Does Swordsage's Discipline Focus count as the feat?

[Ragnorrok]

Does having the Discipline Focus for the swordsage count as having weapon focus feats and qualify for having weapon focus for prestige classes like Knight of the Sacred Seal?

[DarkSonic1337]

I'd say it does

Discipline Focus (Ex): As a swordsage, you can focus your training to take advantage of each discipline's fighting style. Each time you gain the discipline focus ability, select one of the six swordsage disciplines to which that focus applies. You can select a different discipline each time you gain discipline focus, but you must know at least one martial maneuver from the selected discipline. Even if you select a different discipline at higher levels, your discipline choice for earlier abilities does not change.

This focus manifests in the following ways.

Weapon Focus: At 1st level, you gain the benefit of the Weapon Focus feat for weapons associated with the chosen discipline. See the discipline descriptions in Chapter 4.

I'd say that on of the "benefits" would be....meeting prereqs.

[TuggyNE]

I'd say that on of the "benefits" would be....meeting prereqs.

Sorry, no.
Benefit
You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

That is the entirety of the "benefit" you gain.

[Da'Shain]

Sorry, no.

That is the entirety of the "benefit" you gain.Why? Nothing in the Swordsage ability says "you get the text under the 'Benefit' line", it says you get the benefit of the Weapon Focus feat. Part of that benefit is qualifying for prereqs.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Why? Nothing in the Swordsage ability says "you get the text under the 'Benefit' line", it says you get the benefit of the Weapon Focus feat. Part of that benefit is qualifying for prereqs.

I would say this is the correct interpretation, yes.

[TuggyNE]

Why? Nothing in the Swordsage ability says "you get the text under the 'Benefit' line", it says you get the benefit of the Weapon Focus feat. Part of that benefit is qualifying for prereqs.

I hate to be all pedantic about headers, but it really seems to me that "gaining the benefit" refers to the "Benefit" section, while "gains as a bonus feat" (Ranger, Monk) or "is treated as having" (Ranger) would refer to the whole thing. D&D is not great at using capitalization and formatting to clarify when it means some specific term, so it's best to assume that terms are as specific as possible.

Since there are other wordings that would do a much better job of expressing your reading, a choice not to use those strongly suggests that that was not in fact the intended reading.

[ArcturusV]

Particularly since as TuggyNE pointed out, wordings that would do what you wanted have already been in the game and used since, well, day one of 3.5. If they chose to consciously avoid using established wording at the end of the run there, it's probably because they meant something different.

[Scow2]

Particularly since as TuggyNE pointed out, wordings that would do what you wanted have already been in the game and used since, well, day one of 3.5. If they chose to consciously avoid using established wording at the end of the run there, it's probably because they meant something different.Expecting consistency from 3.5? I think you give the designers too much credit.


I hate to be all pedantic about headers, but it really seems to me that "gaining the benefit" refers to the "Benefit" section, while "gains as a bonus feat" (Ranger, Monk) or "is treated as having" (Ranger) would refer to the whole thing. D&D is not great at using capitalization and formatting to clarify when it means some specific term, so it's best to assume that terms are as specific as possible.To me, the vast inconsistency and informal language used in 3.5's rules would mean that it's best to assume the terms are as broad as possible.


Since there are other wordings that would do a much better job of expressing your reading, a choice not to use those strongly suggests that that was not in fact the intended reading.Or it strongly suggests that the authors aren't bothered with writing consistent rules, which has far more evidence in support of it.

If Discipline Focus didn't grant all the benefits of Weapon Focus, I'd expect it to simply re-state the bonus of Weapon Focus - but the real value in Weapon Focus isn't the measly +1 to attack rolls it provides - throughout the system, Weapon Focus is used and treated as a "Gateway" to stronger options. The +1 to attacks is merely a token certificate-thing.

[Red Fel]

Admittedly, I think we can all agree that ToB suffered from some poor wording. (Iron Heart Surge, anyone?)

That said, I'm inclined to agree with those who say Swordsage WF won't qualify as regular WF. Despite the fact that I think it should (and your DM may be willing to house-rule that one), Swordsage WF is substantially more potent than regular WF, in that you gain the effects of WF simply by taking a single level of SS, no feats required.

Think about that for a second. You get the effect of multiple WFs, plus an initiative bonus, plus maneuvers, all in one easy dip. No feats, no mess. That's way more potent than having to wait until the next third level to take Weapon Focus.

Also, think about the Warblade Weapon Aptitude ability. ("Wait, Fel," I hear you say, "We were talking about Swordsage, not Warblade.") Follow me. Weapon Aptitude contains the following language:

Each morning, you can spend 1 hour in weapon practice to change the designated weapon for any feat you have that applies only to a single weapon (such as Weapon Focus).

ToB is saying here that Weapon Focus is (1) a feat (2) that applies to a single weapon. Swordsage's Discipline Focus is (1) a class feature (2) that applies to multiple weapons.

Tl;dr: It's not clear, but I would rule conservatively that SS DF does not count as the WF feat for purpose of prereqs. Sorry.

[TuggyNE]

Expecting consistency from 3.5? I think you give the designers too much credit.

To me, the vast inconsistency and informal language used in 3.5's rules would mean that it's best to assume the terms are as broad as possible.

Or it strongly suggests that the authors aren't bothered with writing consistent rules, which has far more evidence in support of it.

Any method of reading a work that assumes the work to be as inconsistent as possible whenever there is any possible doubt or ambiguity is a poor method. I am well aware of how inconsistent WotC can be, but simply assuming that they will always be inconsistent, despite clear discernible patterns and with no textual problem around that can be resolved only by treating the text as inconsistent, is simply wrong.

Further, WotC did in fact attempt to standardize many terms, as the presence of long lists of definitions like the Glossary, Monster Abilities, and Condition Summary shows, though they didn't always succeed in removing ambiguity. Throwing that out and assuming you can just read, say, "level" to be any of its dozens of slightly different forms "because Wizards didn't standardize it properly" is, again, a bad method.


If Discipline Focus didn't grant all the benefits of Weapon Focus, I'd expect it to simply re-state the bonus of Weapon Focus - but the real value in Weapon Focus isn't the measly +1 to attack rolls it provides - throughout the system, Weapon Focus is used and treated as a "Gateway" to stronger options. The +1 to attacks is merely a token certificate-thing.

And therefore, because +1 to attacks for one weapon is so weak, it is impossible to imagine a class feature that gives you nothing but +1 to attacks for many weapons?

Sorry, that's giving WotC far too much credit for consistent class feature balance. :smallyuk:

[ryu]

Any method of reading a work that assumes the work to be as inconsistent as possible whenever there is any possible doubt or ambiguity is a poor method. I am well aware of how inconsistent WotC can be, but simply assuming that they will always be inconsistent, despite clear discernible patterns and with no textual problem around that can be resolved only by treating the text as inconsistent, is simply wrong.

Further, WotC did in fact attempt to standardize many terms, as the presence of long lists of definitions like the Glossary, Monster Abilities, and Condition Summary shows, though they didn't always succeed in removing ambiguity. Throwing that out and assuming you can just read, say, "level" to be any of its dozens of slightly different forms "because Wizards didn't standardize it properly" is, again, a bad method.



And therefore, because +1 to attacks for one weapon is so weak, it is impossible to imagine a class feature that gives you nothing but +1 to attacks for many weapons?

Sorry, that's giving WotC far too much credit for consistent class feature balance. :smallyuk:

Well that is kinda exactly how weak that bonus actually is. I mean really weapon focus DID suck muchly as a standalone when it was introduced. A class feature that just lets you ignore its existence even for prereqs is exactly what I would expect from a book that's basically apologizing for the fighter class.

[Deophaun]

That's way more potent than having to wait until the next third level to take Weapon Focus.
i wouldn't take the comparison to mean anything. Weapon Focus is overpriced as a feat. Getting it thrown in as a tertiary benefit for taking a level in a well-designed class seems about right.

[StreamOfTheSky]

OP, yes it does.

[TuggyNE]

Well that is kinda exactly how weak that bonus actually is. I mean really weapon focus DID suck muchly as a standalone when it was introduced. A class feature that just lets you ignore its existence even for prereqs is exactly what I would expect from a book that's basically apologizing for the fighter class.


i wouldn't take the comparison to mean anything. Weapon Focus is overpriced as a feat. Getting it thrown in as a tertiary benefit for taking a level in a well-designed class seems about right.


OP, yes it does.

I'm happy you all are so confident, and one class in that book does give it to you, but what rules basis do you have for assuming all well-designed, or even all ToB, classes will give you full Weapon Focus? More to the point, if you think "well, it would totally make sense and be awesome for SS to give full WF in discipline weapons" (which it would), how do you get from there to "by RAW, SS gives full WF in discipline weapons"?

So far, RAW looks like it's going to some pains not to do that exact thing.

[Deophaun]

...but what rules basis do you have for assuming all well-designed, or even all ToB, classes will give you full Weapon Focus?
I was unaware I had any such assumption. Can you please quote where I made this one? I'm assuming it's in a different thread, as you quoted everything I posted here already, and it's not there.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Tuggy, what happens if a Swordsage with Weapon Focus (Shadow Hand) takes Weapon Focus (dagger), according to your view of how the swordsage class feature works?

[Talya]

The swordsage class feature clearly grants weapon focus for all purposes. Any other reading is nitpicking non-existent semantical issues.

This also means that the swordsage could not take the weapon focus feat again to apply to one of the same weapons they have discipline focus in, for a +2 bonus. They could, however, with 4 levels of fighter, or 6 levels of warblade, qualify for weapon specialization in any of those discipline weapons.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Aww, but I wanted to work Tuggy into circular reasoning and logical fallacies for my own amusement...

[TuggyNE]

I was unaware I had any such assumption. Can you please quote where I made this one? I'm assuming it's in a different thread, as you quoted everything I posted here already, and it's not there.

"Getting it thrown in as a tertiary benefit for taking a level in a well-designed class seems about right." You gave no other reasoning for why Discipline Focus should be read to grant full Weapon Focus, so I figured that's more or less what you thought was the reason: WF is too small to not be granted in full in any well-designed class [that mentions it at all].

Now, if that wasn't your reasoning, go ahead and explain. Maybe I'm just having trouble reading everyone else's post today for some reason, but so far I really have not heard adequate counter-arguments. :smallconfused:


Tuggy, what happens if a Swordsage with Weapon Focus (Shadow Hand) takes Weapon Focus (dagger), according to your view of how the swordsage class feature works?

They now qualify for feats that require Weapon Focus, but they gain nothing else. Weapon Focus does not stack with its own benefit.


The swordsage class feature clearly grants weapon focus for all purposes. Any other reading is nitpicking non-existent semantical issues.

And we know those are non-existent … how, exactly? Please, go through your reasoning here, don't just dismiss all counter-arguments with "nah, those are wrong, duh".

Seriously, folks, I have what seem to be some pretty solid arguments here and I'm getting nothing back except "yeah, no, you're mistaken and silly", but no kind of actual countering logic. If I'm wrong, I want to see why.


Aww, but I wanted to work Tuggy into circular reasoning and logical fallacies for my own amusement...

How … splendid. Duly noted.

[Andezzar]

The swordsage class feature clearly grants weapon focus for all purposes. Any other reading is nitpicking non-existent semantical issues.That is not what the rules say. They say you gain the benefit of WF not the feat itself. The benefit of the feat is clearly noted (+1 on attack rolls with a specific weapon). The feat itself or some rule saying you count as having the feat is required to fulfill the prerequisites for other feats/abilities/classes.
Compare the wording of Discipline Focus to the wording of Desert Wind Dodge:
Special: Desert Wind Dodge can be used in place of Dodge to qualify for a feat, prestige class, or other special ability. If you already have Dodge when you select Desert Wind Dodge, you can choose to lose the Dodge feat and gain a new feat in its place. You must meet the prerequisite for the new feat.
Something like that would be required to use Discipline Focus to fulfill the Weapon Focus Prerequisite.


This also means that the swordsage could not take the weapon focus feat again to apply to one of the same weapons they have discipline focus in, for a +2 bonus. They could, however, with 4 levels of fighter, or 6 levels of warblade, qualify for weapon specialization in any of those discipline weapons.Actually Weapon Focus and Discipline Focus (Weapon Focus) would stack, as per the normal stacking rules. While weapon focus does not stack with itself, it stacks with other unnamed bonuses as normal. Both the class feature and the Feat grant unnamed bonuses. They are from two different sources. One is the Feat Weapon Focus, the other is a class feature called Discipline Focus.

[bekeleven]

Actually Weapon Focus and Discipline Focus (Weapon Focus) would stack, as per the normal stacking rules. While weapon focus does not stack with itself, it stacks with other unnamed bonuses as normal. Both the class feature and the Feat grant unnamed bonuses. They are from two different sources. One is the Feat Weapon Focus, the other is a class feature called Discipline Focus.

This is debatable. Both benefits are from underneath the "Benefits" line of the same feat, and therefore could be considered the same benefit.

I could see it both ways but I'd play with Tuggy's interpretation here.

[Andezzar]

This is debatable. Both benefits are from underneath the "Benefits" line of the same feat, and therefore could be considered the same benefit.No. On desert wind dodge the section is under the "Special" heading. Benefit is a separate section for that feat. The benefit section of Weapon Focus says nothing about qualifying for other feats. Discipline Focus does not have a benefit section. It merely has a description. One of its effects is to grant the benefit of weapon focus for a number of weapons.

Also other feats do not call for having the benefit of a certain feat, they call for having the feat itself.
e.g.

Prerequisites

Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, fighter level 4th.

[StreamOfTheSky]

They now qualify for feats that require Weapon Focus, but they gain nothing else. Weapon Focus does not stack with its own benefit.

But Tuggy, Weapon Focus grants an untyped bonus. Untyped bonuses always stack, unless they are from the same source.

So...would you care to change your answer now? Or would you like to declare that in both instances the swordsage is getting the +1 from the same source?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#modifiers

Stacking

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession).

[Darrin]

And therefore, because +1 to attacks for one weapon is so weak, it is impossible to imagine a class feature that gives you nothing but +1 to attacks for many weapons?


I don't agree with this. Weapon Focus for a variety of weapons is not nearly as useful as it appears to be. You can only wield a limited number of weapons, and the vast majority of melee characters only wield one weapon at a time. Being able to switch from a dagger to a shortsword is almost mechanically insignificant (+1 average damage for the shortsword). Weapon Focus is so weak that even when you grant it for multiple weapons, it's still just as weak.

That being said... I'd say this was more of a DM's call (which is just my gutless cop-out way of saying "let the Swordsage have Weapon Focus as a bonus feat"). It's kind of odd that the designers worded it in that particular way, and then didn't bother to add in a line about "this does/doesn't count toward qualifying for prerequisites". I can see that omission as deliberate for two different reasons... either they thought it was obvious it would count for prereqs, or they thought it was obvious that it wouldn't. In either case, they were wrong.

[AstralFire]

You get WF for multiple weapons at one time, because most disciplines don't have more than one weapon at a time that you are going to optimize for, and it allows you to present a Swordsage with a variety in weapon choices as they level, much as the Warblade does - but with an emphasis on learned disciplines as opposed to individual aptitude and prowess.

There really isn't a point in reading it otherwise. They would have just said "gain a +1 bonus to these weapons" (and do often enough in other places.)

[Andezzar]

You get WF for multiple weapons at one time, because most disciplines don't have more than one weapon at a time that you are going to optimize for, and it allows you to present a Swordsage with a variety in weapon choices as they level, much as the Warblade does - but with an emphasis on learned disciplines as opposed to individual aptitude and prowess.That is not what the rules say. The class feature give the benefit of weapon focus, which is +1 to attacks with the chosen weapon, not the feat itself.

Whether it would be sensible to give the swordsage four to six bonus feats is irrelevant to a RAW discussion. Just a thought: If the swordsage did get those bonus feats, what's keeping him from chaos shuffling them for something better?


There really isn't a point in reading it otherwise. They would have just said "gain a +1 bonus to these weapons" (and do often enough in other places.)While this would have been clear, it is equally clear that "the benefit of a feat" is different from the feat itself.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Just a thought: If the swordsage did get those bonus feats, what's keeping him from chaos shuffling them for something better?

A DM who doesn't allow cheesy shuffling tricks?

I swear...so many times when people have an issue with a combo, they'll go after the completely harmless part and ignore the giant elephant in the room.

Player1: Divine Metamagic lets you apply metamagic feats for free!
Player2: Wow, that sounds stupidly broken!
Player1: Yeah, well it's balanced on the fact you have to pay 1 + [adjusted spell level] turning attempts for it. And the elemental domain turnings don't count.
Player2: Oh, yeah. I guess it'd be hard to free Quicken something more than 1-2 per day, then.
Player1: Oh, but there's these things called night sticks. They're cheap, you can stack them, and each gives +4 uses of turn undead per day.
Player2: Outrageous! That combo *is* broken!
Player1: Well, yeah.
Player2: We must ban teh Divine Metamagic!
Player1: But...what about the night sticks....? Aren't they the real source of abuse for this and countless other TU-based economies (like Ruby Knights getting many swift actions)?
Player2: Ban teh Divine Metamagics! Argh!

(Mind you, I have plenty of other problems with Divine MM, though they're largely solved by banning Persistent Spell [also stupidly broken/unbalanced, in all instances] and capping the effective level you can DMM to the highest level you can cast. Just was an example.)

[AstralFire]

That is not what the rules say. The class feature give the benefit of weapon focus, which is +1 to attacks with the chosen weapon, not the feat itself.

Whether it would be sensible to give the swordsage four to six bonus feats is irrelevant to a RAW discussion. Just a thought: If the swordsage did get those bonus feats, what's keeping him from chaos shuffling them for something better?

While this would have been clear, it is equally clear that "the benefit of a feat" is different from the feat itself.

[RAW] is not slapped on every single topic by default. RAW, you can drown yourself out of death. It is perfectly valid to give a RAI or RAMS answer on this forum unless there is reason to believe that the person only wants a strict RAW interpretation.

Arguments against rules readings that depend on Silly Tippy Tricks aren't very convincing.

[Andezzar]

I never said that shuffling the feats away is overpowered/unbalanced/banworthy/etc. I merely noted that if someone houserules Discipline focus to give bonus feats, he must also treat those feats as any other bonus feat, unless he wishes to create additional houserules.

The OP asked whether discipline focus granted bonus feats. The answer to that question is clearly no.

@Astral Fire: How is using two spells exactly as their description dictates a "silly Tippy trick"? That is like saying casting grease is a "silly Tippy trick".

Claiming that Discipline Focus grants bonus feats is in no form reading the rules. It is not in them. That is like claiming that someone letting you use his car (i.e gaining the benefit of a car) is the same as being granted a car. Claiming that you should have a car has nothing to to with the situation that you were granted access to a car.

RAW may not always be slapped on every thread, but it is the only common ground for a rules discussion over the internet. Neither of us can know the intentions of the authors, nor can we know of particular houserules any poster uses at his table unless he tells us. So we must resort to RAW unless anyone informs us of applicable houserules.

[StreamOfTheSky]

And if your friend is able to "borrow" your car 24/7, and keep it at his home at all times, and is never forced to relinquish use of it ever under any circumstance (cripes, even ranger bonus feats have clause to take them away), and has literally no way of actually giving you back "your car" even if he wanted to?

But yeah, go on with your car borrowing analogy.

[Scow2]

Any method of reading a work that assumes the work to be as inconsistent as possible whenever there is any possible doubt or ambiguity is a poor method. I am well aware of how inconsistent WotC can be, but simply assuming that they will always be inconsistent, despite clear discernible patterns and with no textual problem around that can be resolved only by treating the text as inconsistent, is simply wrong.

Further, WotC did in fact attempt to standardize many terms, as the presence of long lists of definitions like the Glossary, Monster Abilities, and Condition Summary shows, though they didn't always succeed in removing ambiguity. Throwing that out and assuming you can just read, say, "level" to be any of its dozens of slightly different forms "because Wizards didn't standardize it properly" is, again, a bad method.No, it's a poor (And overly restrictive) reading method to use strict interpretation of rules in a work that uses broad terminology and informal phrasing, leading to the mind-numbing reading-comprehension failure over in the Dysfunctional Rules thread.




And therefore, because +1 to attacks for one weapon is so weak, it is impossible to imagine a class feature that gives you nothing but +1 to attacks for many weapons?

Sorry, that's giving WotC far too much credit for consistent class feature balance. :smallyuk:Weapon Focus' benefit is not merely a +1 to attack rolls.


Whether it would be sensible to give the swordsage four to six bonus feats is irrelevant to a RAW discussion. Just a thought: If the swordsage did get those bonus feats, what's keeping him from chaos shuffling them for something better?

While this would have been clear, it is equally clear that "the benefit of a feat" is different from the feat itself.What stops you from chaos shuffling them is that they're a class feature, not individual feats, which is why it says you get the benefit of the feats, not the feats as bonus feats. You also can't use Battle Aptitude if you're a warblade/swordsage to trade the Discipline Focus weapon focus off one weapon to another.

"Treated as having" doesn't give the benefit, and only counts for purposes of prereqs. "Gains the benefit" treats you as having the feat for all intents and purposes, but they are not transferable through retraining, battle aptitude, or chaos shuffling. "Gives as a bonus feat" completely gives you the feat.

Or are you going to argue that a Fighter's proficiencies don't qualify him for things that require weapon proficiency in a specific martial weapon?

[AstralFire]

If you're having to get to this degree of precise linguistic parsing to prove your point, it's not 'clearly' anything.

The usual benefits of having 'RAW' as a basis are either to engage in thought exercise, or to make discussion compatible with the most possible campaigns.¹ Those are the only reasons for which 'house rules' are distinguished from the game as a whole in this type of discussion. Engaging in precise literalistic parsing² does nothing to aid compatibility, as many tables do not engage in that level of precise literalism.

Now, if you want to continue discussing what hyperliteral RAW on the subject is, go right ahead; no one's going to stop you. But RAI and RAMS are valid answers to this kind of broad question whenever RAW isn't particularly clear.

'Dark Chaos Shuffle' is a Silly Tippy Trick because it's an extremely game-changing combination found in a setting-oriented supplemental book, and it mostly seems to be allowed in games which are tending towards high-Op play to begin with.

Supplemental books consider mechanically interacting with core first, other mechanical supplements second, supplemental setting books last. These books were designed mostly independently of each other and don't consider one another that much in design. Arguing for a specific reading in a supplement based on a conflict with Core makes sense; with 'extended core' like Completes, XPH and PHBII, less sense, but still reasonable; with setting books, not at all.

¹ And in both cases, RAW is frequently waived on a few points to begin with, such as multiclassing penalties.
² I wouldn't even call it legalistic parsing; law is frequently based on interpretation of intent.

[Andezzar]

Weapon Focus' benefit is not merely a +1 to attack rolls.That is exactly the extent of the benefit:
Benefit

You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.Nothing more and nothing less.
Qualifying for other feats is not part of the benefit of the feat but an effect of having the feat.


What stops you from chaos shuffling them is that they're a class feature, not individual feats, which is why it says you get the benefit of the feats, not the feats as bonus feats. You also can't use Battle Aptitude if you're a warblade/swordsage to trade the Discipline Focus weapon focus off one weapon to another.Some people have claimed that the class feature grants bonus feats just like the ranger combat style class feature or the Elf traits. If the class feature did grant bonus feats they would have to be handled as any other bonus feat i.e. they could be shuffled away.


"Treated as having" doesn't give the benefit, and only counts for purposes of prereqs.Where do you get that? If you have/count as having a certain feat you can use it unless you do not fulfill the prerequisites of that feat.

"Gains the benefit" treats you as having the feat for all intents and purposes, but they are not transferable through retraining, battle aptitude, or chaos shuffling.That has no basis in the rules whatsoever. This is simply opinion. There is no rule in Embrace/Shun the dark Chaos or anywhere else that disallows shuffling feats granted through Dark Chaos shuffle. You are not even touching the class feature, you are trading the feat granted through the class feature.


"Gives as a bonus feat" completely gives you the feat.Agreed.


Or are you going to argue that a Fighter's proficiencies don't qualify him for things that require weapon proficiency in a specific martial weapon?How did you come to that conclusion? If you have martial weapon proficiencies you have martial weapon proficiencies. If however some ability would grant you the benefit of a martial weapon proficiency (i.e. the waiving of the -4 modifier due to being non-proficient) instead of martial weapon proficiency, this ability would not fulfill any prerequisite that calls for martial weapon proficiency.


Now, if you want to continue discussing what hyperliteral RAW on the subject is, go right ahead; no one's going to stop you. But RAI and RAMS are valid answers to this kind of broad question whenever RAW isn't particularly clear.RAW is clear, it simply is not what you would like it to be, IMHO. Suspected RAI and RAMS are valid answers as long as they are not postulated as RAW.
BTW how does granting 4-6 bonus feats make more sense than granting +1 on attacks with 4-6 weapons? The former is more powerful, but it does not make any more sense.


'Dark Chaos Shuffle' is a Silly Tippy Trick because it's an extremely game-changing combination found in a setting-oriented supplemental book, and it mostly seems to be allowed in games which are tending towards high-Op play to begin with.How is that different from using Grease instead of Magic Missile at level 1? or all the other powerful options in the PHB?
Also if shuffling feats were not one of the intended uses of Embrace/shun the dark chaos, the writers could simply have not given the option to add/remove abyssal heritor feats through those spells, and restrict that function to wish/miracle.


Supplemental books consider mechanically interacting with core first, other mechanical supplements second, supplemental setting books last. These books were designed mostly independently of each other and don't consider one another that much in design. Arguing for a specific reading in a supplement based on a conflict with Core makes sense; with 'extended core' like Completes, XPH and PHBII, less sense, but still reasonable; with setting books, not at all.While (nearly) all books except the three core books are written to be used without other supplemental books that does not mean you couldn't or shouldn't use more than the core books and one supplement. You can just as well use any and all books. When you do not use a particular book some option do not become available. This does not change the ramifications of saying that Discipline focus grants 4-6 bonus feats.

The OP asked whether discipline focus counts as granting certain feats. He did not ask whether the class feature should count as granting those feats. It would probably make sense to let the class feature count as the 4-6 feat for the purpose of fulfilling prerequisites, but that was not the question nor is it in the rules.

IMHO it makes no sense at all to dish out 4-6 feats.


And if your friend is able to "borrow" your car 24/7, and keep it at his home at all times, and is never forced to relinquish use of it ever under any circumstance (cripes, even ranger bonus feats have clause to take them away), and has literally no way of actually giving you back "your car" even if he wanted to?He still could not sell the car and would still have to reimburse the owner if he wrecked it. That is decideldy different from owning the car.

[Talya]

That is not what the rules say.
Yes, it is precisely and explicitly what it says. You gain the benefit of the weapon focus feat. That explicitly and directly says you have the weapon focus feat. Any reading of English here says you have the weapon focus feat. Anything else is wrong. You don't have a leg to stand on here, and are basically making a "black is white" argument.

And it can't stack with the weapon focus feat, because you can't take the weapon focus feat multiple times for the same weapon.

[Andezzar]

Yes, it is precisely and explicitly what it says. You gain the benefit of the weapon focus feat. That explicitly and directly says you have the weapon focus feat. Any reading of English here says you have the weapon focus feat. Anything else is wrong. You don't have a leg to stand on here, and are basically making a "black is white" argument.That is wrong. You gain the benefit of the feat, not the feat itself. The benefit is clearly defined as +1 to attacks with the chosen weapon. If you say "+1 with a chosen weapon" is the same as having weapon focus (chosen weapon) then we can have no discussion. Just think about what this reading would entail. Any unnamed bonus to attack would count as having weapon focus. That is nonsense.

BTW in what reading of English is "the A of B" the same as the B?

If the class feature granted the feats the rules would say: "You gain weapon focus with any preferred weapon of your chosen as a bonus feat." The part "as a bonus feat" is not strictly necessary. The important part is that you gain the feat and not only its benefit.


And it can't stack with the weapon focus feat, because you can't take the weapon focus feat multiple times for the same weapon.I agree, but discipline focus does not grant the feat weapon focus, it grants the benefit of weapon focus which is +1 to attacks with the chosen weapon.

[Deophaun]

You gave no other reasoning for why Discipline Focus should be read to grant full Weapon Focus, so I figured that's more or less what you thought was the reason: WF is too small to not be granted in full in any well-designed class [that mentions it at all].
Go and read the part that I quoted in my original post. I'll give you some time.



Back yet? Good.

Now, quiz time: What point was I responding to? Is it:
A) By RAW, Discipline Focus does not let you qualify for things that require WF as a prerequisite.
B) TuggyNE is awesome and right.
C) As Weapon Focus is a feat, giving it as a bonus alongside other good class features is too powerful.
D) Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons.

If you answered "C," congratulations. You can go and edit your posts to delete any reference to mine.

If you answered anything else, Reading Comprehension 101 is down the hall to your left.

[bekeleven]

Your standard feat has a couple of sections:

Name [Type]
Description
Prerequisite List...
Benefit Info
Normal Info
Special Info


Name: The name of the feat.
Type(s): Generally qualified with text under "Special", but these sort feats into general groupings that deal with how they interact with races, classes, or other feats.
Description: A short fluff piece on the effects of the feat.
Prerequisite: Requirements for gaining the benefits of the feat. If at any time a player loses the prerequisites, they are unable to use the feat. RAW, this does not mean the person no longer has the feat, which (by my reading - feel free to correct) lets a person qualify for a second feat using it.
Benefit: The reason a person took the feat. This is the mechanical benefit to having taken the feat. It specifies how your character's gameplay changes once the feat is taken.
Normal: Clarifying text about how the rules work when a character lacks the feat. Generally used with complicated edge cases, or with feats in the PHB, where readers were assumed to have less grasp on the rules.
Special: Further clarifying text, or special information about how the feat interacts with certain mechanics, other feats, or class features. Generally used to explain the type descriptors.



...Back to the swordsage.

Let's review some of the objections to Tuggy's interpretation.

The thesis: "benefit" means "Benefit" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16433207&postcount=3).

Objection 1: Benefit means whole feat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16433322&postcount=4).
Rebuttal: no, "Whole Feat" means "Whole Feat" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16433487&postcount=7).
Response: Let's assume that instead of writing extremely common boilerplate text to mean the extremely common class feature "bonus feat", they wrote text that means something different, just to mix it up a little. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16433528&postcount=8)

Objection 2: It would be cooler if it meant "whole feat." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16433951&postcount=11)
Rebuttal: Unfortunately, it does not. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16434277&postcount=14)

Objection 3: Your reading potentially has a rules ambiguity! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16434340&postcount=16)
Rebuttal: Lots of things have rules ambiguities. Remember the factotum? Mounted mechanics as a whole? Unarmed attacks as a whole? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16434611&postcount=19)
Response: Therefore your reading is wrong. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16435123&postcount=23)

Objection 4: They're pretty similar, so just forget about it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16435215&postcount=25)
Rebuttal: But we're discussing the areas in which they're different. The difference can be major in some circumstances. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16435281&postcount=26)
Response: If we houserule them to be identical, then we're right. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16435308&postcount=27)
Response 2: Also we're not discussing RAW anymore. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16435388&postcount=28)

Objection 5: If you have the "benefits" of something like a car, then don't you have the car in all but name? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16435472&postcount=30)
Rebuttal: Let's consider what uses car ownership as a prerequisite. If the car is damaged, do you get the insurance payout? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16435666&postcount=33)

Objection 6: In an effort to prove that "benefit" is not a game term, I'm defining the term "gains the benefit" using special rules that I made up just now but apply retroactively. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16435478&postcount=31)
Rebuttal: Huh? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16435666&postcount=33)

Objection 7: I want the other stuff, which makes it a benefit. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16435779&postcount=34)
Rebuttal: If that were what they meant, it would have been fewer words to say that the standard way. Also, see objection 1. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16435849&postcount=35)
Side note: If there are two characters, one of which requires a low caster level for a build and the other of which requires a high caster level for a build, and both of them take a class feature that grants "the benefits of the mage slayer feat", whose caster level does what?

There was also Deophaun and Tuggy's discussion which, if I'm reading Deophaun correctly, was not related to the topic at hand. Are there any other relevant insights I missed?

[shadow_archmagi]

If I were a pedant, I'd say yeah, benefit probably means Benefit, and it isn't a prereq. But I'm a pretty friendly, easygoing DM, so screw RAW, I'd totally let my players use it as a prereq.

[AstralFire]

To paraphrase: "We're not discussing RAW anymore?"
Rebuttal: My initial response was never about "rules as written", because "rules as written" is not particularly helpful here. There's not really a clear and satisfactory answer as to why they would choose to use the labeling "gains the benefit of" rather than simply "gains a +1 bonus to" if they intended only the latter effect.

This is a bloody literal-mindedness useful only for winning arguments and thought exercises (if that) and not actually for providing helpful responses for play. RAW discussion often IS about providing helpful responses to play, but when the rules themselves point out a potential issue of intent on a casual reading, we are out of the sole province of RAW.

Regarding the Dark Chaos Shuffle: At no point have I made any argument that those two spells are being used in an unintended fashion.

I'm pointing out that expecting a non-core supplement written independently, four months prior to the release of the book which has DCS, to have been written with concern for abuse with Embrace/Shun Dark Chaos (itself a tactic that doesn't find its way into many games) is unreasonable.

Expecting a supplement to have been written with the balance of Grease in mind, on the other hand, is reasonable.

[Ragnorrok]

Alright children stop fighting. After discussion with the player we decided for now that it does not count as it just the benefits and not the feat itself, but since it isn't the feat itself it can stack (not that that was the purpose of this in the first place).

[StreamOfTheSky]

A fighter gains Simple Weapon Proficiency with all simple weapons, Martial Weapon Proficiency with all martial weapons, Light Armor Proficiency, Medium Armor Proficiency, Heavy Armor Proficiency, Shield Proficiency, and Tower Proficiency.

All right at level 1! On top of its actual open "bonus feat"!

That's a lot of feats to Dark Chaos Shuffle away from better things. So by the completely flawless logic of "anything that works really well with feat shuffling is overpowered", clearly Fighter is a completely broken class.

No doubt, it's the Fighter part of the "Fighter + DCS" combo that is the problem. My logic is beyond reproach, take heed, mortals. We must nerf the Fighter, how dare it destroy game balance so badly!


After discussion with the player we decided for now that it does not count as it just the benefits and not the feat itself, but since it isn't the feat itself it can stack (not that that was the purpose of this in the first place).

Indeed, that is the only sensible conclusion if you follow Tuggy's rationale.

Even so, if all it is doing is giving you +1 attack with discipline weapons... why didn't they just say, "You get a +1 attack bonus with all discipline weapons of the chosen discipline"? Why bring up Weapon Focus at all?

[bekeleven]

A fighter gains Simple Weapon Proficiency with all simple weapons, Martial Weapon Proficiency with all martial weapons, Light Armor Proficiency, Medium Armor Proficiency, Heavy Armor Proficiency, Shield Proficiency, and Tower Proficiency.

All right at level 1! On top of its actual open "bonus feat"!

That's a lot of feats to Dark Chaos Shuffle away from better things. So by the completely flawless logic of "anything that works really well with feat shuffling is overpowered", clearly Fighter is a completely broken class.
Pedantry follows:

While I agree with the core message of your statement, I've also never seen people try to trade away these proficiencies because nobody is sure how many feats proficiencies are. Exotic is easy, sure. Martial tends to be piecemeal, including the feat in the PHB that a wizard can take (for example), but fighters gain all martials past and future. This can be seen as internally self-consistent - Fighters just get more feats based on what books are in play - but then the commoner comes along.

As you know, simple weapon proficiency - all of it - is a single feat. It's right there in the PHB/SRD:


Simple Weapon Proficiency [General]
Benefit

You make attack rolls with simple weapons normally.

So how are commoners proficient with "one simple weapon"? It's not even possible by the rules of the feat system.

There are two ways. The first way is if there's a feat called "Single Simple Weapon Proficiency" and the commoners get it. This, of course, is not RAW but it's a reasonable take. The only other way it's possible is if we decide that commoner's weapon proficiencies are gained outside of the feat system - which can also work, since feats are never specifically invoked in the proficiencies text block. It suggests that proficiencies can be, but don't have to be, feats. They can also be class features. If they can be racial features as well (I'm making no call), then this ruins the elf DCFS trick.

Then, for the purposes of consistency and that elusive beast known as "Making sense", we have to apply this to class proficiencies of other classes.

TLDR: It's possible (reasonable?) to argue that weapon proficiencies are not feats unless stated to be feats.

[Scow2]

To paraphrase: "We're not discussing RAW anymore?"
Rebuttal: My initial response was never about "rules as written", because "rules as written" is not particularly helpful here. There's not really a clear and satisfactory answer as to why they would choose to use the labeling "gains the benefit of" rather than simply "gains a +1 bonus to" if they intended only the latter effect.
This is my interpretation. Whenever I see Weapon Focus mentioned in the game or text, it's never simply treated as a +1 to attack rolls with that weapon. It's more like the patron/sacred vow feats from the BoED - sure the "benefit" is a meaningless bonus to a roll you're likely to forget about. But it represents a focus with that weapon that isn't mathematically reflected beyond the +1. It's kind of like a 'certificate' feat.

Discipline Focus does not give Weapon Focus as a bonus feat, though it counts as such. While the authors didn't have the Chaos Shuffle in mind when writing the feat, they likely did have Battle Aptitude in mind. Giving Weapon Focus as a bonus feat would have allowed a multiclass Swordsage/Warblade to reshuffle the weapon focuses in a way they didn't want to happen - So, they had to give Swordsages the feat's benefits without giving them the feat.

If they wanted to give a Swordsage a +1 to hit with weapon disciplines without counting as Weapon Focus, they wouldn't have mentioned Weapon Focus at all, and merely said "A swordsage gets a +1 to attack rolls with all weapons in the discipline."

[TuggyNE]

But Tuggy, Weapon Focus grants an untyped bonus. Untyped bonuses always stack, unless they are from the same source.

So...would you care to change your answer now? Or would you like to declare that in both instances the swordsage is getting the +1 from the same source?

I already said, and meant, that they're from the same source. "Benefit of X" and "X" itself do not, of course, stack unless they explicitly say they do.

Give me a little credit for having thought this through, OK? I'm not completely stupid, even if I do disagree with you, a thing which only stupid people normally do.


I don't agree with this. Weapon Focus for a variety of weapons is not nearly as useful as it appears to be. You can only wield a limited number of weapons, and the vast majority of melee characters only wield one weapon at a time. Being able to switch from a dagger to a shortsword is almost mechanically insignificant (+1 average damage for the shortsword). Weapon Focus is so weak that even when you grant it for multiple weapons, it's still just as weak.

Partially agreed; WF is pretty weak, and WF for several weapons is only marginally stronger. However, it is not so weak as to be literally so useless that it is impossible to imagine any sane person considering that a class feature. As such, it just seems like it's a kind of lame class feature that doesn't do a whole lot.


If you're having to get to this degree of precise linguistic parsing to prove your point, it's not 'clearly' anything.

The usual benefits of having 'RAW' as a basis are either to engage in thought exercise, or to make discussion compatible with the most possible campaigns.¹ Those are the only reasons for which 'house rules' are distinguished from the game as a whole in this type of discussion. Engaging in precise literalistic parsing² does nothing to aid compatibility, as many tables do not engage in that level of precise literalism.

Hmm. My own philosophy is that I wish to know what RAW says first, so that I can then throw it out and get on with a good-sense replacement as needed. But if I don't know what RAW says, I am less confident that my replacement is needed, or will function correctly.

I have to admit, though, that figuring out precise correctness in a disputed situation is rather tempting. :smallyuk:


Go and read the part that I quoted in my original post. I'll give you some time.



Back yet? Good.

Now, quiz time: What point was I responding to? Is it:
A) By RAW, Discipline Focus does not let you qualify for things that require WF as a prerequisite.
B) TuggyNE is awesome and right.
C) As Weapon Focus is a feat, giving it as a bonus alongside other good class features is too powerful.
D) Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons.

E) None of the above; Red Fel was saying "Discipline Focus is a lot more powerful than taking Weapon Focus" (debatable; it is certainly a little more powerful for its nominal benefit, and doesn't take a feat slot), and did not attempt to argue that it was "too" powerful to be granted, only that it was not too weak to be granted. Disagreeing with that, naturally, seems to indicate an opinion that it is indeed too weak to be granted as written and should be read as strongly as possible.


Discipline Focus does not give Weapon Focus as a bonus feat, though it counts as such. While the authors didn't have the Chaos Shuffle in mind when writing the feat, they likely did have Battle Aptitude in mind. Giving Weapon Focus as a bonus feat would have allowed a multiclass Swordsage/Warblade to reshuffle the weapon focuses in a way they didn't want to happen - So, they had to give Swordsages the feat's benefits without giving them the feat.

If they wanted to give a Swordsage a +1 to hit with weapon disciplines without counting as Weapon Focus, they wouldn't have mentioned Weapon Focus at all, and merely said "A swordsage gets a +1 to attack rolls with all weapons in the discipline."

An interesting idea, but there's a problem: if they'd used your suggested wording, it would stack with Weapon Focus, which they may not have desired. It's undecidable whether they wished to avoid WF stacking, or Weapon Aptitude shuffling, or neither, or both.

It's also not entirely clear to me whether Weapon Aptitude would allow a Warblade to switch around feats gained by "you are treated as having" wording; it seems quite possible it would not, and such language unambiguously qualifies for prereqs. If so, then it seems plain that the only functional reason for the wording actually used is as I've previously indicated: they wished to give +1 to certain weapons without stacking with Weapon Focus.

[Scow2]

An interesting idea, but there's a problem: if they'd used your suggested wording, it would stack with Weapon Focus, which they may not have desired. It's undecidable whether they wished to avoid WF stacking, or Weapon Aptitude shuffling, or neither, or both.

It's also not entirely clear to me whether Weapon Aptitude would allow a Warblade to switch around feats gained by "you are treated as having" wording; it seems quite possible it would not, and such language unambiguously qualifies for prereqs. If so, then it seems plain that the only functional reason for the wording actually used is as I've previously indicated: they wished to give +1 to certain weapons without stacking with Weapon Focus.They could have used "You are treated as having".

"Is treated a having" is language that appears in feats and class features like Expeditious/Midnight Dodge and Evasive Reflexes, allowing the feat/class feature to count as another feat for the purpose of prerequisites without giving the benefit of the feat. The most precise language would have been "Gain the benefits of Weapon Focus for the selected weapons and be treated as having Weapon Focus for the weapons." which would be extremely wordy and clunky to anyone short of a GiantitP 3.5 Rules Pedant. "Gain the benefits" should be enough to work.

I can't imagine any sane game designer wanting the ability to not stack with Weapon Focus while also not counting as Weapon Focus, which would force someone to take a completely useless feat to meet the prereqs for someone.

[Red Fel]

E) None of the above; Red Fel was saying "Discipline Focus is a lot more powerful than taking Weapon Focus" (debatable; it is certainly a little more powerful for its nominal benefit, and doesn't take a feat slot), and did not attempt to argue that it was "too" powerful to be granted, only that it was not too weak to be granted. Disagreeing with that, naturally, seems to indicate an opinion that it is indeed too weak to be granted as written and should be read as strongly as possible.

Technically, I was saying that Discipline Focus plus everything else you get at Swordsage 1 is a lot more powerful than taking Weapon Focus, and I stand by that statement. The fact is, Weapon Focus can be taken anytime you can take a feat; Discipline Focus can only be taken as part of Swordsage 1 (barring any shenanigans that let you take a class feature from another class), and should therefore be considered not in a vacuum, but in addition to those features provided by that level dip.

Look at it this way. A Fighter 2 has just reached third level. He can either take Fighter 3 and take Weapon Focus as his third-level feat, or take Swordsage 1, receive Discipline Focus, Quick to Act +1, and maneuvers, as well as his third-level feat. (He also loses out on +1 BAB, but gains +1 Ref and Will more than he would have.) I don't think it's far-fetched to argue that the level of Swordsage is worth substantially more.

Discipline Focus is slightly more powerful than Weapon Focus, but must be considered as part of the greater whole (Swordsage: The Class) of which it is merely a single feature.

[Deophaun]

E) None of the above; Red Fel was saying "Discipline Focus is a lot more powerful than taking Weapon Focus" (debatable; it is certainly a little more powerful for its nominal benefit, and doesn't take a feat slot), and did not attempt to argue that it was "too" powerful to be granted, only that it was not too weak to be granted. Disagreeing with that, naturally, seems to indicate an opinion that it is indeed too weak to be granted as written and should be read as strongly as possible.

Technically, I was saying that Discipline Focus plus everything else you get at Swordsage 1 is a lot more powerful than taking Weapon Focus, and I stand by that statement. The fact is, Weapon Focus can be taken anytime you can take a feat; Discipline Focus can only be taken as part of Swordsage 1 (barring any shenanigans that let you take a class feature from another class), and should therefore be considered not in a vacuum, but in addition to those features provided by that level dip.
Remedial Reading Comprehension is held in the cafeteria of the local grade school.

[Andezzar]

I already said, and meant, that they're from the same source. "Benefit of X" and "X" itself do not, of course, stack unless they explicitly say they do.Where do you get that? One source is the feat Weapon Focus the other is the Class Feature Discipline Focus. Not only are those different sources, they are not even the same type of sources (feat vs. class feature)


An interesting idea, but there's a problem: if they'd used your suggested wording, it would stack with Weapon Focus, which they may not have desired. It's undecidable whether they wished to avoid WF stacking, or Weapon Aptitude shuffling, or neither, or both.This could have been achieved by adding "This class feature counts as Weapon Focus for the purpose of fulfilling prerequisites" and/or "this bonus does not stack with weapon focus".

[Scow2]

This could have been achieved by adding "This class feature counts as Weapon Focus for the purpose of fulfilling prerequisites" and/or "this bonus does not stack with weapon focus".Which leads to "Weapon Focus" being used twice in the same sentence and leading to a really redundant phrasing.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I already said, and meant, that they're from the same source. "Benefit of X" and "X" itself do not, of course, stack unless they explicitly say they do.

Right. They're the same source - the Weapon Focus feat.

The swordsage has the same source, twice. IE, he has the feat.

But hey, let's see what the feat itself says about stacking with itself, under the "Special" entry:


You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

Notice the bolded parts? It does not allow you to *take* or *gain* the feat on the same weapon multiple times. It is possessing the feat that stops you from getting it again and gaining its effect again.
If the swordsage cannot take Weapon Focus (dagger) and get another +1 to hit with it on top of his Weapon Focus (Shadow Hand), it is because he has already gained/taken the Weapon Focus feat.


Give me a little credit for having thought this through, OK? I'm not completely stupid, even if I do disagree with you, a thing which only stupid people normally do.

Yeah, I usually am in agreement with you on everything. Makes this current impasse particularly jarring.

[TuggyNE]

Where do you get that? One source is the feat Weapon Focus the other is the Class Feature Discipline Focus. Not only are those different sources, they are not even the same type of sources (feat vs. class feature)

Not exactly; one source is Weapon Focus and the benefit thereof, the other is … the benefit of Weapon Focus. And, since those are the same, they won't stack.

Same as if you got Endurance as a bonus feat from race and class (desert orc + ranger); just because you got the feat from different sources doesn't mean they'll stack, because the source, in context, is actually the feat itself.


Notice the bolded parts? It does not allow you to *take* or *gain* the feat on the same weapon multiple times. It is possessing the feat that stops you from getting it again and gaining its effect again.
If the swordsage cannot take Weapon Focus (dagger) and get another +1 to hit with it on top of his Weapon Focus (Shadow Hand), it is because he has already gained/taken the Weapon Focus feat.

Oh, you could certainly take WF: Dagger again (because you don't have the feat, only the benefit thereof), and even use it for prereqs. But they wouldn't stack. Not because of the specific language in the feat, but because feats explicitly do not stack with themselves unless they say they do.


Yeah, I usually am in agreement with you on everything. Makes this current impasse particularly jarring.

Suffice to say that reasonable people can disagree on this; the feature is not well-written, even if I do think the correct meaning can be deduced with difficulty. This is not a topic to go around slinging accusations of poor reading comprehension. *cough*

[Draz74]

If I were a pedant, I'd say yeah, benefit probably means Benefit, and it isn't a prereq. But I'm a pretty friendly, easygoing DM, so screw RAW, I'd totally let my players use it as a prereq.
Good job stating my opinion before I offered it, shadow_archmagi. :smallwink:


A fighter gains Simple Weapon Proficiency with all simple weapons, Martial Weapon Proficiency with all martial weapons, Light Armor Proficiency, Medium Armor Proficiency, Heavy Armor Proficiency, Shield Proficiency, and Tower Proficiency.

All right at level 1! On top of its actual open "bonus feat"!

That's a lot of feats to Dark Chaos Shuffle away from better things. So by the completely flawless logic of "anything that works really well with feat shuffling is overpowered", clearly Fighter is a completely broken class.
I understand that you're writing this as a satirical strawman intentionally, but it still bugs me that this strawman really doesn't apply at all.

"Proficiency with all martial weapons" is not "Martial Weapon Proficiency (capitalized) with all martial weapons." One is not a feat at all, and can't be traded with DCS no matter what. The other is the crapload of feats that you went on to ridicule.

Basically, using the Elf race would have served your strawman better.


Indeed, that is the only sensible conclusion if you follow Tuggy's rationale.
No, the other sensible conclusion is that it doesn't stack.


Even so, if all it is doing is giving you +1 attack with discipline weapons... why didn't they just say, "You get a +1 attack bonus with all discipline weapons of the chosen discipline"? Why bring up Weapon Focus at all?

Because they didn't intend for it to stack. :smalltongue:

To repeat what I wrote in the beginning: the Swordsage feature should count for prerequisites. That makes the feature non-useless, and well-balanced (since it's still not a feat and therefore can't be used for e.g. DCS). And makes the class much more fun.

But pedantically, I think the "benefit of Weapon Focus" was intended only to duplicate the "Benefit" section of the feat description, and that the purpose of mentioning Weapon Focus was just to prevent stacking.

[Andezzar]

Not exactly; one source is Weapon Focus and the benefit thereof, the other is … the benefit of Weapon Focus. And, since those are the same, they won't stack.So you are saying that "A of B" is equal to "B". I cannot agree with that.


Same as if you got Endurance as a bonus feat from race and class (desert orc + ranger); just because you got the feat from different sources doesn't mean they'll stack, because the source, in context, is actually the feat itself.That is not the same. In this case the orc does get the feat twice. They do not stack, because feats do not stack unless so stated.
Endurance: Desert orcs gain Endurance as a racial bonus feat.

A ranger gains Endurance as a bonus feat at 3rd level.

The swordsage who choses weapon focus gets the feat once and once the benefit of the feat (+1 to attacks with the chosen weapon) the source of this benefit is not the weapon focus feat but the class ability called Discipline Focus.

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.So it does not matter how often you gain the benefit of the feat, what precludes stacking is possessing the feat more than once.

[TuggyNE]

That is not the same. In this case the orc does get the feat twice. They do not stack, because feats do not stack unless so stated.

Indeed. My point was, they get the feat, and the benefit of the feat, twice from different "sources", but once they get it all that matters is that the source is the feat itself. Also, you know what the wording of that rule is?


If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

[Andezzar]

It hinges on whether gaining the benefits of a feat is the same as gaining the feat itself. No one has can prove that those indeed are the same (because the wording is different) and no one has proven yet that the different wordings are equivalent.

Let's try another analogy: You gain a 20$ bill (let's say serial number 1234) or get 20$ wired to your bank account which you withdraw. In both cases you gain the same benefit (being able to spend 20$), but obviously since they are not the same these stack. If on the other hand you would receive another bill with the same serial number, those would not stack because they indeed are the same (or more correctly one of them is fake because there are no to bills with the same serial number).

[Draz74]

Better analogy:

You are waiting for the deed to a piece of inherited property to come in the mail. Obviously, since there is only one copy of the property, there is no purpose to having more than one copy of the deed.

You go to the post office and order the deed to be shipped to you. You specify the packaging hardware and pay the shipping fee.

However, when you get home, there is a delivery boy waiting on your doorstep, who hand-delivers you another (legal) copy of the deed. When your package arrives, you have two copies of the deed, which is absolutely no better than one copy.

The packaging material is the "Feat." The delivery boy is the Swordsage class, delivering a class feature.

[Andezzar]

How does that analogy contradict mine?

The postal service delivers the feat, the delivery boy delivers the class feature. The class feature does not include the feat, it only includes the benefit of the feat. Qualifying for other feats/abilities/classes is not part of said benefit but part of having the feat, which the swordsage does not.

Going with the initial image, the original deed (i.e. paper and ink) is the feat, the copy is the class feature (different paper and ink). Both provide the same benefit (whatever is written on the paper with the ink), but if anyone required you to provide the deed, you would have to provide the original and not a copy unless some rule or law would state that the original can be substituted by a copy (the concept of certified copies). Such a rule does not exist for the class feature.

Since you keep saying that the benefit of a feat is the same as the feat itself, what happens if someone with weapon focus (dagger) attacks with a +1 aptitude dagger? does he get a +1 unnamed bonus in addition to the +1 unnamed bonus from weapon focus? Both provide an unnamed bonus to attack rolls with the dagger. I.e. it is the same benefit. If the benefit of a feat is the same as the feat itself, those should not stack, because feats do not stack with themselves. Obviously the sources are different, and thus the bonuses should stack, just as the Feat and the Class Feature are different sources.

The relevant rule:
In addition, if any of the wielder’s weapon use feats are specifically keyed to the aptitude weapon’s type, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls. says nothing about stacking so the default rule (unnamed bonuses stack unless they come from the same source) should apply.

[TuggyNE]

I noticed something unfortunate about the wording I quoted: while it's quite clear that benefits aren't supposed to stack, it phrases this after an unneeded conditional that makes it useless, in a pedantic sort of way. What this means is that technically, Discipline Focus stacks with Weapon Focus unless you have Weapon Focus twice, even if for different weapons, at which point it suddenly stops stacking.

I can't imagine anyone playing it with such absurd literalism, but hey, there it is: the only RAW-valid counterargument I've so far seen for what I've said. Consider this one on the house. :smalltongue:


How does that analogy contradict mine?[snip]

These analogies don't seem to be helping anymore.


Since you keep saying that the benefit of a feat is the same as the feat itself, what happens if someone with weapon focus (dagger) attacks with a +1 aptitude dagger? does he get a +1 unnamed bonus in addition to the +1 unnamed bonus from weapon focus? Both provide an unnamed bonus to attack rolls with the dagger. I.e. it is the same benefit.

No, they're not the same benefit, because they are nowhere equated, despite being coincidentally the same bonus amount for attacks. They're especially not the same benefit because one gives +1 damage and the other does not.

[Andezzar]

No, they're not the same benefit, because they are nowhere equated, despite being coincidentally the same bonus amount for attacks. They're especially not the same benefit because one gives +1 damage and the other does not.So you are saying things can provide numerically identical bonuses but still be different items because they named differently, yet you claim that the differently named items "Weapon Focus" and "the benefit of Weapon Focus" are to be considered identical? I am confused, I see no logic in that.

[TuggyNE]

So you are saying things can provide numerically identical bonuses but still be different items because they named differently, yet you claim that the differently named items "Weapon Focus" and "the benefit of Weapon Focus" are to be considered identical? I am confused, I see no logic in that.

No. I'm claiming that Weapon Focus's benefit cannot stack with Weapon Focus's benefit. Nothing more or less.

[Andezzar]

No. I'm claiming that Weapon Focus's benefit cannot stack with Weapon Focus's benefit. Nothing more or less.That is not stated in the rules. The rules state that if you gain a Feat a second time the benefits of both feats do not stack with each other. There is no specific rule telling us what happens if you gain the benefits of the feat twice without gaining the Feat itself twice, thus the default stacking rules apply. This is the case when you have the Class Feature Discipline focus, which provides the benefit of weapon focus (i.e. +1 to attacks with the chosen weapons), but not the Feat itself and acquire the feat weapon focus, or the other way around. Now you have one feat and two instances of the benefit of weapon focus (i.e. +1 to attacks with the chosen weapon).


If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.For the rule (non-stacking benefits) to apply, the underlined condition of having the feat more than once must be met. With the combination of the Class Feature Discipline Focus and the Feat that condition is not met because the character only has one feat. The other cases (e.g. Desert Orc Ranger 3) explicitly provide two feats.

[Scow2]

How does that analogy contradict mine?

The postal service delivers the feat, the delivery boy delivers the class feature. The class feature does not include the feat, it only includes the benefit of the feat. Qualifying for other feats/abilities/classes is not part of said benefit but part of having the feat, which the swordsage does not.

Going with the initial image, the original deed (i.e. paper and ink) is the feat, the copy is the class feature (different paper and ink). Both provide the same benefit (whatever is written on the paper with the ink), but if anyone required you to provide the deed, you would have to provide the original and not a copy unless some rule or law would state that the original can be substituted by a copy (the concept of certified copies). Such a rule does not exist for the class feature.
The difference is that you have the same amount of land both ways. You have a deed for, say, a 20-acre plot of land. You get the deed twice through different means (Or you get two different deeds for the same plot of land, recognized/validated by different sources). You still only have one 20-acre plot of land. You don't suddenly get a 40-acre plot of land.


For the rule (non-stacking benefits) to apply, the underlined condition of having the feat more than once must be met. With the combination of the Class Feature Discipline Focus and the Feat that condition is not met because the character only has one feat. The other cases (e.g. Desert Orc Ranger 3) explicitly provide two feats.
The secondary clause is the rule. The first is an example in which the secondary clause applies.

[Andezzar]

The difference is that you have the same amount of land both ways. You have a deed for, say, a 20-acre plot of land. You get the deed twice through different means (Or you get two different deeds for the same plot of land, recognized/validated by different sources). You still only have one 20-acre plot of land. You don't suddenly get a 40-acre plot of land.Yes, but with that interpretation the analogy has nothing to do with discipline focus or the rules about feat stacking. The rules do not say that the benefits of a feat never stack. They say that they don't stack if and only if the character possesses the feat which provides that benefit more than once.


The secondary clause is the rule. The first is an example in which the secondary clause applies.I don't quite know what you are trying to say. The subordinate clause starting with "If" clearly denotes the condition which must be met for the main clause to apply. "If" indicates a condition not an example.

For basic reading comprehension: "if it rains, I don't go outside." does not mean "I never go outside."

[bekeleven]

There is no specific rule telling us what happens if you gain the benefits of the feat twice without gaining the Feat itself twice, thus the default stacking rules apply.
Well, OK then.

Stacking

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.

[Andezzar]

You underlined the wrong part. The applicable part is "modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all)". Both modifiers don't have a type and come from different sources. One source is the Feat weapon Focus the other is the Class Feature Discipline Focus.

[Talya]

The benefit Discipline Focus gives you is the Weapon Focus feat, individually, for all weapons in the school chosen. This is explicitly stated and requires no inference or interpretation. This is basic English. If you gain the benefit of a tax break, you get the tax break. If you gain the benefit of a ruling in a sporting event, there was the ruling. If you gain the benefit of a feat, you hae the feat.

Period. There's no debate here. You are arguing that black is white. You're wrong.

[ArcturusV]

If that was the case, why wouldn't they have language like say, the monk's "either improved grab or stunning fist as a bonus feat". Or something like the ranger's "is treated as having the rapid shot feat", as opposed to this "you get the benefit of..." language?

[Scow2]

If that was the case, why wouldn't they have language like say, the monk's "either improved grab or stunning fist as a bonus feat". Or something like the ranger's "is treated as having the rapid shot feat", as opposed to this "you get the benefit of..." language?
They don't use the 'bonus feat' language or any other language that allows Weapon Focus with specific weapons to prevent a Swordsage/Warblade from shuffling the Weapon Focus feats around, among other similar reasons.

[Draz74]

How does that analogy contradict mine?
Apparently I shouldn't try to argue via analogies late at night. My judgment of what will be helpful is lacking at that time.

My intended point was: Your analogy seemed to be operating under the assumption that a feat has some inherent benefit, besides its Benefit. I was arguing that a feat is merely a package that a Benefit comes in.


Since you keep saying that the benefit of a feat is the same as the feat itself,
Actually, the people you've been directly addressing (Tuggy and I) aren't saying that. Talya is, but she's also arguing that the Swordsage feature can be used to qualify for prereqs, and can be swapped with DCS or Weapon Aptitude ... (A very different position.)


I noticed something unfortunate about the wording I quoted: while it's quite clear that benefits aren't supposed to stack, it phrases this after an unneeded conditional that makes it useless, in a pedantic sort of way. What this means is that technically, Discipline Focus stacks with Weapon Focus unless you have Weapon Focus twice, even if for different weapons, at which point it suddenly stops stacking.

I can't imagine anyone playing it with such absurd literalism, but hey, there it is: the only RAW-valid counterargument I've so far seen for what I've said. Consider this one on the house. :smalltongue:
Heh. :smallamused:


Both modifiers don't have a type and come from different sources. One source is the Feat weapon Focus the other is the Class Feature Discipline Focus.
I bolded the part Tuggy (and I) disagree with. We consider these to be the same source, because Discipline Focus references Weapon Focus when it describes the benefit it is providing.

Or would you allow the +1 AC bonus from Haste to stack with the +1 AC bonus from using an item that grants "the benefits of a Haste spell"? That seems to be what you're arguing.


The benefit Discipline Focus gives you is the Weapon Focus feat, individually, for all weapons in the school chosen. This is explicitly stated and requires no inference or interpretation. This is basic English. If you gain the benefit of a tax break, you get the tax break. If you gain the benefit of a ruling in a sporting event, there was the ruling. If you gain the benefit of a feat, you hae the feat.

Period. There's no debate here. You are arguing that black is white. You're wrong.
Yeah, because saying "there's no possible way for you to debate me, I'm right, you're wrong" always works out well and is always used to defend an entirely correct position.

Putting aside the fact that you're being closed-minded and rude to those who have other sensible interpretations, your tax break analogy is flawed due to the fact that a feat description has a specific "Benefit" section in its text, which is obviously not ALL of its descriptive text.


They don't use the 'bonus feat' language or any other language that allows Weapon Focus with specific weapons to prevent a Swordsage/Warblade from shuffling the Weapon Focus feats around, among other similar reasons.

That's a sensible interpretation of RAI (although I don't agree with it), but based on which comment you responded to, it seems like you're trying to defend Talya's position -- which your argument doesn't actually support. Talya's argument would allow a Swordsage/Warblade to shuffle its Weapon Focus feats around.

[Talya]

I'm absolutely closed-minded about it. I'm generally closed minded when people try to present obvious fallacies to me, the moment the fallacy is apparent.

I don't believe they can shuffle them around that easily. Discipline focus is what it is, and it applies specifically to groups of weapons that relate to the discipline in question. Discipline focus is what grants weapon focus, and without discipline focus supporting it, the weapon focuses don't exist. I could almost see moving the weapon focuses en masse to a different martial school, but they'd all need to move at the same time, and warblade only allows them to do this for one specific feat.

[bekeleven]

I'm absolutely closed-minded about it. I'm generally closed minded when people try to present obvious fallacies to me, the moment the fallacy is apparent.

If there are two characters, one of which requires a low caster level for a build and the other of which requires a high caster level for a build, and both of them take a class feature that grants "the benefits of the mage slayer feat", whose caster level does what?

[Talya]

If there are two characters, one of which requires a low caster level for a build and the other of which requires a high caster level for a build, and both of them take a class feature that grants "the benefits of the mage slayer feat", whose caster level does what?

I don't understand this question. Caster Level does not integrate with mage slayer. All caster-level does is determine spellcasting related effects/duration.

[Andezzar]

The benefit Discipline Focus gives you is the Weapon Focus feat, individually, for all weapons in the school chosen.That is not what the rules say. Stop claiming that. What you are actually saying is that the "benefit of the feat" is identical to "feat" That is obviously not true: one term starts with the letter f and the other with the letter b, thus they cannot be the same since one or more letters are different. That both terms are equivalent even though they are not identical you haven't proven yet.


If you gain the benefit of a tax break, you get the tax break.Those two are not equivalent but you cannot get the benefit of a tax break (i.e. more money in your bank account) without a tax break. The ability to gain the benefit of a feat without the feat is explicitly postulated by the rule "you gain the benefit of weapon focus". Nowhere do the rules mention that you get the feat itself.


If you gain the benefit of a feat, you hae the feat.You have not proven that. Counter example: A math course at a school gives you the benefit of knowing math (I.e. feat with a certain benefit)
You gain the benefit of a math course. The benefit of the math course is not the math course itself, it is the knowledge of math. Does gaining the benefit of the course mean you have had the math course at a school? Of course not, you could have had a private teacher, or you could have taught yourself. Thus you have the benefit without the course.

The "benefit of Weapon Focus" is just short for "+1 to attacks with the chosen weapon". There is even a section in the description of the feat Weapon Focus that is called benefit. Thus it is only part of the feat (the other parts are Introduction (not named thus) Prerequisites and Special. The benefit of Weapon Focus is not equivalent to the whole Feat Weapon Focus.

Both the prerequisites of other feats and the feat stacking rule do not call for having the benefit of the feat but for having the feat itself. Thus Discipline Focus stacks with Weapon Focus, but does not allow you to qualify for other stuff that requires Weapon Focus.


They don't use the 'bonus feat' language or any other language that allows Weapon Focus with specific weapons to prevent a Swordsage/Warblade from shuffling the Weapon Focus feats around, among other similar reasons.To prevent that they could have used the phrase "Discipline Focus counts as Weapon focus for the purpose of qualifying for other feats, abilities or classes". Thus you could take weapon specialization and other feats that require Weapon Focus but still would not possess the feats and thus could not shuffle them away.

[Draz74]

I'm absolutely closed-minded about it. I'm generally closed minded when people try to present obvious fallacies to me, the moment the fallacy is apparent.
That's too bad. There are a lot of learning experiences to be had by figuring out why other people have mistaken ideas, and working backwards until you identify where the bifurcation in opinions truly begins. (It's usually further down than most people look.)

Although again, the case in question is not an "obvious fallacy."


I don't believe they can shuffle them around that easily. Discipline focus is what it is, and it applies specifically to groups of weapons that relate to the discipline in question. Discipline focus is what grants weapon focus, and without discipline focus supporting it, the weapon focuses don't exist. I could almost see moving the weapon focuses en masse to a different martial school, but they'd all need to move at the same time, and warblade only allows them to do this for one specific feat.

Ah, ok. I apologize for putting words in your mouth about how you would interpret this interaction.

In other news, I really don't understand your position now. What you have posted here seems utterly contradictory to your earlier statements about a feat being a feat being a feat regardless of its source.

[Talya]

In other news, I really don't understand your position now. What you have posted here seems utterly contradictory to your earlier statements about a feat being a feat being a feat regardless of its source.

I'm trying to think of the best way to describe this, because it just seems obvious to me.

You can't build a castle on top of a mountain, dig out the entire mountain underneath of it, and expect the castle to remain in place. (Unless you're playing Minecraft.)

Swordsage grants the feature Discipline Focus. Discipline Focus gives you weapon focus in all the favored weapons of one martial discipline. This isn't something that it just grants and then you forget about it. Without Discipline Focus, these weapon focuses don't exist. Discipline Focus grants something specific. If you remove an individual weapon focus feat, you haven't removed discipline focus, and it's going to put it right back. You can't move that weapon focus to another weapon, because without discipline focus granting that weapon focus feat, you simply don't have that feat. Another analogy, you've got a lightbulb (Discipline Focus), granting Weapon Focus feats (the light shining around the lightbulb.) You cannot move the light that it is shining without the lightbulb that's "granting it."

You can't move discipline focus using the warblade ability...as Discipline Focus doesn't apply to a single weapon. It's possible psychic reformation or chaos shuffling or retraining or something can move it, but then only en masse to another school.

[Andezzar]

I bolded the part Tuggy (and I) disagree with. We consider these to be the same source, because Discipline Focus references Weapon Focus when it describes the benefit it is providing.Sorry can't quote on that right now, but usually the source is the name of the class feature/feat/ability/spell/item that provides the bonus. Weapon Focus=/=Discipline focus. Additionally both sources are not of the same type, feat vs class feature.


Or would you allow the +1 AC bonus from Haste to stack with the +1 AC bonus from using an item that grants "the benefits of a Haste spell"? That seems to be what you're arguing.Yes, if such an item existed. That however is besides the point because dodge bonuses always stack:
Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.
Anyways if you take the unnamed attack bonus of haste that would stack with an item that gives you the benefit of haste, since those are unnamed bonuses and the sources are different. One source is the haste spell the other is the item.
AFAIK all items/abilities that give a benefit similar to haste either directly cast the spell haste or have a rule saying they don't stack with haste.

[Draz74]

Sorry can't quote on that right now, but usually the source is the name of the class feature/feat/ability/spell/item that provides the bonus. Weapon Focus=/=Discipline focus. Additionally both sources are not of the same type, feat vs class feature.
I can't give you a direct quote to contradict what you've said either, but I do not believe it is how the rules work.

At least we've identified the exact origin of the disagreement.


Yes, if such an item existed. That however is besides the point because dodge bonuses always stack:
OK, I actually think RAI is that dodge bonuses don't stack if they're from the same source either. If a wizard casts haste on you twice in a row, does your AC go up an additional +1? :smallconfused: If you take the Dodge feat and then "learn" it again via the Heroics spell, does your AC go up an additional +1? :smallconfused: These seem as absurd to me as a Monk not being proficient with unarmed strikes.

However, just like the Monk & unarmed strike thing, I have to concede: by strict RAW, you're correct, dodge bonuses stack with each other even if they're from the same source.

(Circumstance bonuses, however, have contradictory rules. They state that they do not stack if they come from "essentially the same source," which contradicts the rule that you quoted. I believe that the rule you quoted is an abbreviated simplification of the rules for brevity's sake, and that the "same source never stacks" rule was intended to reign supreme.)

Anyway, let's avoid this whole confounding variable and pretend that I asked about the +1 attack bonuses of Haste rather than the +1 AC bonuses.


Anyways if you take the unnamed attack bonus of haste that would stack with an item that gives you the benefit of haste, since those are unnamed bonuses and the sources are different. One source is the haste spell the other is the item.
Well, at least you're being consistent, even though I completely disagree.


AFAIK all items/abilities that give a benefit similar to haste either directly cast the spell haste or have a rule saying they don't stack with haste.

Au contraire, Boots of Speed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#bootsofSpeed), while they don't use the exact "benefit of" language that I proposed, use language that I consider equivalent. They allow you "to act as though affected by a haste spell."

Would you allow the +1 attack bonuses of Haste and Boots of Speed to stack, merely because one is an item and one is a spell? I certainly wouldn't. And I don't think that's the intent of the rules, either, although again, I can't give you a specific citation to prove that interpretation wrong.

[Scow2]

That's a sensible interpretation of RAI (although I don't agree with it), but based on which comment you responded to, it seems like you're trying to defend Talya's position -- which your argument doesn't actually support. Talya's argument would allow a Swordsage/Warblade to shuffle its Weapon Focus feats around.
I believe it doesn't stack, and counts for purposes such as prereqs, but it DOESN'T allow for any kind of shuffling.

[Emperor Tippy]

RAW wise, no Discipline Focus doesn't fulfill prerequisites like the Weapon Focus feat does.

If it said "treated as having Weapon Focus feat for a discipline's favored weapons" then it would meet prerequisites. But it says "gain the benefit of" and Benefit is a game defined term in regards to feats.

Now personally I would houserule that it meets prerequisites but by RAW it doesn't.

[Andezzar]

I can't give you a direct quote to contradict what you've said either, but I do not believe it is how the rules work.I'll post a question of the definition of source in the Q&A thread soon. Maybe someone can clear that up.


At least we've identified the exact origin of the disagreement.Yup. How do you think we are supposed to determine the source of a bonus?



OK, I actually think RAI is that dodge bonuses don't stack if they're from the same source either. If a wizard casts haste on you twice in a row, does your AC go up an additional +1? :smallconfused: If you take the Dodge feat and then "learn" it again via the Heroics spell, does your AC go up an additional +1? :smallconfused: These seem as absurd to me as a Monk not being proficient with unarmed strikes.

However, just like the Monk & unarmed strike thing, I have to concede: by strict RAW, you're correct, dodge bonuses stack with each other even if they're from the same source.

(Circumstance bonuses, however, have contradictory rules. They state that they do not stack if they come from "essentially the same source," which contradicts the rule that you quoted. I believe that the rule you quoted is an abbreviated simplification of the rules for brevity's sake, and that the "same source never stacks" rule was intended to reign supreme.)I agree that RAI probably is that Dodge bonuses are only supposed to stack if they are from different sources. That the RAW is absurd does not make it any less RAW.


Au contraire, Boots of Speed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#bootsofSpeed), while they don't use the exact "benefit of" language that I proposed, use language that I consider equivalent. They allow you "to act as though affected by a haste spell."That is not an equivalent phrase that is something completely different. "As if affected by the haste spell" means that by donning and activating the boots the character behaves in the same way as a character who has the haste spell cast on him. If that character then receives a real haste spell we have a situation equivalent to a character with two haste spells on him. Those do not stack

Someone who would gain the benefit of a haste spell (+1 attack bonus, +1 dodge bonus to AC and reflex saves, 1 extra attack) is not actually affected by a haste spell. Casting a haste spell would have the benefits stack.


Would you allow the +1 attack bonuses of Haste and Boots of Speed to stack, merely because one is an item and one is a spell? I certainly wouldn't. And I don't think that's the intent of the rules, either, although again, I can't give you a specific citation to prove that interpretation wrong.See above.

Yay, Tippy agrees with me. :smallbiggrin:

How do you judge the stacking of Discipline Focus and Weapon Focus?

[Emperor Tippy]

How do you judge the stacking of Discipline Focus and Weapon Focus?

They don't stack because of the same source rule. That source being the Benefit section of the Weapon Focus feat.

At least that is my take on the RAW, although again I would houserule that they stacked if I ever had a player who actually took Weapon Focus and Discipline Focus.

[Curmudgeon]

I've read all of this thread, and I've got viewpoints on the three topics which have arisen here.

Discipline Focus (Ex): As a swordsage, you can focus your training to take advantage of each discipline's fighting style. Each time you gain the discipline focus ability, select one of the six swordsage disciplines to which that focus applies. You can select a different discipline each time you gain discipline focus, but you must know at least one martial maneuver from the selected discipline. Even if you select a different discipline at higher levels, your discipline choice for earlier abilities does not change.

This focus manifests in the following ways.

Weapon Focus: At 1st level, you gain the benefit of the Weapon Focus feat for weapons associated with the chosen discipline. See the discipline descriptions in Chapter 4.
I'd say that on of the "benefits" would be....meeting prereqs.
(1) That plural s (highlighted just above) is where you've gone astray. The Discipline Focus feature specifies "the benefit" (singular), not "benefits" (plural). You don't receive all benefits of Weapon Focus; you only receive the benefit specified in the Benefit section, as TuggyNE originally pointed out.

A fighter gains Simple Weapon Proficiency with all simple weapons, Martial Weapon Proficiency with all martial weapons, Light Armor Proficiency, Medium Armor Proficiency, Heavy Armor Proficiency, Shield Proficiency, and Tower Proficiency.

All right at level 1! On top of its actual open "bonus feat"!

That's a lot of feats to Dark Chaos Shuffle away ...
(2) You have glossed over the wording used in the rules and as a consequence are only partially correct.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, medium, and light) and shields (including tower shields). The actual bonus feats is a significantly shorter list:
Special: Fighters, paladins, and clerics automatically have Armor Proficiency (heavy) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

Special: Fighters, barbarians, paladins, clerics, druids, and bards automatically have Armor Proficiency (medium) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

Special: All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

Special: Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.

Special: All characters except for druids, monks, and wizards are automatically proficient with all simple weapons. They need not select this feat.

Special: Barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, fighters, paladins, and rangers automatically have Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

Special: Fighters automatically have Tower Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it. Only those five proficiencies which are explicitly granted as bonus feats may be fed into the Dark Chaos Shuffle mill. DCS can't work with class feature proficiencies; it requires actual feats.

(3) As for the stacking of Weapon Focus feat and the benefit from Discipline Focus: that's going to be an individual DM call. A bonus source is determined by name. It's up to each DM to decide if the name of the Swordsage source is Discipline Focus (in which case it stacks with Weapon Focus feat) or its Weapon Focus manifestation (in which case it won't stack with the feat of the same name). The examples in Dungeon Master's Guide of what constitutes a source are all class feature names, but there's no specific statement that the source doesn't devolve to a sub-named feature if such exists.

[Andezzar]

They don't stack because of the same source rule. That source being the Benefit section of the Weapon Focus feat.OK, if you see the benefit section of the feat as the source instead of the feat itself then the RAW is that Discipline Focus does not stack with Weapon Focus.


At least that is my take on the RAW, although again I would houserule that they stacked if I ever had a player who actually took Weapon Focus and Discipline Focus.From what I read about your campaigns, I assume that player would need all the help he can get and/or a lot of new character sheets. :smallwink:


(3) As for the stacking of Weapon Focus feat and the benefit from Discipline Focus: that's going to be an individual DM call. A bonus source is determined by name. It's up to each DM to decide if the name of the Swordsage source is Discipline Focus (in which case it stacks with Weapon Focus feat) or its Weapon Focus manifestation (in which case it won't stack with the feat of the same name). The examples in Dungeon Master's Guide of what constitutes a source are all class feature names, but there's no specific statement that the source doesn't devolve to a sub-named feature if such exists.That is how I remember it. You make a good point about there being no examples very close to Discipline Focus/Weapon Focus. Got a page number for those rules?

[bekeleven]

I don't understand this question. Caster Level does not integrate with mage slayer. All caster-level does is determine spellcasting related effects/duration.

Mage Slayer reduces caster level by 4 permanently for anybody with the feat. It does so under the "Special" header of the feat.

[Lord Haart]

What? So, you can go Fighter, dark chaos shuffle your armor proficiencies into whatever many instances of Toughness you like, take your next level, go Crusader, get a new set of shuffable feats, etc.?

I…

I like feats.

Sorry, feats.

Even for how much i like you, this is too much.

[Curmudgeon]

That is how I remember it. You make a good point about there being no examples very close to Discipline Focus/Weapon Focus. Got a page number for those rules?
Pages 178, 180, and 182 of Dungeon Master's Guide.