare them or meditate for 1 hour, and the Factotum's ability only lasts for one minute.

Couldn't you just copy a sorceror, or some other spontaneous casters spellcasting? I don't believe those require any kind of preparation at all.

[olentu]

Couldn't you just copy a sorceror, or some other spontaneous casters spellcasting? I don't believe those require any kind of preparation at all.

15 minutes of concentrating I believe.

[Curious]

15 minutes of concentrating I believe.


Unlike a wizard or a cleric, a sorcerer need not prepare her spells in advance. She can cast any spell she knows at any time, assuming she has not yet used up her spells per day for that spell level.

Not according to the PFSRD.

[olentu]

Not according to the PFSRD.

Pathfinder. I would think we were talking about 3.5. So sure I may be remembering incorrectly (as I do from time to time since I did not bother to check) but it would seem to be the incorrect source.

[Curious]

Pathfinder. I would think we were talking about 3.5. So sure I may be remembering incorrectly (as I do from time to time since I did not bother to check) but it would seem to be the incorrect source.


Unlike a wizard or a cleric, a sorcerer need not prepare his spells in advance. He can cast any spell he knows at any time, assuming he has not yet used up his spells per day for that spell level. He does not have to decide ahead of time which spells he’ll cast.

Practically the same quote, from the 3.5 SRD.

[olentu]

Practically the same quote, from the 3.5 SRD.

I fail to see how that matters. You could have used it in the first place instead of using something that may or may not have changed and would not list if it had.



Though since it took you so long to find the proper rules I looked it up myself. It turns out what I was remembering it is only for regaining spell slots that were used the previous day so I suppose you might get spell slots depending on a few restrictions.

[Flickerdart]

That doesn't make any sense though; spellcasting is not a natural ability, since it must be gained through class levels. Otherwise a Fighter's bonus feats would be natural, as would things like bardic knowledge.
It doesn't make sense for it to be Extraordinary either, but rules are rules, and you can't just ignore them willy nilly.

[Eldest]

Actually...

Daily Readying of Spells
Each day, sorcerers and bards must focus their minds on the task of casting their spells. A sorcerer or bard needs 8 hours of rest (just like a wizard), after which he spends 15 minutes concentrating. (A bard must sing, recite, or play an instrument of some kind while concentrating.) During this period, the sorcerer or bard readies his mind to cast his daily allotment of spells. Without such a period to refresh himself, the character does not regain the spell slots he used up the day before.
SRD, under arcane spells.

[Curious]

Actually...

SRD, under arcane spells.

This assumes that you expended spells the previous day. Since you are gaining your spells for the first time with the Factotums ability, you would not need to do so.

[dextercorvia]

This assumes that you expended spells the previous day. Since you are gaining your spells for the first time with the Factotums ability, you would not need to do so.

That is one benefit, but it isn't the only one. Specifically, it says that he must ready his mind to cast his daily allotment, without that time, this newly gained capability is useless.

[Curmudgeon]

This assumes that you expended spells the previous day. Since you are gaining your spells for the first time with the Factotums ability, you would not need to do so.
If you do not spend the time (8 hours rest + 15 minutes concentration), you do not regain the spell slots expended the previous day; you're stuck with whatever spells you had available yesterday. For a Factotum, that's nothing.

I don't see how you can read a rule that says you don't regain yesterday's spell slots as gaining all spell slots instead. :smallconfused:

[Curious]

If you do not spend the time (8 hours rest + 15 minutes concentration), you do not regain the spell slots expended the previous day; you're stuck with whatever spells you had available yesterday. For a Factotum, that's nothing.

I don't see how you can read a rule that says you don't regain yesterday's spell slots as gaining all spell slots instead. :smallconfused:

The default state of spell slot is unspent, available for use. If you spend them, you must rest for 8 hours and then meditate for 15 minutes to regain them. It follows then, that if you gained spells for the first time, they would be unspent, and thus require no meditation or rest to regain them, because they have never been spent.

[dextercorvia]

The default state of spell slot is unspent

Citatation needed.

[Curious]

Citatation needed.


Daily Readying of Spells
Each day, sorcerers and bards must focus their minds on the task of casting their spells. A sorcerer or bard needs 8 hours of rest (just like a wizard), after which he spends 15 minutes concentrating. (A bard must sing, recite, or play an instrument of some kind while concentrating.) During this period, the sorcerer or bard readies his mind to cast his daily allotment of spells. Without such a period to refresh himself, the character does not regain the spell slots he used up the day before.

Sure. The text states that you must rest to restore your spells, but only if those spells have been spent. If you haven't spent your spells, you don't need to rest to restore them. Thus, if you have never spent a spell, you don't need to rest to be able to cast a spell. Default state equals unspent.

[Eldest]

And that will turn into a "chicken or the egg" argument, because nobody at WOTC thought enough about it to describe what happens when you first gain your spells.

[dextercorvia]

Sure. The text states that you must rest to restore your spells, but only if those spells have been spent. If you haven't spent your spells, you don't need to rest to restore them. Thus, if you have never spent a spell, you don't need to rest to be able to cast a spell. Default state equals unspent.

It doesn't say only those spells are recovered, and the first sentence is more all encompassing. You still haven't found a quote to support your assertion that the default state is unspent.

[Curious]

It doesn't say only those spells are recovered-

It actually does.


Without such a period to refresh himself, the character does not regain the spell slots he used up the day before.

You retain spells you did not cast the day before. They are not recycled regardless of state, only those that are spent can be renewed.


-and the first sentence is more all encompassing.

This raises no problems. Sorcerors must rest to regain spells. So what?


You still haven't found a quote to support your assertion that the default state is unspent.

The quote from the SRD might be a good place to start reading.

[dextercorvia]

Try this one.


During this period, the sorcerer or bard readies his mind to cast his daily allotment of spells.

His daily allotment is everything. Without that period of meditation, he is not ready to cast his daily allotment of spells, including the ones he cast yesterday.

He is not a Wizard, who retains prepared spells until cast.

[Draz74]

It doesn't make sense for it to be Extraordinary either, but rules are rules, and you can't just ignore them willy nilly.

Sure you can! It's an RPG, you can play it the way that works for your group! :smallcool:

... You just can't prove to the Internet that doing it your way is the right way.

Personally I think this debate is pretty simple: "Yes, by RAW you can indeed get spellcasting via Shapechange or Cunning Brilliance. No, this obviously was no more intended by the game-makers than Monks' nonproficiency with unarmed strikes, and it's just as dumb to actually play that way. Those effects are plenty powerful without copying all of spellcasting. Now, can we just move on and ignore such a stupid, obvious error in the rules, please?"

[Curious]

His daily allotment is everything. Without that period of meditation, he is not ready to cast his daily allotment of spells, including the ones he cast yesterday.

'Daily allotment' is being used as a measurement in this case. You are restoring spell slots up to your maximum allowed number, your daily allotment. It makes no mention of spell slots from previous days being affected, thus, they would still be available to cast.

[Psyren]

That doesn't make any sense though; spellcasting is not a natural ability, since it must be gained through class levels. Otherwise a Fighter's bonus feats would be natural, as would things like bardic knowledge.

You're confusing "natural" and "innate" Natural abilities are clearly defined in the rules and can indeed come from class levels. It might not be the best term for such abilities (maybe "base" or "generic"?) but that doesn't change its game definition.

Also, all feats are Ex unless otherwise specified. (Exceptions include, but are not limited to, Psionic and Exalted feats.)

[Curious]

You're confusing "natural" and "innate" Natural abilities are clearly defined in the rules and can indeed come from class levels. It might not be the best term for such abilities (maybe "base" or "generic"?) but that doesn't change its game definition.

Also, all feats are Ex unless otherwise specified. (Exceptions include, but are not limited to, Psionic and Exalted feats.)

Yes, I think you are correct. My mistake.

[Curmudgeon]

Also, all feats are Ex unless otherwise specified. (Exceptions include, but are not limited to, Psionic and Exalted feats.)
Are you sure about that one? Citations in three places I know of come close, and feats defaulting to Extraordinary is alluded to rather than stated in every instance. The 3.0 book Book of Vile Darkness:
As such, vile feats are supernatural abilities rather than extraordinary abilities.
and the 3.5 books Fiendish Codex I:

As such, the benefits granted by these feats are supernatural rather than extraordinary abilities.and Book of Exalted Deeds:

These feats are thus supernatural in nature (rather than being extraordinary abilities, as most feats are).
There are a few problems here. For the BoVD statement we can see that in 3.5 D&D it isn't even partially correct. In 3.5 books like Heroes of Horror and Elder Evils there's no longer a categorical statement for vile feats the way there is for divine feats, and the vile feats from Book of Vile Darkness have been replaced by 3.5 versions. Some of those replacements are in Fiendish Codex I, but every one of those 3.5 replacements are updated (without the Supernatural statement about vile feats) in books which follow, particularly Elder Evils and Exemplars of Evil. In these 3.5 vile feats only a few are designated as Supernatural, and that's done on a case-by-case basis. Example:

Dark Whispers [Vile]:
This is a mind-affecting, supernatural effect.
The BoED statement is statistical rather than categorical; it doesn't state which feats are Extraordinary, either by name or group. And then of course there's the applicability issue: if your campaign doesn't use Book of Exalted Deeds or Fiendish Codex I, is there anything else in the rules which categorizes undesignated feats? These aren't primary source books, after all.

So I have come up empty looking for a citation in the 3.5 rules that actually says feats are Extraordinary unless otherwise designated. Can you provide a rule I failed to find? (I do like to get these things right.)

[Infernalbargain]

Are you sure about that one? Citations in three places I know of come close, and feats defaulting to Extraordinary is alluded to rather than stated in every instance. The 3.0 book Book of Vile Darkness:and the 3.5 books Fiendish Codex I:
and Book of Exalted Deeds:

There are a few problems here. For the BoVD statement we can see that in 3.5 D&D it isn't even partially correct. In 3.5 books like Heroes of Horror and Elder Evils there's no longer a categorical statement for vile feats the way there is for divine feats, and the vile feats from Book of Vile Darkness have been replaced by 3.5 versions. Some of those replacements are in Fiendish Codex I, but every one of those 3.5 replacements are updated (without the Supernatural statement about vile feats) in books which follow, particularly Elder Evils and Exemplars of Evil. In these 3.5 vile feats only a few are designated as Supernatural. Example:
Dark Whispers [Vile]:
The BoED statement is statistical rather than categorical; it doesn't state which feats are Extraordinary, either by name or group. And then of course there's the applicability issue: if your campaign doesn't use Book of Exalted Deeds or Fiendish Codex I, is there anything else in the rules which categorizes undesignated feats? These aren't primary source books, after all.

So I have come up empty looking for a citation in the 3.5 rules that actually says feats are Extraordinary unless otherwise designated. Can you provide a rule I failed to find? (I do like to get these things right.)

I would say that since there appears to be to contradiction between those books and the sourcebooks, and the sourcebooks do not have a statement on the matter, that those books are indeed accurate and do apply in the same way that RotD clarified the definition of a true dragon.

[Curmudgeon]

I would say that since there appears to be to contradiction between those books and the sourcebooks, and the sourcebooks do not have a statement on the matter, that those books are indeed accurate and do apply in the same way that RotD clarified the definition of a true dragon.
Did Races of the Dragon even do that (provide a clear definition)? There are statements about true dragons in the Kobolds chapter of that book, but in sections entitled "Mythic Origins" and "Legends". I don't think myths and legends qualify for anything that could be called an actual definition. Most of the rest of the statements about true dragons are in discussions of attitudes of other races toward them, rather than information about true dragons themselves. There is good information on expanding the core Monster Manual list of 10 true dragon types to include those from other books, but that's inside the Half-Dragon info, and only applies to that template. There's also a nicely expanded Draconic Heritage feat to use that full list. However, that feat later got updated in Dragon Magic, and it now requires special DM permission to use the Races of the Dragon version (see page 17 of Dragon Magic).

Short version: I don't think Races of the Dragon provides a compelling rules argument about much of anything.

[Infernalbargain]

Must've been draconomicon that had the stuff on progressing by age categories. Either way, the point is that dragon wrought kobolds being true dragons is still accurate because the primary sourcebooks are silent on it and the splat books have no contradiction on the matter. Apply same argument to Ex feats.

[Curmudgeon]

Either way, the point is that dragon wrought kobolds being true dragons is still accurate because the primary sourcebooks are silent on it and the splat books have no contradiction on the matter. Apply same argument to Ex feats.
I don't think that logic holds up. Dragonwrought isn't core material; it's a single feat buried in a supplement. The rules for feats, though, are very much core material. And Wizards of the Coast went to the effort of providing a rule for such a case:
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. Because the primary source book for feats (Player's Handbook) doesn't give feat benefits a default type, they don't have a default type. Particular groups of feats can be typed, and divine feats, exalted feats, & c. are categorically typed as Supernatural; this doesn't change the core rules about feats. However, if you do try to give a type to something the core rules leaves untyped, you come back to the Primary Sources Errata rule for how to resolve that disagreement: the Player's Handbook is correct, and that's the end of the matter.

[olentu]

I don't think that logic holds up. Dragonwrought isn't core material; it's a single feat buried in a supplement. The rules for feats, though, are very much core material. And Wizards of the Coast went to the effort of providing a rule for such a case: Because the primary source book for feats (Player's Handbook) doesn't give feat benefits a default type, they don't have a default type. Particular groups of feats can be typed, and divine feats, exalted feats, & c. are categorically typed as Supernatural; this doesn't change the core rules about feats. However, if you do try to give a type to something the core rules leaves untyped, you come back to the Primary Sources Errata rule for how to resolve that disagreement: the Player's Handbook is correct, and that's the end of the matter.

I am sorry but perhaps you do not understand that the absence of a rule is not actually a rule.

Now that is not to say that any other source actually does type all feats. But if the core rules do not type all feats and do not explicitly forbid typing all feats then there is no contradiction between the core rules and some other rule that gives all feats a type.

[Infernalbargain]

That applies if there is a disagreement between books. In the PHB, feats were unlabelled. Later, the feats were labelled. In MM, there was no definition of what a true dragon is. In Draconomicon, true dragon was defined.

[Psyren]

(I do like to get these things right.)

You do? I had no idea. :smallamused:

In seriousness: the sources you quoted were the ones I used in my determination. I freely admit though that there is no real definition of "most" nor does it specify which ones are Ex and which ones aren't. Personally, I think they used "most" to account for the other feats that are supernatural e.g. Psionic, Vile, etc. But I still think it's fair to assume a feat is ex if no type is given, even if it may not be precisely RAW.


I am sorry but perhaps you do not understand that the absence of a rule is not actually a rule.

Now that is not to say that any other source actually does type all feats. But if the core rules do not type all feats and do not explicitly forbid typing all feats then there is no contradiction between the core rules and some other rule that gives all feats a type.


That applies if there is a disagreement between books. In the PHB, feats were unlabelled. Later, the feats were labelled. In MM, there was no definition of what a true dragon is. In Draconomicon, true dragon was defined.

Now, these two quotes highlight a separate argument, and one I have hashed out at considerable length with Curmudgeon before. Primary source only applies when there is a contradiction between two sources (it's right there in the definition); if source A has a ruling while source B is silent (despite the silent one being closer to core, or "more primary" in some other way) then the PS rule is never invoked and does not become relevant.

[Curmudgeon]

I freely admit though that there is no real definition of "most" nor does it specify which ones are Ex and which ones aren't. Personally, I think they used "most" to account for the other feats that are supernatural e.g. Psionic, Vile, etc. But I still think it's fair to assume a feat is ex if no type is given, even if it may not be precisely RAW.
That's the usual sticking point for me, as you know.

Now, these two quotes highlight a separate argument, and one I have hashed out at considerable length with Curmudgeon before. Primary source only applies when there is a contradiction between two sources (it's right there in the definition); if source A has a ruling while source B is silent (despite the silent one being closer to core, or "more primary" in some other way) then the PS rule is never invoked and does not become relevant.
There actually are statements about types of feats in the Player's Handbook, on page 87. The most useful one is this:
TYPES OF FEATS
Some feats are general, meaning that no special rules govern them as a group. That's different than being silent. A special rule which establishes feat benefit type as a group, rather than individually, then does not govern general feats. [General] is by far the most common feat type, and covers most Fighter bonus feats, and even things like the race-specific, 1st-level-only Dragonwrought feat (see Races of the Dragon on page 99).

With this exclusion of [General] feats; the exclusions of [Divine], [Exalted], [Wild], [Tainted], and other such groups categorically stated to be Supernatural; and quite a few feats that individually declare their benefits to be Supernatural: I'm not sure that Book of Exalted Deeds passing statement
(rather than being extraordinary abilities, as most feats are) can even be statistically true.

[Psyren]

That's different than being silent.

When I mentioned the irrelevance of the Primary Source rule, I wasn't referring to this specific situation; I was referring to olentu/infernal's example briefly discussed above, where a splat rules on a situation that should be covered in core but isn't.



With this exclusion of [General] feats; the exclusions of [Divine], [Exalted], [Wild], [Tainted], and other such groups categorically stated to be Supernatural; and quite a few feats that individually declare their benefits to be Supernatural: I'm not sure that Book of Exalted Deeds passing statement can even be statistically true.

First, [General] feats are only excluded if you consider them being extraordinary to be a "special rule." But what exactly is a "special rule" and how is it different from a regular one? How do we know when given rules are "special?" And most of all, how do we know that the type classification of feats falls in that category?

Second "most are extraordinary" is itself a rule, even with no statistics to support it or without specific examples. While you can demonstrate how it might not be true, I can counter by demonstrating the situation that makes it true, e.g. that all feats are (Ex) except for the few that are specifically labelled (Su). Because there are fewer feats designated as supernatural than those that are not, the rule that "most are Ex" would therefore hold true.

[Infernalbargain]

That's the usual sticking point for me, as you know.

There actually are statements about types of feats in the Player's Handbook, on page 87. The most useful one is this: That's different than being silent. A special rule which establishes feat benefit type as a group, rather than individually, then does not govern general feats. [General] is by far the most common feat type, and covers most Fighter bonus feats, and even things like the race-specific, 1st-level-only Dragonwrought feat (see Races of the Dragon on page 99).

With this exclusion of [General] feats; the exclusions of [Divine], [Exalted], [Wild], [Tainted], and other such groups categorically stated to be Supernatural; and quite a few feats that individually declare their benefits to be Supernatural: I'm not sure that Book of Exalted Deeds passing statement can even be statistically true.

Tah-tah-tah, the PHB quote is referring to what kind of feat a feat is, not what kind of ability a feat is. Ex is an ability type, as is readily demonstrated under the special abilities section of the SRD. If Ex were a feat type, it would bee under the types of feats section, not the types of abilities section. A feat that grants an Ex ability does not make it an Ex feat, it is whatever feat type it is (general, combat, etc.).

[hex0]

Speaking of Level 17....

That is also around the time a lactose intolerant Rainbow Warsnake comes online. Just throwing that out there.

[Eldest]

What do the bloody feats have to do with the OP? Please, explain to me with the minimum of arguments. I'd love to know how this isn't a derail.