The inquisitor's teamwork feat ability tosses around the word "bonus" sometimes, but not all the time. As a result, we get this mess:
"As a standard action, the inquisitor can choose to learn a new bonus teamwork feat in place of the most recent bonus teamwork feat she has already learned." ...
So if she gains a teamwork feat as a normal, non-bonus feat, she wouldn't be able to switch it? Reading on...
"She can only change the most recent teamwork feat gained."
Okay, that didn't say bonus, so IF she CAN'T switch that non-bonus feat, she can't switch ANY of them, because even her "most recent bonus teamwork feat" is not her "most recent teamwork feat gained." This is obviously an error in the text, but should the inquisitor be allowed to switch her most recent teamwork feat, or her most recent BONUS teamwork feat?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, all we need is common sense here. The initial part makes it quite clear that this can only be used with bonus teamwork feats. The author avoided unnecessary redundancy and unnecessary word count by not repeating the word "bonus" everywhere.
If I told you I only have black kittens, and I told you I would give you a free kitten, would you request a white kitten? Of course not - I have already established that I only have black kittens so it is not necessary for me to say "black kitten" every time I talk about my kittens in the same context.
The same thing applies here. The initial rule establishes that we're talking about bonus teamwork feats for the whole rule; repeating "bonus" is just redundant after that.
When reading any class ability always read them in a vaccume. When it talks about teamwork feats gained the ability only cares about feats gained from the ability.
Your kitten metaphor would match this situation except that this ability we're talking about never says "I only have black kittens". There is no text that states "this ability only affects bonus teamwork feats gained by this same ability." And we exist in a world where anyone can gain a white kitten at any odd level!
About abilities never involving game mechanics outside of their own text, I don't believe that is correct. Many abilities references things such as a character's other feats, their level, their enemies present, etc.
The suggestion that the author must have simply omitted the word "bonus" is a very likely assumption, but it is still an assumption. Taken literally, the RAW contains loopholes leading to paradoxes.
In similar examples, such as the Wizard's bonus feats, or the Druid animal companion's bonus tricks, the authors have removed redundancy while still avoiding ambiguity by using "this" or "these". Furthermore, in those examples, the authors have left in the redundant "bonus" anyway, even though it could easily be removed without changing the meaning.
Note that "these bonus feats" is hardly longer than "teamwork feats", and if printing costs is really the reason this was muddled up, "these feats" is actually shorter.
I still have the question- Is the ability meant to affect non-bonus teamwork feats? It says once that it does not and twice that it does.
Occam's Razor also says no. Either A) the second sentence should say 'bonus teamwork feat' and continue working or B) refers to any teamwork feat and then completely blocks the class feature from working at all.
Which seems more likely?
In the context of your quotes, the topic is bonus teamwork feats. This is a standard construct of English in which you can drop some specificity as it is understood from the context.
Say I own a pet store. I will let you borrow any pet you want so long as you brought it back when you want a different pet. If you like that pet, you can buy it from me and start borrowing a new pet, but I don't accept returns.
If you go to another pet store, buy a dog, and come back to my place do you think I'll let you trade in that other store's dog for one of my own dogs? No; I don't care that it is A pet, because it is not THE pet you borrowed.
This:
OK, all we need is common sense here. The initial part makes it quite clear that this can only be used with bonus teamwork feats. The author avoided unnecessary redundancy and unnecessary word count by not repeating the word "bonus" everywhere.
If I told you I only have black kittens, and I told you I would give you a free kitten, would you request a white kitten? Of course not - I have already established that I only have black kittens so it is not necessary for me to say "black kitten" every time I talk about my kittens in the same context.
The same thing applies here. The initial rule establishes that we're talking about bonus teamwork feats for the whole rule; repeating "bonus" is just redundant after that.
Rock solid DM_Blake.