Fast Learner: What exactly are our options?

[Glutton]

Nemesis is strictly better if allowed. Even if it comes with your own personal bad guy.

[Zark]

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Zark wrote:

I accept your ruling, but don’t understand how this feat grants you any more diversity than toughness. As I shown above toughness actually grants you more diversity.
Or have I misunderstood something?

Very cool and nice of you giving us feedback and explanations :)

Well, you are very welcome on the feedback and explanation. I try to do my part, and with Sean leaving, I have some big shoes to fill. :(

Sean leaving is sad, but you’ll do just fine. You don’t have to fill his shoes, you got your own shoes to fill and they seem to fit perfectly. The play test proved that to everyone.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

As far as the diversity, it give you extra hit points, that stack with toughness, and skill ranks, which stack with Skill focus, instead of giving you one or the other (which is the norm, not counting the favored class rewards which are by nature more specialized...the class-based outlier, as I tend to look at it).

Two things, that speak to a human's tendency for diversity and resolve, instead of talking to one or the other, which is what you normally get.

Well actually the feat doesn’t grant you ”extra hit points, that stack with toughness, and skill ranks”, it’s the favored class bonus that grant you skills ranks. But true, it does stack with toughness.

So basically if you want toughness and even more hit points but want to keep the favored class skill points it is a good feat. I find it highly unlikely anyone would take both fast learner and toughness, but at least anyone wishing to do so now have a choice.

The problem I see is that this feat isn't about Learning. It is about hit Points.

[N N 959]

Zark wrote:

The problem I see is that this feat isn't about Learning. It is about hit Points.

I will admit that I too believed that one reason why giving 2 of the 3 made more sense, despite the wording, is because if you don't choose the A+B option, then you really aren't a fast learner, you're learning at the same rate as everyone else.

[Stephen Radney-MacFarland]

Zark wrote:

Sean leaving is sad, but you’ll do just fine. You don’t have to fill his shoes, you got your own shoes to fill and they seem to fit perfectly. The play test proved that to everyone.

Thank you, Zark. I just wanted to post really quick to say, thanks to everyone for keeping this discussion positive and interesting. I know some of you have further questions about the philosophy and the development of this particular feat, and while the academic gamer in me would love to keep on the conversation, I need to keep focused and move on to other topics and the big picture of handling these boards and the FAQ system in a post-Sean era, gaining some valuable last bits of valuable input from Sean while he is still sitting next to me and still get product out the door.

Stay cool, help other people with rules questions when they come up, and thanks for the lively conversation. I do appreciate it. See you in other corners of the boards.

[Cheapy]

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

... I need to keep focused and move on to other topics and the big picture of handling these boards and the FAQ system in a post-Sean era, gaining some valuable last bits of valuable input from Sean while he is still sitting next to me and still get product out the door...

In a Post-SKR World, one lone designer has the courage to stand up to the horde of forum users: Stephen Radney-MacFarland. This is his story.

Now there's a mockumentary in the making.

[Samy]

I'd just like to state that I disagree with the official intention for the feat, but I will respect it and not challenge it further in this thread. It is what it is, and thanks to Stephen for at least giving a ruling, even if it's not one I like. But in my home games I will definitely house rule it according to the other interpretation.

[Zark]

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Zark wrote:

Sean leaving is sad, but you’ll do just fine. You don’t have to fill his shoes, you got your own shoes to fill and they seem to fit perfectly. The play test proved that to everyone.

Thank you, Zark. I just wanted to post really quick to say, thanks to everyone for keeping this discussion positive and interesting. I know some of you have further questions about the philosophy and the development of this particular feat, and while the academic gamer in me would love to keep on the conversation, I need to keep focused and move on to other topics and the big picture of handling these boards and the FAQ system in a post-Sean era, gaining some valuable last bits of valuable input from Sean while he is still sitting next to me and still get product out the door.

Stay cool, help other people with rules questions when they come up, and thanks for the lively conversation. I do appreciate it. See you in other corners of the boards.

Classy as always Stephen! You are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters.

Edit:

I agree you shouldn’t waste any more time with this thread.
Instead you should finish that cool investigator class :)

[Shiniryuu]

Quantum Steve wrote:

Shivok wrote:

Stephen's clarification was better than the original feat as written: If you have this feat you can either choose +1 hit point and +1 skill rank, or you can choose the alternate class reward.

He removed: instead of choosing either one or the other benefit
removing any ambiguity. He further clarified by writing:
You do not get your choice of two of the three, but it does not preclude you from taking an alternate class reward if you choose to do that instead.
I don't think there can be any further ambiguity for this feat, which is still a good feat. It's just not as versatile as some folks thought it was.

He didn't just remove ambiguity, he completely changed the meaning of the feat.

Choosing +1 hit point and +1 skill point was specifically instead of choosing one or the other. The alternate class reward was not instead of; like every other feat in the game it was in addition to. You could pick an alternate class reward and still get your normal +1 hit point or +1 skill point.

That's how I interpret the grammar of the feat. I prefer my reading because it unambiguous, doesn't have any confusing or redundant text, and it makes the feat actually worth something.
Not that I don't see the advantages of an ambiguous, confusing, worthless interpretation; it's just not for me.

Stephen actually cleaned up the grammar of the feat. The feat was published as a run-on sentence; the benefit section of Fast Learner was ambiguous as a result.