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


Rules Questions

51 to 69 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.

And yet, here we are.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
James Risner wrote:
You may not take the same feat twice.

I've proven on this thread that you can.

You have proven nothing.

I'm not certain I've ever seen a post from you that proved anything.

I consider most of your proof posts disruptive to discussing and make a chilling effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i stand with james.

you have still proven nothing scott, the only thing you have use is a line that say what happens if by some lucky chance you get the feat twice.

that's why the line special you can take the feat more than once exist, or else it won't exist if you were able to take the feat more than once already, and there also ultimate combat that say the line special say what the normal rule say and are exception to the rule.

you even denies what an EX-dev said that is in line with what we have said and not in line with you, i think the case is close on this one and i think it will be futile to continue with this


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

While I should have included that link in my post, I was referring to Talonhawke's quote for the link to that. Which I went and found: Sean's Post.

As to answer whether SKR is able to answer the rules. He was the Paizo Designer Team of back then. In a sense, he used to be the person to post the rule answers and FAQs.


John Murdock wrote:
you even denies what an EX-dev said that is in line with what we have said and not in line with you, i think the case is close on this one and i think it will be futile to continue with this

I most certainly did not deny that SR agrees with you more than he agrees with me. I said that the post is poor evidence. I already explained why. This is a rules forum, not an opinion-about-what-ex-developers-philosophically-think-the-rules-should-hav e-said forum. I'm talking about what the rules really say, here. Can you show us an Official Rules Post? Can you show us an FAQ?

John Murdock wrote:
you have still proven nothing scott, the only thing you have use is a line that say what happens if by some lucky chance you get the feat twice.

Yeah, but you get Feats by choosing them. Even when that Feat is embedded as a Bonus Feat as a level in some other class, you choose to take it. Really, I've given all the evidence I should need to.

blahpers wrote:
And yet, here we are.

Clearly, I'm being asked for more evidence.

Core Rulebook, Feats wrote:
By selecting feats, you can customize and adapt your character to be uniquely yours.

There you go: you select Feats. That's what the rules say.

Core Rulebook, Feats, Feat Descriptions, Prerequisites wrote:
Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or anything else required in order to take the feat.

The Prerequisites: section of the Feat is the place that tells you whether you are prohibited from taking the Feat. If you meet the prerequisites, you can take the Feat.

Does Racial Heritage have the prerequisite that you can't have already taken the Feat?

Racial Heritage wrote:
Prerequisite: Human.

Nope.

Core Rulebook, Feats, Feat Descriptions, Benefit wrote:
If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

And here it is, more in context. The rules describe what happens when you do select the Feat more than once. That proves that you can.

John Murdock wrote:
that's why the line special you can take the feat more than once exist, or else it won't exist if you were able to take the feat more than once already, or else it won't exist if you were able to take the feat more than once already,

The Special Section of a Feat Description only refers to that Feat it is describing. It is not the place where the general rules get updated and changed.

Core Rulebook, Feat Descriptions, Special wrote:
Additional unusual facts about the feat.

And frankly, what you are saying feels like conjecture more than logic. I will now offer counter conjecture.

My Counter-Conjecture why there is a Special Section in Weapon Focus wrote:

The general rules say you can select any feat you want if you meet the Prerequisites. They also say that Benefits from Feats taken more than once do not stack. But look at the Benefit from Weapon Focus. It is an untyped bonus: not a Competence Bonus, not a Circumstance Bonus, none of that. Bonuses of the same type do not stack and untyped bonuses do stack with each other.

So here we have a contradiction in the rules: untyped bonuses stack and a Feat that grants an untyped bonus, not a Feat Bonus. And the general rules about Feats say that if you take the same Feat twice, the bonuses do not stack "unless otherwise indicated in the feat description," and by making that +1 an untyped bonus, that could be construed as "otherwise indicated." Solution? Add a Special section to the feat explaining what happens when you do take this Feat twice. Not because you normally could never do such a thing, but because there is something special that needs to be explained about when you do.

Normally, there is no need to explain what happens when you take a Feat twice: the benefits don't stack. The reason you don't take Racial Heritage Half Orc twice is not because it's illegal, but because there is no benefit in doing so. So you don't. But taking Racial Heritage Half Orc to get Scent and then Racial Heritage Dwarf to get Tremorsense? I've shown there is nothing illegal about that. I have shown that where you think it shows there is something illegal about that, there isn't really.

I have faithfully reported to you readers that the rules clearly say that you choose feats you want as long as you meet the Prerequisites. And further, I have shown you that the rules provide for what happens when you do take the same Feat multiple times. That's proof, ladies and gentlemen!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry should have posted a link with the quote.

Scott in 2013 SKR was a developer and he was posting in an official fashion which prior to the PDT account they did quite often. In fact I do believe several of the old FAQs still cite the individual DEV team members who posted the ruling. Your not gonna get more official than that short of garnering enough FAQ hits to waste a FAQ on the question. Since I am sure even if Jason or Mark popped their head in and said "No you cannot take a feat more than once unless it has a special line allowing it." you would still claim its unofficial since it wasn't the PDT Account.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Rulebook Subscriber

I think the only things that has been proven are that
a) Feats that can be taken multiple times with effect, are listed as such,
b) The description of what the special text will call out makes mention of the fact that it will list the ability to take a feat multiple times, and
c) that it is mentioned because it *can* happen that a player *may* end up with a feat multiple times that they typically don't stack.

I am fairly certain that c) was added not to imply that a PC might choose any feat multiple times, but that as a side effect of class, bloodlines, archetypes, etc. choices, he/she can get a feat multiple times, i.e brawler/monk and unarmed strike. It seems odd, and a waste of text space to have feats call out that they can be taken multiple times, unless it was an exception not the rule.

Of course, you can say that it'd just duplicate text, or that it just is stating that it stacks, but I don't think that is the case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Agodeshalf wrote:

I think the only things that has been proven are that

a) Feats that can be taken multiple times with effect, are listed as such,
b) The description of what the special text will call out makes mention of the fact that it will list the ability to take a feat multiple times, and
c) that it is mentioned because it *can* happen that a player *may* end up with a feat multiple times that they typically don't stack.

I am fairly certain that c) was added not to imply that a PC might choose any feat multiple times, but that as a side effect of class, bloodlines, archetypes, etc. choices, he/she can get a feat multiple times, i.e brawler/monk and unarmed strike. It seems odd, and a waste of text space to have feats call out that they can be taken multiple times, unless it was an exception not the rule.

Of course, you can say that it'd just duplicate text, or that it just is stating that it stacks, but I don't think that is the case.

I would say the real question is if you can choose a feat more than once. But what happens if you are granted a single taking feat that gives a choice after already taking it (if that is even a possibility.)


scott again you still denies what a EX-dev said, he said if the feat do not say you can take a feat more than once you can't, end of story.

but i think its useless to argue with you, you have chosen everything to confirm what you have said, you are stuck with your confirmation bias. you are like a horse that have been put some blind on it to not see the fire to continue on its way.

so yeah you can't take a feat more than once, an EX-dev as said it and i am sure the PDT are also of this ''opinion'' too.

so if you continue with this you will deserved the same answer that a dev will give you if you ask them a stupid question that have a response to it that is self explanatory (Do I have to take Power Attack before I take Cleave)

no response required


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For reference everyone, Scott is a super literal "run-it-by-RAW" type.

It's not worth arguing with him. If I didn't think he was arguing in good faith (he genuinely believes his point of view is right), I would say he's a troll.


David knott 242 wrote:
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."

You all seem to have missed this example of a feat that can be taken multiple times and has no special listing allowing it.(at least in the prd write up).

So scott has rules quotes and a specific feat example, and while develoler quotes can help they are not RAW.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

*rolls eyes so hard they pop out of head*


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
*rolls eyes so hard they pop out of head*

Just breathe. I feel your pain. No amount of logic or evidence will convince them at this point. except for the evidence they are demanding, which doesn't exist. It doesn't matter how many examples of "special" tag lines to the feats explaining how to take a feat twice there are, they are fixated on another bit of text.

Rant:
I mean, how hard is it to understand that when you come across a plethora of feats that have a line saying:

You can take this feat more than once. This is how it works when you do ....

How hard is it to understand that, "Oh, wait. This is a special line of text that tells me something that is not normal in the rules! Does that mean other feats that lack this specific terminology must function differently and I must only take them once! Oh, and there is another bit of text that says feats taken twice do not stack?

Logic:
0) I believe you can take feats twice.
1) Special rules allow feats to be taken more than once. These feat mention something about it in the text of the feat, either under a 'special tag' or in the text body.
2) Feats must function differently that I understand or they wouldn't need this line of text.
3) There is another bit of rules text that confirms taking the same feat doesn't stack.
4) Specific rules trump general rules.
5) I must be mistaken. I must correct my thinking.

Success! You've just used Occam's Razor to solve the problem.

I am really done now. I just can't even ...


Talonhawke wrote:

Sorry should have posted a link with the quote.

Scott in 2013 SKR was a developer and he was posting in an official fashion which prior to the PDT account they did quite often. In fact I do believe several of the old FAQs still cite the individual DEV team members who posted the ruling. Your not gonna get more official than that short of garnering enough FAQ hits to waste a FAQ on the question. Since I am sure even if Jason or Mark popped their head in and said "No you cannot take a feat more than once unless it has a special line allowing it." you would still claim its unofficial since it wasn't the PDT Account.

I have already gotten more official than that. I have shown what the rules say. More official than-what-the-rules-say is an Official Rules Post, and erratum, or an FAQ.

John Murdock wrote:
scott again you still denies what a EX-dev said,

I have not denied what an ex-developer said. I acknowledge what he said, and I am saying what I was saying before: his offered post is poor evidence.

Sean Reynolds made a product. He is not the product. The game designers are supposed to follow the rules the same as everyone else. Actually, the game designers are supposed to follow the rules more than everyone else: if they don't respect their own rules, no one should! The game designers can change the rules, of course, that’s where errata, FAQs, and Official Rules Posts come in.

Not only was Sean Reynolds not making an official rules post, he wasn't even really talking about taking feats more than once. He was only using that as an example as to why he shouldn't have to clarify poorly-written rules. If our question were in fact his thesis and not an example to support some other thesis entirely, he might have researched the matter better. One would hope so, since a simple look at the Core Rulebook Feat Section demonstrates that his example is a false example. As it is, the fact that he is using a poor example doesn’t really diminish his argument.

Claxon wrote:
For reference everyone, Scott is a super literal "run-it-by-RAW" type.... If I didn't think he was arguing in good faith (he genuinely believes his point of view is right), I would say he's a troll.

It is fair to say that my arguments here (and on most threads on these forums) are restricted to a literalist interpretation that considers the Rules as Written, errata, FAQs, and Official Rules Posts to trump all other evidence, even the voiced opinions of the developers themselves. And while I assert that this way of seeing Pathfinder is just swell, when criticizing my views, it is fair to point out that I am viewing things through that lens.

I can understand why some people wouldn’t feel as comfortable as I do in dismissing the unofficial opinions of game designers when I see that they are contradicting the rules, but you guys are going extreme in the other direction.

I mean, c'mon guys! This is the unofficial opinion of someone who is no longer a game designer who was talking about something else at the time!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just not someone who plays the game by "RAW" because that gets really bad results.

The game doesn't work by RAW in a lot of places and you need to make house rules to make certain things work (like mounted combat).

Or the fact that being dead doesn't technically stop you from taking actions.

RAW is stupid.


Claxon wrote:

For reference everyone, Scott is a super literal "run-it-by-RAW" type.

It's not worth arguing with him. If I didn't think he was arguing in good faith (he genuinely believes his point of view is right), I would say he's a troll.

I am, Claxon (On the forums: I wouldn't argue like this at a real-life gaming table), but if someone does have more RAW, errata, Official Rules Posts, or FAQs to bring to bear on the subject, I would really like them to bring it forward so I can examine it.

John Murdock wrote:
you are stuck with your confirmation bias.

Almost all of us are blinded from the truth by our own confirmation biases from time to time, and I try to be mindful of that in my own personal life. I am earnestly trying to faithfully research the matter, and cross examine counter arguments and supporting evidence honestly and severely.

John Murdock wrote:
i am sure the PDT are also of this ''opinion'' too.

I would like them to step forward and make an official rules post. If their ruling agrees with my position, I win. If their ruling agrees with your opinion, I win. I don't care what the rules are. I am giving my best counsel in good faith based on what the rules are. If they change the rules, I will change my counsel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except he was talking about it in the post and explaining the reasons why he marked that post as No Response Necessary. The rules as written and as intended are exactly what he said in the post. Unless it says in the feat, you cannot take it a second time. You can, through classes, gain a feat a second time, which is clarified don't stack. But you've not shown us a single line saying "You can take a feat more than once" as a general rule. You have shown us "If you somehow have a feat twice...," but that never specifies the ability to take it twice.

You are not playing by RAW. You are playing by House Rules. As this is a Rules Forum, it is the job of the posters to answer what the rules are. If you want to ignore the rules, you can, but that is what you are doing, ignoring the rules.

Edit: Link to the thread he was talking about


Claxon wrote:

I'm just not someone who plays the game by "RAW" because that gets really bad results.

The game doesn't work by RAW in a lot of places and you need to make house rules to make certain things work (like mounted combat).

Or the fact that being dead doesn't technically stop you from taking actions.

RAW is stupid.

If I were playing in your house, I would happily abide by each and every one of your house rules to the best of my ability. I would vet my character build with you in advance, walk you through it, and if you house-ruled against it, I would change my character and vet it with you again and again until we found one we could both live with.

At its best, a tabletop roleplaying game is a collaborative effort between the players and the GM creating a story.

My emphasis on RAW is limited to my counsel on these forums and Pathfinder Society play.

Community & Digital Content Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Locking. Folks, knock it off with the back and forth. Unless you're trying to assist the original poster, keep it out of the thread.

51 to 69 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / can you take "racial heritage(human)" twice? All Messageboards