Expert Tactician and Sneak Attack

[Mulkhoran]

This is in the SoS FAQ about the QttE feat.

My bad. My first example stands wrong, then. I forgot he mentioned the "no extra actions" for QttE.

I still say the rules don't support "no AoO vs. target" as written. "Looks elsewhere" isn't a clear rules definition.

 

[Caliban]

My bad. My first example stands wrong, then. I forgot he mentioned the "no extra actions" for QttE.

I still say the rules don't support "no AoO vs. target" as written. "Looks elsewhere" isn't a clear rules definition.

Occasionally you have to do some thinking for yourself.

 

[Caliban]

Taken directly from the SoS FAQ. I would say that since he does not see the partial action you take, then there is no way he could have an AoO against you.

The only problem with that particular answer is that it's incorrect on a few points.

Expert tactician gives you an extra melee attack before or after your turn, not in the middle of it, the way the Sage states in his answer.

Also, you would not be able to trigger Expert Tactician twice against the same opponent in the same round, as he states.

He really didn't read the feats closely enough before responding.

 

[Mulkhoran]

Occasionally you have to do some thinking for yourself.

How incredibly clever of you.

Unfortunately, this was one of the MAIN problems of previous editions. Almost nothing was clearly defined, and that which was often conflicted with itself. People were left to eke out meanings from flavor text, without clear rules definitions. Thousands of mutant forms of DnD appeared, and nobody could agree on any but the simplest of things.

This has nothing to do with "thinking for yourself". Rules are rules, and flavor text is flavor text. Period.

 

[Caliban]

How incredibly clever of you.

Thank you, I was quite pleased with it myself.

This has nothing to do with "thinking for yourself". Rules are rules, and flavor text is flavor text. Period.

Ok, I accept that perhaps YOU shouldn't be thinking for yourself and need to have everything spoonfed in tidbits, but I don't operate under those limitations.

 

[Mulkhoran]

Ok, I accept that perhaps YOU shouldn't be thinking for yourself and need to have everything spoonfed in tidbits, but I don't operate under those limitations.

I don't know *exactly* what your problem is, but I'll leave speculation to another time. If you want a fight, you've got it. Not that it matters. Your legion of worshippers will likely be arriving shortly to blast me with "do you know who you're talking to?" and "you shouldn't be questioning Caliban."

For the record, how I adjudicate QttE has already been stated in this thread. It's not about how I see it, or how anyone sees it. Despite what you're asserting, the interpretation IS NOT OBVIOUS. 3E has extensive definitions for actions and conditions that help it to define tactical combat. None of those are used in the description of QttE, just flavor text. It's poorly written.

 

[Caliban]

I don't know *exactly* what your problem is, but I'll leave speculation to another time. If you want a fight, you've got it.

Hey, you started with the attitude. I thought this is what you wanted?

Not that it matters. Your legion of worshippers will likely be arriving shortly to blast me with "do you know who you're talking to?" and "you shouldn't be questioning Caliban."

Which "legion of worshipers" is this? I'm questioned all the time. It makes for interesting debates.

For the record, how I adjudicate QttE has already been stated in this thread. It's not about how I see it, or how anyone sees it.

In your game, that's pretty much exactly what it is about.

Despite what you're asserting, the interpretation IS NOT OBVIOUS.

So far it's been obvious to me, Dr. Rictus, and the Sage.
The only who doesn't think it's obvious (so far) has been you.

3E has extensive definitions for actions and conditions that help it to define tactical combat. None of those are used in the description of QttE, just flavor text. It's poorly written.

Just becuase it doesn't use the standard term to describe something does not mean that it's flavor text. There is no standard indicator that means "this is flavor text." In this case, I don't believe that what you are calling "flavor text" is flavor text.

I'm not even sure if there is a standard term for what exactly what the feat does, so they tried describing it long-hand. Could they have done a better job? Probably. That doesn't make everything you don't like in the feat description null and void though.

 

[Nail]

Your legion of worshippers will likely be arriving shortly to blast me with "do you know who you're talking to?" and "you shouldn't be questioning Caliban."

"You shouldn't be questioning Caliban."

There. (Caliban, can I have a legion too? Pretty please?)

FWIW, the SOS description is not well done, and is open to enough misinterpretation to be annoying. And the problems with Expert Tactition are legion.

Whether or not misinterpretation is the result of thinking for yourself I leave up to th' discerning reader.

 

[Mulkhoran]

Hey, you started with the attitude. I thought this is what you wanted?

No, I didn't. Not once, not at all. I *cautiously* pointed out what I thought was a flaw, and the responses were:

"What the feat does is perfectly clear; you just don't happen to like it."

and

"Occasionally you have to do some thinking for yourself."


The fact that you're trying to claim I started this is patently insane. But again, given your tenure here, likely that fact will be overlooked.

 

[Mulkhoran]

So far it's been obvious to me, Dr. Rictus, and the Sage.
The only who doesn't think it's obvious (so far) has been you.

Three people, one of whom even *you* don't completely agree with on rules definitions of this very topic. I feel so overwhelmed.

I'm not even sure if there is a standard term for what exactly what the feat does, so they tried describing it long-hand. Could they have done a better job? Probably. That doesn't make everything you don't like in the feat description null and void though.

I won't claim it's null and void. Just poorly defined, when there is plenty of actual mechanics text they could have used to define it more clearly.