I have a drow character who will have an INT 16, WIS 15, and CHA 16 at 5th level. At 3rd, she will take Divine Blessing (Oras)--the granted boon works much like Adaptive Fighting, except I pick any three legal feats whose pre-reqs I meet. One feat can be changed per level. So, 4th level I will swap one out for Psychic Power; at 5th level, one out for Connection Inkling; at 6th level the third will be become Technomantic Dabbler (CI and TD could be switched around).
I am not interested in maximizing damage or such, but I am trying to maximize versatility and adaptability (All hail Oras!). As such, since I can select and use one of these feats for one minute/day, it seems by pure rule reading that I would select the spells (or one psychic power, which includes Limning Light as an option since I'm a drow) each time I selected a given feat for that day. So:
Day 1: pick connection inkling. Get 2 0-level and wisp ally, 'cause I desperately need some help in a gun battle.
Day 2: pick connection inkling. Get 2 0-level and mystic cure, as the poor Mystic got blorted.
Day 3: pick techno dabbler. Get 2 0-level and magic missile, because that incorporeal is annoying and we're low-level AND fusion-poor.
Day 4: pick techno dabbler. Get 2 0-level and supercharge weapon, knowing a guard robot is right behind that door a teammate is about to open.
Day 5: pick connection inkling. Get 2 0-level and identify, now that we're back at the station and I really hope to figure out what the shiny magic medallion I grabbed is without having to ask anyone else...
...and so on.
While individual GMs might not like the "what kind of spellcaster wannabe is she TODAY?", it appears to work with the RAW (and certainly fits in with the portfolio of Oras, his name be praised in ever-changing ways!). Thoughts?
I'd make you lock in your feat choices when you choose to associate that feat with Divine Blessing (Oras) as an option. Your choice is between three feats, not to completely rechoose what those particular three feats grant you.
An understandable ruling. However, words and order are crucial here. I easily see why you'd make a ruling as you suggest, but consider the following for my original approach.
Divine Blessing doesn't grant feats. Instead, the boon gives me the benefit of one of the three feats I put on that shortlist in a given day as long as I meet the pre-reqs of those three feats. I don't get the feat itself. The very first thing that happens in the "Benefits" of Technodabbler, for example, is that I get to "Chose...". There is not a list of several thousand Technodabbler feats, each with a specific combo of 0 and 1st level spells "locked in". There are no pre-reqs that prompt making this choice before choosing, as it were.
This approach wouldn't work for, say, weapon specialization, as (a) the class texts make it clear the character gains the wpn spec feat for each applicable weapon group at 3rd level and (b) the pre-req do require a choice before choosing. If I legally had Divine Blessing of Oras as, say, a 3rd level multi-class human and I wanted to have weapon spec available for a crucial battle in a given day but wanted to hedge my bets for the type of battle, I may feel the need to select (1) wpn spec-longarms, (2) wpn spec-basic melee, and (3) wpn spec-small arms. Each feat is specific both because of the class description texts re: wpn spec, and perhaps more importantly because of the pre-req text.
The Dabbler and Inkler don't work that way. When I gain the use of the benefits of one of those, that's the moment I make those spell choices. My benefit goes away in one minute; it's as if I never could cast those specific spells. The next time I select one of those feat options to gain its benefit, I briefly reconnect with the framework of magic in order to adjust my spellcasting style to match specific conditions (to riff off of the flavor text for Adaptive Fighting).
As I said, I understand your approach. I think there's still a case for the approach I'm laying out. Since I deal with rules lawyers, existing wording is more important than other considerations. So from the rules lawyer perspective, is my case defendable?
The very same question popped up with Adaptive Fighting, especially when it came to Improved Combat Maneuver and other feats that require choices on pick-up.
I don't think it was ever really answered.
So ... Right now, this is a table issue.
As for the intent of the rules, I like the idea of choosing on the fly, but it might be too good - especially since those specific feats are basically once a day things to begin with. So I'll side with Xenocrat : I would ask you to choose the spells beforehand.
Then again, you still need to meet the prerequisites, so maybe I am wrong.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Feat choices should be locked in. Thats how it works for feats you permanently have, feats you only have on loan shouldn't be MORE powerful than other feats.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Feat choices should be locked in. Thats how it works for feats you permanently have, feats you only have on loan shouldn't be MORE powerful than other feats. Also understandable. As for Nyerkh, I apologize if I rehash some stuff here; I've spent my free time of three weeks since my introduction to the game reading rules and these boards and so some things have blurred in my head. I know I've read posts about Adaptive Fighting, but there seems to be almost nothing about Oras, let alone this boon--and while the text is almost identical, the boon is far broader and has more feats that offer benefits/choices. Anyway, I think there are some things to address from this response and some of the ones above.
I also apologize if this seems to fit the TL;DR category...but I either need my ducks VERY well organized and in a row for my game when my GM and I talk, or I need 'em blasted apart very well and convincingly so I can work on a different ideas for my lvl 1-20 progression plans. Thanks to those who've responded so far, and hopefully you read the entire thing...it's not short.
First, there IS a difference between acquired feats and the benefits granted by Divine Blessing (Oras) and Adaptive Fighting. The feats I have taken are permanent, and when selected I gain the benefit of the choices AND perks (and drawbacks, perhaps) they offer 24/7. They are now a permanent part of my character (goofy memory deux ex machinas aside)--locked in, as some say. But neither this particular Divine Blessing nor Adaptive Fighting actually grants the feat. When I choose to use the benefit that one of those three "feats" would normally grant, I don't write the feat on my character sheet for one minute and then erase it... I don't have the real feat. Nothing is locked in; the user simply gets the benefit that feat would normally offer for one minute. I get the benefit, NOT the feat.
And here's a key to those benefits: the crucial part of some benefits of some feats is CHOICE. If the benefit we gain is straightforward (you get +1 to hit with a weapon), that's what you get. If the benefit we gain involves choices as well as effects, that's part of the benefit (whether we think it advantageous or not). That choice is not written in the name of the feat. It is not generally written in the pre-req (I suspect wpn spec is an exception, for reasons given in an above post). I shouldn't say, "I'm taking Skill Focus Acrobatics"--because that FEAT doesn't exist. I take Skill Focus. That feat exists. I can take Skill Focus multiple times. My benefit? I choose a skill each time I take the feat and get a +3 bonus on that type of roll. I may get some other Envoy or Operative benefit someday for having chosen one of those skills as my option and having Skill Focus written in my feat...but again, it's tied to the choice I made when acquiring the benefit granted by a feat.
And when that minute is up? I now have no benefits. My character is once again exactly as they were before; it is as if I never made any choices. My character does not, in any way, shape, or form, track my choices from yesterday, today, or any tomorrow.
Second, there's a sequence. I don't select benefits from a feat when I get to level 3, 5, or so on; I acquire a feat THEN gain benefits. Thus, generally NONE of these choices ever happen until I gain the feat (or gain the use of its benefits). Neither Adaptive Fighting nor this Boon of Oras gives me the three feats on the list; I have never actually acquired those three feats; therefore I have not made the choices found under the benefit of acquiring that feat. That choice ONLY appears once I activate my feat to gain the benefit of one of those three benefits it offers.
Third, as for power, feats via this boon (or Adaptive fighting, for that matter) would not be more powerful. For game play, they're weaker from what I can tell. If I took Technomantic Dabbler as a regular feat, I would have 2 0-level spells at will all day, and can cast the 1st level spell 1/3 caster levels. At, say, 12th level I'd be able to cast that 1st level spell 4 times/day. From what I've seen and read, it's pretty clear that multiple combats in an adventuring day are a norm (at least in the APs). So, with the real feat, I might be to supercharge a weapon for each of the day's combats, and maybe use some of the 0-level as utility things in other parts of the adventure. But is using the benefits of these feats via DB(Oras) more powerful...? No. It's empirically weaker in terms of adventuring. For example:
<UL>
<LI>calculate how much damage I could do casting 0-level Energy Ray for 14,400 rounds in a day with the real permanent feat vs. the 10 rounds in a minute 1/day granted via Divine Blessing. Maybe a silly measure, but it is one. If I was trapped in a mundane cell, I suspect casting alternating fire/cold versions of that on a wall or lock literally all day and night would weaken it for a break out attempt, even if it's not enough to "damage" the object in game terms. Would that work for 10 castings over one minute? I doubt many GMs would consider that enough to offer much help on a breakout roll.</li>
<LI>I could cast supercharge maybe a couple of times, in one combat. Shooting and moving, or full action shooting, seems to be far more the order than round-after-round using a standard action for this. If reinforcements arrive late in a combat, the feat may expire before even 1 battle is done, but more importantly, I have no more access to those spells at any point in the other 23 h 59 m.</li>
<LI>my permanent weapon focus could grant me a +1 to hit 28,800 times in a given day with a full attack; if I used this boon or AF to get weapon focus, I could get up to +1 all of 20 times with full attacks (assuming low levels; not worried about onslaughts or quad attacks).</li>
</ul>
Nope, not more powerful in a quantitative way.
Empirically there is no big advantage re: skill bonuses, combat damage, bonuses to hit, or so on to using these feat benefits this way rather than via permanent feats, except for one lone advantage: adaptability. You might be able to access one low-level utility spell that's useful in a given day that your party spellcasters didn't pick 'cause they'd rather blow stuff up. You're adaptable enough to maybe save a party member from death once in a given day with an unexpected, low-value mystic cure or a stabilize from some feet away. Powerful? No. Useful? Any given day, probably. A potential life saver? Maybe, but perhaps (probably?) no more than Great Fortitude or Lightning Reflexes might be over a given encounter, let alone adventure.
It strikes me that the whole point of the word "Adaptive" or the portfolio of Oras outright supports and defends the idea of choice as I've been defending it. I've already seen how often flavor text is disregarded by some in these boards, but it is valuable text with which to judge the intent of what some of these things are supposed to do. The person with Adaptive fighting (or the boon for Oras, with almost identical wording) is supposed to be very adaptable to changing situations--not "locked in".
Rules lawyering aside, it seems to me the player making the choice to be a bit more adaptable, to perhaps care less for damage per round calculations but more for versatility, should be as strongly encouraged as the dude running spreadsheets down to three decimal points calculating damage per round. Trying to "lock down" the choices implicit in Improved Combat Maneuver, Skill Focus, Tech Dabbler, and so on when using Adaptive Fighting and/or Divine Blessing (Oras) seems to me more a problem for fun play than allowing the choices.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quote: I get the benefit, NOT the feat. This is a distinction without a difference. A feat isn't anything but the benefit it provides.
Quote: And when that minute is up? I now have no benefits. My character is once again exactly as they were before; it is as if I never made any choices. My character does not, in any way, shape, or form, track my choices from yesterday, today, or any tomorrow. This is completely circular. You are arguing that you never have to remember the choices on the basis of the idea that you don't have to remember the choices.
Quote: I don't select benefits from a feat when I get to level 3, 5, or so on; I acquire a feat THEN gain benefits. I have NO idea why you think it matters, but no. They are simultaneous. There is no written order of operations for this happening.
Quote: Third, as for power, feats via this boon (or Adaptive fighting, for that matter) would not be more powerful. This is objectively false. Being able to pick any three feats you want is more powerful than being able to pick three feats and being stuck with the list. Re defining power to deliberately exclude limitations and drawbacks from the equation is a pile of horse feathers.
By your argument here, a bane everything sword isn't more powerful than a demon bane sword because they both add 2 to hit and 2d6+2 damage. A bane everything swords adds the same amount but adds it more often, just like having a level 1 spell for X situation is good but having it for x y AND z situation is just plain better.
Quote: Trying to "lock down" the choices implicit in Improved Combat Maneuver, Skill Focus, Tech Dabbler, and so on when using Adaptive Fighting and/or Divine Blessing (Oras) seems to me more a problem for fun play than allowing the choices. The game designers believe that the level of flexibility already inherent in the feat makes it worth the feat. if you disagree then ask the DM for a house rule or don't take the feat. You are trying, through some absolutely terrible and completely arbitrary arguments, to increase its flexibility and thus its power.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Oh, I didn't mean it as an attack or anything.
My english may have failed me, but the part I meant to emphasize was the "this is a table issue" part. And the "no clear answer" part, I guess. They're related, as you can guess.
All I meant was that there have been very similar discussions in the past, and all that came out of it is that there are a lot of strong, diverging opinions, and no single official truth.
In short, I'm not sure we can help you much.
I believe the sheer versatility is power enough to justify putting a limiter on the feats selected. And that's really mostly because of the spell-casting feats : I'd almost be fine with on the fly choice otherwise - I was when it was just Adaptive Fighting and combat feats, in fact. Inkling, Dabbler, Stage Magic and Psychic Power though ... That's a lot.
That blessing is really strong as is, and will only get stronger as new feats come out. Making it even stronger as new spells come out on top of that is overkill. It's already strictly better than Adaptive Fighting, even ignoring the spell granting feats altogether, and that's a decently popular feat.
But that's just my opinion. Some will agree, others won't.
What you will not find here is a clear consensus to bring to your table.
Now, nothing in the rules is strictly preventing your interpretation of things.
I'd even argue that strictly going by RAW, you're technically correct, which is ... the kind of correct most likely to help you if rules-lawyering is your worry.
My only advice here is, again, talk to your GM and good luck.
I will, however, hit the FAQ button, because it's an interesting question.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
