We are forced to use a feat if it lack the text "you can choose to"?

[Diego Rossi]

In a recent feat we had a discussion about a feat saying "Whenever you cast a prepared arcane spell ..." against "You can choose to take a –1 penalty ...".

I think you can always choose not to use a feat it you want (naturally you lose both the benefit and possible drawbacks) while the other poster thought that if it lack the "You can choose" text you are forced to sue it.

Someone know if there is a official ruling?

[Cavall]

What's the feat in question.

For some, like school focus, I wouldn't give you a choice. Weapon proficiency too.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Diego Rossi wrote:

In a recent feat we had a discussion about a feat saying "Whenever you cast a prepared arcane spell ..." against "You can choose to take a –1 penalty ...".

I think you can always choose not to use a feat it you want (naturally you lose both the benefit and possible drawbacks) while the other poster thought that if it lack the "You can choose" text you are forced to sue it.

Someone know if there is a official ruling?

Context matters, what is the feat in question, what is the situation?

[Lorewalker]

Context really doesn't matter for a general question like this as there are plenty of examples of feats which function either way. The question is "Are you forced to use the benefit section of a feat you have, and the benefit can either force you to accept it or give you a choice of usage? Or can you choose to ignore the benefit section of a feat whenever you want?"

But, Acadamae Graduate is an example of "forced to", and Power Attack is an example of "choose to" in the benefit section text.

[Diego Rossi]

I was interested more in a general opinion, not about the specific feat.
You can find the original discussion here.

Lorewalker pointed out several feats that actually change your body, so turning those off wouldn't be reasonable.
I am less convinced for feats that give you a benefit at a cost, like Acadame graduate.

Personally I think that it is a GM call, more than a question of hard rules.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Lorewalker wrote:

Context really doesn't matter for a general question

Context can matter quite a lot, as not every question has an answer that applies in all variations of the question.

Why are you so reluctant to spell out the issue in depth?

[Lorewalker]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Context really doesn't matter for a general question

Context can matter quite a lot, as not every question has an answer that applies in all variations of the question.

Why are you so reluctant to spell out the issue in depth?

The question is as basic as "Does Pathfinder have a rule for jumping?". You don't need context for why I want to jump, or where. Only that, yes, jumping is a rule.

The question is, "Do you have to use the benefit section of a feat you have? Or can you ignore it when you choose?" Not, "how do you rule this one feat". It is a question relating to ALL feats.

But, the question has been spelled out in the thread that was linked with the original debate.

[Cavall]

I'm more curious what the feat was.

[Lorewalker]

Cavall wrote:

I'm more curious what the feat was.

Acadamae Graduate. Linked up above. The original thread was linked by Diego Rossi.

[johnlocke90]

By RAW, yes it is mandatory.

[Cwethan]

I think that you can't inherently ignore feats you have, but as a GM I'm happy to rule against that in specific situations that seem hinky (looking at you Shield Slam)

[Gulthor]

We're in Rules Questions, so RAW, if the feat permanently changes the way that something functions, then yes, it's always on (Academae Graduate is a very good example.) It explicitly calls out that *WHENEVER* you cast a qualifying spell, X happens. Period.

I doubt most home games would enforce that in practice, but YTMV. At our table, it would be an optional thing. Our viewpoint is that feats are intended to provide additional options - you shouldn't hurt yourself with an optional choice, and should be able to use it as you like when you like. RAW, it doesn't work that way.

[DrDeth]

Lorewalker wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Context really doesn't matter for a general question

Context can matter quite a lot, as not every question has an answer that applies in all variations of the question.

Why are you so reluctant to spell out the issue in depth?

The question is as basic as "Does Pathfinder have a rule for jumping?". You don't need context for why I want to jump, or where. Only that, yes, jumping is a rule.

The question is, "Do you have to use the benefit section of a feat you have? Or can you ignore it when you choose?" Not, "how do you rule this one feat". It is a question relating to ALL feats.

No, because no one would want a PHB edited by a team of lawyers, being 6" think and costing $500. The Devs are human, they left some stuff out when it was just plain common sense.

[Lorewalker]

DrDeth wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Context really doesn't matter for a general question

Context can matter quite a lot, as not every question has an answer that applies in all variations of the question.

Why are you so reluctant to spell out the issue in depth?

The question is as basic as "Does Pathfinder have a rule for jumping?". You don't need context for why I want to jump, or where. Only that, yes, jumping is a rule.

The question is, "Do you have to use the benefit section of a feat you have? Or can you ignore it when you choose?" Not, "how do you rule this one feat". It is a question relating to ALL feats.

No, because no one would want a PHB edited by a team of lawyers, being 6" think and costing $500. The Devs are human, they left some stuff out when it was just plain common sense.

I mean... not really? Or are you trying to say there are literally no "does this rule exist" or "this rule exists for all things of a type" questions which are easily answered as yes or no?

[BigNorseWolf]

NO

[Lorewalker]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

NO

No, yes. Or, Yes, no? Which no to which yes do you mean, oh big and norsey? Perhaps to the OPs final question?

[DrDeth]

Lorewalker wrote:

I mean... not really? Or are you trying to say there are literally no "does this rule exist" or "this rule exists for all things of a type" questions which are easily answered as yes or no?

I am saying that in this case, and other similar cases, then the fact that the devs left out a line which seems clearly ROI should not force anyone into a RAW ruling.

I am sure there are black and white questions. usually, you dont have to ask them, however.

[Lorewalker]

DrDeth wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

I mean... not really? Or are you trying to say there are literally no "does this rule exist" or "this rule exists for all things of a type" questions which are easily answered as yes or no?

I am saying that in this case, and other similar cases, then the fact that the devs left out a line which seems clearly ROI should not force anyone into a RAW ruling.

I am sure there are black and white questions. usually, you dont have to ask them, however.

So.... then is your answer that you can sometimes, 'sometimes ignore the benefit section of a feat' and no one gets to know which, just figure it out yourself? And that's how feats work? Or that there is no rule, don't bother do what you want because you shouldn't assume someones RAW? Or what?

[CBDunkerson]

Lorewalker wrote:

So.... then is your answer that you can sometimes, 'sometimes ignore the benefit section of a feat' and no one gets to know which, just figure it out yourself? And that's how feats work? Or that there is no rule, don't bother do what you want because you shouldn't assume someones RAW? Or what?

Ask the GM.

'Problem' solved.

[Tarantula]

If its an action/skill type bonus, they are generally pretty good about saying you can/may. Like power attack. You can choose to swing harder, at the cost of being less accurate.

Something like acadamae graduate, reads like an option. You have learned how to cast this type of spell faster, at the cost of possibly being fatigued. Do you always have to use that method of casting it? RAW yes; most GMs I would expect would say you don't, just like you don't always have to power attack.

Something like eldritch claws, I don't think you can choose to not use. You have natural weapons. They count as both magic and silver for DR purposes. You can't make them not that way.

[PathlessBeth]

One thing to note is that feats like Life-Dominant Soul seem to assume that you can't "turn off" the feat if you wanted to. If you could turn it off, you could simply choose not to use the feat whenever you are being healed by negative energy, in order to get the full effect. Why, then, does the feat specify that you are only healed by half the normal amount?
Of course, it's also possible that the author of Life-Dominant Soul didn't know about a general "you can turn your feats off" rule, in which case the line

Blood of the Night pg. 28 wrote:

but both only heal half the normal amount

is just a mistake.

[PathlessBeth]

CBDunkerson wrote:

Ask the GM.

'Problem' solved.

1. Some people aren't really interested in writing their own game system. Especially when they are paying Paizo to write a game system.

2. If you have no interest in asking or answering questions about the rules of Pathfinder, why are you posting in the Pathfinder RPG Rules Questions forum?

[MeanMutton]

Diego Rossi wrote:

In a recent feat we had a discussion about a feat saying "Whenever you cast a prepared arcane spell ..." against "You can choose to take a –1 penalty ...".

I think you can always choose not to use a feat it you want (naturally you lose both the benefit and possible drawbacks) while the other poster thought that if it lack the "You can choose" text you are forced to sue it.

Someone know if there is a official ruling?

I know of no rule that supports the idea that you can selectively turn off feats that explicitly say things like "Whenever you cast a prepared arcane spell".

[Cavall]

The only thing about the feat in question I can see as being to not use it... it says "when casting a spell in this way". Which seems to hint there's more than one way.

So really I'd ask your GM. Both sides have an argument.

[Boomerang Nebula]

Can you turn off the toughness feat? If so, could dominate monster be used to force someone to turn off toughness?

[CBDunkerson]

137ben wrote:

1. Some people aren't really interested in writing their own game system. Especially when they are paying Paizo to write a game system.

People who can't think for themselves will never be satisfied with any RPG because it is simply impossible to model all of reality (and the unreality of the setting) in a few thousand pages of rules text. Don't blame Paizo for assuming that you'd be willing to learn to be an effective GM... it's an inherent requirement of the game type.

Quote:

2. If you have no interest in asking or answering questions about the rules of Pathfinder, why are you posting in the Pathfinder RPG Rules Questions forum?

Non-sequitor.

I AM interested in the rules of Pathfinder. In this case, the relevant rule is found here.

[Tyinyk]

I had been wondering a while ago if someone with Deft Shootist could choose to provoke an attack of opportunity when firing point blank (Perhaps because they have levels in Gulch Gunner). The only person who responded said probably not, but I feel like you should be able to.

[wraithstrike]

It will depend on the feat. There is no general rule that is official that points to yes or no. The game assumes you will do whatever is to your advantage, but there could be corner cases where using certain feats could work against you.

As an example, there is a shield feat that says you get a bull rush attack. It does not present it as an option, but if bullrushing the person puts them out of your attack range then it would not be a good idea to use that feat. That is a feat that I would say is optional even though it is not written as having a choice.

[Bloodrealm]

I'm pretty sure we have our answer in the "can." As in, does the text use "can" or "may?" If not, then it's mandatory.

[Mark Carlson 255]

Tyink,
I am of two minds on your post. The first says the feat says as long as you have 1 grit point then X happens I would say no you cannot as the feet says no.
Where as your second statement "I want to provoke an attack of opportunity" I would say yes you can provoke an attack of opportunity at any time...but...wait for it...I as Gm would not then allow you to sue any thing/ability/special that required as a trigger an attack of opportunity.
Does that make sense?

In other words I would let you have the negative effect of being attacked just about any time you would want it by saying so but I would not let you use abilities that provided any benefit by doing so.
My reasoning as GM would be you are doing something/task/action in such a way as to allow an enemy to attack you but at the same time doing so does not provide you with the option to use any other special ability/talent/feat/class ability/etc to provide you a benefit.

Why would you want to do something like this, well if an opponent only has a few attacks of opportunity and you want to chance taking the hit vs another player (ie eating the attack for another) then I generally would let you but if the monster is smart they might also realize what you are doing so next round not attack you and attack the other person.

Again, does that make sense.
Even though it may not help?
MDC

[Buri Reborn]

From my time here, I've gotten the strong impression that one of the implicit rules of the game from the design folks is that a creature can often always opt to not use its beneficial features and go back to the "normal" way of doing things. You won't find a black and white rule about it.

[My Self]

I want it to be that you can choose whether to accept or not accept the effects of a feat that does not have the "you can choose" language.

However, knowing how the Paizo dev team rolls, if it doesn't say you can, then you can't.

[RDM42]

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Can you turn off the toughness feat? If so, could dominate monster be used to force someone to turn off toughness?

I would say tentatively that one could make a distinction between feats that change what you ARE(improved natural armor, toughness, claws) vs what you do(power attack, deadly aim et al). Things that are something you are aren't able to be turned off any more than you can 'turn off' the color of your eyes at will. Things that are a learned way of doing things are much more debatable.

[Orfamay Quest]

RDM42 wrote:

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Can you turn off the toughness feat? If so, could dominate monster be used to force someone to turn off toughness?

I would say tentatively that one could make a distinction between feats that change what you ARE(improved natural armor, toughness, claws) vs what you do(power attack, deadly aim et al). Things that are something you are aren't able to be turned off any more than you can 'turn off' the color of your eyes at will. Things that are a learned way of doing things are much more debatable.

Very true. At the same time, the Paizo design team is also capable of making that distinction, and has, via the wording they use for the feat.

They could have said "you CAN do" or "you MAY do" instead of "you do." It's not like they simply have millions of monkeys at typewriters turning out splatbooks. The fact that the PDT did not do that is, in my view significant.

[Boomerang Nebula]

RDM42 wrote:

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Can you turn off the toughness feat? If so, could dominate monster be used to force someone to turn off toughness?

I would say tentatively that one could make a distinction between feats that change what you ARE(improved natural armor, toughness, claws) vs what you do(power attack, deadly aim et al). Things that are something you are aren't able to be turned off any more than you can 'turn off' the color of your eyes at will. Things that are a learned way of doing things are much more debatable.

What you are saying is logical and that is what I would default to, I am curious about what the rules actually state.

[Gulthor]

Can you turn off Fey Foundling to stop taking extra damage from cold iron weapons when you're not using the healing benefit? (Obviously you cannot.)

RAW - I'd even say RAI - there's really no confusion here.

Again, I wouldn't play some of these feats (Academae Graduate, for example) that strictly at our table (though many passive effects - like Fey Foundling, Toughness, Diehard, etc - would certainly not be able to be shut off.)

[Chess Pwn]

one thing I've learned is that the workers here don't really seem to care much about what they've actually said and that having something in or not is is more of an accident or hapenstance than actual intent to be different.

[bitter lily]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Can you turn off the toughness feat? If so, could dominate monster be used to force someone to turn off toughness?

I would say tentatively that one could make a distinction between feats that change what you ARE(improved natural armor, toughness, claws) vs what you do(power attack, deadly aim et al). Things that are something you are aren't able to be turned off any more than you can 'turn off' the color of your eyes at will. Things that are a learned way of doing things are much more debatable.

Very true. At the same time, the Paizo design team is also capable of making that distinction, and has, via the wording they use for the feat.

They could have said "you CAN do" or "you MAY do" instead of "you do." It's not like they simply have millions of monkeys at typewriters turning out splatbooks. The fact that the PDT did not do that is, in my view significant.

My question is about who wrote "Acadamae Graduate (Local)" to begin with? It's apparently from a "content" book, Curse of the Crimson Throne Player’s Guide. I've seen at least one post (but don't, of course, helpfully remember where!!!) from a dev who basically said he doesn't comment on stuff that isn't from rules books because he's not involved in writing it. Which I took to mean that if it doesn't show up on the PRD, it's not as reliable as the stuff that does. And yes, if anyone can actually link to such a statement, I'll be deeply appreciative.

The point is, it now seems a lot more reasonable to re-write a "you may choose to" into "Acadamae Graduate (Local)" than into "Shield Slam," which does show up on the PRD. Although even there, why spoil the player's day with a ruling that they're too vicious to control the force of their shield bash?

[Snowlilly]

DrDeth wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Context really doesn't matter for a general question

Context can matter quite a lot, as not every question has an answer that applies in all variations of the question.

Why are you so reluctant to spell out the issue in depth?

The question is as basic as "Does Pathfinder have a rule for jumping?". You don't need context for why I want to jump, or where. Only that, yes, jumping is a rule.

The question is, "Do you have to use the benefit section of a feat you have? Or can you ignore it when you choose?" Not, "how do you rule this one feat". It is a question relating to ALL feats.

No, because no one would want a PHB edited by a team of lawyers, being 6" think and costing $500. The Devs are human, they left some stuff out when it was just plain common sense.

This, and more than one developer has stated exactly this.

Players and DMs are expected to apply that rare gift called common sense to the rules.

[Sundakan]

Common sense is a myth, and especially stupid to apply it to things written by 20 different people, each of which has a different definition of "common sense" than you do.

For some devs, the inability to turn off a Feat might be an accident. For some it may be intended. They probably all assumed "common sense" would be used to determine that they were either intentionally made so, or not.

This is further muddled by things which by "common sense" work one way, but have been FAQ'd to work another.

Or things which the creator thought would or should work one way, but the EDITORS or other devs changed to work another. See: Titan Mauler.

Saying "use common sense" means about as much as saying "Argle bargle florb glarf" and is 10x as annoying.

[Snowlilly]

Sundakan wrote:

Common sense is a myth, and especially stupid to apply it to things written by 20 different people, each of which has a different definition of "common sense" than you do.

For some devs, the inability to turn off a Feat might be an accident. For some it may be intended. They probably all assumed "common sense" would be used to determine that they were either intentionally made so, or not.

This is further muddled by things which by "common sense" work one way, but have been FAQ'd to work another.

Or things which the creator thought would or should work one way, but the EDITORS or other devs changed to work another. See: Titan Mauler.

Saying "use common sense" means about as much as saying "Argle bargle florb glarf" and is 10x as annoying.

Then the game is most likely not going to work for you.

As the developers have stayed repeatedly, common sense is required ; they cannot write thousand page books in legalease that cover all possible scenarios and interactions.

[Rub-Eta]

My general answer: There's no general rule saying that you can chose to ignore effects (drawbacks, diseases, madness, etc) or effects from feats that apply to your character (beneficial or penalizing). It's up to the individual feats if you can ("you may", etc).

With that said, there are of course specific exceptions: Acadamae Graduate is a very old feat (it wasn't even written for the Pathfinder system, was it?), so it's probably outside of the standardized wording of feats in Pathfinder of today.

[Wheldrake]

On reading "Acadamae Graduate" it seems entirely plausible to allow said graduates to either cast using this particularly "taxing" method or using the old tried and true method used by other wizards.

I don't think you can infer a general rule from such leniancy on a strict RAW reading (which wouldn't allow any option).

In any event, the only PCs who would be able to select this feat would presumably be those involved in a Crimson Crown campaign.

BTW, can't wait to see the new & improved version coming out soon.

[James Risner]

'casting this way" is a choice.

This has to be a case by case, as a general decision might not be relevant to all things.

[Sundakan]

Snowlilly wrote:

Then the game is most likely not going to work for you.

It's worked for me for a good long while, but please feel free to condescend some more if it makes you feel like the big man.

Snowlilly wrote:

As the developers have stated repeatedly, common sense is required; They cannot write thousand page books in legalese that covers all possible scenarios and interactions.

They don't need to. Rather than use "common sense", we try to suss out the intent of the developers that wrote the thing. That's where the RAW vs RAI debate comes in. Insight rather than just guessing based on gut feeling. Because the latter is really all "common sense" is. It varies from person to person. Using "common sense" is trying to put things through a two step changeover process. You use the writer's common sense, then your own. These are not likely to mesh.

In this case, we don't know the intent, and the words are vague.

So "common sense" it is, hm? Except that's what everyone here is doing. Going with their gut, making guesses.

If "common sense" was as universal as you claim, there would be no argument here. Instead of having one group of people saying "You can choose to use it or not", another group of people saying "You HAVE to use it all the time" and a third saying "It's kinda vague, and varies by the Feat even when not explicitly stated", you'd have one big group that had picked one of those and run with it, and this thread would be a chorus of people just saying "I agree with the first poster".

Hence saying "use common sense" is a worthless comment to make in any thread like this.

Personally, I'm with James Risner for once. On some Feats, it's pretty clear that it's always on, you can't turn it off. Toughness, Iron Will, etc.

For others, it's less clear. Can you choose to turn off Diehard after it's been activated, for instance?

Who knows? Use your common sense, I guess.

[Snowlilly]

Sundakan wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

Then the game is most likely not going to work for you.

If "common sense" was as universal as you claim

I actually claimed it was rare.

And after all your ranting, all you did was replace the words "common sense" with a full paragraph breakdown that essentially boiled down to the same thing.

[dragonhunterq]

Case by case seems the way to go. I do not believe there should be a general rule requiring a 'may' or 'can' to make feats optional.

Most feats should be clear whether they change you so fundamentally that you can't or shouldn't be able to turn them off (Improved natural armour, toughness, necromantic affinity) and those that are an alternative way of doing things (power attack, deadly aim) and I include Acadamae Graduate in the latter camp.

[Orfamay Quest]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Most feats shoud be clear whether they change you so fundamentally that you can't or shouldn't be able to turn them off (Improved natural armour, toughness, necromantic affinity) and those that are an alternative way of doing things (power attack, deadly aim) and I include Acadamae Graduate in the latter camp.

It depends upon the course of study at the Academae, I suppose. Just because you've been trained to do something a certain way doesn't mean that you can easily do it any other way, even if that other way is more common.

For example, Paul McCartney is a self-taught bassist, and plays left-handed. After years of practice, he couldn't play right-handed even if he wanted to. Speaking for myself, I learned to type on a QWERTY keyboard and can only get myself into trouble with a Dvorak one. Given the grueling course of study the Academae is supposed to have, I could easily argue that it's as limiting as Paul McCartney's Left-Handed Bass Academy.

[Sundakan]

Snowlilly wrote:

Sundakan wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

Then the game is most likely not going to work for you.

If "common sense" was as universal as you claim

I actually claimed it was rare.

Universal in this case is in the sense of it being the same thing to everyone that supposedly "has it" (EX "It is universally accepted by mathematicians that A = A").

Snowlilly wrote:

And after all your ranting, all you did was replace the words "common sense" with a full paragraph breakdown that essentially boiled down to the same thing.

That was kind of the point. It's a phrase that's so broad in meaning that it's completely meaningless. Though looking for the RAI does not necessarily mean use your own judgment; You can sometimes tell which dev exactly has written the option people are arguing about and just ask them.

But that still goes back to the question: If you agree with my rant, what was the point of posting in this thread going "but common sense!" in the first place? Best case scenario, everyone looks at you and goes "Yeah, no s&&@" and continues disagreeing with each other because their "common senses" are still different.

Worst case scenario, you come off looking like the someone who thinks he has all the answers because he has the one true common sense to rule them all.

In either case, what does that add to the conversation? Mind you I'm not just talking about you, but the guy you quoted.

Posting "use your common sense" is not helpful to these kinds of questions.

In this case, my "common sense" tells me that it probably wasn't intended for the Feat to make casting a Conjuration spell always leave the caster fatigued.

Clearly, some other peoples' "common sense" tells them that's the drawback of the Feat, which is always on.

So we all used "common sense". Back to square 1, as if you'd never posted.

[dragonhunterq]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

Most feats shoud be clear whether they change you so fundamentally that you can't or shouldn't be able to turn them off (Improved natural armour, toughness, necromantic affinity) and those that are an alternative way of doing things (power attack, deadly aim) and I include Acadamae Graduate in the latter camp.

It depends upon the course of study at the Academae, I suppose. Just because you've been trained to do something a certain way doesn't mean that you can easily do it any other way, even if that other way is more common.

For example, Paul McCartney is a self-taught bassist, and plays left-handed. After years of practice, he couldn't play right-handed even if he wanted to. Speaking for myself, I learned to type on a QWERTY keyboard and can only get myself into trouble with a Dvorak one. Given the grueling course of study the Academae is supposed to have, I could easily argue that it's as limiting as Paul McCartney's Left-Handed Bass Academy.

Yeah, not really. That is extrapolating beyond the information we have and really unnecessarily so. KIS. two categories only. Those that can realistically only be a fundamental change and those that aren't.