Specifically for Barroom Brawler.
Quote: Benefit: Once per day as a move action, you can gain the benefit of a combat feat that you do not possess for 1 minute. You must otherwise meet the feat’s requirements.
If I had already taken Advanced Weapon Training(Abundant Weapon Tactics) as a feat, could I take Advanced Weapon Training(Warrior Spirit) with Barroom Brawler?
My gut instinct is no, but please do provide sources either way. The question could also be asked in a broader sense when it comes to combat feats like weapon focus and others that can be taken multiple times for different options.
That is a good question on a gut reaction I would say no from RAW. Would I allow it probably.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I suspect you will get different opinions on this one, I am not aware of anything that provides a definitive answer.
I am fairly firmly of the view that weapon focus (greatsword) is a different feat to weapon focus (longbow). So for me as long as you choose a different AWT ability you should be good to go.
Keep in mind that he can't have any more than one instance of the feat per five fighter levels. But keeping that in mind, I don't see anything else wrong with doing what you're asking.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Here's a source from Advanced Weapon Training...
"Special: This feat can be taken more than once, but at most once per 5 fighter levels."
Nothing about Barroom Brawler circumvents this rule.
Lorewalker wrote: Here's a source from Advanced Weapon Training...
"Special: This feat can be taken more than once, but at most once per 5 fighter levels."
Nothing about Barroom Brawler circumvents this rule.
That's not at all relevant to what I'm asking though.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
My unofficial answer would be, "Only if you have enough fighter levels to pick it a second time."
barroom brawler wrote: you can gain the benefit of a combat feat that you do not possess This is the potential sticking point...
Ierox wrote: Lorewalker wrote: Here's a source from Advanced Weapon Training...
"Special: This feat can be taken more than once, but at most once per 5 fighter levels."
Nothing about Barroom Brawler circumvents this rule.
That's not at all relevant to what I'm asking though. Actually it may be 100% relevant. It's wording is "this feat" meaning no matter how many times taken its "this feat" as in a single feat.
So since it says you can't take a feat you already have...
Yeah, seems like No.
It's my sense of the RAI that "a feat you do not possess" was meant to be a positive, not a negative.
That is, Barroom Brawler was never intended to be read "If you have Weapon Focus (Longsword) you cannot use this feat to gain Weapon Focus (Battleaxe)".
It defies all balance and game design principles that I can discern from 3E and PF to interpret "a feat you do not possess" as the arbitrary (and very stealthy) restriction that a literalist reading might suggest. I always prioritize RAI over RAW, as the English language and word count limits can result in unintended consequences. (I also consider RAI to be an entirely legitimate POV for a rules forum.) So were I the GM, I would rule that feats that can be taken multiple times in different forms count as separate feats for the purposes of Barroom Brawler. Subject to other restrictions such as once per five levels (weapon master bonus feats excluded).
Lorewalker wrote: Here's a source from Advanced Weapon Training...
"Special: This feat can be taken more than once, but at most once per 5 fighter levels."
Nothing about Barroom Brawler circumvents this rule.
I literally had just said that..
claudekennilol wrote: Lorewalker wrote: Here's a source from Advanced Weapon Training...
"Special: This feat can be taken more than once, but at most once per 5 fighter levels."
Nothing about Barroom Brawler circumvents this rule.
I literally had just said that.. You didn't literally just say that. I literally said that. You said something like it, but you did not include exact text.
@OP Overthinking the possible meanings of the rules can cause more trouble than it solves. There should be no issue with what you want except the one I mentioned.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Are Advanced Weapon Training feats considered separate feats?*
As for the question:
If it's not for PFS, don't worry, it's too small of a detail to sweat it.
If it's for PFS, don't worry, it's too small of a detail to sweat it.
But don't trust me, I'm a guy who believe that Adamantine Golems are made of Adamantine.
Aldizog wrote: Barroom Brawler was never intended to be read "If you have Weapon Focus (Longsword) you cannot use this feat to gain Weapon Focus (Battleaxe)". Maybe not intended, but I have to agree with Cavall, "This feat can be taken more than once" definitely means it's one feat taken multiple times.
If it were multiple seperate feats, the "once per five levels" limitation wouldn't work, either.
Derklord wrote: Maybe not intended, but I have to agree with Cavall, "This feat can be taken more than once" definitely means it's one feat taken multiple times.
If it were multiple seperate feats, the "once per five levels" limitation wouldn't work, either.
I think what you have is the most literal interpretation. I don't think it's the correct interpretation to use. The rulebooks are not written in programming language. GMs are not compilers.
Reading through the ACG, this wording is present not just for the Barroom Brawler feat, but for the Brawler "Martial Flexibility" class ability, as well as the Martial Master fighter and the Warsighted Oracle (the Eldritch Scrapper references the Brawler ability). So it applies to all forms of this ability -- the Brawler can't pick up WF if he already has another WF? The distinction is subtle, and likely missed the editors' eyes. Of course you want to gain the benefits of a feat you don't possess! Why would somebody want to gain the benefits of a feat they already possess? Well, a couple of weird corner cases. Because it could so easily miss readers' eyes, I think it would have been called out clearly if it was an intended restriction. And that opinion is based on the context of "How Paizo tries to do things."
Paizo tries to be explicit with limitations and exceptions, not sneaking them in such that you have to parse closely to find them. I don't think the restriction was intended, and I think the correct reading of the rules is to go with the intent, not the literal wording.
Do what makes you and your players the most happy. I only take a stand here because I think obsessive literalism is a real turnoff to new players, and I think the hobby needs new players.
Aldizog wrote: I think what you have is the most literal interpretation. I don't think it's the correct interpretation to use. The rulebooks are not written in programming language. It's the rules as written. I did not make any recommendation on how GMs should resolve the issue.
Aldizog wrote: I don't think the restriction was intended, and I think the correct reading of the rules is to go with the intent, not the literal wording.
Do what makes you and your players the most happy. I only take a stand here because I think obsessive literalism is a real turnoff to new players, and I think the hobby needs new players.
I do not disagree. I do, however, think it should be an informed decision with the knowledge that it differentiates from the RAW. At the very least, this prevents problems when playing with new/different people.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
