Search results

I do not have this book. What do you mean by 'written differently'?

Feats are effects though. If you dont feel that gaining knowledge through leveling is not an effect of leveling I cannot help you. If you do not feel that being able to make a construct is not an effect I cannot help you. Feats both are effects and have effects. They 'are' what they 'do'. One...

It is a pile of knowledge and training. The effect is that you are able to make constructs. The feat is merely a representation of that training in a convinient form. So, instead of saying, 'I am able to make constructs useing process X over Y through Z' you can simply say, 'I have craft...

I dont think that stating 'too much' information is bad generally. They could have even said, 'orcs, halforcs, or any creature with the 'orcs blood' feature' to be even more thorough. But, having said that would not suddenly mean that other parts of the raw are incorrect, merely that they said...

So you are saying that being thorough in listing, possibly trying to keep down questions of this nature, is evidence 'against' them being effects? I disagree.

Well, that is what the rules say.

::shrugs:: So far the only arguements against my reading of the rules are people making up rules that not only do not exist, but also go against other rules that have have been quoted. If you feel that saying that if you have something that counts as X for purpose Y and yet when purpose Y...

Definately. I do not understand how one can have something for purposes of but not be counted as having it for purposes of.

They have this right? It is pretty clearly laid out. He can use weapons designed for a creature of a larger size, but it does not say that his natural weapons or unarmed strikes or anything else like that are treated as being larger.

Umm.. no.. it proves that if you lose the benefit that you no longer have the benefit. The feat is the effect, by the raw, but if you no longer qualify then you no longer gain the benefit from the feat. much like if you picked a feat with no benefit line for some reason. Or being in a...

?? So, he still has the feats, but he no longer gains any benefit from them. Much like loseing the prereq from any feat. You still have it, it is just nonfunctional.

Exactly! which is why the question some people have been asking is meaningless. They are asking a question that simply has no basis in reality. The prereq is 'part of' the feat, it is not 'the feat'. Umm.. no, power attack is the feat. One is not the other. One is a part of the other. No...

Exactly, the feats stack. And so the when useing the other item the ehancement bonus of the gauntlets stack with the enhancement bonus of the belt stack. Normally they would not, because they have the same type of name, but the other item overrides that rule. Still though, the item 'does'...

That is not true, the feat allows the person to ignore the benefit of another feat, not taking away the ability of some other feat. They could still use the feat just fine against someone who does not have ellusive target and is not placing dodge on them. The feat is worded in a way to make it...

Yes. It isnt an 'item' called 'Feat X', it is a benefit in a package that is called 'Feat X' for ease of use.

No, the 'feat' provides the bonus. The bonus it provides is listed under the benefits section of the feat. The feat provides the bonus, the feat 'is' the bonus. Completely unimportant. All of them make up the feat, they are the feat. If you have a cheeseburger with various components it is...

The cloak produces the effect in this case. If you take away the bonus to movement it is still a cloak. If you take away something from the feat it is no longer the feat, it may not even be a feat any longer. They are completely seperate beasts. They work under different rules. And really...

The feat both is and provides the +4 bonus. What provides the bonus? the feat. What part of the feat provides the bonus? This question makes no sense, it has no meaning. The feat is the feat. The feat is the bonus, the bonus is the feat. One is the other. There is no seperation. Which, as...

Feats both are effects and they have effects at the same time. The effect that they have is themselves. As was shown several times throughout the various threads this has been on. I am not sure whether you think this is new information or not, but it was already stated in several different...

As the rest of my post stated it is true in that they do not qualify for the prereqs. But it is also wrong in that the nature of how the feat is gotten allows one to gain the feat anyway. So, in essence, it gets rid of the prereqs. Or, in another way, it makes the person qualify even though...