Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="evilbob" data-source="post: 2536234" data-attributes="member: 9789">How thoughtful.&nbsp; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Seriously, though:&nbsp; you've not actually proved this.&nbsp; The language of the book is &quot;wiggle&quot;-enough to support the theory, especially since every feat description that includes &quot;you can take this feat multiple times&quot; includes a clarification reference as to whether or not the effects stack (potentially implying, &quot;the special line about multiple feat usage is only necessary to clarify stacking issues for such&quot;).&nbsp; Your main claim so far - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - is that the feat table contains a note for each feat that is able to be taken more than once, thus implying that unless noted, no feat can be taken more than once.&nbsp; (I was not actually able to find the errata you quoted; where did you get that, actually?)&nbsp; Again, this does not conclusively prove that no feat may be taken more than once unless noted; it proves that the feats so noted have special descriptions that apply when they are taken more than once.&nbsp; Without context, it's hard to say whether or not that the line from your quote, &quot;each feat may not be taken more than once,&quot; is clearly referring to only the feats listed just above it, or any feats, ever.&nbsp; If you have more you can post on this, it may clarify the situation beyond all &quot;wiggle room&quot; and thus resolve the issue.&nbsp; As it stands, elrobey is not &quot;clearly&quot; wrong.Again, I'm not trying to push that the theory is correct; but I think it is a plausable one given the facts I've seen presented.&nbsp; And certainly not worth the more-than-a-little scorn received it, which caused me to post in the first place.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="evilbob, post: 2536234, member: 9789"] How thoughtful. :) Seriously, though: you've not actually proved this. The language of the book is "wiggle"-enough to support the theory, especially since every feat description that includes "you can take this feat multiple times" includes a clarification reference as to whether or not the effects stack (potentially implying, "the special line about multiple feat usage is only necessary to clarify stacking issues for such"). Your main claim so far - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - is that the feat table contains a note for each feat that is able to be taken more than once, thus implying that unless noted, no feat can be taken more than once. (I was not actually able to find the errata you quoted; where did you get that, actually?) Again, this does not conclusively prove that no feat may be taken more than once unless noted; it proves that the feats so noted have special descriptions that apply when they are taken more than once. Without context, it's hard to say whether or not that the line from your quote, "each feat may not be taken more than once," is clearly referring to only the feats listed just above it, or any feats, ever. If you have more you can post on this, it may clarify the situation beyond all "wiggle room" and thus resolve the issue. As it stands, elrobey is not "clearly" wrong. Again, I'm not trying to push that the theory is correct; but I think it is a plausable one given the facts I've seen presented. And certainly not worth the more-than-a-little scorn received it, which caused me to post in the first place. [/QUOTE]

Verification