Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Quick Slashing Grace Question


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Slashing Grace doesn't have the word salad at the bottom about taking it multiple times for different weapons, so you can ONLY take it once, correct?

I.E. I can't take Slashing Grace Battle Axe, and then later Slashing Grace Longsword, Correct?

Sovereign Court

That looks correct, yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Somewhat ambiguous.

Benefit: What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. [b]If a character has the same feat more than once,]/b] its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

That is, you can certainly take the feat as many times as you like; the only question is whether you get any benefit from it after the first. (There is no "you can only take a given feat once unless otherwise specified" rule, contrary to popular belief. It's just usually pointless.)

AFAICT "benefits do not stack" is only relevant if you try to get it multiple times on the same weapon. Taking it on battle axe and then longsword is not trying to stack, as they do different things, so I would argue that it works fine. The usual word salad is basically redundant highlighting.

Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.

Sovereign Court

@Fuzzy-Wuzzy: but compare it to for example Weapon Focus:

Quote:

Weapon Focus (Combat)

Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.

Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

Clearly you can take Weapon Focus more than once and it'll do something. And that "special" line is a patter that's reused on dozens of feats. But Slashing Grace doesn't have it.


Ascalaphus wrote:

@Fuzzy-Wuzzy: but compare it to for example Weapon Focus:

Quote:

Weapon Focus (Combat)

Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.

Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

Clearly you can take Weapon Focus more than once and it'll do something. And that "special" line is a patter that's reused on dozens of feats. But Slashing Grace doesn't have it.

That is my line of thought as well. Once you select a weapon type with Slashing Grace you are locked into that choice for any duplicate versions of Slashing Grace. So you could take Slashing Grace (longsword) twice (gaining no benefits beyond what you would get by taking it once), but you couldn't take Slashing Grace (longsword) and then Slashing Grace (battle axe) because there is no clause allowing you to change your original weapon choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that the patter is redundant, written by people who probably (incorrectly) thought you could only take a feat once without it, or (more charitably) who thought readers needed reminding.

@Gisher, there is also no clause saying you must make the same choice if you take the feat again. Perhaps the writer thought you could only take a feat once by default; if so, they were wrong (likely misled by that oft-repeated patter).

I don't think these are even the only feats whose Special line is not so special, though I must admit I have no examples off the top of my head.


You could very well be correct, Fuzzy-Wuzzy. I think the difference in language is an indicator of intent, but I wouldn't say it is definitive.

I think the issue is further complicated by the way the term 'stack' has broadened over the years beyond the original meaning that you cited.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

You can not take a feat multiple times without having a special line allowing you to do so.

You sometimes get granted a bonus feat after you have already taken that feat. In that case, they don't stack. This situation is why there is the "If a character has the same feat more than once" language.


James Risner wrote:
You can not take a feat multiple times without having a special line allowing you to do so.

Please cite rules text rather than simply making declarations w/o support.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Martial Versatility feat, from the Advanced Race Guide, would allow you to apply it to numerous different weapons, provided they are all in the same group.

Feat Description:

Martial Versatility (Combat)

You further broaden your study of weapons to encompass multiple similar weapons.

Prerequisites: Fighter level 4th, human.

Benefit: Choose one combat feat you know that applies to a specific weapon (e.g., Weapon Focus). You can use that feat with any weapon within the same weapon group.

Special: You may take this feat more than once. Each time it applies to a different feat.

Sovereign Court

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
The problem is that the patter is redundant, written by people who probably (incorrectly) thought you could only take a feat once without it, or (more charitably) who thought readers needed reminding.

The "special" line is from the Core Rulebook, and it's something that's repeated in main line books ever since. It was put there by the people who make the standard rules.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
The problem is that the patter is redundant, written by people who probably (incorrectly) thought you could only take a feat once without it, or (more charitably) who thought readers needed reminding.
The "special" line is from the Core Rulebook, and it's something that's repeated in main line books ever since. It was put there by the people who make the standard rules.

So those people thought you needed a reminder. People writing later books may have wanted a reminder, or wrongly thought it necessary, or simply be upholding a tradition.

Don't think that ever happens?

Well, the Core Rulebook also puts in "you can only apply one critical feat at a time unless you possess Critical Mastery" as a Special line in every critical feat. Does that mean it's necessary? No, it's redundant with the general rule given under Critical Feats. Therefore it is present only as a reminder. Therefore sometimes they put in Special lines purely as a reminder. Therefore the presence of a Special line, even in Core, is simply not an indicator that the line is necessary. It may always be just a reminder.

So there's no "you can't generally take a feat twice" rule implicit in all those Special lines, and there certainly isn't an explicit rule to that effect, so....


You can take the same feat more than one, they just don't stack, so it's pointless.

Taking slashing grace (longsword) and slahing grace (battle axe) don't stack any more than casting forbid action multiple times.


Quantum Steve wrote:

You can take the same feat more than one, they just don't stack, so it's pointless.

Taking slashing grace (longsword) and slahing grace (battle axe) don't stack any more than casting forbid action multiple times.

They're not trying to stack any more than an enhancement bonus to your armor and an enhancement bonus to your weapon are. Do those stack? No. Do they both apply? Yes.

See my first post in this thread re the meaning of stacking from the CRB.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:

You can take the same feat more than one, they just don't stack, so it's pointless.

Taking slashing grace (longsword) and slahing grace (battle axe) don't stack any more than casting forbid action multiple times.

They're not trying to stack any more than an enhancement bonus to your armor and an enhancement bonus to your weapon are. Do those stack? No. Do they both apply? Yes.

See my first post in this thread re the meaning of stacking from the CRB.

The enhancement bonus from your armour and weapon are not from the same source.

If a spell let you pick what to give an enhancement bonus, you couldn't benefit from the spell twice, even if you picked different things, because the same spell doesn't stack with itself.

Feats don't stack with themselves.


James Risner wrote:

You can not take a feat multiple times without having a special line allowing you to do so.

You sometimes get granted a bonus feat after you have already taken that feat. In that case, they don't stack. This situation is why there is the "If a character has the same feat more than once" language.

Has there been an FAQ, erratum, or something that says that? Because the Core Rulebook disagrees with you.

Core Rulebook, Feats, Feat Descriptions, Benefits wrote:
If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

I do not think it is against the rules to take a Feat more than once. The Core Rulebook has specific provision for when you do.

Besides, if it were true, then what would happen if I wanted to take a level in Monk and a level in Brawler: both have Improved Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Feat. Are you saying that Brawler/Monks are illegal?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Gotta watch out for shenanigans though. Someone could potentially multiclass, get two of the same feat, but then retrain the duplicate into something much more useful.


Quantum Steve wrote:


If a spell let you pick what to give an enhancement bonus, you couldn't benefit from the spell twice, even if you picked different things, because the same spell doesn't stack with itself.

Are you sure?

This FAQ states that multiple castings of Bestow Curse can all affect a creature. In the same vein, shouldn't a character be able to benefit from multiple Resist Energy (each granting resistance against a different kind of energy)?


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If the feat was not a choice (such as Improved Unarmed Strike received twice by a Monk/Brawler), then there is no option to retrain either instance of the feat.

A more practical case would occur for a sorcerer taking the Skill Focus feat as a general feat in order to begin progressing on the Eldritch Heritage feat chain for a different bloodline. When he reaches a level where he can select a bonus bloodline feat, he doesn't see much that he wants, but the Skill Focus feat that he already took is on that list, so (if he is allowed to do so) he takes that redundant feat and later retrains the first Skill Focus feat into something more useful to him. Because he is retraining a general feat instead of a bonus bloodline feat, he can replace that first Skill Focus feat with any feat that he qualifies for.

Retraining throws a monkey wrench into a lot of game rules. How many class feature choices contain rules saying that once the choice is made they can never be changed -- but the choices in question can in fact be changed quite easily by the retraining rules?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
James Risner wrote:
You can not take a feat multiple times without having a special line allowing you to do so.
Please cite rules text rather than simply making declarations w/o support.

Which is a cool strategy for someone with a rules interpretation that isn't how things work. You can't quote a rules line stating the common sense things.

Extra Channel is an example of a "obviously you can't take it multiples times because it doesn't say you can"


Blymurkla wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:


If a spell let you pick what to give an enhancement bonus, you couldn't benefit from the spell twice, even if you picked different things, because the same spell doesn't stack with itself.

Are you sure?

This FAQ states that multiple castings of Bestow Curse can all affect a creature. In the same vein, shouldn't a character be able to benefit from multiple Resist Energy (each granting resistance against a different kind of energy)?

Quote:
Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

The FAQ, apparently, provides a special exception to this general rule for bestow curse. Whether this is intended to overturn the general rule entirely is unclear, but barring another FAQ, the general rule still stands.


Nothing in the rules actually says you cannot take a Feat (such as Extra Channel) more than once. However the rules do explicitly state that the benefits of said duplicate feats do not stack unless otherwise noted. Extra Channel lacks a special clause stating that its effects stack, therefore duplicate entries of that feat have no additional effect.
The same goes for feats such as Extra Bane, Extra Grit, Extra Martial Flexibility, and Extra Panache. But not feats such as Extra Bombs, Extra Inspiration, Extra Rage, and Extra Reservoir (which have Special clauses explicitly stating their effects stack).


James Risner wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
James Risner wrote:
You can not take a feat multiple times without having a special line allowing you to do so.
Please cite rules text rather than simply making declarations w/o support.

Which is a cool strategy for someone with a rules interpretation that isn't how things work. You can't quote a rules line stating the common sense things.

Extra Channel is an example of a "obviously you can't take it multiples times because it doesn't say you can"

Can you offer evidence that your interpretation is the way things work? It seems to me that the way things work is that I pick whatever feat I want.

Core Rulebook, Feats wrote:
By selecting feats, you can customize and adapt your character to be uniquely yours.

The rules specifically say the player picks his or her own feats to make the character unique. The rules say you aren't supposed to do things the way they are done. The rules say you are supposed to do things your own way.

Core Rulebook, Feats wrote:
Any feat designated as a combat feat can be selected as a fighter's bonus feat.

Slashing Grace is a Combat Feat. I can select Slashing Grace as a Fighter's Bonus Feat. That's what the rules say. They don't say "a combat feat can be selected as a fighter's bonus feat as long as he hasn't taken it already." That is unless it does say that somewhere else.

And again, the rules specifically provide for what happens when you do select a Feat more than once.

Core Rulebook, Feats, Feat Descriptions, Benefits wrote:
If a character has the same feat more than once

This proves that you can have the same Feat more than once, and you get Feats by choosing them.

So, the rules say you choose your own Feats. The explicitly stated intent of the rules is that you pick your own feats to make your character uniquely yours. Slashing Grace is a Combat Feat, the rules specifically say you pick your Combat Feats. Furthermore, the rules specifically say that you can have the same Feat more than once.

You brought some evidence, but it is heavily outweighed by counter evidence. Sean Reynolds is not making an official rules post in your quote, and his post directly contradicts the explicit rules: he is clearly mistaken.

Sean Reynolds wrote:
you can't, because the feat doesn't say you can,

The feat also doesn't say that when you take Extra Channel, you still retain your Armor Bonus to your AC. Feats don't do what they don't say they do. The existence of the Extra Channel Feat does not change all the rules about Feat selection because as

Sean Reynolds wrote:
the feat doesn't say

It seems rather that while you can take Extra Channel more than once, you can't gain the benefit of it more than once because the Feat doesn't say it does. To this, I think he would say

Sean Reynolds wrote:
"no response required"

Which was the actual point he was making.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Threads like this kills games.

I didn't not know if it's a quest to dream up obviously incorrect rules interpretations that violate common sense.

I just had a conversation with someone today at 6 pm EST as to why they no longer play Pathfinder and it boiled down to some interpretations such as this that people advance.


James Risner wrote:

Threads like this kills games.

I didn't not know if it's a quest to dream up obviously incorrect rules interpretations that violate common sense.

I just had a conversation with someone today at 6 pm EST as to why they no longer play Pathfinder and it boiled down to some interpretations such as this that people advance.

Do people actually implement this type of logic in games? I always assumed it was mental exercise for the point of internet arguments.

I mean, I'm all for House Rules, and House Ruling that feats can be taken multiple times and stack is fine and dandy, but do the mental gymnastics required for such arguments actually actually show up in actual games? What's the point? Isn't it easier just to House Rule?

And if your in a forum, like PFS, where House Rules aren't allowed, mental gymnastics aren't going to be allowed either.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

No actual game I've witnessed, played, or heard about allows this kind of stuff.

It doesn't stop the internet assault on common sense. We have so many FAQ that amount to "duh common sense" and we need a new one every time we get an old one answered.

Many common sense things that shouldn't need FAQ but some got:

  • Take a feat twice twice with no rule allowing.
  • Throwing Shield gives infinite attacks.
  • Ranged attacks with sneak attack from flanking.
  • Spiked Bashing shields stack despite the "as if" FAQ on stacking.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Risner wrote:

No actual game I've witnessed, played, or heard about allows this kind of stuff.

It doesn't stop the internet assault on common sense. We have so many FAQ that amount to "duh common sense" and we need a new one every time we get an old one answered.

Many common sense things that shouldn't need FAQ but some got:

  • Take a feat twice twice with no rule allowing.
  • Throwing Shield gives infinite attacks.
  • Ranged attacks with sneak attack from flanking.
  • Spiked Bashing shields stack despite the "as if" FAQ on stacking.

It would help if you have all your "common sense" complaints had some consistency, beyond common sense being a laughable, fallacious argument.

The ranged flanking had clear text that it didn't work.

Quick-draw Throwing Shields, on the other hand, were horribly written because the literal reading of the text did allow infinite attacks. Game balance tells us that it was unintentional, but getting game-breaking text corrected isn't a bad FAQ.

The Spiked Shield thing resulted from Paizo's inconsistent terminology, which is one of my major gripes with them, and a huge contributor to many of the most controversial rulings and other major rules issues.

The same feat twice issue is at its most favorable to your side similar to the throwing shield issue, is quite possibly allowed. There is no language blanketly disallowing ala rogue talents. Please give a reason that you shouldn't be able to take two different slashing graces provided you meet all the prerequisites. I'm not asking for an explicit rule, since that doesn't exist, but I don't even think there is a game design argument. In fact I think the game design argument goes the other direction in allowing things like slashing grace for multiple weapons provided you spend the character resources meeting the requirements.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you hate these threads so much, please feel free to bow out of this one. Staying and ranting about how terrible the thread is doesn't help anything.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Do people actually implement this type of logic in games?

You mean rigorous logic? Not as often as they should, I fear.

Quantum Steve wrote:
I always assumed it was mental exercise for the point of internet arguments.

Honestly, it is little more than a mental exercise for me in that I do not have any plans to make a character that uses Slashing Grace. It is fair to say that I am just having an internet argument about the rules of a game.

But I am giving my best council in good faith according to what the rules say, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

Quantum Steve wrote:
PFS, where House Rules aren't allowed, mental gymnastics aren't going to be allowed either.

I am not doing mental gymnastics. I am standing on top of a mound of evidence. Do your gymnastics now: leap in the air and try to prove that you are only standing on top of higher ground. Surprise me: maybe there is higher ground for you to land on: stick your landing, and I will applaud you and bow to you.

I'm not just being facetious. I really do want to hear and weigh your rules-based counter arguments or hear compelling reason to suggest that the rules as written are a flaw in the game that needs fixing. I just don't see it. I need you to open my eyes.


Calth wrote:
Quick-draw Throwing Shields, on the other hand, were horribly written because the literal reading of the text did allow infinite attacks. Game balance tells us that it was unintentional, but getting game-breaking text corrected isn't a bad FAQ.

It's probably a bad idea to go for long about something that is clearly a tangent from the OP, and is probably a sore topic for many people here.

I do believe the FAQ was good. I fought hard to make it happen. I am pleased in victory.

It only allowed for infinite attacks in theory. Perhaps this is what was meant when

Quantum Steve wrote:
I always assumed it was mental exercise for the point of internet arguments.

It only ever gave infinite attacks in mental-exercise-theory. In practice, the description of Free Actions in the Core Rulebook specifically empowers the GM to put "reasonable limits" on the number of actions a character can take for free.

For practical purposes, that's the problem right there: it opens the door for inconsistent GM rulings. Some GMs might allow several free attacks, some might allow none at all, some might rule anything in between or beyond. PFS characters are supposed to work consistently from table to table, and the Throwing-Shield-Free Action-Attack loop undermined that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
No actual game I've witnessed, played, or heard about allows this kind of stuff.

I see it happen all the time, usually when someone takes a general feat, then later gets the same feat as a bonus feat (with no option to trade it out). They now have the same feat twice, which (usually) doesn't stack.

So the player retrains the duplicate feat so that he isn't screwed out of a feat.

I see it ALL the time.


Ravingdork wrote:
James Risner wrote:
No actual game I've witnessed, played, or heard about allows this kind of stuff.

I see it happen all the time, usually when someone takes a general feat, then later gets the same feat as a bonus feat (with no option to trade it out). They now have the same feat twice, which (usually) doesn't stack.

So the player retrains the duplicate feat so that he isn't screwed out of a feat.

I see it ALL the time.

Well, if a player takes Throw Anything because he thought it was a good idea, then he takes a level in Alchemist and gets Throw Anything as a Bonus Feat, then decides to retrain the first Throw Anything as per the rules to something more useful, that hardly counts as shennanigans. That's allowing the player to learn from hindsight.

If a player takes a level in Brawler and gets Improved Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Feat, then takes a level in Monk and gets Improved Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Feat again, then decides to retrain one of those IUSs, that is beyond shenanigans: that is cheating, isn't it? You'd have to retrain the whole level.

Which of do you see all the time?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The former. Not sure I've ever seen the latter in practice, though it's come up before in thought experiments.

To my knowledge, you can retrain bonus feats, but you're limited to the bonus feat list you started with.

In this case, you could retrain improved unarmed strike for...improved unarmed strike. :P

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ravingdork wrote:
James Risner wrote:
No actual game I've witnessed, played, or heard about allows this kind of stuff.

I see it happen all the time, usually when someone takes a general feat, then later gets the same feat as a bonus feat (with no option to trade it out). They now have the same feat twice, which (usually) doesn't stack.

So the player retrains the duplicate feat so that he isn't screwed out of a feat.

I see it ALL the time.

That's not what I don't see. I see that often enough.

I don't see people taking the same feat as a level feat at 1st and 3rd, then claiming there is no rule saying they can't.

Pretty much all the various common sense violations of the rules we see bantered about on her often enough kills the game. It pokes fun at the game. It's bad for the game. It compels people who like and value the game to defend the game.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The main non-controversial case would be a Ranger taking the Endurance feat at 1st level. He then takes it again at 3rd level because he has no choice (his class level gives it to him). Because that feat is redundant, he would want to retrain the first instance of that feat into some other feat.

I think we are all agreed that by RAW any feat with no "Special" entry describing what happens if you take the feat more than once is completely redundant -- so, if you somehow end up taking Slashing Grace a second time, you do not get to choose a second weapon type to apply the second instance of the feat to. Whether he can select a feat for a second time voluntarily in anticipation of retraining the first instance of the feat seems to be an open question.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

This thread isn't about endurance at 1st and Ranger getting it free at 3rd. The existing rules handle getting bonus feats the same as one you have.

This thread is more about taking as a character feat the same feat twice because "it doesn't say I can't" logic. The entire system is built on "it needs to say I can" logic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
James Risner wrote:
No actual game I've witnessed, played, or heard about allows this kind of stuff.

I see it happen all the time, usually when someone takes a general feat, then later gets the same feat as a bonus feat (with no option to trade it out). They now have the same feat twice, which (usually) doesn't stack.

So the player retrains the duplicate feat so that he isn't screwed out of a feat.

I see it ALL the time.

That's not what I don't see. I see that often enough.

I don't see people taking the same feat as a level feat at 1st and 3rd, then claiming there is no rule saying they can't.

Pretty much all the various common sense violations of the rules we see bantered about on her often enough kills the game. It pokes fun at the game. It's bad for the game. It compels people who like and value the game to defend the game.

It seems to me that it is common sense that since taking a Feat multiple times won't stack benefits, people would almost never want to. And if no one would want to, it would be common sense to not bother making it illegal.

But I'm listening:

How does wanting to take Slashing Grace for both your Scimitar and your Kukri (or whatever) bad for the game and even kill (?!) the game?

How does wanting to take Feral Combat Training for both your Claws and your Bite harm the game?

And poke fun at the game? What's wrong with that? It's a game: it's supposed to be fun.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

We have a designer explaining why a FAQ request on taking Extra Channel twice was answered with "No reply required". Which is good enough for 99.9999% of players that you can't take a feat twice. The reply was questioned and the designer explained that obviously you can't take it twice because it doesn't say you can.

What kills games is someone reading that exchange and assaulting common sense by contriving a response to it other than "yep confirmed you can't intentionally take a feat twice without a special line saying you can".


David knott 242 wrote:
so, if you somehow end up taking Slashing Grace a second time, you do not get to choose a second weapon type to apply the second instance of the feat to.

I don't agree. The findings I posted above say that you can take the Feat more than once, but the Benefits don't stack. Taking Slashing Grace twice and applying it once to one weapon and once to another is not an example of the Feats stacking. I seem to recall that that is how Weapon Focus works, and the special section specifically states that that is not an example of stacking.


I think the most common sense interpretation is to assume that Slashing Grace works like every other feat that allows you to select different categories (such as Weapon Focus), and that the author simply screwed up and forgot to include the special clause that every other feat of its type has. It is also possible that the feat originally didn't need it due to broader wording (such as its benefits applying to any applicable weapon you have Weapon Focus in), and somebody else edit-nerfed it without double checking the implications of their revisions.
Paizo is truly terrible about consistency in their writing and editing, and they excuse it by claiming they write in a "conversational" style.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
so, if you somehow end up taking Slashing Grace a second time, you do not get to choose a second weapon type to apply the second instance of the feat to.
I don't agree. The findings I posted above say that you can take the Feat more than once, but the Benefits don't stack. Taking Slashing Grace twice and applying it once to one weapon and once to another is not an example of the Feats stacking. I seem to recall that that is how Weapon Focus works, and the special section specifically states that that is not an example of stacking.

I didn't mention stacking at all in my previous post.

Feats with "Special:" entries saying that you can take a feat more than once generally specify either that the effects of those multiple instances stack or that each selection of that feat entitles you to pick a different non-stacking option. Presumably you cannot do either of these for feats that lack that "Special:" line -- so, by default, Slashing Grace does not work the way Weapon Focus does and thus does not entitle you to select a second weapon to apply Slashing Grace to. Its effects also do not stack, for multiple reasons.

If the effects of a second instance of a feat do not stack and you are not allowed to select a second option for the feat, the only possibility left is that the 2nd instance of the feat is completely redundant and provides no benefit.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

This question has an official FAQ response of "No Reply Required" because the question was obvious, no you can't take a feat twice.

And I'm the one interpreting it incorrectly?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

This question has an official FAQ response of "No Reply Required" because the question was obvious, no you can't take a feat twice.

And I'm the one interpreting it incorrectly?

Or it got a "no reply required" response because

PRD wrote:


If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

That is sufficient text for the "no reply required" response.

Of course the question about whether you can take the feat twice or not is moot. If a character gains no benefit for doing so, then no one ever will. So whether you can or can't is irrelevant.

Slashing grace, for good or ill, falls into this line.

As a GM, if a character for some strange reason wanted to take the dodge feat twice would you disallow it? Would you force them to pick another feat?

GM: No sorry, you have to pick something that will enhance your character.
PC: But I like my character where he is at his current power level, can I just not select a feat then?
GM: No, you have to take a feat, and it has to make your character stronger. That's the "penalty" for gaining a level, you must get stronger in all ways.
PC: <puzzled expression>


bbangerter wrote:
James Risner wrote:

This question has an official FAQ response of "No Reply Required" because the question was obvious, no you can't take a feat twice.

And I'm the one interpreting it incorrectly?

Or it got a "no reply required" response because

PRD wrote:


If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

That is sufficient text for the "no reply required" response.

Of course the question about whether you can take the feat twice or not is moot. If a character gains no benefit for doing so, then no one ever will. So whether you can or can't is irrelevant.

Slashing grace, for good or ill, falls into this line.

As a GM, if a character for some strange reason wanted to take the dodge feat twice would you disallow it? Would you force them to pick another feat?

GM: No sorry, you have to pick something that will enhance your character.
PC: But I like my character where he is at his current power level, can I just not select a feat then?
GM: No, you have to take a feat, and it has to make your character stronger. That's the "penalty" for gaining a level, you must get stronger in all ways.
PC: <puzzled expression>

skill focus professions(sleeper) makes you better at sleeping!


Chess Pwn wrote:


bbangerter wrote:


GM: No sorry, you have to pick something that will enhance your character.
PC: But I like my character where he is at his current power level, can I just not select a feat then?
GM: No, you have to take a feat, and it has to make your character stronger. That's the "penalty" for gaining a level, you must get stronger in all ways.
PC: <puzzled expression>
skill focus professions(sleeper) makes you better at sleeping!

Can I take that feat focus profession multiple times as I continue to level? :)


If a player wanted to take Skill Focus (Profession (Sleeper))... I think this begs the important question of who is paying to watch them sleep...


James Risner wrote:

We have a designer explaining why a FAQ request on taking Extra Channel twice was answered with "No reply required". Which is good enough for 99.9999% of players that you can't take a feat twice. The reply was questioned and the designer explained that obviously you can't take it twice because it doesn't say you can.

What kills games is someone reading that exchange and assaulting common sense by contriving a response to it other than "yep confirmed you can't intentionally take a feat twice without a special line saying you can".

I think you are making points that go beyond the scope of the thread. I was asking how you feel that allowing someone to take Slashing Grace for more than 1 weapon ruins the game, and you are arguing that the opinion of the designer should be weighed as heavily as the actual rules.

Still, you are offering this as evidence for your argument, and it is not unreasonable for you to try to defend the value of your evidence.

I think that is really problematic to weigh the opinion of the designers as if they were always making rulings. For starters, it makes it impossible for them to think out loud in public, explore ideas, talk about the philosophy of the game, things like that. So for the sake of Sean Reynold's own sanity and identity, I think there needs to be a boundary between his comments and his official rules posts. It is also important for the sake of quality control. Sean Reynolds created a product. He is not the product. The product has to do what it says it does, and he has an obligation to either stand behind it or fix it when it's defective. If the the designers go around willynilly changing the way the product works by throwing their opinions around, we might as well throw all the rulebooks into the trash and never buy another Paizo product again. Of all people, the designers need to obey the rules the most!

An unruly, cheating player can ruin everybody's fun, but so can a referee who doesn't follow the rules he is supposed to enforce. Pathfinder Society GMs are not supposed to look for excuses to nerf characters. When a player can clearly document everything about his character within official rules sources, he should be allowed to play his own way in the manner of a paying customer who is obeying the rules. Now, if that player is disrupting the game in some other way, hogging glory, bossing people around, talking out of turn, that's another matter.

When all the players see they can't count on the rules of the game to be respected by the referee, that will kill the game, too.

Also, the point that Sean was making was in defense of designers dismissing contributors' comments with a "no response required" is problematic in that he is defending lousy customer service. If there is debate on the matter, the response is probably required. I am making thoughtful arguments supported by evidence. I deserve better than "no responses required." And I think a lot of us feel the same way.

Meanwhile, the part of his comment that you are bringing into this discussion does contradict the rules in a way that he really might not have intended, or even be sensitive to in the context of the point he was making. He was saying, you can't take the feat. I'm saying that you can take the feat, just not get any benefit from it. Not super material in the context of his argument: can't get a benefit, can't take it at all, take your pick; no responses is required.


bbangerter wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:


bbangerter wrote:


GM: No sorry, you have to pick something that will enhance your character.
PC: But I like my character where he is at his current power level, can I just not select a feat then?
GM: No, you have to take a feat, and it has to make your character stronger. That's the "penalty" for gaining a level, you must get stronger in all ways.
PC: <puzzled expression>
skill focus professions(sleeper) makes you better at sleeping!
Can I take that feat focus profession multiple times as I continue to level? :)

No, but you can do napper, rester, bed tester, pillow tester, and blanket tester.

But it's like HP, bab and skills, you can't not gain HP, bab and skills when you level and it says you gain those. You need to place those skills somewhere.

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Quick Slashing Grace Question All Messageboards

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.