Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
No, RAW means Rules as Written. Has nothing to do with an individual GMs interpretation.
RAW means rules as written, but since those rules need interpreting and each rule may have multiple interpretations the GM determines the correct interpretation.
Often some players try to use RAW and make an assertion of the meaning of a rule that they like and try to stand their ground. That isn't polite or proper generally. It is also something that with extreme regularity is solved with FAQ that correct the interpretation expected.
Of course it is always possible to try and convince the GM to agree with the way you read the RAW ;-)
I'm all for that. What I'm not for is someone saying their are in charge of the English language and all it's varied interpretations.
Rules as written you can't take a feat more than once unless the feat says otherwise.
The rule where it says that multiple instances of feats don't stack the same benefits does not contradict that, it just compensates for the fact that the earlier rule has an exception. That feats that can be taken multiple times exist requires the second rule but it does not state when this happens the first rule does.
This is a case of making assumptions based on implication instead of what is stated. There is no interpretation required.
I can see reasonable limits to racial templates, but can't see a practical reason to limit racial heritage feats.
If one truly wants to use up all of their feat slots so that way they can be punished by every bane weapon in existence... so be it.
I know this has been said before, but to add my voice to the many. If I were to make a ruling on this as a DM call, I would personally allow my players take multiples if they want. - Risks outweigh the rewards by quite a large measure.
|
Rules as written you can't take a feat more than once unless the feat says otherwise.
The rule where it says that multiple instances of feats don't stack the same benefits does not contradict that, it just compensates for the fact that the earlier rule has an exception. That feats that can be taken multiple times exist requires the second rule but it does not state when this happens the first rule does.
This is a case of making assumptions based on implication instead of what is stated. There is no interpretation required.
Again, Where is this written. It isn't RAW if it isn't written. This is one question I've asked multiple times but nobody who says you can't take a feat more then once unless otherwise stated has answered. Several people have agreed that you CAN take a feat more then once, but the rule I quoted says that they have no effect. (BTW, at this point, I consider the original question answered, taking Racial Heritage more then ones does not stack, even for different races. Plenty of people willing to house rule it otherwise though.)
Ok, I found where it says you CAN even if it doesn't say so in the feat.
CRB says: "If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description."
The question is, would it be considered stacking benefits when the benefits are a little different. They would be giving two different subtypes not the same one twice.
People have answered. You misunderstand the function of the quoted rule. This does not mean, "Take any feat as many times as you want, but the effects don't stack". This means, " If you can take a feat more than once, the effects don't stack, unless you're specifically told otherwise."
If you could ordinarily take feats multiple times, there'd be no need for certain feats to explicitly tell you that you can take hem more than once. It is the quintessential exception that proves the rule.
Ok, I found where it says you CAN even if it doesn't say so in the feat.
CRB says: "If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description."
The question is, would it be considered stacking benefits when the benefits are a little different. They would be giving two different subtypes not the same one twice.
People have answered. You misunderstand the function of the quoted rule. This does not mean, "Take any feat as many times as you want, but the effects don't stack". This means, " If you can take a feat more than once, the effects don't stack, unless you're specifically told otherwise."
If you could ordinarily take feats multiple times, there'd be no need for certain feats to explicitly tell you that you can take hem more than once. It is the quintessential exception that proves the rule.
Except there isn't a rule. Just 2 statements (1 repeated over a number of feats) that provide conflicting inferences, and no real way to establish priority. You can't just add words without sufficient context to make it clear. And that statement just as easily and (arguably) more logically leads "[you can]take a feat more than once, the effects...etc."
|
The wording is very clear;
"If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description."
So go ahead. Take 'Racial Heritage' twice. Or five times. Or whatever.
Just understand that, as its description does not indicate how the benefits of multiple copies would stack (like for example, 'Exotic Weapon Proficiency'), they DON'T... and all instances after the first do absolutely nothing.
Many people then extend, 'there is no rational reason to take most feats more than once' to 'most feats cannot be taken more than once', but by pure RAW it's true... you CAN throw away as many feats as you like taking duplicates that do nothing at all. Have at it.
Except there isn't a rule. Just 2 statements (1 repeated over a number of feats) that provide conflicting inferences, and no real way to establish priority. You can't just add words without sufficient context to make it clear. And that statement just as easily and (arguably) more logically leads "[you can]take a feat more than once, the effects...etc."Ok, I found where it says you CAN even if it doesn't say so in the feat.
CRB says: "If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description."
The question is, would it be considered stacking benefits when the benefits are a little different. They would be giving two different subtypes not the same one twice.
People have answered. You misunderstand the function of the quoted rule. This does not mean, "Take any feat as many times as you want, but the effects don't stack". This means, " If you can take a feat more than once, the effects don't stack, unless you're specifically told otherwise."
If you could ordinarily take feats multiple times, there'd be no need for certain feats to explicitly tell you that you can take hem more than once. It is the quintessential exception that proves the rule.
Does it not say under the 'special' section of the feat format description that the line designates whether or not you can select a feat more than once?
|
|
Does it not say under the 'special' section of the feat format description that the line designates whether or not you can select a feat more than once?Except there isn't a rule. Just 2 statements (1 repeated over a number of feats) that provide conflicting inferences, and no real way to establish priority. You can't just add words without sufficient context to make it clear. And that statement just as easily and (arguably) more logically leads "[you can]take a feat more than once, the effects...etc."Ok, I found where it says you CAN even if it doesn't say so in the feat.
CRB says: "If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description."
The question is, would it be considered stacking benefits when the benefits are a little different. They would be giving two different subtypes not the same one twice.
People have answered. You misunderstand the function of the quoted rule. This does not mean, "Take any feat as many times as you want, but the effects don't stack". This means, " If you can take a feat more than once, the effects don't stack, unless you're specifically told otherwise."
If you could ordinarily take feats multiple times, there'd be no need for certain feats to explicitly tell you that you can take hem more than once. It is the quintessential exception that proves the rule.
No, it does not.
Special: Additional unusual facts about the feat.
Interestingly it does say it in Ultimate Combat and assorted feat description summaries in other books, but otherwise I could not find a direct line about it in the core rulebook. Which makes it odd that in the special sections of many core rulebook feats they describe that 'you can take this feat more than once' contradicting the idea that feats can normally be taken more than once.
This is why Magic: the Gathering players should write rulebooks.
|
|
Interestingly it does say it in Ultimate Combat
Huh. So it does;
"Benefit: The benefit is what a feat enables a character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated in the feat's Special line.
Special: This line lists special features of the feat, such as, but not limited to, whether or not you can take the feat more than once, or whether the feat allows members of specific classes to gain additional benefits."
This is why Magic: the Gathering players should write rulebooks.
Is that where the OCD 'rules should be interpreted like computer code' viewpoint originates? I always wondered where this idea that RPG books weren't written per the standards of normal human communication came from.
It might work for a card game with limited and rigidly defined mechanics, but it is an entirely inadequate approach when attempting to simulate the vast breadth of real world possibilities.
This is why Magic: the Gathering players should write rulebooks.Is that where the OCD 'rules should be interpreted like computer code' viewpoint originates? I always wondered where this idea that RPG books weren't written per the standards of normal human communication came from.
It might work for a card game with limited and rigidly defined mechanics, but it is an entirely inadequate approach when attempting to simulate the vast breadth of real world possibilities.
Actually I think it's the opposite. RPGs are normally written with a human voice and thus imprecise with human imperfections making the language 'interpretable' which leads to conflict when players expect to have any layer of protection and angency supported by the rules.
Personally I think more keywording and rigidity would allow a stable premise for imprecise rules to graft on to better but is not exactly an ideal I impose on what game system I use that strongly for a number of reasons.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Is that where the OCD 'rules should be interpreted like computer code' viewpoint originates?
Yea pretty much. Magic is a very verbose rules system. The whole rule system is 10,8203 words. Keep in mind this just explains how to use the rules present on the 23,000 cards. So for example the number of words needed to describe flying creatures and what power they have is 1067 words.
RPG games are NOT written this way, and I don't think they could be. The target audience simply doesn't want a rules system that precise or exact.