Factotum cunning brilliance abilitys

[JMS]

So, what abilitys would you want to get from cunning brilliance (Ex, from a base class at Lv 15 or lower, and only for a minute, once per day)

[Venger]

Summon t-rex.

[Nifft]

So, what abilitys would you want to get from cunning brilliance (Ex, from a base class at Lv 15 or lower, and only for a minute, once per day) I've seen someone suggest that a Warblade's "Maneuvers" might be an ability you can take. If so, it's quite a good one.


But what I'd really want is the ability to not be a Factotum for the other 1,439 minutes of every day.

[Doctor Awkward]

Sneak Attack as a 15th level rogue.

Feats as a 15th level fighter.

The maneuver selection of a 15th level martial adept.

Hide in Plain Sight as a 14th level Scout.

Auras as a 14th level Marshal (4 Major at +3, and 6 minior)

[Crake]

Sneak Attack as a 15th level rogue.

Feats as a 15th level fighter.

The maneuver selection of a 15th level martial adept.

Hide in Plain Sight as a 14th level Scout.

Auras as a 14th level Marshal (4 Major at +3, and 6 minior)

Maneuvers would be useless without the adaptive style feat, as it would take 5 minutes just to prepare your maneuvers for the day.

[BowStreetRunner]

While the use of this ability will often be highly dependent upon circumstances, the Factotum is an Intelligence based class, so abilities that work with Intelligence will often prove readily useful. So a Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike (INT bonus to damage) would be nice to keep in mind. If you can combine it with a Warblade's Battle Cunning (INT bonus to damage vs flat footed or flanked opponents) and/or a Warblade's Battle Mastery (INT bonus to attack and damage when making attacks of opportunity) that would be even better.

While on the subject of the Warblade, if your factotum took any proficiencies that apply only to a single weapon you can always use the Warblade's Weapon Aptitude to change that as needed.

Crusaders have Zealous Surge (reroll a save once per day). There are also some nice immunities available, such as a Druid's Venom Immunity (all poisons), a paladin's Divine Health (diseases), a dragon shaman's Draconic Resolve (paralysis, sleep, frightful presence of dragons). The monk also has Diamond Soul (spell resistance).

If you want to employ some shenanigans, take a dip in a casting class and then use this ability to pick up the beguiler's Advanced Learning (add a new sorcerer/wizard enchanment or illusion spell to your list permanently) or the warmage's Advanced Learning (add a new wizard evocation spell to your list permanently), or a Dread Necromancer's Advanced Learning (add a cleric or wizard necromancy spell to your list permanently). You can keep using this over and over until you run out of eligible spells (no higher than the highest level spell you arelady know). Granted, since this is a 19th level ability and you don't have a spell list of your own, it's not likely to do more than give you a bunch of 1st level spells for whatever class you dipped.

Scouts have Blindsense (30 ft), Warlocks have Deceive Item (take 10 on UMD checks).

EDIT: I almost forgot a real gem. Truenamer has Knowledge Focus. "At the levels indicated on Table 3–2 [2,7,10,14], you gain a permanent +3 bonus on a Knowledge skill of your choice. Each time you gain this ability, you can apply it to a different Knowledge skill, or to the same Knowledge skill, if you want to focus on a particular area of expertise." Now, depending upon how you read this and how you read the Factotum's Cunning Brilliance, you can get some really nice permanent bonuses to your Knowledge skills.

[Crake]

While on the subject of the Warblade, if your factotum took any proficiencies that apply only to a single weapon you can always use the Warblade's Weapon Aptitude to change that as needed.

In a similar vein to my previous post, weapon aptitude takes an hour to use, you only have a minute.

[BowStreetRunner]

In a similar vein to my previous post, weapon aptitude takes an hour to use, you only have a minute.
Good catch. I definitely missed that.

On another note, Marshal gets Grant Move Action (Once per day, as a standard action, grant an extra move action to any or all allies within 30 feet (but not yourself ).

[BowStreetRunner]

I keep seeing people name abilities that aren't designated (EX). "Natural abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalAbilities) are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like." So for something to be an Extraordinary ability, it has to explicitly state that it is. So where do people get the idea that Spells, Martial Maneuvers, Bonus Feats, a rogue's Sneak Attack, etc. are (EX) abilities? This isn't the only thread where this concept has been put forward.

Now some classes list abilities without the (EX) that others have with the (EX). For instance a rogue has Trapfinding listed as a natural ability, while for a Scout is is an extraordinary ability. So some of these abilities might still be able to be picked from other classes this way. But if it doesn't say (EX) somewhere, the default assumption is clearly stated to be a natural ability.

[Venger]

I keep seeing people name abilities that aren't designated (EX). "Natural abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalAbilities) are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like." So for something to be an Extraordinary ability, it has to explicitly state that it is. So where do people get the idea that Spells, Martial Maneuvers, Bonus Feats, a rogue's Sneak Attack, etc. are (EX) abilities? This isn't the only thread where this concept has been put forward.

Now some classes list abilities without the (EX) that others have with the (EX). For instance a rogue has Trapfinding listed as a natural ability, while for a Scout is is an extraordinary ability. So some of these abilities might still be able to be picked from other classes this way. But if it doesn't say (EX) somewhere, the default assumption is clearly stated to be a natural ability.

Feats are extraordinary. The ones that are supernatural in nature, such as exalted feats, spell this out explicitly.

[Doctor Awkward]

I keep seeing people name abilities that aren't designated (EX). "Natural abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalAbilities) are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like." So for something to be an Extraordinary ability, it has to explicitly state that it is. So where do people get the idea that Spells, Martial Maneuvers, Bonus Feats, a rogue's Sneak Attack, etc. are (EX) abilities? This isn't the only thread where this concept has been put forward.

Now some classes list abilities without the (EX) that others have with the (EX). For instance a rogue has Trapfinding listed as a natural ability, while for a Scout is is an extraordinary ability. So some of these abilities might still be able to be picked from other classes this way. But if it doesn't say (EX) somewhere, the default assumption is clearly stated to be a natural ability.

Natural abilities are part of a creature's nature and what it has for being what it is, like a bird's flight speed.

Class features are never natural abilities.

[The Viscount]

I'm a fan of nabbing Healer's Unicorn Companion, which can also get a Lammasu, Gyrosphinx, or Water Naga. The monsters themselves are nice, but the casting of a 7th level cleric or sorcerer are some pretty fun things to have, even for the brief period.

[Necroticplague]

Feats are extraordinary. The ones that are supernatural in nature, such as exalted feats, spell this out explicitly.

Feats themselves are EX. However, the ability to have extra of them can be natural. A fighters ability to have bonus feats is a natural ability, while the feats themselves are extraordinary.

[Doctor Awkward]

Feats themselves are EX. However, the ability to have extra of them can be natural. A fighters ability to have bonus feats is a natural ability, while the feats themselves are extraordinary.

Natural abilities are part of a creature's nature and what it has for being what it is, like a bird's flight speed.

Class features are never natural abilities.

[Necroticplague]

Natural abilities are part of a creature's nature and what it has for being what it is, like a bird's flight speed.

Class features are never natural abilities.

Source? Here's what I can find on Natural Abilities:

Natural Abilities

This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature.Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.
It includes those things that you stated, but is not limited to them. So everything that isn't explicitly called out as being a different type of ability is natural.

[Nifft]

Not that poster, but the bit you quoted said this:



This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature.


Feats from a class can't be "because of [a creature's] physical nature", because class and race are two different things.

[Necroticplague]

Not that poster, but the bit you quoted said this:



Feats from a class can't be "because of [a creature's] physical nature", because class and race are two different things.

Again, that just indicates that it includes such things, not that it's limited to them. It does not say '[natural abilities] are....'. It says '[natural abilities] include....' which very obviously leaves open the possibility it includes other things.

Like if I say my shopping list includes milk, am I saying I'm only going to get milk? No, it just means that milk is definitely among the things I'm getting.

This contrasts with the incredibly straightforward definition provieded in the next clause "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

[Doctor Awkward]

Source? Here's what I can find on Natural Abilities:

It includes those things that you stated, but is not limited to them. So everything that isn't explicitly called out as being a different type of ability is natural.


natural ability: A nonmagical capability, such as walking, swimming (for aquatic creatures), and flight (for winged creatures).


NATURAL ABILITIES
This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature, such as a bird’s ability to fly. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like. They’re rarely identified as natural—that’s assumed—and they rarely take a distinct action to use. A lion uses its claws as an attack, for instance; it doesn’t activate its claws and then attack.

It is expressly limited to abilities that a creature has on account of it's physical nature. A marilith's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#marilith) ability to fight with all six arms without penalty is a natural ability.

Class features (PHB, pg. 24) are "special characteristics of the class." They include weapon and armor proficiency, spells, and other unique capabilities, such as those possessed by a rogue or monk. Sometimes class features are supernatural or spell-like, as noted by their individual entries.

Class features are never a inherently a function of an individual creature's nature. They are at all times a product of classes it has taken.

[BowStreetRunner]

Class features fall into four categories: Those designated as Spell-Like (Sp); Those designated as Supernatural (Su); Those designated as Extraordinary (Ex); Those not designated at all.

A rational person might ask themselves why in the world the developers would designate SOME Extraordinary abilities as (Ex) and leave SOME without a designation if they intended them ALL to be considered Extraordinary.

This same rational person would be quite within bounds to then go to the Special Abilities section of the rules on page 180 of the Player's Handbook to find out the explanation. That person would see that the rules clearly agree that there are, in fact, four categories of abilities. They would see that there are rules for each of the three categories that are labeled, plus a fourth category called Natural abilities. Those same rules further state that "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like." Occam's Razor being applied, this rational individual would then accept the simplest explanation is that the abilities not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like were, in fact, natural abilities. As to why some natural abilities come from the racial entry and some come from class levels, the rational individual would be quite within bounds to recognized that nowhere in the rules does it state that natural abilities can only come from racial entries.

A rules-lawyer would then come along and confuse everything beyond all hope of ever untangling the mess.

[Venger]

Class features fall into four categories: Those designated as Spell-Like (Sp); Those designated as Supernatural (Su); Those designated as Extraordinary (Ex); Those not designated at all.

A rational person might ask themselves why in the world the developers would designate SOME Extraordinary abilities as (Ex) and leave SOME without a designation if they intended them ALL to be considered Extraordinary.
They would then say "the designers were being stupid and lazy as usual, and forgot to tag some of these as ex. They're not mimicking a specific spell, and are not magical in nature, so they are ex, such as evasion."

As Tonymitsu says, natural abilities are things you have from your race, not from your class features. This specifically disallows untagged things like fighter bonus feats from being natural. They are obviously ex.

[Doctor Awkward]

Class features fall into four categories: Those designated as Spell-Like (Sp); Those designated as Supernatural (Su); Those designated as Extraordinary (Ex); Those not designated at all.

A rational person might ask themselves why in the world the developers would designate SOME Extraordinary abilities as (Ex) and leave SOME without a designation if they intended them ALL to be considered Extraordinary.

This same rational person would be quite within bounds to then go to the Special Abilities section of the rules on page 180 of the Player's Handbook to find out the explanation. That person would see that the rules clearly agree that there are, in fact, four categories of abilities. They would see that there are rules for each of the three categories that are labeled, plus a fourth category called Natural abilities. Those same rules further state that "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like." Occam's Razor being applied, this rational individual would then accept the simplest explanation is that the abilities not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like were, in fact, natural abilities. As to why some natural abilities come from the racial entry and some come from class levels, the rational individual would be quite within bounds to recognized that nowhere in the rules does it state that natural abilities can only come from racial entries.

A rules-lawyer would then come along and confuse everything beyond all hope of ever untangling the mess.

There's nothing rational about ignoring the definition of the phrase "physical nature".

Common sense tells you that natural abilities are limited to a given creature's physical form, and that class features are something else entirely.


Allowing class features that are not explicitly tagged as (Ex) to count as the "physical qualities" of a creature means that a 5th-level human wizard could cast alter self to assume the form of a 5th-level human monk and gain the monk's Unarmed Strike progression (which is not tagged, and is explicitly noted as counting as both a natural weapon and manufactured for the purposes of spells), two bonus feats (which would count as racial bonus feats for not being otherwise tagged), and assume his base attack bonus as well (explicitly a quality of being a monk with 5 hit dice).

[Necroticplague]

It is expressly limited to abilities that a creature has on account of it's physical nature. A marilith's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#marilith) ability to fight with all six arms without penalty is a natural ability.

No, they aren't. Again 'includes X' does not necessarily exclude Y.

Your first definition just defines it as 'a nonmagical capability', which doesn't exclude class abilities.

Your second definition again uses the 'includes....', which still doesn't disallow anything. Yes, it definitely includes things like birds flying, fish swimming, ect. This does not mean it excludes fighter feats.
As Tonymitsu says, natural abilities are things you have from your race, not from your class features. This specifically disallows untagged things like fighter bonus feats from being natural. They are obviously ex.Source for either of these? The latter is of greater interest, since asking for the former appears to be turning up fruitless.


Allowing class features that are not explicitly tagged as (Ex) to count as the "physical qualities" of a creature means that a 5th-level human wizard could cast alter self to assume the form of a 5th-level human monk and gain the monk's Unarmed Strike progression (which is not tagged, and is explicitly noted as counting as both a natural weapon and manufactured for the purposes of spells), two bonus feats (which would count as racial bonus feats for not being otherwise tagged), and assume his base attack bonus as well (explicitly a quality of being a monk with 5 hit dice).

Which is why it's a good thing absolutely no person here is making that argument. Natural Ability=/=physical qualities.

[Doctor Awkward]

No, they aren't. Again 'includes X' does not necessarily exclude Y.

Your first definition just defines it as 'a nonmagical capability', which doesn't exclude class abilities.

That requires you to ignore the defintion of the phrase "physical nature" as part of your definition for Natural abilities, just like BowStreetRunner is doing.

You have to consider the entire definition of the thing as part of the rules, not just the parts that support your conclusion.


Source for either of these? The latter is of greater interest, since asking for the former appears to be turning up fruitless.

I provided at least three page quotes already.

[BowStreetRunner]

That requires you to ignore the defintion of the phrase "physical nature" as part of your definition for Natural abilities, ...
You are ignoring the word "includes". They did not state that "This category consists entirely of abilities a creature has because of its physical nature", they stated that it includes such things. I accept that they are, in fact, included and I am not ignoring them. They just aren't the entire set, but merely a subset.

You are also ignoring the entire next sentence. "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

[Nifft]

You are ignoring the word "includes". They did not state that "This category consists entirely of abilities a creature has because of its physical nature", they stated that it includes such things. I accept that they are, in fact, included and I am not ignoring them. They just aren't the entire set, but merely a subset.

You are also ignoring the entire next sentence. "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

Note that every set is a subset of itself, so "merely a subset" can mean the whole thing.

Is there something which would positively include non-racial abilities in that set?

[Necroticplague]

That requires you to ignore the defintion of the phrase "physical nature" as part of your definition for Natural abilities, just like BowStreetRunner is doing. No it doesn't, don't lie that blatantly about the area of disagreement. The definition of 'physical nature' has never been relevant to this discussion, and I have never argued it. I have been arguing that the 'includes....' does not mean 'only includes.....'


You have to consider the entire definition of the thing as part of the rules, not just the parts that support your conclusion. How about you do the same? After all, the definition states in black and white "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.", not just 'includes abilities it has because of it's physical nature'. It is entirely possible for both statements to be true when class abilities are natural abilities.




I provided at least three page quotes already.
No, you haven't. You've provided several sources that indicate Natural Abilities definitely include physical nature, but absolutely nothing that says it's limited to only those things.

[Doctor Awkward]

No it doesn't, don't lie that blatantly about the area of disagreement. The definition of 'physical nature' has never been relevant to this discussion, and I have never argued it. I have been arguing that the 'includes....' does not mean 'only includes.....'

And it also doesn't automatically mean "includes, but is not limited to". You are just assuming it must because it doesn't say otherwise.

You can rewrite the sentence using a synonym for "includes" as "This category is made up of abilities a creature has because of its physical nature, such as a bird’s ability to fly." and it would still make perfect logical sense. Nor would that foster any assumptions regarding things besides a creature's natural qualities that might also count as being part of this set.


How about you do the same? After all, the definition states in black and white "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.", not just 'includes abilities it has because of it's physical nature'. It is entirely possible for both statements to be true when class abilities are natural abilities.

Class features are specifically defined as being a function of a class. They are never part of a creature's physical nature. Player's Handbook, page 24.

Again, the only way your assumption holds water is if you consider the first part of the definition to be entirely relevant from the last, and also ignore the common sense implication of labeling the category with the word "natural" ("existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind").

[Necroticplague]

And it also doesn't automatically mean "includes, but is not limited to". You are just assuming it must because it doesn't say otherwise.
Exactly. if something doesn't say there's a limit, there isn't one.

Can you cast spells while flying?

[Nifft]

Exactly. if something doesn't say there's a limit, there isn't one.

Can you cast spells while flying?

Of course not, because some forms of flying require use of the PC's arms, and you didn't say which one.

Since you didn't say, obviously we get to pick, and we pick the one where you're wrong.

Isn't that exactly how language always works?

Answer: No, it's not.

[Doctor Awkward]

Exactly. if something doesn't say there's a limit, there isn't one.


Source for that?

[Nifft]

Source for that?

Same source that gives Fighters the ability to cast unlimited wish spells at level 1.

[Venger]

Same source that gives Fighters the ability to cast unlimited wish spells at level 1.

glad somebody's been reading my fanfic

[Necroticplague]

Same source that gives Fighters the ability to cast unlimited wish spells at level 1.

When I want to use hyperbole about the rules not allowing things unless they state they exist, I typically go with 'humans having insta-death touch attacks, because the rules don't say they don't'.

[Andor13]

This is an interesting discussion, but I have to say I find the argument that class levels cannot affect physical abilities to be a very odd one.

At it's most basic class levels alter hit points. If you drop a boulder on a sleeping 1st level character you have a dead character, if you drop one on a sleeping high level character you have an angry high level character. Seems like a physical change.

They also alter stats. Another physical (possibly mental) change.

More esoterically they can give things like wings and scales, or turn your flesh to stone, or metal, or fire, or ectoplasm. These are certainly physical changes, even if they are from class levels.

[Nifft]

When I want to use hyperbole about the rules not allowing things unless they state they exist, I typically go with 'humans having insta-death touch attacks, because the rules don't say they don't'. That's also good.

Glad to have you on-side.


This is an interesting discussion, but I have to say I find the argument that class levels cannot affect physical abilities to be a very odd one. Class levels obviously can affect natural abilities.

For example: a Human has the natural ability to walk at 30 ft. per move action.

A Human Barbarian has the ability to walk at 40 ft. per move action.

Thus, a class ability has modified a natural ability.

Nonetheless, when your Dwarf Wizard uses alter self to take the shape of a Human, what your Dwarf Wizard gets is walking at 30 ft. per move action.

[Andor13]

Class levels obviously can affect natural abilities.

For example: a Human has the natural ability to walk at 30 ft. per move action.

A Human Barbarian has the ability to walk at 40 ft. per move action.

Thus, a class ability has modified a natural ability.

Nonetheless, when your Dwarf Wizard uses alter self to take the shape of a Human, what your Dwarf Wizard gets is walking at 30 ft. per move action.

I'm unclear on your position here. The Barbarian's Fast Movement ability is clearly labeled as EX. As such it would be something a Factotum could clearly grab with Cunning Brilliance (the circumstances under which that would be a Brilliantly Cunning move for a 19th level character are unclear to me, but whatever), as such it also wouldn't be something considered a Natural Ability for the purpose of this discussion. Otherwise your statement seemed to be supporting the notion that a class ability otherwise unlabeled could be considered a Natural Ability and thus not subject to being borrowed with Cunning Brilliance.

[Nifft]

I'm unclear on your position here. The Barbarian's Fast Movement ability is clearly labeled as EX. As such it would be something a Factotum could clearly grab with Cunning Brilliance (the circumstances under which that would be a Brilliantly Cunning move for a 19th level character are unclear to me, but whatever), as such it also wouldn't be something considered a Natural Ability for the purpose of this discussion. Otherwise your statement seemed to be supporting the notion that a class ability otherwise unlabeled could be considered a Natural Ability and thus not subject to being borrowed with Cunning Brilliance.

Then you're missing at least some of what I'm saying.

Natural Abilities are not granted by classes.

[Crake]

I'm unclear on your position here. The Barbarian's Fast Movement ability is clearly labeled as EX. As such it would be something a Factotum could clearly grab with Cunning Brilliance (the circumstances under which that would be a Brilliantly Cunning move for a 19th level character are unclear to me, but whatever), as such it also wouldn't be something considered a Natural Ability for the purpose of this discussion. Otherwise your statement seemed to be supporting the notion that a class ability otherwise unlabeled could be considered a Natural Ability and thus not subject to being borrowed with Cunning Brilliance.

What nifft was saying is that classes can affect natural abilities, but don't give natural abilities in and of themselves.

To that though, I would ask: What would you call the Dragon Apotheosis class feature of a dragon disciple?

[Necroticplague]

To that though, I would ask: What would you call the Dragon Apotheosis class feature of a dragon disciple?

Funny, that was the example I was thinking of using as well, before that points got dropped in favor of arguing over what 'includes' means.

After all, it's not labelled EX like the rest of the class's abilities, but it definitely gives some things that are physical modifications to a body.

[Mato]

I keep seeing people name abilities that aren't designated (EX).That's because this is GitP. Most of what they do or suggest is illegal because they don't really know any of the rules, and when they become aware of them they just argue about it anyway. :smallsigh:


Feats themselves are EX.Citation, without any illogical assumptions, please.


Class features fall into four categories: Those designated as Spell-Like (Sp); Those designated as Supernatural (Su); Those designated as Extraordinary (Ex); Those not designated at all.Citation, without any illogical assumptions, please.








Exactly. if something doesn't say there's a limit, there isn't one.
Source for that?
Same source that gives Fighters the ability to cast unlimited wish spells at level 1.
When I want to use hyperbole about the rules not allowing things unless they state they exist, I typically go with 'humans having insta-death touch attacks, because the rules don't say they don't'.
Is Necroticplague even on a side or is he just here to argue?


This is an interesting discussion, but I have to say I find the argument that class levels cannot affect physical abilities to be a very odd one.That's not what they are saying.

The correct side is saying class features are their own category just like the special abilities category. Specific abilities a character can obtain may overlap, such as sneak attack can be granted as a class feature or obtained through an extraordinary ability, but the two categories do not directly correlate with each other. In other words, just because something is a class feature doesn't mean it's a special ability or vice version.

And to really get technical, just because a certain ability can be found as either one, doesn't mean the specific version you obtained is both either. If you find that confusing, think of how casting protection from evil works. A class feature with the supernatural or extraordinary type applied to it has to follow certain rules, like if a wizard cast protection from evil he would produce an arcane version of the spell. But if a class feature isn't a special ability then it doesn't have to follow something else's rules, like if a cleric cast the spell then he doesn't have to interact with the rules of arcane spell failure.

This is actually a really old argument too and parts of it were laid to rest in 2005 but it still persists. Mostly it's just people thinking everything in the game must be categorized under "special ability", like hit dice or your ability to roll a d20, which is where the wrong side is coming from. And it's a precursor to setting a strawman/troll/homebrew argument on what to claim something should be (Ex, Su, Sp, or Na) rather than what it probably is (none of those).

[Bucky]

If you already have a breath weapon, DFA's breath effects seem to all be (Ex) and level 15 gets you any of them.

[Doctor Awkward]

Feats themselves are EX.
Citation, without any illogical assumptions, please.

The only indirect claim I can think of from the top of my head that (most) feats are extraordinary abilities is the Book of Exalted Deeds, when it states that all exalted feats are supernatural unlike normal feats which are extraordinary.

The only direct claim I am aware of that all feats are extraordinary abilities is from the Official 3.5 FAQ (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20070731a), pg. 37, which is not a credible or reliable source for anything RAW-related in 3rd Edtition D&D.

[Nifft]

If you already have a breath weapon, DFA's breath effects seem to all be (Ex) and level 15 gets you any of them.

DFA Breath Effect seem to call themselves "Invocations" in several places, which would make them a special kind of spell-like abilities.

[Mato]

The only direct claim I am aware of that all feats are extraordinary abilities is from the Official 3.5 FAQ (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20070731a), pg. 37, which isa very credible or reliable source for anything RAW-related in 3rd Edition D&D. Yes I know.

I also know the FAQ doesn't say feats are extraordinary, it says the question is correct which references the book of exalted deeds. Exalted deeds, in an entry about a certain kind of feats rather than feats in general, claims most feats are extraordinary abilities in parenthesis. It doesn't say all feats are extra ordinary anymore than it says, for example, spell focus or toughness is an extraordinary ability. Now I can say knowledge devotion out of complete champion is an extraordinary ability, because the feat says it is. I can also say that far horizons out of races of destiny is a feat that doesn't specify what it is but one of the several benefits it grants is an extraordinary ability, because the feat says it does. Do you understand the difference here? I'm not talking about what personalized idea invented after reading something but I'm talking about what the rules say.

And that's because misconceptions can lead you astray and into arguments that shouldn't exist. Like for example, in order to use an extraordinary ability you must use a free action. The RC is explicitly clear that not an action is different from a free action, which can only be taken during your turn. If you are under the notion that all feats are inherently an extraordinary ability you may feel the urge to post questions like what happens if you use improved toughness during your turn if you used it last round? My DM says I have to verbalize using instantaneous rage feat last round if I want to benefit from it during this round, what should I do? Can I use craven on an attack of opportunity if I cannot take a free action during my opponent's turn?

And I feel some of this can be immediately remedied by reading the entry on feats from the PHB.

A feat is a special feature that either gives your character a new capability or improves one he or she already has

Some feats are general, meaning that no special rules govern them as a group.
Because here we can see that a feat like improved toughness is a special feature and no special rules, like for example extraordinary abilities, governs it. So we avoid those perceptively silly questions by refining our understanding to more closely match what the rules do say. And if you did the same thing with cunning brilliance, the thread would be trying to answer what the OP wanted to know instead of arguing about the basic understanding of the rule system.

[Doctor Awkward]

a very credible or reliable source for anything RAW-related in 3rd Edition D&D. Yes I know.

/sigh


Use the character’s ECL to determine starting equipment
and how the character earns and benefits from experience
(including when he gains an epic attack and save bonus; DMG
209), as noted on page 5 of SS. Use the actual character level
for everything else.

A monster becomes an epic-level character when its
character level hits 21, just like any other character. A
monster’s character level equals its racial Hit Dice + class
levels. (See the second sidebar on page 25 of the EL.)
A creature’s ECL has no effect on when it becomes an epic
character, although once it becomes an epic character, its ECL
continues to affect how much experience it earns and when it
can add a new level.

Here we see the FAQ describing two different ways of computing an epic creature with level adjustment's base attack bonus within one page of each another. Neither of these methods jibes with example creatures from the Monster Manual, as seen with the frost giant jarl (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm#frostGiantJarl)


A character who no longer meets the requirements of his
prestige class not only can’t advance any further in that class,
but he also “loses the benefit of any class features or other
special abilities granted by the class.” (CW 16) You retain Hit
Dice (and the hit points derived from), base attack bonus, and
base save bonuses granted by the prestige class.

Here we see the FAQ citing the ruling found in Complete Warrior (and also Complete Arcane, and found nowhere else in all of D&D) as a general rule on prestige classes, instead of citing the Dungeon Master's Guide (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/prestigeClasses.htm), which is the primary source for both the assassin, and the general rules on prestige classes, and which also contains no such rule.
It does this in spite of the fact that this ruling would cause a 10th-level Dragon Disciple (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/dragonDisciple.htm#dragonApotheosis) to become nonfunctional, since gaining the dragon type would cause it to be ineligible for the class, which requires you to be non-dragon, which would in turn cause you to lose the class feature thus qualifying for the class again, which would then put you into a quantum state where you are forever gaining and losing access to the class at the same time. Additionally, Dragon Disciple is not the only prestige class that plays badly with such a rule.


...wall of nonsense...
...This interpretation of freedom of movement can make it
easier to adjudicate the effects of the spell, but it is also more
restrictive. As always, it will ultimately be up to the Dungeon
Master to make the best call as he sees fit for his campaign and
play session.

Here we see the FAQ suggest that the DM classify every single movement-impeding effect in the game as either 'mental" or 'physical", and then restrict the effect of the spell freedom of movement to only the "physical" ones. That the Main FAQ suggests making house rules at all is weird, and that the Main FAQ would suggest such a monumental undertaking as if it were no big deal is downright insulting.
Not to mention their justification for hold person counting as a physical effect is dubious at best, seeing as it allows a Will save to negate, rather than a Fortitude. And it must function on hold person, because it is specifically called out in the spell description.


All creatures with regeneration follow the normal rules for
regeneration (presented most recently in MM4), with
exceptions as noted in the monster’s description.

Here we see one of several times where the FAQ suggests that the most recent printing of any particular ability takes precedence. This is in direct contradiction to the primary source rule found in the errata documents.


The maximum Dexterity bonus should be treated as the
maximum ability bonus given by the armor, so if you were
playing a deepwarden wearing full plate, you would only add 1
to your Armor Class from your Constitution.

Here we see the FAQ making up rules that are not present in the description of the deepwarden class feature in question. It does this in spite of the fact that many other special abilities that make similar ability score swaps specifically say whether or not they're limited like this.


The strongheart vest soulmeld reduces the amount of
ability damage you receive from an attack; however, it does not
keep you safe from the costs of hellfire blast because the ability
damage you are taking is not from someone attacking you.

Here we see the FAQ making another statement based on non-rules related text that is either A) flat-out wrong, or B) severely nerfs the soulmeld in that it wouldn't protect you against poisons and dozens of other things that it clearly does protect you from.


In this case, the better benefit will prevail. These effects
technically do not have a bonus, so they would not use the
stacking rules. One effect will end up overshadowing the other.

...Okay, what?
What the hell kind of a crackpot angle is that to approach this problem from? "Technically it's not a bonus, so it shouldn't stack"? I guess that means, since daggers technically don't provide a bonus either, when dual-wielding them you can only ever benefit from your best dagger?

And the list goes on to a hundred and eighty, but I think you get the point.

Both the FAQ, and it's predecessor, the "Sage Advice" column share the same problem of being written by a second party source that had no better judgement than a reasonably good DM, or you, or I, or any other contributor to this forum. Nor did the FAQ have any authority to change the rules. Wizards of the Coast had an official channel for rules changes: the errata.

The FAQ is filled with equal parts answers that say, "yes, that RAW stuff does indeed work that way", some notes that say, "yeah, RAW stuff does work that way, but here's what I suggest as a house-rule", some things that clarify actual ambiguities, and then some other stuff that is pulled out of absolutely nowhere and tries to act like it's actually errata instead of just clarifications and suggestions.

I understand the instinct to take any Official Wizard's document as authoritative, but the more you read through it, the more clear it becomes that the FAQ wasn't written by anyone with any kind of special authority, oversight, or quality-control.

[Necroticplague]

Is Necroticplague even on a side or is he just here to argue?
1. Those two arenn't mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible for me to be in any of the four states comprised of those two boolean possibilities.
2. I do have a side, but I'm not entirely certain if Nifft was agreeing with me or not.

To the best of my understand, the underlying premise of my logic lays outside any written rules, because it's based on the best of my understanding of how logic and language work within these contexts. "If the rules don't say there is something/something is possible, there isn't that thing/something isn't possible", is essentially an axiom within my framework of reference, so no 'source' of any form can be given, just as they'd similarly be unable to provide a source for my opponent's apparent axiom of "if the rules don't say there isn't something, there can be something there". Thus, why I've ceased actual further debate, because we've ultimately hit the unworkable brick wall of operating under different axiomatic systems of interpretation, from which no further debate can be fruitful.

I then interpreted Niffts statement as being an intentionally farcical way to point this out, indicating that the "the rules don't say it doesn't" approach allows for absurdities such as that, which is aggreeing with me.

It is entirely possible that I interpreted that incorrectly, however.

[Nifft]

There's nothing ~treasonous~ about someone pointing out the validity or inaccuracy of any argument -- even if doing so would not "support his own side".

This is a discussion, not a war.

We're here to entertain each other, mostly.

[Mato]

Here we see the FAQ describing two different ways of computing an epic creature with level adjustment's base attack bonus within one page of each another.That's because, if you read the entry, it cites the twenty fifth page of the epic level handbook which says.

Regardless of its ECL, a monster with class levels uses the base attack bonus and base save bonus progressions of its class (rather than the progression shown on Table 1–1) until it has 20 character levels. Beginning with its 21st character level, it uses the progressions shown on Table 1–1.
In any other place in this book where “character level” is indicated, you can use effective character level instead. For example, a creature with a level adjustment of +5 who is also a 13th-level fighter/3rd-level blackguard is ECL 21 and eligible to select an epic feat provided he meets the prerequisites.So according to the EL, you use it's HD+Class. The idea that you can substitute their ECL whenever you read "character level" by RAW does not apply to the previous paragraph.

The second entry on page three addresses a 3.0 book released in 2002 while the first one deals with a 3.5 book released in 2014. They, the EL & DMG, disagree with each other on how to handle epic progressions. The FAQ merely reprinted an older entry and brought the 3.0 & 3.5 contradiction closer to each other. When you claim you should ignore any rule books with this problem you're not saying we should ignore the FAQ. You are saying we should ignore the DMG and every other book that has a 3.0/3.5 problem.


Here we see the FAQ citing the ruling found in Complete Warrior (and also Complete Arcane, and found nowhere else in all of D&D) as a general rule on prestige classes, instead of citing the Dungeon Master's Guide (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/prestigeClasses.htm), which is the primary source for both the assassin, and the general rules on prestige classes, and which also contains no such rule.You very clearly understand the FAQ is discussing the ruling in Complete Warrior & CW explicitly states changing your alignment will cause loss of class features. Then as you pointed out, the DMG is completely silent on this issue. So why did you double shift the topic to the strawman of how the dragon disciple interacts with the rules found in the complete series while incorrectly blaming anything other than complete warrior/arcane?


That the Main FAQ suggests making house rules at all is weird
Is it really?

Often a situation will arise that isn’t explicitly covered by the rules. In such a situation, you need to provide guidance as to how it should be resolved. When you come upon a situation that the rules don’t seem to cover, consider the following courses of action.
• Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstance.
• If you have to make something up, stick with it for the rest of the campaign. (This is called a house rule.) Consistency keeps players satisfied and gives them the feeling that they adventure in a stable, predictable universe and not in some random, nonsensical place subject only to the DM’s whims.
• When in doubt, remember this handy little rule: Favorable conditions add +2 to any d20 roll, and unfavorable conditions penalize the roll by –2. You’ll be surprised how often this “DM’s best friend” will solve problems.

Essential to the D&D game is the Dungeon Master (DM). The DM is the referee and storyteller for the game, as well as the judge when the rules don’t cover a particular topic.
Let’s face it: No set of rules can cover every possible circumstance in a game meant to mimic life in a fantasy world. The rules clear up as much as possible, assuming the DM can make a judgment in a situation that the rules don’t cover or that they don’t cover adequately. DMs are expected to use knowledge of existing rules, common sense, realworld knowledge, and a sense of fun when dealing with such special cases. Knowledge of the existing rules is key, because the rules often do cover similar cases or combine to make such judgment calls unnecessary. It’s not always true, but you often can do or at least try something the rules fail to directly forbid, as long as the DM thinks doing so is reasonable. For example, the rules don’t come out and say that a Medium creature threatens all squares within 10 feet while wielding a reach weapon and wearing spiked gauntlets. However, it’s appropriate to assume the creature does just that.
If I'm not mistaken in order for something to be weird it has to different or unexpected from previous expectations. So maybe it's wired to you, but I think the FAQ is trying to cover several scenarios of how freedom of movement works as well as educating DMs to make better choices about their adjudication the system treats as a required standard is pretty fitting.


Here we see one of several times where the FAQ suggests that the most recent printing of any particular ability takes precedence. This is in direct contradiction to the primary source rule found in the errata documents.And it reminds me of one of my favorite things I read on the MMX boards. According to the PHB there are eleven classes in the game, so when dungeonscape claimed the Factotum was a new one it contradicted the PHB. So this thread should exist according to your errata.

Also you should probably actually read the errata, they changed the primary/secondary source rule in subsequent releases prior to it being finalized in the rules compendium which says it ignores those previous errata rules you are argumentatively holding on to.


Here we see the FAQ making up rules that are not present in the description of the deepwarden class feature in question.The Deepwarden says you use his constitution bonus instead of dexterity. I'm not sure what you think that means, but it strongly implies that it's some kind of substitution. Like if you were to be in a position where your dexterity bonus would be lessened or ignored, like being flat-footed, you're lose your substituted values too. Doesn't the deepwarden's example say that too? Yeah, it does.


Here we see the FAQ making another statement based on non-rules related textNon-rules text?

The strongheart vest protects you from attacks that would reduce your ability scores.:smallsigh:

It's just not worth going through the rest of your post. You have progressed blaming the FAQ for other book's mistakes to much more desperate attempts like ignoring supplements, projecting your own expectations onto things, to just plain ignoring rules text in the supplements them selves just because you don't like them. As a minor suggestion through, you should probably avoid any threads discussing the rule oddities in D&D before you throw all of the books in the trash in disgust.

[Doctor Awkward]

That's because, if you read the entry, it cites the twenty fifth page of the epic level handbook which says.
So according to the EL, you use it's HD+Class. The idea that you can substitute their ECL whenever you read "character level" by RAW does not apply to the previous paragraph.

The second entry on page three addresses a 3.0 book released in 2002 while the first one deals with a 3.5 book released in 2014. They, the EL & DMG, disagree with each other on how to handle epic progressions. The FAQ merely reprinted an older entry and brought the 3.0 & 3.5 contradiction closer to each other. When you claim you should ignore any rule books with this problem you're not saying we should ignore the FAQ. You are saying we should ignore the DMG and every other book that has a 3.0/3.5 problem.

No, I am saying this is evidence that the FAQ is inconsistent and frequently doesn't know what it is talking about, and that it is very clear that neither of the methods suggested was used to generate the statistic blocks in the 3.5 Monster Manual.
This suggests that the FAQ is unreliable.


You very clearly understand the FAQ is discussing the ruling in Complete Warrior & CW explicitly states changing your alignment will cause loss of class features. Then as you pointed out, the DMG is completely silent on this issue. So why did you double shift the topic to the strawman of how the dragon disciple interacts with the rules found in the complete series while incorrectly blaming anything other than complete warrior/arcane?


I am not blaming CW/CA.
I am blaming the FAQ for referring to them for a general ruling on prestige classes, instead of going to the DMG like it should have.
The DMG is not "silent" on this issue, because it is literally not an issue unless you try to apply the CW/CA rule globally to all of D&D. It is not following RAW, nor is it appropriate, for every single prestige class to have a pseudo-falling mechanic that would require players to back-edit their entire character sheet at the risk of getting hit with a Ray of Enfeeblement and no longer qualifying for Power Attack, thus losing access to Deepstone Sentinel (and associated maneuvers known/readied).
This suggests that the FAQ is unreliable.


Is it really?
Yes.
The purported mission of the the FAQ was to offer clarifications and developer insight into rules ambiguities.
Instead it wafts back and forth between actual clarifications and waxing philosophically about the nature of the rules themselves, oftentimes without warning.



If I'm not mistaken in order for something to be weird it has to different or unexpected from previous expectations. So maybe it's wired to you, but I think the FAQ is trying to cover several scenarios of how freedom of movement works as well as educating DMs to make better choices about their adjudication the system treats as a required standard is pretty fitting.
Saying, "No. Being stunned is preventing you from taking all actions. The freedom of movement spell was only intended to cover effects that specifically pertain to restricting movement." would have been perfectly fine.
The FAQ didn't do this, because the FAQ is unreliable.


And it reminds me of one of my favorite things I read on the MMX boards. According to the PHB there are eleven classes in the game, so when dungeonscape claimed the Factotum was a new one it contradicted the PHB. So this thread should exist according to your errata.


CREATING NEW CLASSES
It’s possible to create entirely new classes, or rather, to alter existing
classes so drastically that they’re no longer recognizable.
It never ceases to amaze me how many rules "dysfunctions" are solved by actually reading the books.


Also you should probably actually read the errata, they changed the primary/secondary source rule in subsequent releases prior to it being finalized in the rules compendium which says it ignores those previous errata rules you are argumentatively holding on to.
Where does the RC say that?
I've seen the part where it claims primacy any time a previous source disagrees with it.
But I've never seen anything that claims the RC has primacy over topics that it doesn't discuss.


The Deepwarden says you use his constitution bonus instead of dexterity. I'm not sure what you think that means, but it strongly implies that it's some kind of substitution. Like if you were to be in a position where your dexterity bonus would be lessened or ignored, like being flat-footed, you're lose your substituted values too. Doesn't the deepwarden's example say that too? Yeah, it does.
Did you find text within the Deepwarden that says any armor's maximum Dexterity bonus to AC is also applied to the Constitution bonus?
I hope not, because it doesn't exist. This answer is clearly the result of the author glancing at the class and making a snap decision, like any other DM would have to when presented with this issue.

Although speaking of the example Deepwarden, that was actually the first place I looked to see if it would give a clue to resolve this question. It is unfortunately useless, since it has a +1 chain shirt (+4 Max Dex), and a 16 Con, and it's AC is computed correctly when factoring the Con bonus in with all the other listed equipment.


Non-rules text?
:smallsigh:


This is the non-rule text I was referring to (on which the judgement was clearly based):

A heavy web belt of cyan energy wraps around your torso. When
you wear it, you feel energized and revitalized. When you are
struck by an attack that would damage your ability scores, a wave
of incarnum energy passes through you, blunting the effectiveness
of the attack.

That is the fluff that appears before the actual benefit of the soulmeld.
The author's answer also requires you to ignore the second sentence of the soulmeld in favor of the first. "Any time you would take ability damage, such as Constitution damage or Strength damage, the amount of the damage is reduced by 1 point, to a minimum of 0." is extraordinarily definitive.

Plus, ruling as the FAQ suggests means that you would only be protected from poison if someone tried to stab you with it. The soulmeld would do nothing if someone say, smeared a contact poison on the book you read before bed each night, or slipped it into your food. Nor would it protect you from something like a psychic vampire's Wisdom Drain aura, since it's damage that isn't the result of an attack.

At it's most absurd interpretation, this ruling means the soulmeld wouldn't protect you from spells or effects that don't require attack rolls either, since the PHB makes a very clear distinction between casting a spell and making an attack.

Basically, it's a terrible knee-jerk ruling, and suggests that the FAQ is unreliable.


It's just not worth going through the rest of your post. You have progressed blaming the FAQ for other book's mistakes to much more desperate attempts like ignoring supplements, projecting your own expectations onto things, to just plain ignoring rules text in the supplements them selves just because you don't like them. As a minor suggestion through, you should probably avoid any threads discussing the rule oddities in D&D before you throw all of the books in the trash in disgust.

...Um... not sure how you got that from the rest of my post.
For the most part, the books are fine.
...It's the FAQ that is frequently garbage and should be taken with a heavy dose of salt.

In case it wasn't somehow clear, my position on the FAQ is that it's the last source you should bother checking for any given issue, because even when the FAQ correctly states the answer to a rules question, you still have to go and check the relevant sourcebooks anyway to make sure it isn't trying to change things.

[Mato]

This suggests that the FAQ is unreliable.Which is a vacuous truth, the other rule books are even less reliable. The often have problems within their own chapters or examples without even having to extend outwards to other supplements and even rule sets like the FAQ was forced to cover. Case and point, your problem with it is just a tiny fragment of the problem everyone else has when they pick up Savage Species and attempt to use it in their game.


I am not blaming CW/CA. I am blaming the FAQ for referring to them for a general ruling on prestige classes, instead of going to the DMG like it should have.What kind of reply is this? Seriously, I just can't categorize it. The rule isn't in the DMG, it's in the CW/CA. Of course an entry talking about the rule in CW/CA is going to reference the rule in CW/CA, why in the world wouldn't it? And how can you not blame the CW/CA for making up the rule in the first place? Nothing you just said makes any sort of sense no matter how you attempt to decipher it. And that's probably why this discussion is a giant waste of time.

But I will answer one more question.

Where does the RC say that?
I've seen the part where it claims primacy any time a previous source disagrees with it.
But I've never seen anything that claims the RC has primacy over topics that it doesn't discuss.The RC updates the DMG's rules on how to adjudicate the rules using a general<specific<exception stack. It's an updated form of the redacted errata stance that was revised sometime around 2004 (excluding older errata files that were rereleased).

The main advantage that the order created is it removed silly arguments that the MM3, or MM4, or MM5, had no ability to update or redefine monster abilities. So for example of Libris Mortis wanted to reexplain the incorporeal subtype, clarify a bunch of interactions with it, and add new rules to it then when it did so it became the most specific rule on incorporeality in general and held priority over the MM1's entry. The order of rules also means that the CW/CA's focused entry on what happens if you violate entry requirements also holds priority over any lack of text the DMG has even if you think your argument from ignorance had any value to begin with.

But I'm not here to teach you basic cognition or logic, I pay taxes on a school system that fails to do that for me, so good luck.

[Doctor Awkward]

Which is a vacuous truth, the other rule books are even less reliable. The often have problems within their own chapters or examples without even having to extend outwards to other supplements and even rule sets like the FAQ was forced to cover. Case and point, your problem with it is just a tiny fragment of the problem everyone else has when they pick up Savage Species and attempt to use it in their game.

What kind of reply is this? Seriously, I just can't categorize it. The rule isn't in the DMG, it's in the CW/CA. Of course an entry talking about the rule in CW/CA is going to reference the rule in CW/CA, why in the world wouldn't it? And how can you not blame the CW/CA for making up the rule in the first place? Nothing you just said makes any sort of sense no matter how you attempt to decipher it. And that's probably why this discussion is a giant waste of time.

But I will answer one more question.
The RC updates the DMG's rules on how to adjudicate the rules using a general<specific<exception stack. It's an updated form of the redacted errata stance that was revised sometime around 2004 (excluding older errata files that were rereleased).

The main advantage that the order created is it removed silly arguments that the MM3, or MM4, or MM5, had no ability to update or redefine monster abilities. So for example of Libris Mortis wanted to reexplain the incorporeal subtype, clarify a bunch of interactions with it, and add new rules to it then when it did so it became the most specific rule on incorporeality in general and held priority over the MM1's entry. The order of rules also means that the CW/CA's focused entry on what happens if you violate entry requirements also holds priority over any lack of text the DMG has even if you think your argument from ignorance had any value to begin with.

But I'm not here to teach you basic cognition or logic, I pay taxes on a school system that fails to do that for me, so good luck.


...

Wow.
You are absolutely correct.

For all the years I have been playing tabletop RPG's, I have always approached 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons as an occasionally flawed, but generally stable framework in which to play a game. Sure, I would note some inconsistencies in books, even some big ones that just couldn't be chalked up to editing mistakes, but by and large I had always assumed that, with the correct approach and an appropriate helping of common sense, you could generally arrive at interpretations that were both faithful to the intent of the text while still satisfying RAW. I had always regarded the Official FAQ, and it's associated CustServ and Sage Advice columns with more than a little bit of skepticism on account of the various answers that would crop up that appeared to have no obvious basis in the rules as written, or seemed to contradict the rules outright.

But all this time I had it backwards.

It's the sourcebooks themselves that are a complete mess! They are nothing but a hardback collection of contradictions and sloppy writing, and the occasions in which they seem to make sense are completely accidental. It was the brave authors of the FAQ that took it upon themselves to try and make sense of all the madness; to attempt to cobble together the inconceivable turbidity that is the D&D 3rd Edition ruleset into something that approximates a playable system. And in my downright heinous assumption to the contrary, I have callously dismissed their efforts as though they were the ones that didn't fully understand. Never once did I consider the FAQ's feelings as I publicly debased the noble efforts of its authors. Even now, so soon after this revelation, I can scarce recall what I was thinking.

Even something so obvious as the prestige class ruling seemed silly to me, if you can believe it. I had the shocking audacity to once state that such a rule would cause more problems than it would solve, what with it either not lining up with the Rules As Written, or requiring a DM who chose to apply the ruling to then bake exemptions into his games to account for classes like Dragon Disciple that would not play well with that rule. So either way, the DM would be house-ruling something. Can you believe how foolish I was to even consider questioning the FAQ like that? It's nearly as ridiculous as believing that the concept of "specific trumps general" had been baked into Dungeons & Dragons since before 3rd Edition was even created... I actually thought that such a revolutionary concept predated the Rules Compendium!

And your insight in connecting my public school education with my inability to see the wisdom of the FAQ for what it truly was? Simply astonishing. To think that you not only changed my life by bestowing upon me the truth behind truths of the D&D 3rd Edition rules system, but also flawlessly diagnosed the root cause of my mistaken beliefs on the subject in a matter of mere moments. Worst of all, the countless times that my parents encouraged me to not only stay focused on my studies but to also seek out my own knowledge was only serving to plant the seeds for such an audacious and untenable approach to not just the D&D 3rd Edition, but to all tabletop roleplaying games.

I just...

...Forgive me. There are no words to express my gratitude. To say that this experience has been humbling would be an understatement of biblical proportions. That you should deign to not only grace this forum with your wisdom and countenance, but to personally enlighten me on the unmitigated foolishness of my methods for interpreting the D&D 3rd Edition rules system... Your words, crass and asinine though they might seem to some, have truly opened my eyes to wonders I had never before thought to behold; in this life or the next.

Thank you, Mato.

Bless you.

[Mato]

...
Wow.
You are absolutely correct.

For all the years I have been playing tabletop RPG's, I have always approached 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons as an occasionally flawed, but generally stable framework in which to play a game. Sure, I would note some inconsistencies in books, even some big ones that just couldn't be chalked up to editing mistakes, but by and large I had always assumed that, with the correct approach and an appropriate helping of common sense, you could generally arrive at interpretations that were both faithful to the intent of the text while still satisfying RAW. I had always regarded the Official FAQ, and it's associated CustServ and Sage Advice columns with more than a little bit of skepticism on account of the various answers that would crop up that appeared to have no obvious basis in the rules as written, or seemed to contradict the rules outright.

But all this time I had it backwards.

It's the sourcebooks themselves that are a complete mess! They are nothing but a hardback collection of contradictions and sloppy writing, and the occasions in which they seem to make sense are completely accidental. It was the brave authors of the FAQ that took it upon themselves to try and make sense of all the madness; to attempt to cobble together the inconceivable turbidity that is the D&D 3rd Edition ruleset into something that approximates a playable system. And in my downright heinous assumption to the contrary, I have callously dismissed their efforts as though they were the ones that didn't fully understand. Never once did I consider the FAQ's feelings as I publicly debased the noble efforts of its authors. Even now, so soon after this revelation, I can scarce recall what I was thinking.

Even something so obvious as the prestige class ruling seemed silly to me, if you can believe it. I had the shocking audacity to once state that such a rule would cause more problems than it would solve, what with it either not lining up with the Rules As Written, or requiring a DM who chose to apply the ruling to then bake exemptions into his games to account for classes like Dragon Disciple that would not play well with that rule. So either way, the DM would be house-ruling something. Can you believe how foolish I was to even consider questioning the FAQ like that? It's nearly as ridiculous as believing that the concept of "specific trumps general" had been baked into Dungeons & Dragons since before 3rd Edition was even created... I actually thought that such a revolutionary concept predated the Rules Compendium!

And your insight in connecting my public school education with my inability to see the wisdom of the FAQ for what it truly was? Simply astonishing. To think that you not only changed my life by bestowing upon me the truth behind truths of the D&D 3rd Edition rules system, but also flawlessly diagnosed the root cause of my mistaken beliefs on the subject in a matter of mere moments. Worst of all, the countless times that my parents encouraged me to not only stay focused on my studies but to also seek out my own knowledge was only serving to plant the seeds for such an audacious and untenable approach to not just the D&D 3rd Edition, but to all tabletop roleplaying games.

I just...

...Forgive me. There are no words to express my gratitude. To say that this experience has been humbling would be an understatement of biblical proportions. That you should deign to not only grace this forum with your wisdom and countenance, but to personally enlighten me on the unmitigated foolishness of my methods for interpreting the D&D 3rd Edition rules system... Your words, crass and asinine though they might seem to some, have truly opened my eyes to wonders I had never before thought to behold; in this life or the next.

Thank you, Mato.

Bless you.
You are welcome Tonymitsu.

I'm glad I could help you realize that misinterpreting written communication and changing it's context to support your own personal desires is a terrible thing to do to someone else's grandiloquent works. And I am also happy to hear that Andy Collins's work on several rule books won't be subjected to any more bulverism from you too.

So without any intended entendre, may god bless you as well.

[Doctor Awkward]

Honest question: Has your approach to discussion ever once actually worked?

I have never heard of any instance where someone was successfully persuaded by being subjected to churlish labels, vague personal insults, and largely pathetic attempts at public humiliation.

Or is it more a "make them so angry they stop responding and then I win by default" sort of strategy?

[BowStreetRunner]

Honest question: Has your approach to discussion ever once actually worked?

I have never heard of any instance where someone was successfully persuaded by being subjected to churlish labels, vague personal insults, and largely pathetic attempts at public humiliation.

Or is it more a "make them so angry they stop responding and then I win by default" sort of strategy?

Oh, please. The two of you are both equal participants in this little squabble. Neither one of you can claim to have the moral high ground (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-have-the-high-ground) here. You both should also have realized by now that you aren't going to convince the other of anything you say, either.

Stick to making your arguments for the rest of your audience and don't resort to bickering with each other. Lay out your responses in as clear and logical a format as you can so that others who come across this thread while looking for their own answers will be able to see both sides of the issue and make their own decision as to which they believe is the correct interpretation. Don't get too emotionally invested in the outcome either. There are plenty of people who will just never see it from your side and that's beyond your control. You're not posting for them - that would be the very definition of futile. You're posting for everyone else - for the people who can see it from your point of view and will appreciate the insights you added to the conversation.

[Cosi]

Citation, without any illogical assumptions, please.
(On class abilities being Ex, Su, Sp, or Other. Also, why does this board not do nested quotes?)

I'm pretty sure "one of this set of things or something else" represents the totality of things it is possible for something to be. In any case, you're asking him to prove a negative. If you disagree, show off the ability you think is something else.

[Mato]

Honest question: Has your approach to discussion ever once actually worked?Yes actually it works just fine. But there is a difference in inquiring or confirming and in real or online interactions. Do you understand them?


(On class abilities being Ex, Su, Sp, or Other. Also, why does this board not do nested quotes?)Because if they did that people would contextually understand things better.

You have to reconstruct them your self. For example (and I added one of those boxes since it was the one Bow was replying to).







Class features (PHB, pg. 24) are "special characteristics of the class." They include weapon and armor proficiency, spells, and other unique capabilities, such as those possessed by a rogue or monk. Sometimes class features are supernatural or spell-like, as noted by their individual entries.

Class features are never a inherently a function of an individual creature's nature. They are at all times a product of classes it has taken.
Class features fall into four categories: Those designated as Spell-Like (Sp); Those designated as Supernatural (Su); Those designated as Extraordinary (Ex); Those not designated at all.
Citation, without any illogical assumptions, please.
I'm pretty sure "one of this set of things or something else" represents the totality of things it is possible for something to be. In any case, you're asking him to prove a negative. If you disagree, show off the ability you think is something else.And with the context you can see Tonymitsu already provided a quote form the PHB that asserts class features are special characteristics of the class while BowStreetRunner is attempting to say they are special abilities without any proof.


I'm pretty sure "one of this set of things or something else" represents the totality of things it is possible for something to be. In any case, you're asking him to prove a negative. If you disagree, show off the ability you think is something else.
And this was also addressed in the very same message you quoted even without the additional context since I resummerized the debate as I understood it for Andor13.

That's not what they are saying.

The correct side is saying class features are their own category just like the special abilities category. Specific abilities a character can obtain may overlap, such as sneak attack can be granted as a class feature or obtained through an extraordinary ability, but the two categories do not directly correlate with each other. In other words, just because something is a class feature doesn't mean it's a special ability or vice version.Also so you know, you do have to prove a negative. The idea that you don't have to prove anything, but the other guy does, is called shifting the goal posts.

[Esprit15]

More on topic:

Copying Mettle from Hexblade would be nice.

Copying Scout's Skirmish, then using Font of Inspiration and Cunning Surge for an absurd amount of attacks.