Arena Weapon Fighter Build Question

Mad Hamish said:

What they have actually written clearly says that the feat as a whole applies if they provide a feat bonus to hit or damage.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

The phrase is not "the feat as whole applies". The phrase is "the feat applies". The words are silent on whether "the feat" here refers to "the feat as a whole" or "the feat in respect of the feat bonuses to hit and damage that it confers".

Another anology: I get up, check the fridge and say "There's no milk". Do I mean "there's no milk anywhere in the universe" or "there's no milk in our house" or even "there's no milk in our fridge"? The words uttered can bear any of those meanings. But no would interpret me as meaning the first. And it's very likely that I mean the last.

Mad Hamish said:

Which is nothing like what was actually written.

Click to expand...

What is written is "the feat applies". It leaves it as an open question the extent or nature of that application.

Aulirophile said:

Law is actually a great example of this, as no matter what you believe about a particular law, short of a Court actually validating that belief in a specific case, it isn't true in a legal sense.

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think law is a particularly good example to support the (in my view spurious) notion of RAW at all. There is no serious judge or academic that I'm aware of who things that because a phrase appears in a statute or contract without qualification, it therefore goes without saying that it is to be interpreted as unqualified. Even the most hardcore textualist will accept that the text must be read in a context, which may suggest a qualification.

Game rules are no different. Furthermore, it would be absurd to expect the rules for D&D to be written with anything like the same precision as legal instruments, given that the amount of money and resources thrown at D&D rules every year would presumably not be enough even to run the courts and legislatures of Tasmania or Vermont for the same period. This speaks even more in favour of resolving doubts (including doubts as to an intended but not express qualification) in favour of what everyone believes the balanced intention to be.

Mad Hamish said:

The wording on Arena Weapon Fighter Build is interesting
"You select two weapons as your arena weapons. If you are not already proficient with these weapons, you gain proficiency with them. In addition, any of your feats that grant feat bonuses to attack rolls or damage rolls with one of your arena weapons apply to your other arena weapon as well."

the wording is that if a feat grants feat bonuses to attack or damage rolls then the feat applies to the other weapon.
So if a Goliath picks Staff and Greatspear as his Arena Weapons he can select Staff Expertise and get +1 reach to all weapon attacks with his Greatspear
and Goliath GreatWeapon Prowess and get +2/3/4 to all attacks with his Greatspear.

Has there been anything clarifying that this isn't what was intended?

Click to expand...

Your Greatspear would not get +1 reach because the staff expertise feat says the +1 reach is only for attacks using a staff, read the feat its in there.

Regarding Goliath Greatweapon Prowess that does work because it says if you take a feat that adds a feat bonus to attack or damage for one weapon it applies to both weapons. This only works so long as one of the weapons fits into one of the two weapon categories specified in the feat. Otherwise your SOL.

Areana Training specificaly says it is ONLY for bonsues to attack and damage rolls. Nothing else. They simply are letting you conserve feat slots by not having to take expertise and focus feats for both weapons.

pemerton said:

Game rules are no different. Furthermore, it would be absurd to expect the rules for D&D to be written with anything like the same precision as legal instruments

Click to expand...

You're right, it is absurd. I expect the D&D rules to be written to the much higher standard of precision set by the Magic: the Gathering rules.

Mapache, in addition to XP: when Magic first came out the general rules and the card text both had problems (didn't the original Time Stop say "You lose next turn"?).

Magic has had over 15 years, and (I suspect) a lot more resources thrown at it than D&D.

pemerton said:

Mapache, in addition to XP: when Magic first came out the general rules and the card text both had problems (didn't the original Time Stop say "You lose next turn"?).

Magic has had over 15 years, and (I suspect) a lot more resources thrown at it than D&D.

Click to expand...

There have been a lot of issues with MTG since it came out but they, the MTG team, just seem much faster on the draw when it comes to resolving rules and card text issues.

Mapache said:

You're right, it is absurd. I expect the D&D rules to be written to the much higher standard of precision set by the Magic: the Gathering rules.

Click to expand...

That is the dumbest thing I've read all day.

One is a competitive endevour where rules tightness is absolutely necessary so that people are playing the same game against each other and the rules don't change based on who your opponent is.

The other is a roleplaying game that has, as its first rule, the DM's job is to interpret or change the rules as is good for the game. RPG rule design and CCG rule design are not on the same level, do not serve the same purpose, and SHOULD NOT.

Why not?

CCG rules need to be immune to subjectivity. RPG rules need to embrace subjectivity.

A rules lawyer at a CCG table is a helpful. A rules lawyer at an RPG table is an asshat.

Think about that.

----------------------------

Also... I'm pretty torn about the Arena fighter thinking about it.

This is a feature that's meant to replace +1 to hit... or tempest fighter, or battlerage vigor.

'Saving feats' just so you can have a selection of two weapons... when most characters in the entire game use a single weapon and focus in it... and having two weapons you're good at doesn't change the fact that unless you're dual wielding you're only carrying one at a time...

...I think +1/2/3 to defenses doesn't compare well to those. Perhaps it IS intentional that these feats give all their benefits, and not merely the damage and attack bonuses.

Cause... it's kinda weak without it.

4e has a lot of sanctioned play where you are required to play by RAW. Considering the investment they have in that (and in the continuing development of widespread LFR via the VTT) tight rules seem like a good thing. Somehow.

DracoSuave said:

That is the dumbest thing I've read all day.

One is a competitive endevour where rules tightness is absolutely necessary so that people are playing the same game against each other and the rules don't change based on who your opponent is.

The other is a roleplaying game that has, as its first rule, the DM's job is to interpret or change the rules as is good for the game. RPG rule design and CCG rule design are not on the same level, do not serve the same purpose, and SHOULD NOT.

Click to expand...

As I have noted before, the GM should always be able to change the rules to work as he or she wishes, but should never be required change the rules to get them to work in the first place. This is even more important in a game heavily promoted for public play with the same character under multiple GMs, as you must be able to build your characters to an objective set of rules.

DracoSuave said:

CCG rules need to be immune to subjectivity. RPG rules need to embrace subjectivity.

A rules lawyer at a CCG table is a helpful. A rules lawyer at an RPG table is an asshat.

Think about that.

Click to expand...

I find this a positively incomprehensible statement coming from someone who is currently posting up a storm about the precise interpretations of written rules in three different threads, especially the one about Dominated and how it interacts somewhat unintuitively with allies and enemies. (I should note that I agree with your reading of the rules in all three cases.)

I agree with you to a point Draco. There are some areas where rules need to be strictly written such as with powers, feats, & path & destiny features. We, the players and the DM, need to know exacly how these function and how they interact with each other. Otherwise, we end up with interpertations that, they while fit within the guidelines as written, just make them TO good. I can cite example if necessary.

When it comes to things like how skills are used or powers like prestidigitation then that should be left up to the DM.