Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Votan" data-source="post: 3255447" data-attributes="member: 18680">I think here, silence can be informative.&nbsp; If a feat alters the default rules it needs to state it (Exapnded knowledge) but, if it does not, then of course the feat is silent.&nbsp; For example, Combat Reflexes does not specificy that you need to make a successful melee to hit roll on your attacks of opportunity.&nbsp; This is not because they auto-hit but because the standard rules apply.&nbsp; That being said, when applied to Sorcerers, the ability of a sorcerer to research spells not on their default list and the PHB wording means that the feat might just work for them.&nbsp; The Customer Service ruling seems to say &quot;Do what you want in your campaign&quot;.&nbsp; Later feat structures explicitly point out what the feat changes in terms of rules but this feat is badly worded.&nbsp; In this case, ambigiuous wording, I honestly do not think that there really is a RAW -- you can reasonably read the feat two ways.&nbsp; The FAQ clarified which way to read it, but you need the FAQ to make this conclusion as the text of the feat will go in circles forever.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Votan, post: 3255447, member: 18680"] I think here, silence can be informative. If a feat alters the default rules it needs to state it (Exapnded knowledge) but, if it does not, then of course the feat is silent. For example, Combat Reflexes does not specificy that you need to make a successful melee to hit roll on your attacks of opportunity. This is not because they auto-hit but because the standard rules apply. That being said, when applied to Sorcerers, the ability of a sorcerer to research spells not on their default list and the PHB wording means that the feat might just work for them. The Customer Service ruling seems to say "Do what you want in your campaign". Later feat structures explicitly point out what the feat changes in terms of rules but this feat is badly worded. In this case, ambigiuous wording, I honestly do not think that there really is a RAW -- you can reasonably read the feat two ways. The FAQ clarified which way to read it, but you need the FAQ to make this conclusion as the text of the feat will go in circles forever. [/QUOTE]

Verification