New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 108
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    RAW versus RAI almost remind me of people studying computer class, where some have designed a complex loop of if statements, while others have a few lins of switches and for loops to do the same job, with fewer bugs at that.

    At the end of the day, the books are written fallibly and are written to be read by humans and a certain level of capable debuggery, yet some people insist these rulebooks be written with if statements upon if statements.

    I get it, it is the only consensus we can really agree on, but that does not a game make.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2019

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Divine Susuryu View Post
    That can't be universally true in the case of PrCs, because then we wind up with Schrödinger's Dragon Disciple, who by disqualifying himself with the half-dragon template loses the class feature that grants it,
    This would be a great argument if the SRD didn't specifically state that race "Cannot already be a half dragon" - which it does, so you've just not read the material properly. Even the Wizards article on the PrC says "already be non-dragon" when discussing the requirement. It's quite obvious that the requirement for this class is specifically written in order to emphasize the state upon entry being different from the state at the end of this class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divine Susuryu View Post
    So either that's the intended rules interaction (no it isn't) or you can lose a pre-requisite after entering and still be fine.
    Or you can read the prerequisites for a class wrong and help push a falsehood all over these forums. Dragon disciple allows you to be a half dragon. You just cannot be one when you enter the PrC.

    Your entire "This is RAI" argument falls flat because of this. I'm not overly interested in RAW because WOTC have made incredible amounts of stupid decisions in the wording of printed materials that makes RAW madness in many cases. Another great example is the idea that a Kobold can become a True Dragon - although, like the quotes above, this could be resolved by reading more closely.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Elves's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    Dragon disciple avoids self-disqualification with its "already" clause.
    No, that's obviously not true. The clear intent of that clause is to prevent redundancy in template features gained, ie a dragon disciple's abilities represent the gradual acquisition of the half-dragon template and so a half-dragon couldn't gain those benefits again.

    This is clear because grammatically it makes no sense and is legally ineffective if read as an exemption from the "any nondragon" clause.
    Join the 3.5e Discord server: https://discord.gg/ehGFz6M3nJ

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2019

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Divine Susuryu View Post
    Again, only if you selectively don't read the text immediately before it where it states that you must be non-dragon.
    Dragon disciple states "already".
    Already: prior to the present or at a particular time in the past.

    You're the one selectively reading. You are actively ignoring a word in order to make the case that the rules are broken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elves View Post
    No, that's obviously not true. The clear intent of that clause is to prevent redundancy in template features gained, ie a dragon disciple's abilities represent the gradual acquisition of the half-dragon template and so a half-dragon couldn't gain those benefits again.

    This is clear because grammatically it makes no sense and is legally ineffective if read as an exemption from the "any nondragon" clause.
    Yes, it is obviously true.

    Dragon Disciple grants you the Half-Dragon template. Dragon disciple's prerequisites state that one cannot "already" be a half dragon at the time of entry. The word "already" clearly refers to a time period. The time period at entry and the time period at reaching level 10 (thus becoming a Half-Dragon) are distinct. Therefore it is obviously true unless you have an active desire to avoid reading properly.

    You've also moved away from a RAW to RAI argument at the start of this post. Where's your citation for RAI when reading RAW as written without ignoring words provides a sufficient explanation?

    Why is it grammatically nonsensical?
    Last edited by Sepultra; 2019-09-23 at 09:24 AM.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thurbane View Post
    Get ready for the usual "only PrCs in CW and CAr lose their features when they lose reqs" and "what about the Dragon Disciple" arguments.
    Prescient.

    Quote Originally Posted by tiercel View Post
    1) I'd argue that even for theorycrafting, folks generally have some limits about how "pure RAW" they will be in their build -- if there are no limits other than "but the rules," then it's pretty much straight to Pun-Pun (or your other favorite infinite combo).

    If nothing else, while RAW discussions have their own value, it's not surprising if someone points out, e.g. "by RAW, monks aren't proficient with unarmed strike," that at least some folks who are more focused on actual gameplay may tend to respond with *derisive snort*.
    This thread is doing a good job of explaining why RAW-arguing has gotten such a bad name and why future editions have deliberately hewed to a 'rulings over rules' mentality.

    Regardless, on some level, even theory-craft discussions have some level of 'will others accept this?' in their makeup. Usually people are putting forth a build for consideration that others might look at their proposed build (or whatever) and deem it a good suggestion. If the build is predicated on too many things that you have to argue the validity of (be it 'is this RAW?' or 'would the PCs have access to this, at any real table?'), then no one else on the theory-craft thread is likely to look at your build and consider it one of the top suggestions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Asmotherion View Post
    i thought it was a well established fact that 3.5 secretly trains you to be a potent lawyer?

    i'm not sure this was the Rai behind 3.5 but it certainly is Raw.
    I'm not a lawyer, but I work with them. It has been explained to me that that's really not what makes a good lawyer. Thing is, this 'my arguments are irrefutable!' mentality that always seems to pop up in 3e RAW debates isn't how you get good at high school debate team, much less make a good IRL lawyer. In law, you actually have to convince others of your position. These things are, really, more like the people studying computer science that Mordaedil mentioned (except with computer science courses, in the end there is a compiler that fails to produce a given output if you've coded wrong, so you actually in-the-end know if your logic was correct or not).

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Elves's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sepultra View Post
    Dragon disciple states "already".
    Already: prior to the present or at a particular time in the past.
    The line is: "Any nondragon (cannot already be a half-dragon)."

    No grammatical reading of this line makes it mean what you say it does.

    In particular, trying to make the parentheticals be an ie statement results in a logical absurdity.

    To dismiss an incoherence and then point out what this rule is actually doing (precluding the double application of half-dragon template benefits) is not the same thing as moving from an RAW to an RAI argument.
    Join the 3.5e Discord server: https://discord.gg/ehGFz6M3nJ

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Do we really have to do the Dragon Disciple thing again? It's been over a decade, let it go and make a ruling at your own table(s).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordaedil View Post
    RAW versus RAI almost remind me of people studying computer class, where some have designed a complex loop of if statements, while others have a few lins of switches and for loops to do the same job, with fewer bugs at that.

    At the end of the day, the books are written fallibly and are written to be read by humans and a certain level of capable debuggery, yet some people insist these rulebooks be written with if statements upon if statements.

    I get it, it is the only consensus we can really agree on, but that does not a game make.
    This, and frankly, "consensus" is a silly standard to chase anyway. Even if nobody is, say, actually using 1d43 for their scorpion-tail whip's damage, somebody online is going to say they do, for lulz if nothing else. I'm happy with just a plurality, and for some readings I'm even happy being in the minority. I don't have to justify myself to anyone but my GM (or my players, from the other side.)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Male

    d6 Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Here is a challenge take a character plot put what it takes to get a Prestige glass.

    Play that character from 1st level take all requirement feats and skills to get that class. You will find out why they are supposed to be rare to run across.
    9 wisdom true neutral cleric you know you want me in your adventuring party


  9. - Top - End - #69
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Do we really have to do the Dragon Disciple thing again? It's been over a decade, let it go and make a ruling at your own table(s).
    What I'm fascinated by is the idea that it proves anything else beyond whether the designers thought through the wording implications of a specific prestige class.

    Quote Originally Posted by denthor View Post
    Here is a challenge take a character plot put what it takes to get a Prestige glass.

    Play that character from 1st level take all requirement feats and skills to get that class. You will find out why they are supposed to be rare to run across.
    I think we're on the same page -- feat taxes are worth caring about (even if you can get rid of them later) because you have to live with them until you can get rid of them.
    Last edited by Willie the Duck; 2019-09-23 at 11:06 AM.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Troacctid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Elves View Post
    The line is: "Any nondragon (cannot already be a half-dragon)."

    No grammatical reading of this line makes it mean what you say it does.

    In particular, trying to make the parentheticals be an ie statement results in a logical absurdity.

    To dismiss an incoherence and then point out what this rule is actually doing (precluding the double application of half-dragon template benefits) is not the same thing as moving from an RAW to an RAI argument.
    Okay. Hang on a second. You're saying that this line somehow prevents the bonuses from the template from being applied twice, once from the class features, once from the template itself. How exactly does it prevent this? That's a huge leap that you're making there. I don't see anything in that prerequisite line that even implies anything like that.

    Furthermore, if you're avoiding applying the template's bonuses twice, how are you even changing your type to dragon in the first place? I assume you're preferencing the bonuses granted by the class rather than the template, because specific beats general...but you'll notice the 10th level ability conveniently omits the type change portion of the template. So you never violate the prerequisite at all because even after the transformation, you're still a nondragon.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Elves's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    Okay. Hang on a second. You're saying that this line somehow prevents the bonuses from the template from being applied twice, once from the class features, once from the template itself.
    If you were a half-dragon prior, not when you gain the capstone. The text for Draconic Apotheosis makes clear that the stat boosts, at the very least, are supposed to be a progressive acquisition of half-dragon ability bonuses, despite being noted as gained "as if through level advancement".
    Join the 3.5e Discord server: https://discord.gg/ehGFz6M3nJ

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    EldritchWeaver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    ...(except with computer science courses, in the end there is a compiler that fails to produce a given output if you've coded wrong, so you actually in-the-end know if your logic was correct or not).
    Ironically, it is impossible to prove if a given program actually has an end state or not. So while a program running a million years before it arrives with an answer is clearly impractical, you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from one running forever. You just kill both.
    Avatar made by Mehangel - "Neigh?"

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Troacctid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Elves View Post
    If you were a half-dragon prior, not when you gain the capstone. The text for Draconic Apotheosis makes clear that the stat boosts, at the very least, are supposed to be a progressive acquisition of half-dragon ability bonuses, despite being noted as gained "as if through level advancement".
    No it doesn't, plus you're talking RAI not RAW, and also, what?

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by EldritchWeaver View Post
    Ironically, it is impossible to prove if a given program actually has an end state or not. So while a program running a million years before it arrives with an answer is clearly impractical, you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from one running forever. You just kill both.
    Well yes. The analogy is imperfect. My point was, in many-to-most cases, with programming your 'logic' is put to the test against a roughly objective arbiter. Online RAW debates don't do that, but they are still more like that than law.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    I skimmed the thread and didn't see it mentioned, so.. uh.. are we just ignoring the fact that regardless of the RAW/RAI of qualifying/continuing prestige classes, Embrace the Dark Chaos expressly and explicitly makes what is suggested in the OP impossible?
    If the lost feat was a prerequisite for other feats or prestige classes, the subject loses access to those feats or prestige class abilities until it once again meets all the prerequisites.
    Leaving only the psionic route.

    Nevermind that most "taxes" are paid for higher-chain feats, not prestige classes, and not having the prereq (as has been mentioned) for a feat means you can't use it. Full stop.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by FaerieGodfather View Post
    This wouldn't be a problem without that underlying player mentality... but it seems that something about the ruleset also fosters the mentality that makes it unsustainable.

    Other games have optimization junkies and rules lawyers of their own, but I've never seen another game with a fanbase as bloodymindedly dedicated to reading each and every rule as far as possible from its most reasonable interpretation, regardless of whether or not it benefits their own character(s).
    I don't think that the mindset is as pervasive as giantitp makes it SEEM like it is. I highly doubt most people play "Absolute strictest RAW possible" at their table, everyone will have SOME houserules at their table to fix the inconsistencies and, as people put it, dysfunctions. The issue though, is that everyone will have slightly differing ideas on what is and isn't dysfunctional, or how this or that rule can be interpreted, or what is and isn't a reasonable rule.

    Thus, the only way to really discuss the game is with the "absolute strictest RAW possible" reading, which even then is sometimes ambiguous.

    tl;dr: I really doubt people are as argumentative over the rules at their tables as they are here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    There's also the notion that, if you have a GM that's willing to let you do something like Dark Chaos Shuffle to get {thing}, they're probably also fine just giving you {thing} for free. I'd wager that it's actually more likely to find a GM willing to houserule like that in the name of fun, than it is to find one that wants you to have fun but only if you leap through the most convoluted RAW-legal hoops imaginable to get there.
    I think this pretty much sums it up. There are times when sometimes it would make more senses to use psychic reformation or DCFS to change abilities around, but I personally think the only time a PrC should have a feat or skill requirement is when said feat or skill requirement is integral to the PrC, and that PrC should instead have more story-centric requirements, rather than meta-crunch requirements. My players actually rarely take prestige classes these days, because they're just such a hassle, and none of them enjoy the experience. The last time one of them took a memorable PrC was actually one of the players taking a homebrew, dragon-slayer-themed PrC that had campaign ties and story elements. It's actually one of the things I think pathfinder just did better, archetypes/ACFs over PrC, though I think PrC still have their place, my table I think is pretty much over the whole hardcore theorycraft characters into oblivion and pick all this and that, and they would much rather just play the game and let the characters grow on their own, and if something's not working, we'll fix it later.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SirNibbles's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2016

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenC21 View Post
    You are wrong by RAW. You have a reasonable houserule, but the CW and CAr rulings make it clear that most PrCs only require prereqs for the first level.
    "Meeting Class Requirements: It’s possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position where the character no longer qualifies to be a member of the class. An alignment change, levels lost because of character death, or the loss of a magic item that granted an important ability are examples of events that can make a character ineligible to advance farther in a prestige class. If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that the class provided." - Complete Warrior, page 16


    It's not just the first level; quite the opposite.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SangoProduction's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Divine Susuryu View Post
    You could say that about literally any part of the game though, so that's a zero-sum argument. The GM could decide there are no casters in their game at all, or that everyone's a caster, or that the prereqs don't matter and you can just get into any PrC, or that there are no PrCs, and so on and so forth.

    To say that "the GM might not allow it" is like saying "the player might not want to do it". Yes, but so what? We're working off the assumption that this is what the player wants to do and the GM will allow it. The discussion of "will the GM allow this?" is a different discussion to "should a GM allow this?" is a different discussion to "is it possible within the rules?". This thread is the last discussion, not the first two.

    EDIT: Actually, it's probably just my bias against theoretical rule 0 judgements in a RAW discussion showing here, so feel free to ignore the second part of this post.
    Actually, the discussion was why do people care about feat taxes. Which is none of the proposed questions that you mentioned.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SangoProduction's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Divine Susuryu View Post
    That can't be universally true in the case of PrCs, because then we wind up with Schrödinger's Dragon Disciple, who by disqualifying himself with the half-dragon template loses the class feature that grants it, hence re-qualifying as a non-dragon, gaining the template, disqualifying, etc.. So either that's the intended rules interaction (no it isn't) or you can lose a pre-requisite after entering and still be fine.
    Or, it can just be bad writing. But that would never happen, especially in some of the first books. Not with WotC.
    Monks definitely are proficient in unarmed strikes.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Elves's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    No it doesn't, plus you're talking RAI not RAW, and also, what?
    The class is a more of a mess than I realized. Specifically, is the +4 Strength and +2 Cha from Draconic Apotheosis replacing the normal stat benefits from half-dragon, or is it on top of them? RAI's likely the first, but you could claim that that line is referring to the ability boost mechanism already established, meaning the class grants 2x the normal stat adjustments of half-dragon. That sounds like the type of conclusion you would normally argue against...


    Regardless, this doesn't change my refutation, which is just that the clause you cite -- "Any nondragon (cannot already be a half-dragon)" -- does not mean and can't in English be read to mean that you can be a dragon so long as you weren't a half-dragon upon entering.

    Is it possible that the author forgot that half-dragon changes your type to dragon? Maybe. At that point we are in RAI territory, for real.


    Quote Originally Posted by Luckmann View Post
    are we just ignoring the fact that regardless of the RAW/RAI of qualifying/continuing prestige classes, Embrace the Dark Chaos expressly and explicitly makes what is suggested in the OP impossible?
    Sloppy mistake, thanks for the correction. No real difference because psychic reformation is much cheaper anyway.
    Last edited by Elves; 2019-09-23 at 01:23 PM.
    Join the 3.5e Discord server: https://discord.gg/ehGFz6M3nJ

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Orc in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by SirNibbles View Post
    "Meeting Class Requirements: It’s possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position where the character no longer qualifies to be a member of the class. An alignment change, levels lost because of character death, or the loss of a magic item that granted an important ability are examples of events that can make a character ineligible to advance farther in a prestige class. If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that the class provided." - Complete Warrior, page 16


    It's not just the first level; quite the opposite.
    That rule doesn't appear anywhere except in CW and CAr to my knowledge. If they wanted it to be universally applicable they should have put it in the prestige class rules for every book they printed after that, which they didn't do, and they never errataed the DMG to include that text despite issuing DMG errata after those books were printed.

    It's entirely possible that they wanted to try the rule and then decided not to implement it more widely. It's also possible this is RAI. But it isn't RAW, and for my own part, I don't even use that rule for prestige classes in the books that rule is printed in because the rule doesn't make sense.

    I require characters to meet prerequisites whenever they take a level in that class; the only penalty for not meeting prereqs for classes is not being able to advance the class further unless explicitly noted otherwise in the class itself, same as the penalty for Monks who become nonlawful and Barbarians who become lawful.

    Is that RAW? No, but it's the middle ground I've chosen for my home games. RAW here is pretty murky, but I don't think RAI can be to apply a rule only found in 2 non-core splat books to every prestige class ever printed. Maybe it is, but I don't think so.
    Last edited by Silvercrys; 2019-09-23 at 01:25 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    I'm not sure why anyone would take Dragon Disciple ever, even less so if they're already a dragon.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SirNibbles's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2016

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvercrys View Post
    That rule doesn't appear anywhere except in CW and CAr to my knowledge. If they wanted it to be universally applicable they should have put it in the prestige class rules for every book they printed after that, which they didn't do, and they never errataed the DMG to include that text despite issuing DMG errata after those books were printed.

    It's entirely possible that they wanted to try the rule and then decided not to implement it more widely. It's also possible this is RAI. But it isn't RAW, and for my own part, I don't even use that rule for prestige classes in the books that rule is printed in because the rule doesn't make sense.

    I require characters to meet prerequisites whenever they take a level in that class; the only penalty for not meeting prereqs for classes is not being able to advance the class further unless explicitly noted otherwise in the class itself, same as the penalty for Monks who become nonlawful and Barbarians who become lawful.

    Is that RAW? No, but it's the middle ground I've chosen for my home games. RAW here is pretty murky, but I don't think RAI can be to apply a rule only found in 2 non-core splat books to every prestige class ever printed. Maybe it is, but I don't think so.
    I understand. I was responding specifically to the claim that, according to CW/CAr, you only need prereqs to take the first level.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Troacctid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Elves View Post
    The class is a more of a mess than I realized. Specifically, is the +4 Strength and +2 Cha from Draconic Apotheosis replacing the normal stat benefits from half-dragon, or is it on top of them? RAI's likely the first, but you could claim that that line is referring to the ability boost mechanism already established, meaning the class grants 2x the normal stat adjustments of half-dragon. That sounds like the type of conclusion you would normally argue against...
    I'm working backwards from your reading by accepting your premises and extrapolating them to their logical conclusions. C'mon, this is one of the first things they teach you in rules law school.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elves View Post
    Regardless, this doesn't change my refutation, which is just that the clause you cite -- "Any nondragon (cannot already be a half-dragon)" -- does not mean and can't in English be read to mean that you can be a dragon so long as you weren't a half-dragon upon entering.
    Yes it can.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2013

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    I'm not sure why anyone would take Dragon Disciple ever, even less so if they're already a dragon.
    It's not a bad class if you are a melee character. Full BAB 4/Stalwart Battle Sorcerer 1/DD 10 is not a terrible start to a build. Won't be a god tier uber charger but works just fine, such as if you pick Zhentarim fighter so you can turn the Cha boosts into better fear or use Janissary for knowledge skills and do a knowledge devotion build.
    Last edited by ZamielVanWeber; 2019-09-23 at 02:57 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Thurbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    I'm not sure why anyone would take Dragon Disciple ever, even less so if they're already a dragon.
    Take a few levels after you've maxed out Ur-Priest (or similar) for extra 9th level spell slots.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Doctor Awkward's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Collegeville, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by SangoProduction View Post
    Monks definitely are proficient in unarmed strikes.
    In the course of my investigation, I have concluded that the Unarmed Strike class feature granted by the first level in the monk class is something functionally similar, but distinctly different from the weapon listed in Chapter 7: Equipment of the Player's Handbook and described on page 121.

    Note that while the weapon description limits you to punches, kicks, head butts, and other simple brawling techniques, the monk's class feature has a much greater variety available to them, to better reflect specific martial arts training. Monks may additionally attack freely with unarmed attacks with their hands full, a courtesy not granted to even creatures that take Improved Unarmed Strike.

    Regular unarmed strikes additionally deal fixed damage based on the creature size, while the monk class feature has a table that increases at the listed rate as the monk increases in level. The monk class feature is further treated as both a manufactured and natural weapon for magical enhancement purposes when it would be most beneficial, yet another feature not found in the weapon listed on page 121.

    So a monk need not be proficient with the "unarmed strike" weapon listed in the equipment section because they do not have to use it. They are instead using an alternate version of unarmed strikes described in the class feature granted to them by the monk class, which is something else entirely. Confusion regarding this distinction I've found is generally rooted in simply not reading the relevant sections of these rules thoroughly enough.


    ...At least that's how I explain things in my games to those very fine people that try to bring this up as an example of how D&D 3.5 is completely and totally dysfunctional.
    Resident Mad Scientist...

    "It's so cool!"

    Spoiler: Contests
    Show
    VC I: Lord Commander Conrad Vayne, 1st place
    VC II: Lorna, the Mother's Wrath, 5th place
    VC XV: Tosk, Kursak the Marauder, Vierna Zalyl; 1st place, 6th/7th place
    Kitchen Crashers Protocol for Peace

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    But that's one of the things about interpreting RAW—when you pick a reading that goes against RAI, it often has a ripple effect that results in dysfunctions in other places.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvercrys View Post
    That rule doesn't appear anywhere except in CW and CAr to my knowledge. If they wanted it to be universally applicable they should have put it in the prestige class rules for every book they printed after that, which they didn't do, and they never errataed the DMG to include that text despite issuing DMG errata after those books were printed.
    They appear in 3.0 DMG, and omitted in all of 3.5 DMG.

    Also, before the Premium Edition, by the books (but not SRD), Prestige Classes have multiclass penalty for 3.5.


    For the topic of the thread:
    Most Prestige Class have about
    • 3 to 10 levels worth of skill points prerequisite,
    • 0 to 3 feat requirement (3 or 6 levels could satisfy most)
    Last edited by HouseRules; 2019-09-23 at 04:29 PM.
    Level Point System 5E
    Poker Roll

    Tier 1 Master of All
    Tier 2 Lightning Bruiser
    Tier 3 Lethal Joke Character
    Tier 4 Master of None
    Tier 5 Crippling Overspecialization
    Tier 6 Joke Character

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SangoProduction's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Awkward View Post
    In the course of my investigation, I have concluded that the Unarmed Strike class feature granted by the first level in the monk class is something functionally similar, but distinctly different from the weapon listed in Chapter 7: Equipment of the Player's Handbook and described on page 121.

    ...*and stuff, check his post*...
    Oh. That has interesting implications. Does that mean that simultaneously use the Unarmed Strike class feature and the Unarmed Strike weapon? (Why would you, but then again, why would you use 99.99% of all weapons that were printed?)
    Last edited by SangoProduction; 2019-09-23 at 06:12 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    tiercel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location

    Default Re: Why do people care about feat taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    This thread is doing a good job of explaining why RAW-arguing has gotten such a bad name and why future editions have deliberately hewed to a 'rulings over rules' mentality.
    I like having more rules/guidelines because it gives me more to work with as a DM; if I find a wonky rules interface I can just pave over that instance with some ruling and move on. If there are many fewer rules, now I’m making judgments and rulings more often than the (hopefully) occasional correction because there isn’t any baseline.

    It’s possible to go too far either way, of course; I’m not going to write a Constitution of My Group to hold a law body of work of house rules, but I don’t want players to feel like I’m going to Rule Zero everything (otherwise I’d probably choose some diceless system instead). Part of that is an agreement with players to not try to exploit less-than-completely-closed-logical-system rules.


    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    The issue though, is that everyone will have slightly differing ideas on what is and isn't dysfunctional, or how this or that rule can be interpreted, or what is and isn't a reasonable rule.

    Thus, the only way to really discuss the game is with the "absolute strictest RAW possible" reading, which even then is sometimes ambiguous.
    I’d argue that

    1) there’s plenty of space to discuss the game not-purely-by-RAW, since it doesn’t seem that uncommon for DMs or players to ask for advice for an actual game (and I don’t know of any actual games, personally, that even try to hew /purely/ to RAW, Tippyverse, infinite combos, drown healing, etc.etc.)

    2) by the logic “you can’t have a discussion if people are coming in with different RAI,” if people can’t even agree about RAW, then we still can’t have a discussion.

    Of course, putting (1) and (2) together is generally why folks who ask for advice give some context (allowed/banned sources, houserules, existing characters and/or encounters) so that folks who are responding do have some kind of baseline to work from.

    After all, “is it RAW legal?” can’t be the only question at most actual games; “is this in keeping thematically and/or in optimization level with the rest of the table?” generally has to be in there too.


    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Awkward View Post
    In the course of my investigation, I have concluded that the Unarmed Strike class feature granted by the first level in the monk class is something functionally similar, but distinctly different from the weapon listed in Chapter 7: Equipment of the Player's Handbook and described on page 121....
    [substantial snip]
    ...At least that's how I explain things in my games to those very fine people that try to bring this up as an example of how D&D 3.5 is completely and totally dysfunctional.
    I suppose my *derisive snort* reference to the idea of monks not being proficient with unarmed strike is a combination of

    1) Even if, technically, monks as written were not proficient, it’s hard to imagine many (any?) groups actually using such a rule in play (not only since it arguably flies in the face of the whole concept of the monk class, but also OMG WHY NERF MONK?)

    2) The very fact that one might actually need an argument like the above one in order to justify a monk being able to actually hit things with his fists? I mean, sure, OK, interesting that there is a careful reading that— THIS SHOULD NOT REQUIRE HAIR-SPLITTING OMG.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •