Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 3057025" data-attributes="member: 3424">There was also the Stoneborn ability of the Stoneblessed PrC in Races of Stone (which I brought up in the previous thread on Improved Natural Attack) that made the character considered a member of the race she has bonded to "for all effects related to race". The text followed with the sentences, "For example, dwarf-bonded stoneblessed are just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect dwarves as actual dwarves are (such as a ranger's favored enemy ability), and they can use magic items that are usable only by dwarves. The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisite for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race." The argument then was that the second sentence was not an elaboration of "all effects related to race", but a separate benefit of the Stoneborn ability.The previous argument cannot apply to the Ordered Chaos feat referenced by sukael, as it goes straight from "Spells and effects that are keyed to alignment affect you as if you were chaotic, as well as your actual alignment." to "For example, you become immune to spells such as chaos hammer and word of chaos, you could wield an anarchic weapon without fear of gaining a negative level, and you could take the Primordial Scion feat despite its chaotic alignment prerequisite."This makes clear that feats are effects, or equally, prerequisites (such as that for using a magic item or qualifying for a prestige class or feat) are effects.Incidentally, it amuses me that Armies of the Abyss is considered an "obscure" book. It appears that WotC really needs to up its marketing efforts for it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />This does not rule out the possibility that feats are effects. The fact that feats are benefits, and are often referred to as benefits, does not mean that they cannot also be effects, in much the same way that the fact that beagles and poodles are dogs does not mean that they cannot also be animals. Benefits may be a subset of effects, just as dogs are a subset of animals. Plus, the time taken to discover evidence has no bearing on its validity.Are we discussing what the RAW says, or are we discussing designer intent and fallibility? I have my own issues with the RAW (see: "does the lance get 1-1/2 Strength bonus to damage and 2-for-1 Power Attack when used one-handed while mounted?" and "can you Cleave off an AOO?") but I acknowledge what it says. "Obscure" though these examples may be, are there any counter-examples from the RAW that state explicitly, or strongly imply, that a feat is not an effect? If not, these examples are what we have to go by when interpreting the RAW.</blockquote>

Verification