My "argument," not that I realy have one, is that that one little section of the PRD and Core Rulebook isn't explicitly clear that you must spend the feats at that level.
Err, yes, actually, it is. As already pointed out in this thread, it is written in the imperative mood, which is used for commands. You are commanded to spend your skills and feats as the last step to leveling up. It doesn't say "you may spend your skills and feats". It says "spend your skills and feats".
My "argument," not that I realy have one, is that that one little section of the PRD and Core Rulebook isn't explicitly clear that you must spend the feats at that level.Err, yes, actually, it is. As already pointed out in this thread, it is written in the imperative mood, which is used for commands. You are commanded to spend your skills and feats as the last step to leveling up. It doesn't say "you may spend your skills and feats". It says "spend your skills and feats".
+1
My "argument," not that I realy have one, is that that one little section of the PRD and Core Rulebook isn't explicitly clear that you must spend the feats at that level.Err, yes, actually, it is. As already pointed out in this thread, it is written in the imperative mood, which is used for commands. You are commanded to spend your skills and feats as the last step to leveling up. It doesn't say "you may spend your skills and feats". It says "spend your skills and feats".
The English language isn't a science. Even less so when translated to other languages. Thanks to internet, not one of us can assume that any one posting looking for "official" clarification can actually interpret the book as intended.
And another thread that points out that imperative mood isn't sufficient to convince all of the people, all of the time, what a rule is supposed to be.
And yet another example of imperative mood being ignored.
But you know... Who cares?
And another thread that points out that imperative mood isn't sufficient to convince all of the people, all of the time, what a rule is supposed to be.
Nothing in the relevant quote on that thread is in the imperative.
And yet another example
There's nothing wrong with that statement. The ranger has two options for combat styles and must select one of them. This is a correct usage of imperative both grammatically and mechanically.
The English language isn't a science. Even less so when translated to other languages. Thanks to internet, not one of us can assume that any one posting looking for "official" clarification can actually interpret the book as intended.
This is both irrelevant and obstructionist as a reply to my post. You claim that it is not clear that you must spend feats when you get them. It is clear, to anyone who understands the grammatical rules of the language the rules are written in. A person who is incapable of reading the rules as intended is beyond the realm of culpability. You cannot write a rulebook so that someone who is incapable of reading the language the book is written in can understand it. It's quite literally impossible. Since I wasn't making any claim about any particular reader's ability to understand the passage in question, and indeed I offered a link to explain exactly what the grammatical construction I was referring to means, your objection to it on these grounds is nothing but obstruction.
Claiming that the text "Do this" gives a character the leeway to not do that basically says you are giving characters free reign to ignore or delay any rule in the book.
Claiming that the text
That right there illustrates perfectly where you are mistaken.
I have not claimed anything in regards to how the rule should be interpreted. I have neither argued for, nor against, anything.
All I have been saying is that one little sentence isn't enough to assume, nor expect, all - and I would wager most - people to agree that you must spend a feat when it is gained.
Feel free to read this thread in order to see what I mean.
Claiming that the textThat right there illustrates perfectly where you are mistaken.
I have not claimed anything in regards to how the rule should be interpreted. I have neither argued for, nor against, anything.
All I have been saying is that one little sentence isn't enough to assume, nor expect, all - and I would wager most - people to agree that you must spend a feat when it is gained.
Feel free to read this thread in order to see what I mean.
Perhaps you'd care to cite where in my post that I claimed you claimed the text said what I was referring to? It was a general statement, not a specific one. Feel free to actually read my post for the first time so you can see what I mean.
Regardless, the imperative case is clear, despite your continued strawmen.
Alright, I'll actually ask you, what was the purpose of the last staement starting with "Claiming that" in response to me if not to accuse me of claiming anything?
You are clearly an English major, or was that a major who was English... Either way, please enlightened the ignorant masses.
The purpose was to point out that such a claim -- which has been made in this thread -- is very obviously ridiculous when taken to its logical conclusion. If it was intended to be directed at you, I would have said "you" or "Disenchanter". I probably should have used a separator to make even more clear that I wasn't directing it at any person, so you have my apology that I wasn't more clear about it.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm the guy who suggested the "delay feat" feat, 'cause I think the rules don't allow it, but it seems reasonable so long as you don't go on a pants-optional drunken spree, delaying all your feats, and stealing your neighbor's feats at 2:00 in the morning, just so you can take a whole mess of really cool feats at 11th level ('ceptin' that, since you tried to survive ten levels without any feats, you're dead now).
So, am I the only one who's lookin' at the thread and imagining two guys standing toe-to-toe, each repeatedly pressing big red buttons on the other guy's chest, marked "Do Not Press"?
The purpose was to point out that such a claim -- which has been made in this thread -- is very obviously ridiculous when taken to its logical conclusion. If it was intended to be directed at you, I would have said "you" or "Disenchanter". I probably should have used a separator to make even more clear that I wasn't directing it at any person, so you have my apology that I wasn't more clear about it.
Now you are confusing me...
The intention of the written English language can be easily confused...
Or it can't.
Which is it?
Now you are confusing me...
The intention of the written English language can be easily confused...
Or it can't.
Which is it?
Did I ever state that it was impossible to confuse the language? Please stop putting words in my mouth.
|
So, am I the only one who's lookin' at the thread and imagining two guys standing toe-to-toe, each repeatedly pressing big red buttons on the other guy's chest, marked "Do Not Press"?
I'll have to admit, this thread has been the highlight of my day for the past few days. Please don't cancel this show!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Did I ever state that it was impossible to confuse the language? Please stop putting words in my mouth.Now you are confusing me...
The intention of the written English language can be easily confused...
Or it can't.
Which is it?
You didn't say it wasn't impossible, so I suppose it's ambiguous.
Inference is hard!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'll have to admit, this thread has been the highlight of my day for the past few days. Please don't cancel this show!
So, am I the only one who's lookin' at the thread and imagining two guys standing toe-to-toe, each repeatedly pressing big red buttons on the other guy's chest, marked "Do Not Press"?
Same here. Plus, I love seeing buttons pushed. The only thing better is pushing them myself!
Your entire argument is "it doesn't say you can't EXPLICITLY"Hmmm... I wonder if I can find an appropriate response to this...
Oh yeah:
Dude, you're wrong.My "argument," not that I realy have one, is that that one little section of the PRD and Core Rulebook isn't explicitly clear that you must spend the feats at that level.
And when some one asks for the passage in the rules that says you must spend the feats when gained, that passage doesn't suffice.
With that in mind, which one of us is being more unhelpful?
You are being unhelpful and obstructionist. Here's where you keep getting hung up. You don't get a coupon for a feat at level 3, which you can use any time 24/7. WHEN you achieve level 3 you get a feat. Not a feat slot, not a coupon, not something you SPEND you get A FEAT. Period. If you do not qualify for a feat you want WHEN you get a feat, you cannot choose that feat.
The rules are exceptionally clear in the section quoted repeatedly now. If you feel the rules are unclear in this situation, I suggest you sign up for a remedial english course pronto. This argument has been settled, those of us who have both an understanding of the rules and of the english language have come to an agreement, and your posts are little more than screaming "nuh-uh" at the top of your lungs. It is not a cogent argument, it is not helpful for the discussion, please stop.
Did I ever state that it was impossible to confuse the language?
No, you didn't.
What you, as one of the last of several, have done was state a grammatical rule of a living language, a rule that wasn't even taught when I was in high school some 20 years ago (so there is a damn good chance it isn't being taught now), as the sole, single, evidence of how a rule should be interpreted.
Let's ignore the elitism of that for the moment, and think of the practicality of it.
Can you honestly say it is fair and reasonable for any questioning if you have to spend a feat when gained can understand, and are willing to understand, what is essentially an obscure rule to a language that is actively killing all grammatical rules of itself?
The rules are exceptionally clear in the section quoted repeatedly now.
I so clearly stand corrected... :-/
You would think that for the length of time that role-playing games have been around, that by now the "by the book" people and the "house rule" people would have learned to just agree to disagree and get on with life.
The current rules say that you do gain everything from leveling up when you level up, and that means picking your feats, skills, spells, etc. But earlier versions of the rules said once you had enough xp to level up that you had to go find someone to train with before you got your new stuff.
If someone wants to delay a starting 1st level feat for one level, fine, but require that character to find the person to learn that feat from. And if they have not found a teacher by 2nd level, then tough, he has to keep searching til he finds the teacher and does not get the feat automatically at 2nd level.
nuh-uh
Can you attempt to explain to me what precisely about the rules quoted gives you any suggestion that you can "save" a feat until later? If you take the position that, since it is not explicitly stated otherwise (although it is) that you must choose a feat when you are told to (i.e. when you achieve a new experience level), it logically follows that you can save other things. For example, standard actions. It doesn't say anywhere that you have to use your standard action on your turn. It says on your turn you may take a standard, a move, or a full round action, but doesn't say you can't save them all up and, for example, cast 10 spells at once. This is the logical continuation of your argument, and is absurd.
The language used isn't some obscure grammatical rule. When I say something like "when the timer goes off, take the turkey out of the oven" I think the meaning is clear. You do not wait several hours or days to remove the turkey from the oven, when X do Y is a perfectly normative, everyday instruction.
You're wrong.
Now if you want to actually entertain a discussion on whether a houserule would be appropriate, or situations where it should be allowed or disallowed, the ramifications of such a houserule I'm game. However you have presented no evidence to the contrary of Zurai's and my rules interpretation.
Did I ever state that it was impossible to confuse the language?No, you didn't.
What you, as one of the last of several, have done was state a grammatical rule of a living language, a rule that wasn't even taught when I was in high school some 20 years ago (so there is a damn good chance it isn't being taught now), as the sole, single, evidence of how a rule should be interpreted.
It was certainly taught when I was in high school, which is in between the time you say were in high school and the present.
Can you honestly say it is fair and reasonable for any questioning if you have to spend a feat when gained can understand, and are willing to understand, what is essentially an obscure rule to a language that is actively killing all grammatical rules of itself?
1. Yes, I can honestly say that.
2. It's not an obscure rule. Imperatives are extremely common and pretty intuitive. Children are taught in imperatives ("Do this", "Don't do that", etc), so it's something that is learned and absorbed almost from birth. Imperatives are also overwhelmingly common in technical writing, which includes rulebooks.3. It's not even as if it's unique to English or even to modern languages. There's an imperative mood in Latin, and in every language derived from it. There's an imperative mood in German and Japanese. Every language I can find reference to has imperative forms, which makes sense as commands are a universal concept in our race.
2. It's not an obscure rule. Imperatives are extremely common and pretty intuitive. Children are taught in imperatives ("Do this", "Don't do that", etc), so it's something that is learned and absorbed almost from birth. Imperatives are also overwhelmingly common in technical writing, which includes rulebooks.
But when the children are told "Do this," and not told "now" it is simply the childs' fault for waiting until later to do it?
Come on Zurai.
You can't have your head that far up your ass.
Woah... Never tought a seemingly simple question like that would devolve into that kind of flame war... O_o
Meatrace, when you first mentioned that feats are not something you "spend", well with the explanations given, it does make sense, especialy in the sense of building a high level character and having to respect a chain of prerequisite. But feats as a currency is exactly the way I saw the system before, as I would guess everyone else in my gaming group, and probably a whole bunch of other people.
It makes sense that it does not work that way, with a full understanding of the rules.
But for people who are not used to a flexible prerequisite based evolution system in a tabletop RPG, and for whom most of the previous experiences with such a system had been videogames (like WoW, Diablo, or such games where there are strict prerequiste for higher level skill, but where you also can spend your skill points whenever it well pleases you), it is understadable to see feats as a currency, gained on leveling and then spent on new abilities.
Now, to be frank, english is not my first language. And while the repeatedly quoted passage seem to strongly indicate that feats must be chosen on leveling, it could also be interpreted as a simple restriction on the order where each step of the leveling process is done. As in, "you may not choose feats before you increase ability scores, and so forth", without specifying that you must complete any given step, at the cost of stopping the process until you complete the previous step. And it happens that feat selection is the last step of the chain, as written.
Now, I must admit that such a train of tough does'nt seem to hold very well to scrutiny, and it can easily be stated that you can not start a new leveling process without first having completed all steps of the previous leveling process.
But most people won't go trough this reflexion, simply reading the rules quickly and going with their first impression. As such, confusion on this topic remains a possibility. Hence my question, which was answered to my satisfaction. But one fact remains: there is not rule that expressly forbid delaying feat selection, and as the whole tread, which sadly have devolved into a language flame war (please guys, stop now) seems to indicate, I believe it is a situation where such a rule could be a good thing.
And where are the folks from Paizo anyways? Their input would be well appreciated I believe. James?
|
Why can't you start as a class with a +1 BAB and then go to Rogue at level 2?
Re. back story trying to be overpowering of the rules - You can be trained in the use of the weapon in your history. You can use an exotic weapon at first level. You take the -4 to hit with it until you take the feat at level 2.
What you didn't realize was your trainer didn't teach you everything and you had to figure it out yourself to get the hang of it.
- -
Re. if the rules don't state it then it's allowed - Sorry, that's lame. The rules don't say I can shoot lasers from my ears so my character can do that. It's been argued to death. It's munchkinism at it's finest.
I believe it is a situation where such a rule could be a good thing.
It's your game. If that what you want to do, then do it. Have fun. That's why we play, to have fun. Don't stress over what the rules say. Fun > rules.
|
|
2. It's not an obscure rule. Imperatives are extremely common and pretty intuitive. Children are taught in imperatives ("Do this", "Don't do that", etc), so it's something that is learned and absorbed almost from birth. Imperatives are also overwhelmingly common in technical writing, which includes rulebooks.But when the children are told "Do this," and not told "now" it is simply the childs' fault for waiting until later to do it?
Come on Zurai.
You can't have your head that far up your ass.
When you're told to take a test, and you don't, whose fault is it that you got an F?
2. It's not an obscure rule. Imperatives are extremely common and pretty intuitive. Children are taught in imperatives ("Do this", "Don't do that", etc), so it's something that is learned and absorbed almost from birth. Imperatives are also overwhelmingly common in technical writing, which includes rulebooks.But when the children are told "Do this," and not told "now" it is simply the childs' fault for waiting until later to do it?
Come on Zurai.
You can't have your head that far up your ass.
It does say "now" it says when you achieve a new character level. It explicitly says when these operations take place.
Woah... Never tought a seemingly simple question like that would devolve into that kind of flame war... O_o
Well, when folks argue from an a priori assumption, they'll often go through all kinds of contortions to protect their conclusion. Also I would like to believe that at least SOME arguments (oops, rules discussions, my bad) can be resolved on this forum without profanity or calling mommy & daddy in to settle the dispute.
The sticking point for me is that I've always been an advocate of the "if you don't like it, change it" perspective, but others are apparently so pro-RAW that when RAW disagrees with their preconceptions they can't deal.
Some rules loopholes are implicit (and therefore, one could say, are not loopholes), and some have to be conjured through bizarre interpretations that fly against years of tradition, if not the spirit of the current edition. Ooh, rhyme.
Zo
The sticking point for me is that I've always been an advocate of the "if you don't like it, change it" perspective, but others are apparently so pro-RAW that when RAW disagrees with their preconceptions they can't deal.
Or perhaps they just think that house rules have no place in the Rules Questions forum. There's a House Rules forum specifically for house rules. This forum is for discussing the rules as they apply to every player.
But one fact remains: there is not rule that expressly forbid delaying feat selection
There's also not a rule that expressly forbids you from ignoring the damage a disintegrate deals to you when you fail your Fortitude saving throw. That doesn't mean the rules don't tell you what to do in that situation. The rules tell you to take feats and spend skill points when you get them. That doesn't mean the game will break and the Rules Police will bust down your door and arrest you if you don't follow that rule, but when you ask a rules question in the rules forum, you're going to get answers that are based on what the rules actually tell you to do.
The sticking point for me is that I've always been an advocate of the "if you don't like it, change it" perspective, but others are apparently so pro-RAW that when RAW disagrees with their preconceptions they can't deal.Or perhaps they just think that house rules have no place in the Rules Questions forum. There's a House Rules forum specifically for house rules. This forum is for discussing the rules as they apply to every player.
You've just got your finger on the trigger, aincha? :) If you'd read my previous posts you would have realized that I'm arguing from an orthodox interpretation of the leveling rules.
My comment about the pro-RAWites concerned the need to argue that delaying feat choice WAS arguably RAW, when it is indeed not. Some folks give so much credence to RAW that when RAW conflicts with their vision of how the game should be played they misconstrue the rules in order to allow their vision to remain RAW. This is cognitive dissonance.
To sum: Delaying feat choice is demonstrably not RAW, and would prove to be game breaking in some circumstances. However, play the game as you will.
Zo
I see what you're saying now. I thought you were making a superficially similar argument that has been tossed my way a few too many times (thus causing me to develop a more or less automatic reaction to it). Mea culpa.
Now, to be frank, english is not my first language. And while the repeatedly quoted passage seem to strongly indicate that feats must be chosen on leveling, it could also be interpreted as a simple restriction on the order where each step of the leveling process is done. As in, "you may not choose feats before you increase ability scores, and so forth", without specifying that you must complete any given step, at the cost of stopping the process until you complete the previous step. And it happens that feat selection is the last step of the chain, as written.
Exactly my point.
And I won't speak for anyone else, but I hadn't even come close to flame-level yet. I was simply losing my incentive to maintain my "Paizo voice," and took a couple steps closer to my more normal speech patterns.
When every other word is considered profanity, I am getting closer to flaming. :-P
I believe it is a situation where such a rule could be a good thing.It's your game. If that what you want to do, then do it. Have fun. That's why we play, to have fun. Don't stress over what the rules say. Fun > rules.
I think you might have misunderstood Ainslan. I think s/he wasn't saying delaying feat selection would be a good rule to have, rather than the lack of an rule that expressly forbid delaying feats would be good to rectify.
When adding new levels of an existing class or adding levels of a new class (see Multiclassing, below), you must take the following steps in order.
(Bolded words added by me, and replace the three words that were there [saving a word, but only 3 characters].)
The English language elitists will point out that such a change isn't needed. And they would have a point for some. The important point is that it would help, and - unless I'm not thinking hard enough - wouldn't hurt.
|
|
Here is my take on the situation.
No, you cannot delay taking a feat.
You can delay leveling up, but not a feat selection.
Confusing? Let me explain.
The leveling up process is one complete cycle. When you initiate it, you cannot continue play until you finish it. That means simply that if you want to delay feat selection, you cannot have the other benefits of leveling. The rules for leveling up are written in such a manner that there are steps and rules to leveling up. Once you have finished the process your character has leveled and is legal for play.
When adding new levels of an existing class or adding levels of a new class (see Multiclassing, below), make sure to take the following steps in order. First, select your new class level. You must be able to qualify for this level before any of the following adjustments are made. Second, apply any ability score increases due to gaining a level. Third, integrate all of the level's class abilities and then roll for additional hit points. Finally, add new skills and feats. For more information on when you gain new feats and ability score increases, see Table: Character Advancement and Level-Dependent Bonuses.
Bolded for emphasis.
The first part of this section states clearly that to add a level to your character sheet, you must take the following steps in order.
This reinforces the imperative that feat selections must be made immediately upon leveling, as it is now listed twice in the same area.
This makes it different from the ranger. Also its asinine to assume that since the ranger is worded in such a way as to emphasize from choosing from the two styles in the main rule book, that the APG will not include wording that invalidates that single line. Further, that its most likely a case of ranger cut and paste from the 3.5 SRD.
If they talked about choosing from the many ranger styles would you start barking about how there are only two and two doesn't constitute many?
Probably, because you're merely trolling because you like to feel important by pushing as many peoples buttons as possible.
Probably, because you're merely trolling because you like to feel important by pushing as many peoples buttons as possible.
Wow.
I like how I point out the language isn't clear enough to assume quoting it alone, and by itself, would be the end-all, be-all of the discussion. Then get "dog piled" by half a dozen people about how wrong I am. Then I am later shown to have a clue about what I speak...
And yet I'm trolling.
It is a wonder I've never been baned from these forums. Or any forums for that matter.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think this is slightly related to the things that come up when a PC dies and has to create a new PC.
In the old days they came back one level lower than they were as a "death tax".
The AD&D DMG strongly advised DMs to introduce replacement characters at Level 1.
The one-level-lower might have been your friends' policy, and it's not a bad one, but it's not the way things were done "in the old days".
Then I am later shown to have a clue about what I speak...
This part actually hasn't happened.
You keep saying that the rules don't say WHEN you have to choose a feat, therefore you can do it whenever you want. However, the quote I kept referring to without quoting myself, says clearly:
When adding new levels of an existing class or adding levels of a new class (see Multiclassing, below), make sure to take the following steps in order.
That's when. The statement is when x do y. So when you level, you get all level dependent benefits of that level including skills and feats.
Then I am later shown to have a clue about what I speak...
This part actually hasn't happened.
You keep saying that the rules don't say WHEN you have to choose a feat,
Selective reading at its' finest...
What I have been saying, is that the rule isn't clear enough to assume that everyone can simply understand from constantly quoting the same damn rule.
Try catching up this time.
Then I am later shown to have a clue about what I speak...
This part actually hasn't happened.
You keep saying that the rules don't say WHEN you have to choose a feat,
Selective reading at its' finest...
What I have been saying, is that the rule isn't clear enough to assume that everyone can simply understand from constantly quoting the same damn rule.
Try catching up this time.
And what exactly isn't clear about when you level choose a feat. You STILL haven't explained that. You keep selectively reading the quote and blabbing about how it doesn't say "now" so you can't be expected to understand when to do it. Well it does say WHEN you choose a feat.
But I'm done. Not only are you a troll, but you're a bad troll who just wants attention. Your posts have been nothing but insulting and dismissive, you've refused to respond to anyone else's points, and you still don't understand the english language to the same degree as a first grader.
In the rules you cant save skills, feats for later levels. That doesnt mean you cant do it in your campaign.
Plus
I cant remember if it was Jason or James who suggested to drop the +1 BAB prereq for the EWP feat if its ok with the DM. I think one of them was talking about something in Kingmaker.
I'd mentioned it in this thread, but it made me start thinking about all the feats that have a prereq of +1 BAB. It's pretty clear that they're intended to be feats that only fighter-BAB classes can start the game with, but I think that's limiting in how people might wish to build their characters. What's wrong with a half-orc rogue (sneak attack representing his skill at fighting dirty, maybe?) who's basically a thug taking Power Attack at first level? It fits the theme, and does it really support game balance to make that character wait until 3rd level to take the feat?
I'd bet a good character concept should trump the RAW, if presented to the DM as such. I don't think it breaks the game to HR away with the +1 BAB prereq across the board.