can you take "racial heritage(human)" twice?

[ghostunderasheet]

And is there a feat or trait that allows elves/half elves to take human feats?

[John Murdock]

you can only take a feat once unless stated otherwise.

racial heritage is a human feat so an elf can't take it and an half-elf yes, and even if an elf could take it you cannot choose human since they say

''Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. ''

so you need to choose a humanoid race other than human.

there is no feat or trait as i know that allow non-human or non-half human to count as a member of another race, only the human feat racial heritage allow it

[ghostunderasheet]

Don'they normally just tell you if you can or can not take a feat?

[GM Rednal]

You can take any feat that you meet the prerequisites for and that the GM is allowing in the game.

Normally, you can only take a given feat once. Any feat you can take multiple times will say so - usually in a "Special" section with the text "You can take this feat multiple times" and any other rules specific to that feat (like its effects not stacking, but able to be applied to another choice, as in Weapon Focus).

[Murdock Mudeater]

ghostunderasheet wrote:

Don'they normally just tell you if you can or can not take a feat?

Just too much content to list what you can't do. So, only one feat of each type per person, unless it says otherwise. If you had two characters, they could each take the feat once.

I understand the Half Elf and Half Orc to each count as both races for the purposes of feats. So, for example, a Half Elf as access, normally, to both human and elf feats (and class archetypes).

As an aside, it's pretty huge waste of feats to take Racial Heritage more than once. I'm sure you could find an obscure build where it was awesome, but for most characters, spending multiple feats just to gain a subtype is a waste.

Regarding other options to gain another subtype, there is a Sorcerer Bloodline, who's Arcana makes you count as "Orc" in addition to your other types. So you could do Humanoid (Human, Orc, Elf, and one other with racial heritage).

Other than that, there are many classes which a grant a subtype at 20th level. Not what you are looking for, but it's there, if you don't mind waiting to gain it.

[Lady-J]

half elves are already human for feats and traits but an elf cannot take racial heritage

[Scott Wilhelm]

John Murdock wrote:

you can only take a feat once unless stated otherwise.

I think that just isn't true. The Core Rulebook does generally state otherwise:

Core Rulebook, Feats, Feat Descriptions, Benefits wrote:

If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

The rules specifically describe what happens when you DO take the same Feat twice. That means that it is not dissallowed.

Do you have knowledge of some rule that says that you can't take the same feat more than once? The closest thing that I've seen to such a rule is that some feats have a Special Section that says "This Feat can be taken multiple times..." and then extrapolate that that means all other Feats cannot be taken multiple times. But the one does not necesarily logically imply the other, and as I have shown, that extrapolation is contradicted by the Core Rulebook.

If it were true that you can't take the same Feat twice, then what would be rigidly logically implicit that it would be illegal to take levels in a class that grants a particular Bonus Feat if you have already taken that Feat. It would be illegal to multiclass as a Monk if you already have a level in Brawler or Fighter with the Unarmed Archetype since all 3 have Improved Unamred Strike as a Bonus Feat. If you took Improved Unarmed Strike as a Ninja, you would not then be allowed to take a level in Snakebite Striker Brawler. If you took Throw Anything as a Fighter, you would not be allowed to take a level in Alchemist. It just isn't the case that you can't multiclass like that.

I have not seen anything in the rules that says a Human Character cannot take Racial Heritage Half Orc and then take Racial Heritage Dwarf.

But I always might have missed something, or there might be a new rule. So show us.

[Lady-J]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

John Murdock wrote:

you can only take a feat once unless stated otherwise.

I think that just isn't true. The Core Rulebook does generally state otherwise:

Core Rulebook, Feats, Feat Descriptions, Benefits wrote:

If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

The rules specifically describe what happens when you DO take the same Feat twice. That means that it is not dissallowed.

Do you have knowledge of some rule that says that you can't take the same feat more than once? The closest thing that I've seen to such a rule is that some feats have a Special Section that says "This Feat can be taken multiple times..." and then extrapolate that that means all other Feats cannot be taken multiple times. But the one does not necesarily logically imply the other, and as I have shown, that extrapolation is contradicted by the Core Rulebook.

If it were true that you can't take the same Feat twice, then what would be rigidly logically implicit that it would be illegal to take levels in a class that grants a particular Bonus Feat if you have already taken that Feat. It would be illegal to multiclass as a Monk if you already have a level in Brawler or Fighter with the Unarmed Archetype since all 3 have Improved Unamred Strike as a Bonus Feat. If you took Improved Unarmed Strike as a Ninja, you would not then be allowed to take a level in Snakebite Striker Brawler. If you took Throw Anything as a Fighter, you would not be allowed to take a level in Alchemist. It just isn't the case that you can't multiclass like that.

I have not seen anything in the rules that says a Human Character cannot take Racial Heritage Half Orc and then take Racial Heritage Dwarf.

But I always might have missed something, or there might be a new rule. So show us.

this^ i once had a character that had improved unarmed strike like 4 times

[DeathlessOne]

You usually end up with the same feat multiple times when you Multiclass and are given the feat (or equivalent) multiple times. That is how you end up with improved unarmed strike more than once.

You can only take a feat ONCE unless the feat says otherwise and tells you what taking it again does.

[Renata Maclean]

He has a point, it doesn't seem to state anywhere in the Core Rulebook that feats can't be taken multiple times, just that they don't stack.
Although, in this instance I would probably require some sort of explanation as to how this character has ancestry of so many different races

[Gisher]

DeathlessOne wrote:

You can only take a feat ONCE unless the feat says otherwise and tells you what taking it again does.

Citation?

[John Murdock]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

John Murdock wrote:

you can only take a feat once unless stated otherwise.

I think that just isn't true. The Core Rulebook does generally state otherwise:

Core Rulebook, Feats, Feat Descriptions, Benefits wrote:

If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

The rules specifically describe what happens when you DO take the same Feat twice. That means that it is not dissallowed.

Do you have knowledge of some rule that says that you can't take the same feat more than once? The closest thing that I've seen to such a rule is that some feats have a Special Section that says "This Feat can be taken multiple times..." and then extrapolate that that means all other Feats cannot be taken multiple times. But the one does not necesarily logically imply the other, and as I have shown, that extrapolation is contradicted by the Core Rulebook.

If it were true that you can't take the same Feat twice, then what would be rigidly logically implicit that it would be illegal to take levels in a class that grants a particular Bonus Feat if you have already taken that Feat. It would be illegal to multiclass as a Monk if you already have a level in Brawler or Fighter with the Unarmed Archetype since all 3 have Improved Unamred Strike as a Bonus Feat. If you took Improved Unarmed Strike as a Ninja, you would not then be allowed to take a level in Snakebite Striker Brawler. If you took Throw Anything as a Fighter, you would not be allowed to take a level in Alchemist. It just isn't the case that you can't multiclass like that.

I have not seen anything in the rules that says a Human Character cannot take Racial Heritage Half Orc and then take Racial Heritage Dwarf.

But I always might have missed something, or there might be a new rule. So show us.

first saying that now you can't multiclassing into another class because you can't take a feat more than once is ridiculous, and the source you cite do not say you can take it more than once it just say when you have the feat multiple times, like in the case of improved unarmed strike for brawler/monk

second if you were able to take a feat multiple time then the quote from a lot of feat that say

''Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new X''
(where x can be a weapon, revelation, another alignment to use channel energy, etc.)

it would be redundant and that's why that line exist, some feat can be taken multiple time and do not stack when taken other yes like evolved familiar feat who say this

''Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack, granting a new 1-point evolution to your familiar each time you gain this feat.''

so yes a feat can't be taken more than once unless stated otherwise

[Renata Maclean]

"If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description."

This line would be redundant if you could *not* take feats multiple times by default

Pathfinder rules often contain some redundancy, so this can't be used for either argument.

[John Murdock]

Renata Maclean wrote:

"If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description."

This line would be redundant if you could *not* take feats multiple times by default

Pathfinder rules often contain some redundancy, so this can't be used for either argument.

yes it can, because the books as some redundancy and so many contradiction they make FAQ to answer if the special description is supposed to be really there or just to be redundant, or to say which one is true when there is contradiction and the like. a lot of the time when there are some redundancy, i have seen that the close special is often the true meaning of something.

and like i have said the close in the CRB just say what happen when you have a feat multiple times, because some class give bonus feat as proficiency and when multiclassing you get those bonus feat given by their proficiency so they make the close that it do not stack, never it is stated you can take a feat more than once, and its always stated by a special close that some feat can be taken multiple time while other do not have those special close

[DeathlessOne]

Renata Maclean wrote:

"If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description."

This line would be redundant if you could *not* take feats multiple times by default

Pathfinder rules often contain some redundancy, so this can't be used for either argument.

It is not redundant. It is not saying "if the character has taken the same feat more than once....". It is making a statement that if the character has the feat more than once, it doesn't mention HOW they got the feat.

Gisher wrote:

Citation?

Do I really need one? The mere existence of "Special: You can take X feat more than once. If you do, X happens" speaks volumes.

I think we can all agree that unless a feat has that particular special clause, if you take it again, it will do nothing for you because we have rules that say the feat does not stack. You can't pick a new race to emulate with Racial Heritage unless it says you can.

[Murdock Mudeater]

ghostunderasheet wrote:

And is there a feat or trait that allows elves/half elves to take human feats?

I should have lead with this:

Before we get into a long debate about taking multiple Racial Heritages, what are you trying to do with the character where you'd need multiple races?

You can only take so many total feats on a given character, so I'm curious what the plan is with multiple feats "spent" on counting as another humanoid race.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Renata Maclean wrote:

He has a point, it doesn't seem to state anywhere in the Core Rulebook that feats can't be taken multiple times, just that they don't stack.

Well, thank you. I really try to give my best counsel in good faith according to what the rules literally say.

John Murdock wrote:

first saying that now you can't multiclassing into another class because you can't take a feat more than once is ridiculous,

Yes, that is the point I was making with that example. To say, as you are saying, that you can't take a Feat more than once leads to ridiculous conclusions, and therefore, it isn't true. I am making a negative proof.

John Murdock wrote:

and the source you cite do not say you can take it more than once it just say when you have the feat multiple times, like in the case of improved unarmed strike for brawler/monk

The source I cited makes it clear that taking a Feat multiple times is a thing that can happen in Pathfinder. Where is your source that says you can't take a Feat more than once?

DeathlessOne wrote:

[citation?] Do I really need one?

Yes, you do, if you are trying to prove a point here. I have proven my point by citing the rules.

DeathlessOne wrote:

The mere existence of "Special: You can take X feat more than once. If you do, X happens" speaks volumes.

No, it doesn't. All it does is say what

John Murdock wrote:

it would be redundant and that's why that line exist,

So it's redundant. What of it? For some Feats, the writers found it necessary to say that when you take the Feat multiple times, the bonuses do or don't stack and it may be applied to the same thing or only a different thing each time. Your observation that the text gets redundant is not an unreasonable criticism of the writing style, but Special Text embedded within a Feat Description is hardly a rewrite of the general rules. Not even in the case of Potion Glutton where it originally said,

Potion Glutton, pre-errata wrote:

Normal: Drinking a potion is a Move Action.

did most people seem take this text as an update of the general rules of Potion use. There is a whole specific-trumps-general thing in Paizo and all of d20 (as well as Fluxx, Magic, the Gathering, and Munchkin). The specific text of a Feat supersedes the general rule, but only within the small domain of that Feat description. It is not supposed to change the global nature of the rules.

Anyway, the fact that some feats have some text that may be redundant does not make the point that you can't take feats more than once, but the fact that the general rules talk about what happens when you take a feat more than once does make the point that taking a feat more than once is a thing that can happen in Pathfinder.

I had already considered and cross-examined your evidence before you brought it here. Do you have any further evidence?

John Murdock wrote:

and like i have said the close in the CRB just say what happen when you have a feat multiple times, because some class give bonus feat as proficiency and when multiclassing you get those bonus feat given by their proficiency so they make the close that it do not stack, never it is stated you can take a feat more than once

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you cannot take a Feat more than once, unless that Feat is a Bonus Feat granted by taking a level in some class, and the restriction is only on discretionary Feat Slots (and presumably Rogue Talents, Ninja Tricks, etc. also). If that is your claim, you are describing a more elaborate set of rules than I thought you were, and I need equally elaborate evidence before I believe that claim.

DeathlessOne wrote:

It is not redundant. It is not saying "if the character has taken the same feat more than once....". It is making a statement that if the character has the feat more than once, it doesn't mention HOW they got the feat.

Interesting, but I can't think of a way you can ever get a Feat except by taking the Feat. Even if you get Improved Unarmed Strike by taking a level in Monk, you are still taking Improved Unarmed Strike. You can choose to take your next level in just about any class you want to. When the Feat comes with it, you are taking it all. There's no rule that allows you to take a level in Monk, but not take Improved Unarmed Strike. There is a similar phenomenon in the rules already: Archetypes. You can't take any 2 archetypes that change the same class feature. If you were allowed to take some class features and leave others, you could choose, for instance to be a Fighter Eldritch Guardian/Phalanx Soldier and Choose to Take the Will Save Bonus or forget about it and instead take Bravery, or forget about both and take the CMD bonus. The rules say when you take an archetype, you have to take all of it. and that means you can't take both Eldritch Guardian and Phalanx Soldier. I supposes if there were a Monk Archetype that let you substitute Improved Unarmed Strike for something else, you could take that, but that would truly be the exception that proves the rule.

[DeathlessOne]

This is ridiculous. You choose a class and are given the class features. You don't take class features unless you are given a choice within that class feature, even if that class feature happens to be a bonus feat.

I have nothing more to add. Keep debating it as you will.

[David knott 242]

Gisher wrote:

DeathlessOne wrote:

You can only take a feat ONCE unless the feat says otherwise and tells you what taking it again does.

Citation?

See Ultimate Combat, Feats section, "Special" definition:

"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."

They really should have put that language in the core rulebook as well.

[Murdock Mudeater]

David knott 242 wrote:

Gisher wrote:

DeathlessOne wrote:

You can only take a feat ONCE unless the feat says otherwise and tells you what taking it again does.

Citation?

See Ultimate Combat, Feats section, "Special" definition:

"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."

They really should have put that language in the core rulebook as well.

Except that none of the feats in the CRB really need it. Any of the feats that would offer benefit for duplication, actually explain (in the Special line) how duplication affects them. It wasn't until later books where such an explaination would become needed.

[PodTrooper]

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

Gisher wrote:

DeathlessOne wrote:

You can only take a feat ONCE unless the feat says otherwise and tells you what taking it again does.

Citation?

See Ultimate Combat, Feats section, "Special" definition:

"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."

They really should have put that language in the core rulebook as well.

Except that none of the feats in the CRB really need it. Any of the feats that would offer benefit for duplication, actually explain (in the Special line) how duplication affects them. It wasn't until later books where such an explanation would become needed.

No "except".

Sorry Murdock. You kept up the "I'm right and you're wrong" argument against obvious ROI by insisting for "citation - citation - citation....."

Well, Deathless just gave it to you. Done and done.
It was entertaining to watch your for a while, but you are going to have to accept defeat on this one. To do otherwise will only cast you as the petulant troll.

[blahpers]

...I have no idea what's going on here. What are folks going apoplectic about here? You can't pick Racial Heritage (human) once, much less twice, so that's pretty much a done deal.

[Murdock Mudeater]

I'm lost too. Not sure what pod trooper is responding to.

[James Risner]

You may not take the same feat twice.

You may take a feat at first level, and then later get granted the feat for free by a class feature. Therefore you have taken the feat twice.

The fact the rules cover this scenario isn't an indication you can willfully take a feat twice.

[ghostunderasheet]

First part was asking if you can take racial heritage twice. The second part was meant to ask if either elves or half elves had anything that was the same in thier feats or racial traits. Sorry for the confusion.

[Murdock Mudeater]

@ Pod Trooper: I think you might be confusing me with John Murdock. Both of us have "Murdock" in our names and have posted in this thread, but we are different people.

For clarity to Pod Trooper:

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

They really should have put that language in the core rulebook as well.

Except that none of the feats in the CRB really need it. Any of the feats that would offer benefit for duplication, actually explain (in the Special line) how duplication affects them. It wasn't until later books where such an explanation would become needed.

I was just responding to this bit.

And I stand by the statement, but I don't think this deserves "troll" accusations. And I don't think I've asked for citation even once, in this thread. Regarding right or wrong, this is what I think is true, when I posted it. Seems to be true still. If I find it to be false, later, and I notice, I'll update it. I certainly don't need to be always right, and certainly don't fear being wrong.

[John Murdock]

i'm not even sure if he was responding to me neither, i am a little confuse for who he really meant it, neither me or you Murdock ask for citation as far as i know, so this is kind of confusing

[Murdock Mudeater]

John Murdock wrote:

i'm not even sure if he was responding to me neither, i am a little confuse for who he really meant it, neither me or you Murdock ask for citation as far as i know, so this is kind of confusing

Didn't mean to shift blame to you, but in hindsight, I totally did that. Sorry.

I just meant that he might be mixing our posts as if we were one person, which I think would make them a bit overwhelming, since it would seem like we were posting rather rapidly.

[John Murdock]

no problem i didn't take it as a way to shift the blame on me, your apology is accepted. yeah he might confuse us since we have the same name and indeed reply quite rapidly to each others

[Vrischika111]

yeah, that's pretty confusing John Mudeater ^^

[Scott Wilhelm]

James Risner wrote:

You may not take the same feat twice.

I've proven on this thread that you can.

James Risner wrote:

You may take a feat at first level, and then later get granted the feat for free by a class feature. Therefore you have taken the feat twice.

That is evidence that you can.

James Risner wrote:

The fact the rules cover this scenario isn't an indication you can willfully take a feat twice.

Yes, it does. You "willfully" take your level and therefore the Feats that go with it, in whatever Class you take your level in. When your level 1 Unarmed Fighter who has Improved Unarmed Strike, then takes a level in Monk he then takes Improved Unarmed Strike again. That level is indeed takes that level willfully.

To prove this point, you need more evidence.

[blahpers]

That's irrelevant to this thread. If you want a general "can you take a feat twice" thread, by all means start one.

[Claxon]

Regardless of whether or not there are literal rules, being pedantic jerks gets us nowhere.

We all know that in effect you can't take a feat twice, at least in the sense that you will receive no benefit from doing so and it would be a waste of a feat.

I agree with James' summation in terms of how the game is effectively run, even if the rules don't literally say you can't take the same feat twice. That feats exist which specify you may take them twice are the exceptions that prove the rule.

James Risner wrote:

You may not take the same feat twice.

You may take a feat at first level, and then later get granted the feat for free by a class feature. Therefore you have taken the feat twice.

The fact the rules cover this scenario isn't an indication you can willfully take a feat twice.

[John Murdock]

Vrischika111 wrote:

yeah, that's pretty confusing John Mudeater ^^

i prefer Murdock Murdock, the combination of the best name of both of us ;)

[blahpers]

"For all your rules lawyer needs, call Murdock & Murdock!"

[Scott Wilhelm]

blahpers wrote:

That's irrelevant to this thread. If you want a general "can you take a feat twice" thread, by all means start one.

It isn't irrelevant to this thread. Racial Heritage is a Feat. The OP is asking if it can be taken twice. If it could be proven that no Feat at all can be taken twice absent a "Special:" exception, such as with Weapon Focus, then the OP's question would surely be settled.

Whether or not you can take any Feat at all more than once most certainly is relevant to whether or not you can take the Racial Heritage Feat more than once, and therefore quite relevant to this thread.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Claxon wrote:

We all know that in effect you can't take a feat twice, at least in the sense that you will receive no benefit from doing so and it would be a waste of a feat.

That's only true most of the time. It certainly wouldn't be any benefit to take Racial Heritage: Goblin twice, but taking Racial Heritage Goblin and Racial Heritage: Halfling would certainly offer benefits that are additive without stacking. You wouldn't get 2 +4's to your Stealth for being Double Small or something, but meeting the Goblin Requirement for taking Roll with it and the Halfling requirement for taking Risky Striker?? sure.

Claxon wrote:

That feats exist which specify you may take them twice are the exceptions that prove the rule.

It does not logically follow that just because Weapon Focus calls itself out that it can be taken more than once that no other feat that does not do so can. Feat Descriptions only apply to the Feats they describe.

And again, the Core Rulebook has been quoted to this thread proving that taking Feats more than once is a thing.

You need better evidence than the existence of a "Special" section in some Feats to prove than no Feat can be taken more than once. No one has offered that.

[Scott Wilhelm]

John Murdock wrote:

there is no feat or trait as i know that allow non-human or non-half human to count as a member of another race, only the human feat racial heritage allow it

I am not aware of one, either.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Renata Maclean wrote:

Although, in this instance I would probably require some sort of explanation as to how this character has ancestry of so many different races

That would be a roleplaying challenge for the player.

[Talonhawke]

Well don't have a cut and dry PDT or Rule book quote for you but here is Pre PDT SKR's take on it.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

1. I'm sure many of the "no response required" responses predate when the tech team added the "answer unclear" option. If you feel you haven't gotten a satisfactory answer, start a new thread with a clearer question.

2. "No response required" isn't going away as an option for the rules team. Last week or the week before someone created a thread for "Can I take Extra Channel multiple times, or just once?" I marked it "no response required" because the answer is obvious: you can't, because the feat doesn't say you can, as you can tell by all the other feats in the Core Rulebook that say "Special: You can take this feat multiple times..." So if you don't like that "no response required" is an option for clearing FAQ flags... too bad, it's necessary. We're not going to spend our work time answering questions like "Do I have to take Power Attack before I take Cleave?" Some questions really don't need an official response from the rules team.

[TrinitysEnd]

David knott 242 wrote:

See Ultimate Combat, Feats section, "Special" definition:

"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."

They really should have put that language in the core rulebook as well.

For Scott since he seemed to miss it. I've bolded the relevant parts. Though Talon also brings up another valid point.

Do you have a link per chance? @Talonhawke

[ghostunderasheet]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Claxon wrote:

We all know that in effect you can't take a feat twice, at least in the sense that you will receive no benefit from doing so and it would be a waste of a feat.

That's only true most of the time. It certainly wouldn't be any benefit to take Racial Heritage: Goblin twice, but taking Racial Heritage Goblin and Racial Heritage: Halfling would certainly offer benefits that are additive without stacking. You wouldn't get 2 +4's to your Stealth for being Double Small or something, but meeting the Goblin Requirement for taking Roll with it and the Halfling requirement for taking Risky Striker?? sure.

this is what i was trying to ask about. Thanks scott.

[David knott 242]

TrinitysEnd wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

See Ultimate Combat, Feats section, "Special" definition:

"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."

They really should have put that language in the core rulebook as well.

For Scott since he seemed to miss it. I've bolded the relevant parts. Though Talon also brings up another valid point.

Do you have a link per chance? @Talonhawke

It is in the PRD.

On this page.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Talonhawke wrote:

Well don't have a cut and dry PDT or Rule book quote for you but here is Pre PDT SKR's take on it.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

1. I'm sure many of the "no response required" responses predate when the tech team added the "answer unclear" option. If you feel you haven't gotten a satisfactory answer, start a new thread with a clearer question.

2. "No response required" isn't going away as an option for the rules team. Last week or the week before someone created a thread for "Can I take Extra Channel multiple times, or just once?" I marked it "no response required" because the answer is obvious: you can't, because the feat doesn't say you can, as you can tell by all the other feats in the Core Rulebook that say "Special: You can take this feat multiple times..." So if you don't like that "no response required" is an option for clearing FAQ flags... too bad, it's necessary. We're not going to spend our work time answering questions like "Do I have to take Power Attack before I take Cleave?" Some questions really don't need an official response from the rules team.

iirc, Sean Reynolds was not making an official rules post when he wrote this, and he is no longer a game designer with Paizo. Also, while he is talking about taking Feats more than once, his real point is about something else: the validity of game designers answering "No response required."

So we have the unofficial opinion about someone who is not a game designer who was talking about something else at the time. I could be mistaken here, but I don't think this is very good evidence.

[blahpers]

With respect, it's a lot better evidence than anything you've offered in the thread.

[Scott Wilhelm]

David knott 242 wrote:

TrinitysEnd wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

See Ultimate Combat, Feats section, "Special" definition:

"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."

They really should have put that language in the core rulebook as well.

For Scott since he seemed to miss it. I've bolded the relevant parts. Though Talon also brings up another valid point.

Do you have a link per chance? @Talonhawke

It is in the PRD.

On this page.

I am aware of what the "Special:" section is used for. But Feat Descriptions, including the "Special:" section, only describe those specific feats they describe. I said this already. Just because one feat description specifically calls out that it can be taken more than once, it does not all logically follow that no other feat that doesn't also specifically call that out can't be. I said this already, too. Did you miss it?

So how about that Sean Reynolds quote? Is that an Official Rules Post? Can you find one?

[GM Rednal]

Hmm... well, can you find an example of a feat that can explicitly be taken more than once - as in, it actually says so - but does not say that in a Special section?

[Scott Wilhelm]

blahpers wrote:

With respect, it's a lot better evidence than anything you've offered in the thread.

You think so? I offer evidence of what the rules actually say, quoting the rules books. Is the Sean Reynolds post an official rules post? If it is, then it is what the rules actually say, and you are quite right.

I believe I have comprehensively demonstrated that the rules say you generally can take a Feat more than once, and I believe that it is abundantly clear that my evidence heavily outweighs that supporting my counter arguments.

But if you want more evidence from me, I am willing to further explore the Feat rules with you. I believe that I can bring more evidence.

[Scott Wilhelm]

GM Rednal wrote:

Hmm... well, can you find an example of a feat that can explicitly be taken more than once - as in, it actually says so - but does not say that in a Special section?

I'm not sure. I'm not sure I need to. I have already done better. I have shown you on this thread clear evidence in the general rules about Feats in the Core Rulebook that says you can take Feats more than once. And I believe that further examination of the Feats Rules will only further support my position.

[David knott 242]

GM Rednal wrote:

Hmm... well, can you find an example of a feat that can explicitly be taken more than once - as in, it actually says so - but does not say that in a Special section?

Spell Mastery (from the Core Rulebook) is the only such feat that I know of. Its benefit section reads as follows:

"Benefit: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells that you already know equal to your Intelligence modifier. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook."