Your interpretation of the text was right. Your gut told you that your interpretation was right. But you still FAQ'd it.
Nope. My 'gut' told me that it probably could be taken multiple times. I actually assumed that it worked like the other "Extra..." feats, and that the "Special" tag was mistakenly left off - so I FAQ'ed it.
Once the thread was marked "No response needed", at that point I assumed that it was not intended to be taken multiple times.
Again, if the books were perfect? I probably would not have. But the books aren't. That's not meant as a criticism toward the designers; there are so many rules that mistakes are going to happen, and in this case, there wasn't one (but could have been one).
So if I think a mistake might have been made, I'm going to FAQ it. And if that means that the designers have to mark a thread as "No response needed", and they think I'm silly for asking, so be it; I'd rather have a firm answer and then give any judgment that arises from the asking all the import it deserves (i.e., none).
Okay, but some people are arguing that "no response needed" isn't a good enough answer to questions like this.
I disagree.
In this particular example, I think you're right that it probably is a sufficient answer. Whether it is in each case that it's used - can't comment, because I haven't seen them all.
As an easier suggestion: Perhaps adding a sticky to the forum with brief definitions of the different response types? You could include something like, "'No response needed' means the team has reviewed the question and believes that it is sufficiently answered in the rules as written, with no apparent error in how the questioned mechanics function."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do mean to write a FAQ about how to write a question that would be good as a FAQ candidate. I can add "what the various responses mean" as the "answer" to that FAQ entry.
I do mean to write a FAQ about how to write a question that would be good as a FAQ candidate. I can add "what the various responses mean" as the "answer" to that FAQ entry.
That would probably make most of people with an issue happy.
If you define "no answer needed" as "it does what it says, with no clarification necessary", then it gets to the same place in a different manner.
SKR if you are still around.....
Off-topic:
I need to present a proposal, but I don't know where to present it for the way NPC stat blocks are written. I would like for NPC(such as ranger) bonus feats that ignore pre-reqs to be tagged so that if that the GM knows the feat is still in play if the pre-req is lost during a fight.
Honestly, I'd fight very hard to not include that sort of information, as it's only useful in a few very specific circumstances, adds a lot more work to the formatting and editing of a stat block, makes the stat block look more cluttered, and introduces more ways a stat block can be "wrong" (in the eyes of the people who love to nitpick stat blocks). And if we did it for rangers, we'd have to do it for monks and any other class that get prereq-bypassing bonus feats (like witches with the cauldron hex, who get Brew Potion as a bonus feat even if they're not 3rd level). And then people would wonder why we're not marking fighter bonus feats, and so on.
Adding a bunch of superscripts to a stat block just makes it look even more like something out of a technical manual and not something for a game.
(I'd also like to go back in time and be consistent about the term "bonus feat" and whether or not it allows you to bypass prerequisites, i.e., if it's a bonus feat, you bypass prerequisites, if it's a [some other term], you have to meet the prerequisites.)
I do mean to write a FAQ about how to write a question that would be good as a FAQ candidate. I can add "what the various responses mean" as the "answer" to that FAQ entry.
Can we FAQ the FAQ on FAQing? :)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do mean to write a FAQ about how to write a question that would be good as a FAQ candidate. I can add "what the various responses mean" as the "answer" to that FAQ entry.Can we FAQ the FAQ on FAQing? :)
Yo, dawg, I hear you like FAQs in your FAQs, so I wrote a FAQ about FAQs so you can FAQ the FAQ when you read a FAQ...
Honestly, I'd fight very hard to not include that sort of information, as it's only useful in a few very specific circumstances, adds a lot more work to the formatting and editing of a stat block, makes the stat block look more cluttered, and introduces more ways a stat block can be "wrong" (in the eyes of the people who love to nitpick stat blocks). And if we did it for rangers, we'd have to do it for monks and any other class that get prereq-bypassing bonus feats (like witches with the cauldron hex, who get Brew Potion as a bonus feat even if they're not 3rd level). And then people would wonder why we're not marking fighter bonus feats, and so on.
Adding a bunch of superscripts to a stat block just makes it look even more like something out of a technical manual and not something for a game.
ok. I thought it was an oversight but that makes sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say just change "No response required" to "RTFM" but then only use it for those specific cases where the rules are clear and unambiguous and not for simply getting an unclear question out of the FAQ queue (use a different "Removing from Queue" or "Ask more clearly", etc., response for these).
Everyone should get the idea then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, RTFM?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Read the Ferrous Manual
Yo, dawg, I hear you like FAQs in your FAQs, so I wrote a FAQ about FAQs so you can FAQ the FAQ when you read a FAQ...I do mean to write a FAQ about how to write a question that would be good as a FAQ candidate. I can add "what the various responses mean" as the "answer" to that FAQ entry.Can we FAQ the FAQ on FAQing? :)
There. I flagged that for a FAQ for you because I want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes. ^_^ b
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BRAAAAAAAHHHHHMMMM!
You go from using lunge normally to getting rid of the AC penalty, but you are restricted to a standard action aka 1 attack when you do so.
The feats sucks, but it is written correctly.
You go from using lunge normally to getting rid of the AC penalty, but you are restricted to a standard action aka 1 attack when you do so.
The feats sucks, but it is written correctly.
Reread the feat and the thread wraith. You spend the standard action to increase your reach. You have not action reamining to make the actual attack.
note: unless they changed the description already. That woud be nice.
I read it that way at first, then I realized it is saying you are using your standard action to use lunge and negate the penalty to AC.
Now it could be more clear, but that reading is why I think it got a "no reply required".
Either way the feat needs some improvement. I don't think I would spend a feat to drop that -2 to AC.
I don't mind the answer. Some rules are very clear and all the people asking the question need to do is listen to the other posters or read the rule over a few times again. I've found many times when asking a rule question that some other poster will clarify a rule by pointing out another rule that answers the question.