Master of Dragonfire Flies

[Gruftzwerg]

Inspired by a recent thread about Master of Flies I wanted to make an optimized fun build. Those who dislike lil creepy things or are scared should avoid this thread. Everybody else, let's have fun!


White Dragonwrought Desert Kobold (DWK)

DFA 6 / Sorcerer 1 / Master of Flies 8 / Warshaper 5

Starting Stats: (32Points)
Str: 14 (14 base -4 racial +4 from psychosis)
Dex: 12 (10 base + 2 racial)
Con: 16*
Int: 12 (9 base + 3 from age/DWK)
Wis: 10 (13 base + 3 from age/DWK -2 racial -4 from psychosis)
Cha: 18 (15 base +3 from age/DWK)
* buff as much as you can: +5 from lvl + 5 from Wish + 6 from item = 32 Con (+11 modifier)


Feats:
1. Dragonwrought Kobold (White: +2 racial bonus to Balance)
3. Entangling Breath
6. Quick Change
9. Improved Dragon Wings (thx to being a dragon, we automatically qualify for anything that requires dragonblood subtype)
12. Fly-by-Attack
15. Natural Spell
18. Combat Reflexes or Wingstorm (neither is really mandatory. you could even pick something else)


Skills:
Knowledge (Nature): min. 8 ranks
Escape Artist: min. 5 ranks (@ lvl 7 due to being a cross-class skill)
Concentration: max ranks
Balance: min. 5 ranks (Draconic Heritage from DFA makes this a class skill for all classes)


DFA ability choices:
1: Draconic Heritage feat (white) - gives balance as class skill
1: Endure Exposure (invocation) - Endure Elements + immune to your breath
2: Cold Cone Breath - deals cold damage
3: Magic Insight (invocation) - Detect Magic at will + Identify items
5: Slow Breath - applies slow for 2 rounds on failed save and 1 round if he did succeed the save
6: Humanoid Shape - enables you to turn into a large sized Hornhead Saurial

Sorcerer 1st lvl Spells known:
Path of Frost - similar to grease. white dragons can cast is at swift action!
Strength of the True Form - immediate action spell that lets you use the better stats of either your real or changed form for 1 round

Sorcerer ACF Poltergeist: Frost Fingers
Frost Fingers (Su): Often belabored for your clumsiness as a child, it sometimes seems as if your merest touch causes objects to shatter and crack. Whenever you first touch an object with a hardness of 2 or less it must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + Charisma modifier) or take damage equal to your Charisma modifier. This damage ignores hardness. If the item makes its saving throw or endures the damage you may handle it normally thereafter.

Spells lost: Ray of frost and touch of fatigue.

Draconic Rite of Passage:
We pick Mage Armor as SLA 1/day. Since it scales with effective character lvl as caster level the single use will still cover most of the day at later levels.

Ravening Psychosis
We assume that DWK are True Dragons by RAW. This psychosis alters the build in some funny ways (with ups and downs).

First we have simple ability score adjustment (+4STR, -4WIS).

(Unnatural Power) Than our breath weapon can now only be used 3 rounds in a row and get the typical cooldown of 1d4 rounds after that (which would qualify us for metabreaths, but that ain't our aim here).

(Wild Power) A "fire shield" like ability damages anyone who attacks the dragon for 1d6 + caster lvl (15max.) (we use the caster lvl of kobold's Draconic Rite of Passage since it scales with effective character lvls).

(Eat of Die [Ex]) Finally we get to the silly ability the build is aiming for:
A ravening dragon must consume an enormous quantity of food- much more than a typical dragon needs. Each day, a ravening dragon must eat an amount of creatures of a body mass equal to its own or take 1 point of Constitution drain, as the elemental powers fueling its body destroy it from within. Assign each creature the dragon consumes a food point value according to its size category, as Fol¬ lows: Diminutive or Fine o, Tiny 1/16, Small 1/4, Medium 1, Large 4, Huge 16, Gargantuan 64, Colossal 256, if the dragon has not consumed food points equal to the value indicated for its size by the end of the day, it suffers the Constitution dram. If it has suffered from the ravening disorder for some time, assume that it has lost id6-i points of Constitution already from occasional missed meals.
When well fed, a ravening dragon might seek out new hunting grounds or attempt to secure an area it already controls. The creature can exercise patience and cunning during such times, just like a normal dragon. However, if it has gone for a day without eating enough, it loses control and goes directly after any prey capable of sus¬ taining it. Up to twice per day, a raven¬ ing dragon out of control can attempt a Wisdom check (DC 10 + 2 per day with¬ out sufficient food). Success allows it to regain control for 1 hour; failure leaves it in a frenzied state. While out of con¬ trol, the dragon must make a successful Concentration check (DC 15 4 spell level) each time it tries to cast a spell or lose the spell. Once it has eaten enough food for the days i? missed meals, it regains its composure.


__________________________


Recommended Items

I'll only showcase build specific item suggestion and not the standard stuff that you would always buy.

Ring of Growth:
Lets you grow one size category (medium kobold or huge Hornhead Saurial). Together with MoF 8 we can now shape into a colossal swarm (from huge Hornhead Saurial).

Crown of the North Wind:
Gives some options to change the breath type into that of a metallic dragon. e.g. Turn your cold breath (DFA 2nd lvl) into a Paralyzing Breath (as silver dragons).

Ring of Spellstoring:
Get a raven familiar (Sorcerer) and cast Path of Frost into the ring. Let your familiar assist you with forcing the enemies into balance checks.

Pectoral of Maneuverability:
Improves maneuverability for flying to the next step (good in our chase).


__________________________

The build starts as a very hungry Ravenous DWK Kobold who is good at entangling and slowing his enemies with his breath. The single lvl of Sorcerer adds a lil to the battlefield control. But this changes over time when the abilities start to synergize.

MoF's swarm forms Distraction ability is CON based. "Strength of the True Form" allows to use our own CON while shaped (immediate action, 1 round duration). Combined with +4 from warshaper and any other boost you can find (lvlUp, items, Wish..) we can up the DC very high.

For those who have a good saves, Path of Frost is a good alternative to annoy em with balance checks.

When in swarm form, Frost Fingers (SU) will try to destroy anything with a hardness of 2 or less (up to leather/hide) what shares the space with us. This includes most light to medium armor types, robes, spell books and Spell Component Pouches.

Fly-by-Attack allows us to reposition before using the breath weapon and than to reposition for the swarm attack at the end of the turn.

Improved Dragon Wings allows us to fly at 30 feet (average maneuverability) in any form (including the normally crippled swarm forms).

Warshaper adds some nice defensive buffs along with Fast Healing. This makes the swarm form especially hard to kill. Morphic weapons is imho just a funny (but strong) gimmick for this build.

Finally (@lvl 20) we get Flashmorph (Humanoid Shape now free action with Quick Change) and Multimorph (for Swarm Shape). This gives the maximum amount of flexibility to shift between forms as desired.


__________________________

If you ever wanted to play a pest themed character here you go. Eat anything eatable in your path (EAT OR DIE!-ability) and destroy anything left over (Frost Fingers). The build would also shine in any kind of eating contest. If you ever should come into a situation where you need to eat your way out, this Kobold will handle it!

I hope I didn't missed anything. I would appreciate some feedback and any kind of questions/critique/comments are welcome =)

edit: typos

[Particle_Man]

Is the composition of your swarm up to you? Because being a swarm of dragonflies would be thematically appropriate and just cool. :smallcool:

[Gruftzwerg]

Is the composition of your swarm up to you? Because being a swarm of dragonflies would be thematically appropriate and just cool. :smallcool:

Yeah, I know what you mean^^
But sadly the swarm shape ability is limited to Spiders, Centipedes and Locusts.
An option would be to fluff the locusts with their (Improved) Dragon Wings as dragonflies. I mean, their type is still dragon (due to the DWK feat) :smallcool:

[Doctor Despair]

Are you using the 3.0 Quick Change? It was errata'd in 3.5 to be Changeling only. :/

[Gruftzwerg]

Are you using the 3.0 Quick Change? It was errata'd in 3.5 to be Changeling only. :/

yeah I use the 3.0 version since MoF and Quick Change are from the same book (SS). Imho it wouldn't make any sense to sole limit the prc to Changelings due to the 3.5 conversation..

[loky1109]

Are you using the 3.0 Quick Change? It was errata'd in 3.5 to be Changeling only. :/
I don't think it was errata. Only same name.

[lylsyly]

love the concept but 2 quick points.

Improved dragon wings requires dragon wings.

why not take the greater rite of draconic passage and gain an effective sorcerer level?

[Gruftzwerg]

love the concept but 2 quick points.

Improved dragon wings requires dragon wings.

why not take the greater rite of draconic passage and gain an effective sorcerer level?

1. As said, there is a rule that "dragons" automatically qualify for any feat that requires "dragonblooded". Improved Dragon Wings is such a feat.

Dragons automatically qualify for any classes, prestige classes, racial substitution levels, feats, powers, or spells that require the dragonblood subtype.
Thus as a dragon you automatically quality for Improved Dragon Wings.

2. Because there is no real benefit (due to the extra feat requirement). Mage Armor has a duration of h/clvl and the SLA has clvl = effective character lvl and thus doesn't really profit that much from 2 additional uses at lvl 18 (18h duration). The 2nd lvl progression of Sorcerer only gives a single 0th lvl spell. And one additional 0th and 1st lvl spell slot ain't that great either. A simple Ring of Spellstoring offers more benefits for less character build resources invested (feat>gold).

___

Thx everybody for the feedback so far. <3
More feedback is still welcome. ^^

[loky1109]

1. As said, there is a rule that "dragons" automatically qualify for any feat that requires "dragonblooded". Improved Dragon Wings is such a feat.

And you read this as "doesn't need meet any other prerequisites". Do you understand where you did mistake?

[Gruftzwerg]

And you read this as "doesn't need meet any other prerequisites". Do you understand where you did mistake?
Sorry, but imho you are the one making the mistake here.

The text doesn't say that "a dragon automatically counts as dragonblooded",
nor does it say "a dragon ignores the dragonblooded requirement".

It says " Dragons automatically qualify for any classes, prestige classes, racial substitution levels, feats, powers, or spells that require the dragonblood subtype".
As I said, any class, prestige classes, racial substitution levels, feats, powers, or spells that require the dragonblood subtype, can be automatically qualified for.

______________________

Imho the difference is obvious here. I'm not arguing about the designer intentions (RAI) here. By Rules As Written(RAW) this is imho the most correct interpretation. This is theoretical optimization which doesn't has a DM to ask and as such relies sole on a RAW interpretation for theoretical optimization fun. Nothing more, nothing less. RAW is not an advice how you should play out the Rules at you table. It's just a base construct for forum/discussion purposes. And by RAW "you automatically qualify for ...(now it names possible targets where it applies to).. that requires the dragonblood subtype (and gives an extra condition when it does apply)".

[loky1109]

Bad wording, yes!
Let show me any DM whom will allow that reading.

This definitely isn't RAI. And every sentient DM should agree with it.

This is obvious mistake. TO based on so mistaked ground... This isn't crime, but who do you want to cheat? You found one more stupid hole. Hooray?
Even in TO this shouldn't work.

Let's look at DRAGON WINGS:

Prerequisites: Dragonblood subtype, 1st level only.
Special: Unlike most feats, this feat must be taken at 1st level, during character creation. A kobold with the Dragonwrought feat can take this feat at 3rd level.
If all work as you say, this special exception isn't needed.

[Gruftzwerg]

Bad wording, yes!
Let show me any DM whom will allow that reading.

This definitely isn't RAI. And every sentient DM should agree with it.

This is obvious mistake. TO based on so mistaked ground... This isn't crime, but who do you want to cheat?
Even in TO this shouldn't work.

Let's look at DRAGON WINGS:

If all work as you say, this special exception isn't needed.

To is just for fun in the forum and for rule lawyers. It has nothing to do with a real DM.

And yeah, by RAW that line in "Dragon Wings" is not necessary and the Kobold could take it even later. The sentence is not contradicting the general rules for dragons (that they automatically qualify).
Sorry, RAW doesn't care for bad editing skills from the authors. Or better said, RAW shows the abuse potential due to bad editing. Do you think the designers intended "Healing by drowning"? Or that a lvl 1 Kobold (with the name Pun-Pun) can become omnipotent and stronger than anything else in existence? No, but RAW-nerds like to point out these silly things^^
I mean, I do hope that the next generation of rule authors will get better at this to prevent such silly situations. And for that, as many people as possible need to experience the results of bad editing at first hand (welcome to TO^^). This is a very good example of this.
Real life laws also work on a RAW basis and cause sometimes similar silly results due to the same problem. So the same can be said here. The more people learn how RAW works and how you edit text to prevent silly outcomes, the lesser we have to face silly results due to real life RAW abuse at the court.
I'm totally sure that this is not RAI, but the RAW discipline explicitly doesn't care for that "intention" part and just tries to have fun..^^

[loky1109]

This isn't even pore RAW legitimate.
My quote from dragon wings feat is exception. And this exception proves existing of the more general rule. And this rule say that you are wrong.
I understand TO, but when TO starting to look on wrong written comma, or mistake in spell known (21 1st level spells on the first level, because 1 isn't superior figure due typo) it is bad manner. This isn't TO, this is mockery.

[Gruftzwerg]

This isn't even pore RAW legitimate.
My quote from dragon wings feat is exception. And this exception proves existing of the more general rule. And this rule say that you are wrong.
I understand TO, but when TO starting to look on wrong written comma, or mistake in spell known (21 1st level spells on the first level, because 1 isn't superior figure due typo) it is bad manner. This isn't TO, this is mockery.

If you understand TO and RAW, than you should understand also how the Primary Source Rule (see any ERRATA) works. The PSR dictates the rule hierarchy and due to this, the Dragon Wing feat could at best create a specific exception to the general rule (dragons automatically qualify for dragonbooded things..) for its own niche (it can't create general rules for dragonblooded). But since it doesn't contradict the general rule, by RAW it can only be seen as friendly reminder.

It's a good indicator for the intention (RAI) behind it (and I would agree with your interpretation). But not for a sole RAW/TO based point of view.

[lylsyly]

line from the dragon wings feat - "Your draconic ancestry manifests as a pair of wings that aid your jumps and allow you to glide."

line from the improved dragon wings feat - "Your draconic wings now grant you flight."

nowhere does it say it grants you wings.

prerequisite for improved dragon wings = dragon wings

races of the dragon page 4 sidebar - "dragons automatically qualify for any classes, prestige classes, racial substitution levels, feats, powers, or spells that require the dragonblood subtype."

Nowhere in that paragraph does it state that you may ignore prerequisites.

what you're doing isn't RAW. It isn't even RAI. and if it flies at your table i want to play there.

[Gruftzwerg]

line from the dragon wings feat - "Your draconic ancestry manifests as a pair of wings that aid your jumps and allow you to glide."

line from the improved dragon wings feat - "Your draconic wings now grant you flight."

nowhere does it say it grants you wings

Nowhere does the "Benefit:" of Improved Dragon Wings (IDW) say that you use your wings to fly by RAW. The name of the ability doesn't provide any rules from a RAW point of view. By RAW, IDW gives you a fly speed of 30 and adds some restrictions until you reach 12HD. Yeah it's bad mannered RAW, but it is RAW. (remind you, I don't suggest anyone to play like this. this is TO and nothing else)




races of the dragon page 4 sidebar - "dragons automatically qualify for any classes, prestige classes, racial substitution levels, feats, powers, or spells that require the dragonblood subtype."

Nowhere in that paragraph does it state that you may ignore prerequisites.

RAW:

The sentence you quoted does automatically qualify any dragon for anything that requires dragonblood subtype.

You can break the sentence's structure into two parts. The first part explains what you get and the second part explains the limitation.

"dragons automatically qualify for any XXX that require the dragonblood subtype."
..doesn't equal...
"dragons qualify for any XXX as if they would have the dragonblood subtype."

"dragons automatically qualify for any XXX" indicates that you qualify (= meet the requirements) for XXX, and not that you count as having dragonblood subtype.



RAI:
You have to keep in mind that this rule is primary intended to give (true) dragons easy access to dragonblood related stuff.
The fluff behind "dragonblood subtype" related stuff is that those who have a tiny bit of dragonblood try to unlock (prerequisites) the powers of their dragon ancestors. A dragon is already a dragon and thus doesn't need to unlock anything here ( = automatically qualifies), he just need to invest the time/resources to get the desired dragon ability (spend the feat, spend xp for lvlUp..).
Your interpretation would cause true dragons to waste a bunch of class lvls to get even the simplest dragonblood related stuff. Remember how hard it is for a true dragon to gain lvls compared to the regular PC races. Imho it is logical that real dragons have an easier time to pick up dragonblood related stuff compared to some far related wannabe dragon breeds (dragonblood subtype).

[lylsyly]

line from the dragon wings feat - "Your draconic ancestry manifests as a pair of wings that aid your jumps and allow you to glide."

line from the improved dragon wings feat - "Your draconic wings now grant you flight."

nowhere does it say it grants you wings.

prerequisite for improved dragon wings = dragon wings

races of the dragon page 4 sidebar - "dragons automatically qualify for any classes, prestige classes, racial substitution levels, feats, powers, or spells that require the dragonblood subtype."

Nowhere in that paragraph does it state that you may ignore prerequisites.

what you're doing isn't RAW. It isn't even RAI. and if it flies at your table i want to play there.

The Primary Source for dragon type taking dragonblooded things, the dragonwrought feat, the dragon wings feat, and the improved dragon wings feat is Races of the Dragon. Since Specific Trumps General the prerequisite of dragons wings for the improved dragon wings feat is in fact a reality.

From Dragon Wings "Your draconic ancestry MANIFESTS AS A PAIR OF WINGS that aid your jumps and allow you to glide."

From Improved Dragon Wings "Your draconic WINGS NOW grant you flight.

From Improved Dragon Wings "Prerequisite: dragon wings, 6HD, dragonblood subtype"

How is this not RAW and correct??

[Gruftzwerg]

The Primary Source for dragon type taking dragonblooded things, the dragonwrought feat, the dragon wings feat, and the improved dragon wings feat is Races of the Dragon. Since Specific Trumps General the prerequisite of dragons wings for the improved dragon wings feat is in fact a reality.

From Dragon Wings "Your draconic ancestry MANIFESTS AS A PAIR OF WINGS that aid your jumps and allow you to glide."

From Improved Dragon Wings "Your draconic WINGS NOW grant you flight.

From Improved Dragon Wings "Prerequisite: dragon wings, 6HD, dragonblood subtype"

How is this not RAW and correct??
Because the text part you quoted ("Your draconic WINGS NOW grant you flight") is not declared as part of the rules by RAW. It is commonly (and sometimes even in the rule books) referred as "fluff text".

Have a look at the Feat description format (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm):


Feat Descriptions

Here is the format for feat descriptions.

Feat Name [Type Of Feat]

Prerequisite

A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or a class level that a character must have in order to acquire this feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.


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.


Normal

What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.
It's not part of the effect, not part of the special effect of the feat. The Prerequisites gets ignored due to the dragons automatically qualify rule and wouldn't have an impact of the effect of the rule anyway.
Which leaves us with the "Benefit:" that just gives you a fly speed of 30ft with the mentioned restrictions until you hit 12HD or more.

Special

Additional facts about the feat that may be helpful when you decide whether to acquire the feat.
Since the sentence you quoted ain't part of the rule-relevant subcategories (see quote) of a feat, it is fluff text with no impact on the rules by RAW. Sorry.. I know,.. it is not intuitive, but that is the world of RAW.
That being said, RAI you have a fair point, and for actual play I would maybe even agree with you.



___________________

As a sidenote regarding "Primary Source". There ain't just only Book Supremacy. There is also Topic Supremacy. Which means each topic is a primary source for itself (its own topic..) and anything that makes use of it. As shown above in our example. The "Feat Description" page/paragraph is the Primary Source that provides the rules how to read feats. Primary and secondary source ain't tags that are set in stone. They are flexible tags that depends on the situation.

E.g. "A" can be primary to "B", while at the same time "C" is primary to "A" in a single situation. It all depends on the hierarchy set between the interacting things you are comparing.
Lets take Power Attack as example. The general rules for attacking are primary to Power Attack. But Power Attack is at the same time primary compared to Power Attack related stuff (e.g. Leap Attack).

[lylsyly]

I still don't and never will buy it but whatever. Even TO builds stick to RAW, even if it's with triple cheese ;-)

[Gruftzwerg]

I still don't and never will buy it but whatever. Even TO builds stick to RAW, even if it's with triple cheese ;-)

I tried to explain how this is sticking strictly to RAW. This is the same lvl as "healing by drowning". We all know how silly it is, but that doesn't change that it is 100% RAW. But never mind. This won't be the last TO discussion about ambiguous rules.
Until next time...
(atm I have 2 almost finished TO builds:a Dvati Sorcerer, an Itachi Uchiha adaptation, and half a dozen build concepts that still need to be fleshed out..) ;)

[lylsyly]

You do TO, I don't. Like I said, I don't buy it. By your definition a spiked felldrake from draconomicon, a wingless dragon type with +2 LA can get a fly speed by taking the improved dragon wings feat. You say the word wings is Fluff. And I disagree. A rainbow servant having to go to the jungle and find the winged snakes is fluff, the same as an assasin has to intentionally murder someone. But the fact that the feat says "your WINGS now grant you flight"??? I don't see that as fluff and never will. I guess I just have to agree to disagree with you ;-)

I would like to see your take on the Dvati Sorcerer. I have tried to make something decent with that race and never been happy with the results

[InvisibleBison]

Because the text part you quoted ("Your draconic WINGS NOW grant you flight") is not declared as part of the rules by RAW. It is commonly (and sometimes even in the rule books) referred as "fluff text".

Have a look at the Feat description format (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm):


Since the sentence you quoted ain't part of the rule-relevant subcategories (see quote) of a feat, it is fluff text with no impact on the rules by RAW. Sorry.. I know,.. it is not intuitive, but that is the world of RAW.
That being said, RAI you have a fair point, and for actual play I would maybe even agree with you.

I'm not convinced this is correct. The SRD excerpt you quoted leaves out a line from the PHB (the primary source for how feats work), which says that the text above the prerequisites is a "[d]escription of what the feat does or represents in plain language." (p. 89) Note that it doesn't say the description is not rules text; I don't see any justification for dismissing it as fluff. Compare to how the Spell Compendium explicitly calls out the italicized descriptive passages as not being rules (p. 3).

[Gruftzwerg]

I'm not convinced this is correct. The SRD excerpt you quoted leaves out a line from the PHB (the primary source for how feats work), which says that the text above the prerequisites is a "[d]escription of what the feat does or represents in plain language." (p. 89) Note that it doesn't say the description is not rules text; I don't see any justification for dismissing it as fluff. Compare to how the Spell Compendium explicitly calls out the italicized descriptive passages as not being rules (p. 3).

plain language != rule text

Plain language doesn't equal to relevant rule text. That is the reason why it is not part of RAW. If you want to argue that this is relevant rule text, it would cause several feats, spells and other stuff to become dysfunctional, since the plain language differs often from the rule mechanics to some degree.

The SRD did cut almost the entire "fluff text" away since it is not relevant to the game (and sometimes only confuses the players/DM). Another indicator that those text parts are not RAW but mere fluff text.

As said, it is bad mannered TO and equally silly as "Healing by Drowning", but it is RAW.

[loky1109]

I tried to explain how this is sticking strictly to RAW. This is the same lvl as "healing by drowning".
This won't be the last TO discussion about ambiguous rules.
There aren't any ambiguous here. Looking for unequivocally wrong interpretation of rules isn't TO. Both your examples: topic and healing by drowning aren't TO. Pun-pun is. But Pun-pun doesn't base on wrong interpretation. There are all right. Yes, he is result of unexpected combination of different abilities. But there are no mistakes. Difference between abuse obvious mistakes and abuse unexpected combos is very significant.
Author looking on Pun-pun may say: I didn't expect this.
Author looking on "healing by drowning" say: This is bull****!

Your method isn't silly, it is lazy and insipid.

[InvisibleBison]

plain language != rule text

Plain language doesn't equal to relevant rule text. That is the reason why it is not part of RAW. If you want to argue that this is relevant rule text, it would cause several feats, spells and other stuff to become dysfunctional, since the plain language differs often from the rule mechanics to some degree.

The SRD did cut almost the entire "fluff text" away since it is not relevant to the game (and sometimes only confuses the players/DM). Another indicator that those text parts are not RAW but mere fluff text.

As said, it is bad mannered TO and equally silly as "Healing by Drowning", but it is RAW.

Do you have any actual quotes from the rules to back up any of this, or is it all just your opinion?

[Gruftzwerg]

Do you have any actual quotes from the rules to back up any of this, or is it all just your opinion?

"Plain Language" is imho defined this way by common sense. When I try to explain technically difficult stuff in plain language, there will be always the risk of a misunderstanding because of the lack of technical terms.

Imagine this:
If you have an exam at school, the teacher expects you to use the technical right terms. If you use plain language, you fail the expectation. The teacher might have even used the same terms during lesson to give you an first impression of the topic. But that doesn't change that it not relevant for the exam. Because in an exam only the "Words as Written" count and not "your intention behind the words". And plain langue doesn't help you here.

The same can be said about RAW vs. RAI

RAW is similiar. Only those parts that are defined as actual rule text (in our chase Prerequisites, Benefit: & Special:) remain as relevant rule text. The fluff text (in plain language) should give you just a fist impression and the actual statement doesn't need to hold water.

[InvisibleBison]

"Plain Language" is imho defined this way by common sense. When I try to explain technically difficult stuff in plain language, there will be always the risk of a misunderstanding because of the lack of technical terms.

Imagine this:
If you have an exam at school, the teacher expects you to use the technical right terms. If you use plain language, you fail the expectation. The teacher might have even used the same terms during lesson to give you an first impression of the topic. But that doesn't change that it not relevant for the exam. Because in an exam only the "Words as Written" count and not "your intention behind the words". And plain langue doesn't help you here.

The same can be said about RAW vs. RAI

RAW is similiar. Only those parts that are defined as actual rule text (in our chase Prerequisites, Benefit: & Special:) remain as relevant rule text. The fluff text (in plain language) should give you just a fist impression and the actual statement doesn't need to hold water.

In other words, you don't have any actual rules to back up your assertions and this build isn't purely RAW.

[Gruftzwerg]

In other words, you don't have any actual rules to back up your assertions and this build isn't purely RAW.

Let me ask you this. When was the last time you took the fluff text of a race or class as argument that these are rules? These are also plain language descriptions. I'm not further going to explain you what is considered RAW. The fact that the entire SRD did strip off almost the entire unnecessary fluff text and common sense (as described above) backs my statement up.

If I would follow your logic, lets have a look at simple things like:

Half Elf Appearance:

Half-elf men are taller and heavier than half-elf women, but the difference is less pronounced than that found among humans.
Now I'm going to demand that no half-elf women may be taller or heavier than any other half-elf men in existence. Cause you know, it stands in the book and thus has to be rule text. It's a clear polarized statement..

You see where this ends?

No, just because something stands in the book in text form doesn't turn it into rule text.

[InvisibleBison]

Let me ask you this. When was the last time you took the fluff text of a race or class as argument that these are rules?

I've never done that, because the PHB says not to do that:



Remember, however, that these descriptions apply only to the majority of each race's members. In each race, some individuals diverge from the norm, and your character could be one of those. Don't let a description of a race keep you from detailing your character as you like.

These descriptions [of classes] are general; individual members of a class may differ in their attitudes, outlooks, and other aspects.


These are also plain language descriptions.

Yes, they are, and the rules explicitly say as much. They don't say the same thing about feat descriptions.


The fact that the entire SRD did strip off almost the entire unnecessary fluff text and common sense (as described above) backs my statement up.

What the SRD does or doesn't say is irrelevant. The PHB is the primary source for how feats work, and it doesn't say anything about feat description not being rules. Thus, feat descriptions are rules.


If I would follow your logic, lets have a look at simple things like:

Half Elf Appearance:
Now I'm going to demand that no half-elf women may be taller or heavier than any other half-elf men in existence. Cause you know, it stands in the book and thus has to be rule text. It's a clear polarized statement..

There's a clear difference between descriptive statements about trends among large populations and prescriptive statements about properties of individuals. Moreover, the text you quoted is from the racial descriptions in chapter 2 of the PHB, which the text explicitly calls out as not being rules.


No, just because something stands in the book in text form doesn't turn it into rule text.

True. But the text explicitly calls out the sections that aren't rules, and no such statement exists concerning feat descriptions.

[Gruftzwerg]

Yes, they are, and the rules explicitly say as much. They don't say the same thing about feat descriptions.


That is what we have been arguing about..
That the sentence your interpretation of Improved Dragon Wings relies on the sentence that is declared as:

Description of what the feat does or represents in plain language.
So, class & race descriptions may have "plain language" that are clearly not rules in you opinion, but when it comes to feat description "plain language" creates rules? If that is you stance, no wonder that whatever I say I will never convince you if you don't treat things (plain language) equal.^^


Explaining complex things (e.g. rules) always will always require specific technical terms to be precise and correct. But at the same time, you will always need "plain language" to give someone who is new to the topic their first impression. But "plain language" will never be enough to give reliable precise answers (or rules). In the end, sole text that is declared as part of the mechanics and that uses precise technical terms is relevant. If you see a total lack of technical terms, you can assume that it is fluff, but here we even have the evidence that it is "Plain Language".

[InvisibleBison]

That is what we have been arguing about..
That the sentence your interpretation of Improved Dragon Wings relies on the sentence that is declared as:

So, class & race descriptions may have "plain language" that are clearly not rules in you opinion, but when it comes to feat description "plain language" creates rules? If that is you stance, no wonder that whatever I say I will never convince you if you don't treat things (plain language) equal.^^

Whether or not something is "plain language" and whether or not it's rules are two separate issues. The rules never say that "plain language" inherently means not-rules, therefore "plain language" text is rules text unless there's some text explicitly calling it out as non-rules.

[Gruftzwerg]

Whether or not something is "plain language" and whether or not it's rules are two separate issues. The rules never say that "plain language" inherently means not-rules, therefore "plain language" text is rules text unless there's some text explicitly calling it out as non-rules.

Due to "plain language" not being defined in 3.5, we need to fall back to general English definition.
And I tried to explain that "plain language" never equals "rules", since rules are expressed in technical defined terms.
You can give someone an first impression or a (metaphoric) example with plain language.
But you can't argue that plain language is the correct technical term. These two are opposites. Thus, plain language in 3.5 can't be part of the rule, since it doesn't use the right terminology.

[InvisibleBison]

And I tried to explain that "plain language" never equals "rules", since rules are expressed in technical defined terms.

This is not correct. Outside of D&D, rules absolutely can be expressed in plain language, and there's no text in any D&D book overriding this general usage. Thus, the fact that feat descriptions are expressed in plain language does not disqualify them from being rules.

[Gruftzwerg]

This is not correct. Outside of D&D, rules absolutely can be expressed in plain language, and there's no text in any D&D book overriding this general usage. Thus, the fact that feat descriptions are expressed in plain language does not disqualify them from being rules.

3.5 defines keywords and uses em to express rules, while plain language avoids these defined keywords to give oversimplified examples (which may be not technically correct). If you don't use the technical terms, you don't create a rule.

[Doctor Despair]

I was always under the impression that the description text preceding prcs or feats was there to inform RAI, not to give hard restrictions on legality. After all, if the description text was meant to create prerequisites, why even have a prerequisite section? If it's meant to delineate what benefits are given, why wouldn't it be in the benefit section? With that said, as Gruft said earlier, a DM has the discretion to adjudicate how feats and prcs work via RAI, and no reasonable DM would let this fly (pun intended) at their table. This is a dysfunction caused by bypassing the prerequisite section entirely, as those normally preclude nonintuitive results like these.

[InvisibleBison]

3.5 defines keywords and uses em to express rules, while plain language avoids these defined keywords to give oversimplified examples (which may be not technically correct). If you don't use the technical terms, you don't create a rule.

That's a perfectly valid method of interpreting the rules, but it's not RAW, because it's not what the actual rules say to do.

[Doctor Despair]

That's a perfectly valid method of interpreting the rules, but it's not RAW, because it's not what the actual rules say to do.

In your opinion, what is the purpose of the prerequisite section?

[InvisibleBison]

In your opinion, what is the purpose of the prerequisite section?

The purpose of the prerequisites section is to lay out what mechanical elements a character has to have to take a feat. I'm not arguing that the description is part of the prerequisite section; I'm arguing that the feat description and the benefits section are synonymous with each other, and that Gruftzwerg's character cannot benefit from Improved Dragon Wings, even though they are able to take it, because they lack any draconic wings for the feat to improve.

[Doctor Despair]

I'm arguing that the feat description and the benefits section are synonymous with each other

In your opinion, what is the purpose of the benefits section?

[InvisibleBison]

In your opinion, what is the purpose of the benefits section?

The purpose of the benefits section is to say what the feat lets a character who takes it do.

[Doctor Despair]

The purpose of the benefits section is to say what the feat lets a character who takes it do.

So if the prerequisites section is where the prerequisites go, and the benefits section is where the benefits go, then why would the description section carry weight with regard to either of those topics? I.e., if it had information regarding benefits or prerequisites, why would that information not be listed in the appropriate sections?

[JNAProductions]

So if the prerequisites section is where the prerequisites go, and the benefits section is where the benefits go, then why would the description section carry weight with regard to either of those topics? I.e., if it had information regarding benefits or prerequisites, why would that information not be listed in the appropriate sections?

Because WotC has really sloppy editing.

[InvisibleBison]

So if the prerequisites section is where the prerequisites go, and the benefits section is where the benefits go, then why would the description section carry weight with regard to either of those topics? I.e., if it had information regarding benefits or prerequisites, why would that information not be listed in the appropriate sections?

The description carries weight with regards to the benefits section because it's saying the same thing as the benefits section but in different words. That's what I meant before when I said they were synonyms. If someone's interpretation of the benefits section contradicts the description, or vice versa, then that interpretation is wrong.

[Gruftzwerg]

Because WotC has really sloppy editing.
100% agree on this^^
But this argument only counts for RAI. RAW doesn't care for (or even welcomes) bad editing.




The description carries weight with regards to the benefits section because it's saying the same thing as the benefits section but in different words. That's what I meant before when I said they were synonyms. If someone's interpretation of the benefits section contradicts the description, or vice versa, then that interpretation is wrong.

Sorry, but your argument extrapolates info from text passages without having the permission to do so. (not RAW)

1. 3.5 has defined how you should read feats as shown in my previous posts
2. The Primary Source Rule dictates that the "Benefits:" section is the Primary Source when it comes to the mechanical (rule wise) benefits for Feats.

Whit that in mind, you just need to apply the Primary Source Rule correct.
The fluff text your interpretation is relying on has no rights to make changes on a "general" level, since it is not the Primary Source for its topic ( the benefit for a feat).
Neither does it create any more specific situation to call out exceptions (the wording doesn't indicate any kind of exception to be made and its part of the same feat.).
Thus, the text has by RAW no permission to do anything. If you want to rely on that fluff text, you have left the RAW ground and have entered the RAI grounds.

No matter how you look at it, you don't have the permission to do what you try to do by RAW.
If we are talking about RAI, you sure have a fair point and I'll admit that without having a problem with it.
But if we are talking about RAW, your arguments so far simply gets shattered by the 2 points mentioned in this post.

RAW doesn't just mean to read the text in the book without instructions. RAW sets instructions how to read things. And if you ignore that, your interpretation becomes RAI. That simple.

PS: I hope I don't sound to harsh/mean. I try to be as nice as possible when it comes to rule discussions, but I dunno if that intention reaches the readers...^^
edit: If anyone should have a hard time to get what I am talking about here, really just ask and I try to further explain it. It's better ask and talk it out instead of sitting it out. We are not at school, so there is no reason to be shy here. Imho this is important to get a gasp of how RAW handles the rules.

[InvisibleBison]

Sorry, but your argument extrapolates info from text passages without having the permission to do so. (not RAW)

Your argument does the same thing. Every argument that isn't just quotes from the rules text does so.


2. The Primary Source Rule dictates that the "Benefits:" section is the Primary Source when it comes to the mechanical (rule wise) benefits for Feats.

There's two problems with this argument:

Nowhere is it stated that the benefits section specifically is the primary source for how a feat works. That's just your opinion. It's just as possible that the entirety of the feat's entry is the primary source for how the feat works.
The primary source rule only applies when there's a disagreement between two sources. There's no disagreement here; the feat description says "X and Y" and the benefits section says "Y" in great detail.

[Gruftzwerg]

Your argument does the same thing. Every argument that isn't just quotes from the rules text does so.



There's two problems with this argument:

Nowhere is it stated that the benefits section specifically is the primary source for how a feat works. That's just your opinion. It's just as possible that the entirety of the feat's entry is the primary source for how the feat works.
The primary source rule only applies when there's a disagreement between two sources. There's no disagreement here; the feat description says "X and Y" and the benefits section says "Y" in great detail.


For the most part I show how the rule mechanics are behind my statement.

As said, the "Benefit:" of a "feat" is defined. Due to this is has supremacy for its own topic: "Feat - Benefit:"
This causes it to be the primary source for this topic. If you want to know what a feat does, this is the primary source. Anything else needs to create a specific exception to alter the rules/mechanics provided by that paragraph. And the short description at the start of a feat in plain language does not create any new specific niche, nor has it the permission to do changes on a global level.


Topic supremacy:
I think this is something many are struggling with. The Primary Source Rule doesn't set any limitation for what can be a topic. Thus anything is a topic, in a chain where it has to follow global rules, while still being the primary source for their own niche. Thus the "Benefit:" section of feats is the primary source for the "benefits of feats" (how convenient..^^). Or take Power Attack. It's its own primary source, but when it comes to attacking in general we have global combat rules for that and Power Attack has to obey em. Leap Attack relies and Power Attack and creates its own niche (thus PA is the primary source and leap attack is the specific exception). But at the same time Leap Attack is its own primary source...
I hope that this doesn't confuse more that it helps. But it's not easy to explain topic supremacy..

[InvisibleBison]

As said, the "Benefit:" of a "feat" is defined. Due to this is has supremacy for its own topic: "Feat - Benefit:"
This causes it to be the primary source for this topic. If you want to know what a feat does, this is the primary source. Anything else needs to create a specific exception to alter the rules/mechanics provided by that paragraph. And the short description at the start of a feat in plain language does not create any new specific niche, nor has it the permission to do changes on a global level.

Again, that is just your opinion. There's no reason to say this is a better definition of what the primary source for how a feat works than saying that the feat as a whole is a primary source for how the feat works. Your own argument backs this up:


The Primary Source Rule doesn't set any limitation for what can be a topic. Thus anything is a topic

Since anything can be a topic, there's no reason a feat cannot be an entire topic in and of itself. Deciding whether a feat is one topic or several topics is interpreting the rules. Any argument based on saying this is or isn't a topic is RAI, not RAW.

[Gruftzwerg]

Again, that is just your opinion. There's no reason to say this is a better definition of what the primary source for how a feat works than saying that the feat as a whole is a primary source for how the feat works. Your own argument backs this up:



Since anything can be a topic, there's no reason a feat cannot be an entire topic in and of itself. Deciding whether a feat is one topic or several topics is interpreting the rules. Any argument based on saying this is or isn't a topic is RAI, not RAW.
It's not "anything can be a topic", it more "everything is a topic". Just as in real life anything is a topic for its own. It is important that anything is its own topic, otherwise you can't set a clear hierarchy for the PSR to work. (and the psr demands it, see below)

As said the is no definition/limitation for what qualifies as "topic" by RAW (only a few examples are given, but nothing indicates any restriction). Thus we fall back to common English definition. Which means everything is its own primary source (while other things still may be primary towards it regards other more general topics).

0. We have the Primary Source Rule (PSR) that sets the Rule hierarchy and is the primary source for the rule hierarchy it creates. If you want to know how 2 or more rules stand to each other, this rule will help you to solve it. It is always on top (most primary source) for any rule interaction. You may never ignore these rules (unless something would call out a specific exception, but IIRC that never did happen in 3.5. The PSR was never ERRATAed).

1. A feat as a hole has to follow the rules presented in "Feats (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm)". These are the rules for feats overall in general.

2. If you want to know how to read a feat, then the primary source is the definition of "Feat Description".

3. The "Feat Description" defines categories and explains which rules to expect where. It it primary source to itself, while still accepting the general feat rules are more general for anything which it outside of its specific niche.

4. The "Benefit" section of a feat is defined as what the beneficial mechanics are behind a feat. It's is own primary source while still accepting anything that belong to the topics mentioned above as more general rules.

You don't have the freedom to sole use more global topics. "Specific Trumps General" always creates a new topic. Every time you define something more precise, you have basically created a more specific new (sub-)topic (just as in real life). You may not restrict what a topic is in any way, since the PSR never set any restrictions. The way topics are created could be visually described like "reel numbers" can be more precise by adding another digit. Same with 3.5 topics, who can be more specific (precise) and thus create their own topic.

You are still doing the same mistake by not precisely following the hierarchy set by the PSR. All your attempts so far have failed for the very same reason (no offense here, it's just that we are running in a circle here for a while ;) ).

[InvisibleBison]

We have the Primary Source Rule (PSR) that sets the Rule hierarchy and is the primary source for the rule hierarchy it creates.

No, we don't. The primary source rule doesn't set any sort of hierarchy. The notion that a text can be a primary source and a non-primary source at the same time is not found in the text of the primary source rule. It's something you've made up to help you understand how the primary source rule works.



it's just that we are running in a circle here for a while ;).

Yes, we are, because you keep insisting that your interpretation of the rules are RAW.

[Gruftzwerg]

No, we don't. The primary source rule doesn't set any sort of hierarchy. The notion that a text can be a primary source and a non-primary source at the same time is not found in the text of the primary source rule. It's something you've made up to help you understand how the primary source rule works.




Yes, we are, because you keep insisting that your interpretation of the rules are RAW.

You still struggle with the logic behind the rule presented in the PSR.

1. anything is a topic and thus the primary source for its own (specific) topic

2. while the PSR only explains how 2 rules interact witch each other, it can easily be used on multiple rules interacting at the same time. (e.g. general attack rules > Power Attack > Leap Attack).

By always comparing two rules you can work yourself through the chain/hierarchy. When you use Leap Attack, it is the most specific rule for its niche and may call out exceptions for this (see Benefit of Leap Attack). Since it makes use of Power Attack, it must still follow the general rules presented there (since PA is the primary source for PA), except for the parts where the exception was created. But at the same time PA needs to follow the parts of the general rules for attacking (since those are the primary source for attacking), where PA itself didn't create any specific exception.

Multiple rules are interacting most of the time together. It's just that we got used to the most common general rules (attacking, spell casting..) that we forget that we are using em too when we use special abilities. But they are still in the rule chain when you use those abilities. And you need to reapply the PSR until you get though the entire hierarchy (to make sure that you don't miss any more global rule where no exception was created).

The PSR creates a rule structure like a tree. This is needed to compare any rule with any other rule it might interact with.

[InvisibleBison]

You still struggle with the logic behind the rule presented in the PSR.

I understand your logic perfectly. I just don't agree that it's written in the primary source rule. This is because it's not written in the primary source rule. It's a reasonable interpretation of the primary source rule, but it isn't what the actual text of the rule says. That is the point that you seem to be unable to understand. Your interpretation of the rules is not RAW.

But this is all actually irrelevant. The primary source rule only comes into play when two sources contradict each other, and the description and benefits section of Improved Dragon Wings don't contradict each other.

[Doctor Despair]

I understand your logic perfectly. I just don't agree that it's written in the primary source rule. This is because it's not written in the primary source rule. It's a reasonable interpretation of the primary source rule, but it isn't what the actual text of the rule says. That is the point that you seem to be unable to understand. Your interpretation of the rules is not RAW.

But this is all actually irrelevant. The primary source rule only comes into play when two sources contradict each other, and the description and benefits section of Improved Dragon Wings don't contradict each other.

To be fair, that they don't contradict each other would be in Gruft's favor. The description says your dragon wings now grant you flight. The benefit says you gain a fly speed (with no mention of wings). If we are to assume these sections don't disagree with each other, it would mean creatures with draconic wings gain some untyped fly speed, and all creatures also (separately) gain the specified fly speed. On the other hand, if you read it to mean that the benefit doesn't apply if you don't have draconic wings, then you are saying they do disagree with each other.

[InvisibleBison]

To be fair, that they don't contradict each other would be in Gruft's favor. The description says your dragon wings now grant you flight. The benefit says you gain a fly speed (with no mention of wings). If we are to assume these sections don't disagree with each other, it would mean creatures with draconic wings gain some untyped fly speed, and all creatures also (separately) gain the specified fly speed. On the other hand, if you read it to mean that the benefit doesn't apply if you don't have draconic wings, then you are saying they do disagree with each other.

That's one way to interpret the feat. You could also read it as the description saying that your wings let you fly and the benefits explaining the details of how your flight works. I think this is a better interpretation, because it involves treating the feat as an atomic rules element, which I think is how feats should be treated.

[Doctor Despair]

That's one way to interpret the feat. You could also read it as the description saying that your wings let you fly and the benefits explaining the details of how your flight works. I think this is a better interpretation, because it involves treating the feat as an atomic rules element, which I think is how feats should be treated.

Even in that situation, they are still disagreeing with each other. The benefit says you gain a fly speed. The description says you only do if you have dragon wings. I'm not dismissing your reading, just saying that your claim that they don't disagree with each other seems incorrect.

[Gruftzwerg]

I understand your logic perfectly. I just don't agree that it's written in the primary source rule. This is because it's not written in the primary source rule. It's a reasonable interpretation of the primary source rule, but it isn't what the actual text of the rule says. That is the point that you seem to be unable to understand. Your interpretation of the rules is not RAW.

But this is all actually irrelevant. The primary source rule only comes into play when two sources contradict each other, and the description and benefits section of Improved Dragon Wings don't contradict each other.

Could you be so nice and point out where your interpretation of the PSR differs? I mean, I don't claim that my interpretation is perfect. Thus, it would be nice to see which text passage leads you to a different interpretation? (kindly asking).

[InvisibleBison]

Even in that situation, they are still disagreeing with each other. The benefit says you gain a fly speed. The description says you only do if you have dragon wings. I'm not dismissing your reading, just saying that your claim that they don't disagree with each other seems incorrect.

No, there is no disagreement, because you can't look at just the description or just the benefits section. You have to look at the whole of the feat to understand what it means. Examining each individual component is not a valid way to interpret the feat if you treat feats as atomic rules elements.


Could you be so nice and point out where your interpretation of the PSR differs? I mean, I don't claim that my interpretation is perfect. Thus, it would be nice to see which text passage leads you to a different interpretation? (kindly asking).

For one thing, you claim that the primary source rule applies when two rules interact with each other. You mentioned using the PSR to adjudicate the interaction between the general attack rules and Power Attack, but those rules don't contradict each other. Power Attack creates an exception to the general rule (that's how all rule elements in this edition work) and an exception is not a contradiction. You also mention a "rule hierarchy" and claim that the PSR is the primary source for it, but there's no mention of any such thing in the PSR. I don't see how a rule can be a primary source for a concept it doesn't mention.

[Gruftzwerg]

No, there is no disagreement, because you can't look at just the description or just the benefits section. You have to look at the whole of the feat to understand what it means. Examining each individual component is not a valid way to interpret the feat if you treat feats as atomic rules elements.That is extrapolating info without permission and thus is Rules as Intended (RAI) and not Rules as Written (RAW). RAW defines what is a requirement, or a benefit or none of em. It leaves no room for these kind of thought. That is the territory of RAI and there is nothing wrong with your RAI opinion. But you can't demand that it is RAW. RAW doesn't give you the permission to do these things. It's strict in that chase and the main difference between RAW and RAI. RAI is not totally blind guessing. Most of the time it relies on extrapolated info to make more accurate guesses. And it is often a good tool for balanced ruling options (for the DM). But pls stop confusing it with RAW.




For one thing, you claim that the primary source rule applies when two rules interact with each other. You mentioned using the PSR to adjudicate the interaction between the general attack rules and Power Attack, but those rules don't contradict each other. Power Attack creates an exception to the general rule (that's how all rule elements in this edition work) and an exception is not a contradiction. You also mention a "rule hierarchy" and claim that the PSR is the primary source for it, but there's no mention of any such thing in the PSR. I don't see how a rule can be a primary source for a concept it doesn't mention.
The hierarchy is created when you place the rule-pieces of the PSR together.

1. The PSR mentions topic supremacy but doesn't set any limitation. Further, "Topic" is undefined in 3.5. Thus we fall back to common English definition and common sense. And that backs me perfectly up that anything unique is its own unique topic. Is the "benefit of a specific feat" a unique topic? In my common sense yes. Especially since it it declared/defined. Thus it is its own primary source.

2. Where do we find general rules? In the primary source for the topic. So, if Power Attack is creating an exception like you admitted.. "how can you deny that there is a primary source" to look up the general rules to see if something contradicts? See? The rule hierarchy is always there and always checking if everything is legal. Even if you didn't notice it so far. And if you use Leap Attack, you should now see how a rule chain/hierarchy is build (starting from combat rules > melee/ranged rules > standard attack/full attack rules > Power attack rules > Leap Attack rules). Every more specific exception/situation has a primary source to look up the general rules. It should be easy to understand that anything in this chain is primary towards one side, while trying to be more specific to the other side.

[InvisibleBison]

That is extrapolating info without permission and thus is Rules as Intended (RAI) and not Rules as Written (RAW)

Actually, it's the other meaning of RAI - rules as interpreted. Everything that isn't quotes from the text is an interpretation of the rules, and no reasonable interpretation has any more claim to being "correct" or "RAW" than any other.



The hierarchy is created when you place the rule-pieces of the PSR together.

I thought you were trying to discuss RAW. Creating something by placing pieces of the rules together is 100% RAI, and there's no reason I have to accept your interpretation of the rules.



Is the "benefit of a specific feat" a unique topic? In my common sense yes.

And in my "common sense", i.e. opinion, it's not. It's part of a topic, just as an individual sentence in the feat's benefit section is part of a topic and not a topic in itself. And this is the root of our disagreement - you are insisting quite fervently that your opinion about what the rules mean is somehow official and other people have to accept it. In reality, it isn't and we don't. If you can't accept that, there's no point to continuing this discussion.

[Gruftzwerg]

Actually, it's the other meaning of RAI - rules as interpreted. Everything that isn't quotes from the text is an interpretation of the rules, and no reasonable interpretation has any more claim to being "correct" or "RAW" than any other.




I thought you were trying to discuss RAW. Creating something by placing pieces of the rules together is 100% RAI, and there's no reason I have to accept your interpretation of the rules.
Sure I get what you mean and it is really difficult to prove that as certain kind of reading is RAW.
But if the mechanic instructions lead to a hierarchy, does the outcome change by telling it to you beforehand or not? No, the mechanics still do it, even if the PSR doesn't obviously state it.





And in my "common sense", i.e. opinion, it's not. It's part of a topic, just as an individual sentence in the feat's benefit section is part of a topic and not a topic in itself. And this is the root of our disagreement - you are insisting quite fervently that your opinion about what the rules mean is somehow official and other people have to accept it. In reality, it isn't and we don't. If you can't accept that, there's no point to continuing this discussion.
The problem is, if no explicit instructions are given, you fall back to common sense. Since no limitations are given for what is and what is not a topic. You may not be picky here by RAW, that's the job of RAI. Anything that by real life standards could qualify as a topic fits here. Subtopics like the "Benefit:" section of a feat still qualify as a topic. Just being a subtopic doesn't change the outcome by RAW. It is still a topic.
If you ignore that "topic" is unrestricted here and start to be picky, you have left RAW for RAI. Because you added a limitation that is not mentioned there in any way. The burden of proof to provide rule text for that is on your side (if you want to claim that it is RAW and not RAI), not mine. You are still using the PSR, but with RAI in mind and not with RAW. Unless you can point me to a text passage that would justify your interpretation. If you can accomplish that, I can see if it changes my interpretation/point of view. But as long as you pick topics as you see it fit (without rule text to confirm your picks), it won't affect my RAW point of view.
Since the PSR is not picky on what is a topic, my interpretation is just doing fine in that regard.

_____

To prevent miscommunication:
Again, I have no problems with a RAI point of view. I sole have a problem when people seem to have difficulty to see when they have stopped using RAW arguments and are under the impression that they are still thinking RAW. I know it is not easy to see the tiny line between those two, but that is what makes it important/interesting to talk about it. ;)

[InvisibleBison]

Again, I have no problems with a RAI point of view. I sole have a problem when people seem to have difficulty to see when they have stopped using RAW arguments and are under the impression that they are still thinking RAW.

The thing you say you have a problem with is literally the exact same thing you are doing in this thread. You're claiming that "common sense", which means your opinion, is RAW, which is just not true.

[Gruftzwerg]

The thing you say you have a problem with is literally the exact same thing you are doing in this thread. You're claiming that "common sense", which means your opinion, is RAW, which is just not true.

I only try to apply "common sense" where the rules allow/force me to it.

If a word used in actual rule text ain't defined by 3.5, you fall back to basic English definition. There is no other option. And you have not the permission to define the word yourself for 3.5 (at least not by RAW, RAI you may do that), to set limitations that aren't mentioned there in the text.

Topic ain't defined in 3.5 (if it is, pls point me to it), thus you need to fall back to "common sense"/general English definition. And as show multiple times, the rules set no limitation for "topic". As such you have the duty to cover the full extend possible of the general English definition. And that forces you to create specific topics for anything and everything. Even subtopics.
As shown, I can explain by RAW (defined/undefined) when and why I have to rely on common sense. Can you say the same thing for you argumentation? You demand that I ignore that the "Benefits:" section is defined and thus anything that wants to change/add to it, needs to create a specific exception. And the short description in plain language doesn't accomplish that.

[InvisibleBison]

Topic ain't defined in 3.5 (if it is, pls point me to it), thus you need to fall back to "common sense"/general English definition. And as show multiple times, the rules set no limitation for "topic".

This is all true.


As such you have the duty to cover the full extend possible of the general English definition. And that forces you to create specific topics for anything and everything. Even subtopics.

And this is where you go wrong. "Every individually distinguishable part of the rules is a topic" is one way to delineate what is and is not a topic in the 3.5 rules, but it's not the only one. And without any guidance from the rules, there's no reason to think any one reasonable delineation is superior to any other. There's no reason why I or anyone else has to accept your opinion about how to interpret the rules - especially when I'm arguing that your interpretation is bad!


As shown, I can explain by RAW (defined/undefined) when and why I have to rely on common sense. Can you say the same thing for you argumentation?

Yes, I can. It's the exact same points where your interpretation relies on common sense, namely when we get into areas the rules don't cover. One such example of which is what happens when a wingless creature take Improved Dragon Wings.



You demand that I ignore that the "Benefits:" section is defined and thus anything that wants to change/add to it, needs to create a specific exception. And the short description in plain language doesn't accomplish that.

And you demand that I ignore the description of the feat, even though it's part of the rules and anything that wants to override it needs to create a specific exception, and the benefits section doesn't accomplish that.


This is, I think, going to be my last post in this thread. Unless you can accept that your opinion is not RAW and I don't have to accept it as such, there's really no grounds for us to debate.

[Gruftzwerg]

And this is where you go wrong. "Every individually distinguishable part of the rules is a topic" is one way to delineate what is and is not a topic in the 3.5 rules, but it's not the only one. And without any guidance from the rules, there's no reason to think any one reasonable delineation is superior to any other. There's no reason why I or anyone else has to accept your opinion about how to interpret the rules - especially when I'm arguing that your interpretation is bad!


Yes, I can. It's the exact same points where your interpretation relies on common sense, namely when we get into areas the rules don't cover. One such example of which is what happens when a wingless creature take Improved Dragon Wings.
Excuse me. I am following the rules as written as there is no limitation set to "topic" by text. Your are relying on limitations that are not presented by the rules as written for your argument. This is the tiny line between RAW and RAI here. RAW doesn't imply things that are not there and takes the full extend of what is there. Any possible subtopic is a mechanically valid topic as the rules are written. Nitpicking would rely on implying limitation that are not there and thus automatically crossing the border to the RAI side of interpretations.


And you demand that I ignore the description of the feat, even though it's part of the rules and anything that wants to override it needs to create a specific exception, and the benefits section doesn't accomplish that.

I demand nothing. The definition of the feats benefits section and the PSR does.

[lylsyly]

The Primary Source Rule is spelled out in BoED, DMG, Frostburn, MM, PHB, and Unapproachable East. Why they put it in only 3 non-core books is beyond me.

In every one of these errata files it calls out the PHB as the source for “how you play the game.”

Allocation of, qualifying for, and the usage of feats is therefore under the realm of the PHB. This is RAW.

From the PHB, page 87. “Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat.” This is RAW.

From Races of the Dragon, page 4. Yes, based on that sidebar you do automatically qualify for the Improved Dragon Wings feat. However ……..

From Races of the Dragon, page 100, the Dragon WIngs Feat. “Your draconic ancestry manifests as a pair of wings that aid your jumps and allow you to glide.” This passage describes a physical change in your character that is backed up by two mentions of wings in the benefits section. This is not fluff. It is RAW.

From Races of the Dragon, page 100, the Improved Dragon Wings Feat. “Your draconic wings now grant you flight.” I will grant you that the benefits section doesn't mention wings, however. The fact that it calls for the previous feat in the prerequisites section that gives you wings and is obviously RAW means that this feat does not give you what you want. This too is obviously RAW.

Your attempts at obfuscation by trying to bring up primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, not to mention topics and subtopics does not confuse anyone at all. Your build is not RAW.

I actually like some of the builds you have in your signature but in this case you are wrong.

[Gruftzwerg]

The Primary Source Rule is spelled out in BoED, DMG, Frostburn, MM, PHB, and Unapproachable East. Why they put it in only 3 non-core books is beyond me.
I can try to imagine what happened imho.
First the ability to ready text as written with structure & hierarchy in mind is nothing that D&D invented. It thrives from the ability to read law text. Because laws work on the principle that only what is written in words (and the law hierarchy) count and not the intention behind it. The court will go strict by the book, even if the baddy gets away due to this. But this might cause future changes in the laws ( = ERRATA in d&d).
Laws are a kind of rules. And rules in general share this aspect, that they need to be taken as literary as possible while having their structure in mind to be read correct. This is also true for rules in program code (the computer takes the binary code literary) or any kind of rules in (video-)games (e.g. trading card games).
The more complex the rules get, the more you need to be aware of the PSR which can create a hierarchy between rules. And as said, 3.5 is complex. The rules where created with the PSR in mind but it wasn't mentioned in the early books, because it is something elementary to reading rules. The authors forgot to mention this. I guess when you are used to something, you sometimes forget that it may not be something everybody is doing (reading text as literary as possible: RAW).
This caused many problems in the starting years of 3.5. The official forums where wild and the arguments even crazier.
just a few examples:
a) people where extrapolating what counts as an attack from the invisible spell as general rule..
b) people where extrapolating the monk ability to enhance their unarmed strikes for non-monks..
c) people had problems to understand why size changing abilities don't stack (even if the ability text doesn't deny it), because they had problems to see the hierarchy created by the rules (and find the rule that causes this: the stacking rules).
This ended up in the ERRATA where the PSR was added. It contains the rules how to read text literary while creating a hierarchy and rules to solve contradictions).


edit: also note that 3.0/3.5 is the first edition where the publisher had access to feedback via internet. This helped with creating the ERRATA. This was all new back then.



In every one of these errata files it calls out the PHB as the source for “how you play the game.”
....
From Races of the Dragon, page 100, the Dragon WIngs Feat. “Your draconic ancestry manifests as a pair of wings that aid your jumps and allow you to glide.” This passage describes a physical change in your character that is backed up by two mentions of wings in the benefits section. This is not fluff. It is RAW.

From Races of the Dragon, page 100, the Improved Dragon Wings Feat. “Your draconic wings now grant you flight.” I will grant you that the benefits section doesn't mention wings, however. The fact that it calls for the previous feat in the prerequisites section that gives you wings and is obviously RAW means that this feat does not give you what you want. This too is obviously RAW.

Your attempts at obfuscation by trying to bring up primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, not to mention topics and subtopics does not confuse anyone at all. Your build is not RAW.

I actually like some of the builds you have in your signature but in this case you are wrong.


You see, this specific chase sole is created by bypassing the requirements due to being a dragon and the feat being a dragonblooded feat. Normally, the requirements would ensure that you have wings and everything would be fine. Only because of the automatic qualification it is possible to fly with the feat but without wings. This is because the benefit section doesn't care if you have wings.

Imho a similar example is "Enlarge Person". The "target humanoid" requirement is only relevant at the time of casting and later only the "beneficial effect" of the spell counts. When Enlarge Person is cast on a humanoid that later changes form somehow to not be a humanoid anymore, the effect doesn't stop to function. Because the effect nowhere requires you to be a human. It only requires you to have a size it can change.

The same can be said here for our "dragon takes Imp. Dragon Wings directly" example. Normally feat requirements are always active and this wouldn't work the same. But by bypassing the requirements (automatic qualification) we create a similar situation where the requirements are irrelevant now. It's now the same as with "Enlarge Person" after it has been cast. Sole the effect counts.

Thus, it may not sound intuitive to you, but I still claim this to be 100% RAW.

[loky1109]

This is because the benefit section doesn't care if you have wings.

Lets use this logics to spell Rouse from PHBII (p. 123)


With a loud snap of your fingers, you cause any sleeping creatures in the spell’s area to awaken.

This spell has no effect on creatures that are unconscious due to being reduced to negative hit points, or that have taken nonlethal damage in excess of their current hit points.
If we ignoring italic part of spell, it does... nothing?

So we can see, your logics about separation rules on rules and narrative is wrong.

[Gruftzwerg]

Lets use this logics to spell Rouse from PHBII (p. 123)


If we ignoring italic part of spell, it does... nothing?

So we can see, your logics about separation rules on rules and narrative is wrong.
Yeah the original text of the spell if flawed and does nothing.

That's why the ERRATA fixed that spell:


Replace the spell description with the following text: “This spell awakens creatures from magical and nonmagical sleep. It has no effect on creatures that are otherwise unconscious.”

Here you have found an example where the spell would have been useless without the Errata. Niche catch.