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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="elrobey" data-source="post: 2535299" data-attributes="member: 8725">Interesting distraction, bringing up the tables. But, alas, we've been interpreting the SRD, not the PHB flavor text.And again, the SRD does not state that you can't take a feat more than once. It states that the benefits of having a feat more than once don't stack unless the description says so. The SRD's general rule is that you can have a feat more than once (but having it more than once is, as a general rule, no better than having it once).There are cases in which the SRD uses "Special:" language, yes. But as the SRD itself explains, "Special" language is "facts about the feat that may be helpful when you decide whether to acquire the feat." IOW, Special language is extra information about *that* feat. You are trying to infer a general rule out of the presence or absence of special rules. That's plausible -- I will gladly grant you that -- but it's not the only source of meaning.I will also gladly grant you that the absence of "Special:" language for Dodge is relevant to deciding what interpretation is *best*.In any event, another problem with trying to infer a general rule out of the presence or absence of special rules is that the SRD isn't 100% consistent. Consider Spell Mastery, which does not have the "Special:" line you insist upon, but plainly does have added effects when you take it more than once.Look, I have a jaded view about what interpretations are plausible and what are not. Drafting laws is what I do for a living -- I've published a textbook about it -- and studying how courts interpret laws is a major part of that. I am quite sure that if this issue went before the U.S. Supreme Court, a majority of the justices would agree that my interpretation was plausible (and a majority would agree that my interpretation is not the best one).I disclose that not to claim "I'm an expert, therefore I'm right," but rather to confess "When I look in the mirror, I realize I'm probably trying too hard to make a point that is too abstract and nuanced to be genuinely useful to most people." And quite likely I'm also using the term "plausible" in a way that is not the ordinary meaning.So I apologize if I've antagonized anyone over what, really, is a trifle.</blockquote>

Verification