Why not just FAQ it and be done?
| 25 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For FAQing:
For classed PCs and NPCs, what is considered a "Special Attack" for which the Ability Focus feat can be taken? How does one determine what is a Special Attack in the absence of a monstrous stat block or glossary entry with the ability?
Anytime someone states that they don't need GM permission to do something, especially something like taking a feat from a specifically GM-focused resource such as the Bestiary, I get this righteous twitch between my eyebrows, the kind I get when I'm trying very, very hard not to declare RFED.
Why not just FAQ it and be done?
Already Done It didn't garner much attention.
Poltergeist has "Feats Ability Focus (fear)," so I dont see why a dragon's frightful presence would not apply, and both are offensive abilities.Except that according to the bestiary a dragon can't apply ability focus to Frightful Presence (not a spell, has a DC)You keep saying this. Do you have a specific quote for the claim?
Because the poltergeist lists its fear ability under special attacks while the dragon lists frightful presence under special qualities.
So one can assume that frightful presence is not meant to be a special attack while breath weapon is, even though frightful presence is an activated offensive ability with a DC.
Similarly, one can assume that the separation of special attacks and spell like abilities is also intenional and precludes a monster from having ability focus applied to the latter.
The reason I bring up frightful presence is that it defies the definition that people keep using for a special attack (active offensive ability with a DC that isn't an SLA)
I also brought up bleeding touch because it is both an SLA and a special attack according to the stat block. This means that the definition of a special attack is murky at best. It can include some but not all EX abilities with a DC and apparently also some but not all Sp abilities. If there is no clear answer or definition to make these deterninations then how do weseparate class features? Particularly class features that arent found in a beastiary entry?
I also dislike the idea that a class feature which does not qualify now using that methid will somehow qualify later when a new book features the ability in a stat block.
At the end of the day, there is no clear definition because each monster stat block lists clearly what of its abilities are special attacks. And this feat was written with monsters in mind and not players.
What bothers me is the statement that players are somehow entitled to this feat by RAW when it has a beastiary specific term as a requirement.
A dragon's frightful presence absolutely can apply, because a dragon is not a PC. It's a monster, and the GM has unlimited discretion regarding monster design--not just Rule Zero discretion, but "(s)he freaking made the game world" discretion.
Does allowing a feat to improve the DC of frightful presence significantly increase the dragon's threat over some other optimal feat the dragon could have? Then adjust the CR of the dragon and do it anyway, or don't.
I would also like to point out that the beastiary says that "full details for special attacks cab befound either at the end of the creatures stat blick or in the universal monster rules section"
Which, to me, sounds like only the abilities found there truly qualify. This would in fact prevent any NPC cleric from taking ability focus channel. This sounds correct to me but I know that othets will disagree.
Some times I wonder how these arguments go anywhere... Do you really think somebody upping the DC on one of there abilities is beyond the pale? I wish there was a sign for this kind of refereeing. At least I would be able to turn around before I got into the DM's house.
What?
Some times I wonder how these arguments go anywhere... Do you really think somebody upping the DC on one of there abilities is beyond the pale? I wish there was a sign for this kind of refereeing. At least I would be able to turn around before I got into the DM's house.
I'm not saying that a GM shouldn't allow the feat. I am saying that it is up to the GM and not like a PC taking power attack when they have 13 strength.
As a gm I also allow druids, beast barbs, alchemists etc. To take imp natural weapon even though they don't have natural attacks (they get them through an ability)
There are things that I might say no to when it comes to ability focus... not sure what that would be tbh, but the point is that this is not some feat that PCs automatically qualify for as soon as they get a class feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slumber hex. Yeesh, slumber hex.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 3.5 warlock class has an SLA Eldritch Blast. It is casually noted that you can take the feat Ability Focus(eldritch blast) to increase any save against its carrier effects (eldritch essences) by +2.
This is not called out as some special quality of eldritch blasts, or the class. It's simply a way to give any ability which is not a spell a higher DC, as spells already have feats to do this.
If it's not an actual spell, but requires the target to make a save, you can take the feat Ability Focus (defining the ability) to increase the save DC by +2.
Anytime someone states that they don't need GM permission to do something, especially something like taking a feat from a specifically GM-focused resource such as the Bestiary, I get this righteous twitch between my eyebrows, the kind I get when I'm trying very, very hard not to declare RFED.
Since we are in the rules section and rules and the bestiary also say you only need to qualify for feat, and nothing about a blanket ban the feat is allowed. Now in case of ambiguity I understand, but that is different from a default base claiming by the rules feat X is not allowed, and not being able to cite that rule.
In this case ability focus is allowed, but the GM may say no if he is not convinced. That would be due to a lack of clarification in the book, but it is NOT a rule that the player can't take it.
What bothers me is the statement that players are somehow entitled to this feat by RAW when it has a beastiary specific term as a requirement.
The general rule for feats is that if the a character meets a prereq, he can take the feat. That is also why the bestiary says players can take feats from there even though they were intended for monsters.
So barring a specific rule saying the opposite the GM has to houserule or rules 0 the bestiary feats away. As an example if I give a player a race that qualifies for multi-attack then he can take the feat. Him running a PC instead of an NPC has no bearing on whether or not he qualifies. All that matters is that you meet the prereq until rule 0 comes up anyway.
I would also like to point out that the beastiary says that "full details for special attacks cab befound either at the end of the creatures stat blick or in the universal monster rules section"
Which, to me, sounds like only the abilities found there truly qualify. This would in fact prevent any NPC cleric from taking ability focus channel. This sounds correct to me but I know that othets will disagree.
I did find an official Paizo statblock with energy channel as a special attack. That is hwy I mentioned it earlier. PC stats just are not written that way, so it is not easy to be 100% sure what qualifies and what does not, and every race is a creature to include NPC clerics.
Anytime someone states that they don't need GM permission to do something, especially something like taking a feat from a specifically GM-focused resource such as the Bestiary, I get this righteous twitch between my eyebrows, the kind I get when I'm trying very, very hard not to declare RFED.Since we are in the rules section and rules and the bestiary also say you only need to qualify for feat, and nothing about a blanket ban the feat is allowed. Now in case of ambiguity I understand, but that is different from a default base claiming by the rules feat X is not allowed, and not being able to cite that rule.
In this case ability focus is allowed, but the GM may say no if he is not convinced. That would be due to a lack of clarification in the book, but it is NOT a rule that the player can't take it.
Nevertheless, any player that says they don't need GM permission to do something is asking for a boulder.
Nevertheless, any player that says they don't need GM permission to do something is asking for a boulder.
While that's technically correct, the general assumption is that players can do anything permitted by the rules unless the GM states otherwise. This is easier than every player seeking specific permission to take Power Attack or put a rank into Acrobatics.
Nevertheless, any player that says they don't need GM permission to do something is asking for a boulder.Anytime someone states that they don't need GM permission to do something, especially something like taking a feat from a specifically GM-focused resource such as the Bestiary, I get this righteous twitch between my eyebrows, the kind I get when I'm trying very, very hard not to declare RFED.Since we are in the rules section and rules and the bestiary also say you only need to qualify for feat, and nothing about a blanket ban the feat is allowed. Now in case of ambiguity I understand, but that is different from a default base claiming by the rules feat X is not allowed, and not being able to cite that rule.
In this case ability focus is allowed, but the GM may say no if he is not convinced. That would be due to a lack of clarification in the book, but it is NOT a rule that the player can't take it.
I am not saying that. I am saying that by the rules the bestiary feats do not call for GM permission, and anyone saying PC's can't take them even if they qualify for them is incorrect, because no such rules exception exist.
Once again if I give you a race that qualifies for multi-attack there is no reason to ask me can you take the feat. There is "npc only" tag on the feat. Either you qualify or you do not, and that is in the rule book.