|
30 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It doesn't explicitly state you only use it for pre req's. It seems to apply to all aspects of a feat. For example at 4th level the feat checks your BAB and it happens to be Power attack then does your PA count as -2 +4?
It almost seems intentional as well seeing as how he must meet pre req's as well.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quote: Bonus Feats: At 3rd level and every 3 levels thereafter, a
warpriest gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained
from normal advancement. These bonus feats must be
selected from those listed as combat feats. The warpriest
must meet the prerequisites for these feats, but he treats his
warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats (in
addition to base attack bonuses gained from other classes
and racial Hit Dice). Finally, for the purposes of these feats,
the warpriest can select feats that have a minimum number
of fighter levels as a prerequisite, treating his warpriest
level as his fighter level.
The part about BAB equal to level only applies to meeting prereqs. The other part just says you must meet the general prereqs, just like a fighter normally would.
So no, you don't count as having full BAB for things like power attack and what not.
Claxon wrote: Quote: Bonus Feats: At 3rd level and every 3 levels thereafter, a
warpriest gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained
from normal advancement. These bonus feats must be
selected from those listed as combat feats. The warpriest
must meet the prerequisites for these feats, but he treats his
warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats (in
addition to base attack bonuses gained from other classes
and racial Hit Dice). Finally, for the purposes of these feats,
the warpriest can select feats that have a minimum number
of fighter levels as a prerequisite, treating his warpriest
level as his fighter level.
The part about BAB equal to level only applies to meeting prereqs. The other part just says you must meet the general prereqs, just like a fighter normally would.
So no, you don't count as having full BAB for things like power attack and what not. But that's not what it says. I says and I quote
Quote: "he treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats" There is no where that it explicitly states that it only applies to pre req's. As such it doesn't. It applies For these feats which means his BAB is equal to his warpriest level for all purposes regarding the feat according to RAW. It's possible there is a misprint but I can see nothing indicating that it doesn't apply that way.
You're missing the fist part of the sentence. He must meet prereqs and his base attack it is level for that. There wouldn't be need of the but and comma if it was for all features. It would just say, "He treats ..." which would cover all things. So the comma ties it to prereqs.
Chess Pwn wrote: You're missing the fist part of the sentence. He must meet prereqs and his base attack it is level for that. There wouldn't be need of the but and comma if it was for all features. It would just say, "He treats ..." which would cover all things. So the comma ties it to prereqs. Quote: The warpriest must meet the prerequisites for these feats, but he treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats (in addition to base attack bonuses gained from other classes and racial Hit Dice). He must meet the prerequisites but he treats his level as his BAB for the feats. No where does it say "Only for the purposes of pre req's".
EDIT: Actually reading further it ONLY applies to the bonus feats. Meaning if you take Power attack as a bonus feat it will still scale but you can't take weapon specialization at 5th you have to wait till 6th and you can't take full BAB feats as non bonus feats.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Undone wrote: But that's not what it says. I says and I quote
Quote: "he treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats" There is no where that it explicitly states that it only applies to pre req's. As such it doesn't. It applies For these feats which means his BAB is equal to his warpriest level for all purposes regarding the feat according to RAW. It's possible there is a misprint but I can see nothing indicating that it doesn't apply that way.
Claxon quoted the entire bonus feat ability for you. You are taking one bit of an entire sentence and warping it around to suit your needs. That is the definition of rules lawyering.
The full sentence reads: "The warpriest must meet the prerequisites for these feats, but he treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats (in addition to base attack bonuses gained from other classes and racial Hit Dice)."
The word "but" is a conjunction that is showing an exception to the previous part of the sentence. In this case, it is saying that the warpriest must meet the prerequisite for his feats, but if those feats use his base attack bonus as a prerequisite he uses his warpriest level in place of his warpriest base attack bonus.
Now, it doesn't say all that exactly as I did because I had to add on an additional sentence to explain something that everyone who is not explicitly looking for a way to break the class already knows.
Alexander Augunas wrote: Undone wrote: But that's not what it says. I says and I quote
Quote: "he treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats" There is no where that it explicitly states that it only applies to pre req's. As such it doesn't. It applies For these feats which means his BAB is equal to his warpriest level for all purposes regarding the feat according to RAW. It's possible there is a misprint but I can see nothing indicating that it doesn't apply that way.
Claxon quoted the entire bonus feat ability for you. You are taking one bit of an entire sentence and warping it around to suit your needs. That is the definition of rules lawyering.
The full sentence reads: "The warpriest must meet the prerequisites for these feats, but he treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats (in addition to base attack bonuses gained from other classes and racial Hit Dice)."
The word "but" is a conjunction that is showing an exception to the previous part of the sentence. In this case, it is saying that the warpriest must meet the prerequisite for his feats, but if those feats use his base attack bonus as a prerequisite he uses his warpriest level in place of his warpriest base attack bonus.
Now, it doesn't say all that exactly as I did because I had to add on an additional sentence to explain something that everyone who is not explicitly looking for a way to break the class already knows. So what you're saying is that any feat which functions X times per 5 BAB or X per 4 BAB doesn't function for a war priest at all if they take it at the level they qualify for it?
If it only applies for qualifying for the feats and it only applies on bonus feats <WHICH IT DOES> I get the sense that I'll be forcing a great many war priests at my table to retrain the 5th level weapon specialization.
I've gotten the same response from my VL and 4 other GM's all agreeing that it seems to work in all aspects regarding the feat RAW. I only even asked because one person said it might not be RAI.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I am of the belief that their level only counts as a prerequisite, and only for bonus Combat feats, not regular feats gained through leveling.
I've seen people reading this both ways.
Quote:
any feat which functions X times per 5 BAB or X per 4 BAB doesn't function for a war priest at all if they take it at the level they qualify for it
Can you give an example of Feats for which they would not function if taken at a level at which the Warpriest is eligible?
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Please don't take half a sentence and try to read that in a vacuum. A sentence is supposed to be read in it's entirety. Hell, even the whole paragraph is just about qualifying for feats and no-where does it mention the functioning of those feats.
This can only apply to pre-req's.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The wording is poor if it is only supposed to apply for prerequisites, because that is not what it says. For people trying to parse the language implying the prerequisites in the first part necessitates the meaning of the second, thats simply not the way the english language works. "The warpriest must meet the prerequisites for these feats" and "he treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats" are independent clauses if you want to get pedantic. Guess what that means, they dont relate to each other except for in contrast. If they wanted the level conversion only for prerequisites, the second sentence should have ended to :for meeting this prerequisites. RAI its probably only supposed to count for prerequisites, but that is not the RAW.
Calth wrote: The wording is poor if it is only supposed to apply for prerequisites, because that is not what it says. For people trying to parse the language implying the prerequisites in the first part necessitates the meaning of the second, thats simply not the way the english language works. "The warpriest must meet the prerequisites for these feats" and "he treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats" are independent clauses if you want to get pedantic. Guess what that means, they dont relate to each other except for in contrast. If they wanted the level conversion only for prerequisites, the second sentence should have ended to :for meeting this prerequisites. RAI its probably only supposed to count for prerequisites, but that is not the RAW. The seller though of why they are tied is the but between those two thoughts. You must meet prereqs, well dang my BAB is low, oh wait, BUT I get to count my level as BAB for the prereq! If it really were two different thoughts, unrelated then they wouldn't have used the BUT and made it two sentences.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Except thats not what but means. If you are going for pedantry, but is a coordinating conjunction, meaning the clauses on either side are independent, so you cannot make that claim.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Calth wrote: Except thats not what but means. If you are going for pedantry, but is a coordinating conjunction, meaning the clauses on either side are independent, so you cannot make that claim. This is my point.
Even if intent is "Clear" according to some people that's not how the phrase currently reads. It takes literally two words to fix it if how these people are arguing is the RAI. For prerequisites. In ALL cases it mentions prerequisites specifically when it's referring to them.
This class feature doesn't allow you to ignore prerequisites AND treats your level as BAB for these feats. It doesn't say For prerequisites or For qualifying for these feats. It says "For these feats." Period. End of sentence. The RAW is clear and has been clear to the other GM's I've stated but after reading it again I agree it might not be RAI.
I'd love clarification on this as it significantly impacts the classes ability to take a ton of feats (Dazing assault, power attack, and half a dozen others along side the X/Day based on BAB feats)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You all are the ones being pedants.
Please understand that the people writing these products aren't lawyers and aren't trying to indicate special meeting. The whole sentence is about qualifying for feats.
It's a special clause that allows you to qualify for feats a bit earlier than you normally could. Like being able to pickup power attack at level 1. But power attack still function like it normally would for any 3/4 BAB character.
I'm sorry that it isn't more explicit and clear to you, but I guarantee that it doesn't work by allowing you to have full BAB for those feats.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Claxon wrote: You all are the ones being pedants.
Please understand that the people writing these products aren't lawyers and aren't trying to indicate special meeting. The whole sentence is about qualifying for feats.
It's a special clause that allows you to qualify for feats a bit earlier than you normally could. Like being able to pickup power attack at level 1. But power attack still function like it normally would for any 3/4 BAB character.
I'm sorry that it isn't more explicit and clear to you, but I guarantee that it doesn't work by allowing you to have full BAB for those feats.
Well no matter how you read it, you get odd results. You can pick up improved two weapon fighting and get an more off hand attacks than main hand attacks.
Like MANY of the things in the new book, this could have used a bit of polish to tighten up the wording. It really seems like this was rushed out the door.
graystone wrote: Well no matter how you read it, you get odd results. You can pick up improved two weapon fighting and get an more off hand attacks than main hand attacks. It would be an odd result, but not really problematic.
What would be more odd and problematic is by the reading the OP wants to employ that TWF would only reduce the penalties for using two weapons together as normal, because BAB doesn't factor into it.
However, when taking ITWF or GTWF if we used the OP's interpretation you would use 3/4 BAB to determine your primary hand attacks and first off-hand and then full BAB for the attacks granted by ITWF and GTWF. Which would be ridiculously stupid.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Paizo puts out a hard cover book, and within a week people are arguing about the definition of "but". . .
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
ShadowcatX wrote: Paizo puts out a hard cover book, and within a week people are arguing about the definition of "but". . . People are getting super pedantic about a ton of stuff in this latest book. It blows my mind.
Claxon wrote: ShadowcatX wrote: Paizo puts out a hard cover book, and within a week people are arguing about the definition of "but". . . People are getting super pedantic about a ton of stuff in this latest book. It blows my mind. I don't think people are being "super pedantic", I think it's more that this book's language is pretty loose. That and some things are just wonky. For instance, it's not clear the Shield Champion gets the weapon proficiencies for shields.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Claxon wrote: You all are the ones being pedants.
Please understand that the people writing these products aren't lawyers and aren't trying to indicate special meeting. The whole sentence is about qualifying for feats.
It's a special clause that allows you to qualify for feats a bit earlier than you normally could. Like being able to pickup power attack at level 1. But power attack still function like it normally would for any 3/4 BAB character.
I'm sorry that it isn't more explicit and clear to you, but I guarantee that it doesn't work by allowing you to have full BAB for those feats.
If you try and make an argument based on rules of language, make sure you are right or expect someone to call you on it. Yes, the RAI is most likely as you say. Unfortunately, the RAW doesnt match the likely RAI. The whole points of threads like this is to make sure possible issues like this come to the Devs attention so it can get FAQd/errated quickly.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Calth wrote: Claxon wrote: You all are the ones being pedants.
Please understand that the people writing these products aren't lawyers and aren't trying to indicate special meeting. The whole sentence is about qualifying for feats.
It's a special clause that allows you to qualify for feats a bit earlier than you normally could. Like being able to pickup power attack at level 1. But power attack still function like it normally would for any 3/4 BAB character.
I'm sorry that it isn't more explicit and clear to you, but I guarantee that it doesn't work by allowing you to have full BAB for those feats.
If you try and make an argument based on rules of language, make sure you are right or expect someone to call you on it. Yes, the RAI is most likely as you say. Unfortunately, the RAW doesnt match the likely RAI. The whole points of threads like this is to make sure possible issues like this come to the Devs attention so it can get FAQd/errated quickly. I'm not sure you're aware, but this game actually does require you to read with your brain engaged. That's a feture, not a flaw.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
ShadowcatX wrote: Calth wrote: Claxon wrote: You all are the ones being pedants.
Please understand that the people writing these products aren't lawyers and aren't trying to indicate special meeting. The whole sentence is about qualifying for feats.
It's a special clause that allows you to qualify for feats a bit earlier than you normally could. Like being able to pickup power attack at level 1. But power attack still function like it normally would for any 3/4 BAB character.
I'm sorry that it isn't more explicit and clear to you, but I guarantee that it doesn't work by allowing you to have full BAB for those feats.
If you try and make an argument based on rules of language, make sure you are right or expect someone to call you on it. Yes, the RAI is most likely as you say. Unfortunately, the RAW doesnt match the likely RAI. The whole points of threads like this is to make sure possible issues like this come to the Devs attention so it can get FAQd/errated quickly. I'm not sure you're aware, but this game actually does require you to read with your brain engaged. That's a feture, not a flaw. Perhaps if you put your own advice into effect, you would understand the difference between RAI and RAW.
graystone wrote: Claxon wrote: You all are the ones being pedants.
Please understand that the people writing these products aren't lawyers and aren't trying to indicate special meeting. The whole sentence is about qualifying for feats.
It's a special clause that allows you to qualify for feats a bit earlier than you normally could. Like being able to pickup power attack at level 1. But power attack still function like it normally would for any 3/4 BAB character.
I'm sorry that it isn't more explicit and clear to you, but I guarantee that it doesn't work by allowing you to have full BAB for those feats.
Well no matter how you read it, you get odd results. You can pick up improved two weapon fighting and get an more off hand attacks than main hand attacks.
Like MANY of the things in the new book, this could have used a bit of polish to tighten up the wording. It really seems like this was rushed out the door. I ask because in all other cases when refering to prerequisites they explicitly put the phrase "For Prerequisites" in the sentence. It's a pretty severe omission in the same way not having the words "While raging" being omitted from the blood rager's Blood lines would be. Even if the intent was glaringly obvious it wouldn't be the real case.
|
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
and then there is the awkwardness of the whole, this seems to only apply to bonus feats, and they don't get the ability until level 3. no power attack at level one, which i hope is some kind of misprint, as that was kinda a big draw, and if those prereq bypasses only apply to bonus feats, it can restrict the builds more than i was hoping for.
christos gurd wrote: and then there is the awkwardness of the whole, this seems to only apply to bonus feats, and they don't get the ability until level 3. no power attack at level one, which i hope is some kind of misprint, as that was kinda a big draw, and if those prereq bypasses only apply to bonus feats, it can restrict the builds more than i was hoping for. I'd love for people to FAQ this because it seems like the ability is abysmally worded and as written very very strange.
Side note I know until this is resolved I've no intention of making a WP for PFS. Our home game the GM completely agrees with me so it's not a problem there. The class is weak enough as is. It doesn't need to be worse.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Bump because this is ruling is critical to the functionality of the WP. It significantly effects the way one of it's major unchangeable class features functions.
Does it apply to all aspects of a feat?
Does it allow you to take fighter/full BAB feats as non bonus feats?
Is it intended not to do either of those?
christos gurd wrote: and then there is the awkwardness of the whole, this seems to only apply to bonus feats, and they don't get the ability until level 3. no power attack at level one, which i hope is some kind of misprint, as that was kinda a big draw, and if those prereq bypasses only apply to bonus feats, it can restrict the builds more than i was hoping for. It doesn't seem that awkward. Ranger Combat style Feats ignore pre-requisites, but that doesn't apply to the Ranger's other Feats.
It does mean no Power Attack at level 1, but you don't really need it at 1. Hit is much more important than damage at that level.
graystone wrote: Well no matter how you read it, you get odd results. You can pick up improved two weapon fighting and get an more off hand attacks than main hand attacks. This seems to be RAW and RAI:
Mark Seifter wrote: To piggyback off Owen's post, there's other interesting things you can do with those bonus feats, like for a TWF warpriest (maybe a sawtooth sabre-using Achaekek worshiper?), you can grab extra attacks with your off-hand before you even have them with your on-hand. Currently, my read is:
full BAB applies to Bonus Feats only (RAW, with RAI confirmed)
full BAB applies to pre-requisites of Bonus Feats only (RAW debatable, with RAI unclear)
|
3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Please mark this as FAQ so we can get a ruling on it and be done with the arguing over RAW and RAI.
redward wrote: christos gurd wrote: and then there is the awkwardness of the whole, this seems to only apply to bonus feats, and they don't get the ability until level 3. no power attack at level one, which i hope is some kind of misprint, as that was kinda a big draw, and if those prereq bypasses only apply to bonus feats, it can restrict the builds more than i was hoping for. It doesn't seem that awkward. Ranger Combat style Feats ignore pre-requisites, but that doesn't apply to the Ranger's other Feats.
It does mean no Power Attack at level 1, but you don't really need it at 1. Hit is much more important than damage at that level.
graystone wrote: Well no matter how you read it, you get odd results. You can pick up improved two weapon fighting and get an more off hand attacks than main hand attacks. This seems to be RAW and RAI:
Mark Seifter wrote: To piggyback off Owen's post, there's other interesting things you can do with those bonus feats, like for a TWF warpriest (maybe a sawtooth sabre-using Achaekek worshiper?), you can grab extra attacks with your off-hand before you even have them with your on-hand. Currently, my read is:
full BAB applies to Bonus Feats only (RAW, with RAI confirmed)
full BAB applies to pre-requisites of Bonus Feats only (RAW debatable, with RAI unclear) I can agree to most everything in this post. That said given how MAJOR this is in terms of it effecting the class it would be nice to FAQ or at least get a dev to respond to this question.
I came in here prepared to say that it's obviously only for the bab prereq and was going to show Jason's post in the warpriest blog entry.
Jason Bulmahn wrote: Because you will be wearing heavy armor, can swift-cast spells, and your bonus feats use your level as your BAB and allow you to qualify for fighter only feats...
Oops.. was that another spoiler. My apologies.. the illness, it must still be affecting me.
Jason
(but this will be the end of my added spoilers.. for the rest you will have to wait and see)
But after going and finding it even his wording seems to imply that it's what the OP says.
Byakko wrote: It's pretty obvious what the intent was, and only a very nit-picking reading could construe it to mean otherwise.
It would actually be rather sad if *this* got a FAQ entry when so many other far more confusing and pressing rules need to be addressed.
Precisely this.
It takes a pretty out-of-context reading to get to any confusion here.
EDIT: Buhlman's quote makes it muddier. Though honestly only mildly more so than the language in the rules. *shrug*
claudekennilol wrote: I came in here prepared to say that it's obviously only for the bab prereq and was going to show Jason's post in the warpriest blog entry.
Jason Bulmahn wrote: Because you will be wearing heavy armor, can swift-cast spells, and your bonus feats use your level as your BAB and allow you to qualify for fighter only feats...
Oops.. was that another spoiler. My apologies.. the illness, it must still be affecting me.
Jason
(but this will be the end of my added spoilers.. for the rest you will have to wait and see)
But after going and finding it even his wording seems to imply that it's what the OP says.
I've had a bunch of people agree with me, the way it's written appears to indicate it's for all aspects of the feats taken. Honestly that would make sense given that you can ONLY use full BAB for bonus feats. I'd love to see people FAQ this in because it's a pretty major point of class balance and more importantly to the functionality of like dozens of feats like dazing/stunning assault and feats which work off of X Times/X BAB.
It's also entirely possible it's an editing error (which would be disappointing) but for prerequisites is two words that's rather important and not attached to the end of the sentence.
Undone wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote: Because you will be wearing heavy armor, can swift-cast spells, and your bonus feats use your level as your BAB and allow you to qualify for fighter only feats...
Oops.. was that another spoiler. My apologies.. the illness, it must still be affecting me.
Jason
(but this will be the end of my added spoilers.. for the rest you will have to wait and see)
I've had a bunch of people agree with me, the way it's written appears to indicate it's for all aspects of the feats taken. Honestly that would make sense given that you can ONLY use full BAB for bonus feats. I'd love to see people FAQ this in because it's a pretty major point of class balance and more importantly to the functionality of like dozens of feats like dazing/stunning assault and feats which work off of X Times/X BAB.
It's also entirely possible it's an editing error (which would be disappointing) but for prerequisites is two words that's rather important and not attached to the end of the sentence.
It does lead to some weirdness, like the fact that you're taking bigger penalties from Power Attack than your BAB is intended to support... Actually, combined with the early entry ITWF/GTWF thing it seems like a ruling that the level for BAB ability applies to effects as well as prereqs might actually hurt the WP.
Eh, either way, FAQ'd.
Hopefully we get enough FAQ's for a response.
Bump for FAQ. Bump if you FAQ please.
REALLY bump for FAQ...it's as much confusing as it can be!
The FAQ Train bumps. I wonder how many FAQ's we'll need to get an answer
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Undone wrote: The FAQ Train bumps. I wonder how many FAQ's we'll need to get an answer the number isn't entirely relevant to getting an answer. And you have a long, long way to go before you get anywhere close to the top of the Most FAQ Requests list.
Also, it's kind of frowned upon to bump your own threads for FAQ clicks, especially multiple times a day. Give it a few days at least (and probably weeks, honestly). If there's no conversation being generated, there's little need to bump more than that.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Indeed. The common courtesy is not to bump a thread. Your question is just as important as everyone else's. If there is legitimate confusion, the community will respond to it.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
redward wrote: Currently, my read is:
full BAB applies to Bonus Feats only (RAW, with RAI confirmed)
full BAB applies to pre-requisites of Bonus Feats only (RAW debatable, with RAI unclear)
I am more interested in the first part. Has this been confirmed? Where and by who? Please provide links if possible.
redward wrote: Ranger Combat style Feats ignore pre-requisites, but that doesn't apply to the Ranger's other Feats. This comparison doesn't seem valid to me. The Ranger ignores prereqs and choses from a short list of feats. The warpriest must meet the prereqs with the exception of substituting his level for his BAB and can chose from an entire feat type.
Would this be an appropriate topic for its own thread?
zaarbuc wrote: redward wrote: Currently, my read is:
full BAB applies to Bonus Feats only (RAW, with RAI confirmed)
full BAB applies to pre-requisites of Bonus Feats only (RAW debatable, with RAI unclear)
I am more interested in the first part. Has this been confirmed? Where and by who? Please provide links if possible. The link was in my post.
Quote: I am more interested in the first part. Has this been confirmed? Where and by who? Please provide links if possible. Indeed it is. It was actually someone seeing that that prompted the "It may not be RAI" response.
Where???
The only thing I see doesn't answer it at all. Actually, all it does is talk about how the Warpriet can take some really crappy Feats earlier than any other 3/4 BaB class, as if they don't realize just how bad those Feats are.
DM Beckett wrote: Where???
The only thing I see doesn't answer it at all. Actually, all it does is talk about how the Warpriet can take some really crappy Feats earlier than any other 3/4 BaB class, as if they don't realize just how bad those Feats are.
The reason they can take them in that slot is specifically because the full BAB/Fighter levels ONLY apply to the bonus feats.
Which doesn't answer if they get Full BaB only for selecting Feats or for also count as having it for using those Feats.
Zaarbuc asked if this had been officially answered yet. Redward responded that it had in the link from his or her last post.
Said post contains a link, but doesn't give any actually answer. It simply says that by using level as BaB (which everyone already knows), they are the only 3/4 BaB class that can qualify for a few Feats at the same time as a Full BaB class. Further down it's also pointed out that they can not give an official answer, it's just how they would rule it (for something else unrelated).
redward wrote: Currently, my read is:
full BAB applies to Bonus Feats only (RAW, with RAI confirmed)
full BAB applies to pre-requisites of Bonus Feats only (RAW debatable, with RAI unclear)
The first line was talking about pre-requisites only. It could have been written more clearly, but the next line should provide the necessary context.
To clarify:
Currently, my read is:
full BAB applies to the selection of Bonus Feats only (RAW, with RAI confirmed)
full BAB applies to pre-requisites of Bonus Feats only (RAW debatable, with RAI unclear)
|
