Expert Tactician and Sneak Attack

[IceBear]

Alright I will admit I have not read most of these posts because I don't know what QttE is? On second we are talking about Expert tactician and then QttE is in every sentence., what does it stand for.

Some asked how you play an int 6, I should have him over for a drink

Quicker than the Eye - from Song and Silence. I don't know the full particulars of the feat without the book, but it was explained in one of the other posts.

IceBear

 

[KnowTheToe]

Thanks

 

[Mulkhoran]

I understand your point - you want all the rules clearly defined. I can appreciate that. Problem is, that's a dream - it's never going to be that clear cut. Arguing with someone other than the author of that feat isn't going to achive anything. At this point you can send an email to the Sage and ask for clarification or take a deep breath, relax, and decide upon how you'll interpret it for your game. That's all you can do when something is gray. I agree with you that it would be nice if it was all black and white, but I doubt that day will ever come.

IceBear

This doesn't represent my opinion at all. All I'm saying is the feat is ambiguously written, and that that is not necessarily a good thing.

 

[Caliban]

Just thought I would chime in and point out that Expert Tactician does not say that you cannot use it multiple times against a single opponent, only using it against multiple opponents is prevented.

Read it again. It can only be used once a round.

And looking at the feat, and then looking at the Sage's response on QttE & ExT leads me to believe that "...when it's your turn, either before or after your regular action" could be interpreted as the Sage has done, counting each move-equivalent as a "regular action".

No, it cannot. You cannot break a standard action into two smaller actions that way. The rules treat it as one action, even though you can do two things with it (A Move/MEA and a Partial).

 

[IceBear]

This doesn't represent my opinion at all. All I'm saying is the feat is ambiguously written, and that that is not necessarily a good thing.

Really? Ambiguous means it's not clearly written does it not? Didn't I say I agree with your desire to have all the rules clearly written? I know in THIS case you're only talking about this one feat, but one could extrapolate from this that you don't like any ambiguous rules (especially since you commented on how 3E was better than 2E in this respect).

You really are argumentative

IceBear

 

[Mulkhoran]

Really? Ambiguous means it's not clearly written does it not? Didn't I say I agree with your desire to have all the rules clearly written?

You know, I went back and read your post, and you're absolutely right. My apologies. Your assertion is spot-on, although I disagree that arguing for clarity is living in a dream world.

You really are argumentative

IceBear

Not usually, I'm not being completely rational because I was insulted without cause. One shouldn't post when angry, but oh well.

 

[Caliban]

I'm not the one that jumped into the middle of a perfectly civilized conversation and started insulting people for their opinions. You did.

I wasn't insulting your opinion. I was insulting your claim that since it didn't include the "proper game terms" people couldn't use it the way it was intended. It was supposed to be a flippant comment without any real meaning. I mistakenly treated you the way I would one of my friends. Trust me, I won't make that mistake in the future.

I apologized when I realized that you were being so oversensitive about it. But that wasn't good enough for you. You had to whine about the apology, because it wasn't done exactly the way you wanted it. And then you keep on bringing in irrelevent side issues, like how long I've been posting.

I don't believe I've ever seen so much whining about something so trivial in my life.

 

[IceBear]

The reason I say it's a dream world is because this is a business, and the writers are human. Human's are prone to mistakes, so not everyone will write 100% clear. Because it's a business the books are limited in size and scope if they are going to be profitable. Some rules are going to need lots of clarification to cover all the possibilites (I'm sure Grappling could have it's own chapter ) and because I don't see all this room being allowed for clarification, I think it's a pipe dream to expect PERFECTLY clear rules. It's a nice idea, and I'm sure they'll get closer and closer, but nothing in this world is 100%.

IceBear

 

[doktorstick]

"...when it's your turn, either before or after your regular action" could be interpreted as the Sage has done, counting each move-equivalent as a "regular action".

Could you define for me what is a "regular action"? I'm not familiar with "regular" actions in DND. I'm familiar with full-round actions, standard actions, partial actions, move-equivalent actions, and free actions.

/ds

 

[drowdude]

Read it again. It can only be used once a round.

Sure thing....

Yep, it describes the effect of the feat as granting an extra melee attack against one foe. Doesnt specifically say that this effect is limited to once per round.

No, it cannot. You cannot break a standard action into two smaller actions that way. The rules treat it as one action, even though you can do two things with it (A Move/MEA and a Partial).

It doesnt say "standard action" it says "regular action"