If I have the Enlarge Breath feat, am I required to always use it on breath attack?

[Zhepna]

Hi,

I have Enlarge Breath feat and a breath attack. Can I do a breath attack without applying Enlarger breath feat to it?

[Crake]

Using metabreath feats is optional, and you can, in fact, use the same metabreath feat multiple times on a single breath:


A dragon can use the same metabreath feat multiple times
on the same breath. In some cases, this has no additional
effects. In other cases, the feat’s effects are stackable. Apply
the feat’s effect to the base values for the breath weapon
once for each time the feat is applied and add up the extra
time the dragon must wait before breathing again. For
example, a Small dragon with a line-shaped breath weapon
could use Enlarge Breath twice on the same breath. Since
the base length of the line is 40 feet, the doubly enlarged
line would become 80 feet long (20 extra feet per applica-
tion of the feat), and the dragon would have to wait 1d4+2
rounds before breathing again

[KillianHawkeye]

Yes, of course you can choose.

Enlarge Breath is a metabreath feat, and just like metamagic, you have to determine for yourself when to use it.

[Zhepna]

Thanks a lot to both of you for the answer!

[Biggus]

Hi,

I have Enlarge Breath feat and a breath attack. Can I do a breath attack without applying Enlarger breath feat to it?

Yes, as the others have said, you can use it with or without the feat.


Using metabreath feats is optional, and you can, in fact, use the same metabreath feat multiple times on a single breath:

It's worth noting that by RAW you can't actually stack Enlarge Breath, despite it being used as the example.


If a metabreath feat stacks with itself, this fact will be noted in the Special section of the feat description.

Enlarge Breath doesn't have that section. Whether that's an accidental omission or if they changed it after the intro section was written, I don't know. The only BW feats which do have that "special" section are Clinging Breath and Lingering Breath.

[Darg]

It's worth noting that by RAW you can't actually stack Enlarge Breath, despite it being used as the example.

Enlarge Breath doesn't have that section. Whether that's an accidental omission or if they changed it after the intro section was written, I don't know. The only BW feats which do have that "special" section are Clinging Breath and Lingering Breath.

If you look at the feats, they create additional effects that wouldn't normally stack. With clinging breath it makes the breath weapon last one round. Making something last 1 round multiple times = only lasting 1 round. The special text is there to tell you that you can stack the effect by increasing the duration by +1 round per application. It works the exact same way for lingering breath.

Technically, by RAW enlarge breath can colloquially stack. It's effect is not a modifier, bonus, or penalty. It's a multiplier and because you are given straight up permission to apply the same feat more than once you can benefit from the feat multiple times. Though, their math is wrong. When multiplying real world values you use real world math which would put it at 90 ft.

[Biggus]

It's a multiplier and because you are given straight up permission to apply the same feat more than once you can benefit from the feat multiple times.

No, the rules are quite clear:



A dragon can use the same metabreath feat multiple times on the same breath. In some cases, this has no additional effects. In other cases, the feat’s effects are stackable. [...] If a metabreath feat stacks with itself, this fact will be noted in the Special section of the feat description.

Enlarge Breath doesn't have the special section, so it doesn't stack with itself.

[Darg]

Enlarge Breath doesn't have the special section, so it doesn't stack with itself.

That's not what the line actually says though. All it says it that it will be noted. It does not say that if it isn't noted that it will not stack with itself. That's assumption of implied intent which is not what RAW is. As that is the case, the lack of a special section doesn't preclude Enlarge breath from stacking with itself; it would just be a simple clerical error with no mechanical relevance.

[Zanos]

The statement doesn't leave much room for interpretation. "If a metabreath feat stacks with itself, this fact will be noted in the Special section of the feat description.", is a pretty simple if->then, and there's no way that statement can be true if enlarge breath stacks with itself.

[Biggus]

That's not what the line actually says though. All it says it that it will be noted. It does not say that if it isn't noted that it will not stack with itself. That's assumption of implied intent which is not what RAW is.

I've seen some feeble arguments on this site, but that's got to top them all. Just...wow.

[Darg]

The statement doesn't leave much room for interpretation. "If a metabreath feat stacks with itself, this fact will be noted in the Special section of the feat description.", is a pretty simple if->then, and there's no way that statement can be true if enlarge breath stacks with itself.

And if the statement is false, what is the consequence? As written, it would be that the fact is not noted. The lack of a qualifying "then", does not disprove the "if."

[Zanos]

And if the statement is false, what is the consequence? As written, it would be that the fact is not noted. The lack of a qualifying "then", does not disprove the "if."
Yes, it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

[Crake]

The statement doesn't leave much room for interpretation. "If a metabreath feat stacks with itself, this fact will be noted in the Special section of the feat description.", is a pretty simple if->then, and there's no way that statement can be true if enlarge breath stacks with itself.

Ive always taken it to mean if the metabreath feat stacks with itself in an unusual way, since the two feats that have a special stack in atypical manners.

I do think its amusing to stack lingering breath by 1000 years, and just imagine a dragon with strafing breath just creating a 1000 year branded scar across a city, at the expense of losing their breath weapon, just out of pure spite, maybe even with their literal dying breath in a sort of “if I go down, im taking you all with me”

[Darg]

Yes, it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

For the modus tollens to not be false, it must always be the case that stackable metabreaths will have the note in the special section. Direct refutation of that assumption is the example presented in the preceding paragraph and the feat description. This makes it a false argument. For it to be true we must assume a mistake was made by the writer. If we don't make an assumption on the fallibility of the writer then the only outcome is the clause is a statement of generality

[KillianHawkeye]

For the modus tollens to not be false, it must always be the case that stackable metabreaths will have the note in the special section. Direct refutation of that assumption is the example presented in the preceding paragraph and the feat description. This makes it a false argument. For it to be true we must assume a mistake was made by the writer. If we don't make an assumption on the fallibility of the writer then the only outcome is the clause is a statement of generality

Tell that to the guy who wrote that mage armor was a great example spell for use by an Abjurant Champion. :smallsigh:

[H_H_F_F]

Yes, it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens


For the modus tollens to not be false, it must always be the case that stackable metabreaths will have the note in the special section. Direct refutation of that assumption is the example presented in the preceding paragraph and the feat description. This makes it a false argument. For it to be true we must assume a mistake was made by the writer. If we don't make an assumption on the fallibility of the writer then the only outcome is the clause is a statement of generality

Darg, did you notice that you kind of switched gears here? You went from "P->Q doesn't mean ~P->~Q" (which is false, of course) to "the rules statement saying P->Q is wrong".

That argument is not categorically wrong, but I think it still doesn't stand to scrutiny by the accepted standards of 3.5 RAW interpretation. A general rule is given, with a specific example that contradicts it. Usually, we'd go with the general rule. Mage armor being mentioned in Abjurant Champion is actually a great example: a general rule is given (Abjurant Champion abilities work on Abjuration spells) and an example contradicts it.

You can say "Abjurant Champ abilities work on any spell. They work on abjuration spells, but that doesn't mean they don't work on other spells".

You can say "Mage Armor is clearly an exception to the general rule, and AC can use class features on abjuration spells and on mage armor."

Or you can say "AC class features don't work on Mage Armor, because it's not an abjuration spell. The example is irrelevant, and is probably due to the designer being confused on the magic school of Mage Armor".

Option C is the one generally believed to be the correct way to approach RAW. I think this case is very similar.

[Darg]

Darg, did you notice that you kind of switched gears here? You went from "P->Q doesn't mean ~P->~Q" (which is false, of course) to "the rules statement saying P->Q is wrong".

That argument is not categorically wrong, but I think it still doesn't stand to scrutiny by the accepted standards of 3.5 RAW interpretation. A general rule is given, with a specific example that contradicts it. Usually, we'd go with the general rule. Mage armor being mentioned in Abjurant Champion is actually a great example: a general rule is given (Abjurant Champion abilities work on Abjuration spells) and an example contradicts it.

You can say "Abjurant Champ abilities work on any spell. They work on abjuration spells, but that doesn't mean they don't work on other spells".

You can say "Mage Armor is clearly an exception to the general rule, and AC can use class features on abjuration spells and on mage armor."

Or you can say "AC class features don't work on Mage Armor, because it's not an abjuration spell. The example is irrelevant, and is probably due to the designer being confused on the magic school of Mage Armor".

Option C is the one generally believed to be the correct way to approach RAW. I think this case is very similar.

The abjurant champion example is poor. The quote is, "Abjurant champions rely on mage armor, shield, and similar spells instead of actual armor." Just because mage armor was included in the feature description does not immediately imply the example was given specifically to show what spells are affected. If we take the sentence at face value it's identifying a trend, not mechanical relevance.

Zanos bringing up modus tollens allowed me to specifically identify what was wrong with their argument that I didn't quite have the words for before. It doesnt work because one of the premises relies on a false position made true by making an assumption of fact we have no way of verifying. In this specific case we either assume there was a mistake or we don't assume there is a mistake and apply understanding of common conventions.

Yes, I do know that the errata states topic disagreements should be resolved by topic precedence. However, in this case I simply disagree with the premise that there was a mistake made, not whether a rule does or does not exist. In the case of stacking the same metabreaths, taking the rules to their strictest interpretation means we must make the conclusion that they overwrite the rules for combining magical effects. As this must be the case, that means lingering breath and clinging breath create separate instances of themselves that are allowed to stack and must also follow the addition added in the special text. This means multiple clouds are created and allowed to exist in the same area while increasing the duration by +1 round per cloud. The point I'm making is that this section of the rules imply not trumping general rules that come before it. As the statement about notation comes after the statement about stacking allowance it stands to the same pattern of logic that it wouldn't directly contradict the rule that comes before it.

[ciopo]

isn't it all only slighty irrelevant, because the character at hand is not a dragon? :P


*squints* Zhepna, are you secretly a dragon!?

[KillianHawkeye]

Except that the errata file removes mage armor from the description of Abjurant Champion, because the writer made a mistake including it. Ostensibly this is because the spell isn't an abjuration.

The point is that writers make mistakes and example text isn't always right.

[Darg]

Except that the errata file removes mage armor from the description of Abjurant Champion, because the writer made a mistake including it. Ostensibly this is because the spell isn't an abjuration.

The point is that writers make mistakes and example text isn't always right.


Under the abjurant armor ability, remove mention of “mage armor” at the end of the paragraph. The abjurant armor ability does not affect mage armor, but the spell is still useful to an abjurant champion.

It makes no mention of it being a mistake. Based on the second sentence it sounds more like people were confusing themselves over it, but they stuck by their original meaning of the sentence.

Example text isn't always right. However, neither is rule text. If I'm looking at rules I'd rather make the assumption that neither are wrong unless it's impossible for them to work together. In this particular case, it's not.

[Crake]

It makes no mention of it being a mistake. Based on the second sentence it sounds more like people were confusing themselves over it, but they stuck by their original meaning of the sentence.

Example text isn't always right. However, neither is rule text. If I'm looking at rules I'd rather make the assumption that neither are wrong unless it's impossible for them to work together. In this particular case, it's not.

No errata “makes mention of it being a mistake”, because the literal etymological origin of “errata” stems from “error” aka, mistakes. Anything changed by errata is, by its very nature, a mistake.



Etymology
Borrowed from Latin errāta (“mistaken things, mistakes”), neuter plural of errātus (“mistaken”).

[Darg]

No errata “makes mention of it being a mistake”, because the literal etymological origin of “errata” stems from “error” aka, mistakes. Anything changed by errata is, by its very nature, a mistake.

I may have jumped the gun there. What I was trying to get across is that it wasn't necessarily their mistake. Things get changed simply because others consistently make the mistake and it's simply better to remove the offending portion regardless of the plain english.

[Crake]

I may have jumped the gun there. What I was trying to get across is that it wasn't necessarily their mistake. Things get changed simply because others consistently make the mistake and it's simply better to remove the offending portion regardless of the plain english.

Consider the errata as a retcon, and pretend that mage armor was never included in the description whatsoever.